Smt D Madhavi Krishna

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT:-SMT.D.MADHAVI KRISHNA,

Senior Civil Judge,

Jagtial

Friday, the 15th day of March, 2019

O.S.NO. 150 of 2012

Between:- Yegurla Anjali, W/o.Late Shiava Shanker. …Plaintiff. A N D Burra Gopal, S/o.Late Rajam.

...Defendant.

This suit is coming on 12-03-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Janardhan Reddy Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri V.Venu Gopal Advocate for defendant, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The suit is for recovery of money basing on simple mortgage.

2.Brief facts of the plaint are that plaintiff is mortgagee and defendant is the mortgagor. The defendant is friend of younger brother to the plaintiff Vollem Mallesham. With that acquaintance, defendant approached the plaintiff and requested to lend Rs.2,50,000/- and defendant promised to mortgage his house property with Municipal

H.No.7-2-153 as security and he agreed to pay interest at 18% per annum. Accordingly on 12-02-2008 in the presence of son of defendant

Burra Kishore and wife of defendant Sulochana, Vollem Mallesham and

Dayyala Malla Reddy, after receiving the amount defendant executed simple mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff and it was registered vide document No.481/2008. The defendant agreed to pay the amount with interest in 36 months. The defendant handed over his title deed pertaining to mortgage house. The defendant also agreed that the amount which ever he paid shall first credit towards interest and then 2 remaining balance shall be credit towards satisfaction of principal amount. The defendant also agreed to pay interest amount every month and if any interest remain un paid for 3 months it shall be added to the principal amount and bear interest at said rate. Plaintiff further submits that she had waited for completion of 36 months but the defendant did not pay monthly interest over principal amount and she has waited for sufficient period and after completion of 36 months plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay principal amount along with interest but the defendant evaded on one pretext or other. Finally the defendant approached the plaintiff on 23-06-2011 at Jagtial where defendant and his son promised to pay the amount with interest within 7 months in the presence of elders Laisetti Venkati, Adapa Gangaram and Bandari Narsaiah all are residents of Jagtial and executed an agreement on 23-06-2011 in the presence of above said elders. The son of defendant also signed on that agreement. Said agreement was scribed by Chetti Komuraiah but even after expiry of 7 months defendant did not pay single pie. Therefore the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 03-03-2012 to the defendant and it was acknowledged by defendant on 05-03-2012 but the defendant neither pay nor give reply.

Hence the suit.

3. Defendant filed written statement admitting availing loan from the plaintiff by mortagaging his house property through registered mortgaged deed. But he denied the execution of agreement dated 23-06-2011. This defendant further submits that he was under lot of financial crisis he availed loan by mortgaging his residential house but unfortunately in spite of his strenuous efforts he could not restore his good financial status therefore he failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of registered mortgage. When this defendant narrated his 3 critical status to the plaintiff the plaintiff sympathetically considered his request and promised to wait for further 3 years by extending the period of repayment up to 72 months but by violating the promise the plaintiff got issued legal notice to this defendant with false allegations.

Further the plaintiff accepted facility for payment of amount covered under mortgage by extending stipulated time from 36 to 72 months and to waive interest. This defendant further submits that he has no other properties except the mortgaged residential house wherein presently he is residing with his family members. He has no financial capacity to pay entire decree amount with costs and interest. This defendant has no other movable or immovable property except the mortgaged property.

Therefore the defendant prayed the court to permit him to pay the

principal amount in 100 installments otherwise there is no other option

left to him except to forego his life. Accordingly defendant prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the defendant is entitled for 100 installments to discharge the loan?

2. To what relief?

5.PW1 and 2 are examined Ex.A1 to A5 are marked. On the other hand defendant examined as DW1. After filing chief affidavit of DW2 witness reported died. No documents marked for defendant.

6.Heard both sides.

Issue No.1.

7.Plaintiff examined as PW1 deposed her case as per plaint averments and she got marked original registered gift settlement deed 4

dated 11-02-2005, document No.432/2005 as Ex.A1 and it was

executed by Burra Narayana in favour of the defendant in respect of

H.No.7-2-153. Ex.A2 is original registered simple mortgage deed dated 12-02-2008 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff while borrowing

Rs.2,50,000/-. Ex.A3 is agreement dated 23-06-2011. Ex.A4 is legal notice dated 03-03-2012. Ex.A5 is postal acknowledgement.

8.PW2 witness for Ex.A3 agreement deposed that the defendant violated the terms and conditions imposed in Ex.A2 and subsequently on 23-06-2011 approached the plaintiff and agreed to pay due amount within 7 months accordingly the defendant and his son also executed

Ex.A3. A.Gangadhar and B.Narsaiah are attestors of Ex.A3.

9.On the other hand defendant is examined as DW1. The defendant has admitted borrowing amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 12-02-2008 by mortgaging his house property under Ex.A2.

The defendant also admitted that he did not pay single pie towards

principal or interest to the plaintiff till today. The cross examination of

PW1 and PW2 shows that except the mortgaged property the defendant has no other property to reside. Admittedly as per Ex.A2 the defendant shall pay the total amount in 36 months. But it is suggested to PW1 that on oral request of defendant plaintiff has agreed to receive the amount in 72 months. Plaintiff added that the defendant never approached her and never requested like so. Plaintiff also denied the suggestion that she agreed to waive interest amount. It is suggested that in view of critical financial condition of defendant he requested to permit him to pay principal amount only even that is in 100 installments. But plaintiff denied the same and further added that the wife and 3 sons and elder daughter in law of defendant are earning 5 persons. PW2 deposed about Ex.A3 agreement executed on 23-06- 2011 under which the defendant agreed to pay the total amount within 7 months. PW2 also admitted that except the suit schedule property the defendant has no other property. The evidence of DW1 also shows that since he incurred loss in the business he could not restore his good financial status therefore he could not pay the amount to the plaintiff as agreed. He admitted the execution of Ex.A2 and also his signature and the signature of his son on Ex.A3 in the presence of PW2, Kadapa

Gangaram and Bandari Narsaiah. He also admitted having received

Ex.A4 legal notice. According to him his monthly income is Rs.5,000/-.

He denied the suggestion that his son is also earning salary Rs.5,000/-.

His another son by name Anil is working in Durga Talkies Jagtial and getting monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-. He also deposed that his another son Ashok is working in a Finance Company and getting Rs.4,000/- as monthly salary. His daughter in law Aditha is contract employee and she has getting Rs.10,000/- per month.

10.Therefore the defendant did not denied the suit transaction. But his only contention is that he is not in a position to pay entire amount at a time. And even he requested to waive the interest amount but in

Ex.A2 the defendant agreed to pay the amount with interest at 18% per annum. Further the defendant mortgaged the schedule property

H.No.7-2-153 by way of simple mortgage therefore it is not permissible to discharge the suit amount by way of monthly installments. Though the defendant narrated about his financial condition the court shall take into consideration the evidence adduced before it only and cannot consider the other aspects. Therefore I am not inclined to permit the defendant to discharge the suit amount in monthly installments.

Accordingly issue is answered against defendant.

6

Issue No.2.

11.In view of my finding in above issue the plaintiff make out her case and entitled to receive the suit amount.

12.In the result, preliminary decree is passed that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.5,49,141/- with future interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization there on against the defendant and mortgage property by way of sale in public auction and if there is any due amount, the plaintiff is at liberty to take steps against defendant and his other properties also. In the circumstances no costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, In the open court, on this the 15th day of March, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Jagtial. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For the plaintiff For the Defendant PW1. Yegurla Anjali.DW1.Burra Gopal. PW2. Laisetti Venkati.DW2.Thudigeni Srinivas. (eschewed)

For the plaintiff:- Ex.A111-02-2005Original registered gift settlement deed, document No.432/2005.

Ex.A212-02-2008Original registered simple mortgage deed, document No.481/2008.

Ex.A323-06-2011Agreement.

Ex.A403-03-2012Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A5---Postal acknowledgement.

For the Defendant ---Nil---

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Jagtial.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT JAGTIAL.

PRESENT:- SMT MADHAVI KRISHNA DOLA,

Assistant Sessions Judge,Jagtial.

FRIDAY, THE 25th DAY OF MAY, 2018.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 107 of 2017

(On committal by I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial vide PRC.No.43 of 2016, order dated 09-01-2017).

Name of the complainant:The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Jagtial town (Cr.No.147 of 2016).

Description of the accused:Yananagandla Akhil,S/o: Thirupathi, age:23years,R/o:Hanumanwada (Kothawada),Jagtial.

Charge:U/Sec.366 IPC.

Plea of the accused:Not guilty.

Finding of the Court: NOT G U I L T Y.

Sentence or order: IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec. 366 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri K.Amarender Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor. Defence conducted by:Sri D.Srinivas, Advocate.

This case is coming before me on 23-05-2018 for final hearing in the presence ofSri K.Amarender Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri D.Srinivas,, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Jagtial town filed charge sheet against the accused for offence U/Sec. 366 IPC in Cr.No.147 of 2006 of P.S.

Jagtial town on the file of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Jagtial.

2

2. The case of prosecution as per the contents of charge sheet is that, on 16-07-2016 at 18-00 hours, the defacto-complainant/L.W.1 namely

Theetla Kanakaraju came to Jagtial Police Station and lodged a Telugu written report stating that on 7-7-2016 at about 1-00 P.M.,his eldest daughter namely Theetla Sathvika,aged about 17 years informed his wife that she is going to outside but did not return back till evening. On enquiry they came to know that his daughter met the accused at Jagruthi school,

Jagtial, from there they went to Hyderabad and again went to Thirupathi and performed marriage in a temple at Thirupathi. Later, they returned to

Madhapur- Hi tech city, Hyderabad and staying as wife and husband by taking a room. Later, they came to Jagtial on 28-10-2016 to police station on knowing the registration of case.

3. Basing on the above report, the Head constable of P.S., Jagtial town/L.W.7 namely Md.Riyaz Hussain, registered a case in Cr.No. 147/2016 as girl missing and took-up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of witnesses,visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, drew rough sketch and incorporated the details in crime details form. Later Arif Ali Khan, the Sub-

Inspector of Police recorded the statement of victim and altered the section of law from missing girl to Sec.366 IPC, obtained date of birth certificate of victim from LW4 Atukula Srinivas, Head Master, arrested the accused at 11-00 hours, on his voluntary confession of commission of offence and sent for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed against the accused for offence punishable U/Sec. 366 IPC.

4. The learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial took cognizance of the offence U/Sec.366 of I.P.C against the accused vide

P.R.C.No.43 of 2016 and supplied copies of documents as required under 3

Section 207 Cr.P.C., to the accused. By order dated 09-01-2017, the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial committed the case to Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Karimnagar since the alleged offence is exclusively triable by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions. In turn, the Hon'ble

Court of Sessions, Karimnagar made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

5. On appearance of accused before this court and on hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, this Court framed charge under section 228 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/Sec. 366 I.P.C against him, the contents of charge is read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, are explained to him, for which he denied the same. He reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and defence counsel.

9.Now the point for consideration is, whether the prosecution proved the offence U/Sec. 366 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. This is a case of kidnapping a minor girl from the lawful guardianship of her parents for the purpose of marriage. While so, the prosecution examined all together 7 witnesses. PW2 is defacto 4 complainant/father of victim girl. PW3 is mother of victim girl. PW1 is victim. PW4 is Head master in Thapovan Public School, who issued date of birth certificate of victim. PWs.5 and 6 are panch witnesses for crime details form and PW7 is investigation officer.

11. It is the evidence of PW1 who is victim girl that she voluntarily eloped with accused and they both married. Later she came to know that her father gave complaint to police station and then they returned and appear before concerned police and her statement was recorded by the police i.e.Ex.P1. In her cross-examination, she deposed that her date of birth is 15-10-1996. But in her school records the year of her birth has been mentioned as 1998 mistakenly.

12. PW2 deposed about missing of his minor daughter from his house and he made enquires at all the relatives houses and then approached the police and submitted Ex.P2 report. He further deposed that at the time of said incident PW1 was aged about 18 years. He also deposed that police did not examine and record his statement. Therefore he was declared as hostile and his reiterated statement is marked as Ex.P3. PW3 mother of victim girl deposed that on 7-7-2016 between 11-00 A.M. to 12-00 noon,

PW1 went out from the house and did not return back till evening.

Therefore she informed the same to her husband by phone. Then they enquired for their daughter and approached the police she further deposed that by the time of incident PW1 was 17 years old. PW3 further deposed that accused married PW1 and they are residing together.

13. PW4 though deposed about issuing date of birth certificate of PW1 i.e.Ex.P4. He pleaded ignorance of other facts and about recording his statement by the police. Therefore his statement is marked as Ex.P5.

5

14. PWs.5 and 6 who are witnesses for scene observation did not support prosecution case. According to them, police called them to police station and obtained their signatures on a report and nothing was happened in their presence. They identified their signatures on crime details form which are marked as Exs.P6 and P7 respectively while denying the contents therein.

15. PW7 is investigation officer, who deposed about his investigation and filing of charge sheet by Sub-Inspector of Police. He got marked

Ex.P8/F.I.R. and Ex.P9 C.D.form.

16. Thus the evidence of victim girl shows that she and accused were fell in love with each other as such she voluntarily eloped with accused.

According to prosecution, at the time of said incident, PW1 was minor.

Prosecution relied upon date of birth certificate issued by PW4, according to which the date of birth of PW1 is 15-10-1998. The alleged incident of kidnap happened on 7-7-2016. But it is the evidence of PW1 that her date of birth is 15-10-1996, but it was mistakenly mentioned in records as 15-10-1998. In fact, there is no proof to that effect produced by PW1. But the father of PW1 also deposed that by the time of incident, PW1 was minor. Except the evidence of PW1, there is no other direct evidence to prove the accused kidnapped PW1 from the lawful guardianship of her parents. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 also shows that now the accused and

PW1 married together and residing happily. It appears that since accused married PW1, PWs.1 and 3 gave evidence in the court in such a manner to protect the accused from criminal liability. PWs.5 and 6 also did not support prosecution case. There are no other independent witnesses examined before the court. Therefore this court held that prosecution failed 6 to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

17. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge

U/Sec. 366 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of May, 2018.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW-1 Theetla Sathvika. -None- PW-2 Theetla Kankaraju. PW-3 Theetla Thirupathamma. PW-4 A.Srinivas. PW-5 P.Arun. PW-6 E.Dinakar. PW-7 Md.Riazoddin.

EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P.2: Complaint received from PW2. Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P.4: Date of birth certificate. Ex.P.5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4. Ex.P.6: Signature of PW5 on Crime Details Form. Ex.P.7: Signature of PW6 on Crime Details Form. Ex.P.8: First Information Report. Ex.P.9. Crime details form.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, AT JAGTIAL.

PRESENT:- SMT.MADHAVI KRISHNA,DOLA

Assistant Sessions Judge,Jagtial.

WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF MAY, 2018.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 268 of 2017

(On committal by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpalli vide PRC.No.5 of 2017, order dated 03-06-2017).

Name of the complainant:The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mallapur (Cr.No.43 of 2017).

Description of the accused:Mukhera Shekar,S/o:Chinna Mallaiah, age:23 years, R/o:Mogilipet village.

Charge:U/Sec.366-A of IPC.

Plea of the accused:Not guilty.

Finding of the Court:N O T G U I L T Y.

Sentence or order: IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec. 366-A of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec. 232 of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for six months from the date of this judgment, in compliance of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri K.Amarender Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Defence conducted by:Sri K.Raja Reddy, Advocate.

This case is coming before me on 21-05-2018 for final hearing in the presence ofSri K.Amarender Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Raja Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Mallapur filed charge sheet against the accused for offence U/Sec.366-A IPC in Cr.No.43 of 2017 of P.S. Mallapur on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpalli.

2

2. The case of prosecution as per the contents of charge sheet is that, on 20-03-2017 at 21-00 hours, the defacto-complainant/L.W.1 namely

Kunchala Kala came to Police Station and lodged a Telugu written report stating that on 20-03-2017 at about 08-00 hours, when her daughter namely

LW2 Kunchala Srivani was alone in the house, the accused kidnapped her daughter from her lawful guardianship under the pretext of marrying her, took her to Vemulawada and married in Dharmshala, after coming to know her mother lodged a missing case in Mallapur police station. Later missing girl came to police station on 23-3-2017 at 10-00 hours.

3.Basing on the above report, the HC-1918 of Police of P.S.,

Mallapur/L.W.8 namely M.Shankaraiah, registered a case in Cr. No.43/ 2017 under the head of “girl missing” and issued FIR to all the concerned and took-up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW1 namely Kunchala Kala, visited the scene of offence and examined and recorded the statements of LWs.2 and 3 namely

Kunchala Srivani and Kunchala Bakkanna, secured the presence of two mediators/L.Ws.4 & 5 namely Kunchala Raju and Yellagandula Anjaneyulu, drew a sketch map and incorporated the details in crime details form.

Subsequently, the Sub-Inspector of Police, LW10 namely Ch.Satheesh took up investigation and collected date of birth certificate of LW2 from the

Headmaster/LW5 namely Yellagandula Anjaneyulu,as per the certificate, the age of LW2 is 17 years. On 23-3-2017 at 10-00 hours, the LW2 namely

Kunchala Srivani/victim girl came to police station and informed that she is in love with accused. LW9 namely D.Rajasree,WHC 2132 of PS Mallapur recorded the statement of victim girl. LW10 altered the section of law from girl missing to 366-A IPC. On 28-3-2017 at 09-30 hours,LW10 arrested the accused and produced before the court for judicial remand. After completion 3 of investigation, LW10 filed charge sheet against the accused for offence

U/Sec.366-A I.P.C.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpalli took cognizance of the offence U/Sec.366-A of I.P.C against the accused vide P.R.C.No.5 of 2017 and supplied copies of documents as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C., to the accused. By order dated 03-06-2017, the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Metpalli committed the case to Hon'ble Court of

Sessions, Karimnagar since the alleged offence is exclusively triable by the

Hon'ble Court of Sessions. In turn, the Hon'ble Court of Sessions,

Karimnagar made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

5. On appearance of the accused before this court and on hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, this Court framed a charge under section 228 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/Sec. 366-A of

I.P.C against him, the contents of charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 document.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, examination of the accused

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with since there is no incriminating material against him and he also did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and defence counsel.

9. Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution proved the offence U/Sec.366-A IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

4

POINT:

10. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that on 20-03-2017 at 21-00 hours, the defacto-complainant/PW.1 lodged a report stating that on 20-03-2017 at about 08-00 hours, when her daughter PW2i was alone in the house, the accused kidnapped her daughter from the lawful guardianship of her mother under the pretext of marriage, took her to

Vemulawada and performed marriage in Dharmshala, Later PW2 came to police station on 23-3-2017 at 10-00 hours and thereby the accused was charged U/Sec. 366-A IPC.

11. During the course of trial, the complainant and mother of victim is examined as PW1. PW2 is the victim. PWs.3 and 4 are grand parents of victim. The evidence of PW1 is that about 1½ year ago, her daughter found missing at her house, as such she reported the incident to the police. After 3 days, her daughter returned to home. She further stated that police obtained her thumb impression on a report, which contents she do not know. PW2 is the victim also deposed that about 1½ year ago she went to the house of her grand parents at Chennur village without informing her mother.

Meanwhile, her mother gave report against the accused to the police. PW2 specifically deposed that the accused did not kidnap her and police did not examine her. For the reasons best known to them,PWs.1 and 2 resiled from their earlier statements. Therefore the learned Additional Public Prosecutor declared the witnesses as hostile with the permission of the court and cross- examined the witnesses regarding Sec.161 Cr.P.C.statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation, which are Exs.P1 and P2.

PWs.3 and 4 are the grand parents of the victim deposed that they do not know the case facts, and Police did not examine them. They denied their statements which are Exs.P3 and P4.

5

12. As PWs.1 to 4, mother,victim and grand parents of victim did not state anything against the accused in view of compromise, the examination of remaining witnesses is of no use, therefore they were given up by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Their evidence also shows that accused married PW2 and now they are residing together. It was the reason for such evidence of PWs.1 to 4. However to record a finding against the accused the evidence available on record is not sufficient. Exs.P1 to P4, Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statements of PWs.1 to 4 are no way useful to prove prosecution case except for contradiction. Hence this court held that prosecution failed to prove its case and the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.

366-A of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec. 232 of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for six months from the date of this judgment, in compliance of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of May, 2018.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW-1 Kunchala Kala. -None- PW-2 Kunchala Srivani. PW-3 Kunchala Bakkanna. PW-4 Kunchala Ravi. EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4.

FOR DEFENCE :-NIL- 6

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT JAGTIAL.

PRESENT:- SMT MADHAVI KRISHNA DOLA,

Assistant Sessions Judge,Jagtial.

FRIDAY, THE 25th DAY OF MAY, 2018.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 723 of 2007

(On committal by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial vide PRC.No.136 of 2000).

Name of the complainant:The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Mallial (Cr.No.72 of 2000).

Description of the accused:A9 Kylasam, S/o: Kistaiah, age:38 years, R/o:Malkapur village of Boinpalli mandal.

Charges:U/Sec.365,343 and 307 r/w 109 IPC.

Plea of the accused:Not guilty.

Finding of the Court: NOT G U I L T Y.

Sentence or order: IN THE RESULT, A9 is found not guilty for the charges U/Sec. 365,343 and 307 r/w 109 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec. 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri K.Amarender Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor. Defence conducted by:Sri R.Sriramulu, Advocate.

This case is coming before me on 23-05-2018 for final hearing in the presence ofSri K.Amarender Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri R.Sriramulu,, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Mallial filed charge sheet against the accused for offence U/Sec. 365,343 and 307 r/w 109 IPC in Cr.No.72 of 2000 of P.S. Jagtial town on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Jagtial.

2

2. The case of prosecution as per the contents of charge sheet is that, on 09-07-2000 at 14-00 hours, the defacto-complainant/L.W.1 namely

Chinthakindi Ramesh came to Jagtial Police Station and lodged a Telugu written report stating that about 3 years back his marriage was performed with Chinthakindi Gangavva resident of Manala village, since his wife is only daughter to her parents, he was brought on “illarikam”. After few days of marriage quarrels arose between him and his wife. In this regard they complained the matter to village elders, who gave verdict that his wife and mother-in-law reluctant his company and they shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- to him, if he himself intended to leave their company he should go out without any money. Later, on 01-7-2000 at about 9-00 A.M. while he was ploughing, his aunt and Chandramouli went to him and took him to

Narsingapur, where he was kept in the house of Chandramouli till 8-7-2000 and they made him to sleep till the arrival of wild animals and caught hold his legs and cut his throat with a knife, he rescued himself and fled away.

3. Basing on the above report, the Sub-Inspector of Police of P.S.,

Jagtial town/L.W.17 namely J.Rama Rao registered a case in Cr.No.

72/2000 U/Sec. 365,343 and 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. and took-up investigation.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW1 and sent him to Government hospital,Jagtial. Further he recorded the statements of LWs.2 to 9 namely Chigurala Mallavva,Dani

Narsaiah, Peddolla Beeraiah, Dani OreGaddi Narsaiah, Merugu Devaiah,

Donakonda Venkati, Mogulla Rayamallu and Gundaragiri Chandra Babu at police station, visited the scene of offence secured the mediators/LWs.10 and 11 namely Parlapalli Devaiah and Bejjanki Gangaiah and issued crime details form seized one document executed by LW1 and A1 in the presence of same mediators. On 25-7-2000 at 07-30 hours, the accused Nos.1 to 7 were arrested and on their voluntary confession of commission of offence 3 he seized Rs.10,000/- from A2,Rs.4,000/- from A3 and from A3 and A4 each Rs.3,000/- were seized under cover of confession cum recovery panchanama which were given by A6 for killing LW1 under cover of panchanama in the presence of same panchas and knife was also seized at the hill in the presence of LWs.12 and 13 namely Kasipalli Laxman and

Basarapu Shekar Goud and accused were sent for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed against the accused for offence punishable U/Sec. 365,343 and 307 r/w 109 IPC, by showing A8 and A9 as absconding.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial took cognizance for the offence U/Sec. 365,343 and 307 r/w 109 IPC against the accused vide P.R.C.No.136 of 2000 and supplied copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., to the accused. By order, the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial committed the case to Hon'ble

Court of Sessions, Karimnagar since the alleged offence U/Sec.307 is exclusively triable by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions. In turn, the Hon'ble

Court of Sessions, Karimnagar made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

5. On appearance of A9 before this court and on hearing the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, this Court framed

charges under section 228 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/Sec. 365,343 and 307 r/w 109 I.P.C against him, the contents of charges are read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2.

4

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, examination of A9 U/Sec. 313

Cr.P.C is dispensed with since there is no incriminating material against him and he also did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and defence counsel.

9.Now the point for consideration is, whether the prosecution proved the offence U/Sec. 365,343 and 307 r/w 109 IPC against A9 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. The case of prosecution as per charge sheet is that about 3 years ago, the marriage of LW1 namely Chinthakindi Ramesh was performed with

Chinthakindi Gangavva resident of Manala village, since his wife is only daughter to her parents, he was brought on “illarikam”. After few days of marriage, quarrels arose between him and his wife. In this regard they complained the matter to village elders, who gave verdict that his wife and mother-in-law reluctant his company and they shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- to him, if he himself intended to leave their company he should go out without any money. Later on 01-07-2000 at about 9-00 A.M. while he was ploughing, his aunt and Chandramouli went to him and took him to

Narsingapur, where he was kept in the house of Chandramouli till 8-7-2000 and they made him to sleep till the arrival of wild animals and caught hold his legs and cut his throat with a knife, he rescued himself and fled away.

Therefore the accused was charged U/Sec. 365,343 and 307 r/w 109 IPC.

11. During the course of trial, the prosecution filed death reports of

LWs.3,5,7,8 and 10. LW1 went to gulf country, as such prosecution has given up their evidence. The panchayat elders were examined as PWs.1 and 5

2. They deposed that they do not know A9 and do not know the facts of the case and the police also never examined them. Therefore the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining

witnesses. However to record a finding against the accused the evidence available on record is not sufficient. Exs.P1 and P2 attested copies of

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.1 and 2 are no way useful to prove prosecution case except for contradiction. Hence this court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case and accused is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

12. IN THE RESULT, the A9 is found not guilty for the charges U/Sec.

365,343 and 307 r/w 109 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.

232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of May, 2018.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW-1 Peddolla Beeraiah. -None- PW-2 Merugu Devaiah.

EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT:-SMT.D.MADHAVI KRISHNA,

Senior Civil Judge,

Jagtial

Friday, the 15th day of March, 2019

O.S.NO. 117 of 2011

Between:-

1. Bandapelly Arundathi, D/o.Janamanchi Kailaspathi.

2. Janamanchi Balachandrudu, S/o.Janamanchi Kailaspathi.

3. Indarapu Srilaxmi, D/o.Janamanchi Kailaspathi.

4. Bandapelly Sarvamangala, D/o.Janamanchi Kailaspathi.

5. Eashwargari Rajyalaxmi, D/o.Janamanchi Kailaspathi.

6. Janamanchi Krishnaveni, D/o.Janamanchi Kailaspathi.

7. Janamanchi Leelavathi, D/o.Janamanchi Kailaspathi. …Plaintiffs. A N D

1. The Post Master, Head Post Office, Jagtial.

2. The District Collector, Karimnagar.

...Defendants.

This suit is coming on 12-03-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.G.Prasad Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri Assistant Government Pleader for defendant No.1, defendant No.2 was set exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The suit is for declaration that the plaintiffs are legal representatives of their deceased J.Kailaspathi and J.Shantha.

2.Brief facts of the plaint are that father of plaintiffs by name

Janamanch Kailspathi and their mother Shantha deposited amount and obtained Kisan Vikas Bonds from defendant No.1 Head Post Office

Jagtial. The details are as follows.

2 129-08-2001 5 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 85CC409810 Rs.10,000/- 229-08-2001 5 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 85CC409809 Rs.10,000/- 329-08-2001 5 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 02GG640295 Rs.50,000/- 429-08-2001 5 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 02GG640296 Rs.50,000/-

And in the name of Janamanchi Shantha as follows.

129-08-2001 5 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 85CC409811 Rs.10,000/- 229-08-2001 5 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 85CC409812 Rs.10,000/- 329-08-2001 5 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 02GG640294 Rs.50,000/- 429-08-2001 5 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 02GG640293 Rs.50,000/-

Having maturity dated 29-11-2008 they were handed over to plaintiff No.7 for the purpose of her marriage. Later the father of plaintiffs died on 22-08-2007. Their mother Shantha died on 09-06- 2003 by leaving plaintiffs as her legal representatives. The plaintiffs so many times approached defendant No.1 and demanded to pay the amount with interest at 24% per annum from the date of maturity but defendant No.1 failed to pay. The plaintiffs got issued legal notice to the defendants dated 29-04-2010 under Section 80 CPC but the defendants also failed to give reply. Thus the plaintiffs filed petition

before Mandal Legal Services Authority Jagtial where the Hon'ble

Chairman directed defendant No.1 to pay the amount to plaintiffs. But the defendant No.1 returned the petition with a new objection but failed to pay single pie. Plaintiff No.7 is an unmarried girl and the amounts kept by her parents for her marriage. Hence the suit.

3. First defendant filed statement stating that the plaintiffs so far did not submit claim petition in the office of first defendant therefore the claim could not be settled. This defendant advised the plaintiff to comply the requirement of condition 50 (1) and to obtain the

Succession Certificate because the claim exceeds Rs.1,00,000/-. This 3 defendant is ready to disburse the amount on production of Succession

Certificate obtained from the competent court of Law. Accordingly defendant No.1 prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs. Second defendant remained exparte.

4.Basing on the pleadings following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in lieu of provisions of Succession Act?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed for?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for interest as claimed by them?

4. To what relief?

Issue No.1, 2 & 3.

5.Plaintiff No.5 examine as PW1 and got marked 14 documents.

Chief affidavit of DW1 is eschewed. Assistant Superintendent of Post

Office Jagtial examined as DW2. No documents are marked for defendants. Plaintiff No.5 examined as PW1 and she got marked original Kisan Vikas Patra bonds as Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A9 is G.P.A dated 13-05-2009 executed in favour of plaintiff No.7 by other plaintiffs.

Ex.A10 is letter issued by defendant No.1 asking to submit Succession

Certificate obtained from competent court of Law. Ex.A11 is receipt

dated 05-03-2011. Ex.A12 is death certificate of Janamanchi Santha

Laxmi. Ex.A13 is death certificate of Janamanchi Kailspathi. Ex.A14 is family member certificate issued by Tahsildar Jagtial. During cross examination of PW1 on 07-08-2017 it is suggested that plaintiffs are not legal heirs of Kailaspathi and his wife. Therefore subsequently plaintiffs produced death certificates of their parents and family member certificate with I.A.No.683/2017. Therefore there is no dispute that the plaintiffs are legal heirs of Kailaspathi and his wife Shantha. The only 4 contention of defendants is that since the plaintiffs failed to produce

Succession Certificate they could not disburse the amount. The defendants mainly relied upon condition 50 (1) of Post Office Savings

Bank Manual (Volume-ii). Which reads that; A claim to the value of a certificate standing in the name of a deceased holder may be made on adjustment as the case may be can en cash the certificate standing in the name of deceased or the basis of (a) Nomination, (b) Legal

Evidence (c) Without the production of legal evidence at the discretion of sanctioning authority up to the limit fixed by Ministry of Finance which is Rs.1,00,000/- at present. If the claim exceeds the prescribed limit which is now Rs.1,00,000/-, the claimant should be advised to obtained a Succession certificate from a competent court of law or produce the probate of a will or letters of Administration of Estate of the deceased.

6.Therefore even as per above rule when there was no nominee the amount can be released on producing legal evidence. And when there is no legal evidence then only the Succession Certificate should be produced. DW2 is Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Jagtial. Even admitted that plaintiffs are entitled for benefits as per law. Moreover if all the bonds are put together it exceeds the limit of Rs.1,00,000/-. But independently they can be disbursed without stressing for production of

Succession Certificate. In fact the litigation started in the year 2010 itself but only because of attitude of first defendant this litigation continued till today. In fact the first defendant ought not to stress to produce Succession Certificate. Even now this court is directing the defendants to release the amount immediately and plaintiffs are entitled for interest also. Accordingly issues are answered.

5

Issue No.4.

To what relief.

7.In the result, suit is decreed declaring the plaintiffs as legal representatives of deceased Janamanchi Kailaspathi and Janamanchi

Shantha and they are entitled to recover the suit amount. The defendant No.1 is directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.6,95,330/- with future interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing suit till the date of realization there on. No costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, In the open court, on this the 15th day of March, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Jagtial. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For the plaintiff For the Defendant PW1. Rajyalaxmi.DW1.Cheeti Raghu Pathi Rao. (eschewed.) DW2.Mohd.Abdul Aleem. For the plaintiff:- Ex.A129-08-20015 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 85CC409809 for Rs.10,000/- in the name of Kailaspathi.

Ex.A229-08-20015 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 85CC409810 for Rs.10,000/- in the name of Kailaspathi.

Ex.A329-08-20015 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 85CC409811 for Rs.10,000/- in the name of Shantha.

Ex.A429-08-20015 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 85CC409812 for Rs.10,000/- in the name of Shantha.

Ex.A529-08-20015 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 02GG640293 for Rs.50,000/- in the name of Shantha.

Ex.A629-08-20015 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 02GG640294 for Rs.50,000/- in the name of Shantha.

Ex.A729-08-20015 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 02GG640295 for Rs.50,000/- in the name of Kailaspathi.

Ex.A829-08-20015 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra 02GG640296 for Rs.50,000/- in the name of Kailaspathi.

Ex.A913-05-2009G.P.A executed in favour of plaintiff No.7. Ex.A1021-06-2011Letter issued by the defendant No.1 from Superintendent of Post Office, Karimnagar. Ex.A1105-03-2011Original receipt from the office of Dy. Divisional Manager, Postal Life Insurance, Hyderabad along with envelop.

6

Ex.A1216-06-2003Original death certificate of Janamanchi Shantha Laxmi issued by Commissioner Jagtial Municipality. Ex.A13---Original death certificate of Janamanchi Kailaspathi issued by Commissioner Jagtial Municipality. Ex.A1426-10-2007Original family members certificate, issued by Tahsildar Jagtial.

For the Defendant ---Nil---

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Jagtial.