Sri D.Venkateswarlu Naik, B.A., M.L.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: GOOTY

Present: Sri D.VENKATESWARLU NAIK

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

Monday, the 1st day of May, 2017

Calendar Case No.285 of 2014

Between:

The State represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, Gooty Police Station …Complainant

And

1. Dudekula Hassan S/o D.Khasim, age 38 years, H.No.74/95/3/2, Mahathma Nagar, Kallur Village, Kurnool District. Driver of the Car bearing No.AP-21-AW-9909.

2. Avuku Ramu, S/o Kambagiriswamy, age 25 years, Nadimigeri, Peapully village and Mandal. Driver of auto bearing No.AP-21-TU-9464 ……Accused

This case has came before me on 28.04.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri

V.Ramachandra Reddy, advocate for the accused and the matter having been 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, Gooty Police Station laid charge sheet in crime No.228/2014 for the offence under section 337, 338 and 304-A of

Indian Penal Code, against the accused.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that L.W.1 B.Nagaraju is resident of Karadikonda village Gooty mandal and he wants to go to

Gooty to purchase pesticides and at about 8-30 a.m., he came near their village bus stop and at about 8-45 a.m. one auto bearing No.AP.21 TU 9464 came from Peapully side and L.W1 B.Nagaraju, L.W.10 Dasari Kakarla

Neelavathi and L.W.11 M.Shankaramma and Sreeramulu (deceased D.1) boarded into the auto. L.W.12 Boya Narayanamma, L.W.13 Boya Souhagya,

L.W.14 Kakvali Aruna, L.W.15 Kavali Prem Kumar and L.W.16 Yerikala 2

Sudkahar were already sat in the said auto. The auto left the place and proceeded towards Gooty and on the way the accused A.2 Driver of the auto, drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and at about 9-00 a.m., reached Gouty cross, without watching the car, the auto driver took turn from NH 44 towards Gooty side negligently, in the meantime the accused A.1 being the driver of the car bearing No.AP 21

AW-9909 dashed the auto bearing A.P 21 TU 9464 due to that hit the inmates of the auto were sustained multiple injuries and the occupants of the car also sustained injuries and that the said Sreeramulu died on the spot with multiple injuries and L.W1 B.Nagaraju, L.W.10 Dasari Kakarla

Neelavathi and L.W.11 M.Shankaramma and Sreeramulu (deceased D.1) boarded into the auto. L.W.12 Boya Narayanamma, L.W.13 Boya Souhagya,

L.W.14 Kakvali Aruna, L.W.15 Kavali Prem Kumar and L.W.16 Yerikala

Sudkahar and Gurramma were shifted to the Government Hospital, Gouty and while undergoing the treatment the said Gouramma also died and the injured L.W.1s, 10 to 17 referred to the Government Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment

3.Basing on the statement of injured LW.1 B.Nagaraju, LW.28 B.Mohan,

S.I. of Police registered a case in Cr.No.228/2014 Under section 337, 304-A of

I.P.C and took up investigation into. During the course of investigation LW.28

B.Mohan conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased D.1 in the presence of LW.2 S.Lakshmidevi, LW.3 S.Sanjeevaiah, LW.4 S.Lakshmi

Chennaiah, LW.5 S.Chennaiah and inquest panchayathdars and prepared inquest panchanama dated 26.07.2014 and also inspected the scene and siezed some broken glass pieces of the auto and fiber pieces of the car under cover of inquest of D.1. LW.27 K.Ramana Reddy, S.I. of police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased D.2 in the presence of LW.6

V.Raju, LW.7 V.Venkataramana, LW.8 V.Chalapathi, LW.9 M.Kambagiri and 3 inquest panchayathdars and prepared inquest panchanama dated 26.07.2014. LW.24 Dr. K.Srinivasa Babu, Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of the deceased D.1 and D.2 and issued

Postmortem report opining that the deceased D.1 and D.2 died due to poly trauma resulting in haemorrhagic shock due to RTA.

4. L.W.25 Dr.Yellappa, Civil Assistant Surgeon examined the injured

LWs.1, 10 to 17 and A.2 and issued wound certificates opining that the injuries received by the injured LWs.10 to 16 and A.2 are simple in nature and the injuries received by LWs.1 and 17 are grievous in nature. During the course of investigation L.W.26 G.V.Siva Reddy, Motor Vehicle Inspector,

Guntakal inspected the crime vehicles and issued accident report stating that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicles. On 12.08.2014 L.W.28 B.Mohan, arrested A.1 and A.2 and sent them for remand and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under section 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

5.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code against accused on 09-10-2014 and issued summons to the accused.

6. After appearance of accused, on 05.11.2014 copies of case documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

7.On 23.02.2015 the accused were examined under section 251 of

Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under section 337, 338 and 304-A of

Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

8. In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. The evidence of LW.5 S.Chennaiah, LW.7 4

V.Venkataramana, LW.9 M.Kambagiri was given up by learned A.P.P as their evidence is corroborated with that of PW.1 to PW.5. The evidence of LW.10

D.K.Neelavathi, LW.14 K.Aruna, LW.15 K.Prem Kumar, LW.16 Y.Sudhakar,

LW.18 N.Venkataramudu, LW.19 G.Ambati Narasimhulu, LW.20

Kesavuluswamy, LW.21 M.Narayana, LW.22 G.Rajasekhar, LW.23

M.Ranganayakulu, LW.25 Dr.Yellappa, LW.26 G.V.Siva Reddy, LW.27 K.Ramana

Reddy and LW.28 B.Mohan was closed by this court as the prosecution has failed to produce them to give evidence inspite of conditional order, as such their evidence was closed. On the other hand no evidence adduced on behalf of the accused, but Ex.D.1 is got marked.

9.After closure of evidence of prosecution, the section 313 of Criminal

Procedure Code examination of accused was dispensed with, as there is no incriminating material found against the accused. The accused adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence on their behalf.

10.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and learned counsel for the accused.

11.Now the point for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under section 337, 338 and

304-A of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T:

12. In order to punish the accused 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal

Code, the prosecution has to establish that the accused caused death of the deceased Sriramulu (D1) and Gurramma (D2) by doing any rash and negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.

13. In the present case, there is no dispute that the deceased D1 and D2 died in an accident. The dispute is whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence of the accused herein or not. To establish the same, the 5 evidence of eye witnesses is crucial.

14. To prove its case, the prosecution has been examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and

Exs.P.1 to P.8 are got marked. P.W.1 Boya Nagaraju, who is defacto complainant cum injured person, who set criminal law into motion by preferring complaint, but P.W.1 turned hostile. He did not state anything against the accused. He deposed that he does not know the A.1 and A.2 in this case and further deposed that at about two years back on one day at about 8-00 A.M himself, LW.10 to LW.16 were boarded in an auto bearing

No.AP-21-TU-9464 in order to go to Gooty and when they reached near

Sunkulamma temple the auto met with an accident. Due to which the deceased No.1 and D.2 died on the spot. In that incident he sustained injuries on his head and both knees and later they were shifted to the

Government hospital, Gooty.

15.P.W.1 further deposed that he has not observed the car driver and the driver of the auto and he cannot identified the drivers of crime vehicles and also deposed tht he cannot say in whose fault the accident was occurred. He further deposed that the accused who are standing in the court hall are not the drivers of the crime vehicles and also deposed that when he was taking treatment at Government Hospital the police obtained his Ex.P.1 signature on a written paper but he does not know its contents and the police never examined him. In his cross examination, by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution except marking of Ex.P.2 which is his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement.

16. P.W.2 S.Lakshmidevi who is the wife of deceased No.1 and PW.3 who is the younger brother of the deceased No.1 who came to know about the accident through their villagers. PW.2 deposed that about two years back on one day at about 9-00 AM her villagers informed her that her husband met with an accident and then she went to the accident spot and saw her 6 husband as dead. PW.3 deposed that he received information about the accident and then he went to the accident spot and saw the dead body of his elder brother. PW.2 further deposed that she enquired about the accident and came to know that the car driver came in a speed manner and hit the auto and due to the negligence of car driver the accident was happened, but she did not enquire about the registration number of the car as well as auto and its drivers. During the cross examination by learned A.P.P, nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution. PW.3 further deposed that he came to know that due to rash driving and negligence of the drivers of the both vehicles the accident was happened and he came to know the registration number of the car bearing No.AP-21-AW-9909 but he do not know the auto number. Whereas during the cross examination PW.3 deposed that one

Lakshmi Chennaiah i.e. LW.4 informed him about the registration number of crime vehicle and its drivers.

17.PW.4 who is the younger brother of deceased No.1 has deposed that on 26.07.2014 while he was proceeding on his vehicle to Gooty he observed a mob near Sunkulamma temple and then he went to there and saw that his elder brother died in the road accident and then he informed the same to his villagers. He further deposed that he came to know that due to rash driving and negligence of the drivers of both vehicles the accident was happened and also he came to know through injured persons about the manner of the accident and the registration numbers of the car is 9909 and auto number is 9464. Further he came to know that the auto driver name is Ramu of

Peapully village and car driver name is Hassan who is the resident of Kurnool.

18.Whereas during the cross examination he deposed that he enquired about the names of the drivers and vehicles numbers in the Gooty hospital.

P.W.4 further deposed that he has not stated before the police as in Ex.D.1 that he came to know from his villager through phone about the accident 7 then he went to the scene of offence along with his villagers. So, according to the evidence of P.W4 he was not the eye witness to the incident. Further

P.W.1 to PW.4 gave deferent versions before the court and also before the police. Therefore his evidence also not helpful to the prosecution.

19.PW.5 son of deceased No.2 has deposed that he received a phone call about the accident and then he went to the government hospital, Gooty and found the dead body of his mother with injuries i.e. deceased No.2. He further deposed that he came know that due to negligent of car driver and auto driver, the accident was happened. So according to the evidence of

PW.2 to PW.5 they are not eye witnesses to the incident and their evidence is treated as hearsay.

20.PW.6 who is the inquest panchayathdar and PW.7 to PW.10 are injured persons but they did not speak anything against he accused and they turned hostile. During their cross examination by the learned A.P.P nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution case except marking of Ex.P.3 to P.6 which are the 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW.7 to PW.10 respectively. PW.11 who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of the deceased D.1 and D.2 not helpful to the case of the prosecution to connect the accused for the alleged incident that they drove the crime vehicles in a rash and negligent manner on the date of alleged incident and they caused to death of deceased No.1 and 2.

21. In view of the hostile nature and non-co-operation by P.Ws.1 and P.Ws.5 to 10 and the evidence of PWs.2, 3, 4 and 11 are the hearsay witnesses to the prosecution case, and the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e. LW.5

S.Chennaiah, LW.7 V.Venkataramana, LW.9 M.Kambagiri was given up by learned A.P.P and the evidence of LW.10 D.K.Neelavathi, LW.14 K.Aruna,

LW.15 K.Prem Kumar, LW.16 Y.Sudhakar, LW.18 N.Venkataramudu, LW.19

G.Ambati Narasimhulu, LW.20 Kesavuluswamy, LW.21 M.Narayana, LW.22 8

G.Rajasekhar, LW.23 M.Ranganayakulu, LW.25 Dr.Yellappa, LW.26 G.V.Siva

Reddy, LW.27 K.Ramana Reddy and LW.28 B.Mohan was closed by this court as the prosecution has failed to produce them to give evidence inspite of conditional order. Hence, I feel that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal under section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure

Code.

22. In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused as well as their sureties shall remain in force for six months from the date of this judgment under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure

Code.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of May, 2017.

Sd/- D.Venkateswarlu Naik

JUDL.MAGISTATE OF FIRST CLASS

GOOTY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Prosecution:Defence:

P.W.1: Boya Nagaraju None P.W.2: S.Lakshmidevi P.W.3: S.Sanjeevaiah P.W.4: S.Lakshmi Chennaiah P.W.5: V.Nagaraju P.W.6: V.Chalapathi P.W.7: Kum.Sankaramma P.W.8: Boya Narayanamma P.W.9: Boya Sowbhagya P.W.10:S.Krishna Mahesh P.W.11: Dr. Srinivasa Babu

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW.1 on the statement dt:26.7.2014 Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C.statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C.statement of P.W.7 9

Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C.statement of P.W.8 Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C.statement of P.W.9 Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C.statement of P.W.10 Ex.P.7: Postmortem Report of deceased No.1 S.Sreenivasulu Ex.P.8: Postmortem Report of deceased No.2 V.Gurramma

Exhibits Marked for Defence:

Ex.D.1: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.4

Material objects marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

NIL NIL

Sd/- D.V.N

J.F.C.M

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: GOOTY

Present: Sri D.VENKATESWARLU NAIK

Judicial Magistrate of First Class: Gooty

Monday the 1st day of May, 2017

Calendar Case No.386 of 2013

Between:

The State represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, Pamidi PS. …Complainant

And

1.Boya Ramalinga, S/o Chabala Subbanna, age 48 years,

2.Mala Ramanjineyulu, S/o Chendrayudu, age 32 years,

3.Mala Narayanaswamy, S/o Pedda Narayana, age 42 years,

4.Mala Obi, S/o Obanna, age 36 years, All are resident of AKatrimala village, Pamidi Mandal. …Accused.

This case has came before me on 27.04.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri R.Rama

Gopal, advocate for the accused, and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pamidi PS laid charge sheet in Crime

No.141/2013 against the accused A1 to A4 for the offence punishable Under

Section 324, 326 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are thatL.W.1 Boya

Mahesh is resident of Katrimala Village of Pamidi Mandal and lives by coolie and on the night of 14/15.11.2013 at about 1-00 AM while LW.1 B.Mahesh was playing Savsen near Peerla Gundam along with their villagers, mistakenly LW.1 B.Mahesh touched to the accused No.1, then there is some altercation took place between them, just a while the accused A.2 also went there and as a sudden A.1 and A.2 beat LW.1 B.Mahesh with sticks and caused bleeding injuries. On seeing the same, LW.2 B.Nadipi Marenna went 2 to rescue the LW.1 B.Mahesh, then A.3 and A.4 beat LW.2 B.Nadipi Marenna with sticks and caused welling injury on his right shoulder. Later LW.1

B.Mahesh and LW.2 B.Nadipi Marenna went to the Pamidi P.S and presented a complaint with a request to take necessary action.

3.Basing on the complaint of LW.1 B.Mahesh, L.W.7 B.Mahanandi, Sub

Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.141/2013 for the offence

Under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW.7 B.Mahanandi examined LW.1

B.Mahesh, LW.2 B.Nadipi Marenna, LW.3 G.B.Obulesu, LW.4 Boya Babu, LW.5

B.Suresh and recorded their detailed statements and he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 20.11.2013

LW.7 B.Mahanandi arrested A.1 to A.4 and sent them for remand and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against A.1 to A.4.

Hence the charge.

4.The case was taken on file on 10.12.2013 for the offence punishable under sections 324, 326 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused A1 to

A4 and issued summons to the accused.

5. After appearance of accused, 10.01.2014 copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Criminal

Procedure Code to them.

6. On appearance of the accused on 03.06.2014 the accused were examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code. A charge under section 324 of IPC framedagainst A.1and A2 and charge under section 326 of IPC framedagainst A.3 and A4 and the prosecution case was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they reported that it is a false case and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in accordance with the law.

3

7.In order to prove its case, prosecution has been examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. The evidence of LW.3 G.Bakkula Obulesu was given up by learned A.P.P as his evidence is cyclostyle with that of PW.1 to

PW.4.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence against them, for which they reported as false and also reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and learned counsel for the accused.

10.Now the point for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of

the accused for the offence punishable under sections

324, 326 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable

doubt?

11. P O I N T:-

In order to punish the accused A1 to A4 under section 324 and 326 of

Indian Penal Code the prosecution has to establish that A.3 and A.4 voluntarily caused grievous hurt to P.W.2 and A.1 and A.2 voluntarily caused simple hurt to PW.1 by means of sticks.

12. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has been examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. P.W.1 Boya Mahesh who is the dafacto complainant cum injured person and who set the criminal law into motion by preferring complaint to the police. He deposed that on 15.11.2013 at about 1-00 AM while he was playing Savsen near Peerla Gundam along with LW.3 and P.w2 to 4 and the accused, by mistakenly he touched A1, for which he asked A.1 apology but, A.1 did not accept his apology and abused him and some altercation took place. Suddenly A.2 to A.4 joined with A1 and among the accused, A1 and A2 beat him with sticks on his head and caused 4 bleeding injury. When LW.2 came to rescue him, A3 and A4 beat LW.2 with sticks on his shoulder, due to which his father right shoulder was fractured.

Later himself and his father went to the police station, Pamidi and gave

Ex.P.1 written complaint and later the police sent him and his father to the

Government Hospital, Pamidi for treatment. P.W.2 who is the father of P.W.1 was reiterated the version of PW.1.

13.PW.3 who is so called eye witness has deposed that about 3 years back on one day at about 1-00 AM while he was present near Peerla

Gundam, P.W.1 was playing savsen in front of Peerla gundam, A1 picked up quarrel with PW.1 and beat him with sticks on his head, due to which PW.1 sustained bleeding injury. When P.W.2 went to rescue P.W.1, all the accused beat P.W.2 with stick on his right shoulder, due to which PW.2 sustained fracture injury. Then himself, LW.3 and P.W.4 intervened and rescued PW.1 and PW.2. PW.4 who is another so called mediator has reiterated the version of PW.3.

14. PW.5 who is the doctor who treated PW.1 and PW.2. He deposed that on 15-11-2013 at 5-00 A.M he examined PW.2 and found a laceration over the right shoulder 3 x 0.5 Cm., and according to radiology report B.K.Diagnosis unit, Anantapuramu on X-ray there were fracture of right clavicle. On the same day at 5-30 AM he examined PW.1 and found a laceration over scalp seize 4 cm over the anterior fantanella region and Dumb injury over the body with small bruises over back and he issued Ex.P2 and P.3 wound certificates of PW.2 and PW.1.

15.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 to PW.4 they gave inconsistent statements about the specific overtacts. P.W.1 deposed that A.1 and A.2 beat him with sticks on his head and caused bleeding injury and A.3 and A.4 beat

PW.2 with stick on his shoulder, due to which his father i.e. PW.2 right shoulder was fractured. Whereas PW.3 deposed that A.1 beat PW.1 with stick 5 on his head, due to which P.W.1 sustained bleeding injury and all the accused beat P.W.2 with sticks on his right shoulder, due to which P.W.2 sustained fracture injury. P.W.4 who is another so-called eye witness has deposed that

A.1 and A.2 beat P.W.1 with sticks on his head, due to which PW.1 sustained bleeding injury and all the accused beat PW.2 with sticks and caused fracture injury.

16. On perusal of medical evidence the doctor i.e. PW.5 deposed that PW.2 sustained two injuries i.e. A laceration over the right shoulder 3 x 0.5 Cm., and according to radiology report there were fracture of right clavicle and also deposed that PW.2 sustained two injuries i.e. a laceration over scalp 4 cm over the anterior fantanella region and dumb injury over the body with small bruises over back. Whereas PW.2 deposed during his cross examination that he sustained only one injury and P.W.1 also sustained only one injury.

So on perusal of medical evidence not corroborated with that of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also their evidence not corroborated with the evidence of

PW.3 and PW.4 with regard to the injuries and also overtacts. Moreover, PW.6 who is the investigation officer did not seize any incriminating material i.e.

sticks allegedly used by the accused at the time of commission of offence and the same was admitted by the I.O. Further,PW.6 deposed during his cross examination that he did not seize blood stained clothes of PW.1 and also weapons allegedly used by the accused.

17. The main contention of the accused is that PW.1 and PW.2 sustained injuries in a drunken state and attributed those injuries against the accused and preferred a false case against the accused due to earlier disputes. On perusal of the evidence on record PW.4 deposed during his cross examination that PW.1 is a habit of taking alcohol but he does not know whether PW.2 is having a habit of taking alcohol.

18. According to the prosecution case the alleged incident was happened 6 at 1-00 AM midnight while playing savsen infront of Peerla Gundam, by that time the alleged incident was happened. During the cross examination PW.1 deposed that about 40 to 50 persons were present at the scene of offence.

PW.2 also deposed during his cross examination that about 20 persons were present at the scene of offence. P.W.2 further deposed that there are residential houses situated surrounding the scene of offence. Whereas the investigation officer deposed during his cross examination that he did not examine the surrounding persons of the scene of offence. Further on perusal of Ex.P.5 rough sketch it reveals that there are houses of P.Krishna Reddy,

N.Nageswaraiah, P.Rajasekhar Reddy, K.Akkappa Rao and Balija Sankaraiah are situated. But PW.6 has not cited their names as witnesses to strengthen the case of prosecution.

19. According to the prosecution case the alleged incident was happened on 14/15.11.2013 at 1-00 AM and PW.1 gave complaint to the police on 15.11.2013 at 8-00 AM. PW.5 who is the doctor has deposed that he treated

P.W.1 at 5-00 AM and he treated P.W.2 at 5-30 AM which is prior to giving compliant to the police by the PW.1. In this regard there is no explanation from the prosecution as to the examination of PW.1 and PW.2 by PW.5.

Further in this case Radiologist not cited as witness to say about the fracture injury sustained by PW.2. Apart from it, PW.1 and PW.2 deposed during their chief examination that when A.3 and A.4 beat PW.2, he sustained fracture on his right shoulder. But on perusal of the Ex.P.1 and also their 161 Cr.P.C statements does not reveals about the fracture injury sustained by PW.2. So on perusal of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 not corroborated with the medical evidence i.e P.W.5 with regard to the injuries.

20. In this regard the learned counsel for the accused relied a decision reported in “2009(1) ALT (Crl.) 23 (NRC) in the Hon’ble High court of

Judicature at Rajasthan in the case of Bholu @ Hanuman and others

7 etc., -Vs- State of Rajasthan”. In the above decision the Hon’ble court held that X-ray of injuries sustained by injured and opinion given by radiologist report doubtful so as to establish the fact that the injured has sustained a grievous injury and same also corroborated by statement of medical jurist. The radiologist not produced in witness box by prosecution.

Therefore in the absence of radiologist the section 326 of I.P.C could not be attract against the accused. In the present case also the radiologist not cited as witness and the evidence of P.W.5 not corroborated with the evidence of

P.W1 and 2 and therefore the above decision is very much applicable to the present case on hand and which is very much helpful to the accused.

21. Admittedly, the Investigation officer i.e PW.6 did not seize any incriminating material in this case and he did not seize the blood stained clothes of PW.1 and not cited the names of surrounding persons of the scene of offence and also name of radiologist as witnesses to strengthen the prosecution case.So, in the absence of radiologist evidence and in the absence of any incriminating material and also inconsistence statements deposed by PW.1 to PW.4 about the overtacts, how this court could connect the accused for the offence Under Section 324 and 326 of Indian penal code.

22. In the light of the above facts and circumstances it goes to show that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilty of the accused for the offence under section 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code and they are entitled for benefit of doubt and they are liable to be acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

23. In the result, the A.1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 of I.P.C and A3 and A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six 8 months from the date of this judgment under section 437-A of Criminal

Procedure Code.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of May, 2017.

Sd/- D.Venkateswarlu Naik

JUDL.MAGISTATE OF FIRST CLASS

GOOTY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence:

P.W.1: Boya Mahesh None P.W.2: Boya Nadipi Marenna P.W.3: Boya Babu P.W.4: Boya Suresh P.W.5: Dr.C.Manohar Gandhi P.W.6: B.Mahanandi

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: Ex.P.1: Complaint of PW.1 dt:15.11.2013 -NIL- Ex.P.2: Wound certificate of P.W.2 Ex.P.3: Wound certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P.4: F.I.R Ex.P.5: Rough Sketch.

Material objects marked for Prosecution:Defence:

NIL NIL

Sd/- D.V.N

J.F.C.M

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GOOTY

Present: Sri D.Venkateswarlu Naik

Junior Civil Judge

Tuesday, the 2nd day of May, 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.171 of 2014

Between:

B.Venkappa, S/o Buramadoddi Chinna Eeranna, Hindu, aged 39 years, Business, D.No.8-654, Gooty, Anantapuramu District. …Plaintiff

AND

Jitta Gopala Krishna @ J.Gopal, S/o Jitta Venkata Narayana @ J.C.Narayana, Hindu, aged 50 years, Business, R/o Peddavaduguru, Presently residing in D.No.8-164, Opp. Sai Fashions, Tadipatri Road, Gooty, Anantapuramu District. …Defendant

This suit has came before me on 28-04-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.V.Thimma Reddy and Sri S.Jakir Hussain, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Manohar Babu, Sri V.Somasekhar and Sri P.Obulesu,

Advocates for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff i.e., B.Venkappa for recovery of

Rs.1,00,000/- basing on the promissory note dated:01-12-2011 for

Rs.60,000/- against the defendant i.e. Jitta Gopal Krishna, and for future interest and costs.

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

The defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 01-12-2011 from the plaintiff for necessities and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., on the same day. Inspite of several repeated demands made by the plaintiff and finally got issued legal notice on 17.11.2014, the defendant did not choose to discharge the debt amount. Since the defendant has failed to 2 do so, the plaintiff has no option except filing of the suit. The defendant is not an agriculturist and he is not entitled the benefits of Act IV of 1938 and hence interest has claimed at contract rate. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying all the allegations made in the plaint and further contended that the defendant has not executed any pronote in favor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not made any demand and did not issue any legal notice to the defendant. the defendant and plaintiff are close friends prior to filing of the present suit and there are some disputes arose in between the plaintiff and defendant and that the plaintiff fabricated the suit pronote and forged the signature of the defendant with the help of attestor and filed the suit to harass the defendant. There is no cause of action to file the present suit and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note dt:01.12.2011 for Rs.60,000/- is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff fabricated the suit promissory note by forging the signature of the defendant as alleged in the written statement?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and

Exs.A1 to A.3 are got marked. Inspite of ample opportunities and imposition of costs, the defendant did not evince any interest to adduce evidence on his behalf, hence the evidence of the defendant side was closed.

6.Heard the arguments of both the counsel.

7. ISSUES NO.1 to 3 (taken up jointly):

3

8.Plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1, filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination is that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 01-12-2011 from him for necessities and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in his favour and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., on the same day. Inspite of several repeated demands made by him and got issued Ex.A.2 legal notice on 17.11.2014 demanding the defendant to repay the debt amount, the defendant did not choose to discharge the debt amount and said legal notice was returned under Ex.A.3.

Ex.A.1 suit promissory note was scribed by the defendant himself and it was attested by one B.Ram Prasad Reddy and the defendant received the amount from him in the presence of scribe and attestor. The counsel for the defendant cross examined P.W.1 at length. In his cross examination he denied that there is no need to the defendant to borrow the amount from him and also denied that due to differences in the business he fabricated suit promissory note by forging the signature of the defendant in order to harass the defendant and he is not entitled to recover any amount from the defendant since Ex.A.1 is the forged document.

9. As the plaintiff proved the execution of suit promissory note by the defendant, the statutory presumption under section 118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act comes to the aid of the plaintiff and the suit promissory note is deemed to be supported by consideration until the contrary is proved by the defendant. That apart even a passing of consideration under the suit promissory note is duly proved by the plaintiff coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.3.

Therefore, the onus of proof shifts on the defendant to prove contrary.

Hence, the defendant is liable to discharge the entire suit debt, due under the suit promissory note.

4

10. On the other hand, there is no evidence on record on behalf of the defendant, to prove that the plaintiff fabricated the Ex.A.1 by forging the signature of the defendant and filed the suit in order to harass the defendant. The defendant did not choose to examine himself as a witness and did not choose to enter into witness box which amounts to suppression of material evidence and an adverse inference can be drawn under section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act which negatives the contentions of the defendant. At this juncture, this court relied upon the decision reported in

2004(3) A.L.T 665 (DIVISION BENCH). Wherein their Lordship held

that;

“When a party does not enter into the witness box to prove the

case set up by him a presumption shall be drawn under section

114(g) of Indian Evidence Act.”

11.In view of the supra discussion and going by the ratio of above cited decision, it can be clearly concluded that the defendant did not choose to examine himself as witness and failed to depose in support of his contentions, then the presumption can be drawn that the version of the defendant is a false one. Therefore, there is no hesitation to hold that the defendant miserably failed to establish his contention as there is absolutely no material on record to prove that the plaintiff fabricated the Ex.A.1 by forging the signature of the defendant and filed the suit in order to harass the defendant. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to A.3 clearly establishes the case of the plaintiff and brings out the liability of the defendant and as such the plaintiff is squarely entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant and the defendant is liable to pay the same.

Accordingly, the issues No.1 to 3 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendant.

5

12.ISSUE NO.4:

In the result, suit is decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to pay the suit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with future interest at 12% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.60,000/- from the date of the suit i.e. on 01.12.2014till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- D.Venkateswarlu Naik

Junior Civil Judge Gooty Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

P.W.1: B.Venkatappa - NIL-

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff: Defendant:

Ex.A.1: Suit promissory note dt: 01.12.2011 for Rs.60,000/--NIL- Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice dt:17-11-2014 Ex.A.3: Returned postal cover.

Sd/-DVN.

Jr.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GOOTY

Present: Sri D.Venkateswarlu Naik

Junior Civil Judge

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2017

Original Suit No.246 of 2015

Between:

Chintala Maheswari, W/o Sudhakar Reddy, D/o Manchala Suryanarayana Reddy, aged about 31 years, Hindu, House wife, Residing at Konduru village, Veerannapalli post, Peddavaduguru Mandal, Anantapuramu District. …. Plaintiff

AND

1.Manchala Suryanarayana Reddy, S/o Late M.Venkata Reddy, aged about 62 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Peddavaduguru village Peddavaduguru Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

2.Manchala Chitambara Reddy, S/o M.Suryanarayana Reddy, aged about 30 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Peddavaduguru village Peddavaduguru Mandal, Anantapuramu District. …Defendants

This suit has came before me on 10.04.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.V.Chalapathi, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri

A.Suryanarayana, Advocate for 1st defendant and Sri Z.Satheesh, Advocate for 2nd defendant and defendants were called absent and set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is suit filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaint schedule mentioned properties are ancestral properties of late M.Venkata Reddy of

Peddavaduguru village and said M. Venkata Reddy died leaving the first defendant is his son, plaintiff is daughter of 1st defendant and 2nd defendant is son of 1st defendant as his legal heirs. Plaintiff and defendants are coparceners and the members of the Hindu joint family and hence the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled 1/3rd share each in the schedule 2 properties. While so the defendants are trying to sell the plaint schedule mentioned properties to the third parties claiming absolute title over the said property by showing false and factious deeds. The defendants are having only 2/3rd share and the plaintiff is having 1/3rd share in the schedule mentioned plaintiff. The plaintiff felt that it is not safe to be joint with the defendants and demanded for partition and separate possession of her share in the plaint schedule properties. But the defendants are adamantly refusing to come for amicable settlement and postponing for partition of the schedule properties either in one pretext or the other. Hence the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit.

3. On the other hand the defendants reminded set exparte for non filing of written statement within prescribed time.

4.The plaintiff filed her chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination and she herself examined as P.W.1 and no exhibits are got marked. In support of her contention she also examined Deputy Tahsildar as PW.2 and in his evidence Exs.C.1. to C.5 are got marked.

5. Heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?

P O I N T:

7. The plaintiff filed her chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination and she herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.C.1. to C.5. Exs.C.1 to

C.4 are the adangals and Ex.C.5 is the 1-B register in respect of suit schedule property. Exs.C.1 to C.4 are the adangals and Ex.C.5 is the 1-B register. PW.2 deposed that Suryanarayana Reddy has got land in Sy.No.498-

A to an extent of Ac.0-57 cents, Sy.No.498-3 to an extent of Ac.0-67 cents,

Sy.No.338 to an extent of Ac.1-45 cents and Sy.No.313 to an extent of Ac.1- 62 cents (Total extent of Ac.4-31 cents) at Peddavaduguru village.

3

8.PW.1 deposed that the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties of late M.Venkata Reddy of Peddavaduguru village and said M.

Venkata Reddy died leaving the first defendant is his son, plaintiff is daughter of 1st defendant and 2nd defendant is son of 1st defendant as his legal heirs. Plaintiff and defendants are coparceners and the members of the

Hindu joint family and hence the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled 1/3rd share each in the schedule properties.

9.She further deposed that while so the defendants are trying to sell the plaint schedule mentioned properties to the third parties claiming absolute title over the said property by showing false and factious deeds. The defendants are having only 2/3rd share and the plaintiff is having 1/3rd share in the schedule mentioned plaintiff. The plaintiff felt that it is not safe to be joint with the defendants and demanded for partition and separate possession of her share in the plaint schedule properties. But the defendants are adamantly refusing to come for amicable settlement and postponing for partition of the schedule properties either in one pretext or the other.

10.In support of her evidence PW.1 also examined the Deputy Tahsildar,

Peddavaduguru Mandal as PW.2 and in his evidence Exs.C.1. to C.5 are got marked and he deposed that the said Suryanarayana Reddy has got the suit schedule property covered under Ex.C.1 to C.5. On perusal of the averments of the plaint, the evidence of P.W.1 and PW.2 coupled with

Exs.C.1 to C.5, which prima-facie clearly shows that the plaintiff also having legitimate her 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties and she has also got possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and also enjoying the same as on the date of filing the suit and the defendants are trying to sell the plaint schedule mentioned properties to the third parties claiming absolute title over the said property by showing false and factious deeds. It is also shows that the plaintiff has got right to enjoy her half share 4 in the plaint schedule property. In view of the above discussion, going by the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

11.In the result, suit is preliminarily decreed with costs for partition and separate possession in three equal shares of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds, and the plaintiff is entitled 1/3rd share and the defendants are entitled 1/3rd share each in the pliant schedule properties.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-D.Venkateswarlu Naik

Junior Civil Judge Gooty.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: C.Maheswari -NONE- P.W.2: S.Vishnuvardhan Reddy

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.C.1 to C.4: Adangals Ex.C.5: 1-B Register

Exhibits marked for defendants:

-NIL-

Sd/DVN. Jr.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GOOTY

Present: Sri D.Venkateswarlu Naik

Junior Civil Judge

Wednesday, the 3rd day of May, 2017

Original Suit No.79 of 2017

Between

V.Subba Raju, S/o V.Hanuma Raju, Hindu, aged 71 years, Retired Railway Employee, R/o H.No.10/224, Kapu street, Gooty town,

Gooty Mandal, Anantapuramu District. ...Plaintiff

AND

Chandragiri Sreenivasulu, S/o Chandragiri Narayana, Hindu, aged 48 years, M/s Madan Constructions, Railway Constructions, R/o H.No.7/2, Surasinganapalli village, Gooty R.S. Post, Gooty Mandal,

Anantapuramu District . ...Defendant

This suit has came before me on this day i.e. 03.05.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit for recovery of Rs.85,967/- being the principal and interest due on a Promissory note dt:11.03.2014 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 11.03.2014 for his family necessities and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.50,000/- on the said date agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The defendant did not discharge the suit amount in spite of several demands made on the defendant by the plaintiff to repay the suit debt. The defendant is not entitled for the benefits of Act IV of 1938 and he is not entitled for the agricultural Indebtedness Relief Acts.

2

3. The defendant was called absent and set exparte for not filing his written statement.

4. The Plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1.

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

6.Now the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for?

2. What relief?

7.Point.No.1:- The plaintiff being P.W.1 stated that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from him on 11.03.2014 for his family necessities and executed Ex.A.1 suit promissory note in his favour and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a, and that the defendant is not choose to pay the suit promissory note debt, inspite of several oral demands made by him to repay the suit promissory debt. The defendant is not entitled for the benefits of farmers relief act.

8. The evidence of P.W.1 reveals that the defendant kept quite after several demands made by the plaintiff to repay the suit debt. The defendant was set exparte. If the defendant did not execute Ex.A.1 in favour of P.W.1 for consideration, nothing was prevented him to take legal action against the plaintiff, and nothing was prevented him to place the matter before the elders. The defendant not raised his little figure in this regard. No ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 as to the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant and existence of consideration. Therefore this court come to a conclusion that the defendant executed Ex.A1 for consideration in favour of

P.W.1.

9.The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with contents of Ex.A1 suit promissory note reveals that the defendant executed suit promissory note for

Rs.50,000/- and put his two signatures, one is on the revenue stamp and 3 another one is underneath of the revenue stamp. Therefore the plaintiff is squarely entitled for suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

10.Point No.2:-

Point No.1 is answered that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for. Hence the suit is liable to be decreed.

11.In the result, suit is decreed with costs for Rs.85,967/- (Rupees eighty five thousand nine hundred and sixty seven only), with future interest at 12% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.50,000/- from the date of the suit i.e. 10.03.2017 till the date of the decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 3rd day of May, 2017.

Sd/-D.Venkateswarlu Naik

Junior Civil Judge Gooty Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

P.W.1: V.Subba Raju -NIL-

Exhibits marked for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Ex.A.1: Suit Promissory note dt.11.03.2014 for Rs.50,000/- -NIL-

Sd/-DVN

Jr.C.J.