G.Bhanumathi

Page No.1 S.C.No. 18 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

Present:- Smt.G.Bhanumathi Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem. FAC. I Addl. Asst.Sessions Judge, Kothagudem.

Dated this the 7th day of October, 2024

S.C. NO. 18 OF 2022

1.Name of the complainant : The State through Circle Inspector of Police, Paloncha.

2.Name of the Accused: 1. Malluri Prasad @ Leela Prasad S/o Kothagudem, Age: 21 years.

2. Malluri Kotaiah S/o Ramalingam, Age: 42 years.

3. Malluri Ramana W/o Kotaiah, Age: 39 years. All R/o Manderakalapadu village, Paloncha Mandal.

3.Section of Law: Sections 306 r/w 34 IPC

4.Crime No. and P.S.: Cr.No.127/2019 P.S. Paloncha Rural

5.P.R.C.No.: 55 of 2021

6.Name of the Officer, who : Sri Battula Rama Rao, transferred the case Prl.Junior Civil Judge, FAC. II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Kothagudem.

7Prosecution conducted by: Smt. P.V.D.Laxmi,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

8.Defence conducted by : Sri A.Ravi Kumar, Advocates for Accused

9.Plea of the accused: Not guilty

10. Finding of the court: Found not guilty

Page No.2 S.C.No. 18 OF 2022

11. Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 30.09.2024 in the presence of Smt.P.V.D.Laxmi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri A.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over the consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.Accused No.1 to 3 are tried for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

i) On 19.10.2019 at 09:00 hours the complainant came to

P.S. and lodged a report stating that his daughter Malluri Kavitha marriage was solemnized with Malluri Prasad @ Leela Prasad s/o

Kotaiah r/o Manderakalapadu in the year 2018 and they blessed with one female baby, aged about 10 months. On 13.10.19 his son-in- law had been to Hyderabad to his relative house on personal work and did not return. Then, his daughter made a phone call to his son- in-law and asked him when he returns to Manderakalapadu. On that he informed he returns to home on 16.10.19 evening. But he did not

Page No.3 S.C.No. 18 OF 2022 return on 16.10.19. Again his daughter made a phone call to him, then he informed that he will return to Manderakalapadu after two days as his work was not completed and her husband informed that he did not turn to Manderakalapadu, his daughter who was a sensitive minded got umbrage and consumed some pesticide poison available in the house also offered the poison to her daughter

Manasa, aged about 10 months. Due to which, his grand-daughter weeping loudly, then one Kati Rajitha came there and noticed that both his daughter and baby have consumed pesticide poison and raised cries, on hearing the cries one Malluri Jampanna reached there and shifted both in his auto to Govt. Hospital, Paloncha for treatment; from there for better treatment shifted them to Mamatha

Hospital, Khammam. Due to his daughter Kavitha was serious, while shifting her to Hyderabad on the way she succumbed in the evening at about 16.00 hours. Later his daughter dead body was brought to

Paloncha Govt. Hospital for necessary action. Further he stated that there is no doubt in the death of his daughter and requested to cause enquiry and do necessary action.

(ii) On 19.10.19 at 0900 hours on receipt of the above petition, the LW-22 registered a case in Cr. No. 127/2019, U/Sec. 174

Cr. P.C. issued FIR, sent to all concerned and took up the investigation of the case. As the deceased was died within 7 years

Page No.4 S.C.No. 18 OF 2022 of marriage, sent a requisition to the LW-19/MEM, Paloncha for conduct of inquest on the deceased woman.

(iii) During the course of investigation, the LW-22 examined the complainant/LW-1 and recorded his detailed statement. Further visited the Govt. Hospital, Paloncha and found the dead body of the deceased was lying in mortuary room. On observation of dead body, there are no external injuries were found.

The LW-19/M.E.M. Paloncha visited the Mortuary at Hospital and held inquest over the deceased woman in the presence of LWs 12 to 14.

LW-22 examined the LWs 1 to 8 and examined and recorded their detail statements, got photographed the dead body through LW-7.

Later, given requisition to Medical Officer/LW-20 by the LW-19/M.E.M,

Paloncha to conduct PME over the body of the deceased. The

Medical Officer/LW-20 conducted PME over the dead body of D-1.

After Postmortem the dead body was handed over to complainant under proper acknowledgment for funeral rites.

(iv) Later, ASI/LW-22 visited the scene of offence i.e., the house of deceased situated in Manderakalapadu village. On minutely observation of scene noticed pesticide plastic tin NAGAT.

Secured the presence of two mediators LWs 17 and 18, drafted the crime detail form, also seized the said plastic pesticide tin under crime detail form. On 24.10.2019, the complainant/LW-1 made a

Page No.5 S.C.No. 18 OF 2022 phone call to LW-22 and informed that his grand-daughter Manasa, aged 10 months that was undergoing treatment at Mamatha at

M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, she was succumbed on 24.10.19 at 0600 hours. On receiving the information, LW-23 visited the M.G.M.

Hospital, Warangal and examined and recorded the statements of the LWs 1, 4 to 7 and got photographed the dead body through

LW-7, secured the presence of mediators LWs.15 and 16 and held inquest over the body of the deceased and filed requisition to the

Medical Officer, to conduct P.M.E. over the body of the deceased.

After PME the dead body handed over to the complainant under proper acknowledgment for funerals.

(v) While the complainant/LW-1 lodging petition at P.S. not mentioned the actually cause of her daughter's death, he did not know correct reason of her daughter's death. Recently complainant's relative one Mittapalli Vasantha informed to complainant that his daughter was tortured by her husband Malluri Prasad S/o Kotaiah and in-laws Malluri Kotaiah and Malluri Ramana. Due to said reason she vexed over her life and committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison and she with intent to kill her daughter (D2) swallowed the pesticide poison to D2 forcibly. On 03.01.2020 the complainant came to PS and given Statement on his daughter death issue.

Page No.6 S.C.No. 18 OF 2022

(vi) As per the statement of the complainant, the LW-24/SI altered the section of law as 302, 306 r/w 34 IPC from 174 Cr. PC and issued express memo and send to all the concerned officials and informed the facts to LW-25. On receiving the express memo from

LW-24, the LW-25 took up the investigation of the case and secured the LW-1 and LWs 9 to 11 and recorded their detail statements. The

LW-25 send the Viscera in respect of the deceased persons and D-2 which were preserved by Lws.20 & 21 to RFSL, Warangal for

Chemical Analysis and Report. The FSL authorities analyzed and issued FSL reports. In the report of D-1 Malluri Kavitha, the Forensic

Science Laboratory issued report that the item Nos. 1 to 3 are analyzed and Organochloro, a herbicide poison is found in all of them. In the report of D-2 Malluri Manasa, the Forensic Science

Laboratory issued report that the item Nos. 1 to 4 are analyzed and

Organochloro, a herbicide poison is found in items 1, 2 and 3 but not in item 4 which is Common salt received as sample preservative. On 11.01.2020 the LW-25 arrested A-1 and A-2 while A-3 was arrested on 23.06.2020 and produced before Hon'ble court for judicial remand.

(vii) The LW-20 Medical Officer, Community Health

Center, Paloncha who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased D-1 and issued PME report, basing on the FSL report, he

Page No.7 S.C.No. 18 OF 2022 opined that the cause of the death of the deceased due to "Organochloro, a herbicide poison". The LW-21 Assistant Professor,

Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, Kakatiya Medial College, Warangal who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased D-2 and issued PME report, basing on the FSL report, he opined that the cause of the death of the deceased "Organochloro a herbicide poisoning".

(viii) The investigation revealed that the complainant/

LW-1 is the father of the deceased, the LWs 2 to 4 are the mother, brother and sister of the deceased and LWs.5 & 6 are the relatives of the deceased woman. The deceased woman (D-1) marriage was solemnized with the A-1 in the year 2017 and in their married life leads to one female baby name by Manasa (D-2), aged about 10 months. Since the birth of the D-2, the A-1 to A-3 harassing the deceased D-1 that she given birth to female child and the A-1 harassed her wife/D1 that she was not beautiful. Accordingly, on 13.10.2019 the deceased's husband Prasad went to Hyderabad on personal work and did not return home. Due to the harassment made by her husband and in laws the deceased (1) vexed on her life and consumed some pesticide poison available in the house also forcibly consumed the pesticide poison to her daughter Manasa (D-2), aged about 10 months, then the baby Manasa weeping loudly,

Page No.8 S.C.No. 18 OF 2022 then the LW-4 reached there and noticed that both deceased D-1 and D-2 struggling with lives by consuming pesticide poison. LW-4 raised cries, on hearing the cries the LWs.5 and 6 reached there and they shifted both the D-1 and D-2 in the auto of LW-6 to Govt.

Hospital, Paloncha for treatment, from there they are shifted to

Khammam for better treatment, as the D-1 health was in critical they are proceeded to Hyderabad on 18.10.2019, in the middle of the journey the D-1 succumbed in the evening at about 16.00 hours.

Before the D-1 going to shift to Hyderabad, the LW-9 met with the

deceased woman (D-1) in which the deceased D-1 revealed that A-1 to A-3 are harassed her since the birth of her daughter (D-2) subjecting she got a female baby and she was not beautiful. Due to which, she vexed on her life and consumed pesticide to get rid her life and also consumed poison to her daughter (D-2). Later, on 24.10.2019 the D-2 also died while undergoing treatment at M.G.M.

Hospital, Warangal. The LWs 10 & 11 are the circumstantial witness corroborated the version of the LW-9. The deceased D-1 marriage was solemnized with the A-1 and in their married life leads to one female baby name by Manasa (D-2) aged about 10 months. Since the birth of the D-2, the A-1 to A-3 harassing the deceased D-1 that she given birth to female child and the A-1 harassed her wife/D1 that she was not beautiful. Due to the harassment made by A-1 to

Page No.9 S.C.No. 18 OF 2022

A-3, the deceased (D-1) vexed on her life and D-1 consumed pesticide poison and also forcibly consumed the pesticide poison to her daughter Manasa (D-2). Later they were shifted to Khammam for better treatment, on 18.10.2019 at 16.00 hours the D-1 was died and on 24.10.2019 the D-2 also died while undergoing treatment at

M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. In this case the D-1 killed her 10 months female child (D2) by forcibly swallowed the pesticide poison, subsequently D1 also committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison. As such, the section 302 IPC attracted to the D1. But the

D1 also died, the section 302 IPC was abated. Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to punish the accused for the offence liable for prosecution U/Sec 306 r/w 34 IPC.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under

Section 306 r/w 34 IPC by the III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kothagudem. After securing the presence of the accused, copies of documents furnished and after hearing the Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and the Learned counsel for the accused, the case was transferred to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions vide orders, dt.15.12.2021 in P.R.C.No.55/2021 by the III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem. The Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Khammam took the case on file against the Accused and registered it as Sessions Case No. 18/2022 and made over it to the Court of

Page No.10 S.C.No. 18 OF 2022

I Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem.

4.Charge for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC against the accused was framed, read over and explained to them. They denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P.6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

6.As there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the

Learned counsel for the accused.

8. The point that arises for consideration is as to: Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt?

9.P O I N T : PW.1 is the defacto-complainant, deposed in his evidence that at about 5 years back the marriage of his daughter was performed with A-1 in the year 2019. She committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison. She committed suicide with unbearable stomach pain. Police came and obtained his signatures on white papers.

Page No.11 S.C.No. 18 OF 2022

The police did not examine him and they did not record his statement. He did not lodge any complaint against the accused. The accused are no way concerned with the death of deceased. Ex.A-1 is his signature on complaint.

10.PW.2/P.Ramesh, deposed that about 4 years back one day the deceased Kavitha consumed pesticide poison due to unbearable stomach pain. She also got consumed poison by her daughter

Manasa. Both were died. The accused are no way responsible for the death of deceased persons. Police did not record his statement.

11.P.W.3/K.Padma, deposed that at about 5 years back the marriage of her daughter was performed with A-1. In the year 2019 she committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison. She committed suicide with unbearable stomach pain. The police did not examine him and they did not record his statement. The accused are no way concerned with the death of deceased.

12.P.W.4/K.Rajitha, deposed that at about 5 years back the marriage of deceased was performed with the accused No.1. In the year 2019, she committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison. She committed suicide with unbearable stomach pain. The police did not examine her and they did not record her statement. The accused are no way concerned with the death of the deceased.

13.P.W.5/M.Jampanna, deposed that at about 5 years back the marriage of deceased was performed with accused No.1. In the year

Page No.12 S.C.No. 18 OF 2022 2019, she committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison. She committed suicide with unbearable stomach pain. The police did not examine him and they did not record his statement. The accused are no way concerned with the death of deceased.

14.In this case, the main and material witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 5, were declared as hostile and though they were cross examined by the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, nothing was elicited from their cross examination. In the cross examination by the learned APP, PWs.1 to 5 denied to the suggestion that they stated

before the police as in Exs.P2 to P6 respectively. There is no

incriminating material is on record to connect the Accused with the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. Therefore, in view of the evidence of these witnesses,

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record against the accused and that the accused are entitled for clean acquittal. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. Accordingly, the point is answered.

15.In the result, A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail

Page No.13 S.C.No. 18 OF 2022 bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

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

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7 th day of October,

2024. BHANUMATHIDigitally signed by

BHANUMATHI GOLLAPUDI

GOLLAPUDIDate: 2024.10.09 11:33:42 +0530

FAC. I ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: - P.W.1: K.Kanakaiah P.W.2: P.Ramesh P.W.3: K.Padma P.W.4: K.Rajitha P.W.5: M.Jampanna

FOR DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on complaint. Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 Ex.P.5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 Ex.P.6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL- Digitally signed by

BHANUMATHIBHANUMATHI

GOLLAPUDI

GOLLAPUDI

Date: 2024.10.09

11:33:53 +0530

FAC. I ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

1

OS. 26 OF 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOTHAGUDEM

Present:- Smt.G.Bhanumathi,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem. FAC. I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

Dated this the 01st day of October, 2024.

O.S.No. 26 of 2019

Between:- Annam Rajeswari W/o Venkateswarlu, Age: 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.5-1-30, L.B.S. Nagar, Yellandu Town and Mandal, now residing at Jalagam Nagar, Khammam Town and District. .…Plaintiff AND

Chelimala Satyamma W/o Somaiah, Age: 53 years, Occ: General Mazdoor in S.C.Co., Ltd., Yellandu Area High School, R/o J.K.Colony, Yellandu Town, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. ….Defendant -o0o-

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 26.07.2024 in the presence of Sri Thummalapalli Prabhakar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri A.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for Defendant, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, and having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,63,266/- with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization.

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

The plaintiff and defendant are known persons and well acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff at her mother Suguna house, L.B.S.Nagar on 22-07-2016 at Yellandu and requested her for a loan amount of 2

OS. 26 OF 2019

Rs.3,50,000/- for her family necessities. On which, the plaintiff gave an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the defendant on the same day. After receiving the said consideration, the defendant executed a promissory note along with receipt in favour of plaintiff before the attestors and scribe, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 2% per month per hundred, either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand.

(ii) The plaintiff made many oral demands for repayment of the said amount but the defendant failed to repay the said amount and postponing the matter on one pretext or other for the best reasons known to her only and all the efforts made by the plaintiff were in vain.

Vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.22-11-2018 demanding to repay the borrowed amount along with interest thereon. Inspite of notice, the defendant neither give any reply nor payment. As such, there is no hope to the plaintiff to recover the suit claim from the defendant without the lawful help of the Hon’ble

Court. Hence, this suit.

3.The defendant entered his appearance through counsel and filed written statement. The main contentions of the defendant as per the written statement are as follows:

(i) The plaint averments are false, incorrect and baseless.

The above suit is not maintainable either at law or on facts or on the probabilities in the case and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. The provision under which the above suit filed by the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief much less as claimed by the plaintiff. The occupation of 3

OS. 26 OF 2019

the plaintiff is money lending business and with utter grudge the plaintiff has foisted the above suit with an ill-intention to grab the money of the defendant.

(ii) He denied that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 22-07-2016 at L.B.S.Nagar, Yellandu, for her family necessities and executed promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff with a promise to pay the said amount along with agreed interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. The alleged suit promissory note dt.22-07-2016 is not supported by any consideration and it is materially altered document and not enforceable under Section 83 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. The above said promissory note is a rank forged document, created for the purpose of wrongful gains. The plaintiff is a known illegal money lender without license with an ulterior motive, the above said promissory note was created. The plaintiff is an illegal money lender without license, the above said promissory note was not enforceable at law as per the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Money

Lenders Regulation for want of Village Officer signature. Furthermore, as per Section 9 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349

Fasli, the above suit is liable to be dismissed.

(iii) He denied that the plaintiff made any oral demand on any date much less as alleged by the plaintiff and that on 22-11-2018 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice and it was received by the defendant and the defendant neither gave reply not payment. When 4

OS. 26 OF 2019

the defendant is not liable to pay any amount, the question of giving reply or non payment does not arise. The plaintiff is not entitled to the alleged interest of Rs.2,13,266/- or any part thereof as the said interest is Usurious in nature and the same is not permissible under Usurious

Loans Act. The defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount of

Rs.5,63,266/- or any part thereof. He denied that the plaintiff has any cause of action at H.No.5-1-30, L.B.S. Nagar, Yellandu on 22-07-2016 or on 22-11-2018 or any date as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not entitled to the principal amount of Rs.3,50,000/- or any part thereof. The suit is devoid of merits or consideration and for wrongful gains the above suit is foisted. As per settled law, the above suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff is not entitled to relief claimed in the above suit. He prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs of

Rs.10,000/-.

4.Basing on the pleading the following issues are framed for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note dt.22-07-2016 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is materially altered document and it is rank forged document, created for the purpose of wrongful gain ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is known as illegal money lender without license ?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount of Rs.5,63,266/- only from the defendant as prayed for ?

5

OS. 26 OF 2019

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff,

PW.1/Annam Rajeswari, P.W.2/Muthaboina Ramesh, P.W.3/Vemuri

Victoria, examined. On behalf of plaintiff, Ex.A-1/Original promissory note along with receipt dt.22-07-2016, Ex.A-2/Office copy of Legal notice, dt.22-11-2018, Ex.A-3/Postal receipt dt.22-01-2018 are marked.

On behalf of defendant, D.W.1/Chelimala Satyamma, examined and no documentary evidence is adduced by the defendant.

6. Heard both parties. Perused the entire record.

7.ISSUE No.3:

Whether the plaintiff is known as illegal money lender without license ?

The main contentions of the defendant is that the plaintiff is known illegal money lender and he is not having any license and the suit is hit by Section 9 of A.P.Telangana Money Lending Act and accordingly the suit is liable to be dismissed. After gone through the entire evidence adduced by the defendant, it is observed that the defendant did not adduce any evidence

before the court to establish that the plaintiff has lent amounts to so many

persons for interests and he is doing illegal money lending business. The defendant did not examine any persons who has borrowed the amounts from the plaintiff. The defendant did not adduced substantiate evidence before the court that the plaintiff is doing the money lending business without any license. Accordingly from the above discussion this issue is answered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant.

6

OS. 26 OF 2019

8.ISSUE No. 1, 2 and 4:

1Whether the suit promissory note dated 22-07-2016 is true, valid and binding ?

2Whether suit promissory note is materally altered document and it is rank forged document created for purpose of wrongful gain ?

4Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount of Rs. 5,63,266/- only from the defendant as prayed by the plaintiff ?

9.All these issues are interlinked with each other, as such in order to avoid repetitions and for the sake of conveyance these three issues are discussed together to give common finding.

10.The main contentions of the plaintiff as per the chief examination and as per the pleadings is that the defendant is known to the plaintiff and having acquaintance and out of such acquaintance the defendant approached the plaintiff on 22-07-2016 at her mother house bearing No.5-1-30, LBS

Nagar, Yellendu and requested the plaintiff for a loan amount of Rs.

3,50,000/- to her request by considering her needs, the plaintiff gave an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- to her on the same day and immediately the defendant after receiving the said loan amount, the defendant executed a promissory note Ex.A1 with receipt in favor the plaintiff before the attestors and scribe agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ Rs. 2 % per month per hundred, either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. That the plaintiff has made many oral demands for the repayment of the said amount, but the defendant did not repay the said amount and postponing the matter on one pretext or other for the best reasons known to her only and all the efforts made by the plaintiff were in vain. vexed with her attitudes, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 22-11-2018 demanding to repay the 7

OS. 26 OF 2019

borrowed amount along with interest thereon and the said legal notice received by the defendant. Inspite of receipt of notice, the defendant neither gave any reply nor paid. As such there is no hope to the plaintiff to recover the suit amount from the defendant without the lawful help of the court.

Hence the plaintiff filed the suit.

11.The plaintiff in support of his contentions also examined PW.2 and 3. PW.2/Muthaboina Ramesh is one of the attestor of Ex. A1 promissory

Note. He deposed that he knows the both parties. The defendant is the

Singereni Employee and resident of Yellendu. The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 22-7-2016 for her family necessities, at plaintiff mother house bearing No. 5-1-30, LBS Nagar

Yellendhu town and mandal. The defendant received the loan amount of Rs.

3,50,000/- in his presence and also in the presence of one Veerbathula

Victoriya and Dharanikota Naveen Kumar, the defendant after receiving the borrowed loan amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- executed a promissory note and receipt, Ex. A1 scribed by Dharanikota Naveen Kumar on the request of the defendant. The defendant agreed to pay interest of Rs. 2/- per month per hundred to the plaintiff on her demand or on her order. That the defendant signed before him on the promissory and receipt. PW.2 and

PW.3/Veerbathula Victoriya signed as witnesses and scribed by Dharanikota

Naveen Kumar and signed and executed by the defendant. PW.3/Veerbathula

Victoriya also deposed in the same lines that of PW.2.

12.On the other hand, the defendant contended that she never borrowed the amounts and never executed the promissory note in favor of the plaintiff under Ex. A1 and the promissory note is rank forged document and it is fabricated for the purpose of wrongful gain. The suit promissory note 8

OS. 26 OF 2019

is materially altered and it is not valid and true document. The plaintiff is known illegal money lender without any license and the suit is hit by section 9 of A.P (Telangana Area) Money Lender Act. The plaintiff has not made any demands for repayment of promissory amount. The interest claimed by the plaintiff is not in accordance with the Usurious Loans Act. There is no cause of action for filing of the suit. The suit is not filed with in the limitation. The suit is time barred and it is liable to be dismissed.

13.PW.1 to 3 were cross examined by the learned defendant counsel with regard to the residence of the plaintiff. During the cross examination of PW.1, she stated she is the residence of the Khammam and her Aadhar card also at Khammam address. From the evidence it is established that the plaintiff got acquiatance with the defendant through her mother. It is admitted by DW.1 in her cross examination, the plaintiff got acquaintance through her mother and her mother is resident of Yellendu. The plaintiff is used to visit her mother house at Yellendhu. Hence, the contentions of the defendant that there is no territorial jurisdiction to this court to try the suit is not tenable why because the mother of plaintiff is resident of Yellndhu and there is a chance that the transaction may took place at Yellndhu. Mere the Adhar card of the plaintiff is at Khaammam, that does not mean that no transaction has taken place at Yellendhu. Ex. A1 also shows that it was executed at Yellendhu. The Court has come to conclusion that the transaction took place at Yellendhu at the residence of the mother of the plaintiff. The evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 also established the same.

14.The defendant contended that the plaintiff forged the signatures of the defendant and the suit promissory is not true and not valid on the defendant. but the defendant in order to prove his contentions did not 9

OS. 26 OF 2019

file any documentary evidence before the court, The defendant did not file any petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to refer the disputed signature on Ex.A1 for the comparison with the admitted signatures of the defendant to the expert for comparison and report. The defendant contended that there are material alterations on Ex. A1 but after careful examination and observation it is noticed that there are no material alterations on Ex. A1.

When the court compared the signatures of the defendant on Ex. A1 with the admitted signatures of Vakalat and written statement both signatures are look like similar. The plaintiff also examined PW.2 and 3 who deposed that the defendant borrowed the amounts from the defendant and executed Ex.

A1 promissory note. The defendant further contended that the interest claimed by the plaintiff is high and against Usurious Loans Act. the plaintiff is entitled the interest at the rate of Nationalized bank rate of interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the suit and till the date of decree and 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization of principal amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for the amount of

Rs. 5,63,266/- together with interest at the rate of @ 9% per annum from the date of the suit and till the date of decree and 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization of principal amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-.

15.ISSUE NO. 5:

To what relief ?

In view of my findings in issue No. 1 to 4 the suit deserves to be decreed with costs against the plaintiff for an amount of

Rs. 5,63,266/- together with interest at the rate of @ 9% per annum from the date of the suit and till the date of decree and 6% per annum 10

OS. 26 OF 2019

from the date of decree till the date of realization of principal amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-

Typed to my dictation to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1 st day of October, 2024 BHANUMATHIDigitally signed by

BHANUMATHI GOLLAPUDI

GOLLAPUDIDate: 2024.10.09 11:52:45 +0530

FAC. I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant: PW.1: Annam Rajeswari DW.1: Chelimala Satyamma

PW.2: Muthaboina Ramesh

PW.3: Vemuri Victoria

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1: Original Promissory note along with receipt, dt.22-07-2016. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dt.22-11-2018 Ex.A3: Postal receipt dt.22-11-2018 Digitally signed by BHANUMATHI For Defendant:- BHANUMATHI

GOLLAPUDI

GOLLAPUDI

-Nil-

Date: 2024.10.09

11:52:54 +0530

FAC. I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Page No.1 S.C.No. 88 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

Present: Smt.G.Bhanumathi Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem.

Dated this the 8th day of October, 2024.

SESSIONS CASE No. 88 OF 2023

1.Name of the complainant : The State through Inspector of Police, P.S., Aswapuram.

2.Name of the Accused: Tadikamalla Durga Prasad S/o Seetharamulu, Age: 23 years, R/o Aswapuram.

3.Section of Law: Sections 366, 294(b), 323 and 506 IPC.

4.Crime No. and P.S.: Cr.No. 153/2019 P.S. Aswapuram

5.P.R.C.No.: 7 of 2020

6.Name of the Officer, who : Sri M.Venkateswarlu, committed the case Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru 7Prosecution conducted by: Smt. Meraj Firdouse,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

8.Defence conducted by : Sri Sk.Mohammad Khasim, Advocate for Accused.

9.Plea of the accused: Not guilty

10. Finding of the court: Found not guilty

Page No.2 S.C.No. 88 of 2023

11. Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable u/Secs 366, 294(b), 323 and 506 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after appeal time.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 3.10.2024 in the presence of Smt.Meraj Firdouse, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Sk.Mohammad Khasim, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over the consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Accused is tried for the offences punishable under

Sections 366, 294(b), 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

i) On 30 10.2019 at 10:00 hours the defacto complainant

Kanathala Swapna came to Aswapuram Police station and lodged a

Telugu written petition, in which she stated that her marriage was held with one Kanathala Ashok at about (8) years ago and they blessed with a couple of children, her vicinity area person by name

Tadikamalla Durga Prasad used to follow her by saying that he is loving and on the noon time of 28.10.2019 at about 2:30 PM came to her and says that he is loving her and if failed to love him he

Page No.3 S.C.No. 88 of 2023

would kill her husband and children, then putting death fear he taken away her at Warangal along with her two children, after that her brother and husband traced her at Warangal Railway station, and she narrated the entire episode to them, and on 30.10.2019 at about 09:00 hours they came to Aswapuram along with Durga

Prasad and Durga Prasad fled away from their custody by beating her husband brother at TDP center, Aswapuram with hands and warned. So, she requested to take necessary action against the above person as per law.

(ii) On receipt of the above petition of the defacto complainant (LW-1) Kanathala Swapna, LW-7 registered a case in

Crime No. 153/2019 U/Sec 366, 294(b), 323, 506 IPC issued FIR and took up the investigation.

(iii) During the course of investigation, examined and recorded the statement of the LW-1, later visited the scene of offence which is situated at the house of LW-1 at Mallamma center,

Aswapuram, where secured the mediators LWs-5 & 6 and in their presence conducted the scene of offence panchanama, also noted the descriptive particulars of the scene of offence in the CDF, also examined and recorded the statements of the LWs-2 to LW-4.

Subsequently, LW-8 took up the investigation from the LW-7.

Page No.4 S.C.No. 88 of 2023

(iii) The investigation reveals that the defacto complainant (LW-1) Kanthala Swapna is victim and resident of

Mallamma center of Aswapuram, while the LW-2 is husband and

LW-3, brother of LW-1, whereas the accused is resident of same vicinity area person of the LW-1. The accused put an evil eye over the LW-1 by saying that he is loving and fulfill his sexual lust since last one year, but LW-1 denied the proposals of the accused, however the accused did not change his attitude, rather continued his insistence towards the LW-1. Further on the noon time of 28.10.2019 at about 2:30 hours went to the house of the LW-1 and saying that he is loving and fulfill his lust, then he forcibly taken away her along with both children to Warangal by putting death fear that he would kill her husband and her family members. After that while searching them, the LWs-2, 3 traced out the LW-1 and her children along with accused, then they brought the accused to

Aswapuram along with them, after getting down from the bus at TDP center the accused fled away from their clutches by beat the Lws-2 and 3 with hands by warned them. The LWS-2 to 4 are witnesses to this incident.

(iv) In this case the accused was absconding since commission of this offence. All the sincere efforts made so far to arrest him became futile and there is no clue to arrest him in the

Page No.5 S.C.No. 88 of 2023

near future. Hence the charge sheet against the accused was filed and also requested the Hon'ble Magistrate to issue warrant against him. Therefore it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to punish the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 366, 294(b), 323, 506 IPC. Hence the charge sheet.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under

Sections 366, 294(b), 323 and 506 IPC against the accused by the

Learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Manuguru. After securing the presence of the accused, copies of documents furnished and after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions vide orders, dated 30.08.2023 in P.R.C.No.7/2020, by the Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Manugur. The Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Bhadradri-Kothagudem, took the case on file against the accused and registered it as Sessions Case No.88/2023 and made over it to the Court of Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem.

4.Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 294(b), 323 and 506 IPC, framed against the accused, read over and explained to him. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor

Page No.6 S.C.No. 88 of 2023

given up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, he denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the

Learned counsel for the accused.

8. The point that arises for consideration is as to:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 294(b), 323 and 506 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

9.P O I N T :

P.W.1/K.Swapna, deposed that at about four years back, a dispute occurred between her and her in laws and she went to police station and police obtained her signatures on white papers. She did not lodge any complaint against the accused. No disputes between her and accused at any point of time. She does not know the facts of the case.

Police never examined her and they never recorded her statement at any point of time. Ex.P-1 is her signature on complaint.

10.P.W.2/K.Ashok, deposed that at about 4 years back, a dispute occurred between P.W.1 and his parernts and she went to police station and police obtained her signatures on white papers.

She did not lodge any complaint against the accused. No disputes between them and accused at any point of time. He do not know

Page No.7 S.C.No. 88 of 2023

the facts of the case. Police never examined him and they never recorded his statement at any point of time.

11.P.W.3/S.Raju, Inspector of Police, deposed that on 30-10-2019 at 10:00 hours P.W.1 came to police station and lodged Telugu written complaint before L.W.7/T.Mohan, Head Constable. Ex.P-4 is complaint.

Basing on Ex.P-4, L.W.7 registered a case in Cr.No.153/2019 under

Sections 366, 294(b), 323 and 506 IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P-5 is FIR. L.W.7 took up the file for investigation. He recorded the statement of P.W.1 at police station. He visited the scene of offence and there secured the presence of L.W.5/J.Naresh and L.W.6/N.Ramu and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn CDF. Ex.P-6 is CDF panchanama. He secured the presence of P.W.2, L.W.3/K.Venkatesh, L.W.4/P.Subhadra. He took up the file from L.W.7 for further investigation. As the accused absconded from the scene of offence and inspite of sincere efforts, no clue was found. Hence, charge sheet filed to issue NBW against the accused.

After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. P.Ws.1 and 2, L.Ws.3 and 4 stated to L.W.7 as mentioned in their

Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements.

13.In this case, except the evidence of PW.3, the main and material witnesses i.e., PWs.1 and 2, were declared as hostile and though they were cross examined by the Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, nothing was elicited from their cross-examination. Only basing on the investigating officer evidence without corroboration

Page No.8 S.C.No. 88 of 2023

with the independent witnesses, the accused cannot be convicted.

There is no incriminating material is on record to connect the accused with the offence punishable under Section 366, 294(b), 323 and 506 of IPC. Therefore, in view of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3,

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses. There is no evidence on record against the accused and that the accused is entitled for acquittal. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 294(b), 323 and 506 IPC.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable u/Secs 366, 294(b), 323 and 506 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8 th day of October, 2024. Digitally signed by

BHANUMATHIBHANUMATHI

GOLLAPUDI

GOLLAPUDI

Date: 2024.10.09

11:44:53 +0530

PRL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Page No.9 S.C.No. 88 of 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: - FOR DEFENCE: P.W.1: K.Swapna-- NIL -- P.W.2: K.Ashok P.W.3: B.Raju, Investigation Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on complaint. Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4: Complaint Ex.P-5: First Information Report. Ex.P-6: Crime Details Form panchanama.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Digitally signed by

-- NIL --BHANUMATHI

BHANUMATHI

GOLLAPUDI

GOLLAPUDI

Date: 2024.10.09

11:45:03 +0530

PRL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Pg.No.1 of 7O.S.No.148 of 2017, dt:25.08.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOTHAGUDEM

Dated this the 25th day of August, 2022.

Present: Smt. G.Bhanumathi,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem.

O.S.No. 148 of 2017

Between: Seelam Lakshmi, W/o.late Veeraiah, Age:45 Yrs, Occ:Housewife, R/o.Rajupeta village, Manugur Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ...…Plaintiff.

And

Mahankali Venkata Ramana, S/o.Seetha Ramulu, Age:45 Yrs, occ:Employee, r/o.H.No:1-25, Iravenid Post, Bhurgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

....Defendants.

This suit is coming before me for fnal hearing on 11.08.2022 in the presence of Sri S.V.Ramana Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri. M.Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the Defendant; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for Plaintiff; and the learned counsel for the Defendant ; having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit fled by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for recovery of Rs.4,80,000/- together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the suit, till the date of realisation.

2.The brief averments of plaint are as follows:

Pg.No.2 of 7O.S.No.148 of 2017, dt:25.08.2022

The Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the

Plaintiff towards his family expenses on 01.01.2015 and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff at Iravendi village, Burgampahad

Mandal with a promise to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% per annum. The Plaintiff made several oral demands and fnally on 01.05.2017, , but the plaintiff postponed the repayment of loan amount on one pretext or the other. As such, the Plaintiff fled the present suit for recovery of

principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 24% from 01.01.2015 to

01.07.2017 which amounts to 1,80,000/- and that the suit is fled for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,80,000/-. Hence, the suit.

4.Written statement was fled by the Defendant. The main contentions of the Defendant as per written statement are as follows:

5.The defendant never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff and no promissory note was executed in favour of plaintiff. The suit promissory note is forged and created document and it is not supported by any consideration. He never saw the face of the plaintiff and the alleged attestors and scribe are kith and kin of plaintiff and that there is no cause of action. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the suit. .

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.

Pg.No.3 of 7O.S.No.148 of 2017, dt:25.08.2022

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount?

3. To what relief?

7.During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.w.1 and he examined 2nd attestor of promissory note as P.w.2.

Ex.A.1-promissory note is marked. On behalf of the defendnat, he himself examined as D.w.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

8Heard both parties. Perused the entire record.

ISSUE NO.1:

Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

9.it is the case and evidence of Plaintiff as P.w.1 that the defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from her on 01.01.2015 and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note at Iravendi village, Burgampahad mandal and it was attested by M.Padmavathi and R.Naresh and scribed by one Rathna Kumar.

In order to prove her case, she fled Ex.A.1 promissory note and also examined R.Naresh as P.w.2 who is one of the attestor of Ex.A.1. It is the evidence of P.w.2 that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.01.2015 and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in his presence and he along with one M.Padmavathi attested the said promissory

Pg.No.4 of 7O.S.No.148 of 2017, dt:25.08.2022 note and One Rathna Kumar scribed it. Thus, P.w.2 supported the version of the plaintiff in all aspects. Ex.A.1 promissory note also refects that the defendnat borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.01.2015. Thus, the plaintiff proves his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence. Now, the onus shifts on to the Defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff.

10. It is the one of the contention of the defedant that the suit promissory note is forged and created document. In order to prove the same, the defendant has taken no steps by sending to the same to handwriting expert to compare the signature on Ex.A.1 with the admitted signatures of the Defendant. In cross-examination P.ws.1 and 2 denied the suggestion that there is a difference in between the signatures on Ex.A.1. In cross-examination D.W.1 admitted his signature on vakalath and written statement, but denied the signature on summon and Ex.A.1. On perusal of summon, it is observed that process server mentioned underneath his report as ‘person served’. Therefore, it is evident that summons were served on the defendant only and he himself put his signature on summons.

The defendant is admitting his signatures on vakalath and written statement. The signatures on vakalath, summons, written statements and

Ex.A.1 are appearing as one and the same even to the naked eye. Hence, the said contention is not proved before this Court.

Pg.No.5 of 7O.S.No.148 of 2017, dt:25.08.2022

The learned counsel for the defendant argued that suit transaction took place in agency area and this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

According to the case of the plaintiff and Ex.A.1 and as per the evidence of

P.w.1, Ex.A.1 transaction took place at the house of the defendant i.e

Iravendi village. The evidence of P.w.2 also shows that Ex.A.1 transaction took place at Iravendi village. The defendant contended that Iravendi village of Burgampahad mandal comes under agency area. In cross- examination P.w.1 pleaded ignorance as to whether Iravendi village comes within the agency area and this court has no jurisdiction over agency area.

P.w.1 further admitted that his house and the house of the defendant were situated in agency area. However, it is to be noted that the defendant in his written statement has not taken any such plea that the suit transaction comes under agency area. It is rule of evidence that the parties cannot travel beyond his pleadings without submitting proper and relevant evidence. The court cannot rely upon evidence that has not to produce with according to the pleadings. Even the said fact has also not framed as an issue. The defence that took by the defendant which is a technical issue and the same can be proved only by fling proper evidence. Mere admission made by the parties cannot be made a ground to dismiss the entire suit without producing supporting evidence. The defendant failed to produce any documentary proof to show that Iravendi comes under agency area. As

Pg.No.6 of 7O.S.No.148 of 2017, dt:25.08.2022 such from the above discussion, this issue is answered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant

ISSUE NO. 2:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount??

11. In view of the discussion held under Issue No.1, it is to be held that the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim. Accordingly, the Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

12.In so far as the rate of interest is concerned, keeping in view of the prevailing bank rate of interest and also the risk of the plaintiff to recover the suit amount, the interest can be granted @ 9% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest @ 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Issue No.3

13.In the above circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount of Rs.4,80,000- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of fling of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realisation. The

Issues No.3 is answered accordingly in favour of the Plaintiff.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs..4,80,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs eighty thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of fling of the

Pg.No.7 of 7O.S.No.148 of 2017, dt:25.08.2022 suit to till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realisation on principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and also costs of the suit.

Typed to my Dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of August, 2022.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KOTHAGUDEM.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

Witnesses Examined for

Plaintif: Defendant: P.w.1 : S.Lakshmi D.W.1:M.Venkata Ramana P.w.2 : R.Naresh

Exhibits marked for Plaintif: Defendant: Ex.A1: Promissory note dated 01.01.2015 -Nil-

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KOTHAGUDEM.

Pg.No.9 of 7O.S.No.148 of 2017, dt:25.08.2022

Pg.No.2HMOP NO.22/2022, dt:29.08.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM

Dated, this the 29th day of August, 2022

Present: Smt.G.Bhanumathi,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem, FAC-I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2022

Between: Seerla Akshya, W/o.Bhaskar, Age:21 Yrs, Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No:30-2-45, Prashanth Colony, Paloncha Mandal Bhadradri Kothagudem District. .…Petitioner.

And

Seerla Bhaskar, S/o.Late Venugopal, Age:24 Yrs, Occ:Private employee, R/o.Ramatalkies Area, Kothagudem Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ….Respondent.

This petition is coming before me for fnal hearing on 22.07.2022 in the presence of Sri.M.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent remained ex-parte; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

This petition is fled under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 with a prayer to grant decree for divorce in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent by dissolving the marriage that took place on 23.09.2019.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent and their marriage was performed on 23.09.2019 at Prasanth Nagar, Paloncha, Bhadradri

Pg.No.2HMOP NO.22/2022, dt:29.08.2022

Kothagudem District as per rites and customs prevailing in Hindu community. The marriage was consumatted and out of their wedlock they were not blessed with any issues. After the marriage, the respondent lived happily only for a period of two months and thereafter the petitioner started abusing the respondent in flthy language on petty matters and used to pickup quarrels on petty issues. The matter was placed before the elders, but the respondent did not heed the words of the elders. The petitioner bear all the harassment made by the respondent upto March, 2021 and as there is no change in the attitude of the respondent, the petitioner went to her parents house. Thus, the marriage between the parties was irretrievably broken down and there is no chance to live together under one roof. The residence of the respondent i.e., Cheruvupalem (lanka) village, NRP Agraharam Post, Undi

Mandal, West Godavari District as per caste customs prevailing in their community. At the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner has given Rs.5,00,000/- cash, 10 thulas gold and other household articles worth Rs.1,50,000/- along with one motor cycle to the respondent and his parents. The marriage was consummated and out of their wedlock they were not blessed with any issues. The family members of the respondent started harassing the petitioner for want of additional dowry.

The respondent harassed the petitioner to provide job of her father to him as the father of the petitioner is working at Singareni colleries company ltd. On 01.02.2014 the mother of the respondent beat the

Pg.No.2HMOP NO.22/2022, dt:29.08.2022 petitioner on her stomach with her leg due to which the petitioner received injury on her stomach and that the father of the petitioner took her to hospital and the doctor examined her and stated that the petitioner uterus was efected infection and to take rest few weeks. The harassment of the respondent and his parents was informed to the elders and they advised the respondent to lookafter the petitioner in well manner for which the respondent and his family members admitted their guilt and also undertaken a letter. As per advise of the elders, the petitioner and respondent shifted to Kothagudem at A Power House

Basthi, Kothagudem. The parents of the respondent used to visit them oftenly and abused the petitioner as barren lady. The parents of the petitioner took the petitioner to Dr.Basanthi Hospital, Kothagudem and she was examined and Doctor stated that the petitioner has perfect good health. The respondent was taken to Sri Sri Hospital, Hyderabad and

Doctors examined him and stated that he has no sperm count and he would not become father in future. After knowing the said fact also, the respondent harassed the petitioner as barren lady and beat her indiscriminately. Finally in the month of August 2020 the respondent left the association of the petitioner in the month of August, 2020 and did not join the petitioner till date. Hence, the petition.

3.Notice was served on the Respondent. The Respondent called absent and as there is no representation on behalf of the Respondent, the Respondent was set ex-parte.

Pg.No.2HMOP NO.22/2022, dt:29.08.2022

4.The Petitioner herself is examined as P.w.1 and exhibited Ex.P1

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the petition can be allowed granting decree of divorce as prayed for?

P O I N T :

7.The evidence of P.w.1 is that she is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent and that their marriage was solemnized on 23.09.2019 at Paloncha. Ex.P.1 is original wedding card. In view of the oral evidence of P.w.1 and Ex.P.1, the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act can be invoked.

8.As seen from the evidence of P.w.1, it is evident that the

Respondent used to harass her physically and mentally for silly reasons.

It is evident that even after panchayaths held before the elders, there is no change in the attitude of the respondent and she bear all the harassment of the respondent till March, 2021. P.w.1 deposed that as there is no change in the respondent, she went to her parents house. It is to be noted that Respondent did not choose to appear before the court to contest the petition to the reasons best known to him. As such, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. Therefore, the evidence of

P.w.1 remains un-challenged and it clearly shows that the Respondent subjected her to cruelty. Therefore, the petition can be allowed under

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Accordingly, point is answered.

Pg.No.2HMOP NO.22/2022, dt:29.08.2022

9.In the result, the petition is allowed in favour of the petitioner dissolving the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent that took place on 23.09.2019and awarding costs of the petition.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 29th day of August, 2022.

FAC-I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner : Respondent

P.w.1:S.Akshya -ex-parte-

Exhibits marked

Petitioner Respondent

Ex.P.1:Original wedding cardNIL

FAC-I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Pg.No.2HMOP NO.22/2022, dt:29.08.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM

Dated, this the 29th day of August, 2022

Present: Smt.G.Bhanumathi,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem, FAC-I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2022

Presented on :27.12.2021 Filed on :30.12.2021

Between: Seerla Akshya, W/o.Bhaskar, Age:21 Yrs, Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No:30-2-45, Prashanth Colony, Paloncha Mandal Bhadradri Kothagudem District. .…Petitioner.

And

Seerla Bhaskar, S/o.Late Venugopal, Age:24 Yrs, Occ:Private employee, R/o.Ramatalkies Area, Kothagudem Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ….Respondent. Claim for: This petition is fled under Section 13(1((ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, with a prayer to grant decree of divorce in favour of the petitioners by dissolving the marriage that took place on 23.09.2019.

Court fee: A fxed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Schedule II Article I (vii) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act.

Cause of action: The cause of action arose on 23.09.2019 when the marriage was performed between the parties, in the month of March, 2021 when the petitioner went to her parents house and it arose at Rama talkies area, Kothagudem town where the Petitioner and Respondent resided lastly which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

D E C R E E

This petition is coming before me for fnal hearing on 22.07.2022 in the presence of Sri.M.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the

Pg.No.2HMOP NO.22/2022, dt:29.08.2022

Petitioner and Respondent remained ex-parte; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner, having stood over for consideration till this day,this Court doth order and decree:

That the petition be and hereby is allowed with costs granting decree of divorce in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent and dissolving their marriage that took place on23.09.2019.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on this the 29th day of August, 2022.

FAC-I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

S.No.ParticularsPetitioner Respondent 1Stamps on petition 2Stamps of power2-00 3Stamps of process 4Stamps of petition--- 5Publication charges--- 6Stamps on documents--- 7Advocate fee--- 8Misc. & type charges------ ---

TOTAL

FAC-I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM