Sri G. Deena Babu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASARAOPET.

Present:- Sri.G.Deena Babu, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2020,

O.S. No.176 of 2017

Between:

Andhra Bank, Main Branch, Chilakaluripet Rep. by its Chief Manager ...Plaintif

AND

01. Chandra Rambabu, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 36 years,

02. Chandra Lakshmi Narayana, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 43 years, … Defendants

This suit has come before me on 16.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Pratap Kumar, Advocate for the plaintif and of

Sri Konda Samba Siva Rao, Advocate for defendants and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintif is a nationalized bank represented by its Branch

Manager filed present suit against defendants 1 and 2 seeking relief of passing preliminary decree for recovery of suit amount along with interest by way of sale of suit schedule property mortgaged with the bank. The case of plaintif is briefly narrated as under:

02.The plaintif being a nationalized bank having its branch at

Chilakaluripet represented by its Branch Manager is conducting banking business. While so, the first defendant approached the plaintif bank for sanction of loan towards agriculture loan. The said request of first defendant was accepted by the bank and sanctioned a sum of

Rs.1,40,000/- on 02.11.2010 and the same was availed by him and later the above said loan was rescheduled on 14.03.2016 for Rs.1,42,659/- with A/c. Bearing No.007730100040139 and due to heavy rains and Jal

Cyclone, the first defendant undertake to repay the same with interest at 11.75 % per annum at quarterly rests and agreed to repay the same for period of 5 yearly installments commencing from 30.06.2012. The first defendant also sanctioned an agricultural loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 14.03.2016 with bearing A/c.No.007713100074969 with interest at 13.25 2 % per annum at quarterly rests payable for a period of 5 yearly instalments. D2 stood as co-obligatant/guarantor to the loan obtained by first defendant. The first defendant also executed a demand promissory note and also deposited title deed bearing No.G227866. The first defendant executed registered simple mortgage deed dated 25.10.2010 in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the bank in respect of the said loans. D2 stood as co-obligant/guarantor to the loan availed by the 1st defendant by executing relevant documents, agreed to repay the same under agreement and they are liable to pay the suit amount jointly and severally. It is further submitted that the plaintif requested the defendants to repay the loan amount, but they failed to pay the loan amount with interest. Hence, the suit.

3.Soon after numbering the suit, summons were ordered to the defendants. The defendants appeared before this Court engaged counsel and filed vakalath through Mr. Konda Samba Siva Rao, Advocate,

Narasaraopet.

4.The defendants filed common written statement. The brief averments of written statement are as follows:

They denied the averments of the plaint inter alia submitted that:

01.The second defendant never acted as a guarantor;

02.The defendants did not execute any demand promissory notes or revival letters;

03.The plaintif bank is not entitled for compound rate of interest;

04.The debt of the first defendnat has been wiped out by the

Government of A.P., through the “Rythu Saadhikara Samstha”;

05.The said Rythu Saadhikara Samstha issued certificate “Eligible to wipe out Loan’ to the first defendant on 08.06.2016

06.As per the certificate a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been paid by the said “Rythu Saadhikara Samstha” to the credit of the first defendnat in the plaintif bank;

07.The plaintif wantonly did not show the amount and account extract filed into the Court is not correct; and

08.The plaintif bank without waiting for the disbursemernt of the loan amount, filed the suit for unlawful gain.

3

In one way the defendants admitted that first defendant obtained loan from the plaintif bank and other way he denied the claim of the plaintif. Finally the defendants requested the Court to dismiss the above suit with costs.

05.Upon consideration of pleadings submitted by both sides, following issues were framed.

01.Whether the plaintif bank is entitled for suit claim of

Rs.4,89,078/-?

02.Whether the plaintif is entitled for preliminary decree against the defendants ?

03.Whether the property is mortgaged or not ?

04.To what relief ?

06.In order to prove the suit claim, the plaintif bank examined its Manager as PW1 supported by marking documents as Exs.A1 to A15.

Ex.A1 is the copy of letter of sanction dated 03.11.2010, Ex.A2 is the copy of application form dated 03.11.2010, Ex.A3 is the copy of demand promissory note daed 03.11.2010, Ex.A4 is the copy of composite agreement dated 03.11.2010, Ex.A5 is the copy of registered mortgage deed dated 25.10.2010, Ex.A6 is the copy of request letter for rephasement/reschedulement of crop loan/pagee loan account dated 25.01.2011, Ex.A7 is the copy of letter of sanction dated 25.01.2011,

Ex.A8 is the copy of application form dated 25.01.2011, Ex.A9 is the copy of composite agreement dated 25.01.2011, Ex.A10 is the copy of letter of sanction dated 14.03.2016, Ex.A11 is the copy of application form dated 14.03.2016, Ex.A12 is the dcopy of demand promissory note

dated 14.03.2016, Ex.A13 is the copy of composite agreement dated

14.03.2016, Ex.A14 is the copy of account copy No.007730100040139 and Ex.A15 is the copy of account copy No.007713100074969. The first defendant filed his chief affidavit and no document is adduced on his behalf.

07.Heard arguments on both the sides. Perused the record.

08.ISSUE Nos.1 to 3:

The Branch Manager of Andhra Bank, Chilakaluripet who is the plaintif in the suit entered into the witness box and filed his sworn affidavit as per provisions of Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C with a request to 4 receive the same as his examination in chief. A plain reading of contents scribed in sworn affidavit filed by the Branch Manager of plaintif bank examined himself as PW1 appears to be reiteration of facts scribed in the plaint. According to PW1, he has been working as Branch Manager of plaintif bank at Chilakaluripet and that the first defendant approached their bank for sanction of loan towards agricultural loan and the said request was accepted by his bank duly sanctioning a loan of

Rs.1,40,000/- to first defendant on 02.11.2010 as agricultural term loan.

To substantiate his contention, loan sanction letters dated 03.11.2010, 25.01.2011 and 14.03.2016 exhibited as Exs.A1, A7 and A10 .

09.Further, according to PW1, the first defendant in the capacity of principal borrower and D2in the capacity of guarantor/surety having agreed to above said terms executed a deed of composite agreements under Exs.A4, A9 and A13, demand promissroy notes Exs.A3 and A12 in favour of their bank. Further, PW1 contended that soon after execution of composite agreements under Ex.A4, A9 and A13 and Ex.A5 the first defendant created equitable mortgage of his suit schedule property deposited title deed documents of plaint schedule property with their bank which are exhibited as Ex.A5.

10.Coming to the latter part of events, PW1 continued his testimony that the first defendant had failed to repay agreed loan installments to the bank in spite of repeated demands.

11.PW1 further added that eforts made by him duly demanding first defendant and D2 who stood as guarantor/surety for repayment of debt had failed. PW1 concluded his testimony that as all defendants had jointly and severally failed to discharge the debt due to the bank, present proceedings are initiated against them. PW1 relied upon

Exs.A14 to A15 showing details of loan account belonging to first defendant.

12.Exs.A1, A7 and A10 are the letters of sanction of term loan for issued by plaintif bank for agricultural loan to the first defendant.

Ex.A6 is the request letter of reschedule of crop loan contains the signatures of first defendant and guarantors. Exs.A2, A8 and A11 are 5 the application of first defendant to the plaintif bank contains details of his family members. Exs.A4, A9 and A13 are the composite agreements executed by the first defendant alone dated 03.11.2010, 25.01.2011 and 14.03.2016. Ex.A2, A8 and A11 are the application forms dated 03.11.2010, 25.01.2011 and 14.03.2016 contains the signatures of the first defendant and 2nd defendant. Exs.A3 and A12 are the promissory notes executed by 1st and 2nd defendants on 03.11.2010 and 14.03.2016.

Ex.A14 is the account copy of bearing A/c. No.007730100040139.

Ex.A15 is the account copy bearing A/c.No.007713100074969.

13. Next comes to the issue of depositing of title deed by first defendant to the efect that the first defendant had agreed to create simple mortgage of properties and depositing title deed documents in respect of plaint schedule property with the plaintif bank which is exhibited as Ex.A5. PW1 in his testimony contended that the first defendant had agreed for the simple mortgage of his properties and deposited title documents of suit schedule property with his bank. The above said contention of PW1 was disputed by the other side. Now, coming to the aspect of appreciating the version of PW1 that first defendant had agreed to create simple mortgage over his properties and deposited title deeds in respect of his immovable properties. The title deed denotes the ownership of agricultural land in an extent of Ac.3:34 cents in D. No.34/B1m D, No.45/C and D. No.6/3A, situated at

Pothavaram village, Chilakaluripet Mandal, standing on the name of first defendant said to be issued by RDO, Narasaraopet. The relevant title deed book in respect of the said land is marked as Ex.A5, showing ownership of first defendant in respect of the said land.

14.The first defendant himself filed his chief examination affidavit and examined as D.W.1 reiterating his written statement averments. In cross examination deposed that he has no landed property in S. No.34/B1 of Pothavaram village for an esxtent of Ac.1:50 cents and in S. No.45/C for an extent of Ac.1:00 and in S. No.6/3A for an extent of Ac.0:84 cents and he admitted that he obtained loan in the year 2010 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 03.11.2010 and not repaid the same loan as government announced loan waivement for the farmers. Similarly, PW1 relied upon Ex.A5 agricultural lands total in an 6 extent of Ac.3:34 cents of Pothavaram village of Chilakaluripet Mandal standing in the name of first defendant. The relevant title deed book shows that the property stands in the name of first defendant. The counsel for the plaintif filed a memo stating that during pendency of the suit 1st defendant paid an amount of Rs.36,000/- to his loan account bearing No.7713100074969, seeking deduct the said amount from claim of Rs.2,40,648/-, which comes to Rs.2,04,648/-.

15.According to PW1, as per composite agreements i.e, Ex.A4,

A9 and A13 executed by first defendant, the rate of interest was agreed to be charged at 11.75% p.a which was referred at clause No.4 (1), in case of default, 2% additional interest on the loan amount due to the bank to be charged. First defendant having agreed for above said terms imposed by plaintif bank, executed composite agreements under Ex.A4, 9 and A13 which are binding upon him. The resistance by first defendant in his written statement the rate of interest charged by plaintif bank is excessive and arbitrary holds no merit. It is settled law that in a suit of mortgage filed by a bank, Section 21A of Banking Regulation Act would govern and the issue of charging the rate of interest is not subject for adjudication by any court. Taking note of above referred facts coupled with reliance placed upon Exs.A4, A9 and A13 by PW1, this court comes to a conclusion that the rate of interest mentioned in the composite agreements marked as Ex.A4, A9 and A13 are binding upon both parties.

16.The first defendant had failed to discharge the said loan to plaintif bank as per terms reduced under Exs.A1, A7 and A10 and therefore, the plaintif bank is entitled for preliminary decree as prayed for. Hence, these issue are answered accordingly.

[14] The question whether the appellant could have issued notices to respondent No.1 under Section 13(2) and (4) and filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act without first initiating action against the borrower i.e., respondent No.2 for recovery of the outstanding dues is no longer res integra. In Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Damodar Prasad, 1969 1 SCR 620, this Court considered and answered in affirmative the question whether the bank is entitled to recover its dues from the surety and observed:

"It is the duty of the surety to pay the decretal amount. On such payment he will be subrogated to the rights of the creditor under Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act, and he may then 7 recover the amount from the principal. The very object of the guarantee is defeated if the creditor is asked to postpone his remedies against the surety. In the present case the creditor is banking company. A guarantee is a collateral security usually taken by a banker. The security will become useless if his rights against the surety can be so easily cut down."

In State Bank of India v. M/s. Indexport Registered and others, 1992 3 SCC 159, this Court held that the decree- holder bank can execute the decree against the guarantor without proceeding against the principal borrower and then proceeded to observe:

"The execution of the money decree is not made dependent on first applying for execution of the mortgage decree. The choice is left entirely with the decree-holder. The question arises whether a decree which is framed as a composite decree, as a matter of law, must be executed against the mortgage property first or can a money decree, which covers whole or part of decretal amount covering mortgage decree can be executed earlier. There is nothing in law which provides such a composite decree to be first executed only against the [principal debtor]." In Industrial Investment Bank of India Limited v. Biswanath Jhunjhunwala, 2009 9 SCC 478, this Court again held that the liability of the guarantor and principal debtor is co- extensive and not in alternative and the creditor/decree-holder has the right to proceed against either for recovery of dues or realization of the decretal amount.

17.ISSUE No.4:

In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif bank and against the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally for an amount of Rs.2,48,430/- + Rs.2,04,648/- = totaling to Rs.4,53,078/- (Rupees four lakh fifty three thousand and seventy eight only) along with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a., thereon from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of realization. Time for redemption is three (3) months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17th day of March, 2020.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1-Dasari Jai Krishna

For Defendants:

D.W.1-Chandra Rambabu.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1-Copy of letter of sanction dated 03.11.2010, Ex.A2-Copy of application form dated 03.11.2010, Ex.A3-Copy of demand promissory note daed 03.11.2010, Ex.A4-Copyof composite agreement dated 03.11.2010, Ex.A5-Copy of registered mortgage deed dated 25.10.2010, Ex.A6-Copy of request letter for rephasement/reschedulement of crop loan/pagee loan account dated 25.01.2011, Ex.A7-Copy of letter of sanction dated 25.01.2011, Ex.A8-Copy of application form dated 25.01.2011, Ex.A9-Copy of composite agreement dated 25.01.2011, Ex.A10-Copy of letter of sanction dated 14.03.2016, Ex.A11-Copy of application form dated 14.03.2016, Ex.A12-Copy of demand promissory note dated 14.03.2016, Ex.A13-Copy of composite agreement dated 14.03.2016, Ex.A14-Copy of account copy No.007730100040139, Ex.A15-Copy of account copy No.007713100074969.

For Defendants:- N I L -

ASCJ., NRT.,

// True Copy // 9

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASARAOPET.

Present:- Sri.G.Deena Babu, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2020,

O.S. No.176 of 2017

Between:

Andhra Bank, Main Branch, Chilakaluripet, rep., by its Chief Manager, Chilakaluripet town and DMC., ...Plaintif

AND

01. Chandra Rambabu, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 36 years,

02. Chandra Lakshmi Narayana, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 43 years, Both are R/o.Maddirala Village, Chilakaluripet Mandal and DMC., Guntur District. …Defendants

The plaintif is a nationalized bank represented by its Branch

Manager filed present suit against defendants 1 and 2 seeking relief of passing preliminary decree for recovery of suit amount along with interest by way of sale of suit schedule property mortgaged with the bank.

Plaint presented on:17.03.2017

Plaint filed on:07.04.2017

Cause of action for the suit arose on 02.11.2010 when the 1st defendant availed loan of Rs.1,40,000/- and on 25.01.2011 when the said loan was re-scheduled for Rs.1,42,659/- with interest at the rate of 1.75% at quarterly rests and on 14.03.2016 when the 1st defendant was also sanctioned another loan of Rs.3,00,000/- by the plaintif bank and executed a demand promissory note, composite agreements and requeswted for re-schedulement letter and on 25.10.2010 when the 1st defendant executed registered simple mortgage deed in respect of plaint schedule property and when the 2nd defendant stod as co-obligant/ guarantor to the loan of 1st defendant agreeing to pay jointly and severally with the 1st defendant and when the said loan accounts became NPA and where the suit schedule property is situated at Pothavaram village of Chilakaluripet Mandal, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Valuation of the suit is Rs.4,89,078/- (Rs.2,48,430/- + Rs.2,40,648/-), on which a Court fee of Rs.9,852/- (Rs.4,926/- + Rs.4,926/-) is herewith paid U/s.31 (1) of APCF & SV Act.

Jurisdictional value at Rs.4,89,078/- (Rs.2,48,430/- + Rs.2,40,648/-).

10

This suit has come before me on 16.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Pratap Kumar, Advocate for the plaintif and of

Sri Konda Samba Siva Rao, Advocate for defendants and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration, this

Court made doth order and preliminary decree as follows:

(i)that it is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintif on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated up to the filing of suit i.e 17.03.2017 is the sum of Rs.2,48,430/- + Rs.2,04,648/- = totaling to Rs.4,53,078/- towards principal and interest and a sum of Rs.26,466/- towards costs of the suit awarded to the plaintif making in all the sum of

Rs.4,79,544/-.

And it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows:- ii) that the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintif for an amount of Rs.2,48,430/- + Rs.2,04,648/- = totaling to

Rs.4,53,078/- (Rupees four lakh fifty three thousand and seventy eight only) along with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a., thereon from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of realization. Time for redemption is three (3) months.

3.That on such payment and no payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix or such amount as the court may adjudge in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under rule 11 of Order of the First schedule to the code of civil procedure, 1908 the plaintif shall bring into court all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned and all such documents shall be handed over to the defendant or to such person he appoints and the plaintif shall if so required re-convey or retransfer the said property free from the said mortgage and clear of free from all encumbrances created by the plaintif or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall, if so required deliver up to the defendant quiet and peaceable possession of the said property.

4.And it is further ordered and decreed that in default of payment as aforesaid the plaintif may apply to the court for a final decree for the sake of the mortgaged property and no such application being made the mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof shall be directed to be sold and for the purpose of such sale, the plaintif shall produce before the court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

11

5.And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into court and shall be duly applied for (after deduction the reform of the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintif under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintif in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under rule 11 of order XXXIV of the First schedule to the code of civil procedure, 1908 and that the balance, if any, shall be paid to the defendant or other person entitled to receive the same.

6.And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintif as aforesaid, the plaintif shall be at liberty (where such remedy is open to him under the terms of the mortgage and is not barred by law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance and that the parties ate at liberty to apply to the court from time to time as they may have occasion and on such application or otherwise the court may give such directions as it thinks fit.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 17th day of March, 2020.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

Table of Costs

For Plaintif For Defendants

Vakalath:50-00“CM & FC not filed”

Process fees:80-00

Plaint fees: 7,476-00

Pleaders fees: 18,750-00

Writing charges:10-00

Typing charges: 100-00

-------------------------------

Total : 26,466-00 - N I L - –----------------–--------------- NB:-Copy of plaint schedule hereto attached.

ASCJ., NRT.,

1

In the Court of the Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge: Narasaraopet,

Present:-Sri G. Deena Babu, Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet,

Thursday, this the 19th day of March, 2020,

Sessions Case No.522 of 2017

(PRC No.14 of 2017 in Cr. No.157 of 2017 on the file of I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Narasaraopet)

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet II Town PS.,

...Complainant

And

Boddu Suresh, S/o.Lakshmi Narayana, 28 years, ...Accused

This case is coming on 16.03.2020 before me for arguments in the presence of Sri P. Anjaneyuolu Chowdary, Learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P. Chakara Pani, Advocatefor the accused, upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of police, Narasaraopet II Town P.S., laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.157 of 2017 for the offences punishable U/s.498-A and 306 of IPC.

02.The brief averments of charge sheet are that the love marriage of the deceaswed Jaya Sri @ Bujji was performed with the accused in the year 2009. The accused looked after his wife Jaya Sri @

Bujji for a period of one year. Thereafter the accused addicted to bad vices, started harassment and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty and used to abuse the deceased in filthy manner and used to beat her in drunken state by shouting as “NEE VU CHANIPOTE NAA

DARIDRAM POTHNDI. NEEVALLA NAAKU DARIDRAM PATTUKUNDI”.

03.On 30.08.2017 at about 8:30 p.m., the accused quarreled with his wife deceased-Jaya Sri @ Bujji in drunken state and beat her.

The neighbours pacified the issue, the accused went out of the house.

After some time L.W.5-Kovuri Rama Devi went to the house of the deceased and peeped intothe house through the window and noticed the deceased hanging to the ceiling fan with chunny. She raised alarm, the 2 accused and some other neighbours using force opened the doors, removed the deceased and laydown the dead body on the cot.

04.On 31.08.2017 L.W.1-Mandula Yesu Babu @ Pedda Babu gave complaint to the police, basing on which L.W.16-Ch. Lokanadham,

S.I., of Police, Narasaraopet II Town PS., registered the same as a case in

Cr. No.157 of 2017 U/s.174 Cr.P.C., investigated the matter, visited the scene of offence along with mediators, drafted scene observation report seized chunny two pieces under cover of observation report attested by the mediators and photographed the scene of offence and also prepared rough sketch, held inquest over the dead bofy of the deceased-Jaya Sri @ Bujji at mortuary room in the presence of mediators, sent the dead body for postmortem examination, where L.W.15-Dr. B. Sudheer

Chandra, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Narasaraopet contuded

PM examination and preserved material objects for chemical analysis.

05.According to the evidence of witnesses, the accused subjected his wife deceased-Jaya Sri @ Bujji to mental and physical cruelty and also instigated her to die, L.W.16-Ch. Lokanadham, S.I., of

Police, Narasaraopet II Town PS., altered the section of law from s/ec.174

Cr.P.C., to Sec.498-A, 306 IPC, investigated the matter, apprehended the accused on 03.09.2017 and sent him to Court for judicial remand and forwarded the material objects to RFSL, for chemical analysis. After receipt of RFSL report, L.W.15-Dr. B. Sudheer Chandra, Medical Officer,

Government Hospital, Narasaraopet issued postmortem certificate and opined tht the deceased-Jaya Sri @ Bujji died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. After completion of investigation L.W.16-S.I., of Police,

Narasaraopet II Town PS., filed charge sheet against the accused.

06.The learned I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Narasaraopet took the case into cognizance as PRC No.14 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC against the accused. Copies of the documents were furnished to the accused under

Sec.207 Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Court of Sessions against the accused.

07.The Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Guntur was pleased to send the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

3

08.The accused was examined U/s.228 (2) Cr.P.C and framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs.498-

A, 306 of IPC is read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty, denied the same and claimed to be tried.

09.On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 are examined and

Exs.P1 to P11 and M.O.1-Chunny is marked. The remaining list of witness No.4-Kathari Prema Kumar, No.7-Borugadda Devaraju, No.8-

Polabhina Mohana Rao, No.13-Kasimalla Abraham and No.14-Yanamala

Jayamma are given up by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutir. On behalf of the defence no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

10.After completion of prosecution side evidence, since there is incriminating material in the evidence the accused was examined 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., read over and explained in Telugu, for which he denied the same reported no evidence on his behalf.

11.Heard on both the sides. Perused the record.

12.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/s.498-A, 306 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-----Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.-----For the purpose of this section “cruelty” means---

(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing here or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

4

Essential ingredients:-beating and harassment

1)with a view to force the wife to commit suicide;

2)or to fulfill the illegal demand of dowry or husband or in- laws.

Abetment of suicide.---If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

State of Haryana v. Suresh kumar,

1993 Cr.L.J. 1400 (P&H) (D.B.)

The conduct of the accused must be such as had driven the deceased to commit suicide.

14.POINT:

In order to prove the case of prosecution, the defacto complainant/brother of deceased was examined as P.W.1, deceased mother and elder sister was examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed in one version that the deceased-Jayasri @ Bujji love marriage was performed with the accused-Boddu Suresh in the year 2009 and they lived two months at Vijayawada, thereafter they shifted to Sathulur for two years and from there shifted to Narasaraopet and they lived together happily for one year. The accused addicted to baed vices, got illicit intimacy with woman, harassing the deceased Bujji for money and used to abuse her and beat her. P.W.3 informed P.W.1 that Jayasri used to inform her about the harassment of accused and Jayasri gave birth to two children and the accused failed to give proper feeding due to which the said children died.

15.On 30.08.2017 at abotu 11:00 p.m., P.W.3 informed P.W.1 through phone that Jayasri died by hanging. On 31.08.2017, himself,

P.W.2 and other family members went to the hosue of the deceased

Jayasri where the accused and Jayasri are resided, found the dead body of the deceased Jayasri on the cot in the bed room, found a black mark on the neck of the deceased Jayasri and skin also disturbed at the neck and he enquired neighbour P.W.5, she told him that on 30.08.2017 at about 9:00 p.m., accused beating Jayasri, she intervened and adjusted the matter and left the place, Ramadevi went to the house of deceased

Jayasri, found hanging and accusded was present at the house.

5

16.P.W.4 who is neighbour deposed that the deceased-Bujji was given in marriage to the accused about nine years back and lived happily for two years, thereafter the accused addicted to bad vices, used to harass the deceased Bujji for money and on the intimation of P.W.3, he infomed the same to L.W.13-K. Abraham, who in turn along with his wife went to the house of deceased-Bujji to take the deceased Bujji to their home and the deceased Bujji refused and informed them that the accused have not provided food to her for the last three days. One day he asked the accused ‘how is Jayasri’ and the accused abused his wife deceased Bujji as ‘Dee nemani denga’ pomante povatladu’ and after three days he came to know that Jayasri committed suicide by hanging, he went to the house of the accused, found deceased dead body lying on the cot, found there is a black mark on the neck of the deceased he came to know due to harassment of the accused, the deceased-Jayasri committed suicide.

17.P.W.5 who is material/crucial witnesse in this case deposed that she know the accused and deceased are residing in the house of

Ramaiah for two years and on the date of incident, she went to her parents house situated in the same locality. On the next day morning she noticed that Bujji died, she came to know that the died by hanging and she does not know the reason for hanging and does not know anything about this case. She turned hostile.

18.P.W.6 deposed that when ever he went to the house of the accused, the accused were in drunken state and notice that the accused used to beat his wife-deceased-Jayasri and once the accused informed him that he has disputes with his wife deceased and about two years back the wife of the accused died by hanging and he went to the hospital, found the dead boy of the deceased and he opined as per his knowledge, the accused is the responsible for the death of deceased-

Jayasri.

19.P.W.7 deposed that whenever he went to the house of the accused, noticed that the accused and his wife disputing and whenever the accused is in a drunken state, used to say, if the wife of the accused died ‘daridram potundi’ and about two years back the wife of the accused died by hanging, he went to the house of the accused, found 6 the dead body of the wife of the accused, a scar mark on her neck and he opined as per his knowledge, the accused is the responsible for the death of the deceased-Jayasri @ Bujji, who is wife of the accused.

20.P.W.8 deposed that he knows the accused and his wife

Jayasri. Jayasri died about two years back by hanging. On 31.08.2017 at about 11:00 a.m., himself, L.W.13-K. Abraham went to the scene of offence i.e., house of the deceased, seized MOs.1 and 2-two pieces of chunni and singned on the scene obsertation report and police scribed

Ex.P3-scene observation report, shifted the dead body of the deceased to Government Hospital, Narasaraopet for inquest and at about 12:30 noon police conducted inquest over the dead body, himself, L.W.13-K.

Abraham and L.W.14-Y. Jayamma were present, himself, signed on Ex.P4- inquest report and the reason for the death is that the accused addicted to bad vices and used to beat his wife, due to disputes she committed suicide. P.Ws.6 and 7 in their evidence they stated they witnessed that acused harassed the deceased Padma when they visited the house of the accused. But no previous complaints regarding the harassment of the accused towards deceased. No previous incidents, complaints and

FIR., against accused.

21.P.W.9-Dr. B,. Sudheer Chandra, the then Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Area Hospital, Narasaraopet deposed that on 31.08.2017 at about 2:45 p.m., on the requisition of S.I., of Police, Narasaraopet II Town

PS., he conducted postmortem examination and examined external and internal, preserved hyoid bone, viscera sent to RFSL for analysisl and he issued Ex.P7-final report, basing on Ex.P5 postmortem examination report, Ex.P6 FSL report and opined that the deceased died due to

Asphixia as a result of hanging.

22.P.W.10-Ch. Lokanadham, the then S.I., of Police,

Narasaraopet II Town PS., deposed that on 31.08.2017 at about 11:00 a.m., P.W.1 presented a written report basinfg on which he registered the same as a case in Cr. No.157 of 2017 U/s.174 of Cr.P.C., issued Ex.P8- original FIR., secured the mediators, proceeded to scene of offence, prepared the scene observation report and Ex.P9-rough skech, examined

P.Ws.1 to 3, L.W.4-Kathari Prema Kumar, recorded their statements, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, seized MO.1-two 7 pieces of chunni, taken Ex.P11-photographs, shifted the dead body to

Government Hospital, Narasaraopet, visited the scene of offence, examined P.W.5, basing on the statements of the witnesses, he altered the section of law from Sec.174 Cr.P.C., to Sec.306 IPC., Ex.P10-section of alteration memo and on 03.09.2017 he arrested the accused at Kota

Center, Narasaraopet. On 06.09.2017 he examined the witnesses, recorded their statements and after receipt of postmortem report, he filed charge sheet.

23.As per the version of the prosecution in the yer 2009 the marriae performed between the accused and the deceased. The deceased died on 30.08.2017 which is beyond seven years. Now the burden is on the prosecution to prove and establish the case against the accused.

24.As per the version of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the close relatives. P.W.1 is brother, P.W.2 is mother and P.W.3 is the sister of the deceased. In the present case, P.W.5 is the material witness, she visited the house of the deceased at first instance. At the time of

Sec.313 Cr.P.C., examination the accused submits that “on the day of incident galata took place between himself and his wife, because she has not get menstrual period date, treatment has been taken from Lakshmi Hospital, Guntur road, Narasaraopet for children, on the date of incident his wife informed she is menstrual period date, for that he asked her why carrying water bucket and restricted her not to carry any weighing work, on that aspect galata took palce, then surrounding neighbours Radhamma, Rama

Devi and Jayamma rushed there, pacified the matter, brought him to out side the house, he sat at the out side of the house.

Thereafter fifteen minutes Rama Devi came and saw from the window told that Bujji herself hanged, suddenly he broke upon the door went there cut the chunny with knife took her down, carry her to Dr. Marri Peddaiah hospital, where they said Bujji died, then on the advise of some others took the dead body to the

Government Hospital, Narasaraopet, where also said she died, thereafter he informed the said incident to Pushpa.” 8

25.P.W.5 is material witness to the incident, she did not support the version of the prosecution and turned hostile. On perusal of her evidence, she categorically stated that she went to her parents house, situated in the same locality. On the next day morning, she came to her house and noticed about the death of Bujji and she came to know that she died by hanging. Except, the version of the accused there is no evidence available on the record and all the eye witnesses turned hostile.

26.P.Ws.1 to 3 categorically stated that due to harassment of the accused, the deceased Bujji committed suicide by hanging, but in their cross examination they admitted that there is no visiting relationship between them. The defence of the accused is that the deceased died due to her health problem and also not having children.

But in the evidence of P.W.3 the deceased gave birth to two children and accused failed to give proper feeding due to which they died. But nobody supported the version of P.W.3. P.W.2 deposed that Bujji gave birth to one female child after five, six months she died due to starvation. As per the evidence of other witnesses the deceased have no children.

27.On perusal of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, their evidence is hearsay evidence. P.Ws.6 and 7 are the colleagues of the accused, in their evidence they stated that the accused used to harass and he used to beat her while he is in drunken state. The version of the prosecution is different from the evidence given by the mateiral witnesses.

28.The medical officer is examined as P.W.9, in his evidence it is surprising that the hyoid bone is intact and he further deposed that in

Ex.P5, he opined that the deceased died due to asphixia as a result of hanging.

29.P.W.10 is the only investigatint officer, basing on the report, he registered the case and conducted investigation, secured the mediators, recorded their statements, visited trhe scene of offence, prepared scene observation report, rough sketch, conducted the inquest over the dead body, seized material objects, taken photographs, sent the dead body to the postmortem examination, altered the section of law,arrested the accused and after receipt of postmortem report filed charge sheet. Nothing was elicited in his cross examination.

9

State of Haryana v. Suresh Kumar

1993 Cr.L.J. 1400 (P&H) (DB).

"The conduct of the accused must be such as had driven the deceased to commit suicide".

Padmabai v. State of M.P.,

1987 Crl.L.J. 1573 (MP).

"It is of the essence of the crime order of abetment of suicide that the abettor should be proved to have substantially assisted in the commission of the offence of suicide. Instigation, incitement, provocation, encouragement, insinuation and solicitation which words cnonnote different meanings, are, no doubt, some of the acts, which may constitute as 'abetment' for commission of suicide. But all such acts or any of them have to be positive and potent in the nature, of such a degree, that the direct result of such acts may be none other, but the commission of suicide."

Tej Singh v. State of M.P., 1985 Cr.L.J. 202

Mahaveer Singh v. State of M.P., 1987 MPLJ 403

State of M.P., v. Matadden, 1997 CrLJ 2045 (MP).

"Merely because there was some quarrel between the accused and the deceased."

Basant Kumar v. State of M.P.,

1991 Jab LJ 175

Misbehaviour on the part of the husband cannot be equated with abetment."

Gajanansingh v. State of Maharashtra

1996 Cr.L.J. 2921 (Bom).

Where the evidence did not show that the accused ill-treated the deceased or that the deceased died because of self- immolation, the accused could not be held guilty for offences under section 306 or 498-A.

30.In view of the foregoing discussion, decisions of various

Hon'ble High Courts, though the prosecution filed a case against accused

under Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC but prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the said sections. There is no single word against the accused to prove the case against them.

10

31.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A, 306 IPC and thereby he is acquitted of the same under Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C., The jail authorities are directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

The MO.1 and unmarked non valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- G. Deena Babu,

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:For Defence:

P.W.1-Mandula Yesu Babu @ Pedda Babu,- N O N E - P.W.2-Mandula Agnesamma, P.W.3-Mandula Pushpa, P.W.4-Borugadda Pawlyesu, P.W.5-Kovuri Ramadevi, P.W.6-B. Venkatachari, P.W.7-Y. Venkata Kotaiah, P.W.8-M. Ankaiah, P.W.9-Dr. B. Sudheer Chandra, P.W.10-Ch. Lokanadham.

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P1-Complaint given by P.W.1, Ex.P2-Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.5, - N I L - Ex.P3-Scene observation report, Ex.P4-Inquest report, Ex.P5-Postmortem report, Ex.P6-FSL report, Ex.P7-Final report, Ex.P8-Original FIR in Cr. No.157 of 2017, Ex.P9-Rough sketch, Ex.P10-Alteration memo, Ex.P11-Photographs.

M.Os., Marked MO.1-Two pieces of chunny,

ILD/- G D B.,

AASJ., NRT.,

11

Copies submitted to:

01. The Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad, through the Hon'ble District Judge, Guntur in C.D.,

02. The Hon'ble District Judge, Guntur.

Copies to:

03. The I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet,

04. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Narasaraopet,

05. The Director of Prosecutions, D. No.24-19-12/A, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

// True Copy //

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.

12

Calendar and Judgment

In the Court of the Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge: Narasaraopet,

1) Number of Sessions Case: S.C. No.522 of 2017

2) Name of the complainant and: State: Sub Inspector of Police, it’s Cr. No. Nadendla P.S. Cr. No.23 of 18

3) Name of Committal Officer and PRC : Sri T. Vasu Devan, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chilakaluripet, PRC No.11 of 2018.

4) Description of the accused:

1. Bathula Naga Rathnam, W/o.Venkateswarlu, 50 years,

2. Pallapu Lakshmi, W/o.Ankamma Rao, 25 years, Both are R/o.Gorijavolu village, Nadendla Mandal.

05. Date of committal:26.09.2018

06. Date of receipt of record:02.11.2018

07. Date of appearance of accused :17.12.2018

08. Date of commencement of trial :20.06.2019

09. Date of closure of trial :09.07.2019

10. Date of Judgment :25.07.2019

11. Nature of offences:U/s.498-A, 306 of IPC.,

12. Plea of accused: Accused pleaded not guilty for the charges U/s.498-A, 306 of IPC., are levelled against them.

13. Finding of the Court:Accused are found not guilty for the above said charges levelled against them.

14. Sentence or order:In the result, the Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offences U/s.498-A, 306 of IPC., and thereby they are acquitted U/s.235 (1) of Cr.P.C., The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months U/s.436 of Cr.P.C., The unmarked, non valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

15. Explanation for the delay : No delay.

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE ::NARASARAOPET

PRESENT: Sri G.Deena Babu, B.Com., LL.M., Addl. Asst., Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. FAC Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.

Thursday, this the 12th day of April, 2018

SESSIONS CASE NO. 422 / 2017

Between:- State: Sub- Inspector of Police ,

Narasaraopet Rural, P.S ...Complainant.

(Cr.No. 56 / 2015)

AND

1. Shaik Podili Kaja Moula s/o. Moulali, 26 yrs.,

2. Shaik Podili Bada Vali s/o Moulali, 35 yrs.,

3. Shaik Podili China Vali s/o.Moulali, 30 yrs.,

4. Shaik Podili Moulali s/o.China Hussain, 60 yrs.,

5. Shaik Podili Kaja s/o.Vali, 40 yrs.,

6. Shaik Podili Reecha w/o. Moulali, 55 yrs.,

7. Shaik Bademayya w/o. Vali, 35 yrs.,

All are Muslim community, r/o. China Turakapalem village of Narasaraopet

Mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming on 11-04-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri G. Alexander Sudhakar, Advocate for Accused and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter, till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural,P.S has filed the charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 7 in Crime No. 56/2015 for the offence punishable U/s.307 r/w 34 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the charge sheet are that , keeping the previous family disputes in the mind, on 29-3-2015 at about 6 a.m., A1 to A7 went to L.w.1 Shaik Mabu Subhani and attacked him and beat him indiscriminately. Then, A1 obtained one knife and tried to cut the throat of L.w.1 Shaik Mabu Subhani by stating that “Chavara Naa Kodaka”. Meanwhile L.w.2

Shaik Mohatha Hussain patenaluncle of L.w.1 Shaik Mabu Subhani tried to rescue him, as a result both of them received bleeding injuries. Later the neighbours shifted both the injured to

Government Hospital, Narasaraopet. Later on receipt of hospital intimation, Head Constable visited the Government Hospital recorded the statement of L.w.1 Shaik Mabu Subhani and registered the same as case in Cr.No. 56/15u/s.307 r/w 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, L.w.15 SI MD Nisar Basha, visited the scene of offence , examined the witnesses and seized the knife from the scene of offence and arrested the Accused.

After completion of the investigation , he filed the charge sheet.

3.The learned I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet took the case into cognizance as PRC No. 13 / 2015 for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 r/w 34 IPC against all the Accused. Copies of the documents were furnished to the accused under Sec.207

Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Court of Sessions against the accused.

4.The Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Guntur was pleased to made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

5.The accused examined U/s 228(2) Cr.P.C and the charge framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 r/w 34 IPC was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were marked.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, examination of the Accused u/s.313 CrPC is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8.Heard.

9. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 7 for the offence U/s.307 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”

10. P O I N T :-

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

P.w.1 who is Defacto Complainant -cum-Injured. He categorically stated that he has no disputes with the Accused. He do not know anything about this case and he did not gave any report to the police. Once he fell on the ground from the motor cycle, then he received injuries. Ex.P.1 is his signature on the report. The learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor cross examined him at length, but nothing was elicited except marking their 161 CrPC statement as Ex.P.2.

11. The prosecution has examined another injured as P.w.2. He categorically stated that he has no disputes with the Accused. He do not know anything about this case. Once, he fell on the ground from the motor cycle and received injuries. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor cross examined him at length, but nothing was elicited except marking their 161 CrPC statement as Ex.P.3.

12. On perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, there is no evidence available on record that the Accused No.1 to 7 attempted to commit murder against P.ws.1 and 2. On the other hand , the injured categorically deposed that they received injuries in a motor cycle accident. There is no evidence to connect the

Accused No.1 to 7 with the charge levelled against them. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution failed to connect the Accused No.1 to 7 with the offence . Therefore, it is to be held that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 7 beyond reasonable doubt and that the Accused No.1 to 7 are to be acquitted.

13. In the result, Accused No.1 to 7 found not guilty for the offence u/s. 307 r/w 34

IPC and they are acquitted u/s.232 CrPC. The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to 7 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated u/s.428 CrPC. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr-II corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 12th day of April, 2018.

Sd/-G.Deena Babu

FAC PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : None. P.w.1 : Sk. Mabu Subhani. P.w.2 : Sk. Mohata Hussain.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1 Signature of P.w.1 on report. Ex.P.2 161 CrPC Statement of P.w.1. Ex.P.3 161 CrPC statement of P.w.2.

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL.

Sd/-G.Deena Babu

FAC P.A.S.J, NRT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE ::NARASARAOPET

PRESENT: Sri G.Deena Babu, B.Com., LL.M., Addl. Asst., Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. FAC Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.

Friday, this the 13th day of April, 2018

SESSIONS CASE NO. 70 / 2018

Between:- State: Sub- Inspector of Police ,

Vinukonda, P.S ...Complainant.

(Cr.No. 321 / 2000)

AND Pidathala Kotaiah s/o.Vemulaiah, 30 yrs., Mala Ummadivaram Village.

...Accused.

This case is coming on 13-04-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri M. Pratap Reddy, Advocate for Accused and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter, till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Vinukonda,P.S has filed the charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 221/2000 for the offence punishable U/s.307

IPC.

2. The brief facts of the charge sheet are that , L.w.1 Pidathala Venkayamma is the wife of Accused. They were blessed with one daughter and two sons. Due to misunderstandings , they lived separately. On 30-11-2000 at about 4 pm., the Accused came to the house of L.w.1

Pidathala Venkayamma and informed her that her younger brother met with an accident at

Vijayawada and invited her to Vijayawada to see him. But L.w.1 Pidathala Venkayamma refused to go with him and on that the Accused went and at about 4.30 p.m., the Accused again came to the house of L.w.1 Pidathala Venkayamma and knocked the door and demanded to open the door, when L.w.1 Pidathala Venkayamma opened the door the Accused entered into the house and abused L.w.1 Pidathala Venkayamma in filthy language as she developed illegal contacts with cook in Mayuri Restarant and stabbed her with a knife on the stomach and intestines came out and on that P.w.1 fell down , then the Accused stablled L.w.1 Pidathala

Venkayamma with knife below the left side of the chest, on right side of the chest, on right fore arm , on back, on right cheek, below the left collar bone and on left side of ribs. On hearing the cries of L.w.1 Pidathala Venkayamma, the neighbours came there and shifted her to

Government Hospital, Vinukonda. On receipt of the hospital intimation on 30-11-2000 at 5.50 p.m., L.w.10 D. Durga Prasad visited the hospital and recorded the statement of L.w.1

Pidathala Venkayamma and registered the case in Cr.No.221/00 u/s.307 IPC. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence , examined the witnesses and seized the blood stained knife and blood stained clothes under cover of observation report from the scene of offence and arrested the Accused. After completion of the investigation , he filed the charge sheet.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Vinukonda took the case into cognizance as PRC No. 34 / 2001 for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 IPC against the

Accused. Copies of the documents were furnished to the accused under Sec.207 Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Court of Sessions against the accused.

4.The Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Guntur was pleased to made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

5.The accused examined U/s 228(2) Cr.P.C and the charge framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 IPC was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P1 was marked.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, examination of the Accused u/s.313 CrPC is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8.Heard.

9. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence U/s.307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”

10. P O I N T :-

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

P.w.1 who is Defacto Complainant -cum-Injured. She categorically stated that she do not know anything about this case. She did not state anything against the Accused. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor cross examined her at length, but nothing was elicited except marking their 161 CrPC statement as Ex.P.1.

11. On perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, there is no evidence available on record that the Accused attempted to commit murder against

P.w.1. On the other hand , the injured categorically deposed that she do not know anything about this court. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of other witnesses. There is no evidence to connect the Accused with the charge levelled against him. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution failed to connect the Accused with the offence . Therefore, it is to be held that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the

Accused is to be acquitted.

12. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s. 307 IPC and he is acquitted u/s.232 CrPC. The Accused shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr-II corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 13th day of April, 2018.

Sd/- G. Deena Babu

FAC PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : None. P.w.1 : Pidathala Venkayamma.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1 161 CrPC Statement of P.w.1.

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL.

Sd/- G. Deena Babu

FAC P.A.S.J, NRT

In the Court of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge: Narasaraopet,

Present:-Sri G. Deena Babu, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet,

Monday, this the 16th day of March, 2020,

Original Suit No.320 of 2018 Between:

State Bank of India, Main Branch, Chilakaluripet,

represented by its Chief Managar, ...Plaintiff

And

01. Adilakshmi Mahila Group, Boppudi, rep., by its Organizer Malla Lakshmi, 2nd defendant,

02. Malla Lakshmi, W/o.Hari Babu, 22 years,

03. Avula Sambamma, W/o.Venkateswarlu, 25 years,

04. Avula Samba, W/o.Siva Nageswara Rao, 30 years,

05. Avula Veeramma, W/o.Kotaiah, 28 years,

06. Avukla Veeramma, W/o.Yedukondalu, 32 years,

07. Malla Sambamma, W/o.Venkateswarlu, 28 years,

08. Avula Thirupathamma, W/o.Ankalu, 28 years,

09. Avula Gunnamma, W/o.Subbaiah, 35 years,

10. Avula Sambamma, W/o.Venkateswarlu, 28 years,

11. Malla Anjamma, W/o.Narayana, 40 years,

12. Malla Ankamma, W/o.Peda Bikshalu, 45 years,

13. Avula Polamma, W/o.Narayana, 35 years, ...Defendants

This suit is coming on 13.03.2020 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Srinivas, Advocate for the Plaintiff bank and defendants remained exparte, upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of amount of Rs.3,06,460/- being the principal and interest due by the defendants under self help group scheme and for costs.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendants approached the plaintiff bank for loan on behalf of the 1st defendant to develop a self help group and the plaintiff bank sanctioned loan amount of Rs.2,10,000/- on 31.08.2009 for their personal purpose. The defendatns are executed inter-se agreement and other connected papers, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 11% p.a., on monthly rests to repay the same within 60 equal monthly installments each at Rs.4,700/- per month and the defendants acknowledged their liable executed revival letters from time to time and committed default in repaying the loan amount. The plaintiff bank issued demand notice to defendants to repay the due amount, but in vain. Hence, this suit.

03.All the defendants remained exparte.

04.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff bank, P.W.1 is examined and Exs.A1 to A8 are marked. The plaintiff bank is able to prove that the defendants borrowed amount to designed a self help group to do internal lending business in the name and style of “Adilakshmi Mahila Group” at Boppudi and they also executed inter-se agreement, agreeing to repay the same with an interest at the rate of 11% p.a., and the defendans 2 and 3 on behalf of all the members submitted the articles of agreement for financing self help group on 31.08.2009 towards term loan to the 1st defendant and availed the said loan through their loan account No.30875802971 and committed default in repaying the loan amount and acknowledged their liability on 10.05.2012 and 11.034.2015. Hence, the plaintiff bank is entitled for the recovery of the amount jointly and severally liable by the defendants. In respect of interest as the plaintiff is able to prove that the inter-se agreement transaction is true and correct it is held that the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of suit claim amount, but I feel it is just reasonable to allow the subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization.

05.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank and against the defendants, jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,06,460/- (Rupees three lakh six thousand four hundred and sixty only) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

on principal amount of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees two lakh ten thousand only) from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of realization.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 16th day of

March, 2020.

Sd/-G.DEENA BABU

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Plaintif:For Defendants:

P.W.1-Maddirala someswara Rao. - Exparte -

Exhibits Marked For Plaintif:

Ex.A1-Loan application dated 31.08.2009, Ex.A2-Article of agreement for fiaancing self help group dated 31.08.2009, Ex.A3-Inter-se agreement dated 31.08.2009, Ex.A4-Resolution passed by all the members dated 31.08.2009, Ex.A5-Arrangement letter dated 31.08.2009, Ex.A6-Debt acknowledgement (Revival letter No.1) darted 11.03.2015, Ex.A7-Debt acknowledgment (Revival letter No.1) dated 10.05.2012, Ex.A8-Computerized statement of account dated 04.05.2018 from 31.08.2009 to 04.05.2018.

For Defendants:- N I L -

Sd/-G.DEENA BABU

ASCJ., NRT.,