Sri G.Susheel Kumar Patrudu,M.Com.,L.L.M.

1

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::: PARCHUR.

Present: Sri G. Susheel Kumar Patrudu,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Parchur.

Monday, this the 26th day of September, 2016.

CALENDER IN C.C.No.1/2012

(Counter Case to SC.240/2011) (On the file of J.F.C.M. Parchur in Cr.No.14/2011 u/sec.324 r/w 34 IPC of Parchur Police Station ) 1.Name of the Police Station: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Parchur P.S.

2. Name of the Accused:

1. Kolla Srinivasa Rao @ Babu, S/o Seshaiah, aged 50 yrs, Kamma, Kollavaripalem village.

2. Kolla Aswani Chowdary, D/o Srinivasarao @ Babu, aged 23 yrs, Kamma, M.Tech., JNTU, Kakinada, R/o Kollavaripalem village.

1. Date of occurrence : 20-02-2011;

2. Date of complaint : 20-02-2011;

3. Date of appearance of accused: 22-07-2013;

4. Date of commencement of trial : 29-08-2016;

5. Date of close of trial: 06-09-2016;

6. Date of sentence of order: 26-09-2016;

In the result, the accused/A1 is found not guilty for the charges under Section 324 of IPC and the accused/A2 is found not guilty for the charges under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and the accused/A1 and A2 are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 and A2 shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months time. The lower Court is directed to destroy the unmarked case property if any, after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay:

The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parchur has taken cognizance of this case on 16-3-2011. On 8-9-2011, charge under

Section 324 IPC is framed against accused/A1 and a charge under

Section 324 r/w 34 IPC is framed against the accused/A2. The charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the accused 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As per orders in

CrlMP.34/2012 dt.24-5-2012 on the file of Prl. Sessions Judge's Court,

Ongole, this CC.39/2011 on the file of JFCM, Parchur was withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Asst. Sessions Judge, Parchur for trial and disposal along with SC.240/2011 and accordingly, the JFCM,

Parchur sent the record to this Court and after receipt of the case record, it is renumbered as CC.1/2012 on the file of Asst. Sessions

Judge's Court, Parchur.

The said record was received by transfer from JFCM, Parchut to this court on 6-7-2012 and summons were issued to the accused. As the prosecution takes several adjournments for production of witnesses and on 29-8-2016, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Ex.P1 is marked, on 30-8-2016, P.Ws.3 and 4 were examined, Ex.P2 is marked, on 6-9-2016, P.Ws.5 and 6 were examined, Exs.P3 to P6 and Exs.D1 and D2 are marked. On 15-9-2016, the accused were examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating material available on the record and on 23-9-2016 arguments heard and the case is posted to 26-9-2016 for Judgment. On 26-9-2016, the Judgment was

pronounced acquitting the accused/A1 and A2 for the offence charged

with. Hence the delay.

Sd/- G.S.K. Patrudu,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

PARCHUR.

// True Copy //

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PARCHUR.

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District.

Copy to:

1. The Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Parchur

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Parchur

3. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District.

3

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::: PARCHUR

Present: Sri G. Susheel Kumar Patrudu,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Parchur.

Monday, this the 26th day of September, 2016.

CALENDER CASE No.1/2012

(Counter Case to SC.240/2011) (Previously numbered as CC.39/2011 On the file of J.F.C.M. Parchur in Cr.No.14/2011 u/sec.324 r/w 34 IPC of Parchur Police Station)

Between: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Parchur P.S. … Complainant - And -

1. Kolla Srinivasa Rao @ Babu, S/o Seshaiah, aged 50 yrs, Kamma, Kollavaripalem village.

2. Kolla Aswani Chowdary, D/o Srinivasarao @ Babu, aged 23 yrs, Kamma, M.Tech., JNTU, Kakinada, R/o Kollavaripalem village. … Accused

This case is coming on 23-9-2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Additional public prosecutor for complainant and of

Sri Ch. Subba Rao, Advocate for accused and after hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Sub

Inspector of Police, Parchur Police Station against the accused vide in

Cr.No.14/2011 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The averments in the charge sheet in brief are as follows:

The defacto complainant/L.W.1 (Doppalapudi Narendra Babu) is resident of Ganapavaram village, since last 10 years, his maternal grandmother Kolla China Venkata Subbamma is staying along with 4 him. She is having 4 daughters and a son. The defacto complainant is the son of her 2nd daughter. The eldest daughter viz., Annapurnamma of Venkata Subbamma has no children and after the death of

Annapurnamma and her husband Butchaiah, the landed properties of the couple was shared among the kith and kin of Butchaiah and the gold of Annapurnamma was shared among her three sisters and their daughters. The accused/A1 who is the brother of said Annapurnamma was also given some gold. Since A1 is not looking after the welfare of his mother, she came voluntarily and staying along with the defacto complainant. The mother of the defacto complainant and her sisters taking away the gold which was given to A1, for which A1 developed grudge against them. On the request of Venkata subbamma to stay with his son i.e. A1 at the last days of her life, the defacto complainant brought her to Kollavaripalem in his car on 20-2-2011 at 10-30 A.M.

and left her in a tiled house. In the mean time, A1 and A2 came upto the defacto complainat and quarreling that as to why he brought her by grabbing all of their gold, A2 pulled the shirt of the defacto complainant and then A1 beat over his left wrist and right hand with a stick and caused injuries. L.W.2 Kamepalli Subba Rao came on the rescue of defacto complainant, A1 beat L.W.2 Subba Rao over his head with a stick and also bite over his mouth. Thereupon, on 20-2- 2011 at 6-00 p.m. the defacto complainant/L.W.1 Doppalapudi

Narendra Babu went to the Police Station and gave report.

3.On the report of defacto complainant, the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Parchur P.S. (L.W.8) registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.14/2011 under Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC and submitted the copies of

FIR to all the concerned and investigated into the case. During the 5 course of investigation, he examined L.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and sent

L.Ws.1 and 2 to the Area Hospital, Chirala for treatment and he visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch and served notices to A1 and

A2 on 28-2-2011 and 7-3-2011 under Sec.41 Cr.P.C. and after obtaining wound certificate, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

4. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parchur has taken cognizance of the charge sheet for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused/A1 and A2.

5.After appearance of all the accused, supplied the copies of documents and on perusal of the case record and on hearing both sides, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parchur framed charges under

Sec.324 of IPC against A1 and Section 324 r/w 34 of ICP against A2 and read-over and explained the substance of the charges in Telugu to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, hence the case is posted for trial.

6.As per orders in CrlMP.34/2012 dt.24-5-2012 on the file of

Hon'ble Prl. Sessions Judge's Court, Ongole, the CC.39/2011 on the file

of JFCM, Parchur was withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Asst.

Sessions Judge, Parchur for trial and disposal along with SC.240/2011

and accordingly, the JFCM, Parchur sent the record to this Court and after receipt of the case record, it is renumbered as CC.1/2012 on the file of Asst. Sessions Judge's Court, Parchur. After appearance of the accused, the case took up for trial along with SC.240/2011.

6

7. During the course of trial, the defacto complainant was examined as P.W.1, another injured was examined as P.W.2, the brother-in-law of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.3, the villager of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.4, the Doctor who treated P.Ws.1 and 2 was examined as P.W.5 and the investigating officer was examined as P.W.6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and Exs.D1 and D2.

8. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 and A2 were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 and 6 and reported no defence and nothing to say.

9. Heard the arguments on behalf of both sides.

10.Now the Point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused/A1 for the charge under Section 324 IPC and the guilt of the accused/A2 for the charge under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

Point:

11.The case of the prosecution is that there was a gold dispute between A1 and his sisters. On 20-2-2011 at 10-30 A.M. while A1 and

A2 were at cattle shed, P.Ws.1 to 3 and L.W.3 Malladi Srinu came there and brought the mother of A1 and make her to sit inside the house and in the meanwhile, A2 asked P.W.1 why he brought his mother without settling the gold issue. In the meanwhile, A1 and A2 came upon P.W.1 and A2 pulled the shirt of P.W.1 and A1 beat over his left wrist and right hand with a stick and caused injuries. P.Ws.2 and 4 came to 7 rescue of P.W.1, then A1 beat P.W.2 over his head with a stick and also bite on his mouth. For the said incident, the FIR was booked and the present charge sheet is filed on the alleged charges.

On the same day and at the same time, A1 and A2 also preferred a complaint against P.Ws.1 to 3 and one Malladi Srinu and it was entertained and after completion of investigation, it was numbered as SC.240/2011 and tried along with this case.

12.Therefore, the present case and SC.240/2011 are arose on the same incident, that means they are case and counter case.

According to law, the investigating officer while entertaining a case and counter case arose out of the same incident, he has to give a clear finding who is aggressor and who is aggressee. In both the cases, there is no such finding by the investigating officer. Even during the course of oral evidence, the prosecution not established who is aggressor and who is aggressee. Therefore, both the cases must be ended in acquittal.

13.Let me see on the other way considering the incident as free fight, then whether the prosecution established the present charges against the accused or not.

14.We know FIR is the passport for launching the prosecution case. Ex.P1 is the complaint. P.W.1 made it mentioned in the complaint that A1 and A2 beat him mercilessly and A1 raised his hand then a galata took place and he received injuries. Except the said statement, nothing was mentioned incriminating in the complaint. At 8 anywhere in Ex.P1 it was not mentioned that the accused armed with sticks at the time of incident. A simple statement was mentioned that there was a galata took place between them. Therefore, Ex.P1 is very scanty in respect of the overtacts of each accused. Coming to the oral evidence. P.W.1 stated that A2 caught his collar and then A1 armed with a stick and beat on his left hand wrist. Then again A1 armed with the same stick beat on his right leg and in the meanwhile P.W.2 intervened and A1 beat him on his leg with the same stick and bite on his lips. The above independent overtacts as stated by P.W.1 are not mentioned in Ex.P1.

15.P.W.2 stated in his evidence that A1 took a stick and beat on the head of P.W.1 and received injuries and later he bite his nose.

Important to be noticed in his evidence is that A1 and P.W.1 are pushing each other and he separated and a scuffle took place and A1 fell on the road and received injuries. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there was a galata took place in between both parties. The evidence of this witness is not corroborating with the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of independent overtacts of each accused.

16.P.W.3 stated in his evidence that A1 caught the collar of

P.W.1 and then P.W.2 intervened and A1 took a stick and beat P.W.2 on his head and caused injuries and with the same stick A1 again beat

P.W.1 on his left wrist. This witness evidence in respect of independent overtacts is not tallying with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.4 is a hostile witness and there is no incriminating material in his evidence.

17.The Doctor is examined as P.W.5 and he stated that he 9 examined P.W.1 and found an abrasion on right hand palm. But P.W.1 stated that he received injury on the left hand. The Doctor further stated that he examined P.W.2 and found an abrasion on the lower lip and swelling and tenderness on the frontal lobe region. Therefore, the oral evidence of prosecution is not corroborating with the Doctor evidence in respect of the injuries and its nature and the place on the body faculty of P.W.1.

18.The evidence of S.I. is only a formal in nature. The above evidence would clinchingly goes to show that there is no corroborating evidence in between the witnesses in respect of the independent overtacts and the body faculty where the injuries were happened. It is not possible to believe the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 because they are not saying what are the injuries caused to the accused at the time of incident. By not saying about the injuries caused to the accused, it is safely infer that P.Ws.1 and 2 are not speaking truth. By the foregoing reasons, the conclusion is that non-giving a finding or giving evidence and not saying who is aggressor and aggressee, the case must be ended in acquittal or otherwise considering the evidence as a free fight, then also there is no corroborative evidence. The ocular evidence is not corroborating with the medical evidence. The prosecution utterly failed to prove the paramount ingredients of the framed charges beyond all reasonable doubt.

19.In the result, the accused/A1 is found not guilty for the charges under Section 324 of IPC and the accused/A2 is found not guilty for the charges under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and the accused/A1 and A2 are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 and A2 shall stands cancelled after expiry 10 of six months time. The lower Court is directed to destroy the unmarked case property if any, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 26th day of September, 2016.

Sd/- G.S.K. Patrudu,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PARCHUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for

Prosecution Defence

P.W.1 : Doppalapudi Narendra Babu (L.W.1); - None - P.W.2 : Kamepalli Subbarao (L.W.2); P.W.3 : Kankanala Venkatarao (L.W.4); P.W.4 : Ganta Venkatarathnam (L.W.5); P.W.5 : Dr. P. Ajay Kumar (L.W.6); P.W.6 : T. Saidulu (L.W.7);

Documents Marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P1/--: Report of P.W.1 given to the Police; Ex.P2/--: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4; Ex.P3/--: Wound certificate of P.W.1; Ex.P4/--: Wound certificate of P.W.2; Ex.P5/--: FIR in Cr.No.14/2011 of Parchur P.S. under Sec.324 IPC, r/w 34 IPC; Ex.P6/--: Rough sketch;

Documents marked for Defence:

Ex.D1/--: C.C. of Charge sheet in SC.240/2011; Ex.D2/--: C.C. of Wound certificate of A1 in SC.240/2011;

Material Objects marked:

- Nil -

Sd/- G.S.K. Patrudu,

A.S.J. Parchur.

// True Copy //

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PARCHUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::: PARCHUR.

Present: Sri G. Susheel Kumar Patrudu,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Parchur.

Monday, this the 26th day of September, 2016.

CALENDER IN SESSIONS CASE No.240/2011

(P.R.C.No.7/2011 on the file of J.F.C.M. Parchur in Cr.No.15/2011 u/sec.354, 324 r/w 34 IPC of Parchur Police Station ) 1.Name of the Police Station: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Parchur P.S.

2. Name of the Accused:

1. Doppalapudi Narendrababu, S/o Subbarao, aged 45 yrs, Kamma, Working as M.D.O. Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District, R/o Ganapavaram (V), Nadendla Mandal.

2. Kamepalli Subbarao, S/o Ramaiah, aged 54 yrs, Kamma, Ramkur village of J.Pangaluru Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Malladi Srinu, S/o Raghavaiah, aged 42 yrs, Kamma, Chennambotla, Agraharam.

4. Kankanala Venkatarao, S/o Venkateswarlu, aged 40 yrs, Kamma, Mundlamuru village of Prakasam District.

3. Date of occurrence : 20-02-2011;

4. Date of complaint : 20-02-2011;

5. Date of Committal: 21-06-2011;

6. Date of appearance of accused: 21-10-2011;

7. Date of commencement of trial : 29-08-2016;

8. Date of close of trial: 06-09-2016;

9. Date of sentence of order: 26-09-2016;

In the result, the accused/A1 is found not guilty for the charges under Section 354, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and the accused/A2 to

A4 are found not guilty for the charges under Section 324 r/w 34 of

IPC and the accused/A1 to A4 are acquitted under Section 235 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 to A4 shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months time. The lower Court is directed to destroy the unmarked case property if any, after expiry of appeal time.

2

Explanation for the delay:

This case was registered as P.R.C.No.7/2011 on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parchur and after appearance of the

accused and on furnishing copies, the case was committed to the

Court of Sessions, Ongole and in turn, the Hon'ble Prl. District and

Sessions Judge, Ongole numbered the case as S.C.240/2011 and

made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law. The said record was received in this court on 26-8-2011 and summons were issued to the accused. On 21-10-2011, the accused were present. On 3-2-2012, the charges were framed against the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, on 29-8-2016, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined, Ex.P1 was marked; on 30-8-2016, P.Ws.4 and 5 were examined and Ex.P2 was marked; on 6-9-2016, P.Ws.6 and 7 were examined, Exs.P3 to P5 were marked and the case was posted for 313 examination. On 15-9- 2016, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating material available on the record and on 23-9-2016 arguments heard and the case is posted to 26-9-2016 for Judgment.

On 26-9-2016, the Judgment was pronounced acquitting the accused for the offence charged with. Hence the delay.

Sd/- G.S.K. Patrudu,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

PARCHUR.

// True Copy //

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PARCHUR.

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District.

Copy to:

1. The Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Parchur

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Parchur

3. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District.

3

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::: PARCHUR

Present: Sri G. Susheel Kumar Patrudu,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Parchur.

Monday, this the 26th day of September, 2016.

SESSIONS CASE No.240/2011

(P.R.C.No.7/2011 on the file of J.F.C.M. Parchur in Cr.No.15/2011 u/sec.354, 324 r/w 34 IPC of Parchur Police Station )

Between: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Parchur P.S. … Complainant - And -

1. Doppalapudi Narendrababu, S/o Subbarao, aged 45 yrs, Kamma, Working as M.D.O. Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District, R/o Ganapavaram (V), Nadendla Mandal.

2. Kamepalli Subbarao, S/o Ramaiah, aged 54 yrs, Kamma, Ramkur village of J.Pangaluru Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Malladi Srinu, S/o Raghavaiah, aged 42 yrs, Kamma, Chennambotla, Agraharam.

4. Kankanala Venkatarao, S/o Venkateswarlu, aged 40 yrs, Kamma, Mundlamuru village of Prakasam District. … Accused

This case is coming on 23-9-2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Additional public prosecutor for complainant and of M/s. T. Sakuntala, Advocate for accused and after hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Sub

Inspector of Police, Parchur Police Station against the accused vide in

Cr.No.15/2011 for the offence under Section 354, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The averments in the charge sheet in brief are as follows:

4

The defacto complainant/L.W.1 Kolla Aswani Chowdary is studying

M.Tech in JNTU Kakinada and her paternal grand mother viz., Kolla

China Venkata Subbamma is staying at her maternal aunt's house i.e. A1's house in Ganapavaram village of Nadendla Mandal, Guntur.

As her eldest maternal aunt Annapurnamma is having no children, her properties were shared among her three maternal aunts and her father and after the death of Annapurnamma and her husband

Butchaiah, the landed properties were shared among the relatives of

Butchaiah, while the gold of Annapurnamma was shared among the sisters and Kolla Srinivasa Rao (L.W.2) and the gold which came to the share of her father was also taken away by her maternal aunts.

In that connection previously, there were quarrels occurred in between them.

In the meanwhile, the defacto complaint came to

Kollavaripalem for preparation of project work, while so, on 20-2- 2011, at about 10-30 A.M., the defacto complainant and Kolla

Srinivasa Rao (L.W.2) who is the father of the defacto complainant were present at the cattle shed, the accused A1 to A4 came with her paternal grand mother in two cars, got her sit on the cot inside the house and came out. In the meanwhile, Kolla Srinivasa Rao (L.W.2) went and asked A1 why they brought his mother without settling the gold issue, then A1 turned against Kolla Srinivasa Rao (L.W.2) questioning his audacity in asking them saying to ask his sisters about the gold and went upon Kolla Srinivasa Rao (L.W.2), A3 and A4 caught him and A2 beat over the left thigh of him with a stick and on seeing the same when the defacto complainant went to the rescue of

Kolla Srinivasa Rao (L.W.2), A1 dragged her by catching her tuft of 5 hair and kicked over her belly with his legs and thereby outraged her modesty and upon intervening of others, the quarrel was sorted out.

Thereupon, the defacto complainant brought Kolla Srinivasa Rao (L.W.2) to the Police Station and gave report.

3.On the report of the defacto complainant/L.W.1 Kolla

Aswani Chowdary, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parchur P.S. (L.W.8) registered the same as a case in Cr.No.15/2011 under Sec.354, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and submitted the copies of FIR to all the concerned and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, he examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and sent P.W.2 to the Area Hospital, Chirala for treatment and he visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch and on 4-3-2011, he released the accused A1 to A4 as they got anticipatory bail vide in CrlMP.149/2011 and 154/2011 dt.3-3-2011 on the file of

Hon'ble I Addl. Sessions Judge's Court, Ongole and after obtaining

wound certificate, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

4. The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Parchur in PRC.7/2011 under Section 354, 324 r/w 34 of IPC. After appearance, before him copies of documents were furnished to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. As the offence under Section 354, 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case was committed by Sri K. Ravi, Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parchur and in turn the

Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Ongole numbered the case

as S.C.240/2011 and made over the same to this Court for disposal 6 according to law.

6. After the accused was produced before this court on hearing both sides, charges under Section 354 of IPC against A1 and under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A4 have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the defacto complainant was examined as P.W.1, the father and mother of P.W.1 were examined as

P.Ws.2 and 3 respectively, the villagers of P.W.2 were examined as

P.Ws.4 and 5, the Doctor who treated P.W.2 was examined as P.W.6 and the investigating officer was examined as P.W.7 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P5.

8. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 to A4 were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, 6 and 7 and reported no defence and nothing to say.

9. Heard the arguments on behalf of both sides.

10.Now the Point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused/A1 for the charges under Section 354, 324 r/w 34 IPC and the guilt of the accused/A2 to A4 for the charges under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

Point:

11.The case of the prosecution is that there was a gold dispute between P.W.2 and her sisters. On 20-2-2011 at 10-30 A.M.

7 while P.Ws.1 and 2 were at cattle shed, A1 to A4 came there and brought the mother of P.W.2 and make her to sit inside the house and in the meanwhile, P.W.2 asked A1 why he brought his mother without settling the gold issue. Then, A1 reiterated and went against P.W.2 and A3 and A4 caught P.W.2 and then A2 beat on the left thigh of

P.W.2 with a stick and then P.W.1 intervened, then A1 dragged her by catching her tuft and kicked her over her belly with his legs. For that incident, the FIR was booked and the present charge sheet is filed.

On the same day and the same time, A1 and A2 also preferred a complaint against P.Ws.1 and 2 and that complaint was also entertained and numbered as CC.1/2012 and tried along with this case.

12.Therefore, the present case and CC.1/2012 are arose on the same incident, that means they are case and counter case.

According to law, the investigating officer while entertaining a case and counter case arose out of the same incident, he has to give a clear finding who is aggressor and who is aggressee. In both the cases, there is no such finding by the investigating officer. Even during the course of oral evidence, the prosecution not established who is aggressor and who is aggressee. Therefore, both the cases must be ended in acquittal.

13.Let me see on the other way considering the incident as free fight, then whether the prosecution established the present charges against the accused or not.

8

14.We know FIR is the passport for launching the prosecution case. Ex.P1 is the complaint. At anywhere in Ex.P1 it was not mentioned that the accused used sticks at the time of incident. A bald statements were mentioned that A1 beat with legs on the stomach of complainant and other accused beat P.W.2 indiscriminately. Therefore, Ex.P1 is scanty to know the independent overtacts of each accused.

15.Coming to the oral evidence, P.W.1 stated in her evidence that A2 and A3 caught P.W.2 and A1 armed with stick and beat P.W.2 on his left thigh. She further stated that on her intervention, A1 caught her tuft and kicked on her stomach with his legs. The above independent overtacts are only exaggerated and there is no mention of the said overtacts in Ex.P1.

16.P.W.2 stated that A1, A3 and A4 caught him and A2 armed with a stick and beat on his left thigh then P.W.1 intervened, then A1 caught P.W.1 tuft and kicked on her stomach. The overtacts stated by P.W.1 is not corroborating with the evidence of P.W.2. The body faculty and the independent acts of accused are not corroborating with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.

17.It is not the case of the prosecution that P.W.3 was present at the scene, but P.W.3 stated in her evidence clearly that he do not know what was happened. Therefore, her evidence is futile.

18.P.W.4 stated in his evidence that he saw A1, A3 and A4 caught P.W.2 and A2 armed with stick and beat P.W.2 on his left thigh 9 and in the meanwhile P.W.1 came and then A1 caught P.W.1 tuft and kicked her. His evidence is also not corroborating with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Moreover, he categorically stated that a galata took place between the accused and P.W.1, that means both parties quarreling with each other resulting minor injuries.

P.W.5 turned hostile and his evidence is not useful.

19.The Doctor was examined as P.W.6 and he stated that a lacerated injury was found on the upper thigh. We know if a stick is used, a lacerated injury is not possible. Therefore, the oral evidence is not corroborating with the medical evidence.

20.The evidence of S.I. is only a formal in nature. The above evidence would clinchingly goes to show that there is no corroborating evidence in between the witnesses in respect of the independent overtacts and the body faculty where the injuries were happened. It is not possible to believe the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 because they are not saying what are the injuries caused to the accused at the time of incident. By not saying about the injuries caused to the accused, it is safely infer that P.Ws.1 and 2 are not speaking truth. By the foregoing reasons, the conclusion is that non- giving a finding or giving evidence and not saying who is aggressor and aggressee, the case must be ended in acquittal or otherwise considering the evidence as a free fight, then also there is no corroborating evidence. The ocular evidence is not corroborating with the medical evidence. The prosecution utterly failed to prove the paramount ingredients of the framed charges beyond all 10 reasonable doubt.

21.In the result, the accused/A1 is found not guilty for the charges under Section 354, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and the accused/A2 to

A4 are found not guilty for the charges under Section 324 r/w 34 of

IPC and the accused/A1 to A4 are acquitted under Section 235 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 to A4 shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months time. The lower Court is directed to destroy the unmarked case property if any, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 26th day of September, 2016.

Sd/- G.S.K. Patrudu,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PARCHUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for

Prosecution Defence

P.W.1 : Kolla Aswani Chowdary (L.W.1); - None - P.W.2 : Kolla Srinivasarao (L.W.2); P.W.3 : Kolla Umadevi (L.W.3); P.W.4 : Kolla Surendra babu (L.W.4); P.W.5 : Ganta Venkatarathnam (L.W.5); P.W.6 : Dr. P. Ajay Kumar (L.W.7); P.W.7 : T. Saidulu (L.W.8);

Documents Marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P1/--: Report of P.W.1 given to the Police; Ex.P2/--: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5; Ex.P3/--: Wound certificate; Ex.P4/--: FIR in Cr.No.15/2011 of Parchur P.S. under Sec.354, 324 r/w 34 IPC; Ex.P5/--: Rough sketch; 11

Documents marked for Defence:

- Nil -

Material Objects marked:

- Nil -

Sd/- G.S.K. Patrudu,

A.S.J. Parchur.

// True Copy //

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PARCHUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PARCHUR.

Present: Sri G. Susheel Kumar Patrudu, 

Senior Civil Judge, Parchur.

Wednesday, this the 8th day of March, 2017.

Original Suit No.127 /2016

BETWEEN: Kolla Veeranarayana, (Aadhar No.8765 6601 5371), S/o Late Suryanarayana, aged 70 yrs, Hindu, cultivation, R/o Kollavaripalem, Mandal Parchur, Prakasam District. … Plaintiff AND 

1.  Barlapudi Lakshmi Kumari (Aadhar No.8025 2074 5888), W/o Anjaneyulu, aged 60 yrs, Hindu, Housewife, H.No.11­1­15C, Mutyalapeta, Near Over Bridge, Perala, Chirala­523157.

2. Barlapudi Anjaneyulu (Aadhar No.9238 2891 3169), S/o Ramakotaiah, aged 33 yrs, Hindu, Business, H.No.11­1­15C, Near Over Bridge, Perala, Chirala­523157.

3.  Duddu Sesha Sirisha, (Aadhar No.4326 5068 2642), W/o Srinivasa Rao, aged 42 yrs, Hindu, Housewife, H.No.5­60­2/188, 4/2, Ashok Nagar, Chandra Mouli Nagar, Guntur­522007.

4. Chalapati Shesha Sarada, (Aadhar No.9674 4084 4061) W/o Mallikharjuna Rao, aged 38 yrs, Hindu, Housewife, H.No.15­4­148, Manipuram, 1st line, RTC Colony Road, Kothapeta, Guntur­522001.

5. Guddanti Kanaka Mahalakshmi (Aadhar No.9431 4480 3324), W/o Venkateswarlu, aged 39 yrs, Hindu, Housewife, H.No.9­78A, Ginnelaswamy Bazar, Cheemakurthy, Prakasam District – 523226. … Defendants * * * This suit is filed under Order VII, Rule 1 and Section 26 (1) of CPC to pass a decree and Judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the 1st defendant personally and against the joint family assets of the defendants 1 to 4 by directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.4,28,500/­ (Rupees four lakh twenty eight thousand and five hundred only) with subsequent interest from the date of suit, till the date of realization and for costs of the suit. 

This suit is coming on this day before me for consideration in the presence of Sri R. Satyanarayana, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants having remained and set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

 JUDGMENT

Heard. Perused the proof affidavit of P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A9 and also material available on record. The unchallenged testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A9, the suit amount was proved by the plaintiff.

2.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the 1st defendant personally and against the joint family assets of the defendants 1 to 4 for an amount of Rs.4,28,500/­ (Rupees four lakh twenty eight thousand and five hundred only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree, till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/­ (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only).

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of March, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

PARCHUR.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined For plaintiff: For defendants : PW.1­Proof­Affidavit of Kolla Veeranarayana; ­ NONE ­

Documents marked For plaintiff: For defendants : ­ NIL­ Ex.A1/­­: Promissory note dt.22­9­2013 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/­; Ex.A2/­­: O/c of notice dt.11­9­2015; Ex.A3/­­: Postal Receipts (5 in number); Ex.A4/­­: Returned postal cover addressed to D1; Ex.A5/­­: Returned postal cover addressed to D2; Ex.A6/­­: Returned postal cover addressed to D3; Ex.A7/­­: Returned postal cover addressed to D4; Ex.A8/­­: Returned postal cover addressed to D5; Ex.A9/­­: Served copy of reply notice from D3;

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

PARCHUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PARCHUR.

Present: Sri G. Susheel Kumar Patrudu, 

Senior Civil Judge, Parchur.

Monday, this the 13th day of March, 2017.

Original Suit No.37/2016

BETWEEN:

Pennuboina Venkateswarlu, S/o Kotaiah, aged 48 yrs, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Kataruvaripalem, H/o Yaddanapudi, Yaddanapudi Mandal. … Plaintiff AND 

1. Nallapaneni Narasimha Rao, S/o Basavaiah, aged 58 yrs,

2. Nallapaneni Purnachandra Rao, S/o Narasimha Rao, aged 30 yrs, Both of them are Hindus, cultivators, R/o Yaddanapudi, Yaddanapudi Mandal. … Defendants * * * This is a suit filed under Order VII, Rule 1 and Section 26 of CPC for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale with delivery of possession dt.2­11­2013 and to direct the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for the plaint schedule house with in the time fixed by the Hon'ble Court and in case defendants fails to execute the regd. Sale deed, the Hon'ble Court may get the sale deed executed through process of law; alternatively, for any reason, the relief of specific performance is not possible, grant a decree for Rs.3,93,000/­ (Rupees three lakh ninety three only) in favour of the plaintiff with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Hari Babu, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants called absent, having remained and set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

01. Heard. Perused the proof affidavit of PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 and also material available on record. The unchallenged testimony of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4 the suit claim is held proved by the plaintiff.

02. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for specific performance of agreement of sale dt.2-11-2013 against the defendants 1 and 2 and the defendants are directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for the plaint schedule property within three months from the date of this decree, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get it execute through process of law.

Pronounced be me in open court, this the 13th day of March, 2017. 

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

PARCHUR.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined 

For plaintiff: For defendant :

PW.1­Proof­Affidavit of Pennuboina Venkateswarlu; ­ NONE ­

Documents Marked

For plaintiff: For defendant :

Ex.A1/­­: Agreement of sale dt.2­11­2013 executed by the defendant; ­NIL­ Ex.A2/­­: Office copy of legal notice dt.18­4­2016; Ex.A3/­­ : Served copy of acknowledgement to 1st defendant; Ex.A4/­­: Un­served legal notice dt.25­4­2016 to the 2nd defendant; 

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

PARCHUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PARCHUR.

Present: Sri G. Susheel Kumar Patrudu,

Senior Civil Judge, Parchur.

Thursday, this the 13th day of April, 2017

O.S.No.6/2015

Between: State Bank of Hyderabad, a Banking Corporation, Constituted under The Hyderabad State Bank Act of XIX of 1350 F The State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 79/1959 having its Head Office at Gunfoundary, Hyderabad, A.P., and amongst other places, a branch at Inkollu, rep., by its branch Manager, Inkollu, Mandal Inkollu, Prakasam District.

...Plaintiff

And

1. Challapalli Ramesh Babu, S/o Raghavaiah, aged 55 yrs, Hindu, Teacher in Z.P.H. School at Duddukuru, R/o Inkollu, Mandal Inkollu, Prakasam District.

2. Koppolu Rama Devi, W/o Sekhar, Aged 45 yrs, Hindu, Teacher in Z.P.H. School at Daivalaravuru, R/o Daivalaravuru, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. …Defendants

Suit filed under Section 26 of CPC praying the Court to pass a decree and Judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the suit amount of Rs.2,05,711/-, with subsequent interest at 15.40% p.a. with compoundable rates on the suit amount from the date of the suit, till realization and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming on this day before me for trial in the presence of Sri R. Satyanarayana, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri V. Krishna Rao, Advocate for 1st Defendant and the 2nd defendant having remained and set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Memo along with bank letter filed in office on 16-3-2017. This suit is dismissed as adjusted out of court.

Pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of April,

2017.

Senior Civil Judge,

Parchur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PLAINTIFFS: DEFENDANTS: - None - - None -

Documents Marked on behalf of the Plaintiffs:

- Nil -

Documents Marked on behalf of the Defendants:

- Nil -

S.C.J., Parchur.