Sri Gannarapu Sudershan

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT SIRPUR

Present: Gannarapu Sudershan Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur

Thursday, this the 29th day of October, 2015

CC.No. 372 of 2012

Between:- The State of A.P through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Dahegaon in Cr.No. 19/2012. …. Complainant //AND//

1. Singarao Ramaiah, S/o. Rajamallu, age 73 years.

2. Singarao Ankaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, age 40 years.

3. Singarao Durgakka, W/o. Ankaiah, age 38 years.

4. Singarao Manga, D/o. Ankaiah, age 20 years.

5. Singarao Kamala, W/o. Poshanna, age 25 years.

All by caste: Mannepu, Occ. Coolie, R/o. Chinnaraspalli Village of Dahegaon Mandal.

…..Accused

This case is coming before me for hearing on this day in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri. S. Jayachander Rao, Advocate for the accused Nos. 1 to 5, after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Dahegaon filed charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offence punishable U/s. 448, 323 and 290 IPC in Cr.No. 19/2012.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that : PW-1 and the accused are neighbours, there are previous disputes existing in between PW-1 and the accused and they were quarrelled several times over petty disputes. On 04-03-2012 at about 08.00 hrs.

when PW-1 was standing in front of his aunt’s house, then accused

No.1 abused PW-1 in most filthy language, when she questioned 2 him as to why he is abusing, then accused No.2, who is the son of accused No.1 came there along with accused Nos. 3 to 5, accused

No.2 abused her in filthy language and other accused beat her, when she asked them as to why they are beating her, then the accused No.2 beat her on cheek with hand and PW-1 frightened and escaped from the accused and went into the house of PW-4, then the accused Nos. 2 to 5 criminally trespassed into the house of PW-4, beat PW-1 with hands, pushed her on to the ground and kicked her mercilessly with legs. Thus, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 had committed the offences punishable U/s. 448, 323 and 290 IPC.

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, cognizance for the offences under Section 147, 148, 448, 323 and 290 r/w. 149 IPC was taken against the accused Nos. 1 to 5. On appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. and after that they were examined U/s. 251 Cr.P.C., for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked Ex.P-1 to P-5. In spite of giving sufficient time and in spite of conditional order the prosecution failed to produce LW-7

Investigation Officer, hence his evidence is closed by this court.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused Nos. 1 to 5 were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

Accused denied the evidence and reported no defence witnesses to be examined.

3

6.Now the point for determination is that :

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offences punishable U/s. 147, 148, 448, 323, 290 r/w. 149

IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

7.To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 6. PW-1 is the defacto complainant, she deposed that about 3 years back at about 8.00 am. Accused No.2 came to oher and abused her in filthy language. When she questioned him, then he slapped on her left cheek. Then, she escaped into her senior maternal aunt's house due to fear, meanwhile A-3 to A-5 entered into the house and beat her with hands and legs all over her body.

Later she went to the house of Sarpanch to inform, even the accused went there and beat her brother Shankar. Then, the

Sarpanch advised them to approach police. On that, they went to police station and lodged Ex.P-1 report. Further she deposed that one Manjula and Pochanna have witnessed while the accused beating her. The prosecution also examined PW-2, who is the mother of PW-1. She also deposed the same about abusing and slapping PW-1. Further she deposed that on knowing about the incident she came to her house, by the time A-3 to A-5 beating

PW-1 with hands and legs by throwing her on the ground. She also stated that, one Manjula and Poshanna witnessed the incident. The prosecution examined the PW-3 Posham, PW-4 Manjula and PW-5

Kamala as eye witnesses to the alleged incident, but none of them were supported the prosecution version.

PW-6 is the Medical Officer, who examined PW-1 and issued 4

Ex.P-5 Certificate.

On seeing the above evidence adduced by the prosecution, the only evidence available on record is Pws 1 and 2, who is mother and daughter. So far as the injuries sustained by PW-1 is concerned, according to her evidence at first accused No.2 slapped her on her cheek, later accused Nos. 3 to 5 beat her with hands and legs. Even PW-2 also deposed the same. In cross examination PW-2 stated that she cannot say the specific overt acts. Both Pws 1 and 2 did not state specifically what are the injuries sustained by PW-1. PW-6 Medical Officer in his evidence stated that, when he examined PW-1, he did not find any external injuries and in Ex.P-5 Wound Certificate nothing is mentioned.

Thus, the evidnece of PW-1 is not corroborating with the medical evidence regarding the injuries.

So far as the alleged incident is concerned, it is the evidence of PW-1 that, when she questioned accused No.2 about his abusing her in filthy language, then accused No.2 slapped her, later when she escaped to her senior paternal aunt's house, there accused

Nos. 3 to 5 beat her. No where in her evidence stated about the involvement and presence of accused No.1 in the alleged incident.

Whereas, in cross examination deposed that she stated before the police that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were present, abused and beat her. Further she stated that before the police she stated that A-1 who is passing to the house of her senior paternal aunt, has abused her in filthy language. Further stated that, nobody were present except Manjula and one Poshanna. Whereas the 5 prosecution examined PW-2, mother of PW-1 as eye witness to the alleged incident. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 showing an inconsistency of evidence.

Admittedly, PW-1 nowhere in her evidence deposed about the presence of her mother PW-2 at the scene of offence place.

Both in chief and cross examination PW-1 specifically stated that

Manjula and Poshanna are only witnessed the incident. Whereas

PW-1 in her evidence deposed as if she is eye witness to the alleged incident and in cross examination stated that PW-1 fell down and became unconscious. Further she stated in cross examination that except LW-3 Manjula and Poshanna, no others were present. Therefore by seeing the evidence of PW-2, it can be inferred that PW-2 is an interested witness, planted for the purpose of prosecution case. Hence, the evidence of PW-2 is no way helpful in proving the guilt of accused.

It is pertinent to note that, the prosecution examined two eye witnesses, who allegedly witnessed the incident as per the version of PW-1 were examined as Pws 3 and 4, but both the witnesses were not supported the prosecution case.

PW-1 deposed that, when accused No.2 slapped her, immediately due to fear she went to her maternal aunt's house, where accused Nos. 3 to 5 beat her with hands and legs. Further deposed that, she went to the house of Sarpanch to inform about the beating of accused, there the accused came and beat her brother Shankar. Admittedly, the prosecution neither examined her 6 senior maternal aunt at whose house accused Nos. 3 to 5 beat her nor the sarpanch of the village to whom she informed about the incident. Though, she stated that the accused also beat her brother Shankar, but no where disclosed about his presence and even the prosecution failed to examine the said Shankar. It is best know to the prosecution why the above named persons were not examined to speak about the alleged incident. Thus, by seeing the evidence of PW-1, it shows an inconsistency of evidence and exhagggarated version regarding the alleged incident and in fact, the evidence of PW-1 is not showing any trustworthy to believe her version. Moreover, the said evidence was not supported by any other independent material evidence.

Further the prosecution failed to examine the Investigation

Officer in this case. When there are so many ommissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the evidence of Investigation Officer is very much necessary and the failure of examining such witness is a fatal to the prosecution case.

Further, there is delay in lodging Ex.P-1 report before the police. As per the version of PW-1, she went to police station and as per the advise of Sarpanch she lodged Ex.P-1 report. In cross examination she stated that on the next day of incident, she lodged Ex.P-1 and no reason or explanation offered by PW-1 for the delay in lodging Ex.P-1.

On the aforesaid discussioin and on scrutinizing the evidence on record, it is clinchngly establishing that absolutely there is no 7 any material evidence on record to prove the guilt of accused.

Even the evidence of PW-1 is not shwong any trustworthy to belive her versoin regarding the alleged incident. Further, the evidence of PW-1 is not inspiring any confidence to believe her version in proving the guilt of accused. In the absence of all such material evidence on record, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

In the result, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/s. 147, 148, 448, 323, 290 r/w. 149 IPC.

Accordingly they are acquitted U/s. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of (6) months as per the provisions U/s. 437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation and after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of October, 2015.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class Sirpur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW-1: Pamula Laxmi (LW-1/Complainant/Injured)--NONE— PW-2: Pamula Bayakka (LW-2/Mother of PW-1) PW-3: Lingala Posham (LW-5/Circumstantial witness) PW-4: Janjala Manjula (LW-3/Younger son of PW-1) PW-5: Kondra Kamala (LW-4/Circumstantial witness) PW-6: Dr. J. Ajay Babu (LW-6/Medical Officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P-1: Report---NIL-- Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-3 Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-4 Ex.P-4: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-5 Ex.P-5: Wound Certificate

M.O.s MARKED

---NIL---

Judl. Magistrate of I Class Sirpur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIRPUR

Present: Gannarapu Sudarshan Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur

Wednesday, this the 28th day of October, 2015

O.S.No. 19 of 2012

Between:- Chunarkar Kamala, W/o. Vasanth Rao, age 35 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Kaghaznagar.

... Plaintiff.

//A N D //

Durgam Rajkumar, S/o. Narsaiah, age 25 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. Bus Stand area, Sirpur-T.

… Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri V. Kishore Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri Ganta Pentanna, Advocate for Defendant, having been heard and stood over for consideration, till this day the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs. 90,000-00 from the defendant.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are that : the defendant is the sister’s son of husband of plaintiff and he used to reside with plaintiff and her husband at Sirpur when the husband of plaintiff was working at Sirpur. In view of relationship between plaintiff and defendant, the defendant requested the plaintiff to provide hand loan of Rs. 90,000-00 and on seeing the urgency of defendant, the plaintiff lent an amount of Rs. 90,000-00 to defendant on 18-03-2009 in the presence of witnesses at Sirpur, in token of it the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day with a promise to repay the same 2 within two months from the date of borrowing, but the defendant failed to repay the same as per his promise. Then, the plaintiff requested the defendant several times to repay the loan amount, but the defendant dodged the matter on one or other pretext.

Vexed with the behaviour of defendant, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 29-05-2009 through her Advocate, but it was returned unserved. Thereafter also several times, the plaintiff requested the defendant to repay the borrowed amount, in spite of that also the defendant did not repay the amount to plaintiff.

Hence, this suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.

3.The defendant filed written statement in which he denied about receiving of Rs. 90,000-00 from plaintiff as loan and execution of promissory note and stated that the main intention of plaintiff behind this suit is, the plaintiff insisted the defendant to marry her daughter, when he denied, she leveled false allegation against him and fabricated the alleged promissory note by forging his signature. There is no locus standi remained with the plaintiff to sue this defendant and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Basing on the averments of plaint and written statement, the following issues were framed.

(i)Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration ?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 90,000- 00 from the defendant ?

(iii)To what relief ?

5.During the course of the trial, plaintiff herself examined as PW-1, Ex.A-1 marked and PW-2 also examined on her behalf.

3

On the other hand, the defendant himself examined as DW-1 and

DW-2 examined on his behalf.

6.Arguments heard on both sides.

7. ISSUE NO. 1 :

Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and supported

by consideration ?

It is the case of plaintiff that, the defendant has borrowed hand loan of Rs. 90,000-00 on 18-03-2009 and executed suit promissory note. To establish the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff herself examined as PW-1 and reiterated the plaint averments. The plaintiff also examined PW-2 who is one of the attestors of Ex.A-1 promissory note. In cross examination PW-1 stated that, Ex.A-1 was executed in her house. Further she deposed that she has issued legal notice to the defendant, but the same was unserved. In the entire cross examination nothing is elicited to impeach the evidence of PW-1 regarding the suit promissory note. In fact, it was suggested that, Ex.A-1 was got prepared in police station by influencing the police and obtained signature of the defendant on Ex.A-1 by threatening him. In support of the evidence of plaintiff, PW-2 was examined, who was one of the attestors of Ex.A-1, she deposed that the plaintiff paid

Rs. 90,000-00 in her presence on 18-03-2009 to the defendant, after receiving the amount, the defendant has executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff. Even in cross examination of this witness, nothing is elicited except suggesting that the plaintiff did not pay any amount to the defendant.

4

8.On the other hand, in rebuttal to the case of plaintiff, the defendant himself examined as DW-1. In cross examination the defendant has denied his signature on Ex.A-1 and he also denied his signature on written statement stating that the signatures shown on written statement are not belong to him.

Similarly the signature shown on Ex.A-1 is also not belongs to him, but he admitted his signature on suit summon and on

Vakalath. Further DW-1 stated that, since his childhood he was staying with plaintiff and they used to support him financially and on other aspects. In cross examination, he stated that he filed written statement in this suit, on which he signed. Thus, by seeing the evidence in cross examination of DW-1, it shows that he is intentionally denying his signature on Ex.A-1. His denying of his signatures on his own written statement shows that in order to denying his signature on Ex.A-1, he denied about his signature on written statement. When the signature of the defendant is compared with that of his admitted signature on Vakalath and on suit summon, all the signatures i.e. his signature on suit summon, vakalath and written statement showing one and the same and further the signature made on Ex.A-1 Promissory note is also showing similar with that of other admitted documents i.e.

Vakalath and suit summons and written statement. Under Sec. 73 of Indian Evidence Act, the court can compare disputed signature with admitted signature to find out it's genuineness. When the signature of the defendant made on Ex.A-1 is compared with that of other admitted signatures available on record, it clearly shows that the plaintiff is intentionally denying his signature on Ex.A-1 and on his own signature on written statement. In fact, in cross 5 examination of PW-1, it was suggested that Ex.A-1 was got prepared in police station by influencing the police and obtained signature of defendant on Ex.A-1 by threatening him. The said suggestion itself supporting the plaintiff’s case that, the defendant has executed Ex.A-1. In fact, the defendant in his cross examination stated that no document was obtained at police station. If at all, the plaintiff has obtained Ex.A-1 in police station by threatening the defendant, then the defendant ought to have filed a criminal complaint for threatening him and forcibly obtaining Ex.A-1, but no such steps were taken. Even, he did not make any such specific averments in his written statement regarding forceful obtaining of Ex.A-1 in police station. Under

Sec. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, a presumption is arising in favour of plaintiff for admitting of signature of defendant on

Ex.A-1. For rebutting such presumption, the burden lies on defendant to disprove the plaintiff's case with a probable defence. Though, the defendant denying about borrowing of amount from the plaintiff, once he admitted about execution of

Ex.A-1 the burden lies upon the defendant to establish that it is not supported by consideration. As discussed above, though the defendant has stated at specific defence in the cross examination of PW-1 through a suggestion that Ex.A-1 was prepared in police station forcibly and obtained his signature, but the said defence plea was not established by the defendant. Hence, under Sec.

114 of Indian Evidence Act an adverse inference can be drawn against the plea taken by the defendant.

9.Though, the defendant examined another attestor as

DW-2 on his behalf, the said witness in his cross examination 6 stated that he do not know whether the defendant borrowed Rs.

90,000-00 from plaintiff or not and also stated that he do not know about execution of Ex.A-1. This witness being close relative of plaintiff, in cross examination stated that there are no good terms between him and plaintiff since 10 years. Further, in cross examination defendant stated that since childhood he was staying with plaintiff and they used to support him financially and other aspects. Whereas DW-2 stated that, the defendant never stayed in the house of plaintiff. Thus, by seeing the evidence in cross examination of DW-2, it goes to show that he has deposed so as an interested witness out of his disputes with plaintiff.

Therefore, the evidence of DW-2 is no way helpful to the defendant.

10.In cross examination of PW-1, the defendant has taken a defence by suggesting her that since the defendant refused to marry daughter of plaintiff, she has filed this false suit against the defendant. The said suggestion is contradicting with the evidence in cross examination of defendant, the said relevant evidence is reproduced hereunder for proper appreciation :

“In the month of April, 2009 my marriage engagement was held and my marriage took place on 06-06-2009. Prior to engagement there were disputes between me and plaintiff.

During my stay at the house of plaintiff, myself, plaintiff's family and my maternal grand mother used to stay in the same house.

There were no disputes between me and my maternal uncle i.e.

husband of plaintiff.”

11.On seeing the above evidence, it clearly shows that the suggestions made to PW-1 are not tenable and there is no any force in the said suggestions. In fact, the defendant has not 7 pleaded anything about the said suggestions in his written statement. Thus, on seeing the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, it is establishing that the suit pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration.

Issue No.2 :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.

90,000-00 from the defendant ?

Since issue No.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff, that the suit pronote is true, valid and the consideration passed under Ex.A-1 is also established by the plaintiff both oral and documentary.

Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for.

Issue No.3 :

To what relief ?

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed for Rs. 90,000-00 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation and after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of October, 2015.

Junior Civil Judge Sirpur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For PlaintiffFor Defendant

PW-1: Chunarkar Kamala DW-1: Durgam RajKumar PW-2: Ch. Raja Sulochana DW-2: Chunarkar Ashok

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.A-1: Promissory Note, dated 18-03-2009 ---NIL---

Junior Civil Judge Sirpur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT SIRPUR

Present: Gannarapu Sudershan Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur

Friday this the 16th day of October, 2015

CC.No. 313 of 2013

Between:- The State of A.P. through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Sirpur Town in Cr.No. 50/2013. …. Complainant //AND//

1. Chiluveri Shekar, S/o. Nanaiah, age 38 years, Caste: Medari, Occ. Caste Profession.

2. Chiluveri Mallesh, S/o. Nanaiah, age 35 years, Caste: Medari, Occ. Caste Profession.

3. Chiluveri Nanaiah, S/o. Bheemaiah, age 55 years, Caste: Medari, Occ. Caste Profession.

All R/o. Medariwada of Sirpur-T.

…..Accused

This case is coming before me for hearing on this day in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri. Ganta Pentanna, Advocate for accused, after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Sirpur Town filed charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable

U/s. 326 r/w. 34 IPC in Cr.No. 50/2013.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that : the accused

No.1 is brother-in-law of PW-1; accused No.2 is brother of accused No.1 and accused No.3 is father-in-law of PW-1 who reside in front of the house of PW-1. On 12-06-2013 at 8.30 pm.

while PW-1 was scolding his wife on a petty issue, meanwhile accused No.1 came on to the road, picked up quarrel with PW-1 2 and scolded him, then other accused came and caught hold PW-1 and accused No.1 beat PW-1 with a bamboo stick and caused injury to his left hand, meanwhile PWs 2 to 4 intervened to rescue

PW-1, then the accused Nos. 2 and 3 beat them with hands, pushed on to the ground and kicked them with legs. As such, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 had committed the offence punishable under

Section 326 r/w. 34 IPC.

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, cognizance for the offence under Section 326 r/w. 34 IPC was taken against the accused. On appearance of accused copies of documents furnished to them as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. and after that they were examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C., charge U/s. 326 r/w. 34 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 10, marked Ex.P-1 to P-13.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

Accused denied the evidence, reported no defence witnesses to be examined.

6.Now the point for determination is that :

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/s. 326 r/w. 34 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

3

7.To prove the guilt of accused for the charge under Sec. 326 r/w. 34 IPC, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. PW-1 is the defacto complainant and injured, he deposed that during last year at 7.00 pm. an altercation took place between him and accused No.1 with regard to electricity supply. He further deposed that, when he was abusing regarding electricity supply, then accused No.1 came to him and beat him with a stick on his left hand while accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold him thinking that he is abusing them. Further deposed that, LW-5

Shankaramma, LW-6 Mondakka witnessed the incident. Later, he went to police station and lodged Ex.P-1 report. PW-2 who is the father of PW-1, he deposed that while he and PW-1 discussing about power supply, at that time accused Nos. 1 to 3 came to them and accused No.1 beat PW-1 while accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold him. Further, deposed that when he and his wife intervened, the accused pushed them away.

8.The prosecution examined wife and mother of PW-1 as PWs 3 and 4 and also examined PWs 5 and 6 as eye witnesses to the alleged incident, but none of the witnesses were supported the prosecution version. PW-7 and 8 examined as panch witnesses for the Crime Details Form, even they did not support the prosecution version except admitting their signatures as Ex.P-6 and P-7. PW-9 is the Medical Officer, who examined PWs 1 to 4 and issued Ex.P-8 to P-11. PW-10 is the Investigation Officer, who registered the case, issued P-12 FIR and investigated.

9.On seeing the above evidence adduced by prosecution except the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, there is no other material 4 evidence to speak regarding the alleged incident. PW-1 testified that when he was abusing regarding the electricity supply, accused No.1 came to him and beat him. In cross examination he admitted that, accused were in their house when PW-1 and his wife discussing about the power supply. Whereas PW-2 in his evidence stated that, while he and PW-1 discussing about power supply, the accused came to him and beat him and he deposed contradicting the above version in cross examination stating that when PW-1 and his wife were discussing about power supply, he was in the house only. Further he admitted that, the accused were present in their house at that time.

10.It is pertinent to note that the wife and mother of PW-1 were not supported the prosecution version. They have categorically stated that they do not know how PW-1 sustained injury. As per the version of PW-1, PWs 5 and 6 are only the eye witnesses to the alleged incident. On seeing their evidence, it shows that they did not speak anything or stated supporting the prosecution case.

Thus, on seeing the evidence on record, PWs-1 and 2 evidence is contradicting with each other and their own evidence regarding the material particulars much less about beating of PW-1 and his sustaining injuries. In fact, the evidence of Medical Officer is not corroborating with anyone of the witnesses more particularly PWs 3 and 4 evidence is no way supporting the evidence of Medical

Officer regarding the injuries. Further PWs 1 and 2 failed to explain when the incident is occurred. As per the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 the alleged incident occurred at 7.00 pm. and PW-1 stated that, he went to police station on the same day and lodged

Ex.P-1 report. Whereas the Investigation Officer PW-10 stated 5 that, on 13-06-2013 at 8.00 am. he sent PW-1 for treatment after lodging report and the Medical Officer PW-9 deposed that on 13- 06-2013 at 9.00 am. to 9.40 am. he examined PWs 1 to 4.

Admittedly, PWs 1 to 4 in their evidence no where stated about the date of alleged incident. Therefore, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is no way helping to the prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused and to connect the crime with them. In the absence of any such material evidence on record, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

In the result, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/s. 326 r/w. 34 IPC. Accordingly they are acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of (6) months as per the provisions under Sec. 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation and after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of October, 2015.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class Sirpur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW-1: Chanigarapu Santosh(LW-1/Complainant/Injured) --NONE-- PW-2: Chanigarapu Buchaiah (LW-2/Injured) PW-3: Chanigarapu Laxmi (LW-3/Wife of PW-1) PW-4: Chanigarapu Poshakka (LW-4/Injured) PW-5: Bollam Shankaramma (LW-5/Eye witness) PW-6: Parigaon Mondakka (LW-6/Eye witness) PW-7: Bollam Anil Kumar (LW-7/Panch witness for Crime Details Form) PW-8: Bollam Manohar (LW-8/Panch witness for Crime Details Form) PW-9: Dr. Satyanarayana (LW-9/Medical Officer) PW-10: J. Shyam Sunder (LW-10/Investigation Officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P-1: Complaint ---NIL--- 6

Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-3 Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-4 Ex.P-4: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-5 Ex.P-5: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-6 Ex.P-6: Signature of PW-7 on Crime Details Form Ex.P-7: Signature of PW-8 on Crime Details Form Ex.P-8: Wound Certificate of PW- 1 Ex.P-9: Wound Certificate of PW- 2 Ex.P-10: Wound Certificate of PW-3 Ex.P-11: Wound Certificate of PW-4 Ex.P-12: FIR Ex.P-13: Crime Details Form

M.O.s MARKED

---NIL---

Judl. Magistrate of I Class Sirpur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT SIRPUR

Present: Gannarapu Sudershan Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur

Friday this the 16th day of October, 2015

CC.No. 351 of 2011

Between:- The State of A.P. through Inspector of Police, PS Kaghaznagar Town in Cr.No. 105/2011. …. Complainant //AND//

1. Bodasu Vijay, S/o. Ankulu, age 23 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ. Van Driver.

2. Ambati Rathan, S/o. Narayana, age 22 years, Caste: Mannepu, Occ. Car Driver.

Both R/o. Nougaon Basthi, Kaghaznagar.

…..Accused

This case is coming before me for hearing on this day in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri. T. Dayaraj Singh, Advocate for accused, after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, PS Kaghaznagar Town filed charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s. 341, 324 r/w. 34 IPC in Cr.No. 72/2011.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that : the accused

Nos.1, 2 are friends and LW-1 Panjala Shiva Prasad, PW-1 are friends. The accused No.2 eve teased the niece of PW-1. On 26- 09-2011 at about 10.00 pm. PW-1 met accused No.2 near Forest

Office and asked him as to why he is teasing his niece, for which both of them fought each other. Meanwhile LW-1 Shiva Prasad went there and he tried to pacify the matter, but the accused 2

No.2 called accused No.1 and both the accused beat LW-1 indiscriminately and caused injuries and all of them went away from that place and at about 11.00 pm. while LW-1 Shiva Prasad was returning to his house on motor cycle, when he reached

Pochamma Basthi, accused No.1 came on his motor cycle, obstructed LW-1 and started abusing and beat him with stick on his head, due to which LW-1 fell down on the road, meanwhile accused No.2 also came there and beat him with sticks indiscriminately. As such, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had committed the offences punishable under Section 341, 324 r/w.

34 IPC.

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, cognizance for the offences under Section 341, 324 r/w. 34 IPC was taken against the accused. On appearance of accused copies of documents furnished to them as required U/s. 207

Cr.P.C. and after that they were examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C., charges U/s. 341, 324 r/w. 34 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5, marked Ex.P-1 to P-3 and Ex.D-1 to D-3. In spite of giving sufficient time and in spite of conditional order, the prosecution did not serve summons on LWs 8 and 9 Investigation Officers, hence this court closed their evidence.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

3

Accused denied the evidence, reported no defence witnesses to be examined.

6.Now the point for determination is that :

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/s. 341, 324 r/w. 34 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

7.To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined five witnesses. PW-1, deposed that, on 27-09-2011 at 10.00 pm.

while he was returning from his sister’s house, on seeing accused

No.2 questioned him about his teasing of his sister’s daughter.

On that, he beat him on his neck then he also slapped him.

Meanwhile, LW-1 Shiva Prasad came there and on his questioning, accused No.2 pushed him and called accused No.1, after his arrival he beat LW-1 Shiva Prasad. Then they left the place and LW-1 Shiva Prasad went to Petrol Pump for Petrol.

While he was returning, both the accused intercepted him and beat with sticks. Due to which he fell down and LW-4 Arun Kumar has shifted him to hospital. Later LW-1 lodged complaint. In support of evidence of PW-1, PW-2 deposed stating that, on 27- 09-2011 at 10.00 pm. accused beat LW-1 with sticks. Further deposed that, when he went to the scene of offence, by the time the accused was beating LW-1 Shiva Prasad. PW-3 who examined as another eye witness, was not supported the prosecution version. PW-4 is the witness for Crime Details Form

Ex.P-2. PW-5 is the Medical Officer who examined LW-1 Shiva

Prasad and issued Ex. P-3 Wound Certificate.

4

8.On seeing the above evidence adduced by prosecution, admittedly the prosecution has not examined the defacto complainant and injured as he was died. Though, PW-1 stated about the two incidents, but in his cross examination he stated that after first incidence he went to his house. Further he stated that, before police he stated that the incident occurred on 27-09- 2011 and also stated that he did not state as in Ex.D-1 i.e. the incident occurred on 26-09-2011. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 is contradicting with his own version. Similarly, PW-2 also in his cross examination stated that he has not stated before police as in Ex. D-2 i.e. the incident occurred on 26-09-2011. Though, PW- 2 in his evidence stated that when he went to scene of offence, by the time accused was beating LW-1 Shiva Prasad, but he did not state about the presence of PW-1 at the scene of evidence.

Further the evidence of PW-2 is not showing any trust worthy. In the cross examination he stated that, he went to scene of offence and rescued LW1 by intervening. Further he stated that, he did not state before police as in Ex. D-3 i.e. he came to know about beating of LW-1. Thus, on seeing the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, it shows that their evidence is not showing any trust worthy regarding their witnessing of incident. In fact their evidence reveals that they are interested witnesses to the prosecution case. The prosecution though examined PW-3 as another eye witness but he has not supported the prosecution version.

9.Though the Medical Officer was examined but his evidence is no way helping to the prosecution in proving the guilt of accused as the injured was not examined as he died. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution failed to examine the 5

Investigation Officer, who is a necessary witness to speak about lodging of report by the injured LW-1 and also about the registering of the case. The non-examination of Investigation

Officer is a fatal to the prosecution case.

10.On the aforesaid discussion and on scrutinizing the evidence on record, it is clinchingly establishing that absolutely there is nothing on record to connect the crime with the accused.

As discussed above there is an inconsistency of evidence and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is contradicting regarding the alleged incident, more particularly about the date of incident and the prosecution failed to examine the Investigation Officer to clarify the discrepancies. In the absence of all such material evidence on record, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

In the result, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/s. 341, 324 r/w. 34 IPC. Accordingly they are acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of (6) months as per the provisions under Sec. 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation and after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of October, 2015.

Judl Magistrate of I Class Sirpur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW-1: Ramilla Laxminarayana (LW-2/Eye witness) --NONE-- PW-2: Jangalapalli Sai Kishore (LW-3/Eye witness) PW-3: Dongre Arun Kumar (LW-4/Eye witness) PW-4: Choppadandi Vijay Kumar (LW-5/Panch witness For Crime Details Form) PW-5: Dr. S. Satyanarayana (LW-7/Medical Officer) 6

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P-1: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Ex.D-1: Part of 161 Cr.P.C. PW-3Statement of PW-1 Ex.P-2: Crime Details Form Ex.P-3: Wound Certificate Ex.D-2: Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-2 Ex.D-3: Part of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-2

M.O.s MARKED

---NIL---

Judl. Magistrate of I Class Sirpur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIRPUR

Present: Gannarapu Sudarshan Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur

Thursday, this the 29th day of October, 2015

O.S.No. 12 of 2015

Between:- Ronte Rama Rao, S/o. Veeraiah, age 33 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Katepalli village, Mandal Bejjur, Dist. Adilabad.

... Plaintiff.

//A N D //

Korte Ganesh, S/o. Mondi, age 25 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Korteguda village, Mandal Bejjur, Dist. Adilabad. … Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Mohd. Rais Ahmed, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Defendant remained set ex-parte, having been heard and stood over for consideration, till this day the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs. 15,000-00 from the defendant.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are that : the plaintiff is an agriculturist by profession and he hails from Khammam District and in the year 2014, the plaintiff came to Bejjur Mandal for cultivation. The defendant is owner of land Sy.No. 71/171 measuring Ac. 3-00 cents situated at Katepalli village. On 17-03- 2014 the defendant offered the plaintiff to give his land on Qoul @ Rs. 5,000/- per acre and the defendant promised the plaintiff that he will deliver the possession of said Ac. 3-00 cents of land to the plaintiff in the month of June, 2014, believing the words of defendant he paid Rs. 15,000-00 to the defendant on 17-03-2014 2 for Ac. 3-00 cents of land in presence of Manepally Chilkaiah,

Salluri Devaji and Dupta Durgaiah of Katepalli village, but the defendant did not deliver the land in favour of plaintiff. In the month of July, 2014 undertook the agricultural operations in the above land, then the defendant intervened and objected the plaintiff by saying as he was already given land to one Andhra person and he is not accepting to relieve the land and promised to return the amount which he took within (15) days, but he failed to keep his promise and dodged the matter on one or other pretext. Finally, on 20-12-2014 the plaintiff approached the defendant and demanded him for payment of Rs. 15,000-00, but the defendant refused. Hence, this suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendant appeared before the

Court, but he did not choose to file written statement. Hence, he was set ex-parte.

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and no documents are marked.

5.Heard.

6.As seen from the evidence of PW-1, the defendant approached him on 17-03-2011 and offered to give his land of Ac.

3-00 cents in Sy.No. 71/171 of Katepalli village on Qoul @ Rs.

5,000-00 per acre and the defendant promised that he will deliver the possession of land in the month of June, 2014, believing the words of defendant, he paid an amount of Rs. 15,000-00 to the defendant for Ac. 3-00 cents of land in the presence of Manepally 3

Chilkaiah, Salluri Devaji and Dupta Durgaiah of Katepalli village on the same day, but the defendant failed to do so. Hence, in the month of July, 2014 he undertook agricultural operations in the above land, then the defendant intervened and objected him from doing agricultural operations by saying as he has given that land to one Andhra person and he is refusing to relieve the land and promised to return the amount which the defendant has taken from him, but he dodged the matter on one or other pretext, finally on 20-12-2014 when he approached the defendant from payment of Rs. 15,000-00, then the defendant refused to pay, as such the defendant has to pay Rs. 15,000-00 to the plaintiff.

7.The evidence of PW-1 remains unchallenged. The plaintiff through his specific evidence has established his claim. Thus, it clearly established that the plaintiff has given an amount of Rs.

15,000-00 to the defendant towards Qoul amount of land Ac. 3-00 cents in Sy.No. 71/171 of Katepally village and the defendant agreed to repay the same when he failed to deliver the possession of said land, hence, the defendant is liable to pay

Rs. 15,000-00 to the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit is decreed as prayed for.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed for Rs. 15,000-00 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the principal amount.

4

Typed to my dictation and after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of October, 2015.

Junior Civil Judge Sirpur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendant

PW-1: Ronte Rama Rao ---NONE---

EXHIBITS MARKED

---NIL------NIL---

Junior Civil Judge Sirpur 5

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIRPUR

Present: Gannarapu Sudarshan Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur

Tuesday, this the 13th day of October, 2015

O.S.No. 34 of 2015

Between:- Dongre Santhosh, S/o. Dongre Yadav, age 35 years, Occ. Auto Driver, R/o. H.No. 1-5-96, Ambedkar Colony, Sirpur Kaghaznagar.

... Plaintiff.

//A N D //

Durgam Anand Rao, S/o. Durgam Laxmaiah, age 45 years, Occ. Government Employee, R/o. H.No. 1-5-66/2, Tirandaz Talkies Road, Sirpur Kaghaznagar. … Defendant. Suit presented on : 08-05-2015 Suit Registered on : 16-06-2015

Claim for: - Suit field U/o. VII Rule 1 r/w 26 CPC against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs. 50,000-00.

Valuation:- The suit is for recovery of money of Rs. 50,000-00 for which a court fee of Rs. 2,3866-00 is paid U/Sec. 19 of A.P.C. F .&. S.V Act.

This suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri V. Kishore Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendant remained set ex-parte, having been heard, this court doth Judgment and Decree as follows : -

1. That, the suit of the plaintiff is be and hereby decreed with costs.

2. That, the defendant is directed to pay Rs. 50,000-00 (Ru- pees fifty thousand only) to the plaintiff.

3. That, the defendant is directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of decree on the principal amount.

4. That, the defendant is directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realiza- tion on the principal amount.

5. That, the defendant is directed to pay costs of Rs. 2,423- 00 to the plaintiff.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, on this the 13th day of October, 2015.

6

COSTS OF SUIT

Sl For Plaintiff Amount For Defendant Amount

No. 1Stamp on plaint 2,386-00Stamp on Power--- 2Stamp on Power2-00Stamp on Petition--- 3Stamp on Petition---Stamp on documents--- 4Stamp on ---Process Fee--- documents 5Process Fee35-00Pleader’s Fee--- 6Pleader’s FeeMiscellaneous--- 7Miscellaneous------

Total 2,423-00 Total ---

Note: Counsel for plaintiff not filed cost memo.

Junior Civil Judge Sirpur