Ms K.Jayanthi

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT HUZURNAGAR

(Saturday, the 30thday of March, 2019)

PRESENT: Smt. K.JAYANTHI,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar.

SESSIONS CASE No. 387 of 2017

(P.R.C.No.18/2017 on the file of the J.M.F.C. Kodad in Crime No.227/2017 of P.S. Kodad Town)

COMPLAINANT:The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Kodad Town. ACCUSED:

A-1: Anchuri Ranjit Reddy S/o Veera Reddy, age: 31 years, Caste: Reddy, Occu: Private Employee,

A-2: Anchuri Kamalamma W/o Veera Reddy, age: 50 years, Caste: Reddy, Occu: Housewife,

Both are R/o Vattivella Gopi Reddy Nagar, Kodad Town.

Offences Charged:U/Secs.498-A and 304-B IPC or in the alternative of Section 306 IPC.

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:

IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC or in the alternative of Section 306 IPC and they are hereby acquitted under Section 232 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stay in force for six months. The unmarked property i.e., two pieces of white colour silk chunni and broken pieces of red and black colour bangles vide lower court C.P.No.236/2017 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri N. Satyanarayana, Addl. P.P.

Accused is defended by:Sri S. Radha Krishna Murthy, Advocate.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 27-03-2019 in the presence of Sri N. Satyanarayana, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri S. Radha Krishna Murthy, Learned counsel for accused and having perused the evidence adduced and exhibits marked and other material papers on record having heard both sides and stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

Assistant Sessions Judge Huzurnagar

Page 2 of 8 : J U D G M E N T:

1.The accused No.1 and 2 arraigned before this court for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC of Kodad

Town Police Station in Crime No.227/2017.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kodad Town Police Station filed charge sheet under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure with the following averments, in brief:-

(a)On dated 20-06-2017, at 0800 hours, PW-1 lodged complaint stating that her daughter Aruna’s marriage was performed with the accused No.1 on 15-04-2012 at Kodad. After the marriage, she joined her in-laws house at Kodad. Out of wedlock, she blessed with a male child, by name, Lukesh Reddy, aged around 06 years.

After the birth of Lukesh Reddy, the accused persons harassed the deceased Aruna both physically and mentally on petty issues.

That being so, about one week prior to the report, Aruna came to the house of PW-1 to attend a function, subsequently, on 19-06-2017 returned to Kodad to her in-laws house. On the way to

Kodad, the accused Nos.1 abused her on the ground that she did not look after the welfare of her son and did not send him to school regularly. Thereafter, the accused No.2 also abused the deceased Aruna alleging that she is not fit to marriage, household things and look after the welfare of their son and abetted to commit suicide. That being so, on the same day, around 6.15 p.m., Aruna informed the said facts to PW-1 on phone and later on, on the same day around 7.30 p.m., Aruna’s father-in-law made a phone call to the son of PW-1 and informed that her daughter’s condition was serious. On receiving the information,

S.C.No.387 of 2017Assistant Sessions Judge Huzurnagar

Page 3 of 8

PW-1, her son and relatives rushed to Kodad. In the meanwhile, her daughter was already died and they came to know that her daughter committed suicide by hanging in the bathroom with her chunni to the shower.

(b)Basing on the report, LW-11 G. Rajitha, Inspector of Police,

Kodad Town Police Station registered a case in Crime

No.227/2017 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and issued First Information Report to all concerned. During the course of investigation, she examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 3, visited the scene of offence, that is, house of the deceased at Vattivella Gopi Reddy Nagar, Kodad

Town, there she examined Pws.4 and 5. She addressed a letter to

Tahsildar, Kodad to conduct scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama over the dead body of Anchuri Aruna and accordingly, LW-8 J. Kartheek, Tahsildar, Nadigudem Mandal, in-charge of Kodad Mandal, visitedthe scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized two pieces of white colour silk chunni, seized broken pieces of black and white colour bangles. Thereafter, LW-11 along with LW-6 Kasarla

Srinivasa Rao, LW-7 Sundari Pushpalatha and LW-8 LW-8 J.

Kartheek, Tahsildar visited Government Hospital, Kodad, took photographs of the dead body and LW-8 J. Kartheek, Tahsildar conduced inquest over the dead body of Anchuri Aruna in the presence of LW-6 Kasarla Srinivasa Rao and LW-7 Sundari

Pushpalatha. Later on, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. LW-9 Dr. K. Rajender and LW-10 Dr. B.

Srinivasa Naik conducted autopsy over the dead body of the

S.C.No.387 of 2017Assistant Sessions Judge Huzurnagar

Page 4 of 8 deceased and preserved the Hyoid bone and viscera for examination at Forensic Science Laboratory. Thereafter, the dead body was handed over to the relatives.

(c)On 05-07-2017, LW-11 G. Rajitha, Inspector of Police apprehended the accused and effected arrest and got them remanded to judicial custody. On 07-07-2017, the material objects were forwarded to TS FSL vide FSL File No.SFSL(TS)/ 6978/Tox/1993/17, dated 07-07-2017 and deposited Hyoid Bone of the deceased at Forensic Medicine Department, Osmania

Medical College at Hyderabad vide E.O.No.67/2017, dated 07-07-2017 for examination and report. On 20-07-2017, accused

No.2 as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in

Crl.M.P.No.800/2017, accused No.2 surrendered before the

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad and released on the same day on bail.On completion of investigation and after collecting documentary evidence, LW-11 G. Rajitha, Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.

3.The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC vide P.R.C.No.18/2017 and committed the above case to the Court of Sessions, Nalgonda under Section 209(a) of Code of

Criminal Procedure. The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Nalgonda made over this case to this court for disposal

according to law.

S.C.No.387 of 2017Assistant Sessions Judge Huzurnagar

Page 5 of 8

4.On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2, they are examined under Section 228(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and charges are framed for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC or in the alternative of Section 306

IPC and same were read over and explained in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

PWs.1 to 5 are examined and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-6. PW-1 is the de facto complainant and mother of deceased/Anchuri

Aruna, PW-2 is witness and elder brother of deceased, PW-3 is witness and paternal uncle of deceased, PWs-4 and 5 are circumstantial witnesses.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence accordingly, this court perused the record and found that there is no incriminating evidence adduced against the accused in this case. Therefore, this court dispensed with the examination of the accused under

Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

7.This court heard the arguments on either side and perused the entire record.

8.Now the point for determination is;

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC or in the alternative of Section 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

S.C.No.387 of 2017Assistant Sessions Judge Huzurnagar

Page 6 of 8

9.POINT:

It is the brief case of the prosecution that after the birth of male child, the accused persons harassed the deceased Anchuri

Aruna both physically and mentally and abetted her to commit suicide. As such, on 19-06-2017 during evening hours, she committed suicide by hanging to the shower in bathroom. In order to prove the said allegations, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 5.

10.PW-1 is the complainant and mother of the deceased. It is the evidence of PW-1 that at about one year seven months back at Kodad, her daughter committed suicide by hanging. PW-1 does not know the reasons for her suicide. It is the evidence of PW-1 that she did not give any compliant against the accused.

11.PWs.2 and 3 being the close relatives of the deceased/

Anchuri Aruna did not support the case of the prosecution. PWs.4 and 5 being circumstantial witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. It is the specific evidence of PWs.2 to 5 that they does not know anything about the case.

12.In view of the evidence of Pws.1 to 5, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

remaining list of witnesses, who are mere official witnesses.

13.As per the evidence supra, all the material witnesses, that is, PWs.1 to 5 have not supported the case of the prosecution.

They did not state anything incriminating against the accused.

Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients for the

S.C.No.387 of 2017Assistant Sessions Judge Huzurnagar

Page 7 of 8 offence punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC or in the alternative of Section 306 IPC.

14.In view of my above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal for the offence charged.

15.IN THE RESULT, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B

IPC or in the alternative of Section 306 IPC and they are hereby acquitted under Section 232 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stay in force for six months.The unmarked property i.e., two pieces of white colour silk chunni and broken pieces of red and black colour bangles vide lower court C.P.No.236/2017 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.II), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30thday of March, 2019.

SD/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW-1:(LW-1):D. Laxmi: Complainant and mother of the deceased

PW-2:(LW-2):D. Narender Reddy: Circumstantial witness andelder brotherof deceased

PW-3:(LW-3):Vemula Mattareddy: Circumstantial witness and paternal uncle of deceased

S.C.No.387 of 2017Assistant Sessions Judge Huzurnagar

Page 8 of 8

PW-4:(LW-4):Kachavarapu Usha: Circumstantial witness

PW-5:(LW-5):V. Venkateshwar: Circumstantial witness Reddy

FOR DEFENCE:- NIL - : EXHIBITS MARKED : FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1Dt.20-06-2017… Signature of PW-1 on the report

Ex.P-2Dt.20-06-2017… 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1

Ex.P-3:Dt.20-06-2017… 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2

Ex.P-4:Dt.20-06-2017… 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3

Ex.P-5:Dt.20-06-2017… 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4

Ex.P-6:Dt.20-06-2017… 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-5

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - NIL -

SD/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

S.C.No.387 of 2017Assistant Sessions Judge Huzurnagar

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR

(Dated, this, the 30thday of March, 2019)

PRESENT: Smt. K. JAYANTHI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURNAGAR.

O.S.NO. 261 OF 2014

Between:

Damera Venkulu S/o Venkaiah, age: 69 years, Occu: Retired Watchmen, R/o Balaji Nagar, Kodad Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

… PLAINTIFF. AND

Pingali Lingaiah S/o Dargaiah, age: 46 years, Occu: Record Assistant, K.R.R. Degree College, R/o Balaji Nagar, Kodad Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

… DEFENDANT.

This suit coming before me on 22-03-2019 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri S. Venkateshwarlu, Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri. M. Mohan Reddy, Counsel for the Defendant and after having stood over for consideration today this court doth pronounce the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of money, basing upon two demand promissory notes.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a)The plaintiff and defendant are acquainted with each other. On such acquaintance, on 15-07-2013, at the house of plaintiff at Balaji

Nagar H/o Kodad Town and Mandal, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only) from the plaintiff to meet his family expenses on execution of demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

The defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rs.Seventy five

Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

Page 2 of 7 thousand only) from the plaintiff at the house of plaintiff on execution of separate demand promissory note and agreed to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

(b)After availing the loan amount, the defendant failed to repay the same in spite of several requests and demands made by the plaintiff. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant is liable to pay

Rs.2,01,850/- (Rupees Two lakhs one thousand eight hundred and fifty only) together with future interest.

3.The defendantfiled written statementdenying the plaint averments in toto and the averments of written statement in brief are as follows;

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other. The borrowing of amount and execution of demand promissory notes by the defendant specifically denied by the defendant. As a matter of fact, the defendant has no necessity to borrow the said huge amounts from the plaintiff and the plaintiff had no capacity to lend such amount to the defendant. The alleged promissory notes are forged and fabricated documents. The alleged promissory notes are without consideration. The plaintiff is a money-lender without having valid license. There is no cause of action for filing the suit and sought for dismissal of the suit.

4.Basing upon the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial;

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

O.S.No. 261 OF 2014Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

Page 3 of 7

2. Whether the plaintiff is a money-lender without valid license?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DW-1 was examined.

6.This court heard the arguments on either side and perused the entire record.

7. ISSUES No.1 and 3:

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

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount as prayed for?

It is the brief case of the plaintiff that on 15-07-2013, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand only) and Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) separately on two occasions on execution of demand promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant is liable to pay

Rs.2,01,850/- (Rupees Two lakhs one thousand eight hundred and fifty only) together with future interest.

8.In order to prove the said allegations, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW-1 and reiterated almost all the averments of plaint in his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. It is the specific evidence of PW-1 that on 15-07-2013 at the house of plaintiff at Balaji Nagar, H/o Kodad

O.S.No. 261 OF 2014Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

Page 4 of 7

Town and Mandal, the defendant received an amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand only) on execution of demand promissory note and later on, on the same day again borrowed an amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rs.Seventy five thousand only) from the plaintiff to meet his family expenses and executed separate demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Exs.A-1 and A-2 are the original demand promissory notes.

PW-2 is one of the attestors to Exs.A-1 and A-2.He supported the evidence of PW-1. It is the evidence of PW-2 that the defendant executed Exs.A-1 and A-2 in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the consideration, PW-2 and the wife of defendant stood as attestors to

Exs.A-1 and A-2. It is further evidence of PW-2 that the defendant himself scribed two promissory notes with his own hand writing. Nothing has been elicited during cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 to disbelieve their evidence. No suggestions were put to PWs.1 and 2 that the defendant never scribed Exs.A-1 and A-2 and even signatures appearing thereon does not belong to him. Even though it is contended in written statement that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend amounts and the defendant had no necessity to borrow amounts, no such suggestions were put to PW-1 during cross-examination. Merely a bald suggestion was put to PW-1 that the defendant never borrowed any amount nor executed demand promissory notes in favour of the defendant. The said suggestion was categorically denied by the PW-1. PW-2 categorically deposed that the second attestor is the wife of the defendant. It is the specific evidence of Pw-2 that the defendant himself scribed Exs.A-1 and A-2 with his own handwriting. In this regard, there is no cross-examination to

PW-2. Hence, the evidence of Pw-2 is a substantive piece of evidence.

O.S.No. 261 OF 2014Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

Page 5 of 7

9.The defendant himself got examined as DW-1 and during cross- examination DW-1 denied his signatures on Exs.A-1 and A-2 as well as in written statement and vakalat also. This itself shows the demeanour of witness and to presume that only for the sake of avoiding his liability,

DW-1 has denied his signatures, which were confronted during cross- examination. Though, it is not safe to compare the signatures by invoking Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, as the DW-1 denied his signatures on written statement and vakalat also, this court feels that it is a fit case to compare the signatures of the defendant to come to just conclusion. Accordingly, this court compared the signatures of the defendant and found that served summons, vakalat, written statement, affidavit of DW-1 in lieu of chief-examination and Exs.A-1 and A-2, the signatures of defendant appearing as one and the same nature. Whereas for the first time, DW-1 put his signature in different style in cross- examination of deposition with all capital letters, for the reasons best known to him.In view of all these reasons, there is no truth in the evidence of DW.1 and it is not believable to prove his contentions.

10.In view of oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A-1 and

A-2, the plaintiff has proved the execution of promissory notes and the burden shifts on the defendant to disprove the same. In this regard, the defendant has utterly failed to adduce any evidence, on the contrary, he gave evidence against his pleadings. Hence, this court holds that

Exs.A-1 and A-2 are true, valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount. Hence, the point in Issues

No.1 and 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

11.ISSUE No.2:

Whether the plaintiff is a money-lender without valid license?

O.S.No. 261 OF 2014Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

Page 6 of 7

It is the contention on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff is a money-lender without valid license. In this regard, the burden lies on the defendant to prove the point in this issue. In this regard, the defendant has not adduced any authenticated evidence before this court except putting bald suggestions to PW-1. Hence, this court finds that the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff is a money-lender without having valid license. Hence, the point in Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

12.ISSUE No.4:To what relief?

In view of my findings in Issues No.1 to 3, this court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount basing upon Exs.A-1 and

A-2.

13.IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendant in a sum of Rs.2,01,850/- (Rupees

Two lakhs one thousand eight hundred and fifty only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on principal sum of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One lakh and fifty five thousand only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum until realization.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30thday of March, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

PW-1: Sri. Damera Venkulu (Plaintiff)

O.S.No. 261 OF 2014Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

Page 7 of 7

PW-2: Sri. Thokala Prashanth Kumar (Attestor of Exs.A-1 and A-2)

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT::

DW-1: Sri. Pingali Lingaiah (Defendant) :: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

Ex.A-1: Original demand promissory note, dated 15-07-2013 for Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only)

Ex.A-2: Original demand promissory note, dated 15-07-2013 for Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only)

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:: - NIL -

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

O.S.No. 261 OF 2014Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT HUZURNAGAR

(Saturday, the 30thday of March, 2019)

PRESENT: Smt. K.JAYANTHI,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar.

SESSIONS CASE No. 108 of 2014

(P.R.C. No.49/2012 on the file of the J.M.F.C. Kodad in Crime No.57/2011 of P.S. Munagala)

COMPLAINANT:The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Munagala.

ACCUSED:

Vorsu Sandhya W/o Haribabu, age: 24 years, Caste: Vaddera, Occu: Housewife, R/o Mukundpuram.

Offences Charged:U/Secs.307 and 309 IPC

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 309 IPC and she is hereby acquitted under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stay in force for six months.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri N. Satyanarayana, Addl. P.P.

Accused is defended by:Sri K. Balakrishna, Advocate.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 27-03-2019 in the presence of Sri N. Satyanarayana, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri K. Balakrishna, Learned counsel for accused and having perused the evidence adduced and exhibits marked and other material papers on record having heard both sides and stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T:

1.The accused arraigned before this court for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 309 IPC of Munagala Police

Station in Crime No.57/2011.

Assistant Sessions Judge Huzurnagar

Page 2 of 6

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagala Police Station filed charge sheet under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure with the following averments, in brief:-

(a)On dated 14-04-2011 at 16.00 hours, PW-1 being the Village

Revenue Officer of Mukundapuram lodged a complaint stating that on the same day around 10.00 a.m., the accused gave pesticide poison to her daughter, by name, Niharika, aged 06 years and son, by name, Manikanta, aged 08 months and she also consumed pesticide poison and jumped into the N.S.P. Canal along with her son Manikanta and attempted to commit suicide.

At that time, one Julu Venkatramulu and Julu Kanakaiah jumped into the canal and saved the accused and her son.

(b)Basing upon the above complaint, LW-11 C. Satish Kumar,

Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.57/2011 for the offence under Sections 307 and 309 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW-1. Later on, he visited the scene of offence situated at Mukundapuram village and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW-7 Vorsu Saidulu and

LW-8 Chikkulla Yedukondlu and also drew rough sketch.

Subsequently, he examined and recorded statement of LW-2 Julu

Venkatramulu and PW-2. Later on, visited Kodad, examined PWs.3 to 5.

(c)It is further case of the prosecution that on 23-06-2011, at 10.00 a.m., LW-11 C. Satish Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the accused at Mukundapuram and got him remanded to

S.C.No.108 of 2014Assistant Sessions Judge Huzurnagar

Page 3 of 6 judicial custody. LW-9 Dr. B. Krishna Rao gave medical certificate stating that consumption of poison is grave in nature.

On completion of investigation and after collecting documentary evidence, LW-11 C. Satish Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections 307 and 309 IPC.

3.The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 309

IPC vide P.R.C.No.49/2012 and committed the above case to the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Nalgonda under Section 209(a) of Code

of Criminal Procedure. The Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions

Judge's Court made over the case to this court for disposal

according to law.

4.On appearance of the accused, she was examined under

Section 228(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 309

IPC and same was read over and explained in Telugu and she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

PWs.1 to 5 are examined and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-5. PW-1 is the de facto complainant; PW-2 is circumstantial witness and

PWs.3 to 5 are circumstantial witnesses.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence on record, the accused denied her culpability and reported that she has no defence evidence.

S.C.No.108 of 2014Assistant Sessions Judge Huzurnagar

Page 4 of 6

7.This court heard the arguments on either side and perused the entire record.

8.Now the point for determination is;

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 309

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.POINT:

It is the brief case of the prosecution that on 14-04-2011 at 10.00 a.m., the accused attempted to kill her children and she also attempted to commit suicide due to ill-health, which is witnessed by PW-2 and LW-2 Julu Venkatramulu. In order to prove the said allegations, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 5.

10.PW-1 is the complainant and being Village Revenue Officer, he gave complaint stating that in the year 2011, the accused by consuming rat poison, she along with her two children jumped into NSP canal with an intention to commit suicide. It is further evidence of PW-1 that the accused also gave rat poison to her children. Ex.P-1 is the report given by PW-1. During cross- examination, PW-1 deposed that he came to know about the information through VRA and he did not witness the alleged incident. PW-1 does not remember whether the police examined him or not.

11.PW-2 being material witness did not support the case of the prosecution and deposed that he does not know anything about

S.C.No.108 of 2014Assistant Sessions Judge Huzurnagar

Page 5 of 6 the case. PWs.3 to 5 being relatives of the accused did not support the case of the prosecution. It is their evidence that they does not know anything about the case. One of the witnesses, by name, Julu Venkateshwarlu reported as died and in view of his death report, his evidence was closed on 08-01-2018.

12.In spite of giving sufficient opportunity, the prosecution has failed to examine LW-7 Vorsu Saidulu, LW-8 Ch. Yedukondalu and

LW-9 Dr. B. Krishna Rao, LW-10 Dr. Ch. Hari Kumar and LW-11 C.

Satish Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, who are the official witnesses and having no other option, the prosecution evidence was treated as closed on 25-03-2019.

13.As per the evidence supra, all the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. PW-1 is not an eyewitness to the incident. He came to know about the incident through V.R.A., but the V.R.A. is neither cited as a witness nor examined on behalf of the prosecution. Hence, basing upon the sole testimony of PW-1, the accused cannot be convicted.

14.In view of my above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients for the offence punishable under

Sections 307 and 309 IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offences charged.

15.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 309 IPC and she is hereby acquitted under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal

S.C.No.108 of 2014Assistant Sessions Judge Huzurnagar

Page 6 of 6

Procedure. The bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stay in force for six months.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.II), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30thday of March, 2019.

Sd/

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW-1:(LW-1):Ananthu Satyam,: Complainant V.R.O.,

PW-2:(LW-3):Julu Kanakaiah: Eyewitness

PW-3:(LW-4):Vorsu Haribabu: Circumstantial witness and husband of accused

PW-4:(LW-5):K. Mangamma: Circumstantial witness and mother of accused

PW-5:(LW-6):K. Chandraiah: Circumstantial witness and father of accused

FOR DEFENCE:- NIL - : EXHIBITS MARKED : FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1Dt.14-04-2011… Report given by PW-1 to the police Ex.P-2Dt.14-04-2011… 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2 Ex.P-3:Dt.14-04-2011… 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3 Ex.P-4:Dt.14-04-2011… 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4 Ex.P-5:Dt.14-04-2011… 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-5

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - NIL -

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

S.C.No.108 of 2014Assistant Sessions Judge Huzurnagar

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUZURNAGAR

(Thursday, the 04thday of April, 2019)

PRESENT: Smt. K. JAYANTHI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURNAGAR.

E.P.No. 161 of 2014

(Old E.P.No. 03/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Suryapet) in

O.S.No. 131 of 2006

(on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Suryapet)

BETWEEN:

Nagulanchu Yadagiri Rao alias Yadagiri S/o Pandu Ranga Rao, age: 37 years, Occu: Business and Agriculture, R/o Kodad village of Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District.

… Decree-holder

AND

Tipirisetti Anjaiah S/o Veeraiah, age: 70 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Seetharampuram village of Chilukur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

… Judgment-debtor

This execution petition having come before me for final hearing on dt.27-03-2019 in the presence of Sri. Y. Sudhakar Reddy , Advocate for decree-holder and of Sri T. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for judgment-debtor, upon perusing the entire material on record and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:- : O R D E R:

1.This is an execution petition filed by the decree-holder under Order 21 Rule 32(5) of Code of Civil Procedure praying this court to execute a valid regular registered sale deed in respect of

E.P. schedule property in favour of decree-holder by deputing an officer to the Sub-Registrar Office, Kodad for registration of document in favour of decree-holder on behalf of the judgment- debtor.

2.It is the case of the decree-holder that he filed main suit vide O.S.No.131/2006 for specific performance of contract in

Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

Page 2 of 5 respect of E.P. schedule property and the same was decreed on 23-01-2009 in favour of decree-holder. The judgment-debtor was directed to execute regular registered sale deed within three months from the date of decree. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the judgment-debtor has preferred an appeal vide

A.S.No.05/2009 on the file of Hon’ble II Additional District Judge,

Nalgonda at Suryapet and the said appeal was dismissed on 23-11-2010. The judgment-debtor did not file any second appeal against the judgment and decree for A.S.No.05/2009. The judgment-debtor has failed to comply with the directions passed by the court and did not execute registered sale deed in respect of E.P. schedule land in the name of decree-holder and he is liable to pay the costs of Rs.16,551/- (Rs.Sixteen thousand five hundred and fifty one only), plus Rs.5,102/- (Rs.Five thousand one hundred and two only), total Rs.26,793/- (Rupees Twenty six thousand seven hundred and ninety three only) including E.P. costs to the decree-holder. The decree-holder has demanded the judgment- debtor several times to pay the costs and to execute regular registered sale deed, but the judgment-debtor did not give any response and prayed to allow the E.P. as prayed for.

3.The judgment-debtor filed counter denying the petition averments and stated that the decree-holder has not paid any amount to the judgment-debtor nor deposited the amount to the credit of E.P. account. The decree-holder never demanded the judgment-debtor to execute a registered sale deed in favour of decree-holder in respect of E.P. schedule property. The decree- holder has not complied with the directions passed by this court

E.P.No. 161 of 2014Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

Page 3 of 5 about depositing the amount and on that ground alone, E.P. is liable to be dismissed and sought for dismissal of E.P.

4.Exs.P-1 and P-2 were marked on behalf of the decree- holder.

5.This court heard arguments on behalf of the decree- holder. The arguments on behalf of the judgment-debtor is treated as heard by orders, dated 27-03-2019 and perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the decree-holder is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

7.POINT:

A perusal of record shows that the decree-holder filed the main suit vide O.S.No.131/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s

Court, Suryapet against the judgment-debtor for specific performance of contract and the same was decreed on merits on 23-01-2009 directing the defendant to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration for Ac.0-30 guntas of land within three months, failing which, the same will be done through the process of this court and also directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.16,551/- (Rs.Sixteen thousand five hundred and fifty one) to the plaintiff towards costs of the suit.

8.Ex.P-1 is the certified copy of decree in O.S.No.131/2006,

dated 23-01-2009. Being aggrieved thereby, the judgment-debtor

has preferred first appeal vide A.S.No.05/2009 on the file of

Hon’ble II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet and the

E.P.No. 161 of 2014Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

Page 4 of 5 same was dismissed on 23-11-2010 on merits by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Suryapet in O.S.No.131/2006, dated 23-01-2009. Ex.P-2 is the certified copy of decree in A.S.No.05/2009, dated 23-11-2010.

9.Admittedly, the judgment-debtor has not preferred any second appeal against the judgment and decree in

A.S.No.05/2009.

10.As can be seen from the counter, it is the contention of the judgment-debtor that the decree-holder has not paid the remaining sale consideration as directed by the court. Whereas the learned counsel for the decree-holder contended that the decree-holder was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration amount to the judgment-debtor, but the judgment-debtor has postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and drag on the proceedings by way of filing interlocutory applications. The learned counsel for decree-holder further contended that the judgment-debtor has not advanced arguments since 06-09-2017 and changed his advocates on record and drag on the proceedings by filing E.A.No.18/2018, which was dismissed on 13-03-2019. He further contended that the decree-holder is ready to deposit the balance sale consideration to the credit of E.P. and prayed to allow the E.P. as prayed for.

11.Considering the submissions on the part of the decree- holder as it is the bounden duty to the judgment-debtor to receive balance sale consideration and execute registered sale deed in favour of the decree-holder in terms of decree in

E.P.No. 161 of 2014Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

Page 5 of 5

O.S.No.131/2006. Hence, the point in question is answered in

favour of the decree-holder.

12.IN THE RESULT, this execution petition is allowed with costs directing the judgment-debtor to receive balance sale consideration and execute registered sale deed in favour of the decree-holder in respect of E.P. schedule property on or before 03-05-2019, otherwise, the decree-holder is at liberty to deposit sale consideration to the credit of E.P. and get registration of sale deed in accordance with law.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.II), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04th day of April, 2019.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE DECREE-HOLDER:- NIL -

FOR THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR:- NIL - : EXHIBITS MARKED :

FOR THE DECREE-HOLDER:

Ex.P-1: Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.131/2006 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Suryapet, dated 23-01-2009,

Ex.P-2: Certified copy of Decree in A.S.No.05/2009 on the file of

Hon’ble II AdditionalDistrict Judge, Nalgonda at

Suryapet, dated 23-11-2010.

FOR THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR: - NIL –

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

E.P.No. 161 of 2014Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR

(Dated, this, the 30thday of March, 2019)

PRESENT: Smt. K. JAYANTHI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURNAGAR.

O.S.NO. 517 OF 2014

Between:

Ragireddy Gopal Reddy S/o Ranga Reddy, age: 55 years, Occu: Business, R/o Sai Apartments, Nereducherla village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

… PLAINTIFF. AND

1. Pulijala Srinivasa Rao S/o Laxmana Rao, age: 45 years, Occu: Govt. Employee in Panchayathraj Department, M.D.O. Office, Thungathurthy, R/o Nereducherla village and mandal, Nalgonda District.

2. Pulijala Padma W/o Srinivasa Rao, age: 40 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o Nereducherla village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

… DEFENDANTS.

This suit coming before me on 22-03-2019 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri P. Ramana Reddy, Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendants remained exparte and after having stood over for consideration today this court doth pronounce the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of money, basing upon demand promissory note.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a)The defendants No.1 and 2 are husband and wife and they are well acquainted with the plaintiff. On such acquaintance, in the month of

November, 2011, the defendants approached the plaintiff for financial accommodation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two lakhs only) to meet their family necessities. After persuasion, on 21-11-2011, the plaintiff advanced an

Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

Page 2 of 5 amount of Rs.66,100/- (Rs.Sixty six thousand and one hundred only) by cash and an amount of Rs.1,23,900/- (Rs.One lakh twenty three thousand and nine hundred only) through Cheque bearing No.121397 drawn on

State Bank of Hyderabad, Nereducherla Branch, dated 21-11-2011.

Thus, total an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One lakh and ninety thousand only) was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendants. After receiving the said amount, the defendants No.1 and 2 have executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff as a collateral security and agreed to repay the amount along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

(b)After availing the loan amount, the defendants failed to repay the same in spite of several requests and demands made by the plaintiff.

Finally, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants, dated 17-11-2014. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendants are liable to pay Rs.3,26,420/- (Rupees Three lakhs twenty six thousand four hundred and twenty only) together with future interest.

3.The defendantsfiled written statementdenying the plaint allegations and the averments of written statement in brief are as follows;

The defendants have categorically denied about the borrowing of amount and execution of suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

It is the case of the defendants that defendant No.1 is working as a

Government Employee and he had no necessity to borrow any amounts from the plaintiff. The plaintiff is an agriculturist and small businessman and he has no financial capacity to lend amount to the defendants and sought for dismissal of the suit.

O.S.No. 517 OF 2014Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

Page 3 of 5

4.Basing upon the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial;

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

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. During the evidence, the defendants remained exparte.

6.This court heard the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff and perused the entire record.

7. ISSUES No.1 and 2:

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

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount as prayed for?

It is the brief case of the plaintiff that on 21-11-2011, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One lakh and ninety thousand only) (partly as cash and partly by way of cheque) from the plaintiff on execution of demand promissory note and agreed to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendants are liable to pay Rs.3,26,420/- (Rs.Three lakhs twenty six thousand four hundred and twenty only). In order to prove the said allegations, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW-1 and reiterated almost all the averments of plaint in his affidavit in lieu of

O.S.No. 517 OF 2014Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

Page 4 of 5 chief-examination. Ex.A-1 is the original promissory note, dated 21-11-2011 for Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One lakh and ninety thousand only) executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. In Ex.A-1 an endorsement about the receipt of consideration through cheque

No.121397, dated 21-11-2011 is also recited. PW-2 is one of the attestors to Ex.A-1. PW-2 supported the evidence of PW-1. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

8.During the course of trial, the defendants remained exparte, as such, cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 recorded as NIL and treated as no evidence on behalf of the defendants.

9.In view of the oral evidence PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A-1, the plaintiff has proved that Ex.A-1 is true, valid and binding on the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. Hence, Issues No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

10.ISSUE No.3:To what relief?

In view of my findings in Issues No.1 and 2, this court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount basing upon Ex.A-1.

11.IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants No.1 and 2, who are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,26,420/- (Rupees Three lakhs twenty six thousand four hundred and twenty only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on principal sum of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One lakh and ninety thousand only) from the date of suit till the

O.S.No. 517 OF 2014Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

Page 5 of 5 date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum until realization.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30thday of March, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

PW-1: Sri. Ragireddy Gopal Reddy (Plaintiff)

PW-2: Sri. Kunku Srinivas Rao (Attestor of Ex.A-1)

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS::- NIL - :: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

Ex.A-1: Original promissory note, dated 21-11-2011 for Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One lakh and ninety thousand only)

Ex.A-2: Office copy of legal notice, dated 17-11-2014

Ex.A-3 and A-4: Postal receipts (two), dated 17-11-2014

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:: - NIL -

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

O.S.No. 517 OF 2014Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar