K.Sailaja

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

.KOVVUR

Present: Ms.K.Sailaja, M.Com., L.L.B.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur

Wednesday, this the 3rd day of May, 2017

C.C.No.116/2016

Between:

The State Sub-Inspector of Police, Deverapalli police station.

...Complainant

AND

1. Abdul Sammad Basha, S/o Moulana, 52 years, Muslim, D.No.5-1-16/2, Opp: Amma Hospital, Nidadavole village & Mandal

2. Mohammad Abdul Saleem, S/o Shaik Moulana, 65 years, Muslim, Ex-Councillor, YSR colony Plot No.218, Nidadavole

3. Shaik Nawab, S/o Khaja Mohiddin, 42 years, Muslim, C block, Namavaram, Rajahmundry Rural.

4. Mohammad Shajith, S/o Saleem, 35 years, Muslim, Nidadavole.

..Accused

This case is coming on 27-4-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Senior Asst.Public Prosecutor for State and Sri N. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Deverapalli Police Station filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.62/2015 for the offence under

Section 324 r/w 34 IPC as follows :

2. P.W.1 is a resident of Yadavole village, Deverapalli Mandal.

The father of P.W.1 got Ac.3-30 cents land in Yadavole village and the said land was vested to his three daughters each one Ac.1.07 cents, they are got married and living in various places. Since then, P.W.1 used to cultivate the said land without giving any lease amount and he got Pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of him, on that the sons of P.W.1 sisters raised dispute before the revenue authorities, on several 2 enquiries made by Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur and on 21-1-2013 the Pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of P.W.1 was cancelled by Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur. Since then both parties raised disputes about the said land. On 22-4-2015 while he was present at home, A-2 nephew of P.W.1 got informed to P.W.1 through his farm servant L.W.1- Namburi Chinthayya to settle the matter. Having received information through L.W.10, P.W.1 went to his fields, found A-1 to A-5 and some others were present. P.W.1 questioned A-2 as to why called him. On that Jakirya Baig questioned P.W.1 as to why P.W.1 is entering into the field of Jakirya Baig. For which, P.W1replied that the said land is in his possession from long time. Meanwhile, P.Ws.2 and 3 came there. Then A-2 grew wild, altercated with P.Ws.1 and 2 asked the other accused to beat P.W.1. On that A-4, A-2 beat P.W.1 with a piece of bamboo stick on the hand, he sustained bleeding injury on the head and left hand middle finger. A-3 and A-1 beat P.W.2 with bamboo sticks due to which, P.W.2 sustained bleeding injury on the back of head.

Further A-1 beat L.W.3 with a stick and he sustained contusion injury on left hand wrist. Subsequently, P.W.1 went across, then A-1 and A-3 beat him with sticks and he sustained injuries on right hand wrist and left leg ankle. The occurrence was eye witnessed by the L.Ws.7 to 9 who are neighbours. Subsequently, P.W.1 and his son went to their home, then

L.Ws.4 to 6 shifted the injured to the community health centre, Kovvur for treatment. On receipt of MLC intimation form the community health centre, Kovvur along with the statement of P.w.1 recorded by L.W.12 SN

Rao, HC 1372 of Kovvur Town PS, this case in Cr.No.62/2015 U/s 324 r/w 34 IPC was registered and investigated into.

3

3. Cognizance is taken on file of the offence U/s. 324 r/w 34

IPC against A-1 to A-4.

4. After appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished under Section 207 Cr.PC.

5. A-1 to A-4 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and U/s 326 of IPC against the A-3 has been framed and read over to the accused, which they denied the commission of the offence and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 13 are examined the remaining witnesses were given by APP. On behalf of prosecution, Exs.

P-1 to P-11 are marked. None were examined and Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked on behalf of accused. After marking Ex.P-6, mistakenly case sheet was marked as Ex.P-8 instead of Ex.P-7. X-rays, FIR, Rough sketch and wound certificate of P.W.2 marked as Exs.P-9 to P-12 instead of Exs.P-8 to P-11. Hence series is corrected.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A-1 and A-2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating material deposed by the prosecution witnesses which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The Point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence U/sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and 326

of IPC against A-3 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

10. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused entered into the land of P.W.1 and after getting information P.W.1 came to the 4 field and questioned A-2 why they called him and that galata took place and all the accused beat P.Ws.1 to 3 with sticks. On the other hand, the accused contention is that in view of civil disputes between P.W.1’s family and the accused, false case was foisted. The accused counsel pleaded that the entire case of prosecution is false and in view of the enimity between parties, false case was foisted against the accused and accused counsel further pleaded that the prosecution suppressed the entire material and filed this false case.

11. P.W.1 has deposed in his evidence that on 22-4-2015 when he came to the fields somebody informed him that all the accused were in his fields and that he went to the fields and noticed that all the accused were present in the fields. He questioned the accused why they came to the scene and they replied that the fields belongs to them. He asked the accused went to outside of the fields. In the meanwhile, A-3 beat him on his head with stick, when he tried to rescue by placing his right hand wrist. In the meanwhile Samad his nephew came with a stick and beat him on his head, when he stopped them by placing his left hand, the stick was touched his fingers. A-4 beat on his left leg above ankle with stick. P.W.2 deposed in his evidence that on 22-4-2015 they received a telephone call by that time, they are loading the corn crop after loading the crop in two lorries they came to their fields and accused were present. P.W.1 went to the fields, he also went to the fields, A-1 and A-4 attacked against P.W.1 with long stick and beat on his had with sticks, he sustained severe injuries. P.W.3 deposed in his evidence that on 22-4-2015 at 12-00 Noon they are taking the corn crop from the fields. When they went to the house his mother informed that 5

Jakria Baig called his father and that he went to the fields and by that time he reached to the scene, he noticed that P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained injuries. While he was enquiring A-1 beat on his right side elbow with stick. P.W.4 deposed in her evidence that on 22-4-2015 he was present at her house, P.W.1 went to the fields and P.W.1 sustained injury. P.W.5 deposed in his evidence that P.W.4 telephoned to him that P.w.1 sustained injuries and he rushed to the house of P.W.1 and noticed P.W.1 sustained bleeding injury. P.Ws.6 and 7 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Even they were cross examined nothing was elicited in the cross examination.

12. APP submitted that the evidence the P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly shows that P.W.1 sustained injuries in the hands of accused and even there are minor contradictions they may not effect the case of prosecution. APP relied on a decision report in 1996 Crl.L.J.649 between

Chhuttan, Vs. State of U.P. wherein it was held that “there cannot be any comparison between the intelligence of a cross-examiner and that of an ordinary villager like the complainant. Therefore, this sort of cross examination leads us nowhere. Not only this, such micre-ommissions add a flavor of truth and naturalness in the testimonies of witnesses.

They show that the witness has not been tutored and his version is not of a Parrot. That shows that testimony of such a witness should be relied upon by the Courts”.

He relied on decision reported in 2009(2) ALD(Crl.)250 (SC) between Gurunath Donkappa Keri and others Vs. State of Karnataka wherein it was held that “It is not the requirement of law that the doctors, even before admitting the injured or during their treatment, 6 must note down every bit of details of the incident or names of the witnesses in the registers maintained by them. If the doctors were engaged in discharge of their primary duty, viz, attending to the patients, we are of the opinion that only because in the registers the name of PW3, who is said to have shifted them to the hospital, had not been mentioned by itself can be a ground for not relying on his testimony in support of the prosecution case. Such details are not necessarily recorded in the contemporaneous document. In any event, the purported discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as to who had shifted the injured to hospital or the mode of transportation, is minor in nature. For the self-same reason, only because his name was not mentioned in the First Information Report, may not itself be sufficient to discard his evidence particularly in view of the fact that whereas PW1 went to the police station to lodge the First

Information Report, services of PW3 and other must have been taken for the purpose of shifting the deceased and injured to the hospital”.

13. On the other hand, the accused counsel contended that there is previous enimity between parties and in view of the enimity,

P.W.1 filed false case and only in order to grab the property of the accused. P.W.1 filed a false case. The accused counsel relied on a decision reported in 2011 CRl.L.J. 237 between Chotesab Vs. State of

Karnataka wherein it was held that “ From the material placed by the prosecution, it is to be seen whether the case made out before the learned Sessions Judge is probable or not. It could be seen at the very outset, that the property where the incident took place was belonging to the wife of the appellant-Majeebi. Secondly, the prosecution is not very 7 clear as to whether double barrel gun or single barrel gun was used by the appellant. Thirdly it is the case of P.W.1 that along with him 15 to 20 persons had come near the scene of offence, it is the case of the prosecution that there were many people from the side of the accused also. Further there is discrepancy as to whether the wife of accused 1 or wife of the accused 6 who had hidden the gun in burka and handed over to the accused to shoot at the deceased. P.W.13-Majibi is the wife of appellant. It is not suggested to her when she was in the witness-box that she had handed over M.O.1 to her husband accused 1. The situation indicates that there was quarrel between accused party and deceased party at the time when appellant is alleged to shot the gun.

Further according to the FSL report if a gun is used to shoot the persons beyond distance 6 feet there is possibility of pellets injuring other persons standing by the side of deceased. In this case no other persons than the deceased have received any pellet injury, though, according to

Dr.Byra Reddy more than 27 pellets were found in the body of the deceased. In the circumstances, it is clear that the genesis of crime has not been properly placed before the Court by the prosecution and the same is suppressed by the prosecution”.

14. The entire evidence of prosecution shows that there is a land dispute between both parties. According to the accused when they went to the fields of P.W.1 to ask rent, P.W.1 beat them and filed false case.

In this case prosecution examined one doctor P.w.10 he deposed that

P.Ws.1 and 2 were sustained injuries. The doctor stated that P.W.1 was admitted as in patient and X-ray was taken with MLC No.4643 and X-ray

No.1170 dated 23-4-2015 and fracture of the lower end of ulna. He 8 referred the case to Rajahmundry. But, no wound certificate is issued in this regard and the prosecution produced accident register, but there is no opinion about the injuries in the accident register. The prosecution also examined another doctor P.W.11 he deposed that on 29-4-2015,

P.W.1 came to hospital as outpatient and he advised him for X-ray and he verified the X-ray and found distal end of ulna right. But, he did not issue any wound certificate. In this case, the prosecution after examining of 10 witnesses added P.W.11 doctor as a witness. During the cross examination P.W.11 deposed that by the date P.W.1 came to his hospital, he did not bring any report and he does not know prior to examination in his hospital where P.W.1 was treated. Hospital does not have any record relating to P.W.1 as he was treated as an outpatient and he further deposed that case sheet and X-rays were shows to him on the date of giving evidence. The entire cross examination of P.W.11 medical officer shows that the reports, X-rays were shown to P.W.11 on the date of giving evidence, but not at the time of examination. Another important factor is that according to the prosecution P.W.1 was got treated in the Sai hospital, but in the entire evidence of P.W.1, there is no whisper that he got treated in the Sai hospital. Further the prosecution suppressed the X-ray reports which were taken earlier and produced some X.rays which were marked as Ex.P-8. The prosecution also produced one case sheet showing that he was got treated in Sai hospital and whereas it shows that said person was got treated in the

Sai hospital. X-ray films shows that the said films were taken on the reference of doctor Ravindranath, but the prosecution did not choose to examine the said Ravindranath, the reasons best know to the 9 prosecution. Further prosecution did not choose to produce the hospital record to show P.W.1 was treated in the Sai hospital. Generally every hospital will maintain the record to show the details of all the patients.

But, the prosecution did not choose to produce the said documents. It is also creates doubt about the case of prosecution. Suppression of the hospital record and earlier X-ray reports also creats doubt about the case of prosecution. According to P.W.10 he got treated P.W.1 in hospital on 22-4-2015 and according to him he referred him to government hospital, Rajahmundry. The prosecution did not choose to examine any witness that after P.W.1 was referred to government hospital where and when he was treated. The prosecution added P.W.12 medical officer after completion of 10 witnesses it seems that the prosecution has filed the documents only to fill up its lacunas. If really

P.W.1 got treated in the hospital, definitely, the prosecution would reveal the same at the earliest stage. More over the prosecution did not chose to file any hospital record also creats doubt about the prosecution case.

The prosecution filed one photo marked as Ex.P-6 that P.W.1 sustained injuries, but it is own case of P.W.1, the same was not taken at the scene of offence. Therefore, we cannot rely on the Ex.P-1. Further from Ex.P-6, we cannot say that the accused are the reason for the above injuries. In the decision cited by the APP, there are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and failure of mention of details of person shifted the injured. But, in the present case, the prosecution suppressed the earlier X-ray reports etc., and there are several infirmities in the case of prosecution. In view of the infirmities in the case of prosecution, the said decisions are not applicable to the present 10 case as facts are different.

15. In this case P.Ws.3 and 4 are not eye witness to the incident.

P.Ws.5 and 6 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

APP crossed examined them but nothing was elicited in their cross examination. P.Ws.1 to 4 belongs to the same family. P.Ws.5 and 6 turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution. It is fact that there is long standing enimity between parties. Therefore in view of several infirmities in the case of prosecution and in view of enimity between both parties, I hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilty of the accused.

16. In the result, A-1 to A-4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 324 r/w 34 IPC and A-3 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 326 IPC and they are acquitted U/s 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-4 shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to my dictation to dictation to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 3 rd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- K. Sailaja,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOVVUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 : Md.Yousuf

P.W.2 : Md.Sayyad Baji

P.W.3 : Md.Doula

P.W.4 : Md.Sharifunnisa

P.W.5 : Chila Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

P.W.6 : Donepalli Veeranjaneyulu @ Chinni

P.W.7 : Anisetti Suryachandrarao @ Suribabu

P.W.8 : S. Nageswararao

P.W.9 : Namburi Chintayya 11

P.W.10 : Dr.K. Srinivasulu

P.W.11 : Dr.K. Vijayakumar

P.W.12 : U.L. Subrahmanyam

P.W.13 : Ch. Anjaneyulu

FOR DEFENCE : Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1/dt.-- : Statement of P.W.1

Ex.P-2/dt.-- : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6

Ex.P-3/dt.-- : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7

Ex.P-4/dt.-- : Hospital intimation

Ex.P-5/dt.-- : Attested copy of relevant page in accident register

Ex.P-6/dt.-- : Two photos with CD

Ex.P-7/dt.-- : Case sheet

Ex.P-8/dt.-- : Four X-rays

Ex.P-9/dt.-- : FIR

Ex.P-10/dt.-- : Rough sketch

Ex.P-11/dt.-- : Wound certificate of P.W.2

For Defence:

Ex.D-1/dt.12-3-2012 : Certified copy of Sale deed

Ex.D-2/dt.-- : Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3

Sd/- K. Sailaja,

PJCJ, KVR

12

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No.116/2016 in Crime No. 62/2015 of P.S.tried by Ms. K. Sailaja, M.Com., L.L.B., Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, W.G.District.

1. Date & Place of the Offence : 22-4-2015

2. Date of complaint or report : 22-4-2015

3. Date of filing of Charge sheet : 2-6-2015

4. Date of apprehension of accused : Sec.41-A Cr.P.C,notice served on accused

5. Date of release on bail. : --

6. Date of commencement of trial : 3-8-2016

7. Date of close of trial : 27-4-2017

8. Date of sentence or Order : 3-5-2017

9. Explanation for delay : --

Judgment in C.C.No.116/2016 on the file of Principal Junior Judge’s Court, Kovvur, West Godavari Division.

1. Name of the complainant :Sub-Inspector of Police, Deverapalli PS

2. Name of the accused and description:

1. Abdul Sammad Basha, S/o Moulana, 52 years, Muslim, D.No.5-1-16/2, Opp: Amma Hospital, Nidadavole village & Mandal

2. Mohammad Abdul Saleem, S/o Shaik Moulana, 65 years, Muslim, Ex-Councillor, YSR colony Plot No.218, Nidadavole

3. Shaik Nawab, S/o Khaja Mohiddin, 42 years, Muslim, C block, Namavaram, Rajahmundry Rural.

4. Mohammad Shajith, S/o Saleem, 35 years, Muslim, Nidadavole. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCE:- U/s 354(a)(ii) & 506(2) r/w 34 IPC

FINDING: Found not guilty

RESULT : In the result, A-1 to A-4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 324 r/w 34 IPC and A-3 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 326 IPC and they are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-4 shall stand cancelled.

Sd/- K. Sailaja,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOVVUR 13

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

.KOVVUR

Present: Ms.K.Sailaja, M.Com., L.L.B.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur

Wednesday, this the 3rd day of May, 2017

C.C.No.117/2016

Between:

The State Sub-Inspector of Police, Deverapalli police station.

...Complainant

AND

1. Mohammad Yusaf, S/o Pentu Saheb, 78 years, Muslim, Yadavole village, Deverapalli Mandal.

2. Mohammad Dowla, S/o Yusuf, 48 years, Muslim, Yadavole village, Deverapalli Mandal.

3. Mohammad Sayyed Baji, S/o Yusuf, 40 years, Muslim, Yadavole village, Deverapalli Mandal.

..Accused

This case is coming on 27-4-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Senior Asst.Public Prosecutor for State and Sri D. Tata Rao, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Deverapalli Police Station filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.63/2015 for the offence under

Section 324 r/w 34 IPC as follows :

2. P.W.1 along with his cousin brothers were inherited with a land of about Ac.3-00 from their mothers. A-1 who is their maternal uncle has been cultivating that land from long time on lease basis without giving any money to them and has been troubling them.

Thereby they have decided to sell away that land and accordingly, on 22-4-2015 L.Ws.1 to 9 went to their field. At about 12-00 Noon, A-1 to

A-3 came to that fields, A-2 arming with two knifes, gave one knife to 2

A-1. Subsequently, A-2 attacked P.W.1 with a knife and when P.W.1 kept his left hand across, he sustained bleeding injury to thumb finger. A-1 attacked L.W.3 with a knife and further bitten on the right hand wrist, thereby he sustained a small bleeding injury below the left shoulder and bleeding injury on the wrist. When L.W.2 went across, A-2 caught hold of her hair and pulled. A-1 beat L.W.2 on the back with hand. Then

P.W.1, L.Ws.4 to 9 while pulling back A-1 and A-2, then A-1 and A-2 fell down and they both sustained injuries to head. The occurrence was eye witnessed by the neighbours like L.Ws.10 to 11. Then L.Ws.1 to 3 went to the Community Health Centre, Kovvur by the auto rickshaw of L.W.5 and got admitted for treatment. On receipt of MLC intimation from the community health centre, Kovvur along with the statement of P.W.1 recorded by L.W.13 SN Rao, HC 1372 of Kovvur Town PS, this case in

Cr.No.63/2015 U/s 324 r/w 34 IPC was registered and investigated into.

3. Cognizance is taken on file of the offence U/s. 324 r/w 34

IPC against A-1 to A-3.

4. After appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished under Section 207 Cr.PC.

5. A-1 to A-3 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and U/s 323 of IPC against the A-1 & A-2 have been framed and read over to the accused, which they denied the commission of the offence and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 13 are examined the remaining witnesses were given by APP. On behalf of prosecution, Exs.

P-1 to P-8 are marked. None were examined and Exs.D-1 to D-8 were marked on behalf of accused.

3

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A-1 to A-3 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating material deposed by the prosecution witnesses which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The Point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence U/sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and 323

of IPC against A-1 & A-2 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

10. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused beat

P.Ws.1 to 3. On the other hand, the accused contention is that in view of civil disputes between P.W.1’s family and the accused, a false case was foisted. The accused counsel pleaded that the entire case of prosecution is false and in view of the enimity between parties, a false case was foisted against the accused and accused counsel further pleaded that the prosecution suppressed the entire material and filed this false case.

11. P.W.1 has deposed in his evidence that they went to the fields, A-1 to A-3 came to the fields. A-3 brought two long knives and thereafter A-3 tried to hack him with the said knife and that he tried to stop by placing his hand and the same was touched on his left hand thumb. He got bleeding injury. A-1 hacked L.W.3 on his left shoulder with a knife and that he sustained injury. P.W.2 deposed that all the accused attacked them and bet them. According to P.W.2, accused brought big knives. P.W.3 deposed that A-1 to A-3 came to the scene with knives and A-3 hacked on his left shoulder and A-1 bite him on his 4 right side above elbow. The prosecution has examined P.W.4 who is brother of P.W.1 deposed that on the information, they went to scene,

A-1 to A-3 came to the scene with knives and A-1 and A-3 hacked

P.Ws.1 and 3 with knives. The prosecution examined P.W.5 he deposed that A-1 to A-3 came to the scene with knives and A-1 questioned them and that they beat P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.6 deposed that all the accused attacked P.W.1 and 3 with knives and that P.Ws.1 and 3 sustained injuries. P.W.7 deposed that all the accused attacked on P.Ws.1 and 3 with knives and that they sustained injuries. The prosecution has examined the medical officer P.W.10 who treated P.W.1 he deposed that he examined P.W.1 and found injuries on his left hand palm. According to P.W.1 he was sustained injury on his left hand thumb, whereas the doctor evidence shows that P.W.1 sustained injuries on his left hand palm. According to P.W.3, he sustained injury on his left shoulder and right side above elbow. According to the doctor, P.W.3 sustained injury on his right upper arm and left side collar bone. The medical evidence is not corroborated with ocular evidence. In this case except P.Ws.1 to 4 are close relatives. The prosecution did not choose to examine any of the independent witness. P.Ws.5 and 6 were examined that they are also present at the scene of offence, but P.W.6 stated that by that time he was smoking cigarette at some distance to galata place. Moreover, he is driver of L.W.4 and he categorically deposed that he was not present at the scene of offence and he was present at the distance of 100 yards at the scene of offence and when he reached scene of offence, P.Ws.1 to 3 already sustained injuries. Therefore, from his evidence we cannot say that the accused beat P.Ws.1 to 3. According to 5

P.W.7, A-2 torned the blouse of P.W.2, during cross examination he deposed that since the elders were talking, he stood outside the fencing.

Five minutes after shouts, they entered into the scene of offence. In this case, prosecution did not choose to seize any weapon P.W.1 and 4 belongs to the same family and P.W.6 is driver and all the witnesses are interested witnesses. Therefore, their evidence should be scrutinized very carefully. It is a fact that there is previous enimity between parties. The evidence on record shows that some enimity between parties. No independent witnesses were examined when the offence took place at open place, definitely, neighbouring land lords witnessed the same, but the prosecution did not choose to cite any of the independent neighbours, the reasons best known to the prosecution.

More over the prosecution did not choose to seize any weapons which was said to be brought by the accused. It is a fact that there is long stand enimity between parties. Further the medical evidence is not supported with the evidence of ocular evidence. In view of the above circumstances I hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused.

12. In the result, A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 324 r/w 34 IPC, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 323 IPC and they are acquitted U/s 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-3 shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to my dictation to dictation to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 3 rd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- K. Sailaja,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOVVUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

6

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 : Abdul Samad P.W.2 : Shaik Shahin P.W.3 : Shaik Nawab P.W.4 : Md.Abdul Saleem P.W.5 : Md. Shahid P.W.6 : Sk. Ariff P.W.7 : Shaik Shaffi P.W.8 : Donepalli Chinna @ Veeranajeneyulu P.W.9 : Anisetty Suryachandrarao P.W.10 : Dr.K. Srinivasulu P.W.11 : S. Nageswararao P.W.12 : Momd.Jikria Beg P.W.13 : U.L. Subrahmanyam

FOR DEFENCE : Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1/dt.-- : Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P-2/dt.-- : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8 Ex.P-3/dt.-- : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.9 Ex.P-4/dt.-- : Wound certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P-5/dt.-- : Wound certificate of P.W.3 Ex.P-6/dt.-- : Hospital intimation Ex.P-7/dt.-- : FIR Ex.P-8/dt.-- : Rough sketch

For Defence:

Ex.D-1/dt. : Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 Ex.D-2/dt.-- : Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.D-3/dt.-- : Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.D-4/dt.-- : Accident register pertains to A-1 Ex.D-5/dt.-- : Refer intimation Ex.D-6/dt.-- : O.P. ticket Ex.D-7/dt.-- : Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.12 Ex.D-8/dt.-- : Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.12

Sd/- K.Sailaja,

PJCJ, KVR

7

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No.117/2016 in Crime No. 63/2015 of P.S.tried by Ms. K. Sailaja, M.Com., L.L.B., Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, W.G.District.

1. Date & Place of the Offence : 22-4-2015

2. Date of complaint or report : 22-4-2015

3. Date of filing of Charge sheet : 24-7-2015

4. Date of apprehension of accused : Sec.41-A Cr.P.C,notice served on accused

5. Date of release on bail. : --

6. Date of commencement of trial : 22-7-2016

7. Date of close of trial : 27-4-2017

8. Date of sentence or Order : 3-5-2017

9. Explanation for delay : --

Judgment in C.C.No.117/2016 on the file of Principal Junior Judge’s Court, Kovvur, West Godavari Division.

1. Name of the complainant :Sub-Inspector of Police, Deverapalli PS

2. Name of the accused and description:

1. Mohammad Yusaf, S/o Pentu Saheb, 78 years, Muslim, Yadavole village, Deverapalli Mandal.

2. Mohammad Dowla, S/o Yusuf, 48 years, Muslim, Yadavole village, Deverapalli Mandal.

3. Mohammad Sayyed Baji, S/o Yusuf, 40 years, Muslim, Yadavole village, Deverapalli Mandal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCE:- U/s 354(a)(ii) & 506(2) r/w 34 IPC

FINDING: Found not guilty

RESULT : In the result, A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 324 r/w 34 IPC, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 323 IPC and they are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-3 shall stand cancelled.

Sd/- K.Sailaja,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOVVUR 8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : : KOVVUR

Present: Ms.K.Sailaja, M.Com., L.L.B.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur,

Wednesday, this the 26th day of April, 2017

O.S.No.139/2016

BETWEEN:

Kanna Kishore, S/o.Satyanarayana, Hindu, Age-30 years, Occupation Business, R/o.Dr.No.14-18-2016, Rajiv Colony, Kovvur, W.G.Dist. … Plaintiff AND

Medavarapu Badhra Rao, S/o.Venkata Rao, Resident of O/o. JPA in AP Gas power corporation Ltd., Vijjeswaram, Nidadavole Mandal, W.G.Dist. … Defendant

This Original suit coming on 25-4-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Karuturi Panakalu, Advocate for plaintiff; and Sri M.S.R. Prasad and Sri M.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff and perusal of the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for recovery of Rs.2,15,400/- being the principal and interest amount due on the promissory note, dated 05-10-2014 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/- repayable with interest @ 24% p.a, and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff on 05-10-2014, for discharging his personal expenses by executing demand promissory note on even date, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff for repayment of above debt but he failed the above pronote debt with the one pretext or the other.

Recently, the defendant is trying flee from their native village and also trying to sell the assets only with a view to evade the debt of the 2 plaintiff. Then, the plaintiff got issued a registered notice, dt.10-10- 2015 to the defendant demanding him to repay the debt. The defendant received the said notice and kept quiet. The defendant is an agriculturist and he is not entitled any debt relief.

3. Thedefendant filed written statement by denying the averments of plaint contents and further contends that the plaintiff is a stranger to the defendant. The defendant never borrow any amount from the plaintiff and he is no necessity to borrow such huge amount from a stranger. Someone got filed this suit through this plaintiff to get wrongful gain if possible from the defendant. The plaintiff has to strictly prove that the passing of consideration and also execution of alleged suit pronote. The suit promissory note is rank forged and fabricated and concocted one. The defendant is reserved his right to file additional written statement if he came to know about the plaintiff and also who got filed this suit through this plaintiff. The defendant is an Employee and presently working at Gas Turbo Power Station,

Vijjeswaram village of Nidadavole Mandal. On the date of alleged execution of suit pronote, the defendant is on duty, for which on that day there is no possibility to execute the suit pronote. The scribe of the suit pronote is unknown person to this defendant. There is no cause of action to file this suit against the defendant. The plaintiff's claim is frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be rejected. The defendant is entitled to the benefits of debt reliefs acts.

4. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding 1. on the defendant? To what relief? 2.

3

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A-3 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence are adduced by the defendant.

6. Heard.

Issue No.1 :

7. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % pa and executed promissory note. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not any amount. Even after issuing the legal notice, the defendant intentionally avoid the suit debt.

8. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 is examined he reiterated the contents of the plaint. On behalf of the plaintiff Exs.A1 to A-3 are marked. As seen from Ex.A1 is demand promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice issued to the defendant. Ex.A-3 is acknowledgement. Except filing written statement, defendant did not choose to any evidence to support his version. Even the defendant did not choose to examine any one on his behalf. Though written statement filed by the defendant, he did not choose to enter into witness box which adverse inference against the defendant.

9. Pleadings cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of evidence. When the case of plaintiff that the defendant borrowed amount. The defendant has to rebut the evidence of plaintiff by adducing evidence, but the defendant made any attempt to examine any witness on his behalf. Therefore by examining P.W.1,

Exs.A-1 to A-3 proved the plaintiff's case. According this issue is answered.

4

Issue No.2 :

10. In the result, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs for a sum of Rs.2,15,400/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. on the

principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of decree till the date

of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 26 th day of April, 2017.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kovvur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff

PW1 : : Kanna Kishore PW2 : : Javvadi Suresh Kumar

For Defendant: Nil

Documents marked

For Plaintiff

Ex.A1/dt.05-10-2014 : promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff Ex.A-2/dt.10-10-2015 : Office copy of registered Lawyers notice Ex.A-3/dt.17-10-2016 : Postal Acknowledgment

For Defendant: - ...Nil..

PJCJ, KVR.

5 130+85seen 6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : : KOVVUR

PRESENT : Ms.K.Sailaja,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur,

Wednesday, 26th day of April, 2017.

O.S.No.203/2016

BETWEEN:

Maddukuri Suryachandra Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana Murthy, Age-49 years, Male, Hindu, R/o.Dr.No.1-33, Malakapalli Village, Tallapudi Mandal, W.G.Dist.

..Plaintiff

AND

Akula Veera Parvathi, W/o.Raghavulu, D/o.Chatla Sattemma, Age-33 years, Female, Hindu, R/o.Dr.No.3-71, Malakapalli Village, Tallapudi Mandal, W.G.Dist.

..Defendant

This Suit is coming on 26-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Tata Rao, Advocate for plaintiff; and defendant set exparte and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff and perusal of the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to pass a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff ordering the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.1,31,266/- to the plaintiff with costs within the time fixed by the court; if the defendant fails to repay the suit debt with costs and interest, with a direction that the defendant will forego the right to redeem the property and the plaintiff shall be at liberty to obtain final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property i.e., plaint schedule property for the realization of decree debt with costs subsequent interest; if the decree debt with costs is still outstanding after the sale of mortgaged property i.e., plaint schedule property with a direction that the plaintiff shall be at liberty to recover the balance of decree debt with costs by sale of other immovable and movable properties of the defendant that are available and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief facts of the case are that : the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff on 09-07-2014 for the purposes of her family expenses and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Having received the amount from the plaintiff, the defendant executed an unpossessory registered mortgage deed on even date in favour of the plaintiff 2 mortgaging the plaint schedule property by incorporating other terms. The said mortgage deed was attested and duly registered as per Law. The defendant also agreed that the amount will be repaid with accrued interest within one year i.e., on or

before 09.07.2015. In case of default of payment within one year, it is agreed by the

defendant to pay interest after one year at the rate of Rs.2.50 Ps. per hundred per month i.e., 30% per annum. The defendant failed to discharge the said mortgage debt within one year. So the Defendant is liable to discharge the mortgage debt with accrued interest at the rate of 24% p.a. for the first year i.e., from 09.07.2014 to 09.07.2015 and thereafter at the rate of 30% p.a. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff personally and also through mediators. Thus, the defendant has violated the terms of the mortgage deed dt.09.07.2014 and committed default. So the plaintiff got issued registered legal notice to the defendant on 06.02.2016 to the defendant demanding her to discharge the debt. So far the defendant has not discharged the debt or any part thereof.

3. When the matter is posted for service of summon though the defendant received summon did not appear before the Court. Defendant set exparte.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked.

5. Heard.

6. The point for consideration :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit relief as prayed for?

POINT :

7. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff on 09.07.2014 and executed an unpossessory registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff for the plaint schedule property by incorporating other terms for the proper enforcement of the mortgage. Later, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the above debt personally and through mediators, but the defendant failed to repay the debt. The plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice dated 06.02.2016 to the defendant, but she did not discharge the debt. The defendant is not an agriculturist. She is not 3 entitled for the benefits under any of the agricultural debt relief laws including the Act 4 of 1938.

8. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 is examined he reiterated the contents of the plaint. Scribe of Ex.A-1 was examined as P.W.2, he deposed that he scribed the Ex. A-1 and the entire transaction took place of his presence and attesters and he witnessed the same. On behalf of the plaintiff Exs.A-1 and A-2 are marked. As seen from Ex.A-1 is registered mortgage deed was executed by the defendant. Ex.A-2 is Office copy of registered notice.

9. The version of P.W.1 and 2 are not challenged by the defendant. Even the defendant did not file any written statement. The unchallenged version of P.W.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A-1 and A-2, the plaintiff proved his case.

9. In the result, this suit is preliminary decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant with costs for a sum of Rs.1,31,266/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. on principal amount of Rs,80,000/- from the date of decree till the date of realization. The time for redemption is granted three months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 26 th day of April, 2017.

Prinicpla Junior Civil Judge,

FAC.I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOVVUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

P.W.1 : Maddukuri Suryachandra Rao

Kaikala Ramanna P.W.2 :

FOR DEFENDANT : Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A-1/dt.09-07-2014 : Registered mortgage deed Ex.A-2/dt.04-04-2016 : Office copy of registered notice

FOR DEFENDANT : Nil

PJCJ, KVR,

4

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KOVVUR.

Present: Miss. K.Sailaja, I Additional Junior Civil Judge, KOVVUR. Wednesday, the 16th day of November, 2016

E.P.No. 67/2015 in O.S.No. 68/2012

Between: Akula Naga Lakshmi …Petitioner/D.Hr

And

Shaik Allimullah …Respondent/J.Dr

This E.P is filed by the petitioner/D.Hr under order 21 rule 48 C.P.C prays to issue notice under order 21 rule 22 cpc to the J.Dr and thereafter order attachment of the salary of the J.Dr mentioned in the schedule subjected to sec. 60 C.P.C. lying with the garnishee by way of pro order under order 21 Rule 48 C.P.C. for realization of the decree debt. . This E.P. is coming on 16-11-2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.S.Raghavulu, Advocate for the petitioner/D.Hr; and of Sri N.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for the respondent/J.Dr and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

Decree Holder is present. Full Satisfaction Memo filed. Recorded. E.P. is terminated.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 16th day of November, 2016

Sd/- K.Sailaja

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

K.Sailaja

I A.J.C.J.

Kovvur