Smt K. Sree Devi

1 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE :: KAKINADA.

Present: Smt. K.Sree Devi,

Spl. Judge for POCSO Offences Act, Kakinada, FAC IV Addl. District Judge, Kakinada.

Monday, the 2nd day of March, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No.227/2024

(P.R.C. No.83/2022 on the file of the Court of Special Mobile Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, in Cr.No.369/2018 of Samalkot

Police Station)

a)The serial number of the : S.C. No.227/2024 case

b)Date of commission of : On 06.11.2018 at about 1.00 offencep.m.

c)Name of the Complainant, : State represented by Sub if anyInspector of Police (SI 4465), Samalkot P.S.

d)Name of the accused : 1. Uppala Bala Subrahmanya person/his parentage and Gopalakrishna @ Gopi, S/o. residence, if anySuryanarayana, Age 55 years, C/Vysya, R/o. D.No.11-1-20/2, Vaibhav Apartments, Samalkot Town.

2. Mattapalli Venkateswarulu @ Konda, S/o. Venkataramana, Age 65 years, Business, D.N.5- 7-29/1, Macharamma temple street, Samalkot.

e)Offence complained of : U/S.384, 306 of IPC.

2 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

f)Plea of the accused on his : Accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded examination, if anynot guilty.

g)Sentence or Order: In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 306 of Indian Penal Code and that they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months under Sec.437A of Cr.P.C.M.O.1/bottleof Monocrotophos 36% SL and the unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

h)Prosecution conducted by :Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor

I)Accused defended by:Sri B.S.R.Krishna, Advocate for 1staccused and of Sri G.S.M.N.Swamy, Advocate for 2nd accused.

This Sessions Case coming on 18.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the complainant/State and of Sri B.S.R.Krishna,

Advocate for 1st Accused and of Sri G.S.M.N.Swamy, Advocate for 2nd accused and the matter is having been stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

3 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

1. The State represented by the Sub Inspector of

Police, Samalkot Police Station, filed charge-sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences Under Sections 384 and 306 of

Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) in Cr. No.369/2018 of Samalkot

Police Station.

2.The case of the prosecution, as seen from the charge sheet filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Samalkot P.S., of the offences under Sections 384 and 306 I.P.C., is as follows :

(a)P.W.1/Mandavalli Sridevi, who is the defacto complainant is the wife of the deceased, who is resident of Peda Brahmadevam village. About 18 years back, the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the defacto complainant. The deceased is running fertilizers and pesticides business in his village since 16 years and thereby eaking livelihood. During wedlock, they blessed with two male children. Their elder son is Varun and younger son name is Abhiram.

The deceased took loan about Rs.34,00,000/- from his close relative i.e., accused No.1 of Samalkot and paid interest and most of the

principal amount. A.1 used to force the deceased to repay the balance

amount. The deceased failed to pay the balance amount for which A.1 threatened the deceased as he will file case in the Court and defamed him in the public and filed a case in the Court of Addl. District Judge,

Kakinada, against the deceased with a view to recover his amount.

While so, on 6.11.2018 the deceased wrote a suicidal note addressing to District Collector and letters addressing to his mother-in-law, brother-in-law and elder brother and attempted to commit suicide by way of consuming pesticide poison in the temporary absence of his wife and children at his home and fell unconscious. On the same day, his wife returned from Vijaya Nursing Home, Kakinada, along with her 4 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

elder son after getting treatment to her elder son Varun, who is suffering from fever and noticed the deceased is on cot and froth coming from his mouth. Immediately she shifted the deceased to Safe

Emergency Hospital, Kakinada, with the help of neighbours and admitted for treatment and present at her husband as attendant. On 19.11.2018 the defacto complainant returned to home from hospital with a view to collect clothes of the deceased and noticed suicidal note on the table. The deceased wrote on the said suicide note that “He took loan to a tune of Rs.34,00,000/- from her close relative said to be maternal uncle/A.1. He paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- through bank transactions to the said person. The balance amount of

Rs.14,50,000/- also paid by hand to the said person. On one day A.1 went to him obtained his signatures on empty promissory notes forcibly. After that A.1 met him at his shop, brought all promissory notes with him and asked him to write as Rs.1,000/- paid to him pertaining to each promissory note. Accordingly, he wrote the same.

After that A.1 with active support of A.2 and two rowdies allowed him to cellar of Vaibhav Apartments where he was residing and asked to put signatures on the old promissory notes by putting a knife on his neck by threatening that if not put entries and signatures, he will kill him and his family members. Due to fear, he put entries and signatures on the old promissory notes with his own hand writings. When A.1 gave loan amount to him informed that he gave amount for least interest and later he collected high interest 6% and 7% per month from him. Later the deceased died on 19.11.2018 at 7.30 p.m., while undergoing treatment in Safe Emergency Hospital, Kakinada.

ii) On 6.11.2018 on receipt of intimation from Government

General Hospital, Kakinada, L.W.13/Ch.Krupavaram, ASI 2400 of

GGH OPPS, Kakinada, recorded the statement of the defacto 5 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

complainant/P.W.1 and forwarded the same to the S.H.O., Samalkot

P.S., for taking necessary action on point of jurisdiction.

P.W.8/Lakavathu Srinu, the then S.I. of Police (SI 170), Samalkot P.S., registered the statement of P.W.1 as a case in Crime No.369/2018 under Sec.309 of I.P.C., of Samalkot P.S., on 6.11.2018 at 6.00 p.m., and took up investigation in this case. On receipt of death intimation,

L.W.15/V.Kishore, Sub Inspector of Police (SI 4465), Samalkot P.S., altered the section of law from 309 I.P.C., to 306 I.P.C., and took up further investigation. Again basing on the further detailed statement of

P.W.1/defacto complainant, P.W.8/Lakavathu Srinu, the then S.I. of

Police (SI 170), Samalkot P.S., added Sec.384 I.P.C., and filed section adding memo in this Court. P.W.8/Lakavathu Srinu, the then S.I. of

Police (SI 170), Samalkot P.S., examined the witnesses andrecorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, got drafted scene observation report in the presence of mediators Lanka Nagendra

Prasad/P.W.5 and Gollapalli Apparao/L.W.12, prepared rough sketch of the scene, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of above mediators and sent the dead body of the deceased to the Medical Officer, CHC, Peddapuram, for conducting post mortem examination. On 19.11.2018 in the presence of the above mediators,

P.W.8/Lakavathu Srinu, the then S.I. of Police (SI 170), Samalkot P.S., arrested the accused, got recorded conf essional statement and seized blank promissory notes from the possession of accused and produced them before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand. After receipt of medical reports and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the charge sheet.

3.The learned Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Kakinada, having taken cognizance of the offences

punishable under Section 384 and 306 of IPC, registered the same in 6 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

PRC. No.83/2022 and after following the procedure under Section 207

Cr.P.C., passed Committal Order under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., on 04.08.2023 on the ground that the offence is triable by Court of

Sessions.

4.After receiving the Committal Order, this case was numbered as SC.No.227/2024 and taken on file by Session Court and made over the same to this Court and after appearance of accused

before this Court and hearing both sides, Charges under Section 384

and 306 IPC have been framed and explained to Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Telugu. Upon hearing the charge, Accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and they claimed to be tried and hence, case is posted for trial.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as Eight (8) witnesses viz., P.W-1 to P.W-8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P27 and M.O.1.

6.After closing of prosecution evidence, the accused

Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8.Now the Point that arise for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 of the charge 7 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

u/Secs.384 and 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T :

9.It is the case of prosecution that the deceased

Mandavilli Rama Narayana Kumar is the husband of defacto complainant/P.W.1 and the deceased obtained loan of Rs.34,00,000/- from A.1 and failed to pay the balance amount, for which, the accused demanded and threatened the deceased that he would file the cases

in the Court, on that the deceased wrote a suicide note and consumed

pesticide poison in the temporary absence of his wife and children.

Therefore, to bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Secs.384 and 306 of I.P.C., it is for the prosecution to prove that accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded the deceased Mandavilli

Rama Narayana Kumar to pay the balance loan amount threatening that he would file case against the deceased in the Court and thereby abated and instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

10.To prove the above charges against the accused

Nos.1 and 2, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked

Exs.P.1 to P.27 and M.O.1. Out of them, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is the elder brother of the deceased. P.W.3 is the maternal uncle of the deceased. P.W.4 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. P.W.5 is the mediator. P.W.6 is the neighbour of the deceased. P.W.7 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and P.W.8 is the investigating officer.

11.P.W.1, wife of the deceased, stated that A.1 is her maternal uncle and she does not know A.2. The deceased Mandavalli 8 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

Rama Narayana Kumar is her husband, who died in the year 2018.

She has two sons. In the month of November, 2018, on one day, she took her elder son to the hospital as he is not feeling well. When they returned back to the house, they noticed her deceased husband was lying on cot with froath coming from his mouth. When she raised cries, her brother-in-law, co-sister, her mother-in-law and neighbours are came to her house and immediately they took her deceased husband to the Safe Hospital, Kakinada. On the same day, police came to the hospital and she stated before the police as stated in her chief examination. Ex.P.1 is the signature of P.W.1 on the statement

dt:6.11.2018, but she does not know its contents. The doctors in the

Safe Hospital, Kakinada, examined her husband and gave treatment and her deceased husband was in ICU in the said hospital for about 13 days. Later, her husband died while undergoing treatment in the said hospital. Subsequently, after death of her husband, police obtained her signature on a white paper. Ex.P.2 is the signature of

P.W.1 on the statement dt:19.11.2018, but she does not know its contents. Later, the police got conducted inquest over the dead body of her deceased husband in her presence. Her husband committed suicide due to financial problems and health problems. She does not know anything about the present case registered against the accused

Nos.1 and 2.

12.P.W.2 is brother of the deceased and he stated that

A.1 is maternal uncle of P.W.1 and he does not know A.2. Her brother

Mandavalli Rama Narayana Kumar died in the year 2018. Previously her deceased brother took treatment due to cardiac problem. In the month of November, 2018, on one day, he came to his house for taking lunch, at that time, he heard cries of P.W.1, on that he went 9 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

there and noticed her deceased brother lying on a cot with froath from his mouth. On that they shifted his deceased brother to Safe Hospital,

Kakinada, for treatment and he was admitted in hospital for 10 days and thereafter, his brother died while undergoing treatment. His brother committed suicide, but he does not know the reason for committing suicide, but may be due to health problem and financial problems. He does know anything about the present case registered against the accused Nos.1 and 2.

13.P.W.3, who is maternal uncle of the deceased, stated that he does not know A.1 and A.2. His nephew Mandavalli

Rama Narayana Kumar died in the year 2018. His deceased nephew committed suicide due to financial problems and health problems. He does not know anything about the present case registered against the accused Nos.1 and 2.

14.P.W.4, who is sister-in-law of deceased and wife of

P.W.2, stated that A.1 is maternal uncle of P.W.1. She does not know

A.2. Her brother-in-law Mandavalli Rama Narayana Kumar died in the month of November, 2018. In the month of November, 2018, on one day, her co-sister/P.W.1 along with her elder son went to outside and returned back to their house and thereafter, she heard cries from the house of P.W.1, on that she went there and noticed her deceased brother-in-law lying on a cot with froath coming from his mouth. On that they shifted her deceased brother-in-law to Safe Hospital,

Kakinada, for treatment and he was admitted in hospital for about 10 days and thereafter her brother-in-law died while undergoing treatment. Her brother-in-law committed suicide, but she does not 10 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

know the reason for committing suicide. She does not know anything about the present case registered against the accused Nos.1 and 2.

15.P.W.5/Lanka Nagendra Prasad, who worked as

V.R.O., Chandrapalem and also incharge of Pedabrahmadevam village, stated that on 8.11.2018 at about 10.00 a.m., while he was present in his office Samalkot Police called him, on that he went to police station. From there he accompanied with police to the house of deceased situated at Pedabrahmadevam village, where police observed the scene of offence in his presence and also got drafted

Ex.P.9/scene observation report and seized M.O.1/bottle with name

MONOCROTOPHOS-36% SL in his presence under cover of scene observation report. Ex.P.9 is also attested by himself and one

Narayana, Village Servant. Police also took Ex.P.10/photographs (3 in number) of the scene of offence. On 30.11.2018 while he and VRA

Narayana were present in their office, police called them and took them to Vaibhav Apartment situated at Samalkot, where they found one person trying to escape on seeing police and police caught hold him and recorded his confessional statement. He was also present at the time of inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased

Rama Narayana Kumar and he also signed on Ex.P.11/inquest report.

16.P.W.6/Anguluri Ellaiahachari stated that he knows

A.1 and A.2. His house is situated beside the house of P.W.1. About seven years back one day he came to his house for lunch and he heard cries from the house of P.W.1, on that he went to house of

P.W.1 and he noticed gathering and he came to know husband of

P.W.1 consume pesticide and shifted to hospital and he returned back 11 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

to his home. After 10 days he came to know that he died in the hospital while taking treatment.

17.P.W.7/Dr. P.Phanikiran, who worked as Assistant

Professor, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada, stated that on 20.11.2018 at 11.05 a.m., he received requisition from Samalkot P.S., to conduct post mortem over the dead body of the deceased M.Rama

Narayana Kumar. Accordingly, he conducted post mortem over the dead body of the deceased. Examination started 11.10 a.m., and concluded at 12.40 p.m., on the same day. During examination, he preserved Viscera and handed over to the escorting PC to send the same to RFSL for chemical analysis. Accordingly, he issued

Ex.P.13/post mortem report. After receipt of Ex.P.14/RFSL report, he issued Ex.P.15/final opinion opining that death due to

Organophosphate an insecticide poisonous substance as confirmed by the chemical examiner.

18.P.W.8/L.Srinu, the then Sub Inspector of Police,

Samalkot Police Station, stated that on 7.11.2018 at about 6.00 p.m., while he was present in the police station, he received Ex.P.16/MLC intimation along with Ex.P.17/statement of P.W.1 dt:6.11.2018. Basing on the statement of P.W.1, he registered Ex.P.18/F.I.R., as a case in

Crime No.369/2018 under Sec.309 I.P.C. He submitted the original

F.I.R., to the jurisdictional Magistrate and copies to all concern officials. Immediately, he visited Safe Emergency Hospital, Kakinada, there he examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements. He did not examine the deceased as he was unconscious. Thereafter he along with mediators i.e., P.W.5 and L.W.12/G.Apparao proceeded to the scene of offence which is the house of P.W.1 situated at 12 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

Pedabrahmadevam village, Samalkot Mandal, he observed the scene of offence, got drafted Ex.P.9/scene observation report in the presence of above said mediators and prepared Ex.P.19/rough sketch of the scene of offence. The exact scene of offence place is bed room of

P.W.1. At the scene of offence, he also seized M.O.1 in the presence of mediators under the cover of Ex.P.9/scene observation report. He also got photographed the scene of offence as in Ex.P.10/photographs (3 in number). There he secured witnesses i.e., L.W.4/M.Bapiraju,

P.W.4, P.W.6 and L.W.7/T.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, examined them and recorded their statements. On 19.11.2018 at about 5.30 a.m., he received another report/Ex.P.20 from P.W.1. Basing on

Ex.P.20/report, he altered the section of law from 309 of I.P.C., to

Sec.306 r/w 116 of I.P.C. He submitted Ex.P.21/altered F.I.R., to the jurisdictional Magistrate and copies to all concern officials. Along with

Ex.P.20/report, P.W.1 also handed over Ex.P.22/suicide note. A.2 added in the present case. Later, A.2 obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi and released on bail. On 20.11.2018 at 6.30 a.m., he received Ex.P.23/death intimation of the deceased from Safe Emergency Hospital, Kakinada.

Basing on Ex.P.23/death intimation, he altered the section of law from 306 r/w 116 of I.P.C., to Sec.384 and 306 of I.P.C. He submitted

Ex.P.24/altered F.I.R., to the jurisdictional Magistrate and copies to all concern officials. Immediately, he proceeded to the Safe Emergency

Hospital, Kakinada and shifted the dead body of the deceased to

Government General Hospital, Kakinada, for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased and also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of blood relatives and panchayatdars and he got drafted Ex.P.11/inquest report. There he examined P.W.2, L.W.4/M.Bapiraju, L.W.8/S.Ratnam, L.W.9/Vinod 13 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

and recorded their statements. Later, he sent requisition to the

Department of Forensic Medicine, RMC, GGH, Kakinada, to conduct post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and also got conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased by P.W.7 and obtained Ex.P.13/post mortem examination report of the deceased. On 30.11.2018 on receipt of credible information about the presence of A.1 at his house, he along with the above said mediators proceeded to the house of A.1 situated at Samalkot, got recorded confessional statement of A.1, seized

Photostat copies of eleven (11) promissory notes from the possession of A.1 under the cover of mediators report. Ex.P.25 is the relevant portion in mediators report dt:30.11.2018 in respect of seizure of

Photostat copies of eleven (11) promissory notes. When he questioned A.1 about the originals of those 11 promissory notes, A.1 informed him that he filed the originals of those 11 promissory notes into Court in respect of civil suit. Ex.P.26 is the Photostat copies of eleven (11) promissory notes. Later, he arrested A.1 and produced him before Court of law for judicial remand. Later, he sent the material objects which were preserved by the medical officer from the dead body of the deceased to the RFSL, Vijayawada, for chemical analysis through Ex.P.27/letter of advice. Further investigation was conducted by his successor, who received RFSL report and filed charge sheet.

P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 stated before him as in Exs.P.3 to P.8 and P.12 respectively.

19.Out of the above witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and wife of the deceased, P.W.2 is the elder brother of the deceased, P.W.3 is maternal uncle of the deceased, P.W.4 is the sister-in-law of the 14 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

deceased and P.W.6 is the neighbour of the deceased, but they did not state anything against the accused and it is their evidence that the deceased Mandavilli Rama Narayana Kumar committed suicide due to financial problems and health problems. But the evidence of P.W.7/Dr.

P.Phani Kiran, Assistant Professor, Rangaraya Medical College,

Kakinada, reveals that the death of the deceased is due to

Organophosphate an insecticide poisonous substance as confirmed by the chemical examiner. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.7 and

Exs.P.13 to P.15 clearly goes to show that the deceased died as he consumed poisoned substance i.e., Organophosphate an insecticide.

Further, the evidence of P.W.5, who is the V.R.O., that they have noticed M.O.1/one bottle with the name MONOCROTOPHOS-36% SL at the scene of offence also supports the medical evidence. The other portion of the evidence spoken by P.W.5 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution. No doubt, the evidence of P.W.7 coupled with Exs.P.13 to P.15 and the evidence of P.W.5 in respect of seizure of M.O.1/one bottle with name Monocrotophos-36% SL clearly goes to show that the deceased died due to Organophosphate an insecticide poisonous substance as he consumed poisonous substance and committed suicide. But to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Secs.384 and 306 of I.P.C., it is for the prosecution to prove that the accused abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide, but no witness has stated in their evidence that the accused abetted and instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

20.Further, as seen from the evidence of Investigating

Officer/P.W.8, P.W.1 handed over the suicide note of the deceased along with Ex.P.20/report and he also marked suicide note of the accused as in Ex.P.22. But to consider Ex.P.22/suicide note, the 15 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

evidence of P.W.7 should be supported by the evidence of P.W.1 being defacto complainant. Moreover, it is for the Investigating Officer to send Ex.P.22/suicide note to the APFSL along with admitted writings of the deceased to prove Ex.P.22/suicide note is with the hand writing of the deceased and the same was written by the deceased prior to his death. But except marking Ex.P.22, the Investigating

Officer did not take any steps to prove its contents and to prove that it was written by the deceased Mandavilli Rama Narayana Kumar prior to his death. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence spoken by

P.W.1 in respect of Ex.P.22/suicide note, Ex.P.22/suicide note cannot be considered.

21.Further, the evidence of P.W.8, who is the

Investigating Officer, in respect of the investigation conducted by him is also no way helpful to the case of prosecution in the absence of spoken by P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused Nos.1 and 2 abetted and instigated the deceased Mandavilli Rama Narayana Kumar to commit suicide. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Secs.384 and 306 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused Nos.1 and 2.

22.In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 306 of

Indian Penal Code and that they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of

Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months under Sec.437A 16 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

of Cr.P.C. M.O.1/bottle of Monocrotophos 36% SL and the unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation in part and d ictated in part to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 2 nd day of March, 2026.

JUDGE,

SPL. COURT FOR POCSO ACT,

KAKINADA.

FAC IV Addl. District Judge, Kakinada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1Mandavalli Sridevi

PW2Mandavalli Venkata Rao

PW3Chandavolu Veera Venkata Satya Gangadhara Janardhana Rao

PW4Mandavalli Veera Venkata Sesharatnam

PW5Lanka Nagendra Prasad

PW6Anguluri Ellaiahachari

PW7Dr. P.Phanikiran

PW8L.Srinu

For Accused: NONE

Exhibits marked:

Ex.P.1 /06.11.2018:Signature of P.W.1 on the report given to S.H.O., I Town (L&O) P.S., Kakinada. Ex.P.2 /19.11.2018:Signature of P.W.1 on the report given to P.W.8/S.I. of Police, Samalkot P.S.

17 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

Ex.P.3 /07.11.2018:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.4 /19.11.2018:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.5 /20.11.2018:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.6 /07.11.2018:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.7 /07.11.2018:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.8 /08.11.2018:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.9 /08.11.2018:Scene observation report. Ex.P.10/ --- :Photographs (3 in number) along with C.D. Ex.P.11/20.11.2018:Inquest report of the deceased. Ex.P.12/08.11.2018:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6. Ex.P.13/20.11.2018:Post mortem report of the deceased. Ex.P.14/15.04.2019:APFSL report. Ex.P.15/18.05.2019:Final opinion. Ex.P.16/06.11.2018:Police intimation of MLC cases. Ex.P.17/06.11.2018:Report given by P.W.1 to the S.H.O., I Town (L&O) P.S., Kakinada. Ex.P.18/07.11.2018:F.I.R., in Crime No.369/2018 of Samakot P.S., for the offence under Sec.309 of I.P.C. Ex.P.19/ --- :Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P.20/19.11.2018:Report given by P.W.1/defacto complainant to P.W.8/S.I. of Police, Samalkot P.S. Ex.P.21/19.11.2018:Altered F.I.R., in Crime No.369/2018 of Samalkot P.S., for the offence under Sec.384, 306 r/w 116 of I.P.C. Ex.P.22/06.11.2018:Suicide notes written by the deceased. Ex.P.23/19.11.2018:Death intimation of the deceased. Ex.P.24/20.11.2018:Altered F.I.R., in Crime No.369/2018 of Samalkot P.S., for the offence under Sec.384, 306 of I.P.C. Ex.P.25/30.11.2018:Relevant portion marked in mediators report in respect of seizure of Photostat copies of promissory notes. Ex.P.26/ --- :Photostat copies of promissory notes (11 in number) Ex.P.27/27.11.2018:Letter of advice.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Accused : NIL.

18 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

Material Objects marked:

M.O.1:Bottle with name MONOCROTOPHOS – 36% SL.

JUDGE,

SPL. COURT FOR POCSO ACT,

KAKINADA.

FAC IV Addl. District Judge, Kakinada.

Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judl), High Court of A.P., Nelapadu, Amaravathi. (Uploaded file)

2. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada.

3. The Addl. Public prosecutor, IV ADSJ Court, Kakinada.

19 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE :: KAKINADA.

APEG055018492018Present : Sri P.Govardhan VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada.

Monday, the 29 th day of September, 2025

SESSIONS CASE No.406/2018

(P.R.C. No.44/2018 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, in Cr.No.154/2017 of

Thimmapuram Police Station)

Complainant :State represented by Inspector of Police, Kakinada Rural.

Accused :Vaddi Venkata Satish, S/o. Raghu, Aged 29 years, Toorpukapu, D.No.1-109/1, Burma Colony, Kotturu village, Kakinada Rural Mandal.

Date of offence: On 10.11.2017 at about 10.00 a.m

Complaint:10.11.2017

Apprehension:23.11.2017

Commitment:25.07.2018

Commencement of trial:22.09.2025

Close of trial:22.09.2025

Date of Hearing:22.09.2025

Judgment:29.09.2025

Whether accused is on bail/ in Jail: Bail

Explanation for delay in Trial Court :- NIL.

20 I V ADSJ COURT, KKD

SC.227/2024

-2- This Sessions case is made over from Principal District &

Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram, to this Court for

disposal according to law on 17.12.2018. On 30.01.2017, the accused appeared before this Court and the matter was posted to 14.07.2022 for hearing on charges. On 14.07.2022 charges under Sections 302, 201 and 498 (A) IPC were framed against the accused and the trial schedule was fixed on 07.07.2025 from 22.09.2025 to 25.09.2025. On 22.09.2025, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P.5 were marked and closed the prosecution evidence and Sec.313 Cr.P.C., examination of the accused was dispensed with and heard the arguments and posted the matter for judgment to 29.09.2025.

Accused present. Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separate Judgment) IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Secs.302, 201 and 498 (A) of IPC, with which he is charged and consequently, the accused is acquitted U/s.232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stand cancelled after six months from today, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e., a piece of white and pink saree (about 3 feet), a piece of white and pink silk saree (about 2 feet), iron scissors, aluminium bangles (2 in number), rold gold ear rings (2 in number), rold gold anklets (2 in number), red, black and biscuit colour cotton nighty, Light red, light blue and white colour chunni and photograph of the deceased with relative of accused, which are non-valuables, are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked valuable case property i.e., silver toe rings (2 in number) of the deceased Vaddi Uma Devi, W/o. Venkata Satish, shall be given to P.W.1/Baggu Durga Rao, father of the deceased, after expiry of appeal time. The accused did not claim Vivo company cell phone, as such, the unmarked property i.e., Vivo cell phone is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- P.Govardhan,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge Kakinada.

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 1 of 16 Kakinada.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ::

KAKINADA

Present: Smt. K.Sree Devi, Spl. Judge for POCSO Offences Act, Kakinada, FAC IV Addl. District Judge, Kakinada.

Thursday, the 18th day of December, 2025

Criminal Appeal No. 309/2022

From what court the appeal isI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First preferred: Class, Kakinada.

Name of the case in that Court: C.C.No.421/2017

Number of the Appeal : C.A. No.309/2022

Name & Description of the Tirupathi Sri Parvati, W/o. Bhaskara Appellant/defacto complainant :Santosh Kumar, D/o. Nimmagadda Krishna Murthy, Age 32 years, D.No.5-10-3, Kothakota street, Samalkot.

Name & Description of the1. Tirupathi Bhaskara Santosh Respondents/Accused : Kumar, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Age 34 years, D.No.4-12-16, Gokulaveedhi, AC Gardens, Rajamahendravaram,C/o. T.B.Santhosh Kumar, No.125, 17th Main, 7 Cross Freedom Fighters Layout, Laggere Main, Bangalore, presently residing at D.No.273, Premasangama, 3rd Main, 5th Cross, Vidhan Soudha, Laggere Main, Bangalore.

2. Tirupathi Nageswara Rao, S/o. Satya murthy, Age 60 years, D.No.4-12-16, Gokulaveedhi, AC Gardens, Rajamahendravaram, C/o. T.B.Santhosh Kumar, No.125, 17th Main, 7 Cross FreedomFightersLayout,

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 2 of 16 Kakinada.

Laggere Main, Bangalore, presently residing at D.No.273, Premasangama, 3rd Main, 5th Cross, Vidhan Soudha, Laggere Main, Bangalore.

3. Tirupathi Bhagya Lakshmi, W/o. Nageswara Rao, Age 55 years, D.No.4-12-16, Gokulaveedhi, AC Gardens, Rajamahendravaram, C/o. T.B. Santhosh Kumar, No.125, 17th Main, 7 Cross FreedomFightersLayout, Laggere Main, Bangalore, presently residing at D.No.273, Premasangama, 3rd Main, 5th Cross, Vidhan Soudha, Laggere Main, Bangalore.

4. S.H.O., Mahila Police Station, Kakinada, (State represented by Additional P.P.)

Sentence and Law under Accused Nos.1 to 3 are not found guilty for which it was imposed in the offence under Sections 498-A and section the trial court: r/w 34 I.P.C., and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act against accused and acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time. They are set at liberty in the present case. Whether confirmed, modified or reversed, and if modified Confirmed the modification:

Date of on which presentation: 06.10.2022 Filing: 13.10.2022 Notice issued by the court to appeal:18.10.2022 Bail bonds if appellant have been let out on bail: -- Appellant orders to appear: 22.11.2022 Hearing: 11.12.2025 Judgment: 18.12.2025

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 3 of 16 Kakinada.

This Appeal has come up on 11.12.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Subrahmanyam, Advocate for the appellant/defacto complainant and of Sri S.Kumar and Sri P.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 3 and of learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for State/4th respondent/complainant and

upon hearing their arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal is directed against the Calendar and Judgment dated 02.09.2022 rendered in C.C.No.421/2017 on the file of the learned I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, by her judgment

acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 498 (A) r/w 34 of I.P.C., and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred with their status in the trial court.

3.The brief facts of the case of prosecution as seen from the charge sheet filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Women P.S., Kakinada, are as follows:

i)P.W.1/Tirupathi Sri Parvati is the daughter of

P.W.2/Nimmagadda Satyavathi and L.W.3/Nimmagadda Krishna Murthy.

P.W.3/Nimmagadda Satish is the brother of P.W.1. They are residents of

Kothakota street, Samalkot. The parents of P.W.1 performed the marriage of P.W.1 with A.1. A.2 and A.3 are parents of A.1. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded Rs.20,00,000/- dowry, 30 tulas of gold and 50 kgs., of silver, for which, parents of P.W.1 pleaded their inability and they gave Rs.10,00,000/- dowry, 10 tulas of gold and 3 kgs of silver. P.W.4/Satti China Subbarao was present at the time of marriage negotiations. The parents of P.W.1 paid Rs.10,00,000/- in two installments i.e., Rs.5,00,000/- each. The accused agreed for the same and accordingly, their marriage was performed on 01.04.2016 in Railway

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 4 of 16 Kakinada.

Kalyanamandapam, Samalkot. Immediately after the marriage, P.W.1 joined A.1 at Bengaluru to lead marital life. A.2 and A.3, who are parents of A.1 are also staying with A.1 and P.W.1. Soon after P.W.1 joining A.1,

A.1 to A.3 demanded P.W.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally. On 3.7.2016, they dropped P.W.1 at her parents’ house on the eve of Aashadam and did not take back P.W.1 to lead marital life after expiry of Aashadam.

They demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as additional dowry for taking P.W.1 to their house. Though a dispute is raised, A.1 to A.3 did not heed the words of elders. On 12.9.2016, a complaint was given by P.W.1 and later it was registered as a case in Crime No.108/2016 for the offences under

Sec.498-A r/w 34 I.P.C., and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

During course of investigation, P.W.7, who is the Sub Inspector of Police,

Women P.S., Kakinada, visited the crime scene, prepared rough sketch and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. A.1 to A.3 obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.1188/2016, dt:04.10.2016 of III Addl.

Sessions Judge, Kakinada and accordingly, they were released on bail on

28.10.2016. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against all the accused of the said offences.

4.The case of the accused Nos.1 to 3 is of total denial of the case of the prosecution.

5.In the Trial Court, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On behalf of the accused, none were examined. However, Ex.D.1 is marked on behalf of the accused.

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 5 of 16 Kakinada.

6.After considering the contentions of both parties, the learned I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, acquitted the

accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/Sec.498 (A) r/w 34 of

IPC., and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

7.Aggrieved by the said acquittal of the accused, appellant/defacto complainant preferred this appeal, with the following grounds:

i)The Order of acquittal of the accused passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence, probabilities and circumstances of the case.

ii)The trial Court ought to have convicted the accused for the offence under sec.498 (A) I.P.C., and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as the accused demanded dowry and received Rs.10,00,000/- towards dowry prior to marriage.

iii)The trial Court ought to have accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 in respect of the payment of dowry by the accused prior to marriage, payment of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- by the defacto complainant in 2 installments and demand made by the accused for balance amount of

Rs.10,00,000/-, harassment by the accused for additional dowry of

Rs.10,00,000/-.

iv)The trial Court wrongfully came to the conclusion that there are contradictions in respect of the payment of dowry and demand of the dowry.

v)The trial Court failed to consider the evidence of P.W.1 that A.1 used to harass the defacto complainant at Bangalore and suspected that she is suffering with HIV and demanded her to go for medical tests.

vi)The trial Court failed to accept the contention of the defacto complainant about the harassment and torture towards the defacto complainant.

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 6 of 16 Kakinada.

vii)The trial Court ought not to expect the presence of independent witnesses at the time of occurrence since it is family dispute taken place in the four corners of accused house, moreover at Bangalore.

viii)The trial Court ought to have convicted the accused basing on

Exs.P.6 and P.7 which clearly goes to show that amount received by the accused and the gold and silver were presented by P.W.1 and her parents, but the trial Court did not consider Exs.P.6 and P.7 on the ground that they were not send for hand writing expert for comparison of signature of accused.

ix)The trial Court erroneously considered fake audio of the accused and acquitted the accused.

x)The trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that P.W.3 admitted the affair of P.W.1 with one Udaya Kumar though no such admission made by P.W.3 in his audio and in fact the trial Court did not hear the audio in open Court and compared with the audio.

xi)The trial Court wrongly considered the contradictions between

P.Ws.1 to 3 and 4 to 6 about the payment of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-.

xii)The trial Court without sending Ex.D.1/CD for handwriting expert, accepted the same.

xiii)The trial Court failed to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 about taking of dowry and harassment and torture by the accused though they are not family members of the defacto complainant.

xiv)The trial Court failed to observe the facts on record and evidences and without considering the said facts, acquitted the accused. Hence, the appellant/defacto complainant seeks to set aside the calendar and

Judgment passed by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Kakinada, in C.C.421/2017, dt:02.09.2022 and convict the respondents 1 to 3/A.1 to A.3.

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 7 of 16 Kakinada.

8.Heard arguments of both sides.

9.Now, the points that arise for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused Nos.1 to 3/respondents 1 to 3 of the offences

U/Sec.498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act?

2. Whether the Calendar and Judgment of the learned I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, in

C.C.No.421/2017, dt:02.09.2022 are liable to be reversed or

liable to be confirmed?

Point No.1:

10. To bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3, it is for the prosecution to prove that A.1 being husband and A.2 and A.3 being in-laws of the defacto complainant subjected the defacto complainant/P.W.1 and harassed her both mentally and physically to satisfy their illegal demand of additional dowry and A.1 to A.3 took an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards dowry from the parents of P.W.1 and also demanded for additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and thereby A.1 to

A.3 committed offence punishable under Section 498 (A) r/w 34 of I.P.C., and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

11.To prove the guilt of A.1 to A.3 for the above said offences, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6.

P.W.1 testified that her marriage with A.1 was performed on 01.04.2016 and at that time, A.1 to A.3 demanded Rs.20,00,000/- dowry, 30 tulas of gold and 50 kgs., of silver, but her parents agreed to pay

Rs.10,00,000/-, 10 tulas of gold and 3 kgs., of silver and also paid

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 8 of 16 Kakinada.

Rs.10,00,000/- on two occasions i.e., Rs.5,00,000/- each. After marriage, she joined A.1 at Kakinada and they stayed there for seven days and later P.W.1 and A.1 to A.3 shifted to Bangalore. There, A.2 and A.3 used to harass her for balance dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and A.1 also used to harass her and made comments on her, stating that she is

HIV positive patient, for which, she suffered with mental agony. A.1 used to come to house in drunken state and abused her in filthy language.

Unable to bear the harassment of A.1 to A.3, she went to her parents’ house. On 8.5.2016, the matter was placed before the senior paternal aunt of A.1 at Rajamahendravaram and settled. Again P.W.1 went to

Bangalore on 1.6.2016. But, A.1 to A.3 did not change their attitude and harassed her for additional dowry. On one day A.1 pressed her neck and attempted to kill her. A.1 did not allow her to talk with her parents over phone. On 3.7.2016 the accused dropped her at her parents’ house in view of Ashadamasam, demanded additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-, manhandled the parents of P.W.1 and threatened that A.1 will give divorce unless the balance dowry amount is paid. Later, the matter was placed before the elders, but in vain. Then, P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1 report to the police. On 5.3.2016 her parents gave Rs.5,00,000/- dowry to her father-in-law and on 9.3.2016 talks were conducted and her parents promised that they will arrange remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- prior to one week of marriage. After receiving 2nd amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, her father-in-law endorsed the same in bottom of the letter dt:14.02.2016 i.e.,

Ex.P.6 that he has received Rs.5,00,000/- from them and Ex.P.7 is the certified copy of the letter issued by her parents to her father-in-law

dt:5.3.2016.

12.P.W.2, who is mother of P.W.1 stated that the marriage of

P.W.1 was performed with A.1 on 01.04.2016 and they presented

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 9 of 16 Kakinada.

Rs.10,00,000/- cash, 10 tulas of gold and 3 kgs., of silver towards dowry and also presented 3 sovereigns of gold to A.1 and Rs.80,000/- worth of sari samans. After the marriage, P.W.1 went to the house of A.1 at

Rajamahendravaram and three days later, A.1 to A.3 and P.W.1 went to

Bangalore, where A.1 to A.3 harassed P.W.1 both physically and mentally demanding additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. P.W.1 also informed them that her marriage was not consummated in the first night,

A.1 created false medical records showing that she was suffering from some disease. They requested A.1 to A.3 and they brought P.W.1 to

Samalkot, left her and went away. Thereafter they received notice from

A.1 to A.3 stating that P.W.1 is suffering with HIV positive, on that P.W.1 went to police station and gave Ex.P.1/report.

13.P.W.3, who is brother of P.W.1, stated that the marriage of

P.W.1 was performed with A.1 on 01.04.2016 and they presented

Rs.10,00,000/- cash, 10 tulas of gold and 3 kgs., of silver towards dowry.

After the marriage, P.W.1 went to the house of A.1 at

Rajamahendravaram and four days later, A.1 to A.3 and P.W.1 went to

Bangalore. When they called P.W.1, A.1 warned them not to make phone calls. One day, A.1 called and informed that P.W.1 was suffering with ill-health, on that they went to Bangalore and brought P.W.1 to

Samalkot. When they asked P.W.1 as to what happened at Bangalore,

P.W.1 informed that A.1 demanded additional cash of Rs.20,00,000/-, 20 tulas of gold and 47 kgs., of silver and also did not provide food to P.W.1.

Thereafter both sides elders admonished A.1 and sent P.W.1 to

Bangalore. A.1 used to make phone calls and informed about suspected character of P.W.1 and also demanded for additional dowry. After

Aashada masam when they called A.1 to A.3 to take back P.W.1, A.1 to

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 10 of 16 Kakinada.

A.3 did not attend their phone calls and on that, they gave complaint to the police.

14.P.W.4/S.Chinna Subbarao, who is relative of P.W.1, stated that the marriage of P.W.1 and A.1 was performed in the year 2016 at

Railway Kalyanamandapam of Samalkot. The parents of P.W.1 presented Rs.5,00,000/- each in total Rs.10,00,000/- to the family members of A.1, 10 tulas of gold and 3 kgs., of silver to A.1. After the marriage, P.W.1 joined A.1 at Rajamahendravaram and stayed for 4 or 5 days and later went to Bangalore. P.W.1 and A.1 lived happily for 10 days thereafter A.2 made phone call to P.W.2 stating about weakness of

P.W.1 and asked them to take back P.W.1. On that, P.W.3 and his cousin went to Bangalore and brought P.W.1 to Kakinada. P.W.1 narrated them about the harassment made by A.1 for want of additional dowry. The same was placed before the elders and the elders called A.1 and his family members, but they did not attend before the elders. Later,

A.1 sent divorce notice to P.W.1, thereafter P.W.1 went to police station and gave a report.

15.P.W.5/U.Nageswara Rao, who is known person to P.Ws.1 to 4 and A.1 to A.3, stated that the marriage of P.W.1 with A.1 was performed on 1.4.2016 in Railway Kalyana Mandapam of Samalkot. The parents of P.W.1 presented Rs.5,00,000/- in two times in the presence of himself, P.W.4 and maternal uncle of P.W.1 to A.2, who is father of A.1.

After the marriage, P.W.1 went to Rajamahendravaram, to lead marital life and three days later, A.1 and P.W.1 went to Bangalore. The father of

P.W.1 informed him that he received a phone call from A.2 in respect of ill-health suffered by P.W.1. Thereafter, the brothers of P.W.1 went to

Bangalore and brought P.W.1 to Kakinada. The father of P.W.1 also

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 11 of 16 Kakinada.

informed him that A.1 and his family members harassed P.W.1 for want of additional dowry. He came to know that A.1 and his family members came and brought P.W.1 to Bangalore. A.1 and his family members continuously harassed P.W.1 for want of additional dowry. A.2, who is father of A.1, brought P.W.1 back to Kakinada on account of Aashada

Masam. P.W.1 stayed at the house of P.W.2 for attending her own brother’s marriage. The father-in-law of P.W.1 was also promised that they also attended to the marriage of brother of P.W.1, but they did not attend the same. Thereafter A.1 sent legal notice for want of divorce. On that, P.W.1 went to police station and gave a report.

16.P.W.6/Pasupuleti Lakshmi Nageswara Rao, who is advocate, stated that the marriage of A.1 and P.W.1 was performed on 1.4.2016. At the time of marriage, accused asked Rs.20,00,000/-, but the family members of P.W.1 gave Rs.10,00,000/- and A.2, who is father of A.1, has given receipt to that effect. The family members of P.W.1 also presented 10 tulas of gold and 30 tulas of silver in his presence.

Soon after the marriage, P.W.1 joined A.1 at Rajamahendravaram. A.1 harassed P.W.1 for balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. A.1 brought

P.W.1 to Samalkot and left her in the house of her parents due to

Aashada Masam. After completion of Aashada Masam, P.W.1 along with A.1 went to Bangalore and stayed for two weeks. Thereafter, A.1 started harassing P.W.1 for want of remaining Rs.10,00,000/-. A.1 tried to left P.W.1 alone at Bangalore, but P.W.1 requested A.1 to call her brother, then brother of P.W.1 went to Bangalore and brought her to

Samalkot. The family members of P.W.1 requested A.1 and his family members to take back P.W.1 to Bangalore, but A.1 to A.3 did not take her back and also informed that they will take back P.W.1 after completion of marriage of her brother. A.1 and his family members did

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 12 of 16 Kakinada.

not attend to the marriage of brother of P.W.1 and filed divorce O.P., against P.W.1. Thereafter P.W.1 gave a report.

17.P.W.7/Ch.Surya Bhaskara Rao, who is the Investigating

Officer, stated that on 12.9.2016 at about 12.30 p.m., while he was present in police station, P.W.1 along with her parents came to the police station and presented Ex.P.1/written report. Thereafter, he called A.1 for conducting counseling, but A.1 to A.3 did not attend for counseling. On 20.10.2016 at about 1.00 p.m., he registered Ex.P.2/F.I.R., as a case in

Crime No.108/2016 basing on Ex.P.1. P.W.1 also submitted

Ex.P.3/marriage photographs (6 in number) and Ex.P.4/wedding invitation card and Xerox copies of two documents relating to presenting of cash towards the dowry. Thereafter he visited the scene of offence which is situated at Pithapuram road near Samalkot, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Basing on investigation, the case is not made of against Gannireddy,

Jayalakshmi, but originally P.W.1 lodged case against 4 members and

A.4 is not charge sheeted. On 28.10.2016, A.1 to A.3 came to the police station and produced the Anticipatory bail orders in Crl.M.P.1188/2016,

dt:4.10.2016 and basing on that he obtained sureties and personal bonds

from A.1 to A.3. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

18.As seen from the entire discussed evidence on record, it is an admitted fact that P.W.1 and A.1 are wife and husband and their marriage was performed on 01.04.2016. But, it is the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 that at the time of marriage, the parents of A.1 demanded dowry of

Rs.20,00,000/-, 30 tulas of gold and 50 kgs of silver and the parents of

P.W.1 presented Rs.5,00,000/- on two occasions i.e., total amount of

Rs.10,00,000/-, 10 tulas of gold and 3 kgs of silver towards dowry. The

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 13 of 16 Kakinada.

prosecution also relied upon Exs.P.6 and P.7 which are certified copies of letters dt:04.02.2016 and 05.03.2016 alleged to be given by parents of

P.W.1 to A.2 and which contains signature of A.2. No doubt, it was mentioned in Exs.P.6 and P.7 that the agreed amount of dowry is

Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- was paid on 05.03.2016 and agreed to pay the remaining Rs.5,00,000/- two days prior to the marriage and apart from the said amount, remaining formalities also mentioned. But as seen from Exs.P.6 and P.7, no where it was mentioned that who executed the said documents and in whose favour and who gave Rs.5,00,000/- on 05.03.2016 to whom. Further, as seen from Exs.P.6 and P.7, it was clearly mentioned that it was agreed to pay Rs.10,00,000/-, 10 tulas of gold and 2 sovereigns of chain and silver towards pasupu kumkuma, but not as dowry and the same was also admitted by P.W.1 during cross- examination. Further as seen from the record, no where it was mentioned that where the originals of Exs.P.6 and P.7 were filed. It is pertinent to mention that to consider the admissibility of any photo copies, there should be explanation about the originals. But, nowhere it was stated by P.W.1 that where the originals of Exs.P.6 and P.7 are.

Further, it is for the prosecution to prove that the said documents were addressed to the accused and the signatures found on Exs.P.6 and P.7 are that of A.2, but the prosecution did not send those documents to the handwriting expert to prove that the signatures under Exs.P.6 and P.7 are belong to A.2. Therefore, Exs.P.6 and P.7 cannot be considered.

19.Though P.W.4 stated in his evidence about the presentation of dowry to the accused by the parents of P.W.1, during cross- examination, he stated that he does not remember when the parents of

P.W.1 presented Rs.5,00,000/- in two times and also stated that he is not a witness to Exs.P.6 and P.7. But as per his evidence, P.W.2 is his

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 14 of 16 Kakinada.

maternal aunt. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 also cannot be considered in the absence of any documentary proof.

20.No doubt, P.Ws.5 and 6 stated in their evidence that parents of P.W.1 presented Rs.5,00,000/- in their presence. But during cross- examination, P.W.5 stated that there is no written document in respect of presentation of Rs.5,00,000/- in first time to A.2, but there was a written document at the time of presentation of Rs.5,00,000/- by P.W.2.

Therefore, as per the evidence of P.W.5, when P.W.2 presented

Rs.5,00,000/- on second occasion, the same was reduced into writing, but as per Exs.P.6 and P.7, date of Ex.P.7 is 14.02.2016 and in Ex.P.6, it was mentioned that Rs.5,00,000/- was given on 5.3.2016. Therefore, as per Exs.P.6 and P.7, amount of Rs.5,00,000/- presented on 1st occasion was reduced into writing and subsequently also, a document was written.

Hence, I found contradiction in between the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 and Exs.P.6 and P.7. On that ground also Exs.P.6 and P.7 cannot be considered so also the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 in respect of payment of dowry by the parents of P.W.1 to the accused.

21.It is another contention of the prosecution that by demanding

additional dowry, A.1 to A.3 left P.W.1 at Samalkot and also harassed

P.W.1 mentally and physically. But during cross-examination, P.W.3, who is brother of P.W.1, categorically admitted that A.1 informed him that

P.W.1 refused to cohabitate with A.1 on the ground that she was in love with one Udaya Prabhakar and threatened to commit suicide in case of forcible touch, as such their marriage was not consummated. During cross-examination of P.W.3, the defence counsel also marked one C.D., as Ex.D.1 in respect of conversation in between A.1 and P.W.3 and also admitted that the said conversation is not in respect of harassment

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 15 of 16 Kakinada.

towards P.W.1 and also not in respect of demanding of additional dowry.

From the above admissions made by P.W.3, who is brother of P.W.1, an inference can be drawn that P.W.1 came to her parents’ house not because of demand of additional dowry by the accused or not in view of mental and physical harassment by A.1 to A.3.

22.In view of my above discussion, I decline to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, who are kith and kin of P.W.1 and also decline to consider Exs.P.6 and P.7. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A.1 to A.3 for the offence under sec.498 (A) r/w 34 of I.P.C., and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

23.Point No.2:

I have perused Calendar and Judgment of the learned trial

Judge, who thoroughly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence

and came to a conclusion that A.1 to A.3 have not subjected the defacto complainant/P.W.1 to cruelty by demanding additional dowry and they have not taken any dowry. Therefore, in view of my answer to point

No.1, the findings rendered by the learned trial Judge do not need interference and accordingly, the Calendar and Judgment dt:2.9.2022 in

C.C.421/2017 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kakinada, are hereby confirmed and consequently, the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge in favour of accused Nos.1 to 3 is also confirmed. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused

Nos.1 to 3 and against the appellant/defacto complainant.

24.In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the

Calendar and Judgment dt:02.09.2022 in C.C.421/2017 on the file of I

Crl. Appeal No. 309/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dated 18.12.2025. 16 of 16 Kakinada.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada and consequently,

acquittal recorded there under by the learned Magistrate in favour of A1 to A3 is also confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off under

Sec.386 (b)(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 3 shall stand discharged/cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated

U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.I, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 18 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- K.Sree Devi

JUDGE,

SPL. COURT FOR POCSO ACT,

KAKINADA.

FAC IV Addl. District Judge, Kakinada.

Copy to The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada.

IV ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,1O.S.42/2023 KAKINADA DATED 24.10.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:KAKINADA

Present: Smt. K.Sreedevi

Spl. Judge for POCSO Offences Act

FAC IV Addl. District Judge, Kakinada

Friday, the 24th day of October, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT No.42/2023

Between:

M/s. Choday Apparow Engineering

Represented by its Managing Partners...Plaintiff.

And

1. Smt. Sarvasiddhi Vijaya Lakshmi

2. Smt. Vommi Lalitha Surya … Defendants.

This petition coming on 29.08.2025 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 having remained ex parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants to pass a preliminary decree for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.4,59,93,793/- with subsequent interest at 24% p.a., on principal amount of

Rs.1,25,00,000/- and for redemption by directing the defendants to redeem the charged property i.e., plaint schedule property.

02.The brief facts of the plaint are as follows :

IV ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,2O.S.42/2023 KAKINADA DATED 24.10.2025

The plaintiff is a registeredfirm with Regn. No.1227/1950.

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff put the plaint schedule property for sale with a view to invest sale proceeds in the business. The defendants came forward to purchase the plaint schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,88,50,000/-. As per the terms and conditions agreed upon, the defendants obtained registered sale deed dt:07.03.2015 from the plaintiff by paying a sum of

Rs.63,50,000/- i.e., part of sale consideration on various dates as mentioned in the said sale deed. The defendants agreed to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.a., on yearly compound within six months from the date of sale deed. Under the registered sale deed dt:7.3.2015 the defendants created charge over the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for the unpaid purchase money of Rs.1,25,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., till payment is made. The defendants though promised to pay the unpaid purchased money within six months, from the date of sale deed dt:7.3.2015 except making delayed paltry payments mentioned below failed to pay the total amount as agreed upon. The defendants paid Rs.25,00,000/- on 2.11.2015, Rs.5,17,800/- on 1.8.2016,

Rs.12,50,000/- on 30.8.2016, Rs.9,75,000/- on 1.9.2016, Rs.7,00,000/- on 2.1.2017, Rs.10,00,000/- on 4.8.2018 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 14.08.2018 to the plaintiff in total Rs.74,42,800/-. As per the calculation memo, the defendants owed a sum of Rs.4,34,93,793/- to the plaintiff by the date of filing of this suit. Even though the defendants agreed to pay unpaid purchase money within six months from the date of sale deed

dt:07.03.2015, the defendants intentionally failed to pay the amount and

even now the defendants protracting to pay the balance unpaid purchase

IV ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,3O.S.42/2023 KAKINADA DATED 24.10.2025 money. The obvious reason is that the value of rupee is day to day decreasing and whereas the value of the urban property i.e., plaint schedule property is multiplying, for every two years. Inspite of repeated demands made by the Managing Partners of the plaintiff, the balance unpaid purchase money with interest payable thereon was not paid by the defendants, except successfully postponing the same on one or other pretext. The purpose of sale of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff is to invest the sale proceeds in the business, with high returns.

Thus, the defendants are liable to pay the loss and damages sustained by the plaintiff in this regard is estimated @ Rs.1,20,00,000/- upto notice

dt:8.3.2023 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants. At the first

instance the plaintiff got issued registered legal notice dt:19.8.2017 to the defendants through Sri B.Gokula Krishna, Advocate, Kakinada, demanding to pay the due amount with interest. Inspite of receipt of the said notice, the defendants failed to comply with the said notice. The plaintiff with a view to avoid litigation got issued another notice

dt:8.3.2023 to the defendants to pay the balance unpaid purchase money

with interest thereon at 24% p.a., yearly compound as agreed upon and to redeem the charge over the schedule property covered by the registered sale deed dt:7.3.2015 along with the amount of

Rs.1,20,00,000/- suffered by the plaintiff towards loss and damages sustained within 10 days after the receipt of the notice, failing which the plaintiff will be constrained to take necessary legal action against the defendants and they will be held liable to pay further loss and damages of plaintiff @ Rs.20,00,000/- per annum in addition to the above mentioned loss and damage of Rs.1,20,00,000/- already sustained by plaintiff with interest thereon. The 1st defendant received the said notice and 2nd

IV ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,4O.S.42/2023 KAKINADA DATED 24.10.2025 defendant intentionally avoided to receive the same and got it returned.

Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. So far as the loss and damages sustained by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is restricting its claim to a tune of Rs.25,00,000/-. But the defendants are liable to pay the future loss and damages @ Rs.20,00,000/- per annum. The defendants are not agriculturists and they are not entitled to the benefits of Act 4 of 1983 or Act 7 of 1977. Hence the suit.

03. When the summons were served to the defendants 1 and 2, they did not appear before this Court and they were set ex parte.

04.To substantiate its contention, the plaintiff examined one of the Managing Partners of its firm by name Korpu Mehar Prasad as P.W.1 and also examined one Bulusu Visweswara Rao, who is third party to the proceedings as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked.

05.Heard the plaintiff’s counsel.

06.Now, the point for consideration is;

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a preliminary decree as prayed for?

07. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and put the plaint schedule property for sale with a view to invest the sale proceeds in the business.

The defendants came forward to purchase the plaint schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,88,50,000/-. As per the terms and

IV ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,5O.S.42/2023 KAKINADA DATED 24.10.2025 conditions agreed upon, the defendants obtained registered sale deed

dt:07.03.2015 from the plaintiff by paying a sum of Rs.63,50,000/- as part

of sale consideration and agreed to pay balance sale consideration of

Rs.1,25,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.a., on yearly compound within six months from the date of sale deed and also created charge over the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for the unpaid purchase money of Rs.1,25,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., till payment is made. The same was mentioned clearly in the sale deed dt:7.3.2015. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff’s firm, the defendants did not pay the balance sale consideration except making delayed part payments of Rs.59,42,800/- i.e., an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- on 2.11.2015, Rs.5,17,800/- on 1.8.2016,

Rs.12,50,000/- on 30.8.2016, Rs.9,75,000/- on 1.9.2016, Rs.7,00,000/- on 2.1.2017. On that the plaintiff got issued registered legal notice

dt:19.08.2017. Subsequently, the defendants also paid an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- on 4.8.2018 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 14.08.2018 in total

Rs.15,00,000/-. Again the plaintiff also issued another legal notice

dt:8.3.2023 demanding the defendants to pay balance consideration and

to redeem the charge over the plaint schedule property covered under sale deed dt:07.03.2015. But the defendants did not comply the notices got issued by the plaintiff’s firm.

08.P.Ws.1 and 2 stated in their chief affidavits by reiterating the above averments and also marked certified copy of firm registration certificate relating to plaintiff dt:11.07.1950 as in Ex.A.1, attested copy of reconstituted partnership deed relating to plaintiff dt:08.07.2022 as in

Ex.A.2, certified copy of sale deed dt:7.3.2015 executed by plaintiff in

IV ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,6O.S.42/2023 KAKINADA DATED 24.10.2025 favour of defendants creating charge over the plaint schedule property as in Ex.A.3, office copies of the registered legal notices dt:19.08.2017 and

dt:08.03.2023 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants as in Exs.A.4

and A.5 respectively, postal acknowledgement of 1st defendant for Ex.A.5 legal notice as in Ex.A.6 and returned postal cover addressed to 2nd defendant with an endorsement intimation and unclaimed as in Ex.A.7.

09.As the defendants did not contest the suit, the above evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were left unchallenged.

Hence, I inclined to consider the unchallenged testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.7. On considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and

Ex.A.3/certified copy of sale deed dt:7.3.2015, I found that the defendants purchased the plaint schedule property from the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs.1,88,50,000/- and paid Rs.63,50,000/- only and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% yearly compound by creating charge over the plaint schedule property. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and even from the pleadings, it is evident that the defendants made part payment of

Rs.25,00,000/- on 2.11.2015, Rs.5,17,800/- on 1.8.2016, Rs.12,50,000/- on 30.8.2016, Rs.9,75,000/- on 1.9.2016, Rs.7,00,000/- on 2.1.2017,

Rs.10,00,000/- on 4.8.2018 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 14.08.2018 to the plaintiff in total Rs.74,42,800/-, but did not pay the balance of sale consideration with interest as agreed under Ex.A.3/sale deed dt:7.3.2015.

Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., from the date of

Ex.A.3/sale deed dt:7.3.2015 excluding the part payments made by the

IV ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,7O.S.42/2023 KAKINADA DATED 24.10.2025 defendants on 2.11.2015, 1.8.2016, 30.8.2016, 1.9.2016, 2.1.2017, 4.8.2018 and 14.08.2018.

10.It is the contention of the plaintiff that as per Ex.A.3, defendants agreed to pay the interest at 24% p.a., yearly compound till full payment as such the plaintiff is entitled for principal and interest at 24% p.a., yearly compound after deducting the part payments made by the defendants. As seen from Ex.A.3 which clearly goes to show that the defendants agreed to pay interest at 24% p.a., yearly compound. No doubt the Court is empowered to reduce interest if found unconsciousble and being iniquitous, but payment under Ex.A.2 should be appreciated in light of compensation to the plaintiff for unpaid sale consideration which he could otherwise have used for own purpose. Further, setting of interest rate is to compensate for the expected loss in purchasing power due to inflation and in order to compensate the expected loss in purchasing power due to inflation, simple interest is not sufficient, but it should be real interest and the compoundable interest is real interest. As such, the plaintiff is entitled for principal amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.a., yearly compound till the date of filing of the suit as claimed by the plaintiff with following calculation.

S.No.Particulars of amountAmount paid inAmount payable in Rs.Rs.

1.Unpaid purchase money1,25,00,000-00 payable by 7.3.2015

2.Interest on Rs.1,25,00,000/- 19,58,333-00 at 24% p.a.p.c. from 7.3.2015 to 2.11.2015 is Total1,44,58,333-00

3.Less payment made on25,00,000-001,19,58,333-00

IV ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,8O.S.42/2023 KAKINADA DATED 24.10.2025 2.11.2015

4.Interest on Rs.1,19,58,333/- 21,36,555-00 at 24% p.a.p.c. from 3.11.2015 to 1.8.2016 is Total1,40,94,888-00

5.Less payment made on5,17,800-001,35,77,088-00 1.8.2016

6.Interest on Rs.1,35,77,088/- 2,49,967-00 at 24% p.a.p.c. from 2.8.2016 to 30.8.2016 is Total1,38,27,055-00

7.Less payment made on12,50,000-001,25,77,055-00 30.08.2016

8.Interest on Rs.1,25,77,055/- 8,270-00 at 24% p.a.p.c. from 31.8.2016 to 1.9.2016 is Total1,25,85,325-00

9.Less payment made on9,75,000-001,16,10,325-00 1.9.2016

10.Interest on Rs.1,16,10,325/- 9,28,826-00 at 24% p.a.p.c. from 2.9.2016 to 2.1.2017 is Total1,25,38,151-00

11.Less payment made on7,00,000-001,18,39,151-00 2.1.2017

12.Interest on Rs.1,18,39,151/- 28,41,396-00 at 24% p.a.p.c. from 3.1.2017 to 2.1.2018 is Total1,46,80,547-00

13.Interest on Rs.1,46,80,547/- 20,64,929-00 at 24% p.a.p.c. from 3.1.2018 to 4.8.2018 is Total1,67,45,476-00

14.Less payment made on10,00,000-001,57,45,476-00 4.8.2018

15.Interest on Rs.1,57,45,476/- 1,13,885-00 at 24% p.a.p.c. from 5.8.2018 to 14.08.2018 Total1,58,59,361-00

IV ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,9O.S.42/2023 KAKINADA DATED 24.10.2025

16.Less payment made on5,00,000-001,53,59,361-00 14.8.2018

17.Interest on Rs.1,53,59,361/- 36,86,246-00 at 24% p.a.p.c. from 15.8.2018 to 14.08.2019 Total1,90,45,607-00

18.Interest on Rs.1,90,45,607/- 45,70,946-00 at 24% p.a.p.c. from 15.8.2019 to 14.08.2020 Total2,36,16,553-00

19.Interest on Rs.2,36,16,553/- 56,67,972-00 at 24% p.a.p.c. from 15.8.2020 to 14.08.2021 Total2,92,84,525-00

20.Interest on Rs.2,92,84,525/- 70,28,286-00 at 24% p.a.p.c. from 15.8.2021 to 14.08.2022 Total3,63,12,811-00

21.Interest on Rs.3,63,12,811/- 71,80,982-00 at 24% p.a.p.c. from 15.8.2022 to 12.06.2023 Total amount due 4,34,93,793-00

11.The plaintiff also claimed Rs.25,00,000/- towards damages suffered by the plaintiff due to non-payment of unpaid purchase money within the stipulated time. The claim of the plaintiff for principal amount along with the interest at 24% p.a., yearly compound is considered to compensate the expected loss in purchasing power due to inflation, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for damages separately. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

12.In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed in part with proportionate costs for an amount of Rs.4,34,93,793/- with subsequent interest at 6% p.a., on Rs.1,25,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date

IV ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,10O.S.42/2023 KAKINADA DATED 24.10.2025 of realisation. Time for redemption is 3 months. Rest of the suit claim is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Grade-I Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24th day of October, 2025.

Sd/- K.Sree Devi,

JUDGE,

SPL. COURT FOR POCSO ACT,

KAKINADA.

FAC IV Addl. District Judge, Kakinada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF

PW.1Korpu Mehar Prasad

PW.2Bulusu Visweswara Rao

FOR DEFENDANTS

NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A.1Certified copy of Firm registration certificate dt:11.07.1950 relating to plaintiff.

Ex.A.2Attested copy of reconstituted partnership deed dt:08.07.2022 relating to plaintiff (compared with the original and original is returned to the witness)

Ex.A.3Certified copy of sale deed dt:07.03.2015 executed by plaintiff in favour of defendants creating charge over the petition schedule property.

IV ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,11O.S.42/2023 KAKINADA DATED 24.10.2025

Ex.A.4Office copy of the registered legal notice dt:19.08.2017 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants.

Ex.A.5Office copy of the registered legal notice dt:08.03.2023 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants.

Ex.A.6Postal acknowledgement from the 1st defendant for the legal notice dt:08.03.2023.

Ex.A.7Returned registered postal cover addressed to the 2nd defendant containing endorsement intimation and unclaimed.

FOR DEFENDANTS :

Nil

Sd/- K.Sree Devi,

JUDGE,

SPL. COURT FOR POCSO ACT,

KAKINADA.

FAC IV Addl. District Judge, Kakinada

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE: KAKINADA.

Present: Smt. K.Sree Devi, Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trial of offences under POCSO Act, Kakinada FAC IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada. Friday, the 12th day of September, 2025

Crl.M.P.No. 334 /2025

(Cr.No. 99 /2025 of Karapa Police Statio n ) Between:

1. Bogada Srinivas @ Srinu, S/o.Nageswara Rao, 44 years, Door No.3-152, Krishna Temple Street, Madhava Rayudupalem, Kadiyam Mandal, Now G.Vemavaram, Tallarevu Mandal.

2. Pasi Shekar, S/o.Ramana, 22 years, Kumaram Village, Garividi Mandal, Vijhayanagaram District, now Kuthukuluru Village, Anaparthi Mandal.

..Petitioners/Accused 1 &2.

And

State : SHO, Karapa P.S. ..Respondent/Complainant.

This bail application coming on 10.09.2025 for orders before me in the presence of Smt. N.Roja Rani advocate for the petitioner/accused and Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/respondent/Complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1. This bail petition filed on behalf of the accused/A1 & A2 under Section 483 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to enlarge them on bail in

Cr.No.99/2025 of Karapa Police Station registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 331 (4), 305(A) 111(2) (b), 317 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the complainant Sunkara Venkata

Ramana, S/o. Tirupathi Rao is the resident of Penuguduru Village of Karapa Mandal. He is working as a Manager in CITI Bank, Chennai. He was the elder son of Sunkara Tirupathi

Rao and Venkata Lakshmi. The younger son of Tirupathi Rao namely Sunkara Deepak is residing at Hyderabad and he is working as a soft ware engineer. The parents of the complainant are residing in their own two storied house building bearing D.No.5-30,

Patarlagadda Road, Penuguduru Village of Karapa Mandal. On 17.05.2025 morning the parents of the complainant left from their house and went the house of their younger

2

son to Hyderabad by locking the doors of their house in between 17.05.2025 and 26.05.2025 some unknown offenders gained entry into the house of the complainant by breaking open the locks of the doors, entered into the bed room, opened the iron safes by using iron implements and committed theft of 1) gold Chandra Haram -1, 2) Gold

Necklace with stones -1, 3) Gold Bangles with stones-4, 4) Gold Bangles plain -04, 5) Two rows pearls chain -1, 6) A coral chain (garland)-1, 7) A coral neclace-01, 8A Gold ring with white stones-01, 9) A pair of ear studs, 10) Nose studs -6 11) Navaratnalu gold ring-01, 12)

Green stone gold ring-01, 13) Gold pieces-24, total weighing about 405 grams and silver articles ie., silver plate -01, some silver articles, silver bit, total weighing about 3 ½ Kgs and some cash, all worth about of Rs.8,70,000/- and decamped with the booty. Basing on the report of complainant, a case was registered for the offence under Secs.331 (4), 305(A) 111(2) (b), 317 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused A1 & A2 submitted that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the Complainant. The petitioner/accused eking their livelihood by doing coolie works. The entire family of the petitioners/accused depending upon their earnings only. The petitioners have not filed any bail application prior to this application. This is the 1st bail petition. He has been in judicial custody from 28.06.2025. Hence, prays to allow this petition.

4.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that serious allegations levelled against the petitioners and if they are released on bail, there is every possibility of threatening the witnesses and investigation is pending.

5.Heard arguments of both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners/A1 and A2 can be granted bail, as prayed for ?

POINT :

3

7.Heard. Perused the record. As per the CD, accusation against the accused/A1 &

A2 is for the offence under Sections 331 (4), 305(A) 111(2) (b), 317 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The accused/A1& A2 were arrested on 27.06.2025 basing on their concession about the commission of crime in the present crime number and other crimes. This is 1st bail application. The counsel for the petitioners/A1 & A2 submitted that the petitioners are eeking out their livelihood by doing coolie work and their families were depending upon their earnings. The learned Addl. P.P. submitted that they were also involved in other crimes and opposed to grant bail. As per the record the petitioners/A1 & A2 have been in jail since 28.06.2025. Further, as seen from the entire record, CD reveals that the major portion of investigation is completed. Since they were arrested basing on their confession statement, there will not be any any further investigation in this case, under the above circumstances, I feel there will not be any purpose in keeping the accused/A1 &A2 in jail. Therefore, I inclined to exercise my discretion in granting bail to the petitioners/A1 & A2. Point is answered accordingly.

8.In the result, petition is allowed and the petitioners/accused A1 &A2 shall be enlarged on bail on their executing bond for Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the VII Addl. J.F.C.

Magistrate, Kakinada.

Typed to my dictation in part and dictated in part to the Stenographer transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12th day of September, 2025.

SPL.JUDGE, FOR POCSO ACT,

KAKINADA.

FAC IV Addl. District Judge, Kakinada.

Copy to :

1. The SHO, Karapa police station.

2. The petitioners, through their counsel.

4

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE: KAKINADA.

Present: Smt. K.Sree Devi, Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trial of offences under POCSO Act, Kakinada FAC IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada. Wednesday, the 6th day of August, 2025

Crl.M.P.No. 287 /2025

(Cr.No. 150 /2025 of Indrapalem Police Statio n ) Between: Chanuboyina Swamy, S/o.Krishna, 31 years, Sagara, resident of Mutyalamma temple street, near Ramalayam, Velama Turangi, kakinada

Rural, Kakinada District. ..Petitioner/Accused.

And

State : Inspector of Police,

Kakinada Rural, Kakinada. ..Respondent/Complainant.

This bail application coming on 01.08.2025 for orders before me in the presence of Sri S.K.Ameer Jani advocate for the petitioner/accused and Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/respondent/Complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1. This bail petition filed on behalf of the accused under Section 483 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to enlarge him on bail in

Cr.No.150/2025 of Indrapalem Police Station, registered against him for the offences punishable under Section 105 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the complainant Chanuboyina

Surya Kantham is the wife of the deceased Chanuboina Krishna. They are residing in their own house bearing Door no.3-92 at Ramalayam street, Upparipeta, Velama

Turangi and living by doing coolie work. They blessed with three sons and they performed their marriages. While their elder son has been staying at Ganesh street in

Velama Turangi. Their second son Chanuboyina Durga Prasad has been staying with them in view of death of his wife and their third son Chanuboyina Swamy has been studying at Mutyalamma Temple street in Velama Turangi. On 04.07.2025 their entire family members went to Peda Tirupathi to pay vow and returned on 07.07.2024. On 10.07.2025 their family members gathered at their house on the eve of offering a 2 ram. At about 1.30 p.m., the deceased Krishna came to their house, demanded an amount of Rs.500/- to consume liquor by raising a dispute and the complainant paid the same to him. He went away and returned by consuming liquor. On coming to know the same, their younger son Swamy asked her to give money to him. On that their second son Durga Prasad obstructed to give money to him. It leads to an altercation between them. During the altercation with an excitement their younger son picked up an available bamboo stick and when tried to beat their second son

Durgaprasad, on seeing the same when the deceased intervened, the blows of the stick hit on the back of the deceased hardly. Resulted that the deceased was fell down on the cement road and died at the spot at about 4.30 p.m. Basing on the report of complainant, a case was registered for the offence under Sec.105 of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused submitted that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the Complainant. The entire prosecution story is false and fabricated against the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused further submit that there are personal enmity in between the family of complainant and the petitioner /accused. The petitioner/accused is falsely implicated in this case.

All the material witnesses are examined and entire investigation is almost completed.

He is doing coolie works and thereby he is eking out his livelihood If the petitioner is in judicial custody continuously, his family members will be put to great hardship.

This is the 1st bail petition. He has been in judicial custody from 16.07.2025. Hence, prays to allow this petition.

4.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that serious allegations levelled against the petitioner and if he is released on bail, there is every possibility of threatening the witnesses and investigation is pending.

3

5.Heard arguments of both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner/Accused/can be granted bail, as prayed for ?

POINT :

7.Heard. Perused the record. As per the CD, accusation against the accused is for the offence under Section 105 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The accused has been in jail since 16.07.2025. This is the first bail application. The learned Addl.

P.P submitted that the the material objects preserved by the medical officer is sent to be to the RFSL for chemical examination, and the investigation is not yet completed. The petitioner counsel submitted that the petitioner is doing coolie works and thereby he is eking out his livelihood. If the petitioner/accused is in judicial custody, his family members will be put to great hardship. He further submitted that the material witnesses were examined and entire investigation is almost completed.

As per the CD except examine the witnesses remaining investigation is pending. On considering the nature of the offence, since it is an offence under Sec.105 of BNS and since investigation is not yet completed, I decline to exercise my discretion in granting bail to the petitioner. Point is answered accordingly.

8.In the result, petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation in part and dictated in part to the Stenographer transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 6th day of August, 2025.

SPL.JUDGE, FOR POCSO ACT,

KAKINADA.

FAC IV Addl. District Judge, Kakinada.

Copy to :

1. The SHO, Indrapalem police station.

2. The petitioner, through his counsel.

4