Smt. K. Uma Devi

1 O.S. 119/2013

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: JANGAON

Friday, this the the 08th day of February, 2019

Present: Smt. K. Uma Devi, 

 Senior Civil Judge,

 Jangaon.

O.S. No. 119 of 2013

Between: Samudhrala Kumar

...Plaintiff

And

Vallala Shivalingam. 

 ...Defendant.

­o0o­ This suit is coming before me on 05.02.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Ravinder Reddy, counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri C. Sudhiranjan, counsel for the defendant; and upon hearing the same and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of agreement of sale directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receipt of remaining sale consideration of Rs.30,000/­ and to award costs of the suit. 

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

The plaintiff Samudhrala Kumar submitting that the defendant Vallala Shivalingam is the absolute owner and possessor of house plot an extent of 186.66 Sq.Yds., in Sy.No. 269 of Jangaon. 

The said plot was purchased by him under a registered sale deed vide document No. 3448/2008, dated 16.10.2006. The said house plot is situated at Hyderabad road, herein after referred to as 'suit schedule property'. 

2 O.S. 119/2013

3.It is further submitted by the defendant that the defendant 

Shivalingam for his family necessities, he approached the plaintiff and offered to sell the schedule property which was accepted by the plaintiff Kumar. On 21.03.2012 they entered into an agreement of sale. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.9,80,000/­ and Shivalingam received a sum of 

Rs.9,50,000/­ as an advance out of sale consideration and executed an agreement of sale on even date in favour of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that according to the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, plaintiff has to perform his part of contract at the time of registration of the same, he has to pay the remaining sale consideration. Later the plaintiff ready and willing to perform his part of contract and demanded the defendant to execute a regular sale deed on his behalf. One breath or other the plaintiff postponed the matter. Thereby on 21.10.2013 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding to perform his part of contract, but he has not complied the same. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Even after receiving the notice, the defendant not complied the demand made by the plaintiff except to approach the Court. The plaintiff has no other go to get execute a regular sale deed on his behalf. Hence the suit is filed for the relief directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in his favour on receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.30,000/­ and if the defendant fails to execute the same the 

Court may execute the sale deed in respect of the property.

3 O.S. 119/2013

4.The defendant filed his written statement narrating by denying the averments of the plaint. It is an admitted fact that the defendant is absolute owner and possessor of house plot an extent of 196.66 Sq.Yds., by virtue of sale deed document No. 3448/2006, 

dated 16.10.2006 situated at Hyderabad Road, Jangaon. But it is 

false that the defendant never approached the plaintiff and agreed to sell the said property for a consideration of Rs.9,80,000/­ and he never received Rs.9,50,000/­ towards sale consideration and it is utterly false that the plaintiff has to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.30,000/­. This defendant received legal notice issued by the plaintiff dated 21.10.2013 on receiving the said notice he got issued a reply. Therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable. 

The defendant further submitted that in fact the defendant purchased the property and he is enjoying the same. The defendant is having four sons namely Vallala Srisailam, Vallala Mallikarjun, 

Vallala Srinivas and Vallala Sridhar. The third son Srinivas died in an accident on 06.05.2013. The said Srinivas used to run a rice mill on lease under the name and style of M/s. Srinivas Traders at Jangaon with the assistance of the defendant. After death of Srinivas, his wife Srilatha has been staying with her parents house at Pembarthy 

Village. It is further submitted that during life time of Srinivas he has purchased D.C.M. vehicle bearing No. AP 36 W 5699, a tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 36K 6800 and a TATA Lorry bearing No. 

37 V 4509 in the name of M/S. Srinivas Traders, but after his death his wife Srilatha got mutated her name in Transport records as she 4 O.S. 119/2013 is the owner. Later she sold away all three vehicles to different persons to deprive legal rights of the defendant over the vehicle. 

Likewise a residential house situated at Kallem which is ancestral property was got mutated to her name in Grampanchayath records as owner for the house bearing No. 1­10­194 which is standing in the name of Srinivas. It is further submitted that Srinivas indebted to one Narra Srinivas Reddy and he filed a recovery of money an amount of Rs.2,35,575/­ against Srilatha as she acquired properties in the capacity of legal heir vide O.S.No. 75/2013 wherein a petition u/O. 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C., was filed vide I.A.No. 469/2013 which is pending in this Court. During subsistence of the said order Srilatha executed a registered sale deed in favour of her mother Kothapally 

Vasantha, W/o. Chandrashekar of Pembarthy vide document No. 

7776/2013, dated 30.10.2013 by following the orders of this Court. 

In the same lines to deprive the rights of the defendant, hatched a plan and got filed this present suit through plaintiff who is having close acquaintance with the parents of Srilatha to usurp the suit schedule property. Therefore, the defendant vehemently denied about the execution of agreement of sale at any point of time. He never executed any document to cause wrongful gain. Plaintiff filed present suit. It is pertinent to note that the Non­judicial stamp of 

Rs.100/­ bears the purchasers name Vallala Srinivas, S/o. 

Shivalingam, dated 21.03.2012. The said Srinivas purchased the stamp paper during the life time of his father. It is settled principle that the stamp paper should be either on the name of vendor or 5 O.S. 119/2013 vendee, but it appears the name of Vallala Shivalingam it shows the nature of Srilatha with a view to grab the property by cheating the defendant. The plaintiff foisted a false case against the defendant. It is further submitted that this defendant got issued a reply notice to the notice issued by the plaintiff. This defendant already filed a complaint before P.S. Lingala Ghanpur in Cr.No.243/2013, dated 03.12.2013 u/S. 420 I.P.C. The agreement of sale dated 21.03.2013 is not binding on this defendant as it is forged. Hence, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled: 

i) Whether the agreement of sale, dated 12.03.2012 is true, legal and valid and binding on the defendant? ii) Whether the defendant committed breach of agreement

dated 21.03.2012?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract? iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of contract as prayed for?

v) To what relief?

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant.

7.To prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff Shivalingam himself examined as PW1, Exs.A1 to A4 are marked. Ex.A1 is original sale agreement executed by defendant, dated 21.03.2012, Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice, dated 21.10.2013, Ex.A3 is postal receipt, dated 21.10.2013 and Ex.A4 is the reply notice, dated 01.11.2013. Mohd. 

Hameed examined as PW2 Boddu Ranjith examined as PW3. 

6 O.S. 119/2013

Per contra, on behalf of defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW1 and no documents were marked. Maryala 

Sathyanarayana examined as DW2. 

8.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff and defendant are having business deals and also having acquaintance with each other. When, the defendant offered to sell the suit schedule property, the plaintiff purchased the same for a total consideration of Rs.9,80,000/­ on 21.03.2012 and paid most of the sale consideration i.e., 

Rs.9,50,000/­. The balance sale consideration agreed to pay at the time of registration, thereby Ex.A1 came into light. After pass of time, the defendant not obliged the contract. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a notice after receiving a reply notice. He got filed the present suit for seeking execution of a regular sale deed on his name. 

9.The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that Ex.A1 is not valid one, he never executed any agreement of sale. His deceased son 

Srinivas used to run Srinivas Traders and Business. The signature available on Ex.A1 is got created and the said signature is not binding on him. Accordingly, he submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed. He has further taken plea that the disputed document was purchased by the deceased Srinivas on the name of Srinivas Traders and it is not disclosing the schedule of the property. So also, this document is not having any title over it. Accordingly, the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

10.The un­disputed facts are that the plaintiff and defendant are having business transactions. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff is a paddy merchant and he is having habit of sell of paddy to his mill which is run by his deceased son Srinivas under the name and style of 7 O.S. 119/2013

Srinivas Traders. It is further admitted that the defendant Shivalingam is having four sons Shreeshailam, Mallikurjana, Srinivas and Sridhar, among them Srinivas died. Srinivas and Sridhar used to do rice mill business under the name and style of Srinivas Traders along with him during life time of Srinivas. It is further admitted that a suit vide 

O.S.No.35/2014 filed by the defendant for seeking partition over the 

property and declaration. The disputed facts are that the defendant taken plea that he has not executed any document in favour of the plaintiff and no sale consideration was passed. The sale agreement is not disclosing any schedule and the document is not having any title on top of the document. It is further disputed that the document was not purchased either by the alleged vendor and vendee and it is purchased by one 

Srinivas on the name of Srinivasa Traders. So, the document is not relevant to consider and it is liable to be dismissed. 

Issues Nos. 1, 3 and 4:­ 

11.In the above back drop, the defendant examined as DW1. He reiterated the averments of the written statement. During cross­ examination he admitted that one of his sons Shreesailam is being Kirana business, his other son Mallikarjun is doing general business, his third son Srinivas, who is no more now during his life time he used to do rice business. His last son Sridhar and himself used to look after the rice mill business and its accounts. The said business is under the name and style of Srinivasa Traders. He further narrated that his 4th son Sridhar, his deceased son Srinivas are used to reside with him. After death of Srinivas the business under name Srinivas Traders was stopped. He knows plaintiff, who is resident of Alair and native of Sharajipet. The plaintiff 

Kumar used to do paddy business with Srinivas Traders. He knows him 8 O.S. 119/2013 since 2004­2005 when they started business at Jangaon under the name and style of Srinivas Traders. His son Srinivas died on 06.05.2013. As on 21.03.2012 Srinivas alive. He is having habit of keeping his signature as “Shivalingam” and “Vallala Shivalingam”. One M. Satyanarayana examined as DW2. During his cross­examination he admitted that the plaintiff used to do business with Shivalingam and Srinivas and the defendant Shivalingam also used to do paddy business along with him. 

Since 10 years he is having acquaintance with Kumar and Shivalingam (Plaintiff and defendant). Since 1976 Shivalingam is friend of 

Satyanarayana. He had know the family necessities, debts, income and the family affairs of Shivalingam. Except that, there is no evidence by the defendant to discard the evidence of the plaintiff. Simply the defendant denied the signature available on Ex.A1 agreement of sale. The signature of “Vangala Shivalingam” and the signature available on record as 

Shivalingam or V. Shivalingam are appearing to be one and the same. It is further found as per the record the defendant has taken plea that 

Ex.A1­ non judicial stamp paper was purchased by Srinivas on the name of “Srinivas Traders”, for which the defendant submitted that the document is not maintainable. As per Indian Stamp Act and Rules, 1925 under chapter 6(2) connotes “A stamp paper, on which the stamp has been engraved or embossed purchased by or for the use of a person shall be used only, by the person or his legal representative or duly authorized agent of such person”. The above principle of law the authorized person or the person who purchased his legal heir on their name can be considered. In the present scenario, Ex.A1 stamp paper was purchased by the son of the defendant Srinivas on the name of their business “Srinivas Traders” is nothing wrong and the defendant himself admitted that the said Srinivas 9 O.S. 119/2013 is used to live with him in his house and he looked after the business along with him. Therefore, the said Srinivas is one of the family members along with him and the business of the defendant as per his evidence is “Srinivas Traders”. Therefore, purchasing of a stamp on the name of “Srinivas Traders” by his son is not bar. The other point raised by the defendant counsel with regard to Ex.A1 is that instrument is not having any title on the top. It is settled principle of law that the impugned instrument to be read over by its contents not by the title. So non­ mentioning of title to the impugned instrument is not liable to be discarded from its evidence. The counsel for the defendant further taken plea that the Ex.A1 instrument is not disclosing the schedule of the property. But Ex.A1 of its contents are disclosing that the land in Sy.No, extent of the land under which document he purchased and other details and it is also mentioned for this vernacular the property under Ex.A1 sale deed is the property under Ex.A1. Therefore, the property was duly referred to accept the above denying no other evidence is made by the defendant for existence of Ex.A1. 

12.The suit is filed for specific performance of contract, to prove the case under specific purpose of contract it is settled principle to decide the ingredients of the plaintiff to show that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff herein got issued a legal notice to the defendant by showing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract i.e., his readiness to pay balance sale consideration of an amount of Rs.30,000/­ to the defendant and he is also ready to get execute a regular sale deed on his name. He also submitted that he has paid most 10 O.S. 119/2013 of the agreed amount under Ex.B1 the remaining short fall of amount, he has shown that he is ready and willing. At this stage this Court is relying on Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jaganmohan and others, 1996 (5) SCC 115  wherein the plaintiff must plead and prove that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract or he has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him other than those terms the presence of which has been prevented or ruined by the defendant. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a out of president to grant the specific purpose. 

The applicable in the hand on hand Section 16(C) of the Specific Relief 

Act and the envisages that the same the plaintiff Kumar herein has paid most of the sale consideration and he has got issued a notice to show his readiness, the same was pleaded by him in his pleadings and adduced his evidence, he got examined driver of defendant (Shivalingam) as PW3. In his cross­examination he admitted that he took Srinivas to purchase 

Ex.A1 Non­judicial stamp and he purchased the same on the name of 

Srinivas Traders. He was very much present at the time of execution of 

Ex.A1 on the name of Kumar. So the factum of his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract is proved as per the circumstances. 

13.The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the agreement of contract Ex.A1 is not true, valid as such it is not binding on him. To that effect the plaintiff got examined PW3 driver of the defendant's son Srinivas namely Ranjith. According to the evidence PW3 he was very much present at the time of execution of Ex.A1 and he is one of the attestors of Ex.A1. As per his his knowledge after execution of agreement in the presence of four persons the negotiations took place 11 O.S. 119/2013 and he attested the document. His evidence cannot be brushed off as there is no rebuttal evidence to disprove the evidence of PW3. 

14.PW2 Mohd. Hameed, another attestor is not shaken by the defendant is also one of the attestors along with PW3. Therefore, Ex.A1 is true and valid and it is binding on the defendant. According Issue No.1 and 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 

15.Issue No.2: On considering the above discussion, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to execute a regular sale deed in his favour for which a demand notice was issued. The same was answered by the defendant under Exs.A1 and A3. Except denying the contents of Ex.A2 there is no material to disprove the contents. According to the plaintiff he paid major amount, the balance consideration of Rs.30,000/­ the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the said amount. Ex.A1 is proved. Therefore, the defendant committed breach for non­compliance of Ex.A1. 

Accordingly issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 

16.Issue No.4: Under the above discussion, the plaintiff is ready to deposit the remaining Rs.30,00/­ for getting execution of a regular sale deed on his behalf. Therefore, the plaintiff is directed to pay Rs.30,000/­ within 60 days from the date of decree and judgment directly to the defendant or deposit in the Court for getting execution of a sale deed and the defendant is directed to execute a regular sale deed on receiving the said balance consideration within 60 days. Accordingly issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 

17.As per above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is proved and the plaintiff is entitled to obtain a regular sale deed from the defendant by 12 O.S. 119/2013 made deposit of remaining sale consideration within 60 days from the date of judgment and decree. 

18.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the plaintiff to deposit balance sale consideration of Rs.30,000/­ (Rupees thirty thousand only) within 60 days from the date of decree and judgment and the defendant further directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within 60 days. 

Accordingly suit is disposed of. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 08th day of February, 2019.)

Sd/-

 Senior Civil Judge,

Jangaon.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff:For Defendant: PW1: Samudhrala Kumar DW1: Vallala Shivalingam PW2: Mohd. HameedDW2:Maryala Sathyanarayana PW3:Boddu Ranjith

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 Original Sale Agreement executed by defendant, 

 dated 21.03.2012 

Ex.A2 Office copy of legal notice, dated 21.10.2013 

Ex.A3 Postal receipt, dated 21.10.2013

Ex.A4 Reply notice, dated 1.11.2013

For Defendant

Ex.B1 Original Registered Sale Deed, dated 16.10.2006 vide document No. 3448/2006.

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Jangaon.

(1 of 10) (SC.14/2017)

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT JANGAON.

Present:­ SMT. K. Uma Devi, 

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

Friday, the 1st day of February, 2019.

S.C.NO. 14 OF 2017

01.Name and description of The State of Telangana through the the Complainant Sub­InspectorofPolice, Raghunathpally.

02.Name and description of Thatikayala Narender, S/o. Buchaiah, the accusedAged: 31 years, Caste:Madiga, Occ: Lorry driver, R/o. Mallakpally Village of Dharmasagar Mandal. 

03.Offences charged u/Ss.366, I.P.C., 

04.Crime No. & Name of the Crime No. 67/2016 of P.S. Police StationRaghunathpally.

05.P. R. C. No.27 of 2016

06.Case committed bySmt. C.M. Rajya Lakshmi, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon.

07.Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

08.Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 

09.Sentence or OrderThe accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366, I.P.C., and he is acquitted u/Sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds stand cancelled. 

10.Prosecution conducted by Sri A. Veeramallaiah, Additional Public Prosecutor

 11.Accused are defended bySri T. Narsi Reddy, Advocate for the accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Veeramallaiah, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri T. Narsi Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material evidence available on record and (2 of 10) (SC.14/2017) having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

The Sub­Inspector of Police, Raghunathpally, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/S. 366, I.P.C.

The contents of the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows:­

While LW6 (Manchala Ashwini) was studying Intermediate 1st year in Chaitanya Junior College, Palakurthy, the accused used to follow her, then she advised him not to follow her. While the things stood thus, on 31.03.2016 LW6's was marriage was held with LW1 (Manchala Ashok). 

After the marriage also, the accused called LW6­victim and harassed her, but she warned him not to call her in future. On 14.05.2016 the accused called her and requested for money as he is in financial problems and he wanted money and to come to Ghanpur with money otherwise, he will die by leaving a letter against her and LW1. Due to fear LW6 took Rs.47,000/­ net cash from the house and 7 tulas of gold ornaments which is on her body and went to Station Ghanpur. On her arrival the accused took her besides the bus stand to come with him to Hyderabad and forced her, but she did not accept his proposal, but he forcibly took her to Hyderabad in a bus and stayed in a lodge from 14.05.2016 to 19.05.2016 by expending the money brought by the victim. The accused guarded LW6 and not allowed the victim to go outside. The accused told the victim that he will take a room outside and bring money from her and left the hotel. After his leaving, she escaped from the hotel, took a mobile from an unknown person and informed the same to LW1 and her parents. Immediately LW1 (3 of 10) (SC.14/2017) reached there with LW2 (Manchala Venkataiah) to Police Station. Then, 

LW15 (P. Ranjith Rao), Sub­Inspector of Police, Raghunathpally conducted panchanama and handed over the victim and her ornaments to her parents LW7 (Sudida Bhaskar) and LW8 (Sudida Roja) in the presence of 

LW11 (Dheeravath Ravi) and LW12 (Bhukya Kumar). Later, he examined examined and recorded the statements of her parents and LW14 (M. 

Vijayamma) WPC 133. As per the statement of victim, altered a section law from woman missing to u/S. 366 IPC. Later, he filed a requisition to 

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jangaon to record the 164 Cr.P.C. 

statement of victim. 

On receipt of petition from LW1, LW15 registered a case in 

Cr.No.67/2016 under the head of Woman Missing and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW1 in detail. Later, he visited the scene of offence situated at Kurchapally Village, examined the scene of offence 

before the mediators LW9 (Md. Apsar) and LW10 (Kasani Venkataiah) 

incorporated all the physical features in crime details form and drew rough sketch of the scene and also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements in detail. On 11.07.2016 at 10.30 a.m., the accused was apprehended at his house at Mallakpally Village and on interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed about the commission of this offence. Later, the accused was brought to P.S., effected his arrest by issuing of arrest memo duly intimating to him and his relatives about the grounds of arrest vide 50 Cr.P.C., and produced before the Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, the accused is charge­sheeted for the offence (4 of 10) (SC.14/2017) under Section 366 I.P.C 

2.The Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, took cognizance of the case as P.R.C.No. 27 of 2016.

3. The learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents to the accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and having found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 366 I.P.C., which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the 

Court of Sessions, Sessions Division, Warangal, under Section 209(a) 

Cr.P.C., for trial. 

4.The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Warangal, took the case on file as 

S.C.No. 14 of 2017 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

5.On the appearance of the accused before this Court, the learned 

Additional Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel were heard on 

charges. A charge under Section 366 I.P.C., was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8.

7.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/S. 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating in the (5 of 10) (SC.14/2017) evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. 

8.Heard arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel. Perused the case record.

9. The point for consideration is:­ Whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused for 

the offence u/S. 366, I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT :­

To prove the case of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 are marked. Manchala Ashok, the person who lodged complaint before the police was examined as PW1. According to him, his marriage was performed with Ashwini on 31.03.2016. Since the date of marriage they lived at Kurchapally and he is an agriculturist. Casually he went to the agricultural fields on 14.05.2016, his father brought the lunch, his wife Ashwini, his mother and brother were at home. During after noon when he was at fields, he received an information that his wife fled away from house along with Rs.47,000/­ cash and 7 tulas of gold in an auto which belongs to Cheruku Raju. Immediately, he came to house and searched for her, but he could not trace her. Thereby he informed the same to her parents and lodged a report before P.S. Raghunathpalli. 

Later Ashwini was examined as PW4. She admitted that she knows accused and he used to stalk her whenever she was going to college while studying Intermediate and the accused used to follow and troubled her by saying that he is loving her. Thereafter he married PW1. When the accused threatened PW4 (she) picked up Rs.47,000/­ from her house (6 of 10) (SC.14/2017) along with gold ornaments. He fled away from house. During cross­ examination he admitted that he was not informed to his parents and 

before police including Principal and Staff of college and relatives that the 

accused alleged to have threatened Ashwini he proposed to love. She further admitted that she never informed to anything either to her parents or college mates, College Principal even husband or in­laws with regard to the alleged behaviour of accused. Her father alleged to have reported 

before the police Palakurthy when she gone to her junior paternal aunt's 

house. Two months prior to 01.07.2017 she returned and informed to 

Palarkuthy Police Station. She left her village during after noon hours at 1.00 p.m. She boarded an auto at Vavilala Village to Palakurthy and 

Palakurthy to Jangaon. Thereafter she boarded a bus at Jangaon to go to 

Hyderabad to her relatives house. Her maternal grand­mother is residing at Hyderabad. So that she gone to the house of her maternal grandmother. She resided there for a period of two months. Thereafter police caught hold her and brought to Police Station. So as per the narration of contents of PW4 Ashwini. There is no incriminating evidence that the accused forced her to bring money and gold from her in­laws' house. Accordingly, on her own accord she has picked an amount from her in­law's house. Except her chief evidence, during cross­examination, she resiled from her previous statement.

11.PWs. 2 and 3 are the parents of PW1. According them PW4 left house with cash and gold during after noon hours.

12.One Roja was examined as PW5. She narrated that she received a phone call disclosing that PW4 left the house with money and gold, on (7 of 10) (SC.14/2017) which she searched her daughter in the locality, but she does not turn up. 

After some time she came to know that accused eloped her daughter. 

During cross­examination she narrated that her daughter was brought to 

C.I. of Police, Jangaon, on information she rushed to Jangaon, her daughter not disclosed where she is residing at Hyderabad and her husband filed a report before the police, Palarkuthy on 01.07.2017 for missing of her daughter. Her statement was recorded by Magistrate in 

Cr.No. 89/2017. She never given any statement against her will before 

Magistrate and PW1 never harassed PW4 by PW1 for bringing more 

dowry. 

13.PW6 and LW11 Dheeravath Ravi who stood as witness of crime details form, turned hostile, who admitted except obtaining his signature. 

So also LW12 Bhukya Kumar. Except the Investigating Officer no material witness was relied the case of the prosecution and there is no evidence to believe that the accused threatened PW4 Ashwini at any point of time and he abducted PW4 from the house of PW1 on the alleged date of incident. 

As could be seen from the version of prosecution, PW4 engaged an auto and gone to Hyderabad with the hard cash and jewellary. According to the victim evidence, she gone to her maternal grand­mother's house. The said maternal grand­mother was not examined by the police and there is no evidence placed by the prosecution where PW4 was kept by the accused and how the amount of Rs.47,000/­ was expended by the victim and the alleged accused. No property was produced before Court. As per the investigating officer whatever the gold recovered from PW4 it was handed over to the parents of PW4 which is alleged to have been seized from PW4 (8 of 10) (SC.14/2017) at the time of arrest of accused. But Investigating Officer himself narrated that the seized property was got returned by him voluntarily to the parents of PW4, which is knew of law that once the property was alleged to have been seized invoking u/S. 100 of Cr.P.C., the prosecution has no right to return the same on his whims and fancies. Therefore, the police failed to follow the procedure u/S. 451 to 457 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the prosecution utterly failed to establish the case u/S. 366 of I.P.C., and the 

Court can raise a doubt against the investigating officer with regard to his investigation and the evidence of PW4 and PW1 they foisted a false case against the accused as there is no iota of evidence to believe the version of the prosecution. Accordingly, the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond al reasonable doubt against the accused and consequently, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

14. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 366, I.P.C. and he is acquitted u/Sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, after his transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 1st day of February, 2019.)

Sd/­ 

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, 

JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW­1 :Manchala Ashok, defacto­complainant PW­2 : Manchala Venkataiah PW­3 :Cheruku Raju, PW­4 :Manchala Ashwini, PW­5: Sudida Roja, 

PW­6:Jannu Bixapathi, (9 of 10) (SC.14/2017)

PW­7: Bhukya Kumar

PW­8:P. Ranjith Rao, S.I. of Police, investigating officer.

FOR DEFENCE:

 ­ None ­ EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P­1 : Original Complaint dated 21­04­2017 given by PW­1 Ex.P­2 : Receipt Ex.P­3 : Signature of PW6 on crime details form

Ex.P­4 : Signature of PW6 on crime details form

Ex.P­5 : First Information report,

Ex.P­6 : Crime details form Ex.P­7 : 164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4

Ex.P­8 : Seizure panchanama. 

FOR DEFENCE:

­ Nil ­.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

 ­ Nil ­

 Sd/­

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

(10 of 10) (SC.14/2017)

CALENDER EXTRACT IN S.C No. 14 OF 2017

Judgment in S.C.No. 14/2017, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Jangaon, in Cr.No. 67/2016 of P.S. Raghunathpally in PRC. No. 27 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, committed by Smt.C.M. Rajya Lakshmi, Judicial First Class 

Magistrate, Jangaon.

1.Cr. No. and Police station : Cr.No. 67 of 2016 of P.S. Raghunathpally.

02.Name and description of the accused :

Thatikayala Narender, S/o. Buchaiah, Aged: 31 years, Caste:Madiga, Occ: Lorry driver, R/o. Mallakpally Village of Dharmasagar Mandal. 

3. Date of occurrence : 14.05.2018

4. Date of complaint: 15.05.2018

5. Date of apprehension: 11.07.2016

6. Date of release: 19.09.2016 

7. Date of commitment: 02.01.2017 

8. Date of commencement of trial: 04.08.2017

9. Date of closure of trial: 28.01.2019

10. Date of sentence or order : 01.02.2019

11. In the result, The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/S. 366, IPC, and is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 

12. Explanation: This case was received by this Court from the Hon’ble Principal 

Sessions Court, Warangal, on 4.02.2017. The accused has appeared in the 

Court on 15.03.2017. A charges was framed on 31.5.2017. The trial was taken up on 04.08.2017 and concluded on 28.01.2019. Pws 1 to 8 examined and Exs.P­1 to P­8 marked. The accused is examined u/S. 313 Cr.P.C., on 29.01.2019 and he denied the incriminating material and reported no defence and arguments were heard on 31.01.2019. On 01.02.2019 Judgment was pronounced. Thus, the delay is explained.

Sd/­ Assistant Sessions Judge, Jangaon.

1 of 11

Fair copy S.C.No.29 of 2019 SCJ Court, Jangaon. 13/08/2021

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::: JANGAON

Friday this the 13th day of August, 2021

Present: Smt. K. Uma Devi, Assistant Sessions Judge, Jangaon.

S.C.No.29 of 2019

01Name and description The State of Telangana through the of the complainantSub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon.

02Name and description A-1 Erla Pullaiah, S/o: Ankaiah, Age: 30 of the accusedyrs, Caste: Waddera, Occu: Private Employee,

A-2 Erla Ankaiah, S/o: Bheemaiah, Age: 63 yrs, Occu: Labour, Caste: Waddera,

A-3 Erla Ankamma, W/o: Ankaiah, Age: 58 yrs, Caste: Waddera, Occu: Labour,

All are R/o: Weavers colony, Jangaon.

03Offences chargedu/Ss.498-A, 325, 306 r/w 511 IPC and Secs. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

04 Cr. No. and Name of the Cr.No.518/2017 of P.S. Jangaon. police station 05P.R.C.No. 34/2018 06Case committed by Smt. M.K. Padmavathi, Judl. First Class

Magistrate, Janagaon

07Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 08Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 09 Sentence or order Accused No-1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Ss.498-A 325, 306 r/w 511 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act.Accordingly, they are acquitted u/S.235 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property, if any shall be 2 of 11

Fair copy S.C.No.29 of 2019 SCJ Court, Jangaon. 13/08/2021 destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

10Prosecution conducted Sri. A.Veeramallaiah, Additional Public by Prosecutor 11Accused are defended by Sri. K. Sreenivasa Reddy, counsel for all the accused .

-o0o-

This case is coming before me on 11/08/2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A. Veeramallaiah, Additional Public Prosecutor,counsel for the State/Complainant and of Sri. K. Sreenivasa Reddy, counsel for the accused; Upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the material papers on record and having been 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, P.S. Jangaon, has filed the charge sheet in Cr. No.518/2018 against all the accused No-1 to 3 for the offences u/Ss.498-A, 325, 306 r/w 511 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of

D.P. Act.

2. The brief facts of case of prosecution are as follows:-

(i). LW1/Malle Srinivasulu, who is the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before LW12/J. Parameshwar, Sub-Inspector of

Police,P.S. Jangaon, stating that he performed the marriage of his daughter Irla Pushpalatha with A1 about 7 years back by presenting Rs.1,00,000/- net cash and also presented 3 tuals of gold to A1 and 10 tulas of gold to his daughter Pushpalatha so also agreed to give 200 yards house plot through pro note apart from that other household articles on the demand of A2 and A3, who are the parents of A1. After the marriage, the couple lived 3 of 11

Fair copy S.C.No.29 of 2019 SCJ Court, Jangaon. 13/08/2021 happily for two years. Later, A1 to A3 started harassment towards his daughter Pushpalatha both mentally and physically to bring a motorcycle from him. After informing the same by his daughter, he approached the elders, who conducted a panchayat between both the parties, in which the elders warned A1 to A3. Even then, A1 to did not change their attitude and continued the same, as a result of which his daughter came to his house with pregnancy and while the things stood so, his daughter blessed with a daughter Srindhi.

At 5 years age of Srinidhi, a panchayath was conducted before elders, who advised A1 to A3 not to harass Pushpalatha and sent her back to her in-law’s housed to lead conjugal life. Despite the words of elders, A1 to A3 did not change their attitude and continued the harassment towards Pushpalatha and that on 26/12/2017 during night hours A1 beat Pushpalatha indiscriminately and caused injuries to her nose and ear and was shifted to Udumula hospital, Jangaon. After came to know the same his son Ajyeudu went to A1 to A3’s house and asked A1 the reason for beat Pushpalatha, on that A1 to A3 picked up quarrel with Pushplatha’s brother Ajeyudu. On seeing the same,

Pushpalath vexed with her life and committed suicide by consuming Super Vasmola and was shifted to Area hospital,

Jangaon. Later, LW1/ Mallela Sreenu came to know that A1 to A3 admonished and abated Pushpalatha to commit suicide by saying that “NUVVU INKA ENDUCKU BRATHUKUTHUNNAVU, CHAVAVE”.

4 of 11

Fair copy S.C.No.29 of 2019 SCJ Court, Jangaon. 13/08/2021

(ii) On receiving the same, LW12/J. Parameshwar has registered a case in Cr. No.518/2018 for the offences punishable u/Ss.498-A,325, 306 r/w 511 IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, issued

FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the Area hospital, Jangaon, where he prepared the statements of

LWs1 to 3. Later, visited the scene of offence, wherein he prepared crime details form in the presence ofLW8/Busha Narsaiah and

LW9/ Bommishetti Yadaiah. On 24/01/2018 at 11.30 a/,/. he arrested accused No-1 to 3 on their surrender and sent them to remand for judicial custody . After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangaon, took the case on file as P.R.C. No.34/2018.

4. The learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents to all the accused No-1 to 3 as required u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and having found prima facie case for the offences u/Ss.498-A, 325, 306 r/w 511 IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of D.P. Act. Sec.306 r/w 511 IPC, which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions committed the case to the court of Sessions, Sessions Division, Warangal, u/Sec.209 (a)

Cr.P.C. for trial.

5. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Warangal, took the case on the file as S.C.No.29 of 2019 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to Law.

5 of 11

Fair copy S.C.No.29 of 2019 SCJ Court, Jangaon. 13/08/2021

6. On appearance of the accused No-1 to 3 before this Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel was heard and charges u/Ss.498-A, 325, 306 r/w 511 IPC and

Secs.3 & 4 of D.P. Act were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, who pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined

Pws1 to 5 and given up Lws-5, 6 to 11 and LW7 died and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 documents.

Per contra, accused failed to examine any one on their behalf, and no documents were marked.

8.Having regard to the evidence of Pws1 to 4, who did not support the prosecution case, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor gave up the evidence of the remaining witnesses Lws-5, 6 to 11 and LW7, as no useful purpose would be served in examining them and reported closure of the prosecution evidence.

Thus, the prosecution evidence was closed.

9. The accused No-1 to 3 were examined u/S.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence appeared against them, for which they denied and reported no evidence on their behalf.

10. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel. Perused the record.

6 of 11

Fair copy S.C.No.29 of 2019 SCJ Court, Jangaon. 13/08/2021

11. The plea of accused No-1 to 3 is one of total denial and false implication.

12. Now the points for consideration is :

“ Whether the prosecution has proved its

case against the accused for the offences

u/Ss.498-A, 325, 306 r/w 511 IPC and

Secs.3 and 4 of D.P. Act with which they

were charged, beyond all reasonable doubt?

13. POINT : - The accused stood charged for the offences punishable u/Ss.498-A, 325, 306 r/w 511 IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of D.P.

Act. The plea of all the accused is one of total denial and false implication.

14. To sustain the said charge, the prosecution has examined Pws1 to 4. Malle Srinivasulu- LW1/(PW1) is the complainant and victim herein. Eerla Pushpalatha-LW2/(PW2) is the victim. Malle Laxmi -LW3/(PW3) is the mother of victim. Malle

Ajeyudu-LW4 (PW4) is the brother of victim. J. Parameshwar-

LW12 (PW5) is the investigating officer.

15. As could be seen from the evidence of on record, PW1 deposed to the extent of his daughter Pushpalatha’ marriage, giving dowry, harassment meted out by A1 to A3, holding of panchayats and consumption Super Vasmol by his daughter, enquiry made by his son with regard to that and complaint made by him.

7 of 11

Fair copy S.C.No.29 of 2019 SCJ Court, Jangaon. 13/08/2021

16. In fact, during his cross-examination, he completely denied and given go-bye to his entire chief examination.

Hence, his evidence is not considered. Further, in his re- examination, he specifically stated that the matter was settled out of court as per the terms settled by their village and caste elders. Therefore, his evidence is noway helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the charges.

17. The evidence of PWs2 to 4, who are also follow the foot steps of PW1 and did not support the case of prosecution and have given complete go-bye to their earlier statements.

As PW2, who is the victim witness in this case has turned hostile as she compromised with the accused.

18. There is no evidence that they had given dowry at the time of marriage or even after the marriage. What are the items were given how much amount given towards dowry.

There is no evidence to show demand of dowry at any point of time and even after marriage. There is no piece of evidence to believe that parents of Pushpalatha paid dowry to the accused even before marriage or after marriage. PWs1 to 4 categorically stated that they settled out of the court. Due to compromise they are reunion and due to heat of disputes

PW2 retained in her parents’ house for a period of five years.

8 of 11

Fair copy S.C.No.29 of 2019 SCJ Court, Jangaon. 13/08/2021 But, now she is residing with her husband at her in-laws’ house.

19. None of the prosecution witnesses made any allegation of demand of dowry or ill-treatment earlier period. None of the witnesses stating about alleged dowry or alleged demand of dowry. The ingredients of Sec.498-A and 306 r/w 511 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act not proved by the prosecution.

20. So far as concerned to the injuries sustained by the victim, there is no medical evidence and that the prosecution has failed to examine the Medical officer, who treated PW2.

So the section of Law for the offence u/S 325 IPC is also not proved in this case and that there is no evidence placed by the prosecution to believe that there was harassment made by accused or relatives of accused.

21. With regard to the Sec.306 IPC there is no proof that all the accused abated the victim to consume alcohol and that the words stated by her in-laws are also not proved, thereby

Sec.306 IPC is also not proved in the case on hand.

22. The remaining evidence is the investigating Officer’, which is formal in nature.

23. As could be seen the record on hand, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused No-1 to 9 of 11

Fair copy S.C.No.29 of 2019 SCJ Court, Jangaon. 13/08/2021 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the A1 to A3 are entitled for acquittal.

24. POINT No-2:

On considering the above discussion, the prosecution unable to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, Accused No-1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Ss.498-A, 325, and 306 r/w 511 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.

Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted u/S.235 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of August 2021.)

Sd/xxxxxxx-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:For Defence: PW1: M. Srinivas -None-

PW2: E. Pushpalatha

PW3: M. Laxmi

PW4: M. Ajeyudu

PW5: J. Parameshwar

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P1: Report NIL

Ex.P2 to Ex.P4: Statements u/S.161 Cr.P.C. of PWs2 to 4

Ex.P5: FIR

Ex.P6: Crime Details Form

Ex.P7: Requisition made by PW5 to the medical officer 10 of 11

Fair copy S.C.No.29 of 2019 SCJ Court, Jangaon. 13/08/2021

Ex.P8: Medical Report

Ex.P9: Radiologist Report

Material Objects

-None-

Sd/xxxxxxx-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

// True copy// Sd/xxxxxxx-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

11 of 11

Fair copy S.C.No.29 of 2019 SCJ Court, Jangaon. 13/08/2021

Fair copy 1 S.C.No.114 of 2020 SCJ Court, Jangaon. Dt.09/08/2021

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::: JANGAON

Monday this the 9th day of August, 2021

Present: Smt. K. Uma Devi, Asst. Sessions Judge, Jangaon.

S.C.No.114 of 2020

01Name and description The State of Telangana through the of the complainantSub-InspectorofPolice,P.S. Devaruppala.

02Name and description A-1 Venkata Ashok, S/o: Mallaiah, Age: of the accused26 yrs, Caste: Kurma, Occu: Agriculture,

A-2 Vannekala Kumar, S/o: Anjaiah, Age: 30 yrs, Caste: Kurma, Occu: Agriculture,

A-3VannekalaAnjaiah,S/o: Naumallaiah, Age: 50 yrs, Caste: Wandrangi,

All are R/o: Seetharampuram Village, Devaruppala mandal.

03Offences charged U/Ss.448, 427 and 436 r/w 34 IPC 04 Cr. No. and Name of the Cr.No.83/2016 of P.S. Devaruppala police station 05P.R.C.No.28/2016 06Case committed by Sri. D. Ajay Kumar, Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Janagaon 07Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 08Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 09 Sentence or order Accused No-1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Ss.448, 427 and 436 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted u/S.235 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Fair copy 2 S.C.No.114 of 2020 SCJ Court, Jangaon. Dt.09/08/2021 10Prosecution conducted Sri. A.Veeramallaiah, Additional Public by Prosecutor 11Accused are defended by Sri. K. Harichandra Prasad, counsel for the accused No-1 to 3 -o0o-

This case is coming before me on 03/08/2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A. Veeramallaiah, Additional Public Prosecutor,counsel for the State/Complainant and of Sri. K. Harichandra Prasad, counsel for the accused No-1 to 3; Upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the material papers on record and having been 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, P.S. Devaruppala, has filed the charge sheet in Cr. No.83/2016 against the accused No-1 to 3 for the offences punishable u/Ss.448, 427 and 436 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in the charge sheet are as follows:-

(i). One Avula Nagaraju/LW1, who is the victim-cum- complainant lodged a complaint before LW10/G.Narender Reddy,

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Devaruppaala stating that on the night of 08/10/2016 he was informed by his younger brother

Thirumalesh’s wife Hyma had consumed poison and the dead body was at mortuary, Area hospital, Jangaon. Immediately, he along with his elder brother Shivalingam/LW2 went there. At 12.30 a.m., he/LW1 received a phone call from his house that the deceased

Hyma’s family members, relatives and some others gathered by arming with knives, crow bars, axes and entered into their houses, caused damage to the doors, household articles by pouring kerosene on the things and set fire, as a result of which he and his

Fair copy 3 S.C.No.114 of 2020 SCJ Court, Jangaon. Dt.09/08/2021 brother Shivalingam/LW2 sustained loss to a tune of Rs.95,000/-.

Immediately, he along with his brother rushed to their houses, where they found both houses were burning. On enquiry he/LW1 came to know that A1 to A3 along with Vannekala Balaraju, Vadla

Somalaxmi, Baswa Sathaiah @ Naddimukku Sathaiah and

Vannekla Venkatamma caused that illegal act.

(ii) On receiving the same, LW10/G.Narender Reddy has registered a case in Cr. No.83/2016 for the offence punishable u/Ss. 143, 147, 148, 448, 448, 427 and 436 r/w 149 IPC, issued FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, wherein he prepared crime details form in the presence of LW7/Baswa Somaiah and LW8/Kurakula Kumar, got videographed the scene of offence through LW9/Gummadavalli

Somaiah. His investigation reveals that A1 to A3 are relatives of deceased Hyma and residents of Seetharampuram village whereas

LWs1 and 2. Avula Thirumalesh, who is younger brother to LW1 and Hyma’s marriage is a love marriage accepted by both the family members and performed their marriage on 15/05/2014 by giving dowry. Subsequent to that a quarrel took placed between

Avula Thirumalesh and Hyma regarding balance dowry so also

additional dowry. On that the parents of Avula Thirumalesh

harassed Hyma, due to which Hyma committed suicide, due to which A1 to A3 grew wild and did the above act and the same was witnessed by LW3/Baswa Alivelu and LW4/Md. Yakub Bee. On

Fair copy 4 S.C.No.114 of 2020 SCJ Court, Jangaon. Dt.09/08/2021 07/11/2016 at 12-30 a.m., he arrested A1 to A3 and sent them to judicial remand and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

3. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangaon, took the case on file as P.R.C. No.28/2016.

4. The learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents to all the accused as required u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and having found prima facie case for the offences u/Ss 448, 427 and 436 r/w 34 IPC.

Sec.436 IPC, which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions committed the case to the court of Sessions, Sessions Division,

Warangal, u/Sec.209 (a) Cr.P.C. for trial.

5. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Warangal, took the case on the file as S.C.No.114 of 2020 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to Law.

6. On appearance of the accused No-1 to 3 before this Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel were heard and charges u/Ss. 448, 427 and 436 r/w 34 IPC were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, who pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined

Pws1 to 7 and given up LW3, Lw8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 documents.

8. Having regard to the evidence of Pws1 to 7, who did not support the prosecution case, the learned Additional Public

Fair copy 5 S.C.No.114 of 2020 SCJ Court, Jangaon. Dt.09/08/2021 Prosecutor gave up the evidence of the remaining witnesses Lw3 and Lw.8, as no useful purpose would be served in examining them and reported closure of the prosecution evidence. Thus, the prosecution evidence was closed.

9. The accused No-1 to 3 were examined u/S.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence appeared against them, for which they denied and reported no evidence on their behalf.

10. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the

Defence counsel. Perused the record.

11. The plea of all the accused is one of total denial and false implication.

12. Now the points for consideration are :

“1. Whether the prosecution has proved its

case against the accused for the offences

u/Ss. 448, 427 and 436 r/w 34 IPC with which

they were charged, beyond all reasonable

doubt?

2. To what relief?

13. POINT No-1:-

The accused No-1 to 3 stood charged for the offences punishable u/Ss. 448, 427 and 436 r/w 34 IPC. The plea of all the accused is one of total denial and false implication.

14. To sustain the said charge, the prosecution has examined Pws1 to 7. PW1 is the complainant-cum-victim. PW2 is another victim. PWs3 and 4 are the circumstantial witnesses. Pws

Fair copy 6 S.C.No.114 of 2020 SCJ Court, Jangaon. Dt.09/08/2021 5 and 6 are the panch-witnesses for crime details form. PW7 is the

Investigating Officer.

15.The prove the case of prosecution Pws 1 to 7 were examined Ex.P-1 to P-11 marked. As per the case of prosecution PW1/Avula Nagaraju, who is the victim-cum- complainant lodged a complaint before LW10/G.Narender Reddy,

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Devaruppaala stating that on the night of 09/10/2016 at 12-30 a.m., having receiving a phone from his native place that his house effected with arson, he rushed to his house, where he found that his RCC slabbed house was effected with fire and household articles were also damaged and his brother’s house also set fired, due to which they caused loss to a tune of Rs.90,000/-. On hat he lodged Ex.P1. But, PW1 turned hostile during cross-examination, hence his evidence is not considered.

16. As could be seen the evidence of PW2, he specifically stated that he does not know the reason as to why his house was got fired and who was the responsible for that. He too turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

17. PW3 did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. In her chief examination also she did not state anything except she does not know the houses of Pws 1 and 2. PW4 also follow the foot steps of PW3. Hence, his evidence is also noway helpful to the case of prosecution.

Fair copy 7 S.C.No.114 of 2020 SCJ Court, Jangaon. Dt.09/08/2021

18.The evidence of panch-witness i.e. PW5 who is also not supported the case of prosecution except admitted their respective signature as in Ex.P6.

19. The evidence of PW6, videographer who recorded the scene of offence on the instructions of police personnel and submitted CD under Ex.P7.

20.There is no evidence to prove the case of prosecution, except the evidence of investigating officer, whose evidence is formal in nature, there is no evidence to connect the accused with this case. PWs1 to 6 are turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, as such they were all turned hostile and were cross-examined by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, in which they have given complete go-bye to their earlier statements, which were recorded by police u/S.161 Cr.P.C.

21. POINT No-2:

On considering the above discussion, the prosecution unable to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, accused No-1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Ss.448, 427 and 436 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted u/S.235 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9 st day of August, 2021.)

Sd/-xxxxxx-

Assistant Sessions Judge,

JANGAON.

Fair copy 8 S.C.No.114 of 2020 SCJ Court, Jangaon. Dt.09/08/2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1: A. Nagaraju -None- PW2: A. Shivalingam PW3: Md. Yakubee PW4: B. Venkanna PW5: B. Somaiah PW6: G. Somaiah PW7: G. Narender Reddy

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:For Defence: Ex.P1: Report NIL Ex.P2 to Ex.P5: Statements of PWs1 to 4 u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P6:Signature of PW6 on CDF Ex.P7:CD Ex.P8: Statement of PW6 u/S.161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P9: FIR Ex.P10: Crime details form along with sketch

Material Objects

-NIL -

Sd/-xxxxxx-

Assistant Sessions Judge,

JANGAON.

// True copy//

Sd/-xxxxxx-

Assistant Sessions Judge,

JANGAON.

Fair copy 9 S.C.No.114 of 2020 SCJ Court, Jangaon. Dt.09/08/2021

1 O.S.No. 95 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: JANGAON

Wednesday, this the the 06th day of February, 2019

Present: Smt. K. Uma Devi, 

 Senior Civil Judge,

 Jangaon.

O.S. No. 95 of 2018

Between: A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, Raghunathpally Branch Rep. By its Branch Manager.

...Plaintiff

And

1. Chityala Komuraiah

2. Punnam Janardhan

 ...Defendants

­o0o­ This suit is coming before me on 05.02.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Harichandra Prasad, counsel for the plaintiffs and of both the defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte and upon hearing the same and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of money of Rs.9,81,442/­ (Rupees nine lakhs eighty one thousand four hundred and forty two only) on the principal amount of Rs.6 lakhs being the principal and interest accrued thereon due on the basis of promissory note, and to award costs of the suit. 

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

On the application of defendant No.1 Chityala Komuraiah, the plaintiff bank has sanctioned a loan of Rs.6,00,000/­ under 

Rythu vikas chakra on 20.12.2010 and he undertook to abide the terms and conditions of the said scheme. The defendant No.1 has deposited his title deed pertaining to his agricultural land in Sy.No. 

74/C an extent of Ac.4­00 gts., Sy.No. 75/E an extent of Ac.1­27gts., 2 O.S.No. 95 of 2018 and Sy.No. 75/D an extent of Ac.3­00 gts., totalling to Ac.8­17 gts., situated at Kodur Village of Raghunathpally Mandal, Jangaon 

District, to the plaintiff bank by depositing the title deed and pahanies, as security for the payment of entire due amount under the said loan. He agreed to pay the loan amount along with interest @ 14.0% per annum with half yearly rests as stated in the sanctioned letter. The defendant No.1 has executed an agreement of loan on 20.12.2010 in favour of the plaintiff bank promising to pay the said loan amount along with interest thereon @ 14.0% per annum with half yearly rests on demand. The defendant No.2 stood as guarantor to the said loan sanctioned and availed by the defendant No.1, to that effect the defendant No.2 has executed deed of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff bank. 

Subsequent to the availment of the loan, the defendant No.1 committed default in payment of loan. The efforts made for recovery of the due amount under the said loan by the officials of the plaintiff bank proved futile and also hypothecated to plaintiff bank sent a legal notice, dated 10.01.2018 to pay the due amount, but he did not pay. The defendant No.1 not chosen to pay the due amount. Hence the plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants.

3.The defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte.

4.The Plaintiff Bank to prove its case examined its Branch 

Manager as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 documents to support is case. 

3 O.S.No. 95 of 2018

5. On behalf of defendants, they did not let in any evidence and no documents were marked on their behalf.

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

07. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled to recovery of money of Rs.9,81,442/­ for suit amount, as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

 08. POINT NO.1:­ 

It is needless to say that the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the defendants have taken crop loan amount of Rs.6 lakhs from the plaintiff bank on 20.12.2010. 

9.The plaintiff bank to establish its case, examined its branch manager as Pw1 and marked Ex.A1 to A9 documents. The Ex.A1 is the original loan application, dated 20.12.2010, Ex.A2 is the loan agreement, 20.12.2010, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of pahany for the year 1997­98, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of pahany for the year 2000­01, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2005­06, 

Ex.A6 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2009­10, Ex.A7 is the original revival letter, dated 18.12.2013, Ex.A8 is the original revival letter, dated 15.12.2016 and Ex.A9 is the statement of account, dated 11.09.2018. 

10. The chief examination affidavit of the Pw1 is the replica of his plaint averments. It is the contention of Pw1 that the Plaintiff bank on the application of the defendant No.1, the plaintiff bank sanctioned a term loan of Rs.6,00,000/­ on 20.12.2010 for the purpose of loan under Rythu vikas chakra on the execution of title 4 O.S.No. 95 of 2018 deeds and certified copies of pahani. After sanction of the loan neither the defendants paid the amount nor approached the bank seeking extension of time and even after service of legal notice also, they failed to pay any amount to the bank. 

11. In this suit defendants remained ex parte and failed to rebut the case of the plaintiff even after taking sufficient time failed to appear before the court to face cross examination, hence they were set ex parte. But, the plaintiff filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 to prove its case, but the defendants did not let in any evidence on their behalf. 

Both the defendants did not produce any material to disprove 12.

the contentions of the plaintiff. So it can be said that the defendant 

No.1 had taken agricultural loan amount of Rs.6 lakhs from the plaintiff bank by executing loan agreement under Ex.A1 so also executed mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the 

Plaintiff by adducing both oral and documentary evidence categorically established that the plaintiff lend an amount of Rs.6 lakhs to the defendants and after receipt of the amount the defendant No.1 has executed guarantee in favor of the plaintiff. It is also evident that though the plaintiff send legal notice to the defendants, but even after receipt of the said legal notice, neither they approached the Court nor engaged counsel to defend their case. For all these reasons this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from both the defendants together with interest. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of plaintiff against to the defendants No­1 and 2.

5 O.S.No. 95 of 2018

13. POINT No 2:­

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendants No­1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs 9,81,442/­ (Rupees nine lakhs eighty one thousand four hundred and forty two only) jointly and severally to the plaintiff along with accrued interest @ 14% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.6 lakhs from the date of suit till the date of judgment and decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. 

from the date of judgment and decree till realization. 

 (Typed to my dictation by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 06th day of February, 2019.)

Sd/-

 Senior Civil Judge,

Jangaon.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff:For Defendants: PW1: T. Srinivas Ranga Rao­None­

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 Original loan application, dated 20.12.2010

Ex.A2 Original loan agreement, dated 20.12.2010

Ex.A3 Certified copy of pahani for the year 1997­98

Ex.A4 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2000­01

Ex.A5 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2005­06

Ex.A6 Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009­10

Ex.A7 Original revival letter, dated 18.12.2013

Ex.A8 Original revival letter, dated 15.12.2016

Ex.A9 Statement of account, dated 11.09.2018. 

For Defendants ­NIL­

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Jangaon.