M.a.soma Sekhar

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI DIVISION AT BHIMAVARAM

Present : Sri M.A.Soma Sekhar III Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Bhimavaram

Friday, this the 31st day of January, 2025

SESSIONS CASE NUMBER No.72/2019

Name of the Complainant:State :Represented by Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram I Town Police Station, Bhimavarm.

Name of the Accused:Jetti Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Someswara Rao @ Somulu, Aged 40 years, C/ T.Kapu, Cultivation, R/o.Near Simhadri Appanna temple, S.P. Street,Bhi- mavaram.

Nature of Offence:Under Section 302 I.P.C.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Judge:FOUND NOT GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 302NDIAN

PENAL CODE.

Sentence or order:The accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months.

Prosecution Conducted by:AdditionalPublicProsecutor, III Additional District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram

Name of the Defence :Sri R.Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate for 2

CounselAccused

The Case was committed by Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram in P.R.C.No.06/2018 on his

file, connected with crime number 324/2016 of Bhimavaram I Town

Police Station.

This case has come on 28-01-2025before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Brahmaiah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri R.Srinivasa Murthy, advocate for the accused, 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.The accused was charge sheeted by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Bhimavaram I Town Police station for the offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

2.The case of prosecution as set out in the charge sheet runs like this:

2.1.About four days prior to 12-12-2016 when the accused along with deceased, L.W.5 Arige Srinivasa Rao, LW.6 Dasari Naga

Siva, L.W.7 Gokada Nagaraju @ Courier Nagaraju and L.W.8 Virothi

Uma Maheswara Rao @ Upma consuming liquor at a brandy shop at

Bodemma center near Junction Railway station, Bhimavaram, in their conversation, L.W.18 Tirumala Swamy expressed that he will not tolerate if anybody comments against the accused, on that L.W.7 admonished L.W.8 not to raise such topic.

2.2.On 11-12-2016 at about 8:30 p.m. when accused along with LW.8 and L.W.6 consuming liquor in the above wine shop, noticing 3 the deceased and L.W.7 coming from Junction Railway station,

Bhimavaram, the accused invited them and offered them liquor. In the conversation, the accused questioned L.W.7 about the opinion of L.W.8 towards him, the deceased found fault upon L.W.8 stating that many problems caused due to L.W.8, on that the deceased beat L.W.8 with hands and went away from there along with L.W.7.

2.3.On the same day at about 10:30 p.m. while the deceased and L.W.7 were going on the way, when neared the killi shop of L.W.4

Kosireddy Rama Balaji, on seeing them, L.W.9 Mindi Durga Prasad @

Raju who sat there, called LW.7, the deceased and L.W.7 went there and by that time, the accused, L.W.6 and L.W.8 found thereon nearby lane by consuming liquor. On seeing the deceased and L.W.7, the accused had quarreled with the deceased about his beaten L.W.8 and in the conversation, the accused fisted over the abdomen and ribs of the deceased forcibly, since the deceased was in drunken mood could not suffer any pain. Then L.W.9 and L.W.5 while taking away the deceased in an auto to the house, the accused was returning home along with L.W.8. Then the deceased got down from auto and raised cries against L.W.8 on the plea that he caused problems, then the accused groused against the deceased, forcibly fisted on his abdomen and ribs and beat with hands on the right side temporal region of the deceased fell down and lost conscious.

2.4.L.W.5 contacted L.W.11 Gandreddy Madhu who is cousin of the deceased by phone and informed the above, on that L.Ws.5 to 7 took the deceased to Government Hospital, Bhimavaram and had given first aid and with a view to take the deceased to his house, when reached near ravi chettu (Peepal tree) centre, S.P.Street, Bhimavaram, 4 noticed blood oozing from the nostrils of deceased, on that he was taken to Krishna Hospital, Bhimavaram with the assistance of L.W.5

Arige Srinivasa Rao and others, where the compounder suggested to take to some other hospital, then the deceased was taken to the hospital of Dr.Irrinki Naresh. L.Ws.1 and 2 (Gandreddi Venkata Surya

Prakash and Gandreddi Madhu) visited the hospital and took the deceased to Bhimavaram Hospitals, where he was examined by the

Doctor who stated the deceased has no pulse, on that they took the deceased to Government Hospital, Bhimavaram, Doctor examined and declared that the deceased was died.

2.5.Basing on the complaint of the complainant, L.W.22, the

Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram I Town police registered a case in

Cr.No.324/2016 under Section 302 I.P.C. of Bhimavaram I Town police station and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he arrested the accused on 15-12-2016 at 11:00 a.m. at his house and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Bhimavaram, took cognizance of the case of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C against the accused and registered the case as

P.R.C.No.06/2018 and on appearance of the accused, furnished copies of documents, as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. Later, the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Bhimavaram, committed the above said case to the Principal District

Judge, Eluru under Section 209(b) Cr.P.C. as the offence under Section

302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions.

5

4.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Eluru has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read and registered the case as Sessions case No.72/2019 and made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.

5.After receiving the case file, the summons were issued to the accused. After receipt of summons, the accused appeared before this Court by engaging advocate. Thereafter, upon hearing the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, this Court

has framed charges under Section 228 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. and having recorded his pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried for the charges under Section 302 I.P.C. he were put to face the trial for the said offences.

6.In support of its case, the prosecution examined, P.Ws.1 to 8 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P28.

7.Having gone through the evidence, both oral and documentary placed on record, the accused was examined under

Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence and the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.After having heard the Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.The point for consideration

Whether the prosecution would bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges under Section 302 I.P.C.

beyond all reasonable doubt?

6

POINT:

10.In order to substantiate the charges leveled against he accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8. Out of them

P.W.1/Gandireddy Surya Prakash, P.W.2/Gandireddy Madhu,

P.W.3/G.Apparao, P.W.4/K.Rama Balaji, P.W.5/Gokada Nagaraju,

P.W.6/D.Naga Venkata Madhu @ Chinni and P.W.7/G.Parvathi.

P.W.8/D.Venkateswara Rao si the Investigating Officer in this case.

11.P.W.1 stated in his evidence that the deceased is his elder brother who got four daughters and he runs auto during his lifetime and he died due to his ill-health and also due to consuming liquor heavily,

The neighbours informed him about 8 years back that the deceased brother fallen down and he was shifted to Government hospital,

Bhimavaram and the accused is no way responsible for the death of his brother and further he stated that he put his signature on a white paper on 12-12-2016 on the request of his elder and he admitted his signature on the complaint which is marked as Ex.P1 and further stated that the police did not examine him in connection with this case.

12.P.Ws.2 to 7 did not support the prosecution version on any aspect except deposing about their acquaintance with the accused and they totally turned hostile. P.Ws.1 to 7 denied the suggestion stated

before the police as in Ex.Ps.2 to 8 and the gist of the 161 Cr.P.C.

statements are explained to the witnesses but they denied. P.Ws.1 to 7 were cross-examined, but nothing could be elicited from them

13.P.W.8 who is the Investigating Officer deposed in his evidence about the registration of F.I.R. basing on the complaint of

P.W.1. it is difficult to accept the case of the prosecution that the said report was lodged by P.W.1 by knowing the contents of it, more 7 particularly, when he deposed in the court that he does not know the contents of it and only he subscribed his signature on it. In the said facts of the case, mere lodging of the report cannot be considered as proof of the contents of the report. As already observed, P.W.1 to P.W.7 are considered to be material witnesses to prove the commission of the offence by the accused but they did not support the case of the prosecution.

14.From the above evidence on record, it can be said that there is no oral evidence before the court to show that the accused committed the offence.

15.The material placed on record clearly shows that during the course of investigation the defacto complainant/P.W.1 attributed that the accused committed murder, but he has not put forth such version during the time of trial. Since there is no oral evidence and also medical evidence to prove the charges that were framed against the accused, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16.After careful reading of entire material on record, this

Court is of view that there is no material placed before the court to connect accused with the commission of offence and none of the witnesses examined deposed in their evidence that the accused committed murder upon the deceased. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of view that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered.

POINT No.ii:- 8

17.In view of the discussion made in Point No.i, taking into consideration of the entire material on record, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, accused is entitled for acquittal for the charge leveled against him.

18. IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty of the charge punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charges under section 235(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be sent to the committal Court for destruction after expiry of appeal time upon confirming that there is no appeal pending.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade – I directly on

Computer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 31 st day of January, 2025

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, BHIMAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: P.W.1:Gandreddy Surya PrakashNone P.W.2:Gandreddy Madhu P.W.3: G.Apparao P.W.4:K.Rama Balaji P.W.5:G.Nagaraju P.W.6:D.Naga Venkata Madhu @ Chinni P.W.7:G.Parvathi P.W.8:D.Venkateswara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION:

9

Ex.P1/-Signature on complaint given by P.W.1

Ex.P2/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1

Ex.P3/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2

Ex.P4/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3

Ex.P5/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4

Ex.P6/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5

Ex.P7/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6

Ex.P8/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7

Ex.P9/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8

Ex.P10/-F.I.R.

Ex.P11/-Scene observation repor

Ex.P12/-Photographs in 6 with C.D.

Ex.P13/-Rough sketch

Ex.P14/-Inquest Panchanama

Ex.P15/-Postmortem certificate

Ex.P16/-Chemical Analysis report

Ex.P17/-Questionnaire with answers given by L.W.21

Ex.P18/-Statements of L.W.5

Ex.P19/-Statements of L.W.6

Ex.P20/-Statements of L.W.8

Ex.P21/-Statements of L.W.9

Ex.P22/-Statements of L.W.11

Ex.P23/-Statements of L.W.12

Ex.P24/-Statements of L.W.13 10

Ex.P25/-Statements of L.W.15

Ex.P26/-Statements of L.W.16

Ex.P27/-Statements of L.W.17

Ex.P28/-Statements of L.W.5

FOR THE ACCUSED : Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : NIL

Sd/- M.A.Soma Sekhar

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, BHIMAVARAM

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P., at Nelapadu.

Copy to:

The Principal Sessions Judge, Eluru The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Bhimavaram The Additional Public Prosecutor, W.G., Bhimavaram The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram I Town police staton. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Bhimavaram The Director of Prosecution, Vijayawada.

11

CALENDAR

Tabular form annexed to the Judgment in Sessions Case 72/2019 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Bhimavaram under Rule 318 of the Criminal Rules of Practice.

Sessions Case Number and P.R.C.: S.C.No.72/2019 and

Number with the Name of the P.R.C.No.05/2018 on the file of Committal court:II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram Name of the Police Station and Cr.No.324/2016 of Bhimavaram I Crime Number:Town Police Station. Name of the Accused: Father’s name: Age, Religion: Occupation: Addresses:

Jetti Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Someswara Rao @ Somulu, Aged 40 years, C/T.Kapu, Cultivation, R/o.Near Simhadri Appanna temple, S.P. Street,Bhimavaram.

Date of occurrence11-02-2016 Date of complaint12-11-2016 Date of apprehension or 15-12-2016

Date of appearance.31-07-2019 Date of release on bail.18-01-2017 Date of commencement of Trial.10-12-2024 Date of closure of trial.28-01-2025 Date of sentence of order.28-01-2025

The accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months.

Explanation for the delay :: No avoidable delay.

12

Appeals as prescribed under rule 319 of criminal Rules of practice with regard to the diary extract submitted :: No avoidable delay. by the committing court.

III Additional Sessions Court: Bhimavaram, W.G., Bhimavaram, Dt.31-01-2025

Sd/- M.A.Soma Sekhar

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, BHIMAVARAM

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI DIVISION AT BHIMAVARAM

Present : Sri M.A.Soma Sekhar III Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Bhimavaram

Tuesday, this the 8th of April, 2025

SESSIONS CASE NUMBER No.70/2023

Name of the Complainant:State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram II Town Police Station, Bhimavaram.

Name of the Accused:Jillella Pavan Singh, S/o.Rama Singh, Aged 26 years, Singu of Gollalakoderu village, Palakoderu Mandal

Nature of Offence:Under Section 436 I.P.C.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Judge:FOUND NOT GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 436

INDIAN PENAL CODE.

Sentence or order:Accused is found not guilty of the charge punishable under Section 436 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charge under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os.5 to 9 shall be sent to the committal Court for destruction after lapse of appeal time. M.Os.1 to 4 shall be returned to the concerned respective persons after lapse of appeal time by the police concerned and file acknowledgment 2

before this Court. The accused shall be

released if he is not required in any other crime since he is in remand.

Prosecution Conducted by:Additional Public Prosecutor, III Additional District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram

Name of the Defence :Sri P.S.P.L.G.Ambedkar, Advocate for CounselAccused

The Case was committed by Sri D.Dhana Raju, II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram in P.R.C.No.01/2023 on his

file, connected with crime number 270/2022 of Bhimavaram II Town

Police Station.

This case has come on 07-04-2025before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Brahmaiah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.S.P.L.G.Ambedkar advocate for the accused, 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. The accused was charge sheeted by the Inspector of

Police, Bhimavaram II Town Police station for the offences punishable under Section 436 I.P.C.

2. The case of prosecution as set out in the charge sheet runs like this:

2.1. On 24-09-2022 night L.W.1/Thoitapalli Satya Deneswara

Rao parked his motor cycle Honda Activa Motor cycle bearing No.AP 39

CW 4462 in his building house bearing D.No.4-5-12. After completion of dinner, L.W.1 and his family members slept, at about 12:30 a.m. on 3 24-09-2022, he observed some burning in his house varandah and saw through glass of the window and found his Honda Activa Motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 CW 4462 was burning and also main doors curtain was burning and house glass was burning. Then L.W1 took the water and poured the water on the main door curtain and house window glass and on his motor cycle and thus he extinguished the burning fire.

2.2. L.W.1 also observed in his street nearby his house,

L.W.2/Bodasingu Adinarayana Motor cycles (1) CD Deluxe bearing

No.AP 37 BN 0130 and (2) Yamaha Fashion Motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 DH 2126 burning located in his house premises, L.Ws.2 to 4 (Bodasingu Adinarayana, Singavarapu Naga Raju, Mutyala Venkatesh) came to spot, L.Ws.1 to 4 searched the surroundings and in front of the house of L.W.1, a Hero Honda Splendor black colour Chasis

No.02L20F32229 and engine No.02L18E34912 was burning. In the meantime, accused took his heels nearby the burning places, then

L.Ws.1 to 4 identified him under the street lights for doing the mischief of fire. On the complaint of L.W.1, the case was registered as a case in

Cr.No.270/2022 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3. The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Bhimavaram, took cognizance of the case of the offence under Section 436 I.P.C against the accused and registered the case as

P.R.C.No.01/2023 and on appearance of the accused, furnished copies of documents, as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. Later, the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Bhimavaram, committed the above said case to the Principal District

Judge, Eluru under Section 209(b) Cr.P.C. as the offence under Section

4 436 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions.

4. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Eluru has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and registered the case as Sessions case No.70/2023 and made over to this

Court for disposal in accordance with law.

5. After receiving the case file, the summons were issued to the accused. After receipt of summons, the accused appeared before this Court by engaging advocate. Thereafter, upon hearing the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, this Court

has framed charges under Section 228 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. and having recorded his pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charges under Section 436 I.P.C. he was put to face the trial for the said offence.

6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined, P.Ws.1 to 4 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P18, M.Os.1 to M.Os.9 are also marked.

7. Having gone through the evidence, both oral and documentary placed on record, the accused was examined under

Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence and the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

9. The point for consideration

Whether the prosecution would bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges under Section 436 I.P.C.

beyond all reasonable doubt?

5

POINT:

10. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4. Out of them

P.W.1/T.Satya Daneswara Rao, P.W.2/B.Adinarayana,

P.W.3/S.Nagaraju and P.W.4/P.Apparao is the Investigating Officer in this case.

11. P.W.1 to 3 did not support the prosecution version on any aspect and they totally turned hostile. P.Ws.1 to 3 denied the suggestion stated before the police as in Exs.P.2 to 4 and the gist of the 161 Cr.P.C. statements are explained to the witnesses but they denied.

P.Ws.1 to 3 were cross-examined by learned Additional APP, but nothing could be elicited from them

12. P.W.4 is the Investigating Officer confined about the registration of F.I.R, recording of statements of witnesses, observing the scene, seizure of material objects and receiving of analysis report and filing of charge sheet.

13. From the above evidence on record, it can be said that there is no oral evidence before the court to show that the accused committed the offence. Since there is no oral evidence to prove the charge that was framed against the accused, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. After careful reading of entire material on record, this Court is of view that there is no material placed before the court to connect accused with the commission of offence and none of the witnesses examined deposed in their evidence that the accused committed the mischief of burning M.Os.1 to 4. For the reasons stated above, this 6

Court is of view that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered.

POINT No.ii:-

15. In view of the discussion made in Point No.i, taking into consideration of the entire material on record, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, accused is entitled for acquittal for the charge leveled against him.

16. IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty of the charge punishable under Section 436 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charge under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os.5 to 9 shall be sent to the committal Court for destruction after lapse of appeal time. M.Os.1 to 4 shall be returned to the concerned respective persons after lapse of appeal time by the police concerned and file acknowledgment before this Court. The accused shall be released if he is not required in any other crime since he is in remand.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade – I directly on

Computer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 8 th day of April, 2025

Sd/- M.A.Soma Sekhar

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, BHIMAVARAM

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

P.W.1 : Thotapalli Satya Daneswara Rao None P.W.2 : Bodasinghu Adinarayana P.W.3 : Singavarapu Nagaraju P.W.4 : P.Appa Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1/-Signature of P.W.1 on the report

Ex.P2/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1

Ex.P3/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2

Ex.P4/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3

Ex.P5/-F.I.R.

Ex.P6/25-09-2022Scene observation report at 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

Ex.P7/25-09-2022Scene observation report at 9:45 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.

Ex.P8/-Sixteen photos with common C.D.

Ex.P9/-Rough sketch at D.No.4-5-12, 13th ward, Durgapuram

Ex.P10/-Rough sketch at Garagaparru road, Bhimavaram.

Ex.P11/2-09-2022Mediators report

Ex.P12/Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of L.W.4/Mutyala Venkatesh

Ex.P13/Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of L.W.5/ Koya Sri Rama Murthy 8

Ex.P14/Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of L.W.6/Vasadi Peddi Raju

Ex.P15/Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of L.W.7/ Vasadi Adilakshmi

Ex.P16/Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of L.W.8/ Nalli Ramesh

Ex.P17/Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of L.W.9/ Chikkala Sudhakar

Ex.P18/Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of L.W.10/ Jillela Rama Singh

FOR THE ACCUSED : Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

M.O.1 : Partly burnt Honda Activa Motor cycle bearing No.AP CW 4462 M.O.2 : Totally burnt CD Deluxe bearing No.AP 37 BN 0130 M.O.3 : Totally burnt Yamaha Fashion motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 DH 2126 M.O.4 :Totally burnt Honda Splendour black colour Chasis No.02L20F32229 and Engine No.02l18e3492 M.O.5 : Black ashed packet-4 M.O.6 : Burnt cement colour curtain 1 M.O.7 : Light rose colour cigarette lighter M.O.8 : Light black colour half hands T shirt with having black smoked with oil M.O.9 : Light moss colour short with having black sooked with oil in the presence of mediators

Sd/- M.A.Soma Sekhar

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, BHIMAVARAM.

9

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P., at Nelapadu.

Copy to:

The Principal Sessions Judge, Eluru The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Bhimavaram The Additional Public Prosecutor, W.G., Bhimavaram The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram II Town police staton. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Bhimavaram The Director of Prosecution, Vijayawada.

10

CALENDAR

Tabular form annexed to the Judgment in Sessions Case 70/2023 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Bhimavaram under Rule 318 of the Criminal Rules of Practice.

Sessions Case Number and P.R.C.: S.C.No.70/2023 and

Number with the Name of the P.R.C.No.01/2023 on the file of Committal court:II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram Name of the Police Station and Cr.No.270/20222 of Bhimavaram II Crime Number:Town Police Station. Name of the Accused: Father’s name: Age, Religion: Occupation: Addresses:

Jillella Pavan Singh, S/o.Rama Singh, Aged 26 years, Singu of Gollalakoderu village, Palakoderu Mandal

Date of occurrence24-09-2022 Date of complaint24-09-2022 Date of apprehension or 26-09-2022 to till date

Date of appearance.24-08-2023 Date of release on bail. - Date of commencement of Trial.01-04-2025 Date of closure of trial.07-04-2025 Date of sentence of order.08-04-2025

IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty of the charge punishable under Section 436 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charge under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os.5 to 9 shall be sent to the committal Court for destruction after lapse of appeal time. M.Os.1 to 4 shall be returned to the concerned respective persons after lapse of appeal time by the police concerned 11 and file acknowledgment before this Court. The accused shall be released if he is not required in any other crime since he is in remand.

Explanation for the delay :: No avoidable delay.

Appeals as prescribed under rule 319 of criminal Rules of practice with regard to the diary extract submitted :: No avoidable delay. by the committing court.

III Additional Sessions Court: Bhimavaram, W.G.,

Bhimavaram, Dt.08-04-2025.

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, BHIMAVARAM

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI DIVISION AT BHIMAVARAM

Present : Sri M.A.Soma Sekhar III Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Bhimavaram

Monday, this the 3rd day of February, 2025

SESSIONS CASE NUMBER No.71/2019

Name of the Complainant:State :Represented by Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram I Town Police Station, Bhimavarm.

Name of the Accused:Polamuri Satyanarayana, S/o.Danayya, Aged 33 years, Painter, R/o.Near Hanuman temple, Narasayya Agraharam, Bhimavaram

Nature of Offence:Under Section 302 I.P.C.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Judge:FOUND NOT GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 302

INDIAN PENAL CODE.

Sentence or order:The accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. M.Os.1 to 4 shall be sent to the committal Court for destruction after lapse of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months. The accused shall be released if he is not required in any other crime.

Prosecution Conducted by:Additional Public Prosecutor, III Additional District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram 2

Name of the Defence :Sri V.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for CounselAccused

The Case was committed by Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram in P.R.C.No.34/2018 on his

file, connected with crime number 291/2016 of Bhimavaram I Town

Police Station.

This case has come on 28-01-2025before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Brahmaiah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V.V.Subbarao advocate for the accused, 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. The accused was charge sheeted by the Inspector of

Police, Bhimavaram I Town Police station for the offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

2. The case of prosecution as set out in the charge sheet runs like this:

2.1. On 26-10-2016 between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. at the house accused, at Narasaiah Agraharam, Bhimavaram, the accused came in drunken state, quarreled with his wife/deceased Polamuri

Hymavathi and poured kerosene on her and lit fire and fled away from that place, resulting which the deceased succumbed to burn injuries while undergoing treatment. Basing on the report, L.W.1 Polamuri

Nagaraju, a case was registered in Cr.No.291/2016 under Section 302

I.P.C. of Bhimavaram I Town police station and took up investigation.

3

During the course of investigation, L.W.20 arrsted the accused on 13- 12-2016 at his house and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3. The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Bhimavaram, took cognizance of the case of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C against the accused and registered the case as

P.R.C.No.34/2018 and on appearance of the accused, furnished copies of documents, as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. Later, the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Bhimavaram, committed the above said case to the Principal District

Judge, Eluru under Section 209(b) Cr.P.C. as the offence under Section

302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions.

4. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Eluru has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and registered the case as Sessions case No.71/2019 and made over to this

Court for disposal in accordance with law.

5. After receiving the case file, the summons were issued to the accused. After receipt of summons, the accused appeared before this Court by engaging advocate. Thereafter, upon hearing the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, this Court

has framed charges under Section 228 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. and having recorded his pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charges under Section 302 I.P.C. he was put to face the trial for the said offence.

6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined, P.Ws.1 to 7 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P29, M.Os.1 to M.Os.4 are also marked.

4

7. Having gone through the evidence, both oral and documentary placed on record, the accused was examined under

Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence and the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

9. The point for consideration

Whether the prosecution would bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges under Section 302 I.P.C.

beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7. Out of them

P.W.1/P.Naga Raju, P.W.2/P.Someswara Rao, P.W.3/B.Rajendra

Prasad, P.W.4/B.Ravi and P.W.5/P.Lakshmi Prasanna are eye witnesses to the offence. P.W.6/K.Sudhakara Reddy and

P.W.7/D.Venkateswara Rao are the Investigating Officer in this case.

11. P.W.1 stated in his evidence that the deceased Hymavathi is his sister-in-law and the accused is his own brother and the deceased is his wife. The deceased died in the hospital as she poured kerosene on herself as she lit fire on herself due to which she sustained burn injuries as she was mentally imbalance and none are responsible for committal of suicide by her. The accused is no way concerned for the death of deceased. The deceased was not in a position to give her statement either before police or before Magistrate and she never gave 5 any statement against the accused claiming responsible for her death and police never examined her.

12. P.Ws.2 to 5 did not support the prosecution version on any aspect except deposing about their acquaintance with the accused and they totally turned hostile. P.Ws.1 to 5 denied the suggestion stated

before the police as in Ex.Ps.1 to 5 and the gist of the 161 Cr.P.C. statements

are explained to the witnesses but they denied. P.Ws.1 to 5 were cross- examined by learned Additional APP, but nothing could be elicited from them

13.P.Ws.6 and 7 who are the Investigating Officer confined about the registration of F.I.R. by L.W.19 who was the then Assistant Sub-

Inspector of Police, recording of statements of witnesses, observing the scene, seizure of material objects and receiving of analysis report and filing of charge sheet.

14.From the above evidence on record, it can be said that there is no oral evidence before the court to show that the accused committed the offence. Though Ex.P17 dying declaration is marked through PW7, PW1 who is close relative deposed that no dying declaration was given by deceased.

Since there is no oral evidence and also medical evidence to prove the charge that was framed against the accused, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.After careful reading of entire material on record, this Court is of view that there is no material placed before the court to connect accused with the commission of offence and none of the witnesses examined deposed in their evidence that the accused committed murder upon the deceased. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of view that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered.

POINT No.ii:- 6

16.In view of the discussion made in Point No.i, taking into consideration of the entire material on record, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, accused is entitled for acquittal for the charge leveled against him.

17. IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty of the charge punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charges under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 4 shall be sent to the committal

Court for destruction after lapse of appeal time. The accused shall be released if he is not required in any other crime since he is in remand.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade – I directly on

Computer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 3 rd day of February, 2025

Sd/- M.A.Soma Sekhar

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, BHIMAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: P.W.1 : P.Naga Raju None P.W.2 : P.Someswara Rao P.W.3 : B.Rajendra Prasad P.W.4 : B.Ravi P.W.5 : P.Lakshmi Prasanna P.W.6 : K.Sudhakara Reddy P.W.7 : D.Venkateswara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1

Ex.P2/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 7

Ex.P3/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3

Ex.P4/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4

Ex.P5/-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5

Ex.P6/-F.I.R.

Ex.P7/-Scene observation-cum-seizure report prepared by L.W.13

Ex.P8/-Rough sketch

Ex.P9/-Death intimation

Ex.P10/-Inquest panchanama prepared by P.W.6

Ex.P11/-Statement given by Padala Ratnam before L.W.19/P.Rama Krishna, A.S.I.Bhimavaram I Town Police station

Ex.P12/-Statement given by Nodigatla Raju before L.W.19/P.Rama Krishna, A.S.I.Bhimavaram I Town Police station

Ex.P13/-Statement given by Md.Gouse Mohiddin Basha before L.W.19/P.Rama Krishna, A.S.I.Bhimavaram I Town Police station

Ex.P14/-Statement given by P.W.4 before L.W.19/P.Rama Krishna, A.S.I.Bhimavaram I Town Police station

Ex.P15/-Statement given by L.W.8/Kantheti Veera Narayana before L.W.19/P.Rama Krishna, A.S.I.Bhimavaram I Town Police station

Ex.P16/-Statement given by before L.W.9/Kantheti Sandhya, P.Rama Krishna, A.S.I.Bhimavaram I Town Police station

Ex.P17/-Certified copy of D.D. of deceased Hymavathi

Ex.P18/-PMC certificate

Ex.P19/-R.F.S.L report 8

Ex.P20/-Analysis report from the Head of the department, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada

Ex.P21/-F.S.L report received from Hyderabad.

Ex.P22/-Statement of P.W.3 before P.W.6

Ex.P23/-Statement of P.W.4 before P.W.6

Ex.P24/-Statement of L.W.8/Kantheti Veera Narayana

before P.W.6

Ex.P25/-Statement of L.W.9/Kantheti Sandhya before P.W.6

Ex.P26/-Statement of P.W.5 before P.W.6

Ex.P27/-Statement of L.W.11/Kanaparthi Varalu before P.W.6

Ex.P28/-Statement of L.W.12/Valupu Trimurthulu

before P.W.6

Ex.P.29/-Statement of L.W.17/Dr.U.Raghavendra Rao

before P.W.6

FOR THE ACCUSED : Nil

9

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : M.O.1 : Plastic bottle containing 25 ml kerosene its cap M.O.2 : Mayur Match box and its used stick M.O.3 : Partially burnt light brown color saree M.O.4 :Partially burnt light brown color petticoat

Sd/- M.A.Soma Sekhar

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, BHIMAVARAM

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P., at Nelapadu.

Copy to:

The Principal Sessions Judge, Eluru The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Bhimavaram The Additional Public Prosecutor, W.G., Bhimavaram The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram I Town police staton. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Bhimavaram The Director of Prosecution, Vijayawada.

10

CALENDAR

Tabular form annexed to the Judgment in Sessions Case 71/2019 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Bhimavaram under Rule 318 of the Criminal Rules of Practice.

Sessions Case Number and P.R.C.: S.C.No.71/2019 and

Number with the Name of the P.R.C.No.34/2018 on the file of Committal court:II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram Name of the Police Station and Cr.No.34/2018 of Bhimavaram I Crime Number:Town Police Station. Name of the Accused: Father’s name: Age, Religion: Occupation: Addresses:

Polamuri Satyanarayana, S/o.Danayya, Aged 33 years, Painter, R/o.Near Hanuman temple, Narasayya Agraharam, Bhimavaram

Date of occurrence26-10-2016 Date of complaint26-10-2016 Date of apprehension or 14-12-2017 30.10.2023 Date of appearance.17-06-2019 Date of release on bail.18-02-2018 Date of commencement of Trial.16-01-2025 Date of closure of trial.28-01-2025 Date of sentence of order.03-02-2025

IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty of the charge punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charges under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 4 shall be sent to the committal Court for destruction after lapse of appeal time. The accused shall be released if he is not required in any other crime since he is in remand.

11

Explanation for the delay :: No avoidable delay.

Appeals as prescribed under rule 319 of criminal Rules of practice with regard to the diary extract submitted :: No avoidable delay. by the committing court.

III Additional Sessions Court: Bhimavaram, W.G.,

Bhimavaram, Dt.03-02-2025.

Sd/- M.A.Soma Sekhar

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, BHIMAVARAM

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE :: BHIMAVARAM

Present : Sri M.A.Soma Sekhar

III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram

Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.184 of 2023

1.From what court the appeal :II Additional Judicial Magistrate of is preferredI Class, Bhimavaram .

2.Number of the case in the :C.C.No.1052 of 2023 Lower Court

3.Name and Description of the :1. M/s.Lakshmi Medasri Appellants/ Accusedconstructions, rep.by its Managing Partner, Akula Teja.

2. Akula Teja, S/o.Srinivsa Rao, Rest House road, Near Kapu Kalyana Mandapam, Bank colony, Bhimavaram.

4.Name and Description of the :1. Akula Chandra Sekhar, Respondents/ ComplaintsS/o.Sreeram Murthy, Aged 50 years, Akulavari Street, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.

2. The State, rep.by its Additional Public Prosecutor, West Godavari District, A.P.

5.The sentence and law, which :The accused is found guilty for the it was imposed in the lower offence under Section 138 of N.I. court Act and he is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and shall pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards fine payable to accused 1 and 2 by 2 way of compensation within two months from the date of judgment, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for accused No.2 for six months. The entire fine amount of Rs.10,00,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 354 Cr.P.C.

6.Whether Reversed/ : Confirmed/ Modified/ If

CONFIRMED

modified the Modification

7. Dates of :- Presentation:08-06-2023

Filing:17-06-2023

On which notice issued by :17-06-2023 the court to appear Hearing:02-04-2025

Judgment:17-04-2025

This appeal is coming on this day for final hearing before me upon perusing the Grounds of Appeal, Calendar and Judgment of the lower court and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S.Subbarayudu, Advocate for the appellants/accused and of Sri M.Venkata Ramana Rao, Advocate for the 1st respondent/Complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for Respondent No.2 and this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal appeal is preferred against the Judgment of

Conviction and Sentence dated 16-05-2023 in C.C.No.1052 of 2018 passed by II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-II Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram by its Judgment and Calendar on behalf of the Appellant/Accused under Section 374 of Cr.P.C, 3 requesting to set aside the impugned Judgment in which the learned

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-II Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Bhimavaram found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted him under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation within two months from the date of the judgment, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period six months to 2nd accused.

2. The parties in the appeal will be herein after referred as arrayed in the trial court for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief case of the complainant/respondent No.1 is as follows.

(i). The Complainant by name Akula Chandra Sekhar filed this complaint against accused (Accused No.1 i.e., M/s. Lakshmi Medhasri

Constructions rep. by its Managing Partner, Akula Teja and Accused

No.2 is the Akula Teja) that the Accused No.2 borrowed an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- on 05.05.2017 for the purpose of development of the

Accused business i.e., construction of apartments. Thereupon, the

Accused have executed a demand promissory note on 05.05.2017 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and accordingly executed a promissory note in favour of him and later in spite of repeated demands made by him to repay the said promissory note debt with interest, Accused No.2 issued a cheque bearing

No.28.08.2019 on 28.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to him towards part payment of the said promissory note amount, he believed the words of the Accused and accepted the said cheque and he 4 presented the said cheque for collection in his bank i.e., Karur Vysya

Bank Limited, Bhimavaram branch, on 17.09.2019 for encashment of the said cheque and the said cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured with reasons that “Funds Insufficient”. The Accused banker issued the returned Memo dated 18-09-2019 to the complainant banker.

There upon the complainant got issued a registered notice under

Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, on 24.09.2019 to the Accused through his advocate calling upon him to pay the entire cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- intimating the accused that the cheque issued by him is dishonoured by his banker and calling upon him to pay the cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on receipt of the registered notice. Accused has received the said registered notice on 26.09.2019. The complainant further submitted that, even after issuance of the registered notice by the complainant, the accused did not choose to pay any payment to the complainant, hence this complaint 4. The learned Magistrate after following procedure has taken cognizance of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused who made his appearance after receiving the summons. The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C and he pleaded not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial before the Trial Court, the complainant himself examined as PW.1 and got examined P.W.2 and

Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5 6. On hearing both sides, the Trial Court has framed the following point for determination.

Whether the complainant proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.

Act?

7. The trial court on considering oral and documentary evidence and on hearing both sides came to conclusion that the complainant established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act and convicted him under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and shall pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards fine payable by the accused 1 and 2 by way of compensation within two months from the date of judgment, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for accused No.2 for six months. The entire fine amount of Rs.10,00,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 354

Cr.P.C.

8. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Trial Court, the appellant preferred this criminal appeal. He submitted that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evdience and probabilities of the case. The finding of the trial Court based on the presumption under

Section 139, firmly came to conclusion that there exists a legally enforceable debt between the appellant and the respondent. The trial

Court failed to assess the capacity of 1st respondent basing on the evidence deposed in the cross of P.W.1. The trial Court ought to have seen that legally enforceable debt is not in existence on the date of issuance of Ex.P1 as contemplated under N.I Act. The trial Court ought 6 to have observed that 1st respondent as P.W.1 in cross-examination admitted that he has not made any demand to the appellant to discharge the debt under Exs.P1 to P3. The trial Court ought to have seen that so many different reasons are contrary to one another has deposed by the respondent as P.W.1. The trial Court utterly failed to ascertain the real facts from the evidence of respondent as P.W.1 with the help of exhibits. The trial Court failed to prove the alleged charge against the accused and failed to produce independent witnesses. The trial Court erred in brushing aside the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and failed to give cogent reason for disbelieving the defence evidence and hence pray to set aside the judgment dated 15-05-2023 in

C.C.No.1052/2019.

9. Now the Point for consideration is,

Whether the findings of the learned I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram that the accused

committed the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act and sentence passed there under are not justified by evidence and law? If so to what relief?

P O I N T:- 10. Perused the appeal grounds, judgment of trial Court and assessed the arguments of both sides. The main contention of the appellant is that there is no capacity for the respondent/de facto complainant to lend huge amount of Rs.10,00,000/- under Ex.A1 promissory note and moreover, the same is not shown in Income Tax

Returns and the judgment of the trial Court is wrong.

7 11. At this juncture, this Court was forced to go through the judgment and also the depositions. It is clearly discussed in trial Court judgment in para 8 that the accused admitted his liability to the respondent/complainant that he discharged his liability of Rs.2,00,000/- and admitted about the indebtedness and only disputing the quantum of amount due. No doubt P.W.1 admitted that he has not shown the amounts lend to the appellant in the Income Tax Returns of complainant and he gave explanation for that due to G.S.T problems that has not shown. Regarding capacity of respondent/complainant, the trial court clearly discussed in para 12 that the respondent is earning

Rs.10,00,000/- p.a. by doing offset business. Added to it, even the complainant/respondent got examined P.W.2 who is attestor to Ex.P1 promissory note to prove the execution of Ex.P1. There is no force in the arguments of appellants regarding the capacity of complainant to lend amount and not showing the amount lend to the appellant in

Income Tax Returns. Further, not showing the amounts given by the respondent/complainant in Income Tax Returns is not mandated one.

12. The accused/appellant failed to enter into the witness box to rebut the evidence of the complainant/respondent, as such adverse inference can be drawn. Admittedly, when once the appellant failed to rebut the evidence of the complainant/respondent, Section 139 of

Negotiable Instruments Act shall come into play. It shall be presumed that there is legally enforceable debt between the complainant and the accused. Added to it, Ex.P2 contains the signature of appellant and further the appellant failed to take steps to send Ex.P1 pronote and

Ex.P2 cheque to the expert for comparison of his signatures. No reply notice was given for the legal notice got issued by the respondent to the accused under Ex.P5. Admittedly, Ex.P1 05-05-2017 proved by the 8 respondent by examining P.W.2. P.W.2 further deposed about the name of scribe also. The contention of appellant is that P.W.2 deposed in cross-examination that the counsel for the respondent/complainant informed him the contents of chief-examination affidavit and there is no wrong in it, since P.W.2 subscribes his signature in his affidavit. Being the honest drawer of Ex.P2, it is the duty that is cast upon the appellant/accused to discharge the cheque amount under Ex.P2, but he failed to do so. When the appellant is contending that he discharged the liability of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant, it is the duty to enter into the witness box and prove the same, but he failed to do so.

The trial Court by considering Exs.P1 to P7 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 rightly concluded and discussed in para Nos.10 to 16 and hold that the respondent proved the case against the appellant/accused.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

13. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.1052/2019

dated 16-05-2023, by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class-

cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.

The office is directed to send the record forthwith to the Trial

Court after duly indexing. The Trial Court is further directed to issue

NBW to accused to serve the confirmed sentence.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M.A.Soma Sekhar

III Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Bhimavaram

Copies to::

1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature at Amaravathi 9

2. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru.

3. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Bhimavaram

4. The I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhimavaram with records.

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, III Additional District Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram.

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE :: BHIMAVARAM

Present : Sri M.A.Soma Sekhar

III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram

Friday, this the 31st day of January, 2025

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.259 of 2022

1.From what court the appeal :I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I is preferredClass, Bhimavaram .

2.Number of the case in the :C.C.No.20 of 2021 Lower Court

3.Name and Description of the :Smt.Bollampalli Bhagya Lakshmi, Appellant/ AccusedW/o.Venkata Chalapathi Rao, Aged 45 years, Female, Water Purifier, Business, R/o.Flat No.114, 1st floor, Dwarakamayi Apartment, APHB colony, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.

4.Name and Description of the :1. Gudala Hari Krishna, S/o.China Respondents/ ComplaintsVenkateswara Rao, Aged 43 years, Male, Business, R/o.H.No.4-96, Near Venugopala Swamy temple, Pennada, Pennada Agraharam, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District, (Complainant)

2. The State S.H.O., represented by its Public Prosecutor, West Godavari.

5.The sentence and law, which :The accused is found guilty for the it was imposed in the lower offence under Section 138 of N.I. court Act and he is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the accused is 2 sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and shall pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation, in default of compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

6.Whether Reversed/ : Confirmed/ Modified/ If

CONFIRMED

modified the Modification

7. Dates of :- Presentation:15-12-2022

Filing:15-12-2022

On which notice issued by :23-12-2023 the court to appear Hearing:23-01-2025

Judgment:31-12-2025

This appeal is coming on this day for final hearing before me upon perusing the Grounds of Appeal, Calendar and Judgment of the lower court and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.Bala Parameswara Rao, Advocate for the appellant/accused and of Sri G.Suresh, Advocate for the 1st respondent/Complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for Respondent No.2 and this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal appeal is preferred against the Judgment of

Conviction and Sentence dated 06-12-2022 in C.C.No.20 of 2021 passed by I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram by its

Judgment and Calendar on behalf of the Appellant/Accused under

Section 374 of Cr.P.C, requesting to set aside the impugned Judgment 3 in which the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Bhimavaram found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted him under

Section 255(2) Cr.P.C.

2. The parties in the appeal will be herein after referred as arrayed in the trial court for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief case of the complainant/ respondent No.1 is as follows.

(i) The complainant did business and the accused and her husband got acquainted with him and requested to lent Rs.6,00,000/-, on that he gave the same in five installments in different dates by way of bank transactions and by way of cash til 17-09-2019 and on 17-09- 2019, wherein accused and her husband jointly executed a promissory note in favour of complainant at Pennada, Pennada Agraharam. On repeated demands for repayment of the pronote amount, the accused given a cheque bearing No.000048 drawn on Andhra Bank, Industrial

Estate Branch, Bhimavaram for Rs.5,00,000/- on 08-02-2021 towards part payment and the same was presented for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement as “funds insufficient”. On 26-02-2021 the complainant got issued a legal notice and the same was received by the accused on 02-03-2021 and he kept quiet, hence the complaint.

4. The learned Magistrate after following procedure has taken cognizance of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused who made his appearance after receiving the summons. The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C and he pleaded not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act and claimed to be tried.

4 5. During the course of trial before the Trial Court, the complainant himself examined as PW.1 and got examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6. On hearing both sides, the Trial Court has framed the following point for determination.

1. Whether there existed any legally enforceable debt between the complainant and the accused and whether the complainant is able to prove his existence?

2. Whether the accused issued the cheques in discharge of such legally enforceable debt?

3. Whether the accused is able to rebut the evidence of the complainant? If so, to what extent?

4. Whether the complainant could be able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences charged under Section 138 and 142 of N.I Act.

7. The trial court on considering oral and documentary evidence and on hearing both sides came to conclusion that the complainant established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act and convicted him under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE

YEAR and also sentenced to pay compensation Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees 5 five lakhs only), in default of it, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month 8. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Trial Court, the appellant preferred this criminal appeal. He submitted that the judgment of the trial Court is against the law, weight of evidence of probabilities of the case. The Trial Court erred in convicting the accused. The Trial Court ught to have seen that the defence taken by the appellant as she has no relationship with the respondent. The respondent failed to prove the lending of amount. The trial Ought have erred in convicting the accused that the complainant never followed Section 138 of N.I.Act in issuing the legal notice demanding for cheque amount within the stipulated time.

The trial Court ought to have observed that the entire transaction is not genuine and bona fide one and the debt is not legally enforceable debt, as the complainant unable to prove by filing any written proof of document for the alleged NEFT and account transfer to the husband of the accused. P.Ws.2 to 4 are planted witness and hence pray to set aside the judgment dated 06-12-2022 in C.C.No.20/2021.

9. Now the Point for consideration is,

Whether the findings of the learned I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram that the accused

committed the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act and sentence passed there under are not justified by evidence and law? If so to what relief?

P O I N T:- 10. When the record is called for hearing on 23-01-2025 both appellant/accused and complainant present and filed compromised 6 petition saying that they effected compromise and the same was recorded by this Court.

11. Perused the compromise petition filed by both parties and their respective advocates on 23-01-2025, the complainant received an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as full satisfaction in C.C.No.20/2021 in which present appeal is preferred and also as full satisfaction in

O.S.No.331/2021.

12. In view of recording compromise, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the calender and judgment in C.C.No.20/2021 passed by the Learned I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram by acquitting the accused in view of

compromise. Accordingly the point is answered.

13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and as a sequel, the sentence passed against the appellant/accused under the impugned calendar and judgment dated 24-12-2021 in C.C.No.57/2017 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Bhimavaram is set aside.

Consequently, the appellant/accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and is acquitted for the said offence under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The fine amount of Rs.10,000/- paid by the appellant/accused shall be ordered to be refunded to him after expiry of appeal time. As per the orders in

Crl.M.P.No.67/2022 dated 02-01-2023, this Court directed the

petitioner/appellant to pay 20% of the compensation amount before the

Trial Court, if the petitioner paid the said amount before the Trial Court, it shall be refunded as per prescribed rules and regulations. The bail 7 bonds of the appellant/accused1 shall stand in force for a period of six months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31 st day of January,

2025.

Sd/- M.A.Soma Sekhar

III Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Bhimavaram

Copies to::

1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature at Amaravathi

2. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru.

3. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Bhimavaram

4. The I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhimavaram with records.

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, III Additional District Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram.