Smt M.Indira Priyadarsini

1

I.P.No.9/2020 CJ (SD), NDK.

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), NANDIKOTKUR.

Present: Smt M. Indira Priyadarsini

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandikotkur.

Monday, the 21st day of October, 2024.

Insolvency Petition No.9/2020

Shaik Noor Ahamed S/o.S.Habeebulla,

Muslim, aged 30 years, Now unemployed,

R/o.Raja Street, Nandikotkur town and mandal … Petitioner

-Vs-

1. Kurva Naresh S/o.K.Lokanna, Hindu, aged about 45 years, R/o.H.No.6/106,

Lakshmipuram village, Kallur mandal,

Kurnool District.

2. A.Ashok Kumar S/o.Audi Subramanyam,

Hindu, aged 40 years, R/o.H.No.4/38,

Lakshmipuram village, Kallur mandal,

Kurnool District.

3. A.Manikanta S/o.A.Venkateswarlu,

Hindu, aged about 45 years,

R/o.H.No.3/143, Lakshmipuram village,

Kallur mandal, Kurnool District.

4. P.Raju S/o.Pedda Marenna, Hindu, aged about 42 years, R/o.H.No.3/97,

Lakshmipuram village, Kallur mandal,

Kurnool District.

5. Aditya Yadav S/o Tothey Eswaraiah,

Hindu, aged about 30 years,

R/o.H.No.2/95. B.Thandrapadu village,

Besides R.T.O. Office,

Kallur mandal, Kurnool District.

6. Sudhakar S/o.Nagaraju, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Lakshmipuram village,

Kallur mandal, Kurnool District.

7. Smt Gangadharan Vidyavathi

W/o.Subbarayudu, Hindu, aged 40 years,

R/o.H.No.2-85, Bukkapuram village, 2

I.P.No.9/2020 CJ (SD), NDK.

Veldurthy mandal, Kurnool District.

8. T.Anil Kumar S/o.Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged 32 years, R/o.Near Agri Gold Office,

Kurnool town and district.

9. Kummari Nagendra S/o.Busanna,

Hindu, aged about 30 years,

H.No.1-381, Siddapalli village,

Atmakur mandal, Kurnool District.

10. R.Mahesh Babu S/o.Rangu Rukmininath, aged about 30 years, R/o.H.No.2-17,

Dinnedevarapadu village, Kurnool District.

11.Smt Maha Lakshmi W/o.Subbarayudu,

Hindu, aged 35 years, Child Care Taker,

R/o.Montessori School, Besides Collector Bunglow,

Kurnool Town and District.

12. D.Vamsidhar Gowd S/o. Rajeswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 30 years, R/o.H.No.77-124-10-55-A,

Bhagya Nagar, Near Shanthi Nikethan High School,

Kallur Estate, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District.

13.Ravi Theja S/o.Ramakrishna, Hindu, aged 32 years, Kurnool Town and District.

14.Mosin Basha S/o.Kareem Basha, Muslim, aged about 35 years, Balaji Nagar,

Kurnool Town and District.

15.D.Molla Swamy S/o.D.Moulali, Muslim, aged about 35 years, R/o.H.No.2/65,

Kalamandalapadu village,

Masapeta Post, Midthur mandal,

Kurnool District.

16.M.Mani Raju S/o.M.Chinna Ramudu,

Hindu, aged about 32 years,

R/o.Budidapadu village, Alampur mandal,

Jogulamba Gadwal District. … Respondents

This petition is coming on 17-09-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Nazeer Ahamed and Sri S.Janardhana Rao, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri K.Bhaskar, Advocate for respondent No.1 to 4 and 6, respondents No.5, 7, 9 to 12 and 14 to 16 having remained exparte, case against 3

I.P.No.9/2020 CJ (SD), NDK.

respondent No.8 and 13 is dismissed and upon perusing the material available on record and having considered the matter, till this day, this court made the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.The Petitioner/Debtor filed Insolvency petition under sections 7, 10,11 and 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, praying the Hon’ble Court to adjudicate him as an Insolvent and to pass such other reliefs the Hon’ble Court deems to fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2.The main averments of the petition is that:

The petitioner is the debtor and he averred that, he was running a jobs consultancy under the name and style of Ideal Man Power and Private Jobs

Consultancy for the past four years and for the purpose of ensuring to provide private jobs to the unemployed persons in different companies and for this purpose he took an advance amounts from the respondents/creditors and evidencing the said amounts he executed promissory notes in favour of the respondents/creditors and paid the said advance amount to private companies through agents. like Reddy and Reddy Man Power Service, Amaravathi Solutions and Vengamamba Out Sourcing Agency. He further averred that but the said agents failed to provide jobs to the respondents/creditors and now the respondents/creditors and pressurizing him to repay their amount and they are also threatened him with dire consequences and he is not in a position to repay the said amounts to the respondents/Creditors as he has no sources of income and his consultant agencies are abandoned their agencies so he sustained heavy loss and as he is unable to discharge the amounts borrowed from the respondents/creditors, he forced to file this petition to adjudicating him as an insolvent and that he is unable to pay the debts due to the respondents and that the debts amounts are more than five hundred rupees and except the properties mentioned in “A” schedule of this petition, there are no other movable or immovable properties worth in his name. Hence, finding no alternation, this petition is filed to adjudicate him as an insolvent. Hence, the petition.

3.The respondent Nos. 5, 7, 9 to 12 and 14 to 16 were set exparte. The case against respondent No.8 and 13 is dismissed.

4.Respondent No.1 filed the counter and respondent No.2,3,4 and 6 filed adoption memo of counter of respondent No.1.

4

I.P.No.9/2020 CJ (SD), NDK.

5.The respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 were denied all the allegations of the petition and they mainly averred that the petitioner is having movable and immovable properties and also ancestral property, nearly worth about Rs.2,00, 00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) and that he intentionally evade the payment of the respondents and he leave the limits of this jurisdiction without discharge the amounts of respondents and that the petitioner purchased the property with this amount at Kurnool and Hyderabad and some of amount kept in his custody and that the petitioner has got sufficient amount and assets to discharge his real debts. Hence this petition is not maintainable and further, they averred that the petitioner intentionally cheated them and they all are innocents and unemployee and hence they prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

6.To prove the case of the petitioner/debtor, he himself is examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 was marked on his behalf. Ex.P1 is the certificate of registration of establishment issued by Labour Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh obtained from Mee-seva. The PW2 is the third party, to the Insolvency Petition proceedings and his evidence was eschewed from records, on 03-03-2023. The

PW3 is the third party to the proceedings. The respondent No.1 is examined as

R.W.1. The respondent No.3 is examined as R.W.2 and the evidence of R.W.3 is eschewed from records and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked on his behalf of respondents. Ex.R1 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dt. 26-07-2023 executed by Shaik Habeebulla, father of the petitioner, in favour of the petitioner and Ex.R2 is certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dt. 12-09-2023, executed by

Shaik Habeebulla father of the petitioner, in favour of the petitioner.

The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and R.W.1 and R.W.2 in brief is as follows:

P.W.1, is the Petitioner/ Debtor in the above petition and in his chief evidence, he reiterated the contents of the petition averments, and Ex.P1 was marked on his behalf.

6(i)During the cross-examination by the learned counsel for respondent

No.1 to 4 and 6, P.W.1 deposed that his parents blessed with a son and two daughters and his paternal grand-father had properties and his father has acquired his share from his father. He denied that the value of share of his father is nearly two crores and he admitted that one Y.Yella Nagi Reddy got filed a suit against him on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Nandikotkur for permanent injunction, relating to the land in Sy.No.284/A, and that he filed his counter in 5

I.P.No.9/2020 CJ (SD), NDK.

I.A.No.432/2021, in O.S.No.232/2021, claiming that he is the owner of the said land and that the said I.A.No.432/2021, was dismissed on merits, dated 24-11- 2021. He denied that at present the value of the land, per cent is Rs.10,00,000/- and he has been doing real estate business with his parents and denied that he is the owner of the car bearing registration No.AP 09 CV 2365 and also have RC in his favour and that the present value of the vehicle/car is nearly Rs.10,00,000/-.

He further denied that he got purchased a land in an extent of Ac.10-00, near

Shamshabad, Hyderabad by spending Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. He deposed that his father has a own house at Fish Market, Nandikotkur, bearing house no.23- 128A. He further denied that though he has capacity to discharge the debt of the respondents, he purposefully filed the present Insolvency Petition, to evade the payments to the respondents and that except respondent no.1 to 4 and 6, he shown the names of the other respondents has nominal respondents in the present Insolvency Petition and further denied that he got three acres land, in hamlet of Maddigatla village. He deposed that at present his father is attending to do any work due to his old age and he has been looking after the affairs of his family. He denied that, to evade the payments to respondents No.1 to 4 and 6, he has filed the present Insolvency Petition with untenable allegations.

6(ii)The P.W.3 averred in his chief examination affidavit that, he knew the parties in the above matter and that the petitioner was running a job consultancy, under the name and style of Ideal Man Power and Private Jobs Consultancy, for the past six years and that he was providing Outsourcing jobs to the unemployed persons in different companies and for this purpose he was collecting advances amount from the unemployed persons and executed promissory notes to the said persons and some of the persons obtained blank pronotes with signatures of petitioner. He further averred that he has studied upto 10th class and after completion of his studies he approached the petitioner for the jobs and he had paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner for providing job. He further averred that the petitioner used to pay the amounts to the private complaints like Vengamamba and Amaravathi Solutions, Outsourcing Agencies. He further deposed that the petitioner provided him a job as Attender in M.R.O. office, Kallur sponsored by

Amaravathi Solutions and that he used to get Rs.12,000/- per month as salary and he worked for eight months only and subsequently the said scheme was abolished, due to changes of Government and his job was also terminated. He further averred that the petitioner was bonafidely running the Job Consultancy

Scheme to provide job for unemployed graduates 6

I.P.No.9/2020 CJ (SD), NDK.

During the cross-examination of P.W.3 by the counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 and 6, he deposed that he know the petitioner through his friend and that the petitioner was running a job consultancy and he does not file any identity proves to show that he is doing attender job in MRO Office, Kallur sponsored by

Amaravathi solutions and that the said job was provided by the petitioner to him and that the petitioner did not own any properties on his name. He denied that the petitioner is doing Real Estate Business in Hyderabad by maintaining two cars. He further deposed that he does not know whether the petitioner is maintaining a Car bearing no. AP 09 CV 2365. He further denied that, he is intentionally deposing false and that the petitioner is earning more than one lakh, per month in Real Estate business and to help the petitioner he is deposing false and that he does not know anything about the petitioner.

6(iii)R.W.1 is the Respondent No.1/Creditor No.1 in the above petition and in his chief evidence, he reiterated the contents of the counter averments.

During the cross-examination of R.W.1 by the counsel for petitioner he deposed that he studied Degree B.Sc. He admitted that the petitioner was running a Job Consultancy office at Kurnool. He denied that he approached the petitioner for job and the petitioner asked them to deposit money to provide job to them accordingly he gave Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner. He admitted that, the remaining 16 members were also deposited amounts with petitioner. The witness again says that he does not know, whether the said 16 members were deposited the amount with the petitioner or not and that even he does not know who are they. He further admitted that the petitioner issued a cheque in his favour for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- . He deposed that he does not know whether the petitioner forwarded his job application and money to Amaravathi Solutions,

Vengamambha Outsourcing Agencies, etc, to provide a job to him through them and he does not know whether, after that they all were deposited the amounts with the petitioner the above Outsourcing Agencies were closed and due to change of the Government the said companies were abandoned as such the petitioner could not provide job to him and others. He denied that since the above companies were abondoned the petitioner could not provide job to him and since they were demanded him to repay the amount and when he unable to repay the same the present Insolvency Petition is filed by the petitioner. He deposed that he do not file any documents to show that the petitioner owning Rs.2,00,00,000/- worth of cash, Rs.50,00,000/- worth of sites at Nandikotkur and Rs.8,00,000/- 7

I.P.No.9/2020 CJ (SD), NDK.

worth of a car and he is earning Rs.5,00,000/- per month. He denied that the petitioner do not own any properties and he became loss as such he filed the above I.P. and that he is deposing false.

6(iv) R.W.2 is the Respondent No.3/Creditor No.3, in the above petition and in his chief evidence, he reiterated the contents of the counter averments and got marked Exs.R1 and R2.

During the cross-examination of R.W.2 by the counsel for petitioner he deposed that he pursued Degree and he is working as helper in Real Estate,

Agraseni Builders and Chits, Gayathri Estate, Kurnool since one year and that he does not mention the same in his chief evidence and that the petitioner is resident of Nandikotkur. He admitted that he is native of Lakshmipuram which is far away of 58 kilometers distance from Nandikotkur and that the petitioner was running a job consultancy Agency and established an office at Kurnool. The witness voluntaries that, the petitioner closed the said office. He admitted that himself and other 17 members were deposited amount with the petitioner, to provide job to him. He deposed that, later the petitioner does not provide jobs for them and that he does not know whether the petitioner deposited the amounts given by them with Amaravathi Solutions and Vengamamba outsourcing agencies and he further deposed that, as the government was changed the petitioner could not provide jobs towards through Amaravathi Solutions and Vengamamba outsourcing agencies and he does not know whether Amaravathi Solutions and Vengamamba outsourcing agencies were closed and that the petitioner is running Real Estate

Business at Hyderabad and he has also having land, nearby the Hon’ble Court and he is having cars and that the details and particulars of the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner has given to his counsel and the petitioner is also having agricultural lands. He denied that, the petitioner owned any movable and immovable properties as deposed by him above. He further deposed that the petitioner is earning more than Rs.2,00,000/- per month and he do not know whether the petitioner is an income tax assessee or not. He denied that without there being any evidence, he mentioned in his chief evidence affidavit regarding the income and the properties of the petitioner and that the petitioner is not having any properties as on date of filing the above Insolvency Petition, except that of ‘A’ schedule property shown in I.P. schedule.

7. Heard on both sides and perused the records.

8

I.P.No.9/2020 CJ (SD), NDK.

8.The point for consideration is, “Whether the petitioner is entitled adjudging as an Insolvent and to be declared him as insolvent and to discharge him from debts or not as prayed for”?

9.POINT:

(i)It is clear from the averments of the petition that, the petitioner is doing jobs consultancy business under the name and style of Ideal Man Power and Private Jobs Consultancy for the past four years and for the purpose of ensuring to provide private jobs to the unemployed persons in different companies and for this purpose he tookan advance amounts from the respondents/creditors and executed promissory notes in favour of the respondents/creditors and paid the said advance amount to private companies through agents like Reddy and

Reddy Man Power Service, Amaravathi Solutions and Vengamamba Out Sourcing

Agency but the said agents failed to provide jobs to the respondents/creditors and now the respondents/creditors are pressurizing him to repay their amount and they are also threatened him with dire consequences and he is not in a position to repay the said amounts to the respondents/Creditors as he has no sources of income and his consultant agencies are abandoned their agencies so he sustained heavy loss and as he is unable to discharge the amounts borrowed from the respondents/creditors. As such he filed the petition to adjudicate him as an insolvent.

(ii) It is clear from the counter that the petitioner is having movable and immovable properties and also ancestral property nearly worth about Rs.2,00, 00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) and the petitioner is intentionally evade the payment of the respondents and he purchased the property with this amount at

Kurnool and Hyderabad and some of the amount kept in his custody and the petitioner has got sufficient amount and assets to discharge his real debts .

(iii)So, it is clear from the averments in the petition that even before obtaining license and permissions from the concerned department, the petitioner was doing said work of providing job services. No explanation is given by the petitioner, for doing such services without obtaining the permission. Since the respondents also admitted that the petitioner was provided job services, it can be said that the said contention of the petitioner that he provided job services is established.

(iv)It is the further contention of the petitioner that he used to send said amounts to agencies like Reddy and Reddy Man Power Service, Amaravathi

Solutions and Vengamamba Out Sourcing Agency. But the petitioner did not 9

I.P.No.9/2020 CJ (SD), NDK.

examined any one of such person among the said outsourcing companies to prove his contention. Though P.W.3 was examined by the petitioner his evidence is doubtful as the employment ID or any certificate issued by the concerned

Mandal Revenue Officer are not produced before the Court by him to show that he was doing Attender job in MRO office and the said job was provided to him by the petitioner through his Consultancy agencies. Even his salary certificate also not produced. So the evidence of P.W.3 does not help to the petitioner in any manner.

(v)The petitioner further contended that he collected amounts from the creditors and paid said advance amounts to companies like Reddy and Reddy

Man Power Service, Amaravathi Solutions and Vengamamba Out Sourcing

Agency but when the petitioner given the money, taken by him to the companies

Reddy and Reddy Man Power Service, Amaravathi Solutions and Vengamamba

Out Sourcing Agency is not deposed by him. It means that whatever amounts that were taken by the petitioner were paid by him to them. So in what manner the petitioner has sustained loss has to be explained and proved. But, no such explanation is offered by petitioner and no evidence is let in, in this regard.

(vi) The petitioner has claimed that,except this A-schedule property i.e.

Rs.500/- he does not have any other properties, and that he is doing coolie work but in his cross-examination he had clearly admitted that “it is true one Y.Yella

Nagi Reddy got filed a suit against him on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court,

Nandikotkur for permanent injunction relating to the land in Sy.No.284/A and I filed my counter in I.A.No.432/2021 in O.S.No.232/2021 claiming that I am the owner of the said land”. The above admission of P.W.1 clearly shows that, even subsequent of filing the present petition, he has claimed to be in possession of immovable property in Sy.No.284/A.

(vii)It is also clear that R.W.2 has filed documents in Ex.R1-certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dt. 26-07-2023 executed by father of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner and Ex.R2-certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dt.

12-09-2023 executed by father of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner. Even during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner had purchased property and suppressed the same before the Court without bringing the said property on record in this Insolvency Petition. The fact that the petitioner, had purchased the property as evident from Exs.R1 and R2 shows that the petitioner has got capacity to purchase properties and that he has suppressed his true capacity

before the Court and he has suppressed the fact of purchasing property and took

10

I.P.No.9/2020 CJ (SD), NDK.

false pleading in the petition and chief affidavit. Even if otherwise is considered.

Exs.R1 and R2 are not questioned by the petitioner in any manner.

(viii)So the evidence adduced by the petitioner itself shows that he has not approached the Court with clean hands. Hence, in view of the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner failed to prove that he had committed such acts of insolvency as defined under Sec. 6 of Provincial Insolvency Act to declare him as an insolvent. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for declare him as an insolvent. Hence, the point is answered against the petitioner.

(ix)In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21 st day of October, 2024.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Nandikotkur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined)

FOR PETITIONER:FOR RESPONDENTS:

P.W.1: Shaik Noor Ahammed R.W.1: Kuruva Naresh

P.W.2: P.Noor Ahamed(Eschewed)R.W.2:A.Manikanta

P.W.3:S.SameerR.W.3:A.Ashok Kumar(Eschewed)

Exhibits marked

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.P1: Certificate of registration of establishment, Labour Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh obtained from Mee-seva.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.R1 :Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dt. 26-07-2023 executed by father of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner.

Ex.R2:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dt. 12-09-2023 executed by father of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner.

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Nandikotkur.

1

SC.No.160 of 2021 ASJ, NDK.

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

NANDIKOTKUR

Present: Smt M. Indira Priyadarsini, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur.

Thursday, the 24th day of October, 2024.

SESSIONS CASE NO.160/2021

State represented by: Sub-Inspector of Police, Jupadu Bunglow P.S.… Complainant - Versus -

Kokkaayyagaari Arun Kumar S/o.Raju, aged 21 years, Parumanchala Village,

Jupadu Bunglow mandal. … Accused

This case coming on 22-10-2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor of this Court, for the complainant, and of Sri Y.Jaya Raju and Sri C.Venkateswarlu, Advocates for accused and after hearing both sides and upon having perused the entire material available on record and having been stood over for consideration, till this date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This sessions case, arises out of P.R.C.No.15/2021, on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur, in Crime

No.109/2021 of Jupadu Bunglow P.S, under section 307 IPC altered from

Sec. 324 IPC, which has been committed to the Court of sessions, by virtue of orders dated 22-10-2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of

First class, Nandikotkur.

2.The case of prosecution, as per the charge-sheet, in brief, is as follows:-

The complainant Madavaram anil Kumar and the accused

Kokkaayyagaari Arun Kumar are resident of Parumanchala Village,

Jupadubunglow mandal and the complainant living by auto driving and they are two sons to their parents among them the complainant is the younger 2

SC.No.160 of 2021 ASJ, NDK.

son. Since one year back the complainant loved with one Aishwarya who is the sister of the accused and the issue noted by both family elders and separated them due to Aishwarya is minor girl and from then the complainant not interfered about the Aishwarya issues and on 18-04-2021 at about 11-00 hours the complainant went to bus stand from the complainant house when the complainant was reached in front of the house of the accused by that time the accused came to him with a knife and told to the complainant that how dare you to love his sister and came to his house and tried to beat the complainant with knife and by that time the complainant blacked with right hand, due to which the complainant received bleeding injury on his right hand wrist and right cheek and then the complainant escaped from place and came to Jupadubunglow police station and gave a complaint against the accused.

Basing on the strength of the report of the complainant, the ASI 2292-

L.W.10 registered a case in Crime No.109/2021 U/S.324 of I.P.C. of Jupadu

Bunglow P.S. and investigated into this case. During the course of investigation, L.W.11-P.Thirupalu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jupadu Bunglow

P.S., examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 4 on 19-04-2021, as per the statements of L.Ws.1 to 4 the Sub-Inspector of Police alter the section of law from 324 IPC to 307 IPC and he also visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the scene and seized the crime weapon i.e. one knife under cover of panchanama in the presence of panchayathdars(L.Ws.7 and 8), on 19-04-2021 and during the course of investigation, on 21-04-2021, at 11-00 hours, the Sub-Inspector of Police (L.W.11) arrested the accused, at Parumanchala cross-roads, outskirts of

Thangadencha Village, Jupadu Bunglow mandal under cover of panchanama in the presence of panchayathdars L.Ws.7 and 8 and he sent the accused for remand and during the course of investigation the Sub-

Inspector of Police (L.W.11) also examined and recorded the statements of

L.Ws.5 and 6 on 22-04-2021 and L.W.9-Medical Officer, CHC, Nandikotkur who treated the injured L.W.1 issued wound certificate and opined that the injuries received by L.W.1 is “simple in nature” and L.W.12 is the Sub-

Inspector of Police, carried out the instructions issued by the Hon’ble Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Nandikotkur while returning of charge sheet and

resubmitted charge sheet and thus the accused is committed an offence and he is liable to punish U/S.307 I.P.C. Hence the charge.

3

SC.No.160 of 2021 ASJ, NDK.

3.The case was registered as PRC.No.15 of 2021, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur. The case against the accused committed to the Court of Sessions, on 22-10-2021.

4.After, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opened the case of the prosecution, and after due hearing of both sides, and consideration of the records under section 228 of Cr.P.C, this court found sufficient material, to charge the accused. Hence, the charge under section 307 of IPC was framed against the accused and the same was read over and explained in

Telugu to the accused, who was pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried for the said charge. Hence, the case is posted for Trial.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P10 and M.O.1 . The evidence of the rest of the witnesses i.e., L.W.2 to L.W.5 and L.W.7, L.W.8, L.W.10 and L.W.12 were given up by the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor of this Court. Death

Certificate of L.W.9-Dr.Gnanaprakash, Medical Officer is filed.Then, the prosecution side evidence is reported as closed.

6.On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 was examined under section 313 Cr.PC, by explaining the incriminating material found against him on record, in his vernacular language i.e., Telugu and having understood the same, he denied the same as false, and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides and perused the records.

8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 coupled with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P10 and M.O.No.1 have established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 307 of

I.P.C.

The learned counsel for accused argued that the accused is innocent, there are several contradictions and discrepancies in the 4

SC.No.160 of 2021 ASJ, NDK.

evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. Without investigating the matter in a scientific manner, the police filed a false charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

9.The point for consideration is:“Whether the prosecution is able to

establish the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offence punishable

under section 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

10.To establish its case, the prosecution has examined the complainant as P.W.1, maternal aunt of P.W.1 as PW2, Investigating Officer as P.W.3 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P10 and M.O.1 through them. Ex.P.1, is signature of

P.W.1 on report, dated 18-04-2021, Ex.P.2, is statement of P.W.1 recorded by the police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C, Ex.P3, is statement of P.W.2 recorded by the police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C, Ex.P4 is the report given by P.W.1, Ex.P5 is the First Information Report , Ex.P6 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence, Ex.P7 is the scene observation report-cum- seizure panchanama, Ex.P8 is the confession-cum-arrest panchanama of the accused, Ex.P9 is the alteration memo, Ex.P10 is the wound certificate and M.O.No.1 is knife.

11.The evidence of prosecution witness in brief as follows:-

(a) P.W.1 had deposed in his chief examination that, he knew the accused, L.W.2 to L.W.6 and that he does not know anything about the case and he does not give any complaint to the police and that on one occasion about three years back he went to police station, Jupadu Bunglow police obtained his signature on a white blank paper and he do not know the contents of it and he sustained injuries in a motor cycle accident and that police never examined him and never recorded his statement and that he can identify his signature. Ex.P1 is his signature.

During his cross examination by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor after declaring P.W.1 as hostile, with the permission of the Court, the P.W.1 has denied all the suggestions put forth to him by the Learned Additional 5

SC.No.160 of 2021 ASJ, NDK.

Public Prosecutor. His statement recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C is marked as Ex.P2.

(b) P.W.2 who is maternal aunt of P.W.1 deposed in her chief examination that, she knew the accused and she do not know anything about the case and she never witnessed any incident and police never examined her and never recorded her statement.

During her cross examination by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor after declaring P.W.2 as hostile, with the permission of the Court, the PW2 has denied all the suggestions put forth to her by the Learned Additional

Public Prosecutor. Her statement under section 161(3) Cr.P.C of is marked as Ex.P3.

(c)P.W.3-Investigating Officer has deposed in his chief examination that, on 18-04-2021 at 13-00 hours ASI-2292 (L.W.10-C.Jayanna) was registered the case in Crime No.109/2021 U/S.324 I.P.C. and immediately he send FIR copies to all the concerned authorities and as well as to the

Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nandikotkur and on 19-04-

2021 he took up investigation from the ASI-L.W.10 and he examined the

LW1 to LW4 and observed the scene of offence and conducted seizure panchanama in the presence of two mediators i.e. L.W.7-T.Chenchaiah and

L.W.8-T.Sreeramulu who were took along with him and he drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence and seized a knife and on 21.04.2021 basing on investigation done by him, he altered the section of law from 324 IPC to 307

IPC and alteration memo submitted to the Hon’ble Court and that on the same day he arrested the accused, at 11.00 hours at Parumanchala cross road, Thangadencha Village in the presence of L.W.7-T.Chenchaiah and

L.W.8-T.Sreeramulu and recorded the confession statement of the accused in the presence of the above mediators and arrested him and he left the place of arrest along with the arrested accused with his staff and brought the accused to the Jupadu Bunglow Police Station and after following due formalities of arrest, he handed over the accused to the custody of sentry PC

No.3295 at 11.30 hours for safe custody and he has also informed the arrest particulars of the accused to his friend, Madhavaram Chinna Babu-L.W.6,

Parumanchala Village, Jupadu Bunglow Mandal and thereafter he produced the accused before the Hon’ble court for Judicial remand and on 22-04-2021 he examined LW5-Madhavaram Devamma and LW6-Vanamula Chinna 6

SC.No.160 of 2021 ASJ, NDK.

Chennamma and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and that on 25-04-2021 he received wound certificate from the medical officer

L.W.9-Dr. Gnana Prakash, Community Health Centre, Nandikotkur and after completion of his investigation, he filed charge sheet into the court against the accused.

During his cross-examination P.W.1 has denied that on 18-04-2021 the P.W.1 met with an accident by fell down from his bike and when P.W.1 went to the hospital for treatment the L.W.10-C.Jayanna, ASI-2292 of

Jupadu Bunglow Police Station, with the instigation of village elders issued a false first information report against the accused and that he never visited the scene of offence and no scene observation or arrest or confession statement of accused is prepared by him and that he had done a table investigation and that the mediators are their stock witnesses. He further denied that he never examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and L.Ws.2 to 5 and he prepared their statements for the purpose of this case and that he never seized M.O.No.1, in the presence of the mediators and it is created for the purpose of this case and he never arrested the accused and that when the accused came to their police station to discuss with him he made an illegal arrest and that the accused never confessed

before him as deposed by him and that he forcibly obtained accused

signatures, on confession panchanama and in view of the political pressures of the villagers he wrongly altered the first information report. He further deposed that no separate first information report is issued on the requisition for section alteration memo from Sec. 324 IPC to Sec. 307 IPC. He denied that L.W.10-C.Jayanna issued a false first information report against the accused and he had filed a false charge sheet against the accused without investigating the matter in a scientific mannerand that the accused never committed any offence as alleged by him and that he is deposing false and that the accused is no way concerned with the above case.

(d). Upon perusal of the evidence, P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant and P.W.2 is maternal aunt and eye witness to the incident. P.W.1 deposed that he does not know anything about the case and he does not gave any complaint to the police and on one occasion, about three years back when he went to police station, Jupadu Bunglow police obtained his signature on white blank paper and he does not know the contents of it and that he sustained injuries in motor cycle accident and that police never examined 7

SC.No.160 of 2021 ASJ, NDK.

him and never recorded his statement. Even P.W.2 also deposed that she does not know anything about the case and she never witnessed the incident and police never examined her and never recorded her statement.

On the account of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 the learned Additional

Public prosecutor declared them as hostile and were cross examined by him, with the permission of the Court. In their respective cross examinations by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, P.W.1 and P.W.2 had denied that they state before the police that the accused attacked P.W.1 with a knife by abusing him that “ how dare you to love my sister and roaming in front of my house” and accused tried to kill him. The P.W.1 and P.W.2 had further denied that they had stated before the police as in Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, and they are deposing false as they compromised the matter with accused.

Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross examined the witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2, nothing was elicited from them in favour of the case of the prosecution.

(e).Therefore, the evidence available on record is that of P.W.3 only, who is the investigating officer. He deposed about the investigation done by him. On account of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor was given up the evidence of LW2 to LW5, LW7 to LW10 and LW12.

(f). So, it is clear, from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 nothing was elicited from them that could support the case of the prosecution in any manner. They did not support the case of the prosecution to the effect that the accused attacked P.W.1 with a knife by abusing him that how dare him to love his sister and roaming in front of his house, and accused tried to kill him. It is the case of the prosecution that PW1 himself has given a report regarding the incident. But PW1 did not depose supporting the same, and stated that his signature was obtained by the police, on some white blank papers and that he was not examined by the police. The evidence of PW2 is also not much helpful to the case of the prosecution as such the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor declaring them as hostile. Basing on sole

evidence of P.W.3-Investigating Officer, accused cannot be convicted which may leads to miscarriage of justice unless there is sufficient other corroborating evidence in support of his evidence. Therefore, on perusal of the record absolutely there is no incriminating evidence established by the prosecution against the accused, which is deposed by the prosecution 8

SC.No.160 of 2021 ASJ, NDK.

witnesses i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2.

(g). In view of the above discussion, this court concludes and holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal thereof. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of this judgment as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24 th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-M.Indira Priyadarsini

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: Madavaram Anil Kumar - None - P.W.2: Vanamula Chinna Chennamma P.W.3: P.Thirupalu

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on the report.

Ex.P.2: Statement of P.W.1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P.3: Statement of P.W.2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P.4: Report given by P.W.1.

Ex.P.5: First Information Report.

Ex.P.6: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P.7: Scene observation report-cum-seizure panchanama.

Ex.P.8: Confession-cum-arrest panchanama of the accused.

Ex.P.9: Alteration memo.

Ex.P.10: Wound certificate.

For Defence:-Nil- 9

SC.No.160 of 2021 ASJ, NDK.

Material Objects marked For Prosecution:

M.O.No.1: knife.

For defence: -nil-

Sd/-M.Indira Priyadarsini

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

//TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

10

SC.No.160 of 2021 ASJ, NDK.

TABULAR STATEMENT UNDER RULE 67 OF CRL.RULES OF PRACTICE

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

NANDIKOTKUR

Present: Smt M. Indira Priyadarsini, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur.

Thursday, the 24th day of October, 2024.

SESSIONS CASE NO.160/2021

(CR.NO.109/2021 OF JUPADU BUNGLOW P.S.)

1Name of the P.S & Cr.No.:109/2021 of Jupadu Bunglow P.S. 2Sessions Case No.:160/2021 3Section of law:Under Section 307 of IPC 4Name of the accused: Kokkaayyagaari Arun Kumar S/o.Raju, aged 21 years, Parumanchala Village,

Jupadu Bunglow mandal.

5Date of occurrence of offence:18-04-2021 6Date of complaint :18-04-2021 7Date of apprehension of :21-04-2021 accused 8Date of release of accused:01-05-2021 9Date of commitment of case: 22-10-2021 10Date of commencement of trial:17-10-2024 11Date of closure of trial:21-10-2024 12Date of sentence or order:24-10-2024 13(a)Explanation for delay :-

(b) In the trial Court:- The record in PRC.No.15/2024 of Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nandikotkur was submitted to the Court of Hon’ble Principal Sessions

Judge, Kurnool and the same was received on 27-10-2024 and numbered as

Sessions Case No.160/2021 by the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool for

the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and made over the same to this

Court for disposal according to law on 11-11-2021.The accused made his appearance before this Court on 22-11-2021and on 25-11-2021 charge was framed. On 17-10-2024 the police filed the copy of Death Certificate of LW9-

Dr.Gnana Prakasham, Medical Officer through the Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor. Hence, the evidence of LW9 is closed. On 17-10-2024 P.Ws.1 and 2 11

SC.No.160 of 2021 ASJ, NDK.

and on 21-10-2024 P.W.3 were examined. The prosecution side evidence is reported as closed. On 23-10-2024 the accused was examined under Sec.313

Cr.P.C., and arguments were heard. On 24-10-2024 Judgment was pronounced.

Sd/-M.Indira Priyadarsini

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi through the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Director of Prosecutions, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Room Nos.109, 110, 111, 112, 1st floor, New HOD (R&B) M.G.Road, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Kurnool.

Copy to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur.

//TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

1 C.C.No.985/2021ASJ,NDK.

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

NANDIKOTKUR

PRESENT:- Smt M.Indira Priyadarsini,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur.

This the 24th day of October, 2024.

Calendar Case No. 985 of 2021

Between: State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Jupadu Bunglow Police Station.... Complainant

And

1.Madavaram Anil Kumar S/o.Swamy Dasu, aged 23 years, 2.Madavaram Swamy Dasu S/o.Gajjalanna, aged 54 years, 3.Madavaram Chennamma W/o.Swamy Dasu, aged 45 years, 4.Madavaram Robert @ Kumar S/o.Swamy Dasu, aged 26 years, 5.Onamula Prasanth S/o.Swamulu, aged 23 years, 6.Onamula Chinna Chennamma W/o.Swamulu, aged 42 years, All are resident of Parumanchala Village,

Jupadu Bungalow Mandal....Accused

This case is coming on 23-10-2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for Prosecution and of Sri K.Venkateswarlu, Advocate

for accused No.1 to 6 and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.Since this case is counter case of the S.C.No.160/2021, the Hon’ble District and Sessions Court, Kurnool is pleased to made over and transferred to this

Court as per the proceedings in Tr.Crl.M.P.No.758/2021 dt.02-02-2022, to try simultaneously along with S.C.No.160/2021 to dispose according to Law.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jupadu Bunglow Police Station filed charge- sheet against the accused No.1 to 6 in Cr.No.110/2021 of Jupadu bunglow Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 506 r/w section 34

I.P.C.

2 C.C.No.985/2021ASJ,NDK.

3.The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows :

The defacto-complainant Kokkayyagari Aiswarya and accused No.1 to 6 are resident of Parumanchala village, Jupadu Bunglow mandal and the defacto- complainant parents living by coolie works and since some days the defacto- complainant father was suffering with ill-health and hence the defacto- complainant’s mother take care to her family and since one year back as relation of her brother anil Kumar/A1 telling lies to her that to love him and taken away her. It is further averred that by that time this issue noted by her family members and intercepted them and about this issue they gave complaint in Kothapalli police station and by that time the Sub-Inspector of Police and Circle Inspector of

Police solved the problem with an instruction, that not make any phone calls and messages in between both of them, if they do not maintain the instructions they will take action against them and after two months, her marriage was performed with L.W.4-I.Jashuva and from then, till 18-04-2021, she did not made any call and messages to the accused No.1, but since 10 days Accused No.1 messaging to her father-in-law’s cell phone number 7330697962, and harassed herself and due to ladies issue her father-in-law not complained.

It is further averred that at the time of giving report, the defacto- complainant, is carrying 5th month of pregnancy and hence she along with her husband came to Parumanchala village for night halt and from then Accused

No.1 came to her house and blow horn of bike and when her husband was beside to her, Accused No.1 marinating to illegally and hence in between herself and her husband have disputes and that all these were noted by her brother Arun

Kumar and he instructed to Accused No.1 but his attitude was not changed and

Accused No.1 to 6 came to her house and attacked them and informed to the defacto-complainant that, last year did not eloped her, but now eloped with her and threatened them with dire consequences and also Accused No.1 caught hold her hand with the outraging the modesty and all these issues noted by her husband and came family disputes and hence she came to Jupadu Bunglow police station and gave a complaint for justice and on that, her complaint was registered as a case in Cr. No.110/2021 under Sections 354(A), 506 r/w section 34 IPC, against the accused No.1 to 6 and that after completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed accordingly.

3 C.C.No.985/2021ASJ,NDK.

4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur has taken cognizance for the offences U/Sec.354-A and 506 IPC against the Accused No.1 and U/Sec.354-A and 506 IPC against the Accused No.2 to 6.

5.Since this case is counter case of the S.C.No.160/2021, the Hon’ble District and Sessions Court, Kurnool is pleased to made over and transferred to this

Court as per the proceedings in Tr.Crl.M.P.No.758/2021 dt.02-02-2022, to try simultaneously along with S.C.No.160/2021 to dispose according to Law.

6.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 6, copies of the documents furnished to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

7.The accused No.1 to 6 are examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge U/Sec.354-A IPC against accused No.1 and charge U/Sec. 506 r/w 34

IPC against accused No.1 to 6 was framed by my predecessor of the Court which was read over and explained to them in Telugu under Section 240(2) Cr.P.C.

After having understood the same, the accused No.1 to 6 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

9.On completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused No.1 to 6 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied.

On behalf of the accused No.1 to 6, no oral evidence is adduced and no documents are marked.

10.Heard both sides.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

PW1 to PW3 coupled with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P6 have established the guilt of the accused No.1 to 6 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused No.1 to 6 are liable to be punished for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C.

4 C.C.No.985/2021ASJ,NDK.

The learned counsel for accused No.1 to 6 argued that the accused

No.1 to 6 are innocent, there are several contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. Without investigating the matter in a scientific manner, the police filed a false charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 6 and hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 6 beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused No.1 to 6 are entitled for acquittal.

11.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing

the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offence U/Sec.354-A IPC and accused

No.2 to 6 for the offence U/Sec.506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

12.In this case, the prosecution examined the defacto-complainant as P.W.1 and P.W.2 who is the mother of the P.W.1. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 were totally gave go bye to the case of the prosecution. Finding this non-cooperation the

Learned Asst., Public Prosecutor posed the leading questions to their own witnesses in order to elicit the incriminating evidence against the accused No.1 to 6 but nothing was elicited except marking of signature of P.W.1 i.e. Ex.P1 on the report and their earlier statements recorded by Police under Section 161(3) of

Cr.P.C. before the Police is marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.

13.The P.W.3 is one of the Investigating Officer who is the then Sub Inspector of Police to Jupadu Bunglow P.S. He deposed in his chief-examination that on 18-04-2021 at 17.00 hours, ASI-2292, (LW7-C.Jayanna) was register the case in

Crime No.110/2021 U/S. 354(A), 506 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C. against the accused

No.1 to 6 he send FIR copies to all the concerned authorities and as well as to the Hon’ble JFCM Court Nandikotkur and that on 19.04.2021, P.W.3, took up investigation from the ASI LW7 and examined the P.W.1, P.W.2 and L.W.3-

M.Ravi, and recorded their statements and then he proceeded to scene of offence and drawn rough sketch and on the next day i.e. on 22-04-2021, he arrested accused No.2,4 and 5 at Parumanchala Cross-roads, outskirts of

Thangadancha Village and brought accused to the police station and handed over to Sentry PC No.2133 and said information of their arrest was given to the son of the accused No.2 and on the same day P.W.3 produced the accused No.2

before the Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court after considering the material

5 C.C.No.985/2021ASJ,NDK.

and orally instructed him to follow the procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

accordingly he issued notices to Accused No.2, 4 and 5 and that on 22-04-2021 and on 27-04-2021 he got issued notices U/S.41-A Cr.P.C. to the Accused No.1, 3 and 6 and that on 23-04-2021 he examined, L.W.4-I.Jashuva, L.W.5-I.Satish

Kumar and L.W.6-M.Chinna Babu and recorded their statements and thereafter he made a requisition to the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur to record the statement of victim U/S.164 Cr.P.C. and after completion of his investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 6.

During his cross-examination, P.W.3 denied that P.W.1 never gave any report to L.W.7-C.Jayanna, ASI and he never recorded the statements of P.W.1,

P.W.2 and L.Ws.3 to 6 and L.W.7-C.Jayanna at the instance of the village elders issued a false FIR against accused No.1 to 6 and that the accused No.1 to 6 never committed any offence as alleged by him in the charge sheet and that he is deposing false and he never visited the scene of offence and the entire investigation said to be done by him is false and erroneous and accused No.1 to 6 are no way concerned with the above offence.

14.After analysis of evidence and marshaling of facts what emerges clear is that the P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the interested witnesses as they belongs to one family. The case of prosecution is that the accused No.1 who got acquaintance with the P.W.1, used to make phone calls to her father-in-law. Added to this the evidence of the Investigating officer is also clear that the P.W.1 at the time of lodging the complaint and also at the time of recording of her statement, did not state the fact that she informed the acts of the accused No.1 to her husband.

Thus when the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is clubbed together what emerges clear is that the P.W.1 and her family members did not inform the acts of the accused No.1 to the husband of the P.W.1. The prosecution as per the charge sheet has narrated a series of incidents with regard to the acts of the accused

No.1 to 6 attacked the P.W.1 and her family and Accused No.1 pulled her hand and tried to outrage her modesty and due to which disputes arose with her husband. In the absence of any supporting evidence it creates a doubt regarding the acts of the accused No.1 to 6 acted against the P.W.1 effecting her modesty.

On the other hand the entire case of prosecution revolves upon the issue that the accused No.1 had made phone calls to the father-in-law of P.W.1 and that the 6 C.C.No.985/2021ASJ,NDK.

entire episode which alleged to have effect the modesty of the P.W.1. In this aspect the testimony of the P.W.1 is clear that the accused were never visited her parents house, hence absolutely there is no record before the Court to show that the accused No.1 and his family members i.e. accused No.2 to 6 had threaten the

P.W.1 and her family members and outrage the modesty of P.W.1.

15.Basing on sole evidence of P.W.3-Investigating Officer, accused No.1 to 6 cannot be convicted which may leads to miscarriage of justice unless there is sufficient other corroborating evidence in support of his evidence. Therefore, on perusal of the record absolutely there is no incriminating evidence established by the prosecution against the accused, which is deposed by the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2.

16.Hence after agglomeration of evidence in view of the discussion made supra, as there is no single piece of incriminating evidence available on record against the accused No.1 to 6 for the accusation leveled against them, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 6 beyond reasonable doubt, accordingly the POINT is answered in favour of the accused No.1 to 6.

17.In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.354(A) IPC and the accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec. 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 6 shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of this judgment as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

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

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-M.Indira Priyadarsini

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : Kokkayyagari Aiswarya ---- None ----

P.W.2 : Kokkayyagari Jayamma 7 C.C.No.985/2021ASJ,NDK.

P.W.3 : P.Thirupalu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on report.

Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P4 : Report given by P.W.1.

Ex.P5 : First Information Report in Cr.No.110/2021 of Jupadu Bunglow

P.S.

Ex.P6 : Rough sketch of scene of offence.

FOR DEFENCE: ---- NIL ----

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/-M.Indira Priyadarsini

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur.

// TRUE COPY //

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur.

8 C.C.No.985/2021ASJ,NDK.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by Smt M.Indira Priyadarsini, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur.

Date of Offence: 18-04-2021

Date of Report or Complaint: 18-04-2021

Date of Apprehension of accused : 22-04-2021(A2, A4 & A5) 27-04-2021(A1, A3 & A6)

Date of Commencement of trial: 17-10-2024

Date of Close of trial: 21-10-2024

Date of sentence of Order: 24-10-2024

Explanation of delay and remarks : Due to non-production of Prosecution witnesses in time.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.985 of 2021 on the file of the Asst.Sessions

Judge, Nandikotkur.

(Since this case is counter case of the S.C.No.160/2021, the Hon’ble District and Sessions Court, Kurnool is pleased to made over and transferred to this Court as per the proceedings in Tr.Crl.M.P.No.758/2021 dt.02-02-2022, to try simultaneously along with S.C.No.160/2021 to dispose according to Law.) 1.Madavaram Anil Kumar S/o.Swamy Dasu, aged 23 years, 2.Madavaram Swamy Dasu S/o.Gajjalanna, aged 54 years, 3.Madavaram Chennamma W/o.Swamy Dasu, aged 45 years, 4.Madavaram Robert @ Kumar S/o.Swamy Dasu, aged 26 years, 5.Onamula Prasanth S/o.Swamulu, aged 23 years, 6.Onamula Chinna Chennamma W/o.Swamulu, aged 42 years, All are resident of Parumanchala Village, Jupadu Bungalow Mandal.…Accused

Offence: U/Sec.354-A, 506 r/w 34 IPC

Plea of accused : Not guilty

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence: In the result, this Court found the accused

No.1 not guilty for the offence U/Sec.354(A) IPC and the accused No.2 to 6 not 9 C.C.No.985/2021ASJ,NDK.

guilty for the offence U/Sec.506 r/w 34 IPC, thereby they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment.

Sd/-M.Indira Priyadarsini

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur. Copies submitted to:

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

// TRUE COPY //

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur.

10 C.C.No.985/2021ASJ,NDK.

As per orders of the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Tr.Crl.M.P.No.758/2021 dt.02-02-2022, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur transmitted the entire case record in C.C.No.985/2021 to this Court on 10-02- 2022. This Calendar Case is counter case of S.C.No.160/2021.

1

HMOP No.22/2024 CJ (SD), NDK.

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

NANDIKOTKUR

Present: Smt M. Indira Priyadarsini

Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur

Tuesday, the 22nd day of October, 2024

H.M.O.P.No.22/2024

Between:

1. Ediga Venkata Ramana Goud

S/o.Ediga Jayanna Goud, Hindu, aged 29 years, Medical Representative,

R/o.Door No.15-746, Maruthi Nagar,

Nandikotkur town and mandal,

Nandyal District.

2. Smt Kancherla Padmaja

W/o.Ediga Venkata Ramana Goud

D/o Kancherla Chinna Babu, Hindu, aged 28 years, House-woman,

Now R/o.Thimmapuram Village,

Mahanandi Mandal, Nandyal District.…Petitioners -And- Nil …Respondent

This petition is coming on this day, i.e.,21-10-2024 on for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri T.Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate for the

petitioner No.1 and Sri S.Maddaiah, Advocate for the petitioner No.2 and upon hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material available on record, and having been stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following:

ORDER

This petition, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is filed by the petitioners No.1 and 2, seeking grant of a decree of divorce on mutual consent for dissolution of the marriage, dt.28-05-2021 between the petitioners No.1 & 2.

2

HMOP No.22/2024 CJ (SD), NDK.

2. The main averments in the petition, in brief, is as follows:-

The petitioners No.1 and 2 averred that they are wedded to each other and their marriage between them was solemnized, on 28-05-2021 at

Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Maruthi Nagar, Nandikotkur town, Nandyal

District, in the presence of relatives, friends and well wishers as per Hindu

Rites and Customs and it is an arranged marriage and that they have no issued and after the marriage petitioner No.2 joined the society of petitioner

No.1 at her in-law’s house at Nandikotkur town, Nandyal District.

They further averred that, they led happy marital life for six months only and differences and disputes stated between them and due to marital discord, they were unable to lead a happy marital life with each other and due to frequent quarreling developed, hatred, and thereby developed into an embittered relationship between them and they could not reconcile the differences and patch up for leading a happy marital life but their ties were worsented due to incompatibility, as such the petitioner No.2 has returned, to her parents house in second week of July, 2022, and at this juncture the friends and well wishers intervened and tried to reconcile the differences but, was of no avail and hence they have been living separately since the second week of July, 2022.

They further averred that, due to the marital discord their careers were also being affected and since their differences are irreconcilable they have finally decided to dissolve their marriage, so that they can start a new life of their own and they are constrained to file the petition after having exhausted all the methods to resolve their irreconcilable differences and to avoid acrimony between them in future and in view of the amicable settlement arrived between both of them in the presence of their parents as they hereby agreed that they have no claims and counter claims of whatsoever nature against each other i.e. under the provision of Indian Penal Code, Dowry

Prohibition Act, Hindu Marriage Act, Domestic Violence Act. Further no claim of maintenance, and they have also agreed that they should not have any claim whatsoever against each other, in future in any manner and that no articles or valuables of the petitioner No.2, are with the petitioner No.1 and his family and similarly no articles or valuables of petitioner No.1 are with petitioner No.2 and her family. The petitioners 1 and 2 further averred 3

HMOP No.22/2024 CJ (SD), NDK.

that they declare that there is no collusion between them in filing the petition, seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. Hence,the petition.

3. On behalf of the petitioners, the first petitioner was examined as

P.W.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.3 are marked on his behalf. Ex.P.1 is the Original

Wedding Card and Ex.P.2 is the Original Marriage Photographs four in number with CD and Ex.P3 is the original marriage certificate dt.17-12-2022 andthe second petitioner was examined as P.W.2 and no documents were marked on her behalf.

4.Heard and perused the records.

5.The point for consideration is, whether the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act as prayed for ?

POINT:

6.As per the contention of petitioners 1 and 2, their marriage was performed on 28-05-2021, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs and they lead happy marital life, for six months only and during their wedlock they have no issues.During the course of marriage journey, due to frequent quarrel, hatredness developed between them and thereby developed into an embittered relationship and due to the marital discard their careers are also being effected and since their differences are irreconcilable and finally they decided to dissolve their marriage and that they can start a new life of their own.

7.Further, since second week of July, 2022 the petitioners 1 and 2 are living separately. So, they decided to take divorce mutually through process of Law from the Hon'ble court and that they have filed the present petition, jointly for getting divorce.

8.On careful perusal of the record, the marriage between the parties was performed on 28-05-2021 and since second week of July, 2022 they were living separately. On 21-08-2024 the present petition is filed before this 4

HMOP No.22/2024 CJ (SD), NDK.

Hon’ble court with a request to dissolve their marriage through the Hon’ble

Court, by way of granting mutual decree of divorce. On 20-09-2024 the petitioners 1 and 2 filed a petition in I.A.No.228/2024 and prayed the Hon’ble

Court to waive the six months mandatory period, and to consider the above main HMOP petition. After hearing, the matter this court allowed the petition in I.A.No.228/2024 and case was advanced to 20-03-2025 and permitted the petitioners 1 and 2, to proceed with the main HMOP, by waiving the six months mandatory period, as prayed for by them.

9.This court observed that since second week of July, 2022 the petitioners 1 and 2 are living separately due to their misunderstandings and despite efforts for their conjugation, there are no chances of reunion between them. Therefore, both the petitioners 1 and 2 are entered into mutual divorce agreement and as both the parties are living separately, since second week of July, 2022. As nearly two years three months the parties are living separately, and they sought for granting decree of divorce on mutual consent and since both the parties jointly sought for grant of decree of mutual divorce, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to grant divorce, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Accordingly, the point is answered, in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed by granting a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioners No.1 and 2 on mutual consent, that took place on 28-05-2021. No costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 22 nd day of October, 2024.

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

NANDIKOTKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

P.W.1:Ediga Venkata Ramana Goud

P.W.2:Kancherla Padmaja

FOR RESPONDENT: -None-

5

HMOP No.22/2024 CJ (SD), NDK.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

Ex.P.1 :Original Wedding Card.

Ex.P.2 :Original Marriage Photographs four in number with CD.

Ex.P3 :Original marriage certificate dt.17-12-2022.

FOR THE RESPONDENT: NIL

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Nandikotkur.

1 S.O.P. No.01/2024 SCJ, NDK

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION),

NANDIKOTKUR

Present: Smt. M. Indira Priyadarsini,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandikotkur

Wednesday, the 16th day of October, 2024

Succession Original Petition No.1 of 2024

1. Segireddy Maddileti Reddy S/o Late Segireddy Krishna Reddy,

Aged 47 years, Hindu, Agriculturist,

R/o.H.No.2-104/b, Thudicherla village,

Jupadu Bunglow mandal, Nandyal District.

2. Regati Narsamma @ Segireddy Narasamma

W/o Raga Reddy D/o.S.Krishna Reddy, aged 44 years,

Hindu, Housewife, R/o.Thudicherla Village,

Jupadu Bunglow mandal, Nandyal District.

Now residing at her in-laws house at Bethamcherla village and mandal, Nandyal District.

3. Segireddy Rangamma W/o.S.Krishna Reddy, aged 64 years, Hindu, widow, r/o.H.No.2-104/b,

Thudicherla village, Jupadu Bunglow mandal,

Nandyal District.… Petitioners

Versus

NIL…Respondents

This petition is coming on 14-10-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.Vijaya Kumar and Kum C.Priyanka, Advocate for the petitioners 1 to 3, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

ORDER

1. This Succession Original Petition is filed by the petitioners 1 to 3 under sections 372 and 376 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking

Succession Certificate in their favour for authorizing to get above death benefits of Late Shegireddy Krishna Reddy from the LIC policy amount and for costs.

2 S.O.P. No.01/2024 SCJ, NDK

2.The case of the petitioners 1 to 3 is that:

The first petitioner is the son of late Shegireddy Krishna Reddy, the second petitioner is the daughter and the third petitioner is the second wife after death of first wife of the said Shegireddy Krishna Reddy and the said late Shegireddy Krishna Reddy during his life time he took a policy in Life

Insurance Corporation of India, Cuddapah Division for a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- on 20-05-2003 bearing the policy No.653271445 and the date of commencement on 28-04-2003, due date and mode of payment 28 July, installment premium payable Rs.25,319/- proposal number date 20-05-2003, age of life assured 26 years and subsequently the said S.Krishna Reddy died on 30-06-2021 leaving behind him the said petitioners as his legal heirs and further the said S.Krishna Reddy intestated anything about the said policy amount to anybody to receive the said amount and died on 30-06- 2021 and the said S.Krishna Reddy paid the policy premium amount from the date of the commencement of the policy till his death 30-06-2021 and subsequently the said legal heirs of the said S.Krishna Reddy paid the remaining policy premium to the said Insurance company and so the petitioners are only entitled to receive the said policy amount of the said Late

S.Krishna Reddy. Hence, the petitioners 1 to 3 prayed the Hon’ble Court to grant Succession Certificate in their favour for authorizing to get death benefits of Late Shegireddy Krishna Reddy from the LIC policy amount and for costs. Hence, the petition.

3.After registering the Succession Original Petition publication was ordered and the same was filed, none were came forward to oppose the claim of the petitioners 1 to 3 in respect of the petition schedule property.

4.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled for issuance of Succession Certificate as prayed for “?

5.To prove the case of the petitioners, the first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and got exhibited, Exs.P1 to P7. Ex.P1 is the bond issued by Life

Insurance Corporation of India, Cuddapah division dt. 28-04-2003 for

Rs.5,00,000/- bearing policy No.653271445, Ex.P2 is the Death Certificate of Late Shegireddy Krishna Reddy dt.30-06-2021, Registrar (Birth and 3 S.O.P. No.01/2024 SCJ, NDK

Death), Government General Hospital, Kurnool, Ex.P3 is the Family Member

Certificate issued by the Mandal Tahsildar, Jupadu Bunglow, dt.13-08-2021,

Ex.P4 is the Aadhar card of the Late Shegireddy Rama Krishna Reddy,

Ex.P5 is the Aadhar Card of petitioner No.1 by name S.Maddileti Reddy,

Ex.P6 is the Aadhar card of petitioner No.2 by name R.Narasamma and

Ex.P7 is the Aadhar card of petitioner No.3 by name S.Rangamma.

6.Heard and perused the records.

7.Point :

Upon perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P1 to P7, the

LIC policy bond issued by the Cuddapah division for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- bearing No.653271445, dt.28-04-2003 in favour of Late Segireddy Krishna

Reddy who is the father of petitioners No.1 and 2 and husband of petitioner

No.3 and Ex.P2 established the death of the deceased Shegireddy Krishna

Reddy dt.30-06-2021, Ex.P3 is the Family Member Certificate of deceased

Shegireddy Krishna Reddy issued by the Mandal Tahsildar, Jupadu Bunglow

dated 13-08-2021 which reveals that the petitioners 1 to 3 are the son,

daughter and second wife of deceased Shegireddy Krishna Reddy, Ex.P4 is the Aadhar card of Late S. Ramakrishna Reddy and Exs.P5 to P7 which are

Aadhar cards of the petitioners 1 to 3 which establishes that the deceased

S.Krishna Reddy is father of petitioners 1 and 2 and husband of petitioner

No.3.

The Ex.P2 shows that the original policy holder deceased Krishna

Reddy is died and Ex.P2 establishes his death, Ex.P3 family member certificate, Exs.P5 to P7 shows that the petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased S.Krishna Reddy. None came forward to oppose the claim of the petitioners 1 to 3.

Hence, basing on the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documents mentioned above, it can be said that, the petitioners 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of deceased Krishna Reddy.

8.In view of the unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documents Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Exs.P5 to P7, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled to issue Succession 4 S.O.P. No.01/2024 SCJ, NDK

Certificate. Accordingly the point is answered.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed by granting succession certificate in favour of petitioners 1 to 3, on payment of requisite stamp duty.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16 th day of October, 2024.

CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION),

NANDIKOTKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS

P.W.1- Segireddy Maddileti Reddy None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.P1 :LIC policy bond issued by the Cuddapah division for a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- bearing No.653271445, dt.28-04-2003 in favour of Late

Segireddy Krishna Reddy who is the father of petitioners No.1 and 2 and husband of petitioner No.3.

Ex.P2 :Death Certificate of Late Segireddy Krishna Reddy dt.30-06-2021,

Registrar (Birth and Death), Government General Hospital, Kurnool.

Ex.P3 :Family Member Certificate of Segireddy Krishna Reddy issued by the

Mandal Tahsildar, Jupadu Bunglow, dt.13-08-2021.

Ex.P4 :Aadhar card of the Late Segireddy Rama Krishna Reddy.

Ex.P5 :Aadhar Card of petitioner No.1 by name S.Maddileti Reddy.

Ex.P6 :Aadhar card of petitioner No.2 by name S.Narasamma.

Ex.P7 :Aadhar card of petitioner No.3 by name S.Rangamma.

FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL.

CJ(SD), NDK.