Smt. M. Kanaka Durga

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT ASIFABAD

Present:- Smt.M.Kanaka Durga, Assistant Sessions Judge, Asifabad

THURSDAY THIS THE 5th DAY OF MARCH 2020

S.C.No. 200 of 2015

(On committal by Sri Ch.Jithendhar, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bellampally in P.R.C.No. 39 of 2015 dated 16.10.2015 in Cr.No. 33 of 2015 of Police Station,Devapur)

Name of the Complainant The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Devapur.

Name of the AccusedPoreddy Krishna Reddy, s/o.Veera Malla Reddy, age 61 years,occ:Lorry driver, r/o.Near Madikonda bus-stand, Hanamkonda of Warangal district.

Offences alleged against 307 of I.P.C. the accused

Plea of the AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the Court:Not guilty

Order of sentence or : Accused is found not guilty of the acquittal offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. and he is acquitted for the same under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months. MO1 and MO2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 27.02.2020 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri T.Suresh, Advocate for defence and having heard and stood over for determination till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Devapur town filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.307 of I.P.C. in

Cr.No.33 of 2015.

2.The brief facts the prosecution case are that on 03.05.2015 at 10.30 a.m., PW1-Arif Khan lodged a Telugu written report stating that on 2 03.05.2015 at about 9.00 a.m., while he was sitting in his lorry, noticed the accused followed PW2-Sk.Imran from the side of Jallu hotel and they caught hold of the accused and asked him as to what happened, but he did not reply and escaped from his clutches and fled away, further PW1 found PW2 with injuries over his throat. When PW1 enquired with the injured, he told him that about (4) months back, altercation occurred and to-day while he was sipping a tea in the hotel, the accused came there took the knife from his shirt pocket and cut his throat with an intention to kill him. Immediately, PW1 referred the injured to the company hospital and thereafter, he lodged report.

3.On the basis of the report of PW1, PW9-K.Swamy, Sub-Inspector of

Police registered a case in Cr.No.33 of 2015 under section 307 of I.P.C., examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and injured PW2, seized the blood stained cloths of the injured under cover of panchanama in the presence of PW5-Md.Rahman Ali and LW6-Podeti Narayana. Further, PW9 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence in the presence of PW6-Hydher Khan and LW8-Burla Prabhakar, and drafted

Crime Details Forma and rough sketch of scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses. On 07.05.2015 at 11.00 a.m., PW9 along-with his men rushed to the auto stand at Devapur and apprehended the accused and the accused and recorded his confession statement in the presence of mediators PW7-B.Venkati and

Pw8-M.Narayana and seized M.O.2 knife under cover of panchanama and effected his arrest after informing the grounds of arrest and produced him before the Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

3

4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bellampally took cognizance of the offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. against the accused and registered the same as P.R.C.No. 39 of 2015. After following the procedure prescribed by law, furnished the copies of documents under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. to the accused, he has committed the case by an order to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Adilabad. Later, the Hon'ble Sessions Court, in turn, registered it as S.C.No.200 of 2015 and made over it to this Court for disposal according to law.

5.After hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, the accused was examined under Sec.228 Cr.P.C. and a charge for the offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. was framed against him, the contents of the same were read over and explained to him in

Telugu language, who has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P18 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 are marked. PW1-

Md.Areef is the defacto-complainant, PW2-Sk.Imran is the injured, PW3-

Syed Jiyanul and PW4-Md.Mujaheed are the alleged eye witnesses to the incident, PW5-Md.Rahman is panch for seizure of blood stained shirt (MO1) of injured, PW6-Hydher Khan is panch for Crime Details Form,

PW70B.Venkati and PW8-Mora Narayana are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama of accused and PW9-K.Swamy is the

Investigating Officer.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating material found against him. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

4

8.Heard both sides.

The point for consideration is, (1). Whether the accused attacked PW2-Sk.Imran Pasha with a knife and caused injuries to him with an intention to kill them on 03.05.2015 at 9.00 a.m. at Devapur and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.307 of I.P.C?

(2). Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

9.The case of the prosecution is that keeping in view of old grudges in mind, the accused attacked PW2-Imran Pasha with M.O.2 knife and caused injuries to him over his throat with an intention to kill them. In order to prove the same, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW19. PW1-

Areef Khan is the defacto-complainant. He deposed that himself, accused and PW2 went to take tea on 03.05.2015 and after taking tea, he went to his lorry and sat down and after (20) minutes, he went to

Devapur company hospital after knowing the fact that PW2 sustained injuries over his neck. He specifically deposed that he do not know how

PW2 sustained injuries.

10.PW2-Shaik Imran Pasha is the injured and a material witness in this case. He deposed that on 03.05.2015 at about9.30 a.m., he was present in the lorry yard, at that time, suddenly somebody came behind him and attacked him with a knife, but he did not see the person who caused injury to him on his neck. Soon after receipt of injury, he fell down unconscious and he does not know what happened and some of the drivers who were present, shifted him to Karimnagar hospital and he do not know who gave complaint to the Police. Thus, the evidence of 5 the injured is no way help to prove the case that accused caused injuries to PW2. PW3-Syed Jyanula Musthaffa and PW4-Mohd.Muzahid are the alleged eye witnesses to the incident. Both of these witnesses deposed that they do not know anything about this case and on receipt of notices from the Police, they came to the Court. Except this, they did not state anything against the accused. Thus all the material witnesses in this case PW1 to PW4 turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. In the cross-examination of learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, PW1 to PW4 denied to have stated before

the Police as in Exs.P2 to P4 respectively.

11.PW5-Md.Rahman Ali is the panch witness for seizure of blood stained shirt (MO1) of injured. He deposed that Police never seized blood stained shirt from the possession of injured. He deposed that about five years back, while he was coming back from company, Police called him and asked him to sign on a white paper and accordingly, he signed on it. PW6-Hyder Khan is the panch witness for Crime Details

Form. He deposed that about five years back, Police obtained his signature when he went o take tea near the hotel at Devapur and asked him to sign on a paper drafted by them.

12.PW7-B.Venkati and PW8-M.Narayana are the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama of accused. PW7 and PW8 both have deposed similarly that about five years back, Police came to them and asked them to sign while they were in auto stand and accordingly they made signatures and that accused never confessed anything before them. Thus, all the independent mediators, except identifying their signatures, they did not state anything about conducting of panchanama and seizure of M.O.1 and M.O2. in their presence. As such, the evidence of PW5 to P8 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

6

13. PW9-K.Swamy, is the Investigating Officer in this case, he deposed that on receipt of requisition from PW1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.33 of 2015 under section 307 of I.P.C., examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and rushed to the company hospital, examined and recorded the statement of PW2 and seized the blood stained shirt (MO1) of injured in the presence of mediators PW5 and LW6-P.Narayana PW9 visited the scene of offence, prepared Crime Details Form and rough sketch and on 07.05.2015, he along-with his staff proceeded to the auto stand and apprehended the accused and the accused admitted his guilt in the presence of mediators PW8 and PW9 and in pursuance of his confession, PW9 seized M.O.2 knife from the possession of accused and effected the arrest of accused after informing the grounds of arrest and produced him before the Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, PW9 filed charge-sheet. Thus, though the Investigating

Officer deposed about the line of investigation done by him, his evidence is not at all corroborated with any of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as such, the evidence of PW9 cannot be believed without there being any corroboration from other witnesses.

14.At the outset on perusal of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the injuries sustained by PW2 is not proved by the prosecution. None of the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution in this case. Though the Investigating Officer deposed about his role in this case, but his evidence is not at all corroborated as all the material witnesses turned hostile and not supported its case in any manner and it shows that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

7

15.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. and he is acquitted for the same under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months. MO1 and MO2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5 th day of March 2020.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ASIFABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For Prosecution:-For Defence:-

PW1: Md.Areef P1W2: Sk.Imran 1PW3: Syed Jiyanul 1PW4: Md.Mujaheed PW5: Md.Rahman PW6: Hydher Khan PW7: B.Venkati PW8: Mora Narayana PW9: K.Swamy (Investigating Officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

For Prosecution:- For Defence:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the report Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P6: Signature of PW5 on seizure panchanama Ex.P7: Signature of PW6 on Crime Details Form Ex.P8: Signature of PW7 on confession panchanama Ex.P9: Signature of PW7 on recovery panchanama Ex.P10: Signature of PW8 on confession panchanama Ex.P11: Signature of PW8 on recovery panchanama Ex.P12: Report Ex.P13: First Information Report 8

Ex.P14: Crime Details Form Ex.P15: Rough sketch Ex.P16: Seizure Panchanama Ex.P17: F.S.L. report Ex.P18: Medical Certificate

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: Blood stained shirt of injured MO2: Knife

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ASIFABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: ASIFABAD

PRESENT:- Smt.M.KANAKA DURGA,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ASIFABAD.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 15 TH DAY OF MAY 2020

R.C.A.No.1 of 2019

Between:

Gopichand Katiyar, s/o.Tekchand, age 46 years, occ:Business, Prop.of Readymade Garments, Malgi No.1.1.162, R.K.Road, Kaghaznagar. …Appellant /respondent AND

1. Sheshojwala Rajesh, s/o.Shanker, age 25 years, r/o.Mahdevpur village and mandal, district Karimnagar.

2. Sheshojwala Mahesh, s/o.Shanker, age 15 years, r/o.Mahdevpur village and mandal, district Karimnagar.

3. Sheshojwala Shanker, s/o.Rajanna, age 58 years, r/o.Mahdevpur village mandal, district Karimnagar. … Respondents/petitioner

On Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by the

Learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur-T in R.C.C.No.1 of 2012 dated

25.04.2018

Between:

1. Sheshojwala Rajesh

2. Sheshojwala Mahesh

3. Sheshojwala Shanker …Petitioners/Landlords

AND

Gopichand Katiyar ….respondent/Tenant

This Rent Control appeal is coming upon before me for final hearing on 13.05.2020 in the presence of Sri T.Suresh, Advocate for the appellant and the respondent remained exparte, after hearing and perusing the material on record till this day, this court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is an appeal preferred by the respondent/Respondent-Tenant against the decree and judgment passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge,

Sirpur-T in R.C.C.No.1 of 2012 dated 25.04.2018.

2

2.The appellant contends that the Judgment and decree under appeal is against law, justice and record of the file and that the lower Court grossly erred in allowing the petition without appreciating the evidence on record which is illegal and worth to be set-aside. It is further contended that the lower Court grossly erred in holding that the appellant is not disputing the ownership of respondents herein over the petition schedule premises and that the petitioners are not residents of

Kaghaznagar and they are residing at Mahadevapur of Maharashtra State.

The appellant also contended that the lower Court grossly erred in holding that the respondents herein have made out bonafide requirement to occupy the petition schedule premises for establishment of business in the schedule premises; that as a matter of fact, the appellant herein is doing cloth business since long time and at no point of time, the appellant committed default in payment of rent and moreover this appellant as per the demand, paid extra amount as the respondents herein were in need and the and there was no bonafide requirement for the respondents herein to evict the appellant from the suit premises. As a matter of fact, the respondents herein not made out any bonafide requirement and therefore, they are not entitled for any relief as prayed for by them in the petition and prayed this Court to allow this appeal by setting-aside the judgment and decree of the lower Court.

3.The brief facts of the case as set-out in R.C.C..No.1 of 2012 are that the respondents herein are the owners of the petition schedule premises which is a double storied building and a non-residential building. The petition schedule premises is leased out to the appellant herein on 20.08.2003 for carrying his business on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-.

3

The appellant/tenant paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- to the respondent no.3 herein towards advance and the tenancy was oral and its monthly tenancy was renewable with mutual consent and the respondents delivered the possession to the appellant herein. That the health the respondent no.3 herein was not able to manage the affairs of his family, as such, the respondent no.3 gifted the petition schedule premises jointly to respondent no.1 and 2 through a registered gift deed vide Doc.No.2803 of 2005 dated 21.11.2005 making Diguva Radhamma, who is their maternal grandmother as guardian and the same was informed to the appellant/tenant, who agreed to pay the rent to said guardian Diguva

Radhamma. But, the appellant did not pay the agreed rent and on the other hand, he was trying to perpetuate his tenancy and also coercing the respondents to alienate the petition schedule premises in his favour by filing false cases and by claiming false amount, as such, the respondents got issued a notice on 14.05.2007 terminating monthly tenancy and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule house. The appellant got issued an evasive reply. The respondents also filed a case in

O.S.No.37 of 2007 directing the tenant to deliver vacant possession of

petition schedule premises before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur, but though the said suit was decreed, the same cannot be executable as there is a prohibition in A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control

Act 1960.

4.On the other hand, the appellant herein contended before the lower

Court that the appellant had paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- as per lease agreement executed on 20.08.2003. The appellant-tenant used to pay 4 rent regularly, sometimes directly to the landlord and some times through money order. The wife of the respondent No.3, by name, LateDurga bai along-with respondent no.3 requested the tenant to give Rs.40,000/- in addition to earlier deposited amount for their personal needs, as such, the appellant herein had paid an amount of Rs.40,000/-, thus, the appellant-tenant paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- to the respondents.

Further, the respondent no.3 also obtained an amount of Rs.70,000/- from the tenant to perform the last rites of his wife, as such, the respondent- tenant paid an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. The respondent no.3 also executed a pronote in favour of appellant on 09.11.2004. Thereafter, the appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2006 before the Senior Civil Judge,

Asifabad.

5.The appellant further contends that he is running cloth store under the name and style of Roshini cloth stores, which is only source of livelihood for him and his family and that he paid an amount of

Rs.1,60,000/- and he also paid rent upto May 2013. The respondent- tenant paid the rents regularly to the petitioners therein. On 25.01.2012,the respondent no.3 received the rents for the period from 20.02.2011 to 20.01.2012 for Rs.18,000/-and as such, the respondent- tenant not at all due to pay any rent as alleged. The appellant further contended that the respondent no.1 has business in sandy and at present he is doing business at Mahadevpur and that the respondents never run any business in the suit premises and the respondents with a malafide intention to give the petition schedule premises to another person, filed the petition for eviction of appellant and to give the same to another person. The respondents are having their own residential house at 5

Tirandas Talkies road and as such, the respondents do not require the petition schedule premises and therefore, it is accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.During the course of trial before the lower Court, the landlord was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 on his behalf. On the other hand, the tenant was himself examined as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 to

R5 in support of his claim.

7.On the basis of the rival contentions and upon hearing both sides, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur-T allowed the petition, directing the tenant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the landlord within (3) months from the date of such order and further directed the landlords to repay advance amount of

Rs.90,000/- to the tenant at the time of delivery of possession.

Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the present appeal is filed.

8.This Court issued notices to the respondents and also publication was made, but the respondents did not choose to contest the case and since there was no representation, they were set-exparte on 03.07.2019.

9.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

10.Now the point that arise for determination is Whether the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur-T in R.C.C.No.1 of 2012 dated 25.04.2018 is liable to be set-aside?

6

11.It is the case of the appellant that the lower Court erred in appreciating the evidence on record and that there was no bonafide requirement for the respondents herein to occupy the petition schedule premises.

12.Though the respondents herein contested the case before the lower

Court, they did not choose to enter into appearance before this appellate

Court to disbelieve the contentions of the appellant herein. The appellant is not disputing the ownership of the respondents herein over the petition schedule premises. The respondents leased out the schedule premises to the appellant on 20.08.2003 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/. Admittedly, the appellant paid Rs.90,000/- to the respondents as a security deposit which shall be returnable whenever the tenant vacates the premises.

13.It is for the respondents to establish that there is a bonafide requirement of the petition schedule premises for themselves. The contention of the Landlords before the lower Court is that the tenant is a default in payment of rents to them and also that they have required the schedule premises for their personal use for running bangle business.

On perusal of documents which are marked before the lower Court as

Exs.R1 to R3, it is clear that there was no default in payment of the monthly rents as agreed to the landlords and the deposit of Rs.90,000/- is also with the landlords as on the date of filing of the suit. The contention of the landlords before the lower Court is that the tenant was trying to perpetuate his tenancy and also coercing the petitioners to alienate the premises in his favour by filing false cases and by claiming false amount, as such, they got issued notice to the tenant to deliver 7 vacant possession of premises in their favour. The landlord contention is that since the tenant filed false cases against the landlord, they wanted to take back the possession of the schedule premises, but not for their bonafide requirements. When the landlords claiming that the tenant filed false cases, they have to establish that the tenant filed false cases against them, but they did not choose to prefer any appeal against the judgment and decree (Ex.R4). It is also admitted by the landlord that the tenant deposited the arrears of rent in lower Court. The Landlord on one hand taken a plea that the tenant filed false case against them, as such, they issued notice to vacate the suit premises, and on the other hand, they state that the landlord require the premises to commence their business. Moreover, the landlord before this appellate Court, remained exparte, as such, the contention of the appellant cannot be discarded.

14.Under the above circumstances, it is clear that in order to evict the tenant from the suit premises, the landlord has establish either the tenant is a wilful defaulter or the suit premises is a bonafide requirement for the landlord. But, the landlord failed to establish any of the ingredients of section 10 of A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, as such, they are not entitled for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises and accordingly, this appellate Court is required to interfere with the

Judgment and decree of the lower Court to prevent miscarriage of justice.

15.IN THE RESULT, the appeal is allowed, by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur-T in

R.C.C.No.1 of 2012 dated 25.04.2018. No costs.

8

Typed to dictation to steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 15 th day of May, 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ASIFABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

NIL

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ASIFABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT ASIFABAD

Present:- Smt.M.Kanaka Durga, Assistant Sessions Judge, Asifabad

TUESDAY THIS THE 10th DAY OF MARCH 2020

S.C.No. 124 of 2015

(On committal by Smt.N.Hemalatha, Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad in P.R.C.No. 6 of 2014 dated 10.06.2015 in Cr.No. 190 of 2013 of Police Station, Asifabad)

Name of the Complainant The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Asifabad.

Name of the AccusedAthram Bheem Rao, s/o.Rajeshwar Rao, age 28 years, occ:Agriculture, r/o.Kowtaguda village, Asifabad.

Offences alleged against Under sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. the accused Plea of the AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the Court:Not guilty

Order of sentence or : Accused is found not guilty of the acquittal offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. and he is acquitted for the same under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 06.03.2020 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri G.Jagan Mohan Rao, Advocate for defence and having heard and stood over for determination till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Asifabad town filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. in Cr.No.190 of 2013.

2.The brief facts the prosecution case are that on 29.12.2013, the defacto-complainant Surpam Bheem Rao (PW1) lodged a Telugu written report before the Police, Asifabad stating that about (4) years back, the accused used to come to their village for hunting of wild animals and got friendship with his sister Pullubai in the name of love and eloped her to 2

Kowtaguda, as such, they performed the marriage of his sister Pullubai with the accused. The couple lead happy marital life and blessed with a child. Since three years, the accused started harassing his sister asking whether he wants his sister or not. On 29.12.2013 at about 0300 hrs., the deceased Pulla Bai committed suicide by consuming an insecticide poison at her residence at Kowtaguda village and the deceased was shifted to Suraksha hospital, Kaghaznagar, where she died. Thereafter, the dead body was shifted to Government Hospital, Asifabad. Further, it is stated in the report that due to harassment of the accused only, the deceased committed suicide.

3.On the basis of the report of PW1, PW11-A.Devidas, Additional Sub- inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.190 of 2013 under sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C., examined and recorded the statement of PW1.

Later, PW12-Md.Sadiq Pasha, Sub-Inspector of Police took-up further investigation, visited the Government Hospital, Asifabad, examined and recorded the statements other witnesses, got conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators viz., PW5-

Surpam Kanu, PW6-AthramChitru Bai and LW11-Surpam Chinnu Bai and got conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased. On 05.11.2014, the accused surrendered before PW13 and confessed his guilt. On that, PW12 effected the arrest of accused and produced him before the Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, PW11 filed charge-sheet against the accused.

4.After hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, the accused was examined under Sec.228 Cr.P.C. and charges for the offences punishable under sections 498-A 306 of I.P.C. were 3 framed against him, the contents of the same were read over and explained to him in Telugu language, who has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 to PW12 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P16 are marked. PW1 Surapm Bheem Rao is the defacto-complainant and sister of deceased, PW2-Surpam Sunder

Bai is the wife of PW1, PW3-Athram Bhagawanth Rao, PW4-Pendur

Shankar are the circumstantial witnesses, PW5-Surpam Kanu, PW6-

Athram Chitru bai and PW7-Sirpam Chinnu bai are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama, PW8-Gedam Bojji Rao is panch for Crime

Details Form, PW9-Vairagade Govind is the panch witnesses for confession panchanama of accused, PW10-Dr.Yadagiri is the Medical

Officer conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased, PW11-A.Devidas and PW12-Md.Sadiq Pasha are the

Investigating Officers.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating material found against him. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard both sides.

The point for considerations are, (1). Whether the accused subjected the deceased Athram Pullu bai to cruelty by harassing her physically and mentally and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C.?

(2). Whether the accused abetted the deceased Athram Pullu bai to commit suicide by harassing her physically and mentally and 4 thereby committed an offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C.?

(3). Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINTS:-

8.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Athram Pullu bai committed suicide due to harassment of accused both physically and mentally and abetted her to commit suicide. In order to prove the same, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW12. PW1-Athram Bheem Rao is the defacto-complainant and brother of deceased. He deposed that about (8) years back, his sister’s marriage was took place with the accused and they were blessed with a female child. He further deposed that about six years back, the deceased Pullu bai died, but he does not know the cause of death of the deceased. Except this, PW1 did not state anything about the case.

9.PW2-Surpam Sundara bai is the wife of PW1. She deposed that about (8) years back, the marriage of deceased was performed with the accused and about six years back, she died with stomach-ache and she does not know the cause of death of the deceased. PW3-Athram

Bhagawantha Rao and PW4-Pendur Shankar are the circumstantial witnesses. They deposed in similar that accused and deceased were blessed with a female child and they lived happily. They further deposed that about seven years back, Pullu bai died out of ill-health and they do not know the cause of death of the deceased. Thus, all the material witnesses PW1 to PW4 did not state anything about the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination of learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, PW1 to PW4 denied to have stated before the Police as in

Exs.P1 to P4 respectively.

5

10.PW5-Surpam Kanu, PW6-Athram Chithru bai and PW7-Athram

Chinnu bai are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama. They deposed that the deceased Pullu bai died about (7) years back, and on request of Police, they put their thumb impressions on the report drafted by the Police, but they do not know what was written in it. Thus, even the independent mediators for inquest also not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW8-Gedam Bojji Rao is panch for Crime

Details Form, PW9-G.Vinod is the panch witnesses for confession of accused. But, these two independent mediators also not supported the case of the prosecution, by deposing in similar manner that they signed on the report drafted by the Police, but they do not know the contents of the report.

11.PW10-Dr.Yadagiri is the Medical Officer. He deposed that on receipt of requisition from the Police, Asifabad, he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased Athram Pulla

Bai on 30.08.2013. He preserved viscera and sent the same to Forensic

Science Laboratory for analysis and report. After receipt of such report, he issued Ex.P11 final opinion that the cause of death of the deceased was due to insecticide poison due to consumption of organo photosphate. There is no dispute about the death of the deceased in this case.

12. PW11-A.Devidas is the Additional Sub-Inspector of Police. He deposed that he received a report from PW1, basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.190 of 2013 under sections 4980-A and 306 of I.P.C., examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and handed over the Case

Diary to PW12 for further investigation. PW12, visited the Government 6

Hospital, Asifabad, examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses, got conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators PW5 to PW7. On 17.02.2014, the accused surrendered before PW12 and confessed his guilt. On that PW12 effected the arrest of accused and produced him before the Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, PW11 filed charge- sheet against the accused. Thus, there is no evidence on record to believe the case of the prosecution except the evidence of the

Investigating Officer and the medical evidence. But, it is not safe to rely on their evidence to come to a conclusion that accused harassed the deceased physically and mentally and because of such harassment only, the deceased committed suicide.

13.At the outset on perusal of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, None of the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution in this case. Though the Medical Officer and the

Investigating Officer deposed about their role in this case, but their evidence is not at all corroborated as all the material witnesses turned hostile and not supported its case in any manner and it shows that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

14.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. and he is acquitted for the same under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10 th day of February 2020.

7

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ASIFABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For Prosecution:-For Defence:-

PW1: Surapm Bheem Rao PW2: Surpam Sunder Bai PW3: Athram Bhagawanth Rao PW4: Pendur Shankar PW5: Surpam Kanu PW6: Athram Chitru bai PW7: Sirpam Chinnu bai PW8: Gedam Bojji Rao PW9: Vairagade Govind PW10: Dr.Yadagiri PW11: A.Devidas PW12: Md.Sadiq Pasha

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

For Prosecution:- For Defence:

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P5: Signature of PW8 on Crime Details Form Ex.P6: Signature of LW12-Gedam Vasanth Rao on Crime Details Form Ex.P7: Signature of PW9 on confession panchanama of accused Ex.P8: Signature of LW15 (L.Janaki Rao) on confession panchanama Ex.P9: Postmortem examination report Ex.P10: Report of Forensic Science Laboratory Report Ex.P11: Final Opinion Ex.P12: First Information Report Ex.P13: Crime Details Form Ex.P14: Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P15: Confession panchanama of accused Ex.P16: Inquest panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ASIFABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ASIFABAD

Present:- Smt. M. Kanaka Durga,

Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad

TUESDAY, THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2020

O.S.No.16 of 2015

Between

Bala Santhosh, s/o.Late Naraharai, age 35 years, occ:Business, r/o.Old Bus stand, Bellampally, district Mancherial.

…Plaintif A N D

1. Keshetti Guru Charanam, s/o.Late Narsaiah, age 62 years, occ:Coconut business, r/o.Main road, old Bus-stand, Bellampally, district Mancherial.

2. Kashetti Rajamani, w/o.Guru Charanam, age 55 years, occ:House- wife, r/o.H.No.26-3-154, Radagambala Basthi, Bellampally, district Mancherial.

…Defendant No.1 and 2

This petition is coming on before me on 28.02.2020 in the presence of Sri T.Suresh, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri M.Suresh, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintif against defendant no.1 and 2 for recovery of Rs.4,21,500/- together with costs and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization.

2. The brief averments of the plaint, in brief, are that the plaintif is doing business and defendant no.1 is doing coconut business. Defendant no.2 is the wife of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 got acquaintance with the plaintif and there are cordial relations in between plaintif and defendant no.1. Out of such acquaintance, defendant no.1 approached the plaintif and requested him to advance an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs only) to meet his personal and family necessities. Then the plaintif paid the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs and 2 only) to the defendant no.1 on 05.03.2013. On receipt of such amount, defendant no.1 executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 1.5% per month.

Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor on behalf of defendant no.1 and she executed surety bond. Thereafter, the plaintif demanded the defendants, but they failed to repay the amount and dodged the matter on some pretext or the other. Having vexed with the attitude of the defendants, the plaintif filed the present suit.

3. On the other hand, defendant no.1 filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendant no.2. Defendant no.1 denied the contents mentioned in the plaint. Defendant no.1 contended that the plaintif and one Bala Santhosh, Renikuntla Srinivas, Kota Vijay Kumar,

Narendula Venu Gopal, Pulluru Venkateshwrlu and some others are running a chit unauthorizedly on behalf of Aarya Vyshya Yuvajana Sangham at

Bellampally. Narendula Venu Gopal is the Presisent, Renikuntla Srinivas is the Honorary is the President, Kota Vijay Kumar and the plaintif herein are the cashiers of the above said chit. Defendant no.1 herein joined the chit run by them for the value of RS.15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs only) on 01.03.2012 and regularly paid the premium amount for (12) months. In the thirteenth month, defendant no.1 participated in the chit auction and lifted the chit amount of Rs.10,00,000/- after deducting commission. At the time of said chit amount, the plaintif and the above said persons obtained the signatures of defendant no.1 and 2 on (5) blank proforma promissory notes. Thereafter also, defendant no.1 paid the premiums regularly upto 09.02.2015 and thereafter due to financial problems, defendant no.1 couldn ot pay the premium amount of the above said chit.

But, defendant no.12 herein several times approached the plaintif and the 3 above persons and sought time for payment of the above said balance amount. That, by seeing the financial stringencies and difficulties of defendant no.1, they agreed to extend the time for payment of the above said balance amount, but unfortunately, they did not stick on to their words but on the other hand, by taking undue advantage o the signatures of defendant no.1 and 2 on five (5) promissory notes, they filed the present suit.

4.Defendant no.1 also contended that the plaintif herein and the plaintifs in other cases who are the office bearers of Aarya Vyshya

Yuvajana Sangham, Bellampally who run the above said chit on behalf of the said Sangham, colluded with each other and by taking undue advantage of the signatures of defendant no.1 and 2 on five (5) blank promissory notes, filed the same as per their will and wish and filed five suits for recovery of the amounts by suppressing the real facts. Thus altogether, the defendant no.1 and 2 are due an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- (rupees five lakhs and fifty thousand only) towards balance amount of above chit run by the above said persons. The plaintif herein and the other plaintifs in other suits never paid any amount to the defendant no.1 individually and that the defendant no.1 never executed any promissory notes in their favour. The plaintifs filed the suits separately against the defendants with a malafide intention to grab the amounts from the defendants. Defendant no.1 and 2 are old aged pesons and they are not having any source of income and any property except the residential house. The defendant no.1 is ready to pay the above said balance amount of Rs.5,50,000/- by selling the above said house. Therefore, the defendant no.1 prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

4

5.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

(1). Whether the defendant had obtained loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) from the plaintif on 05.03.2015 and defendant no.2 stood as guarantor?

(2). Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

(3). To what relief?

6.In order to prove the case, the plaintif himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. On the other hand, the defendants failed to examine any witnesses on their behalf and no document is marked.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif.

Issue No.1 and 2:-

8.The plaintif in his chief affidavit reiterated the facts mentioned in his plaint. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note and Ex.A2 is the surety bond.

The defendant did not turn-up and not cross-examined the witness. The plaintif reported no further evidence and hence, posted the case for evidence of defendants. In spite of giving sufficient giving opportunity, the defendants did not adduce any evidence and hence, the defendants’ evidence was closed.

9.At the outset on perusal of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, it is proved that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs only) from the plaintif as hand loan and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintif and defendant no.2 stood as guarantor and executed Ex.A2 surety bond, but thereafter, the defendants failed to repay the amount, as such, the plaintif is entitled to recover the 5 suit amount from the defendants as prayed for. Hence, these two issues are settled in favour of the plaintif.

Issue No.3:-

10.In view of findings on issue no.1 and 2, the suit is liable to be decreed with costs.

11.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs. Defendant no.1 and 2 are jointly and liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,21,500/- (Rupees four lakhs twenty one thousand and five hundred only) together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only), to the plaintif.

Dictated to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this

the 3rd day of March 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ASIFABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFDEFENDANT

PW1: Bala Santhosh Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:-DEFENDANT

Ex.A1: Promissory note dated 05.03.2013 NIL

Ex.A2: Surety bond dated 05.03.2013.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ASIFABAD

E 6

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ASIFABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ASIFABAD

Present:- Smt. M. Kanaka Durga,

Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad

FRIDAY, THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2020

H.M.O.P.No.23 of 2019

Between

Arrala Sree Vidya, w/o.Shankar, age 22 years,occ:Nil, c/o.Thakur Manoher Singh, r/o.Wankidi, mandal Wankidi, district Kumrambheem-Asifabad.

…Petitioner A N D

Arrala Shankar, s/o.Rajaiah, age 30 years, occ:Worker in CFC, Wankidi, r/o.Wankidi, mandal Wankidi, district Kumrambheem-Asifabad.

…Respondent

This petition is coming on before me on 12.03.2020 in the presence of Sri M.Suresh, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri G.VS.Advocate for respondent and having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner against the respondent seeking decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the parties performed on 18.06.2015.

2. In the petition, it is stated that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Petitioner and respondent belong to different caste and they loved each other. On the direction of the respondent, on 18.06.2015, the petitioner accompanied the respondent to Mancherial without informing to her parents and their marriage was solemnized on 18.05.2015 and thereafter, they got registered their marriage on 20.06.2015 in Sub-

Registrar Office, Mancherial. After the marriage, the respondent kept the petitioner at the house of one Kondaiah who is his relative, where the couple lead marital life for a period of one month only. Thereafter, the respondent developed disliking the petitioner and started harassing her 2 physically and mentally. The respondent at the instigation of his parents and brother, used to torture the petitioner no.1 demanding dowry of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and the respondent beat the petitioner on many occasions for the sake of dowry. Respondent took the petitioner to his house at Wankidi and the petitioner conceived pregnancy. Though the parents of the petitioner requested the respondent to allow them to their house to see the petitioner, but the respondent never allowed them and threatened the petitioner and her parents to register a case under SC/ST atrocity act.

3.It is further contended that almost every day the respondent used to beat the petitioner mercilessly and he used to say that if the respondent marries another girl, he would have got Rs.4-00 to Rs.5-00 lakhs dowry.

While the petitioner was carrying 5th month pregnancy, her health condition became serious due to some gynic problems, but the respondent at the instigation of his parents, driven the petitioner from the house inhumanly.

As such, the petitioner went to her parents house and gave birth to a female child and the entire charges were incurred by the parents of the petitioner only. After three months of the delivery, condition of the petitioner became serious and in spite of giving company, the respondent never cared to take her to the hospital, as such, the parents of the petitioner took her to the hospital. On 20.09.2016, the respondent came to the house of the parents of petitioner and forcibly tried to take the petitioner, but due to the intervention of the neighbours, the respondent could not succeed in his illegal attempts. Even after repeated requests, the respondent did not change his attitude and many a times he disclosed that he do not want tot continue marital life with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file the petition seeking divorce.

3

4. On the other hand, respondent filed counter admitting the relationship with the petitioner and their child and also about the registration of marriage on 20.06.2015. It is contended that they lead peaceful marital life for a period of one month only and thereafter, disputes arose in between them and the matter was placed before the elders, who advised both the parties to take divorce from each other. Respondent further contended that since more than 4 ½ years, they are living separately from each other and there is no scope of reunion in between them, as such, the respondent has no objection for granting decree of divorce.

5.This Court tried to reconcile the parties to live amicably by settling their disputes, but they did not heed.

6.Now, the point for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce as prayed for?.

7.In order to prove the case, the petitioner herself examined as PW1 and got marked the wedding card as Ex.P1. On the other hand, the respondent himself is examined as RW1 and no document is marked.

8.Heard both sides.

POINT:-

9.The sum and substance of the case is that the marriage of the parties herein is a love marriage and got registered their marriage on 20.06.2015.

The couple lived happily only for a period of one month. Thereafter disputes arose in between them, however, out of their wedlock, a male child was born. In spite of the best efforts made by the elders, the parties 4 herein did not heed and at last, the elders decided to take divorce each other.

10.The petitioner in her chief affidavit reiterated the facts mentioned in her petition. Ex.A1 is the wedding card. The respondent filed counter admitting the contents of the petition. Even in the cross-examination by petitioner counsel, the respondent admitted that he has no objection for granting decree of divorce to them. The respondent even stated in his counter, they have been residing separately since last more than 4 ½ years. As such, there is no scope for reunion of the couple. In view of the same, this Court has no option, except to grant decree of divorce.

11.IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed, granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the petitioner and respondent performed on 18.06.2015. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 13th day of March 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ASIFABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONERRESPONDENT

PW1:Arrala Sree VidyaRW1: Arrala Shankar

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PETITIONER:-RESPONDENT

Ex.P1: Wedding card 18.06.2005 Nil

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ASIFABAD

E 5