Smt. M. Sarojanamma

JCC 99/2022-1-JJ Board, Knl

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD:: KURNOOL

Present: Smt. M. Sarojanamma,

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class, Kurnool,

FAC I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool-cum- Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Kurnool

Smt. S.Madhavi and Smt.A.Suneetha

Members of JJB, Kurnool

Dated Friday, 20th day of December, 2024

J.C.C.No.99 /2022

Between:

The State Represented by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Adoni. … Complainant - And - Sai @ S. Sai Krishna, age 16 years, S/o S. Veeresh, R/o Sadapuram village, Adoni mandal.

… Child in Conflict with law

This case is coming up on 20.12.2024 for final hearing in the presence of

A.P.P. for prosecution and of Sri T. Mallesh, Advocate for CCL and upon having perused the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till today the Board passed the following:

:: FINAL ORDER ::

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Adoni filed information report against

CCL in Cr.No.82/2020 registered U/sec.323, 341 r/w 34 IPC of Adoni Taluk P.S.

02.The case of prosecution in brief as follows:-

The defacto complainant Kunkanur Bhaskar/LW1 is resident of Sada- puram village and eking out his livelihood by running Auto. On 02.06.2020 at about 4.30 P.M., while the defacto complainant was returning from outskirts of his village near Narayana fields, his villagers A1, A2, CCL, A4 to A6 who are the sons of A2 and A7 were criminally restrained and picked quarrel with him and beat with hands and legs indiscriminately. A1 was beat him with hands and caused imperceptible injuries on left side of the eye. Due to which, he raised hue and

JCC 99/2022-2-JJ Board, Knl cries, and on hearing the same, his elder brother K. Darganna/LW2, his uncle

Badesab/LW3 were came there and tried to rescue him and all the above accused and CCL beat them with hands and legs and caused dumb injuries. The said inci- dent was happened due to issue of an open place. Basing on the complaint of de- facto complainant /LW1, ASI of Police/LW7 registered a case in Cr.No.82/2020 u/s.341, 323 r/w 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, as per the proceed- ings of the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, dated 03.06.2020, the SDPO,

Adoni/LW8 took up investigation in this case and visited the scene, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 07.12.2020, SDPO/LW9 served

Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused and CCL. After completion of investigation, he filed information report against CCL.

03.On perusal of averments of information report as well as the contents of documents filed along with it this case was taken on file of the offence punish- able under Sec. 341, 323 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly notice was ordered to CCL.

04.On receipt of notice issued by this board, the CCL was appeared and received copies of case documents supplied in due compliance of Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

05.Thereafter, the CCL was questioned U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., by explaining the sum and substance of the offences punishable under Sec. 341, 323 r/w 34

IPC on that he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During course of enquiry, prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6.

07.CCL was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material appears from the evidence of PW1 to PW8 for which, he pleaded false implication and reported no defence evidence, but marked Ex.D1 to

D4.

JCC 99/2022-3-JJ Board, Knl 08.The Board heard on both sides and perused the material available on record.

09.Now the point for determination is:

“ Whether prosecution proved the offences punishable U/Sec. 341,

323 r/w 34 IPC against CCL beyond reasonable doubt or not?

Point:

10.To prove the offence u/s.341, 323 r/w 34 IPC, prosecution has submitted oral evidence of PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6.

11.PW1 who is the defacto complainant and injured deposed that on 02.06.2020 at about 4.30 P.M., while he was returning to his home on foot and was at Narayanappa Agriculture land one Veeresh S/o Eswarappa and one

Veeresh S/o Narayanappa and sons of Veeresh i.e., Sai, Ganesh, Madhu, Ajay and one Manohar S/o Venkateswarlu obstructed his way and beat him with hands and legs. He sustained injuries below his left eye and scratch injury below his left eye and that he raised cries and on hearing his cries, his brother Darganna/LW2 and

Bade Sab/LW3 came to the spot and tried to rescue him from them, but they were also beaten by the above said persons. The above said persons attacked him and LWs 2 and 3 on the issue of vacant site situated in front of their house which was occupied and mutated in records in his name. Then, he lodged complaint before the police. During his cross examination he admitted that one

SC/ST atrocities case was lodged against one Ravi in Cr No. 80/2015 of Adoni

Taluk P.S. and one Veeresh S/o Eswarappa is one of the witnesses in that case.

He denied the suggestion that they were forced that Veeresh to depose false evidence in Cr.No.80/2015 and in that connection they were also attacked him.

He further testified that he is in YSRCP party and his brothers were also in YSRCP

Party and he is the follower of Sai Prasada Reddy, MLA. He identified his brothers by name Darganna, B.Nagesh, himself one Ashok and Saiprasad Reddy,

JCC 99/2022-4-JJ Board, Knl

MLA which is marked as Ex.D1. He deposed that his shirt was torn and he sustained injuries. He admitted that he did not hand over his shirt to the police.

He denied the suggestion that CCL is no way concerned with this case and they filed a false case against CCL as a counter blast of SC/ST case filed against them.

12.Coming to the evidence of PW2 who is injured and brother of PW1 deposed that on 02.06.2020 at about 4.30 P.M., he and LW3/Badesab were present in their house at Sadapuram village, they heard cries of PW1 from

Narayanappa agricultural fields and then they rushed to the spot and noticed one

Harijana Veeresh , Veeresh s/o Narayanappa, Ajay, Madhu, Ganesh and Sai/CCL who are sons of Veeresh and Manohar S/o Venkateswarlu were beating PW1 with their hands and legs. Then he and LW3/Badesab tried to rescue PW1 from them but they were also beat them. The above said persons beat them under impression that they were occupied the Government open site present opposite to their house. He further deposed that PW1 received injuries on below his left eye and he and LW3/Badesab sustained mute injuries. During his cross examination he admitted that CCL family members lodged complaint against them in SC/ST

No.231/2020 on the file of Hon’ble SC/ST Court, Kurnool. He further admitted that they did not sustain bleeding injuries, he and LW3 sustained mute injuries and PW1 sustained swelling injury below his left eye and after six months of incident police examined him.

13.PW3 who is said to be eyewitness to the alleged incident and relative to PW1, turned hostile without supporting the prosecution case and deposed that on 02.06.2020 during afternoon hours, he came to know that there was a quarrel happened in between PW1 and Veeresh and others and except that he does not know anything about the fact. Learned APP cross examined the witness and during his cross examination, PW3 admitted that there was a vacant government site near to their houses in Sadapuram village. In the cross examination by the

JCC 99/2022-5-JJ Board, Knl learned counsel for CCL, he testified that he did not state before police as “the

Government land situated near their houses are getting transferred by PW1”. The relevant portion in his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement was marked as Ex.D4. PW4 who is another said to be eyewitness to the alleged incident also turned hostile without supporting the prosecution case and deposed that on 02.06.2020 at about 5 P.M., while he was present at his house, he came to know that CCL and others quarreled with PWs 1, 2 and LW3/Bade Sab at agriculture field of Narayana. He further deposed that he does knot know the details of quarrel. During his cross examination, he admitted that he is son-in-law of PW3 and PWs 1 and 2 are the close relatives of PW3. Further he admitted that his wife name is Santhamma and she obtained fake certificate from the revenue authorities with respect to vacant site which is located to the Rural Development trust for the construction of community hall. It is also admitted that CCL was studying ITI in Alur by the time of incident.

14.Coming to the evidence of PW5 who is said to be injured deposed that on 02.06.2020 at about 4.30 P.M while he along with his wife and his daughter were in their house and his brother-in-law Darganna/PW2 was outside of the house, he heard screaming from back side of his house and came out side of the house and saw that PW1 was made fallen down and was being beaten with hands and legs by one Veeresh S/o Eswarappa, Veeresh S/o Narayanappa, Sai, Ganesh,

Ajay and Madhu who were sons of Veeresh and one Manohar S/o Venkatesh.

Meanwhile his wife called his brother-in-law Darganna/PW2 and then he and PW2 went to back side of their house where galata was taken place. He further deposed that he and PW2 intervened to rescue PW1 from the hands of above persons, but they also received dumb injuries from the above persons. After rescuing PW1 they took him in side of their house and he and his brother-in-law/PW2 were present outside of the house. Meanwhile the above persons came to their house holding sticks and stones and abused them in filthy

JCC 99/2022-6-JJ Board, Knl language. After few minutes the above persons were went away and II Town

Police, Adoni came to their house and took him and PWs 1 and 2 to the Police station and PW1 lodged complaint. On the same day police did not examine him but Police examined him after six months of the incident. During his cross examination he admitted that PWs 3 and 4 are close relatives of PWs 1 and 2. He admitted that after incident PW1 was in unconscious condition. It is also admitted that PW1 stained with blood on his cloths and police seized the blood stained shirt of PW1. It is also admitted that police did not seize stones and sticks from the scene of offence and police did not take them to Ara Hospital,

Adoni for treatment. It is also admitted that the adult accused by name Veeresh

S/o Eswarappa lodged SC/ST case against his brother-in-law/PW2 and others vide

Cr.No.81/2020 of Taluka P.S. Adoni and same is pending. He identified his brother-in-law/Bhaskar and other brother-in-laws and Darganna and Samuel with

Sai Prasad Reddy, MLA under Ex.D2 and D3. PW5 denied the suggestion that

Government allotted 4 plots to the SC community for construction of community hall, Samuel, daughter of Samuel and K.C.Lakshman Rao managed the Revenue authorities and got fake pattadar pass books from retired MRO.

15.So, on perusal of evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 who are said to be injured and close relatives to each other testified in their evidence about galata which was occurred on 02.06.2020 at about 4.30 P.M., and beating them by

Veeresh S/o Eswarappa, Veeresh S/o Narayanappa, Sai, Ganesh, Ajay and Madhu and receiving of injuries over them. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 not supported the prosecution case since they turned hostile.

16.The evidence of PW6 speaks about receiving of written complaint from

PW1, registered the same as in Cr.No.82/2020 on 02.06.2020 at about 20.30 hours and thereafter handed over C.D. file to LW8/SDPO, Adoni for further investigation. During cross examination he admitted that he registered

JCC 99/2022-7-JJ Board, Knl

Cr.No.81/2020 and 82/2020 and he received information relating to

Cr.No.81/2020 at 19.30 hours.

17.Coming to the evidence of PW7 who treated and issued wound certificates to PWs 1, 2 and 5 deposed that on 02.06.2020, on receipt of requisition from Adoni Taluk PS , he examined PW1 at about 10.50 PM and found the following injuries i.e., 1) A laceration over the left cheek, and 2) History of nose bleed. He opined that the above injuries are simple in nature and accordingly he issued Ex.P3 wound certificate. He further deposed that on the same day he also examined PW2/Dharganna at about 11 P.M., and found the following injuries i.e., contusion over back and contusion over the chest and opined that the above injuries are simple in nature and accordingly issued Ex.P4 wound certificate. He further deposed that on the same day he also examined

PW.5 Bade Saheb at about 10.50 PM and he found the following injuries i.e., 1)

Swelling over the neck and 2) Contusion over the chest. He opined that the above injuries are simple in nature accordingly he issued Ex.P5 wound certificate.

18.Coming to the evidence of investigation officer who speaks about investigating the case in pursuance of proceedings of the Superintendent of

Police, examining and recording the witnesses, visiting the scene of offence and drafting of rough sketch and on 07.12.2020, he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused split up the CCL from adult accused basing on age of CCL, and after receipt of wound certificates, he filed information report against CCL. During the course of cross examination, he testified that he received two FIRs from

LW8/Ramakrishna i.e., one is in Cr.No.81/2020 another one is Cr.No.82/2020. He admitted that PWs 1, 2 and 5 are the accused in Cr.No.81/2020 for the offences punishable under Atrocities Act. It is admitted that PWs 2 to 5 are family members and relatives of PW1. It is also admitted by PW8 that PW1 did not stated before him in his 161 Cr.P.C statement as PW1 sustained bleeding injuries

JCC 99/2022-8-JJ Board, Knl on his cheek and blood was oozing from his nose and PWs 2 and 5 did not state specifically the injuries sustained by them. It is further admitted by PW8 that

PW5 did not stated before him that alleged CCL was also participated in crime. He denied the suggestion that to counter blast the crime No.81/2020 this present crime is registered against the CCL in Cr.No.82/2020 and maliciously prosecuted.

19.To prove the offence u/s.323, 341 r/w 34 IPC, prosecution examined

PWs 1 to 8. PWs 1, 2 and 5 are the injured persons, PWs 3 and 4 are the said to be eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, PW7 is the medical officer who allegedly examined the injured/PWs 1, 2 and 5, PW6 is the police officer who registered the crime and PW8 is the investigation officer who investigate the case and filed information report. Among them, PWs 1, 2 and 5 who are alleged to be injured in the present case, deposed similar lines with regard to beating them by adult accused along with CCL and receiving injuries in the hands of accused. Their evidence not establish about the specific overt acts about CCL in commission of offence and they just simply deposed that CCL and accused beat them and that they received injuries. But, no specific overt acts were established from their evidence to ascertain the facts of the case and they failed to depose the same

before Board. Moreover, the investigation officer/PW8 admitted in his cross

examination that PW5 did not stated before him that alleged CCL is also participated in the crime. So, there is contradicting evidence between the evidence of PW5 and PW8/Investigation officer with regard to participation of CCL in the commission of offence.

20.PWs 1 and 2 deposed in their evidence that CCL along with accused obstructed PW1 and beat him with hands and legs. Whereas, the evidence of

PW5 is that after rescuing PW1 from the accused by him and PW2 and when PW1 in their house, the accused came to their house holding sticks and stones. On

JCC 99/2022-9-JJ Board, Knl perusal of above evidence, there are two versions came into light with regard to beating of them either with hands, legs or with sticks and stones.

21.PW1 in his evidence deposed that he sustained injuries below his left eye. Whereas, the medical evidence/PW7 who treated PW1 and issued Ex.P3 wound certificate, found a laceration over the left cheek and history of nose bleed over PW1. Likewise, PWs 2 and 5 deposed in their evidence that they sustained mute/dumb injuries in the hands of accused. Whereas, the medical evidence/PW7 deposed that he examined PW2 and found contusion over back and contusion over the chest and PW5 sustained swelling over the neck and contusion over the chest. So, on comparing the both evidences i.e., evidences of PWs 1, 2 and 5 with the evidence of PW7, there are contradiction with regard to sustaining of injuries by PWs 1, 2 and 5. Their evidences are different from each other with regard to injuries sustained by PWs 1, 2 and 5. PW8/investigation officer admitted in his cross examination that there is difference in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement and wound certificate of PW1 vide Ex.P3, the injuries are not one and the same. So, it is presumed that the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 are not trustworthy in this regard and will not give credence to the prosecution case.

22.PW1 deposed in his cross examination that his shirt was torn and he sustained injuries and admitted that he did not hand over his torn shirt to the police. PW5 also admitted that police did not seize stones and sticks from the scene of offence. If really, PWs 1, 2 and 5 sustained injuries and PW1 shirt was torn and blood stained, police might have seize the shirt of PW1, stick or stones from the scene of offence to establish that the alleged CCL beat them with sticks and stones and caused bleeding injuries. Here, the investigation officer also failed to seize material object from the scene of offence for the reasons best known to them. Hence, the evidence of investigation officer also not give credence to the case of prosecution.

JCC 99/2022-10-JJ Board, Knl

23.On perusal of evidence, admittedly police have also filed a case against the family members of PW1 as in Cr.No.81/2020 on 02.06.2020 at 19.30 hours, i.e., before registering the present case i.e., Cr.No.82/2020, basing on the complaint of accused. Admittedly, PW1 and his brothers are YSRCP party and followers of Sai Prasad Reddy,MLA. Ex.D1 to D3 photographs also speaks the same. On perusal of above, it is presumed that due to political influence, police might have registered the present case against the CCL to counter blast the

Cr.No.81/2020.

24.On conglomeration of above evidence, it is established that the prosecution has failed to establish the participation of the CCL in the alleged commission of offence and specific overt acts of CCL to connect the case as to establish that CCL along with other accused beat the PWs 1, 2 and 5 and caused them injuries. Moreover, medical evidence also not supported the prosecution case and the medical evidence also contradicting with the material witnesses which gives clouds in the minds of Board about the alleged incident. Further, PWs 2 and 5 are the relatives of PW1 and they are interested witnesses and hence their evidence also not believable and not give credence to their evidence. PWs 3 and 4 who are said to be eyewitness to the alleged incident, turned hostile without supporting the prosecution case. Further more, investigation agency also failed to seize material objects during its investigation and also failed to secure the independent witnesses. On perusal of record, it appears omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. So, in the absence of independent witnesses and contradictions with their evidence, this Board is not in a position to came to a conclusion that the CCL is the persons who commit the alleged offence and caused injuries to the PWs 1, 2 and 5. Therefore, prosecution has utterly failed to prove the offence u/s.323, 341 r/w 34 IPC against the CCL beyond all reasonable doubt, and CCL is entitled for benefit of doubt.

JCC 99/2022-11-JJ Board, Knl 25.In the result, CCL is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.341, 323 r/w 34 IPC. He is acquitted of the same under Sec.255(1) of

Cr.P.C. His parental bonds and surety bonds if any shall stands cancelled after a period of appeal as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Directly Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this day 20th day of December,2024.

Sd/-M. Sarojanamma,

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

KURNOOL.

1.

2. Members Juvenile Justice Board, Kurnool. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1: K. Bhaskar-None- PW2: K. Darganna PW3: Bazarappa PW4: B. Thimothi PW5: Badesab PW6: C.S.V. Mohan Krishna, ASI PW7: Dr. Y.V. Satyanarayana, Asst. Professor PW8: K.S. Vinod Kumar, Addl. S.P.

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Complaint of PW1. Ex.P2: Certified copy of FIR. Ex.P3: Certified copy of wound certificate of PW1. Ex.P4: Certified copy of wound certificate of PW2. Ex.P5: Certified copy of wound certificate of PW5. Ex.P6: Rough sketch.

For Defence:

Ex.D1: Photo with MLA. Ex.D2: Photographs (6 in No.) Ex.D3: Photo with MLA son. Ex.D4: Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

Material Objects -Nil-

Sd/-M. Sarojanamma,

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

KURNOOL.

JCC 99/2022-12-JJ Board, Knl 1.

2.

Members Juvenile Justice Board, Kurnool.

JCC 99/2022-13-JJ Board, Knl

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

BEFORE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD:: KURNOOL

Juvenile Calendar Case No.99/2022

Date of offence:02.06.2020

Date of complaint:02.06.2020

Date of apprehension of CCL:--

Date of release on bail:--

Date of commencement of trial.:29.09.2023

Date of close of trial.:15.11.2024

Date of sentence or order.:20.12.2024

Explanation.: ---

Complainant: State: Represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Adoni.

S. Name of Father’s name/ReligioOccupati AgeResidence NoaccusedHusband Namenon Sai @ Sai 1VeereshSadapuram 16 Krishna

Offence:: Wrongful restrain, causing hurt

Section of Law:Sec.341, 323 r/w 34 IPC

Finding.: CCL found not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, CCL is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.341, 323 r/w 34 IPC. He is acquitted of the same under

Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. His parental bonds and surety bonds if any shall stands cancelled after a period of appeal as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-M. Sarojanamma,

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KURNOOL.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

JCC 148/2023-1-JJ Board, Knl

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD:: KURNOOL

Present: Smt. M. Sarojanamma,

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class, Kurnool,

FAC I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool-cum- Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Kurnool

Smt. S.Madhavi and Smt.A.Suneetha

Members of JJB, Kurnool

Dated Friday, 13th day of December, 2024

J.C.C.No.148 /2022

Between:

The State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Devanakonda P.S. … Complainant - And - Harijana Mahendra @ Madiga Mahendra, aged 14 years, S/o Ramakrishna @ Krishna, Palledoddi village, Devanakonda mandal, Kurnool district.

… Child in Conflict with law

This case is coming up on 06.12.2024 for final hearing in the presence of

A.P.P. for prosecution and of Sri D. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate for CCL and upon having perused the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till today the Board passed the following:

:: FINAL ORDER ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, Devanakonda P.S. filed information report against CCL in Cr.No.51/2023 registered U/sec.354(A), 354(D), 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act.

02.The case of prosecution in brief as follows:-

The defacto complainant Harijana Archana/LW1 and she is the victim girl in this case. On 01.04.2023 at 16.00 hours in front of the house of defacto complainant who is aged 16 years, CCL used to harass the victim cum com- plainant by following her on his motorbike and captured her photo during

Maremma Avva festival in Gadderalla village and marphed the same with his photo and set his images as status in Whatsapp and also shared that image to all

JCC 148/2023-2-JJ Board, Knl his friends. Knowing that fact, when brother of victim questioned about CCL act, parents of CCL intimidated the victim and her family that he would see their end.

Basing on the written complaint of victim/PW1, LW13/SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No.51/2023 u/Sec.354(A), 354(D), 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act and took up investigation. During the course of investiga- tion, the SI of Police examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 04.05.2023, the SI of Police apprehended the CCL near Maremma katta in Palle- doddi village and sent him before Hon’ble Board for protective custody. After re- ceipt of study certificate of victim and CCL and after completion of investigation, the SI of Police filed information report before the Board.

03.On perusal of averments of information report as well as the contents of documents filed along with it this case was taken on file of the offence punish- able under Sec.354(A), 354(D), 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO

Act and accordingly notice was ordered to CCL.

04.On receipt of notice issued by this board, the CCL was appeared and received copies of case documents supplied in due compliance of Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

05.Thereafter, the CCL was questioned U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., by explaining the sum and substance of the offences punishable under Sec.354(A), 354(D), 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act on that he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During course of enquiry, prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7.

07.CCL was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material appears from the evidence of PW1 to PW7 for which, he pleaded false implication and reported no defence evidence.

JCC 148/2023-3-JJ Board, Knl 08.The Board heard on both sides and perused the material available on record.

09.Now the point for determination is:

“ Whether prosecution proved the offences punishable

U/Sec. 354(A), 354(D), 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of

POCSO Act against CCL beyond reasonable doubt or not?

Point:

10.To prove the offence u/s.354(A), 354(D), 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and

Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, prosecution has submitted oral evidence of PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7.

11.Coming to the evidence of PW1 who is victim and defendant in this case, turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution and deposed that she do not know facts of present case and nobody harassed her and nobody stalked her and nobody morphed her photos and circulated in social media at any time. She further deposed that she did not lodge any complaint to the police, but police obtained her signature on some white papers police did not examine her and not recorded her statement.

12.Coming to the evidence of PW2 who is mother of PW1 deposed that at about 3 years ago while PW1 was studying 10th class in Kasthurba Gandhi School at Devanakonda, one boy who is son of Ulthenna and Krishna used to stalking

PW1 by roaming around her on a bike and commenting her and whistling in public area. PW1 informed the same to them just before completion of her 10th class.

Immediately her son by name LW4/Sai Kumar telephoned to that boy and asked about his acts against PW1. Then that boy abused PW1 and her over phone in filthy language and asked her son to send PW1 and she to him and he will fuck.

We shifted their family to Guntur for their livelihood and later they returned to

Gadderalla jathara. There while they were purchasing some items, CCL took photos of PW1 in his mobile and morphed that photographs to show that CCL was

JCC 148/2023-4-JJ Board, Knl present beside PW1 and put that photographs as his whatsapp status of his mobile. On knowing that PW1 tried to commit suicide. Then PW2 and

LW2/Pakkiraiah rescued PW1 and made her counseling not to do such acts and asked the parents of CCL for which they denied and later they went to police station and lodged report. During her cross examination she admitted that she did not state before police the specific date of harassment by the CCL against

PW1 and initially they did not lodge complaint and kept quite. It is further admitted that she do not know phone number of CCL.

13.PW3 who is brother of PW1 deposed that at about two years back

PW1 studying 10th class in Kasthurba Gandhi School, Devanakonda during that time CCL used to stalking PW1 by commenting her and whistling as such he was harassing PW1. The same was informed by PW1 to their parents. Then their parents stopped her studies and shifted their residence to Guntur for their livelihood and after six months they returned to their village to attend Gadderalla jathara. In that Jathara CCL took photograph of PW1 and edited that photo by appearing CCL and PW1 side by side and also inserted love symbol in that photo and circulated in whatsapp status. He further deposed that he took screen shot of that whatsapp status and send the same to his father and made a phone call to

CCL and asked why he harassing PW1 by circulating that photographs. Then CCL stated that he will circulate the photos again and again and you can do whatever you want and cut the phone call. Later CCL send an audio clip through whatsapp by stating insulting comments on my mother/PW2 and my younger sister/PW1 as “I will fuck your sister and your mother” and also threatened with dire consequences in the audio clip. Later he forwarded that voice message to his father and informed to him in turn his father called to CCL scold him. During his cross examination PW3 admitted that he did not state before police the specific date of harassment by CCL against PW1. Further it is admitted that he did not state before police when his sister informed about the harassment of CCL to his

JCC 148/2023-5-JJ Board, Knl parents. He further admitted that he did not state either his phone number and

CCL’s phone number to police. It is further admitted by PW3 that he did not state the exact date when CCL forwarded the voice message to him.

14.Coming to the evidence of PW4 who is said to be relative of PWs 1 to 3, deposed that on 01.04.2023 at about 4 P.M., Ulthemma and Ramakrishna criminally trespassed in to the house of PWs 1, 2 and LW2/Pakkiraiah to quarrel with them by stating that why PW2 and LW2/Pakkiraiah are making phone calls to

CCL and threatening him and they also threatened PW2 and LW2 by stating that their son /CCL will do whatever he want and who are you to question him, and also threatened them by stating that you are having three families in the village but they are having many families to support them in the village and they will set fire to their hut and went away. He further deposed that he witnessed the same since he was staying beside the house of PW1. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he is deposing false evidence to support PWs 1 and 2 because they are his neighbors.

15.Coming to the evidence of PW5 who is alleged to be punch witness for the arrest of CCL deposed that on 04.05.2023, as per the requisition of

Devanakonda P.S., he and the S.I of Police, ASI and other PCs reached Palledoddi village at about 9.45 A.M. wherein one Mahendra playing with other children, the said alleged CCL on seeing them trying to escape from there. The Police persons chased him and caught hold him. In their presence and also in the presence of

Maremma the CCL was interrogated by the police and during interrogation he disclosed that he fell in love with one Archana and further confessed he transmitted her photos to his phone and her photo morphed and placed in whatsaap status and also share her photo to his friends. When the brother of the

Archana seeing the whatsaap status and questioned him, he replied he loved her sister as such he posted her sister’s photo in whatsaap status. He further

JCC 148/2023-6-JJ Board, Knl deposed that CCL abused in unparliamentary language and intimidated Sai

Kumar. The police drafted his statement in his presence after knowing the contents he put his signature on the statement along with Nettekal, VRA/LW8 is also signed on it. The reason for placing status of the Archana photo he intended to marry her. In his cross examination, he admitted that in his presence police not seized the mobile phone of CCL.

16.PW6 who is Grama Mahila Samrakshana Karyadarshi who alleged to be recorded the statement of victim, deposed that he examined PW1-Archana and recorded her statement and she stated as she is resident of Palledoddi village, she completed 10th class, and PW1 occasionally went to Palledoddi to

Devanakonda by the time the alleged CCL followed her and stalking and further revealed that the alleged CCL abused her and insist her to love him and the same is also informed to her parents. Later the parents of the victim girl-PW1 stopped her further studies and took her Guntur. On the eve of Devara, PW1 and her parents came to Palledoddi to worship the Devara. In the absence of family members secretly the alleged CCL took the photograph of the PW1 and morphing her photo and kept in status by editing with symboles of her photos. On seeing the status of the CCL, the brother of PW1 and questioned him and galata has taken place in between the alleged CCL and family members of the PW1. Due to the galata the family of PW1 defamed in the society and she was unable to tolerate and attempt to commit to suicide. Later the parents of PW1 reported the incident to the police. PW6 enquired and ascertain the truth the alleged CCL morphing the photos and kept in the whatsapp status and she has seen status through the whatsapp saver. The parents of the CCL are also confessed before her due to the innocence, CCL committed the offence as alleged. In the cross examination, she admitted that an unknown person can also having excess to download the photographs from the whatsapp thereafter it can be marked.

JCC 148/2023-7-JJ Board, Knl

17.PW7 is the investigating officer deposed about registering the case basing on the complaint of PW1, examining and recording the statements of witnesses, observed the scene of offence and drawn the rough sketch and on 04.05.2023 at about 11.30 hours, he apprehended the CCL, receiving study certificate of the victim girl and birth certificate of CCL and filing of information report after completion of investigation. He admitted in the cross examination that at first instance the incident was occurred on 1st April, 2023 at 14.00 hours and the incident is reported to police station on 21.4.2023 and there is a delay of 20 days for registering the case.

18.This is a case where CCL committed sexual harassment against the victim/PW1 and threatened the mother and brother of victim in a filthy language.

In order to establish the said offences, prosecution examined as much as witnesses PWs 1 to 7. PW1 is the victim cum defacto complainant, PWs 2 to 4 are the relatives of victim/PW1, PW5 is the mediator for arrest of CCL, PW6 is the person who recorded the statement of PW1 and PW7 is the investigating officer.

Here, to elicit the said offences allegedly committed by the CCL, the evidence of victim/PW1 is crucial. In this case, the victim who is allegedly harassed by CCL, is turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. She testified that nobody harassed, stalked, morphed her photos and circulated in social media.

The testimony of victim is not speaks about harassment meted by CCL. Coming to the evidence of PWs 2 to 4 who are relatives of victim, they are hearsay witnesses only and they did not witness directly about harassment of CCL against the victim. They came to know about the incident through PW1 only. So, they are interested witnesses and their testimoneis are not believable. Moreover, they failed to mention the specific date of incident in which CCL harassed PW1. PW5 is the mediator and PW6 is the person who recorded the statement of PW1 and they are also not the direct witnesses for the alleged incident and their evidence also not at all useful for the prosecution case. Lastly, the investigation officer

JCC 148/2023-8-JJ Board, Knl evidence is replica to the charge sheet contents and nothing was elicited in his evidence to connect the CCL to the alleged offences committed by him against

PW1/victim. Moreover, in his cross examination, it is elicited that there is a delay of 20 days in filing of FIR. So, the delay is also fatal to the prosecution case.

Therefore, in the absence of direct/eyewitnesses, this Board is not in a position to believe the other witnesses evidence as trustworthy as such CCL is entitled for acquittal.

19.On conglomeration of above, this Board feels that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences u/s.354(A), 354(D), 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act against the CCL beyond all reasonable doubt and CCL is entitled for acquitted.

20.In the result, CCL is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.354(A), 354(D), 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act. He is acquitted of the same under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. His parental bonds and surety bonds if any shall stands cancelled after a period of appeal as per Sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Directly Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this day 13th day of December,2024.

Sd/-M.Sarojanamma,

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

KURNOOL.

1.

2. Members Juvenile Justice Board, Kurnool. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:For Defence: PW1: Harijana Archana PW2: Harijana Ramadevi PW3: Harijana Sai Kumar-None- PW4: B. Rajasekhar PW5: B. Khajanna PW6: M. Eramma PW7: B. Bhupaludu, SI of Police

JCC 148/2023-9-JJ Board, Knl

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the complaint.-Nil- Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P3: Arrest cum confessional Mazahar. Ex.P4: FIR. Ex.P5: Rough sketch. Ex.P6: School certificate of PW1. Ex.P7: School certificate of CCL.

Material Objects -Nil-

Sd/-M.Sarojanamma,

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

KURNOOL.

1.

2.

Members Juvenile Justice Board, Kurnool.

JCC 148/2023-10-JJ Board, Knl

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

BEFORE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD:: KURNOOL

Juvenile Calendar Case No.148/2023

Date of offence:01.04.2023

Date of complaint:21.04.2023

Date of apprehension of CCL:05.05.2023

Date of release on bail:19.05.2023

Date of commencement of trial.:12.07.2024

Date of close of trial.:15.11.2024

Date of sentence or order.:13.12.2024

Explanation.: ---

Complainant: State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Devanakonda P.S.

S. Name of Father’s name/ReligioOccupati AgeResidence NoaccusedHusband Namenon Palledoddi 1H. MahendraRamakrishna 14Hindu village

Offence:: outrage the modesty of women and sexual assault

Section of Law:Sec.354(A), 354(D), 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act

Finding.: CCL found not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, CCL is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.354(A), 354(D), 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO

Act. He is acquitted of the same under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. His parental bonds and surety bonds if any shall stands cancelled after a period of appeal as per

Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-M.Sarojanamma,

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KURNOOL.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

JCC 39/2022-1-JJ Board, Knl

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD:: KURNOOL

Present: Smt. M. Sarojanamma,

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class, Kurnool,

FAC I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool-cum- Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Kurnool

Smt. S.Madhavi and Smt.A.Suneetha

Members of JJB, Kurnool

Dated Friday, 20th day of December, 2024

J.C.C.No.39 /2022

Between:

The State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Nandavaram P.S. Yemmiganur Rural Circle … Complainant - And - Kuruva Basava Raju, 17 years, S/o Ramudu, native of Banavasi, H.No.5/1, Yemmiganur town, now residing at Poolachintha village, Nandavaram Mandal.

… Child in Conflict with law

This case is coming up on 20.12.2024 for final hearing in the presence of

A.P.P. for prosecution and of Sri J.P. Basavaraju, Advocate for CCL and upon having perused the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till today the Board passed the following:

:: FINAL ORDER ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, Nandavaram P.S. filed information report against CCL in Cr.No.29/2022 registered U/sec.354-A, 354-D IPC and Sec.12 of

POCSO Act.

02.The case of prosecution in brief as follows:-

The defacto complainant cum victim Kandukuri Kalyani/LW1 is the resident of Poolachinta village and studying 2nd year intermediate in Bi.P.C. at Ju- nior College, Nagaladinne village. Since two months prior to report, CCL used to follow the defacto complainant and asked her to love him when she was going to the college. The defacto complainant informed the same to her parents and her

JCC 39/2022-2-JJ Board, Knl father K. Mallikarjuna Gowd/LW2 and their villager called CCL on the above issue, admonished him not to follow their daughter, otherwise they will put a case against him in the police station. About 15 days ago, when the defacto com- plainant started from the house to go to the college, by the time, CCL came be- hind her on a motorcycle, asked her by holding her hand to get on his motorcycle and he will drop her at the college. On that the defacto complainant refused the same and admonished him. However, CCL was following her continuously and that she informed the same to her father/LW2. Basing on the report of LW1/vic- tim, LW10/HC registered a case in Cr.No.29/2022 u/s.354-A, 354-D IPC and

Sec.12 of POCSO Act and then LW11/SI of Police took up investigation. During the course of examination, SI of Police examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence. On 22.02.2022 LW10 served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to CCL. After completion of investigation, SI of Po- lice filed information report against CCL.

03.On perusal of averments of information report as well as the contents of documents filed along with it this case was taken on file of the offence punish- able under Sec. 354-A, 354-D IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act and accordingly no- tice was ordered to CCL.

04.On receipt of notice issued by this board, the CCL was appeared and received copies of case documents supplied in due compliance of Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

05.Thereafter, the CCL was questioned U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., by explaining the sum and substance of the offences punishable under Sec. 354-A, 354-D IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act on that he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During course of enquiry, prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7.

JCC 39/2022-3-JJ Board, Knl

07.CCL was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material appears from the evidence of PW1 to PW8 for which, he pleaded false implication and reported no defence evidence.

08.The Board heard on both sides and perused the material available on record.

09.Now the point for determination is:

“ Whether prosecution proved the offences punishable U/Sec. 354-

A, 354-D IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act against CCL beyond

reasonable doubt or not?

Point:

10.To prove the offence u/s.354-A, 354-D IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act, prosecution has submitted oral evidence of PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to

P7.

11.PW1 is the victim in this case. She testified that in the year 2022, she was studying Intermediate in Government Junior College in Naguladinne village.

While she was going to college from Poolachinthala village to Naguladinne on the way at Poolachinthala rastha, CCL used to obstruct her and asked to board on his bike and he will drop at college and also used to harass her by caught holding of her hand and pulled her. She further testified that she informed the same to her father/LW2 and Chakali Hanumanthu/LW4 and in turn they admonished the CCL.

But CCL repeated the same acts against her, as such she lodged complaint before

Nandavaram Police station against the CCL. In the cross examination, she deposed that she got married and at present she is residing in Nandavaram village. The distance between her village and Naguladinne village is about 15

K.Ms. She admitted that Autos are available from her village to Naguladinne village but there are no buses available. She used to walk one kilometre from

Church to Tamarind trees to go to her college and if Auto available there she

JCC 39/2022-4-JJ Board, Knl board that Auto to go to college or otherwise her father would drop her in college.

She deposed that she submitted written complaint before police written by her.

She further testified that police examined her and recorded her statement by

Disha Police, Kurnool. She further deposed in her cross examination that she does not know what was happened later the complaint lodged before Disha Police

Station, Kurnool.

12.Father of PW1 was examined as PW2. He deposed that PW1 pursuing

Intermediate in Junior College, Nagaladinne in the year 2022. In order to reach main road she has to walk for one Kilometer and from there she will catch Auto to reach her college. When PW1 walking to the main road CCL used to follow her and on one occasion caught hold of her hand asked her to get on his motor cycle.

Due to which PW1 stopped go to college. On his enquiry she stated that CCL following her and harassing her on the way to go to her college. Then he and

LW4/Hanumanthu admonished CCL not to harass PW1, but CCL did not stop his acts. Thereafter, PW1 lodged the complaint against CCL. In her cross examination, she testified that CCL’s maternal uncle by name Veeresh has purchased 4 plots in their village and his brothers were also purchased plots and he did not purchase any plots. It is admitted that his brothers purchased plots backside of Veeresh plots. He denied the suggestion that they forced Veeresh to sell his plots to them and in that connection, this case was foisted.

13.PW3 deposed that in the year 2022, PW1 was studying Intermediate at Naguladinne Junior College and CCL was studying Intermediate at Yemmiganur.

15 days prior to this case, CCL harassed the PW1 by stalking her and forced her to board his bike by caught holding her hand. PW1 informed the same to PW2 and PW2 informed the same to him. He being elder admonished CCL and his grand-father not to harass PW1. But after 15 days, CCL again harassed and stalked PW1 and forcing her to board his bike and that PW1 lodged complaint.

JCC 39/2022-5-JJ Board, Knl

During his cross examination, he admitted that the grand-father of CCL by name

Narasimhulu is also his friend and he received a legal notice from the counsel fo

Narasimhulu and has given reply to that notice. He further stated that he has repaid the amount to the Narasimhuluand have approached the Hon’ble High

Court and got stay.

14.Coming to the evidence of PW6/Women P.C. and her evidence speaks about her presence on 16.02.2022 while SI of Police/LW11 recorded the Sec.161

Cr.P.C statement of PW1 and also videographed the statement. During the cross examination, she admitted that the specific time was not mentioned in Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statement of victim girl and the specific date, place and time of incident is not mentioned in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of victim girl.

15.PW7 is the Head Constable deposed that he registered a case in crime

No.29/2022 u/s.354-A, 354-D IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act on 16.02.2022 basing on the complaint of PW1 and later he handed over the C.D. file to his senior officer/LW11 and he took up further investigation. In the cross examination he stated that he prepared Ex.P1 in the police station itself and it is also admitted that the time of offence and the date of offence and place of offence are not specifically mentioned in FIR. He further deposed that PW1 did not state the bearing registration number of CCL motorcycle in Ex.P1 complaint.

16.The evidence of investigation officer/PW8 speaks about his further investigation after receipt of C.D. file from PW7, examination of witnesses and recording their statements, visiting of scene of offence and drafting of rough sketch, collecting the birth certificates of CCL and victim/PW1 and on 22.02.2022 he serves Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to CCL and after completion of investigation, he filed information report. During cross examination, PW9 testified that he has not examined the persons shown in his rough sketch, he tried to examine them but none were come forward and also admitted that he has not shown PW3 in his

JCC 39/2022-6-JJ Board, Knl rough sketch. He admitted that PWs 1, 2 and LW3 did not state in their Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statements that exact time and date of commission of offence by the alleged CCL towards PW1 and also not mentioned the motorcycle bearing registration number and owner of the motorcycle which the alleged CCL used for commission of offence. He has not seized said motorcycle. It is also admitted that he registered a case against one Veeresh on the complaint of PW2 and he mentioned in Cr.No.38/2023, due to the ill feelings existed in between PW2 and

CCL nephew. He also admitted that there are civil disputes existed between PW2 and CCL family.

17.On perusal of victim/PW1 evidence, she alleged that while she was studying Intermediate in Govt. Junior College, Naguladinne village, on the way,

CCL used to obstruct her and harassed her by caught holding her hand and asked her to board on his bike. In her cross examination she testified that Autos are available from her village to Naguladinne and if Autos are available, she went on

Auto or otherwise his father would drop her. If it so, the allegation that CCL harassed her while she was going to college is at doubtful because, the Autos are much available in her village to go to college. If really the CCL harassed her by holding her hand and asked to board his bike, there is a chance to witness the same by Auto drivers or passers of the said rastha and they might object the acts of CCL. But, no such incident happened. She further stated in her evidence that she lodged complaint before Nandavaram police station against CCL. Whereas, the evidence of PW7/Head Constable who registered the crime basing on the complaint of PW1 testified in his cross examination that he prepared Ex.P1 in the police station itself. So, there is a contradiction with regard to preparation of

Ex.P1 complaint either by PW1 or by PW7. Moreover, PW1 deposed that she gave complaint before Nandavaram police station, whereas, she deposed in her cross examination as police examined her and recorded her statement by Disha Police,

JCC 39/2022-7-JJ Board, Knl

Kurnool. Here also there is contradiction with regard to giving complaint to which police station about the offence.

18.The evidence of PW6 in whose presence Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded, deposed in her cross examination that specific date, place and time of incident is not mentioned in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of victim girl. The said fact was also admitted by the investigation officer/PW8 in his cross examination that PWs 1, 2 and LW3 did not stated in their Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements about the exact time and date of commission of offence by the alleged CCL towards

PW1. This itself creates clouds in the mind of Board about the alleged offence.

Moreover, on perusal of evidence of PWs 2 and 3, it is established that there are some civil disputes existence between the family of PW2 and CCL and criminal cases also filed against PW2 and his brother in this regard. PW3 who is friend of

PW2 testified in his cross examination that he has received a legal notice from the counsel of Narasimhulu and he has given reply to that notice and he also stated that he repaid amount to the said Narasimhulu and approached the Hon’ble High

Court and got stay. The investigation officer/PW8 also admitted in his cross examination that civil disputes are existed in between PW2 and CCL family in

Cr.No.38/2023 of Nandavaram P.S. and he registered a case against one Veeresh complaint filed by PW2/father of victim. In view of above evidence, this Board is of doubt that due to ill feelings and civil disputes existence between the parties, the present case is foisted against CCL.

19.In this case, except PW1, no direct witness is available to connect the offence to the CCL. PW2 is the father of PW1, PW3 is the friend of PW2. The evidence of PWs 4 and 5 speaks about issuance of bonafide certificates of CCL and PW1 only. PWs 6 to 8 are the police officials and they speak about recording of statement of PW1, registering of crime and after investigation, filing information report only. No independent witness was examined by prosecution to

JCC 39/2022-8-JJ Board, Knl establish that the CCL is the person who harass PW1. Prosecution failed to examine independent witness to strengthen its case, for the reasons best known to it. In view of above contradictions and in the absence of independent witnesses, this Board forms an opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the offences alleged against the CCL beyond reasonable doubt and CCL is entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, CCL is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.354-A, 354-D IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act. He is acquitted of the same under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. His parental bonds and surety bonds if any shall stands cancelled after a period of appeal as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Directly Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this day 20th day of December,2024.

Sd/-M. Sarojanamma,

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

KURNOOL.

1.

2. Members Juvenile Justice Board, Kurnool. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1: K. Kalyani-None- PW2: Mallikarjuna Goud PW3: Hanumanthu PW4: Dhanunjaya, Principal PW5: P. Prasad, Principal PW6: T. Kousalya, Women P.C. PW7: P. Eswar Reddy, Head Constable PW8: D. Mahesh Kumar, SI of Police

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P1: Complaint of PW1.-Nil- Ex.P2: Bonafide certificate of PW1. Ex.P3: Bonafide certificate of CCL. Ex.P4: FIR. Ex.P5: Rough sketch. Ex.P6: Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P7: C.D. of PW1 recorded by PW6.

JCC 39/2022-9-JJ Board, Knl

Material Objects -Nil-

Sd/-M. Sarojanamma,

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

KURNOOL.

1.

2.

Members Juvenile Justice Board, Kurnool.

JCC 39/2022-10-JJ Board, Knl

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

BEFORE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD:: KURNOOL

Juvenile Calendar Case No.39/2022

Date of offence:16.02.2022

Date of complaint:16.02.2022

Date of apprehension of CCL:--

Date of release on bail:--

Date of commencement of trial.:31.03.2023

Date of close of trial.:29.11.2024

Date of sentence or order.:20.12.2024

Explanation.: ---

Complainant: State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nandvaram P.S.

S. Name of Father’s name/ReligioOccupati AgeResidence NoaccusedHusband Namenon K. Basava Poolachintha 1Ramudu 17 Rajuvillage

Offence:: insulting modesty of women, sexual assault

Section of Law:Sec.354-A, 354-D IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act

Finding.: CCL found not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, CCL is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.354-A, 354-D IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act. He is acquitted of the same under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. His parental bonds and surety bonds if any shall stands cancelled after a period of appeal as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-M. Sarojanamma,

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KURNOOL.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

PRESENT:-Smt.M.Sarojanamma,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E), Kurnool. FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

Wednesday, the 19th day of February, 2025.

C.C.No.1348/2018

State: Represented by Inspector of Police, Kurnool Rural Circle. … Complainant -Versus- Eldho. N.P., age 47 years, S/o. Niravathu Kandathil Poulose, of Niravathi Kandathil (House) Moolankavu (Post), S.Bathiry village, Wayanad District, Kerala State- Pin No: 673592. Cell No: 9447312478. Driver of Lorry bearing No: KA55-7206.… Accused

Boya Shankar, age 47 years, s/o Rangaiah, Peddatekur village, Kallur Mandal. Rider of bullock cart and Two bulls.… Deceased

This case came before me on 12-02-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri.C.Lokeswaraiayh, Advocate for the accused and after having stood over for consideration, till today, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Kurnool Rural Circle filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.33/2018 for the offences U/s.304-A IPC and U/Sec.134(a)

(b) r/w 187 of MV Act.

2.The brief facts of the case are that:

i. The deceased Boya Shankar was working in Toddy shop which was run by Beesanna Goud of Peddatekur village. He used to transport the Toddy from the Palm trees to Toddy shop in Peddatekur village by his two bullock cart in a barrel in the early morning of every day. As usual on 20.03.2018 at 06.30 hours, the deceased left home by raiding his two bullock cart by carrying empty barrel to go to Palm trees situated in the limits of Chinnatekur village. On the way on NH- 2 44 Kurnool – Dhone road after crossing "Siva Prasad Petro fuel H.P. Petrol

Bunk", when the bullock cart reached near the fields of P.Pullareddy, at about 0715 hours, the accused driver Edho of Kerala State drove his orange fruits loaded lorry bearing No.KA 55- 7206 with high speed in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Kurnool side to Dhone side and dashed on the back of Two bullocks cart which was raiding by the deceased, on that the deceased fell down from the bullock cart and one bull was detached from the the cart and another bull and cart was dragged about 50 feet distance from the spot due to high speed of crime vehicle. Resulting which the deceased was died on the spot with severe bleeding head injury, two bulls also died on the spot with injuries and the bullock cart was damaged and struck up under the crime vehicle.

LW-1 & LW-5 who were on the way to their fields were witnessed the accident and the LW-5 came to know the name of the accused while he caught hold him during his escaping from the scene and the LW-1 went to Ulindakonda PS and preferred report.

ii. Basing on the written report of LW.1, SI, Ulindakonda PS (LW-14) registered a case in Cr.No.33/2018 U/sec.304-A, 429 IPC of Ulindakonda PS on 20.03.2018 at 0745 hours and submitted FIRS to the concerned officers on the same day. Subsequently LW-15 took up further investigation. On 20.03.2018 LW- 15 visited the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and two bulls from 0830 hours to 10.30 hours in the presence of kith & kin, eye- witnesses i.e., LW-1 to LW-5 and Panchyathdars i.e. LW-7 to LW-9, during the inquest LW-15 examined and recorded the statements of LW-1 to LW-5. During inquest at the scene of offence LW-15 seized the crime vehicle i.e., KA55-7206 at the scene of offence. On 23.03.2018 LW-6 appeared before the LW-15, disclosed the details of the accused driver and produced the accused and records of crime vehicle. LW-15 examined the accused with the help of LW-6 in translation of language Malayalam to Telugu and after confirming him as accused driver, LW- 15 arrested the accused driver on 23.03.2018 at 1830 hours and released on bail.

LW-10 is the Assistant Professor, Dept. of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical

College, held autopsy over the dead body of deceased vide PM No: 251/2018 3

dated: 20.03.2018 and opined that the cause of death of deceased due to

"MULTIPLE INJURIES".

iii. LW-11 is the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Govt., Veterinary

Dispensary, Chinnatekur village, Kallur mandal, conducted autopsy over the corpse of two bulls at the scene of offence and issued PM reports vide in PM

No:04/2018 & 05/2018 dated: 20.03.2018 and opined that "bulls died due to multiple fractures & internal bleeding leads to Asphyxia, coma & death". LW-12 is the MVI, Kurnool, inspected the crime vehicle i.e., Innova bearing No: KA 55 7206 opined that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle involved in this accident".

3. The offence was taken cognizance U/s.304-A IPC and U/Sec.134(a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable

U/s.304-A IPC and U/Sec.134(a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act putting forth the substance of the accusations made against him for which he denied the commission of offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 5 and got Exs.P1 to P12 marked. In view of the evidence of PWs-1 to 5, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

7. Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. putting forth the incriminating material that appears against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which the accused denied the guilt. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

4

8.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

10. It is the case of prosecution that on 20.03.2018 at 7.15 hours, on NH-44

Kurnool – Dhone road after crossing "Siva Prasad Petro fuel H.P. Petrol Bunk" due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing No: KA55-7206 and dashed on the back of Two bullocks cart which was raiding by the deceased

Boya Shankar on that the deceased fell down from the bullock cart and one bull was detached from the the cart and another bull and cart was dragged about 50 feet distance. As a result, the deceased as well as 2-bulls sustained injuries and died on the spot.

11. The learned APP submitted his arguments stating that the case may be decided on merits.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused would contend that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of accused and hence the question of negligent act of accused does not arise. Further, the material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. The evidence of PW5-Investigating Officer, is only routine course of investigation. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

13.The evidence of PW1 is that at about 5 years ago, while he was going to his fields on motor cycle, he have witnessed the accident at Tadakanpalli road at 7.00 am., one fully loaded lorry hit the bullock cart. The deceased Shankaraiah who was riding the bullock cart was died on the spot with injuries and two axes were also died. The crime crime vehicle went to some distance and stopped the 5 crime vehicle i.e., Lorry and the driver of lorry ran away from the scene of offence by leaving the lorry there itself. He cannot say the crime vehicle, lorry bearing number and name of the driver. If shown to him, he can identify the driver of crime vehicle. He identified the signature on the written report. Ex.P1 is the signature on the report and he do not know the contents written in the report.

Police obtained his signature at the scene of offence. Police examined him.

14.The evidence of PW2 is that at about 6 years ago, her deceased husband was died in a road incident. She was present in her home. She came to know the information about the accident through PW1 and LW5 over a phone call.

Immediately, she along with her sons went to the scene of offence. At the scene of offence her deceased husband and two oxes died due to injuries. She observed crime vehicle at scene of offence but she cannot say the number of the crime vehicle. She did not enquire about the manner of the accident and driver of the crime vehicle. Police did not examine her.

15.The evidence of PW3 is that at about 5 years ago, his deceased father was died in a road incident. At the time of accident, he was present in his fields. He came to know the information about the accident through PW1 and LW5 over a phone call. Immediately, he along with his mother and brother went to the scene of offence. At the scene of offence his deceased father and two oxes died due to injuries. He observed crime vehicle at scene of offence but he cannot say the number of the crime vehicle. He did not enquire about the manner of the accident and driver of the crime vehicle. Police did not examine him.

16.The evidence of PW4 is that at about 5 years ago, while he was going to his fields at 6.00 am, he have not witnessed the accident. Immediately, after the accident, he went to the scene of offence. One lorry hit the bullock cart and caused death to Sankaraiah and two oxes. He cannot say the number of the crime vehicle and driver of the lorry was ran away from the scene of offence by leaving his lorry. He cannot identify the driver of the lorry. Police examine him.

6

17. The evidence of PW5 is that on 20-03-2018 at about 7.45 a.m., while LW- 14 present Ulindakonda PS, PW-1 came to the police station and presented written report which is marked as Ex.P-6. Basing upon Ex.P-6 LW-14 registered a case in Cr.No.304 (A), 429 IPC and forwarded to the original FIR to the Hon’ble

Court and copies to all concerned officers. Ex.P-7 is the FIR and submitted case file to me. After verifying investigation done by LW-14, he continued investigation in this case. On the same day, he visited scene of offence situated at NH-44 in between Peddatekur to Chinnatekur. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Boya Shankar in the presence of LWs-7 to 9 and prepared inquest report. Ex.P-8 is the inquest report. He found dead bodies of two bulls. He prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P-9 is the rough sketch of scene of offence and he secured the presence of PWs-1 to 4 and LW-4 and recorded their 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement and forwarded the dead body of the deceased to LW-10 for the purpose of autopsy and also prepared requisition to LW-11 who is government veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Chinnatekur to conduct PME over the dead bodies of two bulls. LW-11 conducted Postmortem over the dead bodies of two bulls and issued PME report to that extent. Ex.P-10 is the PME report of two bulls. At scene of offence he secured crime vehicle bearing No.KA55-7206. On the same day he made a request to LW-12 who is MVI, Kurnool to conduct vehicle inspection accordingly he came to police station and inspected crime vehicle bearing No.KA55-7206 and issued MVI report. Ex.P-11 is the MVI report.

Later, during the course of investigation LW-6 brought the accused to Kurnool

Rural PS after verifying identity particulars of accused, he served 41 (A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused and released him on station bail. Later, he forwarded case file to LW-16 inspector of police, Kurnool Rural Circle as he have been transferred from the said place. Later, LW-16 received PME report from LW-10.

Ex.P-12 is the PME report. After verification of his investigation and found it is on correct lines. LW-16 filed charge sheet against accused.

During cross examination of PW-5, nothing is elicited against the

Accused 1 and 2 except suggestions.

7

18. PW1, who is eye witness and PWs.2 to 4 are blood relatives of deceased, did not support the case of prosecution on any material particulars as to the manner of incident and also the identity of the accused as driver of crime vehicle, at the time of accident and they turned hostile. Though the learned Assistant

Public prosecutor cross-examined PWs-1 to 4 with the permission of the Court as they resiled from their earlier statements nothing has been elicited to prove that, the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident and they witnessed the alleged incident. No purpose have been served by the prosecution except marking of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs-1 to 4 as Exs.P2 to

P5.

19.Therefore, the identity of accused as the driver of crime vehicle on the date of incident is not established by the prosecution from any of the prosecution witnesses. In absence of specific identification of the accused as the driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident, this Court cannot come to conclusion that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident.

20.Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussions, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/s.304-A

IPC and U/Sec.134(a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

21.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences U/s.304-A IPC and U/Sec.134(a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act and he is acquitted of the same U/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19 th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- M.Sarojanamma

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E) Knl. FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class (SMC) Knl.

8

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution: For Defence: PW1: K. Ramachandrudu-None- PW2: Boya Lingamma PW3: Boya Ramudu PW4: Boya Menuga Nagaraju PW5: P.Nagaraju Yadav

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the report Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P6: Written report Ex.P7: FIR Ex.P8: Inquest report Ex.P9: Rough Sketch of scene of offence Ex.P.10: PME report of two bulls Ex.P.11: MVI Report Ex.P.12: PME Report

For Defence: -Nil-

Sd/- M.Sarojanamma

SPL.JMFC (P&E) KNL.

FAC/JMFC (SMC) KNL //True copy//

SPL. JMFC (P&E) KNL.

FAC/JMFC (SMC) KNL 9

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

C.C.No.1348/2018

1. Date of Offence: 20-03-2018

2. Date of Complaint or report: 20-03-2018

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 23-03-2018

4. Date of release of the accused : 23-03-2018

5. Date of commencement of trial: 28-11-2023

6. Date of close of trial: 07-01-2025

7. Date of Sentence or Order: 19-02-2025

8. Explanation of delay if any: --

ComplainantThe Inspector of Police, Kurnool Rural Circle, in Crime No.33/2018. Eldho. N.P., age 47 years, Accused S/o. Niravathu Kandathil Poulose, of Niravathi Kandathil (House) Moolankavu (Post), S.Bathiry village, Wayanad District, Kerala State- Pin No: 673592. Cell No: 9447312478. Driver of Lorry bearing No: KA55-7206.

Offence : Causing death by negligence.

Section of Law: U/s.304-A IPC and U/Sec.134(a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act

Finding of Court: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence/Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/s.304-A IPC and U/Sec.134(a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act and he is acquitted of the same U/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- M.Sarojanamma

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E) Knl. FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class (SMC) Knl.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

//True copy//

SPL.JMFC (P&E) KNL

FAC/JMFC (SMC) KNL.

APKU020000012022 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION), KURNOOL.

Present: Smt.M.Sarojanamma,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurnool.

Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.01/2022

M.K.Murali Mohan, S/o. M.K. Ramudu, Aged about 47 years, Hindu, LIC Agent, Flat No.406, Brindavan Paradise, Joharapuram Road, A.Camp, Kurnool City, Kurnool District. … Plaintiff -Versus- S.Ashok, S/o. S. Kiroji Rao, Aged about 36 years, Hindu, Bakery Shop Owner, Resident of H.No.5/206-A. Now at H.No.69/124-4-2, Joharapuram-Village, Kurnool City, Kurnool District. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 27.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Shafi Ullah Ansari, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri H.K.Jalandhra Rao, Advocate for defendant, upon having perused the material papers on record, having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs.9,54,000/- (Rs.4,77,000/- + Rs.4,77,000/-) being the principal and interest due on two promissory notes, dated 11.07.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/-, dt.11.07.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/- and for costs.

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

a) The Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three

Lakhs only) on 11.07.2019 and again borrowed another sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on the same day i.e., on 11.07.2019 from the Plaintiff for his necessities by executing two

Promissory Notes on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on demand or order from the

Plaintiff.

b) Inspite of repeated demands from the Plaintiff, the Defendant has not been paying the said two promissory notes dues, finally the

Plaintiff got issued legal notice on 17.12.2021 demanding the Defendant payment of two pronotes debt, but the defendant did not pay the pronotes debt. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed his written statement denying all the averments of the plaint. The averments of the written statement of the defendant in brief are as follows:

a) It is submitted that the defendant borrowed only Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) on 11.07.2019 and executed one single promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing for a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and there after the defendant paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff in different dates. The plaintiff after receiving the said payment amount, he endorsed the same in a pocket book maintained by this defendant.

b) It is further submitted that the defendant for wrongful and illegal gain created another promissory note for Rs.3,00,000/- by forging the signature of the defendant. The defendant borrowed only Rs.3,00,000/- 3 from the Plaintiff. No consideration was passed under the 2nd promissory note. It is submitted that the plaintiff with an ill motive, wantonly failed to show the part payments made by this defendant and filed the suit for wrongful gain which is bad under law. The plaintiff approached the

Hon'ble court with un-clean hands by suppressing the facts of part

payments made by this defendant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial.

1. Whether the suit promissory note, dated 11.07.2019 is true valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled the suit claim as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiff, he himself is examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 on his behalf. He also examined scribe of suit promissory notes as PW2.

6.On behalf of defendant, he himself is examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B4 through PW2 on his behalf.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides.

8.ISSUE NO.1:

a) In order to substantiate the issue No.1, the plaintiff is examined as PW1 andreiterated the same facts as in his affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, which enumerated by the plaintiff in his plaint and also marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1-Original suit promissory note, dated 11.07.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of 4 plaintiff, Ex.A2-Original suit promissory note, dated 11.07.2019 for

Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A3-

Office copy of legal notice, dated 17.12.2021 and Ex.A4-Served Postal

Acknowledgment.

b) During the course of cross examination, PW.1 deposed that he is a graduate in B.Sc. He know the court litigations from 15 years. He filed all the suits for recovery of money based on promissory notes. He is an income tax assessee from 20 years. He is a LIC agent by profession. The defendant got to his acquaintance through one Suresh. He do not know the nick name of said Suresh. He adds that he used to lend amount to him. He is having an habit to endorse the payments if any made by his debtors in the pocket books of them. He have no acquaintance with the father of the defendant by name Kiroji Rao. Apart from the suit transactions, he had other financial transactions with the defendant. The entries in the pocket size book confronted to him to a tune of

Rs.1,50,000/- and also other does belongs to him but the same were not towards the suit transaction.

c) He further adds that the said Suri do chicken business. His original name is D. Suresh. He do not know one Rambabu. He paid the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the defendant in the form of cash. The said transaction never disclosed in his income tax returns. He never withdraw the said amount from the bank. The defendant is having a Bakery. Rest of cross-examination is suggestions.

9. a) Besides the self evidence of PW1, one D.Suresh, who is the scribe of Exs.A1 and A2 was examined as PW.2 in support of his evidence. PW.2 stated in his affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination that he is the scribe of Exs.A1 and A2.

5

b) In his cross examination, he deposed that he studied upto 10 standard. Defendant is his relative and he know Plaintiff. He is doing chicken business since 1998. He admitted that he introduced plaintiff to the defendant. He do not remember exact period but approximately from 15 years. He got acquaintance with the plaintiff, since he is his customer by purchasing chicken. Plaintiff is a LIC Agent. He do not know plaintiff used to give hand loans to the needy people. Except Exs.A1 and A2, he did not draft any other promissory notes. He never borrowed amount from plaintiff. Whenever required himself and defendant used to exchange money.

c) He admitted that the signatures appeared in pocket book belongs to him. As admitted by him, the signatures in pocket book (one paper) was marked as Ex.B1. He further admitted that the writings in

Ex.B1 belongs to him. Another page in second pocket book confronted

before him and asked him whether the signatures and hand writings

belongs to him or not. He stated ‘Yes’. As admitted by him the second pocket book was marked as Ex.B2. The third pocket book confronted

before him (containing two pages) and asked him whether the writings

and signatures belongs to him or not he stated 'Yes'. As admitted by him the third pocket book was marked as Ex.B3. He can identify the signatures of plaintiff. The fourth pocket book confronted before him and asked him to identify the signature of plaintiff. He stated the signature appearing in pocket book consisting of plaintiff signature. He do not know as per fourth pocket book, it is reflecting in connection with debt defendant paid regularly principal along with interest to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff acknowledge the same by putting his signature, because the payment was done in between plaintiff and defendant.

6

d) He admitted that the first line signature belongs to him and as per the first line, he have received Rs.7,500/- on 09.05.2019 but he do not know who has given the amount to him. Ex.B4 is the first line in fourth pocket book. In the year 2019 a promissory note was executed by the defendant to the plaintiff. He further admitted that Exs.A1 and A2 executed on the same date and same time and where Exs.A1 and A2 were written is not mentioned in his chief examination affidavit and further admitted that the defendant put his signature in his presence. When

Exs.A1 and A2 confronted before him and asked him which signature belongs to defendant. He stated both the signatures are belongs to defendant. He further admitted that he is deposing evidence at the request of plaintiff. Rest of cross-examination is full of suggestions.

During re-examination, he deposed that Exs.B1 to B4 are in connection with his personal financial transaction with defendant (Ashok).

During Re-cross examination he volunteers that Exs.B1 to B4 transaction consisting to the year 2014, 2018 and 2020. He admitted that in Exs.B1 to

B4 it is noted as C/o Murali mohan.

10.a) The contents of defendant as DW.1 in his affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination and written statement, are one and the same. In the cross examination of DW.1, he deposed that in earlier he have a chicken shop at present he is working in a chicken shop. He cannot able to read and write except written his signature. He bear his signature in English.

Ex.A1 contain his signature. Ex.A2 signature is not of him. The scribe of

Ex.A1 is one Suri. He can identified the signature of the scribe. The scribe signature is confronted to him in Exs.A1 and A2, he identified the signature of the scribe.

7

b) During further cross examination, he admitted that Ex.B1 mentioned that S. Keeroji Rao and part payment endorsements not relating to the plaintiff. The signatures in Ex.B1 is not relating to the plaintiff and Ex.B1 mentioned that LIC premiums so also Ex.B3 and mentioned as Ram Babu. He further admitted that it is mentioned in

Ex.B2 dated 28.09.2014 first page. The signatures on Ex.B2 relating to

Suresh and the Ex.B2 is relating to 28.09.2014 to April, 2019. He further admitted that the Ex.B2 is not relating to the Ex.A1 and further admitted that it is mentioned Ex.B2 Suresh, C/o Ashok and for an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- and so also mentioned gold Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.B3 transactions relating to 19.07.2018 to 27.04.2019 and the name is mentioned as Keeroji Rao for Rs.1,00,000/- Dt.19.08.2018. Ex.B4 is relating to 02.05.2019 to 26.09.2019 it relating to Ashok. There is no correction in relating to the dates in Ex.B4 issued by the Suri. He volunteers that the corrections made by PW1. He admitted that prior to filing of this suit the plaintiff issued the legal notice to him vide Ex.A4. He have not issued any reply notice to the Ex.A4 legal notice. Rest of cross- examination is full of suggestions.

11.It is settled law that if the plaintiff is able to prove the due execution of Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes, a presumption would arise under

Section 118 of N.I. Act as to the existence of consideration. As per the

Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption will be in favour of plaintiff, unless and until contrary is proved. In the present case, though the defendant took the plea of created and forgery with regard to execution of

Ex.A2, suit promissory note, the same was not proved by the counsel for defendant either in the cross examination of PW1 & PW2 or in the cross examination of DW1. When the defendant took the plea of created and 8 forgery, the onus of proof lies on him to prove the said fact. Despite of denying execution of Ex.A2, no rebuttal evidence adduced to prove the promissory note created and forged. The defendant did not prove the

Ex.A2 is forged one. The defendant admitted the execution of Ex.A1 and borrowed Rs.3,00,000/-. Further defendant raised another plea the part payment endorsement in the pocket book Exs.B1 to B3 not relating to

Exs.A1 and A2, it relating the transaction of Kuroji Rao. Exs.B2 and B3 prior to the Exs.A1 and A2. No part payment endorsement prior to existence of Exs.A1 and A2. Ex.B4 is relating to the existence of the transaction of the Ashok but not the Exs.A1 and A2. The defendant not adduced documentary evidence to rebut the presumption of passing of consideration. Mere denial without presenting proof before the court not accepted. The defendant admitted the existence of debt in respect of

Ex.A1 but denied the existence of the Ex.A1. But no iota of material adduced for establish the forgery plea. Exs.B1 to B4 totally strange.

Hence, plea of part payment not sustainable.

12.On the other hand, the plaintiff proved his case in all aspects by way of oral and documentary evidence. In view of the above discussion, this Court came to a conclusion that Exs.A1 and A2 suit promissory notes are executed by defendant for consideration from the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount, as the suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

13.ISSUE NO.2:

In In view of findings of this Court on issue No.1, these issue is answered in favour of plaintiff.

9

14.ISSUE NO.3:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff, against the defendant for a sum of Rs.9,54,000/- (Rs.4,77,000/- +

Rs.4,77,000/-) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree, till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.3,00,000/- + Rs.3,00,000/-).

Typed to dictation to Stenographer, after correction, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff:For Defendant:

PW-1: M.K.Murali MohanDW-1: S.Ashok

PW-2: D. Suresh

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1-Original suit promissory note, dated 11.07.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff

Ex.A2-Original suit promissory note, dated 11.07.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff

Ex.A3-Office copy of legal notice, dated 17.12.2021

Ex.A4-Served Postal Acknowledgment 10

For Defendant:

Ex.B1-Signature of PW2 in first pocket book (one paper)

Ex.B2-Signature of PW2 in second pocket book

Ex.B3-Signature of PW2 in third pocket book

Ex.B4-Signature of PW2 in the first line in fourth pocket book (Exs.B1 to B4 marked through PW2)

PCJ (JD) KNL.