Smt.M.Shubhavani

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE'COURT, KADAPA.

Present:- Smt.M.Shubhavani,

Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Tuesday this the 26th day of February, 2019.

Sessions Case No. S.C.No.31 of 2018 .

1Name of the Complainant State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Khajipet Police Station.

2Name of the AccusedYenugu Venkateswara Reddy @ Rillaiah S/O Kottam Veera Reddy, 40 years, Thudamaladinne village, Khajipet Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

3Offences chargedU/sec.307 of IPC.

4Plea of the accused.Found not guilty.

5Finding of the judgeFound not guilty.

6Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused by name Yenugu Venkateswara

Reddy @ Rillaiah, is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.307 and he is acquitted U/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said charge. The bail bonds 2 that of the accused shall stand cancelled. However, M.O.1 i.e., knife is are concern, shall be destroy after expiry of appeal time is over. The office is hereby directed to send M.O.1 to the committal court for disposal of the same. The committal court is hereby directed to dispose the case property i.e., M.O.1 after expiry of appeal time as per rule.

7Accused defended bySri.T.Mallikarjuna, advocate for the accused.

8Prosecution conducted by Addl. Public Prosecutor.

9Cr.No. and Name of the Cr.No.109 of 2016 of Khajipet Police StationPolice Station.

10Committed byP.R.C.No.15 of 2017 of Judicial

Magistrate of Ist Class, Mydukur.

11Date of offence02.08.2016 12Date of report03.08.2016 13Date of remand08.08.2016 14Date of release on bail31.08.2016 15Date of committal to 10.01.2017.

sessions Court

3 16Date of commencement 27.06.2018 of trial 17Date of close of trial.20.02.2019 18Date of Judgment26.02.2019

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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Khajipet P.S., laid a charge sheet against the accused by name Yenugu Venkateswara Reddy @

Rillaiah, in Cr.No.109 of 2016 for the offence punishable U/sec.307 of IPC, alleging that, the defacto-complainant Y.Kesi Reddy, is resident of Thudamaladinne village, Khajipet mandal and living by cultivation, they had ancestral land on northern side to their village and got partitioned the same by six brothers, and cultivated the same. His last brother Yenugu Venkateswara Reddy i.e., the accused herein asked the complainant that he lost Ac.0.15 cents of land for his share and provides the same as his share and made quarrel with the complainant. On that the complainant stated the partition of the lands was took place about 30 years back and now it is impossible to provide Ac.0.15 cents of land to accused. On that the accused grew wild and attacked on the life of the complainant with intention to kill him, stabbed on the left of the chest and caused severe 4 bleeding injury. Then L.Ws.2 and 3 i.e., Y.Veeramma and Y.Chenna

Kesava Reddy intervened, the accused ran away. Later the complainant got admitted in Rims hospital, Kadapa with the help of

L.Ws.2 and 3 for treatment and the same was witnessed by L.Ws.4 and 5 i.e., K.Venkatasubba Reddy and J.Sidda Reddy. On the statement of L.W.1 by L.W.9 P.Siva Sankar, A.S.I., L.W.11 M.Raja

Gopal, S.I., registered the above crime and investigated into. During the course of investigation L.W.11 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and also examined the scene and drawn rough sketch. On 08.08.2016 the accused was surrendered before the court of Judl.Magistrate of Ist class, Kamalapapuram and forward to sub jail for judicial custody. Later L.W.10, A.Vidya

Sagar, S.I., filed a petition for police custody of the accused. Later

L.W.10 took the accused for police custody from judicial custody on 18.08.2016 and recorded his confession statement before L.Ws.6 and 7 i.e., B.Sreenivasula Reddy and K.Venkata Subba Reddy and seized a knife from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama and sent the accused back for judicial custody. L,.W.8

Dr.A.Eswar Rao, CAS, examined the complainant and issued wound certificate. After completing investigation L.W.12 M.Ranga

Rao, S.I., filed charge sheet against the accused.

5

2. The learned Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class,

Pulivendula, registered the case as P.R.C.No.15 of 2017, committed the case to the court of Sessions, Kadapa. The Sessions Court, registered the P.R.C.No.15 of 2017 as S.C.No.31 of 2018, and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law.

3.On appearance of the accused, he was examined

U/sec.228 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the acquisition. On hearing the prosecution and defence, charge U/sec.307 of IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In its attempt to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10, and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 along with M.O.1.

5.After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution 6 witnesses. The accused denied the evidence. He reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard arguments of prosecution and defence counsel.

7. Now the point that would arise for consideration is:

Whether prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable

U/sec.307 of IPC?

8.Point: The prosecution in order to prove his case got examined P.W.1 to P.W.10. The victim and defacto-complainant is examined as P.W.1. The wife of P.W.1 is examined as P.W.2.

P.W.4 is an independent eye witness P.W.5 A.S.I., of Police

Khajipet P.S., who recorded statement of P.W.1. P.W.8 investigating officer who registered case and prepared rough sketch and examined P.W.1,2 and L.W.3 Chennakesava Reddy and recorded their statements. The further investigation took up by P.W.9 and he took police custody of accused who voluntarily surrendered in Mydukur court and P.W.9 recorded confession 7 panchanama of accused. P.W.7 village Revenue Officer, Vallur village, examined scene offence and seized knife under cover of panchanama. P.W.3 is one of the panchayatdars for confession and seizure panchanama. The Medical officer who examined

P.W.1 was examined as P.W.6 and he issued wound certificate.

P.W.10 after completing entire investigation filed charge sheet in this case.

9.P.W.1 deposed that, accused is his own younger brother and there are ill feelings in between him and to the accused regarding land disputes for some years. While so, in the month of August, 2015 on one day, at about 8.30 pm., he along with his wife were in their house and at that time, accused came to him and stabbed him with dagger on left side of his chest and caused bleeding injury in order to take away his life. Then P.W.1 raised huge cries and on hearing the same his wife and neighbors gathered and on seeing them, the accused ran away.

Then P.W.1 was shifted to Rims hospital, for treatment. Police came to hospital and recorded his statement. Ex.P.1 is the complaint.

8

10.The wife of P.W.1 who is examined as P.W.2 deposed that at about two years back, at 8.30 pm., P.W.1 was sleeping outside of the house and she was sleeping inside the house and L.W.3 Y.Chennakesava Reddy came to house after attending natural call. Then At that time, accused came and stab

P.W.1 on his chest with dagger and ran away. L.W.3

Y.Chennakesava Reedy saw the accused and raised shoutings.

On hearing the shoutings of L.W.3 Chennakesava Reddy, she came out and noticed injuries sustained to P.W.1. She further deposed that, at that time, P.W.4 and L.W.4 K.Venkata

Subbareddy also gathered. Then P.W.1 was shifted to Rims hospital, Kadapa in an auto for treatment. P.W.2 further deposed that accused attacked P.W.1 as he demanded for 15 cents of land. P.W.2 deposed that she was examined by the police and her statement was recorded.

11.An independent eye witness in this case examined as

P.W.4 and he deposed that, he do not now anything about this case particulars or about receiving of injuries by P.W.1 from the hands of accused. He further deposed that he was not examined 9 by the police. So, the prosecution treated the said witness as hostile and got marked his 161 Cr.P.C., statement as Ex.P.4.

12.A.S.I., of Khajipet P.S., received hospital intimation at 12.10 am., on 03.08.2016 at Rims out post P.S., Kadapa and informed him about admission of injured. Then he went to Rims hospital, Kadapa and recorded the statement of P.W.1 on the same day and the contents were read over and explained to him and P.W.1 admitted the contents as true and correct. The hospital intimation dt:03.08.2016 is marked as Ex.P.5. Later P.W.8 took up further investigation in this case.

13.P.W.8 deposed that he received hospital intimation along with statement of P.W.1 on 03.08.2016 at about 1 pm., and basing on that statement, he registered a case in CR.No.109 of 2016 U/sec.307 of IPC and submitted FIRs to all concerned officers under Ex.P.7 then in course of further investigation he went to Rims hospital, Kadapa and examined P.W.1 and 2 and

L.W.3 Chennakesava Reddy and recorded their statements.

Then he went to scene of offence and prepared rough sketch 10 under Ex.P.8. Then he secured the presence of P.W.4 and recorded his statement and P.W.4 stated before him as in Ex.P.4.

Further investigation in this case took up by P.W.9.

14.P.W.9 deposed that, he came to know that on 10.08.2016 the accused voluntarily surrendered in Mydukur court, then he filed a petition for police custody and same was allowed. On 18.08.2016 as per court orders, he took the custody of accused and interrogated him in presence of P.W.3 and P.W.7.

On interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed about commission offence and revealed about crime weapon at

Thudumuladinne village. Then he arrested the accused under cover of confession panchanama which is marked as Ex.p.9 at 11.30 am., Thereafter they went to Thudumuladinne village, where the accused brought M.O.1 and same was seized under cover of seizure panchanama which is marked as Ex.P.10 on 18.08.,2016 at 1 pm., Then after observing all legal formalities the accused sent for judicial custody. Further investigation in this case took up by P.W.10.

11

15.P.W.10 deposed that after receiving relevant records and wound certificate of P.W.1, and after completing entire investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

16.The prosecution got examined V.R.O., of Vullur village and he deposed that, on 18.08.2016 at 11 am., L.W.11 S.I., of

Police Khajipet, P.S., examined scene of offence and seized knife under cover of panchanama and he signed on it and M.O.1 is knife.

17.One of the panchayatdars for Ex.P.2 got examined as

P.W.3. P.W.3 deposed that, the signatures shown to him on confession and seizure panchanama belongs to him. He further deposed that, he do not know its contents and only at the request of police he signed on some papers at his house. P.W.3 further deposed that he do not know about seizure of knife by the police under cover of panchanama. Ex.P.2 is signature of P.W.3 on confession and seizure panchanama. The prosecution treated him as hostile and got marked his 161 Cr.P.C., as Ex.P.3.

12

18.The Medical Office who examined P.W.1/victim on 02.08.2016 at 11.30 pm., examined P.W.6 and he examined

P.W.1 and found a laceration on left side of chest measuring 3 cm., P.W.6 he is of opinion that above injury is simple in nature and caused by sharp object. Ex.P.6 is wound certificate of P.W.1.

19.When it comes to the evidence of P.W.1, he deposed in his chief examination that accused is none other than his own younger brother and also submitted that, they got ill feelings regarding land disputes for some years. Keeping in mind, about the disputes and in order to take away his life, the accused attacked on him in the month of August, 2015 at about 8.30 pm.,

P.W.1 mentioned that, he along with P.W.2 were in house accused came to them and stabbed P.W.1 with dagger on his left chest. But when it comes to his cross examination he deposed that, on the day of incident he was sleeping in front of his house i.e., in open place and his wife i.e., P.W.2 was sleeping outside the house along with him which is entirely different to his chief examination. P.W.1 in his chief examination deposing that he along with P.W.2 were sleeping in house at the time of incident 13 and whereas his cross examination he deposed he along with

P.W.2 were sleeping outside of the house in open place. When it comes to the evidence of P.W.2 she deposed that, she was sleeping inside the house, but not on outside in front of the house as stated by P.W.1 in his cross examination. The

Investigating officer P.W.8 deposed in his cross examination that, as per 161 Cr.P.C., statements of P.W.2 and L.W.3

Chennakesava Reddy shows that, they were sleeping near the house and it is not specifically mentioned whether they are sleeping inside or outside of the house. Moreover, P.W.2 deposed that, L.W.3 Chennakesava Reddy came to their house after attending nature call and he saw the accused stabbing

P.W.1 on chest with dagger. P.W.1 did not mentioned about presence of L.W.3 Y.Chennakesva Reddy at the time of incident.

Though P.W.2 deposed that, L.W.3 Y.Chennakesava Reddy saw the accused and raised shoutings and on hearing shoutings only,

P.W.2 and others gathered. P.W.2 did not mentioned about the presence of L.W.3 Chennakesava Reddy in her 161 Cr.P.C., statement. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 he did not depose about presence of their son L.W.3 Y.Chennakesava Reddy at the 14 time of incident. P.W.5 who recorded the statement of P.W.1 deposed in his cross examination that, the statement of P.W.1 does not show about presence of P.W.2 and L.W.3

Chennakesava Reddy at the time of incident. P.W.1 further deposed that, after the incident he was shifted to Rims hospital,

Kadapa in an auto for treatment. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know whether police examined the said auto driver who shifted him to hospital for treatment after the incident.

20.P.W.2 deposed in her evidence that, at the time of incident P.W.4 and L.W.4 K.Venkata Subba Reddy also present and they noticed the accused. The same was not mentioned by

P.W.1 in his chief examination that P.W.4 and L.W.4 K.Venkata

Subba Reddy were present at the time of incident and he deposed in his cross examination that he did not mentioned the names of P.W.4 and L.W.4 K.Venkata Subba Reddy at the time of recording his statement. When prosecution got examined

P.W.4 about his presence at incident and he deposed that he do not know anything about this case particulars and he do not know about any injuries received by P.W.1 from the hands of 15 accused. P.W.4 who is an independent eye witness in this case shown hospital attitude and so, the prosecution examined his 161 Cr.P.C., as Ex.P.4. The hostile attitude shown by P.W.4 is very much fatal to the prosecution case. So also there was no corroboration from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 which is also very much fatal to the case of the prosecution.

21.P.W.6 who treated P.W.1 and issued wound certificate under Ex.P.6 and he is of the opinion that, the injury is simple in nature and caused by sharp object. As seen from

Ex.P.6 it does not shows the date when it was issued. The same was admitted by P.W.6 in his cross examination that, Ex.P.6 does not show the date when it was issued.

22.The Investigating officer i.e., P.W.9 who took police custody of accused and interrogated him on 18.08.2016 in presence of P.W.3 and P.W.7 and the accused voluntarily confessed about commission of offence and revealed concealing crime weapon and Thudumuladinne village of Khajipeta P.S.

and he arrested the accused under cover of confession 16 panchanama under Ex.P.9 and also seized crime weapon i.e., knife which is marked as M.O.1 under cover of seizure panchanama i.e., Ex.P.10 and after observing all legal formalities the accused was sent for judicial custody. When it comes to the evidence of P.W.7 who was present at the time of recording Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 and seizure of M.O.1 and he deposed that, he did not received any summons from police to act as mediator but received oral instruction and on that he went to police station and saw the accused who was in police station.

When it comes to his further cross examination he deposed that, he signed as attestor in panchanamas for nearly 6 to 7 cases.

23.The another mediator i.e., P.W.3 who was present along with P.W.7 deposed that he do not know anything about confession and seizure panchanamas or about seizure of M.O.1 by the police and at the request of police he signed on panchanama papers and his signature is marked as Ex.P.2. The evidence of P.W.3 is very much fatal to the prosecution case as he did not support the evidence of P.W.9 about Ex.P.9 and 17

Ex.P.10 and also about seizure of crime weapon from the possession of accused.

24.Though the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 in order to prove the guilt of the accused, but there was no corroboration in between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the independent eye witness who was examined as P.W.4 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and the investigation conducted by P.W9 about recording confession panchanama under Ex.P.9 and seizure panchanama Ex.P.10 and also about seizure of crime weapon under M.O.1 was not supported by the panchayatdar i.e,., P.W.3 and as the prosecution miserable failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

25.In the result, the accused by name Yenugu

Venkateswara Reddy @ Rillaiah, is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.307 and he is acquitted U/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said 18 charge. The bail bonds that of the accused shall stand cancelled.

However, M.O.1 i.e., knife is are concern, shall be destroy after expiry of appeal time is over. The office is hereby directed to send

M.O.1 to the committal court for disposal of the same. The committal court is hereby directed to dispose the case property i.e.,

M.O.1 after expiry of appeal time as per rule.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 26th day of February, 2019.

Sd/-M.Shubhavani,

Addl.Asst.SessionsJudge, Kadapa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution:

P.W.1. Y.Kesi Reddy

P.W.2. Y.Veeramma,

P.W.3. Y.Venkata Subba Reddy,

P.W.4. J.Sidda Reddy,

P.W.5. P.Siva Sankar, A.S.I.,

P.W.6. Dr.A.Eswar Rao, CAS

P.W.7. B.Sreenivasula Reddy

P.W.8. M.Raja Gopal,S.I.,

P.W.9. A.Vidya Sagar Reddy, S.I., 19

P.W.10. M.Ranga Rao, S.I.,

Witness examined for defence: NIL

Exhibits marked for prosecution:

Ex.P.1 complaint given by P.W.1.

Ex.P.2. Signature on seizure confession panchanama.

Ex.P.3. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.4. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.5. Hospital, intimation dt:03.08.2016.

Ex.P.6. Wound certificate of P.W.1.

Ex.P..7. FIR

Ex.P.8. Rough sketch.

Ex.P.9. confession panchanama dt:18.08.2016.

Ex.P.10. Seizure panchanama.

Exhibits marked for defence: NIL

M.Os.marked for prosecution:

M.O.1. Knife

Sd/-M.Shubhavani,

Addl.A.S.J.

1

S.C.No.291 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE'COURT, KADAPA.

Present:- Smt.M.Shubhavani,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Friday this the 11 th day of October, 2019.

Sessions Case No.291 of 2017.

1Name of the State: Represented by the Inspector of ComplainantPolice, Vempalli Rural Police Station.

2Name of the Accused Syed Khader Basha, 32 years S/o Khader Valli D.No.11/60, Bidalamitta Street, Vempalli town and mandal.

3Offences chargedU/sec.498(A),306 of IPC 4Plea of the accused.Found not guilty.

5Finding of the judgeFound not guilty.

6Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused i.e., Syed

Khader Basha, 32 years S/o Khader found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.498(A),306 of Indian

Penal code. Accordingly, he is acquitted

U/sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said charges. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. The committal court did not produced any property at the time of trial. Hence the committal court is hereby directed to destroy the case property if any after expiry of appeal time as per rule.

7Accused defended bySmt. K.Aruna Kumari, Legal aid counsel advocate for the accused.

8Prosecution conducted Addl. Public Prosecutor. by 2

S.C.No.291 of 2017 9Cr.No. and Name of the Cr.No.120 of 2016 of Vempalli Police Police StationStation.

10Committed byP.R.C.No. 31 of 2017 Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Pulivendula.

11Date of offence19.8.2016 12Date of report22.8.2016 13Date of remand4.10.2017 14Date of release on bail - 15Date of committal to 31.10.17

sessions Court

16Date of commencement 24.6.2019 of trial 17Date of close of trial.24.9.2019 18Date of Judgment11.10.2019

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vempalli P.S., laid a charge sheet against the accused, in Cr.No.120 of 2016 for the offence punishable

U/sec.498(A),306 of Indian Penal code alleging that, At about 12 years ago the marriage of deceased Shaik Munni, was performed with the accused.

The accused lives as coolie in the Rice mill. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with three daughters and a son. The accused addicted to alcohol.

Every day the accused used to return home by drinking alcohol. Several times the deceased requested the accused to give up the habit of drinking alcohol, but accused paid a deaf ear. Every day, the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty both physicall and mentally. On 19.8.2016 night at about 11.00 PM, the accused returned to home by drinking alcohol, in this regard altercation taken place in between the deceased and accused, the accused abused her in filthy language, when the deceased questioned the accused as 3

S.C.No.291 of 2017 to why he is abusing her unnecessarily, aggrieved with that the accused caught hold of her tuft of hair, dragged and beat her. The deceased felt that except to die there is no better option to her rather than receiving injuries in the hands of accused. With an intention to die, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person and set herself on fire, the accused has also sustianed burns injuries from waist to upper region as the deceased caught hold of him unable to bear the pain. On hearing the cries,

L.W.3 Syed Nannibu, rushed to the deceased and accused, got shifted the accused and deceased to Government hospital, vempalli and after getting first aid, the both accused and deceased were referred to RIMS hospital,

Kadapa. As the health condition of deceased became more serious, with an intention to shift the deceased to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi, the deceased was brought to the house of i.e., Vempalli and on 24.8.2016 night at about 11.00 PM the deceased was succumbed to burns injuries. As the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty both physically and mentally and abetted her to commit suicide, unable to her the harassment of accused, the deceased commit suicide, by pouring kerosene on her person and set herself on heire, and died. The accused is responsible for the death of deceased.

Basing on the complaint/deceased, at first instance a case in

Cr.No.120/2016 U/Sec. Woman burns was registered in Vempalli P.S., on 22.08.2016 at 02.00 PM and later after demise of deceased it was altered to 174 Cr.P.C ( Suicidal death due to burns) On 25.8.2016 at 7.30 AM by

L.W.12/ A.Madhumalleswar Reddy S.I of Vempalli P.S., held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of inquest dars and after 4

S.C.No.291 of 2017 conducting postmortem examination of deceased. The Assistant

Superintendent, of police Pulivendula has issued a memo Vide

C.No.454/SDPO-PDL/17 dt. 22.09.2017, U/Sec.174 Cr.P.C ( Suicidal death due to burns) altered from Woman Burns and took up investigation.

Basing on the orders of the Assistant Superintendent of police,

Pulivendula, L.W.13 add sections 498(A), 306 of IPC in this case and issued fresh FIR’s to all the concerned officers on 25.09.2017 at about 8.00 PM.

During the course of further investigation on 04.10.2017 L.W.13 arrested the accused on his surrender and sent the accused for judicial remand. After recording of dying declaration of deceased by Judicial

Magistrate of First Class for prohibition and Excise Kadapa, and after

receipt of postmortem report of deceased, L.W.12/ A.Madhumalleswar

Reddy, Sub Inspector of police of Vempalli P.S has registered a case in

Cr.No.120/2016 U/Sec.498-A,306 of IPC. After completion of investigation filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.498,306 of

Indian penal code. Hence the charge sheet contents.

2. The Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Pulivendula, registered the case as P.R.C.No.31 of 2017, committed the case to the court of Sessions,

Kadapa. The Sessions Court, registered the P.R.C.No.31 of 2017, as

S.C.No.291 of 2017, and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law.

3.On appearance of the accused, he examined U/sec.228 of Cr.P.C.

He denied the acquisition. On hearing the prosecution and defence, charge 5

S.C.No.291 of 2017

U/Sec.498,306 of Indian penal code was framed against the accused read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In its attempt to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8, and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17 marked, and closed the evidence of L.W.3 Syed Nannibu, L.W.8 Shaik Chinna Silar, L.W.9

Shaik Mahaboob Basha, and given up the evidence of L.W.11 Dr.

V.R.N.S.Rayudu, L.W.13 M.Narendra Kumar, SI of police Vempalli P.S.,

5.After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused, was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating material appearing against him, in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the evidence. He reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard the arguments of prosecution and defence counsel.

7. Now the point that would arise for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.498,306 of Indian

penal code

8. Point: It is the case of the prosecution that, At about 12 years ago the marriage of deceased Shaik Munni, was performed with the accused. The accused lives as coolie in the Rice mill. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with three daughters and a son. Every day the accused used to return home by drinking alcohol. Several times the deceased requested the accused to give up the habit of drinking alcohol, but accused paid a deaf ear. Every 6

S.C.No.291 of 2017 day, the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty both physicall and mentally. On 19.8.2016 night at about 11.00 PM, the accused returned to home by drinking alcohol, in this regard altercation taken place in between the deceased and accused, the accused abused her in filthy language, when the deceased questioned the accused as to why he is abusing her unnecessarily, aggrieved with that the accused caught hold of her tuft of hair, dragged and beat her. The deceased felt that except to die there is no better option to her rather than receiving injuries in the hands of accused. With an intention to die, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person and set herself on fire, the accused has also sustianed burns injuries from waist to upper region as the deceased caught hold of him unable to bear the pain. On hearing the cries, L.W.3 Syed Nannibu, rushed to the deceased and accused, got shifted the accused and deceased to Government hospital, vempalli and after getting first aid, the both accused and deceased were referred to RIMS hospital, Kadapa. As the health condition of deceased became more serious, with an intention to shift the deceased to SVIMS

Hospital, Tirupathi, the deceased was brought to the house of i.e., Vempalli and on 24.8.2016 night at about 11.00 PM the deceased was succumbed to burns injuries.

9.However the defence of the accused is of total denial.

10.For that the prosecution adduced the P.W.1 who is brother of deceased Shaik Munni, P.W.1 deposed that at about 10 years back his sister marriage was performed with accused as per their custom. They got 04 children, one son and three daughters. Further said that at about 2 ½ years 7

S.C.No.291 of 2017 back his sister committed suicide due to stomach pain. Accused is no way responsible for death of deceased. Further P.W.1 said that he did not gave any complaint to the police, the police took his thumb impression on some papers. He do not know the contents of Ex.P.1 dt. 25.8.2017. Further said, the police not examined him.

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, cross examined this witness and in his cross examination, he disowned his statement recorded by police as in Ex.P.2.

11.On seeing the evidence of P.W.1, the prosecution further adduced the evidence husband of deceased, he examined as P.W.2, P.W.2 also deposed on the same voice as P.W.1, further P.W.2 said that, at about 10 years back, the deceased marriage was performed with accused as per their custom. They got 04 children one son and three daughters. At about 2 ½ years back deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her and lit fire.

Deceased committed suicide due to stomach pain. Further P.W.2 said that, the accused is no way responsible for death of deceased. The police never examined him.

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, cross examined this witness and in his cross examination, she disowned her statement recorded by police as in Ex.P.3.

12.On seeing the evidence of P.W.2 the prosecution further adduced the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6. They also deposed in voice, further said that at about 2 years back the deceased Munni committed suicide due to unable to bear stomach pain by pouring kerosene on her and lit fire. The accused is 8

S.C.No.291 of 2017 not responsible for death of deceased Munni. They do not know any case particulars of this case. They were not examined by the police.

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, cross examined this witnesses and in their cross examination, they disowned their statement recorded by police as in Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.7.

13.Further, the prosecution adduced the evidence of Additional

Judicial Magistrate, Guduru, who recorded the dying declaration of deceased

Shaik Munni, she examined as P.W.7. P.W.7 deposed that on 20.8.2016 at about 2.30 AM she received requisition from duty doctor, while she was recording dying declaration in another case of one R.Padma. She received requisition under Ex.P.8 in this case. After recording D.D of R.Padma, she proceeded to record dying declaration of Smt.S.Munni, W/o Khadar Basha under Ex.P.9, further said, she has taken all precautions that the relatives of

S.Munni or any police were present at the time of recording statement. At about 2.50 AM she proceeded to record dying declaration of S.Munni and concluded at 3.21 AM the deceased S.Munni stated in her dying declaration

dated 20.8.2016 that there are frequent disputes in between her and to her

husband and her husband used to abuse her and on that day she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her and lit fire.

14. On seeing the evidence of P.W.7, the prosecution further adduced the evidence of P.W.8 who is investigating officer, he deposed that he received statement of deceased Shaik Munni, under Ex.P.11 along with 9

S.C.No.291 of 2017 intimation under Ex.P.10 from RIMS hospital, Kadapa. Basing on that he registered a case and issued FIR in Cr.No.120/2016 under Ex.P.12 for the offence U/Sec. Women Burns, on the same day he went to RIMS Hospital,

Kadapa and recorded the statement of Shaik Munni, and visited scene of offence and secured the presence of accused and also P.W.1 recorded the statement of P.W.1, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P.13, and after receiving death intimation of deceased, he altered the FIR under

Ex.P.14 from Women Burns to 174 of Cr.PC, and after conducting inquest of deceased under Ex.P.15, re-examined P.W.1 and recorded the statements of

P.Ws.2,3 and L.W.3, after conducting postmortem of deceased issued

Postmortem certificate dt.25.8.2016 under Ex.P.16. Further P.W.8 said that

L.W.13/SI of police Vempalli PS received instructions from S.D.P.O

Pulivendula on 22.9.2017 to add U/Sec. 498-A,306 of IPC to above crime, altered the FIR under Ex.P.17 and arrested the accused on his surrender and sent him for judicial custody. After receiving dying declaration of deceased, and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet in this case.

15. Except the evidence of P.W.7 who is official witness, and P.W.8 who is investigating officer who investigated the case and filed charge sheet have not supported the case of prosecution for that there is no evidence who witnessed the incident since all other material witnesses cited by the prosecution and examined to prove the guilt of the accused have not supported the case of prosecution

16.Absolutely, there is no reliable or acceptable evidence on record 10

S.C.No.291 of 2017 to prove the fact that, the accused herein, the deceased committed suicide due to unbearable harassment of accused, as alleged by the prosecution. With this in mind, this court is of the considered opinion that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused, for the charge punishable U/Sec.498-

A,306 of Indian penal code. Accordingly, the point is answered.

17. In the result, the accused i.e., Syed Khader Basha, found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.498(A),306 of Indian Penal code.

Accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said charges.

The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. The committal court did not produced any property at the time of trial. Hence the committal court is hereby directed to destroy the case property if any after expiry of appeal time as per rule.

(Typed to my dictation by Senior Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11th day of October, 2019)

Sd/- M.Shubhavani,

Principal Asst. Sessions Judge,

Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE;

Witnesses examined for prosecution:

P.W.1. S.Hajivalli.

P.W.2. Syed Pedda Valli.

P.W.3. Shaik Khasim Bee.

P.W.4. Syed Chand Bee.

P.W.5. Shaik Madar bee.

P.W.6. S.Sabiya.

P.W.7. N.Lavanya( JFCM,Guduru)

P.W.8. A. Madhu Malleswara Reddy (SI) 11

S.C.No.291 of 2017

Witness examined for defence: NIL

Exhibits marked for prosecution:

Ex.P.1. L.T.I of P.W.1

Ex.P.2. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1

Ex.P.3. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2

Ex.P.4. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.5. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P.7. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.6.

Ex.P.8: Medical requisition dt. 20.8.16.

Ex.P.9: Dying declaration of deceased.

Ex.P.10. Hospital Intimation.

Ex.P.11. State of P.W.1.

Ex.P.12. FIR in Cr.No.120/16.

Ex.P.13. Rough sketch.

Ex.P.14. Altered FIR in Cr.No.120/16.

Ex.P.15. Inquest report.

Ex.P.16.Postmortem certificate.

Ex.P.17: Altered FIR in Cr.No.120/16.

Exhibits marked for defence: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS :-NIL

Sd/- M.Shubhavani,

Prl.Asst.S.J.

“ True copy “

Principal Asst. Sessions Judge,

Kadapa.

12

S.C.No.291 of 2017 13

S.C.No.291 of 2017

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT, KADAPA.

Present :- Smt.M.Shubhavani,

Additional Senior Civil Judge:: Kadapa.

Wednesday this the 27th day of February, 2019.

O.S.No.211 of 2012.

M/s Khasim Khan Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd.,Kadapa, represented by its

Manager.

….Plaintiff....

Vs

1. Shaik Mastan

2. Yenamala Venkatakrishnaiah,

3. D.Venkateshwarlu,

4. K.Raghavendra Rao,

5. Bojja Sridevi.

....Defendants....

This suit is coming on 19.02.2019 final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.Suresh Kumar, advocate for the plaintiff and

Sri.G.Krishna Kumar, advocate for the defendants 1 to 5 and after hearing arguments on plaintiff counsel, and upon perusing records, and having stood over for consideration, till this day this court delivered the following:- 2

JUDGEMENT

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.5,17,292/- (Rupees five lakhs seventeen thousands two hundred and ninety two only), being outstanding balance on chit agreement, and for costs of the suit.

2.The Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff is a privative limited company, having registered under the provisions of the Indian Company Act (Act No.1 of 1956), with its Registration No.47733 of 2005-2006 with its office at Kadapa. In the month of December, 2008, the 1st defendant joined as a member of the chit fund scheme of the plaintiff company as per its rules and regulations which was furnished to the 1st defendant and alloted ticket in ten chit group KKALT./G3/15 for a value of

Rs.10,00,000/- to be subscriber for 50 months at the rate of

Rs.20,000/- per month. In the chit auction conducted as per the rules of the company, in respect of the above chit on 21.12.2008, D.1 has participated and was successful bidder having agreed to forgo

Rs.5,24,000/- out of Rs.10,00,000/- which was duly confirmed by the plaintiff company. After deducting company's commissioner from the forgone amount the balance was distributed among all the members in afore mentioned series. As per the rules of the company in order to 3 draw that amount, the successful bidder had to furnish independent guarantors to the satisfaction of the plaintiff company who can stand surety for the due payment to entire future monthly installments of the successful bidder regularly. The 1st defendant paid Rs.50,520/- being the 3 months installment including the dividends allowed to him. The future liability is Rs.9,40,000/-. The 1st defendant as mentioned herein above, in fact furnished guarantors 2 to 5 and all the defendants 1 to 5 executed a demand promissory note dt:09.04.2009 and other relevant records jointly in favour of plaintiff company agreeing to pay the amount and became liable jointly by virtue of the said promissory note severally and personally for Rs.9,40,000/- being the entire amount of future installments with interest at rate of 12% p.a., in case of default made by the 1st defendant. The plaintiff company paid the prized amount of Rs.4,33,700/- to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant committed default in paying the installments from March, 2009 onwards i.e., from 4th installment from the date of commencement of the chit. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to pay dues. Subsequently, there were some technical/administrative problems arose in conduct of the said chit in the group referred supra and accordingly, under intimation to the concerned, the company was forced to cancel the said chit. As the said chit is cancelled and as no auctions are being conducted or held, 4 requested to repay the amount actually taken by the defendants from their company by way of cheque referred to above along with interest, and the defendants promised to pay back the same. The plaintiff company finally demanded the defendants to repay the amount by getting a registered legal notice on 13.10.2009. The defendant has paid a sum of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.30,520/- and Rs.50,520/- after issuing legal notice. As the defendants did not pay off the entire amount of due, the plaintiff company is obliged to file this suit for the balance amount. Hence this suit.

3.Defendant No.3 filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendant No.1 by filing a memo. Defendant No.3 filed written statement by denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint and further mentioned that, the plaintiff has disclosed the chit group

KKALT/G3/15 for a value of Rs.10,00,000/- and other particulars of mode of payment by subscriber for 50 months at the rte of Rs.20,000/- but evaded to furnish the important particulars such as whether it is registered with registrar and amount being deposited by the plaintiff to runt he chit or not, because they not at all exist and in force t any point of time. The very important aspects are very silent in the present suit.

Unless and until those important particulars are furnished by plaintiff, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit on hand against 5 the defendants. The plaintiff has got any legal right to run the alleged chit has to prove by the plaintiff with legal and satisfactory evidence and in case if the plaintiff has no such legal right, whether the plaintiff has got any right to take advantage of the documents which have been obtain in void transactions to file the present suit against the defendants without been running the chit. The present suit is not in conformity with the plaint pleadings and the suit documents. As per the pleadings available on hand that in the month of December, 2008 the 1st defendant herein joined as a member of the chit fund schedule of the plaintiff company as per its rules and regulations, but no document is filed to show the version of the plaintiff, so without filing such documents, the present suit not maintainable. The defendant is not aware of furnishing of rules and regulations and by-laws copy to the 1st defendant. Hence the plaintiff is called up to prove that he has supplied and furnished copies of rules and regulations and by laws copy to the 1st defendant with legal and satisfactory evidence. The plaint pleadings are very apt the transaction which occurred in between the plaintiff and 1st defendant is relating to chit and further pleadings are admitting that the 1st defendant joined as a member of the chit fund scheme and the plaintiff has conducted auction of chit as per the rules of the company and further admitted that the defendant participated in the chit auction on 21.12.2008 which conducted by the 6 plaintiff and 1st defendant became successful bidder in the auction and agreed to forgo Rs.5,24,000/- out of Rs,.10,00,000/- and the same was duly confirmed by the plaintiff company and after the plaintiff deducting company commission and distributed the amount among all the members. Further the plaintiff directed the 1st defendant to furnish independent guarantors for the due payment of future monthly installments. In that process the 1st defendant has furnished independent guarantors and in that process this defendant also stood as one of the guarantor for future payment of monthly installments by the 1st defendant. It is further mentioned that there were technical and administrative problem arose in conduct of the said chit in the group and the company is forced to cancel the said chit. Hence the chit is cancelled by the plaintiff company. When such is the case this defendant is not liable for any future payment of monthly installments by the 1st defendant, because in view of their own latches the chit itself is cancelled by the company. The plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and the plaintiff disclosed the word accused it amounts the plaintiff already filed STC against the 1st defendant, but the plaintiff cleverly has not disclosed about its particulars intentionally and willfully. It is well settled law a person cannot be vexed with twice for the same cause of action. The plaintiff not even disclosed about empty and unfilled cheques which obtained from the 7 1st defendant anywhere in the plaint pleadings. It is well settled law who approached this court with unclean hands is not entitled for any relief or reliefs. The other grounds which are urged in the plaint are untenable and devoid of truth. There is no cause of action for the suit and the cause of action which mentioned is invented by the plaintiff to have unlawful gain and to harass the defendants only. There is no due and proper presentation of the plaint and prays to dismiss this suit with costs.

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

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount?

2. To what relief?

5.On behalf of the plaintiff chit fund company, its manager,

S.Masthan Vali, examined as P.W.1, and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10.

On behalf of the defendants, none were examined including the defendants, and no documents are marked.

6.Heard the arguments of plaintiff counsel.

7.Issue No.1: Perused the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to 8

Ex.A.10. P.W.1 has filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the same facts as narrated in the plaint and further stated that, the plaintiff is a privative limited company, having registered under the provisions of the Indian Company Act (Act No.1 of 1956), with its Registration

No.47733 of 2005-2006 with its office at Kadapa. To prove the same,

P.W.1 filed Ex.A.1, certificated copy of incorporation of the plaintiff company dt:10.10.2005, Ex.A.2 certified copy of board resolution

dt:05.12.2008 and Ex.A.3 certified copy of authorization given to the

manager, dt:11.12.2009. He further deposed that, in the month of

December, 2008, the 1st defendant joined as a member of the chit fund scheme of the plaintiff company as per its rules and regulations which was furnished to the 1st defendant and alloted ticket in ten chit group

KKALT/G3/15 for a value of Rs.10,00,000/- to be subscriber for 50 months at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. In the chit auction conducted as per the rules of the company, in respect of the above chit on 21.12.2008, D.1 has participated and was successful bidder having agreed to forgo Rs.5,24,000/- out of Rs.10,00,000/- which was duly confirmed by the plaintiff company. After deducting company's commissioner from the forgone amount the balance was distributed among all the members in afore mentioned series. As per the rules of the company in order to draw that amount, the successful bidder had to furnish independent guarantors to the satisfaction of the plaintiff 9 company who can stand surety for the due payment to entire future monthly installments of the successful bidder regularly. The 1st defendant paid Rs.50,520/- being the 3 months installment including the dividends allowed to him. The future liability is Rs.9,40,000/-. The 1st defendant as mentioned herein above, in fact furnished guarantors 2 to 5 and all the defendants 1 to 5 executed a demand promissory note

dt:09.04.2009 under Ex.A.4, and Ex.A.5 stamped voucher

dt:09.04.2009, issued by the 1st defendant and other relevant records

jointly in favour of plaintiff company agreeing to pay the amount and became liable jointly by virtue of the said promissory note severally and personally for Rs.9,40,000/- being the entire amount of future installments with interest at rate of 12% p.a., in case of default made by the 1st defendant. The plaintiff company paid the prized amount of

Rs.4,33,700/- to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant committed default in paying the installments from March, 2009 onwards i.e., from 4th installment from the date of commencement of the chit. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to pay dues. Subsequently, there were some technical/ administrative problems arose in conduct of the said chit in the group referred supra and accordingly, under intimation to the concerned, the company was forced to cancel the said chit. As the said chit is cancelled and as no auctions are being conducted or held, requested to repay the amount 10 actually taken by the defendants from their company by way of cheque referred to above along with interest, and the defendants promised to pay back the same. The plaintiff company finally demanded the defendants to repay the amount by getting a registered legal notice on 13.10.2009 under Ex.A.6, and Ex.A.7 is acknowledgements, Ex.A.8 is postal registered covers refused by D.1.

The defendant has paid a sum of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.30,520/- and

Rs.50,520/- after issuing legal notice. Ex.A.9 is the account copy from 20.12.2008 to 17.10.2009 and Ex.A.10 is the guarantee agreement dt:09.04.2009, executed by the defendants 2 to 5. Though the defendant No.1 and 3, mentioned in their written statements that they are not entitled to pay the due amount to the plaintiff chit fund company, but, they did not adduced any evidence either orally or documentary on their behalf to prove that they are not entitled to pay the amount due to the plaintiff chief fund company. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the defendant, it cannot be said that, the defendants are not entitled to pay any amount to the plaintiff company.

Therefore, with the evidence of P.W.1, coupled with Exs.A.1 to

Ex.A.10, the plaintiff chief fund company has proved his case in all aspects. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants 1 to 5 jointly and severally. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

11

8.Issue No.2: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs.

The plaintiff chit fund company is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.5,17,292/-(Rupees five lakhs seventeen thousands two hundred and nine two only), from the defendants 1 to 5 jointly and severally, with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of suit, till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% pa., from the date of the decree, till the date of realization on the balance amount of Rs.4,33,700/-(Rupees four lakhs thirty three thousands seven hundred only).

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of February, 2019.

Sd/-M.Shubhavani,

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for plaintiff:

P.W.1. S.Masthan Valli.

Witnesses examined for defendant: NIL

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A.1, certificated copy of incorporation of the plaintiff company

dt:10.10.2005,

Ex.A.2 certified copy of board resolution dt:05.12.2008.

Ex.A.3 certified copy of authorization given to the manager,

dt:11.12.2009.

Ex.A.4. Demand promissory note dt:09.04.2009.

12

Ex.A.5 stamped voucher dt:09.04.2009, issued by the 1st defendant.

Ex.A.6. Registered legal notice on 13.10.2009.

Ex.A.7 is acknowledgements,

Ex.A.8 is postal registered covers refused by D.1.

Ex.A.9 is the account copy from 20.12.2008 to 17.10.2009.

Ex.A.10 is the guarantee agreement dt:09.04.2009, executed by the defendants 2 to 5.

Exhibits marked for defendant:Nil

Sd/-M.Shubhavani,

ASCJ

1

S.C.No.183 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE'COURT, KADAPA.

Present:- Smt.M.Shubhavani,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Wednesday this the 9 th day of October, 2019.

Sessions Case No.183 of 2017.

1Name of the Complainant State: Sub Inspector of Police, RIMS U/G Police Station., Kadapa town.

2Name of the Accused 1. Segari Arun Kumar @ Arun (A.2).

2. Sowdari Arun Kumar @ Arun (A.4).

3. Chittipi Reddy Udai Kumar @ Koduru Udai (A.6).

Offences chargedU/sec. 323, 324 and 307 of IPC 4Plea of the accused.Found not guilty.

5Finding of the judgeFound not guilty.

6Sentence or Order In the result, the accused i.e., A.2 Segari Arun Kumar @ Arun (A.2), Sowdari Arun Kumar @ Arun(A.4) and Chittipi Reddy Udai Kumar @ Koduru Udai (A.6), are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/secs. 324,323,and 307 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said charges. The bail bonds of the accused A2,A4,A,6 shall remain in force for a period of six months. The M.O.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time as per rule. Hence the committal court is hereby directed to destroy the case property if any after expiry of appeal time as per rule.

7Accused defended bySri.K.Venkateswara Reddy and Sri P.Chenna Reddy, advocate for the 2

S.C.No.183 of 2017 accused A.2, A.4 and A.6.

8Prosecution conducted by Addl. Public Prosecutor.

9Cr.No. and Name of the Cr.No.116 of 2016 of Kadapa RIMS Police StationU/G Police Station.

10Committed byP.R.C.No.4 of 2017 II Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of Ist Class, Kadapa.

11Date of offence14.12.2016 12Date of report15.12.2016 13Date of remand21.12.2016 (A.2, A.4 and A.6) 14Date of release on bail11.01.2017 (A.2, A.4 and A.6) 15Date of committal to 02.08.2017

sessions Court

16Date of commencement 13.08.2019 of trial 17Date of close of trial.27.09.2019 18Date of Judgment09.10.2019

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

The Inspector of Police, Sub Inspector of Police, RIMS U/G

Police Station., Kadapa town., laid a charge sheet against the accused A.2 by name, Segari Arun Kumar @ Arun, A.4 Sowdari Arun Kumar @ Arun and A.6 Chittipi Reddy Udai Kumar @ Koduru Udai in Cr.No.116 of 2016 for the offence punishable U/secs. 323, 324 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC alleging that, about one week ago prior to the incident, L.W.1 ( P.Kiran

Kumar) and his friend went to RTC board colony at Ramanjaneyapuram, on

Kadapa- Rajampet main road on his motor cycle and parked it beside the road and were chatting with each other. In the meantime, J.1 came in his auto with excessive speed while the passengers were on board and hit L.W.1’s motor cycle and there occurred duel between L.W.1 and J.1 and after sometime, J.1 went away by threatening L.W.1 that he will see him later-on. On 14.12.2016, 3

S.C.No.183 of 2017 at about 7.30 PM, by keeping the above grudge in mind, J.1, J.5, Accused

Nos.2 to 4 and 6 and J.7 went to near church armed with iron rods, sticks, formed an unlawful assembly, while L.W.1/ Pothuraju Kiran Kumar, along with his friends being there, J.1 beat L.W.1 with an iron rod over, caused injuries and A.2 to A.4 beat L.W.1 with sticks,caused multiple injuries, whereas remaining accused manhandled L.W.1. Thereby, the accused have committed the offence U/Sec. 323, 324 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC.

Basing on the complaint of L.W.1 Pothuraju Kiran Kumar, L.W.8 i.e., the S.I of Police, RIMS U/G Police station has registered case in

Cr.No.116/2016, for the offence U/Sec. 323, 324 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC and examined the all witnesses and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence seized the Iron rod and two bamboo sticks and on 21.12.2016 arrested the A2,A3,A4 and A.6 and sent them for remand, and on 23.12.2016 at 11.00 AM arrested the J.1 and J.5 and sent them for Juvenile Jail Board,

Kadapa, and after receipt of wound certificate of L.W.1/P.Kiran Kumar, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet, against the accused for the offence under section. 323,324, 307 r/w 34 of Indian penal code. Hence the charge sheet contents.

2. The II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Kadapa, registered the case as P.R.C.No.04of 2017, committed the case to the court of Sessions,

Kadapa. The Sessions Court, registered the P.R.C.No.04/2017 as S.C.No.183 of 2017, and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law.

3.On appearance of the accused No.2, 4 and 6 they were examined

U/sec.228 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the acquisition. On hearing the 4

S.C.No.183 of 2017 prosecution and defence, charge U/secs.323, 324 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC were framed against accused No.2, 4 and 6 read over and explained to them in

Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In its attempt to prove the guilt of the accused A.2, A.4 and A.6 the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5, and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 and M.O.1 and M.O.2. This court closed the evidence of L.W.3 M.Sampath Kumar, and he evidence of L.W.6 Dr.P.Ramana Kumari, L.W.7 M.Puspharaju, SI of police was given up by prosecution.

5.After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused A.2,A.4, A.6 were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating material appearing against them, in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused

A.2, A.4 and A.6 denied the evidence. They reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard the arguments of prosecution and defence counsel.

7. Now the point that would arise for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

A.2, A.4 and A.6 for the offence punishable U/secs. 323, 324 and 307

r/w 34 of Indian Penal code.

8. Point: It is the case of the prosecution that, about one week ago prior to the incident, P.W.1 and his friends went to RTC board colony at

Ramanjaneyapuram, on Kadapa- Rajampet main road on his motor cycle and parked it beside the road and were chatting with each other. In the meantime,

J.1 came in his auto with excessive speed while the passengers were on board and hit P.W.1 motor cycle and there occurred duel between P.W.1 and J.1 and after sometime, J.1 went away by threatening P.W.1 that he will see him later- 5

S.C.No.183 of 2017 on. On 14.12.2016, at about 7.30 PM, by keeping the above grudge in mind,

J.1, J.5, Accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6 and J.7 went to near church armed with iron rods, sticks, formed an unlawful assembly, while P.W.1 along with his friends being there, J.1 beat P.W.1 with an iron rod over, caused injuries and A.2 to

A.4 beat P.W.1 with sticks,caused multiple injuries, whereas remaining accused manhandled P.W.1.

9.However the defence of the accused No.2, 4 and 6 are of total denial.

10.For that the prosecution adduced the P.W.1 who is defacto complainant examined as P.W.1. P.W.1 deposed that at about 02 years and one month back at 9.30 P.M., while he was going to his house, at that time some unknown persons came on his back side and hit him on his head back side.

Then he fell down and lost his conscious, and further said some auto people took him to RIMS hospital, Kadapa in hospital, police came to him and took his signature on statement dated 15.12.2016 under Ex.P.1. He do not know the contents and he was not examined by the police and not recorded any statement. Further said, he did not received any injuries from the hands of police.

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, cross examined this witness and in his cross examination, he disowned his statement recorded by police as in Ex.P.2.

11.On seeing the evidence of P.W.1, the prosecution adduced the evidence of P.Ws 2 to 4, they all are deposed in one voice, and further they said that they do not know the case facts and they do not know about the 6

S.C.No.183 of 2017 injuries of P.W.1, the police never examined them.

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, cross examined this witnesses and in their cross examination, they disowned their statements recorded by police as in Ex.P.3 to P.5.

12. On seeing the evidence of P.W.9, the prosecution further adduced the evidence of P.W.5 who is investigating officer, he deposed that on 15.12.2016 at 11.00 A.M he received intimation from RIMS Hospital, Kadapa under

Ex.P.6 along with statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P.7. Basing on that he registered a case in Cr.No.116/2016 for the offence U/Secs.323,324,307 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P.8. Then on the same day he went to RIMS hospital, Kadapa and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements and went to scene of offence and prepared rough sketch Under Ex.P.9, and examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements, and seized M.O.1 i.e., one Iron rod, and M.O.2 two bamboo sticks, under cover of police proceedings dated 15.12.2016 under Ex.P.10, and 21.12.2016, arrested the A.2,

A,3, A4 and A.6 and send them to Judicial custody. On 23.12.2016 he arrested

Juveniles No.1 to 7 and sent them to Juvenal Jail, Kadapa, on 23.12.2017 J.5 surrendered before 1st J.F.C.M, Kadapa, and after receipt of wound certificate of P.W.1 under Ex.P.11, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

13.Except the evidence of P.W.5 who is investigating officer who investigated the case and filed charge sheet have not supported the case of prosecution for that there is no evidence who witnessed the incident since all other material witnesses cited by the prosecution and examined to prove the 7

S.C.No.183 of 2017 guilt of the accused have not supported the case of prosecution.

14.Absolutely, there is no reliable or acceptable evidence on record to prove the fact that, the accused herein, the P.W.1 received injuries from the hands of accused A.2,A,4, A6, as alleged by the prosecution. With this in mind, this court is of the considered opinion that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused, for the charge punishable U/Sec.323,324,307 r/w 34 of Indian penal code. Accordingly, the point is answered.

15. In the result, the accused i.e., A.2 Segari Arun Kumar @ Arun

(A.2), Sowdari Arun Kumar @ Arun(A.4) and Chittipi Reddy Udai

Kumar @ Koduru Udai (A.6), are found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/secs. 324,323,and 307 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.

235(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said charges. The bail bonds of the accused

A2,A4,A,6 shall remain in force for a period of six months. The M.O.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time as per rule. Hence the committal court is hereby directed to destroy the case property if any after expiry of appeal time as per rule.

(Typed to my dictation, by Senior Asst., corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 9th day of October, 2019)

Sd/- M.Shubhavani,

Principal Asst. Sessions Judge,

Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE;

Witnesses examined for prosecution:

P.W.1: P.Kiran Kumar P.W.2: N.Venkata Siva Kumar P.W.3: M.Gangadhar P.W.4: R.Pedda Sreenivasulu P.W.5: S.G.Hemadari.

8

S.C.No.183 of 2017

Witness examined for defence: NIL

Exhibits marked for prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on statement. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.6: Hospital intimation Ex.P.7: Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.8. F.I.R Ex.P.9. Rough sketch Ex.P.10. Police Proceedings dt.15.12.2016 Ex.P.11. Wound certificate of P.W.1 Exhibits marked for defence: NIL M.Os.1 and 2 Marked for Prosecution M.O.1. Iron Rod M.O.2. Two Bamboo sticks.

Sd/- M.Shubhavani,

Prl.Asst.S.J.

“ True copy “

Principal Asst. Sessions Judge,

Kadapa.

9

S.C.No.183 of 2017

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

KADAPA

Present : Smt M.Shubhavani

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa

Monday, this the 23 rd day of March, 2020

Original Suit No. 199 of 2015

M.Anjaneyulu … Plaintiff

And

P.Nagaveni …Defendant

This suit is coming on 12.03.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, Advocates for Plaintiff and of Sri V.Surendra Rao, Advocate for Defendant, upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to pass a Judgment and decree for the suit amount of Rs.2,55,600/- with costs and subsequent interest under suit promissory note.

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

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- on 20.06.2013 from the plaintiff for the purpose of her necessities and executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. As the defendant failed to pay the due amount inspite of repeated demands made by plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of promissory note debt amount.

2 O.S.199/15

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint and further submitted that the suit promissory note shows the signatures of two persons, but the plaintiff filed this suit against one person i.e., defendant and as such the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further mentioned that the defendant borrowed an amount from plaintiff in the year 2012 and subsequently discharged the same towards full settlement to the husband of defendant in the year 2013. As on the date of discharge of debt under the promissory note dt.20.06.2012, there is a hand loan of Rs.3,000/- due by husband of defendant by name P.Venkateswar Rao and the promissory note detained with plaintiff. Subsequently miss-understandings arose in between them and the husband of defendant failed to discharge hand loan of Rs.3,000/- and the plaintiff keeping in mind, about the grudges, altered the promissory note dt.20.06.2012 to dt.20.06.2013 and filed this false suit against defendant. Further the plaintiff fabricated the signature of husband of defendant on alleged suit promissory note and so the same is not binding on defendant. It is further mentioned that the plaintiff did not made any demands at any pont of time, before filing of this suit, hence this suit is not maintainable and plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed by him.

4.Basing on the aforesaid averments, following issues were settled for trial:-

1)Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2)Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party ?

3)Whether the suit promissory note is materially altered?

4)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

5)To What relief ?

5.On behalf of Plaintiff, PW.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A.1 3 O.S.199/15 marked. On behalf of defendant, D.W.1 examined and no documents were marked.

6.Heard.

7.Issue No.1 to 3:

The plaintiff in order to prove his case got examined himself as PW.1 and filed his chief affidavit by stating that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,80,000/- on 20.06.2013 for her necessities and executed the suit promissory note on the same day agreeing to repay the above said debt with interest @ 24% p.a either to P.W.1 or to his order on demand. One R.Narasimha Reddy was present and stood as attestor of the suit promissory note. Thereafter inspite of several demands made by P.W.1, the defendant failed to discharge the above said debt. Ex.A.1 is suit promissory note dt.20.06.2013 for Rs.1,80,000/- executed in favour of P.W.1, by defendant.

8.In support of his case, P.W.1 got examined, the attestor of Ex.A.1 as

P.W.2. P.W.2 filed his chief affidavit stated that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,80,000/- on 20.06.2013 from the P.W.1 for her family necessities and executed Ex.A.1 on the same day, by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a whenever demanded by the P.W.1. P.W.2 signed as the only attestor under Ex.A.2. The defendant herself scribed Ex.A.1. At that time P.W.2 along with husband of defendant by name P.Venkateswar Rao were present.

9. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that Ex.A.1 is a forged document and the signatures available under Ex.A.1 does not belongs to her and also that she borrowed amounts from P.W.1 in the year 2012 and subsequently discharged the entire amount and there is only due of Rs.3,000/- to

P.W.1 by defendant, as on the discharge of above debt amount. Due to 4 O.S.199/15 misunderstandings arose in between defendant and to P.W.1, Ex.A.1 was altered by P.W.1, taking advantage of previous pronote dt.20.06.2012 by altering the same to 20.06.2013.

10.The defendant in support of her case did not examined any witnesses. The defendant did not enter into witness box and did not filed any chief affidavit on her behalf in support of her case. She did not examine any witness on her behalf in support of her case and also to show that Ex.A.1 is a forged document and the signatures available under Ex.A.1 does not belongs to her.

11.It is further the case of defendant that the main suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties in above suit, as the names of defendant and her

P.Venkateswar Rao and their signatures were shown in Ex.A.1. When it comes to cross examination of P.W.1, he deposed that Ex.A.1 shows the name of defendant and P.Venkateswar Rao and they are the husband and wife and he gave amount to them. The defendant came to his shop to receive amounts under

Ex.A.1 and P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he gave amounts only to husband of defendant i.e., P.Venkateswar Rao but not to defendant. P.W.1 also denied to the suggestion that he fabricated Ex.A.1. Though the counsel for defendant cross examined P.W.1, nothing was elicited by him in support of his case. The defendant did not come forward to cross examine P.W.2. Though the defendant took a plea that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder necessary parties as

Ex.A.1 shows the signatures of defendant and her husband P.Venkateswar Rao but suit was against defendant only. As seen from Ex.A.1, the name of the defendant alone was shown in borrower colum and the signature of defendant was found beneath the Revenue stamps on Ex.A.1. The signature of husband of 5 O.S.199/15 defendant was not shown an Ex.A.1, but it shows the name P.Venkateswar Rao at the bottom of Ex.A.1. So, from Ex.A.1, it shows that it was executed by defendant alone and so the suit is maintainable and not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

12.The another plea which was taken by the defendant that Ex.A.1 is material altered. It is the case of the defendant that the defendant borrowed an amount from plaintiff in the year 2012 and subsequently discharged the same towards full settlement to the husband of defendant in the year 2013. As on the date of discharge of debt under the promissory note dt.20.06.2012, there is a hand loan of Rs.3,000/- due by husband of defendant by name P.Venkateswar

Rao and the promissory note detained with plaintiff. Subsequently miss-understandings arose in between them and the husband of defendant failed to discharge hand loan of Rs.3,000/- and the plaintiff keeping in mind, about the grudges, altered the promissory note dt.20.06.2012 to dt.20.06.2013 and filed this false suit against defendant. In support of the same the defendant did not adduced any evidence on her behalf. The defendant did not adduced any evidence to show that Ex.A.1 was material altered from dt.20.06.2012 to 20.06.2013. The plaintiff by examining himself as P.W.1 and also examined the attestor of Ex.A.1 as P.W.2 and through Ex.A.1 established his case that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- for her necessities, from plaintiff under Ex.A.1 and subsequently failed to discharge the same. Then the onus, shifts from plaintiff to defendant to prove her case that Ex.A.1 was materially altered one. The defendant did not adduce any evidence on her behalf and more over did not took any steps to sent Ex.A.1 to any Hand Writing Expert

F.S.L to secure opinion on genuine of Ex.A.1. Though the entire burden is upon defendant to prove the same, the defendant completely failed to prove her case.

6 O.S.199/15

13.So, from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and through Ex.A.1, it clearly shows that Ex.A.1 is true, valid and binding upon defendant and the defendant completely failed to prove her case that Ex.A.1 was material altered and the signatures available on Ex.A.1, does not belongs to her, accordingly these issues are answered in favour of plaintiff.

14.Issue No.4: The plaintiff by examining himself as P.W.1 and through

Ex.A.1 and also by examining the attestor of Ex.A.1 as P.W.2 successfully established that defendant executed Ex.A.1 in his favour by borrowing amount of Rs.1,80,000/- for her necessities and subsequently failed to discharge the same, in spite of repeated demands made by him. Though the defendant took plea that Ex.A.1 is forged one and the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties, but completely failed to prove the same. Whereas the plaintiff successfully established his case that he is entitled for suit claim as prayed for.

Accordingly this issue is answered.

15.Issue No.5: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.2,55,600/- (Rupees Two Lakhs fifty five thousand six hundred only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.1,80,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rdday of March, 2020.

SD/- M.SHUBHAVANI,

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

7 O.S.199/15

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: P.W.1: M.M.Anjaneyulu P.W.2: R.Narasimha Reddy DEFENDANT: D.W.1: P.Nagaveni EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1: Original Promissory note dt.20.06.2013 for Rs.1,80,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT: -Nil. Id/-M.S.B

PSCJ., KDP.