Sri M.Sreedhar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF THE FIRST CLASS-CUM-I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUNI.

Present : Sri Marpu Sreedhar, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tuni.

Friday, this the 16th day of July, 2021.

C.C.No.227 OF 2020

Between State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thondangi Police Station. …Complainant

And

A1)Sagarapu Sathibabu, S/o Malayya, 40 years, SC-Madiga SC-Pet, P.E. Chinnayapalem of Thondangi Mandal. A2)Sagarapu Apparao, S/o Nookaraju, 40 years, SC-Madiga SC-Pet, P.E. Chinnayapalem of Thondangi Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 13.07.2021 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B.V.V. Ramana, Advocate for accused 1 and 2 and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case arises out of Crime No.112/2020 of Thondangi Police Station, registered against the accused 1 and 2 for the offence under Sections 269 I.P.C., and 8(B) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 on the basis of Occurrence Report.

2.PW.2-Ch. Vidya Sagar, the Sub Inspector, Thondangi Police Station laid the charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 herein under Sections 269 I.P.C., and

Sec.8(B) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 with the following averments:

3.On 02.04.2020 at about 06.00 p.m., L.W.5-Ch. Vidya Sagar, Sub Inspector of

Police, Thondangi Police Station along with L.Ws.1 to 4 viz., V. Nooka Raju, PC-3576,

A. Murali, PC-1175, G. David Raju, HG-289 and K. Arjuna Rao, HG-891 conducted raid at PE Chinnayyapalem village, accused 1 and 2 were found in a possession of 4 tins and each tin contains with 5 liters (In total 20 liters) of ID arrack, on that he arrested the accused, seized the property and took sample from the seized property under the cover of occurrence report and later he altered section of law from 8(b) of APP

Act to Sec.269 of IPC and Sec.8(b) of APP Act-1995. After completion of further 2 investigation, he laid the charge sheet before the Court against the accused 1 and

2. Thereby, the accused 1 and 2 are liable for punishment under the above Section of law.

4.Cognizance was taken for the offence under Sections 269 I.P.C., and Sec. 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused 1 and 2.

5.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the accused were examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and they denied the offence. Charge under Sections 269 IPC and Sec.

8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed and read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence. Evidence of L.W.2-A. Murali, L.W.3-G. David

Raju and L.W.4-K. Arjuna Rao was given up by the prosecution as not necessary.

7.PW.2, who is the investigation officer deposed about apprehension of accused persons, seizure of property from the possession of the accused 1 and 2, registration of crime, sending sample to chemical examiner, receipt of analysis report and filing of charge sheet. PW.1, who accompanied with PW.2 and police constable deposed about his presence at the scene of seizure, arrest of accused and drawing sample.

8.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused 1 and 2 were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

3

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused 1 and 2. Perused the material available on record.

10.The learned APP contended that the evidence on record clearly proves the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence with which they are charged and that the accused 1 and 2 may be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

11.Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused 1 and 2 submitted that the accused 1 and 2 did not commit any offence as alleged and that they were brought from their houses and this case was foisted falsely against them for statistical purpose. He further submitted that no independent witnesses were examined in this case and thus the so-called seizure is against the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. He thus, prayed that the accused 1 and 2 are entitled to acquittal.

12. Now the points that arise for determination are as follows:

1) Whether the accused 1 and 2 are found in possession of 4 tins contains with 5 liters each (In total 20 liters) of ID arrack?

2) Whether the said property is seized from the possession of the accused persons at the scene of offence as per the procedure laid down under law ?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 269 IPC and Sec.8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995beyond all reasonable doubt ?

13.POINT NOS.1 TO 3:

In order to make out an offence under Sec. 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, the prosecution shall prove that an accused 1 and 2 are found in producing, manufacturing, storing, collecting, purchasing, selling or transporting of arrack and the same is seized from their possession as per the procedure laid down under law.

To prove the case of prosecution under 269 of I.P.C., they shall establish that any act unlawfully or negligently done to spread any infection or disease.

14.It is admitted fact that the M.O.1 sample is illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption. That aspect was deposed by PW.2 and same was not 4 disputed by the accused 1 and 2. The same was supported by recitals in the analysis report in Ex.P4. Therefore, the prosecution established their case to that extent.

But, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the M.O.1 sample lifted from the property seized from the accused persons and more particularly the seizure of the property from the accused 1 and 2. In order to prove the same, PW.2 stated that he along with PW.1 and his staff went for conducting patrolling for Excise Offences on 02.04.2020 at about 06.00 P.M. at P.E. Chinnayyapalem Village of Thondangi Mandal and they found the accused while they were in possession of 4 tins and each tin contains with 5 liters (In total 20 liters) of I.D. arrack therein; and that on examination, they revealed their identity, and then he deputed PW.1 to secure mediators but after some time he returned back to the scene of offence and informed to him that nobody came forward to act as mediators; and that he arrested the accused persons after informing them about the grounds of their arrest and seized the property and later he drew 300 ml. I.D.Liquor as a sample for the purpose of analysis, sealed and labelled the sample bottle as well as the remaining seized property under the cover of Ex.P.1 special report drafted there by him as none came forward to act as mediators; and that he brought them, the case record and the case property to the Thondangi Police Station and basing on Ex.P.1-

Special Report, he registered a case in Cr.No.112/2020 against the accused 1 and 2 under Section 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued Ex.P.2-FIR and added

Sec.269 of I.P.C., by way of alteration memo, issued Sec.41(a) Cr.P.C., notices; and that he sent the sample (M.O.1) to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada and after receipt of Ex.P.4 Analysis Report and after completion of further investigation, he laid the charge sheet before the Court against the accused 1 and 2. PW.1 also deposed in same lines that of PW.2 about the arrest of the accused persons and seizure of the property.

15.During the course of cross-examination of PW.2, he stated that the scene of offence is a residential locality and he did not try to secure the presence of independent mediators either before their departure at their station or before reaching the scene of offence; and that he did not issue any written notice to PW.1 5 sought to be served on the independent mediators, like, Sarpanch or MPTC or Ward

Member or VRA and PW.1 did not state before him the names of the persons to whom he requested to act as mediators and who refused to do so; and that no separate confessional statement was recorded from the accused and no separate seizure list was also prepared at the scene of offence; and that there was no mention in Ex.P.1 report as to who drafted it and there was no mention in Ex.P.1 report that he drew the sample in a clean, empty and dry bottle and there was a delay of 43 days in reaching the sample to the Chemical Examiner and the said delay was not explained properly in the charge sheet. He however denied the suggestion that he had not conducted any patrolling on the date of the alleged offence and he prepared the entire case record at his station for the purpose of this case; and that a false case was foisted against the accused 1 and 2 for the purpose of statistics and the accused did not commit any offence as alleged. PW.1 also admitted in his cross-examination that the scene of offence is residential locality and no summons are issued to secure the mediator. In view of the above said admissions, it is quite clear that no fruitful effort taken by the investigation of officer to secure the presence of mediators for arrest of accused 1 and 2 and the seizure of the property.

16.It is well settled principle of law that a police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public who is legally bound to assist him, such police officer can take action against such a person under the law for declining to assist him. In this case apparently no such action is initiated against the persons who allegedly refused to act as mediators. It is therefore very doubtful whether really PW.2 sent

PW.1 to secure the presence of independent mediators once the case property was alleged to have been found in the possession of the accused persons. Even otherwise, PWs.1 and 2 are Police Officials and their evidence manifestly demonstrates that they did not make any sincere efforts to secure the presence of independent mediators albeit it was stated in the evidence before the Court that the scene of offence is a residential locality. According to the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C., whenever any property is to be seized the officer who seizes 6 such property is under an obligation to call for two or more respectable inhabitants of that locality and in this case that has not happened. Therefore, the very seizure of the property from the alleged possession of the accused is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, in the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 the colour and special identification marks of the containers which are said to have been seized from the possession of the accused are also not deposed.

The above all creates suspicion about seizure of the property from the accused.

This Court relied upon Judgment reported in [2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P) between the parties MUDAVATH MOTHIA v. STATE OF A.P. wherein our Hon'ble

High Court of A.P.inter alia held at para-5 as follows:

“Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the A.P.Excise

Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials.

The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version, The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the BAR under Section 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, and Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt.”

17.Again in GAJAMKER NARAYANA v. STATE OF A.P. [2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) 1 (AP)],our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held at para-5 as follows:

"Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers. Neither the testimony of PW.1 nor that of PW.2 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P.1, Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. are not followed by the Excise Officials 7 while seizing the plastic can containing I.D.liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

18.In the light of the discussion made herein-above and in view of the aforementioneddecisions,non-examinationoftheindependent mediators/witnesses in this case from the locality where the property is said to have been seized, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

19.Further, a perusal of the record shows that the sample was reached to the

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, on 16.05.2020 but as per the evidence on record the alleged offence took place on 02.04.2020 when the alleged sample was drawn.

Thus, there was a delay of about 43 days in reaching the sample to the Chemical

Examiner, Kakinada, for analysis and the said delay was not explained properly and therefore such delay is also fatal to the case of the prosecution, as has been inter alia observed in S.BABU SAHEB @ BABU v. STATE OF A.P. [2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32].

20.From the above, it is crystal clear that except the evidence adduced by the

Police Officials -PWs.1 and 2, who are very much interested in the outcome of the case no independent witnesses were examined in support of their case. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of 4 tins of 20 liters of I.D. arrack and the same was seized from the possession of the accused persons at the scene of offence is highly doubtful inasmuch as the evidence of police official does not inspire the credibility and confidence of the Court in the absence of corroboration from any independent witnesses. Since the prosecution failed to prove the case under Sec.8(b) of APP Act, we cannot say that accused committed an act to spread any infection or disease to attract Sec.269 of I.P.C. It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions or on mere surmises and conjectures. Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict an accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above 8 discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to wholly bring home the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently,

Point Nos.1 to 3 are accordingly answered in favour of the accused 1 and 2 and against the prosecution.

21.In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 269 IPC and Sec.8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offences. The surety and accused are present and complied Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The bonds executed by the accused 1 and 2 and surety shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court, if an appeal is preferred. M.O.1 sample bottle vide C.P.R.No.53/2021 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Gr.III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16th day of July, 2021.

Sd/- M. SREEDHAR

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

TUNI.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1: V. Nookaraju None PW.2: Ch. Vidya Sagar

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P.1: Special report. dt.02.04.2020

Ex.P.2: FIR in Crime No.112/2020. NIL Ex.P.3:Alteration memo, dt.02.04.2020

Ex.P.3: Analysis report, dt.16.05.2020

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1 is the sample bottle.

Sd/- M. SREEDHAR

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

TUNI.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF THE FIRST CLASS, TUNI.

JUDGMENT & CALENDAR

C.C.NO. 227 OF 2020

DATE OF :-

Offence: 02.04.2020

Complaint: 02.04.2020

Apprehension of accused: Sec.41 Cr.P.C. notices served

Released on bail: ----

Commencement of trial: 12.03.2021

Close of Trial : 13.07.2021

Sentence or order: 16.07.2021

Explanation for delay: ---

Name of the Complainant: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thondangi Police Station.

Name of the accused :

A1)Sagarapu Sathibabu, S/o Malayya, 40 years, SC-Madiga SC-Pet, P.E. Chinnayapalem of Thondangi Mandal. A2)Sagarapu Apparao, S/o Nookaraju, 40 years, SC-Madiga SC-Pet, P.E. Chinnayapalem of Thondangi Mandal.

Offence: U/Sec.269 IPC and Sec. 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order :

In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 269 IPC and Sec.8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offences. The surety and accused are present and complied Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The bonds executed by the accused 1 and 2 and surety shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court, if an appeal is preferred. M.O.1 sample bottle vide C.P.R.No.53/2021 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- M. SREEDHAR

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

TUNI. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Senior Civil

Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, for favour of information.

// True Copy // 10

I Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Tuni.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF THE FIRST CLASS-CUM-I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUNI.

Present : Sri Marpu Sreedhar, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tuni.

Friday, this the 16th day of July, 2021.

C.C.No.227 OF 2020

Between State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thondangi Police Station. …Complainant

And

A1)Sagarapu Sathibabu, S/o Malayya, 40 years, SC-Madiga SC-Pet, P.E. Chinnayapalem of Thondangi Mandal. A2)Sagarapu Apparao, S/o Nookaraju, 40 years, SC-Madiga SC-Pet, P.E. Chinnayapalem of Thondangi Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 13.07.2021 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B.V.V. Ramana, Advocate for accused 1 and 2 and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case arises out of Crime No.112/2020 of Thondangi Police Station, registered against the accused 1 and 2 for the offence under Sections 269 I.P.C., and 8(B) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 on the basis of Occurrence Report.

2.PW.2-Ch. Vidya Sagar, the Sub Inspector, Thondangi Police Station laid the charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 herein under Sections 269 I.P.C., and

Sec.8(B) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 with the following averments:

3.On 02.04.2020 at about 06.00 p.m., L.W.5-Ch. Vidya Sagar, Sub Inspector of

Police, Thondangi Police Station along with L.Ws.1 to 4 viz., V. Nooka Raju, PC-3576,

A. Murali, PC-1175, G. David Raju, HG-289 and K. Arjuna Rao, HG-891 conducted raid at PE Chinnayyapalem village, accused 1 and 2 were found in a possession of 4 tins and each tin contains with 5 liters (In total 20 liters) of ID arrack, on that he arrested the accused, seized the property and took sample from the seized property under the cover of occurrence report and later he altered section of law from 8(b) of APP

Act to Sec.269 of IPC and Sec.8(b) of APP Act-1995. After completion of further 2 investigation, he laid the charge sheet before the Court against the accused 1 and

2. Thereby, the accused 1 and 2 are liable for punishment under the above Section of law.

4.Cognizance was taken for the offence under Sections 269 I.P.C., and Sec. 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused 1 and 2.

5.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the accused were examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and they denied the offence. Charge under Sections 269 IPC and Sec.

8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed and read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence. Evidence of L.W.2-A. Murali, L.W.3-G. David

Raju and L.W.4-K. Arjuna Rao was given up by the prosecution as not necessary.

7.PW.2, who is the investigation officer deposed about apprehension of accused persons, seizure of property from the possession of the accused 1 and 2, registration of crime, sending sample to chemical examiner, receipt of analysis report and filing of charge sheet. PW.1, who accompanied with PW.2 and police constable deposed about his presence at the scene of seizure, arrest of accused and drawing sample.

8.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused 1 and 2 were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

3

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused 1 and 2. Perused the material available on record.

10.The learned APP contended that the evidence on record clearly proves the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence with which they are charged and that the accused 1 and 2 may be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

11.Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused 1 and 2 submitted that the accused 1 and 2 did not commit any offence as alleged and that they were brought from their houses and this case was foisted falsely against them for statistical purpose. He further submitted that no independent witnesses were examined in this case and thus the so-called seizure is against the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. He thus, prayed that the accused 1 and 2 are entitled to acquittal.

12. Now the points that arise for determination are as follows:

1) Whether the accused 1 and 2 are found in possession of 4 tins contains with 5 liters each (In total 20 liters) of ID arrack?

2) Whether the said property is seized from the possession of the accused persons at the scene of offence as per the procedure laid down under law ?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 269 IPC and Sec.8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995beyond all reasonable doubt ?

13.POINT NOS.1 TO 3:

In order to make out an offence under Sec. 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, the prosecution shall prove that an accused 1 and 2 are found in producing, manufacturing, storing, collecting, purchasing, selling or transporting of arrack and the same is seized from their possession as per the procedure laid down under law.

To prove the case of prosecution under 269 of I.P.C., they shall establish that any act unlawfully or negligently done to spread any infection or disease.

14.It is admitted fact that the M.O.1 sample is illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption. That aspect was deposed by PW.2 and same was not 4 disputed by the accused 1 and 2. The same was supported by recitals in the analysis report in Ex.P4. Therefore, the prosecution established their case to that extent.

But, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the M.O.1 sample lifted from the property seized from the accused persons and more particularly the seizure of the property from the accused 1 and 2. In order to prove the same, PW.2 stated that he along with PW.1 and his staff went for conducting patrolling for Excise Offences on 02.04.2020 at about 06.00 P.M. at P.E. Chinnayyapalem Village of Thondangi Mandal and they found the accused while they were in possession of 4 tins and each tin contains with 5 liters (In total 20 liters) of I.D. arrack therein; and that on examination, they revealed their identity, and then he deputed PW.1 to secure mediators but after some time he returned back to the scene of offence and informed to him that nobody came forward to act as mediators; and that he arrested the accused persons after informing them about the grounds of their arrest and seized the property and later he drew 300 ml. I.D.Liquor as a sample for the purpose of analysis, sealed and labelled the sample bottle as well as the remaining seized property under the cover of Ex.P.1 special report drafted there by him as none came forward to act as mediators; and that he brought them, the case record and the case property to the Thondangi Police Station and basing on Ex.P.1-

Special Report, he registered a case in Cr.No.112/2020 against the accused 1 and 2 under Section 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued Ex.P.2-FIR and added

Sec.269 of I.P.C., by way of alteration memo, issued Sec.41(a) Cr.P.C., notices; and that he sent the sample (M.O.1) to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada and after receipt of Ex.P.4 Analysis Report and after completion of further investigation, he laid the charge sheet before the Court against the accused 1 and 2. PW.1 also deposed in same lines that of PW.2 about the arrest of the accused persons and seizure of the property.

15.During the course of cross-examination of PW.2, he stated that the scene of offence is a residential locality and he did not try to secure the presence of independent mediators either before their departure at their station or before reaching the scene of offence; and that he did not issue any written notice to PW.1 5 sought to be served on the independent mediators, like, Sarpanch or MPTC or Ward

Member or VRA and PW.1 did not state before him the names of the persons to whom he requested to act as mediators and who refused to do so; and that no separate confessional statement was recorded from the accused and no separate seizure list was also prepared at the scene of offence; and that there was no mention in Ex.P.1 report as to who drafted it and there was no mention in Ex.P.1 report that he drew the sample in a clean, empty and dry bottle and there was a delay of 43 days in reaching the sample to the Chemical Examiner and the said delay was not explained properly in the charge sheet. He however denied the suggestion that he had not conducted any patrolling on the date of the alleged offence and he prepared the entire case record at his station for the purpose of this case; and that a false case was foisted against the accused 1 and 2 for the purpose of statistics and the accused did not commit any offence as alleged. PW.1 also admitted in his cross-examination that the scene of offence is residential locality and no summons are issued to secure the mediator. In view of the above said admissions, it is quite clear that no fruitful effort taken by the investigation of officer to secure the presence of mediators for arrest of accused 1 and 2 and the seizure of the property.

16.It is well settled principle of law that a police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public who is legally bound to assist him, such police officer can take action against such a person under the law for declining to assist him. In this case apparently no such action is initiated against the persons who allegedly refused to act as mediators. It is therefore very doubtful whether really PW.2 sent

PW.1 to secure the presence of independent mediators once the case property was alleged to have been found in the possession of the accused persons. Even otherwise, PWs.1 and 2 are Police Officials and their evidence manifestly demonstrates that they did not make any sincere efforts to secure the presence of independent mediators albeit it was stated in the evidence before the Court that the scene of offence is a residential locality. According to the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C., whenever any property is to be seized the officer who seizes 6 such property is under an obligation to call for two or more respectable inhabitants of that locality and in this case that has not happened. Therefore, the very seizure of the property from the alleged possession of the accused is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, in the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 the colour and special identification marks of the containers which are said to have been seized from the possession of the accused are also not deposed.

The above all creates suspicion about seizure of the property from the accused.

This Court relied upon Judgment reported in [2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P) between the parties MUDAVATH MOTHIA v. STATE OF A.P. wherein our Hon'ble

High Court of A.P.inter alia held at para-5 as follows:

“Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the A.P.Excise

Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials.

The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version, The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the BAR under Section 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, and Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt.”

17.Again in GAJAMKER NARAYANA v. STATE OF A.P. [2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) 1 (AP)],our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held at para-5 as follows:

"Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers. Neither the testimony of PW.1 nor that of PW.2 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P.1, Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. are not followed by the Excise Officials 7 while seizing the plastic can containing I.D.liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

18.In the light of the discussion made herein-above and in view of the aforementioneddecisions,non-examinationoftheindependent mediators/witnesses in this case from the locality where the property is said to have been seized, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

19.Further, a perusal of the record shows that the sample was reached to the

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, on 16.05.2020 but as per the evidence on record the alleged offence took place on 02.04.2020 when the alleged sample was drawn.

Thus, there was a delay of about 43 days in reaching the sample to the Chemical

Examiner, Kakinada, for analysis and the said delay was not explained properly and therefore such delay is also fatal to the case of the prosecution, as has been inter alia observed in S.BABU SAHEB @ BABU v. STATE OF A.P. [2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32].

20.From the above, it is crystal clear that except the evidence adduced by the

Police Officials -PWs.1 and 2, who are very much interested in the outcome of the case no independent witnesses were examined in support of their case. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of 4 tins of 20 liters of I.D. arrack and the same was seized from the possession of the accused persons at the scene of offence is highly doubtful inasmuch as the evidence of police official does not inspire the credibility and confidence of the Court in the absence of corroboration from any independent witnesses. Since the prosecution failed to prove the case under Sec.8(b) of APP Act, we cannot say that accused committed an act to spread any infection or disease to attract Sec.269 of I.P.C. It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions or on mere surmises and conjectures. Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict an accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above 8 discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to wholly bring home the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently,

Point Nos.1 to 3 are accordingly answered in favour of the accused 1 and 2 and against the prosecution.

21.In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 269 IPC and Sec.8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offences. The surety and accused are present and complied Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The bonds executed by the accused 1 and 2 and surety shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court, if an appeal is preferred. M.O.1 sample bottle vide C.P.R.No.53/2021 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Gr.III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16th day of July, 2021.

Sd/- M. SREEDHAR

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

TUNI.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1: V. Nookaraju None PW.2: Ch. Vidya Sagar

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P.1: Special report. dt.02.04.2020

Ex.P.2: FIR in Crime No.112/2020. NIL Ex.P.3:Alteration memo, dt.02.04.2020

Ex.P.3: Analysis report, dt.16.05.2020

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1 is the sample bottle.

Sd/- M. SREEDHAR

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

TUNI.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF THE FIRST CLASS, TUNI.

JUDGMENT & CALENDAR

C.C.NO. 227 OF 2020

DATE OF :-

Offence: 02.04.2020

Complaint: 02.04.2020

Apprehension of accused: Sec.41 Cr.P.C. notices served

Released on bail: ----

Commencement of trial: 12.03.2021

Close of Trial : 13.07.2021

Sentence or order: 16.07.2021

Explanation for delay: ---

Name of the Complainant: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thondangi Police Station.

Name of the accused :

A1)Sagarapu Sathibabu, S/o Malayya, 40 years, SC-Madiga SC-Pet, P.E. Chinnayapalem of Thondangi Mandal. A2)Sagarapu Apparao, S/o Nookaraju, 40 years, SC-Madiga SC-Pet, P.E. Chinnayapalem of Thondangi Mandal.

Offence: U/Sec.269 IPC and Sec. 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order :

In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 269 IPC and Sec.8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offences. The surety and accused are present and complied Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The bonds executed by the accused 1 and 2 and surety shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court, if an appeal is preferred. M.O.1 sample bottle vide C.P.R.No.53/2021 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- M. SREEDHAR

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

TUNI. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Senior Civil

Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, for favour of information.

// True Copy // 10

I Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Tuni.

1Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: KOTHAPETA.

PRESENT: Sri MARPU SREEDHAR

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOTHAPETA

Dated: Monday 24th day of April,2023

O.P.No.46/2023

Between:­

1. Karri.Sri rama Krishna Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, aged 40 years, Hindu, Cultivation, D.NO.3­93, Nattarameswaram, Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Karri Sri Lakshmi Kala, W/o Karri Sriram Krishna Reddy, Aged 31 years, D/o Padala Rami REddy, Hindu, House wife, D.NO.1­187, Near Ambar Cheraka Basivireddy street, Ravulapalem, Ravulapalem Mandal, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

...Petitioners

and 

NIL…Respondent 

This petition is coming on 21­04­2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. P.Venkata Reddy Advocate for petitioners and nil for respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Sec.13­B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by petitioners 1 and 2 praying to pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent dissolving the marriage, dated 24­10­2007 between the petitioners and to pass such other reliefs deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 

2.The case of the petitioners in nutshell is as follows:­ 

The petitioners No.1 and 2 are the husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 24­08­2007 at 1st petitioner's parent's house at

Nattarameswaram as per the Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was consummated. After the marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined with the 1st petitioner at 1st petitioner's house to lead marital life and they lead marital life for some time only. During their wedlock ,they blessed with male child Karri.Durga

Karthik Reddy aged about 14 years. Later the disputes arose between them and due to said disputes, the 2nd petitioner left the matrimonial home and went to her parent's house on15­12­2018. During the said period also there are disputes between them. Since then they have been residing separately. Despite of intervention of elders, the disputes were not settled between them. As per the settlement before the elders, The articles presented each other took back by each 2Fair of them. The 1st petitioner agreed to looks after the maintenance, custody and welfare of his child namely Karri Durga Karthik Reddy. The 2nd petitionter agreed the same. The 2nd petitioner agreed to relinquish her maintenance rights or other. Both the petitioners are agreed not to file not to file any criminal cases against and his family members by the 2nd petitioner and she further agreed not to file any maintenance cases against 1st petitioner. Since, all the source of the reconciliation were failed and in view of the irretrievable break down of the marriage, both parties filed this petition for dissolution of the marriage. Hence, this petition The 2nd petitioner agreed not to claim any maintenance and not to filing any civil and Criminal Cases against each other in future. Since, all the source of the reconciliation were failed and in view of the irretrievable break down of the marriage, both parties filed this petition for dissolution of the marriage.

Hence, this petition.

3.Both parties appeared before this Court and the cooling period of six(6) months is waived as per the orders in I.A.No.144/2023, dated 21.04.2023

Conciliation was conducted between the both parties by this Court, but the same is failed as both parties did not come forward for reunion.

4. To prove their case, both the petitioners have been examined as P.W.s.1 and 2, and got marked ExsP.1 and P.2. Ex.P.1 is the Marriage Invitation Card and Ex.P.2 is the Three marriage photographs along with C.D.

5.Heard.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent? 

7.POINT:­

There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioners

No.1 and 2, who are the husband and wife. In support of their case, they orally deposed that their marriage was performed 24­10­2007 at 1st petitioner's parent's house at Nattarameswaram as per Hindu rites and customs. In corroboration to their oral evidence, the 1st petitioner submitted Ex.P.1 marriage wedding card and Ex.P.2 Three marriage photographs along with C.D., which indicates that their marriage was performed on 24­10­2007.

3Fair

8.The petitioners have to establish the following three ingredients to get divorce by mutual consent as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in decision reported in (1991) 2 Supreme Court Cases 25: 1991 Supreme Court Cases (Crl)292 between Sureshta Devi Vs. Om Prakash at Para No.8 which read as follows:

Section 13­B is in pari materia with Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Sub­section (1) of Section 13­B requires that the petition for divorce by mutual consent must be presented to the Court jointly by both the parties. Similarly, sub­ section (2) providing for the motion before the Court for hearing of the petition should also be by both the parties. 

There are three other requirements in sub-section (1). There are:

(i) They have been living separately for a period of one year.

(ii) They have not been able to live together, and

(iii) They have mutually agreed that marriage should be dissolved.

9.The case of the petitioners is that the disputes arose between the both parties and the efforts made by the family members and elders also failed. To prove the above said aspect, petitioners No.1 and 2 deposed before this Court that they lead marital life for few years only and thereafter dispute arose between them, which went to an extent to express unwillingness to lead marital life and they are living separately from `even before that as they lead marital life for one month only. Thus, the marriage was emotionally dead between the petitioners

No.1 and 2 and it is beyond the scope of repair. From the evidence on record, it is manifests that both are living separately from 15­12­2018 and quarrel took place both at Ravulapalem. The petition filed by him to waive cooling period of 6 months and same was allowed as per the orders in I.A.144/2023 The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further goes to show that despite the intervention of elders the matter is not pacified and both the petitioners refused to restore their conjugal life. It is an admitted fact that during the wedlock they have blessed with male child Karri Durga Karthik Reddy aged about 14 years. From the evidence on record, it is manifests that both are living separately since,15­12­2018. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further goes to show that despite the intervention of family members and elders the matter is not pacified and both the petitioners refused to restore their conjugal life. It is an admitted fact that they have male child namely Karri.Durga Karthik Reddy out of their wedlock. It is also testified by the both the petitioners that 1st petitioner agreed to looks after his maintenance, custody and welfare and 2nd petitioner agreed the same. The 2nd 4Fair petitioner agreed not to claim any maintenance and not to filing any civil and

Criminal Cases against each other in future.

10. It is an admitted fact that one year as contemplated under Sec.14 of Hindu Marriage Act, was elapsed by the date of filing of this petition as both are residing separately from two months after their marriage and the petition was filed on 20­04­2023. Even after separation of such long period, both the petitioners are not interested to live with each other. From the evidence on record, it is manifests that despite the intervention of elders, the matter is not settled and both parties refused to restore the conjugal life. In view of the evidence placed by the both parties, this Court has no hesitation to hold that there is no scope of reunion and the marriage was irretrievably broken down beyond the scope for repair. Therefore, this court has no other option except granting divorce by mutual consent. In view of said circumstances, this court is inclined to grant divorce by mutual consent.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent by dissolving the marriage in between the petitioners held on 24­10­2007 and no order as to costs.

Typed by the Junior Assistant corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 24th April, 2023

Sd/- M. Sreedhar

Senior Civil Judge,

Kothapeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:­ For Respondent:­ 

P.W.1:Karri Sri Rama Krishna ReddyNone

P.W.2: Karri.Sri Lakshmi Kala

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners:­

Ex.P1 is the Marriage Invitation Card

Ex.P2 is the Three photographs along with C.D. 

Sd/- M. Sreedhar

Senior Civil Judge,

Kothapeta.

1Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: KOTHAPETA.

PRESENT: Sri MARPU SREEDHAR

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOTHAPETA

Dated: Monday 24th day of April,2023

O.P.No.45/2023

Between:­

1. Manepalli. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o Trimurthulu, Aged 30 years, Hindu, Carpenter, D.No.1­92/1, peda Cheruvu, Ethakota village, Ravulapalem mandal, Dr.Br.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

2. Manepalli. Naga Jyothi, W/0 Manepalli Veera venkata satyanarayana, Aged 19 years, D/o Mondreti Venkata Satyanara;yana, Hindu, House wife, D.No.16­39, Maruthi Center, Kothapeta village and Mandal, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

...Petitioners

and 

NIL…Respondent 

This petition is coming on 21­04­2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. P.Venkata Reddy Advocate for petitioners and nil for respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Sec.13­B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by petitioners 1 and 2 praying to pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent dissolving the marriage, dated 18­10­2019 between the petitioners and to pass such other reliefs deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 

2.The case of the petitioners in nutshell is as follows:­ 

The petitioners No.1 and 2 are the husband and wife and their marriage was performed on18­10­2019 at 1st petitioner's parent's house at Ethakota village as per the Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was consummated.

After the marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined with the 1st petitioner at 1st petitioner's house to lead marital life and they lead marital life for some time only.

During their wedlock ,they have no children. Later the disputes arose between them and due to said disputes, the 2nd petitioner left the matrimonial home and went to her parent's house on 20­12­2020. During the said period also there are disputes between them. Since then they have been residing separately. Despite of intervention of elders, the disputes were not settled between them. As per the settlement before the elders,. Both the petitioners are agreed not to file not to file 2Fair any criminal cases against and his family members by the 2nd petitioner and she further agreed not to file any maintenance cases against 1st petitioner.

Since, all the source of the reconciliation were failed and in view of the irretrievable break down of the marriage, both parties filed this petition for dissolution of the marriage. As per the settlement before the elders, the 1st petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ for permanent alimony full and final settlement of dispute and all the claims and also towards future and past maintenance to the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner agreed not to claim any maintenance and not to file any civil and Criminal Cases against each other in future. Since, all the source of the reconciliation were failed and in view of the irretrievable break down of the marriage, both parties filed this petition for dissolution of the marriage. Hence, this petition.

3.Both parties appeared before this Court and the cooling period of six(6) months is waived as per the orders in I.A.No.143/2023, dated 21.04.2023

Conciliation was conducted between the both parties by this Court, but the same is failed as both parties did not come forward for reunion.

4. To prove their case, both the petitioners have been examined as P.W.s.1 and 2, and got marked ExsP.1 and P.2. Ex.P.1 is the Marriage Invitation Card and Ex.P.2 is the Two marriage photographs along with C.D.

5.Heard.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent? 

7.POINT:­

There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioners

No.1 and 2, who are the husband and wife. In support of their case, they orally deposed that their marriage was performed 18­10­2019 at 1st petitioner's parent's house at Ethakota village as per Hindu rites and customs. In corroboration to their oral evidence, the 1st petitioner submitted Ex.P.1 marriage wedding card and Ex.P.2 Two marriage photographs along with C.D., which indicates that their marriage was performed on 18­10­2019

8.The petitioners have to establish the following three ingredients to get divorce by mutual consent as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in decision 3Fair reported in (1991) 2 Supreme Court Cases 25: 1991 Supreme Court Cases (Crl)292 between Sureshta Devi Vs. Om Prakash at Para No.8 which read as follows:

Section 13­B is in pari materia with Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Sub­section (1) of Section 13­B requires that the petition for divorce by mutual consent must be presented to the Court jointly by both the parties. Similarly, sub­ section (2) providing for the motion before the Court for hearing of the petition should also be by both the parties. 

There are three other requirements in sub-section (1). There are:

(i) They have been living separately for a period of one year.

(ii) They have not been able to live together, and

(iii) They have mutually agreed that marriage should be dissolved.

9.The case of the petitioners is that the disputes arose between the both parties and the efforts made by the family members and elders also failed. To prove the above said aspect, petitioners No.1 and 2 deposed before this Court that they lead marital life for few years only and thereafter dispute arose between them, which went to an extent to express unwillingness to lead marital life and they are living separately from `even before that as they lead marital life for one month only. Thus, the marriage was emotionally dead between the petitioners

No.1 and 2 and it is beyond the scope of repair. From the evidence on record, it is manifests that both are living separately from 20­12­2020 even before that they are residing separately. The petition filed by him to waive cooling period of 6 months and same was allowed as per the orders in I.A.143/2023 The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further goes to show that despite the intervention of elders the matter is not pacified and both the petitioners refused to restore their conjugal life. It is an admitted fact that during the wedlock they have not blessed with any children .From the evidence on record, it is manifests that both are living separately from 20­12­2020. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further goes to show that despite the intervention of family members and elders the matter is not pacified and both the petitioners refused to restore their conjugal life. It is an admitted fact that they have no children out of their wedlock. It is also testified by the both the petitioners that 1st petitioner agreed to pay an amount of

Rs. 1,00,000/­for permanent alimony full and final settlement of dispute and all the claims and also towards future and past maintenance of the 2nd petitioner and the above said amount received by the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner agreed not to claim any maintenance and not to filing any civil and Criminal

Cases against each other in future.

4Fair

10. It is an admitted fact that one year as contemplated under Sec.14 of Hindu Marriage Act, was elapsed by the date of filing of this petition as both are residing separately from two months after their marriage and the petition was filed on 20­04­2023. Even after separation of such long period, both the petitioners are not interested to live with each other. From the evidence on record, it is manifests that despite the intervention of elders, the matter is not settled and both parties refused to restore the conjugal life. In view of the evidence placed by the both parties, this Court has no hesitation to hold that there is no scope of reunion and the marriage was irretrievably broken down beyond the scope for repair. Therefore, this court has no other option except granting divorce by mutual consent. In view of said circumstances, this court is inclined to grant divorce by mutual consent.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent by dissolving the marriage in between the petitioners held on 18­10­2019 and no order as to costs.

Typed by the Junior Assistant corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 24th April, 2023

Sd/-M. Sreedhar

Senior Civil Judge,

Kothapeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:­ For Respondent:­ 

P.W.1:Manepalli. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana None

P.W.2: Manepalli.naga Jyothi

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners:­

Ex.P1 is the Marriage Invitation Card

Ex.P2 is the Two photographs along with C.D. 

Sd/-M. Sreedhar

Senior Civil Judge,

Kothapeta.

1Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: KOTHAPETA.

PRESENT: Sri MARPU SREEDHAR

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOTHAPETA

Dated: Monday 24th day of April,2023

O.P.No.44/2023

Between:­

1. Yarramsetti Sandeep, S/o. Srinivasarao, Age 30 years, L. Gannavaram Village, P. Gannavaram Mandal, Konaseema District.

2. Yarramsetti Sreedatha Sireesha, W/o. Sandeep, D/o Veerababu, Age 26 years, D.No.2/55/1, Gowripatnam, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District.

...Petitioners

and 

NIL…Respondent 

This petition is coming on 21­04­2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. P.V.R.Dora Advocate for petitioners and nil for respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Sec.13­B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by petitioners 1 and 2 praying to pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent dissolving the marriage, dated 21­08­2021 between the petitioners and to pass such other reliefs deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 

2.The case of the petitioners in nutshell is as follows:­ 

The petitioners No.1 and 2 are the husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 21­08­2021 at Sundara Sri Kalyana Mandapam,Kovvuru village, West Godavari District as per the Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was consummated. After the marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined with the 1st petitioner to lead marital life and they lead marital life for One month only.

During their wedlock ,they have not blessed with any children. Later the disputes arose between them and due to said disputes, the 2nd petitioner left the matrimonial home without any information to petitioner and went to her parent's house on September,2021. Since then they have been residing separately.

Despite of intervention of elders, the disputes were not settled between them. As per the settlement before the elders,both the petitioners are agreed not to file 2Fair any criminal cases against and his family members by the 2nd petitioner and she further agreed not to file any maintenance cases against 1st petitioner.

Since, all the source of the reconciliation were failed and in view of the irretrievable break down of the marriage, both parties filed this petition for dissolution of the marriage. Hence, this petition The 2nd petitioner agreed not to claim any maintenance and not to file any civil and Criminal Cases against each other in future. Since, all the source of the reconciliation were failed and in view of the irretrievable break down of the marriage, both parties filed this petition for dissolution of the marriage. Hence, this petition.

3. Both parties appeared before this Court and the cooling period of six(6) months is waived as per the orders in I.A.No.142/2023, dated 21.04.2023

Conciliation was conducted between the both parties by this Court, but the same is failed as both parties did not come forward for reunion.

4. To prove their case, both the petitioners have been examined as P.W.s.1 and 2, and got marked ExsP.1 and P.2. Ex.P.1 is the Marriage Invitation Card and Ex.P.2 is the Three marriage photographs along with C.D.

5.Heard.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent? 

7.POINT:­

There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioners

No.1 and 2, who are the husband and wife. In support of their case, they orally deposed that their marriage was performed 21­08­2021 at Sundara Sai Kalyana

Mandapam, Kovvuru village, West Godavari as per Hindu rites and customs. In corroboration to their oral evidence, the 1st petitioner submitted Ex.P.1 marriage wedding card and Ex.P.2 Three marriage photographs along with C.D., which indicates that their marriage was performed on 21.08.2021.

8.The petitioners have to establish the following three ingredients to get divorce by mutual consent as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in decision reported in (1991) 2 Supreme Court Cases 25: 1991 Supreme Court Cases (Crl)292 between Sureshta Devi Vs. Om Prakash at Para No.8 which read as follows:

3Fair

Section 13­B is in pari materia with Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Sub­section (1) of Section 13­B requires that the petition for divorce by mutual consent must be presented to the Court jointly by both the parties. Similarly, sub­ section (2) providing for the motion before the Court for hearing of the petition should also be by both the parties. 

There are three other requirements in sub-section (1). There are:

(i) They have been living separately for a period of one year.

(ii) They have not been able to live together, and

(iii) They have mutually agreed that marriage should be dissolved.

9.The case of the petitioners is that the disputes arose between the both parties and the efforts made by the family members and elders also failed. To prove the above said aspect, petitioners No.1 and 2 deposed before this Court that they lead marital life for few years only and thereafter dispute arose between them, which went to an extent to express unwillingness to lead marital life and they are living separately from `even before that as they lead marital life for one month only. Thus, the marriage was emotionally dead between the petitioners

No.1 and 2 and it is beyond the scope of repair. From the evidence on record, it is manifests that both are living separately from September,2021 even before that they are residing separately. The petition filed by him to waive cooling period of 6 months and same was allowed as per the orders in I.A.142/2023. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further goes to show that despite the intervention of elders, the matter is not pacified and both the petitioners refused to restore their conjugal life. It is an admitted fact that during the wedlock they have not blessed with any children .From the evidence on record, it is manifests that both are living separately since September,2021. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further goes to show that despite the intervention of family members and elders the matter is not pacified and both the petitioners refused to restore their conjugal life. It is an admitted fact that they have no children out of their wedlock. It is also testified by the both the petitioners that The 2nd petitioner agreed not to claim any maintenance and not to filing any civil and Criminal Cases against each other in future.

9. It is an admitted fact that one year as contemplated under Sec.14 of Hindu Marriage Act, was elapsed by the date of filing of this petition as both are residing separately from September,2021 after their marriage and the petition was filed on 21­04­2023. Even after separation of such long period, both the petitioners are not interested to live with each other. From the evidence on 4Fair record, it is manifests that despite the intervention of elders, the matter is not settled and both parties refused to restore the conjugal life. In view of the evidence placed by the both parties, this Court has no hesitation to hold that there is no scope of reunion and the marriage was irretrievably broken down beyond the scope for repair. Therefore, this court has no other option except granting divorce by mutual consent. In view of said circumstances, this court is inclined to grant divorce by mutual consent.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce by mutual consent by dissolving the marriage in between the petitioners held on 21­08­2021 and no order as to costs.

Typed by the Junior Assistant corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 24th April, 2023

Sd/- M. Sreedhar

Senior Civil Judge,

Kothapeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:­ For Respondent:­ 

P.W.1:Yerramsetti.Sandeep None

P.W.2: Yerramsetti.Sreedatha Sireesha

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners:­

Ex.P1 is the Marriage Invitation Card

Ex.P2 is the Three photographs along with C.D. 

Sd/- M. Sreedhar

Senior Civil Judge,

Kothapeta.