M Suneel Kumar

//1//

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT SOMPETA.

Present: Sri M.Suneel Kumar,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Sessions Case No.19/2018.

(P.R.C.No.7/2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa in Cr.No.86/2016 of Kasibugga police station) under sections 307 and 326 of Indian Penal Code.

Between : State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kasibugga police station. … Complainant. And: Pyla Venkatarao, s/o.Lingala Naidu, aged 39 years, Kalinga by caste, Kosangipuram village, Palasa mandal, cultivation by

profession.….. Accused.

Prosecution conducted by : Smt. G.Radha,

Additional Public Prosecutor, Sompeta.

Accused were defended by :Sri G.S.Sailendra, learned Advocate for accused.

Offence :Under Sections 307,326 of I.P.C.

Plea of Accused above : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge : Not guilty.

Sentence or Order : Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 307,326 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 235(1)Cr.P.C.M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall subsists for a period of six months.

This case coming on 17.03.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence

Smt.G.Radha, Additional Public Prosecutor for state-complainant and of Sri

G.S.Sailendra, learned Advocate for Accused and upon hearing of arguments of both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of police, Kasibugga police station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.86/2016 under sections 307,326 of I.P.C on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palasa and numbered as P.R.C.7/2016.

//2//

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused is the son-in- law of the nephew of defacto-complainant, and accused and defacto- complainant are residents of Kosangipuram village. The defacto-complainant is residing at Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam after his retirement. The marriage of accused with the daughter of defacto-complainant taken place about 14 years back and they lived happily for four years and blessed with three children. Thereafter, disputes arose between them, and they are living separately. The wife of accused residing with her parents at Visakhapatnam and accused is residing in his village. On 05.06.2016 the defacto-complainant came to Kosangipuram to prepare primary agricultural operations of his fields and stayed in the house of his brother Karri Prabhakararao(LW.2). On 06.06.2016, the defacto-complainant went to fields, returned to his brother's house and sitting in the verandah at about 5.30 p.m. The accused saw the defacto-complainant, grew wild, quarreled with him and abused him and the villagers pacified and sent them by admonishing both of them. At about 7 p.m, accused armed with a crowbar to kill, came upon him and attacked with it by claiming unless he killed him, he will not get peace, and he stabbed on the left side of the throat and caused the bleeding injury. In the meantime, his brother Prabhakararao came and rang to 108 Ambulance and shifted him to Palasa Community Health Centre. They gave First Aid, the police came and recorded his statement on the medical intimation. The Sub-Inspector of police, P.Sriramamurty(LW.13) and registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.86/16 under sections 307, 326 of Indian Penal Code and submitted First

Information Report to court and copies to all concerned and investigated into.

3.During the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police visited the scene of offence along with Pyla Venkateswarlu(L.W.9) and Budatha

Jagadeesh(L.W.10), mediators. He observed the scene of the offence, drawn rough sketch, seized crime weapon and got photographed scene of the offence. He examined Uppada Jagannadharao, Karri Prabhakararao, Karri

Dhanalaxmi, Kancharana Saraswathi, Karri Mahalaxmi, Karri Hemalatha,

Yavvari Dhilleswari and Dumpala Viswanadham(LWs.1 to 8), recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements. On 08.06.2016 the Sub-Inspector of police arrested the accused and sent him to the Hon'ble Court for remand. He also sent seized material to Forensic Science Laboratory, Visakhapatnam through Sub-

Divisional Police Office. After receipt of F.S.L.report, completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police, Kasibugga filed charge-sheet against the accused of the offence punishable under sections 307, 326 of //3//

Indian Penal Code. Accused received injuries to his hand while attacking the defacto-complainant and taking advantage of the same, he filed a case in

Cr.No.87/2016 under section 324 of Indian Penal Code.

4.The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 307,326 of I.P.C and issued summons to accused. After the appearance of accused before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate supplied copies of case record as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court,

Srikakulam as required under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The Honourable Sessions

Judge, Srikakulam assigned S.C.No.19/2018 and made over to this Court for

disposal according to Law, as per the proceedings communicated in

Dis.No.1063/dt.01.03.2018.

5.This Court issued summons to the accused and accused made his appearance before the Court, engaged counsel. Heard the case of prosecution and defence, and accused was examined under Section 226 of

Cr.P.C. Charge under Sections 307 and 326 of I.P.C was framed against him as required under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. Read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The

Court fixed the schedule and issued summons to the witnesses.

6.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW 1 to 12 and evidence of Geetha Madhuri, Scientific Officer, RFSL,

Visakhapatnam(LW.12) was given up by Additional Public Prosecutor and marked Exs.P.1 to P.14, M.O.1 and Ex.D1 marked.

7.After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused has examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C to enable him to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and did not choose to let in either oral or documentary evidence.

The arguments of prosecution and defence counsel heard.

8.Now, the point for determination is:

1. Whether the prosecution proved, that the accused stabbed P.W.1 with a crowbar on the left side of his throat to kill him on 06.06.2016 at 7 p.m in the verandah of Prabhakararao at Kosangipuram and proved the guilt of the accused, for the offence punishable under sections 307, 326 of IPC, //4// beyond a reasonable doubt?

9.Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proved that the accused stabbed

P.W.1 with a crowbar on the left side of his throat to kill him on 06.06.2016

at 7 p.m in the verandah of Prabhakararao at Kosangipuram and proved

the guilt of the accused, for the offence punishable under sections 307,

326 of IPC, beyond a reasonable doubt?

To bring home the guilt of accused, for the offence punishable under sections 307, 326 of I.P.C. The prosecution should prove that the accused stabbed P.W.1 with a crowbar on the left side of the throat on 06.06.2016 at 7 p.m and tried to kill him and caused fracture on the collarbone. To prove the same, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7. As per the evidence of P.W.1, on 06.06.2016 he came to Kosangipuram from Visakhapatnam at 9 a.m. At about 11 or 11.30 a.m, he was at the house of his brother Prabhakararao, the accused was going to his house. Then he questioned him that he gave Ac.2.50 cents of land and performed marriage with his daughter, but he did not look after them properly, and his daughter and children were residing with him.

Then the accused went away by claiming that he will see his end. On the same day, at about 7 p.m, he was coming out of his brother's house. The accused stabbed with a crowbar on his left side collarbone and also on his left foot.

Accused dropped the said crowbar and went away. The said crowbar has marked as M.O.1. His brother Prabhakararao rang up for ambulance and police. The police came along with an ambulance, and he has shifted to the

Government Hospital. The police recorded Ex.P1 statement at the hospital.

But the entire evidence of P.W.1 is quiet contrary to Ex.P1 complaint. As per

Ex.P1 complaint, P.W.1 came to his brother's house on 05.06.2016, he went to fields on 06.06.2016 and attended agricultural operations. He returned to his brother's house in the evening and sitting at his brother's house at the verandah. At about 5.30 p.m, accused saw him while going, quarrelled with him, abused in filthy language. Then the villagers admonished them and sent them. Then at about 7 p.m, he came armed with a crowbar and stabbed on his throat by claiming unless and until he killed him, he would not get peace.

10.As per the evidence of Investigating Officer, he received medical intimation from the Community Health Centre, Palasa on 06.06.2016 at 7.40 p.m and recorded his statement and registered First Information Report.

Whereas P.W.1 in his cross-examination, he deposed that he regained his sense in the hospital at about 11 or 12 midnight. The police enquired him in the ambulance while taking him to the hospital. The police recorded his statement in the ambulance itself, and Ex.P1 was the statement recorded by //5// the police in the ambulance. His statement had recorded in the manner of questions and answers. So, the evidence of P.W.1 is quite contrary to the evidence of Investigating Officer as well as Ex.P1 complaint. Strangely the prosecution did not produce any wound certificate regarding the injuries received by P.W.1.

11.The doctor who attended and gave First Aid has examined as P.W.11. As per his evidence, on 06.06.2016 at 7.20 p.m, he examined P.W.1 and gave First

Aid and referred him to RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam and sent Ex.P10, medical intimation to Kasibugga police. The evidence of villagers, who were examined as P.Ws.3 to 5, and 7 to 9 and scene observation mediator turned hostile. The prosecution examined the brother of injured, P.W.1 as P.W.2 and wife of P.W.2 as P.W.6. As per the evidence of P.W.2, his brother came on 05.06.2016 and 06.06.2016 at 5 p.m when his brother was sitting at the entrance of the house in a chair, accused standing outside of the house. They shouted with each other and scuffle also taken place, and he separated them. Accused went away and came back with a crowbar and stabbed P.W.1 with a crowbar and went away. Then he rang up the ambulance and police, and he shifted his brother to the hospital. As per his evidence, his brother narrated the incident to some extent, how the incident has taken place and as per his evidence, first, they went to the Government hospital, from there, they went to

Appollo Hospital and then Daneti Sridhar. Then they went to some hospital and there he got admitted. Along with them, police constable also came with them. P.W.6 deposed to some extent in the same lines of P.W.2 in respect of wordily quarrel at 5.15 p.m, but gave the time of the incident as 7 p.m.,

12.The defence counsel got marked Ex.D1 medical certificate through

P.W.11.As per the evidence of P.W.11, he examined the accused at 8.45 p.m on 06.06.2016 when he was produced by police and found a laceration with a contusion on right index finger measuring 1 x 1 cm, red. A contusion in the right-hand dorsum measuring 3 x 2 cm, brown in colour, referred to Area

Hospital, Tekkali. X-ray No.67/dt.07.06.2016, x-ray right hand, AP and lateral view, fracture of 2nd metacarpal shaft on the right-hand present. He opined injuries 1 and 2 are grievous and may be caused by a blunt object and might have caused 2 to 3 hours before his examination and issued Ex.D1 wound certificate. The court posed a question whether the injury No.2 is possible when a person is attacking with crowbar contacted with the same weapon.

His answer is not possible. The evidence of Investigating Officer in respect of the examination of P.W.1 is quite inconsistent and prosecution, in the charge- sheet they mentioned that the accused received an injury in the process of //6// attacking P.W.1 and filed a complaint against accused, but the prosecution did not file any wound certificate of P.W.1 to show that she received bleeding injuries and fracture on his collarbone and even Ex.D1 is not corroborating with the oral evidence of P.W.1.

13.As per the defence counsel, accused and P.W.1 quarreled at 6 p.m and

P.W.1 beat him and caused a grievous injury, as such, the question of causing grievous injury to P.W.1 with a crowbar is not at all possible. They foisted false case against the accused to avoid the criminal case filed against P.W.1 and they managed police officials and got deferred the complaint preferred by accused as a mistake of fact. The said argument appears to be true since the prosecution did not produce any medical certificate regarding injury caused to P.W.1. Though the accused is very much available and he was produced by the police on 06.06.2016 at 8.25 p.m before P.W.11, the

Investigating Officer arrested him on 08.06.2016. There was no explanation when a complaint under section 307 and 326 IPC has lodged against accused.

The police left him without arresting him up to 13.06.2016. As per the evidence of P.W.11, he examined accused at about 8.45 p.m, and 2 to 2.30 hours before his examination the injury might be caused. So, it would be around 6.15 or 6.30. If the accused received such a grievous injury by 6.30 or 6.15 p.m, the possibility of attacking with a crowbar at 7 p.m is not at all possible.

14.The prosecution exhibited the scene observation report, which was marked as Ex.P9, the mediator who was present at that time was examined as

P.W.10. On the intimation of police, he went to Kosangipuram by obtaining permission from Tahsildar over the phone and went to the house of P.W.1, the Sub-Inspector of police observed the scene of the offence, prepared observation report, seized crowbar, blood-stained and controlled earth and

Ex.P9 is the scene observation report-cum-Mahazarnama dated 07.06.2016.

As per his evidence, he signed on only one observation report, but the police filed two observation reports, one is with the seizure of crowbar, controlled earth, etc., and another without the same. So, the above lapses and inconsistencies in the investigation and evidence of prosecution witnesses certainly corroborate the argument of defence counsel. The investigation officer did not investigate the case on proper lines.

15.Hence, in the circumstances submitted above, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused to kill P.W.1 stabbed him with a crowbar and caused grievous injuries and accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 307 and 326 of Indian Penal Code.

//7//

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec 307 and 326 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

M.O-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall subsists for a period of 6 months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

th

pronounced by me, in open court this the 20 day of March, 2020.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For defence:

PW.1/Uppada Jagannadharao. dt. 03-02-2020 -None-

PW.2/Karri Prabhakararao. dt. 03-02-2020

PW.3/Kancharana Saraswathi. dt. 03-02-2020

PW.4/Karri Mahalaxmi. dt. 03-02-2020

PW.5/Budatha Jagadeesh. dt. 04-02-2020

PW.6/Karri Dhanalaxmi. dt. 04-02-2020

PW.7/Karri Hemalatha. dt 04-02-2020

PW.8/Yavvari Dhilleswari. dt 04-02-2020

PW.9/Dumpala Viswanadham. dt. 04-02-2020

PW.10/Pyla Venkateswarlu. dt. 04-02-2020

PW.11/Dr.U.Swarajya Laxmi dt 19-02-2020

PW.12/B.Sriramamurty, Sub-Inspector of police. dt. 19-02-2020

Documents marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P-1/ Report of P.W.1 given to police dt. 06-06-2016

Ex.P-2/ 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P-3/ 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P-4/ Signature of P.W.5 on scene observation -cum-seizure mahazarnama.

Ex.P-5/ 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P-6/ 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7.

Ex.P-7/ 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8.

Ex.P-8/ 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.9.

//8//

Ex.P-9/ Scene observation report-cum-seizure mahazarnama.

dt. 07-06-2016

Ex.P-10/ Medical intimation dt. 06-06-2016

Ex.P-11/ First Information Report. dt.06-06-2016

Ex.P-12/ Rough sketch of the scene of offence. dt.07-06-2016

Ex.P-13/ Letter of advice. Dt 20-06-2016

Ex.P-14/ R.F.S.L.Report. 15-07-2016

For defence:

Ex.D1/ Wound certificate of P.W.1. dt. 29-08-2016

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1:Crowbar.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

S.C.No.101 of 2019

Date : 23.03.2020

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

SOMPETA.

Present: Sri M.Suneel Kumar,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

Monday, this the 23rd day of March, 2020

Sessions Case No.101 of 2019

(P.R.C.No.03/2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Sompeta in Cr.No.01/2019 of Sompeta police

station) under sections 448, 326-A of Indian Penal Code.

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT:The State, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sompeta mandal, Srikakulam District. NAME OF THE ACCUSED:Donka Meena Kumari, wife of Krishna Rao, age 34 years, caste by Vadabalija, Harijana street, Sompeta village and mandal.

Date, time and Place of :On 10.01.2019 at 20.45 hours at OccurrenceHarijana street, Sompeta village and mandal.

Charges:Under Sections 448, 326-A of Indian Penal Code against Accused.

Plea of the accused:Accused pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Accused not pleaded guilty. Sentence Order::Accused present. In the result, accused is found not guilty, she is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C.,for the offencepunishableunder sections 448, 326-A of IPC and M.Os.1 to M.O.3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall subsist for six months.

Prosecution was conducted by:Smt.G.Radha,

Additional Public Prosecutor,

Sompeta.

Accused was defended by:Sri S.Nagabhushana rao, Learned Advocate, Srikakulam.

This case coming on 20.03.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence Smt.G.Radha, Additional Public Prosecutor for state- complainant and of Sri S.Nagabhushana Rao, learned Advocate for Accused and upon hearing of arguments of both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

S.C.No.101 of 2019

Date : 23.03.2020

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Sompeta laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.01/2019 under sections 448, 326-

A of I.P.C on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sompeta and numbered as P.R.C.03/2019.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused and defacto complainant are wife and husband and residents of

Sompeta. The defacto complainant working in ration shop of

B.Usaha Rani during morning hours and also in the Hotel belongs to his mother in evening times. On 10.01.2019 at 7.30 p.m.the defacto complainant, Donka Krishna Rao returned to the house and viewing T.V. The accused along with her son

Donka Premkumar @ Prem @ Durga Prasad went to town for purchasing clothes. Their daughter returned to house from tuition at about 7.30 p.m.had dinner and went to night tuition.

When Donka Krishnarao lying on divan cot at about 8.45 p.m.

some unknown persons entered into the house and poured acid on his face and went away. While leaving the said person switched off the light. Then, Donka Premkumar @ Prem @

Durga Prasad shifted to Government Hospital, Sompeta. On medical intimation, Ch.Durga Prasad, Sub Inspector of Police recorded the statement of Donka Krishnarao and registered the same as the case in Cr.No.02/2019 under Section 448, 326-A of

Indian Penal Code, submitted the original FIR to court and investigated into. During investigation Ch.Durga Prasad, Sub

Inspector of Police visited the scene of the offence, observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators Pyla

Chudamani Reddy and Regu Ramu. He seized the sky blue coloured Jerkin, white coloured Divana cot pillow , prepared observation-cum-seizure Mazar duly attested by them and also got photographed the scene of the offence. He examined

Donka Krishnarao, Donka Narayana, Donka Chandra Sekhar,

Donka Prem Kumar @ Prem @ Durga Prasad, Tungana Gopal and Telukala Tarakeswaram. On 17.01.2019 the Sub Inspector of Police arrested the accused in the presence of Pyla

S.C.No.101 of 2019

Date : 23.03.2020

Chudamani Reddy and Chitrada Sekhar and seized the bottle with a name of LYCOLIEBE-225 ML. He sent the accused to court for remand after medical examination. After receipt of wound certificate and RFSL report, completion of the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against accused under Sections 448 and 326-A of Indian Penal

Code.

3.The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 448, 326-A of I.P.C and issued summons to accused. After the appearance of accused before the

Magistrate, the learned Magistrate complied with the

mandatory provisions as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C like supplying of copies etc. Since the offence under Section 326-A of I.P.C is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court,

Srikakulam as required under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The

HonourableSessionsJudge,Srikakulamassigned

S.C.No.101/2019 and made over to this court for disposal according to Law, as per the proceedings communicated in

Dis.No.4296/dt.28.12.19.

4.The accused made his appearance before the court, engaged counsel. Heard the case of prosecution and defence accused was examined under Section 226 of Cr.P.C. Charge under Sections 448, 362-A of I.P.C was framed against him as required under Section 228 of Cr.P.C, read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Court fixed the schedule and issued summons to the witnesses.

5.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.18 and M.Os.1 to 3.The evidence of Donka Krishnarao, Telukala Tarakeswaram,

Regu Ramu, Chitrada Sekhar and Dr.G.Srilatha, Scientific

Assistant were given up by Additional Public Prosecutor. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C so as to enable her to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the

S.C.No.101 of 2019

Date : 23.03.2020

evidence of prosecution witnesses. Heard the prosecution and defence, defence counsel reported no defence evidence. The arguments of the Additional Public Prosecutor and defence counsel heard.

6.Now, the point for determination is:

1.Whether the accused trespassed into the house on 10.01.2019 at 8.45 p.m.

with an acid bottle ?

2.Whether the accused poured acid on the face of Pw1 by entering into the house on 10.01.2019 at 8.45 p.m.

3.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of yje accused, for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 326-A of Indian Penal Code, beyond a reasonable doubt?

7.Points.1 &2 Whether the accused trespassed into the

house on 10.01.2019 at 8.45 p.m. with acid bottle to

pour it on PW.1? Whether the accused poured acid on

the face of Pw1 by entering into the house on

10.01.2019 at 8.45 p.m.

8.Since the points 1 and 2 are interlinked with each other, they are discussed together to avoid repetition of evidence and facts.

To bring home the guilt of accused, for the offence punishable under sections 448 & 326-A of I.P.C, the prosecution should prove that the accused entered into the house with an acid bottle to pour acid on PW.1, and she poured acid on the face of Pw1. To prove the same, the prosecution examined the injured defacto complainant as

PW.1 and brother of PW.1 was examined as PW.2 and his son was examined as PW.3 and neighbour were examined as PW.4, but PW.1 to 4 turned hostile, they did not support the case of the prosecution. As per the evidence of PW.1 on 10.01.2019 at 7.00 p.m. when he was cleaning the bathroom with acid, leg slipped and fell on the floor and lost

S.C.No.101 of 2019

Date : 23.03.2020

consciousness. He does not know what happened later,

Police enquired him and obtained his signature Ex.A.1, but he does not know the contents of the report. PW.2 to 4 deposed that they do not know anything about this case.

The only evidence available on record is the Doctor who treated PW.1 and accused who were examined as PW.5 and

6. As per the evidence of PW.5 he examined PW.1 at 9.25 p.m., found burn injury over the left half of the face, ½ of the frontal region, nose , upper half of the cheek and mouth. He also found burn injury over the left hand, over the 8 cm above and outer side of the wrist and outer half of the hand. He opined that the injury No.1 is grievous and injury No.2 is simple and the injury may occur four hours

before his examination.

9.As per the evidence of PW.6, he examined the accused on 17.01.2019 and found partially healed injuries of 1 x 1 c.m. 2 in number over the right-hand interdigital area dorsal aspect. He also found dark yellow to brown colour stain marks over the right-hand right and left middle finger. As per the evidence of

Village Revenue Officer, the police called him on 17.01.2019 at about 10.00 a.m. to the Police station, accordingly he went to the Police station, found the accused in the Police station. She stated that she pored acid, which was brought for cleaning of bathrooms on the face of her husband and suspecting that police may catch her she surrendered to the Police. The police drafted her statement and they attested it. But, as per the evidence of Investigation Officer, the PW.7 himself brought the accused to Police station along with Ex.P.16 report, wherein she confessed the offence. She led them to agricultural society- building and shown M.O.3 bottle. The evidence of PW.7 and 8 were quite inconsistent with each other regarding the confession of the accused. Even otherwise, the PW.1 deposed that he received injuries by falling on the floor while cleaning the bathroom with acid and the same cannot be attributed to accused. The I.O did not adduse any evidence to show that the accused purchased the said acid bottle from so and so shop.

S.C.No.101 of 2019

Date : 23.03.2020

Since the PW.1 to 4 turned hostile, there is no evidence to show that the accused trespassed into the house with an acid bottle and poured it on the face of Pw1 to cause burn injuries to

PW.1. Hence in the circumstances stated above, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused trespassed into the house with an acid bottle on 10.01.2019 at 8.45 p.m. and poured acid on the face of PW.1.

10.In view of my findings to points 1 and 2 , the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under sections 448 and 326-A of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt, and she is found not guilty.

11.In the result, accused is found not guilty, she is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C.,for the offence punishable under sections 448, 326-A of IPC and M.Os.1 to M.O.3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall subsist for six months.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me, in open court this the 23rd day of March, 2020.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For defence:

PW.1/Donka Krishna Rao -None- PW.2/Donka Chandra Sekhar PW.3/Donka Premkumar PW.4/Tungana Gopal PW.5/Dr.P.Shivaji PW.6/Dr.M.Jogi Naidu PW.7/Pyla Chudamani Reddy PW.8/Ch.Durgaprasada Rao, Sub-Inspector of police.

Documents marked

For Prosecution: For defence:

Ex.P-1/Signature on report of P.W.1. -Nil- Ex.P-2/161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

S.C.No.101 of 2019

Date : 23.03.2020

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/Wound certificate of PW.1 issued by PW.5. Ex.P-7/Wound certificate of accused issued by PW.6. Ex.P-8/Scene observation report, dated 11.01.2019 Ex.P-9/Confession statement of accused, dated 17.01.2019. Ex.P-10/Seizure Mazar nama Ex.P-11/Photographs along with D.V.D. Ex.P-12/Medical intimation from C.H.C., Sompeta. Ex.P-13/Statement of PW.1, dated 10.01.2019. Ex.P-14/First Information Report in Cr.No.01/2019 for the offence under Section 448, 326-A of I.P.C., dated 10.01.2019. Ex.P-15/Rough sketch, dated 11.01.2019. Ex.P-16/Report of PW.7 given to Station House Officer. Ex.P-17/Letter of advice, dated 30.01.2010. Ex.P-18/F.S.L. Report, dted 15.05.2019.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 :: Blue colour Jarkin M.O.2:: Diwan cot pillow M.O.3:: Bottle

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

S.C.No.101 of 2019

Date : 23.03.2020

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, SOMPETA.

Present: Sri M.Suneel Kumar,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

Monday, this the 23rd day of March, 2020

Sessions Case No.101 of 2019

(P.R.C.No.03/2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Sompeta in Cr.No.01/2019 of Sompeta police

station) under sections 448, 326-A of Indian Penal Code.

Between:State, represented by the Inspector ofCOMPLAINANT Police, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District.

And : Donka Meena Kumari, wife of Krishna Rao, age 34 years, caste by Vadabalija,

ACCUSED

Harijana street, Sompeta village and mandal.

01Date of Offence 10-01-2019 02Date of Commitment10-01-2019 03Date of Apprehension of Accused 17-01-2019 04Whether the accused is in jail or bail Bail 05Date of Commencement of trial 18-03-2020 06Date of closing trial 19-03-2020 07Date of Sentence or Order 23-03-2020

8. Explanation for delay:

a) In the committal court: Vide Separate docket extract is herewith enclosed.

b) In this court: Sri S.Nagabhushana Rao, Advocate for the accused to defend on behalf of the accused; The accused examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C. and charge under Sec. 448, 326-A of IPC were framed against the accused. The charges are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

S.C.No.101 of 2019

Date : 23.03.2020

On 18-03-2020, PWs 1 to 4 examined and Ex.P1 to P5 marked. On 19-03-2020 P.W’s 5 to 8 examined and Ex P-6 to P-18 and MO-1 to

MO-3 are marked.

Hence, prosecution evidence closed and on 20-03-2020, the accused was examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied the incriminating evidence against her, reported no defence evidence.

Heard Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the Learned counsel for the accused. For Judgment call on 23-03-2020 On 23-03-2020, Judgment

pronounced in open Court (Vide separate Judgment).

In the result, accused is found not guilty, she is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 448, 326-A of IPC and MO’s 1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall subsist for six months.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

SOMPETA

//1// //Fair judgment//

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SOMPETA.

Present:- Sri M. Suneel Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sompeta.

Friday, this the 13th day of March, 2020.

O.S.86/2014

Between:

Korikana Vasantharao, s/o.Karuvulu, aged about 34 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, residing at Door No.20-2-102, Vasudevapeta, Purushotapuram village, Palasa-Kasibugga municipality, Palasa Mandal,

Srikakulam District.....Plaintiff.

And:

1. Sanapati Narayana, s/o.late Ramamurty, aged about 68 years, Hindu, retired teacher, resident of Subhadra Nagar, Kasibugga, Palasa-Kasibugga municipality, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

2. Sanapati Kantamma, s/o.Sanapati Narayana, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Household duties, resident of Subadra Nagar, Kasibugga, Palasa-Kasibugga municipality, Palasa mandal, Srikakulam District. (D.2 added as per order in I.A.160/2017, dt 06.07.2018)

....Defendants.

This suit is coming on 05-02-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.S.Sailendra, learned advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri D.Jagannaikulu, learned advocate for defendants, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants directing the 2nd defendant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and to receive the balance of consideration. In default, the Hon’ble court may execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. After the plaintiff deposits the balance of sale //2// consideration and the expenses for stamp duty and registration. Alternatively, for any reason, the Hon'ble court concludes that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of specific performance. Direct the 2nd defendant for return of the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid under an agreement to sell dated 28.04.2011 with interest at 24% per annum. For costs of the suit.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are that the 1st defendant was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property admeasuring Ac.2.01 cents in S.No.232/4 situated in Parasa-Kasibugga. He purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 20.11.1990. The 1st defendant entered an agreement to sell the same to plaintiff @Rs.43,000/- for cubit for the total value of Rs.8,60,000/-. He executed an agreement to sell on 28.04.2011 and received an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. It was further stipulated two months to conclude the sale agreement by paying the balance of sale consideration. Despite repeated demands and legal notice, the defendant No.1 postponed the same on one or other pretext. Hence, he filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 28.04.2011 or alternately for return of Rs.200,000/- with interest @24% per annum.

3.After the filing of the suit, when the summons had sent to 1st defendant, the summons has returned as the defendant died. His wife has added as 2nd defendant. Defendant No.2 filed written statement denied the plaint averments and contended that the 1st defendant worked as Teacher and getting sufficient salary to maintain their family. As such, the question of entering the sale agreement does not arise. Defendant No.1 never entered an agreement to sell and executed an agreement on 28.04.2011. The plaintiff fabricated the sale agreement with the help of his henchmen to grab the property of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff was doing real estate business and filed this suit to grab the plaint schedule property by fabricating Ex.A1 agreement. Defendants 1 and 2 adopted Palli Sridevi when she was a child.

//3//

Since then, she has been residing with them. Defendant No.1 died leaving behind him, his wife and daughter. During his lifetime, defendants 1 and 2 executed registered Will in favour of adoptive daughter on 10.11.2009 and suit may be dismissed.

4.Based on the pleadings of respective parties, the following issues have been settled for determination.

1. Whether D.1 entered an agreement of sale dated 28.04.2011 with the plaintiff to sell the plaint schedule property for Rs.8,62,000/- @Rs.42,000/- for cubit to an extent of 22 cubits width and received Rs.2,00,000/- as an advance?.

2. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and D.1 committed default?.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled specific performance of the agreement dated 28.04.2011?.

4. To what relief?

5. To substantiate the contentions of respective parties, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A1. On behalf of the defendants, 2nd defendant has examined as D.W.1, and no documents have marked.

6. The arguments of plaintiff and defendants have heard.

7. ISSUE No.1:-Whether D.1 entered an agreement of sale dated 28.04.2011 with the plaintiff to sell the plaint schedule properties for

Rs.8,62,000/- @Rs.42,000/- for cubit to an extent of 22 cubits width and received Rs.2,00,000/- as an advance?

The case and evidence of P.W.1 are that 1st defendant agreed to sell the //4// plaint schedule property belongs to 1him on 28.04.2011 @ Rs.42,000/- per cubit for a total consideration of Rs.8,60,000/-. He received Rs.2,00,000/- as an advance. It has further agreed to complete the sale transaction within two months. Despite repeated demands, the defendant did not execute the sale deed. Hence, he filed this suit. Defendant No.1 died leaving behind him, his wife as legal representative and she has added as 2nd defendant. But she denied the entire transaction and disputed the signature on Ex.A1 is not that of her husband, but she did not produce any admitted signatures of her husband, though she deposes that her husband was a Teacher. When 1st defendant was an employee, his signatures would be available. But in the cross-examination, she stated that she did not possess any admitted signatures of her husband.

8. The counsel for defendant vehemently argued and contended that marking of a document is not sufficient, and it has to be proved by examining its scribe and attestor at least. If not, it will not be deemed to be proved. He also relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme

Court in Civil Appeal No.6620/2008 Between Laxmi Srinivasa Co- operative Building Society And Puvvada Rama (died) by L.Rs and others dated 31.07.2018. He also relied on a decision of Hon'ble Punjab-

Haryana High Court in RSA No.1504/2011(O&M) in Multansingh And

Suresh Kumar dated 14.01.2017. But the said decisions not applicable to the facts in the present case since in the present case, executant disputed their execution of those documents whereas in the case on hand, the 1st defendant has no opportunity either deny or admit the execution of the agreement. If the wife denied the execution of sale agreement, though she claimed that her husband and herself executed a registered Will bequeathing properties in favour of their adopted daughter, but did not produce any such document. Though she claimed that they adopted one Sridevi, but in her cross-examination, she admitted //5// that in school records the real parents' name was entered as a father.

Though she pleaded and deposed that they adopted the said Sridevi when she was one year old. If they adopted and brought up said Sridevi, the question of entering the natural parent's name in the admission register of schools, does not arise. The defendant, to deny and defeat the claim of the plaintiff, she taken up the plea of adoption and Will and also denied to produce the signatures of her husband. So, the said conduct of defendant would certainly be a circumstance to draw an adverse inference if the signatures of her husband have produced, it will go against her plea.

9. The plaintiff filed I.A.2/2019 reopen his evidence for the examination of attestor. On the ground that when the suit was coming for his further evidence, witness fell sick and not in a position to attend before the court. As such, he could not adduce further evidence and filed a petition to permit him to adduce evidence, and the said petition was allowed with costs on the condition to produce the witness. Costs paid and took further adjournment to produce witness as he did not recover from the ill-health. On the next adjournment, it has dismissed for default. So, taking advantage of the same, the defendants claiming the examination the attestor was necessary. But there was no force in the said argument since the executant has no opportunity neither to denies nor admits.

When a compulsory attestable document has relied on it can not be used as evidence unless one attesting witness has examined. But the agreement to sell is not a compulsory attestable document as such the examination of an attestor is not compulsory. The plaintiff has taken the possible steps to examine the attestor, but due to ill health, he could not examine. The contents of Ex A1 reveals the truthfulness of it if the 1st defendant did not execute it the document number with which 1st //6// defendant purchased and boundaries therein would not be available to

Pw1. If he tried to create a false sale agreement he would have mentioned that the entire amount paid or possession delivered etc the conditions which were suitable to him. But Ex A1 is not so. The defendant in taken all sorts of pleas to avoid the enforcement of the agreement but failed to substantiate them. As such case and evidence of Pw1 is more probable than the Dw1. Hence in the circumstances stated above the plaintiff proved that 1st defendant entered Ex A1 agreement by receiving the advance amount of Rs2,00,000/- and the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Issue 1 is determined in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

10. Issue No2: Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and D.1 committed default?.

Pw 1 deposes that he demanded the 1st defendant to execute the sale deed and the 1st defendant post phoned the same on one or other pretext. As the defendant denied the entire transaction and contended that he was a

Realtor and created the sale agreement the question of defendants ready and willingness and default on the part of the plaintiff does not arise. As such, the oral evidence of Pw1 has to be believed. Hence, in the circumstances stated above the plaintiff proved that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract 1st defendant committed default, this issue determined in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

11. Issue No 3:-Whether the plaintiff is entitled specific performance of the agreement dated 28.04.2011?.

Because of my findings to issue 1 &2 the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of ExA1. However, in recent times the values of lands hiked abnormally, the executant died, and plaintiff also sought alternative relief.

Therefore it is better to grant alternative relief rather than the specific //7// performance of ExA1 agreement. Accordingly, this issue determined.

12. Issue No 4:-To what relief:

In the result, the suit is decreed by granting alternative relief directing the defendants for return of the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate costs with interest @12% per annum from the date of the agreement till the date of the decree. Further, interest is awarded @6% per annum on Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of decree till the date of realisation of the amount.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 13th day of March, 2020.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sompeta.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

P.W.1:Korikana Vasantharao.D.W.1:Sanapati Kanthamma

Documents marked.

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Agreement of sale date 28.04.2011.

For Defendant: -Nil-.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sompeta.

1

Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT SOMPETA.

Present: Sri M.Suneel Kumar,

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Sompeta.

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Sessions Case No.10/2018.

(P.R.C.No.7/2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa in Cr.No.329/2014 of Kasibugga Police Station) under sections 376, 417, 420 of Indian Penal Code.

Between :

State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Circle. … Complainant.

And:

Illakula Dhillarao, S/o.late Vallabharao, aged 28 years, SC, Baligam village, Mandasa Mandal, Presently residing at Musapeta, Hyderabad and working as delivery agent in Amazon.Com.

….. Accused.

Prosecution conducted by : Smt. G.Radha,

Additional Public Prosecutor, Sompeta.

Accused were defended by : Sri G.S.Sailendra, learned Advocate for accused.

Offence : Under Sections 376,417,420 of I.P.C.

Plea of Accused above : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge :Not guilty.

Sentence or Order : Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 376, 417, 420 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall subsists for a period of six months.

This case coming on 17.03.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence Smt.G.Radha, Additional Public Prosecutor for state-complainant and of Sri G.S.Sailendra, learned Advocate for Accused and upon hearing of arguments of both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

2

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of police, Kasibugga Circle, laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.329/2014 under sections 376,417, 420 of I.P.C on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palasa and numbered as P.R.C.7/2015.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused is resident of Baligam and the defacto-complainant is resident of Udayapuram village of Palasa. She is a divorce, residing with her mother for last one year at

Udayapuram and attending peeling work at Cashew factory. The accused developed intimacy with the victim promised to marry her, made her believe and had intercourse with her. When the prosecutrix demanded him to marry her, he refused to marry her. Then they approached the elders of Baligam and Udayapuram, i.e., Rokalla Apparao, Patta Mallesu,

Raya Krishnarao, Regi Kesavarao and Raya Ramaiah (L.Ws.6 to 10) and requested to do justice. The elders convened a meeting in October 2014, accused admitted his intimacy with her and sought two months to marry.

But the accused absconded and did not marry her. On 04.12.2015 the prosecutrix went to Kasibugga PS, prefered complaint to the Sub-

Inspector of police Kasibugga.He registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.329/2014 under sections 376, 417, 420 of I.P.C. He submitted the

First Information Report to the Hon'ble Court, and copies to all concerned and investigated into.

3. During the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police sent the prosecutrix to the hospital for medical examination, examined the scene of offence in the presence of mediators. He examined Meela Saraswathi,

Meela Appalamma and Meela Chinnamma (L.Ws.1 to 3) and recorded their 161 Cr.p.C statements. The Inspector of police, Y.Ramakrishna (L.W.17) took up investigation, verified the investigation, visited the scene of the offence, arrested the accused and sent him to the Hon'ble Court for 3 remand. After receipt of wound certificates, potency certificate and completion of the investigation, the Inspector of police filed charge-sheet against the accused of the offence under sections 376, 417 and 420 of

Indian Penal Code.

4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 376,417 and 420 of I.P.C and issued summons to accused. After the appearance of accused before the learned Magistrate, the learned

Magistrate supplied copies of case record as required under section 207

of Cr.P.C. Since the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Srikakulam as required under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.

The Honourable Sessions Judge, Srikakulam assigned S.C.No.10/2018 and made over to this Court for disposal according to Law, as per the proceedings communicated in Dis.No.584/dt.03.02.2018.

5. This Court issued summons to the accused and accused made his appearance before the Court, engaged counsel. Heard the case of prosecution and defence accused has examined under Section 226 of

Cr.P.C. The charge under Sections 376,417 and 420 of I.P.C was framed against him as required under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. Read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Court fixed the schedule and issued summons to the witnesses.

6. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW 1 to 9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 marked. The evidence of Rokalla Apparao,

Patta Mallesu, Raya Krishnarao, Regi Kesavarao, Raya Ramaiah, Bugatha

Chinna Krishnamurty, Kovvuru Suresh Kumar and Y.Ramakrishna, Inspector of police, Kasibugga have given up by Additional Public Prosecutor. After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 4 313 of Cr.P.C, to enable him to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the evidence.

7. Heard the counsels for the prosecution, and defence, the counsel for defence reported no oral or documentary evidence. The arguments of prosecution and defence counsel heard.

8. Now, the point for determination is:

1. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused made believe that he is going to marry the victim and had intercourse with her. Later he refused to marry her, as such, the consent she gave for sexual intercourse does not amount to consent, and it amounts to rape ?.

2. Whether the accused though had no in- tention to marry the victim, made be- lieve her that he is going to marry her, due to which, she roamed with him, and had physical intimacy with him. Later the accused refused to marry her, caused damage or harm to her in body, mind, reputation and thus cheated her?

3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused, for the offence punish- able under Sections 376, 417 and 420 of

Indian Penal Code, beyond a reasonable

doubt?

5

9. Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proved that the accused made

believe that he is going to marry the victim and had intercourse with

her. Later he refused to marry her, as such, the consent she gave for

sexual intercourse does not amount to consent, and it amounts to

rape?.Point No.2:-Whether the accused though had no intention to

marry the victim, made believe her that he is going to marry her, due

to which, she roamed with him, and had physical intimacy with him.

Later the accused refused to marry her, caused damage or harm to her

in body, mind, reputation and thus cheated her?.

To bring home the guilt of accused, for the offence punishable under sections 376, 417 and 420 of I.P.C. The prosecution should prove that the accused made believe the victim that he is going to marry her and had intercourse with her. Later he refused to marry her, as such, the consent she gave for sexual intercourse does not amount to consent, and it amounts to rape. The accused though had no intention to marry the victim, made believe her that he is going to marry her, due to which, she roamed with him, and had physical intimacy with him. Later the accused refused to marry her, caused damage or harm to her in body, mind, reputation and thus cheated her. To prove the same, the prosecution examined P.W.1 the prosecutrix, P.W.2 the mother of prosecutrix, P.W.3 the junior paternal aunt. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the villagers, but they turned hostile. They did not support the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.1 to 3 categorically deposed that they did not know anything about the prosecution case, police did not examine them. The only evidence available on record is P.Ws.6 to 9. P.Ws.6 and 7 are the doctors, who examined the victim and accused. P.W.8 is the Village Revenue Officer in whose presence scene observation report has prepared. P.W.9 is the

Investigating Officer, who investigated the case and examined the 6 witnesses. But the Investigating Officer has no personal knowledge, and their evidence is no way help to prove that the accused had intercourse with P.W.1 by promising to marry. Later refused to marry her, and cheated her. Hence, in the circumstances submitted above, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused made to believe the victim that he is going to marry the victim and had intercourse with her, though he had no intention to marry the victim. Due to which, she roamed with him and had physical intimacy with accused. Later accused refused to marry her and caused damage or harm to her in body, mind, reputation and thus cheated her, and thereby accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 376,417 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.

10.Point No.3:-Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of

accused, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 420 of

Indian Penal Code, beyond a reasonable doubt?.

Because of my findings to point No.1 & 2, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused, for the offence punishable under sections 376, 417 and 420 of I.P.C, beyond reasonable doubt and he is found not guilty.

11.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 376, 417 and 420 of I.P.C. and acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall subsist for six months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, in open court this the 20th day of March 2020.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

7

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For defence:

PW.1/Meela Saraswathi. -None-

PW.2/Meela Appalamma.

PW.3/Meela Chinnamma.

PW.4/Mirapabelli Laxmi.

PW.5/Ballu Padma.

PW.6/Dr.U.Swarjya Laxmi, Medical Officer.

PW.7/Dr.M.Satya Subhash, Civil Asst. Surgeon.

PW.8/Pyla Venkateswarlu, VRO

PW.9/B.Srirama Murty, Sub-Inspector of police.

Documents marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P-1/Signature of P.W.1 on the report given to police.

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/Certificate of P.W.1 issued by P.W.6.

Ex.P-8/Potency certificate of accused issued by P.W.7.

Ex.P-9/Scene observation report.

Ex.P-10/Report given to police.

Ex.P-11/First Information Report.

Ex.P-12/Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P-13/Confessional statement of accused.

For defence:-Nil-.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

8

1

Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SOMPETA

Present:- Sri.M.Suneel Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta.

Wednesday, this the 11th day of March, 2020.

.S. 4 / 2018 O

Between:

Konari Chandrasekharam, S/o Seethayya, Aged 33years, agriculturist, R/o Door No. 1-352, Palasapuram village & Post, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District.

Plaintiff And:

Mahesh Dhakua, S/o Purnachandra Dhakua, Aged about 32 years, business, R/o Door no 3-45, Balyaputtuga colony, Kanchili village, Kanchili Mandal, Srikakulam District.

Defendant

This suit is coming on 11-03-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Sri.K.Venkateswara Rao and Sri

G.Ravinddranath, Advocates for the plaintiff; and of Sri. B.Dharma

Rao Advocate for the Defendant and filed written statement; defendant called absent, no representation and set exparte; heard the plaintiff counsel; and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to pass a decree, judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the recovery of an amount of Rs.10,91,000/- being the principal and interest due under the promissory note dated 04-04-2017 with subsequent interest from the date of the suit, till its realization, costs of the suit and such other relief.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed

Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 04-04-2017 for his business 2 investment and executed promissory note agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 12% per annum. Despite repeated demands, the defendant did not pay the amount due under the promissory note. Hence, the suit is filed.

3.The defendant filed written statement denied the plaint averments and contended that on 15-02-2014 the defendant approached the plaintiff to borrow an amount of Rs. 10,000/-.

Subsequently, he lent the same by obtaining his signature on an empty promissory note and blank paper. On 14-05-2014 the defendant paid Rs 10,600/- with subsequent interest to the plaintiff. The plaintiff promised to return the empty promissory note, and blank paper, but he has been postponing the same on pretext or the other. On 17-07-2017, the defendant issued a registered notice to the plaintiff demanding to return the empty promissory note and blank papers. The plaintiff received the notice, but he neither sent any reply nor return the said empty promissory note and blank paper. The plaintiff to cause loss to the defendant created the alleged suit promissory note and filed this suit with all false allegations.

4.The defendant further submits that the plaintiff borrowed an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the maternal uncle of the defendant by name Kali Charan Dakua on 07-1-2015.

Subsequently, the plaintiff issued a cheque for Rs. 6,00,000/- towards part payment. But the said cheque was bounced, and the plaintiff did not pay any amount. Hence Kalicharan Dakua filed a suit OS 76/2017 on the file of this Hon’ble court. Taking the advantage of empty printed promissory note and blank papers obtained by the plaintiff from the defendant on 15-02- 2014 fabricated the alleged suit promissory note. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any amount from the defendant, the suit is barred by limitation, and the suit may be dismissed.

5.Based on the pleadings of respective parties the following issues were framed for determination; 1.Whether the defendant borrowed Rs. 10,00,000/- from 3

Plaintiff on 04-04-2017 and executed suit promissory note.?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim?.

2..Whether the defendant borrowed Rs. 10,000/- on 15-02- 2014 and handed over a blank promissory note with signature and blank paper as security.?.

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled as prayed for .?.

4.To what relief.?

6. To substantiate the contentions of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 Ex A1 marked. When the matter was coming for cross-examination the defendant counsel reported no instructions. Defendant called absent, and he was set ex- pate.

7. Heard the plaintiff’s counsel.

8.Now, the point for determination is: Whether the

plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as prayed for?.

The case and evidence of PW.1 are that, the defendant borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 04-04-2017 for his Business investment and executed Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 12% per annum. Despite repeated demands, the defendant did not pay the amount. Since the defendant remained ex-parte as such the evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged. In Ex.A1 it was specifically mentioned the defendant borrowed Rs 10, 00,000/- on 04-04-2017 and executed it agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12%. Since the defendant remained ex-parte the evidence of P.W1 remained unchallenged. The plaintiff by examining himself as PW.1 and marking Ex.A.1 proved that the defendant borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from him and executed 4

Ex.A1 promissory and liable to pay the suit claim. the point is determined in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs 10,91,000/- (Rupees

Ten Lakhs Ninety one thousand only ) against the defendant with costs as prayed for. Further interest is awarded @ Rs.6% per annum on Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) from the date of suit till the date of realization of the amount.

Dictated to the typist, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 11th day of March, 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SOMPETA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1/Konari Chandrasekaram, Nil

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A-1: Original suit promissory note dt. 04-04-2017 for

Rs. 10,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

For defendant: Nil

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SOMPETA