Sri. M. Venkata Ramana B.Com.B.L.,

THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT BODHAN

Present: SRI M. VENKATA RAMANA, B.Com.,B.L.,

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, BODHAN

Dated this the 26th day of October, 2015

S.C. No. 55 of 2015

Between:-

1. Name of the accused 1. Meer Farooq Ali s/o. Meer Rahamath Ali, Age 34 years, occu: mechanic.

2. Naseema Begum w/o. Meer Rahamath, Age 62 years.

3. Meer Rahamath Ali s/o. Meer Khaja Ali, Age 68 years, occu: pan shop.

( All r/o. Kotagally, Kotagiri ).

2. Offence U/s.498-A and 306 IPC.

3. Plea of the accused Not guilty.

4. Finding of the Judge guilty for the offence U/s.498-A IPC

5. Sentence or Order of the Court. Accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.498-A IPC and they are convicted U/s.235(2) Cr.P.C.

6. Prosecution conducted by Addl. P.P., Bodhan

7. Defence conducted by Sri SSR Koteshwara Rao, Advocate Bodhan

This case is committed by the Judicial Addl. First Class Magistrate, Bodhan vide

PRC.No.25/2014.

This case having come before me on the 18th day of August, 2015 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri SSR Koteshwara Rao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1-Charges stand against the accused No.1 to 3 are for the offences U/sec.498-A, 406 and 306 IPC.

2-The SHO, Kotagiri PS filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 in crime

No.26 of 2014 for the offence U/s. 498-A and 306 IPC.

3-The case the prosecution is as follows:

2 SC No.55 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

The PW1 and 3 are maternal uncles of deceased Farzana. The parents of

Farzana passed away, as such, PW1 and 3 performed the marriage of deceased

Farzana with A1 about 12 years back. It is further case of prosecution that at the time of marriage, PW1 and 3 have paid cash of Rs.40,000/-, and gave three tulas gold ornaments and household articles. After the marriage, A1 to A3 treated the deceased

Farzana well for one year, thereafter, A1 to A3 started demanding Farzana to bring

additional dowry. On that PW1 purchased one motor cycle and gave motor cycle and

three tulas of gold. Thereafter, A1 to A3 treated well for some time, and again they started harassing Farzana and demanded her to bring more money. In this regard, a

Shariyath Panchayat was also held in the presence of one Kaleem and Sarfaraz Ali and accused No.1 to 3, and one Dr. Sarfaraz gave an undertaking that he will treat Farzana well. Be that as it may, one week prior to 21.2.2014, deceased Farzana told PW1 and 3 that A1 was demanding her to bring Rs.1,00,000/-, and on 21.2.2014 being unable to bear the harassment of A1 to A3, Farzana committed suicide by consuming poison.

After she consumed poison, she was taken to hospital, but she passed away on the way to hospital. One person by name Kaleem made a call to PW1 informing that Farzana was in serious condition, and subsequently said Kaleem informed PW1 that Farzana died in the hospital. Immediately PW1 and 3 came to hospital and found the dead body of Farzana . on22.2.2014 PW1 went to police station and gave a report to PW10, who registered a case and took up investigation. During the course of investigation,

PW10 examined and recorded the statement of witnesses, held inquest over the dead body of deceased Farzana, got postmortem examination conducted, arrested A1 and received report from FSL. A2 and A3 obtained anticipatory bail from Hon’ble High

Court. After completion of investigation, PW10 filed the charge sheet.

4-Basing on the material available on record cognizance was taken for the offences U/s.498-A and 306 IPC, and charge sheet is registered as PRC.25/2014 on the file of Addl. JFCM, Bodhan.

5-On appearance of accused No.1 to 3 copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed to the Hon'ble Dist.

& Sessions Court, Nizamabad, and same was registered as SC. No.55/2015 and the same was made over to this court for disposal according to law.

6-On appearance of the accused No.1 to 3, charges for the offence U/sec.498-A and 306 IPC were framed against accused No.1 to 3, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 SC No.55 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

7-To prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3, PWs1 to 10 are examined and Ex.P1 to P9. On behalf of defence, Ex.D1 is marked.

PW1 and 3 are maternal uncle of deceased Farzana, PW2 is daughter of deceased Farzana, PW4 is a person known to PW1 and 3 who was present at the time of Shariat panchayat. PW5 is elder of Shariat panchayat, PW6 is mediator for inquest, PW7 and 9 are mediators for scene observation, PW8 is the doctor who has got acquaintance with the hand writing and signature of Dr. P. Santosh, who conducted PME over the dead body of Farzana, PW10 is the Investigating officer,

ExP1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2, Ex.P.3 is the inquest report, Ex.P.4 is signature of PW7 on crime detail form, Ex.P.5 is postmortem examination report, Ex.P6 is the final report, Ex.P.7 is the FIR, Ex.P.8 is crime detail form, Ex.P9 is FSL report.

8-PW1 and 3 deposed about the marriage of deceased Farzana which took place with A1, giving cash of Rs.40,000/-, three tulas of gold ornaments, household articles and giving of motor cycle to A1, harassment of A1 to A3 against Farzana for more dowry, holding a panchayat for settlement of matrimonial dispute, making of demand by A1 for Rs. One lakh and suicide committed by Farzana. They further stated that A1 to A3 are responsible for suicide committed by Farzana. PW1 further stated about the report given by him.

PW2 has not supported the case of prosecution, she stated that her mother and

A1 used to lead marital life well and no dispute took place between them. She further stated that her mother was suffering from mental ill health by the date of her death.

She nextly stated that no person is responsible for the death of her mother.

PW4 deposed about the marriage of Farzana with A1, giving of money of

Rs.40,000/-, gold ornaments and one motor cycle to A1, harassment of A1 to A3 against deceased Farzana for more dowry, panchayat held in which A1 to A3 promised that they would not harass Farzana. He further stated that on 21.2.2014 PW1 made a call to him and told that Farzana committed suicide

PW5 deposed that PW1 and 3 came to Shariat panchayat and gave an application for settlement of matrimonial dispute. Accordingly they convened a panchayat. He further stated about attending of PW1 and 3, deceased Farzana, Dr.

Sarfaraz and A1 to A3 to panchayat. He further stated that A1 to A3 and Dr. Sarfaraz 4 SC No.55 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

gave a letter that they will treat the deceased Farzana in future well. He further stated that on 21.2.2014 he came to know that Farzana committed suicide.

PW6 deposed that he was present when inquest was held on the dead body of

Farzana and he further stated that Farzana committed suicide being unable to bear the harassment of A1 to A3.

PW7 and 9 have not supported the case of prosecution.

PW8 Dr. Navarathan Singh deposed that he has got acquaintance with the handwriting of Dr. P. Santosh who worked as Civil Asst. Surgeon on contract basis in

Govt. hospital, Bodhan. He further stated that Dr. P. Santosh resigned his job and at present his whereabouts are not known. He nextly stated that as per Postmortem examination report dt. 22.2.2014 Dr. P. Santosh conducted autopsy over the dead body of Farzana and prepared Ex.P5. He further stated that Dr. P. Santosh gave final opinion under Ex.P.6 and as per Ex.P.6 the cause of death is due to “Organo phosphate and insecticide poisoning”. He further stated that Dr. P. Santosh sent viscera of the deceased to Forensic Science Laboratory.

PW10 deposed about the report given by PW1 on 22.2.2014 at about 11 a.m.

basing on which he registered a case, investigation which includes examination of witnesses, examination of scene of offence, getting postmortem examination conducted, arrest of A1 and obtaining anticipatory bail by A2 and A3. He further stated about the receipt of receipt from FSL and filing of charge sheet.

9-After completion of evidence of PWs 1 to 10, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, which they denied.

10-The point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused No.1 to 3 for the offences U/sec.498-A and 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

11-Heard the learned Additional P.P. and learned counsel for accused.

12-The Addl.PP contended that the evidence of PW 1, 3 to 6 and 10 sufficiently and categorically establishes the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence U/sec.498-A and 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. He further contended that the evidence of

PW1,3, 4 and 5 categorically establishes that A1 to A3 harassed the deceased Farzana 5 SC No.55 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

for more dowry and only because of their harassment, deceased Farzana committed suicide.

On the other hand, the counsel for the defence vehemently opposed the contention of Addl.PP. He mainly contended that there is inordinate delay in giving the report and there are several grave and glaring discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 1, 3,4, 5, 6 and 8 and 10. He further contended that the daughter of deceased Farzana (PW2) has not supported the case of prosecution, and as such, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and he further contended that the material on record does not attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC and the accused may be given benefit of doubt.

13-After thorough scrutiny and perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses, and after considering the arguments of both sides, I am of the view that there is sufficient convincing, cogent and trustworthy evidence so far as the first charge for the offence

U/s.498-A IPC is concerned.

The evidence of PWs.1,3 and 4 categorically and sufficiently established that A1 to A3 harassed deceased Farzana for more dowry. Though the counsel for defence cross examined PW1,3, and 4 he has not elicited any grave and glaring discrepancies in their evidence. I do not find any reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PW1, 3 and 4 which is convincing and cogent. They categorically stated that A1 to A3 harassed the deceased Farzana to bring more dowry. The evidence of PW1, 3 and 4 is corroborated by PW5 who deposed that a panchayat was held in which A1 to A3 and Dr. Farzana gave a letter promising that they would look after well Farzana in future.

14-The counsel for defence argued that there is inordinate in giving the report. As such, the version of prosecution cannot be believed. But I do not find any merits in his contention. Admittedly, PW1 and 3 are resident of Nizamabad and after coming to know about the incident, they came and enquired about the facts which led to suicide of deceased Farzana, and then only they gave a report to police. In this type of cases, delay is not at all fatal to the case of prosecution.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in a case Sher Singh alias Partapa Vs.

State of Haryana, reported in 2015(2) ALD, Criminal page 362, that “.. Now, to the case in hand, it has been contended before us, as was also unsuccessfully argue before both the courts below that there was a ‘delay’ in lodging the FIR. There is no perversity in the concurrent views that its lodgment after ten 6 SC No.55 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

hours on the day next after the tragedy, i.e. 8.2.1998 did not constitute inordinate delay such as would justifiably categorizing the FIR as an afterthought or as contrived. The complainant along with family and friends had to travel to another village, he would have had to first come to terms with the tragedy, make enquiries and consider the circumstances before recording the FIR..”.

The said decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case on hand.

Moreover, the counsel for defence has not cross examined PW1 with regard to delay in giving the report. Only because there is delay in giving the report, entire case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away. It may be true that PW2 who is daughter of deceased Farzana and accused No.1 has not supported the case of prosecution. PW2 is a minor girl of 12 years. Only because PW2 has not supported the case of prosecution, the other evidence cannot be disbelieved.

15-In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of A1 to A3 for the first charge for the offence punishable U/s.498-

A IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

16-Now when we come to the second charge punishable U/s.306 IPC, I am of the view that there is no sufficient material to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/s.306 IPC. Admittedly, there is no any dying declaration or suicidal note of the deceased Farzana. The evidence of PW1, 3 and 4 does not attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC.

To convict the accused for the offence punishable U/s.306 IPC, there is heavy burden to prove that the accused aided and instigated the deceased Farzana to commit suicide.

17- To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.306 IPC the prosecution has to prove the abetment of suicide in accordance with 107 IPC. The prosecution has to prove the live and active complicity of the accused in abetting suicide of Farzana.

But it failed in doing so.

PW1, 3 and 4 merely stated that because of the harassment of A1 to A3, deceased Farzana committed suicide and they are responsible for suicide of Farzana.

But every harassment does not amount to abetment of suicide. Apart from harassment, the prosecution has to further prove that the accused No.1 to 3 have intentionally aided 7 SC No.55 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

and instigated the deceased Farzana to commit suicide. Viewed from any angle, the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient and convincing material to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence U/s.306 IPC, as such, accused can be given benefit of doubt.

18.In the result, I find the accused No.1 to 3 not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.306 IPC and they are acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C.

The accused No.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.498-A

IPC and they are convicted U/s.235(2) Cr.P.C.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, I am of the opinion the accused No.1 to 3 cannot be given benefit of any provision of Probation of Offenders Act, as such, this court intends to impose punishment on the accused.

Dictated to Gr. I Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 23rd day of October, 2015.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

BODHAN 19-When Accused No.1 is questioned about the quantum of sentence likely to be imposed against him, he represented that he has old aged parents ( A2 and A3 herein), two daughters and one son, who are aged about 12, 10 and 8 years respectively. He further stated that he has to look after his old aged parents and children who are depending on him. He prayed the court to take lenient view.

A2 represented that she is old woman and she has to look after two daughters and son of accused No.1.

A3 represented that A1 is sole bread winner of entire family and he prayed the court to take lenient view.

The facts and circumstances and representation of A1 to A3 are taken into consideration.

20.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are convicted U/s 235(2)Cr.P.C. for the first charge for the offence U/s.498-A IPC. A1 is sentenced to undergo RI for a 8 SC No.55 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

period of (3) three years, and he is further directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, he has to undergo SI for three months.

A2 and A3 are sentenced to undergo RI for a period of (2) two years each, and they are further directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, they have to undergo SI for one month each.The remand period of A1 to A3 shall be set of

U/s.428 Cr.P.C.

The accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/s.306 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Gr. I Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 26th day of October, 2015.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

BODHAN

Appendix of evidence witnesses examined for

Prosecution. Defence

PW1. Shaik Yakub Ali .. Nil..

PW2. Kumari Maseera

PW3. Naseem Pasha

PW4. Riyaz Hussain

PW5. Shaik Hyder

PW6. Shaik Chand

PW7. Md. Imtiaz Ahmed

PW8. Dr. Navrathan Singh

PW9. Md.Mujahed Ahmed

PW10. P. Srinivas

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution. Defence

Ex.P1. Complaint Ex.D1. 161statement of

PW5.

Ex.P2. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 9 SC No.55 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

Ex.P3. Signature of PW6 on inquest report

Ex.P4. signature of PW7 on crime detail form

Ex.P5. Postmortem examination report.

Ex.P6. Final report

Ex.P7. FIR

Ex.P8. Crime detail form

Ex.P9. FSL report

MOs. Marked.

.. nil..

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

BODHAN.

THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT BODHAN

Present: SRI M. VENKATA RAMANA, B.Com.,B.L.,

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, BODHAN

Dated this the 19th day of October, 2015

S.C. No. 83 of 2015 Between:-

1. Name of the accused Gaini Ramulu s/o. Balaiah, age 40 years, occu: Hotel worker, r/o. Shantapur village of Bichkunda mandal.

2. Offence U/s.324, 325 and 307 IPC.

3. Plea of the accused Not guilty.

4. Finding of the Judge guilty for the offences U/s.326 and 307 IPC

5. Sentence or Order of the Court. The accused is found guilty for the offences U/s.326 and 307 IPC and he is convicted U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C.

6. Prosecution conducted by Addl. P.P., Bodhan

7. Defence conducted by Sri Mohd. Irfan, Advocate Bodhan

This case is committed by the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bichkunda vide PRC.No.6/2014.

This case having come before me on the 14th day of October, 2015 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri Mohd. Irfan, Advocate for the accused, and A4, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1-Charges stand against the accused are for the offence 307, 324 and 326 IPC.

2-The SHO, PS Bichkunda filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.98 of 2014 for the offence punishable U/s.307 IPC.

3-The case the prosecution is as follows:

That there were some disputes between the families of accused and PWs 1 and 2 regarding house site. Keeping the dispute in mind on 30.4.2014 at about 7 pm. the accused came to the house of A1and A2 having a knife in his hand and he stabbed 2 SC No.83 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

PW2, and when PW1 went in rescue PW2, the accused hit a blow with a knife on the hand of PW1, as such, her left thumb was separated from the hand. He also caused injuries to PW3. The incident was witnessed byPW4 and 7. On the same day night,

PW1 and 2 went to Bichkunda police station and gave a report to PW9 who registered a case and examined PW1. He handed over the C.D. file in this case to PW11, who took up investigation. During the course of investigation, PW1 examined the witnesses, examined the scene of offence, altered the section of law, arrested the accused and seized the MO.1 and produced the accused before the court seeking for judicial remand, and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.

4-Basing on the material available on record cognizance was taken for the offence

U/sec.307 IPC, and charge sheet is registered as PRC 6/14 on the file of JFCM,

Bichkunda.

5-On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed to the Hon'ble Dist. &

Sessions Court, Nizamabad, and same was registered as SC No.83/2015 and the same

was made over to this court for disposal according to law.

6-On appearance of the accused, charges U/s.324, 326 and 307 IPC were framed against the accused. The charges are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7-To prove the guilt of the accused, PWs1 to 11 are examined and Ex.P1 to P7 and MO.1 is marked. On behalf of defence, DW1 is examined and no exhibits are marked.

8-PWs1 and 2 are victims of the offence. PW3, 4 are eye witnesses to the incident,

PW5 and 6 are mediators for scene observation, PW7 is eye witness to the incident and mediator for arrest of the accused and seizure of MO.1. PW8 is the doctor who treated

PW1, PW9 is the police head constable who registered a case and examined PW1.

PW10 is the doctor who examined PW2, PW11 is the Investigating Officer.

Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the crime detail form, Ex.P.3 is the confessional cum recovery panchanama, Ex.P.4 is the medical certificate, Ex.P5 is the

FIR, Ex.P.6 is the scene of offence panchanama, and Ex.P.7 is section alteration memo.

9-PW1 and 2 deposed in support of entire case of prosecution. They deposed that on 30.4.2014 at about7 p.m. the accused came to their house and stabbed PW2. They 3 SC No.83 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

nextly deposed that when PW1 came in rescue of PW2, the accused cut-off the left thumb ofPW1 and he also caused injuries to PW2. They further stated that the incident was witnessed by PW3, 4 , 7and others. PW1 further stated about the report given by her. They further deposed that police sent them to hospital. PW3, 4 and 7 deposed that they witnessed the incident in which the accused caused injury to PW1 and 2 and cut-off the left thumb of PW1. PW5 and 6 deposed that they were present at the time of scene observation done by police persons and preparation of rough sketch of scene of offence. PW7 further deposed that he was present when the police persons arrested the accused and seized MO.1 which was handed over by the accused to the police persons. PW8 deposed that on 1.5.2014 PW1 was brought to hospital with amputated left thumb. He further stated that he dressed the wound of PW1 and prescribed medicines and issued medical certificate. PW9deposed that on 30.4.2014 at about 12.30 a.m. (midnight) PW1 came to Police Station and gave a report under

Ex.P.1, basing on the same he registered a case, examined and recorded the statement of witnesses, examined the scene of offence and handed over the CD file to LW13 SI of Police for further investigation.

PW10 deposed that on 30.4.2014 PW2 came to hospital at 10 p.m. and he found head injury and stomach injury on the body of PW2. He also stated about the wound certificate given by him.

PW11 deposed about taking of C.D. file in this case from PW9. He further stated about examination of witnesses, examination of scene of offence, arrest of accused, seizure of MO1 which was handed over by the accused in furtherance of confession given by him, producing of accused before the court and he further stated about filing of charge sheet by him after completion of investigation.

10-After completion of evidence of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, which he denied the same.

11-Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences U/sec. 324, 326 and 307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

12-Heard the learned Additional P.P. and learned counsel for accused.

13-The Addl.P.P. contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 11 which is corroborated by documentary evidence and material object sufficiently and categorically proves the 4 SC No.83 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He further contended that the prosecution proved all the three charges against the accused and he is liable for punishment.

14-On the other hand, the counsel for the defence vehemently opposed the contention of Addl. P.P.He mainly contended that there are grave and glaring discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts.

15-After thorough and careful scrutiny of material on record, and after considering the arguments of both side, I do not find any force in the contention of counsel for defence.

16- As rightly contended by the learned Addl.P.P. the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and 7 sufficiently and categorically establish the version of prosecution that the accused cut away left thumb of PW1 and caused the injuries to PW2 with an intention to kill him.

So far as the charges No.2 and 3 are concerned, there is sufficient convincing and cogent material appearing against the accused. Though the counsel for defence cross examined PWs1 to 4 and 7, he has not elicited any grave or glaring contractions. I do not find sufficient reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PWs1 to 4 and 7. PW1 and 2 are injured, PWs.3, 4 and 7are eye witnesses. They categorically deposed that the accused cut away left thumb of PW1 and caused injuries to PW2 with an intention to kill him. It may be true that there are some defects in the evidence of Investigating

Officers PWs 9 and 11, but those discrepancies cannot be based to disbelieve the version of the prosecution.

17.It is a well established principle of law that defective investigation and defects in the evidence of Investigating Officer cannot be based to acquit the accused. We have to see whether there is any ring of truth in the evidence of eyewitness/victims and eye witnesses.

Dehors, the defects in the evidence of Investigating Officer, there is sufficient and convincing material appearing against the accused. It may be true that there are some discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 7 on non vital aspects. But those minor discrepancies and infirmities cannot be given much consideration. In the evidence of natural witnesses the discrepancies on minor aspects are bound to happen.

It is true that PW8 doctor deposed that the age of injury of PW1 is two or three days old prior to his examination. Only basing on the evidence of PW8 doctor, the 5 SC No.83 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

version ofPW1 to 4 and 7 cannot be thrown away. Strangely, PW8 has not mentioned in Ex.P.4 about the age of injury ofPW1. For the reasons best known to doctor, he deposed in chief examination that the age of injury is two or three days prior to the date of offence. As per the evidence of PW1 and 2, they have gone to the hospital on the night of incident itself. When there is discrepancy between the oral evidence of injured witnesses on one hand and the doctor on other, we should give much consideration to the oral evidence of injured witnesses. As such, the evidence of PW8 doctor cannot be given much consideration and it cannot be relied to disbelieve the version of PW1 and 2, the injured witnesses.

18.It may be true the separated thumb is not produced before this court. Mere failure of prosecution in non producing the thumb is not fatal to the case of prosecution. PW8 categorically stated that PW1 was brought to hospital with amputated left thumb. Moreover, the counsel for defence has not cross examined PW8 with regard to production of separated thumb before him. PW9, Head constable stated that he has sent the separated thumb to the doctor. Though the counsel for defence put suggestions to PW1 and other witnesses that PW1 lost left thumb in the year 2009 and he has not elicited any sufficient and convincing material in support of his contention. Mere putting suggestion to witnesses is not sufficient. In the absence of any material which discredits the evidence of injured and eye witnesses, I am of the view the evidence of them cannot be disbelieved basing on minor variations or contradictions.

19.The evidence of DW1 also does not create any grave doubt about the version of prosecution or in the evidence of PWs 1 to 4. DW1 stated about the alleged intimacybetweenPW1 and LW7. The evidence of DW1 is not helpful to the case of defence. The discrepancies and infirmities elicited by the counsel for defence in the evidence of PW1 to 4 and do not go to the root of the case. They are not at all sufficient to disbelieve the convincing, cogent and trustworthy evidence of PW1 and 2 who are injured witnesses. At the cost of repetition the court wants to say that the evidence of PW1 and 2 is corroborated by PW3,4 and 7 and the doctors also corroborated the evidence of PW1 and 2. It may be true PW10 stated that the injury of

PW2 could be caused due to manhandling and stick. But the evidence of PW1 to 3 and 7 reveals that the accused caused injury to PW2 on his abdomen with a knife i.e.

MO.1, as such, the ocular evidence of PW1 to 3 and 7 should be given much importance than the evidence of PW10. I do not find any inordinate and unexplained delay in giving report.

6 SC No.83 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

20.The counsel for defence mainly contended that there is inordinate delay in giving the report. As per the case of prosecution, the incident took place at 7 pm on 30.4.2014 and report was given at 0030 hours on 1.5.2014. The Police station is at a distance of 15 kms from the scene of offence, and it is a night time. PW11, the

Investigating officer stated in the cross examination that after 6 pm no vehicle move in between Bichkunda and Shantapur village, where the offence took place. After considering the distance between Bichkunda and Shantapur and absence of transportation into consideration, it can be safely said that the delay of five hours is not at all fatal to the case of prosecution. I do not find any merits in the contention of counsel for defence that non examination of independent witnesses is fatal to the case of prosecution.

21-In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution successfully established the charges No.2 and 3 against the accused. There is no sufficient material so far as the first charge is concerned. As per first charge, the accused caused bleeding injury to PW1, but in chief examination itself, PW1 has not deposed about the said injury and the wound certificate also does not reveal the injury mentioned in the first charge. As such, I am of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the first charge i.e. for the offence U/s.324 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. As such, the accused can be given benefit of doubt.

22.In the result, I find the accused not guilty for the offence U/s.324 IPC and he is acquitted U/s.235 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The accused is found guilty for the remaining two charges i.e. second and third charge for the offence U/s.326 and 307 IPC.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, I am of the opinion the accused cannot be given benefit of any provision of Probation of

Offenders Act, as such, this court intends to impose punishment on the accused.

Dictated to Gr. I Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 19th day of October, 2015.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

BODHAN 7 SC No.83 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

23-The accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence likely to be imposed against him. He represented that he has two children, who are aged about 9 years and 11 years. He further represented that his father is blind and all his family members are depending on him for their maintenance. He prayed the court to take lenient view.

The representation of the accused and all the facts and circumstances of the case are taken into consideration.

24.In the result, the accused is convicted U/s 235(2)Cr.P.C. for the second charge for the offence U/s.326 IPC and he is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of (3) three years, and he is further directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default, he has to undergo SI for two months.

He is further convicted for the third charge for the offence U/s.307 IPC and he is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of (4) four years, and he is further directed to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default, he has to undergo SI for three months.

Both the substantial sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period shall be set of U/s.428 Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The office is directed to send the MO1 back to the committal court for disposal according to judgment.

The accused is acquired for the first charge for the offence U/s.324 IPC

U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Gr. I Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 19th day of October, 2015.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

BODHAN

Appendix of evidence witnesses examined for

Prosecution.Defence

PW1. G. Saroja DW1. B. Maisaiah PW2. G. Anjaiah PW3. G. Pochaiah PW4. G. Sailoo PW5. Y. Shanker 8 SC No.83 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

PW6. K.Gangaram PW.7. S. Lingaiah PW8. Dr. Sawan PW9. N.B.Amru PW10. Jyothi Subha PW11. N. Upender Reddy

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution. Defence.

Ex.P1. complaint Ex.P.2.Crime detail form. Ex.P.3.confessional and recovery panchanama. Ex.P.4.Medical certificate. Ex.P.5.FIR. Ex.p.6. Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P.7.Section alteration memo.

MOs. Marked.

MO.1. knife

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

BODHAN

THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT BODHAN

Present: SRI M. VENKATA RAMANA, B.Com.,B.L.,

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, BODHAN

Dated this the 16th day of October, 2015

S.C. No. 170 of 2015 Between:-

1. Name of the accused 1.Uradi Poshetty s/o. Yellaiah, aged 52 years, labour

2. Pandiri Ravi s/o. Poshetty, age 25 years, occu: Hammali.

(Both r/o.Rudrur village of Varni mandal )

2. Offence U/s.435 and 436 IPC.

3. Plea of the accused Not guilty.

4. Finding of the Judge Not guilty for the offences U/s. 498-A and 306 IPC

5. Sentence or Order of the Court. Accused are found not guilty for the offences U/s.435 and 436 IPC and they are acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C.

6. Prosecution conducted by Addl. P.P., Bodhan

7. Defence conducted by Sri K. Subba Rao and G. Shyam Rao, Advocates Bodhan

This case is committed by the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bodhan vide

PRC.No.5/2015.

This case having come before me on the 2nd day of September, 2015 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri G. Shyam Rao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1-Charges stand against accused No.1 and 2 are for the offences U/sec.435 and 436 IPC.

2-The SHO, Varni PS filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.271 of 2014 for the offences U/s.435 and 436 IPC.

3-The case the prosecution is as follows:

That the brother of A1 worked under PW1 and during the course of employment he met with motor accident and Rs.50,000/- was spent for medical treatment of brother 2 SC No.170 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

of A1. It is further contended that when A1 demanded PW1 to meet the medical expenses he refused to do so, as such, A1 nursed grudged against PW1. Be that as it may, on the intervening night of 16/17-11-2014 A1 and A2 purchased petrol and they poured petrol on the house and car of PW1, and set them on fire. PW4 found the house and car of PW1 in flames and immediately he rushed to the house of PW1 and informed about the same, as such, PW1and his family members came outside the house. PW9 came and put off the fire. PW1 went to Police station on 17.11.2014 and gave a report to PW10, who registered a case and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, PW1 examined the witnesses, examined the scene of offence and altered the section of law from the head of Fire Accident to Section 435 and 436

IPC, arrested the accused persons and produced them before the court seeking for judicial remand, and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

4-Basing on the material available on record cognizance was taken for the offences U/s. 435 and 436 IPC, and charge sheet is registered as PRC.5/2015 on the file of Addl. JFCM, Bodhan.

5-On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to A1 and

A2 as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed to the Hon'ble Dist. &

Sessions Court, Nizamabad, and same was registered as SC No.170/2015 and the same

was made over to this court for disposal according to law.

6-On appearance of the accusedNo.1 and 2, charges for the offences U/sec. 435 and 436 IPC were framed against the accused No.1 and 2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7-To prove the guilt of the accused, PWs1 to 10 are examined and Ex.P1 to P7 are marked. On behalf of defence, no evidence is adduced.

PW1 is owner of house, motor cycle and car which was burnt in fire, PW2 is daughter in law of PW1, PW3 is son of PW1, PW4 is brother of PW1, PW5 is the person who is said to have found the accused while carrying patrol filled bottles. PW6 is the mediator for scene observation, PW7and 8 are mediators for confession given by the accused. PW9 is Fire Officer, PW10 is the Investigating Officer.

Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the CDF, Ex.P3 is confessional statement of

A1, Ex.P.4 is the confessional statement of A2, Ex.P.5 is the panchanama, Ex.P6 is the alteration memo, Ex.P.7 is the FIR.

3 SC No.170 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

8-PWs1 and 2 deposed that on the night of incident, when they were sleeping in the house and at about 12.30 a.m. ( mid night) PW4 came and knocked the door, as such, they came outside the house. They further deposed that their house, motor car and motor cycle were burnt in fire. PW1further stated about the report given by him.

PW3 deposed that on 16.11.2014 after having dinner he had gone to agriculture field and at about 12.30 ( mid night) PW4 made a call to him and told about the fire which caught their house. Immediately he came to his house and found the house and car in flames.

PW4 deposed that about 10 months back, on one day in between 12 O’clock and 1230 hours, he came outside the house to attend the calls of nature, and found car and house of PW1 in flames. He immediately rushed to the house of PW1, knocked the doors and raised cries. He further stated that neighbours and fire people came to the place and doused the flames.

PW5 deposed that about ten months back on one day at about 9 p.m. he found

A1 and A2 while going towards petrol filling station of Rudrur village. At that time he was present in a hotel, and one A. Srinivas was also present along with him. He further stated that within (25) minutes A1 and A2 came with petrol filled bottles and he saw A1 and A2 with petrol bottles.

PW6 deposed that he was present when the police persons came to the scene of offence and prepared CDF.

PW7 and 8 deposed that A1 and A2 made confession to them in the presence of police persons.

PW9 deposed that on the intervening night of 16/17-11-2014 at about 1.00 a.m.

SI of police made a call to him and told that fire took place in Rudrur village.

Immediately he went to Rudrur village and put-off the fire. He further stated that as per his opinion the cause of fire is mechanical heat or sparking.

PW10 deposed that on 17.11.2014 at about 10 a.m. PW1 came to police station and submitted Ex.P.1, and he registered case. He further deposed that he examined the witnesses and scene of offence, altered the section of law from the head of fire accident to Section 435 and 436 IPC, arrested the accused persons and produced them

before the court for remand, and after completion of investigation he filed the charge

sheet.

4 SC No.170 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

9-After completion of evidence of PWs 1 to 10, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, which they denied the same.

10-The point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences U/sec. 435 and 436 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

11-Heard the learned Additional P.P. and learned counsel for accused.

12-The Addl.PP contended that the evidence of PWs.1to 10 sufficiently and categorically establishes the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

On the other hand, the counsel for the defence vehemently opposed the contention of Addl.PP. He contended that there are grave and glaring discrepancies in the case of prosecution evidence.

13-Perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. The arguments of both sides are taken into consideration. After careful and cautious examination and scrutiny of material on record and after considering the argument of both sides, I find sufficient force in the contention of defence counsel. As rightly contended by the counsel for A1 and A2, there is no eye witness to the incident. Even

PWs 1 and 2 are not eye witnesses to the incident. PW3 and 4 never stated that they saw the person who set fire to the house and car of PW1. Even in Ex.P.1 also PW1 has not suspected the hands of any person behind burning of house, motor cycle and car of PW1. In chief examination PW1 stated that he has not suspected any person behind burning of house, motor cycle and car. PW5 is also not an eye witness to the alleged burning of house and car and motor cycle. PW5 simply stated that he found

A1 and A2 while carrying petrol filled bottles. It is not the case of PW5 that he saw

A1 and A2 while going towards the house of PW1. The evidence of PW5 is very much scanty and defective. The confessions alleged given by A1 and A2 to PW7 and 8 are not at all admissible under law. Admittedly, A1 and A2 allegedly made confession to

PW7 and 8 in the presence of police persons. The alleged confession is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. Admittedly, PW10 has not seized any material in furtherance of alleged confession given by A1 and A2, as such, the version of PW7, 8 and 10 is not covered by Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

14.No material object is produced by the prosecution. PW9 stated in his chief examination that as per his opinion the cause of fire is due to mechanical heat or spark.

In Ex.P.5 panchanama prepared byPW9 it is mentioned that the cause of fire accident 5 SC No.170 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

is due to mechanical heat generated from car. In Ex.P.6 also, same opinion is given by

PW9.

15.Viewed from any angle, I am of the view that the evidence produced by the prosecution is most defective, and it is not at all safe to base on the scanty evidence to say that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as such, the accused are given benefit of doubt.

16.In the result, I find the accused No.1 and 2 not guilty for the offences

U/s.435 and 436 IPC and they are acquitted U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to Gr. I Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 16th day of October, 2015.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan

Appendix of evidence witnesses examined for

Prosecution.Defence

PW1. J. Narayana.. Nil..

PW2. J. Shailaja

PW3. J. Poshetty

PW4. Poshetty

PW5. P. Praveen

PW6. B. Palanna

PW7. Verender

PW8. B. Surender

PW9. E. Satyanarayana

PW10. G. Anjaiah

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution. Defence

Ex.P1. Complaint ..Nil..

Ex.P2. Crime detail form

Ex.P3. Confessional Statement of A1 6 SC No.170 of 2015

ASJ COURT, BODHAN

Ex.P4. Confessional Statement of A2.

Ex.P5. Panchanama

Ex.P6. Section alteration memo

Ex.P7. FIR

MOs. Marked.

..Nil..

Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BODHAN

Present: SRI M. VENKATA RAMANA, B.Com.,B.L.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BODHAN

Dated this the 7th day of October, 2015

O.S. No. 59 of 2014

Between:-

Smt. Gangamani w/o. late Master Raghunath, Hindu, aged about 65 years, r/o.H.No.7-54 of Satyanarayanapuram village of Varni mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

..Plaintiff

And

Smt. Seetamma w/o. Lankalapally Suryarao, Hindu, aged 58 years, household, r/o. H.No. 5-96/5 of Satyanarayanapuram village of Varni mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

.. Defendant

This case coming on before me on this the 21st day of September, 2015 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri B. Ramulu, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri, K. D Dattatri Rao, Advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed for recovery of money covered by a promissory note.

2.The gist of the contents of the plaint is as follows:

That on 15.7.2011 the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff and on the same day she executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the amount along with interest @ 24%p.a.

thereafter she failed in repaying the same. It is further contended that the plaintiff got a notice issued to the defendant on 2.7.2014 which was received by the defendant and she kept quiet without giving any reply. As such, it is prayed to decree the suit.

3.Defendant filed her written statements denying each and every content of the plaint. The defendant denied borrowing transaction and execution of promissory note, however, she admitted receipt of legal 2 OS 59 of 2014

SCJ COURT, BODHAN

notice. The defendant further contended that she never borrowed

Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.7.2011 and she never executed promissory note and the signature on promissory note does not belong to her. It is further contended that due to some quarrel, dispute and enmity between plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit with fake promissory note and it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

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

1. Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff under suit promissory note?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount?

3. To what relief?

5.To prove the claim of plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 are examined and

Ex.A1 to A3 are marked. On behalf of the defendant DW1 is examined and no documents are marked.

PW1 filed her chief examination affidavit, wherein she stated in support of all the contents of plaint. She stated about borrowing of

Rs.60,000/- by the defendant from her on 15.7.2011, execution of promissory note under which she agreed to repay the borrowed amount with interest @ 24% p.a. failure of defendant in repaying the borrowed money, issuance of legal notice to the defendant who received the notice and kept quiet and prayed to decree the suit.

PW2 stated that he was present when the borrowing transaction took place. He further stated that the defendant pout her signature on the pronote which was scribed for Rs.60,000/- and the plaintiff paid

Rs.20,000/- to the defendant in his presence, and the defendant put her signature on the pronote saying that she has already received Rs.40,000/- 3 OS 59 of 2014

SCJ COURT, BODHAN

from the plaintiff. He further stated that himself and one T. Laxmi were witnesses to the above transaction.

DW1 filed her chief examination affidavit wherein she stated in support of her written statement. She stated that she has not borrowed

Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.7.2011 and she has not executed suit promissory note. It is further stated that the plaintiff created a false promissory note and filed a suit and she is no way concerned with the promissory note.

6.ISSUE No.1.

Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff under suit promissory note?

Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and defendants. The counsel for the plaintiff contended that the oral evidence of PW1 and 2 which is corroborated by Ex.A1 sufficiently and categorically establishes the claim of plaintiff that the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- under a promissory note and he further contended that the evidence of PW 1 and 2 sufficiently establishes that the defendant borrowed Rs.40,000/- prior to the date of

Ex.A1, and Rs.20,000/- on that day i.e. 15.7.2011 and executed Ex.A1. It is further contended that the defendant has not issued any reply notice and she simply denied borrowing transaction in her written statement. It is further contended that mere denial of borrowing transaction by the defendant is not sufficient to disprove the claim of plaintiff.

7.He relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2008(4) ALD 15 (SC). On the other hand, the counsel for defendant vehemently opposed the contention of counsel for plaintiff. He mainly contended that there are several grave and glaring contractions in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. He further contended that the evidence of PWs 1 4 OS 59 of 2014

SCJ COURT, BODHAN

and 2 is contradictory to the pleadings and Ex.A1. He further contended that the plaintiff failed to prove passing of consideration under Ex.A1.

After thorough scrutiny of material on record, and after considering arguments of both sides, I found sufficient force in the contention of counsel for defendant. As rightly contended by the counsel for the defendant there are grave and glaring contradictions in the evidence of

PWs 1 and 2. As per the contents of the plaint under Ex.A1 the entire consideration of suit pronote i.e. Rs.60,000/- was passed from the plaintiff to the defendant on 15.7.2011. But PW1 in his cross examination gave entirely different and contradictory version. In cross examination PW1 stated that she lent Rs.40,000/- to the defendant prior to date of Ex.A1 and executed a promissory note and the defendant borrowed Rs.20,000/- from her on 15.7.2011 and took back the earlier pronote and executed pronote for

Rs.60,000/-. However, she categorically admitted that she does not remember when the defendant borrowed Rs.40,000/- prior to the date of

Ex.A1. The cross examination reveals that PW1 deviated from her earlier version in the plaint and in the chief examination affidavit. The cross examination of PW1 categorically reveals that she gave entirely contradictory version regarding quantum of amount which was allegedly passed under the suit promissory note. PW2 stated in the chief examination that the defendant paid Rs.20,000/- to the defendant in his presence, and the defendant executed promissory note for Rs.60,000/- by saying that she received Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiff earlier. The cross examination of PW1 and chief examination of PW2 together are entirely contrary to the contents of plaint Ex.A1. In cross examination PW2 categorically admitted that there is no mention in Ex.A1 that previously an 5 OS 59 of 2014

SCJ COURT, BODHAN

amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid to the defendant, and he does not know when the defendant received Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiff prior to date of

Ex.A1. Admittedly, the defendant denied borrowing transaction and her signature in Ex.A1.

8.In view of the grave and glaring discrepancies referred supra, I am of the view that the plaintiff failed to discharge her initial burden of passing of consideration of Rs.60,000/- to the defendant under Ex.A1 promissory note.

When the defendant is denying her signature onEx.A1, it is the burden of plaintiff to establish the same by taking steps for sending the document to handwriting expert. When the oral evidence of PW1 and 2 is contradicting the contents of plaint and Ex.A1 and A2, I am of the view that the plaintiff cannot say that she successfully established her claim about passing of consideration of Rs.60,000/- under Ex.A1. The above contradictions create doubt about the version of plaintiff. The evidence of PW1 and 2 does not inspire any confidence in the mind of the court about passing of consideration of Rs.60,000/- from plaintiff to defendant under Ex.A1.

9.As rightly contended by the counsel for defendant, the plaintiff failed to file any document to show that the defendant borrowed

Rs.40,000/- prior to Ex.A1 and executed promissory note and returned earlier promissory note on 15.7.2011. At the cost of repetition the court wants to say that Ex.A1 does not reveal earlier alleged transaction of

Rs.40,000/-, as such, the plaintiff miserably failed to prove her case that consideration of Rs.60,000/- was passed to the defendant under Ex.A1.

10.In view of the grave and glaring discrepancies and infirmities in the evidence of PW1 and 2, I am of the view that the decision relied by the counsel for plaintiff is not at all helpful to the case of plaintiff. The said 6 OS 59 of 2014

SCJ COURT, BODHAN

decision was given in entire different facts and circumstances. In the case on hand, the plaintiff never admitted her signature on the pronote and as such, the decision cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

In view of the foregoing discussion I decide this issue in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.

11.Issue No.2:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount?

In view of the findings and decision given in issue No.1, the plaintiff failed to prove the borrowing transaction, as such, she is not entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant. Thus, I decide this issue in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.

12.Issue No.3:- To what relief:-

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to Grade I Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 7th day of October, 2015.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BODHAN

Appendix of evidence witnesses examined for

PlaintiffDefendant

PW1. Gangamani DW1. Seetamma

Exhibits marked for

Plaintiff Defendant

Ex.A1. Original promissory note dt. 15.7.2011 Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A3. Postal acknowledgement.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BODHAN

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BODHAN

Present: SRI M. VENKATA RAMANA, B.Com.,B.L.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BODHAN.

Dated this the 8th day of October, 2015

OP No. 33 of 2015

Between:-

Mamidi Srinivasa Chary s/o. Mamidi Vithala Chary, aged 26 years, occu: painter, r/o. Thimmapoor village of Birkur (R.M.) Dist. Nizamabad.

..Petitioner

And

Smt. Sunitha w/o. Mamidi Srinivasa chary, D/o. Panchal Balaji aged about 21 years, R/o. Thimmapoor village of Birkur (R.M) of Nizamabad, now residing at H.No.3-12, c/o. Panchal Balaji r/o. Zahoor, tq: Mukhed, Dist. Nanded, Maharashtra State.

.. Respondent

This petition coming on before me on this the 5th day of October, 2015 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Mohd. Mahemood, Advocate for the petitioner, and the respondent remained and set exparte, and having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:

ORDER

1.This petition is field U/s.13 (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act praying the court to pass a decree of divorce.

2.The gist of the contents of the petition is as follows:

That the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 2-6-2014 at the house of the respondent parents situated at Zahoor village of

Mukhed taluka of Nanded District. It is further contended that since the date of marriage, the respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner and she caused mental harassment to the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner used to leave the marital home to go to the house of her parents and relatives without information to the petitioner, and she has no respect for the petitioner. It is further contended that the respondent’s father used to instigate the petitioner to purchase luxury items. It is further contended that on 29.6.2014 the respondent had left the marital home and she has not joined the petitioner, though the petitioner made several attempts to bring her back into marital home.

2

It is further contended that as the respondent harassed him mentally and he cannot live with her, as such, it is prayed to grant decree of divorce.

3.The respondent remained absent and she was set exparte.

4.To prove the case of petitioner, petitioner examined himself as PW1 and

Ex.A1 is marked.

PW1 filed his chief examination affidavit, wherein he stated in support of all contents of his petition. He stated that his marriage with the respondent was performed on 2-6-2014 at the house of parents of the respondent, leading marital life by himself and respondent, harassment meted out by the respondent against the petitioner, and making the life of the petitioner miserable by the respondent. He further stated that on 29.6.2014 the respondent deserted him and did not come back to lead marital life.

5.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce?

6.Heard the counsel for petitioner. Perused the contents of the chief affidavit and Ex.A1.

7.After scrutiny of the material on record, and after hearing the contention of the counsel for petitioner, I find sufficient force in the contention of counsel

for petitioner and I am of the view that the oral and documentary evidence

adduced by the petitioner sufficiently prove the claim of the petitioner.

8.In the result, petition is allowed, and a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of petitioner and respondent which took place on 2.4.2014 at Zahoor village of Mukhed taluka, Dist. Nanded is passed.

Dictated to Grade I Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 8th day of October, 2015.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BODHAN 3

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner Respondent

PW1. M.Srinivasa Chary .. Nil..

Exhibits marked for

Petitioner Respondent

Ex.A1. Wedding card. .. Nil..

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BODHAN