Meenakshi Sundari Pidathala

CC.No.316/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

APNE140004142021

Presented on : 28-09-2021, Registered on : 30-09-2021 Decided on : 30-12-2025, Duration : 4 years, 3 months, 2 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: NAIDUPETA.

Present : Kum. P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Naidupeta.

Tuesday, this the 30th day of December, 2025

C.C.No.316/2021

State: Rep. By Sub-Inspector of Police, Ozili Police Station… Complainant

V/s.

1. Shegji Sai, S/o. Bhaskar, aged about 18 years, Kummari by Caste, D.No.205, Rachapalem Village, Ozili Mandal, Rider of Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-39-AQ-0964.

2. Saluvadi Mohan, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 23 years, Kummari by caste, Puderu Village, Naidupet Mandal.

Owner of Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-39-AQ-0964.... Accused

This case coming for final hearing before me on 24.12.2025 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and of Sri P. Chengaiah, Counsel for the accused Nos.1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1) The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ozili Police station filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.44/2021 for the offence U/Secs.304-A and 337 IPC and Secs.3 r/w 181 and 5 r/w 180 of MV Act, 1998.

1

CC.No.316/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

2) The case of prosecution as per charge sheet is that: -

(i) LW1/Shegji Chandu, A1 and Thambabathina Tharun (deceased) are close friends and they returned to the village as the educational institutions are closed and holidays were declared due to Covid- 19 and on 29-04-2021 at morning hours, they wanted to meet in the village,

LW1/Shegji Chandu and A1 contacted the deceased over phone and as the deceased is at Ozili Mandal, A1 picked up Hero Delux motor cycle bearing

No.AP-39-AQ-0964 from A2, picked up the deceased from Ozili and proceeded towards Rachapalem Village. A1 ride the said motor cycle,

LW1/Shegji Chandu and the deceased sat behind as pillion riders. At about 12:00 a.m., when they reached Rachapalem Village, A1 ride the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the motor cycle, due to which, the motor cycle ran into bushes and the three fell on the road and sustained multiple injuries. They were shifted to Government Area Hospital,

Gudur through 108 Ambulance and the doctor examined the deceased and declared as dead. LW1/Shegji Chandu and A1 were referred to Mythili

Hospital, Gudur and were admitted there for treatment.

(ii) On knowing the occurrence, LW13/E. Ramamurthy, HC 457,

Ozili P.S. proceeded to Mythili Hospital, Gudur, recorded the statement of

LW1/Shegji Chandu and handed it over to LW14/K. Sekhar Babu, S.I. of

Police, Ozili P.S. Basing on the same, LW14/K. Sekhar Babu, S.I. of Police,

Ozili P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.44/2021 U/Secs.304-A and 337 IPC of 2

CC.No.316/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

Ozili P.S. on 29-04-2021 at about 01:00 p.m., took up investigation, examined the scene of offence, seized Hero Honda Deluxe Motor Cycle bearing

No.AP-39-AQ-0964, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Government Hospital, Gudur, prepared inquest report, sent the dead body of the deceased for autopsy and as A1 has no effective driving licence, A2 was involved in this case and Secs.3 r/w 181 and 5 r/w 180 of MV Act are added to this case. Thereafter, LW14/K. Sekhar Babu, S.I. of Police, Ozili P.S.

served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. against A1 and A2 and after receiving Wound

Certificates of LW1/Shegji Chandu and A1, Postmortem Certificate of the deceased and MVI report of the crime vehicle, he filed charge sheet.

3)This court took cognizance for the offence U/Secs.304-A and 337

IPC and U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act against A1 and U/Sec.5 r/w 180 of MV Act against A2 and issued summons to them.

4)On appearance of accused Nos.1 and 2 before this court, copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was furnished to the them and A1 was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/Secs.304-A and 337 IPC and U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act and A2 was examined U/Sec.239

Cr.P.C. for the offence U/Sec.5 r/w 180 of MV Act, was read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5)The prosecution to prove its’ case got examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. The evidence of LW3/Irugu Kalesha, LW4/Puttu 3

CC.No.316/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

Pandu Rangaiah, LW5/Shegji Chenchu Krishnaiah, LW6/Yakasiri Rajasekhar,

LW7/Keerthipati Arjuna Raju, LW8/Shaik Khader Basha and LW9/Shaik

Khaleel was given up by learned APP. The evidence of LW10/Dr. T. Karthik,

MBBS. MS (ortho), Mythili Hospital, ICS Road, Gudur, LW11/Dr. Praveen

Kumar, CAS, Government Area Hospital, Gudur and LW12/B. Gopi Naik, MVI,

Sullurpet is closed by this court.

6) After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined

Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in question form in Telugu, for which, they denied and reported that there is no defence evidence.

7) Heard arguments on both sides.

8) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution brought the home guilt of A1 for the offence punishable U/Secs.304-A and 337 IPC and U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act and of A2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.5 r/w 180 of MV Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT :-

9) The main allegation of prosecution case is that A1 being the Rider of

Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-39-AQ-0964, when they reached Rachapalem

Village, ride the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the motor cycle, due to which, the motor cycle ran into bushes and the three fell on the road and sustained multiple injuries. They were shifted to

Government Area Hospital, Gudur through 108 Ambulance and the doctor examined the deceased and declared as dead. As such, the prosecution must 4

CC.No.316/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

prove the case against the A1 for the offences U/Secs.304-A and 337 IPC and

U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act and against A2 for the offence U/Sec.5 r/w 180 of

MV Act.

10) The case of the accused is total denial.

11)To prove the above case of prosecution, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P12. PW1 is the defacto- complainant and injured, PWs.2 and 3 are the father and mother of the deceased, PW4 is the police official and PW5 is the investigating officer.

12) It is the evidence of PW1, who is the defacto-complainant and the injured, deposed that about three years ago, himself, A1 and the deceased going on a ride in a motorbike and when they reached near Rachapalem

Village, some unknown vehicle hit their bike resulting injuries to himself and serious injuries to A1 and deceased was succumbed to injuries. Due to the accident, he fell unconscious and regained his consciousness in the hospital and as such he did not observe the mode of the accident and nobody informed him about it. While he was in the hospital undergoing treatment, some of his villagers along with the police came to him and received his signature on a paper. He identified Ex.P1/his signature in the statement but denied its contents. He deposed that police examined and recorded his statement and turned hostile for the reasons best known to him. The prosecution except marking Ex.P2/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement, nothing could be elicited from him about the occurrence of offence. Moreover, 5

CC.No.316/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

according to the evidence of PW1, the accident occurred due to hit of some unknown vehicle to their motor cycle. Whereas, according to the statement of PW1 and charge sheet, due to rash and negligent riding of A1, the motor cycle went into bushes and they fell on the road and received multiple injuries. Therefore, there is discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 with that of statement of PW1 and charge sheet. Hence, the evidence of PW1 is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

13)PWs.2 and 3, who are the father and mother of the deceased, deposed that about three years ago, one day at about noon hours, while

PWs.1 and 2 were in their house, they came to know through their villagers, that their deceased son was met with the accident and succumbed to injuries near Rachapalem Village. Immediately, they rushed to the hospital, where they witnessed their son was succumbed with injuries and later came to know that some unknown vehicle hit the motorbike in which PW1, A1 and their son (deceased) were travelling.

They further deposed that they were not informed about the mode of the accident through anybody. They deposed that the police never examined and recorded their statements and turned hostile for the reasons best known to them. Nothing could be elicited from them by the prosecution about the occurrence of offence and only marked Ex.P3/Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

Statement of PW2. Moreover, according to the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the accident occurred due to hit of some unknown vehicle to motor cycle in 6

CC.No.316/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

which PW1, A1 and his deceased son were travelling. Whereas, according to the report and charge sheet, due to rash and negligent riding of A1, the motor cycle went into bushes and they three fell on the road and received multiple injuries. Therefore, there is discrepancy in the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 with that of statement of PW1 and charge sheet. Hence, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 are not helpful to the case of prosecution.

14) PW4, is the police official who recorded the statement of PW1, deposed that on 29-04-2021, while he was present in the police station, on instructions of PW5, he shifted the injured person to the hospital from the scene of offence, then visited Mythili Hospital, Gudur, found PW1 under medication, then drafted Ex.P4/statement of PW1 after confirming that PW1 is conscious from his duty doctor, read over the contents to PW1 and took his signature in it and handed over Ex.P4 to PW5 for further investigation.

15) PW5, who is the investigation officer, deposed that on 29-04-2021, on intimation by the doctor at Mythili Hospital, Gudur, PW4 recorded the statement of PW1 at the hospital and submitted the same to him. Basing on the statement of PW1, he registered the case in Cr.No.44/2021 U/Secs.337 and 304-A IPC, submitted Ex.P5/FIR to all concerned officials, went to Mythili hospital where he was informed that the deceased was in serious condition and was shifted to Government Hospital, Gudur. Thereafter, he went to

Government Hospital, Gudur, secured and recorded Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statements of PW2, LW3/I. Kalesha, LW4/P. Pandurangaiah, LW5/S.

7

CC.No.316/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

Chenchukrishnaiah and LW6/Y. Raja Sekhar, drafted Ex.P6/Rough Sketch of scene of offence and Ex.P7/Scene Observation Report, went to Government

Hospital, Gudur on intimation of death of deceased, conducted inquest and drafted Ex.P8/Inquest report. On 15-05-2021, while he was present in the police station, A1 surrendered before him voluntarily and thus he served

Ex.P9/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to him, submitted requisition for MVI report, received Ex.P10/Postmortem Certificate of the deceased, Ex.P11/Wound

Certificate of A1 and Ex.P12/MVI Report, added A2/owner of the crime vehicle in this case and filed charge sheet. According to the evidence of PW4, he shifted the injured to the hospital which is contradictory to the charge sheet contents and PW5 evidence as charge sheet contents shows that on knowing the occurrence, PW4 went to Mythili Hospital and recorded the statement of

PW1 and the contents of PW5 shows that on intimation of duty doctor of

Mythili Hospital, PW4 went and recorded the statement of PW1.

16) On perusal of entire evidence on record, PW1, who is the eye- witness of the accident and also injured and PWs.2 and 3, who are father and mother of the deceased, not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Without support of crucial and independent witnesses, the evidence official witnesses i.e. PWs.4 and 5/Head Constable and S.I. cannot be taken into consideration. The evidence of LW3/Irugu Kalesha, LW4/Puttu Pandu

Rangaiah, LW5/Shegji Chenchu Krishnaiah, LW6/Yakasiri Rajasekhar,

LW7/Keerthipati Arjuna Raju, LW8/Shaik Khader Basha and LW9/Shaik 8

CC.No.316/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

Khaleel was given up by the learned Assistant public Prosecutor in view of the evidence of hostile witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to 3. The evidence of LW10/

Dr. T. Karthik, MBBS. MS (ortho), Mythili Hospital, ICS Road, Gudur, LW11/

Dr. Praveen Kumar, CAS, Government Area Hospital, Gudur and LW12/B.

Gopi Naik, MVI, Sullurpet is closed by this court as recording the evidence of them is of no purpose without support of crucial and independent witnesses.

17)It is the case of prosecution that the accused caused the death of deceased, but there is no iota of evidence on record as to the accident caused by accused and the manner of accident.

18)In absence of any evidence on record corroborating the prosecution case or the statement given by PW1, the version of prosecution as to the rash and negligent driving of accused and causing death of deceased cannot be believed and that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

For the above discussion, this point is answered against the prosecution.

19) Hence, for the reasons assigned above, this Court holds that, the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the guilt of A1 for the offences

U/Secs.304-A and 337 IPC and U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act and the guilt of A2 for the offence U/Sec.5 r/w 180 of MV Act. Hence, A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, Point is answered.

9

CC.No.316/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

20) In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence

U/Secs.304-A and 337 IPC and U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act and A2 is found

not guilty for the offence U/Sec.5 r/w 180 of MV Act. Accordingly, they

are acquitted for the said offence U/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of

A1 and A2 shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. No order as to property is passed, as no property was

produced by the police before the court. Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Naidupeta.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution:- P.W.1 : S. Chandu. P.W.2 : T. Ramesh. P.W.3 : T. Vijaya Lakshmi. P.W.4 : E. Ramamurthy, the then, Head Constable, Ozili P.S. P.W.5 : K. Sekhar Babu, the then, S.I. of Police, Ozili P.S. Witnesses examined for defence:- None

Exhibits marked for prose cution:- Ex.P.1:- Signature of PW1 in the statement. Ex.P.2:- Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P.3:- Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P.4:- Statement of PW1. Ex.P.5:- FIR in Cr.No.44/2021 U/Secs.304-A and 337 IPC of Ozili P.S. Ex.P.6:- Rough Sketch. Ex.P.7:- Scene Observation Report. Ex.P.8:- Inquest Report. Ex.P.9:- Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice of A1. Ex.P10:- Postmortem Certificate of the deceased. Ex.P11:- Wound Certificate of A1. Ex.P.12:- MVI Report. Exhibits marked for defence:- Nil

Material objects marked for prosecution:- Nil

Sd/- P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Naidupeta. //True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class, Naidupeta.

10

CC.No.316/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District : SPSR Nellore Calendar and Judgment tried by Kum. P.Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta.

Date of

Appre- hension Released Commence- Close of Offence Report Judgment of on bail ment of trial trial accused 29.04.202129.04.2021--06.08.202518.12.202530.12.2025

Calendar and Judgment in CC No.316/2021 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta.

Complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Ozili P.S.

Cr.No.44/2021 Name of the accused Age Calling Caste Resident with father’s name

Shegji Sai, S/o. -KummariD.No.205,Rachapalem 18 BhaskarVillage, Ozili Mandal. years Rider of Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-39-AQ-0964.

Saluvadi Mohan, S/o. -KummariPuderu Village, Naidupet 23 VenkateswarluMandal. years Owner of Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-39-AQ-0964

Offence : U/Secs.304-A and 337 IPC and U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act against A1 and U/Sec.5 r/w 180 of MV Act against A2.

Finding : A1 and A2 are found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.304-A and 337 IPC and U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act and A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.5 r/w 180 of MV Act. Accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted for the said offence U/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. No order as to property is passed, as no property was produced by the police before the court.

11

CC.No.316/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

Remarks : NIL Explanation for the delay : NIL

Sd/- P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Naidupeta. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nellore.

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class, Naidupeta.

12

1 CC.No.307/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

APNE140004052021

Presented on : 23-09-2021, Registered on : 24-09-2021 Decided on : 30-12-2025, Duration : 4 years, 3 months, 7 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: NAIDUPETA.

Present : Kum. P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Naidupeta.

Tuesday, this the 30th day of December, 2025

C.C.No.307/2021

State: Rep. By Sub-Inspector of Police, Ozili Police Station… Complainant

V/s.

1. Swarnapudi Kishore Kumar, S/o. late Bhaskar Rao, aged about 40 years, Caste by Padmasali, D.No.4-156, Gandham Roasaiah Naghar, Podalakur Road, Nellore City. Driver of Car bearing No.AP-26-BE-0679.

2. Chinthala Suseela Sushma Kumari, W/o. S. Kishore Kumar, aged about 45 years, Caste by SC-mala, D.No.4-156,

Gadam Rosaiah Nagar, Kothuru, Nellore City.... Accused

This case coming for final hearing before me on 24.12.2025 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and of Sri V. Parthasarathy Reddy, Counsel for the accused Nos.1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1) The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ozili Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.53/2021 for the offence U/Secs.304-A and 338 IPC and Secs.196 and 190 (ii) of M.V. Act, 1988.

2 CC.No.307/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

2) The case of prosecution as per charge sheet is that: -

(i) On 31-05-2021 at about 06:30 p.m., on Chennai-Vijayawada

NH-16 near cross roads junction, Peddapariya Village, Ozili Mandal, A1/driver of car bearing No.AP-26-BE-0679 belonging to A2, while proceeding from

Naidupet side towards Gudur side, drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle bearing No.AP-26-AY-1629, while it was crossing the road to go towards Peddapariya Village, due to which,

LW2/Pamanji Venkatarathnam, who was riding the bike fell down on the road along with pillion riders i.e. LW1/Pamanji Narayanamma and Pamanji

Jyoshna (deceased) and sustained multiple injuries. Thereafter, A1 abandoned the car and fled away. LW4/Mora Babu and LW5/Panabaka

Nagoor witnessed the occurrence. LW1/Pamanji Narayanamma,

LW2/Pamanji Venkatarathnam and Pamanji Jyoshna (deceased) were admitted in the Government Hospital, Gudur.

(ii) LW20/P. Venkateswarlu, HC 2067, Ozili P.S. recorded the statement of LW1/Pamanji Narayanamma. Basing on the statement of

LW1/Pamanji Narayanamma, LW22/K. Sekhar Babu, S.I., Ozili P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.53/2021 U/Secs.338 and 337 IPC of Ozili P.S. on 31-05-2021, inspected he scene of offence in the presence of mediators LWs.12 and 13/Paleti Surendra Babu and Voosa Bhaskar under scene observation report, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses i.e. LW1/Pamanji

Narayanamma, LW2/Pamanji Venkatarathnam, LW3/Pamanji Sai, LW4/Mora 3 CC.No.307/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

Babu and LW5/Panabaka Nagoor. LW1/Pamanji Narayanamma and

LW2/Pamanji Venkatarathnam were shifted to Vijaya Hospital, Nellore and the deceased was shifted to MIMS Hospital, Nellore and on 03-06-2021, Pamanji

Jyoshna (deceased) was shifted to Rajiv Gandhi Government General

Hospital, Chennai for expert treatment but died on 06-06-2021 at 11:00 a.m.

Basing on the death intimation, LW21/E. Rama Murthy, HC 457, Ozili P.S.

added Sec.304-A IPC to this case, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses LW6/Pamanji Koteswar Rao, LW7/Velthuri Muthyalaiah,

LW8/Pamanji Gajendra, LW9/Dara Balakrishna, LW10/Poluru Roop Kumar and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. On 19-06-2021,

LW11/Madaparthy Sreenivasulu produced A1 and A2 before LW22/SI, who later served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notices to them, examined and recorded the statement of LW11/Madaparthy Sreenivasulu. LW17/Dr. S. Prakash, Tutor in forensic medicine, Institute of forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College,

Chennai issued Postmortem Certificate of Pamanji Jyoshna (deceased) and

LW18/Dr. Prasad Maw, Ortho Surgeon, Vijaya Hospital, Nellore issued wound certificates of LW1/Pamanji Narayanamma and LW2/Pamanji

Venkatarathnam. LW19/B. Gopi Naik, MVI, Sullurpet issued MVI report. A2 being the owner of the crime vehicle did not insure the crime vehicle and did not get PUC test to the crime vehicle. Therefore, sections 196 and 190 (ii) of

MV Act are added to this case against A2. After completion of investigation,

LW22/K. Sekhar Babu, S.I., Ozili P.S. filed charge sheet.

4 CC.No.307/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

3)This court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec.304-A and 338

IPC against A1 and for the offence U/Sec.196 and 190 (ii) of M.V. Act against

A2 and issued summons to them.

4)On appearance of A1 and A2 before this court, copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was furnished to them and they were examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/Sec.304-A and 338

IPC against A1 and for the offence U/Sec.196 and 190 (ii) of M.V. Act against

A2 was read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5)The prosecution to prove its’ case got examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. The evidence of LW4/Mora Babu, LW5/Panabaka

Nagoor, LW6/Pamanji Koteswara Rao, LW7/Velthuri Muthyalaiah,

LW8/Pamanji Gajendra, LW9/Dara Balakrishna, LW10/Poluru Roopkumar,

LW11/Madaparthy Sreenivasulu, LW12/Paleti Surendra Babu, LW13/Voosa

Bhaskar, LW14/Yakasiri Gopalaiah, LW15/Sampathi Narendra and

LW16/Kamatham Rajamma was given up by learned APP. The evidence of

LW17/Dr. S. Prakash, Tutor in forensic medicine, Institute of forensic

Medicine, Madras Medical College, Chennai, LW18/Dr. Prasad Maw, Ortho

Surgeon, Vijaya Hospital, Nellore, LW19/B. Gopi Naik, MVI, Sullurpet,

LW20/P. Venkateswarlu, HC 2067, Ozili P.S. and LW21/E. Rama Murthy, HC 457, Ozili P.S. is closed by this court.

5 CC.No.307/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

6) After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined

Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in question form in Telugu, for which, they denied and reported that there is no defence evidence.

7) Heard arguments on both sides.

8) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution brought the home guilt of A1 for the offence punishable U/Secs.304-A and 338 IPC and of A2 for the offence punishable U/Secs.196 and 190 (ii) of MV Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT :-

9) The main allegation of prosecution case is that A1 being the driver of the car bearing No.AP-26-BE-0679, drove the same in rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the motorcycle bearing No.AP-26-AY-1629, while it was crossing the road to go towards Peddapariya Village, due to which LW2/Pamanji Venkatarathnam, who was riding the bike fell down on the road along with pillion riders i.e. LW1/Pamanji Narayanamma and Pamanji

Jyoshna (deceased) and they all sustained multiple injuries and later Pamanji

Jyoshna (deceased) while taking treatment at Rajiv Gandhi Government

General Hospital, Chennai, she died. As such, the prosecution must prove the case against the A1 for the offences U/Secs.304-A and 338 ICP and against

A2 for the offence U/Secs.196, 190 (ii) of MV Act.

10) The case of the accused is total denial.

6 CC.No.307/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

11)To prove the above case of prosecution, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P16. PWs.1 and 2 are the injured and mother and father of the deceased, PW3 is the brother of the deceased and PW4 is the investigating officer.

12) It is the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, who are mother and father of the deceased, deposed that about four years ago, one day while PWs.1 and 2 and their daughter (deceased) were going for their regular works and reached

Peddapariya cross roads and while crossing the road, one car came in high speed and dashed against their vehicle, due to which, PW1 received injury to her hip, PW2 received severe leg injury and their daughter (deceased) received head injury and succumbed to injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to hospital, where PWs.1 and 2 fell unconscious and regained their consciousness during medication at Government Hospital, Gudur. As they fell unconscious, they did not identify the crime vehicle or the driver of the crime vehicle and also they were not informed about it by anybody. On request of their family members, they affixed their thumb impressions on a blank white paper. They deposed that police never examined them and turned hostile for the reasons best known to them. PW1 identified Ex.P1/her thumb impression on her statement but denied the contents in it. The prosecution except marking Exs.P2 and P3/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statements, nothing could be elicited from them about the occurrence of offence. Hence, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

7 CC.No.307/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

13)PW3, who is the brother of the deceased, deposed that about four years ago, one day while he was in the house getting ready for his night shift duties, he was informed through his villagers about the accident of

PWs.1 and 2 and his sister (deceased) at Peddapariya cross road and that they were shifted to Government Hospital, Gudur. Immediately, he rushed to the hospital, found all his three injured family members and for better treatment, they were shifted to other private hospitals but her sister was succumbed to injuries. He was not informed about the mode of accident and about the vehicle driver from anybody. He deposed that police never examined and recorded his statement and turned hostile for the reasons best known to him. The prosecution except marking Ex.P4/Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

Statement, nothing could be elicited from him about the occurrence of offence.

Hence, the evidence of PW3 is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

14) There remains the evidence of PW4, who is the Investigating

Officer, deposed that on 31-05-2021, on intimation of a duty doctor, LW20/P.

Venkateswarlu, HC 2067 of Ozili P.S. went to the hospital, recorded statement of PW1 while she was in conscious state as informed by the duty doctor, came back to police station and submitted it to him. Based on the

Ex.P5/statement of PW1, he registered a case in Cr.No.53/2021 U/Secs.338 and 337 IPC, submitted Ex.P6/FIR to all concerned officers, examined and recorded Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 at Government Hospital, Gudur, examined and recorded Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.2 and 3 at Vijaya 8 CC.No.307/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

Hospital, Nellore, examined the scene of offence, prepared Ex.P7/Rough

Sketch and Ex.P8/Scene Observation Mahajarnama, immediately after receiving the death intimation of the deceased, rushed to Government

Hospital, Chennai, examined and recorded Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses, conducted inquest on the deceased, prepared Ex.P9/Inquest

Mahajarnama and submitted Ex.P10/Section alteration memo after altering sections from Secs.338 and 337 IPC to Secs.337, 338 and 304-A IPC. On 19-06-2021, while he was present in the police station, A1 and A2 surrendered before him voluntarily. After confirming their involvement in this case, he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notices to them. Exs.P11 and P12 are copies of the said notices. After receiving Ex.P13/MVI report, Exs.P14 and

P15/Wound Certificates of PWs.1 and 2, Ex.P16/Postmortem Certificate of the deceased and after concluding the entire investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

15) On perusal of entire evidence on record, PWs.1 and 2, who is the mother and father of the deceased, eye-witnesses of the accident and also injured and PW3, who is brother of the deceased, not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Without support of crucial and independent witnesses, the evidence official witness i.e. PW.4/Investigating Officer cannot be taken into consideration. The evidence of LW4/Mora Babu,

LW5/Panabaka Nagoor, LW6/Pamanji Koteswara Rao, LW7/Velthuri

Muthyalaiah, LW8/Pamanji Gajendra, LW9/Dara Balakrishna, LW10/Poluru 9 CC.No.307/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

Roopkumar, LW11/Madaparthy Sreenivasulu, LW12/Paleti Surendra Babu,

LW13/Voosa Bhaskar, LW14/Yakasiri Gopalaiah, LW15/Sampathi Narendra and LW16/Kamatham Rajamma was given up by the learned Assistant public

Prosecutor in view of the evidence of hostile witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to 3. The evidence of LW17/Dr. S. Prakash, Tutor in forensic medicine, Institute of forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, Chennai, LW18/Dr. Prasad Maw,

Ortho Surgeon, Vijaya Hospital, Nellore, LW19/B. Gopi Naik, MVI, Sullurpet,

LW20/P. Venkateswarlu, HC 2067, Ozili P.S. and LW21/E. Rama Murthy, HC 457, Ozili P.S. is closed by this court as recording the evidence of them is of no purpose without support of crucial and independent witnesses.

16)It is the case of prosecution that the accused caused the death of deceased, but there is no iota of evidence on record as to the accident caused by accused and the manner of accident.

17)In absence of any evidence on record corroborating the prosecution case or the statement given by PW1, the version of prosecution as to the rash and negligent driving of accused and causing death of deceased cannot be believed and that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

For the above discussion, this point is answered against the prosecution.

18) Hence, for the reasons assigned above, this Court holds that, the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the guilt of A1 for the offences 10 CC.No.307/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

U/Sec.304-A and 338 IPC and A2 for the offence U/Sec.196 and 190 (ii) of

M.V. Act. Hence, A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, Point is answered.

19) In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence

U/Secs.304(A) and 338 of IPC and A2 is found not guilty for the offence

U/Secs.196 and 190 (ii) of MV Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the

said offence U/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall be in

force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. No

order as to property is passed, as no property was produced by the

police before the court.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Naidupeta.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution:-

P.W.1 : Pamanji Narayanamma P.W.2 : P. Venkatarathnam P.W.3 : P. Sai P.W.4 : K. Sekhar Babu, the then, S.I. of Police, Ozili P.S.

Witnesses examined for defence:- None

Exhibits marked for prose cution:-

Ex.P.1:- Thumb impression of PW1. Ex.P.2:- Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P.3:- Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P.4:- Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P.5:- Statement of PW1.

11 CC.No.307/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

Ex.P.6:- FIR in Cr.No.53/2021 U/Secs.338 and 337 IPC of Ozili P.S. Ex.P.7:- Rough Sketch. Ex.P.8:- Scene Observation Mahajarnama. Ex.P.9:- Inquest Mahajarnama. Ex.P10:- Section alteration memo. Exs.P11 and P12:- Copies of Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to A1 and A2. Exs.P13:- MVI Report. Exs.P14 and P15:- Wound Certificates of PWs.1 and 2. Ex.P16:- Postmortem Certificate.

Exhibits marked for defence:- Nil

Material objects marked for prosecution:- Nil

Sd/- P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Naidupeta.

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Naidupeta.

12 CC.No.307/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District : SPSR Nellore

Calendar and Judgment tried by Kum. P.Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta.

Date of

Appre- hension Released Commence- Close of Offence Report Judgment of on bail ment of trial trial accused 31.05.202131.05.2021--08.09.202518.12.202530.12.2025

Calendar and Judgment in CC No.307/2021 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta.

Complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Ozili P.S.

Cr.No.53/2021 Name of the accused Age Calling Caste Resident with father’s name

Swarnapudi Kishore -D.No.4-156,Gandham 40 Kumar, S/o. late PadmasRosaaiah Naghar, Podalakur years Bhaskar RaoaliRoad, Nellore City. Driver of Car bearing No.AP-26-BE- 0679.

Chinthala Suseela-SC-malaD.No.4-156, Gadam Rosaiah 45 Sushma Kumari, W/o.Nagar, Kothuru, Nellore City years S. Kishore Kumar

Offence : U/Secs.304(A) and 338 of IPC against A1 and U/Secs.196 and 190 (ii) of MV Act against A2.

Finding : A1 and A2 are found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence U/Secs.304(A) and 338 of IPC and A2 is found not guilty for the offence U/Secs.196 and 190

(ii) of MV Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offence U/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. No order as to property is passed, as no property was produced by the police before the court.

13 CC.No.307/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

Remarks : NIL Explanation for the delay : NIL

Sd/- P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Naidupeta.

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nellore.

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Naidupeta.

CC.No.316/2019, Dt.24.12.2025

APNE140009092019

Presented on : 06-12-2019, Registered on : 06-12-2019 Decided on : 24-12-2025, Duration : 6 years, 0 months, 18 days

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

NAIDUPETA.

Present : Kum. P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Naidupeta.

Wednesday, this the 24th day of December, 2025

C.C.No.316/2019

State: Rep. By Sub-Inspector of Police, Naidupet Police Station… Complainant

V/s.

1. Sripathi Harikrishna, S/o. Kotaiah, aged about 32 years, SC-mala by Caste, Kapuluru Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Driver of Ape Auto bearing No.AP-26-TD-3508.

2. Sripathi Sujatha, W/o. S. Harikrishna, aged about 28 years, SC-mala by caste, Kapuluru Village, SPSR Nellore District.

Owner of Auto bearing No.AP-26-TD-3508.... Accused

This case coming for final hearing before me on 22.12.2025 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and of Sri Ch. Amarnath, Counsel for the accused Nos.1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1) The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Naidupet

Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.209/2019 for the offence U/Secs.304-A IPC and Secs.180, 181 and 196 of MV Act, 1998.

2) The case of prosecution as per charge sheet is that: -

(i) LW1/Kanuru Subramanyam is a resident of ST Colony in

Chilamathuru Village, Naidupet Mandal and lives by doing Coolie works. The 1

CC.No.316/2019, Dt.24.12.2025

deceased is an unknown male person, who came to Chilamathuru ST Colony from somewhere on 27-10-2019 and on noticing him, LW1/Kanuru

Subramanyam and neighbours gave him food and he slept on the road in ST

Colony. On 28-10-2019, at morning hours, on request of that unknown person, he along with LW1/Kanuru Subramanyam, LW2/Penemati China

Subbaramaiah, LW3/Kanuru Ankaiah and LW4/Penemati Subramanyam took him to attend works (removing young paddy crop) in Kapuluru Village tank (Kapuluru Cheruvu) and after completion of coolie work, they all boarded an auto bearing No.AP-26-TD-3508 at NH-16. LW2/Penemati China

Subbaramaiah and unknown person (deceased) sat in rear side of the auto and the remaining sat in the auto. The driver of the said auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and at about 01:30 p.m., when they reached Kapuluru Village fields and while the auto is in motion, the unknown person (deceased) fell towards his front from the auto due to which he sustained abrasions on both knees of his legs, received two abrasions on the right side of his back and went unconscious. LW1/Kanuru Subramanyam gave him some water from nearby wet fields to regain the consciousness of the unknown person (deceased) and after going some distance in the same auto, he opened his eyes and later LW1/Kanuru Subramanyam shifted him to his house at Chilamathuru ST Colony and gave him some water, but after sometime, the unknown person (deceased) died. Thereafter, LW1/Kanuru

Subramanyam gave a report to the police.

2

CC.No.316/2019, Dt.24.12.2025

(ii) Basing on the report of LW1/Kanuru Subramanyam, LW10/D.

Venkateswara Rao, S.I. of Police, Naidupet P.S. registered the same as a case in Cr.No.209/2019 U/Sec.304-A IPC of Naidupet P.S. on 29-10-2019 at about 11:30 a.m., submitted FIR to the court and the copies of FIR to all concerned and made efforts to ascertain the identity of the unknown person, but in vain. During the course of investigation, LW10/SI visited the scene of offence, prepare observation report and rough sketch, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased (unknown person) at Government Hospital,

Naidupet in the presence of Panchayatdars i.e LW5/Chillakur Karunakar

Reddy, LW6/Cheera Subramanyam and LW7/Uppu Subramanyam, sent the dead body of the deceased for autopsy, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to A1 and A2, who voluntarily surrendered at Naidupet P.S. A1 failed to produce his driving licence and A2, who is the owner of the crime vehicle knowingly allowed A1 to drive the said auto, which is further uninsured. Hence, prima facie has been held against A1 U/Sec.304-A IPC and Sec.181 of MV Act and prima facie has been held against A2 U/Secs.180 and 196 of MV Act. After receiving

Postmortem Certificate and MVI report, LW10/SI filed charge sheet.

3)This court took cognizance for the offence Sec.304-A IPC and

Secs.180, 181 and 196 MV Act against A1 and A2 and issued summons to them.

3

CC.No.316/2019, Dt.24.12.2025

4)On appearance of accused Nos.1 and 2 before this court, copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was furnished to the them and A1 was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/Sec.304-A

IPC and Sec.181 of MV Act and A2 was examined U/Secs.180 and 196 of MV

Act was read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5)The prosecution to prove its’ case got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. The evidence of LW2/Penemati China

Subbaramaiah, LW3/Kanuru Ankaiah, LW4/Penemeti Subramanyam,

LW5/Chillakur Karunakar Reddy, LW6/Cheera Subrmanyam and LW7/Uppu

Subramanyam was given up by learned APP. The evidence of LW8/Dr. R.

Chandan Reddy, Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Naidupet and

LW9/T. Raghav Rao, MVI, O/o. RTO, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District is closed by this court.

6) After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in question form in Telugu, for which, he denied and reported that there is no defence evidence.

7) Heard arguments on both sides.

8) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution brought the home guilt of A1 for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC and Sec.181 of MV Act and of A2 for the offence punishable U/Secs.180 and 196 of MV Act beyond reasonable doubt?

4

CC.No.316/2019, Dt.24.12.2025

POINT :-

9)PW.1, who is the eye-witness of the incident, deposed that in the year 2019, one unknown person aged about 65 years, came to their village and the villagers used to serve food to him and he used to sleep on the pilon every night. PW-1 further stated that, similarly, about five to six years earlier, on one night, they fed him, and he slept there as usual. On the next day morning, on the request of that unknown person, he along with LW2/Penemati

China Subbaramaiah, LW3/Kanuru Ankaiah and LW4/Penemati

Subramanyam, took him along with them to their coolie work. Then, they boarded an auto and when they reached Kapuluru road, the auto turned turtle and the said unknown person succumbed to injuries. Immediately, he along with other villagers fell unconscious and he regained his consciousness at the hospital. He was informed by his villagers about the death of the said unknown person due to the accident and the funeral was conducted by the panchayath workers. He further deposed that on request of his villagers, he signed on a blank paper and he identified Ex.P1/his signature but denied the contents of it. He deposed that he did not notice the driver of the auto, while he boarded it and he also did not observe the mode of the accident as he was under a nap while travelling in the auto but came to know through his villagers that the driver of the auto was not possessing driver license. He deposed that police never examined and recorded his statement and turned hostile for the reasons best known to him. In the cross-examination of PW1, except marking 5

CC.No.316/2019, Dt.24.12.2025

Ex.P2/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement nothing could be elicited by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor in support of their case.

10) PW2, who is the then, S.I. of Police, Naidupet P.S. deposed that on 29-10-2019, at morning hours, while he present in the police station as

S.H.O. of Naidupet P.S., PW1 submitted Ex.P3/written report dt.29-10-2019 and basing on the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.209/2019 U/Sec.304-A

IPC, submitted Ex.P4/FIR to the court and its copies to all concerned, went to the scene of offence along with PW1, secured LW5/C. Karunkar Reddy and

LW6/C. Subramanyam, prepared Ex.P5/scene observation report, drafted

Ex.P6/rough sketch, examined and recorded the statements of LW2/P. Chinna

Subba Ramaiah, LW3/K. Ankaiah and LW4/P. Subramanyam, took the dead body of the deceased to conduct postmortem examination, held inquest against the deceased at the mortuary in the Government Hospital, Naidupet and Ex.P7 is the Inquest Report and Ex.P8 is the Postmortem Report.

Thereafter, he enquired about the details of the deceased, but as they found no kith and kin, they established the deceased as a beggar and after informing to higher officials, he handed over the dead body to municipal authorities. Later, he submitted requisition for inspection of crime vehicle and received Ex.P9/MVI Report. On 04-11-2019, while he was present in the police station, A1 and A2 voluntarily surrendered before him along with relevant records of the crime vehicle. Thereafter, he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.

notices to them. Exs.P10 and P11 are the copies of the said notices. As A1 is 6

CC.No.316/2019, Dt.24.12.2025

having no driving license, they added A2/wife of A1, who is owner of the crime vehicle and altered the section of law from Sec.304-A IPC to Secs.180, 181 and 196 MV Act along with Sec.304-A of IPC. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 U/Sec.304-A IPC to

Secs.180, 181 and 196 MV Act.

12)On perusal of entire evidence on record, PW1, who is the eye- witness of the accident, not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Without support of crucial and independent witnesses, the evidence official witness i.e. PW2/S.I. cannot be taken into consideration. The evidence of LW2/Penemati China Subbaramaiah, LW3/Kanuru Ankaiah, LW4/Penemeti

Subramanyam, LW5/Chillakur Karunakar Reddy, LW6/Cheera Subramanyam and LW7/Uppu Subramanyam was given up by the learned Assistant public

Prosecutor in view of the evidence of hostile witness i.e. PW1. The evidence of LW8/Dr. R. Chandan Reddy, Medical Officer, Community Health Center,

Naidupet and LW9/T. Raghav Rao, MVI, O/o. RTO, Gudur, SPSR Nellore

District was closed by this court as recording the evidence of them is of no purpose without support of crucial and independent witnesses.

13)It is the case of prosecution that the accused caused the death of deceased, but there is no iota of evidence on record as to the accident caused by accused and the manner of accident.

14)In absence of any evidence on record corroborating the prosecution case or the statement given by PW1, the version of prosecution as 7

CC.No.316/2019, Dt.24.12.2025

to the rash and negligent driving of accused and causing death of deceased cannot be believed and that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

For the above discussion, this point is answered against the prosecution.

15)In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A IPC and Sec.181 of MV Act and A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.180 and 196 of MV Act. Accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted for the said offence U/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as required Under

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. No order as to property is passed, as no property was produced by the police before the court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Naidupeta.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution:- P.W.1 : K. Subramanyam P.W.2 : D. Venkateswara Rao, the then, S.I. of Police, Naidupet P.S.

Witnesses examined for defence:- None

Exhibits marked for prose cution:- Ex.P.1:- Signature of PW1. Ex.P.2:- Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P.3:- Report of PW1 dt.29-10-2019. Ex.P.4:- FIR in Cr.No.209/2019 U/Sec.304-A IPC of Naidupet P.S. Ex.P.5:- Scene Observation Report.

8

CC.No.316/2019, Dt.24.12.2025

Ex.P.6:- Rough Sketch. Ex.P.7:- Inquest Report. Ex.P.8:- Postmortem Certificate. Ex.P.9:- MVI Report. Exs.P10 and P11:- Copies of Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to A1 and A2. Ex.P.12:- Alteration of Sections from 304-A IPC to Secs.180, 181 and 196 of MV Act along with Sec.304-A IPC.

Exhibits marked for defence:- Nil

Material objects marked for prosecution:- Nil

Sd/- P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Naidupeta.

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Naidupeta.

9

CC.No.316/2019, Dt.24.12.2025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District : SPSR Nellore Calendar and Judgment tried by Kum. P.Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta.

Date of

Appre- hension Released Commence- Close of Offence Report Judgment of on bail ment of trial trial accused 28.10.201929.10.2019--15.09.202509.12.202524.12.2025

Calendar and Judgment in CC No.316/2019 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta.

Complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Naidupet P.S.

Cr.No.209/2019 Name of the accused Age Calling Caste Resident with father’s name

Sripathi Harikrishna, -SC-malaKapuluru Village, Naidupet 32 S/o. KotaiahMandal,SPSRNellore years District. Driver of Ape Auto bearing No.AP-26-TD-3508.

Sripathi Sujatha, W/o. -SC-malaKapuluru Village, SPSR 28 S. HarikrishnaNellore District. Owner of years Auto bearing No.AP-26-TD- 3508

Offence : U/Sec.304-A IPC and Sec.181 of MV Act against A1 and U/Secs.180 and 196 of MV Act against A2.

Finding : A1 and A2 are found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A IPC and Sec.181 of MV Act and A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.180 and 196 of MV Act. Accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted for the said offence U/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and

A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. No order as to property is passed, as no property was produced by the police before the court.

10

CC.No.316/2019, Dt.24.12.2025

Remarks : NIL Explanation for the delay : NIL

Sd/- P. Meenkashi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Naidupeta.

Copy submitted to :234

The Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nellore.

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Naidupeta.

11

1 CC.No.308/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

APNE140004062021

Presented on : 23-09-2021, Registered on : 24-09-2021 Decided on : 30-12-2025, Duration : 4 years, 3 months, 7 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: NAIDUPETA.

Present : Kum. P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Naidupeta.

Tuesday, this the 30th day of December, 2025

C.C.No.308/2021

State: Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Ozili Police Station… Complainant

V/s.

Alla Sivakumar, S/o. Janardhan Reddy, aged about 26 years, Kapu by Caste, Madarajagadu Village, Nellore Rural Mandal.

Driver of Car bearing No.TN-10-A-9284.... Accused

This case coming for final hearing before me on 24.12.2025 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and of

Sri G. Veerawamy and Smt. V. Madhavi, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1) The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ozili Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.54/2021 for the offence U/Sec.304-A, 338 of IPC and Secs.192(1) and 196 of MV Act.

2) The case of prosecution as per charge sheet is that: -

(i) On 06-06-2021 at about 06:30 p.m., on Chennai-Vijayawada

NH-16 road at Rajupalem center, Ozili Mandal, the accused driver of the car 2 CC.No.308/2021, Dt.30.12.2025 bearing No.TN-10-A-9284, while proceeding from Naidupet towards Nellore side along with LW1/Kaveri Vinaykumar and Appagunta Ashok (deceased), drove the car in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle due to which the car hit the toll plaza tubular post and capsized and it skid over the highway. As a result, the accused, LW1/Kaveri Vinaykumar and Appagunta

Ashok (deceased) sustained multiple injuries and LW2/Chukka Kamakshaiah,

LW3/Thogaramudi Eswaraiah, LW7/Yelikanti Babu and LW8/Sripathy

Yedukondalu, who witnessed the incident, sent the injured to Government

Hospital, Gudur for treatment. Meanwhile, Appagunta Ashok (deceased) died on the way reaching to the hospital at about 07:30 p.m.

(ii) LW15/E. Rama Murthy, HC 457, Ozili P.S. recorded the statement of LW1/Kaveri Vinaykumar. Basing on the same, LW16/K. Sekhar

Babu, S.I., Ozili P.S. registered a case, inspected the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report and rough sketch and examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 20-06-2021, upon the accused surrendering before LW16/SI, he recorded the confessional statement of the accused and served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to him. LW16/SI drafted mahazarnama and added sections 192 (1) and 196 of MV Act as the accused failed to produce valid registration certificate and Insurance Certificate and altered the section of law from 337 to 338 IPC as the wounds certificate of

LW1/Kaveri Vinaykumar opined that the fractures of ribs are grievous in nature. After receiving Postmortem Certificate and MVI Report, LW16/

K. Sekhar Babu, S.I., Ozili P.S. filed charge sheet.

3 CC.No.308/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

3)This court took cognizance for the offence U/Secs.338 and 304-A

IPC against the accused and issued summons to him.

4)On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was furnished to him and he was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/Secs.338 and 304-A

IPC was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5)The prosecution to prove its’ case got examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. The evidence of LW2/Chukka Kamakshaiah,

LW3/Thogaramudi Eswaraiah, LW4/Appagunta Jagadeesh, LW5/Appagunta

Venu, LW7/Yelikanti Babu, LW8/Sripathy Yedukondalu, LW9/Pakala Prathap,

LW10/Bandi Srinivasulu and LW11/Sarangam Gunnaiah was given up by learned APP. The evidence of LW12/Dr.S. Renukadevi, CAS, Government

Hospital, Gudur, LW13/Dr. P. Nagasrathna, CMO, Apollo Hospital, Nellore,

LW14/B. Gopi Naik, MVI, Sullurpet and LW15/E. Rama Murthy, HC 457, Ozili

P.S. is closed by this court.

6) After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined Under

Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in question form in Telugu, for which, he denied and reported that there is no defence evidence.

7) Heard arguments on both sides.

8) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution brought the home guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.338, 304-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

4 CC.No.308/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

POINT :-

9) PW1, who is the childhood friend of the deceased and accused and co-passenger of the crime vehicle, deposed that in the year 2021, while he was undergoing medication in the hospital due to Corona Virus fever, on the request of family members of deceased, he signed in a blank white paper and did not understand why they affixed his signature in that blank white paper.

After sometime he came to know that accused/his friend met with an accident near Rajupalem hotel center and was succumbed to injuries. He never knew the type of the accident and mode of it through anybody and is not aware of the case facts. But, according to the charge sheet and chief examination of

PW4, PW1 was co-passenger of the crime vehicle and was injured and admitted at the hospital due to accident. Hence, there is a contradiction in his statement, which raises suspicion and weakens the prosecution case. He identified Ex.P1/his signature but denied the contents in it. He deposed that police never examined and recorded his statement and turned hostile for the reasons best known to him. In the cross-examination of PW1, except marking

Ex.P2/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement nothing could be elicited by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor in support of their case.

10)PWs.2 and 3, who are the mother and brother-in-law of the deceased, deposed that in the year 2021, at evening hours, while they were present in their house, they were informed about the accident of the

Appagunta Ashok (deceased) near Rajupalem area and that he was shifted to area hospital, Gudur. Immediately, PW2, PW3 and the daughter of PW2, 5 CC.No.308/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

LW4/Appagunta Jagadeesh, LW5/Appagunta Venu and other relatives rushed to hospital and found Appagunta Ashok (deceased) was died. Later, they were informed that Appagunta Ashok (deceased) died due to an accident at

Rajupalem center near Naidupet. They were not informed about the mode of accident through anybody and are not aware of the case facts. They deposed that police never examined and never recorded their statements and turned hostile for the reasons best known to them. In the cross-examination of PWs.2 and 3, nothing could be elicited by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in support of their case and only marked Ex.P3/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement.

11) PW4, who is the then, S.I. of Police, Ozili P.S. deposed that on 06-06-2021, on intimation of the duty doctor, LW15/E. Rama Murthy, HC 457,

Ozili P.S. recorded the statement of PW1 at the hospital, while he was in conscious state as informed by the duty doctor. Based on Ex.P4/statement of

PW1 submitted by LW15/HC, he registered a case in Cr.No.54/2021

U/Sec.337 and 304-A IPC, submitted Ex.P5/FIR to all concerned officers, went to Government Hospital, Gudur, recorded Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of

PW1, went to scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared Ex.P6/rough sketch, conducted inquest of the deceased, prepared Ex.P7/Inquest Mahajarnama and received Ex.P8/Postmortem

Certificate. On 20-06-2021, while he was present in the police station, the accused surrendered voluntarily before him and he recorded the

Ex.P9/confessional Mahajarnama of the accused. As the accused failed to produce valid registration certificate and insurance certificate, he added 6 CC.No.308/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

Sec.192 (1) and 196 of MV Act to this case. After receiving Ex.P10/MVI

Report and after concluding entire investigation, he filed charge sheet.

12)On perusal of entire evidence on record, PW1, who is friend, injured and eye witness to the accident, PWs.2 and 3, who are mother and brother-in-law of the deceased, not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Without support of crucial and independent witnesses, the evidence official witness i.e. PW4/Investigating Officer cannot be taken into consideration. The evidence of LW2/Chukka Kamakshaiah, LW3/Thogaramudi

Eswaraiah, LW4/Appagunta Jagadeesh, LW5/Appagunta Venu, LW7/Yelikanti

Babu, LW8/Sripathy Yedukondalu, LW9/Pakala Prathap, LW10/Bandi

Srinivasulu and LW11/Sarangam Gunnaiah was given up by learned APP in view of the evidence of hostile witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to 3. The evidence of

LW12/Dr.S. Renukadevi, CAS, Government Hospital, Gudur, LW13/Dr. P.

Nagasrathna, CMO, Apollo Hospital, Nellore, LW14/B. Gopi Naik, MVI,

Sullurpet and LW15/E. Rama Murthy, HC 457, Ozili P.S. is closed by this court as recording the evidence of them is of no purpose without support of crucial and independent witnesses.

13)It is the case of prosecution that accused caused the death of deceased, but there is no iota of evidence on record as to the accident caused by accused and the manner of accident.

14)In absence of any evidence on record corroborating the prosecution case or the statement given by PW.1 the version of prosecution as to the rash and negligent driving of accused and causing death of deceased 7 CC.No.308/2021, Dt.30.12.2025 cannot be believed and that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

For the above discussion, this point is answered against the prosecution.

15) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

punishable U/Secs.338 and 304-A IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted

for the said offence U/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused

shall remain in force for a period of six months as required Under

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. No order as to property is passed, as no property was

produced by the police before the court. Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Naidupeta.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution:- P.W.1 : K. Vinay Kumar P.W.2 : A. Ramanamma P.W.3 : M. Prabahakar P.W.4 : K. Sekhar Babu, the then, S.I. of Police, Ozili P.S. Witnesses examined for defence:- None Exhibits marked for prose cution:- Ex.P.1:- Signature of PW1 in his statement. Ex.P.2:- Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P.3:- Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P.4:- Statement of PW1. Ex.P.5:- FIR in Cr.No.54 /2021 U/Secs.337 and 304-A IPC of Ozili P.S. Ex.P.6:- Rough Sketch. Ex.P.7:- Inquest Mahazarnama. Ex.P.8:- Postmortem Certificate. Ex.P.9:- Confessional Mahajarnama of the accused. Ex.P10:- MVI Report. Exhibits marked for defence:- Nil Material objects marked for prosecution:- Nil

Sd/- P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Naidupeta //True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Naidupeta.

8 CC.No.308/2021, Dt.30.12.2025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District : SPSR Nellore Calendar and Judgment tried by Kum. P.Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta.

Date of

Appre- hension Released Commence- Close of Offence Report Judgment of on bail ment of trial trial accused 06.06.202106.06.2021--12.11.202518.12.202530.12.2025

Calendar and Judgment in CC No.308/2021 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta.

Complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Ozili P.S. Cr.No.54/2021 Name of the accused Age Calling Caste Resident with father’s name

Alla Sivakumar, S/o.- KapuMadarajagaduVillage, 26 Janardhan Reddy,Nellore Rural Mandal. years Driver of Car bearing No.TN- 10-A-9284.

Offence:-U/Secs. 338 and 304-A IPC. Finding:-Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence:-In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sesc.338 and 304-A IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the said offence U/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. No order as to property is passed, as no property was produced by the police before the court.

Remarks : NIL Explanation for the delay : NIL

Sd/- P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Naidupeta. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nellore. //True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Naidupeta.

OS.87/2019, Dt:24-12-2025

APNE140004062019

Presented on : 10-05-2019, Registered on : 18-06-2019 Decided on : 24-12-2025, Duration : 6 years, 7 months, 14 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: NAIDUPETA

Present:- Kum. P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Naidupeta.

Wednesday, this the 24th day of December, 2025

Original Suit No.87/2019

Bellam Ravindhra Naidu @ Ravi, S/o. Venkama Naidu, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Saguturu Village, Ozili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.…Plaintiff V/s.

Machavaram Chinna Masthan, S/o. Yarraiah, Hindu, aged about 43 years, Gurramkonda Village, Ozili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.…Defendant

This suit is coming on 17.12.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T. V. Ramanaiah, Advocate for Plaintiffand Sri. P. Chengaiah, Advocate for defendant, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivers the following:-

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

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.1,11,752/- (Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty

Two only) basing on promissory note dt:31-05-2016 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, for costs and other reliefs.

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

a). The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.65,650/- (Rupees Sixty Five

Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty only) from the plaintiff on 31-05-2016, in Page | 1

OS.87/2019, Dt:24-12-2025

evidence thereof, he executed a suit promissory note on the even date and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

b). Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, he did not choose to repay the debt due under promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of amount with subsequent interest and costs.

3.The averments of Written statement in brief are as follows:-

The defendant filed written statement by denying all the allegations made in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff is doing pesticide business and he purchases pesticides from him for the purpose of his agriculture and, every year, he paid debt amount to the plaintiff and cleared all the debts.

Subsequently, some disputes arose between the plaintiff and him, due to which, the plaintiff bore grudge over him and created the said promissory note with his signature forged for wrongful gain with the help of the witness. There is no cause of action to file this suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings as there was no elements of settlement, this Court framed the following issues for the purpose of trial:-

1.Whether the suit promissory note is materially altered?

2.Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant? and

4.To what relief?

Page | 2

OS.87/2019, Dt:24-12-2025

5.In order to prove his claim, the plaintiff got examined himself as Pw.1 and got exhibited the suit promissory note dt:31-05-2016 as Ex.A.1.

6.To substantiate his case, the defendant himself examined as Dw.1 and no documents are got marked on his behalf.

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of Pw.1 coupled with the documentary evidence establishes that the defendant borrowed Rs.65,650/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1/suit promissory note and hence the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim.

8.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant never borrowed the amount under Ex.A1 from the plaintiff and

Ex.A1 is a rank forged and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed as there is no consideration passed under Ex.A1 as alleged by the plaintiff.

9.In view of the rival contentions of both sides, the entire evidence is perused.

ISSUE No.1:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is materially altered?

10.A careful examination of Ex.A1, the suit promissory note, reveals that there is overwriting only with respect to the Mandal name “Sagaturu”. It is also noticed that the paper is torn and one letter, namely “ga”, is missing; however, the complete name “Sagaturu” has been written above the said portion.

Except the said overwriting, there are no other alterations in the promissory note.

Page | 3

OS.87/2019, Dt:24-12-2025

11.Ex.A1 clearly mentions the name of the village as “Ozili” and the District as “Nellore”. It is an admitted fact that Ozili village falls within Sagaturu

Mandal. Therefore, the said overwriting does not, in any manner, affect the liability under the suit promissory note.

12.Further, the defendant has not raised any specific plea regarding material alteration of the Mandal name. The learned predecessor, by oversight, framed the said issue. Hence, this Court holds that Ex.A1 isnot vitiated by any material alteration.

Accordingly,Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE NO.2 AND 3:-

2.Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant? and

13.As both issues are interrelated and interconnected, they discussed together to avoid repetition.

14.It is the contention of the plaintiff, who deposed as PW1 that the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount with subsequent interest under

Ex.A1/the suit promissory note. Whereas, the defendant contended in his written statement that the suit promissory note is a rank forged one.

15.Indisputably, the suit document i.e., Ex.A1 is a suit promissory note and it is a negotiable instrument. In a suit for recovery of amount based on a promissory note which is a Negotiable Instrument, the initial burden lies on the

Page | 4

OS.87/2019, Dt:24-12-2025

plaintiff to prove the suit promissory note is executed for the consideration by defendant. In order to discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 by reiterating the contents of the plaint.

16.During cross-examination, the learned counsel for the defendant suggested that Ex.A1 does not pertain to the suit transaction on the ground that the plaintiff’s name is shown as “Ravindra Naidu” in the plaint and as “Ravi Naidu” in Ex.A1. Though the plaintiff admitted the difference in names, he did not deny the transaction and consistently asserted that Ex.A1 relates to the suit claim, explaining that the defendant mentioned his name by using another name. Except this, there is no other material suggestions were put forth by the learned counsel for the defendant to challenge the genuineness of

Ex.A1 or to discredit the evidence of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff successfully proved his case.

17.To substantiate his case, the defendant himself examined as DW1 and filed chief affidavit which is nothing but replica of his written statement. In his evidence he categorically denied the borrowing of Rs.65,650/- under

Ex.A1/promissory note, plaintiff never forged his signature and in order to evade payment, he is deposing false. He categorically deposed that he intend to send Ex.A1 to the expert.

18.Promissory note is a Negotiable instrument as per sec. 4 Of Negotiable

Instrument Act and its execution has to be proved for Consideration.

Sec.118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. —Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: —

Page | 5

OS.87/2019, Dt:24-12-2025

(a) of consideration:—that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

19.Therefore, by virtue of the presumption under section 118 of NI Act, it shall be presumed that consideration under Ex.A.1 was passed until the contrary is proved by the defendant. Now the onus is shifted to the defendant to prove his own case. Presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act is rebuttable one. The defendant can rebut such presumption either by adducing positive evidence or by eliciting untruthfulness in the evidence adduced by the plaintiff by way of cross examining the plaintiff’s witness.

20.Upon perusal of the both side evidences coupled with the documents, it is observed that the defendant denied his signature in Ex.A1. When execution of a document is denied, the burden initially lies on the plaintiff to prove execution. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to

A3 and deposed that the defendant executed Ex.A1 after receiving the suit amount. The defendant, though denied the signature, did not take effective steps to disprove the same. Though he expressed his intention to send the suit promissory note for expert opinion, he failed to take steps to send Ex.A1 to a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Mere denial of signature without supporting evidence is not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Page | 6

OS.87/2019, Dt:24-12-2025

21.Further, the defendant did not adduce any documentary evidence to prove that he had discharged all dues or that the suit promissory note is forged. The oral evidence of DW.1 is not corroborated by any independent evidence.

22.It is also relevant to note that the plaintiff admitted that the suit promissory note was executed in his another name. However, the said admission does not, by itself, invalidate the document, especially when the defendant failed to prove forgery or absence of consideration.

23.Upon perusal of the signature below the stamp in Ex.A1, written statement, chief affidavit and deposition, all signatures are appears similar and there is no variation, the same is appear to the naked eye and ordinary prudent man can say that all are similar in appearance by seeing it. The court can took into the signatures and come to conclusion by its known knowledge under Sec.73 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, this court is of opinion that in order to evade the payment of debt to plaintiff, the defendant deliberately deposed falsehood as Ex.A1 is fabricated one.

24.Hence, the defendant failed to rebut the presumptions under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, this Court holds that the defendant executed Ex.A1 for valid consideration and that the suit promissory note is not a forged document.

Both the issues Nos.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No:4 – To what relief?

Page | 7

OS.87/2019, Dt:24-12-2025

In view of the discussion and findings in issues 1 to 3, this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant as follows.

25.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and

against the defendant and directing the defendant to pay a sum of

Rs.1,11,752/- (Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred and

Fifty Two Only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of

12% per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of decree and

thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the

date of realization on principal amount of Rs.65,650/- (Rupees Sixty Five

Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- P. Meenakshi Sundari,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NAIDUPETA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For plaintiff: For defendant: P.W.1: Bellam Ravindra Naidu D.W.1: Machavaram China Masthan

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff:For defendant: --NONE—

Ex.A1:Original Promissory note dt.31-05-2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.65,650/-.

Sd/- P. Meenakshi Sundari,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NAIDUPETA.

//True copy//

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NAIDUPETA.

Page | 8