Myakam Ramya

APAN150007372022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :: RAYADURG.

PRESENT: Smt.MYAKAM RAMYA,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg.

Friday, this the 12th day of DECEMBER, 2025.

Calendar Case No.486 of 2022.

[Crime No.126 of 2022 of Gummagatta Police Station]

The State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Gummagatta Police Station. … Complainant.

-Vs-

Boya Siddappagari Dhanunjaya, Aged about 28 years, S/o.B.Obanna, Y.Gundlapalli Village, Gummagatta Mandal.

... Accused

* * * * *

This case coming up on 11-12-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.Lavanya, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,

Rayadurg for Complainant and Sri E.C.Vannur Swamy, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day:

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

1. The State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Gummagatta

Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.126/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of

Andhra Pradesh Excise Act (herein after to be referred as APE Act for the sake of brevity and convenience).

JMFC, RDG. Page 2 of 14 CC No.486 of 2022.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

a) On 03.09.2021 at about 6.00 A.M. LW.4/P.W.2 Sri A.Thippaiah

Naik, Sub Inspector of Police, Gummagatta P.S. was present in the station, he received credible information about the transportation of

Karnataka State manufactured whisky sachets from Karnataka

State. Immediately, he along with his staff L.W.1/P.W.1

G.Gududappa, P.C.No.1306, L.W.2/P.Eswar, P.C.No.3684 and

L.W.3/R.Venkata Ramana Naik, P.C.No.3614 reached near Belodu cross, outksirts of Y.Gundlapalli Village and found the accused coming from Kalugodu village side to Y.Gundlapalli Village side on his motor bike by carrying one plastic urea bag. On seeing police, he tried to skulk away towards Y.Gundlapalli Village side and

Immediately,L.W.4/P.W.2 along with his staff surrounded and detained the accused. On enquiry, the accused revealed his name and other identity particulars and confessed that he was transporting the Karnataka State manufactured liquor sachets from

Konasagaram Town wine shops and disposing the same to the required public for higher rates. Then L.W.4/P.W.2 searched the plastic urea bag and it containing 192 Haywards Cheers Whisky

Tetra Packets (90ML) and seized the same along with Motor bike

TVS Stat City (number less) bearing Chasis Number

MD625MF17C1E67143 from the possession of the accused under cover of police proceedings. L.W.4/P.W.2 registered a case in

Cr.No. 126/2021 under Section 34(a) of APE Act (New Amendment

Act 2020) and submitted copies of First Information Report under

Ex.P2 to all concerned officers and took up investigation. After all legal formalities, L.W.4/P.W.2 arrested the accused and send him to judicial remand. During the course of investigation, L.W.4/P.W.2 Sri

JMFC, RDG. Page 3 of 14 CC No.486 of 2022.

A.Thippaiah Naik, Sub Inspector of Police, Gummagatta P.S. sent seized samples to RPEL, Chittoor for analysis. The Government

Chemical Examiner, Regional Proh & Excise Laboratory, Chittoor analyzed the samples of liquor sachets and opined that the above samples are Indian Made Liquor and it is not danger to human life and it is intoxication. After completion of investigation, LW.4/P.W.2

Sri A.Thippaiah Naik, Sub Inspector of Police, Gummagatta P.S.

filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P.E Act. Hence the charge.

3. After perusal of the charge sheet filed under Section 173(2) of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for brevity) and connected documents thereon, this Court took cognizance of the case against accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of APE Act and issued summons to him.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court on 03.11.2022, he was supplied with copies of case documents as mandated under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. On 27.11.2025, the accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

Charge under Section 34(a) of APE Act was framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu under Section 240(2) Cr.P.C.

After having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by this Court for the aforementioned offence and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined LW.1 and LW.4 as PWs1 and 2, out of four listed witnesses cited in the memo of evidence and got marked six documents as Exhibits P1 to P6 besides MO.1 in all to bring home the guilt of accused , later the prosecution reported that his evidence is closed.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, on 09.12.2025 the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining

JMFC, RDG. Page 4 of 14 CC No.486 of 2022.

the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu. The accused denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that from the oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and basing on the documents marked

Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 besides MO.1, clearly shows that accused was in possession of prohibited liquor tetra packets and selling the same without having any valid permit or license from the Government authorities concerned and he was intending to sell the same to the general public at higher prices in his village and there by gaining unlawful income is punishable under section 34(a) of APE Act. Hence the guilt of accused is proved and accused shall be punished accordingly.

9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused argued that prosecution has been examined PW.1 and PW.2, they are Police officials and the prosecution did not secure the local inhabitant to act as mediators in this case to corroborate the version of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 to prove that the accused was in possession of the prohibited liquor tetra packets and the same was transporting in order to sell the same in his village at higher prices without any permit or license, further he argued that prosecution as not conducted the investigation properly and seized the case property as per procedure. And there is no sufficient grounds to prove the guilt of the accused by the prosecution hence the accused may be set at liberty.

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

11. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of accused

beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under

Section 34(a)of APE Act?

JMFC, RDG. Page 5 of 14 CC No.486 of 2022.

12. To determine the above-mentioned point and to reach a judicial decision on the same,let the Court to discuss the evidence on record.

13. POINT:

The Court is hereby answering the point raised by both the counsels.

14.The arguments of the prosecution is that the accused are in order to gain unlawful income he used to transport and sell liquor tetra packets for higher prices to the general public which is offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, Further argued that as per the recent amendment of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and as per the

G.O.Ms.No.411 issued by the Excise Department in September, 2019 one person has to carry 3 bottles of any size of Indian made liquor without any license, but herein in the present case accused without any license transporting 192 Haywards Cheers Whisky Tetra Packets (90ML) each in a plastic urea bag which is more than the prescribed quantity. And argued that as per section 42 of AP Prohibition Act the

Court shall presume that the accused used to transporting the said illicit liquor tetra packets and committed offence unless contrary is proved. Hence prays to convict the accused for the offence charged against him.

15.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that, the confession recorded by Police is hit by Section 25 and 26 of Indian

Evidence Act. In the present case police recorded confession of the accused and seized liquor tetra packets which is hit by section 25 and 26 of Indian evidence Act. Hence prayed to acquit the accused.

16.One of the argument of prosecution is as per section 42 of AP

Prohibition Act the court shall presume that accused is committed offence unless contrary is proved. Here accused has to disprove the case of prosecution. To that I am reiterating section 42 of AP Excise Act.

JMFC, RDG. Page 6 of 14 CC No.486 of 2022.

“Section 42. Presumption as to commission of offence in certain

cases. - In prosecutions under Section 34, Sections 37 and 37-A it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of,-

(a) any intoxicant; or

(b) any still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy; or

(c) any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of an intoxicant or from which an intoxicant has been manufactured; for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily.”

17.In general Presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental principles of criminal natural jurisprudence which automatically enunciates that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This principal by default applies to general and special statues unless a provision stating otherwise exists in the stature. For instance,

Exceptions to have principle are contemplated in general statues like

Indian Penal code, by virtue of section 111A, 113A &B, 114A etc of the

Indian Evidence Act. 1872 similarly, certain provision in special statues like Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances Act, Prevention of corruption Act, and Protection of children from sexual offences Act.

Requires the courts to presume the existence of certain circumstances which point towards the guilt of the accused, thereby carving out an exception to the principle. For example a person charged with an offence under NDPS Act would have to rebut the presumption against him and the burden of proof would lie on him to show that he has not committed the act constituting an offence. But whether mere charge under the statue enough for the reverse burden/presumption to apply, to that I am relying on Nareshm Kumar Vs. State of Himachal pradesh 2017

AIR(SC) 3859

The Honorable Supreme court of India set aside the conviction imposed by the High Court against the accused who was charged under Sections 20 and 61 of the NDPS Act wherein

JMFC, RDG. Page 7 of 14 CC No.486 of 2022.

the allegation against the Appellant was that two kilograms of charas was recovered from a bag in his possession. The

Apex Court observed- “9. The presumption against the accused of culpability under Section 35 and under Section 54 of the Act to explain possession satisfactorily, are rebuttable. It does not dispense with the obligation of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt….

that the right of the accused to a fair trial could not be whittled down under the Act was considered in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417, observing:- “58……An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, would the legal burden shift. Even then, the standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence is not as high as that of the prosecution.

Whereas the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of the accused on the prosecution is “beyond all reasonable doubt” but it is “preponderance of probability” on the accused.

If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigorous of Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is possession of contraband by the accused cannot be said to have been established.

59. With a view to bring within its purview the requirements of

Section 54 of the Act, element of possession of the contraband was essential so as to shift the burden on the accused. The provisions being exceptions to the general rule, the generality thereof would continue to be operative, namely, the element of possession will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

JMFC, RDG. Page 8 of 14 CC No.486 of 2022.

in M/s Seema Silk and Sarees v. Directorate of Enforcement SLP (Criminal) No. 6812 of 2007 it was observed- “Reverse burden as also statutory presumptions can be raised in several statutes as, for example, the Negotiable Instruments

Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, TADA, etc. Presumption is

raised only when certain foundational facts are

established by the prosecution. The accused in such an event would be entitled to show that he has not violated the provisions of the Act.”

18.Thus, it is pellucid that unless the foundational facts are not established by the prosecution, a mere charge under a statute would not be enough for the presumption to apply. As per the above rulings of Supreme Court of India, the prosecution has to establish the foundational facts beyond all reasonable doubts. That the prosecution has to establish that accused is violated amendment with regard to how much quantity of liquor bottles one person can possess. As per the G.O.Ms.No.411 issued by the Excise Department in September, 2019 one person has to carry 3 bottles of any size of Indian made liquor without any license.

Therefore the prosecution has to prove that the accused is in possession more than 3 bottles of 192 Haywards Cheers Whisky Tetra Packets (180ML) and the same is seized by police as per procedure laid under 100 (4) Cr.P.C., and the prosecution has to establish that they have followed the procedure while seizing of liquor bottles/tetra packets and recording confession of accused which are foundational facts of the case.

19.Now coming to the facts of the case, prosecution examined, P.W.1 and

PW.2, who are the then Police Constable and Sub Inspector of

Gummagatta Police Station respectively. The evidence of Sub Inspector of Police i.e. P.W.2 goes to shows that on 03.09.2021 at about 6.00

JMFC, RDG. Page 9 of 14 CC No.486 of 2022.

P.M. while he was present in Police Station, he received credible information about illegal transportation of liquor, then he along with his staff reached at Belodu cross, outskirts of Gundlapalli Village and found accused coming from Kalugodu Village to Gundlapalli Village on his motorbike by carrying plastic bag. On seeing them, the accused has to ran away from that place. Immediately, he detained him with the assistance of his staff. On his interrogation, the accused revealed his name and identity particulars. Further, the accused stated that the said bag containing liquor bottles. He tried to secure for Mediators, but in vain. He verified plastic bag and found 192 sachets of Haywards Cheers

Whisky 90 ML each. On his interrogation, the accused stated that he purchased the liquor from Karnataka State and selling the same to public on higher rates without license, bills. He lifted one bottle as sample for forwarding the same to chemical examination which is duly sealed and labelled. M.O.1 is one Sample tetra packets of Haywards Cheers

Whisky 90 ML. He prepared Ex.P.1. After informing the grounds, he arrested the accused along with case property under cover of police proceedings. Later they brought the accused along with case property to the Police Station. Basing on Ex.P.1 he registered a case in Cr.No.126 of 2021 U/Sec.34(A) of A.P.Excise Act. Ex.P.2 is First Information

Report and submitted the copies of First Information Report to all the officers concerned. He arrested the accused and send judicial remand.

During the course of his investigation, he forwarded M.O.1 for chemical examination and he received chemical analysis report. Ex.P.3 is

Chemical Analysis Report. During the course of his investigation, he forwarded requisition to Superintendent of Police-cum-Confiscating

Authority for destruction of remaining contraband. Ex.P.4 is attested copy of proceedings. Accordingly, the remaining contraband destroyed in the presence of mediators under cover of panchanama. Ex.P.5 is attested copy of panchanama dt.01.07.2022. Ex.P.6 is attested copy of

JMFC, RDG. Page 10 of 14 CC No.486 of 2022.

auction proceedings of the seized vehicle. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

20. On seeing the evidence of P.W.1 goes to shows that on 03.09.2021 at 6.00 PM. L.W.4/P.W.2 received credible information about illegal transportation of liquor. Immediately, he along with L.W.1 to L.W.4 went to Belodu cross, outskirts of Gummagatta Village, found the accused coming on motorcycle by carrying plastic bag. On seeing them, he tried to left that place by leaving urea bag at the scene of offence.

Immediately, they detained him. On interrogation, the accused revealed his name and identity particulars and he voluntarily confessed that the said bag containing 196 sachets of Haywards Cheers Whisky of 90 ML.

L.W.4/P.W.2 lifted sample for chemical analysis. After informing the grounds, L.W.4/P.W.2 arrested the accused along with case property under cover of police proceedings. Ex.P.1 is the Police proceedings. He signed in Ex.P.1. Later they brought the accused along with case property to Police Station.

21. As per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the scene of offence is Belodu cross, outskirts of Gundlapalli Village thereby it is a busy locality, When that being so, why they failed to secure independent mediators at the scene of offence even though the scene of offence is residential area and non-securing independent mediators at the place of search and seizure itself creates a serious doubt with regard to seizure of illicit liquor from the possession of the accused . As per Sec.100(4) and (5) Cr.P.C it provides the process for conducting search and seizure, that whenever an officer conducting search and seizure he has to follow the processor contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. For better appreciation Sec.100(4) (5) Cr.P.C reads as follows:

“Section 100.Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.- (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched

JMFC, RDG. Page 11 of 14 CC No.486 of 2022.

is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless especially summoned by it.

22.In view of the above statutory provisions, it is clear that whenever any search and seizure is conducted by any officer, he has to take effective steps to secure the presence of at least two respectable inhabitants of the locality. Here police officials found the accused at Belodu cross, outskirts of Gundlapalli Village which is a busy locality, there is every chance to secure independent mediators. But police officials not try to secure mediators.Though PW.1 and P.W.2 stated that they tried to collect mediators at the time of preparation of confession, arrest and seizure police proceedings, but in vain at the scene of offence. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, on receipt of credible information they went to the scene of offence. They did not made any efforts to secure mediators at their police station while proceeding to the scene of offence. Even PW.1 and P.W.2 also admitted these fact, they orally requested the public to act as mediators but public refused, because if for any reason the local inhabitants of the locality did not co-operate the police officials, Police officials are authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators as per Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. The object of

Sec.100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public that a genuine search has been made and the incriminating material is found and not planted. Therefore, the presence of independent respectable mediators at the time of search is always desirable and the

JMFC, RDG. Page 12 of 14 CC No.486 of 2022.

presence of mediators of that locality is more suggestible. But where, in a case, the police officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any efforts to take such mediators, certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators. As already stated above, PW.1 and P.W.2 did not make any efforts to secure the presence of local mediators. In this regard, it is relevant to mention a decision between Gajamker Narayan vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh 1 . wherein our Hon'ble High Court while dealing with Excise case held as follows:

“Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers. Neither the testimony of P. W. 1 nor that of P. W. 3 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediator Rs. Ex. P-1, Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 100(4) Cr. P. C. are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the plastic can containing I. D. liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

23. In the present case, as already discussed above, PWs.1 and 2 did not make any efforts to secure the independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish seizure of 192 Haywards Cheers Whisky Tetra Packets (90 ML) eachfrom the possession of the accused. For the forgoing discussion and by perusing entire case records, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused 12005 (3) ALT (CRL.) 1 (A.P).

JMFC, RDG. Page 13 of 14 CC No.486 of 2022.

beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.E Act and hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and for acquittal.

24. Further, it is settled principle of law that an Excise Officer is a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and a confession made by the accused person before an Excise Official, if otherwise not proved, is inadmissible in evidence, and the said principle is once again upheld by the Hon`ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in Kalidindi Ramaraju @ Rambabu vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh 2.

25. Therefore, the Investigating Officer (PW.2) failed to secure local inhabitant to act as mediator in the above to prove its own case and basing on the sole evidence of Police officials, the Court came to conclusion that the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is not as per procedure, hence the accused may be given benefit of doubt.

26. In view of my foregoing discussion, this Court is of view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of APE Act.

27. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and he is hereby acquitted in terms of

Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties executed earlier shall be treated as bail bonds in view of

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 12.12.2025.

The MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12 th day of DECEMBER,

2025.

22002 (2) ALT (Crl.) 114 (AP).

JMFC, RDG. Page 14 of 14 CC No.486 of 2022.

Sd/-M.RAMYA

Sd/- MYAYA , Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1: G.Gududappa , Police Constable PW.2: A.Thippaiah Naik, the then Sub Inspector of Police

FOR DEFENCE:

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Police proceedings dt.03.09.2021 Ex.P2:First Information Report.

Ex.P3:Chemical analysis report vide in C.No.1704/2020 Dt.27.11.2021 Ex.P4:Attested copy of destruction proceedings vide in CE No.623/SEB- ATP/2022, dt.27.06.2022 Ex.P5: Panchanama Dt.01.07.2022 Ex.P.6: Attested copy of auction proceedings of the seized vehicle FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

 MO.1: One sample tetra sachets of Haywards Cheers Whisky(90 ML) each

Sd/-M.RAMYA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg.

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

KALYANDURG.

Present: Ms.MYAKAM RAMYA,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg,

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

Friday, this the 28 th day of February, 2025.

Calendar Case No. 224 of 2022.

[Crime No.118 of 2020 of Kundurpi Police Station]

The State: represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kundurpi Police Station.

… Complainant.

Vs.

1.Boya Manjunath, aged 26 years, Son of Ramappa,

2.Boya Ramappa, aged 54 years, Son of Chennappa,

3.Boya Akkamma, aged 43 years, Wife of Ramappa,

All are Residents of Bestharapalli Village, Kundurpi Mandal.

...A1 to A3.

* * * * *

This case came up on 21.02.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Ramakrishna, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, Kalyandurg for Complainant and Sri D.Ravi Chandra and

Sri S.Muthyalappa, Advocates for A1 to A3 and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kundurpi Police Station has filed a charge sheet against A1 to A3 alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354, 506, 324 & 326 r/w

JMFC, KLD., Page 2 of 12 CC No.224 of 2022.

34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as ‘IPC’ for brevity) in Cr.No.118 of 2020 of his Police Station.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

a) About one year back, LW.1/PW.1/Bestharapalli Varikayappagari

Jayamma and LW.3/PW.3/Bestharapalli Varikayappagari

Kamanna being the parents of LW.2/PW.2/Bestharapalli

Varikayappagari Anitha were performed the marriage of PW.2 with

A1, who is son of A2 and A3 herein. Since the date of marriage of

PW.2 with A1, A1 to A3 started to harass her physically and mentally due to family issues, who in turn informed the same to her parents and other relatives and she has been mentally suffered.

On 02.05.2020 at about 5.00 pm., PW.1 and PW.3 went to the house of PW.2 to see her, meanwhile A1 was quarreling with her, forcibly caught her neck and kicked her with legs on her body, they witnessed the same and PW.1 came across to A1 to save her daughter from the hands of A1. She questioned A1 that as to why he has beat her daughter/PW.2, for which A1 got angry against them and abused them in vulgar language as “if he attack and kill her along with her daughter, who save their lives and caught hold

PW.1’s tuft, dragged her and outraged her modesty in the public place and beat her with hands. As a result, PW.1 sustained swelling on her right shoulder. PW.3 witnessed the same and questioned A1 as to why he attacked PW.1 and PW.2. Then, A2 and A3 were also present there, among them A2 beat PW.3 with a stone on his head, as a result he sustained severe bleeding injury.

Then, A1 went into the house, took an axe and beat with reverse of the axe on the head of PW.3. As a result, PW.3 sustained severe bleeding injury on the head. LW.4/Bestharapalli

JMFC, KLD., Page 3 of 12 CC No.224 of 2022.

VarikayappagariAshok,LW.5/SangaragalluMamatha,

LW.6/Maridasinapalli Mamudurappa and LW.7/PW.4/Bestharapalli

Varikayappagari Sathyappa witnessed the same and rescued

PWs.1 to 3 from the hands of A1 to A3. PWs1 to 3 sustained bleeding and swelling injuries, then LW.4/Bestharapalli

Varikayappagari Ashok shifted them to Kalyandurg in an auto, and there PW.1 and PW.2 were taken treatment in Community Health

Center. Thereafter, they shifted PW.3 to Ananthapuramu and got admitted him in Sri Rathna Multi Specialty Hospital,

Ananthapuramu for treatment, as he was sustained severe head injury. After taking treatment on 07.05.2020 at about 10.00 am.,

PWs1 to 3 came to Kundurpi Police Station among them, PW.1 given a report to LW.10/G.Naganna, then the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Kundurpi Police Station against A1 to A3.

b) Basing on the written complaint of PW.1 on 07.05.2020 at about 10.00 am., LW.10/G.Naganna, the then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kundurpi Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.118/2020 under

Sections 498-A, 354, 506, 324 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A3, submitted original First Information Report and its copies to all concerned, took up investigation, examined material witnesses cited in the memo of evidence, recorded their detailed statements, he visited the scene of offence and drawn its rough sketch.

LW.8/Dr.Lakshmiram Naik, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community

Health Center, Kalyandurg rendered treatment to the injured/PW1 and PW.2 and issued wound certificate to that effect, opined that the injuries sustained by them are simple in nature injuries.

Likewise, LW.9/Dr.T.S.S.Murthy, Sai Rathna Multi Specialty

Hospital, Ananthapuramu, who treated PW.3 and issued wound certificate, he opined that PW.3 sustained grievous in nature

JMFC, KLD., Page 4 of 12 CC No.224 of 2022.

injuries. As per the wound certificate of PW.3,

LW.11/P.Krishnamurthy, the then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kundurpi Police Station added Section 326 of IPC to the existing

Sections. During the course of investigation, on 01.09.2021 he arrested A1 to A3 and on the very next day i.e., 02.09.2021 he produced A1 to A3 before the Court. On perusal of report, this

Court return the remand with specific directions to release A1 to

A3, if they complied Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice. Then, he served

Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice upon A1 to A3 with instructions to appear before the Court after receipt of summons from the Court as per the guidance of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. A1 to A3 harassed PW.2 physically and mentally, A1 forcibly press the neck of PW.2 and kicked with legs, he abused PW.1, caught hold her tuft, dragged her outraged her modesty in the public and also beat her with hands and legs. Further, A1 and A2 beat PW.3 with stones and axe, as result he sustained grievous injuries on his head and A1 to A3 are threatened PWs1 to 3 with criminal intimidation. Thus, A1 to A3 are liable for punishment for the charges levelled against them and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A3. Hence, the charge.

3. After filing of the charge sheet and connected documents thereon, on 06.07.2022 this Court took cognizance of the case for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354, 506, 324, 326 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A3 and numbered the case as C.C.No. 224 of 2022 and issued summons to them.

JMFC, KLD., Page 5 of 12 CC No.224 of 2022.

4. On the appearance of A1 to A3, on 17.02.2023 they were supplied with copies of case documents as mandated under section 207 of

Cr.P.C.

5. On 10.01.2025, A1 to A3 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

by explaining the accusation made against them in the charge sheet in

Telugu and they denied commission of offence. As there is a ground to presume that they had committed the offences, charges under

Sections 498-A of IPC against A1 to A3, under Sections 354, 506 and 326 of IPW against A1 and charge under Section 324 of IPC against

A2 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW’s.1 to 4 and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.5. PW.1 is the defacto-complainant-cum- victim as well as mother of PW.2; PW.2 is the victim. PW.3 is the father of PW.2. PW.4 is the brother of PW.3. Exhibit P.1 is the signature of PW.1 on written report, dated 07.05.2020. Exhibits P.2 to

P.5 are the statements of PWs1 to 4 recorded under Section 161(3)

Cr.P.C.

7. As material witnesses PWs.1 to 4 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining witnesses cited in the memo of evidence i.e., LW.4/Bestharapalli Varikayappagari Ashok, LW.5/Sangaragallu

Mamatha, LW.6/Maridasinapalli Mamudurappa, LW.8/Dr.Lakshmiram

Naik, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Kalyandurg,

LW.9/Dr.T.S.S.Murthy, Medical Officer, Sai Rathna Multi Specialty

Hospital,Ananthapuramu,LW.10/G.Naganna,and

LW.11/P.Krishnamurthy, the then Sub-Inspectors of Police Kundurpi

Police Station respectively as no purpose would be served if they will

JMFC, KLD., Page 6 of 12 CC No.224 of 2022.

be examined on behalf of the prosecution. As there is no incriminating evidence appeared against A1 to A3 in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and the learned counsel for A1 to A3. Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 to A3 or

the offences charged under Sections 498-A, 354, 506, 324 and

326 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT:

The gravamen of the allegations against A1 to A3 is that, about one year back PW.1 and PW.3 performed the marriage of PW.2 with A1.

Since the date of marriage, A1 to A3 started to harass PW.2 both physically and mentally. Then, PW.2 informed the same to her parents. Finally, on 02.05.2020 at about 5.00 pm., PW1 and PW.3 went to PW.2’s house to see her by the time, A1 was quarreling with her, forcibly caught hold her neck and kicked with legs and the same was witnessed by PW1 and PW3, when PW.1 questioned A1 and came across to him to save her daughter, for which A1 grew wild on

PW.1 and abused her and her daughter in vulgar language and also threatened them by stating that “నిన్ను� నీ కూతురు ఇద్ద�రినీ కొట్టి� చం�పినా ఎవడు వచ్చి� ఆపగలడు and caught hold tuft of PW.1, dragged her and outraged” her modesty in public and also beat her with hands, as a result she sustained swelling injuries on her right shoulder. On noticing the same,

PW.3 went to rescue PW.1 and PW.2 and that A2 and A3 were

JMFC, KLD., Page 7 of 12 CC No.224 of 2022.

present there, among them A2 beat PW.3 with a stone on his head and caused severe bleeding injury. Then, A1 went into the house and took an axe and beat PW.3 on his head with reverse of axe and caused severe bleeding injury to PW.3. Per contra, the case of defence is total denial. Hence, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case against A1 to A3 all reasonable doubt.

11.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and placed reliance on Exhibits P.1 to P.5.

12.The first witness of the prosecution - PW.1, who set the criminal law into motion, deposes that at about three years back, marriage of her daughter/PW.2 has been performed with A1 as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community at her house situated at

Bestharapalli village. At the time of marriage, customary presentations were presented to PW.2 and A1. After the marriage, A1 and PW.2 lived happily for a period of three months. Thereafter, some domestic disputes arose in between them. To solve the misunderstandings between her daughter and son-in-law, she along with PW.3 went to village elders and that village elders advice them to approach the police. Then, they approached the Kundurpi police, there the police obtained her signature on some written papers. But, she does not know the contents of those written papers in which she affixed her signatures. Except that she does not know anything about the facts of the case. A1 to A3 never assaulted her and outraged her modesty and they never harassed PW.2, both physically and mentally to her knowledge. Now, PW.2 and A1 residing separately as per the orders of the Hon’ble Family Court, Ananthapuramu.

13.On coming to the evidence of PW.2 who is victim in this case deposed

JMFC, KLD., Page 8 of 12 CC No.224 of 2022.

that on 30.05.2019 her marriage has been performed with A1 as per

Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community and marriage was performed at her house. At the time of marriage, customary presentations were presented to her and her husband/A1. After her marriage, herself and her husband lived happily for a period of six months. Thereafter, some domestic disputes arose in between herself and her husband. To solve the misunderstandings between them, her parents went to village elders, the village elders advise them to approach the police. Thereafter, they approached the Kundurpi Police

Station, there police obtained her mother/PW.1’s signature on some written papers. Except that she does not know anything about the facts of the case. A1 to A3 never assaulted her mother and outraged her modesty and they never harassed her, both physically and mentally.

Now, herself and A1 residing separately as per the orders of the

Hon’ble Family Court, Ananthapuramu. She was not examined by the

police. PWs.3 and 4, who are father and paternal uncle of PW.2 respectively and their evidence also goes in the same line as PW.1.

Since the PWs.1 to 4 who are said to be the material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor cross-examined them with the permission of the Court, but nothing could be elicited from their evidence except marking of their Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements as Exhibits P.2 to

P.5. Since the Exhibits P.2 to P.5 statements are meant for only to contradict its makers, this Court is of view that the same statements are of no avail to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

14.The legal provisions as to section 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860 are as follows:

“Section 498A: Husband or relative of husband of

a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

JMFC, KLD., Page 9 of 12 CC No.224 of 2022.

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"—

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

15.For the commission of an offence under Section 498-A, the prosecution shall prove following necessary ingredients beyond the reasonable doubts: 1) the woman victim must be married; 2) she must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and 3) such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by the husband of the victim woman or by the relative of her husband. The bare perusal of Section 498A Indian Penal Code points out that the word ‘cruelty’ covers the occurrence of the following acts: 1) any willful behaviour which might lead the victim woman to suicide or cause serious damage or danger to life, limb, or life; 2) the victim woman’s health (mental or physical); 3) the harassment of the victim woman in the event of such harassment, with a view to obliging her or any other person related to her to fulfill an illegal requirement for any property or valuable security. Thus, the main aim of the section 498-A of I.P.C is to shield the victim woman who is being abused by her husband or husband’s relatives. But, in the instant case nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW’s. 1 to 4 as

JMFC, KLD., Page 10 of 12 CC No.224 of 2022.

to fulfillment of the necessary ingredients of section 498A of Indian

Penal Code, 1860.

16.A perusal of the above legal provisions and evidence of PW’s 1 to 4, all the essential elements required for an offence under Section 498A, 354, 506, 324 and 326 r/w 34 of the IPC were not fulfilled in the present case as the material witnesses were turned hostile and complete silent about the commission of offence by A1 to A3. Further,

PW.2 and accused got mutual divorce and also living separately.

Furthermore, PW.2 categorically stated before the Court A1 to A3, who are being husband and in-laws respectively never harassed her and never threatened her at any point of time. Thus, it is clear that no incriminating evidence appears against A1 to A3 to bring home their guilt for the above said offences. Though the prosecution could examine and relied on the evidence of PW’s.1 to 4 and Exhibits P.1 to

P.5 to establish that A1 to A3 had committed the above said offences, but their evidence is of no avail, as they have categorically stated in their evidence that they do not know anything about the case facts.

Further, PWs’.1 to 4 denied that they stated before the police as in

Exhibits P.2 to P.5 i.e., the statements of PW.1 to PW.4 recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. On considering the Ex.P1-report given by PW.1, she deposed that on the advice of village elders they approached the Kundurpi Police Station, there by that time police have obtained her signatures on some written papers, but she does not know its contents and purpose of those written papers. The evidence on record is not at all sufficient to prove that A1 to A3 had committed the above said offences.

17.In view of my foregoing discussion, this Court is of view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against A1 to A3

JMFC, KLD., Page 11 of 12 CC No.224 of 2022.

for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354, 506, 324, 326 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby, they are entitled to clean acquittal on benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of A1 to A3 and against the prosecution.

18.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences charged under Sections 498-A, 354, 506, 324, 326 r/w 34 of IPC.

Accordingly, A1 to A3 are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 if any and their sureties executed earlier shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Section 437-

A of Cr.P.C in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 28.02.2025.

No property was produced in this case before the Court. Hence, no orders passed regarding property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 28 th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- MYAKAM RAMYA,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg, FACJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: B.V.Jayamma.-None- PW.2: B.V.Anitha. PW.3: B.V.Kamanna. PW.4: B.V.Sathyappa.

JMFC, KLD., Page 12 of 12 CC No.224 of 2022.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW.1 on report, dated 07.05.2020. - Nil- Ex.P.2: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P.4: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P.5: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/- MYAKAM RAMYA,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg, FACJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg. //True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg, FACJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

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

KALYANDURG.

Present: Ms.MYAKAM RAMYA,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg,

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

Friday, this the 28 th day of February, 2025.

Calendar in C.C.No. 224 of 2022.

(As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Criminal Trial

Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re. vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh ’ 1 )

FORM – A & B

ComplainantThe State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Kundurpi Police Station.

Represented byAssistant Public Prosecutor

AccusedA1-Boya Manjunath, aged 26 years, S/o Ramappa, A2-Boya Ramappa, aged 54 years, S/o Chennappa, A3-Boya Akkamma, aged 43 years, W/o Ramappa, All are R/o Bestharapalli village, Kundurpi Mandal.

Represented bySri D.Ravi Chandra, and Sri S.Muthyalappa,Advocates, Kalyandurg.

Nature of offenceSections 498-A, 354, 506, 324, 326 r/w 34 of IPC

Date of offence Prior to 07-05-2020

Date of F.I.R. 07-05-2020

Date of Charge Sheet 02-12-2021

Date of framing of Charges 10-01-2025

Date of commencement of 07-02-2025 evidence 1(2021) 10 SCC 598

Date of which Judgment is 21-02-2025 reserved

Date of the sentencing the 28-02-2025 orders if any

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty for the offences under Sections 498-A, 354, 506, 324, 326 r/w 34 of IPC.

Explanation for delayThis case is taken on file on 06.07.2022; on 17.02.2023 copies furnished to A1 to A3 and they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. on10.01.2025 and pleaded not guilty; on 07.02.2025 PWs1 to 4 are examined, Exs.P.1 to P.5 are marked and on 21.02.2025 heard arguments from both sides and on 28.02.2025, Judgment pronounced (Vide Separate Judgment). Hence the delay.

Sentence or Order :A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences charged under Sections 498-A, 354, 506, 324, 326 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, A1 to A3 are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 and their sureties executed earlier shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 28.02.2025. No property was produced in this case before the Court. Hence, no orders passed regarding property.

ACCUSED DETAILS

Rank ofName ofDate ofDate ofOffencWhetherSentencePeriod of AccusedAccusedarrestrelease oneAcquittedimposeddetention Bailchargorundergon edconvictede during withtrial for purpose of Section 428 Cr.P.C. A1Boya41-A---498-A,Acquitted-------- Manju nathCr.P.C.354, notice506, 326 of IPC A2Boya-do----498-A,-do------- Ramappa324 of IPC A3Boya-do-----498-A-do------- Akkammaof IPC

FORM - C

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

PROSECUTION

PW.1B.V.AkkammaDefacto-complainant-cum- injured

PW.2B.V.AnithaVictim-cum-injured

PW.3B.V.KamannaOne of the Injured

PW.4B.V.SathyappaSaid to be the direct eye witness

DEFENCE WITNESSES IF ANY

Nil

COURT WITNESSES IF ANY

Nil

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS

PROSECUTION

Sl.No.Exhibit No.Description 1Ex.P.1Signature of PW.1 on report, dated 07.05.2020.

2Ex.P.2161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1.

3Ex.P.3161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.

4Ex.P4161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.

5Ex.P5161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4.

DEFENCE EXHIBITS

Nil

COURT EXHIBITS

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Sl.No.MaterialObject Description Number

Nil

Sd/- MYAKAM RAMYA,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg, FACJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg. Copy Submitted to: The Hon`ble First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. //True copy//

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg. DIS.No.______, Dt.28-02-2025.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: KALYANDURG.

Present: Ms.MYAKAM RAMYA,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg,

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

Friday, this the 28 th day of February, 2025.

Calendar Case No. 1693 of 2022.

[Crime No.65 of 2021 of Kundurpi Police Station]

The State: represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kundurpi Police Station.… Complainant.

Vs.

1. B.V.Kamanna, aged 53 years Son of late Narasimhappa,

2. B.V.Jayamma, aged 45 years, Wife of B.V.Kamanna,

3. B.V.Anitha, aged 26 years, Daughter of Kamanna,

4. B.V.Prasad, aged 24 years, Son of B.V.Kamanna,

5. B.V.Nagendra, aged 48 years, Son of Narasimhappa,

6. Palyamgari Savitramma, aged 40 years, Wife of Nagendra,

7. P.Ashok, aged 28 years, Son of Nagendra,

8. Palammagari Naresh @ Naresh, aged 24 years, Son of Nagendra,

9. V.Nagabhushana, aged 40 years, Son of Narasimhappa, Resident of

Nandamuri Nagar, Ananthapuramu Town.

10. Mallamma, aged 45 years, Wife of Ramanjinappa,

11. Talari Lakshmidevi @ Lakshmamma, aged 40 years, Wife of Talari

Obulapathi,

A1 to 8, A10 and A11 are Residents of Bestharapalli village Kundurpi

Mandal.

...A1 to A11.

* * * * *

This case coming up on 21-02-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Ramakrishna, learned Assistant Public

JMFC, KLD. Page 2 of 9 CC No.1693 of 2022.

Prosecutor, Kalyandurg for Complainant and Sri T.Ramanjineyulu,

Advocate for the Accused Nos’.1 to 11 and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kundurpi Police Station filed a charge sheet against A1 to A11 in Crime No. 65 of 2021 of Kundurpi Police

Station, for the offence punishable under Section 324 and 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as IPC for the sake of brevity and connectivity) with the following allegations:

a) As per charge sheet contents, about one year ago

LW.1/PW.1/Boya Akkamma and LW.4/PW.3/Boya Ramappa performed the marriage of LW.5/PW.4/Boya Manjunath with A3, who is daughter of A1. After the marriage, due to ill-feelings PW.4 and A3 divided and living separately. In this matter, A3 preferred a complaint in Kundurpi Police Station against PW.1, PW.3 and

PW.4. On 09.06.2020 villagers while conducting panchayath and ordered to bring certificates of A3 from the house of PW.1. As per the orders of village elders PW.1, LW.2/PW.2/Obulamma and

LW.3/PW.5/Bharathi proceeded to their house, on the way at about 1.30 pm., they reached to in front of the house of

LW.7/B.T.Lingamurthy. In the meantime, A1 to A11 in view of previous ill-feelings kept on their minds, picked up quarrel with them and all are attacked them with stones and sticks. In the petty quarrel A2, A3 and A5 abused them in a filthy language and also

A7 to A9 were dragged PW.1 on the side. Further, A4 beat PW.1 with stick on her right side forehead and caused bleeding injury.

Onseeingthesame,LW.7/B.T.Lingamurthyand

LW.8/B.M.Obulapathi rushed to the spot and rescued them from

JMFC, KLD. Page 3 of 9 CC No.1693 of 2022.

the clutches of the accused. While attacking PW.2 and PW.5 sustained invisible injuries over their bodies. On observing the same PW.3, PW.4 and LW.6/Boya Chennakesavulu rushed to the spot and shifted PW.1 to Government Hospital, Kalyandurg, where

PW.1 rendered treatment for three days, on the advise of duty doctor, PW.1 shifted to Government Hospital, Ananthapuramu.

b) Basing on the complaint of PW.1, LW.10/P.Ganesh, the then Sub-

Inspector of Police of Kundurpi Police Station, registered a case in

Crime No.65 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined eight witnesses cited in the memo of evidence, inspected the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. During the course of further investigation, on 04.09.2021, 21.11.2021 and 18.01.2022 he served notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., upon A1, A3, A5, A7,

A8, A2, A4, A6 and A9 to A11 respectively with specific instructions to appear before the Court as and when their presence required. LW.9/Dr.Krishnaveni, Civil Assistant Surgeon,

Community Health Center, Kalyandurg, who rendered treatment to

PW.1 and issued wound certificate, opined that the injuries sustained by her are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, LW.11/P.Krishnamurthy, the then Sub-Inspector of

Police, Kundurpi Police Station has filed charge sheet alleging that all the accused have committed the offences punishable under

Sections 324, 509 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, the charge.

2. After filing of the charge sheet and connected documents thereon, on 04.11.2022 this Court took cognizance of the case for the offences punishable under Section 324, 509 r/w 34 IPC, against A1 to A11 and numbered the case as C.C.No. 1693 of 2022 and issued summons to them.

JMFC, KLD. Page 4 of 9 CC No.1693 of 2022.

3. After the appearance of A1 to A11, they were supplied with copies of case documents as mandated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. On 10.01.2025, A1 to A11 were examined under Section 239 of

Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against them in the charge sheet in Telugu and they denied commission of offence. As there is a ground to presume that they committed the offence, charges under

Section 324, 509 r/w 34 was framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW’s.1 to 5 out of eleven listed witnesses and got marked Exhibit P.1 to P.6. PW.1 is the defacto- complainant-cum-victim-injured; PW.2 to PW.5 are stated to be direct eye witnesses-cum-daughter, mother, son and husband of PW.1 respectively.

Exhibit P.1 is the signature of PW.1 on report, dated 24.03.2021. Exhibits

P.2 to P.6 are statements of PW’s.1 to PW.5 recorded under Section 161(3)

Cr.P.C. respectively.

6. As material witness PW.1 as well as her daughter, mother, son and husband/stated to be the direct eye witnesses PWs’2 to 5 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses cited in the memo of evidence i.e., LW.6/Boya

Chennakesavulu, LW.7/B.T.Lingamurthy, LW.8/B.M.Obulapathi,

LW.9/Dr.Krishnaveni, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health

Center, Kalyandurg, LW.10/P.Ganesh, and LW.11/P.Krishnamurthy, the then Sub-Inspectors of Police, Kundurpi Police Station respectively as no purpose would be served if they will be examined on behalf of the prosecution.

JMFC, KLD. Page 5 of 9 CC No.1693 of 2022.

7. As there is no incriminating evidence appeared against A1 to A11 in the evidence of PW’s.1 to 5, their examination under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 to A11

or the offence charged under Sections 324, 509 r/w 34 of IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT:

The gravamen of the allegations against A1 to A11 are that about one year ago, PW.1 and PW.3 performed the marriage of PW.4 with A3, who is daughter of A1. Due to ill-feelings cropped among them after the marriage, PW.4 and A3 divided and living separately. In this connection, A3 preferred a complaint before the Kundurpi Police

Station against PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4. On 09.06.2020 villagers while conducting panchayath and ordered to bring certificates of A3 from the house of PW.1. Then, PW.1, PW.2 and PW.5 proceeded to bring those certificates from their house on the way at about 1.30 pm., in front of the house of LW.7/B.T.Lingamurthy, A1 to A11 formed into a group and attacked them with stones and sticks in view of previous ill- feelings and caused bleeding injury to PW.1. On noticing the same,

LW.7/B.T.Lingamurthy and LW.8/B.M.Obulapathi and others rushed to the scene of offence and rescued them from the clutches of A1 to A11.

On the other hand, the case of defence is total denial. Hence, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case against A1 to A11 beyond all reasonable doubt.

JMFC, KLD. Page 6 of 9 CC No.1693 of 2022.

11. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW’s.1 to 5 and placed reliance on Exhibits P.1 to P.6 respectively.

12. The first witness for prosecution i.e., PW.1 is the defacto-complainant- cum-victim, who set the criminal law into motion, deposes in her evidence that in the year, 2021 on one day in her village nearly 15 – 20 persons gathered and pelting stones against each other by quarreling. Then, she along with PW.2 and LW.6/B.Chennakesavulu went there to see the same at that time one of the stone hit on her forehead in the result, she received some simple injury and that she went to take treatment at Government hospital. At that time, the police came there and obtained her signatures on some written papers. She does not know the contents of those written papers on which the police have obtained her signatures and purpose of it and police did not examine her. A1 to A11 never injured her. Except that she does anything about the facts of the case. Though she denies her own statement recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. by the police under

Ex.P2. On perusal of the evidence of PW’s.2 to 5, who are stated to be the direct eye witnesses to the occurrence of incident, they deposed that in the year, 2021 on one day in their village nearly 15 – 20 persons gathered and pelting stones against each other by quarreling. Then, they along with PW.1, PW.2 and

LW.6/Chennakesavulu went there to see the same at that time one of the stone hit on PW.1’s forehead. They do not witness any incident at any point of time, to their knowledge A1 to A11 never beat PW.1 and they never caused any injuries to her. They were not examined by the police. Even they did not rescued PW.1 from the clutches of the accused. Except, those details they did not know anything about the facts of the instant case.

13. As PW’s. 1 to 5 did not support the prosecution version, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has declared them as hostile and cross-

JMFC, KLD. Page 7 of 9 CC No.1693 of 2022.

examined them with the permission of the Court. PW’s. 1 to 5 denies that they stated before the police as in Exhibits P2 to P6 i.e., the statements of PW’s.1 to PW.5 recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.

Nothing was elicited by the prosecution, which helps it to prove the material allegations leveled against A1 to A11, in order to bring home the guilt of A1 to A11 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 509 r/w 34 of IPC. Since the material witnesses including the victim (PW.1) turned hostile, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

14. The PW.1 who is said to be the defacto-complainant-cum-victim did not support the case of prosecution as already stated above. The prosecution also examined daughter, husband, son and mother of

PW.1, who are the stated to be direct eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident, but they too turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case as stated supra. On the other hand, as per Exhibits

P.2 to P.6, PW.2 to PW.5 are present at that time, but they do not intervened or rescued PW.1, further they too turned hostile. Since the

PWs.1 to 5 are turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross-examined them with the permission of the Court, but nothing could be elicited from their evidence except marking of their statements recorded under

Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. as Exhibits P.2 to P.6. Even, PW.1 denied her own statement recorded by the police. Since the Exhibits P.2 to P.6 statements are meant for only to contradict its makers, this Court is of view the same statements are of no avail to the prosecution.

15. In such facts and circumstances, the Court finds no incriminating material to hold that PW.1 and PW.3 performed the marriage of PW.4 with A3. After the marriage, due to ill-feelings they divided and living separately. In the connection, A3 preferred a complaint against PW.1,

PW.3 and PW.4 before the Kundurpi Police Station and that A1 to A11

JMFC, KLD. Page 8 of 9 CC No.1693 of 2022.

keeping in mind previous ill-feelings on 09.06.2020 while conducting panchayath in the presence of village elders at about 1.30 pm., while

PW.1, PW.2 and PW.5 proceeded by walk to bring the certificates of

A3 from their house when they reached near LW.7/B.T.Lingamurthy’s house situated at Bestharapalli village, A1 to A11 in furtherance of common intention attacked with stones and sticks and caused bleeding injury to PW.1. In other words, the prosecution utterly failed to establish the guilt of A1 to A11 for the offence punishable under

Section 324, 509 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, points are answered against the prosecution.

16. In the result, A1 to A11 found not guilty for the offences charged under Sections 324, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

a) Accordingly, A1 to A11 are acquitted under Section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

b) The bail bonds of A1 to A11 and their sureties executed earlier shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of this

Court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 28.02.2025.

c) No property was produced in this case before the Court. Hence, no orders passed regarding property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 28 th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- MYAKAM RAMYA,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg, FACJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

JMFC, KLD. Page 9 of 9 CC No.1693 of 2022.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: Boya Akkamma. -None-

PW.2: Boya Obulamma.

PW.3: Boya Ramappa.

PW.4: Boya Manjunath.

PW.5: B.Bharathi.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW.1 on report, dated 24.03.2021.- Nil-

Ex.P.2: 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.1.

Ex.P.3: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.2.

Ex.P.4: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.3.

Ex.P.5: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.4.

Ex.P.6: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/- MYAKAM RAMYA,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg, FACJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg, FACJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

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

KALYANDURG.

Present: Ms.MYAKAM RAMYA,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg,

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg.

Friday, this the 28 th day of February, 2025.

Calendar in C.C.No. 1693 of 2022.

(As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Criminal Trial

Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re. vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh ’ 1 )

FORM – A & B

ComplainantThe State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Kundurpi Police Station.

Represented byAssistant Public Prosecutor

Accused1. B.V.Kamanna, aged 53 years, S/o late Narasimhappa,

2. B.V.Jayamma, aged 45 years, W/o B.V.Kamanna,

3. B.V.Anitha, aged 26 years, D/o Kamanna,

4. B.V.Prasad, aged 24 years, S/o B.K.Manna,

5. B.V.Nagendra, aged 48 years, S/o Narasimhappa,

6. Palyamgari Savitramma, aged 40 years, W/o Nagendra,

7. P.Ashok, aged 28 years, S/o Nagendra,

8. PalammagariNaresh@ Naresh, aged 24 years, S/o Nagendra,

9. V.Nagabhushana, aged 40 years, S/o Narasimhappa, R/o NandamuriNagar, 1(2021) 10 SCC 598

Anantapuramu Town.

10.Mallamma, aged 45 years, W/o Ramanjinappa,

11.TalariLakshmidevi@ Lakshmamma, aged 40 years, W/o Talari Obulapathi, A1 to A8, A10 & A11 are Residents of Bestharapalli Village, Kundurpi Mandal.

Represented bySri T.Ramanjineyulu, Advocate, Kalyandurg.

Nature of offenceSection 324m 509 r/w 34 of IPC

Date of offence 09-06-2020

Date of F.I.R. 24-03-2021

Date of Charge Sheet 04-11-2022

Date of framing of Charges 10-01-2025

Date of commencement of 07-02-2025 evidence

Date of which Judgment is 21-02-2025 reserved

Date of the sentencing the 28-02-2025 orders if any

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty for the offence under Sections 324, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

Explanation for delayThis case is taken on file on 04.11.2022; on 10.01.2025 copies furnished to the accused; on the same day they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and they were pleaded not guilty; on 07.02.2025 PWs1 to 5 are examined, Exs.P.1 to P.6 are marked and on 21.02.2025 heard arguments from both sides and on 28.02.2025, Judgment pronounced (Vide Separate Judgment). Hence the delay.

Sentence or Order :A1 to A11 found not guilty for the offence charged under Section 324, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

a) Accordingly, A1 to A11 are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

b) The bail bonds of A1 to A11 and their sureties executed earlier shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 28.02.2025.

c) No property was produced in this case before the Court. Hence, no orders passed regarding property.

ACCUSED DETAILS

Rank ofName ofDate ofDate ofOffencWhetherSentencePeriod of AccusedAccusedarrestrelease oneAcquittedimposeddetention Bailchargorundergon edconvictede during withtrial for purpose of Section 428 Cr.P.C. A1B.V.41-A---324,Acquitted-------- KamannaCr.P.C.509 noticer/w 34 of IPC A2B.V. -do-----do--do---------

Jayamma A3B.V. Anitha-do-----do--do--------- A4B.V. Prasad-do-----do--do--------- A5B.V. -do-----do--do--------- Nagendra A6P.Savitram-do-----do--do--------- ma A7P.Ashok-do-----do--do--------- A8P.Naresh -do-----do--do--------- @ Naresh A9V.Nagebhu-do-----do--do--------- shana A10Mallamma-do-----do--do--------- A11Talari -do-----do--do--------- Lakshmidev i @ Lakshmam ma

FORM - C

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

PROSECUTION

PW.1Boya AkkammaDefacto-complainant-cum- victim

PW.2Boya ObulammaStated to be direct eye witness

PW.3Boya RamappaStated to be direct eye witness

PW.4Boya ManjunathaStated to be direct eye witness

PW.5B.BharathiStated to be direct eye witness

DEFENCE WITNESSES IF ANY

Nil

COURT WITNESSES IF ANY

Nil

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS

PROSECUTION

Sl.No.Exhibit No.Description 1Ex.P.1Signature of PW.1 on report, dated 24.03.2021.

2Ex.P.2161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1.

3Ex.P.3161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.

4Ex.P.4161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.

5Ex.P.5161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4.

6Ex.P.6161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5.

DEFENCE EXHIBITS

Nil

COURT EXHIBITS

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Sl.No.MaterialObject Description

Number

Nil

Sd/- MYAKAM RAMYA,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg, FACJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg. Copy Submitted to: The Hon`ble First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. //True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg, FACJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg. DIS.No. , Dt.28-02-2025.

APAN150002052021

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) :: RAYADURG.

Present: Smt.MYAKAM RAMYA,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rayadurg.

Friday, this the 12 th day of DECEMBER, 2025.

O riginal S uit No. 82 of 2021

Between:

Besta Marri Swamy, S/o. Late Bestha Chinna Thippayya, Aged about 70 years, Hindu, Fisherman-cum-Cultivation, R/at Kalekurthi Village and Post, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

...Plaintiff.

And

R.Adhisesha, S/o.Racharla Venkata Swamy, Aged about 48 years, Hindu, Business and Landlord, R/o D.No.3-219, Ram Nagar, Kanekal Village, Post and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

...Defendant.

* * * * *

This suit came up on 10-12-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.Nagaraju, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri

P.Subramanyam Sastry, Advocate for the defendant and having stood over till this day for consideration. Upon perusing the material papers on the record and after hearing arguments, this Court delivered 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 a sum of 2,29,800/- ₹(Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand and

Eight Hundred Only) being the principal and interest due under suit

Page 2 of 10

O.S.No. 82 of 2021, Date of institution:29.04.2021.

Civil Judge(Jr.Divn), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 12.12.2025

promissory note, dated 10.02.2019 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for ₹ 1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and

Fifty Thousand Only) agreeing to repay the same with interest of 24% per annum and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant approached the plaintiff on 10.02.2019 and borrowed a sum of 1,50,000/- ₹(Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) in cash from the plaintiff for his financial necessities at Kalekurthi Village of

Kanekal Mandal and on the same day itself, he has executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff for 1,50,000/-₹(Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to its order on demand. In spite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid neither interest nor principal amount to the plaintiff due under the suit promissory note and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Contrary the defendant filed a false case i.e. I.P.No.56 of 2019 on the file of Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu against the plaintiff and others and it is pending enquiry. The entire principal amount and the interest under the above promissory note is due. The defendant is doing business and a landlord and so he is not entitled to the benefits of any of the agricultural debt relief laws and he has to pay the interest at the contract rate. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the above suit for the recovery of suit amount from the defendant due under the suit promissory note with subsequent interest and costs.

3. The defendant has filed written statement by denying all the allegations made in the plaint and contended that the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff particularly the said suit promissory amount.

Further, contended that the alleged cause of action is motive and no

Page 3 of 10

O.S.No. 82 of 2021, Date of institution:29.04.2021.

Civil Judge(Jr.Divn), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 12.12.2025

such cause of action is arisen and the value is false and that court fee paid also wrong. The defendant is a business man and he is doing rice business by purchasing from the farmers and selling to the business persons. Like that the defendant also purchases rice from the plaintiff and he is also a farmer and resale the same to business men. The defendant is due only an amount of rice cost as mentioned in the

I.P.No.58 of 2016. The alleged pronote is not executed by the defendant it is forged one and the plaintiff suppressed the facts of the case and filed this suit with the support of forged promissory note and played fraud on court and filed this suit. Hence, the suit may be liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. On considering the submissions of both sides and basing upon the pleadings, written statement, documents and entire records, the then

Presiding Officer the following issues were settled on 10.11.2022:

i.Whether the suit promissory note dated 10.02.2019 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

ii.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount?

iii.To what relief?

5. In order to prove his claim, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got exhibited Original suit promissory note dated 10.02.2019 for ₹1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff as Exhibit A.1.

6. The learned counsel for the defendant reported that no defendant’s side evidence. Hence, defendant’s side evidence is closed.

7. On the other hand, in spite of several opportunities and sufficient time have been granted by this Court, the defendant has not adduced any evidence on his behalf. Hence, defendant’s side evidence is closed by this Court.

Page 4 of 10

O.S.No. 82 of 2021, Date of institution:29.04.2021.

Civil Judge(Jr.Divn), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 12.12.2025

8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence establishes that the defendant has borrowed 1,50,000/-₹(Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note under Exhibit A.1. In spite of his repeated oral demands, the defendant did not choose to discharge the debt covered under the suit promissory note and even he failed to disprove the same before the Court and therefore, the suit may be decreed with costs.

9.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff has forged the promissory note for wrongful gain and he never borrowed the amount from the plaintiff.

10.In view of these rival contentions, perused the entire material available on record.

11. ISSUE NO.I :

a) It is the contention of the plaintiff thatthe defendant has approached him and borrowed a sum of 1,50,000/-₹(Rupees One Lakh and Fifty

Thousand Only) on 10.02.2019 for his financial necessities and after receiving the said amount he executed Exhibit A.1 suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day itself agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In spite of his repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid either principal or interest towards Exhibit A.1 and postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Contrary, the defendant filed a false case in I.P.No.56 of 2019 on the file of Addl.Senior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu and it is pending enquiry and the plaintiff also filed

I.A.No.141 of 2021 in O.S.No.82 of 2021 for attachment before

Judgment of the petition schedule mentioned propertyand so, the

Page 5 of 10

O.S.No. 82 of 2021, Date of institution:29.04.2021.

Civil Judge(Jr.Divn), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 12.12.2025

defendant is liable to pay the suit amount together with interest.

Whereas the defendant denied the debt transaction in the written statement and also took plea that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he never executed suit promissory note. The plaintiff forged the suit promissory and filed unjust suit against him for wrongful gain.

b) Indisputably, the suit document i.e., Exhibit A.1 suit promissory note is

Negotiable Instrument. In a suit for recovery of amount based on the promissory note, which is the Negotiable Instrument, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of suit promissory note by defendant in the circumstances pleaded by him. In the instant case, to discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff got examined himself as

P.W.1. The oral testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Exhibit A.1 suit promissory note, his evidence goes to show that the defendant has approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of 1,50,000/-₹ (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) from him on 10.02.2019 for his financial necessities and after receiving the said amount, the defendant executed Exhibit A.1 promissory note in his favour by agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to P.W.1 or to his order on demand and later in spite of his repeated oral demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the debt amount covered under Ex.A1 and he intentionally evading to pay the suit amount even he is having capacity to discharge the debt due under Exhibit A.1-promissory note and so, the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount with subsequent interest.

c) During his cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that he filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of money. He further deposed that he know the defendant is as paddy business man and purchased the paddy from him. The defendant used to purchase paddy from many

Page 6 of 10

O.S.No. 82 of 2021, Date of institution:29.04.2021.

Civil Judge(Jr.Divn), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 12.12.2025

farmers and losses occurred to him. He further deposed that the transaction regarding Ex.A1 is about the purchase of paddy by defendant, but he did not lent any cash. Instead of cash, he given

Ex.A1 in his favour. The defendant has filed insolvency proceedings

before the Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ananthapuramu in

I.P.No.56 of 2019 and he also received notices in the said I.P. The defendant after selling all his properties paid off all the debts proportionately, he also ready to pay money to him but he did not receive said money. He further deposed that the defendant has leave the village and went to some other place and he does not know whether the defendant has any assets anywhere. Nothing was elicited from cross-examination of P.W.1 to prove that the Ex.A1 was forged.

Whenever the execution of a negotiable instrument is admitted or proved, Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play which reads as follows:

SECTION 118: PRESUMPTIONS AS TO NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS: Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:

(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;

(b) as to date — that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;

(c) as to time of acceptance — that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity;

(d) as to time of transfer — that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity;

(e) as to order of indorsements — that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon;

(f) as to stamps — that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped;

(g) that holder is a holder in due course — that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course:

Page 7 of 10

O.S.No. 82 of 2021, Date of institution:29.04.2021.

Civil Judge(Jr.Divn), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 12.12.2025

Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.

d) Thus, Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act enables the

Court to presume that such negotiable instrument was supported with consideration. However, such presumption is rebuttable one. The defendant can rebut such presumption either by adducing evidence or by eliciting untruthfulness in the evidence adduced by the plaintiff by way of cross-examining the witnesses of plaintiff. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 to support the version of the defendant.

e) Now it has to be seen as to whether the defendant is able to rebut the said presumption by proving that the suit promissory note is a forged or fabricated one. Except taking such plea, he failed to elicit any dissimilarity in the disputed signatures and hand writings on the suit promissory note and his admitted signatures and hand writings, from the evidence of PW.1. As adverted above, the evidence of PW.1, is found to be unshaken, in all the material aspects regarding the debt transaction and execution of Ex.A1-promissory note by the defendant.

Moreover, the defendant even failed to take steps to send suit promissory note along with his specimen and admitted signatures and hand writings to expert, in order to prove his plea. Since, neither parties took such steps for sending the suit promissory note for expert opinion, the Court is compelled to compare these signatures under the ample power of Section 73 of the Evidence Act. On keen perusal and comparison of all the admitted signatures of the defendant with the disputed signatures in the suit promissory note under the said ample power, this court finds no dissimilarities in those signatures and

Page 8 of 10

O.S.No. 82 of 2021, Date of institution:29.04.2021.

Civil Judge(Jr.Divn), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 12.12.2025

all those signatures appear to be similar to the naked eye. So, the contention of the defendant that the suit promissory note is a forged document, is found to be untenable.

f) As the defendant himself agreed in his written statement that he due only an amount of rice cost to the plaintiff. But, the defendant has not adduced any evidence to show that he is only in due of rice cost but not the amount under Ex.A1

g) In addition to these aspects, it is not the stand of the defendant that the plaintiff is utter stranger to him. Thus, the possibility of debt transaction between them cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the defendant did not adduce evidence to prove any of his contentions.

Thus, the court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendant that he took the false contentions, to evade repayment of debt due under the suit promissory note. So, viewed from any angle, the court holds that the defendant failed to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff or to prove his plea of forgery. In such circumstances, the court is unable to accept the defence of the defendant as probable one.

h) For the foregoing reasons, as the defendant failed to rebut the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintiff with the evidence adduced by him, has established that the defendant borrowed an amount of 1,50,000/-₹(Rupees One Lakh and

Fifty Thousand Only) and executed Ex.A1-promissory note in his favour and the same is supported with consideration. Hence, the

Court holds that the Ex. A1 suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Further, he did not even enter into witness box to prove his own contentions or atleast to deny the contentions of the plaintiff.

Page 9 of 10

O.S.No. 82 of 2021, Date of institution:29.04.2021.

Civil Judge(Jr.Divn), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 12.12.2025

i)As per the decision reported in 1999 (3) ALT (1) S.C. Between

Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and another: Wherein it is held that “Presumption U/s.114 of Evidence Act, has to be drawn against the party who did not enter into witness box that what he pleads is not correct”.

j) As per the above decision when a party did not adduce any evidence on his behalf in order to substantiate his contentions those cannot be considered. In this case also, the defendant filed written statement contended that he never borrowed money from the plaintiff and never executed suit promissory note, the plaintiff forged and fabricated the suit promissory note and filed the present unjust suit for his wrongful gain. But, the defendant did not substantiate his contentions by adducing evidence on his behalf or taken any steps to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff. Hence, the contentions of the defendant cannot be considered. On the other hand, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW.1 and proved that the suit promissory note is true valid and supported by consideration and hence the plaintiff proved his case against the defendant as his evidence was unchallenged.

Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

12.ISSUE NO’S. II AND III :

In view of the discussion and findings in issue No.I, this Court holds that the defendant is liable to pay the debt amount under the suit promissory note. The suit is filed on 29.04.2021 i.e., within the period of limitation (three years). So, the Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, these issues are also answered in favour of the plaintiff.

Page 10 of 10

O.S.No. 82 of 2021, Date of institution:29.04.2021.

Civil Judge(Jr.Divn), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 12.12.2025

13.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff, directing the defendant to pay a sum of 2,29,800/-₹(Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty

Nine Thousand and Eight Hundred Only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit i.e., 29.04.2021 till the date of decree, with further interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of 1,50,₹000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) covered under suit promissory note.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12 thday of DECEMBER, 2025.

Sd/- MYAKAM RAMYA,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Rayadurg.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: B.Marri Swamy

FOR DEFENDANT:

None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Exhibit A.1: Original promissory note for 1,50,000/-₹(Rupees One Lakh  and Fifty Thousand Only), dated 10.02.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

FOR DEFENDANT:

- NIL -

S Sd/-M. RAMYA,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Rayadurg.

APAN150002292023

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

Present: Smt.MYAKAM RAMYA,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rayadurg.

Thursday, this the 2 nd day of APRIL, 2026

Original Suit No. 73 of 2023

Between:

The Karnataka Bank Limited, Bommanahal, Represented by its Branch Manager-cum-Authorized Officer, Sathish K.R.

...Plaintiff.

And

1)R.Jayaram Naik, S/o.R.Hanumanth Naik, D.No.1-27, Agriculturist, R.B.Vanka Village, Rayadurg Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

2)Sreenivasa Naik. S., S/o.Ramla Naik S., Deputy Executive Engineer, HNSS Sub Division, Near II Town Police Station, Sai Baba School, Guntakal, Ananthapuramu District.

...Defendants.

* * * * *

This suit came up on 25-03-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.S.Hari Krishna Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffbankand defendants remained ex-parte and having stood over till this day for consideration. Upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing learned counsel for plaintiff, this Court delivered the following:

Page 2 of 8

O.S.No. 73 of 2023, Date of institution:22.02.2023.

C.J.(Jr.Division), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 02.04.2026.

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

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants for recovery of 12,51,974₹/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Nine

Hundred and Seventy Four Only) with subsequent interest and for other appropriate reliefs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

a) The plaintiff is the Karnataka Bank Limited, Banking Company Limited registered under the Indian Companies Act with registered office at

Kankandly, Mahaveer Circle, Mangalore and a Branch Office among others at Bommanahal, Anantapuram District, Andhra Pradesh represented by its Branch Manager, who is authorized by General Power of Attorney to verify the pleadings and filing suits and execution petitions for recovery of the same.

b) The 1st defendant is the borrower and the 2nd defendant is the co- obligant. On 19.02.2013, the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff bank and made an application for the purpose of Agricultural Crop Production

Loan for 7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Only)₹. On the same day, the plaintiff’s bank sanctioned the said loan to the 1st defendant for which the defendants have agreed to repay the same with interest at 11.25% per annum compounded subject to the directives, the defendants have executed composite agreement 987 letter i.e. Hypothecation, Demand promissory note, collection of amount, guarantee repayment letter and property description and other necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank under Exhibit A.2. Further, the defendants also executed some other documents along with the composite agreement 987 letter on the same day in favour of plaintiff bank. In pursuance of the above documents, the 1stdefendant has opened account vide

Page 3 of 8

O.S.No. 73 of 2023, Date of institution:22.02.2023.

C.J.(Jr.Division), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 02.04.2026.

A/c.No.0927000807835701 and the loan amount credited into the said loan account.

c) Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank, the 1st defendant did not repay the outstanding loan amount, except the amounts mentioned in the loan ledger extract, dated 19.01.2023. Both defendants executed the debt acknowledgment on 08.09.2015, 17.02.2018 and 15.12.2020. Then, the plaintiff bank got issued final recall notice, dated 21.10.2022 and legal notice issued on 19.01.2023.

But, the defendants failed to discharge the balance of the loan amount.

As per the account extract for the loan account bearing

No.0927000807835701 , the defendants have to pay the outstanding loan amount of 12,51,974₹/-(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty One Thousand

Nine Hundred and Seventy Four Only) as on 31.03.2022 .Hence, the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the instant suit for recovery of outstanding loan amount along with interest at the rate of 11.25% per annum with subsequent future interest as per contract rate agreed by the defendants from the date of suit till the date of realization.

3. On the other hand, despite the service of summons on defendants, the defendants did not appear before the Court and they remained ex-parte to the suit proceedings on 19.08.2024 and 07.04.2025. Hence, posted for plaintiff’s evidence.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff bank, its Branch Manager representing the said bank was examined as P.W.1 and also got marked Exhibits A.1 to A.9.

5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff’s bank. Perused the entire material available on record.

Page 4 of 8

O.S.No. 73 of 2023, Date of institution:22.02.2023.

C.J.(Jr.Division), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 02.04.2026.

6. Now the point for consideration is that:

Whether the plaintiff’s bank is entitled for recovery of entire suit

amount from defendants as prayed for ?

7. POINT:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that 1st defendant being the original borrower and 2nd defendant being the co-obligant are liable to pay the outstanding loan amount of 12,51,974₹/-(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty

One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Four Only) as on the date of filing the suit with subsequent interest and costs. To substantiate the same, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank, who is representing the said bank is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A9.

Exhibit A.1 is the Sanction order, dated 19.02.2013. It disclose that the plaintiff bank has sanctioned loan of 7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs₹

Only) to the 1st defendant, dated 19.02.2013 agreeing to repay the said loan with interest at the rate of 11.25% per annum with specific terms and conditions and he further agreed that he has to repay the said loan within Five years/60 months. Exhibit A.2 is the Composite agreement 987 letter i.e. Hypothecation, demand promissory note, collection of amount, guarantee repayment letter and property description and other necessary documents. It disclose that 1st defendant has borrowed a sum of 7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) agreeing to repay the same₹ with interest at the rate of 11.25% per annum. Exhibit A.3 is the

General Power of Attorney, dated 18.02.2011. It disclose that the plaintiff is being working as Branch Manager authorized to file the suits, execution petitions on behalf of plaintiff’s bank. Exhibit A.4 is the plaintiff bank final recall notice, dated 21.10.2022. It disclose that the plaintiff bank calling upon the 1st defendant to repay the outstanding loan amount of 12,51,974₹/-(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Nine

Hundred and Seventy Four Only) together with interest within seven

Page 5 of 8

O.S.No. 73 of 2023, Date of institution:22.02.2023.

C.J.(Jr.Division), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 02.04.2026.

days from the date of receipt of final recall notice. Exhibit A.5 is the

Office copy of legal notice, dated 19.10.2023. It disclose that the plaintiff bank got issued legal notice calling the defendants to repay the with subsequent interest within a week from the date of receipt of said notice, failing which the plaintiff will be constrained to initiate necessary civil and criminal proceedings against the defendants. Exhibit A.6 is the Account extract, dated 19.01.2023 for the loan account No. 0927000807835701 stands in the name of 1st defendant issued by the plaintiff bank. It disclose that the 1st defendant has availed loan facility from the plaintiff bank and also made some payments towards said loan transaction and it also discloses that the remaining balance of amount of 12,51,974₹/- to be paid by the 1st defendant as on the date 31-05-2022. Exhibit A.7 to

A.9 Acknowledgment of debt dt.08.09.2015, 17.02.2018 and 15.12.2020 which disclose that he acknowledged the previous debt transaction.

9. On coming to the evidence of PW.1, he has filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as his chief-examination. The said chief-examination is nothing but just replica of his pleadings. It goes to shows that the plaintiff’s bank filed the above suit through the plaintiff/Branch Manager and he is authorized by General Power of Attorney to verify the pleadings to file the suit and execution petitions on behalf of plaintiff’s bank under

Exhibit A.3. His evidence further shows that on 19.02.2023 the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff bank for sanction of loan for the purpose of Agricultural Crop Production Loan and borrowed an amount of 7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) agreeing to repay the same₹ with interest at 11.25% per annum and the same was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank under Exhibit A.1 for which the 1st defendant has executed term loan agreement 987 letter and other necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank , 2nd defendant stood as co-obligant under Exhibit A.2. In pursuance of the above documents, the 1st defendant opened account

Page 6 of 8

O.S.No. 73 of 2023, Date of institution:22.02.2023.

C.J.(Jr.Division), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 02.04.2026.

and the loan amount credited into the loan account vide A/c

No.0927000807835701. Later, the defendants failed to repay the loan amount in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed by them.

Then, the plaintiff bank got issued final recall notice under Exhibit A.4.

Even after receipt of final notice, the defendants did not choose to repay the loan amount. Therefore, the plaintiff’s bank got issued legal notice under Exhibit A.5. His evidence further goes to show that in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff’s bank, including issuance of final recall notice and legal notice respectively, the defendants did not choose to repay the outstanding loan amount and so, they are liable to pay the outstanding loan as shown in the account statement under

Exhibit A.6 and hence, the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the instant suit for recovery of outstanding of 12,51,974₹/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs

Fifty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Four Only) with interest at the rate of contract i.e.,11.25% per annum along with future interest as on 31.03.2022. Further, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff’s bank remained unchallenged, as noticed above, the defendants remained ex-parte to the suit proceedings. .

10.Since the evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1 to

Ex.A9, clinchingly establishes the liability of the 1st defendant is original borrower and 2nd defendant is co-obligant under Ex.A1 and A2 to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff bank, is undisputed and unchallenged by the defendants, the Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. Further, the loan credit of 7,00,000/-₹ (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) into the account of 1st defendant for the purpose of agricultural crop production loan and also agreed to repay the loan amount within five years, as disclosed in Ex.A1-Sanction letter and Ex.A2-Composite agreement 987 letter i.e. Hypothecation and other necessary documents. The account extract (Ex.A6), which is maintained in the course of business

Page 7 of 8

O.S.No. 73 of 2023, Date of institution:22.02.2023.

C.J.(Jr.Division), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 02.04.2026.

transactions, also clearly discloses that the defendants have to pay the outstanding suit amount. Since the defendants did not pay the loan amount and did not even turn up to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff bank, regarding their liability, the Court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendants. Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintiff bank is able to establish that the suit documents relied upon by the plaintiff bank are true, valid and binding on the defendants and thus, the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendants. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

11. In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank, directing the defendants to pay a sum of 12,51,974₹/- (Rupees Twelve

Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Four Only) to the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit i.e.,22.02.2023 till the date of realization on principal amount of ₹7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2 nd day of APRIL, 2026. Sd/Sd/-M.RAMYA

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Rayadurg.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: P.W.1: Sathish K.R., Branch Manager.

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex-parte.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Exhibit A.1: Sanction letter, dated 19.02.2013. Exhibit A.2: Composite Agreement 987 letter i.e. Hypothecation and other necessary documents Exhibit A.3: General Power of Attorney dt.18.02.2011

Page 8 of 8

O.S.No. 73 of 2023, Date of institution:22.02.2023.

C.J.(Jr.Division), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 02.04.2026.

Exhibit A.4: Bank final recall notice dt.21.10.2022 Exhibit A.5: Office copy of legal notice dt.19.10.2023 Exhibit A.6: Account Extract, dated 19.01.2023. Exhibit A.7: Acknowledgment of debt dt.08.09.2015 Exhibit A.8: Acknowledgment of debt dt.17.02.2018 Exhibit A.9: Acknowledgment of debt dt.15.12.2020

FOR DEFENDANTS: - NIL -Sd/-M.RAMYA

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Rayadurg.