Sri N.Ramesh Naidu

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

SESSIONS CASE No. 235 of 2018

Complainant:State represented by it’s Inspector of Police, Markapur. Description of the Accused1.Gujjula Anjireddy, S/o. Late Chennaiah, aged 34 years, Amudalapalli Village, Podili Masndal, Prakasam District.

2.Mandadi Ramana Reddy, S/o.Pitchireddy, aged 42 years, Uppalapadu Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District. Charges:Section 304-II I.P.C and Section 181, 187 & 180 of M.V Act.

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty. Finding of the Court:Found not guilty. Sentence or Order:In the result, the duo accused are found not guilty of the charges indicted against them for the offences punishable under Sections 304-II of I.P.C and

Section 181, 187 and 180 of M.V Act as such they are acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The duo accused shall be required to execute bail bond for Rs.10,000/- together with two sureties for a like sum each within a week, undertaking to appear

before the Higher Court as and when such Court

issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition and such bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of

Cr.P.C. The interim custody of offending tipper bearing Registration No.AP 27 TY 9414 with it’s register owner is made absolute. The motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP27 AZ 9627 shall be returned to it’s register owner after cessation of appeal time.

DATE OF

Occurrence:11-05-2018 Complaint:11-05-2018 Committal Order:10-08-2018 Appearance :30-12-2021 Commencement of trial:07-11-2022 Closure of trial:24-03-2023 Sentence or Order:03-04-2023 2

Explanation for the delay:

The entire case record was received from the Hon'ble District & Sessions Judge's Court,

Ongole. Charges were framed against the duo accused on 30-12-2021 and summons were issued to the listed witnesses, fixing the schedule for trial. The evidence of prosecution commenced from 07-11-2022 and closed by 24-03-2023. The prosecution examined on it’s behalf PWs1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P20. On 07-03-2023 the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution, for which they denied and reported to have no evidence. Consequently, evidence of defence was closed. On 24-03-2023 heard arguments of Prosecution and defence. On 03-04- 2023 Judgment is pronounced. The delay in commencement of trial is mainly on account of out break of Covid-19 and non securing of prosecution witnesses, including official witnesses in a timely manner.

Sd/- N.R.N

Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur. Copies submitted to:-

1. The Hon’ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole Copies to:-

2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole

3. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole

4. The Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Markapur.

5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Markapur // True Copy //

A.S.J, Markapur 3

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present:- Sri N. Ramesh Naidu, Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur

Monday, this the Third day of April, 2023

SESSIONS CASE No. 235 of 2018

(P.R.C.No.26/2018 of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Markapur in Cr.No.39/2018 of Peddaraveedu Police Station)

State: represented by it’s Inspector of Police, Markapur Circle.

..Complainant

Vs

1. Gujjula Anjireddy, S/o. Late Chennaiah, aged 34 years, Amudalapalli Village, Podili Masndal, Prakasam District.

2. Mandadi Ramana Reddy, S/o.Pitchireddy, aged 42 years, Uppalapadu Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District.

...Accused

This Sessions Case coming up before me on the 24th day of March, 2023 for arguments in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/ Complainant and of Sri K. L. Raju,

Advocate for the duo accused and on perusal of the material on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this

Court, delivered the following:-

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

1.The State represented by it’s Inspector of Police of Markapur Circle has laid down charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-II I.P.C and Sections 181, 187 & 180 of M.V Act.

2.The quintessence of prosecution case is that on 11-05-2018 at 09.00 P.M one Venna

Venkateswara Reddy, hereinafter referred to as the informant, has lodged a report with the then Head Constable of Peddaraveedu P.S by name I.V. Srinivasa Rao, complaining inter alia that on 11-05-2018 at about 6.30 P.M the first accused while driving the offending tipper bearing Registration No.AP27 TY 9414 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the bike of deceased/Venna Srinivasa Reddy bearing

Registration No.AP27AZ 9627 that claimed his precious life, which report being 4 disclosing cognizable offences, a case in Cr.No.39/2018 of Peddaraveedu Police Station came to be registered for the offences punishable under section 304-II of IPC and 187 of

M.V Act, transmitted the F.I.R to the Jurisdictional Magistrate and took up investigation, secured mediators with whom visited the scene of offence, drafted scene observation report, drew rough sketch of crime scene, shot photographs of crime scene from various angles, seized the offending lorry, shifted it to the Police Station for M.V.I Inspection, shifted the corpse of deceased to the Government Area Hospital of Markapur, where hold inquest and then forwarded the corpse of deceased to the Medical Officer for autopsy, examined and recorded the statements of informant and witnesses viz. Venna

Venkateswara Reddy, Venna Chinna Galaiah, Vennna Venkata Lakshmamma, Gayam

Galemma, Venna Nagi Reddy, Janke Krishnareddy, Duggempudi Jayaramireddy and

Yeruva Anjeneyareddy, that on 20-05-2018 the brother of first accused provided the driving license of first accused and on verification the first accused was found not holding effective license to drive heavy vehicles like tippers. Therefore, section of Law has been altered from 304-A IPC and Section 187 of M.V Act to 304-II of IPC and

Sections 181 and 187 of M.V Act. The further investigation has been handed over to the then Inspector of Police/M. Bheemanaik, who examined and recorded the statements of

Gayam Allurireddy, Yeruva Srinivasa Reddy, Gopaluni Nagasundara Narahari and

Yeruva Peddireddy. During the course of investigation, on 21.05.2018 A1 was surrendered before and on such surrender he was remanded to Judicial Custody. The second accused being the owner of offending lorry has handed over offending lorry to A1 fully aware of not having a valid driving license to drive heavy motor vehicles was charged for the offences punishable under sections 180 of M.V Act. Notice under section 41-A of Cr.P.C was served on A2, seized original R.C, permit and insurance papers of offending vehicle, collected autopsy report of deceased/Venna Srinivasa Reddy, who died of hemorrhagic shock followed by polytroma and head injury, collected accident report 5 from M.V.I, who opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the offending vehicle and after completion of investigation laid down chargesheet.

3.The Learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, having taken cognizance of the offences, punishable under Sections 304-II I.P.C and Sections 181, 187 & 180 of

M.V Act has registered the crime as Preliminary Registered Case in P.R.C No.26/2018 and committed the case to the Sessions Court, Sessions Division of Ongole, where from it was made over to this (Assistant Sessions Judge's) Court of Markapur and registered as

Sessions Case No.235 of 2018.

4.The duo accused, pursuant to summons have appeared before the Court, reported means to defend them in the course of trial as such charges under sections 304-II I.P.C and

Sections 181, 187 & 180 of M.V Act have been framed, read over and explained to them in their regional dialect, whereupon they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and that therefore they were put on their trial.

5.The theory of defence is one of total denial.

6.During the course of trial, PWs1 to 13 have been examined for the prosecution and got marked on it's behalf Exs.P1 to P20.

7.Thereafter, the duo accused have been examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution, who having heard, denied the incriminating evidence and reported to have no defence evidence, resulting closure of defence evidence and heard arguments of prosecution and defence.

8.Now the points that arise for determination in the sessions case on hand are:-

1. Whether on 11-05-2018 at about 6..30 P.M the first accused while driving the offending lorry bearing Registration No.AP27 TY 9414 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed mowed down the deceased who was riding bike bearing Registration No.AP27 AZ 9627?

6

2. Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of accused beyond a shadow of doubt?

9.Points 1 & 2: The specific case of Prosecution is that on 11-05-2018 at about 6.30 P.M the first accused while driving the offending tipper bearing Registration No.AP27 TY 9414 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the bike of deceased/

Venna Srinivasa Reddy bearing Registration No.AP27AZ 9627 that claimed his precious life. Whereas, the duo accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. The burden of proof therefore rests upon the shoulders of prosecution to bring home the guilt of duo accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

10.The prosecution, so as to sustain it’s charges leveled against the first accused has examined the elder brother of deceased by name Venna Venkateswarareddy as PW1; the father of deceased by name Venna Chinna Galaiah as PW2; another elder brother of deceased by name Venna Nagireddy as PW3 and one of the villagers of deceased by name Y. Anjaneyareddy as PW4, all of whom have although deposed that the deceased /

Venna Srinivasa Reddy died about five years ago, they deposed to have no knowledge about the cause of death of deceased.

11. Thus, PWs1 to 4, who are the kith and kin of deceased did not caste any aspirations against the first accused, rather they have exonerated the first accused from his culpable driving of offending tipper. The learned APP, representing the state has although declared

PWs1 to 4 hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the Court, suggesting them to have been won over by the first accused after effecting compromise with them, nothing substantial that establishes charges against the first accused have been elicited barring suggestions of guilty driving, resulting accident that claimed the precious life of deceased. Thus, the evidence of PWs1 to 4 does not suffice to bring home the guilty driving of first accused.

7

12. The prosecution has examined one G. Nagasundara Narahari, a photographer as PW5, who deposed to have shot photographs covering the scene of offence and dead body of deceased, which evidence remained unchallenged.

13.The Prosecution has examined the owner of victim's bike by name Yeruva Peddireddy as

PW6, who deposed that although he was the owner of victim bike which met with an accident, he stated to have not hand over the victim bike to the deceased.

14. The Prosecution has examined one of the mediators for the scene observation report and inquest of deceased by name Yeruva Venkateswara Reddy as PW7, who denied to have ever acted as a mediator for the scene observation report and inquest report. The

Prosecution, except declaring him as hostile has failed to elicit from him any favourable circumstances to prove him acting mediator for the scene observation report and inquest report as such his evidence is thrown over board.

15. The Prosecution has examined Y. Bhaskar Rao, V.R.O as PW8, who deposed that on 28- 07-2019 in beween 4.00 P.M and 4.30 P.M he rushed to the spot of accident under the instructions of S.I and in his presence the S.I shot photographs of crime scene, drew it’s rough sketch and prepared scene observation report. That on the next day he stood as a witness for the inquest hold over the corpus of deceased.

16.PW8 was subjected to cross examination. PW8, during the course of his cross examination testified to have not received any written summons from the police to act as a mediator for the Scene Observation Report and Inquest report. The contention of defence is that the evidence of PW8 is not reliable because no summons are served on him. But the contention of defence does not hold much water for the reason that PW8 disclosed what all the actions of S.I and his personnel at the scene of accident and which narration cannot be possible to any other witness other than a witness for the Scene

Observation Report and Inquest. What is not disputed is that PW8 was working as in- charge V.R.O of Putchakayalapalli. PW8 is an official witness, who is unbiased to both the investigating agency and the defence. Unless strong circumstances are brought to 8 fore that impeaches the credibility of PW8, his evidence cannot be discarded on mere conjectures. Nevertheless no strong circumstances are brought before the Court.

Consequently, the evidence of PW8, an official witness strikes confidence of the Court.

17. The Prosecution has examined I.V. Srinivasa Rao as PW9, who deposed to have worked as Head Constable of Peddaraveedu PS from 16.11.2016 to 17.10.2022. On 11.5.2018 at about 8.50 P.M., PW1 presented report and basing on it’s strength he registered a case in

Cr.No.39/2018 of Peddaraveedu PS u/sec.304-A of IPC, transmitted FIR to the

AJMFC,Markapur and it’s copies to all the concerned officers for information. On the next day, he along with PWs7 and 8 and one T.Prasad, PC proceeded to the scene of offence and drew rough sketch of crime scene from 7-00 a.m to 8.00 a.m., prepared scene observation report, got shot photographs of crime scene through PW5, found a Tipper vehicle bearing No. AP 27 TY 9414 and a two wheeler bearing No. AP 27 AZ 9627, seized those vehicles. Thereafter, he, PWs7 and 8 and one D.Rama Chandra Reddy and

D.Ramana(PC) proceeded to the Government Hospital, Markapur, where he has enquired with the relatives of deceased so as to ascertain the cause of death of deceased, examined

PWs1 to 4, one V.Venkata Lakshmamma, G.Ravanamma, J.Krishna Reddy, D.Jaya

Rami reddy and recorded their statements, hold inquest over the corpse of deceased/Venna Srinivasa Reddy, scribed by D.Ramana, a constable under his dictation and the dead body of deceased has been handed over to it's relatives after autopsy and then the further investigation has been handed over to Sk. Assan Saheb, Head Constable.

18.The Prosecution has examined one Sk. Assan Saheb as PW10, who deposed to have worked as Head constable of Peddaraveedu PS from 3.4.2016 to 24.5.2019. On 20.5.2018 while he was in-charge Station House Officer of Peddaraveedu PS the brother of accused by name G.Srinivasulu came to PS and submitted records of offending vehicle and driving license of first accused, examined and recorded the statement of G.Srinivasulu and found the first accused not having effective driving license to drive heavy goods vehicles, altered section of law from 304-A IPC to 304-II of IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w sec.187 and Sec. 3 of 181 of MV Act vide alteration memo. The crime being 9 involved with serious offences, the CD file has been handed over to M.Bheema Naik,

Inspector of Police, Markapur.

19.The prosecution has examined Ch. Rambabu, M.V.I as PW11, who deposed to have worked as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Markapur from 2015 to 2019. On 14.5.2018 he is said to have received requisition from the Sub Inspector of Police, Peddaraveedu, requesting him to inspect the crime vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP 27 TY 9414, a heavy goods vehicle and in pursuance of the requisition he inspected the crime vehicle on 15.5.2018 within the precincts of Peddaraveedu PS and found on it no damages. He conducted road test of crime vehicle and the breaks of it were intact and in working condition. I issued accident report, opining that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of crime vehicle.

20.The Prosecution has examined Dr. M. Venkata Hari Prasad as PW12, who deposed to have worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon of Government Area hospital, Markapur from 20.7.2016 till 18.9.2022. That on 12.5.2018 he has conducted autopsy over the corpse of deceased/Venna Srinivasa Reddy and issued PME certificate, opining that the deceased might have died of hemorrhage shock followed by polytrauma and head injury.

21.The Prosecution has examined one M. Bheemanaik, C.I as PW13, who deposed to have worked as Circle Inspector of Police, Markapur from September, 2017 till November, 2018. That on 21.5.2018 he received record of investigation from PW10, the Head

Constable of Peddaraveedu PS and thereafter he secured PW5, one Gayam Alluri Reddy, and Yeruva Srinivasa Reddy, examined them and recorded their statements. That on the even date, the accused approached him while he was in the circle office and voluntarily surrendered before him, whereupon he apprehended the accused after confirming his involvement in the crime. That on 22.5.2018 he served on A2 notice u/sec. 41-A of Cr.PC and seized from him the original documents of offending Tipper bearing No. AP27 TY 9414, obtained PM certificate of deceased from the medical officer and also obtained accident report from the MVI. That after completion of investigation he laid down charge 10 sheet against the duo accused for the offences punishable u/sec.304-II of IPC and Sec.

181 and 187 of MV Act.

22.The Prosecution, by examining the I.O and other official witnesses has although establishes that the deceased/Venna Srinivasareddy was mowed down by the offendibng vehicle at a culvert of Peddaraveedu village, the Prosecution has miserably failed to establish by cogent evidence beyond doubt that it is the first accused, who has driven the offending lorry in a rash and negligent manner and mowed down the deceased /Venna

Srinivasa Reddy.

23.Neither the eye witnesses nor the kith & kin of deceased have caste any aspirations against the first accused. The investigating agency has failed to seize the Trip Sheet of

Offending Vehicle to establish that it was the first accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time of accident Although the prosecution is able to establish that the offending lorry met with an accident in which the deceased died, the prosecution has failed to establish that it is due to negligent driving of the first accused the accident had been occurred. The scene observation report and the rough sketch drew in the crime does not suffice to establish that the offending lorry was moving at a high speed at the relevant time of accident. In the absence of evidence of eye witnesses and scientific evidence, what all the evidence the investigation officer has collected to connect the first accused with that of accident fades into insignificance and by no stretch of imagination, the first accused can said to have caused the accident. The first accused, not being proved to have driven the offending lorry in a rash and negligent manner at high speed before meeting the accident, his production of driving license and non securing of medical attention to the deceased soon after accident does not arise. Similarly, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond doubt that the second accused has authorized the first accused to drive the offending vehicle.

24. In summing up in my discussion under the two points, I am constrained to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of duo accused beyond a reasonable 11 doubt and the duo accused are the best persons entitled to receive benefit of doubt. The duo accused are therefore entitled for acquittal.

25.In the result, the duo accused are found not guilty of the charges indicted against them for the offences punishable under Sections 304-II of I.P.C and Section 181, 187 and 180 of

M.V Act as such they are acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The duo accused shall be required to execute bail bond for Rs.10,000/- together with two sureties for a like sum each within a week, undertaking to appear before the Higher Court as and when such

Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition and such bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The interim custody of offending tipper bearing Registration No.AP 27 TY 9414 with it’s register owner is made absolute. The motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP27 AZ 9627 shall be returned to it’s register owner after cessation of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 3 rd day of April, 2023.

Sd/- N.R.N

Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:

PW1:Venna Vekateswara Reddy PW2:Venna Chinna Galeiah PW3:Venna Nagireddy PW4:Yeruva Anjaneya Reddy PW5:Gopaluni Naga Sundara Narahari PW6:Yeruva Peddireddy PW7:Yeruva Venkateswara Reddy PW8:Yelakapati Bhaskar Rao PW9:I.V. Srinivasa Rao PW10:Sk. Assan Saheb PW11:Chandra Rambabu PW12:Dr.M. Venkata Hari Prasad PW13:M. Bheema Naik

For Defence : NIL 12

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on the statement. Ex.P2:Section 162 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3:Section 162 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4:Section 162 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5:Section 162 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P6:Photos with C.D Ex.P7:Section 162 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P8:Signature of PW7 on the Scene Observation Report Ex.P9:Signature of PW8 on inquestnama. Ex.P10:Scene Observation Report. Ex.P11:Inquest report Ex.P12:Report of complainant Ex.P13:First Information Report Ex.P14:Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P15:Alteration memo Ex.P16:Accident report Ex.P17:Post-mortem certificate Ex.P18:Certificate of Registration Ex.P19:Permit of crime vehicle Ex.P20:Policy of Insurance.

Material Objects marked

NIL

Sd/- N.R.N

Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur // True Copy //

A.S.J, Markapur

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

SESSIONS CASE No. 10 of 2017

Complainant:STATE : Sub Inspector of Police, Markapur Town Police Station. Description of the Accused:Shaik Khaja Vali, S/o. Khasim, aged 28 years, ValicharlaVillage,Hanumanthunipadu Mandal. :Shaik Khasim, S/o. Mazen Saheb, 60 years, ValicharlaVillage,Hanumanthunipadu Mandal (abated) :Shaik Masumbi, W/o. Khasim, 53 years, ValicharlaVillage,Hanumanthunipadu Mandal. :Shaik Madhu Subani, S/o. Hussain Peera, 42 years, Sunkesula village, Peddaraveedu Mandal Shaik Khasim Bee, W/o. Mabhusubani, 30 years, Sunkesula Village, Peddaraveedu Mandal. Charges:Section 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Occurrence:12-02-2013 Complaint:12-02-2013 Committal Order:17-11-2014 Appearance :01-11-2021 Commencement of trial:20-01-2023 Closure of trial:10-04-2023 Sentence or Order:19-04-2023

Explanation for the delay:

The entire case record was received from the Hon'ble District &

Sessions Judge's Court, Ongole. Charges were framed against the quartet

Accused on 18-08-2022 and summons were issued to the listed witnesses, fixing the schedule for trial. The evidence of prosecution commenced from 20-01-2023 and closed by 10-04-2023. The prosecution examined on it’s behalf PWs1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P19. On 20-03-2023 the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution, for which they denied and reported to have no evidence.

Consequently, evidence of defence was closed. On 10-04-2023 heard arguments of Prosecution and defence. On 19-04-2023 the Judgment is 2

pronounced. The delay in disposal of case is mainly on account of out break

of Covid-19 and delay in securing prosecution witnesses, including official witnesses in a timely manner.

Sd/- N.R.N

Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.

Copies submitted to:-

1. The Hon’ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole Copies to:-

2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole

3. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole

4. The Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Markapur

5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Markapur // True Copy //

A.S.J, Markapur 3

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present:- Sri N. Ramesh Naidu, Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur

Wednesday, this the Nineteenth day of April, 2023

Sessions Case No. 10 of 2017

(P.R.C.No.1/2014 of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Markapur Cr.No.29 of 2013 of Markapur Town Police Station)

State: represented by it’s Sub-Inspector of Police,

Markapur Town Police Station...Complainant

Vs

1.Shaik Khaja Vali, S/o. Khasim, aged 28 years, Valicharla Village, Hanumanthunipadu Mandal.

2.Shaik Khasim, S/o. Mazen Saheb, 60 years, Valicharla Village, Hanumanthunipadu Mandal (abated)

3.Shaik Masumbi, W/o. Khasim, 53 years, Valicharla Village, Hanumanthunipadu Mandal.

4.Shaik Madhu Subani, S/o. Hussain Peera, 42 years, Sunkesula village, Peddaraveedu Mandal

5.Shaik Khasim Bee, W/o. Mabhusubani, 30 years, Sunkesula Village, Peddaraveedu Mandal.…Accused

This Sessions Case coming up before me on 10th day of April, 2023 for arguments in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State / Complainant and of Sri M. Sreeramireddy, Advocate for the

Accused /A1&A2 and on perusal of the material on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court, delivered the following:-

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

1.The State represented by it’s Sub-Inspector of Police of Markapur

Town P.S has laid down charge-sheet against the quintet accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C and

Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.The quintessence of prosecution case is that on 12.02.2013 at about 12.30 P.M, one Shaik Abdul Salam, hereinafter would be referred to as the Informant, lodged a report with the then Head Constable of

Markapur Town Police Station, complaining that the first accused 4 married the deceased/Shaik Meerabi about three years ago and thereafter he along with A2 to A5, who are his kinsfolk subjected her to cruelty, both physical and mental demanding additional dowry and threatened to perform second marriage of A1 with another woman and which harassment of the quintet accused drove the deceased to end her life by not taking enough food, which report being disclosing cognizable offences, the head constable registered the report as a case in Cr.No.29/2013 of Markapur Town Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 498 (A) of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, transmitted F.I.R to the Jurisdictional

Magistrate, took up investigation, proceeded to the scene of offence

and examined it in the presence of M. Ramachandra Rao and Imam

Hussain, prepared Scene Observation Report, examined and recorded the statements of Shaik Sk. Abdul Salam, Sk. Rasool, Sk. Abbas, Sk.

Haleema, Sk. Babu, Sk. Ameer, Sk. Ahamadvali, Sk. Rasool, Sk.

Mohammad and Sk. Safi, hold inquest over the corpse of deceased through the Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Markapur in the presence of blood relatives and mediators, got conducted autopsy through the medical officer. The then S.I, who took up investigation verified the investigation of Head Constable, altered sections of Law to 306 and 498-A of I.P.C and sections 3 & 4 of D.P Act from sections 498-A of IPC and 3 & 4 of D.P Act, obtained report from the Scientific

Officer of Regional Forensic Laboratory, A.P Police Department,

Guntur, who examined the viscera of deceased and opined that there has been no poisonous substance found, obtained final post-mortem report of deceased from Dr.I.C Lakshmireddy and Dr.Sabina Banu, who opined that the deceased died of severe malnutrition and cardio respiratory failure. That on 03.07.2013 the then A.S.I apprehended

A1, A2 and A4. That on 31.10.2013 A3 and A5 obtained anticipatory 5 bail from the VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. That after completion of Investigation, chargesheet has been laid down against the quintet accused holding them guilty committing the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P Act.

4.The Learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, having taken cognizance of the offences, punishable under 498-A and 306 of I.P.C and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has registered the crime as Preliminary Registered Case in P.R.C

No.1/2014 and committed the case to the Sessions Court, Sessions

Division of Ongole, where from it was made over to this Court (Assistant Sessions Judge's Court of Markapur) and registered as

Sessions Case No.10 of 2017.

5.The quartet Accused/A1,A3 to A5, pursuant to summons have appeared before Court, reported means to defend them in the course of trial as such charges under sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed, read over and explained to them in their regional dialect, whereupon they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and that therefore the quartet accused were put on their trial. Whereas, the second accused died on 22.05.2021 and thereby case against him was abated on 09.12.2021.

6.The theory of defence is one of total denial.

7.During the course of trial, PWs1 to 8 have been examined for the prosecution and got marked on it's behalf Exs.P1 to P19.

8.Thereafter, the quartet Accused/A1, A3 to A5 have been examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating 6 circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution, whom having heard, denied the incriminating evidence and reported to have no defence evidence, resulting closure of defence evidence and heard arguments of prosecution and defence.

9.Now the Points that arise for determination in the Sessions case on hand are:-

1. Whether the accused, being the husband and relatives of the deceased /Shaik Meerabi in furtherance of their common intention have subjected her to cruelty, both physical and mental demanding additional dowry and threatened to perform second marriage of A1 with some other woman, which harassment of theirs drove her to commit suicide by not taking enough food?

2. Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of accused beyond a shadow of doubt?

10. Points 1 and 2: The specific case of prosecution is that the first accused married the deceased/Shaik Meerabi about three years ago and thereafter he along with A2 to A5, who are his kinsfolk subjected her to cruelty, both physical and mental demanding additional dowry and threatened to perform second marriage of A1 with another woman and which harassment of the quintet accused drove the deceased to end her life by not taking enough food. Whereas, the quartet accused under trial pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried as such the burden of proof, as in the case of adversarial criminal justice system, rests upon the shoulders of prosecution to drive home the guilty of accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Now let me evaluate the evidence of prosecution as to how far it has succeeded to substantiate it's charges leveled against the quartet accused.

11.The Prosecution, so as to shed it's onus of proof has examined the elder brother of deceased by name Sk. Abdul Salam as PW1, who deposed that the deceased/ Shaik Meerabi is his younger sister, who 7 died ten years ago due to ill-health. He deposed to have not lodged the first information report but his signature was obtained by the police on the F.I.R as such he did not know the contents thereunder the F.I.R. He further deposed not to have been examined by the

Investigating agency as a witness nor his statement was recorded by the Investigating agency or Tahsildar.

12.The Prosecution has examined the mother of deceased by name Sk.

Rasool Bi as PW2; the elder brother of deceased by name Sk. Abbas as PW3 and the elder sister by name Sk. Haleema as PW4, all of whom deposed that the deceased died ten years ago, due to gastric problem. They did not know the contents of statements recorded by the Tahsildar. They are neither examined by the Investigating agency nor their statements were recorded.

13.Thus, PWs 1 to 4, being the mother and siblings of the deceased, against whom the prosecution has reposed absolute faith have given death blow to the case of prosecution and have laid a path for successful escape of the accused from the clutches of Law. Despite the fact that the prosecution has declared PWs1 to 4 hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the Court, suggesting them to have been won over by the accused even though the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, both physical and mental, which led her to commit suicide, nothing useful nor favourable to the case of

Prosecution has been elicited from PWs1 to 4, the hostile witnesses.

Therefore, the evidence of PWs1 to 4 is insufficient to establish the nexus between the accused and crime.

14. The Prosecution has examined one of the elders by name Shaik

Rasool as PW5, who deposed to have neither known the quartet accused nor he ever acted as an elder for the disputes between the 8 accused and deceased. He further deposed to have known nothing about the facts of case. PW5 is declared hostile by the prosecution and subjected him to formal cross examination, suggesting to have hold mediations for the disputes between the accused and deceased, where in the mediations, the accused demanded the deceased to provide additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and when she expressed inability to provide additional dowry the accused left the place of mediations and thereafter subjected the deceased to untold misery, that drove the deceased to end her life by not taking enough food.

Barring few suggestions, the prosecution has failed to elicit anything serious that proves him to have acted as a mediator for the disputes between the accused and deceased as such the unsubstantiated evidence is not useful to the case of Prosecution.

15.The Prosecution has examined one of the neighbours of deceased by name Shaik Noorjahan as PW6, who deposed that the deceased died ten years ago due to ill-health. She further deposed to have acted as one of the mediators for the inquest hold over the corpse of deceased.

But the evidence of PW6 during the course of her cross examination is that she did not know the entire contents of the inquest report nor she can disclose the name of person, who prepared the inquest report. Had PW6 acted as a mediator for the inquest in strict sense, she ought not to have failed to disclose the cause of death as has been narrated and described in the inquest report. The evidence of PW6 in her cross examination destroys her claim of acting as one of the mediators for the inquest.

16.The Prosecution has examined Dr.I.C Lakshmireddy as PW7, who deposed to have conducted autopsy over the corpse of deceased/

Shaik Meeravali on 13.02.2013 and issued post-mortem certificate, 9 opining that the deceased died of cardio-respiratory failure followed by severe malnutrition, which un-assailed evidence establishes that the deceased died of severe malnutrition.

17.Now it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused harassed the deceased, both physical and mental, which drove her to commit suicide by not taking enough food and in order to establish such a fact, the prosecution has examined the Head Constable, who carried out material part of investigation as PW8, who deposed to have registered crime basing on the report of informant and hold inquest over the corpse of deceased through the M.R.O of Markapur, visited the scene of offence with the mediators and in whose presence prepared scene observation report, drew rough sketch, shot photographs, examined and recorded the statements of PWs1 to 4 and one Sk. Babu.

18.Thus, PW8 deposed the way in which he carried out investigation right from the registration of F.I.R until examination of scene of offence and examination of material witnesses. The Investigating agency basing on the statements of family members and elders have arrived at a conclusion that the accused mistreated the deceased

before her committing suicide by not taking enough food. PW8,

during the course of cross examination has categorically deposed that the deceased was living separately for two years before her demise in the house of her parents away from the accused. But none of the family members of deceased, whose statements are said to have been recorded by PW.8 have caste any aspersions against the quartet accused under trial. There has been nothing on record to establish that the quartet accused demanded the deceased to provide

additional dowry and threatened to marry another woman and in the

10 absence of such an evidence, it cannot be said beyond doubt that the deceased was subjected to mistreatment in the hands of accused

before her committing suicide by not taking enough food. The

evidence of I.O thus insufficient to hand down conviction on the accused.

19.The Prosecution, by examining PWs1 to 8, cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the quartet accused under trial subjected the deceased to harassment, both physical and mental, driving her to commit suicide without which proof of facts, the guilt of quartet accused cannot be said to have been brought home beyond reasonable doubt and that therefore the accused are the best persons entitled to receive benefit of doubt.

20.In the result, the quartet accused are found not guilty of the charges indicted against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act as such they are acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The quartet accused (A1 & A3 to A5) shall be required to execute bail bonds for Rs.10,000/- together with two sureties for a like sum within a week, undertaking to appear before the Higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition and such bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Neither the Investigation agency has seized any material objects nor the prosecution agency has produced any material objects during the course of trial necessitating to pass any property order.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- N.R.N

Assistant Sessions Judge, 11

Markapur.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: PW1:Shaik Abdul Salaam PW2:Shaik Rasool PW3:Shaik Abbash PW4:Shaik Haleema PW5:Shaik Rasool PW6:Shaik Noorjahan PW7:Dr.I.C Lakshmireddy PW8:Y. Subbaiah, HC 808 For Defence : NIL

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on F.I.R Ex.P2:Signature of PW1 on the statement. Ex.P3: Section 162 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P4:Signature of PW2 on the statement Ex.P5:Section 162 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P6:Signature of PW3 on the statement. Ex.P7:Section 162 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P8:Statement of PW4 on the statement. Ex.P9:Section 162 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P10:Section 162 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P11:Inquest report Ex.P12:Post-mortem certificate. Ex.P13:R.F.S.L Report Ex.P14:Report Ex.P15:First Information Report Ex.P16:Scene Observation Report Ex.P17:Rough sketch Ex.P18:Alteration memo Ex.P19:Bunch of four photographs

Material Objects marked

NIL

Sd/- N.R.N

Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.

// True Copy //

A.S.J, Markapur

1

In the Court of the Senior Civil Judge :: Markapur

Present : Sri N. Ramesh Naidu,

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

Thursday, this the Twentieth day of April, 2023

Original Suit No. 154 of 2016

Puli Sreejnivasa Prasad, S/o. late Puli Pullaiah, aged about 48 years, Hindu, Teacher, Srinivasa Aided School, Cumbum Village, Prakasam District.

...Plaintiff

Vs

Shaik Peeravali, S/o. Hussain Peera, aged about 60 years, Muslim, business, D.No.10-24-15, Nehru Nagar, Near Railway Station, Cumbum Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. …Defendants

This suit coming up before me on 27th day of March, 2023 for arguments in the presence of Sri M.

Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri Mateen Basha, Advocate for the Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court, delivered the following:

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

1.The plaintiff claims for a money decree to realize a sum of Rs.6,58,664/-, being the amount payable on the foot of three promissory notes for Rs.3,00,000/-, together with subsequent interest and costs.

2.The defendant, by way of a written statement, has resisted the suit.

3.The case of plaintiff, as can be seen from the factual matrix projected in the plaint is that the defendant, for his family necessities has borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- @

Rs.1,00,000/- each from him on 19.09.2013, 15.02.2014 and 15.02.2014 respectively, while executing in his favour on the respective dates three demand promissory notes, promising to repay the debts thereunder together with interest @ 24% per annum, either to him or to his order on demand to the holder in due course. The defendant has failed to discharge the debts in spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dt.22.03.2016, as such he was constrained to institute the suit.

4. Whereas, the contest of defendant, inter-alia is that he has not borrowed the suit amount from the plaintiff. In fact, his son/Shaik Nayab Rasool was working as Record Assistant of Sri Sreenivasa High School. The Plaintiff was his Head Master. His son and the 2 plaintiff taken oral lease of the Brilliant and Sri Sreenivasa School and run the school during 2013-2016. Because of non-cooperation of plaintiff, his (defendant’s) son met financial crisis. The Plaintiff spent Rs.4,00,000/- for the development of school. The school stood in the name of his son. He issued signed empty promissory notes to the plaintiff for Rs.4,00,000/- @ Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively towards security for repayment of the plaintiff’s share. His son made payment of

Rs.1,80,000/- to the plaintiff on 02.06.2014 through his bank account. But then, the plaintiff did not deduct such sum from the suit amount nor returned his promissory notes.

His son purchased school bus for Rs.4,35,000/- stood in the name of School. The plaintiff did not deduct such sum from the suit amount. His son also purchased a Maruthi Omni van from the plaintiff for Rs.60,000/-. The Plaintiff paid Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff on 14th July and took two months to pay remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. His son vexed with the attitude of plaintiff. He (defendant) and his son approached the plaintiff in the month of August, 2014, intending to settle the matters with the plaintiff. But he did not settle the matters. Instead, he necked out his son from the school after receiving entire amount, material and vehicles. He had no monetary transactions with the plaintiff. His son alone had transactions with the Plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the suit to have wrongful gain as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. When the plaintiff and defendant have failed to resolve their disputes, across the negotiating table, by utilizing the benevolent provisions covered under section 89 of

C.P.C, the following issues are framed by my predecessor for trial:-

1.Whether the suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding upon the defendant as prayed for?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount against the defendant as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, the plaintiff having been examined as P.W.1, got marked on his behalf Exs.A1 to A5. The defendant has been examined as DW1 and got marked on 3 his behalf Ex.B1. Whereas, the Bank Manager of State Bank of India, Branch at Cumbum was examined as CW1 and through him Exs.C1 and C2 are marked.

7. Heard and perused the suit record.

8.Issues 1 and 2: The specific case of plaintiff is that the defendant, for his family necessities has borrowed from him a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- @ Rs.1,00,000/- each on 19.09.2013, 15.02.2014 and 15.02.2014 respectively, while executing in his favour on the respective dates three demand promissory notes, promising to repay the debts thereunder together with interest @ 24% per annum, either to him or to his order on demand to the holder in due course. Whereas, the specific contest of defendant is that he issued three empty promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.4,00,000/- @ Rs.2,00,000/-,

Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs,.1,00,000/- respectively towards security for his son, who fell due a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the plaintiff in connection with running a school. Thus, the moot contest of the defendant is that the suit promissory notes are not supported by consideration. Therefore, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of defendant to establish that the suit promissory notes are bereft of consideration. Even though, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of defendant, the plaintiff so as to discharge his initial onus of proof of execution of the suit promissory notes has been examined as PW1, reiterating and reaffirming once again his lending a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the plaintiff under three promissory notes.

9. The Plaintiff as PW1 has produced the three suit promissory notes under the cover of

Exs.A1 to A3, where under the defendant is suggested to have borrowed a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- @ Rs.1,00,000/- each from the plaintiff on 19.09.2013, 15.02.2014 and 15.02.2014 respectively, while executing in his favour on the respective dates three demand promissory notes, promising to repay the debts thereunder together with interest @ 24% per annum, either to him or to his order on demand to the holder in due course.

10.Exs.A1 to A3 are found to have been attested by one Shaik Silar Saheb. The plaintiff has although filed chief examination affidavit of Shaik Salar Saheb as PW2, PW.2 died of 4

Covid-19 and thereby his evidence has been eschewed from the suit record. Thus, there remains only the evidence of plaintiff as PW1.

11. PW1 was subjected to cross examination. PW1 even during the course of cross of his examination said to have lent Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant under the cover of Ex.A1 on 19.09.2013 and Rs.1,00,000/- each on 20.02.2014 under Exs.A2 and A3. Except claiming that the suit promissory notes are created by the plaintiff, nothing has been elicited from

PW1 and thereby the credibility of PW1 so far as execution of EXs.A1 to A3 isconcerned has not been destabilized on the anvil of cross examination.

12.On the other hand, the defendant has been examined as DW1 to prove his plea of discharge. The core contest of defendant, both in his pleadings and chief examination affidavit is that he issued Exs.A1 to A3 in favour of the Plaintiff towards security for the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- which his son fell due to the plaintiff. DW1 notwithstanding his evidence in chief, during the course of his cross examination claims that he did not execute Exs.A1 to A3 in favour of the Plaintiff. Thus, the stand or stance the defendant has taken in his pleadings is not the stand or stance he has taken during the course of his cross examination. So, the evidence of defendant is running against to his core contest.

13.The defendant claims to have issued three promissory notes for Rs.4,00,000/- @

Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- each. But, as could be seen from the contents of Exs.A1 to A3, the defendant is found to have issued three promissory notes @ Rs.1,00,000/- each. It is not the contest of defendant that one of the promissory notes he issued under

Exs.A1 to A3 is hit by any material alteration. In the absence of such a plea of material alteration, the case of plaintiff that he lent amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant @

Rs.1,00,000/- each is more probable than that of the contest of defendant that he issued three promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.4,00,000/- @ Rs.2,00,000/- and

Rs.1,00,000/- each.

5

14.The defendant, barring his self-serving contest that he issued the suit promissory notes covered by Exs.A1 to A3 in favour of the plaintiff towards security for the amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- which his son fell due to the plaintiff, has failed to examine his son as a witness on his behalf to buttress his claim without there being any plausible cause or reason and non-examination of his son as a witness is a militating circumstance goes against his contest for the reason that had the son of defendant been examined as a witness, the truth or otherwise of business with the plaintiff would have been unfurled.

The defendant has with held his son as a witness and thereby prevented the plaintiff from testing his veracity. Non-examination of the son of defendant is rather intentional and not unblemished.

15.The defendant did not produce before the Court any evidence, be it oral or documentary to establish that his son and the plaintiff jointly run a school nor produced any evidence in proof of purchasing vehicles. The defendant has produced nothing to prove business transactions between his son and the plaintiff. In the absence of any evidence in that regard, the only inference that could be safely drawn regard had been to the circumstance of the case is that there were no business transactions between the plaintiff and the son of defendant and such inferences are drawn accordingly.

16.The defendant as DW1 has produced computer generated bank statement under Ex.B1 standing in the name of his son, where under the son of defendant by name Shaik Nayab rasool is found to have transferred to the account of plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- on 2.6.2014. The defendant, apart from producing Ex.B1, examined the Branch Manager of

S.B.I, Cumbum as CW1, who produced the bank statement of the son of defendant under

Exs.C1 and the bank statement of plaintiff under Ex.C2. The son of defendant under

Ex.C1 is found to have transferred an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to the account of plaintiff.

Likewise, the plaintiff under Ex.C2 is found to have received a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- from the account of the defendant’s son. The plaintiff has failed to explain the purpose 6 for which he received a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- from the son of defendant. The plaintiff ought not to have failed to proffer some plausible explanation as to the reason why he received a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- from the account of son of defendant and in the absence of proper explanation, the contest of defendant that he made payment of Rs.1,80,000/- to the plaintiff through the bank account of his son is rather more probable. Consequently, the defendant has succeeded to establish that he made payment of Rs.1,80,000/- to the plaintiff through the account of his son towards partial discharge of the debts due under

Exs.A1 to A3 and which part payment is liable to be deducted from the debts due under

Exs.A1 to A3. The defendant made part payment of Rs.1,80,000/- on 02.06.2014. The interest was calculated @ 24% per annum on the part payment of Rs.1,80,000/- until 12- 08-2016, which would arrive at Rs.93,960/-. So, the total amount the defendant paid to the plaintiff until 12-08-2016 is Rs.2,73,960/- (Rs.1,80000/- + Rs.93,960/-), which amount is liable to be deducted from the suit amount of Rs.6,58,664/-. Thus, the defendant fell due a sum of Rs.3,84,704/- (RS.6,58,664 - Rs.2,73,960/-) to the plaintiff as on 12.08.2016, which is debt adjudged. The issues under discussion are answered accordingly.

17. Issue No.3: In the result, the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of debts is partly decreed with costs for Rs.3,84,704/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and

Four Only), recoverable from the defendant together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter interest @ 6% per annum until realization on the principal debt adjudged.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer Grade II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this 20 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- N.R.N

Senior Civil Judge

Markapur

// Appendix of Evidence //

Witnesses Examined

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: PW-1 : Puli Srinivas PrasadDW1 : Sk. Peeravali PW2 : Sk. Silar Saheb( Eschewed) 7

Documents Marked FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A-1 : Suit Promissory note dt.19.09.2013. Ex.A-2 : Suit Promissory note dt.15.02.2014 Ex.A-3 : Suit Promissory note dt.15.02.2014

FOR DEFENDANT: Ex.B1 : Computer generated statement pertaining to Account Number 00000030351035009.

Through Court: CW1 : M. Giri Babu Documents Marked Ex.C1 : Statement of account in respect of account bearing No.30351035009 Ex.C2 : Statement of account in respect of account bearing No.30351035009

Sd/- N.R.N

Senior Civil Judge

Markapur // True Copy //

S.C.J, Markapur

1

In the Court of the Senior Civil Judge :: Markapur

Present : Sri N. Ramesh Naidu

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

Thursday, this the Thirteenth day of April, 2022

Original Suit No. 173 of 2018

Venna Kasireddy, S/o. Kasi Ramireddy, Hindu, aged about 47 years, D.No.7/64, Near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, aged 47 years, business, Inamukkula Village,

Dornala Mandal, Prakasam District....Plaintiff

Vs

Kilari Satyam @ Satyanarayana, S/o. Rama Subbaiah, aged 42 years, D.No.1-28, Near Ramalayam, business, Jammi Dornala Village, Dornal Mandal, Prakasam

District....Defendant

This suit coming up before me on 13th day of April, 2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri D. Gandhi Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court, delivered the following:-

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

1.The plaintiff claims for a money decree to realize a sum of Rs.12,10,367/- being the amount payable on the foot of a promissory note dt. 31.12.2015 for Rs.8,00,000/- together with subsequent interest and costs.

2.The defendant, by way of a written statement has resisted the suit.

3.The case of plaintiff, as can be seen from the factual matrix projected in the plaint is that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from him on 31.12.2015 to meet his family necessities while executing in his favour on the even date a demand promissory note, promising to repay the debt there-under together with interest @ 18% per annum, either to him or to his order on demand to the holder in due course. Nevertheless, the defendant has failed to discharge the debt due to him in spite of issuance of legal notice dt.10.09.2016 as such he was constrained to institute the suit.

2

4. Whereas, the contest of defendant, inter-alia is that neither he has borrowed the suit debt from the plaintiff nor executed in his favour the suit promissory note nor he has any necessity to borrow such a huge amount of

Rs.8,00,000/-. In fact, he has borrowed only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Plaintiff and in that connection the plaintiff has obtained from him an empty promissory note, containing his signature as promissor towards security and sometime thereafter he discharged the debt of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest to the plaintiff and demanded plaintiff to return his empty promissory note. But the plaintiff did not return his empty promissory note. When the plaintiff did not return his empty promissory note, he issued a legal notice on 06.09.2016, demanding the plaintiff to return his empty promissory note. The plaintiff instead of returning his empty promissory has issued a contentious reply and then instituted the suit to have wrongful gain. The suit promissory note is therefore not supported by consideration and thereby the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. When the plaintiff and defendant have failed to resolve their dispute, across the negotiating table, by utilizing the benevolent provisions covered under section 89 of C.P.C, the following issues are framed by then

Presiding Officer for trial.

1. Whether the suit promissory note is un-supported by consideration?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant the suit amount?

3. To What relief?

6.During the course of trial, the plaintiff has been examined as PW1 and got marked on his behalf Exs.A1 to A3.

7. Heard and perused the suit record.

8.Issues 1 & 2 : Both the issues are interrelated and interdependent as such they are taken up together for simultaneous discussion to avoid 3 redundancy. The specific case of plaintiff is that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from him on 31.12.2015 while executing in his favour on the even date the suit promissory note, promising to repay the debt there-under together with interest @ 18% per annum, either to him or to his order on demand to the holder in due course. Whereas the specific contest of defendant is that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration. Now let me see which of these two rival versions is correct.

9. The plaintiff, in order to substantiate his contention has been examined as

PW1, reiterating once again the averments of plaint and has produced the suit promissory note covered by Ex.A-1, the contents thereunder the instrument drives to suggest that on 31.12.2015 the defendant has borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to meet his family necessities, promising to discharge the debt there-under, either to him or to his order on demand to the holder in due course together with interest @ 18% per annum.

10.The Plaintiff, on being examined as P.W.1, read in conjunction with the contents of suit instrument, has successfully established execution of suit instrument covered by Ex.A1. Thus, the plaintiff has successfully turned the tables on to the side of defendant. Now let me appreciate, how far the defendant has discharged his onus of proof. Notwithstanding such onus of proof, the defendant, neither subjected the plaintiff to cross examination nor appeared into the witness box to state his own case nor offered himself to be cross-examined by the plaintiff and the only inference that could be drawn regard had been to the circumstances of case is that the case setup by the defendant is false and in order to fortify my reasoning, I place reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported 4 in AIR 1999 (SC) 1441 rendered between Vidhyadhar Rao Vs. Manikya Rao,

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows:

Para No.16: “Where a party to the suit does not appear into the

witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself

to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that

the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of

decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council

beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh Vs. Gurdial

Singh and another. This was followed by the Lahore High Court in

Kirpa Singh Vs. Ajaipal Singh and others AIR (1930) Lahore 1 and

the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari Vs.

Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR (1931) Bombay 97. The Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter Vs. Narsingh

Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council decision in

Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in

Arjun Singh Vs. Virender Nath and another held that if a party

abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an

inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the

Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass Vs. Bhishan Chand

and others, drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act

against a party who did not enter into the witness box.”

11.Pleadings how so convincing, without evidence have no value. The defendant, neither adduced his evidence nor disclosed the date when he borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff nor revealed rate of interest nor unfurled the date of alleged discharge without which details it is highly improbable to believe the self-serving pleadings of defendant in his written statement that the suit instrument is not supported by consideration. So, the defendant is presumed to have not set up correct case. Thus, the defendant, cannot be said to have discharged his onus of proof. The plaintiff has produced Office copy of legal notice dt.10.09.2016 under

Ex.A2 and Postal Acknowledgment dt.14.09.2016 under Ex.A3, which documents exfacie establishes the plaintiff’s demanding the defendant to 5 discharge the suit debt. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover the suit debt from the defendant. It is although the tall contest of defendant that he issued a legal notice 06.09.2016, demanding return of empty promissory note, the defendant for the reasons best known to him did not produce such a legal notice and in this view of the matter the defendant is suggested to have not issued any legal notice to the plaintiff demanding return of empty promissory note. The plea of discharge the defendant has raised in his written statement is proved to be palpable false.

12. The issues under discussion are answered holding that the suit promissory note covered by Ex.A1 is true, valid and supported by consideration, ensuing the plaintiff to recover from the defendant the suit amount.

13.Issue No.3: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.12,10,367/- (Rupees Tweleve Lakhs Ten Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Seven only) against the defendant together with interest @ 12% per annum on the principal sum adjudged from the date of filing suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer Grade II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- N.R.N

Senior Civil Judge

Markapur

// Appendix of Evidence //

Witnesses Examined FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: Exparte PW-1 : Venna Kasireddy Documents Marked FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A-1 : Suit promissory note dt.31.12.2015 Ex.A-2 : Office copy of legal notice dt.10.09.2016. Ex.A-3 : Postal acknowledgment dt.14.09.2016. FOR DEFENDANT: NIL.

Sd/- N.R.N

Senior Civil Judge

Markapur // True Copy //

S.C.J, Markapur

1

In the Court of the Senior Civil Judge :: Markapur

Present : Sri N. Ramesh Naidu

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

Wednesday, this the Tweleveth day of April, 2023

Original Suit No. 15 of 2019

Doddaji Ranganayakulu, S/o. Dasaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Chollaveedu Village, Racherla Mandal,

Prakasam District. ...Plaintiff

Vs

Chennapragada Parimala, W/o. Ravi Kumar, Hindu, aged about 38 years, Chollaveedu Village and Post,

Racherla Mandal, Prakasam District....Defendant

This suit coming up before me on 12th day of April, 2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri D.Satyanarayana Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court, delivered the following:

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

1.The plaintiff claims for a money decree to realize a sum of Rs.4,66,506/- being the amount payable on the foot of three promissory notes dt.

04.10.2015, 06.11.2015 and 04.02.2016 for Rs.2,76,000/- together with subsequent interest and costs.

2.The defendant remained exparte.

3.The case of plaintiff, as can be seen from the factual matrix projected in the plaint is that the defendant, for the purpose of his family expenses has borrowed from him a sum of Rs.2,76,000/-, while executing in his favour three promissory notes on 04.10.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/-, on 06.11.2015 for

Rs.1,00,000/- and on 04.02.2016 for Rs.76,000/-, promising to repay the debts there under together with interest @ 24% per annum, either to him or to his order on demand to the holder in due course. Nevertheless, the defendant has failed to discharge the debts due to him in spite legal notice

dt. 20.06.2018 as such he (plaintiff) was constrained to institute the suit.

2

4. During the course of trial, the plaintiff having been examined as P.W-1, got marked on his behalf Exs.A1 to A5.

5. Heard and perused the suit record.

6. Now the point that arises for determination is :-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant the suit debt?

7. Point: The specific case of plaintiff is that the defendant, in order to meet his family expenses, has borrowed from him a sum of Rs.2,76,000/-, while executing in his favour the three suit promissory notes on different dates, promising to repay the debts there under together with interest @ 24% per annum, either to him or to his order on demand to the holder in due course.

8. The plaintiff as P.W.1, in order to substantiate his contention, has produced the three suit promissory notes under the cover of Exs.A1 to A3, the contents there under the instruments drives to suggest that the defendant for his family necessities has borrowed from him a sum of Rs.2,76,000/-, while executing in his favour three suit promissory notes, promising to repay the debts there under together with interest @ 24% per annum, either to him or to his order on demand to the holder in due course.

9.The version and veracity of plaintiff as PW1 that the defendant has borrowed from him a sum of Rs.2,76,000/- for his family necessities while executing in his favour the three suit promissory notes, promising to repay the debts there under together with interest @ 24% per annum, either to him or to his order on demand to the holder in due course, remained absolute and unchallenged, ensuing the plaintiff to recover from the defendant the suit debts together with agreed rate of interest. The Point under discussion is answered accordingly.

3

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.4,66,506/- (Rupees Four

Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Six Only) recoverable from the defendant together with interest @ 12% per annum on the principal sum adjudged from the date of filing suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer Grade II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- N.R.N

Senior Civil Judge

Markapur

// Appendix of Evidence //

Witnesses Examined

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

PW-1 : Doddaji Ranganayakulu

Documents Marked

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A-1 : Promissory note dt.04.10.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by defendant in favour of Plaintiff. Ex.A-2 : Promissory note dt.06.11.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by defendant in favour of Plaintiff. Ex.A-3 : Promissory note dt.04.02.2016 for Rs.76,000/- executed by defendant in favour of Plaintiff. Ex.A-4 : Office copy of the legal notice dt.20.06.2018 together with postal receipt dt.21.06.2018. Ex.A-5 : Returned Postal Cover dt.29.06.2018.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL.

Sd/- N.R.N

Senior Civil Judge

Markapur // True Copy //

S.C.J, Markapur