Smt.N.Saraswathi

Dt. 10.03.2023

1

SC.157 Of 2022

AASJ Court, Bdvl.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) ::

RAJAMPET AT BADVEL.

Present:- Smt N.SARASWATHI, Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajampet,

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajampet at Badvel.

Friday, this the 10th day of March, 2023.

Sessions Case No.157 Of 2022

(P.R.C.No.42/2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sidhout).

1Name of the complainant The state represented by Sub Inspector of police, Sidhout P.S.

2.Name of the accused1. Athikari Venkaaiah, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Aged 51 years,

2. Athikari Krishna, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, Aged 35 years,

3. Athikari Venkata Subbaiah @ YS, S/o.Santaiah, Aged 45 years,

4. Polisetty Sreenivasulu @ LC Sreenu, S/o.Lakshumaiah, Aged 41 years,

5. Polisetty Rajasekhar @ Raja, S/o.Lakshumaiah, Aged 38 years,

6. Avula Gangaiah, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Aged 35 years,

7. Pasupuleti Gangaiah, S/o.Venkataiah, Aged 36 years,

8. Avula Nagendra, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Aged 26 years,

9. Avula Sudhakar, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Aged 30 years,

10. Yarlaboina Muni Swamy, S/o.Muni Rathnam, Aged 35 years,

11. mandapalli Venkataiah, S/o.Pullaiah, Aged 57 years, A.1 to A.9 are residents of Akula Street and A.10 and A.11 are residents of Diguvapeta, Sidhout Village and Mandal. 3Charges framedU/secs.147, 148, 324, 326, 427, 506, 307, 120

(b) r/w 149 of IPC. 4 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 5 Finding of the judgeA.1 to A.11 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec147, 148, 324, 326, 427, 506, 307, 120 (b) r/w 149 of IPC. 6Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec..147, 148, 324, 326, 427, 506, 307, 120 (b) r/w 149 of IPC., and as such, the accused are acquitted under

Dt. 10.03.2023

2

SC.157 Of 2022

AASJ Court, Bdvl.

section.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and of that their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment U/sec.437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. Property Order not passed as no property is produced for disposal. 7Prosecution conducted by Sri K.Ravi Chandra,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

8.Name of the advocate for Sri G.S.Murthy, Advocate, Kadapa and the accused Sri R.R. Varma, Advocate, Badvel.

9.Crime No. and name of theCr.No.02/2015 of Sidhout P.S. police station

10. Committed by Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Sidhout

11. Date of offence04.01.2015

12. Date of report04.01.2015

13. Date of remand. A.1 to A.9 got anticipatory bail. A.10 and A.11 on 07.01.2015,

14. Date of release on bail. A.1 to A.9 got anticipatory bail, A.10 and A.11 released on 13.01.2015.

15. Date of committal 11.06.2022.

16. Date of commencement of 28.10.2022 trial

17. Date of close of trial.18.11.2022

18. Date of Judgment. 10.03.2023.

JUDGMENT

The accused arraigned before this Court for the charge under section.147, 148, 324, 326, 427, 506, 307, 120(b) r/w 149 of Indian Penal

Code.

2. The State represented by the S.I of Police, Sidhout P.S. laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.2/2015 alleging that on 04.01.2015 the accused formed themselves into an unlawful armed with deadly weapons with a common intention of attack and kill of the P.W.1 and beat him iron rods and resulting which P.W.1 receiving bleeding injuries and also swelling injuries over his body and they also threatened him to kill him, with the help of his brother i.e., D.Srinivasulu and P.W.2 he was proceeds to

RIMS hospital Kadapa, when they reached in near forest check post the

Dt. 10.03.2023

3

SC.157 Of 2022

AASJ Court, Bdvl. accused criminally conspired together and they laid armed with deadly weapons like stones, iron rods, and knifes attacked the accused. Basing on the complaint of PW.1, PW.7 registered the case in Cr.No.02/2015, Under sec.147, 148, 324, 326, 427, 506, 307, 120 (b) r/w 149 and issued FIR, and after completion of further investigation Sri S.Lingappa laid charge sheet and further after obtaining of instructions Sri B.Arun Reddy added accused A.1 and

A.2 laid charge sheet.

Brief facts:-

3. The state represented by the S.I of Police, Sidhout P.S laid charge sheet against the accused under section.147, 148, 324, 326, 427, 506, 307, 120 (b) r/w 149 of IPC,and after completion of further investigation

Sri S.Lingappa laid charge sheet and further after obtaining of instructions

Sri B.Arun Reddy added accused A.1 and A.2 laid charge sheet.

Commencement of proceedings before the Court and trial:

4. (A) Upon filing the charge sheet, the learned Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Sidhout had taken the cognizance of the offence U/Sec. 147, 148, 324, 326, 427, 506, 307, 120 (b) r/w 149 of IPC against accused, numbered the case as a P.R.C.No.42/2018 and committed the case to the

Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Kadapa division by following the procedure

U/Sec.209 Cr.P.C, The Hon'ble Sessions Court, numbered the case as

S.C.No.157/2022 and made over to this Court for disposal according to law on the point of jurisdiction.

(B). On appearance of the A.1 to A.11 and upon hearing the prosecution as well as a defence counsel, the said accused were examined

U/sec.228 of Cr.P.C. They denied the accusation, charges U/sec.147, 148, 324, 326, 427, 506, 307, 120 (b) r/w 149 of IPC, were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded

Dt. 10.03.2023

4

SC.157 Of 2022

AASJ Court, Bdvl. not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(C). In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to

P.W.7, through them got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 are marked. No documents got marked for defence.

(D). After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused A.1 to A.11 were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, with reference to the incriminating evidence available on record, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

Hence closed.

5. Heard arguments on both sides.

6. Now the points for determination is:-

(I) Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of

the accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 147, 148, 324, 326,

427, 506, 307, 120 (b) r/w 149 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. POINT : - (A) As noted above during the course of the trial of this case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.11, in order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 147, 148, 324, 326, 427, 506, 307, 120 (b) r/w 149 of IPC. In the instant case, the prosecution examined.In the instant case, the prosecution examined Dasari Siva as P.W.1, Shaik Salim as P.W.2, N.Venkata Ramana as P.W.3, Syed Hidayathulla as P.W.4, B.Bala Sudhakar as P.W.5,

Pandugala Narayana as PW.6 and S.Ansar Basha as PW.7.

(B) PW.1 testifies that on 04.01.2015 at about 11.00 AM while he was in the fields suddenly some unknown persons came and attacked him with deadly weapons and due to that he received injuries and that persons also threatened him to kill him, due to injuries he fell on unconscious and

Dt. 10.03.2023

5

SC.157 Of 2022

AASJ Court, Bdvl. his brother D.Srinivasulu shifted him to RIMS hospital, Kadapa, in the mean while when there reached near forest check post attacked some persons and due to that his brother received injuries again he was unconscious. His report to the police is exhibited Ex.P1. P.W.2 testifies that he received phone intimation from the D.Srinivasulu about the receiving of injuries to

P.W.1.

8. In order to amount to an attempt to murder, the act attempted must be such that if not prevented or intercepted, it would be sufficient to cause death of the victim. To constitute the offence the injury need be caused to the victim. If in the course of the attempt bodily injury is caused the accused would be liable to enhanced punishment. To sustain conviction under section.307 the intention to kill should be clearly proved by circumstances like persistence of attack on vital parts of the body or the assailant lying in wait armed with dangerous weapons or declarations made by him that the the victim would be killed. The intention is not gatherable merely from the seriousness of resultant injury.

In order that a person may be guilty of attempt to murder, the following two ingredients of the offence must be:-

(a) an intention or knowledge of committing murder:

(b) the doing of an act towards it.

9. For the purpose of section 307, what is material is the intention or knowledge, and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. That section clearly contemplates an act which is done with the intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence an account of the intervention of a cause

Dt. 10.03.2023

6

SC.157 Of 2022

AASJ Court, Bdvl. operating independently of the volition of the agent. To determine whether an act falls within the ambit of section 307, on the wording of this section, three considerations appear to be essential

(i) the nature of the act done,

(ii) the intention or knowledge of the agent, and

(iii) the circumstances under which the act is done.

ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT MURDER: Intention and Knowledge:-

10. Under Section.307 I.P.C what the Court has to see is whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of “attempt to murder”. Under Section.307 I.P.C the intention precedes the act attributed to accused.

11. The intention is to be gathered from the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body where the injuries are inflicted and no conviction is legally permissible unless the prosecution proves the ingredients of section.300 I.P.C of which intention or knowledge play a vital role. Evidence when does not show intention to murder and injuries inflicted when is not dangerous to life, conviction under section.307I.P.C is improper.

12. The very first ingredient for invoking Section.326, I.P.C. is that the accused must cause simple hurt and that it must be caused voluntarily. This ingredient is common to both sections.323 and 326 I.P.C. It has been explained in section.321, I.P.C. An intention to cause hurt must be there in view of the words “with the intention of thereby causing hurt”. When

Dt. 10.03.2023

7

SC.157 Of 2022

AASJ Court, Bdvl. the injury caused is simple, it would answer Section.326 I.P.C. Where there is no serious injury on any vital part of the body the victim, the offender should be convicted under Section.324 and not under Section 326 I.P.C.

The injuries to the victim were caused by the accused with sharp edged weapon and FIR was lodged properly within two hours after the occurrence and medical report supported prosecution versions as to injuries and version of eye-witness was reliable.

Weapon of offence:-

13. The phraseology of Section.326 shows that the weapon used as an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting or any other instrument must be such that it is likely to cause death. To bring an offence under Section.326 I.P.C, the instrument must be one, not which is “liable” but which is “likely” to caused death; the instrument used must be one of which one can predicate that the probable result of its use will be, by virtue of its very nature, death. It must be inherent in the nature of the instrument used that death is likely to ensue.

Voluntary causing of hurt- proof by victim:-

14. In respect of proof of offence under Section.324 I.P.C. or

Section.325 or Section.326 I.P.C., generally the victim survives the injury inflicted upon him and becomes available for giving evidence about the author of the crime. Such a witness is the best witness, for, it is very unlikely that he would screen the real offender.

Proof by other means:-

15. In a case the F.I.R was lodged in respect of an offence under Section.324 I.P.C within a short time. It bore the names of the accused and the witness. A detailed first information report containing all

Dt. 10.03.2023

8

SC.157 Of 2022

AASJ Court, Bdvl. the necessary facts given within a short time of the occurrence does create an impression that the prosecution story is true. The injured was clinically examined by the doctor within a short time of the occurrence. This further corroborated the prosecution case. When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

16.Section 148 IPC defines as whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to three years, or with fine or with both.

17. Section 149 IPC defines as if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

18. The prosecution alleges that accused tried to commit murder of PW.1 by forming unlawful assembly with common object and also caused injuries to PW.1.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE : -

19.Now it is relevant what is injury -

According to medical terminology, Injury means wound or trauma; harm or hurt; usually applied to damage inflicted on the body by an external force. In other words, as was observed in Mrs. Veeda Menezes vs Yusuf

Dt. 10.03.2023

9

SC.157 Of 2022

AASJ Court, Bdvl. Khan And Anr, 1966 AIR 1773-1966 SCR 123, the expression "harm" has not been defined in the 'Indian Penal Code: in its dictionary meaning it connotes hurt, injury; damage; impairment, moral wrong or evil. There is no warrant for the contention raised that the expression "harm" in s. 95 does not include physical injury. The expression "harm" is used in many sections of the Indian Penal Code. In ss. 81, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 100, 104 and 106 the expression can only mean physical injury. In s. 93 it means an injurious mental reaction. In s.415 it means injury to a person in body, mind, reputation or property. In ss. 469 and 499 harm, it is plain from the context, is to the reputation of the aggrieved party.

20. P.W.4 testifies that at about 6 or 7 years back while he was present at police station one constable asked his signature on written paper and accordingly he signed on the written paper, his signatures is exhibited as Ex.P5 and Ex.P.6. P.W.7 testifies that on 01.04.2015 while he was at police station he has received hospital intimation, and accordingly he recorded the statements of P.W.1 and basing on the statement of P.W.1 he registered the case and issued FIR and during his course of investigation to recorded the statements witnesses and seized blood stained cloths under the cover of police proceedings and during his course of further investigation he prepared rough sketch, at the scene of offence and also prepared scene observation report and during his course of investigation he arrested the accused and he further stated that he handed over case file to

S.Lingappa, he laid charge sheet and as per the instructions of judicial

magistrate of first class Sri B.Arun Reddy added A1 and A.2 and laid charge

sheet.

Dt. 10.03.2023

10

SC.157 Of 2022

AASJ Court, Bdvl.

21. The learned counsel for accused cross examined the P.W.7 and during his course of cross examination , he stated that A.1 A2 got political influence in the village and further stated no one accompanied with them for identification of scene of offence.

22. The case of the prosecution is that accused attempted to commit murder by forming unlawful assembly to PW.1 and also caused injuries to P.W.1. P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 not supported the case. There is inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The intention of the accused was not proved by the prosecution. For the purpose of

Section.307 what is material is the intention or knowledge, not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. That section clearly contemplates an act which is done with the intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence an account of the intervention of a cause operating independently of the volition of the agent.

23. The standard of proof in criminal cases is not the same as in the civil. Importantly, in criminal cases the burden of proving the guilt of an accused is upon the prosecution. It must standard by itself. Essentially accused need not establish his case beyond all reasonable doubt. Of course, in some cases where the burden of proof relating to a fact in issue in a case is on the accused, the standard of proof required of him is not the same as is required from the prosecution. This proposition of law is no more res-integra. Upon such proof as is adduced, if there is a real and reasonable doubt as to his guilt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The law always requires that the conviction should be certain and

Dt. 10.03.2023

11

SC.157 Of 2022

AASJ Court, Bdvl. not doubtful. If the evidence on record establishes the truth of the charge and satisfies the reason and judgment of the court such evidence must be taken to have proved the charge beyond all reasonable doubt justifying conviction.

24. The material on record clearly shows that PW.1 gave his statement. This court is of opinion merely because the prosecution is able to prove the report at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the report it self established the case of the prosecution. When the content of the report is supported by the maker of the statement, the said report can be taken as corroborative piece of evidence. The remaining evidence available in this case against accused is the sole evidence of investigating officer. Further, it is not safe to attribute the evidence against the accused basing on the sole evidence of investigating officer without any corroboration either from eye witness or mediators. Conviction can not be placed on mere assumptions and presumptions. There must be legal evidence to convict accused, and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused persons with cogent and convincing reasons.

25. In the light of above discussion, it is held that prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt against accused for the offence under

Section.147, 148, 324, 326, 427, 506, 307, 120 (b) r/w 149 of IPC., beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER:-

26. In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.147, 148, 324, 326, 427, 506, 307, 120 (b) r/w 149 of IPC., and as such, the accused are acquitted under section.235 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Dt. 10.03.2023

12

SC.157 Of 2022

AASJ Court, Bdvl. The bail bonds of accused and of that their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment U/sec.437-A of

Criminal Procedure Code. Property Order not passed as no property is produced for disposal.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer-Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10th day of March, 2023.

Sd/- N. Saraswathi,

Asst. Sessions Judge, Rajampet, FAC. Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, (FTC), Rajapmpet at Badvel.

:: APPENDIX Of EVIDENCE:: Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for prosecution: for defence: P.W.1: Dasari Siva

P.W.2: Shaik Salim - NIL-

P.W.3: N.Venkata Ramana

P.W.4: Syed Hidayathulla

P.W.5: B.Bala Sudhakar

P.W.6: Pandugala Narayana

P.W.7: S.Ansar Basha.

Exhibits marked for prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1.

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: Signature of P.W.4 on confession statement and seizure nama.

Ex.P.6: Signature of P.W.4 on confession statement and seizure nama.

Ex.P.7: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5

Ex.P.8: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6

Ex.P.9: Hospital intimation.

Ex.P10: FIR

Ex.P11: Police proceedings

Ex.P12: Rough sketch

Ex.P13: Scene observation.

Ex.P14: Police proceedings.

Dt. 10.03.2023

13

SC.157 Of 2022

AASJ Court, Bdvl. Ex.P15: Rough sketch

Ex.P16:Seizure panchanama.

Exhibits marked for defence:- -Nil - Material objects marked for prosecution: -NIL-

Sd/- N.S.,

A.A.S.J., Bdvl.

Dt.10.03.2023 1

SC.103 Of 2020

ASJ Court, Bdvl.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) ::

RAJAMPET AT BADVEL.

Present:- Smt N.SARASWATHI, Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajampet,

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajampet at Badvel.

Friday, this the 10th day of March, 2023.

Sessions Case No.103 Of 2020

(P.R.C.No.16/2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Badvel).

1Name of the complainant The state represented by Inspector of police, Porumamilla.

2.Name of the accused1. Samala Naga Maheswara Reddy @ Maheshwara Reddy, Aged 34 years, S/o.Jaya Nagireddy, native of Danthelapalli Village, Yallanur Mandal, Ananthapur District, now residing near Saraswathi Vidya Mandir, Pulivendula Town, Y.S.R.Kadapa.

2. Mekala Bramhanandareddy, Aged 31 years, S/o.Siva Reddy, Driver, Danthelapalli Village, Yellanur Mandal, Tadipatri Taluk, Ananthapur District.

3. Vikas Kailas Lahase, Aged 30 years, S/o.Kailas Lahase, Coolie, Mu Post Bhokri, Jalgaon, Raver, Maharashtra – 425508.

4. Thurpinti Pullanna, Aged 26 years, S/o.Lalapa, Coolie, Dimmagudi Village, Pedda Oduguru Mandal, Ananthapur District.

5. Lekkala Srinivasulareddy, Aged 36 years, S/o.Narayanareddy, Coolie, LingaladinneVillage,B.Mattam Mandal, YSR District.

6. Oruginti Narasimhulu, Aged 62 years, S/o.Subbaiah, Coolie, Thipparajupalli Village, B.Kodur Mandal,Y.S.R.District. 3Charges framedU/secs.395 of IPC. 4 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty. 5 Finding of the judgeA.1 to A.6 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.395 of IPC. 6Sentence or orderIn the result, the A.1 to A.6 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.395 of IPC, and as such, they are acquitted under section.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and of that their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment U/sec.437- A of Criminal Procedure Code. No

Dt.10.03.2023 2

SC.103 Of 2020

ASJ Court, Bdvl.

Property Order is passed as no property is produced for disposal.

7Prosecution conducted by Sri K.Ravi Chandra,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

8.Name of the advocate for Sri E.C.Obul Reddy, the accused Advocate, Badvel.

9.Crime No.and police station Cr.No.111/2018 of Porumamilla P.S.

10. Committed by Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Badvel.

11. Date of offence30.03.2018

12. Date of report31.03.2018

13. Date of remand. 05.04.2018

14. Date of release on bail. 21.04.2018

15. Date of committal 19.02.2020

16.Date of commencement of trial 13.01.2023

17. Date of close of trial.03.03.2023

18. Date of Judgment. 10.03.2023

JUDGMENT

The accused arraigned before this Court for the charge under section.395 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The State represented by the S.I of Police, Porumamilla, laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.111/2018 of Porumamilla P.S., alleging that, on 30.03.2018, at about 04.00 P.M P.W.1 along with P.W.2,

K.Prasanth Kumar, loaded Bananas in the Eicher lorry bearing registered number TS04/UB-7179 to transport the same to Vizag and brought the lorry to the weight bridge near Indian Petrol Bunk, Idupulapalli, at that time accused formed themselves into a group with common intention came to the bridge and threatened P.W.1 and bet him and caused simple injury and took the Eicher lorry and fled away along with booty from the place of offecnce, P.W.1 gave report to B.Pedda Obanna, S.I of police. Basing on the report of P.W.1, he registered the case in Cr.No.111/2018 U/sec.395 of IPC., and issued FIR, after that P.W.4 took up further investigation, after receipt of credible information and after securing of witnesses he seized the property and arrested the

Dt.10.03.2023 3

SC.103 Of 2020

ASJ Court, Bdvl. accused and after completion of investigation and he laid charge sheet.

Brief facts:-

3. The state represented by the S.I of Police, Porumamilla laid charge sheet against the accused under section.395 of IPC, basing on the statement of P.W.1, B.Pedda Obanna, S.I of police registered the case in

Crime No.111/2018 of Porumamilla P.S., and later P.W.4 took up investigation and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

Commencement of proceedings before the Court and trial:

4.(A) Upon filing the charge sheet, the learned Additional Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Badvel, had taken the cognizance of the offence

U/Sec.395 of IPC against accused, numbered the case as a P.R.C.16/2018 and committed the case to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Kadapa division by following the procedure U/Sec.209 Cr.P.C, The Hon'ble Sessions Court, numbered the case as S.C.No.103/2020 and made over to this Court for disposal according to law on the point of jurisdiction.

(B). On appearance of the A.1 to A.6 and upon hearing the prosecution as well as a defence counsel, accused were examined U/sec.228 of Cr.P.C. They denied the accusation, charges U/sec.395 of IPC, was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(C). In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to

P.W.4 through them got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. No documents got marked for defence.

(D). After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, with reference to the incriminating evidence available on record, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

Hence closed.

5. Heard arguments on both sides.

Dt.10.03.2023 4

SC.103 Of 2020

ASJ Court, Bdvl.

6. Now the points for determination is :-

(I) Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of

the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.395 of

IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. POINT:- (A) As noted above during the course of the trial of this case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9, in order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.395 of IPC. In the instant case, the prosecution examined G.Rama

Rao as P.W.1, Lanka Rambabu as P.W.2, P.Suresh Babu, as P.W.3 and Sri

B.Madhusudhan Rao, C.I of Police as P.W.4.

(B) P.W.1 simply testifies that on 30.03.2018 at about 04.00PM he along with P.W.2 and one Prasanth Kumar, loaded bananas in the Lorry and brought the lorry to the weight bride situated near to Indian Petrol

Bunk, at that time some of the persons threatened him and caused injuries to him. He further stated that they fled away with lorry from that place. His report to the police is exhibited as Ex.P1.

(C) P.W.2 testifies that at about 3 years back he along with

P.W.1 went on Eicher lorry with banana load to weighing bridge situated near Indian Petrol Bunk at that time some of the persons formed themselves into group and threatened P.W.1 and caused injuries to P.W.1 and fled away with lorry from that place.

(D) P.W.4 testifies that he received case file from Sri Pedda

Obanna, and basing on the report of P.W.1, he registered the case in

Cr.No.111/2018 and issued FIR and he submit copies of FIR to all concerned. He further testifies that, during his course of investigation, he

Dt.10.03.2023 5

SC.103 Of 2020

ASJ Court, Bdvl. recorded the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2. On receipt of credible information, he went to Pulivendula town with staff and panchayatdars and found some persons, on seeing them they escaped from the place by leaving lorry along with banana load, they came to station after seizing the property on the next day, they went to scene of offense and recorded the statements and prepared rough sketch at the scene of offense, on 04.04.2018 on receipt of credible information they went to Amagampalli

Village, along with mediators and arrested the accused and prepared confessional statement-cum-mahazarnama. He further testifies that he filed requisition before Mydukur court for conducting of test identification parade.

He stated that after receipt of wound certificate of P.W.4 he laid charge sheet. P.W.3 not supported the case.

(E) The learned counsel for accused cross examined the

P.W.4 at length, in cross examination P.W.4 stated that panchayatidars are residents of Porumamilla and he is not obtained signatures of any inhabitants on panchanama at the time of seizing of property.

Robbery:-

Section.391 Dacoity:- When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit” dacoity”. Section 395.

Punishment for dacoity. Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section.395 Punishment for dacoity:- Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment

Dt.10.03.2023 6

SC.103 Of 2020

ASJ Court, Bdvl. for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

9. The prosecution alleges that accused committed decoity and caused injuries to P.W.1. To prove the case, the prosecution examined the

P.W.1 to P.W.4. P.W.1 who is the injured in this case simply stated that some of the persons threatened him and caused injuries to him and fled away with lorry. P.W.2 testifies that the same thing. P.W.4 who is the investigating officer testifies that basing on the report P.W.1 Sri Pedda

Obbanna registered the case and after conducted further investigation.

PW.4 laid charge sheet.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE:-

10. Now it is relevant what is injury -

According to medical terminology, Injury means wound or trauma; harm or hurt; usually applied to damage inflicted on the body by an external force. In other words, as was observed in Mrs. Veeda Menezes vs

Yusuf Khan And Anr, 1966 AIR 1773-1966 SCR 123 , the expression "harm" has not been defined in the 'Indian Penal Code: in its dictionary meaning it connotes hurt, injury; damage; impairment, moral wrong or evil. There is no warrant for the contention raised that the expression "harm" in s.95 does not include physical injury. The expression "harm" is used in many sections of the Indian Penal Code. In ss.81, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 100, 104 and 106 the expression can only mean physical injury. In s.93 it means an injurious mental reaction. In s.415 it means injury to a person in body, mind, reputation or property. In ss.469 and 499 harm, it is plain from the context, is to the reputation of the aggrieved party.

Dacoity: Identification evidence: Need of cautious approach:-

One area of criminal jurisprudence susceptible to miscarriage of

Dt.10.03.2023 7

SC.103 Of 2020

ASJ Court, Bdvl. justice is error in identification, Court’s approach to accept identification should be very cautious. The Court should approach the evidence of identification with the reasonable doubts of an intelligent person and accept it only if those doubts are removed. In order to remove these doubts, the touchstones to be adopted could be (I) fair, if not good opportunity of the witness for observation,

(ii) reasonable time within which the identification was made; (iii) reliable power of observation of the witness; (iv) his credibility, and (v) the fact whether the witness got any opportunity to identify the accused after arrest. The crucial requirements is the satisfaction of the Court on the acceptability of the identification. If identification parade was not properly and regularly conducted, it cannot operate as reliable corroboration regarding identification in Court.

Identification of dacoity:- When a dacoity is committed the victim and the inmates of the house are normally and naturally in a state of extreme excitement with a heavy sense of fear. The evidence of identification of such persons requires close scrutiny before the same is accepted. The evidence of mere identification of an accused person at the trial for the first time, is from its very nature inherently of a week character. In order to carry conviction, the evidence should ordinarily show as to how and under what circumstances, the witness came to pick out the particular accused person.

Dacoity by evidence of identification in T.I Parade:-

As to the value of T.I parade, the identification of T.I parade is never a substantive evidence. The substantive evidence is the witnesses deposition in the Court. But when the accused person is not previously known to the witness concerned then identification of the accused by the witness soon after the former’s arrest is of vital importance because he furnishes to the investigating agency that investigating is proceeding on right lines. As a matter of fact, identification in jail is not substantive evidence. It can be used for the purpose of corroboration only. The evidence of T.I parade being not a substantive piece

Dt.10.03.2023 8

SC.103 Of 2020

ASJ Court, Bdvl. of evidence, it can be used only to confirm the identification made in the Court.

The identity of the culprit may be fixed by circumstantial evidence also. Identity of the accused who is stranger to the witness in Court as a general rule required corroboration in the form of identification parade.

Description of features of dacoits to police: need before T.I parade identification: Before asking for T.I parade I.O must try to gather from the witnesses the particulars about the features and the actions of the persons seen. It may be that in some cases the features cannot be properly described by the witnesses. This is likely to be so when there is no special feature is the appearance of accused persons. Nevertheless I.O must try to obtain the description of the person seen. Identifying witness not giving any particulars about the features either in the F.I.R or in their statement to police – but they identified the suspects in T.I parade and then in Court, it is held no reliance on this identification can be put accused is to be acquitted.

Dacoity: Identification in Court :-

Identification in Court is substantive evidence but it requires corroboration which should be in the form of earlier Test Identification proceedings. Court identification should be continuously acted upon. It is safe to search for corroboration in T.I Parade. The evidence of mere identification in

Court at the time of trial for the first time is of very weak character.

Identification in Court corroborated by result of T.I parade may form basing for conviction. Identifying witness when failed to identify in earlier T.I parade but succeeded in next attempt it is unsafe to convict corroboration may come from various circumstantial factors, one being the evidence of T.I parade.

Identification in T.I parade cannot be acted upon where there is no actual identification in Court. Identification in Court for the first time without being prescribed by T.I parade can be acted upon to convict the accused.

Dt.10.03.2023 9

SC.103 Of 2020

ASJ Court, Bdvl. Identification in Court without any supporting evidence about identification, that too about 1-1/2 years after the incident cannot be the basis for the conviction.

Accused when is identified in T.I parade but not in Court, no conviction can be based.

11. The case of the prosecution is that accused bet the injured.

The entire case of the prosecution is that accused committed decoity, but the injured did not stated anything against the accused. There is inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The intention of the accused was not proved by the prosecution.

12. The standard of proof in criminal cases is not the same as in the civil. Importantly, in criminal cases the burden of proving the guilt of an accused is upon the prosecution. It must standard by itself. Essentially accused need not establish his case beyond all reasonable doubt. Of course, in some cases where the burden of proof relating to a fact in issue in a case is on the accused,the standard of proof required of him is not the same as is required from the prosecution. This proposition of law is no more res-integra. Upon such proof as is adduced,if there is a real and reasonable doubt as to his guilt,the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The law always requires that the conviction should be certain and not doubtful. If the evidence on record establishes the truth of the charge and satisfies the reason and judgment of the court such evidence must be taken to have proved the charge beyond all reasonable doubt justifying conviction.

13. The material on record clearly shows that PW.1 gave his statement. This court is of opinion merely because the prosecution is able to prove the report at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the report it self established the case of the prosecution. When the content of the report is supported by the maker of the statement, the said report can

Dt.10.03.2023 10

SC.103 Of 2020

ASJ Court, Bdvl. be taken as corroborative piece of evidence. The remaining evidence available in this case against accused is the sole evidence of investigating officer. Further it is not safe to attribute the evidence against the accused basing on the sole evidence of investigating officer without any corroboration either from eye witness or mediators. Conviction can not be placed on mere assumptions and presumptions. There must be legal evidence to convict accused, and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused persons with cogent and convincing reasons.

14. In the light of above discussion, it is held that prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt against accused for the offence under

Section.395 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER:- 15. In the result, the A.1 to A.6 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.395 of IPC, and as such, they are acquitted under section.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and of that their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment U/sec.437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No Property Order is passed as no property is produced for disposal.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer-Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10th day of March, 2023.

Sd/- N. Saraswathi,

Assistant Sessions Judge,Rajampet. Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge, (FTC), Rajampet at Badvel.

:: APPENDIX Of EVIDENCE ::

Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for prosecution: for defence:

P.W.1: G.Rama Rao - Nil - P.W.2: Lanka Ram Babu

Dt.10.03.2023 11

SC.103 Of 2020

ASJ Court, Bdvl.

P.W.3: P.Suresh Babu P.W.4: B.Madhusudhan Rao

Exhibits marked for prosecution:-

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5: FIR in Crime No.111/2018 of Porumamilla P.S. Ex.P.6: Rough sketch. Ex.P.7: Confessional-cum-mahazarnama Ex.P.8: JFCM mydukur conducted test identification parade. Ex.P.9: Wound certificate.

Exhibits marked for defence:- Nil -

Material objects marked for prosecution:- - Nil -

Sd/- N.S.,

A.S.J.,

Bdvl.

1

Dt:24.03.2023

HMOP.178/2022

ASCJ Court, Rjpt.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC) :: RAJAMPET

AT BADVEL.

Present:- Smt N.SARASWATHI,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet,

FAC.Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Rajampet at Badvel.

Friday, this the 24 th day of March, 2023.

HMOP.178 Of 2022

Muccharla Sravanthi ..Petitioner..

- Versus -

Gadamsetty Rangaswamy ..Respondent..

This petition is coming on this day for disposal before me in the presence of Sri D.Brahma Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent remained exparte, upon perusing petition and material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following : -

O R D E R

This petition is filed U/sec.13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of marriage performed on ‘13.08.2020’ with respondent on the ground of ‘Cruelty’ by granting decree of divorce and for costs of the petition.

2. The petitioner Muccharla Sravanthi averred that the respondent

Gadamsetty Rangswamy is her legally wedded husband and they got married on 13.08.2020 at the residence of respondent at Venkateswara Nagar, Ongole

Town, Prakasham District, in the presence of elders of both parties as per Hindu

Rites and Customs. They lead happy marital life for a period of four months only, during their wedlock there were no issues and thereafter the respondent used to harass her both physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry with the instigation of his parents and thereafter the mediation held through elders, the petitioner stated that the cruel attitude of respondent towards her, for which he stated that he will never do such type of acts in future and the same 2

Dt:24.03.2023

HMOP.178/2022

ASCJ Court, Rjpt.

was believed her and re-join with the respondent, but the respondent did not change his attitude and harassed her, due to the said acts, she informed the same to her parents and she left the house of respondent and stayed in her parental house. Thereafter, mediations held for reunion of them through elders, but in vain. Thus, there is no chance to lead happy marital life with the respondent, as such, she is constrained to file this petition for grant of divorce.

Hence the petition.

3. As per docket note notice of respondent is served but called absent and he made exparte on 10.03.2023.

4. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3.

5. Now the point for determination is whether the petitioner is

entitled for dissolution of marriage on the ground of

‘Cruelty’ as prayed for?

6. POINT:- (A) The contention of the petitioner is that, she got married on 13.08.2020 at the residence of respondent at Venkateswara Nagar, Ongole

Town, Prakasham District, in the presence of elders of both parties as per Hindu

Rites and Customs, they lead happy marital life for about 4 months and there were no issues to them, the respondent used to harass her both physically and mentally and due to that she left the company of respondent.

7. (A) Section.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides ‘Cruelty’ as a ground for divorce. The provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, did not define the word cruelty. It is left to the wisdom of Court to decide whether the particular behaviour of the spouse can be considered as cruelty. The Court should take into consideration both the direct and indirect evidence placed

before in judging the behaviour of the individual as cruel.

(B) In the case of Savithri Pande Vs Premchandra Pande, reported in 2002 (2) SCC, 75, the Hon’ble Apex Court , held that the cruelty has 3

Dt:24.03.2023

HMOP.178/2022

ASCJ Court, Rjpt.

not been defined under the Act, but in relation to matrimonial matters, it is contemplated as a conduct of such type, which endangerous the living of the petitioner with the respondent. Cruelty consists of acts which are dangerous, life, limb and health. Cruelty for the purpose of the Act, means where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as to have inflicted bodily injury, or to have caused reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, suffering or to have injured health.

(C) Further in the case of Suman Kapoor Vs Sudhir Kapoor, AIR 2009 (SC), 589, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that the expression cruelty includes both physical and mental cruelty.

8. During the enquiry of this petition, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. She filed an affidavit in replica to her contentions in the petition and further stated that the respondent used to harass her both physically and mentally and she residing with her parents and as such there is no possibility of reunion. Though notice received by the respondent, he was set exparte. Perused the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.3.Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent is broken and she is not able to continue any more with the respondent is remained unchallenged, as such, it is held that the petitioner proved her case and the petitioner is entitled for divorce as prayed for.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on ‘13.08.2020’ is hereby dissolved by granting decree of divorce on the ground of ‘Cruelty’. No costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of March, 2023.

Sd/- N. Saraswathi,

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, FAC.Addl.Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Rajampet at Badvel.

4

Dt:24.03.2023

HMOP.178/2022

ASCJ Court, Rjpt.

‘’ APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE’’

Witnesses examined for the petitioner:

P.W.1: Muccharla Sravanthi

Witnesses examined for the respondent: Nil

Exhibits marked for the petitioner:

Ex.A.1: Wedding invitation card.

Ex.A.2: Marriage certificate.

Ex.A.3: Notarized affidavit.

Exhibits marked for the respondent:-NIL-

Sd/- N. Saraswathi,

A .S.C.J.,

Bdvl.

Dt.24.03.2023 1

O.S.No.33 Of 2022

ASCJ Court, Bdvl.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC) :: RAJAMPET

AT BADVEL.

Present:- Smt N.SARASWATHI,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet,

FAC.Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Rajampet at Badvel.

Friday, this the 24 th day of March, 2023.

O.S.No.33 Of 2022

K.Bala Chandraiah, S/o.Nagaiah, Aged about 58 years, Hindu, Government Teacher, Residing at Reddy Nagar, Porumamilla, Y.S.R.District. .. Plaintif ..

­ Versus ­

Sirigam Srinivasulu, S/o.Vema Narayana, Aged about 50 years, Hindu, Business, Residing at Bairagipatteda, Beside Rami Reddy Rayalaseema College, Krishna Apartment, Ground floor, Tirupathi City, Andhra Pradesh.

.. Defendant ..

This suit is coming on 17.03.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Masthanaiah, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent and remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount from the defendant, directing him to pay Rs.22,23,871/- with future interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and for cost of the suit.

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

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.13,00,000/-, dt.27.08.2019, from the plaintiff for his family necessities and executed 13 promissory notes Rs.1,00,000/-, dt.27.08.2019 each, in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, subsequently, the plaintiff several times demanded the defendant to repay the promissory notes debt, for which he used to postponed the same. The plaintiff got issued legal

Dt.24.03.2023 2

O.S.No.33 Of 2022

ASCJ Court, Bdvl.

notice to defendant on 04.08.2022 and the same was returned. Thus, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of amount from the defendant due under the promissory notes dt:27.08.2019. Hence, the suit.

2. The defendant notice returned, as per docket note whereabouts not known. Petitioner filed a petition, for paper publication in I.A.No.10/2023 and same is allowed. Notice was served through Eenadu Daily news paper publication on 08.03.2023. The respondent is set exparte on 10.03.2023.

3. During the course of trial, to prove the case of the plaintiff, himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.15.

4. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

5. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit

amount from the defendant as prayed for?

6. POINT:- (A) In the instant case, it is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- on 27.08.2019 from the plaintiff for his family necessities and executed a promissory notes on the same day in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, though he demanded several times but defendant did not repay the promissory note debts.

7. The plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1, he reiterated all the contents of plaint averments and upon perusal of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.13, it makes clear that the defendant having borrowed the amount from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, though the plaintiff demanded him to repay the amount due under the promissory notes, but the defendant did not pay the amount. Since, the defendant choose to remain

Dt.24.03.2023 3

O.S.No.33 Of 2022

ASCJ Court, Bdvl.

exparte, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.13 are not at all challenged and it is un-discredited. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1 and the document exhibited by him under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.13 are clearly proved that the defendant failed to repay the borrowed amount to the plaintiff, even though the plaintiff demanded him. Therefore, it is a fit case to direct the defendant to repay the amount due under the Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.13 promissory notes as agreed by him. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.22,23,871/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal adjudged amount.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of March, 2023.

Sd/- N. Saraswathi,

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, FAC.Addl.Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Rajampet at Badvel.

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

Witnesses examined for Plaintiff:-

P.W1: K.Bala Chandraiah

Witnesses examined for Defendant:- Nil

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1: Promissory note, dated 27.08.2019.

Ex.A.2: Promissory note, dated 27.08.2019.

Ex.A.3: Promissory note, dated 27.08.2019.

Ex.A.4: Promissory note, dated 27.08.2019.

Ex.A.5: Promissory note, dated 27.08.2019.

Ex.A.6: Promissory note, dated 27.08.2019.

Ex.A.7: Promissory note, dated 27.08.2019.

Dt.24.03.2023 4

O.S.No.33 Of 2022

ASCJ Court, Bdvl.

Ex.A.8: Promissory note, dated 27.08.2019.

Ex.A.9: Promissory note, dated 27.08.2019.

Ex.A.10: Promissory note, dated 27.08.2019.

Ex.A.11: Promissory note, dated 27.08.2019.

Ex.A.12: Promissory note, dated 27.08.2019.

Ex.A.13: Promissory note, dated 27.08.2019.

Ex.A.14: Office copy of legal notice, dt.04.08.2022 along with postal receipt.

Ex.A.15: Returned registered postal cover.

Exhibits Marked for Defendant:- Nil

Sd/- N. Saraswathi,

A .S.C.J.,

Bdvl.

Dt.24.03.2023 1

O.S.No.24 Of 2021

ASCJ Court, Bdvl.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC) :: RAJAMPET

AT BADVEL.

Present:- Smt N.SARASWATHI,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet,

FAC.Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Rajampet at Badvel.

Friday, this the 24 th day of March, 2023.

O.S.No.24 Of 2021

Konda Venkata Reddy, S/o.Venkata Rami Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 39 years, Private employee, Resident of Krishnam Palli Village, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District. .. Plaintif ..

­ Versus ­

Panga Raghunadha Reddy, S/o.Jayarami Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 40 years, Private employee, Resident of Balarajpalli Village, Sri Avadhutha Kasinayana Mandal, Kadapa District.

.. Defendant ..

This suit is coming on 17.03.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.R.Varma, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent and remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount from the defendant, directing him to pay Rs.23,64,583/- with future interest at 30% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and for cost of the suit.

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

The defendant borrowed an amounts of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/-,

Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.4,50,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/- and dt.03.09.2018, dt.10.09.2018, dt.27.09.2018, dt.06.10.2018 and dt.01.10.2018 respectively, from the plaintiff for his family necessities and executed a one promissory note on 01.10.2018 for an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 30% per annum, subsequently, the plaintiff several times

Dt.24.03.2023 2

O.S.No.24 Of 2021

ASCJ Court, Bdvl.

demanded the defendant to repay the promissory note debt, for which he used to postponed the same. Thus, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of amount from the defendant due under the promissory note

dt:01.10.2018, total amount of Rs.12,50,000/-. Hence, the suit.

2.The defendant notice returned, as per docket note defendant is not in the village since three years. Petitioner filed a petition, for paper publication in I.A.No.04/2023 and same is allowed. Notice was served through

Eenadu Daily news paper publication on 12.02.2023. The respondent is set exparte on 24.02.2023.

3. During the course of trial, to prove the case of the plaintiff, himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1.

4. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

5. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit

amount from the defendant as prayed for?

6. POINT:- (A) In the instant case, it is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed total an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- on 01.10.2018, (Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.4,50,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/- and dt.03.09.2018, dt.10.09.2018, dt.27.09.2018, dt.06.10.2018 and dt.01.10.2018 respectively) from the plaintiff for his family necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 30% per annum, though he demanded several times but in vain.

7. The plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1, he reiterated all the contents of plaint averments and upon perusal of Ex.A.1, it makes clear that the defendant having borrowed the amount from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the

Dt.24.03.2023 3

O.S.No.24 Of 2021

ASCJ Court, Bdvl.

same with interest at 30% per annum, though the plaintiff demanded him to repay the amount due under the promissory note, but the defendant did not pay the amount. Since the defendant choose to remain exparte, the evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 is not at all challenged and it is un-discredited.

Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1 and the document exhibited by him under

Ex.A.1 is clearly proved that the defendant failed to repay the borrowed amount to the plaintiff, even though the plaintiff demanded him. Therefore, it is a fit case to direct the defendant to repay the amount due under the Ex.A.1 promissory note as agreed by him. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.23,64,583/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal adjudged amount.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of March, 2023.

Sd/- N. Saraswathi,

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, FAC.Addl.Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Rajampet at Badvel.

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

Witnesses examined for Plaintiff:-

P.W1: Konda Venkata Reddy

Witnesses examined for Defendant:- Nil

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1: Original promissory note dt:01.10.2018, for Rs.12,50,000/-.

Exhibits Marked for Defendant:- Nil

Sd/- N. Saraswathi,

A .S.C.J.,

Bdvl.