Sri P.Laxmana Chary

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 1 of 14

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE, VEMULAWADA

AT :: VEMULAWADA

Present: P. Laxmana Chary

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajanna Sircilla

FAC: Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Vemulawada.

Friday, this the 31st day of January, 2025.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 486 of 2021

(PRC No.14 of 2021, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada)

Committed by:Sri J.Vineel Kumar, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada. Nameofthe:The State through Inspector of Police, PS complainantVemulawada Town (Crime.No.416 of 2020 of PS Vemulawada Town). Description of the:Vodyala Venu, S/o: Prasad, accusedAged about: 42 years, R/o: Venugopalaswamy Street of Vemulawada Town. Charges:U/Secs.420, 307, 506 of IPC against the sole- Accused. Plea of the accused:Not Guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the charges of offences punishable under Sections 420, 307, 506 of the IPC and he is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

The marked Case Property:- MO.1 – Photograph resembling TVS Victor motorcycle bearing No.TS-23-0528 shall be returned to its original owner after expiry of appeal time. Prosecution:Sri G.Laxman, Addl. Public Prosecutor. conducted by Defence conducted by:Sri B.Ganga Raju, Advocate for Accused

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 2 of 14

T his case is coming before me on 10.01.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Laxman, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. B.Ganga Raju, learned Counsel for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a case on Police Report filed by the Inspector of Police, Police

Station Vemulawada Town in Crime No.416 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 306 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) against the Accused, on the file of learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that:

(i).On 13.08.2020 at 2000 hours, the defacto complainant

Palamakula Srikhar Babu, S/o: Laxmanaswami been to the Police Station and lodged a report stating that by profession he an Advocate at Sircilla, on 20.02.2020, the Accused/Vodyala Venu offered to sale of house bearing No.4-2-31, situated near Venugopalaswami Temple, Vemulawada

Town which is purchased from Chokkala Srinivas for an amount of

Rs.30,00,000/- and took an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by executing agreement of sale before the mediators and promised to execute the register sale deed on 18.03.2020. On 18.03.2020, the complainant went to the Registration Office, on enquiry, he came to know that the Sale Deed was canceled which is executed between the Accused/Vodyala Venu and

Chokkala Srinivas, the same was not disclosed by the accused and cheated the complainant, on knowing the same, he asked the accused about the same, on that the accused agreed to return the advance amount within a period of one month, but failed to repay the same. On 13.08.2020 in the morning hours, the complainant proceeding to

Vemulawada for asking advance amount along with witnesses, on the

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 3 of 14 way, when he reached near Yellamma Temple, the accused met him, when he asked about the money, all of a sudden, the accused beat him with hands on his stomach and pushed him on the ground, in the meantime, the accused took a knife from the motorcycle cover, with an intention to kill him, the complainant escaped from the spot, on seeing the witnesses who are coming behind him on the motorcycle, the accused fled away from the spot. Hence, he requested to take necessary action.

(ii).Basing on the report, LW8/O. Venkatesh registered a case in

Crime.No.416 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 307, 506 of the IPC and issued FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW8 examined and recorded the statement of

LW1/Palamakula Srikhar Babu, then, visited the scene of offence, where he secured two mediators i.e., LW4/ A. Harikrishna and LW5/V. Naresh and prepared scene of offence panchanama in the presence of the said mediators. Later, LW8 secured the presence of LW2/I. Prabhakar and

LW3/ Ch.Suresh and examined and recorded their statements. LW8 collected Non-Judicial Stamp Paper vide No.V-338050, S.No.2023, dated 20.02.2020 from the complainant.

(iii). On 04.09.2020 at about 1100 hours, on credible in formation,

LW8 and his party rushed to near Thippapur Bus-Stand and apprehended the accused along with his motorcycle i.e., TVS Victor bearing No.TS-23-0528 and interrogated him, when the accused is in a mood of confession, then, LW8 secured the presence of two mediators i.e.,

LW6/A. Raju and LW7/P. Saikrishna and interrogated the accused in the presence of same mediators, during interrogation, the accused confessed that the knife which he used to attempt to commit the commission of offence thrown away somewhere, hence, it is not recovered, LW8 seized the motorcycle bearing No.TS-23-0528 which the accused used at the time of commission of offence, later LW8 brought the accused along with

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 4 of 14 the motorcycle to the Police Station at 1200 hours, effected the arrest of the accused, after completion of formalities, produced before the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada for judicial remand. The case

property i.e., motorcycle TVS Victor bearing No.TS-23-0528 was deposited

before the court. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada took cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 307 and 506 of the IPC against Accused and issued summons.

4.On appearance of Accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Vemulawada supplied copies of documents to the Accused in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Further, by orders, dated:

23.09.2021, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada, committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Karimnagar, since the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon‘ble Court of Sessions. Subsequently, as the Orders of Hon’ble

High Court vide ROC.No.3103/2022-B, Spl, Dt.18.08.2022 and Hon’ble

Prl.DistrictandSessionsJudge,RajannaSircillavide

Dis.No.1046/DCSL/2022, dated:25.08.2022 this case is transferred to this Court on the point of jurisdiction for disposal according to law.

5. On appearance of Accused before this court and on hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, this Court framed charges under section 228 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 307 and 506 of the IPC against Accused, contents of the charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then, the schedule for commencement of trial has been issued.

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 5 of 14

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to PW6, out of 08 listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and got marked

M.O1. The evidence of remaining LW5 was given-up by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, accordingly his evidence was closed. The

police filed report stating that LW7 died, hence his evidence closed. Ex.D1 marked on behalf of the Accused.

7.On completion of evidence of the prosecution, the Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., where he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence, the defence also closed and posted the matter for arguments.

8.Heard the arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 420, 307 and 506 of the IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt?

10.POINT: The gist of the prosecution story is that the accused agreed to sale house bearing No.4-2-31 to the defacto-complainant which he purchased from Chokkala Srinivas under Sale Deed for an amount of

Rs.30,00,000/- and took advance amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, with a promise to execute register sale deed on 18.03.2020, on 18.03.2020 when the complainant went to the Registration Office, on enquiry, he came to know that the sale deed which was executed between Chokkala Srinivas and the accused was canceled, but the accused suppressed the same and entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant, thereby cheated him, when the complainant asked the accused, the accused promised to repay the advance amount, on 13.08.2020 in the morning hours, the complainant along with witness proceeding to Vemulawada to ask about

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 6 of 14 the advance amount, on the way, when he reached near Yellamma

Temple, the accused met him, when the complainant asked about the advance amount, all of a sudden, the accused beat the complainant on the stomach and pushed him on the ground and tried to kill with a knife which is in his motorcycle but the complainant escaped, in the meantime, the witnesses who are coming behind him, came to the spot, on seeing the witnesses, the accused fled away from the spot. Hence, this case.

11.As stated supra, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, amongst them, PW1 is the Defacto-complainant and victim, PW2 and PW3 are the eye-witnesses,

PW4 is the panch witness for crime details form, PW5 is the panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of the accused and PW6 is the investigation officer who laid charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the report,

Ex.P2 is crime detail form, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are the signatures of PW5 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama dated:04.09.2020 and Ex.P5 is First

Information Report.

12.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

State argued that by producing oral evidence of Pws.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Exs.P1, P2 and P5 the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offences punishable under Sections 420, 306 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code. Finally, prayed to convict the accused.

13.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused argued that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further argued that the prosecution also did not produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 306 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 7 of 14 against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Finally, prayed to acquit the accused.

14.Basing on the rivalry contentions latest considered evidence on record.

15.The prosecution examined the defacto complainant as PW1 who deposed in his chief-examination that on 20.02.2020, the accused went to him stating that he will sale house situated at Thettekunta Village, near at Agraharam for Rs.30,00,000/-, accordingly, they entered into an agreement, on the same day, he paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as advance and the accused agreed to register the same on 18.03.2020, but subsequently, the accused postponed the same. He further deposed in his chief-examination, on enquiry, the accused asked him to go to

Vemulawada to talk on 13.08.2020, hence, on 13.08.2020, he proceeding to Vemulawada from Sircilla, the persons who stood as witnesses to the agreement are following him, on the way, near Yellamma Temple

Vemulawada bus stand, the accused stopped his bike and started talking, all of sudden, the accused gave fist blows on his stomach, due to which he fell down on the ground, then, the accused brought knife from his motorcycle, he ran away from the spot, in the meantime, the witnesses namely I. Prabhakar and Ch.Suresh came behind him who raised shoutings, on that the accused ran away.

16.Cross examination of PW1 indicates that he does not have idea about the house humber and he submitted Photostat copy of sale deed to the police which stands on the name of accused. He denied other suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution.

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 8 of 14

17.The prosecution examined one of the eye-witnesses as PW2 who deposed in his chief-examination that the accused has to give money to complainant who promised to give land in lieu of money, but the accused neither gave money nor transferred land to the complainant.

18.During the course of cross-examination, PW2 stated that he does not know the accused and since he is friend of complainant came to the court for giving evidence. He also stated in his cross-examination that police never examined and recorded his statement.

19.The prosecution examined another eye-witness as PW3 who deposed in his chief-examination that on 22.02.2020 there were talks, on the same day, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused as advance, the accused agreed to execute register document on 18.03.2020, but the accused did not do registration and avoided to do registration. He further deposed in his chief-examination that the complainant, on one day, the complainant took him and PW2 to the accused, on the way, the complainant was proceeding on a motorcycle ahead to them, they were following the complainant on another motorcycle, on the way, near Yellamma Temple, he and PW2 noticed quarrel and went there, where they noticed the complainant fell down on the ground, accused took knife, on seeing them, the accused fled away.

During his cross-examination, he stated that he was present at the time of reducing agreement between the accused and complainant but he did not see ownership document of Accused to the house.

20.The prosecution examined one of the panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchanama as PW4 who deposed in his chief-examination that police prepared scene of offence panchanama. He further deposed in his chief examination that he and his friend were coming Sircilla, on the way

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 9 of 14 in between Yellamma temple and Dharga, they noticed some altercation, then they went there, where his friend Manoj identified accused who has to give money to Manoj, where argument took place between the complainant and accused, Accused got angry and fisted on the stomach of the complainant besides abusing in filthy language, the accused took knife from his bike, hence they shouted, on that the accused ray away.

During his cross-examination he stated that he did not remember the boundaries of the scene of offence and he did not have any idea about how many signatures were obtained by police.

21.The prosecution examined one of the witnesses to the confession- cum-seizure panchanama as PW5 who stated in his chief-examination that Pulluri Saikrishna (died) took him to the police station where he signed who was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and were cross-examined with the permission of the court.

However, nothing is elicited in their cross-examination in support of the case of the prosecution.

22.The other evidence available on record is the evidence of investigation officer who laid charge-sheet after completion of investigation examined as PW6 who deposed in his chief-examination that on 13.08.2020 at about 2000 hours, the complainant lodged a report, basing on it, he registered a case in Crime.No.460 of 2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 307 and 506 of IPC and issued

F.I.R and recorded the statement of complainant, visited the scene of offence where he drafted crime detail form in the presence of

PW4/Appavari Harikrishna and LW5/Vemula Naresh and then he recorded the statements of PWs.2 and 3 and he collected non-judicial stamp paper vide No.B-338050 from the complainant, on 04.09.2020 at about 1100 hours, he affected the arrest of the accused at Thippapur bus

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 10 of 14 stand and interrogated him, when the accused in the mood of confession, he secured the presence of PW5/Arigala Raju and LW7/Pulluri Srikrishna and recorded the confession-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of same mediators and he seized motorcycle bearing No.TS-23-0528 in the presence of the same mediators, later he produced the accused before the court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

23.In his cross-examination PW6 admitted that he did not examine the scriber of non-judicial stamp paper namely Gajjela Srinivas who also not examined Chokkala Srinivas. He denied other suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution.

24.It is the case of total denial, hence the prosecution needs to prove it’s case that the accused agreed to sale house bearing No.4-2-31 to the defacto-complainant which he purchased from Chokkala Srinivas under

Sale Deed for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and took advance amount of

Rs.6,00,000/-, by suppressing the fact that the sale deed which was executed between Chokkala Srinivas and the accused was canceled, when the complainant asked the accused about the same, the accused promised to repay the advance amount, hence on 13.08.2020 in the morning hours, the complainant along with witness proceeding to

Vemulawada to ask about the advance amount, on the way, when he reached near Yellamma Temple, the accused met him, when the complainant asked about the advance amount, all of a sudden, the accused beat the complainant on his stomach and pushed him on the ground and tried to kill with a knife which is there in his motorcycle but the complainant escaped beyond all reasonable doubts within the meaning for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 307 and 506 of

IPC.

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 11 of 14

25.As per the evidence of PW1 while they were talking about advance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- near Yellamma Temple Vemulawada bus stand, all of sudden, the accused gave fist blows on his stomach, due to which he fell down on the ground, then, the accused brought knife from his motorcycle, he ran away from the spot, in the meantime, Pws.2 and 3 reached the spot who were coming behind him raised shoutings, on that the accused ran away. It is the evidence of PW3 that he along with PW2 noticed quarrel and went there, where they found the complainant on the ground, accused took knife, on seeing them, the accused fled away. Here the evidence of PW1 is not corroborative with the evidence of PW3 because as per PW1 when the accused tried kill with knife he escaped, thereafter the Pws.2 and 3 reached the spot, however as per Pw3 when they reached the spot the complainant was on ground and on seeing them the accused fled away from the spot. More over PW2 being eye witness to the incident, he did not speak anything about the incident. Hence their evidence did not inspire any confidence.

26.As per the prosecution story the motive for the commission is that the accused entered into an agreement of sale to sale the house bearing

No.4-2-31 which he purchased from Chokkala Srinivas through sale deed for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the complainant, took an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant by executing the agreement of sale, by suppressing the fact that the sale deed which was executed between

Chokkala Srinivas and the accused was canceled, but the Investigating

Officer failed to collect neither sale deed executed between the accused and Chokkala Srinivas nor the agreement of sale executed between the complainant and accused without assigning proper reason.

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 12 of 14

27.The evidence of PW4 speaks as eyewitness to the incident not only as panch witness to the scene of offence. According to him at the time of incident five or six persons present at the spot, in such a case they are the best persons to speak about the incident but the investigation officer did choose to examine them as witnesses without assigning any proper reason. Further, the evidence of PW4 did not speak anything about the presence of LW5 while preparing the scene of offence panchanama and obtaining their signatures on the panchanama by the police. Hence, his evidence also did not inspire any cofidence.

28.PW5 who being the panch witnesses to the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused turned hostile and not supported the version of the prosecution, hence his evidence is no way useful to the case of the prosecution.

29.Having considered and scrutinized the evidence on record and in view of the reasons stated supra, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to brought on record any cogent and convincing evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sections 420, 307 and 506 of the IPC, beyond reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused.The point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for charges of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 307 and 506 of the IPC and he is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 13 of 14

The marked Case Property i.e., MO.1 –Photograph resembling TVS

Victor motorcycle bearing No.TS-23-0528 shall be returned to its original owner after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of January, 2025.

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge Vemulawada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION::

PW-1(LW1)Palamakula Srikhar Babu - Complainant-cum-Victim. PW-2(LW2)Indhuri Prabhakar – Eye-witness. PW-3(LW3)Choppadandi Suresh – Eye-witness. PW-4(LW4)Appavari Harikrishna – Panch witness for CDF. PW-5(LW6)Arigala Raju – Panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama. PW-6(LW8)O.Venkatesh – Investigating Officer.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:: - None -

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION::

Ex.P.1Report. Ex.P.2.CDF. Ex.P.3.Signature of PW5 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of the accused. Ex.P.4.Signature of PW5 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of the

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 14 of 14 accused. Ex.P.5.First Information Report.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE::

Ex.D1Relevant portion of Section 161 of Cr.P.C Statement of PW3 i.e., ‘today morning myself and Induri Prabhakar along with Srikarbabu were went’.

M.Os. MARKED:: MO.1 –Photograph resembling TVS Victor motorcycle bearing No.TS-23-0528

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge

Vemulawada

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 1 of 14

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE, VEMULAWADA

AT :: VEMULAWADA

Present: P. Laxmana Chary

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajanna Sircilla

FAC: Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Vemulawada.

Friday, this the 31st day of January, 2025.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 486 of 2021

(PRC No.14 of 2021, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada)

Committed by:Sri J.Vineel Kumar, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada. Nameofthe:The State through Inspector of Police, PS complainantVemulawada Town (Crime.No.416 of 2020 of PS Vemulawada Town). Description of the:Vodyala Venu, S/o: Prasad, accusedAged about: 42 years, R/o: Venugopalaswamy Street of Vemulawada Town. Charges:U/Secs.420, 307, 506 of IPC against the sole- Accused. Plea of the accused:Not Guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the charges of offences punishable under Sections 420, 307, 506 of the IPC and he is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

The marked Case Property:- MO.1 – Photograph resembling TVS Victor motorcycle bearing No.TS-23-0528 shall be returned to its original owner after expiry of appeal time. Prosecution:Sri G.Laxman, Addl. Public Prosecutor. conducted by Defence conducted by:Sri B.Ganga Raju, Advocate for Accused

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 2 of 14

T his case is coming before me on 10.01.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Laxman, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. B.Ganga Raju, learned Counsel for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a case on Police Report filed by the Inspector of Police, Police

Station Vemulawada Town in Crime No.416 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 306 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) against the Accused, on the file of learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that:

(i).On 13.08.2020 at 2000 hours, the defacto complainant

Palamakula Srikhar Babu, S/o: Laxmanaswami been to the Police Station and lodged a report stating that by profession he an Advocate at Sircilla, on 20.02.2020, the Accused/Vodyala Venu offered to sale of house bearing No.4-2-31, situated near Venugopalaswami Temple, Vemulawada

Town which is purchased from Chokkala Srinivas for an amount of

Rs.30,00,000/- and took an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by executing agreement of sale before the mediators and promised to execute the register sale deed on 18.03.2020. On 18.03.2020, the complainant went to the Registration Office, on enquiry, he came to know that the Sale Deed was canceled which is executed between the Accused/Vodyala Venu and

Chokkala Srinivas, the same was not disclosed by the accused and cheated the complainant, on knowing the same, he asked the accused about the same, on that the accused agreed to return the advance amount within a period of one month, but failed to repay the same. On 13.08.2020 in the morning hours, the complainant proceeding to

Vemulawada for asking advance amount along with witnesses, on the

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 3 of 14 way, when he reached near Yellamma Temple, the accused met him, when he asked about the money, all of a sudden, the accused beat him with hands on his stomach and pushed him on the ground, in the meantime, the accused took a knife from the motorcycle cover, with an intention to kill him, the complainant escaped from the spot, on seeing the witnesses who are coming behind him on the motorcycle, the accused fled away from the spot. Hence, he requested to take necessary action.

(ii).Basing on the report, LW8/O. Venkatesh registered a case in

Crime.No.416 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 307, 506 of the IPC and issued FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW8 examined and recorded the statement of

LW1/Palamakula Srikhar Babu, then, visited the scene of offence, where he secured two mediators i.e., LW4/ A. Harikrishna and LW5/V. Naresh and prepared scene of offence panchanama in the presence of the said mediators. Later, LW8 secured the presence of LW2/I. Prabhakar and

LW3/ Ch.Suresh and examined and recorded their statements. LW8 collected Non-Judicial Stamp Paper vide No.V-338050, S.No.2023, dated 20.02.2020 from the complainant.

(iii). On 04.09.2020 at about 1100 hours, on credible in formation,

LW8 and his party rushed to near Thippapur Bus-Stand and apprehended the accused along with his motorcycle i.e., TVS Victor bearing No.TS-23-0528 and interrogated him, when the accused is in a mood of confession, then, LW8 secured the presence of two mediators i.e.,

LW6/A. Raju and LW7/P. Saikrishna and interrogated the accused in the presence of same mediators, during interrogation, the accused confessed that the knife which he used to attempt to commit the commission of offence thrown away somewhere, hence, it is not recovered, LW8 seized the motorcycle bearing No.TS-23-0528 which the accused used at the time of commission of offence, later LW8 brought the accused along with

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 4 of 14 the motorcycle to the Police Station at 1200 hours, effected the arrest of the accused, after completion of formalities, produced before the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada for judicial remand. The case

property i.e., motorcycle TVS Victor bearing No.TS-23-0528 was deposited

before the court. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada took cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 307 and 506 of the IPC against Accused and issued summons.

4.On appearance of Accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Vemulawada supplied copies of documents to the Accused in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Further, by orders, dated:

23.09.2021, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada, committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Karimnagar, since the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon‘ble Court of Sessions. Subsequently, as the Orders of Hon’ble

High Court vide ROC.No.3103/2022-B, Spl, Dt.18.08.2022 and Hon’ble

Prl.DistrictandSessionsJudge,RajannaSircillavide

Dis.No.1046/DCSL/2022, dated:25.08.2022 this case is transferred to this Court on the point of jurisdiction for disposal according to law.

5. On appearance of Accused before this court and on hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, this Court framed charges under section 228 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 307 and 506 of the IPC against Accused, contents of the charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then, the schedule for commencement of trial has been issued.

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 5 of 14

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to PW6, out of 08 listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and got marked

M.O1. The evidence of remaining LW5 was given-up by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, accordingly his evidence was closed. The

police filed report stating that LW7 died, hence his evidence closed. Ex.D1 marked on behalf of the Accused.

7.On completion of evidence of the prosecution, the Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., where he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence, the defence also closed and posted the matter for arguments.

8.Heard the arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 420, 307 and 506 of the IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt?

10.POINT: The gist of the prosecution story is that the accused agreed to sale house bearing No.4-2-31 to the defacto-complainant which he purchased from Chokkala Srinivas under Sale Deed for an amount of

Rs.30,00,000/- and took advance amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, with a promise to execute register sale deed on 18.03.2020, on 18.03.2020 when the complainant went to the Registration Office, on enquiry, he came to know that the sale deed which was executed between Chokkala Srinivas and the accused was canceled, but the accused suppressed the same and entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant, thereby cheated him, when the complainant asked the accused, the accused promised to repay the advance amount, on 13.08.2020 in the morning hours, the complainant along with witness proceeding to Vemulawada to ask about

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 6 of 14 the advance amount, on the way, when he reached near Yellamma

Temple, the accused met him, when the complainant asked about the advance amount, all of a sudden, the accused beat the complainant on the stomach and pushed him on the ground and tried to kill with a knife which is in his motorcycle but the complainant escaped, in the meantime, the witnesses who are coming behind him, came to the spot, on seeing the witnesses, the accused fled away from the spot. Hence, this case.

11.As stated supra, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, amongst them, PW1 is the Defacto-complainant and victim, PW2 and PW3 are the eye-witnesses,

PW4 is the panch witness for crime details form, PW5 is the panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of the accused and PW6 is the investigation officer who laid charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the report,

Ex.P2 is crime detail form, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are the signatures of PW5 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama dated:04.09.2020 and Ex.P5 is First

Information Report.

12.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

State argued that by producing oral evidence of Pws.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Exs.P1, P2 and P5 the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offences punishable under Sections 420, 306 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code. Finally, prayed to convict the accused.

13.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused argued that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further argued that the prosecution also did not produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 306 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 7 of 14 against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Finally, prayed to acquit the accused.

14.Basing on the rivalry contentions latest considered evidence on record.

15.The prosecution examined the defacto complainant as PW1 who deposed in his chief-examination that on 20.02.2020, the accused went to him stating that he will sale house situated at Thettekunta Village, near at Agraharam for Rs.30,00,000/-, accordingly, they entered into an agreement, on the same day, he paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as advance and the accused agreed to register the same on 18.03.2020, but subsequently, the accused postponed the same. He further deposed in his chief-examination, on enquiry, the accused asked him to go to

Vemulawada to talk on 13.08.2020, hence, on 13.08.2020, he proceeding to Vemulawada from Sircilla, the persons who stood as witnesses to the agreement are following him, on the way, near Yellamma Temple

Vemulawada bus stand, the accused stopped his bike and started talking, all of sudden, the accused gave fist blows on his stomach, due to which he fell down on the ground, then, the accused brought knife from his motorcycle, he ran away from the spot, in the meantime, the witnesses namely I. Prabhakar and Ch.Suresh came behind him who raised shoutings, on that the accused ran away.

16.Cross examination of PW1 indicates that he does not have idea about the house humber and he submitted Photostat copy of sale deed to the police which stands on the name of accused. He denied other suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution.

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 8 of 14

17.The prosecution examined one of the eye-witnesses as PW2 who deposed in his chief-examination that the accused has to give money to complainant who promised to give land in lieu of money, but the accused neither gave money nor transferred land to the complainant.

18.During the course of cross-examination, PW2 stated that he does not know the accused and since he is friend of complainant came to the court for giving evidence. He also stated in his cross-examination that police never examined and recorded his statement.

19.The prosecution examined another eye-witness as PW3 who deposed in his chief-examination that on 22.02.2020 there were talks, on the same day, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused as advance, the accused agreed to execute register document on 18.03.2020, but the accused did not do registration and avoided to do registration. He further deposed in his chief-examination that the complainant, on one day, the complainant took him and PW2 to the accused, on the way, the complainant was proceeding on a motorcycle ahead to them, they were following the complainant on another motorcycle, on the way, near Yellamma Temple, he and PW2 noticed quarrel and went there, where they noticed the complainant fell down on the ground, accused took knife, on seeing them, the accused fled away.

During his cross-examination, he stated that he was present at the time of reducing agreement between the accused and complainant but he did not see ownership document of Accused to the house.

20.The prosecution examined one of the panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchanama as PW4 who deposed in his chief-examination that police prepared scene of offence panchanama. He further deposed in his chief examination that he and his friend were coming Sircilla, on the way

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 9 of 14 in between Yellamma temple and Dharga, they noticed some altercation, then they went there, where his friend Manoj identified accused who has to give money to Manoj, where argument took place between the complainant and accused, Accused got angry and fisted on the stomach of the complainant besides abusing in filthy language, the accused took knife from his bike, hence they shouted, on that the accused ray away.

During his cross-examination he stated that he did not remember the boundaries of the scene of offence and he did not have any idea about how many signatures were obtained by police.

21.The prosecution examined one of the witnesses to the confession- cum-seizure panchanama as PW5 who stated in his chief-examination that Pulluri Saikrishna (died) took him to the police station where he signed who was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and were cross-examined with the permission of the court.

However, nothing is elicited in their cross-examination in support of the case of the prosecution.

22.The other evidence available on record is the evidence of investigation officer who laid charge-sheet after completion of investigation examined as PW6 who deposed in his chief-examination that on 13.08.2020 at about 2000 hours, the complainant lodged a report, basing on it, he registered a case in Crime.No.460 of 2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 307 and 506 of IPC and issued

F.I.R and recorded the statement of complainant, visited the scene of offence where he drafted crime detail form in the presence of

PW4/Appavari Harikrishna and LW5/Vemula Naresh and then he recorded the statements of PWs.2 and 3 and he collected non-judicial stamp paper vide No.B-338050 from the complainant, on 04.09.2020 at about 1100 hours, he affected the arrest of the accused at Thippapur bus

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 10 of 14 stand and interrogated him, when the accused in the mood of confession, he secured the presence of PW5/Arigala Raju and LW7/Pulluri Srikrishna and recorded the confession-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of same mediators and he seized motorcycle bearing No.TS-23-0528 in the presence of the same mediators, later he produced the accused before the court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

23.In his cross-examination PW6 admitted that he did not examine the scriber of non-judicial stamp paper namely Gajjela Srinivas who also not examined Chokkala Srinivas. He denied other suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution.

24.It is the case of total denial, hence the prosecution needs to prove it’s case that the accused agreed to sale house bearing No.4-2-31 to the defacto-complainant which he purchased from Chokkala Srinivas under

Sale Deed for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and took advance amount of

Rs.6,00,000/-, by suppressing the fact that the sale deed which was executed between Chokkala Srinivas and the accused was canceled, when the complainant asked the accused about the same, the accused promised to repay the advance amount, hence on 13.08.2020 in the morning hours, the complainant along with witness proceeding to

Vemulawada to ask about the advance amount, on the way, when he reached near Yellamma Temple, the accused met him, when the complainant asked about the advance amount, all of a sudden, the accused beat the complainant on his stomach and pushed him on the ground and tried to kill with a knife which is there in his motorcycle but the complainant escaped beyond all reasonable doubts within the meaning for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 307 and 506 of

IPC.

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 11 of 14

25.As per the evidence of PW1 while they were talking about advance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- near Yellamma Temple Vemulawada bus stand, all of sudden, the accused gave fist blows on his stomach, due to which he fell down on the ground, then, the accused brought knife from his motorcycle, he ran away from the spot, in the meantime, Pws.2 and 3 reached the spot who were coming behind him raised shoutings, on that the accused ran away. It is the evidence of PW3 that he along with PW2 noticed quarrel and went there, where they found the complainant on the ground, accused took knife, on seeing them, the accused fled away. Here the evidence of PW1 is not corroborative with the evidence of PW3 because as per PW1 when the accused tried kill with knife he escaped, thereafter the Pws.2 and 3 reached the spot, however as per Pw3 when they reached the spot the complainant was on ground and on seeing them the accused fled away from the spot. More over PW2 being eye witness to the incident, he did not speak anything about the incident. Hence their evidence did not inspire any confidence.

26.As per the prosecution story the motive for the commission is that the accused entered into an agreement of sale to sale the house bearing

No.4-2-31 which he purchased from Chokkala Srinivas through sale deed for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the complainant, took an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant by executing the agreement of sale, by suppressing the fact that the sale deed which was executed between

Chokkala Srinivas and the accused was canceled, but the Investigating

Officer failed to collect neither sale deed executed between the accused and Chokkala Srinivas nor the agreement of sale executed between the complainant and accused without assigning proper reason.

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 12 of 14

27.The evidence of PW4 speaks as eyewitness to the incident not only as panch witness to the scene of offence. According to him at the time of incident five or six persons present at the spot, in such a case they are the best persons to speak about the incident but the investigation officer did choose to examine them as witnesses without assigning any proper reason. Further, the evidence of PW4 did not speak anything about the presence of LW5 while preparing the scene of offence panchanama and obtaining their signatures on the panchanama by the police. Hence, his evidence also did not inspire any cofidence.

28.PW5 who being the panch witnesses to the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused turned hostile and not supported the version of the prosecution, hence his evidence is no way useful to the case of the prosecution.

29.Having considered and scrutinized the evidence on record and in view of the reasons stated supra, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to brought on record any cogent and convincing evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sections 420, 307 and 506 of the IPC, beyond reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused.The point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for charges of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 307 and 506 of the IPC and he is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 13 of 14

The marked Case Property i.e., MO.1 –Photograph resembling TVS

Victor motorcycle bearing No.TS-23-0528 shall be returned to its original owner after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of January, 2025.

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge Vemulawada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION::

PW-1(LW1)Palamakula Srikhar Babu - Complainant-cum-Victim. PW-2(LW2)Indhuri Prabhakar – Eye-witness. PW-3(LW3)Choppadandi Suresh – Eye-witness. PW-4(LW4)Appavari Harikrishna – Panch witness for CDF. PW-5(LW6)Arigala Raju – Panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama. PW-6(LW8)O.Venkatesh – Investigating Officer.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:: - None -

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION::

Ex.P.1Report. Ex.P.2.CDF. Ex.P.3.Signature of PW5 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of the accused. Ex.P.4.Signature of PW5 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of the

S.C.No. 486 of 2021 Page Nos. 14 of 14 accused. Ex.P.5.First Information Report.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE::

Ex.D1Relevant portion of Section 161 of Cr.P.C Statement of PW3 i.e., ‘today morning myself and Induri Prabhakar along with Srikarbabu were went’.

M.Os. MARKED:: MO.1 –Photograph resembling TVS Victor motorcycle bearing No.TS-23-0528

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge

Vemulawada

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 1 of 9

IN THE Court OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL CHIEF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VEMULAWADA

AT :: VEMULAWADA

Present: Sri P.Laxmana Chary

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajanna Sircilla

FAC: Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vemulawada

Friday, this the 14th day of February, 2025

O.S.NO. 67 of 2022

Between:-

Khammam Srinivas, S/o: Guruvaiah, Aged about: 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.1-4-5/1, Shiva Nagar locality of Vemulawada Town and Mandal, Rajajja Sircilla District. …Plaintiff

And

1). Puli Chinna Komuraiah Goud (Died per LRs i.e., Defendant Nos.3 and 4).

2). Puli Renukha, W/o: Chinna Komuraiah Goud, Aged about: 44 years, Occ: Household, R/o: H.No.3-10, Gundannapally Village, Boinpelly Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

3). Puli @ Mergu Mounika, W/o: Merugu Ramakrishna, Aged about: 27 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Yellareddypet Proper and Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

4). Puli @ Rajolla Manasa, W/o: Rajolla Santhosh, Aged about: 25 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Gundannapalle Village, Boinpelli Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

( Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are brought on record as per the orders in I.A.No.309/2023, dated: 06.03.2024).

...Defendants

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 2 of 9

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Avunoori Ramakanth Rao, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1(died per LRs), the Defendant No.2 arguments treated as heard and the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 remained ex-parte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.6,90,000/- (Rupees six lakhs ninety thousand only) from the Defendants, based on two promissory- notes.

2.Originally, the suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who got appeared through their counsel and filed Written Statement.

Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, the Defendant No.1 died and his Legal Representatives were brought on record as Defendant Nos.3 and 4.

3.The brief facts of the plaint are that:

(i). The wife of the Plaintiff namely Aruna and the Defendant No.2 belong to same village i.e., Engal Village of Chandurthy Mandal who got acquainted with each other, out of the said acquaintance, the Defendant

No.1 (died) and Defendant No.2 and Plaintiff and his wife used to visit each other at their houses. As such, the Plaintiff, his wife and Defendant No.1 (died) are acquainted with each other, out of the said acquaintance, the

Defendants approached the Plaintiff at his house situated at Vemulawada

Town in the first week of March, 2017 and requested the Plaintiff to lend an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for their family necessities by showing the reason that the marriage of their daughter was settled and they are in short of money. By keeping in view of their acquaintance and necessity of the

Defendants, on 11.03.2017 the Plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the Defendants by way of cash at his house in the presence of Mudrakola

Sathyam, S/o: Rajaiah and Mukthikantha Shekar, S/o: Mallaiah who are residents of Vemulawada Town and Mandal. On receiving the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, the Defendants 1 and 2 jointly executed two promissory notes dated: 11.03.2017(each promissory note for an amount of

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 3 of 9

Rs.3,00,000/-) by agreeing to repay the said hand loan amount with interest @ 1% per month and Mudrakola Sathyam and Mukthikantha Shekar acted as witnesses to the said promissory notes.

(ii).Thereafter, the Plaintiff several times approached and demanded the Defendants for repayment of hand loan amount as agreed, but the

Defendants used to postpone the payment by showing one or other reason.

Finally, on 10.06.2018, the Plaintiff approached the Defendants and demanded for repayment of hand loan amount along with interest, but the

Defendants refused the same and threatened to alienate their house property i.e., Tiled house bearing Gram Panchayat Door No.3-10, with open place, total measuring to an extent of Ac.0-04 guntas, situated at

Gundannapally Village of Boinpelly Mandal to the third parties to escape from their liability towards the Plaintiff. Hence, the Plaintiff constrained to file this suit.

4.The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 got appeared through their counsel, filed

Written Statement by denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the Defendants never borrowed any amount much less the suit promissory notes amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the Plaintiff who also never executed promissory notes in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff created promissory notes and filed the above suit basing on the forged and created promissory notes. Finally, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

Whether the Plaintiff gave Rs.6,00,000/- to the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2

I on 11.03.2017 or not?

Whether Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 jointly executed promissory notes on

II

11.03.2017 for Rs.6,00,000/- (each for Rs.3,00,000/-) or not?

Whether the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay suit amount with

III interest or not? To What relief? IV

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 4 of 9

6.During trial, in order to prove the suit claim, on behalf of the the

Plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 by filing chief affidavit in lieu of chief- examination by reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A1 Original Promissory Note, dated: 11.03.2017. Ex.A2

Original Promissory Note, dated 11.03.2017. During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that in Exs.A1 and A2 Renuka’s(D2) name is not mentioned as money received. He denied the other suggestions which are against to his case.

7.The Plaintiff got examined one Mudrakola Sathyam who is one of the attestor to the promissory notes as PW2 by filing chief affidavit in lieu of chief-examination who supported the claim of the Plaintiff. The cross examination of PW2 indicates that he did not see denomination of notes while giving money. Further, he admitted in his cross-examination that there is no mention of Puli Renuka’s name at the place of borrower in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

8. The Plaintiff also got examined another attester to the promissory notes as PW3 by filing chief affidavit in lieu of chief-examination who also supported the claim of the Plaintiff. The cross-examination of PW3 indicates that he did not remember the denomination of notes. Further, he admitted in his cross-examination that there is no mention of Puli Renuka’s name at borrower column in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. After examination of PW3, the Plaintiff reported no further evidence on his behalf, hence Plaintiff side evidence closed and the suit is posted of the Defendants side evidence. But, in-spite of giving sufficient opportunity also, the Defendants did not choose to adduce evidence on their behalf, hence, the evidence on behalf of Defendants is closed and posted the matter for arguments.

9.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Plaintiff argued that

Defendants 1 and 2 are having acquaintance with the Plaintiff’s family, out of the said acquaintance, the Defendants 1 and 2 borrowed an amount of

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 5 of 9

Rs.6,00,000/- for their family legal necessities by stating that their daughter marriage was settled and they are short of money by executing two promissory notes in favour of the Plaintiff by promising to repay the hand loan amount along with interest @ 1% per month. He further argued that subsequently, the Defendants did not repay the hand loan amount in spite of repeated demands also. He further argued that finally on 10.06. 2018, the Plaintiff approached the Defendants at their house and demanded for repayment of hand loan amount, but they bluntly refused for the same and stated that they will sell their house to avoid the liability of the Plaintiff. He further argued that by producing the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, the Plaintiff proved his claim. Finally, prayed to decree the suit.

10.After completion of the Plaintiff side arguments, the suit was posted for Defendants side arguments. But, in spite of giving sufficient opportunity, the Defendants did not choose to appear before the Court to submit their arguments, hence arguments on their behalf treated as heard.

11.Basing on the rivalry contentions the issues are answered as under.

12.ISSUES Nos. I to III :Since issues Nos.I to III are interconnected with each other, hence the Court proceeded to discuss the same as simultaneously.

13.On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence on record, after hearing arguments. It is the claim of the Plaintiff that the Defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 with a promise to repay the same along with interest @ 1% per month but subsequently the Defendants failed to fulfill the obligations by repaying the hand loan amount as promised.

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 6 of 9

14.It is the contention of the Defendants that Defendants 1 and 2 never took any hand loan amount from the Plaintiff and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are created by the Plaintiff by forging the same.

15.It is a settled principle of law that in a suit based on pronote, the presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act(herein after referred as ‘NI Act’) would be attracted unless and until contrary is proved. Such a presumption is to be that the promissory note was made for consideration. The initial presumption raised under the said provision becomes available when the Plaintiff pleads passing of consideration in the plaint i.e., pleads that the promissory note is supported by the consideration as recited in the document and adduced evidence in support thereof. On doing so, the burden would shift upon the Defendant to disprove that the promissory note is not supported by passing of any consideration.

16.On perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes, dated 11.03.2017, it is found that in place of borrower column, the name of Defendant No.2 is not mentioned and the same is categorically by PWs.1 to 3 in their cross- examination.

17. It is the main contention of the Defendants that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are forged and created for the purpose of filing of this false suit. The Defendants cross-examined PWs.1 to 3 at lengthy, but there is no denial that the signatures appearing on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are not belong to Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Further except bare-denial in the Written Statement, the Defendants failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove their claim i.e., Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are forged and created promissory notes to file the false suit, hence, the version of the Defendants did not inspire any confidence.

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 7 of 9

18.By producing Exs.A1 and A2 the Plaintiff proved the initial presumption which is available to him U/Sec.118(a) of NI Act that Exs.A1 and A2 were issued for a consideration amount of Rs.6,00,000/-(each for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-) which is passed to the Defendant Nos.1 and 2.

Pws.2 and 3 who are the attesting witness to Exs.A1 and A2, clearly deposed that witnessed while the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 executing Exs.A1 and A2.

The Defendants denied the suit transaction but they did not produce any other cogent and convincing evidence in support of their contentions. The mere denial, if there be any, by the Defendants that no consideration had passed would not have been sufficient and something probable had to be brought on record to prove the non-existence of consideration. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that once the execution of the pronotes have been proved, the Plaintiff would be entitled to the benefit of the presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act because the Defendants had failed to discharge the initial burden.

19.Having considered and scrutinized the evidence on record and in view of the reasons states supra, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the

Plaintiff has been able to prove his contention that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 borrowed hand loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from him and executed a promissory notes under Exs.A1 and A2 which are true, valid, genuine and binding on the Defendants. Further the Plaintiff also able to prove that the

Defendants failed to discharge their obligation by repaying hand loan amount and consequently the Defendants are liable to repay the said hand loan amount to the Plaintiff together with interest. Accordingly the Issue no.I to III are answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

20.ISSUE NO.IV :As discussed supra, the Plaintiff by producing cogent, reliable and convincing evidence sufficiently established that

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 took hand loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from him under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and subsequently failed to fulfill their obligation by

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 8 of 9

repaying the same along with interest and the Defendant No.2 being the borrower and the Defendants 2 to 4 being Class-I legal-heirs of late Puli

Chinna Komuraiah Goud (Died) who succeeded his estate under an obligation to repay the hand loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest out of the estate which they received from late Puli Chinna

Komuraiah Goud (Died) and lying in their hands. According, this Issue

No.IV is also answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.6,90,000/- (Rupees six lakhs ninety thousand only) with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of realization of decree on the principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) against the

Defendant No.2 and against the estate of late Puli Chinna Komuraiah Goud which is succeeded and lying in the hands of the Defendant Nos.2 to 4.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, after correction,

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of February, 2025.

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vemulawada

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

:: WITNESSES EXAMINED ::

ON BEHALF OF THE Plaintiff:

PW:1. Khammam Srinivas. PW:2. Mudrakola Sathyam. PW:3: Mukthikantha Shekar.

ON BEHALF OF THE Defendants: -None-

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 9 of 9

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

ON BEHALF OF THE Plaintiff:

Ex.A1Original Promissory Note, dated 11.03.2017.

Ex.A2Original Promissory Note, dated 11.03.2017.

ON BEHALF OF THE Defendants: -Nil-

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vemulawada

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 1 of 9

IN THE Court OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL CHIEF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VEMULAWADA

AT :: VEMULAWADA

Present: Sri P.Laxmana Chary

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajanna Sircilla

FAC: Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vemulawada

Friday, this the 14th day of February, 2025

O.S.NO. 67 of 2022

Between:-

Khammam Srinivas, S/o: Guruvaiah, Aged about: 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.1-4-5/1, Shiva Nagar locality of Vemulawada Town and Mandal, Rajajja Sircilla District. …Plaintiff

And

1). Puli Chinna Komuraiah Goud (Died per LRs i.e., Defendant Nos.3 and 4).

2). Puli Renukha, W/o: Chinna Komuraiah Goud, Aged about: 44 years, Occ: Household, R/o: H.No.3-10, Gundannapally Village, Boinpelly Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

3). Puli @ Mergu Mounika, W/o: Merugu Ramakrishna, Aged about: 27 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Yellareddypet Proper and Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

4). Puli @ Rajolla Manasa, W/o: Rajolla Santhosh, Aged about: 25 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Gundannapalle Village, Boinpelli Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

( Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are brought on record as per the orders in I.A.No.309/2023, dated: 06.03.2024).

...Defendants

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 2 of 9

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Avunoori Ramakanth Rao, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1(died per LRs), the Defendant No.2 arguments treated as heard and the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 remained ex-parte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.6,90,000/- (Rupees six lakhs ninety thousand only) from the Defendants, based on two promissory- notes.

2.Originally, the suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who got appeared through their counsel and filed Written Statement.

Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, the Defendant No.1 died and his Legal Representatives were brought on record as Defendant Nos.3 and 4.

3.The brief facts of the plaint are that:

(i). The wife of the Plaintiff namely Aruna and the Defendant No.2 belong to same village i.e., Engal Village of Chandurthy Mandal who got acquainted with each other, out of the said acquaintance, the Defendant

No.1 (died) and Defendant No.2 and Plaintiff and his wife used to visit each other at their houses. As such, the Plaintiff, his wife and Defendant No.1 (died) are acquainted with each other, out of the said acquaintance, the

Defendants approached the Plaintiff at his house situated at Vemulawada

Town in the first week of March, 2017 and requested the Plaintiff to lend an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for their family necessities by showing the reason that the marriage of their daughter was settled and they are in short of money. By keeping in view of their acquaintance and necessity of the

Defendants, on 11.03.2017 the Plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the Defendants by way of cash at his house in the presence of Mudrakola

Sathyam, S/o: Rajaiah and Mukthikantha Shekar, S/o: Mallaiah who are residents of Vemulawada Town and Mandal. On receiving the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, the Defendants 1 and 2 jointly executed two promissory notes dated: 11.03.2017(each promissory note for an amount of

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 3 of 9

Rs.3,00,000/-) by agreeing to repay the said hand loan amount with interest @ 1% per month and Mudrakola Sathyam and Mukthikantha Shekar acted as witnesses to the said promissory notes.

(ii).Thereafter, the Plaintiff several times approached and demanded the Defendants for repayment of hand loan amount as agreed, but the

Defendants used to postpone the payment by showing one or other reason.

Finally, on 10.06.2018, the Plaintiff approached the Defendants and demanded for repayment of hand loan amount along with interest, but the

Defendants refused the same and threatened to alienate their house property i.e., Tiled house bearing Gram Panchayat Door No.3-10, with open place, total measuring to an extent of Ac.0-04 guntas, situated at

Gundannapally Village of Boinpelly Mandal to the third parties to escape from their liability towards the Plaintiff. Hence, the Plaintiff constrained to file this suit.

4.The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 got appeared through their counsel, filed

Written Statement by denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the Defendants never borrowed any amount much less the suit promissory notes amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the Plaintiff who also never executed promissory notes in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff created promissory notes and filed the above suit basing on the forged and created promissory notes. Finally, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

Whether the Plaintiff gave Rs.6,00,000/- to the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2

I on 11.03.2017 or not?

Whether Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 jointly executed promissory notes on

II

11.03.2017 for Rs.6,00,000/- (each for Rs.3,00,000/-) or not?

Whether the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay suit amount with

III interest or not? To What relief? IV

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 4 of 9

6.During trial, in order to prove the suit claim, on behalf of the the

Plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 by filing chief affidavit in lieu of chief- examination by reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A1 Original Promissory Note, dated: 11.03.2017. Ex.A2

Original Promissory Note, dated 11.03.2017. During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that in Exs.A1 and A2 Renuka’s(D2) name is not mentioned as money received. He denied the other suggestions which are against to his case.

7.The Plaintiff got examined one Mudrakola Sathyam who is one of the attestor to the promissory notes as PW2 by filing chief affidavit in lieu of chief-examination who supported the claim of the Plaintiff. The cross examination of PW2 indicates that he did not see denomination of notes while giving money. Further, he admitted in his cross-examination that there is no mention of Puli Renuka’s name at the place of borrower in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

8. The Plaintiff also got examined another attester to the promissory notes as PW3 by filing chief affidavit in lieu of chief-examination who also supported the claim of the Plaintiff. The cross-examination of PW3 indicates that he did not remember the denomination of notes. Further, he admitted in his cross-examination that there is no mention of Puli Renuka’s name at borrower column in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. After examination of PW3, the Plaintiff reported no further evidence on his behalf, hence Plaintiff side evidence closed and the suit is posted of the Defendants side evidence. But, in-spite of giving sufficient opportunity also, the Defendants did not choose to adduce evidence on their behalf, hence, the evidence on behalf of Defendants is closed and posted the matter for arguments.

9.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Plaintiff argued that

Defendants 1 and 2 are having acquaintance with the Plaintiff’s family, out of the said acquaintance, the Defendants 1 and 2 borrowed an amount of

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 5 of 9

Rs.6,00,000/- for their family legal necessities by stating that their daughter marriage was settled and they are short of money by executing two promissory notes in favour of the Plaintiff by promising to repay the hand loan amount along with interest @ 1% per month. He further argued that subsequently, the Defendants did not repay the hand loan amount in spite of repeated demands also. He further argued that finally on 10.06. 2018, the Plaintiff approached the Defendants at their house and demanded for repayment of hand loan amount, but they bluntly refused for the same and stated that they will sell their house to avoid the liability of the Plaintiff. He further argued that by producing the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, the Plaintiff proved his claim. Finally, prayed to decree the suit.

10.After completion of the Plaintiff side arguments, the suit was posted for Defendants side arguments. But, in spite of giving sufficient opportunity, the Defendants did not choose to appear before the Court to submit their arguments, hence arguments on their behalf treated as heard.

11.Basing on the rivalry contentions the issues are answered as under.

12.ISSUES Nos. I to III :Since issues Nos.I to III are interconnected with each other, hence the Court proceeded to discuss the same as simultaneously.

13.On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence on record, after hearing arguments. It is the claim of the Plaintiff that the Defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 with a promise to repay the same along with interest @ 1% per month but subsequently the Defendants failed to fulfill the obligations by repaying the hand loan amount as promised.

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 6 of 9

14.It is the contention of the Defendants that Defendants 1 and 2 never took any hand loan amount from the Plaintiff and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are created by the Plaintiff by forging the same.

15.It is a settled principle of law that in a suit based on pronote, the presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act(herein after referred as ‘NI Act’) would be attracted unless and until contrary is proved. Such a presumption is to be that the promissory note was made for consideration. The initial presumption raised under the said provision becomes available when the Plaintiff pleads passing of consideration in the plaint i.e., pleads that the promissory note is supported by the consideration as recited in the document and adduced evidence in support thereof. On doing so, the burden would shift upon the Defendant to disprove that the promissory note is not supported by passing of any consideration.

16.On perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes, dated 11.03.2017, it is found that in place of borrower column, the name of Defendant No.2 is not mentioned and the same is categorically by PWs.1 to 3 in their cross- examination.

17. It is the main contention of the Defendants that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are forged and created for the purpose of filing of this false suit. The Defendants cross-examined PWs.1 to 3 at lengthy, but there is no denial that the signatures appearing on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are not belong to Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Further except bare-denial in the Written Statement, the Defendants failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove their claim i.e., Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are forged and created promissory notes to file the false suit, hence, the version of the Defendants did not inspire any confidence.

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 7 of 9

18.By producing Exs.A1 and A2 the Plaintiff proved the initial presumption which is available to him U/Sec.118(a) of NI Act that Exs.A1 and A2 were issued for a consideration amount of Rs.6,00,000/-(each for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-) which is passed to the Defendant Nos.1 and 2.

Pws.2 and 3 who are the attesting witness to Exs.A1 and A2, clearly deposed that witnessed while the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 executing Exs.A1 and A2.

The Defendants denied the suit transaction but they did not produce any other cogent and convincing evidence in support of their contentions. The mere denial, if there be any, by the Defendants that no consideration had passed would not have been sufficient and something probable had to be brought on record to prove the non-existence of consideration. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that once the execution of the pronotes have been proved, the Plaintiff would be entitled to the benefit of the presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act because the Defendants had failed to discharge the initial burden.

19.Having considered and scrutinized the evidence on record and in view of the reasons states supra, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the

Plaintiff has been able to prove his contention that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 borrowed hand loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from him and executed a promissory notes under Exs.A1 and A2 which are true, valid, genuine and binding on the Defendants. Further the Plaintiff also able to prove that the

Defendants failed to discharge their obligation by repaying hand loan amount and consequently the Defendants are liable to repay the said hand loan amount to the Plaintiff together with interest. Accordingly the Issue no.I to III are answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

20.ISSUE NO.IV :As discussed supra, the Plaintiff by producing cogent, reliable and convincing evidence sufficiently established that

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 took hand loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from him under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and subsequently failed to fulfill their obligation by

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 8 of 9

repaying the same along with interest and the Defendant No.2 being the borrower and the Defendants 2 to 4 being Class-I legal-heirs of late Puli

Chinna Komuraiah Goud (Died) who succeeded his estate under an obligation to repay the hand loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest out of the estate which they received from late Puli Chinna

Komuraiah Goud (Died) and lying in their hands. According, this Issue

No.IV is also answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.6,90,000/- (Rupees six lakhs ninety thousand only) with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of realization of decree on the principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) against the

Defendant No.2 and against the estate of late Puli Chinna Komuraiah Goud which is succeeded and lying in the hands of the Defendant Nos.2 to 4.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, after correction,

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of February, 2025.

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vemulawada

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

:: WITNESSES EXAMINED ::

ON BEHALF OF THE Plaintiff:

PW:1. Khammam Srinivas. PW:2. Mudrakola Sathyam. PW:3: Mukthikantha Shekar.

ON BEHALF OF THE Defendants: -None-

O.S.No. 67 of 2022 Page Nos. 9 of 9

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

ON BEHALF OF THE Plaintiff:

Ex.A1Original Promissory Note, dated 11.03.2017.

Ex.A2Original Promissory Note, dated 11.03.2017.

ON BEHALF OF THE Defendants: -Nil-

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vemulawada

H.M.O.P.No. 58 of 2026 Page No.1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, RAJANNNA SIRCILLA

AT :: SRICILLA

Present: Sri P. Laxmana Chary

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajanna Sircilla

Wednesday, this the 6th day of May, 2026

H.M.O.P.No. 58 of 2026

Between:-

Kommata Raju, S/o: Pochaiah, Aged about: 34 Years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: SC-Madiga, R/o: H.No.1-4/80, Kammarpalli Village, Dubbaka Mandal, Siddipet District.

...Petitioner No.1

And

Kommata @ Mulige Pravalika, W/o: Kommata Raju, Aged about: 27 years, Caste: SC-Madiga, R/o: H.No.1-4/80, Kammarpalli Village, Dubbaka Mandal, Siddipet District.

Presently residing at her parents house, C/o: Mulige Devaraju, R/o: Almaspur Village, Yellareddypet Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

...Petitioner No.2

This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Murali, Advocate, for the Petitioners No.1 and 2 and having been heard and stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'HM Act') for dissolution of the marriage between the

Petitioners solemnized on 18.08.2017, with mutual consent.

H.M.O.P.No. 58 of 2026 Page No.2 of 5

2. This petition is filed on 21.04.2026. After registering the case, it was posted on 28.10.2026. Subsequently, the Petitioners moved advancement and relaxation of cooling period petitions vide I.A.No.258 of 2026 and I.A.No.

259 of 2026 respectively and the same were allowed vide docket orders

dated: 30.04.2026.

3. The brief facts of the petition are that:

3.1.The Petitioners are Hindus. The Petitioner No.2 is the legally wedded wife of Petitioner No.1, whose marriage was solemnized on 18.08.2017 at

Kammarpalli Village, Dubbaka Mandal, Siddipet District, as per their caste customs and Hindu Dharma Shastra. After marriage, the Petitioners lead their happy marital life for a period of two years, out of wedlock, they have no issues.

3.2.Thereafter, disputes arose between them, which resulted in breakdown of their married life irretrievably, hence they have been living separately since 06.02.2020 without any cohabitation. Further, despite putting efforts by both Petitioners as well as elders of both Petitioners, they could not reconcile. To avoid multiplicity of litigation, they have decided to take divorce through Court with mutual consent.

3.3. Accordingly, the Petitioners exchanged their respective articles which were presented at the time of their marriage. The Petitioner No.1 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Petitioner No.2 as permanent alimony for past, present and future maintenance, the Petitioner No.2 agreed for the same. The Petitioner No.1 paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Petitioner

No.2, the remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/- will be paid at the time of passing of decree of divorce. The Petitioners agreed that they would not file any civil or criminal cases against each other in future and to withdraw the cases if any pending before any court of law. The Petitioner No.2 agreed that

H.M.O.P.No. 58 of 2026 Page No.3 of 5

she has no claim over the Petitioner No.1 and she will not claim anything from the Petitioner No.1. Hence, the petition.

4.This Court tried to reconcile both parties, but went in vain.

5.To prove their case, Petitioners, they themselves examined as PWs.1 and 2. Through PW1, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked. Ex.P1 is the Wedding

Invitation Card and Ex.P2 is Marriage Photograph (one in number).

6.Heard arguments and perused the record.

7. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of decree of divorce on

mutual consent by dissolving their marriage solemnized on 18.08.2017, as

prayed for?

8.POINT :The Petitioners filed this petition Under Section 13-B of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce, on mutual consent.

9.Initially, it is essential to see whether the present petition for decree of divorce on mutual consent is filed after more than a year of their marriage as contemplated under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act or not. As per the petition averments, the marriage of the Petitioners was solemnized on 18.08.2017 and the present petition was filed on 21.04.2026. As such, this petition is maintainable.

10.Further, it is the burden of the Petitioners to establish that they are entitled for seeking divorce, as prayed for.

11.In order to prove the same, the Petitioners got examined as PW1 and

PW2 and marked documents i.e., Exs.P1 and P2. In view of the affidavits of both parties and on enquiry, this Court is satisfied that the marriage of the

H.M.O.P.No. 58 of 2026 Page No.4 of 5

Petitioners has been solemnized on 18.08.2017 and that the averments in the petition are true.

12.Further, from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is found that in view of the compromise, the Petitioners exchanged their respective articles which were presented at the time of their marriage. The Petitioner No.1 paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Petitioner No.2 as permanent alimony for past, present and future maintenance. Further, the Petitioners agreed that they would not file any civil or criminal cases against each in future and to withdraw the cases if any pending before any court of law, and the Petitioner

No.2 agreed that she has no claim over the Petitioner No.1.

13.Moreover, both the Petitioners expressed their willingness for dissolving their marriage and they want to lead their lives independently.

Further, from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is established that the

Petitioners have been living separately since 06.02.2020 without any cohabitation and that there is no chance of reconciliation or reunion between them. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is to be allowed. Accordingly, the point is answered.

In the result, the petition is allowed without costs, granting decree of divorce on mutual consent by dissolving the marriage of the Petitioners solemnized on 18.08.2017.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6 th day of May, 2026.

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Rajanna Sircilla

H.M.O.P.No. 58 of 2026 Page No.5 of 5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER NOs.1 AND 2::

PW1: Kommata Raju. PW2: Kommata @ Mulige Pravalika.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER NOs.1 AND 2::

Ex.P1Wedding invitation card. Ex.P2Marriage photograph (one in number).

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Rajanna Sircilla