Sri P.Subrahmanya Kumar

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KADAPA AT PRODDATUR

PRESENT: - SRI P. SUBRAMANYA KUMAR,

II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KADAPA AT PRODDATUR.

Dated: Friday, the 11th day of September, 2015.

Criminal Appeal No. 12/2012

Name and description of theOsuri Puspha Raju, S/o Pullaiah, Appellants.Aged 32 years, Hindu, P.C.No.703 Kadapa Traffic Police Station, now in District Special Party, Kadapa.

Name and description of the State, represented by Inspector of Respondent.Police, Mydukur (U) P.S.

The sentence and law under Appellant/accused was convicted which it was imposed in the lower u/s. 248(2) of Cr.P.C. and was court.sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence punishable, U/s.354 of I.P.C. Whether confirmed, modified, orIn the result, appeal is allowed by Reversed, and if modified, the setting aside the conviction and modification. sentence recorded by the trial Court in S.C.No.314/2007, dated 20.01.2012 for the offence punishable U/s. 354 of I.P.C. and the appellant is acquitted u/s.386

(b) (i) of Cr.P.C. The fine amount if any paid by the appellant/ accused in the trial Court shall be returned after the expiry of revision time. The bail bonds of the appellant shall be in force for a period of six months.

Date of PresentationFilingNotice issued HearingJudgment by court 21.01.201221.01.201222.01.201209.09.201511.09.2015

This appeal coming on 09.09.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Raghunatha Reddy and Sri Ramanjula Reddy,

Advocates for the appellant, and of Sri Marthala Sudhakar Reddy,

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and having stood over

for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2Crl.Appeal No.12/2012

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 20.01.2012 rendered in C.C.No.314/2007 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge,

Proddatur whereby and whereunder the learned Assistant Sessions

Judge convicted the appellant who is accused therein for the offence

punishable U/s. 354 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of

Rs.20,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed in the trial Court.

3.The case of the prosecution in brief is that 06.09.2007 at about 16.00 hours L.W.8 – J. Mallikarjuna Varma deputed L.W.1 – T. Sreedevi to hand over tappals at Kadapa office. After handed over the tappal at

Kadapa on 07.09.2007 at 1600 hours, the defacto complainant boarded the said RTC bus at Kadapa to return to Mydukur (U) Police

Station. Enroute at Khajipeta, the accused stopped the bus and boarded the said bus, used force to ensure that L.W.1 alights the bus.

Due to the force used by the accused, she alighted the bus and raised cries for the high handed behavior of the accused, for which the public gathered and came to her rescue and sent her on a motor cycle as a pillion rider to Mydukur. While so on at 1800 hours when she reached

Saraswathipet on a motor cycle in the company of a motor cyclist, the accused having come on a motor cycle, dragged her from the motor cycle by holding her tightly and pushed her down and misbehavior with her in a public place and the same was witnessed by police staff i.e., L.Ws.2 to 5 and 7 and L.W.6 – T. Sehsareddi. The police staff immediately went to the spot and rescued the victim woman. Later 3Crl.Appeal No.12/2012

L.W.2 – B. Rama Krishna, S.I. of police with the assistance of L.Ws.3 and 4 namely M.V. Subbaiah and T. Venkateswar who are police constables brought the accused and victim woman to Mydukur (U)

Police Station and produced them before L.W.8 – A. Venkata Ramudu,

A.S.I. Basing on the written complaint of victim, the Investigating

Officer registered a case in Cr.No.158/2007 U/s. 354 and 506 of I.P.C.

and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he arrested the accused on the same day in the police station and sent him to this

Court for judicial custody on 08.09.2007. After completion of entire investigation he laid charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

4.In the trial Court as many as eight witnesses were examined and five documents i.e., Ex.P.1 complaint, Ex.P.2 and P.3 are the Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statement of P.Ws.5 and 6 repsectively, F.I.R. and rough sketch were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of accused,

D.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.4.

5.The case of the accused in the trial Court is total denial of the involvement in the offence. After considering the rival contentions and upon perusing the material, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,

Proddatur convicted and sentenced the accused as afore said.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the accused preferred this appeal.

6.It is grievance of the accused the trail Court utterly failed to appreciate the evidence on the record in its proper perspective. In fact it failed to notice the inconsistency between the versions of

P.Ws.1 to 3 and there are developments in their chief examinations.

The trial court failed to notice all the witnesses are police staff and victim is also a police constable and due to illegal intimacy with P.W.8, 4Crl.Appeal No.12/2012 the P.Ws.1 and 8 hatched a plan and falsely implicated the accused in the case. The trial court also failed to consider the documents which were marked on behalf of the defence and also failed to notice the non-examination of motor cyclist who is a crucial eye witness for the alleged incident. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant strongly contended the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is not sustainable and sought the setting aside of the same.

7.On the other hand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent in toto supported the Judgment of the trial Court.

8. Now the point for determination:-

1. Whether the accused has outraged the modesty of victim woman T. Sreedevi?

2. If, so, whether the Judgment of the trial Court is sustainable?

POINT No.1:-

9.In this regard, the prosecution mainly banks on the evidence of

P.W.1 to 4 and 8. The evidence of P.W.1 would indicate that she is working as constable at Mydukur (U) Police Station at the time of incident and she knows the accused who is also working as constable.

On 06.09.2007 at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.8 directed her to hand over tappal in District police office and Collector’s office etc., and also further directed to bring the wound certificates from RIMS hospital,

Kadapa. Then she went to the D.P.O. office and Collector’s office and handed over the tappal and also brought the pending wound certificates from RIMS Hospital. On the next day i.e., on 07.09.2007, when she returned to Mydukur (U) P.S. along with the wound certificates in RTC bus and when the said bus crossed Khajipeta village, the accused who followed the bus in his motor cycle stopped the bus and boarded the bus and caught hold of her left hand and 5Crl.Appeal No.12/2012 forcibly dragged her from the bus. Then the passengers of the said bus got down from the bus and caught hold of the accused. Then the passengers stopped a person who was also proceeding towards

Mydukur and requested him to drop her at Mydukur. When she and the said person reached near Sesha Reddy Daba at Saraswathipeta village, the said person slowed down the motor cycle on seeing the speed breaker and meanwhile the accused crossed their motor cycle and stopped the said motor cycle also. The accused caught hold of her waist and lifted her and thrown her to the ground, as a result her sari was stretched upto her thighs making her private parts visible to everybody. Then she raised hue and cry for help, some persons including P.W.7 came to rescue her, at that time i.e., at 6.00 p.m., even P.Ws.2 to 4 were amongst the said gathering and they also came there to her rescue, P.Ws.2 to 4 and 7 warned the accused as to why he behaved like that and then they brought the accused to the police station and she also accompanied to the police station, Mydukur (U)

P.S. and she lodged Ex.P.1 complaint.

10.She further deposed that her father-in-law has a house in

Nagarajupeta, Kadapa and there was a quarrel in between her and her neighbouing house persons due to which criminal cases were lodged by both the parties. She was suspended due to the said criminal case and the police department also initiated oral enquiry against her and she also attended the said enquiry. On that day, the accused came to her and told her that he had such influence to see the Departmental

Enquiry struck off against her as he had intimacy with Inspector

General of Police. Then the accused started insisting her to have sexual intercourse with her as he was doing favour to her, but she refused the said proposal due to which the accused outraged her modesty on the date of incident.

6Crl.Appeal No.12/2012

11.During her cross-examination, she deposed that she signed in the outward register before going to Kadapa to attend the said duties entrusted to her and the same was entered in General Diary also. She went to Kadapa by paying bus charge but she did not handover bus tickets to Mydukur (U) P.S. to claim travelling allowance. She did not state in Ex.P.1 about the direction given to her to visit RIMS Hospital to bring wound certificates. Except her, no other person knew about her boarding the bus from Kadapa to Mydukur. She further stated that accused was aware of her boarding bus from Kadapa to Mydukur on that day, but she did not see the accused in the bus stand on that day.

She did not state in Ex.P.1 particularly that the inmates of the bus caught hold of the accused. The inmates of the bus did not try to hand over the accused to the nearby police station. She obtained permission to wear Kaki coloured sarry in the year 2007 and on the reason that there was a major operation to her. There is a departmental enquiry going on against her for allegedly demanding of

Rs.600/- for one A.S. Mahammed Rafi. She also filed a criminal case against one Ramudu for the offence U/s. 354 IPC. The wife of the accused also gave complaint to the S.P., Kadapa against him for having allegedly the illicit relationship with the accused. She further admitted that the scene of offence is a busy place with people. P.Ws.2 to 5 came to the scene of offence while the people were separating the accused from her.

12.P.Ws.2 to 4 who are police officials deposed that on 07.09.2007, they were deputed to conduct raids on Matka beaters and gambling by their superior officer and at about 5.00 p.m., they started from

Kadapa towards Mydukur and went to Seshareddy Dhaba at 5.40 p.m.

and at about 6.00 p.m., on the same day they heard some commotion near the road and they there and found P.W.1 and accused shouting 7Crl.Appeal No.12/2012 against each other and they scolded both of them and advised them to come to police station. Then they took P.W.1 in their car and meanwhile directed the accused to come to police station. They P.W.2 narrated the incident to the Inspector of Police, Mydukur (U) P.S. and later he left the police station.

13.During the cross-examination of P.W.2, he deposed that himself,

P.Ws.3 and 4 were in civil dress and the scene of offence is situated at a distance of 20 yards from the said Dhaba and accused was also on civil dress and P.W.1 was in Kaki coloured Punjabi dress. During the cross-examination of P.W.3, he deposed that there were 10 to 15 persons were present in the scene of offence at the time of offence.

They did not draft any special report on the said incident. He admitted that they being the special party in the police department, they have powers to register a case then and there at the scene of offence and also to arrest the accused. During the cross-examination of P.W.3, he deposed that he did not witness the accused crossing the vehicle in which the P.W.1 was travelling and altercated with her.

14.P.Ws.5 and 6 who alleged to have witnessed the incident have deposed before this Court that they do not know the accused and also they do not know anything about this case and police did not examine them. As these two witnesses exhibited hostile nature, after necessary permission the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross- examined them and the relevant portions in Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.

statements are marked as Ex.P.2 and P.3. Equally, the another eye witness of the incident as P.W.7 did not support the prosecution and thus after necessary permission the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor cross-examined them and the relevant portion in Sec. 161

Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P.4.

8Crl.Appeal No.12/2012

15.P.W.8 A. Venkataramudu, the then A.S.I. of Mydukur (U) P.S., has deposed that on 07.09.2007 at about 7.00 p.m., P.Ws.2 and his staff and also P.W.1 came to police station along with the accused and

P.W.2 informed to him that accused has misbehaved with P.W.1 near

Kondareddi Baba, Saraswathipeta, Mydukur and P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1 report to him, basing on the same he registered a case in

Cr.No.158/2007 U/s. 354 and 506 of I.P.C. under Ex.P.4, examined

P.Ws.1 to 4 in the police station and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch under Ex.P.5, examined and recorded the material witnesses, arrested the accused at about 9.30 p.m. on the same day and sent him judicial remand to the Court on the next day/. After verifying the entire investigating, his superior officer laid charge sheet. During the cross-examination of P.W.8, he deposed that he did not submit the inward and outward registers and passport of P.W.1 before the Court. He did not investigate about the earlier incident caused wherein the accused dragged P.W.1 out of the bus i.e., to examine the driver or the conductor of the said bus and also did not examine the person who gave lift to P.W.1 after the first incident. P.W.1 was also involved in some departmental action. He denied the suggestion that he and P.W.1 have illegal intimacy and even some news channels have published such news.

16.The testimony of P.W.1 would go to show that while she was coming from Kadapa to Mydukur in an ordinary bus and when it crossed the Khajipeta town, the accused who followed the bus in his motor cycle stopped the bus and boarded the bus and caught hold of her left hand and forcibly dragged her from the bus, for which the passengers of the bus caught hold of the accused and the passengers stopped a person who was proceeding towards Mydukur and requested him to drop her at Mydukur. On perusal of Ex.P.1 it shows 9Crl.Appeal No.12/2012 that the accused stopped the bus at Khajipeta and forcibly dragged

P.W.1 from the bus and due to her cries, the passers came there and caught hold of the accused and stopped the person who was proceeding to Mydukur and asked him to drop her at Mydukur police station. If really the incident was happened at Khajipeta, definitely,

P.W.1 being a woman constable might have went to Khajipeta police station and lodged report as she is not an ordinary prudent woman, but whereas she simply went to Mydukur along with unknown person as a pillion rider in a motor cycle is creates doubtful. P.W.1 while giving evidence before this Court she developed her version that accused came on motor cycle and stopped the bus but she did not mention in Ex.P.1 report that the accused came on motor cycle.

Assuming for a moment, if the incident might have happened, definitely the inmates of the bus shift P.W.1 in the said bus to the police station, but not shift her in a motor cycle with an unknown person. The Investigating Officer failed to examine the eye witnesses for the above said incident and also the rider of the above said motor cycle for the best reasons known to the prosecution.

17.P.W.1 in her evidence has stated that the accused crossed their motor cycle and stopped the same and caught hold of her waist and lifted her and thrown her to the ground as a result her saree stretched upon to her thigh making her private parts visible to everybody, but the same was not mentioned in Ex.P.1 report. As per the evidence of

P.Ws.2 to 4, who are eye witnesses to the occurrence, they deposed that at the time of incident, P.W.1 wear kakee colour Punjabi dress. It seems that P.W.1 improved her version before the Court with regard to her wearing apparel and it has to be considered the same as an innovation for the purpose of the case by P.W.1.

10Crl.Appeal No.12/2012

18.When coming to the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, they deposed that they were deputed to conduct raids on matka beaters and gambling and on the date of incident they started from Kadapa towards

Mydukur and went to Seshareddy Dhaba at 5.40 p.m. and at about 6.00 p.m., they saw the commotion near the road and when they went there, they saw the accused and P.W.1 were shouting each other, they scolded both of them and shifted them to police station.

But they did not draft any special report with regard to the said incident and simply stated that they shifted the P.W.1 and accused to

Mydukur police station, but whereas they were not examined by the police and not recorded their statements. As per the evidence of

P.Ws.2 to 4, after hearing some commotion, they went and found the

P.W.1 and accused shouting against each other, but they did not depose anything with regard to outraging the modesty of P.W.1 by the accused. Hence, their evidence is not much helpful to the case of prosecution as they did not depose anything with regard to outraging the modesty of woman. P.Ws.5 to 7 who are the alleged eye witnesses also did not support the case of prosecution and hence their evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution. The

Investigating Officer failed to examine the crucial witness i.e., rider of the motor cycle who shifted P.W.1 from Khajpeta to the scene of offence. Hence, it shows that there is no evidence to show that the accused outraged the modesty of P.W.1 in a public place.

19.P.W.1 in her evidence deposed that there was a criminal case against her as such she was also suspended from the service and her department also initiated oral enquiry against her, she also attended for the said enquiry, on that day, the accused informed to her that he had influence to drop the said departmental enquiry against her and started insisting her to have sexual intercourse with him and due to 11Crl.Appeal No.12/2012 which the accused outraged her modesty on the date of offence. If really, the accused might have insisting for sexual intercourse, P.W.1 being a woman constable might have preferred a complaint to her superior officers on that day or subsequent days, but she failed to prefer any complaint against the accused with regard to the said aspect. On perusal of Ex.D.1 to D.3, she is arrayed as an accused and complainant in criminal cases and she further admitted that she is complainant in a case U/s. 354 of I.P.C. against one Ramudu and also she is facing departmental enquiry against her for the alleged payment of Rs.600/- from one A.S.Mohammed Rafi. It seems that she is well know about the legal matters, but it is suspicious that why she was silent for a long period without preferring the complaint against the accused for insisting her for sexual intercourse. As per the evidence of D.W.1 who is the reporter of I-News Channel, he exhibited

Ex.D.4 which is the compact disk and the same was not taken into consideration by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. As seen from the above evidence and documents marked on behalf of the accused, the P.W.1 has involved in many criminal cases and departmental enquiries, which can be presumed that she being a constable is in the nature of foisting a false cases.

20.Except the solitary testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, under these circumstances, the material on record would indicate the prosecution failed to produce any cogent and legally acceptable evidence to conclude that the accused outraged the modesty of PW.1 in a public place as claimed by the prosecution. Hence, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the appellant.

POINT No.2:- 12Crl.Appeal No.12/2012

21.In view of the discussions and findings rendered under point

No.1, the Judgment of the trial Court is unsustainable. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

22.In the result, appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court in S.C.No.314/2007, dated 20.01.2012 for the offence punishable U/s. 354 of I.P.C. and the appellant is acquitted u/s.386 (b) (i) of Cr.P.C. The fine amount if any paid by the appellant/accused in the trial Court shall be returned after the expiry of revision time. The bail bonds of the appellant shall be in force for a period of six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11th day of September, 2015.

Sd/- P. Subramanya Kumar

II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KADAPA AT PRODDATUR

PRESENT: - Sri P. Subramanya Kumar, II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

Dated: Friday, the 11th day of September, 2015.

SESSIONS CASE No.362 of 2012

(P.R.C.No.08 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram)

1. P. Kishore Kumar Reddy, S/o Dasthagiri Reddy, 31 years.

2. P. Dasthagiri Reddy, 62 years, S/o Venkata Subba Reddy.

3. P. Deepa, W/o Durga Prasad, 30 years, residing at Proddatur Town, Kadapa District.

A.1 and A.2 are residents of Jeevampeta village, Kamalapuram mandal, Kadapa District.

Charges U/s. 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against accused Nos.1 to 3 are framed.

Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act

In the result, I find accused Nos.1 to 3 are not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act with which they are charged and consequently they are acquitted u/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2 and other non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. The bail bonds of all the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months.

Sri Marthala Sudhakar Reddy,

Additional Public Prosecutor

II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa at Proddatur.

Sri N. Dada Peer, Advocate.

Cr.No.115/2011 of Kamalapuram Police Station.

S.C.No.362/2012 2

8. Committed byJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram in PRC.No.08/2012.

This case coming on 04.09.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Marthala Sudhakar Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri N. Dadapeer, Advocate for the accused No.1 to 3 and after hearing both sides and perusing material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused Nos.1 to 3 were charged for causing the death of the deceased within seven years of their marriage subjecting her to cruelty in demanding additional dowry at her house on 12.11.2011 at about 3.00 pm., and also charged for subjecting her to cruelty and demand of dowry and additional dowry in Cr.No.115/2011, of Kamalapuram Police

Station.

1.The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused No.1 and 3 are the brother and sister and accused No.2 is their father. The deceased P. Pranitha Kumari married accused No.1 on 24.10.2007 and at the time of marriage, her parents presented 25 tolas of gold jewellary and cash of Rs.3,00,000/- to accused towards dowry. Subsequent to the marriage, they lived happily for some time and blessed one daughter and later accused No.1 on the instigation of accused No.2 and 3, started demanding the deceased to fetch additional dowry from her parents and subjected her to cruelty both mentally and physically. She informed the same to her parents and later mediation was also convened and inspite of that there was no change in the attitude of the accused. Accused

No.1 took the deceased to hospital and got aborted their second issue and also harassing her on the plea that she had unwanted hair on her

S.C.No.362/2012 3 body and also suspected her fidelity. Further the accused did not allow the deceased to go to her maternal house and also not allowed the parents of deceased into the house.

While the matter stood thus, on 12.11.2011 at about 3.00 p.m., the deceased contacted her parents and informed them that accused

No.1 is not permitting her to attend the opening ceremony of the shopping complex of their relative at Proddatur. Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased consumed insecticide poison in the house of the accused and became unconscious and on noticing the same, accused No.1 informed the same to L.W.5 – P. Siva Koti Reddy and shifted her to the Himalaya hospital, Kadapa. As her condition became critical, at about 6.10 p.m., the deceased died.

On a complaint lodged by her father P.W.1, the Kamalapauram police registered the present crime and took up investigation and the

Mandal Executive Magistrate held inquest over the dead body and

S.D.P.O., Kadapa investigated the matter, examined the witnesses, later arrested accused No.1 and 2, as accused No.3 obtained anticipatory bail and subsequently after completion of investigation laid charge sheet.

2. The Learned Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram has taken up the case on file as PRC No.08/2012. On appearance of the accused

Nos.1 to 3 before him, he furnished copies of the documents as envisaged U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. and when examined all the accused stated

before him that they have means to engage a counsel to defend

themselves in the Sessions Court. As the offences U/Sec.30b-B of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Principal District & Sessions Court, Kadapa

U/s. 209 Cr.P.C. for trial.

S.C.No.362/2012 4

3. The Learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa has taken the case on file and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law.

4. On appearance of all the accused before this court, the accused were examined. After a careful consideration and upon hearing both the prosecution and defence, this court framed charges U/s. 498-A, 304-

B of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act, read over and explained to them in Telugu language. The accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and M.Os.1 and 2. The Learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.7 – N. Veera Reddy, L.W.9 –

P. Harinath Reddty, L.W.10 - C. Venkata Raja Gopal Reddy, L.W.12 – K.

Sree Devi, L.W.13 – G. Babu, L.W.15 – N.S.L. Babu, L.W.16 – Tahsildhar,

Kamalapuram, L.W.17 – Dr. K. Murali Mohan, LW.18 – Dr. A. Sidda

Reddy, L.W.19 – Dr. T. Ayyavaru Reddy, L.W.20 – C. Konda Reddy,

L.W.21 – Dr. L.C. Obulesu, L.W.22 – Dr. Anand Kumar, L.W.23 – G.

Kowlutlaiah. The evidence of P.W.1 is closed basing on his death certificate.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances appeared against them and they denied the allegations therein. They did not examine any witness nor exhibited any documents. The case of the accused is one of the total denial of the case of the prosecution.

7.Heard both the counsel.

8.Now the points for determination are:-

S.C.No.362/2012 5

1. Whether the accused caused the death of the deceased in demanding additional dowry just prior to her death?

2. Whether the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty both mentally and physically and caused her to death as sought to be contended by the prosecution?

3. Whether the accused demanded the deceased for dowry and

additional dowry?

4. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT NO.1:-

9. In this regard to prove the offence proper, the prosecution examined one P. Leelavathi, the mother of the deceased as P.W.1 and Y.

Praveena Kumari and Y. Pradeep Kumar Reddy, the sister and brother of the deceased as P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.4 P. Siva Koti Reddy, P.W.5 G.

Chinna Kambaiah and P.W.6 N. Narayana Reddy are the mediators to settle the differences between the accused and the deceased. P.W.7 G.

Rama Chandrudu is the panch at the time of inquest held over the dead body, P.W.8 B. Rama Mohan is the panchayatdar at the time of seizure panchanama, P.W.9 is Dr. L.C. Obulesu, who conducted autopsy over the dead body and P.W.10 is R. Jaya Lakshmi, A.S.P., Kadapa who investigated the matter and laid charge sheet.

10.When coming to the evidence of P.W.1, who lodged the complaint with the police, he did not allege anything adverse against the accused and on the other hand he deposed there were no differences between the accused and the deceased and unable to bear the stomach-ache the deceased consumed sleeping pills and died and as some of his relatives prepared a complaint, he is not aware of the contents therein and he subscribed his signature to the said complaint. As he exhibited hostile, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross-examined him and the

S.C.No.362/2012 6 relevant portion in Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P.1. In the same manner, P.Ws.2 and 3 the sister and brother of the deceased respectively also did not support the prosecution with regard to the harassment meted out by the accused which driven her to commit suicide and thus after necessary permission the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor cross-examined these witnesses and the relevant portions in Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements are marked as Ex.P.2 and P.3.

11.In the similar fashion P.Ws.4 to 6 who alleged to have convened the mediation to sort out the differences between the accused and the deceased also turned hostile. Thus, they too were cross examined after necessary permission by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the relevant portions in their Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements are marked as

Ex.P.4 to P.6.

12.P.W.7 is the panch at the time of inquest held over the dead body and he attested Ex.P.7 inquest report and they opined the deceased died by consuming pesticides.

13.P.W.8 is the panch at the time of seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 which are one steel glass and one small pouch by the police in the house of accused on 14.11.2011 at 3.00 p.m., under Ex.P.8 seizure panchanama.

14.P.W.9 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 13.11.2011 and issued Ex.P.9 post mortem certificate basing on Ex.P.10 R.F.S.L. report. He opined that the deceased died of due to consumption of organophosphate poisonous substance.

15.P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer. On 13.11.2011 his S.I. of

Police registered Ex.P.11 the complaint presented by father of deceased as the present crime U/s. 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. and issued F.I.Rs under Ex.P.12. She took up investigation from the S.I. of Police and

S.C.No.362/2012 7 examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and others, seized the M.Os.1 and 2 under cover of panchanama and on her requisition, the Mandal Executive Magistrate held inquest over the dead body and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. Later she also visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.13 rough sketch and on 23.11.2011, he arrested A.1 and A.2 in the presence of panchayatdars and sent them to judicial custody and A.3 obtained anticipatory bail and she exhibited Ex.P.14

R.F.S.L. report and after completion of investigation laid charge sheet.

16.Thus, what is apparent on the face of the material is the mother, sister and brother of the deceased who are witnesses to the alleged harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased which led the deceased to commit suicide did not support the prosecution. Thus, the vital evidence is lacking in this case. Though it is established the deceased died of consuming insecticide poison but there is no link between the accused and death of the deceased, who alleged to have subjected the deceased to cruelty which ultimately driven her to commit suicide. Even the mediators who alleged to have convened the mediations to sort out the differences between the accused and deceased also did not support the prosecution. Thus, under these circumstances, it is clear that there is no evidence at all to connect the accused with the alleged offence U/s. 304-B of I.P.C. with which they are charged causing death of the deceased within seven years of her marriage by subjecting her to cruelty in demanding dowry. Hence, this point is answered against the prosecution.

POINT NO.2:-

17.As already discussed under Point No.1, the incidents of specific harassments are not spoken by P.Ws.1 to 4 and also there is no other material to show that the accused subjected the deceased to

S.C.No.362/2012 8 harassment as claimed by the prosecution. Hence, under these circumstances for this reason and for the reasons assigned under point

No.1, it is to be concluded that the prosecution failed to produce cogent evidence in establishing that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty. Hence, this point is also answered against the prosecution.

POINT NO.3:-

18.Though the accused are charged for Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, for the self same reasons assigned under points No.1 and 2, it is to be concluded the prosecution failed to establish that the accused demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased. Hence, this point is also answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

POINT No.4:-

19.In view of the discussion and findings rendered under point No.1 to 3 what is manifest is the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this point is also answered against the prosecution.

20.In the result, I find accused No.1 to 3 are not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act with which they are charged and consequently they are acquitted u/s.

235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The M.Os.1 and 2 and the unmarked valuable property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. The bail bonds of all the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11th day, of September, 2015.

II ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE

KADAPA AT PRODDATUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

S.C.No.362/2012 9

Witnesses examined for Prosecution;

PW.1 : P. Leelavathamma.

PW.2 : Y. Praveena Kumari.

PW.3 : Y. Pradeep Kumar Reddy.

PW.4 : P. Siva Koti Reddy.

PW.5 : G. Chinna Kambaiah.

PW.6 : N. Narayana Reddy.

PW.7 : G. Rama Chandrudu.

PW.8 : B. Rama Mohan.

PW.9 : L.C. Obulesu.

PW.10: R. Jaya Lakshmi.

Witnesses examined for defence

- N I L –

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P.2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.4 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.5 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P.6 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6.

Ex.P.7 : Inquest Report.

Ex.P.8 : Seizure panchanama.

Ex.P.9 : Postmortem certificate.

Ex.P.10: R.F.S.L. Report.

Ex.P.11: Complaint of P.W.1.

Ex.P.12: F.I.R. in Cr.No.115/2011 of Kamalapuram P.S.

Ex.P.13: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P.14: Letter of advice.

Exhibits marked for defence.

- N I L -

Material objects marked.

M.O.1 : Steel glass.

M.O.2 : Small pouch.

II Addl. Sessions Judge,

S.C.No.362/2012 10

Kadapa at Proddatur.

1

O.S.No.55 of 2010

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA AT PRODDATUR

PRESENT: - SRI P. SUBRAMANYA KUMAR,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA AT PRODDATUR.

Dated: Tuesday, the 15th day of September, 2015.

O.S.No. 55/2010

1. Karumuru Srinivasa Prasad, S/o Venkatesham, aged 47 years, Hindu, Medical Store, Veparala village, Mylavaram mandal, Kadapa District.

2. Karumuru Ramesh Babu, S/o Bala Ramaiah, aged 37 years, Hindu, Assistant Professor in PRRM College of Pharmacy, Shabad, Hyderabad. … Plaintiffs V/s.

1. Kaanchu Naramma, W/o late Kaanchu Kondappa, Hindu, Aged about 72 years, Housewife.

2. Kaanchu Narayana, S/o late Kaanchu Kondappa, Hindu, Aged about 55 years, Business.

3. Kaanchu Tirumala Kondaiah, S/o late Kaanchu Kondappa, Aged about 47 years, Hindu, Business.

4. Kaanchu Saraswathi, D/o late Kaanchu Kondappa, Hindu, Aged about 32 years.

All are residing at D.No.24/42, Tadipatri road, side of S.B.I., Jammalamadugu town and mandal, Kadapa District.

…

Defendants

This suit is coming on 10.09.2014 for final consideration before me in the presence of Sri C. Syamasunder Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri C. Shakeel Ahammed, Smt H. Jyothi Rani, Advocates for the defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,45,250/-, basing on registered simple mortgage deed, dated 05.09.2005, allegedly have been executed by the defendants in their favour.

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

O.S.No.55 of 2010

On 05.09.2005, the defendants borrowed an amount of

Rs.7,50,000/- from the plaintiffs for their family necessities by offering the suit schedule property as security for due discharge of the above said loan amount and executed the registered simple mortgage deed on the same day for the above said amount agreeing to repay the same within three years either to the plaintiffs or to their order with interest at 18% per annum. Later the plaintiffs demanded the defendants on several occasions to repay the above said mortgage debt and also issued legal notice, but the defendants failed to pay the same. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit.

3. The defendants filed the written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint by admitting the execution of registered mortgage deed in favour of plaintiffs after borrowal of

Rs.7,50,000/- from the plaintiffs. They further averred that due to fluctuation of the market rates in Jammalamadugu town, nobody has come forward to purchase the suit schedule property and hence, it is being delayed. But as a security towards the loan, the suit schedule property is therein force under the registered mortgage deed and the said mortgage is still in continuation of 12 years and the 12 years is not completed. They further contended that the plaintiffs are not the proper persons who have given money to the defendants, but one Dr.

K. Ramakanth, who is the paternal uncle of plaintiffs, gave amount to the defendants and mortgage in the name of plaintiffs. On 10.09.2009 the defendants paid a part payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to the said K.

Ramakanth towards the interest, but the same is not endorsed or shown in the plaint. They further contended that they required two years time for payment of the amount due to the plaintiffs after deducting the part payment of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by the defendants on 10.09.2009. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

3

O.S.No.55 of 2010

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

1. Whether the suit mortgage deed dated 05.09.2005 is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary decree as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff No.1 himself got examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 registered mortgage deed

dated 05.09.2005. After the closure of the plaintiffs’ side evidence, the

defendant No.2 examined himself as DW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

6. Heard both sides.

Issue NOs.1 and 2:- As issues No.1 and 2 are interrelated, hence discussed under common head.

7. The claim of the plaintiffs is that on 05.09.2005, the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from the plaintiffs for their family necessities by offering the suit schedule property as security for due discharge of the above said loan amount and executed the registered simple mortgage deed on the same day for the above said amount agreeing to repay the same within three years either to the plaintiffs or to their order with interest at 18% per annum. Later the plaintiffs demanded the defendants on several occasions to repay the above said mortgage debt and also issued legal notice, but the defendants failed to pay the same nor gave any reply notice. To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 himself got examined as PW.1. PW.1 reiterated the plaint averments in his chief examination.

4

O.S.No.55 of 2010

8. PW.1 was cross examined by the defence counsel. During the cross examination, PW.1 has deposed that he know the defendant No.2 since ten years and he used to take hand loans and discharged them often, but there is no proofs with regard to the previous transactions.

Except this loan, there are no other loans pending. The defendants mortgaged only three cents of house under suit mortgage deed. His medical shop is situated in the hospital of Dr. Ramnath, who is his paternal uncle and do not know whether the said Ramnath used to lend amounts to the defendants previously. He denied the suggestions that he received Rs.1,50,000/- as part payment towards the mortgage debt and he issued a receipt on that behalf and he did not lend the amount to the defendants, but one Ramnath lend the same to the defendants. Except this nothing is elicited to disprove and discard the contention of the plaintiffs.

9. To substantiate the case of the defendants, the defendant no.2 himself got examined as DW.1. DW.1 reiterated all the written statements averments in his chief examination. During the cross- examination, he admitted about execution of registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiffs by receiving Rs.7,50,000/- and he admitted in his written statement that if two years time is given, he will discharge the suit debt. He further admitted that he filed his written statement dated 27.03.201 and till now he did not repay any amount towards suit debt. He did not file any receipt showing the plaintiffs issued receipt for Rs.1,50,000/- towards discharge of the part of the suit debt amount.

10. It is the specific contention of the defendants is that they borrowed amount from the paternal father of plaintiffs by name Dr. K.

Ramnath, but they executed registered mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff on his instructions. They further contended that they paid 5

O.S.No.55 of 2010

Rs.1,50,000/- to the said Dr. Ramnath towards part payment of the above said debt, to that effect, he issued a receipt. The defendant

No.2 himself in his evidence and also in the written statement has admitted the execution of Ex.A.1 registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Once the execution of Ex.A.1 is admitted by the defendants, the presumption u/Sec.118 (a) of N.I. Act is that it is supported by the consideration. So, the burden lies on the defendant to prove the Ex.A.1 is not supported by the consideration. There is no material produced by the defendants to show that they borrowed amount from the said Dr. Ramnath. It is deemed that the defendants know about the consequences of execution of registered mortgage deed without receipt of consideration from the plaintiffs. No ordinary prudent man can execute a registered mortgage deed without receiving the consideration. Except the oral testimony of DW.1, there is no other material put forth by the defendants to show that they paid

Rs.1,50,000/- to the said Dr. Ramnath towards part payment of the above said debt, to that effect, he issued a receipt. No reason has been given by the defendants for not filing the said receipt while P.W.1 was in the witness box and also not summoned the Dr. Ramnath to prove the above said allegations. Hence, the contention of the defendants is untenable.

11. The specific version of the defendants in the written statement is that if two years time is given, they will discharge the suit debt. Admittedly, the written statement filed on 27.03.2011, but till now i.e., after a period of 4 ½ years from the date of filing of written statement, they did not repay the suit debt. Therefore, it shows that to avoid the suit debt, the defendants intentionally used to prolong the matter by saying that if two years time is given, they will discharge the suit debt.

6

O.S.No.55 of 2010

12. As can be seen from Ex.A.1, it discloses that the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from the plaintiffs and they jointly mortgaged the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and the same was registered. Contra to the said evidence, the defendants not produced any evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 clinchingly establishes that the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 05.09.2005 and they have executed Ex.A.1 in their favour, later they failed to discharge the said mortgage debt. As such the Ex.A.1 is true, valid and binding on the defendants and basing on it, the plaintiffs are entitled for preliminary decree against the defendants for realisation of mortgage deed.

Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

Issue No.3:-

13. In the result, a preliminary decree is passed against the defendants for Rs.14,45,250/- with costs together with future interest at 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from the date of decree till the date of realisation of the same. Time for redemption is six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 15th day September, 2015.

Sd/- P. Subramanya Kumar

II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

7

O.S.No.55 of 2010

Plaintiff s:- Defendants : Nil

P.W.1 : K. Srinivasa Prasad.

Exhibits for the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Original registered simple mortgage deed,

Dt. 05.09.2005 executed by the defendants in favour of

plaintiffs.

Exhibits for Defendants : Nil

Sd/- P. Subramanya Kumar

II A.D.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA AT PRODDATUR

PRESENT: - SRI P. SUBRAMANYA KUMAR,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA AT PRODDATUR.

Dated: Friday, the 11th day of September, 2015.

D.O.P.No.256/2010

Kogatam Yesubabu @ Obulesu, S/o Manohar, aged about 36 years, Christian, original resident of Pedda Chiyyapadu village, Chapadu (m), Presently residing at D.No.7/2617-3, Krupa Nagar, Andhra Kesari Nagar, Proddatur town, Kadapa District. … Petitioner V/s.

Kogatam Raja Rathnamani, W/o Yesubabu @ Obulesu, aged 33 years, D/o late Gandham Prasad, resident of Uppaluru road, Near Church, Chilamkur village, Yerraguntla mandal, Kadapa District.

… Respondent

This Divorce petition is coming on 03.09.2014 for final consideration

before me in the presence of Sri K. Jagannadha Sasthry and Sri B. Chandra

Sekhar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri B. Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the respondentand having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

The petitioner filed the present petition under section 10 of Indian

Divorce Act against the respondent seeking for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent that took place on 08.07.2000, by way of granting decree of divorce.

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

The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 08.07.2000, at R.C.M. Church at Pedda

Chiyyapadu village of Chapadu mandal as per Christian rites and customs.

After the marriage the respondent joined with the petitioner to lead marital life and they lived happily for four years along with the father of respondent at Mydukur and blessed two female children. After the death of the father of petitioner, they set up their family at Pedda Chiyyapadu village and the respondent lived along with children for a period of one 2 month, thereafter she used to go to her parents house frequently. Several requests made by the petitioner to the respondent to live with him. Finally the respondent imposed a condition that if the petitioner set up his family at Mydukur or any town, she would join to lead marital life with him, for which the petitioner set up his family at Mydukur in the month of June, 2006 and the respondent lived only for two days and thereafter she left the house without the knowledge of the petitioner and is staying with her parents along with their children. Later the petitioner made several attempts to bring back the respondent to his house, but those are become futile. Since the month of June, 2006, the respondent is residing at her parent’s house without any false on the part of the petitioner and there is no scope for reunion. Hence, he is constrained to file the present application.

3. The respondent filed her counter denying the material allegations levelled in the petition, but admitted the marriage with the petitioner which was taken place on 08.07.2000 at RCM Church, Pedda Chiyyapadu village. She further averred that they lived happily for a period of six years and blessed with one male and female child and both are living in her custody. Thereafter the petitioner addicted to vices, used to harass her both mentally and physically for want of additional dowry with the able assistance of the mother of petitioner and thrown her and their children from the house, for which she lodged complaint against the petitioner at

Yerraguntla police station and also filed maintenance case against the petitioner and the same are pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court of

First Class, Kamalapuram. To wreck vengeance against her for filing the

above cases, the petitioner filed this present petition against the respondent and hence she sought dismissal of the present petition.

4. During the course of trial, the petitioner himself got examined as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.6. After the closure of the petitioner side 3 evidence, the respondent did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence on her behalf.

5. Heard both sides.

6. Now the point for consideration is Whether the marriage

between the petitioner and respondent held on 08.07.2000 is liable to

be dissolved by way of decree of divorce as prayed for?

7. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1/petitioner, he reiterated the petition averments and got marked Ex.A.1 the marriage wedding card dated 08.07.2000, Ex.A.2 the marriage photograph of the petitioner and respondent, Ex.A.3 to A.6 are the certified copies of F.I.R. in

Cr.No.50/2010, Judgement in C.C.No.95/2010, Petition, Counter and docket order in M.C.No.04/2011 which shows that the respondent filed criminal case against the petitioner which was ended in acquittal likewise the maintenance case also ended for dismiss for default. The petition averments and the evidence of P.W.1 clearly discloses that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was taken place on 08.07.2000, as per Christian rites and customs, they lived happily only for four years and blessed one male and female children, after that the respondent denied to lead marital life with the petitioner and finally the respondent left the association of the petitioner in the month of June 2006, after that the mediation efforts made by the petitioner became futile and the respondent failed to join with the petitioner without any just and sufficient costs.

8. Though the respondent has filed a counter by engaging an advocate disputing the contents in the divorce petition, but for the reasons best known to her she did not appear before the Court to cross-examine

P.W.1 inspite of granting sufficient adjournments. In a decision reported in

AIR 1999 (S.C.) D.B. 1441 in between Vidyadhar Vs. Manik Rao,

wherein it is held that in “where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and state his own case on oath and does not offer himself 4

before cross-examination by the other side, presumption would arise that

the case set up by him is not correct”.

9. In the present case on hand, the respondent did not enter into the witness box. If the party to the petition fails to enter into witness box to state her case on oath and offer for cross examination, the presumption that would arises is that the case set up by her is incorrect.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a decision reported in 2014 (1) ALD 241 (1) (FB), in between Mallipudi Babu Rao Vs.

Mallipudi Prameela Kumari, wherein it is held by the Hon’ble High Court of

A.P. that considering the proviso U/s. 17 (As amended by Act 51 of 2001), the decree of divorce need not be confirmed by Hon’ble High Court in view of the amendment. Hence, reference to Hon’ble High Court is not maintainable.

11. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.3 to A.6 clearly discloses that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent is strained and since then she did not join with the petitioner and she is not willing to join with the petitioner without any just and sufficient costs. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly discloses that there is a desertion of more than two years between the petitioner and respondent and the attitude of the respondent indicates that she is acting adamant towards the petitioner without joining for leading marital life. There is no scope of reunion between the petitioner and respondent. In the above said circumstances, if the marital tie between the petitioner and respondent is continued, no purpose will be served. Hence, in the above said facts and circumstances and in the light of the evidence of P.W.1, this Court is inclined to allow this petition by dissolving the marital tie between the petitioner and respondent on the ground of desertion. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

5

12. In the result the petition is allowed without costs. The marriage took place on 08.07.2000 at R.C.M. Church at Pedda Chiyyapadu village of Chapadu mandal, in between the petitioner and the respondent is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 11th day September, 2015.

II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioner :- Respondent : N I L

P.W.1 : K. Yesubabu @ Obulesu.

Exhibits for the Petitioner:

Ex.A1 : Marriage wedding card dated 08.07.2000.

Ex.A2 : Marriage photograph of the petitioner & respondent.

Ex.A3 : Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.50/2010.

Ex.A4: Certified copy of Judgment in C.C.No.95/2010.

Ex.A5: Certified copy of Petition and counter in M.C.No.04/2011.

Ex.A6: Certified copy of docket order in M.C.No.04/2011.

Exhibits for respondent : Nil

II A.D.J.

6

Petition presented on 23.08.2010. Petition filed on 01.10.2010.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA AT PRODDATUR

PRESENT: - SRI P. SUBRAMANYA KUMAR,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA AT PRODDATUR.

Dated: Friday, the 11th day of September, 2015.

D.O.P.No.256/2010

Kogatam Yesubabu @ Obulesu, S/o Manohar, aged about 36 years, Christian, original resident of Pedda Chiyyapadu village, Chapadu (m), Presently residing at D.No.7/2617-3, Krupa Nagar, Andhra Kesari Nagar, Proddatur town, Kadapa District. … Petitioner V/s.

Kogatam Raja Rathnamani, W/o Yesubabu @ Obulesu, aged 33 years, D/o late Gandham Prasad, resident of Uppaluru road, Near Church, Chilamkur village, Yerraguntla mandal, Kadapa District.

… Respondent

This is a Divorce petition filed by the petitioner under section 10 of Indian Divorce Act, against the respondent seeking for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent that took place on 08.07.2000, by way of granting decree of divorce.

Value of the petition for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction: A fixed court fee of Rs.30/- is paid under Art.II (iii), Schedule II of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

This Divorce petition is coming on 03.09.2014 for final consideration

before me in the presence of Sri K. Jagannadha Sasthry and Sri B. Chandra

Sekhar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri B. Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the respondent, stood over for consideration, this Court doth Order and Decree:-

1. That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed;

2. That the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent that took place on 08.07.2000 at R.C.M. Church at Pedda Chiyyapadu village of

Chapadu mandal, be and is hereby dissolved by means of a decree of divorce; and

3. That both the parties do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, on this the 11th day, September, 2015.

II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. Memorandum of costs: nil 7

II A.D. J.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA AT PRODDATUR.

Present:- Sri P.Subrahmanya Kumar, II Addl. District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

Friday this the 11th day of September, 2015.

G.O.P No. 60/2015

Tanguturu Karraiahgari Bhargavi, D/o Rama Chandra Reddy, Minor, Hindu, 07 years, Studying 1 Standard, Viswa Bharati School, Rameswaram, Proddatur Town, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. Represented by her mother and natural guardian next friend Tanguturu Karraiahgari Radha, W/o Rama Chandra Reddy, 32 yrs, Hindu, House- wife, R/at D.No.26/1001, Mittamanu Street, Proddatur Town, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

..Petitioner.

VS

NIL..

..Respondent.

The Guardian O.P No.60/2015 is coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri C. Sudarsana Reddy and Sri K.

Venkateswara Reddy, advocates for the petitioner and no respondent and on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is a Guardian petition filed on behalf of the petitioner by her mother guardian U/s 29 of Guardians and Awards Act.

2. The material averments of the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner is minor, represented by her mother who is the proposed guardian having care and custody of the minor. There are no ill-feelings among the petitioner and her mother. There are some dispute arose between the father and mother of the minor of the petitioner during their matrimonial life and as result of disputes the mother of the petitioner filed a criminal case in Cr.No.201/2008 of I

Town P.S, Proddatur U/s 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. The mother of the petitioner and the petitioner filed a petition for maintenance in M.C.No.31/2008 on the file of I Addl. Judl.

2

Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur which was settled under the

intervention of the elders. As result of the settlement, the grand-father of the petitioner by name T.K. Rami Reddy executed a registered gift settlement deed dt, 17-6-2010 vide bearing No.1599/2010 in favour of the petitioner for the maintenance of the petitioner. So, all the cases were settled between the parents of the petitioner. Again some dispute arose among the parents of the petitioner and failed to live amicably and so again elders on both side intervened and advised to go for divorce. As a result of mediation the elders advised to pay a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the mother of the petitioner towards her permanent alimony. The elders further advised that the land stands in the name of the minor may not give sufficient income for education, cloths, medicines etc., and so advised to sold out the property to third parties and deposit the sale consideration in the name of the minor till her attainment of majority. Then the paternal grandfather of the petitioner came forward and offered more value than the market value to the schedule property. The market value of the property as per the valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Jammalamadugu is

Rs. 1,96,000/-.

Admittedly, the paternal grandfather of the petitioner is offering more value to the schedule property than the third parties. So, elders and mother of the petitioner convinced for the price and accepted to sell the property to the grandfather of the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner executed an agreement of sale dated, 24-3-2015 in favour of the T.K. Rami Reddy, who is the paternal grandfather agreeing to sell the property for a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- and the sale consideration should be paid after getting permission from the Court and the sale consideration will be deposited in any Nationalized Bank in the name of the minor petitioner till her attainment of majority for welfare of the minor petitioner to proved good education, health, food, cloths etc. The paramount consideration has to be given to the protection of the minor interest and there is no dispute between the 3 mother of the petitioner and the petitioner. The minor is growing child and need good education, health, cloths, food etc. and the mother can protect the welfare of the child being natural guardian and she is the proper person to act as guardian to the minor petitioner and hence requested to grant permission after appointing the mother as guarding to the minor petitioner to sell the property for the benefit and welfare of the child. Hence, requested to allow the petition.

3. Basing on the above pleadings the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the petitioner can be permitted to sell the petition schedule property to keep the sale proceeds in any

Nationalized Bank for the benefit of the minor?

4. On numbering O.P. general notice was ordered and no third party has come forward to dispute the petition.

5. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1is examined by marking ExP1 to ExP3 documents.

6. POINT: - The petitioner’s mother filed her chief-examination affidavit in lieu of chief-examined as PW1 by marking ExP1 to ExP3 namely original gift settlement deed dated, 17-6-2010 vide document

No.1599/2010 executed by T.K. Rami Reddy in favour of the petitioner,

ExP2 Valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar,

Jammalamadugu and ExP3 Agreement of sale dated, 24-3-2015 for Rs.

10,50,000/- executed by the petitioner. Since as per ExP3 the property gifted to the petitioner under ExP1 as agreed to sell to the maternal grand-father for more than seven lakhs, the valuation certificate under ExP2 for the welfare of the minor petitioner, I am inclined to consider the petition as requested. Accordingly, I hold the point in favour of the petitioner.

7. In the result, the petition is allowed, without costs. The mother of the petitioner Smt. Tanguturu Karraiahgari Radha wife of

Rama Chandra Reddy is appointed as Guardian of the minor petitioner and she is permitted to sell ExP1 mentioned property as per ExP3 4 agreement of sale. The mother of the petitioner is directed to file the copy of the sale deed into the Court on registering the property in the name of the petitioner’s paternal grandfather. The mother of the petitioner is directed to deposit the sale proceeds in any Nationalized

Bank and she is permitted to utilize the interest accrued thereon for the welfare of the minor petitioner every year. She is further directed to submit the accounts relating to the said FDR to the Court in the month of January first week of calendar year till the petitioner attains majority.

Dictated to the Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 11th day of September, 2015.

II Addl. District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: - For Respondent: -

P.W.1: T.K. Radha. - Nil -

Exhibits marked For Petitioner:- For Respondent: -

Ex.A.1: Original Gift settlement deed dated, - Nil - 17-6-2010 vide document No.1599/2010 Executed by T.K. Rami Reddy in favour of the petitioner.

ExA.2: Valuation Certificate issued by the Sub- Registrar, Jammalamadugu.

ExA.3: Agreement of sale dated, 24-3-2015 for Rs. 10,50,000/- executed by the petitioner.

II A.D.J.