Sri P. Vasanth

1 of 6 S.C.No.51 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2017

Present: P.Vasanth,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal

FAC. II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal,

Sessions Case No.51/2014

(P.R.C.No.36/2013 on the file of IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal in Crime No.302/2013 of P.S. Ghanpur (W) )

1. Name and description : The State of A.P through of the Complainant. Sub-Inspector of Police, Ghanpur (W)

2. Name and description : of the Accused. A.1 Keshoju Satyanarayana @ Satyam, S/o.Mallaiah, Age: 50 Years, Caste: Carpenter, Occ: Caste work, R/o.H.No.6-84, Ghanpur-W A.2 Keshoju Prasad, S/o.Venkateshwarlu, Age: 26 Years, Caste: Carpenter, Occ: Caste work, R/o.H.No.6-85, Ghanpur-W A.3 Keshoju Bhaskar, S/o.Somaiah, Age: 32 Years, Caste: Carpenter, Occ: Caste work, R/o.H.No.6-83, Ghanpur-W

3. Offence with which charged : u/Ss.354, 509, 506 of IPC and Sections 354(i) and (ii) of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.

4. Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Judge: Accused found not guilty.

6. Sentence or Order : Acquitted.

In the result: : The accused are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 354, 509, 506 of IPC and Sections 354(i) and (ii) of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and they are acquitted u/S.235 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of 6 months.

7. Prosecution conducted by : Sri Vasanth Kumar Addl. Public Prosecutor.

8. Accused defended by: Sri S.Srinivasa Prasad

This case is coming before me on 19.04.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri M.Sahodar Reddy and G.Srinivas Goud, Counsels for the Accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 of 6 S.C.No.51 of 2014

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Ghanpur (W) filed charge sheet against

A.1 to A.3 for the offences under Sections 354, 509 and 506 of IPC and Section 354-A (1)(i)(ii) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013.

2.The brief case of the prosecution is as under:

PW.1/victim is residing at Ghanpur (W). She got married in 2010 and blessed with a daughter in 2011, but, she got separated from her husband and staying alone as a tenant in the house of one K.Brahmachary at Ghanpur (W) since six months. On 12.09.2013 around 10.00 p.m., A.3 went to her and demanded to share bed with him and when she rejected, he abused her in filthy language. She made phone call to her house owner, whereupon A.2 told her not to make the phone call as her landlord might have slept by consuming alcohol. She closed the doors and slept, but, A.2 threatened her that he will not allow her to slept in the house, A.2 would follow her by uttering obscene words. All the accused made plan to evict LW.1 (Bhattu Indira) from her rented room and they did so when she did not pander to their lust. A.1 would urinate before her house and brandish his private parts. All the accused demanded her to give her gold chain, they quarreled with her and on 13.09.2013 at 8.30 a.m., A.1 and A.2 beat her with footwears alleging that she was spreading rumour that wife of A.3 had illicit intimacy with

A.2 and they outraged her modesty. Hence, the charge sheet.

3.After taking cognizance of the case by the learned IV Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, for the offences u/Ss.354, 509 and 506 of IPC and Section 354-A (1)(i)(ii) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 vide

P.R.C.No.36/2013 and after compliance of Section 207 to 209 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, numbered as S.C. No.51/2014 and made 3 of 6 S.C.No.51 of 2014 over to this Court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Warangal.

4.After hearing the Addl. P.P., and the accused, charges under Sections u/Ss.354, 509, 506 of IPC and Sections 354(i) and (ii) of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 have been framed against the accused, read over and explained to them, but, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.Then, the schedule for commencement of trial had been issued.

PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked, the details of which are noted at the appendix of evidence.

6. All the accused were examined u/S.313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences u/Ss.354, 509, 506 of IPC and Sections 354(i) and (ii) of Criminal

Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9.POINT :

Unfolding the prosecution case, PW.1 testified that upon separation from her husband in 2010, she began to live alone in the house of PW.3 in 2013 by leaving behind her daughter with her husband. On 12.09.2013 around 10.00 p.m., A.2 came to her room under inebriated state, abused her, caught hold of her hand and tried to outrage her modesty. All the accused had been pestering her to allow them to have physical relationship with her since she was all alone. On 13.09.2013 around 5.00 a.m., all the accused 4 of 6 S.C.No.51 of 2014 came drunk and tried to kill her by strangling. A.2 and A.3 threatened to pour acid on her; they beat her with chappals; she escaped outside the room, but, they caught her and beat her; they locked her door from outside and upon her phone call, police came and unlocked the lock. A.1 would urine

before her house by brandishing his private parts. A.2 asked her to shift in

his house with a view to trap her. All the accused made publicity that she had been spreading rumour that A.2 had illicit intimacy with the wife of A.3.

Wives of all the accused would demand her to give her gold chain for

Rs.100/- and when she declined, they would abuse her. She made police complaint and a Magistrate recorded her statement u/S.164 of Cr.P.C.

10.An unique features of this case is that all though PW.1 deposed in her chief-examination on the lines of the contents of charge sheet, she made a u-turn in her cross-examination by stating that she was a tenant in the house of accused and when they demanded her to vacate the premises, she filed this case against them. The police made her to sign on a prepared

Ex.P.1, she never lodge such complaint. She gave her statement before the

Magistrate as tutored by the police so also in her chief-examination. Police

never examined her. She further stated that whatever she stated in her chief- examination was at the instance of police; accused never tried to outrage her modesty. Thus, this witness, who initially, appeared vociferous in her evidence, has totally resiled from her statement in chief-examination.

11.PW.2 is mother of PW.1, but, she turned hostile to the prosecution case. So also PWs.3 and 5, who are cited as the eyewitnesses.

PW.4 is the panch for scene of offence panchanama, but, he too turned 5 of 6 S.C.No.51 of 2014 hostile. PW.6 is the Investigating Officer whose evidence is formal one and which needs no discussion.

12.Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, it may be noted that the testimony of PW.1 in her chief-examination is incriminating in nature, but, the same stood diluted when she resiled in her cross- examination. Rest of the witnesses have also turned hostile. It is needles to add that no reliance can be placed from the sole testimony of Investigating

Officer establish when PW.1 herself resiled from her previous statement in chief-examination.

13.In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused and as such they are found not guilty for the offences u/Ss.354, 509, 506 of IPC and Sections 354(i) and (ii) of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and they are acquitted u/S.235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2017).

Sd/-

FAC. II ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1 : P.Indira PW.2 : N.Laxmi PW.3 : K.Mahesh Kumar PW.4 : M.Kishore PW.5 : Chavan Raju PW.6 : M.Srinivas, Investigating Officer.

For Defence: None 6 of 6 S.C.No.51 of 2014

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution Ex.P-1 : Report given to the Police by PW.1 dated 13.09.2013. Ex.P-2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 dated 13.09.2013. Ex.P-3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 dated 13.09.2013. Ex.P-4 : Signature of PW.4 on C.D.F. Ex.P-5 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 dated 13.09.2013. Ex.P-6 : First Information Report dated 13.09.2013. Ex.P.7 : Crime Details Form dated 13.09.2013.

For Defence: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-

FAC II ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

- 1 - OS.No.476 of 2015.

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, WARANGAL.

Monday, this the 27 th day of February, 2017.

Present: Sri.P. VASANTH, II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

Original Suit No.476 of 2015.

Between:

Gajula Rajyalaxmi, w/o.Rajamouli, 65 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Bheemadevarapally village and Mandal, Karimnagar district.

…….. Plaintiff.

AND 1.Kasani Eshwaraiah, s/o.Mallaiah, 55 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.C/o.National High School, Kashibugga, Warangal, 2.T. Kenneth Noel, s/o.Late Nelson Benjamin, 55 yrs, occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.203, Gayatri Towers, Opp: Panama Godowns, Sai Nagar colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, 3.T. John David Benjamin, s/o.late Nelson Benjamin, 51 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.203, Gayatri Towers, Opp: Panama Godowns, Sai Nagar colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, 4.T. Melvin Benhar, s/o.Late Nelson Benjamin, 49 yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.Flat No.203, Gayatri Towers, Opp: Panama Godowns, Sai Nagar colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, 5.M. Bhulahruth @ Bhula, w/o.Sunil Kumar, 59 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Flat No.103, Gayatri Towers, Opp: Panama Godowns, Sai Nagar colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad,

…..Defendants.

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.J. Narsinga Rao,Counsel for Plaintiff, and all Defendants set ex- parte and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this date, and this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed by plaintiff against the defendants no.1 to 5 for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

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

- 2 - OS.No.476 of 2015.

The plaintiff is owner of house plot No.17 in Sy.No.131 admeasuring 355.55 sq.yards at Gorrekunta village having purchased the same from one Sheela Benjamin under registered sale deed on 30.6.1980 and ever since she has been in possession of the same. On 26.1.2004 defendants and their yesmen tried to dig trenches around the suit plot whereupon she and other adjacent plot owners filed OS.No.226/2004,

dt:4.2.2004 on the file of II-Add. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal against

defendants no.1 to 3 for permanent injunction. But the suit was dismissed against plaintiff no.1 for want of identify of the plot and thereafter defendant no.1, in collusion with other defendants, illegally removed boundary stones and cleaned with JCB therby encroaching into plots of plaintiff and others and recently trying to raise the compound wall. Defendant no.1 is illegaly enjoying the land in Sy.Nos.130 and 131 admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts., without any title. Defendants have illegally constructed the compound wall around Ac.2-20 gts., in Sy.No.130 and 131 which were plotted by the original vendor. Defendants no.2 to 5 are legal heirs of plaintiffs Vendor and they own 16 Acres in Sy.Nos.130 and 131; vendor executed a will deed in favour of her second son (D3) in respect of 16 gts., and property is situated within specified boundaries. Defendant no.3 without any right, executed sale agreement in favour of Defendant no.1 for Ac.2-20 gts with imaginary boundaries;

Defendants no.1 and 3 have no right or title over the property;

Defendant no.1 is in legal possession of suit schedule plot. Hence, the suit.

3.Defendants remained ex-parte.

- 3 - OS.No.476 of 2015.

4. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A5. Her chief-affidavit is on the similar lines like that of plaint averments.

5.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit relief?

6.Point:The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff drew the attention of the court to sale deed (Ex.A1) where under PW1 purchase the suit plot on 30.6.1980 and this transaction is reflected in Ex.A2 (Encumbrance Certificate) issued from the year 1.1.1980 to 30.9.2007.

The transaction under Ex.A1 is reflected. Ex.A3 is Encumbrance

Certificate from 1.10.2007 to 6.8.2015 where under no transaction is shown. This fact makes it clear that subsequent to the purchase by the plaintiff, no transaction took place in respect of suit plot. Ex.A5 photos buttressed the claim of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the defendants remained ex-parte and the oral and documentary evidence adduced by

PW1 remained uncontroverted. As such, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of suit schedule plot bearing No.17 in

Sy.No.131 to an extent of 355.55 sq.yards. Defendant no.1 is directed to vacate the suit plot within one month and handover the vacant - 4 - OS.No.476 of 2015.

possession of suit plot to plaintiff failing which the plaintiff can recover possession while process of law. The defendants are restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule plot.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of February, 2017).

II- ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1 – G. Rajyalaxmi.-NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 – certified copy of registered sale deed Doct.No.3204/1980, Ex.A2 – Original Encumbrance certificate 1.1.1980 to 30.9.2007, Ex.A3 – Original Encumbrance certificate 1.10.2007 to 6.8.2015, Ex.A4 – Annexure-II Valuation Certificate. Ex.A5 – Photos along with C.D.

FOR DEFENDANT: - NIL -

Sd/-

II- ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

- 5 - OS.No.476 of 2015.

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL.

Monday, this the 27 th day of February, 2017.

Present: Sri.P. VASANTH, II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

Original Suit No.476 of 2015.

Between:

Gajula Rajyalaxmi, w/o.Rajamouli, 65 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Bheemadevarapally village and Mandal, Karimnagar district.

…….. Plaintiff.

AND 1.Kasani Eshwaraiah, s/o.Mallaiah, 55 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.C/o.National High School, Kashibugga, Warangal, 2.T. Kenneth Noel, s/o.Late Nelson Benjamin, 55 yrs, occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.203, Gayatri Towers, Opp: Panama Godowns, Sai Nagar colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, 3.T. John David Benjamin, s/o.late Nelson Benjamin, 51 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.203, Gayatri Towers, Opp: Panama Godowns, Sai Nagar colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, 4.T. Melvin Benhar, s/o.Late Nelson Benjamin, 49 yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.Flat No.203, Gayatri Towers, Opp: Panama Godowns, Sai Nagar colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, 5.M. Bhulahruth @ Bhula, w/o.Sunil Kumar, 59 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Flat No.103, Gayatri Towers, Opp: Panama Godowns, Sai Nagar colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad,

…..Defendants.

.

CLAIM FOR: The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 fo declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

Cause of action : The cause of action for filing the suit arose at Gorrekunta Village, Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District in the month of February, 2015 when the defendant tried to construct compound wall in the suit property; on 17.2.2015 when the plaintiff obstructed the construction.

Court Fee : The suit is for declaration and recovery of possession and the plaintiff valued the market value of the suit property at Rs.5,33,325/- and 3/4th of the valuation comes to Rs.3,99,993-75 Ps. upon which a Court of fee of Rs. 6,426/- is paid u/s. 24 (a ) of A.P.Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act.

Plaint presented on : 11.9.2015.

- 6 - OS.No.476 of 2015.

D E C R E E: This Suit is coming before me on 27.2.2017 for final disposal in the presence of Sri J.Narsing Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants remained ex parte, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the suit of the plaintiff be and is decreed declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of suit schedule plot bearing No. 17 in Sy.No. 131 to an extent of 355.55 Sq. yards.

2. That the defendant No.1 be and is hereby directed to vacate the suit plot within one month and handover the vacant possession of suit plot to plaintiff failing which the plaintiff can recover possession through process of law.

3. That the defendants be and are hereby restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule plot.

4. That the defendants do pay a sum of Rs. ….................. towards costs to the plaintiff.

( Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 27th day of Feburary, 2017)

II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

House plot bearing No. 17 in Survey No. 131 to an extent of 355.55 Sq. yards situated t Gorrekunta Village, Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District, within the following boundaries:

Boundaries:

East : Road.

West: Plot No. 6.

North: Plot No.18.

South: Plot No. 16.

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

- 7 - OS.No.476 of 2015.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendants :Rs. 1Fees on plaint - 2Stamps on Power:Rs. 3Stamps on Exhibits:Rs. - 4Stamps on Process:Rs. 5Pleader's Fee:Rs. 6Commissioner Fee:Rs. 7Publication Charges:Rs. 8Miscellaneous:Rs. :Rs.

Total

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

- 1 - OS.No.401 of 2014.

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, WARANGAL.

Monday, this the 27 th day of February, 2017.

Present: Sri.P. VASANTH, II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

Original Suit No.401 of 2014.

Between:

Vijaya Bank, Hanamkonda branch, represented by its Branch Manager, K. Nagendrakumar, s/o.Late K.Venkateshwar Rao, 51 yrs,

r/o.Hanamkonda, Warangal. …….. Plaintiff.

AND 1.Sai Sri Group Deendayal Nagar, Julywada, Hanamkonda, 2.Nunavath Venkateshwarlu, s/o.Laxman, 34 yrs, occ: Business, r/o.H.No.1-9-1307, Deendayal Nagar, Julywada, Hanamkonda, 3.Maloth Ravi, s/o.Prathap, 32 yrs, Occ: Business, r/o.H.No.1-9- 1364, Deendayal Nagar, Julywada, Hanamkonda, 4.Srinivas, s/o.Komuraiah, 31 yrs, Occ: Business, r/o.H.No.3-15- 254, Peddammagadda, Warangal, 5.M. Ravinder, s/o.Sailu, 33 yrs, Occ: Business, r/o.H.No.3-11-691, KUC road, Hanamkonda, Warangal,

6. N. Veerender, s/o.Laxman, 30 yrs, Occ: Business, r/o.H.No.1-9- 1307, Deendayal Nagar, Julywada, Hanamkonda, 7.P. Surender, s/o.Yellaiah, 38 yrs, Occ: Employee, r/o.H.No.3-15- 114, Peddammagadda, Warangal, 8.V. Kumaraswamy, s/o.Agaiah, 45 yrs, Occ: Employee, r/o.H.No.13-4-181, near Gopalaswamy temple, Warangal.

…..Defendants.

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B. Seshadri,Counsel for Plaintiff, and of Sri.Ch. Upender, Counsel for Defendants and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this date, and this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed by Vijaya Bank against the defendant for recovery of Rs.6,50,744/-.

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

Defendant no.1 is self employee group by name Sai Sri group representing by its members Defendants no.2 to 6 and upon the - 2 - OS.No.401 of 2014.

application of Defendant no.1 through Defendants no.2 to 6, plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.2,50,000/- for centering works under RYS pathakam. Defendants no.2 to 6 executed pronote promising to repay the debt with interest @ 13.5% p.a., by hypothecating the business in favour of bank; they executed agreement of hypothecation, letter of guarantee, letter of repayment, etc., to repay the loan in 48 monthly installments at

Rs.6,930/- p.m. with interest. However, defendants failed to comply with the problems of loan sanctioned and they executed acknowledgment of liability. Defendants no.2 to 6 are principal borrowers while Defendant no.7 and Defendant no.8 are the guarantors. Hence, the suit.

3.Defendant no.2 contested the suit by filing his written statement contending as under:

Bank Manager obtained the signatures of defendant no.2 on numerous blank printed proformas, pronotes, receipts, guarantee bond agreement and paid Rs.40,000/- only to defendant no.2; he did not execute any document for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- but plaintiff bank created and fabricated the documents; interest was never agreed to be paid; when defendant no.2 approached the bank being an unemployee and to utilize the company schemes, plaintiff bank created documents and involved this defendant in this case. He prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were framed:

i)whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim? ii)to what relief?

5. The plaintiff bank examined its Branch Manager as PW1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A8. The details of which are mentioned at - 3 - OS.No.401 of 2014.

Appendix of Evidence. Defendant no.2 did not choose to adduce any evidence.

6.Heard.

7.Issue no.1:The contents of chief-affidavit of PW1 is the virtual reiteration of plaint averments reiterating that loan of

Rs.2,50,000/- was sent to Defendants no.2 to 6 under RYS scheme, but they committed default in the repayment of debt. PW1 produced voluminous documents in the form of A1 to A8 including loan application, hypothecation agreement, statement of account, etc. The photos of Principal borrowers are pinned to the loan application and the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that not only the photos but also signatures of all the defendants are borne out by the relative documents. PW1 was subjected to cross- examination in a rather perfunctory manner questioning that as to whether the witness went through the contents of chief-affidavit. It is suggested to the witness that he was not aware of the facts of the case and that he was deposing falsely. The witness asserted that the suit is filed upon the failure of the defendants to pay the installments, it is pertinent to note that in written statement it is averred that only Rs.40,000/- was paid to defendant no.2 and plaintiff bank fraudulently brought into existence of the documents but no such suggestion is made to PW1. In sum, there is no substance in the cross-examination of PW1 to impeach his credibility. There is no material on record to prove the defence case as defendant did not enter the witness box to prove the plea taken by him in the written statement.

- 4 - OS.No.401 of 2014.

9.In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit claim. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

10.Issue No.2: In view of my finding on issue no.1, the suit is decreed as follows:

In the result, the suit is decreed against all the defendants for a sum of Rs.6,50,744/- (Rupees six lakhs fifty thousands seven hundreds and forty four only) with interest @ 6 % p.a. on principal sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousands only) from the date of suit till date of realisation.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of February, 2017).

Sd/-

II- ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1 – Ch. Ravi Kumar.-NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: Ex.A1 – Loan application, dt:7.7.2008, - NIL- Ex.A2 – Sanction letter, dt:7.7.2008, Ex.A3 – D.P. Note, dt:7.7.2008, Ex.A4 – Hypothecation Agreement, dt:7.7.2008, Ex.A5 – Letter of Repayment, dt:7.7.2008, Ex.A6 – Letter of Guarantee, dt:7.7.2008, Ex.A7 – Acknowledgment of liability, dt:7.7.2011, Ex.A8 – statement of account.

Sd/-

II- ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

- 5 - OS.No.401 of 2014.

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL.

Monday, this the 27 th day of February, 2017.

Present: Sri.P. VASANTH, II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

Original Suit No.401 of 2014.

Between:

Vijaya Bank, Hanamkonda branch, represented by its Branch Manager, K. Nagendrakumar, s/o.Late K.Venkateshwar Rao, 51 yrs,

r/o.Hanamkonda, Warangal. …….. Plaintiff.

AND 1.Sai Sri Group Deendayal Nagar, Julywada, Hanamkonda, 2.Nunavath Venkateshwarlu, s/o.Laxman, 34 yrs, occ: Business, r/o.H.No.1-9-1307, Deendayal Nagar, Julywada, Hanamkonda, 3.Maloth Ravi, s/o.Prathap, 32 yrs, Occ: Business, r/o.H.No.1-9- 1364, Deendayal Nagar, Julywada, Hanamkonda, 4.Srinivas, s/o.Komuraiah, 31 yrs, Occ: Business, r/o.H.No.3-15- 254, Peddammagadda, Warangal, 5.M. Ravinder, s/o.Sailu, 33 yrs, Occ: Business, r/o.H.No.3-11-691, KUC road, Hanamkonda, Warangal,

6. N. Veerender, s/o.Laxman, 30 yrs, Occ: Business, r/o.H.No.1-9- 1307, Deendayal Nagar, Julywada, Hanamkonda, 7.P. Surender, s/o.Yellaiah, 38 yrs, Occ: Employee, r/o.H.No.3-15- 114, Peddammagadda, Warangal, 8.V. Kumaraswamy, s/o.Agaiah, 45 yrs, Occ: Employee, r/o.H.No.13-4-181, near Gopalaswamy temple, Warangal.

…..Defendants.

CLAIM FOR: This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.6,50,744/-.

Cause of action : The cause of action for filing the suit arose at Hanamkonda on 7.7.2008 when the defendant No.1 borrowed loan, executed demand promissory note and Hypothecation Agreement and defendant Nos. 2 to 6 executed guaranty letter; on 7.7.2008 when the defendants acknowledged the liability and on 7.6.2011 when the plaintiff bank demands the defendant for the payment of the loan amount.

Court Fee : The suit is valued at Rs.6,50,744/- and as such a Court Fee of Rs.8,934/- is paid u/s. 20 of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

- 6 - OS.No.401 of 2014.

Plaint presented on : 31.5.2014.

D E C R E E: This Suit is coming before me on 14.12.2016 final disposal in the presence of Sri B.Sehsadri, Advocate for the

plaintiff and Sri Ch.Upender, Advocate for the defendants,

this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the suit of the plaintiff be and is decreed against against all the defendants for a sum of Rs.6,50,744/- (Rupees six lakhs fifty thousands seven hundreds and forty four only) with interest @ 6 % p.a. on principal sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousands only) from the date of suit till date of realisation.

2. The defendants be and are hereby directed to pay Rs...........towards costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

( Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 27th day of February, 2017)

II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendants :Rs. 1Fees on plaint - 2Stamps on Power:Rs. 3Stamps on Exhibits:Rs. - 4Stamps on Process:Rs. 5Pleader's Fee:Rs. 6Commissioner Fee:Rs. 7Publication Charges:Rs. 8Miscellaneous:Rs. :Rs.

Total

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

- 7 - OS.No.401 of 2014.

- 1 - II-ASCJ, SC.No.332/2015

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE AT WARANGAL

Monday, this the 27th day of February, 2017

PRESENT: P. Vasanth, II-Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Warangal.

Sessions Case No. 332/2015

(P.R.C.No. 25/2015 on the file of VII Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal in Crime No. 132/2013 of P.S., Wardhannapet. )

Name of the Complainant : The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Wardhannapet.

Name of the Accused : Amaraju Bakkaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Age: 66 yrs, Caste: Rajaka, Occ: Hotel Business, R/o. Inavole Village.

Offence with which Charged : u/s. 307 IPC

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

Sentence or Order : Acquittal.

Name of the Prosecution counsel : Sri Ch. Ravi Kumar, Addl. P.P.

Name of the Defence Counsel: Sri. G.Sambaiah, Advocate for accused.

This case is coming up before me on 21.2.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Ch. Ravi Kumar, Asst. Public Prosecutor, and of Sri G.Sambaiah, Counsel for accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this date, and this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case is filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Wardhannapet, against the accused for the offence u/s.307 IPC.

2.The gravamen of the charge made against the accused is that the younger brother by name Amaraju Mallesh of L.W.1-Amaraju - 2 - II-ASCJ, SC.No.332/2015

Indira is unmarried. Her father by name Amaraju Bakkaiah spent money lavishly, without constructing the house, as such, her brother

Amaraju Mallesh admonished her father. Keeping the same in mind, her father filed complaint against her brother and his brother went to jail and released after one month. Keeping the grudges in mind, on 24.6.2013 night at about 1.00 a.m, while her younger brother Mallesh was sleeping in the house, her father Amaraju Bakkaiah attacked on her younger brother and stabbed him with an axe and caused stab injuries to the left eye, nostril, lip and chest, on that her brother made hues on that she woke up and rushed towards her brother and found her father again attacking with an axe on her brother and when she resisted the hit of an axe and pushed her father outside the house by making hues, on that her father fled away on his bicycle from the house.

3. Cognizance was taken by VII-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Warangal for offence under Section 307 IPC. Case was committed on 4.6.2015. Hon'ble Sessions Court, Warangal has made over the case to this Court for disposal.

4.After hearing both sides charge under Section 307 IPC, was framed, read over and explained to accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

- 3 - II-ASCJ, SC.No.332/2015 5.PWs.1 to PW9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked on behalf of prosecution, the details of exhibits are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

6. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. His plea was a total denial.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The point that arises for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has brought home guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 307 IPC?

9. POINT: PW2 is a material witness in this case as he is stabbed by his father-accused. But he stated that on 24.6.2013 at about 1.00 p.m, while he was sleeping in his hotel, some unknown persons attacked him with an axe due to which he received injuires on his left eye, nostril, lip and chest and on his hues, P.W.1 rushed to him and shiftede him to MGM and the accused never committed any offence against him. Unfortunately, PW1 turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. He has resiled from the contents of Ex.P3. There is no whisper in the evidence of PW1 about alleged incident. Though prosecution has cross examined PW1 nothing could be elicited in its favour. Evidence of PW1 is of no value to the prosecution.

- 4 - II-ASCJ, SC.No.332/2015

10. PW1 is none else than the complainant and sister PW2 also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. Hence, her evidence is also of no value to the prosecution.

11. PWs3 to 6 are the eye witnesses and circumstantial witnesses to the incident. Even according to their evidence some unknown persons beat P.W.2 and the accused never committed any offence against P.W.2. They also turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. Hence, their evidence is also of no value to the prosecution.

12. Pws 7 and 8 are the panch witnesses. Both them have stated that the police never called him to any place and did not conduct any panchanama and they did not seize anything from the possession of the accused. They have turned hostile to the prosecution.

13. There remains the evidence of PW9 who is investigating officer. PW7 no doubt deposed about the investigation conducted by him including recording of statements, observing scene of offence and conducting CDF-Ex.P.11, arrest of accused and filing charge sheet.

Evidence of PW9 suffers from corroboration. Had it been a case where

PW1 and PW2 or atleast PW2 supported the case of prosecution court could have certainly relied on the evidence of PW9. In view of the - 5 - II-ASCJ, SC.No.332/2015 hostile evidence of PWs. 1 to 7 any amount of further discussion on the evidence of PW9 would be a futile exercise. Suffice it to say, prosecution miserably failed in bringing home guilt of accused much less beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 307 of the

Indian Penal Code. Point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.

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

Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of period of six months from the date of this judgment.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of February, 2017).

Sd/-

II- ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 – A.Indira. - NONE - PW2 – A.Mallesh. PW3 – U.Krishna Prasad. PW4 – N.Mallamma. PW5 – T.Yadaiah. PW6 - U.Raju. PW7- S.Kumaraswamy. PW8- G.Raju. PW9- Venkat Rao, S.I of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 – Signature of P.W.1 on complaint dt. 25.6.2013. Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 dt. 25.6.2013. Ex.P5 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 dt. 25.6.2013. Ex.P4 - 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 dt. 25.6.2013. Ex.P5 – u/s. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.4.

- 6 - II-ASCJ, SC.No.332/2015

Ex.P6- u/s. 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.5 dt. 25.6.2013. Ex.P7- u/s. 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.6 dt. 25.6.2013. Ex.P8 – Signature of P.W.8 on confession-cum-recovery panchanama dt. 15.7.2013. Ex.P9 – Signature of P.W.8 on confession-cum-recovery panchanama dt. 15.7.2013. Ex.P10- First Information report in Cr.No. 475/2014 of P.S. Hanamkonda. Ex.P.11-Crime Details Form dt. 25.6.2013. Ex.P.12-Confession and seizure panchanama dt. 15.7.2013. Ex.P.13-Medical Certificate.

|For Defence:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS: – NIL -

Sd/-

II- ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

- 7 - II-ASCJ, SC.No.332/2015

CALENDER EXTRACT

JUDGMENT OF TRIAL OF SESSIONS CASE NO. 332/2015 ON THE FILE OF II- ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL: PRELIMINARY REG.CASE NO. 25/2015 ON THE FILE OF VII

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, WARANGAL.

1. Name of the Police station : Wardhannapet.

2. Name of the accused :

Amaraju Indira D/o.Bakkaiah, Age: 40 yrs, Caste: Rajaka, R/o. Inavole Village.

3. Date of offence : 24.6.2013

4. Date of report : 25.6.2013

5. Date of arrest : 15.7.2013

6. Date of release on bail : 23.8.2013

7. Date of commitment : 04.6.2015

8. Date of commencement of trial : 20.10.2016

9. Date of close of trial : 27.01.2016

10. Date of sentence or order : 27.02.2017

11. Sentence or order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of period of six months from the date of this judgment.

The accused appeared before this Court on 9.2.2016 Charges were framed on 30.6.2016. Trial commenced on 30.6.2016 and ended on 27.1.2017. The accused were examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C on 30.1.2017 and arguments were heard on 22.2.2017 Judgment was pronounced on 27.2.2017. Hence no delay.

II-Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge,

Warangal.

1 of 6

O.S.No.307 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL

Monday, this the 24th day of April, 2017

Present:- Sri P.Vasanth,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

FAC II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

O.S.No. 307 /2014

Between:

Pedisa @ Pidsa Srinivas, S/o.Anjaiah, Age: 45 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.10-1-307, Govindarajulagutta, Warangal. … Plaintiff

And

1. Vuchathi Iylaiah, S/o.Bondaiah, Age: 55 Yeas, Occ: Fruits Vendor, R/o.H.No.10-2-16/1, Govindarajulagutta, Girmajipet, Warangal.

2. Vuchathi Kumaraswamy, S/o.Ilaiah, Age: 31 Years, Occ: Hamali, R/o.H.No.10-2-16/1, Govindarajulagutta, Girmajipet, Warangal.

… Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 04.04.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Jithin Prasad, Counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Sridhar, Counsel for the defendants, upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This is the suit for recovery of money filed by the plaintiff against defendants No.1 and 2 for Rs.5,60,000/- with interest@ 24% p.a.

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

The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are business men and know each other.

Plaintiff sold 300 Sq.Yds of plot to one Mendu Mahesh Jagannath and having knowledge of the same, defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff to lend

Rs.4,00,000/- for his business and personal necessities. Thereupon plaintiff lent

Rs.4,00,000/- to defendant as hand loan under promissory note dated 30.08.2012 2 of 6

O.S.No.307 of 2014

in the presence of witnesses. Defendant No.1 had promised to repay the loan with interest @ 2% p.m., within fifteen months. Defendant No.2 is none other than the natural son of defendant No.1 and who furnished guarantee by sending the promissory note as a guarantor. Plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to discharge the debt, but, later went on dodging the matter on one or the other pretext. Further more, to avoid his liability, defendant No.1 has filed O.S.247/2014 on the file of II

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal against the plaintiff and three others for permanent injunction not to interfere with his day to day affairs. Hence, the suit.

3.Defendant No.1 filed the written statement denying all the averments in the plaint, which are contra and contending as under:

He never executed promissory note nor did defendant No.2 furnished his guarantee. Plaintiff is doing finance business and defendant No.1 had borrowed some amount from the plaintiff for business needs and subsequently defendant

No.1 repaid the debt with interest @ 6% p.m. Since few months back defendant

No.1 and his yes-men are harassing him demanding to pay amount and on 25.02.2014, plaintiff came to his house with unsocial elements and obtained blank signed promissory notes and white papers with some other documents under threat and coercion. He approached the police, but, to no avail. Plaintiff and his yes-men again came to his house on 14.04.2014, but, his neighbours rescued him.

Again on 19.04.2014, plaintiff and his henchmen arrived whose house at 10.00 p.m., with an intention to kidnap him, but, he was not available in the house, they threatened and abused on his wife prevailing they would kill him whereupon he was constrained to file O.S.247/2014. Making such averments, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

3 of 6

O.S.No.307 of 2014

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the promissory notes are true, valid supported by consideration and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?

3. To what relief ?

5.The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and he also examined PW.2, who is said to be the scribe of promissory notes and PW.3, who claimed to have attested the promissory notes. PW.1 filed Exs.A.1 to A.7, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence. The defendant No.1 examined himself as

DW.1, but, he did not produce any documents.

6.Heard.

7.Issue Nos.1 and 2:

The suit is filed by the plaintiff at the foot of two promissory notes with same date as 30.08.2012. The chief-affidavit of PW.1 is the virtual reiteration of the contents of plaint. In his cross-examination, he admitted that defendant filed

O.S.No.247/2014 on the file of II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal for

permanent injunction alleging that he was insisting for recovery of his debt thereby causing nuisance to him and that he filed this suit on receipt of summons in that suit. In this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that in the plaint itself there is a reference of O.S.No.247/2014 and the PW.1 had to file this suit upon the receipt of summons in O.S.No.247/2014 having realised the cunning and wily nature of defendant No.1, who fired the salvo in the form of filing O.S.No.247/2014 with an ulterior motive to pre-empt and preclude the plaintiff from filing the suit. PW.1 stated in the cross-examination that the scribe 4 of 6

O.S.No.307 of 2014

namely Ramesh is none other than the son-in-law of the defendant. PW.1 offered explanation for not receiving the legal notice preceding the filing of this suit by stating that since he filed the suit on hand soon after the receipt of summons in

O.S.No.247/2014, he had no time to issue legal notice. It is suggested to him that

he fabricated Ex.A.1 by forging the signature of defendant; the writings in Ex.A.1 is in different inks etc. He denied the said suggestion. The most crucial factor to be noted in this context is that the defendant No.1 made suggestion to PW.1 that

Ex.A.1 is a rank forgery, defendant No.1 made categorical admission in his cross- examination dated 05.01.2017 stating that he and his son Kumara Swamy signed

Exs.A.1 and A.2 - promissory notes as the debtor and guarantor respectively. He further admitted that Exs.A.4 and A.5 (original undertakings executed by defendant No.1, dated 23.08.2014 and 08.12.2014 respectively) bears his signatures and he executed the same which bears the signature of his wife. The explicit admission of defendant No.1 to the above effect is in sharp contrast of his defence in the written statement that he never executed the Exs.A.1 to A.5.

Without dwelling much on this aspect, suffices it to note that this admission is more than sufficient to decree the suit. Furthermore, the plea of plaintiff secured corroboration when PW.2 asserted to have scribed the promissory notes while

PW.3 stated to have attested Exs.A.1 and A.2.

8.The above facts and evidence would show that the plaintiff has proved his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence and more particularly his plea stood buttress by the admission made by defendant No.1, which is stated herein above. Hence, it is held that the plaintiff has placed clear, clinching and unequivocal evidence to prove his claim. Hence, it is held that the suit promissory 5 of 6

O.S.No.307 of 2014

notes are true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendants.

The plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. Issues No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

9.Issue No.3: To what relief?

In view of my finding on issues No.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as follows:

The suit is decreed with costs against defendants No.1 and 2 for a sum of

Rs.5,60,000/- (Rupees five lakhs sixty thousand only) with interest @ 6% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) from the date of suit till date of realisation.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2017)

Sd/-

FAC II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: PW1 : Pedisa @ Pidsa SrinivasDW.1 : Vuchathi Iylaiah. PW.2 : Adula Ramesh PW.3 : Mogusani Ranjith Kumar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A.1 : Original demand promissory note dated 30.08.2012. Ex.A.2 : Original demand promissory note dated 30.08.2012. Ex.A.3 : Bank statement of account issued by the Andhra Bank, Station Road Branch, Warangal. Ex.A.4 : Original undertaking dated 23.08.2014 executed by defendant No.1. Ex.A.5 : Original undertaking dated 08.12.2014 executed by defendant No.1. Ex.A.6 : Original guarantee bond, dated 30.08.2012. Ex.A.7 : Original guarantee bond, dated 30.08.2012.

6 of 6

O.S.No.307 of 2014

Ex.A.8 : Certified copy of plaint copy in O.S.No.247/2014.

For Defendants: NIL.

Sd/-

FAC II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.