Radha Krishna Murthy

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIRMAL

Present: Sri S.Radha Krishna Murthy, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nirmal.

Wednesday, the 4th day of November, 2015.

S.C.No.92/2015

(On committal by the learned Additional JFCM, Nirmal by order dated 16.04.2015 in PRC 15/2015 in Crime No.09/2015 of P.S.Kaddam)

Name of Complainant:The State of A.P., through SHO P.S.Kaddam.

Name of accused:Shanigarapu Nagender S/o Laxman, Age: 23 yrs., Caste: Madiga, Occ:Auto driver, R/o Dothnagar village of Kaddam mandal.

Nature of Offence:U/Sec. 306 IPC.

Plea of accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Not guilty

Sentence / Order:I find accused not guilty for charge U/Sec. 306 IPC. Hence I acquit the accused U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

Counsel for the :Sri L.Thukaram, Addl. P.P. Prosecution Counsel for defence :Sri V.V.Ramana Rao

This Sessions Case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri L.Thukaram, Addl.P.P for the State and Sri V.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for the accused having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

In this case charge sheet filed by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Kaddam against the accused that the accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec 306 IPC.

2.On filing the charge sheet, the learned Addl. Judl. Magistrate of

First Class, Nirmal took the case on file U/Sec. 306 IPC against the

accused, furnished the copies of case documents under Sec.207 Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Hon’ble court of sessions, Adilabad vide

PRC No.15/2015. The Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Adilabad made over the case to this court to dispose of according to law vide S.C 2

No.92/2015.

3.In this court, the accused appeared charge U/Sec.306 IPC was framed against him, the contents were read over and explained to him in Telugu language but he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution PWs-1 to 13 are examined and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 marked. Hence evidence of prosecution closed.

5.After closing the evidence of prosecution, accused is examined

Under Sec.313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating material and circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

6.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.01.2015 at 11.00 a.m Thakur Santhosh Singh (PW1) came to police station

Kaddam and lodged a complaint in writing stating that he gave his daughter in the marriage to Adi Ravinder and after that they lived happily for two years. Shanigarapu Nagender (accused) herein was introduced to the daughter of PW1 Sony and subsequently she fell in love with the accused, both of them went to Bellampally and got married in a temple. The daughter of PW1 Sony informed to her mother that they were shifted to Dosthnagar village of Kaddam mandal and residing there in a rented house. On 27.1.2015 at 10.42 p.m his daughter informed through cell No.9492950687 by giving phone call to 8007457699 to PW2/Jyothi her mother that at about 8.00 p.m she served food to her husband (accused) with an intention to have meals together but the accused created quarrel and beat her. Therefore Sony 3 daughter of PW1 poured kerosene over her body and set fire by herself.

Hence Sony was shifted to Khanapur Government Hospital I 108

Ambulance and again she referred to Government Hospital, Nirmal for better treatment. PW1 along with his family members rushed to Nirmal and found his daughter with full burnt injuries all over her body. His daughter/Sony disclosed entire matter about the said incident. On 28.01.2015 at 7.30 a.m Sony was reported died by the doctor. Since the accused beat Sony vexed on her life and committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting fire by herself. Basing on the contents of said complaint police S.I of Police Kaddam registered a case in Crime

No.09/2015 and issued FIR for the offence U/Sec 306 IPC and took up investigation. After completion of investigation S.I of Police Kaddam filed charge sheet against the accused that the accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec.306 IPC.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

8.The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the charge U/Sec. 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9. PW.1/Thakur Santhosh Singh father of the deceased deposed that

Sony and accused married 6 months prior to this incident. Deceased

Sony gave him a phone call one day prior to her death and stated that the accused quarreled with her and beat her when his daughter asked the accused to eat food. Deceased Sony told him that due to said incident done by the accused she poured kerosene by herself and set fire and she was admitted in Area hospital Nirmal. Therefore PW1 came to Nirmal and saw his daughter Sony in the hospital while undergoing treatment with burn injuries. In the hospital also Sony told him that she married the accused, and accused tortured her and beat her. Therefore 4 she was committing suicide on the same day and died on 28.1.2015.

The incident of beating by accused to his daughter Sony was occurred on 27.1.2015 in the night hours. Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged to police by him.

10.In his cross examination PW1 deposed that he does not know whereabouts of his daughter from her marriage with accused till above said incident. Since above said marriage the accused did not live with

PW1. He does not know date of the marriage of his daughter with accused. His daughter gave phone call to his wife that she was living with accused at Dosthnagar Kadam (M) and she did not inform about any harassment by accused. They came to Area hospital Nirmal on the day of death of deceased and they waited at hospital till completion of

Post Mortem examination and received the dead body. They went to

Bhadravathi Maharastra on the same day along with dead body of deceased. According to PW1 in his cross examination as stated above his deceased daughter did not gave him any phone call about any harassment by the accused to him. PW1 deposed that his daughter gave phone call to his wife only that she was living with the accused but the deceased did not inform any harassment by the accused even to his wife also. In his chief examination also PW1 did not state under what reasons the deceased committed suicide. PW1 simply deposed that they came to Nirmal and saw her daughter Sony in the Hospital while undergoing treatment with burn injuries. In the Hospital the deceased Sony told him that she married the accused and accused tortured her and beat her. Therefore she committed suicide on the same day. The reasons for torture or the reasons for beating and any details about the incident is not mentioned and also the facts leading to commission of suicide by the deceased. The evidence of PW1 is not clear under what circumstances and under what specific reasons the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide and what is the 5 specific motive made the deceased to commit suicide is also not clear.

11.PW2/Thakur Jyothi mother of the deceased also deposed the same version. Sony gave her phone call and stated that the accused was not eating his food hence she asked her to eat the food but the accused beat her. Hence she poured kerosene and set fire and commit suicide and she was admitted in Area hospital Nirmal. According to evidence of PW2 also the reason is one and same as deposed by PW1.

The simple reasons as deposed by PWs.1 and 2 that as the accused beat her the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting fire. It is not in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that the accused abused the deceased or seriously beat the deceased and also seriously insulted the deceased. All these things are not in the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 and the only reason that when the accused was not eating food the deceased asked her to eat the food but the accused beat her.

Hence she committed suicide by setting fire. There is no proper reason or motive to lead the abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased. PWs.1 and 2 are not direct witnesses for any harassment done by the accused. Previously also it is not there that the accused harassed the deceased in any manner. In her cross examination PW2 admits saying that “ it is true that that she does not know whereabouts of his daughter till she gave phone call to them”. Even in the chief examination of PW2 also it is not there that they are direct witnesses to witness the harassment by the accused towards the deceased.

12.PW3/Thakur Pochi Bai grandmother of the deceased and mother of PW1 deposed that the deceased Sony gave phone call to Pw.2 and informed that she was living with accused at Dosthnagar Kadam (M) fifteen days prior to her death but she did not depose anything against the accused that accused harassed the deceased in any manner. The evidence of PW3 based on phone call received by PW2. It is not there 6 in the evidence of PW3 that PW3 received phone call directly from the deceased. In the cross examination PW3 deposed that she did not go to deceased Sony at any time when she was with accused. Only PW2 informed them about phone call made by deceased.

13.PW4/Avunuri Shanker is circumstantial witness deposed the same version that the deceased asked the accused to eat food but the accused beat her by abusing her. Therefore deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and set fire by herself. PW5/Avunuri

Rajanna is also another circumstantial witnesses who deposed that he heard the incident from the house of deceased and found that the deceased poured kerosene and set fire by herself. He went to

Government Hospital Khanapur and Nirmal along with the deceased in 108Ambulance. ON the next day deceased died in the hospital. He does not know the reasons for suicide by the deceased.

14.PW6/Sokkam Shiva Kumar photographer took the photographs of the dead body of the deceased at the request of police.

PW7/A.Kishtaiah panch witness for CDF that he put his signature on

CDF when police conducted crime detail form at Dosthnagar.

PW8/P.Shyam Rao panch for scene of offence deposed that police obtained his signature on some papers at Dosthnagar and he does not know the contents of papers. PWs.9 and 10 (Adil Suresh and

A.Hanmanthu) both are panch witnesses for inquest deposed that inquest panchanama conducted by Tahasildar over the dead body of

Sony.

15.PW11/P.Narsaiah is Tahasildar who recorded dying declaration (Ex.P6) over the dead body of the deceased. Deceased Sony stated that every day herself and the accused were eating the food together and they were living peacefully. On 27.02.2015 in the night hours at about 8.00 p.m she requested the accused to eat food but he did not 7 eat. Therefore she poured kerosene on her body and set fire by herself.

She further clearly stated in her dying declaration that her husband (accused) herein did not do anything to her and accused was sleeping.

She was issueless. Perusal of dying declaration recorded by PW11 and as stated by the deceased it is found that absolutely there is no material with regard to any allegations against accused towards death of the deceased.

16.PW12/Dr.Pramod Chandra Reddy deposed that deceased died due to hypovolemic shock due to burns leading to cardio pulmonary arrest. Ex.P7 is post mortem examination report. PW13/J.Ramu is investigating officer who deposed with regard to registration of the case and also investigation of the case.

17.Perusal of evidence of all above said witnesses I hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused for the charge

U/Sec.306 IPC.

18.In the result, I find accused not guilty for charge U/Sec. 306 IPC.

Hence I acquit the accused U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 4th day of November, 2015.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

NIRMAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution: For Defence: PW1Thakur Santhosh/defacto complainant.-None- PW2Thakur Jyothi/mother of the deceased. PW3Thakur Pochi Bai/grandmother of the deceased. PW4A.Shankar/circumstantial witness. PW5Avunuri Rajanna/circumstantial witness.

8

PW6Sokam Shiva Kumar/photographer. PW7A.Kishtaiah/panch for CDF. PW8P.Shyam Rao/panch for CDF. PW9Adi Suresh/panch for inquest. PW1A.Hanmanthu/panch for inquest. 0 PW1P.Narsaiah/Tahasildar. 1 PW1Dr.C.Venu Gopala Krishna/medical officer. 2 PW1J.Ramu/investigating officer. 3

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1Complaint.-Nil- Ex.P2Photos(3) with C.D Ex.P3CDF with sketch map. Ex.P4Signature of PW8 on CDF. Ex.P5Inquest panchanama. Ex.P6Dying declaration of Sony. Ex.P7P.M.E report. Ex.P8FIR.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

NIRMAL

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIRMAL

Present: Sri S.Radha Krishna Murthy,

Senior Civil Judge, NIRMAL.

Friday, the 17th day of July, 2015.

O.S.No.80/2014

Between: Deccan Grameena Bank Branch: Nirmal Rep. by its Manager.

..Plaintiff.

// A n d //

H.Sayanna S/o Gangadher,aged 51 years, Occ.Ex.Clerk-cum-Cashier &Agri, R/o Wanalpad (V), Bhainsa (M) Adilabad District. ….Defendant

This suit is coming for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sudarshan, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri L.Laxma Reddy, Advocate for the defendant, defendant called absent, set exparte, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff/bank praying this Court to pass a judgment and decree as follows:

a) of reliazation of Rs.3,42,187/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the suit till realization.

b) to award costs.

2.The brief averments of plaint are that:

The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff bank for grant of personal loan. The plaintiff bank sanctioned an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 20.12.2008. The defendant agreed to repay the same @ 11 % p.a. The defendants executed all the required documents and received the loan amount from the plaintiff bank. Subsequently the defendant failed to pay the loan installment. Therefore plaintiff bank got issued legal notice demanding outstanding amount. Inspite of receiving the said notice the defendant failed to pay any amount to the plaintiff bank. Therefore plaintiff bank prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

2

3.Defendant failed to appear in this Court inspite of receiving summons.

Hence he was set exparte.

4.During the course of exparte evidence on behalf of plaintiff bank, Sri

G.Radha Kishan/PW1 filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and in his evidence Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 are marked. Since the defendant is set exparte there is no evidence on his behalf.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the points for determination is:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

7. POINT No.1:

Perused the affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW1 and also

Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 which are as follows: Ex.A1 is loan application, dt.20.12.2008. Ex.A2 is terms of sanction letter,dt.20.12.2008. Ex.A3 is demand promissory note, dt.20.12.2008. Ex.A4 is loan arrangement, dt.20.12.2008. Ex.A5 is specimen letter authority, dt.20.12.2008. Ex.A6 is undertaking, dt.20.12.2008. Ex.A7 is revival letter, dt.20.12.2008.Ex.A8 is notice issued by bank, dt.1.8.2014. Ex.A9 is returned postal cover, dt.2.8.2014, Ex.A10 is revival letter, dt.15.11.2011, Ex.A11 is ledger sheet.

Since there is no rebuttal evidence adduced by the defendants to disprove the evidence of plaintiff bank this Court had no option except to believe the evidence of plaintiff. Perusal of evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 I decide this point that plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit claim.

8.POINT NO2: To what relief?

In view of the discussion stated above I hold that the plaintiff bank proved its suit claim.

9.In the result, suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs by directing defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,42,187 (Rupees three lakhs forty two 3 thousand one hundred and eighty seven only ) along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.

Typed to my dictation and after correction pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of July, 2015.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nirmal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Plaintiff.For Defendant PW-1G.Radha Kishan -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.A-1loan application, dt.20.12.2008. -Nil- Ex.A-2terms of sanction letter,dt.20.12.2008 Ex.A-3demand promissory note, dt.20.12.2008 Ex.A-4loan arrangement, dt.20.12.2008 Ex.A-5specimen letter authority, dt.20.12.2008. Ex.A-6undertaking, dt.20.12.2008. Ex.A-7revival letter, dt.20.12.2008 Ex.A-8notice issued by bank, dt.1.8.2014 Ex.A-9returned postal cover, dt.2.8.2014 Ex.A1is revival letter, dt.15.11.2011 0 ExA11Ledger sheet.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NIRMAL.

SC/202/20151 / 1Dt: 27-01-2016

TSNR010000692015

IN THE COURT OF THE Senior Civil Judge: NIRMAL

Present: K. Ajesh Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge,

27th January 2016

SC/202/2015

Between:

ps laxmanchanda Address: RO Laxman chanda … Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

ERRA SUBHASH REDDY

Address: RO Peechara vill of Laxmanchanda mandal … Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for : APP,Advocate

Counsel for : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

This case is transferred to Dist court Adilabad

SC/202/20151 / 1Dt: 27-01-2016

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 27-01-2016

Senior Civil Judge

NIrmal (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

STC/199/20151 / 1Dt: 18-11-2015

TSNR010000662015

IN THE COURT OF THE Senior Civil Judge: NIRMAL

Present: K. Ajesh Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge,

18th November 2015

STC/199/2015

Between:

AP State Address:

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

POWER CHANDU AND ANOTHER

Address: KUPTI THANDA … Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for : ,Advocate

Counsel for : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Admission of Claim

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 18-11-2015

STC/199/20151 / 1Dt: 18-11-2015

Senior Civil Judge

Nirmal (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

STC/198/20151 / 1Dt: 18-11-2015

TSNR010000652015

IN THE COURT OF THE Senior Civil Judge: NIRMAL

Present: K. Ajesh Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge,

18th November 2015

STC/198/2015

Between:

AP State Address:

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

UPPALA LINGA REDDY

Address: NAARSAPUR G … Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for : ,Advocate

Counsel for : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Adimission of claim.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 18-11-2015

STC/198/20151 / 1Dt: 18-11-2015

Senior Civil Judge

Nirmal (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)