S.goverdhan Reddy

Prl. District and Sessions Judge

Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex · Nizamabad · Telangana

S.GOVERDHAN REDDY, Prl. District and Sessions Judge, is posted at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex, Nizamabad, Telangana, India. 1,188 court orders on record since 2013. 20 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles MVOP, SC, CRLA cases.

1,188

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/30/2016

Manda Rajeshwar Reddy vs Gantaji Vinoda

05 Oct 2021

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 1 of 20

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri S. Goverdhan Reddy,

Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs and ST’s(POA)Act,1989

-cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: Principal District Judge, Nizamabad

Tuesday, the 5th day of October, 2021

OS No. 30 OF 2016

Between :

Sri Manda Rajeshwar Reddy son of Sri Manda Bikshapathi Ready, aged about (45) years, Occupation: Business (Rajesh Fabrications), R/o. Quarter No.26, MIG-II, New APHB colony, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad.

..Plaintiff

A N D

1. Smt. Gantaji Vinoda wife of late Sri Gantaji Srinivas Reddy, aged about (42) years, Occupation: Household, R/o H.No.106, Block-A, Sri Kalki Gardens, Madina Guda (Ranga Reddy District), Hyderabad

2. Smt. Sinduja wife of (not known to plaintiff) daughter of late Sri Gantaji Srinivas Reddy, aged about (22) years, Occupation: House hold, C/o H.No.106, Block-A, Sri Kalki Gardens, Madina Guda, (Ranga Reddy District), Hyderabad.

3. Kum. Sanjana, daughter of late Sri Gantaji Srinivas Reddy, aged about (20) years, Occupation: Student, C/o H.No.106, Block-A, Sri Kalki Gardens, Madina Guda, (Ranga Reddy District), Hyderabad

..Defendants

This suit coming on 20.09.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Kumardas and Sri Argula Shivaram Das, Advocates for the plaintiff; and of Sri J.Venkateshwar and Sri N.Santosh, advocates for defendant No.1 to 3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Hon'ble Court delivered the following:

::JUDGMENT::

1. The plaintiff filed present suit for recovery of an amount of

Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs only) along with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit onwards till the date of realization against the defendants.

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 2 of 20

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

2(a) Plaintiff submits that Sri Gantaji Srinivas Reddy, defendant

No.1 and the plaintiff are known to each other since long time. Sri

Gantaji Srinivas Reddy is husband of the defendant No.1 is owner, pattedar and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3.16 guntas in Sy.No.608, 667, 672, 673 and 674, situated in Mentrajpally village, Dichpally Madnal, Nizamabad District, (herein after mentioned as suit schedule property).

2(b) It is submitted that Sri Gantaji Srinivas Reddy and his wife defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff on 04.02.2013 and requested him to advance a sum of Rs.18,00,000/-(Rupees eighteen lakhs only) towards hand loan for their personal necessities. The plaintiff has agreed to pay the said amount on condition that Sri Gantaji Srinivas

Reddy husband of the defendant No.1 shall deposit the title deeds and documents of his suit schedule property towards security and for repayment of amount by creating equitable mortgage, for which they agreed.

2(c) Accordingly, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) in cash on 04.02.2013 to Sri Gantaji Srinivas

Reddy and he executed receipt in favour of the plaintiff. Further the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) in cash on 10.05.2013 and Sri Gantaji Srinivas Reddy executed receipt in favour of the plaintiff totaling an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 3 of 20

lakhs only) towards part of the hand loan amount. The plaintiff paid to the defendant No.1 a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) on 05.02.2013 through RTGS from State Bank of Hyderabad into the defendant No.1 account bearing No.00451530028987, HDFC Bank,

Chandanagar, Hyderabad and further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) deposited on 13.05.2013 by RTGS in her same account, total amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) was deposited in her account. In all the plaintiff paid total sum of

Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs only) to Sri Gantaji Srinivas

Reddy and his wife defendant No.1 by 13.05.2013.

2(d) It is submitted that on 13.05.2013 itself Sri Gantaji Srinivas

Reddy deposited the registered sale deed No.637/2007 and link documents registered sale deed bearing Nos.9837/2006, 8348/2006 and 5094/2006 pertaining to suit schedule property with the plaintiff at his residence at Nizamabad towards security for payment of said hand loan amount of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs only). Sri Gantaji

Srinivas Reddy and defendant No.1 orally agreed and promised to repay the said amount of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs only) together with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum within a period of three years i.e., by the end of May, 2016 in the presence of Sri

N.Narsing, Sri M.Gangadhar, Sri A.Srinivas Reddy and Smt. M.Vinoda who are present and attested as witnesses on the receipts executed by

Sri Gantaji Srinivas Reddy. Thus, it is clear that the above transactions

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 4 of 20

covered by the mortgage created by deposit of title deeds by Sri Gantaji

Srinivas Reddy husband of the defendant No.1 towards security for repayment of the loan amount of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs only).

2(e) It is submitted that the plaintiff came to know that Sri

Gantaji Srinivas Reddy husband of the defendant No.1 died on 28.4.2015 leaving behind the defendants herein as his legal heirs and successors. As such the defendants are liable to pay the loan amount and plaintiff requested the defendants to pay the hand loan amount.

The defendants assured and promised to pay the said due amount, but failed to pay the same.

2(f) It is submitted that the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 10.08.2016 calling upon the defendants to pay the said due amount of

Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs only) to the plaintiff and get the suit schedule property redeemed and the documents released. The defendants managed to return the said notice. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants intending to sell the suit schedule property to other by suppressing the mortgage by depositing the title deeds with the plaintiff. Hence, this suit.

3. The defendant No.1 filed her written statement and the defendant No.2 and 3 filed memo adopting the written statement filed by the defendant No.1.

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 5 of 20

3(a) The defendants denied all the averments of the plaint except admitting that the husband of the defendant No.1 i.e., Sri Gantaji

Srinivas Reddy well known to the plaintiff and belongs to the same caste. It is also admitted by the defendants that the husband of the defendant No.1 is owner and processor of the suit schedule property situated at Mentrajpally village, Dichpally Mandal. It is also admitted by the defendants that husband of defendant No.1 died on 28.04.2015 leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs, owners and successors.

The remaining averments of the plaint i.e., plaintiff paid Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs only) to the defendant No.1 and her husband on various occasions has been denied. The defendants denied that mortgage is created in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants submitted that no mortgage is created in favour of the plaintiff. They further submitted that the plaintiff is a professional money lender and used to give money on higher rate of interest, hence he comes under purview of

Andhra Pradesh Money (Telangana Money) Lending Licence Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff requires money lending licence to recover the amounts from the defendants.

3(b) The defendants further submitted that the plaintiff belongs to the caste of the defendants and one Smt. M.Vinoda is relative of plaintiff who is residing at Madinaguda, Hyderabad near to the house of defendant No.1. She informed that plaintiff is doing money lending business and he has good relations at Nizamabad and he will arrange

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 6 of 20

good buyers to the property of the husband of the defendant No.1.

Believing her words the husband of defendant No.1 handed over his original registered sale deeds to plaintiff for the purpose of sale of the property.

3(c) It is further submitted that Smt. Vinoda requested the defendant NO.1 that the plaintiff will deposit an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- in the account of the defendant No.1 and requested her to transfer the same into her account, accordingly defendant No.1 transferred the amount into the account of the said Smt. Vinoda. The defendant No.1 did not obtain any loan from the plaintiff. The plaintiff knows all these facts and simply taking advantage of original documents of the husband of the defendant No.1 by creating the documents with the help of Smt. Vinod and filed the present suit. The defendant No.1 or her husband have no necessity to borrow amount from the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the suit.

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

1. Whether plaintiff advanced loan of Rs.18,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 and her husband?

2. Whether Gantaji Srinivas Reddy created equitable mortgage of the suit property by depositing the title deeds as security?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree for Rs.18,00,000/-?

4. To what relief?

5. The following additional issue is framed:

Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 7 of 20

6. To substantiate the averments of the plaint, plaintiff was examined as PW.1 also examined PW.2 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A15.

On behalf of the defendants DW.1 and DW.2 were examined and Ex.B1 is marked on their behalf.

7. Heard arguments of both the counsel.

8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs only) to the defendant No.1 and her husband on various dates mentioned in the plaint and it is duly received and acknowledged by them. The husband of the defendant No.1 also executed receipts in favour of the plaintiff having received Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs and those receipts were duly attested by the witnesses. He further contented that the defendant No.1 and her husband deposited the title deed towards security and no separate deed is executed by creating mortgage in favour of the plaintiff, therefore no registration is required.

So far as amount paid to the defendant No.1 is evident through her bank account as the plaintiff paid Rs.8,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 through RTGS of State bank of Hyderabad on two occasions. The said loan amount was advanced to the defendant No.1 and her husband on condition that the husband of defendant No.1 deposit his registered sale deed documents of suit schedule property with the plaintiff towards security and repayment of above said loan amount. Accordingly, the defendants deposited his original registered sale deeds and link

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 8 of 20

documents of the suit schedule property with the plaintiff towards security and repayment of loan amount. The defendants failed to repay the said amount, as such the plaintiff got issued legal notice and filed the present suit for recovery of the amount against the defendants.

9. Per contra the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the defendants never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and there is no necessary for them to borrow amounts from the defendants.

It is submitted that the defendant No.1 and her husband handed over the original registered sale deeds and link documents of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff requesting him to sell the property, but the defendants never deposited the title deeds of suit schedule property with the plaintiff towards security and payment of the hand loan. By taking advantage of the above circumstances the plaintiff created all these documents and filed false case against the defendants.

He further submitted that Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 shows some corrections, which shows that their title deeds were deposited with the plaintiff and documents must have been executed by the parties for depositing the title deeds with the plaintiff. Therefore, it requires registration and since there is no document filed by the plaintiff and no registration was done, therefore the suit is not maintainable and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

10. Additional issue:

10(a) The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the suit is barred by limitation and it is not maintainable.

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 9 of 20

10(b) A careful perusal of the contents of the plaint in limitation column at page No.6 of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has shown cause of action arose on 04.02.2013 and 10.05.2013 when the plaintiff advanced hand loan amount to Sri Gantaji Srinivas Reddy, cause of action further arose on 05.02.2013 and 13.05.2013 when the plaintiff advanced hand loan amount to defendant No.1. It further mentioned that the cause of action further arose on 13.05.2013 when

Sri Gantaji Srinivas Reddy deposited title deeds at Nizamabad towards security for repayment hand loan amount of Rs.18,00,000/-. It is further mentioned that the cause of action arose on 12.05.2016 when the agreed period of three years expired and the amount fell due. He further mentioned that finally the cause of action arose on 10.08.2016 when the legal notices was issued to the defendants. A perusal of

Ex.A14 the copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants show that it was issued by plaintiff to the defendants on 10.08.2016. In the cross examination DW.1 who is defendant No.1 admitted in her cross examination that on 10.08.2016 she received

Ex.A14 notice and they have not given any reply to the notice. From the above facts it appears that the cause of action finally arose for filing the suit on 10.08.2016 and this suit came to be filed on 21.09.2016.

Therefore, the suit is very much within the limitation, as such this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 10 of 20

11. ISSUE NO.1 to 3:

11(a). To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and he filed his chief affidavit reiterating the contents of plaint. In support of his contention the plaintiff also examined one A.Sanjeeva Reddy as PW.2 who is attestor of Ex.A1 and

Ex.A3 executed by husband of the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. PW.2 also filed chief affidavit to supporting the case of plaintiff that the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the husband of defendant NO.1 namely Sri Gantaji Srinivas Reddy executed receipts in favour of the plaintiff in their presence and he signed on both the receipt as attestor. He also supported the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff paid Rs.8,00,000/- into account of defendant No.1 through RTGS on 05.02.2013 (Rs.5,00,000/-) and Rs.3,00,000/- on 13.05.2013. He further supported the case of the plaintiff that in all total the plaintiff paid Rs.18,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 and her husband towards hand loan and they deposited their title deeds of the property with the plaintiff towards security and repayment of the amount.

11(b) Apart from the above oral evidence the plaintiff has also filed and relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A15. Ex.A1 is the receipt dated 04.02.2013 executed by Sri Gataji Srinivas Reddy in favour of plaintiff having received Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff. Four persons attested the Ex.A1 among them PW.2 is the third attestor of Ex.A1.

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 11 of 20

11(c) Ex.A2 is the State Bank of Hyderabad deposited folio shows that Rs.5,00,000/- was deposited in the account of the Sri

Gantaji Vinoda (defendant No.1) in her HDFC account

No.00451530028987 on 05.02.2013. Ex.A3 is another receipt executed by Sri Gantaji Srinivas Reddy in favour of the plaintiff having received

Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.03.2013. This receipt under

Ex.A3 was also executed in the presence of four witnesses and among them PW.2 is the third attestor. Ex.A4 is the State Bank of Hyderabad deposited folio, which shows that Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited in the account of Sri Gantaji Vinoda (defendant No.1) in her HDFC account bearing No. 00451530028987 on 13.05.2013.

11(d) Ex.A5 is the original registered sale deed No.637/2007 executed in favour of Sri Gantaji Srinivas Reddy in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.A6 is the original registered sale deed

No.9837/2006 executed by Upplapu Satish Reddy in favour of Chinnolla

Mallaiah and Muniputra Rajeshwar in respect of suit schedule property.

This Ex.A6 is link document of Ex.A5. Ex.A7 is another link document original registered sale deed bearing No.8348/2006 executed by

Balapuram Saya Reddy in favour of Upplapu Satish Reddy in respect of part of the suit schedule property i.e., Ac.1.28 guntas. Ex.A8 is another link document original registered sale deed bearing No.5094/2006 executed by Balapuram Ganga Reddy in favour of Upplapu Satish Reddy in respect of remaining part of the suit land i.e., Ac.1.28 guntas. Ex.A9

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 12 of 20

is the encumbrance certificate shows the various transactions in respect of suit schedule property showing the entries of Ex.A5 to Ex.A6.

11(e) Ex.A10 is the original three postal receipts. Ex.A11 to

Ex.A13 are returned registered postal covers with acknowledgment due of defendant No.1 to 3. Ex.A14 is the copy of legal notice issued by plaintiff to the defendants calling upon them to pay Rs.18,00,000/-.

Ex.A15 is the market value certificate issued by Joint Sub Registrar in respect of suit schedule property.

11(f) Be that as it may, on behalf of the defendants DW.1 and

DW.2 were examined and marked Ex.B1 is HDFC statement of defendant No.1. DW.1 filed her chief examination reiterating the contents of her written statement. In her chief affidavit DW.1 clearly deposed that no mortgage is created in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff created a story of mortgage. It is further deposed by DW.1 that

Smt. M.Vinoda requested her that the plaintiff will deposit an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- into her account and requested her to transfer the same into her account, accordingly the defendant No.1 transferred the amount into account of the Smt. Vinoda. In support of her contention the defendants filed Ex.B1 statement of HDFC Bank account of defendant

No.1, but this statement did not show that the defendant No.1 transferred Rs.8,00,000/- into the account of Smt. Vinoda. Therefore, the above contention of the defendants that Smt. Vinoda has requested her that the plaintiff will deposit an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- into the

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 13 of 20

account of defendant No.1, inturn the defendant No.1 has to transfer the same into the account of Smt. Vinoda.

11(g) DW.1 further deposed that Smt. Vinoda is relative of the plaintiff who is residing at Madinaguda, Hyderabad near to her house and she informed that the plaintiff is doing money lending business and he has good relations at Nizamabad and he will arrange good buyers to their property, believing his words husband of defendant No.1 handed over his original registered sale deeds to him for the purpose of selling suit schedule property. DW.1 denied having created mortgage in favour of the plaintiff towards security and payment of the amount.

11(h) To substantiate her contention the defendants examined

DW.2 Sri C.Srinivasulu and he supported the case of the defendant No.1 and in the cross examination DW.2 admitted that he and Sri Gantaji

Srinivas Reddy did not do business together at any point of time. He admitted that he was not present at the time of Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 transactions between plaintiff and Sri Gantaji Srinivas Reddy at

Nizamabad and at the time of discussion between plaintiff and Sri

Gantaji Sriivas Reddy about the transactions under Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. On the other hand DW.2 admitted that on 13.05.2013 when the plaintiff transferred an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- into the account of defendant

No.1 under Ex.A4 he was at Hyderabad. He further admitted that he was not present at Nizamabad on 13.05.2013 when Sri Gantaji Srinivas

Reddy handed over Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 to the plaintiff after transferring the

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 14 of 20

amount. He admitted in his affidavit that he has stated that the documents were handed over to Smt. M.Vinoda. DW.2 also admitted that Rs.8,00,000/- was not sent by defendant No.1 to the account of

Smt. M.Vinoda. He added that it was sent to the account of her husband Sri M.Mallareddy. This evidence is totally contrary to the contention of DW.1. However, Ex.B1 did not show that Rs.8,00,000/- was transferred to the account of Sri Mallareddy by the defendant No.1.

Further DW.1 admitted in cross examination that she is not going to examine M.Vinoda attestor of Ex.A1 and Ex.A3.

11(i) When the entire defense of the defendants revolve around

M.Vinoda, then the defendants ought to have examined the said

M.Vinoda to substantiate their contention. Non examination of M.Vinoda entails draw adverse inference against the defendants contention.

11(j) From the above evidence of DW.2 it is clear that the defendant has not sent Rs.8,00,000/- to the account of M.Vinoda as contended by the defendants in their written statement and in the chief affidavit of DW.1. Therefore, the said defence taken by the defendants appear to be false and untenable.

11 (k) So far as, handed over the original registered sale deeds under Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 to the plaintiff is concerned, it is the contention of the plaintiff that those document were handed over by the husband of the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff towards security and payment of the

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 15 of 20

hand loan amount of Rs.18,00,000/-. On the other hand the defendants denied having creating any mortgage in favour of the plaintiff towards security and payment of the suit amount. The defence taken by the defendants is that they have given Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 to the plaintiff to sell the suit schedule property, but not towards creating any mortgage towards security of the suit amount. It is quite common in the real estate business that if any one wants to sell their property they will hand over Xerox copies of the title deeds but not original documents.

But in the present case the Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 original documents have been filed by the plaintiff along with this suit. Thus it is presumed that the plaintiff was in the custody and possession of Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 as on the date of filing this suit. Therefore, it is presumed that Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 have been deposited by the husband of the defendant No.1 with the plaintiff towards security and repayment of the loan amount.

11(l) At this stage it is relevant to mention the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 shows corrections and those corrected sentence is that the mortgage deed without possession dated executed by the husband of the defendant

No.1. By taking this corrected sentence the learned counsel for the defendants contended that both parties must have executed a written document showing the execution of mortgage deed but that document was not filed by the plaintiff and it requires registration. In absence of the registered mortgage deed this suit is not maintainable. In support

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 16 of 20

of his contention the learned counsel for the defendants relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court for the state of Telangana and

Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1 between Satti Venkateswara Reddy versus

Mallidi Venkata Reddy, wherein the Hon’ble High Court held at 2 page unnumbered para No.2 as follows.

Para No.2:

It states that on 28-03-2008 the executant took a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on the basis of promissory note and the lender required the lendee to secure the said loan by some immovable property on 29-03-2008 and in furtherance of the said requirement, he wanted to create a security of the property, which was registered under document No.433 of 2003 in favour of lendee and handed over the original document as security with a condition that after payment of full amount under the promissory note, the original document along with the promissory note would be taken back. The document also recites that the lender is entitled to recover the amount against the property given as security”.

11(m) On the other hand the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the husband of defendant No.1 deposited title deeds towards security and payment of suit amount as per section 58 (f) of

Transfer of Property Act. No registration is required and it is simple deposit of title deeds, therefore this suit is maintainable. In support of 1 Civil Revision petition No.432 of 2015 decided on 23.11.2015

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 17 of 20

his contention the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2 between United

Bank of India v/s Messrs Lekharam Sonaram and Company, wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held at para No.7 as follows:

Part of Para No.7:

“In other words, when the debtor deposits with the creditor title deeds of his property with an intent to create a security, the law implies a contract between the parties to create a mortgage and no registered instrument is required under Section 59 as in other classes of mortgage”.

11(n) A careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed before this court it appears that husband of the defendant No.1 might have deposited Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 with the plaintiff towards security of payment of hand loan obtained by him and his wife defendant No.1.

Thus no registration is required as per the Judgment of United Bank of

India. As I said earlier if anyone wants to sell their property they will hand over the true copies of the title deeds but not original documents to third party who arranges for selling the property. For the said reason the contention of the defendants that they handed over Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 to the plaintiff for selling their suit schedule property to third parties is untenable. The PW.2 evidence further substantiate the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff advanced the suit amount of Rs.18,00,000/- to 2 1965 AIR (SC) 1591

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 18 of 20

the defendant No.1 and her husband towards hand loan. PW.2 is the attestor of the Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 executed by the husband of defendant

No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2, Ex.A4 are the bank vouchers

dated 05.02.2013 and 13.05.2013, it evident the factum that the

plaintiff has deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- into the account of defendant No.1 towards remaining hand loan.

Further DW.1 deposed in her evidence that no mortgage is created in favour of plaintiff. Thus, there is a contradiction in their defence, hence the defendants cannot aprobate and reprobate at the same time. For the said reason the citation relied upon by the defendants not applicable to this case.

11(o) The defendants have not filed any complete bank statement to show that one Smt. M.Vinoda requested the plaintiff to deposit

Rs.8,00,000/- into the account of defendant No.1 and interun the defendant No.1 will transfer the said amount into the account of Smt.

M.Vinoda. To prove the said factum the defendants have not filed any documents, therefore the said contention cannot be considered.

11(p) After careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence the plaintiff established that he has paid loan amount of Rs.18,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 and her husband on four installments and the defendants have deposited Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 with the plaintiff towards security and repayment of the above said loan amount. In view of the above facts the issue No.1 to 3 are decided in favour of the plaintiff.

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 19 of 20

Issue NO.4:

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

Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs only) with the future interest @ 7% per annum from the date of suit and till realization. Accordingly a preliminary decree passed. The defendants are directed to pay the above said amount to the plaintiff within six months from the date of judgment and in case the defendants commits default in payment of decreetal amount within the above mentioned stipulated period, then the plaintiff will be at liberty to sell away the suit schedule property by adopting the due process of law, and recover the decreetal amount.

Accordingly, this suit is decreed with costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th day of October,

2021.

FAC: PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

NIZAMABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW.1 : Manda Rajeshwar Reddy PW.2: A.Srinivas Reddy

For Defendants: DW.1: G.Vinoda DW.2: C.Srinivasulu

OS No.30 of 2016 Recovery of money 20 of 20

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Receipt dated 04.02.2013 (for Rs.5,00,000/-) Ex.A2: Bank voucher dated 05.02.2013 (showing transferring of Rs.5,00,000/- by RTGS to the a/c. of defendant No.1 EX.A3: Receipt dated 10.05.2013.

Ex.A4: Bank voucher dated 13.05.2013 (showing transferring of Rs.3,00,000/- by RTGS to the a/c. of defendant No.1) Ex.A5: Registered sale deed No.637/2007 (dated 12.01.2007) Ex.A6: Registered (link) Sale deed No.9837/2006 (dated 31.07.2006) Ex.A7: Registered (link) Sale deed No.8348/2006 (dated 30.06.2006) Ex.A8: Registered (link) Sale deed No.5094/2006 (dated 29.03.2006) Ex.A9: Encumbrances Certificate (statement of encumbrances on immovable suit property (dated 29.01.2013) Ex.A10: Three (3) Registered Postal receipts dated 10.08.2016 Ex.A11: Returned registered postal cover (with Ack-card). Ex.A12: Returned registered postal cover (with Ack-card). Ex.A13: Returned registered postal cover (with Ack-card). Ex.A14: Office copy of legal Notice dated 10.08.2016. Ex.A15: Valuation card (of registration department)

For Defendants:

Ex.B1: HDFC Bank statement of defendant No.1

FAC: PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

NIZAMABAD.

SC/127/2014 Acquitted

Krovvadi Krishna Rao vs Vemulapally Gopichand @ Bujji

16 May 2016

1 SC.No.127 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE AT BODHAN

Present:- S. GOVERDHAN REDDY, VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Dated this the 16th day of May, 2016.

S.C. No. 127 of 2014.

(Preliminary Register Case No.42 of 2013 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan, in Crime No. 155 of 2013 of

P.S. Bodhan)

Name of the accused:: A1) Vemulapally Gopichand @ Bujji S/o Subash Chandra Bose, Age: 40 years, Kamma, Occ: Agriculture, R/o LBS Nagar,BodhanN/o Venkatapuram (v) Challapally (M) Krishna Dist.

A2) Alma Vinay Kumar @ Vikki S/o Sham Rao, Age: 24 years, Caste: Madiga, Occ: Painter, R/o Azamgunj, Bodhan at presentJagadgirigutta, Hyderabad

A3) Smt. Venigalla Leela Kumari @ Leelavathi W/o Radhakrishna Murthy, age: 65 years, Occ: Housewife R/o Venkateshwaracolony, Bodhan.

A4) Perka Ramulu S/o Laxmaiah, age: 36 years, Perkabycaste,Occ: HarvesterBusiness,R/o Chintakunta village of Varni mandal

A5) Anne Bapuji S/o Sri Rrama Murthy, age: 43 years, Caste: Kamma, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Eklaspur village, Kotagiri mandal

A6) Malladi Rambabu S/o Narayan Rao, age: 44 years, Caste:Kamma,Occ: Agriculture, R/o Karegaon village, Kotagiri mandal 2 SC.No.127 of 2014

Prosecution conducted by:: Sri. B. Giridhar Raj, Additional Public Prosecutor, Bodhan.

Accused defended by:: Sri G.V. Krupakar Reddy, and Sri Arjun Rander, Advocates for A1, A2, A4; Sri I. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for A3; and Sri R. Rathnakar Reddy, Advocate for A5 and A6.

Offence/s:: U/Sec. 302, 120-B, 201 r/w 34 IPC

Plea of accused:: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court.:: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:: A1 to A6 are acquittedU/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/Sec. 302 r/w 34, 120-B r/w 34, 201 r/w 34 and 302 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. MOs.1 to 7 and the other unmarked non- valuable properties, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. MO.8-Motorcycle bearing No.AP-37-AD-2480 which is in police custody shall be returned to its owner on proper identification. Ford Fiesta Car bearing No.AP- 15-AP-5555 is given interim custody to its owner and the same shall be retained with its owner.

This case is coming before me on this the 10th day of May, 2016 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. B. Giridhar Raju, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of M/s. G.V. Krupakar Reddy, and Arjun Rander, Advocates for A1, A2, A4; Sri I. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for A3; and Sri R. Rathnakar Reddy, Advocate for A5 and A6, and having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

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

The Circle Inspector of Police, Bodhan laid charge-sheet against the accused for killing K. Harinath on 31.05.2013 near 3 SC.No.127 of 2014

Venkateshwara Temple, Bodhan of Nizamabad district for the offences punishable U/sec.302, 120-B r/w 34 IPC.

2)The brief facts of the complaint report are that one K.

Krishna Rao, cousin of the deceased filed complaint report in

Police Station, Bodhan on 01.06.2013 stating that on 31.5.2013 at about 8-30 a.m., he came to know that the deceased K. Harinath was killed near Venkateshwara Temple in Venkateshwara Colony, Bodhan by unknown persons with sickle and fled away on the motorcycle. immediately, he went to the scene of offence and saw the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood. On enquiry, he came to know that while the deceased was coming out from the temple, one person came armed with sickle and killed the deceased and then, he along with another person fled away on the motorcycle. Hence, he requested the police to take action in this case.

3)Basing on the complaint report, Inspector of Police,

Bodhan registered a case in Crime No.155 of 2013, U/Sec. 302

IPC and issued express FIR to all concerned. Then he recorded statement of the complainant and went to the scene of offence and called for Dog-squad. On 1.6.2013, he again visited the scene of offence and recorded the statements of

LWs.2 to 5 and got photographed the dead body through LW.6 and recorded his statement. After that, he conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized bloodstained earth, controlled earth, bloodstained white shirt of the deceased in the presence of mediators. After that he also conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body to Government Hospital, Bodhan for post mortem examination. He also recorded the statements of

LWs.7 to 13. On 5.6.2013, he apprehended A1 and A2 near

Vijaya Mary School, Bodhan and conducted confession and 4 SC.No.127 of 2014 seizure panchanama and seized 2 cell phones from A1 and A2 in the presence of mediators. A1 led them to the house of A3 and he also apprehended A3 and conducted confession and recovery panchanama and seized Nokia Cell phone from A3 in the presence of mediators. From there, A1 and A2 led them to the house of A4 in Chintakunta and he apprehended A4 and conducted confession and recovery panchanama and seized bloodstained shirts of A1 and A2. Then, A1 also brought one knife and produced before him and he also seized the knife in the presence of mediators. From there, A1 and A2 led them to

Srinagar village, where A1 hidden his motorcycle and he produced the motorcycle bearing No.AP-37-AD-2480 and he seized the same in the presence of mediators. From there, A1 led them to the house of A5 in Eklaspur village and there he apprehended A5. He also conducted confession and seizure panchanama of A5 in the presence of mediators. Then, A5 led them to the house of A6 at Karegaon village and he also apprehended A6 and A6 produced Ford FIESTA Car and he seized the Car in the presence of mediators. After completion of confession and seizure panchanama of A1 to A6, he brought them and remanded them to judicial custody. After completion of investigation and obtaining material documents and objects, he filed charge sheet before Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Bodhan.

4)Upon that, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case and registered in PRC No.42 of 2013. After completion of formalities he committed the case to the

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad as this case

is exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge. In turn, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad assigned S.C.No.127 of 2014 and made over to this Court to dispose of accordingly.

5 SC.No.127 of 2014

5)On appearance of the accused and hearing on charges, charges U/Sec. 302 r/w 34, 120-B r/w 34, 201 r/w 34 and 302

IPC against the accused were framed, read over and explained to them, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.30 and

MO.1 to 8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating material evidence brought on record by the prosecution has been confronted to the accused U/sec.313

Cr.P.C. The accused denied it as false. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D1 in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6 was marked and no oral evidence was adduced.

7)Heard arguments of both the counsel.

8)Now the points for consideration are:

i) Whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt of the Court?

ii) To what relief?

POINT No.1:

9)PW.1 is the complainant and cousin of the deceased. He does not know the accused. On knowing about the death of the deceased, he went to the scene of offence and saw the dead body lying near Venkateshwara temple with injuries on his back side of neck. By the time, he reached scene of offence, the police and other people gathered. On his enquiry from the general public, he came to know that some unknown persons killed the deceased. He deposed that on the next day morning, he filed complaint report under Ex.P1

A careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1, it is evident that PW.1 did not depose any incriminating evidence against any of the accused.

6 SC.No.127 of 2014

10)PW.2 is wife of the deceased. She deposed that she knows A3 and she does not know other accused. On the date of incident, she was informed on the phone that some unknown persons killed her husband near Venkateshwara temple. Thereafter, her brother-in-law PW.1 came to her house and took her to the scene of offence and she saw the dead body in a pool of blood. On her enquiry near the scene of offence, they came to know that unknown persons killed the deceased. PW.2 further deposed that prior to the death of the deceased, one Bujji came to their Gas agency office and quarreled with the deceased. Subsequently, again the said

Bujji came to their Gas agency office and destroyed computers and beat their office worker Nagesh. Then, her deceased husband filed police complaint against the said

Bujji. Once, her deceased husband wanted to sell their land at Pegadapally, but the said Bujji created a document and gave a paper publication that the said land was already purchased by him. She also came to know that some quarrel took place between the deceased and management of

Saibaba Temple, Bodhan. The deceased had also given money to one Satish to invest in shares. Then the said Satish gave a cheque to her husband and it was got bounced and her husband filed a cheque bounce case against Satish. She suspected Bujji for the death of her husband in view of disputes with him.

11)PW.3 is the son of the deceased and he also deposed on the same lines of PW.2. But PW.3 deposed that he knows A1 and A3 and he does not know A2, A4 to A6. He deposed that as on the date of incident, he was in Hyderabad and he was informed on the phone by PW.1 about the death of the deceased. On that, he came to the scene of offence and saw the dead body. PW.3 supported and corroborated the evidence of PW.2 that one Bujji and others came to their Gas 7 SC.No.127 of 2014 agency office and destroyed furniture in their shop and beat their worker Nagesh and Shekar as such his father filed police case against them. He further deposed that his father purchased one land and thereafter, he intended to sell the land but the said Bujji created a document in respect of that land that the said land was already sold to him and he gave paper publication. He also deposed that his father also gave money to their colony person namely Satish to invest in shares but, later on he failed to repay the same as such his father filed cheque bounce and civil cases. He also deposed that there were disputes in the management of Saibaba and

Venkateshwara temple as his father was also one of the members in the said temple. As Bujji was involved in all these disputes, as such he suspect him for the death of his father.

12)After careful perusal of the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, they suspected one Bujji as there are disputes between the deceased and Bujji as stated above by them. It is pertinent to mention that PW.1 who is wife of deceased clearly deposed that she does not know other accused except A3. A perusal of charge sheet indicates that A1 is also known as Bujjji, but

PW.2 did not identify A1, who is having disputes with her husband as spoken to by her. PW.3 also suspected the said

Bujji for the death of the deceased as there were disputes between the deceased and Bujji. But in the cross examination, he admitted that he does not have acquaintance with the Bujji. On the other hand, both PWs.2 and 3 are not eyewitnesses to the incident and they only suspected the said

Bujji as he is having disputes with the deceased. It is well settled principle of law that suspicion how strong it may be, accused cannot be convicted basing on the suspicion.

13)It is also relevant to refer the cross examination of PW.2 wherein she admitted that the deceased also filed case against one Rajender Reddy and the said case was settled 8 SC.No.127 of 2014 during lifetime of the deceased. She further admitted that the alleged incident with Bujji was occurred about 5 or 6 years prior to the death of the deceased. It is not that the deceased was having dispute only with Bujji and he was also having difference with the management of Saibaba Temple and he also filed cheque bounce case against Satish and one

Rajender Reddy. It is also elicited from the cross examination of PW.2 that there was Durga Matha procession about 2 years prior to the death of the deceased and in the said procession, the deceased was attacked and he sustained injuries in the hands of Muslims and a case was filed in the Court.

14)PW.3 son of the deceased also admitted in his cross examination that he stated to the police that his father had dispute in land dealing and business. From the above evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the deceased was not only having disputes with Bujji but also having differences and disputes with other persons. However, the evidence of PW.2 and 3 is only suspicious evidence and that cannot be a basis for conviction of the accused in absence of substantial evidence.

15)PW.4 deposed that he knows A1 and A3 and he does not know A2, A4 to A6. On the date of incident, he along with deceased and other persons were present in the temple and looking after the accounts. The deceased went away from the temple 5 minutes ahead of them by carrying copper crowns of the Gods along with him. Later on himself and the temple priest (panthulu) were also leaving the temple and at that time, they heard a huge sound saying “Amma”. Immediately, he along with two temple priests came down and at that time, the deceased was fell down in front of the temple and one person, who was having same physical built up like him was running away by covering his head with monkey cap and another person who was on the motorcycle engine on was also covered his head with monkey cap and on that vehicle 9 SC.No.127 of 2014 both of them fled away from the temple. The said person beat the deceased with a weapon like stick or knife.

16)PW.5 deposed that he does not know A1 to A6. He is staying in Nizamabad and doing business. About 3 years back, he came to Bodhan to collect the amount from the deceased. On the date of incident, while he was talking to the deceased, deceased told him to call one Gangadhar Goud as such he was going to call him, in the meantime one person wearing monkey cap on his head came and stabbed the deceased with knife. On hearing the sound, he turned and saw the said person running away towards another person who was also wearing monkey cap and then both of them fled away on the motorcycle. He did not enquire anyone to find out the reason for the incident. He does not know the reason for the incident.

17)After careful perusal of the evidence of PWs.4 and 5, both these witnesses categorically deposed that the culprits were wearing monkey caps and one person stabbed the deceased and another person who was on the motorcycle, then, both of them fled away from that place. It is evident from the evidence of PW.5 that another person who was on the motorcycle also wearing monkey cap. In the cross examination, PW.4 admitted that he cannot identify the person who ran away from the spot after the incident. He further admitted that A1 is taller than him and he cannot identify him and he is not of his physical built. Further, both

PWs.4 and 5 did not depose any incriminating evidence against the accused as such their evidence is not much useful to the prosecution.

18)PW.6 deposed that he knows A1 and A3 and he does not know other accused. He deposed that he worked in HP Gas agency of the deceased since 10 years. On knowing about the incident, he went and saw the dead body and then he 10 SC.No.127 of 2014 went to the house of PW.2 and informed her about the incident. He saw the injuries on the back side of the neck and head, one finger was separated from his hand. He came to know that one person wearing monkey cap killed the deceased and went away. He deposed that once A1 came to

Gas agency office and at that time, he was sitting in the counter and a quarrel took place. Then, A1 beat him. After that the deceased filed complaint report against A1 in the

Police Station. He does not know with regard to dispute relating to money and Achanpally land disputes. He does not know the reason for the death of the deceased.

19)In the cross examination, PW.6 admitted that he did not state to the police that the deceased was having business and land disputes as in Ex.D1.

20)PW.18 is the investigating officer and he admitted in his cross examination that PW.6 stated to him as in Ex.D1. The 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6 also indicate that PW.6 stated to the police as in Ex.D1. As per the evidence of PW.2, the alleged incident deposed by PW.6 that A1 came to Gas Agency and beat him and deceased filed complaint report against A1 in the Police Station was occurred about 5 or 6 years prior to the death of the deceased. However, PW.6 also did not depose any incriminating evidence against the accused. He also supported the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 that the culprits were wearing monkey caps at the time of offence.

21)PW.7 is the photographer, who took the photographs of male dead body and handed over the photographs with CD to the police after developing the same at the instance of police.

22)PW.8 deposed that he knows the deceased and he does not know the accused. He has sold his land to the deceased about 3 ½ years back and executed Registered sale deed in 11 SC.No.127 of 2014 his favour. No one approached him after selling the land to the deceased.

23)PW.9 deposed that he knows the deceased and does not know the accused. On knowing about his death, he went to the scene of offence near Venkateshwara temple and saw the dead body. I does not know the reason for his death and who killed him.

24)PW.10 deposed that he knows the deceased and does not know the accused. He came to know about the death of the deceased through newspaper. On the date of incident, he was in Kandakurthi village. He did not witness any incident.

25)PW.11 also deposed that he knows the deceased and does not know any of the accused. On knowing about the death of the deceased, he went and saw the dead body in a pool of blood.

26)PW.12 also deposed that he know the deceased and does not know any of the accused. He did not witness any incident. On knowing about the death of the deceased, he went and saw the dead body in a pool of blood.

27)PWs.8 to 12 did not depose any incriminating evidence nor supported the case of the prosecution as such they were declared hostile by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and cross-examined. In the cross-examination they denied a suggestion that they stated to the police as in Exs.P3 to P7.

28)PW.13 is the panch witness for the scene of offence and inquest panchanama. He deposed that about 2 ½ years back,

Police, Bodhan called him to the scene of offence and conducted its panchanama and prepared rough sketch of the scene and seized MOs.1 to 3 and also conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body.

29)PW.14 is another panch witness for the scene of offence and inquest panchanama. But he did not support the 12 SC.No.127 of 2014 prosecution case. He deposed that police obtained his signatures on the panchanama in the hospital. No scene of offence and inquest panchanama was conducted in his presence. However, the evidence of PWs.13 and 14 is only corroborative in nature and their evidence is not much useful to the prosecution in absence of substantial evidence.

30)Be that as it may, at this stage the learned defence counsel contended that PWs.13 and 14, who are the mediators of Ex.P9 inquest panchanama have expressed their opinion at column No.15 suspected one Satish and

Ravindranath Reddy families might have involved in the death of the deceased. It is also elicited from the cross examination of PW.18 investigating officer wherein he admitted that the mediators of Ex.P9 have opined that one Ravindranath and

Satish and his family members were involved in the death of the deceased. This creates a doubt in the mind of Court whether accused faced trial are really involved in the death of the deceased.

31)PW.15 and 16 are the panch witnesses for the confession and seizure panchanama and both these witnesses did not support the prosecution case stating that no confession and recovery panchanama was conducted and nothing was seized in their presence. PW.15 further deposed that the signatures on the confession panchanama of A1 to A6 are belong to him.

Since they did not support the prosecution case, they were declared hostile by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and cross-examined. In the cross-examination PWs.15 and 16 denied that confession and recovery panchanama of A1 to A6 were conducted and police seized Samsung, Nokia cell phones, Shirt of A1, FIESTA Ford Car, one knife and one Hero

Honda Motorcycle No.AP-37-AD-2480.

32)PW.17 is the doctor, who deposed on behalf of Dr.

Vanaja, who conducted post mortem examination over the 13 SC.No.127 of 2014 dead body of the deceased. PW.17 deposed that Dr. Vanaja conducted post mortem examination over the dead body on 1.6.2013 and opined that the cause of death is due to rupture of brain with hammerhage. He admitted that the signature on Ex.P20 post mortem examination report is belongs

Dr.Vanaja. From the evidence of PW.17, the prosecution established that the death of the deceased is homicidal death.

33)PW.18 is the investigating officer. He deposed that on 1.6.2013, he received complaint report from PW.1 under

Ex.P1. Basing on that, he registered a case in Cr.No.155/2013

U/sec.302 IPC and issued express FIR to all concerned. He further deposed that he conducted the scene of offence and inquest panchanama and seized MO.1 to 3 in the presence of mediators. He further deposed that on 5.6.2013, he apprehended A1 and A2 near Vijay Mary School, Bodhan and conducted confession and seizure panchanama and seized

MOs.4 and 5 from A1 and A2 respectively. Then they led them to the house of A3 and they also conducted confession and recovery panchanama and seized MO.6 from A3. From there, the accused led them to Chintakunta village to the house of

A4 and conducted his confession and seizure panchanama and he produced bloodstained shirt belonging to A1 and white and coffee colour bloodstained shirt of A2 and he seized the same. A1 also brought MO.7- knife from nearby bushes used in the commission of offence and he seized the same. From there, A1 and A2 led them to Srinagar village where A1 hidden his motorcycle bearing No.AP-37-AD-2480 (Police custody) and he seized the same. From there, A1 led them to the house of

A5 in Eklaspur village and there, he apprehended A5 and conducted confession panchanama and he also confessed his offence. From there, A5 led them to the house of A6 in

Karegaon village and there he apprehended A6 and conducted his confessed and recovery panchanama and A6 produced 14 SC.No.127 of 2014

Ford Fiesta Car bearing No.AP-15-AP-5555 (interim custody given to owner) and he seized the same. Then, he remanded the accused to judicial custody. Confession by the accused while they were in the custody of police is inadmissible.

34)After careful perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is found that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed any incriminating evidence against the accused except PWs.2 and 3, who are wife and son of the deceased.

However, they only suspected one Bujji for the death of the deceased as the deceased having dispute with him. As I discussed supra, PW.2 clearly admitted that she does not know any of the accused except A3. Therefore, PW.3 also admitted in his cross examination that he does not have acquaintance with Bujji. However, basing on the suspicion, accused cannot be convicted as it is a settled principle of law that the accused cannot be convicted, how strong the suspicion may be. Other material prosecution witnesses did not depose any incriminating evidence against the accused as such the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt of the Court.

POINT NO.2:

35)IN THE RESULT, A1 to A6 areacquitted

U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/Sec. 302 r/w 34, 120-B r/w 34, 201 r/w 34 and 302 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. MOs.1 to 7 and the other unmarked non- valuable properties, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. MO.8-Motorcycle bearing No.AP-37-AD-2480 which is in police custody shall be returned to its owner on proper identification. Ford

Fiesta Car bearing No.AP-15-AP-5555 is given interim custody to its owner and the same shall be retained with its owner.

15 SC.No.127 of 2014

Dictated to P.A., transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of

May, 2016.

Sd/-

VII Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

For prosecution: For defence:

Pw.1 : K. Krishna Rao-Nil- Pw.2 : K. Ramana Devi Pw.3 : Pavan Kumar Pw.4 : Venkat Ramana Reddy Pw.5 : Mohd. Sajid Ali Pw.6 : Jamedar Nagesh Pw.7 : Vinayak Raju Pw.8 : Venkat Rao Pw.9 : Maroju Sudhakar Chary Pw.10: Jalda Srinivas Pw.11: K. Prabhakar Pw.12: Guna Prasad Pw.13: Saya Reddy Pw.14: G. Ravinder Yadav Pw.15: Meka Santosh Pw.16: Pattepu Sailu Pw.17: Dr. A. Sujatha Pw.18: B. Shankaraiah :: EXHIBITS MARKED :: For prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Complaint report filed by PW.1 Ex.P.2 : Photographs with CD Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8 Ex.P.4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9 Ex.P.5 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.10 Ex.P.6 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.11 Ex.P.7 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.12 Ex.P.8 : Scene of offence and seizure panchanama with rough sketch Ex.P.9 : Inquest panchanama Ex.P.10 : Signature of PW.14 on Scene of offence and seizure panchanama Ex.P.11 : Signature of PW.14 on Inquest panchanama Ex.P.12 : Signature of PW.16 on confession panchanama of A1 Ex.P.13 : Signature of PW.16 on confession panchanama of A2 Ex.P.14 : Signature of PW.16 on confession panchanama of A3 Ex.P.15 : Signature of PW.16 on confession panchanama of A4 Ex.P.16 : Signature of PW.16 on confession panchanama of A5 Ex.P.17 : Signature of PW.16 on confession panchanama of A6 Ex.P.18 : Signature of PW.16 on seizure panchanama Ex.P.19 : Signature of PW.16 on seizure panchanama Ex.P.20 : Post Mortem Examination report 16 SC.No.127 of 2014

Ex.P.21 : First Information Report Ex.P.22 : Confession and recovery panchanama of A1 (admissible portion) Ex.P.23 : Confession and recovery panchanama of A2 (admissible portion) Ex.P.24 : Confession and recovery panchanama of A3 (admissible portion) Ex.P.25 : Confession and recovery panchanama of A4 (admissible portion) Ex.P.26 : Seizure panchanama of knife Ex.P.27 : Seizure panchanama of Hero Honda motorcycle Ex.P.28 : Confession panchanama of A5 (admissible portion) Ex.P.29 : Confession panchanama of A6 (admissible portion) Ex.P.30 : Forensic Science Laboratory report

For Defence:

Ex.D1: A portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6

MOs marked

MO.1: Controlled earth MO.2: Bloodstained earth MO.3: Bloodstained shirt MO.4: Samsung black colour cell phone MO.5: Karbon black colour cell phone MO.6: Nokia Cell phone MO.7: Knife MO.8 : Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP-37-AD-2480

Sd/-

VII Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

CRLA/26/2016 Acquitted

Rudraram Lingaiah vs The State P.S., Bodhan

31 May 2016

Crl.A.26 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT BODHAN

Present:- S. GOVERDHAN REDDY, VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan

Dated this the 31st day of May, 2016.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 26 of 2016

1. From what court the appeal is Assistant Sessions Judge, preferredBodhan.

2. Number of the case in that S.C. No. 217 of 2015 Court

3. Name of the appellants1) Rudraram Lingaiah S/o Late Yellappa, age 48 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Agriculture,

2) Rudraram Laxmi W/o Lingaiah, age 40 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Labour,

Both are R/o Pegadapally village, Bodhan Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad

4. Sentence and law under The Assistant Sessions Judge, which it was passedBodhan convicted and sentenced A1 and A2 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for FIVE YEARS each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, indefault to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence U/sec.306 IPC. He further sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of TWO YEARS each and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each, indefault to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months eachfor the offence U/sec.498-A IPC. Both sentences shall run concurrently.

5. Whether confirmed, Reversed. modified or reversed

That this case is coming on 13.05.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Dattatri Rao, Advocate for the appellants/A1 and A2 and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and after having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Appellants/A1 and A2 filed the present appeal U/Sec.374 of

Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 4.2.2016 in S.C.No.217 of 2015 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Bodhan, wherein the

Crl.A.26 of 2016

learned Assistant Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced A1 and

A2 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for FIVE YEARS each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, indefault to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence U/sec.306 IPC. He further sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of

TWO YEARS each and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each, indefault to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence U/sec.498-A IPC. Both sentences shall run concurrently.

2)The brief facts of the prosecution case are that one Amali

Ramesh, brother of the deceased Chandrakala, filed complaint report in Police Station, Bodhan on 23.7.2015 stating that they performed the second marriage of the deceased with Rudraram

Lingaiah (A1). The said Lingaiah was already having first wife namely Laxmi and she did not conceive as her health is not good.

As such, he got married with his sister as second marriage. After the marriage, the deceased and both the accused were staying together happily. About 3 years back, the deceased blessed with a daughter and since then, both the accused used to harass his sister on the ground that she is not attending household work and not doing beedi rolling work. About 2 years back, panchayat was held in

Pegadapally village in the presence of Thirumala Abbaiah, Gonti

Shanker, Maddi Seetha Sailoo, Maddi Abbaiah. On 15.7.2015 also they went and convinced them but even then they did not change their behaviour. On 22.7.2015 at about 2.30 pm, his another sister

Maddi Laxmi also came to the house of the deceased and convinced them and returned back. On 23.7.2015 at about 6-00 am, he came to know through Maddi Abbaiah that about 11 pm in the night, the deceased set herself on fire and she was shifted to Government

Hospital, Nizamabad and she succumbed to the burn injuries at

Crl.A.26 of 2016

about 2.30 or 3-00 am in the mid night. His sister committed suicide due to unbearable harassment of the appellants. Hence, he requested the police to take action against them.

3)Basing on the above complaint report, Sub Inspector of Police,

Bodhan registered a case in Crime No.244/2014 for the offences

U/sec.498-A and 306 IPC and issued FIR and he recorded the statement of the complainant. He went to Government Hospital, and recorded the statements of LWs.2 to 5 and got photographed the dead body of the deceased. Then he conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body in the presence of mediators and referred the dead body to Government Hospital for post mortem examination.

From there, he came to the scene of offence and conducted its panchanama and seized green colour bangle pieces, burnt saree, kerosene tin and match box in the presence of mediators and also got photographed the scene of offence. Then, he recorded the statements of LWs.6 to 9. On 27.7.2015, he apprehended A1 and A2 and on interrogation, they confessed their offence and thereafter he remanded them to judicial custody. After completion of investigation and obtaining material documents and objects, he filed charge-sheet

before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

4)Upon that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and registered in P.R.C. No. 17 of 2015. After completion of formalities he committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad as this case is exclusively triable by Sessions Court. In turn the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad assigned S.C.No.217 of 2015 and made over to the Assistant Sessions

Judge, Bodhan to dispose off.

5)After appearing the accused and on hearing charges, charges

U/sec.498-A and 306 IPC were framed against the accused, read over

Crl.A.26 of 2016

and explained. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)To prove the prosecution case the prosecution has examined

P.ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and MO.1 to 4. After closure of prosecution evidence the incriminating material brought on record by the prosecution has been confronted to them under Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

and accused denied it as false.

7)On behalf of the accused, Ex.D1 and D2 in 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of PW.4 were marked and no oral evidence was adduced.

8)Basing on oral and documentary evidence the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge, Bodhan has convicted and sentenced A1 and A2 as

stated supra. Hence, this appeal.

9)Heard the arguments of both the counsel.

10)Now the point for consideration:

i. Whether the prosecution established the charges beyond reasonable doubt of the Court? ii. Whether the Judgment of the Trial Court is sustainable under the law? Point Nos.1 and 2 :

11)PW.1 is the complainant and brother of the deceased. He deposed that A1 is husband of the deceased Chandrakala and A2 is first wife of A1. Chandrakala obtained divorce from her husband in the presence of caste elders. Thereafter, her marriage was performed with A1 in the year 2004. A1, A2 and deceased lived together in one house and deceased blessed with one daughter. 4 months after the birth of daughter to Chandrakala, some disputes arose on petty issues between the deceased and A1. Thereafter, A1 and A2 used to harass the deceased saying that she is not earning money by doing coolie work nor attending beedi rolling work in the house. he got conveyed a panchayat in the presence of Thirumala

Abbaiah, Gonti Shanker, Maddi Seetha Sailoo and Maddi Abbaiah

Crl.A.26 of 2016

and they advised them not to quarrel with the deceased and to live happily. A1 and A2 promised before the elders that they would not quarrel with the deceased. But there was no change in their behaviour. About 4 months back, Maddi Laxmi –LW.3 called him on the phone and told him that A1 and A2 quarreled again with the deceased and she pacified them. On the next day at about 6-00 am,

Maddi Abbaiah-LW.4 called him on the phone and told that some dispute took place between the deceased on one hand, A1 and A2 on the other hand and the deceased sustained burn injuries and died. Immediately, he went to Government Hospital, Nizamabad and saw the dead body. He suspected that A1 and A2 might have burnt the deceased. He admitted having filed complaint report

before police.

12)PW.2 is sister of the deceased and she supported the evidence of PW.1 with regard to performing of marriage of the deceased with

A1 and deceased giving birth to one daughter. She further deposed that till the birth of daughter to Chandrakala, A1 treated her well.

Thereafter, A1 and A2 started harassing the deceased saying that she was not attending household and beedi rolling work. A panchayat was held in the presence of Gonti Shankar, Thirumala

Abbaiah, Maddi Seetha Sailoo and Maddi Abbaiah and they advised

A1 and A2 to live happily with the deceased and not to quarrel.

About 4 months back, he went to the house of Chandrakala A1 and

A2 went to agricultural land and the deceased told her that A1 and

A2 were abused her for no reason. The deceased told her that A1 and A2 were abusing her for no reason and they also saying that there was no use for her to live and asked her to die. She stayed in the house of deceased up to 5-00 p.m., on that day. She told A1 ad

A2 not to quarrel with the deceased and then she went back to her house. On the same night, she came to know that the deceased

Crl.A.26 of 2016

sustained burn injuries. Immediately, she went to the house of deceased and saw the deceased set herself on fire. A1 and A2 are responsible for the death of Chandrakala.

13)As PW.3 is brother–in-law of the deceased, he also corroborated the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to performing the marriage of the deceased with A1 and giving birth to a child. He deposed that subsequent to birth of daughter to Chandrakala, A1 and A2 started harassing her saying that she is not able to attend household work and it is better her to die. Panchayat was held in the presence of Gonti Shankar, Thirumala Abbaiah, Seetha Sailu,

Sudharshan and they advised A1 and A2 not to quarrel with the deceased, but there was no change in their attitude. On 22.7.2015, he came to know that deceased poured kerosene and set herself on fire. Immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital,

Nizamabad where she succumbed to the burn injuries. A1 and A2 are responsible for the suicide of the deceased.

14)PW.4 is the panchayat elder and he deposed that after the birth of the daughter to the deceased, A1 started harassing her on the ground that the deceased was not attending household work.

Himself and LW.6 to 11 went to the house of A1 and A2 and advised

A1 to lead happy married life with the deceased and not to quarrel with her. PW.3 called him on the phone and told that A1 and A2 poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire and she succumbed to the burn injuries in the Government Hospital,

Nizamabad. A1 and A2 are responsible for the death of the deceased.

15)PW.6 is another panchayat elder. He deposed that after the birth of daughter to Chandrakala, A1 started asking the deceased to do coolie work to earn money, but she expressed her inability to do coolie work as such some disputes arose between A1 and deceased.

Crl.A.26 of 2016

He along with other caste elders held panchayat on 2 times and they advised not to quarrel for not going for coolie work.

Subsequently, A1 raised paddy crop in his land and asked the deceased to attend agricultural work but the deceased told him that she does not know the agricultural work. As such some disputes took place between the deceased and A1. He deposed that he cannot say who are responsible for the suicide of the deceased. The deceased, A1 and A2 were living together by the date of her death.

16)PW.7 is another panchayat elder and he deposed that after the marriage, A1, A2 and deceased lived together happily. Thereafter, some disputes arose among them as the deceased was not doing agricultural work. They held a panchayat in their village. During the panchayat, A1 and A2 promised that they would treat the deceased well in future. One week prior to the death of the deceased, on one day she told that A1 and A2 harassing her as she was not attending coolie work. She further told that A1 was telling that there was no use for him with her and there was no need for her to live.

17)After careful perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, 6 and 7, there is no consistency in their evidence with regard to harassment by the accused to the deceased. PW.1 deposed that A1 and A2 started harassing the deceased as the deceased was not earning money by doing coolie work nor attending beedi rolling work in the house.

18)PW.2 another sister of the deceased, deposed that A1 and A2 harassed the deceased saying that the deceased was not attending beedi rolling work and household work. PW.3 who is brother-in-law of the deceased deposed that A1 and A2 harassed the deceased saying that she is not attending household work. PW.4 one of the panchayat elder also deposed that A1 started harassing the deceased on the ground that the deceased was not attending

Crl.A.26 of 2016

household work, but here PW.4 did not support the evidence of

PWs.1 to 3 that A2 also harassed the deceased for not attending coolie work and beedi rolling work.

19)PW.6 deposed that A1 started harassing the deceased asking the deceased to do coolie work to earn money and subsequently, A1 raised paddy crop in his land and asked the deceased to attend his agricultural work but told him that she does not know the agricultural work.

20)PW.7 another panchayat elder also deposed that some disputes arise among A1, A2 and deceased as the deceased was not attending agricultural work and they advised them to live happily.

21)A careful perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, they did not depose before the Court that A1 asked the deceased to attend the agricultural work in his field or attend coolie work to earn money.

22)Apart from the above evidence of PWs.1 to 4, 6 and 7 with regard to harassment by the accused to the deceased; there are several omissions and contradictions in the evidence of above witnesses. In the chief examination, PW.1 deposed that on the next day of 22nd day of the month, at about 6-00 am, Maddi Abbaiah called him on the phone and told that some disputes took place between the deceased on one hand, and A1 and A2 on other hand and the deceased sustained burn injuries and died. In the cross examination, PW.1 denied a suggestion that he has not stated

before police that Maddi Abbaiah told him on phone that dispute

took place between Chandrakala on one hand and A1 and A2 on the other hand. A perusal of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1, he did not state to the police as above. PW.11 the investigating officer also admitted in his cross examination that PW.1 did not state before him that he was informed by Abbaiah by phone that before the incident

Crl.A.26 of 2016

an altercation took place between the deceased and both the accused. Whereas, in the chief examination, PW.1 stated as above.

23)PW.4 admitted in his cross examination that he has not stated

before police that PW.3 told him that A1 and A2 poured kerosene on

deceased and set herself on fire. But PW.4 deposed in his chief as above. PW.4 further denied a suggestion that he did not state to the police that at about 11.30 pm on the previous night, PW.3 came to his house and told him that deceased set herself on fire as in Ex.D1.

He further denied suggestion that he stated before police that PW.3 and PW.2 shifted the deceased to Government Hospital, Nizamabad in 108 Ambulance as in Ex.D2. PW.11 the investigating officer admitted that PW.4 stated to him as in Ex.D1 and D2. However,

PW.4 admitted in his cross examination that he suspected A1 and A2 for the death of the deceased, whereas he does not know what was happened really.

24)PW.6 deposed in his chief examination that A1 raised paddy crop in his land and asked the deceased to attend his Agricultural work but the deceased told him that she does not know Agricultural work. In the cross examination, PW.6 admitted that he has not stated to police as above. PW.11 the investigating officer admitted in his cross examination that PW.6 did not state to him as above.

PW.7 deposed in his chief examination that one week prior to the death of the deceased, on one day she told him that A1 and A2 were harassing the deceased as the deceased not attending agricultural work and A1 was telling that there was no use for him with her and there was no need for her to live. In the cross examination, PW.7 denied a suggestion that they have not stated before police that one week prior to the death of the deceased on one day she told him that A1 and A2 were harassing her as she was not attending agricultural work. PW.11 also admitted in his cross examination that

Crl.A.26 of 2016

PW.7 did not state to him as above. The evidence of PW.6 and 7 is that the deceased was harassed by A1 and A2 as she refused to attend agriculture work. But whereas in the cross examination, it was elicited by the learned defence counsel that PWs.6 and 7 did not state to the police when their 161 Cr.P.C. statements were recorded by them that the deceased was harassed by the accused for not attending Agricultural work. It is evident from the evidence of PWs.6 and 7 (who are the panchayat elders) as the disputes arose between the accused and deceased for not attending Agricultural work, as such panchayat was conveyed. But in the cross examination, both PWs.6 and 7 admitted that the deceased was harassed for not attending agricultural work. Therefore, the evidence of panchayat elders is not inspiring confidence of the

Court, as their evidence is not supporting and corroborating with

PWs.1 to 4.

25)As I discussed supra, there is no consistency in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, 6 and 7 with regard to harassment by the accused to the deceased. The evidence of above witnesses is at variance with regard to reason for harassment by the accused to the deceased.

Even otherwise, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, 6 and 7 did not show any cruel treatment by the accused to the deceased. All the above witnesses simply deposed before the Court that disputes arose between the accused and deceased as the deceased was not attending beedi rolling work and household work and refused to attend agricultural work. These kind of disputes occur in every agricultural families. Further, the allegation by the prosecution witnesses vague and they did not depose specific events of harassment by the accused. As such the accused cannot be convicted as prosecution failed to prove the harassment and cruel treatment by the accused to the deceased, so that she was forced to

Crl.A.26 of 2016

commit suicide. One of the circumstances is whether the alleged cruelty was such a nature as was likely to prove woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injuries or danger to life is not visible in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, 6 and 7.

26)The evidence of PWs.1 to 4, 6 and 7 did not show that the accused incited, abetted and encouraged her to commit suicide.

There is no evidence spoken to by PWs.1 to 4, 6 and 7 to attract the ingredients of Sec.306 IPC so that the deceased was instigated and incited to commit suicide.

27)PW.8 is panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama and he deposed that he does not know the contents of papaers. He was declared hostile by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as he did not support the prosecution case. In the cross-examination he denied conducting of scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama in his presence.

28)PW.10 is another panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama. He deposed that police conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body and police seized kerosene tin, one match box and pieces of broken bangles in his presence. He deposed that he does not know the reason as to why she committed suicide. In the cross examination he admitted that he usually visit Police Station as his father was Sarpanch. The evidence of PWs.8 and 10 is not much useful to the prosecution as their evidence is corroborative in nature.

29)PW.9 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body and cause of death was shown as the deceased died due to burn injuries. He admitted having issued Ex.P6 post mortem examination report.

Crl.A.26 of 2016

30)PW.11 is the investigating officer. He deposed that he registered a case in Cr.No.244/2015 U/sec.498-A and 306 IPC basing on the complaint report filed by PW.1. He further deposed that he also conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized MOs.1 to

4. In the cross examination, PW.11 admitted that the reason for the delay is not mentioned in Column No.8 of FIR. He further admitted that except the relatives of deceased, he has not examined any independent witnesses. He further admitted that he has not examined the neighbours of the deceased as shown in the Ex.P9 rough sketch. It is admitted fact that investigating officer did not examine neighbors of the accused except their relatives.

31)Be that as it may, the learned counsel for appellant vehemently contended that there was delay in filing complaint report and the accused never harassed the deceased and the accused are not responsible for the death of the deceased and accused were falsely implicated in this case.

32)A perusal of Ex.P10 FIR indicate that offence was occurred on 22.7.2015 at 23.00 hours. Whereas, the complaint report under

Ex.P1 came to be filed on 23.7.2015 at 9-00 hours. Further, there is no reason mentioned in the FIR in filing the complaint report with delay. The distance was shown as 8 km between the scene of offence and the Police Station in Ex.P10 and no reason was assigned for filing complaint report with delay. This aspect also shows suspicion in filing the complaint report. The possibility of filing complaint report after consultation with others cannot be ruled out.

33)However, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, 6 and 7 is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offences U/sec.498-A and 306 IPC as there are some omissions and contradictions in the evidence.

Further, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, 6 and 7 is also not consistent with regard to harassing the deceased. PWs.1 to 4 deposed that the

Crl.A.26 of 2016

accused started harassing the deceased for not attending household and beedi rolling work, whereas PW.1, PW6 and PW.7 deposed before the Court that the accused started harassing the deceased for not attending agricultural work to earn money. The above evidence is vague and not consistent. In view of the above contradictions and omissions in the evidence spoken to by PWs.1 to 4, 6 and 7 as such, it is not inspiring confidence of the Court. In these circumstances, the accused should be given benefit of doubt.

34)IN THE RESULT, this Criminal appeal is allowed. The Judgment

dated 4.2.2016 in S.C.No.217 of 2015 on the file of learned Assistant

Sessions Judge, Bodhan is hereby set aside. The appellants/A1 and

A2 are acquitted. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The fine amount paid by the appellants, if any, shall be refunded.

Dictated to P.A., transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 31 st day of May,

2016.

Sd/-

VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

SC/12/2016 Acquitted

Rudavath Sajjan - P.S., Bodhan vs Rathnavath Ravi

16 May 2016

1 SC No 12 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

AT BODHAN

Present:- S. GOVERDHAN REDDY, VII Additional Dist. and Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Dated this the 16th day of May, 2016.

S.C. No. 12 of 2016 .

(Preliminary Register Case No.23 of 2015 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan, in Crime No.341 of 2015 of P.S.

Bodhan)

Name of the accused::Rathnavath Ravi S/o Reddya, Age: 30 years, Caste: Lambada, Occ: Private Driver, R/o Veerannagutta village, Renjal Mandal, At present Rajiv Gruhakalpa Apartment, Autongar, Bodhan, Nizamabad District

Prosecution conducted by::Sri. B. Giridhar Raju, Additional Public Prosecutor, Bodhan.

Accused defended by::Sri T. Narsimha Reddy, Advocate

for the accused.

Offence/s::Sec. 302, 201 IPC.

Plea of accused::Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court.::Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:: T he accused is given benefit ofdoubtandacquitted U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/ Sec. 302 and 201 IPC. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. MO.1 and other unmarked non- valuable properties, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me on this the 13th day of May, 2016 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. B. Giridhar Raju, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri T. Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for accused, and having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

2 SC No 12 of 2016 :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Circle Inspector of Police, Bodhan Town laid charge-sheet against the accused for killing Smt. Rudavath @ Rathnavath Jyothi on 10.10.2015 in Autonagar, Bodhan of Nizamabad District for the offences punishable U/Sec. 302 and 201 IPC.

2)The brief facts of the complaint report are that one Rudavath

Sajjan, father of the deceased filed complaint report in Police

Station, Bodhan on 11.10.2015 stating that he performed the marriage of his daughter with Rathnavath Ravi (accused) in

December, 2010 and at that time, his son-in-law Ravi was working in Military. After marriage, he took his daughter to Jammu and

Kashmir and later on he sent his daughter to Veerannagutta on the ground that he was transferred to some other place. By that time, they blessed with one son. Subsequently, Ravi stopped working and came back to Veerannagutta and started working as driver and he was involved in some disputes as such, he was shifted to

Autonagar, Rajiv Gruhakalpa apartments. Since 2 years, his son- in-law Ravi developed illegal relationship with another woman. In that regard, his eldest son Santosh and his brother Mohan went and convinced his son-in-law to live happily but he did not change his behaviour. One day before, i.e. on 10.10.2015, accused called on the phone of his brother Mohan and informed that his daughter

Jyoti fell down from the apartment and she is not talking.

Immediately, they went and saw the dead body of his daughter with injuries on her face, hands and legs. They suspected that his son-in-law might have killed his daughter with stick as the deceased has become hurdle for his illegal relationship. Hence, he requested the police to take action in this case.

3 SC No 12 of 2016

3)Basing on the complaint report, Inspector of Police, Bodhan registered a case in Crime No.341 of 2015 U/sec.302, 201 IPC and issued express FIR to all concerned and he recorded the statement of the complainant. Then, he went to the scene of offence and conducted its panchanama in the presence of mediators and got photographed the scene of offence through LW.6. After that he shifted the dead body to Government Hospital, Bodhan.

Subsequently, he visited the Government Hospital, and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body in the presence of mediators and recorded the statements of LWs.3 to 6 and referred the dead body to Government Hospital, Bodhan for post mortem examination. On 15.10.2015, he apprehended the accused and conducted confession panchanama and accused confessed his offence and led them to the bushes located in front of “A” Block apartment and produced one stick and police seized the same remanded him to Judicial custody. On 16.10.2015, he visited

Rajivnagar thanda and recorded the statements of LWs.15 and 16 and he went to Autonagar and recorded the statements of LWs.8 to 11. After completion of investigation and obtaining material documents and objects, Circle Inspector of Police, Bodhan Town filed charge sheet before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

4)Upon that, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case and registered in PRC No.23 of 2015. After completion of formalities he committed the case to the Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad as this case is exclusively triable by the

Sessions Judge. In turn, the learned Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Nizamabad assigned S.C.No.12 of 2016 and made over to

this Court to dispose of accordingly.

4 SC No 12 of 2016

5)On appearance of the accused and hearing on charges, charges U/Sec. 302 and 201 IPC were framed against him, read over and explained to them, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.16 and MO.1. After closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution has been confronted to the accused U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied it as false. On behalf of the accused, he got marked Ex.D1 in the 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.1 and no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

7)Heard the arguments of both the counsel.

8)Now the points for consideration are:

i) Whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt of the Court?

ii) To what relief?

POINT No.1:

9)PW.1 is the complainant and father of the deceased. He deposed that he performed the marriage of the deceased with the accused about 7 years back prior to her death and at that time, the accused was working in Military. After the marriage, he took his wife along with him and subsequently, he came back to Veeranna gutta along with his wife and he used to quarrel in the village. As such, a case was registered against him. Thereafter, he shifted to

Autonagar and there he used to beat the deceased and he also kept one concubine. On one day, he informed him that the deceased fell down from the house. They went and saw the dead 5 SC No 12 of 2016 body with injuries on her face, hands and legs. He admitted having filed complaint report under Ex.P1.

10)PW.3 is brother of the deceased. He deposed that they performed the marriage of the deceased with the accused and after marriage, he took his wife along with him and subsequently, he came back to Veeranna gutta along with his wife and he used to quarrel in the village. Accused used to work as lorry driver.

Thereafter, he shifted to Autonagar and there he used to quarrel with others. On knowing about the death of the deceased, they went and saw the dead body with injuries on her face, hands and legs. The accused killed the deceased as the deceased used to raise objection when the accused speaking to others.

11)PW.4 is paternal uncle of the deceased. He deposed that they performed the marriage of the deceased with the accused and at that time, the accused was working in Military. After the marriage, he took his wife along with him and subsequently, he came back to Veeranna gutta along with his wife and he purchased one vehicle. Accused also purchased another vehicle with his partner and the said vehicle was seized as he failed to pay the installment. Thereafter, he shifted to Autonagar and there he used to beat his wife. The accused used to visit other ladies. He came to know that the accused killed the deceased. He does not know the reason for killing the deceased

12)PW.5 deposed that on 11.10.2015, he came to know about the death of the deceased and he went there and saw the dead body. On enquiry from the mother of the deceased, she told him that the accused killed the deceased as the accused had illegal relationship with other woman.

6 SC No 12 of 2016

13)PW.6 is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that they performed the marriage of the deceased with the accused and at that time, the accused was working in Military. After the marriage, he took his wife along with him. Subsequently, he came back to

Veeranna gutta along with his wife. From there, he shifted to

Autonagar and there he used to beat the deceased and he also kept one concubine. Her daughter informed her that the accused is harassing and beating her. On the date of incident, the accused informed her that the deceased fell down from the house. They went to the house of the deceased and saw the dead body with injuries on her face, hands and legs. On their enquiry, accused confessed that he killed the deceased as she is not listening to her.

14)After careful perusal of the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 4 and 6, they categorically deposed that they performed the marriage of the deceased with accused about 7 years prior to her death and at that time, accused was working in Military. After the marriage, he took his wife along with him and subsequently, he came back to

Veerannagutta along with his wife.

15)PW.1 deposed that from Veerannagutta, accused and deceased shifted to Autonagar, there he used to beat as accused kept one concubine.

16)PW.3 deposed that after the accused and deceased came back to Veerannagutta, accused used to quarrel in the village.

From there, accused shifted to Autonagar, Bodhan and there he used to quarrel with others.

17)PW.4, paternal uncle of the deceased, also deposed that after returning to Veerannagutta, accused purchased one vehicle and he also purchased another vehicle along with his partner and said 7 SC No 12 of 2016 vehicle seized, as he failed to pay the instalments. From there, he shifted to Autonagar and he used to beat the deceased. The accused used to visit other ladies. PW.4 deposed that he came to know that accused killed the deceased and he does not know the reason for killing the deceased. PW.6 is mother of the deceased and she deposed that from Veerannagutta, accused shifted to

Autonagar and there he used to beat the deceased and he also kept one concubine. On the date of incident, accused called her and informed that the deceased fell down from the house. On that they went to the house and on enquiry, accused confessed that he killed the deceased as she is not listening to him.

18)After careful perusal of the above evidence, PWs.1, 3, 4 and 6 they have given different reasons. PW.1 stated that after shifting to Autonagar, accused used to beat the deceased. PW.3 deposed that after shifting to Augunagar, accused used to quarrel with others.

19)PW.3 is the brother of the deceased and he did not depose that accused used to beat the deceased in Autonagar. PW.4 deposed that after shifting to Autonagar, accused used to beat his wife and also used to visit other ladies. Visiting of other ladies by the accused was not deposed by PWs.1 and 3.

20)PW.6, mother of the deceased, deposed that after shifting to

Autonagar, accused used to beat the deceased and he also kept one concubine. PW.3 did not depose before the Court that accused kept one concubine. However, all the above witnesses are not eyewitnesses to the incident and admittedly, PW.3 brother of the deceased did not depose any incriminating evidence that the accused kept one concubine and killed the deceased. He only deposed that in Autonagar, accused used to quarrel with others.

8 SC No 12 of 2016

He further deposed that the accused killed the deceased as the deceased used to raise objection with the accused when he speaking to others. Admittedly, PW.3 is not eyewitness to the incident, at the most from the above evidence, a suspicion can be raised against the accused for causing death of the deceased. But the suspicion cannot be substituted for substantial evidence.

Further, PW.3 also did not depose from whom he came to know that accused killed the deceased.

21)PW.4 is paternal uncle, he deposed that he came to know that the accused killed the deceased and he does not know the reason for killing the deceased. The evidence of PW.4 is hearsay evidence and it is inadmissible. Further, PW.4 did not depose from whom he came to know that the accused killed the deceased.

PW.5 deposed that on enquiry from the mother of the deceased, she told him that the accused killed the deceased as the accused had illegal relationship with other woman. PW.6, mother of the deceased also deposed that on her enquiry, accused confessed that he killed the deceased as she is not listening to him. The reason for killing the deceased is also not consistent with other evidence. However, PW.1, 3 and 5 did not depose before the Court that on enquiry, the accused confessed that he killed the deceased. Therefore, the above evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused for the charges leveled against him.

22)PW.7 deposed that she knows accused and deceased and deceased and accused lived happily. She does not know the reason for the death of the deceased. She did not hear any cries from the house of the deceased on the date of incident.

23)PW.8 deposed that she knows the deceased and accused and deceased and accused lived happily. She does not know the 9 SC No 12 of 2016 reason for the death of the deceased. She saw the dead body with injuries on her hands and legs.

24)PW.9 and PW.10 deposed that they know the accused and deceased and they lived happily. They do not know the reason for the death of the deceased. Since PWs.7 to 10 did not support the prosecution case, as such they were declared hostile by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and cross-examined. In the cross- examination they denied a suggestion that they stated to the police as in Exs.P3 to P6. Likewise, PW.2 also did not support the prosecution case, as such he was declared hostile by the learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor and cross-examined. In the cross- examination he denied a suggestion that he stated to the police as in Ex.P2.

25)PW.11 is the photographer. He deposed that he took the photographs of female dead body and handed over to the Police after developing the same.

26)PW.12 is the panch witness for the scene of offence and inquest panchanama and he deposed that about 6 months back, police Bodhan called him to the scene of offence in Autonagar,

Bodhan and conducted its panchanama and prepared rough sketch of the scene and from there, they went to Government hospital,

Bodhan and there the police conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased. The evidence of PW.12 is only corroborative in nature and his evidence is useful to the prosecution when there is substantial evidence is available.

27)PW.13 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 11.10.2015 and she deposed that cause of death to her knowledge is 10 SC No 12 of 2016 heammerhage and shock secondary proof, fracture of right upper 1/3rd femur bone. From the evidence of PW.13, the prosecution established that her death was homicidal.

28)PWs.14 and 15 are the panch witnesses for the confession.

They deposed that about 1 ½ year back, they went to Police

Station Bodhan on their personal work and there police obtained their signatures on some papers. At that time, accused was not present. Hence, they were declared hostile by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and cross examined. In the cross

examination, they denied a suggestion that on 1510.2015 police

Bodhan called them to the house of accused and accused confessed his offence on their enquiry and produced one stick and police seized the same.

29)PW.16 is the investigating officer. He deposed that on 11.10.2015 PW.1 came to Police Station and filed complaint report under Ex.P1. Basing on the same, he registered a case in

Cr.No.341/2015 U/sec. 302 and 201 IPC and issued express FIR to all concerned. He deposed that he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW.12 and PW.12. He further deposed that on 15.10.2015 he apprehended the accused and conducted his confession conducted recovery panchanama in the presence of mediators and accused confessed his offence and produced one stick used in the commission of offence and the same was seized.

30)After careful perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is found that PWs.1, 3 to 6 are the material witnesses, but they are not eyewitnesses to the incident. Their evidence is only hearsay evidence. As I discussed supra, they did not depose

before this Court that from whom they came to know that the

11 SC No 12 of 2016 accused killed the deceased. Therefore, their evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused for the charges leveled against the accused. The other material witnesses did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor. Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of

accused in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. In the cross examination, PW.1 deposed that he did not state to police that his brother went to accused and advised to live happily as in Ex.D1.

On perusal of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 that he stated to the police as in Ex.D1. However, the above omission is not going to the root of the case as such Ex.D1 is not useful to the accused. For the above said reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt of the Court.

POINT NO.2:

31)IN THE RESULT, the accused is given benefit of doubt and acquitted U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/ Sec.

302 and 201 IPC. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

MO.1 and other unmarked non-valuable properties, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to P.A., transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16 th day of May,

2016.

Sd/-

VII Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:: For prosecution: For defence:

Pw.1 :Sajjan-Nil- Pw.2 : Kandre Balaji Pw.3 : Rudavath Santosh Pw.4 : Rudavath Mohan Pw.5 : Ramavath Ramesh Pw.6 : Rudavath Sakkubai 12 SC No 12 of 2016

Pw.7 : Anjali Pw.8 : A. Venkatamma Pw.9 : Saniya Pw.10: Beaddam Ganga Prasad Reddy Pw.11: Sadam Ramu Pw.12: Gabbar Singh Pw.13: Dr. Kirthi Priya Pw.14: K. Radha Krishna Pw.15 : Dasari Narsaiah PW.16 : Ch. Venkanna :: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

For prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Complaint report filed by PW.1 Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7 Ex.P.4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8 Ex.P.5 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9 Ex.P.6 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.10 Ex.P.7 : Scene of offence with rough sketch Ex.P.8 : Inquest panchanama Ex.P.9 : Post mortem examination Report Ex.P.10 : Signature of PW.14 on confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P.11 : Signature of PW.14 on seizure panchanama Ex.P.12 : Signature of PW.15 on confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P.13 : Signature of PW.16 on seizure panchanama Ex.P.14 : First Information report Ex.P.15 : Admissible portion of confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P.16 : Seizure panchanama

For defence:

Ex.D1: Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1

MOs marked MO.1 : Stick

Sd/-

VII Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

CRLA/17/2015 Convicted

Davanaboina Durgaiah vs Police, Bodhan.

07 Jun 2016

1 Crl.A.No.17 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE AT BODHAN

Present:- Sri. S. GOVERDHAN REDDY, VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Dated this the 7th day of June, 2016.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.17 OF 2015

1. From what court the appeal is Judicial First Class Magistrate preferred Court, Bodhan.

2. Number of the case in that C.C. No. 234 of 2008 Court

3. Name of the appellant/ 1) Davanboina Durgaiah S/o accusedRama Swamy, Aged: 35 years, Caste: Pochammala, Occupation : labour, R/o.

2) Smt. Davanaboina Nagamma W/o Durgaiah, Aged: 30 years, Caste: Pochammala, Both R/o Kotagiri village and Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

4. Sentence and law under The learned Judl. First Class which it was passedMagistrate, Bodhan convicted and sentenced A1 and A2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of FOUR Months each and directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence U/sec.419 of I.P.C.

5. Whether confirmed, modified Confirmed. or reversed

That this case is coming on 3rd day of June, 2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. T. Narsimha Reddy and SSR. Koteshwar Rao, Advocates for appellants/A1 and A2 and of

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant, and

having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

.contd.

2 Crl.A.No.17 of 2015 :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Appellants/A1 and A2 filed the present appeal

U/Sec.374 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 28.1.2015 in C.C.No.234 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan, wherein the learned Magistrate has convicted and sentenced A1 and A2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of FOUR Months each and directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence

U/sec.419 of I.P.C.

2)For the convenience sake, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the Trial Court.

3)The brief facts of the prosecution case are that one

Saleemuddin, Superintendent of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan filed complaint report in Police Station, Bodhan on 9.2.2008 stating that he was working as Superintendent in Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Bodhan. He was directed by the Junior Civil Judge,

Bodhan to give complaint against Durgaiah and Nagamma (A1 and A2 herein) both residents of Kotagiri village. That on 19.12.2007, when C.C.No.21 of 2005 was called, it was represented that all the accused were present. Thereby, the learned Magistrate proceeded to record the evidence of witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 to 3. During the course of recording the evidence, they pointed out that A1 Ravula Ramulu and A2 Ravula Erravva in

C.C.No.21 of 2005 were not present in the Court hall. But, A1 and

A2 herein represented that they are Ravula Ramulu and Ravula

Erravva in the said case. As such, a doubt arises, therefore, they were sent to the Police Station, Bodhan by the Junior Civil Judge 3 Crl.A.No.17 of 2015

Court and sought preliminary enquiry report from the concerned police. Subsequently, preliminary report is received stating that the persons, who are appeared as A1 and A9 on 19.12.2007 are

Durgaiah and Nagamma but not Ravula Ramulu (A1) and Ravula

Erravva (A9) in C.C.No.21/2005. Therefore, they committed an offence of cheating on the Court by impersonating as accused

NO.1 and 9 in C.C.No.21 of 2005. Hence, he requested the police to take action in this case.

4)Basing on his complaint report, Sub Inspector of Police,

Bodhan registered a case in Crime No.59 of 2008 U/Sec.419 and recorded the statement of the complainant. On 19.12.2007, the

Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan sent official memorandum, dt.

19.12.2007 to conduct preliminary enquiry with regard to impersonation of A1 and A9 and take their photographs and submit report on or before 23.1.2008. After receiving official memorandum, his predecessor Sri M. Lingam conducted preliminary enquiry in this matter and also took the photographs with the help of LW.5 and recorded statements of LWs.2 to 5 and submitted his preliminary report before Junior Civil Judge’s, Court,

Bodhan along with the statements of LWs.2 to 4. On 11.2.2008 at about 10-00 a.m., he apprehended A1 and A2 and remanded them to judicial custody. After completion of investigation and obtaining material documents and objects, he filed charge-sheet

before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

5)Upon that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and registered in C.C. No.234 of 2008.

6)After appearing the accused before the learned Magistrate, he has furnished documents and examined the accused

U/Sec.207 and 239 of Cr.P.C. respectively. On hearing the 4 Crl.A.No.17 of 2015 accused, he framed the charge U/Sec. 419 IPC, and read over and explained to the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7)To prove the prosecution case the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. After closure of prosecution evidence the incriminating material brought on record by the prosecution has been confronted to the accused U/Sec.313 Cr. P.C.

and accused denied it as false.

8)On behalf of the accused no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

9)Basing on oral and documentary evidence the learned

Magistrate has convicted and sentenced the accused as stated

supra.

10)Heard the arguments of both the counsel.

11)Now the points for consideration are :

i) Whether the Judgment passed by the learned Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Bodhan is sustainable under the

law?

ii) Whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt of the Court?

Point No.1 and 2 :

12)P.W.1 is the complainant and he deposed that on 8.2.2008, he filed complaint report under Ex.P1 on the instructions of

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan. He deposed that as per

Ex.P1, in C.C.No.21 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Bodhan, A1 and A9 Ravula Ramulu and Ravula Erravva

were called and they were not present. Instead of them, 2 other persons namely Durgaiah (A1) and Nagamma (A9) were present

in the Court hall. As such, he filed complaint report on the

direction of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

5 Crl.A.No.17 of 2015

13)PW.2 and 3 are the witnesses in C.C.No.21/2005 and they categorically deposed before the Court that they know A1 and A2.

About 8 years back, police case was registered against Ravula

Ramulu, Ramaswamy, Pentavva, Durgaiah, Yadagiri, Pentaiah,

Susheela, Pochavva and Yerravva. In connection with the said case, they came to the Court to give evidence. On the said day,

A1 impersonated Ravula Ramulu and A2 impersonated Ravula

Erravva, who are accused in the said case. They further asserted that A1 and A2 impersonated Ravula Ramulu and Ravula Erravva in the said case and they also identified A1 and A2.

14)The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is further supported and corroborated by PW.7 wherein he stated that about 5 or 6 years ago, they came to the Court to give evidence in a case filed by his father Jammaiah. He deposed that A1 and A2 impersonated one

Ramu and Yerravva, who are the accused in the said case. He deposed that he stated to the Court that A1 and A2 impersonated the accused by name Ravula Ramulu and Ravula Erravva. In the said case. He also identified them. PW.4 is the learned Presiding

Officer and she deposed that on 19.12.2007 in C.C.No.21/2005, it was presented that A1 to A9 were present and 3 witnesses were also present. Then, she proceeded to record the evidence of said witnesses. One witness among 3 witnesses was asked to identify the accused. The said witnesses reported that A1 and A9 were not present. But on counting made by the Court 9 persons were present. Thereafter, the said witness identified A1 and A9 absent and in their place, other persons appeared posing themselves as

A1 and A9. When Court questioned the said two persons, who posed themselves as A1 and A9, they represented that their details to the Court as that of A1 and A9. Then, a doubt arise as 6 Crl.A.No.17 of 2015 such, she sent said two persons along with Bench Clerk and

Attender to the Police Station, Bodhan for criminal enquiry and submit the report by taking photographs of those two persons.

After receiving the report from the police, PW.1 lodged report

before the Police Station against the accused, who posed

themselves as A1 and A9. PW.4 identified the official memorandum, dt.19.12.2007 under Ex.P2. The preliminary report is attached with photographs of Durgaiah and Nagamma, who impersonated A1 and A9 in C.C.No.21/2005.

15)In the cross examination, PW.1 admitted that he does not visit in the Court hall. Witness says that accused was brought to the office room by Bench Clerk and Attender. PW.2 and 3 admitted in their cross examination that previous disputes are existing between them and accused. PW.4 admitted in her cross examination that basing on statement of witness among 3 in

C.C.No.21/2005, Court raised suspicion over persons who were posing themselves as A1 and A9.

16)After careful perusal of the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 7, they categorically deposed that on that day, they came to Court to give evidence in C.C.No.21/2005 and during the course of their evidence, they found that A1 and A9 in C.C.No.21/2005 were called absent, but other two persons were present in their places.

When the Court noticed the said fact and enquired into the matter, they came to know that A1 and A9 in C.C.No.21/2005 were called absent on that particular day and accused herein i.e.

A1 and A2 were impersonated as A1 and A9 in the said case.

17)PW.4, who is the Presiding Officer on that particular day, suspected that A1 and A9 were called absent in that case and 7 Crl.A.No.17 of 2015 some other persons appeared in the place of A1 and A9 posing themselves as A1 and A9 in C.C.No.21/2005. Since a doubt arise in the mind of PW.4, she sent them to the Police Station, Bodhan to enquire and submit preliminary report after taking the photographs of those persons. On enquiry by the police, they came to know that A1 and A2 herein impersonated A1 and A9 in

C.C.No.21 of 2005 and submit the same report before the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

18)The best persons to identify the accused in C.C.No.21/2005 are PWs.2, 3 and 7. The above witnesses categorically deposed

before the Court that A1 and A9 were called absent on that day

and A1 and A2 herein represented them posing themselves as A1 and A9. Though PWs.2 and 3 admitted in their cross examination that previous disputes are existing between them and accused but that cannot be a ground to discredit their testimony that they deposed falsely to take revenge against A1 and A2 in lieu of the existing disputes between them and the accused. In case, A1 and

A9 in C.C.No.21/2005 were appeared in the said case on that day, there is no reason for PWs.2, 3 and 7 to inform the Court when the Court asked them to identify the accused, that A1 and A9 were called absent and in their place, the accused persons represented posing themselves as A1 and A9.

19)However, the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 7 is further corroborated by Presiding Officer PW.4 where she clearly deposed

before the Court that when Court questioned the said persons,

who posed themselves as A1 and A9, they represented their details to the Court as that of A1 and A9. Therefore, A1 and A2 herein deliberately suppressed their identity before the Court when the Court enquired them.

8 Crl.A.No.17 of 2015

20)PW.5 is the photographer and he did not support the prosecution case.

21)PW.6 is the investigating officer and he deposed that his predecessor has conducted preliminary enquiry as per the official memorandum, dt.19.12.2007 under Ex.P2 and supported the same. He further deposed that on 11.2.2008, he apprehended A1 and A2 and on interrogation, they confessed their offence. They also filed photographs under Ex.P5.

22)PW.8 who is Attender worked in Judicial Magistrate of First

Class Court, Bodhan and he also supported the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 and 7, stating that on 19.12.2007, he was working as

Attender and attending Bench work. At that time, PW.4 was holding bench and Ravinder was working as Bench clerk. PW.1 was Superintendent. In one case, Ravula Ramulu and Erravva were called and in their places, A1 and A2 appeared. The case number is C.C.21 of 2005. PW.4 verified the particulars and found that A1 and A2 impersonated Ravula Ramulu and Erravva. As such, on the instructions of PW.4, he handed over A1 and A2 to the police. He further asserted that he called Ravula Ramulu and

Erravva correctly and A1 and A2 appeared in their place. He also identified A1 and A2.

23)PW.9 is the Bench clerk and he also supported and corroborated the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 and 7. PW.9 deposed that he worked in Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Bodhan from 2007 to May, 2011. The incident occurred on 19.12.2007.

He deposed that at that time, he was incharge of criminal section and conducting Bench work. PW.4 was Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Bodhan. PW.8 was the Bench Attender. At the time of call 9 Crl.A.No.17 of 2015 work, C.C.No.21/2005 was called where 9 accused were available.

A1 and A2 appeared instead of other two accused out of 9 accused. PW.4 asked the name of each accused and found that names of A1 and A2 were not found in that record. Further, A1 and A2 reported that they were appeared in place of other two accused. As such, PW.4 instructed PW.1 to conduct enquiry and file report. Subsequently, he along with PW.8 took official memorandum to the Police Station, Bodhan. He identified A1 and

A2 in the Court hall. PW.8 and 9 were also cross examined by the learned defence counsel, but nothing was elicited to discredit their testimony. The evidence of PWs.8 and 9 is also supporting and corroborating the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 and 7 that A1 and

A2 herein have impersonated A1 and A9 in C.C.No.21/2005. All the prosecution witnesses were cross examined, but nothing useful was elicited to discredit their testimony. From the above evidence, the prosecution has clearly established the factum that

A1 and A2 have suppressed their identity and impersonated A1 and A9 in C.C.No.21/2005, thereby, they committed an offence punishable U/sec.419 IPC.

24)Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that on the same day, other case of the accused was posted and called by the Court and in view of confusion, the accused might have appeared in C.C.No.21/2005.

To substantiate this contention, the learned Appellant did not adduce any report before the Court to show that on the same day, the accused also came to the Court to appear before the Court in connection with another case, where they were involved. For the said reason, the contention of learned counsel cannot be sustained. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Trial 10 Crl.A.No.17 of 2015

Court has rightly convicted the accused and this Court did not find any reason to interfere in the findings of the Trial Court.

25)IN THE RESULT, the appeal is dismissed. The Judgment

dated 28.1.2015 in C.C.No.234 of 2008 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan is hereby confirmed.

Appellants absent. Appellants are directed to surrender

before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan on or before

27.6.2016 to undergo remaining sentence, failing which Trial

Court is at liberty to issue NBW against the appellants/A1 and A2.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the day of 7 th day of June, 2016.

Sd/-

VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Order Record 1,161 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC.SPL/85/2019	State Through SHO Police Station Yellareddy vs Bellam Sayavva	31 Dec 2021	Judgment	Acquitted
EP/200084/2018	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited rep by A. Mallikarjun vs P. Satyanarayana	30 Dec 2021	Order	—
MVOP/560/2018	Methari Hemalatha vs Sh.Kedar Khemka (GSTIN)	28 Dec 2021	Order	—
MVOP/100551/2018	Shanthapuram Hanmandlu @ Putti Hanmandlu vs SH Kedar Khemka (GSTIN)	28 Dec 2021	Order	—
MVOP/200403/2018	Salla Godavari vs Md Habeeb Khan	28 Dec 2021	Order	—
SC.SPL/34/2019	State Through SHO Police Station Nandipet vs Chilka @ Chiluka Gnaneshwar	27 Dec 2021	Judgment	Acquitted
CMA/13/2021	Gundala Bagaiah vs B Kishan Reddy	23 Dec 2021	Order	—
EP/111/2021	Thota Gangamani vs Bhimanpalli Ganesh	23 Dec 2021	Order	—
MVOP/200748/2016	Kolagani Narsaiah vs Vs1-Dondi Ganga Mohan	23 Dec 2021	Order	—
AS/200062/2018	Smt. Haleema Begum vs B. Gajanand	22 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
EP/69/2021	Dharavath Limbia vs G Lingeshwar	22 Dec 2021	Order	—
EP/55/2021	Myaka Sanjeev vs M Mohd. Khan	20 Dec 2021	Order	—
MVOP/200104/2018	Smt.Et.,Mounika vs Vs1.K.V.S.Madan	17 Dec 2021	Order	—
MVOP/200310/2016	Kustapuram Srinivas vs Vs1-Mrs.M.Rekha	17 Dec 2021	Order	—
AS/200059/2018	T. Ashok vs P.Laxmareddy	16 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
EP/84/2020	P Ramakrishna vs The National Insurance Co. Ltd.	16 Dec 2021	Order	—
OS/55/2019	Maddula Venkata Narsaiah vs Mohd Idris Khan	16 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/10/2020	The State Police PS. Pitlam vs Gunda Sudarshan Reddy	15 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
MVOP/200135/2016	Sangu Sayamma vs Y.Shashi Kumar	14 Dec 2021	Order	—
AS/200066/2018	Mohd Rafeeq Khan vs Mohd Omar	10 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
MVOP/200632/2016	Shaik Zaheer vs Vs1-Kantigari Narsing Rao	10 Dec 2021	Order	—
EP/90/2019	Basa Rajeshwer vs Chinata Rajgopal	09 Dec 2021	Order	—
CRLA/200115/2016	K.shivakumar vs Gopal Madhukar	09 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
MVOP/200295/2017	1.Akkala Saibaba Goud vs Battu Srinivas raju	08 Dec 2021	Order	—
SC.SPL/29/2017	Thota Tharun vs Maggidi Nithin	08 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/30/2019	State Through SHO Police Station Kammarpally vs Kairi Dasha Goud	08 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/200006/2018	Smt Koya Gangamallu vs Sreeram Veeresh	08 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
OS/200023/2017	Y.Venkata Subba Reddy vs R.Raghuram reddy	07 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/88/2019	State Through SHO Police Station Dichpally vs Cherukuri Raja	06 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
EP/67/2021	Goudashetty Sayanna vs Padma Yogesh	03 Dec 2021	Order	—
MVOP/38/2018	Matapathi Pooja vs M/s Usha Sri Vidya Niketan	03 Dec 2021	Order	—
MVOP/200285/2016	Manpoor Gangadhar vs The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.	03 Dec 2021	Order	—
SC.SPL/46/2021	The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Yellareddy vs Perupally Mohan	03 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
EP/52/2019	M/S Shriram Transport Finance Company Limted vs Banthilal Ajmeera	01 Dec 2021	Order	—
EP/200053/2018	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited rep. by A.Mallikharjun vs Nunemunthala Suresh Goud	01 Dec 2021	Order	—
EP/22/2020	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs Jaffar Hussain Shaik	30 Nov 2021	Order	—
SC.SPL/47/2019	State Through SHO Police Station Bichkunda vs Shaik Ashraf Ali	30 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/200014/2018	Budda Chinnaiah vs A1.Nagula Vinod	25 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
CMA/7/2021	Karnala Bojanna vs Ayeti Lingu	24 Nov 2021	Order	—
EP/214/2019	Magma Fincorp Ltd. vs Sagar Rathod	24 Nov 2021	Order	—
EP/216/2019	Saleem Khan vs Ranavath Shankar	24 Nov 2021	Order	—
EP/200141/2018	M/s Shriram Transport Finance company limited rep Y.Ramakrishnudu vs M.Parthasarathi Reddy	24 Nov 2021	Order	—
MVOP/153/2019	Chand Bee vs SH. Kedar Khemka	24 Nov 2021	Order	—
EP/215/2019	Magma Fincorp Ltd. vs Anil Rathod	23 Nov 2021	Order	—
SC.SPL/51/2019	State Through SHO Police Station vs Armoor Gangadhar	23 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
SC/36/2021	The state through P.S Town III Nizamabad vs Gali Kalarani	19 Nov 2021	Judgment	Acquitted
MVOP/200777/2015	Gujjalwar Raju alias Rajesh vs K.Kumar	19 Nov 2021	Order	—
SC.SPL/13/2019	State Through SHO Police Station Jukkal vs Wagmare Naveen	19 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
EP/38/2014	T.Linga Reddy vs Dayawar kishan	18 Nov 2021	Order	—
CRLA/2/2016	Gaddi Ravi vs The State through Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad	18 Nov 2021	Judgment	Acquitted
SC/47/2021	ACP Nizamabad vs Gandari Prasad	18 Nov 2021	Judgment	Acquitted
EP/200133/2018	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited rep by Y.Ramkrishnudu vs Badavath Rajeshwar	17 Nov 2021	Order	—
SC.SPL/63/2019	State Through SHO Police Station Mupkal vs Pottipally Chinnaiah	17 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
MVOP/200592/2016	Madupu Lingam vs Vs1-DMadhav Rao	12 Nov 2021	Order	—
SC.SPL/200030/2018	VsKankanti Jailu alias Kankati Jailu	11 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
CRLA/200101/2017	Smt. Gaddam Malati Reddy vs Gaddam Su9darshan Reddy	10 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/46/2019	State Through SHO Police Station Rural Nizamabad vs Gajula Vittal	09 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
MVOP/200040/2018	1.Maloth Laxmi vs Vs1.Telangana State Road Transport Corporation	05 Nov 2021	Order	—
MVOP/200437/2017	1.Kummari Kunta Galavva vs Vs1.Nirmala Devi Chokani	05 Nov 2021	Order	—
SC.SPL/48/2019	State Through SHO Police Station Yedapally vs Budime Praveen Kumar	02 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/49/2019	State Through SHO Police Station Rudrur vs Kondengala Shivaraj	02 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
MVOP/200180/2016	Shaik Hameed vs Sirimala Shanker	01 Nov 2021	Order	—
SC.SPL/36/2021	The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bodhan vs Abdul Rafe	01 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/12/2019	State Through SHO Police Station Rural Nizamabad vs Govur Hanumandlu	29 Oct 2021	Judgment	—
AS/200020/2017	Smt.Royyala Laxmi vs Mohd.Yousuf	26 Oct 2021	Judgment	—
MVOP/200119/2016	Muppaneni Appa Rao vs Kethavath Pulya	22 Oct 2021	Order	—
SC.SPL/11/2019	State Through SHO Police Station Kotagiri vs Yeramati Thatha rao	22 Oct 2021	Judgment	—
MVOP/200467/2015	Thalari Raju vs K.Bhushan	21 Oct 2021	Order	—
OS/4/2018	Sabavath Sangeetha vs Varthya Shankar	21 Oct 2021	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/7/2020	The Assistant Commissionerl of Police, Bodhan vs Amanulla Baig alias Amnulla Beeg	21 Oct 2021	Judgment	—
MVOP/200268/2015	Smt Eegela Posani @ Madari Posani vs APSRTC	12 Oct 2021	Order	—
CRLRP/38/2019	Gojur Raja Reddy vs Devangula Devaiah	12 Oct 2021	Order	—
SC.SPL/2/2019	State Through SHO Police Station Bheemgal vs Smt Nandedapu Susheela	12 Oct 2021	Judgment	—
MVOP/200338/2017	Banothu Siddhu vs Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, rep.by its Branch Manager	11 Oct 2021	Order	—
MVOP/200470/2014	Arjun Rao Dobde vs The Deputy Director of Veternary	11 Oct 2021	Order	—
MVOP/193/2018	Puram Padma vs Golla Erranna	08 Oct 2021	Order	—
MVOP/200467/2016	Jamader Linganna vs Vs1- Nagula Prakash	08 Oct 2021	Order	—
SC.SPL/200008/2018	Smt.Abba Chinnubai vs A 1 Syed Baba	08 Oct 2021	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/200024/2018	K Rajalingam vs G Santhosh Reddy	08 Oct 2021	Judgment	—
MVOP/200023/2016	Bonthu Bheemanna vs Vs1-T.Ramesh	07 Oct 2021	Order	—
MVOP/200024/2016	Thoparam Hanmandlu vs Vs1-T.Ramesh	07 Oct 2021	Order	—
OS/30/2016	Manda Rajeshwar Reddy vs Gantaji Vinoda	05 Oct 2021	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/32/2020	Wagmare Arjun vs Sathgare @ Gajgar Maruthi	04 Oct 2021	Judgment	—
SC/26/2021	Inspector of police Dichpally vs Ettedi Ganesh	01 Oct 2021	Judgment	Acquitted
G.W.O.P/7/2021	Kumari Padre Radha vs To Whom So Ever it may Concern.	01 Oct 2021	Order	—
MVOP/200641/2014	Bollepally Subba Rao vs The APSRTC Musheerabad Hyd	01 Oct 2021	Order	—
MVOP/137/2020	Sandhancar Padma vs Shaik Imran	30 Sep 2021	Order	—
CRLA/9/2020	Bongoni Ajay vs The state through P.s Town-III by P.P	28 Sep 2021	Judgment	—
CRLA/52/2019	Beepasha Begum vs Mohd. Afsar	28 Sep 2021	Judgment	—
MVOP/325/2017	Shaik Basheer vs Nandanamudi Kondaiah	24 Sep 2021	Order	—
MVOP/679/2016	Kunta Anurdha vs Duddu Ravinder	24 Sep 2021	Order	—
T.R.O.P/1/2021	Raparthy Mounika @ Avusula Mounika vs Avusula Krishna Chary	24 Sep 2021	Order	—
MVOP/409/2015	Mohsina Khanam vs Mohd Raufuddin	22 Sep 2021	Order	—
MVOP/382/2017	Pothuganti Ajay Kumar vs Maddy Anja Goud	21 Sep 2021	Order	—
MVOP/151/2017	Anantholla Sai Prasad vs Shaik Masthan	17 Sep 2021	Order	—
MVOP/153/2017	Anantholla Navitha vs Shaik Masthan	17 Sep 2021	Order	—
MVOP/207/2017	Anantholla Navitha vs Shaik Masthan	17 Sep 2021	Order	—
MVOP/200148/2017	Smt.Anantholla Navitha vs Vs1.Shaik Masthan	17 Sep 2021	Order	—
MVOP/200071/2016	1-Smt.Muddagula Mallavva vs Vs1-Chanti Ramesh	17 Sep 2021	Order	—
MVOP/30/2018	Et. Mounika vs K.V.S. Madan	15 Sep 2021	Order	—

Showing 100 of 1,161 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Dec 2021		35
Nov 2021		28
Oct 2021		23
Sep 2021		21
Aug 2021		13
Jul 2021		2
Apr 2021		7
Mar 2021		23
Feb 2021		30
Jan 2021		9
Dec 2020		6
Nov 2020		5

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has S.GOVERDHAN REDDY handled?

S.GOVERDHAN REDDY has handled 1188 court orders since 2013 at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 12 orders per month.

What types of cases does S.GOVERDHAN REDDY hear?

Based on available records, S.GOVERDHAN REDDY primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Appeals) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Civil matters (Appeal Suits, Execution Petitions) at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is S.GOVERDHAN REDDY currently posted?

S.GOVERDHAN REDDY is posted as Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex, Nizamabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by S.GOVERDHAN REDDY available online?

Yes. 20 judgments by S.GOVERDHAN REDDY are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does S.GOVERDHAN REDDY dispose cases?

S.GOVERDHAN REDDY disposes approximately 12 cases per month, based on 1188 orders handled over their tenure at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is S.GOVERDHAN REDDY serving?

S.GOVERDHAN REDDY has been serving at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex since 2013.

Case Types

MVOP 36%

SC 30%

CRLA 12%

AS 9%

EP 6%

CMA 3%

OS 2%

CRLRP 2%

Posting History

Jul 2021 — Nov 2021

Prl. District and Sessions Judge · 22 orders
May 2019 — Jan 2022

SPL.Judge for Trail of Cases Under SC/ST · 534 orders
Sep 2014 — Nov 2015

III Addl District Judge FTC · 24 orders
Jul 2013 — Jun 2016

VII Addl District and Session Judge · 608 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 9

Convicted 2

Other Judges at this Court

Sri.D.Durgaprasad

Judge, Family Court-cum-III Addl. District and Ses...

72 orders

MS Chaitanya Angari

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

4 orders

Pamujula Srinivasa Rao

I Addl. JFCM Judge

1 orders

Vaddi Hari Kumar

Spl. JFCM For Excise Judge

839 orders

Ms. M.KeerthiRaj

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge

6 orders

P.sai Sudha

Senior Civil Judge

178 orders

G.V.N Bharatha Laxmi

Prl. District and Sessions Judge

397 orders

Smt.Harisha

I Addl. District and Sessions Judge

42 orders

S Narayana

SPL.Judge for Trail of Cases Under SC/ST

1 orders

Smt. D.varoodhini

Fast Track Special Judge for POCSO Act Cases

16 orders

← View all judges at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex