Dr. S.Md.Fazulullah, B.Sc.M.L.,Ph.D.,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: KADIRI

Present:- Dr. S.Md. Fazululla, Assistant Sessions Judge

Wednesday, the 19th day of April, 2017.

Sessions Case No. 17/2017

Between:

State Sub-Inspector of Police, Gandlapenta Police Station (Crime No.59/2016)… Complainant

and

Kolimi Babajan @ Vadala Babu, age 40 years, S/o late K. Hyder Vali, Jeenulakunta Road, Gandlapenta Village and Mandal. … Accused

This Sessions case is presented before me for final hearing on 17.4.2017 in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri S. Md. Faizulla, counsel for the accused, upon hearing and on perusal of available material on record, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gandlapenta Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 448, 324, 307 of Indian Penal Code.

2.Briefly stated, the contents of the charge sheet are that, the defacto complainant is the divorced wife of the accused. Both are the residents of Gandlapenta village. While it is so, on 03.8.2016 at about 8.30 PM, the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant, beat her with stick indiscriminately and caused injuries on her head and right hand and that tried to kill her having tied her neck with

Chunni and thereby tried to hang her to the ceiling fan. The complainant raised hue and cries, then the neighbours came, on that the accused escaped. Adverting to the above, basing complaint, a case in Crime No.59/2016 under sections 448, 324, 307 of Indian

Penal Code of Gandlapenta Police Station registered. During the 2 course of investigation the material objects seized, arrested the accused and on completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed.

Compliance of Sec.193 Cr.P.C. & 209 Cr.P.C.

3.On file of charge sheet, the jurisdictional Magistrate of First

Class, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 448, 324, 307 of Indian Penal Code against the accused, dealt the matter as Preliminary Register Case No.74/2016 and having complied the provisions mandated under Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions, as the offence punishable under section 307 of

Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The

Hon’ble Sessions Court, Ananthapuramu pleased to made over the

case to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.On the appearance of the accused before this Court, the accused examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C., whereby he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby charges under Sections 448, 324, 307 of Indian Penal Code framed, read over and explained to him, he denied the same.

5.The prosecution, in support of its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 9, marked Exs.P.1 to P.12, so also M.Os.1 to 3.

6.On closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he termed the evidence of prosecution as false, not chosen to let in evidence. Exs.D.1 and D.2 marked.

7.Now the POINT for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in

establishing the guilt of the accused for the

offences charged beyond all reasonable

doubt, or otherwise ?

3

Arguments

8.Heard the Additional Public Prosecutor. The Additional Public

Prosecutor requested the Court to proceed against the accused basing the material available on record and contended that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused.

9.The defence counsel argued that, the prosecution failed to fix up the scene. He contended that as per the injured witness, the alleged incident is said to have occurred outside the house, whereas, as per the investigating officer, the incident occurred inside the house.

He further argued that, the prosecution has changed the scene in such a way that, as per the victim, the incident occurred at Grampanchayat

Office and as per the investigating officer, the incident not occurred at

Panchayat office and that the same occurred at Jeenulaikunta Road which is at a distance of 500 metres as such, this is how the prosecution failed to fix up the scene. He further contended that there are strained relationship between the defacto Complainant and accused being the wife and husband and this has resulted into the present case, and that is, the reason though the defacto Complainant claimed that she has been divorced by the accused, she could not show the document evidencing the divorce. He further contended that, this itself shows the falsity of the claim of the defacto

Complainant that she is the divorced wife. The defence counsel also tried to bring shadow on the case of the prosecution by contending that, as per wound certificate the age of the injured is shown as 20 years, whereas the investigating officer pointed out the age of the defacto Complainant as 35. Thereby, the defence counsel contended that this itself shows, how feebly the case of the prosecution, is even in projecting the age of the injured. He further contended that the 4 defacto Complainant is still in the marriage of accused, but, only with an intention to grab the house of the accused and to continue her unholy alliance with the witness No.2 in this case, the present case is foisted, thereby requested this Court to acquit the accused.

Evidence

10.This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses, exhibits, considered the arguments of both sides and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.

11.In this case the defacto Complainant is the injured. She is examined as PW.1, has given her evidence-in-chief in support of the case of prosecution. The eye witness namely PW.2 (son of the defacto Complainant herein), The PWs.3 and 8 have given go by to the case of prosecution. The panchayatdars for seizure of wooden piece and Chunni examined as PWs.4 and 5 and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. The medical officer examined as PW.6, has pointed out simple injury on the head of the defacto Complainant.

The main investigating officer examined as PW.7 has given his evidence-in-chief in tune with the records prepared by him during course of investigation, through him, the records of the prosecution and material objects received in evidence. The second investigating officer who arrested the accused and filed charge sheet is examined as

PW.9. Though in the memorandum of evidence, the name of the present husband of the defacto Complainant is shown as witness

No.2, the prosecution failed to examine him as he is in Saudi Arabia.

The said fact countenanced by the defacto Complainant and she too clarified that he is not likely come to India in the near future and that 5 his evidence is also not necessary for the present case as the case against her alone.

Marshalling of facts and determination of guilt.

12.In this case the defacto Complainant is the injured. She claimed that she is the divorced wife of the accused. Further she claimed that she has married the witness No.2 namely Mahaboob

Basha. But astonishingly she could not file Talaqnama in between herself and the accused and at the same time she could not file the

Nikhanama in between herself and alleged new husband. Verily it is blow to the case of the prosecution. Through her evidence-in-chief she deposed before this Court that, the accused caused injury on her head with wooden window pane and that the reason for the galata is that, though she is the divorced wife all along accused visits her and make galata. The version of the defacto Complainant not supported by the eye witnesses namely PW.2 (her son), PW.3 so also PW.8.

Thus, the Court has to rely on the evidence of the injured to consider her case against the accused. But on such due evolution, the Court stood aghast to note that, the evidence of the defacto Complainant sans veracity, probability and certainty. Thus, her testimony rendered to naught. The reasons for the same are not far to seek.

13.In her evidence-in-chief, the PW.1 deposed that, at about 9.00 PM she was present in the house, then the accused came, fought with her and beat her with wooden window pane. But, in the cross- examination she deposed that the incident occurred outside her house when she was slept. When this the Court verified the MO.2, with which the accused is said to have caused injury, it is seen that the

MO.2 is not at all a wooden window pane or plank as the case may be.

On the other hand, it is found to be a simple wooden piece. Thus, in 6 projecting the crime weapon, the prosecution failed. Thereby the doubt emanates as to the very utility of the weapon and the alleged commission of the offences.

14.During the course of arguments, the defence counsel tried to contend before this Court that, the prosecution failed to fix up the scene. In this regard, when this Court appreciated the evidence of the injured witness vis-a-vis investigating officer, very well there appears force in the argument of the defence counsel. In the cross- examination of the defacto Complainant, she deposed that she has been residing near Panchayat Office, Gandlapenta. Whereas, the investigating officer in his cross-examination deposed that the incident not occurred at Panchayat Office and that the house shown in the rough sketch are not nearby the Panchyat Office and that the distance between the Panchayat Office and Jeenulakunta Road is about 500 metres. With this, what emerges clear is that, the prosecution verily failed to fix up the scene. In this way of the matter also the doubt emanated into the mind of the Court as to the place and the claim by the injured witness and the investigation done on that premise.

15.The defacto Complainant claimed in her cross-examination that, due to the offence the blood stained at the floor so also walls of her house. Astonishingly the investigating officer in this regard clarified that, he has not seen any blood stain marks on the walls, floor, floorings etc. of the scene. Thus, in this regard there is cleavage of opinion in between the defacto Complainant and the investigating officer, thereby the very commission of the offences and its aftermath is in doldrums.

7

16.As seen from the pristine complaint marked under Ex.P.1, it is recited therein that, the accused said to have tried to hang her to the fan by using her Chunni and this piece promoted the investigating officer to add Section 307 IPC, thereby this case became as Sessions

Case. Surprisingly, the defacto complainant when examined before this Court has neither chosen to depose on the above lines nor utter anything akin to that. Thus, it has become clear that, the defacto complainant somehow intends to engulf the accused into the case, thereby has chosen to incorporate the above words and saw that the accused involved in a Sessions case, and it is a different aspect the prosecution utterly failed to prove the seizure of the said Chunni (MO.3) and the Mahazarnama thereto. In this way of the matter also the falsity surfaced in the case of the prosecution.

17.As seen from the pristine complaint of the defacto complainant, the alleged incident is said to have been occurred at 8.30

PM on 03.8.2016. As seen from the cross-examination of the defacto complainant, soon after receipt of the incident, i.e. at 9.00 PM she lost her sense in such a way that, she could recover sense only at 9.00 AM on the next day. She claimed in her cross-examination that Police,

Gandlapenta examined her after three days of incident at Hospital for the first time and that police not examined her later. If this piece of evidence is countenanced, the entire case of the prosecution becomes false. The reason is that, she has given her pristine complaint on 04.8.2016. at 12.30 AM (00.30 hours) and that the said pristine complaint drafted as a statement recorded by the police and that basing the said statement, the case is registered on the same day at 9.30 AM and that the investigating officer by examining as PW.7 deposed before this Court that, on the same day he registered the 8 case, and examined the complainant at Area Hospital, Kadiri. Thus, in this way also the case of the prosecution suffers.

18.In respect of the offences pertain to the body of the human being, the wound certificate play a pivotal role. The evidence of the injured witness vis-a-vis the medical officer who issued wound certificate form paramount consideration in appreciating the case of the prosecution. In this case, as seen from the pristine complaint/Ex.P.1 age of the injured said to be 35 years so also in MLC intimation under Ex.P.7. Accordingly her age is shown in memorandum of evidence. Before the Court also the injured witness deposed that she is 36 years old. But conspicuously in the wound certificate issued by the medical officer, the age of the injured is shown as 20. The defence counsel cautiously cross-checked this aspect in the cross-examination of medical officer so also the investigating officer. The medical officer as PW.6 deposed that the age of the injured witness is 20 years. The Investigating officer in his cross-examination deposed that the age of the complainant is 35 years. With this, the Court doubt whether the wound certificate marked in this case belongs to the injured witness in this case at all?

Altogether this doubt has to be clarified by the prosecution somehow the prosecution failed. Thus, in this way of the matter also doubts emanated in the mind of the court as above precipitated further.

19.On agglomeration of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that the case of prosecution is filled with doubts. The doubts pointed out supra are reasonable in nature. The benefit thereof shall go in favour of the accused. Er go, the POINT is answered holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is acquitted.

9

20.IN THE RESULT, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 324, 307 of Indian Penal

Code. Thereby, acquitted him under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. He be set at liberty. His bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under

Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Order relating to case property:

The M.Os.1 to 3 received in CPR No.4/2017 of this Court shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of April, 2017.

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Kadiri.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: For defence

PW 1 Shaik Sharmila (injured & defacto complainant) --None-- PW 2 Irfan (witness) PW 3 A. Venkatalakshmi (witness) PW 4 U. Jayaramulu (Mahazar witness) PW 5 Kathi Obula Reddy (Mahazar witness) PW.6 Dr. Vijaya Lakshmi (Medical Officer) PW.7 G.B. Narasimhulu (H.C./Investigating Officer) PW.8 K.Gowsiya (witness) PW.9 K. Rajasekhar (S.I. Investigating Officer)

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P.1Statement of PW.1.

Ex.P.2161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.

Ex.P.3161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.

Ex.P.4Signature of PW.4 in Scene Observation and Seizure Mahazarnama 4.8.20116 at 11.30 AM.

Ex.P.5Signature of PW.5 in Scene Observation and Seizure Mahazarnama 4.8.20116 at 11.30 AM.

Ex.P.6Wound Certificate of PW.1 issued by PW.6.

Ex.P.7M.L.C. Intimation dated 4.8.2016.

Ex.P.8F.I.R. In Crime No.59/2016 of Gandlapenta P.S. U/sec. 448, 324, 307 IPC dated 4.8.2016.

Ex.P.9Police proceedings dated 4.8.2016.

10

Ex.P.10Rough sketch in Crime No.59/2016 of Gandlapenta P.S.

dated 4.8.2016.

Ex.P.11Scene of offence observation and seizure Mahazar dated 4.8.2017.

Ex.P.12161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8.

Exhibits marked for defence:

Ex.D.1 Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1. Ex.D.2 Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1.

Material Objects marked for prosecution:

M.O.1: Nightwear. M.O.2: Wooden piece. M.O.3: Chunni.

A.S.J.

1

In the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge :: Kadiri

Present:- Dr. S.Md.Fazululla, Assistant Sessions Judge

Monday, the 17th day of April, 2017.

Sessions Case No.389/2016

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, N.P. Kunta Police Station (Cr.No.81/2015) …Complainant

and

1)Irri Chandra, age 36 years, S/o E. Eswaraiah, Nallaguttapalli village, N.P. Kunta Mandal.

2)Irri Sudhakar, 56 years, S/o E. Eswaraiah, Marikommadinne, Chamachenubylu, Malamidipalli, Anantapuramu District.

3)Irri Sankara, 42 years, S/o E. Eswaraiah, Nallaguttapalli village, N.P. Kunta Mandal.

4)Irri Mallikarjuna, age 32 years, S/o E.Eswaraiah, Nallaguttapalli village, N.P. Junta Mandal.

5)Irri Maheswara, age 26 years, S/o E. Eswaraiah, Nallaguttapalli village, N.P. Kunta Mandal.

6)Irri Eswaraiah, Age 57 years, S/o late E. Chinna Ramanna, Nallaguttapalli village, N.P. Kunta Mandal.

7)Irri Ramesh, age 23 years, S/o E.Eswaraiah, Nallaguttapalli village, N.P. Kunta Mandal.

8)Kalluripalli Venkateswarlu @ Bujji @ Patapalem Venkateswarulu Naidu, age 37 years, S/o K. Venkata Nallappa Naidu, Siddavandlapalle village, Kallurupalle, Kadapa Dist.

9)P.Govardhana, age 23 years, S/o P. Pullanna Naidu, Siddavandlapalle village, Kallurupalle, Kadapa Dist.

10)S. Ramu, age 44 years, S/o late S. Ganganna, Siddavandlapalle village, Kallurupalle, Kadapa Dist.

11)Kayala Anjinappa @ Kayala Anjineyulu Naidu, age 25 years, S/o K. Narasimhulu, Nallaguttapalli village, N.P. Kunta Mandal.

12)Madana @ Pata Palem Madana Mohan Naidu, age 26 years, S/o Patanna Anjinappa Naidu, Siddavandlapalle village, Kallurupalle, Kadapa Dist.

13)Sidda Ramulamma @ Sidda Ramulakshmamma, age 41 years, W/o Sidda Venkatramana, D.No.1-387, N.P. Kunta village & Mandal.

14)Yanamala Varadamma, age 45 years, W/o late Yanamala Ramachandra Naidu, D.No.1-392, N.P.Kunta Village & Mandal.

2

15)Yanumula Manohar, age 30 years, S/o late Yanamala Ramachandra Naidu, D.No.1-392, N.P.Kunta village & Mandal.

16)Kalvapalli Dharma Naidu, age 36 years, S/o late K. Kadirappa, D.No.1-36-B. N.P. Kunta village and Mandal.

17)Kalvapalli Chalapathy, age 55 years, S/o late K. Kadirappa, Marrikommadinne, Anantapuramu District.

18)Kalavathi @ Irri Kalavathi, age 33 years, W/o Irri Chandrappa, D.No.1-120, Nallaguttapalli village, N.P. Kunta Mandal.

19)Irri Gangulamma, @ Gangulamma, age 49 years, W/o Irri Sudhakar, Marrikommadinne, Anantapuramu District.

20)Kalavapalli Lakshmidevi, age 38 years, W/o Kalavapalli Dharma, D.No.1-360-b, N.P.Kuna village and Mandal. …Accused

This Sessions case is presented before me on 10.4.2017 for final hearing in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri Y. Veeranjaneyulu and Sri T. Bhaskar, counsel for the accused, on hearing and upon perusal of available material on record, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, N.P. Kunta P.S. has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 20 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427, 506, 326, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC.

2.Briefly stated, the contents of the charge sheet are that the accused A.1 to A.7, A.11 and A.18 are residents of Nallaguttapalli village of N.P. Kuntapalli Mandal, A.8, A.9, A.10 and A.12 are residents of Siddavandlapalli village, Kallurupalli, Kadapa District, A.13 to A.16 and A.20 are residents of N.P. Kunta village and A.17 and A.19 are the residents of Marrikommadinne of Anantapuramu District and the complainant party are the residents of Nallaguttapalli village of N.P.

Kunta Mandal. There are ill-feelings between them. On 31.12.2015 at about 6.30 PM the defacto complainant along with his wife and

Eswaraiah were present at their house, the Accused No.1 to 20 have 3 formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like sickles, iron rods, sticks and that A.2 beat Eswaraaih on his mouth with a stone resulting which he lost his two teeth and damage to another teeth. A.5 beat Eswaraiah with iron rod on his right hand and caused dumb injury. A.4, A.11 hurled stones on the legs, back, waist and left side of ribs of Eswaraiah and caused dumb injuries and when the defacto complainant went to recuse, A.18 beat him with stone and caused dumb injury, and when the wife of defacto complainant R.

Kumari and son Ganesh and one Sivaprasad went to rescue them, the accused hurled stones and caused dumb injuries. At that

Ramamohan came to rescue, he was also beaten with stones and caused dumb injuries and all the accused threatened them with dire consequences that they will see their end. Later the injured persons were admitted at Government Hospital, Kadiri for treatment.

Adverting to the above, basing the complaint of the defacto complainant, a case in Cr.No.81/2015 under Sections 147, 148, 427, 324, 506, 307 r/w 149 IPC of N.P. Kunta P.S. registered, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed.

Compliance of Sections 193, 194 and 209 Cr.P.C.

3.On file of charge sheet, the jurisdiction Magistrate of First

Class took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427, 506, 326, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC, dealt the matter as

Preliminary Register Case No.39/2016, and having complied the provisions mandated under Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offence punishable under section 307 IPC is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The Hon’ble Sessions 4

Court, Ananthapuramu pleased to made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.On the appearance of the accused before this Court, the accused No.1 to 20 were examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C., whereby they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby charges under Section 427 IPC against A.1, A.8, A.9, A.10 and A.18, under sections 148, 326, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC and 506 IPC against

A.1 to A.20 have been framed, read over and explained to them, they denied the same.

5.The prosecution, in support of its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 5, marked Exs.P.1 to P.6.

6.On closure of prosecution side evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused, the examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with.

7.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in

establishing the guilt of the accused for the

offences charged beyond all reasonable doubt,

or otherwise ?

8.Heard the Additional Public Prosecutor. The Additional Public

Prosecutor requested the Court to proceed against the accused basing the material available on record.

The defence counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and prayed for acquittal.

5

Marshalling of facts

9.This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses, exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.

10.In this case, the defacto complainant and his blood and close relatives are the injured witnesses. They are examined before this

Court as Pws.1 to 6 respectively. The defacto complainant examined as PW.1. In the evidence-in-chief, PW.1 deposed that about more than one year ago in the early hours of the day on the tankbund of their village, there was galata, whereby 100 persons were gathered, there was pull and push and that in the said incident, he fell down and received injury on his hand and his eldest son, wife, father and uncle also received injuries on various parts of the body and that in the said incident many of his villagers received injuries. He further deposed that for the said injuries, the accused are not responsible. As a matter of fact, in the case (S.C.390/2016) put by the accused they are facing trial, as such nothing happened more than the above. Later at the instance of villagers, all of them went to police station, there police obtained his signature as in Ex.P.1 and he does not know why police obtained his signature. Yet other witnesses Pws.2 to 5 who are alleged to be injured also deposed on the same lines as that of PW.1 and did not support the case of prosecution. Thus, the entire evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is free from incriminating substance against the accused for the offences charged. Thus, with the direct and material witnesses, the prosecution failed to edifice the case against the 6 accused for the offences charged with. Finding hostility of PWs.1 to 5 to the pristine case of the case of prosecution, the Addl. Public

Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining witnesses contending that even by examining them, no useful purpose would be served amidst the total resilience of the prosecution witnesses for its case.

Verily the argument of the Addl. Public Prosecutor is based on a sound footing. Rightly argued by the Addl. Public Prosecutor, when once the material witnesses have given go-bye to the prosecution case, the examination of other incidental and circumstantial witnesses is of no use to the case of prosecution.

11.In this sort of cases, whereby when the material witnesses have given go-bye to the case of prosecution, the entire case of prosecution crumbles and this is what happened in this case too.

12.On conglomeration of above discussion, the Court is of the view that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is bereft of material so far as the offence punishable under Sections 148, 427, 326, 324, 506, 307 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and that thus with the evidence available on record, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences charged. Hence, the accused are acquitted.

13.IN THE RESULT, this Court found the accused A.1, A.8, A.9,

A.10 and A.18 not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 427 of Indian Penal Code, and A.1 to A.20 not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 326, 324, 506, 307 r/w 149 of Indian

Penal Code. Thereby, acquitted the accused No.1 to 20 under Section 7 232 Cr.P.C. They be set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed by the Stenographer to my direction dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of April, 2017.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadiri.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: For defence: None

PW 1 R. Surya Sekhara (defacto complainant)

PW 2 R. Shiva Prasad,(injured witness)

PW 3 R. Eswaraiah, (injured witness)

PW 4 R. Rama Mohan (injured witness)

PW.5 Rangani Kumari (injured witness)

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P-1: Signature of P.W.1 on complaint.

Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P-4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P-5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P-6: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.

Exhibits marked for defence: Nil.

Material Objects marked for prosecution: Nil.

A.S.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: KADIRI

Present:- Dr. S.Md.Fazululla, Assistant Sessions Judge

Monday, the 17th day of April, 2017.

Sessions Case No.390/2016

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, N.P. Kunta Police Station (Cr.No.80/2015) …Complainant

and

1)Rangani Surya Sekhar @ Sekhar, age 40 years, S/o Eswaraiah,

2)Rangani Eswaraiah,age 65 years, S/o late R. Pedda Adenna,

3)Rangani Kumar, age 35 years, S/o R. Eswaraiah,

4)Rangani Siva Prasad, age 45 years, S/o Sekhar,

5)Rangani Rammohan, age 60 years, S/o Pedda Abbanna,

6)Rangani Sairam, age 19 years, S/o R. Ram Mohan,

7)Rangani Manohar, age 35 years, S/o R. Amruthaiah,

8)Rangani Reddeppa, age 65 years, S/o late R. Kadirappa,

9)Rangani Vemanna, age 65 years, S/o late Pedda Adenna,

10)Rangani Narayana, age 70 years, S/o late R. Veeraiah,

11)Rangani Ramanaiah, age 37 years, S/o R. Narayana,

12)Rangani Kumari, age 34 years, w/o Sekhar @ Surya Sekhar,

13)Rangani Rajamma, age 60 years, W/o R. Eswaraiah,

All are residents of Nallaguttapalli village, h/o Marrikommadinne village, N.P. Kunta Mandal. …Accused

This Sessions case is presented before me on 10.4.2017 for final hearing in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri B. Rama Swamy, counsel for the accused, on hearing and upon perusal of available material on record, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, N.P. Kunta P.S. has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 13 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 326, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC.

2

2.Briefly stated, the contents of the charge sheet are that the accused party and the complainant party are the residents of

Nallaguttapalli village of N.P. Kunta Mandal. There are ill-feelings between them. On 31.12.2015 at about 6.30 PM the defacto complainant along with his younger brother Ramesh and one Mahesh wanted to go to their agricultural fields situated under tank bund for plouhging the wet land and stood in front of his house. At that Time

A.1 to A.13 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like sickles, axes, sticks with common intention to cause obstructions to the complainant party and started abusing them.

On that A.1 cried loudly to kill them and who will come and rescue if killed them, for which A.1, A.7, A.8 have attacked Ramesh with sickles, sticks and stones, resulting said Ramesh sustained severe bleeding injuries on his person on that he fell on the ground. In the meanwhile when the defacto complainant went to rescue, A.1 attacked him by hacking with sickle and the defacto complainant tried to escape and sustained severe bleeding injury to his fore arm. In the meanwhile Narasimhulu, son-in-law of A.5 attacked the defacto complainant with stone on his right side abdomen and caused bleeding injury and that A.2 beat him with stone on his head and caused bleeding injury. A.12 and A.1 beat the defacto complainant with stone on his waist and caused dumb injury. In the meanwhile the younger brothers of defacto complainant by name Erri Mahesh and

Erri Mallikarjuna came to rescue, all the accused attacked them with stones and sticks and caused dumb injury. Then all the injured persons escaped from the clutches of accused later they were shifted to Government General Hospital, Kadiri for treatment.

Adverting to the above, basing the complaint of the defacto 3 complainant, a case in Cr.No.80/2015 under Sections 147, 148, 326, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC of N.P. Kunta P.S. registered, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed.

Compliance of Sections 193, 194 and 209 Cr.P.C.

3.On file of charge sheet, the jurisdiction Magistrate of First

Class took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 326, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC, dealt the matter as Preliminary

Register Case No.38/2016, and having complied the provisions mandated under Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offence punishable under section 307 IPC is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The Hon’ble Sessions Court,

Ananthapuramu pleased to made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.On the appearance of the accused before this Court, the accused No.1 to 13 were examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C., whereby they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby charges under Sections 148, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC against A.1 to

A.13, under section 326 IPC against A.2, A.7 and A.8 have been framed, read over and explained to them, they denied the same.

5.The prosecution, in support of its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 4, marked Exs.P.1 to P.5.

6.On closure of prosecution side evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused, the examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with.

4

7.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in

establishing the guilt of the accused for the

offences charged beyond all reasonable doubt,

or otherwise ?

8.Heard the Additional Public Prosecutor. The Additional Public

Prosecutor requested the Court to proceed against the accused basing the material available on record.

The defence counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and prayed for acquittal.

Marshalling of facts

9.This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses, exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.

10In this case, the defacto complainant and his brothers by name Erri Mahesh, Erri Mallikarjuna and Erri Ramesh are the injured witnesses. They are examined before this Court as PWs.1 to 4 respectively. In their evidence-in-chief they deposed that about more than one year ago in the early hours of the day on the tankbund of their village, there was galata, whereby 100 persons were gathered, there was pull and push and that in the said incident, they fell down down and received injuries so also their villagers received injuries, for which the accused are not responsible. As a matter of fact in the case (S.C. 389/2016) put by the accused they are facing trial, as such nothing happened more than the above. Later at the instance of their villagers, all of them went to police station, there police obtained the 5 signature of PW.1 and that police not examined them. Thus, the entire evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is free from incriminating substance against the accused for the offences charged. Thus, with the direct and material witnesses, the prosecution failed to edifice the case against the accused for the offences charged with. Finding hostility of

PWs.1 to 4 to the pristine case of the case of prosecution, the Addl.

Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining witnesses contending that even by examining them, no useful purpose would be served amidst the total resilience of the prosecution witnesses for its case. Verily the argument of the Addl. Public Prosecutor is based on a sound footing. Rightly argued by the Addl. Public Prosecutor, when once the material witnesses have given go-bye to the prosecution case, the examination of other incidental and circumstantial witnesses is of no use to the case of prosecution.

11.In this sort of cases, whereby when the material witnesses have given go-bye to the case of prosecution, the entire case of prosecution crumbles and this is what happened in this case too.

12.On conglomeration of above discussion, the Court is of the view that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is bereft of material so far as the offence punishable under Sections 148, 326, 324, 307 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and that thus with the evidence available on record, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences charged. Hence, the accused are acquitted.

13.IN THE RESULT, this Court found the accused No.1 to 13 not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 324, 307 r/w 149 6

IPC and 323 of Indian Penal Code, and A.2, A.7 and A.8 not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 326 of Indian Penal Code.

Thereby, acquitted the accused No.1 to 13 under Section 232 Cr.P.C.

They be set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed by the Stenographer to my direction dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of April, 2017.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadiri.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: For defence: None

PW 1 Erri Sudhakar (defacto complainant)

PW 2 Erri Mahesh,(injured witness)

PW 3 E. Mallikharjuna (injured witness)

PW 4 E. Ramesh (injured witness).

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P-1: Signature of P.W.1 on complaint.

Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P-4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P-5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

Exhibits marked for defence: Nil.

Material Objects marked for prosecution: Nil.

A.S.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KADIRI

Present:- Dr. S.Md.Fazululla,

Senior Civil Judge

Monday, the 17th day of April, 2017.

O.S No. 63/2016

Between:-

S.M. Rafi, s/o S.M.K. Basha, aged about 53 years, Muslim, working as M. Marketing Head in M/s. Sai Advertisers, Chowkasandra Bagh, residing at H.No.1-3, Ground Floor, Platinam City, Yeshvanthapur, Bangalore, Karnataka State.

… Plaintiff.

And.,

1)S.Md. Sukarno, s/o S.Md. Ghouse, aged about 47 years, Muslim, working as Teacher, residing at D.No.13/2-85, Revenue Colony, Anantapur City, Anantapur District.

2)S.Md. Fathima, w/o S.Md. Ghouse, aged about 74 years, Muslim, housewife, residing at D.No.13/2-85, Revenue Colony, Anantapur City, Anantapur District.

3)S.Kousar Begum, w/o Siraj Ahamad, d/o S.Md. Ghouse, aged about 49 years, Muslim, housewife, residing at Door No.1/455, Chand Basha Building, Ground Floor, Dwaraka Nagar, Anantapur City, Anantapur District.

4)Shaik Thasneem Banu, w/o Haneef Ahamad, aged about 44 years, Muslim, housewife, residing at D.No.1/1189-21-1P, N.G.O. Colony, Kadiri Town and Mandal.

5)S.M. Shafi, s/o S.M.K. Basha, aged about 50 years, Muslim, Executive Engineer, at V.T.P.S Vijayawada, Thermal Plant, Ibrahim Patnam, Vijayawada, residing at A.E.52, C-Colony, V.T.P.S., Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District.

6)S. Roquiya Begum, w/o Ansar Baig, d/o S.M.K. Basha, aged about 45 years, Muslim, Housewife, Door No.1839, 6th Main, 3rd Block, H.B.R. Layout, Bangalore, Karnataka State. … Defendants.

This suit is presented before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Gurulinga Swamy, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants having been called absent and set exparte, and on hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 2/10th share in the plaint schedule property by metes and bounds.

2

2.As glean from the averments of the plaint, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaint scheduled property originally belongs to one M.

Madar Sab of Kadiri. The said Madar Sab died long back leaving behind his four sons namely M. Ghouse, C.A. Rawoof, Md. Khadar Basha and

Shaik Vali as his only legal heirs to succeed his estate. His wife also no more. Among the said four sons C.S. Rawoof and Shaik Vali died unmarried. Thus, M.Ghouse and Md. Khadar Basha became entitled to a half joint share each in the plaint schedule mentioned property and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property as tenants in common. It is further averred that said M. Ghouse Basha also died leaving behind him his widow i.e. Defendant No.2, his son Defendant

No.1 and two daughters i.e. Defendants No.3 and 4 as his legal heirs to succeed his half joint share in the plaint schedule mentioned property.

The Md. Khadar Basha who was entitled to half joint share in the plaint schedule property died leaving behind him his sons i.e. Plaintiff and

Defendants No.5 and 6 as his legal heirs to succeed his half joint share in the plaint schedule property and his wife also no more. Thus, the plaintiff, D.5 became entitled to 2/10th joint share each and D.6 is entitled to 1/10th joint share in the plaint schedule property. It is further averred that recently differences cropped up among the plaintiff and the defendants on account of bickering among womenfolk and also in joint possession of the plaint schedule property. Further the plaintiff also came to know that defendants 1 to 4 with intent to cause loss and hardship to the plaintiff have been making efforts to alienate the plaint schedule property to third parties and defeat and deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. The defendants have no right to do so. The plaintiff made demands for amicable 3 partition and separate possession of plaint schedule property but the defendants have been postponing the same. Hence, the suit for partition and separate possession.

3.The defendants remained exparte.

4.Now the POINT for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 2/10th share in the plaint schedule property as prayed for, or otherwise?

5.The plaintiff, in support of his case, examined himself as PW.1, through him Exs. A.1 to 4 received in evidence.

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

7.The defendants remained exparte. Only because the defendants set exparte, it does not mean that the case of the plaintiff has to be accepted in toto. On the other hand, it is necessary on the part of this Court to evaluate the evidence available on record amidst the pleadings set forth by the plaintiff and on such due evaluation, having satisfied the case only, the Court can countenance the request of the plaintiff. This Court in an attempt to execute the above evaluation has perused the evidence-in-chief of PW.1 and the documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff under Exs.A.1 to A.4. PW.1 has given his evidence-in-chief in tune with the plaint. The evidence of PW.1 is clear and categorical to the suit claim. In the absence of contrary evidence, the Court has to countenance the evidence of PW.1 as it is. Nothing has come before this Court to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1. Thus, 4 the plaintiff has proved his suit claim. Thereby, the POINT is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

8.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed preliminarily with costs for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 2/10th share in the plaint schedule property by metes and bounds.

Typed by the Stenographer to my direct dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17th day of April, 2017.

Senior Civil Judge,

Kadiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined:

For plaintiff:

PW 1 : S.M. Rafi (Plaintiff)

For defendants: None

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A.1Office copy of the registered lawyer's notice issued on behalf of the plaintiffs to the defendants dated 23.4.2016.

Ex.A.24 Postal receipts.

Ex.A.32 returned covers.

Ex.A.41 postal acknowledgment.

Exhibits marked for defendants: Nil.

S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KADIRI

Present:- Dr. S.Md.Fazululla,

Senior Civil Judge.

Wednesday, the 26th day of April, 2017.

O.S No. 177/2016

Between:-

M. Ramana, S/o Malladi Venkatappa, aged about 43 years, Hindu, Agriculturist and Business, resident of Door No.1-1042, Mudigubba Town, Mudigubba Mandal, Anantapuramu District. --Plaintiff

and

Jarpala Rangla Naik, S/o Jarpala Seethu Naik, 42 years, Sugali by Caste, Gang Man, South Central Railways, Kadiri, residing in Door No.2-52, Bode Naik Thanda, H/o Yerradoddi, Kadiri Rural, Kadiri Mandal. --Defendant.

This suit is presented before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Chowdappa, counsel for plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent and set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of amount based on a suit promissory note, contending that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- on 24.11.2013 and executed suit promissory in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% p.a. Thereafter, the defendant, despite repeated demands, did not pay any amount. Hence, the suit.

2.The defendant remained exparte.

3.Now the POINT for consideration is, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of the suit as prayed for?

4.The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, examined himself as

PW.1 and Ex.A.1 marked.

2

5.This Court has perused the pleadings set forth by the plaintiff, considered the exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff and also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Only because the defendant set exparte, it does not mean that the Court has to countenance the case of the plaintiff in toto and proceed thereto. On the contrary, it is imperative on the part of this court to evaluate the material available on record and to consider the suit contention. On such evaluation amidst the unrebutted evidence of the plaintiff and the documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff under

Ex.A.1, the Court is of the view that the debt is subsisting, the suit claim is in time; and that the defendant has to pay the suit debt. Thus, the plaintiff has made out a case for his suit claim. Thereby, the

POINT is answered in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.

7.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed for a sum of

Rs.3,76,930/- with costs and future interest @ 6% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.2,20,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization against the defendant.

Typed by the Stenographer directly to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 26th day of April, 2017.

Senior Civil Judge,

Kadiri.

3

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined:

For plaintiff:

PW 1 :M. Ramana (Plaintiff)

For defendant: None

Exhibits marked:

For plaintiff:

Ex.A.1Suit promissory note dated 24.11.2013 for Rs.2,20,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

For defendant: Nil.

S.C.J.