Sri S.Praveen kumar

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

:: EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present: Sri S.Praveen Kumar

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Tuesday, the 2nd day of April, 2024.

SESSIONS CASE No.292 of 2023

(PRC No.27 of 2023 on the file of V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram in Crime No. 409/2021 of II Town (L&O) Police Station, Rajamahendravaram)

Between:

State – represented by The Inspector of Police, II Town L&O P.S., Rajamahendravaram. … Complainant. And:

1.Gujjala Ravi, S/o.Ramulu, A/32 years, C/Segidi, N/o.D.No.2-56, Colony, Rottavalasa Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District now residing at Quarter No.487/C, Railway Quarters, Near 5 carts market, AC Gardens, Rajamahendravaram.

2.Gujjala Ramu, S/o.Krishnamma, A/58 years, C/Segidi, D.No.2-56, Rottavalasa Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District.

3.Gujjala Ramanamma, W/o.Ramulu, A/48 years, C/Segidi, D.No.2-56, Rotavalasa Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District.

4.Bammidi Sundaramma, W/o.Dhalayya, A/59 years, C/Segidi, D.No.1-20, Jammu, Main Street, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District.

5.Tungana Jaya Lakshmi, W/o.Apparao, A/57 years, C/Segidi, D.No.3-58, Main Colony, Palasa Colony, Alikam, Srikakulam District. … Accused.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 21.03.2024 in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. P.R.S. Mitra, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case filed by the Inspector of Police, II Town

Police Station against A1 to A5 for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.In brief, the case of prosecution is that A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. A4 and A5 are the sisters of A3. The deceased

Dantha Lakshmi Lavanya is the wife of A1. The defacto complainant

Sri Dantha Narasimha Murthy is the father of deceased. The marriage of deceased was performed with A1 on 10.02.2019. A1 is working as R.P.F constable. The deceased is a B.Tech graduate and she was preparing for competitive exams.

After three months of the marriage, A1 started causing physical and mental harassment to the deceased with the active support of A2 to A5 by suspecting her fidelity. A1 did not encourage the deceased and even not bear examination fee and journey charges. The deceased also went to Bangalore along with her father to attend examination. On one day, A1 beat the deceased by suspecting her fidelity and restrained not to talk with her parents and siblings. When the defacto complainant intended to give complaint against A1 to the department head of A1, the deceased stopped him by saying that it would cause damage to the reputation of their family. Later, the defacto complainant invited the deceased to come to their home in order to attend bridal looks of her younger sister Lilli Rani to be held on 12.09.2021. On that, the deceased made request to A1 to allow her to attend the said program. A1 refused to allow her to go to her parents’ house and beat her by suspecting her fidelity. Then, the deceased informed the same to her younger sister Lilli Rani and brother Dantha Hareesh on phone at about 5.40 A.M., and 6.20 A.M., respectively on 11.09.2021 and further she had informed that she was unable to bear harassment at the hands of accused. Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to the window of kitchen room with a chunni when A1 went to attend his work while her younger brother in law was sleeping in the hall of the house.

On noticing about the commission of suicide by the deceased, the brother in law of deceased by name Satish Kumar informed the same to A1 and neighbors. Then, the said Satish Kumar alone removed the knot of hanging and got down her and laid her on ground. Thereafter, A1 rushed to the home along with railway hospital nurse and compounder. The said nurse examined the deceased and declared that she died. Then, A1 made phone call to defacto complainant and others and informed about the incident. As such, the defacto complainant rushed to the house of deceased along with his wife and children.

Thus, basing on the report of defacto complainant, a case was got registered and investigated into. The Mandal Executive

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram (Urban) conducted an inquest over

the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars and blood relatives of deceased. On 11.09.2021, the Inspector of

Police arrested A1 and sent him to judicial custody. Team of Medical

Officers who have conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased are of the opinion that the cause of the death of the deceased may be due to hanging leading to Asphyxia and the time of death is 24 to 36 hours before commencement of postmortem.

A2 to A5 obtained anticipatory bail vide Crl.M.P.No.2632/2021

dated 03.11.2021 on the file of the court of Hon’ble I Additional

Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Hence, the accused were

charge sheeted.

3.The court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Rajamahendravaram took the cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused.

4.As the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the said learned

Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions under

Section 209 Cr.P.C. Thus, the said case was made over to this court for trial and disposal.

5.A1 to A5 were examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C and charges under Section 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC were framed against A1 to A5, read over and explained to them in

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

6.In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P19 and M.O.1.

7.After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, A1 to A5 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported that they have no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel of A1 to A5.

9.The point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the charges leveled against them beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that except P.W.1 none of the prosecution witnesses deposed anything against the accused. P.Ws.2 to 7 deposed about commission of suicide by the deceased. P.Ws.8 to 11 also deposed about commission of suicide by the deceased. The Medical Officer P.W.13 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased along with team of doctors deposed that the death of deceased may be due to hanging leading to Asphyxia and the time of death is 24 to 36 hours before commencement of post mortem examination. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing about commission of suicide by the deceased. The marriage of the deceased was performed with A1 on 10.02.2019 and the deceased committed suicide on 11.09.2021. The deceased committed suicide within seven years of her marriage. Therefore, the court can safely presume under Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act that the accused herein alone are responsible for cause of the commission of suicide by the deceased. Further, the learned VI Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram recorded the

statements of P.Ws. 1 to 4 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the court is empowered to consider Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C from P.Ws.1 to 4.

The offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is not a compoundable one. P.W.1 has given evidence in chief on 04.03.2024 as per Ex.P2 Section 164 Cr.P.C statement. The counsel of accused has taken adjournment and conducted cross- examination on P.W.1 on 05.03.2024. Then, P.W.1 has given evidence by giving go by version to his earlier chief examination.

Thereupon, the remaining witnesses P.Ws.2 to 7 did not speak anything in respect of case facts and deposed that the accused are no way responsible for the cause of the death of the deceased.

P.Ws.1 to 4 have given false evidence before this court though they have given statements with true facts in their respective Section 164 Cr.P.C statements. Therefore, the court can rely upon Ex.P2,

Ex.P3, Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 statements in proving the guilt of accused.

Hence, with these submissions, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor prayed to punish the accused as per law.

11.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that P.Ws.1 to 4 have given their respective 164 Cr.P.C statements as per the instructions of elders and police.

The statement given by P.Ws.1 to 4 under Sections 164 Cr.P.C are not corroborated with each other. There are several contradictions, omissions between P.Ws.1 to 4 in the said statements. There is also no consistency by P.Ws.1 to 4 in the said statements. As such, the court cannot rely upon Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 which are respective Section 164 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 to 4. P.Ws.2 to 8 being siblings, eye witnesses and relatives though deposed about the commission of suicide by deceased, they did not speak anything against the accused. None of these witnesses deposed that the deceased committed suicide due to harassment of these accused.

The witnesses further deposed that the deceased committed suicide due to unbearable stomach pain. Initially, P.W.1 has given evidence

before the court as per the instructions of police in his chief

examination. Later, P.W.1 has given go by version during cross examination. Therefore, the court cannot rely upon the evidence of

P.W.1 in presenting Ex.P1 report. As P.W.1 has lost his daughter, the police has taken signatures on empty papers and later on, they got foisted the present case against these innocent accused. A1 is having an infant son. There is no ample evidence on record to believe that the deceased has disgusted with the attitude of A1 to

A5 and thereby, she committed suicide. With these submissions, the learned counsel for the accused prayed to acquit the accused in the interest of justice.

12.On perusal of the entire record, it is noticed that P.W.1 has given Ex.P2 statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C before VI

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

P.W.2 has also given Ex.P3 statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C to the said learned Magistrate. P.W.3 has also given Ex.P5 statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C to the said learned magistrate. P.W.4 has also given Ex.P7 statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C to the said learned Magistrate. Thus, it is relevant to extract the entire statements of these witnesses here under.

13.The following is an extract of Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1:

నాదిళ ింగు఩ురింగ్రా మము, శ్రాకరకులముమిండలము, శ్రాకరకులము జిలలా . నేను ZPH స్ూూల్, మలకివలస్గ్రా మము, నరస్నన఩ేట మిండలములో vocational teacher గ్ర఩తుచేస్ుు నానను. నాకు నలుగురుస్ింతానముఅనగ్రముగుు రుఅమలీభలు, ఒకఅబ్బాభ.

నేను఩ెద్దతృర఩కువిజయనగరింరరస్ువుులువిఱవీశ్ీరమరవుకుఇచ్చి఩ెిండ్లా చేళ నాము. రరరుఇద్దరు employees మమియుఇద్దరౄస్ింతోషముగ్ర జీవిస్ుు నానరు. మలమ ిండవతృర఩లక్ష్లీలలవణ్ునుగుజజలరవి, మోటటవలస్ గ్రా మలతుకిచ ిందినఅతతుకిఇచ్చిది.10.02.2019 నఇరువుమి఩ెద్దల స్మక్షింలో఩ెిండ్లాచేళ నాము. విరరహస్మయములోఆరులక్షల కటనము, ఆరుతేలలలబ్ింగ్రరము, two wheeler కు

Rs.80,000/- లుమమియుఅధకముసరమ సరమలనుామలఅలుా డె గుజజలరవికికటనకరనుకలుగ్రఇచ్చినాము. మలఅలుా డెగుజజలరవి, మరజమిండ్లిలో RPF constable గ్ర఩తుచేస్ుు నానడె. విరరహము అభనాతరురరతమలఅమలీభలక్ష్లీలలవణ్ుమమియుగుజజలరవి మరజమిండ్లిలో railway quarters లోకర఩ురము఩ెటటటనారు. రరరు ఇరువురుఆరునెలలుస్ుఖముగ్రకర఩ురముచేళ నారు. మల అమలీభ, అలుా డెతోతృరటు, మలఅలుా డెఅమీ, ఩ెద్దమీ, ఩ ననమీ, అతతుతముీడెక౅డ్ాఉిండ్ేరరరు. ఇింటటల్లాతృరదివింటమలఅమలీభ చేళేది. రరళ్ాకుతినగ్రమిగ్ిల్లనదిమలఅమలీభకి఩ెటటటరరరు. తరురరత కొదిదకరలలతుకిమలఅమలీభబ్బగ్ర weakness గ్రఉింద్తుమలఇింటటకి ఩ిం఩ ించ్చరేళ నారు. అ఩పటటనుించ్చమలఅమలీభతు hospital లో చూ఩ ించ్చ, medicines ఇ఩ పించ్చనాము. మలఅమలీభఆమోగుము బ్బగునానకనేనేతీస్ుకుతువచ్చి Rajamandry Quarters లో దిిం఩ నాను. నాఫబరుమూడెమోజులుమలతృర఩ద్గురనేఉింది. నేనుమల ఊరురెళ్ళితృో యలను. మూడెమోజులతమరీతనాఫబరుక౅డ్ామలఇింటటకి వచేిళ ింది. తమరీత఩ెిండ్లాఅభనాతమరీతముద్టట఩ిండగస్ింకరా ింతి వచ్చినది. రరళ్ైిఇద్దరు఩ిండగకుమలఇింటటకివచ్చినారు. తమరీత స్ింకరా ింతి఩ిండగకటనింగ్ర Rs. 10,000/- లుమలఅలుా డెగుజజలరవి కిఇచ్చినాము. గుజజలరవిరరళ్ిఅమీగ్రమికి Rs. 10,000/- లు ఇచ్చినటుాచ ఩పగ్ర, అ఩ుపడెఆబెడబ్ుాలుతీస్ుకోవద్ుద , బ్ింగ్రర఩ు ఉింగరముఅడెగుఅతుచ ఩పగ్ర, మలఅలుా డెకిఅ఩ుపడెఅద్నింగ్ర ఇింకో Rs. 5,000/- లుఉింగరముకోస్ముఇచ్చినాను. ఩ిండగ తమరీతమరజమిండ్లికిఇద్దరువచ్చినారు. తమరీతమలతృర఩కు pregnancy వచ్చిింది. మయళిఆమోగుముబ్బగ్ోకతృో తేమలఅమలీభతు మలఇింటటకితీస్ుకువచ్చినను. తమరీతనేనుమలఅమలీభకి medical treatment ఇ఩ పించ్చనాను. ఆమోగుముబ్బగు఩డ్లనతమరీత మలఅమీభతుమరలమరజమిండ్లిలోదిగబ్ెటటటనను. తృర఩ delivery ముింద్రమలస్ీగ్రా మములోశ్రామింతముచేళ నాము. శ్రామింతము జమిగ్ినతమరీతమలతృర఩నుమరజమిండ్లికితీస్ుూతురెళ్ిలేద్ు. శ్రామింతము జమిగ్ినస్మయములో, ఩ెద్దమనుషేలస్మక్షింలోమలతృర఩తు, స్మిగ్ర చూడటింలేద్ు, ఆహరముక౅డ్ా఩ెటటడింలేద్ు, అింద్ువలన weakness గ్రతయలురుఅభనదిఅతుఅడెగగ్ర, రరరుమీతృర఩ను మీమైచూసో ూిండ్ల, medicines మీమైఇ఩ పించిండ్లమలకుస్ింబ్ింధము లేద్ుఅతుమలతృర఩నువిడ్లచ్చ఩ెటటటరెళ్ళితృో భనారు. తమరీతమలఅలుా డె గ్రతు, రరళ్ిఅమీ, ఩ెద్దమీలుఒకూసరమిక౅డ్ామలఅమలీభకితౄో న్ చ యులేద్ు. చూడటబతుకిక౅డ్ామరలేద్ు. తమరీతమలతృర఩ది.

21.04.2020 న delivery అభుింది. బ్బబ్ు఩ుటటటనాడె. రెింటనే first call మలఅలుా డ్లకితౄో న్చేళ చ ఩ పనాము. Delivery అభున మూడెనెలలువరక౅మలఅమీభతుచూడటబతుకిఎవీరౄమరలేద్ు.

తరురరతఅభద్వనెలలోబ్బరసరలకుమలఅలుా డె, అతతు బ్ింధుమితేి లుఅింద్రౄవచ్చినారు. అభద్వనెలదాటటనతమరీతమల అలుా డ్లనాననఇచ్చినహమీమీద్మలఅమీభతుమరజమిండ్లికి ఩ిం఩ ించ్చనాము. మూడెనెలలువుభ్ిముగ్రఉనానరు. మరలరరళ్ి అమీ, ఩ెద్దమీ, ఩ ననమీ, మలఅలుా డె duty కిరెళ్ళానతమరీత, మల అమలీభ harass చేళ , మలకివిండ్ల఩ెటుట , నువుీచద్ువుకోవటబతుకి వీలులేద్ుఅనేరరరు. మలతృర఩ B.Tech చదివిింది. bank exams కుమలఅమీభతుతీస్ుకుతురెళ్తానతు, చ్చవమిస్మయములోనేను duty కిరెయళిల్ల, కుద్రద్ుఅనేరరడె. అ఩ుపడెనేనుతీస్ుకుతురెళ్ళా exams రరి భించ్చమయళిమరజమిండ్లివదిల్ల఩ెటటటరరడ్లతు. అ఩ుపడెమల అలుా డెఎవమితోరెయళివు, ఎవమితోతిమిగ్రవుఅతుమలనళ కము అనుమలనముతోమలఅమీభతుఴ ింళ ించేరరడె. మరలబ్బబ్ు఩ుటటటన తమరీతమ ిండవస్ింకరా ింతికివచ్చిమరలతేలముబ్ింగ్రరముగ్రతు,

Rs.50,000/- కటనముగ్రతుఅడ్లగ్ినాడె. నేనుఅింతఇచుికోలేను.

నాఆమిిక఩మిళ దతిబ్బగ్ోలేద్ు, Rs.30,000/- వరక౅ఇచుికోగలనుఅతు చ ఩ పనాడె. అ఩ుపడె Rs.40,000/- ఩ీడ్లించ్చతీస్ుకొతునాడె. మరల మరజమిండ్లికివచ్చినారు. అకూడనుించ్చమలఅమలీభతుమలఅలుా డె ఴ ింళ ించుటతృరి రింభించ్చనారు. ఩ితివిషయముమీఅమీనాననలకు చ ఩ుతేనానవు, ఩ితివిషయముమీఅమలీనాననలకుచ ఩పక౅డద్ు అనేరరడె. తమరీతమలమనవడ్లకిబ్బగ్ోలేద్ుఅింటటనేనేమరజమిండ్లికి వచ్చిమలగ్రా మలతుకితీస్ుకురెళ్ళానను. అ఩ుపడెమలతృర఩నుఎమనాన ఇబ్ాింది఩ెడెతేనానడ్ాఅతుఅడగగ్ర, ననునకొడెతేనానడె, తిడెతేనానడెఅతుచ ఩ పనది. తరురరతనేను department higher officers కు complaint చేదాద ముఅనగ్ర, మలఅమలీభ఩రువు తృో తేింది, insult feel అవుతాడెనాననఇింకర harass చేసరు డె, ఈ సరమికిక్షమిించ్చవదిల్లరేభమింది. తమరీతనేనుమలఅమలీభమల అలుా డ్లకి phone దాీమరఴెచిమిించగ్రఏమిచేసరు వుఅతునాడె. తమరీత మలఅలుా డెమలఅమలీభతుతీవిముగ్రఴ ింళ ించ్చనాడె. తమరీత phone లోకుడ్ామలతోమలటబా డకుిండ్ాచేళ నాడె. మలఅలుా డెలేతు స్మయములోమలతృర఩మలతో phone లోమలటబా డ్ేది. గ్ొడవఅభన తమరీతఅనగ్రమ ిండవస్ింకరా ింతికిఅభనఆరునెలలకుమలఅమలీభ ఇింటటకివచ్చినాము. తమరీతమ ిండెగింటలుమలమనవడ్లతోగడ్ల఩ మల గ్రా మమురెళ్ళితృో భనాము. తమరీతమలతృర఩మలఇింటటకిమరలేద్ు.

తమరీతమలతృర఩ phone చేళ ననునకొడెతేనానడెఅతుచ ఩ేపది.

నువుీచద్ువుకునానవుఅతుతకుూవకటనింతోచేస్ుకునానము. మల అలుా డె harassment వలనమలతృర఩మరఖీ఩ిండగకిమలతృర఩మల ఇింటటకిఆబెతముీడ్లకిఅనగ్రమలఅబ్బాభకిమరఖికటటడ్ాతుకి వచ్చినది. తమరీతబేముమలఅమలీభతు Rajahmundry కి ఩ిం఩ ించ్చనాము. మలఅలుా డ్ేతీస్ుకుతురెళ్ళినాడె. మలచ్చననతృర఩కు engagement కుమలతృర఩ను, అలుా డ్లతు఩ లువగ్ర, మలఅలుా డెమల అమలీభతుముద్ట఩ిం఩ సరు నతు, తమరీతనేను఩ిం఩ యనుఅనానడె.

తమరీతమలతృర఩నేనుమరను engagement function చేళేయిండ్ల అతుచ ఩ పనది. ది.11.09.2021 ఉద్యముచ్చననమలీభకి 6-10 తుమిషరలకి, phone చేళ నేను engagement కుమరలేను, మీరు రెళ్ిిండ్ల, మరతిింతాననునతిటటట, కొటటట, నానాఅనుమలనముమలటలు మలటబా డ్లనువుీచళేుగతు఩ీడ్ావద్లద్ుఅనానడతుఏడెికుింటృ చ ఩ పనది. ఆవిషయముమలచ్చన్నతృర఩నాకుచ ఩ పనది. తమరీత రెింటనేనేనుతృరవుగింటలోమలతృర఩కు phone చ యుగ్ర phone lift చ యులేద్ు. ఉద్యముఅనగ్రది. 11.09.2021, 9-15 కుమల అలుా డెనాకు phone చేళ మలవయులక్ష్లీలలవణ్ుచతుతృో భింది. ఏమి జమిగ్ిిందిఅతునేనుఅడెగగ్రఏమిచ ఩పలేద్ు. తమరీత 9-15 తుమిషరలకునేనుమలతృర఩ phone కిచేళ నను. అ఩ుపడె department constable lift చేళ మీతృర఩చతుతృో భనదిత ింద్రగ్ర మరరరలతుచ ఩ పనాడె. రెింటనేనేను, నఫబరు, మలబ్బబ్ు, చ్చననమలీభ కరరులో Rajahmundry కివచ్చినాము. వచేిస్మికివింటగదిలో ఩డ్లతృో భఉననదిశ్వము. మ ిండెకరళ్ైిరెనుకకువిమిచ్చఉననవి. కుడ్ల చ భుక౅డ్ారెనుకకువిమిచ్చఉననది. కిాింద్రకుముక౅డ్ాఉననది.

చతుతృో భ ింతధ ైరుమింతేమరలుకరద్ు. మలఅనుమలనముమలతిమూమల అలుా డె, రరళ్ిఅమీ, ఩ెద్దమీలు, ఩ ననమీ, తముీడెస్తీష్ కుమలరు, చ్చతిఴ ింస్చేళ , ఴ ింళ ించ్చమలఅమలీభలక్ష్లీలలవణ్ును చిం఩ నారు. ఆతరురరతనేను II Town Police రరమికి report ఇచ్చినాము. మలకుఅనాుయముజమిగ్ిింది. మలకునాుయముచేయిండ్ల.

14.The following is an extract of Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2:

మలమ ిండవఅమలీభ఩ేరులక్ష్లీలలవణ్ు. మలమ ిండవఅమలీభతు మొటటవలస్కుచ ిందినగుజజలరవికిఇచ్చి఩ెిండ్లాచేళ నాము. ఩ెిండ్లాఅభన తమరీతఆరునెలలుస్ుఖముగ్రఉనానరు. తమరీతమలఅమలీభతు బ్బగ్రఴ ింళ ించ్చనాడె. మలఅలుా డె, మమియుగుజజలరమణ్మీ, స్ుింద్రమీమిగ్ిల్లనమలఅలుా డెకుటుింబ్స్భ్ుులుమలఅమలీభతు చ్చతిఴ ింస్లు఩ెటటటచిం఩ేళ నారు. మలఅమీభకిబ్బబ్ు఩ుటటటనతమరీత క౅డ్ామలఅలుా డెఒకస్ింవతసరముక౅డ్ామరలేద్ు. అ఩ుపడెనేను మలఅమలీభకిఏమిఅభనాజమిగ్ితేమీదేబ్బధుతఅతుఅతునాను. మల అలుా డెతముీడెగుజజలస్తీష్క౅డ్ారరళ్ిఅననతోకల్లళ మల అమలీభతుచిం఩ నాడె. మలఅమలీభతుచిం఩ నరరమి఩ెైతగ్ినచరు తీస్ుకుతు, శిక్ష్లించ్చ, నాుయముచేక౅రివలనతుకోరుకుింటునానను.

15.The following is an extract of Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3:

నా఩ేరుల్లల్లామరణ్ి. మలఅకూ఩ేరులక్ష్లీలలవణ్ు. మలఅకూ B.Tech చద్ువుకుననది. ది. 10.02.2019 నమలఅకూకు, గుజజలరవితో విరరహముఅభనది. మ ిండెనెలలుఇద్దరుబ్బగ్రనేఉనానరు.

తమరీతనుించ్చఅతు, మలమలు, ఩ెద్దఅతులుకటనింరేధిిం఩ులతోమల అకూనుఴ ింళ ించేరరరు. మలబ్బవరవి 15 లక్షలుకటనముఇసరు ననే అమలీభతువద్ులుకునాననుఅతు, ఎదోఒకవిషయములోమలఅకూను కటనముగుమిించ్చరేధిించేరరరు. మలఅకూకుస్మిఅభన food క౅డ్ా ఩ెటటటరరళ్ైికరద్ు. మలఅకూ delivery time లోమలఅకూ food తిింటట, నువుీఎింద్ుకుతిింటునానవు, బేముఅింద్రమూతిననతమరీత నువుీతినాల్ల, నువుీ఩తుచ యలుల్లఅతు, మలఅకూనుఴ ింళ ించేరరరు.

మోజుమలఅకూనాకు phone చేళ చ ఩ేపది. మల parents చ తృప పద్ుద అనేది. అభనాకరతూనేనుమల parents తోచ ఩ేపదాతుతు. parents చ ఩ పనతమరీతఒకూసరమి department లో complaint చేసరు మతు చ ఩ పనారు. దాతుకిమలఅకూఒ఩ుపకోలేద్ు. ఇింకరరేదిసరు రతు, మమియు మలఅకూనేనేమలరుికుింటబనుఅతతుతుఅతుచ ఩ పింది. ఇలలమోజు phone చేళ కొడెతేనానరతుఏడెస్ూుఉిండ్ేది. ఎింద్ుకు఩ితివిషయము మలఇింటలా రరళ్ాకుచ ఩ుు నానవుఅతుమలఅకూనుతిటటటరరరు. అలలగ్ైది.

10.09.2021 ఉద్యము 6-15 తుమిషరలకి phone చేళ 14 minutes ఏడెస్ూుమలటబా డ్లింది. నాకు 12.09.2021 న఩ెళ్ళాచూ఩ులు కరరుకామలతుకిమలఇింటటకిమరవటబతుకిఅనుమతితీస్ుకుింది. 10 వ తామీఖువరకురెళ్ిమతుచ ఩ పనారు. 10 వతామీఖుమరతిిమలబ్బవగ్రమి అమీగ్రరుఅతతుకి phone చేళ ఩ిం఩ ించవద్ుదఅతుచ ఩ పనారు.

అ఩ుపడెనా character మించ్చదికరద్ు, మరతిిఅింతననునకొటబట రు అతుఏడెికుింటృనాతో phone లోచ ఩ పింది. తమరీతమలనాననగ్రరు మలఅకూకు call చేళ నారు. మలఅకూ lift చ యులేద్ు. తమరీతమల బ్బవ phone చేళ మలఅకూ suicide చేస్ుకుింది, pulse లేద్ుఅతు call చేళ చ ఩ పనాడె. బేమురెళ్ళాచూళే఩పటటకీsuicide చేస్ుకుననటుా లేద్ు. ఩డ్లతృో భమ ిండెకరళ్ైిమమియుఒకచ భురెనకిూ విమిచ్చబ్డ్లఉనానభ. రవిరరళ్ితముీడెక౅డ్ాఆఇింటలాఉనానడె.

బేమురవిరరళ్ితముీడ్లతుఅడెగగ్రమరతిింతాఏమిజరగలేద్ు. ఇద్దరు బ్బగ్రనేఉనానరుఅతుచ ఩ పనారు. ఇింద్ులో఩ితుక్షసరక్ష్లగుజజలస్తీష్.

మలఅకూ suicide చేస్ుకోలేద్ు. మలకునాుయముచేయగలరు.

16.The following is an extract of Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4:

నాకుముగుు రుఅకూలు. నామ ిండవఅకూ఩ేరులక్ష్లీలలవణ్ు. మలఅకూ

B.Tech చద్ువుకుింది. తమరీతతృో టీ఩మీక్షలకుఇింటటవద్దఉింది prepare అభ ుది. ఇలలఉిండగ్ర, 2018, ఆగస్ుటనెలలోమలమ ిండవ అకూకుస్ింబ్ింధముకుదిమినది. మలబ్బవగ్రరౄరరళ్ిదిమొటటవలస్ గ్రా మము, స్రుబ్ుజిజల్లమిండలము, శ్రాకరకులముజిలలా . ది.

10.02.2019 మలమ ిండవఅకూ఩ెళ్ళాతుశ్ిభించడింజమిగ్ిింది. ఩ెళ్ళా ఩ీటలమీదే 2018, august లోతుశ్ిభించ్చనకటనముస్మితృో ద్ుఅతు గ్ొడవ఩ెటుట కునానరు. ఩ెళ్ళాఅభనతమరీత఩దిమోజులుమొటటవలస్ గ్రా మములోఉించ్చ, ఉదోుగతుమితుముమరజమిండ్లి railway quarters కుమలఅకూనుతీస్ుకుతువచ్చికర఩ురముచేయడముముద్లు ఩ెటటటనారు. తరురరతమూడెనెలలుఇద్దరౄబ్బగ్రనేఉనానరు. ఆతమరీత అద్న఩ుకటనముగుమిించ్చమలఅకూనురేధిించేరరరు. కటనము స్మితృో లేద్ుబ్ింగ్రర఩ుఉింగరము఩ెటబట లతుఅకూమీద్బ్బగ్రఒతిుడ్ల త చాిరు. అింద్ువలనఉగ్రదికిఉింగరముబ్ింగ్రర఩ుది఩ెటటడింజమిగ్ిింది.

తమరీతమలఅకూఅతాు మలమ, ఩ెద్దఅతులుఇద్దరుతృరటుగ్ర, మలబ్బవ తునున 6 లక్షలుకటనముకుచేస్ుకునాననుకరతూ 15 లక్షలుకటనము ఇచేిస్ింబ్ింధాలుక౅డ్ానాకువచ్చినాభకరతూనేనుచేస్ుకోకుిండ్ా తునునచేస్ుకుతుత఩ుపచేసరనుఅతుమలనళ కింగ్రరేధిించారు. తమరీత అకూగమిిణ్ిఅయలుకమలఅమీగ్రరునాననగ్రరుఅకూనుచోడటబతుకి మరజమిండ్లివచ్చినారు. అ఩ుపడెరరళ్ైిగమతుించ్చిందిఏమిటింటట, అింద్రుఫోజనముచేఱరకై, ఫోజనముచ యుడిం, అతున఩నులుమల అకూఒకూతేుచ యుడింమమియుతినటబతుకిక౅డ్ారరళ్ైిఅడెుచ ఩పడిం చూసరరు. తమరీత delivery కోస్ము఩ుటటటింటటకివచ్చినతమరీత మరజమిండ్లిబ్బవ quarters లోబ్బవఇింటటలోమలఅకూరరళ్ిఅతు, ఩ెద్ద అతులుచేమిమలబ్బవనుఅకూనుమమిింతద్ూరముచేళే఩ియతనము చేసరరు. గమిిణ్ిగ్రమలఇింటలాఉనన఩ుపడెఆమోగుముకోస్ముకరతూ చద్ువుకోసరముగ్రతురేమైఇతరవిషయములుగుమిించ్చక౅డ్ామలఅకూ విషయములోబ్బవకలుగచేస్ుకునేరరరుకరద్ు. అ఩ుపడ఩ుపడెమల బ్బవమలఅకూకి phone చేళ నాక౅డ్ామలనళ కింగ్రరేధిించ్చ అనామోగుముతృరలుఅభ ుటటుాచేళేరరరు. మలఅకూ఩ెళ్ళాఅభనతమరీత coaching కోస్ముతృో టీ఩మీక్షలుపీజుకోస్ముఇతరఅతునసపింత ఖరుిలుగుమిించ్చక౅డ్ామలనాననగ్రమైచూస్ుకునేరరరు. 2020,

April 27 నమలఅకూకుబ్బబ్ు఩ుటటడింజమిగ్ిింది. బ్బబ్ుతుచోడటబతుకి మలఅకూఅతాు మలమ, మలబ్బవమూడెనెలలవరకుఇింటటకిమరలేద్ు.

మలఅకూఎింతోఒతిుడ్లతేవటింవలాబ్బబ్ుకి఩ేరు఩ెటబట లతుబ్బబ్ుకి బ్బరసరలచ యలులతు, బ్బవనుఎింతోతృరి దేయ఩డ్లతేఅ఩ుపడెఒ఩ుపకుతు బ్బబ్ుకిఅభద్ునెలలుతుిండ్లనతమరీతబ్బరసరలచ యుటింజమిగ్ిింది.

మలబ్బవ, మలఅకూరరళ్ిఅతుమలమలు఩ితిసరమిఅద్న఩ుకటనము కోస్మురేదిించారు. మలనాననగ్రరుఇవతూనచూళ , department లో అనగ్ర RPF లో complaint ఇదాద ముఅతుఅింటట, అకూవద్ుదఆలల చేళేు, department లోచ డు఩ేరుమరవటముకరకుిండ్ాతకుూవగ్ర చూసరు రతు, అ఩ుపడెననునఇింకరఴ ింస్కుగుమిచేసరు రతుఅకూఅతునది.

తృో తూ఩ెద్దమనుషేలద్ృల టలో఩ెడదామింటటకుటుింబ్ము఩రువు తృో తేింది. ఇలలఏవిధముగ్రచూళ నాక౅డ్ాననునమమిింతరేదిసరు రు అతుచ ఩ుపటజమిగ్ిింది. ఆతమరీతమలనాననగ్రరుఒకసరమిమలబ్బవకు phone చేళ ఇలలచేయవద్ుద , మీరుఇద్దరుస్ింతోషముగ్రఉిండిండ్లతు చ త౅తే, దాతుకిబ్ద్ులుగ్రమలబ్బవ, మీరుఅకూడ complaint ఇచుికుింటబమోఇవీిండ్లనాకుఎలలింటటభ్యములేద్ుననునఎవరు ఏమిచ యులేరుఅతుఅవఴేళ్నచేళ నారు. ఆతమరీతమలఅకూనుబ్బవ మలనళ కింగ్రనేకరకుిండ్ా, ఱరమీరకింగ్రనుకొటటటఴ ింళ ించేరరడతుచాలలసరరుా మలఅమీకుచ ఩ పమలఅకూబ్బధ఩డ్ేది. ఎ఩పటటకిఅభనామలరుతారతు బ్బవనుఏమిఅనవద్ుదమీరుఅతుచ ఩ేపది. మలచ్చననకూ఩ెిండ్లా స్ింబ్ింధముకుద్రడింవలనది. 12.09.2021 న఩ెళ్ళాచూ఩ులు కరరుకామముతుశ్ిభించటింజమిగ్ిింది. అింద్ుకుమలఅకూతుమలనానన ఆహీతుించగ్రబ్బవనుఅడ్లగ్ిచ ఩ుతానుఅతుచ ఩ పమళ్ళి call చేళ తముీడ్లతు఩ిం఩ ించునేనుబ్బబ్ునుతీస్ుకుతువసరు ను, మీఅలుా డెగ్రరు మరరుఅతుచ ఩ ప call cut చేళ ింది. ది. 11.09.2021 సరయింతిము నేనుమరజమిండ్లివస్ుు నాననుఅతుచ ఩ పబ్బబ్ును, తునునఇింటటకి తీస్ుకువసరు నుఅతుచ ఩పను. అదేమోజుఉద్యము 5-53 తుమిషరలకు హమినువుీమరవద్ుదమీబ్బవవద్ుదఅనానరునేనుమరవటింలేద్ుఅతు నాకు message ఩ెటటటనది. ఆరుగింటలత మిీదితుమిషరలకు, మల చ్చననఅకూకు call చేళ మలబ్బవననునమరతిింతాకొడెత౉, తిడెత౉ ఴ ింళ స్ుు నానరుఅతుఏడెికుింటృ 14 తుముషరలుమలటబా డ్లమళ్ళి చేసరు నుఅతుచ ఩ ప call cut చేళ ింది. తమరీతఏడెగింటలస్మయింలో ఒకసరమిమలనాననగ్రరుమలఅకూకుకరల్చేళ నా lift చ యులేద్ు.

తమరీత 9-23 తుమిషరలకుఎ఩పటటనుించోమలటబా డతుమలబ్బవమల నానన call చేళ మీఅమలీభఇలలవింటగదిలోకిటటకీకిఉమిరేస్ుకుతు ఆతీహతుచేస్ుకుింద్తుచ ఩ పనాడె. ఆతమరీతనాననగ్రరుఅకూ phone కి call చ యుగ్ర RPF constable ఒకరుమీతృర఩ చతుతృో భిందిమీరుఉనన఩లింగ్రమరజమిండ్లిమరరరలతుచ ఩ పనారు.

బేమురెయళిస్మికిమలఅకూశ్వములలగకిింద్఩డ్లకరళ్ైిచేతేలు రెనకిూవిమిచేళ ఉనానభ. బేముబ్బధలోఉింటుిండగ్రనేఅకూశ్రరతున hospital కుతీస్ుకురెళ్ిడమూజమిగ్ిింది. ఇదిజమిగ్ినతమరీత RPF ళ బ్ాిందిమలవద్దకువచ్చి compromise అవీిండ్లడబ్ుాలు ఇ఩ పసరు ముఅతు case ఩ెటటవద్దతుమరజీ఩డమతుమలకుచ తృరపరు.

మరుస్టటమోజుఉద్యము post mortem తుమితుము hospital కు రెళ్ాగ్రఅకూడక౅డ్ా RPF CI, SI లువచ్చిమరజీ఩డమతుకోరడిం జమిగ్ిింది. ముఖుముగ్రఈస్ింఘటనజమిగ్ినస్మయములోమలఅకూ రరళ్ిమమిదిగుజజలస్తీష్కుమలర్అకూడ్ేఉనానరు. ఉమిరేస్ుకునన room కిఎద్ురుగ్రనేఉనానక౅డ్ానాకుఏమిత ల్లయద్ుఅతు అనానడె. కరవునమలబ్బవతు, మలఅకూరరళ్ిఅతుమలమ, ఩ెద్ద అతులు, enquiry చేళ మలకునాుయముచేక౅మరిలతునాుయసరి నాతున మనస్ూూమిుగ్రకోరుకుింటునానను.

17.Now, it is to be looked into the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4.

P.W.1 deposed that on 10.02.2019, they have performed the marriage of deceased with A1 and they have presented

Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and six tulas of gold towards dowry and they have also paid Rs.70,000/- to A1 towards purchase of motorcycle.

P.W.1 further deposed that A1 is working as RPF constable and after the marriage, the deceased joined in the house of A1 which is located in Railway Quarters and blessed with a son. P.W.1 further deposed that the deceased studied B.Tech and A1 used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased and on that, A1 started causing harassment to her. P.W.1 further deposed that he also used to drop the deceased while she was studying and A1 never look after the deceased in dropping her at her college. P.W.1 further deposed that on account of marriage fixation of his daughter, he has invited deceased and A1 and A1 did not allow the deceased to attend the function and on 11.09.2021 during morning time, the deceased made phone call to P.W.3 and informed that she was unable to attend the fixation of the marriage and she was undergoing harassment at the hands of accused and the deceased had also made phone call to P.W.4 and informed that she was unable to attend the marriage fixation and she was facing harassment at the hands of accused and then, she had put off the cell phone. P.W.1 further deposed that on the same day, at about 9.30 A.M., A1 made phone call to her and informed that the deceased committed suicide by hanging and later, one RPF constable also made phone call to him and informed that the deceased committed suicide and asked him to come fastly and at about 4.00 P.M., they all went to the house of A1 from Singapuram and found about lying of dead body of deceased on ground. P.W.1 further deposed that they have also found about lying of chunni beside the dead body and on that, he went to police station and presented Ex.P1 report and thereafter, an inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of MRO concerned and thereafter, postmortem was also conducted over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, the dead body of deceased was handed over to them and then, they have shifted the body of deceased to their village and later, they have conducted funerals as per their caste customs. P.W.1 further deposed that he has a doubt that A1 caused harassment and beat the deceased and killed her and thereafter, he made the death of the deceased as commission of suicide and he has also given statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the Magistrate concerned. P.W.1 further deposed that L.Ws.2 to 4 have also given statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the Magistrate concerned.

18.In the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the counsel of accused, it is the version of P.W.1 that the deceased and A1 resided amicably in Railway Quarters and the deceased did not make any allegation against A1. It is also further version of P.W.1 that the accused did not make demand to the deceased for want of

additional dowry and he has given Ex.P1 report as per the

instructions of their elders and the deceased suffered from severe stomach pain and on that, she has disgusted with her life and finally committed suicide and he has also given statement before the

Magistrate concerned as per the instructions of his elders and A1 is

having good track record in his department and the accused did not cause harassment to the deceased. In the cross-examination conducted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is elicited that

P.W.1 is Government Teacher and studied B.A Graduation.

19.P.W.2 who is the wife of P.W.1 deposed that on 11.09.2021, the deceased made phone call to P.W.3 and said that she was unable to come due to harassment and cut off the phone and thereafter, they have received phone call stating that the deceased committed suicide and on that, they all went to the house of the deceased and found the dead body of the deceased and on that, P.W.1 has given report in Police Station and later, the police handed over the dead body of the deceased to them and then, they have taken the dead body of the deceased to their village and conducted funerals. P.W.2 further deposed that she has given statement before the Magistrate concerned.

20.In the cross-examination conducted by the counsel of accused on P.W.2, it is the version of P.W.2 that the deceased and

A1 amicably resided and she has given statement before the

Magistrate concerned as per the instructions of their relatives.

21.P.W.3 being younger sister of deceased deposed that on 11.09.2021, the deceased made phone call to her and informed that she was suffering from severe stomach pain and later, she had received phone call about the commission of suicide by the deceased and on that, they all went to the house of deceased and found the dead body of the deceased and later, they took the dead body of the deceased to their village and conducted funerals.

22.In the cross-examination conducted by the counsel of accused, it is the version of P.W.3 that she has given statement to the Magistrate concerned as per the instructions of their elders.

23.P.W.4 being the brother of deceased deposed that on 11.09.2021, they have received phone call about commission of suicide by the deceased and on that, they all went to the house of deceased and later, they took the dead body of the deceased to their village and conducted funerals and the deceased committed suicide due to her ill health. P.W.4 further deposed that he has given statement before the Magistrate concerned.

24.In the cross-examination conducted by the counsel of accused, it is the version of P.W.4 that he has given statement

before the Magistrate concerned as per the instructions of their

elders.

25.On perusal of Ex.P7 which is Section 164 statement of

P.W.4, it is noticed by the court that on the next date of the death of deceased, the staff of Railway Protection Force approached P.W.1 and others and asked them to enter into compromise and they will arrange money to them and requested not to file report against A1 and others. Further, the recitals of Ex.P7 go to show that at the time of conducting of postmortem, the RPF C.I and S.I visited the premises of the hospital and requested P.W.1 and others to enter into compromise. When these versions of P.W.4 in Ex.P7 are taken into consideration, it can be said that the departmental officials of

A1 have taken steps immediately after commission of suicide by deceased in requesting P.W.1 and others to enter into compromise and to receive money from A1 since A1 is their constable.

26.The evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 4 before this court made it clear that A1 and deceased resided in Railway Quarters,

Rajamahendravaram. According to the case of prosecution, A2 to

A5 also resided along with A1 and deceased in Railway Quarters.

During the cross-examination conducted by learned counsel of accused on P.Ws.1 to 4, it never discloses that A2 to A5 never resided along with A1 and deceased in Railway Quarters. Thus, it can be said that A2 to A5 also resided along with A1 and deceased in Railway Quarters.

27.There is no dispute about the date of marriage of deceased with A1. There is also no dispute about the date of the death of deceased. The marriage of deceased was held on 10.02.2019. The deceased committed suicide on 11.09.2021.

28.At this juncture, it is relevant to look into the evidence of P.W.13 who is said to be the Medical Officer and who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased along with L.W.16

Dr.M. Phani Kumar.

29.P.W.13 deposed that on 12.09.2021, himself and

L.W.16 being team of doctors conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and noted down the internal and external injuries which were noticed by them on the dead body of deceased in their Ex.P12 Postmortem report and they are of the opinion that the cause of death may be due to hanging leading to Asphyxia and the time of death is 24 to 36 hours before commencement of postmortem and accordingly, they have issued Ex.P13 final opinion.

The learned counsel of accused did not conduct cross-examination of P.W.13 and reported nil. Thus, the evidence of P.W.13 is intact in committing suicide by hanging by the deceased. Thus, this court has no hesitation to say that the deceased committed suicide in matrimonial home while she was residing with A1 to A5 on 11.09.2021.

30.At this juncture, it is relevant to extract Section 113 (A) of Indian Evidence Act.

Section 113-A: Presumption as to abetment of

suicide by a married woman.

[Inserted by Act 46 of 1983, Section 7.]-

When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

31.According to Exs.P2, P3, P5 and P7 statements of

P.Ws.1 to 4, it can be said that the accused caused harassment to the deceased with a demand of dowry and by suspecting her fidelity. P.W.1 has given his chief examination before the court on 04.03.2024. This court fixed schedule to P.Ws.1 to 5 to give evidence before the court on 04.03.2024. After completion of the chief examination of P.W.1 on 04.03.2024, the counsel of accused did not come forward to conduct cross-examination on 04.03.2024 and requested the court to adjourn the matter to 05.03.2024 for cross-examination of P.W.1 along with the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 11. Then, P.Ws.1 to 7 and 11 have given hostile evidence before the court. Though P.W.1 has given evidence as per the case of prosecution in his chief examination, he has given go by version in his cross-examination. Thus, this court is of the opinion that after giving the truth by P.W.1 in his chief examination on 04.03.2024, there was a settlement between P.Ws.1 to 4 and accused and on the next day, P.W.1 has given go by version of his chief examination and P.Ws.2 to 4 have given hostile evidence before the court. When this attitude of P.W.1 is taken into consideration in giving go by version of his earlier chief examination, it can be said that the truth version of P.W.1 was subsequently got influenced by the accused and on that, P.W.1 has given false evidence in his cross-examination before the court. Therefore, this court has no hesitation in considering chief examination of P.W.1 as trust worthy.

When such is the observation of this court, it can be said that Ex.P1 report which was given by P.W.1 to the police contains true facts.

32.Thus, when the evidence of P.W.1 is taken into consideration, the deceased underwent harassment at the hands of

A1 to A5. When the recitals of Ex.P1 are taken into consideration, the deceased underwent harassment at the hands of accused. When the recitals of Ex.P2 statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C are taken into consideration, the deceased was subjected to cruelty at the hands of accused.

33.At this juncture, this court is of the further opinion that the presumption available under Section 113 (A) of Indian Evidence

Act also goes in favour of prosecution. Thus, though P.Ws.2 to 7 who are the siblings and neighbors of deceased turned hostile to the case of prosecution, their evidence does not cause any impact to the case of prosecution.

34.P.W.8 being Chief Nursing Superintendent deposed that on 11.09.2021, she had visited the house of A1 and examined the pulse and eye balls of the deceased and found that there was no response and on that, she had informed the same on phone to their doctor N.V.S Kumari and she informed to P.W.8 to ask A1 to shift his wife to Government General Hospital. The evidence of P.W.8 is not challenged by the counsel of accused.

35.P.W.9 being Inspector of RPF deposed that on 11.09.2021, he has received information from the duty doctor of

Railway Hospital, Rajamahendravaram about commission of suicide by the wife of A1 in her house and on that, he has deputed his staff to visit the house of A1 and they confirmed about commission of suicide by the wife of A1 to him and immediately, he rushed to the house of A1 and found about hanging of the wife of A1 in the kitchen room with a chunni and immediately, he has passed information to II Town Police Station, Rajamahendravaram on the point of jurisdiction and he has also informed about the incident to their superior officers and A1 was on duty between 6.00 A.M., and 2.00 P.M., on 11.09.2021.

36.P.W.10 being A.S.I of R.P.F deposed that on 11.09.2021 at about 8.00 A.M., the brother of A1 made phone call to A1 and informed that his wife committed suicide while A1 was on duty with them and then, he has relieved A1 and he went to his house and he too went to the house of A1 as per the instructions of P.W.9 and found about commission of suicide by the wife of A1 and he has informed the same to P.W.9 and then, P.W.9 also visited the house of A1 and noticed about commission of suicide and P.W.9 has passed an information to II Town Police Station,

Rajamahendravaram on the point of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the accused did not challenge the evidence of P.W.10.

37.P.W.12 being V.R.O deposed that on 11.09.2021, M.R.O conducted an inquest over the dead body of the deceased in their presence and accordingly, he has attested inquest report. P.W.12 further deposed that the police also conducted scene observation at the scene in their presence and accordingly, he has attested scene observation report.

38.P.W.14 being Tahsildar deposed that on 11.09.2021, he conducted an inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the house of deceased in the presence of mediators and blood relatives of deceased and noted down the observations made by him on the dead body of deceased in his inquest report and accordingly, he had issued Ex.P14 inquest report.

39.P.W.15 being first Investigating Officer deposed that on 11.09.2021, he has registered the present case basing on the report of P.W.1 and submitted FIRs to the officers concerned and thereafter, he has proceeded to the house of A1 and P.W.14 conducted an inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and thereafter, he has shifted the dead body of the deceased to Government Hospital and later, he has conducted scene observation at the scene and drawn the rough sketch of the scene and taken photographs of the scene and on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and seized chunni which was used by the deceased for commission of suicide under cover of scene observation report. P.W.15 further recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 6 and also handed over the dead body of the deceased to P.W.1 after completion of Postmortem and on the same day, at about 10.00 P.M., he arrested A1 and sent him to judicial custody and later, he has recorded the statements of P.Ws.7 to 11. P.W.15 further submitted that he has submitted a letter to the Magistrate concerned to record statements of P.Ws.1 to 4.

40.P.W.16 being second Investigating Officer deposed that he took up further investigation in this matter from the hands of

P.W.15 and verified the same on correct lines and after receiving PM report and opinion and after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case. P.W.16 further deposed that the remaining accused were surrendered before the court concerned and got enlarged on bail.

41.The evidence of P.Ws.15 and 16 is intact in collecting the evidence during the course of investigation. Considering the chief evidence of P.W.1 and the respective Section 164 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and in view of the presumption available under Section 113 (A) of Indian Evidence Act, this court has no hesitation to say that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the commission of suicide by deceased on account of harassment undergone by her at the hands of A1 to A5.

42.There is no dispute that P.Ws.1 to 4 have given their respective 164 Cr.P.C statements before VI Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram on 05.10.2021 under

Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P5 and Ex.P7. The said statements were recorded by the said learned Magistrate towards Judicial Proceedings.

Further, P.Ws.1 to 4 have given the said statements in judicial proceedings conducted by the said Magistrate. Now, P.Ws.1 to 4 have given evidence before this court stating that the deceased committed suicide due to stomach pain/ill health and they have given statements to the Magistrate concerned as per the instructions of their elders. Thus, this court is of the strong opinion that P.Ws.1 to 4 have given false evidence before the court during the course of trial though they have given Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P5 and

Ex.P7 statements with true facts. As such, the accused are liable to face consequences as per Section 193 of IPC. Hence, it is relevant to file a complaint against P.Ws.1 to 4 under Section 195 (1) (b) (i) of Cr.P.C for giving false evidence in judicial proceedings.

43.The charges framed against the accused are under

Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. Therefore, it is relevant to extract

Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC herein.

Section 498A: Husband or relative of husband of a

woman subjecting her to cruelty.—

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Section 306. Abetment of suicide.—

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

44.As seen, A1 caused harassment to deceased by suspecting her fidelity. A2 to A5 supported the acts of A1. As such,

A1 to A5 are liable for punishment under Section 498-A IPC. On the unbearable harassment caused by A1 to A5, the deceased had taken extreme step in putting an end to her life and thereby, she had committed suicide by hanging. As such, it can be said that the accused abated the deceased to commit suicide. Accordingly, A1 to

A5 are liable for punishment under Section 306 of IPC.

45.Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has succeeded in proving the charges leveled against the accused.

Accordingly, the accused are liable for punishment.

46.In the result, A1 to A5 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, A1 to A5 are convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- XXXXX

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Rajamahendravaram 02.04.2024:

47.When A1 to A5 are questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, A1 submitted that he is working as constable in RPF,

Tadepalligudem and he is the sole bread winner of his family. A2 and A3 are depending upon his income and his son is residing in the custody of P.W.1 and hence prayed to take lenient view while imposing sentence on him.

48.A2 and A3 submitted that they are suffering from old aged ailments and they are not residing in the house of A1 since the beginning and A1 and deceased alone were resided in the house of

A1 and they are daily wages coolies and hence prayed to take lenient view while imposing sentence on them.

49.A4 and A5 submitted that they never resided in the house of A1 and they are residing in Srikakulam District and they are innocent of offence and they are suffering from old aged ailments and they are daily wages coolies and hence prayed to take lenient view while imposing sentence on them.

50.The proved case of the prosecution is that A1 to A5 being husband and relatives of husband of deceased caused harassment to the deceased and on that, the deceased vexed with the attitude of accused and committed suicide in the matrimonial home within 7 years of her marriage. Thus, this court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to take lenient view while imposing sentence on accused.

51.Considering the submissions made by A2 to A5, this court is of the opinion that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

52.Hence, A2 to A5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay a fine of

Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. A2 to A5 are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

53.Considering the role of A1 in taking the life of deceased, this court is of the opinion that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

54.Hence, A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. A1 is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

55.The sentence imposed against all these accused in respect of above said penal provisions shall run concurrently. The detention period undergone by A1 from 12.09.2021 to 16.11.2021 and A2 to A5 from (NIL) to (NIL) shall be set off. When the accused are questioned with regard to their means in engaging a counsel

before Hon’ble Appellate Authority, they have replied positively.

This court further informed to the accused that they are having right for preferring an appeal against this judgment. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

56.Since P.Ws.1 to 4 have given false evidence before this court, this court inclined to initiate perjury proceedings under

Section 193 of IPC against P.Ws.1 to 4. Accordingly, the Presiding

Officer shall prepare a complaint under Section 195 (1) (b) (i) of

Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC and file the same before the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class concerned within 10 days.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr. III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 2 nd day of April, 2024.

Sd/- XXXXX

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1 : D. Narasimha Murthy. P.W.2 : D. Sarada. P.W.3 : D. Lilly Rani. P.W.4 : D. Harish. P.W.5 : T. Venkata Ratna Kumari. P.W.6 : Chitti Padma. P.W.7 : T. Durga Prasad. P.W.8 : V. Roja Pushpa. P.W.9 : B. Saidaiah. P.W.10 : R. Butchayya. P.W.11 : K. Jyothsna Rani. P.W.12 : V.V.S. Prathyusha. P.W.13 : Dr.Ch. V. Suneetha Devi. P.W.14 : V. Suswagatham. P.W.15 : A. Venkateswara Rao. P.W.16 : R. Vijaya Kumar.

For Defence: None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: 11.09.2021 : Report. Ex.P2: 05.10.2021 : Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3: 05.10.2021 : Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4: 11.09.2021 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P5: 05.10.2021 : Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P6: 11.09.2021 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P7: 05.10.2021 : Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P8: 11.09.2021 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P9: 11.09.2021 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6. Ex.P10: 12.09.2021 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7. Ex.P11: 12.09.2021 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.11. Ex.P12: 20.01.2022 : P.M. Report. Ex.P13: 16.09.2021 : Final report in respect of post mortem. Ex.P14: 11.09.2021 : Inquest report of deceased. Ex.P15: 11.09.2021 : FIR in Cr.No.409/2021 under Section 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC of II Town Police Station. Ex.P16: - : Rough sketch of the scene. Ex.P17: 11.09.2021 : Scene Observation report. Ex.P18: - : Photographs and CD. Ex.P19: 14.12.2021 : Report of FSL.

For Defence : Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

M.O.1 : Chunni.

Sd/- XXXXX

PASJ

// True Copy //

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Rajamahendravaram.

CALANDER

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

:: EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present: Sri S.Praveen Kumar,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Tuesday, the 2nd day of April, 2024.

SESSIONS CASE No.292 of 2023

(PRC No.27 of 2023 on the file of V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram in Crime No. 409/2021 of II Town (L&O) Police Station, Rajamahendravaram)

Complainant: Accused:

State – represented by The 1.Gujjala Ravi, S/o.Ramulu, Inspector of Police, II Town L&O A/32 years, C/Segidi, P.S., Rajamahendravaram. N/o.D.No.2-56, Colony, Rottavalasa Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District now residing at Quarter No.487/C, Railway Quarters, Near 5 carts market, AC Gardens, Rajamahendravaram.

2.Gujjala Ramu, S/o.Krishnamma, A/58 years, C/Segidi, D.No.2-56, Rottavalasa Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District.

3.Gujjala Ramanamma, W/o.Ramulu, A/48 years, C/Segidi, D.No.2-56, Rotavalasa Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District.

4.Bammidi Sundaramma, W/o.Dhalayya, A/59 years,

C/Segidi, D.No.1-20, Jammu, Main Street, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District.

5.Tungana Jaya Lakshmi, W/o.Apparao, A/57 years, C/Segidi, D.No.3-58, Main Colony, Palasa Colony, Alikam, Srikakulam District.

Prosecution conducted by: Accused defended by:

K. Satish Naidu Sri. P.R.S. Mitra, Advocate for

Additional Public Prosecutor, accused.

Rajahmundry.

Offence:498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Plea of the accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Judge: In the result, A1 to A5 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, A1 to A5 are convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Considering the submissions made by A2 to A5, this court is of the opinion that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

Hence, A2 to A5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. A2 to A5 are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month for the offence punishable under Section 498- A of IPC.

Considering the role of A1 in taking the life of deceased, this court is of the opinion that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

Hence, A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. A1 is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

The sentence imposed against all these accused in respect of above said penal provisions shall run concurrently. The detention period undergone by A1 from 12.09.2021 to 16.11.2021 and A2 to A5 from (NIL) to (NIL) shall be set off. When the accused are questioned with regard to their means in engaging a counsel

before Hon’ble Appellate Authority,

they have replied positively. This court further informed to the accused that they are having right for preferring an appeal against this judgment. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Since P.Ws.1 to 4 have given false evidence before this court, this court inclined to initiate perjury proceedings under Section 193 of IPC against P.Ws.1 to 4. Accordingly, the Presiding Officer shall prepare a complaint under Section 195 (1) (b)

(i) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC and file the same before the court of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class concerned

within 10 days.

DATES OF

Offence : 11.09.2021. Complaint : 11.09.2021. Apprehension of A1 : 11.09.2021. Apprehension of A2 to A5 : - Commencement of trial : 04.03.2024. Close of Trial : 07.03.2024. Sentence/Order : 02.04.2024.

Explanation for Delay:

The entire record was made over to this court by Hon'ble Prl.

Sessions Judge's Court, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram for

disposal according to law on 23.09.2023. Charges were framed against the accused on 23.11.2023. Trial of the case was commenced on 04.03.2024 and ended on 07.03.2024. Accused examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 12.03.2024 and arguments were heard on 21.03.2024 and judgment is pronounced on 02.04.2024. Hence, there is no delay.

Sd/- XXXXX

Principal Asst. Sessions Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

Copies submitted to:

1.The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.

2. The Hon'ble District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

3. The Directorate of Prosecution, Hyderabad, DGP Complex, Hyderabad

4. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada.

5. The Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.

6. The V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

// True Copy //

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Rajamahendravaram.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

:: EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present: Sri S.Praveen Kumar

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Tuesday, the 2nd day of April, 2024.

SESSIONS CASE No.292 of 2023

(PRC No.27 of 2023 on the file of V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram in Crime No. 409/2021 of II Town (L&O) Police Station, Rajamahendravaram)

Between:

State – represented by The Inspector of Police, II Town L&O P.S., Rajamahendravaram. … Complainant. And:

1.Gujjala Ravi, S/o.Ramulu, A/32 years, C/Segidi, N/o.D.No.2-56, Colony, Rottavalasa Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District now residing at Quarter No.487/C, Railway Quarters, Near 5 carts market, AC Gardens, Rajamahendravaram.

2.Gujjala Ramu, S/o.Krishnamma, A/58 years, C/Segidi, D.No.2-56, Rottavalasa Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District.

3.Gujjala Ramanamma, W/o.Ramulu, A/48 years, C/Segidi, D.No.2-56, Rotavalasa Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District.

4.Bammidi Sundaramma, W/o.Dhalayya, A/59 years, C/Segidi, D.No.1-20, Jammu, Main Street, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District.

5.Tungana Jaya Lakshmi, W/o.Apparao, A/57 years, C/Segidi, D.No.3-58, Main Colony, Palasa Colony, Alikam, Srikakulam District. … Accused.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 21.03.2024 in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. P.R.S. Mitra, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case filed by the Inspector of Police, II Town

Police Station against A1 to A5 for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.In brief, the case of prosecution is that A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. A4 and A5 are the sisters of A3. The deceased

Dantha Lakshmi Lavanya is the wife of A1. The defacto complainant

Sri Dantha Narasimha Murthy is the father of deceased. The marriage of deceased was performed with A1 on 10.02.2019. A1 is working as R.P.F constable. The deceased is a B.Tech graduate and she was preparing for competitive exams.

After three months of the marriage, A1 started causing physical and mental harassment to the deceased with the active support of A2 to A5 by suspecting her fidelity. A1 did not encourage the deceased and even not bear examination fee and journey charges. The deceased also went to Bangalore along with her father to attend examination. On one day, A1 beat the deceased by suspecting her fidelity and restrained not to talk with her parents and siblings. When the defacto complainant intended to give complaint against A1 to the department head of A1, the deceased stopped him by saying that it would cause damage to the reputation of their family. Later, the defacto complainant invited the deceased to come to their home in order to attend bridal looks of her younger sister Lilli Rani to be held on 12.09.2021. On that, the deceased made request to A1 to allow her to attend the said program. A1 refused to allow her to go to her parents’ house and beat her by suspecting her fidelity. Then, the deceased informed the same to her younger sister Lilli Rani and brother Dantha Hareesh on phone at about 5.40 A.M., and 6.20 A.M., respectively on 11.09.2021 and further she had informed that she was unable to bear harassment at the hands of accused. Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to the window of kitchen room with a chunni when A1 went to attend his work while her younger brother in law was sleeping in the hall of the house.

On noticing about the commission of suicide by the deceased, the brother in law of deceased by name Satish Kumar informed the same to A1 and neighbors. Then, the said Satish Kumar alone removed the knot of hanging and got down her and laid her on ground. Thereafter, A1 rushed to the home along with railway hospital nurse and compounder. The said nurse examined the deceased and declared that she died. Then, A1 made phone call to defacto complainant and others and informed about the incident. As such, the defacto complainant rushed to the house of deceased along with his wife and children.

Thus, basing on the report of defacto complainant, a case was got registered and investigated into. The Mandal Executive

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram (Urban) conducted an inquest over

the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars and blood relatives of deceased. On 11.09.2021, the Inspector of

Police arrested A1 and sent him to judicial custody. Team of Medical

Officers who have conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased are of the opinion that the cause of the death of the deceased may be due to hanging leading to Asphyxia and the time of death is 24 to 36 hours before commencement of postmortem.

A2 to A5 obtained anticipatory bail vide Crl.M.P.No.2632/2021

dated 03.11.2021 on the file of the court of Hon’ble I Additional

Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Hence, the accused were

charge sheeted.

3.The court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Rajamahendravaram took the cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused.

4.As the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the said learned

Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions under

Section 209 Cr.P.C. Thus, the said case was made over to this court for trial and disposal.

5.A1 to A5 were examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C and charges under Section 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC were framed against A1 to A5, read over and explained to them in

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

6.In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P19 and M.O.1.

7.After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, A1 to A5 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported that they have no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel of A1 to A5.

9.The point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the charges leveled against them beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that except P.W.1 none of the prosecution witnesses deposed anything against the accused. P.Ws.2 to 7 deposed about commission of suicide by the deceased. P.Ws.8 to 11 also deposed about commission of suicide by the deceased. The Medical Officer P.W.13 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased along with team of doctors deposed that the death of deceased may be due to hanging leading to Asphyxia and the time of death is 24 to 36 hours before commencement of post mortem examination. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing about commission of suicide by the deceased. The marriage of the deceased was performed with A1 on 10.02.2019 and the deceased committed suicide on 11.09.2021. The deceased committed suicide within seven years of her marriage. Therefore, the court can safely presume under Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act that the accused herein alone are responsible for cause of the commission of suicide by the deceased. Further, the learned VI Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram recorded the

statements of P.Ws. 1 to 4 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the court is empowered to consider Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C from P.Ws.1 to 4.

The offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is not a compoundable one. P.W.1 has given evidence in chief on 04.03.2024 as per Ex.P2 Section 164 Cr.P.C statement. The counsel of accused has taken adjournment and conducted cross- examination on P.W.1 on 05.03.2024. Then, P.W.1 has given evidence by giving go by version to his earlier chief examination.

Thereupon, the remaining witnesses P.Ws.2 to 7 did not speak anything in respect of case facts and deposed that the accused are no way responsible for the cause of the death of the deceased.

P.Ws.1 to 4 have given false evidence before this court though they have given statements with true facts in their respective Section 164 Cr.P.C statements. Therefore, the court can rely upon Ex.P2,

Ex.P3, Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 statements in proving the guilt of accused.

Hence, with these submissions, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor prayed to punish the accused as per law.

11.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that P.Ws.1 to 4 have given their respective 164 Cr.P.C statements as per the instructions of elders and police.

The statement given by P.Ws.1 to 4 under Sections 164 Cr.P.C are not corroborated with each other. There are several contradictions, omissions between P.Ws.1 to 4 in the said statements. There is also no consistency by P.Ws.1 to 4 in the said statements. As such, the court cannot rely upon Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 which are respective Section 164 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 to 4. P.Ws.2 to 8 being siblings, eye witnesses and relatives though deposed about the commission of suicide by deceased, they did not speak anything against the accused. None of these witnesses deposed that the deceased committed suicide due to harassment of these accused.

The witnesses further deposed that the deceased committed suicide due to unbearable stomach pain. Initially, P.W.1 has given evidence

before the court as per the instructions of police in his chief

examination. Later, P.W.1 has given go by version during cross examination. Therefore, the court cannot rely upon the evidence of

P.W.1 in presenting Ex.P1 report. As P.W.1 has lost his daughter, the police has taken signatures on empty papers and later on, they got foisted the present case against these innocent accused. A1 is having an infant son. There is no ample evidence on record to believe that the deceased has disgusted with the attitude of A1 to

A5 and thereby, she committed suicide. With these submissions, the learned counsel for the accused prayed to acquit the accused in the interest of justice.

12.On perusal of the entire record, it is noticed that P.W.1 has given Ex.P2 statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C before VI

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

P.W.2 has also given Ex.P3 statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C to the said learned Magistrate. P.W.3 has also given Ex.P5 statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C to the said learned magistrate. P.W.4 has also given Ex.P7 statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C to the said learned Magistrate. Thus, it is relevant to extract the entire statements of these witnesses here under.

13.The following is an extract of Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1:

నాదిళ ింగు఩ురింగ్రా మము, శ్రాకరకులముమిండలము, శ్రాకరకులము జిలలా . నేను ZPH స్ూూల్, మలకివలస్గ్రా మము, నరస్నన఩ేట మిండలములో vocational teacher గ్ర఩తుచేస్ుు నానను. నాకు నలుగురుస్ింతానముఅనగ్రముగుు రుఅమలీభలు, ఒకఅబ్బాభ.

నేను఩ెద్దతృర఩కువిజయనగరింరరస్ువుులువిఱవీశ్ీరమరవుకుఇచ్చి఩ెిండ్లా చేళ నాము. రరరుఇద్దరు employees మమియుఇద్దరౄస్ింతోషముగ్ర జీవిస్ుు నానరు. మలమ ిండవతృర఩లక్ష్లీలలవణ్ునుగుజజలరవి, మోటటవలస్ గ్రా మలతుకిచ ిందినఅతతుకిఇచ్చిది.10.02.2019 నఇరువుమి఩ెద్దల స్మక్షింలో఩ెిండ్లాచేళ నాము. విరరహస్మయములోఆరులక్షల కటనము, ఆరుతేలలలబ్ింగ్రరము, two wheeler కు

Rs.80,000/- లుమమియుఅధకముసరమ సరమలనుామలఅలుా డె గుజజలరవికికటనకరనుకలుగ్రఇచ్చినాము. మలఅలుా డెగుజజలరవి, మరజమిండ్లిలో RPF constable గ్ర఩తుచేస్ుు నానడె. విరరహము అభనాతరురరతమలఅమలీభలక్ష్లీలలవణ్ుమమియుగుజజలరవి మరజమిండ్లిలో railway quarters లోకర఩ురము఩ెటటటనారు. రరరు ఇరువురుఆరునెలలుస్ుఖముగ్రకర఩ురముచేళ నారు. మల అమలీభ, అలుా డెతోతృరటు, మలఅలుా డెఅమీ, ఩ెద్దమీ, ఩ ననమీ, అతతుతముీడెక౅డ్ాఉిండ్ేరరరు. ఇింటటల్లాతృరదివింటమలఅమలీభ చేళేది. రరళ్ాకుతినగ్రమిగ్ిల్లనదిమలఅమలీభకి఩ెటటటరరరు. తరురరత కొదిదకరలలతుకిమలఅమలీభబ్బగ్ర weakness గ్రఉింద్తుమలఇింటటకి ఩ిం఩ ించ్చరేళ నారు. అ఩పటటనుించ్చమలఅమలీభతు hospital లో చూ఩ ించ్చ, medicines ఇ఩ పించ్చనాము. మలఅమలీభఆమోగుము బ్బగునానకనేనేతీస్ుకుతువచ్చి Rajamandry Quarters లో దిిం఩ నాను. నాఫబరుమూడెమోజులుమలతృర఩ద్గురనేఉింది. నేనుమల ఊరురెళ్ళితృో యలను. మూడెమోజులతమరీతనాఫబరుక౅డ్ామలఇింటటకి వచేిళ ింది. తమరీత఩ెిండ్లాఅభనాతమరీతముద్టట఩ిండగస్ింకరా ింతి వచ్చినది. రరళ్ైిఇద్దరు఩ిండగకుమలఇింటటకివచ్చినారు. తమరీత స్ింకరా ింతి఩ిండగకటనింగ్ర Rs. 10,000/- లుమలఅలుా డెగుజజలరవి కిఇచ్చినాము. గుజజలరవిరరళ్ిఅమీగ్రమికి Rs. 10,000/- లు ఇచ్చినటుాచ ఩పగ్ర, అ఩ుపడెఆబెడబ్ుాలుతీస్ుకోవద్ుద , బ్ింగ్రర఩ు ఉింగరముఅడెగుఅతుచ ఩పగ్ర, మలఅలుా డెకిఅ఩ుపడెఅద్నింగ్ర ఇింకో Rs. 5,000/- లుఉింగరముకోస్ముఇచ్చినాను. ఩ిండగ తమరీతమరజమిండ్లికిఇద్దరువచ్చినారు. తమరీతమలతృర఩కు pregnancy వచ్చిింది. మయళిఆమోగుముబ్బగ్ోకతృో తేమలఅమలీభతు మలఇింటటకితీస్ుకువచ్చినను. తమరీతనేనుమలఅమలీభకి medical treatment ఇ఩ పించ్చనాను. ఆమోగుముబ్బగు఩డ్లనతమరీత మలఅమీభతుమరలమరజమిండ్లిలోదిగబ్ెటటటనను. తృర఩ delivery ముింద్రమలస్ీగ్రా మములోశ్రామింతముచేళ నాము. శ్రామింతము జమిగ్ినతమరీతమలతృర఩నుమరజమిండ్లికితీస్ుూతురెళ్ిలేద్ు. శ్రామింతము జమిగ్ినస్మయములో, ఩ెద్దమనుషేలస్మక్షింలోమలతృర఩తు, స్మిగ్ర చూడటింలేద్ు, ఆహరముక౅డ్ా఩ెటటడింలేద్ు, అింద్ువలన weakness గ్రతయలురుఅభనదిఅతుఅడెగగ్ర, రరరుమీతృర఩ను మీమైచూసో ూిండ్ల, medicines మీమైఇ఩ పించిండ్లమలకుస్ింబ్ింధము లేద్ుఅతుమలతృర఩నువిడ్లచ్చ఩ెటటటరెళ్ళితృో భనారు. తమరీతమలఅలుా డె గ్రతు, రరళ్ిఅమీ, ఩ెద్దమీలుఒకూసరమిక౅డ్ామలఅమలీభకితౄో న్ చ యులేద్ు. చూడటబతుకిక౅డ్ామరలేద్ు. తమరీతమలతృర఩ది.

21.04.2020 న delivery అభుింది. బ్బబ్ు఩ుటటటనాడె. రెింటనే first call మలఅలుా డ్లకితౄో న్చేళ చ ఩ పనాము. Delivery అభున మూడెనెలలువరక౅మలఅమీభతుచూడటబతుకిఎవీరౄమరలేద్ు.

తరురరతఅభద్వనెలలోబ్బరసరలకుమలఅలుా డె, అతతు బ్ింధుమితేి లుఅింద్రౄవచ్చినారు. అభద్వనెలదాటటనతమరీతమల అలుా డ్లనాననఇచ్చినహమీమీద్మలఅమీభతుమరజమిండ్లికి ఩ిం఩ ించ్చనాము. మూడెనెలలువుభ్ిముగ్రఉనానరు. మరలరరళ్ి అమీ, ఩ెద్దమీ, ఩ ననమీ, మలఅలుా డె duty కిరెళ్ళానతమరీత, మల అమలీభ harass చేళ , మలకివిండ్ల఩ెటుట , నువుీచద్ువుకోవటబతుకి వీలులేద్ుఅనేరరరు. మలతృర఩ B.Tech చదివిింది. bank exams కుమలఅమీభతుతీస్ుకుతురెళ్తానతు, చ్చవమిస్మయములోనేను duty కిరెయళిల్ల, కుద్రద్ుఅనేరరడె. అ఩ుపడెనేనుతీస్ుకుతురెళ్ళా exams రరి భించ్చమయళిమరజమిండ్లివదిల్ల఩ెటటటరరడ్లతు. అ఩ుపడెమల అలుా డెఎవమితోరెయళివు, ఎవమితోతిమిగ్రవుఅతుమలనళ కము అనుమలనముతోమలఅమీభతుఴ ింళ ించేరరడె. మరలబ్బబ్ు఩ుటటటన తమరీతమ ిండవస్ింకరా ింతికివచ్చిమరలతేలముబ్ింగ్రరముగ్రతు,

Rs.50,000/- కటనముగ్రతుఅడ్లగ్ినాడె. నేనుఅింతఇచుికోలేను.

నాఆమిిక఩మిళ దతిబ్బగ్ోలేద్ు, Rs.30,000/- వరక౅ఇచుికోగలనుఅతు చ ఩ పనాడె. అ఩ుపడె Rs.40,000/- ఩ీడ్లించ్చతీస్ుకొతునాడె. మరల మరజమిండ్లికివచ్చినారు. అకూడనుించ్చమలఅమలీభతుమలఅలుా డె ఴ ింళ ించుటతృరి రింభించ్చనారు. ఩ితివిషయముమీఅమీనాననలకు చ ఩ుతేనానవు, ఩ితివిషయముమీఅమలీనాననలకుచ ఩పక౅డద్ు అనేరరడె. తమరీతమలమనవడ్లకిబ్బగ్ోలేద్ుఅింటటనేనేమరజమిండ్లికి వచ్చిమలగ్రా మలతుకితీస్ుకురెళ్ళానను. అ఩ుపడెమలతృర఩నుఎమనాన ఇబ్ాింది఩ెడెతేనానడ్ాఅతుఅడగగ్ర, ననునకొడెతేనానడె, తిడెతేనానడెఅతుచ ఩ పనది. తరురరతనేను department higher officers కు complaint చేదాద ముఅనగ్ర, మలఅమలీభ఩రువు తృో తేింది, insult feel అవుతాడెనాననఇింకర harass చేసరు డె, ఈ సరమికిక్షమిించ్చవదిల్లరేభమింది. తమరీతనేనుమలఅమలీభమల అలుా డ్లకి phone దాీమరఴెచిమిించగ్రఏమిచేసరు వుఅతునాడె. తమరీత మలఅలుా డెమలఅమలీభతుతీవిముగ్రఴ ింళ ించ్చనాడె. తమరీత phone లోకుడ్ామలతోమలటబా డకుిండ్ాచేళ నాడె. మలఅలుా డెలేతు స్మయములోమలతృర఩మలతో phone లోమలటబా డ్ేది. గ్ొడవఅభన తమరీతఅనగ్రమ ిండవస్ింకరా ింతికిఅభనఆరునెలలకుమలఅమలీభ ఇింటటకివచ్చినాము. తమరీతమ ిండెగింటలుమలమనవడ్లతోగడ్ల఩ మల గ్రా మమురెళ్ళితృో భనాము. తమరీతమలతృర఩మలఇింటటకిమరలేద్ు.

తమరీతమలతృర఩ phone చేళ ననునకొడెతేనానడెఅతుచ ఩ేపది.

నువుీచద్ువుకునానవుఅతుతకుూవకటనింతోచేస్ుకునానము. మల అలుా డె harassment వలనమలతృర఩మరఖీ఩ిండగకిమలతృర఩మల ఇింటటకిఆబెతముీడ్లకిఅనగ్రమలఅబ్బాభకిమరఖికటటడ్ాతుకి వచ్చినది. తమరీతబేముమలఅమలీభతు Rajahmundry కి ఩ిం఩ ించ్చనాము. మలఅలుా డ్ేతీస్ుకుతురెళ్ళినాడె. మలచ్చననతృర఩కు engagement కుమలతృర఩ను, అలుా డ్లతు఩ లువగ్ర, మలఅలుా డెమల అమలీభతుముద్ట఩ిం఩ సరు నతు, తమరీతనేను఩ిం఩ యనుఅనానడె.

తమరీతమలతృర఩నేనుమరను engagement function చేళేయిండ్ల అతుచ ఩ పనది. ది.11.09.2021 ఉద్యముచ్చననమలీభకి 6-10 తుమిషరలకి, phone చేళ నేను engagement కుమరలేను, మీరు రెళ్ిిండ్ల, మరతిింతాననునతిటటట, కొటటట, నానాఅనుమలనముమలటలు మలటబా డ్లనువుీచళేుగతు఩ీడ్ావద్లద్ుఅనానడతుఏడెికుింటృ చ ఩ పనది. ఆవిషయముమలచ్చన్నతృర఩నాకుచ ఩ పనది. తమరీత రెింటనేనేనుతృరవుగింటలోమలతృర఩కు phone చ యుగ్ర phone lift చ యులేద్ు. ఉద్యముఅనగ్రది. 11.09.2021, 9-15 కుమల అలుా డెనాకు phone చేళ మలవయులక్ష్లీలలవణ్ుచతుతృో భింది. ఏమి జమిగ్ిిందిఅతునేనుఅడెగగ్రఏమిచ ఩పలేద్ు. తమరీత 9-15 తుమిషరలకునేనుమలతృర఩ phone కిచేళ నను. అ఩ుపడె department constable lift చేళ మీతృర఩చతుతృో భనదిత ింద్రగ్ర మరరరలతుచ ఩ పనాడె. రెింటనేనేను, నఫబరు, మలబ్బబ్ు, చ్చననమలీభ కరరులో Rajahmundry కివచ్చినాము. వచేిస్మికివింటగదిలో ఩డ్లతృో భఉననదిశ్వము. మ ిండెకరళ్ైిరెనుకకువిమిచ్చఉననవి. కుడ్ల చ భుక౅డ్ారెనుకకువిమిచ్చఉననది. కిాింద్రకుముక౅డ్ాఉననది.

చతుతృో భ ింతధ ైరుమింతేమరలుకరద్ు. మలఅనుమలనముమలతిమూమల అలుా డె, రరళ్ిఅమీ, ఩ెద్దమీలు, ఩ ననమీ, తముీడెస్తీష్ కుమలరు, చ్చతిఴ ింస్చేళ , ఴ ింళ ించ్చమలఅమలీభలక్ష్లీలలవణ్ును చిం఩ నారు. ఆతరురరతనేను II Town Police రరమికి report ఇచ్చినాము. మలకుఅనాుయముజమిగ్ిింది. మలకునాుయముచేయిండ్ల.

14.The following is an extract of Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2:

మలమ ిండవఅమలీభ఩ేరులక్ష్లీలలవణ్ు. మలమ ిండవఅమలీభతు మొటటవలస్కుచ ిందినగుజజలరవికిఇచ్చి఩ెిండ్లాచేళ నాము. ఩ెిండ్లాఅభన తమరీతఆరునెలలుస్ుఖముగ్రఉనానరు. తమరీతమలఅమలీభతు బ్బగ్రఴ ింళ ించ్చనాడె. మలఅలుా డె, మమియుగుజజలరమణ్మీ, స్ుింద్రమీమిగ్ిల్లనమలఅలుా డెకుటుింబ్స్భ్ుులుమలఅమలీభతు చ్చతిఴ ింస్లు఩ెటటటచిం఩ేళ నారు. మలఅమీభకిబ్బబ్ు఩ుటటటనతమరీత క౅డ్ామలఅలుా డెఒకస్ింవతసరముక౅డ్ామరలేద్ు. అ఩ుపడెనేను మలఅమలీభకిఏమిఅభనాజమిగ్ితేమీదేబ్బధుతఅతుఅతునాను. మల అలుా డెతముీడెగుజజలస్తీష్క౅డ్ారరళ్ిఅననతోకల్లళ మల అమలీభతుచిం఩ నాడె. మలఅమలీభతుచిం఩ నరరమి఩ెైతగ్ినచరు తీస్ుకుతు, శిక్ష్లించ్చ, నాుయముచేక౅రివలనతుకోరుకుింటునానను.

15.The following is an extract of Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3:

నా఩ేరుల్లల్లామరణ్ి. మలఅకూ఩ేరులక్ష్లీలలవణ్ు. మలఅకూ B.Tech చద్ువుకుననది. ది. 10.02.2019 నమలఅకూకు, గుజజలరవితో విరరహముఅభనది. మ ిండెనెలలుఇద్దరుబ్బగ్రనేఉనానరు.

తమరీతనుించ్చఅతు, మలమలు, ఩ెద్దఅతులుకటనింరేధిిం఩ులతోమల అకూనుఴ ింళ ించేరరరు. మలబ్బవరవి 15 లక్షలుకటనముఇసరు ననే అమలీభతువద్ులుకునాననుఅతు, ఎదోఒకవిషయములోమలఅకూను కటనముగుమిించ్చరేధిించేరరరు. మలఅకూకుస్మిఅభన food క౅డ్ా ఩ెటటటరరళ్ైికరద్ు. మలఅకూ delivery time లోమలఅకూ food తిింటట, నువుీఎింద్ుకుతిింటునానవు, బేముఅింద్రమూతిననతమరీత నువుీతినాల్ల, నువుీ఩తుచ యలుల్లఅతు, మలఅకూనుఴ ింళ ించేరరరు.

మోజుమలఅకూనాకు phone చేళ చ ఩ేపది. మల parents చ తృప పద్ుద అనేది. అభనాకరతూనేనుమల parents తోచ ఩ేపదాతుతు. parents చ ఩ పనతమరీతఒకూసరమి department లో complaint చేసరు మతు చ ఩ పనారు. దాతుకిమలఅకూఒ఩ుపకోలేద్ు. ఇింకరరేదిసరు రతు, మమియు మలఅకూనేనేమలరుికుింటబనుఅతతుతుఅతుచ ఩ పింది. ఇలలమోజు phone చేళ కొడెతేనానరతుఏడెస్ూుఉిండ్ేది. ఎింద్ుకు఩ితివిషయము మలఇింటలా రరళ్ాకుచ ఩ుు నానవుఅతుమలఅకూనుతిటటటరరరు. అలలగ్ైది.

10.09.2021 ఉద్యము 6-15 తుమిషరలకి phone చేళ 14 minutes ఏడెస్ూుమలటబా డ్లింది. నాకు 12.09.2021 న఩ెళ్ళాచూ఩ులు కరరుకామలతుకిమలఇింటటకిమరవటబతుకిఅనుమతితీస్ుకుింది. 10 వ తామీఖువరకురెళ్ిమతుచ ఩ పనారు. 10 వతామీఖుమరతిిమలబ్బవగ్రమి అమీగ్రరుఅతతుకి phone చేళ ఩ిం఩ ించవద్ుదఅతుచ ఩ పనారు.

అ఩ుపడెనా character మించ్చదికరద్ు, మరతిిఅింతననునకొటబట రు అతుఏడెికుింటృనాతో phone లోచ ఩ పింది. తమరీతమలనాననగ్రరు మలఅకూకు call చేళ నారు. మలఅకూ lift చ యులేద్ు. తమరీతమల బ్బవ phone చేళ మలఅకూ suicide చేస్ుకుింది, pulse లేద్ుఅతు call చేళ చ ఩ పనాడె. బేమురెళ్ళాచూళే఩పటటకీsuicide చేస్ుకుననటుా లేద్ు. ఩డ్లతృో భమ ిండెకరళ్ైిమమియుఒకచ భురెనకిూ విమిచ్చబ్డ్లఉనానభ. రవిరరళ్ితముీడెక౅డ్ాఆఇింటలాఉనానడె.

బేమురవిరరళ్ితముీడ్లతుఅడెగగ్రమరతిింతాఏమిజరగలేద్ు. ఇద్దరు బ్బగ్రనేఉనానరుఅతుచ ఩ పనారు. ఇింద్ులో఩ితుక్షసరక్ష్లగుజజలస్తీష్.

మలఅకూ suicide చేస్ుకోలేద్ు. మలకునాుయముచేయగలరు.

16.The following is an extract of Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4:

నాకుముగుు రుఅకూలు. నామ ిండవఅకూ఩ేరులక్ష్లీలలవణ్ు. మలఅకూ

B.Tech చద్ువుకుింది. తమరీతతృో టీ఩మీక్షలకుఇింటటవద్దఉింది prepare అభ ుది. ఇలలఉిండగ్ర, 2018, ఆగస్ుటనెలలోమలమ ిండవ అకూకుస్ింబ్ింధముకుదిమినది. మలబ్బవగ్రరౄరరళ్ిదిమొటటవలస్ గ్రా మము, స్రుబ్ుజిజల్లమిండలము, శ్రాకరకులముజిలలా . ది.

10.02.2019 మలమ ిండవఅకూ఩ెళ్ళాతుశ్ిభించడింజమిగ్ిింది. ఩ెళ్ళా ఩ీటలమీదే 2018, august లోతుశ్ిభించ్చనకటనముస్మితృో ద్ుఅతు గ్ొడవ఩ెటుట కునానరు. ఩ెళ్ళాఅభనతమరీత఩దిమోజులుమొటటవలస్ గ్రా మములోఉించ్చ, ఉదోుగతుమితుముమరజమిండ్లి railway quarters కుమలఅకూనుతీస్ుకుతువచ్చికర఩ురముచేయడముముద్లు ఩ెటటటనారు. తరురరతమూడెనెలలుఇద్దరౄబ్బగ్రనేఉనానరు. ఆతమరీత అద్న఩ుకటనముగుమిించ్చమలఅకూనురేధిించేరరరు. కటనము స్మితృో లేద్ుబ్ింగ్రర఩ుఉింగరము఩ెటబట లతుఅకూమీద్బ్బగ్రఒతిుడ్ల త చాిరు. అింద్ువలనఉగ్రదికిఉింగరముబ్ింగ్రర఩ుది఩ెటటడింజమిగ్ిింది.

తమరీతమలఅకూఅతాు మలమ, ఩ెద్దఅతులుఇద్దరుతృరటుగ్ర, మలబ్బవ తునున 6 లక్షలుకటనముకుచేస్ుకునాననుకరతూ 15 లక్షలుకటనము ఇచేిస్ింబ్ింధాలుక౅డ్ానాకువచ్చినాభకరతూనేనుచేస్ుకోకుిండ్ా తునునచేస్ుకుతుత఩ుపచేసరనుఅతుమలనళ కింగ్రరేధిించారు. తమరీత అకూగమిిణ్ిఅయలుకమలఅమీగ్రరునాననగ్రరుఅకూనుచోడటబతుకి మరజమిండ్లివచ్చినారు. అ఩ుపడెరరళ్ైిగమతుించ్చిందిఏమిటింటట, అింద్రుఫోజనముచేఱరకై, ఫోజనముచ యుడిం, అతున఩నులుమల అకూఒకూతేుచ యుడింమమియుతినటబతుకిక౅డ్ారరళ్ైిఅడెుచ ఩పడిం చూసరరు. తమరీత delivery కోస్ము఩ుటటటింటటకివచ్చినతమరీత మరజమిండ్లిబ్బవ quarters లోబ్బవఇింటటలోమలఅకూరరళ్ిఅతు, ఩ెద్ద అతులుచేమిమలబ్బవనుఅకూనుమమిింతద్ూరముచేళే఩ియతనము చేసరరు. గమిిణ్ిగ్రమలఇింటలాఉనన఩ుపడెఆమోగుముకోస్ముకరతూ చద్ువుకోసరముగ్రతురేమైఇతరవిషయములుగుమిించ్చక౅డ్ామలఅకూ విషయములోబ్బవకలుగచేస్ుకునేరరరుకరద్ు. అ఩ుపడ఩ుపడెమల బ్బవమలఅకూకి phone చేళ నాక౅డ్ామలనళ కింగ్రరేధిించ్చ అనామోగుముతృరలుఅభ ుటటుాచేళేరరరు. మలఅకూ఩ెళ్ళాఅభనతమరీత coaching కోస్ముతృో టీ఩మీక్షలుపీజుకోస్ముఇతరఅతునసపింత ఖరుిలుగుమిించ్చక౅డ్ామలనాననగ్రమైచూస్ుకునేరరరు. 2020,

April 27 నమలఅకూకుబ్బబ్ు఩ుటటడింజమిగ్ిింది. బ్బబ్ుతుచోడటబతుకి మలఅకూఅతాు మలమ, మలబ్బవమూడెనెలలవరకుఇింటటకిమరలేద్ు.

మలఅకూఎింతోఒతిుడ్లతేవటింవలాబ్బబ్ుకి఩ేరు఩ెటబట లతుబ్బబ్ుకి బ్బరసరలచ యలులతు, బ్బవనుఎింతోతృరి దేయ఩డ్లతేఅ఩ుపడెఒ఩ుపకుతు బ్బబ్ుకిఅభద్ునెలలుతుిండ్లనతమరీతబ్బరసరలచ యుటింజమిగ్ిింది.

మలబ్బవ, మలఅకూరరళ్ిఅతుమలమలు఩ితిసరమిఅద్న఩ుకటనము కోస్మురేదిించారు. మలనాననగ్రరుఇవతూనచూళ , department లో అనగ్ర RPF లో complaint ఇదాద ముఅతుఅింటట, అకూవద్ుదఆలల చేళేు, department లోచ డు఩ేరుమరవటముకరకుిండ్ాతకుూవగ్ర చూసరు రతు, అ఩ుపడెననునఇింకరఴ ింస్కుగుమిచేసరు రతుఅకూఅతునది.

తృో తూ఩ెద్దమనుషేలద్ృల టలో఩ెడదామింటటకుటుింబ్ము఩రువు తృో తేింది. ఇలలఏవిధముగ్రచూళ నాక౅డ్ాననునమమిింతరేదిసరు రు అతుచ ఩ుపటజమిగ్ిింది. ఆతమరీతమలనాననగ్రరుఒకసరమిమలబ్బవకు phone చేళ ఇలలచేయవద్ుద , మీరుఇద్దరుస్ింతోషముగ్రఉిండిండ్లతు చ త౅తే, దాతుకిబ్ద్ులుగ్రమలబ్బవ, మీరుఅకూడ complaint ఇచుికుింటబమోఇవీిండ్లనాకుఎలలింటటభ్యములేద్ుననునఎవరు ఏమిచ యులేరుఅతుఅవఴేళ్నచేళ నారు. ఆతమరీతమలఅకూనుబ్బవ మలనళ కింగ్రనేకరకుిండ్ా, ఱరమీరకింగ్రనుకొటటటఴ ింళ ించేరరడతుచాలలసరరుా మలఅమీకుచ ఩ పమలఅకూబ్బధ఩డ్ేది. ఎ఩పటటకిఅభనామలరుతారతు బ్బవనుఏమిఅనవద్ుదమీరుఅతుచ ఩ేపది. మలచ్చననకూ఩ెిండ్లా స్ింబ్ింధముకుద్రడింవలనది. 12.09.2021 న఩ెళ్ళాచూ఩ులు కరరుకామముతుశ్ిభించటింజమిగ్ిింది. అింద్ుకుమలఅకూతుమలనానన ఆహీతుించగ్రబ్బవనుఅడ్లగ్ిచ ఩ుతానుఅతుచ ఩ పమళ్ళి call చేళ తముీడ్లతు఩ిం఩ ించునేనుబ్బబ్ునుతీస్ుకుతువసరు ను, మీఅలుా డెగ్రరు మరరుఅతుచ ఩ ప call cut చేళ ింది. ది. 11.09.2021 సరయింతిము నేనుమరజమిండ్లివస్ుు నాననుఅతుచ ఩ పబ్బబ్ును, తునునఇింటటకి తీస్ుకువసరు నుఅతుచ ఩పను. అదేమోజుఉద్యము 5-53 తుమిషరలకు హమినువుీమరవద్ుదమీబ్బవవద్ుదఅనానరునేనుమరవటింలేద్ుఅతు నాకు message ఩ెటటటనది. ఆరుగింటలత మిీదితుమిషరలకు, మల చ్చననఅకూకు call చేళ మలబ్బవననునమరతిింతాకొడెత౉, తిడెత౉ ఴ ింళ స్ుు నానరుఅతుఏడెికుింటృ 14 తుముషరలుమలటబా డ్లమళ్ళి చేసరు నుఅతుచ ఩ ప call cut చేళ ింది. తమరీతఏడెగింటలస్మయింలో ఒకసరమిమలనాననగ్రరుమలఅకూకుకరల్చేళ నా lift చ యులేద్ు.

తమరీత 9-23 తుమిషరలకుఎ఩పటటనుించోమలటబా డతుమలబ్బవమల నానన call చేళ మీఅమలీభఇలలవింటగదిలోకిటటకీకిఉమిరేస్ుకుతు ఆతీహతుచేస్ుకుింద్తుచ ఩ పనాడె. ఆతమరీతనాననగ్రరుఅకూ phone కి call చ యుగ్ర RPF constable ఒకరుమీతృర఩ చతుతృో భిందిమీరుఉనన఩లింగ్రమరజమిండ్లిమరరరలతుచ ఩ పనారు.

బేమురెయళిస్మికిమలఅకూశ్వములలగకిింద్఩డ్లకరళ్ైిచేతేలు రెనకిూవిమిచేళ ఉనానభ. బేముబ్బధలోఉింటుిండగ్రనేఅకూశ్రరతున hospital కుతీస్ుకురెళ్ిడమూజమిగ్ిింది. ఇదిజమిగ్ినతమరీత RPF ళ బ్ాిందిమలవద్దకువచ్చి compromise అవీిండ్లడబ్ుాలు ఇ఩ పసరు ముఅతు case ఩ెటటవద్దతుమరజీ఩డమతుమలకుచ తృరపరు.

మరుస్టటమోజుఉద్యము post mortem తుమితుము hospital కు రెళ్ాగ్రఅకూడక౅డ్ా RPF CI, SI లువచ్చిమరజీ఩డమతుకోరడిం జమిగ్ిింది. ముఖుముగ్రఈస్ింఘటనజమిగ్ినస్మయములోమలఅకూ రరళ్ిమమిదిగుజజలస్తీష్కుమలర్అకూడ్ేఉనానరు. ఉమిరేస్ుకునన room కిఎద్ురుగ్రనేఉనానక౅డ్ానాకుఏమిత ల్లయద్ుఅతు అనానడె. కరవునమలబ్బవతు, మలఅకూరరళ్ిఅతుమలమ, ఩ెద్ద అతులు, enquiry చేళ మలకునాుయముచేక౅మరిలతునాుయసరి నాతున మనస్ూూమిుగ్రకోరుకుింటునానను.

17.Now, it is to be looked into the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4.

P.W.1 deposed that on 10.02.2019, they have performed the marriage of deceased with A1 and they have presented

Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and six tulas of gold towards dowry and they have also paid Rs.70,000/- to A1 towards purchase of motorcycle.

P.W.1 further deposed that A1 is working as RPF constable and after the marriage, the deceased joined in the house of A1 which is located in Railway Quarters and blessed with a son. P.W.1 further deposed that the deceased studied B.Tech and A1 used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased and on that, A1 started causing harassment to her. P.W.1 further deposed that he also used to drop the deceased while she was studying and A1 never look after the deceased in dropping her at her college. P.W.1 further deposed that on account of marriage fixation of his daughter, he has invited deceased and A1 and A1 did not allow the deceased to attend the function and on 11.09.2021 during morning time, the deceased made phone call to P.W.3 and informed that she was unable to attend the fixation of the marriage and she was undergoing harassment at the hands of accused and the deceased had also made phone call to P.W.4 and informed that she was unable to attend the marriage fixation and she was facing harassment at the hands of accused and then, she had put off the cell phone. P.W.1 further deposed that on the same day, at about 9.30 A.M., A1 made phone call to her and informed that the deceased committed suicide by hanging and later, one RPF constable also made phone call to him and informed that the deceased committed suicide and asked him to come fastly and at about 4.00 P.M., they all went to the house of A1 from Singapuram and found about lying of dead body of deceased on ground. P.W.1 further deposed that they have also found about lying of chunni beside the dead body and on that, he went to police station and presented Ex.P1 report and thereafter, an inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of MRO concerned and thereafter, postmortem was also conducted over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, the dead body of deceased was handed over to them and then, they have shifted the body of deceased to their village and later, they have conducted funerals as per their caste customs. P.W.1 further deposed that he has a doubt that A1 caused harassment and beat the deceased and killed her and thereafter, he made the death of the deceased as commission of suicide and he has also given statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the Magistrate concerned. P.W.1 further deposed that L.Ws.2 to 4 have also given statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the Magistrate concerned.

18.In the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the counsel of accused, it is the version of P.W.1 that the deceased and A1 resided amicably in Railway Quarters and the deceased did not make any allegation against A1. It is also further version of P.W.1 that the accused did not make demand to the deceased for want of

additional dowry and he has given Ex.P1 report as per the

instructions of their elders and the deceased suffered from severe stomach pain and on that, she has disgusted with her life and finally committed suicide and he has also given statement before the

Magistrate concerned as per the instructions of his elders and A1 is

having good track record in his department and the accused did not cause harassment to the deceased. In the cross-examination conducted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is elicited that

P.W.1 is Government Teacher and studied B.A Graduation.

19.P.W.2 who is the wife of P.W.1 deposed that on 11.09.2021, the deceased made phone call to P.W.3 and said that she was unable to come due to harassment and cut off the phone and thereafter, they have received phone call stating that the deceased committed suicide and on that, they all went to the house of the deceased and found the dead body of the deceased and on that, P.W.1 has given report in Police Station and later, the police handed over the dead body of the deceased to them and then, they have taken the dead body of the deceased to their village and conducted funerals. P.W.2 further deposed that she has given statement before the Magistrate concerned.

20.In the cross-examination conducted by the counsel of accused on P.W.2, it is the version of P.W.2 that the deceased and

A1 amicably resided and she has given statement before the

Magistrate concerned as per the instructions of their relatives.

21.P.W.3 being younger sister of deceased deposed that on 11.09.2021, the deceased made phone call to her and informed that she was suffering from severe stomach pain and later, she had received phone call about the commission of suicide by the deceased and on that, they all went to the house of deceased and found the dead body of the deceased and later, they took the dead body of the deceased to their village and conducted funerals.

22.In the cross-examination conducted by the counsel of accused, it is the version of P.W.3 that she has given statement to the Magistrate concerned as per the instructions of their elders.

23.P.W.4 being the brother of deceased deposed that on 11.09.2021, they have received phone call about commission of suicide by the deceased and on that, they all went to the house of deceased and later, they took the dead body of the deceased to their village and conducted funerals and the deceased committed suicide due to her ill health. P.W.4 further deposed that he has given statement before the Magistrate concerned.

24.In the cross-examination conducted by the counsel of accused, it is the version of P.W.4 that he has given statement

before the Magistrate concerned as per the instructions of their

elders.

25.On perusal of Ex.P7 which is Section 164 statement of

P.W.4, it is noticed by the court that on the next date of the death of deceased, the staff of Railway Protection Force approached P.W.1 and others and asked them to enter into compromise and they will arrange money to them and requested not to file report against A1 and others. Further, the recitals of Ex.P7 go to show that at the time of conducting of postmortem, the RPF C.I and S.I visited the premises of the hospital and requested P.W.1 and others to enter into compromise. When these versions of P.W.4 in Ex.P7 are taken into consideration, it can be said that the departmental officials of

A1 have taken steps immediately after commission of suicide by deceased in requesting P.W.1 and others to enter into compromise and to receive money from A1 since A1 is their constable.

26.The evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 4 before this court made it clear that A1 and deceased resided in Railway Quarters,

Rajamahendravaram. According to the case of prosecution, A2 to

A5 also resided along with A1 and deceased in Railway Quarters.

During the cross-examination conducted by learned counsel of accused on P.Ws.1 to 4, it never discloses that A2 to A5 never resided along with A1 and deceased in Railway Quarters. Thus, it can be said that A2 to A5 also resided along with A1 and deceased in Railway Quarters.

27.There is no dispute about the date of marriage of deceased with A1. There is also no dispute about the date of the death of deceased. The marriage of deceased was held on 10.02.2019. The deceased committed suicide on 11.09.2021.

28.At this juncture, it is relevant to look into the evidence of P.W.13 who is said to be the Medical Officer and who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased along with L.W.16

Dr.M. Phani Kumar.

29.P.W.13 deposed that on 12.09.2021, himself and

L.W.16 being team of doctors conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and noted down the internal and external injuries which were noticed by them on the dead body of deceased in their Ex.P12 Postmortem report and they are of the opinion that the cause of death may be due to hanging leading to Asphyxia and the time of death is 24 to 36 hours before commencement of postmortem and accordingly, they have issued Ex.P13 final opinion.

The learned counsel of accused did not conduct cross-examination of P.W.13 and reported nil. Thus, the evidence of P.W.13 is intact in committing suicide by hanging by the deceased. Thus, this court has no hesitation to say that the deceased committed suicide in matrimonial home while she was residing with A1 to A5 on 11.09.2021.

30.At this juncture, it is relevant to extract Section 113 (A) of Indian Evidence Act.

Section 113-A: Presumption as to abetment of

suicide by a married woman.

[Inserted by Act 46 of 1983, Section 7.]-

When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

31.According to Exs.P2, P3, P5 and P7 statements of

P.Ws.1 to 4, it can be said that the accused caused harassment to the deceased with a demand of dowry and by suspecting her fidelity. P.W.1 has given his chief examination before the court on 04.03.2024. This court fixed schedule to P.Ws.1 to 5 to give evidence before the court on 04.03.2024. After completion of the chief examination of P.W.1 on 04.03.2024, the counsel of accused did not come forward to conduct cross-examination on 04.03.2024 and requested the court to adjourn the matter to 05.03.2024 for cross-examination of P.W.1 along with the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 11. Then, P.Ws.1 to 7 and 11 have given hostile evidence before the court. Though P.W.1 has given evidence as per the case of prosecution in his chief examination, he has given go by version in his cross-examination. Thus, this court is of the opinion that after giving the truth by P.W.1 in his chief examination on 04.03.2024, there was a settlement between P.Ws.1 to 4 and accused and on the next day, P.W.1 has given go by version of his chief examination and P.Ws.2 to 4 have given hostile evidence before the court. When this attitude of P.W.1 is taken into consideration in giving go by version of his earlier chief examination, it can be said that the truth version of P.W.1 was subsequently got influenced by the accused and on that, P.W.1 has given false evidence in his cross-examination before the court. Therefore, this court has no hesitation in considering chief examination of P.W.1 as trust worthy.

When such is the observation of this court, it can be said that Ex.P1 report which was given by P.W.1 to the police contains true facts.

32.Thus, when the evidence of P.W.1 is taken into consideration, the deceased underwent harassment at the hands of

A1 to A5. When the recitals of Ex.P1 are taken into consideration, the deceased underwent harassment at the hands of accused. When the recitals of Ex.P2 statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C are taken into consideration, the deceased was subjected to cruelty at the hands of accused.

33.At this juncture, this court is of the further opinion that the presumption available under Section 113 (A) of Indian Evidence

Act also goes in favour of prosecution. Thus, though P.Ws.2 to 7 who are the siblings and neighbors of deceased turned hostile to the case of prosecution, their evidence does not cause any impact to the case of prosecution.

34.P.W.8 being Chief Nursing Superintendent deposed that on 11.09.2021, she had visited the house of A1 and examined the pulse and eye balls of the deceased and found that there was no response and on that, she had informed the same on phone to their doctor N.V.S Kumari and she informed to P.W.8 to ask A1 to shift his wife to Government General Hospital. The evidence of P.W.8 is not challenged by the counsel of accused.

35.P.W.9 being Inspector of RPF deposed that on 11.09.2021, he has received information from the duty doctor of

Railway Hospital, Rajamahendravaram about commission of suicide by the wife of A1 in her house and on that, he has deputed his staff to visit the house of A1 and they confirmed about commission of suicide by the wife of A1 to him and immediately, he rushed to the house of A1 and found about hanging of the wife of A1 in the kitchen room with a chunni and immediately, he has passed information to II Town Police Station, Rajamahendravaram on the point of jurisdiction and he has also informed about the incident to their superior officers and A1 was on duty between 6.00 A.M., and 2.00 P.M., on 11.09.2021.

36.P.W.10 being A.S.I of R.P.F deposed that on 11.09.2021 at about 8.00 A.M., the brother of A1 made phone call to A1 and informed that his wife committed suicide while A1 was on duty with them and then, he has relieved A1 and he went to his house and he too went to the house of A1 as per the instructions of P.W.9 and found about commission of suicide by the wife of A1 and he has informed the same to P.W.9 and then, P.W.9 also visited the house of A1 and noticed about commission of suicide and P.W.9 has passed an information to II Town Police Station,

Rajamahendravaram on the point of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the accused did not challenge the evidence of P.W.10.

37.P.W.12 being V.R.O deposed that on 11.09.2021, M.R.O conducted an inquest over the dead body of the deceased in their presence and accordingly, he has attested inquest report. P.W.12 further deposed that the police also conducted scene observation at the scene in their presence and accordingly, he has attested scene observation report.

38.P.W.14 being Tahsildar deposed that on 11.09.2021, he conducted an inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the house of deceased in the presence of mediators and blood relatives of deceased and noted down the observations made by him on the dead body of deceased in his inquest report and accordingly, he had issued Ex.P14 inquest report.

39.P.W.15 being first Investigating Officer deposed that on 11.09.2021, he has registered the present case basing on the report of P.W.1 and submitted FIRs to the officers concerned and thereafter, he has proceeded to the house of A1 and P.W.14 conducted an inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and thereafter, he has shifted the dead body of the deceased to Government Hospital and later, he has conducted scene observation at the scene and drawn the rough sketch of the scene and taken photographs of the scene and on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and seized chunni which was used by the deceased for commission of suicide under cover of scene observation report. P.W.15 further recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 6 and also handed over the dead body of the deceased to P.W.1 after completion of Postmortem and on the same day, at about 10.00 P.M., he arrested A1 and sent him to judicial custody and later, he has recorded the statements of P.Ws.7 to 11. P.W.15 further submitted that he has submitted a letter to the Magistrate concerned to record statements of P.Ws.1 to 4.

40.P.W.16 being second Investigating Officer deposed that he took up further investigation in this matter from the hands of

P.W.15 and verified the same on correct lines and after receiving PM report and opinion and after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case. P.W.16 further deposed that the remaining accused were surrendered before the court concerned and got enlarged on bail.

41.The evidence of P.Ws.15 and 16 is intact in collecting the evidence during the course of investigation. Considering the chief evidence of P.W.1 and the respective Section 164 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and in view of the presumption available under Section 113 (A) of Indian Evidence Act, this court has no hesitation to say that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the commission of suicide by deceased on account of harassment undergone by her at the hands of A1 to A5.

42.There is no dispute that P.Ws.1 to 4 have given their respective 164 Cr.P.C statements before VI Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram on 05.10.2021 under

Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P5 and Ex.P7. The said statements were recorded by the said learned Magistrate towards Judicial Proceedings.

Further, P.Ws.1 to 4 have given the said statements in judicial proceedings conducted by the said Magistrate. Now, P.Ws.1 to 4 have given evidence before this court stating that the deceased committed suicide due to stomach pain/ill health and they have given statements to the Magistrate concerned as per the instructions of their elders. Thus, this court is of the strong opinion that P.Ws.1 to 4 have given false evidence before the court during the course of trial though they have given Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P5 and

Ex.P7 statements with true facts. As such, the accused are liable to face consequences as per Section 193 of IPC. Hence, it is relevant to file a complaint against P.Ws.1 to 4 under Section 195 (1) (b) (i) of Cr.P.C for giving false evidence in judicial proceedings.

43.The charges framed against the accused are under

Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. Therefore, it is relevant to extract

Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC herein.

Section 498A: Husband or relative of husband of a

woman subjecting her to cruelty.—

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Section 306. Abetment of suicide.—

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

44.As seen, A1 caused harassment to deceased by suspecting her fidelity. A2 to A5 supported the acts of A1. As such,

A1 to A5 are liable for punishment under Section 498-A IPC. On the unbearable harassment caused by A1 to A5, the deceased had taken extreme step in putting an end to her life and thereby, she had committed suicide by hanging. As such, it can be said that the accused abated the deceased to commit suicide. Accordingly, A1 to

A5 are liable for punishment under Section 306 of IPC.

45.Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has succeeded in proving the charges leveled against the accused.

Accordingly, the accused are liable for punishment.

46.In the result, A1 to A5 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, A1 to A5 are convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- XXXXX

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Rajamahendravaram 02.04.2024:

47.When A1 to A5 are questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, A1 submitted that he is working as constable in RPF,

Tadepalligudem and he is the sole bread winner of his family. A2 and A3 are depending upon his income and his son is residing in the custody of P.W.1 and hence prayed to take lenient view while imposing sentence on him.

48.A2 and A3 submitted that they are suffering from old aged ailments and they are not residing in the house of A1 since the beginning and A1 and deceased alone were resided in the house of

A1 and they are daily wages coolies and hence prayed to take lenient view while imposing sentence on them.

49.A4 and A5 submitted that they never resided in the house of A1 and they are residing in Srikakulam District and they are innocent of offence and they are suffering from old aged ailments and they are daily wages coolies and hence prayed to take lenient view while imposing sentence on them.

50.The proved case of the prosecution is that A1 to A5 being husband and relatives of husband of deceased caused harassment to the deceased and on that, the deceased vexed with the attitude of accused and committed suicide in the matrimonial home within 7 years of her marriage. Thus, this court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to take lenient view while imposing sentence on accused.

51.Considering the submissions made by A2 to A5, this court is of the opinion that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

52.Hence, A2 to A5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay a fine of

Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. A2 to A5 are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

53.Considering the role of A1 in taking the life of deceased, this court is of the opinion that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

54.Hence, A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. A1 is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

55.The sentence imposed against all these accused in respect of above said penal provisions shall run concurrently. The detention period undergone by A1 from 12.09.2021 to 16.11.2021 and A2 to A5 from (NIL) to (NIL) shall be set off. When the accused are questioned with regard to their means in engaging a counsel

before Hon’ble Appellate Authority, they have replied positively.

This court further informed to the accused that they are having right for preferring an appeal against this judgment. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

56.Since P.Ws.1 to 4 have given false evidence before this court, this court inclined to initiate perjury proceedings under

Section 193 of IPC against P.Ws.1 to 4. Accordingly, the Presiding

Officer shall prepare a complaint under Section 195 (1) (b) (i) of

Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC and file the same before the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class concerned within 10 days.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr. III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 2 nd day of April, 2024.

Sd/- XXXXX

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1 : D. Narasimha Murthy. P.W.2 : D. Sarada. P.W.3 : D. Lilly Rani. P.W.4 : D. Harish. P.W.5 : T. Venkata Ratna Kumari. P.W.6 : Chitti Padma. P.W.7 : T. Durga Prasad. P.W.8 : V. Roja Pushpa. P.W.9 : B. Saidaiah. P.W.10 : R. Butchayya. P.W.11 : K. Jyothsna Rani. P.W.12 : V.V.S. Prathyusha. P.W.13 : Dr.Ch. V. Suneetha Devi. P.W.14 : V. Suswagatham. P.W.15 : A. Venkateswara Rao. P.W.16 : R. Vijaya Kumar.

For Defence: None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: 11.09.2021 : Report. Ex.P2: 05.10.2021 : Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3: 05.10.2021 : Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4: 11.09.2021 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P5: 05.10.2021 : Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P6: 11.09.2021 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P7: 05.10.2021 : Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P8: 11.09.2021 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P9: 11.09.2021 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6. Ex.P10: 12.09.2021 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7. Ex.P11: 12.09.2021 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.11. Ex.P12: 20.01.2022 : P.M. Report. Ex.P13: 16.09.2021 : Final report in respect of post mortem. Ex.P14: 11.09.2021 : Inquest report of deceased. Ex.P15: 11.09.2021 : FIR in Cr.No.409/2021 under Section 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC of II Town Police Station. Ex.P16: - : Rough sketch of the scene. Ex.P17: 11.09.2021 : Scene Observation report. Ex.P18: - : Photographs and CD. Ex.P19: 14.12.2021 : Report of FSL.

For Defence : Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

M.O.1 : Chunni.

Sd/- XXXXX

PASJ

// True Copy //

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Rajamahendravaram.

CALANDER

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

:: EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present: Sri S.Praveen Kumar,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Tuesday, the 2nd day of April, 2024.

SESSIONS CASE No.292 of 2023

(PRC No.27 of 2023 on the file of V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram in Crime No. 409/2021 of II Town (L&O) Police Station, Rajamahendravaram)

Complainant: Accused:

State – represented by The 1.Gujjala Ravi, S/o.Ramulu, Inspector of Police, II Town L&O A/32 years, C/Segidi, P.S., Rajamahendravaram. N/o.D.No.2-56, Colony, Rottavalasa Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District now residing at Quarter No.487/C, Railway Quarters, Near 5 carts market, AC Gardens, Rajamahendravaram.

2.Gujjala Ramu, S/o.Krishnamma, A/58 years, C/Segidi, D.No.2-56, Rottavalasa Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District.

3.Gujjala Ramanamma, W/o.Ramulu, A/48 years, C/Segidi, D.No.2-56, Rotavalasa Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District.

4.Bammidi Sundaramma, W/o.Dhalayya, A/59 years,

C/Segidi, D.No.1-20, Jammu, Main Street, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District.

5.Tungana Jaya Lakshmi, W/o.Apparao, A/57 years, C/Segidi, D.No.3-58, Main Colony, Palasa Colony, Alikam, Srikakulam District.

Prosecution conducted by: Accused defended by:

K. Satish Naidu Sri. P.R.S. Mitra, Advocate for

Additional Public Prosecutor, accused.

Rajahmundry.

Offence:498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Plea of the accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Judge: In the result, A1 to A5 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, A1 to A5 are convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Considering the submissions made by A2 to A5, this court is of the opinion that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

Hence, A2 to A5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. A2 to A5 are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month for the offence punishable under Section 498- A of IPC.

Considering the role of A1 in taking the life of deceased, this court is of the opinion that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

Hence, A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. A1 is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

The sentence imposed against all these accused in respect of above said penal provisions shall run concurrently. The detention period undergone by A1 from 12.09.2021 to 16.11.2021 and A2 to A5 from (NIL) to (NIL) shall be set off. When the accused are questioned with regard to their means in engaging a counsel

before Hon’ble Appellate Authority,

they have replied positively. This court further informed to the accused that they are having right for preferring an appeal against this judgment. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Since P.Ws.1 to 4 have given false evidence before this court, this court inclined to initiate perjury proceedings under Section 193 of IPC against P.Ws.1 to 4. Accordingly, the Presiding Officer shall prepare a complaint under Section 195 (1) (b)

(i) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC and file the same before the court of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class concerned

within 10 days.

DATES OF

Offence : 11.09.2021. Complaint : 11.09.2021. Apprehension of A1 : 11.09.2021. Apprehension of A2 to A5 : - Commencement of trial : 04.03.2024. Close of Trial : 07.03.2024. Sentence/Order : 02.04.2024.

Explanation for Delay:

The entire record was made over to this court by Hon'ble Prl.

Sessions Judge's Court, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram for

disposal according to law on 23.09.2023. Charges were framed against the accused on 23.11.2023. Trial of the case was commenced on 04.03.2024 and ended on 07.03.2024. Accused examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 12.03.2024 and arguments were heard on 21.03.2024 and judgment is pronounced on 02.04.2024. Hence, there is no delay.

Sd/- XXXXX

Principal Asst. Sessions Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

Copies submitted to:

1.The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.

2. The Hon'ble District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

3. The Directorate of Prosecution, Hyderabad, DGP Complex, Hyderabad

4. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada.

5. The Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.

6. The V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

// True Copy //

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present: Sri S.Praveen Kumar, I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Saturday, the 29th day of April, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.402/2016.

Between: 1.Reddy Trinadha Kumar 2.Reddy Kasi Annapurna 3.Reddy Durga Chandra Kaladhar 4.Reddy Ambica (Plaintiffs 3 and 4 being minors represented by their mother and natural guardian, 2nd plaintiff) ….Plaintiffs

AND 1.Kolanti Anuradha 2.Motepalli Suryavathi 3.Motepalli Ramesh….Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 19.04.2023 in the presence of Sri K.Bharani Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff, Sri Muppalla Subbarao, Advocate for the defendant

No.1 and the defendants Nos.2 and 3 remained set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following;

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed seeking to declare that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and to cancel the registered sale deed bearing No.10635/2015 dated 17.10.2015 and to grant permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant not to execute any document in respect of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2

2.In brief, the averments of the plaint are that one Reddy

Atchamamba is the wife of late Reddy Chandra Sekhara Rao. Plaint schedule property is originally belonging to the said Reddy

Chandra Sekhara Rao. Plaintiff No.1 and the husband of plaintiff

No.2 are the sons of said Reddy Chandra Sekhara Rao and Reddy

Atchamamba. One Karra Jhansi is the daughter of said couple.

Plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the children of 2nd plaintiff. The said Reddy

Chandra Sekhara Rao purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed bearing No.7180 of 1986 dated 12.08.1986 from one Vetsa Saraswathi. On the demise of the said

Reddy Chandra Sekhara Rao, plaintiffs herein and the said Reddy

Atchamamba and the said Karra Jhansi filed a suit in

OS.No.79/2005 on the file of the Court of IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram seeking to declare them as legal heirs of said

Reddy Chandra Sekhara Rao and the same was decreed on 28.04.2015. The plaintiffs and said Reddy Atchamamba and Karra

Jhansi executed a registered partition deed bearing No.2671/2015

dated 10.03.2015 in making division of the properties related to

the said Reddy Chandra Sekhara Rao. The said Chandra Sekhara

Rao died intestate. The schedule property is shown as A and B marked property in the said partition. A marked property was devolved upon 1st plaintiff whereas B marked property devolved upon plaintiffs 2 to 4. Accordingly, the partition was effected and the names of plaintiffs were also got mutated in the records of

Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with absolute rights.

Later the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants 2 and 3 3 being mother and son executed a false registered sale deed bearing No.10635/2015 dated 17.10.2015 in favour of the 1st defendant with collusion. The 2nd defendant is the kept mistress of said late Reddy Chandra Sekhara Rao. The surname of 2nd and 3rd defendants is ‘Motepalli’ and not ‘Reddy’. 3rd defendant is not the biological son of of late Reddy Chandra Sekhara Rao. 2nd defendant got blessed with 3rd defendant through her original husband Motepalli Ramakrishna. Defendants 2 and 3 obtained false Family Members Certificate by suppressing the real facts. The said registered sale deed bearing No.10635/2015 dated 17.10.2015 is void and nonest in the eye of law.

3.Defendants 2 and 3 have no right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property. Plaintiffs further filed a report in police station, Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry against D1 to D3 for creation of the said registered sale deed bearing No.10635/2015 dated 17.10.2015. On the information given by plaintiffs, the Tahsildar,

Rajahmundry has given a report in II Town Police Station,

Rajahmundry against defendants 2 and 3 in obtaining Family

Members Certificate by furnishing false information. As such, a case was got registered in Crime No.20/2016 and defendant No.2 was got arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Plaintiffs have also given publication in respect of this incident in Sakshi Daily

Newspaper on 14.12.2015. The plaintiffs and said Reddy

Atchamamba and Karri Jhansi issued legal notice dated 17.10.2015. But the 1st defendant received the same and kept quite. Whereas the defendants 2 and 3 managed the postal authorities and got returned the legal notice with an endorsement 4 “no such addressee in the door number”. Later the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants are making hectic efforts to alienate the plaint schedule property basing on the registered sale deed

dated 17.10.2015 without any manner of right. Plaintiffs are the

absolute owners of the plaint schedule property. Hence the suit.

4.As the defendants 2 and 3 refused to receive the summons and as they failed to turned up before the court, the court recorded exparte against defendants 2 and 3.

5.1st defendant filed written statement by denying the total averments of the plaint and further contended that the plaintiff intentionally suppressed the reals facts and filed the suit to get wrongful gain. Plaintiffs are not having any manner of right over the plaint schedule property. 1st defendant is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed bearing

No.10635 of 2015 dated 17.10.2015. 1st defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since the date of purchase of the same. Prior to purchasing of the property, the defendant No.1 made enquiry and came to know that the defendants 2 and 3 and Reddy Chandra Sekhara Rao @ Chandra

Sekhar resided in suit schedule property. 2nd defendant is the wife of Reddy Chandra Sekhara Rao. Some part of the suit schedule property was also given for rent to the tenants and in the remaining portion, the said Reddy Chandra Sekhara Rao @

Chandra Sekhar maintained a Church. Defendants 2 and 3 and

Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao resided in another house bearing Door 5

No.73-8-11/1 as a family in Narayanapuram, Rajahmundry till the death of said Chandra Sekhar Rao. Defendants 2 and 3 alone seen the welfare of Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao and performed the death ceremonies of him. The public also recognised the Reddy Chandran

Sekhar Rao and 2nd defendant as wife and husband and 3rd defendant as their son. The Revenue authorities also given Family

Members Certificate to defendants 2 and 3 as family members of

Reddy Chandra Sekhara Rao. The Aadhar Cards and Ration-cards also discloses that the said Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao @ Chandra

Sekhar is the husband of 2nd defendant and father of 3rd defendant.

6.On believing these aspects, 1stdefendant bonafidely purchased the suit schedule property. There is also no claim from the side of plaintiffs or third party till the lapse of one year of purchasing the suit schedule property by the 1st defendant. Now the plaintiffs filed the present suit to get wrongful gain and cause harassment to the defendant No.1. Plaintiffs are also aware of the sale transaction held between the 1st defendant and defendants 2 and 3. Plaintiffs intentionally referred the surname wrongly as “Motepalli” instead of “Reddy”. No relevant steps were taken by the plaintiffs to amend plaint accordingly. The surname of 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant is not Motepalli. 1st defendant is also having acquaintance with 2nd and 3rd defendants and said Reddy

Chandra Sekhar Rao since more than 20 years, as the 1st defendant used to reside in Narayanapuram of Rajahmundry. The properties of Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao are in the custody of 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant alone is collecting the rents from the immovable properties of Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao. Plaintiffs filed 6 the said suit in O.S.No.79/2015 without impleading the defendants 2 and 3 and obtained a fraudulent decree. Plaintiffs never resided along with Reddy Chandra Sekhara Rao during his life time.

Plaintiffs are also not known to the locality people of the plaint schedule property. Now the 1st defendant has let out the plaint schedule property to the third parties. Plaintiffs have no manner of right to question the validity of registered sale deed bearing

No.10635 of 2015 dated 17.10.2015. There is no cause of action to file the present suit. With these contentions, defendant No.1 prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

7.In view of the above pleadings, this court framed the following issues for trial:-

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration

of their title over the plaint schedule property?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation

of registered sale deed dated 17.10.2015 executed by

D2 and D3 in favour of D1?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent

injunction restraining D1 from executing any

document in respect of plaint schedule property?

(4) To what relief?

8.During the course of enquiry, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A17 were marked on behalf of plaintiffs. DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B12 were marked on behalf of defendant No.1.

9.Heard the respective counsels of plaintiff and defendant No.1.

7

Issue No.1:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their title over the plaint schedule property?

10.It is the strong contention of the plaintiffs that one late Reddy

Chandra Sekhar Rao is the father of 1st plaintiff and father-in-law of 2nd plaintiff and he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed bearing No.7180 of 1986

dated 12.08.1986. Ex.B5 is the original registered sale deed

bearing No.7180/1986 dated 12.08.1986. Before looking into suit facts, it is relevant to look into Ex.B5 document. It is not in dispute that Ex.B5 is a created document. The recitals of Ex.B1 speaks that the said Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao purchased the plaint schedule property from one Vesta Saraswathi on 12.08.1986. Ex.B1 which is the original document was placed before the court by the 1st defendant and got marked the same on behalf of the defendant

No.1. It is the contention of plaintiffs that the original documents of the suit schedule property are lying with the 2nd defendant who is the kept mistress of Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao. Thus, considering the recitals of Ex.B1, it can be said that the 2nd defendant is not party to Ex.B1 document. Therefore, safely it can be said that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of said Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao.

11.PW1 is the 1st plaintiff and he deposed as per the lies of plaint. PW2 is the 2nd plaintiff and she too deposed as per the lines 8 of plaint. PW7 is said to be the legally wedded wife of Reddy

Chandra Sekhar Rao. PW8 is said to be the husband of the daughter of PW7 and sister of PW1. PW3 is the relative of plaintiff.

PW4 is the relative of the husband of 1st defendant. PW5 is said to be known persons of plaintiffs. PW6 is also the relative of the plaintiffs.

12.PW5 deposed in his cross examination that he is not aware of the contents of his chief examination affidavit and he has subscribed his signatures on the chief affidavit on the request of his lawyer. Considering this submission of PW5, this court has no hesitation to say that the evidence of PW5 cannot be taken into consideration in support of plaintiff and accordingly this court inclined to discard the evidence of PW5. PWs.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 deposed in one voice that PW7 Atchamamba is the legally wedded wife of late Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao. The evidence of these witnesses further goes to show that the 1st plaintiff and the husband of 2nd plaintiff are the sons of said late Reddy Chandra

Sekhar Rao and PW7 Atchamamba. It is noticed that PW7 is not party to the suit. It is also the version of these witnesses that the 2nd defendant Reddy Suryavathi is the concubine to the said Reddy

Chandra Sekhar Rao. In the cross examination of PW1, it is elicited that Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao resided along with defendants 2 and 3 in the house bearing Door No.73-8-11/1 till his death. It is also further version of PW1 that the ceremonies of Reddy Chandra

Sekhar Rao were also conducted in the said house bearing Door

No.73-8-11/1. It is also the further specific version of PW1 that 9 defendants 2 and 3 alone are residing in the said house bearing

Door No.73-8-11/1. It is the further admission of PW1 that they did not seek partition of the house bearing Door No.73-8-11. It is the further version of PW1 that the 2nd and 3rd defendants have handed over the originals of the link documents of suit schedule property to the 1st defendant at the time of sale.

13.At this juncture, it is also relevant to look into the evidence of

PW7 who is said to be the legally wedded wife of Reddy Chandra

Sekhar Rao. In the cross examination of PW7, it is elicited that

Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao has not attended the marriage of their daughter Jhansi and one Chandram who is the brother of said

Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao attended the marriage and followed the customs in washing the legs of the husband of said Jhansi who is examined before the court as PW8. It is also the further version of PW7 that the last rites of the deceased Chandra Sekhar Raso was conducted in the house of 2nd defendant by the 1st plaintiff. It is also the further admission of PW7 that the said Chandra Sekhar

Rao had resided with the 2nd defendant in her house and died there itself. It is also the further version of PW7 that 2nd defendant alone is residing in the house, wherein the said Chandra Sekhar Rao lost his breath. When these facts of PW7 are taken into consideration, it can be said that Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao resided along with

Defendants 2 and 3 and finally died in the association of

Defendants 2 and 3 in the house bearing Door No.73-8-11/1.

Further, it can also said that there was a strained relationship between PW7 and the said Chandra Sekhara Rao and on that the 10 said Chandra Sekhar Rao also evaded to attend the marriage of the daughter of PW7 with PW8.

14.PWs.1 and 7 are said to be the son and wife of said Reddy

Chandra Sekhar Rao. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses is having vital role in this suit. The evidence of these witnesses further does not disclose that the said Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao and PW7 alone performed the marriage of 1st plaintiff and the husband of 2nd plaintiff. It is already made out that the marriage of the daughter of PW7 was not performed by the said Reddy

Chandra Sekhara Rao.

15.PW2 is said to be the daughter-in-law of PW7 and said Reddy

Chandra Sekhar Rao and she deposed that Reddy Chandra Sekhar

Rao was resided with them till the date of his death. The evidence of PW1 and PW7 does not disclose the same. Therefore, it can be said that PW2 being 2nd plaintiff has given the evidence with false version. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of Ration-card of deceased

Chandra Sekhar Rao which was got marked through the evidence of PW2. It is the version of PW2 that the said Ex.B2 ration-card contains the photograph of deceased Chandra Sekhar Rao with 2nd defendant. Ex.B3 is the Pension-card of 2nd defendant which was got marked through PW7. It is the version of PW7 in her evidence that Ex.B3 Pension-card stands on the name of 2nd defendant in the capacity of the wife of Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao. When the recitals of Ex.B2 and B3 are taken into consideration, it appears that the 2nd defendant is recognized as a wife to the said deceased 11

Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao. It is also the clear version of PW7 that she is not drawing widow-pension being the wife of Reddy Chandra

Sekhar Rao. It is not the clarification given given by either PW1 or

PW7 that the 2nd defendant has furnished false information to the concerned and drawing widow pension unauthorisedly by making representation that she is the wife of Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao.

16.It is the case of plaintiffs that the plaintiffs, PW7 and the said

Jhansi filed O.S.No.79/2015 before the court of IV Addl. J.F.C.

Magistrate, Rajahmundry in seeking to declare them as legal heirs

of late Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao and obtained decree on 28.04.2015. It is also the admission of PW1, PW2 and PW7 that they have not brought defendants 2 and 3 herein as parties to the suit. According to the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs, PW7 and the said Jhansi have partitioned the properties of late Reddy Chandra

Sekhar Rao as per Ex.A1 registered partition deed. It is also the admission of PW1, PW2 and PW7 that the partition of Ex.A1 was taken place during the pendency of said suit in OS.79/2015. Thus, it can be said that though the original documents of suit schedule property are lying with the 2nd defendant; the plaintiffs, PW7 and said Jhansi have entered into Ex.A1 partition deed without the knowledge of 2nd defendant and during the pendency of the said suit in OS.79/2015.

17.According to the pleadings of the plaint, the suit schedule property is one of the items of Ex.A1 partition deed. On going through the recitals of Ex.A1 partition deed, it is noticed that the 12 suit schedule property herein is shown as ‘A’ schedule property.

The recitals further go to show that ‘A’ schedule property was purchased by the Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao under a registered sale deed bearing No.7180/1986 dated 12.08.1986 which is Ex.B5 herein. DW1 is the 1st defendant and she deposed as per the lines of her written statement. DW2 is Reddy Suryvathi who is said to be the concubine of Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao, as per the case of plaintiffs. DW2 never deposed in her evidence that plaintiff No.1 is not the biological son of Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao and PW7

Atchamamba. In the cross examination of DW2, it is made out that the marriage of Reddy Chandra Shekar Rao was taken place with

DW2 who is said to be 2nd defendant under a tree at Murahari village. It is not deposed by DW2 that the marriage of Reddy

Chandra Sekhar Rao was performed with her as per the customs prevailed in their community. A surprise thing is also deposed by

DW2 before the court that no photos were taken during the alleged wedding to show that the said Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao married the 2nd defendant who is DW2 herein. DW2 never claimed in her evidence that she is the sole legally wedded wife of Reddy Chandra

Sekhar Rao. When the evidence of DW2 is taken into consideration, this court has no hesitation to say that there is no legal marriage between the Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao and DW2 who is said to be the 2nd defendant herein.

18.No doubt, in the evidence adduced by PW1, PW2 and PW7 it is made out that Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao resided for a longer period by discarding PW7 in the association of 2nd and 3rd 13 defendants. It is not the case of either party that Reddy Chandra

Sekhar Rao has given divorce to PW7 who is said to be the legally wedded wife of the said Chandra Sekhar Rao. Though Exs.B2 and

B3 speaks that 2nd defendant is the wife of Reddy Chandra Sekhar

Rao, the same cannot be considered in holding that the 2nd defendant is the legally wedded wife of deceased Chandra Sekhar

Rao since the marriage of Chandra Sekhar Rao with PW7 is still subsisting. Though the said Chandra Sekhar Rao resided with defendants 2 and 3 for a longer period, it cannot be said that a legal right is created to 2nd and 3rd defendants on par with the plaintiffs and PW7 in seeking rights over the properties of late

Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao, as co-sharer. Ex.B5 which is the title deed of the suit schedule property stands on the name of Reddy

Chandra Sekhar Rao alone. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to say that either the 2nd defendant or 3rd defendant cannot acquire legal right after the demise of said Chandra Sekhar Rao over the suit schedule property as successors and legal heirs.

19.In view of the subsistence of the legal marriage of PW7 with

Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao, it cannot be considered that 2nd and 3rd defendants are legal heirs of Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao along with the plaintiffs and Jhansi. Therefore, the 2nd defendant is not having legal right to execute Ex.B1 registered sale deed in favour of 1st defendant for alienation of the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant simply relied upon Ex.B1 document and claimed possession and title over the suit schedule property. It is the admission of DW1 in her cross examination that no document was 14 shown by 2nd and 3rd defendants to her in showing that the suit schedule property was got transferred on their (D2 and D3) name by the said Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao. A crucial thing is also elicited in the cross examination of DW1 that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are alone paying tax over the suit schedule property. Thus this fact alone is sufficient to consider that the suit schedule property was not delivered to 1st defendant by 2nd and 3rd defendants since they have no legal right over the suit schedule property. When such is the bonafide thing, it cannot be presumed that the 1st defendant has purchased suit schedule property from the 2nd defendant without having the knowledge of right of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. When this is the observation of this court, it cannot be considered that defendant No.1 is a bonafide purchaser of suit schedule property.

20.DW3 is said to be the alleged husband of 2nd defendant as per the case of plaintiff. DW3 deposed before the court that one

Varalakshmi is his legally wedded wife and defendants 2 and 3 are unknown persons to him. The alleged wife Varalakshmi is not examined before the court to consider that she is the legally wedded wife of DW3. It is also the evidence of DW3 that defendant

No.3 is not born to 2nd defendant through him. Though DW3 denied about his relationship with 2nd and 3rd defendants, the same cannot create any right in holding that the 2nd defendant alone is the legally wedded wife of late Chandra Sekhar Rao. It is already stated supra that the legal marriage of Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao is still subsisting with PW7 Atchamamba who is the mother of plaintiff 15 and and mother-in-law of 2nd plaintiff. Though the rest of the documents which were got marked on behalf of 1st defendant shows that 2nd defendant is the wife of late Reddy Chandra Sekhar

Rao, she cannot claim the status of legally wedded wife of Reddy

Chandra Sekhar Rao. It is already stated supra, as per Ex.B5 document the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of the Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao. The plaintiffs and PW7 are alone having right and title over the suit schedule property being legal heirs and successors of Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao.

21.The counsel of plaintiff relied upon Ex.A16 registered sale deed bearing No.3992 of 2007 dated 28.05.2007 to prove that the 3rd defendant is not the biological son of Reddy Chandra Sekhar

Rao. According to the case of 1st defendant, the surname of 2nd and 3rd defendants is not ‘Motepalli’ and their surname is ‘Reddy’.

On perusal of recitals of Ex.A16, it is noticed that one M.Ramesh who is said to be the 3rd defendant herein and who is son of

Motepalli Ramakrishna sold the property to Reddy Chandra Sekhar

Rao and Reddy Suryavathi. It is not contention of the 1st defendant that Ex.A16 is a created document. A careful examination of

Ex.A16, it is noticed that Ex.A16 document is a certified copy issued by Sub-Registrar, Rajanagaram on 26.09.2022. In the page of Photographs and Fingers as per Section 32-A of Registration Act, 1908 of Ex.A16 document, it is noticed that the surname of executant Ramesh was referred as ‘Motepalli’, Son of Ramakrishna.

When these particulars are taken into consideration, it can be said that the said M.Ramakrishna who was resided with the 3rd 16 defendant herein is not the biological son of Reddy Chandra Sekhar

Rao and he is the biological son of M.Ramakrishna. Thus, considering the recitals of Ex.A16, it is made out that the said concubine of Motepalli Chandra Sekhar Rao who is the said to be the 2nd defendant herein is none other than the wife of Motepalli

Ramakrishna. There is no dispute that the 3rd defendant is the biological son of 2nd defendant. When such is the case, it can be said that the 2nd defendant is not the legally wedded wife of said

Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao and the 3rd defendant is not their biological son.

22.Ex.A2 was executed on 17.10.2015. Ex.A1 partition deed was executed on 10.03.2015. It is already stated supra that the suit schedule property is a part of property in Ex.A1 partition deed.

When the date of Ex.A1 is taken into consideration, it can be said that Ex.A1 was executed prior to five (5) months of the execution of Ex.A2 document. Thus, it can be said that Ex.A2 document was executed subsequent to Ex.A1 document. When these are the circumstances, it cannot be considered that the 1st defendant is the bonafide purchaser of suit schedule property. As such, the 2nd and 3rd defendants have no right to execute Ex.A2 registered sale deed in favour of 1st defendant. The record further made it clear that the property is not delivered to the 1st defendant so far by the defendants 2 and 3. When these are the true facts and as the plaintiffs and PW7 alone are having right and title over the suit schedule property being successors and legal heirs of Reddy

Chandra Sekhar Rao, this court is having legal obligation to declare the title of plaintiffs and PW7 over the suit schedule property.

17

Hence, it is declared that the plaintiffs and PW7 are title holders of the suit schedule property. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

Issue No.2:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of

registered sale deed dated 17.10.2015 executed by

D2 and D3 in favour of D1?

23.In view of the finding recorded in issue No.1, it is made out that the 1st defendant cannot be considered as bonafide purchaser.

Further, the defendants 2 and 3 cannot entertained sale transaction under Ex.A2 registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of suit schedule property without having any manner of right. It is already stated supra that suit schedule property is the self acquired property of late Reddy Chandra

Sekhar Rao. It is also already stated supra that the said Chandra

Sekhar Rao died intestate. Further, it is also made out that the delivery of suit schedule property was not made by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the defendant No.1. Further, there is no relevant material placed by the defendant No.1 in proving that she paid the sale amount to defendants 2 and 3. Thus, considering all these circumstances, it is appropriate to give direction for cancellation of

Ex.A2 registered sale deed which stands on the name of 1st defendant. Thus, this issue is answered against defendants 1 to 3.

Issue No.3:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent

injunction restraining D1 from executing any

document in respect of plaint schedule property?

18

24.Since the defendant No.1 is challenging the present proceedings, it can be said that defendants 1 to 3 are interfering with the possession and title of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Further, there is also possibility to execute further documents on suit schedule property by defendant No.1 basing on

Ex.A2 document. When such are the circumstances, it is also appropriate to consider the request of plaintiff in granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from executing any further document in respect of suit schedule property. Thus, this issue is answered against the 1st defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs.

Issue No.4:

To what relief?

25.In view of the findings recorded in issues Nos.1 to 3, this court has no hesitation to say that the plaintiffs and PW7 are entitled for grant of decree with costs, as prayed for.

26.In the result, the suit is decreed by declaring the title of plaintiffs and PW7 Reddy Atchamamba over the suit schedule property by canceling Ex.A2 registered sale deed bearing

No.10635/2015 which is executed by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of 3rd defendant. Further, permanent injunction is granted against the 1st defendant not to entertain any transaction on suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- S.Praveen Kumar

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

19

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: PW1 : Reddy Trinadha Kumar PW2 : Reddy Kasi Annapurna PW3 : Reddy Krishna PW4 : Ambavaram Gangadharam PW5 : Narala Naga Raju PW6 : Guntamukkala Gowri Prasad PW7 : Reddy Atchamamba PW8 : Karra Durga Prasad

FOR DEFENDANT: DW1 : Kolanti Anuradha DW2 : Reddy Suryavathi DW3 : Motepalli Ramakrishna

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 is the certified copy of registered partition deed

dated 10.03.2015

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of registered sale deed

dated 17.10.2015

Ex.A3 is the death certificate obtained from Mee-seva of Reddy Chandrasekhar Rao Ex.A4 is the certified copy of decree and judgment in

OS.No.79/2015 on the file of the Court of IV Addl. Junior Civil

Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Ex.A5 is the complaint copy presented in S.H.O. Prakashnagar P.S., Rajamahendravaram Ex.A6 is the Paper publication in Sakshi News Paper

dated 14.12.2015

Ex.A7 is the office copy of legal notice dated 28.02.2016 Ex.A8 is the unserved registered post of 2nd defendant Ex.A9 is the unserved registered post of 3rd defendant Ex.A10 is the registered discharge receipt dated 28.01.2015 Ex.A11 is the property tax receipts 3 in number Ex.A12 is the transfer certificate of 1st plaintiff Ex.A13 is the Aadhar card of mother of 1st plaintiff Ex.A14 is the Birth Certificate of Reddy Ganesh Kumar Ex.A15 is the Voter I.D. Card of 1st plaintiff Ex.A16 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing No.3992/2007 dated 28.05.2007 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of Reddy Chandra Sekhar and Reddy Suryavathi 20

Ex.A17 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing No.7934/2006 dated 16.10.2006 which stands on the name of defendant No.3 executed by defendant No.2

FOR DEFENDANT: Ex.B1 is the registration extract of sale deed bearing No.999/1992 which stands on the name of Reddy Chandrasekhar and 2nd defendant. Ex.B2 is the certified ration-card of deceased Chandrasekhar @ Chandrasekhar Rao Ex.B3 is the Pension-card of 2nd defendant Ex.B4 is the original registered mortgage deed dated 17.02.1995 vide document No.16690/1995 executed in favour of Brahmayya by Reddy Chandra Sekhar and Reddy Suryavathi Ex.B5 is the original registered sale deed dated 12.08.1986 vide Doc.No.7180/1986 executed in favour of Reddy Chandra Sekhar by Saraswathi issued by S.R.O. Rajamahendravaram Ex.B6 is the original registered sale deed bearing No.1962 dated 16.04.1981 Ex.B7 is the certified copy of Household Card of Reddy Chandra Sekhar Rao and Reddy Suryavathi Ex.B8 is the certified copy of Voter I.D. Card of Reddy Suryavathi, W/o.Reddy Chandrasekhar Ex.B9 is the certified copy of Aadhar Card of Reddy Suryavathi, W/o.Reddy Chandrasekhar Ex.B10 is the certified copy of Aadhar Card of Reddy Chandrasekhar Rao Ex.B11 is the certified copy of Aadhar Card of Reddy Ramesh Ex.B12 is the certified copy of deposition of Motipalli Ramakrishna in C.C.No.692/2016 dated 28.12.2021

Sd/- S.Praveen Kumar

I A.S.C.J.

- JUDGMENT

21

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present: Sri S.Praveen Kumar, I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Saturday, the 29th day of April, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.402/2016.

Between: 1.Reddy Trinadha Kumar, S/o.(late) Chandrasekhara Rao, Hindu, aged 39 years, R/o.D.No.73-10-15, Venkataramayya Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, E.G. District. R.Jr.C.J.C.

2.Reddy Kasi Annapurna, W/o.(late) Reddy Ganesh Kumar, Hindu, aged 20 years, R/o.D.No.73-11-13, Venkataramayya Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, E.G. District, R.Jr. C.J.C.

3.Reddy Durga Chandra Kaladhar, S/o.(late) Reddy Ganesh Kumar, Hindu, aged 12 years, R/o.D.No.73-11-13, Venkataramayya Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, E.G. District, R.Jr. C.J.C.

4.Reddy Ambica, D/o.(late) Reddy Ganesh Kumar, Hindu, aged 8 years, R/o.D.No.73-11-13, Venkataramayya Nagar, Rajamahendra- varam, E.G. District, R.Jr. C.J.C. (Plaintiffs 3 and 4 being minors represented by their mother and natural guardian, 2nd plaintiff) ….Plaintiffs

AND 1.Kolanti Anuradha, W/o.Venkata Ramana, Hindu, aged 35 years, Housewife, R/o.D.No.73-11-20/1, Venkataramayya Nagar, Near Vinayaka Temple, Rajamahendravaram, E.G. District. R.Jr. C.J.C.

2.Motepalli Suryavathi, W/o.Ramakrishna, Hindu, aged 52 years, Housewife, Near Vembay Colony, Beside Chintachettu, Rajamahendravaram, E.G. District, R.Jr. C.J.C.

3.Motepalli Ramesh, S/o.Ramakrishna, Hindu, aged 29 years, Near Vembay Colony, Beside Chintachettu, Rajamahendravaram, E.G. District, R.Jr.C.J.C.….Defendants

This suit is presented on 14.06.2016 and taken on file on 15.09.2016.

This is a suit filed seeking to declare that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and to cancel the registered sale deed bearing No.10635/2015 dated 17.10.2015 and to grant permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant not to execute any document in respect of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

22

Value of the suit:

(1) The relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the schedule property as per Section 24(d) of APCF&SV Act. Rs.24,77,000-00 ½ value thereof …. Rs.12,38,500-00

On this a court fee of Rs.14,826/- is paid under Section 24(b) of APCF & SV Act.

(2) The relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, not to deal with the schedule property in any manner of right is valued under Section 26(c) of APCF & SV Act. …. Rs.10,000-00

On this a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under Section 26(c),

Schedule II Art.1(c) of APCF & SV Act.

Then total value of the suit is Rs.12,38,500/- + Rs.10,000/- =

Rs.12,48,000/-.

Total court fee paid is Rs.14,826/- + Rs.786 = Rs.15,612/- is paid.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 15.01.2015 when the father of 1st plaintiff and father-in-law of 2nd plaintiff and grandfather of plaintiffs 3 and 4 by name late Reddy Chandra

Sekhara Rao expired intestate and the plaintiffs and Reddy

Atchamamba and Karra Jhansi acquired property of late Reddy

Chandra Sekhara Rao by way of succession and in turn got filed

OS.79/2015 declaring themselves as legal heirs of late Chandra

Sekhara Rao etc., and at Rajamahendravaram where the plaint schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

Court.

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 19.04.2023 in the presence of Sri K.Bharani Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff, Sri Muppalla Subbarao, Advocate for the defendant

No.1 and the defendants Nos.2 and 3 remained set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows; (1) That the plaintiffs and PW7 Reddy Atchamamba be and are hereby declared as title holders over the suit schedule property 23 (2) That the Ex.A2 registered sale deed bearing No.10635 of 2015 which is executed by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of 3rd defendant, be and is hereby canceled, (3) That the 1st defendant be and is hereby restrained not to entertain any transaction on suit schedule property, (4) That there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 29 th day of

April, 2023.

Sd/- S.Praveen Kumar

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT No.1: Stamp on vakalath: Rs. 2-00Stamp on vakalath: Rs. 2-00 Stamp on plaint: Rs. 15,612-00Advocate fee: Rs.1,24,800-00 Stamp on process: Rs. 200-00Advocate fee(Jr.):Rs.41,600-00 Advocate fee: Rs. 1,24,800-00Type charge: Rs. 100-00 Advocate fee(Jr.) Rs. 41,600-00 ---------------------- Type charge: Rs. 100-00 Rs.1,66,502-00

---------------------- ----------------------

Rs.1,82,314-00 ---------------------- (Schedule attached to decree)

Sd/- S.Praveen Kumar

I A.S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT: SRI S. PRAVEEN KUMAR,

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Saturday, the 29th day of April, 2023

O.S. No. 244 of 2017

Between: Samangi Venkata Ramana Murthy @ Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nookayya, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Employee, R/o. Door No.17-19-15, Seethampeta, Rajahmundry, RJCJ … Plaintiff

And

1. Matta Jogeswari, W/o. Venkata Krishna, Hindu, Aged 32 years, House- wife, R/o.Door No. 30-14-2, Jandapanjaroad, Rajahmundry, RJCJ.

2. Sunnam Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Subbarao, Hindu, Aged 49 years, Business, resident of Krishna Nagar, Rajahmundry. … Defendants

This suit coming on 19.04.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri K.Suneel

Lionel, Advocate for 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant is remained ex parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1This is a suit filed for seeking cancellation of registered Sale

Agreement-cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney bearing No.

6451/2012 of dated 15.10.2012, which was obtained by the first defendant by playing fraud with the plaintiff and for grant of injunction restraining the defendants in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2In brief, the averments of plaint are that, the plaintiff is the absolutely owner of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff acquired the plaint schedule property under a registered Will bearing No. 135/1981 dated 23.07.1981, which was executed by the mother of the plaintiff by name

Basaramanu Kondamma. After the death of Kondamma, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. When the plaintiff 2 is in dire need of money, he had borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the first defendant by depositing the said Will executed by the Kondamma along with link documents of the plaint schedule property in order to mortgage the same. Taking advantage of the illiteracy of plaintiff, the 1st defendant took the plaintiff to Sub-Registrar Office and obtained his signatures without disclosing the contents of the document. Thereafter, the first defendant started collecting the amounts from the plaintiff and his wife. On 06.05.2015, the plaintiff received legal notice from 2nd defendant calling upon the plaintiff to pay the arrears of rents. Upon that the plaintiff issued a reply notice dated 01.06.2015 with true averments. Meanwhile, the 2nd defendant filed a suit in O.S. No. 559 of 2015 on the file of Court of I Addl.

Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry seeking eviction of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property contending that the plaintiff had already sold out the plaint schedule property to the 1st defendant under a sale agreement- cum-GPA and in turn, the first defendant sold out the plaint schedule property to the 2nd defendant basing on the said sale agreement-cum-GPA and accordingly, the 2nd defendant let out the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff on rent. The plaintiff filed written statement in the said suit and contesting the same. There is no real intention on the part of the plaintiff to execute the alleged sale agreement – cum – irrevocable GPA bearing No.

6451/2012 dated 15.10.2012 in favour of first defendant. The 1st defendant also does not have capacity to pay the sale consideration mentioned in the said sale agreement – cum – irrevocable GPA. Further the plaintiff never received any amount referred under said sale agreement – cum – irrevocable

GPA. The plaintiff never delivered the possession of the plaint schedule property to the defendant. The 1st defendant fraudulently obtained the signatures of the plaintiff to grab the plain schedule property and thereafter, the 1st defendant sold out the schedule property to the 2nd defendant under a 3 sale deed bearing Document No.851/2014 dated 28.01.2014. Hence, the suit.

3Though, the first defendant was served with summons, she has not turned up to challenge the proceedings. Upon that, the 1st defendant was set ex parte.

4The 2nd defendant filed written statement by denying the total averments of the plaint and further contended that the 2nd defendant is a bonafide purchaser for a valuable consideration. The 2nd defendant purchased the plaint schedule property from the 1st defendant on 28.01.2014. The same was also intimated to the plaintiff prior to registration.

The plaintiff also requested the 2nd defendant in the presence of 1st defendant to continue him as tenant and undertook to pay the rent @

Rs.6,000/- per month on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The plaintiff also paid rents for first 6 months and later failed to pay the rents from the month of August, 2014. Though, the 2nd defendant made demands to the plaintiff for payment of rent, the plaintiff postponed the same on some pretext or other. The 2nd defendant also demanded the plaintiff for payment of arrears of rents, but the plaintiff abused the 2nd defendant and threatened him with dire consequences and proclaimed that nobody can evict him from the plaint schedule property. Upon that, the 2nd defendant approached the police and the police did not initiate action against the plaintiff on the influence of the plaintiff. Therefore, the 2nd defendant has issued a notice and filed a suit in O.S. No. 559 of 2015 on the file of Court of I Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for eviction. The plaintiff is liable to pay an amount of Rs.66,000/- towards arrears of rentals from the month of August, 2014. The plaintiff is also liable to pay the said arrears with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of default of rent. Since, the 2nd defendant terminated the lease of plaintiff, the plaintiff is also liable to pay the damages @ 6,000/- per month from the date of termination of lease with 4 interest @ 24% per annum. The plaintiff sold out the suit schedule property to the 1st defendant under a sale agreement – cum- irrevocable General

Power of Attorney dated 15.10.2012. The 1st defendant enjoyed the plaint schedule property with absolute rights and sold the same to the 2nd defendant. As such, the 2nd defendant became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The court fee paid by the plaintiff is not correct.

With these contentions, the 2nd defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5In view of the above pleadings, this court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the defendant No.1 obtained registered sale agreement cum irrevocable GPA bearing No. 6451/2012 dated 15.12.2012 from the plaintiff by playing fraud and misrepresentation?

2. Whether the defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property with absolute rights under a registered sale deed bearing No.851 of 2014

dated 28.01.2014 to the defendant No.2

3. Whether the registered (1) sale agreement cum irrevocable GPA bearing No. 6451/2012 dated 15.10.2012, (2) Registered sale deed bearing No. 2627/2013 dated 30.03.2013 and (3) Registered sale deed bearing No. 851/2014 dated 28.01.2014 are liable to be cancelled?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of decree in respect of cancellation of documents and consequential injunction as prayed for?

5. To what relief?

6During the course of trial, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and

Exs.B1 to B5 are marked on behalf of the 2nd defendant.

7Heard the respective counsel of plaintiff and 2nd defendant. Perused the record.

8ISSUE NOS. 1 to 3:

It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he has handed over the original link document of plaint schedule property to the 1st defendant and borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the 1st defendant in order to create mortgage of suit schedule property. It is also the specific case of the plaintiff 5 that the 1st defendant fraudulently obtained the signatures of the defendant by taking advantage of his illiteracy before the Sub-Registrar concerned and created Ex.A2 sale agreement – cum – irrevocable General Power of Attorney

dated 15.10.2012 and he never sold the suit schedule property to the 1st

defendant. He also never delivered the possession of the suit schedule property to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant did not challenge the suit proceedings. The claim of the 2nd defendant is that he is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property under Ex.A3/B1. However, it is for the plaintiff to establish with relevant evidence before the court that the 1st defendant had fraudulently obtained his signatures and created Exs.A2 Sale agreement-cum-Irrevocable GPA dated 15.10.2012.

9It is noticed that the 2nd defendant herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 559 of 2015 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for seeking eviction of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. The 2nd defendant adduced evidence before the court as D.W.1. He deposed as per the lines of his written statement. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property since prior to date of purchase of the property under Ex.B1. It is also the further version of the D.W.1 that the house tax was not transferred on the name of the 2nd defendant prior to the filing of the suit and recently the same was transferred on the name of the 2nd defendant. It is also the clear version of the 2nd defendant that the suit in O.S. No. 559 of 2015 was dismissed by the court of I Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Rajahmundry and that he has preferred appeal in A.S. No. 57 of

2021 on the file of Court of Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry and the same is pending.

10The 2nd defendant relied upon Ex.A3/B1, Ex.B2 and B3 to show that he is bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property. The 2nd defendant did not choose to get examination of the 1st defendant before the court to prove 6 his bonafidies in establishing that 1st defendant acquired absolute right and title over the suit schedule property from plaintiff.

11According to the case of the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and further the plaintiff alone paid house tax till filing of the suit. It is no where elicited from the evidence let in by 2nd defendant that after the alleged execution of Ex.A2 sale agreement cum irrevocable GPA, the house tax of schedule property was transferred on the name of the 1st defendant. There is also no evidence let in by the 2nd defendant that the first defendant allowed the plaintiff to reside in the suit schedule property on rent from the date of execution of Ex.A2 document.

12A perusal of the contents of Ex.A2 document, it is noticed that the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the 1st defendant for a total consideration of Rs.8,60,000/-. There is no evidence let in by the 2nd defendant to substantiate that the 1st defendant has paid the sale consideration of Rs.8,60,000/- to the plaintiff under Ex.A2. No reasons are given by the 2nd defendant in not placing the evidence of 1st defendant

before the Court.

13D.W.2 is said to be the attestor of Ex.B1 registered sale deed. It is the case of the 2nd defendant that he purchased the suit schedule property under

Ex.B1/A3. D.W.2 deposed that the 2nd defendant paid sale consideration of

Rs.10,04,000/- to the 1st defendant and accordingly, Ex.B1 document was prepared by one Vakada Suryanarayana Reddy. In the cross-examination of

D.W.2, it is elicited that the suit schedule property was not physically delivered to the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant. It is also the further version of the D.W.2 that he is not aware of the pleadings of the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant before the Court. It is the clear admission of D.W.2 that he is not aware of the person by name Patnala

Srinivasa Rao, whose name he has referred in his chief examination. When 7 this admission of D.W.2 is taken into consideration, it can be said that the alleged attestor by name Patnala Srinivasa Rao was not present at the time of attesting Ex.B1 document by D.W.2. In the further cross-examination of

D.W.2, it is further noticed that the 2nd defendant is the friend of D.W.2.

When such is the relationship between the D.W.2 and 2nd defendant, this court is required to pay much attention while scrutinizing the entire evidence let in by the 2nd defendant. It is already stated supra that the schedule property was not delivered by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant at the time of execution of Ex.B1 document. It is also further noticed in the cross- examination of D.W.2 that D.W.2 is not having personal acquaintance with the 1st defendant. When such is the situation, it can be said that the presence of D.W.1 is doubtful at the time of alleged execution of Ex.B1 document in favour of the 2nd defendant. Considering all these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that it is not proper to rely upon the evidence of D.W.2 in holding that there was a genuine transaction under

Ex.B1/A3. Moreover, the evidence of 1st defendant is also very much required before the court to prove the genuineness of Ex.B1 document.

14The 2nd defendant being D.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that there is no written agreement between himself and the plaintiff. It is also the further admission of D.W.1 that there is also no written document to show that the plaintiff had earlier regularly paid rents to him. It is also the further admission of D.W.1 that D.W.1 did not give notice to the 1st defendant in connection with Ex.A5 reply notice given by the plaintiff. It is also learnt from the evidence of D.W.1 that the plaintiff herein filed a report against the 2nd defendant in police station. It is also the further version of the D.W.1 that the electricity service connection of schedule property is not so far transferred on his name and he is also not paying the electricity charges of suit schedule property. When these circumstances are taken into consideration, this court has no hesitation to say that except Ex.B1 8 document, there is no other supporting evidence to consider that the 2nd defendant is having title over the suit schedule property being bonafide purchaser. On going through the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2, it is noticed that the physical possession of the suit schedule property is so far not delivered by the plaintiff either to the 1st defendant or to the 2nd defendant. As the plaintiff is residing in the suit schedule property since prior to the alleged execution of Ex.A2 and A3 and as the plaintiff alone is paying regular electrical charges on his name over the suit schedule property and as the plaintiff alone paid regular tax on suit schedule property till the date of filing of the suit and as the suit filed by the 2nd defendant in O.S. No.559 of 2015 was dismissed, this court is of the strong opinion that the plaintiff alone is having good title than the alleged title of the 2nd defendant. Further, there is also no supporting evidence to consider that the 2nd defendant has let out the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- to the plaintiff and received the rent for about 6 months. Therefore, basing on Ex.B1 registered sale deed and in the absence of evidence of 1st defendant, it can be said that the 2nd defendant is not a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property.

When such is the conclusion of the court, a doubt is creating in the mind of the court about the genuineness of Ex.A2 sale agreement – cum – irrevocable

GPA.

15It is for the 2nd defendant to substantiate the contents of Ex.A2. In the absence of evidence of 1st defendant, it is not proper to consider the alleged transaction under Ex.A2 is a genuine one. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to say that the 1st defendant had fraudulently obtained the signatures of the defendant on Ex.A2. Therefore, it cannot be considered that Ex.A2 is a valid document.

16The wife of the plaintiff being P.W.1 deposed as per the lines of plaint.

P.W.2 being the tenant of suit schedule property has deposed that he is residing along with his son in one portion of the suit schedule property. P.W.3 9 being the local inhabitant of the suit schedule property deposed that the plaintiff alone is the owner of the suit schedule property.

17On judicial scrutiny of the entire evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and D.W.2, it is no where elicited that the 2nd defendant is recognized as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property in the locality of the suit schedule property.

Considering the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, this court has no hesitation to say that the plaintiff is in continuous possession of suit schedule property being title holder of the schedule property. When these are the observations of the court, it can be said that 2nd defendant cannot claim that he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property basing on Ex.A3/B1 registered sale deed. As such, it is relevant to cancel Ex.A2 sale agreement – cum – irrevocable GPA dated 15.10.2012 and Ex.B2 registered sale deed bearing

Document No. 2627 of 2013 dated 30.03.2013 and Ex.A3/B1 registered sale deed bearing No. 851 of 2014 dated 28.01.2014. Thus, issue Nos. 1 to 3 are answered against the 2nd defendant.

18ISSUE NO.4:

In view of the findings recorded on Issue Nos. 1 to 3, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.

Therefore, the 2nd defendant is not permitted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to seek decree for cancellation of Ex.A2, Ex.A3/B1 and

Ex.B2 documents. Thus, the suit is to be decreed with costs.

19In the result, the suit is decreed with cost by cancelling (1) Ex.A2 Sale

Agreement – cum – Irrevocable General Power of Attorney bearing Document

No. 6451 of 2012 dated 15.10.2012 (2) Registered sale deed bearing

Document No. 2627 of 2013 dated 30.03.2013 and (3) Registered sale deed bearing Document No. 851 of 2014 dated 28.01.2014 and granted injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

10

The plaintiff is at liberty to initiate necessary steps for getting cancellation of said documents on the file of Registrar concerned on payment of process as per law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.II) corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- S.Praveen Kumar

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Rajamahendravaram.

APPEDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif: P.W.1 : Samangi Satyavathi P.W.2 : Guruthuthi Nookaratnam P.W.3 : Nulu Siva Krisha @ Siva Kishore

For Defendants: D.W.1 : Sunnam Srinivasa Rao D.W.2 : Chamakura Srinivasa Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1/26.02.2019: Certified copy of the Bill which stands in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A2/15.10.2012: Certified copy of Sale agreement cum irrevocable GPA which stands on the name of the 1st defendant. Ex.A3/28.01.2014: Certified copy of Registered sale deed which stands on the name of the 2nd defendant. Ex.A4/06.05.2015: Certified copy of the legal notice issued by the 2nd defendant. Ex.A5/01.06.2015: Certified copy of the reply notice given by the plaintiff. Ex.A6/: Certified copy of the decree and Judgment in O.S. No.559 of 2015 on the file of I Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. For defendant:

Ex.B1/28.01.2014: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing No. 851 of 2014. Ex.B2/30.03.2013: Certified copy of Registered sale deed bearing No.2627. Ex.B3/15.10.2012: Certified copy of registered sale agreement cum irrevocable General Power of Attorney bearing No. 6451/2012. Ex.B4/6.5.2015: Certified copy of the legal notice issued by the 2nd defendant. Ex.B5/01.06.2015: Certified copy of the reply notice of plaintiff.

Sd/- S.Praveen Kumar

I A S C J

-JUDGMENT

11

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT: SRI S. PRAVEEN KUMAR,

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Saturday, the 29th day of April, 2023

O.S. No. 244 of 2017

Between: Samangi Venkata Ramana Murthy @ Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nookayya, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Employee, R/o. Door No.17-19-15, Seethampeta, Rajahmundry, RJCJ … Plaintif AND 1.Matta Jogeswari, W/o. Venkata Krishna, Hindu, Aged 32 years, House- wife, R/o.Door No. 30-14-2, Jandapanjaroad, Rajahmundry, RJCJ.

2.Sunnam Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Subbarao, Hindu, Aged 49 years, Business, resident of Krishna Nagar, Rajahmundry. … Defendants

This suit is presented on 30.06.2017 and taken on file on 10.07.2017.

This is a suit filed for seeking cancellation of registered Sale

Agreement-cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney bearing No.

6451/2012 of dated 15.10.2012, which was obtained by the first defendant by playing fraud with the plaintiff and for grant of injunction restraining the defendants in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit is Rs.14,79,000/-:

The value of the plaint schedule property as per the valuation certificate issued by the S.R.O., Rajahmundry is Rs.14,79,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.17,226/- is paid under Section 37(1) of APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 23.07.1981 when one Bsaramanu

Kondamma executed a Will bequeathing the plaint schedule property and on 13.01.2006 when the mother of plaintiff died and when the plaintiff became the absolute owner Of the plaint schedule property and when the 1st defendant fraudulently obtained sale agreement cum irrevocable G.P.A. vide

Doc.No.6451/2012 at the time of borrowing Rs.50,000/- by the plaintiff etc.

and at Rajahmundry where the schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit coming on 19.04.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri K.Suneel 12

Lionel, Advocate for 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant is remained ex parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows; (1) That the Ex.A2 Sale Agreement – cum – Irrevocable General Power of Attorney bearing Document No. 6451 of 2012 dated 15.10.2012 be and the same is hereby canceled, (2) That the registered sale deed bearing Document No. 2627 of 2013

dated 30.03.2013 be and the same is hereby canceled,

(3) That the Registered sale deed bearing Document No. 851 of 2014

dated 28.01.2014 be and the same is hereby canceled,

(4) That the defendant Nos.1 and 2 be and the same is hereby restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, (5) That the plaintiff be and is hereby at liberty to initiate necessary steps for getting cancellation of said documents on the file of Registrar concerned on payment of process as per law, (6) That the defendants do pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.17,228/- towards costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 29 th day of April,

2023.

Sd/- S.Praveen Kumar

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS.

For plaintif: For defendants: Nil Stamp on vakalath: Rs. 2-00 Stamp on plaint: Rs.17,226-00 ------------------ (Institution costs) Rs.17,228-00 ------------------

SCHEDULE

[East Godavari District, Rajahmundry District Registrar Office Limits,

Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation Area, Ward No.9, Seethampeta, Door

No.9/259B C.S.No.17-18-11 present C.S. No:17-19-15 situated an extent of 60 sq. yards of vacant site bounded by;

East: Property belongs to Chelluboyina Pydiyya --40.6 feet

South: Road --13.4 feet

West: Property belongs to Vedantham Gangabhavani – 40.6 feet

North: Property belongs to Gorli Apparao - 13.4 feet]

Sd/- S.Praveen Kumar

I A.S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present: Sri S.Praveen Kumar, I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.58/2014.

Between:

Pulugula Sunitha ….Plaintif

AND 1.Gedela Apparao (died) 2.Gedela Abbulu alias Apparao 3.Gedela Arjunudu 4.Gedela Nageswara Rao 5.Nemala Ammaji 6.Gedala Chinna Rao 7.Gedela Pandavulu 8.Karnam Venkata Lakshmi (Defendants 7 and 8 added as L.Rs. Of deceased 1st defendant as per order on I.A.No.484/2022) ….Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 21.04.2023 in the presence of Sri P.R.P. Yadav, Advocate for the plaintiff, Defendant No.1 died, Sri K.V.B.R., Advocate for the defendants 2 to 6 and Sri A.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the defendants Nos.7 and 8 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following;

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 02.08.2012 directing the defendant to execute regular sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration. On the death of 1st defendant, defendants 7 and 8 were brought on record being the legal heirs of the 1st defendant.

2.In brief, the averments of the plaint are that the defendants 1 to 6 agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a total 2 consideration of Rs.9,45,000/- to the plaintiff and executed an agreement of sale dated 02.08.2012 and received Rs.45,000/- towards advance of sale consideration and the plaintiff agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- at the time of the execution of regular sale deed. The plaintiff and defendants agreed to perform their part of contract on or before 02.02.2013.

The plaintiff and her husband visited the plaint schedule property and verified the same physically and satisfied with the same. Later the plaintiff continuously demanded the defendants since the month of September 2012 to execute regular sale deed in faovur of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration. Plaintiff further reported to the defendants that she is ready and willing to perform her part of contract. Plaintiff further approached the defendant through elders to execute the regular sale deed and delivered the possession of the plaint schedule property as per the terms and conditions of agreement of sale and to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-. But the defendants did not come forward to execute regular sale deed and postponed the same. As such, the plaintiff suffered from mental agony.

Therefore, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit.

2.The 2nd defendant filed written statement by admitting the execution of agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff.

Defendants 1, 3, 4 to 6 adopted the written statement of 2nd defendant. These defendants further contended that the defendants have approached the plaintiff and expressed their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract to 3 execute regular sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration and the plaintiff postponed the same on one pretext or other. Plaintiff issued legal notice dated 26.01.2013 to cover up her laches. After the receipt of the said legal notice, defendants again personally and through elders approached the plaintiff and expressed their willingness to perform their part of contract and requested the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration as they are in dire need of money. Plaintiff also assured the defendants that she would get the document registered by paying balance sale consideration as quickly as possible. Defendants received another notice dated 12.11.2013 with false and untrue averments. On that these defendants issued suitable reply dated 18.11.2013 to plaintiff. Plaintiff alone violated the terms of contract and caused huge financial loss and mental agony to the defendant. The time is essence of contract and as such the plaintiff has to perform her part of contract on or before 02.02.2013. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek for grant of decree. With these contentions, the defendants 1 to 6 prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

3.Defendants 7 and 8 filed written statement by denying the total averments of the plaint and further contended that they are not party to the alleged sale agreement and the same cannot be enforceable under law against these defendants. Plaintiff never performed her part of contract in a bonafide manner and she never abide by the terms of the contract. With these contentions, defendants 7 and 8 prayed to dismiss the suit costs.

4

4.In view of the above pleadings, this court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of

sale agreement dated 02.08.2012 entered by defendants with

plaintiff as prayed for?

(2) Whether alternatively the plaintiff is entitled to recover the

advance amount of Rs.45,000/- with interest at 24% per annum

from the defendants, as prayed for?

(3) To what relief?

5.During the course of enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

6.Heard the respective counsels of both parties apart from perusal of the written arguments filed by the defendants.

Issue No.1:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of

sale agreement dated 02.08.2012 entered by defendants

with plaintiff as prayed for?

7.There is no dispute between the parties about execution of

Ex.A1 agreement of sale by defendants 1 to 6 and about receiving of advance amount of Rs.45,000/-. It is the case of plaintiff that though the plaintiff made several requests and demands personally and through elders and though she has issued Ex.A2 notice, the defendants herein did not turn up to receive the 5 balance sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- to execute regular sale deed on her behalf. It is also the case of defendants that though the defendants reported ready to perform their part of contract as they are in dire need of money to perform the marriage of the daughter of DW2/5th defendant. Defendants further strongly contended that the time is essence of contract and as such the plaintiff has to perform her part of contract on or before 02.02.2013. When these are the pleadings of the defendant, it is for the plaintiff to establish before the court that she is ready and willing to perform her part of contract in directing the defendants to perform their part of contract.

8.PW1 being plaintiff deposed as per the lines of plaint. PW2 is said to be the attestor of Ex.A1 agreement of sale. It is already stated supra that there is no dispute about execution of Ex.A1 by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. According to the written statement of D1 to D6, it is made out that the defendants received

Ex.A2 legal notice dated 26.01.2013. On going through the recitals of Ex.A2, it is noticed that the plaintiff issued Ex.A2 notice calling upon the defendants 1 to 6 to extend cooperation in receiving the balance sale consideration and to execute the regular sale deed in terms of agreement of sale dated 02.08.2012.

9.It is not the case of defendants that the defendants have given reply to the notice of Ex.A2. It is also the case of defendants that the defendants received another legal notice from the plaintiff

dated 12.11.2013 and on that they have given suitable reply dated

6 18.11.2013. As per the case of plaintiff, the alleged reply notice

dated 18.11.2013 is not received by the plaintiff so far. Further the

defendants have also not filed the office copy of the reply notice

dated 18.11.2013 for consideration. According to the recitals of

Ex.A1, it is for the parties to perform their respective part of contracts on or before 02.02.2013. Ex.A2 legal notice was issued on 26.01.2013 and before the fixed date of 02.02.2013. When the recitals of Ex.A2 is taken into consideration, it can be accepted that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform her part of contract to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendants. The defendants did not give reply to the notice of Ex.A2 and the defendants have also failed to give any further notice to the plaintiff on or before 02.02.2013 reporting that they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract in receiving the balance sale consideration and to execute the regular sale deed. Moreover, though the plaintiff issued another legal notice, no copy of reply notice is filed before the court to consider that defendants have given reply with true facts to the plaintiff. Considering the admission of defendants in execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and as the defendants failed to give reply to

Ex.A2 notice, this court has no hesitation to say that the plaintiff has shown readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract. Thus, it can be said that the plaintiff has discharged her initial burden in proving the suit claim. Now the burden shifts on the defendants in order to prove that though the defendants are ready and willing to perform their part of contract, plaintiff did not come forward to perform her part of contract.

7

10.The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon the

Judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in a case between M.V.

Prema Chandra & another v. Smt. Sarojamma and others, reported in A.I.R. 2015 Karnataka 1, wherein their lordship was pleased to observe that;

“Agreement is dated 13.09.2008. six months time fixed in

Ex.P67 expired on 13.03.2009. No notice was got issued. Suit

was filed on 20.08.2010 i.e., almost one year five months after

the lapse of six months time stipulated in Ex.P67. Yogananda

died on 01.06.2010 i.e., long after the expiry of six months.

What is argued before this court by Sri. R.L. Patil,

learned counsel is that time is not the essence of contract in

respect of immovable properties and hence suit so filed on

20.08.2010 is in time as it is within three years as mandated in

Part I of Article 54 of the Limitation Act .

We are unable to agree with Sri.R.L.Patil, learned

counsel, on this aspect. Schedule property is described as an

agricultural land in Ex.P67. Reality is that substantial portion of

the land had already been converted into non-agricultural

purpose prior to executing Ex.P67. Apart from this 60 to 70 RCC

houses were already in existence in the suit land as on the date

of executing Ex.P67. The approximate value, even as per the

very admission of PW-1, was valued between Rs.35 to 40 lakhs.

Land in question is in Coorg District and is by the side of

Cauvery river. Entire Coorg District is known for attracting

tourists from different 20 RFA NO.1890/2012 parts of the

country. Such being the case, the property in question is very

much potential to be used for attracting tourists. As such

plaintiffs, were expected to exercise their right of specific

performance at the earliest without giving room for any laches.

It need not be reiterated that laches disentitle the plaintiffs to

have the relief of specific performance which is an equitable

relief. Learned Judge has dealt with all these aspects

meticulously. Hence, we are the considered opinion that the

learned Judge is justified in answering Issue No. 2 in the

negative. Accordingly, we answer Point No. 2 in the affirmative.

In view of the above findings, we have to uphold the

decree granted to the plaintiffs to get back Rs.46 lakhs with

interest. In the light of the inability of the plaintiffs to prove the

payment of Rs.49 lakhs in cash and in the light of transaction

not being a 21 RFA NO.1890/2012 commercial transaction,

awarding interest at 8% p.a. on the Trial Court is justified. The

8

Learned Judge should have awarded proportionate costs in view

of Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Awarding costs is a

civil suit is a rule and rejection of the same needs to be

supported by good reasons. Hence, we are inclined to grant the

proportionate costs throughout”.

11.The learned counsel for the defendants further relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in a case between U.N.

Krishnamurthy (since deceased) Thr. LRs. v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, reported in 2022(4) A.L.T. 77 (SC) wherein their lordship was pleased to observe that; “It is settled law that for relief of specific performance, the Plaintiff has to prove that all along and till the final decision of the suit, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is the bounden duty of the Plaintiff to prove his

readiness and willingness by adducing evidence. This crucial

facet has to be determined by considering all circumstances

including availability of funds and mere statement or averment

in plaint of readiness and willingness, would not suffice”.

12.The learned counsel for the defendants further relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in a case between Gauri

Shankar Prasad and other v. Brahma Nand Singh reported in 2008(5) A.L.D. 33 (SC), wherein their lordship was pleased to observe that; “The High Court has rightly observed that the trial Court has made a new case which was not the case of the parties. This Court has in several cases held that if sale and agreement to repurchase are embodied in separate documents, it cannot be a case of the mortgage and in such cases relating to re- conveyance time is always the essence of the contract.

In the same Judgment, the Hon’ble High Court further observed the following; “The High Court also noticed that the claim of the appellants that they paid the consideration amount on 10.4.1992 is also of 9 no assistance because the period of limitation expired on 5.2.1992 and the suit was filed on 23.5.1992. As rightly noted by the High Court, there was an agreement for re-conveyance and there was specific stipulation for re-conveyance of the land within a period of 3 years which was admittedly not complied by the plaintiffs-appellants”.

13.DW1 who is 2nd defendant deposed as per the lines of their written statement. DW2 being 5th defendant deposed that they have entered into Ex.A1 agreement of sale with the plaintiff in order to sell the suit schedule property to perform the marriage of her daughter and the plaintiff failed to perform her part of contract and on that hey have suffered several problems and finally they have performed the marriage of their daughter on 18.05.2013.

14.DW3 being mediator deposed that plaintiff has to perform her part of contract within six months from the date of execution of

Ex.A1 agreement of sale and later the plaintiff failed to perform her part of contract and on that he has approached the plaintiff along with other defendants on number of times and requested the plaintiff to pay balance of sale consideration to the defendants and the plaintiff did not respond to their request. DW3 further deposed that on one day, the plaintiff requested the defendants to wait at the Office of S.R.O. Korukonda and all the defendants have waited at S.R.O. Korukonda till evening and the plaintiff did not turn up.

15.On going through the recitals of Ex.A1, it is no where stated that the defendants are in dire need of money to perform the marriage of the daughter of DW2 and on that they have offered to 10 sell the suit schedule property and accordingly they have entered into Ex.A1 agreement of sale with plaintiff to sell away the suit schedule property. No doubt, as per the recitals of Ex.A1, it is for the parties to perform their respective part of contract on or before 02.02.2013 since the time is essence of contract in accordance to their terms and conditions. It is already stated supra that the plaintiff has shown readiness and willingness by issuing Ex.A2 legal notice to perform her part of contract. There is no record before the court that the defendants have responded to the notice of

Ex.A2 in performing their part of contract. Further, the defendants never issued notice to the plaintiff on or before 02.02.2013 requesting the plaintiff to perform her part of contract by reporting their readiness and willings to execute the regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The fact of issuance of Ex.A2 legal notice alone is sufficient to consider that there is readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff to perform her part of contract.

It is immaterial to court to show that plaintiff was in possession of balance of sale consideration on or before the issuance of Ex.A2 legal notice. The recitals of Ex.A2 made it clear that plaintiff has reported readiness to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendants. Thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiff approached the court after expiry of limitation period in seeking specific relief against the defendants to execute regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

16.Ex.B1 is the Lagna Patrika of the daughter of DW2. Ex.B2 is the wedding card of the daughter of DW2. Considering Exs.B1 and 11

B2 it cannot be said that there is no liability on the part of defendants to discharge their part of obligation as per the terms of

Ex.A1. Accordingly, the defendants cannot deny the claim of plaintiff basing on Exs.B1 and B2. It is for the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute regular sale deed. Under these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the defendants cannot seek to dismiss the suit by relying upon the

Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2008(5) A.L.D. 33 (SC).

Further, this court did not notice any laches on the part of plaintiff and therefore the defendants are also cannot seek to dismiss the suit by relying upon the Judge of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court reported in A.I.R. 2015 Karnataka (1). Hence, the defendants are certainly liable to perform their part of contract in terms of Ex.A1 agreement of sale, since the readiness and willingness of plaintiff is proved in performing her part of contract. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to seek for specific performance of agreement of sale directing the defendants to execute regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration of

Rs.9,00,000/-. Thus, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue No.2:

Whether alternatively the plaintiff is entitled to recover the

advance amount of Rs.45,000/- with interest at 24% per annum

from the defendants, as prayed for?

17.In view of the finding recorded in issue No.1, it is not desirable to direct the defendants to return the advance amount of

Rs.45,000/- to the plaintiff with interest @ 24% per annum. This issue is answered accordingly.

12

Issue No.3:

To what relief?

18.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to execute regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-, within 3 months from the date of this judgment, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get execution of regular sale deed through process of law.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- S.Praveen Kumar

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: PW1 : Pulugula Sunitha PW2 : Bandaru Venkateswarao

FOR DEFENDANT: DW1 : Gedela Abbulu DW2 : Nemala Ammaji DW3 : Alla Sivaji

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 is the sale agreement dated 02.08.2012 Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 26.01.2013 Ex.A3 are five postal acknowledgments and postal receipts

FOR DEFENDANT: Ex.B1 is the Lagna of Bride Satyavathi, niece of defendants Ex.B2 is the Wedding card of Bride Satyavathi, who is niece of defendants

Sd/- S.Praveen Kumar

I A.S.C.J.

—JUDGMENT 13

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present: Sri S.Praveen Kumar, I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.58/2014.

Between:

Pulugula Sunitha, W/o.Babji, Hindu, aged 58 years, R/o.Door No.69-27-10, Gandhipuram, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry, R.J.C.J. ….Plaintif

AND 1.Gedela Apparao (died) 2.Gedela Abbulu alias Apparao, S/o.Apparao, Hindu, aged 59 years, Agriculture, Bavajipeta, H/o.Gummaladoddi Village, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District 3.Gedela Arjunudu, S/o.Apparao, Hindu, aged 38 years, Agriculture, Bavajipeta, H/o.Gummaladoddi Village, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District 4.Gedela Nageswara Rao, S/o.Apparao, Hindu, aged 36 years, Agriculture, Bavajipeta, H/o.Gummaladoddi Village, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District 5.Nemala Ammaji, W/o.Lakshmana Rao, Hindu, aged 40 years, Agriculture, Bavajipeta, H/o.Gummaladoddi Village, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District 6.Gedala Chinna Rao, S/o.Apparao, Hindu, aged 30 years, Bavajipeta, H/o.Gummaladoddi Village, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District 7.Gedela Pandavulu, Pandavulu, W/o.Apparao(late), Hindu, aged 70 years, Housewife, Bavajipeta, H/o.Gummaladoddi village, Gokavaram Mandalam, E.G. District 8.Karnam Venkata Lakshmi, W/o.Apparao, Hindu, aged 58 years, Housewife, D.No.2-286, Udathavari street, Dowlaiswaram, Rajamahendravaram Rural (Defendants 7 and 8 added as L.Rs. of deceased 1st defendant as per order on I.A.No.484/2022 dt.31.10.2022) ….Defendants

This suit is presented on 01.02.2013 and filed on 12.02.2013.

This is a suit filed seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 02.08.2012 directing the defendant to execute 14 regular sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration. On the death of 1st defendant, defendants 7 and 8 were brought on record being the legal heirs of the 1st defendant.

Value of the suit is Rs.9,45,000/-:

Value of the property as per the agreement of sale is

Rs.9,45,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.11,926/- is paid under

Section 39, Schedule I Art.1(b)(c) of APCF & SV Act. ]

Cause of action for the suit arose on 02.08.2012 when the defendants into an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff by the defendants and when the plaintiff requested the defendants to perform perform their part of contract that to execute regular sale deed in respect of the schedule property by receiving the balance sale consideration and when the defendants failed to do so even after receipt of legal notice dated 26.01.2013 and where the schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

Court.

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 21.04.2023 in the presence of Sri P.R.P. Yadav, Advocate for the plaintiff, Defendant No.1 died, Sri K.V.B.R., Advocate for the defendants 2 to 6 and Sri A.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the defendants Nos.7 and 8 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:

(1) That the defendants be and are hereby directed to execute regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-, within 3 months from the date of this judgment, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get execution of regular sale deed through process of law, (2) That th e defendants do also pay the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.1,38,528/- towards costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 28 th

day of April, 2023.

Sd/- S.Praveen Kumar

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

15

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: Nil Stamp on vakalath: Rs. 2-00 Stamp on plaint: Rs.11,926-00 Stamp on process: Rs. 450-00 Advocate fee: Rs. 94,500-00 Advocate fee(Jr.): Rs.31,500-00 Type charge: Rs. 150-00 ---------------------- Rs. 1,38,528-00 -----------------------

SCHEDULE

[East Godavari District, Korukonda Sub-Registry, Gokavaram

Mandal Gram Panchayati, Gummaladoddi village, Zeroity Dry

S.No.3/3 total extent Ac.1.35 cents in which an extent of Ac.0-63 cents = 0.255 hectors bounded by:

East: Land belongs to Rajahmundry

South: Land belongs to Josaph

West: R & B Road leads from Rajahmundry to Korukonda

North:Land belongs to Mummana Tata Rao

Within the above boundaries with all usual and easement rights.]

Sd/- S.Praveen Kumar

I A.S.C.J.