Smt. S. Sarada Devi

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE :: WEST GODAVARI AT ELURU.

Present: Smt.S.Sarada Devi

Judge, Family Court –cum­ VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

West Godavari, Eluru.

Friday 3 rd day of January, 2020

SESSIONS CASE NUMBER.230 of 2006

Name of the Accused:1.Nimmala Mahalakshmanarao @ Tataji S/o.Venkatachalam, aged 52 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu, Nidamarru Mandal. 2.Nimmala Naga Venkata krishnarao @ VenkataKrishna@BujjiS/o. Mahalakshmanarao @ Tataji, 30 years, Cultivation R/o.Adavikolanu. 3.Vaddi Kumar @ Kirankumar S/o. Narasimharao, 22 years, Cultivation, R/o. Adavikolanu.

4. Pathikayala Suryanarayana @ Mallaiah, S/o. Apparao, 38 years, Rajaka, Cooli, R/o.Adavikolanu, Nidamarru Mandal.

5. Kottu Peddiraju @ Bobby S/o. Nageswara Rao, aged 26 years, Cultivation R/o. Adavikolanu. 6.Vaddi Kishore S/o.Narasimharao, 23 years, cultivation R/o.Adavikolanu. 7.Nimmala Muralikrishna @ Murali S/o. Subrahmanyam,aged26years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 8.Nimmala Yesubabu @ Yesu S/o. Venkata Subbarao, 23 years, Kapu, Cultivation, Adavikolanu. 9.VaddiNarasimharao@ Narasimhamurthy,S/o.Venkataswamy, aged 45 years, Kapu, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 10.Papolu Rangarao S/o. Narasaiah, 70 years, Cultivation, aged 70 years, R/o.Adavikolanu. 11.Nimmala Narasimharao @ Tata Pandu S/o.Avatharam,40years,Kapu, Cultivation, R/o. Adavikolanu. 12.NimmalaVenkatarao S/o.Lakshminarayana, 52 years, Kapu, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 13.Kandulapati Ramarao @ Raja Rao S/o.Ganganna, 43 years, cultivation, r/o. Adavikolanu. 14.Papolu Narasimharao @ Shavukaru (died) 15.Mutyala Ravi S/o.Gandhi, 30 years, cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 16.Mutyala Suribabu S/o.Srinivasa Rao, 32 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu.

2 17.Papolu Srinivasarao @ Sreenu @ Bathula Sreenu S/o.Koteswararao, 30 years, Cultivation, r/o.Adavikolanu. 18.Nimmala Venkatachalam @Venkatachalam (died) 19.Nimmala Nagababu @ Nagu S/o. Venkatachalam, aged 20 years, Kapu, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 20.ManchalaSreenu@Venkata Janardhanarao S/o.Avatharam, 32 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 21.NimmalaSatyanarayana S/o.Kesavarao, 35 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 22.Challa Adinarayana S/o.Viswanadham, 60 years, cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 23.Kotipalli Nageswararao S/o. Late Parusuramudu, 50 years, cultivation R/o.Adavikolanu. 24.Ambati Apparao S/o.Parusuramudu, 50 years, Cultivation R/o.Adavikolanu. 25,KandulapatiSatyanarayana S/o.Ganganna,45years,Kapu, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 26.Papolu Ekonarayana S/o.Gopanna, 35 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 27.Manchala Veerabhadrarao @ Pedakapu (died) 28.Kotipalli Srinivasarao s/o.Peddiraju, 28 years, R/o.Adavikolanu. 29.Vaddi Annavaram S/o. Raghavulu, 40 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 30.Nimmala Sangaiah S/o.Nageswara Rao, 38 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 31.YerragopuBhaskaraRao S/o.Seetharamaiah, 48 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 32.Papolu Sayi @ Kunthi S/o.Subbarao, 40 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 33.Kotipalli Suri S/o.Peddiraju, 27 years, R/o.Adavikolanu. 34.Manchala Janardhanarao @ Chinna S/o.Avatharam,35years,Kapu R/o.Adavikolanu.

CHARGE:The accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and committed offence of Murder and attempt to commit Murder Punishable under Sections 143, 148, 302, 307 r/w Sec.149 of IPC

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Judge: ­ Not Guilty ­ 3

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused A1 to A13, A15 to A17, A19 to A26 and A28 to A34 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 148 302, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC the charges leveled against them on benefit of doubt and accordingly they are acquitted in terms of Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stand canceled. M.Os.1 to 20 and unmarked non­valuable properties, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

**** The case against A14, A18 and A27 is abated as died as per docket or­ ders dtd 26­11­2015, dtd 31­01­2018 and dtd 23­07­2019 respectively. 

The prosecution is conducted by Sri Achanta Venkateswara Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, West Godavari, Eluru.

The A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A11, A17, A19 to A22 and A31 are defended by Sri.N.Murali Gangadhara Rao, A3, A6 and A9 are defended by

Sri.B.Vijaya Kumar, A10, A12,A13 and A29 are defended by A.Jagan Mohana

Rao, A15, A16, A23 to A26, A28, 30, 32 to 34 are defended by Sri G.Ronald Raj,

Advocate.

The Case is committed by K.Sridevi, Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Tadepalligudem, in P.R.C.No.93/2005 on her file, connected with

crime number 59/2004 of Nidamarru Police Station.

This case coming on 30.12.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Achanta Venkateswara Rao, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State and of Sri N.Murali Gangadhara Rao, Advocate for

A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A11, A17, A19 to A22 and A31 and of Sri.B.Vijaya

Kumar, Advocate for A3, A6 and A9 and of Sri.A.Jagan Mohana Rao,

Advocate for A10,A12, A13, A29 and of Sri.G.Ronald Raj, Advocate for A15,

A16, A23 to A26, A28, A30, A32 to A34 and case against A14, A18 and A27

is abated as died as per docket orders dtd 26­11­2015, dtd 31­01­2018 and

dtd 23­07­2019 respectively and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

4

J U D G M E N T

1. The State of Andhra Pra desh represented by Inspector of Police,

Bhimadole Circle I/c. Ganapavaram filed charge­sheet in Crime No.59/2004 of

Nidamarru Police Station, against the accused A1 to A34 accusing that they formed themselves into unlawful assembly with deadly weapons attacked the deceased Ande Venkateswara Rao @ Venkanna and his son PW1/Ande

Srinivasa Rao with a common object to kill them and caused injuries and that the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment and thereby committed the offences punishable Under Sections 143, 148, 302, 307 of IPC r/w Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code( for short ‘IPC’). 

2. The case of prosecution in brief that culled out from the charge­sheet is as follows:

(i) The deceased Ande Venkateswara Rao @ Venkanna was elected as

President to the Adavikolanu Water Users Association in the elections held in the year, 2003. Prior to that A1 being one of the members of the said association used to conduct auctions to the canals for fishing rights to catch fish and used to collect amounts from the highest bidders. After electing the deceased as

President to the said association, he conducted auctions on 12­07­2004 to catch fish from the canals of the Association. In the said auction one Sydu

Kanakaih of Adavikolanu became the highest bidder and also paid bid amount of Rs.40,000/­ and arranged nets at the canals of the association to catch fish.

Along with him two other bidders also arranged nets to catch fish. Later A1 along with his henchmen went to canals and got removed nets installed by the highest bidders. On that the bidders approached the deceased and reported the matter about removing of their nets by A1 and his men. Then on 26­08­2004 the deceased and his son PW1/Ande Srinivasa Rao went to the canals and got rearranged the nets by the bidders.

(ii) It is further case of the prosecution that A1 having come to know about the re­arrangement of nets at the instance of the deceased and his son/Pw1, on 5 the same day i.e., on 26­08­2004 at about 6.30 p.m., while deceased and his son Ande Srinivasa Rao were talking in front of the house of one Pydikondala

Srimannarayana @ Sivaji near elementary School No.1 at Adavikolanu village,

A1 along with A2 to A34 (A14, A18, and A27 died) armed with deadly weapons like sticks, iron rods etc., formed themselves into an unlawful assembly under the leadership of A1 and attacked the deceased and his son PW1/Ande

Srinivasa Rao with a common object to kill them. A1 beat the deceased with an iron rod on his head, A2 also beat on the head of the deceased with a stick, A3 beat the deceased with an iron rod on the legs of the deceased, resulting which the deceased sustained severe injuries and fell down on the ground. Then A4 to

A8 beat the deceased with sticks etc., and on seeing the same when PW1­Ande

Srinivasa Rao went to rescue the deceased, A4 to A8 beat him with sticks causing injuries on his head, nose and chest, and A9 also beat the deceased with stick. Likewise the rioting took place for about half an hour and thereafter on the arrival of villagers, the accused fled away. One LW11­Ande Thirupataiah,

LW14­Kasireddi Mariyya @ Nukalu and others brought the deceased and his son/PW1 to the Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem and on the same day while undergoing treatment the deceased Ande Venkateswara Rao @ Venkanna succumbed to the injuries and died.

(iii) It is also the case of prosecution that on receipt of hospital intimation and also the death intimation sent by the Causality Medical Officer,

Government Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem, PW6/V.S.N.Reddy, Head constable 1262 of Tadepalligudem Town P.S., visited the Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem and recorded the statement of PW1­Ande Srinivasa Rao and that the learned

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem also recorded the

statement of PW1 as dying declaration and PW6 forwarded the same to the

Station House Officer, Nidamarru, on the point of jurisdiction. On receipt of the same PW7/ VVS Ramalingaraju, SI of Police, Ganapavaram P.S., who was holding temporarily additional charge of Nidamarru P.S., registered hospital 6 intimation, statement of PW1 and death intimation of the deceased as FIR in

Cr.No.59/2004 under sections 143, 148, 307, 302 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC., of

Nidamarru P.S. After observing all formalities and on completion of investigation PW8/ Inspector of Police, Bhimadole Circle filed charge sheet against all the accused . Hence, the charge. 

3. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Tadepalligudem, has taken the case on file for the offences under Sections 143, 148, 307 and 302 r/w 149 of IPC against the accused and on their appearance following the due procedure as contemplated under sections 207 and 209 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, committed the matter to the Court of Sessions in

P.R.C.No.93/2005 as the offences under Sections 307 and 302 of IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and same is numbered as

S.C.No.230/2006 and made over to II Additional District Court, W.G., Eluru and later it was transferred to V Additional District Court. In the meanwhile, on the revision preferred by the accused in Criminal Revision Case No.526/2011 on the file of Hon’ble High Court, Hyderabad, the matter is stayed. Thereafter, it was transferred to this Court as per the proceedings of Hon’ble District Court,

W.G., Eluru, in Dis.No.502/dt.254­01­2019 for disposal according to law.

Pending trial in this case the accused A14 and A18 died and thus, the case against them is abated as per docket order dtd 26­11­2015 and dtd 31­01­2018 respectively.

4. This Court on receipt of record, on appearance of the accused and upon hearing both the parties framed the charges under Sections 143, 148, 302, 307 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC., read over and explained the same to them in Telugu, to which as the accused A1 to A13, A15 to A17, A19 to A26 and A28 to A34 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, commenced trial. Case against A27 is separated as per the orders of this court dated 23­01­2019 and NBW was issued. After appearance of A27 and framing of the charges the accused A27 7 died and thus, this case against the accused A27 is abated as per docket orders dtd 23­07­2019. 

 5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses as PWs 1 to 8 from out of 33 listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P­1 to P­39 and M.Os.1 to 20 for prosecution and Exs.D1 to D3 are got marked for defence. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused A1 to A13, A15 to

A17, A19 to A26, A28 to A34 are got examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., during which they denied the incriminating material placed before them and reported no evidence on their behalf. Thus, their evidence is closed. 

6. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.

7. Point for determination are:

1.Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused A1 to A13, A15 to

A17, A19 to A26 and A28 to A34 along with the accused A14, A18 and A27

(died) as members of unlawful assembly, arming with deadly weapons

attacked the deceased Ande Venkateswara Rao @ Venkanna and his son

Srinivasa Rao/PW1 with a common object to kill them, caused injuries and

that the deceased succumbed to injuries beyond all reasonable doubt? 

2. Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused A1 to A13, A15 to

A17, A19 to A26 and A28 to A34 along with the accused A14, A18 and A27

(died) committed the offence punishable under Sections 143, 148, 302 and

307 r/w 149 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

8. POINT NO. 1: During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the accused A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A8, A11, A17, A19 to A22 and A31 raised the following points for consideration:

1) that no reliance be placed on the sole testimony of PW1, being an interested and partisan witness having not corroborated by any independent evidence though available, having material infirmities and not supported by medical evidence;

2) that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive attributed against the accused;

3) that non conducting of test identification parade over the alleged accused persons and crime weapons is fatal; 8

4) that non examination of any independent direct witnesses though available is fatal;

5) that the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated with the recitals of Ex.P1 FIR indicating that he has improved the case and thus, he is not trustworthy to be relied upon;

6) that non supplying of 164 Statement of PW1 to the accused and it’s suppression is fatal to the prosecution by which prejudice is caused to the accused having lost their opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses on those aspects and an adverse inference can be drawn that if the same is produced the said statement would be adverse to the prosecution;

7) that the oral evidence of PW1 is not supported by the medical evidence;

8) that the failure on the part of the prosecution to give any explanation as to how the accused A9 received injuries is fatal and probable the case of accused that this case is politically motivated;

9) that MOs 1 to 18 are planted objects particularly in the absence of any test identification over the alleged crime weapons;

10) that prosecution failed to prove the specific overt acts of each and every accused and also failed to prove the identify as to which crime weapon is being used by which accused;

11) that inclusion of several accused in the charge sheet though PW1 did not whisper their name either in his Ex P1 statement and did not state in his 161 Cr.PC statement and alleged 164 statement itself makes the case of prosecution doubtful;

12) that the evidence of Pw1 in his cross examination reveals that prosecution suppressed his earlier statement and pressed into service Ex.P1 statement by which an adverse inference be drawn that if that original statement is produced the fact would come out that no incriminating material is available in the earlier statement; and

13) that the prosecution failed to prove the arrest of accused leading to recovery of MOs 1 to 18 basing on the alleged confessions of the accused.

9. With the above back drop the learned counsel for the accused A1, A2, A4,A5,

A7, A8, A11, A17, A19 to A21 and A31 has argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case as alleged and in fact the circumstances of the case referred to above highly improbable the case of accused that this case is politically motivated and as thus, all the accused are entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt. The learned counsel has further argued that if at all it can be said that the prosecution has proved that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC., but not for the offences as they were charged. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the following decisions:

9

(i) Uday Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1 , wherein Their Lordships held in para No. 11 as follows:

Para No.11:We find that in order to rope the other accused persons, the only act attributed to them, in a casual manner is that they shouted ‘maro sale ko’. Moreover, this mere utterance would not mean that they wanted that Devi Singh is to be killed. It may be exhortation for beating also, in the absence of any overt act. There is yet another important factor, which is ignored by the High Court. There was a serious lacuna in the investigation by the police by not conducting identification parade which caused prejudice to the accused persons. On account of the incident happening in an open field, where there were about 150­160 villagers present at the time of incident, it was necessary for the police to have Test Identification Parade conducted. In Lakhwinder Singh V.State of Punjab, 2003(2) ALD(Crl) 277(SC) = (2002) 10 SCC 295= AIR 2003 SC 2577; this Court held that when eyewitness cannot give the name of the offender but claims that he can identify the offender, it is necessary to hold a Test Identification Parade. In spite of such statement Test Identification Parade was not conducted”.

(ii) Vennapusa Gangireddy @ Sadhu and others Vs. State of A.P. 2 , wherein

His Lordship held in the last lines (middle) of para No.35 as follows:

Para No.35: “Mere allegations of two or three witnesses belonging to one group cannot be trusted, that too when their evidence is ridden with contradictions. A great deal of caution is necessary to be exercised by this Court before coming to the conclusion that the accused are guilty. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 is doubtful as to the accused throwing their musical instruments and locking the temple. As such, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, they are entitled to be acquitted.”

(iii) Shri Kishan and others Vs. State of UP 3 , wherein Their Lordships held in para No.7 as follows:

Para No.7: “The above finding as well as the broad circumstances of the case go to show that the common intention of the accused was to cause grievous injury to the victim. The fact that one of them exceeded the bound and gave a fatal blow on the head of the deceased would make him personally liable for the fatal injury, but so far as the other three are concerned, they can be held liable only for the injuries which were caused in furtherance of the common intention and not for the fatal injury. As it is not possible on the material on record to find out as to which one of the accused gave the fatal blow, there is no escape from the conclusion that each of the four accused can only be guilty of the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. We accordingly alter the conviction of each of the accused­appellants from under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code to that under Section 325 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Each of them is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five year on that count. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year 1. 2017(2) ALD (Criminal) 459 SC (DB) 2. 2007(2) ALT (Criminal) 345 AP (SB) 3. AIR 1972 SC 2056 (DB) 10 awarded to each of the accused under Section 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code would run concurrently with the above sentence. The appeal is allowed to that extent.

(iv) Kumar Vs. State 4 ,wherein Their Lordships held in para No.28 as follows:

Para No.28: “In Lakshmi Singh and others V. State of Bihar, 1976 Cri.LJ 1736, this Court observed: Where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follows:

(1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue; and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. It was further observed that:

In a murder case, the non­explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences:

(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one.”

(v) Kalyan and others Vs. State of UP 5wherein Their Lordships held in Para

No.20 as follows:

Para No.20: “Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the variance between the FIR and the depositions made in the court, the mention of gunshot injuries in the panchanama and their absence in the FIR, the conflict between the statements of eyewitnesses and the medical evidence and major contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the eyewitness, we are of the view that the prosecution failed to prove their case against the appellants beyond all shadows of doubt. The appellants are, therefore, held entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. To form an opinion giving the appellants­accused the benefit of doubt we have kept in kind the defence as projected and suggested by them to the witnesses during their cross­examination”.

4 2018 (2) ALD (Criminal) 223 (SC) (DB) 5 AIR 2001 SC 3976 (DB) 11

(vi) Anil Prakash Shukla Vs. Aravind Shukla 6 ,  wherein Their Lordships held in para No.10 as follows:

Para No.10: ”Apart from that, there is inconsistency between the version given in the FIR and the statement of Anil Prakash(PW1) before the trial court. In the FIR it is only stated that accused Arvind inflicted a knife blow on Atul, but in his deposition before the Trial court, PW1 stated that accused Arvind inflicted knife blows on Atul while Anil @ Pappu also inflicted knife blow on Atul. Thus the statement in court is an improvement on the version given in the FIR in which it was only stated that Arvind above inflicted a knife blow on Atul, but there was no mention in the FIR that Anil @ Pappu also inflicted knife blows on Atul”.

(vii) Mandla Rangaswamy and others Vs. State of A.P. 7 wherein Their

Lordships held in para No.12 as follows:

Para No.12: ”According to the prosecution, the incident occurred right in the presence of P.Ws. 1,2,3 and 6. P.Ws. 4 and 5 were said to be inside the house and even while the occurrence was in progress they were said to come to the scene. All of them were stated to have identified the accused. PW1 did not state anything about the existence of streetlights. It is only through other witnesses that existence of light was elicited. While according to PW1 the neighbours gathered on hearing their cries, his daughter, PW2 stated that the neighbours did not gather during the commission of offence. PW1 stated that the occurrence went on for half an hour. His daughter stated that it went on for 15 minutes. The common case of all these witnesses is that Gundiah originally (A4) pulled the legs of the deceased and made him to fall. Thereafter, the other accused, numbering about six, have attacked the deceased. Prosecution itself falsified this version by deleting Gundaiah(A4) and two others A5 and A6, from the array of accused, on finding that those three accused were found to be present at different places at relevant point of time. In a way, it can be said that the prosecution has removed the very basis for the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5. If the presence of original accused No.4,5 and 6 is ruled out and substantial version presented by A1 to A5 i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 5, even though consistent ceases to be trustworthy”.

(viii) Sivakoti Daveedu and another Vs. State of A.P. 8 , wherein Their

Lordships held in para No.16 as follows:

Para No.16: “since the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 8, which were recorded by the

Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., have not been produced and have not been

given to the accused, we feel that an adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. In this connection, we rely on the judgments of this Court reported in Kota Peda Nagesh V. State of A.P., 1991(1) ALD (Crl.) 519(DB) and Harijana Mulinti Bhushanna V.State of A.P., 2004(2) ALT (Crl.) 571(DB)=2004(3) ALD (NOC) 184” 6. (2007) 9 SCC 513 (DB) 7. 2008 (2) ALT (Criminal) 47 (DB) AP.

8. 2005 (2) ALD (Criminal) 564 AP (DB) 12

(ix)  Yedida Bhaskara Rao and others Vs. State of A.P 9wherein His Lordship held in para No.17 as follows:

Para No.17: ”In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of a Division bench of this Court reported in Kota Peda Nagesh V.State of A.P., 1991(1) ALT 364 (D.B). Paras 14 and 15 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder which are as follows:

“A Division Bench of this Court in Gaddem Jayarami Reddi’s case(Supra) held that a deliberate destruction of statements of witnesses made during investigation of wholesale refusal to furnish copies of such statements leads to the inference that prejudice was occasioned to the accused. Even otherwise, a slight evidence of a reasonable possibility of prejudice would swing the balance in favour of the accused. In a circumstance, where the prosecution has suppressed documents, it is open to a Court to presume that the statements withheld would become unfavourable to the prosecution if produced”

In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are in entire agreement with the principle laid down in the above decision. As contended by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that non­ furnishing of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. pertaining to P.Ws. 1 to 4 by P.W.14 to the accused, has occasioned great prejudice to the appellant/accused”

(x) Abdul Razak and others Vs. State of Karnataka and Muktum Sab Vs.

State of Karnataka and others 10, wherein Their Lordships held in middle of para No.10 as follows:

Para No.10: ”….That is not all. After the police arrived, PW1 presents a written complaint about the incident. His statement (fardbeyan) is recorded by the Sub­ Inspector in which Basavaraj is said to have died, meaning thereby that Basavaraj was not alive when the police reached the spot. What is amazing is the admission made by PW19 that the report received by him about the incident was destroyed by him after the farbeyan of PW1 was recorded on the spot. This implies that the first version regarding the incident was totally obliterated by the Investigating Officer and Ex.P1 recorded in its place. It is difficult to appreciate how PW19 could have destroyed the original complaint given to him by Hanumantha PW1. This implies that the earliest version about the incident was destroyed by PW19 and a new story stated in the fardbeyan was tailored to suit the prosecution version. This has the effect of completely demolishing the prosecution case and rendering its version wholly unacceptable. The only inference while can, in the circumstances, be drawn is that Basavaraj was done to death and his dead body left at the spot from where it was picked up by the police after they arrived around 10.00 p.m. The complaint presented to Sub­Inspector perhaps did not say what the police intended to present as its case. The same was, therefore, destroyed and new version brought in, according to which Basavaraj was shown to be alive when the police reached the spot. The fact of the matter, however, appears to be that Basavaraj was dead when his brother, mother and father discovered the body, for otherwise there was no question of the parents of 9. 2001 (2) ALT (Criminal) 486 AP (SB) 10. decided on 15-05-2015 SC (Three judges bench) 13 the deceased and his brother leaving him alone in the condition, which they are alleged to have done. The conclusion drawn by the Trial Court that the prosecution had not proved the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, was, in our opinion, correct.”

(xi) Mohanlal and others Vs. State of Rajastan 11 , wherein Their Lordships held in the middle of para No.2 as follows:

Para No.2:”In the aforesaid premises, we have ourselves scrutinized the evidence of PW7, who is supposed to be the sole eyewitness and the father of the deceased, and on examining the same we have noticed several infirmities in his testimony and therefore it is difficult to place implicit reliance on the said testimony on which the conviction can be based. As has been stated earlier the witness categorically stated to the fact that he had given two statements, one at the police station and other after the Thanedar came to the occurrence and called Radhey Shyam Alohar and got a report written by Radhey Shyam Lohar. We fail to understand why Thaedar took interest in calling somebody else for written report by it and when he himself had gone to the police station and given a report obviously orally the so called earlier report is not coming on record and the reasons for non­production of said report is best known to the prosecution. No explanation has been offered as to why earliest version has not been brought on record. The learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court was of the opinion that this is a confusion and there has been only one report as Ex.P7, as has been stated by the investigating officer. But in view of the categorical statement of PW7, it is difficult to accept the said conclusion of the Courts below. Then, again no plausible explanation has been offered as to how the dead body was brought from the place of occurrence which is the well to the Babool tree near the school in the village where the post mortem was conducted. The witness PW7 has also made several omissions and contradictions from his earliest version under Section 161 and (sic) have been duty confronted also while in the cross­examination. Only explanation is the earliest version is wrong. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the evidence of this witness is tainted one and no reliance can be placed on the same.”

10. The learned counsel for the accused A3, A6 and A9 raised the following points for consideration:

1) that no reliance be placed on uncorroborated and inconsistent evidence of PW1 being suffered from significant improvements and omissions particularly when he is interested and partisan witness;

2) that FIR was not lodged at nearby police station in which event connivance of PW1 with police cannot be ruled out;

3) that prosecution failed to explain the material irregularities which is fatal; and

4) that no explanation is given by the prosecution for the injuries received by the accused A9, which is fatal and improbable the case of prosecution.

11. AIR 2000 SC 3441(DB) 14

11. With the above back drop the learned counsel for A3, A6 and A9 has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case as alleged beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, the accused are entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt. In support of his arguments he relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Jalpat Rai and others...Appellants Vs. State of Haryana 12 , wherein Their

Lordships held in para No.39 as follows:

Para No.39:”But, it is reality in life, albeit unfortunate and said that human failing tends to exaggerate, over­implicate and distort the true version against the person/s with whom there is rivalry, hostility and enmity. Cases are not unknown where entire family is roped in due to enmity and simmering feelings although one or only few members of that family may be involved in the crime. In the circumstances of the present case, it is prudent to look for corroboration of their evidence by medical/ballistic evidence and seek adequate assurance from the collateral and surrounding circumstances before acting on their testimony. The lack of corroboration from medical and ballistic evidence and the circumstances brought out on record may ultimately persuade that in fact their evidence cannot be safely acted upon.”

Para No.46:”We have indicated broadly some of the more serious infirmities in the evidence of the eyewitnesses (PW1, PW4 and PW8) in order to indicate that their evidence at any rate is not wholly true and it is unsafe to act on their evidence in so far as complicity of A1, A3, A4,A5 and A6 is concerned.” 

(ii) State of A.P. rep.by its PP. Hyderabad Vs. Tupakula Venkata Reddy @

Dish Venkatareddy and other 13 , wherein Their Lordships held in para Nos.

11,12,13 and 25 as follows:

Para No.11:”It is apparent that there is no independent corroboration to the interested and partisan testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 5. It is not as though that the evidence of a witness is liable to be discarded merely because it is interested or partisan. However, if there were longstanding disputes, factions or divergences of political affiliation, the evidence of such persons has to be scrutinized with utmost care and caution in view of the fact that there exists strong animus and hostility between the groups with one group trying to implicate the other with all vengeance at its command. Different parameters of appreciation of evidence of the interested testimony of the witnesses are to be applied when the incident took place at a place where no person other than the members of one group had an opportunity of witnessing the same and the other where the incident took place at prime location of the village, particularly at the time when almost all the occupants of the residential houses will be available. When the incident takes place at about 6.00 p.m., in a residential locality, wherein about 20 persons indulge in rioting and hurling of stones on each other, such an incident is bound to be witnessed by many locals. When the prosecution fails to produce the eyewitnesses, version of a single independent witness, the version emanating from the interested witnesses can form the basis for determining the guilt or 12. 2011(5) Supreme 739 13. 2014 0 Supreme (AP) 291 15 otherwise of the accused, provided the same should be cogent, convincing, consistent and inspiriting the confidence of the Court. Where there are material omissions, improvements or suppression of facts, such evidence cannot form the basis for deciding the culpability of the assailants.”

Para No.12: “In EKNATH Ganpataher and others v. state of Maharashtra and others (2010(6) SCC 519) the Supreme Court observed as under: “It is an accepted proposition that in the case of group rivalries and enemities, there is a general tendency to rope in as may persons as possible as having participated in the assault. In such situations, the Courts are called upon to be very cautious and sift the evidence with care. Where after a close scrutiny of the evidence, a reasonable doubt arise in the mind of the Court with regard to the participation of any of those who have been roped in the Court would be obliged to give the benefit of doubt to them”.

Para No.13: “Applying the above test to the evidence on record in the instant case, what is noticed is that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 is inconsistent, discrepant and contrary to their previous statements. Exs.D1 to D16 are the relevant contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5. This very fact affects the credibility of the evidence of the interested witnesses. The accused also produced oral and documentary evidence to show that four of them sustained injuries in the hands of the prosecution witnesses and this aspect has been suppressed by the prosecution, which leads to an inference that the genesis and the origin of the occurrence has not been presented truly.”

Para No.25: “The omissions, contradictions and improvements are so glaring and on material aspects which affect the trustworthiness of the witnesses, who as already stated above have an axe to grind against the accused who are their opponents”

(iii)K.A.Kotrappa Reddy & Another Vs. Rayara Manjunatha Reddy @

N.R.Manjunatha & Others 14 , wherein Their Lordships held in Para Nos. 7,8 and 12 as follows:

Para No.7:”In our considered opinion, there are three main issues on which contentions have been advanced before this Court and we shall now examine each contention in the light of the arguments made before us. The first is regarding motive. It is a settled law that motive is not a necessary element in deciding culpability but is an equally important missing link which can be used to corroborate the evidences. In the present case, the motive of the accused was stated to be two­fold. One being the already existing political rivalry between the parties and the immediate cause being the heated objections raised by the accused against the deceased for carrying out repair work which would have reduced the area of the house of the accused. Upon perusal of the records, PW1 himself admitted that the accused have not contested any election against the deceased. As against the immediate cause, PW18 (Labourer) stated that the repair was going on at the back of the temple and not in front of the accused’s house. The investigating officer did not seize any material nor did he produce any evidence or Panchayat record or contract to prove that any such repair work was going on in front of the house of the accused. Thus, the prosecution squarely failed to impute motive upon the accused.” 14. 2015 4 BBCJ(SC) 193 16

Para No.8: “However, in our view, it appears that the evidences of each of these eyewitnesses are doubtful and require careful scrutiny. It is also pertinent to note that the incident in the present case occurred in broad day light in the afternoon and there were a number of neighbours in and around the scene of the incident. But the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness which casts a doubt on its genuineness. The High Court has scrutinized at length the statements of individual eyewitnesses and has rightly discredited their testimonies. PW1 and PW2 are closely related with the deceased and are thus interested parties. It has been proved that there has been a series of litigation, both civil and criminal, on each side.” 

Para No.12: “We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either sides and also through the entire materials available on record including the impugned judgment. We are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Nos. 1 to 10 and the High Court was justified in doubting the veracity of the prosecution case and consequently recording the verdict of acquittal which does not suffer from the vice of perversity.” 

12. The learned counsel for the accused A10, A12, A13 and A29 has argued that straight away the accused A10, A12, A13 and A29 are entitled for acquittal for the charges leveled against them since no incriminating material is available against them.

13. The learned counsel for the accused A15, A16, A23 to A26, A28, A30, A32 to A34 raised the following points for consideration:

1) that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness though available, which is fatal;

2) that the prosecution solely relied upon the testimony of PW1 who is an interested and partisan witness, without examining any other independent witness for the reasons best known to them indicating that the prosecution did not come to the court with clean hands but suppressed the material facts;

3) that admittedly and evidently, one fallen cycle was available at the scene of offence and that the same was handed over to a person, but the prosecution did not examine the said person and did not give any explanation as to why the said cycle was found fallen at the alleged scene of offence, which probable the case of the accused that the deceased and PW1 in an intoxicated condition while going on a motor bike met with the accident and taking advantage of the same, this false case is foisted against the accused;

4) that the medical evidence probable the case of the accused that the deceased and PW1 met with the accident;

5) that no evidentiary value be attributed to the mere identification of the accused A11, A12, A15, A16, A17, A19, A20, A26, A28 to A30, by PW1 before the court particularly in the absence of any test identification parade by the investigation agency; and

6) that no iota of incriminating material is available against the accused A15, A16, A23 to A26, A28, A30 and A32 to A34.

17

14. With the above back drop, the learned counsel for the accused A15, A16,

A23 to A26, A28, A30 and A32 to A34 has argued that no incriminating material is available against the said accused except their mere identification by PW1

before the court which has no evidentiary value particularly in the absence of

any identification parade by the investigation agency and as such, straight away they are entitled for acquittal.

15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has proved their case as alleged through P.Ws. 1 to 8 coupled with Exs.P1 to P39 and M.Os. 1 to 20; that the sole testimony of PW1 be relied upon being trustworthy having no infirmities being corroborated with the recitals of Ex.P1

FIR; and that the above decisions are not applicable to the present facts of the case. Arguing so, he prayed to convict all the accused for the charges leveled against them.

16. Keeping in mind the contentions of both the parties referred to above on perusal, the material available on record shows that the case of the prosecution in nut­shell is that on 26­08­2004 at 6.30 pm while the deceased Ande

Venkateswara Rao and his son Ande Srinivasa Rao/PW1 were sitting on the pial of the house of LW3/ Pydikondala Srimannarayana @ Sivaji, situated near elementary school No.1 at Adavikolanu village and chitchatting with others, the accused A1, having dispute with regard to conducting of auctions by the deceased as President of Adavikolanu Water Users Association in respect of fishing rights to catch fish in Adavikolanu fish canals, along with his henchmen

A2 to A34 under the leadership of the accused A1 formed themselves into unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons attacked the deceased and his son/PW1 with a common object to kill them, caused injuries and that the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment.

17. The case of accused is entire denial. The specific case of accused A1, A2,

A4, A5, A7, A8, A11, A17, A19 to A22 and A31 is that a false case is foisted 18 against the accused being politically motivated. The specific case of A3, A6 and

A9 is that on 26­08­2004 at 6.30 pm, having political grudge when the deceased and PW1 are attacking the accused A9/Narasimha Rao @ Narasimha Murthy, the people who gathered at shandy and also the shop keepers of the said shandy revolted and attacked them and caused injuries to them and taking advantage of the same, the prosecution filed this false case against the accused under political influence twisting the facts by suppressing the true facts.

18. The specific case of accused A15, A16, A23, A26, A28, A30 and A32 to

A34 is that the deceased and PW1 are alcoholics and on that day while they were going on a motor bike in intoxicated condition they met with the accident during which, they both received injuries and that the deceased died with the said injuries and taking advantage of the same, a false case is foisted against the accused.

19. Thus, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove their case as alleged beyond all reasonable doubt, ruling out the case of the accused. 

19 (i). To prove their case as alleged the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 8 from out of 33 listed witnesses. PW1 is the son of the deceased cum victim cum defacto­complainant. Ex.P1 is the statement of PW1, basing on which the criminal law came into motion. Exs.P2 to P11 are the photographs showing the scene of offence. M.Os. 1 to 20 are the crime weapons.

Exs.P1 to P11 and M.Os. 1 to 20 are got marked through PW1.

(ii) PW2 is the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem. He conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased. Ex.P12 is the Post Mortem

Certificate and the same is got marked through PW2.

(iii) PW3 is also Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem. He examined PW1 and issued Ex.P13 wound certificate and the same is got marked through PW3.

(iv) PW4 is the then Panchayat Secretary for Adavikolanu. She acted as mediator to the scene observation, Panchayatdar in the inquest and also acted as mediator 19 to the arrest of some of the accused and recovery of M.Os. 1 to 18. Exs.P.W.14 to P.27 mediator reports showing the seizure part are got marked through PW4.

(v) PW5 is also the then Panchayat Secretary of Adavikolanu. He acted as mediator for the arrest of the some of the accused. Exs.P28 to P.35 mediator reports are got marked through PW5.

(vi) PW6 is the then Head Constable, Tadepalligudem Town P.S. On receipt of hospital intimation he went to Tadepalligudem Government Hospital and recorded the statement of PW1 on 26­08­2004 at 11.00 p.m. Ex.P36 hospital intimation is got marked through PW6.

(vii) PW7 is the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Ganapavaram P.S. On receipt of hospital intimation he went to Nidamarru Police Station and received Ex.P1 statement, death intimation and registered the FIR in Cr.No.59/2004 under

Sections 143, 148, 307 and 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Ex.P37 printed FIR is got marked through PW7.

(viii) PW8 is then Inspector of Police, Bhimadole Circle. He is the Investigation

Officer. ExP38 rough sketch and Ex.P39 corresponding negatives of Exs.P2 to

P.11 photographs are got marked through PW9.

IS SOLE TESTIMONY OF PW1 TRUSTWORTHY TO BE RELIED UPON:

20. No doubt the entire case of prosecution rests upon the sole testimony of material witness PW1 alleging him to be the eye witness and except PW1 the prosecution did not choose to examine any other material witness to prove their case as alleged. No doubt, PW1 is an interested and partisan witness, since he is the son of deceased cum victim and belongs to the group of of his deceased father. The accused have strongly and seriously contended that no reliance be placed on the sole testimony of PW1, since he is an interested and partisan witness, not corroborated by any evidence of independent witness and more over his evidence is full of infirmities and improved from the version of Ex.P1 FIR. In view of such contention for better appreciation and understanding it is apposite 20 here to extract the contents of Ex.P1 statement of Pw1, basing on which Ex P37

FIR was registered, and also to extract the evidence of PW1 hereunder:

Ex.P1 statement of PW1 reads as follows:

“I am the resident of Adavikolanu Village. I live by doing cultivation. I am married having one son and one daughter. My family and my father are living as joint family. My father elected as President for Adavikolanu Water Users Association. They used to conduct auctions for fishing rights in the canals. On 25­08­2004 one Nimmala Tataji removed the nets. He got no right over the canals. Again on 26­08­2004 evening at 5.30 a.m., we rearranged the removed nets. Thereafter, I and my father went to the village and sat in front of the house of one Sivaji situated near Elementary School and while we are talking with one Kesireddy Maraiah(LW14), Nimmala Satyanarayana(LW8), Ande Venkanna (LW7), Nimmala Satyanarayana S/o. Rama Rao (LW16), Ande Thirupathi (LW11) and others at about 7.00 p.m., Nimmala Tataji (A1), his son Bujji (A2), Vadde Kiran Kumar (A3), Pathikayala Suryanarayana (A4), Kolisi Peddaraju (A5), Vaddi Kishore (A6), Nimmala Murali (A7), Nimmala Yesubabu (A8), Vadde Narasimha Rao(A9) and others arming with iron rods came there and Nimmala Tataji (A1) proclaimed to my father erojutho veellaku Nookalu chellipovali, veellani champanide vadalakudadu and proclaiming so beat my father on his head with iron rod, Bujji (A2) beat my father with a stick on his head. Vaddi Kiran Kumar (A3) beat my father on his legs with iron rod and thereby my father fell down. In the meanwhile, Prathikayala Suryanarayana (A4), Kotti Peddaraju (A5), Vaddi Kishore (A6), Nimmala Murali (A7), Nimmala Yesubabu (A8), beat my father indiscriminately with iron rods and sticks and when I tried to rescue my father meanwhile Prattikayala Suryanarayana (A4), Kottu Peddaraju (A5), Vaddi Kishore (A6), Nimmala Murali (A7) and Yesu Babu(A8) beat me indiscriminately on my head, nose and chest. I and my father received grievous injuries. Vaddi Narasimha Rao (A9) while beating my fallen father, on confusion received injuries from the rod and stick held by Tataji (A1) and Bujji (A2). While the attack was going on, Kesireddy Marraiah (LW14), Nimmala Venkata Satyanarayana(LW8), Ande Venkanna(LW7), Nimmala Styannarayana son of Ramarao(LW16) and Ande Thirupathi (LW11) rescued us from the hands of Tataji (A1) and his followers and shifted us to Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem, for treatment. Sometime thereafter, the learned

Magistrate came there and recorded my statement. After leaving the learned

Magistrate I came to know that my father Venkateswara Rao died through the

Nurse who came to me to give injection. I have stated the above facts to the police and confirmed the contents in my statement are true and correct after read over the same”.

Evidence of PW1 reads as follows:

“I am resident of Adavikolanu village, Nidammaru Mandal. I am an agriculturist and doing cultivation. The deceased Venkateswar Rao is my father. My father is no more as he was killed on 26­08­2004. During his life time, the deceased was elected as President unanimously to the Adavikolanu Water Users Association held in the year, 2003. Prior to 2003, the accused No.1 as our village elder used to act as leader and conduct auctions for fishing rights and used the money collected from the highest bidders in the auction for maintenance of canals, for celebrating ‘Sri Rama Utsvams’ in our village and that the highest bidders used to arrange nets in the canals for catching fish. On 12­07­2004, my deceased father as President of Water Users Association conducted auction during which one Saidu Kanakaiah/LW17 and two others became highest bidders for Rs.40,000/­ to arrange nets in the canals to catch 21 fish. Said Saidu Kankaiah/Lw17 and two others as highest bidders arranged nets in the canals to catch fish. Since, my father elected as President for the above referred Association and conducted the auction, the accused No.1 bore grudge against him. On 25­08­2004, the highest bidder/LW17/Saidu Kanakaiah came and complained to my deceased father that the accused No.1 and his followers removed the nets arranged by them. On hearing the said complaint, on 26­08­2004 at about 5.00 P.M., myself and my deceased father together went to the said canals and got rearranged the removed nets through LW17 Saidu Kanakaiah and thereafter myself and my deceased father were returning to our home and on the way we sat in front of the house of one Pydi Kondala Srimannarayana @ Shivaji/LW3. Then one Ande Sitaramaiah,/LW9, Nimmala Satyanrayana/LW8 and Pydi Kondala Srimannarayana @ Shivaji / LW3 at about 7.30 P.M. came there and we were chit chatting with each other. In the meanwhile Nimmala Mahalaxman Rao@ Tataji /A1holding with an iron pipe rod and other accused namely Nimmala Naga Venkata Krishna Rao/A2, Vaddi Kiran Kumar/A3, Pattikayala Surya Narayana/A4, Vaddi Kishore/A6, Vaddi Narasihma Rao/A9, and other assailants altogether 30 to 34 holding with 20 or above 20 sticks came there and the accused No.1 proclaimed towards my father “yera lanja kodaka, yentha dhairam neeku nenu teeyinchivesina nets malli veyistara” and proclaiming so the accused No.1 beat my father on his head with iron rod twice or thrice causing bleeding injury and while beating the accused No.1 further proclaimed that “eeroju tho ee vuruki nee peeda vadili povali”. In the meanwhile, 7 to 8 persons as a mob beat me and my father with sticks. I can identify them. At this juncture on the request of the learned APP, the witness is permitted to leave the witness box and identify the said persons who are present in the open Court hall. Witness on observing all the accused 31 in number who are present in the open Court hall, identified the accused namely 1) Nimmala Naga Ventaka Krishna Rao @ Bujji / A2, 2) Vaddi Kiran Kumar/ A3, 3) Patthikayala Suryanarayana/A4, 4) Vaddi Kishore/A6, 5) Vaddi Narasimha Rao/A9, 6) Nimmala Tata Pandu/A11, 7) Nimmala Venkat Rao/A12, 8) Mutyala Ravi/A15, 9) Mutyala Suri Babu/A16, 10) Papolu Srinivasa Rao/A17, 11) Nimmala Nagu/A19, 12) Manchiyala Srinu/A20, 13) Pakolu Eko Narayana/A26, 14) Kotipalli Srinu/A28, 15) Vaddi Annavaram/A29 and 16) Nimmala Sangaiah/A30; as the persons who attacked him and his father with sticks as a mob. Along with the above accused one 1) Papole Shoukaru/A14 (died) and 2) Nimmala Venkatachalam/A18 (died) also attacked us with sticks. Due to said attack my father received injuries all over his body and I received injuries on my nose, head and chest. Then the accused A1 proclaimed that my father might have dead and stated to leave the scene of offence and stating so, all of them left the scene of offence. Then Nimmala Satyanarayana/LW8 and Ande Tirupataiah/LW11 shifted me and my injured deceased father to Tadepalligudem Area hospital wherein I was given treatment by suturing injuries. I observed my injured deceased father lying on a bed by the side of my bed in the said hospital and I was under impression that he was under treatment. On the next day morning the hospital nurse informed me that my father was already dead on the previous day while undergoing treatment. I stayed in the Area Hospital for two days for my treatment and from there I was referred to Kakinada Government Hospital for further treatment. On 26­08­ 2004 itself, while I was in Area Hospital for treatment, the Police came there and recorded my statement. Even the learned Magistrate came to the hospital and recorded my statement. Basing on the statement with my signature the case was registered. Witness identified the statement dated 26­08­2004 along with his signature confronted before him as the statement given by him recorded by police in Area Hospital. The said report is marked as Ex.P1. Thereafter Police examined me and recorded my statement before whom, I have stated the same facts as in Ex.P1. I can identify the crime weapons that were used by the above accused, if they are shown to me. At this juncture, the witness is shown two 22 iron GI pipes, one casurina stick and 16 bamboo sticks for the purpose of identification. Out of the same, witness identified one iron GI pipe of 4 ½ feet as the weapon used by the accused No.1 and identified the casurina stick and the remaining 16 bamboo sticks as the weapons used by other accused referred to above. The said GI pipe of 4 ½ feet is marked as M.O.1, one causurina stick and 16 bamboo sticks are marked as M.Os.2 to 18. On that day my deceased father and myself worn our respective shirts and lungis and I can identify the same if they are shown to me. At this juncture, one light blue colour checks lungi and waist thread along with Thayattu are shown to the witness for the purpose of identification. Witness identified the said objects are belonged to his father. The said lungi and the waist thread along with Thayattu are marked as M.Os 19 and 20. I can identify the place where the nets were arranged, removed and rearranged and the place of offence if they are shown in the photographs. Witness identified 10 photographs showing the respective places. The said 10 photographs are marked as Exs.P2 to P11.”

1. PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE MOTIVE ATTRIBUTED AGAINST ACCUSED:

21.The accused has contended that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive attributed against the accused. On perusal, the recitals of Ex.P1 statement of Pw1 and the evidence of PW1 referred to above are corroborating with each other with regard to motive attributed against the accused. According to the recitals of Ex P1 FIR and the oral evidence of Pw1 if read together, the motive attributed against the accused is that the deceased Ande Venkateswara

Rao @ Venkanna was elected as President to the Adavikolanu Water Users

Association in the elections held in the year, 2003; that prior to that A1 as ‘anamathu’ elder of the village used to conduct auctions to the canals for fishing rights to catch fish and used to collect amounts from the highest bidders; that after electing the deceased as President to said Water Users Association, the deceased conducted auctions on 12­07­2004 to catch fish from the canals of the

Association and as such the accused A1 bore grudge against the deceased resulting in the present incident on 26­08­2004 and except the said dispute, there is no previous animosity in between them.

22.The accused have contended that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive attributed against the accused with cogent documentary evidence and pointed out the relevant attendant circumstances in support of said 23 contention. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, no material is produced by the prosecution to prove that the said Water Users Association is having right to conduct any auction with regard to the fishing rights to catch fish in the canals of Adavikolanu Village. There is no dispute that Water Users

Association is spread in the entire State run by the Government and that the

Government has established one such Water Users Association in Adavikolanu

Village. PW4 in her cross­examination conducted by Sri.N.M.G.R., for A1, A2,

A4, A5, A7, A8, A11, A17, A19 to A22 and A31, has admitted that there is Water

Users Association spread all over the State established by the Government and one such Association is also situated in Adavikolanu and that there is no connection in between the said Water Users Association and the auctions for fishing rights and voluntarily stated that in fact Panchayat has to conduct auction for fishing rights, but there is a customary practice in Adavikolanu

Panchayat that one Anamatthu elder, recognized by the village, will conduct auction for fishing rights and the highest auction bidder will pay tax to the panchayat and some amounts to Annamattu elder for conducting Vustavams in the village. 

23.Thus, as per the evidence of PW4 referred to above, it is proved that Water

Users Association, Adavikolanu, run by the Government is no way connected for conducting auctions for fishing rights, but as a customary practice one

Annamatthu elder, who is recognized by the village, will conduct auction for fishing rights and the highest bidder will pay tax to Panchayat and also pay some amounts to the recognized Annamattu elder to conduct Uvstams in the village. Thus, there is a discrepancy in between the evidence of PW4 and the case of prosecution and evidence of PW1, which makes the prosecution case doubtful regarding the motive attributed against the accused A1.

24.Be that as it may, in such scenario, definitely the prosecution ought to have filed any piece of paper to prove that Water Users Association has right to conduct auction for fishing rights and that the deceased was elected as 24

President for the said Association in 2003 and conducted auction on 12­07­2004 since it is not the case of prosecution that no such material is available particularly when the said Association was established by the

Government. But, no piece of paper is filed by prosecution in this regard, though available for the reasons best known to them.

25.Even in his cross­examination, PW1 has admitted that he did not hand over any documents to the investigation agency to prove that the deceased as

President of Water Users Association, conducted auction during which one Sydu

Kanakaih/LW17 became the highest bidders and paid Rs.40,000/­ towards bid amount to arrange nets in the canals to catch fish. Even in his cross­ examination PW8/the Investigation Officer has admitted that during the course of his investigation he did not secure any documentary evidence to show that

Water Users Association is empowered to conduct auction; and that said Sydu

Kanakaiah/LW17 emerged out as the highest bidder in the auction conducted by the deceased in the capacity of President of Water Users Association.

26.Thus, admittedly and evidently no material is produced by the prosecution to prove that Water Users Association is empowered to conduct auction; that the deceased elected as President of Water Users Association and conducted auction on 12­07­2004, during which LW`17/Sydu Kanakaiah and two others became highest bidders for Rs.40,000/­ to arrange nets in the canals to catch fish. In the absence of such material, at least the prosecution ought to have examined said LW17/Sydu Kanakaiah to prove the motive attributed against the accused A1 in particular, since he is the right person to prove the said motive attributed against the accused A1 because according to prosecution when the deceased as President of Water Users Association conducted auction on 12­07­2004 in respect of fishing rights to catch fish in Adavikolanu canal,

LW17 became the highest bidder and paid the bid amount of Rs 40,000/­ and thereafter LW17 along with two other bidders arranged nets in the canal, but the accused A1 and his followers removed the said nets and in turn LW17 25 informed the same to the deceased and his son Pw1 who in turn got rearranged the said removed nets which resulted in the present incident. But, the prosecution did not choose to examine said LW17/Sydu Kanakaiah though cited for the reasons best known to them which is fatal particularly in the absence of any material to prove that Water Users Association got every right to conduct auctions for fishing rights. Thus, taking into consideration of the above facts, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the motive attributed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 

27. However, it is settled law that in the cases where the prosecution rests upon direct evidence to prove their case as alleged, generally the motive will lose its significance subject to condition if the direct evidence is reliable and trustworthy without any infirmities and corroborated with other circumstances.

2.GIVING DIFFERENT VERSIONS BY PW1 ABOUT PARTICIPATION OF THE

ACCUSED IN THE ALLEGED ATTACK­NON CONDUCTING TEST

IDENTIFICATION PARADE OVER ACCUSED IS FATAL:

28.To prove their case as alleged, the prosecution relied upon the sole testimony of PW1. As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that PW1 is an interested and partisan witness. However, on the said sole ground the entire evidence of PW1 shall not be set aside, but his evidence shall be scrutinized with great care and caution as held in the case of Jalapathi Roy and others referred to above. The case of prosecution itself shows that the alleged attack was taken place in the public place of the village and in the presence of villagers including PW1, but except relying on the sole testimony of interested and partisan witness of PW1, the prosecution did not choose to examine any other independent witness though available to prove their case as alleged. In such case, a different parameters of appreciation of the interested testimony of the witnesses of PW1 is to be applied as laid down in the case of Tupakula Venkata

Reddy and other referred to above. With this back ground the evidence of sole testimony of PW1 is to be scrutinized.

26

29.PW1 gave different versions from time to time with regard to number, names of accused said to have been participated in the alleged attack and also about their specific overt acts which created any amount of doubt about the trust worthiness of PW1. As per the recitals of his Ex.P1 statement referred to above, PW1 has stated that on 26­08­2004 at about 7.00 p.m., the accused A1 to A9 and others armed with sticks and iron rods came there and the accused

A1 beat the deceased on his head with iron rod, the accused A2 with a stick beat the deceased on his head, the accused A3/Kiran Kumar beat the deceased on his legs with iron rod on which the deceased fell down; that while beating his fallen deceased father with a stick, the accused A9 received beatings in a hurried manner from the iron rod and stick held by the accused A1 and A2; and that when PW1 tried to rescue his deceased father, A4 to A8 beat him on different parts of his body and caused injuries.

30.But, when comes to his oral testimony, PW1 has stated that the accused

A1 holding with an iron pipe rod and other accused viz., Nimmala Venkata

Krishna Rao/A2, Vaddi Kiran Kumar/A3, Pattikayala Suryanarayana/A4, Vaddi

Kishore/A6, Vaddi Narasimha Rao/A9 and other assailants 30 to 34 in toto holding 20 or above 22 sticks came there and the accused A1 beat his father on his head with iron rod twice or thrice causing bleeding injury and in the meanwhile 7 to 8 persons as a mob beat him and his father with sticks.

31.Surprisingly in further chief­examination, PW1 has identified before the court not only the accused A2, to A4, A6 and A9, but also the other accused

A11, A12, A15 to A17, A19, A20, A26, A28 to A30 along with their names as the persons who attacked him and his father with sticks as a mob. 

32.Thus, according to PW1 as per the recitals of his own Ex.P1 statement, the accused A1 to A9 and others armed with sticks and rods beat the deceased, while attributing specific overt acts only against the accused A1 to A3 and A9 and that A4 to A 8 beat him and no specific overt acts are attributed against them.

27

33.But, as per his own oral testimony in his chief examination referred to above, initially PW1 attributed specific overt acts only against the accused A1 alone and no specific overt act is attributed against any other accused except stating that along with the accused A1, the other accused A2 to A4, A6, A9 and other assailants 30 to 34 arming with sticks reached the scene of offence and did not whisper about the participation of A5, A7 and A8 in the said attack as stated in Ex P1 FIR.

34.Later in his further chief examination Pw1 has identified not only the accused A2 to A4, A6 and A9, but also identified A11, A12, A15 to A17, A19, A 20, A26, A28 to A30 as the persons who attacked him and his father with sticks as a mob before the court.

35.Thus, as per the discussion held supra PW1 gave three different versions with regard to participation of the accused A1 to A34 (A14, A18, and A27 died).

The 1 st version as per the recitals of Ex.P1 FIR, is that the accused A1 to A9 and some other assailants attacked the deceased attributing specific overt acts against the accused A1 to A4 and A9 and that the accused A4 to A8 attacked

PW1. But, inhis oral testimony, PW1 has stated that the accused A1 holding with a stick along with the accused A2 to A4, A6, A9 and 30 to 34 assailants altogether holding with 20 or above 22 sticks came there and that only the accused A1 alone beat the deceased attributing specific overt act against him and that the 7 to 8 persons as a mob attacked PW1 and the deceased. The 2 nd version is that PW1 identified not only the accused A2 to A6 and A9, but also identified the accused A11, A12, A15 to A17, A19, A20, A26 and A28 to A30 as the persons attacked him and the deceased. The 3 rd version is that Pw1 not at all whispered about the names and participation of the remaining accused A10,

A13, A21 to A25, A27 (died), and A31 to A 34 either in Ex P1 statement or in his 161 and 164 statements.

36.In such scenario, in order to bring out the true facts, definitely the prosecution ought to have conducted test identification parade over the accused 28 persons. But the reasons best known to them, no identification parade was conducted by the prosecution. Even in his cross­examination PW1 as well as

PW8/the Investigation Officer have admitted that no test identification over the accused persons is conducted. When the sole oral testimony of PW1 is not corroborating with the recitals of Ex.P1 FIR particularly regarding the number, names and participation of the accused in the alleged attack said to have been held against PW1 and the deceased, and when there is no whisper in his 161 and 164 statements of PW1 about the names some of the accused and their participation as referred to above, definitely non­conducting of test identification parade over the accused persons is fatal, particularly when PW1 is an interested and partisan witness and more particularly in the absence of the evidence of independent direct witnesses, though they are very much available at the scene of offence even as per the recitals of Ex.P1 FIR and the evidence of PW1 as laid down in the case of Uday Singh referred to above.

37. Coming to the 2 nd version with regard to participation of the accused

A11, A12, A15 to A17, A19, A 20, A26, A28 to A30 in the alleged attack, except their mere identification by PW1 before the Court, there is no basis for their participation in the alleged attack, having no incriminating material at all available on record, since admittedly and evidently their names do not find place either in Ex.A1 FIR or in his 161 and 164 Cr.P.C statements of PW1. Even in his cross­examination PW1 has admitted that he did not state the names of the above referred accused either in his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement or in Sec.164

Cr.P.C., statement recorded by the learned Magistrate. Admittedly and evidently no test identification parade was conducted. No explanation is given by the prosecution as to what is the basis for their identification by PW1 before the

Court and inclusion of their names in the charge sheet as accused persons participated in the alleged attack. Thus, the identification of the above referred accused A11, A12, A15 to A17, A19, A 20, A26, A28 to A30 by PW1 before the

Court has no evidential value and coming to an irresistible conclusion about 29 their participation in the alleged attack basing on such mere identification by

PW1 before the Court, is not safe. Thus, I hold that the accused A11, A12, A15 to A17, A19, A 20, A26, A28 to A30 are entitled for acquittal for the charges leveled against them on benefit of doubt.

38.Coming to the 3 rd version with regard to participation of the accused A10,

A13, A21 to A25, A27 (died), and A31 to A34 and their participation in the alleged attack, it is an evident fact that either in Ex P1 statement of PW1 or in his oral testimony or in his 161 and 164 statements, PW1 not at all whispered about the names of the above referred accused. Other than the evidence of PW1 no iota of evidence much less incriminating material is available on record against them. Hence, straight away the above referred accused A10, A13, A21 to

A25, A27 (died), and A31 to A 34 are also entitled for acquittal for their respective charges leveled against them.

39.Thus, evidently no explanation is given by prosecution as to what is the basis for the inclusion of the accused A10 to 12, A13, A14 (died), A15 to A17,

A18 (died), A19 to A26, A27 (died), and A28 to A34 in the charge sheet, which created any amount of doubt about the case of prosecution as laid down in the case of Mandla Ranga Swamy and others referred to above particularly when the alleged attack was taken place in the public place of the village and in the presence of villagers including PW1, and probable the case of accused that the present case is politically motivated.

40.Coming to the 1 st version with regard to participation of the remaining accused A1 to A9, the recitals of Ex P1 statement of PW1 shows that A1 to A9 and other assailants armed with the rod and sticks attacked the deceased by attributing specific overt acts against the accused A1 to A4 and A9 and did not whisper about the specific overt acts against the accused A5 to A8 and further shows that A4 to A8 beat PW1 and did not whisper about the specific overt acts against them. But, in his oral testimony PW1 again changed his version as he did not even whisper about the participation of the accused A5, A7 and A8 and 30 did not attribute any specific overt act against them and not even identified them before the Court. Thus, the recitals of Ex P1 statement of PW1 is not corroborated by the oral testimony of PW1 with regard to participation of the accused A5, A7 and A8, having no incriminating material available against them in the oral testimony of Pw1, which created any amount of doubt about the participation of the accused A5, A7 and A8 in the alleged attack and thus, they are also entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt. Thus, now the left over accused are A1 to A4, A6 and A9 and their participation in the alleged attack.

3. IS ORAL TESTIMONY OF PW1 CORROBORATED BY MEDICAL

EVIDENCE:

41.Coming to the participation of the accused A1 to A4, A6 and A9, as per the recitals of Ex P1 statement Pw1 has attributed specific overt acts against the accused A1 to A4 and A9 and did not attribute any specific overt act against the accused A4. Whereas, in his oral testimony, PW1 not at all attributed any specific overt act against any of the accused much less against the accused A2 to A4, A6 and A9 except attributing specific overt act only against the accused

A1 alone by stating that the accused A1 arming with rod along with A2 to A4,

A6 and A9 along with 30 to 34 assailants arming with 20 or above 22 sticks came there and the accused A1 beat the deceased on his head twice or thrice along with rod and that in the meanwhile 7 to 8 persons as a mob beat him and the deceased indiscriminately with rods and sticks.

42.Thus, the recitals of Ex P1 statement and the oral testimony of PW1 is not corroborating with each other with regard to specific overt acts attributed against the accused A2 to A4, A6 and A9, since in Ex P1 statement though PW1 attributed specific overt acts against them, but he is completely silent about the same in his oral testimony and that apart surprisingly he did not even state that they attacked him and the deceased except stating that they arming with sticks came to the scene of offence along with the Accused A1, which created any 31 amount of doubt about their participation of the accused A2 to A4, A6 and A9 in the alleged attack.

43.No doubt, in a case where a mob of 30 to 34 assailants are attacked, it is not possible for any one even for the direct witness to state the name, specific overt act of each and every accused and crime weapon said to have been used by each and every accused. But, at the same time it is not justified to attribute responsibility of each and every accused participated in the said mob for the overt acts committed by other accused like in the case on hand particularly basing on the sole testimony of PW1 who is an interested and partisan witness and not corroborated by the independent evidence though available as the alleged incident took place in the public place and the villagers are available, more particularly in the absence of test identification over the accused as laid down in the case of Uday Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh referred to above.

44. Be that as it may, in order to know as to how far PW1 is trust worthy to the extent of his evidence in particular that the accused A1 armed with an iron rod along with A2 to A4, A6 and A9 and other 30 to 34 assailants altogether armed with 20 or more than 22 sticks reached the scene of offence; that the accused A1 beat the deceased on his head twice or thrice with iron rod and 7 to 8 persons as a mob beat the deceased and PW1, indiscriminately, it is right time to appreciate the medical evidence being relevant.

45.PW2 is the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem.

His evidence shows that on 27­08­2004 at 1.35 p.m. he received requisition from Circle inspector of police, Ganapavaram Circle, In­charge Bhimadole Circle to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Ande Ventkateswara Rao @ Venkanna and accordingly he commenced autopsy on the same day at 1.40 p.m. and found the following injuries:

External Injures:

1) A sutured injury over left temporal region of 5’, blood clot present;

2) A sutured injury of 5’ over the back of the head, blood clot present; 32

3) a sutured injury over the back of the neck near the external occipital protuberance of 3’, blood clot present;

4) An abrasion of 3 cm x .75 cm over the right side of the front of the chest, reddish brown in colour; and

5) Bleeding from left ear, blood clot present in the ear.

On examination: 

chest: ribs, chest wall, diaphragm, mediastinum, esophagus Trachea, bronchi, pleural cavities, lungs, heart and large blood vessels are normal;

Abdomen: Abdomen wall, peritoneal cavity normal, stomach is normal, contains partially digested food. Small intestines and large intestines, appendix and mescetry are intact and pale. Lever is normal on cut section pale. Gall bladder is empty. Pancreas is normal. Spleen and Kidneys are normal m, cut section pale. Adrenals and pelvic wall are normal. Urinary bladder is normal, contains about 200 ml of urine. Urethra and gentle organs are normal. 

Spinal Column and spinal card are normal.

Head and Neck:

Scalp: Hematoma present in temporal, parietal and occipital areas of both sides.

Skull:

Fracture of left temporal bone which is horizontal of 2.5 cm in length, transversely placed.

Brain, Meninges and Blood vessels:

A transverse, lacerated injury of temporal lobe of 6 cm x 1 cm on the outer surface. Dural tear of 3.5 cm is present over the temporal area of brain, blood clot present in the lacerated injury of temporal lob. Thin sub arachnid hemorrhage present on the entire cerebral surface. 

Mouth, teeth, tongue, pharynx, neck, Larynx, thyroid and hyiod are normal.

Opinion as to cause of death: The deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage, due to multiple injuries and injury to vital organ.

The approximate time of death is 18 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.

Accordingly, PW2 has issued Ex P12 Postmortem certificate with my signature.

Evidence of PW2 shows that the above referred injuries 1 to 3 lacerated injuries might have been caused with blunt objects like MOs. 1 to 18 shown to him.

33

46. In his cross­examination PW2 has admitted that injury No.5 referred to above i.e., bleeding from left ear itself is not an injury, but the said bleeding is due to brain injury; that external injury No.4 referred to above may be possible due to scratch with a prominent nail and that the injury No.1 may be possible due to fall on the road.

47.Coming to the injuries received by PW1, evidence of PW3 is relevant to be considered. Evidence of Pw3 shows that he worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon,

Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem, from 11.07.2000 to December, 2014; that on 26.08.2004 at 9.15 p.m. he examined Ande Srinivasa Rao/PW1 and found the following injuries:

1) Lacerated injury laterally end of right eye vertical in direction, red in colour of 1 ½ cm x ¼ cm x ¼ cm, bleeding present;

2) Lacerated injury over right parietal bone horizontal in direction 4 cm x ½ cm in size, bleeding present;

3) Lacerated injury left side of nose 2 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm with suspected fracture and contusion around the injury 3cm x 3 cm, red in colour;

4) contusion over left cheek, red in colur, 4cm x 3 cm in size;

5) Linear abrasion over right side of the chest near right nipple vertical in direction 1 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm, bleeding present.

48.Evidence of PW3 further shows that he opined that injury Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are simple in nature; that injury No.3 is grievous in nature as per X­Ray report of Dr.B.Narayana Rao, Assistant Radiologist, Government Hospital,

Kakinada, vide No.X­Ray No.36797, dt.28.08.2004 MLC No.2635; that all the above injuries be possibly caused by blunt object like stick and rod and aged below 12 hours; and that accordingly, he issued Ex A13 wound certificate with his signature.

49.In fact the prosecution did not produce the alleged X­ray and X­ray report and even no explanation is given for non­filing of the same in order to prove that the injury no 3 referred to above is fracture injury and in the absence of such documentary evidence it is deemed that said injury no 3 is also simple injury as 34 per settled law. Thus, it is proved that all the injuries received by Pw1 are simple in nature.

50.In his cross examination PW3 has stated that injury no 5 referred to above might be possible due to scratch and injury no 3 might be possible due to fall on the road or on a hard object.

51. Taking advantage of the medical evidence of PW2 who stated in his cross examination that the injury No.1 received by the deceased may be possible due to fall on the road and also taking advantage of the evidence of PW3 who stated in his cross examination that the injury No.3 received by PW1 may be possible due to fall on the road, the accused has contended that said facts probable their case that the deceased and PW1 might have received their respective injuries in the road traffic accident; that the deceased succumbed to accident injuries and that the said possibility cannot be ruled out, while pointing out even the relevant evidence of PW4 in her cross examination.

52.It is true in her cross examination as pointed out by the accused

Pw4/mediator has admitted that during scene observation the police observed one fallen cycle as shown in Ex P3 photograph and handed over the same to one person who claimed for the same. Even PW8/the investigation office has also admitted said facts in his cross examination admitting that during scene observation he observed one fallen cycle as shown in Ex P3 photograph and handed over the same to one person who claimed for the same, but he did not examine him and record his statement and not even cited him as a witness in the list of witnesses appended to charge­sheet. 

53.But, basing on the above facts, it cannot be said that the deceased and

Pw1 met with the motor accident while they were proceeding on a motor cycle in intoxicated state and received injuries and that the deceased succumbed to injuries as contended by the accused, since except eliciting the above facts through PWs. 2 to 4 by the accused, nothing worthwhile could be elicited by them particularly from the mouths of PWs.2 and 3 that the deceased and Pw1 35 were intoxicated state at that time. Adding to that when the accused suggested their case referred to above Pw1 has clearly denied said suggestion. The accused except put forth said suggestion before PW1 which was denied by him, nothing worthwhile could be elicited from his mouth in support of said suggestion. Mere suggestion without eliciting any fact in support of such suggestion does not amount to evidence. Thus, I hold that the accused failed to show any probability that the deceased and PW1 met with the accident and received injuries as contended by them and thereby I hold that prosecution ruled out said possibility. 

54.Thus, relying upon the medical evidence, through PWs 2 and 3 coupled with Ex.P12 Post Mortem Certificate and Ex P13 wound certificate, I hold that the prosecution proved that the death of deceased is homicidal death having died of multiple injuries of vital organ and that PW1 has received above referred injuries by blunt objects like iron rod and sticks, ruling out the possibility of receipt of said injuries by them in the road traffic accident.

55.Now the burden lies on the prosecution to connect the accused A1 to A4,

A6 and A9 and other assailants as a mob, with the homicidal death of deceased and receipt of injuries by PW1 beyond all reasonable doubt. As per the medical evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.P12 PM Certificate referred to above, altogether the deceased received 5 injuries and out of the same two external head injuries under injury Nos. 1 and 2 with corresponding internal skull injuries, one external injury over back side of the neck under injury no 3 with corresponding internal neck injury and the remaining two injuries under injury

Nos. 4 and 5 are abrasion and bleeding connected to head injury, indicating that the deceased received altogether only three blows and out of the same two blows are on his head and one blow is on the back side of his neck with blunt objects like iron rod and stick. As per the medical evidence of PW3 coupled with

Ex P13, PW1 received five simple injuries in toto under injury Nos. 1 to 5.

36

56.If really, what PW1 has stated is true and correct that the accused A1 to

A4, A6, A9 and A30 to A34 assailants arming with rods and sticks reached the scene of offence and the accused A1 beat the deceased twice or thrice on his head with iron rod and 7 to 8 persons as a mob beat the deceased and Pw1 indiscriminately with sticks, simple receipt of the above referred injuries by the deceased and PW1 is doubtful, because in such case definitely they would have been received more injuries with more intensity than the injuries referred to above, which makes the evidence of PW1 doubtful about the participation of the above accused A1 to A4, A6 A9 and 7 to 8 persons as a mob.

57. Thus, the medical evidence referred to above coupled with the absence of any specific overt act against the accused A2 to A4, A6 and A9 in his oral evidence of Pw1, probable if at all only their presence at the scene of offence and mere presence at the scene of offence along with the accused A1 without their participation cannot be said that they attacked the deceased with rods and sticks and more particularly when no test identification is conducted by the prosecution. Thus, the accused A2 to A4, A6 and A9 are also entitled for acquittal for the charges leveled against them. Thus, left over accused is only the accused A1 along with 7 to 8 persons as mob and their participation in the alleged attack.

4. IS NON EXPLANATION ABOUT THE INJURIES AGAINST THE ACCUSED A9 BY THE PROSECUTION FATAL TO PROSECUTION CASE FATAL:

58.Coming to the participation of the accused A1, in addition to above lapses, it is also significant to note that admittedly and evidently the accused A9 received injuries in the said attack. But the prosecution did not give any explanation as to how the accused A9 received injuries and suppressed the said fact. But, the accused themselves brought the notice of said fact before the court through cross examination of PW3/the medical Officer who examined

PW1 and issued Ex.P13 wound certificate whose evidence was already discussed in above paragraphs.

37

59.In his cross­examination PW3 has stated that as per the Photostat copy of

Accident Register, he examined the accused A9/Vaddi Narasimha Rao on dt 26­ 08­2004 at 10.00 p.m., and found the following injuries.

(i) Lacerated injury over Parietal bone 1 ½ cm x ¼ cm x 1/ 4 cm in size, bleeding present horizontally;

(ii) incised injury over left thumb base 1 ½ cm x 1/3 cm x ½ cm bleeding present; and

(iii) Incised injury over left ring finger 1 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm bleeding present.

60.Evidence of PW3 further shows that as per the endorsement in the said accident register, he issued wound certificate and the same was received by police personnel; that the 1st injury referred to above might be caused with blunt object like stick or rod and injury Nos. 2 and 3 referred to above might be caused by a sharp object like knife.

61.Thus, as per the evidence of PW3 referred to above, PW3 examined the accused A9 on the same date 26­08­2004 at 10.00 p.m and found the above noted injuries and accordingly issued wound certificate which was obtained by police personnel. But, even then the prosecution did not choose to file said wound certificate of accused A9 before the Court for the reasons best known to them.

62.Even in his cross­examination PW7/the SI of Police who registered the

FIR basing on Ex.P1 statement has stated that on the same day i.e., in the intervening night of 26/27­08­2004 at 1.00 a.m A9/Vadde Narasimha Rao, gave a complaint against PW1 and the deceased, stating that on 26­08­2004 at 6.00 p.m., near Mallikasula Killy shop, PW1 and the deceased hacked him with knife and caused bleeding injuries and the same was registered by him in

Cr.No.60/2004 under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC., under Ex.D3 attested copy of FIR coupled with report.

63.On perusal, the recitals of Ex.D3 FIR which was registered basing on the statement of the accused/A9 shows that on 26­08­2004 in the evening at about 6.00 p.m., while the accused/A9 was going towards his house and on the way 38 when he/A9 reached near Mallikasula Killy Shop, the deceased/Ande

Venkateswara Rao and his son/PW1 stood on the road who belong to Congress party and the deceased is President of Water Users Association; that when the accused/A9 was proceeding on the road, the deceased proclaimed that A9 also belongs to Congress party and proclaiming so, the deceased tried to hack him with a knife and as a result of which his two fingers were cut off and in the meanwhile somebody beat him on his head with a stick from his backside on which he felt unconscious and when he gained his re­consciousness he noticed that he was in the police station and at that time it was 7.00 p.m., and he observed the presence of A1 and so many other people; and that as his condition was serious he was taken and got admitted in Tadepalligudem

Government Hospital, where his statement was recorded by police.

64.In fact, PW1 has stated in his Ex P1 statement about the receipt of injuries by the accused/A9 by stating that the accused/A9, while beating his fallen deceased father, received injuries in a hurried manner from the rod and stick held by the accused A1 and A2. Even in his evidence PW1 has stated the same said fact by stating that the accused/A9 received injuries from the rod and stick in the said attack. If really, what PW1 has stated is true and correct as in Ex.P1 statement and in his evidence that the accused A9 received injuries from the rod and stick in the said attack, the accused/A9 ought not have received cut injuries, which are possible only with sharp objects as stated by

PW3 referred to above but not with blunt objects like iron rod and stick, which casted any amount of cloud of doubt about the trust worthiness of the evidence of PW1.

65.It is needless to say that when two FIRs were registered i.e., Ex P37 FIR basing on the statement Pw1 and Ex D3 FIR basing on the statement of the accused/A9 in between two groups on the same day and at same time, definitely the prosecution ought to have brought the notice of the said fact

before the court. But, they are completely silent with regard to said issue and

39 however the accused brought the notice of the said fact before the court under

Ex.D3 through PW7 and also supported by medical evidence through PW3, which created any amount of doubt about the genuineness of the case of prosecution itself as laid down in the case of Kumar v State referred to above, since it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to investigate both the crimes simultaneously to know as to who are the aggressors as to whether the deceased and his group including PW1 or the accused A1, A9 and their group, but the prosecution is completely silent about these facts.

5. IS NON­EXAMINATION OF INDEPENDENT DIRECT WITNESSES TO THE INCIDENT THOUGH AVAILABLE FATAL:

66.Under the above circumstances, instead of relying upon sole oral testimony of PW1 who is an interested and partisan witness, definitely the prosecution ought to have examined any one of the independent direct witnesses who are very much available at the scene of offence while the alleged attack was taken place as stated earlier. But, the prosecution did not choose to examine them even though they are cited in the list of witnesses. No explanation is given by the prosecution for their non­examination, which is fatal.

67.It is not in dispute that on that day it is shandy day in the village and the same will be closed by 10.00 p.m or 10.30.p.m in the night; that the said shandy used to be conducted in the vacant place spreads from Elementary

School situated by the side of Panchayat office, which is situated near the scene of offence; that number of people of the village and neighbouring villagers gathered there and the shop keepers of the shops are available at the said shandy; that the pan shop of one Mallikasu is also situated near panchayat office and that the house of LW13/Shivaji where the alleged scene of offence located is also situated opposite to panchayat office. Pw1 also admitted said facts in his cross examination conducted by A3, A6 and A9. All the above circumstances if seen together, probable the case of accused that when the deceased and PW1 are attacking the accused/A9 the shandy people and the 40 shop keepers of the said shandy might have attacked them and taking advantage of the same this false case is foisted being politically motivated.

6. IS NON SUPPLYING OF THE COPY OF SECTION 164 STATEMENT OF

PW1 RECORDED BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE OF TADEPALLIGUDEM

TO THE ACCUSED IS FATAL TO PROSECTION CASE:

68.It is an evident and admitted fact that the learned Additional Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem recorded the statement of PW1 even

prior to his Ex.P1 statement. In Ex.P1 statement of Pw1, it is clearly noted that the learned Magistrate, Tadepalligudem. already recorded the statement of PW1.

In his cross­examination also PW1 has stated the same said fact by stating that the learned Magistrate Tadepalligudem recorded his statement even prior to his statement under Ex.P1 as reflected in Ex.P1.

69.But, surprisingly, the said 164 statement of PW1 recorded by the learned

Magistrate was not supplied to the accused for the reasons best known to

prosecution. PW8/the Investigation Officer in his cross examination has stated that he did not file any memo before the concerned learned Magistrate who recorded the statement of PW1 requesting him to send the said statement either to committal Court or to District Court and that the certified copy of the said statement of PW1 was not supplied to the accused. Even the learned counsel for the accused filed a memo before the court after commencement of trial informing that the statement of PW1 recorded by the learned Magistrate was not supplied to the accused, but the prosecution did not take any steps to supply the copy of the said 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 recorded by the Learned

Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, to the accused though the same is very much

available on record for the reasons best known to them. Thus, definitely non supplying of 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 recorded by the learned Magistrate,

Tadepalligudem, is fatal since the same would cause prejudice as they lost their opportunity to cross examine on the said 164 Cr.P.C statement by which an adverse inference also can be drawn when all the circumstances noted above are taken into consideration in toto as a cumulative effect as held in the cases of 41

Sivakoti Daveedu and another; and Yedida Bhaskara Rao and others

referred to above.

7.WHETHER THERE IS ANY EARLIER STATEMENT OF PW1 AND

SUPPRESSING THE SAME EX P1 STATEMENT PRESSED INTO SERVICE:

70. Evidence of PWs.1 and 6 coupled with Ex P1 statement of PW1 shows that

PW6 recorded the statement of PW1 on 26­08­2004 at 11.00 p.m. In his chief­ examination, PW1 has stated that on 26­08­2004 itself while he was in Area

Hospital, Tadepalligudem for treatment, the police came there and recorded his statement under Ex.P1. On perusal, Ex.P1 statement shows that the same was recorded by PW6/the then Head Constable, Tadepalligudem Town PS., on 26­ 08­2004 at 11.00 p.m. Even PW6/the then Head constable, Tadepalligudem has stated the same said fact in his chief examination and further stated that on receipt of Ex.P36 hospital intimation immediately he went to Government

Hospital, Tadepalligudem and recorded Ex.P1 statement of PW1. 

71.But surprisingly in his cross­examination PW1 has stated that he came to know the death of his deceased father through one Nurse in the early hours of 27­08­2004 at about 4.00 a.m., and thereafter, Ex.P1 statement was drafted and signed by him; and that some of the names of the accused, who alleged to have been participated in the incident, which are reflected in Ex.P1 report are not stated by him. This part of the evidence of PW1 proved that the statement of PW1 was drafted on 27­08­2004 at about 4.00 a.m. and that the names of the some of the accused as reflected in Ex.P1 report were not stated by PW1, indicating that there is one more statement of PW1 and suppressing the same

Ex.P1 statement pressed into service, by which an adverse inference can be drawn that since no incriminating material is available against the accused in the other statement, Ex.P1 statement is pressed into service, which is fatal and which created any amount of doubt about the case of prosecution as contended by the accused.

42

8. IS LODGING OF EX P1 FIR NOT NEARBY POLICE FATAL TO PROSECUTION CASE:

72.Admittedly no police intimation was given about the alleged attack to the nearby police station. In his cross­examination as pointed out by the accused

A3,A6 and A9, PW1 has clearly stated that he and his deceased father were taken to Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem, through Nidamarru village, where the police station is situated, but they did not stop at that police station for intimation but straight away they were taken to the hospital; and that they did not try to give any intimation to the police immediately after the incident. Thus, admittedly it is proved that though there was nearby police station either PW1 or other villagers did not try to give any intimation in the nearby Nidamarru

Police Station, but straight away PW1 and the deceased were taken to

Tadepalligudem Hospital. No explanation is given by PW1 for not giving any police intimation to the nearby police station though they crossed the said

Nidamarru Police Station, which is fatal and cannot be ruled out the connivance of PW1 with the police, when read with the above circumstances as laid down in the case of K.A.Kotrappareddy and another referred to above.

9. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION PROVED THE ARREST OF THE ACCUSED

AND RECOVERY OF MOS 1 TO 18 BASING ON THEIR CONFESSION AND

WHETHER MOS 1 TO 18 ARE PLANTED ONE:

73.To prove the arrest of the accused basing on their respective confessional statements leading to recovery of M.Os.1 to 18 the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1,4,5 and 8 coupled with Exs.P16 to P35 mediator reports.

The accused have contended that prosecution failed to prove the alleged arrest of the accused basing on their respective confessional statements said to have been given by them leading to recovery of M.Os.1 to 18 and in fact the alleged

M.Os. 1 to 18 are planted objects in the absence of any test identification over the alleged material objects. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws. 1,4,5 and 8 is relevant to be considered.

43

74.In his evidence PW1 has stated that the accused beat him and the deceased with iron rods and sticks and caused injuries and stating so he identified M.Os. 1 to 18 as crime weapons before the court. But, he did not identify as to which crime weapon was used by which accused as contended by the accused. But in my considered opinion, it is highly impossible to identify as to which crime weapon was used by which accused since according to him all the accused in 30 to 34 in number as a mob beat him and the deceased in which case no prudent man expects such identification from PW1. However, in such case the prosecution ought to have conducted identification parade over

M.Os. 1 to 18 which were said to have been recovered from the accused. But, evidently no such identification parade was conducted and even no explanation is given by them for the reasons best known to them.

75.PW4 is the then Panchayat Secretary Adavikolanu. Evidence of PW4 shows that in the presence of mediators including her on 27.08.2004 evening at about 4.00 p.m. the police arrested eight persons at Ganapavaram center, basing on their respective Exs.P16 to Ex P22 confessional statements drafted at their respective houses of one Vaddi Kiran Kumar @Kiran Kumar, Pathikayala

Suryanarayana, Kottu Peddiraju, Vaddi Kishore, Nimmala Murali Krishna @

Murali and Nimmala Yesu Babu leading to recovery and seizure of the respective sticks and rods produced by them at their respective houses situated in different streets of Adavikolanu; that on 27.09.2004 in the morning the police arrested two persons namely Mutyala Ravi and Mutyala Suri Babu at

Adavikolanu Dibba and recovered and seized one stick each from their respective hay stocks basing on their respective confessional statements under

Exs.P23 and P24; that on 29.09.2004 in the morning the police arrested one

Papolu Srinu at Akuladibba and another person whose name she does not remember and recovered and seized one stick each from the back side of their respective houses under the cover of Exs.P25 and P26 mediator reports; that on 08.09.2004 in the morning the police arrested one Vaddi Narasimha Murthy at 44 his house at Adavikolanu, recovered and seized one stick from the hay stock situated at the back side of his house under the cover of Ex.P27 mediator report; and thatshe identified her signatures on identity slips affixed on MOs.1 to 18 confronted before her. 

76.PW5 is also the then Panchayat Secretary of Adavikolanu. Evidence of

PW5 also shows that in the presence of mediators including him on 3­10­2004 at about 11.00 a.m., the police arrested three persons namely Macharla

Srinivas, Kotapalli Srinivasa Rao and Kotipalli Nageswara Rao at the house of

Macharla Srinivas at Adavikolanu basing on their Ex.P28 confessional statement leading to recovery and seizure of one stick from the piled up coconut dried leaves produced by Macharla Srinu and the remaining two arrested persons Kotapalli Srinivasa Rao and Kotipalli Nageswara Rao stated that they left two sticks one each at Panchatat office; that on 5­10­2004 at about 7.00 a.m., the police arrested four persons namely Nimmala Narasimha Rao,

Kandulapati Rama Rao, Kandulapati Satyannarayana and Nimmala Sangaiah at the house of Nimmala Narasimha Rao at Adavikolanu basing on their Exs.P29 to 32 confessional statements leading to recovery and seizure of one stick from the back side of the house of said Nimmala Narasimha Rao produced by him; that on the same day at 8.30 a.m., the police recovered and seized one stick from Kandula Ramarao from his house under the cover of Ex P33 mediator report; that on the same day at 9.00 a.m the police recovered and seized one stick from the tin sheeted shed from Kandula Singaiah under the cover of Ex

P34 mediator report; that on the same day at 9.30 a.m the police recovered and seized one stick from the tin sheeted shed from Nimmala Sangaiah under the cover of Ex P35 mediator report; and that on 27­10­2004 at about 10.00 a.m he went to police station and observed the presence of one Pabolu Ranga Rao, who was on bail and on interrogation he confessed his guilt and stated that he left the crime weapon stick somewhere else and the above proceedings were reduced into report.

45

77.PW8 is investigation Officer/PW8 corroborated the above facts by stating the same facts in his evidence. Evidence of PW8 further shows that as per order in Crl.M.P.No.2182/2004 of the learned ADJ Court, Eluru, the accused namely

Papolu Rangarao, Nimmala Venkata Rao, Ambati Apparao, Papolu Narayana and Manchela Veerabadra Rao obtained anticipatory bail.

78. Thus, as per the evidence of P.Ws.1,4,5 and 8 referred to above the prosecution has established that altogether in the presence of mediators the police arrested 22 accused on different dates and timings and at different places and recovered one rod and sticks as crime weapons basing on their respective confessional statements and seizure reports under Exs.P16 to P35 and that 5 accused named above were released on anticipatory bail. But, P.Ws. 4 and 5 and so also PW8/the investigation officer did not identify the above accused and also the crime weapons said to have been recovered from them, since admittedly and evidently they did not identify the accused said to have been arrested on the different dates along with the crime weapons. All of them i.e., P.Ws. 4,5 and 8 clearly admitted in their respective cross­examinations that they cannot identify the arrested accused and also cannot identify which crime weapon was seized from which accused due to lapse of time i.e., more than 15 years, which is quite natural. However, under the said circumstances, without any hesitation, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the arrest of the accused leading to recovery of the crime weapons i.e., M.Os. 1 to 8, more particularly in the absence of any test identification parade on the accused and so also on the crime weapons. 

10. IS PROSECUTION FIXED THE ALLEGED SCENE OF OFFENCE:

79.According to prosecution the scene of offence is the pial of the house of one Shivaji/Lw13 and also in the road margin situated in between the road and the house od said LW17/Shivaji. The accused has contended that the prosecution has failed to fix the alleged scene of offence. Evidence of PW4/the mediator shows that on 27­08­2004 at 6.30 a.m., she went to the house of 46

LW13 Sivaji, where the police observed the scene of offence and seized blood stained and controlled earth in front of the house of LW3/Sivaji and also seized blood stained flake and controlled flake on the pial of the said house; that the police seized two sticks and one rod at the scene of offence; and that the scene observation proceedings were reduced into Ex.P14 scene observation report.

80.Thus, as per the evidence of Pw4 coupled with the scene of offence is the pial and in front of the house of one Shivaji/Lw13 as the accused attacked the deceased and PW1 with rod and sticks on 26­08­2004 at 6.30 PM. But, as per

Ex D3 FIR on the same day 26­08­2004 at 6.00PM the deceased and PW1 attacked the accused A9 near Mallikarjuna Killi shop which created any amount of doubt about the alleged scene offence and alleged attack since the presence of the same persons i.e., the deceased and PW1 at two places at the same time is highly impossible until and unless the same is clarified. But, as stated earlier no investigation has been conducted as to who are the aggressors, which created any amount of doubt about the scene of offence as contended by the accused.

CONCLUSION:

81.Thus, as per the discussion held supra, the established facts are as follows:

i) that prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive attributed against the accused; ii) that the sole testimony of PW1 is not corroborated with the recitals of Ex P1 FIR in material aspects; iii) that PW1 gave different versions and changed his version from time to time regarding the names and number of the accused, their participation and their specific overt acts; iv) that though PW1 is interested and partisan witness, but not corroborated by any independent witness though available;

v) that sole testimony of PW1 suffers from infirmities and not corroborated by medical evidence; 47 vi) that non examination of any independent direct witness though available, non­examination of Lw17/Saidu Kanakaiah, and non­conducting of test identification on the accused and crime weapons are fatal; vii) that inclusion of the accused whose names are not at all whispered by Pw1 either in Ex P1 FIR, in 161 Cr.P.C., statement or in 164 statement, in the charge­sheet is without any basis and fatal; viii) that there is earlier statement of PW1 but suppressing the same Ex P1 FIR is pressed into service which created any amount of doubt about the genuineness of prosecution case; ix) that non explanation of the injuries on the part of the accused A9 is fatal;

x) that failure on the part of the prosecution to fix the scene of offence is fatal; xi) that non supplying of 164 statement of PW1 recorded by the learned

Magistrate, Tadepalligudem is also fatal; and

xii) that the prosecution failed to prove the arrest of the accused with their identity and recovery of MOs 1 to 8 basing on their respective confessional statements and that MOs 1 to 18 are planted one.

82.Thus, taking into consideration of the above referred established facts as a cumulative effect without any hesitation I hold that the sole testimony of PW1 is not trust worthy and not safe to be relied upon and thereby created any amount of doubt about the genuineness of prosecution case and probable that that the prosecution did not come to the Court with clean hands and foisted a false case being political motivated.

83.Therefore, it is not safe to come to an irresistible conclusion that the accused are responsible for the death of deceased and receipt of injuries of PW1 and thereby I hold that though prosecution has proved that PW1 and the deceased received injuries and that the deceased succumbed to injuries, but failed to connect the accused with the said injuries and thereby failed to prove that the accused committed the offence punishable under Secs 143, 148, 302 and 307 r/w 148 IPC, the charges levelled against them. Accordingly, this point is answered.

84.In the result, the accused A1 to A13, A15 to A17, A19 to A26 and A28 to

A34 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 148 48 302, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC the charges leveled against them on benefit of doubt and accordingly they are acquitted in terms of Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C..

The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stand canceled. M.Os.1 to 20 and unmarked non­valuable properties, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, this the 3 rd day of January, 2020.

 VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR THE ACCUSED: P.W.1Ande Srinivasa Rao ­­NIL­­ P.W.2Dr.M.S.R.K.Prasad P.W.3Dr.V.Manoranjan P.W.4Marada Gowri Parvathi P.W.5Chanumuri Rama Rao P.W.6Velagala Satyanarayana Reddy P.W.7V.V.S.Rama Linga Raju P.W.8Dhananjaya Bhaskara Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.126.08.2004Report

Exs.P.2 –10 photographs to P11 Ex.P.1228.08.2004Post Mortem Certificate

Ex.P.1308.12.2004Wound certificate of PW1 Ex.P.1427.08.2004Scene observation report at 7.30 a.m., along with seizure Ex.P.1527.08.2004Inquest report Ex.P.1627.08.2004Mediators report at 6.00 p.m., at the house of Maha Laxmana Rao @ Tataji Ex.P.1727.08.2004Mediators report at 7.00 p.m., at the house of Vaddi Kumar @ Kiran Kumar 

Ex.P.1827.08.2004Mediators report at 7.30 p.m., at the house of Pathikayala Suryanarayana Ex.P.1927.08.2004Mediators report at 8.00 p.m., at the house of Kottu Peddiraju Ex.P.2027.08.2004Mediators report at 8.30 p.m., at the house of Vaddi Kishore Ex.P.2127.08.2004Mediators report at 9.00 p.m., at the house of Nimmala Murali Krishna Ex.P.2227.08.2004Mediators report at 9.30 p.m., at the house of Nimmala Yesu Babu @ Yesu Exs. 27.09.2004Mediator reports at 10.30 a.m., only with regard 49

P.23 to seizure and 24 Exs.P2529.09.2004Mediator reports at 11.00 a.m., only with regard and 26to seizure Ex.P2708.09.2004Mediators report at 8.00 a.m. Ex.P2803.10.2004Mediators report at 11.00 a.m., only with regard to seizure Ex.P2905.10.2004Mediators report at 7.00 a.m. Ex.P3005.10.2004Mediators report at 7.00 a.m. Ex.P3105.10.2004Mediators report at 7.00 a.m. Ex.P3205.10.2004Mediators report at 7.00 a.m. Ex.P3305.10.2004Mediators report at 8.30 a.m. Ex.P3405.10.2004Mediators report at 9.00 a.m. Ex.P3505.10.2004Mediators report at 7.30 a.m. Ex.P3626.08.2004Hospital Intimation Ex.P3726.08.2004Original FIR in Cr.No.59/2004 Ex.P38–Rough sketch Ex.P39–Negatives

FOR THE ACCUSED:

Ex.D126.08.2004Some portion of statement of PW1 Ex.D206.11.2003Original Receipt Ex.D326/27.08.2004Attested True copy of FIR coupled with a report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1: GI pipe of 4 ½ feet

M.Os.2 to 18:One Causurina Stick and 16 bamboo sticks M.O.19:Lungi M.O.20:Waist thread along with Thayattu 

 VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

West Godavari, Eluru.

Copy Submitted to :

The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P., Nelapadu, Guntur District – 522 237

Copy to :

1. The 1st Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem.

2. The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, W.G., Eluru

4. The Director of Prosecutions, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

50 51

CALENDAR

Tabular form annexed to the Judgment in Sessions Case 230 of 2006 on the file of the IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU under Rule 318 of the Criminal

Rules of Practice.

Sessions Case Number and P.R.C.:S.C.No.230/2006and

Number with the Name of theP.R.C.No.93/2005 on the file of Committal court:Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Tadeplligudem

Name of the Police Station and Cr.No.59/2004 of Nidamarru Police Crime Number:Station

Name of the Accused: Father’s name: Age, Religion: Occupation: Addresses:

1.Nimmala Mahalakshmanarao @ Tataji S/o.Venkatachalam, aged 52 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu, Nidamarru Mandal. 2.Nimmala Naga Venkata Krishnarao @ Venkata Krishna @ Bujji S/o. Mahalakshmanarao @ Tataji, 30 years, Cultivation R/o.Adavikolanu. 3.Vaddi Kumar @ Kirankumar S/o. Narasimharao, 22 years, Cultivation, R/o. Adavikolanu.

4. Pathikayala Suryanarayana @ Mallaiah, S/o. Apparao, 38 years, Rajaka, Cooli, R/o.Adavikolanu, Nidamarru Mandal.

5. Kottu Peddiraju @ Bobby S/o. Nageswara Rao, aged 26 years, Cultivation R/o. Adavikolanu. 6.Vaddi Kishore S/o.Narasimharao, 23 years, cultivation R/o.Adavikolanu. 7.Nimmala Muralikrishna @ Murali S/o. Subrahmanyam, aged 26 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 8.Nimmala Yesubabu @ Yesu S/o. Venkata Subbarao, 23 years, Cultivation, Adavikolanu. 9.Vaddi Narasimharao @ Narasimhamurthy, S/o.Venkataswamy, aged 45 years, Kapu, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 10.Papolu Rangarao S/o. Narasaiah, 70 years, Cultivation, aged 70 years, R/o.Adavikolanu. 11.Nimmala Narasimharao @ Tata Pandu S/o.Avatharam, 40 years, Cultivation, R/o. Adavikolanu. 12.Nimmala Venkatarao S/o.Lakshminarayana, 52 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 13.Kandulapati Ramarao @ Raja Rao S/o.Ganganna, 43 years, cultivation, r/o. Adavikolanu. 14.Papolu Narasimharao @ Shavukaru(died) 15.Mutyala Ravi S/o.Gandhi, 30 years, cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 16.Mutyala Suribabu S/o.Srinivasa Rao, 32 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 17.Papolu Srinivasarao @ Sreenu @ Bathula Sreenu S/o.Koteswararao, 30 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 18.Nimmala Venkatachalam @Venkatachalam(died) 19.Nimmala Nagababu @ Nagu S/o. Venkatachalam, aged 20 years, Kapu, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu.

52 20.Manchala Sreenu @ Venkata Janardhanarao S/o.Avatharam, 32 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 21.Nimmala Satyanarayana S/o.Kesavarao, 35 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 22.Challa Adinarayana S/o.Viswanadham, 60 years, cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 23.Kotipalli Nageswararao S/o. Late Parusuramudu, 50 years, cultivation R/o.Adavikolanu. 24.Ambati Apparao S/o.Parusuramudu, 50 years, Cultivation R/o.Adavikolanu. 25,Kandulapati Satyanarayana S/o.Ganganna, 45 years, Kapu, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 26.Papolu Ekonarayana S/o.Gopanna, 35 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 27.Manchala Veerabhadrarao @ Pedakapu(died) 28.Kotipalli Srinivasarao s/o.Peddiraju, 28 years, R/o.Adavikolanu. 29.Vaddi Annavaram S/o. Raghavulu, 40 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 30.Nimmala Sangaiah S/o.Nageswara Rao, 38 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 31.Yerragopu Bhaskara Rao S/o.Seetharamaiah, 48 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 32.Papolu Sayi @ Kunthi S/o.Subbarao, 40 years, Cultivation, R/o.Adavikolanu. 33.Kotipalli Suri S/o.Peddiraju, 27 years, R/o.Adavikolanu. 34.Manchala Janardhanarao @ Chinna S/o.Avatharam, 35 years, Kapu R/o.Adavikolanu. case against A14, A18 and A27 is abated as died as per docket orders dtd 26­11­2015, dtd 31­01­2018 and dtd 23­07­2019 respectively Date of occurrence26.08.2004

Date of complaint26.08.2004

Date of apprehension or A1 to A8­28­08­2004 Date of appearance.A9­09­09­2004 A10­28­09­2004 A11­06­10­2004 A12­03­12­2004 A13­06­10­2004 A14­died A15­28­09­2004 A16­28­09­2004 A17­30­09­2004 A18­died A19­22­09­2004 A20­04­10­2004 A21­22­09­2004 A22, A23­04­10­2004 A4­03­12­2004 A25­06­10­2004 A26­03­12­2004 A27 ­died A28­04­10­2004 A29­25­09­2004 A30­06­10­2004 A31 to A34­20­12­2004 53

Date of release on bail.A1 to A8­30.11.2004 A9­02­12­2004 A10­11­11­2004 A11­02­12­2004 A12­03­12­2004 A13­27­11­2004 A14(died) A15­03­12­2004 A16­11­11­2004 A17­11­11­2004 A18(died) A19­11­11­2004 A20­03­12­2004 A21­11­11­2004 A22­25­10­2004 A23­11­11­2004 A24­03­12­2004 A25­18­11­2004 A26­03­12­2004 A27­died A28­11­11­2004 A29­03­12­2004 A30­18­11­2004 A31 to A34­20­12­2004

Date of commencement of Trial.20.08.2019 Date of closure of trial.30.12.2019 Date of sentence of order.03­01­2020

In the result, the accused A1 to A13, A15 to A17, A19 to A26 and A28 to

A34 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 148 302, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC the charges leveled against them on benefit of doubt and accordingly they are acquitted in terms of Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C..

The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stand canceled. M.Os.1 to 20 and unmarked non­valuable properties, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 

Explanation for the delay :: No avoidable delay. Appeals as prescribed under rule 319 of criminal Rules of practice with regard to the diary extract submitted:: No avoidable delay. by the committing court.

Sessions Court: West Godavari,

 Eluru,dt.03­01­2020.

VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari,Eluru 

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST

GODAVARI DIVISION, ELURU.

Present: Smt. S.Sarada Devi

Judge, Family Court-cum-

VII Additional Sessions Judge,

West Godavari, Eluru.

Wednesday, this the 7th day of August, 2019

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 299/2016

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 349/2016

along with

Crl.MP.No.92/2018

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 299/2016

From what Court the appeal is:Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru, West Godavari District.

No. of the case in that Court:D.V.C.No.55/2015

No. of the Criminal Appeal:Criminal Appeal No.299/2016

Name and Description of the:Chodimella Purna Chandra Rao, S/o Sydulu, aged 32 years, R/o D.No.2-16-2, kabadigudem, Eluru, W.G. Appellant/s District.

Name and description of the:1) Chodimella Annamma, W/o Purna Chandra Rao, aged 28 years, C/o Bandi Sankaramma, D.No.16A-1- Complainants / respondents. 103, Arundathi Peta, Tangellamudi, Eluru, W.G. District.

2) The State Rep. by P.P. W.G. District, Eluru

The Sentence and Law and:In the result, the complainant succeeds and accordingly, which it was imposed in thethe first respondent is directed to return the dowry Lower Courtamount of Rs.50,000/- to PW1 within six months from the date of this order and further the first respondent is directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant from the date of this order and he is further directed to pay the amount on first day of every succeeding month and failing which the complainant has every right to get the order executed by due process of Law and respondents 2 to 5 are directed not to interfere into the personal freedom and space of complainant and if they fail to obey the order of the Court that they are liable for penal consequences under Section 31 of DVC Act.

Whether confirmed, modified or: reversed and if modified the -Confirmed - modification

Date of presentation:26-07-2016 2

Date of filing:27-07-2016

Date of notice issued :27-07-2016

Date of Bail bond:--

Date of appearance:26-08-2016

Date of hearing:24-07-2019

Date of Judgment:07-08-2019

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 349/2016

From what Court the appeal is:Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru, West Godavari District.

No. of the case in that Court:D.V.C.No.55/2015

No. of the Criminal Appeal:Criminal Appeal No.349/2016

Name and Description of the:Chodimella Annamma, W/o Purna Chandra Rao, Hindu, Appellant/ComplainantFemale, aged 28 years, aged 28 years, Housewife C/o Bandi Sankaramma, D.No.16A-1-103, Arundathi Peta, Tangellamudi, Eluru, W.G. District.

Name and description of the:1) Chodimella Purnachandra Rao, S/o Sydulu, Hindu, Male, aged 34 years, Cultivation, R/o D.No.2-16/2, respondents. kabadigudem, Eluru, W.G. District.

2) The State Rep. by P.P. W.G. District, Eluru The Sentence and Law and:In the result, the complainant succeeds and accordingly, which it was imposed in thethe first respondent is directed to return the dowry Lower Courtamount of Rs.50,000/- to PW1 within six months from the date of this order and further the first respondent is directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant from the date of this order and he is further directed to pay the amount on first day of every succeeding month and failing which the complainant has every right to get the order executed by due process of Law and respondents 2 to 5 are directed not to interfere into the personal freedom and space of complainant and if they fail to obey the order of the Court that they are liable for penal consequences under Section 31 of DVC Act.

Whether confirmed, modified or: reversed and if modified the - Confirmed - modification

Date of presentation:29-07-2016

Date of filing:23-08-2016

Date of notice issued :23-08-2016

Date of Bail bond:--

Date of appearance:26-09-2016 3

Date of hearing:24-07-2019

Date of Judgment:07-08-2019

This appeal is coming for hearing before me on 24-07-2019, on perusal of grounds of appeal and the evidence available on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri B.P. Chandrasekhar, Advocate for the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.299/2016 and respondent in Crl. Appeal No.349/2016, of Sri G. Ronald Raju, Advocate for respondent No.1/complainant in Crl. Appeal No.299/2016 and appellant / complainant in Crl. Appeal No.349/2016 and of the Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent No.2/State in both the appeals and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru, West Godavari District in D.V.C.No.55/2015, dated 28-06- 2016 the appellant/respondent No.1/Rw1 has preferred Crl. Appeal 299/2016 and the respondent No.1 herein/complainant/Pw1 has preferred Crl. Appeal No.349/2016. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed by the Trial Court in D.V.C. No.55/2015.

2.Originally the Petitioner/Complainant/PW1 viz., Chodimella Annammma i.e., respondent No.1 herein filed application in DVC.No.55/2015 against the respondents therein praying for following directions:

a) directing the respondents 1 to 5 to pay compensation/damages of Rs.50,00,000/- to the applicant for subjecting her to Domestic Violence ever since her marriage;

b) directing the respondents 1 to 4 to return the dowry/streedhana amount of Rs.50,000/- together with interest at 24% per annum till the date of payment;

c) directing the respondents 1 to 3 to return the jewelery and articles of the applicant i.e. two gold rings weighing 6 grams and 3 grams, gold ear studs weighing 6 grams, to the applicant;

d) directing the 1st respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to the applicant from the date of filing of the petition;

e) directing the 1st respondent to return all the belongings of the application iron almirah, single cot, L.G. Refrigerator, Sewing Machine, H.P. Gas connection with two cylinders, kitchen wear including her M.P.H(W) Training Certificate, Marriage Certificate, Aadhar card, voter ID, Bank passbook;

f) directing the respondent No.1 not to dispose off the house site an extent of 80 square yards in R.S.No.30/2PT of Tangellamudi, Eluru vide document No.4722/2013 dated 20- 05-2013; and

g) directing the respondents 1 to 4 restraining them from further subjecting the applicant to any sort of domestic violence.

4

3.The case of the Petitioner/Pw1 in brief is as follows:-

The marriage of the applicant/Pw1 with the 1st respondent/Rw1 was performed on 16-06-2004 by following the Christian rites. At the time of marriage, her parents parted with an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry, 2 gold rings weighing 6 grams and gold ear studs weighing 6 grams. Pw1 joined Rw1 to lead marital life, whereupon R1 to

R5 used to harass Pw1 for additional dowry amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. In order to meet said demand father of Pw1 presented gold chain weighing 19 ½ grams worth of

Rs.50,000/- to Rw1, who in turn pledged the same in Godavari Chaitanya Bank and raised Rs.25,000/- loan. Rw1 developed illegal liaison with an other woman. On 20-11- 2013 at about 3.00 P.M. all the respondents made an attempt to assassinate Pw1 by pouring kerosene, and on 21-02-2015 at about 2:00 A.M., Rw1 again made an attempt to kill Pw1 by smothering with the pillow, however she/Pw1 managed to escape.

Ultimately on 22-06-2015 Rw1 necked out PW1 from the house by assaulting her and whereupon, PW1 lodged a complaint against R1 under Section 498-A IPC. On 11-05- 2015 Pw1 got issued a legal notice to Rw1 and Rw1 received the said notice and got issued a reply notice with false allegations. Rw1 has sufficient financial affluence. Thus,

Pw1 is entitled to claim all the reliefs as sought in the complaint, referred to above.

Hence, the petition

4.The 1st respondent/Rw1 filed counter adopted by R2, denied all the material allegations made in the petition and contended that himself and Pw1 loved each other and married against the wishes of the parents of Pw1 and thus, the question of payment of dowry does not arise. The complainant/Pw1 is very arrogant and due to which R2 to

R5 never used to visit his house. Himself/Rw1 and the complainant/Pw1 lived together in Kakinada, where she completed the training course and he bore all the expenses of training. After completion of ANM course, Pw1 joined as nurse at private hospital and used to earn good salary and got used to luxuries life and developed extra marital life with one of the neighbour at Kakinada. Rw1 requested Pw1 to mend her ways, but there was no change in her behavior. Thus, Pw1 is not entitled to claim all the reliefs sought in the complaint. For these reasons PW1 is not entitled to claim any relief.

5

5.Based on the above contentions of both parties, the Trial Court framed the following points for consideration:

(i) Whether the complainant established by positive, dependable and credible

proof that at the time of marriage her parents parted with an amount of

Rs.50,000/- towards dowry, 2 gold rings weighing 6 grams and gold ear studs

weighing 6 grams to R1 and if so, whether she is entitled to claim back the

amount as well as the gold ornaments?

(ii) Whether the 1 st respondent inflicted mental, physical and emotional

stress and trauma to PW1 without providing maintenance inspite of having

financial affluence and if so, whether she is entitled to claim maintenance

from the respondent by living separately?

6.During the course of enquiry, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were got examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were got marked for the applicant. On other hand, R.Ws1 to 4 were got examined and

Exs.R1 and R2 were got marked for the respondents.

7.After full fledged enquiry and upon hearing both the parties, the Trial Court allowed the case of applicant in part and directed the 1st respondent/Rw1 to return the dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- to PW1 within six months from the date of this order and further the first respondent is directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant from the date of this order on the first day of every succeeding month and failing which the complainant has every right to get the order executed by due process of Law; and that the respondents 2 to 5 are directed not to interfere into the personal freedom and space of complainant and if they fail to obey the order of the Court, they are liable for penal consequences under Section 31 of

DVC Act. Aggrieved by the said order Rw1 alone has preferred Crl.Appeal no 299/2016 and Pw1 has preferred Crl.Appeal No. 349/2016.

8.Pending these appeals, Pw1 has filed Crl MP 92/2018 under Section 311 of

Cr.P.C. in Crl. Appeal No.349/2016 praying the Court to receive the listed mentioned two documents filed therein. RW1 did not file counter inspite of given sufficient time.

9.Heard.

10.Points for consideration are:

6 in Crl.Appeal No.299/2016:

1.Whether the 1 st respondent/Rw1 caused any sort of domestic violence against

PW1 and whether Pw1 is entitled for any maintenance and return of dowry as

ordered by trial Court?

2. Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Court?

In Crl.Appeal No.349/2016:

1. Whether PW1 is entitled for enhancement of maintenance as prayed for?

2. Whether PW1 is entitled for compensation/damages of Rs.50,00,000/- from respondents for subjecting her to domestic violence?

3. Whether PW1 is entitled for return of jewelery and articles as prayed for?

4. Whether PW1 is entitled for return of her belongings as prayed for?

5. Whether there are any merits to allow Crl. MP No. 92/2018?

6. Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court?

11.POINT No. 1 in Crl.Appela No. 299/2016 POINT Nos. 1 and 5 in

Crl.Appeal No. 349/2016 : Since these three points are inter related and inter dependant they are dealt together.Duringthe course of arguments the learned counsel for RW1 has raised the following points for consideration :

1. PW1 miserably failed to prove that the respondents including RW1 subjected her to domestic violence as alleged;

2. Question of payment of alleged dowry to RW1 at the time of his marriage along with PW1 does not arise since both PW1 and RW1 fell in love with each other and married, and moreover PW1 hails from a poor family.

3. No iota of document is filed by PW1 in proof of the alleged dowry amount and the alleged jewelery and articles paid to RW1 or his parents at the time of marriage.

4. The parents of PW1 have no financial capacity to pay any amounts or any jewelery much less as alleged.

5. When the marriage of PW1 and RW1 is love marriage, and both of them hailed from poor family, question of payment of dowry and other valuables does not arise in which case question of demanding additional dowry by RW1 and his parents does not arise.

6. PW1 is completely silent in her pleadings and her evidence that herself and RW1 lived together in Kakinada where she did Nurse training and got job. The silence on her part about all these facts itself probable that PW1 developed illegal contact with one Rajendra @ Nani as contended by the respondents and on the other hand, the alleged harassment subjected by her in the hands of respondents proved to be false.

7. The finding of the trial Court that PW1 subjected to domestic violence in the hands of respondents is erroneous being held on presumptions and assumptions.

8. The order of the trial Court to the extent of return of dowry amount is also liable to be set aside being based on presumptions and assumptions, since the trial Court though believed that no document is filed in proof of the alleged dowry, that both parties are 7 related to each other, belonged to same community and loved each other, but granted to return of dowry without any basis.

9. PW1 did not come to the Court with clean hands without revealing the true facts as to what happened at Kakinada. Even PW1 did not speak about Ex.R1/letter in her pleadings and chief -examination. But admitted about the execution of said letter in her cross-examination, which shows that PW1 herself voluntarily left the conjugal society of RW1 on her own accord. But, the trial Court did not consider these facts. Thus, PW1 is not entitled for any compensation.

10. It is settled law that a wife living in adulterous life is not entitled for any of the reliefs as sought for under DVC Act.

11. RW1 is uneducated, working as coolie whereas PW1 is working in Velugu Project and earning Rs.20,000/-. In such case granting Rs.5,000/- as maintenance is unsustainable and highly excessive.

12. No document is filed by PW1 with regard to the alleged jewelery, articles and other belonging while drawing my attention to the admissions of PW1 in her cross- examination particularly that the documents of RW1 are in her custody, which probable the case of RW1 that she left the conjugal society of RW1 voluntarily, but, was not necked out.

13. The recitals of Ex.P1/notice clearly falsifies the case of PW1 that RW1 purchased property by pledging her jewelery and that father of PW1 paid Rs.1,05,000/- to purchase said property.

14. There are no merits to allow Crl.MP.92/18 filed by Pw1 pending these appeals and thus, the same is liable to be dismissed.

12.With the above backdrop, the learned counsel for RW1 has argued that order of the trial Court to the extent of granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- and return of dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- to PW1 is erroneous being based on presumptions and assumptions, but not based on the evidence available on record, circumstances of the case and against to settled principles of law and as such the same is liable to be set aside and prayed to allow the appeal in Crl. Appeal No.299/2016 preferred by RW1 having merits and to dismiss Crl. Appeal 349/16 along with Crl.MP.92/18 preferred by

PW1 having no merits.

13.The learned counsel for PW1/wife has raised the following the points for consideration :

1. PW1/wife never enjoyed happy marital life with RW1 from the date of marriage since her husband /RW1 subjected her to domestic violence as defined under Sections 19 to 21 of DVC Act by demanding additional dowry.

2. RW1 is more affluent person than PW1 having vast properties. But, the trial Court only granted very meager maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month instead of Rs.25,000/- as prayed for. Thus, PW1 is entitled for enhancement of maintenance as prayed for.

8

3. In order to prove that RW1 has got vast properties, PW1 has filed 1-B RORs showing that he got joint properties along with Crl.M.P. 92/2018 to receive them as additional evidence on her behalf showing the financial capacity of RW1.

4. There is no dispute with regard to marriage.

5. Even though PW1 and RW1 are living separately the domestic relationship has been continuing in between them.

14.With the above backdrop the learned counsel for PW1 has argued that though

PW1 has proved that she was subjected to domestic violence in the hands of respondents, the trial Court erroneously did not grant the other reliefs of granting compensation/damages, and return of gold jewelery and other belongings, which are in the custody of the respondents. Even the trial Court, did not consider the vast properties of RW1 but erroneously granted very meager amount of Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance of PW1 instead of Rs.25,000/- as prayed for and thus, the order of the trial

Court to that extent is liable to be modified while allowing criminal appeal No.349/2016 along with Crl.M.P.92/2018 filed by her having merits while dismissing Crl.Appeal

No.299/2016 filed by R1 having no merits.

15.Keeping in mind the contentions noted above, I have perused the entire material available on record. On perusal, as per petition averments the case of complainant/PW1 in brief is that: 1) at the time of her marriage with RW1 on 16-06-2004, her parents paid dowry of Rs.50,000/-, two gold rings, weighing 3gms and 6 grams and gold ear studs weighing 6 grams; 2) that after marriage Pw1 joined Rw1 to lead marital life happily for few years; that the respondents 1 to 5 subjected Pw1 to domestic violence physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and that RW1 developed extra marital relationship with another woman and ultimately on 22-02-2015, RW1 drove her away from the house by assaulting her; 3) that Pw1 lodged a complaint against

RW1 under Section 498-A IPC; and 4) that RW1 is affluent person, but he neglected and refused her without providing any maintenance.

16. RW1 has contended that PW1 is not entitled for any of the reliefs as sought by her and raised the following contentions in brief: 1) Rw1 and PW1 loved each other and married against the wishes of Pw1’s parents and thus, the question of payment of dowry and presentation of other valuables as alleged does not arise; 2) PW1 is very arrogant 9 woman due to which the respondents 2 to 5 never visited their house; 3) Rw1 and PW1 lived together in Kakinada, during which PW1 completed ANM course for which Rw1 borne all the expenses; and after completion of said ANM course Pw1 joined in a hospital as Nurse and used to earn good salary and got used to luxury life; and 4) Pw1 developed extra marital life with one of the neighbour at Kakinada and he requested her to mend her ways, but in vain as there is no change in her behaviour and ultimately she herself left his conjugal society without any reasonable cause.

17.In order to prove their respective cases, the petitioner got examined herself as

PW1 besides examining her father as PW2 and her maternal aunt as PW3 and relied upon Ex.P1/demand notice, Ex.P2/C.D., Ex.P3/legal notice and Ex.P4/reply notice and on the other hand, the respondent got examined himself as RW1, one of the elder and attestor of Ex R1 letter as RW2, another elder as RW3 and neighbour of Rw1 as RW4 and relied upon Ex.R1/letter and Ex.R2/Aadhar card of Rw4.

18.It is needless to say that to grant any of the reliefs as prayed for under DVC Act, the aggrieved party shall firstly prove that she was subjected to domestic violence in the hands of the respondent/s. In the case on hand, the aggrieved party is PW1 being the wife of RW1. The respondents 2 to 5 are the parents, brother and widowed sister of

RW1. The admitted facts are that the marriage of PW1 with RW1 took place on 16-02- 2004 and both of them lived together till 22-02-2015, but they did not have children of their own. There is no dispute that immediately after marriage, PW1 and RW1 lived together along with the respondents 2 to 5 as joint family at Eluru for two years i.e. from 2004 to 2006 and thereafter PW1 and RW1 shifted to Kakinada where they both lived together alone from 2006 to 2012, where PW1 did ANM Course in a college and worked as staff Nurse in the Hospital for five years in Kakinada and that in 2012, PW1 and RW1 came back to Eluru. Both PW1 and Rw1 have admitted all the above said facts in their respective cross-examinations.

19.Even it is not in dispute that PW1 and RW1 lived together alone at

Thangellamudi, Eluru from 2012 to 22-02-2015. In his cross-examination, RW1 has 10 admitted that himself and PW1 lived together in toto for 13 years i.e. from 2004 to 2015 and that they did not have any issues of their own.

20.Coming to the first and foremost allegation made by PW1 as pleaded in her petition, in her evidence Pw1 has stated that Rw1 at the instigation of the respondents harassed her for the sake of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and to satisfy them, her father/PW2 presented gold chain weighing 19 ½ grams worth of Rs.55,000/- and in turn

RW1 pledged the same in Godavari Chaitanya Bank and borrowed Rs.25,000/- and failed to discharge the said loan; that RW1 is having extra marital affairs with number of women; that on 20-11-2012 around 3.00 P.M. as her father /PW2 failed to pay said dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- RW1 at the instance of respondents 2 to 4 threatened to kill her by pouring kerosene on her and thereafter RW1 kicked her with his legs on her stomach due to which she experienced suffocation and immediately the neighbours namely

Bandi Sankaramma, Smt. M. Suvrarnamma/Pw3 and others came and rescued her and joined her in the private hospital. Her evidence further shows that RW1 continued said torture and harassment for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- at the instance of R2 to R4 and that on 21-02-2015, RW1 attempted to kill her by smothering by keeping pillows on her face and pressed the same and some how, she could manage to escape from his hands and informed the same to her father/PW2 who in turn came to their house and chastised the respondents 2 to 5 for supporting RW1 and ultimately on 22-02-2015

RW1 necked her out.

21.In order to prove the alleged incident of assault that took place on 20-11-2012 referred to above, PW1 got examined PW3 alleging her to be an eye witness to the incident. PW3 has supported the case of PW1 in this regard. Her evidence shows that on that day at around 3.00 P.M., RW1 brought kerosene tin with a view to pour kerosene on Pw1 and to kill her and assaulted PW1 and on account of the assault made by him,

PW1 fell down and as such, she was removed to a private hospital namely Navya

Hospital and after examining PW1, the concerned Doctor prescribed medicines and discharged her at around 9.00 P.M. and thereafter PW3 and the grandmother of PW1 namely B. Sankaramma took PW1 to the house of B. Sankaramma. PW3 has clearly 11 stated that the reason for assaulting PW1 by RW1 is that the parents of PW1 failed to pay additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and four days thereafter the father of PW1 i.e.

PW2 purchased gold chain weighing 2 ½ sovereigns and dropped PW1 in the house of

RW1 and sometime thereafter RW1 shifted his residence to other place. PW3 has further stated that PW1 is very amicable to RW1, but RW1 at the instance of his parents harassed PW1.

22.In her cross-examination, PW3 has stated that PW1 is her sister’s daughter; that she/Pw3 and PW1 resided in the same street and her house is located at the end of the street; and that she/Pw3 resided in the house of PW1 when the drainage of her house got repaired, which remained unchallenged. Thus, admittedly it is proved that PW3 is neighbour to RW1 and PW1 when they resided at Thangellamudi, Eluru. Evidence of

PW1 is corroborated with evidence of PW3 particularly to the extent of the assault made by PW1 against RW1 on 20-11-2012.

23.PW2 is the father of PW1. Naturally he supported the case of PW1 with its entirety. But, he is not an eye witness to the incident of assault in particular made by

RW1 against PW1 for demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, which is supported by PW3. Thus, the evidence of PW2 being not an eye witness is not relevant to be considered with regard to the said incident of assault.

24.On other hand, it is the case and evidence of RW1 that his marriage with PW1 is love marriage but not arranged marriage and as such question of the alleged payment of dowry of Rs.50,000/- and presenting of the alleged gold articles and paraphernalia worth of Rs.1,00,000/- does not arise, in which case question of demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and harassing PW1 for the sake of said additional dowry is utter false and in fact. PW1 developed illegal intimacy with one Rajendra @ Nani of

Kakinada and as such she herself voluntarily deserted him. In order to prove the same, he relied upon the oral evidence of RWs2 to 4 and Ex.R1/letter.

25.RW2 is a distant relative to RW1. He has supported the case of Rw1 with it’s entirety. RW2 has stated that RW1 and PW1 loved each other and married with the 12 consent of their elders on 16-06-2004 at Kothapalli and their marriage was consummated; that as their marriage was love marriage, there is no exchange of amounts, gold and other movable and immovable properties between them; that the couple lived happily at Kothapalli without staying with parents or any elders; that one and half year thereafter, PW1 got seat in Nursing College, Kakinada and thus, both of them shifted to Kakinada; that RW1 borne the expenses for the said nursing training; that after completion of nursing course, the couple shifted to Eluru, where they lived happily for few years, but PW1 used to suffer from low B.P. and taking treatment; that about two years back, RW1 and PW1 came to the village and RW1 told him that father of PW1 i.e. PW2 and PW1 took away Rs.60,000/- from his house and with the said amount PW1 purchased a bike and presented the same to her paramour namely Nani; that the matter was placed before them during which they reprimanded PW1 and convinced her to be a good wife and sent them to Eluru; that one year after the said incident PW1 came to the village for marriage function and he was told that PW1 left

RW1 about three months back and went to her brother’s house at Nellore and stayed there for 3 months and came to village function. His evidence further shows that thereafter PW1 did not join RW1 and gave Police report against Rw1; that the dispute was placed before them at village before elders during which the elders including him tried to convince PW1, but she was not convinced and executed a letter on 05-05-2015 that she wants to desert RW1 permanently and thereafter PW1 has been living at

Kothapalli and maintaining a small tiffin hotel and also performed nursing duties in the village and thus, she has been earning amounts and feeding herself; that her father/PW2 is also residing with her in their own house at Kothapalli since then; and that

PW1 and her father warned RW1 to register the site in favour of PW1 and thus, they are living separately at present.

26.In his cross-examination, RW2 has stated that he is not the elder in the marriage of PW1 and RW1; that he is not having any personal acquaintance as to whether the parents of PW1 paid any dowry amount and gifted gold ornaments or not; that he is not aware whether PW1 studied with scholarship amount; that he did not visit the house of 13

PW1 and RW1 at any point of time; that he is not aware whether PW1 bought the scooter worth of Rs.60,000/- and presented to her paramour; that he is not aware whether PW1 was harassed and drove away by RW1 from the matrimonial home; that he is not aware whether PW1 lodged a complaint against RW1 and his family members on 01-05-2015; that during negotiations, he asked RW1 to return the belongings pertains to PW1 on which RW1 told that he is not in the custody of such belongings and denied the suggestion of the petitioner that the matter was placed before the elders and the elders insisted PW1 for withdrawing the complaint and forced her to sign on one blank paper.

27.After going through the entire evidence of RW2 in his chief and cross examinations in detail referred to above, it is evident that RW2 is not having personal knowledge about any of the details of marriage of PW1 and RW1 and their family affairs except he/Rw2 acted as one of the elders for settlement of the disputes in between

RW1 and PW1 during which PW1 executed a letter on 05-05-2015 stating that she wants to desert RW1 permanently. In fact, the respondents did not choose to confront

Ex.R1/letter before him for the purpose of confirmation that he signed said letter dated 05-05-2015 as one of the attestors for the reasons best known to them. Be that as it may, in her cross-examination Pw1 has clearly admitted that she executed Ex.R1/letter and she never claimed that her signature was obtained on a blank paper and the same was created as Ex.R1/letter. Admitted facts need not be proved as per Sec 58 of IE Act.

Thus, Ex.R1/letter can safely be relied upon.

28.On perusal, the contents of Ex.R1/letter dated 05-05-2015 shows that when the marriage disputes between PW1 and RW1 were placed before the elders on 05-05- 2015, PW1 executed said letter stating that she wants to desert RW1 permanently. But in the said letter, no reason is asigned as to why PW1 wants to desert RW1 permanently. In the absence of any reason for her desertion in the said letter it cannot be said that the contents of Ex.R1/letter supports either the case of PW1 or that of

RW1, but it only discloses that due to disputes in between them PW1 wants to desert 14

RW1 permanently. Thus, Ex.R1/letter only proves that there are marriage disputes in between PW1 and RW1 due to which PW1 wants to desert RW1 permanently.

29.Even RW2 did not whisper as to why the disputes cropped up in between PW1 and RW1. Thus, without any hesitation, I hold that the evidence of RW2 coupled with

Ex.R1/letter is not at all helpful for RW2 to prove that PW1 developed extra marital relationship with one Nani and as such, she deserted RW1 voluntarily on her own accord. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that in his cross-examination RW1 has admitted that on receipt of Ex.P3/legal notice got issued by PW1, he got issued

Ex.P4 reply notice, wherein he did not mention either the name of the alleged paramour or any of his details and further admitted that even in his counter he did not mention about the said details. But, surprisingly in his chief examination by way of chief affidavit he got mentioned the name of alleged paramour of PW1 as Rajendra @ Nani of

Kakinada without giving any explanation as to how he secured said details. Even Rw1 has suggested to PW1 that she developed extra marital relationship with one Rajendra of Kakinada, which was denied by PW1. If really what RW1 has stated is true and correct, the million dollar question is as to why he kept quite till 2015 since it is an admitted fact that both RW1 and PW1 together stayed in Kakinada from 2006 to 2012 and thereafter they both returned to Eluru in 2012 and lived together till 22-02-2015. All these circumstances highly improbable the case of RW1 and more probable the case of

PW1.

30.RW3 is also distant relative of RW1.He has also supported the case of RW1 and stated the same facts as stated by Rw2 and thus his evidence in his chief is nothing but replica of the evidence of Rw2. But, in his cross-examination, RW3 has admitted that he was not physically present during marriage negotiations but he was told by RW1 what transpired in between him and PW1. Thus, this part of the evidence clearly proved that

RW3 has no personal knowledge as to what was happened in between RW1 and PW1.

Thus, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of RW3 and his evidence can safely be deleted from out of consideration.

15

31.RW4 has stated that she is the neighbour to the house of RW1 and PW1 when they both lived together at Thangellamudi. Her evidence shows that RW1 is working as

Mason and when he goes out for his work, one Rajendra @ Nani used to come to the house of RW1 and PW1 and when the members of Mahila Mandil questioned PW1 and said Nani, PW1 informed them that said Nani is her cousin and he is resident of

Kakinada; that on 12-02-2015, when RW1 went out from his house for his coolie work and returned at 10.30 A.M. due to his ill-health he noticed PW1 with said Nani on a bed on which RW1 raised cries, then she and the members of Mahila Mandil went there and tried to catch hold said Nani, but he escaped on which RW1 telephoned to his father-in- law/PW2 on the same day and in turn Pw2 came to the house on the next day and he and the members of Mahila Mandel including herself reprimanded PW1 for her misbehaviour, but PW1 did not heed said warning and on the next day, she herself voluntarily left the matrimonial home without information to RW1. RW4 has further sated that either the parents or relatives of RW1 never visited the house of RW1 and PW1 at

Thangellamudi, but PW2 used to visit the said house and 3 months after the above incident, she/Rw4 came to know that PW1 lodged a Police case against RW1 and his family members; and that with the aid of Police, PW1 and her relatives came to the said house and took away the household articles even though the members of Mahila

Mandel and the Police of Mahila P.S. obstructed. To prove that she is also resident of

Thangellamudi by then Rw4 has filed xerox copy of Ex R2 Adhar card and the same was marked subject to filing of it’s original.

32.In her cross-examination, RW4 has stated that she did not attend the marriage of

PW1 and RW1; that she did not file the original of Ex.R2/Aadhar card; that she did not visit the house of PW1 and RW1 when they were living together; that she is not a member of Mahila Mandel; that she did not produce any documentary proof to show that PW1 developed illegal intimacy with said Nani; that she is not acquainted with said

Nani and denied the suggestion of petitioner that all the averments in her proof affidavit are absolutely false and that he is deposing false.

16

33.After going through the evidence of Rw4 in her chief examination by way chief affidavit referred to above, without any hesitation it can be said that whatever RW4 has stated in her chief affidavit is nothing but an improvement since RW1 neither has pleaded in his counter nor stated in his evidence the facts which are stated by RW4.

That apart admittedly and evidently RW4 did not file her original Aadhar card of Ex.R2 for the reasons best known to her, by which an adverse inference can be drawn against her evidence that she is not the neighbour of RW1 and PW1 at Thangellamudi. Besides that admittedly she does not know who is said Nani. Taking into consideration of all these facts, without any hesitation, I hold that RW4 is nothing but a planted witness and thus, she is not at all a trustworthy witness to be relied upon. Therefore, her evidence can safely be deleted from out of consideration.

34.After going through the evidence of RWs1 to 4 in detail coupled with Exs.R1 and

R2, without any hesitation, I hold that RW1 has miserably failed to prove that his marriage with PW1 is love marriage and that PW1 developed extra marital relationship with alleged Rajendra @ Nani as contended by him. It is settled law that attributing extra marital relationship against wife without any basis itself amounts to cruelty. Thus, without any hesitation, I hold that PW1 was subjected to domestic violence in the hands of RW1. That apart as per the discussion held supra, PW1 has clearly established that at the instigation of respondents 2 to 5, RW1 harassed and subjected her to cruelty, physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, PW1 is entitled for the reliefs under DVC Act subject to proof.

35.Coming to the relief of maintenance, the trial Court granted maintenance of

Rs.5,000/- to PW1. The learned counsel for RW1 has argued that the same is excessive. Whereas the learned counsel for PW1 has argued that granting an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance to PW1 is very meager while drawing my attention to the fact that RW1 is having vast properties of his own, but, the trial Court did not consider the said fact while granting maintenance.

36.It is an undisputed fact that PW1 did nursing course at Kakinada college. But, no iota of evidence is let in by RW1 to prove that she is earning any income as a nurse or 17 having any other source of income. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that PW1 is having financial capacity to maintain herself. On the other hand, PW1 has admitted in her cross-examination that RW1 is working as Mason. But, she did not file any document in the lower Court to prove that RW1 is having any immovable properties of his own. But, in the appeal suddenly she filed Crl. M.P.No.92/2018 under Section 311

Cr.P.C. along with two computer copies of Form 1 B (ROR) dated 24-08-2017 showing that grandfather of RW1 Late Chodimella Nagaiah is the owner of Ac. 3.18 cents of land in R.S.Nos.18/5, 18/4, 15/6, 15/2, 15/1 and the father of RW1 namely Chodimella

Saidulu is the owner of Ac.0.27 cents of land in survey No.18/2 of Kothapalli village,

Denduluru Mandal, which are devolved on RW1. The learned counsel for PW1 has argued that the said documents show the financial capacity of RW1. But, PW1 did not assign any reasons as to why the said documents were not filed before the trial Court.

For the sake of arguments, even if they are believed basing on said documents, PW1 is not entitled for enhancement of the maintenance awarded by the trial Court, since, the trial Court rightly considering the financial capacity of RW1 that he is a mason and having landed property as stated by RW2 granted Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance of PW1 which is not at all excessive being just and reasonable. Thus, without any hesitation, I hold that PW1 is not entitled for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.5,000/- per month as awarded by trial Court. Therefore, the Crl.

M.P.No.92/2018 is dismissed having no merits.

37.Coming to the return of dowry amount of Rs 50,000/- to Pw1, the learned counsel for RW1 has argued that granting such relief by the trial Court is erroneous being not based on the evidence available on record, but based on presumptions and assumptions. PW1 has clearly pleaded in her petition and stated in her evidence that at the time of her marriage with RW1, her father/PW2 paid Rs.50,000/- towards dowry amount. RW1 has seriously disputed the said fact by contending that his marriage with

PW1 is love marriage and their marriage was performed without the consent of the elders and as such, question of paying the said amount as alleged does not arise. But, 18 as per the discussion held supra, RW1 failed to prove that his marriage with PW1 is love marriage and thus, I ignored said contention having failed to prove the same.

38.In her cross-examination, PW1 has admitted that she did not file any document to prove that her father/PW2 paid the allege dowry amount, but denied that her father /

PW2 has no financial capacity to pay said amount while admitting that PW2 is doing coconut business. Even in his cross-examination RW1 has also admitted that PW2 is doing coconut business. That apart, in his evidence PW2 has clearly stated that he paid

Rs.50,000/- as dowry at the time of marriage between RW1 and PW1 and that he is doing coconut business and denied the suggestion of RW1 that he is not having any financial capacity to pay said amount.

39.In my considered opinion, it is absurd to expect any documentary proof with regard to payment of dowry since now a days everybody knows that giving and taking dowry is an offence and inspite of that the custom of giving and receipt of dowry prevails all over the society of India irrespective of caste, communities and religions. In such case, non-filing of any document by PW1 in the case on hand, in proof of the dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- is not at all fatal. But, we have to see the attending circumstances of the case regarding the financial capacity of parents of Pw1. As per the discussion held supra, RW1 failed to prove that his marriage with PW1 is love marriage and also failed to prove that PW2 has no financial capacity to pay the said dowry amount. Under these circumstances, now a days paying an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry is not at all unnatural and unbelievable. Therefore taking into consideration of all these facts, I hold that PW1 has proved that her father/PW2 paid

Rs.50,000/- as dowry amount to RW1 at the time of their marriage and thus, she is entitled for return of said dowry amount as rightly ordered by the trial Court. Accordingly these points are answered.

POINT No.2 in Crl.Appeal 349/2016

40.As per the discussion held supra, it is established that PW1 was subjected to domestic violence in the hands of RW1 in particular. Thus, now the question falls for 19 consideration is whether she is entitled for any compensation/damages for

Rs.50,00,000/- as prayed for. At this juncture it is pertinent to note that no iota of evidence is let in by PW1 to prove that any damage or injury is caused to PW1 due to above domestic violence. In the absence of such evidence, PW1 is not entitled for any compensation/damages much less as prayed for. This point is answered accordingly against the petitioner/PW1.

POINT No.3 in Crl.Appeal 349/2016

41.PW1 has claimed for return of gold jewelery and articles by stating that at the time of marriage, her father gifted two gold rings and one pair of gold ear studs weighing six grams, three grams and six grams respectively. But, PW1 did not place any iota of documentary evidence in proof of purchase and presenting of above gold articles. In the absence of said evidence without any hesitation I hold that PW1 is not entitled for return of said gold articles. Accordingly this point is answered against the petitioner.

POINT No.4 in Crl.Appeal 349/2016

42.PW1 has also claimed for return of all her belongings i.e. iron almirah, single cot,

L.G. refrigerator, suing machine HP Gas connection with two cylinders, kitchen wear including her MPH (W) training certificate, marriage certificate, Aadhar card, voter ID and pass book. Except claiming the above belongings PW1 did not file any document in proof that the said belongings were purchased by her or by her father and the same were presented to her and that the same were in the custody of RW1. In the absence of such evidence without any hesitation, I hold that petitioner is not entitled for return of said belongings as claimed for. This point is also answered against the petitioner.

POINT No.2 in Crl.Appeal 299/2016 and POINT No.6 in Crl. Appeal No. 349/2016

43.For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that PW1 has proved that she was subjected to domestic violence in the hands of RW1 in particular and that she is entitled for return of

Rs.50,000/- dowry amount and also entitled for maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from RW1 as rightly held by the trial Court. Simultaneously I hold that PW1 is not entitled for enhancement of maintenance, for compensation/damages of Rs.50,00,000/-, 20 for return of gold jewelery and articles and for return of her belongings as prayed for as rightly rejected by the trial Court. Thus, there is no necessity for this Court to interfere with the calender and judgment and accordingly both the respective appeals preferred by PW1 and RW1 are liable to be dismissed, having no merits.

44.In the result, both the criminal appeal Nos.299/2016 and 349/2016 are dismissed having no merits, confirming the order of the trial Court dated 28-06-2016 in

DVC No.55/2015 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class:

Special Mobile Court, Eluru, West Godavari District. No order as to costs.

Crl.M.P.No.92/2018 in Crl.Appeal No.349/ 2016 is dismissed, having no merits.

The appellant in Crl. Appeal No.299 /2016 i.e. the 1st respondent/RW1 is directed to return the dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- and also arrears of maintenance if any, at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month within one month from the date of this judgment to the respondent/ petitioner/PW1.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 7th day of August, 2019.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT- CUM-

VII ADDL. DIST& SESSIONS COURT,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Copy to:

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class: Special Mobile Court, Eluru, West Godavari District along with entire record in DVC No.55/2015

1

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

WEST GODAVARI: ELURU 

Present: Smt. S. Sarada Devi

VII Additional District Judge,

West Godavari, Eluru

Tuesday, this the 18 th day of December, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.7 of 2011 BETWEEN:

Kanikicherla Janaki.

… Plaintif

And

1. Varada Anjani Kumari.

2. Varada Dharma Rao(Died)

3. Penugonda Srilakshmi.

4. Madisetti Baby Sarojini.

5.Varada Bharathi Lakshmi.

6. Varada Seshanka Pramod.

(Defendants 5 and 6 are added as per the Orders dated 09.06.2014 in

I.A.No.58/2014 being the L.Rs of the 2nd Defendant.) … Defendants

This suit is coming on 16.11.2018 in the presence of

Sri S.V.R.Gandhi, Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri.M.Suryanarayana, advocate for the defendants 1, 5 and 6 ; and of defendant No.2 died; and of defendant No.3 remained exparte; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The above named plaintif filed this suit against the defendants for partition of schedule properties into 5 equal shares and for separate possession of one such share to the plaintif; and to award past profits from the date of suit till payment; and to render true and proper account of income from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession of her share and for costs of the suit.

2.The case of plaintiff in brief as per plaint averments is as follows:-

The 1st defendant is the mother of the plaintif. The plaintif, defendants 3 and 4 are the daughters and the 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant who is the wife of late. Gopala Krishna Rao. Late Gopala Krishna Rao is the absolute 2 owner of the properties described in the schedule and he died intestate on 28.05.1992. The defendants 1 to 4, plaintif are being wife, son, daughters became entitled to the plaint schedule property. During his life time he informed the plaintif that all his children have to take equal share in the plaint schedule properties including gold and silver articles described in the plaint schedule and also the amounts in his business and investments. Late. Gopala Krishna Rao did human hair business and earned lot of wealth and purchased Gold and Silver. He used to purchase old iron and bottles etc, and sell it and earned huge profits and also made fixed deposits. After his death his only son i.e., 2nd defendant has been continuing the business and earning huge profits. All the plaint schedule properties are joint properties. Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is a residential house consisting of ground and first floor and the defendants 1 and 2 let out some portions therein to the tenants and realizing good amount of income towards rents every month. Item NO.2 of the plaint schedule is a commercial house located in Main Bazar consisting of ground and first floor and let out to the tenants and realizing good amounts of income. Item NO.3 is a flat in the residential apartment and it was also let out to tenants and realizing good amounts of income. Item No.4 consists of gold ornaments and silver articles and that Late.Gopala Krishna Rao possessed the same as on the date of his death. The defendants 1 and 2 intentionally withhold the particulars of other properties and

Bank deposits, cash balance in the business, investments and other particulars regarding business of Late.Gopala Krishna Rao. Defendants 1 and 2 have been assuring and promising to efect partition of all the plaint schedule properties into five equal shares, but postponing the same on some pretext or other. The plaintif reposed confidence on the defendants 1 and 2 that they would stick to their promise, but they betray her confidence and deceived her. The defendants 1 and 2 developed hostile attitude and creating false documents to avoid partition and started acquiring other properties secretly with the income derived from the joint properties and business. Defendants 1 and 2 have been collecting rents on the plaint schedule properties and enjoying the same without rendering true and 3 proper account of income. The plaintif got issued a legal notice dated 30.08.2010 to the defendants 1 to 4 and the defendants 1 to 3 received the said notice, but they did not send any reply. The notice sent to 4th defendant was returned. The defendants 1 and 2 are getting a net income of Rs.20,000/- per month from the plaint schedule properties. Pending suit, the 2nd defendant died on 25.12.2012.

The 1st defendant is the mother; the 5th defendant is the wife; and the 6th defendant is the son of the deceased/2nd defendant and they are the class I heirs of the deceased-2nd defendant. Therefore they are bound and liable to render true and proper account of the income from the plaint schedule property and pay the defendant 1/5th share therein. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendants 3 and 4 remained exparte.

4.The 1st defendant filed written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint and submitted that nothing was earned by her husband in his business and did not purchase any gold or silver as he sustained huge loss in his business and that no fixed deposits stood in his name. She and the 2nd defendant did not get any opportunity to continue the alleged business and it was stopped during the life time of said Gopala Krishna Rao. They never promised the plaintif that they will render accounts in respect of the income arising out of the business run by the 2nd defendant and denied that Item No.3 was purchased from out of the income arose from the alleged business. She never withhold the particulars of any properties alleged to have been earned by her husband. Whatever the properties owned by Gopala Krishna Rao were inherited from his adopted mother by virtue of registered settlement deed dt:19.11.1948.

Except Item Nos.1 and 2, the other properties were lost during the life time of the adopted mother of Late Gopala Krishna Rao. Her husband Gopala Krishna Rao executed a Will dt:21.02.1992 in sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing

Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties by creating life interest in her favour and vested remainder in favour of the 2nd defendant and as such they are neither joint properties nor liable for partition. After receipt of the legal notice, she along with other defendants explained the factual position to the plaintif and the 4 elders also admonished the plaintif to withdraw her speculative litigation as it will not serve any purpose. This defendant is not liable to pay anything to the plaintif and the suit is mis-conceived and is filed to get unlawful gain. Contending so, this defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.During his life time the 2nd defendant also filed separate written statement reiterating the same contentions as raised by the 1st defendant referred to above.

Thus, the contents of the written statement of the 2nd defendant are not referred- to herein to avoid repetition.

6.The 2nd defendant died pending suit and as such defendants 5 and 6 are added as per the Orders dt:09.06.2014 in I.A.58/2014 being his L.R’s. After impleading them, the defendants 5 and 6 filed the written statement, adopted by 1st defendant reiterating the same contentions as raised by the 2nd defendant in his written statement. Thus, the contents of the written statement filed by D5 and

D6 are also not referred-to herein to avoid repetition.

7.The plaintif has filed her rejoinder denying all the contentions raised by the defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6 in their written statements while contending that the Will

dated 21.02.1992 said to have been executed by her father Gopala Krishna Rao is

false and submitted that in fact her father Gopala Krishna Rao died intestate and he never executed any Will, more so the alleged Will dt:21.02.1992, but the said

Will is forged and fabricated and brought into existence by the defendants to defeat her claim. She has further submitted that she got issued legal notice

dt:30.08.2010 to the defendants 1 to 4 and the same was acknowledged by them,

but they did not send any reply stating about said Will. That apart after the death of Gopala Krishna Rao the defendants 1, 3 and 4 jointly executed a registered settlement deed dt:08.01.2010 wherein it is specifically mentioned that her father

Gopala Krishna Rao died intestate on 28.05.1992 indicating that the said Will set up by the defendants is utter fabrication and concoction in order to defeat her claim. Contending so, she prayed the Court to reject the false and forged Will and to decree the suit as prayed for with costs.

8.Basing on the pleadings my predecessor in office settled the following 5

Issues for trial on 23.08.2012:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of plaint schedule properties as sought for?

2) Whether the Will dt:21.02.1992 pleaded by the defendants is true and correct?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to past profits as prayed for?

4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to future profits?

5) To what relief?

9.As could be seen from the record, ignoring the issues noted above settled on 23.08.2012, mistakenly the then Presiding Officer again framed the following issues on 08.11.2016:

1) Whether Will dt:21.02.1992 is true, valid and last testament of Gopala Krishna Rao?

2) Whether Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property belongs to Gopala Krishna Rao or not?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of plaint schedule

properties into five equal shares and allotment of one such share to

the plaintiff?

4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of past profits for the years 2008 to 2010 with interest?

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for seeking the relief of rendition of accounts by D1 and D2?

6) To what relief?

10. Be that as it may, both the issues settled on 23.08.2012 and 08.11.2016 referred to above are similar to each other. However, the issues framed on 23.08.2012 being earlier in time will be considered while dealing with the subject matter of the present suit for the purpose of convenience and to avoid confusion.

11.During trial Pws1 and 2 are got examined and Exs.A.1 to Ex.A6 are got marked for the plaintif. On the other hand Dws.1 to 7 are got examined and

Exs.B1 to B9 are got marked for the defendants.

12.Heard both. Besides submitting the oral arguments both plaintif and defendants filed their respective written arguments.

13.ISSUE Nos.1 and 2(as settled on 23.08.2012):- Since these two issues 1 and 2 are inter related and inter linked, they are dealt together. The case of plaintif in nut-shell is that all Item Nos.1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties are 6 joint family properties of her and the defendants 1 to 4 and as such she is entitled for 1/5th equal share in the said properties since all the said properties are acquired by her father Gopala krishna Rao, who died intestate on 28.05.1992 leaving her and the defendants 1 to 4 as his sole class-I legal heirs and legal representatives.

14.The case of defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6 is that the said Gopala Krishna Rao had earned nothing in his business and he did not purchase any gold or silver as shown in item no 4 and in fact he sustained huge loss in his business and no fixed deposits are in his name or in the name of his wife; that the said Gopala Krishna

Rao never earned Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property but he inherited the same from his adopted mother and except the said properties all other properties were lost during the life time of his adopted mother; that said

Gopala Krishna Rao executed a Will 21.02.1992 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties in favour of

D1 as life interest and vested remainder in favour of D2 and as such the said properties are neither joint nor liable for partition; and that Item Nos.3 and 4 of the schedule properties are nothing but imaginary and in fact the 2nd defendant is nothing to do with the said properties and as such the plaintif is not entitled for partition of the schedule properties.

15.Both the parties have admitted the relationship in between them. The plaintif and the defendants 2 to 4 are siblings being children of D1/Varada Anjani

Kumari and late Gopala Krishna Rao. Even there is no specific dispute that late

Gopala Krishna Rao died on 28.05.1992. It is also not in dispute that the 2nd defendant who is the son of D1 and Gopala Krishna Rao died pending suit and as such his wife and son are impleaded as his legal representatives as D5 and D6 as per Orders dt:9.06.2014 in I.A.58/2014.

16.According to plaintif her father Gopala Krishna Rao owned and possessed the plaint schedule properties covered under Item Nos.1 to 4 and he died intestate on 28.05.1992 and as such she along with the defendants 1 to 4 are 7 entitled for 1/5th equal share being his class-I legal heirs U/s.8 of Hindu

Succession Act. Even the case of defendants is that Sri Gopala Krishna Rao inherited Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties from his adopted mother which is not disputed by the plaintif. Thus, undisputedly said Gopala

Krishna Rao owned and possessed Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties by way of inheritance. Thus, the said properties are not ancestral or coparcenary properties and thus, Sec 6 of Act 39/2005 of Hindu Succession Act has no application as contended by the defendants. Once said Gopala krishna Rao owned and possessed Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties by way of inheritance from his adopted mother succession under Sec.8 of Hindu

Succession Act comes into play and automatically the said properties become joint family properties of the plaintif and defendants 1 to 4 being his Class -I legal heirs and that they are entitled for equal shares in the said properties under natural course of inheritance as per Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act subject to condition if he died intestate.

17.But, the defendants contended that said Gopala Krishna executed a Will on 21.02.1992 in sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties, creating life interest in favour of D1 and vested remainder in favour of D2 and as such the said properties are neither joint nor liable for partition. The plaintif has seriously disputed the execution and genuineness of said Will by contending that the defendants set up said Will by creating the same and in fact the said Will is forged, fabricated and concocted to defeat her claim for partition. It is needless to say that the burden lies on the defendants being propounders to prove the execution and genuineness of alleged

Will dt:21.02.1992 dispelling the suspicious circumstances surrounded the said

Will as pointed out by the plaintif.

18.But, surprisingly the defendants not even filed the original Will and stated in the written statement of 2nd defendant that the Will would be filed at the time of trial. But the defendants did not choose to file the original Will during trial and pleaded that they handed over the original Will to their earlier counsel 8

Sri.D.Nageswara Rao and that they are under impression that he filed the said original Will along with the written statement, but subsequently he died and as such they do not know what was happened to the original Will and submitting so, the defendants filed an application and requested the Court to receive the

Photostat copy of the Will. But this Court has dismissed the said application and thus, the Photostat copy of the Will was not received and marked as exhibit for the defendants.

19. To my dismay, even in the absence of the Will as an exhibit on their behalf, the defendants adduced oral evidence to prove the said Will by examining Dws.4 to 6 and filed their respective evidence affidavits. The learned counsel for plaintif raised objection to receive said evidence affidavits of Dws.4 to 6 particularly to the extent of execution of Will on the ground that the Will itself was not marked and thus, any evidence relating to execution of said Will is liable to be discarded, on which the then Presiding Officer recorded said objection while reserving the finding. Definitely the said objection is sustainable since in the absence of the alleged Will as an exhibit on behalf of the defendants, no oral evidence is admissible and looked into under law as laid down in the following case cited by the plaintif:

1. KVK Amarnath Vs.PN Eswaraiah(Died) and others 1 , wherein Her Lordship held in Para No.7 as follows:

“7: In J.Yashoda’a Case(1 Supra), while holding that the conditions laid

down in Section 65 must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be

admitted, it was added by the Supreme Court that secondary evidence of

the contents of documents cannot be admitted without non-production

of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it

within one or other of the cases provided for in Section 65 of the

Evidence Act, 1872. “

20.Thus, the oral evidence of Dws.4 to 6 particularly regarding the alleged Will is rejected being inadmissible. Once the evidence of Dws.4 to 6 is rejected particularly regarding the alleged Will, no evidence is available on record to prove 1 2010(3) ALT 193 High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad (SB) 9 the execution and genuineness of the said Will.

21.That apart, the plaintif relied upon Ex.A5 registered relinquishment deed said to have been executed by defendants 1, 3 and 4 in favour of the 2nd defendant under which they relinquished their joint right and interest in Item

Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties in favour of the 2nd defendant. In fact, the plaintif got marked Ex.A5 relinquishment deed through DW.1/D1 in her cross examination.

22.On perusal, in Ex.A5 relinquishment deed there are clear and specific recitals that “Varada Gopala Krishna died intestate without executing any document regarding his properties.”. These recitals in the registered document highly probable the case of plaintif that Sri.Varada Gopala Krishna died intestate and the Will set up by the defendants is only a myth, invented, fabricated and brought into existence with an intention to defeat the claim of the plaintif for partition. Even this fact highly probable that the defendants weaved a new story that they handed over the original Will to their earlier counsel Sri.D.Nageswara

Rao and they are under impression that he filed said original Will along with written statement and subsequently as he died they do not know what happened to the original Will and thus, they filed a petition to receive the Photostat copy of the Will as argued by the learned counsel for plaintif.

23.Evidently the defendants 1 to 4 are parties to Ex.A5 registered relinquishment deed. Thus, all of them are debarred from adducing any oral evidence contrary to the recitals in the said relinquishment deed since there is a clear bar under Sec.92 of Indian Evidence Act which precludes oral evidence contrary to a document as argued by the learned counsel for plaintif and as per the proposition of law laid down in the following decisions cited by him:

1. Kurella Venkata Satyavathi Vs.Kanyamayini Devendar Yadav 2 , wherein

Their Lordships held in Para NO.34 as follows:

“ 34: The next crucial question that falls for consideration is whether a

party to a document is entitled to adduce oral evidence contrary to its

2 2014(5) ALT 152 (DB) 10

recitals. The underlying object of section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act is

that the admission of oral evidence would defeat the very object of

reducing the agreement to a written form. Section 92 of the Act

postulates that the parties to the instrument are precluded from

adducing oral evidence to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from the

terms of a valid written instrument. However, the party to a document is

entitled to adduce oral evidence under which circumstances he was

compelled to execute the same. Thus, the plaintiff is precluded to

adduce oral evidence contrary to the recitals of the sale deed in

question in view of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.”

2. Korada Sanayasamma Vs.Mandadi Adi Lakshmi and another 3 wherein their lordships held in Para NO.15 as follows:

“15: The consistent version of the 2 nd respondent and the appellant is

that though the latter owned an extent of 44 cents, she sold only an

extent of 17 cents, under Ex.B1. In Ex.B1 it is mentioned that the

appellant was the absolute owner and enjoyer of 44 cents of land in

Sy.No.98/1, within the boundaries mentioned therein and that the same

is sold to the 2 nd respondent. A deed of rectification was executed at a

later point of time, by correcting the survey number, to 98/4. NO mention

was made at that time, to the extent, much less, it was altered. In Ex.A1

also, the 2 nd respondent made a specific reference to Ex.B1, and the

manner in which he acquired the property, namely, by purchase from the

appellant. The extent was clearly mentioned as 44 cents. It is only two

years thereafter, that the 2 nd respondent came forward with the plea,

that the extent covered by Ex.A1 is only 17 cents. When Exs.B1 and A1

clearly mention the extent as 44 cents, it is just impermissible for the 2 nd

respondent and the appellant to plead the extent to be 17 cents. Section

92 of the Evidence Act prohibits them from stating anything contrary to

the recitals in the documents.”

3. V.Kalavathi and others Vs.T.R.Srinivasan and others 4 , wherein His

Lordship held in the middle of Para No.38(d) as follows:

“38(d): the oral evidence is also contrary to the terms of a written

contract and so the bar under section 92 of the Evidence Act will apply

as the evidence is being given to vary the terms of a written document.

This is impermissible legally.””

24. Thus, the defendants are debarred to take a false plea and evidence on their behalf that Varada Gopala Krishna executed a Will dt:21.02.1992 being contrary to the recitals of their own document Ex.A5 relinquishment deed executed by D1, D3 and D4 in favour of D2. Thus, without any hesitation I hold 3 2010(6) ALT 567, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad 4 2018(3) ALD 158 High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad (SB) 11 that the defendants failed to prove the existence of Will dated: 21.02.1992 itself said to have been executed by Sri Varada Gopala Krishna who is the original owner of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties. Thus, the plaintif as class-I legal heir of said Gopala Krishna being his daughter is entitled for 1/5th equal share along with the defendants 1 to 4 u/s.8 of Hindu Succession Act in Item

Nos.1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties.

25.Coming to Item No.3 of plaint schedule property, the defendants contended that the 2nd defendant has not acquired said property and he is nothing to do with said property and in fact the same is not in existence. But, the case of plaintif is that the defendants intentionally withhold the vital document relating to item no 3 of plaint schedule property and therefore she/plaintif secured the registered extract of sale deed dt:21.11.2007 of said property and filed the same under Ex A6.

26.The specific case and evidence of plaintif is that, after the death of Sri

V.Gopala Krishna, the 2nd defendant continued the family business of his father and with the income derived from the family business and also with the income realized from item nos 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties, Item No.3 was acquired in his name and the same was treated and enjoyed as joint family property. The learned counsel for plaintif has argued that the 2nd defendant has impressed the character of joint family property to Item No.3 of the plaint schedule for which no document is necessary. IN support of his arguments he relied upon the following decision:

1. Goli Eswaraiah Vs.Commissioner of Gift Tax, Andhra Pradesh 5 , wherein the question arose for consideration is whether the partition in question amounted to a transfer of assets by the assessee to the three minor children so as to attract the provisions of Section 16(3)(a) (iv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case Their Lordships held at the end of Para No.12 as follows:

5 AIR 1970 SC 1722 (DB) 12

“12. The declaration by which the assessee has impressed the

character of joint Hindu Family property on the self acquired properties

owned by him did not amount to a transfer so as to attract the

provisions of the Act. The revenue shall pay the costs of the appellant in

this appeal.”

27.In fact the defendants did not choose to file said sale deed for the reasons best known to them, but pleaded that item no 3 property not in existence. To disprove the same and in support of her case referred to above, the plaintif got marked said sale deed under Ex.A6 through PW.2 who is no other than her husband. While marking Ex.A6 registered sale deed dt:21.11.2007, the defendants raised objection on the ground that PW.2 is not a party to the said document and as such the same cannot be marked through PW.2. Thus, my learned predecessor marked Ex.A6 sale deed subject to said objection while reserving the finding. There is no force in the said contention, since the subject matter in Ex.A6 sale deed is relevant to decide the issue involved herein though

PW.2 is not a party to the said deed and more over the defendants never disputed the execution of said sale deed and that apart it is a public document. Thus, the said objection is overruled being unsustainable and untenable. Thus, Ex.A6 sale deed is relied upon and looked into.

28.On perusal, It is noticed that Ex.A6 sale deed dt:21.11.2007 was executed in the name of 2nd defendant in respect of Item No.3 of plaint schedule property as he purchased the same from one Lakshmi Durga, W/o.Veera Venkata

Satyanarayana Vara Prasad for valid consideration of Rs.3,33,000/-. The defendants never disputed the said sale deed dt:21.11.2007, but they suppressed the said fact and on other hand, they denied the existence of Item No.3 of plaint schedule property itself by contending that the 2nd defendant is nothing to do with the said property. All these circumstances indicate that the defendants raised a false plea to make believe the Court that no such property i..e, Item No.3 is in existence so as to exclude the same from partition. Thus, relying on Ex.A6 sale deed, I hold that the plaintif has established the existence of Item No.3 of plaint schedule property and that the said property was purchased in the name of D2 for 13 valid consideration. Thus, the onus of proof is shifted to the defendants with regard to the source of income of the 2nd defendant to purchase said property for valid consideration of Rs.3,33,000/-.

29.In this regard the evidence of Dws.1 to 3 is relevant to be considered. In her cross examination DW.1 has clearly stated that her husband Gopala Krishna during his life time used to carry on Human Hair business; that he employed 50 to 60 workers on account of his business that her husband is the only person who used to carry on Hair business at Eluru in those days; that her mother-in-law used to say that he did Iron Business; that her mother-in-law was having gold by the time of her demise; that Item No.2 of plaint schedule property i.e., shop was given under lease during the life time of her husband; that her husband carried on Iron

Scrap Business after closing hair business while admitting in specific terms that after the demise of her husband, her son/D2 continued Iron Scrap Business during his life time who jointly carried on scrap business along with her husband; that D2 had no other business; that by the time of the death of her husband, D2,. D5 and

D6 have been staying in their house; that her husband performed the marriages of his daughter by carrying on her hair business and scrap business, while denying the suggestion that Item No.3 of schedule property was purchased by her husband from out of earnings of his business, while pleading ignorance by stating that she does not know whether it was denied in her pleadings about the existence of Item No.3; that her son/D2 never informed her that he purchased

Item No.3 of schedule property while denying the suggestion that said property was purchased from out of joint family nucleus and that he sold away the same during the pendency of the suit proceedings.

30.DW.2 is an independent witness. In his cross examination even DW.2 has admitted that Gopala Krishna carried on Human Hair Business in his own house; that plaint schedule properties are his properties which were inherited by him; that said Gopala Krishna and his wife/D1./DW.1, his son/D2 and his family members have been residing under the same roof; that even after the demise of

D2, D1, D5 and D6/DW.3 have been residing under the same house I..e, Item 14

No.1; that D2 carried on scrap business; that he does not know the details of dowry and other things given by Gopala Krishna to his three daughters while admitting that the family of Gopala Krishna got huge gold and silver ornaments and articles; and that no settlement had been taken place in his presence among the sisters of the plaintif and plaintif.

31.In his cross examination DW.3/D6 has admitted that his paternal grandfather carried on business of human hair and subsequently he stopped it and started carrying on scrap business; that after the life time of his paternal grandfather

Gopala Krishna, his father/D2 started doing scrap business; that he has not sold away any property acquired by him by virtue of adoption; that Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was given under lease while denying the suggestion that his grandfather Gopala Krishna purchased Item No.3 of plaint schedule property from out of joint family nucleus in the name of his father.

32.The defendants did not choose to file any piece of paper showing that the 2nd defendant did separate business other than the family business of hair business and scrap business and more over as per the evidence of Dws.1 to 3 referred to above if read together it is highly probable that Gopala Krishna and 2nd defendant jointly did their family business and that Item No.3 was purchased in the name of 2nd defendant from out of joint nucleus derived from from the income of Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property which was admittedly given on lease and also the income derived from family business as argued by the learned counsel for the plaintif particularly in the absence of any evidence that the 2nd defendant purchased said property from out of his own and separate income.

Thus, the plaintif has established that even Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property is joint family property as the same was purchased from out of joint nucleus and thus, the same is liable for partition and that the plaintif is entitled for 1/5th equal share along with defendants 1 to 4.

33.The learned counsel for plaintif has still argued that the defendants intentionally withhold the vital document Ex.A6 which is within the notice and 15 knowledge of the defendants which amounts to fraud against the Court and the

Plaintif. In support of said arguments he relied upon the following decisions:

1. Syed Sardaruddin Vs.Syed Khaja Moinuddin and others 6, wherein the respondents 1 and 2 filed suit for partition of the suit property on the ground that it was purchased by their father for benefit of entire family even though the sale deed was taken in the name of appellant and the Trial Court decreed the suit, whereas appeal was dismissed, against which the 2nd appeal has been preferred

before the Hon’ble High Court which also dismissed the appeal confirming the

Judgment of the Trial Court which decreed the suit. In this context His Lordship held in the middle of Para No.11 as follows:

“11. It is too difficult to imagine that Section 4 of the Act has the effect

of anulling an adjudication, which has already taken place resulting in

the declaration of rights in relation to a property covered by a benami

transaction. It has to be noticed that Section 4 of the Act does not

contain any non-obstante clause, to neutralize the effect of the

Judgments and decrees, which have already been passed, in relation to

the benami transactions.”

2. S.P.Chengalaraonaidu(Dead) Vs.Jagannadh (Dead) by LR’s and others 7 , wherein Their Lordships held in the middle of Para Nos.7 and 8 as follows:

“ 7. WE do not agree with the High Court that “ There is no legal duty

cast upon the plaintiff to come to Court with a true case and proved by

true evidence”.

“8. A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the

documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he

withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side

then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the

opposite party.”

34.Even in the case on hand, the defendants withhold the vital document Ex.A6 sale deed executed in the name of D2 regarding Item No.3 of plaint schedule property which amounts to playing fraud against the plaintif and the Court as the defendants intentionally suppressed said document and also denied the existence of Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property only to derive unlawful gain, 6 2004 (6) ALD Page 802 High Court of Judciature at Hyderabad (SB) 7 AIR 1994 SC Page 853 (DB) 16 advantage and benefit for themselves and to cause loss to the plaintif and make believe the Court that there is no such property in existence as argued by the learned counsel for the plaintif.

35.Coming to Item No.4 of plaint schedule property that is gold ornaments and silver articles mentioned there in the list, in her cross examination DW.1/D1 has clearly admitted that her mother-in-law was having gold by the time of her demise and except her husband there are are no other legal heirs to her mother- in- law in which case definitely her husband had inherited said ornaments. Even

DW.2 has stated that the family of Gopala Krishna got huge gold and silver ornaments and articles as referred to above, which is contrary to their own pleadings in the written statement of defendants that no gold and silver ornaments and articles were acquired by Gopala Krishna. Thus, the plaintif has admittedly established the existence of the listed mentioned gold ornaments and silver articles which are shown as Item NO.4 of plaint schedule property, in such case the burden lies on the defendants to give an explanation as to what happened to Item No.4 of plaint schedule property. But no such explanation is given by them which highly probable that the defendants 1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of said property as joint family properties. Thus, the plaintif is entitled for even 1/5th equal share in the said item No.4 of the plaint schedule property along with the defendants 1 to 4.

36.Thus the ultimate conclusion that emerges from the discussion held supra, is that the plaintif has established that Item Nos.1 to 4 are joint family properties and that the defendants failed to prove that Gopala Krishna executed a Will

dt:21.02.1992 much less in sound and disposing state of mind and thus, the Item

Nos. 1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties are liable for partition into 5 equal shares and that the plaintif is entitled for 1/5th equal share in all Item Nos.1 to 4 of plaint schedule properties and one such equal share is to be allotted to her for separate possession and enjoyment as prayed for. Accordingly, these issues 1 and 2 are answered.

17

ISSUE NO.3:

37.The plaintif has claimed past profits of Rs.72,000/- for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 from out of Item Nos.1 to 3 plaint schedule properties. As per the discussion held supra, Dws.1 and 3 have admitted in their cross examinations that

Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was given under lease during the life time of her husband. Whereas DW.1 has stated that herself and the defendants 2, 5 and 6 have been residing in Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and after the demise of D2, herself, D5 and D6 are residing in the said property. The plaintif did not elicit any fact from the mouths of Dws.1 to 3 in support of her case and evidence that Item Nos.1 and 3 are realizing good amount of income towards rent every month. Even the plaintif failed to prove as to what is the amount derived from Item nos.1 to 3 particularly from Item No.2 which was given under lease. In the absence of such evidence without any hesitation I hold that the plaintif is not entitled for any past profits much less Rs.72,000/- as claimed for. This issue is answered against the plaintif.

ISSUE NO.4:

38.Coming to the issue of future profits definitely the defendants got every obligation to render true and proper account of income of Item Nos.1 to 3 from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of possession of the 1/5th share to the plaintif as prayed for having been in possession and enjoyment in the same and that the plaintif is at liberty to file a separate application with regard to future profits in respect of Item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties following the due procedure as contemplated under law. Accordingly this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintif.

39.In the result, the suit is decreed in part, directing partition of Item Nos.1 to 4 of plaint Schedule properties into five equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintif for her separate possession and enjoyment, directing the defendants to render true and proper account of income from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of possession of the 1/5th share to the plaintif and that the plaintif is at liberty to file a separate application following the due procedure 18 as contemplated under law in respect of future profits. The suit claim of the plaintif regarding past profits is dismissed. Under the circumstances of the case both parties are directed to bear their own costs. Accordingly the suit is decreed in part and dismissed in part.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 18th day of December, 2018.

VII Addl. District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1­ Kanikicherla Janaki.DW.1: V.Anjani Kumari. P.W.2 – Kanikicherla Prabhakara Rao.DW.2: Gadamsetty Kasi Ganesh Kumar. DW.3: Varada Sashanka Prasad. DW.4: Somisetti Srinivasulu. DW.5: Burlagadda Manikyala Rao. DW.6: Umma Venkata Anjaneya Ram Kumar. DW.7: Samudrala Durga Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1/­­:Office copy of the legal notice. Ex.A.2/­­:Postal acknowledgment of D1. Ex.A.3/­­:Postal acknowledgment of D2. Ex.A.4/­­:Postal acknowledgment of D4. Ex.A.5/­­;Certified copy of settlement deed. Ex.A.6/­­:Certified copy of sale deed.

FOR DEFENDANTS: 

Ex.B.1/­­: Ex.B.2/­: Wedding Invitation. Ex.B.3/­­:Photograph with corresponding CD. Ex.B.4/­­:Other photograph. Ex.B.5/­­:`Bunch of Electrical Bills. Ex.B.6/­­:Bunch of property tax demand notices. Ex.B.7/­­:Photostat copy of memorandum of deposit of title deeds. Ex.B.8/11.10.2012: Photostat copy of registered sale deed executed by Varada Raja Babu in favour of Thota Udaya Kumar. Ex.B9/­­: Photostat copy of statement of encumberance on property in survey No.451 from 01.01.1983 to 29.08.2018.

VII ADJ

Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST

GODAVARI DIVISION, ELURU.

Present: Smt. S.Sarada Devi

VII Additional Sessions Judge,

West Godavari, Eluru.

Friday, this the 27th day of December, 2019.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.471 of 2016

From what Court the appeal: Additional Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Eluru. is

No. of the case in that Court: S.C.No.42/2015

No. of the Criminal Appeal: Criminal Appeal No.471/2016

Name and description of the: 1.Kandikonda Jaya Raju S/o. Venkata Ratnam, Hindu, Male, aged 31 years, Gollagudem Village, Appellants/A1 and A2 Unguturu Mandal, West Godavari District.(A1) 2.Manukonda Maha Raju s/o. Venkayya, Hindu, Male, aged 52 years, R/o. Kommara Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West Godavari District. (A2)

Name and Description of the: The State, SHO., Dwaraka Tirumala P.S., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, West Godavari District, Eluru Respondent/complainant

The Sentence and Law and: In the result, Accused 3 to 8 are found not guilty for the charges under Sections 447, 324, 307 r/w which it was imposed in the Sec. 149 of IPC., and they are acquitted under Lower Court Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. A1 and A2 are also found not guilty for the charges under sections 307, 447 of IPC., and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. A1 and A2 are found guilty of the charge under Section 324 of IPC., and accordingly they are convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., and A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for One year each for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. The period of remand i.e., from 07­06­2014 to 21­06­2014 already undergone by A1 and A2 shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. A1 and A2 are informed of their right to prefer appeal and also to approach District Legal Services at Eluru for legal aid if they have got no means to engage a counsel. M.Os. 1 to 6 I..e, crowbar, iron strip, bamboo sticks and wooden log, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds and surety bonds of A3 to A8, if any , shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

2

Whether confirmed, modified: or reversed and if modified ­CONFIRMED­ the modification

Date of presentation: 11.11.2016

Date of filing: 16.11.2016

Date of notice issued : 18.11.2016

Date of Bail bond: ­­

Date of appearance: 19.12.2016

Date of hearing: 11.11.2019

Date of Judgment: 27.12.2019

 This appeal is coming for hearing before me on 11.11.2019, on perusal of grounds of appeal and the evidence available on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri.G.Ronald Raj, Advocate for Appellants/A1 and A2; and the

Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent/State and having stood over

for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by the calender and judgment dated 16.06.2016 in S.C.No.42 of 2015 passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru, the appellants/A1 and A2 have preferred this appeal as they were found guilty, convicted under Section 235 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One year each, for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the Trial Court.

2.Originally the prosecution/respondent herein filed charge sheet in

S.C.No.42/2015 against the A1 and A2/Appellants herein along with 6 others accusing that they committed the offence punishable under sections 447, 324, 307 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC.

3

3.The case of Prosecution in brief that culled out from the charge sheet is as follows:­

That the father of the defacto­complainant viz., Kothapalli Ramakrishna has purchased Ac.3.91 cents of agricultural land and also Ac.0.06 cents of house site which is located at Kommara Village of Dwaraka Tirumala from one

Manukonda Durgamma, who is the relative of the accused in the year, 2012; that due to some reasons the property fell in disputes and as a result, some cold war has run in between both the parties; but the accused who are no way concerned to the above transactions have been interfering uncessarily into the said disputes by creating terrific atmosphere between the family of the defacto­ complainant and Manukonda Durgamma; that A1 to A8 who are having personal interest, have interfered and according to their plan, all of them decided to take the house site into their possession and also came to conclusion to do away the lives of the defacto­complainant and his family members; that on 05­06­2014 in the morning hours A1 to A8 went to the scene of offence at

Kommara Village and started constructing a thatched house; that in the meantime LW6­Kothapalli Yesubabu who is younger brother of the defacto­ complainant informed the same to the defacto­complainant by phone; on that the defacto­complainant along with his parents came down to Kommara and came to the scene of offence and on that accused abused them by threatening with dire consequences and made an attack on the defacto­complainant and

L.Ws. 6 to 8 K.Yasodha Babu, K.Nagamani and K.Ramakrishna with big sticks, iron rods and with crowbar and PW5 sustained head injury, PW6 sustained swelling injury on her left hand, PW7 sustained fracture of his right hand and further PW1 also sustained injuries on his neck and other parts of the body; thereafter defacto­complainant along with other injured were shifted to

Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru; that PW1 went to police station and 4 gave Ex.P1 complaint. Basing on the same LW12­K.Nageswara Rao, the then

Assistant Sub­Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Tirumala P.S., registered a case in

Cr.No.85/2014 for the offences under Sections 447, 324 and 307 of IPC., and issued Ex.P7 FIR; that during the course of investigation, police observed all formalities and that after receipt of wound certificate and observing all formalities and on completion of investigation, SI of Police filed the charge sheet.

4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole took cognizance of the offences under Sections 447, 324, 307 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC against A1 to A8 and furnished documents to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C and committed the case under Sec.209 (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure to the

Court of Sessions in P.R.C.No.21/2014 since the offence under Section 307 of

IPC., is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and the same is numbered as

S.C.No.42/2015 and made over to Additional Assistant Session Judge’s Court,

W.G., Eluru, for disposal according to law.

5. After receipt of record and on appearance of the accused 1 to 8 before the

Additional Assistant Sessions Court, W.G., Eluru, and upon hearing both the

parties, Additional Assistant Sessions Court, W.G., Eluru framed the charges under sections 307, 324, 447 r/w Section 149 of IPC., against Accused 1 to 8, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for whic as they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, commenced trial.

6.During the course of trial, P.Ws. 1 to 12 were got examined and Exs.P1 to

P12 besides M.Os. 1 to 6 were got marked for prosecution. During the course of cross­examination of PW1 and PW5 Exs.D1 and D2 were got marked for accused. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused 1 to 8 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., during which they denied the 5 incriminating evidence placed before them and accused got examined one

Manukonda Durgamma as DW1 and got marked Exs.D3 to D6 on their behalf.

7.The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru, settled the following point for determination:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt?

8.After full fledged trial and upon hearing both the parties, the trial court found the accused 1 and 2 guilty for the offence under Section 324 of IPC., convicted them under Section 235(2) IPC., and sentenced them for the said charge as referred to above. Aggrieved by the same the accused A1 and A2 alone have preferred this appeal on various grounds. 

9.Heard the arguments on both sides. Besides submitting oral arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants/A1 and A2 has filed written arguments.

10.Points for determination in this appeal are:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants/accused

1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

2. Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the trial Court’s calendar and judgment?

11.POINT No 1: Thelearned counsel for the accused A1 and A2 raised the following points for consideration:

1. that no reliance be placed on the testimony of prosecution witnesses being not trustworthy while drawing my attention to the respective admissions made by them in their respective cross­examinations.

2. that the prosecution failed to fix the scene of offence as alleged;

3. that the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged victims Pws 1 and 5 to 7 received grievous injuries, since the ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses is not supported by medical evidence in this regard; 6

4. that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged enmity or motive attributed against the accused to perpetrate the alleged offence;

5. that the facts and circumstances of the case highly probable the case of accused that P.Ws. 1,2,5 to 7 are trying to grab the properties of DW1 and in that process this false case is fiosted;

6. that the evidence of DW1 is trustworthy, which is supported by Exs.D1 to D4 showing that she has been in the possession of the property but not the prosecution witnesses as alleged;

7. that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offences charged;

8. that non­examination of DW1 by the prosecution is fatal to their case; and

9. that the appellants/A1 and A2 have no criminal antecedents; that they have no enmity with the prosecution witnesses and in fact the prosecution witnesses have no prior acquaintance at all with the accused A1 and A2, but the accused 1 and 2 are caste elders and have given moral support to the DW1 and thus, this false case is foisted.

12.With the above back ground, the learned counsel for the accused A1 and

A2 has argued that the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused 1 and 2 committed the offence punishable under Sec 324 IPC., against the prosecution witnesses as alleged and in fact the facts and circumstances of the case highly probable the case of accused that P.Ws. 1 and 5 to 7 have made a plan to grab the properties of DW1 who is the original owner and in that process the accused 1 and 2 as caste elders have given moral support to DW1 and as such this false case is foisted against them. Arguing so, he prayed to allow the present appeal having merits and to set aside the calendar and judgment of the Trial Court to the extent of finding the accused 1 and 2 guilty, conviction and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC..

In support of his arguments, he relied upon the following decision:

Kaliram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1, wherein it was held that :

“….the contradiction between the medical evidence and ocular testimony impeaches the credibility of the case of the prosecution.” 

13.On other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution has argued that the Prosecution has proved the case as alleged beyond all 1 AIR 1973 SC 2773 (DB) 7 reasonable doubt through PWs1 to 12 coupled with Exs.P1 to P12 and M.Os. 1 to 6 and that the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence available on record in right perspective, convicted and sentenced the accused for the charge under

Section 324 IPC and thus, there are no merits to allow the appeal and prayed to dismiss the said appeal having no merits while confirming the calendar and judgment of the Trial Court, while drawing my attention that the ocular evidence of prosecution witnesses is supported by medical evidence with regard to the injuries received by PW5 in the hands of the accused A1 and A2.

14.Keeping in mind the contentions of both the parties referred to above, on perusal, the material available on record shows that originally the accused A1 to

A8 were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 327, 307 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC.,, and later on their appearance and upon hearing both the parties, the trial Court framed the charges against the them under Sections 447, 327, 307 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC. But, after full­fledged trial and upon hearing both the parties found the accused 3 to 8 not guilty for all the charges under Sections 447, 324, 307 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC., and also found the accused 1 and 2 not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 447 of IPC., the charges leveled against them and accordingly acquitted them for the said charges under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., and simultaneously, the trial Court found the accused 1 and 2 guilty for the charge punishable under Section 324 of IPC., convicted them under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced them for the said charge as referred to above. Aggrieved by the same, the accused A1 and A2 alone have preferred this appeal on various grounds. Thus, the present appeal is restricted only to the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court to the extent of the charge under Section 324 of IPC. With the above back drop the evidence available on record is to be scrutinized.

8

15.As per the record, the case of prosecution in nutshell is that on 05­06­ 2014 at 10.30 a.m., at the disputed site situated at Kommara Village, the accused 1 to 8 made an attempt on the lives of PW1 and P.Ws. 5 to 7 and caused injuries on them. The case of accused 1 to 8 in nutshell is that they have no acquaintance at all with the material prosecution witnesses Pws 1 and 5 to 7 and thus, question of their having enmity with the material prosecution witnesses

P.Ws. 1 and 5 to 7 does not arise and in fact, P.Ws. 1 and 5 to 7 made a plan to grab the properties of DW1 and in that connection the accused particularly 1 and 2 as caste elders have given moral support to the DW1 and as such, this false case is foisted against them. Thus, the burden heavily lies on the prosecution to prove their case as alleged, by ruling out the case of the accused.

16.In order to prove their case as alleged the prosecution has examined as many as Twelve witnesses as Pws 1 to 12 from out of 13 listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 and M.Os. 1 to 6.

17.According to prosecution, Pws 1 and 5 to 7 are belonged to same family; that P.Ws. 6 and 7 are the wife and husband and P.Ws. 1 and 5are their sons and that all of them are the victims. P.W.1 has submitted Ex.P1 report before

Dwaraka Thirumala Police; P.Ws. 2 to 4 are the independent witnesses. PW3 turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case and as such, his Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P2. Though P.Ws. 2 and 4 supported the prosecution case but their evidence is not helpful to prove the case of prosecution as alleged since they did not attribute any specific overt actsagainst the accused to connect them with the injuries said to have been received by

P.Ws. 1 and 5 to 7; PW8 is the mediator to the scene observation and seizure of material objects MOs 1 to 6. Ex.P3 Scene observation report dated 05­06­2014 and M.Os. 1 to 6 are got marked through PW8; P.Ws. 8 and 12 are medical 9 officers who treated P.Ws. 1 and 5 to 7 and issued Exs.P4 to P6 wound certificates of P.Ws. 5 to 7; P.Ws. 10 and 11 are the investigation officers. Ex.P7

FIR, Ex.P8 rough sketch, Ex.P9 bunch of photographs three in number showing the scene of offence, Exs.P.10 to P12 ­X­ray films along with opinion issued by

PW12 relating to P.Ws. 5 to 7 are got marked through PW10; PW11/the investigation officer only verified the investigation conducted by PW10 and filed charge sheet .

18.On the other hand, to disprove the case of prosecution and to prove their case as contended by them, the accused got examined the owner of the disputed land namely Manukonda Durgamma as DW1 and got marked Exs.D3 to D6 through DW1.

19.Undisputedly, P.Ws. 1 to 7 are material witnesses and out of the same

P.Ws. 1, and 5 to 7 are interested witnesses being victims. But, their evidence shall not be brushed aside on the ground that they are interested witnesses, but their evidence shall be scrutinized in strict sense and if any doubt arises with regard to their trustworthiness, automatically benefit of doubt goes to the accused.

20.In the light of the contention raised by the accused that no reliance be placed on the testimony of prosecution witnesses being untrustworthy as per their own admissions, it is apposite here to scrutinize their evidence available on record with great care and caution. Pw1 is the brother of PW5 and the son of

P.Ws. 6 and 7. Evidence of PW1 shows that in the year, 2007 his father/PW7 purchased a vacant site of Ac.0.06 cents of land at Kommara village besides agricultural land of Ac.3.91 cents from Manukonda Durgamma/DW1 in the year, 2007 and ever since, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same; and that 10 his brother/PW5 and his father/Pw7 have been residing in the said site for looking after agricultural operations of their land.

21.Evidence of PW1 further shows that on 05­06­2014 at about 8.30 a.m., he received a phone call from his brother/Pw5 and informed him that the accused have been raising a thatched house in their site on which, himself and his parents proceeded to Kommara Village on their vehicle and after reaching the scene of offence i.e., house site they noticed all the accused raising thatched house in their site, on which when they questioned them, they abused them in filthy language; and that among them the accused A1/Kandikonda Jaya Raju and A2/Manukonda Maharaju and one Manukonda Venkataratnam picked up an iron rod and crow bar and A1 and A2 assaulted his brother viz., Yesoda

Babu/PW5 on his head with said iron rod and crow bar respectively and as a result, Pw5 sustained bleeding injuries.

22.PW1 in his evidence has also stated about the overt acts of the other accused against him and P.Ws. 6 and 7, which is not at all relevant since the subject matter of the present appeal is confined with regard to the offence committed by the accused A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under sec 324

IPC, since the Trial Court found them guilty, convicted and sentenced them under Section 324 of IPC., as the prosecution proved that they beat Pw5 with iron rod and crow bar respectively and caused head injury which is simple in nature. Thus, now the question falls for consideration is as to whether the evidence of PW1 that A1 and A2 assaulted his brother/PW5 on his head with iron rod and crow bar respectively and caused bleeding injuries is supported by other witnesses.

23.As stated earlier P.Ws. 2 to 4 are independent witnesses. But Pw3 did not support the entire prosecution case, by stating that she does not know anything 11 about the present case and as such her Section 161 Cr.P.C.statement is marked as Ex.P2. Thus, her evidence can safely be deleted from out of consideration being not helpful to prosecution in any angle.

24.Coming to the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4, PW2 has stated that she knows the accused as well as PW1 and his family members; that the incident took place about two years back at the house of PW7; that she witnessed the beating of

PW7 and his sons by A2, A3 and A6 and others, but she does not know about the cause for their disputes; that in the said incident PW7 sustained fracture on his right hand; that PW5 sustained head injury; that another son of PW7 by name Pandubabu was also beaten; that the wife of PW7 was also beaten by them on her hands and as a result, she received superficial injuries; and that the above incident took place because of the disputes existed with regard to the land.

25.Even the evidence of PW4 is in the same lines as stated by PW2. Her evidence also shows that the incident took place at about two years back around 10.00 a.m., at the house of PW7; that on that date A1 to A3 beat the sons of PW7 with crow bar and as a result the son of the PW7 sustained head injury; that one of the accused viz., Nagamma/A7 and Somayya/A5 also beat PW7 and his wife and as a result one of the hands of Pw7 was fractured; and that the wife of PW7 also sustained swelling injury on her hand and they were shifted to Government

Hospital, Eluru.

26.On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 in their respective chief­ examinations referred to above as rightly held by the Trial Court, they did not attribute any specific overt act against the accused A1 to A8 particularly against the accused A1 and A2 with regard to the head injury received by PW5 as to in whose hands Pw5 received head injury. Thus, even the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 is not helpful for prosecution to connect the accused A1 and A2 with regard to 12 the head injury received by PW5 though they have supported the case of prosecution with regard to the occurrence of the incident.

27.Coming to the evidence of PW5, he is corroborating with the evidence of

PW1 in all aspects. His evidence also shows that on 05­06­2014 at 10.30 a.m., the incident took place at their house at Kommarra village; that his father/PW7 purchased the land of Ac.3.91 cents from DW1/Manukonda Durgamma in the year, 2007; that his father PW7 also purchased vacant site of Ac.0.06 cents at the same village from DW1 in the year, 2012, for the purpose of looking after the agricultural affairs of the landed property; that after issuance of the pattadhar passbooks in the name of his father/PW7 at the instance of DW1; that ever since they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property; that on that day while he was at their site, all the accused along with DW1 came to their site and made an attempt to raise a thatched house there and immediately, at about 8.30 a.m., he informed the same to his father/PW7 by phone and immediately, PW1 along with his parents came to the said place around 10.30a.m., and immediately, all of them went to the accused and questioned them by taking objection for their attempt in raising thatched house, on which all the accused threatened them with dire consequences and out of them, A1 beat him with iron strip on his head and A2 also beat him with crow bar on his head and as result he sustained head injury.

28.Thus, even the evidence of PW5 shows that A1 and A2 beat him on his head with iron strip and crow bar and caused injuries and thus, his evidence is corroborated with the evidence of PW1 with regard to the injuries by him on his head in the hands of A1 and A2 as they beat him with iron strip and crow bar respectively.

13

29.Pws.6 and 7 are the mother and father of P.Ws. 1 and 5. Their evidence also corroborated and supported the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5 by stating the same facts as stated by them. Evidence of Pws.6 and 7 also shows that when they raised objection before the accused for raising thatched structure in their site, all the accused abused them by causing threats and among them A1 and A2 beat PW5 with an iron strip on his head while A2 also beat him with crow bar on his head and as a result, PW5 sustained head injury.

30. Thus, after going through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 to 7 in detail referred to above their evidence is corroborating with each other and consistent without any discrepancy particularly with regard to the overt acts attributed against A1 and A2 against PW5. Thus, as per their evidence A1 and A2 beat PW5 on his head with iron strip and crow bar respectively and caused injuries on his head. As stated earlier, undoubtedly, P.Ws. 1 and 5 to 7 are interested witnesses and as such, it is not unnatural for giving their evidence in support of the evidence of PW5. But, on the ground that they are interested witnesses, their evidence shall not be brushed aside but, their evidence shall be scrutinized with the medical evidence in order to know their trustworthiness. In this context evidence of PW9 is relevant to be considered.

31.Evidence of PW9/the medical officer shows that he is working as Civil

Assistant Surgeon, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru ; that on 05­06­ 2014 at 2.20 p.m., he examined PW5 and found the following injury: a lacerated injury of size about 3 x 1 inch on top of head; that PW5 was referred to X­ray vide X­ray No.377/dated 07­06­2014, X­ray scalp AP lateral view and it shows no bony injury and accordingly, he issued Ex.P6 wound certificate opining that the injury received by PW5 is simple in nature.

14

32.Thus, even as per the medical evidence through PW9, prosecution has proved that PW5 has received one simple injury on his head, which is simple in nature.

33.Thus, considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1, and 5 to 7 coupled with the medical evidence through Pw9 referred to above without any hesitation, I hold that there is no force in the contention of the accused that the evidence of P.Ws.

1 and 5 to 7 is inconsistent, not trustworthy and not corroborating with each other and also their ocular evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence and accordingly, I ignored the said contention having no merits. Even, I ignored the decision cited by the accused referred to above with due respects to the proposition of law laid down therein being not applicable to the present facts of the case.

34.The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecution failed to prove the motive attributed against the accused and in fact, there is no acquaintance with the accused A1 and A2 in particular and the prosecution witnesses while drawing my attention to the evidence of DW1.

35.As rightly held by the Trial Court, it is well settled law that motive assumes importance only in the cases depending upon the circumstantial evidence but not in the cases basing upon the direct evidence. In the case on hand, the facts and the evidence of prosecution witnesses shows that PW7/the father of PW1 and PW5 purchased the land in an extent of Ac.3.91 cents in the year, 2012 and

Ac.0.06 cents of vacant site where the scene of offence is located in the year, 2007 in the name of PW6 from DW1. But, there are some contradictions with regard to the said fact which are marked as Exs.D1 and D2 from 161

Cr.P.C.statements of P.Ws. 1 and 5. As per Exs.D1 and D2 the land and site were purchased in the year, 2012.

15

36. Adding to that, the prosecution did not choose to place any iota of documentary evidence like registered deed and pattadhar pass books etc., to prove that PW7 purchased the agricultural land and vacant site from DW1 at any point of time. More over, it is further significant to note that the prosecution did not cite the owner of the said property as one of the witnesses as pointed out by the accused.

37.Be that as it may, the accused got examined the owner of the said property as DW1 viz., Manukonda Durgamma. There is no dispute that she is the original owner of the said property. Evidence of DW1 shows that she brought up PW6 and also performed her marriages with PW7 and therefore, initially she has executed the said Will in favour of PW6 and as such originally she has executed a Will in favour of PW6 relating to above property by creating vested reminder; that later she revoked the said Will and again she executed another Will in the year, 2013, in favour of PW6 and her son Sreeramulu; that again she revoked the said Will in the year, 2014. Initially, prosecution witnesses did not whisper about these facts in their respective chief­examinations, but however, when these facts were put forth before them, P.Ws. 1 and 5 to 7 particularly PW6 has admitted all the above facts.

38.That apart, in support of her evidence, DW1 has filed Exs.D3 to D6. Ex.D3 is bunch of adangals (Six in number) pertaining to the landed property of DW1 at

Kommarra Village; Ex.D4 is photograh of thatched hut of DW1 along with CD;

Ex.D5 is certified copy of Will dated 29­01­2013 executed by DW1; and Ex.D6 is certified copy of document dated 16­08­2014, where under Ex.D5 was revoked.

Supporting the case of accused, DW1 has also stated that no such incident took place as alleged, but the accused are implicated in this case as they acted as elders in the above transaction.

16

39.Adding to the above referred facts, in her further chief­examination, PW6 has stated that herself, Sreeramulu, along with DW1 filed a civil suit in

O.S.No.14/2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru, for

permanent injunction against A1 and A3, one Saraswathi and One Ramulamma, since, they took objection for bequeathing the said property in favour of PW6. In support of said fact, certified copy of decree and judgment and the evidence affidavit of DW1 filed in O.S.No.410/2012 are filed and they are marked as

Exs.P8 and P9.

40.Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 to 7 coupled with Exs P8 and P9, if read together with the evidence of DW1 coupled with Exs D3 to D6 referred to above, without any hesitation, it can be said that though prosecution failed to prove the title of Pw6 over the disputed property, but certainly proved that there is a controversy in between both the parties with regard to the title of the property.

There is no dispute that the accused are relatives of DW1 and they supported her in the disputes held in between DW1 and the prosecution witnesses. All these circumstances, highly probable that there are disputes in between the prosecution witnesses Pws1 and 5 to 7 on one side and Dw1 on another side in respect of landed property and that the accused are behind the back of said landed property dispute, which resulted in the present incident. Thus, without any hesitation, I hold that the prosecution has proved the motive behind the incident that took place on 05­06­2014, ignoring the contention of the accused that prosecution failed to prove the motive attributed against them having no merits.

41.The next contention raised by the accused is that the prosecution failed to fix the scene of offence and that the presence of P.Ws. 5 and 7 at the alleged scene of offence itself is doubtful. Even I see no force in the said contention since all the prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 5 to 7 have stated that the scene 17 of offence is a house site at Kommarra village. PW8/VRO., also corroborated the case of prosecution in this regard by stating that the police observed the scene of offence in his presence; that the scene observation proceedings are reduced into

Ex.P3 scene observation report and as per Ex.P3 scene observation report the scene of offence is a vacant site having one thatched hut. Even, Ex.P9 bunch of photographs(three in number) depict the said fact. PW10/Investigation Officer, has clearly stated that photographs are taken to the scene of offence under

Ex.P3/photographs. Even Ex.D4/the photograph filed by the accused through

DW1 depicts vacant site with a hut. Thus, taking into consideration of all these facts, I hold that the prosecution has clearly established the scene of offence is vacant house site at Kommara Village, ignoring the contention of the accused that the prosecution failed to fix the scene of offence, having no merits.

42.The next contention raised by the accused is that the presence of PW5 and

PW7 at the scene of offence on the alleged date and time of the incident is doubtful, while drawing my attention to the admissions made by P.Ws. 1 and 5.

As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is elicited that PW1 and P.Ws. 5 to 7 are residents of Eluru; that PW7 is working as Electrical Line Man and he was on duty on that day and PW5 is a B.Tech. Student. But, on the said sole ground, it cannot be said that their presence at the scene of offence on that day is doubtful since the independent witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 4 have clearly stated their presence at the place of incident on that day and time of incident.

43.That apart, it is also evident that the FIR was submitted in time without any delay and that soon after the incident P.Ws.1 and 5 to 7 got admitted in Area

Hospital and from there PW1 was discharged and P.Ws. 5 to 7 were referred to

Government Hospital, Eluru and PW1 went to Police Station and submitted

Ex.P1 report. Even PW10/Investigation Officer has stated that he received Ex.P1 report and registered the FIR at 3.00 p.m., itself and that the incident took place 18 at 10.00am. Even PW9, the Medical officer has stated that he examined P.Ws. 5 to 7 on 05­06­2014 starting from 2.20p.m. All these circumstances, clearly established the presence of P.Ws. 5 and 7 at the scene of offence on the date and at the time of incident and that there is no possibility of introducing Ex.P1 report with due deliberations and consultations. Thus, I ignored the contention of the accused that there is no possibility of the presence of P.Ws. 5 and 7 at the scene of offence on that date and time of the incident, having no merits.

44.The next contention raised by the accused is that M.Os. 1 to 6 particularly

M.Os. 1 and 2 are planted; that there is no nexus between M.Os. 1 and 2 and the injuries received by PW5 since there is no possibility of receiving of injuries by PW5 with M.Os. 1 and 2, since, the lacerated injuries received by PW5 are not possible with M.Os. 1 and 2, being blunt objects.

45.Evidence of Pw8/the VRO, mediator clearly stated that during scene observation the police seized MOs 1 to 6 under Ex P3 scene observation report which shows the seizure of Mos 1 to 6 which remained unchallenged. In his cross­examination PW9/the Medical Officer has stated that the lacerated injuries are possible to be caused by sharp objects like razer, knife and at the same time, he has stated even the said lacerated injuries be possible with blunt object.

There is no dispute that M.Os. 1 and 2 are blunt objects. As rightly observed by the Trial Court even as per the medical jurisprudence the lacerated injuries are result of bursting of the skin or other tissues from compression or stretching associated with an impact by a blunt object or surface. Thus, I ignored the above contention of the accused, having no force.

46.The learned counsel for the accused has still argued that there is every possibility of receipt of injuries by PW5, due to his fall from moving two wheeler while drwing my attention to evidence of Pw9 in his cross examination. It is 19 evident that in his cross­examination PW9 has admitted that there is possibility of receipt of head injury by PW5 due to his fall from moving two wheeler. But, when the same is suggested to P.Ws. 1 and 5 to 7 by the accused, they bluntly denied, in such event burden lies on the accused to prove their case that Pw5 has received his head injury due to his fall from moving two wheeler as contended by them. But, except putting said suggestion, which was denied by

PWs 1 and 5 to 7, nothing could be elicited from their mouth in support of said contention. Even, no iota of evidence is let in by the accused in support of the said contention. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the accused has proved the above contention since, it is needless to say that mere suggestion without eliciting any fact in support of said suggestion does not amount to evidence. Thus, I hold that accused failed to show the said probability referred to above and thereby failed to prove that Pw5 received his head injury due to his own fall from a moving two wheeler as contended by them.

47.Thus, after meeting all the contentions raised by the accused referred to above without any hesitation, I hold that the prosecution has proved that A1 and

A2 beat PW5 on his head with MO1 ­crow bar and MO2­Iron Strip and caused injuries beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby proved that the accused A1 and A2 committed the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC., the charge leveled against them, as rightly held by the Trial Court. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

48.Point No.2: As per the discussion held supra, the prosecution has proved that the accused A1 and A2 committed the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC., the charge leveled against them, as rightly held by the Trial Court. Thus, the conviction of the accused 1 and 2 under sec 324 of IPC as rightly held by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. Even I find no reasons to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial Court.

20

49.Thus, since the findings of this Court are at par with that of the trial

Court, no necessity arises for this Court to interfere with the Calender and

Judgment of the trial Court and accordingly the same is hereby confirmed while dismissing this appeal having no merits. 

50.In the result, this appeal is dismissed having no merits, confirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 03.11.2016 in S.C.NO.42/2015 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 27th day of December, 2019.

sd/­ S.Sarada Devi

VII Additional Sessions Judge,

West Godavari, Eluru.

Copy To:

1) The Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.

21

1

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Present: Smt. S. Sarada Devi

VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru

Saturday, this the 24 th day of August, 2019

ORIGINAL SUIT No.24 of 2015

BETWEEN:

M/s. Crecer Lakas Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director … Plaintiff

And

M/s. Natural Agro Fuels (P) Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director … Defendant

This suit is coming on 25.03.2018 in the presence of Sri G.V. Nageswara Rao,

Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P. Bhaskara Narasimha Murthy, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff Society filed the suit against the defendant :

a) for recovery of Rs.25,00,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on the

principal amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization;

b) for grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the plaintiff: and

c) for costs of the suit.

2.The case of plaintiff the plaintiff in brief is as follows:-

a) The plaintiff firm is engaged in the manufacture of bio-mass based products, having its registered office at Lakshmipuram, Kavvagunta Post, Pedavegi Mandal, W.G. District.

During the course of its activity, in the month of February, 2012, the plaintiff-firm came through website of the defendant-firm which gave a luring projection as if the defendant- company is the patent holder in certain proprietary technology, know-how and machinery for manufacturing certain biomass-based fuels like briquettes, pellets, charcoal, etc. As the plaintiff-firm intended to buy the same for expanding its business activity, the plaintiff contacted the defendant-firm wherein it represented that it is not interested in selling the machinery being the patent right holder, but it is interested in having a franchise 2 agreement with the plaintiff-firm. It is further submitted that with a view to have personal inspection and demonstration of the so-called machinery, though the Managing Director of the plaintiff-firm personally visited Bangaluru, but the representatives of the defendant-firm failed to give any demonstration of the so-called machinery on some pretext or the other by stating that the other machine would be ready shortly. It is the case of defendant-firm that in case of entering into a franchise agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, it becomes part of the contract of the defendant to take care of the plant, power, land, stock, work force, which goes to show that the defendant is exclusively responsible to take care of the technical aspects including supply of machinery on a ‘turn-key’ basis and to make it operative at the place of the plaintiff-firm. Thereafter there was no tangible progress on the part of the defendant firm either in terms of sending the draft franchise agreement or supply of the machinery in spite of repeated persistence from the plaintiff- firm. Ultimately, a draft franchise agreement was sent by the plaintiff-firm in order to make an expeditious effort in this direction.

b) In the mean time during May, 2012 as the existing machinery of the plaintiff-firm had broken down, the plaintiff-firm requested the defendant-firm to hasten the process of supplying the machine in the franchise mode. As desired by the defendant, the plaintiff- firm has floated a private limited company under the name and style of ‘Crecer Lakas

Private Limited’ and has even sent copy of its registration. Subsequently on 12.06.2012 both the parties entered into a franchise agreement and as per the mutually agreed terms, the plaintiff-firm had also transferred Rs.5,00,000/- on 26.06.2012 to the account of

M/s. Natural Agro Fuels Pvt. Limited towards the license fee. Ever since the plaintiff-firm has been making persistent demands to the defendant to supply the machine in pursuance of the franchise agreement entered into between both the parties, but the defendant was postponing the issue on some pretext or the other, i.e., stating some times that some technical corrections need to be completed to the machine in order to increase the output of the machine or some times transporters at lower rates are not available, etc.

Ultimately though it is not obligatory on the part of the plaintiff-firm, the plaintiff had to bear the transport cost for the transport of the machinery. Yet again the defendant delayed in deputing its technical personnel to make the machinery operational. The 3 plaintiff has made it clear that if machine is not supplied and made operative as quickly as possible and if the production is not commenced, it would be very difficult to achieve the desired results or to adhere to the envisaged schedule or to perform its part of the franchise agreement in a full-fledged manner in view of prevailing tough competition in the vicinity. After repeated persuasions made by the plaintiff firm, ultimately the defendant deputed its technicians in the third week of September, 2012, who came and tried to start the machine, but could not do so on the ground that there is a problem with the motor and the gear box and they are needed to be carried back to Bengaluru for replacement. In view of the urgency of the work, again though it is not obligatory on its part, the plaintiff- firm had to procure the motor and gear box for the machine as per their specifications.

Inspite of such prolonged exercise and concerted efforts by spending its valuable time, money and energy, no fruits could be reaped by the plaintiff from the so-called franchise of the defendant since technicians of the defendant were not successful in running the machine on flimsy and illogical grounds by stating that the raw material is having moisture, etc. But, the so-called plea taken by the technicians was proved to be utterly false and illogical in view of the fact that with the same raw material used in another machine, the output was excellent. The technical personnel of the defendant came forward with yet another plea by stating that the cooling of the oil is not done as per the specifications for which the plaintiff firm had to procure motor of 300 litres/minute capacity which was in a fully sound working condition. The technical personnel of the defendant- firm came forward with yet another plea and represented that they need to go to

Bangalore for replacement. This makes it clear that the so-called problem is not either in the raw-material or the motor, but in the machine supplied by the defendant which has got a technical problem, which could never be identified by the technicians of the defendant.

Eversince any technician from the defendant could neither turn up nor did the defendant take initiative in furtherance of the implementation of the franchise agreement. With a view to maintain cordial relations, the plaintiff firm had to spend huge amounts on various accounts which are not required to be done as per the terms of the franchise agreement.

The ultimate result and status of the case is that the machine is simply lying idle at the premises of the plaintiff firm and is of no use and needs to be taken back and it becomes 4 obligatory on the part of the defendant firm to reimburse the amounts spent by the plaintiff.

c)The detailed narration of the chronology of events that took place since inception exhibits the irreparable loss sustained by the plaintiff firm in terms of money, losing of the market, wastage of its valuable time and energy besides inexplicable mental agony suffered by the Managing Director of the plainitff on account of the inordinate delay on the part of the defendant and miserable failure to make the machine operational till today, which warrants termination of the so-called franchise agreement entered into between both the parties and the consequent reimbursement of the entire amount paid by the plaintiff firm besides damages for the loss of business for a period of more than 6 monhts for no valid reason on account of the inordinate delay on the part of the defendant under various heads. After repeated demands made by the plaintiff to the defendant and having vexed with the dilatory tactics applied by the defendant and its miserable failure to implement the terms of the franchise agreement by making the machine supplied by the defendant, the plaintiff ultimately got issued registered legal notice to the defendant through its Advocate demanding the defendant to refund/reimburse the entire amount including damages and take necessary steps towards the termination of the franchise agreement, dated 12.06.2012 entered into between the parties. The plaintiff also made it clear in its notice that in case of failure in lifting the machine, the plaintiff-firm will not hold any responsibility in this regard, since there is glaring and willful violation of the terms of the agreement on the part of the defendant-firm. Having receivedf the said notice on 28.03.2014, there was no compliance on the part of the defendant. With a view to give an ultimate opportunity to the defendant, the plaintiff-firm got issued another registered legal notice, dated 23.04.2014 to the same address reiterating its demand made in its earlier notice, dated 28.03.2014. Surprisingly, the said notice was returned with a postal endorsement as “No such company in the address”. In order to ascertain the said endorsement, the plaintiff also got verified the website of the Registrar of Companies which reveals that the defendant-company is very much on the rolls of the Registrar of

Companies at the same registered address. This shows that the defendant-company in order to avoid its legal obligation, willfully got returned the subsequent registered notice 5

dated 23.04.2014 by managing the postal personnel, as the same is borne by the record.

As per the terms of agreement, the statutory period of 90 days is completed and as such the plaintiff got filed the present suit. To avoid further loss, the plaintiff-firm procured two new machines from other manufacturer by making fresh investment, which started running excellently with the same raw material rejected by the technicians of the defendant. Thus, the defendant company played fraud upon the plaintiff since inception and ultimately, committed breach of contract, which resulted in huge, irreparable and irrevocable loss. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement, denied all the material allegations made in the plaint while contending that the suit is not maintainable either on fact or on law. The suit is filed to cause wrongful loss to the defendant and to have wrongful gain to the plaintiff. It is submitted that as per Clause No.5.1, the plaintiff has to transfer 51% of his shares on the name of the defendant company within five days from the execution of the said agreement. But, the plaintiff failed to do so not only within five days but till date. Thus, there is a breach of contract entered between the plaintiff and defendant. It is wholly and solely responsible for such deviation from the agreement in question by the plaintiff only.

On 18.09.2012, the defendant sent a letter through E-mail to the plaintiff-firm, wherein it was categorically mentioned that the defendant company decided to terminate the franchise allocation to the plaintiff company and also specifically mentioned that the plaintiff not bothered to transfer 51% of shares as agreed by him. The same letter was duly delivered to the email ID of the plaintiff’s Managing Director (seshkantganta@yahoo.com). In that letter, it was also made clear that if the plaintiff is interested to conduct business, he has to adopt sale model method i.e. purchasing the subject matter of the machine in question by paying the total consideration. Accordingly, in the same mail, the defendant demanded the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- towards purchase of the machine. Further on 19.09.2012, the plainitff sent a reply to the defendant earlier mail, wherein he categorically mentioned that he did not transfer 51% of his shares and also mentioned that the defendant did not furnish the

DIN number. But, the said allegation is false even to his knowledge. In fact, at the time of agreement in question, the defendant furnished the details on DIN number etc., to the 6 plaintiff. Further, he has not positively responded to work out the sale model method of the business. Ultimately, the cumulative effect is that the machine was not delviered and the agreement in question was not acted upon only at the latches of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that they never delivered the machine in nature to the plaintiff at any point of time. Since, the plaintiff has not transferred his shares within the stipulated time of five days from the date of their agreement, or any later date (without admitting the recession), the franchise agreement in question was not acted upon in any manner and the defendant never delivered any such subject matter of the machine to the plaintiff. So consequently, all the contra allegations made by the plaintiff have no legs to stand. The plaintiff failed to invoke the caluses mentioned in clause No.18 of the franchise agreement. Now without complaining the same, he is not supposed to file the suit. Thus, the suit is bad for non- compliance of the ingredients mentioned in the clause No.18 of the agreement in question.

Without mentioning the details and particulars as to when and how the alleged machine in question was delivered, there may not be any cause of action for filing the suit. In the entire lengthy plaint, there is no whisper about the delivery of the machine in questin, by the defendant. So there may be in a question of payment of any such amount, more particularly mentioned in the plaint, rests upon the defendant, in connection with the machine in question. Thus, there is absolutely no cause of action for filing the suit. So, the suit is filed in a speculative and vexacious manner. Without any cause of action, the plaintiff is not supposed to maintain the suit. The suit is bad for non-joinder of all the directories of the Natural Agro Fuels Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff did not file any material to show that he is competent to file the suit and to sign on the plaint. Thus, the suit is not maintainable. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings my learned predecessor in office settled the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs.25,50,000/- as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is enttiled for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.The plaintiff firm got examined it’s Managing Director as P.W.1 and got exhibited

Exs.A1 to A12 for plaintiff. Exs.A9 to A12 are got marked for the plaintiff in the cross- 7 examination of DW1 as he admitted said documents. The Authorized Signatory/Director is examined as DW.1 and no documents are exhibited on behalf of defendant.

6. Heard.

7.Issue No.1:

The case of the plaintiff firm in nutshell is that on 12.06.2012 the plaintiff, defendant and Pw1 entered into a triparty franchise agreement and as per the mutually agreed terms, the plaintiff-firm had transferred Rs.5,00,000/- on 26.06.2012 to the account of defendant Company namely M/s. Natural Agro Fuels Pvt. Limited towards the license fee, but, later the defendant not only delayed in supplying the agreed Machine, but also delayed in deputing its technical personnel to make the machinery operational. However, the defendant deputed its technicians in the third week of September, 2012, but they were not successful in running the machine opertative on flimsy and illogical grounds inspite of huge amounts spent by the plaintiff-firm to make the said machine operative, which are not at all required to be done by the plaintiff as per the terms of the franchise agreement.

Thus, the final result and status of the case is that the Machineries supplied by the defendant company is simply lying idle at the premises of the plaintiff firm without operational till today which needs to be taken back by the defendant having no use. Thus, the defendant company played fraud upon the plaintiff since inception and ultimately, committed breach of contract, which warrants termination of the so-called franchise agreement and the consequent reimbursement of the entire amount paid by the plaintiff firm besides damages for the loss of it’s business for a period of more than 6 monhts for no valid reason except on account of the inordinate delay on the part of the defendant under various heads. But, the defendant kept silent inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff firm including issuance of legal notices twice. Hence, the suit.

8.The case of defendant in nut shell is that the suit is not maintainable either on fact or on law; that the suit is filed to cause wrongful loss to the defendant and to have wrongful gain to the plaintiff; that the alleged machineries was not at all delviered to the plaintiff as alleged and the agreement in question was not acted upon only at the latches of the plaintiff for non compliance of Clause No.5.1 and clauses in clause No 18 of said 8 agreement and thus the suit is bad for non-compliance of the ingredients of said clause no 18 in particular; that the plaintiff firm also has not positively responded to work out the sale model method of the business; that in the entire lengthy plaint, there is no whisper about the delivery of the machine in question by the defendant and without mentioning the details and particulars as to when and how the alleged machine in question was delivered, there may not be any cause of action for filing the suit and thus, there is absolutely no cause of action for filing this suit and in fact the said suit is speculative and vexacious; that the suit is also bad for non-joinder of all the directories of the Natural Agro Fuels Pvt. Ltd; and that the plaintiff did not file any material to show that he is competent to file the suit and to sign on the plaint.

9.Both the parties though have admitted that they entered into Ex.A1/franchise agreement dated 12-06-2012, but they are blaming against each other that the other party is at fault for breach of the conditions in the said agreement. The first and foremost contention rasied by the defendant is that the present suit is not maintainable and liable to be set aisde having no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, since the jurisdiction of civil

Corts is ousted in view of the arbitration clause No.18 of Ex.A1/franchise agreement. Even

PW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that there is an arbitration clause No.18 in

Ex.A1/franchise agreement.

10.To decide the issues involved in the present case documentary evidence is more helpful rather than the oral evidence. On perusal, as per clause No.18.1 and 2 of

Ex.A1/franchise agreement, if any issues arise in between the parties in respect of the said agreement and appedices or any other written agreement the same shall be subjected to arbitration and the Courts at Bangalore will have jurisdiction over all the disputes and if any, such dispute or difference arose between the parties, they shall at first instance attempt to resolve the same by mutual consultation or any party may serve notice to other party requesting such consultation and if within 30 days of service of notice, such dispute or difference has not be settled then the same shall be referred to and settle by arbitration under Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the seat of Arbitration shall be Bangalore, etc.

11.Thus, admittedly and evidently, the governing law of the disputes or differences, if 9 any, arose betweent the parties in respect of Ex.A1/franchise agreement, they shall approach the seat of arbtiration, Bangalore under Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. But, on the said ground, now it cannot be said that the suit is not maintinable and is liable to dismissed as this Court has no jurisiduction to entertain the suit as contended by the defendant since the defendant ought to have raised such objection at the earliest point of time before filing of the written statement and ought to have brought to the notice of this

Court about said arbitration clause. Even after filing of written statement at least, the defendant ought to have brought to the notice of this Court and ought to have requested the Court to frame and decide the preliminay issue about the maintainability of the suit as to whether civil Courts jurisdiction is ousted in view of said arbitration clause and thus, this

Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. But, the defendant did not take any such steps and kept quite, till the fag end of the proceedings and after adducing evidence and after hearing both the parties raised such contention, which is impermissible. All the above circumstances, highly probable that the defendant has waived the arbitration caluse No.18 of Ex.A1/franchise agreement and thus, this Court has ignored the above contention, having no merits and hold that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

12.Now the question falls for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount of Rs.25,50,000/- with interest at 12% per annum as prayed for. On perusal, Ex A1

Franchise agreement dtd 12-06-2012 shows that it is a tryparte agreement whereunder the defendat is a franchisor, shown as 1st party, Pw1 is franchisee, shown as 2nd party and the plaintiff is Company incorporated under Comanies Act and shown as 3rd party. As per clause no 2.2 of said agreement the franchisor/defendant will enter into to the subject to the franchisee/Pw1 ensuring the availability of basic infrastructure mentioned therein i.e..

land measuring 5 acres, building premises of 6,600 sqft etc for the exclusive use of plaitiff company and as per clause no 5.1 the capital investment of the defendant as franchisor and Pw1 as franchisee is at 49% and 51% ratio in the plaintiff Company and the defendant shall supply the machachenaries which values more than INR 25,00,000/- as shown in the Schedule II of said agreement as it’s last page towrds it’s 49% capital investment and that Pw1 as frnchisee shall transfer fully paid up 51% shares in the plaintiff

Company to the defendant Company towards his capital and he shall appoint 2 Directors 10 nominated by the defendant as additional Directors for the plaintiff Company. Even Pw1 has admitted that he did not fulfill the conditions of clause nos 2.2 and 5.1 referred to above.

13.According to PW1 as per the conditions of Ex.A1/franchise agreement, the plaintiff

Company transferred Rs.5,00,000/- towards license fee to the account of the defendant on 26-06-2012 and ever since, he has been making pressures and demands to the defendant to supply the machine in pursuance of said agreement, but the defendant has been postponing the said issue on one pretext or the other and ultimately though it is not obligate on the part of the plaintiff firm to bear the transport costs, but the plaintiff firm borne the transport costs and again, the defendant delayed deputing its technical personnel to make the machineray operation and even after deputing the technical personnel in the third week of September, 2012, their efforts ended in vain inspite of huge expenses incurred by the plaintiff firm though there is no obligatory on their part to bear said expenses.

14.But, surprisingly the defendant has contended that they did not even deliver the said machine to the plaintiff firm and Ex.A1/franchise agreement was not acted upon since the plaintiff failed to fulfill the mandatory clause particularly clause No.2.2, 5.1 and 5.2 (ii)

(b) of franchise agreement referred to above while admitting that they received

Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff firm.

15.In his cross-examination, PW1 has clearly admitted that he did not mention in his plaint and in his evidence affidavit on which date the disputed machine was delivered to him and even he did not file delivery Form before the Court and further admitted that he did not file any document showing that the disputed machine was sent by the defendant.

On perusal, the plaint and evidence affidavit of PW1 does not reveal the above facts as admitted by PW1 referred to above. But at this juncture, it is pertinent to note as per clause No.4.1 under the head of Capital commitment of Ex.A1/agreement, the franchiser/the defendant shall initially contribute the equivalent of INR 25,00,000/- per set of machine listed in schedule II to this agreement as its portion of total capical commitment and the parties agree that the franchisers capital contribution in the company shall be in the form of machinery and shall supply the machinery required to manufacture the 11 products to the company without any cash consideration, subject to the limits set out in clause No.4.3 below and in exchange, the franchisor/defendant shal be issued and allotted such number of fully paid up shares as constitute 51% of the issued and fully paid up share capital of the company in the manner set out in clause No.5.1 referred to above.

16.Thus, as per clause No.4.1 of Ex.A1/franchise agreement, the defendant as franchisor firstly shall supply the machine which costs INR 25,00,000/- towards its capital contribution and that the franchisee/the plaintiff shall issue and allot 51% of paid up share to the defendant company towards their capital investments.

17.On perusal, the schedule II at last page of Ex.A1/franchise agreement under the head of ‘List of machinery provided by franchisor’ shows the machineries supplied by the defendant as franchisor under four categories mentioned therein costs about

Rs.25,80,000/-. Thus, as per said II schedule the defendant supplied the said machinereis to the plaintiff Comany only on paper, since the case of plintiff itself shows that the defendant has supplied the agreed machineries subsequently in the 3rd week of

September on it’s repeated pressure. Be that as it may, admittedly proved that the defendant not supplied the machinaries as shown in the Schedule II of said agreement along with said agreement but supplied subsequently according to plaintiff. In such case burden lies on the plaintiff to prove specifically when the said macheneries were supplied and that the transport charges were borne by plintiff as alleged. But as stated earlier admittedly there is no pleading and evidence to prove as to when the defendant supplied said machineries and even no document including delivery Form and way bill are filed by the plaintiff. But, at this juncture the plaintiff relied upon Exs P9 and P10 E-Mail letters in this regard.

18.In his cross-examination, DW1 has admitted that he addressed Ex A10 E-Mail letter dtd 18-09-2012 and received Ex.A9/email letter dated 19-09-2012, from Pw1. Even the defendant has admitted about said letters in it’s written statement. On perusal, Ex.A10 E- letter addressed by the defendant to the plaintiff Company shows that the defendant company informed the plaintiff Comany that the management of their company decided to terminate the franchise allocation to the plaintiff’s company having observed that the ground realiteis are totally different in their place and that the plaintiff/PW1 did not bother 12 to transfer 51% of their shares and as such they understood the franchise model will not work at their place and as a result, it will become financially unsustainable for them and as such, they feel that franchise model is of not their interest as such they are interested in sale model and want to convert their franchise to sael model while informing that the plaintiff/PW1 has already made a payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and requested the palintiff/PW1 to arrange the balance payment of Rs.15,00,000/-.

19.On perusal, in Ex A9 E-Mail reply letter dtd 19-09-2012, the plaintiff Company clearly mentioned that the defendant/DW1 did not supply even the conveyor as per the specification and now middle of the agreement DW1 called up saying that their Directors have taken a deicision that they are going to terminate franchise, but he being their business partner, they did not consult him for the same but in order to take the machine, which DW1 sent is not working since the day they have installed it over there and further stated that first the temparature of the oil is raising as soon as the machine is started; that the defendant told they require 200 LPM motor but the plaintiff gave them 300 LPM motor, but also told that the briqutte is expanding out of its natural size, but their people who were there were not able to rectify and some other problems were creeping out and last problem what the said is that the gear box of the feeder box is not working and took it along with them and stating so, the plaintiff/PW1 asked the defendant/DW1 firstly to keep the machine in running then only they will be able to think about further.

20.After going through Exs.A9 and A10/email letters referred to above, it is very much clear that the defendant/DW1 addressed a letter informing that PW1 did not bother to transfer 51% of their shares in the name of the defendant company in compliance of clasue No.5.1 of Ex.A1/franchise agreement and they decided unilaterally to covert the franchise agreement to sale model as the franchise model will not work at the place of the plaintiff. Evidently, Ex.A1/franchise agreement is triparte agreement in which case, the defendant has no right either to modify or to cancel the said agreement unilaterally without consent of PW1 in particular being franchisee of said agreement.

21.That apart the contents of Ex.A9/email addressed by the plaintiff/PW1 dated 19-09- 2012 as a reply to Ex.A10/email addressed by DW1 dated 18-09-2012, Pw1 for the plaintiff has clearly mentioned that the defendant /DW1 has also intimated that the machine 13 supplied by the defendant/DW1 is not working since the day installed it by the defendant company and that the people engaged by the defendant DW1 could not solve the problem inspite of their efforts and the said machine is kept idle in their place without operational and informing so the plaintiff/PW1 asked DW1 firstly to keep the machine in running then only they will be able to think about the other conditions.

22.The defendant did not place any peice of paper denying the said facts, by which an adverse inferecne can be drwan agains the case of the defendant and probable the case of the plaitniff that the defendant delivered the machinaries as reflected at the last page of the schedule II of Ex.a1/franchise agreement except the conveyor as stated by the plaintiff and that the same is not working since from the day of its installation, which falsifies the case of defendant that said machinery was not delivered and Ex.A1/franchise agreement was not acted upon.

23.Unless the said machinery, which was supplied by the defendant/DW1 to the plaintiff and installed at its place, is made working and operational by the defendant / DW1, question of compliance of the conditions particularly the condition under clause NO.5.1 of said agreement on the part of Pw1 whereunder he as franchisee got every obligation to transfer 51% of the paid up shares of plaintiff’s company in favour of the defendant company does not arise and as such, the question of fault on the part of the plaintiff in non-compliance of the conditions of Ex.A1/agreemnt does not arise and in fact, the defendant itself is at fault having committed the breach of Ex.A1/agreement.

24.The defendant /DW1 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintiff paid Rs.5,00,000/- while stating that he paid the said amount not as an advance but towards consultation and technology fee and further admitted that as per the letter dated 06-01-2012 addressed by the plaintiff covered under Ex.A3, the plaintiff /PW1 has credited

Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant company by way of RTGS. In Ex.A4, legal notice got issued by the plaintiff dated 26-03-2014, it is mentioned that the plaintiff has paid the said amount to the defendant company towards license fee. Even the same said fact is reflected in the plaint of plaintiff/PW1. Even as per clause No.8.3 of Ex.A1/franchise agreement, the plaintiff shall pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards license fee. Thus, taking into consideration of all these circumstances, it is proved that the plaintiff has paid 14

Rs.5,00,000/- as license fee to the defendant company and as such it is entitled for return of the said amount with interest at 12% per annum from the defendant company since the defendant company committed breach of Ex.A1/agreement.

25.The plaintiff has also claimed different amounts totalling to Rs.25,50,000/- from the defendant/DW1 stating that the defendant/DW1 is liable to pay Rs.7,50,000/- towards balance amount due in material purchase, Rs.9,00,000/- towards loss of profit over a period of six months and Rs.9,00,000/- towards investiment on machineary tranportation and other miscellaneous/incidental charges incurred in connection with the installation and attempts for making it operational. In support of his claim he filed and relied upon 18 bills, two email letters, bank letter for Rs.5,00,000/- and transport bill totalling to Rs.8,18,140/ covered under Ex A3-. As per the discussion held supra, the plaintiff is entitled for return of

Rs.5,00,000/- which was paid by it towards license fee and except the said amount, the plaintiff is not entitled for any other amounts much less as claimed for referred to above since the plaintiff/PW1 did not prove the contents of the other bills covered under Ex.A3 and also did not adduce any iota of evidence in proof that it has incurred any expenses to make the installed machine operational and that he has incurred any business loss for six months period. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled for any of the amounts referred to above as prayed for except Rs.5,00,000/- with 12% per annum. Accordingly this issue No.1 is answered.

ISSUE NO.2:

26.The plaintiff did not adduce any iota of evidence as stated earlier to prove that due to non-working of the machinery supplied by the defendant/DW1, the plaintiff had incurred any business loss for the said six months. In the absence of such evidence, without any hesitation, the plaintiff is not entitled for any compensation, much less Rs.10,00,000/- for the mental agony said to have been suffered by the plaintiff firm.

27.At this juncture it is not out of place to say that the defendant did not got issued any reply notice to the plaintiff even after issuence of Ex A6 and Ex A8 legal notices, but on other hand made the said letters to be returned with an edorsement that no such addresse is in the said address. In his cross examination Dw1 has admitted that plaintiff has issued said letters and that as per website their Company is in existance even as on 15 date. All these circumstances probable that the defendant intentinally made the said legal notices to be returned as alleged by the plaintiff which amounts that the defendant received said notices. If really what the defendat has stated is true and correct definitely it ought to have got issued reply notice and ought to have raised the same contentions as raised in it’s written statement. All these circumstances highly probable that the defendant did not come to the Court with clean hands. Accordingly this issue is answered.

28.In the result, the suit is allowed in part with proportionate costs and the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realization and that the plaintiff is not entitled for any compensation, much less as prayed for and accordingly the said relief is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 24th day of August, 2019.

VII Addl. District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT: P.W.1 - Ganta SeshkanthD.W.1 – Sudhindra Kulkarni

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Franchise agreement entered between the plaintiff and defendant Ex.A2:Xerox copy of certificate of incorporation Ex.A3:Bunch of bills showing the investment made expenditure incurred including transportation Ex.A4:Office copy of registered legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant Ex.A5:Postal proof showing the receipt of the notice by the defendant, dated 28.03.2014 Ex.A6:Registered notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant Ex.A7:Returned legal notice cover Ex.A8:Extract from the website copy of proof showing existence of the defendant firm on the rolls of Registrar of Companies.

16

Ex.A9:Email copy, dated 19.09.2012 Ex.A10:Email copy, dated 18.09.2012 Ex.A11:Email copy, dated 07.06.2012 Ex.A12:Email copy, dated 09.06.2012

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL.

VII ADJ

Eluru Note : Explanation for delay: Judgment could not be pronounced within time due to over sight, due to mixing up the record with other records, due to intervention of summer vacation, and due to work pressure. Thus, the delay is explained.

VII ADJ

Eluru