Smt. Sake Jyothi

cc 426 01'201 9

C)

FORM No.72 Calendar and Judgment C 1 d a en ar case tried by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpad. Judgment in Calendar Case No.426 of 2019 N ature of Offence: under section 304-A of JPC and section 134(b) read with section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the accused - Date of Judgment 29 02 2024

Commen-Sentence Apprehen-Closure Report or Release Offence cement or order sion of of trial complaint on bail of trial accused 07.08.2019 07.08.2019 07.08.2019 03.10.2019 29.09.2023 23.02.2024 29.02 . 2024

Explanation for the delay: No delay.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.426/2019 (Cr.No.89/2019 on the file of Kalikiri Police Station) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Vayalpad.

Complainant: The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Vayalpad Circle (Kalikiri Police Station limits).

Calling Residence Manda! Father's Religion Name of Age name accused Son of Ramababu, Reddysekhar, Age 20 years, A 1. Bathala Asipireddigaripalli,. H/o K.Reddivariapalli, Kalikiri Manda!, cast by SC-Mala, 0cc: Diver, Driver of Auto bearing No.AP-03-Y-6322. A2. Thanuku _Rach~~, Son of Siddaiah @ sidda Rayudu, Nadimpalli, Marrikuntapalh, Kalikm Manda!, cast by Jangama(BC) , 0cc: Cultivation, Owner of Auto bearing No.AP-03-Y-6322. Accused 1s found not guilty __________________ _J Fmdmg. sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 304 (A) IPC and section 3 r / w 181, Section 146 r / w 196, section 5 r /w 180 and section 184 (a) and (b) d . h . rea wit sect10n . 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and he is acco d ' . r mg Y acquitted under 1 . The bail bonds of the sect10n 255(1) C~.P.C for the said offence. accused shall be m force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

PrI. CIVIL JUDG~-

FAC J.F.C.MAGIS

VAYALPAD

Coov submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial M . for favour of information. ag1strate, Chittoor,

CC 426 of 2019

29.02.2024 I

IN THE COURT OF

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS::VAYALPAD PRESENT: SAKE JYOTHI Prl. Civil Judge (J D' i ' . r. 1v .,) Piler FAC Judici 1 THURSDAY a Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpad , THIS the 29th day of February, 2024 CALENDAR CASE No.426 of2019 BETWEEN: The State rep t d by the Inspector of Police, Vayalpad circle Kal"k . . rese_n e i in Pohce Stat10n (Kalikiri Police Station limits) .

. . . COMPLAINANT

and

Al_. . Bathala Reddysekhar, Age 20 years, Son of Ramababu, Asipireddigaripalli, H/o K.Reddivariapalli, Kalikiri Manda!, cast by SC-Mala, 0cc: Diver, Driver of Auto bearing No.AP-03-Y-6322.

A2. Thanuku Rachaiah, Son of Siddaiah @ sidda Rayudu, Nadimpalli, Marrikuntapalli, Kalikiri Manda!, cast by Jangama(BC), 0cc: Cultivation, Owner of Auto bearing No.AP-03-Y-6322 .

... ACCUSED

-ooOoo-

This case came up before me on 28.02.2024 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri A.Dwarakanatha Reddy, Advocate for accused Nos. I and 2, and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: //J U D G M E N Tl/ The Inspector of Police, Vayalpad circle (Kalikiri Police Station), filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.89 of 2019 on its file for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC and section 3 r/w 181, section 146 r/w 196, Section 5 r/w 180, Section 134(a) and

(b) of Motor Vehicles Act, as follows.-

2. On 07.08.2019 at 3-30 PM at Chinnappareddigari well on Kalikiri- Sodum road, Kalikiri Mandal and reported in the police station on 14.12.218 at 6-30 PM, in which the accused No.I Reddysekhar of Asipireddigaripalli being the driver of auto bearing No.AP-03_y_6322 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without care Precaution and high speed and lost his control on auto and turtle on the road, as a result the deceased Ravi fell d own form the auto he received sustained bleeding injuries on h" is head and left side . shoulder. Then the injured person shifted t o Government Hospital . ' Kalikiri in private vehicle, after getti f . ng irst Aid, the injured was . . shifted to SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi O h n t e way to SVRR Hospital, ·

CC 42c1 of 2019 ?.').02.2(12-1

2 Tin1pathi ncnr Vcpuln b1dl11 , l'llcr Mon<ltd rlw ln_j 11 rc;rl K .l ~r Jvi wo o succumbc..:d to the injurie 1-1 nt 65.J0 PM. /11 'h iu rcw ,r rl one K:Jrri

Ramya, who is the daughter of dccccu-1ed t,nd prcpfJrc;d I he c nmpl~in ,.

for take necessar·y action, . Based on the report of PW 1, 8 ce:-,c in Cr.No.89/2019 was registered by LW J 4 / Head Con s ta ble, Ka li kiri

Police Station, on 07.08.2019 at 6.30 PM, unde r section 304(A) IP C During investigation, LW 14 visited the and was investigated into. scene of offence, secured the presence of PWl, LW2, PW2 and LW4 and inquest panchayathdars i.e., LWs8 to 9, examined them and recorded their section 161(3) Cr.P.C statements and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Karri Ravi and send dead body for autopsy. LW14drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence, prepared scene observation mahazar in the presence of LWl0 and

LWl 1. LW14 send a requisition to Lw13 for the inspection of crime vehicle and to issue accident report. On 09.08.2019 LW14 handed over the CD filed to the LWIS/ SI of Police, Kalikiri PS for further investigation and he verified the investigation conducted by the LW14 is on proper lines. On 28.08.2019 the Accused was arrested on his surrender before LWIS and after verification of the crime vehicle records, LWIS added the crime vehicle owner as A2 and also added appropriate sections of laws on the accused No. I for drove the vehicle without valid driving licence and also valid insurance. As such LW 15 altered the section of law, then he send the accused for judicial custody. Civil Assistant On 27.09.2019 LW12/Dr E.Pushpa Kumari, surgeon, Community Health Centre, Kalikiri who . conducted ' autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued postmortem

. . . .

. exarninat10n cert1f1cate opmmg that the deceased wou d have died 1 . due to poly trauma and time of death is 24 h . . ours Pnor to . . Motor V h' Post- mortem exammat10n. LW13/C.Venu e 1cles Ins ' . Pector Madanapalle, who mspected the crime vehicl . e issued rep . ' or t Op' . 1n1n 0 that the acc1 en occurre was not due to an 'd d t c Y mechanica l c defects of . On 23.10.2019 LW16/ I the crime vehicle. ·r· . nspector

. of Par

Vayalpad circle ven 1ed the mvestigatio n conducted ice, . by LWis found the same 1s on proper lines. Hence th

¾d

e charge. , i \ l ,I '!, ,, I ' (l I 1l

The' l'll~l' w 111-t t11l<n1 0 11 file for 111,• off1,,i , 1· p111 il 1il1 1dJ I,· 11r1d,·r J . ~l·c t1 o n 30•11A) IPC nnd Hcction 3 r / w IHI , Hccilon I ~() r/ w l 'Jfi , ~cction 5 r / w 180 nnd 1-1cction 184 (n) nnd (b) rend wi 1l1 occ,lion Ur/ or the Motor Vehicle::.; Act, ugolrwt lhc nccuBcd.

On appcarnncc of the nccuHcd, copicu of cnHc docum cntH were 4. furnished to him us required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under section 25 1 Cr. P.C for the offence under section 304(A) IPC and section 3 r/w 18 1, Section l46 r/ w 196, section 5 r /w 180 and section 184 (a) and (b) read with section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act informing the substance of the accusation made against him for which he denied having committed the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

On behalf of the prosecution, PWl to PW5 were examined and 5. Exs.Pl to P12 were marked. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of LWs.2, LWS, LW7 to LW13, LW15 and LW16. Prosecution side evidence was closed. The accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C puttingforth the incriminating material that appears against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. No evidence either oral or The case of accused is total denial. documentary is adduced on behalf of the accused in defence.

Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and 6. the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material on record.

Now the point that arises for determination: 7. whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under section 304(A) IPC and section 3 r /w 181, Section 146 r / w 196, section 5 r/w 180 and section 184 (a) and (b) read with section 187 of the

Motor Vehicles Act levelled against them ?

POINT : At this juncture, it is pertinent to note down the ingredients 8. required to prove the offence under section 304-A of !PC. tn a case of this nature, the prosecution has to prove (1) the death of a person; (2) identity of the accused; (3) the rash and negligent act of the

fi~

CC 426 of20!9 29.02.2024

4 accused; and (4) the nexus between the death of a person and the rash or n 1-f the person eg igent act of the accused i.e., the death 0 must be the result of the rash or negligent act of the accused.

9· PWl/K.Ramya, who is the daughter of the deceased and de facto complainant, deposed that on 07.08.2019, while her father was travelling to Rice mill, Kalikiri at Chinnapareddy baavi (Well) in an auto he met with an accident deceased. Her mother and herself came to know about the accident over phone call by some villagers. Immediately, they rushed to the spot and her father to the

Government Hospital, Kalikiri and from there they shifted him to

Tirupathi Hospital on the advise of the doctors. While they were proceeding to Tirupathi her father died at Vapualabailu near Piler and again they shifted him to the Government Hospital, Kalikiri.

She does not know how the accident was occured. She did not know the manner of accident and who caused the accident. Police obtained her signature in the wrttten paper at hospital and she did not know it contents and the auto registration number by which her father was travelled on the date of accident.

10. PW2/K.Reddemma, who is the wife of the deceased, herr evidence shows that at about four years back, while her husband was travelling to Rice mill, Kalikiri at Chinnapareddy baavi (Well) in an auto he met with an accident deceased. PW 1 and herself came to know about the accident over phone call by some v·ll 1 agers. Immediately,they rushed to the spot and her husband to the

Government Hospital, Kalikiri and from there they shifted him to Tirupathi Hospital on the advise of the doctors. Wh .1 . . i e they were Proceeding to Tirupathi her husband died at Vapual b .1 a ai u near p -1 1 er and again they shifted him to the Government H . osp1ta1 Kaliki . She does not know how the accident was occured Sh . ' n . . . e did not kn the manner of accident and who caused the a ·ct ow

cc1 ent p 1.

. . o ice ne recorded her statement. She d1dnot know auto . Ver registration numb PW3 /Viswanatha, who is known person to er 11 . the ct deposed that he did not know Accused A 1 eceasect and A2 anct he . ' know anything about the facts of the case. p 1. d1dnot o ice never e:x:ani.inect

I ' I• I., 'l l I•) ' l I 111 111 n 11tl IH' \·1~1 1 t' ( 0 1 drd hi A 111 ,,t r r,1rnt 11 , 1 111 t ,,x f •,~

PW•I/ P.~t1h111m11ny11111, whn 1,1 known p<•i •1o ri 1,, th, drrr 11•11rl . 1 1 drpn~r' rl hr dld n o t lrnow 11 1•r 11t1<'(1 1, 11d 11 n yrfl lnf{ 11'10111' rl 1,• rm1 11 ,,f 1h 1• l' ll~C' . Polkc· hnvr lll'V('r cxitrnlnrd him nnd ,w vc r rr, 'lr rl rrl h1t1 1-l11tr111r nt. PWS/ P. Rujnram !~eddy, who wnn the I lien If cM I C<>rP1r. 1 blr·, 13. l,:1likiri Police Station, deposed that on 07.08.20 J 9 eJt 6.J0 PM wh Jlr. he was present in the Police Station, PW J came to the Police StDt1on :ind presented EX.P6 report.Basing on the s trength of £x.P6, he registered the case in Cr.No.89/2019 under section 304-A of IPC. Then he went to Community Health Center, Ka likiri a nd found the dead body of the deceased but could not conducted inquest due to late hours and returned to Police station. Agrun on 08.08.2019 he went to CHC, Kalikiri and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased/ K.Ravi in the presence of Repena Seena/LW7,PasupuJeti Venkataramana/LW8 and Vemula Venkataramana/LW9. During inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of PW 1, PW2,

Eswarruah/LW4. After and Debbadi Raveendra/LW3 Sajjala completion of inquest, he handed over the dead body of the deceased to the Medical Officer of CHC, Kalikiri for autopsy with instructions to Sathish Kumar who is Police constable No.2329 to hand over the dead body of the deceased K.Ravi to his relatives after autopsy. La ter he visited the scene of offence situated near lands of Subramanyam of AnkevaripaJle village at Sadum-Kalikiri Road there he observed the scene of offence and drafted Ex.P9 rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of Lw IO/ Kasireddy Ma.Iii Reddy and Ex.PlO scene and prepa red Kumar Reddy LWJ J /Asipireddy observation mahazarnama. At the scene of offence, he found the crime vehicle i.e. , Auto bearing Reg. No.AP-03-Y-6322 a nd shifted the crime vehicle to the police station. At the scene of offence he secured the presence of PW3 and 4 and recorded their sta tements. On the saint day he sent a requisition to the MVI of Piler for inspection. Then he handed over the CD file to LW l 5/ E.Ra ma 11juneyulu, Sub- Inspector of Police, J(alikiri for further investigation. As per CD file

CC 426 of2019 29.02.2024

6 h' L t r Sub- on 09.08.2019 he verified investigat· 10n conducted by 1m. a e d /LW3 and Inspector of Police examined PW1 t 4 S .. 1 a.JJa a Raveen ra o , Debbadi Eswaraiah/LW4 but not re-recorded their statements. On the same day Sub-Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence and observation the scene of offence but did not draft.ed the rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 16.08.2019 while Sub-Inspector of Police received Ex.Pl 1 post-mortem report of the deceased person/ K.Ravi from LW12/Dr.E.Pushpa Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon, CHC,

Kalikiri and also received Ex.Pl2 MVI report from LW13/C.Venu,

Motor Vehicle Inspector, Piler. On 28.08.2019 while Sub-Inspector of

Police was present in the police station accused by name Reddy

Sekhar appeared before him and produced the crime vehicle records, on the same day Sub-Inspector of Police forwarded him for remand.

On Verification Sub-Inspector of Police found the vehicle stands in the name of Thanuku Rachaiah/ A2 and also found that Al has no valid driving licence then he added section of laws 3 r/w 181 of MV Act, section 146 r / w 196 of MV Act and section 5 r /w 181 of MV Act and Section 304-A(ii) of IPC. Then Sub-Inspector of Police handed over the CD filed to LW16/G.P.Sivabhaskar Reddy, Inspector of Poilce, Vayalpad circle for further investigation. After completion of investigation Inspector of Poilce, Vayalpad circle filed charge sheet.

In his cross-examination, he stated that he registered the case 14. and there was a 10 minutes · al D. after he made entry m Gener 1ary the FIR. He admitted that · · gap m between GD entry and reg1stenng · there he mentioned same timings in both GD and FIR. He admitted urred 07 08.2019 at 3.40 PM. . that as per report the accident was occ · f death was mentioned · He admitted that as per Ex.Pll the time 0 than 24 hours prior to • that "the deceased would appear died more h t post-mortem conducted . post-mortem examination". He admitted t a d . t d that he is not taken the on 08.08.2019 at 10.00 AM. He a m1t e d that scene of offence is . photographs of scene of offence. He adm1tte there was a gap of more a busy road. He denied the suggestion that . d registrat10n of case. than 40 hours between scene observation an rosecution version, in , did not support the P As PWsl to PW4 15.

) 'J 1/ ) ) 1/ J,, I 11111tcnnl 11~1,ects, LI~<.' I I fJul>ll c l 1ro:11:c11tnr /\1111111111111 h tJ'l ' l'flriwc dcdnred lhc1n n~ hostile ond cro,rn cx,1111111cd them with thr ; permission oft he Court. PWs I to pw4 denied , hnt r hey RLAtcd hcfr,rc the; police, as in Exs.P2 to Ex.PS i.e., their rcfipcctivc 1:1totcmcnt11 recorded under section 161 (3) of Criminnl Procedure Code. Nothing was elic.ited from their evidence which help!:! the prosecution to prove the material allegations leveled against the accused. Since, the the learned Assistant Public material witnesses turned hostile ' Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the rema ining immaterial witnesses, as no purpose will be served by examining them.

In such facts and circumstances, the Court finds no 16. incriminating material to hold that there is direct nexus and proximity between the death of deceased and rash or negligent act of accused Al. Therefore, the Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Further alleged by the section and 304-A of Indian PenaJ Code. prosecution that the crime vehicle was not insured and the owner of the vehicle allowed unauthorised person to drive the vehicle, there is no whisper in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the crime vehicle was not insured and the owner of the vehicle allowed unauthorised person to drive the vehicle, as required under section 146 of Motor Vehicle Act and since the prosecution 180 ,181 and failed to establish that the accused Al was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punisha ble under of Motor Vehicle Act, beyond the section 180 , 181 and 146 Accordingly, point is a nswered against the reasonable doubts.

prosecution. Jn the result, the accused Al found not guilty for the offence 17. under section 304(A) IPC, section 3 r /w 18 I and section 134 (a) a nd

(b) read with section l 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act a nd A2 found not guilty for offence under Section 146 r/w 196, section 5 r/ w 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, accordingly they are :1cquitted unckr section 255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused A I 2').02.202'1 R

CC 426 of 20l9

for a period of s ix month s as con tern pla lcd r a nd A2 shall be in iorce · 437 A of Cr.P.C. under sectwn - ,1 ed by typist to my dictation, corrected, signed and pron ounced by m e, • 'yp ·t this the 291" day of February, 2023. m open cou1 , on

Pr!. CIVIL JU GE (J , , Piler,

FAC J.F.C.MA TE,

VAYALP

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Defence: For Prosecution: PWl: K.Ramya -NIL- PW2: K.Reddemma PW3: Viswanatha PW4: P.subramanyam PWS: P.Rajaram Reddy, Head constable Documents marked For prosecution:- For Defence: Ex.P l: Signature of the PWl. -NIL- Ex.P2: 161 CrPC statement of PWl. Ex.P3: 161 CrPC statement of PW2. Ex.P4: 161 CrPC statement of PW3. Ex.PS: 161 CrPC statement of PW4. Ex.P6: Report given by PWl to police.(Ex.Pl itself) Ex.P7: FIR Ex.PB: Inquest Panchanama Ex.P9: Rough Sketch of scene of offence. Ex.PIO: Scene observation mahazarnamam EX. P 11: Post-mortem examination certificate. Ex.Pl2: Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report.

Prl. CIVIL JU G (

FAC J.F.C.MA TE,

VAYALPAD

I

cc 1cn nr 20~0

1().()2.2024

FORM No.72 I I Calendar and Judgmenl Calendar case tried by Judicial Magistrate of Firsl Class, Vayalpad. Judgment in Calendar Case No. 193 of 2020 Nature of Offence: under section 304-A [PC, section 3 r/w 181, 39 r /wl 92 146 r / w 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the accused Date of Judgment - 16 02 2024

Apprehen- Report or Commen- Release Offence Closure Sentence sion of cement complaint on bail of trial or order accused of trial 03.01.2020 03.01.2020 03.01.2020 . 05 . 01.2024 09 . 02.2024 16.02.2024 Explanation for the delay: No delay.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.193/2020 (Cr.No.02/2020 on the file of Vayalpad Police Station) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Vayalpad.

Cowplainant: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vayalpad Police Station.

Name of Age Father's Religion Calling Residence Mandal accused name Guddikondanagri Manjunath @ Manju, age 30 years, son of late G.Sivaram, caste by Mangala, 0cc. Barber, residing at D.No.10-10-28, Mangala Street, Nimmanapalle village and mandal, rider of Hero Honda Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP-03-AN-6237.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 304-A of IPC and section 3 r/w 181, 39 r/w 192 and section 146 r/w 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and accordingly he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

~ dl - _/

Prl. Civil Judge (.:Jr. Di fifi ,), Piler,

FAC J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

f00t submit_ted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor, VAYALPAD

or av our of information.

l 'l ' I 'I I 111' :o_:o I fol) 1 111,',I •, l'N THE COURT OF TH.E JUDICIAL MAOJSTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: VAYALPAD

PRESENT: SAKE JYOTHI

Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dlvt.,) Plier

FAC Judicial Magistrate of Flr1t Cla1■ , Vayalpad FRIDAY, THIS tho 16 day of February, 2024 CALENDAR CASE No.1 93 of 2020 BETWEEN : Thl' Stnte represented by the SulJ Inspector of Police , Vnynlpnd Police Stntion.

. .. COMPLAINANT

and

Guddikondamlgri Manjunnth ~ ,~ Manju, age 30 yea rs. son of late G.Siwlrnm. caste by Mangala, 0 cc. Barber, residing a t O.No. 10- 10- 28, Mangala Street, Nimmanapalle village and ma nda l. rider of Hero

Honda Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP-03-AN-6237 .

... ACCUSED

-oo0oo-

This case came up before me on 09.02.2024 for fina l hearing in tJ1e presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri R.Yella Reddy, Advocate for accused Nos. l and 2, and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record a nd this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

//J U D G M E N Tl/

The Sub-Inspector of Police, VayaJpad Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.02 of 2020 on its file for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC and section 39 r/w 192, section 146 r/w 196 and Section 3 r/w 181 of Motor Vehicles

Act, as follows. -

PM on Nimrnanapa lle- 03.01.2020 at about 7-45

2. On Chinthaparthy road, near Railway gate, Thurupupa lli village, H/ o Chinthaparthy, Vayalpad Mandal and reported in the police station on the same day at 11.45 PM by the complainant/ P. Ravi Kumar, in which the accused ride his Hero Honda Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP-03-AN-6237 rash and negligent manner, without proper due care, plying towards Chinthaparthy, lost control over the motor cycle and fell in the road side pit about 8 feet, resulting which the accused/ raider, the deceased/pillion rider/ Patthikonda GopaJ fell down and sustained bleeding injuries on their persons. On the receipt of information the complainru,t rushed to the place a nd shifted them to CHC, VayaJpad through 108 ambulance. The duty medical officer examined and declared as he was brought dead.

cc 193 or 2020

2 16.02.2024 Basing on the complainant of the LWl , LW13 registered a c . ase in Cr No 02/2020 under section 304(A) of IPC and submitted FIR · · . · copies to all the concerned and took up investigation. On 04.01.2020 LWI3 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the Mortuary of CHC, Vayalpad from 08.30 AM to 11.00 AM, during the inquest LW13 examined LWsl to 5 and recorded their Section 161(3) Cr.P.C statements. Then LW13 handed over the dead body of the deceased to the Lw 10 for autopsy and instructed to the PC.No.3865/CT to hand over the dead body of deceased to the blood relatives for cremation under proper acknowledgment. Later Lwl3 visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of LW6, examined him and recorded his statement under section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Then Lw13 observed scene of offence and prepared the scene observation proceeding on 04.01.2020 at 12.45 PM. After that LW13 shifted the crime vehicle to police station for safe custody.

On 05.01.2020 LW14 took up investigation and verified the investigation conducted by the LW13, after examining the LWsl to 6 and after visiting the scene of off ance Lw 14 came to conclusion that the investigation . done by L W 13 is on correct lines. Further on 27.01.2020 at 11.00 Am, the accused before the LW14 in the police station and produced the crime vehicle records and driving licence. Originally RC stands in the name of one Khader Hyder Ali, who is the resident of G.D.Nellore mandal of Chittoor district. But the accused purchased the said vehicle from the RC owner on 03.06.2015 for Rs.28,000 /- through the HKGN Auto consultancy, Madanapalle and taken over the ownership from the RC owner and he is the entire responsible for the said motor cycle from 03.06.2015 onwards and with assurance to transfer of ownership within 15 days of purchase date. The purchasing receipt is enclosed. As the accused received the Form-29 from the RC owner of the motor cycle, but did not transfer the same on his name hence section 39 r / w 192 of MV Act ' is added. The vehicle has no valid insurance at the time of accident. Hence added section 146 r/w 196 of MV Act and also the accused is not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. Hence added section 3 r/w 181 of MV Act in this case. On 27-01.2020 LW14

k ~:

--I I A Cr.P.C 11ot ke tl1e 11c<·u,wd wi th dcHr served section <111

instructions to upprnr before the Court. o,, 02.02.2020 LW JIJ

received post -mortem certifica te of the clcccuscd from LW JO. On 03.02.2020 LW 14 received Motor VehiclcH Jnspector'H report from

LW 11 of the crime vehicle.

On 23.02.20220 LW 15 took Up investi.gation and verified the investigation don by the LW 14 is on correct lines. On 07.10.2020,

LWJ 5 received the wound certificate and CT scan report of the accused from Lwl2. After completion of investigation LWl.5 filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under 3. section 304(A) IPC and section 3 r /w 181, Section 39 r /w 192 and section 146 r /w 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the accused.

On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were 4. furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under s.eation 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under section 304(A) IPC and section 3 r/w 181, Section 39 r/w 192 and section 146 r / w 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act informing the sub:qtance of the accusation made against him for which he denied having committed the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

On behalf of the prosecution, PW 1 to PW3 were examined and 5. Exs.Pl to Pl2 were marked. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of LWs.2, LW5, LW7 to LW13, LW15 and LW16. Prosecution side evidence was closed. The accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C puttingforth the incriminating material that appears against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

The case of accused is total denial. No evidence either oral or documentary is adduced on behalf of the accused in defence.

Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and 6. the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material on record.

7 · Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to bring home tbe guilt of the accused beyond all

,, 11, m.1,n.\

rensonublc doubts for the offence under :-icction .101(1') IPC ,1nd 1' section 3 r/w 181 , Section 146 r/w 196, Rcction 5 r/w 180 c.1nd ' section 184 (a) and (b) read with section 187 of the Motor Vehicles

Act levelled against them ?

8.8. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note down the ingredients required to prove the offence under section 304-A of JPC. Jn a ca··,e of this nature, the prosecution has to prove (1) the death of a person; (2) identity of the accused; (3) the rash and negligent act of the accused; and (4) the nexus between the death of a person and the rash or negligent act of the accused i.e., the death of the person must be the result of the rash or negligent act of the accused.

9. To prove these aspects, the prosecution has examined PW 1 to PW3. Among them, PWl is the de-facto complainant. His evidence goes to show that at about four years back while he was present in his house, he received phone call from unknown persons that his father fell down on the road near railway gate at Thurupupalle village then he rushed to the accident spot and observed his father with bleeding injuries caused to tlie legs and head and also observed another injured person who was fell down on the road, after that he shifted them to the Government Hospital at Vayalpad for treatment, further deposed that his father died while undergoing treatment, police obtained his signature in written paper and he did not know the contents of the paper and who was the responsible for the accident. In the cross-examination he deposed that he cannot identify the injured person who was shifted to the hospital along with his father

10. PW2 deposed that at about four years back while he was present in his house, her son received phone call from unknown persons that her husband was met with accident, immediately they rushed to the spot and observed her husband with bleeding injuries caused to the legs and head and also observed another injured person fell down on the road after that they shifted them to the ' Government Hospital at Vayalpad for treatment, further deposed that her husband died while undergoiog treatment and she did not know • · ( C ICJ.1111' 2020 (\ J 16.02.2024 ,ho was the responsible for LI .. \ , , ,~ d 1 . i c acc,clcnt. In lhc croHH-cxamination she depose t , at she cannot identif . . . Y the person who was Rhiftcd to the hospital along with her husband

PW3 deposed that on o3_01 20

11. . · 20 he registered a case based on

the report of PW 1. On 04 o 1 2020

· · , at about 8:00 Am he went to the community health center Vayal d ' pa and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and recorded the statements of PW1,PW2,

Mandyam Balaji/LW2 Yedul G · a angulappa/LW3 and Patthikonda Sai ,j ' Prasad/ LWS · Later, he visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of Simhala Praveen Kumar/LW6 at the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch and recorded his statement . He found crime vehicle Hero Honda Splender Plus motorcycle bearing registration number AP03 AN 6237 and sent the requisition to the motor vehicle inspector for inspection of the crime vehicle. Further investigation was conducted by LW.14/ A.Mohan Kumar, Sub

Inspector of Police, Vayalpad Police Station; he obtained EX.P9 Post- mortem certificate from LW.10/Dr.Prasad Raju, Civil Assistant surgeon, Department of Forensic Medicine, CHC, Vayalpad. on 27.01.2020 the accused surrendered before him and produced vehkle records, on verification he found that accused is not having valid Driving License and insurance to crime vehicle hence _sub- inspector of police added the Section 3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act for not having valid driving license and Section 146 r/w 196 of M.V. Act for not having valid insurance and section 39 r/w 192 of M.V.Act. On 20.02.2020, Sub Inspector of Police received EX.Pl 1 wound certificate along with EX.Pl2 C.T.scan report .of accused from

LW.11 / Aruna Kumari,Civil Assistant Surgeon, SVRGGH, Tirupathi.

12. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW s 1 and 2 their evidence clinchingly reveals that the death of deceased was caused in a road accident. PWl and PW2, they categorically deposed that they did not witness the accident and they did not know who was responsible for the 'cause of accident. Further, there is no whisper in their evidence about any circumstances implicating or rash or negligence on the part of the opposite coming vehicle which dashed the deceased.

\

\

l(d/2.207,4

13. As PWs t and PW2 did not 1w ppor1 th e.: nro1-1ccut.,·,Jn , ,, . vcr Hirm, in n,atcl·ial aspects, the lea rned Assistant Pu 1-..1,·c p ror,ccutor h r.1ij 11 declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the Permission of the Courl. PWs I and PW2 den,·ed h t at they stated before the police, as in Ex P2 and Ex p3 · · · 1.e., their respective statements recorded under section 161(3) of C · · al p d · nm,n roce ure Code. Nothing was elicited frorn their evidence which helps the prosecution to prove the connectivity of accused O h · 1 r cnme ve 1c e to · the accident leading to the death of deceased.

14. Since, the material witnesses including PW 1 and PW2, who are kith and kin of deceased turned hostile, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the remaining immaterial witnesses, as no purpose will be served by examining them.

15. However, the accused did not dispute the factum of death of deceased. So, the Court feels that the evidence of PW 1 and PW2 supports prosecution with regard to the death of deceased in a road accident. But there is no whisper in their evidence about the details of crime vehicle and its driver ancHhe cause of accident.

16. In such facts and circumstances, the Court finds no incriminating prosecution evidence to hold that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash or negligent manner at the time of accident. Though, the prosecution is able to establish that the death of deceased was .caused in the road accident but the prosecution failed to establish the direct nexus and proximity between the death of deceased and rash or negligent driving of accused. Therefore, the Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code in order to prove the guilt of accused for the said offence beyond the reasonable · failed to establish that doubts. As above discussion, the prosecutwn time of accident. Further, the accused used the crime vehicle at the f an of the prosecution there is no whisper in the evidence O Y . . ·nsured, as required under witnesses that the cnme vehicle was not 1 h the Court holds that t e section 146 of Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, ff: ·it of accused for the o ence prosecution failed to establish the gut . 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, punishable under section 146 read with

JFCM. VYPD

~ t91 of'.!020 7 ('( .

\

r, I <,.02.2024 d the reasonable doubt Acco ct· \ ',

beyon . .

.

· r tngly, pomt 1s answered agam st / I

the prosecution. For the said reasons, the court holds that the

prosecution also failed to establish the guilt of accused for the

offence under section 304-A IPC, section 3 r /w 181 , 39 r /wl 92 146

r/w 196 of M.V. Act and accused is found not guilty for the offences.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence

under section 304-A of IPC and section 3 r/w 181, 39 r/w 192 and

section 146 r /w 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and accordingly he is

acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail

bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as

contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Prl. Civil Judge~ D

FAC J.F.C. MAGIS

1

VAYALPAD

Appendix .qf Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:

For Defence:

PWl: A.Prathap Kumar Reddy

-NIL-

PW2: A.Padmavathi

PW3: A.Srinivasulu Reddy

PW4: T.Srinivasulu

PW5: A.Mohan Kumar

Documents marked

For prosecution:-

For Defence:

Ex.Pl: Report given by PW 1 to police.

-NIL-

Ex.P2: 161 CrPC statement of PWl.·

Ex.P3: 161 CrPC statement of PW2.

Ex.P4: 161 CrPC statement of PW3.

Ex.PS: 161 CrPC statement of PW4.

.

Ex.P6: Report given by PWl to police.(Ex.Pl itself)

Ex.P7: FIR

Ex.PB: Inquest Panchanama

Ex.P9: Rough Sketch of scene of offence.

Ex.1'10: Police Proceedings

Ex Pl 1 t·fi t

· : Post-mortem exam1na 10n . t· cer 1 1ca e.

E Pl2 x . : Motor Vehicles Inspector 5 , Report.

~ - · ~

o~t2-~

pd. Civil JudgefJr."n"itfl , J, Piler,

FAC J.F.C. MAGIS~TE,

VAYALPAD

' -

28.02.2024 JCJ,VYPD

Os~N~. 130 of 2023 ' I I ' .' ." I I I . \ \ ~ ~ IN Tl{E COURT OF THE JUNIOR CJVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD .., ' . . . ,,. PRESENT:-Smt. SAKE JYOTHI "" .. .,,{' , __ _ . PRINCIPJ\L CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Oivi .,), PILER, --~ · ,'\.; .,r v FAC ClVIL JUDGE (Jr.Divi.,) , VAYALPAD.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

' l -

ORIGINAL SUIT N0.130 OF 2023

BETWEEN:- J nmga, Sova Kumar, son of Vecrahhadra, aged about 34 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at D.No.15-8-V, NRK Nagar, Mndanapalle town andMandnl, Annamaiah District.

... Plaintiff

and

PoolaNarasim hulu, son of Lakshmanna, aged about 50 years, Hindu,

Cultivation, residing at NTR colony, Punugupalli, H/o Vayalpad,

VayalpadMandal, Annamayya District.

. .. Defendant~

-ooOoo-

This suit came up before me on 08.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Ramana, Advocate for plaintiff, and Defendant

is set ex parte as having been remained absent when called and

upon hearing the learned counsel for plaintiff and perusing the

m aterial on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

//JUDGMENT//

1. This is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, servants, agents, relatives and followers from in any way interfering with the Plaintiffs possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and for costs.

2. The averments, in brier, of the plaint are that the plaintiff is entitled to and is in exclusive po:,session and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It is submitted that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to Dal Ra machandraiah, son of Venkataramana and he sold the same to the plaintiff on 30.01.2012 for a valid consideration or Rs.38,000 /- ::rnd also delivered the possession to the plaintiff on same day. Since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of th e same with r1b~;olute rights without any interruption to the knowled ge of everybody :n the village including defendant and his men. It is f urlher submit 1 '.l.a.t the revenue authorities were also ~ind enjoyment ot' the plaint schedule recognized the possession 28.02.2024 JCJ,VYPD Os. No. 130 or 2023 2 • p Book and title , ,. 1 got issued Pnw,dnr . ass prnpnty b_v tlw plni nt1ff 11 t1C d ROR . 11,c Jn l~ c..:vcrn,c records a lso issue • (h.•t·d nml nl :-1u 1n11tntc lus 11 11 fil ·d 11 . , fnvoi1I' of the plnintiff. The pla intiff I c a nnrl Adnnr,n l/ pnhnni in . nJone wilh pluin t. The plaintfff was the ~mid nh cw<' docwncnt s obt:1incd thv lnnn by p1<.:clgi11g I he suit schedule propcrtyfrom the Disriet Co-O iH·rn tivc .Bnnk, V11yt'111;1d in Loon No. 128 I. It is further submits thnt I he defendant is the adjacent land owner demanded the pbi ntilT to sell uwoy the plaint schedule propertyto him for low sum. The plnintiIT w:is refused for the sninc. The defendant and his men bore Grudge against plnintiff ond tr\'ing l n grub the plaint schedule property from the pbintiff and he h::is no such right to do so. It is further submits that the defendant and his followers have no iota of interest in respect of the plaint schedule property and he is never in possession a nd enjoyment of the s:une. The defendant making hectic efforts to gra b the plaint schedule property from the plaintiff. About fo ur days ago the plaintiff was tried to plough the land for cultivating the same. The defendant and his men came to the plaint schedule pro perty high h G.ndedly and tried ~o disposes the plaintiff form the plai nt schedule property. When the plaintiff questioned their highhanded ::icts, the defendant and his men left the place saying th <1t they will allow the plaintiff to enjoy plaint schedule property pe:.cefully. They also warned that if the plaintiff is will not handover the plaint schedule property to them, they will foist false case against the plaintiff ::i nd his family members and will harass. The defendant and his foll owers are powerful persons followed by many unruly clements. The plaintiff is unable to resist the highhanded acts of the defendant and his men. Hence, the suit.

3. The suit summons on the defendant through Court and post rel urned served, on 03.07.2023, which is the day fixed for his appearan ce, the defendant w:.s called and as he remained absent ::ind as there w ~1s no representation for him, the defendant was set ex po rte.

JCJ,VYPD

Os.No.130 of 2023

28.02.2024 JCJ,VYPD J 4 . In support of his cos<.:, Lhe pJa{ntHf got exam ined himself a s PWl and got ma rked Ex.Al Lo Ex.A6. 5. Heard the learned cou nsel fo r plaintiff. Perused the m a terial on record.

6. Now the point for determination " Wheth er the plaintiff is en/i i.led for grant of permanent injunction in respect of pl ai nt ~;chedule property" POINT:

7. To prove suit claim, the plaintiff herself is examined as P. W. l and in her chief examination affidavit reiterated all the averments made in the plaint. He got mnrked Ex.Al to Ex.A6. Ex.Al is certified copy of registered sale deed dated 30.01.2012 stands in his name. Ex.A2 is Pattadar Passbook stands in the name of plaintiff. Ex.P3 is Title deed stands in. Lb:_: name of plaintiff. Ex.A4 is ROR extract stands in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A5 is Adangal/ Pahani stands in the n ame of plaintiff. E:,:.A6 is officio:! copy of demand notice

dated 10.05.2023. which shO\n the possession and title of the

plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties. After filing of the suit also, defenda nts have not shown any interest to contest the suit filed by the plaintiffs and they remained exparte. Hence, the evidence of P.W. l and Exs.A. l to A.6 remained unchallenged. All these prima facie proved the stand of pbintiffa. The documents supporting the contention or the plaintiff th:it h.:: is in possc~sion and enjoyment of the plaint schedule pro.pcrtie.•,:. PW. l also proved there is an imminent thrco t of dispossession from the hands of defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment as on the date of filing of th e suit and they l:ll'e entitled for permanent injunction restraining th e defendant. Th e point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

8. In the result, the s uit is c>~creect with costs granting permanent injunction in favour of the pLtinLiff reslraining the defendant, his men' Servants' aaents relo! ives !:'1•1d f 1·1 f . o owers rom m any way b , 4-1

JCJ , VYPD

Os . No.130 or 20 23 28.02.2024 JCJ,VYPD

interfering w ith the Pla intiff's Pi)~i~ict·::;ion und e njoy men t over the pbint sch ed u le property .

Typc<l by t>1pis t to my dicl:ilion , u ,rn .:clcd, ::iigncd and pronounced by me, in t 1pcn cou rt, on this the 28'" day of fi'cbruw·y, 20'4f

Prl. l.. VlL ,1 ,u ~ ( ,r ,vi.,I, Piler, FAC C :.. '; 1.L JUDGE (J . ivi.,) VAYALPAD

Appen diX_ !,f Evidence

(Witne ss<: ~; cx.arniued)

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: PW 1: J .Siva Kumar -NIL-

Exhibit :_ J narkcq

For Plaintiff: Ex.A 1 is certified copy of regisk .:-cd sale deed d a ted 30.01.2012 stands in his ::.1:~:1:e. Ex.A2 is Patt c:1.dar Passbook stanl 1::; in the name or plaintiff. Ex.P3 is Title deed stands in the name of pla intiff. Ex.A4 is ROR extract stands ir. the name of pla intiff. Ex.AS is Ada ngal/ Pahani stcmds :n the name of · plaintiff. Ex.A6 is office copy of deman, ' notice dated 10.05.2023. For Defendants: -t! ii ,·•

Prl. C fl !L JU ~ , ti .~ ~.tr ( ~

FAC CI \' !L JUDGE L( :i{ .Divi.,) VAYALPAD

JCJ,VYPD

OS No. 124 of 2022 1

12.01.2024, JCJ,VYPD

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

PRESENT:- Smt Sake Jyothi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PILER,

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD.

MONDAY, THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022+ ORIGINAL SUITNO.124 of 2022 BETWEEN: Kavarakuntla Dharani Kumari, wife of V.B.Ramachandar, aged 55 years, Hindu, Employee, residing at Garden Street, Vayalpad post and Mandal, Annamayya District (old Chittoor District).

...Plaintiff

And

1.Shaik Shafi, son of S.Baksh, aged about 37 years, Muslim, Cultivation and business, residing at Cheruvumundarapalli, Kalikiri post and Mandal, Annamaya District (old Chittoor District). 1.Kavarakuntla Akkulanna, son of K.Bokkanna, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation and business, residing at Somadiguttapalli, H/0 Kandur post, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District.

...Defendan2 -00000 This suit came up before me on 05.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Chandra Sekhar, AdvOcate for plaintiff, and the defendant is set ex parte as having been remained absent when called,

and after hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perusing the

material on record and this matter having stood over for consideration

till this day, this Court delivered the following:

LJ0D GMENTZ

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.3,43,866/- being the principal 1.

and interest due on a promissory note dated 11.02.2019 executed by

the defendant 1 and 2 jointly in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/ agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% p.a., and for

Costs.

2. The averments, in brief, of the plaint are that on 11.02.2019 the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of RS.2,00,000/ towards his family and legal necessities from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either

to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. In proof thereof, the

defendant had executed the suit promissory note in favour of the

plaintiff on the same day. It is submitted that despite rep�ated

JC, vYlorly

12.01.2024, JCJ,VYPD demands made by the plaintiff the defendant failed to repay the amOunt

OS No.124 of 2022 2

due under the sult promissorY note to the plaintiff even though he is naving capacity to repay the same, The plaintiff qot issued a legal notice to the defendants 1 and 2 and aot issued reply notice with false allegations. Further the plaintiff got issued a reply re-joinder notice to

The defendants evaded to the defendants 1 and 2 on 30.08.2021.

receive the same and failed to discharae the debt and he had not issued

any reply notice. Hence, the suit.

3. The suit summons on the defendants 1 and 2 served and Sri JVRR, learned counsel filed vakalat for the defendants 1 and 2. On 10.10.2022

Sri jVRR reported no instructions and written statement of D1 and D2

not filed. Hence, the defendants were called and, as they remained

absent and as there was no representation for them, the defendants 1

and 2 were set ex parte. The matter was posted for plaintiff side evidence.

4. In support of his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4.

Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the material on 5. record.

6. Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for.

POINT: The plaintiff, as PW1, in his chief examination affidavit reiterated 7. Ex.A1 is suit promissory note all the averments made in the plaint.

dated 11.02.2019 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the

plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/-, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 29.07.2021 issued by the plaintiff to the defendants. Ex.A3 is reply notice dated 05.08.2021. Ex.A4 is reply rejoinder notice, dated

OS No.124 of 2022

30.08.2021. In vlew of the unchallenged testimony of the plainti as 3

12.01.2024, JCJ,VYPD

PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A4, It can be safely held that the plaintiff has

successfully proved his claim. So, l hold that the plalntiff is entitled to

recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. The point IS answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

8 In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant

to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,43,866/- together with interest at

12% p.a on a principal sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by typist and corrected, signed and

pronounced by me, in open court, on this the 12" day of January, 2024.

PRLJUNIORCIVIjUDGE, PILER

FAC JUNIOR CIVÊLJUDGE, VAYALPAD

Appendix of Evidence (Witnesses examined) For Plaintiff For Defendant PW1: Kavarakuntla Dharani Kumnari -NIL Exhibits marked For Plaintiff Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 11.02.2019 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 29.07.2021 0ssued by the plaintiff to the defendants. Ex.A3 is reply notice dated 05.08.2021.

Ex.A4 is reply rejoinder notice, dated 30.08.2021.

For Defendant -NIL

t

PRLJUNIÓR CINIL JUDGE, PILER

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

JCJ, VYPD

OS No.213 of 2022 12.01.2024, JCJ,VYPD

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

PRESENT:- Smt Sake Jyothl

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PILER,

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD.

MONDAY, THIS THE 12T" DAY OF JANUARY, 20234 ORIGINAL SUIT NO.213 of 2022 BETWEEN:

V.Surendra Reddy, Son of Obul Reddy, aged 62 years, residing at

Chinthalavaripalle, H/o T.Rachapalle, Gurramkonda Mandal, Annamayya

District (old Chittoor District).

..Plaintiff

Ard

B.Reddy Sekhara, Son of Chinnppal, aged 55 years, residing at

Gangireddigaripalle, H/o T.Rachapalle, Gurramkonda Mandal, Annamaya District (old Chittoor District).

..Defendant

-00000

This suit came up before me on 05.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Sadasiva Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff, and the defendant is set ex parte as having been remained absent when called, and after hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perusing the material on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMEN T/L

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.12,035/- being the principal

1

and interest due on a promissory note dated 20.06.2019 executed by

the defendant in favour of the plairtiff for Rs.7,000/- agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% p.a., and for costs. 2 The averments, in brief, of the plaint are that on 20.06.2019 the

defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs.7,000/

towards his family and legal necessities from the plaintiff and agreed to

repay the same along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. In proof thereof, the defendant had executed the suil promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. It is submitted that despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant failed to repay the amount

due under the suit promissory note to the plaintiff even though he is

having capacity to repay the same. The defendant evaded to receive the same and failed to discharge the debt and he had not issued any reply notice. Hence, the suit.

3. The suit summons on the defendant returned served through post as per the track consignment details. On the day fixed for his appearance, the defendant was called and, as he remained absent and

alorlay

OS No.213 of 2022 12.01.2024, JCJ,VYPD

2 as there was no representation for him, the defendant was set ex parte. The matter was posted for plaintiff slde evidence.

4. In support of his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1.

5. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the material on record. Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled 6. to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for.

POINT:

7. The plaintiff, as PW1, in his chief examination affidavit reiterated all the averments made in the plaint. Ex.A1 is suit promissory note

dated 20.06.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for

Rs.7,000/-. In view of the unchallenged testimony of the plaintiff as PW1 coupled with Ex.A1, it can be safely held that the plaintiff has successfully prOved his claim. So, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.12,035/- together with interest at 12% p.a on a principal sum of Rs.7,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by typist and corrected, signed and

pronounced by me, in open court, on this the 12" day of January, 2024.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ptLER

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

Appendix of Evidence (Witnesses cxamined) For Plaintiff For Defendant PW1: K.Subramanyam -NIL Exhibits marked For Plaintiff

Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 20.06.2019

executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.7,000/-. For Defendant-NIL

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PILER

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

JCJ, VYPD