Sri.Samba Siva Rao Naidu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE::

HYDERABAD

Present: Sambasivarao Naidu, IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 21ST day of September, 2015

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 918 OF 2014

From what court this appeal is XXV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. preferred

Number of the case in that CourtC.C.NO.61 of 2013

Number of the appealC.A.No.918 of 2014

Name and description of the 1. Gangala Jagannadham Goud, Appellant / AccusedS/o. G.Saailoo Goud, Age : Major, Occ : Employee,

2. Smt. Savithri, W/o.Gangala Jagannadham Goud, Age : Major, Occ : House wife,

Both are R/o.H.No.1-9-239, Ramnagar, Hyderabad C/o.At R/o.H.No.1-7-924/1, Ramnagar, Zamisthanpur, Hyderabad -500 044.

Name and description of the P.B. Shyam Rao, S/o.Late P.B. Bhujanga respondent / complainant:Rao, Age : 69 years, Occ : Pensioner, R/o.H.No.13-2-959, Raheempura, Hyderabad – 500 006.

The sentence and law under In the result, Accused is found guilty for which conviction was imposed in the offence u/sec.138 of NI Act and the lower courtaccused is liable for conviction U/sec.255(2) Cr.PC. Accused-1 & 2 are sentencedtoundergoRigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default Simple Imprisonment for 3 months each for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of NI Act.

2

Whether confirmed, modified or In the result, the appeal is partly Reversed, if modified the allowed. The judgment of the trial Modification:court through which the second appellant who is convicted for the offence under section 138 of NI Act is set aside. But the finding of the trial court with regard to liability of first appellant to discharge the legally enforceable, debt in favour of the respondent/ complainant is confirmed and the conviction of the first appellant (A1) for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is hereby confirmed. The fine amount paid by second appellant shall be returned to her after appeal time is over.

DATE OR ON WHICH

Presentation22-09-2014

Filing22-09-2014

Notice issued by the Court24-09-2014

Bail bond if appellant is let out on - - - - - bail

Appellant is ordered to be appear 23-12-2014

Hearing19-08-2015

JUDGEMENT21-09-2015

This appeal is coming on for hearing before me, upon perusing the petition and record of evidence and proceedings and of appeal and upon duly considering the same after hearing the arguments of Sri D. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the appellant / accused and Sri P.B. Shyam Rao, Party- in-person for the Respondent / Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a criminal appeal filed by the appellants 1 and 2 under section 374 (3) Cr.P.C challenging the judgment in CC No.61 of 2013 on the file of XXV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad whereunder the appellants herein 3 were convicted for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a peirod of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default sentence.

2.The appellants herein were accused in the above referred calender case and the trial court having found both the appellants guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I.act recorded the convcition against both the appellants.

3.The present appeal has been filed on the following grounds.

The trial cout did not consider the issues raised by the defence and erred in convicting the appellants. The trial court did not consider the claim of appellants that the cheque on the basis of which the case was filed was fabricated for the purpose of extracting huge money from the appellants. The respondent failed to prove the liability of the appellants under the said cheque. The respondent/complainant claimed that he has advanced a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs at one time and Rs. 3 lakhs at another time to the first appellant herein under the agreement. The second appellant was shown to be a surety and Ex.P1 the alleged mortgage is a defective document. The trial court having considered Ex.P1 convicted both the appellant and as scuh the said conviction is bad in law. The second appellant is no way concerned with the cheque in question and she is not a signatory on the cheque which is marked as Ex.P.3. When once she is not a party to the cheque, she is not liable for any conviction for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act. The respondent filed complaint against the appellants in their individual capacity but not as a representative of any company.

The appellants further pleaded that the trial court ignored their 4 claim about serivce of legal notices under Ex.P.7 to P10. The appellants did not receive any notice said to have been issued by the respondent/ compalianant. When there was no such legal notice, they cannot be convicted for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act. The appellants have pleaded that the trial court wrongly presumed the service of Ex.P.9 notice on the appellants but there was no such proper service of notice, thereby the appellants have claimed that their conviction is not maintainable on two grounds namely, the second appellant is not a party to the cheque in question and that there was no service of statutory notice under section 138 of N.I.Act and thereby they prayed for setting aside the judgment of the trial court and for their acquittal in the above said case.

4.As per the records recieved from the trial court, it shows that the respondent/complainant has filed a private complaint before the Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad with the following averments.

He has got acquiantance with the accused and the accused have approached him in December, 2010 and sought for money towards loan to meet the marriage expenses of their daughter. They sought for a sum of

Rs.7.00 lakhs and promised that they will return the amount within one year.

They have handeover their title deeds in respect of house property bearing document no.1250 of 2007. The respondent has paid an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- incash and arranged Rs.3,00,000/- through a cheque drawn at

Panjab National Bank, Charminar Branch, Hyderabad. The first appellant herein executed a loan agreement cum undertaking dated 03-12-2010.

About 15 days thereafter both the appellants have again approached the respondent and sought for another sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Accordingly he has arranged the said amount by way of cash on 27-2-2011. But the 5 appellants did not repay the amount, on his several demands. The first appellant herein issued a cheque bearing No.851311 dated 11-11-2012 drawn at Syndicate Bank, Jai Sanothoshnagar colony, Habsiguda branch,

Hyderabad. The appellants have assured the respondent that they will

honour the cheque without fail and requested him to wait for their indication.

The respondent got issued a notice on 16-11-2012 and demanded the appellants to arrange money. They requested the respondent to deposit the cheque in the first week of December. Accordingly, he has deposited the cheque at Punjab National Bank, Charminar branch, Hyderabad on 6-12- 2012. But the cheque was dishonoued and returned with an endorsement that the account was "blocked". When the respondent approached the first appellant herein and informed about the dishonour of the cheque, for which the first appellant requested him to deposit the cheque on 27-12-2012 and assured him that he will honour the cheque without fail. Accordingly, the respondent has deposited the cheque again in his bank but this time also the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement that "account dormant". As such, the respondent got issued a legal notice on 9-1-2013 demanding his money, but the notice was returned stating that there was no such person at the given address. The respondent got issued another notice on 18-1-2013 to two different addresses. But the notices were retrurned unserved and respondent claims that the appellants with a malafide intention got the notice returned. However, the notice was sent to last known address of the appellants herein thereby the respondent filed complaint which was registered as C.C.No.293 of 2013. But subsequently the case was transferred to XXV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad and re-numbered as

C.C.No.61 of 2013.

6

4.The trial court has furnished copies of documents to the appellants herein and they were examined under section 251 Cr.PC and they denied the accusation. During the course of trial, the respondent himself examined as PW1 and another witness was examined as PW2 and Ex.P.1 to

P13 were marked on behalf of the respondent. The appellant did not chose to examine any witness nor marked any documents on their behalf. After conclusion of trial, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C.

After completion of trial and after hearing both parties, the trial court found the accused 1 and 2 guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced them as stated above.

5.The counsel for the appellants challenged the very conviction against two accused for an offence under section 138 of N.I.Act. For the sake of convenience I am re-producing the finding of the trial court hereunder:

"Therefore I have no hesitation to hold the point that the complainant has dishcarge his burden where as the accused fail to rebut the presumption. In the result accused found guilty for the offence punishable

U/S 138 of N.I.Act and accused "is" liable for conviction under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C." "When the accused was questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence accused submitted that he is suffering with BP and diabeties and he is the only person to look after the welfar of the family. A2 also submitted that she is a sugar patient and both pleaded for mercy." "Heard the accused with regard to the qunatum of sentence.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the nature of the offence 7 accused "is" convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default simple imprisonment for 3 months for A1 and A2 each for the offence punishable punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act."

6.I have heard the counsel for the appellants. The respondent/ complainant who is prosecuting the appeal in person filed written arguments and represented that the appellants herein are liable for severe punishment.

7.Now the pont for consideration in the present appeal:

1 Whether the finding of the trial court against both the appellants for offence U/s 138 of N.I.Act is maintainable inspite of the fct that the cheque vide Ex.P.3 was issued by the first appellant alone?

2 Whether the finding of the trial court against the appellants is incorrect?

3 If so, whether the appellants are entitled to an acquittal as prayed for and if so, to what relief?

POINTS 1 TO 3 ANSWERED:

8.The complaint has been field by the respondent/complainant with an allegation that the appellants herein have committed an offence under section 138 of N.I.Act. As per the averments of the complaint and even according to the evidence of PW1, it was specifically pleaded that both the appellants have approached the respondent and sought for financial assistance to meet the marriage expenses of their daughter. The respondent claims that he has arranged the amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs on one occasion and another sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs about three months thereafter. Both the appellants have executed an agreement/undertaking and agreed to repay the amount within one year but they failed to repay the amount.

8

9.It is specifically pleaded that the first appellant herein has issued

Ex.P.3 cheque to discharge the above referred debt. It may be a fact that the respondent/complainant has calimed that both the appellants herein having depositing their title deed in respect of a particular immovable property executed an agreement/undertaking vide Ex.P.1 and agreed to repay the amount within one year. However, the present case of respondent is that both the appellants herein have issued Ex.P.3 cheque. I have verified

Ex.P.3 which was issued by the first appellant herein for Rs.10.00 lakhs. The respondent has filed the complaint against both the appellants for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act. The trial court after recieving the complaint, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant on 12-03-2013.

In the said statement, the respondent has claimed that the accused to discharge the legally enforceable debt issued a cheque for Rs.10.00 lakhs but the cheque was dishonoured due to the account was blocked. I do not know how the trial court took the case against both the appellants on file for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act when the cheque in question was issued by the first appellant alone. Even as per section 138 of N.I.Act, the person who indischarge of legally enforceable debt issued a cheque and failed to honour the cheque inspite of statutory notice from the drawer, is liable for punishment, thereby the second appellant cannot be made liable for the punishmment under section 138 of N.I.Act. Even as per the judgment of the trial court, it shows that the entire finding is against the sole accused but at the end of the judgment, the learned Special Magistrate convicted both the appellants for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act for which I am of the sincere opinion that it is irregularity on the part of the trial court.

The second appellant who did not issue any cheque for discharge of a debt 9 and against whom no notice was issued cannot be made liable for the punishment and as such the judgment of the trial court to that extent is not maintainable and it can be set aside. The second appellant did not commit any offence under section 138 of N.I.Act, thereby she is enttiled to an acquittal. Therefore I answer the first point in favour of the appellants and against the respondent.

POINT NO.2:

10.The respondent who is examined as PW1 has claimed that he has got acquaintance with the first appellant and out of said acquaintance, both the appellants have approached the respondent and sought for an amount of

Rs.7.00 lakhs to meet the marriage expenses of their daughter and they agreed to repay the amount within one year. Pw1 further claimed that the appellants herein have deposited the title deed of their house property and executed an agreement/undertaking in his favour. Ex.P.1 is the agreement/ undertaking dated 3-12-2010. Ex.P.2 is the original sale deed in favour of the appellants. PW1 further pleaded that again the appellants have approached him and sought for another sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs to meet expenses of the engagement function of their daughter and in order to discharge the entire liability, the first appellant has issued Ex.P.3 cheque bearing no.851311 dated 11-11-2012 drawn at Syndicate Bank, Jai

Sanothoshnagar colony, Habsiguda branch, Hyderabad. It seems that the complainant deposited the cheque for collection, it was dishonoured on two occasions, thereby PW1 got issued notice under Ex.P.4. Ex.P7 is another notice dated 9-1-2013. But both the notices were returned unserved.

11.According to the learned counsel for the appellants this Ex.P.1 is 10 in valid document since it does sign by the respondent/complainant. In fact the present complaint is not filed on the basis of the Ex.P.1, but on the basis of Ex.P.3 dishonoured cheque. It is true Ex.P.1 does not bear the signature of PW1. Ex.P.2 is the original sale deed executed in favour of the first appellant on 31-3-2007. The appellants did not explain as to how the original sale deed is in the hands of the respondent. Even though they disputed the contents of Ex.P.1, there is no serious dispute about execution of Ex.P.1. This documents can be looked into only for the collateral purpose in the aid of the contention of PW1 that in view of taking money the appellants have executed this agreement. Both the appellants have cross examined PW1 at length. In the cross examination also it was suggested that he has obtained blank cheque and filled the columns for the purpose of wrongful gain. It was also suggested to PW1 that he has obtained a blank cheque along with Ex.P.1 agreement and later he filled the columns in

Ex.P.3. The first appellant did not dispute his signature on Ex.p.3. In view of the above suggestion, it can be inferred that the appellants have executed

Ex.p.1 and deposited their title deed with PW1 and obtained sum of Rs. 10 lakhs.

12.It is true in the cross examination it was elicited from Pw1 that the marriage of daughter of appellants here in was performed in February, 2013. However, there is no explanation from these appellants as to why they have deposited their title deed with the respondent and as to what made them to execute Ex.P.1 agreement. Since there is no serious dispute about issuance of Ex.P.1 and P3, the burden is heavily on the appellants to prove that Ex.P.3 was not issued for any legally enforceable debt. However, PW1 by way of his oral evidence and also by producing Ex.P.1, P2 and P3 is able to 11 show that he lend money to the appellants. They have executed agreement in his favour and later to discharge the liability the first appellant has issued

Ex.P.3 cheque.

13.In view of the above stated circumstances, the burden is on the first appellant to explain that he did not issue Ex.P.3. But in the cross examination itself it was suggested that Ex.P.3 was also delivered to the respondent along with Ex.P.1 a loan agreement. Therefore, the presumption under section 119 and 139 of N.I.Act stands in their way. Even though PW1 was cross examined at length the appellants could not elicit anything to show that they never borrowed any amount from PW1 and they are not able to establish that there was no legally enforceable debt between them. It is true PW1 was not able to show that he has got that much amount in his custody. But when once the execution of Ex.P.1, P2 and P3 is proved, the appellants cannot escape the liability. Unless they borrowed money from

PW1, there was no necessity for the first appellant to give a cheque in favour of the respondent. During the cross examination of PW1 an admission was made by counsel for the appellants that a blank cheque was obtained along with Ex.P1 and later PW1 has filled up the blank cheque. It is settled principle of law that the entire cheque need not be filled up by the appellants/accused and when once his signature is proved the burden is heavily on the appellant to show that there was no debt between him and the respondent/PW1.

14.The appellants have pleaded that there was no service of legal notice. In fact, PW1 has marked Ex.P.4 to P7 ie., office copy of his legal notice dated 15-11-2012 and 9-1-2013. As seen from Ex.P.2 sale deed, the appellant is show to be an RTC employee and resident of H.No.1-9-237, 12

Ramnagar, Hyderabad. Ex.P.2 is sale deed that was executed in respect of house property bearing no. 1-7-924/1, at Ramnagar, Hyderabad. The respondent/complainant got issued Ex.P.4 notice to the address mentioned in the sale deed under Ex.P.2. He has issued another notice vide Ex.P7 to the address mentioned in the sale deed and he has issued another notice under

Ex.P9 to both the addresses but the said notices were unserved. In fact while filing his complaint, the respondent has furnished both the addresses and summons sent from the court were served on the appellants herein.

Therefore, the respondent is able to show that he has issued legal notices to the known addresses of the appellant but they were returned unserved. This amounts to a valid service. The first appellant cannot escape from liability on the ground that there was no proper service of notice. They did not produce any evidence to believe that they are not residing in the above stated addresses or to show that they are available in any particular place which is not mentioned in Ex.P.7 and P9 notices. Therefore, there is proper service of legal notice. The appealants who have borrowed huge amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs from the respondent herein issued Ex.P.3 cheque. But the first appellant has issued this cheque and did not chose to honour the cheque.

Therefore, the first appellant is liable for the punishment for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act. The finding of the trial court that both the appellants are liable for punishment is incorrect. The first appellant cannot be escape the liability and I answered this point accordingly.

15.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of the trial court through which the second appellant who is convicted for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act is set aside. But the finding of the trial court with regard to liability of first appellant to discharge the legally 13 enforceable debt in favour of the respondent/complainant is confirmed and the conviction of the first appellant for the offence under section 138 of

N.I.Act is hereby confirmed. The fine amount paid by second appellant shall be returned to her after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Steno Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21ST day of September, 2015.

Sd/- Sambasivarao Naidu,

IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

HYDERABAD.

// T.C.F.B.O. //

SUPERINTENDENT

Copy to:-

The XXV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. (Sending the case records in C.C.NO.61 of 2013 on the file of your court along with copy of Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.918/2014 on the file of this Court).

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE::

HYDERABAD

Present: Sambasivarao Naidu, IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 21ST day of September, 2015

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 466 OF 2014

From what court this appeal is XVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan preferredMagistrate, Hyderabad.

Number of the case in that CourtCC.NO.1342 of 2012

Number of the appealC.A.No.466 of 2014

Name and description of the P.Ramulu, S/o.P.Kondaiah, Appellant / ComplainantAged : 50 years, Occ : Nil, R/o.H.No.1-7-629/101, Atchaiah Nagar, Ram Nagar, Hyderabad.

Name and description of the 1. K. Shiva Kumar, S/o.K.Yellaiah, Respondent / Accused :R/o.Plot No.7, Adarsh Nagar, Peerzadiguda, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The State of A.P PS: Musheerabad.

The sentence and law under In the result, the accused is found not which conviction was imposed in guilty for the offence punishable under the lower courtsec.138 of N.I. Act and consequently he is acquitted U/sec.255(1) Cr.PC. He shall be set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be stands cancelled.

Whether confirmed, modified or In the result, the appeal is dismissed by Reversed, if modified the confirming the judgment of the trial Modification:court in C.C.No.1342 of 2012 dated 17-04-2014.

DATE OR ON WHICH

Presentation13-05-2014

Filing13-05-2014

Notice issued by the Court15-05-2014

Bail bond if appellant is let out on - - - - - bail

Appellant is ordered to be appear 07-08-2014 2

DATE OR ON WHICH

Hearing09-09-2015

JUDGEMENT21-09-2015

This appeal is coming on for hearing before me, upon perusing the petition and record of evidence and proceedings and of appeal and upon duly considering the same after hearing the arguments of Sri P. Venkat Swamy and Sri T. Chander Bhan Singh, Advocates for the appellant / Complainant and Sri V. Thrimurthulu, Advocate for the Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

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

1.This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/complainant under section 372 Cr.P.C challenging the judgment and finding of the trial court in

CC.No.1342 of 2012 on the file of XVIII ACMM, Hyderabad. The appellant

being the compllainant in the said calender case prosecuted the respondent / accused for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act. The trial court came to a conlcusion that the appellant herein was not able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act and accordingly acquitted the accuses under section 255(1) Cr.P.C.The appellant is challenging the said judgment in the present appeal and sought for setting aside the judgment of the trial court and for convicting the respondent/ accused.

2.As seen from the records received from the trial court the following was the brief case of the appellant in the said calendar case. The appeal is preferred against the acquittal of the respondent, I will refer the parties in the same terms in which they were arrayed in the complaint.

3.The complainant has purchased an extent of 116 sq.yards from

Plot No.30/9 under S.No.79 and 80 situated at Peerzadiguda village and 3

Gramapanchayath, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R. District from the original owners namely P. Jangaiah and others under registered sale deed dated 4-9-2003.

The accused herein approached him and expressed his intention to purchase the plot. There were negotiations between the complainant and accused and also with the owners of the adjacent extents. The complainant and the owners of the adjacent plots agreed to sell their plots to the accused herein, thereby the accused got registered an Agreement of Sale – Cum – GPA in his favour from the complainant as well as his brother by name K. Sathaiah and said Agreement was executed for a sum of Rs.4,88,000/-. By the time of execution of the said agreement, the accused was also indebted to the complainant for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards expenditure incurred for leveling the land. The accused obtained possession of the said land and in order to clear the amount, he has issued a post dated cheque dated 29-08-2008 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. However, when the complainant presented the cheque for collection, it was dishonoured due to lack of sufficient amount in the account of the accused. The banker of the complainant returned the cheque with a memo dated 01-10-2008. The complainant approached the accused and informed about dishonour of the cheque for which the accused replied him that due to some financial problems, he could not arrange the amount and promised the complainant that he will arrange the amount after 15-11-2008 and asked him to deposit the cheque after 15.11.2008. Accordingly the complainant presented the cheque once again on 19-11-2008, but again the cheque was dishonoured with the same endorsement. The complainant got issued a legal notice

dated 11-12-2008 calling upon the accused to pay the amount within 15

days. But accused got issued a reply stating that he need not pay any 4 amount as he had cleared the amounts to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has filed the complaint with a prayer to punish the accused for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act.

4.The complaint was registered as C.C.No.2028/2009 on the file of

IX ACMM, Hyderabad, and it was subsequently transferred to XVIII ACMM,

Hyderabad and registered as CC.No.1342 of 2012. The accused made his appearance before the court. He was served with copies of complaint and he was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C., he denied the accusation. During the trial, the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and one Ch.

Srinivas was examined as PW2 and they have marked Ex.D1 to D4 during the course of cross-examination of above witnesses. After conclusion of the trial, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court came to conclusion that the complainant is not able to prove his case, thereby the acquitted the accused for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C.

5.I have heard both parties.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

1.Whether the appellant/complainant is able to bring the guilt of accused for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

2.Whether the trial court committed any irregularity in acquitting the accused for the said offence? If so to what relief?

POINTS 1 AND 2 ANSWERED:

7.As seen from the averments of the complaint and according to evidence adduced by PW1, PW2 and also as per the documents marked as

Ex.P.1 to P4, it was specifically pleaded that the complainant and some other persons have purchased land in S.No.79 and 80 of Peerzadiguda village.

The accused who wanted to purchase the plot approached the complainant 5 and co-owners. There were negotiations between the owner of the land and accused herein. It appears that the acc used agreed to purchase the property. It is claimed by the complainant that the accused is liable to pay

Rs.5,03,000/- towards the cost of the land and towards the development charges as Rs.15,000/-. In order to discharge the said amount, the accused said to have issued a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/-, but it was dishonoured due to lack of sufficient amount in the account of the accused. Where as the accused has claimed that he has paid the entire amount and he need not pay any amount to the complainant and therefore there was no legally enforceable debt.

8.In order to substantiate their respective contentions both the parties are relying upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2, Ex.P1 to P4 and

Ex.D1 to D4. As per the chief affidavit filed by PW1, it is pleaded that he is owner of 146 sq. yards and his relative by name Sathaiah is owner of 100 square yards. PW2 is owner of 168 square yards. One Kistaiah is owner of 100 square yards thereby all together they have got 514 square years in

S.No.79 and 80. The accused wanted to purchase the plot and agreed to pay Rs.4,647/- per square yard. Therefore, the total consideration agreed to be paid by the accused is Rs.23,88,588/-. The complainant and other co- owners have executed Agreement of Sale /General Power of Attorney vide document No.8264 of 2008 dated 29-8-2008. The evidence of PW1 further shows that he along with his brother executed Agreement of sale cum

General Power of Attorney in favour of the accused and the accused prepared another Agreement of Sale cum G.P.A and obtained the same from other owners. PW1 pleads that he has created these documents only to create confusion among the complainant and co-owners.

6

9.According to PW1, he along with his brother Sataiah are entitled to Rs.4,88,000/- for 105 square yards and out of the said amount he is entitled Rs.6,78,462/- and the calculation shown in the evidence are incorrect. He did not state these facts in the complaint. However, his chief affidavit categorically shows that all the four co-owners are entitled to a sum of Rs.23,88,558/- towards cost of 514 Sq.Yards. The accused paid a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- cash and issued a cheque dated 29-9-2008 for Rs.5,00,000/- and he promised to pay the balance consideration ie., Rs.8,88,558/- within one month and agreed to get the necessary permission for registering the regular sale deed. PW1 claimed that he presented the cheque dated 29-08-2008 for sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for collection, but it was dishonoured.

The affidavit further shows that PW1 and other co-owners have also filed a suit in O.S.No.702 of 2012 on the file of I Addl. District Judge, L.B.Nagar for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the accused. During the cross examination of PW1, the counsel for the accused elicited so many important aspects. A suggestion was given to PW1 that he did not mention in the legal notice and also in the complaint about the total consideration to a tune of Rs.23,88,558/- and about the total extent sold to the accused namely 514 square yards. PW1 claimed that they have purchased open plots and he constructed a room by spending Rs.75,000/-. Of course, this fact was also not noted in the complaint and in the legal notice. The certified copy of the sale deed dated 29-8-2008 has been marked as Ex.D1. A suggestion was given to the complainant that in Ex.D1 there was a mention about the payment of entire sale consideration but PW1 denied the said suggestion. According to PW1, he has received Rs.10,00,000/- in two installments i.e, Rs.5,00,000/- each after they purchased the property from 7

Jangaiah. It is also elicited from Pw1 that accused has paid Rs.5,00,000/- under Ex.P.1 cheque. PW1 voluntarily stated that the accused paid

Rs.5,00,000/- each on two occasions, thereby he received Rs.10,00,000/- after the sale of the property. It is elicited from PW1 that the accused has paid another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and fifteen days after payment of

Rs.5,00,000/- in the first occasion. PW1 admitted the contents of Ex.D2 and it is elicited from Pw1 that under Ex.D2 he along with other executants received a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- from the accused. PW1 has admitted that they have received Rs.2,00,000/- from the accused on 19-08-2008. When he was specifically asked about the total sum, he received from the accused

PW1 said that he does not know how much amount he received out of

Rs.7,20,000/- paid under Ex.D2. In the subsequent cross examination of

PW1, it is elicited that Ex.D4 is a cash receipt dated 17-09-2008 and he admitted the signatures on Ex.D3 and D4. He has identified the signatures of co-sellers on Ex.D3 and D4. PW1 admitted that they have received

Rs.2,20,000/- under Ex.D3 and they have received Rs.4,75,000/- under

Ex.D4. However PW1, without showing all these payments, claimed that he is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the accused.

10.As rightly argued by the counsel for the accused, Ex.D4 cash receipt categorically shows that there is a note under the document, where under PW1 and the other co-owners agreed to return the cheque after receiving Rs.25,000/-. This endorsement clearly shows that they have obtained a cheque from the accused towards security and they agreed to return the cheque on receipt of Rs.25,000/-. All the documents under Ex.D1 to D4 put together shows that the accused has paid the agreed consideration and Ex.P.1 was issued only towards security. PW1 for the reasons best 8 known to him did not furnish all these details in the complaint and clevarly stated that the sold the 105 square yards for a sum of Rs.4,88,000/- and he is entitled to receive Rs.5,00,000/- including the development charges which in fact was not his case as per his chief affidavit. The evidence of PW1 in the affidavit filed in respect of the claim contradicting his own pleadings. The cross examination of PW1 coupled with Ex.D1 to D4 shows that accused having purchased the property to an extent of 514 square yards for

Rs.23,88,558/- has paid the entire amount under various cheques and by way of cash. Therefore, the complainant is not able to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt and as such, I believe the claim of the accused that

Ex.P.1 cheque was issued only towards security. In the light of the endorsement under Ex.D4, the complainant is suppose to return the cheque after payment of Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, the complainant is not able to prove the gult of the accused for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act and as such the appellant court came to a right conclusion and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11.In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial court in C.C.No.1342 of 2012 dated 17-04-2014.

Dictated to the Steno Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21ST day of September, 2015.

Sd/- Sambasivarao Naidu,

IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

HYDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : Sambasivarao Naidu, IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 29 TH day of September, 2015

S.C.No. 404 / 2011

Between:

State through the Sub Inspector of Police, PS: Langer House, Hyderabad. … Complainant/State.

And

1. M. Ramesh, S/o.M. Jangaiah, aged about 42 years, Occ: Diary Form work, R/o.Company Bagh, Langer House, Hyderabad.

2. M. Renuka, W/o.M. Ramesh, Age : Nil, Occ : Nil, R/o.Company Bagh, Langer House, Hyderabad. … Accused

This case is coming before me finally and upon hearing the arguments of Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Sri Saleema Naaz, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides this court made the following:

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

1.This is a case filed by S.I of Police, Langer House Police

Station, Hyderabad against A1 and A2 with an allegation that the accused have committed an offence under section 306 read with 34 IPC.

2.The following is the brief case of the police as per the charge sheet.

One G. Kalpana @ Radha who hereinafter be referred as deceased was the Mother of PW1 and Sister of PW2 herein. The deceased used to work as maid servant and she married one Buchi Babu @ 2

Butchaiah and during their wedlock they were blessed with two children.

But she deserted her husband and developed illicit relationship with one

Sailu and during the course of time said Sailu also died. After death of

Sailu she married Prateep and staying at Company Bagh and admitted her daughter PW1 herein at Government hostel at Moulali. The accused herein who are wife and husband are neighbours of the deceased. They have also admitted their children in the same hostel at Moulali. On 13-03-2010 in view of Ugadi Festival, the deceased went to hostel and brought her daughter PW1 to her house. In this regard at about 7-00 pm on 15-03-2010 A2 called the deceased to their house and both the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased questioning her as to why she did not brought their daughter along with PW1. The deceased informed to the accused that she had no money to bring their daughter, but A1 and A2 abused the deceased in filthy language and A1 beat her with hands. The prosecution has alleged that in view of the above incident, the deceased felt depressed and frustrated and went into her room and poured Kerosene on her body set herself ablazed and she received burn injuries and while undergoing treatment, succumbed to the injuries at

Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad.

On 15-03-2010 at about 11-15 pm PW5 a police constable of

PS Langarhouse on receipt of information from hospital authorities went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased. On the basis of the statement a case in Crime No.77 of 2010 under the head of woman burns was registered by the Head Constable Mohd. Ali-LW14. During the course of investigation, the police have filed a requisition before PW8. The then IX ACMM, Hyderabad got recorded the statement of the deceased.

3

PW7 visited the scene of offence, conducted a panchanama and seized the kerosene stove from the scene of offence and obtained photographs.

However, the deceased died on 16-3-2010, thereby PW7 sent a requisition to RDO who conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was referred for Post Mortem Examination and PW6 conducted

PME over the dead body and issued report stating that the deceased died due to burn injuries. A1 was arrested on 26-03-2010, and was produced

before the Court. After completion of investigation, PW7 filed the charge

sheet against the accused.

3.The Learned VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance for the offence under section 306 read with 34 IPC. The presence of the accused was secured, copies of documents were furnished and after hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, he committed the case in terms of Section 207 Cr.PC to the Court of Hon’ble

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and thereafter the case was made over to this court for trial.

4.Before this Court, accused were on bail and they were represented by their own learned counsel. On hearing both sides, a charge under Section 306 read with 34 IPC is framed, read over and explained to the accused. They denied allegations and pleaded not guilty.

5.At trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8 and M.O.1. The incriminating evidence available on record was offered to the accused U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., seeking their explanations. They denied the truth of the evidence.

6.The counsel for accused and Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted their oral arguments.

4

7.From what stated above, the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 and A2 for charge Under Section 306 read with 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT ANSWERED:

8.The prosecution claimed that the accused are no other than the neighbours of the deceased herein and a quarrel took place with the accused on the ground that she failed to bring their children from the hostel. It is the case of prosecution that one day prior to the above offence, the deceased happened to go Moulali hostel and picked up her daughter who was staying in hostel, but she did not bring the children of the accused, who are also staying in the same hostel. The prosecution has alleged that the accused found fault for that and abused her in filthy language and beat her thereby the deceased committed suicide.

9.In order to prove the above allegations, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Ex.P.1 to P8 and M.o1. PW1 is daughter of the deceased PW2 is sister of the deceased. PW3 is a witness to the inquest on the dead body of the deceased conducted at mortuary at

OGH, Hyderabad. PW4 got conducted inquest vide Ex.P.1. PW5 is a constable who recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.p.2. PW6 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.3 PME report. PW7 is the Investigating Officer and PW8 is the Judicial Officer who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased.

10.Out of these witnesses, the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW8 is crucial. The prosecution has alleged that the accused have instigated the 5 deceased to commit suicide. They have abated the commission of suicide by the deceased herein. It is settled principle of law that to constitute an offence under section 306 IPC, the accused must have got required meserea i.e., they should have a per-meditated mind to instigate the deceased for commission of a suicide. Even if the entire evidence of PW1 and Pw2 and PW8 is believed to be true, still there is no material before the court to hold that these accused have got required meserea.

11.It is not the case of PW1 and PW2 that the accused wanted the deceased to commit suicide. PW8 who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased categorically stated that the deceased stated before him that the accused beat her since she failed to get the children from the hostel, thereby she committed suicide after sending PW1 from the house. The dying declaration is marked as Ex.P8. In the dying declaration, the deceased categorically informed PW8 that her daughter PW1 and children of A2 are staying in a hostel and on 15-3-2010 she brought her daughter to the house since she did not bring the children of A2 herein, A1 called the deceased and both the accused made a galata and A1 beat her.

Therefore at about 7-30 pm she sent her daughter from the house and poured kerosene and lit fire. Therefore, it is not at all the statement of the deceased before PW8 that the accused have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Even I believe that A1 beat the deceased, it may not amount to an active instigation or abatement of the deceased to commit suicide.

12.Apart from this, there are certain important aspects that were elicited from PW1 and PW2 herein. PW1 the daughter of the deceased categorically stated that the son of the accused called her mother but 6 accused did not ask her mother to set herself on fire. It is elicited from

PW1 by the time her mother committed suicide, she was playing outside the house. The deceased used to consume toddy and she was behaving in an abnormal way. It is elicited from PW1 that the deceased was in a sad mood since there was no body to take proper care of PW1 and deceased.

13.PW2 is the sister of the deceased deposed that the deceased married one Buchibabu, but deserted him and residing with one Sailu. But after the death of Sailu, the accused herein have performed the marriage of the deceased with another man. PW2 had no personal knowledge as to what happened on the date of offence. PW3 is the eye witness categorically deposed that the deceased used to consume toddy. On the date of the above alleged offence she consumed toddy and then had a quarrel with A2. The above stated circumstances categorically shows that the deceased who was in frustration and who was not happy with her present life had a quarrel with the accused when they questioned as to why she did not bring their children from the hostel. Even though it is believed that the deceased committed suicide soon after quarrel with the accused still there is no evidence before this court to believe that the accused have instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

14.In order to prove the offence under section 306 IPC the prosecution must be able to prove that they have abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. Abatement of a particular offence is defined under section 107 IPC, to constitute abatement there must be active instigation by the accused. The prosecution must be able to show that these accused intentionally added any act or illegal omission to force the deceased to commit suicide. In the above case, even as per the entire 7 prosecution evidence, there is no such abatement as defined under section107 IPC and thereby the charge under section 306 read with 34

IPC is not proved against the accused. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 is very clear that the deceased used to consume toddy and she used to behave in abnormal manner and on the date of occurrence also after quarreling with the deceased, she sent her daughter from the house and committed suicide and there is no evidence before the court that these accused instigated the deceased to commit such suicidal death, thereby the accused are entitled to acquittal.

15.In the result, I find the accused A1 and A2 not guilty for the charge under section 306 read with 34 IPC. Therefore in terms of Section 235 (1) Cr.PC they are acquitted and their bail bonds shall stands discharged.

PROPERTY: The M.O.1 kerosene stove and unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Forward the case property to the learned committal court, for carrying out this order into effect.

Dictated to Steno Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 29th day of September, 2015.

Sd/- Sambasivarao Naidu,

IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1 : Kum. G.Swathi, Daughter of the deceased -Nil-

PW-2 : Smt. K. Yadamma, Sister of the deceased

PW-3 : Smt. Ananthamma, Panch for Inquest

PW-4 : Smt. Waheed Khatoon, Conducted the Inquest 8

PW-5 : Sri M. Shiva Reddy, Recorded the statement of deceased

PW-6 : Dr. Abijith Subedar, Conducted autopsy

PW-7 : D. Santosh Kumar, I.O.

PW-8 : N. Ramesh Babu, Conducted the Dying Declaration

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1 : Inquest Report -Nil-

Ex.P-2 : Statement of Kalpana

Ex.P-3 : Post Mortem Examination Report

Ex.P-4 : FIR

Ex.P-5 : Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P-6 : Requisition for altering the section of law

Ex.P-7 : Requisition filed by Police to record Dying Declaration

Ex.P-8 : Dying Declaration

M.O's MARKED.

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

MO-1 : Kerosene bottle - Nil -

Sd/- Sambasivarao Naidu,

IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

HYDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : Sambasivarao Naidu, IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 28 TH day of September, 2015

S.C.No. 367 / 2013

Between: State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS: Bhavani Nagar, Hyderabad. … Complainant/State.

And

1. Syed Imran, S/o.Syed Ismail, Age 19 years, Occ: Un-Employee, R/o.H.No.8-178/33/A, Shaheen Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. Abdul Kareem, S/o.Shaik Shamshuddin, Age 19 years, Occ : Student, R/o.H.No.18-7-198/C/18/A/1, Aman Nagar-B, Talabkatta, Hyderabad.

3. Mohammed Jameel, S/o.Mohammed Jaleel, Age 19 years, Occ : Waiter in Hidayath Function Hall, R/o.H.No.18-7-423/A/860, Aman Nagar-B, Talabkatta, Hyderabad. … Accused No.1 to 3

This case is coming before me finally and upon hearing the arguments of Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Sri Mohd. Muzaferullah Khan, Advocate & Associates for the accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides this court made the following:

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

1.This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Bhavani

Nagar against the Accused No.1 to 3 with an allegation that the accused have committed an offence punishable under sections 307, R/w.34 IPC.

The following is the brief case of police as per the charge sheet.

2.All the accused are resident of Hyderabad. One Md.Adil who is examined as Pw2 before the court is the cousin brother of Pw1. A3 herein was working as a waiter in Inayat Function Hall since more than two years prior to the date of alleged offence. On 2.6.2012 there was a marriage 2 function in the said Inayat Function Hall and A3 herein was supplying tea to the guests. At about 10.45 pm Pw2 herein request A3 to serve tea, but

A3 who was busy with other guests could not serve tea to PW2.

Therefore, Pw2 started quarreling with A3 and A3 beat Pw2. Pw2 became unconscious and fell on the ground. Having come to know about the incident PW1 and other relatives of PW2 quarrel with A3 and beat him with hands. Another waiter who witnessed the above incident informed the same to A1 who was present in the office room. A1 and A2 rushed to the place where PW1 and 2 were quarreling with A3. There was a quarrel between A1 to A3 and Pw1 herein. A1 removed a knife from the kitched and attacked Pw1. The other accused instigated A1 to kill Pw1. A1 stabbed Pw1 on the back side of the right shoulder, A2 also beat Pw1 and

A3 beat him with hands. Since the relatives of Pw1 started gathering at the scene of offence A1 to A3 ran away from the spot. On 2.6.2012 at about 11.15 am Pw1 and other relatives visited police station and since he was having a bleeding injury. Pw1 was immediately referred to OGH,

Hyderabad. The then S.I., of Police Bhavani Nagar recorded the statement of the PW1 registered a case in Crime No.111/2012. The Sub-

Inspector of police examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence, arrested the accused and filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The said charge sheet was registered as PRC.12/2013 on the file of VIII ACMM, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate supplied the copy of charge sheet to the accused and since the offence alleged against the accused is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, he has committed the case to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The said case was registered as SC.367/2013 and was made over to this court to trial.

3

4.All the accused appeared before the court, they were charged under Sections 307 R/w.34 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. During the trial the prosecution has examined two witnesses i.e., PW1, PW2 and marked Ex.P1 to P3. Since, these material witnesses did not support the case and turned hostile, the learned Public

Prosecutor given up the remaining witnesses. There is no incriminating material against the accused, as such examination under sec.313 Cr.P.C., was dispensed with.

5.I have heard both parties.

6.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/s.307

R/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

7.The prosecution has alleged that Pw2 who attended a marriage function in Hidayat Function Hall where A3 was working as waiter requested him to supply tea and there was a quarrel between A3 and pw2 and A3 said to have caused injuries and Pw2 fell unconscious. As such

Pw1 who is brother of Pw2 raised a quarrel with A3 and in the mean while

A1, A2 joined A3 and all the accused beat PW1 and 2. The prosecution further alleged that A1 stabbed Pw1 with a knife and the other accused beat him etc., however, during the trial Pws1 and 2 did not support the prosecution and they did not state anything about the alleged offence.

According to Pw1 about 3 years ago he and Pw2 attended a marriage function. He was told by some body that Pw2 sustained injuries, he went there and some unknown offenders stabbed him on his back. PW1 categorically deposed that the accused present before court did not commit any offence against him and he did not sustain any injuries in the 4 hands of the accused. He did not attribute any overt acts to the accused.

Pw2 also did not support the prosecution. In view of this evidence the

Learned Public Prosecutor has given up the remaining list of witnesses.

Since both the material witnesses did not support the case there is no evidence against the accused and the charges are not proved. The defacto complainant who said to have sustained a stab wound did not state any thing against the accused. Therefore the accused are entitled to an acquittal.

8.In the result, I found accused not guilty for the offence

U/s.307 R/w.34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/s.232 Cr.PC.

PROPERTY : The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Dictated to Steno Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 28th day of September, 2015.

Sd/- Sambasivarao Naidu,

IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1 : Sri Sk. Abdul Sajid, Complainant-Nil- PW-2 : Sri Md. Adil, Eye witness

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1 : Signature of PW1 on report -Nil- Ex.P-2 : 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1 Ex.P-3 : 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2

M.O's MARKED.

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

- Nil -

Sd/- Sambasivarao Naidu,

IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

HYDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : Sambasivarao Naidu, IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 28 TH day of September, 2015

S.C.No. 206 / 2011

Between:

State through the Sub Inspector of Police, PS: Rein Bazar, Hyderabad. … Complainant/State.

And

Syed Imran Hashmi, S/o.Syed Muqthar Hashmi, Age : 26 Years, Occ:Maid Servant, R/o.H.No.18-7-360, Talabkatta, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad. … Accused

This case is coming before me finally and upon hearing the arguments of Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Sri G. Suresh Goud & Associates, Advocates for the accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides this court made the following:

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

1.This is a case filed by sub-inspector of police Rein Bazar against the sole accused with an allegation that the accused committed the offences punishable under sections 307, 452 IPC and Section 25(1)

(b) of Arms Act. The following is the brief case of police as per the charge sheet.

2.The accused herein is the son-in-law of PWs 1 and 2. About one year prior to the date of alleged offence, PW2 gifted one mobile phone to the accused. Subsequently the son of PWs1 and 2 namely Md.Arif who is no other than brother-in-law of the accused has been using the said 2 mobile phone. However, when the said Arif kept the cell phone in battery charging due to mall function it was damaged and bursted. The accused made a galata and demanded Rs.2,000/- towards damages. Both Pw1 and 2 requested him to allow some time so that they will pay the amount.

But they failed to pay the amount. The prosecution further alleged that on the intervening night of 26/27-1-10 Pw1 came to the house of Pw1 and at about 1.30 in the night he picked a quarrel with pw1 and demanded his money. Even though Pw1 and 2 tried to convince him he became violent and suddenly removed a big knife from his pant and stabbed PW1. PW1 sustained a bleeding injury on his chest and he was immediately shifted

OGH, Hyderabad. On intimation from the hospital the then ASI, Rein

Bazar by name Md.Mustaq Ali rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW1. On the basis of the said statement the then S.I., of

Rein Bazar registered a case in Crime No.14/2010 and took up investigation.

3.During the course of investigation the sub-inspector visited the scene of offence obtained photographs and conducted a panchanama in the presence of LW8 and 9 namely Md.Tazuddin and M.Ramulu. He has seized blood stained foot ware of the accused and also blood stained knife from the scene of offence. He has examined Pw1 and 2 and Lws3 to 7.

the accused was arrested on 27.01.2010 and was produced before the court. After completing the investigation the sub-inspector filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.The said charge sheet was registered as PRC.32/2010 on the file of VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned

Magistrate supplied the copy of charge sheet to the accused and since the

3 offence alleged against the accused is exclusively triable by the court of

sessions, he has committed the case to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad. The said case was registered as SC.206/2011 and was made over to this court to trial.

5.The accused appeared before the court, he was charged under

Sections 307, 452 IPC and 25(1) (b) Arms Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. During the trial the prosecution has examined two witnesses i.e., PW1, PW2 and marked Ex.P1, P2. Since, these material witnesses did not support the case and turned hostile, the learned Public Prosecutor given up the remaining witnesses. There is no incriminating material against the accused, as such examination under sec.313 Cr.P.C., was dispensed with.

6.I have heard both parties.

7.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/s. 307, 452 IPC and 25(1) (b) Arms Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

8.The prosecution has alleged that the accused being the son-in- law of Pws1 and 2 was gifted a mobile phone but his brother-in-law obtained the same and was using it. While the son of Pw1 herein was charging his phone it got bursted thereby the accused demanded

Rs.2,000/- towards the charge of the phone. The prosecution further alleged that Pw1 and 2 seek time to pay the amount. But in the mean while on 26.01.2010 during night the accused entered the house of Pw1, quarreled with him and stabbed him with a big knife. The accused stood charged U/s.307, 452 IPC and 25(1) (b) Arms Act. However, when i take up the matter for trial both the material witnesses turned hostile to the 4 prosecution. They did not support the case of prosecution. Pw1 who supposed to have sustained injuries in the hands of accused deposed as if he received injuries in the hands of unknown person in a galata that took place during night and in front of his house. Pw1 categorically deposed that he did not receive any injuries in the hands of accused. Pw2 who is wife of Pw1 and mother-in-law of the accused deposed that she does not know anything about the case and she did not attribute any overt acts to he accused. The Learned Public Prosecutor represented that since the accused is their own son-in-law these witnesses resiled from there previous version and deposed false. Since both the material witnesses did not support the case there is no evidence against the accused and the charges are not proved. Therefore the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

9.In the result, I found accused not guilty for the offences

U/s.307, 452 IPC and 25(1) (b) of Arms Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.232 Cr.P.C.

PROPERTY : The unmarked property shall be sent to committal court and it shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Steno Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 28th day of September, 2015.

Sd/- Sambasivarao Naidu,

IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1 : Sri Shaik Anwar, Victim-Nil-

PW-2 : Smt. Azeezia Bee, Eye witness

EXHIBITS MARKED

5

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1 : 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1 -Nil-

Ex.P-2 : 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2

M.O's MARKED.

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

- Nil -

Sd/- Sambasivarao Naidu,

IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

HYDERABAD.