Dr. Sk Md Abutalib Parveez

1 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.321 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF

THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),ELURU

-CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: ELURU

1. Date of Offence: 25.12.2020

2. Date of report: 26.12.2020

3. Date of arrest of accused: under section 41 (A) Cr.P.C

4. Date of release on bail: ---------------

5. Date of commencement of trail: 28.08.2025

6. Date of close of trial: 07.05.2026

7. Date of judgment: 19.05.2026

8. Complainant :State:The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru I Town Police Station.

9. Accused : Bandlamudi Naveen, S/o.Rajani Kanth, age 25 years, Caste by SC- Mala, Private Electrician, R/o.Near CSI Church, Katheif Street, Eluru.

10. Offence : under Sections 324 of IPC

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court : Found guilty

13. Sentence or order: The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Accordingly, the Accused is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C and the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for period of one (1) year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- ( five thousands

Rupees only) for the offence under section 324 I.P.C, In case of default of fine amount, he under go simple imprisonment for a period of three months. M.O.1 is Blade of two inches length and half inch width shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file on 30.04.2021 against accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and this case is numbered as

Digitally signed by SHAIK MD

SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

ABUTALIBPARVEEZ

PARVEEZDate: 2026.05.19 11:34:32 +0530 2 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru C.C.No.321/2021. On 24.02.2022 case copies of all documents are furnished to them under section 207 of Cr.P.C. On 19.05.2022 the accused is examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, he denied all allegations made against him and a charge framed against him under section 324 of IPC and read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The S.H.O, Eluru I Town police station reported that, LW.1 died and

Death certificate was filed Hence evidence of LW.1 is closed. On 28.08.2025

PW.1 to PW.3 are examined. On 03.09.2025 PW.4 is examined and Ex.P1 is marked. On 30.10.2025 PW.5 is examined and Ex.P2 is marked. On 06.11.2025

PW.6 is examined and Ex.P3 to Ex.P7 , M.O.1 are marked and the Prosecution evidence is closed and posted for under section 313 Cr.P.C examination. On 07.11.2025 accused examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, denied the same and reported no defence evidence and posted for arguments. On 17.11.2025 the Learned APP filed a petition under section 311

Cr.P.C vide Crl.M.P No.908/2025 and the same was allowed on 07.01.2026. On 30.01.2026 PW.7 is examined and M.O.1 is marked and posted for under section 313 Cr.P.C examination. On 04.02.2026 the Accused examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence and posted for arguments. This matter is posted for arguments from time to time at request of the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused, On 07.05.2026Heard arguments on both sides and posted for Judgment on 19.05.2026. On 19.05.2026 the Judgment was Digitally signed

pronounced. Hence, the delay.by SHAIK MD

SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

ABUTALIBPARVEEZ

PARVEEZDate: 2026.05.19 11:34:40 +0530

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Eluru Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Eluru Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Eluru.

3 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION), ELURU -CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: ELURU Present: Dr. Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru

Tuesday, this the 19thday of May, 2026

C.C.NO.321 of 2021

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru I Town Station.…..Complainant

Vs

Bandlamudi Naveen, S/o.Rajani Kanth, age 25 years, Caste by SC-Mala, Private Electrician, R/o.Near CSI

Church, Katheif Street, Eluru....Accused

This case is coming on 07th day of May, 2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.P.Hema Latha/ Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and of Sri G.P.Daneil for the learned for accused upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:- // J U D G M E N T //

01. The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru I Town Police

Station is filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.343/2020 of Eluru I town Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 324 of IPC.

02. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- LW.1/The de- facto complainant/Jupudi Sukumar is the resident near CSI Church, 11th division Kathief street Eluru and doing driver in SVS Travelers' on 25.12.2020 night at 09.00 PM while he proceeded to home on the way reached near

Jamamiya masque center, 11th Division kathief street Eluru PW.1 & PW.2 are present there then chatting each other and giving Christmas wishes to each other, then the accused came there disputed with the complainant due to previous enmity and in sudden provocation, he cut over the neck with the sharp

Digitally signed by SHAIK MD

SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

ABUTALIBPARVEEZ

PARVEEZDate: 2026.05.19 11:34:48 +0530 4 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru edged blade caused bleeding injury then PW.1 & PW.2 are shifted him to

District Head Quarters Hospital Eluru for treatment. On the basis of the statement & hospital intimation of LW.1 a case in Cr.No.343/2020 under section 324 IPC has been registered in Eluru I Town PS on 26.12.2020 at 10.00

P.M having submitted the F.I.Rs to all the concerned officers and investigated into. During the course of investigation the scene of offence was inspected minutely, got prepared rough sketch of the scene, examined all the relevant witnesses and recorded their detailed statements in part -II CD separately. PW.6

Sri. S.Ramakrishna Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru I town Police Station served notices to the accused under section 41(a) Cr.P.C. PW.4/Dr Sree Raj Chindada

C.A.S in District Head Quarters Hospital Eluru provided treatment to LW.1.

After completion of investigation, PW.6 filed charge sheet against accused.

03. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under

Section 324 of IPC and this case is numbered as C.C.No.321/2021. Copies of the case documents were furnished to accused as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, and he denied all allegations made against him and a charge under Section 324 of IPC read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04. To prove its case, the Prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and M.O.1 is marked. After completion of the prosecution evidence, The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of

Digitally signed SHAIKby SHAIK MD

MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date: PARVEEZ2026.05.19 11:34:53 +0530 5 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

05.Heard arguments on both sides at length .

06.Now the point arise for determination is Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of accused for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?’

07. POINT: To prove its case, the Prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. PW.1 and PW.2 are friends of defacto complainant/ LW.1/ Jupudi Sukumar, PW.3 is mother of the PW.1, PW.4 is

CAS, PW.5 is Mediator for seizure of M.O.1, PW.6 is investigating officer and

PW.7 is mediator for seizure of M.O.1.

08. (a) PW.1/ Chintalapati Jagadesh babu, in his evidence deposed that, he is resident of Indira colony, Near Venkanna Chervu, Eluru and he know

LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar is his friend and at present he is no more, PW.2/ Shaik

Nagoor Meera is his friend, LW.4/Jupudi Amarsen is father of LW.1, PW.3/

Jupudi Sudha Rani is mother of LW.1, LW.6/ Jupudi Sunitha is wife of LW.1 and he know the accused. On 25.12.2020 at about 09.00 P.M. He, PW.2/Shaik

Nagoor Meera together called LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar through his phone at outside of his house, then LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar is came to the out side of his house and in eve of Christmas festival himself and PW.2 together wishes the

L.W.1 at Jumma Masjid road, Uchita hospital, Eluru I Town and he called

LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar for Tea, on that accused was came and wishes the

LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar and also the accused cut over the Neck with sharp blade

Digitally signed SHAIKby SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

MDPARVEEZ

ABUTALIBDate: PARVEEZ2026.05.19 11:35:00 +0530 6 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru on that LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar sustained bleeding injury, on that they tied with a kerchief at neck and shifted the LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar to the government head quarters hospital, Eluru for treatment. Later they informed the said incident to the parents of L.W.1 i.e., L.W.4 and PW.3. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

(b) PW.2/Shaik Nagoor Meera, in his evidence deposed that, he is resident of Indira colony, Near Venkanna Chervu, Eluru and he know LW.1/Jupudi

Sukumar is his friend and at present he is no more, PW.1 is his friend,

LW.4/Jupudi Amarsen is father of LW.1, PW.3/ Jupudi Sudha Rani is mother of

LW.1, LW.6/ Jupudi Sunitha is wife of LW.1 and he know the accused. On 25.12.2020 at about 09.00 P.M. himself and PW.1 together called L.W.1/Jupudi

Sukumar through his phone at outside of his house, then L.W.1/Jupudi

Sukumar is came to the out side of his house and in eve of Christmas festival himself and PW.1 together wishes the LW.1 at Jumma Masjid road, Uchita hospital, Eluru I Town and himself, PW.1 called LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar for Tea, on that accused was came and wishes the LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar and also the accused cut over the Neck with sharp blade, on that LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar sustained bleeding injury, on that they tied with a kerchief at neck and shifted the LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar to the government head quarters hospital, Eluru for treatment. Later they informed the said incident to the parents of LW.1 i.e.,

LW.4 and PW.3. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

(c) PW.3/Jupudi Sudha Rani, in her evidence deposed that, She is resident of Near Chaitra Hospital, 11th Division, Katheif Street, Eluru,

Digitally signed by

SHAIKSHAIK MD

MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date: PARVEEZ2026.05.19 11:35:07 +0530 7 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar is her son, at present he is no more. She know PW.1 and

PW.2, LW.4/Jupudi Amarsen is her husband, LW.6/ Jupudi Sunitha is wife of

LW.1. She know accused. On 25.12.2020 i.e., Christmas festival day, at about 09.00 P.M. PW.1 and PW.2 called L.W.1/Jupudi Sukumar in order to wishes the

Christmas festival. On the same day at about 09.30 P.M., PW.1 informed that the accused is cut the neck of LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar with a sharp blade, on that

LW.1 is sustained bleeding injury and further informed that LW.1 was shifted to the government head quarters hospital, Eluru for treatment. On the date of the incident in morning hours the accused and LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar were disputed with each other at Venkanna Chervu and she does not know the reason for their disputes. Police examined her and recorded her statement.

(d) PW.4/Dr.Sree Raj Chindada, in his evidence deposed that,

Previously he worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon District Head Quarters Hospital,

Eluru from March, 2020 to December, 2020. At present he has been working as

Civil Assistant Surgeon in District Hospital, Tanuku from March, 2022 to till date. On 25.12.2020 at about 10.00 P.M. while he was present in hospital

Jupudi Sukumar/L.W.1 came to the hospital along with Chintalapati Jagadeesh

Babu/P.W.1 with injuries. On that he examined L.W.1 and found the following injuries: 1) An incisional wound of length 12X1/2 cm over the Neck. 2) An incisional wound 3X1/2 cm over the left Chest. Patient is under the influence of alcohol. On examination patient is conscious and coherent. Suturing done and necessary medicine given and patient is discharged on O.P. basis. He is of the

Digitally signed by

SHAIKSHAIK MD

MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date: PARVEEZ2026.05.19 11:35:13 +0530 8 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru opinion that the above mentioned injuries are simple in nature and he issued wound certificate i.e., Ex.P1.

(e) PW.5/Alla Lakshmi Ganesh, He does not know the accused. He does not know anything about this case. Witness identified his signature contained in scene observation report dated 27.12.2020. He does not know the contents of scene observation report dated 27.12.2020. At instances of Police he signed on white papers. Police never examined him.

(f) PW.6/ S.Ramakrishna, Sub-Inspector of Police, Investigating officer, in his evidence deposed that, On 26.12.2020 at about 10.00 P.M. he received hospital intimation i.e., Ex.P3. Ex.P3 is hospital intimation, dated 25.12.2020 along with statement of Jupudi Sukumar/L.W.1 i.e., Ex.P4. Ex.P4 is statement of Jupudi Sukumar/LW.1. Based on Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, he registered a case in

Cr.No.343/2020 for the offence under section 324 of IPC and also he issued the

FIR. Ex.P5 is original of FIR. He sent the original of FIR to the Honorable court and it’s copies to the all the concerned. On the same day he went to the

Government General Hospital, Eluru, and there is secured the presence of

L.W.1/Jupudi Sukumar, PW.1, PW.2 were examined and recorded their section 161 Cr.P.C., statements. On next day he went to the scene of offence which is situated at 11th Division, Katheif Street, Near Jama Masjid, Eluru along with mediators PW.5, PW.7/ Dokala Mounika and he observed the scene of offence and also prepared the scene observation report i.e., Ex.P6. Ex.P6 is scene observation report dated 27.12.2020 and also prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence i.e., Ex.P7. Ex.P7 is rough sketch of scene of offence and also

Digitally signed SHAIKby SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

MDPARVEEZ

ABUTALIBDate: PARVEEZ2026.05.19 11:35:21 +0530 9 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru seized a Blade of two inches length and half inch width i.e., M.O.1. M.O.1 is

Blade. There he secured the presence of L.W.4/Jupudi Amersen, PW.3,

L.W.6/Jupudi Sunitha were examined and recorded their section 161 Cr.P.C., statements. Later he served section 41-A Cr.P.C., notice to the accused. On 11.01.2021 he received the wound certificate of LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar from

PW.4 i.e., Ex.P1 and also he examined PW.4 and recorded his section 161

Cr.P.C., statement. After completion of investigation he laid charge sheet in this case.

(g) PW.7/Dokala Mounika/ Ward Mahila Samrakshaka Karyadarsi, in her evidence deposed that, previously she worked as Ward Mahila Samrakshaka

Karyadarsi of Venkana Cheruvu, Ward No.51 of Eluru from January 2020 to

July 2025. Presently she has been working as Ward Mahila Samrakshaka

Karyadarsi of Superintendent of Police Office, Eluru from August 2025 to till date. On 27.12.2020 at about 07.30 A.M. she received phone call from Eluru I

Town police station and requested her to attend at Jaama Masjid center, Eluru I

Town. On that she went to the Jaama Masjid Center, Eluru I Town, at that time

P.W.6/S. Ramakrishna, Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru I Town P.S., and also

P.W.5 were present. There in her presence and also P.W.5, P.W.6 searched the scene of offence and found that a Blade i.e., M.O.1 and the M.O.1 seized by

P.W.6 in her presence and in the presence of PW.5 under the cover of scene observation report i.e., Ex.P6. She along with PW.5 are signed in Ex.P6 scene observation report.

Digitally signed by

SHAIKSHAIK MD

MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date: PARVEEZ2026.05.19 11:35:30 +0530 10 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru

09. On Perusal of the entire material evidence and documents available on record, the case of the prosecution is that, on 25.12.2020 night at 09.00 P.M while LW.1/Jupudi Sukumar proceeded to home on the way reached near

Jamamiya masque center, 11th Division kathief street Eluru PW.1 & PW.2 are present there then chatting each other and giving Christmas wishes to each other, then the accused came there disputed with the complainant due to previous enmity and in sudden provocation, the accused cut over the neck of

LW.1 with the sharp edged blade and caused bleeding injury then PW.1 & PW.2 are shifted him to District Head Quarters Hospital Eluru for treatment. On the basis of the statement & hospital intimation of LW.1 a case in Cr.No. 343/2020 under section 324 IPC has been registered in Eluru I Town PSand investigated into and thereafter PW.6 filed charge sheet against the accused under section 324 of I.P.C . In order to prove the case of the prosecution mentioned above stated supra, the prosecution mainly relied on oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.7 along with Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and M.O.1.

10. In this case, At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the accused argued that, the prosecution failed to examine the defacto- complainant and the learned counsel for the accused further argued that, PW.1 in his evidence admitted that,himself, accused, L.W.1/Jupudi Sukumar and

L.W.3/Shaik Nagoor Meera are friends. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that, PW.1 & PW.2 are friends and they are interested persons and PW.6 did not conduct proper investigation in this case. The learned counsel

Digitally signed SHAIK by SHAIK MD

MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date: PARVEEZ2026.05.19 11:35:37 +0530 11 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru

for accused further argued that, there are several contradictions and

improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, therefore the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. The learned counsel for accused further argued that, “if there are improvements and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, same creates serious doubt in the mind of the Court about truthfulness of witnesses and it appears to the Court that there is a clear improvement, then it is not safe to rely on such evidence”.

At this Juncture, The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that, the prosecution proved its case examining PW.1 to PW.7, and by producing

Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and M.O.1, therefore, Accused shall be convicted consequently he shall be punished. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argued that, In this case, the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.4, PW.6 and PW.7 are corroborating on material particulars and their evidence established that, On 25.12.2020 at about 09.00 P.M while PW.1 and PW.2 along with defacto complainant were wishing with each other on the eve of Christmas at scene of offence, In meanwhile accused came there and while wishing defacto complainant, cut his neck with sharp blade and caused bleeding injury and In this case, PW.6 who is investigation officer seized M.O.1 at scene of offence in the presence of PW.5 and PW.7 and the evidence of PW.7 is corroborating with

PW.6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argued that, minor discrepancies and improvements do not hurt to the prosecution case. She further argued that, the improvements and contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused are minor in nature, therefore the same are not

Digitally signed SHAIK by SHAIK MD

MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date: PARVEEZ2026.05.19 11:35:45 +0530 12 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru showing any impact on the prosecution case. The learned A.P.P further argued that, it is settled law is that, “it is known that what the Court has to adjudge is the substratum of the case and, in doing so, grain has to be separated from chaff. It is settled law some improvements here and some exaggerations there or some minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case.

11.Before going to the appreciation of evidence on material on record, it is better to mention Section 324 of the Penal Code, 1860 lays that, Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means :-Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

12. On perusal of entire material on record, In this case, Admittedly

LW.1/.Jupudi Sukumar is died, Hence the evidence of LW.1 is closed. In this case, On perusal of material on record.Even though, the defacto complainant/injured/ LW.1/.Jupudi Sukumar died while prosecuting the case, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 who are eye witnesses in their evidence

Digitally signed by

SHAIKSHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

MD

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date:

PARVEEZ

2026.05.19 11:35:52 +0530 13 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru categorically deposed that, On 25.12.2020 at about 09.00 P.M while PW.1 and

PW.2 along with defacto complainant were wishing with each other on the eve of Christmas at the outside of house of defacto complainant, meanwhile accused came there and while wishing defacto complainant, cut his neck with sharp blade and caused bleeding injury. Then both PW.1 and PW.2 took him to the

Government Hospital, Eluru for treatment. In this case, the learned counsel for the accused suggested the PW.1 is that, On the date of alleged incident PW.1,

PW.2, LW.1/Jupudi Ravi Kumar were in drunken state. The said suggestion is denied by the PW.1, PW.1 in his evidence further categorically deposed that, he never consumed the alcohol on the date of the alleged incident and on the date of the incident he is in Sai Baba Mala. The above said evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 was corroborated with the evidence of PW.3, who is mother of defacto complainant who stated that, she was informed by PW.1 at about 09.30 P.M on the same day about the incident. She further deposed that, in the morning hours on the date of incident the accused quarreled with defacto complainant at

Venkanna cheruvu, but she does not know the reason for dispute. In this case,

During the cross examination of PW.1 and PW.2 by the learned counsel for the accused, except eliciting that, they are friends to the defacto complainant, nothing more is elicited contradicting to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2.

Likewise nothing important is elicited from the evidence of PW.3.

13.In this case, On perusal of evidence of PW.4/doctor, who deposed that,

On 25.12.2020 at about 10.00 P.M, while he was present in hospital. PW.1

Digitally signed by

SHAIK MD

SHAIK MDABUTALIB

ABUTALIBPARVEEZ

PARVEEZDate: 2026.05.19 11:36:01 +0530 14 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru brought the defacto complainant to the hospital, he examined him and treated him. He issued Ex.P1 wound certificate by mentioning two incised injuries over the neck and chest. He is of the opinion that, they are simple in nature. During his cross examination, except an hypothetical answer that, if any person in drunken state fall on surface the above injuries may be possible, nothing is elicited. The evidence of Medical officer is corroborated with the ocular evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 with regard to injuries and time of offence ..etc.

14.PW.7/ Mediator for seizure of M.O.1/ the Ward Mahila Samrakshaka

Karyadarsi of Venkanna Cheruvu, Ward No.51 of Eluru, who deposed that, On the phone call of Eluru I town P.S, she went to Jama Masjid Center of Eluru I town on 27.12.2020 at about 07.30 A.M, in the presence of PW.5 and herself,

PW.6/Sub-Inspector of Police searched and found M.O.1 blade and seized the same under cover of Ex.P6 scene observation report. During her cross examination nothing is elicited to discredit her evidence and her evidence is only useful to the prosecution with regard to seizure of crime weapon i.e M.O.1.

15. PW.6 is the investigating officer, who deposed about the receipt of

Ex.P3/hospital intimation along with Ex.P4/Statement of defacto complainant, registering of Ex.P5/FIR in Cr.No.343/2020 for the offence under section 324 of

IPC, visiting of Government Hospital, Eluru, secured the presence of defacto complainant, PW.1 and PW.2, examined and recorded their statements and on the next day he visited the scene of offence, seized M.O.1 under Ex.P6/Scene

Digitally signed SHAIKby SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

MDPARVEEZ

ABUTALIBDate: PARVEEZ2026.05.19 11:36:08 +0530 15 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru observation report, prepared Ex.P7/rough sketch, he served section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and after receipt of Ex.P1/wound certificate he laid charge sheet. During his cross examination, except eliciting that, the scene of office is residential locality and busy locality and he did not examine the neighbors of the scene of offence, nothing much is elicited contradicting the material evidence.

16.The evidence of PW.3 shows that, there is motive to the accused in attacking the defacto complainant and in the presence of PW.1 and PW.2, the accused cut the neck of defacto complainant with a blade, which further corroborated with the evidence of PW.4/doctor that after the offence, immediately defacto complainant was brought to him by PW.1, he examined and treated the injured to the injuries over neck and chest which are incised injuries and accordingly he issued Ex.P1 wound certificate. Section 324 of IPC deals with voluntarily causing hurt using dangerous weapon or means. In this case, the prosecution seized M.O.1 blade which is dangerous weapon and Ex.P1 clearly shows that, there are incised wounds over the neck and chest of injured and so, the prosecution established the essential ingredients to prove the guilt of accused under section 324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case, some minor improvements and some exaggerations there or some minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses does not hurt the prosecution case. In view of above facts, circumstances and material on record, this court is of the opinion that, the prosecution proved its case for the offence under section

Digitally signed SHAIKby SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

MDPARVEEZ

ABUTALIBDate: PARVEEZ2026.05.19 11:36:14 +0530 16 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru 324 I.P.C against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the Prosecution and against accused.

17. In the result, The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Accordingly, the Accused is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C and M.O.1 is Blade of two inches length and half inch width shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III ,typed by her directly on computer

system, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court,this the 19th day of May, 2026.Digitally signed by

SHAIK MD

SHAIK MD

ABUTALIBABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

PARVEEZDate: 2026.05.19 11:36:19 +0530

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Eluru.

When the accuse is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, he stated that, he has kids and he has old aged parents his family depends on him.

He further submitted that, if he is sent to jail his entirely family will be put to hardship. he pleaded mercy of this court. Therefore, he prayed to take lenient view by letting him of by imposing some fine only. But in my opinion the accused does not reserve any such leniency in view of the gravity of offence proved against him, hence, he is not entitled for benefit of Probation of

Offenders Act and for applying the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. However having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the accused, it would be just and proper to take a reasonable view in imposing the sentence against him instead of imposing maximum sentence prescribed for the offence proved. Digitally signed by SHAIK MD

SHAIK MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date:

PARVEEZ

2026.05.19 11:36:25 +0530 17 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru In the result, the accused is convicted for the offence under section 324 I.P.C only under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo

Rigorous imprisonment for period of one (1) year for the offence under section 324 I.P.C and Further the accused No.1 shall pay fine an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only), In default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

The Accused was never in judicial custody. Hence set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C., does not arise. The accused is informed about his right of appeal against the judgment and sentence passed against his by this court and also availability of free legal aid for the purpose of appeal.

Typed by me personally,corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 19th day of May, 2026. SHAIK MDDigitally signed by

SHAIK MD

ABUTALIBABUTALIB PARVEEZ

PARVEEZDate: 2026.05.19 11:36:35 +0530

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Eluru // Appendix of evidence // Witness examined For Prosecution For Defense PW.1Chintalapati Jagadeesh Babu None PW.2Shaik Nagoor Meera PW.3Jupudi Sudha Rani PW.4Dr. Sree Raj Chindada PW.5Alla Lakshmi Ganesh PW.6S.Ramakrishna, Sub-Inspector of Police PW.7Dokala Mounika

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P1Wound Certificate of LW.1/ Jupudi Sukumar Ex.P2Signature of PW.5 in Scene observation report dated 27.12.2020 Ex.P3Hospital Intimation Ex.P4Statement of Jupudi Sukumar/LW.1

Digitally signed SHAIK by SHAIK MD

MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date: PARVEEZ2026.05.19 11:36:40 +0530 18 Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.321/2021, Dated :19.05.2026 On the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru Ex.P5FIR Ex.P6Scene observation report dated: 27.12.2020 Ex.P7Rough sketch of scene of offence For defenceNIL

Material objects marked

M.O.1Blade of two inches length and half inch width

SHAIK MD

Digitally signed by

SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

ABUTALIB PARVEEZ

PARVEEZDate: 2026.05.19 11:36:46 +0530

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Eluru.

1 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.177/2025, Dated : 15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Eluru

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE ( JUNIOR DIVISION) ELURU-CUM

- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: ELURU Present: Dr.Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru

Friday, this the 15st day of May, 2026

O.S.No.177 of 2025

Between: Coastal Local Area Bank Ltd, rep. by its Branch Manager, Eluru, Smt.Boyapati Venkata Lakshmi Madhuri, W/o.Maganti…. Plaintiff Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, Female, aged 43 years, R.R.Peta, Eluru, Eluru District And:

1.Balusu Rama Dasu, S/o. Siva Narayana Murthy, Hindu, Male, age 44 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.3-139, Munduru Village, Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru District

2.Balusu Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o.Siva Narayana Murthy, Hindu, Female, age 63 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.3-139, Munduru Village, Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru District

3.Balusu Seetha Rama Dasu, S/o. Venkata Subbarao, Hindu, Male, age 39 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.3-139/1, Munduru…Defendants No.1 to 3 Village, Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru District

This Original suit coming on 13.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Pavan Kumar, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri

D.Satyanarayana, Learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 3 and upon hearing both sides arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

01. This suit is filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants No.1 to 3 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,78,825/- being the principal and interest due on Crop

Digitally signed SHAIKby SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

MDPARVEEZ

ABUTALIBDate: PARVEEZ2026.05.15 13:12:31 +0530 2 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.177/2025, Dated : 15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Eluru Loan of Rs.1,00,000/- sanctioned by plaintiff bank to the defendants No.1 to 3 and with interest 13.5% per annum and for cost of the suit.

02.The averments of the Plaint bank in nutshell are that: The plaintiff is a Bank i.e., Coastal Local Area Bank Ltd, is a corporate body constituted under the provisions of local area banks act, having its registered office at Vijayawada doing banking business through its branches one of its branch situated at Eluru, and doing business for the convenience of the public. The plaintiff Bank further submits that, the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff Bank for financial assistance to Crop Loan on 18.12.2020, the 1st defendant submitted the Loan Application and thereafter, on the even date, the plaintiff Bank sanctioned the said Loan to 1st defendant subject to compliance of terms and conditions and the defendants acknowledged the said Loan

Arrangement Letter agreeing the terms of the Bank and the bank authorities sanctioned the loan to the 1st defendant bearing loan account No.96008197802 on 18.12.2020 for a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), while agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest 13.5% as per Bank Rules and furnish sufficient collateral security to the satisfaction of the Bank (the interest and penal interest is to be change as per the RBI Guidelines from time to time). The defendants jointly executed demand promissory note and the 1st defendant executed Loan agreement- cum-Deed of Hypothecation and that the 2nd and 3rd defendants are executed deed of guarantee on dated 18.12.2020, so also, the defendants agreed to pay all incidental charges including inspection, legal and other expenses and also agreed to abide by the conditions of the document executed by them in favour of plaintiff Bank and the

Digitally signed SHAIK by SHAIK MD

MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date: PARVEEZ2026.05.15 13:12:38 +0530 3 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.177/2025, Dated : 15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Eluru due date of the loan is 17.12.2021, the limitation starts from 17.12.2021. The plaintiff Bank further submits that, later the 1st defendant failed to pay the above said loan amount and the plaintiff's Bank demanded the defendants to repay the loan amount due to the plaintiff Bank and the defendants while promising to repay the same, postponed the same time to time. The plaintiff Bank also got issued a

Registered Notice on 26.07.2024 to the 1st defendant calling upon him and demanding to repay the entire loan amount with up-to date interest and costs. The 1st defendant received the said notice on 31.07.2024, but the 1st defendant failed to pay the debt amount and time to time drag on the repayment. The plaintiff Bank though waited sufficiently for long time, but there was no response from the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff Bank has no other alternative except to file the suit.

The plaintiff Bank is a body corporate, carrying and doing banking business to cater the needs of the public. The defendants are not entitled to claim the benefits of Acts.

4/38, 7/77, 45/87 or 2/90 and the provisions of the Usurious Loan Act, since the suit transaction is exempted from the provisions of the said Act. The defendants have jointly and severally obligation and liability to repay the entire amount as on

date 30.11.2024 for an amount of Rs.1,78,825.00 due to the plaintiff Bank.

Therefore, the plaintiff bank prays to the Hon’ble Court prays to pass decree and judgment in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 to 3.

03.After this suit is initiated, it is registered as O.S.No.177/2025. Suit summons was issued to the defendants No.1 to 3. The defendants No.1 to 3 received suit summons and engaged an advocate and filed written statement of

SHAIKDigitally signed by SHAIK MD MD

ABUTALIB

ABUTALIBPARVEEZ

Date: 2026.05.15

PARVEEZ

13:12:46 +0530 4 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.177/2025, Dated : 15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Eluru Defendant No.1 and the same was adopted by defendants No.2 and 3 by denying the material averments of the plaint.

04. Brief averments of the Written Statement of defendant No.1 and the same was adopted by defendant No.2 and 3 is as follows :- The main and material allegations made in the plaint are no true and correct and suit is not maintainable either under the law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. The other allegations mentioned in the petition are all not true and correct. The defendant submits that he was obtained crop loan a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) from the plaintiff bank and the said loan should be repaid within a year. Due to continuous failures of crop, he could not repay the loan amount. By the time of loan the defendant bank obtained signatures of this defendant on various blank papers. The defendant is an uneducated and not able to understand the English and all the loan documents are in English language. The blank signed papers are filled before filing the suit in to the Hon'ble Court. The plaintiff bank never demanded this defendant for repayment of loan amount. This defendant under the impression that the loan waived by the State Government. The defendants No.2 and 3 never signed on the demand promissory note. The debt is barred by time and the plaintiff bank failed to file the suit within time. To cover up their latches the plaintiff bank pleaded that the limitation starts from 17.12.2021. The terms of the loan agreement not covered the limitation period. The limitation is only three years from the date of execution of loan agreement. The defendant further submits that, the loan account filed by the plaintiff bank is not correct and it is not clear. The account copy is not clear and the

Digitally signed SHAIKby SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

MDPARVEEZ

ABUTALIBDate: PARVEEZ2026.05.15 13:12:55 +0530 5 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.177/2025, Dated : 15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Eluru interest is not properly calculated up to the date of filing the suit. The account copy clearly shows that so many miscellaneous amounts were added to the debt of this defendant while charging interest the plaintiff bank is not entitled for inspection charges, GST amount and consolidation charges. The account statement clearly shows that the same is prepared for extract more money for the defendants by way of inserting their own words in the loan documents. The terms and conditions never explained by the plaintiff bank to this defendant and the suit claim is liable to be dismissed. The unilateral agreement is not bind on this defendant. The defendant further submits that, he was entitled for debt relief laws like Act 4/38, 7/77, 45/87 and 2/90 since this defendant is a small and marginal farmer and further he was entitled for waive of suit claim. By the time of taking loan the plaintiff bank collected premium from this defendant to reimbursement of loan amount for the failure of crops. The defendant further submits that, the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff bank at the rate of 13.5% per annum is highly excessive and exaggeration and the plaintiff bank is not entitled for compound interest on the crop loans. No such rate of interest as on the date of sanctioning of loan amount. So it clearly shows that the loan documents are filled subsequent to the date of loan and

before filing the suit. The defendant further submits that, the unilateral loan

agreement not bind on this defendants and the suit claim basing on the so called loan agreement is liable to be dismissed. The defendant does not admit the truth and correctness of any of the allegations which are not specifically traversed herein.

There is no cause of action and the cause of action mentioned in the plaint is not

Digitally signed SHAIKby SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

MDPARVEEZ

ABUTALIBDate: PARVEEZ2026.05.15 13:13:02 +0530 6 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.177/2025, Dated : 15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Eluru true and correct. Therefore, the defendants No.1 to 3 prays that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above suit with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice.

05. ISSUES :- Owing to the above rival contentions of the Plaintiff and the

Defendants No.1 to 3 in their respective pleadings and after hearing the learned counsels on both sides, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendants as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

Witnesses Examined And Documents Marked:-

06.During the trial of the suit, the plaintiff bank examined its Branch

Manager as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 documents are marked and on behalf of the plaintiff bank. To establish the case of the defendants No.1 to 3, the defendant No.1 is examined as DW.1 and no documents marked on their behalf.

Arguments:-

07. Heard arguments on both sides.

08. After consideration of the entire material on record, the oral and documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 3 in support of their respective contentions is thoroughly examined. Even though, the issues are distinctly framed, two issues have to be decided jointly in view of the nature of the suit. So, it is just and proper to take up the issues No.1 and answer the same for the purpose of resolving the actual controversy between the parties and to

Digitally signed by

SHAIK MD

SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

ABUTALIBPARVEEZ

PARVEEZDate: 2026.05.15 13:13:08 +0530 7 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.177/2025, Dated : 15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Eluru give comprehensive finding. Hence, issues 1 and 2 are consolidately answered as follows:-

Finding on the Issues No.1:-

09.In this suit, the plaintiff bank examined its Branch Manager as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 documents.PW.1 in her evidence in chief-examination reiterated the Plaint pleadings. In view of the mentioning of the plaint pleadings in the above paragraphs in brief, there is no need to extract the contents in the chief- examination affidavit of PW.1, as the said averments in the plaint and the contents in the chief-examination affidavit of PW.1 are almost one and the same.

On the other hand,the defendant No.1 is examined as DW.1. DW.1 in his evidence in chief-examination reiterated the Written statement pleadings. In view of the mentioning of the written statement pleadings in the above paragraphs in brief, there is no need to extract the contents in the chief-examination affidavit of DW.1, as the said averments in the written statement and the contents in the chief- examination affidavit of DW.1 are almost one and the same.

10. To prove the case of plaintiff bank, as stated supra,theplaintiff bank examined its Branch Manager as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 documents are marked.

Ex.A1 is the loan application dated 18.12.2020, Ex.A2 is the loan sanction letter

dated 18.12.2020, Ex.A3 is the original of promissory note dated 18.12.2020

executed by the 1st defendant dated 18.12.2020 in favour of plaintiff bank, Ex.A4 is the Hypothecation agreement dated 18.12.2020 for agriculture, Ex.A5 is the letter

Digitally signed by SHAIK MD

SHAIK MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date:

PARVEEZ

2026.05.15 13:13:14 +0530 8 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.177/2025, Dated : 15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Eluru

dated 18.12.2020 obtained from the borrower/co-oblicants, Ex.A6 is the office copy

of registered notice dated 26.07.2024 got issued by the plaintiff bank to the 1st defendant, Ex.A7 is the postal acknowledgment dated 31.07.2024, Ex.A8 is the self attested joining order dated 18.02.2022 of Bank Manager, Coastal Local Area Bank

Limited, R.R.Pet, Eluru issued by Head Office, Vijayawada, Ex.A9 is the account statement dated 30.11.2024 of the 1st defendant under loan account number 96008197802, Ex.A10 is the self attested authorization letter dated 08.08.2024 issued by the Head office, Coastal Local Area bank Limited.

In this suit, In the cross-examination of PW.1, No useful material is elicited in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 by the learned counsel for the defendants

No.1 to 3.

11. It is well settled principal of law that in a suit based on a agreement of loan applications, the burden lies on the plaintiff bank to prove the execution of the said documents and when this initial burden is discharged by the plaintiff bank, it is then the presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would apply and a presumption of consideration would arise; then it is for the defendants

No.1 to 3 to prove the want of consideration. To discharge its initial burden, the plaintiff bank examined its Branch Manager as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 documents are marked. A perusal of evidence of PW.1 corroborating with Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 plaintiff bank examined its Branch Manager as PW.1, the plaintiff bank has successfully discharged its initial burden of loan applications and promissory notes,

Digitally signed by

SHAIKSHAIK MD

MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date:

PARVEEZ

2026.05.15 13:13:21 +0530 9 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.177/2025, Dated : 15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Eluru deposit of title deeds executed by the defendant. When once the plaintiff bank has discharged its initial burden, the presumption under section 118(a) of Negotiable

Instruments Act comes into play in favour of the plaintiff. Section.118(a) of

Negotiable Instruments Act reads as follows:- “Until the contrary is proved the following presumptions shall be made: (a) That every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration …..” In view of the above presumption in favour of plaintiff bank now the burden shifts on the defendant to rebut the presumption.

On perusal of material on record, the main contention of the defendants

No.1 to 3 is that, he was obtained crop loan a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) from the plaintiff bank and the said loan should be repaid within a year and due to continuous failures of crop, he could not repay the loan amount and by the time of loan the defendant bank obtained signatures of this defendant on various blank papers. The another main contention of the defendant is that, The defendant is an uneducated and not able to understand the English and all the loan documents are in English language and the blank signed papers are filled before filing the suit in to the Hon'ble Court and the plaintiff bank never demanded this defendant for repayment of loan amount and the defendant under the impression that the loan waived by the State Government and the defendants No.2 and 3 never signed on the demand promissory note and the debt is barred by time and the plaintiff bank failed to file the suit within time. The another main contention of the defendant is that, To

Digitally signed by SHAIK MD

SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

ABUTALIBPARVEEZ

PARVEEZDate: 2026.05.15 13:13:28 +0530 10 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.177/2025, Dated : 15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Eluru cover up their latches the plaintiff bank pleaded that the limitation starts from 17.12.2021 and the terms of the loan agreement not covered the limitation period and The limitation is only three years from the date of execution of loan agreement and the loan account filed by the plaintiff bank is not correct and it is not clear and the account copy is not clear and the interest is not properly calculated up to the date of filing the suit and the account copy clearly shows that so many miscellaneous amounts were added to the debt of this defendant while charging interest the plaintiff bank is not entitled for inspection charges, GST amount and consolidation charges and The account statement clearly shows that the same is prepared for extract more money for the defendants by way of inserting their own words in the loan documents. The another main contention of the defendants is that,The terms and conditions never explained by the plaintiff bank to this defendant and the suit claim is liable to be dismissed and the unilateral agreement is not bind on this defendant. The another main contention of the defendant is that, the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff bank at the rate of 13.5% per annum is highly excessive and exaggeration and the plaintiff bank is not entitled for compound interest on the crop loans and no such rate of interest as on the date of sanctioning of loan amount and it clearly shows that the loan documents are filled subsequent to the date of loan and before filing the suit. In order to prove the same, the defendants No.1 to 3 are mainly relied on evidence of DW.1. In this suit, On perusal of evidence of DW.1, DW.1 in his evidence in cross-examination categorically admitted that, “ The signature contained in Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 belongs to him.”DW.1 in

Digitally signed by

SHAIK MD

SHAIK MDABUTALIB

ABUTALIBPARVEEZ

PARVEEZDate: 2026.05.15 13:13:35 +0530 11 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.177/2025, Dated : 15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Eluru his evidence further admitted that,“ The signature contained in Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and

Ex.A5 are belongs to him and other defendants” .DW.1 in his evidence further admitted that,“ Himself and other defendant obtained the loan from the plaintiff’s bank”. On perusal of material on record, In this suit, On perusal of evidence of PW.1 along with Ex.A1 toEx.A10 are clearly corroborated with each other. In this suit, the defendants not filed any cogent evidence in order to prove their contentions mentioned above stated supra. The defendants No.1 to 3 are not examined any independent witnesses in this suit in order to prove their contentions mentioned above stated supra. In this suit, On perusal of above admissions of DW.1 clearly shows that, In order to evade the debt due under loan mentioned in Ex.A1 to A10, the defendants No.1 to 3 were taken different false pleas. As per the above admissions of the DW.1, it is clearly shows that, the contentions of the defendants mentioned above stated supra are totally false.In this suit, the evidence of PW.1 corroborated along with Ex.A1 toEx.A10on all material aspects. Hence, the contentions of the defendants mentioned in above supra are not tenable.

In these facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that, the defendants No.1 to 3 have failed to prove their case and thereby failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the plaintiff bank under section 118(a) of Negotiable

Instruments Act.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that, In this case the preponderance of probabilities are in favour of the plaintiff bank. The

Digitally signed SHAIK by SHAIK MD

MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date: PARVEEZ2026.05.15 13:13:41 +0530 12 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.177/2025, Dated : 15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Eluru defendants No.1 to 3 failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the plaintiff bank.

In view of my discussion, it is proved that, the defendants No.1 to 3 executedloan applications to the plaintiff Bank and also availed crop loan and they did not pay the entire due under loan amount to the plaintiff bank. Hence, the plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit claim. Accordingly, the issues No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants No.1 to 3.

Result and finding on the Issue No.2:- In view of my findings on issue Nos.1, I hold that, the plaintiff bank has proved its case and plaintiff bank is entitled for a decree as prayed for by it.

12. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff bank directing the defendants No.1 to 3 to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,78,825/- with costs, and future interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum, till realization on the principal amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-.

Dictated to Stenographer grade-III, typed by her directly on computer system

,corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15thday of May, 2026. SHAIK MDDigitally signed by SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB PARVEEZ

Date: 2026.05.15 13:13:49 +0530

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Eluru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff:- PW1: Boyapati Venkata Lakshmi Madhuri 13 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.177/2025, Dated : 15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Eluru For Defendants No.1 to 3 :-

DW.1: Balusu Rama Dasu

Exhibits Marked For Plaintiff Bank

Ex.A1Loan application dated 18.12.2020

Ex.A2Loan sanction letter dated 18.12.2020

Ex.A3Original of promissory note dated 18.12.2020 executed by the 1st defendant dated 18.12.2020 in favour of plaintiff bank

Ex.A4Hypothecation agreement dated 18.12.2020 for agriculture

Ex.A5Letter dated 18.12.2020 obtained from the borrower/co-oblicants

Ex.A6Office copy of registered notice dated 26.07.2024 got issued by the plaintiff bank to the 1st defendant

Ex.A7Postal acknowledgment dated 31.07.2024

Ex.A8Self attested joining order dated 18.02.2022 of Bank Manager, Coastal Local Area Bank Limited, R.R.Pet, Eluru issued by Head Office, Vijayawada

Ex.A9Account statement dated 30.11.2024 of the 1st defendant under loan account number 96008197802

Ex.A10Self attested authorization letter dated 08.08.2024 issued by the Head office, Coastal Local Area bank Limited

Exhibits Marked For Defendants No.1 to 3 SHAIKDigitally signed Nilby SHAIK MD MD

ABUTALIB

ABUTALIBPARVEEZ

Date: 2026.05.15

PARVEEZ

13:13:58 +0530

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Eluru

1 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.207/2025, Dated :15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE ( JUNIOR DIVISION),ELURU-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: ELURU

Present: Dr.Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

O.S.No.207 of 2025

Between: Pasam China Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Anjaneuyulu, Male, age 64 Years, R/o. 11th Road, Sriram Nagar, Gavaravaram,…. Plaintiff Eluru, Eluru District, And: Ungarala Kasi Viswanadh, S/o.Rama Krishna, Male, age 50 years, R/o. D.No. 14-48-8/2, Ungaralavari Veedhi, Ramaraopeta, Tadepalligudem 534101, West Godavari District.….Defendant

This Original suit coming on 13.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri

A.Vijayaratnam, Learned counsel for the defendant and upon hearing both sides arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

01. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- basing on promissory note dated:20.08.2023 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- repayable with interest at 24% per annum, for future interest and for costs.

02.The averments of the Plaint in nutshell are that:- The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees FIVE LAKHS only) from the plaintiff, on 20.08.2023 at the house of the plaintiff situated at Sriram Nagar, Gavaravaram,

Eluru, Eluru District in the presence of attestors and scribe, for the purpose of his

Digitally signed by SHAIK MD

SHAIK MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date:

PARVEEZ

2026.05.15 13:14:19 +0530 2 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.207/2025, Dated :15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru family expenses and to discharge his sundry debts and on the same day the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of Rs.2.00ps per hundred per month, either to the plaintiff or to his order. The Plaintiff further submits that, the defendant did not pay even the interest on the said pronote debt and in-spite of several demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, the defendant did not discharge the amount due under the above said promissory note with interest thereon and on the other hand dragging the matter from time to time on some pretext or other. Hence, the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 06.02.2025 to the defendant by demanding him to repay the said debt along with interest, the defendant received the said notice on 17.02.2025 and kept quite. The

Plaintiff further submits that, as the defendant is not an agriculturist hence he is not entitled to the relief's under the various debt relief enactments i.e, the Act of 7/77 and 4/38 or any other debt relief acts not applicable to him. Therefore, the plaintiff prays to the Hon’ble Court prays to pass decree and Judgment in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

03.After this suit is initiated, it is registered as O.S.No.207/2025. Suit summons was issued to the defendant. The defendant received suit summon, the defendant engaged an Advocate and filed his written statement by denying the material averments of the plaint.

04.Brief averments of the Written Statement of defendant are as follows :- The material allegations mentioned in the plaint are all not true and correct and are

Digitally signed SHAIKby SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

MD

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIBDate: PARVEEZ2026.05.15 13:14:25 +0530 3 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.207/2025, Dated :15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru invented for the purposes of this suit only. The suit is not maintainable under law and is liable for dismissed. The defendants submits that, the said pronote was materially altered and the same was barred by limitation. The plaintiff altered the said pronote with the assistance of his kit and kin. There is no cause of action for the suit. Hence the suit may be liable to be dismissed. The defendant further submit that, the defendant have no necessity to borrow the amount as alleged by the plaintiff. If any such pronote is there, it is created by the plaintiff with the help of the attesters and scribe only and the suit is not maintainable under law. The defendant further submits that,the defendant do not aware about the attesters and scribe even till to day. The defendant came to understand that the plaintiff created the suit pronote and obtained the signatures of the alleged attesters on the alleged pronote just before filing of the suit. There is no passing of consideration under the alleged suit pronote. More over the Plaintiff have no capacity to lend the alleged suit amount. The defendant further submit that, after receiving the suit summons, the defendant came to know that the plaintiff, attesters and scribe colluded together with each and other and created this alleged suit pronote and filed this false suit with false allegations. The defendant further submit that, the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff and never executed any pronote in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged suit pronote is created by the plaintiff with the help of the enemies of the defendants. The alleged suit pronote is not supported by the consideration. The alleged pronote is forged one. It is only created by the plaintiff for the purpose of wrongful gain from the defendant. The

Digitally signed SHAIK by SHAIK MD

MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date: PARVEEZ2026.05.15 13:14:32 +0530 4 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.207/2025, Dated :15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru material allegations made in the plaint are all not true and correct and are invented for the purposes of this suit only. The suit is not maintainable under law and is liable for dismissed. The defendant further submits that The suit documents i.e suit pronote was material altered an the top of the pronote i.e amount was altered and also the amount in the 9th line of the suit pronote was also altered. If the said alleged suit pronote send to the hand writing export for destination of alterations (the above side alterations) will come out. So it is just and necessary to send the listed documents number one Ex.A1 i.e suit promissory note to the hand writing expert for detonation of connection in the suit promissory note. The defendant further submits that, the plaintiff is put to strict proof of all the allegations not admitted in this written statement specially. The defendant prays to the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs, in the interests of justice.

05. ISSUES :- Owing to the above rival contentions of the Plaintiff and the

Defendant in their respective pleadings and after hearing the learned counsels on both sides, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 20.08.2023 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the suit promissory note dated 20.08.2023 is consideration or not?

3. Whether the suit promissory note dated 20.08.2023 is altered one or not?

4. Whether the suit promissory note dated 20.08.2023 is created one or not?

5. Whether the suit promissory note dated 20.08.2023 is created one or not?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim, as prayed for?

7. To what relief? Witnesses Examined And Documents Marked:

Digitally signed by SHAIK MD

SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

ABUTALIBPARVEEZ

PARVEEZDate: 2026.05.15 13:14:39 +0530 5 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.207/2025, Dated :15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru

06.During the trial of the suit, the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A3 documents are marked on behalf of the plaintiff, 1st attestor of Ex.A1 is examined as PW.2. To establish the case of the defendant, In-spite granting several adjournments, the defendant not adduced any oral and documentary evidence

before this court.

Arguments:-

07.Heard arguments on behalf the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant did not come forward for arguments, Hence arguments on behalf the defendant is treated as heard.

08. After consideration of the entire material on record, the oral and documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff and defendant in support of their respective contentions is thoroughly examined. Even though, the issues are distinctly framed, Seven issues have to be decided jointly in view of the nature of the suit. So, it is just and proper to take up the issues 1 to 7 together and answer the same for the purpose of resolving the actual controversy between the parties and to give comprehensive finding. Hence, issues 1 to 6 are consolidately answered as follows.

Finding on the Issues No.1 to 6:-

09.The case of the plaintiff is that, as mentioned above stated supra, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, 1st attestor of

Ex.A1 is examined as PW.2. PW.1 in his evidence in chief-examination reiterated the

Digitally signed SHAIKby SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

MDPARVEEZ

ABUTALIBDate: PARVEEZ2026.05.15 13:14:46 +0530 6 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.207/2025, Dated :15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru plaint pleadings. In view of the mentioning of the plaint pleadings in the above paragraphs in brief, there is no need to extract the contents in the chief-examination affidavit of PW.1, as the said averments in the plaint and the contents in the chief- examination affidavit of PW.1 are almost one and the same. In this suit, The learned counsel for the defendant did not come forward to cross-examine the PW.1, Hence cross-examination of PW.1 is treated as nil.

PW.2/Kodirekka Vijaya Kumar, 1st attestor of Ex.A1, in his evidence deposed that, He is 1st attestor of the suit proceedings and he know the plaintiff and defendant and the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees

FIVE LAKHS only) from the plaintiff, on 20.08.2023 at his house situated at Sriram

Nagar, Gavaravaram, Eluru, Eluru District in the presence of attestors and scribe, for the purpose of his family expenses and to discharge his sundry debts and on the same day the defendant executed a demand promissory note in his favour, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of Rs.2.00ps per hundred per month, either to the petitioner or to his order. He further submit that the said pronote was attested by him along with one S. Venkateswara Rao are present at that time. The defendant received the total consideration under the above suit promissory note in their presence and the defendant signed on the pronote Ex.A1. At the time of transaction himself and one S. Venkateswara Rao who are attested as attestors and one Ch. Kanaka Raju scribed the promissory note as scribe. The entire transaction took place in their presence. In this suit, The learned counsel for the

Digitally signed by SHAIK MD

SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

ABUTALIBPARVEEZ

PARVEEZDate: 2026.05.15 13:14:52 +0530 7 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.207/2025, Dated :15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru defendant did not come forward to cross-examine the PW.2, Hence cross- examination of PW.2 is treated as nil.

On the other hand, In order to prove the case of the defendant mentioned in his written statement above stated supra, the defendant not adduced any oral and documentary evidence before this court.

10. To prove the case of plaintiff, as stated supra, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked. Ex.A1 is original promissory note dated 20.08.2023 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/-, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 06.02.2025 got issued by plaintiff to the defendant, Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgment dated 17.02.2025. In this suit, the learned counsel for defendant did not come forward for cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.2, the cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.2 is treated as nil.

11. It is well settled principal of law that in a suit based on a promissory note the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the document and when this initial burden is discharged by the plaintiff, it is then the presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would apply and a presumption of consideration would arise; then it is for the defendant to prove the want of consideration. To discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff got examined himself as

PW.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked, 1st attestor of Ex.A1 is examined as PW.2. A perusal of evidence of PW.1, PW.2 corroborating with Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. By examining himself as PW.1, the plaintiff has successfully discharged his initial burden of proof

Digitally signed by SHAIK MD

SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

ABUTALIBPARVEEZ

PARVEEZDate: 2026.05.15 13:14:59 +0530 8 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.207/2025, Dated :15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru of Ex.A1. When once the plaintiff has discharged his initial burden, the presumption under section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play in favour of the plaintiff. Section.118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act reads as follows:- “Until the contrary is proved the following presumptions shall be made: (a) That every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration …..” In view of the above presumption in favour of plaintiff now the burden shifts on the defendant to rebut the presumption.

In this suit, the main contention of the defendant is that, the said pronote was materially altered and the same was barred by limitation and the plaintiff altered the said pronote with the assistance of his kit and kin. The another main contention of the defendant is that, the defendant have no necessity to borrow the amount as alleged by the plaintiff, If any such pronote is there, it is created by the plaintiff with the help of the attesters and scribe only and the suit is not maintainable under law. The another main contention of the defendant is that, defendant do not aware about the attesters and scribe even till to day and came to understand that the plaintiff created the suit pronote and obtained the signatures of the alleged attesters on the alleged pronote just before filing of the suit and there is no passing of consideration under the alleged suit pronote. The another main contention of the defendant is that, the Plaintiff have no capacity to lend the alleged suit amount. The another main contention of the defendant is that, after receiving

Digitally signed by SHAIK MD

SHAIK MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date:

PARVEEZ

2026.05.15 13:15:06 +0530 9 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.207/2025, Dated :15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru the suit summons, the defendant came to know that the plaintiff, attesters and scribe colluded together with each and other and created this alleged suit pronote and filed this false suit with false allegations. The another main contention of the defendant is that, the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff and never executed any pronote in favour of the plaintiff and The alleged suit pronote is created by the plaintiff with the help of the enemies of the defendants. The another main contention of the defendant is that, the alleged suit pronote is not supported by the consideration and the alleged pronote is forged one and it is only created by the plaintiff for the purpose of wrongful gain from the defendants. The another main contention of the defendant is that, The suit documents i.e suit pronote was material altered an the top of the pronote i.e amount was altered and also the amount in the 9th line of the suit pronote was also altered and If the said alleged suit pronote send to the hand writing export for destination of alterations (the above side alterations) will come out and so it is just and necessary to send the listed documents number one Ex.A1 i.e suit promissory note to the hand writing expert for detonation of connection in the suit promissory note. In this suit, In order to prove the above contentions mentioned above stated supra, the defendant not adduced any oral & documentary evidence before this court and the defendant not entered in witness box in order to prove his contentions mentioned above stated supra. In this suit, the learned counsel for defendant did not come forward to cross-examine PW.1 and PW.2, hence cross-examination of PW.1, PW.2 is treated as nil. In this suit, the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 corroborated with contents of

Digitally signed SHAIKby SHAIK MD

ABUTALIB

MDPARVEEZ

ABUTALIBDate: PARVEEZ2026.05.15 13:15:12 +0530 10 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.207/2025, Dated :15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru Ex.A1. In this suit, the defendant has not taken any steps to send the Ex.A1 promissory note for expert opinion in order to prove that, the signatures contained in Ex.A1 is not belongs to him and also Ex.A1 is materially altered one. In this suit, the defendant is not filed any cogent evidence in order to prove his contentions mentioned above stated supra. Hence, the contentions of the defendant mentioned in above supra are not tenable.

In these facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that, the defendant have failed to prove his case and thereby failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the plaintiff under section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that in this case the preponderance of probabilities are in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the plaintiff. Hence I have no hesitation to hold that, the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. In view of my discussion, it is proved that the defendant executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 20.08.2023 after borrowing an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards his family expenses and discharging sundry debts. The suit promissory note is supported by consideration. The suit promissory note is not altered one. The suit promissory note is not created one. The suit promissory note is not forged one. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. Accordingly, the issues No.1 to 6 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Digitally signed SHAIK by SHAIK MD

MDABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

ABUTALIB

Date: PARVEEZ2026.05.15 13:15:18 +0530 11 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.207/2025, Dated :15.05.2026 On the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru - cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,Eluru Result and finding on the Issue No. 7 : In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 to 6, I hold that the plaintiff has proved his case and he is entitled for a decree as prayed for by him.

12. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- with costs, and future interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum, till realization on the principal amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-.

Dictated to Stenographer grade-III, typed by her directly on computer system,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of May, 2026. SHAIK MDDigitally signed by

SHAIK MD ABUTALIB

ABUTALIBPARVEEZ

PARVEEZDate: 2026.05.15 13:15:24 +0530

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Eluru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff:- PW.1 : Pasam China Venkateswara Rao

PW.2 : Kodirekka Vijaya Kumar

Exhibits Marked For Plaintiff

Ex.A1Original promissory note dated 20.08.2023 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/-

Ex.A2Office copy of legal notice dated 06.02.2025 got issued by plaintiff to the defendant

Ex.A3Postal acknowledgment dated 17.02.2025.

Exhibits Marked For Defendant

SHAIK MDDigitally signed by Nil

SHAIK MD

ABUTALIBABUTALIB

PARVEEZ

PARVEEZDate: 2026.05.15 13:15:29 +0530

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Eluru

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Eluru

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.515/2024, Dated :16.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.515 OF 2024 ON THE

FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: ELURU

1. Date of Offence: 20.09.2024

2. Date of report: 20.09.2024

3. Date of arrest of accused: Served notice u/sec. 35(3) of BNS

4. Date of release on bail: ---------------

5. Date of commencement of trail: 15.04.2025

6. Date of close of trial: 15.04.2025

7. Date of judgment: 16.04.2025

8. Complainant: The State, Represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station, Eluru.

9. Accused:

1. Penuboyina @ Pinniboyina Ramesh, S/o. Subbarao, age 26 years, Yadava,SeedBusiness, Suryachandrarao Peta, H/o Raja Pangidigudem village, D. Tirumala Mandal.

2. Penuboyina @ Pinniboyina Durga, W/o. Subbarao, age 45 yers, Yadava, Coolie, Suryachandrarao Peta, H/o Raja Pangidigudem village, D. Tirumala Mandal.

3. Penuboyina @ Pinniboyina Sanjeeva Rao, S/o. Subbarao, age 28 years, Yadava,AutoDriver, Suryachandrarao Peta, H/o Raja Pangidigudem village, D. Tirumala Mandal.

10. Offence : under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS and sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court : Found not guilty

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.515/2024, Dated :16.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

13. Sentence or order: In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS and sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and accordingly, the accused are acquitted under section 271(1) of BNS. The bail bonds of the accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months, as per Section 481 of BNS. No property order is passed since no property in this case.

14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file on 25.11.2024 against Accused No.1 to 3 for the offence under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS and sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act and numbered as C.C.No.515/2024. On 08.04.2025 case copies of all documents are furnished to them under section 230 of BNS and they were examined under Section 262 of BNS, the charge under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS and sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 15.04.2025 PW.1 and PW.2 are examined and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked and the learned APP given up remaining witnesses and the prosecution side evidence is closed and As no incriminating evidence appearing against accused, hence examination under section 351 of BNS is dispensed with and Heard arguments on both sides and posted for Judgment on 16.04.2025. On 16.04.2025 the Judgment was

pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Sri. SK. MD. Abutalib Parveez

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile)

For Trial of cases under PCR Act-cum-

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru.

FAC/Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-

cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Eluru Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Eluru.

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.515/2024, Dated :16.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR

DIVISION)- CUM-PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: ELURU

Present: Sri Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru

FAC/Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

Wednesday, this the 16 th day of April, 2025

C.C.NO.515 of 2024

The State, Represented by its …...Complainant

Sub Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station, Eluru.

Vs

1.Penuboyina @ Pinniboyina Ramesh, S/o. Subbarao, age 26 years, Yadava, Seed Business, Suryachandrarao Peta, H/o Raja Pangidigudem village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.

2.Penuboyina @ Pinniboyina Durga, W/o. Subbarao, age 45 yers, Yadava, Coolie, SuryachandraraoPeta,H/oRaja Pangidigudem village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.

3.Penuboyina @ Pinniboyina Sanjeeva Rao,…...Accused

S/o. Subbarao, age 28 years, Yadava, Auto Driver, Suryachandrarao Peta, H/o Raja Pangidigudem village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.

This case is coming on 15th day of April, 2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and of Sri A.

Srinivas and Sri. B.P. Chandra Sekhar, Advocates for Accused upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

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

01. The State represented by Sub- Inspector of Police, Disha Women

Police Station, Eluru filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 3 in Crime

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.515/2024, Dated :16.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

No.134/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS and sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

02. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

PW.1/Chavala Krishna Veni reported that her marriage was solemnized with the Accused No.1 on 08.06.2022 at Surya Chandra Rao peta village, D.

Tirumala Mandal. At the time of marriage, on demand of Accused No.1 to 3, her parents (LW.2 and LW.3) gave Rs.50,000/- cash as dowry, Rs.10,000/- as

Adapaduchu katnam and Rs.50,000/- for other paraphernalia to them. Her father (LW.3) also presented 3 sovgns and a gold ring to the Accused No.1.

After marriage, PW.1 joined with her husband (Accused No.1) to lead conjugal life at her parent-in-laws house. Her husband/Accused No.1 doing maize seed business and he incurred huge loss financially. Later, the

Accused No.1 used to say that, the dowry amount given by her parents (LW.2 and LW.3) is not sufficient to him and if he married another woman, they (Accused No.1 to 3) may extract huge dowry and harassed her both mentally and physically. When, PW.1 intimated the matter to her father (LW.3) who gave Rs.6,00,000/- and her maternal uncle gave Rs.4,00,000/- to the Accused No.1 as loan. Later, the Accused No.1 started fruit juice business at Dwaraka Tirumala. But, the Accused No.1 could not look after the business and he developed extra matrimonial relationship with another woman.

When, questioned his acts, the Accused No.1 informed that, before to their marriage, he is having illicit liaison with said woman and he demanded the

PW.1 for divorce. When, PW.1 put the matter before the elders (LW.8 and

LW.9), the Accused No.1 promised that, he will look after his wife (PW.1) well in future and take back her for conjugal life. But, the Accused No.1 could not change his behaviour and accelerated his torture. The Accused No.1 used to

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.515/2024, Dated :16.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

came to their house in inebriated state, made phone calls to his concubine and harassed the PW.1 both mentally and physically. On that, PW.1 informed the above matters to her father (LW.3), who inturn came down to

Suryachandra Rao peta and questioned the acts of Accused No.1 to 3, who advised him to take back PW.1 to their house. On that, LW.3 taken PW.1 to their house at Dwarakra Tirumala and later approached the elders (LW.8 and

LW.9), who questioned the acts of Accused No1, but he could not give proper reply to them. On 01.05.2024, LW.3 approached the elders, who called her husband and questioned him. When, the Accused No.1 demanded for divorce and later he sent an advocate notice to the PW.1. Finally, PW.1 approached Women PS, Eluru and reported the matter to police, for justice.

In this connection, a case in Cr.No.134/2024 under section 85 r/w 3(5) BNS and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 of Disha Women PS, Eluru was registered by LW.10 on 20.09.2024 at 2.00 pm., and investigated into.

[a] During the course of investigation, on 20.09.2024, LW.10 secured the presence of defacto complainant and her parents, examined them as

PW.1 to LW.3, recorded their detailed statements in Part II of Case Diary

U/sec.180(3) BNSS. Later, on 21.09.2024, LW.10 visited the scene of offence, located at the terraced house of Accused no.1, located at 3rd road,

Kothapeta, Suryachandraraopeta village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal and examined the same minutely and prepared rough sketch. Later, LW.10 secured the presence of neighbours to the scene, examined them as LW.4 to

LW.7, recorded their detailed statements under section 180(3) BNSS. Later, on 21.09.2024, LW.10 secured the presence of caste elders, examined them as LW.8 and LW.9, recorded their detailed statements under section 180(3)

BNSS, and collected ample evidence against the Accused No.1 to 3, to run

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.515/2024, Dated :16.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

them under the clutches of law. LW.10 issued notice to the Accused No.1 to 3 under section 35(3) of BNS on 26.09.2024, when they surrendered at

Women PS, Eluru. Later, on 05.10.2024, LW.10 obtained the written explanation of Accused No.1 to 3, who promised that they will co-operate with police, during the case investigation. Hence, Accused No.1 to 3 were not arrested and enlarged by LW.10, under the provisions of section 35(3) of

BNS. The LW.10 completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3, basing on investigation findings. Hence, the above noted Accused No.1 to 3 are liable for punishment under Section 85 r/w 3(5) BNS and sections 3 & 4 of DP Act, 1961 for their harassment upon

PW.1 both mentally and physically, demand and acceptance of dowry, demanding her for additional dowry, in furtherance to their common intention. Hence, the charge sheet.

03.This case was taken on file under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS and sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act against accused No.1 to 3 and registered it as

C.C.No.515/2024. Copies of the case documents were furnished to them as required under Section 230 of BNS and they were examined under Section 262 of BNS, and the charge under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS and sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04. To prove its case, the Prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. As there is no incriminating evidence available on record, the examination of Accused under Sec.351 of BNS is dispensed with.

05.Heard arguments on both sides.

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.515/2024, Dated :16.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

06.Now the point arise for determination is

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS and sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

07. To prove its case the Prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. PW.1 is the Defacto Complainant. PW.2 is the father of PW.1.

(a) PW.1/Chavala Kirhsna Veni in her evidence deposed that, she is resident of Tirumalapalem village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.

LW.2/Chavala Rama Lakshmi is her mother. LW.3/Chavala Venkateswararao is her father. She do not know LW.4/Doppasani Satyanarayana,

LW.5/Doppasani Vara Lakshmi, LW.6/Paakiram Venkateswararao,

LW.7/Pamula Prasad, LW.8/Pamula Chandrayya and LW.9/Chinta Venkatarao.

Accused is her husband. Her marriage was performed with accused in the year 2022. She do not know anything about this case. At the instance of police she signed on white papers. Witness identified her signature in report

dated 06.08.2024 i.e., Ex.P1. Ex.P1 is her signature in report dated:

06.08.2024. Police did not examine her. During the cross-examination by the learned A.P.P, she denied the contents of her Section 180 of BNS statement marked as Ex.P2 and PW.1 in her evidence in cross-examination by the learned A.P.P deposed that, she and the accused are compromised out side of the court.

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.515/2024, Dated :16.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

(b) PW.2/Chavala Venkateswararao in his evidence deposed that, he is resident of Tirumalapalem village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.

PW.1/Chavala Krishna Veni is her daughter. LW.2/Chavala Rama Lakshmi is his wife. He do not know LW.4/Doppasani Satyanarayana, LW.5/Doppasani

Vara Lakshmi, LW.6/Paakiram Venkateswararao, LW.7/Pamula Prasad,

LW.8/Pamula Chandrayya. She know LW.9/Chinta Venkatarao. Accused is her son-in-law. Their marriage was performed in the year 2022. He do not know anything about this case. Police did not examine him. During the cross- examination by the learned A.P.P, he denied the contents of her Section 180 of BNS statement marked as Ex.P3 and PW.2 in his evidence in cross- examination by the learned A.P.P deposed that, he and the accused are compromised out side of the court.

08.On perusal of material evidence on record, PW.1 is defacto-

Complainant, PW.1 in her evidence categorically deposed that, she does not know anything about this case and police never examined her and at instance of elders she signed on white papers. Hence, PW.1 completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW.2 in his evidence categorically deposed that, he do not known anything about this case and police never examined him. PW.1 & PW.2 are completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The prosecution failed to elicit any incriminating material against accused No.1 to 3 from evidences of PW.1 and PW.2. On perusal of entire evidence of material on record, it appears that, the parties to this case have compromised outside the Court, as such, there is no material

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.515/2024, Dated :16.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

available on record to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Nothing material elicited against Accused No.1 to 3 that they have committed the offence under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS and sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act as alleged by the prosecution. As the material witnesses turned hostile, the learned A.P.P given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., LW.2/Chavala Rama Lakshmi, LW.4/Doppasani

Satya Narayana, LW.5/Doppasani Vara Lakshmi, LW.6/Paakiram

Venkateswararao, LW.7/Pamula Prasad, LW.8/Pamula Chandrayya,

LW.9/Chinta Venkatarao and LW.10/Smt. V. Kanthi Priya, the SI of Police,

Women PS, Eluru. Under these circumstances, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of Accused for the offence under sections 86, 3(5) of BNS, beyond all reasonable doubt.

09. In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 3(5) of BNS and sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and accordingly, the accused are acquitted under section 271(1) of BNS. The bail bonds of the accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months, as per Section 481 of BNS. No property order is passed since no property in this case.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, typed by her directly on

computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 16 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Sri. SK. MD. Abutalib Parveez

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile)

For Trial of cases under PCR Act-cum-

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru.

FAC/Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-

cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.515/2024, Dated :16.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

// Appendix of evidence //

Witness examined

For Prosecution For Defense PW.1Chavala Krishna Veni None PW.2Chavala Venkateswara Rao

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1Signature of the PW.1 in report dated 06.08.2024 Ex.P2Section 180 of BNS statement of PW.1. Ex.P3Section 180 of BNS statement of PW.2. For defence NIL

Sd/- Sri. SK. MD. Abutalib Parveez

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile)

For Trial of cases under PCR Act-cum-

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru.

FAC/Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-

cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.430/2022, Dated :22.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.430 OF 2022 ON

THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR

DIVISION)-CUM-PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: ELURU

1. Date of Offence: 25.05.2022

2. Date of report: 25.05.2022

3. Date of arrest of accused: 18.04.2025

4. Date of release on bail: 22.04.2025

5. Date of commencement of trail: 21.04.2025

6. Date of close of trial: 21.04.2025

7. Date of judgment: 22.04.2025 8.Complainant: State,The Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station, Eluru.

9. Accused: KondapaneniVenkateswararao, S/o. Nageswararao, age 41 years, Kamma, Real Estate Business, Moula Nagar, Andhra Hospital road, Gollapudi, Vijayawada City.

10. Offence : under Sections 498-A of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of DP ACt

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or order: In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC sections 3 & 4 of DP Act and accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No property order is passed since no property in this case. The Jail authorities is hereby directed that to release the accused forthwith, if the accused is not required in any other cases.

14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file on 25.06.2022 against Accused for the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC and sections 3

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.430/2022, Dated :22.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

& 4 of DP Act and numbered as C.C.No.430/2022. On 20.02.2023 case copies of all documents are furnished to him under section 207 of Cr.P.C. On 24.07.2023 the Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, the charge under Section 498-A of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of DP Act and were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 21.04.2025 PW.1 is examined and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked and PW.2 is examined and Ex.P3 is marked and the learned APP given up remaining witnesses and the prosecution side evidence is closed and as no incriminating evidence appearing against accused, hence examination under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with and Heard arguments on both sides and posted for Judgment on 22.04.2025. On 22.04.2025 the Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Sri. SK. Md. Abutalib Parveez

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile)

For Trial of cases under PCR Act-cum-

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru.

FAC/Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-

cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Eluru Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Eluru.

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.430/2022, Dated :22.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR

DIVISION)- CUM-PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: ELURU

Present: Sri Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru

FAC/Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

Tuesday, this the 22 nd day of April, 2025

C.C.NO. 430 of 2022

State: Sub-Inspector of Police , Disha …...Complainant

Women Police Station, Eluru.

Vs

KondapaneniVenkateswararao,S/o. Nageswararao, age 41 years, Kamma, Real Estate Business, Moula Nagar, Andhra Hospital road, Gollapudi, Vijayawada City. …… Accused

This case is coming on 21st day of April, 2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and of Sri G.

Vijaya Bhaskar, Advocate for Accused upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

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

01. The State represented by Sub- Inspector of Police, Disha Women

Police Station, Eluru filed charge sheet against Accused in Crime No.87/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of

DP Act.

02. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

PW1/Kondapaneni Sai Durga reported that her marriage was celebrated with

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.430/2022, Dated :22.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

the accused on 14.02.2013 at Sri Venkateswara Swamy vari temple,

Dwaraka Tirumala, as per Hindu Religious customs, in the presence of both elders and relatives. At the time of marriage, on demand of accused, her mother(LW.2) gave Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1.5 lakhs worth gold ornaments as dowry and also presented other paraphernalia. Before to her marriage, his mother Jayamma & other relatives informed that, the accused is doing gold business and running a Jewelry shop at Vijayawada and believed them. After marriage, PW.1 joined with her husband to lead conjugal life. After, it was came into her notice that, her husband is not having any jewelry shop and he is not doing gold business. When, questioned the accused stated that, he discarded gold business and now doing real estate business. But, the accused had not doing any work or business properly, moving as vagabond and has not take care of her. The PW.1 blessed with a male child namely

Yeswanth Naga Babu on 06.04.2018. Later, the accused addicted to bad vices, demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents hosue, harassed her both mentally and physically. In the year, 2020 she joined as volunteer at Gollapudi Sachivalayam to grown up her children.

When, she went for duty, her husband failed to take care of her son, who came on the road, a car dashed the child and caused fracture injury over Rt.

Leg. When, her husband failed to take care of the child. On that, her mother (LW.2) gave Rs.50,000/- for operation and treatment to the child. Even though, there is no change in the attitude of her husband, who harassing her with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, necked out her from their house on 25.04.2021. On that, PW.1 came back to her parents house at Vasanthawada along with her son and residing there. When, her

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.430/2022, Dated :22.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

mother approached the elders (LW.4 and LW.5), who tried to pacify the disputes and resent her for conjugal life. But her, husband continued his harassment, demanded her for Rs.2,00,000/- as additional dowry. The complainant preferred to lodge a report about the occurrence. In this connection, a case in Cr.No.87/2022 under section 498(A) IPC., and sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, 1961 of Disha Women PS, Eluru was registered by LW.9 on 25.05.2022 at 1.00., and investigated into.

[a] During the course of investigation, on 25.05.2022, the LW.9 secured the presence of defacto complainant, her mother and younger mother, examined them as LW.1 to LW.3, recorded their detailed statements in part II of Case Diary under section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Later, the LW.9 visited

Vasanthawada village, Pedapadu Mandal, secured the presence of marriage elders, examined them as LW.4 and LW.5, recorded their detailed statements in Part II of Case Diary under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Later, on 26.05.2022, LW.9 visited the scene of offence, located at Moula Nagar,

Gollapudi, Vijayawada City, prepared rough sketch of scene, secured the presence of neighbours to the scene and independent witnesses, examined them as LW.6 to LW.8, recorded their detailed statements in Part II of Case

Diary under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C and collected ample evidence against the accused. On 27.05.2022, LW.10 took up further investigation into this case and he verified the investigation done by LW.9. the LW.10, examined the scene of offence and also examined the complainant, herm other, marriage elders and neighbours to the scene and other witnesses as LW.1 to LW.8 and found the investigation done by LW.9 is went on correct lines and there is no deviations. LW.10 issued notice to the accused under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C.,

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.430/2022, Dated :22.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

on 02.06.2022, when he surrendered at Disha Women PS, Eluru. Later,

LW.10 obtained the written explanation of accused, on 10.06.2022, by promising that he will co-operate with police during investigation. Hence, the accused was not arrested and enlarged by LW.10 under the provisions of section 41(A) Cr.P.C. The LW.10 completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused, basing on investigation findings. Hence, the above noted accused is liable for punishment under Section 498(A) IPC, for his persistent persecution and harassment upon LW.1, both mentally and physically. The accused further liable for punishment under Sections 3 & 4 of

D.P. Act, 1961 for demand and acceptance of dowry amount, further demanding for additional dowry. Hence, the charge sheet.

03.This case was taken on file under section 498-A of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of DP Act against accused and registered it as C.C.No.430/2022. Copies of the case documents was furnished to him as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C and he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, and the charge under section 498-A of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of DP Act were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04. To prove its case, the Prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2 examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. As there is no incriminating evidence available on record, the examination of Accused under Sec.313

Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

05.Heard arguments on both sides.

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.430/2022, Dated :22.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

06.Now the point arise for determination is

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of Accused for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of DP Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?’

07. To prove its case the Prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. PW.1 is the Defacto Complainant. PW2 is the mother of PW.1.

(a) PW.1/Kondapaneni Sai Durga, her evidence deposed that, she is resident of Vasanthawada village, Pedapadu Mandal, She know

LW.2/Galanki Ramadevi is her mother. LW.3/Inala Lakshmi is her aunt.

LW.4/Galanki Abbulu is her uncle. LW.5/Kuramani Siva Prasad is her brother. LW.6/Shaik Subhani, LW.7/Shaik Shafi and LW.8/Jasti Venkata

Samba Siva Rao they are her neighbours. On 14.02.2013 her marriage performed with accused in Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Tirumala in the presence of elders as per their rites and customs. Herself and accused blessed with one male children. She do not know anything about this case.

At the instance of police she signed on white papers. Witness identified her signature in her report dated 19.04.2022 i.e., Ex.P1. Ex.P1 is her signature in her report dated 19.04.2022. Police did not examine her. During the cross-examination by the learned A.P.P, she denied the contents of her

Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement marked as Ex.P2 and PW.1 in her evidence in cross-examination by the learned A.P.P deposed that, she and the accused are compromised out side of the court.

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.430/2022, Dated :22.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

(b) PW.2/Galanki Ramadevi, in her deposed that PW.1 is her daughter. She know LW.3/Inala Lakhsmi is her sister. LW.4/Galanki Abbulu is her brother-in-law. LW.5/Kuramani Siva Prasad is her elder sister’s son.

She do not know LW.6/Shaik Subhani, LW.7/Shaik Shafi and LW.8/Jasti

Venkata Samba Siva Rao. On 14.02.2013 marriage of PW.1 performed with accused in Venkateswara Samy temple, Dwaraka Tirumala in the presence of elders as per their rites and customs. She do not know anything about this case. Police did not examine her. During the cross-examination by the learned A.P.P, she denied the contents of her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement marked as Ex.P3 and PW.2 in her evidence in cross-examination by the learned A.P.P deposed that, she and the accused are compromised out side of the court.

08.On perusal of material evidence on record, PW.1 is defacto-

Complainant, PW.1 in her evidence categorically deposed that, she does not know anything about this case and police never examined her and at instance of elders she signed on white papers. Hence, PW.1 completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW.2 in her evidence categorically deposed that, she do not known anything about this case and police never examined her. PW.1 & PW.2 are completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The prosecution failed to elicit any incriminating material against accused from evidences of PW.1 and PW.2. On perusal of entire evidence of material on record, it appears that, the parties to this case have compromised outside the Court, as such, there is no material available on

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.430/2022, Dated :22.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

record to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Nothing material elicited against Accused that he has committed the offence under Sections 498-A IPC and sections 3 & 4 of DP Act as alleged by the prosecution. As the material witnesses turned hostile, the learned A.P.P given up the evidence of remaining witnesses LW.3/Inala Lakshmi,

LW.4/Galanki Abbulu, LW.5/Kuramani Siva Prasad, LW.6/Shaik Subhani,

LW.7/Shaik Shafi, LW.8/Jasti Venkata Samba Siva Rao @ Sivu, LW.9/Smt.

K.V. Ratna Kumari, WHC-478, SHO Disha Women PS, Eluru and LW.10/V.

Rama Koteswararao, SI of Police, Disha Women PS, Eluru. Under these circumstances, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of Accused for the offence 498-A IPC and sections 3 & 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

09.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of DP Act and accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

Accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No property order is passed since no property in this case.

The Jail authorities is hereby directed that to release the accused forthwith, if the accused is not required in any other cases.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, typed by her directly on computer system,

corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 22 nd day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Sri. SK. Md. Abutalib Parveez

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile)

For Trial of cases under PCR Act-cum-

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru.

FAC/Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-

cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.430/2022, Dated :22.04.2025 On the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum -Principal Judicial Magistrate Of First Class :: Eluru.

// Appendix of evidence //

Witness examined

For Prosecution For Defense PW.1Kondapaneni Sai Durga None PW.2Galanki Ramadevi

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1Signature of the PW.1 in report dated 19.04.2022 Ex.P2Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P3Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 For defence NIL

Sd/- Sri. SK. Md. Abutalib Parveez

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile)

For Trial of cases under PCR Act-cum-

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru. FAC/Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-

cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.