Sr. K.Murali Mohan

1Fair judgment of S.C. No.33 of 2019/IIAASJC, Wgl.

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL

Monday, the 8th day of June, 2020.

Present:- Sri K. Murali Mohan, II-Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Warangal.

Sessions Case No.33 OF 2019.

(PRC No.39/2018 on the fle of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal – Crime No.114 of 2018 of Police Station Parkal.) 1Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through the complainantSub Inspector of Police, Police Station Parkal.

2Name and description of the :A.1 Md. Hameed, accused S/o. Chand Pasha, Age 21 years, Muslim, Occ: Student.

A.2 Md. Chand Pasha, S/o. Ankusha Vali, age 37 years, Muslim, Petty business.

A.3 Md. Razia, W/o. Ankusha Vali, age 54 years, Muslim, Coolie.

A.4 Md. Amjad, S/o. Shaik Mohammad, age 37 years, Muslim, Occ: Petty business.

A.1 to A.4 are residents of Venkateshwarapally village, Parkal mandal.

A.5 Md. Rubeena, W/o. Shukur, age 34 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: House wife, R/o. Motlapalli of Mogullapalli mandal, Jayashanker district.

3Offences with which charged:Under Sections 366, 341, 342, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4Counsel for the Prosecution :Sri M. Vasanth Kumar, Addl. P.P. 5Counsel for the Accused:Sri N. Sampath Reddy, Advocate. 6Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty. 7Finding of the Court:Found not guilty. 8Sentence or Order:Accused No.1 to 5 are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C.

2Fair judgment of S.C. No.33 of 2019/IIAASJC, Wgl.

This Sessions Case is coming on 03.06.2020 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M. Vasanth Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and Sri N. Sampath Reddy, Advocate for the accused No.1 to 5 and after hearing the arguments of both the sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Police station Parkal fled charge sheet against the above named accused No.1 to 5 in crime No.114 of 2018 of

Police Station Parkal for the offences under Sections 366, 342, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused No.1 to 4 and for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused No.5.

2)The brief allegations of the prosecution are that the defacto- complainant namely Md. Adam Saheb (PW.1) is father of the victim-Md.

Afreen (PW.2) and they are residents of Venkateshwharpally village of

Parkal mandal, The accused No.1 to 4 are also residents of same village whereas the accused No.5 is resident of Motlapally village of Mogulapally mandal. The accused No.2 is father, accused No.3 is grandmother, accused No.4 is brother of the accused No.1 and the accused No.5 is relative of the accused No.1. On the date of incident i.e., on 5.6.2018 night at about 20.00 hours, the victim girl (PW.2) went to Masjid as it was day of over night stay (jagaram) of Muslim religion. Thereafter,

PW.2 came outside the Masjid, then the accused No.1, who was waiting for her, met her and told her that the accused No.4 was at his house and he asked the accused to bring her along with him as he wanted to talk with her. On that victim told the accused No.1 that she will talk on the 3Fair judgment of S.C. No.33 of 2019/IIAASJC, Wgl.

next day morning. Then the accused No.1 told her that the accused

No.4 was going to Hyderabad in morning around 04.00 hours. On that, believing the words of the accused No.1, victim went to the house of the accused No.1, where he told her that the accused No.5 was inside of his house and took her inside the house. Then the accused No.1 to 4 shut the doors and immediately victim scared of and made hue and cries and went near the door. On that the accused No.1 pushed Md. Afeen inside the house and he came outside the house and bolted the door from outside and wrongfully confned her in his house. After some time, the accused No.1 to 4 came and asked victim to marry the accused No.1.

On that victim refused to marry the accused No.1, thereupon the accused No.1 to 4 wrongfully confned her in their house for the whole night and forced her to marry the accused No.1, but she refused to marry the accused No.1. As Md. Afreen did not turn back to the house from Masjid around 21.00 hours, the complainant/father of the victim searched for her in surrounding area and in the houses of their relatives, but could not be traced. On the next day morning, the accused No.5 came to the accused No.1. At about 7.30 hours, father, brother, sister and brother-in-law of victim came to know that she was at the house of the accused. On that, sister and brother-in-law of Md. Afreen rushed to the house of accused and on their arrival, the accused No.2 and 5 raised objection and wrongfully restrained victim, however they brought victim from the house of accused to their house.

3)On the next day morning, basing on the report of the PW.1-Md.

Adam Saheb, the LW.10-B. Ravinder, the Sub Inspector of Police, Parkal police station, registered a case in crime No.114 of 2018 under Sections 366, 342, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, issued FIR and took 4Fair judgment of S.C. No.33 of 2019/IIAASJC, Wgl.

up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.10-B. Ravinder,

SI of Police, Parkal Police Station examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of the victim was got recorded by the learned Spl. Judicial Magistrae of First Class for PCR

Cases, Warangal, by sending a requisition. The accused were arrested on 25.08.2018 and produced befoe the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Parkal, for judicial remand and they were enlarged on bail thereafter.

After completion of investigation, LW.10-B. Ravinder, SI of Police, Police station Parkal, fled charge sheet against the accused.

4)The case was taken on fle by the learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Parkal, against the accused No.1 to 5 for the offence under

Sections 366, 342, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused No.1 to 4 and for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian

Penal Code against the accused No.5.

5)On appearance of all the accused, the learned Magistrate furnished the copies of case documents to the accused as required under Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.). As one of the offences charged against the accused, are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate after compliance of

Sec.209 Cr.P.C., committed the case vide P.R.C. No.39/2018 to the

Hon'ble Principal Sessions Court, Warangal.

6)The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, assigned the

Sessions Case No.33 of 2019 and made over to this Court for disposal

according to law.

7)Upon hearing both sides, charges under Sections 366, 341, 342, 5Fair judgment of S.C. No.33 of 2019/IIAASJC, Wgl.

506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the

Court fxed the trial schedule and issued summons to the witnesses to record their evidence.

8)During the course of trial, Pws.1 to 5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked.

9)All the material witnesses not supported the prosecution case, as such the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW.6-

Smt. K. Vani, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for PCR Cases,

Warangal, who recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of the victim, LW.7-

Pasula Kavitha, Head Master, Kasthrubha Girls High School, Veenavanka, who issued Date of birth certifcate of the victim LW.8-Md. Chinnasar and

LW.9-Vanga Rajender, who are the panch witnesses for the crime details form, LW.10-B. Ravinder, Sub Inspector of Police, Parkal and reported the prosecution evidence was closed.

10)As there are no incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of Pws.1 to 5, the examination of all the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

11)Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defence.

12)Perused the record.

13)Now the point for determination is, “whether the prosecution

proved the guilt of the accused No.1 to 5 for the ofences

punishable under Sections 366, 341, 342, 506 read with 34 of

6Fair judgment of S.C. No.33 of 2019/IIAASJC, Wgl.

the Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

14)POINT: It is the prosecution case that all the accused kidnapped the minor girl (PW.2) and forced her to marry the accused No.1 and basing on the report of her father (PW.1), the criminal law was set into motion and the accused persons were arrested by the police. While fling the charge sheet, though the investigating agency cited total 10 witnesses, Pws.1 to 5 who are the material witnesses in this case, are alone examined and the evidence of ofcial witnesses and panchayatdars was given up by the lerned Additional Public Prosecutor since the material witnesses not supported the prosecution case.

14A) On perusal of the evidence on record, PW.1, who is father of the victim, deposed that 1½ year ago his daughter went to the relatives house. Since she was not found, they suspected the accused. Police obtained his signature. According to PW.1, he do not know the contents of said report. However he identifed his signature as Ex.P1 on the report. PW.1 categorically deposed that he was not examined by the police.

15)PW.2 is the victim, who is daughter of PW.1. Victim also deposed on the same lines of PW.1. In her evidence, PW.2 deposed that 1½ year ago, she went to her grandmother's house in their village, meanwhile her father approached the police as she was not found. Thereafter she was brought back from her grandmother's house, but the police did not examine her. Due to fear of police and her father, the victim who was minor at that time, stated to give statement before the Magistrate against the accused. The victim further deposed that since she was child at that time, she do not know anything about the legal 7Fair judgment of S.C. No.33 of 2019/IIAASJC, Wgl.

consequences and that the accused never taken her to anywhere.

16)PW.3, who is sister of the victim, also deposed on the same lines of

Pws.1 and 2. According to PW.3, 1½ year ago PW.2 went to her grandmother's house and that she was not examined by the police.

PW.4-Md. Mohammad, who is brother-in-law of the victim, deposed that he do not know the facts of the case and he did not witness anything pertaining to this case. PW.5-Md. Mohammad, who is brother of PW.2, also deposed that he dos not know facts of the case and he did not witness anything pertaining to this case.

17)Pws.1 to 3 deposed in one voice that the victim went to her grandmother's house, but due to communication gap PW.1 approached the police and police obtained his signature on some papers, but he do not know the contents of his report. Pws.4 and 5 deposed that they do not know the facts of the case. None of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case and they choosed to resile from their previous statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., recorded by the police during the course of investigation. It is the specifc evidence of Pws.1 to 5 that they were never examined by the police in this case. Hence,

Pws.1 to 5 were treated as hostile by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutior and they were cross examined by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court. Even in the cross examination, nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution. Pws.1 to 5 specifcally deposed in the cross examination that they did not state to police that the accused kidnapped PW.2 and confned her in their house on 5.6.2018.

Pws.1 to 5 denied to state to police as in Exts.P2 to P6 statements (161

Cr.P.C. Statements of the witnesses recorded by the police).

8Fair judgment of S.C. No.33 of 2019/IIAASJC, Wgl.

18)On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is clear that Pws.1 to 5 who are the material witnesses did not choose to depose anything against the accused. The victim herself and her father and other family members specifcally deposed that on that day the victim went to her grandmother's house and that she was never kidnapped by the accused.

No useful purpose was served by cross examining the Pws.1 to 5 by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Absolutely there is no evidence with regard to the offences under Sections 366, 341, 342, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the cross examination of Pws.1 to 5 by the learned Addl. Public Proseucutor, it was elicited that they settled the disputes out of Court with accused and the accused No.1 married the victim (PW.2) and their marriage was performed at the instance of elders of both the families and they both are living amicably. However, Pws.1 to 5 denied the suggestion that they were deposing false out of compromise.

19)It is apparent from the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 that there is no whisper in their evidnce with regard to the commission of any offence by the accused against the victim. It is admitted that PW.2 (victim) married to the accused No.1 at the instance of elders of both the families and they are living amicably. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that in view of the marriage, Pws.1 to 5 might have changed their version. This Court is of the opinion that the said fact will not have any signifcance to prove the charges when absolutely there is no evidence against the accused. Prosecution failed to produce any material before this Court to show that the accused committed the offences. The victim (PW.2) herself turned hostile to the case of prosecution and her father (PW.1) also did not choose to depose anything against the accused.

9Fair judgment of S.C. No.33 of 2019/IIAASJC, Wgl.

None of the ingredients for the offences under Sections 366, 341, 342, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code are proved by the prosecution.

20)The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining witnesses. It is clear from the record that even if the said ofcial witnesses are examined, there will be no improvement in the case of the prosecution in view of the fact that all the material witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution. There is no evidence against the accused for kidnap of the victim (PW.2) and for her wrongful confnement and the criminal intimidation by sharing the common intention by accused. Therefore, this Court is the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused No.1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 366, 341, 342, 506 read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and the accused are entitled for acquital. Point is answered accordingly.

21)In the result, the accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 366, 341, 342, 506 read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C., for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, after her transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the virtual Court on this the 8th day of June, 2020.)

II-ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

10Fair judgment of S.C. No.33 of 2019/IIAASJC, Wgl.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence : PW.1 Md. Adam Saheb-None- PW.2 Md. Afreen PW.3 Md. Zubeda PW.4 Md. Mohammad, S/o. Ismail. PW.5 Md. Mohammad, S/o. Adam Saheb,

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1 Signature of PW.1 on Report.-Nil. Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1. Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2. Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3. Ex.P5 161 Cr.P.C. Stament of PW.4. Ex.P6 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

II-ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1Fair judgment in OS 308 of 2019/IIASCJ, Warangal.

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL

Friday, the 21st day of August, 2020.

Present:- Sri K. Murali Mohan, II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.308 OF 2019.

Between:

Palle Veera Swamy, S/o. Muthaiah, aged 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3-13-25, Kumarpally, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban dist. .…Plaintiff

AND

1. Tula Sandhya, W/o. Late Sampath Rao, aged 48 years, Occ: Household.

2. Nuguru Sravani, W/o. Naresh, D/o. Late Sampath Rao, Aged 27 years, Occ: Household.

3. Tula Praneeth, S/o. late Sampath Rao, Aged 25 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee.

All are R/o. H.No.3-8-101, Kumarpally, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban district. ….Defendants

This suit is coming on 20.08.2020 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M. Raju, Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants remained ex-parteand after hearing the arguments of counsel of the plaintiff in virtual Court and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1)This is a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff under

Order 4 Rule 1 under Order 7 Rule 1 read with Section 26 of the C.P.C., against the defendants., who are the legal heirs of Tula Sampath Rao, praying the Court to direct the defendants to register the Sale deed in favour of him enforcing the simple sale deed dated 2.12.2002 executed by late Tula Sampath Rao in his life time by receiving entire sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- from the plaintiff, failing which the Court may be pleased to register the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property viz., agricultural land to an extent of Acs.3.28 guntas out of survey No.112/B situated at Hanamkonda revenue shivar, Hanamkonda 2Fair judgment in OS 308 of 2019/IIASCJ, Warangal.

mandal, Warangal district, in favour of the plaintiff and to award the costs of the suit and such other relief/reliefs as the Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant No.1 and

Tula Sampath Rao are wife and husband, the defendants No.2 and 3 are their children. Tula Sampath Rao succeeded the agricultural land to an extent of Acs.3.28 guntas out of survey No.112/B situated at

Hanamkonda revenue shivar, Hanamkonda mandal, Warangal district (hereinafter referred to as suit land) and was in possession of pattedar pass book and title deed vide Khata No.663. The said Tula Sampath Rao for his family needs and necessities had sold away the suit land in favour of the plaintiff by executing a simple sale deed dated 02.12.2002 in the presence of witnesses by receiving the entire sale consideration of

Rs.7,50,000/- and inducting him into physical possession of the suit land on the same day itself. Thus the plaintiff become the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land.

3)It is further submitted in the plaint that the plaintiff had carried on agricultural operation for some period and due to draught, cultivation has been stopped and the suit land is kept vacant. Further, due to paucity of funds, the plaintiff could not get registered the suit land in his name. Thereafter, after mobilizing the amount, the plaintiff approached his vendor-Tula Sampath Rao and requested him to execute a regular sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit land. But his vendor was otherwise busy in othe works, as such the execution of registration of suit land was kept pending.

4)While things stood thus, on 29.09.2018 Tula Sampath Rao died and thereafter the plaintiff approached the defendants and requested them 3Fair judgment in OS 308 of 2019/IIASCJ, Warangal.

to execute a regular sale deed in respect of suit land by showing the document executed by Tula Sampath Rao. The sale transaction regarding the suit land between the plaintiff and Tula Sampath Rao was within the knowledge of the defendants No.1, who is the wife of Tula

Sampath Rao. The defendants No.2 and 3 are children of defendant No.1 and Tula Sampath Rao and they were minors at the time of sale transaction. The plaintiff approached the defendants for execution of registered sale deed in respect of the suit land, but they are not coming forward to execute the same and dodging the matter on one reason or other. The defendant No.1 has every knowledge about her husband-Tula

Sampath Rao executing simpel sale deed dt.2.12.2002 by receiving entire sale cosnideration of Rs.7,50,000/- from the plaintiff, but the defendants failed to execute a regular registered sale deed in respect of suit land.

5)That finally on 10.02.2019 the plaintiff approached the defendants requesting them to execute registered sale deed, but they gave deaf ear to his request and did not come forward to execute the sale deed.

Hence, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.28.02.2019 through his counsel demanding the defendants to register the suit land but the defendants refused to receive the legal notice and got returned by postal authorities by endorsing the same. Later on enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants are seriously making attempts to alienate the suit land to some third parties for higher price. If the defendants succeed in their illegal attempts, much hardship shall be caused to the plaintiff and the very purpose of filing the suit will be defeated. Hence the suit.

6)The defendants refused to receive the summons and as such on 02.07.2019 they were set ex-parte by my learned predecessor. That 4Fair judgment in OS 308 of 2019/IIASCJ, Warangal.

apart, the defendants failed to make any attempts to get the ex-parte orders set aside till the matter is posted for recording of ex-parte evidence on 26.07.2019.

7)On 26.07.2019 on application filed by the plaintiff, the simple sale deed was sent to the District Registrar, Warnagal, for impounding stamp duty and penalty and same was received on 15.06.2020 after collecting stamp duty and penalty. On 20.08.2020 the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 in virtual Court through video linkage in view of Covid-19 pandamic outbreak and got marked Exts.A1 to A31 and also examined

PW.2 to prove his case. The defendants remained ex-parte. Thus, the case of plaintiff remains unchallenged and un-rebutted.

8)Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff in virtual court through video linkage. Perused the record.

9)Now the point for consideration is “whether the plaintiff is

entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract as

prayed for ? If so, to what relief ?.

10)POINT: As can be seen from the material on record it would show the case of the PW.1-plaintiff is that his vendor (late Tula Sampath Rao), who is pattedar and successor of the suit land, for his family needs and necessities had sold away the suit land to PW.1 by executing a simple sale deed dt.02.12.2002 (Ex.A1) in the presence of witnesses by receiving the entire sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-. The said Tula

Sampath Rao inducted the plaintiff into physical possession of the land.

Thereafter, due to some or other reasons registration of the suit land in favour of PW.1 was not executed. While things stood thus, Tula Sampath

Rao died on 29.09.2018 without executing the registered sale deed in favour of PW.1. Later, PW.1 approached the defendants, who are wife 5Fair judgment in OS 308 of 2019/IIASCJ, Warangal.

and children of Tula Sampath Rao being legal heirs, and demanded them to execute the registered sale deed in his favour, but the defendants dodged the matter. It is further evidence of PW.1 that the defendants are making attempts to alienate the suit schedule property to some third parties for higher rate and if they succeeds in their attempts, he will be put to much hardship and irreparable loss. As the defendants failed to execute the registered sale deed, PW.1 was forced to issue a legal notice dt.28.02.2019 to the defendants requesting them to execute a regular sale deed. It is his further case of PW.1 that as the defendants failed to come forward to perform their part of contract in spite of notice, he was forced to file the present suit.

11)In order to support his case, the plaintiff himself is examined as

PW-1 and reiterated the plaint averments and got marked Exts.A1 to

A31. Plaintiff also got examined PW.2, who corroborated the evidence of

PW.1 in all aspects. According to PW.2, he is the attestor of Ex.A1 and also witnessed the transaction. The defendants remained ex-parte.

12)Ex.A1 is the impounded original Simple sale deed dated 02.12.2002 executed by Tula Sampath Rao in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A2 is the attested cop of Pattedar pass book and Title deed of Tula

Sampath Rao (vendor of PW.1). Ex.A.3 is the Death certificate of Tula

Sampath Rao. Exts.A4 to A23 are the certified copies of Pahanies for the years from 1954-55, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1966-67, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1978-79, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1991- 92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1997-98, 1998-99 respectively.

Ex.A24 is the office copy of legal notice dt.28.02.2019. Ex.A25 is the original three returned covers. Ex.A26 is (16) photographs along with CD and receipt. Exts.A27 and 28 are certified copies of Pahanies for the years 1999-2000 and 2001-02 respectively. Exts.A29 to 31 are attested 6Fair judgment in OS 308 of 2019/IIASCJ, Warangal.

copies of Tonch map, Village map and Tippan. A perusal of Ex.A2 shows that Tula Sampath Rao, who is vendor of PW.1, is pattedar, title holder and possessor of the land vide patta No.663 to an exten of Ac.3.28 guntas in survey No.112/B situated at Hanamkonda village and mandal,

Warangal district. Ex.A4 shows that one Tula Buchanna was pattedar and one Tula Chandraiah, S/o. Rajaram was pattedar of the suit land and nature of possession was shown as share holder (hissedar). Exts.A5 to

A17 show that one Tula Chandraiah, S/o. Rajaram is possessor of the suit land being share holder. Exts.A18 to A23, A27 and A28 also corroborates

Exts.A5 to A17 that one Tula Chandraiah is pattedar of the suit land.

Ex.A3 reveals that Tula Sampath Rao died on 29.09.2018. Ex.A26 is (16) photographs along with CD and receipt and Exts.A29 to 31 are attested copies of Tonch map, Village map and Tippan in respect of the suit land.

13)A perusal of Ex.A1 shows that Tula Sampath Rao, S/o. late

Laxmaiah sold the suit land in favour of PW.1 on 02.12.2002 and received the sale cosnideration of Rs.7,50,000/- and he also inducted

PW.1 into the suit land in the presence of witnesses. In Ex.A1 late Tula

Sampath Rao promised to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff as and when requested by him. The contention of the plaintiff is well supported from the oral evidence of PW-1 and PW.2 and the documentary evidence through Ex.A-1 to A-31. Moreover the said contention has not been rebutted or challenged since the defendants remained ex-parte.

14)Further, Ex.A1 is showing that the document has been reduced into writing on Rs.20/- non judicial stamp paper agreeing to execute a regular sale deed at the instance of the plaintiff. Ex.A1 further states that said

Tula Sampath Rao had received the entire agreed sale consideration for the schedule property and delivered possession in favour of plaintiff.

7Fair judgment in OS 308 of 2019/IIASCJ, Warangal.

Ex.A1 clearly shows that the possession of the schedule property was given to the PW.1. There is no rebuttal evidence on record to discard the evidence of Pws.1 and 2. Therefore from the unchallenged evidence on record, it can safely be concluded that the agreement of sale covered by

Ex.A-1 is true, valid and legally binding on the defendants, who are the legal representatives of late Tula Sampath Rao. This Court found no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and

Exts.A1 to A31.

15)Coming to the aspect of readiness and willingness, it is the evidence of PW.1 that due to some or other reasons, his vendor-Tula

Sampath Rao could not execute the registered sale deed and he died on 29.09.2018. Entire sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff and was received by said Tula Sampath Rao under Ex.A1, during his life time.

Thereafter, PW.1 approached the defendants, who are the legal heirs of

Tula Sampath Rao, demanding them to execute the registered sale deed, but they dodged the matter. Hence, the plaintiff issued Ex.A24-legal notice, but the defendants refused to receive the same and got returned.

The same is evident from Ex.A25 (3 postal returned covers). The defendants failed to contest the claim of the plaintiff in the suit. As there is no contest from the defendants and in view of corroboration between PW.1, PW.2 and Exts.A1 to A31, this Court can presume that the documents produced by the plaintiff through Ex.A-1 to 31 are true and genuine. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for specific performance of contract. It is needless to add that unchallenged version of the PWs.1 and 2 is deemed to be admitted. Thus the defendants who are legal representatives of late Tula Sampath Rao are liable to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff as agreed in Ex.A1 by late Tula

Sampath Rao. From the aforementioned discussion, I hold this point in 8Fair judgment in OS 308 of 2019/IIASCJ, Warangal.

favour of the plaintiff.

16)In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs directing the defendants, who are the legal representatives of Tula Sampath Rao, to execute the register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land within three months from the date of this judgment. It is further decreed that in case the defendants refused to execute sale deed within the time as mentioned herein before, the plaintiff is at liberty to obtain regular sale deed through the court.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III and after correction,

pronounced by me in the virtual Court on this the 21st day of August, 2020.)

II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS: PW.1 Palle Veeraswamy-None- PW.2 Thula Radha Kishan

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.A1 is original Simple sale deed dt.2.12.2002 -NIL- executed by Tula Sampath Rao (impounded) Ex.A2 is attested copy of pattedar pass book and Title deed of Tula Sampath Rao. Ex.A3 is Death certificate of Tula Sampath Rao obtained thruogh mee-seva dt.18.8.2020. Ex.A4 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1954-55. Ex.A5 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1960-61. Ex.A6 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1961-62. Ex.A7 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1962-63. Ex.A8 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1963-64. Ex.A9 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1964-65. Ex.A10 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1966-67. Ex.A11 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1968-69. Ex.A12 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1969-70. Ex.A13 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1978-79. Ex.A14 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86. Ex.A15 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1986-87. Ex.A16 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1987-88. Ex.A17 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1991-92. Ex.A18 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1992-93. Ex.A19 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1993-94. Ex.A20 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1994-95.

9Fair judgment in OS 308 of 2019/IIASCJ, Warangal.

Ex.A21 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1995-96. Ex.A22 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1997-98. Ex.A23 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1998-99. Ex.A24 is office copyd of Legal notice dt.28.02.2019. Ex.A25 is original Returned covers (3). Ex.A26 is Photographs (16) along with CD and receipt. Ex.A27 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 1999-2000 dt.5.10.2002. Ex.A28 is certified copy of Pahani for the year 2001-02, dt.17.6.2004. Ex.A29 is attested copy of Tonch Map dt.6.3.2019. Ex.A30 is attested copy of Village map dt.6.3.2019. Ex.A31 is attested copy of Tippan dt.20.08.2019.

II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1Fair judgment in O.S.No. 751 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL

Tuesday, the 19th day of May, 2020.

Present:- Sri K. Murali Mohan, II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

O.S.No. 751 OF 2018.

Between:

1. Shree Jee Enterprises, G.S.T. No.36ALMPG 1592NIZL, H.No.8-8-30, Pollavari street, Vishwasai Residency, Warangal. Represented by its Proprietor Poonam Goyal.

2. Poonam Goyal, D/o. Arvind Kumar, age 39 years, Occ: Priprietor of Shree Jee Enterprises, R/o. H.No.8-8-30, Pollavari street, Vishwasai Residency, Warangal.

...Plaintiff

A N D

1. Aggarwal Feed Industries, Majitha Road Bye-pass, Vill Ball Kallan, Amrithsar, Punjab-143001, Represented by its Priprietor Sri Manav Garg.

2. Sri Manav Garg, S/o. Unknown, aged 41 years, Occ: Business, Majitha Road Bye-pass Vill Ball Kallan, Amrithsar, Punjab-143001.

...Defendantf

This suit is coming up on 12.05.2020 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Shyam Sunder Reddy, Counsel for the plaintifs and the defendants remained ex parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)This suit is fled for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.11,22,736/- by the plaintifs against the defendants with interest @ 12% per annum on Rs.11,17,736/- from the date of suit to till the realization of total decreetal amount and to award costs of the suit.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintif No.1 has 2Fair judgment in O.S.No. 751 of 2018 been doing cotton seed business in Warangal vide G.S.T.

No.36ALMPG1592NIZL. The plaintif No.2 is the proprietor of the plaintif

No.1 frm. The defendant No.1 having business transactions with the plaitnif for quite some time and in third week of August, 2018, the defendants approached the plaintifs at business premises throgh one

Pavan Kumar Goyal, broker and the defendant promised and agreed to purchase cotton seed @ Rs.2,550/- per quintal. The plaintif consented to send the cotton seeds to the defendants at the said rate to Amritsar,

Pujab, where the defendants' industry is located. The defendants promised to pay the amount within ten days on the receipt of the stock from the plaintif.

3)Believing the version of the defendants, the plaintifs got loaded the stock of 540 bags of cotton seeds valued at Rs.5,49,596/- of net weight 202.30 quintals through Shiva Shakti Transport Company by vehicle bearing No.PB11-BK-3553 and sent the stock through E-way bill

No.1510 6170 6988, dated 24.08.2018. The defendants received the stock by unloading the stock from the lorry. After three days, the defendants requested the plaintifs to send more stock as they urgently required and promised to pay the amount within ten days. Upon which, believing their words, the plaintifs got loaded stock net weight of 209.05 quintals of cotton seed worth of Rs.5,68,140/- through Shiva

Shakti Transport Company by vehicle bearing No.PB46M-9240 vide E- way bill No.1210 0257 8808, dated 28.03.2018. The lorry was unloaded at the defendants frm and accordingly they have received the stock worth of Rs.5,48,596/- and Rs.5,68,140/-, totalling to Rs.11,17,736/-. The computerized extract of leger account as per G.S.T. Rules and Tax invoce bears the transaction details of sending stock by the plaintifs and 3Fair judgment in O.S.No. 751 of 2018 receipt of stock by the defendants. The plaintifs are maintaining accounts in regular course of business and the account between the plaitnifs and defendants are open and current.

4)Later, the defendants failed to pay the amount within ten days from the receipt of the stock worth of Rs.11,17,736/- from the plaintifs.

The plaintifs demanded the defednants to arrange the sum and pay the amounts immediately. On request of the defendants, the plaintifs also sent the Broker-Pavan Kumar Goyal and their accountant to collect the due amount and he met the defendants and demanded to pay the due amount. But the defendants sought two more days time to comply the plaintifs' demand. Accordingly, the said broker and accountant of the plaintifs waited for three days and thereafter they demanded the defendants for payment of due amount to the plaintifs. But instead of clearing the due amounts by the defendants, they threatended the broker and accountant of the plaintifs with dire consequences and warned them to leave the Amritsar, otherwise they will face dire consequences. In view of their life threat, the broker and accountant of the plaintifs came back to Warangal.

5)Lastly, on 19.09.2018 the plaintifs got issued a legal notice to the defendants demanding them to pay the due amount of Rs.11,17,736/- within 15 days for the stock of 540 bags. But mistakenly in the legal notice, it got it typed as 640 bags instead of 540 bags. The said legal notice was served on the defendants and they gave reply on 8.10.2018 with false allegations to evade the due amount payable by the defendants. In the legal notice, the defendants set up a false plea that the consignment of 540 bags are sub-standard goods which wee much inferior to the quality and the plaintifs agreed to take back the goods 4Fair judgment in O.S.No. 751 of 2018 supplied and the said allegation is created after thought with ill motive.

The defendants received the stock without any objection and they never brought to the notice of the plaintifs at any point of time and the defendants received the stock after satisfying its stands and quality. The defendants did not pay any single pie out of the due amount payable by them. Hence the suit.

6)That the summons of the defendants handed over to the plaintifs as per orders of my learned predecessor in ofce in I.A. No507/2019, dt.25.06.2019 and accordingly, the plaintif No.1 fled afdavit along with summons stating that the bailif of Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Amrithsar was entrusted with the summons for service on the defendants. As per the report of the bailif, the defendant No.1 refused to receive the summons and hence the bailif afxed the summons on the wall of the defendant frm. Therefore, the service of summons held sufcient and the defendants were called absent and on 10.7.2019 they were set ex-parte. Inspite of ex-parte order, the defendants did not take any steps to get the order set aside till the plaintifs adduced their ex- parte evidence on 06.08.2019.

7)The plaintif No.2 herself examined as PW.1 and got marked

Exts.A1 to A10 in support of her claim. As there is no contest by the defendants, the case of the plaintifs is remained unshaken and unchallenged. Therefore, heard the learned counsel for the plaintifs.

8)Basing on the plaint averments as noted above, the point that arises for consideration is, “whether the plaintiff are entitled to

recover the fuit amount of Rf.11,22,736/- along with future

intereft @ 12% per annum on Rf.11,17,736/- from the date of

5Fair judgment in O.S.No. 751 of 2018

fuit till realization of entire fuit amount along with coftf, af

prayed for?”

9)POINT: During the course of trial, the plaintif No.2 herself examined as PW.1 and reiterated the plaint averments. During the course of her evidence, she got marked Exts.A1 to A10. It is the evidence of PW.1 that as per the invoice plaintifs got loaded cotton seed bags on two occassions total worth of Rs.11,17,736/- and the stock was delivered to the defendants but the defendants did not choose to pay the said amount of Rs.11,17,736/- to the plaintifs inspite of demands and legal notice.

10)Ex.A1 is the extract of Leger account of plaintif No.1 for the year 2018-19, dt.9.4.2018 to 28.8.2018. Ex.A2 is the duplicate copy of G.S.T.

Tax invoice dt.24.08.2018. Ex.A3 is the duplicate copdy of G.S.T. Tax invoice dt.28.8.2018. Ex.A4 is the Computerized E-way bill dt.24.08.2018. Ex.A5 is the computerized E-way bill dt.28.8.2018.

Ex.A6 is the copyd of Lorry transport bill dt.24.8.2018. Ex.A7 is the copy of Lorry transport bill dt.28.8.2018. Ex.A8 is the computerized

Registration certifcate issued by the Government of India from G.S.T.

Reg-06 (consisting of 3 pages). Ex.A9 is the ofce copy of Legal notice dt.19.9.2018. Ex.A-10 is the reply notice dt.8.10.2018.

11)As can be seen from the material evidence on record, the case of the plaintifs is that they are doing business of cotton in Warangal vide

G.S.sT. No.36ALMPG1592NIZL and the defendants are having business transactions with them for quite some time. In the third week of August, 2018, on the approach of the defendants at the business premises of the plaintifs through Broker-Pavan Kumar Goyal and upon the promise of 6Fair judgment in O.S.No. 751 of 2018 the defendants to purchase the cotton seed @ Rs.2,550/- per quintal, the plaintifs consented to send cotton seeds to the defendants to

Amrithsar. Accordingly, the plaintifs sent the cotton seed stock in two consignments i.e., frstly 540 bags of cotton seed weighing 202.30 quintals valued at Rs.5,46,596/- through lorry No.PB11-BK3553 vide E- way bill No.1510 6170 6988, dt.24.08.2018 and secondly 209.05 quintals of cotton seed worth of Rs.5,68,140- through vehicle bearing

No.PB46M9240 vide E-way bill No.1210 6257 8808, dt.28.8.2018, both transported through Shiva Shakti Transport Company. The defendants also acknowleged the receipts of the contton seed consignment worth of

Rs.11,17,736/- but later failed to pay the amounts to the plaintifs within ten daysof time period. When the plaintifs demanded for payment of amount and also sent the Broker and their Accountant on the request of the defendnats to Amrithsar, the defendants instead of paying amounts they threatened the persons of the plaintifs with dire consequences and on that they came back to Warangal. After return of their persons, the plaintifs got issued a legal notice to the defendants on 19.09.2018 demanding them to pay the due amount of Rs.11,17,736/- within 15 days and the said notice was received by the defendnats. In reply, the defendants also got issued reply notice setting up false plea that the stock of cotton seed sent by the plaintifs was substandard goods which were much inferior to the quality and the plaintifs agreed to take back the goods supplied by them.

12)It is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintifs that the above said allegation of the defendants in their reply notice is created one with ill motive as after throught only to evade the due payment. However defendants not contested the suit by taking such defence in the suit 7Fair judgment in O.S.No. 751 of 2018 proceedings.

13)The learned counsel for the plaintifs draw the attention of this

Court to Ex.A10-Reply notice dated 08.10.2018 of the defendants and contended that as per the version of the defendants in their reply notice, the delivery of goods was not in dispute and it is only contended by the defendants that the goods delivered are only sub-standard and they want to return the same. From the said admission of the defendants made in Ex.A10-Reply notice clearly shows that, there is no dispute with regard to the delivery of stock worth of Rs.11,17,736/- by the defendants as contended by the plaintifs.

14)It appears from the record that though the defendants contended in their reply notice disputing the quality of stock delivered by the plaintifs and expressed their intention to return the same to the plaintifs, the defendants did not choose to take any steps in this regard.

There is no contest or pleadings by the defendants to show that they returned the stock to the plaintifs as contended in their Ex.A10-Reply notice. When there is no contest by the defendants in this regard and when there are no pleadings by the defendants or any evidence it will not help the case of defendants in any manner. There is no contrary evidence with regard to the quality of the stock delivered by the plaintifs, therefore without any material the vague allegation made by the defendants regarding its quality in the reply notice cannot be taken into cosnideration. Moreover the admission made by the defendants through Ex.A10-Reply notice with regard to the delivery of stock which was supplied by the plaintifs is sufciently proves the case of the plaintifs. Thus the case of the plaintifs is verymuch corroborated with

Exts.A1 to A10.

8Fair judgment in O.S.No. 751 of 2018

15)As can be seen from the oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence through Ex.A-1 to A-10, it can be said that the plaintifs clinchingly established the fact of transporting of cotton seed in two consignments totalling worth of Rs.11,17,736/- to defendants and receipt of the said goods by the defendants. The same was admitted by the defendants in Ex.A.10-Reply notice also. I found no reasons to disbelieve the unchallenged evidence of PW.1 and Exts.A1 to A10.

16)As has already pointed out herein before, the defendants failed to contest the claim of the plaintifs and therefore, there remains the unshaken and unchallanged version of the plaintif as PW-1. There is no contest by the defendants side who choosed to remain ex-parte even after knowing the fact that the plaintifs fled a case against them for recovery of money. When the defendants kept quite without challenging the case of the plaintifs, undoubtedly, an adverse inference would be drawn against the defendants that the defendants having received the cotton seed stock worth of Rs.11,17,736/- from the plaintfs, failed to pay the amount inspite of receipt of the legal notice-Ex.A-9, dt.19.9.2018. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the plaintifs have proved their case by oral evidence through PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence Ex.A-1 to 10. That being so, the plaintifs are entitled for recovery of suit amount. There is no evidence as to any agreed rate of interest. Hence in the circumstances of the case awarding interest @ 6% per annum would be just and proper.

Accordingly, I hold this point in favour the plaintifs.

17)IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.11,22,736/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twenty Two thousand Seven hundred and Thirty Six only) with interest at 6% per annum from the 9Fair judgment in O.S.No. 751 of 2018 date of fling of the suit till date of realization.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the virtual Court on this the 19th day of May, 2020.)

II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : For Defendantf: PW1: Poonam Goyal -Ex-parte-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 is the extract of Leger account of plaintif No.1 for the year 2018-19, dt.9.4.2018 to 28.8.2018. Ex.A2 is the duplicate copy of G.S.T. Tax invoice dt.24.08.2018. Ex.A3 is the duplicate copdy of G.S.T. Tax invoice dt.28.8.2018. Ex.A4 is the Computerized E-way bill dt.24.08.2018. Ex.A5 is the computerized E-way bill dt.28.8.2018. Ex.A6 is the copyd of Lorry transport bill dt.24.8.2018. Ex.A7 is the copy of Lorry transport bill dt.28.8.2018. Ex.A8 is the computerized Registration certifcate issued by the Government of India from G.S.T. Reg-06 (consisting of 3 pages). Ex.A9 is the ofce copy of Legal notice dt.19.9.2018. Ex.A-10 is the reply notice dt.8.10.2018. For Defendantf: -Ex-parte-

II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1S.C. No.228 of 2019/II-Addl. ASJC, Warangal.

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL

Wednesday, the 18th day of March, 2020.

Present:- Sri K. Murali Mohan, II-Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Warangal.

Sessions Case No.228 OF 2019.

(PRC No.191/2018 on the fle of VI-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal – Crime No.153/2018 of Police Station Matwada.) 1Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through complainantStation House Ofcer, Police Station Matwada.

2Name and description of the :Vyas Pradeep, S/o. Om Prakash, accusedaged 23 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No.22-5-145/1, Deshaipet, Warangal.

3Offences with which charged:Under Sections 354-D, 506, 366 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code.

4Counsel for the Prosecution :Sri M. Vasanth Kumar, Addl. P.P.

5Counsel for the Accused:Sri Ch. Rama Krishna, Advocate.

6Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

7Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

8Sentence or Order:Accused is acquitted under Sec.232 Cr.P.C.

This Sessions Case is coming on 17.03.2020 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M. Vasanth Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and Sri Ch. Rama Krishna, Counsel for the accused and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Police station Matwada fled charge sheet against the above named accused in crime No.153/2018 of Police

Station Matwada for the offences under Sections 354-D, 506, 366 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code.

2S.C. No.228 of 2019/II-Addl. ASJC, Warangal.

2)The brief allegations of the prosecution are that the defacto- complainant/victim Kolariya Madhuri is the resindent of Kothawada of

Warangal and doing a private job. The accused is her distant relative.

The marriage of the victim was fied with one boy Mukesh and the engagement was also completed. Meanwhile, the accused forced the victim to marry him. Inspite of her disinterest, he used to call her and threatened her to marry him. On 21.3.2018 at 7.00 A.M., in the absence of family members of the victim, the accused threatened to commit suicide or to kill her with knife and forcibly taken away the victim to

Hyderabad and married her in Arya Samaj, Hyderabad, without her consent. Thereafter, the victim escaped from the hands of the accused and reached to her parents house. By showing the photographs, the accused spoiled the match of the victim and stopped her marriage with whom she was engaged. The accused used to threat and insist the victim to join with him to lead conjugal life. Hence, the victim/PW.1 approached the police Matwada and lodged a report.

3)Basing on the report of the PW.1/victim, LW.12-P. Devender, Sub

Inspector of Police, Police station Matwada, registered a case in crime

No.153/2018 for the offences under Sections 354-D, 506, 366 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.12-P. Devender, SI of Police, PS Matwada and LW.13-

B. Venkateshwarlu, SI of Police, PS Matwada, eiamined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of the victim was got recorded by the learned III-Addl. Judicial Magistrae of First

Class, Warangal, by sending a requisition. The accused was arrested on 12.10.2018 and produced befoe the VI-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Warangal, for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, 3S.C. No.228 of 2019/II-Addl. ASJC, Warangal.

LW.13-B. Venkateshwarlu, SI of Police, PS Matwada, fled charge sheet against the accused.

4)The case was taken on fle by the learned VI-Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, against the accused for the offence

under Sections 354-D, 506, 366 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code.

5)On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate furnished the copies of case documents to the accused as required under Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.). As one of the offences charged against the accused, are eiclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate after compliance of Sec.209

Cr.P.C., committed the case vide P.R.C. No.191/2018 to the Hon'ble

Principal Sessions Court, Warangal.

6)The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, assigned the

Sessions Case No.228 of 2019 and made over to this Court for disposal

according to law.

7)Upon hearing both sides, charges under Sections 354-D, 506, 366 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused, read over and eiplained to him in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the Court fied the trial schedule and issued summons to the witnesses to record their evidence.

8)During the course of trial, Pws.1 to 3 were eiamined and Eits.P1 to

P4 were marked.

9)All the material witnesses not supported the prosecution case, as such the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW.4-

Lakharam, LW.5-Ramesh Pande, LW.6-Bhagaradh Pande, LW.7-Munnalal 4S.C. No.228 of 2019/II-Addl. ASJC, Warangal.

Vyas, LW.8-M.R. Mani, Asst. SI of Police, PS Matwada, LW.9-Manda Kishan

Prasad, LW.10-Seetharam Joshi, LW.11-D. Geetha Rani, learned III-Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, LW.12-P. Devender, SI of

Police, PS Matwada and LW.13-B. Venkateshwarlu, SI of Police, PS

Matwada and reported the prosecution evidence was closed.

10)As there are no incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, the eiamination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

11)Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defence.

12)Perused the record.

13)Now the point for determination is, “whether the prosecution

proved the guilt of the accused for the ofences punishable

under Sections 354-D, 506, 366 and 496 of the Indian Penal

Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

14)POINT: It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused used to threat the victim to marry him and inspite of eipressing her disinterest, he used to call her over phone and inspite of the fact that she was engaged to another boy, the accused demanded and threatened her to marry him. Accordingly, on 21.3.2018 at 7.00 A.M., when the victim was alone at her house in Kothawada, the accused came to her and threatened to kill or to commit suicide with knife and forcibly taken away her to Hyderabad and married her in Arya Samaj.

The victim escaped from the clutches of the accused and reached her parents house. It is further alleged that by showing the photographs, the accused spoiled the alliance of the victim and he demanded the 5S.C. No.228 of 2019/II-Addl. ASJC, Warangal.

victim to join with him. Hence, the victim approached the police and lodged the report. Basing on the report of PW.1, the police registered a case and investigated into.

15)To prove the charges, the prosecution eiamined Pws.1 to 3. During the trial, PW.1, who is the victim gave entirly new version, which is contrary to the prosecution case. In her evidence, PW.1 deposed that she was married to the accused in Arya Samaj and due to some disputes, she approached the elders and she do not know the contents of her report. However she identifed her signature on the report as

Ei.P1. PW.1 was treated as hostiel as she did not support the prosecution case and resiled from her earlier statement under Sec.161

Cr.P.C. PW.1 was treated hostile by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court and she was cross eiamined. In her cross eiamination, PW.1 denied to state to police that the accused forcibly taken her to Hyderabad and married her in Arya Samaj on 21.3.2018 by threatening and putting her in fear. She denied to state to police as recorded in her Ei.P2-Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement to that effect that the accused forcibly married her and demanded her to join with him and spoiled her marriage. In cross eiamination, PW.1 categorically deposed that she married the accused at Arya Samaj and due to some disputes, she fled F.C.O.P. No.451/2018 against the accused on the fle of the Hon'ble Family Court, Warangal, for dissolution of her marriage with accused and they resolved all the disputes with the intervention of the elders. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing false out of compromise.

16)Pws.2 and 3 are the parents of PW.1, who deposed that the accused and PW.1 married in Arya Samaj on 21.3.2018 and accused is 6S.C. No.228 of 2019/II-Addl. ASJC, Warangal.

their distant relative. PW.1 and accused went to Hyderabad and they both married on 21.3.2018 and thereafter some disputes arose between them. Pws.2 and 3 did not choose to depose anything against the accused. As Pws.2 and 3 did not support the prosecution version, they were treated as hostile and were cross eiamined by the learned

Addl.Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court, but nothing favour is elicited. Eicept marking Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statements of Pws.1 to 3 as Eits.P2 to P4, no useful purpose was served during the cross eiamination of Pws.1 to 3 by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

17)As seen from the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, it is clear that PW.1 and the accused voluntarily went to Hyderabad and married in Arya Samaj on 21.3.2018. PW.1 categorically denied to state to police that the accused threatened her and forcibly married her. PW.1 did not choose to open her mouth against the accused. None of the prosecution allegations are supported by Pws.1 to 3. It is specifc evidence of PW.1 that after their marrige, some disputes arose between herself and the accused, due to which she informed the same to elders but she do not know the contents of report. According to PW.1, due to fear of police and elders she stated against the accused. It is revealed in the evidence of

PW.1 that she fled F.C.O.P. No.451/2018 on the fle of the Hon'ble Family

Court, Warangal, against the accused for dissolution of their marriage and they settled all the disputes with the accused. It appears from the record that in view of the settlement out of the Court, the witnesses did not choose to depose anything against the accused.

18)From the evidence on record, it is clear that absolutely there is no material to show that the accused threatened the victim and taken her to Hyderabad forcibly by putting her in fear and married her without her 7S.C. No.228 of 2019/II-Addl. ASJC, Warangal.

consent. The prosecution failed to prove that despite of clear indication and disinterest of PW.1, the accused repeatedly contacted her over phone and personally as required for the charge under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to show that the accused criminally intimidated the victim and threatened her to kill and forced her to marry. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that the accused compelled the victim to marry him and there is no evidence for kidnap for that purpose as required under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution failed to produce any material to show that the accused dishonestly or fraudulently performed the ceremony of marriage and committed an offence under Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code.

19)As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the eiamination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.sC., is also dispensed with. As there is no purpose in eiamining other witnesses, the learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of all other witnesses

Lws.4 to 13. Hence absolutely there is no evidence against the accused for any of the charges. The prosecution miserably failed to prove its case for the offences under Sections 354-D, 506, 366 and 496 of the

Indian Penal Code. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

20)In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the point is answered in favour of the accused.

21)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under

Sections 354-D, 506, 366 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the accused is acquitted under Sec.232 Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for sii 8S.C. No.228 of 2019/II-Addl. ASJC, Warangal.

months as required under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. No case property is produced before the Court, hence no order as to the disposal of case property.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, after her trascription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 18th day of March, 2020.)

II-ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence : PW.1 K. Madhuri-None- PW.2 K. Sravan Kumar PW.3 K. Rekha

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ei.P.1 Signature of PW.1 on complaint-Nil- dt.12.7.2018. Ei.P2 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1. Ei.P3 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2. Ei.P4 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

II-ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1 O.S.No. 492 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL

Monday, the 18th day of May, 2020.

Present:- Sri K. Murali Mohan, II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

O.S.No. 492 OF 2019.

Between:

Elagonda Praveen, So. Samson @ Swamy, aged 40 years, Occ: Private Employee, Ro. H.No.45-4-65, Gorrekunta village, Geesugonda mandal, Warangal district. ...Plaintif

A N D

Lyadalla Balaiah, So. Cheralu, aged 50 years, Occ: Second Division Corporator, Ro. H.No.45-3-152, Gorrekunta village, Geesugonda mandal, Warangal dist.

...Defendant

This suit is coming up on 12.05.2020 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.V. Sreepathi Rao, Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained ex parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)This suit is filed for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.3,10,600/- by the plaintiff against the defendant with interest @ 2% per month on

principal amount of Rs.1,80,000/- from the date of suit to till the

realization of total decreetal amount and to award costs of the suit.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are that out of acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- on 17.05.2016 from the plaintiff for his family necessities and agreed to repay the said amount together with interest @ 2% per month. Evidencing the same, the defendant executed a promissory note for Rs.1,80,000/- in favour of the 2 O.S.No. 492 of 2019 plaintiff on 17.05.2016 in the presence of witnesses as collateral security undertaking his liability to repay the said loan amount along with interest as and when demanded by the plaintiff. Later the defendant neither paid the principal amount nor the interest inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff. The defendant dodged the repayment of loan amount under pronote under one or other pretexts. Finally, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 03.05.2019 to the defendant calling him to repay the loan amount with interest. The defendant refused to receive the said legal notice by managing the postal authorities. Under the said circumstances, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of money.

3)The defendant failed to appear and contest the suit even after service of summons and consequently he was set ex-parte on 28.08.2019 by my learned predecessor in office. Inspite of ex-parte order, the defendant did not take any steps to get the order set aside till the plaintiff adduced his ex-parte evidence on 16.03.2020.

4)The plainitff himself examined as PW.1 and exhibited Exts.A1 to A4 in support of his claim. As there is no contest by the defendant, the case of the plaintiff is remained unshaken and unchallenged. Therefore, heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

5)Basing on the plaint averments as noted above, the point that arises for consideration is, “whether the plaintif is entitled to

recover the suit amount covered by promissory note dated

17.05.2016 along with costs and subsequent interest from the

defendant, as prayed for?”

6)POINT: This is a suit for recovery of money based on a promissory 3 O.S.No. 492 of 2019 note. There is no contest from the defendant side, who choosed to remain ex-parte even after service of summons. During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and reiterated the plaint averments that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- from him on 17.05.2016 and executed suit promissory note and not repaid the same. During the course of his evidence, he got marked Exts.A1 to

A4. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dated 17.05.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dt.03.05.2019. Exts.A3 and A4 are the postal receipt and returned postal cover.

7)As can be seen from the material evidence on record, the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant obtained a loan of Rs.1,80,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities and evidencing the same he executed Ex.A1 promissory note dt.17.05.2016 in favour of the plaintiff.

Thereafter the defendant committed default in repaying the said loan amount. Upon which, as the demands made by the plaintiff to the defendant to repay the loan amount were went in vain, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A2-legal notice dt.03.05.2019 through Exts.A-3 and A4 postal receipt and returned postal cover. Thus, on failure on the part of the defendant to repay the loan amount, even after receipt of Ex.A-2, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the suit amount with interest accrued thereon. As can be seen from the oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence through Ex.A-1 to A-4, it can be said that the plaintiff clinchingly established availing loan by the defendant by due execution of the A-1-Promissory Note. The defendant did not choose to contest the suit. I found no reasons to disbelieve the unchallenged evidence of PW.1.

4 O.S.No. 492 of 2019

8)As has already pointed out herein before, the defendant failed to contest the claim of the plaintiff and therefore, there remains the unshaken and unchallanged version of the plaintiff as PW-1. When the defendant kept quit without challenging the case of the plaintiff and when the evidence of PW.1 is corroborating with Exts.A1 to A4, I found no reason to disbelieve the case of plaintiff. Since the defendant remained ex-parte without challenging the case of plainitff, undoubtedly, an adverse inference would be drawn against the defendant that the defendant having received the debt under Ex.A-1, failed to repay the same in spite of receipt of the legal notice-Ex.A-2. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the plaintiff has proved his case by oral evidence through PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence through

Ex.A-1 to 4. It is also clear from the record that defendant failed to discharge the said debt. That being so, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount. Accordingly, I hold this point in favour the plaintiff.

9)IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.3,10,600/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ten thousand and Six hundred only) with interest at 24% per annum on principal sum of Rs.1,80,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till date of decree and further interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Virtual Court on this the 18th day of May, 2020.)

II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL

5 O.S.No. 492 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif : For Defendant: PW1: Elagonda Praveen-Ex-parte-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintif: Ex.A1 Suit Promissory note dt.17.05.2016. Ex.A2 Office copy of legal notice dt.03.05.2019. Ex.A3 Postal receipt. Ex.A4 Returned Postal cover. For Defendant: -Ex-parte-

II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.