Sri T.kanhya Lal

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT MULUGU

PRESENT:- Sri. T. KANHYA LAL

Assistant Sessions Judge Mulugu.

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2026

S.C. No. 8 of 202 5

(Old S.C.No.19 of 2025) 01Name and Description of theThe State of Telangana through SHO. PS ComplainantMulugu.

02Description of the Accused

1. Porika Santhosh, S/o. Sakru Naik, Age: 31 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o.H.No. 5-21, Kodishalakunta, H/o. Pathipally village of Mulugu Mandal and District.

2. Porika Sakru, S/o. Gobriya, Age: 50 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 5-21, Kodishalakunta, H/o. Pathipally village of Mulugu Mandal and District.

3. Porika Sharada, W/o. Sakru, Age: 60 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 5-21, Kodishalakunta, H/o. Pathipally village of Mulugu Mandal and District.

03Offence ChargedUnder Section 498-A, 306 R/w.34 of IPC 04Crime Number and Name of the Cr.No.116/2023 of PS.Mulugu. Police Station 05P.R.C. No. 28/2024 06Case Committed byMs. Jyothsna Gunti Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First class Mulugu.

07Plea of the AccusedPleaded not guilty 08Finding of the Court Found not guilty 09Sentence or Order In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Sections 498-A, 306 R/w.34 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 3 shall

Page No.2 S.C.No. 8 of 2025 be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., Mo1/Saree deposited vide CPR No. 1of 2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

10Prosecution Conducted bySri. D.Ram Singh 11Accused are defended bySri. Ch.Satyanarayana

o0o

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mulugu Police Station has filed a charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 in Crime No.116/2023 for the offence Under

Sections 498A, 306 R/w. 34 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :

On 15.06.2023 at about 18:00 hours, the complainant (LW-1) Smt. Lavudya

Jyothi, W/o Sethu Naik, aged about 50 years, resident of Chinna Guntyurpally

Hamlet of Jaggannapet Village, Mulugu Mandal, appeared before PS Mulugu and lodged a written complaint in Telugu. She stated that she had performed the marriage of her daughter, Porika Kavitha (deceased), with Porika Santhosh (A-1) about 13 years ago as per their community customs by giving 20 guntas of agricultural land, 7 tulas of gold, and cash of ₹50,000/- as dowry. Out of the wedlock, the deceased was blessed with two children.

2.1.It is alleged that for the past one year, A-1 (husband), A-2 (mother-in-law), and A-3 (father-in-law) subjected the deceased to continuous mental and physical harassment, demanding additional dowry of ₹5,00,000/-. About four months prior to the incident, due to such harassment, the deceased consumed pesticide but survived after treatment. Despite this, the accused continued their harassment.

Page No.3 S.C.No. 8 of 2025

On multiple occasions, when the deceased returned to her parental home, village panchayats were convened, but no change occurred in the behavior of the accused.

2.2.On 15.06.2023 at about 10:00 AM, the accused allegedly again harassed the deceased. Unable to bear the cruelty, the deceased committed suicide on the same day at about 3:30 PM by hanging herself from a ceiling fan using a saree at her matrimonial home. LW-4 (son of the deceased) noticed her hanging and informed the neighbors (LWs 6 to 8), who rushed to the spot and brought the body down. Based on the complaint, a case in Cr. No. 116/2023 was registered under Section 306 IPC, and FIR was issued.

2.3.During investigation, the Investigating Officer (LW-17) examined the complainant and other witnesses. Scene of offence was inspected; rough sketch prepared. The saree used for hanging was seized in the presence of mediators.

Inquest was conducted in the presence of panch witnesses. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination.

2.4.A-1 was arrested on 23.06.2023 and remanded. A-2 and A-3 were arrested on 21.07.2023 and remanded. Postmortem was conducted by LW-15. Hyoid bone was preserved and sent for expert analysis. Expert (LW-16) opined that the hyoid bone was intact. Final medical opinion confirmed that death was due to hanging.

LWs 1 to 3: Parents and brother of the deceased. LW-4: Son of the deceased (saw the body in hanging position). LW-5: Daughter of the deceased. LWs 6 to 8:

Neighbors and circumstantial witnesses. LW-9: Photographer. LWs 10 to 14:

Mediators and inquest witnesses. LW-15 & LW-16: Medical experts.

Page No.4 S.C.No. 8 of 2025

3.After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Mulugu has taken on the cognizance on27.11.2024 against accused No.1 to 3 for the offence Under Sections 498A, 306 R/w. 34 of IPC and registered as PRC

No. 28 of 2024.

4. After appearance of the accused before the said JMFC, Mulugu they were furnished with copies of documents as required Under Section 207 Criminal

Procedure Code and having found prima facie case against accused No.1 to 3 for the offense Under Section 498A, 306 R/w. 34 of IPC, in which Sec. 306 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Sessions Division, Mulugu vide PRC No. 28 of 2024 Under Section 209(a) Cr.P.C.

5.The Honourable Sessions Judge, Mulugu took the case on file as S.C. No.19 of 2025 and made over to this Court and renumbered as S.C.No. 8 of 2025.

6.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 3 before Assistant Sessions Judge,

Mulugu, heard the arguments of learned Addl.P.P and the counsel for accused

No.1 to 3 on framing of charge, examined the accused under section 228(2) Cr.P.C and framed charge Under Section 498A, 306 R/w. 34 of IPC against accused No.1 to 3, read over and explained the same to them in their vernacular language, but they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-19 and Mo.1.

Page No.5 S.C.No. 8 of 2025

8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating material, appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they denied the same, and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the learned APP and defence counsel.

10.Now the point for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable Under Section 498A, 306 R/w. 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts ?”

11. POINT :

The investigation revealed that the deceased was subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment for additional dowry by A-1 to A-3. Such harassment persisted despite prior suicide attempt and panchayats. The acts of the accused created circumstances that abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Accordingly,

Section 498-A IPC was added to the case. Thus, the accused No.1 (husband), accused No.2 (mother-in-law), accused No.3 (father-in-law) are found to have committed offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC (Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband), Section 306 r/w 34 IPC (Abatment of suicide by).

12.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW16 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P19.

13.PW1 is son of the deceased. PW2 is the mother of deceased. PW3 to PW8 are the circumstantial witnesses. PW9 is the Photographer who took photos of the deceased. PW10 to PW14 are the Panch witnesses (scene of offence and inquest). PW15: Forensic expert and PW16 is the Investigating Officer.

Page No.6 S.C.No. 8 of 2025

Appreciation of Evidence:

14.Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses and the entire case was rests on circumstantial evidence and oral statements of the relatives. Though the investigation shows that the accused had confessed the offence before the police, but the confession before the police is inadmissible.

15.PW1 and PW8 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. PW1 who was the relative of the deceased deposed that he did not know anything about this case. PW2/ who is the mother of deceased deposed that the deceased committed suicide due to severe stomach pain, not due to harassment by the accused. PW3 who was father of the deceased also deposed in the line of

PW2 that her daughter committed suicide due to unable to bear stomach pain.

PW4 was brother of the deceased and also deposed that the deceased committed suicide due to stomach pain.

16.PW5 was son of the deceased and deposed that he did not know anything about this case.

17.PW6 to PW8 were the circumstantial witnesses also deposed against the prosecution that they did not know anything about this case.

18.PW9 ( photographer ) is only a formal witness and does not advance the prosecution case.

Page No.7 S.C.No. 8 of 2025

19. PW10 to PW14 were the mediators for scene of offence and inquest panchanama.

20.PW10 deposed that police never conducted any scene of offence panchanama, but identified his signature. PW12 deposed that police conducted inquest before her and LW14. PW12 deposed that police never conducted inquest before him, but identified his signature. PW13 who was also shown as mediator for inquest deposed that he put his thumb impression in the hospital.

PW14 deposed that no scene of offence panchanama was conducted before him, but identified his signature.

21.The relatives of the deceased who are the only witnesses to give evidence regarding the allegations of cruelty and harassment did not support the prosecution. All of them were declared hostile. Even though they were subjected to cross examination by the learned APP, nothing was elicited from them.

Regarding the evidence of mediators, there are material contradictions and contrary which is against the prosecution. As per the prosecution, there were three mediators for the inquest, but one of the witness i.e, PW11 deposed that the inquest was conducted before her. She did not deposed that PW12 was also present at the time of inquest. Both the mediators for scene of offence, except admitting the signature, denied about conducting scene of offence panchanama.

22.PW15 (Forensic Expert) only opined regarding the condition of the Hyoid bone and the nature of death. His evidence does not establish harassment or abetment.

Page No.8 S.C.No. 8 of 2025

23.PW16 (Investigating Officer) stated that during investigation, witnesses spoke about dowry harassment. However, this version is not corroborated in the

Court, as all material witnesses turned hostile.

24.The only evidence against the accused available on the record is of PW16. It is settled law that if the sole evidence of investigating officer is trustworthy then it may become the sole reason for conviction without any corroboration. But, if there is any contrary in the evidence of investigating officer then it is prudent that the Court must look into other substantive supporting evidence to support the evidence of investigating officer. In the present case, though PW16 deposed that as per his investigation, the accused committed the alleged offence, but the other witnesses i.e., the parents and the son of the deceased deposed against the prosecution. The contradictions in the evidence of PW10 to PW14 also create a doubt about conducting scene of offence and inquest.

25.In the present case, the death and manner of death of the deceased is not in dispute, but it was alleged that the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment made by A1 to A3 for additional dowry. It was also alleged that the deceased consumed poison earlier, but there are no proofs relating to the said allegation. Therefore when the family members of the deceased did not support the prosecution case and when there are no supportive evidence to the evidence of PW16. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that the prosecution is discharged with his burden. Hence the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt.

Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution, and the accused are entitled to acquittal.

Page No.9 S.C.No. 8 of 2025

26. In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Sections 498-A, 306 R/w.34 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused

No.1 to 3 are acquitted Under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused

No.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided

U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. The case property i.e.,Mo1/Saree deposited vide CPR No. 1of 2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

( Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2026)

Sd/----

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MULUGU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1: Porika Jeevan/ is the eye witness - None -

PW2: Lavudya Jyothi/ is the complainant

PW3: Sethu Naik Lavudya/ is the circumstantial witness

PW4: Lavudya Charan Singh/ is the circumstantial witness

PW5: Porika Akshitha/is the circumstantial witness

PW6: Moodu Lalamma/ is the circumstantial witness

PW7: Moodu Pratap singh/ is the circumstantial witness

PW8: Porika Saramma/ is the circumstantial witness

PW9: Matla Bhadri/ is the photographer

PW10: Nunavath Padthi/is the panch witness for Scene of offence

PW11: Ajmeera Sampurna/ is the panch witness for inquest

PW12: Podishetti Mahender/ is the panch witness for scene of offence

PW13: Gugulothu Raju/ is the panch witness for inquest

PW14: Porika Badu Nayak/ is the panch witness for scene of offence

PW15: J.Surender/ is the FSL expert

PW16: P.Laxma Reddy/ is the investigating officer

Page No.10 S.C.No. 8 of 2025

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4

Ex.P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5

Ex.P6 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6

Ex.P7 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7

Ex.P8 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8

Ex.P9 is the two photographs along with CD

Ex.P10 is the signature of PW10 on CDF

Ex.P11 is the Inquest panchanama

Ex.P12 is the signature of PW12 on inquest panchanama

Ex.P13 is the signature of PW14 on CDF

Ex.P14 is the requisition for expert report

Ex.P15 is the Final Report

Ex.P16 is the petition

Ex.P17 is the FIR

Ex.P18 is the Crime Detail Form

Ex.P19 is the Postmortem Examination Report

For defence :- - Nil -

Material Objects

Mo1: Saree

Sd/---

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MULUGU

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT MULUGU

PRESENT:- Sri. T. KANHYA LAL

Assistant Sessions Judge Mulugu.

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026

S.C. No. 17 of 202 5

01Name and Description of theThe State of Telangana through SHO. PS ComplainantVenkatapuram.

02Description of the AccusedGummella Srinadh, S/o. Narayana, Age: 38 years, Occu: Driver, R/o. H.No. 5-49, Pathrapuram Village of Venkatapuram Mandal.

03Offence ChargedUnder Section 307 of IPC 04Crime Number and Name of the Cr.No.78/2024 of PS.Venkatapuram Police Station 05P.R.C. No. 14/2024 06Case Committed byMs. Jyothsna Gunti FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class Mulugu.

07Plea of the AccusedPleaded not guilty 08Finding of the Court Found not guilty 09Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 307 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. The case property i.e.,Mo.1/ Sickle deposited vide CPR No. 4 of 2026 shall be destroyed after expiry appeal time.

10Prosecution Conducted bySri. D.Ram Singh 11Accused are defended bySri. S.Chiranjeevi

o0o

Page No.2 S.C.No. 17 of 2025

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Venkatapuram Police Station has filed a charge sheet against accused in Crime No.78/2024 for the offence Under Sections 307 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

2.1.On 02.05.2024 at about 10:00 AM., the complainant appeared before the

Police Station and submitted a petition stating that she is a resident of

Patrapuram Village, Venkatapuram Mandal. She alleged that for the past few days, her husband, Srinadh, had been coming home in an inebriated condition and physically assaulting her and her children. Despite her advising him to stop consuming alcohol, he did not mend his behavior.

2.2.She further stated that on 30.04.2024 at about 10:00 PM., her husband again returned home in a drunken state and threatened her and her children to vacate the house, stating that he intended to live there with another woman, with whom he was allegedly having an illicit relationship. When she refused to leave the house, the accused picked up a sharp weapon (knife) and attacked her with the intention to kill. However, she managed to escape, sustaining injuries to her left thumb.

2.3.At that time, her children, namely Ramkumar and Nagavarsini, attempted to rescue her, but the accused pushed them aside. On hearing her cries, neighbors, namely Sravanth, Saroja, Prasad, and Venkateswarlu, came to the spot and questioned the accused, upon which he fled from the scene.

Page No.3 S.C.No. 17 of 2025 2.4.Based on the said complaint, LW12, R. Ashok, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No. 78/2024 under Section 307 IPC and issued the FIR, forwarding copies to the concerned authorities.

2.5.During the course of investigation, LW12 examined the complainant (LW1), who was later examined as PW1 before the Court, recorded her statement, and sent her to the hospital for medical treatment. LW12 then visited the scene of offence, secured two mediators, and in their presence conducted a scene observation and prepared a scene of offence panchanama. Efforts were made to trace the weapon of offence at the scene, but it could not be found.

Subsequently, LW12 visited the Government Hospital and obtained the wound certificate of LW1 from LW9, the attending doctor.

2.6.On 25.05.2024, LW12 secured the presence of the accused and interrogated him. During interrogation, the accused made a voluntary confession. In the presence of mediators (LW10 and LW11), his confession statement was recorded, and pursuant to the same, the accused led the police to the backyard of the house and produced the weapon of offence, namely a sickle. The same was seized under a seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators, and their signatures were obtained. A panch chit was affixed to the seized weapon.

2.7.Subsequently, upon transfer of LW12, LW13 took over further investigation, verified the earlier investigation, and upon being satisfied, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

Page No.4 S.C.No. 17 of 2025

3.After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mulugu has taken on the cognizance on12.09.2024 against the

accused for the offence Under Sections 307 of IPC and registered as PRC No. 14 of 2024.

4. After appearance of the accused before the said JMFC, Mulugu they were furnished with copies of documents as required under section 207 Criminal

Procedure Code and having found prima facie case against the accused for the offense Under Section 307 of IPC, which is exclusively triable by the Court of

Session, committed the case to the Court of Session, Sessions Division, Mulugu vide PRC No. 14 of 2024 under section 209(a) Cr.P.C.

5.The Honourable Sessions Judge, Mulugu took the case on file as S.C. No.32 of 2025 and made over to this Court . This court had renumbered it as S.C.No. 17 of 2025 and issued summons to the accused.

6.On appearance of the accused before Assistant Sessions Judge, Mulugu, heard the arguments of learned Addl.P.P and the counsel for the accused on framing of charge, examined the accused under section 228(2) Cr.P.C and framed charge Under Section 307 of IPC against accused, read over and explained the same to him in his vernacular language, but he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-10 and Mo.1.

Page No.5 S.C.No. 17 of 2025

8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating material, appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, he denied the same, and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the learned APP and defence counsel.

10.Now the point for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts ?” 11.POINT :

It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant, namely

Gummela Sammakka (PW1), lodged a complaint on 02.05.2024 stating that her husband (the accused) was habituated to alcohol consumption and used to physically assault her and their children. It was further alleged that the accused was maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman.

12.According to the prosecution, on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 30.04.2024, the accused demanded PW1 to vacate the house along with her children, as he intended to reside there with the said woman. Upon her refusal, the accused allegedly attacked her with a knife. However, PW1 managed to escape, sustaining injuries.

13.As per the wound certificate issued by Dr. S. Shivali (LW9), the injuries sustained by PW1 were opined to be grievous in nature , the accused was charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

Page No.6 S.C.No. 17 of 2025

14.It is further case of the prosecution that the weapon used in the commission of the offence was recovered at the instance of the accused under a confession-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses.

15.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5: However,

PW1 to PW4 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case.

16.PW1, who allegedly lodged the complaint, deposed that she had no knowledge about the case and stated that she was never examined by the police.

Though she admitted her signature on the complaint (marked as Ex.P1), she denied the contents therein. Except for the identification of her signature, nothing was elicited in her cross-examination by the learned APP to establish that she had resiled from her earlier statement.

17.PW2, the alleged eyewitness, also turned hostile and stated that he had no knowledge of the incident. Despite cross examination by the prosecution, nothing incriminating was elicited. He denied having given any statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which was marked as Ex.P3 for the purpose of contradiction.

18.Similarly, PW3 and PW4, the independent witnesses, also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Their prior statements were marked as

Ex.P4 and P5 for contradiction.

Page No.7 S.C.No. 17 of 2025

19.PW5, the Investigating Officer, deposed regarding the registration of the case, visit to the scene of offence, recording of statements of witnesses, preparation of scene of offence panchanama, collection of wound certificate, arrest of the accused, and recovery of the weapon pursuant to the confession.

20.During cross-examination, PW5 admitted that there was a delay of two days in lodging the complaint. The explanation offered was that the victim was suffering from pain due to the injuries.

21.In the present case, the victim (PW1) and the alleged eyewitnesses (PW2 to

PW4), who are material witnesses, did not support the prosecution case. PW1, being the victim, PW2, being an eyewitness, and PW3 and PW4, being the neighbors who allegedly rushed to the scene upon hearing the commotion, are crucial witnesses for proving the prosecution’s case. However, during their chief examination, all these witnesses resiled from their earlier statements and did not support the prosecution.

22.Although the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor attempted to elicit from these witnesses that they had changed their version before the Court, such efforts did not yield any substantive material, except for marking the signatures of PW1 on her complaint and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

The mere identification of PW1’s signature only establishes that she had given a complaint to the police, but it does not prove the truth of the contents of such complaint.

Page No.8 S.C.No. 17 of 2025

23.The accused is charged with a serious offence of attempt to murder, and therefore, the burden lies heavily upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The mere admission of signature by PW1 does not absolve the prosecution from discharging this burden.

24.The only witness who deposed against the accused is PW5, the

Investigating Officer. However, his evidence is largely a reiteration of the contents of the charge sheet. Being a police officer who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet, his testimony requires careful scrutiny and must either be inherently reliable or corroborated by independent and substantive evidence.

25.In the present case, there is no corroborative evidence to support the testimony of PW5. On the contrary, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 runs contrary to his version. It is a well-settled principle of law that the evidence of the victim and eyewitnesses carries greater evidentiary value than that of the Investigating

Officer.

26.In view of the above circumstances, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

27.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

Under Section 307 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

Page No.9 S.C.No. 17 of 2025

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. The case property i.e.,Mo.1/ Sickle deposited vide

CPR No. 4 of 2026 shall be destroyed after expiry appeal time.

( Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2026)

Sd/----

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MULUGU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1: Gummella Sammakka/ is the complainant - None -

PW2: Gummella Ram Kumar/ is the son of victim

PW3: Kunarapu Sravanth/ is the neighbor of victim

PW4: Batta Saroja/ is the neighbor of the victim

PW5: K.Thirupathi Rao/is the investigation officer

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on the complaint

Ex.P2 is the signature of PW1 on 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P3 is the signature of PW2 on 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P4 is the signature of PW3 on 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P5 is the signature of PW4 on 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P6 is the complaint

Ex.P7 is the FIR

Page No.10 S.C.No. 17 of 2025

Ex.P8 is the Crime Detail Form

Ex.P9 is the Confession-cum- Seizure panchanama

Ex.P10 is the Medico Legal Certificate

For defence :- - Nil -

Material Objects

Mo.1: One sickle with wooden grip

Sd/---

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MULUGU

S.C.No. 4 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT MULUGU

PRESENT:- Sri. T. KANHYA LAL

Assistant Sessions Judge Mulugu.

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026

S.C. No. 4 of 202 4

01 Name and Description of theThe State of Telangana through SHO. PS ComplainantVenkatapuram.

02 Description of the Accused A1: Ramatenki Dharmender @ Dharmender Kumar, S/o. Musalaiah@ Muthaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bodhapuram village of Venkatapuram Mandal.

A2: Ramtenki Tharun kumar, S/o. Dharmendra, Age: 28 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bodhapuram village of Venkatapuram Mandal 03 Offence ChargedUnder Section 354D, 294-b, 307 R/w 34 IPC 04 Crime Number and Name of theCr.No.40/2023 of PS. Venkatapuram Police Station 05 P.R.C. No. 13/2023 06 Case Committed byMs. J.Sowkhya Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class Mulugu.

07 Plea of the AccusedPleaded not guilty 08 Finding of the Court Found not guilty 09 Sentence or Order In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 354 D, 294-b, 307 R/w. 34 IPC. Accordingly, the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall stands canceled after six months under section 437A of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e.,Mo1/small knife deposited before this court vide CPR No. 11/2025 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Page No.2 S.C.No. 4 of 2024 10 Prosecution conducted bySri. D. Ram Singh 11 Accused is defended bySri.S.Chiranjeevi

-o0o-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Venkatapuram Police Station has filed a charge sheet against the accused vide Crime No.40/2023 for the offence Under

Section 354-D, 294-b, 307 R/w 34 IPC.

2. Brief fact of the prosecution case is as follows:

2.1.On 25.03.2023 at about 10:00 A.M., the defacto complainant, G. Eeshwari, presented a written complaint before the police stating that she has been residing with her parents and brothers by namely sammiaya, Narasimha Rao, and

Lakshman Rao.

2.2.On 25.03.2023 at about 10:00 A.M., the de facto complainant, G. Eeshwari, presented a written compliant stating that her marriage had been arranged with a suitable person. However, the accused Ramtenki Tarun Kumar had been spreading false propaganda claiming that he was in love with her, due to which her earlier marriage alliance was spoiled. Upon this, her parents had admonished the accused, and thereafter he had stopped interfering for some time.

2.3.Subsequently, in the month of December 2022, when her engagement was performed with another person and her marriage was fixed, the accused again began following and harassing her. On 24.03.2023, while she was standing in front of her house, the accused came there, expressed his love, and insisted that she

Page No.3 S.C.No. 4 of 2024 should marry him. When she refused and informed him that her marriage had already been fixed, and tried to go inside her house, the accused followed her.

Due fear that her marriage might again be spoiled,she informed the incident to her parents and elder brother. Thereafter, her parents decided to approach the father of the accused, namely Ramtenki Dharmender, and requested him to advise his son not to harass her.

2.4.However, instead of cooperating, Ramtenki Dharmender abused her father and elder brother in filthy language and also abused the complainant. When they objected, the accused Ramtenki Tarun Kumar (A2) pushed her elder brother

Narasimha Rao, and Ramtenki Dharmender (A1) attacked him with a knife, causing injuries on his right hand, left cheek, and right side of the nose. When her younger brother Lakshman Rao intervened to rescue him, attacked him as well, causing injuries on his right wrist.

2.5.At that time, witnesses namely Jadi Mallaya and K.A. Lakshmi were present and intervened, admonishing the accused. Thereafter, both the accused left the scene while threatening the victims with dire consequences.

2.6.The injured Narasimha Rao was shifted to the hospital for treatment. On the next day, i.e., 25.03.2023, the complainant approached the police station and lodged the complaint, requesting necessary legal action.

2.7.Based on the said complaint, a case was registered vide Crime No. 40/2023 under Sections 354D, 307, 294 b r/w 34 IPC, and FIR was issued and forwarded to the concerned authorities.

Page No.4 S.C.No. 4 of 2024 2.8.During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the complainant and recorded her statement. Witnesses were examined at the police station. The scene of offence (house of the accused) was visited and inspected, and a scene observation panchanama was prepared in the presence of mediators.

The injured persons were examined at the Government Hospital, and their statements were recorded. Requisitions were sent to the Medical Officer for issuance of wound certificates. On 06.04.2023, the accused (A1 and A2) were apprehended.

2.9.In the presence of mediators, A1 made a voluntary confession and produced the crime weapon (mini knife).The weapon was seized under a seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators.

3.After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Mulugu has taken the cognizance on06.06.2023 against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences Under Section 354D, 294b, 307 R/w 34 IPC and registered as PRC No. 13 of 2023.

4. After appearance of the accused before the said JMFC, Mulugu they were furnished with copies of documents as required Under Sec.207 Criminal

Procedure Code and found prima facie case against them for the offense Under

Section 354D, 294b, 307 R/w 34 IPC, in which U/s. 307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Sessions

Division, Mulugu vide PRC No. 13 of 2023 under section 209(a) Cr.P.C.

Page No.5 S.C.No. 4 of 2024

5.The Honourable Sessions Judge, Mulugu registered the case file as

S.C. No.4 of 2024 and made over to this Court.

6.On appearance of the accused before Assistant Sessions Judge, Mulugu, heard the arguments of learned Addl.P.P and the counsel for the accused on framing of charge, examined the accused under section 228(2) Cr.P.C and framed charge Under Section 354-D, 294b, 307 R/w 34 IPC against accused No.1 and 2, read over and explained the same to them in their vernacular language, but they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Ex.P1 to P16 and Mo.1.

8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating material, appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard learned APP and defence counsel.

10.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for

the offence punishable Under Section 354D, 294b, 307 R/w 34 IPC beyond all

reasonable doubts ?” 11.POINT:

PW1, who is the father of LW1 and cited as an eyewitness, deposed before the Court that he had no knowledge about the incident and stated that he was

Page No.6 S.C.No. 4 of 2024 never examined by the police. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), but nothing incriminating could be elicited from his testimony.

12.Similarly, PWs.2 and 3, who were cited as independent eyewitnesses in the charge sheet, also turned hostile. They deposed that they had no knowledge of the incident and were not examined by the police. Despite being cross-examined by the APP, their evidence did not support the prosecution in any manner.

13.PWs.4 and 5, who are brothers of LW1 and were alleged to have sustained injuries while intervening with A1, also did not support the prosecution case. They denied knowledge of the incident, and nothing useful was elicited in their cross- examination.

14.Further, PWs.6, 7, 8, and 9, who were cited as panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama and confession-cum-seizure panchanama, as well as the victim girl who lodged the complaint, also turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution. Even after cross-examination by the APP, no material was brought on record to corroborate the prosecution case.

15.Though the learned APP contended that the witnesses had resiled from their earlier statements, no substantive material was elicited during cross- examination to establish such contradiction in accordance with law.

16.The prosecution ultimately relied upon the testimony of PW10, the

Investigating Officer. In his chief examination, PW10 reiterated the contents of

Page No.7 S.C.No. 4 of 2024 the charge sheet regarding registration of the case, investigation, arrest of the accused, and recovery of material objects. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that although the crime was registered on 25.03.2023, the requisition to the duty doctor was issued on 24.03.2023, i.e., prior to the registration of the FIR, thereby creating a serious doubt regarding the prosecution case.

17.Thus, on one hand, all the material witnesses, including the victim and eyewitnesses, have not supported the prosecution case; on the other hand, the case rests solely on the testimony of the Investigating Officer.

18.It is a settled principle of law that the sole testimony of the Investigating

Officer, in the absence of corroboration by reliable evidence, cannot form the basis for conviction. Moreover, when the victim herself does not support the case, the prosecution version becomes highly doubtful.

19.In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

20. In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 354 D, 294-b, 307 R/w. 34 IPC. Accordingly, the accused

No.1 and 2 are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall stands canceled after six months under section 437A of

Cr.P.C.

Page No.8 S.C.No. 4 of 2024

The case property i.e.,Mo1/small knife deposited before this court vide CPR No.

11/2025 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

( Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2026)

Sd/---

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MULUGU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1/Gandarla Sammaiah/Eye witness - None -

PW2/Jadi Mallaiah /Eye witness

PW3/Kondagarla Adi Laxmi / Eye witness

PW4/Gandarla Narsimha Rao / injured and elder brother of LW1

PW5/Gandarla Laxman Rao /injured and elder brother of LW1

PW6/Chappidi Thirupathi Rao / Panch witness for CDF

PW7/Gandarla Eswari / complainant and victim

PW8/Jadi Murali Krishna/ Panch witness for CDF

PW9/Routh Balakrishna /panch witness for confession cum seizure panchama

PW10/K.Thirupathi Rao /Investigation Officer

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4

Ex.P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5

Ex.P6 is the signature of the PW6 on CDF

Ex.P7 is the signature of PW7 on complaint

Page No.9 S.C.No. 4 of 2024

Ex.P8 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7

Ex.P9 is the signature of PW8 on CDF

Ex.P10 is the signature of PW9 on confession -cum – Seizure panchanama

Ex.P11 is the signature of PW9 on panch chit

Ex.P12 is the complaint

Ex.P13 is the FIR

Ex.P14 is the Crime Detail Form

Ex.P15 is the Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama

Ex.P16 is the Medico Legal Certificate

For defence :- - Nil -

Material Objects

Mo1: Small knife

Sd/---

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MULUGU

1 O.S.No. 5 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MULUGU

Wednesday, this the 6th day of May, 2026

PRESENT: T. Kanhya Lal

Senior Civil Judge

MULUGU.

O.S.No. 5 of 2025

Between:-

State Bank of India, Eturnagaram Branch rep., by its Branch Manager Sri. Botta Praveen Ashish, S/o. Appa Rao, Age: 40 years, Occu: Branch Manager, R/o. Eturnagaram Village and Mandal of Mulugu District.

...Plaintiff

AND

Thati Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Mallaiah, R/o. H.No. 1-6, Tadvai village of Revenue Mandal Tadvai, Mulugu District.

...Defendant

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 05.05.2026 in the presence of Sri. K.Suresh, counsel for plaintiff and Sri. K.Kumaraswamy, counsel for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this date this Court has passed following:

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

1. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff is the banking sector and the defendant availed loan of

Rs.14,54,700/- from the plaintiff’s bank through A/c.No. 41589166798 on 13.01.2023 and the defendant is the Government employee, working as a

G.Worker at ST Girls Hostel, Tadvai village and Mandal. In respect of above loan transaction, the defendant executed a XPRESS CREDIT loan agreement in favour of plaintiff by agreeing to repay the said loan amount with interest at the rate of 11.90% P.A. subject to plaintiff’s guidelines from time to time.

2 O.S.No. 5 of 2025 2.1.The plaintiff further submitted that as per the terms there are 72 monthly installments at Rs.28,365/- plus interest with effect from 10.01.2023 and the first installment date is 10.02.2023. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant has failed to pay regular installments and the plaintiff declared the defendant as

NPA(Non Performing Asset).

2.2.The plaintiff bank got issued a legal notice on 15.11.2024 to the defendant by demanding to repay the due amount and the same was received by the defendant on19.11.2024, but the defendant neither paid the due amount nor gave any reply to the plaintiff. Again on 21.11.2024, the plaintiff bank got issued the rejoinder to the defendant. Therefore the defendant is liable to repay the total sum of Rs. 13,16,840/- as on 22.01.2024 with future interest at the rate of 11.90 % P.A.

3.The defendant filed his written statement by submitting that the plaintiff bank has not disclosed that salary of defendant credits into savings bank account of defendant held with the plaintiff bank and the plaintiff bank obtained undertaking on 12.01.2023 that it can deduct EMI after the defendant’s salary is credited into its bank account. The plaintiff bank also not enclosed the detailed account summary of the loan amount to suppress the fact that it deducted amount insuring the loan, in the event of his death or permanent disability.

3.1.The defendant further submitted that he has been suffering with paralysis and became unfit to attend his job and received permanent disability. The defendant approached the plaintiff bank and made a representation to waive the 3 O.S.No. 5 of 2025 loan amount as he has received permanent disability and unfit for job and the plaintiff bank deducted amount for insure the loan amount. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.After going through the pleadings and documents, the following issues are framed for consideration:

Issues:

1. Whether the loan was secured by way of insurance ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?

3. To what relief?

5.During the trial, the plaintiff got examined PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to

A11.

6.No witness was examined on behalf of defendant.

7.Heard the counsel for plaintiff. No representation for defendant. Hence treated as heard. Perused the record.

8.ISSUE No.1 and 2:

The plaintiff which is a banking institute was represented by the Branch manager and he deposed as PW1. The defendant had filed written statement, but did not choose to cross examine PW1 and also did not adduce any evidence.

9.As per the pleadings of both the parties, the plaintiff granted personal loan to the defendant to a tune of Rs.14,54,700/- repayable into 72 installments at rate of Rs.28,365/- per month.

4 O.S.No. 5 of 2025

10.According to plaintiff, the defendant committed default in regularly paying the EMIs and therefore before the filing of the suit, the defendant had a due of

Rs.13,16,840/- which includes the remaining EMIs and penalties as per the terms of the bank. The defendant admitted that there is default in paying the entire loan amount, but pleaded that his employment is terminated on permanent disability and at the time of giving personal loan the plaintiff secured the repayment of loan amount by way of insurance. Therefore the plaintiff is having mean to recover the outstanding amount from the insurance company.

11.It is also pleaded by the defendant that the plaintiff did not file the complete statement and the statement does not reflect the true picture.

12.It is not in dispute that the defendant avail personal loan and also committed default in repaying the entire EMIs and the same is also admitted by the defendant and also shown in the bank statement which was marked Ex.A5 and A6. But as per the defendant, the plaintiff secured the repayment by insurance which includes the death or the permanent disability of the defendant.

The defendant except submitting the said defence did not prove the insurance of the repayment nor his permanent disability.

13.The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the documentary evidence which were marked Ex.A1 to A11 and the said evidence remained unchallenged. The plaintiff also issued demand notice i.e., Ex.A9 and the defendant failed to reply the said legal notice which is also draw adverse inference against the case of the defendant. Except filing the written statement the defendant did not take any 5 O.S.No. 5 of 2025 step to prove the same. Under such circumstances this Court has no other option except believe the case of the plaintiff. Hence the issue No.1 decided against the defendant and issue No.2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.

14. ISSUE No.3:

As the issue No. 2 is decided in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with future interest.

In the result the suit is decreed and the defendant is liable to pay a sum of

Rs. 13,16,840/- at a interest of 6% per anum from the date of suit till the date of realization along with the costs.

(Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6 th day of May, 2026)

Sd/---

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MULUGU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiffs :- Defendants:-

PW1: Botta Praveen Ashish - None -

Exhibits marked for

P laintiffs:-

Ex.A1 is the Xpress Credit loan application.

Ex.A2 is the irrevocable standing instruction given by the borrower to the Bank,

dt: 12.01.2023.

Ex.A3 is the loan agreement, dt: 09.01.2023

Ex.A4 is the consent form, dt: 07.01.2023.

6 O.S.No. 5 of 2025

Ex.A5 is the statement of personal loan account of defendant vide No. 41589166798 for the period 13.01.2023 to 22.01.2025, dt: 22.01.2025.

Ex.A6 is the statement of saving account of the defendant vide No. 38492618718 for the period 10.01.2023 to 20.01.2023, dt: 22.01.2025.

Ex.A7 is the discharge quote statement for the A/c.No. 41589166798 of the defendant, dt: 22.01.2025

Ex.A8 is the office copy of legal notice with postal receipt vide No. RN144709935IN, dt: 15.11.2024.

Ex.A9 is the office copy of the rejoinder legal notice with postal receipt vide No. RN144708970IN, dt: 21.11.2024.

Ex.A10 is the copy of postal acknowledgment card.

Ex.A11 is the authorization letter vide No. Adv/suit/10, dt: 20.03.2025 issued by the Regional Manager, RBO-III, Warangal Rural.

Defendants:

- Nil -

Sd/---

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MULUGU

1 O.S.No. 3 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MULUGU

[ Friday, this the 24th day of April, 2026

PRESENT: T. Kanhya Lal

Senior Civil Judge

MULUGU.

O.S.No. 3 of 2025

Between:-

Shriram Finance Limited, Mulugu represented by its GPA Holder & Authorized signatory P.Raju, S/o. Yellaiah, Age: 41 years, Occu: Authorized Executive & GPA holder.

...Plaintiff

AND

1. Malothu Rajender, S/o. Sammaiah, Age: 31 years, Occu: M/s. Lap Zone, R/o. H.No. 6-43, Singrakuntapally Village Venkatapur Mandal of Mulugu District.

2. Malothu Sounjanya, C/o. Malothu Rajender, Age: 34 years, R/o. H.No. 6-43, Singrakuntapally Village of Venkatapur Mandal of Mulugu District.

3. Medam Ramnakar, S/o. Sadaiah, Age: 34 years, R/o.H.No. 2-91, Narsapur Village of Venkatapur Mandal, Mulugu District.

...Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 23.04.2026 in the presence of Sri. R. Srinivas, counsel for plaintiff and defendants were set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this date this Court has passed following:

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

1. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff is the finance lending company i.e., M/s. Shriram Finance

Limited and the defendant No.1 availed a loan of Rs. 12,00,000/-, dt:15.03.2022 and defendant No.2 and 3 stood as guarantor for the defendant No.1 for repayment of the loan amount. The plaintiff has charged 27.8% interest for the said amount and divided the said amount into 60 installments starting from 2 O.S.No. 3 of 2025 10.04.2022. The total amount payable by the defendant No.1 including the interest was coming to Rs.22,06,200/- and the EMI was fixed as Rs. 36,770/-. The defendant No.1 had committed default in paying the EMIs and on 29.11.2024, the outstanding amount was Rs. 22,06,200/- out of which, the defendant No.1 paid

Rs. 14,27,210/- and failed to pay Rs. 4,76,700/-. The defendant No.1 also failed to pay the future EMIs of Rs. 10,29,560/-. Therefore the defendant was liable to pay

Rs. 19,82,070/-.

2.The plaintiff has issued demand notice, but the defendant failed to repay the said amount. The defendant was liable to pay Rs.19,82,070/- to the plaintiff on the date of filing of this suit.

3.In this case defendant No.1 to 3 did not contest the matter and remained exparte.

4.During the trial, the plaintiff got examined PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A9.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed”

POINT:

7.In this case there is no rebuttable evidence from the defendants as they failed to contest this case and the evidence of plaintiff remained unchallenged.

3 O.S.No. 3 of 2025

8.The branch Manager by name N.Rakesh was authorized by the plaintiff to deposed on its behalf. The Branch Manager was examined as PW1 and he has filed his chief examination affidavit by stating the facts of the plaint, that the plaintiff gave finance of Rs. 12,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 and the defendant

No.2 and 3 were stood as guarantor. Later the defendant No.1 had committed default in paying the remaining EMIs and even after receiving the demand notice, failed to repay the loan amount.

9.The defendant No.2 and 3 stood as guarantor and the defendant No.1 also deposited his title deed with the plaintiff as security for the loan amount.

As per Sec. 128 of Indian Contract Act, the liability of sureties are coexisting with liability of the principal debtor. That means the guarantor is liable for the full amount payable by the debtor.

10.PW1 got marked Ex.A1 to A9 to support his oral evidence. Ex.A1 is the original loan application. Ex.A2 is the Original Sanction advise. Ex.A3 is the Loan

Agreement. Ex.A4 is the original schedule forms. Ex.A5 is the promissory note executed by defendant. Ex.A6 is the office copy of legal notice. Ex.A7 are postal receipts. Ex.A8 is the returned postal cover along with acknowledgment. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of authorization letter.

11.The documentary evidence are supporting the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 availed loan from the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 and 3 stood as guarantor. In the absence of any contrary defence against the case of the plaintiff, this Court has no other option, except to believe the evidence of 4 O.S.No. 3 of 2025 the plaintiff that the defendant has committed default in paying the loan amount and liable to pay the suit amount. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

12.In the result:

The suit is decreed and the defendants No.1 to 3 are individually and jointly liable to pay a sum of Rs. 19,82,070/- at a interest of 6% per anum from the date of suit till the date of realization along with the costs.

(Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of April, 2026)

Sd/---

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MULUGU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiffs :- Defendants:-

PW1: N.Rakesh - None -

Exhibits marked for

P laintiffs:- Ex.A1 is the original loan application. Ex.A2 is the Original Sanction advise. Ex.A3 is the Loan Agreement. Ex.A4 is the original schedule forms. Ex.A5 is the promissory note executed by defendant. Ex.A6 is the office copy of legal notice. Ex.A7 are postal receipts. Ex.A8 is the returned postal cover along with acknowledgment. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of authorization letter.

Defendants:

- Nil -

Sd/---

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MULUGU