Sri U.U.Prasad

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT, KADAPA.

Present :- Sri.U.U.Prasad, B.Com., M.L.,

Secretary, D.L.S.A., Kadapa,

FAC., Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

Friday this the 29th day of April, 2017.

O.S.No.51 of 2008.

The Krur Vysys Bank Limited, represented by its Manager, Kadapa.

….Plaintiff....

Vs

1. Somisetty Kondaiah S/O Tirumalaiah, 62 years, Hindu, contractor, Dammanapalli village, Porumamilla mandal, Kadapa District.

2. Somisetty Siddaiah S/O Tirumalaiah, 45 years, Hindu, contractor, D.No.No.20-9-38, Co-operative colony, near Community hall, Kadapa.

…..Defendants....

This suit is coming on 26.04.2017, for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.Sai Niranjan Babu, advocate for the plaintiff and of

Sri.B.Sreenivasulu, advocate for the defendant No.2, and after hearing arguments on both sides and upon perusing records and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:- :: JUDGEMENT::

This suit is filed for recovery of amount, based on demand promissory note, dated:28.12.1999, and for costs.

2.The Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

3.The defendant No.1, approached the plaintiff bank for credit 2 facility of Rs.2,59,000/-, for the purpose of vehicle tractor cum trailer, from dealer M/s.Bhoomi Enterprises, Kadapa, for his contract works. The plaintiff bank agreed and sanctioned loan amount of Rs.2,59,000/- in favour of the defendant No.1, for the above purpose and the defendant

No.1 executed demand promissory note on 28.12.1999, agreeing to repay the same with interest, either to the plaintiff or to his order at the rate of 9% p.a., compounded monthly/quarterly or at rates as may be revised as per the instructions of R.B.I., from time to time. On the same day, 2nd defendant also executed a letter of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff bank, agreeing to be the guarantor for the loan amount of Rs.2,59,000/- sanctioned to the 1st defendant.

4.It is averred that, 1st defendant has also executed a letter on 28.12.1999, stating that, he undertakes to hypothecate the tractor to the plaintiff bank and also agreed to execute a deed of hypothecation within 7 days after the registration of the vehicle and deliver the duplicate key to the plaintiff on the same day. The 1st plaintiff also undertook to repay the loan amount of Rs.2,59,000/- in 48 monthly installments commencing from 20.1.2000, at the rate of Rs.5400/-, per month and also agreed that, in the event of his default on his part, in payment of any installment, the whole sum becomes payable to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant also wrote a letter to the plaintiff on 28.12.1999, authorizing the plaintiff to seize the vehicle in case of default in repaying the loan installments and also undertook to 3 deliver peacefully the said vehicle whenever called upon to do so.

5.It is further averred that, 2nd defendant has deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the plaintiff bank on 28.12.1999, requesting the plaintiff to hold the said amount as collateral security for the loan amount sanctioned to the 1st defendant and authorized the plaintiff to set off at anytime the whole or any portion of the said deposit and interest accrued thereon towards the loan whenever necessary. The plaintiff bank closed the said deposit on 06.07.2000, by crediting the said amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest of RS.2587/-, thereon till that date to the loan amount of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant has also paid an amount of Rs.23,980/- to the plaintiff bank towards margin money for payment to the supplier of the vehicle towards its value of Rs.2,82,980/- therefore the plaintiff bank issued a pay order No.153065 on 28.12.1999 for Rs.2,82,900/-, in favour of the supplier. Though the said enterprises received the D.D., he did not supply the vehicle to the 1st defendant. An amount of Rs.62,000/- was also paid by 1st defendant for issue of a D.D., for the purchase of trailer. But the said amount was returned by the 1st defendant since the tractor itself was not supplied by the company.

6.The plaintiff bank wrote letter to the said M/s.Bhoomi

Enterprises, and M/s. Tractor and Farm Equipment Limited, informing them to return the amount of Rs.2,63,092/-, with interest since tractor was not supplied to the 1st defendant. But they both did not send any reply to the 4 plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank demanded the defendants to pay the loan amount, since monthly installments were not paid as agreed upon by the defendants. But the 1st defendant executed a revival letter on 5.06.2002 and 24.12.2002 and 14.2.2005. The plaintiff bank issued a notice to the defendants. The defendants have been willfully evading to pay the loan amount with interest. But the 1st defendant has sent a reply. Even after the issue of the reply notice dt:nil, 1st defendant has received an amount of

Rs.3,23,575/- from Hon'ble District Forum on 17.5.2006, but he has not paid any amount to the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank got issued notice to the 1st defendant on 22.1.2008, through his counsel, demanding the amount due to the plaintiff bank as per ledger extract. Both the defendants with molafide intention evades to receive the said notice. Having no other, go the plaintiff bank filed the present suit for recovery of amount.

7.The 1st defendant, resisted the plaint by way of filing written statement.

8.The brief averments of the written statement of 1 st defendant are as follows:

9.The defendant admitted receiving of loan amount from the plaintiff bank and it is not within the knowledge of this defendant that the plaintiff bank addressed a letter to Bhumi Enterprises and to M/s.Tractor and Firm Equipment Limited Manufactures informing them to return the amount of Rs.2,63,092/- with interest since the tractor was not supplied to 5 the first defendant and they both did not send any reply to the plaintiff bank. The fact is well known to the plaintiff bank, but they failed to prosecute the above said enterprises people for recovery of the amount for the mischief played by Bhumi Enterprises. The allegation that, the defendant willfully defaulted the payment of loan amount is a false and invented for the purpose of this suit.

10.It is further pleaded that, the interest charged by the plaintiff bank is illegal, excessive and exorbitant and the defendant is not liable to pay any interest on the loan amount. There is no cause of action for the suit and prayed this court to dismiss the suit with costs.

11.Based on the above pleadings, my learned predecessor, has framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount?

2. To what relief?

12.On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.18. On behalf of the defendants, none were examined and no documents were marked. The evidence of P.W.1, was eschewed on 01.08.2016.

13.Heard the arguments of plaintiff counsel.

14.Issue No.1: P.W.2, B.Sreedhar, Branch Manger, Vysya Bank, has filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination as P.W.2. He reiterated the same facts as narrated in the plaint averments. He relied upon Exs.A.1 6 to A.18. P.W.1 has categorically deposed that, the 1st defendant has executed a letter on 28.12.1999, stating that he executed, undertaking to hypothecate the tractor to the plaintiff bank and also agreed to execute a deed of hypothecation within 7 days after the registration of the vehicle and deliver the duplicate key to the plaintiff on the same day and he also undertook to repay the loan amount of Rs.2,59,000/-, with interest in 48 monthly installments commencing from 28.1.2000, at the rate of Rs.5,400/- per month.

15.The learned counsel for the defendants, suggested to P.W.2 that,

Exs.A.11 to A.13, are forged by the plaintiff bank. But the said suggestion was promptly denied by this witness. Except, the said suggestion, nothing has been elicited to render his evidence unbelievable.

16.Ex.A.1, is the promissory note dt:28.12.1999, Ex.A.2, is the guarantee letter dt:28.12.1999, executed by second defendant, Ex.A3, is the letter of undertaking hypothecation dt:28.12.1999, Ex.A.4, is the authorization letter dt:28.12.1999, Ex.A.5, is the undertaking letter of D.1,

dt:28.12.1999, Ex.A.6 s the seizure authorization letter dt:28.12.1999,

Ex.A.7, is the receipt dt:28.12.1999, Ex.A.8, is the acknowledgement letter

dt:28.12.1999, Ex.A.9, is the office copy of notice dt:2.06.2000, Ex.A.10,

office copy of notice dt:18.09.2000, Ex.A.11 to A.13, are revival letters

dt:8.6.2002, 24.12.2002 and 14.2.2005, Ex.A.14, is the letter of

authorization to set off the deposit dt:28.12.1999, Ex.A.15, reply notice, 7

Ex.A.16, is the ledger extract, Ex.A.17, is the office copy of notice

dt:27.1.2008 and Ex.A.18, is the certified copy of full satisfaction memo.

17.The 1st defendant did not chose to come to the court, to give evidence to put forth his claim as contended in the written statement.

18.The oral testimony of P.W.2, coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.18, clearly establishes that, the 1st defendant has received loan from the plaintiff bank and failed to repay the same. Therefore, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants 1 and 2.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants.

19.Issue No.2: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. However, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.4,98,602/-(Rupees four lakhs ninety eight thousands six hundred and two only), from the defendants 1 and 2, with future interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of the suit, till the date of decree, and at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree, till the date of realization, on the principal sum of Rs.4,98,602/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety eight thousands six hundred and two only).

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 29th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- U.U.Prasad,

Secretary, D.L.S.A, FAC., Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

8

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for plaintiff:-

P.W.2. B.Sreedhar,

Witnesses examined for defendants: NIL

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1, is the promissory note dt:28.12.1999,

Ex.A.2, is the guarantee letter dt:28.12.1999, executed by second defendant,

Ex.A3, is the letter of undertaking hypothecation dt:28.12.1999,

Ex.A.4, is the authorization letter dt:28.12.1999,

Ex.A.5, is the undertaking letter of D.1, dt:28.12.1999,

Ex.A.6 s the seizure authorization letter dt:28.12.1999,

Ex.A.7, is the receipt dt:28.12.1999,

Ex.A.8, is the acknowledgement letter dt:28.12.1999,

Ex.A.9, is the office copy of notice dt:2.06.2000,

Ex.A.10, office copy of notice dt:18.09.2000,

Ex.A.11 to A.13, are revival letters dt:8.6.2002, 24.12.2002 and 14.2.2005,

Ex.A.14, is the letter of authorization to set off the deposit dt:28.12.1999,

Ex.A.15, reply notice,

Ex.A.16, is the ledger extract,

Ex.A.17, is the office copy of notice dt:27.1.2008

Ex.A.18, is the certified copy of full satisfaction memo.

Exhibits marked for defendant:- Nil

Sd/- U.U.Prasad,

Secretary, D.L.S.A.

FAC., Prl.S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRL.ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE'COURT, KADAPA.

Present:- Sri.U.U.Prasad, B.Com., M.L.,

Secretary, D.L.S.A., Kadapa,

FAC., Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Thursday this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sessions Case No.6 of 2017.

1Name of the Complainant State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vemula P.S.

2Name of the Accused1. Sirigireddi Maruthi Pratap Reddy S/o Siva Reddy, 30 years,

2. Sirigireddi Siva Reddy S/O Bayapu Reddy, 56 years,

3. SirigireddiVenkata Ramanamma W/O Siva Reddy, 53 years (All are residents of Kondreddipalli villae, Vemula Mandal).

3Offences chargedU/sec.498(A) and 307 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

4Plea of the accused.Found not guilty.

5Finding of the judgeFound not guilty.

6Sentence or OrderIn the result, A.1,

S.Maruthi Pratap Reddy, A.2, S.Siva

ReddyandA.3,S.Venkata

Ramanamma, are found not guilty for the charges punishable U/secs.498-A and 307 of I.P.C, and Sec.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.232 of Cr.P.C, 2 for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3, shall stand cancelled. The committal court, did not produce the case property at the time of trial. Therefore, the committal court is hereby directed to dispose the case property, after expiring of appeal time, as per rule.

7Accused defended bySri.M.Ramanjaneya Reddy, advocate

for accused.

8Prosecution conducted by Addl. Public Prosecutor 9Cr.No. and Name of the Cr.No.55 of 2015 of Vemula P.S. Police Station 10Committed byP.R.C.No.24of2015of Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Pulivendula.

11Date of offence31.05.2015 12Date of report01/06/15 13Date of remand10/06/15 14Date of release on bail29.06.2015 15Date of committal to 19.12.2016

sessions Court

16Date of commencement 26.04.2017 of trial 17Date of close of trial.26.04.2017 18Date of Judgment27.04.2017

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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Vemula P.S., laid a charge sheet 3 against the accused 1 to 3, namely, S.Maruthi Pratap Reddy, S.Siva

Reddy and S.Venkata Ramanamma, in Cr.No.55 of 2015, for the offence punishable U/secs.498(A) and 307 r/w 34 of IPC, and Sec.3 and 4 of

D.P.Act, alleging that, The marriage of complainant S.Prasanthi, was performed with A.1, Maruthi Pratap Reddy, about 5 years back in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage L.Ws.2 and 3, the parents of complainant by name, Sadananda Reddy and Obulamma, gave 20 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.8 lakhs to A.1, towards dowry and gave Rs.1 lakh, additional for the household articles and marriage expenses. After the marriage, the complainant and A.1, went to Kondreddipalli village and resided there. They both lived there for about 2 years happily with family life. Later the accused No1, was addicted to bad habits and started harassing the complainant by subjecting her to cruelty, and often the parents i.e., A.2 and A.3, also came there and they were also harassed the complainant by subjecting her to cruelty for additional dowry. A.1 got software Engineer job in Mposis, Chennai and he shifted family to Chennai. There also A.2 and A.3, harassed the complainant physically and mentally by subjecting her to cruelty severally, as she has not given birth to children and they demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs from her parents to live the life with A.1, otherwise they will get another marriage to A.1. Thereafter there was panchayath 4 took place before elders there A.1 to A.3 settled the issue and sent the complainant along with them. Later accused started to harass his wife physically and mentally by subjecting her to cruelty severally again for

additional dowry. At that time, A.1 to A.3, poured kerosene on the

complainant and tried to lit fire, but immediately the complainant escaped from them, otherwise they would have killed her on that day itself. On 31.05.2015 at about 4 pm., while the complainant was sleeping in the house, A.1 to A.3, tried to kill her and get another marriage to A.1. When A.2 and A.3, caught hold of the complainant,

A.1, attempted to kill her by pressing the pillow on her face, immediately she reacted and escaped from there finally with fear, otherwise, they would have killed her. Later the complainant reached

Narepalli village and gave complaint to the police. Basing on the complaint, L.W.9, S.I., Vemula P.S., registered the above case and investigated into the matter. During the course of investigation, L.W.8,

A.S.I., arrested the accrued Nos.2 and 3, on 10.6.2015 and sent them to the court for remand. On 22.6.2015, L.W.9, S.I., arrested A.1, and sent him to the court for remand. After completing investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Pulivendula, registered the case as P.R.C.No.24 of 2015, committed the case to the 5 court of Sessions, Kadapa. The Sessions Court, registered the

P.R.C.No.24 of 2015, as S.C.No.6 of 2017, and made over the same, to this court for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of the accused Nos.1to 3, they were examined U/sec.228 of Cr.P.C. They denied the acquisition. On hearing the prosecution and defence, charges U/secs.498-A and 307 of IPC and

Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, were framed against the accused 1 to 3, read over and explained to them, in Telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In its attempt to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3, the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses, as P.Ws.1 to 3, and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. The witnesses i.e., L.W.4, Raja Reddy, L.W.5,

Venkatareddy, L.W.6,Sudha Srinivasa Reddy, L.W.7, Obulreddy, L.W.8,

K.Subramanyam, A.S.I., and L.W.9, M.Narendra Kumar, S.I., were given up by the prosecution.

6. As there was no incriminating material appearing against the accused Nos.1 to 3, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused U/sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

7.Heard the arguments of prosecution and defence counsel.

8. Now the points that would arise for my determination are:

1. Whether the accused Nos.1 to 3, harassed P.W.1, S.Prasanthi, with cruelty both physically and mentally and are punishable U/sec.498- A of IPC as alleged?

6

2. Whether the accused A.1 to 3, with an intention to kill S.Prasanthi, (P.W.1), by pressing her mouth with pillow, an offence punishable U/sec.307 of IPC as alleged?

3. Whether the accused A.1 to 3, at the time of marriage, took 20 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.8 lakhs under dowry, an offence punishable U/sec.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act as alleged?

4. Whether the accused A.1 to 3, after the marriage, demanded

additional dowry from the parents of S.Prashanthi (P.W.1), an

offence punishable U/sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as alleged?

9.Point Nos.1 and 2: P.W.1, S.Prashanthi, is the victim, who set the criminal law into motion by way of presenting Ex.P.1, deposed

before this court on oath that, her marriage was performed with A.1, on

19.05.2010. After the marriage, herself and her husband lived happily and there are no disputes between them. The accused are never harassed her both physically and mentally for dowry and they never tried to kill her. However, this witness has identified her signature on the complaint

dt:01.06.2016, and the same was marked as Ex.P.1, but she denied it

contents. According to P.W.1, accused never harassed her for additional dowry and never tried to kill her and she did not say anything against the accused.

10.The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, cross examined this witness and in the cross examination, she disowned her statement recorded by police as in Ex.P.2. This witness denied that, the accused caused injuries to her. The evidence of P.W.1, is not helpful to the 7 prosecution version that, accused caused injured to her, and harassed and tried to kill her.

12.P.W.2, R.Sadhnanda Reddy and P.W.3, R.Obulamma, are the parents of P.W.1. Their say before the court in one voice that, the accused never harassed her daughter and demanded for additional dowry and they never tried to kill their daughter. According to the evidence of

P.Ws.2, and 3, the accused never harassed her daughter for additional dowry and never tried to kill her. The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, cross examined these witnesses and in the cross examination they disowned their statements recorded by police as in Ex.P.3 and 4. The evidence of P.W.2 and 3, is not helpful to the prosecution version that, the accused harassed and tried to kill their daughter.

14.As stated earlier, the Addl.Public Prosecutor, has given up the evidence of remaining witness, whose names cited in the memo of evidence, as the material witnesses did not say anything against the accused.

15.Absolutely, there is no reliable or acceptable evidence on record to prove the fact that, the accused herein, harassed P.W.1, both physically and mentally and tried to kill her. With this in mind, this court is of the considered opinion that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable U/sec.498-A and 307 of 8

IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, the points are answered.

16.In the result, A.1, S.Maruthi Pratap Reddy, A.2, S.Siva

Reddy and A.3, S.Venkata Ramanamma, are found not guilty for the charge punishable U/secs.498-A and 307 of I.P.C, and Sec.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.232 of

Cr.P.C, for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3, shall stand cancelled. The committal court, did not produce the case property at the time of trial. Therefore, the committal court is hereby directed to dispose the case property, after expiring of appeal time, as per rule.

Dictated to the Grade-II Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 27th day of

April, 2017.

Sd/-U.U.Prasad,

Secretary, D.L.S.A.,

FAC., Prl.Asst Sessions Judge,

Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE;

Witnesses examined for prosecution:

P.W.1. S.Prashanthi,

P.W.2. R.Sadhananda Reddy,

P.W.3. R.Obulamma.

Witness examined for defence: NIL

Exhibits marked for prosecution:

Ex.P.1. Complaint given by P.W.1, dt:01.06.2015.

9

Ex.P.2. 161(3) of Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P.3. 161(3) of Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.4. 161(3) of Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3.

Exhibits marked for defence: NIL

Sd/-U.U.Prasad,

Secretary, D.L.S.A, FAC., Prl.A.S.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE'COURT, KADAPA.

Present:- Sri.U.U.Prasad, B.Com., M.L.,

Secretary, D.L.S.A., Kadapa,

FAC., Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Thursday this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sessions Case No.189 of 2016.

1Name of the Complainant State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chennur P.S.

2Name of the Accused1.Koppoli @ Polu Madhavaiah S/O Lakshumaiah, 36 years,

2. Koppoli @ Polu Shivaiah S/O Lakshumaiah, 27 years, Both are residents of Chinamachupalli village, Chennur mandal.

3Offences chargedU/sec.307, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

4Plea of the accused.Found not guilty.

5Finding of the judgeFound not guilty.

6Sentence or OrderIn the result, A.1, Koppoli @ Polu Madhavaiah and A.2, Koppoli @ Polu Shivaiah, are found not guilty for the charge punishable U/secs.324 and 307 of I.P.C. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.232 of Cr.P.C, for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2, shall stand cancelled. The committal court, did not 2 produce the case property at the time of trial. Therefore, the committal court is hereby directed to dispose the case property, after expiring of appeal time, as per rule.

7Accused defended bySri.P.Rajesh Kumar Reddy, advocate

for accused.

8Prosecution conducted by Addl. Public Prosecutor 9Cr.No. and Name of the Cr.No.17 of 2016 of Chennur P.S. Police Station 10Committed byP.R.C.No.9 of 2016 of Ist Addl. Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Kadapa.

11Date of offence07/02/16 12Date of report07/02/16 13Date of remand15.2.2016 and 16.02.2016 14Date of release on bail24.02.2016 15Date of committal to 10/08/16

sessions Court

16Date of commencement 26.04.2017 of trial 17Date of close of trial.26.04.2017 18Date of Judgment27.04.2017

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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Chennur P.S., laid a charge sheet against the accused, 1 and 2, namely, Koppoli @ Polu Madhavaiah and Koppoli @ Polu Shivaiah, in Cr.No.17 of 2016, for the offence punishable U/secs.307, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, alleging that, on 3 7.02.2016, morning to pour fertilizer to the land, the complainant

Gangaiah and Balagangadhar Tilik, (L.Ws.1 and 2, went to their land by motorcycle along with urea bag. By keeping the old incident in their mind, A.1 and A.2, waiting at the field armed with iron rods and on seeing L.Ws.1 and 2, with an intention to kill them, A.1, Madhavaiah shouted that, “Champandira ee naa kodukulanu, manaku madava daggara pedda viragada avutundi”, A.2, Shivaiah, while beating the complainant Gangaiah, on the head with an iron rod, on that, the said

Gangaiah, kept his left hand across and received abrasion. Then A.1, when attacked Gangadhar Tilak, with an iron rod, he kept his hand across and received bleeding injury on his right hand little finger and again A.1, beat his son and caused internal injury and abrasion on the right hand wrist of Gangadhar Tilak. If complainant Gangaiah and

Gangadhar Tilak, due to fear tht, accused will kill them, running towards main road. A.2, Shivaiah, followed the complainant Gangaiah and beat on his back. A.1, followed, Gangadhar Tilak, and beat on his back with an iron rod. Then Lokanath, Chennaiah, Ramasubba Reddy,

Venkata Subbaiah and Nagaraju (L.Ws.3 to 7), obstructed A.1 and A.2.

Later L.Ws.1 and 2, reached main road and went to Rims hospital, in an auto and got admitted in the hospital, for treatment. L.W.11,

Y.Sreenivasulu, H.C., recorded the statement of L.W.1, Gangaiah, and 4 the same was registered as Cr.No.17 of 2016 and took up investigation.

During investigation, L.W.11, Y.Sreenivsulu, H.C., examined the witnesses. During the course of investigation, L.W.12, S.K.M.Hussain,

S.I., arrested the accused A.1 on 15.2.2016 and A.2, on 16.2.2016 and sent them to the court for remand along with remand report. After completing investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

3. The learned Ist Addl.Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class,

Kadapa, registered the case as P.R.C.No.9 of 2016, committed the case to the court of Sessions, Kadapa. The Sessions Court, registered the

P.R.C.No.9 of 2016, as S.C.No.189 of 2016, and made over the same, to this court for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2, they were examined U/sec.228 of Cr.P.C. They denied the acquisition. On hearing the prosecution and defence, charges U/secs.324 and 307 of IPC, were framed against the accused 1 and 2, read over and explained to them, in

Telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In its attempt to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2, and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. The witnesses i.e., L.W.3, Lokanath, L.W.4, Chennaiah, L.W.5, Ramasubba

Reddy, L.W.6, Venkata Subbaiah, L.W.7, Nagaraju, L.W.8, M.Raja, 5

L.W.9, Subbarayudu, L.W.10, Dr.P.Ramanakumari, L.W.11,

Y.Sreenivasulu, H.C and L.W.12, SKM.Hussain, S.I, of police was given up by the prosecution.

6. As there was no incriminating material appearing against the accused Nos.1 and 2, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused U/sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

7.Heard the arguments of prosecution and defence counsel.

8. Now the points that would arise for my determination are:

1. Whether the accused Nos.1 and 2, caused injuries to P.Gangaiah and Balagandhar Tilak, (P.Ws.1 and 2), by means of rods and caused bleeding injuries on their parts, an offence punishable

U/sec.324 of IPC as alleged?

2. Whether the accused A.1 and A.2, with an intention to kill

P.Gangaiah and Balagandhar Tilak, (P.Ws.1 and 2), caused bleeding injuries an offence punishable U/sec.307 of IPC as alleged?

9.Point Nos.1 and 2: P.W.1, P.Gangaiah, is one of the injured.

It is he, who set the criminal law into motion, by way of presenting complaint about the alleged incident on 07.02.2016. He stated before the court on oath that, about one year ago, around 10 pm., himself and others were at the village tank, for securing water to the fields. At that time dispute was arose, in which some unknown persons beat him with a stick and caused injury on the left hand below. He further deposed that, 6 immediately his son came there and he was also beaten by some unknown persons. After the incident, he was joined in rims hospital.

However, this witness has identified his signature on the complaint

dt:07.02.2016, is marked as Ex.P.1, but he denied it contents. According

to P.W.1, he sustained injury in the mob, but he failed to say who beat him. But he did not say anything against the accused.

10.The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, cross examined this witness and in the cross examination, he disowned his statement recorded by police as in Ex.P.2. This witness denied that, the accused attacked and caused bleeding injuries to him. The evidence of P.W.1, is not helpful to the prosecution version that, P.W.1, sustained injuries in the hands of accused.

11.P.W.2, Balagandhar Thilak, son of P.W.1. He stated that, at about one year ago, around 10 pm., himself and his father P.W.1, and others, were at the village tank, for securing water to the fields. At that time, a dispute was arose in which some unknown persons beat his father with a stick and caused injury on the left hand below. Immediately, he went there, then he was also beaten by some other persons. After the incident, he was joined in Rims hospital, Kadapa. There police obtained his signature. According to the evidence of P.W.2, he sustained stone injuries in the incident, but he did not say anything against the accused.

7

The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, cross examined this witnesses, in the cross examination he disowned his statement recorded by police as in

Ex.P.3. The evidence of P.W.2, is not helpful to the prosecution version that, he sustained injuries in the hands of accused in the alleged incident.

12.As stated earlier, the Addl.Public Prosecutor, has given up the evidence of remaining witness, whose names cited in the memo of evidence, as the material witnesses did not say anything against the accused.

13.Absolutely, there is no reliable or acceptable evidence on record to prove the fact that, the accused herein, attacked P.Ws.1 and 2, and caused injuries with an intention to kill them on 07.02.2016 at 10 pm., With this in mind, this court is of the considered opinion that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges punishable U/sec.324 and 307 of IPC. Accordingly, the points are answered.

14.In the result, A.1, Koppoli @ Polu Madhavaiah and

A.2, Koppoli @ Polu Shivaiah, are found not guilty for the charge punishable U/secs.324 and 307 of I.P.C. Accordingly, they are acquitted

U/sec.232 of Cr.P.C, for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused

Nos.1 and 2, shall stands cancelled. The committal court, did not produce the case property at the time of trial. Therefore, the committal 8 court is hereby directed to dispose the case property, after expiring of appeal time, as per rule.

Dictated to the Grade-II Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 27th day of

April, 2017.

Sd/-U.U.Prasad,

Secretary, D.L.S.A.,

FAC., Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge,

Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE;

Witnesses examined for prosecution:

P.W.1. P.Gangaiah,

P.W.2.P.Bala Gangadhar Thilak,

Witness examined for defence: NIL

Exhibits marked for prosecution:

Ex.P.1. Complaint given by P.W.1, dt:07.02.2016.

Ex.P.2. 161(3) of Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P.3. 161(3) of Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2.

Exhibits marked for defence: NIL

Sd/-U.U.Prasad,

Secretary, D.L.S.A, FAC., Addl.A.S.J.

Daily Status

In the Court of :Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa

Case No. :OS/0000421/2016 Perla Narayana swamy Reddy Vs Malapati Pratap

Date  : 26-04-2017

Business: The suit is filed for recovery of amount based on a promissory note dt.15.11.2013 and for costs. The defendant remained exparte on 12.04.2017. The plaintiff namely perla Narayana Swamy Reddy is present. He filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination as P.w.1 and got marked Ex.A1 and A.2. Perused the evidence of Pw.1 and Ex.A1 shows that the defendant herein has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,65,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs sixty five thousand only) from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 promissory note undertaking to repay the same with interest at 24 percent p.a., In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant has failed to repay the amount due under the suit promissory note till the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff has proved the execution and consideration. As such the plaintiff is entitled to recovery the suit amount from the defendant. In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, However, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.4,55,624/- (Rupees Four lakhs fifty five thousand six hundred and twenty four only) from the defendant. with future interest at 12 percent p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree till date of realization on principal amount of Rs.2,65,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs sixty five thousand only).

Nature of Disposal : DECREED WITH COSTS

Disposal Date: 26-04-2017

Daily Status

In the Court of :Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa

Case No. :OS/0000048/2017 A. Narasimha Reddy Vs B. Chandra Sekhar Reddy

Date  : 02-05-2017

Business: Both the plaintiff and defendant No.3 present and filed joint terms of compromise stating that the defendant No.3 has paid Rs.6,40,000/- and plaintiff received an amount of Rs.6,40,000/- towards full and final settlement. Further the plaintiff expressed he is not interested in the suit and the defendant No.3 is at liberty to enjoy the suit schedule property with absolute rights. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled relief of specific performance and permanent injunction. Accordingly, award is passed. The plaintiff is entitled for refund of Court fee paid on the plaint. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 02-05-2017

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa