Smt. V.Usha Kranthi

1 of 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

HANUMAKONDA.

Thursday, this the 12th day of March, 2026.

Present:- Smt.V.Usha Kranthi, I-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.

H.M.O.P.No. 80 OF 2022

Between:

Kodem Chakrapani, S/o.Suraiah, Age: 44 years, Occu: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.2-14, Kummarigudem village, Kazipet mandal, Hanumakonda district. … Petitioner

And

Kodem @ Samileti Lalitha, W/o.Kodem Chakrapani, D/o.Samileti Satyanarayana, Age: 38 years, Occu: Staff Nurse in Area Hospital, Huzuranagar village and mandal, Suryapet district, R/o.H.No.11/151, Gandhi Park, Huzurnagar village and mandal, Suryapet district. … Respondent * * * This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 06-03-2026 in the presence of Sri B.Someshwar Rao, Advocate for petitioner; and of Sri P.Sammaiah, Advocate for respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: :: O R D E R ::

This petition is filed Under Order 13 1(ia) (ib) of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner praying to grant divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent

dated: 12.08.2016.

2 OF 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022

2.The averments in the petitioner affidavit are that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was took place on dt:12.08.2016 at Sri.Bugulu Venkateshwara Swamy

Devasthanam, Chilpuru Gutta, Chilpur village and Mandal of Jangaon

District as per rights and customs prevailing in their community. At the time of their marriage, the parents of the respondent not paid any amount since the marriage is second marriage. After the marriage, the respondent joined the conjugal society of the petitioner and lead conjugal life at Shadnagar, Hyderabad. Thereafter, both shifted to

Shadnagar, where the respondent has changed her attitude against the petitioner, with the ill advice of her family members on petty issues.

The petitioner contends that the respondent without any cause or reason, harassed the petitioner and his family members mentally and physically and also the respondent neglected the petitioner’s parents.

It is further contended that the respondent at one occasion, intentionally consumed dettol in the absence of the petitioner and lodged a complaint before the police, Shadnagar on dt: 22.05.2017 with false allegations before Police, Shadnagar on dt:22.05.2017.

3.The Police, Shadnagar conducted counseling and found that the case filed by the respondent is false and advised the respondent to live with the petitioner without keeping previous disputes in mind.

The petitioner after the counselling and on the advise of the police, 3 OF 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022 elders, the respondent joined his conjugal society at Kummarigudem village of Kazipet Mandal. During their stay with the petitioner, the respondent got pregnancy and blessed with one daughter by name

K.Daksha, aged 4 years. The petitioner further contended that the respondent was troublesome and was causing all sorts of troubles and was behaving with cruelty with the petitioner. The respondent used to insult the petitioner before his friends and relatives on several occasions, the respondent harassed the petitioner mentally and physically and used to leave the house without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner used to get her back, as such, she was habituated to leave the house without any prior intimation to the petitioner.

4.The petitioner further contended that as the respondent left the conjugal society without informing the petitioner, on dt:13.08.2020 by taking her minor daughter along with her entire gold ornaments and did not choose to come to the petitioner’s house till filing of the petition without any reason. However, the petitioner approached the respondent and requested her to join his society, but the respondent has neglected the petitioner. The petitioner approached the elders wherein, the petitioner requested the respondent to join his conjugal society, but the respondent did not come forward to join his society and bluntly refused and intentionally demanded for divorce. As there is hope for reunion, the petitioner having waited from dt:13.08.2020, till filing of this application, the respondent did not turn up to lead 4 OF 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022 marital life with the petitioner, petitioner having no other option except prayed to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent.

5.The respondent after receiving notices got filed her counter by denying the averments made in the petition and categorically admitted the marriage with the petitioner. The respondent admitted that she joined the conjugal society of the petitioner after their marriage and lead happy marital life till dt:02.02.2022 and thereafter the couple were blessed with a daughter. The respondent further contended that the petitioner with the active support of his family members harassed the respondent and at the instance of his family members harassed the respondent and ill treated her, the harassment made by the petitioner and his family members became untolerable.

6.The respondent further contended that the petitioner used to come home in a drunken state and used to beat the petitioner indiscriminately. As the respondent used to work as a staff nurse at

Government Hospital, Huzurnagar and she is residing there, the petitioner has not shown any love and affection towards the respondent and used to ill treat the respondent by causing physically and mentally by suspecting her fidelity. In further the petitioner harassed the respondent to resign her job and forced her to stay with the petitioner at his parental house, but the respondent refused to resign her job and refused to stay with the petitioner at his parental house Jangaon. As the respondent refused to resign her job, the 5 OF 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022 petitioner changed his attitude against the respondent and harassed the respondent mentally and physically. That on dt:02.02.2022, the petitioner attended the birthday party of their daughter and stayed at the house of the respondent for a period of one month and thereafter, the petitioner left the conjugal society of the respondent.

7.The respondent further contended that she approached the elders and conducted a panchayath before them. The elders of the panchayath found fault with the petitioner and advised the petitioner to take back the respondent, but the petitioner, bluntly refused to take back the respondent into his conjugal society. The respondent further states that several times her parents requested the petitioner to take back the respondent to his society, but the petitioner intentionally refused to receive her, though the respondent is very affectionate with him. Therefore, in view of the above, prayed to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner and in turn direct the petitioner to join her conjugal society at Huzurnagar.

8.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner examined himself and relied upon Exs.P-1 to P-5 and in support of his case, he also got examined his father as P.W-2. Despite of giving ample time, the respondent has not chosen to cross examine the P.Ws.1 and 2 and as such, their cross examination were treated as nil. On the other hand, though, the respondent has got filed her counter by denying the averments made in the petitioner’s affidavit, but did not come forward to lead any evidence. As such, her side evidence was closed.

6 OF 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022

9.Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and hearing on behalf of the counsel for the respondent is treated as heard.

10.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent, DT: 12- 08-2016 as prayed for?”

11.POINT: P.W-1 reiterated the averments made in the petition by filing his chief examination affidavit. He categorically contended that he has married the respondent as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their society at Bugulu Venkateshwara Swamy

Devasthanam, Chilpur Gutta, Chilpur Village and Mandal, Jangaon

District and relied upon Exs.P-1 to P-3 and thereafter both lead happy marital life at Kummarigudem, Kazipet and resided at

Shadnagar and during their wedlock and they were blessed with a female baby. Later, the respondent without any valid reason left her parental house without informing the petitioner and his parents and on dt:22.08.2017, she consumed dettol and filed a criminal case at

Shadnagar, wherein, the petitioner has admitted the respondent at

Divya Hospital, Shadnagar but the respondent lodged a criminal case against him. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon Ex.P-4.

12.The petitioner has further contended that he approached the village elders, but the respondent has not changed her attitude and left his society frequently without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner and harassed the petitioner. Finally, on dt:13.08.2020, the 7 OF 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022 respondent has left the petitioner without any valid reason. Thus prayed to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

Though, an opportunity was given to the respondent counsel to cross examine P.Ws.1 and 2, the respondent has not made any efforts to proceed with the case and to cross examine P.Ws.1 and 2 and as such, their cross examination was treated as nil vide docket proceedings dated: 10.09.2025 and 21.01.2026.

13.The respondent though categorically filed her counter and denied the averments made in the petition and contended that she is working as a Staff Nurse in Area Hospital, Huzurnagar and the petitioner is insisting the respondent to join his society at Jangaon, the and it is petitioner who harassed her, said contentions were not proved by way of leading evidence or by way of cross examining the

P.Ws.1 and 2.

14.It is a settled law that mere fact that the respondent absented herself on the date of hearing and the petition proceeded exparte, did not by itself entitle the petitioner to get a decree in his favour. The court is under obligation to apply to whatever exparte evidence or affidavit filed by the petitioner on the record of the case, an application of mind must be Writ large on the face of the record.

This is possible only when the court directs itself to whatever material is on the record of the case, analyses the same and then comes to any conclusion on the basis of the evidentiary value of the documents relied by the petitioner or the affidavit of P.Ws.1 and 2. It may also 8 OF 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022 be observed that the counter already filed in the case would not deemed to have been wiped off the record merely because the respondent did not cross examine witness and petition proceeded exparte.

15.Thus keeping in mind of the aforesaid principle, though the respondent has not cross examined P.Ws.1 and 2, it is the duty of the court to analyse the evidence on the affidavit and give a finding on the documents.

16.Though, the petitioner contended that respondent has harassed him mentally and physically and that he has approached the village elders to resolve the issue, wherein the elders found fault with the respondent, but none of the said panchayath elders were examined by the petitioner to support his contentions and instances of any kind of harassment i.e., physically or mentally or any kind of specific overt acts were not pleaded and not proved. Admittedly, a perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner clearly shows the descriptive particulars of the respondent wherein, it is mentioned as the respondent’s occupation as Staff Nurse at Area Hospital, Huzurnagar, Suryapet

District which is also admitted by the respondent in her counter averments.

17.Further, the respondent also did not choose to lead evidence on her behalf to prove the said contention that as the respondent is doing job at Huzurnagar and further she is ready to lead conjugal life with the petitioner at Huzurnagar and that she never harassed the 9 OF 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022 petitioner or his parents both mentally and physically and that she has not deserted the petitioner at any point of time, but in view of her employment she is residing at Huzurnagar.

18.As admitted by the petitioner in his descriptive particulars in the petitioner’s affidavit dated:17.06.2022, it is an admitted fact that the respondent is working as a staff nurse at Area Hospital, Huzurnagar by the time of filing the petition itself and the daughter is also in her care and custody. Though, it is contended that the respondent left his society along with his daughter on dt: 13.08.2020 without informing him, thereby deserted him without any valid reasonable excuse, as such prayed to grant divorce on the ground of desertion.

However, the petitioner has not placed any oral or documentary evidence to believe his contentions that the respondent without any valid reasonable cause, consent and justification left the society of the petitioner from dt:13.08.2020 to till filing of the petition i.e., dt:

17.06.2022.

19.As admitted by the petitioner in his affidavit, in the descriptive particulars, since the respondent is working as a Government employment at Area Hospital, Huzurnagar, it is crystal clear that in view of her employment, she is residing at Huzurnagar. It is not the case of the Petitioner that respondent did not allow the petitioner to lead conjugal life with her. Further respondent has admitted in her counter that she is ready to conjugal life with the petitioner at

Huzurnagar, thus it shows that she has no intention to permanently 10 OF 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022 end the conjugal life with the petitioner, though the respondent was living separately from the petitioner by virtue of her employment.

Thus, it can be held that the respondent is having no intention to abandon the petitioner, by the counter averments, it can be held that there is no actual separation in between the petitioner and the respondent due to grounds of cruelty or harassment.

20.That apart, the petitioner has categorically pleaded in his petition that the respondent has filed a criminal case on the ground of harassment at Shadnagar Police Station and that she has consumed dettol and that she has harassed him and that he has admitted her at

Hospital and relied upon Ex.P-4, but again the respondent has lodged a complaint before Mahila Police Station, WPS, Warangal, from which it can be inferred that there are certain marital disputes and misunderstandings in between the petitioner and respondent. Further, it is evident from the chief affidavit of P.W-1 that certain new facts were brought on record stating that “the respondent converted to

Christianity and he traced a copy of Baptism before Parish priest of a

Church at Ramapuram Village, Nereducherla Mandal, Nalgonda District on dt: 29.05.2005, but she and her parents not disclosed the same and thereby deceived him in got marrying her and knowing the same after her desertion while vacating the rental house at Shadnagar”, but the said fact is neither pleaded by the petitioner at the time of filing of filing of the petition when it is in his knowledge at the time of vacating the rental house at Shadnagar, which is beyond his pleadings 11 OF 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022 in the petition. Admittedly, it is a settled law that the petitioner cannot traverse beyond his pleadings and whatever pleaded by him in the chief affidavit are nothing but developments with an afterthought only to get rid of the respondent from his marital tie. However, the petitioner who approached this court seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion, failed to prove his case by way of adducing any probable evidence.

21.The Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following citations in support of his case:-

A decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Vishwanath, S/o.Sitaram Agrawal Vs. Sau.Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal1 wherein it was held that

In matrimonial cases no outsider witnesses would normally be available. Discarding evidence of relatives and friends as being interested witnesses – Not proper. Presently, to the core issue, viz, whether the appellant-husband had made out a case for mental cruelty to entitle him to get a decree for divorce. At this juncture, we may unhesitantly state that the trial court as well as the first appellate court have disbelieved the evidence of most of the witnesses cited on behalf of the husband on the ground that they are interested witnesses. In a matrimonial dispute, it would be inappropriate to expect outsiders to come and depose. The family members and sometimes the relatives, friends and neighbours are the most natural witnesses. The veracity of the testimony 12012 0 Supreme (SC) 433 12 OF 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022 is to be tested on objective parameters and not to be thrown overboard on the ground that the witnesses are related to either of the spouse. Exception has been taken by the courts below that the servants of the house should have been examined and that amounts to suppression of the best possible evidence. That apart, the allegations made in the written statement, the dismissal of the case instituted by the wife under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, the non-judging of the material regard being had to the social status, the mental make-up, the milieu and the rejection of subsequent events on the count that they are subsequent to the filing of the petition for divorce and also giving flimsy reasons not to place reliance on the same, we are disposed to think, deserve to be tested on the anvil of "perversity of approach". Quite apart from the above, a significant question that emerges is whether the reasons ascribed by the courts below that the allegations made in the written statement alleging extra marital affair of the appellant-husband with Neeta Gujarathi has been established and, therefore, it would not constitute mental cruelty are perverse and unacceptable or justified on the basis of the evidence brought on record. These are the aspects which need to be scrutinized and appositely delved into.

Having perused the Judgment, the case facts are completely different from the case on hand, however, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court herein are binding in the instant case, but on the other hand, the respondent got filed case against the petitioner 13 OF 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022 which is seen under Ex.P5. Since both the parties making allegations on cruelty with each other and the criminal case filed by the respondent is subject to trial, hence, at this juncture, this Court cannot grant to the petitioner on the sole ground of cruelty.

Another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh2, wherein it was held that

Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. Long period of continuous separation. It may be concluded that matrimonial bond is beyond repair. By refusing to severe that tie, law in such cases, does not serve sanctity of marriage. It shows scant regard for feelings and emotions of parties which may lead to mental cruelty.

Having perused the Judgment, though the case facts are totally different from this case, since the respondent expressed her readiness to join her society at Huzurnagar, Suryapet in view of her employment, it cannot be treated that respondent refused for intercourse with the petitioner.

Another decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Polisetty Sripadmavati Vs. Polisetty Srinivasarao @ Balaji3, wherein it was held that

Alleged wife deserted the husband without reasonable cause. Desertion by the wife was 22007 0 Supreme (SC) 417 32024 (4) Law Summary 132 14 OF 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022 clearly established as the parties lived separately for over 27-28 years with no reasonable cause for separation provided by the wife. Wife exhibited no intention to join the husband or resume marital life, indicating a voluntary decision to live apart. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage and prolonged separation justify granting divorce. Marriage had irretrievably broken down, causing emotional cruelty to both parties, and its continuation served no meaningful purpose. Trial court’s findings of desertion were deemed consistent with the facts and supported by sufficient evidence. Appellant failed to provide new evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Having perused the Judgment this case is law is based on desertion ground, but in the instant case as discussed supra respondent is working as ANM Nurse at Govt.Hospital at Huzurnagar Suryapet and she is residing with her daughter of 5 years by name K.Daksha, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner failed to show any acceptably or reasonable cause for respondent living separately with him as such, the Judgment is not helpful to him. However, the case facts are totally different with this case.

Another decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in

M.K.Sreej Vs. Hima.T.4, wherein it was held that

Sec.13 Irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Continuous separation and hostile environment between spouses. Apex Court held irretrievable breakdown of marriage justifies dissolution. Prolonged separation amounts to cruelty on both 42025 NCKERHC 44679 15 OF 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022 sides if forced to maintain marital tie. Divorce granted on ground of irretrievable breakdown.

The case facts of this Judgment is totally different with the facts of the present case.

Another decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in XXXXXXX Vs. XXX5, wherein it was held that

Without demanding permanent alimony in the written statement or by a separate application, learned Trial Court would not have granted permanent alimony to the respondent/wife.

The case facts of this Judgment are pertaining to permanent alimony and the facts therein are totally different with the facts of the present case.

Upon perusal of the citations filed by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the said Judgments are not applicable to the present facts on hand. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of divorce as prayed for.

22.In the result, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th day of March, 2026)

Sd/-

I- Addl Senior Civil Judge Hanumakonda.

52025 MPHC-IND 8297 in First Appeal No.1793 of 2023 16 OF 16 H.M.O.P.No.80 OF 2022

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:For Respondent:

PW1 : Kodem Chakrapani None PW2 : Kodem Suryanarayana

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1: Marriage Card of petitioner and respondent Ex.P2: Receipt vide R.C.No.800, dt: 12-08-2016 issued by the Executive Officer, Sri Bugulu Venkateshwara Swami Devasthanam, Chilpurugutta, Chilpuru village and mandal, Jangaon district. Ex.P3: Marriage Photograph Ex.P4: Original Hospital Bill issued by Divya Hospital, Shadnagar,

dt: 22-08-2017

Ex.P5: Acknowledgment of receipt of complaint given by the petitioner, dt: 25-02-2022 of WPS-2, Warangal.

For Respondent:

Nil

Sd/-.

I- Addl Senior Civil Judge Hanumakonda.

1 of 15

S.C.No.150 OF 2024

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT HANUMAKONDA

Friday, on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

PRESENT:Smt. V. Usha Kranthi, I-Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.

SESSIONS CASE No. 150 OF 2024

(PRC No.10/2024 on the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal, in Cr.No.201/2023 of Damera P.S.)

1. Name and description of the: The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, complainant Damera P.S.

2. Name and description of the: 1.Oddepalli Mogili, S/o.Komuraiah, Age: 62 years, Occu: Labourer, accused R/o.Singarajupallyvillageof Damera mandal.

2. Manda Raju, S/o.Mallaiah, Age: 47 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o.Pasaragonda village of Damera mandal.

3. Uppala Shiva, S/o.Veeraiah, Age: 34 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o.Singarajupallyvillageof Damera mandal. 3.Offenceswithwhich: Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. charged

4. Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

5. Finding of the Judge: Found Not guilty

6. Sentence or Order: IN THE RESULT, Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec.306 r/w 34 of 2 of 15

S.C.No.150 OF 2024

Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3 shall stands canceled as per Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7. Prosecution conducted by: Smt.B.Vanaja,

Additional Public Prosecutor

8. Accused defended by: Sri G.Sridhar Reddy, Counsel for accused

This case is coming before me on 09-05-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.B.Vanaja, Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri G.Sridhar Reddy, counsel for the accused and upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, Damera P.S., has filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.201 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sec.306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet are that:

On dt:24-12-2023 at 16:30 hours, the complainant (LW1/Oddepalli

Mamatha) lodged a report stating that they have got sanction a house under Gruhalaxmi scheme and they were in need of murram soil to 3 of 15

S.C.No.150 OF 2024 built house; and that the husband of complainant Oddepalli Mahesh contacted the accused No.2 who told that he will inform when murram soil is available at him; and that on dt:20-12-2023, the accused No.2 informed over phone to the husband of complainant that the accused No.1 was cleaning up murram soil with the help of

JCB at the outskirts of Singarajupally and suggested him to approach the accused No.1 to obtain murram, as such, her husband went that place and asked the accused No.1 about murram soil and whereas, the accused No.1 replied that they did not get any murram soil.

Later, her husband informed that in accused No.1 land murram soil is available and made a dealing about pulling up murram soil from his land on one condition is that first he will take up the murram soil, later he will give to the accused No.1 and the same was agreed by the accused No.1. That, on the same day at about 23:00 hours, they started pulling out murram soil from his land and loading in tractors with the help of JCB, however, they did not proceed to take the murram soil to her house; and at about 00:00 hours (i.e., 21-12- 2023), the husband of the complainant went to the land and questioned them that although murram soil pulling from his land, they took it for someone’s home instead of to his house, on questioning why the murram soil was not given to him, then the accused Nos.1 to 3 stated that “NEEKU MURRAM POYAMU, NEEVU

EM CHESKUNTAVO CHESKO, NEE CHAVU NUVVU CHAVUPO” and later, her husband came home and revealed the same to the 4 of 15

S.C.No.150 OF 2024 complainant and keeping the same in his mind, got depressed and on

dt: 21-12-2023 at about 10:00 hours, her husband went to the

murram dug place in his land, then he picked up one herbicide bottle which is found at the land and consumed it, later, her husband informed the same to her mother-in-law Veeramma over the phone, immediately, her mother-in-law informed the same to her while she has picking cotton and immediately, the complainant and the accused No.3 rushed to the spot and found her husband unconscious and shifted her husband to MGM Hospital, Warangal for treatment. Hence, the report.

3.Basing on the above report of complainant (LW1), LW15 (K.Ashok), S.I.of Police, Damera P.S., has registered the case in

Crime No.201/2023 for the offence under Sec.306 r/w 511 of I.P.C., and issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW15 examined the complainant and recorded her statement, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama by preparing Crime Details Form and thereafter, he examined LWs2 to LWs6 and recorded their statements and later, LW15 filed a requisition to record Dying Declaration of the deceased, accordingly, LW12 (Smt.K.Chandishwari Devi), Prl.J.F.C.M.,

Warangal, has recorded the dying declaration of deceased and during the course of treatment, LW15 received death intimation of deceased and alterned section of law and thereafter, conducted Post 5 of 15

S.C.No.150 OF 2024

Mortem Examination; and on dt:10-01-2024, LW15 apprehended the accused and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under

Sec.306 r/w 34 of 149, I.P.C. Hence, the charge.

4.The learned Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,

Parkal, took the cognizance of the offence under Sec.306 r/w 34 of

I.P.C., against the accused Nos.1 to 3 vide PRC No. 10/2024 and after compliance of Section 208 of Cr.P.C as the offence under

Sec.306, I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Sessions Court, the case was committed to Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Court,

Hanumakonda and the same is numbered as S.No.150 of 2024 and made over to this Court on the point of jurisdiction for disposal according to law..

5.After hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, the charge were framed under Sec.306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against the accused

Nos.1 to 3, read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 4 and exhibited Exs.P1 to Exs.P11.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Sec.313, Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence.

6 of 15

S.C.No.150 OF 2024

8. Heard the arguments of both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the charge leveled against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Sec.306 r/w 34 of I.P.C.., beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT: In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything is essential to establish the charge against the accused is always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until and unless the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed. Subject to, of course to some statutory exceptions.

11.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 4.

12. PW1, who is wife of deceased Mallesh has deposed that in the year 2023 Government allotted house under Gruhalaxmi scheme to them and on several occasions her husband requested A2 for soil (Moraham), as per the request of deceased on dt: 20.12.2023, A2 called her husband Mallesh over phone and informed him that morram is available at different place, but morram was not available in the said place as requested by the deceased. For which, deceased requested A2 that he is having morram at their agriculture land and requested A2 to dump the same at the house site allotted by

Government, but A2 dumped their agriculture gravel at A1's 7 of 15

S.C.No.150 OF 2024 agriculture land, upon which her husband after completion of his work enquired A2 as to why did he dumped at A1's agriculture land, for which A1 to A3 stated to her husband "NENU YEKKADAINA

POSTA, NEE CHAVU NUVU CHAVU" and the said incident was informed to her by her husband. She further deposed that her husband informed the same to her and she consoled him and on the next day she told him that they will go to Grampanchayat and enquire with A1 to A3 as to why they said like that. PW1 further deposed that on the next day, she went to coolie to attend coolie work and her husband went to agriculture land and consumed herbicide and called to her mother-in-law/LW3 and informed about consuming of herbicide, in turn her mother-in-law called PW1 and informed about the same and immediately, PW1 rushed to her agriculture fields and on seeing her husband, she and her mother-in- law cried by then A3 came at the back of them, then they shifted her deceased husband on the two wheeler of her husband to M.G.M.

Hospital, Warangal, on the midway they called Ambulance and admitted her husband in the hospital and he underwent treatment and after undergoing treatment for three days on dt. 31.12.2023 he succumbed to death. In that regard, she lodged Ex.P1 report on dt:

24-12-2023 before Police. During the course of cross examination, she has categorically admitted that her husband incurred debts prior to her husband death and tried to commit suicide twice and she further stated that whatever she has deposed in the chief affidavit, is 8 of 15

S.C.No.150 OF 2024 deposed as per the instructions of Police; and that A1 to A3 are no way related to her husband’s death; and that on the day of alleged incident, what was happened at agricultural fields was not known to her; and that she got settled the matter out of the Court, in view of her child future and it is the Police who obtained her signatures on white papers and that she does not know the contents fo Ex.P1 and in shock she do not know what she stated on enquiry.

13.PW2 who is brother deceased has deposed that PW1 is his sister in law and LW3 Vanamma is his mother and the deceased is his brother and he further deposed that deceased was allotted house by the Government under Gruhalaxmi scheme and he was informed by his deceased brother that he requested A2 as he was having JCB to dump the gravel for which A2 told that he was engaged in other work as such his brother went there and his brother expressed that there is a morram that should be dumped from their agriculture land to the house allotted to the deceased by the Government, but, as assured A2 did not dump gravel to his brother instead he dumped to

A1, for which, his brother questioned on dt:20.12.2023 to A2 as to why did not he dumped morram first to him and A1 to A3 and stated to his brother that "NEE CHAVU NUVU CHAVU". PW2 further deposed that subsequently, he learnt that his brother consumed poison on dt:21.12.2023, due to mental harassment and after consuming poison his brother informed to his mother /LW-3, in turn 9 of 15

S.C.No.150 OF 2024 his mother called him over phone, immediately he requested them to shift his brother to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, thereafter to KMC

Hospital, Mulugu Road for dialysis, thereafter, on dt:24.12.2023 PW1 lodged Ex.P1 before police, thereafter, magistrate came to record his brother's declaration statement and on dt:31.12.2023 succumbed to death. During the cross examination, PW2 deposed that he and his deceased brother resides separately with their families and that his deceased brother is having tendency to attempt commit suicide and also committed earlier twice committed to suicide and he do not know the personal liabilities of his deceased brother and because of incurring heavy debts, he consumed poison.

14.PW3 is mother of deceased she has categorically deposed that her deceased son died two years back by consuming poison because of incurring heavy debts and she pleaded ignorance of the real facts.

Though, the learned APP declared the witness as hostile, nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW3 against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

15. PW4, K.Ashok, the then S.I.of Police, Damera P.S., has deposed that on dt:24.12.2023 he received a petition from PW1 and after receiving the petition he registered a case in Cr.No. 201/2023 under Section 306 r/w 511 IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P3 and he examined and recorded statement of PW1, visited scene of offence situated at Singarajupalli Village where he secured mediators LW8/

Sagar LW9/ Raghupathi in their presence he conducted scene of 10 of 15

S.C.No.150 OF 2024 offence panchanama under Ex.P4 and drawn physical features. PW4 further deposed that later, he examined and recorded statements of witnesses i.e., PW2, PW3, LW-4/Saikumar, LW-5/ Swarna, LW-6/

Bhadraiah and have forwarded requisition on dt:26.12.2023 to the concerned Magistrate for record dying declaration of deceased at

M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, as per his requisition LW12/ Presiding

Officer, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal rushed to

M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal recorded the dying declaration of deceased at M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. PW4 further deposed that on dt:31.12.2023, he has received death intimation from M.G.M.

Hospital, Warangal authorities, basing on dying declaration which was collected from Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, he altered section 306 r/w 511 IPC to Section 306 r/w 34 IPC and filed alteration memo before the concerned court and later, he rushed to

M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal mortuary, secured the presence of LW7/

Bixapathi Photographer and directed to obtain the photographs along with C.D. under Ex.P5. PW4 further deposed that later, he examined and recorded the statement of LW7/ Bixapathi, photographer again secured the presence of inquest mediators LW7/ Surender, LW11/

Kumaraswamy and in their presence inquest over the dead body and observed the dead body minutely and obtained the signatures of panchas and Ex.P6 is Inquest panchanama. PW4 further deposed that later Postmortem examination was conducted by LW13/ Raza Mallik

Khan and after completion of Post Mortem Examination, body was 11 of 15

S.C.No.150 OF 2024 handed over to the relatives on dt. 10.01.2023, he apprehended A1 to A3 on credible information of A1 to A3 at the house of A1 at

Singarajupalli Village and on their voluntary confession of guilt of offence, he shifted them to Police Station, after following due procedure and after completion of his investigation he secured certified copy of dying declaration (Ex.P7) from the Court and also postmortem report (Ex.P8) from LW-13/ Raza Mallik Khan and Ex.P8 is postmortem report, wherein the doctor has collected the samples, sent for RFSL, the RFSL Assistant Director /LW14/ Niraja issued opinion wherein, it is held that Item Nos. 1 to 4 are analysed as organo phosphate Ex.P9 is RFSL opinion. PW4 further deposed that after collecting all the relevant documents and on his completion of investigation he filed charge sheet into the Court and Ex.P10 is alteration memo and requisition to Judicial First Class Magistrate is marked as Ex.P11 and on his investigation, it got reveled that accused assured and promised the deceased to pour gravel in his land, but failed to keep up the promise when on the request by the deceased, A1 to A3 threatened that whatever deceased want to do he can do and said him to go and die and PW3 stated before him as in

Ex.P2 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

16.During the cross examination, PW4 deposed that there is a delay of four days in lodging Ex.P1 and further admitted that he has not collected the herbicide bottle/tin, he did not examine the JCB 12 of 15

S.C.No.150 OF 2024 driver. He denied that he conducted table investigation and implicated falsely A1 to A3.

17.In view of the oral evidence of PW1 to PW4, admittedly, Pw1 and PW2 and wife and brother of deceased, though in their chief examination has categorically deposed that because of abetment of A1 to A3, the deceased committed suicide by consuming herbicide. But in their cross examination, deposed that deceased has incurred heavy debts and he is having a tendency of attempting commit to suicide and that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are not responsible for the death of deceased Mallesh. Though, mere stating that "NEE CHAVU NUVU

CHAVU" does not fit into the ingredients of Sec.306 of I.P.C.,

18.In this regard, this Court would like to rely on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kumar @ Shivakumar v.

State of Karnataka 1, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, held that “acquitted the appellant of abetment to suicide (Sec.306 of I.P.C.), ruling that heated arguments or words spoken in anger without specific intent to instigate suicide do not constitute an offence.

The Court emphasized that for Sec.306 of I.P.c., a direct, positive act of instigation is required” 12024 INSC 156 13 of 15

S.C.No.150 OF 2024

19. In view of the Judgment mere uttering the words by A1 to A3 does not constitute offence under Sec.306 of IPC, further more, the hostile behaviour of deceased mother/PW3 is also creating doubt on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 in their chief examination. As PW4 has conducted chronological investigation, since there is a delay of 4 days in lodging which again creates a legible doubt in the Court for the implication of the accused in this case.

20.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence on record, it would be seen that no evidence was brought upon by the prosecution to prove that accused Nos. 1 to 3 are responsible for abetting the deceased to commit suicide nor any cogent evidence is placed before this Court to show that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are responsible for the death of the deceased. There is no evidence point out any act of instigation conspiracy or aiding on the part of the accused which had compelled the deceased to commit suicide, this Court is of the view that there is no persuasive evidence against the accused connecting them for the charge under Section 306, I.P.C. prosecution miserably failed to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. For the reasons discussed, as there is no incriminating material found in the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3, absolutely, A1 to A3 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the Point is answered against the prosecution.

14 of 15

S.C.No.150 OF 2024

21.In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec.306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3 shall stands canceled as per Sec.437(A) of

Cr.P.C. after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-.

I-ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1: Oddepalli Mamatha PW2: Oddepalli Kumaraswamy PW3: Oddepalli Vanamma PW4: K.Ashok

FOR DEFENCE:

None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Report, dt:24-12-2023 Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3 Ex.P3: First Information Report Ex.P4: Crime Details Form Ex.P5: Photographs with CD 15 of 15

S.C.No.150 OF 2024

Ex.P6: Inquest Panchanama Ex.P7: Dying Declaration of deceased Ex.P8: Post Mortem Examination report of deceased Ex.P9: RFSL Report Ex.P10: Alteration Memo Ex.P11: Requisition filed by PW4

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

Nil

Sd/-.

I-ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

Page No. 1 of 14 Judgment O.S No.539 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE 1-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT

HANUMAKONDA

Present: V.Usha Kranthi, 1-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.

Thursday, on this 12th day of March, 2026

O.S.No.539 of 2025

(Old.O.S.No.2056 of 2022) (Old.O.S.No.1246 of 2017)

Between:-

State Bank of India, a corporate Body incorporated incorporated under State Bank of India Act 1955, under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Central Office at Mumbai (Bombay) having its Central Office at Mumbai ( Bombay), and several other branches all over India and also abroad and one such branch situated at Waddepally Hanmakonda, Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation Limits Warangal Town, represented by its Branch Manager and Authorized Office & Principal Officer of the Branch, Sri. Srinivasa Rama Rao Kothapally s/o Rama Rao Hindu aged 53 years Occ: Chief Manager State Bank of India Waddepally Branch -Plaintiff, authorized to sign the pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff corporate body as its principal officer of the branch and corporate body. …. Plaintiff

A N D

1. Sri Gummidi Jaya Satya Ram Harin S/o Gummidi Sri Ramatulyam, Hindu, Aged:27 years, Occ: Student, now working, R/o H No: 20-17-15 (B) SP Street, Bheemavaram West Godavari District.

1-ASCJ, HNK, Dt. 12-03-2026

Page No. 2 of 14 Judgment O.S No.539 of 2025

2. Gummidi Ramatulyam S/o:Ramulu, Hindu, Aged: 47 years Occ:Business,R/o:H.No:20-15-17(B),SPStreet, Bheemavaram, West Godavari District (Died)

.... Defendants

This suit is came before me for hearing in the presence of Sri.Y.V.Vishweshwar Rao, Learned counsel for the Plaintiff; Sri.Ajay Ghosh, Learned counsel for the Defendants; upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff-Bank for recovery of money of

Rs.2,18,302/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighteen thousand three hundred and two only) against the defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally together with future interest at the rate of 12.75% with monthly rests from the date of the suit to till realization and to award costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief that, as per the request of the

Defendants, the Plaintiff through its Arrangement of Education Loan Letter

dated:12-9-2011, sanctioned the Education loan of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees

One Lakh Sixty Thousand Only) to defendants 1 & 2, Son and Father, as

Joint borrowers and the defendants agreed the terms of the loan and signed on the loan Arrangement Letter and executed the Agreement for

Term Loan for SBI Education Loan Scheme - Loan Agreement dated:12-9- 1-ASCJ, HNK, Dt. 12-03-2026

Page No. 3 of 14 Judgment O.S No.539 of 2025 2011 for Rs.1,60,000/- and agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 installments commencing from October 2014 and agreed to repay with interest at 12.75 % PA and the installments repayment will commence after the holiday period i.e., after one year from the date of completion of

Educational Course of Defendant No.1 or within six months from the date of

Defendant No.1 procuring the Job. As per the Loan agreement the

Defendants liability will be in force till the entire loan due amount and outstanding amount is paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff. The repayment Schedule for repayment of the due amount in 60 monthly installments at Rs.5,089-00 per month commenced from October 2014.

2(1) The Loan Application, Arrangement of Loan and Education Loan

Agreement dated: 12.09.2011 executed by defendants and letters for disbursement of loan and quotations are herewith filed in a List of

Documents annexed to this plant.

2(2)The Plaintiff paid the loan amount to the Defendants and the

Defendants availed the loan and used the same for the Education needs of

Defendant No.1. The Statement of Account is herewith filed showing the disbursement of the loan and adjustments and repayments made by the

Defendants and repayments made by and on behalf of Defendants by 1-ASCJ, HNK, Dt. 12-03-2026

Page No. 4 of 14 Judgment O.S No.539 of 2025 electronic transfers and other modes. The Defendants made part payments i.e., Rs.6000/- on dt:30-3-2012, Rs.6000/- on dt:25-8-2012, Rs.10,000/- on

dt:1-3-2013, Rs.10,319/- on dt:25-7-2013, Rs.6582/- on dt:19-11-2013,

Rs.6574/- on dt:6-5-2014 Rs.3,108/- on dt:22-7-2014, Rs.3000/- on dt:28-1- 2016, Rs.4416/- on dt:10-2-2016, Rs.1146/- on dt:3-12-2016 and Rs.8854/- on dt:3-12-2016, and Rs.5000/- on dt:19-12-2016, and the balance due amount is Rs.2,18,302/-(Two Lakhs Eighteen Thousand and three hundred and Two only) payable by the defendants to the Plaintiff with future interest.

2(3)It is further contended that the Defendants are liable to pay a sum of

Rs.2,18,302-00 (Two Lakhs Eighteen Thousand and three hundred and

Two only) with future interest at 12-75% PA with monthly rests from the date of suit till realization. That the statement of account certified as per bankers

Books of Act and interest accrued till date is filed. The Plaintiff Demanded the due amount on several occasions but the Defendants have not repaid the due amount. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled for a Decree for

Rs.2,18,302/- (Two Lakhs Eighteen Thousand and three hundred and Two only) with future interest at 12.75% PA with monthly rests and suits costs.

Hence, the suit.

1-ASCJ, HNK, Dt. 12-03-2026

Page No. 5 of 14 Judgment O.S No.539 of 2025

3.Written Statement filed by the Defendant No.1 by denying the averments of the Plaint and admitted that the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 jointly borrowed the education loan of Rs.1,60,000/- from the plaintiff on dt: 12-09- 2011 and the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 have executed the loan agreement on the same day i.e., on dt: 12-09-2011. While sanctioning the education loan the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendant No.1 and signature of the Defendant No.2 on blank printed proformas of plaintiff. Defendant No.1 specifically denied that the defendant No.1 agreed to pay over and above 12.75% interest per annum. It is further contended that the defendant No.1 paid the entire loan amount of the plaintiff Bank, but, the plaintiff has failed to credit the amount to the defendant No.1's account and failed to show the particulars of the actual due amounts. The debt is time barred and the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit against the defendants for recovery of the debt. The Defendant No.2 is the father of Defendant No.1.

3(1). The Defendant No.1 is not liable to pay such false claim which calculated exorbitant rate of interest and not calculated correctly. The defendants are not liable to pay the alleged loan amount with higher rate of interest. That the plaintiff Bank charged exorbitant interest, the interest at 1-ASCJ, HNK, Dt. 12-03-2026

Page No. 6 of 14 Judgment O.S No.539 of 2025 any rate cannot be charged more than 15% P.A., irrespective of the agreement between the parties. The Reserve Bank of India issued circulars time and again directing the Schedule Banks and also affiliated to the

Reserve Bank of India, that no interest as such should be charged more than 12% P.A interest which is excessive and exorbitant and against the principles laid down by the Reserve Bank of India. The interest that was collected in excess as against the prescribed rate of interest by the Reserve

Bank of India should be reimbursed to the defendants.

3(2). The defendant No.1 further submits that the plaintiff Bank has no cause of action to file the suit and it is time barred debt. The plaintiff Bank did not supply the true statement of accounts as such the defendant No.1 reserves his right for further submission of additional written statement as when the true statement of accounts are supplied to him. If the Hon'ble

Court comes to a conclusion that Defendant No.1 is due of any amount, the defendants prays the Hon'ble Court to fix the amount by way of installments by reducing the interest i.e., @ 6% P.A., (admission). Hence prayed to dismiss the suit in the interest of justice.

1-ASCJ, HNK, Dt. 12-03-2026

Page No. 7 of 14 Judgment O.S No.539 of 2025

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

(I)Whether the defendants Nos.1 and 2 as joint borrowers obtained the educational loan amount of Rs.1,60,000/- from the Plaintiff’s Bank on dt:

12.09.2011 by executing an agreement for term loan for SBI Education

Loan scheme in favour of the Plaintiff Bank?

(ii)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for relief of recovery of suit amount from the defendants as prayed in the Plaint?

(iii)If so, to what relief?

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff-Bank and the arguments on behalf of the defendants are treated as heard after granting reasonable time.

Perused the record.

6. Issue No.1: It is the case of the Plaintiff Bank that as per the request of the Defendants, the Plaintiff Bank has sanctioned the Education loan of

Rs.1,60,000/- to defendants 1 & 2, Son and Father, as Joint borrowers through its Arrangement of Education Loan Letter dated:12-9-2011 and the 1-ASCJ, HNK, Dt. 12-03-2026

Page No. 8 of 14 Judgment O.S No.539 of 2025 defendants also agreed the terms of the loan and signed on the loan

Arrangement Letter and executed the Agreement for Term Loan for SBI

Education Loan Scheme - Loan Agreement dated:12-9-2011 for

Rs.1,60,000/- and agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 installments commencing from October 2014 with interest at 12.75 % PA. That the repayment installments will commence after the holiday period i.e., after one year from the date of completion of Educational Course of Defendant

No.1 or within six months from the date of Defendant No.1 procuring the

Job. Further, as per the Loan agreement, the liability of the defendants will be in force till the entire loan due amount and outstanding amount is paid by the defendants to the Plaintiff Bank and the Schedule for repayment of the due amount is in 60 monthly installments at Rs.5,089-00 per month commencing from October 2014. That the Plaintiff Bank demanded the due amount on several occasions, but the defendants have not repaid the due amount.

7.On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant No.1 in his written statement that the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 jointly borrowed the education loan of Rs.1,60,000/- from the plaintiff Bank dated: 12-09-2011 and the

Defendant Nos.1 & 2 have executed the loan agreement on the same day.

1-ASCJ, HNK, Dt. 12-03-2026

Page No. 9 of 14 Judgment O.S No.539 of 2025

It is further contended by the defendant No.1 that while sanctioning the education loan, the plaintiff Bank obtained the signatures of the defendant

No.1 and signature of the Defendant No.2 on blank printed proformas of plaintiff bank. The defendant No.1 further denied to have agreed to pay over and above 12.75% interest per annum. The defendant No.1 paid the entire loan amount of the plaintiff Bank, but, the plaintiff bank has failed to credit the amount to the defendant No.1's account and failed to show the particulars of the actual due amounts and prayed to fix the amount by way of installments by reducing the interest @6% Per Annum.

8. The Defendant No.1 is not liable to pay such false claim which calculated exorbitant rate of interest and not liable to pay the alleged loan amount with higher rate of interest and that the plaintiff Bank charged exorbitant interest, the interest at any rate cannot be charged more than 15% P.A., irrespective of the agreement between the parties.

9.To prove claim of the plaintiff Bank, Kunchana Sateesh Kumar (Chief

Manager, State Bank of India, Waddepally Branch himself examined as

PW-1 by filing chief examination affidavit corroborating the averments as 1-ASCJ, HNK, Dt. 12-03-2026

Page No. 10 of 14 Judgment O.S No.539 of 2025 set out in the plaint and filed documents Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-7 documents i.e.,

Ex.A1 is the Loan Application form, dated: 12.09.2011, Ex.A2 is the

Arrangement of Education Loan Letter, dated: 12.09.2011, Ex.A3 is

Agreement of Education Loan, dated: 14.09.2011, Ex.A4 is the Letter of defendant No.1, dated: 12.09.2011, Ex.A-5 is the Quotation, dated:

08.09.2011, Ex.A-6 is the Letter of Defendant No.1, dated: 21.08.2012,

Ex.A-7 is the Statement of Account, dated: 27.11.2017.

10.On the other hand, though the defendant No.1 filed written statement and defendant No.2 reported died and the defendant No.1 admitted the availment of educational loan from the Plaintiff Bank and pleaded in the written statement, he has discharged loan and further expressing his readiness to pay the availed loan amount, but the defendant No.1 further pleaded to fix the installments by reducing the interest @6% Per Annum.

Further, the defendant No.1 neither cross-examined the PW1 nor entered into witness box to substantiate their contentions, inspite of imposing conditional order and as such, the cross examination on Defendant No.1 side is treated as nil vide docket proceedings dated: 19.02.2026. In rebuttal of their case, though defendant No.1 filed his written statement by 1-ASCJ, HNK, Dt. 12-03-2026

Page No. 11 of 14 Judgment O.S No.539 of 2025 denying the part of the plaint averments, but did not come forward to lead his side evidence and hence treated as no evidence on his behalf.

11.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the unchallenged evidence of P.W-1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-7 clearly goes to show that the the defendants having availed the loan amount under Ex.A-1 paid certain installments and thereafter committed default.

12.At this juncture it is appropriate to refer the Judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Vidyadhar Versus Manikrao (1999) 3 SCC 573 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “Non examination as witness of the party pleading – effect” where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to the cross examination by the other side, a presumption under 114(g) of the evidence act would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.

11. Hence, with the forgoing discussions held above as defendant No.1 restrained himself from cross examining P.W-1 and was absent and did not come forward to lead his side evidence, the unchallenged evidence of P.W- 1-ASCJ, HNK, Dt. 12-03-2026

Page No. 12 of 14 Judgment O.S No.539 of 2025 1 coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-7 this court, therefore finds that the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- by executing the Exs.A1 to A-3 and in furtherance having availed top up loan under Ex.A-1, by forwarding Ex.A-4 paid certain installments and committed default of some installments therafter.

12.In view of the above foregoing discussion, this court came to conclusion that the plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover suit amount of

Rs.2,18,302/- (Rupees Two Lakhs eighteen thousand three hundred and two Only) from the defendants along with interest and costs. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff Bank and against the defendants.

13. Issue No.2: In view of answering the issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff Bank, the suit of the plaintiff Bank can be decreed for Rs.2,18,302/- (Rupees Two Lakhs eighteen thousand three hundred and two Only) against the defendants No.1 with Interest. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered.

1-ASCJ, HNK, Dt. 12-03-2026

Page No. 13 of 14 Judgment O.S No.539 of 2025

14. Issue No.3: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,18,302/- (Rupees Two Lakh Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred and Two Only) to the plaintiff with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

Sixty Thousand Only).

The suit claim against the defendant No.2 is dismissed as abated.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 12 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-.

1-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: P.W-1: Kunchana Sateesh Kumar - Nil -

Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff

Ex.A1: Loan Application form, dated: 12.09.2011

Ex.A2: Arrangement of Education Loan Letter, dated: 12.09.2011

Ex.A3: Agreement of Education Loan, dated: 14.09.2011 1-ASCJ, HNK, Dt. 12-03-2026

Page No. 14 of 14 Judgment O.S No.539 of 2025

Ex.A4: Letter of defendant No.1, dated: 12.09.2011

Ex.A-5: Quotation, dated: 08.09.2011.

Ex.A-6: Letter of Defendant No.1, dated: 21.08.2012

Ex.A-7: Statement of Account, dated: 27.11.2017.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendants - Nil -

Sd/-

1-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.

1-ASCJ, HNK, Dt. 12-03-2026

1 of 7

S.C.No.77 OF 2025

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT HANUMAKONDA

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

PRESENT:Smt. V. Usha Kranthi, I-Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.

SESSIONS CASE No.77 OF 2025

(PRC No.06/2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal, in Cr.No.03/2024 of Shayampet P.S.)

1. Name and description of the: The State of Telangana through complainantSub Inspector of Police, Shayampet P.S.

2. Name and description of the:1.Kotagiri Bixapathi, S/o.Sammalu, accusedAge: 46 years, Occu: Toddy Topper, R/o.Neredupally village of Shayampet mandal. 2.Kotagiri Nagaraju, S/o.Bixapathi, Age: 20 years, Occu: Toddy Topper, R/o.Neredupally village of Shayampet mandal. 3.Offenceswithwhich: Sec.307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. charged

4. Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

5. Finding of the Judge: Found not guilty

6. Sentence or Order: IN THE RESULT, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec.307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused 2 of 7

S.C.No.77 OF 2025

Nos.1 and 2 shall stands canceled as per Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7. Prosecution conducted by: Smt.B.Vanaja, Addl.Public Prosecutor

8. Accused defended by: Sri G.Sridhar Reddy, Advocate

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Smt.B.Vanaja, Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri G.Sridhar Reddy, Counsel for the accused Nos.1 and 2; and upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Shayampet, has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.03 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sec.307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet are that: On dt:06-01-2024 at 16:00 hours, the complainant (Putta Kavitha/LW1) has lodged a report stating that she had two daughters and one son and her elder daughter Putta Navya is studying B.Tech., at Warangal and their villager Kotagiri Manikanta was making propaganda in their relatives that he was in love with her elder daughter Navya and want to marry her, but they are not intend to perform their marriage as the said Manikanta is running 3 of 7

S.C.No.77 OF 2025 auto for his livelihood and the brother of complainant Gundu Raju admonished Manikanta and his family members; and that keeping the same, they bore grudge against Gundu Raju and planned if they do anything her husband Satyanarayana support to Gundu Raju and as per his intention, two or three times, they provoked her husband and decided to eliminate her husband. That on dt:05-01-2024 at 7:00 PM, the complainant having chit of their community members, her brother was writing chit book, meanwhile, the accused Nos.1 and 2 abused her Gundu Nagaraju over chit issue and tried to beat him, meantime, her husband Putta Satyanarayana rushed and tried to pacify the issue, but the accused paid deaf ear and quarreled with her husband at about 20:00 hours stating that “MANAKU

KAVALISINAVADU VACHINADURA, VINNI ELAGAINA CHAMPALI

ANUKUNTU” and picked up cement brick, forcibly beat on left side of head and back in front of the house of Bandarapu Jagan with an intention to eliminate him, due to which, the husband of complainant fell down on the ground and oozing blood and shifted him to MGM

Hospital, Warangal, for treatment. Hence, the report.

3.Basing on the above report of the complainant (LW1),

D.Devender, Sub Inspector of Police, Shayampet P.S., has registered a case in Crime No.03/2024 for the offence under Sec.307 r/w 34 of

I.P.C., issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation; and during the course of investigation, LW14 examined and recorded the statement of complainant (LW1), visited the scene of offence, 4 of 7

S.C.No.77 OF 2025 observed the scene of offence and drafted the Crime Details Form in the presence of LW9 (Veeragoni Kumaraswamy) and LW10 (Mushke

Ravi) and he examined and recorded the statements of LWs3 to LWs7 and thereafter, proceeded to MGM Hospital, Warangal and examined and reocrded the statement of LW2 and on dt:09-01-2024 he apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 and after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet.

4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal, took the cognizance of the offence under Sec.307 r/w 34 of I.P.C., against the accused Nos.1 and 2 vide PRC No. 06/2024 and after compliance of

Sec.208 of Cr.P.C as the offence under Sec.307 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Sessions Court, the case was committed to

Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Court, Hanumakonda and the same

is numbered as S.No.77 of 2025 and made over to this Court on the point of jurisdiction for disposal according to law.

5. After hearing learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the charge was framed under Sec.307 r/w 34 of IPC, against the accused Nos.1 and 2, read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs1 to

PW5 and exhibited Exs.P1 to Exs.P7. In view of the hostile evidence of material witnesses, the rest of witnesses were closed by this Court.

5 of 7

S.C.No.77 OF 2025

7.As PWs1 to PW5, who are material witnesses were turned hostile to the prosecution case and as there no incriminating material against the accused, hence, the examination of the accused under

Sec.313, Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the charge leveled against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Sec.307 r/w 34 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything is essential to establish the charge against the accused Nos.1 and 2 is always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 until and unless the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed. Subject to, of course to some statutory exceptions.

11.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs1 to PW5 and exhibited Exs.P1 to Exs.P7.

12.PW1, who is the defacto complainant, PW2 Injured, PW3 is the daughter of PW1 and PW2, PW4 and PW5 eye witnesses to the incident, they all in one voice deposed that they do not know any 6 of 7

S.C.No.77 OF 2025 facts of the case, but stated that PW2 while going to Office on his bike, fallen from bike on ground and sustained head injury in that regard PW1’s signature was obtained by Police as Ex.P1 and PW1 do not know the contents of it and further PWs 1 to PWs 5 did not depose anything against the accused and they were declared as hostile since they did not support the case of the prosecution and when they were cross examined at length nothing was elicited against the accused Nos.1 and 2. In view of the hostile evidence of PWs1 to

PW5, the evidence of list of witnesses LWs6, to LW14 were closed by this Court and Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with, as there is no clinching material forthcoming in the prosecution case to establish that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 attempted to commit murder of PW2 by beating him with cement brick on left side of head and back with an intention to kill him. Therefore, the evidence of PWs1 to PW5 and

Exs.P1 to Ex.P7 are not sufficient to connect the accused Nos.1 and 2 with the alleged charge, in view of the same, there is no evidence to establish the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 and absolutely, prosecution failed to establish its case for the offence under Sec.307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Therefore, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. The Point is answered accordingly against the prosecution.

13. IN THE RESULT, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec.307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.232 of Cr.P.C. The bail 7 of 7

S.C.No.77 OF 2025 bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stands canceled as per

Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-.

I-ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: Putta KavithaNone PW2: Putta Satyanarayana PW3: Putta Navya PW4: Gundu Raju PW5: Chanda Prashanth

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the report None Ex.P2: Report, dt: 06-01-2024 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3 Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4 Ex.P7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW5

MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil -.

Sd/-.

I-ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

1 of 4 H.M.O.P.No.81 OF 2025

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

HANUMAKONDA.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Present:- Smt.V.Usha Kranthi, I-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.

H.M.O.P.No. 81 OF 2025

Between:

1. Masampally @ Kamalapuram Niranjana @ Akhila, W/o.Masampally Srikanth, D/o.late K.Shankar Rao, Age: 24 years, Occu: Software Employee, R/o.H.No.5-41/1, Peechara village, Velair mandal, Hanumakonda district.

2. Masampally Srikanth, S/o.Shankar Rao, Age: 31 years, Occu: Software Employee, R/o.H.No.1-14/1, Rudragudem village, Nallabelly mandal, Warangal district. … Petitioners

And

NIL … Respondent * * * This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 14-05-2026 in the presence of Sri Ch.Rama Krishna, Advocate for petitioners and upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: :: O R D E R ::

The petitioners filed this petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.

2.The averments of the petition in brief are as follows:

The petitioners are legally wedded wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on dt:16-03-2024 at S.S.Function Hall, 2 OF 4 H.M.O.P.No.81 OF 2025

Shodasapally village, Velair mandal, Hanumakonda district as per

Hindu rites and ceremonies prevailing in their community; and that after the marriage, the petitioner No.1 joined the conjugal society of petitioner No.2 at his parent’s house and they lead happy marital life about few days only and out of their wedlock, they have no issues.

Thereafter, differences arose between the petitioners, though the elders, friends and relatives of petitioners conducted panchayaths, but their efforts went in vain; and that the petitioners are living separately from dt:01-06-2024 and both the petitioners have decided to take divorce through mutual consent. That, as per the compromise between the petitioners, petitioner No.2 agreed to pay an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- to petitioner No.1 of her Stridhana amount and permanent alimony and the same was accepted by petitioner No.1; and that the petitioner No.2 returned 5 tulas of gold ornaments to the petitioner No.1 on dt: 16-06-2025 and the petitioner No.1 agreed to return 3 tulas of gold ornaments and pattilu to the petitioner No.2 at the time of divorce. That the petitioner No.1 agreed that she will never claim any maintenance or property against the petitioner No.2 and his family members in future. Hence, the petition.

3.On behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were examined as PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 and Exs.P2 through PW1. The Ex.P1 is the Marriage Card of the petitioners and

Ex.P2 is the Marriage Photograph of the petitioners.

3 OF 4 H.M.O.P.No.81 OF 2025

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage held on dt:16-03-2024 and for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent as per Sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, as prayed for?”

6.POINT: Upon perusal of the averments of the petition, the petitioner No.1 examined as PW1 and the petitioner No.2 examined as

PW2 and their evidence shows that they are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on dt:16-03-2024 and out of their wedlock, they have no issues and thereafter, disputes arose in between the petitioners and from dt:01-06-2024 they have been living separately. The efforts of the elders for uniting the parties went in vain. At last, both the petitioners have decided to take divorce by mutual consent.

7.In view of the above unchallenged oral and documentary evidence and as the prescribed period of six months is completed, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are husband and wife, filed their affidavits of examination in chief as PW1 and PW2 respectively by reiterating the contents of the petition and the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, in one voice, deposed, that the chances of their re-union become impossible and they are living separately from dt:01-06-2024.

8.Having considered the contentions of the petition and taking into consideration of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, it is clear that 4 OF 4 H.M.O.P.No.81 OF 2025 the marital relationship between the petitioners was irretrievably broken and there are no chances of reunion and the petitioners have decided to get their marriage dissolved by mutual consent and as they have been living separately from dt:01-06-2024, in the considered view of this Court, it is expedient in the interest of justice to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of their marriage dt:16-03-2024 granting divorce by mutual consent.

Accordingly, the Point is answered.

9.In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage between petitioner Nos.1 and 2 which was performed on dt:16-03-2024 is hereby dissolved by granting divorce to the petitioners by mutual consent. No costs.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15th day of May, 2026)

Sd/-.

I- Addl Senior Civil Judge Hanumakonda. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners:

PW1 : Masampally @ Kamalapuram Niranjana @ Akhila PW2 : Masampally Srikanth Exhibits Marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.P1: Marriage Card of the petitioners Ex.P2: Marriage Photograph of the petitioners.

Sd/-.

I- Addl Senior Civil Judge Hanumakonda.