Sri V.Venkateswara Rao, ASCJ

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTENT JUDGE,

ANANTAPURMAU.

Present: Sri V. Venkateswara Rao,

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Thursday, the 03rd day of February, 2022.

S.C.No.128/2017

1) Name of the Complainant:State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Narpala Police Station.

2) Description of the Accused:1)Alakunta Laxminarayana, aged 39 years, S/o Late Gurappa, Shakti Nagar, Narpala village & Mandal.

2)GuvvalaMadhu@ Madhusudhan, aged 24 years, S/o G. Peddanna, Patha Rama Swamy Temple Street, Narpala Village & Mandal.

3) Offences:Sec.5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

4) Plea of Accused:Not guilty.

5) Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

6) Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.5ofExplosive Substances Act, 1908 and accordinglytheyare acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. MO.1 i.e. cash of Rs.10,150/- shall be confiscated to the State after appeal time is over. Since the seized property i.e., TATA Ace bearing No. AP02 TA 3942 not produced before this Court at the time of trial, no property order with regard to said vehicle.

7) Crime number and Police :Crime No. 18/2015 of Narpala Station. Police station.

2

This case coming on 01.02.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri N.C. Sreenivasulu, advocate for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narpala Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused A.1 and A.2 in Crime No.18/2015 for the offence punishable Under section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is, on 23.02.2015 at about 4.30

PM, LW.10 N. Sekhar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Narpala Police Station on receipt of credible information secured the presence of two mediators and staff and proceeded to Kashinayana Hermitage situated near

Kasepalli village, Narpala Mandal in a Police Jeep bearing No. AP 9P 5194. On the Narpala-Tadipatri Road, LW.10 N. Sekhar has seen one

TATA Ace goods auto bearing No.AP02 TA 3942 was coming from Narpala side and on seeing the police jeep, the driver of the said auto and the person who sat beside the driver seat stopped the vehicle and tried to skulk away from the spot leaving the auto. Then LW.10 N. Sekhar and

LWs.3 Mahammed Rafi, LW.3 B. Kumaraswamy, LW.5 K.Chandra- maheswara Reddy, LW.6 T. Jaffgar Vali and LW.7 D. Lathish Kumar surrounded and apprehended them and produced before the mediators.

Then LW.10 N. Sekhar has enquired each person individual for which they voluntarily disclosed their identity particulars. A.1 has categorically stated that he is facing financial problems and to meet family expenses, he used to go to coolie work. Later A.1 has joined as a blasting coolie in a quarry belongs to Pulivendula Vemareddy on the advice of his mother and worked there for two years. Later A.1 has returned to Narpala and 3 used to go to coolie works and since one year he has been worked in a licensed explosive magazine belonging to one Srinivasulu. Due to illness for the last two months A.1 was not attending to his works and taking rest in his house. About one month back A.1 has received a phone call from cell phone bearing No.9959767277 and the person on the other side introduced his name as Murguan and further stated that he has explosive materials used for blasting i.e. Detonators and gelatin sticks and he will sell it for Rs.20,000/-. Then A.1 though that it is a lesser price and if he purchases the same he can able to sell it for higher prices. Immediately A.1 purchased the explosive material from Murugan for Rs.20,000/- and kept the same in his house. On 22.2.2015 some unknown person made a phone call and asked blasting material for

Rs.50,000/-. On that A.1 has engaged hired goods auto bearing No.AP 02 TA 3942 belongs to A.2 and at that time they were going to deliver the same to him and in the meantime they were caught hold by police.

A.2 is the driver of the auto and he also corroborated the version of A.1 in all the facts.

It is further cases of the prosecution that later LW.10 N. Sekhar observed the said explosive material kept in the auto and found 17 company packed plastic bag containing Calcium Nitrate with English letters and numbers on bags as “OPTIFORM STORE IN SHARE COOL AND

DRY PLACE AWAY FROM SUN LIGHT, NET WEIGHT 50 KG. GROSS WEIGHT 50.300 KG (MAX), PURITY 99% (MIN), 5H3/251/S/14, IND/9824 2356,

MANUFACTURED IN INDIA BY DEEPAK FERTILIZERS AND PETRO

CHEMICALS, CORPORATION LIMITED, PLOTS K-7 TO K-8 MID2 INDUSTRIAL

AREA, TALOJA AV 410208, dist Raigad Maharastra, India, License No:

A/HQ/MH/P1/2/(A79)/HG/MH/P1/(A882)”. LW.10 also found one unpacked plastic bag containing 500 pieces of detonators and noticed English letters and numbers on the said bag as “WHITE CRYSTAL SUGAR DOUBLE 4

SULPHITATION, ISS NO. 5-30, KPR SUGAR, MICCS PVT. LTD., ALMEE VILLA-

BIJAPUR DT., KARNATAKA, INDIA 50 KGS NET, SEASON 2012-13, BEST

BEFORE 2 YEARS.” Then LW.10 N.Sekhar has found one plastic bag

containing 500 pieces of gelatin sticks and observed English letters and numbers on said bag as “WHITE CRYSTAL SUGAR ISS 5-30, DOUBLE

SULPHITATION, NSL, SUGARS (THUNGABADRA) LTD., DESANUR-583140,

KARNATAKA, INDIA, 50 KG NET, SEASON 2012-13, BEST BEFORE 2

YEARS. LW.10 N. Sekhar questioned A.1 and A.2 whether they have any valid license to transport and possession of the explosive substances.

Then hse has observed the TATA ACE goods auto bearing No.AP 02 TA 3942 and A.1 failed to show the license. Then LW.10 N. Sekhar arrested

A.1 and A.2 and seized the explosive substances and auto under cover of confession, arrest and seizure mahazarnama, then brought A.1 and A.2 to the Police station along with the seized property.

LW.11 G.Rajendranath Yadav, Inspector of Police, has registered the case as Cr.No.18/2015 u/sec. 5 of E.S. Act on the strength of the

Mahazarnama and took up investigation into the case. Later the accused were sent to court for judicial custody. After getting Orders from the court, LW.8 P.S.S. Vali, D.S.P., Bomb Disposal Squad has defused and destroyed the explosives and preserved samples for sending to the

RFSL, Thirupathi. LW.9 K. Rama Devi, is Assistant Director, APSFL

Hyderabad who examined the material objects issued report opining that “Items 1 and 2 are analyzed as per the above methods and Ammonium

Nitrate a chemical substance one of the high explosive ingredients is found in both of them. The District Collector/District Magistrate has issued sanction orders vide D.Dis.No.MC3/3663/2016 dated 23.5.2016.

The identity of Accused A.3 is still not established and found absconding and whenever get progress in investigation against the accused, A.3 the supplementary charge sheet will be filed against him. Hence, A.1 and 5

A.2 are liable to be punished as per Sec. 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Hence, the charge.

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

Class, Ananthapuramu has taken the case on file for the offence punishable under section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against the accused A.1 and A.2 and numbered the same as PRC No.5/2017.

4. When the accused A.1 and A.2 appeared before the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu, copies of the documents were

furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Court of Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu following the proviso, as contemplated under section 209 of Cr.P.C. Then the Hon'ble Court of Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu numbered the

P.R.C 5/2017 as Sessions Case No.128/2017 and made over the same to this Court, for trial.

5.On appearance of accused A.1 and A.2 before this Court, they were examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C., and charge under section 5 of

Explosive Substances Act, 1908 has been framed, read over the same in

Telugu to the accused for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.5 and MO.1.

7.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused A.1 and A.2 were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of 6 prosecution witnesses and they denied the same. However, they reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments.

9.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution would able to bring home

the guilt of accused for the offence punishable

u/sec.5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 beyond all

reasonable doubt?

Point:

10.The version of the prosecution is that, on 23.2.2015 at about 4.30 pm on credible information PW.8 along with Pws.1 to 7 proceeded to the

Kasinayana Ashramam, near Kasepalli village which lies on Narpala and

Tadipatri Road and there they found the vehicle coming from

Dharmavaram to Tadipatri and on seeing the police, the driver of the said vehicle stopped the vehicle in suspicious circumstances and tried to escape. On suspicion PW.8 along with his staff caught hold the accused

A.1 and A.2. On question, A.1 and A.2 disclosed as their identity particulars as that of A.1 and A.2 and they disclosed with regard to the transporting of Calcium Nitrate mixture weighing about 900 Kgs, 500 pieces detonators and 500 pieces gelatin sticks and based on the confessional statement of A.1 and A.2, PW.8 seized the above material objects and also seized one TATA Ace bearing No.AP02 TA 3942 and also seized cash of Rs.10,150/- from, the possession of accused and arrested the accused A.1 and A.2 under the cover of Mediators Report and brought the accused along with case property to the police station for taking further action.

7

11.To establish the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined one of the mediators by name M. Prabhakar

Reddy as PW.1. He deposed in his chief examination that he has retired from the service as V.R.O. and previously he worked as V.R.O. at Narpala from 2014 to 20019. Further deposed that on 23.2.2015 the police,

Narapala summoned him to Tahsil Office and accordingly he proceeded to Mandal Office, Narapala. The police informed that they seized boxes of explosive substances and also police obtained his signatures on five written papers and he does not know the contents in the said papers.

Further deposed that the police did not arrest any persons in his presence and did not seize any property in his presence. The signature on the report belongs to him. Ex.P.1 is his signature on the report.

Since his version is not supported the case of prosecution, at the request of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he is declared as hostile witness and cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

12.The prosecution also examined other mediators by name Khaja

Mohiddin as PW.2. He deposed in his chief examination that he does not know PW.1 and does not know anything with regard to the case. Further deposed that police never arrested any persons and never seized any property in his presence and he never see the accused at any time.

Further deposed that In the year 2015 on one day police came to their shop and obtained his signatures five in number on a written paper. He does not know the contents on it. The signature on the report belongs to him. Ex.P.2 is the signature. He does not know anything a bout the case and police did not examine him.

13.The Head Constable who alleged to have been proceeded along with PW.8 on 23.2.2015 by name B. Kumara Swamy was examined as 8

PW.3. He deposed in his chief examination that he has been working as

Head Constable, Mahila P.S. Ananthapuramu and previously he worked as Head Constable at Narpala Police station from 27.11.2013 to 10.8.2015. Further deposed that on 23.2.2015 while he was present at

Police Station, the S.I. of Police received information, immediately the

S.I. of Police took himself, LW.3 Mohammad Rafi, LW.5 Chandra

Maheswara Reddy, LW.6 Jaffar Vali and LW.7 Satheesh Kumar along with

PWs.1 and 2 proceeded to Kasinayana Ashramam, Kasepalli village, there on noticing police officials the driver and other person of TATA Ace

Goods vehicle bearing No.AP02 TA 3942 tried to escape from the vehicle, immediately all detained them. Further deposed that the S.I. of Police questioned the said two persons why they are tried to escape from there, on interrogation by S.I. of Police, the said two persons disclosed their ID particulars as that of A.1 and A.2, A.1 confessed before S.I. of

Police that he purchased explosive substances from one Murgugan and he, on that day he tried to sell the same for higher price while they reached the above said place the police detained them. Further deposed that the S.I. of Police on verification found that 18 plastic bags weighing 900 Kgs of Nitrate mixture and 500 detonators and also an amount of Rs.10,150/- from the possession of A.1 and asked A.1 to produce any licence or permit but A.1 failed to produce any record in connection with above said property. Further deposed that A.2 confessed that A.1 engaged him to transport the above said property, he agreed the same since there is no any valid permit or licence without having any record the possession of the above property is an offence and explained same to the A.1 and seized the above property along with

TATA Ace bearing No.AP02 TA 3942 in the presence of PW.1 and PW.2 and under the cover of mediators report duly drafted by S.I. of Police.

Further deposed that the S.I. of Police obtained the signatures of A.1 and 9

A.2 and arrested A.1 and A.2 under the cover of same report and brought the case property along with A.1 and A.2 to the Police Station.

He was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused.

14.The Constable by name T. Jaffar Vali who also alleged to have been proceeded along with PW.8 on 23.2.2015 was examined as PW.4.

He deposed that in his chief examination that previously he worked as

Constable, Narpala Police Station from 2009 to 2015. Further deposed that on 23.2.2015 while he was present at Police Station the S.I. of Police received information and immediately the S.I. of Police took himself,

LW.3 Mohammad Rafi, LW.5 Chandra Maheswara Reddy and LW.7

Satheesh Kumar along with PWs.1 to 3 proceeded to Kasinayana

Ashramam, Kasepalli village, there on noticing police officials the driver and other person of TATA Ace goods vehicle bearing No. AP02 TA 3942 tried to escape from the vehicle immediately all detained them. Further deposed that the said S.I. of Police questioned the said two persons why they are tried to escape from there, on interrogation by S.I. of Police the said two persons disclosed their ID particulars as that of A.1 and A.2, A.1 confessed before S.I. of Police that he purchased explosive substances from one Murugan and he on that day he tried to sell the same for higher price while they reached the above said place the police detained them. Further deposed that the S.I. of Police on verification found that 18 plastic bags weighing 900 Kgs of Nitrate mixture and 500 detonators and also an amount of Rs.10,150/- from the possession of A.1 and asked

A.1 to produce any licence or permit but A.1 failed to produce any record in connection with above said property. A.2 confessed that A.1 engaged him to transport the above said property, he agreed the same since there is no any valid permit or licence without having any record, the possession of above property is an offence and explained same to A.1 10 and seized the above property along with TATA Ace bearing No.AP02 TA 3942 in the presence of PW.1 and PW.2 and under the cover of mediators report duly drafted by S.I. of Police. Further deposed that the S.I. of

Police obtained the signatures of A.1 and A.2 and arrested A.1 and A.2 under the cover of same report and brought the case property along with A.1 and A.2 to the Police Station. He was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused.

15.The A.S.I. of Police by name Mahammad Rafi who also proceeded along with PW.8 on 23.2.2015 was examined as PW.5. He deposed in his chief examination that previously he worked as A.S.I. of Police, Narpala

Police Station from 14.9.2014 to 15.10.2015. Further deposed that on 23.2.2015 while he was present at police station, the S.I. of Police received intimation that the explosive substances illegally transported in the vehicle, immediately S.I. of Police, himself and other staff members along with mediators proceeded to the place of incident. While they reached the Narpala to Tadipatri in between Kasepalli village, two persons escaped from an auto by leaving the auto, immediately they caught the said persons. Further deposed that, on interrogation by the

S.I. of Police the said two persons disclosed their identity particulars as that of A.1 and A.2 and they confessed before the S.I. of Police that they brought explosive substances from Tadipatri to Narpala in a auto. On verification they found explosive substances in the auto. Further deposed that the S.I. of Police seized the explosive substances along with auto and also seized cash of Rs.10,150/- from the possession of the accused. The auto bearing No.AP9P 5194. The above property seized under the cover of mediators report, subsequently the S.I. of Police brought the accused and case property to the Police Station. He was cross-examined by the counsel for accused.

11

16.The Police Constable by name K. Chandra Maheswara Reddy who also proceeded along with PW.8 on 23.2.2015 was examined as PW.6. He also deposed in his chief examination that previously he worked as constable in Narpala Police Station from 18th October, 2013 to 13.9.2019.

Further deposed that on 23.2.2015 at about 3.30 pm the S.I. of Police sent one constable to secure the presence of mediators. The said constable brought PW.1 and PW.2 and proceeded to the place of incident while they crossed Kasepalli village near Kasinayana Ashramam by that time they stopped one auto, some persons get down from the auto and on seeing the police, they tried to escape from that place, immediately they caught the said two persons, the S.I. of Police verified the auto and found detonators and calcium substance, the S.I. of Police interrogated those two persons, they disclosed their ID particulars as that of A.1 and

A.2 they confessed before S.I. of Police the A.1 confessed that previously he worked in detonators and he got substances of detonators with an intention to sell the same taking the same while they reached the above said place, the police caught them. Further deposed that, the S.I. of

Police also verified A.1 and A.2 and found Rs.10,150/- from A.1. A.2 confessed that he engaged his auto as A.1 asked him. Further deposed that the S.I. of Police seized calcium nitrate mixture, 18 plastic bags, 500 detonators, 500 Gelatin sticks, amount of Rs.10,150/- and one auto under cover of mediators report duly drafted by S.I. of Police. After completion of all formalities the S.I. of Police brought A.1 and A.2 along with property to the police station. He was cross-examined by the counsel for accused.

17.The other Police Constable by name D. Latheesh Kumar who alleged to have been proceeded along with PW.8 on 23.2.2015 was 12 examined as PW.7. He deposed in his chief examination that, previously he worked as Constable in Narpala Police Station from 12th January, 2012 to August, 2017. Further deposed that on 23.2.2015 at about 3.30 pm the S.I. of Police sent one constable to secure the presence of mediators and said constable brought PW.1 and PW.2 and proceeded to the places of incident while they crossed Kasepalli village near

Kasinayana Ashramam by that time they stopped one auto, some persons get down from the auto and on seeing the police they tried to escape from that place, immediately they caught said two persons, the

S.I. of Police verified the auto and found detonators and calcium substance, the S.I. of police interrogated those two persons, they disclosed their ID particulars as that of A.1 and A.2, they confessed

before S.I. of Police that A.1 previously worked in detonators and he got

substances of detonators with an intention to sell taking the same and while they reached the above said place the police caught them.

Further deposed that, the S.I. of Police also verified A.1 and A.2 and found Rs.10,150/- from A.1. A.2 confessed that he engaged his auto as

A.1 asked him. The S.I. of Police seized calcium nitrate mixture, 18 plastic bags, 500 detonators, 500 Gelatin sticks, amount of Rs.10,150/- and one auto under cover of mediators report duly drafted by S.I. of

Police. After completion of all formalities the S.I. of Police brought A.1 and A.2 along with property to the police station. He was cross- examined by the counsel for accused.

18.The Investigating Officer by name N. Sekhar, was examined as

PW.8. He deposed in his chief examination that on 23.2.2015 at about 4.30 pm while he was present in Police Station, he received a credible information about transporting of explosive materials, immediately he called PW.1 and PW.2 and they proceeded to the place of incident along 13 with his staff near Kasinayana Ashramam, near Kasepalli village which lies on Narpala and Tadipatri Road, there they found a vehicle coming from Dharmavaram to Tadipatri on seeing the police the said driver of the vehicle stopped the vehicle in suspicious circumstances and tried to escape. Further deposed that on suspicion he along with his staff caught the said two persons and interrogated in presence of mediators and seized 18 bags of calcium Nitrate mixture weighing about 900 Kgs.

500 pieces detonators and 500 pieces gelatin sticks and also one TATA

Ace bearing No.AP02 TA 3942 and case an amount of Rs.10,150/- and he arrested A.1 and A.2 and returned to the police station along with property and A.1, and A.2. Further deposed that based on mediators report, he registered a case in Cr.No.18/2015 under section 5 of E.S. Act of Narpala Police Station and issued original FIR to the Court and copies of all concerned officials. Further deposed that on 24.2.2015 he sent A.1 and A.2 to the court seeking remand. Subsequently he handed over further investigation to his successor. Ex.P.1 is F.I.R. He was cross- examined by the counsel for accused.

19.The Inspector of Police who is also investigating officer by name

G. Rajendranath Yadav was examined as PW.9. He deposed in his chief examination that previously he worked as Circle Inspector of Police,

Narpala P.S. from 11.5.2015 to 27.8.2018. On 21.7.2015 he took up further investigation in this case in Cr.No.18/2015 and sent material objects seized by PW.8 to D.S.P., B.D. Team to R.F.S.L., Tirupathi for chemical analysis with letter of advice through the court and he received

R.F.S.L. analysis report from LW.9 K. Rama Devi that the material objects i.e. Ammonium Nitrate and gelatin sticks are high explosives in nature.

Further deposed that on 28.9.2015 he received chemical analysis report from LW.9 K. Ramadevi and after obtaining legal opinion from legal 14 authority, he sent a letter to District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu for prosecution of A.1 and A.2. He made sincere efforts to apprehend the

A.3 but all his efforts made futile. Further deposed that on 05.5.2016 he obtained prosecution orders against A.1 and A.2, District Magistrate,

Ananthapuramu. Then he filed charge sheet before the court by showing absconding A.3, he will file separate charge sheet before the court against A.3. Further deposed that his predecessor filed a requisition before the Court with a request to diffuse explosive substances by the expert, after getting permission from the court, D.S.P.

B.D. Squad team diffused the same under proceedings dated 25.6.2015 vide order Dis.No.884 of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ananthapuramu. Further deposed that along with further investigation he also taken over the cash of Rs.10,150/- seized by S.I. of Police. Ex.P.4 is diffusing proceedings. MO.1 is cash of Rs.10,150/-. Ex.P.5 is R.F.S.L.

Report dated 19.9.2015.

20.While advancing the arguments, the learned counsel for accused vehemently argused that the accused have not committeds any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they were falsely implicated in this case only to dispose off unclaimed property. Further argued that the material witnesses in this case i.e. PWs.1 and 2 turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence it is only based on the evidence of investigating officer, the accused cannot be convicted and requested to acquit the accused by extending benefit of doubt.

21.A perusal of record, the version of prosecution is that in the presence of PWs.1 and 2, PW.8 seized the explosive substances from the possession of accused and arrested the accused under the cover of 15

Mediators Report. To establish the seizure and arrest PWs.1 and 2 are the crucial witnesses to the case. Since PWs.1 and 2 categorically deposed that they went to the Police Station and at the request of Police, they signed on the report and no arrest and no seizure made in their presence. The factum of proving the case only rests on the evidence of

PW.8 who is investigating officer in this case. It is settled principle that the evidence of official witness not admissible in evidence and it is invoked by Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and without corroboration of the evidence of investigating officer with independent witness, it cannot be taken into consideration.

22.Here in this case, except the evidence of investigating officer and the evidence of staff of the investigating office, no other independent witness to establish the case of the prosecution. On perusal of the record, the prosecution also seized the vehicle TATA Ace bearing No.

AP02 TA 3942. It was given to interim custody to A.2 but at the time of trial, the prosecution failed to produce the vehicle before the court by stating that the said vehicle seized by Financiers i.e. Sri Mallikarjuna

Auto Finance. To that effect they also filed a letter from Sri Mallikarjuna

Auto Finance with regard to seizing of vehicle by the finance company.

The said letter is considered. A careful perusal of the entire material available on record, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.9 not corroborated with each other and not coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.5 and the evidence on record falls short to connect the accused for the offence under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act.

23.Finding force in the submission of the learned counsel for the accused, this court is of the considered view that in the case on hand, there is no iota of evidence, even by whisper that it substantiate any 16 charge against the accused persons to hold them guilty for the charge faced against them and as such, the accused deserve to get acquittal.

Absolutely, there is no acceptable evidence pointing out the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, the accused are acquitted for want of cogent evidence as well as on benefit of doubt. In the view of the aforesaid discussion and upon matriculates scrutiny on record, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the charge under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act against the accused

A.1 and A.2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

24.In the result, the accused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and accordingly they are acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. MO.1 i.e. cash of Rs.10,150/- shall be confiscated to the State after appeal time is over. Since the seized property i.e., TATA Ace bearing No. AP02

TA 3942 not produced before this Court at the time of trial, no property order with regard to said vehicle.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 03rd day of February, 2022.

Sd/- V. Venkateswara Rao.

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1 : M. Prabhaklar Reddy, -None- PW.2 : T. Khaja Mohiddin, PW.3 : B. Kumara Swamy (Head Constable), PW.4 : T. Jaffar Vali (Constable), PW.5 : Mahammad Rafi (S.I. of Police), PW.6 : K.Chandra Maheswara Reddy (Constable), 17

PW.7 : D. Latheesh Kumar (Constable), PW.8 : N. Sekhar (S.I. of Police), PW.9 : G. Rajendranath Yadav (Inspector of Police).

Exhibits marked for the prosecution:

Ex.P.1Signature of PW.1 on Arrest and Seizure Mahazarnama

dated 23.02.2015 at 5.00 PM.

Ex.P.2Signature of PW.2 on Arrest and Seizure Mahazarnama

dated 23.02.2015 at 5.00 PM.

Ex.P.3First Information Report in Crime No.18/2015 of Narpala Police Station.

Ex.P.4Diffusing Proceedings vide order 884 dated 25.06.2015 issued by Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu.

Ex.P.5R.F.S.L. Report dated 19.9.2015.

Exhibits marked for the defence:

-Nil-

M.Os. Marked:

MO.1 : Cash of Rs.10,150/-.

Sd/- V. Venkateswara Rao.

A.A.S.J.

18

Tabular form to be annexed to a Judgment as per rule 67 of Cr.P.C.

SESSION CASE No.128 of 2017

1.Name of the complainant andState represented by Sub-Inspector of Crime No. Police, Narpala Police Station. Crime No.18/2015.

2.Name of the accused1)Alakunta Laxminarayana, aged 39 years, S/o Late Gurappa, Shakti Nagar, Narpala village & Mandal.

2)Guvvala Madhu @ Madhusudhan, aged 24 years, S/o G. Peddanna, Patha Rama Swamy Temple Street, Narpala Village & Mandal.

3.Date of Offence23.02.2015

4.Date of complaint23.02.2015

5.Date of apprehension of accused 23.02.2015

6.Date of release on bail13.04.2015

7.Date of committal13.03.2017

8.Date of commencement of trial30.08.2019

9.Date of close of trial17.01.2022

10.Date of sentence of order03.02.2022

Explanation for the delay in Committal Court:

On 04.02.2017 this case was taken on file and numbered as P.R.C.05/2017 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu and posted to 13.03.2017 for appearance, on appearance of accused copies of documents furnished and this case was committed to the court of Sessions Anantapuramu.

Explanation for the delay in trial court:

On 22.03.2017 this case was made over by the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu for disposal according to law. On appearance of accused after framing charges this case was posted for trial. On 30.08.2019 trial was commenced and closed on 17.01.2022 and after completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C as there was incriminating material against him. Heard arguments, Judgment pronounced on 03.02.2022.

In the result, the accused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and accordingly they are acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. MO.1 i.e. cash of Rs.10,150/- shall be confiscated to the State after appeal time is over. Since the seized property i.e., TATA Ace bearing No. AP02 TA 3942 not produced before this Court at the time of trial, no property order with regard to said vehicle.

Sd/- V. Venkateswara Rao.

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. Copy to the SHO., Ananthapuramu III town P.S.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTENT JUDGE,

ANANTAPURMAU.

Present: Sri V. Venkateswara Rao,

Addl. Asst.Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 28th day of January, 2022.

S.C.No.32/2017

1)Name of the Complainant:State represented by S.I. of Police, Rayadurg Police Station.

2)Description of the Accused:Chikkeripalli Golla Earanna, aged 30 years, S/o Golla Earanna @ Karri Eeranna, Chadam Gollaladoddi village, Rayadurg Mandal.

3)Offences:307 IPC.

4)Plea of Accused:Not guilty.

5)Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

6)Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 307 I.P.C. and accordingly he is acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. MOs.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

7)Crime number and Police :Crime No. 137/2016 of Station. Rayadurg Police station.

This case coming on 24.01.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Smt. N. Vimala, advocate for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rayadurg Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.137/2016 for the offence punishable Under section 307 I.P.C.

2

2.The case of prosecution in brief is, LW.1 Golla Pedda Gowni

Sivananda is an auto driver and every day he used to ply his auto in between Chadam Gollaladoddi village and Rayadurg to transport the passengers. LW.1 Sivanananda got acquaintance with one Lakshmi who is the wife of accused and whenever she came across him, he used to talk with her. On that the accused was suspecting that LW.1 Sivananda is having illegal intimacy with his wife and in that matter some altercation took place between LW.1 Sivananda and Accused. While so, on 16.09.2016 in the early hours at about 5.00 am LW.1 Sivananda woke up from the sleep and was proceeding towards Muthappa Thota to attend calls of nature and he noticed that said Lakshmi was coming in opposite to him after attending calls of nature. On that LW.1 Sivananda tried to talk with Lakshmi but she went away calmly. The accused saw the same and picked up altercation with LW.1 Sivananda as to why he is trying to talk with his wife frequently and attacked LW.1 Sivananda with a sickle with intention to kill him. The accused hacked on the left thigh, right thigh above knee portion and right shoulder of LW.1 Sivananda with the said sickle. Due to which Sivananda sustained bleeding injuries and raised cries. Hearing his cries, Lws.2 to 6 Golla Pedda Gowni Eswarappa,

Golla Pedda Gowni Veereshappa, Peddagoni Bagurappa, Nagasamudram

Veeresh and Golla Parupathi Thammanna arrived to the spot and on seeing them, the accused ran away from the spot. Later, LW.2

Eswarappa and LW.3 Veereshappa shifted Sivananda to the Government

Hospital, Rayadurg treatment.

On 16.09.2016 at about 6.00 AM LW.10 B. Mahanandi, S.I. of Police received the medical admit intimation and statement of LW.1 Sivananda, and he registered the same as a case in Crime No.137/2016 u/sec.307

IPC and submitted FIR copies to all concerned and took up investigation 3 into the case, then visited the Government Hospital, Rayadurg and secured the presence of LWs.1 to 4, examined and recorded their statements. Thereafter LW.10 Manandi proceeded to the Golalladoddi village secured the presence of LWs.5 and 6 and examined them and recorded their statements later inspected the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 23.09.2016 LW.10

Mahanandi on credible information about the accused, immediately he secured the presence of two mediators and proceeded near to Viprakallu

Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy temple arch, Bellary Road, Rayadurg Town there found the accused while trying to skulk away on seeking the police and then LW.10 and his staff surrounded and caught the accused and on enquiry the accused confessed the commission of offencce and further stated that he would show the place where he has thrown the sickle on that LW.10 arrested the accused under cover of mahazarnama in the presence of mediators and on the basis of confession of accused he proceeded to small canal situated at Chadam Gollaladoddi village along with mediators and at that place the accused got down from the jeep and went into the bushes and brought one sickle and produced

before him. Then LW.10 seized the sickle under cover of

mahazarnamama, later sent the accused to the Court for remand. LW.9

Dr. Mansoor Ali Khan, Assistant Civil Surgeon who examined the injured issued wound certificate. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed. Hence, the charge.

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

Class, Ananthapuramu has taken the case on file for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC against the accused and numbered the same as PRC No.26/2016.

4 4. When the accused appeared before the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Ananthapuram, copies of the documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Court of Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu following the proviso, as contemplated under section 209 of Cr.P.C. Then the Hon'ble Court of

Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu numbered the P.R.C 26/2016 as

Sessions Case No.32/2017 and made over the same to this Court, for

trial.

5.On appearance of accused before this Court, he was examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C., and charge under section 307 of IPC has been framed, read over the same in Telugu to the accused for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.8 and MOs.1 to 3.

7.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he denied the same. However, he reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments.

9.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution would able to bring home

the guilt of accused for the offence punishable

u/sec.307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

5

Point:

10.The version of the prosecution is that, the defacto complainant is permanent resident of Chadam Gollaladoddi village of Rayadurg Mandal, he is eking livelihood by running auto. The accused also belongs to same village. The defacto complainant got acquaintance with the wife of accused by name Lakshmi as she also belongs to the same village and he used to talk with her whenever she coming across on the way.

Due to that some disputes arose between PW.1 and Accused. As matter stood thus, on 16.09.2016 at about 5.00 am PW.1 after woke up went to attend nature calls near Muthappagari garden by that time the wife of accused also came to attend nature calls, while she came across to the

PW.1, he tried to talk with her but she left the place. Immediately the accused came upon PW.1 by holding MO.3 and hacked PW.1 on his left thigh and above right knee and immediately PW.1 cried loudly. In the meantime the brother and father of PW.1 and some others came there and on seeing those persons, the accused left the place. Immediately

PW.1 was shifted to Government Hospital for treatment. There the police recorded his statement of PW.1. The defence of accused is totally denial of the offence.

11.To establish the case of the prosecution, the defacto complainant- cum-injured G..P. Sivananda is examined as PW.1. He stated in his chief examination that he knows the accused who belongs to his village and himself and accused belongs to same caste. He used to run passenger auto from Chadam Golladoddi to Rayadurgam every day. He got acquaintance with wife of Veeranna who belongs to his village. He used to talk with her whenever she came across while he was running his auto in the route. Due to that the accused developed suspicion on him and also a small dispute arose between himself and the accused. Further 6 deposed on 16.09.2016 at about 5.00 AM immediately after he woke up he attended calls of nature towards garden at his house by that time the wife of Veeranna came across and he talked with her and also she left the place. Further deposed that, after completion of nature calls, he supposed to return home, while he reached to near neeti thotti near current pole at Muthappa thota. In the mean time the accused came there and quarreled with him by saying that he developed illicit intimacy with his wife and hacked him with a sickle on his right leg above knee, left thigh and right shoulder. Further deposed that Immediately he fell down and cried, then Thammanna, Veeresh came there, after seeing said persons, the accused left the place. Veeresh went to his house and informed the same to his father, his father, junior paternal uncle and his brother came to him and shifted him to the hospital, Rayadurgam in an auto. Further deposed that after half an hour, the S.I. of Police,

Rayadurgam came to the hospital and examined him and recorded his statement. He also handed over his blood stained clothes to the S.I. of

Police. Ex.P.1 is the statement recorded by police. MO.1 is light rose colour polyester full shirt stained with blood. MO.2 is light rose, light green, blue colour cotton lungi. MO.3 is wooden grip sickle. Police examined him. He was cross-examined by the counsel for accused.

12.The elder brother of PW.1 by name Golla Peddagouni Eswarappa is examined as PW.2. He stated in his chief examination that, he knows the accused who belongs to his village and also belongs to his caste. On 12.9.2016 at about 5.00 AM PW.1 went to attend calls of nature. LW.5

Veeresh came to their house and informed them that the accused hacked PW.1 at Muthappa neeti kunta. Immediately himself, LW.3

Veereshappa, LW.4 Bagurappa and some others went to the place of incident. They found that his brother PW.1 sustained bleeding injuries 7 lying on the ground with injuries. They found one injury on the right knee, one injury on the left thigh and right shoulder. Further deposed that Immediately they shifted injured to the Government Hospital in an auto. The police examined him at the hospital. The reason for hacking by accused that under the impression that his brother developed illicit intimacy with the wife of accused on that the accused hacked his brother. Police examined him. He was examined by the counsel for accused.

13.One Golla Parupathi Thimmappa who is alleged to have been eye witness to the occurrence was examined as PW.3. He stated in his chief examination that he knows PWs.1 and 2. He knows LW.3 to LW.5. He knows the accused. He does not know anything with regard to the case.

Since his version is contrary to his 161 Cr.P.C. statement, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor sought permission to declare him as hostile.

After getting permission, PW.3 was cross-examined by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor.

14.One Nagasamudram Veeresh who also alleged to have been eye witness to the occurrence was examined as PW.4. He also turned hostile.

His version is not supported the case of prosecution.

15.One of the mediators to Mahazarnama and Seizure Report by name Mohd. Imran is examined as PW.5. He deposed in his chief examination that he is working as V.R.O., Peddapappur. Previously he worked as V.R.O. in Chadam and Bondanakallu villages from 15.05.2012 to May, 2019. Further deposed that he knows LW.8 Abdul Rahiman as well as accused. On 23.09.2016 while he was present at his office at

Rayadurgam the M.R.O. instructed him over telephone that he has to act 8 as mediator in a police case pertaining to Rayadurgam police station and accordingly he proceeded to the police station, Rayadurgam at about 3 or 3.30 PM. From the police station, himself, LW.8 Abdul Rahiman, S.I. of

Police along with his staff proceeded Mallapuram Road, Lakshmi

Narasimha Swamy temple arch. By the time of their arrival to the above place, one person moving in a suspicious circumstances on seeing

Police. Further deposed that on that the S.I. of police caught the said person and questioned why he is moving in a suspicious manner. On that the said person disclosed his identity particulars as that of accused.

On further questioning the accused disclosed that one Sivananda belongs to his village, auto driver who belongs his village developed illicit intimacy with his wife and also continued since long time even he admonished them they are not stopping relationship thereby unable tolerating the same on 16.09.2016 at morning hours he attacked

Sivananda at Muthappa thota with a sickle and further he came to know that the said Sivananda is alive so that he with an intention to meet lawyer he came to the place in the meantime the police party came and caught him. Immediately the police arrested the accused under the cover of Mahazarnama duly drafted by one constable. Himself and LW.8

Abdul Rahiman signed on the report. Further deposed that, the accused also disclosed the place where he thrown out the crime weapon into canal by side of garden of Golla Veeranna. On the same day they all proceeded to above place and the police seized the crime weapon i.e.

sickle under the cover of seizure report duly drafted by police constable and himself and LW.8 signed on the report. After completion of the formalities the police taken away the accused along with seized property to the police station. Ex.P.4 is Mahazarnama dated 23.06.2016 at about 4.00 PM and Ex.P.5 is seizure report dated 23.09.2016 at 6.00 PM. He was cross-examined by the counsel for the caused.

9

16.The doctor who treated PW.1 by name P. Mansoor Ali Khan was examined as PW.6. He deposed in his chief examination that presently he is working as C.A.S., PHC, Nagalapuramu. Previously he worked as

C.A.S., CHC, Rayadurgam from August, 2013 to January, 2019. On 16.09.2016 at 5.50 AM he examined a patient by name Sivananda, S/o

Veerabhadrappa aged about 22 years of Chadam Gollaladoddi village,

Rayadurg Mandal and found following injuries: ()1) A lacerated wound with clearcut margins of size about 10x 4 cms muscled over the upper 1/3rd lateral aspect of the left thigh; (2) A lacerated wound of size about 5 x 2 cms., muscled over the right thigh above knee joint in margina sharp; (3) A lacerated wound of size about 3 x ½ cms muscled over right arm, the margins are sharp. PW.6 further deposed that he opined that all the above injuries are simple in nature. The age of injuries about 1 or 2 hours prior to his examination might be caused by sharp edged weapon. To that effect he issued Ex.P.6 wound certificate. He was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused.

17.The investigating officer B. Mahanandi examined as PW.7 he deposed in his chief examination that presently he is working as S.I. of

Police, Ananthapuramu Rural P.S. Previously he worked as S.I. of Police at Rayadurgam from 2015 to 2017. On 16.09.2016 at about 6.00 am while he was present at Police Station he has received intimation from the Hospital, Rayadurgam. Immediately he proceeded to the

Government Hospital, Rayadurgam and found PW.1 in the hospital undergoing treatment. Further deposed that, he recorded the statement of PW.1 and returned to the Police Station and registered the same as case in Crime No.137/2016 u/sec.307 IPC of Rayadurgam P.S. and issued 10 original FIR to the JFCM Court, Rayadurgam and copies to all concerned officials. On the same day he again visited the hospital, Rayadurgam, examined PW.1 and recorded his statement and also examined PW.2,

LW.3 Golla Pedda Gouni Veeresappa and recorded their statements and also examined LW.4 P. Baburappa at Hospital and also recorded his statement. He seized blood stained clothes of PW.1 at Hospital. On the same day he proceeded to the Chadam Gollaladoddi village and secured the presence of PWs.3 and 4 and examined them and recorded their statements. He also prepared rough sketch of place of incident. Further deposed that, on 23.09.2016 he arrested the accused at Upparapalli

Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy Arch under the cover of Ex.P.4 in the presence of PW.5 and LW.8 Abdul Rahiman. On the same day based on the confessional statement of the accused, he along with the mediators proceeded to the Chadam Gollaladoddi village near Karri Veeranna garden by the side of Water tank there the accused picked up crime weapon and handed over to him thereby he seized the crime weapon under the cover of Ex.P.5. Immediately they returned to the police station along with MO.3 and accused and after observation of due formalities, on the next day he produced the accused before the Court seeking judicial custody. After obtaining wound certificate of PW.1 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Ex.P.7 is F.I.R.,

Ex.P.8 is rough sketch. He was cross-examined by the counsel for accused.

18.While advancing the arguments the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The accused was falsely implicated in the case as some disputes crept between PW.1 and the accused. PW.1 with an intention to send the accused to jail, he foisted 11 this false case against him. She further pointed out that as per version of the prosecution the alleged offence took place on 16.09.2016 whereas the brother of PW.1 who examined as PW.2 stated in his evidence that the offence took place on 12.09.2016. So, the version of PW.2 is the material contradiction of the case of prosecution and would shake the entire case of the prosecution. She further pointed out that PW.1 in his report stated that immediately after the incident, the father and brother of PW.1 came to the spot and on seeing them the accused left the place.

Whereas in the evidence PW.1 categorically stated that Thammanna,

Veeresh came there and after seeing said persons the accused left the place and Veeresh went to his house and informed the same to his father and father of PW.1 came to the spot and shifted him to the hospital. It is also material contradictions to the case of the prosecution. Further pointed out that the motive of the offence is not established by the prosecution and the wife of the accused is the key witness to the offence but the prosecution has failed to examine the wife of accused in this case which is also fatal to the case of the prosecution and requested the

Court to acquit the accused by extending the benefit of doubt.

19.As seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, admittedly the alleged offence took place on 16.09.2016 whereas PW.2 categorically stated in his evidence that the offence took place on 12.09.2016 which is major material contradiction to the case of the prosecution. So also PWs.3 and 4 are the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence but they turned hostile and their version is not supported to the case of the prosecution. Even the brother of PW.1 who examined as

PW.2, since he is the brother of PW.1, it can be termed as interested witness and his evidence would not be much weight in the eye of law.

12

20.Admittedly, the prosecution failed to examine the wife of accused to establish the motive of the offence. Moreover, the prosecution seized the blood stained clothes from PW.1 but failed to send them for scientific expert to detect it whether the blood on the clothes is of human being or not. Moreover, PW.1 in Ex.P.1 Report stated that he received two injuries only. Whereas according to Doctor, he traced out other injury also i.e. lacerated wound of size about 3 x ½ cm muscled over right arm, the margins are sharp. This injury is not disclosed by PW.1 in the report at earlier point of time. It also amounts to omission which is fatal to the case of prosecution. Even the prosecution has examined the mediator of

Exs.P.4 and P.5 and the doctor and investigation officer since failed to establish the incident and motive of offence the evidence of these witnesses not much give any evidentiary value to the case of the prosecution.

21.Counsel for the accused argued that based on the sole testimony of PW.1 without corroboration accused cannot be convicted. To support her version, she cited a decision between Shree Rai Vs. State of Bihar decided on 18.2.2005 by Hon’ble Patna High Court, His Lordship held that - “Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 and Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act – Appellant with co­accused was stated to have thrown bomb upon informant PW.4 which exploded and informant received multiple injuries – Appeal against conviction – Case was based on sole testimony of injured as other witnesses reached spot after hearing sound of explosion – Material contradiction and inherent infirmities in his evidence – Incident took place in dense foggy night and no evidence how injured could identify accused from a distance of 20 steps where bomb was thrown – Accused appeared to have been named only on suspicion – No evidence to prove motive of previous enmity – If prosecution alleged the motive but failed to prove same it cast doubt on complicity of accused – Conviction liable to the set aside.” 13

The facts and circumstances of the cited decision and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are similar, one and the same and directly applicable to the present case. A careful perusal of the entire material on record and with careful scrutiny of the entire evidence, the evidence of PW.1 to P.7 not corroborated with each other and the evidence not coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.8. Hence, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

22.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 307 I.P.C. and accordingly he is acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. MOs.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of January, 2022.

Sd/- V. Venkateswara Rao.

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1 : Golla Peddagouni Sivananda, -None- PW.2 : Golla Peddagouni Eswarappa, PW.3 : Golla Parupathi Thimmappa, PW.4 : Nagasamudram Veeresh, PW.5 : Mohd. Imran, PW.6 : Dr. P. Mansoor Ali Khan,(Medical Officer). PW.7 : B. Mahanandi (S.I. of Police) 14

Exhibits marked for the prosecution:

Ex.P.1Statement of PW.1 recorded by the Police.

Ex.P.2161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.

Ex.P.3161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4.

Ex.P.4Mahazarnama dated 23.09.2016 at about 4.00 PM .

Ex.P.5Seizure Report dated 23.09.2016 at 6.00 PM.

Ex.P.6Wound certificate of PW.1 issued by PW.6.

Ex.P.7First Information Report in Crime No.137/2016 of Rayadurg Police Station.

Ex.P.8Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Exhibits marked for the defence:

-Nil-

M.Os. Marked:

MO.1 : Light rose colour polyester full shirt stained with blood.

MO.2 : Light rose, light green, blue colour cotton lungi.

MO.3 : Wooden grip sickle.

Sd/- V. Venkateswara Rao

A.A.S.J.

15

Tabular form to be annexed to a Judgment as per rule 67 of Cr.P.C.

SESSION CASE No.32 of 2017

1.Name of the complainant andState represented by Sub-Inspector of Crime No. Police, Rayadurg Police Station. Crime No.137/2016

2.Name of the accusedChikkeripalli Golla Earanna, aged 30 years, S/o Golla Earanna @ Karri Eeranna, Chadam Gollaladoddi Village, Rayadurg Mandal.

3.Date of Offence16.09.2016

4.Date of complaint16.09.2016

5.Date of apprehension of accused23.09.2016

6.Date of release on bail24.10.2016

7.Date of committal19.01.2017

8.Date of commencement of trial23.12.2019

9.Date of close of trial12.01.2022

10.Date of sentence of order28.01.2022

Explanation for the delay in Committal Court:

On 28.12.2016 this case was taken on file and numbered as P.R.C.26/2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg and posted to 10.01.2017 for appearance, on appearance of accused copies of documents furnished and this case was committed to the court of Sessions Anantapur.

Explanation for the delay in trial court:

On 30.01.2017 this case was made over by the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu for disposal according to law. On appearance of accused after framing charges this case was posted for trial. On 23.12.2019 trial was commenced and closed on 12.01.2022 and after completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C as there was incriminating material against him. Heard arguments, Judgment pronounced on 28.01.2022. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 307 I.P.C. and accordingly he is acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. MOs.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- V. Venkateswara Rao.

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. Copy to the SHO., Ananthapuramu III town P.S.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANANTAPURAMU

Present:- Sri V.Venkateswara Rao,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu

Monday, the 31st day of January, 2022.

Original Suit No.578/2016

Between:

G. Radhamma.… Plaintiff.

And

R. Venkata Naidu (died) by his L.Rs.

1) K.Saraswathi,

2) K.Tejaswini. … Defendants.

This suit is coming on 24.01.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M. Ramu, Advocate for Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 is remained exparte, 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 suit for passing decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for an amount of Rs.4,62,000/- against the estate of deceased R. Venkata Naidu, which is in the hands of the defendants and for costs.

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

One R. Venkata Naidu during his life time, he worked as A.R. Head

Constable in Police Department, Anantapuramu under the control of

Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu. During his life time he approached the plaintiff at Anantapuramu and borrowed a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- on 05.08.2014 in cash for his family necessities and on the same i.e. on 05.8.2014 the said R. Venkata Naidu has executed a 2 demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff on the said R.Venkata Naidu, he has not paid any amount either towards principal or interest due under the said promissory note.

Further contention is, the said R. Venkata Naidu died recently leaving behind him the defendants 1 and 2 as his sole legal heirs and they succeeded the entire estate of the deceased R. Venkata Naidu being the L.Rs. and hence they are having pious obligations to discharge the debt contacted by the said deceased R. Venkata Naidu. Immediately the plaintiff informed the same to the defendants and demanded them to discharge the debt contacted by deceased R. Venkata Naidu and also held panchayats in the presence of elders but they put all the demands and panchayats in deaf ear. Hence, the plaintiff has no other option except to approach the Court for recovery of the amount due under the above said promissory note. The deceased R.Venkata Naidu worked as

Head Constable in A.R. Police Department and hence the defendants are not entitled any reliefs under Debt Relief Laws and they have to pay the amount due under said promissory note with interest at contract rate. Hence, the suit.

3.The Defendant No.2 is remained exparte. The 1st defendant resisted all the plaint averments by filing written statement. Her specific contention is, R. Venkata Naidu has no need and necessity to borrow the amount from the plaintiff. The alleged suit pronote is created one and the signatures on suit promissory note does not belongs to the R.

Venkata Naidu. Further contention is, after the death of R.Venkata

Naidu, the suit pronote was created and filed only to get unlawful gain 3 from the defendants. The cause of action mentioned in the plaint is not correct and invented for the purpose of filing unjust suit. Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Based on the above pleadings, the following Issues are settled for trial :

1)Whether the plaintiff lent an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- to R. Venkata Naidu, who is

husband of D.1 and father of D.2 on

05.05.2014?

2)Whether the suit promissory note

dt.05.08.2014 is true, valid and binding of the

defendants?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery

the suit amount from the defendants as

prayed?

4)To what relief?

5. On behalf of the Plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 is marked. The defendant No.1 herself examined as DW.1 no documents are marked.

6. Heard the learned counsels on both sides.

Issues No.1 to 3 :

Issues No.1 to 3 taken up together as the discussion and outcome of those issues are most probably one and the same, to avoid repetition of these issues answered at once.

1)Whether the plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to R. Venkata Naidu, who is husband of D.1 and father of D.2 on 05.05.2014?

2)Whether the suit promissory note dt.05.08.2014 is true, valid and binding of the defendants?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery the suit amount from the defendants as prayed?

4 7. The version of the plaintiff is that, the deceased R. Venkata Naidu who was working as A.R. Head Constable in Police Department during his life time borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 05.08.2014 agreeing to repay the debt with interest at the rate of 24% per annum payable on demand to the plaintiff and also executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the deceased R. Venkata Naidu did not pay any amount towards promissory note. Recently the said

R.Venkata Naidu died leaving behind the defendants and the assets of the deceased R.Venkata Naidu are lying in the hands of the defendants being legal representatives. The plaintiff also demanded the defendants for repayment of the amount under Ex.A.1 promissory note and the defendants did not pay anything either towards interest or towards principal of the promissory note.

8.On the other hand, the 2nd defendant is remained exparte and the defence of the 1st defendant in the written statement is that the deceased R. Venkata Naidu has no need and necessity to borrow the amount from the plaintiff and the alleged suit pronote is created one.

Further contention is that the signatures on the suit promissory note does not belongs to the R.Venkata Naidu and after the death of

R.Venkata Naidu, the suit pronote was created and filed only to get unlawful gain from the defendants. Further contention is, the cause of action mentioned in the plaint is not correct and invented for the purpose of filing the unjust suit.

9.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and she reiterated the contents of the plaint in her 5 chief examination. She was cross-examined by the counsel for the defendant No.1. In the cross, she categorically stated that she studied upto 9th class. She knows deceased, 1st defendant since 10 to 12 years.

She knows the family particulars of deceased 1st defendant. Wife’s name is Saraswathi and children names are Tejaswini and she has no idea of the name of other daughter. The witness says that she has not got issued any legal notice to the deceased, 1st defendant during his life time so also she has not got issed legal notice to the L.Rs. of deceased after his death. Further deposed that it is true she did not add one of the L.Rs. of the deceased 1st defendant in the suit. Further deposed that

Ex.A.1 is executed at her house, near TV Tower, Ananthapuramu at about 5.00 PM. Further deposed that at the time of execution, herself, deceased 1st defendant, attestors and scribe present. Further deposed that prior to Ex.A.1 also there were financial transactions between herself and deceased defendant. PW.1 further deposed that it is true the writing under Ex.A.1 and plaintiff columns and defendant columns are different. She is cultivating lands and she got land an extent of Ac.42.00.

A suggestion posed to her that the deceased 1st defendant never borrowed any amount from her and she is deposing false which is denied. PW.1 further deposed that the deceased 1st defendant brought revenue stamps and promissory note on that day and she cannot say the deceased defendant signed how many signatures on the promissory note. Two revenue stamps affixed on the promissory note.

10.To support the version of the plaintiff, she also got examined the attestor of Ex.A.1 by name Mangala Sreenivasulu as PW.2. He deposed in his chief examination that he knows the plaintiff, deceased borrower and defendants and also the suit transaction and he is one of the 6 attestors of the suit pronote. He further deposed that the original borrower by name R. Venkata Naidu approached him and requested to accompany with him to the house of the plaintiff and one S. Kristappa also came to the house of the plaintiff on 05.8.2014 and in his presence said R. Venkata Naidu borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff and after receiving said amount, R. Venkata Naidu has executed the suit promissory note and signed on the revenue stamp, beneath the stamp and he also signed as scribe in the promissory note. Further deposed that, one S. Kristappa signed as 1st attestor and he signed as 2nd attestor in the suit promissory note and the entire transaction placed

before him and it is a genuine transaction. PW.2 was cross-examined by

the counsel for the defendant No.1. In the cross, he categorically stated that he is working as Reserve constable and he got acquaintance with the plaintiff. Further deposed that Venkata Naidu is no more, he is also worked in their department and he died one year back. PW.2 further deposed that he is the mediator for the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant. Further deposed, the deceased Venkata Naidu brought promissory note and revenue stamps and he knows the signature of deceased Venkata Naidu. Further deposed that he does not know whether any transaction between plaintiff and deceased Venkata Naidu prior to this transaction. A suggestion put him that himself and plaintiff colluded each other and forged the signature of deceased Venkata Naidu on the promissory note and filed in the Court to gain unlawfully. Further suggested that, only to support the plaintiff he came to the court and giving evidence.

11.In support of her case the 1st defendant herself examined as DW.1 and she reiterated the contents of the written statement in her chief 7 examination. She was cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants. In the cross, she categorically stated that her husband died while he was working as V.R. Constable. She deposed that she does not know the details of friends of her husband and there is no habit to her husband to share the issues which happened outside with her. Further deposed that her husband used to provide all the house hold necessities during his life time and she never questioned her husband as to how he acquired the money. Further deposed that she does not know whether her husband borrowed amount on 05.8.2014 for their family necessities.

She further deposed that she did not file any other document in the

Court containing signature of her husband. A suggestion put her that her husband also borrowed amount from others apart from plaintiff and she intentionally deposing false evidence only to avoid the suit amount.

She further deposed that she does not know who wrote Ex.A.1 and the signature of Ex.A.1 not belongs to her husband. She denied the suggestion that her husband scribed Ex.A.1 with his own hand writing and the signature on the document belongs to her husband.

12.The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of suit amount on the strength of Ex.A.1 promissory note. Whereas, the defendants denied the execution of promissory note and passing of consideration. Thereby the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to establish the execution of promissory by the deceased R.Venkata Naidu and consideration there- under. To establish his case, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and categorically deposed that on 05.8.2014 the deceased R. Venkata Naidu borrowed the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under Ex.A.1 and he executed

Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. So also the attestor of the promissory note by name Mangala Sreenivasulu examined as PW.2, 8 he also categorically deposed that the deceased R. Venkata Naikdu borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 05.08.2014 and he executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Both PWs.1 and 2 cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants in length. But no favourable point elicited from the cross of PWs.1 and 2 in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff by examining herself as PW.1 got examined the attestor of promissory note as PW.2 and by got marking the original promissory note as Ex.A.1. She established that the deceased R.

Venkatya Naidu borrowed amount from the plaintiff on 05.08.2014 under

Ex.A.1. So also the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A.1. By establishing the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note and consideration there-under, the plaintiff successfully discharged her burden.

13.Now the burden shifts on the defendants to rebut the case of the plaintiff. Admittedly the Defendant No.2 is remained Exparte. As per the version of the defendant No.1 who is wife of deceased R. Venkata

Naidu in her written statement that the deceased R. Venkata Naidu has no need and necessity to borrow the amount from the plaintiff and the alleged suit pronote is created one. She further contended that the signatures on suit promissory note does not belongs to the R.Venkata

Naidu and after the death of R. Venkata Naidu the suit pronote was created and filed only to get unlawful gain from the defendants. In support her version, the defendant NO.1 herself examined as DW.1 and she was cross-examined by the counsel for plaintiff. In the cross examination DW.1 deposed that she did not file any document in the court containing the signature of her husband. Mere contending that the suit promissory note is created by the plaintiff and the signatures writings on the Ex.A.1 are not that of her husband i.e. deceased 9

R.Venkata Naidu, she did not take any steps to send the signature signatures of the deceased R.Venkata Naidu to the Expert for comparison and opinion. In the said circumstances, the contention of the defendants cannot be taken into consideration.

14.In view of the above factual circumstances and discussion supra, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A.1 and the plaintiff successfully established the execution of promissory and consideration there under. Accordingly, the Issues No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

15. Issue No.4 : - To what relief ?

In the result, the Suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.4,62,000/- against the estate of the deceased R. Venkata Naidu lying in the hands of the defendants together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. No personal decree against defendants is passed.

Typed by the Stenographer to my direct dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court this the 31st day of January, 2022.

Sd/- V. Venkateswara Rao.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiffs: Defendant:

PW 1 : G. Radhamma, DW.1 K. Saraswathi. PW.2 : Mangala Sreenivasulu.

10

Exhibits marked for Plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1Suit promissory note dated 05.08.2014 executed by deceased R. Venkata Naidu in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000//-.

Exhibits marked for defendants:

-Nil-

Sd/- V. Venkateswara Rao.

A.S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANANTAPURAMU

Present:- Sri V.Venkateswara Rao,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu

Wednesday, the 13th day of April, 2022.

Original Suit No.450/2016

Between:

Kuchi Sivasankar Naidu.… Plaintiff.

And

K. Chennakesavulu.… Defendant.

This suit is coming on 07.04.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y. Lepakshi Naidu, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P. Ravichandra, Advocate for Defendant and after hearing both sides, upon perusal of record 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 suit for passing decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.4,36,000/- being the principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated 5.9.2011 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/- each agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and for future interest and costs of the suit.

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

The defendant herein borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 05.09.2011 in cash from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with an interest at 24% p.a. and executed A and B marked Promissory notes each for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff on the same day.

The defendant borrowed said amount for his family necessities. On demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant made a payment of 2

Rs.1,000/- each towards A and B marked promissory notes on 04.09.2014 and made endorsements on the back of A and B marked promissory notes. Except the said payment, the defendant has not paid any thing either towards the principal or interest. A registered notice also issued to the defendant demanding him to pay the amount on 18.07.2016, though the defendant received the said notice he has not paid anything either towards the principal or interest. In spite of demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid anything either towards the principal or interest towards the promissory notes.

Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit. The defendant is not entitled for any agricultural debt relief Act as he is Government employee.

3.The defendant resisted all the plaint averments by filing written statement. The specific contention is, he has no need or necessity to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount to anybody. In fact the plaintiff and the defendant both are working as Teachers and they are having very good acquaintance with each other. As there are ill feelings between them, the plaintiff got created the suit promissory notes according to his convenience by forging the signature of the defendant. The attestors of the suit A and B marked promissory notes are not known to the defendant, as they are very close associates of plaintiff. In order to harass the defendant and to cause him financial loss due to ill feelings, the plaintiff created the suit documents. There is no cash consideration in the said transaction and the created and got up documents are not admissible in evidence.

Further contention is. The payment of Rs.1,000/- on each promissory note dated 04.09.2014 is also created only for the purpose of 3 limitation. When the defendant has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, the question of paying Rs.1,000/- does not arise. The service of notice on the defendant is a blatant lie and he managed the Postal department and got the endorsement of service of notice only to strengthen his false claim. Further contention is, the entire columns are filled up in the alleged A and B promissory notes at the time of filing of the above suit and the said alleged promissory notes are clearly showing that the documents are forged and fabricated. The defendant is a

Government employee and drawing handsome salary and hence he has no need or necessity to him to borrow such huge amount from anybody much less the plaintiff. Hence, plaint is not maintainable. The defendant further contended that there is no cause of action for the alleged which is invented one by the plaintiff for his wrongful gain and the got up documents are not admissible in evidence. The calculations made in the suit claim is totally false and thus the court fee paid is also wrong. In any manner the present suit is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.Based on the above pleadings, the following Issues are settled for trial :

1)Whether the suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2)Whether the payments are fabricated and

created by the plaintiff as prayed by the

defendant?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery

the suit amount from the defendant as

prayed?

4)To what relief?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. The attestor of promissory notes by 4 name P. Narayanappa is examined as PW.2. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf f the defendant.

6. Heard the learned counsels on both sides.

Issues No.1 to 3:

1)Whether the suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2)Whether the payments are fabricated and created by the plaintiff as prayed by the defendant?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery the suit amount from the defendant as prayed?

7.The version of the plaintiff is that on 05.09.2011 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under Exs.A.1 and A.3 agreeing to repay the debt with interest at the rate of 24% per annum payable on demand either to the plaintiff or his order. Subsequently on repeated demands, the defendant made part payment of Rs.1,000/- 4.9.2014 and made part payment endorsements on the back of Exs.A.1 and A.3.

Subsequently in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any amount.

8.On the other hand, the contention of the defendant in the written statement is that, he has no need nor necessity to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount to anybody. Further contention is that, in fact the plaintiff and the defendant are working as Teachers and they are having very good acquaintance with each other. Further contention is that, as there are ill feelings between them, the plaintiff got created the suit promissory notes according to his convenience by forging the signature of the defendant. Further contention is that the attestor of the suit promissory notes are close associates of plaintiff. Further contention is that, the payment of Rs.1,000/- on each promissory note dated 5 04.09.2014 is also created only for the purpose of saving limitation.

Further contention is that, the entire columns of the promissory notes are filled up at the time of filing of the above suit and the said alleged promissory notes are clearly showing that the documents are forged and fabricated.

9.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1, reiterated the averments of the plaint in his chief examination. He was cross-examined by the counsel for the defendant.

In the cross, he categorically deposed that the defendant is a school teacher and he got acquaintance with him since long time. Further deposed that the defendant borrowed amount from him is Rs.2,00,000/-.

Further deposed that he borrowed the amount for the purpose of purchasing land. Further deposed that the defendant executed two promissory notes. Both the promissory notes executed on the same day.

Further deposed that the transaction taken place in the evening hours and he cannot say exact time. Further deposed that the defendant prepared Exs.A.1 and A.3 on his own hand writing. Further deposed that at the time of transaction himself and defendant and some other person by name Narayanappa were present. Further deposed that the plaintiff prepared the promissory notes with his own handwriting. Further deposed that the defendant put two signatures on the promissory notes one is on the revenue stamp and other one is beneath the stamp on two promissory notes. Further deposed that he lent the amount to the defendant by way of cash. The denomination is Rs.100/- notes.

Further deposed that, at the time of Exs.A.2 and A.4 himself and defendant only present. A suggestion was posed to him that only to save the limitation he created Exs.A.2 and A.4 and the signatures under

Exs.A.2 and A.4 not belongs to defendant, the same is denied by him.

6

10.To strengthen the case of the plaintiff, he got examined the attestor of Exs.A.1 and A.3 by name P. Narayanappa as PW.2. He deposed in his chief examination that he knows the plaintiff and defendant. He knows the defendant herein borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff on 05.9.2011 and agreed to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. Further deposed that the defendant signed on the promissory notes after receiving cash of Rs.2,00,000/- in his presence. He was cross-examined by the counsel for defendant. In the cross, he categorically stated that he knows the defendant who is a school teacher. He does not know the residence particulars of defendant. Further deposed that Ex.A.1 promissory executed at the house of Plaintiff. Further deposed that the defendant executed two promissory notes each for one Laksh. Further deposed that at the time of execution of promissory notes, himself, plaintiff and defendant were present. Further deposed that the plaintiff handed over the amount to the defendant after preparation of promissory notes. Further deposed that, the denomination under promissory notes is Rs.100/- notes.

11.Since the defendant denied the execution of the promissory notes and consideration thereon, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to establish his case. To prove the case, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW.1. Even the defendant cross-examined the plaintiff in length, no single favourable point is elicited in favour of the defendant. Moreover, the counsel for the suggested PW.1 only to save the limitation period

Exs.A.2 and A.4 were created. The intention of the counsel for the defendant behind the suggestion leads that he admitted the execution of

Exs.A.1 and A.3.

7

12.Even there is a denial of Exs.A.2 and A.4, through the cross- examination of PW.1, the defendant has not taken any steps to send the document to the expert for his opinion to prove the signatures of the on

Exs.A.2 and A.4 are not belongs to him. To support the version of plaintiff, he also got examined the attestor of the Exs.A.1 and A.3 promissory notes. PW.2 categorically deposed that the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff under Exs.A.1 and

A.3. Even he was cross-examined by the counsel for the defendant no single favourable point is elicited in favour of the defendant through his cross-examination. The plaintiff by examining himself as PW.1 and got examined the attestor of promissory notes as PW.2 and by got marking

Exs.A.1 to A.6, clearly established that the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff under Exs.A.1 and A.3.

13.Since the plaintiff has successfully discharged his burden, now the turn goes to the defendant to establish his case. The version of the defendant is that, he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and never made any part payment endorsements on the back of the promissory notes at any point of time. Even the defendant took such a defence, in spite of giving opportunity, he failed to adduce any oral as well as documentary evidence to establish his defence. It is settled principle that making the statement by the party without any proof of evidence not carrying any legal sanctity and such statements remains unproved.

Moreover, it is also settled principle that failure of entering into witness box to substantiate the case an adverse inference can be drawn against the said party. In view of the above factual circumstances discussed supra, the plaintiff has successfully established his case that the 8 defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff under Exs.A.1 and A.3.

Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery suit amount.

Issue No.4 :To what relief?

14.In the result, the Suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.4,36,000/- and the defendant is directed to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff together with the future at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on the balance amount of Rs.1,98,000/-

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcr1ibed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court this the 13th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- V. Venkateswara Rao.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiffs: Defendant:

PW 1 : Kuchi Sivasanjkar Naidu. - None - PW.2 : P. Narayanappa.

Exhibits marked for Plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1Original, ‘A’ marked Demand Promissory Note dated 05.09.2011 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A.2Payment endorsement on the back of Ex.A.1 dated 04.9.2014 for Rs.1,000/-. Ex.A.3Original, ‘B’ marked Demand Promissory Note dated 05.09.2011 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A.4Payment endorsement on the back of Ex.A.3 dated 04.9.2014 for Rs.1,000/-. Ex.A.5Office copy of Legal Notice dated 07.07.2014. Ex.A.6Postal Acknowledgment served on the defendant.

Exhibits marked for defendants

-Nil-

Sd/- V. Venkateswara Rao

A.S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present. Sri V. Venkateswara Rao,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Monday, this the 28th day of February, 2022.

O.S.No.320/2018

Between:

Smt. V. Venkatalakshmi.….Plaintiff.

And.,

Chinnapothula Venkateswarlu.....Defendant.

This suit coming on 23.2.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.U. Devanatha Reddy,

Advocate\ for the plaintiff and of Sri E. Venkataramudu,

Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.5,07,266/- being the

principal and interest due on a promissory note dated

01.09.2016 and for future interest and costs of the suit.

2.The plaint averments in brief are as follows:-

The defendant herein has approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in cash from the plaintiff on 01.09.2016 for his family and for LIC Housing Finance necessities and executed a promissory note in her favour on 01.09.2016 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. The plaintiff made demands to the defendant for repayment of the pronote amount and got issued legal notice to the defendant on 06.06.2018 and the same was returned as not in office. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit. Further contention is, the defendant is not an agriculturist and he is employee, hence 2 he is not entitled under Debt Relief Act and interest claimed at contract rate of 24% p.a.

3.The defendant resisted the suit and filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint, his specific contention is that he has no need or necessity to borrow any amount from anybody much less from the plaintiff. In fact the plaintiff is only a house wife and she has no such financial capacity to lend such huge amount to anybody much less to the defendant. Further contention is, the plaintiff’s family and the defendant’s family are having good acquaintance with each other. On that acquaintance the plaintiff and the defendant are used to visit their houses very frequently. Later misunder- standings arose between them and later the defendant posted to

Machilipatnam, which is a far place to Anantapuramu. Further contention is, there are no money transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant at any point of time. Further contention is, as on the date of execution of alleged suit promissory note, he was on duty and hence the question of borrowing amount and execution of suit promissory note does not arise. It is seems that the plaintiff created the suit promissory note in her favour by forging the signature of this defendant for wrongful gain and to harass the defendant due to ill feelings with the help of attestors. Further contention is, there are no demands from the plaintiff and issuance of legal notice and return endorsement are all invented and created by the plaintiff by managing the postal department. Since the defendant has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note, the question of demands does not arise. There is no cause of action to the suit and the alleged 3 cause of action is invented for the purpose of this unjust suit.

Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.On the above pleadings, the following issuesare framed for trial :- (1)Whether the suit promissory note dt: 01.09.2016 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

(2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the

suit amount from the defendant?

(3)To what relief?

5.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as

PW.1 and got marked Exhibits A.1 to A.4. The scribe of promissory note by name J.M.Vijay Kumar is examined as PW.2.

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant.

6.Heard arguments on both sides.

Issues No.1 and 2:-

7.Perused the oral and documentary evidence brought on the record.The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on 01.09.2016 for his family and for LIC

Housing Finance necessities executed Ex.A.1 in favour of Plaintiff on the same date agreeing to repay the debtwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum. It is further case of the plaintiff that in- spite of her repeated demands, the defendant did not pay any amount towards the promissory note. Hence she got issued Legal

Notice under Ex.A.2 dated 06.06.2018 but said notice was returned as not in office. Hence, she constrained to file the suit.

4

According to the defendant, he never executed Ex.A1 nor borrowed the amount covered under Ex.A.1 from the plaintiff and the plaintiff forged his signature and created Ex.A.1 for wrongful gain. His case is that the suit promissory note is created and fabricated for the purpose of the suit in order to harass him. The defendant further contended that there are no demands from the plaintiff at any point of time and issuance of legal notice and return endorsement are all invented and created by the plaintiff by managing the postal department and filed the suit to harass the defendant.

8.Since the defendant has denied the very suit transaction under Ex.A1, and issuance of Legal notice under Ex.A.2, therefore, the burden lies on the plaintiff to show that the defendant has borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.09.2016 and as the defendant failed to repay the same, she got issued legal notice under Ex.A.2.

9.To establish his case, the plaintiff herself entered into witness box and examined as PW-1 and got filed his examination-in-chief in the form of chief-affidavit. PW-1 in her evidence clearly testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from her on 01.09.2016 for his necessities and executed Ex.A1. She also stated that the defendant promised to repay the debtwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum. She also testified that in-spite of her repeated demands, the defendant has not paid an amount on that she got issued Ex.A.2 legal notice but said notice was returned as unserved. Ex.A.3 is Postal Receipt and Ex.A.4 is Returned postal cover. During cross-examination PW.1 the defendant absent and hence the cross examination of PW.1 treated as nil.

5

10.In support of her case, the plaintiff examined the scribe of

Ex.A.1 by name J.M.Vijay Kumar as PW.2. In the chief examination, PW.2 deposed that he knows both parties in the suit and the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.09.2016 in his presence and executed

Ex.A.1 suit promissory note in the house of plaintiff at

Anantapuramu. At the request of the defendant, he scribed the suit pronote and M.Pavani Kumari and J.M. Meena Kumari have attested the Ex.A.1. During cross-examination of PW.2 also the defendant absent and hence the cross examination of PW.2 treated as nil.

11.In support of his ocular evidence, the plaintiff also strongly placed reliance on Exs.A.1 to A.4. Ex.A.1 is the primary document in this case. I have carefully perused Ex.A.1 and it discloses that on 01.09.2016 the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- under Ex.A1 from the plaintiff and executed

Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff. The said pronote under Ex.A.1 also discloses the signature of executant/defendant at the relevant column. Further and Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice and Ex.A.3 is Postal Receipt and Ex.A.4 is unserved registered notice. The evidence of PW.2 supports the evidence of

PW.1. As stated by PW.2, the suit promissory note Ex.A.1 was scribed by PW.2 and the attestors by name M,.Pavani Kumari and

J.M. Meena Kumari have attested Ex.A.1. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is consistent and convincing and nothing is elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. Though the defendant contended that the suit pronote is forged one, he did not choose to challenge his signatures on Ex.A.1 nor examined 6 any witnesses in order to show that the suit pronote under Ex.A1 is forged, created and not supported by any consideration nor executed for availing loan. If the borrower denies the execution of the pronote, then the option left for the plaintiff (creditor) is to produce the document for the purpose of inspection. The execution of the said document under Ex.A1 cannot be viewed with suspicion until unless some evidence is brought by the executor. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 with Ex.A1 would clearly goes to show that on 01.09.2016 the defendant borrowed

Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A.1. Thus, the plaintiff's burden initially stands discharged.

12.Be that as it may, the defendant denied the execution of

Ex.A.1 suit promissory note. The defendant did not enter into witness box and state that Ex.A.1 is created and forged document and the signatures under Ex.A.1 not belongs to him.

The defendant alleged forgery, but he did not take any steps to establish the same. However, no serious attempts were made on his behalf nor any cogent evidence is let in to prove the forgery of Ex.A.1 or the circumstances under which the plaintiff is interested to create such documents and to file the suit with false allegations. In the absence of any positive evidence to the above allegations, the same cannot be considered and the contentions in the written statement cannot be sustained. The defendant has also not adduced any independent evidence to show that the plaintiff has filed a false suit against him to take some vengeance. In the absence of strong evidence, it becomes difficult to accept that the Ex.A.1 is forged and created document. Since Ex.A.1 suit promissory note is Negotiable

Instrument, presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable 7

Instrument Act were invoked. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to believe the version of the defendant in this regard.

13.On a careful scrutiny of the material placed before me, I am of the opinion that the defendant executed Ex.A.1 after receiving the amount covered under Ex.A.1 and the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 remains intact and unchallenged. The documents marked under Exs.A.1 to A.4 also undisputed. Therefore, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.4 clinchingly proved the suit claim. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed.

Accordingly, the issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.3:-

14. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for

Rs.5,07,266/- in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of

Rs.3,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-II corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28th day of February,

2022.

Sd/- V. Venkateswara Rao.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 : V. Venkatalakshmi, -None- PW.2 : J.M. Vijay Kumar.

8

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1 : Suit promissory note, dated 01.09.2016.

Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice dated 06.06.2018.

Ex.A.3 : Postal Receipt.

Ex.A.3 : Unserved Registered notice.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:

-Nil-

Sd/- V. Venkateswara Rao.

A.S.C.J.