Ms. Vaddi Lavanya

OS No.162 of 2024 DT : 23.01.2025.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT SATHUPALLY

Dated this the on 23rd Day of January, 2025.

Present: Smt.Vaddi Lavanya,

Additional Junior Civil Judge – cum -

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 162 of 2024

BETWEEN

Singapogu Pulla Rao, S/o. Raghavulu, AGe : 49 Years, Occ : Government Teacher, R/o. H.No.2-97, Lingapalem Village, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District, presently residing at Plot No. 401 Chituluri Raja Veera Towers, Netaji Road, Ayyagaripeta, Sathupally Town & Mandal, Khammam District.

...Plaintiff

AND Singapogu Pulla Rao @ Chinna Pullaiaha, S/o. Kanthaiah, Age : 48 Years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2-97/1, Lingapalem Village, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District,

...Defendant

* * * This suit came before me for final hearing on 08.01.2025., in the presence of

Sri.T. Tirumala Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff; whereas Defendants remained exparte; upon perusal of the material papers available on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day; this Court delivered the following :

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

1. NATURE OF THE SUIT : This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, his relatives, men, servants, agents, representatives, followers and all other persons claiming through him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaintiff over the Suit

Schedule Property.

Page No.1 of 6

OS No.162 of 2024 DT : 23.01.2025.

2. PLEADINGS OF THE PLAINTIFF IN BRIEF : I)It is the case of the

Plaintiff that Plaintiff and Defendant belongs to same village, the plaintiff is the legal heir of one late Singapogu Raghavulu & Defendant is the legal heir of one

Singapogu Kanthaiah. Further submits that the father of the Plaintiff during his life time earned Ac: 2-20 gts situated at Kommepalli Revenue Village, Sathupalli

Mandal, Khammam District herein after referred as Suit Schedule Property and the the Plaintiff cultivated the same since 30 years. Further submits that Revenue authorities recognized the postilion of Plaintiff got issued pattadar passbook & title deed in favour of the father of Plaintiff vide Book No. 155569 in patta No.419 and after the demise of the father of Plaintiff, Plaintiff is in peaceful possession & enjoyment over the Suit schedule property without any interruption from anybody and cultivated various dry crops, like maize, red gram green gram etc.,

Further submits that the Revenue authorities subsequently, the Telangana

Government issued digital pattadar passbook cum title deed No. T26150100260 vide Khata No.60186, dated 04.11.2022 in favour of Plaintiff & The Plaintiff is residing at Sathupally for his employment purpose, the village is far away from the Schedule Property, due to this advantage, the Defendant tried to encroach the Schedule Property every year.

II)Further submitted that the Defendant even after knowing the facts, the Defendant obstructed the agricultural operations in Suit Schedule Property and all of sudden on 18.08.2024., the Defendant tried to enter into the peaceful possession & enjoyment with his henchmen by way of obstructing the tractor and abused with filthy language, on that Plaintiff resisted the illegal activities of defendant and his henchmen with the help of neighboring land owners, while leaving the Schedule Property, the Defendant warned the Plaintiff that he will

Page No.2 of 6

OS No.162 of 2024 DT : 23.01.2025.

occupy the Schedule property at any cost and the same was complained before the S.H.O.. PS Sathupalli, but the Police did not took any action against the

Defendant as the complaint is in civil nature. Hence the suit.

3.After registering this suit, summons were served to Defendant, also the

Defendant present on the first adjournment i.e., on 04.10.2024., and posted for engaging counsel by Defendant. Despite of given several opportunities, the

Defendant did not engaged the counsel and also did not file Written Statement.

The statutory period for filing Written Statements has completed and on 09.12.2024., the Defendant did not appear before the Court, contest the matter.

Hence Defendant is set exparte on the same day.

4.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.

5.Heard the arguments of plaintiff counsel. Perused the material on record.

Now the point for consideration “ whether the plaintiff is entitled for

relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for ? ” 6 POINT:

I) It is the case of the plaintiff that, Plaintiff and Defendant belongs to same village, the father of plaintiff by name Singapogu Raghavulu during his life time earned Ac: 2-20 gts situated at Kommepali Revenue Village, Sathupali Mandal,

Khammam District and cultivated the same since 30 years. Further contended that

Revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook & title deed in favour of the father of Plaintiff vide Book No. 155569 in patta No.419 and after the demise of the father of Plaintiff, Plaintiff is in peaceful possession & enjoyment over the Suit

Page No.3 of 6

OS No.162 of 2024 DT : 23.01.2025.

schedule property without any interruption from anybody and cultivated various dry crops, like maize, red gram, green gram etc., Further contended that the

Telangana Government issued digital pattadar passbook cum title deed No.

T26150100260 vide Khata No.60186, dated 04.11.2022 in favour of Plaintiff and the

Plaintiff residing at Sathupally for his employment purpose, which is far from the

Schedule Property, the Defendant took the advantage, tried to encroach the

Schedule Property every year.

II)Further contended that on 18.08.2024., the Defendant tried to entered in the peaceful possession & enjoyment with his henchmen by way of obstructing the tractor and abused in filthy language, on that Plaintiff resisted the illegal activities of Defendant and his henchmen with the help of neighboring land owners, while leaving the Schedule Property, the Defendant warned the Plaintiff that he will occupy the Schedule property at any cost. Hence the suit. Defendant did not contest the suit.

7.To substantiate her case, Plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 by filing chief examination affidavit and reiterated the averments of the plaint. To strengthen his case, marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 i.e., Ex.A1 is Digital Pattadar Pass book cum title deed no. T26150100260, Khata No.60186., Ex.A2 is the Pattadar Passbook

No.155569, Patta No.419, Ex.A3 is the Title Deed Passbook No.155569, Patta

No.419., Ex.A4 is the Specimen copy of 1B Namuna, ROR falsi No.1434, Ex.A5 is

Online copy of Dharani and Ex.A6 is the Market value certificate., On going through all exhibits, it discloses that Plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the Suit

Schedule Property.

Page No.4 of 6

OS No.162 of 2024 DT : 23.01.2025.

8.There is no other evidence on record to rebut the said evidence of the

Plaintiff/P.W.1, as the Defendant did not contest the Suit, even after receiving summons. The evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged and becomes irrebuttable evidence, proves his possession over the Suit Schedule Property through Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. Hence, The plaintiff established his prima-facie case and balance of convenience through unrebutted oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, thus if the plaintiff is not granted the perpetual injunction, he will put to irreparable loss. Therefore in the view of above reasons, this Court holds that Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction.

Accordingly the point is answer.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, granting permanent injunction against Defendant, restraining him and his relatives, followers and all other persons from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Grade-III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23 rd Day of January, 2025.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLI.

Page No.5 of 6

OS No.162 of 2024 DT : 23.01.2025.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :PW.1- Singapogu Pulla Rao

FOR DEFENDANT : -- None --

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 :is Digital Pattadar Pass book cum title deed no. T26150100260, Khata No.60186.,

Ex.A2 :is the Pattadar Passbook No.155569, Patta No.419,

Ex.A3 :is the Title Deed Passbook No.155569, Patta No.419.,

Ex.A4 :is the Specimen copy of 1B Namuna, ROR falsi No.1434,

Ex.A5 :is Online copy of Dharani and

Ex.A6 :is the Market value certificate.,

FOR DEFENDANT : --Nil--

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLY.

Page No.6 of 6

CC.NO.1219 of 2021 DATE : 23.01.2025.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

AT SATHUPALLY.

Dated this the on 23rd Day of January, 2025.

Present: Smt. Vaddi Lavanya, Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class Sathupally.

C.C.No.1219 of 2021

(Crime No. 187 of 2021 of P.S. Kalluru)

Between The State Police through Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kalluru.

...Complainant

And

A1 Kodavati Purushothama Rao, S/o. Seshaiah, Age : 51 Years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o. Chennuru Village, Kalluru Mandal.

A2 Kodavati Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Seshaiah, Age : 43 Years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o. Chennuru Village, Kalluru Mandal.

...Accused

* * *

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 20.01.2025., and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Gosu Veera Bhadram Advocate, Counsel for the Accused No.1 & 2, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration, today this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalluru Police Station, filed the Charge Sheet against the Accused persons in Crime Number 187 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 294b, 323, 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are hereunder :

On 18.10.2021., the Complainant by name Ginjupalli Narasaiah, lodged a DTP report stating that on 17.10.2021., at about 15:00 hours, when Kodavati

Page No.1 of 5

CC.NO.1219 of 2021 DATE : 23.01.2025.

Purushotama Rao & Venkateswara Rao were erecting the fencing to their house plot by encroaching the walkway, he & his family members i.e., Sarojini, Sirisha,

Naga Raju & Srinivasa Rao were trying to intercept the road encroachment, they picked up a quarrel with him and his family members by using abusive words in a most filthy language, beat with hands, punched and beat them with stones and crow bar. On that he had received bleeding injuries on left knee, his wife Sarojini had received bleeding injuries on right hip and his younger son Srinivasa Rao had received bleeding injuries on right hand and abdomen. Finally, requested to take necessary action against them.

3. On receipt of the report, LW10, SI of Police has registered a case in Crime

No.187/2021 under Section 294b, 323, 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 & 2. After recording statements of LW1, sent the injured to

Government Hospital Penubally for treatment and Certificate. Subsequently, LW11 has taken up the CD file for further investigation and on 13.11.2021., Accused No.1 & 2 surrendered before LW11/SI of Police, upon which they were served with the notice under Section 41A(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. LW9 Medical Officer, who treated LW1, LW2, LW4 & LW5 opined that all the injuries are “simple in nature”. After completion of investigation LW11/Sub-Inspector of Police, Police

Station Kalluru filed charge-sheet for the offences under section 294b, 323, 324, read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 & 2. The Court has taken into cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 294b, 323, 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 & 2.

Page No.2 of 5

CC.NO.1219 of 2021 DATE : 23.01.2025.

4.On appearance of the Accused persons, they were served with copies under

Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Kalluru has filed a requisition along with Death Certificate of Accused No.1 stating the Accused no.1 was died, the case against Accused No.1 is abated and the same was recorded.

The accused No.2 examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the charges were framed for the offence punishable under Sections 294b, 323, 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.2., and the same was read over, explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW3, LW6 to LW11, hence the evidence of said witnesses is closed, thereby the prosecution side evidence is closed. As there is no incriminating evidence available against the accused person in the evidence, let in by the prosecution. Hence, the examination of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is dispensed herewith.

6.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Accused and perused the record.

7. Basing on the contentions in the charge-sheet, the point for determination is that“whether prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused No. 2 for the offence

punishable under Section 294b, 324, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code

against Accused No.1 & 2 beyond all reasonable doubt or not?”

Page No.3 of 5

CC.NO.1219 of 2021 DATE : 23.01.2025.

8.During the course of trial, PW1 who is the defacto complainant and PW2 to

PW4, who are injured persons and are eye witnesses to the said incident, themselves turned into hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

9.On scrutinizing the evidence on record, all the material witnesses PW1 to

PW4 are turned hostile and the learned Assistant Public Prosector could not elicit anything worthwhile in support of the case of the prosecution and their cross- examination were also reported nil, hence given up the evidence of other witnesses. The learned Assistant Public Prosector elicited that when PW1 did not lodge any complaint with the police and police obtained the signature of PW1 on some blank papers, when he went to the Police Station and on confronting the same with PW1, he identified his signature on the report and deposed that he do not know the contents of those papers, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even if the other witnesses are examined, it would fetch nothing in support of the prosecution, as the injured cum eye witnesses including the defacto complainant were turned hostile. There is absolutely no iota of evidence to fasten the culpability of the accused no.2 for the offence arraigned for. Hence, it can be held without hesitation that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 294b, 323, 324, read with 34 of

Indian Penal Code against Accused No. 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. IN THE RESULT : The Accused no. 2 found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 294b, 323, 324, read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against

Accused No.2. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a

Page No.4 of 5

CC.NO.1219 of 2021 DATE : 23.01.2025.

period of six months as per the Section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure. No case property. No remand period.

(Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer, Grade - III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23 rd Day of January, 2025).

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SATHUPALLY.

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

EXAMINED WITNESSES

Prosecution :

PW1 : G Narasaiah PW2 : G Srinivasa Rao PW3 : G Nagaraju PW4G Sarojini

For Defence : None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : Ex.P1 :The signature of the PW1 on the Report. Ex.P2 :The Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P3 :The Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 Ex.P4 :The Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3 Ex.P5 :The Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW4

For Defence : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SATHUPALLY.

Page No.5 of 5

CC.NO.288 of 2022 DATE : 23.01.2025.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

AT SATHUPALLY.

Dated this the on 23rd Day of January, 2025.

Present: Smt. Vaddi Lavanya, Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class Sathupally.

C.C.No.288 of 2022

(Crime No. 188 of 2021 of P.S. Kalluru)

Between The State Police through Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kalluru.

...Complainant

And

A1 Ginjupalli Narasaiah, S/o. Ramgopal, Age : 74 Years, Occ : Agriculture,

A2 Ginjupalli Naga Raju, S/o. Narasaiah, Age : 41Years, Occ : Agriculture

A3 Ginjupalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Narasaiah, Age : 42 Years, Occ : Agriculture,

R/o.Ravikampadu Village, Kalluru Mandal.

...Accused

* * *

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 20.01.2025., and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Vanga Ram Mohan Rao Advocate, Counsel for the Accused No.1 to 3, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration, today this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalluru Police Station, filed the Charge Sheet against the Accused persons in Crime Number 188 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 294b, 326, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Page No.1 of 5

CC.NO.288 of 2022 DATE : 23.01.2025.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are hereunder :

On 18.10.2021., the Complainant by name Kodavati Purushothama Rao, lodged a DTP report stating that on 17.10.2021., at about 15:00 hours, he and his brother Venkateswara Rao are erecting fencing around their 2 GTS house plot, the neighbours i.e., Ginjupalli Narasaiah, Ginjupalli Naga Raju & Ginjupalli Srinivasa Rao came to complainant plot, picked up quarrel with him & his brother by alleging that “if he erecting the fencing, they lost walkable way to their site. Further Accused abused him & his brother in filthy language, beat with hands, crow bar, due to which complainant had received bleeding injuries on his mouth, lips, face, left ribs, also broke his teeth and his brother received injuries on lips, teeth and head. On seeing the same by the villagers i.e., Vadlamudi Venu & Thodeti Suresh were rescued the complainant and his brother from the possession of accused, but accused threatened with dire consequence. Finally, requested to take necessary action against them.

3. On receipt of the report, LW9, SI of Police has registered a case in Crime

No.188/2021 under Section 294b, 326, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 to 3. After recording statements of LW1 & LW2, sent them to

Government Hospital Penubally for treatment and Certificate. Subsequently, the

LW10 taken over the CD file for further investigation and after receiving wound certificates from LW8(who treated LW1& LW2) opined that all the injuries received by LW2 are “simple in nature” and the injuries sustained by LW1 are “grievous in nature”. After completion of investigation LW10/Sub-Inspector of Police, Police

Station Kalluru filed charge-sheet for the offences under section 294b, 326, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 to 3. The Court has taken

Page No.2 of 5

CC.NO.288 of 2022 DATE : 23.01.2025.

into cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 294b, 326, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 to 3.

4.On appearance of the Accused persons, they were served with copies under

Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused were examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the charges were framed for the offence punishable under Sections 294b, 326, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code against Accused No.1 to 3., and the same was read over, explained to them in

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

5.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PW1 & PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P2 were marked. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has filed the Death Certificate of LW1, hence the evidence of LW1 was closed and given up the evidence of LW3, LW4, LW6 to LW10, hence the evidence of said witnesses is closed, thereby the prosecution side evidence is closed. As there is no incriminating evidence available against the accused persons in the evidence, let in by the prosecution. Hence, the examination of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is dispensed herewith.

6.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Accused and perused the record.

7. Basing on the contentions in the charge-sheet, the point for determination is that“whether prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused No.1 to 3 for the

offence punishable under Section 294b, 326, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code against Accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt or not?”

Page No.3 of 5

CC.NO.288 of 2022 DATE : 23.01.2025.

8.During the course of trial, PW1 who is the injured and eye witness and PW2 who is another eye witness to the incident, turned into hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

9.On scrutinizing the evidence on record, the material witnesses PW1 & PW2 are turned hostile and the learned Assistant Public Prosector could not elicit anything worthwhile in support of the case of the prosecution and their cross- examination were also reported nil, hence given up the evidence of other witnesses, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even if the other witnesses are examined, it would fetch nothing in support of the prosecution, as the injured, eye witnesses were turned hostile. There is absolutely no iota of evidence to fasten the culpability of the accused no.1 to 3 for the offence arraigned for. Hence, it can be held without hesitation that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 294b, 326, 506 read with 34 of

Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. IN THE RESULT : The Accused no.1 to3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 294b, 326, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against

Accused No.1 to 3. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per the Section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure. No case property. No remand period.

(Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer, Grade - III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23 rd Day of January, 2025).

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SATHUPALLY.

Page No.4 of 5

CC.NO.288 of 2022 DATE : 23.01.2025.

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

EXAMINED WITNESSES

Prosecution :

PW1 : K Venkateswarlu PW2 : S Rama Rao

For Defence : None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : Ex.P1 :The Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P2 :The Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2

For Defence : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SATHUPALLY.

Page No.5 of 5

CC.194 of 2019DATE : 24-01-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

AT SATHUPALLY.

Dated this the 24th Day of January, 2025.

Present: Smt. Vaddi Lavanya, Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class Sathupally.

Calender Case : 194 of 2019

(Cr.No.231 of 2018 of P.S. V M Banjara)

Between The State, through Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, V.M. Banjara

...Complainant

And

Gundela Venkata Narasimha Rao, S/o. Nageswar Rao, Age : 38 Years, R/o. Tiruvuru Village & Mandal, Krishna District, A.P.,

...Accused

* * *

This case is coming up before for final hearing on 23.01.2025., and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.N.Vijay Kumar, Counsel for the Accused, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration, today this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, V.M.Banjara Police Station, filed the Charge

Sheet against the Accused in Crime Number 231 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 304A & 337 of Indian Penal Code

2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution are hereunder :

On 27.12.2018., the complainant Seelam Veera Reddy lodged a complaint stating that on 27.12.2018., morning she went to paddy sapling work and while returning to village by walk along with co-labourers, Anke Laxmi W/o. Pullaiah,

Page No.1 of 5

CC.194 of 2019DATE : 24-01-2025

Anke Laxmi, w/o. Late Venkata Krishna, Pothuraju Jyothi, Tirumalashetty Vijaya

Laxmi, reached near bridge at outskirts of his village at about 5 PM, by that time one car coming from kalluru side dashed to his wife from back side, as a result she sustained head injury, Anke Laxmi was also sustained injuries. Further on knowing the same he along with others rushed to the spot, crime vehicle bearing no. AP 16

DG 2043 (swift dzire) stationed on the road and shifted his wife and anke laxmi to

Government hospital, Tiruvuru, where the Medical Officer decelared his wife as brought dead, he came to the know the driver’s name as Gundela Venkata

Narasimha Rao and he shifted his wife’s body to Penubally Mortuary Room. Finally, requested to take necessary action against him.

3.On the receipt of the complaint, the LW15/I Manmadha Rao, Assistant Sub-

Inspector of Police, Police Station, V.M.Banjara has registered the crime in Crime

Number.231/2018, under Section 304A & 337 of Indian Penal Code. Later, LW16 took the CD file from LW15 for further investigation and the accused surrendered

before LW16, by admitting his guilt served the notice to the accused under Section

41A of Code of Criminal Procedure. After completion of investigation LW16/T

Nagaraju, Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station V.M.Banjara filed charge-sheet for the offence under section 304A & 337 of Indian Penal Code against Accused and the same has taken cognizance by this Court.

4. On appearance of the Accused, he was served with copies under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused was examined under section 251 of

Code of Criminal Procedure and the substance of accusation leveled against him, for the offence punishable under Sections 304A & 337 of Indian Penal Code against

Page No.2 of 5

CC.194 of 2019DATE : 24-01-2025

Accused, was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and Exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were marked. The Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor has filed the Death Certificate of LW1/defacto complainant along with a memo and the same is recorded, hence the evidence of LW1 is closed, also given up the evidence of LW3, LW6 to LW16, hence the evidence of said witnesses is closed and also the prosecution side evidence is closed. As there is no incriminating evidence available against the accused in the evidence, let in by the prosecution.

Hence, the examination of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal

Procedure is dispensed with.

6.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Accused and perused the record.

7. Basing on the contentions in the charge-sheet, the point for determination is that“whether prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the offence

punishable under Section 304A & 337 of Indian Penal Code against Accused

beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?”

8.During the course of trial, PW1 who is injured & eye witness and PW2 & PW3 who are eye witnesses to the said incident, themselves turned into hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

9.On scrutinizing the evidence on record, the examined witnesses PW1 to PW3 are turned hostile and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor could not elicit anything worthwhile in support of the case of the prosecution, also their cross-

Page No.3 of 5

CC.194 of 2019DATE : 24-01-2025

examination were also reported nil, hence given up the evidence of other witnesses. The learned APP could not elicit even from the PW1, who is the injured in the said accident, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even if the other witnesses are examined, it would fetch nothing in support of the prosecution, as the injured and eye witnesses were turned hostile. There is absolutely no iota of evidence to fasten the culpability of the accused for the offence arraigned for.

Hence, it can be held without hesitation that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code. In the light of the above discussion it can be held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.

10.IN THE RESULT : The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304A & 337 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted under

Section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per the Section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure. No remand period. No case property.

(Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer, Grade - III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24 th Day of January, 2025).

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SATHUPALLY.

Page No.4 of 5

CC.194 of 2019DATE : 24-01-2025

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

EXAMINED WITNESSES

Prosecution :

PW1 : Anke Laxmi PW2 : P Jyothi PW3 : T Vijaya Laxmi

For Defence : None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1 : The Section 161 of Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P2 : The Section 161 of Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 Ex.P3 : The Section 161 of Cr.P.C Statement of PW3

For Defence : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SATHUPALLY.

Page No.5 of 5

OS No. 29 of 2020 DATE : 23.01.2025.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT SATHUPALLY

Dated this the on 23rd Day of January, 2025.

Present: Smt.Vaddi Lavanya,

Additional Junior Civil Judge – cum -

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 29 of 2020

BETWEEN

Kotagiri Narasimha Rao, S/o. Viswanadha Rao, Age : 56 Years, Occ ; Agriculture, R/o. Dwarakapuri-3, Sathupalli Town & Mandal, Khammam District.

...Plaintiff

AND

Kasireddy Vishnuvardan Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, Age : 58 Years, Occ : Human Resources (Personal & Administration) Department Duty in Time Office, in Oil Country Tubular LTD., Narkatpalli – 508254, Nalgonda District. R/o. 6-8-48/3/1, Vivenkananda Nagar, Nalgonda Town & Mandal, Nalgonda District.

...Defendant

* * *

This suit came before me for final hearing on 10-01-2025 in the presence of

Sri.Shaik Himavali & Dargavali, Advocate for Plaintiff; whereas Defendant remained exparte; upon perusal of the material papers available on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day; this Court delivered the following :

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

1. NATURE OF THE SUIT : This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of recovery of money from the defendant basing on the strength of the Promissory note with costs.

Page No.1 of 5

OS No. 29 of 2020 DATE : 23.01.2025.

2. PLEADINGS OF THE PLAINTIFF IN BRIEF: It is the case of the plaintiff that, on 20.01.2017., at the house of plaintiff, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.

3,00,000/- from plaintiff, for his family needs and on receipt of the said amount, on the same day, the defendant executed suit Promissory note in favour of plaintiff, in the presence of Kasireddy Sumana, wife of the Defendant, who acted as attester and Jaladani Suri Babu, scribe of promissory note, by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order or on demand.

In spite of repeated demands made by plaintiff, the defendant did not paid the amount with interest to plaintiff and procrastinating the days on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff, vexed with the attitude of defendant, issued a demand notice

dated 22.07.2019., demanding the Defendant to pay the due amount with interest

within two days, but the said notice returned by the Defendant. Further submits that the plaintiff came to know that the Defendant is going to retire from his service from March,2020, on that Plaintiff send a letter, dated 24.12.2019., to

Drawing Officer of Defendant by name G. Venubabu, Senior Manager, HR, Oil

Country Tubular Ltd., Narkatpalli – 508254 to send the salary particulars of

Defendant, he informed the same orally and the Defendant did not responded. As there is no hope of recovery of the said amount without the help of the Hon’ble

Court. Hence, Plaintiff was constrained to file this Suit.

3.In this regard, Court issued summons to Defendant and the same was adjourned on await summons report, thus counsel for Plaintiff filed an

Interlocutory Application for filing of Paper Publication and the same was allowed on 01.08.2024. On 16.12.2024., counsel for Plaintiff filed a memo along with Paper

Publication and the Defendant was absent, no representation till 04:00 PM,. Hence

Page No.2 of 5

OS No. 29 of 2020 DATE : 23.01.2025.

on the same day i.e., 16.12.2024., defendant was set exparte by this Court.

4.During the course of Plaintiff exparte evidence, the Plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 on his behalf, to strengthen his case examined scribe as PW2. While the defendant remained exparte.

5.Heard the learned counsel for Plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

6.Now, the points for the determinations are :

I. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Suit amount as prayed for?

II. To what relief?

7 POINT NO -1:

I)To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he got examined himself as

PW1 by filing chief examination affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination of PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 i.e., Ex.A1 is the original promissory note, dated 20.01.2017., Ex.A2 is the Office copy of Legal Notice dated 22.07.2019., Ex.A3 is returned Postal Cover 27.07.2019., Ex.A4 is the letter issued to Drawing Officer of

Defendant, dated 24.12.2019., & Ex.A5 is Postal acknowledgment of Drawing

Officer of Defendant. On perusal of documents i.e., Ex.A1 adduced by the Plaintiff, it discloses that the Plaintiff advanced the suit amount and defendant borrowed the said amount by executing promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 and did not repay the same. Also the Office copy of Legal Notice i.e., Ex.A2 was returned with postal cover through Ex.A3, dated 27.07.2019., Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 are the letter & acknowledgment to the Drawing Officer of Defendant.

Page No.3 of 5

OS No. 29 of 2020 DATE : 23.01.2025.

II)To strengthen the case of Plaintiff, he examined scribe of the Promissory

Note i.e., Ex.A1 by name Jaladani Suri Babu as PW2, he reiterates the contents of

Plaint.

8.The above oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged and unrebutted. The unrebutted oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. It is obvious that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff, by executing promissory note/Ex.A1 and failed to repay the same. On the other hand, the defendant he did not appear before the Court, no representation even on filing of paper publication, so an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant.

Hence, this Court holds that Plaintiff has proved the claim of the suit. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendant.

9) IN THE RESULT : The suit is decreed with costs and Defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,61,700/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Seven Hundred

Only) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of Suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at 6 % per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization of the decree on the principal sum of

Rs.3,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, by my Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23 rd Day of January, 2025.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLY.

Page No.4 of 5

OS No. 29 of 2020 DATE : 23.01.2025.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : PW.1 : Kotagiri Narasimha Rao &

PW.2 : Jaladani Suri Babu.

For Defendant: -- None --

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 :is the original promissory note, dated 20.01.2017., Ex.A2 :is the Office copy of Legal Notice dated 22.07.2019., Ex.A3 :is returned Postal Cover 27.07.2019., Ex.A4 :is the letter issued to Drawing Officer of Defendant, dated 24.12.2019., & Ex.A5 :is Postal acknowledgment of Drawing Officer of Defendant.

For Defendant: --Nil--

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLY.

Page No.5 of 5