Ms. A. Vasanthi

SC.317/2015 1 FAIR

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE- (FTC),

GUNTUR PRESENT: Ms.A.Vasanthi,

II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC:VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)GUNTUR.

Tuesday, this the 9th day of March, 2022

Sessions Case No.317/2015

Between:

State:Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem P.S

Rep.by its Addl.Public Prosecutor. ...Complainant.

-AND- 1.Gylam Ravi, (A1) S/o.Rangarao, 41 years, C/Telaga, R/o.1st lane, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur. 2.Vuddisetty Ravi (A2) (Case against A2 is abated as per docket order dated.16.10.2015) S/o.Lakshmi Narayana, 22 years, C/Telaga, 18th line, 1st cross road, A.T.Agraharam, Guntur. 3.Namala Sai Kumar @ Chinna Babu (A3), S/o.Siva Prasad, 22 years, C/Telaga, behind Subhani Hotel, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur. 4.Gummadi Vijay Kumar @ Vijay (A4) S/o.Dayakar, 22 years, C/SC Mala, 1st line, 8th cross road, KVP Colony, Guntur. 5.Sk.Nagoor Vali @ Keechu (A5), S/o.Late Peer Saheb, 19 years, C/Muslim, behind Subhani Hotel, 10th line, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur. 6.Naradasu Manoz (A6) (Case against A6 is abated as per docket order dated.09.11.2016) S/o.Vasudeva Rao, 37 years, C/Telaga, R/o.1st Lane, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur. (Abated as per docket order dated 09.11.2016) 7.Saluvadi Manoj (A7), S/o.Balaswamy, 23 years, C/Telaga, 60 feet road, 12th lane, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur. 8.Saluvadi Praveen Kumar (A8), S/o.Balaswamy, 23 years, C/Telaga, 60 feet road, 12th lane, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur.

...Accused.

This case came up before this court on 07.03.2022 for final hearing, in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri V.Siva Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the accused; upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem P.S filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.330/2014 of Nagarampalem P.S for the alleged offence under

Sections 109, 120B, 302 r/w.34 of IPC.

SC.317/2015 2 FAIR

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

i) The offence took place in front of Kaveri Bar & Restaurant, near

Chuttugunta, Guntur. The deceased viz., Gaddipati @ Gattipati Sambasiva Rao @ Bachan Siva (hereinafter referred to as deceased) is resident of 9/3,

Srinivasaraopet, Guntur. Previously on 06.06.1992 the deceased and his associate Nallapati Ankamma Rao murdered one P.Deva Kumar, S/o.Ramulu, 25 years, C/Kshatriya, Mallikarjunapet, 2nd line, Potti Sriramulu Nagar, Guntur and this is subject in Cr.No.114/1992 u/Sec.302 r/w.34 of I.P.C of Arundelpet P.S and finally the said case ended in acquittal on 02.01.1998 vide SC No.78/1996. A rowdy sheet was maintained against him at Ponnur Town P.S. At present, he is running daily interest business in P.V.Naidu Vegetable market, Guntur. The deceased was addicted to vices like consuming liquor and playing cards.

ii)A1 is resident of Srinivasaraopet, Guntur. A1 and his elder brother by name Galam Premchand are well known for their high handed behaviour in their locality. They are in the habit of threatening the public to prove their supremacy in the locality. A2 is a desperate character and previously he involved as an accused in a double murder case vide Cr.No.354/2012 u/Sec.302 r/w.34 of I.P.C of

Nagarampalem P.S (PT vide PRC No.22/2013), Cr.No.102/2013 u/Secs.341, 342, 307 r/w.34 of I.P.C of Nagarampalem P.S and also many other un-reported incidents. Rowdy sheet No.582/2013 is being maintained against him in

Nagarampalem P.S. A2 is the close friend and associate of A1. A2 also used to move with the deceased for the sake of money for his vices. A3 previously involved as an accused in Cr.No. 261 of 2014 u/Secs.323, 506, 509 r/w.34 of I.P.C of Nagarampalem P.S. A4 Gummadi was working as driver under A1 and close associate to A1 and A2 and A4 is also desperate character and previously involved as an accused in Cr.No. 104 of 2012 u/Secs.302, 307, 379, 109, 120B r/w.34 I.P.C of Old Guntur P.S and a rowdy sheet No.216 of 2012 is being maintained against him at Old Guntur P.S. A5 was previously involved as an accused in Cr.No.261 of

SC.317/2015 3 FAIR

2014 u/Secs.323, 506, 509 r/w.34 of I.P.C of Nagarampalem P.S. A6 to A8 are also residents of Srinivasaraopet of Guntur Town and A2 to A8 are the close associates of A1.

iii)P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is a cook by profession and he is the frined of P.W.3 who is working as a waiter in Kaveri Bar & Restaurant,

Chuttugunta, Guntur. Out of friendship with P.W.3, now and then P.W.2 used to go to Kaveri Bar & Restaurant to have liquor. P.W.4 is the cashier of Kaveri Bar &

Restaurant. L.W.5/Mandha Adam is a resident of KVP Colony, Guntur. P.W.5 is the helper to the cashier of Kaveri Bar, while P.W.6 is the owner of Kaveri Bar.

L.W.8/Gurka Ramesh Bhahudhur is the watchman of Kaveri Bar. P.W.7 is the first wife. L.Ws.10 and 11/Gaddipati @ Gattipati Ravichandra and Gaddipati @

Gattipati Seshubabu are the sons of the first wife and L.W.12/Perugu Subba Rao is the brother-in-law of the deceased. P.Ws.2 to 5 and L.W.8/Gurka Ramesh

Bhahudhur are the direct witnesses to the murder of the deceased. L.Ws.13 to 17 i.e. Bhukya Subba Rao Naik, Myla Sambasiva Rao, Narapogu Saibabu, K.Srikanth

Reddy and Yemmela Sangeetha Rao are the police personnel and the staff of

Nagarampalem P.S. L.W.18/Bheemavarapu Vema Reddy is the private photographer. L.W.19/Challa Narendra Babu @Narendra is the brother-in-law of

A6 who gifted his motor cycle bearing Regd.No.AP 07 AB 5360 to A6.

L.W.20/Daddireddy Lakshmi Devi is the first owner of Mahindra XYLO vehicle bearing Regd. AP 21 AQ 0005 and sold the said vehicle to L.W.21/Sk.Karimulla.

Subsequently L.W.21 who is the proprietor of ‘A1 cars’ broker office Guntur, sold the said vehicle to A1. L.Ws. 22 to 24 i.e. Ravela Yashovardhan, Boppana Subba

Rao and Naredla Purnachandra Rao are the inquest panchayatdars. L.Ws.25 to 27 i.e. Kondakarla Edukondalu, Sowpathi Sudheer Babu and Kallam

Satyanarayana Reddy are the mediators. L.W.28/Dr.A.Ramesh Babu, Assistant

Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur is the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical

SC.317/2015 4 FAIR

College, Guntur and L.W.29/Ch.Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of Police,

Nagarampalem P.S is the Inspector of Police, Station House Officer,

Nagarampalem P.S and Investigating Officer in this case.

iv)Initially, the deceased was married with P.W.7 and they were blessed with L.W.10 Ravi Chandra and L.W.11 Seshu Babu. About 15 years ago, due to some differences between them, both separated in the presence of elders but not taken divorce. Subsequently, the deceased married P.W.1 and residing with her at 9/3 Srinivasaraopet, Guntur.

v)The deceased and A1 Galam Ravi used to play cards in the gardens situated at Lalpuram, Kotappakonda and some other places. L.W.5 Manda Adam also used to go with them to help them in getting liquor, cigarettes while playing cards. About 5 or 6 months ago to the date of the incident on two occasions quarrel ensued between deceased and A1 and in these two occasions, A1 beat and insulted the deceased. As more persons present and they are the supporters of A1, the deceased could not retaliate, but the deceased bore grudge against A1.

vi)Keeping the same in mind, in order to wreck vengeance against A1, about 20 days prior to the murder, the deceased contacted A2 and offered him

Rs.5 Lakhs to eliminate A1. A2 accepted for the said deal and made a false promise that he would eliminate A1 and used to demand money from the deceased for his vices.

vii)A2 who is the close friend of A1 informed the plan of the deceased and deal proposed with him to A1. On that A1 decided that the deceased would go to any extent and kill him, if he is let off. In this connection, A1 sought the help of A2 in eliminating the deceased and promised that he would give Rs.5 Lakhs to

A2 which was offered by the deceased. A2 accepted for the same and they decided to kill the deceased. Then, A1 to A8 met in the office of A1 and conspired

SC.317/2015 5 FAIR

together and A2 to A8 decided to kill the deceased to help A1 and also to share the amount of Rs.5 Lakhs offered by A1.

viii)Since then A2 is moving much closely with the deceased and took petty amounts from him and now and then A2 also used to motor cycle of the deceased in order to believe the deceased that he is the close associate of the deceased.

ix)On 02.07.2014, A1 to A8 met in the garden of Kaveri Bar &

Restaurant, Chuttugunta center, Guntur, consumed liquor and conspired together and hatched a plan to kill the deceased. As per their plan, the deceased has to be called to Kaveri Bar & Restaurant and there A2 to A4 should attack him with knives and kill him. If their plan would not worked at Kaveri Bar & Restaurant and

Bachan Siva escapes from their attack, the other accused i.e. A1 and A5 to A8 should follow him in the car and kill him by chasing. At that time, A1 informed the other accused that he would arrange knives for the commission of murder. L.W.5 who is also consuming liquor in the side table in the garden of bar at that time, heard their plan and conspiracy, but due to fear of the accused, he did not reveal the same to anybody. As the deceased prepared to take “Siva Deeksha” on 07.07.2014, on the night of 06.07.2014 the deceased Bachan Siva consumed liquor and was present at his house only. On 06.07.2014 after 6 p.m P.W.2 went to

Kaveri Bar & Restaurant, met his friend P.W.3 and took 90 ml of ‘Original Choice’ liquor and watching T.V in the bar while consuming liquor. As it was raining on that day, P.W.2 spent more time in Kaveri Bar. On coming to know that Bachan Siva is taking ‘Siva Deeksha’ on 07.07.2014 and that he would compulsorily consume liquor heavily on the night of 06.07.2014 all the accused decided to do away the deceased on that night itself i.e. on 06.07.2014. In this connection on 06.07.2014 at about 8 p.m., A1 to A8 met in the office of A1 situated behind Vijayalakshmi

Theatre. At that time, A1 gave three knives to A2 to A4. Then, A2 to A4 took the motor cycle bearing Regd.No.AP 07 AB 5360 from A6 and the three moved in

SC.317/2015 6 FAIR

Srinivasaraopet and confirmed that the deceased was at his house as the motor cycle of the deceased was parked at his house. A2 first contacted to the cell phone of the deceased, but he has not answered the call. Then, A2 to A4 returned to the office of A1 informed the same to A1. Then, A2 to A4 went to Kaveri Bar on a motor cycle and parked the same by the side of the road in front of Kaveri Bar &

Restaurant, Chuttugunta, Guntur. A1, A5 to A8 came to Kaveri Bar in Mahindra

Xylo car bearing Regd.No.AP 21 AQ 0005 of A1, parked the same on the other side of the road and waiting for the deceased. A2 to A4 took quarter of liquor and consumed the same. at about 10 p.m A2 initially contacted from his cell phone

No.86862 01108 to cell No.99499 39966 of the deceased. But, the deceased did not answer the call. Within no time, the deceased himself contacted A2 and asked where A2 was. On that A2 informed the deceased that he was at Kaveri Bar and asked the deceased to come to Kaveri Bar. Then, A2 asked A3 and A4 to wait near sand heap situated in front of Kaveri Bar. A2 went to A1 and A5 to A8 who are at the other side of the road with car and informed them that the deceased

Bachan Siva was coming and alerted them. Again A2 went back to Kaveri Bar and stood on the steps of the Bar. Believing A2, the deceased informed his wife that he was going to Kaveri Bar & Restaurant to meet A2 and that he would come back shortly and went to Kaveri Bar on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 7 AR 6486 and stopped his motor cycle near Kaveri Bar at about 10.40 p.m. At the same time,

P.W.2 came out of the bar and went near electrical transformer to pass urine.

x)On seeing the deceased, A2 who was on the steps of the bar called him as ‘Vachava Babai’ and went near the deceased, and while talking with the deceased, all of a sudden, A2 took out the knife with him and hacked over the head of the deceased, three times saying as “Chavu Nakodaka Chavu’, due to which the deceased fell down and A2 called A3 and A4 as ‘Ore Sai, Ore Vijaya

Podavandi Na Kodukuni’ and directed them to kill the deceased. On that A3 and

A4 came to the deceased from the sand heap situated nearby and stabbed and hacked the deceased over his back and chest indiscriminately. At that time, A1 &

SC.317/2015 7 FAIR

A5 to A8 were present on the other side of the road with a car. P.W.2 who was passing the urine at transformer witnessed the incident and raised cries. On hearing the cries, P.Ws.2 to 5 and L.W.8 and others rushed to the spot and witnessed the A2 to A4 stabbing and hacking the deceased. On seeing them A2 to

A4 ran to the other side of the road went to the other accused, A1 and A5 to A8, informed them that the work was completed. A2 to A4 took the carry bag containing their spare clothes from A5 and then escaped on a motor cycle bearing

Regd.No.AP 07 AB 5360 in an opposite lane. Then, A1 and A5 to A8 escaped in the car bearing Regd.No.AP 21 AQ 0005 towards vegetable market. P.Ws.2 to 5 and L.W.8 and others who rushed to the spot, identified the deceased to be

Gaddipati @ Gattipati Sambasiva Rao @ Bachan Siva. Then, P.W.3 informed the incident to 108 and also to 100. P.W.3 went to the house of the deceased and informed the wife of the deceased about the incident. Immediately P.W.1 visited the spot and then got a report drafted and filed the same at Nagarampalem P.S.

xi)On the report given by P.W.1, L.W.29 the Inspector of Police,

Nagarampalem P.S registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 330/2014 of

Nagarampalem P.S on 07.07.2014 at 01.00 a.m and took up immediate investigation of this case. During the course of investigation, L.W.29 visited the scene of offence and examined the same in the presence of mediators L.Ws.25 and 26 on 07.07.2014 at 2.15 a.m in the illumination of focus lights and seized certain material objects available at the scene under the cover of an observation report duly attested by the mediators. A rough sketch of the scene of offence has been prepared. The scene of offence as well as the dead body of the deceased were protographed by engaging a private photographer L.W.18. L.W.29 examined and recorded the statements of 1 to 8 in part II CD u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Further,

L.W.29 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 9.30 a.m to 1 p.m on 08.07.2014 in the presence of inquest panchayatdars L.Ws.22 to 24 and blood relatives of the deceased and then sent the dead body of the deceased for

SC.317/2015 8 FAIR

P.M.Examination. Further, on 08.07.2014, L.W.29 examined and recorded the statements of P.W.9, L.Ws.10 to 12 in Part-II CD u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

xii)During the course of further investigation, L.W.29 arrested A2 to A5,

A7 and A8 on 16.07.2014 at 11.45 a.m at main gate of Gunta Ground, Naaz

Centre, Guntur in the presence of mediators, recorded the confessional statements of the accused under cover of a mahazar duly attested by the mediators L.Ws.25 and 26. In pursuance of the confession made by the accused

A2 to A4, L.W.29 recovered two knives used by A2 and A4 for commission of the murder of the deceased and also the blood stained clothes worn by A2 to A4 at the time of murder of the deceased at the corner inside gunta ground opposite to

Bhaskar Deluxe Theatre in the presence of mediators at 12.15 p.m under the cover of mediatornama duly attested by the mediators L.Ws.25 and 26. Further in pursuance of the confession made by A5, A7 and A8, L.W.29 seized the knives kept with them on 06.07.2014 at the time of murder of the deceased to attack the deceased, from the drainage canal by the side of Gandhi Park towards

Venkateswara Vignana Mandiram in the presence of mediators under the cover of mahazar duly attested by the mediators L.Ws.25 and 26.

xiii)Further, L.W.29 arrested A1 and A6 on 21.07.2014 at 11.15 a.m in the presence of mediators at Bye-pass road, near Yetukuru village, towards

Pratipadu Junction and recorded the confessional statements of the accused under cover of a mahazar duly attested by the mediators L.Ws.26 and 27. Further, in pursuance of confession made by A1 & A6, L.W.29 seized Mahindra Xylo car bearing Regd.No.AP 21 AQ 0005 from the possession of A1 and a Hero Honda

Passion Plus Motor Cycle bearing No AP 07 AB 5360 from the possession of A6 used by them in the commission of the murder of the deceased and one knife each from A1 & A6 intended to use in the commission of the murder in the presence of mediators under cover of a mahazar duly attested by L.Ws.26 and 27.

Further, L.W.29 forwarded all the material objects to RFSL, Guntur, vide RFSL

SC.317/2015 9 FAIR

Receipt File No.GNT/SER/182/2014, dated 26.07.2014. During the course of further investigation, L.W.29 examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.13 to 21 u/Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C in Part-II C.D. L.W.28, the Assistant Professor,

Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued P.M.Certificate, wherein it is opined that the deceased died due to shock & Hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Subsequently, all the accused were enlarged on bail and in this case, analysis report is awaited from RFSL, Guntur and after receipt of the RFSL Report, further information will be filed and thus all the accused are rendered themselves liable for punishment u/Secs.109, 120B, 302 I.P.C r/w.34 I.P.C. Hence, the charge.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court,

Guntur, took cognizance of the offence against the accused, which are punishable u/Secs.120B, 109 and 302 r/w.34 of I.P.C and registered the case as

PRC.No.8/2015.

4. After appearance of the accused before the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur, they were furnished with

copies of documents relied by the prosecution in compliance of section 207

Cr.P.C.

5.As the offence u/Sec.302 I.P.C is exclusively triable by Court of

Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court,

Guntur, committed the case to the Sessions Court, Guntur, vide committal order

dated 22.06.2015.

6. The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Guntur after receipt of the record from the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special

Mobile Court, Guntur, registered the case as S.C.No.317/2015 and made over to I

Additional Sessions Court, Guntur and later it was transferred to this court as per

SC.317/2015 10 FAIR

the District Court’s proceedings in Dis.No.7855 dated 05.12.2015, for conducting trial and disposal according to law.

7.After appearance of the accused and after consideration of the material on record, charge under Section 120B I.P.C against all the accused; charge under Sec.302 I.P.C against A3 and A4 and charge under Section 302 r/w.34 I.P.C were framed against A1, A5 to A8 and the same were read over and explained to them in Telugu. The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.7. The learned Addl.P.P., has given up evidence of rest of the witnesses i.e. L.Ws.5, 10 to 27 and this court closed the same, as no purpose will be served.

9. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the examination under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there was no incriminating material found available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused.

10.Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

11.Now the points for determination in this case are;

1. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused for the offence under Sections 120B, 302 r/w.34 I.P.C beyond

reasonable doubt ?

2. Result of the case?

12.The learned APP has argued that though the main witnesses have turned hostile, he relied upon the material brought before the court at the time of cross examination.

SC.317/2015 11 FAIR

13.The learned counsel for the accused argued that it is a false case foisted against the accused, therefore there is no support from any independent witnesses and hence he may be acquitted.

14.To prove the case, the prosecution have examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and through them Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. Let us verify, whether the prosecution has succeeded it’s case in proving the guilt of the accused u/Secs.120B, 302 r/w 34

I.P.C.

P.W.1 / Gaddipati @ Gattipati Sujatha, who is the second wife of the deceased. During chief examination, she deposed that she is resident of Guntur and she is a house wife. Gaddipati Sambasiva Rao is her husband and who is the deceased in this case. L.W.9 / Gaddipati @ Gattipati Venkata Ramana is the first wife of the deceased. L.W.10/Gaddipati @ Gattipati Ravi Chandra and L.W.11

Gaddipati @ Gattipati Seshu Babu are the children of the decaesed and L.W.9

Gaddipati @ Gattipati Venkata Ramana. L.W.12 Perugu Subba Rao is her nephew. Except, the above persons, she does not know any other witnesses in this case. She does not know accused who are present before the court on the date of her examination i.e. 02.03.2022. She does not know the reason behind the death of her husband. She does not know anything about this case. She never reported the case before the police, but they obtained her thumb impression on a white paper and she does not know about the contents mentioned in the complaint and she has not examined by the police at any point of time. At this stage, the learned APP sought permission to declare the witness as hostile and permit him to cross examine the witness. Permission is granted.

During cross examination by the Addl.P.P, the P.W.1 denied a suggestion that the police recorded her statement u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C on 07.07.2014 and the same was marked as Ex.P1 and that previously some disputes arose between her husband (deceased) and the accused in this case and that due to previous

SC.317/2015 12 FAIR

grudges the accused murdered her deceased husband and that she is deposing false by compromising with the accused.

P.W.7 / Gaddipati Venkata Ramana, who deposed in her chief examination that she is resident of Amaravathi road, Guntur and she is a house wife. The deceased (G.Sambasiva Rao) is her husband. She knows P.W.1 and she lived along with her husband. L.W.10 / Gaddipati Ravichandra is her elder son. L.W.11

Gaddipati Seshubabu is her younger son. L.W.12 Perugu Subba Rao is nephew of

P.W.1. Except the above persons, she does not know any one of the witnesses in this case. She does not know accused who are present before the court today i.e.

on the date of her examination i.e. on 04.03.2022. She knows about the galata, but she does not know reasons behind the galata and she also does not know between whom the said galata took place. P.W.7 further deposed that her deceased husband (G.Sambasiva Rao) was murdered, but she does not know the reason behind his murder and she does not know who murdered her husband.

Except the above information, she did not know anything about this case and she has not examined by the police at any point of time. At this stage, the learned APP sought permission to declare the witness as hostile and permit him to cross examine the witness. Permission is granted.

During cross-examination by the learned Addl.P.P, P.W.7 denied that the police recorded her statement u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C on 08.07.2014 and the same was marked as Ex.P7 and that she knows everything about this case and that she is deposing false to help the accused to acquit them from the case.

P.Ws.2 to 6 are the rest of the witnesses in this case. Out of them,

P.Ws.2,3,5 and 6 are residents of Guntur and P.W.4 is resident of Piduguralla.

P.W.2 deposed that he is a daily wage worker (Vegetable cutter in cooking for functions) and he does not know the deceased (G.Sambasiva Rao) in this case and he does not know any one of the witness in this case and he does not know accused who are present before the court today i.e. on the date of his examination

SC.317/2015 13 FAIR

and he does not know anything about this case and he has not examined by the police at any point of time. At this stage, the learned A.P.P sought permission to declare the witness as hostile and permit him to cross examine the witness.

Permission is granted. The learned Addl.P.P cross examined the witness. During his cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that police recorded his statement u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C on 07.07.2014 and the same was marked as Ex.P2 and that he has knowledge about the facts of the case and that he is deposing false to help the accused.

The other witnesses i.e. P.Ws.3 to 6 commonly deposed in the similar lines of P.W.2 with regard to the facts i.e. that they do not know the deceased and all the accused, witnesses and they also do not know anything about this case and they were not examined by the police and during cross-examination, they denied that the police recorded their statements u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C and through them their statements were marked as Exs.P3 to P6 respectively and they all denied the suggestion that in view of the compromise between the accused and P.W.1, they are all i.e. P.Ws.2 to 6 are deposing false to help the accused, to acquit them from the case.

P.Ws.1 and 7 are the wives of the deceased and though they admitted their relationship with the deceased, they did not depose anything about the case and that they do not know even the accused in this case and the reason behind the death of their husband and P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant in this case, deposed that she never reported the case before the police, but they obtain her thumb impression on a white paper and she does not know about the contents mentioned in the complaint. The evidences of P.Ws.1 and 7 further shows that at the time of the offence, they did not present at the scene of offence and they came to know about the incident and hence their evidence is hearsay evidence.

The learned Addl.P.P., given up the remaining witnesses i.e. L.Ws.5 and 10 to 29 as the material witnesses have turned hostile. So far as the other listed

SC.317/2015 14 FAIR

witness i.e. L.W.8/Gurka Ramesh Bahadur, the learned Addl.P.P field a memo on behalf of prosecution. The contents of the memo shows that since four years,

L.W.8 is not residing in the address mentioned in the memo. On enquiry by the police, the neighbours of L.W.8 informed that they also do not know whereabouts of L.W.8. Along with memo, prosecution filed a report of Ward Revenue Secretary,

Guntu. The contents of the report also corroborated with the memo filed by the prosecution. Hence, the evidence of L.W.8 is closed.

On perusal of the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 7, this court did not find any incriminating material and evidence against the accused. Hence, this court dispensed the examination of the accused u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. This court had given a chance to adduce evidence on behalf of the accused, but the counsel for the accused reported no evidence and did not mark any exhibits on their behalf.

During arguments, the counsel for the accused submitted that the accused did not commit any offence, police foisted a false case against the accused without conducting proper investigation and the witnesses are also not supported the case of the prosecution.

The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 clearly shows that they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Non examination of official witnesses is failure on the part of the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This court did not find any single piece of evidence against the accused. Therefore, this court is of the considerable opinion that the prosecution is failed to establish it’s case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the accused nos.1,3 to 5, 7 and 8 are entitled for acquittal. Hence the above point is answered accordingly.

16.POINT No.2:-

In the result, the accused Nos.1, 3 to 5, 7 and 8 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302 r/w.34 of I.P.C and accordingly they are acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be

SC.317/2015 15 FAIR

in force, for a period of six months, as per the provisions of section 437-A Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur is ordered to destroy the non-valuable case property in this case and further the learned Magistrate is ordered that the other valuable case property if any which is unmarked shall be returnedshall be returned to the concerned claimants if any claimed under production of relevant documentsto the concerned claimants if any claimed under production of relevant documents showing their ownership with regard to Samsung Cell Phone (1 in number); oneshowing their ownership with regard to

Kechadda cell phone (1 in number, silver colour) and the vehicle Honda Unicorn bearing

No.AP 7 AR 6486 (Red Colour), otherwise, they shall be confiscated to State after expiry, otherwise, they shall be confiscated to State after expiry of appeal time. The un-marked case property i.e Mahindra Xylo Car bearing No.AP 21of appeal time. The un-marked case property i.e Mahindra Xylo Car bearing No.AP 21

AQ 0005 and Hero Honda Passion Plus Motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 AB 5360 whichAQ 0005 and Hero Honda Passion Plus Motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 AB 5360 which were given under interim custody in the committal court, is made absolute. Case againstwere given under interim custody in the committal court, is made absolute. Case against

A2 and A6 abated as they died.A2 and A6 abated as they died.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 9th day of March, 2022.

Sd/-A.Vasanthi

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC : VI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : Gaddipati @ Gattipati Sujatha. -None-

P.W.2 : Shaik Emamsa.

P.W.3 : B.Nagaraju.

P.W.4 : Y.Saida Rao.

P.W.5 : G.Saida Reddy.

P.W.6 : S.Chenchi Reddy.

P.W.7 : Gaddipati Venkata Ramana.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4

SC.317/2015 16 FAIR

Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5

Ex.P6 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6.

Ex.P7 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7.

FOR DEFENCE :NIL

Material Objects Marked

- NIL -

Ild/-A.V

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC : VI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

SC.317/2015 17 FAIR

CALENDER

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :: GUNTUR

1.Number of the Sessions case :Sessions Case No.317/2015 2.Name of the committal Court : Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur. 3.Name & description of complainant: State:Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem P.S.

4.Name & Description of Accused : 1.Gylam Ravi, (A1) S/o.Rangarao, 41 years, C/Telaga, R/o.1st lane, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur. 2.Vuddisetty Ravi (A2)

(Case against A2 is abated as per docket order dated.16.10.2015)

S/o.Lakshmi Narayana, 22 years, C/Telaga, 18th line, 1st cross road, A.T.Agraharam, Guntur. 3.Namala Sai Kumar @ Chinna Babu (A3), S/o.Siva Prasad, 22 years, C/Telaga, behind Subhani Hotel, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur. 4.Gummadi Vijay Kumar @ Vijay (A4) S/o.Dayakar, 22 years, C/SC Mala, 1st line, 8th cross road, KVP Colony, Guntur. 5.Sk.Nagoor Vali @ Keechu (A5), S/o.Late Peer Saheb, 19 years, C/Muslim, behind Subhani Hotel, 10th line, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur. 6.Naradasu Manoz (A6)

(Case against A6 is abated as per docket order dated.09.11.2016)

S/o.Vasudeva Rao, 37 years, C/Telaga, R/o.1st Lane, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur. (Abated as per docket order dated 09.11.2016) 7.Saluvadi Manoj (A7), S/o.Balaswamy, 23 years, C/Telaga, 60 feet road, 12th lane, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur. 8.Saluvadi Praveen Kumar (A8), S/o.Balaswamy, 23 years, C/Telaga, 60 feet road, 12th lane, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur.

5.Date of offence : 06.07.2014

Date of committal : 22.06.2015

Date of appearance of accused : 16.10.2015

Date of commencement of trial : 02.03.2022

Date of close of trial : 07.03.2022

Date of Judgment : 09.03.2022 6.Nature of Offence : u/Secs.109, 120B,302 r/w.34 I.P.C.

7.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 8.Finding of the court : Found not guilty.

SC.317/2015 18 FAIR

9. Sentence or order :

In the result, the accused Nos.1, 3 to 5, 7 and 8 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302 r/w.34 of I.P.C and accordingly they are acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force, for a period of six months, as per the provisions of section 437- A Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur is ordered to destroy the non-valuable case property in this case and further the learned

Magistrate is ordered that the other valuable case property if any which is unmarked

shall be returned to the concerned claimants if any claimed under production ofshall be returned to the concerned claimants if any claimed under production of relevant documents showing their ownership with regard to Samsung Cell Phone (1 inrelevant documents showing their ownership with regard to number); one Kechadda cell phone (1 in number, silver colour) and the vehicle Honda Unicorn bearing No.AP 7 AR 6486 (Red Colour), otherwise, they shall be confiscated to, otherwise, they shall be confiscated to State after expiry of appeal time. The un-marked case property i.e Mahindra Xylo CarState after expiry of appeal time. The un-marked case property i.e Mahindra Xylo Car bearing No.AP 21 AQ 0005 and Hero Honda Passion Plus Motor cycle bearing No.AP 07bearing No.AP 21 AQ 0005 and Hero Honda Passion Plus Motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 AB 5360 which were given under interim custody in the committal court, is madeAB 5360 which were given under interim custody in the committal court, is made absolute. Case against A2 and A6 abated as they died.absolute. Case against A2 and A6 abated as they died.

10. Explanation for delay :

Initially, this case was made over to I Additional Sessions Court, Guntur and later as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble District Court, Guntur in Dis.No.7855

dated 05.12.2015, this case was transferred to this Court and received the same

on 31.12.2015 and later on the appearance of the accused and on hearing both sides, charge u/Secs.120B, 302 r/w.34 I.P.C were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 23.02.2022, trial schedule was fixed. On 02.03.2022, trial was commenced and it was closed on 07.03.2022 and the examination under section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with. On 07.03.2022 heard arguments on both sides. On 09.03.2022, judgment is delivered. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-A.Vasanthi

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC : VI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR. Copy to:

1. The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) High court of A.P., through the District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

2. The Hon'ble District & Sessions Judge, Guntur

3. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban.

4. The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur.

5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, VI ASJ (FTC), Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ::

GUNTUR

PRESENT: Ms.A.Vasanthi, II Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Friday, the 7th day of June, 2019

Criminal Appeal No.188/2016

From what Court the appeal isJudicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur

No. of the case in that CourtCC 408/2014

No. of the Criminal AppealCriminal Appeal No.188/2016

Name and Description of thePinapala Suresh Babu, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 30 Appellantyears, R/o.9/3 lane, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur.

Name and description of theThe State: Inspector fo Police, Women P.S., Complainant/respondent. Cr.No.56/2014 of Nagarampalem P.S., Rep. by Public Prosecutor The Sentence and Law andThe appellant is sentenced to undergo S.I for a which it was imposed in theperiod of Six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in Lower Courtdefault to undergo S.I for a period of one month for the offence under Sec.498-A IPC

Whether confirmed, modified or reversed and if modifiedReversed the modification

Date of presentation13.04.2016

Date of filing13.04.2016

Date of notice issued 18.04.2016

Date of appearance04.05.2016

Date of hearing07.06.2019

Date of Judgment07.06.2019

This appeal came before this Court on this day i.e. 07.06.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri J.Suresh Babu, Advocate for the appellant and

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the matter having stood over

for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(3) of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) by the appellant who is accused no.1 in C.C.No.408/2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur, challenging the calendar and judgment dt.04.04.2016, whereby and where under he was convicted of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of Six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo S.I for a period of one month.

2.For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein is referred to as accused no.1 as he is arrayed in

C.C.No.408/2014.

3. The brief facts which are leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:

The complainant, namely Pinapala Sasikala gave written report to police on 04.02.2014 alleging that she and the accused loved together and at about 6 years back, their marriage was performed in the presence of elders; at the time of marriage, her parents presented gold worth Rs.1,00,000/- and they were blessed with a female child and since 5 years, the accused harassed her both physically and mentally by demanding her to bring more amount and on one occasion, 3 while the accused was beating her, the child was dropped down from her hands and went upto death and when she saved her daughter life by sold away the gold with her and she gave a police report against the accused, for which the police arrested the accused and released him within one or two days and they lived separately for some time and later one year of such occasion, the accused came and requested her and the case was ended in acquittal and he looked her well for some time and again he started harassment over the complainant and beat her indiscriminately and due to unbearable harassment in the hands of the accused, she tried to make suicide for twice and her relatives made a complaint against the police on 07.01.2014 before Nagarampalem P.S., and when the police made counseling to the accused and the complainant and in the said counseling before the officials also, the accused denied their advices and showed his adamant attitude. The A.S.I of Police, Nagarampalem P.S., registered the same as a case in Cr.No.56/2014 under

Sec.498-A I.P.C and u/Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 04.02.2014 at 8 A.M., and took up investigation and during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements and after completion of all practical investigation 4 and verified the investigation done by A.S.I of Police, the

Inspector of Police, Women P.S., Guntur Urban filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special

Mobile Court, Guntur took cognizance of the offences under

Secs.498-A I.P.C and u/Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused and numbered the same as C.C.No.

408/2014.

5.On appearance of the accused before the learned

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur,

copies of documents were furnished to him u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C and he was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and charges under

Secs.498-A I.P.C and u/Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses on it’s behalf as PWs.1 to 5 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P3. PW1 is the defacto complainant;

PW2 is the father of PW1 and PWs.3 to 5 are the police officials. Ex.P1 is the report given by PW1 to the police;Ex.P2 is the F.I.R and Ex.P3 is the rough sketch. The learned trial court closed the evidence of Gandham Manikyam;Kalapala

Satyanarayana;Kanchi Madhulatha and Sri Y.Srinivasa Reddy, 5

Inspector of Police, Women P.S., Guntur Urban/L.Ws.3 to 5 and 9.

7.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material placed against him, for which he denied while reporting no defence evidence.

8.The learned Magistrate after evaluating the material placed by the prosecution, passed the impugned calendar and judgment dt.04.04.2016, wherein she held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and thereby she acquitted the accused for the said offences and further held that the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 498-A

I.P.C and found guilt for the said offence and imposed the sentence mentioned supra.

9.Challenging the impugned conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant herein, he preferred the present appeal contending that the trial court ought to have seen that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is replete with inconsistence, incongruities and improbabilities and the trial court ought to disbelieved the evidence of prosecution as it is not supported by independent witnesses and thereby 6 acquit the appellant and the trial court ought to have seen that PW1 herself deserted and only to block mail the appellant, she filed a false case and the trial court ought to have seen that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in giving Ex.P1 report to the police and there is no reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay which throws any amount of doubt as to the truth of the contents of the report and that the trial court failed to see that the evidence of prosecution lacks corroboration and is contradictory and is full of material contradictions and material omissions, which go to the root of the prosecution case and the complainant filed this case against the appellant only to bring him to her terms and the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and came to erroneous conclusion.

10.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the the learned Addl.P.P.

11.Now, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows:

1. Whether the impugned conviction and sentence

awarded against the accused/appellant for the

offence under section 498­A I.P.C vide calendar

and Judgment dated 04.04.2016 in

C.C.No.408/2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate

of I class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur, is

sustainable or not ?

7 2.Result of the Appeal ?

12.POINT No.1:

The learned counsel of the appellant argued that the prosecution examined only the interested witnesses i.e.

the defacto complainant and her father as PWs.1 and 2 including the police officials by given up the material witnesses i.e. Lws.3 and 5 i.e. Gandham Manikyamma i.e.

maternal grand mother of PW1 and L.W.5/Kanchi Madhulatha who is the relative of the defacto complainant and the prosecution wantonly given up the material witnesses; the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are not corroborated each other; further with regard to the contents of the report of the defacto complainant in her written report is entirely different with that of the contents of her 161 Cr.P.C.,statement and also in her evidence and the same was elicited in the evidence of the investigating officer before whom I.e.police the defacto complainant did not state the versions as mentioned in her 161 Cr.P.C.,statement and also in her evidence; further that the appellant never ill treated PW1 and that no material is placed by the prosecution for establishing that the PW1 attempted to commit suicide unable to bear the harassment of the appellant by any independent witnesses; further argued that PW1 gave a false statement to the police which is 8 the basis for registering a case against the accused but the accused never treated the PW1 with cruelty, but the trial court erroneously convicted the accused /appellant of the offence

U/s.498-A I.P.C., so the appeal may be allowed.

13.Per contra, the learned Addl.P.P., argued that the trial Court has properly appreciated the material placed

before it and properly convicted the accused of the offence

under section 498-A I.P.C and so there is no need to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court and so this appeal may be dismissed.

14.Before the learned Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Special Mobile Court, Guntur the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 5 in order to substantiate its case. P.W.1 is no other than the victim. P.W.2-Ammisetty Venkateswa Rao, is the father of victim and PWs.3 to 5 are the police officials, who recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered the crime and after completion of entire investigation, filed charge sheet.

15.The undisputed facts of the case are that, prior to the marriage, PW1 and the appellant were loved each other and later their marriage was performed between the elders and they lived together and PW1 begot a female child, namely

Durga Sai Charitha Sri.

16.The victim in this case who is no other than the 9 wife of accused is examined as PW1 and she categorically deposed that her marriage with the accused was performed on 11.08.2008 at Thirupathi and at the time of the marriage, her parents gave gold ornaments worth Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry and at the time of the marriage, the accused was working as sales executive in Maruthi True Value show room,

Guntur and she was working as a teacher in Sreshta Gurukul

Inspite school and she gave birth to a female child named above and she is aged 6 years then and two months after their marriage, the accused started harassing and demanding her to bring money from her parents and her parents used to adjust the amounts now and then and her mother died after the birth of her daughter and after that her father did not provide any amount and the accused addicted to vices i.e. consuming alcohol and demanding her to give her gold ornaments to satisfy his vices and on one day while she was bathing her child, the accused came and asked her gold chain, when she refused to give the same, the accused kicked on his back and due to which the child dipped into the water tub and due to a nerve in the stomach of her daughter was damaged and immediately she sent her daughter to Raja Children Specialty

Hospital and on the doctor’s advice and out of urgency, by selling her gold chain and got operated her child and saved 10 her daughter’s life and she gave a report against the police and has been living separately and after one year, the accused made mediations through elders for reunion and hence she has entered into compromise with the accused in the said case and started living with him and after such settlement of the case, the accused looked after PW1 properly for a period of one month and again he started harassing her physically and mentally and again demanding her to bring amounts from her senior maternal aunt and her sisters and she could not tolerate the physical and mental harassment caused by the accused, she had attempted to commit suicide and realized herself that if she lost her life, no one could see her daughter’s welfare and went to Women police station and gave report and where the suggestions given by the members were refused by the accused and Ex.P1 is the report given by her to the police.

In the cross examination, PW1 deposed that her parents obtained divorce in her childhood and both of them got re-marriages and she had a sister who is younger to me and she had been living with her grand mother’s house and her sister had been living with her mother and her marriage was performed by her mother, grand mother and her maternal uncles at Thirumala Thirupathi Devasthanam at Thirupathi.

11

PW1 further deposed that her mother re-married a person namely D.Venkata Narayana and he had attended her marriage and signed as guardian and her maternal uncle also signed as 2nd witness and her father i.e. Anisetty Venkateswara Rao did not attend her marriage, but his friends were attended to her marriage. PW1 admitted that the accused shifted the family to

Hyderabad and she also admitted that her mother died by committing suicide during her stay at Hyderabad and within one month from the death of her mother, the accused and herself shifted their family to Guntur and her sister is living with her grand mother on account of disputes with her husband and she denied the suggestion that the accused was attending to work as a photographer at Vijayawada and did not attending to any work and demanding her to give her gold ornaments is false and she further denied the suggestion that her parents did not give gold ornaments worth Rs.1,00,000/-.

PW1 further admitted that she did not state before the police that the accused started harassing her since two months from the date of marriage and she has stated before the police that the accused looked after her for one year. PW1 further admitted that she did not state before the police that her parents arranged amounts for her for some time and she did not state before the police that accused had kicked her on her 12 back side when she was cleaning her daughter in the wash room. PW1 denied the suggestion that when she took her daughter for giving bath and at that time, she has accidentally slipped and fell down and then her daughter sustained injury and that she did not state before the police that she has attempted to commit suicide. PW1 adds that she has written the same in her report.

17.PW2, Anisetty Venkateswara Rao, who is father of

PW1 deposed about the marriage of PW1 and the accused at

Tirupathi and presentation of gold ornaments worth of

Rs.1,00,000/- by his wife i.e. Lakshmi Devi and out of the wedlock, PW1 blessed with a female child and later he came to know that the accused harassing PW1 both physically and mentally by demanding amounts through PW1 and on one day

PW1 informed him that when PW1 was cleaning her child, the accused kicked her from her behind by demanding her to give gold chain and due to which her daughter fell down into the tub and sustained internal injury in her stomach and thereafter PW1 gave report to police against the accused and later both PW1 and accused compromised in the said matter and further stated that PW1 having vexed with the attitude of the accused had attempted to commit suicide twice and he came to know the said fact through some of the neighbours of 13

PW1 and later also PW1 gave report to Nagarampalem Police against the accused.

PW2 stated in his cross examination that PW1 was living with him till her marriage and he sent her from his house as he came to know about her love affair and she went to her grand mother’s house and was living there till her marriage.

He denied the suggestion that from the date of divorce with her first wife, PW1 was living in the house of Gandham

Manikyamma and she never lived in her house. PW2 further admitted that the accused was working in Bajaj show room by the date of his marriage and he did not attend the marriage of

PW1 with the accused and the same was performed by the mother of PW1 Lakshmi Devi and her second husband Venkata

Narayana, her mother and brothers. PW2 admitted that his first wife Lakshmi Devi died by committing suicide at

Hyderabad and by the date of death of Lakshmi Devi, the accused and PW1 were living at Hyderabad. PW2 denied the suggestion that no dowry was given to the accused and he does not know anything about the same as he did not attend the marriage and PW1 never attempted to commit suicide for the harassment of the accused.

18.PWs.3 to 5 are the investigating officers and they deposed about the investigation conducted by them. Ex.P2 is 14 the F.I.R was marked through PW3 and PW5 deposed that on 25.03.2014, he arrested the accused at 11.00 a.m., near market centre. Whereas PW4 deposed with regard to the investigation done by him i.e. visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., and further investigation was done by his successor in office in view of his transfer.

In the cross examination, PW4 admitted that PW1 did not state before the police that the accused started harassing her for illegal demand for dowry since two months of her marriage and further PW1 did not state that the accused has been harassing PW1 to give her gold ornaments to meet his vices and further that PW1 did not state before him that she got surgery for her daughter by selling her gold chain and further that PW1 did not state before him that she has attempted to commit suicide twice for the harassment of the accused and also admitted that PW2 did not state before him that on one day when PW1 was cleaning her daughter in the washroom, the accused has kicked her from her behind and got treated by selling her gold chain. PW4 admitted that

LW3/Gandham Manikyamma is the maternal grand mother of

PW1. PW4 denied the suggestion that LW5/Kanchi

Madhulatha is cousin of PW1.

15

19.Cruelty is defined in the explanation mentioned in

Section 498-A of IPC. Section 498-A IPC reads as follows:-

“498-A: Husband or relative of husband of a

woman subjecting her to cruelty:-

Whoever, being the husband or the

relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such

woman to cruelty shall be punished with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to

three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation:- For the purpose of this section,

cruelty means...

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature

as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide

or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or

health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;

or

(b) harassment of the woman where such

harassment is with a view to coercing her or any

person related to her to meet any unlawful

demand for any property or valuable security or is

on account of failure by her or any person related

to her to meet such demand.”

So, as per the definition of cruelty as defined in the explanation in Section 498-A IPC, it is clear that the cruelty is only willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman, or it may be harassment regarding any unlawful demand for any property.

16

20.The learned counsel for the accused has relied on a

Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.299 of 2003, in between Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, decided on 29.05.2009.

21.In the instant case, PW1 deposed that after separation of her father and mother, she was residing with her grand mother since her childhood and the sister of PW1 was residing with her mother. If the version of PW1 is true, LW3 i.e.

her grand mother is the best witness to the facts of the prosecution case. But, in this case, the prosecution given up the evidence of some witnesses including the evidence of grand mother of PW1, for the reasons best known to the prosecution and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

Whereas, in the evidence of PW2, who is the father of PW1 though supported the version of PW1 with regard to the marital relationship of PW2 and his first wife, blessed with two female child i.e. PW1 and her younger sister; their separation by way of divorce and getting of re-marriages according to their wish and contradicting the evidence of PW1 with regard to her stay i.e. since childhood until her marriage with the accused at the house of her grand mother i.e. LW3 and he deposed that PW1 was residing with him till she loved the accused and it is against his wish, so that he sent out PW1 17 from his house, then only PW1 went to her grand mother’s house till her marriage and though he is not an eye witness to the occurrence and further that in the matrimonial cases, the overt acts i.e. harassment and ill-treatment against the victms were done within the four walls and were not proved totally, but if any harassment was done by the accused, the same was elicited by somebody i.e. neighbouring witness and in this case, PW2 never lived along with PW1 and the accused and hence, his evidence is not trustworthy and his evidence is far away from the truth. Therefore, this court found material contradictions between the versions in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2.

22.Further, the defacto complainant made a grave allegation against the the accused that the accused addicted to vices and subjected PW1 to cruelty and harassing her both physically and mentally and if the version of PW1 is true, there is every possibility to know the said fact to her neighbours at any instance and in order to prove the said fact also, the prosecution ought to have examined any of the neighbours, but the prosecution failed to prove it’s case in this aspect also and it is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.

23.Further, PW1 stated that initially PW1 and the accused loved each other and their marriage was performed in 18 the presence of elders and on such occasion, her parents presented gold ornaments worth Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was not established by any other witnesses i.e. independent witnesses.

24.Further, PW1 made a grave and baseless allegation against the accused that while she was bathing her child, accused came and demanding her to give her gold chain in order to spend his vices and when she denied the demand of the accused, he kicked her from behind and due to which, her child fell down into the water tub and and due to which, a nerve in the stomach of her daughter was damaged and immediately she sent her daughter to Raja Children Specialty

Hospital and on the doctor’s advice and out of urgency, by selling her gold chain and got operated her child and saved her daughter’s life and the same was not mentioned in her report and statement u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C before the police and in her report, she mentioned that while the accused was kicking her, her daughter was dropped down in her hands, but in her evidence by developing her version that while the child was bathing/cleaning, the accused kicked PW1 from her behind and due to which her child dropped down into the water tub and went upto the death, but the said version was not made out by any other independent evidence i.e. neighbours of PW1 19 and this court observed that the versions of the defacto complainant while registering the case and by the time of giving the evidence as PW1 was entirely changed from time to time.

25.In this case, PW4 is one of the crucial witness who is the investigating officer deposed that PW1 did not state

before the police with regard to facts i.e. harassing her for

illegal demand of additional dowry since two months of her marriage; demanding of PW1 to give her gold ornaments to meet his vices; she got operated her daughter by selling her gold chain when the accused kicked her from her behind when she was bathing her child; that she attempted to commit suicide twice due to the unbearable harassment of the accused and those are the material omissions in the case of the prosecution and those are fatal to the case of the prosecution.

26.Though, in the written report i.e. EX.P1, PW1 alleged most of the allegations in order to connect the accused with the offence u/Sect.498-A I.P.C and also connecting the accused for the offences u/Secs.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act and succeeded in her attempts while registering the case and prosecuted him, but failed to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt.

20

27.Further on perusal of the findings in the judgment of our Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manju Ram Kalita,

Appellant v State of Assam, our Hon’ble Lordship held in para

Nos.19, 22, 29 and 30 held as follows:

 19. In Smt. Raj Rani v. State (Delhi Administration ); AIR

2000 SC 3559, this Court held that while considering

the case of cruelty in the context to the provisions of

Section 498A I.P.C., the court must examine that

allegations/accusations must be of a very grave

nature and should be proved beyond reasonable

doubt. 

22. "Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498­A I.P.C. is to

be established in the context of S. 498­A IPC as it

may be a different from other statutory provisions. It

is to be determined/inferred by considering the

conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or

seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether

it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc.

It is to be established that the woman has been

subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at

least in close proximity of time of lodging the

complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as

`cruelty' to attract the provisions of Section 498­A

IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it

becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty. 

29. Thus, in our opinion, all the three courts below erred

in not considering the case in correct perspective.

The findings so recorded by the Courts below may be

relevant for granting the relief in a matrimonial

dispute i.e. divorce etc. but could not bring home the

charge under Section 498­A IPC. 

30. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, conviction of the

appellant under Section 498­A IPC and punishment

for the said offence awarded by the courts below are

set aside. However, conviction and sentence under

Section 494 IPC are maintained. 

The facts and circumstances of the Hon’ble Apex Court are similar to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

21

28.When the learned trial court acquitted the accused for the charge u/Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove the giving of dowry and also demanding the additional dowry by the accused and in the absence of valid and trustworthy evidence, the contentions of PW1 can not be accepted.

29.So, considering all the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence u/Sec.498-A

I.P.C with regard to subjecting her to cruelty and hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the offence under

Section 498-A I.P.C and he must be given benefit of doubt.

30.A perusal of the impugned judgment makes clear that the learned Magistrate has not properly appreciated the material placed on record and failed to come to the right conclusion found the accused guilt of the charge u/Sec.498-A

I.P.C and convicted the accused and passed the sentence supra. So, the impugned conviction and sentence passed against the accused is liable to be set aside. Hence, this point is answered in favour of appellant and against the prosecution.

22

31.POINT No.2:-

IN THE RESULT, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur in

C.C.No.408/2014 dt. 04.04.2016 and thereby the accused is found not guilty for the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C and he is acquitted u/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The fine amount if any paid by the accused/appellant shall be refunded to him after the expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of 6 months period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 7th day of June, 2019.

Sd/-A.Vasanthi

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral and documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/-A.Vasanthi

II A.S.J.

Copy to Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur along with record.

MVOP 143/2016 1 FAIR

BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -

CUM - II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, GUNTUR

Present : Ms.A.Vasanthi, II Additional District Judge, Guntur

Friday, this the 31st day of May, 2019

M.V.O.P.No.143/2016

Nallabotula Rama Rao, S/o.Brahmaiah, aged about 29 years, R/o.9th ward, Nagarjuna Colony, Sattenapalli, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

...Petitioner.

-AND- 1)A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep.by it’s V.C and M.D., O/o.Musheerabad, Hyderabad. (Owner of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 07 Z 0240) 2)Bommathoti Narayana, S/o.Adaiah, R/o.Mandadi Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Guntur District., A.P., Gurazala J.C.J.C. (Driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 07 Z 0240)

... Respondents.

This petition came for final hearing before this court on 29.05.2019 in the presence of N.Prasada Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court made the following:-

ORDER

This O.P. is filed U/Secs.166 of Motor Vehicles Act and

Rules 455 and 476 of A.P.M.V. Rules seeking compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- on account of the injuries received by the petitioner namely Nallabotula Rama Rao, S/o.Brahmaiah, in a motor accident occurred on 20.06.2015 at about 9.00 P.M., at Ayyappa Swamy

Temple, Sattenapalli Guntur District.

MVOP 143/2016 2 FAIR

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

The petitioner is resident of 9th ward, Nagarjuna Colony,

Sattenapalli, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. The 1st Respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 07 Z 0240.

On 20.06.2015 at about 9.00 P.M., 20.08.2014, while the petitioner is going by riding the motor cycle from his house to go to his work place i.e. Koti Rattaiah Rice Mill on the way when he reached at Ayyappa Swamy Temple at Sattenapalli town and at that time, he is moving on the road margin, APS RTC bus bearing No AP 07 Z 0240 driven by it’s driver with rash and negligent manner with high speed without following traffic rules and regulations came from Guntur side and hit the petitioner’s bike and as a result, the petitioner and his bike were fell down and in which the petitioner sustained injuries mentioned in Column no.11 and immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government

Hospital, Sattenapalli town and then the petitioner was shifted to

Time Hospital, Vijayawada and while the petitioner was undergoing treatment, the petitioner spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards hospital and medical expenses and more money will be required in future.

Relating to the said accident, a case in Crime

No.154/2015 for the offence under section 338 I.P.C was registered at Sattenapalli Town P.S., Guntur District.

MVOP 143/2016 3 FAIR

By the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged about 29 years, he was hale and healthy and working as daily worker in Koti Rattaiah Rice Mill and was earning Rs.300/- per day and the same was spent for maintenance of his family and due to the injuries, he is unable to do any work as usual and due to multiple ribs fractures, he is suffering with breathing problem and unable to take breath properly and due to his leg fractures, still he is in bed ridden and he requires another operation for his leg and at present his right was fixed with metal stand and unable to move from the bed and the petitioner suffered mentally and physically and due to untimely accident, he lost his earnings. It is the further contention of the petitioner that except the petitioner, there are no other earning persons in his family and the petitioner was still taking treatment and he spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards hospital and medical expenses and more money will be required in future for further treatment. It is the further contention of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. APS RTC

Bus bearing No. AP 07 Z 0240 is vicariously liable for the negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 07 Z 0240. So, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- to the petitioner.

3.The 1st respondent filed it’s written statement denying the averments made in the petition and stating that the petitioner

MVOP 143/2016 4 FAIR is put to strict proof about all the averments made in the petition with regard to the alleged occurrence and manner of accident in dispute, involvement of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 07 Z 0240, receiving of injuries, registration of crime against the driver of the offending bus i.e. 2nd respondent, admission and treatment of petitioner in the hospital by spending huge amount and suffered with permanent disability and further that age, occupation, income, loss of earnings and earning capacity of the petitioner due to the accident and also with regard to the claiming of compensation amount with the higher rate of interest etc.,

It is the contention of the 1st respondent that there is no rash or negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent and further that the petitioner himself is responsible for causing the accident and that the petition is bad for non joinder of proper and necessary parties i.e. owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 5 AG 4563 and as such this respondent is not liable to compensation to the petitioner and prayed the Hon’ble Tribunal, to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.The 2nd respondent filed his written statement denying the averments made in the petition and stating that though he is very much cautious and used to follow the traffic rules and regulations while driving the offending bus and further while the petitioner was over taking the motor cycle which is going ahead, the petitioner dashed the bus on it’s right side bumper even

MVOP 143/2016 5 FAIR anticipating the rashness of the petitioner and as such there is no rash or negligence on his part and further that the petitioner is the responsible for causing the accident. It is the further contention of this respondent that he had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the alleged offending vehicle and further that the claim of the petitioner is excessive, abnormal and concocted and further that this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation amount as claimed by the petitioner and prayed the Hon’ble Tribunal to dismiss the petition with costs.

5.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed by my learned Predecessor:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP07 Z 0240 ?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so,

to what amount, from which of the respondent ?

3) To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A9 and he got examined the doctors, who treated him as PWs.2 and 3 and though PW2,

Ex.X1 is marked on behalf of the petitioner.

On behalf of the respondents, the 2nd respondent examined himself as RW1, but no documents are marked on his behalf.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

MVOP 143/2016 6 FAIR

Upon the careful perusal of pleadings of both sides, apart from the oral and documentary evidence i.e. P.Ws.1 to 3 and

RW1 and Exs.A1 to A9 and Ex.X1, thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. The findings of this court on issue-wise are as follows:

8.Issue No.1:-

To prove the manner of accident, petitioner examined himself as PW1, who filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, reiterating the contents of the petition and through him, Exs.A1 to A9 are marked.

In the cross examination of PW1, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 put a suggestion that the accident took place due to rash riding of the petitioner while riding the motor bike and he himself hit right side bumper of the RTC bus, coming in his opposite direction and that there is no rash or negligence driving on the part of the driver of RTC bus and the said suggestions were denied by the petitioner. In the cross examination of PW1, admitted that he did not wear the helmet and he hold driving licence to ride motorbike as on the date of the accident, but it was lost in the accident. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the report given by the wife of the petitioner to police, on which the concerned police registered the same as a case in Crime

No.154/2015 and on perusal of the said report, it reveals that she came to know that on 20.06.2015 at 9.00 P.M., while the petitioner

MVOP 143/2016 7 FAIR returning to his work place by taking carriage and amount and when he reached Ayyappa Swamy Temple in Guntur road, the RTC which was proceeding towards Sattenapalli, hit the petitioner. In this case, the wife of PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident in dispute whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus i.e. 2nd respondent.

But, simply on the hearsay evidence, she came to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent is the solely responsible for causing the accident and made her report to the concerned police against the 2nd respondent by fixing the responsibility. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet which was filed by the concerned police after due investigation in this case, filed the same against the driver of the offending bus i.e. the 2nd respondent herein by fixing the liability against the 2nd respondent for causing the accident in dispute for the offence u/Sec.338 of I.P.C.

The 2nd respondent examined himself as RW1, who filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, reiterating the contents of his written statement. In the cross examination, RW1 admitted that the police filed charge sheet against him and he has not given any written complaint to the police regarding adversity of the documents i.e. Exs.A1 to A4 and the criminal case which was filed against him was disposed. RW1 denied the suggestion that the contents of Exs.A1 to A4 are not correct and he further denied the suggestion that he drove the bus rash and negligently and hit the

MVOP 143/2016 8 FAIR motor cycle of the petitioner.

The 2nd respondent since beginning contended that though he is very much cautious and used to follow the traffic rules and regulations while driving the offending bus and further while the petitioner was over taking the motor cycle which is going ahead, the petitioner dashed the bus on it’s right side bumper even anticipating the rashness of the petitioner and as such there is no rash or negligence on his part and further that the petitioner is solely responsible for causing the accident and that the 2nd respondent had valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident.

If the version of the petitioner is true with regard to the driving licence, there is every possibility to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities to obtain the same and on his getting the driving licence, he could have filed the same before this

Tribunal, but he failed to file the same to strengthen his version.

This Tribunal believes the version of the 2nd respondent to some extent that according to him, while the petitioner was over taking the motor cycle which is going ahead, the petitioner dashed the bus on it’s right side bumper and in such occasion only a person can receive injuries on his right side leg etc., and in this case, this

Tribunal observed that the petitioner sustained injuries mostly on his right side of the body as mentioned in Ex.A3/wound certificate.

As per the evidence of PW1 and RW1, it is clear that at

MVOP 143/2016 9 FAIR the time of the accident, PW1 did not ware the helmet and while overtaking the bike ahead and himself dashed the right side of the

RTC bus, it shows that the petitioner has not taken proper care and caution and failed to follow the traffic rules and regulations and on perusal of the material on record, there is a contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner also apart from the 2nd respondent and in this regard and fixing the 70% of negligence is on the part of the 2nd respondent and 30% negligence is on the part of the petitioner.

Therefore, both the 2nd respondent and the petitioner are responsible for causing the accident in dispute. So, this issue is answered accordingly.

09.ISSUE No.2:-

Ex.A3/wound certificate issued by the medical officer,

Time Hospitals Pvt., Ltd., Vijayawada. Ex.X1 is the case sheet of the petitioner maintained by the said hospital. To prove the injuries received by him and the nature of injuries, PW1 got examined the doctor who treated him in the said hospital as PW2. According to the contention of the petitioner that due to the accident, he sustained multiple fractures and multiple injuries all over his body.

Dr.S.Kiran Reddy, PW2 working as Consultant,

Orthopaedic Surgeon in Time Hospital, Vijayawada, deposed that he examined one N.Rama Rao/PW1 on 21.06.2015 with the following injuries (external injuries):

1.Cut lacerated wound 6x5 cms over the medial aspect

MVOP 143/2016 10 FAIR of right knee; 2.Cut lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm over lateral aspect of right thigh.

Internal injuries:

1.Segmental fracture shaft of right femur; 2.Segmental fracture shaft of right tibia; 3.Glenoid fracture of right scapula; 4.Ribs fracture i.e. 4,5,6 on right side; 5.Comminuted fracture patella right side and he opined that all the internal injuries are grievous in nature. He further deposed that intially, O.R.I.F., with plate and screws for right tibia was done on 23.06.2015 and later implant removal was done on 11.07.2015 and discharged on 21.07.2015 and on his advice, PW1 consulted Dr.Prasad at Khammam for further treatment. PW2 confirmed that Exs.A3, A5,A6, A7 were issued by their hospital and also confirmed that Ex.X1 i.e. case sheet of the petitioner issued by their hospital. PW2 further deposed that today i.e. on 04.10.2018, he examined PW1 and found that there is shortening of right lower limb by 5 cms and stiffness at right knee and PW1 is walking with the aid of walker and he advised PW1 for further surgery for correction of deformity of right lower limb and at present PW1 is unable to perform heavy duties and cannot squat and cannot go back his previous duties.

In the cross examination of PW2, he admitted that similar treatment is also available in G.G.H., Guntur and that the

MVOP 143/2016 11 FAIR final bill for Rs.2,80,375/- in Ex.A6 was not signed by him, but it was issued by their billing department and Ex.A6 were not counter signed by him and the witness adds that since PW1 is in requirement of further surgeries for correction of deformity.

The petitioner in order to establish the injuries sustained by him in the road accident and he had taken treatment in the hospital of PW2 and incurred huge amount and relating to the said treatment, he filed some relevant documents.

The next aspect that has to be considered is the quantum of compensation that can be claimed by the petitioner under various heads:

Medical and hospital charges:

Under this head, the petitioner claimed Rs.4,00,000/-. As per the material on record i.e. considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, this Tribunal found that PW1 sustained injuries in the accident and took treatment in the hospital of PW2 by spending considerable amount under Exs.A6 and A8 respectively and the same was already discussed in the evidence of PW2 in Issue no.1 and hence, the petitioner is awarded Rs.4,00,000/- only under the head of medical and hospital charges.

PAIN AND SUFFERING:

The petitioner claimed Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. In support of his case, PW1 filed Ex.A3 i.e. wound

MVOP 143/2016 12 FAIR certificate and Ex.A4/discharge summary, it clearly shows that the petitioner sustained multiple fractures and multiple injuries all over his body and the same was reflected in Ex.A3 and as evidenced by

PW2. So, basing on the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 apart from the documentary evidence on behalf of the petitioner, he is entitled for

Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering.

Damages for permanent disability, loss of earnings and earning capacity:

Under this head, the petitioner claimed Rs.3,50,000/-.

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries and took treatment in the hospital of PW2 by spending huge amount by PW1 and the same was decided in Issue no.1 by considering the material on record i.e. both oral and documentary evidence on behalf of the petitioner and now this court, to arrive the compensation under this head, to find out the disability sustained by the petitioner.

PW1 stated that due to the accident, he sustained multiple fractures and multiple injuries and to that effect he sustained permanent disability. In order to prove his contention,

PW1 got examined Dr.G.Varaprasad, Professor of Orthopaedics in

G.G.H., Guntur as PW3. PW3 deposed in his evidence that he is one of the members of the Medical Board of Guntur and he is one of the team member who examined the petitioner and Ex.A9 is the certificate issued to the petitioner and the rate of the disability of

MVOP 143/2016 13 FAIR the petitioner at 78% which is permanent and partiality and Ex.A9 contains his signature. In the cross examination, PW3 deposed that after registration of the application before the Board, usually about 25 persons will be examined every day and issue the disability certificate and they issued the disability certificate basing upon the findings on that day, but not relating to cause and the above board is constituted by the Government only for the benefits from the

Government.

According to the petitioner, he was aged about 29 years, but he has not filed any documentary proof to show his age as 29 years and after verifying the record, this Tribunal considered the age of the petitioner as 29 years basing on the documentary evidence of Ex.A3/wound certificate. The petitioner claimed that he is doing daily labour work in a rice mill and getting income of

Rs.300/- per day, but he did not file any documentary proof to show his income. Therefore, this Tribunal is considered that a person can easily earn Rs.150/- per day by doing labour work, hence the monthly income of the petitioner is Rs.150/- x 30 = Rs.4,500/- and his annual income is Rs.4,500/- x 12 = Rs.54,000/-. As per the evidence of PW3, the petitioner is having 78% of disability, which is permanent and partial and in view of the Apex Court judgment in

Sarla Varma’s case, the relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the petitioner is “17” and in view of the above material on hand, the petitioner is entitled to award Rs.7,16,040/- (Rs.54,000/- x

MVOP 143/2016 14 FAIR 78 % x 17) under the head of permanent disability and earning capacity.

Loss of Earnings:

According to the petitioner and as per the evidence of

PW2, due to the injuries caused to the petitioner in the accident in dispute, PW1 admitted in the hospital of PW2 on 21.06.2015 and discharged on 21.07.2015 and hence this Tribunal considers that in view of grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for one month income towards loss of income during the treatment period and hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.4,500/- under the head of loss of income.

Thus, after calculating all the amounts awarded to the petitioner, which comes to Rs.11,40,540/- and this Tribunal have decided in the earlier issues, that the accident was caused due to contributory negligence of rider and driver of both the vehicles involved in the accident i.e. the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and also decided the percentage of negligence on their part i.e.

30% on the petitioner and 70% on the 2nd respondent. So, the respondents 1 and 2 are liable for 70% of negligence and hence, they are directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,98,378/- (Rs.11,40,540/- x70/100).

Thus, the petitioner is entitled to claim a total compensation of Rs.11,40,540/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs forty thousand five hundred and forty only) under the above heads. As

MVOP 143/2016 15 FAIR far as granting of rate of interest is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to the award amount together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the petitioner. So, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

10.ISSUE No.3:-

In the result, the petition is allowed with costs, awarding compensation of Rs.11,40,540/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs forty thousand five hundred and forty only) by deciding the negligence of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent with a ratio of 30:70 percentage and in such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation for a sum of Rs.7,98,378/- (Rupees Seven Lakh ninety eight thousand three hundred and seventy eight only) i.e.

70% of the claim with subsequent interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the said amount by the respondents.

The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this Order.

On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- initially and the remaining amount shall be kept Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of one year.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.7,500/-.

MVOP 143/2016 16 FAIR

The petitioner is directed to pay the difference in court fee on the excess amount awarded to the claimant, within a week from the date of this Order.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 31st day of May, 2019.

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL- CUM- II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

GUNTUR.

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

P.W.1: Nallabotula Rama Rao R.W.1: B.Narayana.

P.W.2: Dr.G.S.Kiran Reddy.

P.W.3: Dr.G.Varaprasad.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1 is the C.C. of F.I.R along with report in Cr.No.154/2015 u/Sec.338 of I.P.C. of Sattenapalli Town P.S.

Ex.A2 is C.C of charge sheet vide C.C.822/2015 filed against the 2nd respondent before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Sattenapalli.

Ex.A3 is the wound certificate of the petitioner issued by Time

Hospital, Vijayawada.

Ex.A4 is the C.C of rough sketch.

Ex.A5 is the Discharge summary of the petitioner issued by Time

Hospital, Vijayawada.

Ex.A6 is the Final bill issued by Time hospitals, Vijayawada for an amount of Rs.3,84,189/-

Ex.A7 is the bunch of prescriptions issued by Time Hospitals,

Vijayawada.

Ex.A8 is the Hospital cash receipts and pharmacy receipts issued by

Srujan Ortho and Accident care, Khammam by

Dr.P.N.V.S.V.,Prasad, for an amount of Rs.41,069/-.

Ex.A9 is the disability certificate of the petitioner.

MVOP 143/2016 17 FAIR

Through PW2:

Ex.X1 is the case sheet of the petitioner.

For Respondents:- -NIL-

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-II ADJ

GUNTUR.

BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM –

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, GUNTUR

Present: Ms.A.Vasanthi, II Additional District Judge, Guntur

Friday, this the 7th day of June, 2019

M.V.O.P.No. 854/2015

BETWEEN:

1)Padavala Maharaju, S/o.Mavullu, aged about 50 years, Occupation : Coolie.

2)Padavala Narasimha Rao, S/o.Mavullu, aged about 47 years, Occupation : Coolie,

Near Medical College Hostel, Amaravathi Road,

Guntur City & D.M.C., Guntur District. ... Petitioners.

AND

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,

Rep.by it’s Managing Director, Hyderabad,

(Hyderabad City Civil Court D.M.C.) .. Respondents.

This petition came before this court on this day i.e. 04.06.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Siva Prasad, Advocate for the petitioners, Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the respondent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court made the following.

ORDER

The petitioners filed this petition u/Sec.163-A of Motor

Vehicles Act and Rules 455 and 476 of A.P.M.V.Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of accident till the date of realization on account of death of Padavala Mariyamma,

W/o.Mavullu, (hereinafter referred to as deceased) in a motor accident that occurred on 09.01.1998 at about 11.15 A.M., near Saint

John’s Mission Hospital, Palakollu, Palakollu Mandal, West Godavari

District.

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

The petitioners are now residents near Medical College Hostel,

Amaravathi road, Guntur city and District and that the petitioners are the children of the deceased i.e. Padavala Mariyamma and the respondent is the owner of RTC bus bearing registration No.AP 9 Z 3711.

That on 09.01.1998 at about 11.15 A.M., while the deceased and others were going on the left side of the road margin, the driver of the RTC bus bearing registered No.AP 9 Z 3711 while driving the same in a rash and negligent manner hit them from behind near Saint

John’s Mission Hospital, Palakollu, Palakollu Mandal, West Godavari

District and as a result of which, they sustained severe injuries and the deceased and another by name Palavarthi Chandra Rao succumbed to the injuries instantaneously.

Relating to the said accident, the matter was reported to the police and the S.H.O., Palakollu Town P.S., registered the same as a case in Cr.No.15/1998 u/Sec.304-A I.P.C against the driver of the

RTC bus that was involved in the accident and after due investigation, the police filed charge sheet against him and that the accident was caused only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus that was involved in the accident.

At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 60 years, doing as agricultural coolie and she used to earn Rs.40,000/- per annum and if the deceased had been alive, she would have earned more and spend the same for the petitioners and that except the petitioners there are no other dependents and legal representatives of the deceased. The petitioners lost their dependency in addition to mental agony and suffering due to premature death of their mother and after the accident, the officials of the respondent’s Corporation approached the petitioners and paid

Rs.50,000/- towards interim relief without explaining them how much amount of compensation that they are entitled and subsequently as the respondent corporation failed to pay compensation as per the provisions of M.V.Act, they are constrained to file this petition for just compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under various heads fully described in column No.25 of the original petition and as the owner of R.T.C Bus involved in the accident and as such the respondent is vicariously liable for the negligent act of respondent’s driver and is liable to pay the compensation amount.

Hence, the petition.

3.The respondent filed it’s written statement denying the averments made in the petition and the brief contents of it are as follows:

This respondent submits that the petitioners have to put strict proof about all the averments made in the petition with regard to the alleged accident in dispute, involvement of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 3711, premature death of the deceased due to the accident; registration of crime against the driver of the offending bus relating to the respondent and further that the age, occupation, income, loss of dependency and also with regard to the claiming of compensation amount with interest with higher rate etc.,

Without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners, this respondent contended that the petitioners did not file any documentary evidence to show that the deceased was the only earning member and they are the dependents of the deceased and further that though the driver of the respondent is having valid and effective driving licence and further he is not responsible for causing the accident in dispute, the police failed to investigate the case properly and filed charge sheet against the driver of the respondent and further that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant and further the rate of interest claimed by the petitioners is also excessive as it is against the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and prayed the Hon’ble Tribunal, to dismiss the petition with costs.

4. Based on the pleadings, my learned predecessor in office, framed the following issues for trial.

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing

No.AP 9 Z 3711?

2)Whether the petitioners are entitled for

compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from which of the

respondent?

3)To what relief?

Issue No.1 is not properly framed as this O.P is filed under

Section 163-A of the M.V Act. Now, Issue No.1 is re-casted as follows:

Whether the accident which occurred on 09.01.1998

arose out of the use of offending vehicle i.e. APSRTC Bus bearing

No.AP 9 Z 3711 ?

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners,

PW1 is examined and Exs.A1 to A4 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondent.

6.Heard arguments on both sides.

Upon the careful perusal of pleadings of both sides, apart from the oral and documentary evidence i.e. P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4, thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. The findings of this court on issue-wise are as follows:

7.Re-casted Issue:-

As this O.P. is filed U/s.163-A of M.V.Act, there is no need for giving any specific finding about the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Suffice, if the petitioners are able to establish that the accident in dispute arose out of the use of a motor vehicle i.e, the offending bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 3711 and in the said accident, the deceased received severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

8.The Petitioner, who examined himself as P.W.1, filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, reiterating the contents of the petition. Exs.A1 to A4 are marked through PW1. Ex.A1 is the C.C.

of F.I.R. along with report in Cr.No.15/1998 of Palakollu P.S. for the offences U/secs.304-A and 337 I.P.C., dt.09.01.1998. As per the said

F.I.R. it is clear that after the accident basing on the statement given by one Lanka Venkanna, who is one of the inmate of the deceased in this case received bleading injuries and in this accident and the persons i.e. Palaparthi Chandra Rao and the deceased in this case were died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent and upon his statement, the said crime was registered. In the said statement there is clear mention about the involvement of the offending vehicle and also about the fact that the accident in dispute occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 3711 by the driver the respondent and in the said accident, the deceased received grievous multiple injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the charge sheet relating to

Cr.No.31/1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Palakollu against the driver of the respondent i.e. Gubbala Satyanarayana, for the offence u/Secs.337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. According to the said charge sheet, it clearly indicates that after the investigation, the concerned police came to the conclusion that the accident in dispute occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, and in the said accident, the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the post mortem report dt.10.01.1998, it clearly indicates that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries in particular to head injury and

Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the M.V. Inspector report, which clearly indicates that after the accident the concerned M.V. Inspector inspected the offending vehicle and submitted his opinion, stating that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the offending vehicle.

In the cross examination, PW1 deposed that as on the date of death of the deceased, himself and the 2nd petitioners are majors and he admitted that after the death of his mother, the respondent paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- and they received the same in consolation of death of his mother in the accident, but not as full and final settlement. PW1 denied the suggestion that they received the said amount towards full and final settlement and as such this respondent is not liable for compensation as claimed by them.

9.So, as per the evidence of P.W.1 and the documents filed by the petitioner, it is very clear that the accident in dispute arose out of the use of the offending vehicle i.e., offending APSRTC Bus bearing

No.AP 9 Z 3711 and in fact the driver of the offending Bus drove the same in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and in the said accident the deceased received severe injuries and she succumbed to the injuries. The respondent has not examined the driver of the offending Bus in order to rebut the evidence of P.W.1.

So, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.

10. ISSUE No.2 : As per the version of the petitioner, it is clear that the deceased was working as coolie at the time of her death. According to the petitioners, except them there are no legal heirs or dependents to the deceased.

According to the version of the petitioners, the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. The accident in dispute occurred on 09.01.1998 and this Tribunal considers that as on the date of occurrence, a person can earn Rs.100/- per day easily by doing coolie work is reasonable figure and hence, the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- and so, the annual income of the deceased is

Rs.36,000/-. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the deceased was aged about 60 years at the time of the accident and on perusal of the charge sheet/Ex.A2 and the post mortem certificate/Ex.A3, the same was reflected i.e. at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased as 60 years.

Following the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others

(2017) S.C 1050) the future prospects of the deceased have to be

enhanced to the existing income:

wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held at para No.61(iv) as follows:

(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

11.In the instant case the deceased died in a road accident at the age of 60 years and had she lived, her future prospects could have been enhanced to 10% of her existing income as she is a self employed person. Then the income of the deceased has to be assessed as gross income + future prospects which comes to (Rs.3,000/- + 300/-) Rs.3,300/- per month. From this, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

Therefore, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.2,200/- per month (Rs.3,300/- (-) Rs.1,100/-). According to the Sarla Varma’s case, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘9’, hence the total loss of dependency is Rs.2,37,600/- (Rs.2,200/- x 12 x 9). Further, according to the guidelines of the Pranay Sethi’s case, Rs.15,000/- can be awarded towards loss of estate and

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

12. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to claim a total compensation of Rs.2,67,600/- (Rs.2,37,600/- + Rs.15,000/- +

Rs.15,000/- ) and as far as granting of rate of interest is concerned, the petitioners are entitled to the award amount together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and that the respondent is liable to pay the said amount to the petitioners. So, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.

13. ISSUE No.3:

In the result, the petition is allowed with costs, awarding compensation of Rs.2,67,600/- (Rupees Two lakhs sixty seven thousand and six hundred only) along with subsequent interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e.17.08.2015 till the date of deposit of the said amount by the respondent.

The respondent is liable to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this Order.

The compensation amount is apportioned to the claimants in equal ratio.

On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their entire share of compensation at once.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

The petitioners are directed to pay the difference in court fee on the excess amount awarded to the claimants, within a week from the date of this Order.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court this the 7th day of June, 2019.

Sd/-A.Vasanthi

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-II ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners: For Respondents:

P.W.1: Padavala Maharaju. -None.-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 Certified copy of F.I.R along with report in Cr.No.15/2018 of

Palakollu P.S., dt.09.01.1998.

Ex.A2 Certified copy of charge sheet., dt.29.01.1998.

Ex.A3 C.C of postmortem report, dt.11.01.1998.

Ex.A4 C.C of M.V.I Report, dt.10.01.1998

For Respondents: -Nil-

Ild/-A.V

CHAIRMAN

MACT – CUM – II ADJ GUNTUR.

BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM –

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, GUNTUR

Present: Ms.A.Vasanthi, II Additional District Judge, Guntur

Friday, this the 7th day of June, 2019

M.V.O.P.No. 854/2015

BETWEEN:

1)Padavala Maharaju, S/o.Mavullu, aged about 50 years, Occupation : Coolie.

2)Padavala Narasimha Rao, S/o.Mavullu, aged about 47 years, Occupation : Coolie,

Near Medical College Hostel, Amaravathi Road,

Guntur City & D.M.C., Guntur District. ... Petitioners.

AND

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,

Rep.by it’s Managing Director, Hyderabad,

(Hyderabad City Civil Court D.M.C.) .. Respondents.

The petitioners filed this petition u/Sec.163-A of Motor

Vehicles Act and Rules 455 and 476 of A.P.M.V.Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of accident till the date of realization on account of death of Padavala Mariyamma,

W/o.Mavullu, (hereinafter referred to as deceased) in a motor accident that occurred on 09.01.1998 at about 11.15 A.M., near Saint

John’s Mission Hospital, Palakollu, Palakollu Mandal, West Godavari

District, on which a court fee of Rs.2,036/- is paid by the petitioners.

Petition presented on : 17.08.2015

Petition filed on : 09.09.2015

This petition came before this court on this day i.e. 04.06.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Siva Prasad, Advocate for the petitioners, Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the respondent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court made doth

Order and decree as follows :-

1. That the the petition be and the same is hereby allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.2,67,600/- (Rupees Two lakhs sixty seven thousand and six hundred only) along with subsequent interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e.17.08.2015 till the date of deposit of the said amount by the respondent;

2. that the respondent is liable to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this Order;

3. that tThe compensation amount is apportioned to the claimants in equal ratio;

4. that on such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their entire share of compensation at once;

5. that the respondent do pay to the petitioners, a sum of

Rs.4,768=00 and the respondent do bear it’s own costs of

Rs.Nil, towards costs in this petition.

Given under my hand and seal of the court on this the 7th day of June, 2019.

Sd/-A.Vasanthi

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-II ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

GUNTUR.

TABLE OF COSTS

Description For Petitioners:For Respondent:

Rs. Ps.Rs.Ps.

Stamp on Vakalat2=00--

Stamps on petition 2,036=00--

Stamp on process130=00--

Advocate Fee2,500=00--

Typing Charges50=00--

Writing Charges50=00–

C.M&FC not filed -------------

Total costs4,768=00 Nil -------------

Ild/-A.V

CHAIRMAN

MACT – CUM – II ADJ

GUNTUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE- (FTC),

GUNTUR PRESENT: Ms.A.Vasanthi,

II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC:VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR.

Thursday, the 28th day of February, 2019

Sessions Case No.344/2015

Between:

State:Inspector of Police,

Sattenapalli Urban P.S. ...Complainant.

-And- 1.Chimata Narasaiah @ Dattu, S/o.Yalamanda, Yadava by caste, near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Sattenapalli (A-1) 2.Macherla Yedukondalu @ Kondalu, S/o.Venkata Narasaiah, 38 years, Yadava by caste, Veeranjaneya Nagar, Sattenapalli Town (A-2)

(Alleged /suspect accused no.2) (As per F.I.R)..Accused.

Deleted alleged / suspect accused:

1.Bathula Chandrasekhar, S/o.Sambasiva Rao, 40 years, Telaga by caste, Nagannakunta, Sattenapalli (alleged / suspect accused no.1) (as per F.I.R) 2.Talluri Mohan Babu, S/o.Anjaneyulu, 40 years, Telaga by caste, Old Salipet, Sattenapalli (alleged / suspect accused no.3) (as per F.I.R) 3.Bapathu Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, 42 years, Near TDP Office, Sattenapalli, RTO Agent. (alleged / suspect accused no.4) (as per F.I.R) 4.Bapathu Srinu @ Mitai Kottu Srinu, S/o.Sambasiva Rao, 35 years, Telaga by caste, Nagarjuna Nagar, Sattenapalli. (alleged / suspect accused no.5) (as per F.I.R) 5.Shaik Rafi, S/o.Mohiddin @ Chandra, 35 years, Muslim by caste, Guntur. (alleged / suspect accused no.6) (as per F.I.R)

This case came up before me on 21.02.2019 for final hearing, in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of

Sri E.Rama Rao, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following::-

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli Urban P.S filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.158/2013 of Sattenapalli Town P.S for the alleged offence under section 302 r/w.34 of IPC.

2

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

Accused Nos.1 and 2 are bosom friends and residents of

Sattenapalli town. Accused no.1 is the own brother of PWs.1, 2, brother-in-law of PW3, younger son of PWs.4 and 5 and P.Ws.6 to 8 are alleged to have been hearing the conversion of accused about killing of the deceased at the instigation of A-2. The deceased herein namely

Chimata Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu, is one of the son of PWs.4 and 5 and brother of PWs.1, 2 and the accused no.1. PWs.4 and 5 had given birth to four male and six female children. A-1 is the youngest son of PWs.4 and 5, is doing mason works and also supplying milk, who involved in theft cases and also in a murder for gain case in Sattenapalli Urban P.S and all the cases ended in acquittal and he had a suspect sheet No.143 in Sattenapalli Urban P.S.

One Gampa Koteswara Rao who is no more is the brother of PW5, is the maternal uncle of PW1, deceased and A-1, had no issues, for that reason, on 15.03.1989, he adopted A-1 vide document No.13/89 of

S.R.O., Sattenapalli, but A-1 addicted to bad vices and enjoys bad reputation and on that reason, on 02.02.2002, the said Gampa

Koteswara Rao, cancelled the adoption registration and died intestate on 26.09.2011 due to heart attack. Subsequently, on 25.01.2012,

Gampa Malleswari, who is the wife of Gampa Koteswara Rao, partitioned her property to the sons of PWs.4 and 5 in the presence of elders under registered documents and she executed combined document to an extent of Ac.2-00 in favour of PW1 and the deceased and also executed to an extent of Ac.2-75 cents of land and a house in favour of the children of A-1 to get possession soon after her demise and finally executed a document to an extent of Ac.1.31 cents in favour of A-1 and while the matters stood thus, prior to one year, A-1 sold away his portion of property i.e. Ac.1.31 cents of land and spent 3 the amount lavishly to his bad company A-2 and his other friends and also executed to an extent of Ac.0.65 cents in favour of Bathula

Chandrasekhar and A-1 not satisfied with it, A-1 tried to sell away the property to an extent of Ac.2.75 which was registered in favour of his children and in this context, now and then the deceased admonished not to dispose of the land in favour of his children. Since the document was with the deceased, A-1 has been requesting to produce the document, but of no avail. Hence, A-1 developed ire/grudge against the deceased and discussed with A-2 while taking drinks with regard to kill the deceased to remove the hurdle and waiting for an opportunity prior to three days of the alleged incident and finally on 13.12.2013 they had taken liquor at Mamata Wines and were moving on two wheeler by watching the movements of the deceased and at about 5

P.M., they saw the deceased in the company of PWs.1 and 2 and stopped them and A-1 picked up a quarrel with the deceased and pushing aside PWs.1 and 2 and stabbed the deceased with knife with the instigation of A-2 and later both A-1 and A-2 were fled away from the scene and PWs.1 and 2 witnessed the incident.

On the basis of a report given by the P.W.1, LW22/Sri U.Sobhan

Babu, the Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli Urban P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.158/2013 under Section 302 of IPC and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, he inspected the scene of offence and prepared observation report in the presence of mediators and also seized the incriminating material at the scene of offence and recorded the statements of witnesses and sent the dead body of the deceased to the APVVP Area Hospital, Sattenapalli for the purpose of conducting

Post Mortem over the dead body of the deceased and he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Area hospital,

Sattenapalli from 8.00 a.m to 11 a.m on 14.11.2013 in the presence of panchayatdars i.e. L.Ws.16 to 18 and blood relations and direct witnesses P.Ws.2,3,4,5,7 and 8 scribed with L.W.21 and sent the body 4 for autopsy. The Medical Officer, L.W.20/Dr.M.Manthru Naik, CAS,

APVVP Area Hospital, Sattenapalli, who conducted autopsy over the dead of the deceased, opined that the death is due to hemorrhage and hypo volimic shock and injury to heart and lung. The Investigating

Officer, LW22/Sri U.Sobhan Babu, Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli

Urban P.S., on 22.12.2013, arrested the accused and recorded the confessional statements of the accused in the presence of mediators under the cover of mahazarnama and the Hero CBZ Xtreem motor cycle AP 07 BS 0115 used in the commission of offence was seized at

RTC Bus Stand, Guntur under a cover of mahazar attested by the mediators and the accused were produced before the concerned

Magistrate to judicial custody on the same day and later he forwarded

the knife which was used by A-1 for committing murder of the deceased and also blood samples were taken from the scene of offence, to the Director, A.P.F.S.L., Hyderabad for examination and report. The investigating officer during his investigation, it is clear that only the accused nos.1 and 2 were involved in this crime, but due to personal grudge, while giving complaint, the complainant given the names of other friends of accused no.1 and hence, he deleted the names of the persons i.e. 1)Bathula Chandrasekhar (alleged / suspect accused no.1) (as per F.I.R); 2) Talluri Mohan Babu, (alleged / suspect accused no.3) (as per F.I.R); 3) Bapathu Srinivasa Reddy (alleged / suspect accused no.4) (as per F.I.R); 4) Bapathu Srinu @ Mitai Kottu

Srinu (alleged / suspect accused no.5) (as per F.I.R) and 5)Shaik Rafi (alleged / suspect accused no.6) (as per F.I.R) from this case. Further, the Investigating Officer, after receipt of report from A.P.F.S.L.,

Hyderabad and the Post Mortem report of the deceased and after completion of all practical investigation, he laid charge sheet.

Therefore, this case.

3. The learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sattenapalli, took cognizance of the offence against the accused which 5 is punishable under section 302 r/w.34 I.P.C and registered the case as

PRC.No.10/2015.

4. After appearance of the accused before the learned I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sattenapalli, they were

furnished with copies of documents relied by the prosecution in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.As the offence under section 302 r/w.34 I.P.C is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sattenapalli, committed the case to the Sessions Court,

Guntur vide committal order dated 20.07.2015.

6. The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Guntur after receipt of the record from the learned I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Sattenapalli, registered the case as

S.C.No.344/2015 and made over the same to this Court for conducting trial and disposal according to law.

7.After appearance of the accused before this Court and after consideration, a charge under section 302 r/w.34 I.P.C is framed against the accused and the same is read over and explained to them in

Telugu. The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

P.W.1 to P.W.8 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.9. The learned A.P.P., has given up evidence of witnesses i.e. L.W.6; L.W.10 to L.W.22 and this court closed the same as no purpose will be served.

9. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the examination under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there was no incriminating material found available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused.

6

10.Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

11.Now the points for determination in this case are;

1. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of

the accused for the offence under Section 302 r/w.34 I.P.C

beyond reasonable doubt ?

2. Result of the case?

12. The learned APP has argued that though the main witnesses turned hostile, he relied upon the material brought before the court at the time of cross examination.

13.The learned counsel for the accused argued that it is a false case foisted against the accused, therefore there is no support from any independent witnesses and hence they may be acquitted.

14.On perusal of record, it is a case of murder of own elder brother of A-1 with the support of another accused in order to property dispute. There is no dispute that A-1 is the brother of the deceased and related to PWs.1 to 5. The prosecution examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1 and also examined their witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 8, but all the witnesses have completely turned hostile without supporting the case of the prosecution. Further, P.W.1 also did not admit the complaint given to the Police people except his signature therein. Hence the signature of P.W.1 alone is marked as Ex.P1.

15.The prosecution also examined the other witnesses, who are the independent witnesses as Pws.2 to 8. But, they also did not support the case of prosecution and deposed contrary as against their case.

Therefore, as seen from the above evidence of Pws.1 to 8, it is completely silent about any incriminating material to attract the ingredients of charge levelled against the accused. The learned APP cross examined all the above witnesses, but could not elicit any material in their favour. Further, their statements are marked as Exs.P2 to P9, but they have disowned them. Hence, by virtue of above 7 evidence, as there is no incriminating material found against the accused and hence, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given up all the other witnesses and this Court closed the same as no purpose will be served by examining them. Hence, in view of the above evidence, it is clear that PWs.1 to 8 have completely turned hostile and therefore they did not support the version of the prosecution.

Therefore, on perusal of material on record, though the accused are dealt with the offence under Section 302 r/w.34 of IPC, but the prosecution did not placed before the court any incriminating material to attract the ingredients charged against them. Hence the above point is answered accordingly.

16.POINT No.2:-

In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence under sections 302 r/w.34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force, for a period of six months, as per the provisions of section 437-A Cr.P.C. The lower Court is ordered to give the unmarked property i.e. Hero CBZ Xtreem Motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 BS 0115 after verifying and obtaining the identity of it’s ownership under proper acknowledgment, if claimed by anyone, otherwise, the same shall be confiscated to State. The lower court is further ordered to destroy the non valuable case property if any after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28th day of February, 2019.

Sd/- A.Vasanthi

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC VI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

(FTC), GUNTUR.

8

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For defence:

P.W.1 : Chimata Rama Rao. - None –

P.W.2 : Chimata Edukondalu.

P.W.3 : Chimata Ramadevi.

P.W.4 : Chimata Yalamanda.

P.W.5 : Chimata Koteswaramma.

P.W.6 : Dudekula Sreenu.

P.W.7 : Kadiyam Malleswara Rao.

P.W.8 : Thota Yedukondalu.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on the complaint given to Police.

Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P7: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6.

Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7.

Ex.P9: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8.

For Defence:NIL

Material Objects Marked

- NIL -

Sd/- A.Vasanthi

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC VI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

(FTC), GUNTUR.

9

CALENDER

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ::

GUNTUR.

1] Number of the Sessions case : Sessions Case No. 344/2015

2] Name of the committal Court : I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I

Class, Sattenapalli.

3] Name & description of complainant: State:Inspector of Police,

Sattenapalli Urban P.S.

4] Name & Description of Accused :

1.Chimata Narasaiah @ Dattu, S/o.Yalamanda, Yadava by caste, near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Sattenapalli (A-1) 2.Macherla Yedukondalu @ Kondalu, S/o.Venkata Narasaiah, 38 years, Yadava by caste, Veeranjaneya Nagar, Sattenapalli Town (A-2) (Alleged /suspect accused no.2) (As per F.I.R)

Deleted alleged / suspect accused:

1.Bathula Chandrasekhar, S/o.Sambasiva Rao, 40 years, Telaga by caste, Nagannakunta, Sattenapalli (alleged / suspect accused no.1) (as per F.I.R) 2.Talluri Mohan Babu, S/o.Anjaneyulu, 40 years, Telaga by caste, Old Salipet, Sattenapalli (alleged / suspect accused no.3) (as per F.I.R) 3.Bapathu Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, 42 years, Near TDP Office, Sattenapalli, RTO Agent. (alleged / suspect accused no.4) (as per F.I.R) 4.Bapathu Srinu @ Mitai Kottu Srinu, S/o.Sambasiva Rao, 35 years, Telaga by caste, Nagarjuna Nagar, Sattenapalli. (alleged / suspect accused no.5) (as per F.I.R) 5.Shaik Rafi, S/o.Mohiddin @ Chandra, 35 years, Muslim by caste, Guntur. (alleged / suspect accused no.6) (as per F.I.R) 5] Date of offence : 13.12.2013

Date of committal : 20.07.2015

Date of apprehension of accused: 25.11.2015

Date of commencement of trial : 18.02.2019

Date of close of trial : 20.02.2019

Date of Judgment : 28.02.2019 6] Nature of Offence : U/sec.302 r/w.34 I.P.C.

7] Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 8] Finding of the court : Found not guilty.

10

9] Sentence or order :

In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence under sections 302 r/w.34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force, for a period of six months, as per the provisions of section 437-A Cr.P.C. The lower Court is ordered to give the unmarked property i.e. Hero CBZ Xtreem Motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 BS 0115 after verifying and obtaining the identity of it’s ownership under proper acknowledgment, if claimed by anyone, otherwise, the same shall be confiscated to State. The lower court is further ordered to destroy the non valuable case property if any after lapse of appeal time.

10] Explanation for delay :

This case was received from the Sessions court on 01.09.2015

and summons issued to the accused to appear before this Court on

25.11.2015 and after appearance of the accused and on hearing

both sides, charge under Section 302 r/w.34 I.P.C is framed on

06.02.2017 and as the accused pleaded not guilty, the case was

posted for fixing of trial. On 13.02.2019 trial schedule was fixed.

On 18.02.2019 trial in this case was commenced and the same was

closed on 21.02.2019 and on the same day the examination under

section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with and both side arguments

heard the date of itself and posted for judgment call on 28.02.2019.

On 28.02.2019 Judgment delivered. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- A.Vasanthi

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC VI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

(FTC), GUNTUR.

Copy to:

1. The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) High court of A.P., through the District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

2. The Hon'ble District & Sessions Judge, Guntur

3. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

4. The I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sattenapalli.

5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor.