Sri B.S. Jag Jeevan Kumar

SC 222 of 2021 1/17

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

PRESENT: SriB.S.JAG JEEVAN KUMAR, B.Sc., LL.M.,

SESSIONS JUDGE

Monday, April 22, 2024

SC No.222 of 2021

1) Name of complainant: The State represented by Circle Inspector of Police, PS Khanapuram Haveli

2) Name of the accused: Shaik Jakeer Ali S/o Najrul Ali, 21 years, Garden and Park Designing work, R/oPayakpadiVillage,Antilla Santhoshpur Taluq, Howrah Rural District, West Bengal State

3) Charge/s : Under Section 302 IPC

4) Plea of accused: The accused pleaded not guilty.

5) Finding of Judge: The accused is found not guilty.

6) Prosecution conducted by: Sri A.Shankar, Public Prosecutor, Khammam

7) Accused defended by: Smt.Ch.Swarna Kumari, Advocate

8) Sentence/Order: The accused is found not guilty and is acquitted, under Section 235(1) CrPC, of the charge framed against him. His bail bonds shall stand canceled and Mos1 to 7 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case coming on 10.4.2024 day for final hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the evidence on record, this Court has delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The charge against the accused is that on the intervening night of 14/15.3.2019 at about 00.30 hours in watchman shed at Velugumatla Park, he committed murder intentionally causing the death of Shaik Abdulla by beating

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 2/17

him with a boulder on his head and also by beating him with a spade on his head and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

2.The said charge was framed against the accused on 13.6.2023 upon considering the case record and hearing both the parties. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

3.The offence was reported to the police of Khanapuram Haveli by

Mandepudi Venu Madhav, Forest Section Officer, Velugumatla Forest Section,

Khammam Forest Range/PW1 on 15.3.2019 at 14.00 hours. M.Sai Ramana, the then Inspector of Police, PS Khanapuram Haveli/PW11 registered the complaint/Ex.P1 of PW1 as Crime No.82 of 2019 under Section 302 IPC and investigated into the crime. PW11's successor, U.Venkanna Babu/PW12 took up investigation in the case from PW11 on 26.8.2019, verified the investigation and found it to be on correct lines. After receiving FSL report,

Ex.P11, and after obtaining approval from the Public Prosecutor, Khammam,

PW12 filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

4.The charge-sheet allegations are: The accused is Parks and Gardens

Design Worker and the deceased was a mason and both are natives of West

Bengal State. In January 2019 the accused and the deceased came to

Warangal to attend to their respective works and they worked for 40 days.

During that period, the accused was in need of money for his house needs and

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 3/17

he tried to raise loan but he did not get loan from any person. Then, the accused committed theft of Rs.5,000/- from the pocket of the deceased, went to his village and gave the amount to his family members and later he informed the deceased on phone about his committing the theft of Rs.5,000/- and told him that he would give the amount to him shortly. The Forest

Department proposed to construct Tower Watch in Velugumatla Park with design work and the design work was handed over to Parks and Gardens

Design Contractor Vahedul Islam/PW9. On 10.3.2019 PW9/Vahedul Islam brought the accused and the deceased to Velugumatla for park designing work and mason work. The accused and the deceased stayed at watchman shed of Velugumatla Forest Park. On 11.3.2019 the deceased in drunken state quarreled with the accused on the issue of Rs.5,000/- and abused the accused in filthy language. Again on 12.3.2019 the deceased quarreled with the accused about the said amount. Then, the accused assured the deceased that he would arrange the amount within 2 days by taking money from

PW9/Contractor Vahedul Islam. On 14.3.2019 at about 23.00 hours the deceased insisted the accused to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/-. Unable to pay the money and unable to bear the harassment, the accused decided to do away with the life of the deceased. On the intervening night of 14/15.3.2019 at 00.30 hours while the deceased was in deep sleep, the accused beat the deceased with a boulder on his head and also beat him with a spade on his head till his death. On confirming the death of the deceased, the accused

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 4/17

took the cell phone of the deceased from his pocket, concealed the blood stained spade and his blood stained shirt in the bushes near the Velugumatla

Park and went to Railway Station, Khammam in an auto and from there, he went to Vijayawada. On the next day at 06.00 hours he went to Howrah by train and on the way he threw the cell phone of the deceased and went to his village.

5.The prosecution, to prove the charge, examined 12 witnesses, PWs1 to 12, and marked 11 documents, Exs.P1 to P11, and 7 material objects, MOs1 to 7.

6.The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC and denied the incriminating material put to him and reported no evidence in his defense.

7.The Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record proves the guilt of the accused and urged for convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

8.In reply, the counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is innocent and is falsely implicated. PW10/Dr.P.Nagaraju admitted that the head injury found on the deceased is possible if he fell down from a height place but added that if a person falls from height place, he will receive other injuries also. Ex.P2, photos of the deceased, shows that the deceased had other injuries on his body. While working, the deceased fell from higher plane, sustained injuries and died. The death of the deceased was accidental.

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 5/17

To avoid blame on the Forest Department, the accidental death of the deceased was shown as murder by the accused by creating record against him.

Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

9.The point for determination is: whether the prosecution succeeded in proving the charge against the accused beyond doubt?

10.None saw the alleged incident and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. In case relying on circumstantial evidence, each incriminating circumstance must be firmly established and form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

11.The evidence of PW1/Mandapudi Venumadhav, Forest Section Officer, is that on 15.03.2019 the accused and the deceased Abdulla did not come to work at the site of Watch Tower and Beautification at Velugumatla Urban

Park. At about 12.30 pm, Venkateswarlu, Forest Watcher/PW3 told him that he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood in the common room of the accused and the deceased which is situate in the premises of Velugumatla

Urban Park. Then he rushed to the spot and saw the deceased lying dead in the common room. Immediately he reported the matter to the Forest Range

Officer Radhika/PW2. PW2 came to the spot. He gave complaint, Ex.P1, to the police. He also informed PW9/Contractor Vahedul Islam about the death of the deceased. The deceased was beaten to death by hitting with a stone on his head and the said stone was lying on the right side of the head of the

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 6/17

deceased. At that time, the accused was not found in or near the said common room. In the cross-examination, he stated that as the stone, MO1, was lying near the head of the deceased, he thought that the deceased was hit by the stone.

12.PW2/FRO Radhika's evidence is that on 15.3.2019 around 12:30 pm

PW1 phoned to her and informed her about the death of the deceased. She was told that the deceased was lying dead and the accused was absconding.

Immediately, she went to the park after informing her superiors. She went to the shed which was allotted by them for the stay of the accused and the deceased and she found the deceased lying dead in that shed. She found that the deceased had head injury and the body was lying in a pool of blood. She found a stone near the body of the deceased. She also found one spade/para there.

13. Forest Watcher Venkateshwarlu/PW3 deposed that PW1 brought the accused and the deceased for work in the premises of Velugumatla Urban

Park, through the Contractor Islam/PW9. The deceased and the accused were staying in a shed within the premises of the said Urban Park. On 14.3.2019 at about 6.00 pm, he and Dasthu locked the main gate of the said park. At that time, the accused and the deceased were in the watchman shed. He returned to the park at about 9.00 am on the next day for attending to his duty. Dasthu also came to the duty at that time. PW1 asked him to go to the watchman

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 7/17

shed and get the accused and the deceased. He went to the watchman shed and opened the door of the shed and found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood on the right side of the door. He also found one stone on the right side of the head of the deceased. Immediately, he went and reported the matter to PW1 and also Dasthu. He thought that the deceased was beaten to death by hitting on his head with the stone.

14.Matta Naresh/PW4 was working as tractor driver at Velugumatla Urban

Park. He also deposed that the accused and the deceased came to the Park for constructing Watch Tower in the premises of the Park. On 15.03.2019 he and Bhadru/PW8 went to the Park for attending to their duty at 9.00 am.

PW3/Venkateswarlu went to the construction area and returned back and told

PW1/Venumadhav that the accused and the deceased did not come for work.

Then PW1 asked PW3 to go to the watchman shed and verify. PW1 went to the watchman shed and returned back and told PW1 that on opening the door of the shed, he found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood in the shed.

He and PW8 also went there and saw the same thing. They found MO1, stone, by the side of the head of the deceased, on the right side. They thought that the accused killed the deceased and left the shed.

15.PW8/Bhadru's evidence is that in the year 2019 the accused and the deceased came to work in the Park. On 15.03.2019 he went to the Park at about 9.00 am. He worked in that park till 12.00 noon along with his

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 8/17

co-workers, Jyothi, Kalyani, Thariya and Narasimha. PW3/Venkateswarlu came to them and enquired from him whether the accused and the deceased came for work. He told PW3 that the accused and the deceased did not come to work. PW3 went to the watchman room and returned back and told them that the deceased was found dead in the watchman room. They all went to the watchman room and found the deceased dead and due to fear they returned back. PW3 phoned to his superiors and PW2/FRO Radhika.

16.The Contractor Vahedul Islam/PW9 deposed that he brought the accused and the deceased from Kolkata for designing work at Velugumatla

Park. On 12.3.2019 the accused and the deceased phoned to him when he was at Warangal. He was told on phone that the accused committed theft of

Rs.5,000/- from the deceased and there was a quarrel between them. He told them that he would be getting the bill amount and he would pay Rs.5,000/- to the deceased and advised them not to quarrel on that issue. On 15.3.2019

Forest Section Officer informed him on phone that the deceased was murdered and that the accused fled away. Immediately he came to

Velugumatla Park from Warangal. He saw the dead body of the deceased in the store room at Velugumatla Park. He saw head injury on the dead body of the deceased. The head injury was caused by beating the deceased with a stone. After conduct of PME examination over the dead body, he took the dead body in ambulance to Kolkata and handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased.

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 9/17

17.Rajesh Babu/PW5 is photographer. He testified that on 15.03.2019 the police of Khanapuram Haveli called him to Velugumatla Park to photograph the dead body of a person lying in that Park area. He took the photos with his

Canon Camera. He handed over the photos along with CD, Ex.P2, to the police. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased had injuries on his hands and that he also found injuries on the face of the deceased.

18.PW6/Daniel is a panch for CDF, rough sketch of the scene, and scene of offence and seizure panchanama, Exs.P3 to P5, and seizure of stone, MO1, from the scene. He deposed that on 15.03.2019 at 2.20 pm he and Nagendra

Babu were called by the Inspector of Police, PS Khanapuram Haveli, to the

Urban Park at Vellugumatla. In their presence, the Inspector observed the scene and drew the rough sketch of the scene and prepared panchanama and also seized MO1 under another panchanama. Exs.P3 to P5 contain their signatures. In the cross-examination, he stated that he observed injuries on the head, face and hands of the deceased at the time of the panchanama.

19.PW10/Dr.P.Nagaraju, the then CAS, GHH, Khammam conducted PME on the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that on 15.03.2019, on requisition from the SHO, PS Khanapuram Haveli, he conducted PME on the dead body of the deceased and found the injuries noted at pages 2 and 3 of his report, Ex.P8, and that the cause of the death was cardio respiratory arrest due to subdural haematoma due to head injury. The injuries found by him on

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 10/17

the dead body of the deceased are: (1) depressed fracture with oozing of blood, 3 x 5 inches, on right tempero parietal region, and (2) subdural haematoma, 6 x 8 inches, present in right tempero parietal region of brain tissue, with tear of meninges and brain parenchyma. In the cross-examination, he stated that the head injury found on the deceased is possible if he fell down from a height place and added by stating that if a person falls from height place, he will receive other injuries also and admitted that injuries are visible on the body of the person in the photos, Ex.P2.

20.The other evidence is of the IO Sai Ramana/PW11. He deposed that on 15.3.2019 basing on the complaint of PW1, he registered Crime No.82 of 2019 under Section 302 IPC and issued express FIR, Ex.P9. He recorded statement of PW1. He proceeded to the scene of offence, i.e., Velugumatla Park, along with PW1. On the same day at about 14.20 hours, he secured the presence of

PW6 and Bhukya Nagendra Babu and conducted CDF, Ex.P3, and he collected blood samples from the scene and hair found on the crime object, stone found at the scene. He collected blood stained earth, MO4, and control earth, MO5, from the scene of offence. He also seized the said stone, MO1. He seized

MOs.1, 4 and 5 in the presence of the said two panchas. He got photographed the scene of offence and the dead body through PW5. Later, he examined and recorded statements of PW2/Radhika, PW3/S.Venkateswarlu, B.Dasthu,

PW8/Bhadru, PW4/Naresh, PW5/Rajesh Babu and PW9/Islam. After the PME, the doctor seized the clothes of the deceased. He collected the clothes of the

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 11/17

deceased from the doctor. He also collected lower pant, MO6, and blue coloured checks shirt, MO3, from the doctor.

21.PW11's further evidence is that on 28.6.2019 at about 17.00 hours, the accused came to the PS and surrendered himself. The accused made confession. As the accused was making statement in his mother tongue, he sent requisition to MEO, Khammam Urban with a request to depute Hindi

Pandits for translation of the statement of the accused. The MEO deputed

Hari Prasad/PW7. He secured the presence of Md.Abdul Vaseem Akram. In the presence of PW7 and Wasim Akram he recorded the confessional statement of the accused. The accused led them to Velugumatla Park saying that he would show the causative weapon/spade and his shirt. He seized one spade, MO2, and one shirt, MO7, under a separate panchanama in the presence of the panchas and sent the same to FSL for report. After the panchanama, Ex.P10, he effected the arrest of the accused and took the accused to the PS along with the properties seized and the panchanamas and after due formalities and sent the accused for remand.

22.PW7/G.Hari Prasad stated that on 28.6.2019 at about 5.00 pm, he and

Wasim Akram were called to PS Khanapuram Haveli and the accused was in the PS. On the instructions of the CI, he enquired the accused about the murder case in Hindi language and the accused confessed his guilt and his statement was recorded by the police and the accused led them to

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 12/17

Velugumatla Park and showed the watchman shed and said that he committed the offence in that shed and he beat the deceased with the stone, MO1. Then the accused led them to the nearby bushes and showed them one spade,

MO2, and one shirt, MO3, and told them that he hid the said articles there and that the police seized the said spade and the shirt under a panchanama. They signed in the panchanamas.

23.According to the prosecution, the deceased quarreled with the accused on 11.3.2019 and 12.3.2019 and again on 14.3.2019 at 23.00 hours on the issue of not giving the money of Rs.5,000/- which the accused committed theft from the pocket of the deceased during the period of 40 days from

January 2019 when he and the deceased worked at Warangal.

24.But PW9's evidence shows that no theft of cash of Rs.5,000/- was committed from the pocket of the deceased when the accused and the deceased worked at Warangal/Eturunagram. In the cross-examination PW9 stated that he undertook the work of designing at Eturunagaram about 3 or 4 months prior to undertaking the work at Velugumatla Park, that there was friendship between the accused and the deceased while they were working at

Eturunagaram, that after completing the work at Eturunagaram, the accused and the deceased went to their respective villages and later he brought them to Velugumatla Park and that the amount of Rs.5,000/- was taken by the accused from the deceased when they came to Velugumatla Park.

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 13/17

25.Though PW9 stated in the chief examination that he brought the accused and the deceased to Velugumatla Park on 10.3.2019 and engaged them to attend to the contract work undertaken by him and that on 12.3.2019 the accused and the deceased told him on phone that the accused committed theft of Rs.5,000/- from the deceased and there was a quarrel between them, in the cross-examination he gave a different version that after coming to

Velugumatla Park, the accused committed theft of cash of Rs.5,000/- from the deceased and fled away to Kolkata and then there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and that this happened about 20 days prior to the murder of the deceased.

26.In the further cross-examination by the accused, PW9 stated that the accused came to Velugumatla Park 3 days prior to the murder of the deceased and added by stating that first the accused and the deceased came to

Velugumatla Park from Eturunagaram and the accused again returned to

Velugumatla Park from Kolkata 3 days prior to the murder. He admitted that for the first time he stated the said facts before the Court and he did not state the said facts to the police.

27.PW3 said in the cross-examination that the accused and the deceased came to the Park 4 days prior to the incident and since then they were happy and that on the previous day, he found the accused and the deceased doing work happily. PW4 also said in the cross-examination that the accused and

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 14/17

the deceased came for work 4 days prior to the alleged incident, that they came together from Kolkata, that during the said period, they lived together without any disputes and that on the previous day also, he found them working together at the work place at the time when he left the Park after 5.00 pm.

28.The said evidence of PWs.9, 3 and 4 creates a doubt whether the alleged theft of cash of Rs.5,000/- was committed at Warangal/Eturunagaram and whether the deceased quarreled with the accused at Velugumatla Park on the issue of not giving the money of Rs.5,000/- to him on the said dates.

29.It came in the evidence of PWs1, 3 and 4 that the accused was not found in or near the watchman shed on 15.3.2019. Absconding is only one link in the chain of evidence and not the determining link. Even innocent persons may, when suspected of grave crime/s, be tempted to evade arrest.

30.It is alleged that the accused beat the deceased with the stone, MO1, on his head. PW11 stated that at the time of seizure of MO1, panch chits were affixed to MO1 but no panch chits were seen on MO1. He added by stating that the panch chits might have been lost. None of PWs1 to 4 and 6 and 11 stated that MO1 was stained with blood. PW11 stated that MO1 was not sent to FSL. Then, it cannot be said that MO1 is the weapon of offence.

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 15/17

31.The other allegation is that the accused beat the deceased with the spade, MO2, on his head till his death. MO2 is said to have been seized by

PW11 in the presence of PW7 at the instance of the accused from the bushes in the park vide Exs.P10 and P11. MO7, shirt, is also said to have been seized along with MO2. FSL report, Ex.P11, is that though human blood was detected on MOs2 and 7, blood group could not be detected. Therefore, it cannot be said that MO2 is the weapon of offence.

32.It is in the evidence of PW2 that he found one spade near the dead body of the deceased. Then, Exs.P10 and P11 and the recovery of MOs2 and 7 thereunder becomes doubtful.

33.Further, MOs2 and 7 are said to have been recovered from bushes in the park. Courts may not attach much weight to the evidence in cases where objects are found in an open place accessible to all and, therefore, the said recovery cannot be relied upon.

34.The photos, Ex.P2, show injuries on the head, face and hands of the deceased. Photographer, PW5, and panch witness, PW6, also observed injuries on the head, face and hands of the deceased. But the PME

Doctor/PW10 in his report, Ex.P8, noted only head injury and opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to head injury. It was elicited

From PW10 that the head injury found on the deceased is possible if he fell down from a height place and that if a person falls from height place, he will

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 16/17

receive other injuries also. The presence of the other injuries on the dead body of the deceased creates a doubt whether the death of the deceased is accidental or homicidal.

35.For the foregoing reasons, it must be held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond doubt and the point framed is accordingly answered.

36.In the result, the accused is found not guilty and is acquitted, under

Section 235(1) CrPC, of the charge framed against him. His bail bonds shall stand canceled and MOs1 to 7 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prepared, pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of April, 2024.

SESSIONS JUDGE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

PW1Sri Mandapudi Venumadhav PW2Smt.Bellam Radhika PW3Sri Somagani Venkateswarlu PW4Sri Matta Naresh PW5Sri Makala Rajesh Babu PW6Sri Paga Daniel PW7Sri G.Hari Prasad PW8Sri Daravath Bhadru

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

SC 222 of 2021 17/17

PW9Sri Vahedul Islam PW10Dr.P.Nagaraju PW11Sri M.Sai Ramana/IO PW12 Sri Sri U.Venkanna Babu/IO

For Defence: - Nil -

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution

Ex.P1Complaint Ex.P2Photos along with CD Ex.P3CDF Ex.P4Rough sketch of the scene Ex.P5Scene of offence and seizure panchanama Ex.P6Relevant portion in the confession panchanama Ex.P7Seizure panchanama Ex.P8PME report Ex.P9FIR Ex.P10Relevant portion in the confession panchanama Ex.P11FSL report

Exhibits Marked For Defence

- Nil -

MOs Marked

MO1Stone MO2Spade MO3Blue coloured checks shirt MO4Blood stained earth MO5Control earth MO6Lower pant MO7Shirt

SESSIONS JUDGE

Apr 22 SJ, KMM

1/16 Spl.sC 109 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIA cEeeONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION

OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 -CUM-ll ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, KHAMMAM

Present: SRI B.S.JAG JEEVAN KUMAR, B.SC., LL.M.,

Sessions Judge, FAC Special Sessions Judge

for trial of cases under the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-ll Additional Sessions

Judge, Khammam

Monday, February 5, 2024

Spl.sC No.109 of 2018

1) Name of complainant : The State represented by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Yellandu

2) Name of accused : A2 Diddi Raman S/o Satyanarayana, 41 years, Business, R/o H.No.7-2-115/2, Medar Basti, Kothagudem

3) Charge/s : Under Section 306 IPC and Sections 3(1)

(x) and 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (POA) Act, 1989

4) Plea of accused

: The accused pleaded not guilty.

S) Finding of Judge : The accUsed is found notguilty.

6) Prosecution conducted by

: Sri A.Shankar, Public Prosecutor,

Khammam

7) Accused defended by : Sri T.Venkateswarlu, Advocate

8) Sentence/Order : A2 is acquitted, under Section 235 (1)

CrPC, of the charges framed against

him. His bail bonds shall stand canceled

after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming on 10.1.2024 day for final hearing; upon hearing the COunsel on record and considering the evidence on record, this Court has

delivered the following:

Feb 5

Spl.sc 109 of 2018 2/16

JUDGMENT

A2, not being a member of SC or ST, stands trial for abetting Mourya 1.

Shirisha, a member of ST, along with A1/Diddi Rajesh (shown as absconding) to

commit suicide by consuming cyanide on 29.10.2013 at 21.30 hours in Shirisha

Jewelry Workshop at Tekulapally village.

The deceased Shirisha's husband Mourya Prathap Singh/PW1 is the first

2.

informant to the police and the allegations in his complaint dated 30.10.2023/

Ex.P1 are: A1 and A2 were having pawnbroking licence and therefore the gold of the customers from Tekulapally area was pledged with A1 and A2 and loans of about Rs.60 lakh were got issued to the customers. When the customers were coming for getting the pledaed articles released, A1 and AZ were making them to make rounds. Enouiry cevealed that A1 and A2 sold the gold of the customers. On coming to know about it, some of the customers came to their house and demanded them to get their articles released. A1 and A2 though received money were avoiding to release the pledged articles. The

TRS Party people came and threatened them. For that reason, the deceased went in distress and committed suicide by consuming poison.

3 After receiving Ex.P1, K.Sateesh, the then SIP, PS Tekulapalli/PW17 registered a case in Crime No.160

OF 2023 under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(%) of the Scs and Sts (POA) Act ((Act

No.33 of 1989) and lissued FIR, Ex.P6, and sent Exs.P1 and P6 to the

Magistrate and copies to the Officers concerned.

Feb 5

FAC III AS, KMM

and held inquest over

SpLSC 109 of 2018

Kothagudem. Rajesh/PW14, Mangya and

He visited Government Area Hospital,

Preence of

dead body of the deceased in the

VJaya vide inquest panchanama. Ey P2 0n bis instructions, photograpner

Sk.Chand photographed the dead boody and handed over the photos, ExP7, to

Dr.V.Kishore, CAS, GAH,

He sent the dead body for PME. him.

Kothagudem/PW18 conducted PME on the dead body.

Further investigation was done by

K.krishna, the then

4. DSP, Yellandu/PW19, who was appointed as 10 by the SP, Khammam vide

proceedings dated 30.10.2013, Ex.P10. PWn9 rushed to GAH, Kothagudem,

secured the presence of PW1/Prathap

Singh and Addaniya Suseela,

PW2/Jajuriya Neela and PW6/Dasaniya Vasantha and

PW5/Mourya Rarnkishan,

deceased, and also the

the sisters and the brother of the

photographer

Sk.Chand and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of

secured the presence of Avula Bhushanam/PW13 and

offence,

L.Rambabu

prepared CDF, Ex.P2, and seized one 180 ml cyanide botie, one glass

and

glass and one 100 ml Officers Choice Liquor Bottle,

drinking

Mos1 to 3, and drevw

rough sketch of the scene. Later, he examined the victim

CUstomers, Tejavath

Ravi/PW7, Maloth Veeru/PW8, Bhukya Krishna/PW9, Baanoth

Devula/Pw10,

Banoth Veeranna/PW11, B.Laxmi and T.Praveen and

recorded their

Warangal

statements. He forwarded Mos1 to 3 to RFSL, Wa for examination and fo report. On 4.12.2013 at 08.30 hours he apprehended A2 at his house. He presence of PegudY Raghuramulu/PW1s secured the

and

meera

Feb 5

FAC IM

Spl.sC 109 of 2018 4/16

Samya/PW16 and in their presence, he recorded confession of A2 and seized

licence from A2 under a cover of panchanama. Ex.P11. He effected arrest of

A2 and sent A2 for remand. On his transfer, he handed over the CD file to his sUccessor, R.Veereshwar Rao. On receiving proceedings dated 16.12.2016 of

the SP Bhadradri Kothagudem, G.Prakash Rao, the then DSP, Yellandu/PW20

took up the investigation from his predecessor R.Veereshwar Rao and after

completing the investigation, filed charge-sheet against A2 for the offences

punishable under Section 306 IPC and Sections 3(1)(«) and 3(2)(v) of Act No.33 of 1989.

5. Cognizance of the said offences was taken by the Court of JMFC,

YellandU vide PRC No.10 of 2018. After following the required procedure, the case against A2 was committed to this Court by the said Court of JMFC, Yellandu.

6. On 22.11.2018 this Court took the case on file. Upon hearing both the parties and considering the case record, this Court framed the following charges against A2 on 7.9.2021:

(1) that prior to 29.10.2019 he along with A1 Tekulapally, humiliated PW1 and the at deceased regarding repayment of land loan of Rs.10 lakh to suicide and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC; Commit (2) that on the date, time and place mentioned in charge No.1, he, not being a member of SC or ST, intentionally insulted and humiliated the deceased within public view knowing that she belonged to ST

Feb 5

FAC II AS, KMM

Spl.sC 109 of 2018 5/16 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)

(x) of Act No.33 of 1989; and (3) That on the date, time and place mentioned in charge No.1, he, not being a member mentioned in charge Nos.1 and 2 against the deceased knowing of SC ST, Committed the offences or

that she belonged to

ST and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of Act No.33 of 1989.

ne saId charges were read over and explained to A2 and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution, in order to prove the said charges, examined 20 witnesses, Pws1 to 20, and marked 11 documents, Exs.P1 to P11 and 3 material objects, Mos1 to 3, and closed its side of evidence.

PW1's evidence is that he was doing goldsmith work at Tekulapally 8.

village. Banoth Laxmi, PW7/Tejavath Ravi, PW8/Maloth Veeru, PW9/Bhukya

Krishna, PW10/Banoth Devula, PW11/Banoth Veeranna and PW12/Tejavath

Praveen brought gold and silver ornaments, asked him to pledge the ornaments and give money to them. AS Chey did not have pawnbroker's license. they pledged the said ornaments With A1 and A2 who were havipa

Dawnbrokers' license and took Rs.60 laKn. The said customers repaid the amounts with interest to him and he Pold ne entire amount to A1 and A2 but

A1 and A2 were postponing the return oF the ornaments on one pretext or the other. The cUstomers abused and noldssed him and the deceased. A1 and

A2 also started abusing them and thrreatened that they would not return, the

Feb 5 FAC II As,

Spl.SC 109 of 2018 G/16

ornaments. Meanwhile, they came to know that A1 fled away from the town.

A2 replied that they did not have any ornaments. Vexed with the harassment of the CUstomers and A2, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. On the next day, he gave complaint, Ex.P1.

PW2/Neela deposed that persons from nearby villages used to pledge

9.

ornaments with PW1 and PW1 used to repledge the ornaments with A2 who is

a licensed pawnbroker at Kothagudem. PW1 pledged ornaments worth Rs.60

lakh with A1. The customers repaid the amount to PW1 who in turn repaid the amount to A1, but A1 did not return the ornaments to PW1. A1 postponed return of the ornaments on one preteyt or the other. The customers starteo

Insisting PW1 and the deceased to rabuco their ornaments. Prior to twO days or the incident PW1 approached A1 fe catuco of the ornaments, A1 rerused to return the ornaments stating that they were not with him. PW1 returned to the house and informed to the deceased. The deceased being the same afraid of the customers consumed cyanid land committed suicide.

PWs/Ramkishan deposed that

10. farmers of nearby villages used to

pledge their gold ornaments

with PW1 and PW1 used to lend small amounts by himself. In case of lending huge amounts, PW1 used to pledge ornaments of the villagers with A1 and used to give amounts to the villagers. Whenever the villagers repaid the loan, PW1 paid the money to A1 bUt A1 did not return the gold ornaments to PW1 and postponed it on one pretext or the other. But

FAC II AS, KMM

Feb 5

Spl.sC 109 of 2018 T/16 the villagers who repaid the loan amounts s started insisting. and harassing PWi

and the deceased for return

which the of their golo ornaments, due to

deceased consumed cyanide and commirted suiCioe.

11. The evidence of PW6/Vasantha is that PW1 and the deceased were running Sirisha Jewelry Workshop at Tekulapally village. The customers used

To pledge their ornaments with PW1 and ake loans from him and PW1, who had no pawnbrokers's licence, used to reoledge the ornaments with A1 and Az and get money and used to pay the monev to the customers. About 6 months or one year prior to the death of the deceased, she came to know through the deceased that the deceased and PW1 pledged gold ornaments of their

customers with

A1 and A2 and got loan of about Rs.1 crore and disbursed the

amount to their customers. After sometime, the deceased and PW1 repaid

the loan amount to A1 and A2 and requested A1 and A2 to return the gold ornaments of their customers but A1 and AZ postponed the same and finally, did not return the gold ornaments to PW1 and the deceased. The customers pressurized and abused PW1 and the decased for not returning their gold ornaments and hence the deceased consumed cyanide poison.

12. PW3/Jetti Pentaiah is RMP and his clinic is opposite to the house of

PW1. His evidence is that on 29,10.2013 PW1 took the deceased to his clinic and informed him that she consumed: something. He advised PW1 to take the deceased to Government Hospital, Kothagudem. On the next day morning, he

Feb 5

FAC II ASJ, KMM

Spl.sC 109 of 2018 8/16 came to know that the deceased died. His further evidence is that few times he saw some persons insisting tne sed to return gold ornamente oo

enquiry, he came to know that Pwi seo to pledge villagers' ornaments with

A1 and used to pay amounts to tne villagerS. When the villagers started repaying the amounts and claiming their ornaments, PW1 used to go to

Kothagudem for return of the ornaments but A1 postponed the same. He

pacified the villagers who were quarreling with the deceased. On 29.10.2013

also, some villagers came to PW1's house and insisted for return of the gold ornaments stating that they had to perform their daughter's marriage. As the deceased was unable to return the ornaments, the villagers quarreled with her. He advised the villagers to come back after PW1 returned to the house.

The deceased might have felt bad and consumed some poison.

PW4/Rayala Sateesh is the owper of the premises in which PW1 had 13 been running shop of making gold and silver ornaments. He also deposed that Pw1 had no pawnbroking license od A1 had the licence and PW1 used to pledge gold ornaments of villagers with A1 and used to lend amounts to the villagerS on interest. After the amounts were repaid by the villagers, PW1 could not return the gold ornaments as A1, who is partner of A2, Fled away with the gold ornaments. The villagers used to visit PW1's shop and used to quarrel with him seeking return of their ornaments. Due to the harassment of the villagers, the deceased consumed cyanide and committed suicide.

Feb 5

FAC III ASJ, KMM

9/16 Spl.sC 109 of 2018

PW10/Devula, PW11/Veeranna

PW7/Ravi, PW8/Veeru, PW9/Krishn�,

14.

and PW12/Praveen are said to the Customers of PW1. PW7 stated that in

NOvember 2013 he pledged his wife's oalA black beads chain in PWTsjewelry

Shop and took loan of Rs.70,000/-from pw!, PwI told him that he used to re

pledge the gold ornaments with A1 and A2 in their shop at Kothagudem.

15. PW8 deposed that in the year 2013, he pledged his gold chain, his mother's gold pusthela thadu and his wife's gold chain and one pair of ear studs with PW1 who in turn pledged the same with A2. He pledged the said iewelry on different occasions and received from PW1 amounts totaling

Rs.1,35,000/-.

PW9 stated that about9 or 10 years ago he pledged 2 gold rinos on9 16.

aold chain and one gold pusthela thadu wicn PWT for Rs.90,000/- and Pw in turn repledged the said jewelry with A2.

pW10's evidence is that about 9 yedis dgo ne pledged one gold chaio 17.

and silver ornaments with PW1 for Rs.55,000/- and PWI iIn turn repledaed th same with A2 at Kothagudem.

18. PW11 deposed that on 17.4.2012 he pledged 40 grams gold jewele.

ie.. one gold chain and one gold ring, with Sirisha Jewelers owned by PW:

After 2 months, he pledged 2 pairs of silver leg chains. On 13.7.2013 be

FAC IIASJ, KMM

Feb 5

Spl.SC 109 of 2018 10/16

pledged 2 pairs of gold ear studs with PW1.

He took total loan of Rs.95,000/-

by pledging those items. PW1 repledged I his s j jewelry with A2.

19 The evidence of PW12 is that about 10 years ago, he pledged one 18

grams gold pusthela thadu with PWi ror Rs.37,500/-. Later, he repaid the loan

amount with interest and then PW1 informed him that he would go to some other person and bring his pusthela thadu bUt he did not return his pusthela thadu to him. After 4 days, he went to the house of PW1.

present but the deceased was there. About 10 customers were there for PW1 was not return of their jewelry. Throuah the said customers, he came to know that since PW1 had no money lendina licence. PW1 used to repledge the jewelry with A2. Later when he tried to Contact PW1 for return of his pusthela thadu,

PW1 did not come in contact with him. Subsequently, he came to know that

the deceased died by consuming poison

as PW1's customers pressurized PW1 for return of their jewelry which was repledged with A2 and which A2 did not return to PW1.

20 Pws7 to 11 also stated that thev repaid the loan amounts with interest

and demanded PW1 to return their iewelry.

to Kothagudem to bring back their iewelry and requested some time to retUrn PW1 told them that he had to go their jewelry but did not return their jewelry.

CUstomers and due to disputes between Due to pressure of the consumed poison and died. PW1 and A1 and A2, the deceased

Febs

FAC II AS0, KMM 109 of 2018

PW13/Avula Bhushanam is Danch for CDF dated 1.11.2023, Ex.P2, and

21. 11/16 seizure of empty cyanide bottle, MO1, empty liquor bottle, MO2, and one

empty glass drinking glass, MO3, from the scene of offence, Sirisha Jewelers,

at Tekulapally village. He deposed that the DSP, Yellandu observed and noted

down all the particulars at the scene of offence and seized Mos1 to 3 under the CDF, Ex.P2.

22. PW14/Bamar Rajesh

is panch for inguest panchanama dated

30.10.2013, Ex.P3. He testified that in his presence and in the presence of

Bhukya Mangya and Thunagar Vijaya, inquest over the dead body of the deceased was conducted, that the features of the dead body were noted in the panchanama, Ex.P3, and that the perSons present there informed them that the deceased died by consuming poison.

PW15/Peguda Raghuramulu and PW16/Azmeera Samya are said to

23.

panchas for seizure panchanama dated 4.12.2013 conducted at the house of

A2. Thev admitted their signatures in the panchanama, which were marked as

Exs.P4 and P5, but stated that no pancnanama was conducted and nothing was seized at the house of A2, that tne police of Yellandu called them to PS and obtained their signatures on Wnlue dnk papers. The prosecution cross examined them but failed to elicit anything from them

DrV.Kishore/PW18 deposed tnot S0.10.2013 from 3.00 pm to 5.00 24. pm he conducted PME on the dead body of the deceased, found one abra_ion

FAC III ASJ, KMM

Feb 5

Spl.sC 109 of 2018 12/16

the VIsCera preserved to FSL, Warangal for

4 X 2 Cm on right ankle, sent

examination and report. As per rsTport, Ex.P9, cyanide was found in the

viscera of the deceased. He issued PME report, Ex.P8, opining that the cause

of the death of the deceased is because of intake of cyanide poison which led

to cardiac respiratory centre arrest and paralysis leading to immediate cardiac

respiratory arrest leading to death of person.

25. PW17/SIP K.Sateesh, PW19/DSP K.Krishna and PW20/DSP G.Prakash

Rao spoke about the investigation made by them.

26. Arter the prosecution closing its side of evidence, A2 was examined under Section 313 CrPC and be denisd the incriminating material puUt to n any offence, that PW1 has to give him Rs.10 and stated that he did not commit lakh and that a false case is filed against him. He reported no evidence in his defense.

The Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the above evidence on 27.

record proves that A2 committed the offence and urged for convicting A2. In reply, the counsel for A2 submitted thar chere is no evidence that connects A2 with the offence.

The point for determination is: whether the prosecution sUCceeded in 28.

proving the charges against the accused I beyond doubt?

FAC II ASJ, KMM

Feb 5

Spl.SC 109 of 2018 13/16

29. The licence said to have been eaieod from A2 by PW19 under Ex.P11, seizure panchanama, was not exhibited. No records required to be maintained by pawn broker are seized. Then, it cannot be said that A1 and A2 did pawn broking business at the relevant time.

30. There is only serving statement of PW1 that the ornaments of Pws7 to 12 and other customers were pledged by him with A1 and A2, that the loan amounts paid to him by Pws7 to 12 and other customers were paid to A1 and

A2 and that A1 and A2 having received the loan amounts from PW1 did not return to PW1 the ornaments of Pws7 to 12 and other cUstomers. Without any documentation, no one would pledge gold ornaments and no one would lend huge amount of Rs.60 akh. Further, no one would repay the amounts with interest without taking back the pledged articles. Therefore, the oral evidence of PW1 on those aspects is not believable

Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide wherein whoever abets 31.

the commission of suicide of another person, he shall be Dunishable with imprisonment of either description ror derm which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. What is "Abettment of a thing" is described in

Section 107 IPC. In order to bring the cOse within the purview of 'Abetment under Section 107 IPC, there has to e an evidence with regardto the instigation, conspiracy or intentional o cne part of the accused. For the purpose proving the charge under section 306 IPC, also there has to be an

FAC III ASJ, KMM

Feb 5

Spl.sC 109 of 2018 14/16 with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to evidence instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide

Coming to the case on nand, ie evVIdence of the prosecution is that 32.

due to the dispute between PWi dnd Az and due to the pressure of Hhe customers as regards return of ornaments to the cUstomers, the deceased committed suicide. There is no evidence tO conclude that A2 abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There is also no evidence to conclude that A2 intentionally insulted and humiliated the deceased within public view knowing that she is ST. Therefore, it must be held that the prosecution failed to prove the three charges framed against A2. The point is accordingly answered.

33. In the result, A2 is found pat auilty and is acquitted under Seccion 235(1) CrPC of the charges framed against him. His bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed

by him, corrected, pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this the 5t day of February, 2024.

SESSIONS JUDGE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:

PW1 Sri Mourya Prathap singh

Smt.Jajiri Neela

PW2 PW3 Sri Jetti Pentaiah PW4 Sri Rayala Sateesh

Feb 5

FAC II ASS, KMM

15/16

splSC 109 of 2018

Sri Mourya Ramkishan PWS Smt. Dasaniya Vasantha PW6 Sri Tejavath Ravi PW7

Sri Maloth Veeru PW8 Sri Bhukya Krishna PW9 PW10 Sri Banoth Devula

Sri Banoth Veeranna PW11

PW12 Sri Tejavath Praveen

PW13 Sri Avula Bhushanam PW14 Sri Bamar Rajesh

PW15 Sri Peguda Raghuramulu

PW16 Sri Azmeera Samya PW17 Sri K.Sateesh, O

PW18 DrV.Kishore PW19 Sri K.Krishna, I0 PW20 Sri G.Prakash Rao, I0

For Defence: -Nil -

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution

Complaint dated 30.10.2013 Ex.P1 Crime details form dated 1.11.2013 Ex.P2 Inquest panchanama dated 30.10.2013 Ex.P3 Signaturte of PW15 on seizure panchanama dated 4.12.2012 Ex.P4 Signaturte of PW16 on seizure panchanama dated 4.12.2012 Ex.P5

Ex.P6 FIR dated 30.10.2013 Photos (4) Ex.P7 Ex.P8 PME report dated 30.1 0.2013 Ex.P9 FSL report dated 21.12.2013 C. No.96/5C-ST/Pro/C3/2013 dated 30.10.2013 EX.P10 SP proceedings vide Ex.P11 Seizure panchanama dated 4.12.2013

FAC III ASJ, KMM

Feb 5

Spl.SC 109 of 2018 16/16

Exhibits Marked For Defence

- Nil

MOS Marked

Empty cyanide bottle MO1

MO2 Empty liquor botttle

MO3 Empty drinking glass

SESSIONS JUDGE

Comared by: bn

Feh 5

Spl.sC 109 of 2018 16/16

Exhibits Marked For Defence

-Nil

MOs Marked

MO1 Empty cyanide bottle

MO2 Empty liquor botttle

MO3 Empty drinking glass

SESSIONS JUDGE

Compared by: om

Feb 5

FAC III ASJ, KMM

SC 68 of 2018 1/14

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

SCs AND STs (POA) ACT CUM III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KHAMMAM

PRESENT: SRI B.S.JAG JEEVAN KUMAR, B.Sc., LL.M.,

SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

Saturday, February 3, 2024

SC No.68 of 2018

1) Name of complainant : The State represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Khammam Rural

2) Name of accused: Gajji Veerababu S/o Srinu, 25 years, Agricultural,Teldarupallivillage, Khammam Rural Mandal

3) Charge/s : Under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SCs and STs (POA) Act

4) Plea of accused : Acuused pleaded not guilty : Accused is found guilty for the offence

5) Finding of Judge under Section 304 Part II IPC

6) Prosecution conducted by: Sri B.Krishna Mohan Rao, Special Public Prosecutor, Khammam

7) Accused defended by : Sri M.A Qayyum, Advocate, Khammam

8) Sentence/OrderAccused is acquitted under Sections 323 and 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Act

No.33 of 1989 and he is found guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.

This case coming on 6.1.2024 for hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the evidence on record, this Court has delivered the following:

Feb 3 FAC III ASJ

SC 68 of 2018 2/14

JUDGMENT

1.The accused stands trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act.

2.The deceased Inupa Gopaiah is the father of Inupa Rambabu/PW1 and is the husband of Inupa Sujatha/PW2. The death of the deceased is said to have occurred on 23.9.2017 in the evening time when he was being shifted to hospital from his agricultural field situated at Teldarupalli village while he was in unconscious state.

3.On PW1's complaint dated 23.9.2017 at 17.00 hours, Ex.P1, that on the same day i.e., 23.9.2017 at 16.00 hours he along with the deceased, his mother

Nagalakshmi and his wife Sujatha/PW2 went to their field at Teldarupalli village to sow vegetable seeds and they observed that their field became muddy as water came into their field from the field of Gajji Srinu, who is the father of the accused, that when he asked the accused present there as to why he made their field muddy, the accused abused him in filthy language and attacked him, that

PW2 and Mahalakshmi separated him from the accused, that later the deceased asked the accused as to why he was abusing him and then the accused forcibly kicked the deceased in his abdomen and the deceased fell down in the mud, that when the deceased got up from the mud, the accused again kicked the deceased on his chest and the accused again fell in the mud and that when they went to lift him up, the deceased was not talking and meanwhile, their neighbouring landholders Jala Upender/PW4 and Bolla Prasad/PW5 came there and immediately they all were taking the deceased to hospital but when they

Feb 3 FAC III ASJ

SC 68 of 2018 3/14

reached the field of Bolla Rama Rao, the deceased died, T.Venkateshwarlu, the then SIP, PS Khammam Rural/PW9 registered a case in Crime No.396 of 20178 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Act No.33 of 1989, issued FIR, Ex.P10, and handed over the CD file to K.Suresh Kumar, the then

ACP, Khammam Rural/PW10, who was appointed as IO vide proceedings dated 23.9.2017, Ex.P11, of the CP, Khammam.

4.Further case of the prosecution is that on 24.9.2017 PW10 visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of Kannekanti Bhaskar/PW7 and

Ekkirala Balaswamy, observed scene of offence panchanama, drew rough sketch of the scene and incorporated the details in CDF, Ex.P5. He recorded statements of PWs1 to 4. Later he visited Government Headquarters Hospital,

Khammam whereat he got photographed the dead body of the deceased through Kondapati Raghuram/PW6. He recorded statement of PW6. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW7 and

Ekkirala Balaswamy vide panchanama, Ex.P6. Later, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to PME by Medical Officer, GHH, Khammam. On 24.9.2017, he addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Khammam Rural to issue caste particulars of the deceased and the accused. G.Narasimha Rao, the then

Tahsildar, Khammam Rural/PW5 issued caste certificates, Exs.P2 and P3, that the deceased belongs to SC and the accused belongs to BC. As per his requisition, Dr.M.Nageshwar Rao, the then CAS, GHH, Khammam/PW8 conducted PME over the dead body of the deceased and issued PME report,

Ex.P7. Later, he colleced photos of the deceased along with CD, Ex.P4, from

PW6. On 3.10.2017 PW9 apprehended the accused and produced the accused

Feb 3 FAC III ASJ

SC 68 of 2018 4/14

before him and he effected the arrest of the accused and sent the accused for

remand. Later, he received expert opinion, Ex.P8, regarding the cause of the death of the deceased from PW8.

5. On PW10's transfer, his successor P.Naresh Reddy/PW11 took up investigation in the case on 6.11.2017 and found it on proper lines. Based on

Ex.P8, final opinion of PW8, and based on the other evidence, he filed charge- sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

6.Cognizance of the said offences was taken by this Court on 24.5.2018.

Upon hearing both the parties and considering the case record, the following charges were framed against the accused on 17.11.2021:

(1) that on 23.9.2017 at 16.00 hours, the complainant Inupa

Rambabu along with his father Gopaiah, mother Nagalaxmi and his wife Sujatha went to their field to sow vegetable seeds in their field and they observed that the water was released from the field of the accused situated side by side of the complainant, that he asked the accused as to why the accused released water into his dry field and then the accused got annoyed against them and abused him in filthy language, that meanwhile the accused kicked on his father’s abdomen and chest, as a result, his faather fell down and became unconscious and while his father is being shifted to hospital, his father died on the way and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; (2) that on the same day, time and place mentioned in charge No.1, supra, the accused abused the complainant in filthy language and picked up a quarrel with him and his family members and thereby

Feb 3 FAC III ASJ

SC 68 of 2018 5/14

committed an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC ; and (3) that the accused, not being a member of Schedule Caste or

Schedule Tribe and knowing that the complainant and his family members are Schedule Caste ‘’MADIGA’, abused them in the name of their caste and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SCs and STs (POA) Act

When the said charges were read over and explained, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution, to prove the said charges, examined 11 witnesses,

PWs1 to 11, and marked 11 documents, Exs.P1 to P11, and closed its side of evidence.

8.The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC. He denied the incriminating material put to him and stated that he did not go to his field on the date of the offence, that his elder brother moves in the CPM party and that

PW1 developed political animosity against his elder brother and got filed this case against him. He reported no evidence in his defense.

9.The point for determination is: whether the prosecution succeeded in proving the charges against the accused beyond doubt?

Feb 3 FAC III ASJ

SC 68 of 2018 6/14

10.The Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record proves the guilt of the accused and urged for convicting the accused for the offences.

11.In reply, the counsel for the accused submitted that PWs3 and 4 are not eye witnesses as they came subsequent to the alleged incident. There is no consistency in the evidence of PWs1 and 2. The deceased was aged 65 years and was of 5' 6" height. A single kick on the chest of such a person would not lead to the person's death. No incident as narrated by PWs1 and 2 did not happen. Admittedly, there is political rivalry between the parties. The death of the deceased was due to cardiac arrest. Taking advantage of the death of the deceased, PW1 after due deliberations with PWs2 to 4 and other witnesses falsely involved the accused in this case.

12.The second charge against the accused is under Section 323 IPC and the third charge is under Section 3(2)(v) of Act No.33 of 1989.

13.PWs1 and 2 stated that they belong to SC and the accused belongs to

BC. Exs.P2 and P3, caste certificates, proved through PW5/Tahsildar

G.Narasimha Rao, show that the deceased belongs to SC and the accused belongs to BC. Though it was suggested to PW5 that he issued Exs.P2 and P3 without verifying the caste particulars of the deceased and the accused and that the deceased did not belong to SC, which were denied by PW5, there is no

Feb 3 FAC III ASJ

SC 68 of 2018 7/14

cross-examination of PWs1 and 2 on the aspect of their caste and the caste of the accused.

14.It is alleged in the FIR, Ex.P1, that the accused abused PW1 in filthy language and picked up a quarrel with him. PW1 deposed that when he questioned the accused as to why he made their agricultural field unfit for sowing vegetable seeds by filling their field with water, the accused abused him saying nee amma madia gudda denga and caught hold of his shirt collar.

15.PW2's evidence is that on seeing their agricultural land filled with water,

PW1 questioned the accused as to why he filled their land with water from his agricultural field and then the accused abused PW1 by saying madiga lanja koduka nuvvendira matladuthunnavu and caught hold of the collar of PW1 and tried to beat him.

16.From PW1 it was elicited that he did not got mentioned in Ex.P1, FIR, that the accused abused him saying nee amma madia gudda denga. PW10/IO admitted that PWs1 to 4 in their Section 161 CrPC statements did not state that the accused abused anybody by taking his/her caste name.

17.That the accused abused PW1 by taking his caste name is an improved version from PWs1 and 2. Neither PW1 nor PW2 stated that the accused beat

PW1. Therefore, charge Nos.2 and 3 should fall to ground.

Feb 3 FAC III ASJ

SC 68 of 2018 8/14

18.Coming to charge No.1, the death of the deceased due to cardiac arrest on 23.9.2017 is not in dispute. The photos of the deceased, Ex.P4, proved through PW6/photographer Raghuram, the inquest panchanma, Ex.P6, proved through PW7/panch Bhaskar, and the PME report, Ex.P7, proved through PW8/

Dr.M.Nageshwar Rao, will establish that the death of the deceased occurred on 23.9.2017 due to cardiac arrest.

19.PWs3 and 4 deposed as if they witnessed the alleged incident. But in the FIR, Ex.P1, it is stated that PWs3 and 4 happened to come to the scene of offence after the deceased fell on the ground and became unconscious. The

CDF, Ex.P5, proved through PW7, does not show that either PW3 or PW4 is having land adjacent to the land of PW1. PW1 stated in the cross-examination that the agricultural lands of PWs3 and 4 are not abutting their agricultural land but their agricultural lands are situated at some distance. PW4 stated that while the quarrel was taking place, he was alone at his field and that at the time of the incident, PW3 was at his field. Then, it would follow that they happened to go to the scene of offence subsequent to the incident.

20.But there is consistency in the evidence of PWs1 and 2 as regards the incident of the accused kicking the deceased in his stomach and chest. PW1 stated that his mother and PW2 rescued him from the accused by taking him to some distance. In the meanwhile, the deceased questioned the accused as to why he released water from his land into their land and also questioned the

Feb 3 FAC III ASJ

SC 68 of 2018 9/14

accused as to why he abused him in filthy language. Then, the accused questioned the deceased as to why he intervened and kicked him on his stomach due to which the deceased fell in the mud in their field. When the deceased was trying to stand up, the accused again kicked the deceased on his chest forcibly due to which the deceased again fell in the mud in their field.

When he and his mother and PW2 went near to the deceased and found that the deceased was unconscious. Immediately, he and PWs3 and 4 lifted the deceased and while they were shifting the deceased to hospital, on the way, near the fallow land of Bolla Rama Rao they found that the deceased died.

21.To the same effect is the evidence of PW2. She deposed that she and her mother-in-law rescued PW1 by taking him to a distance of about 10 feet from the accused. Meanwhile, the deceased questioned the accused as to why he abused PW1. Then, the accused kicked the deceased on his stomach due to which the deceased fell down in mud. Later, the deceased stood up and again the accused kicked the deceased on his chest due to which the deceased again fell down in the mud and became unconscious. Then, PWs3 and 4 came there and while they and PW1 were shifting the deceased to hospital at Khammam, the deceased on the way near the fallow land of Bolla Rama Rao died.

22.Dr.Nageshwar Rao/PW8's evidence is that on 24.9.2017 from 11.15 am to 1.15 pm he conducted PME over the dead body of the deceased and found no external injuries over the dead body. He collected heart from the dead body,

Feb 3 FAC III ASJ

SC 68 of 2018 10/14

preserved it and sent it RFSL, Warangal for histopathological examination and report. He received expert opinion, Ex.P8, that sections from various parts revealed areas of necrosis, edema and congestion. Based on Ex.P8, he issued final opinion, Ex.P9, that the cause of the death of the deceased is caradiac arrest due to vaso vagal shock. According to him, the cause of the death of the deceased was due to hitting of any blunt object on the chest. Due to hitting of any blunt object on the chest, the major nerves passing over the chest are suddenly activated which may lead to sudden cardiac arrest.

23.In the cross-examination PW8 claimed that he preserved the heart in formalin and that he handed over the same to the police concerned on the very same day. As per Ex.P8, the heart was received after 25 days of its preservation. He did not know as to what was the mode of preservation taken by the police during the said 25 days. In Ex.P8, there are blanks at the place of contents of the sealed card board box and the medium in which the heart was preserved. He denied the suggestion that there is no basis in Ex.P8 that the heart which was subjected to examination actually belongs to the deceased.

He further stated that since the deceased was aged about 65 years, there is every possibility that the deceased would have died with similar situation when he fell down on the ground. He admitted that nowhere he mentioned in Ex.P9 that there was use of any blunt object, but he opined that the cause of the

Feb 3 FAC III ASJ

SC 68 of 2018 11/14

death was due to cardiac arrest. He also admitted that the death of the deceased was purely due to cardiac arrest.

24.Though there are blanks in Ex.P8 at places of contents of the sealed card board box and the medium in which the heart was preserved, the rest of the contents of Ex.P8 show that the heart of the deceased, which was preserved by

PW8 and which was handed over to the police, was received for examination by

Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal (Forensic Medicine Department) kept in a sealed box and that the said heart was examined by expert and the findings were given by the expert.

25.The medical evidence on record shows that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest. It was suggested to PW1 that the deceased was aged about 70 years and was suffering from cardiac disease but PW1 denied the said suggestion. Nothing was brought on record to show that the deceased was suffering from cardiac disease.

26.The evidence of PWs1 to 4 shows that the deceased after being kicked by the accused in his chest, fell unconscious on the ground and that when he was shifted to hospital, on the way near the field of Bolla Rama Rao he died.

27.On a consideration of the entire evidence of PWs1 and 2, it is clear that the occurrence took place in the heat of the moment and the assault was made

Feb 3 FAC III ASJ

SC 68 of 2018 12/14

without premeditation at the spur of time. The duration of the entire episode was within 2 or 3 minutes. Had there been any intention to do away with the life of the deceased, the accused would have further attacked the deceased.

In the circumstances and in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak v. State of UP [AIR 2018 SC 3568] and N. Ramkumar v. State [Criminal

Appeal No. 2006 of 2023, decided on 6.9.2023], the offence committed by the accused does not come within the ambit of Section 302 IPC but comes within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II IPC.

28.It is not in the FIR and it is also not in the evidence of PWs1 and 2 that the accused kicked the deceased on his abdomen and chest knowing that he is a member of scheduled caste.

29.For the foregoing reasons, charge Nos.2 and 3 are held not proved and coming to charge No.1, it is held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the accused kicked the deceased on his abdomen and later on his chest and caused the death of the deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. The point framed is accordingly answered.

30.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under

Sections 323 and 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Act No.33 of 1989 and is

Feb 3 FAC III ASJ

SC 68 of 2018 13/14

acquitted of the said offences but he is found guilty of the offence under

Section 304 Part II IPC and is convicted for the said offence.

Prepared, pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of February, 2024.

SESSIONS JUDGE

31.The accused is heard on the question of sentence. The accused has reiterated the plea taken in his examination under Section 313 CrPC and further stated that he is having small children and has to maintain his old aged parents.

32.In view of the plea taken by the accused and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, will meet the ends of justice.

33.Therefore, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 304

Part II IPC. The period of detention undergone by the accused during investigation and trial, shall be set off under Section 428 CrPC.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected, pronounced and

signed by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of February, 2024.

SESSIONS JUDGE

Feb 3 FAC III ASJ

SC 68 of 2018 14/14

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

PW1Sri I. Rambabu PW2Sri I. Sujatha PW3Sri J. Upender PW4Sri B.Prasad PW5Sri G.Narsimha Rao PW6Sri K.Raghu Ram PW7Sri K.Bhaskar PW8Sri M.Nageshwar Rao PW9Sri T.Venkateshwarlu PW10Sri K.Suresh Kumar PW11Sri P.Naresh Reddy

For Defence: - Nil -

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution

Ex.P1Complaint dated 23.9.2017 Ex.P2Caste certificate of deceased dated 20.12.2017 Ex.P3Caste certificate of accused dated 18.12.2017 Ex.P4Photographs along with CD Ex.P5CDF Ex.P6Inquest panchanama Ex.P7PME report Ex.P8Expert Opinion dated 26.2.2018, Ex.P9Final opinion Ex.P10FIR Ex.P11Proceedings issued by Commissioner of Police, dated 23.9.2017

Exhibits Marked For Defence

Nil

MOs Marked

Nil

SESSIONS JUDGE

Feb 3 FAC III ASJ

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

[PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE] AT KHAMMAM

PRESENT: SRI B.S.JAG JEEVAN KUMAR, B.Sc., LL.M.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

Saturday, April 20, 2024

MV OP No.112 of 2022

BETWEEN:

1)Kota Veerababu

2)Kota Rama Rao … Petitioners

AND

1)Shaik Ashish being minor represented by his father and natural guardian Shaik Lathif

2)Kota Durga Rao

3)The New India Assurance Company Limited … Respondents

Counsel for Petitioners: Sri T.Venkata Rama Rao Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri B.Gangadhar Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte

This petition coming on 27.2.2024 for final hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal has made the following:

ORDER

The petitioners are major sons of Kota Anasurya who is alleged to have died due to the injuries sustained on account of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle No.TS04EW1058 by the 1st respondent on 17.11.2021 at about 5.20 hours at the outskirts of Mandrajupali village near Nelluri Venkateswarlu sugar cane field and they seek compensation of Rs.12 lakh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Actfrom the rider, the owner and the insurer of the

Apr 20 1/8 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

motorcycle for the death of the said Anasurya.

2.Further the case of the petitioners is that the deceased was pillion rider on the motorcycle. After the accident the deceased was shifted to

Government Head Quarters Hospital, Khammam for treatment. For better treatment, the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad. CT scan was taken, clinical examinations were conducted and costly medicines were administered to the deceased. Despite treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 18.11.2021 in the hospital. The police of Nelakondapally registered a case in Crime No.163 of 2021 under Section 304A IPC against the 1st and the 2nd respondents. The deceased was aged 55 years, was a coolie and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month and used to contribute all her earnings to their family. They lost their dependency and love and affection of the deceased. Therefore, the respondents are, jointly and severally, liable to pay them the compensation claimed.

3.The 1st and the 2nd respondents refused to receive notice. They did not file counters, remained absent and were set exparte on 6.4.2022 4.The 3rd respondent denied the petition allegations. It pleaded that the deceased was traveling on the motor cycle without wearing helmet which is mandatory under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, at the time of the accident the 1st respondent was minor and he rode the motor cycle without driving licence. The 2nd respondent willfully and knowing fully well that the 1st respondent was minor and was not authorized to ride the

Apr 20 2/8 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

motor cycle allowed the 1st respondent to ride the motor cycle. The 1st respondent was charge-sheeted by the police of Nelakondapalli before the

Juvenile Court, Khammam for riding the motor cycle without driving licence.

The 2nd respondent was charge-sheeted by the police for allowing the 1st respondent to ride the motor cycle without driving licence. Therefore, the 2nd respondent alone is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. It further pleaded that the 1st petitioner is working as mechanic and the 2nd petitioner, as auto driver and they both are earning persons and were not dependent on the deceased and therefore they are not entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased.

5.Based on the above said pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1) Whether the deceased Kota Anasurya died in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 17.11.2021? If so, whether the accident occurred due to rash or negligent riding of motor cycle No.TS 04 EW 1058 by its rider?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom it should be collected?

3) To what relief?

6.The petitioners, to prove their case, examined the 1st petitioner as PW1 and filed certified copies of FIR with complaint, charge-sheet against the 2nd respondent before the Mobile Court, Khammam, charge-sheet against the 1st respondent before Juvenile Court, Khammam, statement of Gunjiluri Ramaiah

Apr 20 3/8 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

under Section 161 CrPC, PME report and MVI report as Exs.A1 to A6. Gunjiluri

Ramaiah was examined as PW2. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent examined its Deputy Manager D.Jagadisham as RW1 and filed copy of insurance policy of the motor cycle as Ex.B1. M.Ratna Raju, Junior Assistant,

RTA, Khammam was examined as RW2 and through him, authorization letter of the DTO/Licensing Authority, Khammam, problem details dated 11.7.2023 and problem details dated 24.7.2023 were marked as Exs.X1 to X3.

7.The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the evidence of PWs1 and 2 and the crime record proves the case of the petitioners. The deceased was aged 55 years, was a cook and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The petitioners may be paid just and reasonable compensation.

8.The counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the 1st respondent was minor and was not having driving licence as on the date of the accident and, therefore, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

9.In reply, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that in case of driving motor cycle and causing the accident, the insurer should be directed to pay the compensation amount first and later recover the same from the insured. In support of his submission, the counsel relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jawahar Singh v. Bala Jain[2011 ACJ 1677]

10.The accident and the death of the deceased due to the injuries received

Apr 20 4/8 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

in that accident are not in dispute.

11.PWs1 and 2 spoke of the manner of accident as pleaded. RW1 reiterated the pleas taken by the 3rd respondent in its counter. There is no cross-examination of PW1 on the aspect that the accident was due to the fault of the 1st respondent.

12.PW1 denied the suggestion that the 1st respondent was aged 16 years at the time of the accident. He said that he did not know whether it was mentioned in the petition that the 1st respondent was aged 16 years. He admitted that the police filed charge-sheet against the 2nd respondent for allowing the 1st respondent to ride the motor cycle without driving licence.

RW2’s evidence and Exs.X2 and X3 show that no data with the name of the 1st respondent is available in the DTO’s computer having driving licence data.

Ex.A3 also shows that the 1st respondent was charge-sheeted before the

Juvenile Court, Khammam for riding the motor cycle without driving licence and for causing the death of the deceased by his rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle. Ex.A2 shows that the 2nd respondent was charge-sheeted

before the Court of Mobile Court, Khammam for allowing the 1st respondent

to ride the motor cycle without driving licence. In the circumstances, it must be held that the 1st and the 2nd respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, but following the decision in Jawahar Singh’s case, it must be held that the 3rd respondent has to pay first the compensation and later recover the same from the 3rd respondent.

Apr 20 5/8 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

13.PW1 gave the age of the deceased as 55 years, but in Ex.A5, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 58 years. In the FIR, Ex.A1, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 58 years and her occupation as cook. PW1 admitted that they did not file any document to show that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by doing cooking work. For claiming more compensation, the petitioners must have exaggerated the income of the deceased. Both the petitioners are earning persons. The deceased was aged 58 years and had no dependents. The accident is of the year 2021, Cooking work will not be there throughout the year. In the circumstances, the income of the deceased is estimated at Rs.10,000/- per month.

14.Following the decisions in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)], National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi [2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)], Magma General Insurance Company v. Nanu Ram [2018

ACJ 2782 (SC)] and Joginder Singh v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance

Company [2019(2) AnWR 348 (SC)], the compensation payable to the petitioners has to be assessed as under:

Sl.No.HeadsCalculation Rs. (1)Income10000 per month (2)10% of (1) above to be added10000+10000x10% as future prospects=11000 (3)1/3rd of (2) to be deducted11000÷3x2=7333 as personal expenses of the deceased (4)Compensationafter7333x12x9 791964

Apr 20 6/8 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

multiplier of 9 is applied (5)Loss of estate 15000 (6)Loss of consortiumRs.40,000/- each 80000 (7)Funeral expenses 15000 (8)Transportation 10000 Total:911964

Therefore, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation of

Rs.9,11,964/- from the respondent Nos.1 and 2, jointly and severally, but respondent No.3 shall pay first the compensation amount to the petitioners and later recover the same from the 2nd respondent. Issue Nos.2 and 3 are accordingly decided.

15.In the result, the compensation to the petitioners by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is determined at Rs.9,11,964/-. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, jointly and severally, shall deposit the compensation amount of Rs.9,11,964/- with costs and pending and future interest at 7.5% per annum, within one month from this day, but respondent No.3 shall deposit into this Tribunal the said compensation amount with costs and interest and later recover the same from respondent No.2. The compensation amount with costs and interest shall be apportioned among the petitioners in the ratio of 50 : 50. On deposit, the petitioners are at liberty to withdraw their shares. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. The petition is accordingly partly allowed.

Prepared, pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2024.

CHAIRMAN

Apr 20 7/8 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERSFOR RESPONDENTS

PW1Sri Kota VeerababuRW1Sri D.Jagadisham PW2Gunjiluri RamaiahRW2Sri M.Ratna Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A1 CC of FIR with complaint Ex.A2 CC of Charge-sheet against respondent No.2 Ex.A3 CC of Charge-sheet against respondent No.1 Ex.A4 CC of Gunjiluri Ramaiah’s Section 161 CrPC statement Ex.A5 CC of PME report Ex.A6 CC of MVI report

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B1 Copy of insurance policy

Ex.X1 Authorization letter of the District Transport Officer/Licensing Authority Ex.X2 Problem details attested by the Licensing Authority Ex.X3 Data pertaining to Shaik Ashish S/o Lathif

CHAIRMAN

Apr 20 8/8 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

[PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE] AT KHAMMAM

PRESENT: SRI B.S.JAG JEEVAN KUMAR, B.Sc., LL.M.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

Saturday, April 20, 2024

MV OP No.112 of 2022

BETWEEN:

1)Kota Veerababu

2)Kota Rama Rao … Petitioners

AND

1)Shaik Ashish being minor represented by his father and natural guardian Shaik Lathif

2)Kota Durga Rao

3)The New India Assurance Company Limited … Respondents

Counsel for Petitioners: Sri T.Venkata Rama Rao Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri B.Gangadhar Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte

This petition coming on 27.2.2024 for final hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal has made the following:

ORDER

The petitioners are major sons of Kota Anasurya who is alleged to have died due to the injuries sustained on account of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle No.TS04EW1058 by the 1st respondent on 17.11.2021 at about 5.20 hours at the outskirts of Mandrajupali village near Nelluri Venkateswarlu sugar cane field and they seek compensation of Rs.12 lakh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Actfrom the rider, the owner and the insurer of the

Apr 20 1/8 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

motorcycle for the death of the said Anasurya.

2.Further the case of the petitioners is that the deceased was pillion rider on the motorcycle. After the accident the deceased was shifted to

Government Head Quarters Hospital, Khammam for treatment. For better treatment, the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad. CT scan was taken, clinical examinations were conducted and costly medicines were administered to the deceased. Despite treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 18.11.2021 in the hospital. The police of Nelakondapally registered a case in Crime No.163 of 2021 under Section 304A IPC against the 1st and the 2nd respondents. The deceased was aged 55 years, was a coolie and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month and used to contribute all her earnings to their family. They lost their dependency and love and affection of the deceased. Therefore, the respondents are, jointly and severally, liable to pay them the compensation claimed.

3.The 1st and the 2nd respondents refused to receive notice. They did not file counters, remained absent and were set exparte on 6.4.2022 4.The 3rd respondent denied the petition allegations. It pleaded that the deceased was traveling on the motor cycle without wearing helmet which is mandatory under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, at the time of the accident the 1st respondent was minor and he rode the motor cycle without driving licence. The 2nd respondent willfully and knowing fully well that the 1st respondent was minor and was not authorized to ride the

Apr 20 2/8 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

motor cycle allowed the 1st respondent to ride the motor cycle. The 1st respondent was charge-sheeted by the police of Nelakondapalli before the

Juvenile Court, Khammam for riding the motor cycle without driving licence.

The 2nd respondent was charge-sheeted by the police for allowing the 1st respondent to ride the motor cycle without driving licence. Therefore, the 2nd respondent alone is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. It further pleaded that the 1st petitioner is working as mechanic and the 2nd petitioner, as auto driver and they both are earning persons and were not dependent on the deceased and therefore they are not entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased.

5.Based on the above said pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1) Whether the deceased Kota Anasurya died in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 17.11.2021? If so, whether the accident occurred due to rash or negligent riding of motor cycle No.TS 04 EW 1058 by its rider?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom it should be collected?

3) To what relief?

6.The petitioners, to prove their case, examined the 1st petitioner as PW1 and filed certified copies of FIR with complaint, charge-sheet against the 2nd respondent before the Mobile Court, Khammam, charge-sheet against the 1st respondent before Juvenile Court, Khammam, statement of Gunjiluri Ramaiah

Apr 20 3/8 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

under Section 161 CrPC, PME report and MVI report as Exs.A1 to A6. Gunjiluri

Ramaiah was examined as PW2. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent examined its Deputy Manager D.Jagadisham as RW1 and filed copy of insurance policy of the motor cycle as Ex.B1. M.Ratna Raju, Junior Assistant,

RTA, Khammam was examined as RW2 and through him, authorization letter of the DTO/Licensing Authority, Khammam, problem details dated 11.7.2023 and problem details dated 24.7.2023 were marked as Exs.X1 to X3.

7.The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the evidence of PWs1 and 2 and the crime record proves the case of the petitioners. The deceased was aged 55 years, was a cook and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The petitioners may be paid just and reasonable compensation.

8.The counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the 1st respondent was minor and was not having driving licence as on the date of the accident and, therefore, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

9.In reply, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that in case of driving motor cycle and causing the accident, the insurer should be directed to pay the compensation amount first and later recover the same from the insured. In support of his submission, the counsel relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jawahar Singh v. Bala Jain[2011 ACJ 1677]

10.The accident and the death of the deceased due to the injuries received

Apr 20 4/8 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

in that accident are not in dispute.

11.PWs1 and 2 spoke of the manner of accident as pleaded. RW1 reiterated the pleas taken by the 3rd respondent in its counter. There is no cross-examination of PW1 on the aspect that the accident was due to the fault of the 1st respondent.

12.PW1 denied the suggestion that the 1st respondent was aged 16 years at the time of the accident. He said that he did not know whether it was mentioned in the petition that the 1st respondent was aged 16 years. He admitted that the police filed charge-sheet against the 2nd respondent for allowing the 1st respondent to ride the motor cycle without driving licence.

RW2’s evidence and Exs.X2 and X3 show that no data with the name of the 1st respondent is available in the DTO’s computer having driving licence data.

Ex.A3 also shows that the 1st respondent was charge-sheeted before the

Juvenile Court, Khammam for riding the motor cycle without driving licence and for causing the death of the deceased by his rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle. Ex.A2 shows that the 2nd respondent was charge-sheeted

before the Court of Mobile Court, Khammam for allowing the 1st respondent

to ride the motor cycle without driving licence. In the circumstances, it must be held that the 1st and the 2nd respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, but following the decision in Jawahar Singh’s case, it must be held that the 3rd respondent has to pay first the compensation and later recover the same from the 3rd respondent.

Apr 20 5/8 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

13.PW1 gave the age of the deceased as 55 years, but in Ex.A5, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 58 years. In the FIR, Ex.A1, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 58 years and her occupation as cook. PW1 admitted that they did not file any document to show that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by doing cooking work. For claiming more compensation, the petitioners must have exaggerated the income of the deceased. Both the petitioners are earning persons. The deceased was aged 58 years and had no dependents. The accident is of the year 2021, Cooking work will not be there throughout the year. In the circumstances, the income of the deceased is estimated at Rs.10,000/- per month.

14.Following the decisions in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)], National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi [2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)], Magma General Insurance Company v. Nanu Ram [2018

ACJ 2782 (SC)] and Joginder Singh v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance

Company [2019(2) AnWR 348 (SC)], the compensation payable to the petitioners has to be assessed as under:

Sl.No.HeadsCalculation Rs. (1)Income10000 per month (2)10% of (1) above to be added10000+10000x10% as future prospects=11000 (3)1/3rd of (2) to be deducted11000÷3x2=7333 as personal expenses of the deceased (4)Compensationafter7333x12x9 791964

Apr 20 6/8 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

multiplier of 9 is applied (5)Loss of estate 15000 (6)Loss of consortiumRs.40,000/- each 80000 (7)Funeral expenses 15000 (8)Transportation 10000 Total:911964

Therefore, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation of

Rs.9,11,964/- from the respondent Nos.1 and 2, jointly and severally, but respondent No.3 shall pay first the compensation amount to the petitioners and later recover the same from the 2nd respondent. Issue Nos.2 and 3 are accordingly decided.

15.In the result, the compensation to the petitioners by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is determined at Rs.9,11,964/-. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, jointly and severally, shall deposit the compensation amount of Rs.9,11,964/- with costs and pending and future interest at 7.5% per annum, within one month from this day, but respondent No.3 shall deposit into this Tribunal the said compensation amount with costs and interest and later recover the same from respondent No.2. The compensation amount with costs and interest shall be apportioned among the petitioners in the ratio of 50 : 50. On deposit, the petitioners are at liberty to withdraw their shares. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. The petition is accordingly partly allowed.

Prepared, pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2024.

CHAIRMAN

Apr 20 7/8 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 112 of 2022 Death

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERSFOR RESPONDENTS

PW1Sri Kota VeerababuRW1Sri D.Jagadisham PW2Gunjiluri RamaiahRW2Sri M.Ratna Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A1 CC of FIR with complaint Ex.A2 CC of Charge-sheet against respondent No.2 Ex.A3 CC of Charge-sheet against respondent No.1 Ex.A4 CC of Gunjiluri Ramaiah’s Section 161 CrPC statement Ex.A5 CC of PME report Ex.A6 CC of MVI report

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B1 Copy of insurance policy

Ex.X1 Authorization letter of the District Transport Officer/Licensing Authority Ex.X2 Problem details attested by the Licensing Authority Ex.X3 Data pertaining to Shaik Ashish S/o Lathif

CHAIRMAN

Apr 20 8/8 PDJ, KMM