Sri. Boya Srinivasulu

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL–CUM–PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MANCHERIAL

Present:- SRI BOYA SRINIVASULU, Chairman, MACT-cum-Principal District Judge Mancherial

THURSDAY THIS THE 17TH OF APRIL 2025

M.V.O.P.No. 87 of 2021

Between:

1. Beedam Sukanya, W/o.Late Sampath Rao, Age 52 years, Occ:Nil

2. Beedam Pratheek, S/o.Late Sampath Rao, Age 35 years, Occ:Nil

3. Beedam Pratheesh, S/o.Late Sampath Rao, Age 32 years, Occ:Nil

4. Beedam Savithramma, W/o.Chandraiah, Age 70 years, Occ:Nil 5 Beedam Chandraiah, S/o.Gopaiah, Age 75 years, Occ:Nil All R/o.Q.No.59-48/C, Shirkey colony, Mandal Mandamarri, District Mancherial … Petitioners //AND//

1. Jalampalli Ravi, S/o.Rayamallu, Age 38 years, Occ:Driver of Lorry bearing No.TS22T-3243, R/o.H.No.3-26, Tekumatla village, Mandal Jaipur, District Mancherial.

2. Gandra Rama Rao, S/o.Dharma Rao, Occ:Owner of Lorry bearing No. TS22T-3243, R/o.G.M.Colony, Godavarikhani, Mandal Ramagundam, District Peddapalli.

3. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd, Post:Kyathanpalli village, main road, Mandal Mandamarri, District Mancherial (Policy No.05230120P115117613 valid from 30.03.2021 to 29.03.2022)

...Respondents

MVOP.No.87 of 2021 2 of 15

This petition is coming for final hearing before me on 17.04.2025 in the presence of Sri P.Chiranjeeva Chary, Advocate for Petitioners and of Sri Gaddam Srinivas, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 and 2 remained exparte. Upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:

O R D E R

1. This Petition is filed under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 by the

Petitioners claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One crore and twenty five thousand only) for the death of deceased Beedam

Sampath Rao, who died in a road traffic accident on 19.08.2021 at 10.46 am at Sai Baba Temple, Mandamarri.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that on 19.08.2021 at about 10.45 am, while the deceased Beedam Sampath Rao was proceeding on his motorcycle bearingNo.AP15F/3108 from III Zone to I

Zone, Mandamarri and when he reached infront of Sai Baba Temple at

Mandamarri, the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.TS22T-3243 driven by

Respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and while overtaking the motorcycle of deceased, the lorry back side portion hit the deceased.

As a result of it, the deceased fell down on the road towards lorry side and the lorry back tyres climbed over the legs of the deceased and the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and became unconscious. The deceased was shifted to the Area Hospital, Ramakrishnapur, but he succumbed to injuries in the hospital on the same day.

MVOP.No.87 of 2021 3 of 15

3. It is further averred that on a report lodged by wife of deceased i.e, Petitioner No.1 herein, the Police, Mandamarri registered a case in

Cr.No.201 of 2021 against the Respondent No.1 for the offence under

Section 304A of IPC. It is further averred that the deceased Sampath

Rao was aged about (55) years, hale and healthy at the time of accident and he was working as a senior Electrician at Area Workshop,

Mandamarri and he was earning Rs.1,21,314/- per month. But, due to sudden death of the deceased, the Petitioners suffered mentally a lot and lost their earning source and it was a great loss to the estate of the

Petitioners and they are claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,00,000/- under all heads. The Respondent No.1 being the driver of the crime vehicle Lorry, Respondent No.2 owner of the crime vehicle and the

Respondent No.3 being the insurer of the crime vehicle, all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners.

4. Respondent No.1 and 2 did not appear before the Court and not filed any counter and as there was no representation on their behalf,

Respondent No.1 and 2 were set-exparte on 22.03.2022.

5. Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the material averments made in the petition and contended that the deceased Sampath Rao was not having any valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle and the motorcycle of the deceased was not fit to fly on the road at the time of

MVOP.No.87 of 2021 4 of 15 accident, as such the accident only due to the negligence of the deceased, as such, the Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioners. It is further contended that the person who drove the crime vehicle lorry was not having any valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle at the time of accident. It is also contended that the amount of compensation claimed by the Petitioners is high and exorbitant and that the Claimants are not entitled for any compensation and finally prayed to dismiss the petition against the

Respondent No.3.

6.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1)Whether B.Sampath Rao died in the accident that occurred on 19.08.2021 at about 10.45 am infront of Sai Baba Temple at Mandamarri?

2)Whether the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing No.TS22T- 3243?

3)Whether the Petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the accidental death of B.Sampath Rao, if so how much? And against which of the Respondents?

4)To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry, the Petitioner No.1 who is the wife of deceased Beedam Sukanya as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. The

Petitioners also got examined one Ram Srinivas who is an eye witness to the accident as PW2. One D.Raj Kumar who is working in the Singareni

MVOP.No.87 of 2021 5 of 15

Collieries Company Ltd is examined as CW2 and through him Exs.X1 to

X3 documents were marked. On the other hand, on behalf of contesting

Respondent No.3, no witness was examined except marking the attested copy of Insurance Policy as Ex.B1.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

ISSUES NO. 1 and 2: As the Issue No.1 and 2 are interlinked, they are taken-up together to avoid any repetition.

9. The Petitioner No.1/Beedam Sukanya, who is wife of deceased

Beedam Samapth Rao filed her chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of petition that on 19.08.2021 at about 10.45 am, while the deceased

Beedam Sampath Rao was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.

AP15F/3108 from III Zone to I Zone, Mandamarri and when he reached infront of Sai Baba Temple at Mandamarri, the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.TS22T-3243 driven by Respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and while overtaking the motorcycle of deceased, the lorry back side portion hit the deceased. As a result of it, the deceased fell down on the road towards lorry side and the lorry back tyres climbed over the legs of the deceased and the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and became unconscious. The deceased was shifted to the Area

Hospital, Ramakrishnapur, but he succumbed to injuries in the hospital on the same day.

MVOP.No.87 of 2021 6 of 15

10. PW1 further deposed that on a report lodged by her, the Police,

Mandamarri registered a case in Cr.No.201 of 2021 against the

Respondent No.1 herein for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. It is further averred that the deceased Sampath Rao was aged about (55) years, hale and healthy at the time of accident and he was working as a senior Electrician at Area Workshop, Mandamarri and he was earning

Rs.1,21,314/- per month. But, due to sudden death of the deceased, the Petitioners suffered mentally a lot and lost their earning source and it was a great loss to the estate of the Petitioners and they are claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,00,000/- under all heads. PW1 further deposed that the Respondent No.1 being the driver of the crime vehicle

Lorry, Respondent No.2 owner of the crime vehicle and the Respondent

No.3 being the insurer of the crime vehicle, all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners.

11. In the cross-examination of Respondent No.3, PW1 denied the suggestion that her husband used to attend the duties by confining to work shop, as such, there was no scope to occur accident on 19.08.2021 at 10.45 am. PW1 further denied the suggestion that the deceased was not possessed valid and effective driving license at the time of accident to drive the two wheeler.

MVOP.No.87 of 2021 7 of 15

12. Further, the Petitioners also got examined one Ram Srinivas, who is an eye witness the accident as PW2 The evidence of PW2 shows that on 19.08.2021 at about 10.45 am, the deceased Sampath Rao was coming from KK-2 dispensary side on his Hero Honda splendor motorcycle and when reached near Sai Baba temple, by that time, the crime vehicle Lorry bearing No.TS22T-3243 came from behind the motorcycle of the deceased by driving in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle from his back side. As a result of it, the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and its back tyres climbed and ran over the deceased legs. Due to which, the deceased legs were bursted and blood was oozed a lot. Immediately, PW2 called the ambulance in which the deceased was shifted to Area Hospital,

Ramakrishnapur, but the deceased died while undergoing treatment.

13. In the cross-examination, PW1 stated that he directly witnesses the accident by standing infront of Tiffin center near Sai Baba Temple at

Mandamarri and the crime vehicle lorry was empty without any load.

PW2 denied the suggestion that as PW2 was stood on the right side to the driver of the Lorry, there was no scope for him to witness the accident that was happened on the left side of the lorry. PW2 further denied the suggestion that himself and the deceased belongs to same village and he is deposing false.

MVOP.No.87 of 2021 8 of 15

14. In support of contention of Petitioners, they relied on the documents under Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of First

Information Report in Cr.No.201 of 2021, shows that on the report lodged by PW1, the Police, Mandamarri registered a case in Cr.No.201 of 2021 under Section 304A of IPC. Further, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of inquest panchanama, which shows that the inquest panchanama was conducted over the dead body of the deceased Beedam Samapth Rao

Ramakrishna and the panchas therein expressed their opinion that the deceased died in a road traffic accident. Ex.A3 is the postmortem examination report which shows that the Medical Officer, Government

Area Hospital, Mancherial conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased Beedam Sampath Rao. Further, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of charge-sheet, which goes to show that Police

Mandamarri investigated the case and after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against the Respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Ex.A5 is the accident information report. Ex.A6 is the report issued by the Motor Vehicle

Inspector, which shows that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle lorry. All these documents i.e,

Exs.A1 to A6 coupled with the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly shows that the Respondent No.1 drove the crime vehicle Lorry bearing

No.TS22T-3243 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the

MVOP.No.87 of 2021 9 of 15 motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of it, the deceased Beedam

Sampath Rao sustained injuries and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. The Respondents did not adduce any evidence to disbelieve the contention of the Petitioners, as such, this Tribunal construed that the accident was occurred on 19.08.2021 at Sai Baba temple, Mandamarri only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.TS22T-3243 driven by Respondent No.1.

Hence, these two issues are answered accordingly.

ISSUE No.3:-

15. The Petitioners are contending that the Petitioner No.1 is the wife,

Petitioner No.2 & 3 are the sons and whereas the Petitioner No.4 & 5 are the parents of the deceased Beedam Sampath Rao. The Respondents also not denied the relationship of the Petitioners with the deceased disputes. As such, it is considered that the Petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Beedam Sampath Rao and they are entitled to claim the compensation.

16. As per the evidence of PW1, who is wife of deceased that her husband was a Singareni Employee working as Senior Electrician at Area

Workshop, Mandamarri and his average monthly salary is Rs.1,13,217/-.

Ex.A7 are the (12) months‟ salary slips of the deceased Sampath Rao commencing from August 2020 to July 2021. On perusal of the same,

MVOP.No.87 of 2021 10 of 15 the deceased was working as Electrician in Singareni Collieries Company

Ltd, with Employee Code No.02266602 and he was getting salary with different amounts depending on his working days. As such, the average salary after deducting Income Tax, the salary of the deceased Employee comes to Rs.95,716/- and the same can be taken into consideration. It is contended that due to the death of the Beedam Sampath Rao in the accident, the Petitioners sustained loss and lost the earnings and love and affection, hence, they are entitled for compensation.

17. In order to substantiate their claim, the Petitioners examined the employer of the deceased as CW1, through whom Exs.X1 and X2 are marked. CW1 deposed that he is working as Senior Assistant in Area

Work Shop, Mandamarri and s per their Office Record, the deceased

Sampath Rao worked as Senior Electrician as on the date of his death and Ex.X2 are the salary slips (12 in numbers) and Ex.X3 is the attested copy of Service Record of deceased Sampath Rao. In the cross- examination, CW1 denied the suggestion that he has no knowledge about the salary send service particulars of the deceased Sampath Rao and he is deposing false to help the Petitioners. The evidence of PW1 and CW1 with regard to the employment of deceased is corroborated with each other. Therefore, in view of these factors, it can be constructed that the deceased Sampath Rao was getting a monthly salary of Rs.95,716/-. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased

MVOP.No.87 of 2021 11 of 15 would be Rs.11,48,590/-. Further, on perusal of records, more particularly Ex.A8 which is the Secondary School Certificate (SSC), the date of birth of the deceased Beedam Sampath Rao is shown as 24.08.1966. The accident was occurred on 19.08.2021, hence the age of the deceased was (55) years at the time of accident. As such, the age of the deceased Beedam Sampath Rao as on the date of accident can be taken as (55) years to apply suitable multiplier i.e, “11”. As per the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 2003 in a case between SARALA

VERMA AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND

ANOTHER, the relevant multiplier to be applied for the age group of 51 to 55 years is „11‟. At this juncture, this Tribunal has relied on the landmark Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in between

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs. PRANAY SETHI AND

OTEHRS, wherein it is observed by their Lordships that in case if the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 15% of the established income should be warrant. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.13,20,853/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs twenty thousand eight hundred and fifty three only). On perusal of the records, the crime vehicle Lorry bearing No.TS22T-3243 was driven by Respondent No.1, owned by Respondent No.2 and it is insured with the Respondent No.3 company. The accident was occurred on 19.08.2021. As per Ex.B1, the Insurance Policy of the crime vehicle is

MVOP.No.87 of 2021 12 of 15 valid from 30.03.2021 to 29.03.2022, hence, it clearly shows that as on the date of accident, the Insurance Policy of the crime vehicle was in force.

18. In view of the above discussion, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.13,20,853/- and after deduction of 1/4th of his income towards his personal expenditure, it comes to Rs.9,90,640/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs ninety thousand six hundred and forty only) per annum. After applying the multiplier „11‟, it comes to Rs.1,08,97,040/- (Rupees One crore eight lakhs ninety seven thousand and forty only)

Hence, in the above circumstances, the Petitioners are entitled to the following compensation for the death of the deceased Beedam Sampath

Rao.

The Annual income of the Rs. 13,20,853-00 deceased is Rs.11,48,568/- and future prospects @ 15% on monthly income of Rs.1,72,285/- Total comes to Rs.13,20,853/- Deduction of 1/4 towards Rs. 3,30,213-00 personal and living expenses comes to Rs.3,30,213/- which comes to Rs.9,90,640/ Multiplier applicable is „11‟ Rs. 1,08,97,040-00 Rs. 1,08,97,040-00 9,90,640x11=Rs. 1,08,97,018/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000-00

Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,00,000-00

MVOP.No.87 of 2021 13 of 15

Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000-00

Total: Rs.1,11,27,040-00

19. Hence the Respondent No.1 being the driver of the crime vehicle,

Respondent No.2 being the owner of the crime vehicle and the

Respondent No.3 being the Insurer of the crime vehicle i.e, Lorry bearing No.TS22T-3243, are all jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,11,27,040/- (Rupees One Crore Eleven lakhs twenty seven thousand and forty only). This Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

ISSUE No.4:

IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed and the compensation of Rs.1,11,27,040/- (Rupees One Crore Eleven lakhs twenty seven thousand and forty only) is awarded under all heads holding all the

Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of passing of this Award with proportionate costs and interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization. On such deposit, the Petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.55,63,532/- (Rupees Fifty five lakhs sixty three thousand five hundred and thirty two only) and the Petitioner No.2 & 3 beings sons and Petitioner No.4 & 5 being parents of deceased Sampath

Rao are entitled to Rs.13,90,877/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs ninety thousand eight hundred and seventy seven only) each. On such

MVOP.No.87 of 2021 14 of 15 deposit, the Petitioner No.1 to 5 are entitled to withdraw their half of their share amount and the remaining their respective share amounts shall be kept in FDR in any Nationalized Banks for a period of two years.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only).

Typed by the stenographer to my dictation and after correction

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April 2025.

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN (MACT)-CUM

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners: For Respondents:- None

PW1: Beedam Sukanya (Petitioner No.1) PW2: Ram Srinivas (eye witness to the accident)

CW1: D.Raj Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 CC of FIR in Cr.No.201 of 2021 of PS Mandamarri

dt:19.08.2021

Ex.A2 CC of inquest panchanama of deceased Sampath Rao

dt:19.08.2021

Ex.A3 CC of Postmortem Examination Report dt:19.08.2021 Ex.A4 CC of Charge-sheet in Cr.No.201 of 2021of PS Mandamarri Ex.A5 CC of Accident Information Report (Form No.54) Ex.A6 Certified copy of MVI Report Ex.A7 (12) months‟ salary slips of decased Sampth Rao from August 2020 to July 2021 Ex.A8 Original SSC Memo of deceased

MVOP.No.87 of 2021 15 of 15

For Respondents:

Ex.B1 Attested copy of Insurance Policy

Ex.X1: Authorized letter issued by Deputy General Manager Ex.X2: (12) Salary slips of deceased from August 2020 to July 2021 Ex.X3: Attested Service Record of B.Sampath Rao

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN (MACT)-CUM

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

1 of 7 SC (POCSO) No.81 of 2021

IN THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, AT MANCHERIAL

PRESENT:- SRI BOYA SRINIVASULU,

Principal Sessions Judge, Mancherial

FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track special court for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

WEDNESDAY THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025

SC (POCSO) No.81 of 2021

Name of the ComplainantState represented by SHO of PS Jaipur

Name of the AccusedJarpula Rajabapu, S/o.?Shyam Naik, Age 25 years, R/o.Sarvaipet village, Mandal Kotapalli, District Mancherial.

Offence under section306, 354-D, 417 and 420 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act

Plea of the accusedNot Guilty

Finding Not Guilty

Sentence or OrderThe Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 306, 354-D, 417 and 420 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under section 232 CrPC. The un-marked case property vide CP.No.68 of 2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Name of the counsel forSri A.Rambhao, Additional Public Prosecutor prosecution

Name of the counsel forSri Gaddam Srinivas Defence

This case coming before me on 09.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Rambhao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Gaddam Srinivas, Advocate for Accused and on hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2 of 7 SC (POCSO) No.81 of 2021

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaipur filed charge-sheet against

Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 354-D, 417 and 420 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO (Prevention of Children from Sexual

Offences) Act in Cr.No.167 of 2020 of Jaipur Police Station.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

2.On 26.08.2020, father of the victim (PW1) lodged a report in the

Police Station at Jaipur alleging that he came to know that his daughter (victim) and the Accused fell in love since last four years, for which he agreed to perform their marriage when they became majors. On 21.08.2020 PW1 observed some unknown poison smell from their daughter and asked her as to why she consumed poison, for which, the victim told her that the Accused quarrelled with her over mobile phone and told that he would not marry her since he had illegal affairs with five members and by saying so, the victim shown the poison tin labeled as “Hpm All Cell”. Immediately, the victim was shifted to Government

Hospital, Mancherial in 108 ambulance and after treatment, the victim was brought to Kistapur village and thereafter she told that she felt uneasy and on that again the victim was shifted to Life Care Private

Hospital, where the doctors examined the victim and on the Doctors advised to take her to home, as such, the victim was brought to Sarvaipet village, and since her health was deteriorated, again she was shifted to

Government Hospital, Chenur, where the Doctor declared that the victim was died.

3 of 7 SC (POCSO) No.81 of 2021

3.Basing on the report lodged by PW1, the Investigating Officer (LW17) registered a case in Cr.No.167 of 2020 for the offence under

Sections 306, 354-D, 417 and 420 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act against the Accused, examined and recorded the statement of

Complainant (PW1), and other material witnesses, held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of witnesses and subjected the dead body for postmortem examination and deposited the viscera of the deceased at Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Karimnagar. On 27.08.2020, the Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence situated at Kommu Bhaskar Poultry Form situated at the outskirts of Kistapur village, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators and seized Hpm All Clear poison tin and also Blue cell phone with IDEA SIM which was used by the accused to call the deceased, drawn rough sketch of scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses and thereafter, obtained the report of the

Medical Officer, wherein it is opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to Paraquat Dichloride a Herbicide Poison. On 14.09.2020, the Accused was arrested and he was produced before the

Court for judicial custody and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 354-D, 417, 420 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act.

4 of 7 SC (POCSO) No.81 of 2021

4.The cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned I Additional

Sessions Judge (Designated under POCSO Act), Adilabad for the offence

punishable under 306, 354-D, 417, 420 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act against the Accused and made over to this Court on the point of jurisdiction for disposal according to law.

5.The Accused engaged the Advocate to defend his case. On appearance of Accused before this court and on considering the entire material available on record, Charges for the offence under Sections 417, 420 354-D and 306 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Actwere framed against the Accused. The contents of the same were read over and explained to the Accused in his vernacular language for which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charges.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined (5) witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

7.After completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, since there is no incriminating material against the Accused, examination of the Accused under Section 313 CrPC is dispensed with.

8. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the

Accused.

9.Now, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 354-D and 306 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

5 of 7 SC (POCSO) No.81 of 2021

POINT:-

10.In this case PW1 is the father of the victim. He deposed that his daughter was suffering with stomach pain, thereby she consumed pesticide and died and specifically deposed that non one is responsible for her death. PW2 is the mother of the victim. She deposed in the same lines to that of her husband PW1 that her daughter was suffering from stomach pain and thereby she consumed pesticide poison and no one is responsible for the death of her daughter. Thus, the parents of the victim not deposed anything against the Accused and completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

11.PW3 and PW4 are uncle and aunt of the victims. Both these witnesses also deposed in similar lines that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and that the Police not examined them. Thus, these two witnesses also not deposed anything against the Accused.

12.PW5 is the person who shifted the deceased in his Auto into the

Ambulance. But he clearly deposed that he does not know the cause of death of the deceased and that he does not know anything about the facts of the case and that the Police not examined him. Thus, all the material witnesses examined by the prosecution not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. In the cross-examination of the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, PW1 to PW5 denied to have stated before

the Police as in Exs.P2 to P6 respectively.

6 of 7 SC (POCSO) No.81 of 2021

13.Since the material witnesses i.e, PW1 to PW5 turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner, the learned Public

Prosecutor given-up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e, LW3, LW6, and LW8 to LW17 as no fruitful result would come by examining them, as such their evidence is closed. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 354-D and 306 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, as such the

Accused is entitled for acquittal for the said Charges.

IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 354-D and 306 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under

Section 232 CrPC. The un-marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation and after corrections, pronounced by me in the open Court on this 9 TH day of April 2025

Principal Sessions Judge

Mancherial FAC:Spl.Judge (POCSO) Court Mancherial

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For prosecution: For Defence –None- PW1:Father of the victim PW2:Mother of the victim PW3:Uncle of the victim PW4:Aunt of the victim PW5: K.Mahesh (shifted the victim in his Auto) 7 of 7 SC (POCSO) No.81 of 2021

EXHBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence NIL

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on the Report of PW1 dt:26.08.2020 Ex.P2:161 CrPC statement of PW1 dt: 26.08.2020 Ex.P3:161 CrPC statement of PW2 dt:26.08.2020 Ex.P4:161 CrPC statement of PW3 dt:26.08.2020 Ex.P5:161 CrPC statement of PW4 dt:26.08.2020 Ex.P6: 161 CrPC statement of PW5 dt:26.08.2020

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Principal Sessions Judge

Mancherial FAC:Spl.Judge (POCSO) Court Mancherial

IN THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, AT MANCHERIAL

Present:

Sri Boya Srinivasulu,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Mancherial FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track special court for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

THURSDAY THE 10 TH DAY OF APRIL 2025

SC (POCSO) NO. 43 OF 2024

Name of the Complainant:: State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, Luxettipet Name of the Accused::

Komuravelli Venkatesh S/o Chandra Mogili, 27 years, Kammari, Welding shop, R/o H.No.13-32, Kothakommugudem village, Luxettipet Mandal

Offence under Sections:: 75, 78, 329(4), 351(2) of BNS Section 12 of POCSO Act

Plea of the accused:: Not guilty

Finding :: Not guilty

In the result, the accused isnot found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 75, 78, 329(4) and 351(2) of BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the charges under Section 232 Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e. Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing No.AP15AB 3475 which is in the safe custody of police, shall be returned to the original owner on filing proper application on proof of ownership, after appeal period is over.

Name of the counsel for:: Sri A. Rambhoo prosecution Addl. Public Prosecutor

Special Judge, Fast Track special court

for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

SC (POCSO) No. 43 of 2024

2

On the file of POCSO Court,

Mancherial

Name of the counsel for defence:: Smt. G. Padma

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on today in the presence of Sri A. Rambhoo, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state and Smt. G. Padma, Counsel for accused and on hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Luxettipet filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 75, 78, 329(4) and 351(2) of BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act.

2)The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

PW1/mother of victim lodged a report with the Police, Luxettipet by stating that, she has one daughter and son. Her daughter victim girl is studying intermediate 1st year in Model College, Kummaripalli of Velgatoor.

Due to ill health to her daughter she came to home 15 days back. While her daughter was at home, the accused followed and harassed her daughter in the name of love. On 20.07.2024 when her daughter was alone in the house, at 12.00 pm the accused enter into her house, behave with her daughter obscenely by holding her hand and threatened her to kill to come along with him. On the basis of her report, Crime No.5 of 2023 came to be registered.

3)The investigation swung into motion. Investigating Officer visited the spot and prepared panchanama, got recorded the statements of available witnesses and recorded the statement of victim with the help of WPC. He collected bonafide certificate of the victim through concerned Head Master.

The accused was arrested on 27.07.2024 and on interrogation; he committed his guilt, seized Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle from the possession of

Special Judge, Fast Track special court

for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

SC (POCSO) No. 43 of 2024

3

On the file of POCSO Court,

Mancherial accused and remanded him to judicial custody. The victim statement under

Section 164 CrPC was duly recorded by the learned Magistrate. During investigation, a prima facie case under Sections 75, 78, 329(4) and 351(2) of

BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act, are found well established against the accused.

4)The offence was taken cognizance by this Court for the offences punishable under Section 75, 78, 329(4) and 351(2) of BNS and Section 12 of

POCSO Act against the accused.

5)On appearance of the accused and on hearing both sides, this Court framed charges under Sections 75, 78, 329(4) and 351(2) of BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act, read over and explained the contents of it to him in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) In order to bring home the guilt of accused the prosecution initially examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 and P5. On completion of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating material in the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

is dispensed with.

7) Heard both sides.

8) The point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could prove the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 75, 78, 329(4) and 351(2) of BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act, beyond all reasonable doubts or not?”

Special Judge, Fast Track special court

for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

SC (POCSO) No. 43 of 2024

4

On the file of POCSO Court,

Mancherial

POINT:

9)To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW4. Among them, PW1 is the mother of victim, PW2 is the grandmother of victim, PW3 is the younger father of victim and PW4 is the victim.

10)PW1/mother of victim, PW2/Grandmother of victim and PW3/younger father of victim did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile and have gone back to the prosecution version. PW1 to PW3 categorically deposed that the accused never committed any act against the victim girl and he never misbehaved with the victim girl. PW1 does not know the contents of the report.

11)PW4 is the victim did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and has gone back to the prosecution version. PW4 categorically deposed that the accused never committed any act against her and never misbehaved with her. PW4 denied the suggestion that she is deposing false.

12)As the material witnesses i.e., P.W1 to PW4, did not support the version of the prosecution, the learned Addl.P.P., declared them as hostile after obtaining permission from the Court and cross-examined them, but nothing was elicited from their cross-examination in favour of the prosecution. In view of the hostile testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4, the learned Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other prosecution witnesses i.e., LW4/neighbour of victim, LW6/K. Padma, WPC, LW7/Pettem Thirupathi, Head Master,

LW8/Sandela Suresh and LW9/Gangadhari Mahesh are the panch for CDF,

LW10/Boda Rajendra Prasad @ Raju and LW11/Darshanala Bhanu Prasad

Special Judge, Fast Track special court

for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

SC (POCSO) No. 43 of 2024

5

On the file of POCSO Court,

Mancherial are the panch for confession and recovery panchanama, LW12/N. Nirosha, learned Magistrate and LW13/P. Sathish is the investigating officer.

13)In view of the above discussion and in view of the hostile testimony of

PW1 to PW4, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the offence. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, this Court conclude that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 75, 78, 329(4) and 351(2) of BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act and accordingly the accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

14)In the result, the accused isnot found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 75, 78, 329(4) and 351(2) of BNS and Section 12 of POCSO

Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the charges under Section 232 Criminal

Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e. Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing No.AP15AB 3475 which is in the safe custody of police, shall be returned to the original owner on filing proper application on proof of ownership, after appeal period is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, and after correction

pronounced by me in open Court this the 10th day of April 2025.

Principal Sessions Judge, Mancherial.

FAC:Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

Special Judge, Fast Track special court

for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

SC (POCSO) No. 43 of 2024

6

On the file of POCSO Court,

Mancherial

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1Mother of victim NONE PW2Grandmother of victim

PW3Younger father of victim

PW4 Victim

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P.1Signature of PW1 on the report NIL Ex.P.2Section 161 CrPC statement of PW1

Ex.P.3Section 161 CrPC statement of PW2

Ex.P.4Section 161 CrPC statement of PW3

Ex.P.5Section 161 CrPC statement of PW4

MOs Marked

NIL

Principal Sessions Judge, Mancherial.

FAC:Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

Special Judge, Fast Track special court

for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

1 Crl.MP.No.167 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT:

MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: SRI BOYA SRINIVASULU,

Principal Sessions Judge, Mancherial

FAC: I Addl.Sessions Judge, Mancherial

WEDNESDAY THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2025

CRL.MP.NO.167 OF 2025

In

Cr.No.129 of 2025 of PS Mancherial

Between:

Zareena Begum W/o Abdul Masood, 40 years, Housewife, R/o H.No.23- 225/105, Thilak Nagar, Mancherial, District Mancherial …Petitioner/Owner of property /And/ The State of Telangana through SH`O of PS Mancherial …Respondent

This petition is coming before me on today for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Rajesh Goud, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor for the State. Upon perusal of the material on record, this Court delivered the following:

::O R D E R::

1) This is a petition filed under section 503 of BNSS seeking interim custody of Bajaj Pulsar N 160 BSVI motorcycle bearing No. TS 19H 5137,

Model 2023, Chasis No. MD2B54DX8NCJ52794, Engine No.PDXCNJ87091,

Brookllyn Black Colour, worth of Rs.50,000/-, seized by the police in

Cr.No.129 of 2025 for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) and 27 of NDPS Act.

2) The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioner is the owner of Bajaj Pulsar N 160 BSVI motorcycle bearing No. TS 19H 5137, 2 Crl.MP.No.167 of 2025 which was seized by the police in the above crime from the possession of accused and the vehicle is kept by the police in front of their police station without any proper care, it can be damaged, in which event the petitioner, will be put to heavy loss and the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner will produce the vehicle in the same condition as and when ordered by the

Court and hence prayed to release the vehicle to the interim custody of the petitioner.

3) Notice is given to the Public Prosecutor.

4) Heard on both sides.

5) Whether the petitioner is entitled for interim custody of the Bajaj

Pulsar N 160 BSVI motorcycle bearing No. TS 19H 5137, as prayed for?

POINT:-

6) A perusal of the material on record coupled with the RC filed by the petitioner would clearly show that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and the same is also not disputed by the police. Thus, considering the above facts and circumstances of case, and as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the vehicle is kept idle certainly it will be damaged, which will cause a serious loss to the petitioner herein, this Court is of the considered opinion that the vehicle can be released to the interim custody of petitioner but by imposing certain conditions. Point is accordingly answered.

3 Crl.MP.No.167 of 2025

7) IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed with the following conditions.

(i) The petitioner is directed to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with an undertaking to produce the vehicle i.e, Bajaj Pulsar N 160 BSVI motorcycle bearing No. TS 19H 5137 before this Court as and when directed.

(ii) The petitioner is further directed not to change the colour, engine and chasis number of the said vehicle and also further directed not to alienate the same to the third parties till disposal of the case.

(iii) The SHO of PS Mancherial is directed to return the vehicle i.e, Bajaj Pulsar N 160 BSVI motorcycle bearing No. TS 19H 5137 to the petitioner as an interim custody under proper identification and acknowledgment by taking photographs of the above said vehicle.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16 th day of April 2025.

FAC: I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

Copies to:

1)The Station House Officer, PS M ancherial

2)Sri G. Rajesh Goud, Advocate for petitioner (on payment of user charges)

1 Crl.M.P.No.129 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL

Present:

Sri Boya Srinivasulu,

Principal Sessions Judge, Mancherial

FAC: I Additional Sessions Judge, Mancherial

Tuesday, this the 15th day of April 2025

Crl.M.P.No.129 of 2025

in Cr.No.129 of 2025 of PS Mancherial

Between: Arjun Baburao Chavhan S/o Baburao Chavhan, 26 years, Lambadi, Painter, R/o Bhimnagar, Vasahat, Achole Road, Behind Shiridi Nagar, Dongari, Nallasopara East, Thane, Maharastra State, now at Laxminagar, Housing Board Colony, Karimnagar …Petitioner/A9 //AND// The State of Telangana represented through the SHO of P.S Mancherial …Respondent/complainant

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing on today in the presence of Sri Sadineni Prabhakar, Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material on record, this court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

The petitioner/A9 filed this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS by seeking regular bail in Cr.No.129 of 2025 of PS Mancherial registered under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) and Section 27(b) of NDPS Act alleging that he is in judicial custody since 20.02.2025, he is nothing to do with the alleged offence, ready to prove his innocence by facing the trial, he is having fixed abode, ready to offer sufficient sureties for his appearance during the trial, and further stated that investigation is completed except filing a formal charge sheet and also ready to abide any conditions imposed by the Court.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed bail and filed counter stating that the investigation is under progress, and finally, requested to dismiss the petition.

3. Heard on both sides.

4. Now, the point for consideration is, whether the petitioner/A9 is entitled for bail in Cr.No.129 of 2025 of PS Mancherial as prayed for?

2 Crl.M.P.No.129 of 2025

POINT:-

5. The counsel for the petitioner/A9 is contending that the petitioner is innocent, he has not committed any offence, and he was falsely implicated in the present case.

The counsel for the petitioner further contending that the petitioner is not possessed the alleged ganja and there is no material to connect him with this crime. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is contending that if the petitioner is released on bail there is every chance of tampering the prosecution witnesses and hampering of investigation by the petitioner. On perusal of the case diary discloses that the Investigating Officer examined and recorded the statements of the material witnesses. It appears that the material part of the investigation is completed, except filing of the charge sheet. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly the point is answered.

6. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/A9 is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial. On such release, the petitioner/A9 shall appear before the SHO, PS Mancherial on every Monday and

Thursday in between 10.00 am to 1.00 pm for a period of two months or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier.

Typed by the Stenographer to my dictation and after corrections pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of April 2025.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Mancherial. FAC: I Additional Sessions Judge, Mancherial Copies to:

1) The II Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial

2) The Superintendent, District Jail, Adilabad

3) The SHO, PS Mancherial

4) Sri Sadineni Prabhakar, Advocate for petitioner (on payment of user charges)