Sri C.B.Satyanarayana

TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN S.C.No.654/2011 ON THE FILE OF VTH ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI DIVISION, ELURU UNDER RULE 318 OF THE CRL. RULES OF PRACTICE.

1. Sessions Case No. and P.R.C.No. : S.C.No: 654/2011 and 20/2008 of with name of the committal CourtSpl Judicial Magistrate of I Class (excise), Eluru.

2. Name of the Police station: Cri. No: 110/2008 of Pedavegi Police Station

3. Name of the Accused and : 1.Chejerla Raja, S/o.Govindu, Age 23 particularsyears, Caste by Jangalu, R/o.Pinakadimi village, Pedavegi Mandal.

2.Chejerla Govindu, S/o.Subbaiah, Age 45 years, Caste by Jangalu, R/o.Pinakadimi village, Pedavegi Mandal.

3.Chejerla Gaddemma, W/o.Govindu, Age 38 years, Caste by Jangalu, R/o.Pinakadimi village, Pedavegi Mandal.

4. Date of offence: 17-06-2008

5. Date of complaint: 17-06-2008

6. Date of appearance or : 18-01-2012 apprehension

7. Date of release on bail: A.1 on 29-8-2008 and A.2 & A.3 on 5-8- 2008

8. Date of committal: 4-10-2008

9. Date of commencement of trial: 13-02-2012

10.Date of close of Trial: 29-02-2012

11. Date of Sentence or Order: 29-02-2012

In the result, the accused A.1 to A.3 are not found guilty U/Secs.498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. Accused A.1 to A.3 are acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C. The M.Os.1 to 4, non-valuable and other unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Surety bonds of surety persons and bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 stands canceled.

12. Explanation for the delay. : No avoidable delay

Vth Addl. Sessions Court, West Godavari Division ,Eluru V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

Dated: 29-02-2012. Fast Track Court, W.G., Eluru.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRIRCT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT :: ELURU.

PRESENT: Dr.S.S.S Jaya Raju, M.A.,Ph.D.,LLM., Vth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) W.G, Eluru.

Wednesday the 29th day of February, 2012.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 654/2011

Name of the Accused and : 4.Chejerla Raja, S/o.Govindu, Age 23 years, particularsCaste by Jangalu, R/o.Pinakadimi village, Pedavegi Mandal.

5.Chejerla Govindu, S/o.Subbaiah, Age 45 years, Caste by Jangalu, R/o.Pinakadimi village, Pedavegi Mandal.

6.Chejerla Gaddemma, W/o.Govindu, Age 38 years, Caste by Jangalu, R/o.Pinakadimi village, Pedavegi Mandal.

Charges:Punishable Under Secs.498-A and 304-B of I.P.C.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the judge:Fount not guilty

Sentence of Order: In the result, the accused A.1 to A.3 are not found guilty U/Secs.498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. Accused A.1 to A.3 are acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C. The M.Os.1 to 4, non-valuable and other unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Surety bonds of surety persons and bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 stands canceled.

Counsel for the prosecution: Sri Althi Srinivas, Addl. Public Prosecutor, W.G. District, Eluru Counsel for defenceSri E.Srinivasa Babu Advocate for accused 1 to 3, Eluru.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 17-02-2012 in the presence of Sri Althi Srinivas, Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri E.Srinivasa Babu,

Advocate for the accused. After hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record till this day this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

3

1.The Sub Division Police Officer, Eluru Sub division, Eluru filed charge sheet against the above named accused in Cr. No.110/2008 of Pedavegi Police

Station for the offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are that A.1 is husband of deceased Chejerla

China Maramma, A2 and A.3 are parents of A.1 and they are residents of Pinakadimi village of Pedavegi Mandal. Prior to two years of this incident the deceased China

Maremma and Chejerla Raju (A.1) loved each and without informing to anybody, they went to Sri Venkateswara Swamy temple at Dwaraka Tirumala and married after getting by themselves they came back to the village. Later, the matter was put forth

before the elders and elders of both families allowed their marriage. The deceased

was sent to her in-laws house and at that time the parents of the deceased gave

Rs.20,000/- as dowry and two sovereigns of gold. Right from the date of her entering into her matrimonial house A.2-father-in-law, A.3-mother-in-law and her husband-

A.1 of deceased tortured the deceased to cruelty, mentally and physically, with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, frequently beat her indiscriminately and necked out her to her parental house. Prior to one week of last pongal in this year, 2008 all the accused persons beat the deceased indiscriminately and necked out her from their house with a demand to bring additional dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/- by stating that they will not allow her to step into their house if the deceased fails to bring. Even after that the deceased is residing at the house of her parents with her son. Even then, A.1 used to come to their house frequently to abuse the deceased, beat her and threatened the deceased that he will marry another girl if she failes to come with additional dowry as demanded by him and his parents. As such the deceased was mentally upset and weeping for her fate. On 17-6-2008 at 12- 00 noon the deceased who is lonely available at house, bolted the main door, and kitchen door from inside to pour kerosene on herself, set ablaze with matches and died on the spot.

3. The defacto-complainant-L.W.1 (P.W.1) gave a report at Pedavegi P.S on 17-6-2008. Basing on the contents of the report a case was registered in

Cr.No.110/2008, U/Sec.304-B of I.P.C. During the course of investigation, on 20-06-2008 the accused A.1 and A.3 were arrested and A.3 surrendered herself

before the Magistrate Court. The Hon’ble Magistrate sent all the accused for judicial

custody.

4. On appearance of the accused A.1 to A.3, the learned Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Eluru had taken cognizance of the case U/

4

Sec.304-B of IPC, furnished copies of charge sheet and other connected documents.

The learned Magistrate registered the same as PRC No.20/2008. The Hon’ble

District and sessions Court, Eluru took the case on file as S.C.No.654/2011 and made over the case to this Court (F.T.C, W.G., Eluru). On receipt of case records, after appearance of the accused, upon hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor and of the defence counsel, charges U/Secs.498-A and 304-B of I.P.C were framed against accused A.1 to A.3. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in

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

5.In order to prove the case of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined.

Ex.P.1 to P.22 and MOs 1 to 4 were marked. The defense side did not adduce any evidence and no document was marked.

6.The evidence of L.W.3- B.Devi, L.W.8-S.Sreenu, L.W.13-T.Parvathi and L.W.18- V.Prem Kumar is given up by prosecution.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused A.1 to A.3 are examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C but the accused denied the incriminating evidence available against them on record.

8.Heard both sides.

9.The learned APP, counsel appearing for the prosecution side, vehemently argued that the prosecution proved involvement of the accused with consistent, cogent, coherent, and corroborating evidence. His further contention is that the witnesses examined by the prosecution clearly deposed about the involvement of the accused under charged section. Hence, he prayed to punish the accused under the charged sections as the offences the accused had committed are grave in nature.

10.The learned counsels for the accused strongly opposed the contention of the prosecutor and vehemently argued that the evidence of the prosecution does not prove guilt of the accused and that the prosecution also miserably failed to connect the chain of circumstances with crucial links, reliable, cogent, coherent and corroborating evidence. It is his further contention that none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution substantiated the version of the agency. Since, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, he prayed such benefit of doubt be extended to the accused and the accused may be acquitted in view of the failure of the prosecution to drive home guilt of the accused under the charged offences.

5

11.Now, the point for consideration and determination is whether the prosecution is able to establish the charges U/Secs.498-A and 304-B of I.P.C leveled against the accused A.1 to A.3 with consistent, coherent, cogent, corroborating evidence and beyond all reasonable or not?

POINT

12.P.W.1 is mother of the deceased China Maremma. P.W.1 clearly stated that A.1 is her son-in-law and A.2 and A.3 are parents of A.1. It is clear evidence of

P.W.1 that her deceased daughter died due to burnt injuries but she does not know how the deceased sustained burnet injuries as P.W.1 was away from the house. It is also evidence of P.W.1 that as she had been to a provision shop and she observed smoke coming out her house. She also observed public gathering in front of her house who are trying to subside the flame. She further deposed that the public assembled at her house and broke open the doors. Except that P.W.1 did not state anything with regard to cause of death of the deceased or harassment of accused A.1 independently or cruel treatment of A.1 to A.3 with regard to demand of dowry. P.W.1 also stated that she only affixed her thumb mark on papers at hospital but she failed to state why she affixed her thumb mark. It is also specific version of P.W.1 that police never examined and recorded her statement.

(b)P.W.1 turned hostile to the prosecution by stating that she had never been to police station to lodge and complaint but she identified her thumb mark-

Ex.P.1 appearing on the report. Even though the incident occurred at the house mother (P.W.1) of the deceased P.W.1 nowhere whispered anything about harassment of accused with regard to demand of additional dowry by A.1 at the time of marriage or after marriage. Since, the crucial witness for the prosecution showed any amount of hostility and recited from her version, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (for short A.P.P.) sought permission of the Court to cross-examine the hostile witness with the permission of the Court wherein she opposed the suggestion of A.P.P that she stated before police as in Ex.P.2 and deposing falsehood to help the accused as she compromised the case with accused persons. Thus, the evidence of prime witness for the prosecution is not at all useful to prove involvement of accused A.1 to A.3 in the death of the deceased.

13.P.W.2 is sister of the deceased whose version is no way different from the version of P.W.1 on all material facts. It is her evidence that she resides away from the house of her mother P.W.1 where the incident occurred but she received 6 information about the incident. When she came to the scene of offence she was informed that the deceased set her ablaze by pouring kerosene. It is specific version of P.W.2 that her deceased sister never informed about disputes in the family of deceased which is fatal to the case of the prosecution as the crucial ingredients

U/Sec.498-A and 304-B of I.P.C are not deposed by another crucial witness for the prosecution. In contra, P.W.2 stated when the police shifted the dead body of her deceased sister to Government Hospital she gave her name to police at their instance and she did not gave her statement (Ex.P.3) as suggested by the learned A.P.P. Thus, another important witness for prosecution turned hostile and never supported the case of prosecution.

14.P.W.3 is brother of the deceased whose version is no way different from his mother (P.W.1) and his sister (P.W.2) with regard to incident. P.W.3 stated that at the time of incident he was not at the house but elsewhere in the village. He came to know from the villagers about the incident and death of the deceased. It is also clear version of P.W.3 that his deceased sister burnt herself by pouring kerosene and setting herself ablaze. On combined reading of testimonies of P.Ws.2 and 3 any amount of doubt is created in the mind of the Court as who shifted the injured to the hospital. P.W.2 stated that police only shifted the body of the deceased to Government

Hospital where as P.W.3 stated that the villagers shifted body of the deceased. Thus, a clear inconsistency is appearing in the evidence of family members of victim. P.W.3 also not supported the prosecution version with regard to P.W.1 lodging of complaint.

He showed hostility towards prosecution case by stating that he was not examined by the police and he did not state before police as in Ex.P.4. Thus, another family member of the deceased also failed to support the prosecution case and not stated anything about deceased being harassed by the accused for additional dowry.

15.P.W.4 is one of the witnesses who resides close to the house of complainant (P.W.1). He clearly stated that accused 1 to 3 are also residents of the same village and he knew both families. Except that there is nothing in the evidence of P.W.4 with regard to harassment of accused for additional dowry. P.W.4 stated that when they observed smoke come out of the house of P.W.1 as such he along with

L.W.1 rushed to the scene and forcibly opened the doors. P.W.4 stated that he fetched bucket of water to subside flames and he observed the dead body by the time he came with water. He supported the prosecution case to the extent that the dead body was lying in the kitchen. P.W.4 also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that even after the incident also he does not know anything about the cause of death of 7 the deceased. P.W.4 stated that the police never examined and recorded his statement as in Ex.P.5 and he is not deposing falsehood to help the accused persons.

16.P.W.5 is another independent witness whose testimony show relation of version of P.W.4 with regard to the incident and their attempt to subside the flames.

Evidence of this witness is also not useful to the prosecution to prove incriminating circumstances on its specific allegation that the deceased was harassed by A.1 and

A.3 for additional dowry. P.W.5 stated like earlier witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 that the deceased herself set ablaze by pouring kerosene and he does not know the reason as to why the deceased forcibly end her life. Since the witness turned hostile, the learned APP cross-examined this witness wherein he opposed the suggestion that he stated before police as in Ex.P.6 but now he is intentionally deposing falsehood to help the accused persons as he compromised the case with the accused.

17.P.W.6 is photographer who took photos in the presence of D.SP and

VRO but the corresponding negatives of the photos or CD of the prints is not available as such the photos are not permitted to be marked on behalf of the prosecution for the above referred reason.

18.P.W.7 is the VRO of Pinakadimi had deposed that the death of the deceased occurred within the jurisdiction of his village as such he immediately rushed to the scene when such information was received from the police. He further stated that another VRO (P.W.8) of Koppaka was also present along with him and they were taken to the scene of offence by the police. At the scene they observed scene and conducted scene observation report- Ex.P.7. The D.SP and SI were also present and M.Os. 1 to 4 were seized by the police at that time. This witness also declared as hostile by the learned A.P.P as this witness is not supporting the contents of Ex.P.7.

P.W.7 further stated that on the following day inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased in their presence at the scene of offence only. Where P.W.8,

L.W.13 and this witness acted as panch witness for inquest that was conducted by

MRO of Pedavegi and later on they affixed their signature. He admitted that Ex.P.8 is his signature and he knew the contents of inquest report-Ex.P.10. P.W.7 stated that the cause of death of the deceased is due to harassment of in-laws for additional dowry deceased committed suicide such fact they mentioned in the inquest proceedings.

(b)Before further discussion it is necessary to throw some light on the evidence of P.W.7 with regard to inquest proceedings. It is pertinent to mention here that the version of P.W.7 is not supported by the family members P.Ws.1 to 3 or by the independent witness P.Ws.4 to 6 with regard to alleged harassment they noted.

8

Therefore, the version of P.W.7 is not convincing and believable for want of clear corroboration from the reliable and independent witness. In the cross-examination of learned counsel for accused, P.W.7 stated that the M.R.O came after preparation of the inquest report and later on the witnesses affixed their signature also create any amount of doubt and suspicion to conclude that M.R.O never conducted the proceedings as contended by the defence evidence. P.W.7 fairly admitted that they did not mention in Ex.P.7 about marks of kerosene on the ground or smell of the kerosene in the house of P.W.1. At the end P.W.7 categorically stated the information is furnished by the police to fill up inquest proceedings. Thus, the testimonies of P.W.7 allows to entertain doubtful circumstance and to conclude that the witness is not genuine trustworthy.

19.P.W.8 is another VRO who acted as another mediator along with P.W.7 and he admitted that he affixed his signature on Ex.P.7. He also stated that at the time of conducting observation report in the kitchen of P.W.1’s house police seized

MOs 1 to 4 in their presence. Nowhere P.W.8 stated that Ex.P.7 proceedings were conducted by the MRO. However, he stated that DSP, CI and SI were present. Thus, another doubt is entertained in the mind of the Court whether the signature of the

MRO was subsequently obtained on Ex.P.7 by the police as suggested by the learned counsel for defence and such doubt draws strength when the version of P.Ws.7 and

P.W.8 are read together.

20.P.W.9 is doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased

China Maaremma in the Government Hospital and observed 96% of burns present on the body of the deceased. P.W.9 opined that the deceased died due to Hypobolumine shock as a result of extensive super view to deep burns of 96% and he mentioned his observation in the PME-Ex.P.9.

21.P.W.10 is another doctor who was present along with P.W.9 when

P.M.E was conducted over the dead body of the deceased. He supported the contents of Ex.P.9. The evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10 are helpful to the prosecution to prove the death of the deceased but not ingredients of charged sections.

22.P.W.11 is the then MRO and he deposed that he received information about death of the deceased from the VRO-P.W.8 as well as from the police.

Immediately, he proceeded to the scene of offence where he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. P.W.11 also stated that due to harassment of accused for additional dowry the deceased committed suicide by 9 pouring kerosene. However, such version is not supported by the family members.

Thus, the allegation of the dowry and also demand for additional dowry is not fairly, clearly and convincingly proved by the prosecution by examining the independent witness and other official witness. P.W.11 stated that he conducted inquest proceedings as appearing in Ex.P.10. When the testimonies of P.Ws.7, P.W.8 and

P.W.11 are considered together another serious doubt arose in the mind of the Court as to who is speaking truth. Basing on their inconsistent versions and apparent discrepancies a cloud of suspicious casts around the case of the prosecution with regard to presence of MRO at the time of proceedings. P.W.11 stated that he conducted proceedings at the house of P.W.1 where as P.Ws.2 and P.W.3 stated that the dead body was shifted to the hospital either by the police or by the villagers.

Therefore, another doubt arose in the mind of the Court as to where exactly the inquest proceedings were held. Hence, the learned counsel for accused suggested to

P.W.11 that he affixed his signature on Ex.P.10 without visiting the scene and he was not at all present at the scene or at the time of conducting inquest.

23.P.W.12 is the S.I of Police who had deposed that when he was present in the police station, V.R.O-P.W.7 and complainant-P.W.1 came to the police station and presented a written report-Ex.P.11. Basing on which and the ingredients therein he registered a case in Cri.No.110/2008, U/Sec.304-B of I.P.C. He further stated that

Ex.P.11 bears his endorsement and after issuing of the F.I.R-Ex.P.12 he sent copies of express F.I.R to the concerned authorities and D.S.P to take up further investigation as it is the case of dowry death. In the cross-examination he stated that he did not enquire as to who drafted the report.

24.P.W.13 is maternal-uncle of the deceased whose evidence is of no use to the prosecution as his version is no way different and he did not deviate version of

P.Ws.1 to 4 to stated that he does not know the reason for the death of the deceased.

He stated that police never examined and recorded his statement as in Ex.P.13. Thus, another close relative of the deceased is also not stated anything harassment of the accused for additional dowry.

25.P.W.14 is another maternal-uncle of the deceased and he stated that at the time of conducing inquest-Ex.P.10 he was present. It is his further evidence that the deceased immolated herself by pouring kerosene due to some physiological imbalances and problems the deceased had. He identified his signature-Ex.P.14 but not supported contents therein Ex.P.10. P.W.14 categorically stated that the contents 10 are not read over and explained to him. Thus, the prosecution miserably failed to adduce crucial evidence to prove ingredients of circumstances against the accused and cause of the death of the deceased. Thus, the evidence of P.W.14 is also not of any use to the prosecution.

26.The learned counsel for prosecution had given up examining the other investigating officer-L.W.18 since the crucial witness for prosecution showed total hostility.

27.The evidence of P.W.1 to 5 is absolutely not of any use to the prosecution to prove any one of the ingredients of the charges sections. As such their testimonies can be safely brushed aside. Now, it has to be seen whether there is cogent, coherent and corroborating evidence available on record P.W.7, P.W.8 and

P.W.11 are important witness in whose presence scene of offence observation report and inquest proceedings were conducted. As far as scene observation report is concerned the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 is helpful to the prosecution to prove the scene and seizure of MOs 1 to 4 but their evidence is of no use to prove ingredients of charged sections as they did not specifically state about cause of death of the deceased that they enquired the family members and neighbors at the time of inquest to know about cause of death of the deceased. Thus, there is no corroborating evidence to prove that due to harassment of A.1 to A.3 for additional dowry the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and set ablaze. But the family members P.Ws.1 to 4, P.W.13 and P.W.14 nowhere stated about presentation of dowry as defined under Sec.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act or A.1 to A.3 demanded

additional dowry independently or jointly. Therefore, the ingredients mentioned in

the inquest and the versions of P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.11 is disbelieved for want of corroborating evidence from other reliable and independent witness. On combined reading of testimonies of P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.11 a clear inconsistency and discrepancy could be observed with regard to presence of MRO at the time of conducing inquest proceedings. Therefore, it can be said that the proceedings are not conducted at the scene or over the dead body of the deceased as claimed by the prosecution but subsequently the prosecuting agency obtained signature of witnesses to support their police case as the witnesses are also Government employees.

28.In the light of above discussion and doubtful circumstances, it can be concluded that the prosecution utterly failed to prove actual or real cause of death of the deceased when the evidence of P.W.14 is considered a doubt is also entertained in the mind of the Court. On combined reading of evidence of witness, inquest, contents of inquest and version of P.W.14 another doubt is entertained whether the deceased committed suicide due to harassment of the accused for additional dowry 11 and due to physiological imbalances or other problems the deceased had. Thus, the testimonies of P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.11 are also disbelieved for want of corroboration also they do not appear to be trustworthy.

29.P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the doctors who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Their evidence is only helpful to the prosecution with regard to conducing of P.M.E and death of the deceased due to severe burn injuries which are not disputed at all. The testimonies of P.W.12 is only helpful to the prosecution to establish registering of F.I.R and forwarding copies of F.I.R to the concerned authorities. However, P.W.1 categorically stated that she had never been to police station to lodge complaint and she does not know the contents of Ex.P.1 as she only affixed here thumb mark. Thus, the burden is on the prosecution to prove who drafted the complaint. The VRO who allegedly accompanied P.W.1 at the time of lodging complaint not stated anything about the person who scribe the report.

Hence, another doubt is also created in the mind of the Court with regard to drafting of the complaint. Except to prove issuing of F.I.R the evidence of P.W.12 is not at all helpful to the drive home guilt of accused U/Sec.498-A and 304-B of I.P.C.

30.Considering the evidence available on record, it can be clearly and conclusively stated that the available evidence is not at all sufficient to prove the involvement of the accused under charged sections. Since there is no clears consistency, cogent and corroborating evidence, it can be concluded that the prosecution miserably failed to drive home guilt of accused under any one of the charged sections. The prosecution also failed to establish harassment of the accused

A.1 to A.3 beyond all reasonable doubts. Since the prosecution not successfully let in any positive evidence to conclude that the death of the deceased is only due to harassment of the accused, it can be presumed that the deceased committed suicide herself by pouring kerosene and set ablaze herself due to other problems and such circumstances and the burden is only on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution miserably failed to prove involvement of the accused and guilt of accused under the charged offences with convincing, consistent and beyond doubtful evidence. Hence, accused A.1 to A.3 given benefit of doubt since the prosecution utterly failed to prove any one of ingredients of the charged sections with cogent, coherent, corroborating evidence and beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, the point is decided in favor of the accused A.1 to A.3 and against the prosecution.

12

In the result, the accused A.1 to A.3 are not found guilty U/Secs.498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. Accused A.1 to A.3 are acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C. The M.Os.1 to 4, non-valuable and other unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Surety bonds of surety persons and bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 stands canceled.

Dictated to shorthand writer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court the 29th day of February, 2012.

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), W.G. Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1-P.Bharathi P.W.2-K.Peda Maremma P.W.3 -P.Rajeev Gandhi P.W.4-GandhodiYesu P.W.5-Sirigina Pydi Raju @ Sidda P.W.6-Nuziveedu Suresh P.W.7-Kakani Venkata Satya Swaroop P.W.8- Vannuri Naga Venkata Satya Krishna Prasad P.W.9-Dr.L.V.S.K.Jagannadha Rao P.W.10-Dr.P.Bala Prakasa Rao P.W.11-Md.Khalid Jama P.W.12.-Bokka Venkata Ramakrishna P.W.13.-Kalyanam Srinivas P.W.14.-Oora Kondaiah

FOR DEFENCE: -- Nil –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1/17-06-2008: Thumb impression of P.W.1 affixed on the report enclosed to the F.I.R. Ex.P.2/18-06-2008: 161 (2) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 recorded by police 13

Ex.P.3/18-06-2008: 161 (2) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 recorded by police Ex.P.4/18-06-2008: 161 (2) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 recorded by police Ex.P.5/18-06-2008: 161 (2) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 recorded by police Ex.P.6/18-06-2008: 161 (2) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 recorded by police Ex.P.7/17-06-2008Scene observation report drafted by P.W.7 and signed by him and another Ex.P.8/18-06-2008: Signature of P.W.7 marked in the inquest report Ex.P.9/18-06-2008: Post Mortem Certificate issued by P.W.9 Ex.P.10/18-06-2008Inquest proceedings and report Ex.P.11/17-06-2008: Original report give to P.W.12 by P.W.1 Ex.P.12/17-06-2008: F.I.R registered by P.W.12 in Cri.No.110/2008 of Pedavegi P.S. Ex.P.13/18-06-2008: 161 (2) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.13 recorded by police Ex.P.14/17-06-2008: Signature of parties of P.W.14 marked in inquest report Ex.P.10.

FOR DEFENCE:- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTRS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: M.O.1-Match box with six burnt sticks and un-burnt match sticks M.O.2-White kerosene tin M.O.3-Wooden piece of the door M.O.4-Alluminium Bolt ring

V Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court),W.G, Eluru.

Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (through C.D)

2. The District Collector, W.G., Eluru.

3. The Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Eluru

4. The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru.

5. The Director of Prosecution, Hyderabad.

6. Sri Althi Srinivas, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Eluru.

14

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNA-CUM-V

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (FAST TRACTK COURT), WEST

GODAVARI, ELURU.

Present: Sri A.Hari Haranadha Sarma, B.Sc., B.L., II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru. Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII

Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru,

FAC V Addl. District Court (Fast Track), W.G., Eluru.

Monday, this the 22nd day of December, 2014

M.V.O.P. No. 211/2012

Between:-

1. Choppa Appa Rao

2. Choppa Lakshmi

3. Choppa Varalakshmi

4. Choppa Satish

…..Petitioners

(Petitioners 3 and 4 being minors represented by father/1 st petitioner)

Versus

1. A.Samba Siva Narayana Raju

2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, K.N.Reddy Complex, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, TPG JCJ.

3. Ketha Nageswara Rao …..Respondents

(Added as per the orders dt.1/3/20-13 in I.A.No.151/2013.)

This petition coming on 27-11-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Sailaja, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri

P.S.Chand, Advocate for R1, and of Sri B.Sambhu Prasad, Advocate for R2, and of R3 remained exparte, and having heard the arguments from both sides and on perusing the entire material available on record, the Court delivered the following:

A W A R D

This is an application filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of Motor Vehicles’ Rules by the petitioner No.1 Choppa

Appa Rao, 2) Choppa Lakshmi, 3) Choppa Varalakshmi, 4) Choppa Satish 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioners’ with respective numbers wherever necessary) claiming compensation at Rs.4,50,000/- for the death of one

Choppa Durga Prasad (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’.

2) The case of petitioners in brief is that on 31.1.2012 while deceased was going to his college along with his friends near Surya Kiran

Fabrications, Dumpagadapa main road NH 216, Akiveedu Mandal a lorry bearing No.AP 37 X 9455 came in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver and dashed a tractor and trailer bearing Nos. AP 05-3939 and AP 07 Y 3090 respectively whereupon angler of tractor touched the forehead of the deceased causing severe bleeding injury. With the result, the dec4ased died on the spot.

3) Further, the case of the petitioners is that the deceased was hale and healthy aged about 20 studying Intermediate II year in

Dumpagfadapa AKPS Government Junior College and he was earning

Rs.3,000/- per month by attending tuition work. Petitioners 1 and 2 are parents and petitioner No.3 is sister and petitioner No.4 is brother of deceased. All the petitioners lost valuable financial support and love and affection of the deceased due to his sudden death.

4) Further, petitioners claimed that 3rd respondent is the driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 37 X 9455 and his rash and negligent driving is the cause for the accident and the crime vehicle is owned by the 3rd respondent. 2nd respondent is the authorized insurer with whom the crime vehicle insured. Hence, all the respondents are liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- claimed by the petitioners.

5) Respondent No.1 filed counter contending that the allegations made in the petition are false. The petitioners did not prove the age, occupation and income of the deceased and the negligent driving of the lorry by the 3rd respondent i.e., the driver of the lorry. It is specifically claimed by the 2nd respondent that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor cum trailer and the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurance company of the tractor. It is also claimed by the 1st respondent that his lorry bearing No.AP 37 X 9455 was insured with 2nd 3 respondent vide policy No. 52060231100100005008 covered the period 23.3.2011 to 22.3.2012 and date of accident being 3.1.2012 covered by the insurance policy. If at all there is any liability, the 2nd respondent alone is liable to pay compensation and the petition deserves dismissal against the 1st respondent.

6) The 2nd respondent insurance company filed its counter contending that the petitioner shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the 3rd respondent, involvement of the lorry owned by the 1st respondent insurance policy issued by the 2nd respondent for the crime vehicle.

7) It is further claimed by the 2nd respondent that the involvement of tractor and trailer and negligence of its driver shall also be taken into consideration. The petitioner shall prove the valid and effective driving license of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., 3rd respondent and also compliance of conditions of policy in order to seek relief against 2nd respondent insurance company.

8) It is further claimed by the 2nd respondent that the negligence of the deceased and the driver of tractor and trailer shall also be taken into consideration and the petitioners shall prove the age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is further claimed by the 2nd respondent that the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation for want of compliance of conditions of policy and in any event quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioners shall be considered as excessive.

9) Originally the 3rd respondent the driver of the crime vehicle was not added. However, subsequently by way of amendment, the driver of crime vehicle was added as 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent remained ex parte.

10) Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:-

1) Whether the accident occurred on 31.1.2012 near Surya Kiran Fabrications, Dimpagadapa main road, N.H.216, Akiveedu Mandal due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 37 X 9455 being driven by its driver?

4

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation?

3) What is the age, income and occupation of the deceased?

4) To what relief?

11) During the trial, on behalf of the petitioners, the 2nd petitioner has taken witness stand as PW.1 and one Gajji Gopi said to be an eye-witness for the accident was examined as PW.2. 1st respondent A.S.S.Narayana

Raju was examined as RW.1 and on behalf of 2nd respondent, one S.Raja

Babu, Administraive Officer of the insurance company was examined as

RW.2 and one Ketha Nageswara Rao was examined as RW.3. Further on behalf of the petitioners, Ex.A1-F.I.R.; Ex.A2-inquest report; Ex.A3-Post mortem report; Ex.A4-M.V.I.’s report and Ex.A5-charge sheet were got marked and on behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1-policy copy and Ex.X1- driving license of 3rd respondent were got marked.

12) Heard both sides extensively.

13) The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the deceased was a broad bright student and petitioners had very good hopes on the deceased. The rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent (driver of the crime vehicle) is the cause for the accident and 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the 1st respondent is vicariously liable to pay compensation. There was valid policy Ex.B1 in force as on the dated of accident. Hence, the 2nd respondent being authorized insurer liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and the quantum of compensation of

Rs.4,50,000/- claimed by the petitioners is just and reasonable.

14) Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that the deceased was a cyclist by the time of the accident. The involvement of tractor and trailer in the accident is an admitted factor. The petitioners failed to add owner and insurance company of the tractor and trailer.

Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners deserves dismissal on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further argued by learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the compliance of policy conditions is snot proved by the petitioners and the earning capacity of the deceased 5 when he was studying Intermediate cannot be believed and the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive. He has also argued that the evidence of owner of crime vehicle RW.1 and the evidence of the driver of the crime vehicle RW.3 are clear as to the negligence of the driver of the tractor. Therefore, no liability can be imposed on 2nd respondent.

15) In reply, the learned counsel for petitioners argued that there are crucial admissions made by respondent Nos.1 and 3 as RW.1 and RW.3 and registration of case by police against the 2nd respondent covered by

Ex.A1-F.I.R. and subsequent filing of charge sheet and Ex.A5 are sufficient to believe the negligence of 3rd respondent. Hence, the contention of the 2nd respondent seeking exemption from liability does not merit any positive consideration.

16) Findings of this Court issue raises are as follows:-

ISSUE No.1 :-

17) The 2nd petitioner as PW.1 categorically stated about relationship of herself and other petitioners with the deceased and occurrence of accident on 31.1.2012 and death of deceased due to accident. She has also stated about the age and earning of deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month by attending tuitions work. During cross-examination, she has admitted that she is not an eye-witness to the accident. It was suggested to PW.1 that earning of deceased at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month is false. PW.2 stated that he has witnessed the accident and when the crime vehicle lorry tried to overtake the tractor, dashed the tractor and in turn the tractor dashed the deceased whereby an accident occurred and the deceased died.

During cross-examination of PW.2, except suggesting that there was negligence of driver of tractor and trailer, nothing more is elicited. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that there is admission of PW.2 that if tractor had stopped for a while by allowing the lorry to proceed the accident would not have occurred. Therefore, negligence of the driver of the tractor and trailer shall be believed. But this argument is not found convincing for the simple reason either the lorry driver (3rd respondent) or the deceased if waited for a while the accident would not have occurred.

6

But as the lost opportunity to prevent the accident shall be the ultimated test which determines and whose part there is negligence. The deceased as a cyclist and the tractor and trailer were already moving ahead of the crime vehicle lorry. If the driver of the lorry 3rd respondent had waited for necessary time he would have prevented the accident. His negligence alone can be considered as the reason for accident in view of the fact the tractor and deceased were ahead of the crime vehicle lorry. RW.3 the driver of the crime vehicle admitted that he did not give any report to police against the driver of the tractor nor did he choose to initiate any private complaint against the driver of the tractor. Further, this Court find it proper and pertinent to note that under Ex.A1 case is registered against the driver of the crime vehicle and after investigation under Ex.A5, 3rd respondent was charge sheeted. When the evidence of PW.2, RW.3 is seen in the light of Exs.A1 and A5 the only irrestible conclusion possible in the facts and circumstances of the case is that the negligence of the 3rd respondent is the cause for the accident.

18) In the light of the discussion made above, this Court unhesitantly concludes that the pleaded accident dated 31.1.2012 has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 37 X 9455 by its driver 3rd respondent. Issue No.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners.

POINTS 2 AND 3:-

19) The 2nd and 3rd respondents are sister and brother of the deceased and they are minors. Entitlement for petitioners’ compensation is clear as the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident. 1st petitioner is class-I legal heir. If loss of love and affection and other incidental factors are taken into consideration, the entitlement of all petitioners for compensation need not be doubted. It is already discussed and concluded above that the driver of the crime vehicle 3rd respondent is responsible for the accident. Since the evidence of PW.2 and rW.3 are not leading to infer or at least entertain possibility of the negligence of the driver of tractor cum trailer. The objection and defence of the 2nd respondent that the petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties need not be considered. Violations of 7 conditions of policy issued by the 2nd respondent are not proved. Ex.B1- policy was in force as on the date of accident. There is no dispute about either issuance of policy Ex.B1 or the same being in force as on the date of accident. The burden of proof to show violation of conditions lies on the 2nd respondent. But 2nd respondent failed to discharge its burden. The crime vehicle is owned by 2nd respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the humble view thawt all the respondents are liable to pay compensation.

However the 3red respondent is liable to pay the compensation in view of

Ex.B1 poliocy. The defence of want of driving license to 3rd respondent also gets sufficiently and satisfactorily answered if Ex.X1 driving license of 3rd respondent carefully perused.

20) The only point remains for consideration and determination is, what shall be the reasonable quantum of compensation that can be awarded to petitioners.

Quantum:- In a claim for compensation basing on death in a motor accident the principles to be followed and method of calculation compensasetion is provided in the case of Sarala Varm’s vide vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation – (2009) 6 SCC 121.

Multiplicand:- The petitioners referred that the deceased was aged about 20 and he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. In inquest report, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 19 years. Even in post-mortem certificate, the age of the deceased is mentioned in 19 years. It is referred in the petition that the deceased was studying Intermediate. Why the petitioners did not choose to produce X class certificate of the deceased to assist the age of the deceased is not known. The petitioners’ claim that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- by attending tuitions work. But to prove that the deceased was attending tuitions no evidence is placed. Therefore, the income of the deceased atd Rs.4,000/- by attending tuitions cannot be believed. However, the income of the deceased can be notianally taken at

Rs.3,000/- per month which comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. The 50 % of the income can be deducted towards the personal expenditure as he was bachelour by the date of . Then annual contribution of income of the deceased to the petitioners can be accepted at Rs.18,000/-. Therefore,

Rs.18,000/- considered as multiplicand.

8

Multiplier:- The age of the deceased as per post-mortem and inquest is 19 years. As per Sarala Varma case, multiplier that can be adopted in respect of the persons of age group 15 to 20 is 18. Therefore, multiplier 18 is adopted.

Calculation:- Multiplier 18 and multiplicand 18th =Rs.3,24,000/-. Hence,

Rs.3,24,000/- is awarded as compensation under the head of loss of estate/loss of dependency love and affection etc. Further under the head of funeral expenditure, an amount of Res.10,000/- is awarded to the petitioners as compensation. No amount can be awarded as compensation under the head of loss of consortium as the deceased died unmarried.

21) In the light of discussion made above, total compensation that can be awarded to the petitioners under various heads is follows:-

1) Loss of estate/dependency/love and affection Rs.3,24,000-00

2) Funeral expenditure Rs. 10,000-00 --------------------- Rs.3,34,000-00 ---------------------

22) For the reasons stated above, issue No.2 is decided in favour of petitioners concluding that they are entitled for the compensation of

Rs.3,34,000/- with interest at 7.5 % from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization and all the respondents are liable to pay the same.

However, the 3rd respondent alone is liable in view of insurance policy.

ISSUE NO.4:-

In the result, petition is partly allowed.

Compensation awarded Rs.3,34,000/- with interest at 7.5 % from the date of petition till the date of deposit or reliazation.

Apportionment:- An amount of Rs.1,34,000/- total interest and costs are apportioned to the share of 2nd claimant mother of the deceased. An amount of Rs.50,000/- is apportioned to the share of 1st petitioner father of the deceased, an amount of Rs.75,000/- each is apportioned to the shares of 3 and 4th petitioners.

9

Disbursement: 1st and 2nd petitioners are permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount allotted to their shares. The compensation allotted to the shares of 3 and 4 petitioners shall be kept in fixed deposit till they attaining majority.

Liability:- All the respondents are liable however 3rd respondent is liable in view of insurance policy.

Time for deposit:- 30 DAYS.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/-.

Costs:- Proportionate costs are awarded.

Rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed without costs.

Petitioners are entitled for copy of decree and withdrawal of the compensation amount on clearance of court-fee dues if they have obtained exemption from paying the Court-fee at the time of numbering the case.

Office is directed to verify the same before supply of decree copy and entertaining applications for withdrawal of compensation amount.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23 rd day of December, 2014.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. FAC V Addl.District Judge, W.G., Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: WITNESS EXAMINED:

FOR PETITIONERS:

P.W.1 – Ch.Lakshmi P.W.2 – G.Gopi

FOR RESPONDENTS:-

RW.1 A.S.S.Narayana Raju RW.2 S.Raja Babu RW.3 K.Nageswara Rao (R3 driver) 10

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A1/………….. Attested photostat copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.20/2012 of Akiveedu P.S.

Ex.A2/………….. Attested photostat copy of inquest report.

Ex.A3/………….. Attested photostat copy of P.M.E. report.

Ex.A4/…………... Attested photostat copy of M.V.I.Report.

Ex.A5/…………… Attested photostat copy of charge sheet filed by S.I. of Police, Akivedu P.S.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1 ……………. True copy of Insurance policy.

By Court:-

Ex.X1 2.9.1996Compared Xerox copy of driving license of RW.3

Chairman, M.A.C.T.

11

IN THE COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT-CUM-VII ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

PRESENT:- Smt.S.Sree Devi,

VII Additional District Judge,

W.G., Eluru,

The 28th day of January, 2016.

MVOP. 166/2015

Petitioner

1) Vasipalli Yesu Prema Address - Christian, Female, 30 years, House wife, Permanent resident of H.No.6-32, Rudrapaka, Nandiwada Mandal.

Advocate- E.Tukarakji

Respondents

1) Y.Satyanarayana Address - Hindu, male, 36 years, Driver of Eicher Mini Lorry bearing No.AP 16 Y 9798, H.No.4-67-0, Kaikaluru, Krishna District.

2) Sadanala Siva Sankar Hindu, male, age not known, owner of the Eicher Mini Lorry bearing No.AP 16 Y 9798, H.No.1-13A, John Peta, Atapaka, Kaikaluru Mandal.

3) Ms.Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Ms.Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Acts

Under Act(s) Under Section(s)

MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988Sec.166ofMVActrw455ofMVAct

O R D E R

Petitioner and Insurance company officials are present before Lok

Adalat and the petition claim is settled for an amount of

Rs.2,25,000/- and the sole petitioner is permitted to withdraw

Rs.1,75,000/- and balance amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be kept in

FDR in any Nationalized bank for a period of one year. Accordingly,

award is passed.

Given under my hand and the Seal of this Court, the 28th day of January, 2016.

VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

In the Court of :V Addl. District And Session Judge cum Special Court for trail of

offences against women, Eluru Case No. :MVOP/0000618/2012 Kondapalli Satyavathi Vs Chunduri Manikyala Rao

Date : 26-02-2016

Petitioner and Advocate

1) Kondapalli Satyavathi Address - Amudala Appala Swamy Colony, Eluru.1) Chunduri Manikyala Rao Advocate- Sri D.Venkateswarlu Address - Madiwada Centre, Akiveedu.

2) K.Srinu @ Srinivasa Rao China Kapavaram, Akiveedu Mandal.

3) The New India Assurance Company Limited Near Santha Market, K.N.Road, Tadepalligudem.

Respondent and Advocate

Business: Petitioner and Insurance company officials are present before Lok-Adakat and petition claim is settled for a sum of Rs.3,25,000/-. The sole Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- . The petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept in FDR in any Nationalized bank for a period of one year. Accordingly award is passed. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 26-02-2016 V Addl. District And Session Judge cum Special Court for trail of offences against women, Eluru

In the Court of :V Addl. District And Session Judge cum Special Court for trail of

offences against women, Eluru Case No. :MVOP/0000814/2012 Bokuri Nagaratnam Vs Manne Ravibabu @ Ravi

Date : 26-02-2016

Petitioner and Advocate

1) Bokuri Nagaratnam Address - Eluru.1) Manne Ravibabu @ Ravi Advocate- Sri D.Venkatesarlu Address - 6th Ward, Sridevinagar, Tadepalligudem.

Respondent and Advocate

Business: Petitioner and Insurance company officials are present before Lok-Adakat and petition claim is settled for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/-. 1 st Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, 2nd petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.60,000/- and 3rd petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. The petitioners 1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw their respective share i.e., P.1 is Rs.1,00,000/-, P2 is Rs.60,000/- and P.3 is Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly award is passed. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 26-02-2016 V Addl. District And Session Judge cum Special Court for trail of offences against women, Eluru