Sri C.Lakshmi Narayana, M.Com., LL.M

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :: (II ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE) :: EAST GODAVARI AT AMALAPURAM

PRESENT:- Sri C.Lakshmi Narayana, M.Com., LL.M., II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Amalapuram. Thursday, the 7th day of May, 2015 M.V.O.P.No.11/2010 Between:

1.Ganisetty Ramalakshmi 2.Ganisetty Ramesh 3.Ganisetty Suresh 4.Ganisetti Nagamani 5.Ganisetti Ramarao (Petitioners 2 and 3 are being minors Represented by their mother natural guardian

1st petitioner) ..Petitioners

AND 1.M.Rajesh 2.M.Kutumbarao 3.Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep.by Divisional Manager, E-8, RIICO

Industrial Area, Sithapura, Jaipur, Rajastan. ..Respondents.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 29.4.2015 in the presence of Sri M.Adinarayana Rao, Advocate for the petitioners and

Sri V.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for 3rd respondent and the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1. This petition is filed U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for the loss of life of Ganisetti

Malleswara Rao, S/o.Ramarao, Age 36 years, Business, Vanapalli,

Kothapeta Mandal in a motor vehicle accident that was occurred on 21- 9-2009 at about 2.00 a.m. near fly over bridge, Kancharapalem,

Visakhapatnam.

2. The brief averments of the petition are :

The deceased Ganisetti Malleswara Rao, S/o.Ramarao, aged 36 years, Vanapalli, Kothapeta Mandal died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21-9-2009 at about 2.00 a.m. near fly over bridge,

Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

On 20-9-2009 the deceased Ganisetti Malleswara Rao and

Ganisetti Viswanadham purchased the banana bunches from the famers in Godavari Districts to the sell the same in Vizag. Both of them engaged a Swaraj Mazda Goods Van bearing No.AP37Y 3861, loaded the banana bunches and being owner of the goods, they started along with their load on the goods vehicle. The deceased Malleswara Rao and another sat in the cabin. While the said goods van reached near the harbour new fly over bridge situated backside of RCL Company, Visakhapatnam in the year early hours of 21-9-2009 about 2-00 a.m, the 1st respondent who is the driver of the said goods van drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the stationed lorry bearing

No.AP05TT 6589. Due to the said hit, the front portion of the goods van was totally damaged and the deceased and Viswanadham died on the spot. The accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The 1st petitioner is wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are minor children and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the old aged parents of the deceased. The petitioners have no avocation and they have no movable and immovable properties. Being wife the 1st petitioner lost her conjugal happiness. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 lost their bright future and moral support from the deceased. Since the deceased only the bread earner of their family, all the petitioners lost their dependancy and they are suffering with mental agony. Though the loss sustained by the petitioners cannot be compensated in terms of money, they are claiming

Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation. The 1st respondent is driver, 2nd respondent is owner and 3rd respondent is insurer of the crime vehicle

Swaraj Mazda Goods van bearing No.AP37Y 3861. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence, the petition.

3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte.

4. The 3rd respondent filed its written statement stating that all the material allegations of the petition are not true and correct and the petition is not maintainable under law. It is contended that there is no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent as alleged, that the deceased was not the owner of the goods and he was the unauthorized passenger, that the accident was occurred in collusion of two vehicles i.e. alleged crime vehicle and another lorry bearing No.AP05TT 6589, that the rash and negligence is on the part of the lorry, that the said lorry is necessary party as there is contributory negligence on the part of the said lorry and that petition is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party.

The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, exaggerated and out of proportions. The petitioners are not entitled to claim any interest. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Basing on the rival pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:-

1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e. Swaraj Mazda goods van bearing No. AP37Y 3861 by its driver 1st respondent ?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?

3.To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of petitioners, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of 3rd respondent,

R.W.s 1 to 3 was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 were marked.

ISSUE NO:1:-

7. The specific case of the petitioners is that on 20-9-2009 the deceased Ganisetti Malleswara Rao and Ganisetti Viswanadham purchased the banana bunches from the famers in Godavari Districts to the sell the same in Vizag. Both of them engaged a Swaraj Mazda Goods

Van bearing No.AP37Y 3861, loaded the banana bunches and being owner of the goods, they started along with their load on the goods vehicle. The deceased Malleswara Rao and another sat in the cabin.

While the said goods van reached near the harbour new fly over bridge situated backside of RCL Company, Visakhapatnam in the year early hours of 21-9-2009 about 2-00 a.m, the 1st respondent who is the driver of the said goods van drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the stationed lorry bearing No.AP05TT 6589.

Due to the said hit, the front portion of the goods van was totally damaged and the deceased and Viswanadham died on the spot. The accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The contention of the contesting 3rd respondent is that there is no rashness or negligence on the 1st respondent that the stationed lorry also contributed for causing accident and that the petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party. To establish their case, the wife of the deceased i.e. 1st petitioner and father of deceased 5th petitioner were examined as P.W.s 1 and 2 respectively.

They got examined P.W.s 3 and 5 to establish that the deceased and another purchased banana bunches for resale purpose one day prior to the accident and took the bananas to Vizag on the crime vehilce. The driver of the stationed lorry bearing No.AP05 TT 6589 was examined as

P.W.4 to support the version of the petitioners. P.W.s 1 and 2 filed affidavits in lieu of their examination in chief reiterating the contents of the petition and specifically stating that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driver of the 1st respondent. Exs.A1 to A5 were marked through P.W.1. Exs.A1 and A2 are the attested copies of F.I.R and inquest report respectively. Ex.A3 is the attested copy of post- mortem examination report. Ex.A4 is receipt dt.20-9-2009 issued by Sai

Ram Transport for the payment of transport charges and the attested copy of M.V.Inspector's report is marked as Ex.A5. Both P.W.s 1 and 2 are not the direct eye witnesses. P.W.1 specifically denied the suggestion that there was no negligence on the part of 1st respondent. It is the specific evidence of P.W.3 that the deceased purchased banana bunches from his garden one day prior to the accident and that the deceased took away banana bunches from his garden to Vizag. P.W.5 deposed that his father is owner of Sai Ram Transports of Dommeru of

West Godavari District, Ex.A4 is the trip sheet given by him to the deceased Malleswara Rao and another Viswanadham of Vanapalli village on 20-9-2009 when they were taking banana bunches in their lorry from

Dommeru to Vizag. P.W.4, the driver of the stationed lorry to which the 1st respondent gave dash, in his evidence deposed that on 20-9-2009 night while he was returning from Visakhapatnam to Balabhadrapuram village, when he reached near Harbour new fly over bridge at about 2-00 a.m. i.e. early hours in 21-9-2009, the 1st respondent came towards

Visakhapatnam by driving the goods van bearing No.AP37Y 3861 with load of banana bunches in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and on observing the same, he took his lorry to extreme left side road margin and stopped the same. In the mean time the 1st respondent gave dash to his lorry. During his cross-examination, he specifically denied the suggestion that the accident was took place due to his negligence only but not due to negligent driving of goods van by the 1st respondent.

In support of its contention, the 3rd respondent got examined its Legal

Officer as R.W.1. R.W.1 filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination reiterating the contents of the written statement. During his cross- examination he stated that both the deceased persons were travelling in the vehicle being owners of the goods. R.W.1 is not a direct witness to the accident and his evidence is no way useful to disprove the rash and negligence of the 1st respondent in causing the accident. Though P.W.s 1 to 5 were cross-examined at length by the 3rd respondent, nothing could be elicited in favour of its case.

8. On the other hand the petitioners got examined P.W.4, who stated to be the driver of the stationed lorry. He is the direct eye witness to the incident and his evidence is that the 1st respondent dashed his stationed lorry in rash and negligent manner and thereby the accident was occurred.

9. Though P.W.s 1 and 2 are not a direct witnesses to the accident,

P.W.4 is the direct eye witnesses to the occurrence at the time of accident and his evidence clinchnigly establishing that he witnessed the accident.

The concerned police have also registered the crime against the 1st respondent making him responsible for the accident. The documents

Exs.A1 to A5 are supporting the contention of the petitioners that the accident was occurred only due to negligence of the 1st respondent in driving the crime vehicle i.e. Swaraj Mazda Goods van bearing No.AP37Y 3861. Considering the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 5 and the documents produced by the petitioners, the conclusion to be drawn is that the accident occurred due to negligence of 1st respondent in driving crime vehicle Swaraj Mazda goods van bearing No. AP37Y 3861 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Therefore, issue is answered in favour of the petitioners.

Issue No.2:-

10. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has argued that the 1st respondent was not having valid and effective driving license by the time of accident, that the 1st respondent is not having left leg ankle to foot and used to drive the vehicle by wearing artificial leg limb from keen to foot and as such no driving license will be issued to the 1st respondent due to amputation was made to his leg ankle to foot, that the 1st respondent drove the crime without any valid driving licenses and violated the terms and conditions of the policy and that the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. To substantiate its version, the 3rd respondent got examined the Asst.

Motor Vehicles Inspector, Vuyyuru as R.W.2 and the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Traffic police station as R.W.3. According to

R.W.2, the alleged particulars of license were not traced out and that only licenses upto Sl.No.6144 were issued in the year 2002 in the office of M.V.Inspector, Vuyyuru. It is the evidence of R.W.3 that the 1st respondent was charge sheeted that he was not having proper and valid license and that he was not having left leg ankle to foot and was driving the vehicle with artificial leg limb from knee to foot. No specific plea that the 1st respondent was driving the vehicle with artificial leg limb was taken in the written statement. The charge sheet filed against the 1st respondent was not filed before the court. The petitioners failed to take steps to get the charge-sheet filed and marked on their side. The contesting 3rd respondent summoned the concerned police official, but the charge sheet was not got filed and marked. It has come in the evidence that the M.V.Inspector verified the copy of driving license furnished to him of the 1st respondent. The same license particulars mentioned in M.V.Inspector's report were given to R.W.2, but he stated that the license with the said particulars not traced out. The vehicle was driven by the 1st respondent, that the 2nd respondent is the owner of the vehicle and 3rd respondent is insurer are the facts established by the petitioners. It is the argument of the counsel for 3rd respondent that no record placed by the petitioners to show that the 1st respondent was having valid driving license as on the date of offence, that even if any license is there that is a fake license since the 1st respondent is having artificial leg from knee to foot and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. His further argument is that having a valid driving license is a requirement of law and that when it is established that the license of the driver was fake, it would completely exonerate the insurance company.

11. As verified from the record, no specific plea was taken by the 3rd respondent in the written statement to the effect that the 1st respondent was having artificial leg from knee to ankle. For the first time the said averments can be seen in the evidence affidavit of R.W.1 incorporated using ink pen when the rest of the affidavit is typed one. The contesting 3rd respondent of-course took the plea that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. But no specific evidence is available to accept the story of contributory negligence, alleged by the 3rd respondent. When P.W.1 was in the box, a suggestion was made to the effect that 1st respondent was not having left ankle and that he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident by wearing an artificial leg ankle. P.W.1 expressed ignorance. The contention of the 3rd respondent is that the driver of the lorry i.e. P.W.4 was responsible for the accident, but no specific evidence is available to substantiate the said contention.

12. The further argument of the 3rd respondent is that the 1st respondent was disqualified to drive the vehicle and disqualified to possess any driving license by the date of accident. The license particulars of 1st respondent can be seen in the M.V.Inspector's report.

Though the 3rd respondent examined R.W.2, he only spoke that no driving license will be issued to the application when there was amputation. With regard to the driving license pertaining to the year 2002, the evidence of R.W.2 is only to the extent that license was given upto Sl.No.1644 and that the license with the details furnished was not traced out. The suggestion made to R.W.1 is that no verification made thoroughly with the particulars given in summons. R.W.3 without filing charge sheet copy stated that mentioned made in the charge sheet to the effect that the accused is not having left leg ankle to foot and used to drive the vehicle by wearing an artificial leg limb from knee to foot. It is elicited from R.W.3 that as per M.V.Inspector's report, the driving license of the driver was verified. The said evidence discloses that the 1st respondent was having license. No clear and clinching evidence to show that the 1st respondent was having artificial leg by the date of accident.

In the absence of positive proof, it is difficult held that the 1st respondent was disqualified to drive vehicle and disqualified to possess driving license. Therefore, the argument of the contesting 3rd respondent cannot be taken as proved. In such case, the 3rd respondent is also liable to pay compensation.

13. The 1st petitioner is wife and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are minor children, petitioner Nos.4 is mother and father of deceased Malleswara

Rao. The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- under different heads of accounts. The petitioners claimed Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.60,000/- towards compensation for loss of consortium, Rs.4,90,000/- towards compensation for loss of life and loss of earning power, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for loss of love and affection. Since the 1st petitioner is wife, she is entitled for consortium of Rs.50,000/- as claimed and she also entitled for Rs.10,000/- claimed towards funeral expenses. According to petitioners, the deceased was doing banana business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month prior to his death and by the time of death he was aged about 36 years. No evidence is placed with regard to income of the deceased. In the absence of any specific material, it is to be taken that the earning of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month notionally. After deducting the 1/3rd of it towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the annual income of the deceased is

Rs.36,000/-. According to the petitioners the age of deceased was 36 years and Ex.A-3 and post-mortem examination report also disclosing that the deceased Malleswara Rao was aged about 37 years by the time of death. For the age group of 35 years above and not exceeding 40 years the appropriate multiplier is ‘16’. Even if the calculation is made applying applicable multiplier i.e. 16, it will be more than Rs.4,90,000/- claimed by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the said amount as claimed. In addition to that the 1st petitioner being wife is entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for loss of consortium and the 5th petitioner being father of the deceased, he is entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. It has come in the evidence of P.W.2, father of the deceased that he is doing banana business. In such case, no amount can be apportioned to him granted under the head of loss of earning power. Considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case, this tribunal is inclined to apportion

Rs.2,00,000/- to the 1st petitioner, Rs.1,20,000/- to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 each and the Rs.50,000/- to the 4th petitioner. In all the petitioners are entitled Rs.5,30,000/- towards compensation from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE No.3 :-

14. In the result, petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs for a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs thirty thousand only) against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally with subsequent interest thereon at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Out of the total award amount, the 1st petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,30,000/-, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.1,20,000/- each, the petitioner No.4 is entitled for Rs.50,000/- and the 5th petitioner is entitled for Rs.10,000/-. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner No.1 is initially permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount apportioned to her with proportionate costs and the remaining 50% amount along with accrued interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of one year. The amount awarded to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain majority. The petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them along with interest and proportionate costs. The rest of the petition claim is dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of May, 2015.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

AMALAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Petitioners: For 3rd respondent :

PW.1 : G.Ramalakshmi R.W.1 : N.Suvarna Raju PW.2 : Ganisetti Ramarao R.w.2 : P.J.Suresh Kumar PW.3 : Gurajala Gangadhara Rao R.W.3 : K.Gangaraju PW.4 : P.V.P.Bhaskara Babu PW.5 : Marisetti Manindra Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1 : Attested copy of FIR Ex.A2 : Attested copy of inquest report Ex.A3 : Attested copy of Post-Mortem certificate Ex.A4 : Attested copy of Receipt dt.20-9-2009 issued by Sairam Transport to the deceased G.Malleswara Rao for payment of transport charges. Ex.A5 : Attested copy of M.V.Inspector’s report

For Respondent :

Ex.B1 : Copy of insurance policy. Ex.B2 : Copy of M.V.Inspector's report

II ADJ.

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :: (II ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE) :: EAST GODAVARI AT AMALAPURAM

PRESENT:- Sri C.Lakshmi Narayana, M.Com., LL.M., II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Amalapuram. Thursday, the 7th day of May, 2015 M.V.O.P.No.11/2010 Between:

1.Ganisetty Ramalakshmi, W/o.late Malleswara Rao, Age 29 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o.D.No.10-12, Vanapalli, Kothapeta Mandal.

2.Ganisetty Ramesh, S/o. late Malleswara Rao, Age 10 years, Hindu, Student, R/o.D.No.10-12, Vanapalli, Kothapeta Mandal.

3.Ganisetty Suresh, S/o.late Malleswara Rao, Age 9 years, Hindu, Student, R/o.D.No.10-12, Vanapalli, Kothapeta Mandal.

4.Ganisetti Nagamani, W/o.Ramarao, Age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.10-12, Vanapalli, Kothapeta Mandal.

5.Ganisetti Ramarao, S/o.Venkatarao, Age 63 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.10-12, Vanapalli, Kothapeta Mandal. (Petitioners 2 and 3 are being minors Represented by their mother natural guardian

1st petitioner) ..Petitioners

AND 1.M.Rajesh, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Age 25 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.43-14A, Kothur Road, Vuyyuru, Krishna Dist.

2.M.Kutumbarao, S/o.Peddaswamy, Age not known, Hindu, R/o.D.No.7-56, Devalapeta, Dommeru, Kovvuru, W.G.District.

3.Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep.by Divisional Manager, E-8, RIICO

Industrial Area, Sithapura, Jaipur, Rajastan. ..Respondents.

This petition is filed U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for the loss of life of Ganisetti Malleswara Rao, S/o.Ramarao, Age 36 years, Business, Vanapalli, Kothapeta Mandal in a motor vehicle accident that was occurred on 21- 9-2009 at about 2.00 a.m. near fly over bridge, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. Petition presented on 12.1.2010, filed on 23.2.2010.

Court fee of Rs.5,360/- is paid under rule 475 of MV Rules.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 29.4.2015 in the presence of Sri M.Adinarayana Rao, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri V.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for 3rd respondent and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:-

1.that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed in part with proportionate costs for a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs thirty thousand only) against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

2.that the respondents 1 to 3 do pay jointly and severally to the petitioners a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs thirty thousand only) towards compensation together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of the deposit.

3.that the respondents 1 to 3 do also pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.8,357-00 towards costs of the O.P. bearing their respective costs.

4.that the respondents 1 to 3 be and are hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of award.

5.that out of the awarded amount the 1st petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,30,000/-, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.1,20,000/- each, the petitioner No.4 is entitled for Rs.50,000/- and the petitioner No.5 is entitled for Rs.10,000/-.

6.that on such deposit the petitioner No.1 is entitled to withdraw 50% each of the amount awarded to her with proportionate costs and the remaining 50% amount along with accrued interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of one year.

7.that the amounts awarded to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain majority.

8.that the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them along with proportionate costs and interest.

9.that the rest of the petition claim is hereby dismissed.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 7th day of May, 2015.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

AMALAPURAM

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Petitioner: For 3rd respondent:

Stamp on vakalat ..Rs. 2-00 Vakalat 2-00 Court fees ..Rs.4660-00 Advocate fee 3,000-00 Stamp on process ..Rs. 195-00 ---------------- Advocate fee ..Rs.3000-00 Total 3,002-00 Publication charges Rs. 500-00 --------------- ------------------- Total ..Rs.8357-00 ----------------

II A.D.J.

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :: (II ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE) :: EAST GODAVARI AT AMALAPURAM

PRESENT:- Sri C.Lakshmi Narayana, M.Com., LL.M., II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Amalapuram. Thursday, the 7th day of May, 2015 M.V.O.P.No.10/2010 Between:

1.Ganisetty Anasuryavathi 2.Ganisetty Shivaraman 3.Degala Manga Devi

4.Ganisetty Nagaratnam ..Petitioners

AND 1.M.Rajesh 2.M.Kutumbarao 3.Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep.by Divisional Manager, E-8, RIICO

Industrial Area, Sithapura, Jaipur, Rajastan. ..Respondents.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 29.4.2015 in the presence of Sri M.Adinarayana Rao, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri V.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for 3rd respondent and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1. This petition is filed U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the loss of life of Ganisetti

Viswanadham @ Vissayya, S/o.Dorayya, Age 48 years, Business,

Vanapalli, Kothapeta Mandal in a motor vehicle accident that was occurred on 21-9-2009 at about 2.00 a.m. near fly over bridge,

Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

2. The brief averments of the petition are :

The deceased Ganisetti Viswanadham @ Vissayya, S/o.Dorayya, aged 48 years, Vanapalli, Kothapeta Mandal died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21-9-2009 at about 2.00 a.m. near fly over bridge, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

On 20-9-2009 the deceased Ganisetti Viswanadham @ Vissayya and Ganisetti Malleswara Rao purchased the banana bunches from the famers in Godavari Districts to sell the same in Vizag. Both of them engaged a Swaraj Mazda Goods Van bearing No.AP37Y 3861, loaded the banana bunches and being owner of the goods, they started along with their load on the goods vehicle. The deceased Viswanadham and another sat in the cabin. While the said goods van reached near the harbour new fly over bridge situated backside of RCL Company, Visakhapatnam in the year early hours of 21-9-2009 about 2-00 a.m, the 1st respondent who is the driver of the said goods van drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the stationed lorry bearing

No.AP05TT 6589. Due to the said hit, the front portion of the goods van was totally damaged and the deceased and Malleswara Rao died on the spot. The accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The 1st petitioner is wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are minor children and petitioner No.4 is mother of the deceased. The petitioners have no avocation and they have no movable and immovable properties. Being wife the 1st petitioner lost her conjugal happiness.

The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 lost their bright future and moral support from the deceased. Since the deceased only the bread earner of their family, all the petitioners lost their dependancy and they are suffering with mental agony. Though the loss sustained by the petitioners cannot be compensated in terms of money, they are claiming Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation. The 1st respondent is driver, 2nd respondent is owner and 3rd respondent is insurer of the crime vehicle Swaraj Mazda

Goods van bearing No.AP37Y 3861. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

Hence, the petition.

3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte.

4. The 3rd respondent filed its written statement stating that all the material allegations of the petition are not true and correct and the petition is not maintainable under law. It is contended that there is no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent as alleged, that the deceased was not the owner of the goods and he was the unauthorized passenger, that the accident was occurred in collusion of two vehicles i.e. alleged crime vehicle and another lorry bearing No.AP05TT 6589, that the rash and negligence is on the part of the lorry, that the said lorry is necessary party as there is contributory negligence on the part of the said lorry and that petition is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party.

The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, exaggerated and out of proportions. The petitioners are not entitled to claim any interest. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Basing on the rival pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:-

1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e. Swaraj Mazda goods van bearing No. AP37Y 3861 by its driver 1st respondent ?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?

3.To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of petitioners, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of 3rd respondent,

R.W.s 1 to 3 was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 were marked.

ISSUE NO:1:-

7. The specific case of the petitioners is that on 20-9-2009 the deceased

Ganisetti Viswanadham and Ganisetti Malleswara Rao purchased the banana bunches from the famers in Godavari Districts to the sell the same in Vizag.

Both of them engaged a Swaraj Mazda Goods Van bearing No.AP37Y 3861, loaded the banana bunches and being owner of the goods, they started along with their load on the goods vehicle. The deceased Viswanadham and another sat in the cabin. While the said goods van reached near the harbour new fly over bridge situated backside of RCL Company, Visakhapatnam in the year early hours of 21-9-2009 about 2-00 a.m, the 1st respondent who is the driver of the said goods van drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the stationed lorry bearing No.AP05TT 6589. Due to the said hit, the front portion of the goods van was totally damaged and the deceased and Malleswara Rao died on the spot. The accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The contention of the contesting 3rd respondent is that there is no rashness or negligence on the 1st respondent that the stationed lorry also contributed for causing accident and that the petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party. To establish their case, the son of the deceased i.e. 2nd petitioner was examined as

P.W.1. They got examined P.W.2 to establish that the deceased and another purchased banana bunches for resale purpose one day prior to the accident and took the bananas to Vizag on the crime vehilce. The driver of the stationed lorry bearing No.AP05 TT 6589 was examined as P.W.3 to support the version of the petitioners. P.W.1 filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief reiterating the contents of the petition and specifically stating that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driver of the 1st respondent. Exs.A1 to

A5 were marked through P.W.1. Exs.A1 and A2 are the attested copies of F.I.R and inquest report respectively. Ex.A3 is the attested copy of post-mortem examination report and attested copy of M.V.Inspector's report is marked as

Ex.A4. Certified copy of trip sheet was marked as Ex.A5 by consent. P.W.1 specifically denied the suggestion that there was no negligence on the part of 1st respondent. It is the specific evidence of P.W.2 that the deceased purchased banana bunches from his garden one day prior to the accident and that the deceased took away banana bunches from his garden to Vizag. P.W.3, the driver of the stationed lorry to which the 1st respondent gave dash, in his evidence deposed that on 20-9-2009 night while he was returning from

Visakhapatnam to Balabhadrapuram village, when he reached near Harbour new fly over bridge at about 2-00 a.m. i.e. early hours in 21-9-2009, the 1st respondent came towards Visakhapatnam by driving the goods van bearing

No.AP37Y 3861 with load of banana bunches in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and on observing the same, he took his lorry to extreme left side road margin and stopped the same. In the mean time the 1st respondent gave dash to his lorry. During his cross-examination, he specifically denied the suggestion that the accident was took place due to his negligence only but not due to negligent driving of goods van by the 1st respondent. In support of its contention, the 3rd respondent got examined its Legal Officer as R.W.1. R.W.1 filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination reiterating the contents of the written statement. During his cross-examination he stated that both the deceased persons were travelling in the vehicle being owners of the goods.

R.W.1 is not a direct witness to the accident and his evidence is no way useful to disprove the rash and negligence of the 1st respondent in causing the accident. Though P.W.s 1 to 3 were cross-examined at length by the 3rd respondent, nothing could be elicited in favour of its case.

8. On the other hand the petitioners got examined P.W.3, who stated to be the driver of the stationed lorry. He is the direct eye witness to the incident and his evidence is that the 1st respondent dashed his stationed lorry in rash and negligent manner and thereby the accident was occurred.

9. Though P.W.1 is not a direct witness to the accident, P.W.3 is the direct eye witnesses to the occurrence at the time of accident and his evidence clinchnigly establishing that he witnessed the accident. The concerned police have also registered the crime against the 1st respondent making him responsible for the accident. The documents Exs.A1 to A4 are supporting the contention of the petitioners that the accident was occurred only due to negligence of the 1st respondent in driving the crime vehicle i.e. Swaraj Mazda

Goods van bearing No.AP37Y 3861. Considering the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3 and the documents produced by the petitioners, the conclusion to be drawn is that the accident occurred due to negligence of 1st respondent in driving crime vehicle Swaraj Mazda goods van bearing No. AP37Y 3861 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Therefore, issue is answered in favour of the petitioners.

Issue No.2:-

10. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has argued that the 1st respondent was not having valid and effective driving license by the time of accident, that the 1st respondent is not having left leg ankle to foot and used to drive the vehicle by wearing artificial leg limb from keen to foot and as such no driving license will be issued to the 1st respondent due to amputation was made to his leg ankle to foot, that the 1st respondent drove the crime without any valid driving licenses and violated the terms and conditions of the policy and that the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. To substantiate its version, the 3rd respondent got examined the

Asst. Motor Vehicles Inspector, Vuyyuru as R.W.2 and the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Traffic police station as R.W.3. According to R.W.2, the alleged particulars of license were not traced out and that only licenses upto

Sl.No.6144 were issued in the year 2002 in the office of M.V.Inspector,

Vuyyuru. It is the evidence of R.W.3 that the 1st respondent was charge sheeted that he was not having proper and valid license and that he was not having left leg ankle to foot and was driving the vehicle with artificial leg limb from knee to foot. No specific plea that the 1st respondent was driving the vehicle with artificial leg limb was taken in the written statement. The charge sheet filed against the 1st respondent was not filed before the court. The petitioners failed to take steps to get the charge-sheet filed and marked on their side. The contesting 3rd respondent summoned the concerned police official, but the charge sheet was not got filed and marked. It has come in the evidence that the M.V.Inspector verified the copy of driving license furnished to him of the 1st respondent. The same license particulars mentioned in M.V.Inspector's report were given to R.W.2, but he stated that the license with the said particulars not traced out. The vehicle was driven by the 1st respondent, that the 2nd respondent is the owner of the vehicle and 3rd respondent is the insurer are the facts established by the petitioners. It is the argument of the counsel for 3rd respondent that no record placed by the petitioners to show that the 1st respondent was having valid driving license as on the date of offence, that even if any license is there that is a fake license since the 1st respondent is having artificial leg from knee to foot and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. His further argument is that having a valid driving license is a requirement of law and that when it is established that the license of the driver was fake, it would completely exonerate the insurance company.

11. As verified from the record, no specific plea was taken by the 3rd respondent in the written statement to the effect that the 1st respondent was having artificial leg from knee to ankle. For the first time the said averments can be seen in the evidence affidavit of R.W.1 incorporated using ink pen when the rest of the affidavit is typed one. The contesting 3rd respondent of-course took the plea that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. But no specific evidence is available to accept the story of contributory negligence, alleged by the 3rd respondent. The contention of the 3rd respondent is that the driver of the lorry i.e. P.W.3 was responsible for the accident, but no specific evidence is available to substantiate the said contention.

12. The further argument of the 3rd respondent is that the 1st respondent was disqualified to drive the vehicle and disqualified to possess any driving license by the date of accident. The license particulars of 1st respondent can be seen in the M.V.Inspector's report. Though the 3rd respondent examined

R.W.2, he only spoke that no driving license will be issued to the application when there was amputation. With regard to the driving license pertaining to the year 2002, the evidence of R.W.2 is only to the extent that license was given upto Sl.No.1644 and that the license with the details furnished was not traced out. The suggestion made to R.W.1 is that no verification made thoroughly with the particulars given in summons. R.W.3 without filing charge sheet copy stated that mentioned made in the charge sheet to the effect that the accused is not having left leg ankle to foot and used to drive the vehicle by wearing an artificial leg limb from knee to foot. It is elicited from R.W.3 that as per

M.V.Inspector's report, the driving license of the driver was verified. The said evidence discloses that the 1st respondent was having license. No clear and clinching evidence to show that the 1st respondent was having artificial leg by the date of accident. In the absence of positive proof, it is difficult held that the 1st respondent was disqualified to drive vehicle and disqualified to possess driving license. Therefore, the argument of the contesting 3rd respondent cannot be taken as proved. In such case, the 3rd respondent is also liable to pay compensation.

13. The 1st petitioner is wife and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are children, and the petitioner Nos.4 is mother of deceased Viswanadham. The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under different heads of accounts. The petitioners claimed Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for loss of consortium, Rs.2,90,000/- towards compensation for loss of life and loss of earning power, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate and

Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for loss of love and affection. Since the 1st petitioner is wife, she is entitled for consortium of Rs.20,000/- as claimed and she also entitled for Rs.10,000/- claimed towards funeral expenses. According to petitioners, the deceased was doing banana business and earning

Rs.10,000/- per month prior to his death and by the time of death he was aged about 48 years. No evidence is placed with regard to income of the deceased.

In the absence of any specific material, it is to be taken that the earning of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month notionally. After deducting the 1/3rd of it towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the annual income of the deceased is Rs.36,000/-. According to the petitioners the age of deceased was 48 years, but Exs.A-2 inquest report and Ex.A3 and post-mortem examination report are disclosing that the deceased Viswanadham was aged about 60 years by the time of death. For the age group of 55 years to 60 years the appropriate multiplier is ‘8’. Even if the calculation is made applying applicable multiplier i.e. 16, it will be more than Rs.2,20,000/- claimed by the petitioners.

Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the said amount as claimed. In addition to that the 1st petitioner being wife is entitled for Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Since the 3rd petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased

Viswanadham, she cannot be treated as dependant and no amount can be apportioned to her. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case, this tribunal is inclined to apportion Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st petitioner, Rs.80,000/- to the 2nd petitioner and Rs.40,000/- to the 4th petitioner. In all the petitioners are entitled Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE No.3 :-

14. In the result, petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only) against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally with subsequent interest thereon at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Out of the total award amount, the 1st petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,30,000/-, the petitioner No.2 is entitled for Rs.80,000/- and the petitioner No.4 is entitled for Rs.40,000/-. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month from the date of this order.On such deposit, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are initially permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount apportioned to them with proportionate costs and the remaining 50% amount along with accrued interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of one year. The petitioner No.4 is entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to her along with interest and proportionate costs. The rest of the petition claim is dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed at

Rs.2,500/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of May, 2015.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

AMALAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Petitioners: For 3rd respondent :

PW.1 : Ganisetti Sivaraman R.W.1 : N.Suvarna Raju PW.2 : Gurajala Gangadhara Rao R.w.2 : P.J.Suresh Kumar PW.3 : P.V.P.Bhaskara Babu R.W.3 : K.Gangaraju PW.4 : P.V.P.Bhaskara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1 : Attested copy of FIR Ex.A2 : Attested copy of inquest report Ex.A3 : Attested copy of Post-Mortem certificate Ex.A4 : Attested copy of M.V.Inspector’s report

Ex.A5 : Certified copy of trip sheet

For Respondent :

Ex.B1 : Copy of insurance policy. Ex.B2 : Copy of M.V.Inspector's report

II ADJ.

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :: (II ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE) :: EAST GODAVARI AT AMALAPURAM

PRESENT:- Sri C.Lakshmi Narayana, M.Com., LL.M., II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Amalapuram. Thursday, the 7th day of May, 2015 M.V.O.P.No.10/2010 Between:

1.Ganisetty Anasuryavathi, W/o.late Viswanadham @ Vissayya, Age 45 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o.D.No.11-137, Vanapalli, Kothapeta Mandal.

2.Ganisetty Shivaraman, S/o. late Viswanadham @ Vissayya, Age 45 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o.D.No.11-137, Vanapalli, Kothapeta Mandal.

3.Degala Manga Devi, W/o.late Srinu, Age 28 years, Widow, R/o.D.No.11-137, Vanapalli, Kothapeta Mandal.

4.Ganisetty Nagaratnam, W/o.late Dorayya, Age 68 years, Hindu, Widow, R/o.D.No.11-137,

Vanapalli, Kothapeta Mandal. ..Petitioners

AND 1.M.Rajesh, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Age 25 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.43-14A, Kothur Road, Vuyyuru, Krishna Dist.

2.M.Kutumbarao, S/o.Peddaswamy, Age not known, Hindu, R/o.D.No.7-56, Devalapeta, Dommeru, Kovvuru, W.G.District.

3.Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep.by Divisional Manager, E-8, RIICO

Industrial Area, Sithapura, Jaipur, Rajastan. ..Respondents.

This petition is filed U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the loss of life of Ganisetti Viswanadham @ Vissayya, S/o.Dorayya, Age 48 years, Business, Vanapalli, Kothapeta Mandal in a motor vehicle accident that was occurred on 21-9-2009 at about 2.00 a.m. near fly over bridge, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

Petition presented on 12.1.2010, filed on 23.2.2010. Court fee of Rs.2,360/- is paid under rule 475 of MV Rules.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 29.4.2015 in the presence of Sri M.Adinarayana Rao, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri V.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for 3rd respondent and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:-

1.that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed in part with proportionate costs for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only) against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

2.that the respondents 1 to 3 do pay jointly and severally to the petitioners a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only) towards compensation together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of the deposit.

3.that the respondents 1 to 3 do also pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.5,063-00 towards costs of the O.P. bearing their respective costs.

4.that the respondents 1 to 3 be and are hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of award.

5.that out of the awarded amount the 1st petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,30,000/-, the petitioner No.2 is entitled for Rs.80,000/- and the petitioner No.4 is entitled for Rs.40,000/-.

6.that on such deposit the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw 50% each of the amount awarded to them with proportionate costs and the remaining 50% amount along with accrued interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of one year.

7.that the petitioner No.4 is entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to her along with proportionate costs and interest.

8.that the rest of the petition claim is hereby dismissed.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 7th day of May, 2015.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

AMALAPURAM

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Petitioner: For 3rd respondent:

Stamp on vakalat ..Rs. 2-00 Vakalat 2-00 Court fees ..Rs.1860-00 Advocate fee 2,500-00 Stamp on process ..Rs. 195-00 ---------------- Advocate fee ..Rs.2500-00 Total 2,502-00 Publication charges Rs. 500-00 --------------- ------------------- Total ..Rs.5063-00 ----------------

II A.D.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE :: E.G.DT ::

AMALAPURAM.

PRESENT: Sri C.Lakshmi Narayana M.Com., LL.M., II Addl. Sessions Judge, Amalapuram. Wednesday, the 6th day of May, 2015.

SESSIONS CASE NO.415/2011.

(P.R.C.No.51/2010 of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Amalapuram connected with Cr.No.20/2010 of Amalapuram Taluk police station)

State Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Circle (Cr.No.20/2010 of Amalapuram Taluk Police station)

Accused 1.Mudragada Ramakrishna Rao, S/o.late Sriramulu, Age 51 years, Kapu, Veeravallipalem, Inavilli Mandal.

2.Polisetti Venkatarao @ Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu, S/o.Seshagirirao, Age 29 years, Kapu, Nangavaram village.

3.Kola Durga Prasad @ Prakashnayudu @ Kattigadu, S/o.Suryanarayana, Age 24 years, Kapu, Vilasavilli village, Uppalaguptam Mandal.

4.Saladi Venkateswarao, S/o.Venkatarao, Age 57 years, Patha Ramalayam street, Kapu, Kothapeta.

Prosecution conducted by Sri K.S.C.Mohan, Addl. P.P.

Accused defended by Sri P.V.Ramana Murthy Sri KVV Satyanarayana Murthy Sri R.Satyanarayana Charges framed Sections 342, 302 r/w 149 IPC

Plea of accused Not guilty.otNot guilty Finding of the Judge Found not guilty.nd not guilty.

In the result, accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 342 and 302 IPC and they are acquitted of the same under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 to 4 are on bail.

Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are set at liberty. M.O.s 1 to 18 and 21 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. M.O.s 19 and 20 are ordered to be returned to its registered owners.

This sessions case is coming on 04-5-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V.Ramana Murthy, K.V.V.Satyanarayana Murthy,

R.Satyanarayana, Advocates for the accused Nos.1 to 4 and of Sri

K.S.C.Mohan, Addl. P.P. for state and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1. The Inspector of Police, Amalapuram filed charge-sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 302 r/w 149

IPC with the following averments :

One Mudragada Hanumantha Rao, Mudragada Satyanarayana and

Mudragada Surya Subrahmanyam @ Suribabu, natives of Veeravallipalem,

Inavilli Mandal are the deceased 1 to 3. The deceased 2 and 3 are the sons of 1st deceased. The father of Deceased No.1 and A-1 are natural brothers. A-1 is the brother-in-law of A-2, A-4 is the paternal uncle of A-2, A-3 is the close friend of A-2. Due to the previous disputes between the families of 1st deceased and father of A-1 Mudragada Sreeramulu with regard to border in their coconut garden to an extent of Ac.0-60 cents in R.S.No.43/2A of

Veeravallipalem, all the deceased had murdered younger brothers of A-1.

Aggrieved by the same the villagers of Veeravallipalem became arrogant against the deceased, as such the deceased were residing in the house of L.W.1.

Bhogisetti Sreenivasa Rao of Challpalli village. On 26-3-2009 when L.W.18

Nimmakayala Venkata Suryanarayana Murthy plucking coconuts in the land given by father-in-law i.e. 1st deceased Mudragada Hanumantha Rao, A-2 beat him with iron rod on his head and caused bleeding injury. In the month of

February, the 1st deceased moved in Veeravallipalem for getting clearance from

Cooperative Society and miss-spelt with the villagers that if he kills A-1 and A- 2 there will be no case against him and the murder case pending against them

in the court goes for acquittal. On learning the same, A-1 and A-2 anticipated

danger to their lives in the hands of deceased, secured A-3 and A-4, all of them gathered on 25-2-2010, sketched a plan and decided to eliminate deceased 1 to 3. In pursuance of their plan, A-2 obtained four knives from

L.W.26 Reddi Verriyya and A-1 and A-4 started on Yamaha motorcycle

No.AP31K 8850 while A-2 and A-3 started on scooter No.AP5B 7589 with the four sharp edged weapons to the scene of offence. On 26-2-2010 L.W.1

Bhogisetti Sreenivasa Rao engaged auto rickshaw No.AP05TX 1737 belongs to 3

Mekala Satyanarayana, all the deceased and L.W.1 left the house of L.W.1, went to the house of their Advocate and from there went to II Addl.District

Court. As the Court adjourned the case to 31-3-2010, they went to a shoe mart and purchased cheppals and while returning from the shop L.W.2

Bhogisetti Ravikumar also boarded the auto. While all of them were proceeding in the said auto rickshaw towards Challapalli, when reached Vilasavilli culvert,

Samanasa village, Amalapuram Mandal at about 12-30 hours all the accused armed with knives across the auto, stopped the auto, A-1 pulled the deceased

Hanumantha Rao from the auto and hacked him with a knife on his neck and hand by saying as “maavallanu champuthara lanjakodakallara” as a result the 1st deceased Hanumantha rao fell down by the side of the road and died on the spot. A-2 pulled the deceased Mudragada Satyanarayana @ Sathibabu from the auto and hacked with knife on his hand and neck on his person. On seeing the same deceased Mudragada Surya Subrahmanyam while running away, A-3 and A-4 chased him upto waterless canal situated behind the shops and hacked him on his neck and person. All the deceased died on the spot and on seeing the same L.Ws 1, 2 and 17 Bhogisetti Sreenivasa Rao, Bhogisetti

Ravi Kumar and Mekala Satyanarayana escaped from the scene and L.W.1

Bhogisetti Sreenivasa Rao reported the matter to Amalapuram Taluk Police, and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.20/2010 under Section 342, 302 r/w 149 of Amalapuram Taluk P.S. During the course of investigation,

Inspector of Police, Amalapuram circle inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, got drafted an observation report, got photographed the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and seized the incriminating material.

He got conducted inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased Nos.1 to 3 respectively. The accused 1 to 4 were arrested by him in Kakinada by him in the presence of mediators and recorded their confessional statements and in pursuance of their confessional statements, Yamaha Libero Motorcycle

No.AP31 AK 6850 and the scooter No.AP5B 7589 were seized. The cloths that were wore by the accused Nos.1 to 4 on the date of offence and sharp edged 4 knives, used by accused in the commission of offence were seized. He forwarded all the material objects to RFSL, Vijayawada. After receipt of post- mortem examination reports and completion of entire investigation charge shee was filed against the accused Nos.1 to 4.

2. The learned Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram took cognizance of the case in P.R.C.51/2010 against A-1 to A-4 for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 302 r/w 149 IPC. As the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he committed the same after following all the procedural formalities. The Hon’ble Prl. Sessions Judge of East Godavari

District registered the case as S.C.415/2011 against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the same offence and made over it to this court for disposal according to law.

3. On perusal of the record and hearing the accused, charges under

Sections 342 and 302 IPC have been framed against A-1 to A-4. The accused

No.1 to 4 denied the charges and pleaded not guilty, when the same were read over and explained to them in Telugu.

4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 23 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25 and M.O.s 1 to 21 during the course of trial.

5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under

Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused Nos. 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty.

When the accused Nos. 1 to 4 were called upon to enter into defence, they reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

6. The point for determination is :

“ Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 342 and 302 IPC ? ”

7. Heard.

5

Point :

8. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses to substantiate its case that he accused murdered the deceased persons with preplan and by forming themselves into group with deadly weapons like knives. Out of the above witnesses, P.W.1 is Bhogisetti Srinivasa Rao (L.W.1), who is the defacto- complainant. As per the case he witnessed the incident and presented the report to the police. He is the son-in-law of one of the deceased by name

Mudragada Hanumantha Rao and brother in law of other deceased persons namely Mudragada Satyanarayana @ Sathibabu and Mudragada Surya

Subrahmanyam @ Suribabu. The specific evidence of P.W.1 is that on the date of incident, he was at his field situated at Challapalli village, that at about 2-00 p.m. or 3-00 p.m. he received cell phone from unknown person informing about the death of the deceased persons and that he went to the spot and found the dead bodies with cut injuries. As per the evidence of P.W.1, police persons came to the spot and shifted the dead bodies to Amalapuram

Government Hospital, that his statement was recorded by the police at Taluk

Police station, Amalapuram. P.W.1 assertively stated that he did not give any report to the police, but his signature was taken on paper by the police. When he identified his signature on the report dt.26-2-2010, the same was marked as

Ex.P1. The document contents were disputed by P.W.1. Out of the four accused persons, P.W.1 stated that he can identify only Ramakrishna Rao. He has shown A-3 stating that his name is Ramakrishna Rao. In fact the name of

A-3 is Kola Durga Prasad @ Prakash Naidu @ Kattigadu. With regard to other accused persons, P.W.1 stated that they are not known to him. When P.W.1 exhibited hostility and disputed his statement recorded by police, the same was marked as Ex.P2.

9. The prosecution examined Bhogisetti Ravi Kumar @ Chinna (L.W.2),

Bhogisetti Venkata Narasimha Rao (L.W.3) respectively as P.W.s 2 and 3. Both

P.W.s 2 and 3 exhibited hostility and disputed even their examination by the police. The denied portions of the statements of P.W.s 2 and 3 were marked as 6

Exs.P3 and P4 respectively. The prosecution examined U.Chinnamba (L.W.5),

B.Satyavathi (L.W.8), M.Bhaskara Rao (L.W.10), R.Verreyya (L.W.15) and Thota

Narayana (L.W.16) as P.W.s 4 to 8 respectively stating that they are the circumstantial witnesses. P.W.s 4 to 8 totally turned hostile and not supported the case. Their denied portions of the statements recorded by the police were marked as Exs.P5 to P9 respectively.

10. P.W.9 is Mekala Satyanarayana, who is the driver of the auto said to have engaged by P.W.1 for taking the deceased persons to Amalapuram court.

P.W.9 not supported the case and stated that he does not know the accused persons as well as the deceased persons. P.W.10 and 11 are B.Satyanarayana (L.W.20) and K.Narasimha Rao (LW.21) and they are said to be the circumstantial witnesses. They also gave go bye to the case of the prosecution.

The denied portions of the statements recorded by the police of P.W.s 9 to 11 were marked as Exs.P10 to P12 respectively. P.W.12 is S.Veerababu, stated to be the scribe of the report given to the police. He spoke to the extent that he drafted the report in police station about four years ago when Sub-Inspector of

Police of Amalapuram Taluk Police station asked him draft. He stated that the deceased persons are known to him, but accused are not known to him.

Verifying the report dt.26-2-2010, P.W.12 stated that Ex.P13 is the said report given to police. It is elicited from P.W.12 that Ex.P13 was drafted to the dictation of Sub-Inspector of Police and that the contents of it are not known to him personally. P.W.13 to 15 Kandregula Venkata Subrahmanya Janaki Rama

Sreenivas (L.W.26), Kotipalli Venkata Ramana (L.W.27), Navundru Jayaraju (L.W.32) respectively and that they are the Village Revenue Officers. P.W.13 was examined to speak about scene observation report, inquest panchanama proceedings and also arrest of the accused. P.W.14 was examined to prove the inquest panchanama proceedings done over the dead bodies and the documents marked Exs.P15 to P18. P.W.15 is one of the inquest panchayatdars in respect of deceased No.3 and the document Ex.P18. Exs.P14 7 to P18 were marked through P.W.s 13 to 15. P.W.16 is N.Satyanarayana,

Photographer and owner of Durga Studio, Amalapuram. He stated that the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Taluk police station has taken him to

Vilasavilli thoomu area and that he photographed the dead bodies and that

Ex.P19 represent 13 photos along with C.D.

11. P.W.s 17 to 19 are the Doctors, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead bodies of the deceased Nos.1 to 3. P.W.17 is Dr.B.Srihari Raju (L.W.38). P.W.18 is Dr.P.Chandra Sekhara Rao (L.W.36). P.W.19 is

Dr.K.V.Kiran Kumar (LW.37). They spoke about Exs.P20 to P22 post-mortem examination reports.

12. P.Ws. 20 to 23 are police officials, who spoke about the investigation made by them. P.W.20 is N.Venkateswara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police and he spoke about registration of the case and conduction of inquest proceedings over the dead body of Mudragada Satyanarayana @ Sathibabu (deceased No.2).

Ex.P23 is the F.I.R. registered by P.W.20 basing on Ex.P13 report. P.W.21 spoke about his conducting inquest proceedings Ex.P18 over the dead body of

Mudragada Suryanarayana @ Suribabu (deceased No.3) on 27-2-2010. P.W.22 is P.Somasekhara Rao, who did major portion of investigation. He spoke about the various investigative steps followed and about seizure of items. P.W.23 is

P.Murali Krishna Reddy, who spoke about filing of the charge sheet after verifying the record and after receiving Exs.P25 to P27 FSL reports.

13. The counsel for the accused has argued that though the prosecution examined may witnesses, there is nothing to prove the ingredients of Sections 342 and 302 r/w 149 IPC with which the accused faced the trial. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.s 1, 2 and 9 are supposed to speak about the incident proper, but their evidence is not at all useful to the case of the prosecution since they exhibited hostility. Though the other witnesses were examined as circumstantial witnesses, nothing is available establishing the case of the prosecution. The very alleged motive not established though many witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 8 is the crucial witness since he is the relative of the deceased persons and the defacto-complainant. Interestingly, P.W.1 disowned the report and only stated that his signature was taken by the police. Though P.W.12 stated that he is the scribe of the report he confined to only point that he scribed it. However he stated that he scribed the report to the dictation of the police.

14. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence of

P.W.13 to 23 is more important and the same is sufficiently connecting the accused with the offence proper. Though P.W.s 13 to 15 are the village revenue officers and spoke about various panchanama proceedings there are discrepancies in their evidence. It is the argument of the accused that the said discrepancies will go to the root of the case and effect the trustworthiness of the witnesses P.Ws. 13 to 15. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, some discrepancies are there when the evidence of inquestdars and medical evidence is compared.

15. The learned counsel for the accused persons has argued that there is much unexplained delay in sending F.I.R. to the court by the police and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. As per the F.I.R., the registration was done at about 1-15 p.m. and the concerned Magistrate received it about 11-30 p.m.

It is the argument that the distance between the concerned police station and court is only about one kilo meter. The specific case of the prosecution is that grudges were there earlier in between the families and because of the same, the accused caused death of the deceased persons by hacking them to death causing instantaneous death. The very defacto-complainant, who is the close relative of the deceased persons not supported the case of the prosecution and none of the ingredients of Sections 341, 302 r/w 149 IPC were established from the evidence of the other witnesses examined by the prosecution. The established principle is that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. When the entire evidence available is taking into consideration there are many discrepancies and deviations and they are touching the very case of the prosecution and leading 9 to the conclusion that proof beyond shadow of doubt is not available.

Therefore, the point to be answered against the prosecution. Point is answered accordingly.

16. In the result, accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 342 and 302 IPC and they are acquitted of the same under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 to 4 are on bail. Their bail bonds are set aside and the sureties are discharged. M.O.s 1 to 18 and 21 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. M.O.s 19 and 20 are ordered to be returned to the registered owners.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of May 2015.

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

AMALAPURAM

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution For Defence: None P.W.1 : Bhogisetti Srinivasa Rao P.W.2 : Bhogisetti Chinna @ Ravikumar P.W.3 : Bhogisetti Venkata Narasimha Rao P.W.4 : U.Chinnamba P.W.5 : B.Satyavathi P.W.6 : M.Bhaskara Rao P.W.7 : R.Verreyya P.W.8 : Thota Narayana Rao P.W.9 : Mekala Satyanarayana P.W.10: Borusu Satyanarayana P.W.11: Kumpatla Narasimha Rao P.W.12: Sunkara Veerababu P.W.13: Kandregula Venkata Subrahmanya Janai Rama Srinivas P.W.14: Kotipalli Venkata Ramana P.W.15: Navundru Jayaraju P.W.16: Nalla Satyanarayana P.W.17: Dr.D.Srihari Raju P.W.18: Dr.P.Chandra Sekhara Rao P.W.19: Dr.K.V.Kiran Kumar P.W.20: N.Venkateswara Rao P.W.21: G.Kennedy P.W.22: P.Somasekhara Rao P.W.23: P.Muralikirishna Reddy

Documents marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on the report dt.26-2-2010 Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 Ex.P5 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 Ex.P6 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 10

Ex.P7 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6 Ex.P8 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7 Ex.P9 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8 Ex.P10: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.9 Ex.P11: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10 Ex.P12: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.11 Ex.P13: Report to S.H.O, Amalapuram Taluk P.S. drafted by P.W.12 Dt.26-2-2010 Ex.P14: Scene observation report dt.26-2-2010 Ex.P15: Inquest report of 2nd deceased dt.27-2-2010 Ex.P16: Inquest report of 1st deceased dt.27-2-2010 Ex.P17: Mediators report dt.6-3-2010 Ex.P18: Inquest report of deceased No.3 dt.27-2-2010 Ex.P19: Photos – 13 in no. with C.D. Ex.P20: Post mortem report of deceased No.3 Ex.P21: Post mortem report of deceased No.1 Ex.P22: Post mortem report of deceased No.2 Ex.P23: F.I.R. in Cr.No.20/2010 of Amalapuram Taluk P.S Ex.P24: Rough Sketch Exs.P25 to P27 : R.F.S.L. Reports.

For Accused :Nil

Material objects marked M.O.1: Cream colour paragon cheppal pair -1 M.O.2: Blood stained curved knife M.O.3: 5” width curved knife M.O.4: 5.2” width curved knife M.O.5: Wooden grip knife M.O.6: Light snuff colour pant M.O.7: Cement colour pant M.O.8: Boot cut jean pant M.O.9: Light ash colour pant M.O.10: Gold colour shirt with white stripes M.O.11: Black cement colour half hand shirt M.O.12: Yellow and white colour stripes shirt M.O.13: Light gold colour full hand shirt M.O.14: Paragon cheppals two pairs cream colour M.O.15: Black colour cheppal pair – 1 M.O.16: Blood stained brown colour cheppal pair -1 M.O.17: Blood stained turkey towel coloured with mary gold M.O.18: Blood stained white towel and towels No.2 M.O.19: Yamaha red colour motorcycle AP31AK 6856 M.O.20: Cement colour bajaj chetak motorcycle bearing No.AP5B 7589 M.O.21: Blood stained full hands banian, white pancha, pants and shirts

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

AMALAPURAM

1. Copy submitted to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

2. Copy to the District & Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry.

3. Copy to the Director of Prosecutions, Saifabad, Hyderabad-1

4. Copy to the A.J.M.F.C, Amalapuram.

11

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE :: E.G.DT ::

AMALAPURAM.

PRESENT: Sri C.Lakshmi Narayana M.Com., LL.M., II Addl. Sessions Judge, Amalapuram. Wednesday, the 6th day of May, 2015.

SESSIONS CASE NO.415/2011.

(P.R.C.No.51/2010 of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Amalapuram connected with Cr.No.20/2010 of Amalapuram Taluk police station)

State Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Circle (Cr.No.20/2010 of Amalapuram Taluk Police station)

Accused 1.Mudragada Ramakrishna Rao, S/o.late Sriramulu, Age 51 years, Kapu, Veeravallipalem, Inavilli Mandal.

2.Polisetti Venkatarao @ Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu, S/o.Seshagirirao, Age 29 years, Kapu, Nangavaram village.

3.Kola Durga Prasad @ Prakashnayudu @ Kattigadu, S/o.Suryanarayana, Age 24 years, Kapu, Vilasavilli village, Uppalaguptam Mandal.

4.Saladi Venkateswarao, S/o.Venkatarao, Age 57 years, Patha Ramalayam street, Kapu, Kothapeta.

Prosecution conducted by Sri K.S.C.Mohan, Addl. P.P.

Accused defended by Sri P.V.Ramana Murthy Sri KVV Satyanarayana Murthy Sri R.Satyanarayana Charges framed Sections 342, 302 r/w 149 IPC

Plea of accused Not guilty.otNot guilty Finding of the Judge Found not guilty.nd not guilty.

In the result, accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 342 and 302IPC and they are acquitted of the same under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 to 4 are on bail.

Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are set at liberty. M.O.s 1 to 18 and 21 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. M.O.s 19 and 20 are ordered to be returned to its registered owners.

OCCURRENCE :: 26.2.2010 COMPLAINT :: 26.2.2010 APPREHENSION OF :: 06.3.2010

ACCUSED

COMMITMENT :: 21-6-2011 COMMENCEMENT OF :: 2.1.2015 TRIAL1 CLOSURE OF TRIAL :: 27.1.2015 DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 6.5.2015 12

The Inspector of Police, Amalapuram circle filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.20/2010 of Amalapuram Taluk Police Station and same is numbered as P.R.C.No.51/2010 on the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Amalapuram and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Sessions Division East Godavari at Rajahmundry and the case was registered as S.C.415/2011 and made over to this court for disposal according to law and this court after receiving the record framed charges on 22.7.2014 and commenced the trial from 2.1.2015 and ended on 27-1-2015. P.Ws.1 to 23 were examined, Exs.P1 to P27, and M.O.s 1 to 21 were marked on prosecution side. Arguments were concluded on 04-5-2015 and posted the matter for Judgment. On 6.5.2015 judgment pronounced. Hence, there is no extraordinary delay in disposing the case.

II ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE

AMALAPURAM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE :: EAST GODAVARI :: AT

AMALAPURAM :: Present:- Sri C.Lakshmi Narayana, M.Com., LL.M., II Addl. District Judge, Amalapuram. Thursday, the 7th day of May, 2015 APPEAL SUIT NO.141/2009 Between:

1.Thota Ramaswamy Naidu (died)

2.Thota Lakshminarayana ..Appellants/defendants

3.Thota Lakshmi Sakuntala 4.Thota S.V.Narashiham 5.Thota Vijaya Krishna 6.Thota Gangaratnam (Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are being minors represented by their natural guardian 3rd appellant) (Appellant Nos.3 to 6 are added as L.Rs of 1st appellant as per orders in I.A.1868/2014

Dt.25-2-2015) ..Appellants

AND

Perabattula Ramadurgananda Tulasi Rao ..Respondent / Plaintiff

Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.193/2002 dt.17-3-2003 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

Between:

Perabattula Ramadurgananda Tulasi Rao ..Plaintiff

and

1.Thota Ramaswamy Naidu

2.Thota Lakshminarayana ..defendants

This appeal suit is coming on 17-4-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.T.Prabhakara Rao, Advocate for Appellants and Sri

V.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for respondent and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this court made the following:-

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

1. The defendants in the suit O.S.193/2002 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil

Judge, Amalapuram preferred this appeal to set aside the judgment and decree

dt.17-3-2003 by allowing the appeal and to dismiss the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial court.

2 3 The plaintiff filed the suit for granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendants not to interfere with the well shown in plaint plan and restore the same in its original position. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land shown in the plot No.3 of the plaint plan and got the property by succession on the death of his father China Narayana and mother Manikya. There is a joint well in the plot No.1 of the plaint plan consisting of two survey numbers i.e. 44/8 and 44/9 of Thondavaram village.

The joint well is situated partly in 44/8 and partly 44/9 and the same is in existence since time immemorial. The plaintiff using the water in the joint well for the purpose of watering the coconut topes and other crops raised in the respective proportion. The defendant purchased the land in plot No.1 where the joint well is situated. The defendant is acting against the interest of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has got right to draw water from the well which is situated in plot No.1. The document of plaintiff clearly shows that the plaintiff had got right to draw the water from the well. The defendants have developed grudge against the plaintiff without any manner of right what so ever of trying to remove the bricks and wall and to close the well. The defendants have no manner of right what so ever with the existing well which is in good condition and is meant for joint benefit for all neighbouring ryoths. The plaintiff has got right to draw the water and register protest, where the defendants tried to remove the well. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendants got filed the written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and contended that the joint well is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of defendants as well as Akella Suryanarayana

Murthy of Thondavaram, being original owners over the well. The defendants' grandfather Thota Adinarayana and his brother Narayana swamy have purchased Ac.0-76 cents of coconut garden in R.S.No.44/9 in pursuance of the registered sale deed dt.30-6-1933 wherein half of share of the well belongs to them as it is situated in the said property and the recitals got mentioned in the said sale deed by their vendors. The same size well in diameter towards 3 south east corner of defendant’s house is situated in the plaintiff’s property.

Suppressing the material facts, the plaintiff filed the present suit by changing the material facts mischievously. Since the ground water of Thondavaram is not fit for irrigation, the plaintiff used to draw the water from the cultivation from Nandampudi village by drawing water with the help of motors through pipelines. It is further contended that the well situated at the plaint schedule property is aged more than 100 years and left unused since more than 50 years and it became dilapidated condition and dangerous to the children and cattle. The said well is ground well, no irrigation walls from the ground level and the house of 1st defendant alone situated adjoining to the well and that the water in the said well not used with the permissioin of Satyanarayanamurthy to remove the entire well two months prior to the filing of suit. The defendants invested much amount for removal of well as it is not useful to anybody. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Basing on the pleadings of the respective parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court :

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

2.Whether the same size well of the disputed well located in the palintiff’s property towards south-east corner of the defendant’s house ?

3.Whether the plaintiff used to draw the water for his cultivation from Nandampudi village with the help of motor drinking pipeline ?

4.To what relief

6. During trial, before the trial court, on behalf of plaintiff, P.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of defendants, D.W.s 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Ex.B1.

7. On careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of both the side contesting parties, the trial court decreed the suit.

4

8. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff, who is appellant herein preferred this appeal suit stating that the decree and judgment is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trial court ought to have dismissed the suit and ought not to decreed the suit in the absence of cogent and convincing evidence on mere presumption without taking into consideration the admission by the plaintiff about the existence of two wells in his site and about drawing water from Nandampudi canal through motors and pipes, that the plaintiff failed to prove his case by admitting the factum of sanction of lift irrigation scheme for the Thondavaram which proves the case of the defendant and that the water in the disputed well is unfit for irrigation, that the trial court ought to have dismissed the suit for non-filing of title deeds to show that the vendors of P.W.1 under Ex.A1 and A2 have right over the disputed well by P.W.1, that it ought to have taken into consideration the admission of P.W.1 that the surroundings of the disputed well belongs to the defendants and that Ex.A1 sale deed dt.8-2-45 and Ex.A2 dt.14-7-1946 are the subsequent to Ex.B1 registration extract of sale deed dt.30-6-1933 and that the trial court ought not to decreed the suit with a mandatory injunction in a permanent injunction suit for restoration of disputed well when there is no relief sought by the plaintiff. The appellants / defendants pleaded several other grounds questioning the judgment and decree of the trial court and pleaded that the same is liable to be set aside and to dismiss the suit.

9. The point for consideration is :

“Whether the appeal suit can be allowed setting aside the judgment

and decree passed by trial court by allowing the appeal ?”

10. Heard both sides. Perused the judgment under appeal together with the relevant summoned record from the trial court.

Point :

11. The specific case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner of the property shown in the plaint plan, that joint well is situated in plot No.1 of the plaint plan and comprised of survey Nos.44/8 and 44/9, that the said well is situated since time immemorial, that the plaintiff has hot right to draw the 5 water from the well and that the defendant with malafide intention tried to remove the well causing obstruction to the plaintiff from drawing the water from the well. The plaintiff filed the registered document of his parents which were marked as Exs.A1 and A2. They are the registered sale deeds dt.8-2-1945 and dt.14-7-1946 respectively. The contention of the defendants is that there is another well with the same size and diameter situated towards south eastern corner of the house of the 1st defendant, that the said fact was suppressed by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff used to draw the water for his cultivation from

Nandampudi village by drawing the same with the help of motors through pipeline, that falsely the claim is made in respect of the well which is old and ancient. The plaintiff gave evidence as P.W.1 and he assertively spoke that himself and his predecessors along with the defendant and also one

Suryanarayana have rights over the well and drawing water from the said disputed well and that no person has right to remove or close the said well.

The plaintiff also examined P.W.2, who spoke that the defendants along with

Akella Suryanarayana and the plaintiff were drawing the water from the disputed well. As per the evidence of P.W2, he got land near the disputed well and that he knows about the persons enjoying the well water. The 2nd defendant gave evidence as D.W.1 and he assertively stated that the defendants have got share and right to draw water from the disputed well. The registration extract of the sale deed dt.30-6-1933 was filed and marked as Ex.B1. The specific evidence of D.W.1 is that the well is having projected walls and it is called as mota nuyyi. As per Ex.B1 document, the vendee has got 1/8th share in mota nuyyi with water bodi. D.W.1 admitted that the land mentioned in the plaint plan is correct. While answering a specific suggestion, D.W.1 stated that he has got strong intention to close the well. He admitted that only one water bode is existed on the western side of the disputed well. The defendants also examined D.W.s 2 and 3 and they also spoke that the disputed well is called as mota nuyyi and that it has got projected walls. The evidence of D.W.1 coupled with the evidence of D.W.3 discloses that the ryoths raised crops by doing water from the well. When close scrutiny of the evidence of D.W.s 1 to 3 is 6 made, it is establishing the case of the plaintiff that he was drawing water from the disputed well.

12. The specific contention of the defendants is that they are having right along with Suryanarayana to draw water, that permission was taken from the said Suryanarayana to remove the will and that as per the consent of

Suryanarayana, information was there to close the disputed well. Of-course,

D.W.1 admitted that there was written permission for closure of the well. On the said aspect the evidence of D.W.1 is self-contradictory. At one stage he deposed that he did not obtain any permission. The defendants not examined the said Suryanarayana to strengthen the contentions raised in the written statement. The totality of the evidence is establishing the right of the plaintiff to draw water from the disputed well.

13. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed during the trial proceedings and the report filed on inspection discloses that the well referred is 40 to 60 years old. The specific observation made is that the entire inner wall and outer wall of the well is removed and the bricks were poured on the western side of the well in two big heaps. The observation made by the learned Advocate

Commissioner are clearly establishing that the walls of the well were remofved.

Basing on the said observations made by the Advocate Commissioner, it is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendants removed the walls of the well and in fact D.W.1 himself expressed his intention to remove the will.

When all the facts and circumstances are viewed and weighed carefully, the case of the plaintiff is probable. There was exchange of notices in between the parties and admissions are there in respect of the right of the plaintiff to enjoy the well water. Considering the material evidence, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to seek direction restraining the defendants from enjoying the right to draw well water.

14. The plaintiff sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his enjoyment over the disputed well and also for restoration of well to its original position by placing the removed bricks.

7

The plaintiff also claimed damages by paying separate court fee in respect of the damage caused to the well. It is clear from the evidence of the witnesses and the documents that both the plaintiff and others including the defendants got right to enjoy the well water. The learned counsel for the defendants has argued that the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted since no court fee paid in respect of the same. The documents filed by both side parties are old and ancient and they are establishing the rights of both parties to enjoy the well water. Viewing from the said angle, the defendants have no right to restrain the plaintiff from enjoying the well water though they are having right to draw well water. Admittedly, no specific court fee paid in respect of the mandatory injunction relief sought for in the suit. The trial court negitived the relief of prayed in respect of the damages. Since the plaintiff sought specific relief in respect of restoration of the well to its original position by placing the removed bricks the plaintiff has to be directed to pay specific court fees. The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee was assessed by the plaintiff at

Rs.4000/- and therefore, the plaintiff is directed to pay court fee on the said value in respect of his prayer for mandatory injunction relief. Therefore, the findings given by the trial court needs no interference except in respect of the payment of court fees for the relief of mandatory injunction as discussed above.

Point is answered accordingly.

15. In the result, the decree and judgment passed by Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram in O.S.193/2002 dt.17-3-2003 is confirmed with as direction to plaintiff to pay court fee for the relief of mandatory injunction on the value of

Rs.4,000/-. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 7th day of May 2015.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

AMALAPURAM

8

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE :: EAST GODAVARI :: AT

AMALAPURAM :: Present:- Sri C.Lakshmi Narayana, M.Com., LL.M., II Addl. District Judge, Amalapuram. Thursday, the 7th day of May, 2015 APPEAL SUIT NO.141/2009 Between:

1.Thota Ramaswamy Naidu (died) 2.Thota Lakshminarayana, S/o.late Narasimha Rao, Age 35 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Thondavaram,

Ambajipeta Mandal. ..Appellants/defendants

3.Thota Lakshmi Sakuntala, W/o.late Ramaswamy Naidu, Age 37 years, Housewife, Amalapuram.

4.Thota Sai Vinay Narashiham, S/o.Ramaswamy Naidu, Age 9 years, Student, Amalapuram.

5.Thota Sai Vijaya Krishna, S/o.Ramaswamy Naidu, Age 9 years, Student, Amalapuram.

6.Thota Gangaratnam, W/o.late Narasimharao, Hindu, Age 75 years, Housewife, Thondavaram village, Ambajipeta Mandal. (Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are being minors represented by their natural guardian 3rd appellant) (Appellant Nos.3 to 6 are added as L.Rs of 1st appellant as per orders in I.A.1868/2014

Dt.25-2-2015) ..Appellants

AND

Perabattula Ramadurgananda Tulasi Rao, S/o.China Narasayya, Age 56 years, Hindu,

Inam, Thondavaram, Ambajipeta Mandal. ..Respondent / Plaintiff

Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.193/2002 dt.17-3-2003 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

Between:

Perabattula Ramadurgananda Tulasi Rao ..Plaintiff

and

1.Thota Ramaswamy Naidu

2.Thota Lakshminarayana ..defendants

9

The defendants in the suit O.S.193/2002 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil

Judge, Amalapuram preferred this appeal to set aside the judgment and decree

dt.17-3-2003 by allowing the appeal and to dismiss the suit.

Appeal presented on 2-5-2003 and registered on 22-8-2003 before Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Amalapuram and on transfer to this court, re-registered as

A.S.141/2009.

Value of the appeal is Rs.4,000/- and a court fee of Rs.344/- is paid thereon under Sch.I Art.I (C) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act

This appeal suit is coming on 17-4-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.T.Prabhakara Rao, Advocate for Appellants and Sri V.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for respondent and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this court DOTH ORDER and DECREE as follows:

i.that the decree and judgment passed by Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram in O.S.193/2002 dt.17-3-2003 be and is hereby confirmed with a direction to plaintiff to pay court fee for the relief of mandatory injunction on the value of Rs.4,000/- and accordingly appeal is disposed of.

ii.that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my signature and seal of this court on this the 7th day of May 2015.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

AMALAPURAM

No costs memo filed on either side.

II ADJ.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE :: E.G.DT :: AMALAPURAM.

PRESENT: SRI C.Lakshmi Narayana, M.Com., LL.M., II Addl. Sessions Judge, Amalapuram. Tuesday, the 5th day of May, 2015

SESSIONS CASE NO. 247/2014.

(P.R.C.No.22/2013 of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta connected with crime No.122/2013 of Kothapeta police station)

StateSub­Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram Sub­Division (Cr.No.122/2013 of Kothapeta Police Station)

Accused1.Gollakoti Satya Prasad @ Aggi Prasad, S/o.Uma Maheswara Rao, Age 27 years, Kapu, Gollakotivaripalem, H/o.Modekurru, Kothapeta Mandal.

2.Gollakoti Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o.Peda Nagabhushanam, Age 60 years, Kapu, Cultivation, Gollkotivaripalem, H/o.Modekurru, Kothapeta Mandal.

3. Gollakoti Satyavathi, W/o.Uma Maheswara Rao, Age 50 years, Kapu, Gollakotivaripalem, H/o.Modekurru, Kothapeta Mandal.

4. Gollakoti Venkata Naga Bhushanam, S/o.Uma Maheswara Rao, Age 30 years, Kapu, Gollakotivaripalem, H/o.Modekurru, Kothapeta Mandal.dal.

Prosecution conducted bySri K.S.C.Mohan, Addl. P.P for State.

Accused defended bySri Md.Azam 

Charges framedUnder section 304­B r/w 34 IPC 

Plea of accusedNot guilty

Finding of the judgeNot guilty

Sentence or order : A­1 to A­4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 304­B IPC and they are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked non­valuable property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This session case is coming for final hearing on 4.5.2015 before me in the presence of Sri Md.Azam, Advocate for A­1 to A­4 and of Sri K.S.C.Mohan, Addl.

P.P. for state and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2

: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub­Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 304­B r/w 34 IPC in

Cr.No.122/2013 of Kothapeta Police Station.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are :

The marriage of deceased Golakoti Varalakshmi @ Bhagyasri was held on 20­3­2011 with A1 at Rakurthivaripalem village, at the time of marriage the parents of deceased gave Rs.1,60,000/­ towards dowry, an amount of Rs.30,000/­ towards sari expenses and the father of the deceased died four months prior the death of the deceased. Since the marriage, A­1 used to harass the deceased for

additional dowry. The parents of the deceased are unable to pay any further

amount as demanded by the accused. During wedlock and A­1 and deceased were blessed with son. Soon after the marriage at the active instigation of A­2 to A­4, A­ 1 started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally by demanding

additional dowry. In the mean while the father of the deceased died on 13­3­2013.

After completion of funeral, A­1 came to know that half of the house of L.W.1

Peddireddy Venkata Lakshmi, mother of deceased to L.W.3 Bhushanam, second son­in­law of L.W.1 and demanded share in the said house and highhandedly took away the deceased from the house of her mother not to attend the ceremonial function of her father. At that time the brother and brother­in­law of L.W.1

Peddireddy Venkata Lakshmi intervened and pacified the accused by allotting an amount of Rs.40,000/­ to A­1. Later due to financial difficulties L.W.1 Peddireddy

Venkata Lakshmi failed to give the said amount to A­1. For that reason the accused harassed the deceased by putting all sorts of torture. A­1 used to send the deceased to the house of L.W.1 for the above said amount frequently and the deceased all the times used to inform her mother about the harassment of the accused. On 11­8­2013 at about 6­00 p.m. while L.W.11 Golakoti Radhakrishna was talking with the accused at their house, the deceased went to the bathroom 3 and for a longtime not returned. On that A­2 to A­4 called the deceased by her name and also by knocking the doors of the latrine, as they got not response from inside, the door was forcibly broke open up by A­2 to A­4 and L.W.11 and they found that the deceased was hanging with plastic rope to the wooden beam in the said room. L.W.1 Venkatalakshmi gave report and the same was registered as case by Kothapeta police. LW.22 Sub­Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram took up the investigation, he visited the scene of offence, observed the same, got drafted the scene observation report through mediators, prepared rough sketch, got photographed the scene and dead body of the deceased, L.W.20 Mandal Executive

Magistrate held inquest over the deadbody of deceased at the scene of offence in

the presence of panchayatdars and sent the dead body of the deceased to

Government Hospital, Kothapeta for P.M. examination. During the course of investigation he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He seized the roper from Banana toper of Dokka sankaram on 12­8­2013 under the cover of mediators report. He arrested the accused on 15­8­2013 and after receipt of Post mortem report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The learned Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta took cognizance of the case under Section 304­B r/w 34 IPC and registered the case as PRC

No.22/2013. After making preliminary enquiry, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the court of Sessions, Sessions Division, East Godavari at

Rajahmundry. The same was registered as Sessions case No.247/2014 and made over to this court for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of the accused in this court a charge for the offence punishable under Section 304­B IPC against A­1 to A­4 was framed. The charge was read­over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.s 1 to 3, and marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P4.

6.Heard both sides.

7.The point that arose for determination is “Whether the prosecution proved the charge arraigned for the offence punishable under Section 304­B IPC against A­1 to A­4 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.The specific case of the prosecution is that The marriage of deceased

Golakoti Varalakshmi @ Bhagyasri was held on 20­3­2011 with A1 at

Rakurthivaripalem village, at the time of marriage the parents of deceased gave

Rs.1,60,000/­ towards dowry, an amount of Rs.30,000/­ towards sari expenses.

Since the marriage, A­1 used to harass the deceased for additional dowry. The parents of the deceased are unable to pay any further amount as demanded by the accused. During wedlock and A­1 and deceased were blessed with son. Soon after the marriage at the active instigation of A­2 to A­4, A­1 started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry. In the mean while the father of the deceased died on 13­3­2013. After completion of funeral, A­1 came to know that L.W.1 Peddireddy Venkata Lakshmi, mother of deceased gave half of her house to her second son­in­law L.W.3 Bhushanam,. ON knowing the same, A­1 highhandedly took away the deceased from the house of her mother not to attend the ceremonial function of her father demanding share in the said house. At that time the brother and brother­in­law of L.W.1 Peddireddy

Venkata Lakshmi intervened and pacified the accused by allotting an amount of

Rs.40,000/­ to A­1. Later due to financial difficulties L.W.1 Peddireddy Venkata

Lakshmi failed to give the said amount to A­1 and for that reason the accused harassed the deceased by putting all sorts of torture. A­1 used to send the deceased to the house of L.W.1 for the above said amount frequently and the deceased all the times used to inform her mother about the harassment of the accused. On 11­8­2013 at about 6­00 p.m. while L.W.11 Golakoti Radhakrishna 5 was talking with the accused at their house, the deceased went to the bathroom and for a longtime not returned. On that A­2 to A­4 called the deceased by her name and also by knocking the doors of the latrine, as they got not response from inside, the door was forcibly broke open up by A­2 to A­4 and L.W.11 and they found that the deceased was hanging with plastic rope to the wooden beam in the said room. L.W.1 Venkatalakshmi gave report and the same was registered as case by Kothapeta police.

9.Prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 3, who are father, paternal uncle and younger sister of the deceased to substantiate its case. P.W.s 1 to 3 stated about performing the marriage of the deceased with A­1, but gave go­bye to the other allegations made against the accused. P.W.s 1 to 3 stated that after marriage, both A­1 and the deceased lived happily, A­2 to A­4 treated the deceased affectionately and deceased and A­1 were blessed with one male child. They stated that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain, that as she had severe stomach pain, she committed suicide by hanging. They categorically stated that no dowry was given by them at the time of marriage. P.W.1 specially stated that no report given to police by her and police took her signature on a paper. She further stated that she do not know the contents of the document. But she admitted her signature on the report and the same was marked as Ex.P1. So far as the material allegations made against the accused, P.W.s 1 to 3 turned hostile and they even denied their statements recorded by the police. P.W.s 1 to 3 denied their statements recorded by the police and the same were marked as Exs.P2 to P4 respectively.

11.Because of hostility exhibited by P.W.s 1 to 3, the remaining listed witnesses were given up by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Since there is no incriminating material in the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3 against the accused, the examination contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

Ultimately, the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3 is not connecting the accused person with 6 the crime alleged and not satisfying the ingredients of the Section 304­B IPC. The evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3 is not disclosing any dowry harassment made to the deceased by the accused. P.W.s 1 to 3 are the blood relatives of the deceased and when they stated nothing against the accused, it is to be concluded that the case of the prosecution will fail and the accused are entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

12.In the result, A­1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 304­B IPC, A­2 to A­4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304­B r/w 34 IPC and are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C.

Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked non­valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 5th day of May, 2014.

II ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, 

AMALAPURAM. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:­ PW.1 : Peddireddi Venkata Laxmi PW.2 : Devarapalli Saraswathi PW.3 : Naraharasetti Kanaka Durga

FOR DEFENCE: NONE.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on the report dt.11­8­2013 Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3

For Defence: None. 

II.A.S.J.

1. Copy submitted to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 

2. Copy to the District & Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. 

3. Copy to the Director of Prosecutions, Saifabad, Hyderabad­1

4. Copy to the A.J.M.F.C, Amalapuram 7

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE :: E.G.DT :: AMALAPURAM.

PRESENT: SRI C.Lakshmi Narayana, M.Com., LL.M., II Addl. Sessions Judge, Amalapuram. Wednesday, the 25th day of March, 2015

SESSIONS CASE NO. 246/2014.

(P.R.C.No.3/2014 of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta connected with crime No.59/2013 of Kothapeta police station)

StateSub­Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram Sub­Division (Cr.No.59/2013 of Kothapeta Police Station)

Accused1.Thatipaka Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Pallayya, Age 28 years, Rajaka, Chintalameraka, Kamujuvaripalem, H/o.Billakurru village, Kothapeta Mandal.

2.Thatipaka Pallayya, S/o.Venkanna, Age 62 years, Rajaka, Chintalameraka, Kamujuvaripalem, H/o.Billakurru village, Kothapeta Mandal.

3.Thatipaka Satyavathi @ Annavaram, W/o.Pallayya, Age 55 years, Rajaka, Chintalameraka, Kamujuvaripalem, H/o.Billakurru village, Kothapeta Mandal.

4.Thatipaka Veera Venkata Prasad, S/o.Pallayya, Age 30 years, Rajaka, Chintalameraka, Kamujuvaripalem, H/o.Billakurru village, Kothapeta Mandal.

5. Uppalagupthapu Subbalakshmi, W/o.Suribabu, Age 26 years, Rajaka, Chintalameraka, Kamujuvaripalem, H/o.Billakurru village, Kothapeta Mandal.

6.Thatipaka Markandeyulu, S/o.Pallayya, Age 45 years, Rajaka, Chintalameraka, Kamujuvaripalem, H/o.Billakurru village, Kothapeta Mandal.

Prosecution conducted bySri K.S.C.Mohan, Addl. P.P for State.

Accused defended bySri K.Sesha Rao

Charges framedUnder section 304­B r/w 34 IPC 

Plea of accusedNot guilty 8

Finding of the judgeNot guilty

Sentence or order : A­1 to A­6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under 

Section 304­B IPC and they are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked non­valuable property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

OCCURRENCE::18.5.2013 COMPLAINT::18.5.2013 APPREHENSION OF::22.5.2013

ACCUSED

COMMITMENT::08.5.2014 COMMENCEMENT OF::23.3.2015 TRIAL CLOSURE OF TRIAL::23.3.2015 DATE OF JUDGMENT::25.3.2015

The Sub­Divisional police Officer, Amalapuram filed charge sheet against the accused and same is numbered as P.R.C.No.3/2014 of Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Kothapeta and committed to the case to the Court of Sessions, Sessions Division East Godavari at Rajahmundry and the case was registered as S.C.246/2014 and transferred to this court on 01­10­2014 for disposal according to law and this court after receiving the record, framed charges on 12.1.2015 and posted for trial from 23.3.2015 and ended by the same day. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.P1 and P2 were marked on prosecution side. Both sides arguments are concluded on the same day and posted the matter for Judgment. On 25.3.2015 judgment pronounced. Hence, there is no delay.

II ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE

AMALAPURAM

9