Sri. C. Purushottam Kumar

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

–CUM- X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TIRUPATI

PRESENT: PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTHALAPUDI,

X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Tuesday, the Tenth (10th) day of April,

Two Thousand Eighteen

M.V.O.P.No.115 of 2015

1.C.Sujatha

2.C.Muni Sai Kumar (Minor)

3.C.Mounika (Minor) Petitioners 2 and 3 rep., by their mother/ Natural guardian/1st Petitioner C.Sujatha.

4.C.Ramachandra Reddy.

5.C.Munemma

.. Petitioners

Vs

1.B.Eswaraiah.

2.M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited Represented by its Divisional Manager, Tirupati.

.. Respondents

…

This O.P. coming on 20-03-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Prakash Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners, Respondent No.1 remained exparte, and of Sri D.Damodar Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This petition is filed under Section 166 (1)(c) of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as M.V.Act). The relief sought for is to award compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death caused in the

Road Traffic accident.

2.The case of the Petitioners 1 to 4 are that,

a)On 03.08.2014 one Mr.O.Kantha Rao went to the house of C.Muniraja asked him to prepare food in their Pongallu function at 2

Anjeramma Temple. The Muniraja engaged

C.Bathaiah to load and unload the cooking vessels from lorry bearing Registration No.AP 37 – T – 1566 belongs to respondent No.1 (herein after referred to as Lorry). On the same day evening after completion of cooking work, at about 5.50 p.m., C.Bathaiah loaded the cooking vessels into the lorry.

C.Muniraja and C.Bathaiah boarded the lorry in order to go to their house at Srikalahasti.

When the lorry reached near Tool Gate,

Vadamalapeta, at that time driver cum owner of the lorry drove with high speed rashly and negligently, lost control over the vehicle, applied sudden breaks, as a result Muniraja fell down from the lorry on the road. Dur to that impact, Muniraja sustained injuries on the head and all over the body and died on the spot. The accident was caused only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry.

b)C.Muniraja herein after referred to as deceased died out of the injuries. The deceased was aged 34 years. He was earning

Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month by doing cooking work. Petitioners 1 to 4 were dependent on the income of the deceased.

Due to sudden death of the deceased, petitioners have lost their dependency and income. Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the lorry. Respondent No.1 is the Owner- cum-driver of the lorry. For the negligent act of the respondent No.1 both respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Petitioners are sought compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.

3

3.Respondent No.1 Owner-cum-driver of the lorry remained exparte. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company filed written statement, resisting the relief of petitioners on the following grounds:

a)It denied the manner in which the accident was stated to have happened. It denied any rash and negligent driving by Respondent

No.1. It denied the age, occupation and earnings of the deceased.

b)It is pleaded that Respondent No.1 being

Owner-cum-driver of the lorry violated the policy conditions. Respondent No.1 allowed unauthorized passengers such as the deceased to travel in his lorry which is a

Goods Carrying Vehicle. The said carrying of the unauthorized passenger is contrary to the policy conditions. The Respondent No.1 carried passengers in a Goods Carrying vehicle resulting in the accident and death of the passenger, thus Respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay compensation but not

Respondent No.2.

c)With the above said grounds, it sought to dismiss the claim against Respondent No.2.

4.After completion of the pleadings, the following issues are settled for determination:

1. Whether the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 37 T 1566?

2. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of proper and necessary parties?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, from whom?

4. To what relief?

4

5. Petitioners and respondent No.2 have let in evidence. Respondent

No.1 having remained exparte. There is no oral and documentary evidence from Respondent No.1. Petitioners have let in evidence by examining 1st petitioner as P.W.1 and C.Bathaiah as P.W.2. Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.6 are marked. Respondent No.2 S.B.G. Siva examined as R.W.1.

Ex.B.1 Insurance Policy is marked.

6.Respondent No.2 filed I.A.No.52 of 2018 under Section 170 of

M.V. Act same is allowed permitting the respondent No.2 to take the evidences on behalf of the respondent No.1 under section 170 of M.V.

Act.

7.After completion of evidence, the learned counsel for petitioners submitted oral arguments as well as written submissions. It is contended that the accident was caused only due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, there are no violations to the conditions of

Insurance Policy. Age and income of the deceased is proved, therefore petitioners are entitled for the compensation as prayed for. Hence, prayed.

8.Respondent No.2 submitted that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger. Respondent No.1 did not insure any of the passenger in the Insurance Policy, therefore unauthorized passengers are not covered for any compensation payable by Respondent No.2 under Ex.B.1. Thus for the violation of the conditions of contract

Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation and sought to dismiss the claim against respondent No.2. Whereas Petitioners submitted that the deceased was the owner of the goods carrying in the lorry. Thus, there is no violation to the conditions of the policy and sought to award the compensation.

9. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

ISSUE No.1 and 2:

Whether the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 37 T 1566?

5

Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of proper and necessary parties?

The case of the Petitioners is that the deceased was traveling in the Lorry. The Respondent No.1 is the owner cum driver of the Lorry.

The deceased fell down from the Lorry due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent and thereby sustained injuries and died.

10.To support their contention, Petitioners has examined C.

Bathaiah as P.W.2 stated to be the eye witness to the accident. He stated in the chief affidavit that,

Deceased engaged him as a coolie to load and unload cooking vessels into the Lorry. After loading vessels into the Lorry, they proceeded to Anjeramma temple. Pongal function was completed at Anjeramma temple. Thereafter in return, Respondent No.1 was driving the Lorry, deceased sat in the body of the Lorry. Deceased took the vessels in the Respondent No.1 lorry by paying hire. Due to rash and negligent drive by Respondent No.1 by sudden application of the brakes, deceased fell down from the Lorry on to the road and sustained head injuries. Deceased died on the spot. He was accompanying the deceased at the time of accident.

In the Cross examination P.W.2 deposed that,

Himself, G. Bhaskar and deceased were traveling in the Lorry as on the date of accident. All of them were sitting in the rear side of the body of the Lorry. Except the deceased no other persons sustained injuries. Driver of the Lorry is the owner of the Lorry.

He denied to the suggestion that deceased did not call him for cooking work. All of them were going in the Lorry as unauthorized passengers. He denied to the suggestion that Respondent No.1 did not pay premium for passengers, hence Respondent no.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.

6

11.Ex.A-1 FIR along with the complaint reads that deceased was working as a coolie in Thumsup factory, at the same time he also attended to the works of Master Chef. On the date of incident deceased was taken for function of cooking pongal, by hiring services of deceased at Rs.2,000/-. On that deceased went in the lorry to perform his work.

While he was returning after completion of work, due to rash and negligent driving by Respondent No.1 deceased fell down from the Lorry and sustained injuries, died on the spot.

12.Ex.A-2 charge-sheet also reads about the accident on the lines of pleadings of Petitioners. P.W.2 was shown as one of the witnesses in the list of witnesses at witness No.6. P.W.2 in the charge-sheet was arrayed as witness to speak the facts of witnessing the occurrence.

Thus at the first instance existence of name of P.W.2 in the charge- sheet as witness and he arrayed for the purpose of speaking facts of witnessing the occurrence. The Ex.A-2 position of the P.W.2 supports the version of the Petitioners that the deceased fell down from the lorry, sustained injuries and died on the spot.

13.Respondent No.1 owner cum driver remained Exparte, did not choose to deny the case of Petitioners. Ex.A-3 inquest report reads cause of death of deceased was the road traffic accident as deceased fell down from the Lorry.

14.Petitioners have examined first Petitioner as P.W.1. She filed the chief affidavit on the lines of her pleadings. She is not an eye witness to the accident. But she is the complainant. She gave complaint basing on information received by her. Respondent No.2 did not specifically placed evidence from P.W.2 that P.W.2 was not physically present as an eye witness to the accident. More so, P.W.2 is arrayed as witness No.6 in the charge-sheet. Therefore P.W.2 as an eye witness has to be accident. His evidence becomes reliable. No other theory by Respondent

No.2 is placed denying the case of Petitioners.

15.Respondents have examined S.B.G. Siva who is the Assistant

Manager of Respondent No.2 company. He filed the chief affidavit stating that

Respondent No.1 had violated the 7 policy conditions. He allowed the unauthorized passengers to travel in the Lorry contrary to the policy conditions. Respondent No.1 being the owner cum driver, he is alone liable to pay compensation, but not Respondent No.2.

In the cross examination R.W.1 deposed that, as on the date of accident insurance policy (Ex.B-1) is covering the risk over the crime vehicle. He denied to the suggestion that deceased is third party to the insurance policy. He denied to the suggestion that Respondent No.2 has covered the owner of the goods under insurance. He denied to the suggestion that deceased was unauthorized passenger and was not carrying cooking vessels. He admitted that deceased died after he fell down from the Lorry.

16.R.W.1 is not an eye witness to the accident. He admitted that deceased fell down from the Lorry and died. That means Respondent

No.2 admitting deceased was traveling in the lorry as on the date of accident. Respondent No.2’s case is Respondent No.1 is owner cum driver of the Lorry. Valid insurance coverage is there to the Lorry.

When evidence of Respondent No.2 is gone through, the fact of death of deceased by felling down from the Lorry is not in dispute. In the chief affidavit of R.W.1, nowhere he stated that there is no rash and negligent by the Respondent No.1. There is no other evidence to give reason for felling of deceased from the Lorry. According to Petitioner’s evidence deceased was traveling on the rear side of the Lorry. Deceased was a coolie in soft drinks company and also attends to the cooking work.

17.In the light of above discussion, in all probabilities the factual aspects comes as follows, that the deceased was traveling in the lorry,

Respondent No.1 was the driver. Deceased fell down from the Lorry and died of head injuries. Valid insurance coverage is there. In the absence of any contra evidence that there was any voluntary felling down of deceased, defence by Respondent No.2 does not sustain. In such case the evidence of Petitioners that the death was caused when deceased 8 had fell down from the Lorry, while Respondent No.1 drove it rashly and negligently has to be accepted.

18.Accordingly Issue No.1 is answered that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Lorry, the deceased died by felling down from the

Lorry. No normal person can be fell down when deceased was sitting in the rear side of the Lorry. Therefore Issue No.1 is answered against the

Respondents.

19.The tribunal is of the view that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Lorry. In such case, the Respondent

No.1 who is the owner cum driver and Respondent No.2 its insurer are the necessary parties to pay any compensation to the deceased. Thus the Petitioner is not bad for non joinder of proper and necessary parties.

Accordingly Issue No.1 and 2 are answered.

20.ISSUE No.3:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, from whom?

For the reasons discussed under 1 and 2, when death is admitted, cause of death was also admitted, the owner of the Lorry and insurer becomes jointly and severally liable.

21. Age, Occupation and Income of the Deceased:

The case of the Petitioners is that deceased was aged 34 years as on the date of accident. Whereas coming to the postmortem report, the age of the deceased is 34 years. The Postmortem report is a reliable document to consider the age of the deceased. Therefore it is safe to conclude that deceased was aged 34 years as on the date of accident.

22.Petitioners case is deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- to

Rs.10,000/- per month. Ex.A-1 complaint reads deceased works as a coolie in Soft drinks factory and in the leisure times works as a cook.

Petitioners through P.W.1 and P.W.2 have spoken on the same lines.

The specific evidence is that deceased was traveling in the Lorry as a passenger along with other co-passengers.

9

23.Except oral statement that deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, no documentary evidence is placed that the deceased was working as a coolie in Thumsup factory and independently works as a cook on call. No such documentary evidence is placed proving the exact, consistent income of the deceased., In such case notional income of Rs.4,500/- has to be considered.

24.Number of dependents are five in number. In such case 1/4th of the income of the deceased has to be taken out towards his personal expenditure.

25.In the case of Smt Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another 1 the relevant multiplier for the age group of 31 to 35, is 16. In this case deceased age is 34 years as per Ex.A-4.

Petitioners have also pleaded the same. In such case the multiplier applicable is 16 to arrive the loss of income caused due to death of deceased.

26.The income of the deceased as on the date of death is arrived by this court at Rs.4,500 x 12 = Rs.54,000/- per annum. The relevant multiplier is 16.

27.In the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi and Others 2, Hon’ble Supreme Court pleased to held that in case of death, funeral expenses, Loss of consortium and Loss of Estate at the rate of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- were directed to be added as standard additions. There is no evidence that the deceased was self employed or permanent employee. Therefore future loss of income cannot be added.

28. Applying the above multiplier and the amounts discussed, the relevant just compensation would arrive as follows:

1 2009(4) SCJ 91 2 SLP(Civil)No.25590 of 2014 10

Sl.No.HeadsCalculation (Rs.)

(i)Income of the deceased per54,000-00 annum

(ii)Net income of the deceased per54,000/4= 13,500. annumafterdeducting personal expenditure of ¼ as54,000–13,500 = Rs.40,500 there are five dependents

(iii)Relevant multiplier for age40,500x16= 6,48,000-00 group 31 to 35 is 16 and the loss of income arrives at

(iv)Funeral expenses 15,000-00

(v)Loss of consortium 40,000-00

(vi)Loss of estate 15,000-00 Total is 7,18,000-00

Accordingly I am of the view that the petitioners 1 to 5 are entitled for just compensation of Rs.7,18,000/-.

Defences of Insurance Company (R.2) to exonerate its liability:

Respondent No.2 exhibited Ex.B-1 Insurance policy validly existing on the Crime vehicle Lorry. It is the contention of Respondent

No.2 that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger traveling in the

Lorry. In such case Respondent No.2 cannot be made liable for violation of terms of the policy. At this stage it is relevant to go through

Ex.B-1 Insurance Policy. It reads schedule of premium paid is

Rs.18,692/-. Basic TP covered is written as Compulsory PA cover for owner, driver, LL to non fare paying passengers (excluding employees),

LL to paid driver, conductor, cleaner employed for operations. For all of them premium is paid. The above condition shows passengers were also covered under the premium. The passengers shall be of Non fare passengers. Thus it appears that the passengers were covered with

Insurance contract. Valid premium is paid.

29.Coming to this case admittedly deceased died after he fell down from the Lorry. He was traveling in the Lorry assuming for a moment that deceased was a passenger, the burden lies on the Respondents to establish that the deceased was a paid passenger. Whereas no such evidence that deceased was paid passenger. But the factual aspects reads the person who hired services of deceased appears to have arranged the lorry. In such case there cannot be question of paying 11 fare by the deceased. If so, he becomes non fare paying passenger.

Then he is obviously covered under insurance policy.

30.When valid coverage of insurance is there, insurance company cannot be exonerated from paying the compensation.

31.The Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 relied on Muram Mohan

Vs Gundumogula Venkata Rama Rao 3 and submitted that Insurer is not liable to pay compensation for unauthorized passengers. With due respect after going through the ruling, I am of view that the facts in that case are different to the present facts. More so, the premium is paid covering the risk for non fare passengers. Therefore I am of view that the above ruling is not applicable to present facts of the case.

32.Respondent No2. Further relied on New India Assurance

Company Limited Vs. Gade Mangamma 4 . With due respect the facts of the case are different to the facts of present case. In this case

Insurance coverage is there for the passengers. Therefore I am of view that the above ruling is not applicable to present facts of the case.

33.Thus in the light of above discussion, Respondent No.2 having received the premium covering the risk of passengers, cannot be exonerated from paying the compensation. Even otherwise admitted case of Respondent No.2 is deceased after felling down from the Lorry died. As soon as he fell down from the Lorry, he becomes a third party and third party risk coverage is there under the policy.

34.For the reasons discussed for the unnatural death of deceased due to rash and negligent driving by Respondent No.1, Respondent No.1 and his insurer covering the risk including the passengers becomes jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Accordingly Issue No.3 is answered in favour of the Petitioners.

35.ISSUE No.4:

To what relief?

3 2012(6) ALT 369 4 LAWS (APH) 2009 – 2 - 60 12

For the reasons discussed under Issue No.1 to 3, it is safe to conclude that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by Respondent No.1, deceased died out of the road traffic accident, Deceased is aged 34 years, Petitioners 1 to 5 are legal dependents and the compensation is payable by Respondent No.1and

Respondent No.2 jointly and severally.

36.In the result, petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.7,18,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs

Eighteen Thousand Only) with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by the Respondent No.1 and

Respondent No.2 jointly and severally. Respondents 1 and 2 are hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within three months from the date of this award.

On such deposit, the First petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,18,000/- with Proportionate Costs and Proportionate Interest.

Petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- each with

Proportionate costs and Proportionate Interest. The Fourth and Fifth

Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each with

Proportionate costs and Proportionate Interest.

First Petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.2,18,000/-. The balance share of First Petitioner shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of one year. Thereafter she is permitted to withdraw her entire share with accrued interest.

Fourth and Fifth Petitioners are entitled to withdraw their entire share of compensation amount.

The share of Second and Third Minor Petitioners shall be kept in

Fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attains majority.

Thereafter they are permitted to withdraw their entire share with accrued interest thereon.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3000/-.

Typed to my Dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open court, this the 10th day of April, 2018.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum X Additional District Judge, Tirupati 13

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Petitioners:

P.W.1Smt. C.Sujatha P.W.2Sri C.Bathaiah

For Respondents: -

R.W.1 Sri S.B.G.Siva.

Exhibits marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.A.1Certified copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.75/2014, dated 03.08.2014 along with complaint. Ex.A.2Certified copy of charge sheet in Crime No.75/2014. Ex.A.3Certified copy of Inquest report. Ex.A.4Certified copy of M.V.Inspector’s report Ex.A.5CertifiedcopyofAccident Information Report (Form – 54). Ex.A.6Attested copy of Post-mortem certificate.

For Respondents:

Ex.B.1 Insurance policy

CHAIRMAN, MACT-CUM-X ADJ,

Tirupati.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TIRUPATI

PRESENT: PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTHALAPUDI,

X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Tuesday, the Tenth(10th) day of April, Two Thousand Eighteen

A.S.No.76/2012

Between:

K.Narasamma, W/o Krishna Murthy Naidu, Hindu, Housewife, aged about 54 years, Cultivation, residing at Bangarunaidu Kandriga Village, Pitchatur Mandal, Chittoor District.

.. Appellant/Plaintiff

And:

1.Sandra Sanjeevamma, W/o Nagabhushanam Naidu, aged 61 years, Housewife cultivation.

2.Sandra Surendra Naidu, S/o. Nagabhushanam, Aged 36 years, cultivaton.

3.Pacha Santhamma, W/o.Dayal Naidu, aged 51 years, Housewife. All are Hindus, residing at Varadaiahpalem Town and Mandal, Chittoor District.

.. Respondents/Defendants

ON APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE,DATED 04-04- 2012 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SRIKALAHASTI AND

MADE IN

O.S.No.41/2006

Between:

K.Narasamma

.. Plaintiff

And:

1.Sandra Sanjeevamma

2.Sandra Surendra Naidu

3.Pacha Santhamma

.. Defendants

2 …

This appeal suit coming on 17-11-2017 before me for final hearing, in the presence of Sri Y.B.S.Bapujee, Advocate for Appellant and Appeal against R.1 to R.3 dismissed and of Sri N.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and 2 and of Sri K.Subramanyam, Advocate of the Respondent No.3 and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred against the impugned Judgment and decree

dt 04-04-2012 in O.S.No.41/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Srikalahasti wherein whereas the Learned Judge dismissed the suit filed for partition and permanent injunction.

2. Appellant is the Plaintiff, Respondents 1 to 3 are the defendants.

For better appreciation parties are referred to as they were stated before the trial court that the appellant is plaintiff and respondents are the defendants. The case of the Plaintiff is that first Defendant is her elder sister, third Defendant is her younger sister. The 2nd Defendant is sone of first Defendant. Plaintiff/Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.3 are the daughters of Late Subbarama Naidu and Janakamma Chavali

Lingamanaidu palli village and purchased the plaint schedule property.

Plaint schedule property on the name of his wife as benomy. Plaintiffs mother was attached more towards Defendant No.1. After death of plaintiff’s Father, her mother resided with Defendant No.1. Her mother was not mentally sound in the later part of her life taking advantage of this Defendant No.1 influenced over Plaintiffs mother, forced her to sell the plaintiff schedule properties in part to Defendant No.1 and Defendant

No.2 nominally.

3. It is pleaded that plaintiff was contributing money to meet the cultivation expenses, the property is in joint possession and enjoyment in the year 2006 plaintiff came to know the sale of plaint schedule property in favour of Defendant No.1 and 2 when Defendant No.1 refused to pay her share. Specifically plaintiff made injuries in the register office. She came to know about the alleged sale deeds. The sale is not binding on 3 her as the sale was nominal, obtained by undue influence and her mother has no right to alienate the same since Defendant No.1 acting against the interest of the parties. Plaintiff has sought for partition of the plaint schedule property and issued notice for partition. Hence the suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property and permanent injunction against D1 and D2.

4. Before the Trial Court Defendant No.3 remained exparte. In the appeal Defendant No.3 appeared represented through counsel. Before

Trial Court Defendant No.1 filed he written statement, Defendant No.2 adopted the written statement of Defendant No.1. Defendants 1 and 2 have resisted the claim of Plaintiff on the following grounds:- Defendant admitted the family relationship. It is pleaded that father of the Plaintiff sold an extent of AC.3-00 of land in Chavali Lingamanaidu palli. Out of the sale amount he spent amount for construction of building and tailed cattle shed. He did not purchased the Plaint schedule amounts out of the sale consideration.

5. It is pleaded that father of the Plaintiff left with no funds after construction of the house, father of the Plaintiff performed the marriage of Defendant No.1 with the funds of her in-laws, Defendant No.3 marriage was performed by incurring debts from third parties. At that time mother of the Plaintiff, who was owning plaint schedule lands as a

Sthri Dhana, under registered sale deed 1962, wanted to sell away the lands for discharge of debts incurred by her husband. Mother of the plaintiff sold the lands to Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 for valid sale consideration of Rs.44200/- and Rs.56300/- in the year 1989. Thus

Defendants 1 and 2 have purchased the plaint schedule lands under valid sale consideration, they are in possession and ownership of the schedule lands they are paying land revenue regularly.

6. Rest of the averments that Defendant No.1 influenced mother of the

Plaintiff and got executed registered sale deeds, that the sale deeds are nominal, etc., were denied by the Defendants. It is denied that Plaintiff was contributing money for meeting the cultivation expenses. It is denied that the plaint schedule property is in joint possession and 4 enjoyment of the parties denied that the Plaintiff came to know about sale deed in the year 2006. It is pleaded that the sale deeds are ture and valid and binding. No notice of demand for partition was received by

Defendants No.1 and 2.

7. It is pleaded that the suit is filed purely collusive one Defendant

No.3 and her husband are behind the back of the present suit.

Defendant No.3 filed O.S.42/1996 against D1 and D2 on the file of Sub

Ordinate Judge, Srikalahasti for bare injunction for the plaint schedule properties. Exparte injunction was obtain which was effected on contest.

Defendant No.1, 2 have filed O.S.72/1991 against Defendant No.3 for declaration and permanent injunction for the plaint schedule properties.

The suit filed by the Defendant No.3 was dismissed. Suit filed by the

Defendants 1 and 2 was decreed, title was declared in favour of

Defendants 1 and 2. No appeal is preferred against the suit decree, thus the decree has become final. Defendant NO.3 having filed in her attempts, she use Plaintiff to circumference the decree passed in favour of the Defendant No.1 and 2.

8. It is pleaded that plaintiff is not entitle for the relief, suit is barred by limitation. Proper court fee is not paid by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is not entitle for any injunction and sought to dismiss the suit.

9. Trial Court has settled the following issues:

1. Whether the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties of Plaintiff and the defendants ?

2. Whether the plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of D.1 and D.2 having purchased from D.1 mother?

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to seek partition of the schedule properties ?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek permanent injunction as prayed for ?

5. Whether the suit is barred by resjudicata u/Sec.11 C.P.C?

6. Whether the Court Fee paid by the Plaintiff u/Sec.34 (2) of

APCF Act is proper ?

7. To what relief ?

5

10. The parties lead the evidence before the Trial Court, Plaintiff examined herself as PW1, examined S.C.V.Subramanya Naidu as PW2,

Ex.A1 to A3 are marked. Defendants 1 and 2 have examined first

Defendant as DW1, 2nd Defendant as DW2 and one Late Subramanyam as DW3, Ex.B1 to B10 are marked on behalf of Defendants.

11. After completion of evidence the Learned Judge discussed the evidence of both parties at length. Learned Judge observed that the

Plaintiffs evidence to PW1 and PW2 is not trustworthy. The theory put forth by Plaintiff that due to panic Janakamma executed nominal sale deeds in favour of D1 and D2. The plaint schedule property is not joint family property. PW1 admitted the knowledge of proceedings in

O.S.72/1991 in such case when O.S.42/1990 has clubbed with

O.S.72/1991 and common trial was conducted, Common Judgment was

pronounced, it cannot be said that Plaintiff has no knowledge of the

proceedings of both suits. Plaintiff has failed to discharge her burden to established her property, his joint family property.

12. On the other hand, Defendants could able to establish their case.

The Janakamma was mentally sound during the relevant period. There is no evidence that Defendants 1 and 2 have caused undue influence against Janakamma. Documents relied by the Defendants are supportive to their case. Therefore property is not a joint family property and it is not liable for any partition. Accordingly issues are answered by the Learned Judge and dismissed the suit. It is also observed that proper

Court Fee has paid.

13. Dis-satisfied the Impugned Judgment, Plaintiff has preferred this appeal on the following grounds:

1. The Learned Judge failed to appreciate that Defendant No.1 and 2 have not placed convincing evidence that the property is Sthri dhana property. The Learned Judge failed to appreciate that father of the Plaintiff possessed AC.16-00 of land purchased the property covered by Ex.A1 on the name of his wife nominally, as such properties do 6 not acquire the colour of self secured properties of Janakamma and no cogent and convincing evidence was placed in proof of the alleged self acquisition out of Sthri dhana nucles

2. The Learned Judge answered the Issue No.2 negatively against the Plaintiff the Learned Judge did not appreciate the evidence of Plaintiff especially PW2 who was instrumental to prevent and occurrence of murder attacks against Janakamma by Dayal Naidu. The Learned Judge did not appreciate that burden to prove Ex.B2 and B3 supported by valid consideration is not discharged by the Defendant No.1 and 2.

3. The Learned Judge failed to appreciate that Ex.B9 is not binding on Plaintiff as the Plaintiff is not a party to the suit proceedings.

4. Learned Judge failed to appreciate that Defendants No.1 and 2 failed to establish that the Janakamma sold the properties for valid consideration to discharge the debts of the family. The Learned Judge failed to answer the issues in proper perspective.

With the said grounds Plaintiff sought to set aside the Impugned

Judgment and decree the suit as prayed for.

14. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties and the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the plaint schedule properties?

POINT:

15. The admitted facts are the family relationship between the

Plaintiff and defendants. That plaint schedule properties are on the name of the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 3.

16. The Plaintiffs contention is the plaint schedule properties were purchased by the father of the Plaintiff on the name of her mother as a benomy. Plaintiff exhibited A1 registered sale deed of the Plaintiff schedule properties. On perusal of the documents there is no recital 7 that the properties were purchased by using the money raised by

Plaintiffs father on the name of Plaintiffs mother. The document has to be read as it is unless the document is put to scrutiny creating any doubt.

17. At this stage it is relevant to go through evidence of PW2

S.C.V.Subramanyam Naidu. He filed the chief affidavit stating he know the Plaintiff, Defendants 1 to 3 personally. His evidence is mother of the

Plaintiff resided with Defendant No.3 of some time, thereafter she shifted residence of Defendant No.1 in the year 1989. It is stated in the affidavit that the properties were nominally purchased on the name of

Janakamma (Plaintiff’s Mother) by father of Plaintiff Nagabushanam

Naidu. Husband of Defendant No.3 Mr. Dayal Naidu assaulted

Janakamma from the schedule properties and then a crime is registered against Dayal Naidu u/Sec.307 I.P.C. Having suspicion over Dayal

Naidu, Janakamma executed sale deeds in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 nominally without consideration.

18. Much evidence of PW2 is towards execution of sale deeds in favour of Defendant 1 and 2. In the cross examination he deposed with regard to the questions that third Defendant filed suit against D.1 and D.2 for injunction and D.1 and D.2 filed suit for declaration against Defendant

No.3, as he has no knowledge. His entire evidence is that he was one of the attestors of sale deeds executed by Janakamma in favour of

Defendant No.1 and 2 as nominally. But PW2 deposed innocency with regard to the pendency of the cases filed by D.1 to D.3 against each other. Those cases are after execution of sale deeds in favour of the D.1 and D.2 by Janakamma. Nowhere PW2 specifically stated the properties of plaint schedule properties were purchased by the father of the Plaintiff on the name of mother of the Plaintiff i.e., Janakamma as a benomy from the funds of the sale of the properties by the father of the Plaintiff.

19. The Plaintiff came to the court seeking the relief of partition.

burden heavily lies on the Plaintiff to prove that the property is joint family property. Plaintiff did not file any document to show that father of the Plaintiff had purchased plaint schedule properties on the name of 8 mother of the Plaintiff as a benomy. Ex.A1 does not read such intention in purchase of the properties. Admittedly the properties were sold to defendant No.1 and 2 by Janakamma.

20. Subsequent to the sale of properties as a fact two suits have been instituted by D.1 and D.3 against each other. Defendant 1 and 2 have exhibited those documents. Ex.D.8 is judgment in C.C.148/1992,

Ex.B.9 is the Judgment in O.S.74/1991. The Defendants case is injunction suit filed by D.3. Injunction suit was dismissed. The suit filed for declaration by D.1 and D.2 was decreed for the same plaint schedule properties. However on perusal of the plaint, no where Plaintiff has pleaded about the suits filed by D.1 to D.3 against each other PW1 deposed in her evidence that “It is true that Defendants 1 and 2 filed suit in O.S.No.72/1991 against the Defendant No.3 for declaration of their title in respect of suit properties.

21. The said deposition of PW1 reads, that PW1 has knowledge of suits filed by both D.1 to D3. Plaintiff is none other than sister of D.1 and D.3. D.2 is son of defendant No.1 Dayal Naidu is husband of

Defendant No.3. When such close family relation is there it is hard to believe that the Plaintiff has no knowledge of proceedings of the Civil

Suits and criminal cases existing between the family members. PW1 also deposed that she do not know whether she filed any accounts into the court showing that she was jointly enjoying the suit properties and that her Co-sharers paying the share of her profits every year to her from the suit lands. She did not issue any legal notices to Defendants 1 and 2 prior to the filing of the suit.

22. PW1 and PW2 have not specifically spoke about details of transactions that were held by father of the Plaintiff in alleged purchase of plaint schedule properties on the name of mother of the Plaintiff,

Janakamma. There is no document to show that the properties are joint family properties. On the other hand the fact remains that prior to institution of this suit in the year 2006 there was allegations between the parties, Defendant No.1 to 3 for title of the plaint schedule properties. As 9 per evidence the plaint schedule property declared with title in favour of

Defendant No.1 and 2. Plaintiff is aware of the proceedings. But, no where she tried to claim her alleged right for partition or cancellation of the sale deeds executed in favour of D.1 and D.2 or anything of the suit proceedings. Therefore, when the Plaintiff is aware of the suit proceedings prior to institution of the suit, no pleading of those, speaks about suppression of material facts. Without pleadings, Plaintiff cannot seek the relief of resjudicata. Nowhere in the plaint, Plaintiff specifically pleaded about the joint family property existence and amounts allegedly paid as a co-sharer.

23. On the other hand prior to filing of the suit the plaint schedule property was declared on the name of D.1 and D.2. The decree was not challenged by Defendant No.3. The Defendant No.3 in this suit has remained exparte. But contests denying the case of the Plaintiff in the appeal. Defendant No.3 represented through counsel, however nowhere

Defendant No.3 has challenged the decree independently or supported the case of Plaintiff. Without pleadings before the trial court and challenge of the decree appearance of D.3 in the appeal does not support the case of Plaintiff. DW1 is cross examined at length. Nowhere evidence is culled except stating against the judgments and decrees of disposal of the suits between D.1 and D.3. Much evidence is tried to extract with regard to the sale of plaint schedule properties in favour of D.1 and D.2.

The said aspect is already part of proceedings in the suits between

Defendant No.1 to 3. This court before answering the sale of properties in favour of D1 and D2 by mother of Plaintiff, has to answer that the property is joint family property. With regard to the joint family property

Plaintiff has not specifically placed evidence that Ex.A1 was purchased by father of the Plaintiff on the name of mother of the Plaintiff.

24.On the other hand, the fact remains the sale deeds by

Janakamma, were executed in favour of D.1 and D.2 for the plaint schedule properties. The existence of cases is within the knowledge of

Plaintiff. But Plaintiff did not choose to appear in the cases pending between parties. When the Plaintiff has knowledge and no pleading or all the facts, amounts to material suppression of the facts. Further there 10 is no evidence with regard to the joint family property of the plaint schedule properties. Therefore the Plaintiff failed to discharge her burden as to joint family property for the plaint schedule properties. The plaint schedule properties were already transferred on the name of D.1 and

D.2, thus it cannot be said that the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties and Plaintiff is entitled for partition.

25. The Learned Judge at length has answered all these issues. The

Learned Judge also answered the issue that the suit is hit by resjudicata as the subject matter in this suit is directly and indirectly said matter of the proceedings in O.S.42/1990 in O.S.72/1991 Sec.11 Civil Procedure

Code is applied. I am convinced that the observation of the Learned

Judge for the above issue No.5 in the suit. The entire evidence by the

Plaintiff under the guise of partition is in relation to the sale of schedule property in favour of D.1 and D.2 by mother of the Plaintiff. Nowhere in the said proceedings it appears that the property was pleaded as joint family property and Defendant No.3 or the Plaintiff has sought for share of the properties. But much evidence is with regard to the issue of execution of regular registered sale deeds in favour of D.1 and D.2. The trial court has answered that issue in the above two suits and adjudicated. Again same issue with regard to alleged transfer of the property on the name of D.1 and D.2 cannot be canvassed in a separate suit unless challenge the suit decrees in the appeal. The resjudicata hit the present suit.

26. In the light of above discussion Plaintiff failed to establish that

Plaintiff schedule property is joint family property and she is entitled for the partition. Therefore accordingly point is answered against

Plaintiff/Appellant.

27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open court, this the 10th day of April, 2018.

X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

TIRUPATI.

1

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS :: CHITTOOR DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DIST., & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) ::

TIRUPATI.

Present : Sri. Veerapu Nageswara Rao,

VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Tirupati

Wednesday, the Eighteenth (18th )day of April, 

Two Thousand Eighteen

Criminal Revision Petition No. 68 of 2017

Crl.M.P. No. 3427 of 2017 in Cr. No.421 of 2012

(on the file of the IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.)

Between:

The State rep by the Station House ...Rev. Petitioner/Complainant Officer, Chandragiri Police Station.

And:

1. G. Kishore

2. G. Sidda Munemma

3. C. Devaki

4. C. Poornachandra Reddy

5. C. Niranjan Reddy

6. G. Sulochana… Respondents/A.1 to A.6 

Order in Criminal Revision Petition No. 68 2017

From which Court the Revision is preferred IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati

Number of the case in that Court Crl.M.P 3427 of 2017

Number of the appeal before the Court C.R.P. No. 68 of 2017

Name and description of the appellant1. G. Kishore, S/o G. Shamugham Reddy, age 21 years, D.No.19­12­320, 3rd cross, Bairagipatteda, Tirupati.

2. G. Sidda Munemma, D.No.19­12­320, Bairagipateda, Tirupati.

3. C. Devaki @ Devika, W/o C. Purnachandra Reddy, D.No.5­63/1, M.R.

2

Palli, Tirupati.

4. C. Poornachandra Reddy, S/o Late Chinna Tahnmbi Reddy, D.No.5­63/1 M.R. Palli Tirupati.

5. C. Niranjan Reddy, age 50 years, Lingeswara Nagar, Tirupati N/o Tataiah Kalva village Renigunta.

6. G.Sulochana, W/o G. Shamugham Reddy, D.No.19­12­230, 3rd cross , Bairagipatteda, Tirupati.

Whether the appeal confirmed, modified  Reversed or reversed, if modified, the modification In result, this his Revision petition is allowed by setting aside the Orders dated 11­01­2017 passed in Crl.M.P. 3427/2017. The petition vide Crl.M.P. 3427 filed by the SHO of Chandragiri Police Station is allowed as prayed. A.4 to A.6 are directed to supply their specimen signatures, in the presence of their counsel in Trial Court for onward submission to APFSL, Hyderabad for the purpose of comparison with the signatures appearing on agreements of sale

dated 05­09­2007 and 24­01­2008. The

learned Trial court is directed to fix a specific date for the appearance of A.4 to A.6, well in advance enabling them to comply the order of this court. It is further directed to send such specimen signatures of A.4 to A.6 through proper channel to APFSL, Hyderabad and under acknowledgment due for the purpose of comparison and a report, as per the Rules. Date of Presentation:20.12.2017

Date of Admission:27­12­2017

Date of hearing:16­04­2018

Date of order:18­04­2018

This Criminal Revision Petition is coming before me on 16.04.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Suryanatha Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State Rev. Petitioner/Complainant and Sri P. Suresh Babu, Advocate for Respondents/A.1 to A.6 and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

3

O R D E R 

1.The SHO of Chandragiri Police Station represents the State filed petition under section 397 Cr.P.C praying the court to revise the order dated 01­11­ 2017 passed in Crl.M.P. 3427 of 2017 by learned Prl.J.C.J (FAC) (IV Addl. JMFC,

Tirupati) and then direct A.4 to A.6 to supply specimen signatures in open court so as to send the same to APFSL, Hyderabad for the purpose of comparison with signatures on questioned documents I.e agreements of sale dated 05­09­2007 and 24­ 01­2008 executed by Mr. G. Kishore (A.1) infavour of B. Hemanth Kumar Reddy (Complainant). 

2. It is stated that, the SHO of Chandragiri Police Station filed petition under section 45 Indian Evidence Act vide Crl.M.P 3425/2017 urging the Trial court to send the above documents before Hand writing Expert APFSL at Hyderabad for comparison of signature of G. Kishore and a report. A.3 to A.6 stated to have acted as attestors to the agreements of sale executed by A.1 on 05­09­2007 and 24­01­2008.

3. For the sake of convenience, from herein after the parties would be referred to as they are arrayed in Trial court.

4. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that, B. Hemanth Kumar Reddy purchased lands locate in Sy.No’s 359/1, 359/3 and 4 and 360/1 of Mittapalem Village accounts through agreement of sale dated 05­09­2007 Mr. G. Kishore (A.1) for sale consideration of Rs.10,44,000/­ and received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/­ as advance. This has been witnessed by Accused No.3 to 6 who also acted as attestors for the said agreements. Thereafter, on 24­01­2008 the complainant purchased land in extent of 28 cents in Sy.No.348/1/5 in Mittapalem Village accounts from A.1 for a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/­ and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ as advance. The said agreement was also attested by A.3 to A.6. Inall, A.1 received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/­ from the Complainant promising to execute a registered sale deed in respect of Ac.02.44 cents of land covered by two agreements of sale executed by A.1.

4

5. It is further submitted that, Accused No.1 ignored the receipt of cash

Rs.10,00,000/­ in pursuance of agreements of sale from the complainant and created a sham and nominal registered sale deed on 08­05­2008 in the name of A.3 with a view to cheat the complainant. Lastly, having come to know the fraud and conspiracy played by all Accused, the complainant came up with this case to prosecute the Accused for the offences referred above through court of law.

Therefore, the SHO of Chandragiri P.S. sought the Trial court to send agreements of sale and as well registered sale deed executed by A.1 for the purpose of comparison and a report to enable him to carry further investigation. According to them that, the opinion and the report that, may be submitted by APFSL at Hyderabad may afford substantial evidence so as to involve A.1 to A.6 in commission of offences.

Hence the said petition. Thereafter, learned counsel for Accused filed counter opposing the petition.

6. The brief case of Accused may be stated as below:­

The prosecution need not depend on the report that, may be submitted by Hand writing Expert of APFSL to prove the guilt of Accused. The prosecution is at liberty to produce evidence in Trial court by examining the witnesses. Absolutely there was no need for the prosecution to rely on the documents more particular a report of

Hand writing Expert. They pray the court to dismiss the petition with costs.

7. Then, having heard both side, the Trial court has dismissed the said petition by an order dated 01­11­2017.

8. I have heard arguments from both side and perused the certified copies of the order dated 01­11­2017 passed by Trial court. The prosecution filed copies of petition and counter praying the court to appreciate the order in the light of the pleadings.

Despite of order of this court, still the Trial court has not submitted the material papers. Therefore, the copies of petition and counter filed for Trial court are taken in consideration to dispose this revision petition on merits.

5

9. Point arise for consideration in this Revision is :­

Whether the order dated 01­11­2017 passed by Trial Court suffers with any

infirmities due to lack of appreciation of facts and if so whether the same is

liable to be set aside? Whether the State represented by SHO of Chandragiri

Police Station has reasons to obtain specimen signatures of A.4 to A.6 in open

court to send the same to APFSL, Hyderabad for the the purpose of comparison

and report?

10.  Point:­ 

Learned Addl.PP attacks the orders dated 01­11­2017 mainly on the ground that, the evidence of Hand writing Expert and his report would afford substantial evidence to show primafacie case against the Accused for the offences under sections 464, 423, 420, 120­B and 506 IPC and other penal offences, but erroneously dismissed the said petition without offering any valid reason. His fore most contention would be that, in Criminal case, the prosecution is under legal duty to prove the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and in that process, the State was required to place sufficient evidence before Trial court. Hence, it is just to place reliance on the report that, may be submitted by the Hand writing Expert after examination of the signatures of A.4 to A.6 appearing on agreements of sale along with standard signatures.

11. In reply, learned Defence counsel for the Accused support the findings of Trial court by contending that, the report of Hand writing Expert will have no relevancy to record conviction against Accused for the offences and therefore the attempt of prosecution to send specimen signatures of A.4 to A.6 along with agreements of sale for comparison is nothing but futile exercise. He lastly submit that, the prosecution may prove the guilt of Accused by showing cogent evidence and therefore pray the court to dismiss the Revision Petition.

12. It appear from the record that, Mr. B. Hemanth Kumar Reddy approached learned Trial court by presentation of his written complaint praying the court to take cognizance against the Accused for the offences under sections 420, 464, 423, 120­B and 506 IPC and thereafter, the said court forwarded the same under section 156(3)

Cr.P.C to the SHO of Chandragiri Police Station with a direction to register a case.

6

Accordingly, he has registered the case against A.1 to A.6 under the above sections vide Cr.No.99 of 2010 and after investigation laid charge sheet vide CC 421/2012 on the file of IV Addl.JMFC Court, Tirupati. Then, the State represented by SHO of

Chandragiri Police filed petition Crl.M.P.3427 of 2017 under section 311 ­A Cr.P.C.

requesting the court to obtain specimen signatures of A.4 to A.6 in open court and send the same to APFSL, Hyderabad for comparison with signatures available on agreements of sale dated 05­09­2007 and 24­01­2008. I find a specific allegation to mean that, the complainant purchased lands in Mittapalem Village accounts through agreements of sale dated 05­09­2007 and 24­01­2008 from A.1 for sale consideration and paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ inall on different occasions. Thereafter, A.1 did not come forward to execute registered sale deeds in pursuance of the terms of agreements of sale, when the complainant offered remaining balance. It appear that, the complainant filed suit on the file of learned IV Addl. District Court, Tirupati against A.1 for specific performance of agreements of sale. It is alleged that, A.1 created sham and nominal sale deed bearing No.1209 of 2008 in the name of A.3 ignoring agreements of sale with a view to deny sale deed. I find a specific allegation to mean that, all Accused being relatives conspired together and brought a nominal sale deed to defraud the complainant by creating a nominal sale deed for which the complainant was forced to file a criminal case against A.1 to A.6. Learned

Defence counsel may not dispute the Law that, in cases of cheating, conspiracy and creation of fabricated documents, burden lies heavily on the prosecution to prove the direct involvement of all Accused in commission of the offences. The contention of

Accused that, no purpose will be served even after examination of specimen signatures of A.4 to A.6 and the signatures appearing on questioned documents i.e agreements of sale along with standard writings of A.1 has no significance in Law.

The legal right of State in collection of substantial evidence through Hand writing

Expert of APFSL cannot be denied on flimpsy grounds. The contention of Defence counsel that, the report of Hand writing Expert will not become conclusive proof is the mixed question of Law and Fact which needs to be decided on evidence. The case of State i.e prosecution requires a deeper probe to prove the guilt of Accused 7 beyond all reasonable doubt. No prejudice will be caused to the Accused if A.4 to

A.6 are directed to supply their specimen signatures in open court for the purpose of comparison.

13. The entire case of prosecution, obviously may depend on various facts and circumstances of the case. In that, process, the prosecution was required to gather evidence from all Agencies, as they are under legal duty to prove the guilt of

Accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. For the above reasons, this court find that, there are reasonable grounds for the State to urge the court to obtain specimen signatrues of A.4 to A.6.

Accordingly the order passed by learned Trial court lacks certainty and suffers with infirmities. The said Order dated 01­11­2017 is not sustainable in Law and it is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.

15. In result, this his Revision petition is allowed by setting aside the Orders

dated 11­01­2017 passed in Crl.M.P. 3427/2017. The petition vide Crl.M.P. 3427 filed

by the SHO of Chandragiri Police Station is allowed as prayed. A.4 to A.6 are directed to supply their specimen signatures, in the presence of their counsel in Trial

Court for onward submission to APFSL, Hyderabad for the purpose of comparison with the signatures appearing on agreements of sale dated 05­09­2007 and 24­01­ 2008. The learned Trial court is directed to fix a specific date for the appearance of

A.4 to A.6, well in advance enabling them to comply the order of this court. It is further directed to send such specimen signatures of A.4 to A.6 through proper channel to APFSL, Hyderabad and under acknowledgment due for the purpose of comparison and a report, as per the Rules.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after transcribed by her, corrected, signed

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18 th day of April, 2018.

Sd/­VNR

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge,

(FTC), TIRUPATI.

1

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS :: CHITTOOR DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DIST., & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) ::

TIRUPATI.

Present : Sri. Veerapu Nageswara Rao, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Tirupati Wednesday, the Eighteenth (18th )day of April, Two Thousand Eighteen

Criminal Revision Petition No. 67 of 2017

Crl.M.P. No. 3425 of 2017 in Cr. No.421 of 2012

(on the file of the IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.) Between: The State rep by the Station ...Rev. House Officer, Chandragiri Police Petitioner/Complainant Station.

And:

1. G. Kishore

2. G. Sidda Munemma

3. C. Devaki

4. C. Poornachandra Reddy

5. C. Niranjan Reddy

6. G. Sulochana… Respondents/A.1 to A.6 Order in Criminal Revision Petition No. 67 2017 From which Court the Revision is IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First preferredClass, Tirupati Number of the case in that Court Crl.M.P 3425 of 2017

Number of the appeal before the Court C.R.P. No. 67 of 2017

Name and description of the appellant1. G. Kishore, S/o G. Shamugham Reddy, age 21 years, D.No.19­12­320, 3rd cross, Bairagipatteda, Tirupati.

2. G. Sidda Munemma, D.No.19­12­ 320, Bairagipateda, Tirupati.

3. C. Devaki @ Devika, W/o C. Purnachandra Reddy, D.No.5­63/1, M.R. Palli, Tirupati.

4. C. Poornachandra Reddy, S/o Late Chinna Tahnmbi Reddy, D.No.5­63/1 M.R. Palli Tirupati.

5. C. Niranjan Reddy, age 50 years, Lingeswara Nagar, Tirupati N/o Tataiah Kalva village Renigunta.

6. G.Sulochana, W/o G. Shamugham Reddy, D.No.19­12­230, 3rd cross , Bairagipatteda, Tirupati. Whether the appeal confirmed, modified  Reversed or reversed, if modified, the modification In result, this his Revision petition is allowed by setting aside the Orders dated 11­01­2017 passed in

Crl.M.P. 3425/2017. The petition vide

Crl.M.P. 3425 filed by the SHO of

Chandragiri Police Station is allowed as prayed. The Agreements of sale dated 05­09­2007 and 24­01­2008 and registered sale deed bearing No.1209 of 2008 executed by A.1 in favour of the 2 complainant and A.3 respectively shall be sent to APFSL, Hyderabad through proper channel and under acknowledgment due for the purpose of comparison and a report, as per the Rules. Date of Presentation:20.12.2017

Date of Admission:27­12­2017

Date of hearing:16­04­2018

Date of order:18­04­2018

This Criminal Revision Petition is coming before me on 16.04.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Suryanatha Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State

Rev. Petitioner/Complainant and Sri P. Suresh Babu, Advocate for Respondents/A.1 to A.6 and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R 

1.The SHO of Chandragiri Police Station represents the State filed petition under section 397 Cr.P.C praying the court to revise the order dated 01­ 11­2017 passed in Crl.M.P. 3425 of 2017 by learned Prl.J.C.J (FAC) (IV Addl.

JMFC, Tirupati) and then send agreements of sale dated 05­09­2007 and 24­01­ 2008 executed by Mr. G. Kishore (A.1) infavour of B. Hemanth Kumar Reddy (Complainant) to Hand writing Expert, APFSL along with a registered sale deed

dated 08­05­2008 executed in favour of Smt C.H. Devaki (A.3) for comparison and

a report, so as to investigate the case for the offences under sections 420, 464, 423, 120­B and 506 IPC.

2. It is stated that, the SHO of Chandragiri Police Station filed petition under section 45 Indian Evidence Act vide Crl.M.P 3425/2017 urging the Trial court to send the above documents before Hand writing Expert APFSL at Hyderabad for comparison of signature of G. Kishore and a report. The said petition has been resisted by Respondents/Accused 1 to 6 by filing a counter. Then, on merits, the

Trial court passed Order on 01­11­2017 dismissing the said petition. Aggrieved with the said petition, the unsuccessful State came up with this Criminal Revision 3 petition praying the court to set aside the orders passed by Trial court and then all the documents for the purpose of comparison by the Expert of APFSL at

Hyderabad.

3. For the sake of convenience, from herein after the parties would be referred to as they are arrayed in Trial court.

4. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that, B. Hemanth Kumar Reddy purchased lands locate in Sy.No’s 359/1, 359/3 and 4 and 360/1 of Mittapalem

Village accounts through agreement of sale dated 05­09­2007 Mr. G. Kishore (A.1) for sale consideration of Rs.10,44,000/­ and received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/­ as advance. This has been witnessed by Accused No.2 to 6 who also acted as attestors for the said agreement. Thereafter, on 24­01­2008 the complainant purchased land in extent of 28 cents in Sy.No.348/1/5 in Mittapalem Village accounts from A.1 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/­ and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ as advance. The said agreement was also attested by A.2 to A.6. Inall, A.1 received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/­ from the Complainant promising to execute a registered sale deed in respect of Ac.02.44 cents of land covered by two agreements of sale executed by A.1.

5. It is further submitted that, Accused No.1 ignored the receipt of cash

Rs.10,00,000/­ in pursuance of agreements of sale from the complainant and created a sham and nominal registered sale deed on 08­05­2008 in the name of

A.3 with a view to cheat the complainant. Lastly, having come to know the fraud and conspiracy played by all Accused, the complainant came up with this case to prosecute the Accused for the offences referred above through court of law.

Therefore, the SHO of Chandragiri P.S. sought the Trial court to send agreements of sale and as well registered sale deed executed by A.1 for the purpose of comparison and a report to enable him to carry further investigation. According 4 to them that, the opinion and the report that, may be submitted by APFSL at

Hyderabad may afford substantial evidence so as to involve A.1 to A.6 in commission of offences. Hence the said petition. Thereafter, learned counsel for

Accused filed counter opposing the petition.

6. The brief case of Accused my be stated as below:­

The prosecution need not depend on the report that, may be submitted by hand writing Expert of APFSL to prove the guilt of Accused. The prosecution is at liberty to produce evidence in Trial court by examine the witnesses. Absolutely there was no need for the prosecution to rely on the documents more particular a report of hand writing Expert. They pray the court to dismiss the petition with costs.

7. Then, having heard both side, the Trial court has dismissed the said petition by an order dated 01­11­2017.

8. I have heard arguments from both side and perused the certified copies of the order dated 01­11­2017 passed by Trial court. The prosecution filed copies of petition and counter praying the court to appreciate the order in the light of the pleadings. Despite of order of this court, still the Trial court has not submitted the material papers. Therefore, the copies of petition and counter filed in Trial court are taken in consideration to dispose this revision petition on merits.

9. Point arise for consideration in this Revuision is :­

Whether the order dated 01­11­2017 passed by Trial court suffers with any

infirmities due to lack of appreciation of evidence and if so whether the

same is liable to be set aside? Whether the State represented by SHO of

Chandragiri Police Station has reasons to take out agreements of sale

executed by A.1 in favour of Complainant for the purpose of comparison by

hand writing Expert APFSL along with registered sale deed executed in favour

of A.3 to make out the case against Accused?

5

10.  Point:­ 

Learned Addl.PP attacks the orders dated 01­11­2017 mainly on the ground that, the evidence of Hand writing Expert and his report would afford substantial evidence to show primafacie case against the Accused for the offences under sections 464, 423, 420 and other penal offences, but erroneously dismissed the said petition without offering any valid reason. His fore most contention would be that, in Criminal case, the prosecution is under legal duty to prove the guilt of

Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and in that process, the State was required to place sufficient evidence before Trial court. Hence, it is just to place reliance on the report that, may be submitted by the Hand writing Expert after examination of the documents in question.

11. In reply, learned Defence counsel for the Accused support the findings of

Trial court by contending that, the report of hand writing Expert will have no relevancy to record conviction against Accused for the offences and therefore the attempt of prosecution to send agreement of sale and registered sale deed for comparison of signatures is nothing but futile exercise. He lastly submit that, the prosecution may prove the guilt of Accused by showing cogent evidence and therefore pray the court to dismiss the Revision Petition.

12. It appear from the record that, Mr. B. Hemakantha Reddy approached learned Trial court by presentation of his written complaint praying the court to take cognizance against the Accused for the offences under sections 420, 464, 423, 120­B and 506 IPC and thereafter, the said court forwarded the same under section 156/3 Cr.P.C to the SHO of Chandragiri Police Station with a direction to register a case. Accordingly, he has registered the case against A.1 to A.6 under the above sections vide Cr.No.99 of 2010 and after investigation filed charge sheet vide CC 421/2012 on the file of IV Addl.JMFC Court, Tirupati. Then, the State represented by SHO of Chandragiri Police filed petition Cr.M.P.3425 of 2017 6 requesting to court to send agreements of sale dated 05­09­2007 and 24­01­2008 along with registered sale deed bearing No.1209 of 2008 executed in favour of A.3 for the purpose of comparison of signatures of A.1 and for a report so as to bring home the Accused to the guilt of sections referred in charge sheet. I find a specific allegation to mean that, the complainant purchased lands in Mittapalem

Village accounts through agreements of sale dated 05­09­2007 and 24­01­2008 from A.1 for sale consideration and paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ in all on different occasions. Thereafter, A.1 did not come forward to execute registered sale deeds in pursuance of the terms of agreements of sale, when the complainant offered remaining balance. It appear that, the complainant filed suit on the file of learned IV Addl. District Court, Tirupati against A.1 for specific performance of agreements of sale. It is alleged that, A.1 created sham and nominal sale deed bearing No.1209 of 2008 in the name of A.3 ignoring agreements of sale with a view to deny sale deed. I find a specific allegation to mean that, all Accused being relatives conspired together and brought a nominal sale deed to defraud the complainant by creating a nominal sale deed for which the complainant was forced to file a criminal case against A.1 to A.6. Learned defence counsel may not dispute the Law that, in cases of cheating, conspiracy and creation of fabricated documents, burden lies heavily on the prosecution to prove the direct involvement of all Accused in commission of the offences. The contention of

Accused that, no purpose will be served even after examination of questioned documents i.e agreements of sale along with standard writings of A.1 has no significance. The legal right of State in collection of substantial evidence through

Hand writing Expert of APFSL cannot be denied on flimpsy grounds. The contention of Defence counsel that, the report of Hand writing Expert will not become conclusive proof is the mixed question of Law and Fact which needs to be decided on evidence. The State i.e prosecution requires a deeper probe to prove the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. No prejudice will be caused to the Accused if the agreements of sale and as well registered sale deed 7 along with standard writings of A.1 are sent to the APFSL for comparison and report, except some more delay. The Accused will have right to defend them while receiving of report of Hand writing Expert as evidence.

13. The entire case of prosecution, obviously may depend on various facts and circumstances of the case. In that, process, the prosecution was required to gather evidence from all Agencies, as they are under legal duty to prove the guilt of

Accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. For the above reasons, this court find that, there are reasonable grounds for the State to urge the court to send the agreements of sale and as well registered sale deed to APFSL, Hyderabad for comparison of signatures of A.1. Accordingly the order passed by learned Trial court lacks certainty and suffers with infirmities.

The said Order dated 01­11­2017 is not sustainable in Law and it is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.

15. In result, this his Revision petition is allowed by setting aside the Orders

dated 11­01­2017 passed in Crl.M.P. 3425/2017. The petition vide Crl.M.P. 3425

filed by the SHO of Chandragiri Police Station is allowed as prayed. The

Agreements of sale dated 05­09­2007 and 24­01­2008 and registered sale deed bearing No.1209 of 2008 executed by A.1 in favour of the complainant and A.3 respectively shall be sent to APFSL, Hyderabad through proper channel and under acknowledgment due for the purpose of comparison and a report, as per the

Rules.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after transcribed by her, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18 th day of April, 2018.

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge,

(FTC), TIRUPATI.

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT and SESSIONS

JUDGE

(FAST TRACK COURT), TIRUPATI

PRESENT: Sri. Veerapu Nageswar Rao, VI Additional District AND Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Thursday, the Nineteenth (19th ) day of April, Two Thousand and Eighteen (19.04.2018)

Criminal Appeal No.305 of 2017

S. Surya Sekhar..Appellant/Accued No.1

Versus

The State of A.P rep. By its SHO of

...Respondent/Complainant

CCS, Tirumala.

Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2017

From which Court the appeal is preferred II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Number of the case in that CourtC.C.No.72 of 2017

Number of the appeal before the CourtC.A.No.305 of 2017

NameanddescriptionoftheSangam Surya Sekhar, S/o Appellant/Accused No.1Sainadh, Hindu aged about 30 years, R/at Door No.G­6, Block No.29, Indiramma Indlu, Daminedu Village, Tirupati.

The offences for which the accused The Appellant/A.1 was convicted under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C and sentenced was convicted/acquitted and for a period of two years for the offence under section 411 IPC. The the sentence/ judgment thereof. remand period of the Accused No.1 from 28­03­2017 to 02­05­2017 is ordered to be set of under section 428 Cr.P.C vide judgment date 26­10­2017 in CC 72 of 2017 on the file of the

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Tirupati.

2

Whether the appeal confirmed, modified Confirmed or reversed, if modified, the modification In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the findings of learned Trial court in Calender and Judgment dated 26­10­ 2017 made in C.C. No.72 of 2017.

Date of Presentation:15.11.2017

Date of Admission:18.11.2017

Date of hearing:16.04.2018

Date of sentence or order:19.04.2018

This Criminal Appeal coming on 16.04.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Subramanyam, Advocate for

Appellant/A.1 and Sri K. Suryanatha Reddy, Additional Public

Prosecutor for the Respondent/State/Complainant, and upon hearing both sides, upon perusal of material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal is directed against the Calender and judgment

dated 26.10.2017, whereby and where under, the learned II Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Tirupati has sentenced

Appellant/Accused No.1 S. Suryasekhar to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under section 411 IPC setting off remand period under section 428

Cr.P.C. Aggrieved with the said sentence, Accused No.1 preferred 3 this appeal on the ground that, the Trial court erred in believing the testimony of stock witness I.e P.W.2 M. Bhaskar and urges the court to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial court and then acquit him for the offence under section 411 IPC by allowing appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, from herein after, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in Trial court.

3. The case of prosecution in brief may be stated as below:­

P.W.3 K. Dharma Reddy, the SI of Police CCS, Tirumala laid charge sheet against A.1 S. Suryasekhar and A.2 N. Siva Kumar in their Cr.No.40 of 2017 under section 411 IPC alleging to have recovered a sum of Rs.4,700/­ belonging to P.W.1

Mr. V. Thimappa in the presence of P.W.2 M. Bhaskar and L.W.3

K. Nageswara Rao under Ex.P.3 Mahazarnama dated 28­03­2017.

It is alleged that, on 27­03­2017, P.W.1 V. Thimmappa came to

Tirumala to worship Lord Sri Venkateswara.

4. Then, after Dharshan, P.W.1 and L.W.2 Mr. Hanumantha while washing clothes at about 10.00 PM near PAC­I, some unknown offenders committed theft of bag containing cash

Rs.5,000/­. Then, P.W.1 and L.W.2 went on searching to trace out the bag but their attempts were in vain. Then, P.W.1 gave 4

Ex.P.1 report with P.W.3 S.I of Police who in turn registered the case in Cr.No.40 of 2017 under section 411 IPC and took up investigation. Then, he examined P.W.1 and L.W.2 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements. Then, on 28­03­2017 at about 11.30 AM, on credible information P.W.3 proceeded to RBGH Bus stand, Tirumala followed by P.W.2 M. Bhaskar and L.W.3

K. Nageswara Rao and found Accused No.1 and another under suspicious circumstance and then apprehended them and on enquiry confessed about the offence. P.W.3 noticed a sum of

Rs.2,350/­ each with A.1 and another and then, seized the same under cover of Ex.P.3 Mahazarnama and brought them to

CCS under arrest and finally sent them for judicial remand.

They also confessed that, an amount of Rs.300/­ is spent from stolen amount. Finally P.W.3 laid charge sheet.

5. Then, learned Trial court took cognizance against A.1 and

A.2 for the offence under section 411 IPC and proceeded with.

6. When the Accused were appeared in court after copies of records furnished under section 207 Cr.P.C, examined the

Accused under section 239 Cr.P.C in Telugu about allegations contained in the charge sheet for which the Accused pleaded not guilty. Then, a charge under section 411 IPC was framed against the Accused. When the the said charge was explained 5 and read over to the Accused in Telugu for which they denied charge and claimed to be tried. Hence, evidence was let in.

7. To prove the case the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.3 relies on Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 learned APP has given up the testimony of L.W.2 and L.W.3. Thus prosecution evidence was closed.

8. Then, Accused were examined under section 313 Cr.PC in

Telugu about incriminating points available in the testimony of

P.W.1 to P.W.3 for which both Accused have refuted the prosecution evidence. They have reported no Defence evidence.

9. Having heard arguments from both side, the learned Trial court found both Accused found guilty for the offence under section 411 IPC and then under section 248 (2) Cr.P.C for the offence under section 411 IPC sentencing to suffer simple imprisonment of two months.

10. Accused No.1 alone has preferred this appeal challenging the sentence passed by Trial court. Accused No.2 did not prefer any appeal.

6

11. I have heard arguments from both side. I have perused the entire evidence on record with caution. I gave careful consideration to the the submissions of both side.

12. Point arise for consideration in this Criminal Appeal is:­

Whether the Calendar and Judgment dated 26­10­2017

passed in CC 72 of 2017 sentencing Accused No.1 to suffer

simple imprisonment for the offence under section 411 IPC

suffers with any infirmities due to lack of appreciation of

evidence and if so whether the same is liable to be set

aside as prayed?

13. Point:­

The entire case of prosecution has been rested on the testimony of P.W.2 M. Bhaskar, who happens to be a mediator for the arrest and seizure of cash Rs.4,700/­ from Accused

No.1 and Accused No.2 under cover Ex.P.3 mahazarnama. P.W.1

V. Thimmappa speaks about presentation of Ex.P.1 report with

P.W.3 about theft of his bag containing Rs.5,000/­ by unknown offenders. P.W.1 did not identify the Accused. He stated to have lost a sum of Rs.5,000/­ by way of theft by unknown offenders in Tirumala.

14. P.W.2 claimed to be a vendor in Camphor in Tirumala. He was selling Camphor in Tirumala along with L.W.3 K. Nageswara

Rao. While he was doing business near Bedi Anjineya Swamy

Temple, Tirumala on 28­03­2017 P.W.3 came and asked him 7 accompany to RMGH Bus stop. He claimed to have followed

P.W.3 and noticed A.1 and another under suspicious circumstance and then P.W.3 caught hold the Accused and on enquiry revealed about the commission of offence. He again deposes about the confession of the Accused to the effect of sharing amount Rs.5,000/­ equally and their spending amount

Rs.300/­ to meet expenses. It has come on evidence that, a sum of Rs.4,700/­ has been seized from the possession of A.1 and A.2 under Ex.P.3 mahazarnama. In fact he identifies the

Accused while deposing evidence in Trial court. P.W.2 had no necessity to speak false evidence against the Accused, if really not witnessed the seizure of Rs.4,700/­ on their instance. In cross­examination, learned Defence counsel posed a suggestion asking P.W.2 to furnish the bearing number of currency notes and denomination etc. For which P.W.2 did not give those details. It was quite impossible for any person including P.W.1 owner of cash to keep all minute facts in memory, because one may not predict about happening of undo things. Even for any individual, it was not necessary to keep the bearing number of currency notes and their denomination in mind as and when carry the cash. I find no suggestion as to what more should be needed for prosecution to prove the seizure of cash Rs.4,700/­ from the possession of Accused rather the evidence already produced. The testimony of P.W.2 clinchingly disclose the presence of Accused No.1 with stolen property like Rs.2,350/­.

8

As a matter of fact, Accused No.1 did not disclose the account of said amount. He, being retainer of stolen property should have explained accounts to the said property. It is not the case of Defence that, Accused No.1 had accounted the said amount

before P.W.2 and P.W.3 with reasons. This court do not find

any reasons to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2 whose evidence appear to be quite natural and common.

15. P.W.1 claimed to have received a sum of Rs.4,700/­ from P.W.3 under a cover of Ex.P.2 receipt. He stated to have assured to produce the amount as and when Court directs him.

Thus, the prosecution could able to prove the possession of stolen cash belonging to P.W.1 by the Accused. The prosecution has also proved about the theft of cash of Rs.5,000/­ by examining P.W.1 V. Thimmappa.

16. P.W.3 performed his part as I.O by registration of case based on Ex.P.1 report. He examined the witnesses as usual and then drew rough sketch as in Ex.P.5. He stated to have secured the presence of P.W.2 and L.W.3 as mediators to the seizure of stolen cash from the possession of Accused. Of course, the Defence case tries to impress the court as if P.W.3 is stock witness to CCS, Tirumala by way of suggestion, but no favourable sentences are elicited in support of their case.

Learned Defence counsel ought to have suggested P.W.3 by way of direct and specific suggestion referring the cases. Had P.W.2 been suggested with direct suggestion that, he appeared as a witnesses in particular number of cases then, the Defence case 9 would have been considered. Except a vague bold suggestion, nothing bas been suggested to P.W.2 and P.W.3 to speak about the appearance of P.W.2 as stock witnesses. This court find no flaw on the part of prosecution. On reading of the testimony of

P.W.1 to P.W.3, this court without hesitation comes to conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused

No.1 for the offence under section 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned Trial court has rightly discussed the entire evidence on record by taking the facts and circumstances in consideration. This court do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of Trial court in Calender and Judgment passed in CC 72 of 2017. While advancing arguments, it is submitted by learned Defence counsel that, the appellant already served the sentence in Sub­jail. Accordingly, this

Criminal appeal is dismissed.

17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the findings of learned Trial court in Calender and

Judgment dated 26­10­2017 made in C.C. No.72 of 2017.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after his transcription, corrected, signed

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19 th day of April, 2018.

 Sd/­ VNR VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

­Nil­

 Sd/­VNR

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati.