Smt.Ch.Santa Kumari

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. CH. SANTHA KUMARI, B.Sc., B.L.,

VIII ADDL.DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC of V ADDL. DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JUNE, 2013

SESSIONS CASE. No. 122 OF 2012

Name of the complaint : The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by the Inspector of Police, P.S. Narsingi, Cyberabad (Crime No.383/2011 of Narsingi P.S.). V/s. Name of the Accused :A1. Mohammed Farooq, S/o. Ahmed, aged 27 years, Caste: Muslim, occ: Cook, R/o. H.No.13-1-470, Allabanda, Mangalhat, Hyderabad. A2. Smt. Bontha Lavnanya, W/o. Mohan, aged 22 years, Caste: Vaddera, occ:

Labour (cook),

R/o. Near Guffa Mandhir, Indira Nagar, Mangalhat, Hyderabad. Charges: Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC

Plea of the Accused: Not guilty

Finding of the Court : Guilty

Sentence of order : In the result, both the accused were found guilty. Accused No.1 is found guilty of having committed the offence punishable U/s.326 of IPC and accused No.2 is found guilty of having committed the offence punishable U/s.323 of IPC. Both the accused are therefore convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C for the said offences. A-1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. A-2 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The period of imprisonment already undergone by A-1 and A-2 shall be set-off against the sentenced period of imprisonment. MO-1 Motor bike, MO-2 Cell phone shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time if they are not claimed by any one. MO-3 Metal pipe and MO-4 Stick shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution Conducted by : Sri. K. Ranga Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by :Sri. M.A. Azeem, Advocate for accused No.1. Sri.C.Satyanarayana, Advocate for accused No.2 2 as State brief.

Case Committed by: VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

This case coming for final hearing before me on this day in the presence of Sri. K. Ranga Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri. M.A. Azeem, Advocate for accused No.1 and Sri. C. Satyanarayana, Advocate for accused No.2 as State brief and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.In essence the case of the prosecution is that while Pw.1 and A.2 are husband and wife, their marriage having been performed about 8 years ago, they were blessed with two children, namely a daughter Deepika and the deceased Karthik. Pw.1 and A.2 were assistant cooks, A.2 was working with A.1 who is a cook. However in course of time, illicit intimacy developed between A.1 and A.2. Having noticed this development, Pw.1 had warned both A.1 and A.2 to mend their behaviour, but they did not heed his warning. Eventually A.1 took away A.2 along with her two children to Sangam City, Gandhamguda village and put them up in a rented room belonging to Pw.2. But on 10-11-2011 as they found the deceased Karthik to be coming in the way of their sexual enjoyment, both the Accused decided to eliminate him and in that process, A.2 hit the child with a stick while A.1 hit him with a pipe and also burnt his face and genital area. Consequently, the deceased Karthik sustained injuries and though he was admitted in Niloufer hospital by his relatives i.e., Pws 3 and 4 and Lw.4 Muddangula Shiva

Kumar, he succumbed to the injuries.

2.On the basis of a complaint lodged with the police regarding the incident by Pw.1 at Narsingi P.S, Pw.15 Inspector of Police had registered a case in Crime No.383/2011

U/s. 302 of IPC against the Accused and he took up investigation of the case. During the course of his investigation Pw.15 examined Pws 1 and 5 and recorded their statements and got the scene of offence photographed with digital camera with the help of PW-13 and secured the presence of

PW-8 and LW-10 Mohd. Khan and conducted scene of offence panchanama, drawn the rough sketch. Thereafter visited the Osmania General Hospital mortuary and secured the presence of

PW-3, PW-4 and LW-4, conducted scene of offence panchanama and examined and recorded the detailed statement. Later held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Karthik in the presence of PW-11 and LW-12 Dandugula Srinu and subjected the dead body for post mortem examination. PW-12 who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased opined that the death caused due to multiple injuries. After completion post mortem examination PW-15 handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased and subsequently

PW-13 secured the presence of PW-2, PW-6 and PW-7 and examined and recorded their detail statements.

3

3. At about 4.00 hours on 8.12.2011 on credible information PW-15 deputed PW-13 with his men and instructed them to apprehend the accused and accordingly PW- 13 apprehended A-1 and A-2 in their respective houses and produced them before PW-15. Upon being interrogated A-1 revealed the facts of the case. Immediately PW-15 summoned PW-9 and

PW-10 and recorded the confessional statements of A-1 and A-2, who led the police and mediators to the rented room situated at Sangam city where A-1 showed the iron pipe and A-2 showed the stick which were used by them separately in the commission of the offence. LW-17

B. Pentaiah PC-3058 of PS Narsingi who assisted the Investigating officer had seized the said weapons under cover of seizure report. Later PW-15 effected the arrest of the accused and produced them before the Court for being remanded. After completion of investigation and after receiving the post mortem examination report and F.S.L report PW-13 filed the chargesheet

before the Court under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 IPC.

4.After receiving the charge sheet, the learned VIII Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, had taken cognizance of the offence punishable under

Section 302 of IPC in PRC No.6/2012. However as the offence punishable under Section 302 of

IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he committed the case U/s.209-(d) of Cr.P.C to the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, who took the case on file in S.C.122/2012 and made over the same to the Court of II Addl.

Metropolitan Sessions Judge and later in pursuance of the order of the Prl. District and Sessions

Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dated 13.4.2012 in Dis. No.3672/2012 the case was transferred to

this Court. After receiving the case file this Court framed the charges against the accused under

Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and read over and explained the same to the Accused in Hindi and

Telugu. The Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-15 and marked Ex.P-.1 to P-18 and MO-1 to MO-4 to substantiate its case.

6.The Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. But they denied the evidence against them and stated that they do not have any defence witnesses to be examined.

7.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the Accused No.1 and 2.

8.Now, we have to see whether the prosecution has been able to show beyond reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty of having committed the offence punishable

U/s.302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC ?

9.The Court framed charges against the accused U/s.302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, as the prosecution alleged that there was unlawful assembly to do away with the life of the deceased and that the Accused had committed the offence with a common object.

4

It would be appropriate to extract Sections 302 and 34 of IPC. Section 302 of IPC reads as follows: Punishment for murder :- Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 34 of IPC reads as follows: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention : -When a criminal act is done by several persons,in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

10.The father of the deceased Karthik who was examined as Pw.1 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution stating that the deceased had died due to the injuries sustained by him when he fell down from a bus. Pw.1 had not lodged any complaint with the police and his thumb impression was obtained by the police who called him to the police station.

According to Pw.1 there were no injuries on the face and genital area of his deceased son. Pw.2 who is said to be the owner of the room at Gandhanguda, Sangamcity in which the Accused had stayed as tenants affirms that he became acquainted with A.1 through Pw.6. At the instance of

Pw.6, Pw.2 had agreed to give his room in plot No: 2-70 to provide shelter to A.1. Two or three days thereafter Pw.2 visited his property at Gandamguda and found A.1 residing there. Pw.2 had warned A.1 to keep the premises clean and to provide proof of his identity, but within a week,

A.1 had vacated the premises. Pw.2 had not seen A.2 in the premises at any point of time.

According to Pw.2, A.1 had informed him that he had contracted an inter-caste marriage and that he was blessed with two children. Pw.2 had seen A.1 and his daughter outside the room at

Gandamguda.

11.The sister of Pw.1 who was examined as Pw.3 states in her evidence that Pw.1’s marriage was performed with A.2 about eight years ago and that they were blessed with two children-Deepika and the deceased Karthik. Pw.1 and A.2 worked as catering labourers under A.1. In course of time A.2 developed illicit intimacy with A.1. As such Pw.3 had advised Pw.1 and A.2 to stop working with A.1. However A.1 eloped with A.2 taking her children along, Pw.3, her brother and other family members searched for A.2 and her children.

Eventually they came to know, the whereabouts of A.2 and her children to the effect that they were residing together with A.1. After some time A.2 came to Mangalhat along with her children

Deepika and the deceased Karthik. They found burn injuries on the body of the deceased boy.

A.2 revealed that as the deceased boy had disturbed A.1 and A.2 in their moment of intimacy,

A.2 beat him initially and then A.1 picked up an iron pipe and burnt him and then banged him to the floor. A.2 also revealed that initially she went to her parents’ house and that from there she came to Mangalhat. The next morning Pw.3 and other family members had got the deceased boy admitted in Niloufer hospital, where he survived for three days. Pw.3 flatly denies the suggestion that the deceased Karthik sustained injuries due to a road accident. Pw.3 affirms that she had 5 stated to the police that both the children of A.2 were in the custody of A.1 when A.1 and A.2 were living together. Another sister of Pw.1 who was examined as Pw.4 has also stated along the same line as Pw.3. The husband of Pw.4 who was examined as Pw.5 too has stated by and large along the same lines as Pws 3 and 4.

12.Pw.6 who according to Pw.2 had recommended that A.1 be accommodated at his property in Gandhamguda, SangamCity, has however turned hostile to the case of the prosecution stating that he does not even know Pw.2 and that he had never requested anybody to provide rental accommodation to A.1. Pw.7 who is apparently a vegetable vendor residing in Sangam City, Gandhamguda, too has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution denying that A.1 and A.2 resided in the room belonging to Pw.2. Pw.8 who had apparently acted as a witness at the scene of offence panchanama affirms that the police had conducted the scene of offence panchanama and also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence in his presence.

13.Exs. P.5 and P.6 being the same.

14.Pw.9 who is one of the witnesses in whose presence the confessional statements of the accused were recorded affirms that both the Accused had confessed before himself and Pw.10 to the effect that while A.1 is a cook who prepares food for various kinds of functions, he used to engage labourers to assist him in that work and that A.2 and her husband ie., Pw.1 used to work with him. In course of time illicit intimacy developed between A.1 and

A.2 who was with two children and A.1 took A.2 and her children and kept them in a room in

SangamCity, Gandamguda for about 45 days. One day when A.1 and A.2 were in that room, the deceased Karthik who was the son of A.2 came there crying for his father and as such both the accused beat that boy. A.1 caused burn injuries on the shoulder and other parts of the body of the boy. As the burn injuries and other injuries had not healed, A.1 had asked A.2 to take the deceased body to her parents’ house. Accordingly A.2 went to her parents’ house along with her children and from there she went to Pw.1’s house. Pw.1 and his sisters had got the deceased body admitted in hospital for treatment of the injuries. Pw.10 also states along with the same lines as

Pw.9. Both these witnesses deny the suggestion that A.1 and A.2 had not made any confession

before them.

15.One of the witnesses in whose presence inquest was made on the dead body of the deceased boy was examined as Pw.11 and he affirms the same stating that based on the information gathered, he and Lw.12 who was the other witness had drawn the inference that A.1 and A.2 had beaten the deceased boy and killed him. They found injuries on the dead body of the deceased boy. The inference regarding the cause of death of the deceased boy was drawn after making enquiry with the people of the locality.

16.The doctor who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Karthik was examined as Pw.12 and he gives the details of the ante- 6 mortem external and internal injuries sustained by the deceased as follows:

1.Healed Hypo pigmented abrasion 2.5 x 2 cms. over both buttocks near notal chest. 2.Abrasion of 1 cm. left loin black scab. 3.Contusion with swelling 7 X 6 cms over upper 1/3rd outer aspect left leg reddish brown. 4.Contusion 4 X 3 cms mid-shin front of left leg reddish black. 5.Contusion 3x3 cms mid inner aspect left leg bluish. 6.Contusion of both upper and lower limbs reddish with tearing of frenulum of upper limp covered with red blood cloth. 7.Multiple abrasions 0.5 to 1 cm size over face, nose, with reddish, reddish brown scabs and hyphopigmentation. 8.Multiple discute contusions 3 to 5 cms size over frontal right parietal temporal and occipital area of scalp red to reddish black. 9.Multiple healed abrasions 0.5 to 1 cms size with hypopigmentation over both legs and dorsum of both feet. 10.Multiple healed abrasions with hypopigmentation 0.5 to1 cms size front of chest. 11.Infected lacerated wound 3.5 to 3 cms over upper one yard left arm with fracture shaft of left humerus (compound fracture). 12.Infected wound 3.5 x 3 cms x 0.5 cms on back of right elbow with fracture dislocation of right elbow joint and surrounding crythema of 6 x 5 cms. 13.Sub-culances infection of chest wall 7 x 6 cms over left side of chest. 14.Contusion of both aritas of heart with adjacent great vessels (resuscitation). 15.Contusion of brain 5 x 4 cms over right partial region.

17. The sub-Inspector of Police, Narsingi P.S who was examined as

Pw.13 affirms that he had assisted the investigating officer and that he had played a role in apprehending the Accused, in the seizure of the case property and in taking the photographs of the Accused and the deceased. and also while recording the confessional statements of the

Accused. The doctor who had treated the deceased boy was examined as Pw.14 and he affirms that on 03-12-2011 the deceased Karthik was brought to Nilofer hospital by his relatives who had informed that the boy’s mother and employer had beaten him. On examining the deceased

Karthik Pw.14 had found the following injuries on him: Swelling of both upper limbs and left lower limb Discharge of pus from a deep wound on left upper limb with underlying fracture and protrusion of bone Abdomen was distended with enlargement of both liver and spleen.

18.The child was diagnosed based on the history and clinical examination as battered baby with fracture left Humerus with osteomyelitis and septicemia. X- ray of chest and both limbs revealed complete fracture of the middle of left Hamerus with osteomyelitis.

19. According to the opinion of Pw.14 all the above said multiple 7 injuries could have been caused due to beating with Mo.3 and Mo.4. He makes it clear that these injuries are not possible by a fall on a rough surface.

20.The investigating Officer who was examined as Pw.15 recounts the details of the investigation made by him such as recording the statements of various witnesses, visiting the scene of offence, preparing a rough-sketch of the same, recording the confessional statements of the Accused, arresting the Accused etc. Pw.15 affirms that Pw.3 had stated before him that when she saw the deceased boy she found burn injuries on his chest, stomach, arms etc.

He denies the suggestion that he had prepared the scene of offence panchanama in the police station itself and that the Accused had not made by any confession.

21.The central point in the case of the prosecution is that A.1 and A.2 who had illicit intimacy with each other found the deceased Karthik as an irritant coming in the way of their relationship and that they treated him cruelly inflicting injuries on his tender body which eventually resulted in his death. In a case like this it is very unusual for the father of the boy to decide not to co-operate with the prosecution, as an instinctive reaction for any normal father would be eagerness to ensure judicial retribution for the perpetrators of the cruelty and not the other way round. But in the present case Pw.1 who is the father of the deceased boy has, for whatever reason, chosen to turn hostile to the case of the prosecution. However the other family members i.e., Pws 3 to 5 have stated in no uncertain terms that they all knew about the illicit intimacy between A.1 and A.2 and that they had even cautioned Pw.1 and A.2 to stop working with A.1. According to these witnesses A.2 returned home along with her children after leaving her husband and staying for some time with A.1. These witnesses also make it clear that they came to know through A.2 about the manner in which the deceased Karthik w as maltreated and wounded by both the Accused, though A.2 had hit the child with a stick causing relatively mild hurt, while A.1 had made a vicious attack with an iron pipe even going to the extent of heating the pipe and causing burn injuries with it all over the body of the child. Pws 3 to 5 had found injuries on the deceased Karthik and they had promptly got him admitted in Niloufer hospital. It is firmly denied that the deceased boy had sustained these injuries due to a road accident in the face of the statement of Pw.1 to the effect that his deceased son had died due to the injuries sustained by him when he fell down from a bus. Pw.14 who had treated the deceased boy at

Niloufer hospital affirms that from the grievous external and internal injuries sustained by the deceased child it could be seen that he was a battered baby. While agreeing that these injuries could have been caused with Mo.3 and Mo.4, Pw.14 makes it clear that the injuries are not possible as a result of falling on a rough surface as alluded to by Pw.1.

22. Pw.12 who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased boy lists out the series of ante mortem injuries sustained by him which agree with the diagnosis made by Pw.14..

23.According to Pw.2 who is apparently the owner of the room in 8

Gandhamguda, Sangam City, it was Pw.6 who had introduced A.1 to him and had recommended that A.1 be provided shelter. Though Pw.6 denies this, it could be deduced from the testimony of

Pw.2 who makes it clear that A.1 was staying in his premises, that he had seen A.1 together with his daughter there and also that A.1 had told Pw.2 that his marriage was inter-caste marriage and that he was bringing his wife and children, that there is a grain of truth in the claim of the prosecution that A.1 together with A.2 and her children lived for some time in the premises belonging to Pw.2. Further, the fact that A.1 and A.2 had confessed to having caused injuries to the deceased boy which is affirmed by Pws 9 and 10 who are the witnesses in whose presence the confessional panchanama was conducted only serves to affirm the medical evidence and the testimonies of Pws 3 to 5. Pw.15 who is the Investigating Officer makes it clear that he had received Ex.P-2 complaint from Pw.1 on 07-12-2011. He affirms that Pws 1, 6 and 7 had stated

before him as in Exs P.1, P.3 and P.4.

24.In these circumstances it could be said that the prosecution has been able to show beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused had caused hurt to the deceased boy. However the evidence placed on record points to the possibility that A.2 who had hit the deceased with a stick might have caused a milder injury. But it is quite apparent that A.1 who had attacked the child with a metal pipe that too after heating the same was responsible for the series of grievous injuries which prompted Pw.14 to observe that the deceased was a battered child.

But there is no indication that the Accused had any intention of killing the deceased child, though eventually the injuries inflicted by them resulted in the death of the boy. As such it could be said that A.2 had committed an offence punishable U/s 323 of IPC and that A.1 had committed an offence punishable U/s 326 of IPC.

It would be appropriate to extract Sections 323 and 326 of IPC. Section 323 of IPC reads as follows: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt :- Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 326 of IPC reads as follows:

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means:- Whoever, except, in the case provided for by Section 335, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting , stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated 9 substance, or by any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Upon being questioned regarding the quantum of sentence to be awarded A-1 stated that his parents are no more and that he has four sisters who are depending on him. A-2 stated that she has a young daughter and that she herself has to take care of her daughter. Considering the pleas of A-1 and A-2, A-1 is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. A-2 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The period of imprisonment already undergone by A-1 and A-2 shall be set-off against the sentenced period of imprisonment. Both the accused are convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C for the said offences. MO-1 Motor bike, MO-2 Cell phone shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time if they are not claimed by any one. MO-3 Metal pipe and MO-4 Stick shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of June, 2013.

VIII ADDL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC of V ADDL. DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- PW-1.B. Mohan, PW-2.Mohd.Arifuddin, PW-3.Smt. P. Santhosha, PW-4.Smt. M. Anasuya, PW-5.M. Satyanarayana, PW-6.Nasar Ali Khan, PW-7. Smt. B. Laxmamma, PW-8.K. Babu Rao, PW-9.C. Nageshar, PW-10.M. Manik Rao, PW-11. S. Srisailam, PW-12.Dr. P. Harikrishna, PW-13.Mohd. Afeezuddin, PW-14.Dr. B. Venkatachalam, PW-15. P. Narayana, FOR DEFENCE:- Nil. No. OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P1. Section 161 Cr. P. C Statement of PW-1. Ex.P2. Complaint. Ex.P3. Section 161 Cr. P. C Statement of PW-6. Ex.P.4. Section 161 Cr. P. C Statement of PW-7. Ex.P.5. Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P.6. Rough sketch. Ex.P.7. Confession panchanama of A-1.

10

Ex.P.8. Confession panchanama of A-2. Ex.P.9. Seizure panchanama (stick) Ex.P.10. Seizure panchanama (iron pipe) Ex.P.11. Inquest panchanama. Ex.P.12. Post mortem examination report. Ex.P.13. Bunch of photographs (9 Nos.). Ex.P.14. Hospital pass (for taking food). Ex.P.15. Medico-Legal case record. Ex.P.16. F.I.R. Ex.P.17. Seizure panchanama of A-1. Ex.P.18. Seizure panchanama of A-2. FOR DEFENCE:- N I L. MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- MO-1 :Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing registration No. AP-09-BA-6185 . MO-2 :Cell phone bearing SIM No.9346047770 (LG-Reliance). MO-3 :One metal pipe (Udurgottam), MO-4 :One stick.

VIII ADDL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC of V ADDL. DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS CLAIMS 

TRIBUNAL­cum­V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) : R.R. DISTRICT

Present: Sri. SMT. CH. SANTHA KUMARI, B.Sc., B.L.,

 VIII ADDL.DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC of V ADDL. DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), 

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

THURSDAY, THE 10 th DAY OF JULY, 2013 

ORIGINAL PETITION No. 1246 of 2007

BETWEEN:­

K. Venkateshwarlu @ Sharma,

S/o. Late Narsimha Murthy, aged 32 years, occ: Maths Teacher (Pvt.) and Poojari in Geetha Mandir, 

R/o. C/o. M. Anuradha, 

H.No.134/A, Janapriya Homes, 

Abyudaya Nagar Colony, chintalkunta, 

L.B. Nagar, R.R. District. …… 

PETITIONER.

A N D

1. T. Venkata Swamy, S/o. Sri T. Sayanna, aged major, occ: Owner of the Jeep,

R/o. 18­1400, Somisetty Nagar,

Kurnool, A.P.

2. The National Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Regional Manager, 

Moghal Courts, Basheerbagh,

Hyderabad.  ….. 

RESPONDENTS.

This petition coming on 10­07­2013 for final 2 hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Boya. Vijaya 

Bhaskar Reddy, Counsel for petitioner, Sri. P.V.R. Mohana 

Rao, Counsel for Respondent No.2 and the Respondent No.1 having been set exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record, the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:­

O R D E R

1. This is a claim petition filed by the Petitioner/ Injured claiming a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- U/s 166 of MV Act.

2. Originally the petition was filed claiming a compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- and subsequently the petitioner had got the compensation claim enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/- by filing an application in IA.669/2012 which was allowed as per the order dated 2.1.2013.

3. The petitioner avers that at about 9:45 A.M on 06-01-2007 while he was proceeding on his Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Registration

No.AP-24-8437 from Pylon Petrol Bunk to Hill Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar,

Nalgonda District, One Toofan Trax Jeep bearing Registration No-AP-21-V-8908, which is the crime vehicle and which was being driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules came from the wrong side of the road and hit the petitioner’s Hero Honda motorcycle bearing

Registration No-AP-24-8437. Consequently, the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures of right leg and bleeding injuries all over the body.

4. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Government Kamala

Nehru Hospital, Hill Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar, Nalgonda District. As per the doctor's advice immediately he was shifted to Nalgonda District Hospital and on the same day he was shifted to Kadimi Private Hospital, Nalgonda, where he was treated as in-patient for several days.

3

5.The police, Vijayapuri town, Nagarjunasagar P.S regarding this accident a case in crime No.3/2007 was registered in Vijayapuri Town PS,

Nagarjunasagar against the driver of the Toofan Trax Jeep bearing No. AP 21V 8908.

6.The petitioner is aged 32 years and he was working as a

Mathematics teacher, Poojari and Vaartha reporter in Nagarjunasagar, Pylon

Colony, Nalgonda District and he was earning Rs.7,500/- per month. The petitioner had sustained multiple fractures above knee level and below knee and other grievous fractures all over the body. Steel rods and plates were implanted in the petitioner's right leg. Post-operative complications arose due to infection and still the petitioner is undergoing treatment he is suffering great pain and he is unable to attend to his daily work. He has spend more than Rs.80,000/- towards medical treatment since date of accident and he is bed-ridden. The doctor advised the petitioner to undergo another operation which needs huge expenditure. The petitioner has become permanently disabled and he is enable to attend to his daily work, and the petitioner and his family members are put to great hardship, and mental agony. The accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Toofan Trax Jeep bearing registration No.AP 21V 8908. As such the 1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the crime vehicle are liable to pay a compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs together with interest and costs.

7.The 1st respondent-owner of the crime vehicle filed his counter denying all the petition averments and further contended that the petitioner has to prove all the averments which are hereby denied by this respondent and thereby prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. The averments made in the counter and additional counter filed by the 2 nd respondent are briefly as follows : -

The claim regarding the manner in which the accident had occurred is denied. The 2nd respondent-insurance company does not admit the 4 involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident, and also the claim that the petitioner sustained injuries and has become permanently disabled and spent huge amounts for treatment and also that he requires to undergo further surgery. The 2nd respondent also does not admit the age, avocation and income of the petitioner.

The petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The driver of the crime vehicle did not possess an effective driving licence by the time of the alleged accident.

The quantum of compensation and rate of interest claimed by the petitioner is excessive. The petitioner has filed enhancement petition six years after filing the main petition only with the intention of protracting the litigation. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Based on the averments made the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the Motor Vehicle accident that had occurred on 06-01-2007 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Toofan Trax Jeep bearing No. AP 21V 8908 ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so to what extent and from which of the respondents ?

3.To what relief ?

10. The petitioner was examined as PW-1. Dr. P.Sugnaneshwar was examined as PW-2, Dr. K. Harinath was examined as PW-3 and Dr. Ch.

Saidaiah was examined as PW-4, Devara Shetty Anjaneyulu, Gen. Secretary, Sri

Mad Bhagavath Geetha Mandir, Pylon Colony, was examined as PW-5 and Smt.

Ch. Sujatha, Principal, Noble High School E/M, Pylon Colony, was examined as

PW-6. Ex.A-1 to A-10 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. RWs-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked on behalf of the respondents.

Further Ex.X-1 and Exs.X-1A to Ex.X-1H were also marked.

11. Issue No-1:-

The petitioner who was examined as PW-1 reiterates the claim made in the petition and he emphatically states that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The driver of the crime vehicle was not examined as a witness before the court to depose about the manner in which the accident had occurred and as such an adverse inference could be drawn in this regard. Ex.A-1 which is a certified copy of the

F.I.R with complaint and Ex.A-2 which is a certified copy of the charge-sheet which was filed after due investigation, indicate that the accident had occurred due 5 to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. Exs.

A-3 to A-5 show that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident. Therefore it could be said that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Toofan Trax Jeep bearing registration No. AP 21 V 8908 and that the petitioner had sustained injuries as a consequence thereof. This issue is answered accordingly.

12. ISSUE No.2:-

In view of the finding made in Issue No.1 to the effect that the accident resulting in injuries to the petitioner had occurred due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation. The 1st respondent being the registered owner of the crime vehicle and the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the same are liable to pay the compensation.

13.As per Clause IV of the 2nd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act the victim of a road accident who sustains injuries both grievous and simple as the case may be, is entitled to claim damages for the pain and suffering faced by him on account of such injuries. He is also entitled to recover the actual medical expenses incurred by him provided such claim is supported by proper vouchers, bills, etc.,

14.The petitioner who was examined as PW-1 states in his evidence that he had sustained multiple fractures of shaft femur, right knee and other bleeding injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Government Kamala Nehru Hospital, Hill Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar and from there to Kadimi private hospital, Nalgonda, where he was given treatment as in-patient for seventeen days. His right leg was operated upon and rods and screws were implanted. Five days after being discharged from the hospital he developed post-operative complications and his right knee bone was infected. Again he was admitted in the same Kadimi hospital as in-patient and was given treatment for five days. Again for a third time PW-1 was admitted as in-patient in the same hospital and was operated upon and one screw was removed from his right leg, drainage of pus continued from the fractured bone. For persistent bone infection PW-1 took treatment as out-patient in NIMS hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, Udai Clinic

Orthopaedic Centre, Nampally, Hyderabad, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences 6 (KIMS), Secunderabad and Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences, Narketpally,

Nalgonda District. He also took physiotherapy treatment at Sri Sai Physiotherapy

Clinic at Nalgonda for a period of nine months. Inspite of physiotherapy the knee joint stiffness continued due to multiple fractures and PW-1 took treatment for one year. His right leg was shortened, his knee joint developed stiffness and he continued to suffer disability. He is unable to stand for at least 15 to 20 minutes and he is unable to walk long distance. He had to spend more than Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses and he lost his earnings. The District Medical Board,

Nalgonda, has issued a Medical certificate to the effect that PW-1 is

Orthopaedically Handicapped to an extent of 45 %. Still he is not in a position to work and he is suffering huge pain besides financial loss. Ex.A-3 injury certificate (MLC) and Ex.A-5 discharge summaries (3 in No.) show that the petitioner had sustained grievous and simple injuries, underwent two operations and was treated as in-patient in Kadimi Hospital, Nalgonda from 6.1.2007 to 22.1.2007, he was again admitted in the hospital on 27.1.2007 and was discharged on 1.2.2007. Yet again he was admitted in the hospital on 3.4.2007 and was discharged on 6.4.2007.

He underwent a series of surgical operations. Ex.A-6 which compromises a set of medical prescriptions and bills shows that the petitioner had taken prolonged treatment and that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.92,491/- towards medicines, tests, etc.

15. Dr. K. Harinath who was examined as PW-3 states in his evidence that the petitioner was admitted as in-patient in Kadimi Hospital,

Nalgonda for comminuted fracture of shaft right femur and fracture of lateral candyle of right femur following RTA. On 8.1.2007 the petitioner was operated upon whereby the fracture was reduced and an inter locking nail was used to fix the femur. On 12.1.2007 again petitioner was operated upon to fix the lateral candyle of femur with a screw and he was discharged on 22.1.2007. The petitioner was discharged with necessary prescriptions and was asked to come for review after 20 days. However, on 22.1.2007 itself the petitioner was re-admitted in the hospital as there was delayed post-operative infection and he was discharged on 1.2.2007. At the time of discharge the petitioner was advised three to four months rest and he was put on antibiotics whenever required. On 3.4.2007 the 7 petitioner was again admitted in the hospital for evaluating sinus which was present on the lower thigh. On the same day sinus was exploited and the distal interlocking screw was removed and the petitioner was discharged on 6.4.2007.

The petitioner was under PW-3's follow up treatment regularly till 4.9.2007 and in the mean time the petitioner was referred to Dr.Veda Prakash, Sr. Orthopaedic

Surgeon at Uday Clinic at Hyderabad. Ex.A-5 comprises the discharge summaries issued by Kadimi Hospital, Nalgonda. Ex.A-6 which comprises a set of medical bills for the prescriptions relating to the treatment given by PW-3. The last follow- up treatment extended up to 12.1.2008. Ex.A-6 receipt No.89 for Rs.4,000/-, receipt No.419 for Rs.15,000/-, receipt No.418 for Rs.5,000/- respectively were issued by Kadimi Hospital. The injuries sustained by the petitioner were grievous in nature. PW-3 who had treated the petitioner assessed the disability of the petitioner at 40% which is partial and permanent in nature. Dr. P. Sugnaneshwar who was examined as PW-2 states in his evidence that he is working as

Orthopaedic Civil Surgeon, District Head Quarters, Nalgonda and that after examining petitioner clinically and after perusing the previous medical record he found that the petitioner sustained comminuted shaft femur fracture of right leg and suffered stiffness of the right knee joint due to fracture injury. PW-2 assessed the disability of the petitioner at 45 % which is permanent and partial in nature as reflected in Ex.A-7. Due to the knee joint stiffness the petitioner cannot bend the knee joint completely and he cannot sit and squat and he can walk only with the support of walking stick. PW-2 affirms that Ex.A-7 disability certificate was issued by the District Medical Board. The 2nd respondent could not elicit anything from the cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-3 to discredit their evidence. It is apparent from the evidence placed on record that the petitioner had sustained two grievous injuries and that he also suffers 45 percent partial and permanent disability for which the petitioner is entitled to compensation. The petitioner is also entitled to recover the expenditure incurred by him for medical treatment. As per Ex.A-6 the petitioner had incurred an expenditure of Rs.92,318/- towards medical expenses. The petitioner claims that he is working as Maths teacher,

Poojari and Vaartha reporter earning a total income of Rs.7,500/- per month. PW- 4 states in his 8 evidence that the petitioner had attended his physiotherapy clinic for his right knee stiffness as advised by Dr. K. Harinath, Orthopaedic Surgeon. PW-4 had charged

Rs.75/- per sitting and he had taken two sittings per day for 20 days in March; for 20 days in April; for 28 days in May; for 27 days in June; for 25 days in July; for 29 days in August; for 26 days in September; for 28 days in October; for 25 days in

November and for 29 days in December 2007. Thus the petitioner was charged

Rs.37,000/- for the entire period. Ex.A-6 which comprises ten receipts were issued by PW-4.

16.PW-5 states in his evidence that he is the General Secretary, Sri

Mad Bhagavath Geetha Mandir, Nagarjuna Sagar, Nalgonda District and that the petitioner used to perform daily pooja in the said mandir from 1.3.2002 on a monthly payment of Rs.2,000/- till 5.1.2007. PW-6 states in her evidence that she is the Principal of Noble High School at Pylon colony, Nagarjuna Sagar and that the petitioner had worked as Maths teacher in that school during the period from 2002 to December 2006 and till 5.1.2007 and that the petitioner used to be paid a consolidated salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. Due to the accident the petitioner had stopped working in their school from 6.1.2007. The evidence of PW-5 and

PW-6 shows that the petitioner was working as Poojari and also as a teacher and that he used to earn an income of Rs.6,500/- per month. The various hospital records as well as Ex.A-10 indicate that the age of the petitioner was 32 years, by the time of the accident and hence about 38 years by the time of determining the compensation.

17.The 2nd respondent has raised the contention that according to

Ex.B.3 driving licence the driver of the crime vehicle holds a licence to drive only non-transport light motor vehicles and not transport vehicles like the crime vehicle which is violative of the terms of Ex.B.2 insurance policy. RW-2 who is an official working in the Regional Transport Office, states that as per Ex.B.3 driving licence, the licence holder P. Sudharshan Goud was authorized to drive only LMV of non- transport category and that he is not authorized to drive a transport vehicle.

But in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2008 (3) 9

ALD Page 7 (SC) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. ANNAPPA IRAPPA

NESARIA it was held that consequent upon the amendment to the Central Motor

Vehicles Rules, 1989, the categories of ‘medium goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy goods vehicle’ have been clubbed together as ‘transport vehicle’ while the classification of ‘light motor vehicle’ covers both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle and that as such a driver, who has a valid licence to drive light motor vehicle, is authorized to drive light goods vehicle as well as light passenger vehicle. Therefore, in the light of the said decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, it is clear that the objection raised by the 2nd respondent to the effect that the licence held by the driver of the crime vehicle entitles him to drive only non-transport light vehicles and that as such the terms of the insurance policy have been violated, cannot be accepted as essentially there is no difference between light passenger carriage vehicles and light goods carriage vehicles.

18.As per clause 5-B of the 2nd schedule to the M.V. Act the victim of a road accident who suffers permanent and partial disability is entitled to compensation which would depend on the degree of such disablement and which would accordingly be a proportion of the compensation payable in case of permanent total disablement which is arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income with the multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation. For calculating the compensation the age and income of the petitioner are crucial factors. As has been observed supra the petitioner had an income of Rs.6,500/- per month and he was aged about 38 years at the time of determining the compensation implying thereby that he falls in the age group of 35 years to 40 years. As such multiplier 16 is applicable to the petitioner as per the 2nd schedule. Thus the compensation for the petitioner's disability works out to

Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 16 x 45/100 = Rs.5,61,600/-.

As such, the petitioner is entitled to compensation as follows:- 1.Damages for pain and suffering on account of two grievous fracture injuries (Rs.25,000/- x 2)= Rs. 50,000.00 2.Expenditure for better nutrition, conveyance, etc., = Rs. 20,000.00 3.Expenditure for medicines, investigations, etc., = Rs. 54,867.60 10 4.Loss of income (Rs.6,500/- x 6 months)=Rs.39,000.00 5.Damage to clothing=Rs. 1,000.00

6.Expenditure for physiotherapy=Rs. 37,000.00 7.Compensation for physical disability=Rs. 5,61,600.00 _______________

Grand Total = Rs.7,63,917.60 _______________

Thus, the total compensation awardable to the petitioner is Rs.7,63,917.60 which could be rounded off to Rs.7,64,000.00.

19. Issue No-3:-

(i)In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs and a compensation of Rs.7,64,000.00 is hereby awarded to the petitioner and the same is payable by the respondents 1 and 2 with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% P.A from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit.

(ii)The Respondents are directed to deposit the above said compensation amount within one month from the date of this order.(i.e.,10.07.2013 )

(iii)On deposit of the said compensation amount the petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,64,000.00 plus the total interest and costs deposited by the respondents.

(iv)The balance compensation of Rs.4,00,000.00 payable to the petitioner shall be kept in Fixed Deposit with any nationalized bank for a period of three years. After completion of three years the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the said amount together with the interest accrued thereon.

(iv) Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

 VIII ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE 

 FTC : V ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE 

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DIST.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

11

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

FOR PETITIONER:­ 

PW-1 : K. Venkateshwarlu @ Sharma. PW-2: Dr. P. Sugnaneshwar, Medical Board Member, Nalgonda. PW-3 : Dr. K. Harinath, treated doctor. PW-4: Dr. Ch. Saidaiah, Physiotherapist. PW-5: Devara Shetty Anjaneyulu, Gen. Secretary, Sri Mad Bhagavat Geetha Mandir, PW-6 : Smt. Ch. Sujatha Principal, Nobel High School (E/M).

FOR RESPONDENTS:­ 

RW-1 : J. Suresh Chandra Mohan, Insurance Co., Admn. Officer. RW-2 : S. Prahalad Rao, Sr. Asst., R.T.A office, Mahaboobnagar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:­

Ex.A­1: Certified copy of F.I.R with complaint.

Ex.A-2 : Certified of chargesheet. Ex.A-3 : Certified copy of Injury certificate (M.L.C). Ex.A-4 :Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.A-5 : Discharge summaries (3 in No.), Ex.A-6 : Medical prescriptions with medical bills amounting to Rs.92,318/-, Ex.A-7 : Disabled certificate issued by District Medical Board, Nalgonda, Ex.A-8 : Salary certificate issued by Noble High School (English Medium),

Pylon colony, Nagarjuna Sagar, Ex.A-9 : Salary certificate issued by Sri Mad Bhagavath Geetha Mandir, Pylon colony, Nagarjuna Sagar, Nalgonda District. Ex.A-10 : S.S.C, Degree (B.Sc., Maths & Computer Science) and B.Ed., certificates.

Ex.X-1 : Authorisation letter issued to RW-2 and marked through RW-2. Ex.X-1 : Driving licence particulars given by RTO, Mahaboobnagar District marked through RW-2. Ex.X-1A : Attendance register for the month of June, 2006. Ex.X-1B : Attendance register for the month of July, 2006. Ex.X-1C : Attendance register for the month of August, 2006. Ex.X-1D : Attendance register for the month of September, 2006. Ex.X-1E : Attendance register for the month of October, 2006. Ex.X-1F : Attendance register for the month of November, 2006. Ex.X-1G : Attendance register for the month of December, 2006. Ex.X-1H : Attendance register for the month of January, 2007.

FOR RESPONDENTS:­ 

Ex.B-1 : Authorisation letter. Ex.B-2 : Insurance policy bearing regn.No.550404/31/06/6300002591 valid from 8.11.2006 to 7.11.2007.

12

Ex.B-3 : Driving licence issued to driver of the Ex.B-4 : Xerox copy of R.C of crime vehicle bearing No.AP-21-V-8908.

VIII ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS 

JUDGE 

 FTC : V ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE 

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DIST.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

cum-V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) : R.R. DISTRICT

Present: Sri. Smt. CH. SANTHA KUMARI,B.Sc., B.L.,

VIII ADDL.DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC of V ADDL. DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

THURSDAY, THE 20 th DAY OF JUNE, 2013 

ORIGINAL PETITION No. 1010 of 2007

BETWEEN:-

M. Gnaneshwar, s/o. Galaiah, aged about 37 years, occ: Pvt. Employee,

R/o. H.No.18-151, Road No.5,

Kamala Nagar, Dilsukhnagar,

R.R. District-500 060. …… PETITIONER.

A N D

1. K. Yellamma, w/o. K. Ramulu, aged major, occ: Owner of Tractor bearing No.

AP-24-A-8281, R/o. Plot No.109,

Venkata Ramana Colony, Nagole, L.B. Nagar,

R.R. District-068.

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Manager, D.O-II,

Secunderabad Division, IVth floor, 414 to 416, Swapnalok Complex,

Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad-003.

….. RESPONDENTS.

This petition coming on 10-06-2013 for final hearing before me in the 2 presence of Sri. S. Ram Gopal, Counsel for petitioner, Sri. K.Narender Reddy, Counsel for Respondent No.2 and the Respondent No.1 having been set exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record, the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act 1988 and Rules 475/1-B of A.P.M.V. Rules 1989 read with Section 163-A 140 (c) of APMV Act 1988 initially claiming a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- which was later enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- through an amendment by an order dated 9.5.2012 in I.A.No.293 of 2012.

2.The petitioner avers that on 7.3.2007 at about 8:45 hours while he was proceeding as a pillion rider on the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing

Registration No.AP-29-AT-6767 along with his friend towards Kamineni Hospital from SIRIS road, and when they reached near DVM College road a tractor bearing registration No.AP-24-A-8281, 8282 which is the crime vehicle and which was driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent hit the motor cycle from behind. Consequently the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous fracture injuries on the left leg, crush injury and multiple bleeding injuries all over the body. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Sowmya

Hospital at Ramnagar, Hyderabad and later he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital at Malakpet, Hyderabad, where he was admitted as in-patient. Still the petitioner 3 is undergoing treatment.

3. On the basis of a complaint lodged with the police in this regard at PS L.B. Nagar had registered a case in Crime No.264/2007 U/s.338 of

IPC was registered against the driver of the said tractor bearing registration

No.AP-28-A-8281, 8282.

4.Prior to the accident the petitioner was working as a Manager in Sree Bhavani Agencies (Masala Product), Sri Krupa Market at Malakpet,

Hyderabad, and he was earning an income of Rs.7,000/- per month which he was contributing for the maintenance to his family. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident the petitioner had to spend huge amounts for treatment and still he is bed-ridden and has also suffered loss of earnings. As such the petitioner is, entitled to claim a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

5.The accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.AP-24-A-8281, 8282.

st respondent being the owner of the crime vehicle and the 2nd respondent The 1 being the insurer of the same are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation together with costs and interest.

st Respondent was set and remained ex-parte to the

6.The 1

O.P. proceedings.

4

7. The averments made in the counter filed by the 2 nd respondent are briefly as follows :­

The 2nd Respondent denies the manner in which the accident had occurred and also the claim that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the said accident. The 2nd Respondent denies that the driver of the said tractor bearing Registration No.AP-24-A-8281, 8282 was holding a valid and effective driving licence by the time of the alleged accident.

8.The accident had occurred due to collision between the two vehicles. As such if any compensation were awarded it should be on the basis of contributory negligence. The respondent is not aware of any criminal case filed against the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.AP-24-A-8281, 8282. The quantum of compensation and the rate of interest claimed by the petitioner is excessive. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Based on the averments made the following issues were framed:­

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred on 7.3.2007 at about 8.45 hours near SIRIS, Kamineni Road at L.B. Nagar,

R.R. District causing injuries to the petitioner due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing registration

No.AP-24-A-8281, 8282 by its driver ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which respondent ?

5

3. To what relief ?

10.The petitioner was examined four witnesses and marked

Ex.A-1 to A-16 on his behalf. Respondent No.2 examined two witnesses and marked Ex.B-1 to B-4 on its behalf

11. Issue No.1:

The Petitioner who was examined as PW-1 reiterates the nd respondent contends that the claim made in the petition. Though the 2 accident had occurred due to the petitioner's own fault, the driver of the crime vehicle was not examined as a witness before the Court to depose about the manner in which the accident had occurred and as such an adverse inference could be drawn in this regard.

12. Ex.A-1 which is a certified copy of the F.I.R with written complaint and Ex.A-2 which is a certified copy of the charge-sheet which was filed after due investigation show that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Ex.A-3 to A-7 show that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. Therefore it could be said that the accident resulting in injuries that the petitioner had occurred due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. This issue is answered accordingly.

6

13. ISSUE No.2:­ 

PW-1 states in his evidence that he had sustained the following injuries in the incident : (1) Fracture of Left Leg Crush Avulsion injury; (2) Grafting

Soft tissue skin loss (circumferential) Vascular injury left knee and (3) and other multiple injuries all over the body. He was shifted to Sowmay hospital,

Ramnagar and he was admitted and treated as in-patient in the hospital from 7.3.2007 to 14.3.2007 and later he was shifted to Yashoda hospital. There he was treated as in-patient from 14.3.2007 to 23.3.2007. He underwent surgery to the left leg on 14.3.2007 Debridment + SSG were done under Spinal Anesthesia.

Later again he was admitted as in-patient in Yashoda hospital on 13.4.2007 and was discharged on 16.4.2007 and there he underwent surgery to his left leg i.e., skin grafting under GA, (Post operative status of crush avalusion injury left leg for supplementary grafting). Once again he was admitted as in-patient in the same hospital on 14.6.2007 and underwent surgery to his left leg on 14.6.2007 i.e., skin grafting for raw area over left leg was done under spinal Anesthesia and he was discharged on 14.6.2007. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and he was working as Manager in M/s. Sri Bhavani Agencies (Masala Product), Sri

Krupa Market, Malakpet, Hyderabad, earning a salary income of Rs.7,500/- per month. PW-1 had to spend huge amounts for treatment and as per medical advice he had to take complete rest. But now the petitioner requires a flap for lymphatic drainage and grafting and the concerned doctor gave estimation for the said procedure at Rs.3,00,000/-. The respondent could not elicit anything from 7 the cross-examination of PW-1 to discredit his evidence.

14. Dr. S. Rajeshwar Rao, Director, Sowmya Hospital, who was examined as PW-2 affirms that the petitioner was admitted as in-patient in his hospital on 7.3.2007 with a history of road traffic accident and that he was discharged on 14.3.2007. The petitioner had sustained injury to the left knee joint with skin flap avulsion and exposure of the muscles, nerves and tendons.

The petitioner treated by surgical management by debridment excision of gangrenous skin and primary suturing and medical management for control of infection. Thereafter the petitioner was referred to Yashoda hospital for vascular surgery in a good general condition. “The Nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature”. PW-2 affirms that

Exs.A-4 and A-8 were issued by their hospital.

15. Dr. B. Sugunakar Reddy, Consultant Plastic Surgeon, Yashoda

Hospital, who was examined as PW-3 states in his evidence that the petitioner was admitted in Yashoda hospital on 14.3.2007 and that he was operated upon by him. The petitioner had sustained crush avulsion injury to left leg with soft tissue loss (circumferential). The petitioner was again treated as in-patient in the same hospital from 13.4.2007 to 16.4.2007 and from 14.6.2007 to 18.6.2007.

The petitioner underwent skin grafting. The petitioner needs to undergo further surgical operation i.e., cross leg flap, for which the petitioner has to remain in the 8 hospital as in-patient for one month. PW-3 affirms that the expenditure for the said operation would be approximately Rs.3,00,000/- and the operation may not totally solve this problem but it might improve the petitioner's present condition to some extent. PW-3 affirms that Exs.A-5 to A-7, Exs.A-9 to A-12 and Ex.A-16 were issued by their hospital to the petitioner.

16.T. Venkateshwar Rao, Billing Manager, Yashoda Hospital, who was examined as PW-4 depose in his evidence that the petitioner was admitted in Yashodha nd Hospital three times. Exs.A-9 to A-12 were issued by their hospital. The 2 respondent could not elicit anything from the cross examination of Pws.2 to 4 to discredit their evidence. Ex.A-3 M.L.C., Exs.A-4 to A-7 discharge summaries show that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries and simple injuries.

Exs.A-8 to A-10 final estimates, Ex.A-11 bunch of medical bills show that the petitioner had incurred an expenditure of Rs.92,420/- towards medicines. Ex.A- 12 Estimation certificate shows that the petitioner needs to undergo another operation for which the estimated expenditure is Rs.3,00,000/-.

17.

nd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles

17.As per Clause IV of the 2

Act, the victim of a road accident who sustains injuries both grievous and simple as the case may be, is entitled to claim damages for the pain and suffering faced by him on account of such injuries. He is also entitled to recover the actual medical expenses incurred by him provided such claim is supported by proper 9 vouchers, bills, etc.,

18. The petitioner claims that he is working as Manager in Sree

Bhavani Agencies (Masala Product), Sri Krupa Market at Malakpet, Hyderabad, drawing a salary of Rs.7,000/- per month. The petitioner examined the Proprietor of Sree Bhavani Agencies (Masala Product) as PW-5 to substantiate the claim regarding his income. PW-5 affirms that the petitioner worked as a Manager with him during the period from 1999 till the date of the accident and that he was drawing a salary of Rs.7,000/- p.m and that Ex.A-13 is the salary certificate nd respondent could not elicit anything from the pertaining to the petitioner. The 2 cross-examination of PW-5 to discredit his evidence. As can be seen from the documentary evidence, the petitioner was hospitalized in four spells during the months of March, April and June 2007, with follow-up treatment taken in between. Therefore it could be reasonably estimated that together with the period of treatment, it would have taken a period of at least six months for the petitioner to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident and he would have suffered loss of income during that period. As such the petitioner is entitled to Rs.42,000/- towards loss of income i.e., @ Rs.7,000/- per month for a period of six months.

nd respondent contends that the driver of the crime

19.The 2 vehicle did not have a valid driving licence by the time of the accident. RW-1 reiterates the same in his evidence. However, Ex.B-2 shows that the driver of 10 the crime vehicle was issued a driving license on 14.11.2006 for both transport and non-transport Light Motor vehicles and that the licence for non-transport vehicles is valid up to 13.11.2026. RW-1 acknowledges in his evidence that the total unladen weight of a crime vehicle is 1830 Kgs. and as per Section 2 (21) of

M.V. Act any vehicle less than 7500 Kgs. unladen weight falls under LMV category. Ex.B-3 Form 24 shows that the crime vehicle is a tractor which is an

LMV of transport category with an unladen weight of 1830 Kgs.

20.As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 LAWS (SC) Page 1-142 in terms of the amended Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a light motor vehicle is defined as a motor car, tractor, etc., which a gross vehicle weight of less than 7500 Kgs. and that the categories of 'light passenger carriage vehicle' and 'light goods carriage vehicle' have been clubbed together.

Therefore, a driver who holds a valid license to drive a light motor vehicle is authorised to drive both these categories of vehicles. As such the contention raised by the respondent that the driver of the crime vehicle did not hold an effective driving license can not be accepted. Therefore it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents 1 & 2.

As such the compensation awardable to the petitioner is compensation as follows :

(i) Damages for pain and suffering on account of two grievous injuries (Rs.25000X2) = Rs.50,000-00

(ii) Damages for pain and suffering on account of simple injuries = Rs.10,000-00 11

(iii) Expenditure for better nutrition, conveyance, etc., = Rs.25,000-00

(iv) Expenditure incurred for purchasing medicines = Rs.92,420-00

(v) Loss of Income for six months (Rs.7,000 X 6)= Rs.42,000-00

(vi)Estimated expenditure for further surgery= Rs.3,00,000-00 __________________

TOTAL : Rs.5,19,420-00 _________________

The petitioner has restricted his claim to Rs.5,00,000/- and hence the awarded amount is rounded-off to Rs.5,00,000/-. This issue is answered accordingly.

17. Issue No-3 :-

In the result, the petition is allowed with costs and interest and the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation. This issue is answered accordingly.

(I)The petition is allowed with costs and interest and a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is hereby awarded to the petitioner and the same is payable by the Respondents No.1 & 2 withcostsand interest @ 7.5% P.A from the date of filing of the petition till the date of 12 realization.

The Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the above (II) said compensation amount within one month from the date of this order (i.e., 20-06-2013).

(III)On deposit of the said compensation amount, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- plus total the interest and costs deposited by the Respondents.

(IV)The balance compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be kept in Fixed

Deposit with any Nationalized Bank for a period of one year. After completion of one year the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same with the interest accrued thereon.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs1,000/-. (V)

VIII ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FTC : V ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DIST.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:- FOR RESPONDENTS:-

PW-1 : M. Gnaneshwar, RW-1: J. Suresh Chandra Mohan,

PW-2: Dr. S. Rajeshwar Rao, RW-2: K. Papaiah.

13

PW-3: Dr. B. Sugunakar Reddy,

PW-4 : T. Venkateshwar Rao,

PW-5: E. Pandu.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:-

Ex.A-1 : Certified copy of F.I.R along with written complaint.

Ex.A-2 : Certified copy of chargesheet.

Ex.A-3 : Injury certificate (MLC) issued by Yashoda hospital.

Ex.A-4 : Discharge summary issued by Sowmya hospital dated 14.3.2007.

Ex.A-5 : Discharge summary issued by Yashoda hospital dated 23.3.2007.

Ex.A-6 : Discharge summary issued by Yashoda hospital dated 16.4.2007.

Ex.A-7 : Discharge summary issued by Yashoda hospital dated 18.6.2007.

Ex.A-8: Sowmya hospital bill No.5228 dated 14.3.2007.

Ex.A-9: Yashoda hospital bill No.ICO 1705 dated 23.3.2007.

Ex.A-10: Yashoda hospital Final bill statement for I.P.No.14116 dt.16.4.2007.

Ex.A-11: Bunch of medical bills (for Rs.13,757/-).

Ex.A-12: Tentative estimation issued by Yashoda hospital for further management dated 20.3.2012.

Ex.A-13: Salary certificate of petitioner.

Ex.A-14: Income Tax returns of petitioner for the years 2005 to 2008.

Ex.A-15: Photographs (2 in No.) with negatives of petitioner.

Ex.A-16: Follow up treatment with prescriptions and medicines given by

Yashoda hospital doctors to the petitioner from 28.5.2007 to 27.2.2012.

FOR RESPONDENTS:-

Ex.B-1: Policy bearing No. 551200/31/06/6700000726 dated 19.02.2007.

Ex.B-2: Driving Licence No. DLFAPO 24190892006 dated 14-11-2006.

Ex.B-3: Ex trading R.C. AP-24-A-8281 dated 21.7.1999.

Ex.B-4 :Authorisation letter issued to RW-3.

14

VIII ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FTC : V ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DIST.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR,

PRESENT: SMT. CH. SANTHA KUMARI, B.Sc., B.L.,

VIII ADDL.DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC of V ADDL. DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF MAY, 2013

SESSIONS CASE. No. 161 OF 2012

Name of the complaint : The State of A.P., through Inspector of police, P S Maheshwaram, P.S. Maheshwaram, (Crime No.118/2011 of Maheshwaram P.S.), rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor,

V/s.

Name of the Accused:A1. Sangem Narsimha, S/o. Chandraiah, aged 30 years, Caste, SC Madiga, Occ:Cooli, R/o. Akanpalli village, Maheswaram Mandal, R.R. District. A2.Sangem Venkatesh, S/o. Chandraiah, aged 25 years, Caste,SC Madiga Occ:Labour, R/o.H.No.1-35, Akanpalli village, Maheswaram Mandal, R.R. District. A3.Kommu Narsinga Rao @ Narsing, S/o. Chithari, aged 27 years, Occ: Painter, Caste: SC, Above A1 to A3 are R/o. Akanpalli village, Maheswaram Mandal, R.R. District.

A4.Smt. Boya Kala, W/o Ramanjaneyulu, aged 38 years, Occ: Maid Servant, R/o. Mohan Reddy Nagar, Shivarampally, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District.

Charges: Sections 302 and 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.

Plea of the Accused : Not guilty

Finding of the Court: Not guilty 2

Sentence of order : In the result, the accused are found not guilty of having committed the offence punishable U/sections 302 and 201 r/w. Section 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C of the said charges and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked objects shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution Conducted by : Sri. K. Ranga Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by : Sri. R. Kumar Goud, Advocate

for accused.

Case Committed by: IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam.

This case coming on 15.5.2013 for final hearing before me on this day in the presence of Sri. K. Ranga Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri. R. Kumar Goud, Advocate for the accused and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.In essence, the case of the prosecution is that while A-1 and A-2 are the brothers of A-4, A-3 is the brother-in-law of A-2, A-4 being the 2nd wife of the deceased.

A-4's 1st husband had abandoned her leaving her with one son. Thereafter her marriage with the deceased was performed about 12 years ago. A-4 gave birth to two female children through the deceased Ramanjaneyulu @ Ramu. The deceased was a mason by profession and after the birth of the 1st daughter he started to harass A-4 both mentally and physically. Once the deceased doused the body of A-4 with kerosene and set fire to her due to which she sustained burn injuries. But A-4 did not lodge any complaint with the police at that time. However as the deceased did not change his attitude and continued with the harassment she had lodged a complaint with the police at

Rajendranagar P.S. and consequently a case in Crime No.505/2010 under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC was registered against the deceased and he was arrested. The deceased was attending the Court in the said case C.C.848/2010. But the deceased continued to harass 3

A-4 pressing her to withdraw the criminal case, threatening that otherwise he would set fire to her. On 16.7.2011 the deceased beat A-4 severely. As such A-4 went to the house of her brothers i.e., A-1 and A-2 at Akanpally village. On 17.7.2011 A-1 called the deceased over telephone asking him to come over to their village. Accordingly on 18.7.2011 at 08.00 hours the deceased went to the house of A-1 and A-2 with blood injuries explaining that he sustained the injuries as he fell down from the motorcycle in

Shamshabad in a drunken state. A-1 called the PW-5 to discuss the issue regarding the harassment of the A-4 caused by the deceased. PW-5 noticed the injuries sustained by the deceased and he advised A-1 and A-2 to provide treatment to the deceased saying that they would hold the panchayat later. A-1 and A-4 took the deceased to the clinic of

PW-4 and provided treatment to him and took him to their house. While the deceased was sleeping A-1 to A-4 hatched a plan to kill him as he continued with his harassment of

A-4. Accordingly on 19.7.2011 at about 13.00 hours A-1 to A-3 made the deceased consume one B.P quarter bottle whiskey and later A-1 and A-2 beat the deceased indiscriminately with fire wood sticks on his right eye, chest, testicles, thighs, legs, back side abdomen and waist portion. When the deceased tried to raise cries A-3 gagged his mouth with a towel. A-4 yelled out instigating A-1 to A-3 to kill her husband/deceased.

After confirming that the deceased had died A-1 and A-2 threw the sticks under the almirah and the pillow under the cot. Later to screen the evidence of the murder A-1 to

A-4 decided to dump the dead body of the deceased some where at a far off place.

Accordingly at about 15.00 hours A-1 to A-3 took the dead body of the deceased on the motorcycle of the deceased keeping it behind A-3 who was driving the motorcycle, while

A-1 and A-2 held the dead body firmly sitting behind tying a green coloured towel to the head of the deceased. While shifting the dead body of the deceased to the outskirts of

Gattupally village near Sy.No.117 on the road leading to Dawoodguda Thanda village some of the passers-by like PW-6 advised them that the legs of the deceased were scraping the road. Pws-2, 3 and LW-8 Yadaiah i.e., farmers who were working in their 4 fields in the outskirts of Gattupally village noticed that four persons were going on one motorcycle and cautioned them that the legs of one of the persons-deceased touching the road. Thereafter as it was proving to be difficult to maintain the balance of the motorcycle A-1 and A-3 stopped the vehicle near bushes and dumped the dead body of the deceased there. Pws.2, 3 and LW-8 and some others who became suspicious over the unusual sight of the legs of one of the persons travelling by the motorcycle, scraping the road, followed the motorcycle for some distance up to where the accused had already dumped the dead body of the deceased. When PWs.2, 3 and LW-8 tried to catch the accused, the accused fled away from the spot on their motorcycle by dumping the body of the deceased. PWs.2, 3 and LW-8 have identified the accused 1 and 2. In the mean while A-4 had washed the blood stains at the scene of offence with cow-dung with the intention of screening evidence of the murder of the deceased. On 19.7.2011 at 18.30 hours PW-1 had lodged a complaint with the police at Maheshwaram P.S. On the basis of the said complaint PW-8 had registered a case in Crime No.118/2011 under Section 302 of IPC and issued Express F.I.R. to all concerned and took up investigation of the case. During the course of investigation PW-8 recorded the statement of PW-1, visited the scene of offence situated in the outskirts of Gattupally village in the road of

Dawoodguda Thanda, where he found the dead body of the deceased on the road. PW-8 who examined Pws.2 and 3 had got the dead body of the deceased photographed. He found several bleeding injuries on the right eye, chest, below the chest, abdomen,incised injuries on the testicles, two hands, both thighs, fractures on both the legs, backside and scratch injuries on both the feet of the deceased. He conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW-11 Sri. Kavali Sri Ramulu and LW-12 Erra

Shankaraiah and he also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Later the dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem examination. PW-7 and

LW-10 Boggalla Srikanth who are respectively the 1st wife of the deceased and her brother were examined by PW-8 and their statements were recorded. LW-15 Dr.

5

M.Sugatha, Asst. Professor, Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical College, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was multiple injuries. LW-16 K. Arun Jyothi, Asst. Professor, F.S.L., who examined material objects issued F.S.L report. On 24.7.2011 at 15.00 hours PW-8 arrested the accused at Mansanpally cross-roads and recorded the confessional statements of A-1 to A-3 in the presence of LW-13 Alagani Papaiah and LW-14

Thirumala Yadaiah. In pursuance of the confessional statements of A-1 to A-3 the motorcycle Bajaj 4S Champion bearing registration No.AP-9-M-588 which was used for transporting the dead body of the deceased was seized. A-1 to A-3 led the police and panchayathdars LW-13 and LW-14 to the house of A-2 situated at H.No.1-35, Akanpally village, Maheshwaram Mandal and as per the confession of the accused PW-8 seized one blood stained fire wood stick which was used in the commission of the offence by A-1.

He also collected blood-stained earth and control earth under cover of panchanama in the presence of LW-13 and LW-14. He also seized one pillow at the instance of A-3 under cover of a separate panchanama and effected the arrest of the accused 1 to 3. On 25.7.2011 at 7.45 hours PW-8 proceeded to Mohan Reddy Nagar, Shivarampally,

Rajendranagar, and apprehended A-4. Upon being interrogated A-4 admitted her guilt in respect of the offence along with A-1 to A-3. Then PW-8 effected the arrest of A-4 at 09.00 hours. Later PW-8 referred A-1 to A-4 to Government Community hospital,

Maheshwaram, for medical check-up then produced them before the Court for being remanded. After completion of investigation PW-8 filed the chargesheet before the

Court.

2. After receiving the charge sheet, the learned IV Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam, had taken cognizance of the offences

punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC in PRC No.61/2011. However as the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC are exclusively triable by the 6

Court of Sessions, he committed the case U/s. 209 (a) of Cr.P.C to the Court of

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, who took the case on file in SC.161/2012 and made over the same to the Court of II Addl.

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, R.R. District. As per order of Prl. District &

Sessions Judge, R.R. District, vide Proc. No. 3672/2012 dated 13.4.2012 the case was

transferred to this Court. After the accused were presented before the Court, the charges were framed under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC which were read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu. However the Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed to be tried.

3.The prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.18 to substantiate its case.

4. The Accused No.1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the evidence against them and stated that they do not have any defence witnesses to be examined.

5.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the

Accused 1 to 4.

6.Now, we have to see whether the prosecution has been able to show beyond reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty of having committed the offences punishable

U/s.302 , 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.

It would be appropriate to extract Section 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of

IPC.

Section 302 of IPC reads as follows:

Punishment for murder :- Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 201 of IPC reads as follows:

Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false 7 information to screen offender :- Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false.

Section 34 of IPC reads as follows:

Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention: -

When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

7. PW-1 states in his evidence that on 19.7.2011 he had received information about a dead body being taken by a motorcycle and that immediately he rushed to the spot which was near Dawoodguda sivar, hamlet of Gattupally. The police also came there. Some body prepared the complaint and PW-1 signed on it as he was

Sarpanch for Gattupally village. PW-1 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution stating that he did not identify the dead body of the deceased and also the accused. He disowns the statement in Ex.P-2. The alleged eye-witnesses who were examined as

Pws.2 and 3 also have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and disown the statements in Exs.P-3 and P-4 respectively. PW-4 who is alleged to have provided treatment to the deceased has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution stating that

A-1 and A-4 never brought the deceased to him and that he never provided any treatment to the deceased and also that he did not advise A-1 and A-4 to get the deceased admitted in a better hospital. PW-4 also disowns the statement in Ex.P-5. Pws.5 and 6 who are said to be eye-witnesses also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution disowning the statements in Ex.P-6 and P-7 respectively. Though PW-7 who is apparently the 1st wife of the deceased has stated in her evidence that the deceased told her that he would go to 8 the house of A-4 and that she had stated before the police that the accused killed her husband due to grudge. PW-7 had not seen anything. Her evidence is only hear-say evidence which is not corroborated by any other witness. Though PW-8 states in his evidence that his investigation revealed that A-1 to A-4 murdered the deceased and that

PWs.1 to 6 stated before him as in Exs.P-2 to P-7, PWs.1 to 6 disown the said statements. As such there is no iota of evidence against the accused to substantiate the prosecution case.

8. Therefore, we can arrive at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused had committed the offences they are charged with. The point is answered accordingly.

9. In the result, the accused are found not guilty of having committed the offences punishable u/s. 302, 201 r/w Section 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/s. 235 (1)

Cr.P.C and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court on this the 15th day of May, 2013.

VIII ADDL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC of V ADDL. DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- FOR DEFENCE:- PW-1. M. Soudaiah,NONE (defacto-complainant) PW-2. B. Mallaiah, PW-3. B. Yadaiah, PW-4. P. Benson, PW-5. P. Yadaiah, PW-6. K. Manjeelal, PW-7. Smt. Rani, (First wife of the deceased) PW-8. A. Chandrashekar, I.O., 9

No. OF EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P1. Complaint, Ex.P2. Section 161 Cr. P. C Statement of PW-1. Ex.P3. Section 161 Cr. P. C Statement of PW-2. Ex.P.4. Section 161 Cr. P. C Statement of PW-3. Ex.P.5. Section 161 Cr. P. C Statement of PW-4. Ex.P.6. Section 161 Cr. P. C Statement of PW-5 Ex.P.7. Section 161 Cr. P. C Statement of PW-6. Ex.P.8. F.I.R., Ex.P.9. Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P.10. Rough Sketch. Ex.P.11. Post mortem examination report.

Ex.P.12} to } Confession statement of A-1 to A-3. Ex.P.14}

Ex.P.15} to } Seizure panchanamas of A-1 to A-3. Ex.P.17}

Ex.P.18. F.S.L report.

FOR DEFENCE:- N I L.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- N I L.

VIII ADDL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC of V ADDL. DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. CH. SANTHA KUMARI, B.Sc., B.L.,

 VIII ADDL.DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC of V ADDL. DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF MAY, 2013

SESSIONS CASE. No. 505 OF 2011

Name of the complaint : The state of Andhra Pradesh rep. 

by the Sub­Inspector of Police, 

Vanasthalipuram, P.S., Cyberabad (Crime No.822/2010 of 

Vanasthalipuram P.S.)

V/s.

Name of the Accused: A­1: Kommu Ramesh, S/o. 

Yellaiah, aged 26 years, Caste: SC, occ: 

Cooli,

R/o. Hut near High Court colony, 

Vanasthalipuram, N/o. 

Velugapally village, Tungathurthy 

Mandal,

Nalgonda District. 

A­2 : Smt. Pantham Upendra, 

W/o.Krishnaiah, aged 30 years, 

Caste: SC, occ: Cooli,

R/o. Chilpakunta village, 

Noothankal Mandal, Nalgonda 

District.

2

Charges: Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC

Plea of the Accused: Not guilty

Finding of the Court: Not guilty

Sentence of order : In the result, the accused are found not guilty of having committed the offences punishable 

U/s. 302 and 201 r/w. 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/s.235 (1) of 

Cr.P.C of the said charges and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 

The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 

Prosecution Conducted by : Sri. K. Ranga Reddy, 

Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by : Sri. A. Srinivasa Rao, 

Advocate

for accused.

Case Committed by: VII Metropolitan Magistrate, 

Cyberabad at 

Hayathnagar,

This case coming on 14.5.2013 for final hearing 

before me on this day in the presence of Sri. K. Ranga 

Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of 

Sri. A. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case 3 having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :­

J U D G M E N T

1.In essence the case of the prosecution is that A­2 is the wife of the deceased Pantham Krishnaiah and 

A­1 is the brother of A­2. The deceased and A­2 are residents of Chilpakuntla village, Noothankal Mandal, 

Nalgonda District, and they shifted their residence to 

Hyderabad for eking out their livelihood as labourers staying in a hut near High Court colony, Vanasthalipuram, in an open plot which belongs to one Nakka Yadagiri. The deceased was addicted to consumption of alcohol and he used to harass his wife A­2 frequently in a drunken state without looking after A­2 and their four children. A­2 became frustrated with the attitude of her deceased husband. A­1 who is the brother of A­2 used to visit the hut of the deceased and he used to try to convince the deceased requesting him to change his attitude. On 24.9.2010 in the evening as usual the deceased consumed alcohol and started to harass his wife A­2 by abusing her. 

At about 20.00 hours A­1 visited the house of the deceased and tried to rescue his sister from the deceased, due to which the deceased abused A­1 and beat him with hands. 

4

Noticing the same A­2 cried and asked A­1 to kill her husband as she could not bear the harassment caused by him. 

Thereupon A­1 picked up the wooden handle of a spade lying there and hit the deceased with it on his temple region. 

Consequently deceased Krishnaiah fell down on the ground and died. The accused 1 and 2 engaged an ambulance from 

L.B. Nagar to Khammam for a hire charge of Rs.2,000/­ and they reached Suryapet town of Nalgonda District, at about 05.00 hours on 25.9.2010 and from there they hired a passenger auto rickshaw for Rs.1,300/­ and took the dead body of the deceased to Vellugupally village and there they informed their relatives including the relatives of the deceased that the deceased fell down on a stone in an intoxicated condition and died. PW­1 who is the brother of the deceased and other relatives noticed injuries on the dead body of the deceased and became suspicious about the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased and when they insisted on A­2 to speak out the facts she revealed that her deceased husband was beaten up by her brother A­1 with the wooden handle of a spade in a quarrel that erupted between them at their hut.

2. On the basis of a complaint lodged 5 with the police at Noothankal P.S. Regarding the incident at 14.30 hours on 25.9.2010 by PW­1 LW­17 Sub­Inspector of police, Noothankal, had registered a case in crime No.82 of 2010 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and took up investigation of the case. During the course of his investigation LW­17 recorded the statement of PW­1, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama at Chilpakunta village, SC colony near the house of 

Panthem Yellaiah and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of panchas LW­11 Bathula Veera 

Swamy and LW­12 Anjupally Laxmaiah. Subsequently PW­5 who took up further investigation of the case, re­examined 

PW­1 and examined PWs 2, 3, 4 and LW­4 Pantham Krishnaiah, 

LW­5 Gunaganti Ravi, LW­6 Bojja Srinivas, LW­8 Bathula 

Sudhakar had got photographs of the deceased and the scene of offence snapped through LW­6 Bojja Srinivas and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW­11 and LW­12 and subjected the dead body of the deceased to post mortem examination at U.P.H.C., 

Thungathurthy of Nalgonda District where PW­6 conducted post mortem examination and preserved the viscera of deceased, which was sent to the F.S.L., Hyderabad. LW­16 

M.Sanjeev Kumar, Asst. Director, Forensic Science 6

Laboratory, Hyderabad, opined that the death of the deceased might be due to blunt injury and LW­16 also found 

Ethyl alcohol in the stomach and intestine pieces and liver and kidney pieces. On receipt of the C.D file on 1.11.2010 

LW­19 B.Ravindra Reddy, Inspector of police, P.S. 

Vanasthalipuram, Cyberabad, re­registered the case in Crime 

No.822/2010 under Section 302 and 201 IPC and took up further investigation and further examined LW­9 Pantham 

Venkataiah and LW­10 Pantham Nagaiah, who are the cousin brothers of the deceased and recorded their statements and verified the investigation conducted by LW­ 17 Sarvaiah, Sub­Inspector of Police, Noothankal PS of 

Nalgonda District and PW­5. On 4.11.1010 LW­19 apprehended A­1 and upon being questioned A­1 and A­2 confessed to having committed the murder of the deceased on 24.9.2010 upon having become vexed with the attitude of the deceased who was in the habit of beating and harassing A­2 in a drunken state. LW­19 recorded the confessional statement of A­1 in the presence of LW­13 Ch. Krishna 

Shyam and LW­14 M. Madhusudan Reddy. A­1 led the police and panchas LW­14 and LW­15 to the hut of the deceased where from he brought the handle of the wooden spade which was used by him for beating of the deceased. On 24.9.2010 7

LW­19 seized the said spade. After completion of investigation and after receiving the F.S.L report and the post mortem examination report LW­19 filed the chargesheet 

before the Court. 

3. Upon receiving the charge sheet, the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at 

Hayathnagar, had taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC in PRC 

No.71/2011. However as the offences punishable under 

Sections 302 and 201 IPC are exclusively triable by the 

Court of Sessions, he committed the case U/s.209­(d) of 

Cr.P.C to the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, 

Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, who took the case on file in S.C.505/2011 and made over the same to 

II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court and later in pursuance of the order of the Prl. District and Sessions 

Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dated 13.4.2012 in Dis. 

No.3672/2012 transferred the case to this Court. After receiving the case file this Court framed the charges against the accused under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of 

IPC and read over and explained the same to the Accused in telugu. The Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges 8 framed against them and claimed to be tried.

4.The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P­1 to P­6 to substantiate its case. 

5.Both the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the evidence against them and stated that they do not have any defence witnesses to be examined. 

6.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the Accused.

7.Now, we have to see whether the prosecution has been able to show beyond reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty of having committed the offences punishable U/sections 302 and 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.

8. The Court framed charges against the accused 

U/sections 302 and 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, as the prosecution claimed that there was unlawful assembly on the part of the Accused to do away with the life of the deceased and that as such they committed the offence. It would be appropriate to extract Sections 302 and 201 r/w 

Section 34 of IPC. 

Section 302 of IPC reads as follows: 

Punishment for murder :­ Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, 9 and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 201 of IPC reads as follows: 

Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender :­ Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false. 

Section 34 of IPC reads as follows: 

Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention: ­ When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. 

9.PW­1 who is the younger brother of the deceased and who is said to have lodged the complaint has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution stating that while the deceased and A­2 who were blessed with two daughters and two sons were residing in Cyberabad, he does not know anything about the case. P.W.1 affirms that he was not examined by the police and that the police had 10 obtained his thumb impression on some papers and also that he did not lodge any complaint with the police. P.W.1 disowns the statement in Ex.P­1. PW­2 also has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution disowning the statement under Ex.P­2. PW­3 who is another brother of the deceased also has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution stating along the same lines as PWs.1 and 2. 

He too disowns the statement in Ex.P­3. PW­4 who is a daughter of the deceased and who is an alleged eye­witness has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution disowning the statement in Ex.P­4. PW­5 states in his evidence that while he was working as Inspector of police, he received information from Sub­Inspector of police, 

Noothankal, about the shifting of the dead body pertaining to the present case to the village Chilpakunta and that he had conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. 

The concerned Sub­Inspector of police, issued F.I.R and conducted the scene of offence panchanama, examined and recorded the statement of PW­1. Thereafter P.W.5 took up further investigation and reached the place where the dead body was brought and he examined P.Ws 2, 3 and LW­4 Pantham 

Krishnaiah, LW­5 Gunaganti Ravi, LW­6 Bojja Srinivas, LW­6 

Bojja Srinivas (photographer) and conducted inquest over 11 the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW­11 and 

LW­12. Thereafter he shifted the dead body to the Primary 

Health Centre, Tungathurthy, for post mortem examination. 

He had examined PW­4 and LW­8 Bathula Sudhakar. Thereafter he transferred the C.D file to SHO, PS Vanasthalipuram for further investigation. P.Ws.2 to 4 had stated before 

P.W.5 as in Exs.P­2 to P­4. PW­6 has stated in her evidence that on 26.9.2010 as per the requisition from the police of Noothankal P.S., she had conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Pantham 

Krishnaiah. The cause of death of the deceased to the best of her knowledge was blunt injury. She had sent samples of the viscera including stomach and intestine pieces, liver and kidney pieces to the F.S.L for analysis and the report received therefrom showed the presence of Ethyl alcohol in both the stomach and intestine pieces, liver and kidney pieces.

10.So the material witness who is said to have lodged the complaint and the alleged eye­witness have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution totally denying any knowledge about the crime said to have been committed by the accused 1 and 2 and disowning their statements under Exs.P­1 to P­4 and they have not supported 12 the evidence of PW­5. As such there is no iota evidence against the accused to substantiate the prosecution case. 

Hence we can arrive at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused had committed the offences they have charged with. 

The point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the accused are found not guilty of having committed the offences punishable U/s.302 and 201 r/w section 34 of IPC and they are acquitted 

U/s.235 (1) of Cr.P.C and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, typed by him, corrected 

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 14th day of May, 2013.

VIII ADDL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC of V ADDL. DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE 

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:­ FOR DEFENCE:­

PW­1. P. Venkanna, (Defacto­complainant NONE 13 and brother of deceased)

PW­2. P. Yellaiah,

PW­3. Smt. S. Saidamma, 

PW­4.Kum. P. Naveena (daughter of the deceased and eye­witness)

PW­5.E. Satyanna, C.I of police,

PW­6. Dr. Sunitha. 

No. OF EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:­

Ex.P1. Section 161 Cr. P. C Statement of P W­1.

Ex.P2. Section 161 Cr. P. C Statement of P W­2.

Ex.P3. Section 161 Cr. P. C Statement of P W­3.

Ex.P.4. Section 161 Cr. P. C Statement of P W­4.

Ex.P.5. Inquest panchanama.

Ex.P.6. Post mortem examination. 

FOR DEFENCE:­ N I L.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:­N I L.

VIII ADDL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC of V ADDL. DISTRCIT & SESSIONS JUDGE 

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR