Sri D. Chiranjeevulu

S.C.NO. 20/2014 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES CUM

– VII –ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT WARANGAL.

Monday, this the 2nd day of April, 2018

Present:- Sri D.Chiranjeevulu, Spl. Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Cases, Cum-VII-ADJ, Warangal.

S.C.No. 20/2014

(P.R.C.No. 58/2013 Committed by the Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mulugu in Cr.No.168/2013 of P.S.Ghanpur (M))

1. Name and description of the The State of Telangana through Sub ComplainantDivisional Police Officer, Ghanpur (W).

2. Name and description A.1. Palnati Sammaiah, S/o. Mogili, Aged: 40 yrs, Caste: Padmashali, Of the accused Occ:Agriculture.

A.2. Palnati Sarangapani, S/o. Mogili, Aged: 36 yrs, Caste: Padmashai, Occ: Agriculture.

A.3.Palnati Mogili S/o. Sammaiah, Aged: 65 yrs, Caste: Padmashali, Occ:Agriculture.

A.4.Palnati Sammakka W/o. Mogili, Aged: 55 yrs, Caste : Padmashali, Occ : Agriculture.

All R/o. Chelpur (v), Muugu Ghanpur Mandal, Warangl District.

3. Offences chargedU/s. 324, 290 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) SC/St (POA) Act, 1989.

4. Plea of the AccusedPleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Court Found not guilty

S.C.NO. 20/2014 2

6. Conviction/Sentence or In the result, the accused No. 1 is found not guilty of the offences under Sections acquittal3(1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, accused No.2 is found not guilty of the offence u/s. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 324 IPC and accused Nos.3 and 4 are found guilty for the offences u/ss. 324, 290 r/w 345 IPC and the accused No.1 is acquitted of the offences 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, and accused No.2 is acquitted of the offence 3 u/s.3(1) (x) of SC/ST(POA) Act and Section 324 IPC and accused Nos.3 and 4 are acquitted of the offences u/ss.324, 290 r/w 34 IPC, u/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time and the bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

7. Prosecution conducted by:Sri M.Vasanth Kumar,

Addl. Public Prosecutor.

8. Accused defended by:Sri C.Vidya Sagar Reddy, Counsel for the accused.

This case coming on before me for final hearing on 27.3.2018 in the presence of Sri M.Vasanth Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri C.Vidya Sagar Reddy, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Mulugu filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 168/2013 of P.S.Ghanpur(M).

2. The allegations of the charge sheet in brief are as follows:

LW.1-Kethiri Prameela belongs to Mutharasi caste and married to

LW.3-Kethri Rajaiah who belongs to ST(Erukala). The accused belongs to

Padmashali caste. About 70 years back, one A.Rangaiah was the owner of 200 Acres of Land in Survey No. 95, as the said Rangaiah was not residing

S.C.NO. 20/2014 3 in the village and his whereabouts were not known, about 40 years back the chelpur villagers have cleared all the bushes in the said land and distributed among themselves, at that time LW.3- K.Rajaiah has got 10 guntas land in his favour and he purchased another 10 guntas land from one D.Rajeeru, as such he acquired 20 guntas of land and since 25 years

LW.3 is cultivating the said land and paying RAKAM.

Recently, A.1 started claiming his ownership on the said land and also picked up quarrel with the neighbours of LWs 1 to 3. On 26-7-2013 morning when LWs 1 to 3 were attending their agricultural works in their fields, at about 12.00 noon A.1 armed with spade and A.2. armed with a stick came to the land of LWs. 1 to 3 and A.3 and A.4 accompanied them.

Immediately A.1 and A.2 have started shaping the edges, LW.1 rushed to them and objected them on which A.1 and A.2 abused them in filthy language and also abused LW.1 taking her caste name stating “NEEKU

POLAM EKKADIDE ERUKALA LANJE” abusing so they have also abused her and also pointing her husband stating “AA ERUKALA LANJAKODUKU NINNU

DENGUTE NEEKU BHOOMI VACHINADE” and insulted LW.1 to 3 in a public view. A.2 beat LW.1 on her left leg caused injury.

On the Complaint given by LW.1 K.Prameela, LW.15 K.Narsaiah,HC registered a case in Crime No. 168/13 and issued First Information report.

LW.16 K.Muralidhar, SDPO, Mulugu was appointed as Investigation

Officer and conducted investigation. LW.12 Smt. A.Rajitha, Tahsildar issued

Caste Certificates to LWs.1 to 3 and accused.

S.C.NO. 20/2014 4

On 16-08-2013 at 8-15 A.M,.S.I of Police, Mulugu arrested the accused. LW.14 Dr.N.Narayana Reddy, who treated the injured/LW.1 issued wound certificate opining that LW.1 sustained simple injuries.

3.After filing of the charge sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mulugu, the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance as

PRC.No.58/2013 and after observing the necessary formalities took the case on file and committed the same to this Court.

4.After appearance of the accused, the advocate for the accused and the Additional Public Prosecutor were heard with regard to framing of charges and charges under Sections 3 (1) (X) OF SC/ST (POA) Act and

Section 324 r/w 34 IPC against A.1, Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and 324 IPC against A.2,and Sections 324,290 r/w 34 IPC against A.3 and

A.4 were framed, read over and explained to the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in

Telugu, they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.Pws. 1 to 13 were examined. Exs.P.1 to 17 are marked. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

6. The accused Nos.1 to 4 are examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they denied the same and reported no defence.

7.Arguments of both sides were heard.

S.C.NO. 20/2014 5

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the

guilt of the accused No.1 for the

offence punishable under Section

Sections 3 (1) (X) OF SC/ST (POA) Act

and Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and guilt

of accused No.2 for the offence

punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of

SC/ST (POA) Act and 324 IPC and

guilt of accused No.3 for the offence

punishable u/s. 324, 290 r/w 34 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9. POINT :To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 13 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.17 and on defence side no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

10. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:

About 70 years back, one A.Rangaiah was the owner of 200 Acres of Land in Survey No. 95, as the said Rangaiah was not residing in the village and his whereabouts were not known, about 40 years back the chelpur villagers have cleared all the bushes in the said land and distributed among themselves, at that time LW.3- K.Rajaiah has got 10 guntas land in his favour and he purchased another 10 guntas land from one D.Rajeeru, as such he acquired 20 guntas of land and since 25 years LW.3 is cultivating the said land and paying RAKAM. Recently, A.1 started claiming his ownership on the said land and also picked up quarrel with the neighbours of LWs 1 to 3. On 26-7-2013 morning when LWs 1 to 3 were attending their agricultural works in their fields, at about 12.00 noon A.1 armed with spade and A.2. armed with a stick came to the land of LWs. 1

S.C.NO. 20/2014 6 to 3 and A.3 and A.4 accompanied them. Immediately A.1 and A.2 have started shaping the edges, LW.1 rushed to them and objected them on which A.1 and A.2 abused them in filthy language and also abused LW.1 taking her caste name stating “NEEKU POLAM EKKADIDE ERUKALA LANJE” abusing so they have also abused her and also pointing her husband stating “AA ERUKALA LANJAKODUKU NINNU DENGUTE NEEKU BHOOMI

VACHINADE” and insulted LW.1 to 3 in a public view. A.2 beat LW.1 on her left leg caused injury. It is the further case of prosecution that LW.1 belongs to Muthrasi community but she married to LW.3 K.Rajaiah who belongs to ST/Erukala community. Here the defence version is that civil suit was filed against the husband of P.W.1 and obtained decree of permanent injunction by the accused and that the accused has been cultivating their Ac. 01-16 guntas of land as per the order of the Civil court and prosecuting party having attacked the accused and beat the accused gave a false complaint Ex.P.1 to counter attack their complaint given to the police even prior to Ex.P.1. Consequently enough PW.1 in her cross examination has clearly admitted that the accused gave complaint to the police even prior to her Ex.P.1 and she belongs to Muthrasi community and she herself mentioned her caste as “ERUKALA” and by the time they went to police station the accused were already there at police station and still she denies the suggestion that the accused filed police case against them stating that they beat them, she gave a false complaint to the police by showing her caste as Erukala, though she does not belong to Erukala

Community.

11. PW.2 – K.Rajaiah in his cross examination deposed that A.1 abused

PW.1 as “LANJE” and whether the land belongs to her and whereas the

S.C.NO. 20/2014 7 prosecution version is that A.1 abused PW.1 taking her caste name and this version of PW.2 nullifies the prosecution version and moreover even admittedly PW.1 does not belongs to Erukala Community, she belongs to

Muthrasi community, which is a Backward Class and in so far as Exs. P.3 and P.4 are concerned, they cleary show that this PW.2 was having 15 guntas of land only in the said survey number, and as per Ex.P.2 unregistered sale deed dt: 23-06-2010 he purchased 8 ½ guntas of land from Darakonda Rajeeru and PW.2 further admits that the accused are having Ac.01-16 guntas of land in Survey No. 95 and PW.2 fairly admitted that A.1 fied a Civil Suit in O.S.339 of 2009 against Darakonda Rajeeru,

PW.2, Alagam Ilaiah, Alagam Madhukar, Mandala Ravi,Andam Sarangapani and Pallam Raja Sammaiah and the said suit was decreed infavour of A.1 whereas PW.2 did not dispute the same but he pleads ignorance and this

PW.2 further admits in cross examination that PW.1 belongs to

B.C.Community only and this PW.2 gives contradictory version stating that he stated before police that the accused abused PW.1 referring Erukala

Caste and he denies that he did not state before police that A.1 abused

PW.1 as “LANJE” and thus what he stated before the court is something inconsistent with his earlier version before police U/s. 161 (3) Cr.P.C. here it is the version of the defence that neither his vendor or himself having any land in Survey No.95 and that after loosing the civil case in the aforesaid civil suit in O.S.No.339/2009 they took to this false prosecution and as rightly contended by the learned defence counsel l that findings of the civil court normally binds criminal court and there is admittedly an injunction order in favour of accused No.1 and the suit has been decreed later and unable to digest the said fact the present case is foisted.

S.C.NO. 20/2014 8

12. PW.3 – Marri Ravi gives a different version and on his resiling from his earlier statement, the learned APP sought to declare this witness as hostile and PW.3 in his cross examination further deposed that originally

PW.1 hails from Muthrasi Community later she is considered Erukala on her marriage with Erukala man and that PW.3 is not denying about decree of civil suit in favour of the accused and simply says that he does not know whether the civil matter was decreed in favour of accused and he further says that he does not know how much extent A.1 was holding and thus his evidence is not at all useful to the prosecution and further he came up with totally coloured and improvised version. What he stated before the court has not stated in his statement before police U/s. 161 (3) Cr.P.C. and the omissions in the cross examination of PW.3 amounts to contradictions spoiling the prosecution version.

13. PW.4 –O.Rayamallu was declared hostile and cross examined by learned APP and in the cross examination he deposed that A.1 is having

Ac.2.00 of ayakattu land under his purview and the incident occurred towards one side within the land of A.1 and he further says that PW.1 belongs to Mudiraj community and he did not see any other incident except abuses made by PWs.1 and 2 against the accused and according to him it is PWs.1 and 2 that abused the accused and he further says that A.1 filed civil suit against PW.2 and others as PW.2 others for interfering with his land. Thus, this version of PW.3 totally ruins the prosecution version

14. PW.5 –A.Ilaiah while reiterating the version of PW.1 in his cross examination deposed that PW.1 belongs to Mudiraj Community and he did not accompany them to police station and his land and land of accused

S.C.NO. 20/2014 9 are separated by a ridge. He does know about the suit filed by A.1 in O.S.

NO. 339 of 2009 against him.

15. Here it may be noted since he is one of the defendants in the said suit in O.S.No.339 of 2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Warangal and the said suit was decreed against him and others and in favour of A.1, naturally this PW.5 would be nursing a grouse against A.1 and he would go to any extent as he has been already enemically disposed off towards the accused.

16. P.W.6-K.Sambaiah deposed that A.2 abused P.W.1 as “ERUKALA

LANJA MUNDA” but as already stated, she does not belong to Erukala

Community even according to the version of the prosecution witnesses themselves and in the cross-examination he deposed that accused had no land there whereas P.Ws. 4 and 5 deposed about the accused having land and about accused obtaining a civil decree against the prosecution witnesses and in a sharp reversal this P.W.6 says that A.1 filed a civil suit against P.W.2, P.W.5 and L.W.9 but he does not know whether it was decreed in favour of A.1 and this P.W.6 also gives an improvised version and what he stated before the Court is not stated earlier in his statement u/s. 161 (3) Cr.P.C and he also denied to have stated as in Ex.D.1 and the aforesaid omissions and contradictions are not trivial and they go to the root of the prosecution case destroying the version of P.Ws. 1 to 6.

17. P.W.7-A.Sarangam deposed that A.1 to A.4 abused P.W.1 taking her caste name as “ERUKALA DANA NEEKU YEKKADIDE, ERUKULA VADU

DENGUTE NEEKU BHOOMI VACHINDA”, A.2 beat P.W.1 on her left thigh with a stick and in the cross-examination he deposed that he reached the place

S.C.NO. 20/2014 10 of offence within five minutes and in the chief-examination he gives an improvised version as if he was eye witness and in the cross-examination he says by the time he reached there everybody was leaving the place which means that he was not eye witness to the incident and curiously enough in his cross-examination this P.W.7 admits that A.1 lodged a complaint against him and that the case was registered and he (P.W.7) admitted the offence and he further says that A.1 filed a civil suit against him in O.S.No.339/2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal but he denies about the said suit getting decreed in favour of A.1 and according to him he also filed civil suit.

18. From this it is clear that this PW.7 is suppressing certain material facts.

19. P.W.8-K.Rajitha, Tahsildar and she speaks about her issuing caste certificates and according to her as per Ex.P.7 A.1 belongs to Mudiraj

Community comes under Back ward community, as per Ex.P.8, A.2 belongs to Padmashali, as per Ex.P.9 A.3 belongs to pdmashali and as per Ex.P.10

A.4 belongs to Mudiraj and as per Ex.P.12 P.W.1 belongs to ST Erukala

Community and as per Ex.P.13 P.W.2 belongs to ST Erukula Community.

20. P.W.9-Dasari Ravi speaks about his presence at the time of police conducting scene of offence and at the time of preparing crime details form and about D.S.P. obtaining his signature and signature of L.W.11 and

Ex.P.14 is the crime details form and his evidence is of no much use for the prosecution case.

21. P.W.10-K.Narsaiah, Head Constable and he speaks about his receiving Ex.P.1-Compalint and registering the same as FIR-Ex.P.15.

S.C.NO. 20/2014 11

22. P.W.11-Dr. N.Narayana Reddy, Civil Assistant Surgeon and he fairly admitted in his cross-examination that he has not found any contusions and the bruises cannot be caused unless the weapon directly comes into contact with the body.

23. P.W.12-P.Raju is the writer and he speaks about his assisting the

I.O and in the cross-examination he says that the complainant's caste is shown as Erukala in Ex.P.1.

24. P.W.13-K.Muralidhar, Assistant Commissioner of Police and investigating Officer in this case and he also in his cross-examinatin fairly admitted that P.W.1 belongs to Erukala Community as per his invetigtion and as per Ex.P.11 and he further admits that there is land dispute between the prosecuting party and the accused and here it may be noted the genesis for this prosecution is a civil dispute but shockingly enough this P.W.13 so called investigation Officer did not even bother about verifying civil dispute and the investigation conducted by this P.W.13 is totally perfunctory and in a mechanic way he filed charge sheet without proper investigation and in the cross-examination he says that Mudiraj falls under the category of Backward Class but still he filed the charge sheet as if P.W.1 belongs to Erukula Community and he further deposed that P.W.3 did not state before him that P.W.2 ws having Ac.00-09 guntas of land and P.W.4 did not state before him that A.1 beat P.W.1 with a stick on her left thigh and P.W.6 stated before him that A.1 and A.2 are cutting their ridges, P.Ws. 1 and 2 went there and questioned them and thus all the omissions elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3 have been proved by this version of investigation officer i.e. P.W.13. Here according to the defence version the accused have submitted copy of the decree in

S.C.NO. 20/2014 12

O.S.No.339/2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, but

still the investigating officer did not investigate in that line and his filing charge sheet knowing pretty well that P.W.1 belong to S.T community itself shows the perfunctory nature of investigation conducted by so call investigation officer-P.W.13.

25. I have carefully examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses and in my considered view, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for any of the offences they are charged with and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

19. In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offences under Sections. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, accused No.2 is found not guilty of the offence u/s. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA)

Act and Section 324 IPC and accused Nos.3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences u/ss.324, 290 r/w 34 IPC and the accused No.1 is acquitted of the offences 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, and accused No.2 is acquitted of the offence u/s.3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 324 IPC and accused Nos. 3 and 4 are acquitted of the offence u/ss. 324, 290 r/w 34 IPC, u/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time and the bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 2nd day of April, 2018).

Sd/-

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES-Cum-VII ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL.

S.C.NO. 20/2014 13

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1 Kethiri Prameela. -None- P.W.2 Kethiri Rajaiah. P.W.3 Marri Ravi. P.W.4 O.Rayamallu. P.W.5 A.Iylaiah. P.W.6 Kola Sambaiah. P.W.7 A.sArangm.. P.W.8 A.Rajitha, Tahsildar. P.W.9 Dasri Ravi. P.W.10-K.Narsaiah. P.W11-Dr. N.Narayana Reddy. P.W12-B.Raju, HC. P.W.13-K.Muralidhar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Complaint given by P.W.1 dt.26.7.2013. Ex.P.2 :Simple sale deed dt. 26.7.2013. Ex.P.3: Water tax Receipt. Ex.P.4: Water Tax Receipt. Ex.P.5: Water Tax Receipt in the name of K.Rajaiah. Ex.P.6: Water Tax Receipt in the name of K.Rajaiah. Ex.P.7: Caste Certificate of A.1 Ex.P.8: Caste Certificate of A.2. Ex.P.9: Caste Certificate of A.3. Ex.P.10:Caste Certificate of A.4. Ex.P.11:Caste Certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P.12:Caste Certificate of L.W.2. Ex.P.13:Caste Certificate of P.W.2. Ex.P.14: Crime details form dt. 28.7.2013. Ex.P.15: Original FIR dt. 26.7.2013. Ex.P.16: Wound Certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P.P.17: Appointment letter dt. 28.7.2013. FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D.1- Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C Portion of P.W.6 dt. 29.7.2013

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Sd/-

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA)CASES-Cum- VII ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL.

S.C.NO. 20/2014 14

CALENDER EXTRACT

JUDGMENT IN TRIAL S.C.No.20/2014 ON THE FILE OF

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES-CUM-VII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE AT WARANGAL IN PRC NO. 58/2013 ON THE FILE

OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MULUGU.

1. Name of the Police Station with Cr.No:Hanamkonda, Cr.No.168/2013

2. Name of the Accused :

A.1. Palnati Sammaiah, S/o. Mogili, Aged: 40 yrs, Caste: Padmashali, Occ:Agriculture.

A.2. Palnati Sarangapani, S/o. Mogili, Aged: 36 yrs, Caste: Padmashai, Occ: Agriculture.

A.3.Palnati Mogili S/o. Sammaiah, Aged: 65 yrs, Caste: Padmashali, Occ:Agriculture.

A.4.Palnati Sammakka W/o. Mogili, Aged: 55 yrs, Caste : Padmashali, Occ : Agriculture.

All R/o. Chelpur (v), Muugu Ghanpur Mandal, Warangl District.

3. Date of offence: 26.07.2013

4. Date of Report: 26.07.2013

5. Date of Arrest: 16.08.2013

6. Date of Release on bail:23.08.2013

7. Date of Commitment : 06.01.2014

8. Date of commencement of Trial : 28.09.2015

9. Date of close of Trial: 29.08.2017

10. Date of Sentence/Order : 02.04.2018

In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offences under Sections. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, accused No.2 is found not guilty of the offence u/s. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 324, IPC and accused Nos.3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences u/ss.324, 290 r/w 34 IPC and the accused No.1 is acquitted of the offences 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, and accused No.2 is acquitted of the offence u/s.3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 324 IPC and accused Nos. 3 and 4 are acquitted of the offence u/ss. 324, 290 r/w 34 IPC, u/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time and the bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

11. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY :

The case was received on committal on 18.6.2014. The accused appeared on 6.8.2014. On 24.10.2014 charges framed. Schedule fixed on 7.4.2015 and 4.8.2015. Trial commenced on 28.9.2015. On 13.10.2015 On 13.10.2015 , the prosecution filed

Crl.M.P.No. 777/2015 and the same was allowed on 9.2.2016. Again schedule fixed on

24.8.2016, 15.9.2016, 29.9.2016, 18.10.2016. The trial was closed on 29.8.2017. The accused were examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C on 31.8.2017. Argumements were also heard on 27.3.2018. Judgment pronounced on 2.4.2018.

Sd/-

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA)CASES-Cum- VII ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL.

S.C.NO. 20/2014 15

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL – CUM- VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:WARANGAL

Tuesday, this the 3rd day of April, 2018

PRESENT:D.Chiranjeevulu, Chairman, VII MACT-cum- VII Addl. District Judge, Warangal.

M.V.O.P.No. 804/2013

Between :

Nune Ravi ..Petitioner.

A N D

1. T. Vijaya.

2. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., rep. By its Divisional Manager, Warangal,

3. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep. By its Managing Director, Hyderabad.

4. Bathula Srinivas (Impleaded as per the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the state of Andhra Pradesh vide MACMA No. 188/2009 and Cross Objections (SR) No. 31266/2010).

... Respondents.

This petition coming on for hearing before me on 13.3.2018 in the presence of Sri N.Mahatma, advocate for petitioner and Sri C.Vidyasagar Reddy, Advo- cate for the respondent No. 3 and Sri M.Venkata Raja Reddy, Advocate for the respondent No.2, the right to file counter by first respondent is forfeited and the pe- tition against fourth respondent is dismissed and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Tribunal delivered the following :

:: A W A R D

This is a claim petition filed under Sections 166 (1) ( a) of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 for compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- filed by the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident.

2. The averments of the petition in brief are as follows:

On the fateful day i.e. on 11.3.2013 in the evening hours the petitioner boarded the Auto bearing No. AP 15 X 8792 and after completion of work they returned to Parkal in the same Auto and at about 10.30 hours on the way when the said auto reached near RTC Bus Depot, Parkal, in the 2 meantime one A.P.S.R.T.C Hire Bus bearing No.AP 36 X 1169 parked on the main road and the driver has not taken any precautions and did not put any parking lights and stickers in negligent manner and due to focus of opposite vehicles the driver of the auto unable to see the bus and dashed the said bus, which resulting the petitioner and driver of the Auto sustained injuries.

Particularly the petitioner sustained injuries i.e. 1. Fracture of D3 burst, 2.

Injury on bruise over left elbow, 3. Injury on right knee, 4. Injury on dorsal and cervical spine and other injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Guardian Hospital, Warangal for treatment and thereafter shfited to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment.

On a complaint by the wife of the petitioner, Police Parkal registered case in Cr.No. 88/2013 and after investigation filed charge sheet u/s. 337 and 338 IPC against the driver of the APSRTC Hire Bus bearing No. AP 36 X 1169.

The accident took place due to rash and negligent parking of driver of

APSRTC Hire Bus bearing No.AP 36 X 1169. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said crime vehicle and respondent No.3 is hirer of the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.4 is the driver of the crime vehicle. Therefore, R.1 to R.4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation claimed by the petitioner.

3. The petition against respondent No.4 is dismissed for default and the right to file counter by respondent No.1 is forfeited and the respondent

No. 2 filed his counter generally denying the petition averments by putting the petitioners to strict proof of the contents of the petition and the 3 averments of the written statement filed by second respondent in brief are as follows:

The petitioner has to establish the manner of the accident, injuries sustained by him. The petitioner has to further establish his earning

Rs.5,000/- per month and expenditure incurred for the treatment. The petitioner has to further establish his age, avocation and health condition at the time of accident. It is further contended that as per the FIR, there is delay of (12) days in registering the crime against the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C

Hire Bus bearing No. AP 36 X 1169, who caused the accident, which clearly shows the collusion between the petitioner and owner of the vehicle in order to claim compensation against this respondent and as such the petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation. The compensation claimed under different heads is on high side.

4. The third respondent, APSRTC filed written statement generally denying the petition averments by putting the petitioners to strict proof of the contents of the petition and the averments of the written statement filed by third respondent in brief are as follows:

The petitioner has to prove the manner of accident and injuries sustained by the deceased. The petitioner has to further prove that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the R.T.C. Bus, at the material time of accident. The third respondent further submits that the A.P.S.R.T.C Hire Bus bearing No.AP 36 X 1169 was hired from the respondent No.1 T.Vijaya under agreement from 27.8.2012 to 26.8.2013 and insured with respondent No.2 and as per the clause No.5 (iv) of the said agreement if any claima rose due to the accident payable under provisions of

M.V. Act, the Corporation is not liable to pay compensation and the 4 respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are only responsible to pay compensation. The driver of the bus was appointed by respondent No.1 and he is not an employee of the Corporation and bus is not in the control of the Corporation.

Therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. As such, the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in Motor Vehicle Accident on account of rash and negligent parking of bus bearing registration No. AP 36 X 1169 by its driver ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6. To prove the claim, the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined treating Doctor Dr. K.Sanjay as P.W.2 and got exhibited Exs.A.1 to

A.8 and on respondents side R.W. 1 is examined and Ex.B.1 is marked.

During the examination of P.W.2, Ex.X.1 is marked.

7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the entire evidence available on record.

8.Issue No.1: To prove the manner of accident, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and perusal of the contents of chief-affidavit filed in lieu of his chief-examination would show on the fateful day i.e. on 11.3.2013 in the evening hours the petitioner boarded the Auto bearing No.

AP 15 X 8792 and after completion of work they returned to Parkal in the same Auto and at about 10.30 hours on the way when the said auto reached 5 near RTC Bus Depot, Parkal, in the meantime one A.P.S.R.T.C Hire Bus bearing

No.AP 36 X 1169 parked on the main road and the driver not taken any precautions and did not putting any parking lights and stickers in negligent manner and due to focus of opposite vehicles the driver of the auto unable to seen the bus and dashed to the said bus, which resulting the petitioner and driver of the Auto sustained injuries. Particularly the petitioner sustained injuries i.e. 1. Fracture of D3 burst, 2. Injury on bruise over left elbow, 3. Injury on right knee, 4. Injury on dorsal and cervical spine and other injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Guardian Hospital, Warangal for treatment and thereafter shfited to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment. On a complaint by the wife of the petitioner, Police Parkal registered case in Cr.No. 88/2013 and after investigation filed charge sheet u/s. 337 and 338 IPC against the driver of the APSRTC Hire Bus bearing No. AP 36 X 1169. The accident took place due to rash and negligent parking of driver of APSRTC Hire Bus bearing

No.AP 36 X 1169. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said crime vehicle and respondent No.3 is hirer of the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.4 is the driver of the crime vehicle.

Therefore, R.1 to R.4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation claimed by the petitioner and in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 this P.W.1 deposed that the accident occurred at

Parkal Bus Depot when their auto rickshaw dashed agaisnt the negligently parked RTC Bus and he denied the suggestion that all hired buses would be parked close to Bus Depot. He further denied that there were radium stickers to the offending RTC Bus and the driver of their auto rickshaw drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against bus without noticing the radium stickers. He further deposed that he has filed I.T.returns. In cross-examination by counsel for respondent No.3, this P.W.1 deposed that 6 the said RTC Bus was hired bus having been insured with second respondent and as such second respondent alone is liable and there is no worthwhile cross-examination vis-à-vis issue No.1. Further, the petitioner being the injured is the best person to speak about the manner of accident and moreover here apart from this oral evidence of P.W.1, here we have overwhelming documentary evidence marked as Ex.A.1 to A.8 and this documentary evidence coupled with oral evidence of P.W. 1 establishes that the petitioner sustained injuries in Motor Vehicle Accident on account of rash and negligent parking of bus bearing registration No. AP 36 X 1169 by its driver. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

9. Issue No.2: During examination of petitioner, Exs. A.1 to A.8 are marked of which Ex.A.2-Certified copy of injury certificate and the relevant portion of Ex.A.2 is extracted below:

1. D.3 Burst Fracture.

2. Bruise over left elbow, right knee.

3. Tenderness over Dorsal and cervical spine.

Ex.A.4 is the discharge summary and the relevant portion of Ex.A.4 is extracted below:

1. D.3 burst fracture.

10. The contesting respondents are not seriously disputing the genuineness of Ex.A.2-Certified copy of injury Certificate and Ex.A.4-

Discharge summary so they can be made basis to some extent for grant of just compensation.

7

11. According to the petitioner, he was first shifted to Guardian Hospital,

Warangal and as condition was critical he was later shifted to Yashoda

Hospital, where Dr. Sanjay P.W.2 conducted opertion and after dischrge from the Hospital, he was shifted to his hosue and both these hospitals are private hospitals and the petitioner must have spent some amount for treatment and in view of the nature of the injuries, the petitioner must have taken follow up treatment for some time and in the normal circumstances, one cannot expect receipts from the auto drivers and preservation of bus tickets and so it is absurd to insist for documentary proof. Therefore, keeping in view the nature of injuries and cost of living during the relevant period, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.5,000/- under the head of Transport charges.

12. Under the head of loss of earnings, the petitioner claims a sum of

Rs.15,000/- and according to him he was doing business under the name and style of Sri Raja Rajeshwari Vetarnary Medical and General Stores at Parkal and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month and he filed trade licence and the same is marked as Ex.A.8. Ex.A.9 is a the copy of certificate of registration duly attested by his advocate. Therefore, I consider his monthly income as

Rs.15,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries and avocation of the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that one month complete rest is sufficient including the period of treatment and after treatment the petitioner could attend the normal works and during that period of one month, there is every chance of loss of earnings. Therefore, under the head of loss of earnings, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs.15000/- x 1 months = Rs.15,000/-) as compensation under the head of loss of earnings.

8

13. In the petition, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- under the head of medical expenditure, extra nourishment, tonics and private attendant and the petitioner has field Ex.A.5-Original bunch of medical bills and in this context it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2-Dr.

K.Sanjay deposed that the petitioner admitted on 14.3.2013 with D.3 burst fracture in road accident on 11.3.2013 and he was operated on 15.3.2013 with D.1-D5 posterior spine fixation and D.2 Lame ration Laminectomy and

Decompression was done under general anesthesia on 15.3.2013 the patient was discharged on 19.3.2013. The case sheet was marked as Ex.X.1 and it was issued by Yashoda Hospital. Exs.A.2, A.4 and A.5 are issued by their

Hospital. Ex.A.5-Bunch of medical bils issued by Pharmacy in their Hospital.

The patient cannot lift heavy weight and he can't sit for long duration and in the cross-examination he deposed that he has not issued any disability certificate and as per injury certificate he sustained one grievous injury and he underwent operation and it caused disability and he also confirms about

Ex.A.5-Bunch of original medical bills for Rs.3,49,500/- issued by the pharmacy of their Hospital and after discharge from the Hospital and after discharge the petitioner must have have taken follow up treatment and, therefore, under the head of medical expenditure, extra nourishment and private attendant, I am awarding a sum of Rs.3,59,500/- which includes the amount spent under Ex.A.5-Original Bunch of medical bills.

14. In the petition, the petitioner claims a sum of Rs. 30,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. Here because of the accident, the movements of the petitioner were restricted to a certain extent and it would cause physical and mental pain to the petitioner. After considering the nature of injuries and considering the fact that one cannot translate the mental trauma into 9 monitory value, I am awarding a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation under the head of pain and suffering.

15. In the petition, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 49,000/- under the head of permanent and continuing disability but the petitioner has not filed any disability certificate. In view of ruling reported in 2010(2) Andhra

Weekly Reporter 219 , I am not considering granting any compensation under the head of permanent and continuing disability but here the fact remains the petitioner sustained fracture i.e. fracture of D.3 burst and as such, I am awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the said D.3 burst fracture.

16. This Tribunal did not observe any abnormality in the movements of the petitioner at the time of recording the evidence.

17. After considering all the heads, the petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,34,500/- (Rs.Four Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand

Five Hundred Only).

18. The learned advocte for the contesting second respondent submits that there was contributory negligence and R.W.1-G.Krupakar, the

Administrative Officer of the second resopndent/Insurance company depsoed that the driver of the bus parked the same on the left side of the road and it is due to rash and negligent driving of auto driver, the accident occurred as the auto driver dashed the bus in a rash and negligent manner. But here it may be noted that admittedly this R.W.1 is not an eye witness and he is only administrative officer of seconed respondent/insurance company and in the cross-examiantion he deposed Ex.B.1 was in force by the time and date of accident and here regarding contributory negligence as rightly contended by 10 the learned advocate for the petitioner, the same should be established like any other fact and contributory negligence is not something that can be presumed without there being any positive evidence to that effect and in this context the learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on the ruling reported in 2001 (6) ALD 844 Divisional Bench and as such the contention of the esecond respondent that the driver of the auto contributed to the accident is negatived having regard to the aforesaid ruling.

19. Here it may be noted that the first respondent being the owner of the offending crime vehicle is in exclusive control of the same and as such she is liable to pay compensation and the same is insured with second respondent/insurance company and Ex.B.1/Policy was in force by the date of accident and as the insurer the second respondent is liable to indemnfiy the first respondent and so far as the third respondent/APSRTC is concerned, it is ony hirer and the crime bus is under the exclusive control and maintenance of frist respondent only and the third respondent is noway liable to pay any compensation. The fourth respondent is driver of the crime vehicle. As such, respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compenstion since Ex.B.1 policy was in force by the time and date of accident.

20. In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs by granting the following reliefs:

The petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. Rs.4,34,500/- (Rs.Four

Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Five Hundred Only)

The petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of presentation of petition till the date of realization.

The petition against respondent No.3/APSRTC is dismissed without costs.

11

The respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation amount.

On deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw half of the awarded compensation amount and the balance amount shall be kept in FDR in any

Nationalised Bank for a period of two years and the petitioner is entitled to take interest every half yearly/yearly.

The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1500/-.

Time granted for deposit of the amount is 30 days from the date of this order.

The rest of the claim is disallowed without costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of April, 2018)

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-VII-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

WARANGAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW1 –Nune Ravi. R.W.1-G.Krupakar. PW2- Dr. Sanjay.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner :

Ex.A1 – Certified Copy of FIR and complaint dt.23.3.2013. Ex.A2 – C.C.of Injury Certificate dt. 3.4.2013. Ex.A3 – C.C. of Charge sheet. Ex.A4 – Certified copy of discharge card. Ex.A5- Original bunch of medical bills. Ex.A6- Original medical certificate. Ex.A7- Income Tax Return. Ex.A8- Trade Licence. Ex.A9- Copy of Certificate of Registration.

Ex.X.1-Case Sheet issued by P.W.2.

For Respondent :

Ex.B.1- Copy of Insurance Policy.

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-VII- ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

12

S.C.NO. 402/2013 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES CUM

– VII –ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT WARANGAL.

Monday, this the 2nd day of April, 2018

Present:- Sri D.Chiranjeevulu, Spl. Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Cases, Cum-VII-ADJ, Warangal.

S.C.No. 498/2013

(P.R.C.No. 06/2012 Committed by the Learned VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate,Warangal in Cr.No.468/2011 of P.S.Hanamkonda)

1. Name and description of theThe State of Telangana through Sub Divisional Police Officer, Hanamkonda. Complainant

2. Name and description Dasi Raju, S/o. Raju, 35 yrs, Padmashali, R/o.SRR Thota, Warangal. Of the accused

3. Offences chargedU/ss. 304-B IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Plea of the AccusedPleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Court Found not guilty

6. Conviction/Sentence or In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences u/ss. 304-B IPC and acquittalSections 3, 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act and he is acquitted of the offences 304-B IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act u/s. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time and the bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

7. Prosecution conducted by:Sri M.Vasanth Kumar,

Addl. Public Prosecutor.

8. Accused defended by:Sri G. Ratna Reddy, Counsel for the accused.

This case coming on before me for final hearing on 23.3.2018 in the presence of Sri M.Vasanth Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri G. Ratna Reddy, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

S.C.NO. 402/2013 2

: J U D G M E N T :

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Hanamkonda filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 468/2011 of P.S.Hanamkonda.

2. The allegations of the charge sheet in brief are as follows:

L.Ws. 1 to 3 (Amancha Rajender, Amancha Rajeshwari and Amancha

Rama Krishna) and accused are the father, mother, younger brother and husband of the deceased respectively. On 24.10.2017, L.Ws. 1 and 2 performed the marriage of deceased with the accused. On the demand of accused, L.W.1-A.Rajender paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused at the time of marriage towards dowry. After marrige, the accused and deceased are resided at Hyderabad, where the accused was doing buisness and the deceased was working in a private company and they led conjugal life happily for about two years at Hyderabad. After that the accused started harassing the deceased physically and mentally for additional dowry and the same was informed to L.W.1 by the deceased. In this connection,

L.Ws. 5 and 6 (Sadula Prasad and J.Sadanandam) conducted a panchayat in the year 2009 on the request of L.W.1. As per the advice of elders, L.W.1 has given Rs.50,000/- to the accused towards additional dowry but the accused did not change his attitude and continued his harassment. The same was informed to L.W.1 by deceased. The L.W.1 disclosed his inability to give additional dowry to the accused due to financial problems. Due to the continuous harassment of the accused, the deceased vexed with her life and decided to end her life. Accordingly, she wrote the same in a small dialry. On 14.11.2011, the deceased came to Warangal from

Hyderabad and consumed pesticide at Hanamkonda public garden at about 1.00 p.m. L.W.4-Sadula Koteshwar noticed the serious condition of

S.C.NO. 402/2013 3 the deceased and informed to 108 Ambulance and on receipt of information, 108 Ambulance shifted the deceased to MGM Hospital. ON information, L.Ws. 1 to 3 visited MGM Hospital, Warangal and found the deceased in unconscious state and also they found a small diary and a poison bill with the deceased. While undergoing treatment, the deceased has taken her last breath on 17.11.0211 at about 14.10 hours.

On receipt of the complaint from L.W.1-A.Rajender on 17.11.2011 at 4.30 p.m, the L.W.16-G.Venkateshar Babu, Inspector of Police,

Hanamkonda registered a case in Cr.No. 468/2011 and issued express FIR, on receipt of telephonic information, L.W.17-R.Veereshwar Rao, former

SDPO, Hanamkonda collected CD file, examined and recorded the statement of L.W.1, requested L.W.15-J.Sanjeeva, Tahasildar Hanamkonda to conduct inqeust, on 18.11.2017 L.W.17 visited mortuary of MGM

Hospital, Warngal, got photographed the dead body of the deceased through L.W.9, examined and recroded the statements of witnesses.

L.W.17 seized a small diary containing death note written by deceased ajnd pesticide bill from the possession of L.W.1 under a cover of panchanama. The accused was arrested on 19.11.2011. Hence the charge.

3.After filing of the charge sheet in the Court of VI Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, the learned Magistrate after taking

cognizance as PRC.No. 6/2012 and after observing the necessary formalities took the case on file and committed the same to this Court.

4.After appearance of the accused, the advocate for the accused and the Additional Public Prosecutor were heard with regard to framing of

S.C.NO. 402/2013 4 charges and charges under Sections 304-B IPC and Section 3, 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.Pws. 1 to 9 were examined. Exs.P.1 to 17 are marked. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence is adduced but Ex.D.1 is marked during the cross-examination of P.W.3.

6. The accused is examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no defence.

7.Arguments of both sides were heard.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the

guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 304-B IPC

and Section 3,4 and 6 (2) of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

9. POINT :To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P17 and on defence side no oral evidence is adduced but Ex.D.1 is marked.

10. The plea of accused is one of total denial. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief is that the marriage of the deceased Dasi

Swapna was performed with the accused on 24.10.2017. At the time of marriage, on the demand of the accused, the parents of the deceased gave Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused as dowry. After the marriage, the

S.C.NO. 402/2013 5 deceased and accused resided at Hyderabad for about two years.

Thereafter, the accused started harassing the decesed physically and mentally with a demand to bring additional dowry. In this connection, in the year 2009, a panchayat was conducted in the presence of elders. As per the advise of the elders, the father of the deceased gave Rs.50,000/- to the accused as additional dowry. But the accused did not satisfy with the same and continued his harassment against the deceased. The deceased having unable to bear the said harassment, on 14.11.2011 came to Warangal from Hyderabad, consumed pesticide poison at about 1.00 p.m, near Public Garden, Hanamkonda and died in the Hospital on 17.11.2011 at 2.10 p.m.

11. Coming to the evidence, P.Ws.1 and 2 (A.Rajender, A.Rajeshwari) deposed that deceased is their daughter and about 6 years back the deceased committed suicide consuming pesticide poison unable to bear her stomach ache and the decesed never informed about her stomach ache and the accused is effective to her side and accused never harassed her by demanding any dowry. Their neighbour informed about the committing suicide. Then they rushed to MGM Hospital and they came to know while undergoing treatment at MGM Hospital, the deceased died and when they were in shock police obtained signature on blank paper. Ex.P.1 is the signature of P.W.1. Both of them have turned hostile and nothing substantial was elicited in their cross-examination and with great difficulty

Exs.P.2 and P.3, their respective statements u/s. 161 (3) Cr.P.C are marked.

12. P.W.4-S.Koteshwar deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he does not know the name of the deceased. About 6 ½ years ago at about 01.30 p.m, he noticed a woman lying unconscious in

S.C.NO. 402/2013 6 the bathroom situated in the corner of Hanamkonda Public Garden and later he informed 108 Ambulance personally. His evidence is of no use to the prosecution case.

13. P.W.5-Sadula Prasad, who is projected to be a panchayat elder, deposed that he does not know whether the deceased was harassed by accused and he never held any panchayat in their matrimonial affair either t the instance of deceased or her father. The deceased was suffering from appendicitis and unable to bear with that stomach pain she committed suicide and there is no other reason for committing suicide and he too declared hostile to the prosecution case

14. The evidence of P.W.6-Jannu Bixapathi, Photographer is only with regard to his taking photographs-Ex.P.7 of the dead body of the deceased at MGM Mortuary on 18.11.2011.

15. P.W.7-Malladi Laxma Reddy and P.W.8-V.Rajan Babu, who are projected to be panch witnesses for crime details form and preparing inquest also did not support the prosecution case by stating that they acted as panch witnesses for crime details form and inquest report but they stated that police have not seized anything from anyone in their presence and the deceased Swapna was suffering from stomach ache and consumed pesticide poison and signed seizure panchanama without going through the contents therein along with other witnesses P.W.7 and

L.W.12.

16. P.W.9-G.Venkateshwar Babu is the investigating officer and his evidence is only with regard to investigation and his evidence is not useful to the prosecution case.

S.C.NO. 402/2013 7

17. Now remains the evidence of P.W.3-Amancha Rama Krishna, and he deposed that the deceased developed stomach ache and they provided medical treatment to her and the pain was recurring and she committed suicide consuming pesticide poison due to stomach pain and due to harassment caused to her by the accused and she made a mention of it in her diary-Ex.P.4 and he was cross-examined in length by the defence counsel and in the cross-examination P.W.3 says that he does not know how P.W.1 arranged the amount and immediate neighbours are not shown as eye witnesses and neither the deceased nor he i.e. P.W.3 gave any complaint against dowry harassment and he does not know who informed 108 Ambulance and he gives conflicting versions about seizure of her bag and he further deposed that signatures of the deceased are not there in

Ex.P.4 so called diary and thus the entire evidence of P.W.3 suffers from several improbabilites and inconsistencies and it does not inspire any confidence in my mind.

18. Thus, the evidence of this P.Ws.1 to 9, is not at all useful for the prosecution case to establish the guilt of the accused and the prosecution utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 304-B IPC and Section 3,4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry

Prohibition Act and the accused is acquitted of the offences under

Sections 304-B IPC and Section 3,4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act u/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be

S.C.NO. 402/2013 8 destroyed after the expiry of appeal time and the bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 2nd day of April, 2018 )

sd/-

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES-Cum-VII ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1 A.Rajender. -None- P.W.2 A.Rajeshwari. P.W.3 A.Rama Krishna. P.W.4 S.Koteshwar. P.W.5 S.Prasad. P.W.6 J.Bixapathi. P.W.7 M.Laxma Reddy. P.W.8 Rajan babu. P.W.9 G.Venkatram babu.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Signatures of P.W.1 on complaint dt. 17.11.2011. Ex.P2: u/s. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.w.1 dt. 17.11.2011. Ex.P3: u/s. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2 dt. 18.11.2011. Ex.P4: Diary (i.e small book) Ex.P5: u/s. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.4 dt. 18.11.2011. Ex.P6: u/s. 161 Cr.p.C Statement of P.W.5 dt. 18.11.2011. Ex.P7: 4 photos with negatives. Ex.P8: Signature of P.W.7 on crime details form dt.18.11.2011. Ex.P9: Signature of P.W.7 on inquest panchanama dt. 18.11.2011. Ex.P10:Signature of P.W.7 on seizure anchanama dt. 18.11.2011. ExP.11:Signature of P.W.8 on crime details form dt.18.11.2011. Ex.P12:Signature of P.W.8 on inquest panchanama dt. 18.11.2011. Ex.P13:Signature of P.W.8 on seizure panchanama dt. 18.11.2011. Ex.P14:First Information Report dt. 17.11.2011. Ex.P15:Crime Details form dt.18.11.2011. Ex.P16: Inquest panchanama dt.18.11.2011. Ex.p17: Seizure panchanama.

FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D.1- Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C Portion of P.W.3 dt.18.11.2011.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

sd/-

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA)CASES-Cum- VII ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL.

S.C.NO. 402/2013 9

CALENDER EXTRACT

JUDGMENT IN TRIAL S.C.No.402/2013 ON THE FILE OF

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES-CUM-VII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE AT WARANGAL IN PRC NO. 6/2012 ON THE FILE OF

VI ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, WARANGAL.

1. Name of the Police Station with Cr.No:Hanamkonda, Cr.NO.468/2011

2. Name of the Accused :

Dasi Raju S/o.Raju, 35 yrs, Padmashali, R/o.SRR Thota, Warangal.

3. Date of offence: 14.11.2011

4. Date of Report: 17.11.2011

5. Date of Arrest: 19.11.2011

6. Date of Release on bail:10.01.2012

7. Date of Commitment : 14.6.2013

8. Date of commencement of Trial : 18.6.2013

9. Date of close of Trial: 06.03.2018

10. Date of Sentence/Order : 02.04.2018

In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 304-B IPC and Section 3,4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the accused is acquitted of the offences under Sections 304-B IPC and Section 3,4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act u/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time and the bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

11. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY :

The case was received on committal on 18.6.2013. The accused appeared on 26.8.2013. On 14.5.2014 charges framed. Schedule fixed on 10.8.2017 and 9.2.2018. Trial commenced on 6.3.2018 and closed on 15.3.2018 and argumements were also heard on 19.3.2018. Judgment pronounced on 2.4.2018.

sd/-

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA)CASES-Cum- VII ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL.

S.C.NO. 402/2013 10

S.C.NO. 498/2013 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES CUM

– VII –ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT WARANGAL.

Monday, this the 2nd day of April, 2018

Present:- Sri D.Chiranjeevulu, Spl. Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Cases, Cum-VII-ADJ, Warangal.

S.C.No. 498/2013

(P.R.C.No. 25/2013 Committed by the Learned IV Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate,Warangal in Cr.No.10/2013 of P.S.Athmakur)

1. Name and description of theThe State of Telangana through Assistant Superintendent of Police, Complainant Kazipet.

2. Name and description Peruvala Srinath S/o. Rajeshwar Rao, Aged: 28 yrs, Caste: Are, occ: Of the accused Agriculture, R/o.Lyadella (v) of Athmakaur Mandal.

3. Offences chargedU/ss. 304-B alternatively 302, 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Plea of the AccusedPleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Court Found not guilty

6. Conviction/Sentence or In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences u/ss. 304-B acquittalalternatively 302, 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and he is acquitted of the offences u/ss. 304-B alternatively 302, 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. u/s. 232 Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time and the bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

7. Prosecution conducted by:Sri M.Vasanth Kumar,

Addl. Public Prosecutor.

8. Accused defended by:Sri G.Vidya Sagar Reddy, Counsel for the accused.

This case coming on before me for final hearing on 23.3.2018 in the presence of Sri M.Vasanth Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri G.Vidya Sagar Reddy, Counsel for the

S.C.NO. 498/2013 2 accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

The Asst. Superintendent of Police filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 10/2013 of P.S. Athmakur.

2. The allegations of the charge sheet in brief are as follows:

The marriage of the deceased and accused was solemnized about 5 years back. At the time of marriage, on demand of accused, L.Ws. 1,3 and 4 (L.Rama Rao, L.Sathemma, L.Rajeeru) provided dowry of

Rs.3,75,000/-, Hero Honda Passion Motor Cycle, 4 tulas of Gold and house hold articles of dowry in the presence of L.Ws. 9 and 10 (M.Ramaswamy and Gurijala Ravinder) and both of them lived amicably for about 6 months. Later the accused started consuming liquor and harass the deceased mentally and physically with a demand for additional dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Above said L.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 convinced the accused and requested him to stop the harassment on deceased and the accused promised that he will look after the deceased well but the accused did not change his attitude and in that regard L.Ws. 1,2 and 4 approached the marriage elders L.Ws. 9 and 10, who convened a panchayat and found fault with the accused and the accused promised that he will look after deceased well. The deceased gave birth to a male child. Later the accused started harassing the deceased and on 8.1.2013 night at about 11.00 p.m, the accused abused the victim in filthy language with a demand of

additional dowry and while the deceased slept in the the house, the

accused threatened the deceased that she failed to bring additional dowry, he will kill her and go for second marriage with another woman and

S.C.NO. 498/2013 3 get huge dowry, picked the kerosene plastic tin from the house, poured the kerosene on the body of the deceased and set her ablaze and fled away from the place. The deceased raised hue and cry and rushed out of the house, L.Ws. 5 to 7 rushed out and witnessed the flames and extinguished the flames by pouring water and shifted the deceased to MGM Hospital,

Warangal. The accused came to hospital and threatened the deceased if she disclosed the incident to anybody, he will kill her and her son and in that regard she did not state the real facts before L.W.20- Smt. Naseema

Sulthana, Judl. First Class Magistrate in the first D.D. Later L.W.24-

K.Eshwar Rao, SDPO visited the Hospital where the deceased has informed him about the threatening of her husband on which he recorded the statement of deceased and send another requisition to Magistrate to record second dying declaration. Later L.W.20-Smt. Naseema Sulthana recorded second Dying Declaration in which the deceased stated the real facts. Hence the charge.

3.After filing of the charge sheet in the Court of I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, the learned Magistrate after taking

cognizance as PRC.No. 25/2013 and after observing the necessary formalities took the case on file and committed the same to this Court.

4.After appearance of the accused, the advocate for the accused and the Additional Public Prosecutor were heard with regard to framing of charges and charges under Sections 304-B alternatively 302, 498-A, 506

IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

S.C.NO. 498/2013 4

5.Pws. 1 to 9 were examined. Exs.P.1 to 10 are marked.

6. As there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C has been dispensed with.

7.Arguments of both sides were heard.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the

guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 304-B

alternatively 302, 498-A, 506 IPC and

Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

9. POINT :To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P10 and on defence side no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

10. The plea of accused is one of total denial. This is a case of murder of deceased (alternatively Dowry Death) committed by the accused, who is her husband, wherein he harassed the deceased mentally and physically for additionald wory and killed her pouring kerosene on her body on 8.1.2013 at 11.00 p.m and set her ablaze and while undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to burn injuries.

11. Coming to the evidence, P.W.1-L.Rama Rao is the complainant and key witness in this case as he happened to be the brother of deceased and surprisingly he deposed that he was informed that when the deceased lighting kerosene stove, her saree ends caught fire leading to

S.C.NO. 498/2013 5 burn injuries and she died and when he was in shock at MGM Hospital, someone obtained his signature-Ex.P.1 on blank paper and he does not know the contents of it. Thus, this most crucial witness P.W.1 himself turned hostile to the prosecution case and he was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor but nothing substantial was elicited in his cross-examination to support the prosecution case and with great difficulty his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C is marked as

Ex.P.2

12. P.W.2-L.Satyamma, also turned hostile to the prosecution case and in her cross-examination by the learned Addl.P.P, she denied to have stated as in Ex.P.3.

13. P.Ws.3 and 4 -Mekala Ramaswamy and G.Ravinder, who are projected to be the marriage and panchayat elders, deposed that they do not know the exact reason for the death of the deceased and in their cross- examination, they denied to have stated as in Exs.P.4 and P.5.

14. P.Ws. 5 and 8 (K.Manamma, J.Sampath Rao), who are cited as panch witnesses for inquest panchanama, speaks about their presence while conducting inquest panchanama and police obtaining their signatures on blank papers and they do not explain the contents of such blank papers. Exs.P.6 and P.9 are their respective signatures on inquest panchanama.

15. P.Ws. 6 and 7 (V.Srinivas and G.Samba Raju) deposed that no panchanama was conducted in their presence and about two years ago, Police, Atmakur obtained their signatures on blank papers. Exs.P.7 and P.8 are their respective signatures on crime details form dt. 11.1.2013.

S.C.NO. 498/2013 6

16. Then remains the evidence of P.W.9, his evidence is only with regard to conducting inquest panchanama-Ex.P.10 on the dead body of the deceased and this is not at all useful to hold the accused guilty.

16. In view of the hostile evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 8, the learned Addl.P.P has given up the examination of remaining witnesses L.W.4-L.Rajeeu, L.W.5,

P.Rajanandham, L.W.6-P.Chiranjeevi, L.W.7-P.Baswarajam, L.W.8-O.Sadanandam,

L.W.11-Jannu Bixapathi, L.W.12-J.Wilson, HC, L.W.13-Dr.G.Ranjith Kumar, L.W.4-Dr.

B.Kumaraswamy, L.W.20-Smt.Naseema Sulthana, L.W.21-Dr. K.Ramesh, L.W.22-Dr.

J.Ashwini Kumar, L.W.23-V.Kranthi Kumar, L.W.24-K.Eshwar Rao and L.W.25-Dr.

K.Praveen, IPS as no useful purpose will be served by examining them.

13. Thus, the evidence of this P.Ws.1 to 9, is not at all useful for the prosecution case to establish the guilt of the accused and the prosecution utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

14. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 304-B alternatively 302, 498-A, 506 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the accused is acquitted of the offences under Sections 304-B alternatively 302, 498-A, 506 IPC and

Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, u/s. 232 Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time and the bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 2nd day of April, 2018 )

sd/-

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES-Cum-VII ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL.

S.C.NO. 498/2013 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1 L.Rama Rao. -None- P.W.2 L.Sathemma. P.W.3 M.Ramaswamy. P.W.4 G.Ravinder. P.W.5 K.Manemma. P.W.6 I.Srinivas.] P.W.7 G.Sambaraju. P.W.8 J.Sampath. P.W.9 Yadagiri.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Signatures of P.W.1 on private complaint dt. 10.1.2013. Ex.P2: u/s. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.w.1 dt. 10.1.2013. Ex.P3: u/s. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2 dt. 10.1.2013 Ex.P4: u/s. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3 dt. 11.1.2013. Ex.P5: u/s. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.4 dt. 12.1.2013. Ex.P6: Signature of P.W.5 in inquest panchanama 12.1.2013. Ex.P7: Signature of P.W.6 on crime details form 10.1.2013. Ex.P8: Signature of P.W.7 on crime details form dt.10.1.2013. Ex.P9: Signature of P.W.8 on inquest panchanama dt. 12.1.2013. Ex.P10:Inquest Report. dt. 12.1.2013.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

sd/-

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA)CASES-Cum- VII ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL.

S.C.NO. 498/2013 8

CALENDER EXTRACT

JUDGMENT IN TRIAL S.C.No.498/2013 ON THE FILE OF

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES-CUM-VII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE AT WARANGAL IN PRC NO. 16/2014 ON THE FILE

OF I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, WARANGAL.

1. Name of the Police Station with Cr.No:Athmakur, 10/2013

2. Name of the Accused :

Peruvala Srinath S/o. Rajeshwar Rao, Aged: 28 years, Caste: Are, occ: Agricultuere, R/o.Lyadella (v) of Athmakur Mandal.

3. Date of offence: 08.1.2013

4. Date of Report: 08.1.2013.

5. Date of Arrest: 11.2.2013

6. Date of Release on bail:28.3.2013

7. Date of Commitment : 14.6.2013

8. Date of commencement of Trial : 06.2.2018

9. Date of close of Trial: 23.03.2018

10. Date of Sentence/Order : 02.04.2018

In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 304-B alternatively 302, 498-A, 506 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the accused is acquitted of the offences under Sections 304-B alternatively 302, 498-A, 506 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, u/s. 232 Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time and the bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

11. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY :

The case was received on committal on 20.8.2013. The accused appeared on 9.10.2013. On 3.2.2014 charges framed. Schedule fixed on 29.8.2017. Trial commenced on 6.2.2018 and closed on 23.3.2018 and argumements were also heard on the same day. Judgment

pronounced on 2.4.2018.

sd/-

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA)CASES-Cum- VII ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL.

S.C.NO. 498/2013 9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL – CUM- VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:WARANGAL

Wednesday, this the 11th day of April, 2018

PRESENT:D.Chiranjeevulu, Chairman, VII MACT-cum- VII Addl. District Judge, Warangal.

M.V.O.P.No. 1204/2015

Between :

1. Neelala Sarojana.

2. Neelala Laxmaiah.

3. Neelala Rani.

4. Neelala Divya.

5. Neelala Vinay. ..Petitioners.

A N D

Goura Narsaiah. ..Respondent.

This petition coming on for hearing before me on 28.3.2018 in the presence of Sri A.Adulapuram Srinivas advocate for petitioners and the respondent re- mained ex parte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Tri- bunal delivered the following :

:: A W A R D

This is a claim petition filed under Sections 166 (1) ( a) of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 for compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- filed by the petitioners for the death of deceased

Neelala Vijay.

2. The averments of the petition in brief are as follows:

On the fateful day i.e. on 10.3.2015 in the night hours, the deceased

Neelala Vijay started from Rampur on his Hero Honda Passion Pro Motor

Cycle bearing No. AP 36 TY TR 3147 and proceeding to Bhupalpally to handover Nallakodishe Seeds in the Forest Office and at about 7.30 p.m on the way when the deceased reached at Palamaku Pond situated at the outskirts of Rampur Village, in the meantime one Hero Honda Splendor Pro

Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 36 AM 7115 (Engine No. HA10EGA9K04812 & 2

Chasis No. mblha10aa9k01389) driven by its driver came from Kamalapur side to Ramside in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the Motor Cycle of the deceased in opposite direction, as a result the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries and the deceased while shifted to Hyderabad for expert treatment, on the way he succumbed to injuries at Bhongiri Village.

On the complaint made by petitioner No.2, the police, Bhupalpally registered a case in Cr.No.66/2015 and after investigation, the police filed charge sheet u/s.304-A IPC against the driver of the Hero Honda Splendor Pro

Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 36 AM 7115.

At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 23 years and he was hale and healthy and the deceased was working as Contract Camp

Watcher in Forest Department and drawing salary of Rs.6,000/- per month.

The deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-driver of the Hero Honda Splendor Pro Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 36 AM 7115, belongs to respondent. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay the compensation.

3. The respondent remained exparte.

4. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the death of the deceased caused in Motor Vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of Hero Honda Splendor Pro Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 36 AM 7115 driven by its driver ?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

3

6. To prove their claim, the petitioners have examined the first petitioner Neelala Sarojana as P.W.1 and got exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.5 and as stated supra the respondent remained ex parte.

7. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Perused the entire evidence available on record.

8.Issue No.1: To prove the manner of accident, the first petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and perusal of the contents of chief- affidavit filed in lieu of his chief-examination would show that on the fateful day i.e. on 10.3.2015 in the night hours, the deceased Neelala Vijay started from Rampur on his Hero Honda Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 36

TY TR 3147 and proceeding to Bhupalpally to handover Nallakodishe Seeds in the Forest Office and at about 7.30 p.m on the way when the deceased reached at Palamaku Pond situated at the outskirts of Rampur Village, in the meantime one Hero Honda Splendor Pro Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 36 AM 7115 (Engine No. HA10EGA9K04812 & Chasis No. mblha10aa9k01389) driven by its driver came from Kamalapur side to Ramside in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the Motor Cycle of the deceased in opposite direction, as a result the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries and the deceased while shifted to

Hyderabad for expert treatment, on the way he succumbed to injuries at

Bhongiri Village. On the complaint made by petitioner No.2, the police,

Bhupalpally registered a case in Cr.No.66/2015 and after investigation, the police filed charge sheet u/s.304-A IPC against the driver of the Hero Honda

Splendor Pro Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 36 AM 7115. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 23 years and he was hale and healthy and the deceased was working as Contract Camp Watcher in Forest 4

Department and drawing salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. The deceased was died due to the rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-driver of the Hero Honda Splendor Pro Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 36 AM 7115, belongs to respondent. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay the compensation and in view of the evidence of P.W.1 and documentary evidence marked as Exs.A.1 to A.5, I hold that the death of the deceased caused in Motor Vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of

Hero Honda Splendor Pro Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 36 AM 7115 driven by its driver/respondent. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.

9. Issue No.2: In deciding the quantum of compensation, I rely on the guidelines of the landmark judgment in the case of Sarla Varma Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298). To prove the age of the deceased, the petitioners have got marked Ex.A.2 certified copy of inquest report and Ex.A.4-Certified copy Post Mortem Report, wherein the age of the deceased is shown as 38 years and therefore the age of the deceased during the relevant period was 38 years and the multiplier that applies is `15' (fifteen).

10. As per the petition averments and according to the petitioner, the deceased used to draw salary of Rs.6,000/- per month while working as

Camp Watchman in the Forest Department and in the inquest rjeport also he is shown as Contract Camp Watchman. Further, there is no rebuttal evidence to dispute that fact as the respondent remained exparte. Therefore, I consider the monthly income as Rs.6,000/- and the annual income comes to

Rs.72,000/-. Since there would be personal expenditure had the deceased 5 been alive a sum of Rs. 18,000/- being 1/4rd of the annual income is to be deducted since the petitioners happened to be five in number.

11. Under the head of loss of income, the petitioners are entitled a sum of Rs.8,10,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) (Rs.72,000/- minus Rs.18,000/- = Rs.54,000 x 15 multiplier =Rs. 8,10,000/-)

12. the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expensesas per the recent ruling of the Apex Court on the side of Civil Appellate Jurisdiction in the Spl. Leave Petition (civil) No.

25590/2014 between National Insurance Company Limited and

others Vs. Pranay Sethi and others.

13. The petitioners are further entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate as per the ruling referred above.

14. The petitioners are further entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.

15. After considering all the heads, the petitioners are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 8,45,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Only).

16. The respondent being the driver and owner of the crime Hero Honda

Splendor Pro Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 36 AM 7115 is liable. As such, the respondent is liable to pay the awarded compensation to the petitioners.

Accordingly point No.2 is answered.

6

17. In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs by granting following reliefs:

1. The petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,45,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Only).

2. The petitioners are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of presentation of petition till the date of realisation.

3. The respondent is liable to pay the awarded compensation amount.

4. Out of the total compensation, petitioner No.1 is entitled to

Rs.1,69,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Only) with interest thereon and 1/5th of the costs.

5. The petitioner No.2 is entitled to Rs.1,69,000/- (Rs. One Lakh

Sixty Nine Thousand Only) with interest thereon and 1/5th of the costs.

6. The petitioner No.3 is entitled to Rs.1,69,000/- (Rs. One Lakh

Sixty Nine Thousand Only) with interest thereon and 1/5th of the costs.

7. The petitioner No.4 is entitled to Rs.1,69,000/- (Rs. One Lakh

Sixty Nine Thousand Only) with interest thereon and 1/5th of the costs.

8. The petitioner No.5 is entitled to Rs.1,69,000/- (Rs. One Lakh

Sixty Nine Thousand Only) with interest thereon and 1/5th of the costs.

9. On deposit, the petitioner No.1 is entitled to withdraw half of the awarded compensation amount and the balance amount shall be kept in FDR 7 in State Bank of Hyderabad, District Court Branch, Warangal for a period two years and the petitioner No.1 is entitled to take interest every half yearly/yearly.

10. On deposit, the petitioner No.2 is entitled to withdraw half of the awarded compensation amount and the balance amount shall be kept in FDR in State Bank of Hyderabad, District Court Branch, Warangal for a period two years and the petitioner No.2 is entitled to take interest every half yearly/yearly.

11. On deposit, the petitioner No.3 is entitled to withdraw half of the awarded compensation amount and the balance amount shall be kept in FDR in State Bank of Hyderabad, District Court Branch, Warangal for a period two years and the petitioner No.3 is entitled to take interest every half yearly/yearly.

12. On deposit, the petitioner No.4 is entitled to withdraw half of the awarded compensation amount and the balance amount shall be kept in FDR in State Bank of Hyderabad, District Court Branch, Warangal for a period two years and the petitioner No.4 is entitled to take interest every half yearly/yearly.

13. On deposit, the petitioner No.5 is entitled to withdraw half of the awarded compensation amount and the balance amount shall be kept in FDR in State Bank of Hyderabad, District Court Branch, Warangal for a period two years and the petitioner No.5 is entitled to take interest every half yearly/yearly.

8

14. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.

15. Time granted for deposit of the amount is 30 days from the date of this order.

16. The rest of the claim of the petitioners is disallowed without costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of April, 2018)

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-VII-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

WARANGAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW1 –Neelala Sarojana. -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner :

Ex.A1 – Certified Copy of FIR and complaint dt.11.3.2015. Ex.A2 – C.C.of Inquest report dt. 11.3.2015. Ex.A3 – C.C. MVI Report. Ex.A4 – Certified copy of Post Mortem Report dt.11.3.2015 Ex.A5- Certified copy of Charge sheet.

For Respondents :

-Nil-

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-VII- ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

9