Sri G. Rama Gopal

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-Cum-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI G. RAMA GOPAL,

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

Monday, the 17 th day of APRIL, Two Thousand Twenty Three.

M.V.O.P.No.1191 of 2017

Between:

1. Devarakonda Adilakshmi W/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged 35 years R/o.D.No.7-13-41, 10th Ward, Nagulacheruvu, Nidubrolu, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. [ Wife of the Deceased]

2. Devarakonda Tirupathamma D/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Aged 17 years, R/o.D.No.7-13-41, 10th Ward, Nagulacheruvu, Nidubrolu, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. [ Daughter of the Deceased]

3. Devarakonda Durga Prasad S/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Aged 15 years, R/o.D.No.7-13-41, 10th Ward, Nagulacheruvu, Nidubrolu,Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. [ Son of the Deceased] [ Petitioners 2 and 3 are being minors rep.by their mother , next friend guardian i.e., 1st petitioner]

4. Devarakonda Veeraiah S/o.Late Lakshmaiah, Aged 61 years R/o.D.No.7-13-41, 10th Ward, Nagulacheruvu, Nidubrolu, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. [Mother of the Deceased]

5. Devarakonda Kotamma W/o.Veeraiah, Aged 57 years, R/o.D.No.7-13-41, 10th Ward, Nagulacheruvu, Nidubrolu, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. [Father of the Deceased]

....Petitioners.

-AND-

1. K.Venkateswarlu S/o.Hari Babu, D.No.3-20, Thimmasamudram, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. [Owner of Bajaj Caliber NO.AP27 E 5494]

2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, R.R.K.Central, R.R.Road, Bestapalem, P.B.No.41, Bestapalem, Chirala Town. [ Insurer of the Bajaj Caliber No.AP27 E 5494 Policy NO.1509033113P102454226 Valid from 24-07-2013 to 23-07-2014]

3. Kurra Srinivasa Rao S/o.Venkata Seshaiah, Aged 51 years Korrampalem Veedhi Timmasamudram Village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District. [ Driver of the vehicle Baja Caliber bearing NO.AP27 E 5494] [ R3 is added as per IA.NO.479/2022, Dated 26-08-2022] …Respondents.

This MVOP coming on 13-04-2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.B.Tajuddin, Advocate for the claim Petitioners, and of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for 2nd Respondent, and R1 and R3 remained Exparte; and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following: -

A W A R D

1.The claim petitioners being the wife, daughter, son , father and mother of the deceased – Devarakonda Venkateswarlu (herein after referred to as deceased) respectively , who died in the motor accident, filed claim petition under sections 140, 166 of M.V.Act, 1988 and Rules 455 & 476 of APMV Rules, claiming total compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation, along with interest at 18% p.a., from the date of accident, till the date of realization and for costs.

2.In brief, the claim petitioners case as alleged in the clam petition is as follows:

On 29-08-2013, the deceased and his relative were coming on TVS XL bearing No.AP27 AK 0585 to Vetapalem Village to attend the marriage of their relatives; the deceased was driving the

TVS XL and his relative was on as pillion rider, coming on the left side of the road and reached Desaipet , Near Marrichettu at about 3-00

PM, one Bajaj Caliber bearing NO.AP27 E 5494 ( hereinafter referred as offending vehicle) driven by its driver was coming in an opposite direction, with rash and negligent manner and in high speed, lost his control and hit the petitioner vehicle, as a result of which, the deceased and the pillion rider, fell down on the road, the deceased received grievous on the head and other parts of the body. Then, the deceased was shifted to Area Hospital of Chirala in the 108

Ambulance, but, the doctor advised to shift the deceased to

Government General Hospital, Guntur, for better treatment.

Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government General

Hospital, Guntur, but, he died at about 6-23 PM on the same day. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle , and the matter was reported to Vetapalem

Police Station and police registered the same as Cr.NO.114/2013 under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle.

The deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident.

The deceased was working as a Sweeper on contract basis in

Municipal Office, Ponnur and his monthly salary was Rs.4,989/- per month and also doing private works and getting Rs.2,000/- per month. Totally the deceased was earnings Rs.7,000/- per month. The deceased used to spend the entire income for the maintenance of the petitioners. The petitioners have no source of income and they are fully dependents on the income of the deceased. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioner lost their support and dependency, loss of consortium , loss of estate and loss of love and affection etc. Except the petitioners, there are no other legal heirs and dependents.

The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle , the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle. All the respondents are responsible for the negligent act of their driver and they are liable to pay compensation severally and jointly to the petitioners. Hence, this petition.

3.The respondents 1 and 3 remained exparte. The 2nd respondent filed written statements by denying the material contentions of the claim petition and resisted the claim petition.

In brief, the case of the 2nd respondent is that this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties . The owner and insurer of the vehicle of the deceased are necessary parties. There is no rash and negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent who was rider of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The deceased drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and with high speed without driving licence, lost control over the vehicle and instrumental in causing the accident, and as such, the deceased was responsible for causing the accident. The 3rd respondent had no driving licence at the time of accident and the offending vehicle had no fitness certificate at the time of accident. The offending vehicle was not insured with this respondent as on the date of accident. The petitioners claimed the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- which is highly excessive. Hence, the claim of the petitioners is liable to be dismissed against the 2nd respondent.

4.Based on the material and pleadings, one of my predecessors in the office settled the following issues.

1) Whether the death of Devarakonda Venkateswarlu / deceased occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Baja Caliber bearing Registration

NO.AP27 E 5494?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

5. On behalf of claim petitioners, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent,

R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 were marked.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as 2nd respondent. I have also carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence, apart from bestowing my anxious consideration to the rival contentions.

ISSUE NO.1:

7.The learned counsel for the claim petitioners by discussing the oral and documentary evidence on record, would contend that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of 3rd respondent who is driver of the offending vehicle, the 3rd respondent is responsible for the accident caused to the deceased in the said accident and further, the 1st respondent insured the offending vehicle with the 2nd respondent which was in force as on the date of accident and the driver of the offending vehicle, drove the offending vehicle with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and regulations , without any precautionary measures and hit the deceased motor cycle, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road ans sustained multiple injuries all over the body and the deceased died while undergoing treatment and as such respondent

Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay just compensation to the claim petitioners. He would further submit that even if 3rd respondent had no valid driving licence as contended by the 3rd respondent, the claim petitioner are entitled compensation from the 2nd respondent under pay and recovery policy vide citations : 1)

Pappu and others V. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another, 2018 ACJ 690;

2) Shamanna and another V. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance

Co. Ltd. And others, 2018 ACJ 2163; 3) Bajaj Allianz General

Insurance Co. Ltd. V. M.Sreedevi and others, 2016 ACJ 445; 4) New

India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Turubilli Bharathi and others, 2015 ACJ 1715.

The learned counsel for the claim petitioners by discussing the oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the both parties would submit that the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- sought by the claim petitioners is just and reasonable and sought to allow the claim petition.

The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased, but not 3rd respondent and further , the 3rd respondent had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident and that the 1st respondent knowing very well that the 3rd respondent had no valid driving licence, permitted the 3rd respondent to drive the offending vehicle and violated the policy conditions and as such, 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to the claim petitioners on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3 in the light of in Sardari & Ors. Vs. Sushil

Kumar & Ors, 2008 (1) ANWR 570 SC. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent by discussing the oral and documentary evidence sought to dismiss the claim against the 2nd respondent.

8.PW1 is the 1st claimant and wife of the deceased,

P.W.2 is the eye witness to the accident. P.Ws. 1 and 2 and RW1 filed examination in chief by way of affidavits as contemplated Under

Order XVIII Rule 4(1)C.P.C. PW1 deposed in detail as alleged in the claim petition, P.W.2 deposed as to the accident. RW1 is working under 2nd respondent company as Assistant, T.P.Claims, HUB. RW2 is the Senior Assistant in the Office of DTC, Ongole who was examined in Court.

It is well settled law that the standard of proof in criminal case is totally different from civil case. In criminal case, the prosecution shall prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Where as in civil case, proof by preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. The Apex Court held that “ Requirement of capable negligence U/Sec. 304­ A IPC is more drastic than negligence sufficient under law of tort to operate liability ” Vide Judgment in NKV BROS (P) Limited Vs M.

Karumai Ammal and others in AIR 1980 SC 1354.

9.Undoubtedly, there is no manner of doubt that negligence is required to be proved by the person claiming compensation under

Section 166 of MV Act and that such negligence is required to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities in a claim under 166 of M.V.Act vide citations in oriental Insurance Company

Limited V. Meena Variyal and Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 428 and Surender

Kumar Arora and Anr. V. Manoj Bisla and ors., (2012) 4 SCC 552.

In the case of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs.

Deepak Goel & Ors dated 24-01-2014, in MAC.APP.No.750/2006 of the

Hon’ble Delhi High Court, at Para 20 held that:

“In deciding the accident cases, the Tribunals or the Courts bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim

before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal

case nor a civil case. In a criminal casein order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. Undoubtedly, the enquiry before the Tribunal is a summary enquiry and, therefore, does not require strict proof of liability”. 

10.There is no serious dispute as to the accident that occurred on 29-08-2013 at about 3-00 AM, at Desaipeta, Near

Marrichettu, Vetapalem, Prakasam District, while the deceased was traveling on his motor cycle and hit by the offending vehicle and deceased fell down and received multiple injuries,while undergoing treatment, and the deceased died on 29-8-2013 at GGH, Guntur at 6-23 PM. PW1 is not the eye witness for the accident and she came to know about the accident.

11.PW2 is the direct eye witness for the accident who deposed that on 29-08-2013 at about 3-00 PM, the deceased and himself were coming TVS XL bearing NO.AP27 AK 0595 to

Vetapalem Village to attend the marriage of their relatives and that the deceased was driving his motor cycle and he was as pillion rider were coming on the left side of the road with a minimum speed and reached Desaipet, Near Marrichettu , at that time, the offending vehicle was coming in an opposite direction with a rash and negligent manner, and in high speed, lost his control and hit their motor cycle , as a result of which, the deceased and himself fell down on the road.

PW2 also further deposed that the deceased received grievous injuries on the head and other parts of the body and also he received injuries in the accident, and that the deceased was shifted to Area

Hospital, Chirala, later, the deceased was shifted to Government

General Hospital, Guntur, but, he died at about 6-23 PM on the same day. PW2 stood for cross-examination and nothing was elicited to discard his testimony as unworthy of credence. PW2 is an injured witness , naturally ,his evidence would carry much value. The testimony of PW2 was not disputed as to he was proceeding as a pillion rider of the deceased vehicle. PW2 is a brother-in-law of the deceased. PW2 denied the suggestion that due to negligence of the deceased the accident occurred, but not driver of the offending vehicle. The testimony of PW2 clearly evident that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle only, the accident occurred, but, not the deceased. Merely because, PW2 happened to be brother-in-law of the deceased, his evidence cannot be discarded, when his evidence is credible, reliable and trust-worthy in respect of the accident.

12.RW1 is not the direct witness for the accident and she admitted that she has no personal knowledge about the accident.

The testimony of RW1 is not material to speak about the accident.

13.Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the FIR in Cr.No.114/2013 of

Vetapalem Police Station Under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet; Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the

Inquest Report; Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the Postmortem Report; and Ex.A5 is the MVI Report; Exs.A1 and A2 do evident that the 3rd respondent being driver of the offending vehicle was fault in the accident and caused the death of the deceased in the said motor accident.

14.Therefore, considering the above circumstances and the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the deceased viz.

Devarakonda Venkateswarlu died in the motor accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent while driving the offending vehicle. Accordingly, Issue No.1 Is answered.

15.ISSUE NOS. 2 AND 3: For the sake of conveyance, issues 2 and 3 are decided conjointly as they are inter related and to avoid redundancy in the discussion.

It is known principle that the object of compensation is “to place the claimants or legal heirs of the deceased in the motor accidents to the extent possible in the same original position”. The loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed to golden scales. Bodily injury may lead to loss of earning capacity, depriving mental pleasure, causing physical hardship, diminishing marriage prospects, curtailing social movements, reducing recognition and impairing of normal expectation of life. Compensation in terms of money can never place the victim to the pre-accident position and status. Compensation should be reasonable, fair and practical. But it should not be a windfall or bonanza nor a source of profit nor a pittance. There cannot be a straight jacket formula or mathematical equation. It should assessed by rational approach, and not be an outcome of whims and wild guesses, equitable, fair and reasonable edifice that minimizes the component of arbitrariness vide Judgments (1) Kerala Transport

Corporation Vs Susma Thomas (1994) 2 S.C.C. 176. (2) U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs

Triloc Chandra (1996) 4 S.C.C. 362 (3) C. Rebello Vs Maharastra St.

Rd. Tr. Corp. AIR 1998 S.C. 3191 (4) State of Haryana Vs Jasbir Kaur,

AIR 2003 S.C. 3696 (5) K.S.R.T C. Vs Mahadevsetty (2003) 7 S.C.C.

197 (6) Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi. Tr. Corporation (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 and (7) Arunkumar Agarwala Vs National Insurance Co., (2010) 9

S.C.C. 218.

In the recent citation, in Vimala Devi and others Vs., National

Insurance company Ltd., and others., in Civil Appeal No. 11042/2018 (arising out of SLP.(c) No. 17321 of 2016 dated: 06-11-2018, the Apex

Court, at para 16 held that:

“At the out set, we may re­iterate has been consistently said by this court in a serious of cases, that the act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of motor accident, who suffer bodily injury or die ultimately. The act is designed in a manner, which relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in the law, which are otherwise, applicable to the suits and other proceedings while prosecuting the claim petition filed under the act for claiming compensation for the loss sustained by them in the accident”.

16.By virtue of the judgment of Apex Court in Smt.Sarla

Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2009 SC 3104, basically three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death (a) age of the deceased (b) income of the deceased and the (c) the number of dependents . The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (I) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased.

17.In the claim petition, the age of the deceased was shown

as 35 years. Admittedly, no age proof of the deceased has been filed.

It is shown vide Exs. A2 to A4, as the age of the deceased was 35 years. In fact, there is no serious dispute as to the age of deceased

as 35 years. So, considering the evidence of PW1 , apart from Exs.A2

to A4, the age of the deceased can be fixed as 35 years.

18.PW1 testified that her deceased husband was working as a

Sweeper in Contract basis in Municipal Office, Ponnur and his monthly salary was Rs.4,989/- per month and also doing private works and getting Rs.2,000/- per month, totally, the deceased was earning

Rs.7,000/- per month. Admittedly, the claimants did not produce any documents, the deceased working as a Sweeper in Ponnur,

Municipality , earned Rs.4,989/- per month and also doing private works , earning Rs.2,000/- per month, totally, the deceased earned

Rs.7,000/- per month. So, considering the evidence of P.W.1, the monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,500/- .

19.In National Insurance company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 SCC 680 , the apex court held that while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased, towards future prospects where the deceased had permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made.

The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. “Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax”.

20.In the said citation it was also held further that “ In case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. ”

21.In the instant case, the deceased was self employed and aged 35 years, and thereby, an addition of 40% of actual monthly income of him is entitled by the claimants towards future prospects.

So, the monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.6,300/- ( RS.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-) .

22.The first claimant is the wife and 2nd and 3rd claimants are the children of the deceased and 4th and 5th claimants are the parents of the deceased and their relationship with the deceased is not denied in the enquiry. So, the claimants 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased,and as such, they are entitled compensation for the death of the deceased.

23.It is held by the Apex Court at Para No.14 in Saralavarma’s stated supra, that though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicted in Trilokchandra, the general practice is to apply standard deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one – third (1/3rd) where the number of dependants family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependants family members is 4 to 6 and one – fifth (1/5th ) where the number of dependants family members exceed six and in case of bachelor,the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as half (½ ) . The Apex Court also approved the said proposition in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (6) ALD 170 (SC).

24.Therefore, in the light of above circumstances, one-fourth (1/4th of the income to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. If it is so, the actual monthly income of the ,deceased after one-fourth (1/4th) deduction is Rs.4,725/-. (6,300- 1,575/-)

25.As stated above, the age of the deceased was 35 years as on the date of accident as fixed by the tribunal. So, as per the decision in Smt Sarala Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport corporation and another referred to above and which was also approved by the Constitution bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi stated supra, the relevant multiplier is ‘16’.

26.As stated above, the multiplier, which can be applied in this case is 16. If that being so, the claimants are entitled

Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.4,725/- x 12 x 16) towards multiplicand.

27.The apex court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others stated supra, held that reasonable figures under the conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and

Rs.15,000 respectively. In Pranay Sethi, the Apex Court also held that the said sum should be enhanced @ 10% every three months. It was held thus, the Judgment in Pranay Sethi was rendered in 2017.

Therefore, the claimants are entitled for 10% enhancement.

28.The three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in United

Indian Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Karu and Ors,

AIR 2020 SC 3076, after considering Prany Sethi has awarded spousal , consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- ( Rupees Forty Thousand only) and towards loss of parental consortium to each child at the rate of

Rs.40,000/- . So, the compensation under the said heads also need to be increased by 10%. Therefore, the claimants being wife, daughters and mother of the deceased are entitled reasonable figures on conventional heads namely Loss of Estate, Loss of parental consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.16,500/-( Rs.15,000/- + Rs.1500/-); Rs.44,000/- (Rs.40,000/-+ Rs.4,000/-) towards loss of parental consortium and Rs.16,500/- ( Rs.15,000/-+Rs.1500/-) towards funeral expenses of the deceased; altogether Rs.77,000/- .

Hence, the claimants 1 to 5 altogether are entitled of

Rs.9,84,200/- (Rs.9,07,200/- + Rs.77,000/- ) along with reasonable interest towards death of the deceased in the said motor accident.

29.As stated above, respondent No. 1 is the owner of the offending vehicle, 2nd respondent is the insurer of the 1st respondent’s vehicle and 3rd respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle. Indisputably, the 1st respondent insured offending vehicle with the 2nd respondent and Ex.B1 policy was in force at the time of accident as deposed by RW1. Since, the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the 3rd respondent , who is the driver of the offending vehicle, absolutely, there is no necessity to implead the owner and insurance of the deceased vehicle. So, the claim cannot be dismissed for non - joinder of said parties.

30.As stated above, it is the contention of the 2nd respondent that the 3rd respondent had no driving licence as on the date of accident to drive the offending vehicle and as such, the 1st respondent violated the Ex.B1 policy conditions and thereby , the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation, on behalf of respondents 1 and 3.

31.R.Ws. 1 and 2 deposed that the 3rd respondent had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident. RW2 deposed that she was authorized vide Ex.X1 by her RTA and she verified the driving licence particulars of the 3rd respondent in CFST and found no diving licence, which has been mentioned in Ex.X1.

32.As stated above, respondents 1 and 3 did not produce any driving licence of particulars of the 3rd respondent and they remained exparte. The testimony of R.Ws. 1 and 2, apart from Ex.X1 do show that the 3rd respondent had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident.

33.In National Insurance Company Limited Vs Swaran Singh and others (2004) 3 SCC 297 (Larger Bench) (2) S. Iyyapan Vs United

India Insurance Company Limited and another (2013) 7 SCC 62 held that:

“ Insurance company cannot disown its liability and insurance company has to pay compensation when valid certificate of insurance is issued and may proceed against insured, for the recovery of the amount, even in case, the driver had no valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle” In paras 17 and 18 in the said judgment it was held that “The heading of the insurance motor vehicles against 3rd party risks given in Chapter XI to the Motor

Vehicles Act 1988, Chapter VIII of 1989 Act itself shows the intention of the legislature to make third party insurance compulsory and to ensure that the victims of accident arising out of use of motor vehicles would be able to get compensation for the death or injuries suffered. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons traveling in vehicles or using the road from the risk attendant upon the use of the motor vehicles on the road.

To overcome this ugly situation, the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force”

In the above referred citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners also held that even if the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving licence as on the date of accident, still the insurance company is liable to pay compensation amount to the claimants under recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

Therefore, in the light of above case law and also discussion, I am of the opinion, the respondents are jointly liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners.

34. In the result, the claim petition is allowed partly for

Rs.9,84,200/- along with reasonable interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim with proportionate costs. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount of compensation, within one month from the date of award on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3 and recover the same from the respondents 1 and 3 under pay and recover policy. The 1st claimant being the wife of the deceased is entitled an amount of Rs. 2,84,200/- along with accrued interest and proportionate costs and the petitioners 2, 3 and 5 being the daughter , son and mother of the deceased respectively are entitled an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each along with accrued interest and proportionate costs; and 4th petitioner being the father of the deceased is entitled an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- . Out of the deposit amount, the claim petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw 75% of their share amount of compensation awarded along with proportionate costs and interest and remaining 25% compensation awarded to the claim petitioner No.1 along with her proportionate costs and interest, shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized

Bank for a period of two years, and thereafter she is entitled to withdraw the said 25% of her share of amount along with interest accrued thereon. The amount of minor claim petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank till they attain majority , and thereafter they are entitled to withdraw their share of amount along with interest accrued thereon;The petitioners 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their entire share of compensation amount awarded to them as they happened to be old aged persons.The remaining claim of the petitioners is dismissed. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

The MVOP is disposed of accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 17 th day of APRIL,

2023.

SD/- G.Rama Gopal

CHAIRMAN,MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGE, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:For Respondents:

P.W.1: Devarakonda Adi LakshmiRW1:T.Aparna P.W.2: Kamanchi Anji Babu RW2: P.Vikas,Sr.Asst. DTC Ongole

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR in Crime No.114/2013 of Vetapalem PS Ex.A2: Certified copy of Charge Sheet Ex.A3: Certified copy of Inquest Report Ex.A4: Certified copy of Postmortem Report Ex.A5: Certified copy of MVI Report

For Respondents:

Ex.B1: Copy of Policy.

Ex.X1: Authorization Letter, dated 27-02-2023

SD/- G.Rama Gopal

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGE, GUNTUR.

21

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-Cum-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI G. RAMA GOPAL,

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

Monday, the 17 th day of APRIL, Two Thousand Twenty Three.

M.V.O.P.No.1191 of 2017

Between:

1. Devarakonda Adilakshmi W/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged 35 years R/o.D.No.7-13-41, 10th Ward, Nagulacheruvu, Nidubrolu, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. [ Wife of the Deceased]

2. Devarakonda Tirupathamma D/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Aged 17 years, R/o.D.No.7-13-41, 10th Ward, Nagulacheruvu, Nidubrolu, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. [ Daughter of the Deceased]

3. Devarakonda Durga Prasad S/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Aged 15 years, R/o.D.No.7-13-41, 10th Ward, Nagulacheruvu, Nidubrolu,Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. [ Son of the Deceased] [ Petitioners 2 and 3 are being minors rep.by their mother , next friend guardian i.e., 1st petitioner]

4. Devarakonda Veeraiah S/o.Late Lakshmaiah, Aged 61 years R/o.D.No.7-13-41, 10th Ward, Nagulacheruvu, Nidubrolu, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. [Mother of the Deceased]

5. Devarakonda Kotamma W/o.Veeraiah, Aged 57 years, R/o.D.No.7-13-41, 10th Ward, Nagulacheruvu, Nidubrolu, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. [Father of the Deceased]

....Petitioners.

-AND-

1. K.Venkateswarlu S/o.Hari Babu, D.No.3-20, Thimmasamudram, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. [Owner of Bajaj Caliber NO.AP27 E 5494]

2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, R.R.K.Central, R.R.Road, Bestapalem, P.B.No.41, Bestapalem, Chirala Town. [ Insurer of the Bajaj Caliber No.AP27 E 5494 Policy NO.1509033113P102454226 Valid from 24-07-2013 to 23-07-2014]

3. Kurra Srinivasa Rao S/o.Venkata Seshaiah, Aged 51 years Korrampalem Veedhi Timmasamudram Village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District. [ Driver of the vehicle Baja Caliber bearing NO.AP27 E 5494] [ R3 is added as per IA.NO.479/2022, Dated 26-08-2022] …Respondents.

The claim petitioners being the wife, daughter, son , father and mother of the deceased – Devarakonda Venkateswarlu (herein after referred to as deceased) respectively , who died in the motor ac- cident, filed claim petition under sections 140, 166 of M.V.Act, 1988 and Rules 455 & 476 of APMV Rules, claiming total compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation, along with interest at 18% p.a., from the date of accident, till the date of realization and for costs.

Petition presented on:22-05-2017Petition filed on:26-09-2017

A Court fee of Rs..9,360/- is paid u/R.475(1)(b) of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989.

This MVOP coming on 13-04-2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.B.Tajuddin, Advocate for the claim Petitioners, and of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for 2nd Respondent, and R1 and

R3 remained Exparte; and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tri- bunal doth order and decree as follows: -

1) that the claim petition is allowed partly for Rs.9,84,200/- along with reasonable interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim with proportionate costs;

2) that the respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount of compensation, within one month from the date of award on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3 and recover the same from the respondents 1 and 3 under pay and recover policy;

3) that the 1st claimant being the wife of the deceased is entitled an amount of Rs. 2,84,200/- along with accrued interest and proportion- ate costs and the petitioners 2, 3 and 5 being the daughter , son and mother of the deceased respectively are entitled an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- each along with accrued interest and proportionate costs; and 4th petitioner being the father of the deceased is entitled an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-;

4) that out of the deposit amount, the claim petitioner No.1 is permit- ted to withdraw 75% of their share amount of compensation awarded along with proportionate costs and interest and remaining 25% compensation awarded to the claim petitioner No.1 along with her proportionate costs and interest, shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years, and thereafter she is entitled to withdraw the said 25% of her share of amount along with interest accrued thereon;

5) that the amount of minor claim petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank till they attain majority , and thereafter they are entitled to withdraw their share of amount along with interest accrued thereon;T

6) that the petitioners 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their entire share of compensation amount awarded to them as they happened to be old aged persons;

7) that the remaining claim of the petitioners is dismissed;

8) that the advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

9) that the respondents do pay a sum of Rs.13,298/- to the petition- ers towards proportionate costs of the petition and do bear their own costs of Rs.NIL (CM & FC not filed)

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, on this the 17th day of APRIL, 2023.

SD/- G.Rama Gopal

CHAIRPERSON,

MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR.

TABLE OF COSTS

ParticularsPetitioner Respondents Stamp on Vakalat2-00 Court fee 9,360-00CM & FC Process 150-00Not filed Advocate fees2,000-00 Publication Charges2,000-00 Total13,512-00 Proportionate costs: 13,298-00

SD/- G.Rama Gopal

CHAIRPERSON,

MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR

1

In the Court of the XIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge: Narasaraopet.

PRESENT: SRI G. RAMA GOPAL,

IV-Addl. District judge, Guntur.

FAC: XIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet

Friday, this the 16th day of July, 2021.

Criminal Appeal No.104/2021

From which Court the : Additional Junior Civil Judge, appeal is preferred: Chilakaluripet.

Number of the case in that court: C.C. No.8/2021

Number of the Appeal: C.A.No.104/2021

Name and description of the Appellant:

Bandaru Naveen, s/o. Bhaskara Rao, 23 years, r/o. Audi Andhra Colony, Chilakaluripet.

Name of the Respondent:

The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban Police Station, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Narasaraopet.

Section of law under which the lower court imposed conviction and sentence: -

For the offence under Section 411 IPC, convicted under Section 241 Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One (1) year for the offence under Section 411 IPC.

Whether Judgment of the lower court is

Modified allowed/confirmed/ modified/reversed.

Particulars of Remand :

Notice issued by Date of Date of Appellant Date of Date of the Court presentation filingordered to hearing to appear Judgment appear 5.7.20215.7.20219.7.202116.7.202116.7.202116.7.2021 2

This Criminal Appeal came before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Smt. T. Emeelyamma, Legal Aid Counsel

for the Appellant/Accused and of Sri K.Baala Hanumantha Reddy,

Additional Public Prosecutor the for State/Respondent and upon

perusing the material on record, and on hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is directed under Section 375(b) of

Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.2.2021, in C.C.8/2021 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet, whereby and whereunder, the Appellant/Accused was convicted under Section 241 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 411

IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of

One year for the offence under Section 411 IPC.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after referred to as arrayed in the trial court.

3) In brief, the prosecution case is that:

L.W.1-Challa Siva Nageswara Rao is a resident of

Maddi Nagar, Vaddera Colony, chilakaluripet town and working as a computer operator. About four years back, said Siva Nageswara Rao purchased Honda Shine motorcycle bearing No.AP 07 AM 8383, 2009 model and he used to go to his duty every day on his motorcycle. As usual, on 18.11.2020, in the morning, Challa Siva Nageswara Rao went to duty on his motorcycle and returned to house at 9.00 p.m.

Then, he parked his motorcycle opposite to his house and locked his motorcycle. On the next day i.e., on 19.11.2020 at 5.00 a.m., he 3 woke up and found his motorcycle was missing. He made enquiries about his motorcycle, but, in vain. Then, on 24.11.2020 he went to police station and reported the matter. On receiving the report, L.W.6-

P. Rambabu, Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban Police

Station registered it as a case in Crime No.379/2020 under Section 379 IPC. During course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. During course of investigation, on 25.11.2020 at 7.30 p.m., he arrested the accused at Purushothamapatnam Cross Roads,

Chilakaluripet Town on Ongole to Guntur NH-16 Road in Crime

No.376/2020 under Section 379 IPC of Chilakaluripet Urban Police

Station and recorded his detailed confession statement in the presence of L.W.4-Maddi Venkata Naga Ayyappa and L.W.5-

Mamidipaka Rama Krishna. In the said confession, the accused confession that he committed the offence in this case and in Crime

No.380/2020 and Crime No.381/2020 under Section 379 IPC. He seized Honda Shine Motorcycle bearing No.AP 07 AM 8283 worth

Rs.50,000/- relating to this case and other motorcycles involved in other crimes. Then, he brought the accused to police station and sent him for remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

4) The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet took the case on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 or 411 of IPC.

4

5) After appearance of the accused before the trial court, the accused was furnished copies of documents as contemplated under

Section 207 Cr.P.C., and he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

and framed charge under Section 411 IPC against the accused by the learned Magistrate, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded guilty and voluntarily admitted the offence. Hence, the trial court after satisfying that there is no coercion on the accused to admit the offence, convicted the accused under Section 241 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC as stated above.

6)Heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused, as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and perused the impugned judgment of the trial court and material placed on record. I have also given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions.

7)Smt. T. Emeelyamma,the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, would submit that the respondent police played fraud upon the accused to admit the guilt under the guise that the court would acquit him and he would be released if he admits the guilt, the lower court did not follow the procedure as prescribed by the Criminal

Procedure Code at the time of admission and the accused was not warned of the consequences, the accused is in judicial custody since 1.12.2020 i.e., since six months, the trial court erred in adjudging the case without conducting trial and convicting the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC without producing the stolen property

before the court and the trial court also erred in punishing the

5 accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year which is disproportionate to the quantum of punishment prescribed and ought to have punished the accused for the imprisonment already suffered.

The learned Legal Aid Counsel though stated many contentions in grounds of appeal, but, in the course of argument, only contended that the accused has been in judicial custody for more than six months, sentence imposed by the trial court for one year is highly excessive and the same may be modified by giving set off to the period already undergone by the accused.

8)Per contra,Sri K.Baala Hanumantha Reddy, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused himself

admitted the commission of offence and as such, the trial court rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC and as such, absolutely, there is no necessity to interfere in the conviction judgment of the trial court and sought to dismiss the appeal.

9)Now the following points that would arise for determination are that:

1) Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the impugned judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing accused is factually and legally correct, liable to be set aside or confirmed or modified?

6

10) Points 1 and 2:Point Nos. 1 and 2 are being discussed and decided together as they are interrelated.

11)On perusal of the impugned judgment of the trial court, the accused was convicted under Section 241 CR.P.C. for the charge under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

12)Section 375 Cr.P.C. is extracted infra:-

“375. No appeal in certain cases when accused

pleads guilty.- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal.-

(a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or

(b) if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan

Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class, except

as to the extent or legality of the sentence.”

So,on plain reading of Section 375 Cr.P.C., when the accused was convicted on a plea of guilty, no appeal shall lie, except as to the extent of legality of the sentence. The learned counsel for the accused stated in grounds of appeal that the police played fraud on the accused to admit the guilt under the guise that the court would acquit the accused and he would be released, if he admits the guilt, cannot be countenanced, since there was no basis for the said contention and further, the same is beyond the scope of Section 375(b) of CR.P.C. The trial court clearly observed in the impugned judgment that the accused voluntarily admitted the offence and further, the court was satisfied that there was no coercion on the 7 accused to admit the above offence. Therefore, the contention of the accused that the police played fraud on him has no legs to stand.

13)It appears, the trial court upon the voluntary admission of the accused which is not outcome of threat, coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation and false inducement, apart from material on record found the guilty of the accused for the charge under Section 411 IPC and convicted him as stated above.

14)As regards, the quantum of sentence one year is concerned imposed against the accused by the trial court, the same appears to be excessive.

15)The sole Aim of law is approximation of justice. A punishment must fit to crime. It is the duty of the court to impose proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishments, the court ought to take into consideration, the nature of offence, the circumstances under which, the crime was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender, age, character and antecedents of an offender, while convicting the accused. No sentence even appears to be vindictive.

An excessive sentence defeats its own object and leads to further undermine the respect for the law. First offenders or youthful offenders should invariably be kept in the mind and lenient view should be taken against them. A deterrent sentence is wholly justified, when the offender is hardcore criminal and offence is out of deliberation and pre-planning. No hard and fast rule can be laid down to determine the right measure punishment.

8

In Dr. Bhagare Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1974 SC 476, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:-

“The question of sentence is a matter of judicial discretion. The relevant considerations in determining the sentence, broadly stated include the motive for and the magnitude of the offence and the matter of its commission.”

It was also held that:

“A day’s imprisonment to an honourable man may have more deterrent effect than a life imprisonment spent in prison by hardened criminal. Thus, it is settled law that the sentence always must be proportionate to the crime committed by an offender.”

In the instant case, the accused is aged about 23 years and there was no previous cases, except present connected cases. Even the trial court did not give any reasons for not extending benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. So, considering the case facts, age of the accused and other circumstances, the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year imposed by the trial court against the accused vide impugned judgment is modified to simple imprisonment for eight months.

16)In Vijayaram Singh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004(1)

ALD (Crl.) 587 AP, by relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court in

State of Maharastra Vs. Najakat Alif Mubarak Alif (2001) 6 SCC 311, it was held that:

“Accused in one case is entitled to set off the remand period undergone by him in other cases also.” 9

The trial court rightly invoked Section 428 Cr.P.C. and gave set off the sentence already undergone by the accused from 1.12.2020 to 5.2.2020 and further, the trial court rightly invoked 427 Cr.P.C. by directing the sentence imposed in this case shall run concurrently with the previous sentences in CC No.9/2021, CC No.13/2021 and CC

No.14/2021. The said findings of the trial court are not challenged and there is no necessity to interfere in the said findings.

17)So, in the light of the above discussion, it can be held, the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and further, the impugned judgment of the trial court is factually and legally correct and absolutely, there is no necessity to interfere except in respect of quantum of sentence to be modified as stated supra.

18)In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, by confirming the impugned judgment of the trial court dated 5.2.2021 in

C.C.No.8/2021 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet, but, modified the sentence that the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight months instead of one year imposed by the trial court. It is needless to state the accused is entitled set off period under Section 428 Cr.P.C. and also concurrent sentences as directed by the trial court under Section 427

Cr.P.C.

This Criminal Appeal is disposed of with the said modification.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of July,

2021.

10

sd/- G.Rama Gopal

Special Sessions Judge-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. FAC XIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. Copy to:

1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

2. The Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

// True copy //

1

In the Court of the XIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge: Narasaraopet.

PRESENT: SRI G. RAMA GOPAL,

IV-Addl. District judge, Guntur.

FAC: XIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet

Friday, this the 16th day of July, 2021.

Criminal Appeal No.107/2021

From which Court the : Additional Junior Civil Judge, appeal is preferred: Chilakaluripet.

Number of the case in that court: C.C. No.14/2021

Number of the Appeal: C.A.No.107/2021

Name and description of the Appellant:

Bandaru Naveen, s/o. Bhaskara Rao, 23 years, r/o. Audi Andhra Colony, Chilakaluripet.

Name of the Respondent:

The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban Police Station, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Narasaraopet.

Section of law under which the lower court imposed conviction and sentence: -

For the offence under Section 411 IPC, convicted under Section 241 Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One (1) year for the offence under Section 411 IPC.

Whether Judgment of the lower court is

Modified allowed/confirmed/ modified/reversed.

Particulars of Remand :

Notice issued by Date of Date of Appellant Date of Date of the Court presentation filingordered to hearing to appear Judgment appear 5.7.20215.7.20219.7.202116.7.202116.7.202116.7.2021 2

This Criminal appeal came before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Smt. T. Emeelyamma, Legal Aid Counsel

for the Appellant/Accused and of Sri K.Baala Hanumantha Reddy,

Additional Public Prosecutor the for State/Respondent and upon

perusing the material on record, and on hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following: -

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is directed under Section 375(b) of

Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.2.2021, in C.C.14/2021 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet, whereby and whereunder, the Appellant/Accused was convicted under Section 241 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 411

IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of

One year for the offence under Section 411 IPC.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after referred to as arrayed in the trial court.

3) In brief, the prosecution case is that:

L.W.1-Nagisetty Dhanunjai Rao is a resident of

Uppalapadu village, Pedanandipadu mandal and working as a private school bus driver. He owned Honda Activa 3G motorcycle bearing

No.AP 07 DF 3248. As his co-son-in-law by name Jakka Bala Krishna was residing at Oosavari Street, Chilakaluripet town, he came to his house on 21.11.2020 at 11.30 a.m. on his motorcycle and parked the same in front of his house by locking the same and went into the house. He came out from the house at 12.30 noon and found that his motorcycle was missing. He made enquiries about his motorcycle, 3 but, in vain. Then, on the same day i.e., on 21.11.2020, he went to police station and reported the matter. On receiving the report, L.W.6-

P. Rambabu, Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban Police

Station on 21.11.2020 at 8.00 p.m., registered it as a case in Crime

No.376/2020 under Section 379 IPC. During course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. During course of investigation, on 25.11.2020 at 7.30 p.m., he arrested the accused at

Purushothamapatnam Cross Roads, Chilakaluripet Town on Ongole to

Guntur NH-16 Road in this case and recorded his detailed confession statement in the presence of L.W.4-Maddi Venkata Naga Ayyappa and

L.W.5-Mamidipaka Rama Krishna. In the said confession, the accused confession that he committed the offence in this case and in Crime

No.379/2020, Crime No.380/2020 and Crime No.381/2020 under

Section 379 IPC. He seized Honda Activa 3G Motorcycle bearing

No.AP 07 DF 3248 worth Rs.60,000/- relating to this case and other motorcycles involved in other crimes. Then, he brought the accused to police station and sent him for remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

4) The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet took the case on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 or 411 of IPC.

5) After appearance of the accused before the trial court, the accused was furnished copies of documents as contemplated under 4

Section 207 Cr.P.C., and he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

and framed charge under Section 411 IPC against the accused by the learned Magistrate, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded guilty and voluntarily admitted the offence. Hence, the trial court after satisfying that there is no coercion on the accused to admit the offence, convicted the accused under Section 241 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC as stated above.

6)Heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused, as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and perused the impugned judgment of the trial court and material placed on record. I have also given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions.

7)Smt. T. Emeelyamma,the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, would submit that the respondent police played fraud upon the accused to admit the guilt under the guise that the court would acquit him and he would be released if he admits the guilt, the lower court did not follow the procedure as prescribed by the Criminal

Procedure Code at the time of admission and the accused was not warned of the consequences, the accused is in judicial custody since 1.12.2020 i.e., since six months, the trial court erred in adjudging the case without conducting trial and convicting the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC without producing the stolen property

before the court and the trial court also erred in punishing the

accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year which is disproportionate to the quantum of punishment prescribed 5 and ought to have punished the accused for the imprisonment already suffered.

The learned Legal Aid Counsel though stated many contentions in grounds of appeal, but, in the course of argument, only contended that the accused has been in judicial custody for more than six months, sentence imposed by the trial court for one year is highly excessive and the same may be modified by giving set off to the period already undergone by the accused.

8)Per contra,Sri K.Baala Hanumantha Reddy, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused himself

admitted the commission of offence and as such, the trial court rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC and as such, absolutely, there is no necessity to interfere in the conviction judgment of the trial court and sought to dismiss the appeal.

9)Now the following points that would arise for determination are that:

1) Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the impugned judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing accused is factually and legally correct, liable to be set aside or confirmed or modified?

10) Points 1 and 2:Point Nos. 1 and 2 are being discussed and decided together as they are interrelated.

6

11)On perusal of the impugned judgment of the trial court, the accused was convicted under Section 241 CR.P.C. for the charge under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

12)Section 375 Cr.P.C. is extracted infra:-

“375. No appeal in certain cases when accused

pleads guilty.- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal.-

(a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or

(b) if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan

Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class, except

as to the extent or legality of the sentence.”

So, on plain reading of Section 375 Cr.P.C., when the accused was convicted on a plea of guilty, no appeal shall lie, except as to the extent of legality of the sentence. The learned counsel for the accused stated in grounds of appeal that the police played fraud on the accused to admit the guilt under the guise that the court would acquit the accused and he would be released, if he admits the guilt, cannot be countenanced, since there was no basis for the said contention and further, the same is beyond the scope of Section 375(b) of CR.P.C. The trial court clearly observed in the impugned judgment that the accused voluntarily admitted the offence and further, the court was satisfied that there was no coercion on the accused to admit the above offence. Therefore, the contention of the accused that the police played fraud on him has no legs to stand.

7

13)It appears, the trial court upon the voluntary admission of the accused which is not outcome of threat, coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation and false inducement, apart from material on record found the guilty of the accused for the charge under Section 411 IPC and convicted him as stated above.

14)As regards, the quantum of sentence one year is concerned imposed against the accused by the trial court, the same appears to be excessive.

15)The sole Aim of law is approximation of justice. A punishment must fit to crime. It is the duty of the court to impose proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishments, the court ought to take into consideration, the nature of offence, the circumstances under which, the crime was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender, age, character and antecedents of an offender, while convicting the accused. No sentence even appears to be vindictive.

An excessive sentence defeats its own object and leads to further undermine the respect for the law. First offenders or youthful offenders should invariably be kept in the mind and lenient view should be taken against them. A deterrent sentence is wholly justified, when the offender is hardcore criminal and offence is out of deliberation and pre-planning. No hard and fast rule can be laid down to determine the right measure punishment.

In Dr. Bhagare Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1974 SC 476, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:-

8 “The question of sentence is a matter of judicial discretion. The relevant considerations in determining the sentence, broadly stated include the motive for and the magnitude of the offence and the matter of its commission.”

It was also held that:

“A day’s imprisonment to an honourable man may have more deterrent effect than a life imprisonment spent in prison by hardened criminal. Thus, it is settled law that the sentence always must be proportionate to the crime committed by an offender.”

In the instant case, the accused is aged about 23 years and there was no previous cases, except present connected cases. Even the trial court did not give any reasons for not extending benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. So, considering the case facts, age of the accused and other circumstances, the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year imposed by the trial court against the accused vide impugned judgment is modified to simple imprisonment for eight months.

16)In Vijayaram Singh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004(1)

ALD (Crl.) 587 AP, by relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court in

State of Maharastra Vs. Najakat Alif Mubarak Alif (2001) 6 SCC 311, it was held that:

“Accused in one case is entitled to set off the remand period undergone by him in other cases also.”

The trial court rightly invoked Section 428 Cr.P.C. and gave set off the sentence already undergone by the accused from 1.12.2020 to 5.2.2020 and further, the trial court rightly invoked 427 Cr.P.C. by directing the sentence imposed in this case shall run concurrently with 9 the previous sentences in CC No.8/2021, CC No.9/2021 and CC

No.13/2021. The said findings of the trial court are not challenged and there is no necessity to interfere in the said findings.

17)So, in the light of the above discussion, it can be held, the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and further, the impugned judgment of the trial court is factually and legally correct and absolutely, there is no necessity to interfere except in respect of quantum of sentence to be modified as stated supra.

18.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, by confirming the impugned judgment of the trial court dated 5.2.2021 in

C.C.No.14/2021 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet, but, modified the sentence that the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight months instead of one year imposed by the trial court. It is needless to state the accused is entitled set off period under Section 428 Cr.P.C. and also concurrent sentences as directed by the trial court under Section 427

Cr.P.C.

This Criminal Appeal is disposed of with the said modification.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of July,

2021.

sd/- G.Rama Gopal

Special Sessions Judge-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. FAC XIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. Copy to:

1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

2. The Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

// True copy //

1

In the Court of the XIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge: Narasaraopet.

PRESENT: SRI G. RAMA GOPAL,

IV-Addl. District judge, Guntur.

FAC: XIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet

Friday, this the 16th day of July, 2021.

Criminal Appeal No.105/2021

From which Court the : Additional Junior Civil Judge, appeal is preferred: Chilakaluripet.

Number of the case in that court: C.C. No.9/2021

Number of the Appeal: C.A.No.105/2021

Name and description of the Appellant:

Bandaru Naveen, s/o. Bhaskara Rao, 23 years, r/o. Audi Andhra Colony, Chilakaluripet.

Name of the Respondent:

The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban Police Station, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Narasaraopet.

Section of law under which the lower court imposed conviction and sentence: -

For the offence under Section 411 IPC, convicted under Section 241 Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One (1) year for the offence under Section 411 IPC.

Whether Judgment of the lower court is

Modified allowed/confirmed/ modified/reversed.

Particulars of Remand :

Notice issued by Date of Date of Appellant Date of Date of the Court presentation filingordered to hearing to appear Judgment appear 5.7.20215.7.20219.7.202116.7.202116.7.202116.7.2021 2

This Criminal appeal came before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Emeelyamma, Legal Aid Counsel for the Appellant/Accused and of Sri K.Baala Hanumantha Reddy, Additional

Public Prosecutor the for State/Respondent and upon perusing the material on record, and on hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is directed under Section 375(b) of

Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.2.2021, in C.C.9/2021 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet, whereby and whereunder, the Appellant/Accused was convicted under Section 241 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 411

IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of

One year for the offence under Section 411 IPC.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after referred to as arrayed in the trial court.

3) In brief, the prosecution case is that:

L.W.1-Yenugula Prudhvi Raj is a resident of Patimeeda,

Chilakaluripet town and studying ITI in AMG College, Chilakaluripet.

He owned a Hero Honda Splendor plus motorcycle bearing No.AP 07

AS 4818, and he used to use the same for his needs. As usual, on

20.11.2020, he went to bazar on his motorcycle and returned to house at 9.00 p.m. and parked his motorcycle opposite to his house and locked the same. On the next day morning at 6.00 a.m., he found his motorcycle missing. Then, he made enquiries about his motorcycle and later, on 24.11.2020, he gave report to police. On receipt of the report, L.W.6-P. Rambabu, Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet 3

Urban Police Station registered it as a case in Crime No.380/2020 under Section 379 IPC. During course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. During course of investigation, on 25.11.2020 at 7.30 p.m., he arrested the accused at Purushothamapatnam Cross

Roads, Chilakaluripet Town on Ongole to Guntur NH-16 Road in Crime

No.376/2020 under Section 379 IPC of Chilakaluripet Urban Police

Station and recorded his detailed confession statement in the presence of L.W.4-Maddi Venkata Naga Ayyappa and L.W.5-

Mamidipaka Rama Krishna. In the said confession, the accused confession that he committed the offence in this case and in Crime

No.379/2020 and Crime No.381/2020 under Section 379 IPC. He seized Honda Shine Motorcycle bearing No.AP 07 AS 4818 worth

Rs.45,000/- relating to this case and other motorcycles involved in other crimes. Then, he brought the accused to police station and sent him for remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

4) The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet took the case on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 or 411 of IPC.

5) After appearance of the accused before the trial court, the accused was furnished copies of documents as contemplated under

Section 207 Cr.P.C., and he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

and framed charge under Section 411 IPC against the accused by the learned Magistrate, read over and explained to him in Telugu 4 language, for which, he pleaded guilty and voluntarily admitted the offence. Hence, the trial court after satisfying that there is no coercion on the accused to admit the offence, convicted the accused under Section 241 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC as stated above.

6)Heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused, as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and perused the impugned judgment of the trial court and material placed on record. I have also given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions.

7)Smt. T. Emeelyamma,the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, would submit that the respondent police played fraud upon the accused to admit the guilt under the guise that the court would acquit him and he would be released if he admits the guilt, the lower court did not follow the procedure as prescribed by the Criminal

Procedure Code at the time of admission and the accused was not warned of the consequences, the accused is in judicial custody since 1.12.2020 i.e., since six months, the trial court erred in adjudging the case without conducting trial and convicting the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC without producing the stolen property

before the court and the trial court also erred in punishing the

accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year which is disproportionate to the quantum of punishment prescribed and ought to have punished the accused for the imprisonment already suffered.

5

The learned Legal Aid Counsel though stated many contentions in grounds of appeal, but, in the course of argument, only contended that the accused has been in judicial custody for more than six months, sentence imposed by the trial court for one year is highly excessive and the same may be modified by giving set off to the period already undergone by the accused.

8)Per contra,Sri K.Baala Hanumantha Reddy, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused himself

admitted the commission of offence and as such, the trial court rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC and as such, absolutely, there is no necessity to interfere in the conviction judgment of the trial court and sought to dismiss the appeal.

9)Now the following points that would arise for determination are that:

1) Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the impugned judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing accused is factually and legally correct, liable to be set aside or confirmed or modified?

10) Points 1 and 2:Point Nos. 1 and 2 are being discussed and decided together as they are interrelated.

11)On perusal of the impugned judgment of the trial court, the accused was convicted under Section 241 CR.P.C. for the charge under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

6

12)Section 375 Cr.P.C. is extracted infra:-

“375. No appeal in certain cases when accused

pleads guilty.- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal.-

(a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or

(b) if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan

Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class, except

as to the extent or legality of the sentence.”

So,on plain reading of Section 375 Cr.P.C., when the accused was convicted on a plea of guilty, no appeal shall lie, except as to the extent of legality of the sentence. The learned counsel for the accused stated in grounds of appeal that the police played fraud on the accused to admit the guilt under the guise that the court would acquit the accused and he would be released, if he admits the guilt, cannot be countenanced, since there was no basis for the said contention and further, the same is beyond the scope of Section 375(b) of CR.P.C. The trial court clearly observed in the impugned judgment that the accused voluntarily admitted the offence and further, the court was satisfied that there was no coercion on the accused to admit the above offence. Therefore, the contention of the accused that the police played fraud on him has no legs to stand.

13)It appears, the trial court upon the voluntary admission of the accused which is not outcome of threat, coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation and false inducement, apart from material on record found the guilty of the accused for the charge under Section 411 IPC and convicted him as stated above.

7

14)As regards, the quantum of sentence one year is concerned imposed against the accused by the trial court, the same appears to be excessive.

15)The sole Aim of law is approximation of justice. A punishment must fit to crime. It is the duty of the court to impose proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishments, the court ought to take into consideration, the nature of offence, the circumstances under which, the crime was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender, age, character and antecedents of an offender, while convicting the accused. No sentence even appears to be vindictive.

An excessive sentence defeats its own object and leads to further undermine the respect for the law. First offenders or youthful offenders should invariably be kept in the mind and lenient view should be taken against them. A deterrent sentence is wholly justified, when the offender is hardcore criminal and offence is out of deliberation and pre-planning. No hard and fast rule can be laid down to determine the right measure punishment.

In Dr. Bhagare Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1974 SC 476, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:-

“The question of sentence is a matter of judicial discretion. The relevant considerations in determining the sentence, broadly stated include the motive for and the magnitude of the offence and the matter of its commission.”

It was also held that:

“A day’s imprisonment to an honourable man may have more deterrent effect than a life imprisonment spent in 8 prison by hardened criminal. Thus, it is settled law that the sentence always must be proportionate to the crime committed by an offender.”

In the instant case, the accused is aged about 23 years and there was no previous cases, except present connected cases. Even the trial court did not give any reasons for not extending benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. So, considering the case facts, age of the accused and other circumstances, the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year imposed by the trial court against the accused vide impugned judgment is modified to simple imprisonment for eight months.

16)In Vijayaram Singh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004(1)

ALD (Crl.) 587 AP, by relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court in

State of Maharastra Vs. Najakat Alif Mubarak Alif (2001) 6 SCC 311, it was held that:

“Accused in one case is entitled to set off the remand period undergone by him in other cases also.”

The trial court rightly invoked Section 428 Cr.P.C. and gave set off the sentence already undergone by the accused from 1.12.2020 to 5.2.2020 and further, the trial court rightly invoked 427 Cr.P.C. by directing the sentence imposed in this case shall run concurrently with the previous sentences in CC No.8/2021, CC No.13/2021 and CC

No.14/2021. The said findings of the trial court are not challenged and there is no necessity to interfere in the said findings.

17)So, in the light of the above discussion, it can be held, the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and further, the 9 impugned judgment of the trial court is factually and legally correct and absolutely, there is no necessity to interfere except in respect of quantum of sentence to be modified as stated supra.

18)In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, by confirming the impugned judgment of the trial court dated 5.2.2021 in

C.C.No.9/2021 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet, but, modified the sentence that the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight months instead of one year imposed by the trial court. It is needless to state the accused is entitled set off period under Section 428 Cr.P.C. and also concurrent sentences as directed by the trial court under Section 427

Cr.P.C.

This Criminal Appeal is disposed of with the said modification.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of July,

2021.

sd/- G.Rama Gopal

Special Sessions Judge-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. FAC XIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. Copy to:

1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

2. The Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

// True copy //

1

In the Court of the XIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge: Narasaraopet.

PRESENT: SRI G. RAMA GOPAL,

IV-Addl. District judge, Guntur.

FAC: XIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet

Friday, this the 16th day of July, 2021.

Criminal Appeal No.106/2021

From which Court the : Additional Junior Civil Judge, appeal is preferred: Chilakaluripet.

Number of the case in that court: C.C. No.13/2021

Number of the Appeal: C.A.No.106/2021

Name and description of the Appellant:

Bandaru Naveen, s/o. Bhaskara Rao, 23 years, r/o. Audi Andhra Colony, Chilakaluripet.

Name of the Respondent:

The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban Police Station, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Narasaraopet.

Section of law under which the lower court imposed conviction and sentence: -

For the offence under Section 411 IPC, convicted under Section 241 Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One (1) year for the offence under Section 411 IPC.

Whether Judgment of the lower court is

Modified allowed/confirmed/ modified/reversed.

Particulars of Remand :

Notice issued by Date of Date of Appellant Date of Date of the Court presentation filingordered to hearing to appear Judgment appear 5.7.20215.7.20219.7.202116.7.202116.7.202116.7.2021 2

This Criminal appeal came before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Emeelyamma, Legal Aid Counsel for the Appellant/Accused and of Sri K.Baala Hanumantha Reddy, Additional

Public Prosecutor the for State/Respondent and upon perusing the material on record, and on hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following: -

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is directed under Section 375(b) of

Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.2.2021, in C.C.13/2021 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet, whereby and whereunder, the Appellant/Accused was convicted under Section 241 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 411

IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of

One year for the offence under Section 411 IPC.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after referred to as arrayed in the trial court.

3) In brief, the prosecution case is that:

L.W.1-Nimmala Siva Koteswara Rao is doing tobacco business. On the intervening night of 18/19.11.2020, some unknown offender committed theft of his Hero Honda Passion Plus motorcycle bearing No.AP 07 S 3887 worth Rs.45,000/- when he parked the same in front of his house situated at 2/2 Lane, Krishna Nagar,

Chilakaluripet and decamped with the booty. On receipt of written report from said Siva Koteswara Rao, on 24.11.2020 at 11.30 a.m.,

L.W.6-P. Rambabu, Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban Police

Station registered it as a case in Crime No.381/2020 under Section 379 IPC. During course of investigation, he examined the witnesses 3 and recorded their detailed statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. During course of investigation, on 25.11.2020 at 7.30 p.m., he arrested the accused at Purushothamapatnam Cross Roads,

Chilakaluripet Town on Ongole to Guntur NH-16 Road in Crime

No.376/2020 under Section 379 IPC of Chilakaluripet Urban Police

Station and recorded his detailed confession statement in the presence of L.W.4-Maddi Venkata Naga Ayyappa and L.W.5-

Mamidipaka Rama Krishna. In the said confession, the accused confession that he committed the offence in this case and in Crime

No.379/2020 and Crime No.380/2020 under Section 379 IPC. He seized Honda Shine Motorcycle bearing No.AP 07 AS 3887 worth

Rs.45,000/- relating to this case and other motorcycles involved in other crimes. Then, he brought the accused to police station and sent him for remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

4) The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet took the case on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 or 411 of IPC.

5) After appearance of the accused before the trial court, the accused was furnished copies of documents as contemplated under

Section 207 Cr.P.C., and he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

and framed charge under Section 411 IPC against the accused by the learned Magistrate, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded guilty and voluntarily admitted the offence. Hence, the trial court after satisfying that there is no 4 coercion on the accused to admit the offence, convicted the accused under Section 241 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC as stated above.

6)Heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused, as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and perused the impugned judgment of the trial court and material placed on record. I have also given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions.

7)Smt. T. Emeelyamma,the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, would submit that the respondent police played fraud upon the accused to admit the guilt under the guise that the court would acquit him and he would be released if he admits the guilt, the lower court did not follow the procedure as prescribed by the Criminal

Procedure Code at the time of admission and the accused was not warned of the consequences, the accused is in judicial custody since 1.12.2020 i.e., since six months, the trial court erred in adjudging the case without conducting trial and convicting the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC without producing the stolen property

before the court and the trial court also erred in punishing the

accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year which is disproportionate to the quantum of punishment prescribed and ought to have punished the accused for the imprisonment already suffered.

The learned Legal Aid Counsel though stated many contentions in grounds of appeal, but, in the course of argument, only contended that the accused has been in judicial custody for more than six 5 months, sentence imposed by the trial court for one year is highly excessive and the same may be modified by giving set off to the period already undergone by the accused.

8)Per contra,Sri K.Baala Hanumantha Reddy, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused himself

admitted the commission of offence and as such, the trial court rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC and as such, absolutely, there is no necessity to interfere in the conviction judgment of the trial court and sought to dismiss the appeal.

9)Now the following points that would arise for determination are that:

1) Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the impugned judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing accused is factually and legally correct, liable to be set aside or confirmed or modified?

10) Points 1 and 2:Point Nos. 1 and 2 are being discussed and decided together as they are interrelated.

11)On perusal of the impugned judgment of the trial court, the accused was convicted under Section 241 CR.P.C. for the charge under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

6

12)Section 375 Cr.P.C. is extracted infra:-

“375. No appeal in certain cases when accused

pleads guilty.- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal.-

(a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or

(b) if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan

Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class, except

as to the extent or legality of the sentence.”

So, on plain reading of Section 375 Cr.P.C., when the accused was convicted on a plea of guilty, no appeal shall lie, except as to the extent of legality of the sentence. The learned counsel for the accused stated in grounds of appeal that the police played fraud on the accused to admit the guilt under the guise that the court would acquit the accused and he would be released, if he admits the guilt, cannot be countenanced, since there was no basis for the said contention and further, the same is beyond the scope of Section 375(b) of CR.P.C. The trial court clearly observed in the impugned judgment that the accused voluntarily admitted the offence and further, the court was satisfied that there was no coercion on the accused to admit the above offence. Therefore, the contention of the accused that the police played fraud on him has no legs to stand.

13)It appears, the trial court upon the voluntary admission of the accused which is not outcome of threat, coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation and false inducement, apart from material on record found the guilty of the accused for the charge under Section 411 IPC and convicted him as stated above.

7

14)As regards, the quantum of sentence one year is concerned imposed against the accused by the trial court, the same appears to be excessive.

15)The sole Aim of law is approximation of justice. A punishment must fit to crime. It is the duty of the court to impose proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishments, the court ought to take into consideration, the nature of offence, the circumstances under which, the crime was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender, age, character and antecedents of an offender, while convicting the accused. No sentence even appears to be vindictive.

An excessive sentence defeats its own object and leads to further undermine the respect for the law. First offenders or youthful offenders should invariably be kept in the mind and lenient view should be taken against them. A deterrent sentence is wholly justified, when the offender is hardcore criminal and offence is out of deliberation and pre-planning. No hard and fast rule can be laid down to determine the right measure punishment.

In Dr. Bhagare Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1974 SC 476, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:-

“The question of sentence is a matter of judicial discretion. The relevant considerations in determining the sentence, broadly stated include the motive for and the magnitude of the offence and the matter of its commission.”

It was also held that:

“A day’s imprisonment to an honourable man may have more deterrent effect than a life imprisonment spent in 8 prison by hardened criminal. Thus, it is settled law that the sentence always must be proportionate to the crime committed by an offender.”

In the instant case, the accused is aged about 23 years and there was no previous cases, except present connected cases. Even the trial court did not give any reasons for not extending benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. So, considering the case facts, age of the accused and other circumstances, the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year imposed by the trial court against the accused vide impugned judgment is modified to simple imprisonment for eight months.

16)In Vijayaram Singh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004(1)

ALD (Crl.) 587 AP, by relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court in

State of Maharastra Vs. Najakat Alif Mubarak Alif (2001) 6 SCC 311, it was held that:

“Accused in one case is entitled to set off the remand period undergone by him in other cases also.”

The trial court rightly invoked Section 428 Cr.P.C. and gave set off the sentence already undergone by the accused from 1.12.2020 to 5.2.2020 and further, the trial court rightly invoked 427 Cr.P.C. by directing the sentence imposed in this case shall run concurrently with the previous sentences in CC No.8/2021, CC No.9/2021 and CC

No.14/2021. The said findings of the trial court are not challenged and there is no necessity to interfere in the said findings.

17)So, in the light of the above discussion, it can be held, the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and further, the 9 impugned judgment of the trial court is factually and legally correct and absolutely, there is no necessity to interfere except in respect of quantum of sentence to be modified as stated supra.

18.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, by confirming the impugned judgment of the trial court dated 5.2.2021 in

C.C.No.13/2021 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet, but, modified the sentence that the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight months instead of one year imposed by the trial court. It is needless to state the accused is entitled set off period under Section 428 Cr.P.C. and also concurrent sentences as directed by the trial court under Section 427

Cr.P.C.

This Criminal Appeal is disposed of with the said modification.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of July,

2021.

sd/- G.Rama Gopal

Special Sessions Judge-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. FAC XIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. Copy to:

1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

2. The Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

// True copy //