G.Ramagopal

In The COURT OF The SPECIAL JUDGE For Trial Of Cases Under S.Cs &

S.Ts (POA) ACT – Cum - X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At Rajahmundry

PRESENT: SRI G.Rama Gopal

Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA)

Act,–cum -X Addl. District Judge.

Saturday, the 22 nd day of April, 2017

S.C.S.T.S.C. No. 17 of 2015

Between: State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Zone,

Rajahmundry Urban.. Complainant

And

1. Neduri Bhavannarayana alias Bhanu, S/o.Venkata Rao (late), A/19, C/Kapu, Karanam Gari Street, Diwancheruvu (v), Rajanagaram Mandal, E.G.District.

2. Apireddy Trinadh, S/o.Satish, A/19, C/Koppula Velama, Mallu Bhopalapatnam Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Near Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam Rural District.

3. Meda Ashok, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, A/19, C/Kamma, Door No.40-78, O.C. Colony, Mutyalamma Temple Street, Hanumanthupalem,

Nandigama, Krishna District. .. Accused

Nos. 1 to 3

This case coming on 21.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor i/c. Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri S.Kumar, Advocate for Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This Sessions case arose against the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 out of

Crime No. 145 of 2013 of Bommuru P.S., for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324 read with 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after will be referred as “I.P.C.”) and Sections 3 (1) (x) of The

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(herein after will be referred as “The Act”).

2In brief, the prosecution case as disclosed from the charge sheet filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Zone, Rajahmundry

Urban, against the above accused is follows:

The accused A1 Neduri Bhavannarayana @ Bhanu is a resident of

Diwancheruvu Village of Rajanagaram Mandal and that he belongs to

Kapu by caste, which is not either S.C. or S.T. and that he is a labourer.

A2 Appreddy Trinadh is a native of Bhopalapatnam (v), Visakha Rural and A3 Meda Ashok is a native of Hanumanthupalem of Nandigama,

Krishna District. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are studying Engineering Final

Year in G.I.E.T. Rajanagaram and residing in Diwancheruvu (v) and that they are friends to A1.

P.W.1 Inapala Durga Prasad is a resident of Palacherla Village,

Rajanagaram Mandal and works as Sales boy in an auto spares shop at

Auto Nagar, Rajahmundry. P.Ws. 2 and 10 are his mother and elder brother respectively.

On 02.06.2013 at 10.00 a.m. i.e., on Sunday, P.W.1 went to

Sathibabu’s Kirana Shop in his village on his cycle and applied brakes suddenly in a very close proximity of A1 and one Kunda Moshe that were present at the shop. Then A1 and Kunda Moshe uttered P.W.1 as to why he was applying sudden brakes before them and abused him as “Yentra Kurra Na Kodaka Brake ala Kottav” and without considering their comments, P.W.1 told that he was going to his house as his mother was waiting for him and then Kuda Moshe commented that if his mother comes here than what she would do. So aying, he caught hold of collar, shook and pushed P.W.1 down. P.W.1 went to his house and informed the matter to his mother and since then A1 bore grudge against P.W.1 and waiting for an opportunity to wreck vengeance.

On 08.06.2013 at about 09.00 a.m. when P.W.1 was going to his shop at Auto Nagar to attend his duty on his cycle holding his lunch carrier, A1 together with his friends A2 and A3 Appreddy Trinadh and

Meda Ashok happened to see P.W.1, stopped him at Mahendra Vanam

Cheruvu in Diwancheruvu (v) and questioned him on the plea as to why he was teasing their sister, which is not true and when P.W.1 tried to reply them, A1 to A3 picked up a quarrel with him and beat with a small stick that was picked up nearby on his back and buttocks and later A3 removed his lunch carrier from his cycle and beat him with it.

P.W.1 sustained bruise injuries on his back.

A1 abused him by naming his caste as “Nee Yammanu Thisuku

Vasthava Mala Lanja Kodaka” and beat him. In the meanwhile, P.Ws. 3 and 4 Boyidi Venkanna and his driver Golla Nagendra while passing on the way witnessed the entire incident and they tried to interfere in the galata by preventing A1 to A3 from beating P.W.1 and questioned them as to why they beat P.W.1. On that, they also beat P.W.3 with same carriage. Due to fear, P.Ws. 3 and 4 went away from there and informed the incident to P.W.2. Thereafter, A2 and A3 left P.W.1 at the spot and gone away.

Later, A1 caught hold the collar of P.W.1, forcibly took him to the house of P.W.7 that situated at rear side of P.W.5’s welding shop in

Diwancheruvu (v) and tied up P.W.1 to a guava tree with a rope and again beat him with hands uttering as to why he gave adamant replied on 02.062013 at Sathibabu’s provisions shop.

The neighbours P.Ws. 5 and 7 around guava tree alo saw the illegal confinement and admonished A1 to leave P.W.1 and to go away.

After some time having learnt about his confinement, P.Ws. 2 and 10 rushed to the spot and angered upon A1. Then A1 released P.W.1 and had gone away to his house. P.Ws. 2 and 10 took PW.1 to their house and placed the matter before his community elder P.W.8 Pontham

Augustine. P.W.8 tried to reconcile the disputes, but A1 did not turn up for compromise and challenged him to do what so ever he liked. On that, P.W.1 gave a complaint against accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Bommuru

P.S. for taking necessary action.

On 09.06.2013 at about 08.00 p.m. P.W.9 H.C. 1182 registered the written report of P.W.1 as F.I.R. in Crime No.145 of 2013 under

Sections 342, 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of The

Act of Bommuru P.S. against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and submitted the original F.I.R. to the court and sent P.W.1 to the Medical Officer, District

Hospital, Rajahmundry for treatment.

Having obtained authorization from the Superintendent of Police,

Rajahmundry Urban vide proceedings C.No. 65/C3/2013 dated 10.06.2013, P.W.11 R.Satyanandam, Dy.Superintendent of Police, East

Zone, Rajamahendravaram Urban took up investigation of this case on 10.06.2013 as per Rule 7 (1) of the Act.

During the course of investigation, P.W.11 examined the victim lInapala Durga Prasad and recorded his detailed statement. P.W.11 visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and prepared rough sketches of the scene of offence. No incriminating material was found at the scenes of offences. P.W.11 further examined P.Ws. 2, 10, 3, 4, 7, 5 and 8 and recorded their statements in detail.

In this case, as per the evidence collected from the statements of

P.Ws. 1, 2, 10, 3 to 8, it is established that there is no rivalry between

P.W.1 and Accused Nos 2 and 3 ever before the Commission of this offence and that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 came down to Village from various districts for higher studies and they are not aware of the caste of P.W.1. Moreover, P.W.1 himself and P.Ws. 3 and 4 voluntarily deposed that A1 alone abused and insulted P.W.1 by naming his caste, but A2 and A3 did not do so and that they stood in support of A1 out of friendship and beat P.W.1

The evidence on hand did not establish the complicity of A2 and

A3 for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of The Act but clearly made out a primafacie case for the offences under Sections 342 and 324 of

I.P.C. as they wrongfully restrained the P.W.1 and beat him with a stick and lunch carriase and caused him simple bruise injuries.

During the course of further investigation, on 11.06.2013 at 06.30 a.m. on receipt of credible information, P.W.11 arrested Accused

Nos. 1 to 3 at the house of A1 in Diwancheruvu village, Rajanagaram

Mandal and sent them for remand to this court and the accused were still undergoing judicial remand in the Central Prison, Rajahmundry.

Further, P.W.11 collected documentary proof from P.W.6 and

L.W.9 M.Sunil Civil Assistant Surgeon regarding caste of P.W.1 and A1 and injuries of P.W.1.

P.W.6 A.W.Roosevelt, Thasildar, Rajanagaram that issued caste certificates of P.W.1 and A1 certifying that “the complainant Inpala

Durga Prasad belongs to Mala by caste, which comes under Schedule caste and A1 Neduri Bhavannarayana alias Bhanu, belongs to Kapu by caste, which is O.C.”.

L.W.10 Dr. M.Sunil, C.A.S., District Hospital, Rajahmundry, who treated P.W.1 and issued wound certificate in which he opined that “the above said injury No.1 is simple in nature”.

Therefore, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are liable for the offences punishable under Section 342, 324 read with 34 of I.P.C.only, while A1 is liable for the offences under Sections 342, 324 read with 34 of I.P.C.

and Section 3 (1) (x) of The Act for their overt acts as narrated above.

Hence, the charges.

3 The learned VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Rajamahendravaram based on the charge sheet allegations and other material on record, took the case on file for the offences U/Secs. 342, 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. and and Section 3 (1) (x) of The Act, furnished the case copies as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and duly committed the case as P.R.C.No.30/2013 to this court, since the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of The Act is exclusively traible by this court.

4 On hearing and consideration, one of my predecessors’s framed the charges under Sections 324 read with 34, 324 and 341 of I.P.C. and

Section 3 (1) (x) of The Act against the 1st accused, 324 read with 34, 324 read with 34, 341 read with 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of The

Act read with 34 of I.P.C. against the 2nd accused and 324 read with 34, 324 read with 34, 341 read with 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of The

Act read with 34 of I.P.C. against the 3rd accused read over and explained to all the accused in Telugu, which is their mother tongue, for which all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5To substantiate it’s case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P16.

6On being closed the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances that appearing in the testimony of prosecution witnesses were explained to the accused Nos. 1 to 3 U/Sec.313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. All the accused flately denied the same. Defendant did not adduce any documentary evidence, but marked Ex.D1.

7.) Now the following points that would arise for determination:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of accused Nos.

1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with 34, 324 and 341 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of The Act against the 1st accused, 324 read with 34, 324 read with 34, 341 read with 34 of

I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of The Act read with 34 of I.P.C. against accused Nos. 2 and 3?

8.) Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor i/c. Special Public

Prosecutor (herein after will be referred as “S.P.P.”) and the learned counsel for the accused. I have also carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence on record apart from bestowing my anxious consideration to the rival contentions.

9)P.W.1 is the injured-cum-victim. P.Ws 2 to 5 are the alleged eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.6 is the Tahasildar, who issued

Ex.P7 caste Certificate of P.W.1 and Ex.P8 caste certificate of Accused

No.1. P.Ws. 7 and 8 are also alleged eyewitnesses. P.W.9 is the Head

Constable, who registered the above crime. P.W.10 is the another alleged eyewitness and brother of P.W.1. P.W.11 is the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, East Zone, Rajamahendravaram Urban, who investigated the case and filed charge sheet into the Court. Out of 11 witnesses examined by prosecution, P.Ws.1,2,4,5,7, 8 and 10 became hostile and unfavoured to the prosecution case.

10P.W.3 the alleged eyewitness, who is also said to be received injuries in the incident, P.W.6, P.W.9 and P.W.11 are official witnesses supported the prosecution case.

11P.W.1 is a resident of Palacherla Villge and doing coolie works.

PW.1 belongs to Schedule caste, Mala. The 1st accused is a resident of

Diwancheruvu, Rajanagaram Mandal and he belongs to Kapu

Community. P.W.1 has deposed that he neither sustained any injuries nor filed any case against the Accused Nos. 1 to 3. P.W.1 only admitted his signature, marked as Ex.P1, on the complaint dated 09.06.2013. P.W.1 also denied the contents of the complaint dated 09.06.2013 said to be given by him. P.W.1 also denied Ex.P2 complaint dated 09.06.2013 said to be given by him to the police.

P.W.1 was declared as hostile witness by the learned Special Public

Prosecutor and cross-examined the witness. The cross-examination over P.W.1, it is only by way of suggestion and denial by the P.W.1.

Absolutely, no material is elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.1 in support of the prosecution case.

12P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1 she also did not state anything against the accused Nos. 1 to 3. P.W.4 is a resident of Palacherla

Village and Tractor driver and he is also relative of P.Ws. 1 and 2.

P.W.4 too did not state anything against the accused. P.Ws. 5,7,8 and 10 also did not state anything against the accused about the incident.

The said witnesses were also declared as hostile witnesses by the

Special Public Prosecutor and cross-examined by them. Nothing was elicited from out of the cross-examination by the learned Special Public

Prosecutor in support of the prosecution case.

13As stated supra, P.W.6 Tahasildar deposed that on 26.06.2013 at the request of S.D.P.O., E.G.District, Rajahmundry Urban, he had issued Ex.P7 caste certificate of P.W.1 as he belongs to Schedule

Caste, Mala and also issued Ex.P8 caste certificate of A1 as he belongs to O.C. community. It is admitted by P.W.6 that he did not issue

Exs.P7 and P8 in the form prescribed for issuing caste certificates for education purpose. P.W.6 denied the suggestion that P.W.1 is not belonging to schedule Caste, Mala.

14The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide it’s Judgments 1) Kumari

Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal

Development and others, Reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94, 2)

Director of Tribal Welfare Vs. Laveti Giri and other, reported in AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 2046, 3) G.M.Indian Bank Vs. R.Rani reported in (2007) 12 S.C.C. 796, 4) Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham and others, reported in (2012) 1 S.C.C. 333 held that, the caste certificates of

S.Cs. & S.Ts shall be issued by Revenue Divisional Officer or Deputy

Collector or Deputy Commissioner rather than the Officer of Taluk or

Mandal level by conducting inquiry.

15The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.3, the alleged eyewitness to the incident. P.W.3 is a resident of Palacherla

Village and he is living by hiring and driving the tractor of his wife.

P.W.3 has deposed that about 4 years ago, on one day, at 09.00 a.m., while he was going to Auto Nagar from that shortcut route, he witnessed Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and P.W.1 were having in altercation nearby a tank and he got down from his motorbike and separated them as he knew the 1st accused and P.W.1. It is further stated that when he intervened to separate Accused Nos. 1 to 3 from P.W.1, the carriage, which was carrying by P.W.1, was hit to his teeth portion of his face and, as such, he sustained bleeding injury. Thereafter, he left that place. The defence denied the said version of P.W.3.

16The prosecution did not produce wound certificate of P.W.3 to show that P.W.3 sustained injuries to believe his presence at the scene of offence. According to P.W.3, P.W.4 was said to be present, but

P.W.4 did not support the version of P.W.3. Even as per the testimony of P.W.3, there was an altercation only between A1 to A3 and P.W.1.

The evidence of P.W.3 does not throw any light that Accused Nos. 1 to 3 beat P.W.1 and inflicted injuries, apart from abusing P.W.1 by referring to P.W.1’s caste. P.W.3 also did not specify the exact place of incident. It appears from the cross-examination of P.W.3 that there were material omissions. Therefore, by relying upon the said evidence of P.W.3, it cannot be said that A1 to A3 inflicted injuries to P.W.1 and abused P.W.1 by referring to his caste.

17P.W.1 himself did not state anything against the accused Nos. 1 to 3. If that being so, much weight cannot be given to the evidence of

P.W.3, whose evidence also does not specific about the accused indulging the said offences against the P.W.1.

18P.Ws.9 and 11 are not material witnesses and their evidence is not directly useful to the case of the prosecution. As stated supra,

P.Ws. 1 to 4, 5,7,8 and 10 denied Exs.P3 to P6, P9, P10 and P12 under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statements respectively said to be given to the police.

19It is well settled that the statements recorded by the police under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. neither can be used as a substantive evidence nor can be used as a corroborative evidence. The statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. can only be used for contradictory.

Therefore, the said statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

are no way helpful to the case of the prosecution 20It is settled law that the prosecution should prove it’s case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to believe it’s case. In the instant case, absolutely, there is no substantive evidence to show that Accused Nos. 1 to 3 committed the said offences against the P.W.1. In the instant case, there is no cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to believe that Accused Nos.

1 to 3 committed the offences against P.W.1 on the date of incident. If that being so, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove it’s case against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the charges under Sections 341, 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of The Act.

21In the result, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charges under Sections 324 read with 34, 324 and 341 of The Indian

Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 (1) (x) of The Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the 1st accused and 324 read with 34, 324 read with 34, 341 read with 34 of

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 (1) (x) of The Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 against accused Nos. 2 and 3 as such, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and their sureties shall be kept intact for a period of 6 months by virtue of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The un- marked properties, if any, are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Partly Typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-II), corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 22nd day of April,2017.

Special Judge for Trial of

Cases filed under SCs & STs (POA) Act – X Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

APPEDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:

P.W.1/03-01-2017 Inapala Durga Prasad P.W.2/03-01-2017 Inapala Ramadevi P.W.3/04-01-2017 Boyidi Venkanna P.W.4/06-01-2017 Golla Nagendra P.W.5/09-01-2017 Barla Gurunatham P.W.6/11-01-2017 A.W. Roosevelt P.W.7/20-01-2017 Vepada Lakshmi P.W.8/31-01-2017 Pontham agustin P.W.9/31-01-2017 A.V.Venkateswararao P.W.10/12-04-2017 I.Rambabu P.W.11/19-04-2017 R.Satyanandam For Defence None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution: ExP1/09-06-2013: Signature of P.W.1 in original complaint given to Police ExP2/09-06-2013: Original complaint given by P.W.1 to police ExP3/10-06-2013: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 ExP4/10-06-2013: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 ExP5/10-06-2013: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 ExP6/10-06-2013: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 EXP7/26-06-2013: Letter from Tahasildar regarding to caste particulars of P.W.1 ExP8/26-06-2013: Letter from Tahasildar regarding to caste particulars of A.1 ExP9/10-06-2013: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7. ExP10/10-06-2013: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8 ExP11/09-06-2013: F.I.R in Crime No. 145/2013 of Bommur P.S. ExP12/10-06-2013: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.10 ExP13/10-06-2013: S.P.Proceedings in C.No.65/C3-SC&ST/2013 ExP14/10-06-2013: Rough Sketch at 1st scene of offence ExP15/10-06-2013: Rough Sketch at 2nd scene of offence ExP16/01-07-2013: Wound certificate of P.W.1 issued by Dr. Sunil For Defence : Documents marked ExD1/10-06-2013 : Red marked portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3

Special Judge for Trial of

Cases filed under SCs & STs (POA) Act – X Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

1. The Registrar (Judl.), High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.

2. The Directorate of Prosecutions, Saifabad, DGP Office Complex, Hyderabad.

4. The Superintendent of Police, E.G.District, Rajamahendravaram Urban

5. The VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Rajamahendravaram 6 .The District Collector, E.G. District, Kakinada.

CALENDER

In The COURT OF The SPECIAL JUDGE For Trial Of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA)

ACT – Cum - 10th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At Rajahmundry PRESENT: SRI G.Rama Gopal ,

Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs Court

– cum - 10th Addl. District Judge.

Saturday, the 22 nd day of April, 2017

S.C.S.T.S.C. No. 17 of 2015

(PRC No.30/2013 of VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajamahendravaram connected with Crime No.145/2013 of Bommuru P.S.)

Name and addresses of the accused:

1. Neduri Bhavannarayana alias Bhanu, S/o.Venkata Rao (late), A/19, C/Kapu, Karanam Gari Street, Diwancheruvu (v), Rajanagaram Mandal, E.G.District.

2. Apireddy Trinadh, S/o.Satish, A/19, C/Koppula Velama, Mallu Bhopalapatnam Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Near Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam Rural District.

3. Meda Ashok, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, A/19, C/Kamma, Door No.40-78, O.C. Colony, Mutyalamma Temple Street, Hanumanthupalem, Nandigama, Krishna District.

.. Accused Nos. 1 to 3

DATE OF OFFENCE : 08.06.2013 Report/Complaint : 09.06.2013 Apprehension of accused11.06.2013 Committal Order : 12.11.2014 Commencement of trial : 03.01.2017 Close of trial : 21.04.2017 Sentence or Order : 22.04.2017

Explanation for delay and remarks:

This case was taken on file in this court on 30.03.2015 for disposal according to Law and accused appeared before this Court on 30.04.2015 and trial in this case was commenced on 03.01.2017 and closed on 21.04.2017and pronounced Judgment on 22.04.2017. Hence there is no unavoidable delay in this case.

Plea of the accused : Not guilty.

Finding of the judge : Found not guilty

Sentence of order:

In the result, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charges under Sections 324 read with 34, 324 and 341 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 (1) (x) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the 1st accused and 324 read with 34, 324 read with 34, 341 read with 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 (1) (x) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 against accused Nos. 2 and 3 as such, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and their sureties shall be kept intact for a period of 6 months by virtue of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The un-marked properties, if any, are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Special Judge for Trial of

Cases filed under SCs & STs (POA) Act – X Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

1

In The COURT OF Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - X

Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari, At Rajahmundry

PRESENT: G.Rama Gopal

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- X Addl. District & Sessions Judge.

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2017.

M.V.O.P. No. 287 of 2014

Between: Alla Srikrishna, S/o. Raja Rao, Hindu, Aged 35 years, Cultivation, Resident of Door No. 2-5, beside N.H. 16 road, Murari Village,

Gandepalli Mandal, E.G.District. .. Petitioner

And

1. Karra Murali Krishna, S/o.Ganga Raju, Hindu, Aged 42 years, Driver of AP 05 TV 4968, Door No.48-12/6, Rajendra Nagar, Rajahmundry (DL RAP 53723413, Badge No.28, License No. 707/TNK/1991, Validity 27.02.2015 (Transport) Non-Transport, LMV date of validity is 20.12.2020)

2. Kotha Supriya, w/o.Ram Mohan Rao, Hindu, Aged 40 years, owner of the Chevrolet Tavera Car bearing No. AP 05TV 4968, Resident of shop No. C-1, 2nd floor, Opp: to R.T.C. Bus Stand, Rajahmundry.

3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, D.No.36-12-24, Jetty Towers, Innispeta, Near Kotipalli Bus Stand, Rajahmundry.

.. Respondents 1 to3

This petition coming on 18.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Raghu Ram, Advocate for petitioner and Sri

D.V.K. Ramesh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and sir

Ch.V.Prasad, Advocate for 3rd respondent and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration still this date, this court made the following:

AWARD

This petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P.M. Act, 1989 to pass an award in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 directing them to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- jointly and severally with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and for costs of the petition for the death of pregnant she-buffalo, aged 7 years belonged to the petitioner.

2 2In brief, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is doing cultivation and milk business. 1st respondent is the driver and 2nd respondent is the owner of Tavera car bearing No.AP 05 TV 4968 and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle.

On 15.08.2013 at 01.00 a.m. during night time, the 1st respondent being driver of Tavera car drove it in a rash and negligent manner and also with high speed without blowing horn, when proceeding from Jaggampeta to Rajamahendravaram on N.H. 16 Road and dashed pregnant black she-buffalo of petitioner aged about 7 years on the middle of the road, near Venkateswara Swamy Temple,

Gandepalli Village and Mandal, East Godavari District and as a result of which, the petitioner’s pregnant she buffalo sustained injuries and hemorrhage and died on the spot.

The said She-buffalo was hale and healthy and it was giving 8 liters of milk per day and cost of the milk is Rs.40/- per liter. The petitioner sustained loss of income, pain and suffering.

The police registered a case in Crime No. 121 of 2013 under

Section 279 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Dr. P.Annapurna Naidu, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Veterinary

Dispensary, Gandepalli E.G.District, conducted postmortem and gave opinion that the she-buffalo died due to shock caused by extensive hemorrhages and multiple fractures. Hence, the petition.

3 3The 1st and 3rd respondents filed separate counters and opposed the claim of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent adopted the counter of the 1st respondent by filing an adoption memo.

4In brief, it is the case of the 1st respondent that the petitioner should not have permitted the she buffalo on the road and because of the accident, the 2nd respondent suffered much more loss to her vehicle and she spent huge amount towards repairs of the vehicle.

The 2nd respondent claimed the repair charges of the vehicle from the petitioner and with a view to avoid liability and to forestall the defence for the proposed action of the respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the present petition. The 1st respondent has got valid driving license and the vehicle had been insured with 3rd respondent as on the date of accident.

5In brief, it is the case of the 3rd respondent that the car bearing

No. AP 05 TV 4968 is validly insured by the 3rd respondent covering the period from 01.08.2013 to 31.07.2014 and the compensation payable, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.

The 3rd respondent denied that the petitioner is the owner of the

She-buffalo and it is seven years old by the date of the accident. 3rd respondent also denied the manner in which the accident had occurred and the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent also denied that the 1st respondent is having valid and effective driving license and the documents of the car i.e., R.C. F.C.

and permit are in order at the time of the accident. The 3rd respondent also denied the income from the she-buffalo and it’s health condition.

The petitioner is not entitled to interest from the date of petition, but is entitled from the date of decree that too is not entitled to 4 interest exceeding to 6% per annum. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exaggerated and if at all any compensation is payable by this respondent, it is delimited and defined as per the provisions of the M.V.Act. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6Based on the above pleadings, one of my predecessor’s framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the pregnant black she buffalo had died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving and by use of the vehicle i.e., car bearing No. AP 05 TV 4968 by it’s driver/1st respondent?

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

3. To what relief?

7During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence has been let in on behalf of the respondent

Nos. 1 and 2. On behalf of 3rd respondent, D.W.1 it’s Assistant

Manager was examined and marked Ex.B1 copy of the insurance policy.

8Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner also filed written arguments, which have been placed on record.

9Issue No.1: P.W.1 is the petitioner, P.Ws. 2 to 4 are the third parties. P.W.5 is the veterinary doctor. As stated supra, D.W.1 is the

Assistant Manager of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company.

5 10P.Ws. 1 to 4 and D.W.1 filed examination in chief by way of affidavits contemplated under Order 18 Rule 4 (1) of C.P.C. The evidence of P.W.5 was recorded in the Court. P.W.1 deposed in detail in support of his claim petition. P.Ws. 2 to 4 supported the evidence of

P.W.1. P.W.5 deposed as to her conducting postmortem over she- buffalo of the petitioner, aged 7 years and issuance of Ex.A10 copy of the postmortem report. D.W.1 deposed as to Ex.B1 policy coverage to the crime vehicle and liability of 3rd respondent is only Rs. 6,000/- since, buffalo falls under the definition of property.

The petitioner’s claim was resisted by the 3rd respondent insurance company by seeking permission to contest it on the grounds other than those, which were available to the insurer under the Motor

Vehicles Act.

11Indisputably, the 1st respondent was the driver and 2nd respondent was owner of the vehicle involved in the accident i.e.,

Tavera car Bearing No. AP 05 TV 4968. There was a 3rd party property insurance coverage to the said vehicle under Ex.B1 policy as on the date of accident.

12As deposed by P.W.1 on 15.08.2013 at about 01.00 a.m., the 1st respondent being driver of Tavera car bearing No. AP 05 TV 4968 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and with high speed without blowing horn proceeding from Jaggampeta to Rajahmundry on N.H.16 road and on the middle of the road near Venkateswara Swamy Temple,

Gandepalli Village and mandal, East Godavari District, dashed the pregnant black she-buffalo aged 7 years belonged to him and, as a result, said buffalo died on the spot.

6 13It seems P.W.1 was not an eyewitness for the accident, but he came to know about the accident through P.Ws. 2 to 4 and others.

P.Ws. 2 to 4 being eyewitnesses of the accident categorically deposed that the 1st respondent drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the pregnant she-buffalo of P.W.1 at the scene of offence, causing multiple injuries and, as such, the said she-buffalo died.

14Ex.A1 attested copy of the F.I.R. and Ex.A3 attested copy of the charge sheet do show a case was registered against the 1st respondent in Crime No. 121 of 2013 of Gandepalli Police Station for the offence under Section 279 of I.P.C. and 1st respondent was also charge sheeted. P.Ws. 2 to 4 eyewitness evidence clinchingly shows that the 1st respondent being driver of the said vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, resulting the death of pregnant she-buffalo of P.W.1 aged about 7 years. P.W.1 also proved the death of pregnant she buffalo by examining P.W.5 Veterinary

Doctor. P.W.5 deposed that on 17.08.2013 at 08.00 a.m. she conducted postmortem examination of deceased she-buffalo, aged 7 years near Venkateswara Swmay Temple, Gandepalli and issued

Ex.A10 with an opinion that she buffalo died due to extensive internal bleeding and multiple fractures and that the she buffalo was 9 months pregnant.

15Therefore, from the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 coupled with the above referred documents, I am of the opinion that the petitioner could prove that due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent, the accident occurred on 15.08.2013 at 01.00 a.m. and as a result of the 7 same, the pregnant she buffalo of P.W.1 died. In fact, the respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 did not dispute as to the accident.

16It seems to be the contention of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that it was because of petitioner, who permitted the pregnant she-buffalo to come on the road, the accident occurred and the petitioner was to be blamed for the accident.

17Merely because, she buffalo or any cattle came on public road, the respondent could not be permitted to hit she-buffalo in a rash and negligent driving of her car and caused the death of she buffalo. If at all, the petitioner had violated the traffic rules or any other relevant provisions of cattle, either the 1st respondent or 2nd respondent would have initiated action against the petitioner for violation of such rules.

It seems, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not do so.

18Therefore, it cannot be said, simply because, the she-buffalo was proceeding on the road, the P.W.1 at fault and there is no liability of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, from the oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the 1st respondent, I have no hesitation to conclude that the pregnant she buffalo of P.W.1 died in the accident on 15.08.2013 at 01.00 a.m. at the scene of offence due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle bearing NO. AP 05 TV 4968 by it’s driver/1st respondent. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered.

19Issue No.2: It is seems to be the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to assess and award compensation for the loss of income 8 suffered by petitioner, because of loss of she-buffalo and at the most the award of the cost of the buffalo to the petitioner can be awarded.

20The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurance company would further contend as per the terms and conditions under Ex.B1 policy, issued to the vehicle bearing No. AP 05 TV 4968, the liability of the 3rd respondent in respect of 3rd party damage is limited to Rs.

6,000/- and, as such, irrespective of the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioner, the liability of the 3rd respondent is limited to

Rs. 6,000/-.

21As it can be seen from Ex.B1 policy, T.P.P.D. coverage - cum G.R.

39-A was only paid Rs. 200/- There is no dispute that the vehicle of the 2nd respondent was validly insured with the 3rd respondent as on the date of accident. It appears, the said vehicle was coverage of 3rd party property damage by paying the amount of Rs. 200/-. If that being so, irrespective of the quantum of the compensation claimed by the petitioner, the liability of the 3rd respondent only to the extent of

Rs.6,000/-. The petitioner / PW.1 claimed total compensation of Rs.

2,00,000/-. Out of Rs. 2,00,000/- a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards compensation for the death of she buffalo, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of income and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of future income.

22The testimonies of P.Ws. 1 to 5 do not throw any light as to the value of pregnant she-buffalo died belonged to the petitioner. It is mentioned in copy of the report appended to Ex.A1 that the value of the P.W.1’s she buffalo was worth of Rs. 80,000/-. Absolutely, no proof has been filed by the petitioner to show the pregnant she-buffalo of

P.W.1 was value of Rs. 80,000/-. The petitioner was expected to 9 mention the value of said she buffalo in his evidence and prove the same to believe his version. P.W.1 did not make any such attempt. It is stated by P.W.1 in the cross-examination that the said she buffalo was born in his house. Even the said she buffalo was born in his house, he is expected to let in some oral evidence to believe that the value of she buffalo is Rs. 80,000/-.

23In National Insurance Co., Limited Vs. Abudl Karim and others, reported AIR 2007 J & K 39, the Hon’ble High Court decided an interesting question of law, whether the Accidents Claims Tribunal would have jurisdiction to assess and award compensation for the loss of income suffered by the owner of the she-buffalo, because of loss of his she-buffalo.

In the said citation, two Division Bench Judgments of Kerala High

Court as well as Karnataka High Court were referred to giving two conflict of decisions. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in General

Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Saraddamma and Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bhaskaran referred in the judgment regarding the interpretation of the expressions “damages’ and ‘compensation’ as these so appear in Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988.

It seems the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held that the Tribunal at the most can award the cost of buffalo to it’s owner and nothing more than that.

Hon’ble Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Karnataka

State Road Transport Corporation Vs. V.K.Abdul Majid, reported as (1999) II A.C.C. (DB) (Sic), where it was held that the intention of the

Parliament in empowering the Tribunal to deal with claims of compensation regarding damages caused to the property of a third 10 party too, in addition to the claims of compensation in respect of accidents involving death of, or bodily injury, to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, by adopting single yard stick for determination of claims contemplated under Section 165 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988.

In the said citation, the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court held that the compensation for the loss of income of she buffalo also can be paid.

24The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent relied upon a citation in 2006 (4) A.L.T. 561 between United India Insurance Company

Limited Vs. K.Chandrarskeharachari and another, wherein, the main point that is brought to the notice of the court, plea of insurer being that it’s liability is limited to Rs. 6,000/- and the grant of damages at

Rs. 53,000/- is on higher side and therefore, general damages of Rs.

6,000/- were granted to the claimant.

25In the citation of National Insurance Co., Limited Vs. Abudl Karim and others, reported in AIR 2007 J & K 39,referred to above, the

Hon’ble High Court found that the she buffalo worth of Rs.18,000/- as

on 15.05.1997, awarded a compensation of Rs. 55,000/- which is a just compensation by analyzing that nonpayment of the amount to the 1st respondent for 9 long years has also to be kept in view because non- payment of the value of the buffalo for 9 years has deprived the claimant of his right to utilize it for purchasing a new buffalo.

26In the instant case, except mentioning in the claim petition and complaint given to the Police, the worth of pregnant she buffalo of

P.W.1 was Rs.80,000/-. Absolutely no material has been placed to believe the said version of P.W.1. Even the petitioner did not let in any evidence including himself to show the value of the said she buffalo.

11

Thus, it shows the petitioner kept the court in a dark situation to assess the value of the she buffalo. Therefore, there is no option, except to take general situation in the society. Normally, the value of the she buffalo depends upon the bread and other conditions of it.

Normally, the value of she-buffalo in the present days would not be less than Rs.20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. In the instant case, the she buffalo of P.W.1 died in the accident on 15.08.2013 .

27In the light of the legal position applied in the Judgment of

Hon’ble J&K High Court referred to above, for replacing she buffalo of

PW.1, he would have needed more amount than the original worth of it. Therefore, considering the period between the date of accident and non payment of amount to the petitioner for about 4 years, I am of the opinion, payment of Rs. 50,000/- would be just compensation for the loss of P.W.1’s pregnant she buffalo. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled altogether Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for the death of pregnant she-buffalo of him. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered.

28In the result, the petition is allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner with proportionate costs and with subsequent interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

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

The 3rd respondent is only liable to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- and interest there on out of the total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and interest awarded against the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 can deduct Rs. 6,000/- and interest paid by the 3rd respondent out of compensation awarded against them.

12

The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of order. On deposit of said compensation, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount.

The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-. For all other reliefs, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-II), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 24th day of April, 2017.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- X Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner

P.W.1: Aalla Srikrishna P.W.2: Yeluganti Nageswara Rao P.W.3: Bikkina Venkata Rao P.W.4: Meka Madhava Rao P.W.5: Dr. P.Annpurna Naidu

For Respondents:

D.W.1: Chilla Meera Sayeebu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner

Ex.A1/16.08.2013: Attested copy of the F.I.R. in Crime NO.121/13 Ex.A2/17.08.2013: Attested copy of the Postmortem Report Ex.A3/: Attested copy of the charge sheet Ex.A4/: Attested copy of the Driving license Ex.A5/: Attested copy of the C-Book Ex.A6/: Attested copy of Form T.V.P. issued by R.T.A. Kakinada Ex.A7/: Attested copy of the Policy Ex.A8/: Attested copy of the rough sketch Ex.A9/: Photos and negatives. Ex.A10: Attested copy of the P.M.Report

For Respondent No.3:

Ex.B1/: Copy of the insurance policy.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- X Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry 13

N O T I C E

14

Please take notice that the Award in M.V.O.P. No. 774 of 2014 on the file of Chairman, M.A.C.T. - cum - X Addl. District Court, Rajahmundry will be passed today i.e., on 20.04.2017.

Chairman, M.A.C.T. cum- X AddlBy Order

District Judge, Rajahmundry,

Dated 20.04.2017Chief Administrative Officer

To Sri K.Ravindranath, Advocate for Petitioner

Sri U.V.S.P.Avadhani, Advocate for 3rd respondent.

N O T I C E

Please take notice that the Award in M.V.O.P. No. 774 of 2014 on the file of Chairman, M.A.C.T. - cum - X Addl. District Court, Rajahmundry will be passed today i.e., on 20.04.2017.

Chairman, M.A.C.T. cum- X AddlBy Order

District Judge, Rajahmundry,

Dated 20.04.2017Chief Administrative Officer

To Sri K.Ravindranath, Advocate for Petitioner

Sri U.V.S.P.Avadhani, Advocate for 3rd respondent.

In The COURT OF Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - X

Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari, At Rajahmundry

PRESENT: G.Rama Gopal

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- X Addl. District & Sessions Judge.

Thursday, the 20th day of April, 2017.

M.V.O.P. No. 774 of 2014

Between: Boddu Suryachandra Rao, S/o.Ramulu, Aged 50 years, Door No.4-72,

Gandepalli (v), Gandepalli (M), E.G.District. .. Petitioner

And

1. Bandaru Narayana, S/o.Thamma naidu, Nunaparthi Village, Achutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam Rural District (Driver of the Innova Car Bearing No.AP 31 TW 0006)

2. Reddy Narasimha Murthy, S/o.R.Pedachinnodu, D.No.3-9, Nunaparthi Village, Achutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District (Owner of the Innova Car Bearing No.AP 31 TW 0006)

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by it’s Branch Manager, Eswar Paradise, 403, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam.

.. Respondents

This petition coming on 19.01.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Ravindranath, Advocate for petitioner and Sri

U.V.S.P.Avadhani, Advocate for 3rd respondent and the Respondent Nos.

1 and 2 are remained ex parte and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration still this date, this court made the following:

AWARD

This petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P.M. Act, 1989 to pass an award in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 directing them to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- jointly and severally with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and for costs of the petition.

2In brief, it is the case of the petitioner that on 27.12.2008 at about 07.30 a.m. he went to the house of Boddu Srinivas, on his cycle for calling him to coolie work and when he reached Venkateswara

Swamy Temple by crossing N.H. 5 Road, Gandepalli Village, 1st respondent being the driver of Innova car bearing No. AP 31 TW 0006 coming from Jaggampeta towards Rajahmundry side, drove it in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed the cycle from it’s backside. Due to which, he fell down on the road from his cycle, sustained grievous and simple injuries. Then, the petitioner was shifted to G.S.L. Hospital, Lakshmipuram, Rajahmundry in 108 Ambulance with the help of eldest son of Boddu Satheesh and his niece Boddu Durga.

He took treatment as inpatient in the said hospital for 20 days by spending Rs. 40,000/- towards medical expenses

The petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident and due to the accident, he lost his daily income of Rs. 300/- . The 1st respondent is a driver and 2nd respondent is the owner of the said car and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle and, hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable for the accident.

The amount of compensation claimed as under:

a) Loss of earnings @ 300/- per day for months Rs. 27,000.00

b) Transport to Hospital Rs. 40,000.00

c) Compensation for pain, suffering and mental Agony Rs. 1,33,000.00 ---------------------- Rs. 2,00,000.00 ========= Hence, the claim petition.

33rd respondent alone filed written statement by resisting the claim of the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte.

4In brief, it is the case of the 3rd respondent that the 3rd respondent denied the interest of the 2nd respondent over the crime vehicle and also it’s coverage at the time of accident. The 1st respondent was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and that the 2nd respondent knowingfully well allowed the 1st respondent to drive the vehicle bearing NO. AP 31 TW 0006 and thus, committed the breach of the contract. It is mandatory duty of the concerned Police

Station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned

Insurance company within 30 days from the date of information, but the same did not comply by the Gandepalli P.S. in this case.

The interest claimed by the petitioner is excessive and the same is contrary to the Section 3 of Interest Act, 1978 and the petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on non pecuniary damages. The 3rd respondent also denied the health, age, occupation and earning capacity of the petitioner and also denied the manner in which the accident had occurred. The 3rd respondent also denied the petitioner taking treatment in G.S.L. Hospital and spending Rs. 40,000/- towards medical expenses.

The 3rd respondent submits that the there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent/driver and the accident occurred only due to contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner, due to lack of road sense. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exaggerated and out of proportions.

Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5Basing on the above pleadings, one of my predecessor’s framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident due to rash or negligent driving and by use of the vehicle i.e., Innova car bearing No. AP 31 TW 0006 by it’s driver/1st respondent?

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

3. To what relief?

6During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 and Ex.X1 were marked. On behalf of contesting 3rd respondent, no oral evidence is adduced, but Ex.B1 copy of the policy is marked with consent.

7Heard and perused the record.

8Issue No.1: P.W1 filed examination in chief by way of affidavit contemplated under Order 18 Rule 4 (1) of C.P.C. It is the evidence of

P.W.1 that on 27.12.2008 at about 07.30 a.m. when he reached

Venkateswara Swamy Temple by crossing N.H. 5 Road, Gandepalli

Village, the Innova Car bearing No. AP 31 TW 0006 coming from

Jaggampeta to Rajahmundry driven by 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn and with high speed he dashed his cycle from it’s backside and, as such, he had felln down on the road and sustained severe injuries. P.W.1 also deposed that he was immediately taken to G.S.L. Hospital, Lakshmipuram, Rajahmundry

Rural in 108 Ambulance, where he was treated by Doctor.

9It appears on the report given by P.W.1, the police registered a case in Crime No. 138 of 2008 of Gandepalli P.S. under Section 338 on 27.12.2008. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the F.I.R. and Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the charge sheet in Crime NO. 138 of 2008 of

Gandepalli P.S.. Ex.A1 clearly corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1 as to the accident and on account of rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle driven by 1st respondent caused accident and resulting injuries to P.W.1 at the scene of offence.

10P.W.2 medical evidence also shows on 27.12.2008 P.W.1 was admitted in the hospital and he found two grievous injuries and one simple injury. Unless and until, the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, normally, the police would not charge sheet the 1st respondent.

11It is not the case of the respondents that the injuries of the P.W.1 are self inflicted injuries. The testimony of P.W.2 coupled with the contents in Ex.A1, A2 and A3 clearly establish the fact that P.W.1 sustained injuries in the accident. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that the 1st respondent drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the cycle of P.W.1 at the scene of offence and as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injuries. It is simply suggested to P.W.1 by R.W.3 that accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. Mere putting suggestion and denial of the same by witness cannot be said that it is proved. No material elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.1 to discard his evidence as unworthy of credence or to impeach his credibility.

Therefore, the testimony of P.W.1 coupled with the above documents clearly prove the fact that on account of rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle by 1st respondent, the accident occurred at the cross- roads of Gandepalli Village near Venkateswara Swamy Temple and

P.W.1 sustained two grievous injuries and one simple injury. Therefore, it can be said the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident due to rash or negligent driving by use of crime vehicle bearing No. AP 31 TW 0006 by it’s driver 1st respondent. Accordingly, Issue Nos. 1 is answered.

12Issue No.2: It is known principle that the object of compensation is to place the claim to the extent possible in the same original position. The loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in 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 preaccident 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 in

1. Kerala Transport Corporation Vs. Susma Thomas (1994) 2 S.C.C. 176.

2. U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Trilockchandra, (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.

7. Arunkumar Agarwala Vs. National Insurance Co., (2010) 9 S.C.C. 218 13P.W.1 admittedly sustained two grievous injuries and one simple injury. P.W.2, the Medical Officer clearly stated that on examination by a team of Doctors including him found that two grievous injuries and one simple injury over P.W.1 and further, surgery was also conducted to

P.W.1 by team of Doctors including him on 08.01.2009 and Ex.X1 case sheet along with 5 X-ray films of P.W.1. There is no disability to the

P.W.1 as stated by P.W.2. Therefore, it can be said P.W.1 is entitled compensation for two grievous injuries and one simply injury.

14P.W.1 incurred Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earning for a period of three months at Rs. 300/- per day. P.W.1 further claimed Rs. 40,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs. 1,33,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering and mental agony and which altogether Rs.

2,00,000/-.

15As per the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.1 was admitted in the hospital on 27.12.2008 and he was discharged from the hospital on 19.01.2009.

P.W.1 was treated as inpatient for a period of 23 days. It appears, an operation was conducted over P.W.1 by inserting plates. If that being so, even after P.W.1 was discharged from the Hospoital, he would take rest for more than two months. In fact, P.W.2 Medical Officer, clearly stated that it takes minimum three months for healing of fracture of

P.W.1 from the date of discharge.

16P.W.1 did not produce any proof in respect of his daily or monthly income, except relying on his self-assertion. Without there being any proof of income of daily or monthly, it cannot be said that P.W.1 used to earn Rs. 300/- per day. Therefore, the monthly income of P.W.1 can be taken as Rs.4,500/- per month and for three months period the loss of earnings comes to Rs. 13,500/- (Rs. 4,500 x 3months) . Admittedly,

P.W.1 sustained two grievous injuries and one simple injury. If that being so, Rs. 25,000/- for each grievous injury and Rs. 5,000/- for one simple injury can be awarded. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 also conceded to grant Rs. 25,000/- each to two grievous injuries and Rs. 5000/- towards one simple injury of P.W.1.

Therefore, a sum of Rs. 55,000/- towards pain, suffering and mental agony (injury) can be awarded to P.W.1. The petitioner clamed Rs.

40,000/- towards transportation to Hospital and extra nourishment, but no proof has been filed towards said claim. Normally, once accident occurred and shifted to hospital, P.W.1 would have incurred expenses and further, when he was on bed in the hospital would incur more expenditure for extra nourishment. Therefore, granting of Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment to PW.1 is jusitified.

17As deposed by P.W.2, the 1st injury of P.W.1 was inter-trochanteric fracture to left hip and the 2nd injury is bimalleolar fracture to right ankle and 3rd injury is laceration on parito occipital region. It is the further evidence of P.W.2 that after conducting operation to the said fracture, P.W.1 inserted with plates and screws and the said plates and screws have to be removed by conducting operation if necessary in case of infection or breakage of implants or patient get pains. P.W.2 further stated that they may charge Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- for doing the said operation. It is admitted by P.W.1 in the cross- examination that unless P.W.1 makes any complaint, there is no need for removal of implants. Normally, plates and screws which have been inserted to the fractures need be removed by conducting operation.

One has to think in a positive side that there is likelihood of removing of the said implants. If that being so, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- can be granted towards future medical treatment of P.W.1. The petitioner did not produce any medical bills and he took the treatment in the Hospital under Arogya Sri Scheme. Therefore, no amount can be granted towards medical expenses. In fact, P.W.1 did not claim any incurred medical expenses.

18Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that granting of total compensation of Rs. 98,000/- to P.W.1 is just compensation. Ex.B1 is the copy of the Insurance policy, which has full coverage to the crime vehicle No. AP 31 TW 0006 from 24.07.2008 to mid night on 23.07.2009. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 27.12.2008. Therefore, the crime vehicle had full coverage during that accident period.

19It seems to be the contention of the 3rd respondent that the respondent No.1 has no driving license at the time of accident and 3rd respondent insurance company was not liable to pay compensation.

The said version seems to be untrue. It is clearly mentioned in the charge sheet that the 1st respondent is having valid driving license to drive the motor vehicle and he was the driver of Innova Car bearing

No. AP 31 TW 0006 at the time of offence. Ex.A4 M.V.I. report also shows that the 1st respondent had valid driving license.

20. In the facts and circumstances and in the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the petitioner proved the accident and the resultant injuries to the petitioner occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the Innova Car bearing

No. AP 31 TW 0006 and the 2nd respondent is the owner of said vehicle and at the time of the accident it was insured with 3rd respondent and hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable for the compensation. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered.

21Issue No.3 : In the result, the Petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs awarding a compensation of Rs.98,000/- to the

Petitioner payable by respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization. The Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order with proportionate costs and interest as indicated above.

On such deposit being made the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount of Rs. 98,000/-.

The fee of the advocate for the petitioner is fixed at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only). For other reliefs the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-II), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 20th day of April, 2017. Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- X Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner

P.W.1 : Boddu Suryachandra Rao P.W.2 : Dr. Nageswara Rao

For Respondents: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner

Ex.A1/27.12.2008: Certified copy of the F.I.R. in Cr.No.138/08 Of Gandepalli P.S. Ex.A2/30.12.2008: Certified copy of the charge sheet in Cr.No. 138/08 of Gandepalli P.S. Ex.A3/24.01.2009: Certified copy of the wound certificate Ex.A4/23.12.2008: Certified copy of the M.V.I. Report

Ex.X1/: Case sheet and X-rays films

For Respondent No.3:

Ex.B1/06.10.2010: Copy of the insurance policy.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- X Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

In The COURT OF The SPECIAL JUDGE For Trial Of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(POA) ACT – Cum - X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At Rajahmundry

PRESENT: SRI G.Rama Gopal

Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA)

Act,–cum -X Addl. District Judge.

Friday, the 21 st day of April, 2017

S.C.S.T.S.C. No. 22 of 2015

Between: State: Deputy Superintendent of Police, South Zone, Urban Police District,

Rajahmundry... Complainant

And

Gogada Damodhar, S/o.Venkatappa Rao, A/24 years, C/Koppulavelama, Velagalavari Palem Village, Peumatra Mandal, West Godavari District.

.. Accused

This case coming on 20.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor i/c. Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri G.U.V.B. Raju, Advocate for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The state represented by it’s Deputy Superintendent of Police, South

Zone, Urban Police District, Rajahmundry laid a charge sheet against the above accused in rime No. 82 of 2013 of II Tow L&O P.S., Rajahmundry for the offences punishable under Sections 354 (D) (1) and 417 of The Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (herein after will be referred as “I.P.C.”) and Sections 3 (1)

(x) and 3 (1) (xi) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(herein after will be referred as “The Act”).

2In nutshell, the prosecution case as described in the charge sheet is as follows:

The accused is a resident of Velaglavari Palem Village, West Godavari

District, studied M.B.A. at Rajahmundry and belongs to Koppulavelama

Caste. The P.W.1 - Gogu Abina Chandraika, the victim in this case is a resident of Rajahmundry belongs to Schedule Caste, Mala and presently she has been working as Temporary supporting computer operator to know the work in Taluka Office, Rajahmundry.

During the year 2011, both the accused and P.W.1 had fallen in love with each other and though the accused promised to marry P.W.1, he committed breach of promise and the matter was settled in the presence of elders. Though, the accused having knowledge that the P.W.1 belongs to schedule caste Mala he used to visit the Tahasildar Officer, where she has been working and committed acts of insulting her in public view and in public place on several occasions prior to 27.04.2013.

On 27.04.2013 night at about 08.30 p.m. P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the accused along with his relatives gathered at II Town L&O P.S., Rajahmundry in order to prefer petitions against each other, the gathering resulted in an altercation between both the parties and in that altercation, accused insulted

PW.1 using derogatory language in public place by uttering her caste as “E

S.C. Vallaki Devudu Ichina Adrustam, Ma Pai Itlage Pedatharu”

On receipt of report from P.W.1, L.W.9 - P.Veerababu, S.I. of Police, II

Town L&O P.S., Rajahmundry registered the same as a case in Crime No. 82 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 354 (D) (2) and of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xi) of The Act, on 27.04.2013 at 09.00 p.m.

Subsequently, L.W.10 - V.Raja Gopal, the then Dy. Superintendent of police,

Rajahmundry, took up investigation after receipt of proceedings from the

Superintendent of Police, Urban Police District, Rajahmundry examined P.Ws.

1, L.W.2 and P.W.2 viz., Gogu Abina Chandrika, Gogu Chandrasekhar Reddy and Gogu Sravani and recorded the statements of them under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C., visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch.

During the course of investigation, L.W.10 arrested the Accused on 20.09.2012 at 04.00 p.m. at vicinity of the Tahasildar Office, Rajahmundry and got him sent to remand.

L.W.11 Kum. N.Sridevi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, South Zone,

Urban Police, Rajahmundry having been appointed as successing

Investigating Officer, took up further investigation and examined L.Ws. 4 to 5 and P.W.3 viz., Bogula Venkata Ramana, Karada Saisridevi and Yella

Jayalakshmi.

The evidence on record, made out that the accused committed an offence of stalking by sending such embarrassing with vulgar languages with his electronic communication from his cell NO. 7842197255, 9177479003 to the complainant Cell No. 9032845525 and 8374352100.

L.W.7 D.Satyanarayana, Tahasildar, Penumatra Mandal, issued letter certifying that the accused belongs to Koppulavelama community and L.W.8

A.B.V.S.P. Srinivas, Tahasildar, Rajahmundry issued letter certifying that the

P.W.1 belongs to Schedule Caste, Mala. Hence, the charge.

3 The learned VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Rajamahendravaram based on the charge sheet allegations and other material on record, took the case on file for the offences U/Secs. 354 (D) and and Sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xi) of The Act, furnished the case copies as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and duly committed the case as

P.R.C.No.03/2015 to this court, since the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of

The Act is exclusively traible by this court.

4 On hearing and consideration, one of my predecessors’s framed the charges under Sections 354 (D) (1) and 417 of I.P.C., and Section 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xi) of The Act, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, which is his mother tongue, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5To substantiate it’s case, the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P4.

6On being closed the prosecution side evidence, since, there are no incriminating circumstances that appearing in the testimony of prosecution witnesses against the accused, the examination of accused under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

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

1. Whether the victim-defacto-complainant is belongs to schedule caste,

Mala and the accused belonging to other than S.C.S.T. community?

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of Accused for the 2.

offences under Sections 354 (D) (1) and 417 and Sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xi) of The Act beyond reasonable doubt?

8.) Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor i/c. Special Public

Prosecutor (herein after will be referred as “S.P.P.”) and the learned counsel

for the accused. I have also carefully examined the oral and documentary

evidence on record apart from bestowing my anxious consideration to the rival contentions.

9) POINTS:- For the sake of convenience, the points 1 to 2 are discussed and decided conjointly.

P.W.1 is the alleged victim, P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1, P.W. 3 is the alleged independent witness. Out of 11 witnesses cited by the prosecution in the memo of evidence annexed to the charge sheet, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were only examined apart from marking Exs.P1 to P4. The remaining witnesses including the Investigating Officers were given up by Special Public

Prosecutor as the alleged victim and other material witnesses turned hostile.

P.W.1 is the resident of Rajahmundry and she has been working as

Typist in M.R.O. Office, Rajanagaram for the last two years and that she belongs to Schedule Caste, Mala. She also deposed that she knows the accused and that there are disputes between her family and the accused family. She also deposed that about 4 years ago, on one day, due to some disputes between her family and accused family, she went to police station and the police obtained her signature on a report dated 27.04.2013 and

Ex.P1 is her signature on the report dated 27.04.2013. Except the said facts,

P.W.1 did not state any facts against the accused. Even she deposed that she was not examined by police and the accused has nothing to do with the offences.

P.Ws. 2 and 3 deposed that they did not know anything about this case and police never examined them. P.Ws. 1 to 3 denied Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

statement said to be given to the police and which have been marked as

Exs.P2 to P4 respectively. P.Ws. 1 to 3 were declared as hostile witnesses by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and put the questions in the nature of cross-examination with the permission of the court.

During the course of cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3, nothing was elicited in support of the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.1 only shows that there are disputes between the families of herself and the accused. Except that nothing was stated by her.

10Absolutely, there is no incriminating evidence in the testimonies of

P.Ws. 1 to 3 against the accused to connect the charges levelled against him. It is settled law, that the statements recorded by the police under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C neither can be used as substantive evidence nor as corroborative evidence. The statement of witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. only can be used for contradictions with the prior statement of the witnesses to impeach the credibility of the witnesses.

Therefore, Exs.P2 to P4 are no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

11Absolutely, there is no iota of evidence against the accused so as to believe the prosecution case. Hence, it can be said the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges under Sections 354 (D) (1) and 417 of

I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xi) of The Act against the accused.

12In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges under

Sections 354 (D) (1) and 417 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xi) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as such, he is acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be kept intact for a period of 6 months by virtue of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The un- marked properties, if any, are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Grade-II), corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 21st day of April,2017.

Special Judge for Trial of

Cases filed under SCs & STs (POA) Act – X Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: P.W.1: Gogu Abina Chandrika P.W.2: Gogu Sravani Devi P.W.3: Kella Jaya Lakshmi

For Defence: None.

Documents marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1/27.04.2013 : Signature of P.W.1 on the report Ex.P2/28.04.2013 : Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3/28.04.2013 : Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4/15.05.2013 : Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3

For defence: Nil

Special Judge for Trial of

Cases filed under SCs & STs (POA) Act – X Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

1. The Registrar (Judl.), High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.

2. The Directorate of Prosecutions, Saifabad, DGP Office Complex, Hyderabad.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Ubran Police District, Rajahmundry

5. The VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Rajamahendravaram 6 .The District Collector, E.G. District, Kakinada.

CALENDER

In The COURT OF The SPECIAL JUDGE For Trial Of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(POA) ACT – Cum - 10th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At Rajahmundry PRESENT: SRI G.Rama Gopal ,

Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs Court

– cum - 10th Addl. District Judge.

Friday, the 21 st day of April, 2017

S.C.S.T.S.C. No. 22 of 2015

(PRC No.04/2015 of VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajamahendravaram connected with Crime No.82/2013 of II Town L&O P.S. Rajamahendravaram)

Name and addresses of the accused: Gogada Damodhar, S/o.Venkatappa Rao, A/24 years, C/Koppulavelama, Velagalavari Palem Village, Peumatra Mandal, West Godavari District.

.. Accused

DATE OF OFFENCE : Prior to 27.04.2013 Report/Complaint : 27.04.2013 Apprehension of accused20.09.2013 Committal Order : 13.07.2015 Commencement of trial : 18.04.2017 Close of trial : 20.04.2017 Sentence or Order : 21.04.2017 Explanation for delay and remarks:

This case was taken on file in this court for 18.08.2015 disposal according to Law and accused appeared before this Court on 18.09.2015 and trial in this case was commenced on 18.04.2017 and closed on 20.04.2017and

pronounced Judgment on 21.04.2017. Hence there is no unavoidable delay in

this case.

Plea of the accused : Not guilty.

Finding of the judge : Found not guilty. Sentence of order:

the accused is found not guilty for the charges under Sections 354 (D) (1) and 417 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1)

(xi) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as such, he is acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be kept intact for a period of 6 months by virtue of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The un-marked properties, if any, are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Special Judge for Trial of

Cases filed under SCs & STs (POA) Act – X Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT-

CUM-X ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE , EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT:- Sri G.RAMAGOPAL,

Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-Cum-X Addl. Sessions Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2017 S.C. S.T S.C. No. 77/2014 (Cr.No.276/2012 of Bommuru Police Station) (P.R.C.No.36/2012 on the file of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Rajamahendravaram)

Between:

State : The Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Zone, Rajahmundry Urban. Complainant.

And

Shaik Basha, S/o Budeya Alias Bombai Bude, Aged 34 years, Caste Muslim, N/o D.No.5/72, Kothapeta, Muslim Bazar, Nuziveedu Village and Mandal, Krishna District, Cook Master in Sri Chaitanya Techno School, Morampudi Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, E.G. District.

Accused.

This Sessions Case is coming on 21.04.2017 before me for filing of death certificate of the accused in the presence of Addl.P.P. I/c of Special Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri B.Ch. Babu, advocate for accused and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

Heard the SPL.P.P. and perused record. The Deputy Superintendent of

Police, East Zone, Rajahmundry Urban filed a memo along with death certificate of accused Shaik Basha. The police also filed the report of V.R.O., and other statements and also clarified regarding discrepancy of the father name of the accused. Having perused the record, I am satisfied that the accused died and death certificate filed by the police belongs to the accused.

Hence, the case against the accused is recorded as abated. No property is there. Hence, issue proceedings accordingly.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 21st day of April, 2017.

SD/- G.RAMAGOPAL,

Special Judge, for trial of cases under

SCs and STs (POA) Act- Cum-X Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: NilFor defence : Ni.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: Nil For Defence : Nil.

SD/- G.RAMAGOPAL

Special Judge, for trial of cases under

SCs and STs (POA) Act- Cum-X Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram 1The VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajamahendravaram. 2The Dy., Superintendent of Police, East Zone, Rajamahendravaram.

// t.c.f.b.o.//

Chief Administrative Officer, SCs and STs Court, Rajamahendravaram.