Sri G Ramakrishna

1

In the court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

Present: Sri.G.Rama Krishna, B.Sc.,B.L., III Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate,Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

Friday the 27th day of April 2012

C.C.No. 441/06

This case was coming on this day ie 23-4-12 before me in the presence of APP for the complainant and of Sri.M.Lenin, advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

a. Serial No. of the case: C.C. No. 441/06 in Cr.No.161/05 of Steel Plant Police Station b. Date of commission of offence : 31-10-05

c) Name of the complainant: Sub Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam city. d. Name of the accused:

Gurrala Satyanarayana S/o Late Gurappa, age 32 years, Vadabalija by caste R/o door No. 32-2-23,Bhupeshnagar, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam N/o Thadithuru village Bhimili Mandal, Visakhapatnam Distrioct, Tractor registered No. AAK 5166 Trailer registered No.ADJ 4331.

e. Offence complied of : U/sec. 304-A & 337 IPC f. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.

g Final Judgment :

h Date of order : 27-4-12

The case of the prosecution is that on 3-10-05 the accused being the driver of Tractor

Trailer bearing registration n No. AAK 5166 and trailer bearing registration No. ADJ 4331 while coming from BC gate proceeding towards rolling mills, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and when he reached rolling mills junction inside steel plant at about 5-10 pm he hit the motorcycle; bearing No. AP 33 4228 while the rider Chatradhar Kalitha, CISF head constable pillion rider Bheemuni who were coming from rolling mills and proceeding towards 2 plant plaza gate, as a result of hitting of the motorcycle by the accused with the trator trailer, the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle fell down on the road, the rider of the bike sustained severe injuries and the pillion rider sustained severe injuries and pillion rider sustained simple injuries. The accident was witnessed by K.Francis,

K.Suryanarayana and shifted the injured to Visakha General Hospital with the help of

Shaik Md.Ali, K.Sivarao, Tollanoor in CISF van and admitted them for treatment,.

Basing on the report given by Bheemuni the injured case in crime No.161/05 u/sec.338 & 337 IPC was registered by the Inspector of police Steel Plant PS

B.V.Ramanamurthy.

While undergoing treatment the rider of the motorcycle Chatrada Kalitha succumbed due to injuries at 6-45 pm in Visakha General Hospital. After receiving the death intimation the inspector of police altered the section of law from sec.338 IPC & sec.337

IPC into sec. 304-A IPC at about 8 pm.

During the course of investigation the inspector of police visited the scene of offence examined the same in the presence of K.Sivarao , Tollanoor & P.Pahari under the cover of mediators report, on 31-10-05 got photographed the scene of offence with the help of photographer by name G.Vijay Bhaskar, he forwarded the requisition to the MV inspector Y.Venukumar, for inspection of the vehicles. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 1-1-05 at Visakha General Hospital mortuary in the presence of inquestdars T.S.Rowat P.Pahari and Joydev Duary, T.H.Kishan, Monjeet

Kumar. Later he sent the dead body for post mortem examination. Dr.R.Nagasankarareddy,

Asst. Professor Forensic Medicine Department Andhra Medical College conducted post mortem examination .The M. V.inspector Y.Venukumar inspected the vehicles on 3-1-05.

the investigating officer arrested the accused on 7-1-05 at 9-30 am at steel plant police station. When the accused surrendered before him and verified the driving license and records pertaining to the crime vehicle and forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand. As per the opinion of the MV Inspector the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the both vehicles. Dr.K.Sridhar treated the injured Bheemuni issued wound certificate with his opinion that the injuries sustained by Bheemuni are simple in nature. Dr.R.Nagasankarareddy 3 in his post mortem certificate opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Therefore the investigating officer file charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sec.304-A & 337 IPC.

2) This case was taken on file under sections 304-A & 337 IPC against the accused.

3) On appearance of the accused, he was served with copies of the case as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation for the offence punishable under section 304-A & 337 IPC., he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4) In order to prove the guilt of the accused prosecution cited B.Bhimuni, K.Francies,

K.Surya Narayana,D.Appalaraju Shaik Md.Ali K.S.Tallanoor, P.Nageswararao,

L.Durgaprasad, P.Pydireddi, T.S.Rowat, P.Pahari, J.Duary, TH.Kishan Manjeet Kumar,

G.Vijayabhaskar,Y.Venukumar Dr.K.Sreedhar, Dr.R.Nagasankarareddy and

B.V.Ramanamurthy out of them they examined K.Francis, B.Bheemuni, Paritosh Pahari,

T.K.V.Kumar, Shaik Md.Ali, P.Nageswararao, L.Durgaprasad, P.Pydireddi, Y.Venukumar,

Paritosh Pahari & B.V.Ramanamurthy as Pws.1 to 11 and got marked EXs.P.1 to

P5. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined u/sec.313

Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating evidence of prosecution witness and reported no defence evidence.

5) Whether the prosecution established the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304-A & 337 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

6) Heard both sides.

7) POINT:- The PW1 K. Francis on 31-10-05 he was on B-shift duty ie from 2 pm to 10 pm his occupation is home guard. They prevented the heavy vehicles from 1-30 pm to 23-45 pm since it was safety time, gain from 5 pm to 6 pm so also from 9 pm to 10 pm.

4

At about 5-10 pm the accident took place a tractor trailer bearing No. ADJ 4331 took a turn to enter into rolling mill. By that time two CISF people came by a motorcycle who are coming out from rolling mill. The tractor trailer was stopped ahead. The

CISF people went under the tractor trailer. He intimated to the CISF persons who were coming by a van about the accident. The injured were shifted by CISF people van, according to his evidence the tractor trailer came with a high speed at 35 to 40 km per hour. After accident the tractor trailer dragged the injured to some distance. He did not observe the driver of the tractor trailer. He did not observe which part of the tractor trailer contacted the two wheeler, he volunteers that when he came and saw the injured was under the tractor trailer. He did not observe who was driving the hero honda bike two wheeler seems that he is not the direct eye witness of the accident.

The injured pillion rider Bheemuni examined in this case as PW2. His evidence is that on 31-10-05 at about 5-10 pm himself and head constable C.Kalitha were proceeding by bike bearing No. A.P.33 4228 when they reached WRM turning though

Kalitha the rider of the bike, blow horn a tractor which came by the side bearing No.

ADJ 4331 with speed, without blowing horn and hit them, dragged them to a distance of 12 feet. He received an injury on his left leg foot, another injury on his right fore hand. So also on his right fore head. C.Kalitha also received injuries on his face and other parts of the body. They were taken to Visakha General Hospital, Kalitha died in the hospital the accused is the driver of the tractor . EX.P.1 is his report given by him to the police. The place of accident is two roads junction. There is road divider. During safety no vehicle plied on the road. The tractor trailer came from Balacheruvu gate road towards Gangavaram area, the bike proceeded from central stores & Plant Plaza gate, at the place of accident there is a road curve. While tractor trailer taking turn to the curve road the accident occurred.. The crime vehicle came fastness ( high speed) .

5

Paritosh Pahari (PW3) when he was coming from D company office after completion of his general shift duty. When he reached near rolling mill on the road they were stopped. He saw their colleague head constable Kalita and Bheemuni under the wheels of tractor trailer bearing No. ADJ 4331 . The injured were shifted by their vehicle, to Visakha General Hospital. Later he did not turned up, there was no opportunity for accused to cross examine the PW.3. Therefore no weight must be given to the evidence of PW3.

K.Vijaya Kumar Tigga examined as PW4. In his evidence he deposed about six years back when he was coming after completion of his duty at 5-10 pm their people were there. Their CISF people shifted to steel plant general hospital . Later the said person died. Again he was called to attend the inquest , inquest report drafted he signed on it, EX.P.2 is inquest report which contains his signature he identified his signature.

In his cross examination he stated that he does not know the contents in the inquest report since he cannot read and write Telugu. However, his evidence is that he was present at the time of inquest and he put his signature on the inquest report at Visakha

General Hospital

PW5. Shai Mohemmed Ali head constable in his evidence deposed on 31-10-05 when himself K.Sivarao were returning back to their barex after completion of C shift duty when their van by which they were traveling, reached to rolling mills area they heard some screes, they noticed that under a tractor trailer ADJ 4331 there was a motorcycle, head constable C.Kalitha and constable B. Bheemuni were with injuries, the driver of the tractor also there, that is no other than the accused. The shifted both the injured in their van to Visakha General Hospital. He categorically stated that he found the injury to the rider of motorcycle was on the left side of the trailer, the road isl meant for only two wheelers not for heavy vehicles.

6

PW6 B.Nageswararao transport supervisor. On 31-10-05 he provided the vehicle to

Durga Reddy and company, the vehicle number is AAK 5166 trailer number is

ADJ 4331, the driver is G.Satyanarana who is no other than the accused. Later he came to know that at LLM junction , the vehicle involved in the accident . The vehicle hit two CISI people who were coming by a Hero Honda Motorcycle the injured were shifted to hospital. Out of two injured one CISF person died. Unloading slip stands in the name of Durgaredy and company, loading slip contains the name of the driver and also his signature.

PW7 L.Durga Prasad is office assistant in Durgareddy & company, deposed on 31-10- 05 PW5 sent a vehicle that the tractor trailer bearing No. AAK 5166 & trailer ADJ 4331 the vehicle was driven by D.Satyanarayana the accused, the vehicle was sent inside of the steel plant for loading of the material, he came to know that the vehicle was involved in the accident at LMM area, two CISF persons received severe injuries. From the evidence of Pws.6 & 7 coupled with the evidence of injured witnesses B. Bheemuni

PW2 and the evidence of PW5 Shaik Md. Ali clearly establishing that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle, tractor trailer which is supported and corroborated by the evidence of PW8 B.Pydireddy the owner of the tractor trailer who stated that the accused Satyanarayanan is the driver of the tractor trailer bearing No. AK 5166 & trailer No. ADJ 4331 to union office Visakha Tractor Trailer association at BC gate.

He used to give salary of Rs.2000/- to the driver of the tractor. The vehicle went inside of the steel plant for iron loading. He came to know that the accident took place. In the accident two CISF persons died and another CISF person sustained injuries. The length of the tractor trailer is 25 to 30 feet maximum speed of the vehicle is 25 Kms.

At turning the vehicle can be drove with speed of 10 to 15 km. A contradiction which is marked as EX.D1 marked through PW8 is that he received phone message from the accused about the accident at LMM junction, he hit the motorcycle of CISF people. The other contradiction is EX.D.2 that his driver /accused is escaped.

The evidence referred above paragraphs is enough to establish that the accused is the driver of Tractor Trailer ie the crime vehicle. Though most of the prosecution 7 witnesses they are not direct witnesses of the accident but the evidence of PW2 the injured witness established that the accused drove the tractor trailer ( crime vehicle) with speed without blowing horn hit the motor bike and dragged the motor bike and also the injured and deceased to a distance of 12 feet. The crime vehicle was an empty one it came with high speed the accident occurred where there is curved road, the crime vehicle came by the side and hit the motorcycle. The PW3 P.Pahari whose evidence was not considered by this court, was again examined by prosecution as PW 10 and the defence counsel also examined him. The evidence f PW10 is that he attended when the police observed the scene of offence and prepared scene observation report (EX.P.4) he signed on it, the police read over the contents to him they translated the contents in Hindi and explained to him.

Now it is to be seen whether there is any mechanical defects in the vehicle, run by the accused. The evidence of Y.Venukumar, the MV Inspector disclosed that neither in the crime vehicle nor any motorcycle of the injured and deceased having any mechanical defects. The accident was not due to any mechanical defects of both the vehicles. Accordingly he issued EX.P.3 accident report. In his cross examination he stated that if his motorcycle came in a particular direction and hit the tractor and trailer, the damages found on the motorcycle are possible. So also if the tractor trailer hit the motorcycle from its right side, the damages found on the motorcycle are possible. He found motorcycle only bar bent,head light broken, left side signal light broken. Petrol tank left side bent. The investigating officer B.V.Ramanamurthy who is examined as PW.11 received a report of PW1 and registered the same as case in crime

No.161/05 u/sec.338 & 337 IPC EX.P.5 is the original FIR which he sent to the court.

He visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence (EX.P.6)and also prepared scene observation report and got taken photos of the scene of offence which are marked as EX.P.7 to P.10 which photographs had taken through photographer Vijayabhaskar. As he received death intimation about 6-45 pm that one of the injured Kalitha died he altered the section of law from sec. 338IPC into sec. 304- A

IPC. EX.P.1 is alteration memo, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased

Kalitha in the presence of mediators and blood relatives. On 7-11-05 at 9-30 pm the accused are surrendered and later produced before the court. With regard to the photographs the defence counsel took an objection that the photographs filed without any negatives, therefore they cannot be marked as evidence in this case. This court find force in the above contention of the learned defence counsel. From the scene 8 observation report and rough sketch of the scene of offence EX.P.4 and P.6, also disclosing that the motorcycle was lying under the left front wheel of trailer. The motorcycle was dragged to some distance . The situation and manner which the accident occurred explained by PW2 the injured witness in his cross examination categorically.

The tractor trailer came from BC gate towards WRM area, the injured was proceeded by bike from central stores towards plant plaza gate at the place of accident there is road curve . While tractor trailer taking turn through the curved road the accident occurred. As the crime vehicle is empty one it came with high speed hit the motorcycle and also stated that whether the accident took place it is safety time heavy vehicles shall not ply on the roads. The above evidence of PW2 is enough to say that there is negligence on the part of the accused that he plied the heavy vehicle during safety time and also while taking a turn with high speed hit the motorcycle and caused injuries on the body of PW2 and caused death of CISF head constable Kalitha dragging of motorcycle to some distance establishes the high speed of the crime vehicle which the accused could not be stopped by the accused by applying brake, if really the accused was driving the vehicle slowly certainly he could stop the vehicle but allowing the vehicle to run over the motorcycle prior to that dragging the motorcycle is enough to say that the accused drove the bike with high speed. Therefore it can be said that the accused caused the death of Kalitha and caused injuries on the body of PW2 Bheemuni due to his rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. Therefore he is liable for punishment for the offence punishable under sec.304-A IP & sec.337 IPC.

8) In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under sec.

304-A IPC & sec.337 IPC.. Hence the accused is convicted for the said offence under sec.255(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me

in open court on this the 27th day of April 2012.

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

When the accused is questioned about quantum of sentence he represented that he is having wife and children and also old mother and younger sister whom he has to look after . He prayed this court to take a lenient view. In view of the above submission 9 the accessed is sentenced to under go Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence punishable under sec.304-A IPC for causing death of

C.Kalitha and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- with regard to the offence punishable under sec.337IPC for causing simple injuries on the body of B.Bheemuni. In default of payment of fine amount he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.

Sd/-G.Ramakrishna

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

PW.1. K.Francis PW.2. B.Bheemuni

PW.3. Paritosh Pahari

PW.4.T.Vijykumar Tigga

PW.5. Shaik Md.Ali

PW.6. P.Nageswararao

PW.7.L.Durgaprasad

PW.8. P.Pydireddi

PW.9. Y.Venukumar

PW.10. Paritosh Pahari

PW.11. B.V.Ramanamurthy

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

EX.P.1. Report given by PW1.

EX.P.2. Inquest Report

EX.P.3. M.V. Inspector Report

EX.P.4. Scene observation report

EX.P.5. Original FIR

EX.P.6. Rough Sketch

Exs.P.7 to P.10. Photographs 10

EX.P.11. Alteration Memo

For Accused:

Exs.D1 &D2. Contradictions in the evidence of PW8

MO' s Marked -NIL-

Sd/-G.Ramakrishna

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

//True Copy//

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITANMAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

Date of : offence:31-10-05 report/complaint:31-10-05 release on bail :On bail commencement of trial:27-7-11 close of trial:23-4-12 sentence or order:27-4-12 Explanation for delay and remarks: No delay. Judgment in : C.C. No. 441/06 in Cr.No.161/05 of Steel Plant Police Station Complainant: S.I. Of Police, Steel Plant Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.

Accused:

Gurrala Satyanarayana S/o Late Gurappa, age 32 years, Vadabalija by caste R/o door No. 32-2-23, Bhupeshnagar, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam N/o Thadithuru village Bhimili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Tractor registered No. AAK 5166 Trailer registered No.ADJ 4331. Offence: 1)Causing death of a human being by rash or negligent act u/sec.304 - A IPC 2)Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others u/sec.337 IPC

Finding:

The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under sec.304-A IPC & sec.337 IPC

Sentence:

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 304-A IPC & sec.337 IPC.. Hence the accused is convicted for the said offence under sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. The accessed is sentenced to under go Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence punishable under sec.304-A IPC for causing death of C.Kalitha and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- with regard to the offence punishable under sec.337 IPC for causing simple injuries on the body of B.Bheemuni. In default of payment of fine amount he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.

Sd/-G.Ramakrishna

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

//True Copy//

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

12 27-4-12

Accused is called present.

Judgment pronounced. Vide separate judgment.

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 304-A & 337 IPC . Hence the accused is convicted for the said offence under sec.255(2) Cr.P.C.

III.A.C.M.M

When the accused is questioned about quantum of sentence he represented that he is having wife and children and also old mother and younger sister whom he has to look after . He prayed this court to take a lenient view. In view of the above submission The accessed is sentenced to under go Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence punishable under sec.304-A IPC for causing death of C.Kalitha and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- with regard to the offence punishable under sec.337IPC for causing simple injuries on the body of B.Bheemuni. In default of payment of fine amount he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days..

III.A.C.M.M

13 14

Date of Presentation: 18.02.2011 Date of Filing : 21.02.2011

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, ADDL. FAMILY COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT:- SRI G.RAMA KRISHNA, BSc., B.L.,

JUDGE, ADDL. FAMILY COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

THURSDAY, the 18 th day of APRIL, 2013

O.P.183/2011

Between Smt.Nandavarapu Appala Ratnam, W/o N.Srinivas, Hindu, Aged 32 years, House wife, Presently residing at her parents house C/o Pandoori Narayana Rao, R/o D.No.9-9-47/66, Sivajipalem, Baaramnagar, Near

Judge Quarters, Visakhapatnam.

Permanent Address: Smt.Nandavarapu Appala Ratnam, W/o Srinivas, Aged 32 years, House wife, D.No.14-6-5/8, Anthony Nagar, M.R.Peta, Visakhapatnam. ……. Petitioner And: Nandavarapu Srinivas, S/o Chinna Appa Rao, Hindu, Aged 32 years, Working in Sriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., as Legal Officer, R/o D.No.14-6-5/8, Anthony Nagar, M.R.Peta, Visakhapatnam. …….Respondent This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.Ch.Suseela Devi, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri G.V.S.Sree Rama Kumar, Advocate for respondent, the same having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying this Court, to direct the respondent to pay monthly maintenance at Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner and costs of the petition.

The respondent got filed his counter and resisted this petition.

The petitioner’s case is that she is legally wedded wife of respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 10.04.1993 at Visakhapatnam as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Custom. The marriage was consummated. But no children.

The respondent is working in Sriram Chits Private Limited, Visakhapatnam as

Legal Officer, earning Rs.30,000/- per month towards his monthly salary. The respondent not satisfied with the dowry and other articles given at the time of marriage, harassed the petitioner for additional dowry. He did not allow the 2 petitioner to go to her parental house due to non-payment of additional dowry as demanded by him immediately after marriage for not getting children. As per the medical record, the respondent is responsible, but he used to blame the petitioner and demanding the money by threatening that he would marry another lady with more dowry. Once the respondent beat the father of petitioner, the complaint was against the respondent with II Town Police, Visakhapatnam. The respondent is habit of abusing and beating the petitioner, even in the presence of relatives and friends. In one occasion, the petitioner lodged complaint before II Town Police

Station, remained at her parents house for 9 months. Later due to intervention of elders, the respondent assured that he would not do any high handed activities and never demand any dowry, she joined the respondent. In the month of May, 2010, the respondent beat the petitioner and necked out the petitioner from the matrimonial home as a part of money demand. The petitioner lodged a complaint under Section 498-A IPC against the respondent and his mother and she has been living at her parents house. The respondent aspart from getting salary doing Micro finance business, getting Rs.20,000/- per month towards interest, having three houses, Sites and Agricultural lands in Visakhapatnam. As the petitioner is living at the mercy of her parents, unable to maintain herself, filed the present petition, praying this Court to direct the respondent to pay monthly maintenance at

Rs.15,000/- per month.

The respondent got filed his counter wherein he denied the material allegations in the petition contended that he has a brother by name Siva, aged 28 years paralyzed and bedridden due to muscular dystrophy. For every thing, he is depending on the respondent. The respondent has to attend him for all including natural calls which was strongly opposed by the petitioner for the reasons best known to her. The petitioner pressurized him for sending his brother admitting in an orphanage. Several times, she removed the thali and thrown at his face, used to wipe off her “Bottu” and broke her bangles by saying that she will go out to mark that the respondent is dead. The respondent made all efforts to bring change in her attitude. On 10.05.2010, the petitioner caused a blood injury to the respondent by 3 throwing a brass tumbler and also caused injury to his lower lip by punched upon him. The petitioner left the matrimonial home along with her belongings and cash of Rs.14,000/-. On 11.05.2010, the petitioner along with her mother, elder brother came to the respondent, brother of petitioner attacked the respondent with a knife and caused injury, then the respondent went to II Town Police Station and lodged a complaint. The police brought the petitioner, her mother and brother to the police station and arrested them after enquiry. Later the petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent under Section 498-A IPC and got arrested the respondent.

Later the same was numbered as 943/2010 before I Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam. The case ended in acquittal on 09.03.2012.

The petitioner filed DVC.4/2011 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam.

The respondent is working in Sriram Chits Private Limited, drawing salary of

Rs.7,200/- per month. Out of which he has to spend Rs.1,500/- and Rs.500/- towards medicines for his brother and mother. Rest of the amount for the domestic needs. The petitioner also obtained his pay particulars under Right to Information

Act. He is unable to understand the motive of the petitioner’s conduct. The claim of Rs.15,000/- per month by the petitioner is very excessive. Since already the petitioner filed DVC.4/2011, she is not entitled to continue the proceedings before this Court in this petition under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. Finally he prayed this Court to dismiss the petition.

On behalf of petitioner, the Petitioner – Smt.Nandavarapu Appala Ratnam got examined herself as P.W.1, her mother – Eswaramma examined as P.W.2 and

K.Yerramma examined as P.W.3. On behalf of respondent, the respondent -

Nandavarapu Srinivas got examined himself as R.W.1.

Point for consideration is :-

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for maintenance at Rs.15,000/- per month?

2. To what relief?

POINT No.1:

4

The facts which are not in dispute in this case are that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 10.04.1993 in Sri Venkateswara Kalyana Mandapam, Visakhapatnam as per the Hindu Rites and

Caste Custom. Even prior to the marriage, they are related to each other. They do not have any children. Since the year 2010, the petitioner has been residing at her parents house.

The petitioner who is examined as P.W.1 reiterated her petition averments in her chief evidence affidavit. The 1st and fore most contention is that since the beginning, the respondent harassed her for additional dowry, even she withdrawn the bond of Rs.50,000/- after its maturity given to the respondent, as per his demand, but no change in him. Though the respondent, as per the medical examination, responsible for not having children, but throwing the blame on the petitioner. In the month of May, 2010, the respondent harassed her for additional dowry and beat her mercilessly. As no other go, she reached her parents house, reported the matter to II Town Police by lodging the complaint under Section 498-A

IPC.

According to the petitioner, the respondent is working as Legal Officer in

Sriram Chits Private Limited, Visakhapatnam, getting salary of Rs.30,000/- per month, besides having immovable properties in and around Visakhapatnam. As the respondent willfully neglected and failed to maintain her, now she is depending on her parents for her maintenance, the present petition is filed.

Mother of petitioner – Eswaramma who is examined as P.W.2 also got filed her chief evidence affidavit the same lines as that of the evidence affidavit of P.W.1.

P.W.3 – K.Yerramma stated that in the year 1995, in the marriage occasion, the respondent beat the petitioner in the presence of all the relatives, then the petitioner lodged complaint before II Town Police. On intervention of elders and as the respondent gave assurance to look after the petitioner without any harassment, the petitioner again joined the respondent. But in the year 1997, again the respondent necked out the petitioner from the matrimonial home. The said evidence of P.W.3 is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1. Even according to the 5 petitioner in the month of May, 2010, the respondent beat the petitioner for

additional dowry of Rs.6 lakh that is why she unable to bear it, left to her parents

house. Filing of 498-A IPC case against the respondent by the petitioner is also not in dispute, so also D.V.C.4/2011.

In the counter, the respondent contended that 498-A IPC case was ended in acquittal on 09.03.2012. The petitioner also admitted in her cross-examination that 498-A IPC case is ended in acquittal. In his evidence, the respondent stated that he lodged a complaint against the brother of petitioner under Section 307 IPC, so also the petitioner and her mother, they were arrested by the police. Filing of cases against each other is sufficient to say that the terms between families of petitioner and respondent are not good, there are strained relations between them.

It is to be seen whether the petitioner voluntarily left the society of respondent or not? The petitioner specifically stated that as she unable to bear the harassment for additional dowry, left to her parents house. In the month of May, 2010, on the next day, she lodged complaint with II Town Police Station under

Section 498-A IPC. There is no suggestion from the side of respondent to the petitioner that the petitioner without any reasonable cause voluntarily left the society of respondent. In addition to that in his evidence, the respondent specifically stated that he is not interested to take back the petitioner, even if she is ready to join him. The said evidence of respondent itself indicating his intention that he is not interested to take back the petitioner to the matrimonial home and obviously there is no offer from his side to take back the petitioner. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner herself left the society of respondent voluntarily.

She was made to leave the society of respondent.

Admittedly the petitioner is not doing any work. She is depending on her parents. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence stated that the respondent is working in Sriram Chits Private Limited as Legal Officer and getting an amount of

Rs.30,000/- per month as his salary, they failed to substantiate the same.

On the other hand, the respondent able to elicit from the petitioner that she applied to Sriram Chits Private Limited for salary particulars of the respondent under 6

Right to Information Act and she was furnished an information that the salary of respondent is more than Rs.7,000/- per month. It is admitted case of the respondent that he is getting salary of Rs.7,406/- per month. His died after retirement. Now there is widow mother of the respondent. Apart from that there is physically handicapped brother of the respondent who is being looked after by the respondent. The respondent could not say what are the retirement benefits received when his father retired from the service. So certainly there is considerable amount for looking after the mother of respondent. Even if the job of father of respondent is not in dispute, of course no evidence placed before this court to show that the mother of respondent is not getting any family pension.

Any how it is admitted by the petitioner in her cross-examination that there was an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- and Rs.2,75,000/- in her account. According to her, that was the amount given to her towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams. Still in her account, there is an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-.

It is argued by the counsel for respondent that the petitioner is getting interest on the said amount that is enough for her to maintain herself. For that the counsel for petitioner counter argued that the interest being received by the petitioner if any at Rs.1,60,000/- is very meager, that is not enough for her to maintain herself. There are no obligations on the part of respondent, except to maintain the petitioner. Huge amount was received towards retirement benefits of father of respondent and apart from the salary, the respondent will get incentives and commissions. With regard to the alleged incentives and commissions, there is no evidence before this Court. But as contended by the counsel for petitioner, the main responsibility of the respondent is to maintain the petitioner who is no other than his legally wedded wife, whom the respondent not interested to take back the matrimonial home. Therefore necessarily the respondent has to pay maintenance to the petitioner. Since he is getting Rs.7,500/- per month and as the petitioner also will get some amount i.e. Rs.1,60,000/- which is in her account. This Court feels that an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month is a reasonable amount towards the 7 maintenance of the petitioner payable by the respondent for which amount, the petitioner is entitled. Point answered accordingly.

POINT No.2:

In the result, the respondent is hereby directed to pay monthly maintenance at Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of petition i.e.18.02.2011.

The interim maintenance if any paid by him shall be deducted from the arrears.

Petition is allowed accordingly.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18th day of APRIL, 2013.

J U D G E,

ADDL. FAMILY COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

A P P E N D I X O F E V I D E N C E

Witnesses examined for petitioner :Respondent P.W.1: N.Appala RatnamR.W.1: N.Srinivas P.W.2: Eswaramma P.W.3: K.Yerramma No documents marked on either side.

Judge,

AFC., VSP.

Note: This petition is filed u/Sec.125 of Cr.P.C. No decree prepared.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM T GAJUWAKA.

PRESENT: SRI GUDURI RAMAKRISHNA, B.SC.,B.L.,

III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

Tuesday the 13th day of March 2012

C.C.No.696/06

This case was coming on this day ie 9-3-12 before me in the presence of APP for the complainant and of Miss Jyothi, advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

a. Serial No. of the case : C.C. No.696/06 in Cr.No.118/06 of

Steel Plant Police Station.

b. Date of commission of offence : 6-6-06

c) Name of the complainant: Inspector of Police, Steel Plant

Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.

d. Name of the accused:

Pappala Satyam Dora @ Pappala sreenu s/o Varahalababu, age 29 years kapu by caste, r/o Thagarampudi village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District driver of trucker bearign No. AP 31 X 302.

e. Offence complied of : U/sec.338 IPC .

f. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.

g Final Judgment : Found not guilty h Date of order : 13-03-12

The case of the prosecution is that on 6-6-06 the accused being the driver cum owner of trucker bearing No. AP 31 X 302 while coming from Gajuwaka and proceeding towards Anakapalli on NH5 road drove the same in rash and negligent manner, at about 18-00 hours when hereached Edumetla Marripalem junction, he hit a she buffalo, as a result of which the right leg of one of the inmate of the trucker by name

Ganireddi Rambabu s/o Peda Satyam resident of Tharuvuvillage, hit the rear 2 portion of the buffalo. As a result he received a fracture injury on his right leg thigh.

The accused shifted him up to Anakapalli bus complex and endorsed to one of the inmates of the trucker to shift him to hospital. The injured was admitted in NTR hospital for treatment. Later he was shifted to KGH Visakhapatnam for better treatment.

Basing on the statement of the injured S.Satyanarayn ASI of Police Steel Plant PS registered the same as case in crime Nol118/06 u/sec.338 IPC.

During investigation he visited the scene of offence, examined the same and examined the witnesses recorded their statements, he shifted the crime vehicle to the police station and forwarded a requisition to I.Venugopalarao M.V. Inspector for inspection of the crime vehicle. He arrested the accused on 22-6-06 at 11-00 hours t steel plant police station when he surrendered before him and forwarded him to court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.

2) This case was taken on file under section 338 IPC against accused.

3) On appearance of the accused, he was served with copies of the case as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation for the offence punishable under section 338 IPC. he pleaded not guilty for the above said offence and claimed to be tried.

4) In order to prove the guilt of the accused prosecution cited Lws.1 to 8 ie

G.Rambabu, G.Sambasivarao, G.Achari B.Kanaka Apparao , I.Venugopalarao, Dr.Grace

S.Styanarayana and B.V.Ramanamurthy out of them G.Rambabu, I.Venugopalarao.

Dr.Grace and S. Satyanarayana as Pws.1 to 4 and got marked EXs.P.1 to P.5. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

5) Point for determination is whether the prosecution established the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable under sec.338 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

3

6) Heard both sides.

7) POINT:- G.Rambabu the injured who is examined as PW1 deposed that on 6-6- 06 while he was proceeding from New Gajuwaka to Tharuva village by a trucker bearing No. AP 31 X 302, when the trucker reached Aganampudi Saibaba temple; the driver drove the vehicle with high speed he sat in the middle row seat behind the driver. A she buffalo came on the lane the vehicle passed adjacent to the she buffalo due to fastness of the vehicle l his legs crushed into the vehicle he sustained his right leg fractured. In th same vehicle he was taken to NTR hospital Anakapalli, After giving treatment to him she was referred to KGH where police recorded his statement (EXP1) the driver f the trucker is no other than the accused.

I.Venugopalarao (PW2) inspected the crime vehicle bearing No. AP.31 X 302 Maxi cab at steel plant police station premises he found no damages to the vehicle due to accident. Breaks are found satisfactory he is of the opinion that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. He issued EX.P.2 accident report.

PW3 Doctor Grace who is examined the PW1 on 6-6-0-6 found the following injuries. Swelling and deformity of right thigh(2) swelling of right knee joint. The patient was referred to KGH. Opinion of the Asst Radiologist KGH l is right femur with knee shows fracture of femur the said injury is grievous. Accordingly she issued

EX.P.3 wound certificate.

The Investigating Officer S.Satyanarayana the then ASI of Police who is examined as

PW4 receive medico legal case intimation from KGH on 7-6-06 at 7-30 am immediately he went to KGH recorded the statement of injured person G.Rambabu ie

PW1. Based on which he registered an FIR in crime No.18/06 u/sec.338 IPC EX.P.4 is original FIR he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence EX.P.5. He recorded the statements of the witnesses in his part-II Case Diary.

4

8) It is argued by the learned defence counsel that according to PW1 though there are other passengers who travelled in the tucker but they were not figured as witnesses in this case if they were examined as witnesses the truth would come , but the prosecution failed to examine them only to trace the real fact. Therefore non examination of material witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution. This court find force in the above contention of the learned defence counsel. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit she buffalo as a result of which the right leg of the PW1 was fractured. If really the accused hit the she buffalo the she buffalo must have received the injury. The investigating officer unable to say what happened to the she buffalo. Even suppose the contention of the prosecution is accepted in toto as it is the accused hit the she buffalo how the accused received the fracture to his right leg is not explained properly . What made the PW1 to keep his legs outside of the truck, is also not explained. In EX.P.1 it is not mentioned that he put his right leg outside of the trucker and it contacted the she buffalo . However, there isl no corroborating evidence. The evidence of the PW1 that the accused drove the crime vehicle with speed and contacted the she buffalo the rear portion of the she buffalo contacted the right leg of the PW1 and he sustained an fracture to his right leg. Therefore without any corroborating evidence and as the prosecution examined th material witnesses as the other passengers who travelled in the same trucker ie the crime vehicle, certainly that is a fatal to the case of the prosecution. Basing on the sole testimony of PW1 it is very difficult to give a conviction to the accused.

Moreover, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused hit the PW1 and there is no evidence to show that the accused hit the she buffalo and in turn she buffalo came to contacted the right leg of PW1. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution not established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under sec.338 IPC. The accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

5

9) In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec.338 IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under sec.255(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me in

open court on this the 13th day of March 2012.

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:

PW1.G.Rambabu, PW2. I.Venugopalarao PW3. Dr.Grace PW4. S. Satyanarayana

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:

EX.P.1. Statement of PW1. EX.P.2. M.V.I. Report EX.P.3. Wound Certificate EX.P.4. Rough Sketch

For Accused: NIL

MO' s Marked -NIL-

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITANMAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

Date of :

offence: 6-6-06 report/complaint:6-6-06 release on bail :On bail commencement of trial:3-11-11 close of trial: 9-3-12 sentence or order:13-3-12

Explanation for delay and remarks: No delay.

Judgment in : C.C. No.696/06 in Cr.No.118/06 of Steel Plant Police Station. Complainant:

S.I. Of Police, Steel Plant Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.

Accused: Pappala Satyam Dora @ Pappala sreenu s/o Varahalababu, age 29 years kapu by caste, r/o Thagarampudi village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District driver of trucker bearign No. AP 31 X 302.

Offence:Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others u/sec.338 IPC.

Finding: The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec.338 IPC

Sentence:

In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec.338

IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

7

No.53/07 in Cr.No.187/06 of Gajuwaka Traffic Police

Station.

b. Date of commission of offence : 8-5-06

c) Name of the complainant: Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka

Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.

d. Name of the accused:

Nagireddy Govinda Rao @ Govindu S/o late Krishna Rao, 32 years, Kapu R/o D.No.4-40-2, High School Road, Near Krishna Nagar, New Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam N/o Rajupalem Vallur Post, Anakapall, Visakhapatnam District, Owner cum driver of Swaraj Mazda Van bearing No. AP.31 T 8715.

//True Copy// III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

C.C.53/07 2-3-12. Accused is called present.

Judgment pronounced. Vide separate 8 judgment.

In the result accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC. Accordingly he is convicted for the said offence under sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and also shall pay fine of

Rs.1000/- ( Rupees one thousand only) in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.

III.A.C.M.M

9

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, ADDL. FAMILY COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT:- SRI G.RAMA KRISHNA, BSc., B.L.,

JUDGE, ADDL. FAMILY COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

WEDNESDAY, the 17 th day of APRIL, 2013

O.P.1269/2012

Between

1.Rella Venkata Rao @ Venkat, S/o Late Appalaswamy, Hindu, Aged 36 years, Residing at D.No.38-31-79, Sri Harsha Nagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

2.Smt.Rella Usha Rani, W/o Venkata Rao @ Venkat, D/o Late Bodduru Ananda Rao, Hindu, Aged 32 years, Junior Assistant, Railway Co-Operative Society, backside of D.R.M.Office,Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam. ……. Petitioners And: - NIL - …….Respondent This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.A.Prasad & T.Bhujanga Rao, Advocates for both petitioners and the same having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioners under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, praying this Court to grant a decree of divorce on mutual consent, by dissolving the marriage between the petitioners dt.05.09.2007. 6 months mandatory period is already over. Both petitioners present

before this Court on 16.04.2013 and filed their respective evidence affidavits.

They reiterated their intention to take divorce. The 1st petitioner paid an amount of Rs.5,25,000/- to the 2nd petitioner in total towards permanent alimony. The 1st petitioner has not pressed OP.848/2010 filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The 2nd petitioner also not pressed OP.1002/2011 filed for maintenance. In view of the settlement and intention, a decree of divorce is granted on mutual consent, by dissolving the marriage between petitioners dt.05.09.2007. Petition is allowed accordingly.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of APRIL, 2013.

J U D G E

ADDL. FAMILY COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, ADDL. FAMILY COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT:- SRI G.RAMA KRISHNA, BSc., B.L.,

JUDGE, ADDL. FAMILY COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

WEDNESDAY, the 17 th day of APRIL, 2013

O.P.963/2012

Between 1. Vanjula Ananda Rao, S/o late V.Konda, Aged 38 years, Hindu, Permanent address atD.No.3-43,SimligudaVillage, ArukuvalleyMandal,Visakhapatnam District and last residing at D.No.7-25, Plot No.52,Prasanthinagar,Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam.

2. Vanjula Jamuna, W/o Vanjala Ananda Rao, Aged 32 years, Hindu, Permanent address at D.No.3-28 (a), Simliguda Village, ArukuvalleyMandal,Visakhapatnam District and last residing at D.No.9-251, Sujathanagar, Visakhapatnam. ……. Petitioners And: - NIL - …….Respondent This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Samarpana Rao, Advocate for both petitioners and the same having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioners under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, praying this Court to grant a decree of divorce on mutual consent, by dissolving the marriage between the petitioners dt.08.04.1998. 6 months mandatory period is already over. Today both petitioners present before this Court and filed their respective evidence affidavits. They expressed their intention once again, for taking divorce. From the evidence affidavits, it is clear that they are living separately by obtaining customary divorce on 13.02.2002 before elders. Hence, a decree of divorce is granted on mutual consent, by dissolving the marriage between petitioners dt.08.04.1998. Petition is allowed accordingly.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of APRIL, 2013.

J U D G E

ADDL. FAMILY COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM.