Sri G Sampurna Anand

1SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL

OF SCs/STs (POA) ACT CASES CUM II ADDL. DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE AT NALGONDA.

Present: Sri.G.Sampurna Anand

Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases -cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda

(Tuesday, the 23 rd day of April, 2024)

SESSIONS CASE No.219 of 2017

(In Crime No.74 of 2017 of Police Station Valigonda for the offences punishable under Section 324, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act against the accused Nos.1 to 3)

Name of the The State of Telangana through the Complainant:Assistant Commissioner of Police, Choutuppal Division.

Names of the accused : A1:Kadaveru Yadagiri, S/o.Kistaiah, Age: 45 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Business, R/o.Velvarthy Village, Valigonda Mandal. A2:Kadaveru Saroja, D/o.Kistaiah, Age: 35 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Kirana Business, R/o.Velvarthy Village, Valigonda Mandal.

A3:Kadaveru Laxmamma, W/o.Kistaiah, Age: 65 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Velvarthy Village, Valigonda Mandal

Under Section 324, 506 r/w 34 of the Offences Charged Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(r)(s), and Section 3(2) (va) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act.

Plea of accused Not guilty

Finding of the Court Found not guilty

Page 1 of 24 2SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

Sentence or Order In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offences sections 324, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sec- tions 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of SCs/ STs (POA) Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offences under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Proce- dure Code. The bail bonds of the ac- cused No.1 to 3, if any, shall stand canceled after the expiry of six months from this date as contem- plated under Section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. M.O-1 (Saw) shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted Sri N. Srinivas, Public Prosecutor by Name of the counsel Sri Ch.Gopal, Advocate.

for the Accused

This case came before me for hearing on 18.04.2024 in the presence of the learned public prosecutor for the state and Sri Ch. Gopal learned counsel for accused No.1 to 3. Upon hearing arguments of both sides and on perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Choutuppal Division, against the accused

No.1 to 3 in Crime No.74 of 2017 for the offences punishable under sections 324, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sec- tions 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act against the ac- cused Nos.1 to 3.

Page 2 of 24 3SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

2.The briefly stated prosecution case is to the following effect:

i)On 19.04.2017, at about 4.00 P.M, Pw-1 lodged a complaint reporting the incident alleged to have happened on the same day in the morning hours of 9:00 AM stating that when Kadaveru Yadagiri (accused No.1) was cutting the Namilanara tree standing in front of his house with a Saw, Pw-1 questioned him as to why he was cutting the said tree, upon which the accused No.1 abused him in filthy lan- guage taking his caste name as MAADIGA LANJAKODKA, NEE AM-

MANI DENGUDU, NEE PELLANI DENGUDU, MAADIGA LANJAKODA

NUVVU NANNU APPUTAVA" and by threatening to kill him attacked him with the Saw on his right hand. When the Pw-2, who came with him, intervened to rescue him, the accused abused him also in the name of caste. Then his villagers Pw-3, Pw-4, Lw-5/Mallam Salaiah, and Lw-6/Chavva Venkataiah witnessed the incident. Further, Ac- cused No.1 and his family members, Accused No.2 and 3, jointly at- tacked him. Therefore, he lodged a report to the police.

ii)Based on the report lodged by the Pw-1/complainant, Pw-11/

D.Venkatesharlu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Valigonda P.S registered a case in Cr. No.74 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 324, 506

Page 3 of 24 4SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Act. Later, Pw-12/M. Snehitha, Assistant Commissioner of Po- lice, took up the investigation, examined and recorded the state- ment of Pw-1, visited the scene of offence situated at Velvarthy Vil- lage, in front of the house and adjacent to cattle shed/open land of complainant/Pw-1, conducted the scene of offence Panchanama and drew the rough sketch in the presence of Pw-6 and Lw-11/Gundu

Sekhar. He recorded the statements of Pws-2 to 4, LWs5 to 7/Mallam

Salaiah, Chavva Venkatesham, and Yedavally Narsimha. She ob- tained Caste Certificates of the Pw-1 and the accused Nos.1 to 3 from Pw-9/B.Yadaiah, Tahasildar, Valigonda Mandal. Further, Pw-10/

Dr. Kiran, who treated the injured/complainant, issued a medical cer- tificate stating that the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature. On 11.05.2017, Pw-12 apprehended accused No.1 and 2, recorded the confession statements, and seized a saw which is used in the commission of the offence under cover of confession cum seizure Panchanama at the instance of the accused and pro- duced them before the court for judicial remand. The Accused No.3 got anticipatory bail. After completing the investigation, Pw-12/M.

Snehitha filed a charge sheet.

Page 4 of 24 5SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

iii)This Court took cognizance of the case for the offences punish- able under sections 324, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Pe- nal Code and sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

iv)On the appearance of the accused before this Court, copies were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., upon considering the material available on record and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused

No.1 to 3, charges under sections 324, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of SCs/

STs (POA) Act against the accused No.1 to 3 are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu as contemplated under Section 228 (2) Cr.P.C., for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

v)During the course of the trial, to substantiate its case against the accused No.1 to 3, on behalf of the prosecution, Pws-1 to 12 were examined and got marked Exs-P1 to P8 and M.O.1. Pw-1 is the complainant and victim, Pw-2 is the Eyewitness and victim, Pws-3 and 4 are Eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, Pw-5 is the scribe of the complaint, Pw-6 is the panch witness to the scene of the offence and rough sketch, Pws-7 and 8 are the Panch witness to the confes- sion-cum –seizure panchanama of Accused No.1, Pw-9 is the Tahsil-

Page 5 of 24 6SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

dar, who issued Caste certificates of the complainant and accused,

Pw-10/Dr. Kiran issued the medical certificate to the complainant.

Pw-11 was the officer who registered the crime, and Pw-12 was the investigating officer.

vi)After the closure of the prosecution evidence, with the above evidence, accused No.1 to 3 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

by explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No documents are marked on behalf of the ac- cused.

3.Heard the arguments of the learned additional public prosecu- tor and the learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 3. Now, the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable un- der Sections 324, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

4.The learned public prosecutor submits that the evidence placed on record would prove and substantiate the charges leveled against accused No.1 to 3. He submits that the material witnesses are Pw-1 himself, who was injured, and Pw-2 to Pw-4 are the eyewit-

Page 6 of 24 7SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

nesses who testified to have witnessed the incident involving the ac- cused No.1 to 3 and the injury sustained by Pw-1 due to the attack of Accused No.1, He submits that Pw-5 is the scribe of the com- plaint. That apart, the Pw-6 to Pw-8 are the panch witnesses to the scene of offence and the confession cum recovery of MO-1 deposed supporting the case of the prosecution. Pw-9 is the Tahsildar who is- sued the caste certificates of the accused and the victim, and Pw-10 is the doctor who examined Pw-1 and issued the wound certificate.

The Pw-11 and 12 are the investigating Officers. He further submits that the evidence let in by the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused and hence seeks to convict the accused.

5.On the other hand, the defense counsel submits that a false case was foisted by the complaint and the witnesses in collusion with each other against the accused Nos.1 to 3 due to the disputes that arose regarding the erection of Ambedkar statue in the land of the accused in the village. He further submits that no such incident involving Accused Nos.1 to 3 occurred on the date of 19.04.2017, and the evidence placed by the prosecution would reflect discrepan- cies regarding the occurrence of the alleged incident on 19.04.2017 as there is a delay in receiving the report under Ex-P1 and referring the Pw-1 to the doctor/Pw-10. He also contends that the doctor did

Page 7 of 24 8SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

not examine the Pw-1 on the date of the incident. And contends that the case was politically motivated and seeks to acquit the Accused

No.1 to 3.

6.Given the above charges framed against accused 1 to 3, the initial burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate that accused 1 to 3 committed the offences. To ascertain those aspects, it becomes necessary to scrutinize the evidence adduced on behalf of the pros- ecution. To prove and establish the charges against accused Nos.1 to 3, the prosecution adduced the following evidence:

7.Sri U. Srinu/Pw-1, the complainant and injured, testified that he has a cattle shed in front of his house at Velverthy village, and besides that, Accused No.1 owns a house. On 19.04.2017, at about 9-00 am, Accused No.1 was cutting his tree (Nemilinaara Chettu) with an axe, for which he questioned Accused No.1 then he abused him in filthy language, taking his caste name as MAADIGA LAN-

JAKODKA, NEE AMMANI DENGUDU, NEE PELLANI DENGUDU,

MAADIGA LANJAKODA NUVVU NANNU APPUTAVA" and attacked with an axe, and he kept his right hand and received injuries to his right hand and on his shoulder. Accused No.2 and 3 also abused him in filthy language, taking his caste name. Pw-2 to Pw-4 and Lw-5/Mal- lam Salaiah witnessed the incident. Inhis cross-examination, Pw-1

Page 8 of 24 9SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

stated that he studied up to 10th class and Ex-P1 was not scribed by him and denied pendency of criminal cases against him before the

JFCM, Ramannapet, and involvement in a murder case of Thummala

Veera Reddy as well as an election case. He denied that accused

No.1 filed a criminal case against him as they entered the land of ac- cused No.1 and erected the Ambedkar Statue in the plot. He also de- nied knowing about the civil suit vide OS.No. 105/2017 against him by the accused as he entered into his land and erected the Ambed- kar Statue in the said plot when he erected Ambedkar Statue on his land, the RDO and Commissioner of Police made an inquiry, and the same was published in the newspaper on 25.10.2018. He had not handed over any document pertaining to the cattle shed and its measurements to the police. He denied that there is a 20 feet road in front of the house of accused No.1 and trees were planted abut- ting the road in front of the houses. He denied that there was no

Nemilinara tree in front of his house. He did not know the police also registered a case under the PD Act against him. He lodged a report on 17.04.2017. Police examined and recorded my statement two or three days after the lodging report at the Police Station at about 12.00 Noon. Pw-1 further denied that the accused did not abuse him, his mother, and his wife by touching his caste name and that

Page 9 of 24 10SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

since the accused No.1 filed civil and criminal cases against him, he lodged a false report against the accused.

8.Nagilla Shekhar/Pw-2, who was examined as an eyewitness, testified to having witnessed the incident on 19.04.2015 and spoke along the lines of Pw-1. However, he testified that it was the Saw that was used by the accused in cutting the tree and beating Pw-1.

He testified that Pw-3, Pw-4, Lw-5/Salaiah, and Lw-6/ Chavva

Venkatesham witnessed the alleged incident and intervened and rescued the Pw-1. However, he testified that the Police did not ex- amine and record his statement. In his cross-examination, Pw-2 stated that he resided 150 yards from the house of Pw-1 and that

Pw-1 is his elder brother by courtesy. He admitted that Nemali Nare

Chettu is not situated in the cattle shed of Pw-1. He denied knowl- edge of criminal cases filed by the accused against Pw-1. He admit- ted that he was one of the accused in a murder case.

9.Kalukuri Shankariah/Pw-3, who was examined as an eyewit- ness, testified to having witnessed the incident on 19.04.2019 and spoke along the lines of Pw-1. However, he testified that it was the

Saw that was used by the accused in cutting the tree and beating

Pw-1. He also testified about the intervention of Pw-2 to convince

Accused No.1, then Accused No.1 abused Pw-2 in filthy language

Page 10 of 24 11SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

and tried to beat the Pw-2 with a Saw, and then Pw-4 and Lw-5/

Salaiah intervened and rescued Pw-2. In his cross-examination, though the facts testified by him regarding abuses meted out by Pw- 2 are not supported by Pw-2, the defense counsel did not elicit any- thing contrary thereto except for obtaining denials of his presence and the presence of other witnesses in the village on the alleged date of incident and suggesting the involvement of Pw-1 in some criminal cases by the accused No.1 against him and his involvement in the criminal cases, which he denied any knowledge.

10.Sri Bheemagani Venkatsh/Pw-4, who was also examined as an eyewitness, testified to having witnessed the incident on 19.04.2017 and spoke along the lines of Pw-1. However, he also testified that it was the Saw that was used by the accused in cutting the tree and beating Pw-1. He also testified to having witnessed the presence of

Pw-2, Lw-5/Salaiah, Lw-6/Venkatesham, and others witnessing the incident. He also testified about the factum of Pw-2, questioning Ac- cused No.1 about cutting the tree of Pw-1, and then Accused Nos.1 to 3 abused Pw-2 in filthy language and tried to beat the Pw-1, then the Pw-2 intervened, and later they intervened to pacify the dispute.

In his cross-examination, the defense counsel did not elicit anything contrary to the facts testified by him except for obtaining denials.

Page 11 of 24 12SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

11.Sri Yadavelly Narsimha/Pw-5, claims to have scribed the com- plaint, testified that on 19.12.2017, he noticed that Pw-1 sustained a bleeding injury to his left hand. When he asked him, the Pw-1 nar- rated the facts testified by him. He took the Pw-1 to the Police sta- tion Valigonda to lodge the report. As per the instructions of Pw-1, he scribed the complaint, and then the Pw-1 lodged the complaint with the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that they went to the police station at about 10:00 AM. It took 15 minutes to draft the complaint. He denied that the writings and contents of the re- port do not belong to him. They lodged the report at about 10:20.A.M. to the police. Though Pw-5 wrongly referred the month as to the alleged incident, the defense counsel did not elicit anything contrary to the facts testified by Pw-5 except for obtaining denials and suggesting his involvement and some others in a criminal case for erecting a statue of Ambedkar on 13.04.2017 in the land of Ac- cused No.2, which he denied. He admitted that on 14.04.2017, the

Revenue Divisional Officer, MRO, Assistant Commissioner of Police, and Sub-Inspector of Police, Valigonda, came to their village regard- ing the dispute of the erection of the Ambedkar Statue, but he de- nied knowing the facts thereof. He denied the suggestion that he did not take Pw-1 to the police station, and they did not lodge the report on the date of the incident at 10:20 AM.

Page 12 of 24 13SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

12.Sri Mallam Srinivas Goud/Pw-6 was examined as a Panch wit- ness to the scene of the offense Panchanama, and the rough sketch testified that on 21.04.2017, Police conducted a Scene of Offence

Panchanama besides drawing a rough sketch. He knows the con- tents of the panchanama. In cross-examination, he admitted he worked as aSarpanch of Velivarthy village from 2013 to 2018.

Though the date of conduct of Panchanama was wrongly referred to by Pw-6, the defense counsel could not elicit anything contrary to the facts testified by Pw-5 except for obtaining denials and suggest- ing his involvement along with others in a criminal case for erecting a statue of Ambedkar in the house plot of Accused No.2, which he denied.

13.Sri Chavva Chennaiah/Pw-7 was examined as a Panch witness to the confession cum recovery Panchanama testified that about 5 or 6 years back, police called him to the house of accused No.1. He and Lw-13/Sathaiah went there, there the police enquired with the accused No.1, then accused No.1 confessed that he beat Pw-1 with the Saw, then the accused No.1 went inside the house and brought the said Saw. Then the police seized the said saw under the cover of panchanama and obtained his signature. He knows the contents of the said panchanama. MO-1 is the Saw. Ex. P4 is the relevant portion

Page 13 of 24 14SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

regarding the recovery of MO-1. In his cross-examination, Pw-7 stated that he did not remember whether he put his signatures on written paper or blank paper. Except for obtaining denials by the de- fense counsel, nothing contrary was elicited from the Pw-7. He fi- nally denied that he signed on blank papers.

14.Sri Pendyala Sathaiah/Pw-8 was also examined as a Panch wit- nessto the confession cum recovery Panchanama testified in lines of Pw-7 and also identified MO-1 as the Saw. Except for obtaining de- nials by the defense counsel, nothing contrary was elicited from the

Pw-8 in his cross-examination.

15.B. Yadagiri/Pw-9 was the Tahsildar, who testified to have is- sued the caste certificates, mentioning that PW-1 belongs to SC (Madiga) by caste and the accused Nos.1 to 3 belong to Padmashali (BC) by caste.

16.Dr. A. Kiran Kumar/Pw-10 testified that on 19.04.2017, Pw-1 came with a police requisition. Accordingly, he examined and found the following injuries: 1) Abrasion over a right upper limb and 2)

Abrasion laceration over the right forearm. He is of the opinion that the above-said injuries are simple in nature and could have been caused by a blunt object, and the age of the injuries is fresh in na-

Page 14 of 24 15SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

ture. Accordingly, a wound certificate was issued under Ex-P6. In his cross-examination, Pw-10 stated that the OP duty hours of the hospi- tal are from 09:00 AM to 02:00 PM. He admitted that there was no mention of time in the Ex-P6 when Pw-1 came to the hospital, and there was a possibility of receiving the above injuries if a person touched a hard surface material/thing and no police accompanied the Pw-1 to the hospital.

17.Sri D. Venkateshwarlu/Pw-11 is the Investigating Officer who received the complaint and registered the FIR. He testified that on 19.04.2017 at about 4:00 PM, he received a report from Pw-1 based on it, he registered a case Cr. No.74 of 2017 for the offences under

Section 324, 506 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the SCs/STs Act and issued FIR and submitted the original of it

before the Court and sent the Pw-1 to the Government Area

Hospital, Ramannapet for treatment by giving requisition. Later, he handed over the CD file to Pw-12/Assistant Commissioner of Police for investigation. In his cross-examination, Pw-11 stated that Pw-1 came to the police station with the written report and denied the suggestion that the police prepared it and also denied the suggestion that he did not send the Pw-1 to the Government Area

Hospital, Ramannapet, for treatment.

Page 15 of 24 16SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

18.M. Snehitha/Pw-12 is the Investigating Officer who testified that as per the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police,

Rachakonda, under Ex-P8, she took up the investigation and on 21.04.2017, she visited the scene of the offense situated at

Velvarthy village at the house of Pw-1, examined and recorded the statements of Pws-1 to 5, Lw-5/Salaiah, Lw-6/Venkatesham, and conducted scene of offence Panchanama besides drawing of a rough sketch in the presence of Pw-6 and Lw-11/Shekar. On 11.05.2017, she apprehended Accused Nos.1 and 2 at the house of the Accused

No. 1 at Velvarthy village and recorded the confession statement of the Accused No. 1 in the presence of PWs.7 and 8 and seized MO-1 in pursuance of the confession of the accused. Thereafter, the accused No. 1 and 2, were arrested and produced before the Court for judicial custody. Later, she collected the Caste Certificate of Pw-1 and the Accused Nos.1 to 3 from Pw-9-Tahasildar and the Medical

Certificate of Pw-1 from Pw-10. Later, the accused No.3 surrendered

before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet. After that,

she examined and recorded the statements of Lw-8/Narsimha Chary and LW.9/Sudhakar. After completion of the investigation, she filed the charge sheet for the offences under Section 324, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the

Page 16 of 24 17SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

SCs/STS (POA) Act. In her cross-examination, except for obtaining denials from Pw-12, the defense counsel elicited nothing contrary to what she testified.

Point:

19.As can be seen from the evidence on record, the report given by the Pw-1 under Ex-P1 discloses that it was received on 19.04.2017 at about 4:00 PM by the Pw-11 regarding an incident alleged to have happened at 9:00 AM on the same day in front of his house wherein Accused No.1, i.e., his neighbour, alleged to have attacked him with a Saw and abused him in the name of caste and in that attack Pw-1 sustained an injury to his right hand. The accused No.2 and 3 abused him in the name of caste. In his cross- examination, Pw-1 admitted that he did not scribe Ex-P1. Pw-5, who was examined by the prosecution as the scribe of the complaint, testified that he scribed the complaint per Pw-1's instructions, and then Pw-1 lodged the complaint with the police. Pw-5 stated in his cross-examination that they went to the police station by 10:00 AM.

It took 15 minutes to draft the complaint, and the report was lodged at about 10:20 AM. He also admitted that on 14.04.2017, revenue and police officials visited their village regarding the dispute over the erection of the Ambedkar Statue.

Page 17 of 24 18SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

20.Pw-11/Investigating officer, testified to have received the report under Ex-P1 from Pw-1 at about 4:00 PM, registered the case by issuing the FIR under Ex-P7, submitted it before the Court, and sent the Pw-1 to the Government hospital, Ramannapet, for treat- ment with a requisition. In his cross-examination, Pw-11 stated that

Pw-1 came with a written report and denied the suggestion that the police prepared it and also denied the suggestion that he did not send the Pw-1 to the Government Area Hospital, Ramannapet, for treatment. Ex-P7 is the FIR issued by Pw-11, which discloses that it was received by the JFCM Court on 20.04.2017 at about 10:30 AM.

21.Pw-10, the doctor who examined Pw-1, testified that on 19.04.2017, Pw-1 arrived with a police requisition, and on examina- tion, he found abrasions on Pw-1's right upper limb and right fore- arm, certifying them as simple injuries could have caused likely by a blunt object and are fresh, he issued a wound certificate under

Ex-P6. In cross-examination, Pw-10 stated that his OP (Out-Patient) duty hours are from 09:00 AM to 02:00 PM and that there was no mention of the time when Pw-1 arrived at the hospital in Ex-P6 and also stated that those injuries are possible on a touch of a hard surface material/thing.

Page 18 of 24 19SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

22.It is the case of the prosecution that the alleged incident occurred at 9:00 AM on 19.04.2017 in which Pw-1 sustained injuries due to the attack made by Accused No.1 with the Saw, i.e., MO-1, and the report thereof was received by Pw-11 at 4:00 PM from Pw-1 under Ex-P1. It is not the case of the prosecution that the Pw-1 sustained severe injuries and was treated by the Pw-10 before receiving the report from Pw-1 under Ex-P1 by the Pw-11 at 4:00 PM on 19.04.2017. Given the fact stated by the Doctor/ Pw-10 that his

OP (Out-Patient) Duty timings at the hospital are up to 2:00 PM, if

Pw-1 was referred to the hospital after receiving the report under Ex-

P1 at 4:00 PM, then how could the doctor/Pw-10 examine the Pw-1 after 4:00 PM when his OP duty timings in the hospital would come to an end by 02:00 PM. Though Pw-10 testified and the Ex-P6 disclosed that Pw-1 was examined on 19.04.2017, the inconsistencies found supra coupled with the fact admitted by Pw-10 that Ex-P6 is silent as to the time when he examined the Pw-1, casts serious doubt about the doctor/Pw-10 examining Pw-1 on the date of lodging the Report under Ex-P1. i.e., 19.04.2017.

23.Pw-11 testified to have submitted the FIR to the Court and sent Pw-1 to the Government hospital at Rammannapet for treatment with the requisition. He did not state that he had

Page 19 of 24 20SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

forwarded the FIR to the Court and sent the Pw-1 to the hospital.

The FIR under Ex-P7 discloses that the Court received it on 20.04.2019 at 10:30 AM, i.e., on the next day of its registration, when read with the testimony of Pw-11 jointly, infers that the Pw-11 sent Pw-1 to the hospital on 20.04.2017. Further, given the fact testified by Pw-10 and certified under Ex-P7 that the wounds are fresh and that they are possible if a person touched a hard surface material/thing, coupled with the finding arrived supra that Pw-11 sent Pw-1 to the hospital on 20.04.2017, would not only negate the case of the prosecution that Pw-1 sustained any injury on 19.04.2017 but also casts doubt version testified by the witnesses against the accused.

24.The Pw-2 to 4, who were examined by the prosecution as eye- witnesses, corroborated with each other and narrated the incident alleged to have happened at 9:00 AM on 19.04.2017 between the

Pw-1 and the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and Pw-1 sustaining bleeding in- juries. However, their evidence is neither corroborated nor consis- tent with the facts as found supra based on the evidence of the doc- tor/Pw-10 and the IO/Pw-11 coupled with Ex-P1, Ex-P6, and Ex-P7.

25.Given the fact testified by Pw-10 that wounds sustained by the

Pw-1 are abrasions being simple in nature coupled with the finding

Page 20 of 24 21SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

supra that the Pw-1 was not referred to the hospital before the receipt of the report under Ex-P1, no explanation is forthcoming as to why the Pw-11 received Ex-P1 at 4:00 PM when Pw-5 stated to have lodged it by 10:20 AM. The time gap is approximately more than 5 hours. In the absence of any justifiable explanation, much less a reasonable explanation thereto, and coupled with the incon- sistencies as found in the paragraphs supra, the evidence placed by the prosecution would not only draw inferences adverse to its case but also attribute motives on the part of the police in implicating Ac- cused No.1 to 3 in collusion with the complaint and other witnesses and appears to be politically motivated by the disputes that arose due to erection of Ambedkar Statue in the village.

26.Given the findings supra, the evidence thus placed by the prosecution, since marred by glitches, does not inspire the confi- dence of this Court to believe the facts testified by the prosecution witnesses in support of any of the charges that were framed Ac- cused Nos. 1 to 3 and thus considers their evidence unreliable. In the absence of cogent evidence being placed by the prosecution to substantiate the charges against Accused No.1 to 3, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove and establish its case against the offences charged against them under sections 324, 506 read

Page 21 of 24 22SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the Accused No.1 to 3 are to be acquitted of the offences they are charged with. The point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused Nos.1 to 3.

22.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offences sections 324, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code and sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act. Ac- cordingly, they are acquitted of the said offences under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused

No.1 to 3, if any, shall stand canceled after the expiry of six months from this date as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Criminal

Procedure Code. M.O-1 (Saw) shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

The stenographer typed my dictation, which I corrected and

pronounced in open court on the 23 rd day of April 2024.

Sd/-

Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases-cum-II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda

Page 22 of 24 23SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution:

PW.1:Ukkurthy SrinuComplainant and injured

PW.2:Nagilla SekharEyewitness and Victim

PW.3:Kalukoori ShankaraiahEyewitness

PW.4:Beemagani Eyewitness Venkatesham

PW.5:Chavva VenkateshamEyewitness

PW.6:Mallam Srinivas GoudPanch for the scene of offence panchanama

PW.7:Chevva ChennaiahPanch for confession cum seizure panchanama of A1

PW.8:Pendyala Sathaiah-do-

PW.9:B.YadaiahIssued Caste certificates of the complainant and A1 to A3

PW.10:Dr.Kiran Issued Medical Certificate of the inured

PW.11:D.VenkateshwarluIssued FIR

PW.12:M.SnehithaInvestigating Officer and filed charge sheet

For Defence:-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1:Report

Ex.P.2:Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P.3:Rough Sketch

Ex.P.4:Relevant portion regarding the recovery of M.O.1

Ex.P.5:Caste Certificate of Pw-1 and the accused No.1 to 3

Page 23 of 24 24SC No.219 of 2017

Dt: 23.04.2024

Ex.P.6:Wound Certificate of Pw-1

Ex.P.7:First Information Report

Ex.P.8:Proceedings of the Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda, dated 19.04.2017.

For Defence:-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1- Saw

Sd/-

Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases-cum-II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda

Page 24 of 24

1 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-1st ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT NALGONDA

Present: Sri G. Sampurna Anand

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- Cum-1st Addl. District Judge, Nalgonda.

On the 9th day of April 2026

M.V.O.P No.59 of 2023

Between:

Idikuda Brahma Chari, S/o.Ragava Chary, Age: 21 years, Occ: Private Employee (presently Nil) R/o. Gonaboinapally Village of Dindi Mandal, Nalgonda District.

….. Petitioner/Claimant

AND

1.T. Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Venkateshwara Reddy, Age: Major, R/o. H.No. 12-1-77, Kothapet, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh State. (Driver of the Car bearing No. TS-08-EH-6989)

2.T. Parvathi Devi, W/o.Srinivas Reddy, Age: Major, R/o.Flat No. 302, Seven Hills Apartment, Sai Nagar, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad-5000060 (Owner of the Car bearing No. TS-08-EH- 6989)

3.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Door No. 6-3- 352/1, 3rd Floor, Osman Plaza, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Panjagutta, Hyderabad-500037, represented by its Legal Manager. (Policy No. 3001/HA-100424058/00/000 (Amended as per the orders of this Hon'ble court vide orders in 1.A.No.761/2025

dated 01-12-2025) Valid from 16-03-2020 to 15-03-2021.

..…Respondents

This Petition came up for hearing on 23.02.2026 before me in the presence of Sri R.Bhupal Reddy, Counsel for the Petitioner. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte. Sri. T.Raja Shekar, Counsel for Respondent No.3. Perused the material on record, upon hearing the arguments and after having stood over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal made the following:

2 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

: O R D E R :

1.This claim petition is filed by the Petitioner/injured under Section 166, read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and with

Rules 455 of the MV Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of

Rs.6,00,000/- from Respondents No.1 to 3 for the injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

2.The Petitioner's case is that on 10-11-2020, at about 4:30 P.M., the petitioner, along with one Amrutha as a pillion rider, was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No. TS-05-EF-1286 from

Devarakonda Town towards Hyderabad, riding at a normal speed on the extreme left side of the road while observing the traffic rules.

When they reached the Thamaloniguda Gate of Yacharam Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, a car bearing No. TS-08-EH-6989 came from the

Maal side and was proceeding towards Hyderabad, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, and dashed into the petitioner's motorcycle from behind. Due to the said impact, the petitioner and Amrutha sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Sanjeevini Multi Speciality

Hospital, Devarakonda, and thereafter he was referred to Nizam's

Institute of Medical Sciences, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, for better treatment. Thus, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No. TS-08-EH-6989.

3 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

3.Petitioner further states that a case is registered before the

Yacharam Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate vide FIR

No.234/2020 for the offence under Section 337 of the IPC against the driver of the Car bearing No.TS-08-EH-6989. Subsequently, the section of law was amended from Section 337 IPC to Section 338 IPC, and after the investigation was completed, the police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the said car.

4.Further, Petitioner states that before the accident, the Petitioner was hale and healthy and was working as a private employee, earning about Rs.20,000/- per month. He used to contribute the said earnings towards the maintenance of his family. Except for the said earnings, his family had no other source of income. On account of the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was treated at Sanjeevini Multi Speciality

Hospital, Devarakonda; Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences,

Panjagutta, Hyderabad; Sai Venkateshwara Multi Speciality Hospital &

Laparoscopic Centre, Devarakonda; Rohit ENT Hospital & Laser Centre,

Nalgonda; and other private hospitals. The petitioner incurred an amount of about Rs. 2,09,000/- towards medical treatment, medicines, transportation, and other incidental expenses. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner became bedridden and suffered permanent disability. As a result, he is unable to do the work he did earlier and has lost his earning capacity; he is now unable to 4 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

maintain himself and his family. Thus, under all these circumstances, the petitioner claims just and reasonable compensation of Rs.

6,00,000/-, which would meet the ends of justice.

5.The Respondents, Nos. 1 and 2, remained exparte.

6.Respondent No.3, the insurance company, filed its counter, denying the material averments made in the petition filed by the claimant, including the manner of the accident and the involvement of the vehicle. It also denied the petitioner's age, avocation, income, and health condition at the time of the accident. It is further contended that the driver of the Car did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The insurer further denied the petitioner's registration of the crime with the concerned police and disputed the petitioner's age, occupation, income, and injuries. Thus,

Respondent No. 3 denied its liability to pay any compensation and sought the dismissal of the petition.

7.Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed an additional counter, contending that, as per Ex.A-3 charge sheet, the 1st respondent/driver was driving the vehicle in a drunken condition and was charged under

Section 185(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which amounts to a violation of policy conditions. It is further contended that the petitioner failed to examine the treating doctor and any competent witness to prove the medical bills, thereby failing to establish the genuineness of the medical expenses. The medical bill for Rs.60,435/- is alleged to be 5 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

fabricated, as no supporting prescription or discharge summary was filed. It is also submitted that, as per Ex.A-2 Medico Legal Record, no bony injury is noted, indicating that the petitioner sustained no fracture injuries. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

8.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by my learned predecessor for enquiry:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No.TS-08-EH-6989 by its driver, respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2, and insured with respondent No.3?

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

3. To what relief?

9.During the course of the trial, the petitioner was examined as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of Respondent No. 3, the

Legal Manager was examined as RW.1 and marked as Ex. B1.

Issue No.1

10.To substantiate his case, the Petitioner was examined as PW.1 by filing the chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the Petition. Exs.A1 and A3 are the crime records. Ex. A1 is the Certified Copy of First

Information Report along with the complaint in Crime No.234/2020 of

Yacharam Police Station, Ex. A3 is the Certified Copy of the Charge 6 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

Sheet. In the cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that he completed his B.Sc. in Mathematics and worked as a Supervisor at Mega

Engineering Infrastructure Limited, Devarakonda Division, Akkampally

Balancing Reservoir Segment, from 2018 to 2019, and thereafter continued as a Supervisor under a private contractor on the same project till the date of the accident. He further stated that he is currently engaged in agriculture. PW.1 stated that, as on the date of the accident, he was riding the motorcycle and one Amrutha, an engineering student, was travelling as a pillion rider. He denied the suggestion that he did not possess a valid driving licence and produced his licence, which is valid from 27.08.2016 to 26.08.2036. PW.1 denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to his negligence and asserted that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the car.

He stated that he does not know whether the driver of the car was in a drunken condition at the time of the accident, as mentioned in the FIR and charge sheet. He further deposed that he sustained injuries in the accident and that his father, Raghava Chary @ Srinivas, reported the matter to the police. He stated that he did not suffer any fracture injuries but sustained a head injury and injuries all over the body. PW.1 admitted that the accident occurred on 10.11.2020 and denied the suggestion that the claim is time-barred. He admitted that, as per

Ex.A4 medical prescription, it is recorded that he fell from a two- wheeler, and clarified that he fell due to the accident while riding the motorcycle. PW.1 denied the suggestion that the medical records 7 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

under Exs.A4 to A9 are fabricated. He stated that he is aware of Goods and Services Tax and denied that the medical bills are invalid for not disclosing the GST number. He denied the suggestion that the bill for

Rs. 60,435/-, dated 13.11.2020, issued by Venkateshwara Multi

Hospital, Devarakonda, is fabricated. He admitted that he did not file the discharge summary of the said hospital and explained that he lost several bills and medical records as he took about two and a half years to recover from the injuries. PW.1 denied the suggestion that no such hospital exists in Devarakonda and admitted that the said bill does not mention the name of the doctor.

11.Sri Sudha Koruturu, the Legal Manager, examined as RW.1.

She filed Ex.B1, which is the attested copy of the policy bearing

No.3001/HA-100424058/00/000, which is an alternative policy issued by Respondent No.3 Company in respect of the car bearing No. TS-08-

EH-6989,inplaceoftheinitialpolicybearing

No.3001/196203953/00/000. She stated that the said policy was issued in favour of Respondent No.2 and was valid from 16.03.2020 to 15.03.2021. During cross-examination, RW.1 admitted that, as of the date of the accident, the policy under Ex.B1 was in force. She further admitted that the Insurance Company had not conducted any independent enquiry to ascertain whether the driver of the insured vehicle was under intoxication at the time of the accident. However, she added that, as per Ex.A3 Charge sheet, the driver was under the 8 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

influence of alcohol and had pleaded guilty in C.C. No.16/2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ibrahimpatnam. RW.1 further admitted that, upon conviction under

Section 185(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the driver was only fined and not sentenced to imprisonment.

12. A perusal of Ex.A1 FIR and Ex.A3 Charge Sheet clearly discloses that the police, after due investigation, filed a charge sheet against

Respondent No.1/driver for the offences punishable under Section 338

IPC and Section 185(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contents of the charge sheet reveal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car.

13.The evidence of PW.1 is consistent with the averments made in the petition. Nothing material has been elicited in his cross- examination to discredit his version concerning the manner of the accident. Though it was suggested that the accident occurred due to his negligence, the same was denied, and no contrary evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the said suggestion.

14.On the other hand, RW.1, who was examined on behalf of the

Insurance Company, admitted that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident and also admitted that the Insurance Company conducted no independent enquiry to establish the manner of the accident. Though she stated that the driver was under the influence of alcohol as per the charge sheet, such a fact does not disprove the 9 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver.

15.It is well settled that the contents of FIR and charge sheet, though not conclusive, carry persuasive value in motor accident claim cases, and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, they can be relied upon to determine negligence. In the present case, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner's negligence caused the accident. On the contrary, the police records support the petitioner's case that the driver of the offending car was responsible for the accident. Therefore, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.11.2020 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing

No. TS-08-EH-6989 by Respondent No.1.

Issue No.2

16.Given the finding supra that the accident occurred on 10.11.2020 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing

No. TS-08-EH-6989 by Respondent No.1, resulting in injuries to the petitioner, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner is entitled to compensation. Now, the point for determination is the quantum of compensation:

10 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

PECUNIARY DAMAGES

17.1 The petitioner claimed that he incurred an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. In order to substantiate the same, he relied upon Exs.A2 and A4 to A9. Ex.A2, the Medico Legal

Patient Record issued by NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, discloses that the petitioner was admitted on 27.11.2020 with a history of sustaining head injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 10.11.2020.

Ex.A4, the prescription dated 10.11.2020 issued by Sanjeevani Multi

Speciality Hospital, Devarakonda, reveals that immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to the said hospital, where he was provided initial treatment. The said record further shows that a CT

Brain scan was advised, which revealed parenchymal contusions in the bilateral parietal regions, and thereafter the petitioner was referred to a higher centre in Hyderabad for further management. Ex.A5, the discharge summary issued by NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, shows that the petitioner was admitted on 11.11.2020 and discharged on 13.11.2020. Ex.A6 consists of a bunch of medical prescriptions, Ex.A7 consists of laboratory reports, Ex.A8 consists of a bunch of medical bills amounting to Rs.1,03,006/-, and Ex.A9 consists of the X-ray film.

17.2 Though the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses, he has placed on record Exs.A2 and A4 to

A9 in support of the said claim. The medical records under Exs. A2, A4 and A5 clearly establish that the petitioner sustained a head injury in 11 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

the road traffic accident dated 10.11.2020 and initially received treatment at Sanjeevani Multi Speciality Hospital, Devarakonda, and thereafter as an inpatient at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, from 11.11.2020 to 13.11.2020. The CT scan report showing parenchymal contusions in the bilateral parietal region also supports the case of the petitioner that he sustained a head injury.

17.3 However, it is to be noted that the petitioner has not examined the doctor who treated him, nor has he examined any competent witness from the concerned hospitals to prove the nature of injuries, treatment taken and the medical bills. In the absence of such evidence, the medical documents cannot be relied upon in full to accept the claim as is.

17.4 Further, though Ex.A6 was marked as prescriptions, it is seen that the said exhibit contains only laboratory reports along with a bill for Rs.2,000/- pertaining to those reports dated 10.11.2020. Further, though Ex.A8 was marked as consisting of medical bills amounting to

Rs.1,03,006/-, on scrutiny and recalculation of the individual bills pro- duced under Ex.A8, the total amount covered by the said bills is found to be Rs.98,704/- only, which broadly corresponds with the treatment and investigations reflected in Ex.A6. However, many of the bills under

Ex.A8 are not supported by corresponding prescriptions, particularly as most of the prescriptions placed on record pertain to January, 2021, whereas the earlier course of treatment is not fully supported by con- 12 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

temporaneous medical records. The petitioner also admitted during cross-examination that he had not filed the discharge summary from one of the hospitals and that some medical records were lost. There- fore, the necessity and extent of the medical expenses claimed under

Ex.A8 cannot be accepted in toto, and the said claim requires reason- able assessment based on the available medical evidence.

17.5 Nevertheless, having regard to the nature of injuries reflected in

Exs.A2 to A5 and the fact that the petitioner was also treated in a government tertiary hospital like NIMS, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the petitioner must have incurred a certain amount towards medical expenses.

17.6 Hence, having regard to the nature of injuries reflected in Exs.A2 to A5, the period of treatment and hospitalization at NIMS Hospital,

Hyderabad, and considering the fact that some of the medical bills are not fully supported by prescriptions, that certain medical records were not produced, and that no doctor was examined to substantiate the entire claim, this Tribunal, on a reasonable and just basis, deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses.

LOSS OF INCOME

18.Regarding compensation for the loss of income and future prospects, Petitioner pleaded and deposed that he was hale and healthy before the accident. He was working as a private employee and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, and on account of the accident, he be- 13 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

came disabled and unable to do any work, and thereby, lost his monthly salary, but no evidence is placed to substantiate his claim.

Further, no disability certificate issued by the Board was filed to sub- stantiate that he sustained permanent disability. Therefore, this Tri- bunal cannot grant any amount under loss of earnings and future prospects.

NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES

19.The petitioner sustained a head injury. As per the material available on record and evidence, the petitioner underwent surgery and was likely bedridden during treatment, requiring assistance and incurring expenses for special nourishment. Considering the pain, suffering, and trauma undergone, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head, which is found to be just and reasonable in the circumstances.

20.Given the findings supra, this Tribunal holds that the Petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- (i.e., Rs.80,000/- towards pecuniary damages + and Rs.50,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages). Further, this Tribunal holds that interest can be awarded at 9% following the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malarvizhi &

Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors 1.

21.1 Now, the point for determination is who is liable to pay the compensation.

1(2021) SCC 4 228 14 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

21.2 Given the findings under Issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing

No. TS-08-EH-6989 by Respondent No.1. Hence, the primary liability to pay compensation rests upon Respondent No.1, being the tort-feasor.

21.3 Respondent No.2 is the registered owner of the offending car. As per the settled principles of law, the owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable for the acts of his driver committed in the course of use of the vehicle. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the vehicle. Therefore, Respondent No.2, being the owner, is vicariously liable for the negligent act of Respondent No.1.

21.4 Ex.B1, copy of the insurance policy produced by RW.1, clearly establishes that the offending vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy issued by Respondent No.3 and that the said policy was in force from 16.03.2020 to 15.03.2021, which includes the date of the accident, i.e., 10.11.2020. RW.1 has also admitted the said fact in her cross-examination. Therefore, the vehicle was duly insured as of the date of the accident.

21.5 The Insurance Company contended that, as per Ex.A3 charge sheet, Respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle in a drunken condition and was charged under Section 185(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and that the said act amounts to a violation of policy conditions. Ex.A3 charge sheet indeed discloses that Respondent No.1 was prosecuted for the offence under Section 185(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as his 15 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) was recorded as 157 mg/100 ml of blood, and that he pleaded guilty in the criminal case. Driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol certainly amounts to a statutory offence and also constitutes a breach of policy conditions.

21.6 However, mere proof that the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, by itself, is not sufficient to completely absolve the Insurance Company from its statutory liability towards third-party claimants. In order to avoid liability, the Insurance

Company must establish that there was a willful and conscious breach of policy conditions on the part of the owner of the vehicle.

21.7 In the present case, except relying upon the contents of Ex.A3 charge sheet and the plea of guilt entered by Respondent No.1 in the criminal case, the Insurance Company has not adduced any independent evidence to establish that Respondent No.2, being the owner of the vehicle, had willfully entrusted the vehicle to Respondent

No.1 knowing fully well that he was under the influence of alcohol. In fact, RW.1 has admitted in her cross-examination that there was no independent enquiry, and there is also no material on record showing that Respondent No.2, being the owner of the vehicle, knew the alleged intoxication of Respondent No.1 at the time the vehicle was entrusted to him.

21.8 In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision in Bajaj

Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manju Devi and Others 2, wherein it 22014 SCC OnLine AP 232 16 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

was held that even if there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, including driving of the vehicle in an intoxicated condition, the Insurance Company cannot be totally exonerated from liability towards third-party claimants, since the liability of the insurer is statutory in nature. It was further held that, at best, the Insurance

Company is required to satisfy the award and thereafter recover the same from the insured. The said principle squarely applies to the present case, particularly in the absence of any material to establish that the owner knew of the driver's intoxication or willfully permitted such violation.

21.9 Therefore, though the act of driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol constitutes a breach of policy condition on the part of Respondent No.1, the same cannot be treated as a willful and conscious breach on the part of Respondent No.2, the insured owner, in the absence of proof that the owner knowingly entrusted the vehicle to a person who was under intoxication. Consequently, Respondent No.3 –

Insurance Company cannot be completely exonerated from its statutory liability towards third-party claimants.

21.10 At the same time, since the material on record establishes that

Respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol, which amounts to a violation of policy conditions, Respondent

No.3/Insurance Company is entitled to recover the compensation amount from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, after satisfying the award.

17 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

Accordingly, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. However, Respondent No.3 –

Insurance Company shall first deposit the awarded amount with interest and thereafter recover the same from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in accordance with law.

ISSUE No.3:-

22.In the result, the petition is partly allowed with costs, awarding the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty

Thousand Only) with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. Respondent No.3, the

Insurance Company, shall deposit the said amount within one month from the date of this order, with liberty to recover the same from

Respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle, in view of the breach of policy conditions. Upon such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount, including interest and costs. Since the petitioner availed the exemption from the payment of court fees under

I.A. No. 329 of 2023, he shall deposit the court fee payable on the awarded amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- within one week from today. The advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs. 3,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, Gr-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 9th day of April 2026.

Sd/-

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum- I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

18 MVOP.No.59 of 2023

Dated: 09.04.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXA

MINED

FOR PETITIONER:- FOR RESPONDENTS:-

PW.1: I.Brahma CharyRW.1: Sudha Koruturu

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Ex.A.1:Certified copy of FIR in crime No.234/2020 of P.S. Yacharam.

Ex.A.2:Certified copy of Medico Legal Patient Records issued by the Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Panjagutta, Hyderabad.

Ex.A.3:Certified copy of the charge sheet

Ex.A.4:Prescription dated 10.11.2020 issued by the Sanjeevini Multi-Speciality Hospital, Devarakonda

Ex.A.5:Original discharge card issued by the Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Panjagutta, Hyderabad

Ex.A.6:Bunch of prescriptions

Ex.A.7:Bunch of laboratory reports

Ex.A.8:Bunch of medical bills for Rs. 1,03,006/-

Ex.A.9:X-Ray

EXHIBIT MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

Ex.B.1:Attested copy of the policy

Sd/-

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum- I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

1SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

AT NALGONDA

Present: Sri G. Sampurna Anand 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

On the 10th day of April 2026

SESSIONS CASE NDPS No.04 of 2024

In Cr No.202 of 2023 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Miryalaguda, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) R/w Section 20(b)

(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against Accused Nos. 1 and 2.

Name of the Complainant The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Miryalaguda Excise Station.

Name of the accused : A1:Manaranjan Sarkar, S/o.Pachu Sarkar, Age: 40 years, presently R/o. BTS, Shyam Nagar, Nalgonda Village And Mandal, PermanentR/o.MV22,Tumsapalli, Malkangiri, Odisha State. A2:Mohammad Shakeel Ansari, S/o. Yasin Ansari, Age: 22 years, Presently R/o. BTS, Shyam Nagar, Nalgonda Village And Mandal, Permanent R/o. Villheth Kakkarla, Rambagh, Jharkhand State. Offences Charged Under Section 8(c) R/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, against the accused Nos. 1 and 2.

Plea of the accused Not guilty

Finding of the Court Found not guilty

Sentence or Order In the result, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under

Section 8(c) R/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. They are accordingly acquitted of the said 2SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

charges under Section 235(1) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment, as required under Section 437-A

Cr.P.C. The accused no.1 and 2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Prosecution Sri. K. Venkat Ramana Rao, Additional Public conducted byProsecutor

Name of the counsel: Sri. G.Kishore Kumar, Counsel for the accused

Nos. 1 and 2

This case came up for hearing on 16.03.2026 in the presence of Sri. K. Venkat Ramana Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.G.Kishore Kumar, Counsel for the accused no.1 and 2, and upon hearing arguments of both sides and on perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This case arises from a charge sheet filed by the Prohibition and

Excise Inspector, Miryalaguda Excise Station, for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) R/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Cr. No.202 of 2023 of Miryalaguda

Excise Station, against Accused Nos. 1 and 2.

2.The factual matrix of the prosecution's case, in brief, is as follows:

i) On 05.11.2023, on receipt of credible information regarding the illegal transportation and sale of ganja on a Pulsar motorcycle at the outskirts of Talla Veerappagudem, LW.3, LW.4 and LW.8, who are

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspectors and Inspector, Miryalaguda, proceeded to the said location after obtaining permission from the District 3SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

Prohibition and Excise Officer, Nalgonda, under Section 42(2) of the NDPS

Act. At the spot, they found Accused Nos. 1 and 2 arriving on a Pulsar motorcycle bearing No. AP-24-AH-2099, carrying a black-coloured bag. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon them, informing them of their right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a

Gazetted Officer, and they opted to be searched before LW.3, a Gazetted

Officer. Upon searching the motorcycle, a black bag was found, and on opening it, a plastic cover containing 5 kilograms of ganja was recovered.

Pursuant to the confession of Accused No.1, the police, along with LW.1 and LW.2 and the accused, proceeded to the house of Accused No.1, where 4.25 kilograms of ganja were found stored in a corner of the house.

In total, 9.25 kilograms of ganja, Pulsar Bike bearing No.AP-24-AH-2099 and two mobile phones were seized under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. Accused Nos. 1 and 2, along with the seized property, were brought to the station and handed over to LW4, the

Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, for further action.

ii)Based on the panchanama, LW4 registered a case in Cr. No.

202/2023 under Sections 8(c) R/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were produced before the 1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,

Miryalaguda, and were remanded to judicial custody.

iii)The learned Magistrate/LW.6, upon perusal of the material placed, certified the correctness of the inventory prepared in the presence of the 4SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

Inspector of Legal Metrology/LW.5, as well as the photographs taken and the two representative samples drawn, in compliance with Section 52-A of the Act. The remaining contraband was ordered to be disposed of in accordance with the prescribed procedure, retaining the certified inventory, photographs, and samples as primary evidence under Section 52-A(4) of the NDPS Act. Subsequently, one sample was forwarded for chemical analysis vide Dis. No.774/2023, dated 07.12.2023. The

Government Chemical Examiner, through C.E. Report No.2443/2023 dated 10.01.2024, confirmed that the sample (Sl.No.1927) was ganja. After completion of the investigation, LW.8 filed the charge sheet against

Accused Nos. 1 and 2.

3.This Court took cognisance of the offences against Accused Nos. 1 and 2, and upon their appearance, furnished them with copies of all relevant documents. After hearing both sides, a charge under Section 8(c)

R/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 was framed, read over, and explained to Accused

No.1 and 2 in the vernacular language as required under Section 228(2)

Cr.P.C., to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of the trial, to establish its case against Accused

Nos. 1 and 2, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to

P9. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them, 5SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

which they denied. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

5.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. The following point arises for determination:

Whether the prosecution has proved, beyond a reasonable

doubt, that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found in conscious

and illegal possession of 9.25 kilograms of ganja, a narcotic

drug, without any valid licence or permit, and thereby

committed the offence punishable under the relevant

provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985?

6.Having regard to the charge framed, the burden lies upon the prosecution to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the search and seizure were conducted in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution is further required to prove, by reliable and legally admissible evidence, the lawful recovery of the contraband, the due compliance with the prescribed procedural safeguards, and the proper custody of the seized material until its production before the Court. Only upon proof of such foundational facts can the statutory presumption, if any, be invoked against the accused for sustaining a conviction under Section 8(c) R/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

7.As evident from the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution,

PW.1, PW.2 and PW.6 are members of the raiding party who claim to have conducted the search and seizure in the present case. PW.3 and PW.5 are the mediators cited to speak about the search, seizure, and sampling 6SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

proceedings. PW.4 is the Inspector of Legal Metrology, who was present at the time of preparation of the inventory and drawing of samples. PW.6 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and laid the charge sheet.

8.PW.1 is one of the members of the raiding party who participated in the alleged interception of the accused and seizure of contraband. He deposed that, on receipt of instructions from his superior officer (LW.8)

PW.6, he accompanied the raiding party to the outskirts of

Thallaveerappagudem and conducted route watch. According to him, the accused were intercepted while travelling on a motorcycle carrying a bag containing ganja, and thereafter, on the alleged confession of Accused

No.1, an additional quantity of ganja was recovered from the residence of

Accused No.1 at BTS, Shyams Nagar, Nalgonda. However, during cross- examination, PW.1 admitted that no separate seizure panchanama was prepared at the place of interception at Thallaveerappagudem and that only one panchanama was prepared at BTS, Shyams Nagar, Nalgonda, covering both alleged recoveries. He further admitted that no panchanama was conducted at the time of seizure of the motorcycle, mobile phones and the bag at Thallaveerappagudem.

9.PW.1 also admitted that the accused were speaking in Hindi and that Ex.P1 was not prepared in Hindi. He further admitted that Ex.P1 does not disclose that the contents were translated or explained to the accused in Hindi. He also admitted that Ex.P1 does not mention the nature of the 7SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

seal affixed, the monogram used, or the house number where the panchanama was conducted.

10.PW.2 is another member of the raiding party and the scribe of Ex.P1 panchanama. She corroborated the version of PW.1 regarding receipt of information, the accused's interception at Thallaveerappagudem, the recovery of ganja from the motorcycle, and the subsequent recovery from the residence of Accused No.1. In her cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that Ex.P1 does not specifically disclose that sealing of the contraband was effected at Thallaveerappagudem. She further admitted that though the accused were speaking in Hindi, the search notice was written in

English and does not disclose that its contents were explained in Hindi.

She also admitted that Ex.P1 does not disclose the extent to which the panchanama was prepared at Thallaveerappagudem or whether the signatures of the mediators were obtained there. These aspects require scrutiny while assessing the procedural compliance in the present case.

11.PW.3 is cited as one of the mediators of the alleged seizure deposed that he is working as a clerk in Vigneshwara Fertiliser Shop at

Damercherla. He stated that on 05.11.2023, on receiving a phone call from the Sub-Inspector of Excise Police, he, along with LW.2, went to the

Excise Police Station, Miryalaguda, and from there accompanied the police to Thallaveerappagudem, where vehicle checking was conducted. He further deposed that, during the check, two persons came on a motorcycle carrying a bag, which was checked by the police and found to 8SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

contain a substance emitting the smell of ganja, weighing about 4 kilograms. He stated that thereafter the accused were taken to Nalgonda, where a search of their residence was conducted, and another bag containing ganja weighing about 5 kilograms was recovered. He stated that the motorcycle and mobile phones were seized, and a panchanama was prepared, and his signature was obtained. In cross-examination,

PW.3 stated that he does not know whether any woman police official accompanied them and that he does not know who handled the motorcycle while they proceeded to Nalgonda. He stated that he does not rememberwhetheranypanchanamawaspreparedat

Thallaveerappagudem or whether he signed any paper there. He admitted that the accused were speaking in Hindi, that he does not know Hindi, and that he did not understand what they were saying. He further stated that he does not remember how many signatures he affixed.

12.PW.5 is the other mediator cited by the prosecution. He deposed that he accompanied the police party with PW.3 to Thallaveerappagudem and witnessed the checking of the motorcycle and recovery of suspected ganja of four kilos in a bag. He further stated that thereafter they proceeded to Nalgonda, where an additional quantity of ganja of five kilos was recovered from a room said to belong to Accused No.1. In cross- examination, PW.5 admitted that he was acquainted with PW.1 before the alleged seizure. He further stated that he did not sign the panchanama at Thallaveerappagudem and that he did not understand the language spoken by the accused. He initially stated that he did not see 9SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

anything being seized in his presence, though he later said he saw the packets being weighed.

13.PW.4 is the District Legal Metrology Officer, who participated in the inventory proceedings conducted before the learned Magistrate. He deposed that he weighed the sealed packets produced before the Court and assisted in the drawing of samples in the presence of the learned

Magistrate. He identified Ex.P2 as the inventory certificate. In cross-

examination, PW.4 admitted that he did not furnish any calibration certificate relating to the weighing machine used for weighing and that no documentary proof regarding verification or zero-error testing of the weighing machine was produced before the Court. Though he stated that the weighment was conducted in the presence of the learned Magistrate, the absence of supporting certification is a matter to be considered while evaluating the reliability of the weighment process.

14.PW.6 is the Investigating Officer who deposed regarding receipt of credible information, compliance under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, interception of the accused, recovery of contraband, and subsequent investigation leading to filing of the charge sheet. He identified the relevant documents marked as Exs.P3 to P9. In cross-examination, PW.6 admitted that Ex.P1 panchanama does not mention issuance of notice under Section 50 or that the accused were informed of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. He further admitted that the panchanama was conducted at Nalgonda and not at 10SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

Thallaveerappagudem. He also admitted that no copy of the General Diary entry relating to receipt of information was filed before the Court and that no property register entry showing deposit of seized material was produced.

15.The case of the prosecution is that the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were intercepted at the outskirts of Thallaveerappagudem village while transporting ganja on a motorcycle and that 5 kilograms of ganja was seized from their possession.

16.PW.1, PW.2 and PW.6 have spoken about the interception of the motorcycle at Thallaveerappagudem and the seizure of ganja from a bag found with Accused No.1. However, it is to be noted that no separate seizure panchanama was prepared at the place of alleged interception.

17.PW.1 admitted in cross-examination that the entire panchanama relating to both alleged recoveries was prepared only at BTS, Shyams

Nagar, Nalgonda and that no panchanama was conducted at

Thallaveerappagudem at the time of the alleged seizure of the motorcycle, bag and contraband.

18.PW.2, who claims to have scribed Ex.P1 panchanama, admits that

Panchanama under Ex.P1 does not disclose that sealing of the contraband was effected at Thallaveerappagudem, nor does it specify the extent to which the panchanama was prepared at Thallaveerappagudem. She 11SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

further admitted that Ex.P1 does not disclose whether the mediators' signatures were obtained at Thallaveerappagudem.

19.Further, PW.3 and PW.5, who were cited as mediators, though spoke about the interception of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 while travelling on a motorcycle at Thallaveerappagudem and stated that the accused were speaking in Hindi, their evidence suffers from material inconsistencies.

PW.3 stated that he does not know whether any woman police official accompanied the raiding party and that he does not know who handled the motorcycle while they proceeded to Nalgonda. He further stated that the panchanama was prepared partly at Thallaveerappagudem and partly at Nalgonda, and that a male police constable scribed it. This version is contrary to the evidence of PW.2, who claims to have scribed the panchanama and, as spoken to by PW.5, is a female officer.

20.Further, both PW.3 and PW.5 categorically deposed that they did not sign any panchanama at Thallaveerappagudem and that they signed the panchanama only at BTS, Shyams Nagar, Nalgonda. This admission assumes significance in view of the prosecution's allegation that seizure of contraband was effected at Thallaveerappagudem.

21.That apart, both PW.3 and PW.5 stated that the quantity of ganja allegedly seized at Thallaveerappagudem was about 4 kilograms and that the quantity allegedly seized at BTS, Shyams Nagar, Nalgonda was about 5 kilograms, whereas the consistent case of the prosecution through

PW.1, PW.2 and PW.6 are that 5 kilograms were seized at 12SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

Thallaveerappagudem, and 4.25 kilograms were seized at BTS, Shyams

Nagar, Nalgonda.

22.These discrepancies regarding the place of signing of panchanama, identity of the scribe, and quantity of contraband allegedly seized, when viewed cumulatively, cast serious doubt regarding the presence of PW.3 and PW.5 at the time of the alleged seizure proceedings, thereby affecting the reliability of their testimony as independent mediators.

23.Furthermore, all the prosecution witnesses, except PW.4, admitted that both the accused were speaking in Hindi. The description of the accused, as elicited in the evidence, shows that they are residents of

Odisha and Jharkhand, respectively. Though PW.6 stated during his cross- examination that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 knew Telugu and were working in a power plant at Damercherla, he admitted that Ex.P1 panchanama, which was written in Telugu, does not refer to such a fact. The prosecution examined no independent witness to substantiate that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 knew Telugu or that they were working in a power plant at

Damercherla. It is also admitted that the contents of Ex.P1 panchanama and the search notice were not translated or explained to the accused in

Hindi.

24.When the accused are not shown to be conversant with the language in which the documents are prepared, it becomes necessary to record that the contents were explained to them in a language known to them. The absence of any such recital in Ex.P1 assumes significance and 13SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

creates doubt regarding the voluntariness and awareness of the accused during the proceedings.

25.Another serious omission relates to the sealing process of the seized contraband. PW.1 admitted that Ex.P1 does not mention the nature of the seal affixed or the monogram used. The panchanama also does not disclose the description of the seal used during sealing. In prosecutions under the NDPS Act, proper sealing and identification of the seal are essential to ensure that the seized material remains intact and free from tampering. The absence of any description of the seal in Ex.P1 renders it difficult to verify whether the material produced before the Court for certification under Section 52A of the NDPS Act is the very same material allegedly seized from the accused.

26.Another crucial aspect relates to the custody of the seized contraband. PW.6 admitted that no property register entry showing the deposit of the seized material was produced before the Court. In prosecutions under the NDPS Act, maintenance of proper custody records assumes great importance for establishing the integrity of the seized contraband. The absence of such a record creates serious doubt regarding the safe custody of the seized material from the time of seizure till its production before the Court.

27.PW.6 further admitted that no copy of the General Diary entry or any other documentary proof showing contemporaneous recording of the 14SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

information received prior to the raid was produced before the Court. In the absence of such material, compliance with the mandatory requirements under Section 42 of the NDPS Act remains doubtful. This omission assumes significance while evaluating the legality of the search and seizure proceedings.

28.PW.6 admitted that Ex.P1 does not record the issuance of notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. However, the prosecution's consistent case is that the contraband was recovered from a bag carried on a motorcycle. In such circumstances, the requirement of compliance under

Section 50 of the NDPS Act may not strictly arise. Nevertheless, the absence of contemporaneous documentation at the place of interception and the failure to conduct seizure proceedings at Thallaveerappagudem assume significance while assessing the reliability of the alleged recovery.

29.The prosecution has also failed to place material to establish due compliance under Section 52 of the NDPS Act regarding the forwarding of the seized contraband to the officer-in-charge of the police station and its production before the Court. In the absence of documentary proof relating to forwarding and deposit of the seized material, the statutory compliance under Section 52 of the NDPS Act remains doubtful.

30.The cumulative effect of the above inconsistencies, absence of reliable independent corroboration, and procedural lapses relating to the recording of credible information, sealing, and custody of the seized property creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution's case.

15SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

31.It is well settled that in prosecutions under the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, strict compliance with statutory safeguards is mandatory. Any lapse or deviation from the prescribed procedure assumes greater significance in view of the stringent punishments contemplated under the Act.

32.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational facts necessary for the invocation of the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

33.In criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is required to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt arises regarding the manner of search, seizure, and custody of the contraband, the benefit of such doubt must necessarily go in favour of the accused.

34.Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Accused

Nos.1 and 2 were in conscious and illegal possession of ganja so as to attract the provisions of Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Accordingly, the point for determination is answered in the negative.

16SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

35.In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and are accordingly acquitted of the said charges under Section 235(1) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment, as required under

Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The accused no.1 and 2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Typed partly by the Stenographer, Grade-I, to my dictation and partly by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 10th day of

April, 2026.

Sd/-

1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution:-

PW.1:D.Ramakrishna:Investigating Officer PW.2:SK.Parveen:-do- PW.3:B.Malla Reddy: Panch witness PW.4:V.Srinivasulu: Inspector, Legal Metrology PW.5:K.Prasad:Panch witness PW.6:N.Maheshwar Reddy:The investigating officer, who filed the charge sheet

For Defence:-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:-For Defence:- NIL

Ex.P.1:Confession-cum-seizure Panchanama

Ex.P.2 :Inventory certificate

Ex.P.3:Information under Section 42 of the NDPS Act 17SC.NDPS.No.04 of 2024

Dt:10.04.2026

Ex.P.4:Notice under Section 50 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P.5:Search memo issued to the accused no.1

Ex.P.6:COR No.202/2023, dated 05.11.2023

Ex.P.7:Requisition to conduct the inventory

Ex.P.8:Letter of advice forwarded to the RFSL, Warangal

Ex.P.9:Report given by the RFSL, Warangal

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/-

1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

1 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-1st ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT NALGONDA

Present: Sri G. Sampurna Anand

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- Cum-1st Addl. District Judge, Nalgonda.

On the 9th day of April 2026

M.V.O.P No.139 of 2021

Between: Bokka Laxma Reddy, S/o.Venkata Narsimha Reddy, Age: 70 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-48/A near R.T.O Office, Nalgonda Town and District.

….. Petitioner/Claimant

AND

1.Daram Shiva, S/o.Venkanna, Age: 19 years, Occ: Coolie and Rider of the Motorcycle bearing No. TS-05-FB-8464.

2.Daram Sunitha, W/o.Venkanna, Age: 38 years, Occ: Business and owner of the motorcycle bearing No.TS-05-FB-8464 Both are R/o.H.No.3-99, S.C Colony, Kanchanapally Village of Nalgonda Mandal and District.

3.The Chola M.S.General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Legal Manager, D.No.1-2-73/2 & 1-2-63 & 64 No.302, 3rd Floor, S.R. Arcade above Bank of Baroda, Parklane, Secunderabad. Policy No.3397/00079938/000/00 Valid from 09/05/2019 to 08/05/2020. ..…Respondents This Petition came up for hearing on 28.01.2026 before me in the presence of Sri A.Vasantha Rao, Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri A.Jagadishwar, Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Sri V.Bhanu Prakash, Counsel for Respondent No.3. Perused the material on record, upon hearing the arguments and after having stood over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal made the following:

: O R D E R :

1.This claim petition is filed by the Petitioner/injured under Section 166, read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and with

Rules 455 of the MV Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- from Respondents No.1 to 3 for the injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

2 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

2.The Petitioner's case is that on 11.07.2020 at about 17:00 hours, the petitioner left his house to purchase chicken. While he was proceeding on the road and had reached near Laxmi Gardens on

Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda, the rider of a motorcycle bearing No. TS- 05-FB-8464, which was coming from Marriguda and proceeding towards Nalgonda Town, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, and dashed against the petitioner. As a result of the said impact, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries and fractures all over his body. After the accident, the petitioner/injured was shifted to Suraksha Hospital,

Nalgonda, where he received first-aid treatment. Upon the advice of the doctors at Suraksha Hospital, the injured was shifted to Yashoda

Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad, for better treatment, where he was admitted as an inpatient vide I.P. No. 285483 and YH No. 215783642.

It is submitted that during the course of treatment, the petitioner underwent a major operation for the fracture injury sustained to his head. The claimant spent more than Rs. 1,50,000/- on medical expenses. The petitioner was subsequently discharged from the said hospital on 18.07.2020. The said accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the said motorcycle, i.e.,

Respondent No.1.

3.Petitioner further states that a case is registered before the

Nalgonda Rural Police Station vide FIR No.74/2020 for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC against the respondent no.1.

3 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

4.Further, Petitioner states that before the accident, the Petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged about 70 years at the time of the accident. He was in business and earning about Rs. 20,000/- per month, and he used to contribute the said income towards the welfare and maintenance of his family. It is further submitted that due to the accident, the petitioner became totally bedridden for a considerable period and thereby lost his earnings. Even now, the petitioner is taking treatment in private hospitals and has spent a substantial amount towards his treatment and purchase of medicines by raising amounts from his relatives to meet the medical expenses. Due to the severe head injury sustained in the accident, the claimant has become a permanently disabled person. Thus, under all these circumstances, the petitioner claims just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which would meet the ends of justice.

5.Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 appeared and filed their respective counters separately, denying the material averments made in the petition filed by the claimant, including the manner of the accident and the involvement of the vehicle. They also denied the petitioner's age, avocation, income, and health condition at the time of the accident.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner himself, who suddenly came onto the middle of the road without observing the traffic rules. Therefore, there was no fault on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. They further contended that the insurance policy of 4 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

the vehicle was in force as on the date of the accident and, therefore, if at all any liability arises, the same has to be indemnified by

Respondent No.3–Insurance Company. On the other hand, Respondent

No.3, the insurer of the motorcycle involved in the accident, denied the manner of the accident and also contended that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The insurer further denied the petitioner's registration of the crime with the concerned police and disputed the petitioner's age, occupation, income, and injuries. Thus, Respondent

Nos. 1 to 3 denied their liability to pay any compensation and sought dismissal of the petition.

6.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by my learned predecessor for enquiry:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor

vehicle accident that occurred on 11.07.2020 at about 5.00 Pm

near Laxmi Gardens, Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda, due to rash

and negligent riding of the rider of the Motorcycle bearing

No.TA-05-FB-8464?

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

3. To what relief?

7.During the course of the trial, the petitioner was examined as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of Respondent No.3, the

Assistant Manager (Legal) was examined as RW.1. Respondent No.1 himself was examined as RW.2, and the Junior Assistant from the RTA 5 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

Office was examined as RW.3. On their behalf, Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

Issue No.1

8.To substantiate his case, the Petitioner was examined as Pw-1 by filing the chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the Petition. Exs.A1 and A2 are the crime records. Ex. A1 is the Certified Copy of First

Information Report along with the complaint in Crime No.74/2020 of

Nalgonda Rural Police Station, Ex. A2 is the Certified Copy of the

Charge Sheet. In the cross-examination, PW.1 denied that the accident occurred due to his own negligence while crossing the road without observing the offending vehicle, i.e., the motorcycle. He admitted that the report was lodged with the police 2 days after the accident and stated that Narender Reddy, who lodged the report, is his brother-in-law. He further stated that he had seen the motorcycle at the time of the accident, but he does not remember its registration number. PW.1 further denied the suggestion that the rider of the motorcycle did not dash against him and that he himself fell down on the road while crossing the road and thereby sustained injuries. He also denied the suggestion that the injuries mentioned in Exs.A3 to A7 were not sustained in the said accident. He further denied the suggestion that Exs.A3 to A7 were created only for the purpose of filing the present O.P. to claim compensation.

9.Sri N.Prasad, the Assistant Manager in Legal, examined as

RW.1, deposed that he had not filed any authorisation letter from the 6 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

Insurance Company to depose before the Court, but added that, being an employee of the company, he is authorised to give evidence in

MACT matters. He further stated that his chief-examination affidavit was prepared at his instructions. RW.1 admitted that the injured was a pedestrian and a third party to the policy and that the policy under

Ex.B1 was issued to insure the vehicle of Respondent No.2. RW.1, however, denied the suggestion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and added that, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy under Ex.B1, the company is not liable to pay compensation. He admitted that there is no report from the Motor

Vehicle Inspector in the crime records. He added that MVI reports are usually filed only in death cases, not in injury cases. RW.1 further stated that the Insurance Company had not appointed any investigating agency to enquire into the accident or to ascertain whether Respondent No.1 possessed a valid driving licence. He denied the suggestion that merely because Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were charge sheeted under Sections 180 and 182 of the Motor Vehicles Act (as per Ex.A2), it does not automatically mean that Respondent No.1 did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident.

10.Sri Daram Shiva/RW.2, who is the rider of the offending motorcycle, deposed that he possesses a driving licence bearing No.

TG00520240002735, which was issued on 25.04.2024 and is valid up to 12.06.2040. He further stated that he is authorised to drive a 7 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

motorcycle with gear, LMV (Non-Transport) and an auto rickshaw (Non-

Transport). RW.2 further deposed that about five years prior to his deposition, at about 7:00 p.m., while he was riding the motorcycle bearing No. TS-05-FB-8464, along with his mother, went to his aunt’s house at a normal speed on the street adjoining the Mahindra

Showroom situated on Nalgonda–Hyderabad Road. An old man who was walking on the street suddenly turned and came across the motorcycle. He stated that he was not in a position to stop the vehicle, and consequently, the accident occurred, due to which the said old man fell down and sustained head injuries. He also stated that he himself sustained injuries on his right leg. He further deposed that the said motorcycle is registered in the name of his mother, namely Daram

Sunitha, and that the said vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3 at the time of the accident.

11.R.W.3 – Mr V. Ruthvik, Junior Assistant, RTA Office, Nalgonda, deposed that he has been working as a Junior Assistant in the RTA

Office, Nalgonda, for the past seven years. He stated that the RTA

Office, Nalgonda, authorised him under Ex.B2 to produce the extract of the driving licence issued by the said office in the name of Daram

Shiva, S/o Venkanna. He further deposed that Ex.B2 is the authorisation letter issued by the RTA, Nalgonda, and Ex.B3 is the copy of the driving licence extract of Daram Shiva. As per Ex.B3, Daram

Shiva obtained a driving licence to drive LMV (Non-Transport), Auto

Rickshaw (Non-Transport) and Motorcycle with Gear on 25.04.2024, 8 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

and the said licence is valid up to 12.06.2040. The witness further stated that Daram Shiva did not hold any driving licence as of 11.07.2020. He added that Daram Shiva's date of birth as recorded in the licence is 12.06.2000, and therefore the licence was issued for 16 years up to 12.06.2040. He further stated that if Daram Shiva had applied for the licence prior to 11.07.2020, he would have been granted a licence for 20 years at a stretch on first application, and there would have been no reduction in the validity period.

12.The evidence of PW.1 discloses that on 11.07.2020 at about 5.00 p.m., while he was proceeding on the road near Laxmi Gardens on

Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda, the rider of the motorcycle bearing No. TS- 05-FB-8464 rode the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, due to which he fell down and sustained injuries.

Though PW.1 was subjected to cross-examination, nothing substantial was elicited to discredit his testimony regarding the manner of the accident. PW.1 admitted that the complaint was lodged with a delay of two days and explained that the same was due to the fact that his brother-in-law, who lodged the complaint, was attending to his treatment in the hospital. Such delay, in the opinion of this Tribunal, is properly explained and does not affect the core of the petitioner’s case.

13.On the other hand, RW.1, the Assistant Manager (Legal) of the

Insurance Company, mainly disputed the liability of the insurer and contended that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. However, RW.1 admitted, 9 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

during cross-examination, that the petitioner was a pedestrian and a third party to the policy, and that the vehicle was insured with their company under Ex.B1 as on the date of the accident. RW.1 also admitted that the Insurance Company had not appointed any investigating agency to enquire into the accident.

14.RW.2, who is the rider of the offending motorcycle, admitted in his evidence that on the date of the accident, he was riding the motorcycle bearing No. TS-05-FB-8464. However, he denied negligence and contended that the petitioner suddenly came onto the road without observing traffic rules, which led to the accident. However, except for his self-serving statement, no independent evidence has been produced to substantiate the said contention.

15.RW.3, the Junior Assistant from the RTA Office, Nalgonda, produced Exs.B2 and B3 and deposed that the driving licence of RW.2 was issued only on 25.04.2024 and that he did not possess a driving licence as on the date of the accident, i.e., 11.07.2020. However, this evidence is relevant only concerning the question of liability and does not affect the factum of the accident.

16.A perusal of Ex.A1 – FIR and Ex.A2 – Charge Sheet clearly discloses that the police, after investigation, filed the charge sheet against Respondent No.1 for the offences under Section 338 IPC and

Sections 180 and 182 of the Motor Vehicles Act. These documents support the version of the petitioner that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by Respondent No.1.

10 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

17.The oral testimony of PW.1 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 and A2 probabilises the case of the petitioner.

The respondents have failed to produce any convincing evidence to disprove the same. Therefore, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.07.2020 due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing No. TS-05-FB-8464 by Respondent

No.1.

Issue No.2

18.Given the finding supra that Respondent No. 1 rode the motorcycle bearing No. TS-05-FB-8464 rashly and negligently, causing grievous injuries to the Petitioner. Therefore, this Tribunal holds that the Petitioner is entitled to compensation. Now, the point for determination is the quantum of compensation:

PECUNIARY DAMAGES

19.1 The Petitioner claimed that he spent more than Rs 1,50,000/-. To substantiate the claim, he got marked Ex A3 to Ex A7. Ex. A3 is the

Medico Legal Case Record issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, which shows that the petitioner was admitted to the said hospital on 12.07.2020, with the alleged history of a road traffic accident that occurred on 11.07.2020, when the petitioner was hit by a two-wheeler near the RTO Office, Nalgonda. Ex.A4 original discharge summary issued by the Yashoda Hospital, which discloses that the petitioner was 11 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

admitted on 12.07.2020 and discharged on 18.07.2020, wherein bifrontal craniotomy left FT Craniomy, and contusectomy was done under General anesthesia on 12.07.2020. Ex.A5 consists of pharmacy bills (No. 5) for Rs. 8,880/- issued by various medical shops, showing that the petitioner incurred the same towards his medical bills. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the medical record filed by the petitioner under Ex.A5 consists of pharmacy bills issued during and after discharge, which indicate that the petitioner incurred expenses towards treatment and medicines from his own pocket. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.8,880/- is awarded under this head.

19.2 Though the petitioner did not file hospital bills relating to the surgery and inpatient treatment, Ex.A4 discharge summary and CT reports clearly establish that he sustained severe head injury, including multiple haemorrhagic contusions and fracture of parietal bone, and underwent bifrontal craniotomy and contusectomy on 12.07.2020.

19.3 Considering the nature of injury, period of hospitalisation and surgical intervention, it is reasonable to infer that the petitioner would have incurred substantial medical expenses. In the absence of complete documentary proof, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to award a reasonable sum under medical expenses on a notional basis.

Accordingly, apart from the pharmacy bills of Rs.8,880/-, a sum of

Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses relating to hospitalisation and surgery.

12 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

LOSS OF INCOME

20.Regarding compensation for the loss of income and future prospects, Petitioner pleaded and deposed that he was hale and healthy before the accident. He was doing business and earning

Rs.10,000/- per month, and on account of the accident, he became disabled and unable to do any work, and thereby, lost his monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-, but no evidence is placed to substantiate his claim. Further, no disability certificate issued by the Board was filed to substantiate that he sustained permanent disability. Therefore, this

Tribunal cannot grant any amount under loss of earnings and future prospects.

NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES

21. The petitioner sustained a head injury. As per the material available on record and evidence, the petitioner underwent surgery and was likely bedridden during treatment, requiring assistance and incurring expenses for special nourishment. Considering the pain, suffering, and trauma undergone, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head, which is found to be just and reasonable in the circumstances.

22.Given the findings supra, this Tribunal holds that the Petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.98,880/- (i.e., Rs. 48,880/- towards pecuniary damages and Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering).

Further, this Tribunal holds that the interest can be awarded at 9% in 13 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

accordance with the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malarvizhi & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors 1 .

23.1 Now, the point for determination is who is liable for compensation.

23.2 It is already held under Issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing No. TS-05-

FB-8464 by Respondent No.1. Hence, the primary liability to pay compensation rests upon Respondent No.1, being the tort-feasor.

23.3 Admittedly, Respondent No.2 is the registered owner of the offending motorcycle. The evidence of RW.2 clearly discloses that the vehicle stands in the name of his mother, i.e., Respondent No.2. RW.3, the Junior Assistant from the RTA Office, categorically deposed that

Respondent No.1 did not possess any valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident, i.e., 11.07.2020, and that the licence was issued only on 25.04.2024. Ex.B3 also substantiates the said fact.

23.4 When the owner of a vehicle permits a person who does not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, it amounts to a violation of the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles

Act and also constitutes a breach of policy conditions. In the present case, Respondent No.2, being none other than the mother of

Respondent No.1, allowed him to ride the motorcycle despite knowing that he did not possess a valid driving licence as on the date of the 1(2021) SCC 4 228 14 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

accident. Therefore, Respondent No.2, being the owner, is vicariously liable for the acts of Respondent No.1.

23.5 Though Respondent No.3/Insurance Company contended that there was a breach of policy condition on account of the rider not possessing a valid driving licence, it is an admitted fact through RW.1 that the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy under Ex.B1 as on the date of the accident and that the petitioner is a third party to the policy. The law is well settled that, in respect of third-party risks, even in the case of a breach of a policy condition relating to a driving licence, the insurer cannot avoid its statutory liability towards the third party.

23.6 In view of the evidence of RW.3 establishing that Respondent

No.1 did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, there was indeed a breach of policy condition. However, such a breach does not absolve the insurer from its liability vis-à-vis a third-party claimant. At best, it entitles the insurer to recover the amount paid by the insurer from the insured.

23.7 Therefore, this Tribunal holds that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

Respondent No.3 – Insurance Company, being the insurer of the offending vehicle under a valid policy as on the date of the accident, is directed to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner at the first instance and is thereafter entitled to recover the same from

Respondent No.2, by initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance 15 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

with law. Accordingly, the liability is fastened on Respondent No.3 to pay and to recover from Respondent No. 2.

ISSUE No.3:-

24. In the result, the petition is partly allowed with costs, awarding the petitioner a sum of Rs.98,880/- (Rupees Ninety Eight Thousand

Eight Hundred Eighty Only) with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation.

Respondent No.3, the Insurance Company, shall deposit the said amount within one month from the date of this order, with liberty to recover the same from Respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle, in view of the breach of policy conditions. Upon such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount, including interest and costs. Since the petitioner availed the exemption from payment of court fees under I.A. No.950/2020, he shall deposit the court fee payable on the awarded amount within one week from today. The advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs. 3,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer (Gr-1), corrected, and

pronounced by me in open Tribunal, this the 9th day of April 2026.

Sd/-

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum- 1st Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:- FOR RESPONDENTS:-

PW.1: B.Laxma ReddyRW.1: N.Prasad 16 MVOP.No.139 of 2021

Dated: 09.04.2026

RW.2: D.Shiva

RW.3: V.Ruthwik

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Ex.A.1:Certified copy of First Information Report in Cr. No.74 of 2020 of Police Station Nalgonda Rural, along with the complaint Ex.A.2:Certified copy of the charge sheet in Cr. No.74 of 2020 of the Police Station Nalgonda Rural Ex.A.3:Certified copy of the medico-legal record issued by the Yashoda Hospital Ex.A.4:Original discharge summary issued by the Yashoda Hospital Ex.A.5:Pharmacy Bills (No.5)

Ex.A.6:X-Ray films

Ex.A.7:A bunch of radiology reports

EXHIBIT MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

Ex.B.1:An attested copy of the motorcycle policy, along with terms and conditions Ex.B2:Authorisation letter from RTA, Nalgonda

Ex.B.3:Copy of Driving license extract of Daram Shiva

Sd/-

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum- Ist Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

1SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, SPECIAL FAST TRACK SESSIONS

COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES-NALGONDA

Present: Sri.G.Sampurna Anand

1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. FAC: Judge, Special Fast Track Sessions Court for Expeditious Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Nalgonda

Friday, the 22nd day of November 2024

SESSIONS CASE POCSO No.199 of 2017

(In Cr. No.95 of 2017 of Police Station Miryalaguda II Town, for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, against the accused no.1 and for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused no.2)

Name of the ComplainantThe State of Telangana through the Inspector of Police, Miryalguda II Town.

Name of the accused A1: Kondala Yadaiah @ Konda Giri, S/o.Late

Guruvaiah, Age: 25 years, Occ: House painter, N/o.Chirumarthi Village of

Madgulapally Mandal, presently at

Seetharampuram, Miryalguda Town.

A2: Ubbapally Bujjibabu, S/o.Venkataiah,

Age: 26 years, Occ: House painter,

R/o.Gandhinagar, Miryalguda Town.

Offences Charged Under Section 376(n) of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 5(l) R/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 against the Accused No. 1 and for the offence under Section 109 R/w section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 5(l) 2SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

and 6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused no.2.

Plea of accused Not guilty

Finding of the Court Found not guilty

Sentence or Order In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offences punishable under sec- tions 376(n) of the Indian Penal Code and

Section 5(l) R/w 6 of the Protection of Chil- dren from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Ac- cused No.2 is found not guilty of the of- fences punishable under section 109 R/w section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Chil- dren from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Ac- cordingly, the accused 1 & 2 are acquitted of the above-said offences under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of Accused No.1 & 2, if any, shall stand cancelled after the expiry of six months from this date as contemplated un- der section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure

Code.

Prosecution Sri. V.Rajith Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor conducted by Name of the counsel for Sri. A.Raj Kumar the accused This case is coming up before me for a final hearing on 7.11.2024 in the presence of Sri. V.Ranjith Kumar learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. A.Raj Kumar, Counsel for the accused 1 & 2, and upon hearing arguments of both sides and on perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:

3SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

JUDGMENT

1.This case arises from a charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police,

Miryalguda II Town, in Cr. No.95 of 2017 for the offences punishable under

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, against the accused no.1 and for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused no.2.

2.The factual matrix of the prosecution case is as follows:

i.On 05.05.2017, at 1115 Hours, the complainant/PW.1/Mother of the minor-victim-girl came to the Police Station Miryalguda II Town and lodged a written complaint in Telugu stating that her elder daughter, age about 14 years, and studying in the 9th grade at Navajeevan English Medium

School, was followed by one Giri (Accused No. 1) whenever she went to school. He deceived her under the guise of love. In February and March 2017, he took her daughter to his room, where, in the presence of his friends Sai and another individual, he tied a knot around her neck. He later removed the knot. Her daughter informed her that four or five times,

Giri took her to his room and had sexual intercourse with her. Hence, she made a complaint to the Police.

ii.Based on the complaint by the PW.1/complainant, LW.13/S. Shekar,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalguda II Town Police Station, registered a case in Cr. No.95/2017 U/s 376 R/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code and 4SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

Sec.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act-2012 and took up the investigation.

iii.During the investigation, LW.13 examined and recorded the statement of PW.1. Later, he got the victim’s statement recorded by PW.8,

WASI, Miryalguda Police Station, sent the victim-minor-girl/PW.3 to the

Government Area Hospital at Miryalguda and got her examined by the

PW.5/Medical Officer. Subsequently, PW.7/B. Saieashwar Goud, Inspector of Police, took up the case file from the LW.13 for further investigation. He visited the scene of the offence situated at Shanthinagar, Miryalguda, examined and recorded the statements of PWs.2, 4 & LW.5/Bantu

Venkanna, conducted the scene of offence Panchanama and drew the rough sketch in the presence of LWs.6 & 7/G. Srinivas & R. Giri collected the victim's date of birth certificate from her school. He apprehended the accused on 10.05.2017. The accused confessed to having committed the offence, and his confessional statement was recorded in the presence of

Lw.8 and Lw.9. Thereafter, he subjected the accused to a potency test at

Area Hospital, Miryalguda, collected the Potency Certificate of the accused and got the accused produced before the court for judicial remand. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

3.The 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, took cognisance of the offences punishable under Section 376 R/w 511 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual 5SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

Offences Act, against Accused no.1 and under Section 109 of the Indian penal code against Accused No.2 and having numbered the same as SC

No.199 of 2017 made over the same to this Court for trial and disposal in accordance with the law.

4.On the appearance of the accused 1 & 2 before this Court, upon consideration of the material available on record and after hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and Counsel for the accused 1 & 2, charges for the offences punishable under Section 376(n) of the Indian

Penal Code and Sections 5 (l) R/w 6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012, against the Accused No.1 and, for the offence punishable under Section 109 R/w section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 against the accused no.2 were framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language as contemplated under Section 228 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial, to substantiate its case against the accused, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.9. PW.1 is the complainant and Victim’s mother, PW.2 is the

Father of the victim, PW.3 is the victim girl, PW.4 is the Circumstantial witness, PW.5 is Dr V. Vijaya, who examined the victim, PW.6 is the Dr G.

S. Samaradh, who issued Potency certificate of the accused, PW.7 is the 6SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

Investigating Officer and PW.8 is the WASI, who recorded the victim’s statement.

6.After the prosecution evidence is closed, the accused 1 & 2 are examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. by explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the Counsel for the accused.

8.Now, the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section

376(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 ( l ) R/w 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and

accused no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 109

R/w section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 5 (l)

and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.Given the above charges framed against Accused No. 1 & 2, the initial burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate that the accused committed the said offences. To prove and establish the charges against the accused, the prosecution adduced the following evidence:

10.PW.1, the complainant and Victim’s mother. She knew A1, A2 and the juvenile. She knew PW-4 and LW.5. They are all residents of

Miryalguda. As of the date of the complaint, Rupa was studying 09th class.

7SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

Her daughter Rupa told her that while she was in the classroom, Accused

No.1 Giri dragged her to another room and committed rape on her. He had taken the help of his friend Saikumar and another person. She could identify Giri. However, she testified that Giri was not present in the Court hall. Further, she testified that she could not identify the accused No. 1. In her cross-examination, PW.1 stated that accused No.1 never raped her daughter. She does not know the contents of the complaint. At her husband's request, she put her signature on the complaint. The accused has nothing to do with this offence.

11.PW.2, the father of the victim girl, testified that in the year 2017, one day, his daughter went somewhere without their knowledge. Then, at about 04.00 P.M., he called his daughter over the phone and asked where she was. Then, his daughter Roopa replied that she loved one boy and she was at Choutuppal. Then he asked his daughter Roopa to come home.

Accordingly, his daughter Roopa came back to their house. At that time, his daughter was 13 years old. When he asked his daughter why she go, she told him that as she loved one boy, she went with him as that boy asked her to go with him. His daughter disclosed his name as "Giri". His daughter also told him that Giri tied Thali and had sexual intercourse with her four or five times. The Giri used to stay in Miryalguda next to their lane. They lodged a report with the police. His wife/PW1 lodged the complaint. Police examined me and recorded his statement. In his cross- examination, PW.2 stated that he had studied up to 6th grade. He stated 8SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

before the police in his statement that his daughter went somewhere

without their knowledge, and when he made a phone call, she replied that she was at Choutuppal and she loved a boy. His statement was recorded at the police station by one writer.

12.PW.3, Victim-Girl, the prime witness to the prosecution case, testified that accused no.1 is her husband. She did not know the accused no.2. She did not know anything about the facts of this case. Police did not examine her, did not record her statement, or did not refer her to the

Hospital for a medical examination.

13.PW.4 was examined as a Circumstantial witness and testified that he did not know the facts of this case.

14.PW.5, Dr V. Vijaya, testified that on 05.05.2017 at about 01.00 PM, upon receipt of requisition from S.H.O.. P.S. Mirylaguda II town, she examined the PW.3 and found her conscious. Her general condition was fair. Vitals were stable. Her last menstrual period (LMP) was on 26.04.2017. On local examination, no external injuries were found, external genitalia was found to be healthy, Pubic hair was present, and the hymen was not intact. She collected vaginal smear, vaginal swab, pubic hair and fingernail samples from the victim-girl/PW.3 and forwarded the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. Accordingly, she issued a preliminary examination report. After that, she received the F.S.L.

Report. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory report, she issued a final 9SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

opinion by opining that semen and spermatozoa are not detected, and blood is not detected on victim samples. Foreign hair and material are not detected. However, sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. Ex.P.3 is the

Preliminary examination report. Ex.P.4 is Forensic Science Laboratory

Report. Ex.P.5 is final opinion.

15.PW.6, Dr G S Samradh, testified that on 10.05.2017, at about 12.00

PM, he received requisition from Station House Officer, Miryalguda II town

Police Station to conduct potency test of the Kondala Yadalah (accused No.

1). On the same day he conducted potency test over the accused No.1 in their hospital and found that his secondary sexual characters are well developed, penis and scrotum are normal. He is of the opinion that "There is nothing to suggest that the male examined is not capable of performing sexual act. Accordingly, he issued a potency certificate under Ex.P6.

16.PW.7, the investigating officer, testified that on 05.05.2017, PW.1 came to Miryalguda II Town Police station and lodged a Telugu written complaint stating that the accused, under the guise of love and marriage, raped her daughter/victim/PW.3 in February and March 2017 by tying a knot in the presence of his friends and she was informed same to her.

Based on the complaint LW13/S. Shekar. Sub-Inspector of Police,

Miryalguda II Town P.S. registered the case under sections 376 r/w 109 IPC & sec.6 of POCSO Act-2012 and issued FIR in Cr.No. 95/2017. After that,

LW13/S. Shekar recorded the statement of PW.1 and forwarded the victim 10SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

girl to the Area Hospital, Miryalguda, for medical examination. After that, he took up the investigation from LW13/S. Shekar, Sub-Inspector of Police on the same day, i.e., 05.05.2017.

17.PW.7 further testified that at his instructions, PW8, Women ASI recorded the statement of victim/PW.3. He visited the scene of offence situated at Seetharampuram colony in Miryalguda and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and, along with rough sketch in the presence of the panchas LW6/G. Srinivas and LW7/Ramavath Giri, where he also examined PWs 2, 4 and LW5/Venkanrıa and recorded their statements. In the meanwhile, PW.5, having examined the victim girl/PW.3 and issued a preliminary opinion and preserved vaginal swabs and smear, was handed over to him for forwarding the same to the FSL, Hyderabad.

Accordingly, he forwarded and received the report thereof on 21.08.2017.

He further collected the Bonafide certificate along with the particulars of the date of birth of the victim/PW.3 from Navajeevan High School, where victim/PW3 studied up to 9th class. The date of birth particulars furnished in the Bonafide certificate discloses that she was born 08.07.2003. Thus, the victim was minor as of the date of the incident. After that, he apprehended the accused No.1 on 10.05.2017 at about 10.00 hours and on interrogation, the accused No.1 to have committed offence with the support of accused No.2 and one Juvenile and his confession was recorded in the presence of LW.8/Nalla Sathish, LW.9/M.Ramana Reddy and 11SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

forwarded the accused to the Govt. Area Hospital. Miryalguda for potency

Test.

18.Further, PW.7 testified that PW.6 conducted the potency test opinion given under Ex.P6, and he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand. On 12.07.2017, he apprehended the Juvenile who aided accused

No.1 in committing the offence on the victim girl/PW.3 and produced him

before the Juvenile Court at Nalgonda. On 07.08.2017, accused No.2

surrendered and was released on anticipatory bail granted by the 1st

Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, on 03.08.2017. After completion of the

investigation, he filed the charge sheet. Victim/PW3 gave statement as in

Ex. P1. PW2 gave statement as in Ex. P2. Ex. P7 is FIR in Cr. No.95/2017.

Ex. P8 is the scene of offence panchanama, along with a rough sketch. Ex.

P9 is the confession Panchanama of accused No.1. Inhis cross- examination, PW.7 admitted that he did not mention the time in any of the statements recorded by him at Seetharampuram and that he had not stated place at which he recorded those statements and that there is a delay of more than 2 months from the alleged incident in lodging the complaint and that as per the complaint one Mr. Giri committed the alleged offence and that he did not examine the person who issued

Bonafide certificate of the victim/PW.3.

19.PW.8, the Women ASI, testified that on 05.05.2017, PW.7/Circle

Inspector of Police, Miryalguda II Town P.S. instructed her orally to record 12SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

the statement of victim/PW.3 at her house situated at Seetharampuram colony, Miryalguda. Accordingly, on the same day, she went to the house of the victim/PW.3 at Seetharampuram colony, recorded her statement in the afternoon hours and forwarded the statement to the PW.7/Circle

Inspector of police. PW.3/victim stated that one Mr Giri followed her in the name of love and induced by taking her to his room at Seetharampuram colony and indulged in sexual intercourse with her by tying a knot in the presence of his friends and after that, removed the "Thali". She also stated that Giri indulged in sex with her 4 to 5 times on the same day in

February and March 2017 in the very same room, and after that, he was not in contact with her, and therefore, she reported the same to her mother.

Point:

20.As can be seen from the record, the facts testified by PW.1 are not corroborated by her husband/PW.2, much less her daughter, the victim/PW.3. At one breath, PW.1 testified that she knew the accused 1 and 2 and the juvenile. Subsequently, she testified that she could not identify accused No.1, and in her cross-examination, Pw.1 stated that

Accused No.1 never raped her daughter. She does not know the contents of the complaint, and at her husband's request, she put her signature on the complaint and said that the accused had nothing to do with this offence. This inconsistency in the testimony of Pw.1 renders her evidence unreliable.

13SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

21.PW.2, the father of the victim/PW.3 testified a contrary version as to the facts testified by PW.1 and narrated to him by his daughter, the

Victim/Pw.3. But his daughter/PW.1 did not corroborate the testimony of

PW.2 either, given that she testified that Accused No.1 is her husband, and do not know the facts of the case. She was never examined by the police and was never referred to the hospital for medical examination, thereby rendering the evidence of the prime witnesses PW.1 to 3 to the case unreliable.

22.PW.4, examined as a circumstantial witness, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Although the prosecution examined the doctor/PW.5, who claimed to have examined the victim/Pw.3 on being referred to from the Miryalaguda II town police Station and her evidence that the vaginal smear and swab along with public heir and fingernails that she claimed to have collected from the Victim/PW.3 and forwarded to the Forensic Science laboratory and gave her preliminary report and final report based on the report of the Forensic Science laboratory, is of no use to the prosecution given that no incriminating material was found against the Accused No.1, though not corroborated by the PW.3/Victim as she testified to have not referred to the hospital for medical examination.

14SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

23.Even the evidence of the doctor/PW.6 who testified to have examined accused No.1 and gave the potency certificate is also of no use to the prosecution as nothing incriminating is found against Accused No.1.

24.PW.8, the women police official who testified to have recorded the statement of the victim/PW.3 at her house. However, since her testimony was not corroborated by PW.3, as Pw.3 testified to have not been examined by the police and her statement was not recorded, the evidence of PW.8 is in no way useful for the prosecution to prove the case against the Accused No.1.

25.Although PW.7/the Investigating Officer testified to have recorded the confession under Ex. P9 in the presence of the LW.8/Nalla Satish and

LW.9/M. Ramana Reddy, any confession made to the police officer is inadmissible under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

26.As found supra, there is no evidence on record to say that the accused had committed the offences. In the absence of any evidence on record, let alone sufficient evidence, to prove the charges against the accused, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish its case against Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences they were charged with.

27.Given the findings supra, it is concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the above-said offences beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the Accused No.1 and 2 have to be acquitted of 15SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

the offences they were charged with. The point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

28.In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offences punishable under sections 376(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l)

R/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and

Accused No.2 is found not guilty of the offences punishable under section 109 R/w section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 5 and 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, the accused 1 & 2 are acquitted of the above-said offences under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of Accused No.1 & 2, if any, shall stand cancelled after the expiry of six months from this date as contemplated under section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Typed by Stenographer, Gr-I, on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 22 nd day of November 2024.

1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. FAC: Judge, Special Fast Track Sessions Court for Expeditious Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Nalgonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- NONE

PW.1:XXXXXX:Complainant and Victim’s mother

PW.2:XXXXXX:Victim’s father

PW.3:XXXXXX:Victim 16SC.POCSO No.199 of 2017

Dt: 22.11.2024

PW.4:G.Ravi Kumar:Circumstantial witness

PW.5:Dr.V.Vijaya:Issued final report

PW.6:Dr.G.S.Samaradh:Issued Potency Certificate of the accused PW.7:B.Saieashwar Goud:Investigating Officer

PW.8:K.Thabitha:Examinedandrecordedthe statement of the victim girl

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- NIL

Ex.P.1:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3

Ex.P.2:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4

Ex.P.3:Preliminary examination report

Ex.P.4:Forensic Science Laboratory Report

Ex.P.5:Final opinion

Ex.P.6:Potency certificate

Ex.P.7:First Information Report

Ex.P.8:Scene of offence Panchanama

Ex.P.9:Confession Panchanama of the accused No. 1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil- 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. FAC: Judge, Special Fast Track Sessions Court for Expeditious Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Nalgonda.