G. Srinivas

8-11-16 1SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

SCs & STs (POA) ACT-CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR

Present: G.SRINIVAS, Spl.Sessions Judge-cum-

IV Addl.District Judge, Guntur

Tuesday the 8th day of November,2016.

S.C.No.42/S/2014.

Between:

State: Sub-Divisional Police Officer, North Sub Division, Guntur Urban.

(Crime No.242/2012 of Tadepalli PS.) ..Complainant.

And

Vanukuri Nagireddy son of Ayyappa Reddy, 62 years, resident of Mallayapalem village,

Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

Retired Work Inspector, PWD Work Shop,

Seetanagaram, Tadepalli, now residing at

H.No. 40-25-49, near Screw Bridge,

Padamata, Vijayawada. ..Accused.

This case is coming on 4-11-2016, before me for final hearing in the presence of Spl. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of

Sri S. Brahmananda Reddy Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, upon perusing the material and evidence on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Divisional police Officer, North Sub Division, Guntur Urban filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.242/2012 of Tadepalli

PS, for the offences punishable under Sec. 506 of IPC and under Sec.3(1)(x) of SCs &STS (POA) Act 1989.

8-11-16 2SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accuse used to lend money to the employees of PWD Work Shop, Seethanagaram,

Tadepalli. L.W.1-Katta Koteswara Rao also availed loan from the accused and executed signed promissory notes and cheques in additiona to his ATM card and bank pass book to the accused as guarantee. The accused lend amount to others through L.W.1-Katta Koteswara Rao and as per his orders

L.W.1-Katta Koteswara Rao used to collect monthly interest from them.

On 8-10-2012 at 12-00 noon, while L.W.1-Katta Koteswara Rao was waiting for conveyance at Lotus Bus Stop to go to Vijayawada, the accused came there pointing the L.W.1-Katta Koteswara Rao, as he is not seen since three days and questioned for not collecting the dues. When L.W.1-Katta

Koteswara Rao declared that there is no need to him to serve for the accused, the accused grew wild and came up on L.W.1-Katta Koteswara Rao, abused him by touching his caste name as ‘Erukala Naa Kodaka’ and insulted L.W.1-Katta Koteswara Rao in public view, threatened him with dire consequences for not obeying his orders. L.W.2-Pothunuri Surya Prakash and L.W.3-Paidipati Murali, who are well known persons to L.W.1-Katta

Koteswara Rao, witnessed the occurrence. Basing on the report of L.W.1-

Katta Koteswara Rao, L.W.4-Ch.Koteswara Rao, SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No. 242/2012 under Sec.506 of IPC and under Sec.3(i)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act and submitted FIRs to all concerned. L.W.5-T.V. Nagaraju,

Sub Divisional Police Officer, Guntur Urban was appointed as Investigation

Officer in this case by the Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban vide proceedings 11-10-2012 and he took up investigation in this case. L.W.5-

Sub Divisional Police Officer visited and inspected the scene of offence, drawn rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. L.W.6-M. Madhusudhana Rao, Sub Divisional Police Officer, 8-11-16 3SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

North Sub Division, Guntur Urban was appointed as Investigation Officer in this case by Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban vide proceedings dated 18-11-2012. During the course of investigation, L.W.6-Sub Divisional Police

Officer arrested the accused on 6-2-2013 and sent him for judicial remand.

The Tahsildar, Vijayawada Urban issued caste certificate of LW1-Katta

Koteswara Rao as he belong to Hindu-Yerukala ST by caste. The Tahsildar,

Prathipadu Mandal issued caste certificate in respect of the accused as he belong to Hindu-Reddy OC by caste. After completion of investigation,

L.W.6-Sub Divisional Police Officer filed charge sheet against the accused in this case.

3.After taking cognizance for the offence under Sec. 506 of IPC and U/s 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act against the accused, this case was committed to this court, by the I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Mangalagiri vide

PRC.18/2013 as the offence under Section U/s 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act is exclusively triable by the Special Sessions court, and the same was registered as SC.42/S/2014.

4.On appearance of accused before the court, charges under Sec. 506 of

IPC and U/s 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act 1989 were framed against the accused, and the said charges were read over and explained to him in vernacular, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5, and got marked Exs.P1 to P6, and Ex.D1.

6. Accused is examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the prosecution case and no defence evidence is reported.

8-11-16 4SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

7. Now, the poinst for consideration would be

1. Whether the accused committed criminal intimidation against

P.W.1 by beating threatening with dire consequences and thus accused is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s. 506 of IPC?

2. Whether the accused humiliated P.W.1 who belongs to

Scheduled Caste in public view by touching his caste and thus accused is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s. 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act?

8.APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE ;

The prosecution has examined L.W.1- Katta Koteswara Rao as P.W.1.

He stated in his chief – examination that the accused used to work as work inspector, union leader and also worked as Asst., Engineer in P.W.D.

Department and also doing money lending business and that nearly 70 to 80 employees borrowed amounts from the accused and the accused is in the habit of taking empty promissory notes, cheques for lending amount to the employees. He further stated that he borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/-, and at the time of borrowing the said amount, the accused has taken signatures of himself and his wife on 6 blank promissory notes and 6 cheques on some conquest papers, and thereafter, he repaid the said amount to the accused, even then the accused has not returned his blank instruments in spite of his repeated requests and demands and he used to collect the interest amount from the borrowers of the accused and the accused also received ATM card, pass book towards security and basing upon the blank instruments, the accused also filed two cases U/Sec.138 of

NI Act and two civil cases in the name of himself and his binamidars and 8-11-16 5SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

that he recommended the accused to give amounts to his co-employees.

P.W.1 further stated that the accused also gave amounts to his co- employees and also obtained signatures of said co-employees on several blank instructions towards security of his amount and as his co-employees have not paid the said amount to the accused, the accused used to altercate with him and the accused also used to treat as a bonded labour for borrowing Rs.1,50,000/- from him and that at about 4 years back, on one day, he went to his office to verify about his surrender leave and immediately after verifying the said amount he came to Seethanagaram bus stop to board the bus and the accused came on bike and asked him why he is applying leave without collecting his interest amounts from his borrowers and then he expressed his inability, thereby the accused abused him that “Erukala naakodaka Nee anthu chustanu. Erukalavallu antha dongale” and caught hold of his shirt. P.W.1 further stated that the accused also several times abused his borrowers in the name of their caste, and thereby L.Ws.2 and 3 came to his rescue. Thereby he went to Tadepalli PS to lodge the complaint Ex.P1 against the accused and after lodging the police complaint

Ex.P2, the accused threatened him personally and his men to withdraw said police complaint, other wise he would do away his life and that the accused filed several suits against his several debtors.

9. The prosecution has examined L.W.2- Potnuri Surya Prakash as P.W.2.

He stated in his evidence that on 8-10-2012, in between 11 to 12 a.m., himself and L.W.3 went to Lotus area to purchase fishes and that there was a bus stop nearer to said Lotus area , by the time of reaching to the said spot, P.W.1 and accused altercating each other and then, himself and L.W.3 pacified both of them by intervening in between them, the accused abused 8-11-16 6SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

P.W.1 that “selavulu pettukuni thiruguthunnav, dabbulu evaru vasulu chestaru, erukala naa kodaka”, thereby he got boarded P.W.1 in an auto by admonishing him.

10. The prosecution has examined L.W.3- Pagidipati Murali as P.W.3. He stated in his evidence that that on 8-10-2012, in between 11a.m., himself and P.W.2 went to Lotus area near Prakasam barrage to purchase fishes, himself and P.W.2 observed that an altercation is going on in between the accused and P.W.1 and the accused caught hold of the shirt of P.W.1 and also accused abused the P.W.1 that “Erukalanakodaka nee pellanni denga”, then

P.W.1 shouted that he would not collect the amounts from the P.W.1's debtors and demanded to return his blank cheques and promissory notes, then himself and P.W.2 pacified both of them, and thereafter, P.W.1 and accused left from that place.

11. The prosecution has examined L.W.4- Ch. Koteswara Rao, CI of police as P.W.4. In his evidence he deposed that on 11-10-2012, while he was in

Tadepalle PS, P.W.1 came to their police station and lodged a complaint against the accused, and basing upon the said complaint, he registered same as a case in Cr. No. 242/2012 under sections 506 of IPC and Sec.3(1)

(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act and the sent the original FIR Ex.P2 to JFCM,

Mangalagiri and copies of it to his superior officers and subsequently, he handed over the file of DSP of police for further investigation.

12. The prosecution has also examined L.W.5- T.V. Nagaraju, Addl. Deputy

Commissioner of police as P.W.4. In his evidence he deposed that he received proceedings under Ex.P3 from Superintendent of Police, Guntur 8-11-16 7SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

urban under dt.11-10-2012 to investigate in this case and that after receipt of said proceedings, he took up investigation and visited Tadepalli PS and secured the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and examined them and recorded their statements U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. and after recording the statements of

P.Ws.1 to 3, himself and SI of police, visited the scene of offence on 12-10-2012 and also prepared a rough sketch under Ex.P.4 and he handed over the file to Sub Divisional Police Officer and the Sub Divisional Police

Officer took charge for further investigation and after receipt of caste certificates his successor also arrested the accused and after verifying the investigation he filed the charge sheet in this case.

13. 1 st and 2 nd charges under Sec. 506 of IPC and under Sec. 3(i)

(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act:

The learned counsel for the defence canvassed across the bench that as per Ex.P1 report and as per other evidences available on record the scene of offence is situated at Sitanagaram bus stop area, but not at Lotus bus stop as stated by P.W.1. On this point, the Investigation Officer i.e.,

P.W.5 has given clarification that the Sitanagaram bus stop is also called as

Lotus bus stop. So, the scene of offence is corroborating with the prosecution story and there is no dispute with regard to the location of scene of offence.

14. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that character of

P.W.1 is not good and he did several mischievous acts in his life. Here, the character and conduct of P.W.1 is not relevant. Hence, this court is not considering the character and conduct of P.W.1 in this case.

8-11-16 8SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

15. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 are not corroborating with the evidence of P.W.1 and the prosecution has not examined the inhabitants of the scene of offence. It is true that there were minor discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and on the ground of the minor discrepancies, the entire evidence of P.W.1 cannot be brushed aside.

16.Minor discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution not fatal in view of other prosecution evidence corroborating P.Ws-1 and 4 versions. This court found evidence of eyewitnesses, was reliable as well cogent evidence of independent witnesses. Hence, conviction based on sole testimony of eyewitness is proper. Offence is abhorred by society. The crime that was committed by the accused in premeditated manner without any provocation.

Accused was of sound mind. Merely on basis of some discrepancy in evidence of witnesses in cross-examination, the presence of accused cannot be doubted and prosecution witnesses’ versions could not be discarded.

Apart from reliable evidence of witnesses, other circumstances lead credence to prosecution case. This court also found overwhelming substantive evidence of prosecution witnesses against accused. So, that the plea of false implication of the accused by the defence is not acceptable.

17. Being the said offence was took place at bus stop, the contentions of the defence that the prosecution has not examined the inhabitants of the scene of offence is hereby over-ruled as no inhabitants were available at the each and every bus stop.

8-11-16 9SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

18. The learned counsel for the defence further submitted that in order to avoid payment of money due by P.W.1 to the accused, he foisted this case. Admittedly, the accused filed several cases against the accused for recovery of the amounts on promissory notes as well as the cases under

Sec. 138 of NI Act. So, the question of avoiding payment in view of the cases pending against the accused does not arise. Hence the said contention of defence is also hereby ruled out.

19. So, from the record, it appears that P.W.1 doing chronic money lending business, by taking undue advantage of the dire necessities of P.W.1 advance some poultry amounts and obtained the signatures of P.W.1 on some blank instruments and collected amounts with interest more than the advanced and also used to treat P.W.1 as a bonded labour to his domestic work as well as to collect the interest amounts from his debtors. As P.W.1 could not bear the torture of the accused, he stopped to go to the house of the accused and thereby the accused with his high handed behaviour over powered P.W.1 who hails from ST community intentionally caused humiliation and also threatened him with dire consequences within the public view in public place. Hence, the prosecution able to prove the story of its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

20. The Investigation Officer made all efforts to prove the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt by drawing rough sketch of the scene of offence. The contents of Ex.P1 is also corroborating with the evidences of

P.Ws.1 to 5 and also the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of all the prosecution witnesses. Even though there was some delay while lodging Ex.P1 as contended by the defence, the so called delay cannot be considered, as

P.W.1 is suffering in the hands of the accused for the last several years, he 8-11-16 10SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

has taken some time to think whether he has to take action against the accused or not. So, the so called delay while lodging Ex.P1 report is a considerable delay.

21. The accused highhandedly threatened P.W.1 with dire consequences and intimidated the accused, it causes apprehension to P.W.1 to his mind and body and it is sufficient to convict the accused U/s 506(1) of IPC. This court is concluding that the accused intentionally in order to put the P.W.1 under his thumb and to continue the slavery work of PW.1 with him, might have abused in the name of his caste and dominated him in the public place within the public view.

22.The learned Spl.P.P. takes the decision in Bihar State Financial

Corporation Vs M/s Chota Nagapoor Minerals and others which is

reported in AIR 2009 SC 1071 wherein while considering the presumption provided under Sec.8 of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, the court has to proceed with the presumption of extent of the said Act, unless sufficient rebuttal evidence is placed. In this case, the defence miserably failed to place any rebuttal evidence.

23.No doubt, the prosecution supposes to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and standard of evidence as required by the prosecution will not be changed. At the same time, if the accused went to any evidence to be shown by the Court, first it must be shown that it should be considered as evidence. In the present case, the defence has not placed any evidence in support of their version that nothing was happened to PW-1 and other prosecution witnesses with the barbarous acts and misdeeds of the accused.

8-11-16 11SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

24. Even 71 years after attaining independence, it is unfortunate that in certain parts of our country, we see acute functionalism resulting in large- scale riots and death of precious lives, besides loss of huge property. The castism which is eating at the gross-roots of our country’s unity in playing its own disastrous role in the perpetration of ghostly crimes which are coming to light quite often bringing shame to our country. Very often, it is observed that when any incident takes place, the real perpetrators of the crime clearly run away and vanish, while the innocent bye-passers and witnesses will be lacked in as accused or co-accused.

25. In many a case, this is perhaps one reason why people who actually witness the occurrence of any offence really skulk away in order to avoid cumbersome court litigation, irksome the police investigation and the risk of being involved in the case itself. It therefore calls upon a great amount of care on the part of the Judge to find out the real culprit by separating grain from chaff i.e collected and placed in the shape of evidence by prosecution agency. In the light of the observations of our Honourable Apex Courts, that runs through the Criminal Justice that 99 of guilty persons can be acquitted but not a single innocent person should be not punished will have to be kept in mind. At the same time, the theory of benefit of doubt that emanates out of the above number should not be stretched and drawn to such an extreme limits that the entire Criminal Justice system itself should become a farce lost but people may loose confidence in Criminal Justice.

This makes a job of consciousness of Judge more difficult as he has to do precarious tide rope walking for reacting correct and justifiable conclusions.

While our whole scriptures propounded theory of non-violence, forbearance 8-11-16 12SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

forgiveness. It is unfortunate that instead of following our wholly criterion's and law based on them, we are indulging ourselves in the mindless atrocities against the example of what is actually happening in our society today contrary but norms of justice and religion.

26.The case on hand provides a glaring example of what is actually happening in our society today contrary to all norms of justice and religion.

27.Purpose of enactment to the SC/ST Act – Reading the preamble of the present Act, it would be found that it had been enacted to prevent the commission of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes. It is thus intention which has to be kept into account while interpreting the various sections of the Act.

28.On analyzing the evidence on record, in order to justify the inference of guilt the inculcatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused or incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis except their guilt. Thus, in the light of overwhelming evidence on record, it can be said that the accused who has got every knowledge and intention about the acts committed by them and caused humiliation against P.W.1 intimidated him and used unlawful force against P.W.1 with an intention to dishonour him and outrage the modesty of the women folk of SC/ST community and it is sufficient to believe that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

29.The intention of the legislature is that SCs have been physically and socially excluded from mainstream society, denied basic resources and 8-11-16 13SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

services, and discriminated against in all areas of life. Accordingly, they face various forms of exploitation, insults and violence, as well as degrading practices of untouchability. The Scheduled Tribes were also equally exploiting on grounds of not falling within the caste system but having a distinct culture and world view of their own. Despite the right to non- discrimination on the basis of race or caste enshrined in Article 15 of the

Indian Constitution, discrimination against SCs and STs is pervasive. Though abolished and forbidden by Article 17, the practice of ‘untouchability’ persists due to its systemic character. Hence, the Indian Parliament enacted the

Untouchability Offences Act 1955, which underwent amendment and renaming in 1976 to become the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act. Under this Act, ‘untouchability’, as a result of religious and social disabilities was made punishable. However, due to legal loopholes, the levels of punishments being less punitive as compared to those of the IPC, and the law and order machinery being neither professionally trained nor socially inclined to implement such social legislation, a more comprehensive and more punitive Act was required to protect SCs and STs from violence committed by other communities. This gave rise to the SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989.

30.Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of the SCs and STs, they remain vulnerable. They have in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property, because of the awareness created through spread of education, etc., when they assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested interests try to bow them down and terrorise them. When the SCs and STs 8-11-16 14SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

try to preserve their self-respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty. Under the circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to check and deter crimes against them committed by non-SCs and non-STs.

It is considered necessary that not only the term 'atrocity' should be defined, but also stringent measures should be introduced to provide for higher punishment for committing such atrocities. It is also proposed to enjoin on the States and Union Territories to take specific preventive and punitive measures to protect SCs and STs from being victimized and, where atrocities are committed, to provide adequate relief and assistance to rehabilitate them.”

31.The objectives of the Act, therefore very clearly emphasis the intention of the Indian state to deliver justice to SC/ST communities through affirmative action in order to enable them to live in society with dignity and self-esteem and without fear, violence or suppression from the dominant castes. The offences of atrocities are committed to humiliate and subjugate the SCs and STs with a view to keep them in a state of servitude. Hence, they constitute a separate class of offences and cannot be compared with offences under the Indian Penal Code.

32.The legal regime is fraught with contradictions. While the legal text is explicit in seeking remedies, the implementation of the text appears to evade actual performance. Laws and legal processes are not self-executing, they depend on the administrative structure and the judiciary with the anticipation that the social attitudes are driven by notions of equity, social 8-11-16 15SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

justice and fair play. However, the increasingly indifferent responses of those involved in the implementation of laws protecting the weak, the oppressed and the socially disadvantaged have persisted over the years and the system has failed to provide for self-correction. The problem is that the victims of atrocities suffer not only bodily and mental pain but also feelings of insecurity and social avoidance, which is not present for the victims of other crimes. If the judge delegated to protect them shows indifference, it further aggravates their already vulnerable position.

33. This is the age of democracy and if the so-called upper casts think that they can force the so-called lower casts to do whatever they want the time has come that they must be made to change their thinking completely, as this kind of thinking is feudal and backward and can no longer to be tolerated. The accused in this case have behaved in an abominable manner.

34.The P.Ws 1 to 3 appeared as natural witnesses and their evidences appeared intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy.

Their evidences also corroborated with the other prosecution witnesses.

Other evidence on record is cogent, credible. Non-examination of particular persons as contended by the defence does not create concavity in prosecution case. The counsel for the defence argued that there are some discrepancies in the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses. Merely on basis of some discrepancy in evidence of witnesses in cross-examination, the presence of the accused at the occurrence cannot be doubted and the version of the PWs 1 to 3 and prosecution could not be discarded. The accused failed to explain circumstances put to them under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C either by giving blunt denials or refusing to answer questions put to them.

8-11-16 16SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

35.The Act had been enacted with the intention of prevention atrocity shown by members of higher castes to members of schedule castes and scheduled tribes. What is made punishable under the provisions of the Act are the atrocities shown to the members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes because all the offences under Section 3 of the Act come within the term “atrocity” used in the Act.

36. The Act was enacted in line with various constitutional provisions giving special privileges and rights to members of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes. Article 17 makes the practice of untouchability an offence read with Art. 35(a)(ii) which confers upon the parliament the exclusive power to make law prescribing punishment for those acts which are declared to be offences under Part III of the Constitution. Article 17 is a significant provision particularly from the point of view of equality of law. It guarantees social justice and dignity of life which were denied to vast Section of the society for centuries. The constitutional provisions that Parliament has enacted the Act, which is an Act to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribes.

37. The counsel for the defence also submitted that the prosecution has not stated as to the motive of the accused for insulting and humiliating. In this regard having due regard to the ratio laid down by our Apex courts that:

In Mole Vs Haryana reported in 1976 Crl.L.J 1895, wherein their lordships observed, that:- 8-11-16 17SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

“Some times motive is clear and can be proved and sometimes is shouldered by mystery and it is difficult to prove. If eyewitness is creditworthy, the question whether there is by motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant.

Where credible evidence exists on record to establish guilt of the accused, it is not necessary to find out the motive of the crime – State of

Karnataka Vs. David Rozario 2002 (7) SCC 728.

38.In the present case the defence made all hectic efforts to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt by conducting lengthy cross-examination of all the prosecution witnesses. However, the defence has not elicited any positive evidence in its favour. The defence utterly failed to disprove the case of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses with one voice stated that the accused committed the barbarous crimes as stated supra and it is found that accused were of sound mind and habitual offender. This court found overwhelming substantive evidence of prosecution witnesses against accused. Their plea of false implication is not acceptable.

39.The leniency in matters involving dreadful offences is not only undesirable but also against the public interest. Showing leniency in such matters would be really a case of misplaced sympathy.

40.Therefore when the factual position is considered in the background of legal principles, observations of Hon’ble Apex courts elaborated above, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under sections 8-11-16 18SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

Sec.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act and Sec. 506(1) of IPC and therefore the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr PC.

41.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the charges under

Sec.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act and under Sec. 506 (1) of IPC and thereby he is convicted U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Superintendent Category-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of November, 2016.

Spl.Session Judge-Cum-

IV Addl.District Judge, Guntur.

42. Heard on sentence. When the Accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, he submitted that he has wife and three children.

His son is doing job in Singapore. Daughters are doing jobs in Hyderabad.

His wife is dependant on him.

43. The legislature and judiciary are so particular about the effective implementation of beneficial legislations. However, the accused herein without any mercy towards the downtrodden people made barbaric, feudal practices, which are a slur on our nation. This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrages uncivilized behavior. Leniency in matters involving heinous offences is not only undesirable but also against public interest.

Such types of offences are to be dealt with severity and with iron hands.

Showing leniency in such matters would be really a case of misplaced sympathy. The acts, which led to the conviction of the accused, is not only 8-11-16 19SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

shocking but also outrageous in their contours. That is not the intention of legislature in enacting either the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 300

IPC and therefore the same is not invoked in this case regarding the IPC offences and more over there is a bar under Sec.19 of SCs and STs (POA)

Act.

44. In this context this Court observed that in Mahesh Vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh (1987) 3 SCC 80, in its their Lordships observed that deprecated the practice of taking a lenient view and not imposing the appropriate punishment observing that it will be a mockery of justice to permit the accused to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and cruel acts. Their Lordships further observed that to give the lesser punishment for the appellants would be to render the justicing system of the country suspect and the common man will lose of faith in courts.

45. This court also further observed that in Sevaka Perumal Vs. State of TN.(1991) 3 SCC 471 it is observed that :-

1. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed.

2. It is evident that criminal law requires strict adherence to the rule of proportionality in providing punishment according to the culpability of each 8-11-16 20SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

kind of criminal conduct keeping in mind the effect of not awarding just punishment on the society.

The same observations are once again reiterated by their Lordships in a recent judgment in between Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph Vs.

State of Maharashtra, reported in 2014 STPL (Web) 111 SC.

46. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not lend endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it is executed or committed.

47.In the result:-

I) The accused is found guilty for the charges under Sec.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act and he is convicted under Sec.235 (2) Cr.P.C.

and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 (Five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default of the payment of the said fine, should suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

II) The accused is also found guilty for the offence Sec.506 (1) of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for (2) two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of the said fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

III) The sentences awarded to the accused under Sec. 3(1) (x) and of SCs and STs (POA) Act and under Sec.506(1) of IPC shall run

CONSECUTIVELY i.e., one after other.

8-11-16 21SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

IV)Out of the fine amount of Rs.50,000/-, an amount of

Rs.40,000/- is granted to P.W.1 towards compensation under Sec 357 of Cr.P.C.

V)The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled.The accused is entitled for set-off of the remand period u/s.428 Cr.P.C. Hence the remand period undergone by the accused i.e., from 6-2-2013 to 14-2-2013 shall be set off U/s 428 Cr.P.C. The marked and unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the lapse of the appeal time or appeal.

Dictated to the Superintendent Category – III, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of November, 2016.

Spl. Sessions Judge-cum-IV

Addl. District Judge, Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

PW1 : xxxxxxxxxxx

PW2 : P. Surya Prakash.

PW3 : P. Murali.

PW4 : Ch. Koteswara Rao, SI of Police.

PW5 : T.V. Naraju. Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police.

For Defence: None

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Report, dt. 11-10-2012.

Ex.P2 : FIR in Cr.No. 242/2012, dt. 11-10-2012.

Ex.P3 : Proceedings of Superintendent of Police, dt. 11-10-2012.

8-11-16 22SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

Ex.P4 : Rough sketch, dt. 12-10-2012.

Ex.P5 : Caste certificate of P.W.1, dt. 19-2-2015.

Ex.P6 : Caste certificate of the accused, dt. 28-11-2012.

For Defence:

Ex.D1/12-10-12:Some portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

Material objects Marked

-NIL-

Spl. Sessions Judge-cum-

IV Addl. District Judge, Guntur

8-11-16 23SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989: GUNTUR

1.Name of the Case Sessions Case No.SC.42/S/14

2. Name of the committing Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Mangalagiri

Magistrate (PRC. No.18/2013).

3. Name of the complainant State: Sub-Divisional Police Officer,North Sub Division, Guntur Urban. (Crime No.242/2012 of Tadepalli PS.)

4. Name of the AccusedVanukuri Nagireddy son of Ayyappa Reddy, 62 years, resident of Mallayapalem village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District. Retired Work Inspector, PWD Work Shop, Seetanagaram, Tadepalli, now residing at H.No. 40-25-49, near Screw Bridge, Padamata, Vijayawada. 5.Date of 14-7-2014

i) Filling ii)Apprehension of Accused 03-9-2014 (Appearance before sessions court) iii)Commencement of trial 3-10-2016 iv)Closure of trial 4-11-2016

v)Pronouncement of 8-11-2016 Judgment 6.Offence(s)U/s 506 of IPC and under sec. 3(1)(x) of SCs and STCs (POA) Act 1989. 7.Plea of Accused Not Guilty

8.Finding of the Court Found Guilty for the offences U/s 3(1)(x) of

SC’s and ST’s (POA) Act 1989, and U/s 506(1)

of IPC.

9.Sentence or order:- In the result:-

I). The accused is found guilty for the charges under Sec.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act and he is convicted under Sec.235 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 (Five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default of the payment of the said fine, should suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

II). The accused is also found guilty for the offence Sec.506 (1) of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for (2) two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of the said fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

III). The sentences awarded to the accused under Sec. 3(1) (x) and of SCs and STs (POA) Act and under Sec.506 (1) of IPC shall run CONSECUTIVELY i.e., one after other. IV). Out of the fine amount of Rs.50,000/-, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is granted to P.W.1 towards compensation under Sec 357 of Cr.P.C. V). The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled.The accused is entitled for set- off of the remand period u/s.428 Cr.P.C. Hence the remand period undergone 8-11-16 24SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

by the accused i.e., from 6-2-2013 to 14-2-2013 shall be set off U/s 428

Cr.P.C. The marked and unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the lapse of sthe appeal time or appeal.

10.Explanation for Delay:- Originally this case was committed vide PRC No.18/2013 to this court by the Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Mangalagiri, against the accused. On 03-9-2014 accused appeared before this court, and later the case underwent adornments till 16-3-2015. On 16-3-2015 charges were framed, against the accused, the case was posted for trial and the matter underwent adjournments for trial. On 3-10-16 PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 marked. On 13-10-2016, P.W2 was examined. On 24-10-16 P.W3 was examined, Ex.D1 marked. On 1-11-2016 PW4 was examined and Ex.P2 was marked. On 2-11-2016 PW5 was examined and Exs.P3 to P6 were marked, and the remaining witnesses were given up by the prosecution. On 3-11-2016 accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the prosecution case and reported no evidence on his side. On 4-11-2016 heard arguments. On 8-11-2016 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Special Sessions Judge-Cum-

IVAddl.DistrictJudge, Guntur.

Copies to:

1.The Registrar(Judl.), Hon’ble High Court of A.P, Hyderabad. 2.The Sessions Judge, Guntur. 3.The Collector, Guntur District, Guntur 4.The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural. 5.The Director of Prosecutions, DGP Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 6.The Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Mangalagiri. 7.The Spl.PP, IV ADJ Court, Guntur.

8-11-16 25SC 42/S/14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 1

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Sri G.Srinivas, B.A, B.L, Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl.District Judge, Guntur.

Monday, the 7th day of November, 2016.

M.V.O.P.No.671/2015.

Between:

1. Dareddy Venkata Reddy son of Punna Reddy, Hindu, 37 years,

2. Dareddy Siva Parvathi wife of Venkata Reddy, Hindu, 32 years,

Both are presently residing at Sarada Colony, Reddipalem, Guntur. …Petitioner.

And

1. Vinukonda Siva Kumari wife of Narasimha Rao, Resident of 17th Ward, near Karpurapu Rangarao Advocate House, Macherla.

(Owner of the Auto bearing No. AP 07 Y 4905)

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 4/1, Arundelpet, Guntur.

Policy No. 621003/31/08/01/00002376 Valid from 19-5-2008 to 18-5-2009)

3. Kambampati Mariya Babu son of Ananda Rao, Hindu, 21 years, auto driver, resident of behind RTC bus stand, Macherla.

(Driver of the auto bearing No. AP 07 Y 4905)

...Respondents.

This petition is coming on 1-11-2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Dasaradha Rami Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner, and Sri V. Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, and 1st and 3rdrespondents remained exparte and upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:- 7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 2

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Secs. 163-A and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act and under Rules 455 and 476 of AP Motor Vehicles

Rules claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of realization and for costs of the petition for the death of the deceased Dareddy Anusha in the accident including the amount of Rs.50,000/- payable under no fault liability.

02.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

On 9-2-2008 the deceased Anusha and two others were boarded the auto bearing No. AP 07Y 4905 from Gurazala to Rentachintala at about 3-45 p.m. and the auto reached near HP Gas Godown, Rentachintala at that time the driver of the auto drove the auto in high speed in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and drove the auto in a zig zag manner, in the result of the accident the deceased Anusha fell down and received grievous injuries to the head and other multiple injuries all over the body and after the accident she was shifted to Government

General Hospital, Gurazala, there the doctors declared that she was already died. The matter was reported to Rentachintala police station and it was registered as a case in Cr.No. 12/2009 under Sec. 304-A of IPC against the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 07Y 4905 and after the accident, the petitioners approached respondents for compensation but the respondents did not choose to pay any amount. The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 7Y 4905. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the insurer and 3rd respondent is the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 07Y 4905.

It is the further case of the petitioners that the deceased Anusha 7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 3

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

was aged about 14 years and she is student studying 9th class and by the time of the accident the deceased Anusha was hale and healthy. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased Dareddy Anusah, the petitioners lost their love and affection and also lost deprived mentally and physically. Except the petitioners there are no other legal representatives or dependants to the deceased Dareddy Anusha. Thus the petitioners claimed total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Hence, the petition.

03. The 1st and 3rd respondents remained exparte as they failed to appear before this court even after receipt of summons from the court.

04. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying the averments of the petition and further submits that the petitioners previously filed a petition in MVOP 453/2009 on the file of II Addl. District Court, Guntur seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of their daughter and subsequently the said MVOP was transferred to X Addl. District Judge,

Narasaraopet and the same was renumbered as MVOP 429/2009, but the petitioners never get ready to prosecute the said case and finally the court dismissed the said petition for default on 12-7-2011. The petitioners suppressed the said fact and filed the present petition afresh and as per the law the present petition is not maintainable. It is further contended that the seating capacity of the auto is only 4 i.e., three passengers and driver only and as the auto is over crowded, the deceased might have fallen, having lost control. The deceased Anusha and others boarded the auto in violation of the Motor Vehicles Rules. It is further contended that the 1st respondent auto has seating capacity of three passengers only, but more than seven persons were traveling at the time of accident and that it is a clear violation and that the driver of the auto has no driving licence. The 2nd respondent got issued a legal notice to the 7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 4

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

respondents 1 and 3 to furnish driving licence if any of the driver of the auto, but the 1st respondent-owner returned with an endorsement ‘not claimed’ and the 3rd respondent-driver received the said notice and kept quiet without furnishing any driving licence, thus the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and MV Act and Rules prescribed in this regard and under these circumstances, the 2nd respondent has no liability whatsoever and that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and sought for dismissal of the petition.

05. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed.

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper lorry bearing No. AP 07 Y 4905?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount against whom?

3. To what relief?

06. On behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to

A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs. B1 to B6 were marked.

07. The 2nd respondent filed a petition u/s 170(b) of MV Act to contest on all or any of the defences that all available to the 1st respondent and the same is allowed on 8-6-16.

08. Heard arguments on both sides. The 2nd respondent filed written arguments.

09.Issue No.1:-

The contention of the petitioners is that on 9-2-2008 the deceased

Anusha and two others were boarded the auto bearing No. AP 07Y 4905 7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 5

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

from Gurazala to Rentachintala at about 3-45 p.m. and the auto reached near HP Gas Godown, Rentachintala at that time the driver of the auto drove the auto in high speed in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and drove the auto in a zig zag manner, as a result of which the accident the deceased Anusha fell down and received grievous injuries to the head and other multiple injuries all over the body and after the accident she was shifted to Government General Hospital, Gurazala, there the doctors declared that she was already died and that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 7Y 4905. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the insurer and 3rd respondent is the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 07Y 4905.

10.To prove the bonafides, the 1st petitioner himself was examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Exs A1 to A5 on his behalf. His evidence is nothing but replica of the averments of his petition. In the cross examination,

P.W.1 stated that by the time of the accident, his deceased daughter

Anusha was studying 9th class. He further stated that previously he filed

OP No. 453/2009 seeking compensation for the death of his deceased

daughter Anusha and the said petition was dismissed for default.

11. Being this petition is filed under Sec. 163-A of MV Act, involvement of offending vehicle in the accident is sufficient to grant compensation to the petitioner. In this regard, this court is relying upon the following observations:

1. 2014 SAR (Civil) 326 in between United India Insurance company Limited vs. Sunil Kumar and another wherein their

Lordships observed that :

Liability to make compensation u/s 163-A of Motor 7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 6

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

Vehicles Act is on no fault and therefore the question as to who is at fault is immaterial and foreign to an enquiry u/s 163-A. If the owner of vehicle or the Insurance company is permitted to prove contributory negligence or default or wrongful act on the part of the victim or claimant, naturally

it would defeat the very object and purpose of section 163-

A of the Act. Legislature never wanted the claimant to plead or establish negligence on the part of the owner or the driver- Once it is established that death or permanent disablement occurred during the course of user of vehicle and the vehicle is insured the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be shall be liable to pay the compensation, which is statutory obligation.

2. 2004 (1) ALD (SC)in between Managing Director, Bangalore

Metropolitan Tpt. Corporation Vs. Sarojamma and another in which their Lordships observed that

“Claimant need not establish any act of negligence on

part of driver u/s 163-A and he need not even plead

that death had occurred owning to any wrongful act or

neglect or default of owner of vehicle.”

3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, represented

by its Branch manager Vs. Gande Manohar and others reported in

2014(1) ALT 637 that :

“In a claim petition u/s 163-A, petition is maintainable even

if there is negligence on the part of victim. There is no need of its

proof or plea. Proof of accident sufficient. Claim need not plead

and prove negligence of the other side and no fault of the victim.

When contributory negligence is pleaded and proved, Claimants

entitled to compensation under structured formula without any

reduction whatever may be the apportionment to pay the said

sum as between two vehicles involved in the accident.”

7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 7

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

12.The contention of the 2nd respondent is that the seating capacity of the auto is only 4 i.e., three passengers and driver only and as the auto is over crowded, the deceased might have fallen, having lost control and that the deceased Anusha and others boarded the auto in violation of the Motor Vehicles Rules and that the 1st respondent auto has seating capacity of three passengers only, but more than seven persons were traveling at the time of accident and that it is a clear violation and that the driver of the auto has no driving licence and that the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and MV Act and Rules prescribed in this regard and under these circumstances, the 2nd respondent has no liability whatsoever and that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners is highly.

13. To prove their bonafides, the 2nd respondent company examined its

Assistant Manager as RW1. He stated in his evidence that the driver of the auto namely Kambampati Mariya Babu i.e., the 3rd respondent has no driving licence and it is clear that the 1st respondent knowingly entrusted the auto to a person who has no driving licence and violated the terms and conditions of the policy, MV Act and Rules. In the cross examination, he stated that by the time of the accident, the insurance policy is in force to the crime vehicle and that previously the petitioners filed a claim application and it was dismissed for default and their company has not paid any compensation to the petitioners. R.W.1 denied the suggestion that the 3rd respondent has driving licence by the time of the accident, in order to escape from their liability he is deposing falsehood to that extent and as such they are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

14.On perusal of the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs. B3 to B5, Ex.A5-MVI report, the driver of the 1st respondent i.e., the 3rd respondent has no driving licence to drive the auto at the time of the accident, as such the 7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 8

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and in fact the 2nd respondent need not pay any compensation to the petitioner. But, the liability of the 2nd respondent cannot be completely exonerated, as per the decisions of our Hon’ble Apex Court and High Court and as such the 2nd respondent is directed to pay compensation at first instance and can recover the same from the 1st and 3rd respondents subsequently in the self same proceedings but not by way of separate suit. This court is relying upon the following dictums on the aspect of pay and recovery.

1. 2004 ACJ 1 National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran

Singh and others wherein their Lordships held that : “Motor Vehicles Act is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by way of compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles and Provisions of the Act have to be interpreted so as to effectuate this object. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defenses available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties.”

2. 2004 (2) ALD 775 in between United India Insurance Company limited Vs. Tam Tam Venkata Reddy and anotherwherein their Lordships held that :

“Insurance company cannot avoid its liability to pay

compensation for the injuries or death sustained by

third parties on the ground that the driver of the

vehicle has violated the terms of the policy. It has to

pay compensation first and then proceed against

owner or driver to recover the compensation paid. “

3. National Insurance company Limited Vs. Jayshri and others reported in 2015 ACJ 1602 wherein their Lordships observed that “Motor insurance – Policy – Breach of – Liability of insurance company – Tribunal found that driver was not holding a valid license at the time of accident, but holding that breach of policy not being fundamental in nature directed the insurance company to pay and recover and tribunal has jurisdiction to issue a direction 7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 9

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

to the insurance company to first pay the compensation amount and then recover it from the owner when finds that insurance company is not liable

on account of breach of terms of the policy.”

4. Divisional Manager,New India Assurance Company

Limited Vs. Periyapaapa (deceased) by L.Rs. And others 2015

ACJ 1594 wherein their Lordships observed that “Tribunal found that driver of offender tractor-trailer had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and directed insurance company to pay awarded amount and recover the same from the insured - Held that once the insured is found to have committed a breach of policy insurance company could not be exonerated in entirety from payment of compensation to third party victim”.

5. New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Turubilli Bharati and others reported in 2015 ACJ 1715 wherein their Lordships observed that “The tribunal found that driver was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident but holding that insurance company failed to prove that owner deliberately committed the breach and the said breach was so fundamental that it contributed the accident fastened liability on the insurance company and it was held that Insurance company directed to satisfy the

award and then recover the amount from the owner”

6. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Limited Vs. Sangita and others reported in 2015 ACJ 1508 wherein their Lordships observed that “Tribunal found that driver of offending vehicle was not possessing a valid license at the time of accident but directing the insurance company to pay and recover - contention that Tribunal after having found that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation cannot direct the insurance company to satisfy the claim and then recover the same from the insured an only

Apex court can do in exercise of its extraordinary 7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 10

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution –

Whether Tribunal is vested with power to direct the insurance company to first pay the compensation and thereafter recover the same form the insured -Held yes; however the same has to be exercised only when the fact and circumstances of the case justify it. “

15. As per Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet it clearly shows that there is involvement of offending vehicle i.e., auto bearing No. AP 07 Y 4905 in the said accident and the 1st and 3rd respondents have not denied the occurrence of the accident. Hence, 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation at first instance and can recover the same from the 1st and 3rd respondents subsequently in the self same proceedings but not by way of separate suit. Accordingly, the 1st issue is answered in favour of the petitioners.

16. The counsel for the 2nd respondent filed the following citations long with written arguments:

1. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Vs. Gujjala Ramulama and others in MA CMA 624 of 2009 decided on 19-1-2015 relied on the

Judgment reported in 2014 ACJ 526 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in Puttamma Case.

2.In K. Satyanarayana Vs. Vijayalaxmi and another reported in 2010 (1) ALD 357.

These observations are not applicable to the case on hand as the facts and circumstances narrated in the said case are quite different to this case. Hence, this court is not considering the decisions submitted by the 2nd respondent.

17. Issue No.2:-

P.W.1 stated in his evidence that the deceased Anusha is aged about 14 years and was hale and healthy and she was studying 9th class 7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 11

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

by the time of the accident. Hence, this court is considering the income of the deceased Anusha is at Rs.30,000/- per month, as per the observations of their Lordships in Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others reported in 2013 ACJ 2594 in which their Lordships overruled the observations made in Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar case, in view of the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994 onwards, the notional income of the non-earning member as

Rs.15,000/- was fixed prior to 1994. Hence, their Lordships observed in it the notional income of non-earning member is of Rs.30,000/-.

Hence, this court is fixing Rs. 30,000/- as notional income of the deceased Anusha of the age group in between 10 to 15 years. The deceased Anuhsa was aged about 14 years by the time of accident as per

Ex.A3 postmortem report and Ex.A4 inquest report. Hence, the relevant multiplier applicable to the deceased Anusha is “15” as per the II

Schedule of the MV Act. Hence, the calculation comes to Rs.30,000/- x 15 = Rs.4,50,000/- and the said is awarded. Apart from that this court is also granting an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioners i.e.,

Rs.1,00,000/- to each petitioner towards the loss of love and affection as per the observations of our Hon’ble Apex Court in a case between

Kaladevi and others Vs., Bhagawandas Chauhan and others

reported in 2014 ACJ 2875 (SC) wherein their Lordships awarded amount towards love and affection by following the guide lines laid down in Jiju Korivila and others Vs., Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2013 Law Suit (SC) 527 (DB). The same versions were observed by their Lordships in the following dictums.

1. In Neeta and others Vs., DM, Maharashtra S.R.T.C. reported in 2015 ACJ 598

2. In Ashaverman and others Vs., Maharaj Singh reported in 2015 ACJ 1286 (SC)

3. In Kanhsingh & Anr Vs., Tukaram & Ors. reported in 2015 STPL(Web) 34 SC 7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 12

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

4. In Kalpanaraj and others Vs., T.N.S.R.T.C. Civ.Appeal 3461/ 2003, (DB) dt.22-4-2014

5. In M. Mansoor and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54

Apart from that this court is also granting an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards parents pain and suffering as per the observations of Their

Lordships in Kumari Kiran Vs., Sajjan Singh reported in 2015(1)ALD 105 (SC). In toto, the petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the respondents because no one can recoup the loss that was sustained by the parents of the deceased, granting of compensation is noting but solace and console the petitioners. This Tribunal is relying upon the following dictums while award compensation more than claim by the petitioners:

1. In General Manager, APSRTC, Hyd Vs., Chunchu Srinivasarao & another reported in 2014(1)ALD 252 wherein their Lordships held that

“Once such amount is determined, it should be

granted, even if the same is higher than the claim made.”

2. In Tatha Sreevani & Others Vs., D. Vijaya Kumar reported in 2014 ACJ 516 wherein their Lordships held that

“Awarding compensation more than claimed – the

only restriction being that amount awarded should be just and reasonable, It is not true to suggest that should be neither be arbitrary nor unjustifiable.”

3. In Sano Banu Nazir Bhai Mirza & others Vs., Ahmadabad

Municipal transport Service reported in IV(2013)ACC 825 (SC) wherein their Lordships held that 7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 13

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

“More than what was claimed granted to the L.Rs. Of

the deceased to mitigate their hardship and agony.”

4. In Fathima begum & others Vs., Sangamesh Chidri & another reported in 2012(5) ALD 125 wherein their Lordships held that

“Court is not supposed to restrict compensation to

claim made in claim petition, even though it exceeds

claim actually made in claim petition.”

5. In Ibrahim Vs., Raju and others reported in 2011ACJ 2845 (DB)

Wherein their Lordships held that

“Compensation more than claimed can be awarded.”.

6. In Sr. D.M., New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Hyderabad Vs., Surya

Pratap Singh and others reported in 2010(6)ALD 586 wherein their

Lordships held that

“Court can grant compensation over and above

actually amount claimed.”

18. P.W.1 stated in his cross examination that previously he filed OP bearing No. 453/2009 seeking compensation for the death of his daughter and the same as dismissed for default. R.W.1, who is the Assistant

Manager of the 2nd respondent company stated in his cross examination that previously the petitioners filed a claim application and it was dismissed for default and their company has not paid any compensation to the petitioners. Being it is a Social Welfare Legislation, as the petitioners so far could not get compensation from the respondents, there is no bar to get compensation from the respondents to the petitioners as no limitation period is prescribed for granting compensation under MV

Act.

19. This Tribunal is also relying upon the following dictums while 7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 14

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

awarding the above said compensation:

1. B. Sivaleela Vs. National Insurance Company Limited in

MACMA No.181/2005 on the file of High court of Judicature of Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabadtheir Lordships observed that:

“ In a case involving loss of limb or its permanent inability or impairment, it is difficult to say with precise certainly as to what composition would be adequate to

sufferer. The reason is that the loss of a human limb or

its permanent impairment cannot be measured or converted in terms of money. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives due to sudden demise.

Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and

neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient.

There can be no exact uniform rule in measuring the value of the human life or limb or the sufferance and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at, by precise mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. The assessment of damages has never been exact science and it is essentially practicable. To compensate in money for pain and for consequences is invariably difficult without some guess work, some kind of hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with obstructive standard. Thus, in most of the case involving Motor

Accidents by looking at the totality of the circumstances, an inference may have to be drawn and a guess work has to be made even regarding compensation in case of death, for loss of dependent and estate to all claimants, care, guidance, love and affection especially of the minor children, consortium to the spouse, expenditure incurred in transport and funerals, etc. and in case of injured from the nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings, particularly for any disability and also probable expenditure that has to be incurred from nature of 7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 15

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

injuries and nature of treatment required. ”

The same principle was reiterated by their lordships in MACMA 1474/2011

dated 3-01-2014 so also in MACMA 604/2012 dated 4-01-2014 by the

Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

2. In Ramachandrappa Vs., Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance

Co., Ltd reported in 2011(6)ALD 75 (SC) wherein their Lordships held that “Tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount of compensation which

should appear to be just and fair and proper.”

3. In Sr. D.M., New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Hyderabad Vs., Surya

Pratap Singh and others reported in 2010(6)ALD 586 wherein their

Lordships held that

“ Even though no amount of compensation has

been specifically claimed in Sec.166 by claimants,

it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to grant

compensation, which is just and reasonable. .”

4. In National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs., Manjula Ben Batuk bai magatpara & Ors reported in 2015STPL (web) 640 Gujarathwherein their Lordships held that

“Just & reasonable compensation should be

awarded.”

5. 2012 (5) ALD 125 in between Fatima Begum and others Vs.

Sangamesh Chidri and another wherein it was held that :

“Quantum of the compensation must be just and reasonable irrespective of the claim made by the claimant. The court is not supposed to restrict the compensation to the claim made in claim petition, even though it exceeds the claim actually made in claim petition.

5. 2012 (5) ALD 125 in between Fatima Begum and others Vs.

Sangamesh Chidri and another wherein it was held that :

7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 16

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

“Quantum of the compensation must be just and reasonable irrespective of the claim made by the claimant. The court is not supposed to restrict the compensation to the claim made in claim petition, even though it exceeds the claim actually made in claim petition.

6. 2011 (2) ALD 763 in between K. Raghu Babu Vs. C. Veera

Sekhar and others wherein it was held that :

“Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is a beneficial legislation,

Tribunals while dealing with applications filed by injured or dependents of deceased in motor accident, should adopt a pragmatic approach, depending upon facts and circumstances and evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, in each case, while granting compensation, Tribunals are expected to award “just compensation”.

7. The Motor Vehicles Act is a Benevolent Legislation. While interpreting the provisions of the Benevolent Act, where two views are possible, the view favourable to the persons for whose benefit, the Act is enacted has to be taken into consideration to achieve the real object. The ratio was laid down by their lordships which is reported in 2015 ACJ

2232 in between K.Vara Lakshmi and others Vs. United India

Insurance Company Limited.

8. 2004 ACJ 1 in between National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Swaran Singh and others wherein their Lordships held that :

“ Interpretation of Statues. Act is a social welfare

legislation to extend relief by way of compensation to

victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles.

Provisions of the Act have to be interpreted so as to

effectuate this object.” APPORTIONMENT:

20. The total compensation amount of Rs.7,00,000/- is awarded to the 2nd petitioner being the mother of the deceased Dareddy Anusha because she is having two more daughters and to meet their marriage 7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 17

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

expenses. No amount is awarded to the 1st petitioner.

21.Issue No.3:

In the result, this petition is allowed with costs for Rs.7,00,000/- against the respondents with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition i.e., 23-4-2015, till the date of realization subject to the payment of DCF within 15 days.

1. The total compensation amount of Rs.7,00,000/- is awarded to the 2nd petitioner being the mother of the deceased Dareddy Anusha because she is having two more daughters and to meet their marriage expenses. No amount is awarded to the 1st petitioner.

2. The 2nd respondent is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount Rs.7,00,000/-along with costs and interest thereon as stated above within one month from the date of this award and can recover the same from the respondents 1 and 3 in the self same proceedings but not by way of separate suit,

3. On deposit of the said amount, the 2nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.3,50,000/- with costs and interest as stated above forthwith and her remaining compensation amount of Rs.3,50,000/- shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of three years in any nationalized bank.

4. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, this the 7th day of November, 2016.

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW1- Dareddy Venkata Reddy. RW1 – PGSJD Prasada Rao.

7-11-16 MVOP 671-2015 18

IV ADJC, GUNTUR

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1:9-2-2009: C.C. of FIR in Cr.No.12/2009 of Rentachintala PS.

Ex.A.2: 18-6-2009: C.C. of charge sheet in CC No. 97/2009 on the file of II AJCJ, Gurazala.

Ex.A.3: 10-2-2009: C.C. of postmortem report.

Ex.A.4: 13-2-2009: C.C. of inquest report.

Ex.A.5: 13-2-2009: C.C. of MVI Report.

For Respondents:

Ex.B.1:-- : Served copy of petition in MVOP 453/2009 along with summons of IIADJ Court, Guntur.

Ex.B.2:12-7-2011: C.C. of order dt. 12-7-201 in MVOP 429/2009 of XADJ Court, Narasaraopet.

Ex.B.3:19-5-2008: Copy of policy.

Ex.B.4:24-2-2011: Office copy of registered notice.

Ex.B.5:-- : Returned postal cover of R1.

Ex.B.6:25-2-2011: Postal acknowledgment of R3.

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: GUNTUR

PRESENT: JUNAID AHMED MOULANA. III Addl.District Judge, Guntur.

Tuesday, this the 14th day of June, 2016.

APPEAL SUIT No.138/2012.

Between:

1. Ratala Rosamma, w/o.Venkaiah, Hindu, aged about 60 years, Senior Citizen, R/o.Vennadevi village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Singamsetty Nagamalleswari, W/o.late Narasimharao, Hindu, attender in Endowments, aged about 35 years, permanent resident of Prathipadu, but temporarily residing at Guntur, because of job. …. Appellants/Plaintiffs.

And

1. Singamsetty Rattaiah, S/o.late Nagendram, Hindu, aged about 33 years, money lender, resident of Door No.10-34, Near old post office, Prathipadu, Guntur District.

2. Billa Yedu Kondalu, S/o.Paramewara Rao, Hindu, aged about 36 years, private employee, resident of behind maszid, Prathipadu, Guntur District. … Respondents / Defendants.

On appeal filed against the decree and judgment dated

11.04.2012, passed in O.S.No.377/2010, on the file of III

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Between:

1. Ratala Rosamma.

2. Singamsetty Nagamalleswari. …. Plaintiffs.

And

1. Singamsetty Rattaiah.

2. Billa Yedukondalu. … Defendants.

This appeal is coming on 09.06.2016 before me in the presence of Sri J.Ranga Raju, Advocate for Appellants/ plaintiffs, and of Sri B.Ramakotireddy, Advocate for respondents/ defendants, and upon perusing the entire material papers on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal is preferred by the appellants, the unsuccessful plaintiffs, in O.S.No.377/2010, against decree and judgment made therein, dismissing the suit filed for declaration of 2 title and recovery of possession of suit property, and for permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering with possession of suit property.

2.The appellants herein are the plaintiffs, and the respondents are defendants before court below, and they will be hereinafter referred as per their positions in the suit for the sake of convenience.

3.The facts and circumstances that lead to filing of this appeal in brief are:

The plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.377/2010, before court below contending, suit schedule property originally belongs to

Singamsetty Veeramma, Singamsetty Venkayamma, Singamsetty

Rosaiah and Singamsetty Narasimharao, and they executed registered gift deed in favour of plaintiff No.1, on 20.4.1989, and delivered possession of suit property, and subsequently plaintiff

No.1, resided with her husband at Vennadevi village, and has been going over to the village of Prathipadu on occasions and asserted possession and title over suit property.

Further, the contention of plaintiffs is, plaintiff No.2, married Singamsetty Narasimharao in 1991, and in her marriage suit property was given as pasupukunkuma, by plaintiff No.1, and thereafter plaintiff No.2, and her husband were in possession and enjoyment of suit property, and the husband of plaintiff No.2, died in the year 2002, and subsequent to it defendant No.1, started making efforts to somehow to grab suit property, as plaintiffs, stayed away from suit property, and as plaintiff No.2, was given appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her 3 husband, and was staying at Guntur, and plaintiff No.1, was staying at Vennadevi, and taking advantage of it, defendant No.1, tried to grab suit property by making permanent constructions over it, and in this regard plaintiff No.1, sent elders and mediators, to advise defendant No.1, not to grab suit property, and on the contrary, defendant No.2, helped defendant No.1, and thereby attempted to forcibly take possession of suit property, and defendants are powerful people having brutal force, besides political support, and the plaintiffs unable to prevent the acts of defendants constrained to file the suit, for declaration of title, and consequential recovery of possession and injunction.

4.Defendant No.1, filed written statement resiting the suit of plaintiff, wherein refuted all the material allegations made in the plaint, and interalia it is the contention of defendant No.1, that his father, and father of plaintiff No.1, are brothers and they inherited properties from their father, and a oral partition took place between his father and father of plaintiff No.1, in which south-east corner portion of property, fell to the share of father of plaintiff

No.1, and north-east corner portion of property fell to share of his father, and subsequently, father of plaintiff No.1, sold the property fell towards his share in partition to one Kondaveeti Dharmarao, in the year 1978, under registered sale deed.

Further, the contention of defendant No.1, is after partition, the north-east corner portion of property, was in possession and enjoyment of his father, and suit property, is part and parcel of the property fell to the share of his father, and after the demise of his father, he came into possession and enjoyment 4 of suit property, and paid property tax to panchayat Prathipadu, and relevant receipts were issued in his favour.

And further, the contention of defendant No.1, is after selling away his share of property, the father of plaintiff No.1, migrated to another house purchased by him, and 1978 onwards, the father of plaintiff No.1 and his family members, never came to suit property at any point of time, and with a view to grab suit property, the plaintiffs with the assistance of S.Roasaiah, the brother of plaintiff No.1, fabricated gift deed dated 20.4.1989, and laying claim over suit property.

And further, it is the contention of defendant No.1, suit property is used as a cattle shed and subsequently, constructed a

RCC building, and residing therein, thus, the plaintiffs have no right, title and possession over suit property, prayed to dismiss the same.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the court below framed the following issues:

1.Whether the plaintiffs are having title over the plaint schedule property ?

2.Whether the plaintiffs are having possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

3.Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are having declaration of title and possession of plaint schedule property as prayed for?

5

5.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

6To what relief.

6.During the course of trial, plaintiff No.1 and No.2, were examined as PWs.1 and PW.2, and filed Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.3, and examined PW.3/ Singamsetty Rosaiah and PW.4/ N.Koteswararao.

7.The defendant No.1, in support of his defence, examined himself as DW.1, and filed Exs.B1 to Ex.B8.

8.On hearing both parties, and upon perusing the material available on record, oral and documentary evidence, the court below dismissed the suit of plaintiffs, and the same is under challenge in this appeal on the following and other grounds:

1. The judgment of court below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2.The court below erred on the issue of fact, recording evidence of plaintiffs, who has not admitted the partition and was only a suggestion and on that court below came to conclusion in dismissing the suit.

3.The court below erred in not going through the evidence of PWs.2 to 4,

4.The court below erred in respect of burden of proof, when plaintiffs discharged their burden, and there is no cogent evidence put forth by defendant No.1.

5.The court below erred in its judgment on issues 1 to 4.

6.The court below erred in its finding in respect of evidence of defendants, who admitted 6

Ex.B2 to Ex.B8, are subsequent to the suit, and have no evidentiary value.

7.The court below erred in its judgment in respect of interpreting the evidence with that of the documents.

For these and among other grounds, prayed to allow the appeal, and to set aside the decree and judgment of court below, and to decree the suit of plaintiffs with costs throughout.

9.Heard both sides.

10.On hearing the rival contentions of plaintiffs and defendant No.1, and upon perusing the material, oral and documentary evidence, including the impugned findings in the judgment of court below, the point arise for consideration is:

Whether the decree and judgment made in

O.S.377/2010, dt.11.04.2012, on the file of III

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, are

sustainable in law?

11.Point: The suit of the plaintiffs filed before court below is, to declare their title to suit property, and also for recovery of possession and consequential injunction to restrain defendants from interfering with their possession.

12.And defendant No.1, opposed the suit of plaintiff, and claim of title over suit property, contending suit property is their ancestral property, and a partition took place between his father and the father of plaintiff No.1, in which, suit property fell towards the share of his father, and the property situated on south-east corner to suit property, fell to the share of father of plaintiff No.1, 7 and he sold the same to one Dharmarao, on 7.4.1978, and without any title the donors of plaintiff No.1, fabricated the gift deed to lay claim over suit property.

13.It is settled proposition of law, in a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession, evidently the burden lies upon plaintiffs to establish title to the property in question, and then only can succeed in a suit of this nature.

14.In the case on hand, plaintiffs in order to prove their title over suit property, examined themselves as PW.1 and PW.2, and filed Exs.A.1/ gift deed, dated 19.4.1988, said to have been executed by Sigamsetty Veeramma, Singamsetty Venkayamma,

Singamsetty Rosaiah and Singamsetty Narasimharao.

15.In this case, admittedly there is no dispute with regard to execution of Ex.A.1/gift deed, in favour of plaintiff No.1, though it was contended by defendant No.1, that Ex.A.1/gift deed, was fabricated to lay claim over suit property, and however, plaintiffs in order to prove the execution of gift deed examined PW.3, one of the executants of Ex.A.1, and donor under it.

16.And as per the evidence of PW.3, on 19.4.1989, along with Singamsetty Veeramma, Singamsetty Venkayamma, and

Singamsetty Narasimharao, executed Ex.A.1, in favour of plaintiff

No.1, gifting suit property, and to the extent of execution of

Ex.A.1/gift deed by PW.3, and the persons above referred there is no controversy in the proceedings, and from the evidence of PW.3, coupled with Ex.A.1/gift deed, it can be safely concluded, plaintiffs are able to prove due execution of Ex.A.1, by PW.3, and

Singamsetty Veeramma, Singamsetty Venkayamma and 8

Singamsetty Narasimharao, and the controversy that lies between the parties to the suit is, whether under Ex.A.1/gift deed, valid title and right was conveyed to plaintiff No.1, in respect of suit property.

17.And going by the material available on record, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of plaintiff No.1, with

PW.3, and Singamsetty Veeramma, Singamsetty Venkayamma and Singamsetty Narasimharao, and all of them are the children of

Singamsetty Kotaiah, and that defendant No.1, is the son of one

Singamsetty Nagendram, and that Singamsetty Kotaiah and

Nagendram are own brothers, and suit property in question is the ancestral property of Singamsetty Kotaiah and Singamsetty

Nagendram.

18.And in the pleadings, as well as in the evidence, plaintiffs 1 and 2, and PW.3, did not demonstrate how PW.3,

Singamsetty Veeramma, Singamsetty Venkayamma and

Singamsetty Narasimharao, acquired right over suit property, and from the tenor of evidence given by PW.3 and PW.4, it can be inferred, they tried to impress that father of plaintiff No.1, and

PW.3, viz., Singamsetty Kotaiah, acquired suit property, and admittedly with regard to acquisition of suit property by

Singamsetty Kotaiah, no documentary evidence and muchless any material was brought on record by plaintiffs in their case, and however, it is the stand of defendant No.1, that suit property is their ancestral property, and in the partition effected in 1970, it fell towards the share of his father Singamsetty Nagendram, and 9 after his demise, he succeeded to suit property and raised a RCC building therein, and is in occupation of the same.

19.The plaintiffs, at first came with a definite case that on 19.4.1989, suit property was gifted to plaintiff No.1, by PW.3,

Singamsetty Veeramma, Singamsetty Venkayamma, and

Singamsetty Narasimharao, and the same was reiterated in their chief examination, and however, during cross-examination of

PW.1/ plaintiff No.1, it came to light from her statement, suit property was gifted to her by Singamsetty Nagendram, the father of defendant No.1, under a registered gift deed and having made this statement, Plaintiff No.1, that suit property was gifted by father of defendant No.1, under a gift deed did not place the alleged gift said to have been executed by Singamsetty

Nagendram in her favour.

20.And further more, plaintiffs having come forward with definite and specific plea and case, that suit property was gifted to plaintiff No.1, under Ex.A.1, and during the course of evidence plaintiff No.1, gave a totally contradictory version to her case, that suit property was gifted by the father of defendant No.1, under a registered gift deed, and this contra evidence of plaintiff No.1, that suit property was gifted to her by the father of defendant No.1,

Singamsetty Nagendram, is taken into account, the entire case of plaintiffs, that suit property was gifted to them under Ex.A.1, falls flat to the ground, though its due execution was proved.

21.And further more, in this case, it is the specific contention of defendant No.1, that suit property was their ancestral property and a division took place in the year 1970, 10 between Singamsetty Kotaiah, the father of plaintiff No.1, and his father Singamsetty Nagendram, and in that division suit property fell towards the share of his father.

22.And this contention of defendant No.1, that suit property is their ancestral property, is not questioned by plaintiffs in his evidence, and further more, the contention of defendant

No.1, is that a division took place between Singamsetty Kotaiah and Singamsetty Nagendram, and in the said division suit property fell to the share of father of defendant No.1, i.e., Singamsetty

Nagendram was conceded by plaintiff No.1, in her evidence, as in her evidence plaintiff No.1, in unequivocal terms admitted that

Singamsetty Kotaiah and Nagemdram partitioned their properties, and in the said partition suit property fell towards the share of father of defendant No.1, and this admission of plaintiff No.1, that there was a division between Singamestty Kotaiah, and

Nagendram, and suit property fell to the share of Nagendram, makes it evidently clear, that the father of plaintiff No.1, viz.,

Singamsetty Kotaiah has no right over suit property, so as to be left behind by him to his children, Singamsetty Veeramma,

Venkayamma, Narasimharao, and PW.3/ Rosaiah.

23.And from the evidence of PW.1/plaintiff No.1, it is manifestly evident that her father Singamsetty Kotaiah has not acquired right over suit property, and in view of this matter, the question of her siblings, Singamsetty Veeramma, Singamsetty

Venkayamma, and Singamsetty Narasimharao, and PW.3/ Rosaiah, gifting their right in suit property, under Ex.A.1, does not arise, as 11 they have no right in suit property to convey the same to her under Ex.A.1.

24.And even otherwise, according to plaintiff No.1, from the date of ExA.1, she is asserting right over suit property, and is in possession of the same, and in this regard also, in proof of her possession over suit property, plaintiff No.1, did not place any material on record to demonstrate that she is actually in possession of suit property, and on this score also the claim of title of plaintiffs, over suit property, is not acceptable.

25.And further more, this suit is filed by plaintiffs for declaration of title, and recovery of possession with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, and from the relief of possession sought by plaintiffs, it is clear they are not in possession of suit property on the date of filing of suit, and this implies suit property is in possession of defendant No.1, as on the date of filing of the suit.

26.And it is the specific case of defendant No.1, after the demise of his father, Singamsetty Nagendram, he succeeded to suit property, and used it as cattle shed, and thereafter raised RCC building and occupying it, and this contention of defendant No.1, was reiterated by him in his evidence, therefore, from the statement of defendant No.1, in his evidence it can be safely inferred and concluded that he constructed a RCC building in suit property, and plaintiffs without seeking a relief of mandatory injunction for removal of RCC building raised by defendant No.1, cannot claim for the declaration of title and recovery of possession 12 of suit property, and on this aspect also the suit of plaintiff is bad and not maintainable.

27.And on appreciating the entire material available on record, in the evidence of P.W.1 to PW.4, and DW.1, this court is of the considered view, defendant No.1, has clinchingly proved that suit property fell towards the share of his father, Singamsetty

Nagendram, in a family partition, that effected between him and

Singamsetty Kotaiah, father of plaintiff No.1, and in view of this matter, the children of Singamsetty Kotaiah, i.e., Singamsetty

Veeramma, Venkayamma, Narasimharao and PW.3/ Rosaiah, have not acquired any right over suit property from their father, so as to convey the same to plaintiff No.1, under Ex.A.1, thus, the gift in

Ex.A.1, has not conferred and conveyed any right over suit property to plaintiff No.1, and the court below seems to have, on appraising the evidence of plaintiffs, and the defendant No.1, has arrived at a right decision, that plaintiffs failed to establish their title over suit property, thus, its decree and judgment are in accordance with law, and needs no interference of this court, hence, the point is answered accordingly, in favour of the defendants, and against the plaintiffs.

28.In the result, appeal is dismissed with costs, confirming the decree and judgment made in O.S.377/2010, dt.11.04.2012, by III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in open court, this the 14th day of June, 2016.

(Sd/-)M.Junaid Ahmed, III Addl District Judge Guntur. Copy to:- 13

The III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. 14 15

IN THE COURT OF SPECIALSESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: G.SRINIVAS, Spl. Sessions Judge-cum-IV Addl.District Judge, Guntur.

Tuesday, the 8th day of November, 2016.

S.C.No.62/S/2015.

Between:

The State: Represented by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gurazala

(Cr.No.78/2014 of Rentachintala PS.) ...Complainant.

And

Munna Rambabu son of Yarraiah, 36 years, Yadava by caste, resident of Jettipalem village.

...Accused.

This case is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Spl. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri M.

Krishna Kishore, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gurazala filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 78/2014 of Rentachintala police station for the offences punishable under Sec. 506 of IPC and under

Sec. 3(i)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act,1989.

02.The case of the prosecution in brief is that the land of L.W.1-

Vadithe Ramdas Naik and accused are located in one and the same locality and residing in the Jettipalem village. Electricity Department erected electrical poles to the fields of L.W.1-Vadithe Ramdas Naik,

L.W.2-Kola Srinivasa Reddy and L.W.4-Gogu Venkateswarlu through the field of the accused for agriculture purpose as they requisitioned to the Electricity Department. The accused refused for the erection of 2 electrical poles in his field and removed poles in his field. On noticing the same, L.W.1-Vadithe Ramdas Naik complained the same to the

A.E., AP Transco, Rentachintala on 1-2-2014 and retuned home. The accused came to know about the complaint against him, grew wild against L.W.1-Vadithe Ramdas Naik, visited the house of L.W.1 at 8- 00 p.m., on 1-2-2014 and abused him in filthy language by touching his caste name intentionally, humiliated him with the public view demanding as to why he complained against him and threatened him with dire consequences. L.W.2-Kola Srinivasa Reddy, L.W.3-Vadithe

Jaggu Naik, L.W.4-Gogu Venkateswarlu, L.W.5-Banavath Balu Naik,

L.W.6-Meravath Bitcha Naik and L.W.7-Vadithe Muthyalamma and other neighbours witnessed the occurrence. On seeing them, the accused left from the house of L.W.1-Vadithe Ramdas Naik. L.W.1-

Vadithe Ramdas Naik filed a complaint in the court which was forwarded to the SHO, Rentachintala under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

It is the further case of the prosecution that on 12-7-2014 at 10- 00 a.m., L.W.9-P. Anil Kumar Reddy, SI of Police received the CFR and registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 78/2014 under Sec. 3 (i)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act,1989 of Rentachintala P.S. and submitted copies of FIR to all the officers concerned. L.W.10-I. Puja, Sub

Divisional Police Officer, who was appointed as Investigation Officer by the Superintendent of Police, Guntur took up investigation, examined as many as 4 witnesses and recorded their statements under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C., inspected the scene of offence under a cover of rough sketch and arrested the accused on 17-9-14 and sent him to judicial remand. L.W.8-Tahsildar issued caste certificates in respect of L.W.1 and the accused opining that L.W.1 hails from ST

Sugali and the accused caste is Yadava and hence the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under Sec. 3 (i)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act,1989. Hence, the charge.

3

03.After taking cognizance for the offence under Sec. 3 (i)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act,1989 against the accused, this case was committed to this Court, by I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala FAC II Addl.

Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala vide PRC 6/2015 and the same was registered and numbered as SC 62/S/5 by this court.

04. On appearance of the accused before this court, charges under

Sec. 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 (i)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act,1989 against accused are framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. As PW.1 has stated that he never lodged any complaint before the police against the accused and he does not know anything about the facts of this case and turned hostile, and P.Ws.2 to 4 stated that they do not know anything about this case and turned hostile, the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other witnesses including Investigating officers.

06. Since there is no incriminating material found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused under

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

07.Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the accused is liable for the charges under Sec. 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 (i)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act,1989?

08.POINT:

P.W.1 stated that he never lodged any complaint against the accused and he does not know anything about this case and he was 4 not examined by the police. P.Ws.2 to 4 stated that they do not know anything about this case and they were not examined by the police.

09.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that a false case was foisted against the accused.

10.There is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused committed any offence as alleged in the charge sheet and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the charges under

Sec. 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 (i)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act,1989.

Hence, the accused is acquitted under Sec.232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The marked and unmarked non-valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after appeal or appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of November, 2016.

Sd/-G.Srinivas,

Spl. Sessions Judge-cum-IV Addl.District Judge, Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For prosecution: For defence:

PW1- xxxxxxxxxxxxx None PW2- xxxxxxxxxxxxx PW3- xxxxxxxxxxxxx PW4- xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:

Ex.P1-13-7-2014: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P2-13-7-2014: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P3-3-8-2014: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P4-3-8-2014: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

5

For defence: NIL Material objects Marked -Nil-

Sd/-G.Srinivas,

Spl. Sessions Judge-cum-IV Addl.District Judge, Guntur.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989: GUNTUR

1.Name of the CaseSessions Case No.SC 62/S/15

2. Name of the committing I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

MagistrateGurazala FAC

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala vide PRC 6/2015.

3. Name of the complainant The State: Represented by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Officer, Gurazala. (Cr.No.78/14 of Rentachintala PS.)

4. Name of the Accused Munna Rambabu son of Yarraiah, 36 years, Yadava by caste, resident of Jettipalem village.

5.Date of 8-10-2015

i) Filing ii)Apprehension of Accused 26-11-2015 (Appearance before sessions court) iii)Commencement of trial4-11-2016 iv)Closure of trial4-11-2016

v)Pronouncement of 8-11-2016 Judgment 6.Offence(s)Under Sec. 506 of IPC and Sec. 3(i)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act. 7.Plea of AccusedNot Guilty 8.Finding of the CourtNot Guilty

9. Sentence or order: In the result, accused is found not guilty of the charges under Sec. 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 (i)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act,1989. Hence, the accused is acquitted under Sec.232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The marked and unmarked non-valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after appeal or appeal time.

10.Explanation for Delay: This case was committed to this Court, by I Additional Junior Civil

Judge, FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala vide PRC 6/2015 and the

same was registered as SC 62/S/15 by this court on 8-10-2015. Accused was appeared before this court on 26-11-2015. Accused was examined and charges were framed on 11-1-2016. On 4-11-16, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs. P1 to P4 were marked and on the same day, prosecution evidence is closed and posted to 8-11-16 for 313 Cr.P.C examination. Since there is no incriminating material in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, examination of the accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with and arguments heard and judgment pronounced on the same day i.e., 8-11-2016. Hence the delay. Sd.G.Srinivas Special Sessions Judge-Cum- Copies to: IV Addl.District Judge, Guntur.

1.The Registrar(Judl.), Hon’ble High Court of A.P, Hyderabad. 2.The Sessions Judge, Guntur. 3.The Collector and Dist. Magistrate. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural. 5.The II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. 6.The Director of Prosecutions, DGP Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 7.The Spl.PP, IV ADJ Court, Guntur.

7

Case Historyhttp://172.17.58.2/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.php...

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :III Addl. District and Sessions Judge

Case No. :MVOP/0001121/2011 Vakkalagadda Punnarao and another Vs Shaik Bazi and 2 Others

Date : 05-08-2016

Business: In the result, this petition is allowed with costs for Rs.4,50,000/- against the respondents with interest thereon at 6 percent p.a from the date of petition i.e, 21-6-2011 till the date of realisation. \ 1. As the 2nd petitioner died during the pendency of the petition, the entire compensation amount of Rs.4,50,000/- with costs of the petition and interest on entire claim as above is awarded to the 1 petitioner being the father of the deceased Vakkalagadda Pulla Rao. \ 2. The 2nd respondents directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.4,50,000/- at the first instance and can recover the same from the respondents 1,3,4, and 5 subsequently in the self same proceedings but not by way of separate proceedings. \ 3. On deposit of the said amount, the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw his entire compensation amount of Rs,4,50,000/- with costs and interest as stated above forthwith. \ 4. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Nature of Disposal: ALLOWED Disposal Date: 05-08-2016 III Addl. District and Sessions Judge 1 of 1Monday 02 June 2025 05:08 PM