Sri.Gannarapu Sudershan

MVOP No.884 of 2012

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM- SPECIAL

SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT

–CUM- VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE : RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Present: SRI. G. SUDARSHAN

Chairman, M.A.C.T. -cum- Spl.Judge for SC/ST(POA) Act -cum- VII Addl. District Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

WEDNESDAY, ON THIS THE 25 th DAY OF APRIL, 2019.

M.V.O.P. No. 884 of 2012

Between:

Gundevar Balaji, S/o.G.Babu Gonda, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Lorry Owner, R/o.H.No.4-7-155/39/2/6, Pandu Ranga nagar, Attapur, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

... Petitioner.

A N D

1.Geetha A, D/o. S.Anbalagan, aged: Major, Occ: Business, R/o. Gowdapur, Tandur, near Petrol pump, R R District – 501 141.

2.The Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company, Rep by its Brnach Office, 6-3-1093, V Floor, V.Vs Vintage Boulevard, Rajbhavan Road, Somjiguda, Hyderabad – 502 082.

(Policy No.3380/00334520/000/01 valid from 23.01.2011 to 22.01.2012)

3.The Baaja Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Rep bu its Sr. Manager (T.P. Claims) Office at IV Floor, Sreeman Rama Towers, Opp: Kalanikethan, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

(Policy No.OG-11-1827-1803-00000451 valid from 20.01.2011 to 19.01.2012)

....Respondents.

This petition came up for hearing in the presence of M/s.S.Srinivas

Chandika, Advocate for the petitioner and M/s. A.Rama Krishna Reddy,

Advocate for Respondent No.2, M/s.P.Raghupathi, Advocate for

Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.1 set exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

Apr, 251/12 MACT-VII ADJ

MVOP No.884 of 2012

O R D E R

This petition is filed U/Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rule 475/1 of A.P.M.V Rule 1989 R/w. Section 140 of M.V. Act, 1989 claiming compensation (special general damage) of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with costs and interest @ 18% on account of damages to the lorry of the petitioner bearing No.AP 12 U 8035 in the Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 01.01.2012. The petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing

No.AP 12 U 8035. The Respondent No.1 is owner of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 28X 4370, Respondent No.2 is the insurer of crime vehicle and Respondent No.3 is the insurer of petitioner ‘s vehicles.

2. Brief averments of the petition are that: On 02.01.2012 the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 12 U 8035 was coming with a truck full load of onions from Yadagiri to Hyderabad and when he reached Shapur gate his tyre deflated due to puncture and the driver stopped his vehicle and parked it to the left side of the road and switched on parking lights and started to change the tyre, meanwhile the driver of the concrete mixer lorry bearing No.AP 28X 4370 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the lorry from behind causing the stationed vehicle to move forward and in the ensuring incident the driver of the lorry received bleeding injuries as he was dragged along with the lorry and the lorry was completely damaged.

On receipt of complaint, the Police Moinabad registered the case in Cr.No.3 of 2012 against the driver of the crime vehicle I..e, concrete mixer lorry bearing No.AP 28 X 4370 U/Sec. 338 IPC and investigated into.

Apr, 252/12 MACT-VII ADJ

MVOP No.884 of 2012

The petitioner brought the damaged six wheeler vehicle

No.AP 12U 8035 to Baba Allauddin Mechanical workshop from the place of accident after conducting panchanama and for bringing the vehicle, the petitioner incurred an expenditure of rs.10,000/-. The petitioner got it estimated the damages by the Mechanic and Insurance Surveyor and loss assessor at the spot of accident and the cost of estimated spare parts is Rs.2,00,000/- apart from labour and mechanic charges. Further submits that because of the accident the petitioner incurred heavy loss of Rs.1,80,000/- . Apart from repair, the vehicle will not came to the fit condition as such it is a totally damaged. Due to sudden accident, the petitioner also suffered mental agony, beside financial loss. The petitioner had purchased the said vehicle from one Mohd. Raj S/o. Mohd.

Mahmood Miyan through agreement. Since the accident took place due to the fault of driver of crime lorry bearing No.AP 28 X 4370 belongs to the Respondent No.1, the petitioner is claiming compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/-with costs and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization.

3.The Respondent No.1 was set exparte. The Respondent Nos.

2 and 3 filed their counters.

4.The brief averments of the counter filed by the Respondent

No.2 are that the Respondent No.2 denied the allegation in regard to the mode and manner of accident. The Respondent specifically denied the manner of accident and the petitioner is put to strict proof of allegations. Further contended that the accident occurred due to the

Apr, 253/12 MACT-VII ADJ

MVOP No.884 of 2012 sole negligence on the part of the driver of Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing

No.AP 12 U 8035 who parked his vehicle on the middle of the road in a rash and negligent manner, without following M.V. Rules contributed for the cause of accident, as such the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is contended that no damages were sustained to the lorry bearing No.AP 12 U 8038 but no claim compensation, estimated the huge loss and all the documents were created for the purpose of this case and denied the said estimation bill. However the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same and no surveyor was appointed and assessed the loss and no opportunity was given and nor intimated to this respondent company for assessing the loss. In the absence of any assessment by a licensed surveyor, the claim is not permissible and this insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Further contended that the make of lorry is 2006 and almost runs over 6 years and more than 3,00,000 kilometer subject for sever depreciation as wear and tear, as such it is not liable to pay any compensation and seeks protection under Section 147, 149(2) and 170 of the MV Act. It is contended that compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5.The Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the allegation in regard to the mode and manner of accident. It admitted that the interest of Mohd. Raj in vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 12 U 8035 was covered at the material time under the policy of insurance issued by this respondent subject to terms, conditions, exception and limitations thereof and the confirmation of the compliance of Section 64VB of the

Apr, 254/12 MACT-VII ADJ

MVOP No.884 of 2012

Insurance Act, 1938 and there is no insurance policy issued by the respondent No.3 in the name of G.Balaji and as such the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Further contended that the driver of the lorry vehicle bearing No.AP 12 U 8035 was not holding any driving license at the time of accident and thereby contravened the provisions of motor vehicle Act, 1988 and corresponding Motor vehicles Rules. The petitioner knowingly and willfully handed over the possession of the said vehicle to the said driver who was not possessing a valid driving license and thereby contravened the provisions of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and corresponding Motor

Vehicles Rules. Further contended that the lorry bearing No.AP 12 U 8035 is insured with respondent No.3 in the name of Mohd Raj and it was sold to the petitioner by Mohd. Raj on 08.08.2011 and the petitioner has purchased the same and got the registration of the vehicle transferred in his name, but the policy was not transferred in the name of the petitioner and after the alleged accident a claim for own damages has been filed by petitioner which was registered with the respondent No.3 and the same claim was repudiated on the ground of No insurable interest and again the petitioner has filed this petition for third party property damages, but the same is not liable to be paid by this respondent and this petition is liable to be dismissed against the respondent company as the vehicle bearing No.AP 124U 8035 is not a third party property.

6.The respondent No.3 further contended that the alleged accident happened due to the sole of the vehicle of the respondent No.1 i.e., Concrete Mixer Lorry bearing No. AP 28 X 4370 and they are the only

Apr, 255/12 MACT-VII ADJ

MVOP No.884 of 2012 necessary parties to this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed as against this respondent company No3 on the ground of misjoinder of parties. Further contended that compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:-

i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Concrete Mixer Lorry bearing No.AP 28X 4370?

ii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, from whom and what just amount?

iii) To what relief?

8. In order to prove the claim, PW1 and PW2 are examined and

Exs. A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. Ex.A1 is C.C of FIR and Complaint, Ex.A2 is C.C. of final report dated 29.2.2012, Ex.A3 is CC of scene of offence dated 02.01.2012, Ex.A4 is photographs of scene of offence, Ex.A5 is estimation of damages of Rs.2,27,610 given by Baba

Allaudddin Mechanical Workshop dt.10.04.2002, Ex.A6 is vehicle receipt and agreement of sale dt.11.08.2011, Ex.A7 is cash bills of Rs.43,890/- for

Spare parts of vehicle andEx.A8 is cash bill of Rs.20,920/- for spare parts of vehicle. On behalf of the Respondent No.3, RW1 is examined and Ex s

B1 to B3 are marked. Ex.B1 is copy of insurance policy, Ex.B2 is claim form submitted by claimant and Ex.B3 is claim form rejected by respondent No.3 company.

9. ISSUE No:1:-

In order toprove the rash and negligent driving of the

Apr, 256/12 MACT-VII ADJ

MVOP No.884 of 2012 crime vehicle bearing No.AP 28 X 4370 the petitioner himself examined as PW1 and he reiterated the petition averments in his chief affidavit.

The evidence of PW1 is supporting by documentary proof Ex.A1 FIR

No.3/2012 registered by the Police Mohinabad and Ex.A2 charge sheet filed before the court. The Investigating officer in the charge sheet observed that on 02.01.2012 when the petitioner lorry back tyre deflated due to puncture, for which they stopped vehicle and parked it to the left side of the road and switched on parking lights and started to change the tyres. In the mean time the driver of the crime vehicle i.e.,

Mixture lorry bearing No.AP 28 X 4370 came from Chevella side towards

Hyderabad in a rash and negligent manner and damaged to the lorry bearing No.AP 12 U 8035 which was stationed beside the road from the back side. In the consequent accident the driver of the lorry who was repairing the lorry received serious bleeding injuries on both legs, left eye and other parts of the body. The petitioner also filed Ex.A4 photographs which are showing that the crime lorry bearing No.AP 28 X 4370 dashed the lorry of the petitioner bearing No.AP 12 U 8035 from back side. Even in the cross-examination of PW1 by the counsel for the respondent No.3 admitted that the accident occurred only due to vehicle of Respondent No.1

10.To support the evidence of PW1 the petitioner also examined PW2 who is a cleaner of lorry bearing No.AP 12 U 8035 and eye witness to the accident. Though respondent No.2 in his counter denied and does not admitted that the mixer lorry bearing No.AP 28 X 4370 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the lorry bearing No.AP 12 U 8035 as alleged by the petitioner in

Apr, 257/12 MACT-VII ADJ

MVOP No.884 of 2012 the claim petition. But respondent No.2 failed to explain how the accident is occurred and how the crime lorry bearing No.AP 28 X 4370 dashed on the back side of the lorry bearing No.AP 12 U 8035. Whereas the respondent No.3 in his counter clearly stated that the alleged accident happened due to the sole of the vehicle of the respondent No.1 i.e., Concrete mixture lorry bearing No.AP 28 X 4370.

11.It is pertinent to note that respondent No.1 who is owner of the crime lorry bearing No.AP 28 X 4370 was set exparte.

12.Thus, the material record placed in this case both oral and documentary clearly establishes that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mixture lorry bearing No.AP 28 X 4370 the accident is occurred. Hence, the issues is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioner.

13.ISSUE No.2:

The petitioner in his petition pleaded that after the accident, the petitioner brought the damaged vehicle bearing No.AP 12 U 8035 to

Baba Allauddin Mechanical Workshop from the place of accident, for bringing the vehicle the petitioner incurred expenditure of Rs.10,000/- and the petitioner has got it estimated.

14.In cross-examination RW2 suggested to the petitioner that the estimation bills filed by him are fabricated, excessive and there is no chance of inspection to damaged vehicle by respondent No.2 company by taking salvage.

15.On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.3 is examined

Apr, 258/12 MACT-VII ADJ

MVOP No.884 of 2012 as RW1 and he deposed that as per the petition averments, as on the date of accident, the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 12 U 8035 is

Mr.Mohd. Raj and this insurance company have not issued any policy to one Gundevar Balaji and no steps have been taken to transfer the policy in the name of the petitioner as required under section 157(1) of MV Act as such there is no privity to contract by this respondent's company to indemnify the owner of the petitioner vehicle. In the cross-examination

RW1 clearly admitted that the insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident.

16.To rebuttal the contention fo the respondent No.2 the petitioner also filed Ex.A6 vehicle receipt under which the owner of the vehicle Mohd. Raj has transferred of his rights to the petitioner.

17.As stated by the respondent the insurance policy is still in the name of Mohd. Raj as per Ex.B1 and the said policy is in force till 19.01.2012 and the respondents are not disputing the alleged accident and damages of the petitioner's vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 12 U 8035.

therefore the petitioner is entitled for compensation from the respondents.

18.So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned it is the evidence of PW1 that he got estimated the spare parts Rs.2 Lakhs apart from labour and mechanical charges and he incurred loss of Rs.1,80,000/- apart from repair. To support his pleading the petitioner also relied on

Ex.A5 estimation of accident vehicle for repair given by one Baba

Allauddin Mechanical Workshop and the total estimation shown as

Rs.2,27,610/- along with that he also field Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 receipts for

Apr, 259/12 MACT-VII ADJ

MVOP No.884 of 2012 purchase of spare parts.

19.The respondents are not disputing the evidence of PW1 regarding the damage caused to the lorry and the loss incurred by the petitioners. Though the petitioner in his evidence claimed that due to the accident he incurred self loss of Rs.1,80,000/- but he did not specifically stated how that amount was calculated by the petitioner.

However due to the damages of the vehicle obviously the petitioner has sustained loss of earnings which the petitioner ought to have earned by transporting the goods or hiring the vehicle. Though in Ex.A5 estimation shown the total amount of Rs.2,27,610/- , but in the evidence PW1 stated that the amount shown in Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 are also included. Therefore by the the evidence on record and considering the documents filed by the petitioner the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:

1.Rs.10,000/- incurred for shifting the vehicle to the mechanical work shop,

2.Rs.2,27,610/- for the labour and mechanical charges including spare parts.

3.Rs.1,00,000/- for loss incurred due to the accident of the vehicle.

20.Thus in all the total compensation comes to Rs.3,37,610/- under all heads along with costs and interest @7% from the date of filing petition till the date of realization.

21.As already held under issue No.1, due to rash and negligent

Apr, 2510/12 MACT-VII ADJ

MVOP No.884 of 2012 driving of the driver of the mixture lorry bearing No.AP 28 X 4370 the accident occurred. Therefore the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation to the petitioner with costs and interest. Therefore this issue is decided accordingly.

22.ISSUE No.3:

In the result, this petition is partly allowed and the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,37,610 /- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Seven

Thousand Six Hundred and Ten only) towards compensation (damages) to the Petitioner along with costs and interest thereon @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing petition till the date of realization. The respondent

Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The entire amount shall be deposited in the Court within thirty days from the date of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the entire amount. Advocate fee is fixed at

Rs.5,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.1, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

the 25 th day of April, 2019.

Chairman, M.A.C.T. -cum- Spl.Judge for SC/ST(POA) Act -cum- VII Addl. District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner For Respondents

PW1: Gudevar BalajiRW1: Duggu Sandeep Kumar PW2: Gondwar Sunil

Apr, 2511/12 MACT-VII ADJ

MVOP No.884 of 2012

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1: CC of FIR and complaint in Cr.No.3/2012 dt.2.01.2012 Ex.A2: CC of Final Report dt.29.02.2012 Ex.A3: CC of scene of offence dt.02.01.2012 Ex.A4: Photographs of scene of offence (2 photos) Ex.A5: Estimation of damages of Rs.2,27,610/- given by Baba Allauddin Mechanical Workshop dt.10.04.2012 Ex.A6: Vehicle receipt and Agreement of sale dt.11.08.2011 Ex.A7: Cash bill of Rs.43,890/- for spare parts of vehicle. Ex.A8: Cash bill of Rs.20,920/- for spare parts of vehicle.

For Respondents:

Ex.B1: Copy of insurance policy (Policy No.OG-11-1827-00000451 valid from 20.01.2011 to 19.01.2012) Ex.B2: Claim form submitted by claimant. Ex.B3: Claim form rejected by respondent No.3 company.

Chairman, M.A.C.T. -cum- Spl.Judge for SC/ST(POA) Act -cum- VII Addl. District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

Apr, 2512/12 MACT-VII ADJ

SC/ST SC No.76 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT –CUM- VII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS

JUDGE : RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT : Sri G.SUDARSHAN, Spl. Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act-cum- VII.Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

FRIDAY ON THIS 26 th DAY OF APRIL, 2019.

SC/ST. SC. No. 76 OF 2017

Cr.No.,and the file of theCr.No.648/2016, on the file of the Court.XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur

Police Station State represented through PS Jagathgirigutta

Description of the AccusedA1Kondadi Yadav Rao, S/o.Pundarika Rao,age 60 years, Caste: OC (Yelama), Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.H-70,Mahadevapuram, Gajularamaram,Quthbullapur Mandal,MedakDistrict, N/o.KanchanpallyVillage, Kowdipalli Mandal, Medak District

A2Dokkadi Bhasker Rao, S/o. Mahalakshmi, age 36 years, Occ: Carpenter,CasteBC-A (Agnikulakshatriya),R/o. H.No.329/1/2B,Ravinarayana Reddy Nagar, Gajularamaram, Quthbullapur, Medchal District, N/o.H.No.7-23/A,Kotipalli Pamarru Mandal, East Godavari District

A3Kokkirala Narendar Rao, S/o. Linga Rao, age 40 years, Occ: Car Driver, Caste : OC (Yelama) R/o. H.No.699/104,Ravinarayana Reddy Nagar, Gajularamaram, Quthbullapur, Medchal District, N/o. Srigarra Village,Gambiraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District

Apr, 26 1/8 SSJ

SC/ST SC No.76 of 2017

A4Mula Murali Mohana Rao, S/o. Kuramaiah, age 36 years, Occ: Painter, Caste : BC_A (Kalinga) R/o. SY.No.965, Ravinarayana Reddy Nagar,Gajularamaram, Quthbullapur, Medchal District, N/o.BadaipetaVillage, Kotabomali Mandal, Srikakulam District A5Ankadi Srinivas, S/o.Subba Rao, age 32 years, Occ: Carpenter, Caste: BC-A (Agnikulakshatriya), R/ o.Sy.No.329/1,Ravinarayana Reddu Magar. Gajularamaram, Quthbullapur, Medcahl District, N/o.RajanagaramVillage, Katrenikona Mandal, East Godavari District.

ChargesU/s. 447 r/w 149, 427 r/w 149, 504 r/w 149, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(g)(s) and Section 3(2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act , 2016.

Plea of the accusedNot guilty

Finding of the Judge In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 447 r/w 149, 427 r/w 149, 504 r/w 149, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(g)(s) and

Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PreventionofAtrocities)

Amendment Act , 2016 and they

Apr, 26 2/8 SSJ

SC/ST SC No.76 of 2017 are hereby acquitted as per the provisions U/s.232 Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled and the unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

ProsecutionAddl. Public Prosecutor conducted by AccusedSriK.G.JanaradhanReddy, defended byAdvocate for A1 to A5.

J U D G M E N T

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Balanagar Division,

Cyberabad, laid charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.648/2016 of P.S.

Jagadgirigutta for the offence punishable U/s. 447, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34

IPC and Section 3(1)(g)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 13.12.2016 at 1500 hours the complainant Kanuku Mathaiah Nikanar, S/o. K.P.Mathwes, lodged a complaint at PS Jagathgirigutta, stating that in the year 2007 his brother K.M.Ranjitham purchased a plot admeasuring 60 sq. yards in

Sy.No.329/1 Raavinarayana Reddy Nagar from one Golusu Sathaiah and got notarized and constructed a room with asbestos roof and his brother’s son is residing. On 12.12.2016 at about 1930 hours same colony people K.Yadava Rao, Murali, Srinivas, Bhaskara Rao, Narender (A1 to A5) and their followers came to his house and said that his house

Apr, 26 3/8 SSJ

SC/ST SC No.76 of 2017 is causing inconvenience and obstruction to the road and they will dismantle the house. They further uttered and abused saying “Madiga mundakoduka ee basthilo ninnu undaniwamu madigonivi intha rubaba- endira madigonivi main road meeda illu kavalnara” saying so they warned that in the next day morning they will come and dismantle the house and threatened him. On 13.12.2016 in the morning at about 7.30 am, again they came and dismantled the compound wall. They dismantled the compound wall four times. Hence, he lodged the above complaint.

3.Based on the complaint given by the complainant the Police

Jagathgirigutta registered a case in Cr. No.648 of 2016 under Sections

U/s. 3(1)(i)(f) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Amendment Act and Section 447, 427 IPC and submitted the

CD file to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Balanagar Division,

Cyberabad for further investigation as it pertains to to the offence under SC/ST Act.

4.During the course of investigation LW11-ACP, Balanagar

Division, Cyberabad, examined and recorded the statements of Lws 1 to 6, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch in the presence of LW7 and LW8. On the requisition of LW11, LW9 Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal

District issued caster certificate of complainant stating that he belongs to SC Madiga community and A1, A3 belongs to OC Yelama communtiy,

A2 and A5 belongs to BC A Agnikulakshatriay community and A4 belongs to BC A Kalinga community. On 13.02.2017 served notices

Apr, 26 4/8 SSJ

SC/ST SC No.76 of 2017

U/s.41(1) (A) CrPC to A1 to A5. After completion of the investigation

LW11 filed charge sheet.

5.Since the offence pertains to SC/St Act which is exclusively trialable by this Court, the XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at

Miyapur transmitted the case to this court.

5.Based on the charge sheet this court took cognizance of the case under Sections U/s. 354A, 354D, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i)

(ii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2015.

6.After hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and

Defense counsel, Accused was examined U/Sec. 228 (2) Cr.P.C., Charge

U/Sec. 447 r/w 149, 427 r/w 149, 504 r/w 149, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and

Section 3(1)(g)(s) and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act , 2016 against accused were framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P6 are marked.

8.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the evidence on record.

9.Now, the point that arises for determination before this

Court is:- “Whether the prosecution could prove guilty of accused Nos. 1

to 5 for the offence punishable U/Sec. U/s. 447 r/w 149, 427 r/w 149,

504 r/w 149, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(g)(s) and Section

Apr, 26 5/8 SSJ

SC/ST SC No.76 of 2017

3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Amendment Act , 2016 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.POINT:- The evidence of PW1 (defacto complainant) is that LW2/ Ranjitham purchased a plot at Ravinarayana Reddy nagar,

Phase-II and constructed house. In the year 2017 basthi members called hi and informed that the house constructed by his brother LW2 was demolished by somebody and on the next day police called him to the police station to enquire regarding the house. On the same day when he went to the police station, police obtained his signature on a complaint.

He do not know the contents of the said written paper. Police examined him. He identified his signature (Ex.P1) on the complaint.

11.The evidence of PW2 is that in the year 2012 he constructed house at Ravinarayana Reddy Nagar, Phase -II in the plot allotted to him under weaker section scheme and about three year back municipal authorities dismantled his compound wall and room, on that he made complaint to the municipal authorities. Nobody as abused him in the name of his caste and nobody threatened him. Police did not examine him.

12.The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 is that in the year 2017 MRO as dismantled the illegal constructed houses on that they went to the scene of offence to see the demolished of house and except that they do not know any facts of this case and they are tenants of PWs 1 and 2 and the accused did not abuse PW1 and PW2. Police did not examine them. PW5 deposed tat he did not know any facts of this case and he did not witness any incident and accused did not abuse PWs 1 and 2 and

Apr, 26 6/8 SSJ

SC/ST SC No.76 of 2017 police did not examine him. The prosecution cross-examined PWs 1 to 5 but failed to elicit anything from them. PWs 1 to 5 denied that they stated to the police as in Exs.P2 to P6, Section 161 CrPC statements, and that they deposed false as the matter was compromised and to help the accused.

13.As the material witnesses examined did not support the prosecution, the Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of the remaining witnesses1 cited in the charge-sheet. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution was closed.

14.There is no incriminating circumstance in the evidence adduced. Therefore, examination of the accused under Section 313

CrPC is dispensed with.

15.On perusal of the evidence on record, it shows that absolutely there is no any material evidence. Undisputedly, there is no legal evidence that connects the accused with the offence. Therefore, it can be safely conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the charges framed against the accused.

16. In the result, accused Nos. 1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 447 r/w 149, 427 r/w 149, 504 r/w 149, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(g)(s) and Section 3(2)(va) of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act , 2016.and they are hereby acquitted as per the provisions U/s.232 Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand 1 Lws 6 to 11

Apr, 26 7/8 SSJ

SC/ST SC No.76 of 2017 cancelled and the unmarked property if any is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.1,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

the 26 th day of April, 2019.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

For Trial of offences under SC/ST (POA)Act-Cum-VII Addl. Dist. Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:

PW.1K.M.Nikanar

PW.2K.M.Ranjitham

PW.3B.Sharath

PW.4B.Sunitha

PW.5R.Prem Kumar

ACCUSED: None

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on complaint

Ex.P2161 CrPC statement of PW1

Ex.P3161 CrPC statement of PW2

Ex.P4161 CrPC statement of PW3

Ex.P5161 CrPC statement of PW4

Ex.P6161 CrPC statement of PW5

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

For trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum-VII Addl. Dist. Judge, Ranga Reddy District.7

Apr, 26 8/8 SSJ