Sri. H. Anand Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 31st day of October, 2013

Present:: Sri H.Ananda Rao, Prl. Sessions Judge, Khammam.

SESSIONS CASE No. 421/2011

(P.R.C.No.46/2011 on the file of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam committed by the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam in Cr.No. 162/2011 of P.S. Khammam Rural, Under sections 302 r/w 34 IPC.

Prosecution: : Accused:

Public Prosecutor, : 1. Arempula Suresh, S/o.Srinu, Age: 19 Conducted Prosecution yrs., Madiga, Occ: Coolie, R/o.S.C.Colony, Arekodu village, Khammam Rural Mandal. (A.1)

2. Arempula Alivelu, W/o.Srinu, Age: 35 yrs. Madiga, Occ: Coolie, R/o.S.C.Colony, Arekodu village, Khammam Rural Mandal. (A.2) : Sri I.Venkateswarlu, Advocate Khammam

Charge : Under section 302 r/w 34 IPC

Plea of the accused : Not guilty

Finding of the Court : Not guilty

Sentence or Order The accused Nos.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the charge under section 302 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands cancelled.

M.Os 1 to 5 shall be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

This case coming before me on today for final hearing; upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following; 2 : J U D G M E N T :

1. The Inspector of Police, Khammam Rural filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.162/2011 of P.S. Khammam Rural for the offences under section 302 r/w 34 IPC on the file of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that:

i. About 20 years back, the Accused No.1 married Accused

No.2 and as Accused No.1 used to roam outside without doing any work for which the deceased/Srinu being father admonished him; in that regard the deceased used to quarrel with the accused and he used to attribute illegal contact to Accused No.1 with his mother

Accused No.2 for which the accused bore grudge against the deceased and that on 11.07.2011 on occasion of festival deceased sold away pig for Rs.6,000/- without informing his family members and on the next day he went to Khammam and purchased new clothes etc. for Rs.2,000/- and in the evening both accused picked up quarrel with the deceased keeping in view of the sale of pig and did not give them money and thereupon the deceased consumed alcohol and while sleeping in the house, taking advantage of the same at about 2.30 P.M. with pre plan the Accused No.2 took an axe and entrusted to Accused No.1. and that the Accused No.1 axed his father Sreenu on his neck brutally while he was sleeping and thereby murdered him. The younger son of the deceased who was present in their house witnessed the incident and remained calm and Accused

No.1 intimated the same to his paternal uncle through telephone and informed the same to other family members and on receipt of intimation rushed to the spot and noticed the dead body and during the course of investigation it is noticed that the accused killed the deceased with an axe. Hence, this case.

3 ii. On report, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Khammam Rural registered a case in Cr.No.162/2011 for the offence under section 302 r/w 34 IPC and issued express FIR, Inspector of Police took up investigation, secured the presence of mediators and prepared crime details form and drafted rought sketch of the scene of offence. One blood stained axe i.e. crime weapon which was used by the accused in committing this offence was seized from the scene of offence in the presence of mediators. Secured the presence of witnesses, recorded their statements and held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators L.W.9/Siliveru Satyanarayana

Babu and L.W.10/Gunaganti Gandhi and obtained photos of the scene of offence as well as dead body through private photographer and sent the dead body to the Medical Officer for conducting autopsy over the dead body.

iii. On 13.07.2011 at 2.00 P.M. the Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested at Kondapuram village and the parents house of Accused No.2 duly identifying them as accused in this case. They were interrogated in the presence of mediators and on interrogation the accused confessed to have committed this offence, left the crime weapon i.e.

axe at the scene of offence and fled away. After completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

The investigation established that the accused Nos.1 and 2 committed an offence under section 302 r/w 34 IPC.

3. After furnishing copies of the documents to the accused and on perusing the record of investigation as the case is one exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions, the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Khammam committed the case to the Court of Sessions Division, Khammam to take trial of the accused vide committal order.

4

4. Cognizance was taken Under section 302 r/w 34 IPC against the

Accused Nos.1 and 2.

5. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2, material was perused and after hearing the submissions of both sides, charge Under section 302 r/w 34

IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and MOs 1 and 5.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined Under sec. 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the various prosecution witnesses. They have not adduced any oral evidence on their behalf. The plea of the accused Nos.1 and 2 is one of the total denial.

8. The points that arise for consideration are:

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the charge framed against them beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. POINT:

The case of the prosecution in brief is that; on 11.07.2011 on occasion of festival deceased/Srinu sold away pig for Rs.6,000/- without informing his family members and on the next day he went to Khammam and purchased new clothes etc. for Rs.2,000/- and in the evening both accused picked up quarrel with the deceased keeping in view of the sale of pig and did not give them money and thereupon the deceased consumed alcohol and while sleeping in the house, taking advantage of the same at about 2.30 P.M. with pre plan the Accused No.2 took an axe and entrusted to Accused No.1. and that the Accused No.1 axed his father Sreenu on his neck brutally while he was sleeping and thereby murdered him. As seen from the trend of cross-examination the case of defene is total denial.

5

10. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

P.W.s 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and MOs 1 to 5. P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant and mother of the deceased, whereas P.W.2 is the younger brother of the deceased, P.W.3 is son-in-law of the deceased, P.W.4 is younger brother of the deceased stated in their evidence that the deceased/Srinu,

Accused Nos.1, 2 and P.W.6 younger son of the deceased lived jointly during life time of the deceased by doing coolie work and as Accused No.1 is vagabond the deceased used to chastise him and subsequently she was told by deceased

Srinu that he sold away their pig and spent the same for his necessities and handed over the remaining amount to his wife Accused No.2. Later, he came to know in connection with spending of amount exchange of words took place in between himself and his wife Accused No.2 and on the date of incident while he was sleeping in his house P.W.2 and P.W.3 informed him that he deceased/Srinu was murdered and immediately rushed and noticed him and thereafter presented

Ex.P.1/report. The evidence of P.W.2 son of P.W.1 also corroborated the same facts, the evidence of P.W.3 goes to show their house is located opposite to the house of deceased intervened by the road and on the date of incident he received phone call from the brother of Accused No.2 that he came to know the quarrel took place in his sister house and asked him to verify, rushed and found the deceased Srinu lying infront of the blood in open place, then he informed the same to P.W.1, P.W.2 and others.

11. P.W.4 whose house is adjoining to the house of deceased stated that on the date of incident P.W.3 came and knocked the door and he woke up and on enquiry he was told that the deceased/Srinu was found lying infront of the house and then they noticed hacking marks on his neck. P.W.5 is the photographer who photographed the scene of offence in different angles, P.W.6 is the son of the deceased who stated that to his knowledge that there were no disputes and differences in between deceased and accused and P.W.7 whose 6 house is situated opposite to the house of the deceased stated that while he was returning to his house from Bazar, he has observed Accused Nos.1 and 2 and

P.W.6 proceeding towards right side and subsequently he came to know the murder of the deceased.

12. P.W.8 in whose presence inquest was held over the deceased, so also observation and at that time Material Objects No.1 to 4 were seized in their presence, P.W.9 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased and issued Ex.P.6, P.W.10 is the

Circle Inspector of Police who issued Ex.P.1 and registered the case vide Ex.P.7.

P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer who rushed to the scene observed the same in the presence of mediators and got conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and photographed the scene and secured the presence of the witnesses and sent the material objects to R.F.S.L. and thereafter he arrested the accused and filed charge after completion of investigation.

13. It is evident as seen from record, the prosecution leveled charges against the accused under section 302 r/w 34 IPC. Now, I would like to deal with the evidence on record whether the prosecution proved the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. As seen from evidence on record, it is evident that there are no direct eye witnesses to the incident, the prosecution mainly relied upon the circumstancial evidence. It is also not in dispute as seen from record the deceased and accused are related to each other and except P.w.6 the younger son of the deceased stated to be the eye witness none witnessed the incident.

P.W.6 also did not support the case of the prosecution. In the light of the above evidence on record, firstly it is to be seen whether the prosecution proved the motive part that there were differences in between deceased and accused which resulted the deceased chasticised the accused and in that connection whether the accused committed the alleged offences.

7

15. The evidence of P.W.1 who gave Ex.P.1 is no other than the mother of the deceased and P.W.2 the younger brother of the deceased, P.w.3 is son in law of the deceased and P.W.4 is the youngest brother of the deceased are the proper persons to speak about the differences and disputes in between the accused and the deceased prior to the offence. The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that the deceased/Srinu, Accused Nos.1 and 2 and P.W.6 lived jointly by doing coolie work and as Accused No.1 was wagabond the deceased used to chasticise him. Her evidence also goes to show that on one day she was told by the deceased that the Accused No.1 sold away the pig for Rs.6,000/- and spent

Rs.1,000/- for his necessities and gave remaining amount to his wife Accused

No.2. Her evidence also goes to show that later she came to know as Accused

No.1 spent Rs.1,000/- for his necessities there was exchange of words in between himself and his wife Accused No.2. On that he rushed to the house of the deceased son and admonished both of them. Thus, it is clear as seen from her evidence that she do not have personal knowledge about the differences in between the deceased and his son Accused No.1. Her evidence reveals that she came to know their differences. In the absence of personal knowledge in my view it cannot be held that there were differences in between Accused No.1 and the deceased etc.

16. P.W.2 is the younger brother of the deceased stated his house and the house of L.W.1 are adjoining to each other and on 12.07.2011 the deceased and Accused No.2 took up quarrel with regard to sale of a pig and in that connection quarrel took place in between them and thereafter her brother came to Bazar and when he met him he told about the said quarrel. Thus, it is very clear as seen from his evidence he is also not an eye witnesses to the quarrel in between the deceased and accused that he was told by the deceased subsequent thereto. P.W.3 the son-in-law of the deceased stated in his evidence that on the date of incident night he received phone call from L.w.2/Veera

Bhadram who is deceased/Accused No.2 and then he came to know a quarrel 8 took place in his sister’s house and asked him to verify and inform and then he immediately rushed and found the deceased lying dead. Therefore, as seen from the evidence also it is evident that he do not have any personal knowledge in respect of the differences between the deceased Srinu and Accused No.1 and he only came to know about the same through third parties.

17. On a careful reading of the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, it is very clear that none of these witnesses are having direct knowledge in respect of the differences in between the accused and the deceased. There is no direct link evidence to show that Accused No.1 sold away the pig of their family without notice of the deceased, as a result differences arouse in between them. The person to whom the pig was sold is the proper to speak about the sale of pig which prompted the differences between the deceased and accused, but unfortunately the Investigating agency did not make any investigation in this connection. On scrutiny of evidence, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution measurably failed to prove the motive part which prompted to commit the offence as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defence.

18. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution that the accused hacked the deceased with axe, the prosecution mainly relied upon

P.W.6 stated to be the eye witness who is no other than the youngest son of the deceased who stated during the course of his evidence that he do not know the reason for the death of his deceased father and P.W.1 is his grand mother. The

Accused No.1 is his brother, Accused No.2 is his mother. He also stated that he do not know by whom this deceased was killed and finally stated to his knowledge there were no disputes or differences in between his deceased father and accused. Thus, it is evident that he has not supported the case of the prosecution. He was cross-examined by Public Prosecutor at length, but nothing could be elicited to improve the case of the prosecution. It appears as seen from his evidence being the son and brother of the accused, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. On scrutiny of his evidence, I am of the considered view 9 that his evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution in order to bring home guilt against the accused.

19. Now coming to the circumstancial evidence on record, the prosecution mainly relied upon PWs 1 to 4 and Ex.P.1 According to the evidence of P.W.1, while she was sleeping in her house, PW.2 and P.W.3 woke up and informed about the murder of the deceased by accused and immediately rushed to the house of the deceased and found him in the pool of blood on a cot. Further observed hacking marks on the neck of the deceased and immediately she presented Ex.P.1/report and stated in her cross-examination that on her narration constable scribed Ex.P.1/report and she do not know his number and it was scribed at Police Station and Ex.P.1 do not disclose that it was read over and explained to her prior to obtaining her signature thereon. Her house and the house of the deceased is intervened by 5 to 6 feet and as she was in sleep she could not able to hear the voices if any from the house of the deceased. On scrutiny of her evidence it is very clear that she is not only an illiterate but also she did not give report voluntarily, on the other hand it goes to show that her statement was scribed by the police in the Police Station and it was not explained, read over to her prior to obtaining her signature thereon. For these reasons, I am of the view that the way in which Ex.P.1 was obtained by Police is not free from doubt not only about the presenting of Ex.P.1, but also it contents thereon.

20. The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that her house is nearer to the house of the deceased. If really any galata took place in the house of the deceased it is audible to her house. Inspite of it, her evidence goes to show that no audible words were received from the house of the deceased to her on that night. If really any galata took place as contended by the prosecution it would have been audible to the house of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.2 the brother of the deceased goes to show that on the date of incident the deceased brother, Accused No.1, 2 and P.W.6 were in the house and on receipt of phone 10 call about 9.30 P.M. about the killing of deceased he rushed and noticed the dead body of the deceased with hacking marks. Thus, it is clear that on coming to know about the incident he rushed to the scene and noticed the dead body of the deceased and from his evidence it is clear P.W.6 is the only eye witness who did not support the case of prosecution. On scrutiny of his evidence, I am of the view that his evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution, since it is admitted case of the accused that deceased died on the date of the incident.

21. The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 also goes to show that on coming to know about the death of the deceased, they rushed and found the deceased with hacking marks on his neck. P.W.3 stated in his evidence who is son of P.W.1 that his house is adjoining to the house of the deceased and about two years ago on one day at 10.00 P.M., P.W.3 came and knocked his door and he was informed about the death of the deceased. His evidence also goes to show that he came to know that an altercation took place in between the accused and his wife during evening hours of the date of incident, which also speaks that he has no personal knowledge. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW3 and

PW4 it appears that on coming to know about death of the deceased they rushed and noticed the dead body of the deceased. On careful reading of the evidence of these witnesses also, it is evident that except stating the death of the deceased no circumstances are explained the reason for his death. Thus, it is held by me that the prosecution failed to prove that the Accused No.1 is wagabond and in that connection differences arouse between PW1 and deceased and further he sold the pig and spent said amount by letting positive evidence. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the evidence let in by the prosecution it can be held that the prosecution failed to prove any circumstances which link to the accused in connection with the commission of the offence.

23. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.7 whose evidence goes to show that his house is located beside the house of the deceased and 11 about more than two years ago one day while he is returning to his house on bazaar he has observed on noticing him Accused Nos.1, 2 and P.W.6 were proceeding towards right side and subsequently came to know the deceased

Srinu was killed and stated in his cross-examination P.W.1 is related to him as sister and his house and houses of the deceased are intervened by road and there are no street lights in the colony and he is aged 60 to 65 years. He denied the suggestion that he did not witness as spoken by him in his chief examination.

It appears as seen from examination of P.W.7 that the prosecution tried to establish the accused they are last seen by him while he was proceeding on road. If really, his evidence is true the proper person who is proceeding along with the accused is PW.6, whose evidence did not support the case of prosecution. Further, he being aged 60 to 65 years , in my view it is impossible to witness the persons who are proceeding on road from his house which is 10 to 15 feet from the road that to during night time. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that his evidence is also not free from doubt.

24. Now the evidence left before me is evidence of Investigating

Officer, whose evidence goes to show that on verification of First Information

Report he rushed to the scene and observed the scene in the presence of P.W.8 under cover of Ex.P.8 and seized MO5 in their presence and later conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased vide Ex.P.4 and got photographed he same through P.W.5 and examined the witnesses and sent the material objects to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Warangal vide Ex.P.8. His evidence also goes to show that on 13.07.2011 on receipt of reliable information about the suspects he secured the presence of two mediators and visited the village Kondapur and apprehended the Accused Nos.1 and 2 at the parents house of Accused No.1 and basing on confession statement he arrested the other accused. His evidence is silent about interrogation of Accused No.1 and further the prosecution failed to examine the mediators in whose presence the

Accused Nos.1 and 2 are arrested and he stated during the course of cross- 12 examination his investigation discloses P.W.6 alone is eye witnesses and do not disclose political back ground of deceased etc. He denied the suggestion that due to political factions in the village and the opponents of the village taking advantage of the same implanted the accused in this case, for which on the instructions of P.W.1 he registered case and filed charge sheet. On scrutiny of evidence of Investigating Officer it appears to me that he stated the way in which he proceeded with investigation. Since the direct evidence not supported the case of the prosecution and the circumstancial evidence is not free from doubt, I am of the considered view that the evidence of the Investigating Officer who is interested to the prosecution case will not strengthen the case of the prosecution.

24. In the light of my discussion referred supra, I hold that the prosecution measurably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal for the charges under section 302 r/w 34 IPC.

In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the charges under section 302 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. Their bail bonds shall stands cancelled. M.Os 1 to 5 shall be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 31st day of October, 2013.

Prl. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

PW1 : A.Narasamma PW2 : A.Rama Rao PW3 : Chirra Mahesh PW4 : Arempula Ravi PW5 : K.Raghuram PW6: A.Vekatesh PW7: Ch.Laxmaiah PW8: S.Satyanaayana 13

PW9: Dr.S.Mangala PW10:Ch.Raji Reddy PW11:M.Narsaiah PW12:P.Naresh Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Original complaint given to S.H.O., Khammam Rual. Ex.P2 : (7) photos containing of CD crime. Ex.P3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6 Ex.P4 : Inquest panchanama. Ex.P5: Crime details form. Ex.P6: Postmortem examination. Ex.P7: Original First Information Report. Ex.P8: Forensic Science Laboratory Report.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

Material Objects marked: M.O.1 : Pant M.O.2 : Blood stained blanket M.O.3 : Blood stained mat M.O.4 : Blood stained earth M.O.5: Control earth.

Prl. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(DISTRICT JUDGE) AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 29th day of October, 2013

Present: Sri H.Ananda Rao Chairman, MACT (District Judge), Khammam.

M V.O.P.No. 1125/2007 Between:

Ramidi Ramesh, S/o.Late Janaki Ramaiah, Age: 34 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture and Busness, N/o.Edulapuram village, Now at Gattaiah Centre, Khammam. ..Claim-Petitioner

and

1. M/s.Kiran Agencies, rep. by Kolli Ranga Rao, S/o.Ramaiah, Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Gas Supply Van No.AP 20 U 4644, R/o.H.No.11-4-3, Nehru Nagar, Khammam.

2. National Insurance Company Limited, Wyra Road, Khammam, rep. by its Branch Manager (Policy No.550404/ 31/06/6300000929 valid from 25.06.2006 to 24.06.2007)

..Respondents

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 11-10-2013 in the presence of Sri O.Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for the Claim-Petitioner; and of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Respondent No.1; and of Smt.P.Padmavathi, Advocate for the Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1. This Petition is filed Under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioner/claimant claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- towards the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 12-08-2006 at 10.30 A.M. at Khammam byepass Road near KM Stone

No.9 near Mahaboobabad Cross Road, Khammam Rural(Mandal),

Khammam District.

2. The brief facts of the petition are as follows:

The claim petitioner is resident of Khammam. On 12-08-2006, at about 05.00 P.M. while the Claim petitioner was proceeding from his native village to Khammam on his Car bearing No.AO 20 H 7729 and when he reached Khammam Bye-pass road near Kilometer stone No.9,

Mahaboobabad Cross road at about 10.30 hrs. the driver of Gas Supply 2

Van bearing No.AP 20 U 4644 drove the Van in a rash and negligent manner in high speed, came in opposite direction and dashed against the right side of the Car, due to which the right hand of the claim petitioner was crushed and sustained other multiple internal injuries all over the body. The Car of the claim petitioner was also partly damaged.

The Police, Khammam Rural registered a case in

Cr.No.194/2006 for the offence under section 337 IPC against the driver of the Van bearing No. AP 20 U 4644.

Immediately, after the accident the petitioner was shifted to

Kinnera Super Speciality Hospital, Khammam and was treated as inpatient. During the course of treatment, doctor removed the right hand and packed the same and referred the claim petitioner to Appollo

Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment and treated as inpatie nt from 12.08.2006 to 18.08.2006 vide I.P.No.109642. Subsequently, he has taken treatment as outpatient by staying at Hyderabad and obtained a room on rent basis and spent Rs.15,000/- towards rents. During the course of treatment the Doctors conducted necessary operations and also skin grafting and given necessary treatment and applied bandages.

The petitioner still undergoing treatment as he was completely bed ridden. He was advised by the Doctor for regular check up for a period of six months; he spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards Medical and other ancillary expenses.

The claim petitioner is an agriculturist having Ac.12.06 of land in Survey Nos.81/A, 82, 83, 35 in his name and Ac.11.23 gts. of land in Survey No.313 stands in the name of his mother by name Rami di

Narayanamma and Ac.2.28 gts. of land in Sy.No.313 stands in the name of his mother by name Ramidi Narayanamma and Ac.2.20 gts. of land in

Sy.No.60/A, 67/A which stands in the name of his wife Nirmala. Further, the claim petitioner used to cultivate the land measuring Ac.10.00 in 3

Survey No.56, 57 and 59 of his aunt by name Tummababoina

Parvathamma and in all he used to earn Rs.5,00,000/- per annum; the claim petitioner used to raise cotton, chilly and paddy. He is aged about 34 years and was hale and healthy. Due to amputation of right hand he is unable to do any work and unable to attend his normal duties as well as his agriculture work and suffered loss of income. Since the date of accident the petitioner unable to attend his normal duties and suffering severe pains all over the body and unable to move from bed. Due to aforesaid accident the petitioner not only sustained loss of earnings and also subjected to untold mental agony and physical discomfort and hence, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the Respondents

No.1 and 2 who are Owner and insurer of the vehicle.

3. The Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments made in the petition. The Respondent No.1 denied that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Gas supply Van bearing No.AP 20 U 4644 and the age, income and avocation of the petitioner. He contended that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing No.AP 20 H 7729 and the driver of the Car was injured, taking advantage of the injuries the driver and owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP 20 H 7729 influenced the Police and

Registered case against the driver of the Gas supply Van bearing No.AP 20 U 4644. He contended that the driver of the crime vehicle is havin g lot of experience and also having valid driving licence and that as the vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2, the Insurance company is liable to pay compensation granted, if any and hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. The Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments made in the petition. He denied the mode and manner of the accident stated by the petitioner and also denied the age, income and avocation of the petitioner and the alleged amputation of right fore arm and the 4 expenditure incurred for medical expenses. He contended that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of the claim petitioner the accident occurred. As such, the Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. It further contended that the driver of the Van bearing

No.AP 20 U 4644 is not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. In the Additional counter filed by Respondent No.2 it is contended that the claim petitioner did not file any proof of documents or

Medical bills for claim from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, the claim petitioner is not entitled to claim the same from Respondent and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed.

1. Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Crime vehicle Van bearing No. AP 20 U 4644 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation for the injuries sustained by him? If so, to what amount and from which of the Respondents.

3. To what relief?

5. To prove the case, the injured petitioner himself is examined as

PW1. P.W.2 the Consultant Plastic Surgeon in Appollo Hospital who treated the injuries sustained by P.W.1 is examined, P.W.3 Branch

Manager of Endolite India Limited who issued Ex.A.11/quotation and

P.W.4 who issued Ex.A.3/wound certificate to P.W.1 and Exs..1 to A.11 are marked. On the other hand, on behalf of the Respondents the

Administrative Officer of Insurance company is examined as R.W.1 and the Administrative Officer of Road Transport Office is examined as

R.W.2 and the owner of the vehicle is examined as R.W.3 and Exs.B.1 to

B.3 are marked.

6. In order to prove the fault on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, P.W.1 in his affidavit filed in examination in chief had sworn to the relevant contents of the petition. During the course of 5 cross-examination he denied the suggestion to the contrary. His evidence get corroboration from the contents of certified copy of First

Information Report and Charge Sheet, Exs.A.1 and A.2 respectively and they go to show that during the course of investigation into the crime, the Investigating Officer found the driver of the crime vehicle is to be responsible for the accident and accordingly prosecuted him for the relevant offences. Except merely denying, the contesting Respondent did not adduce any evidence to disprove the above mentioned material brought on record by the petitioners. In the circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to hold this issue in favour of the petitioners and against the Respondents.

7. ISSUE No.2 :

The petitioner claims an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the injuries sustained in accident, he has amputation on his right fore arm at the level of junction of proximal and middle 3rd Right fore arm hand which resulted much medical expenditure. To prove the same he relied upon not only his evidence, but also the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 and Ex.A.3/certified copy of Medical Certificate, Ex.A.4/Discharge summary, Ex.A.5/prescriptions, Ex.A.6/Medical Bills (27) in number,

Ex.A.7/Chemical report and Ex.A.8/Disposal certificate.

8. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly goes to show that immediate to the accident he was shifted to Kinnera Super Speciality Hospital,

Khammam and admitted as inpatient and during the course of treatment the Doctor removed his right hand and packed the same and referred to

Appollo Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was treated as Inpatient from 12.08.2006 to 18.08.2006 vide I.P.N.109642 and during the course of treatment Doctors conducted operations skin granting was done and gave necessary treatment and subsequently also he took treatment as

Outpatient by staying at Hyderabad obtaining room on rent and in all he spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical and other ancillary 6 charges. It is also in his evidence that Doctors advised him six months bed rest, for which he spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical and other ancillary expenses.

9. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by P.W.2 the Plastic

Surgeon in Appollo Hospital who stated about the admission of the petitioner and their treatment and about issuance of Ex.A.3/Medical

Certificate. Inspite of cross-examination nothing could be elicited in favour of the case of the contesting Respondents. The evidence of

P.W.2 is further corroborated by P.W.4 who issued Ex.A3 and

Ex.A.4/Discharge summary shows the admission of the petitioner and discharge and during the course of treatment he incurred expenditure towards medicines and treatment. On a careful reading of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 and Exs.A.3 to A.8, I am of the considered view that the petitioner substantiated his case that due to the injuries sustained in the accident amputation of right fore arm was done which resulted incurring of expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- roughly. Therefore, I award the same i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- as just and reasonable compensation towards medical expenditure and treatment.

10. The evidence on record goes to show the injuries sustained by the petitioner is grievous in nature and the Medical Officer,

Khammam issued disability certificate that he has sustained partial and permanent disability @ 50%. He not only retained to the Khammam

Hospital, but also to Hyderabad Hospital. Therefore, there is every likelihood that he would suffer pain and mental agony for a considerable period. Therefore, I award an amount of Rs.50,000/- as just and reasonable compensation towards pain and suffering and mental agony.

I also award an amount of Rs.10,000/- each towards transport to hospital and extra nourishment charges as the petitioner would have taken extra care to heal up his injuries at the early point of time.

11. It is in the evidence of the petitioner that he sustained grievous injury which is evidenced by the Medical Officer not only by 7

P.W.2, but also PW.4 and it further corroborated by Ex.A.8/Disability certificate issued by the competent authority. Though the petitioner contended that he has sustained partial and permanent disability of 70%, but Ex.A.8 reveals that he sustained partial and permanent disability of 50%. At the time of submitting arguments, the petitioner was present and I observed the moments of the petitioner. Having regard to these facts and circumstances and taking into consideration of Ex.A.8,

I am of the view that disability of the petitioner can be assessed as 50% in order to determine the compensation to be awarded to the petitioners.

12. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that the petitioner was aged 34 years as on the date of accident. There is no contra evidence let in by the contesting Respondents. Therefore, the age of the petitioner can be taken into consideration in between 35 to 40 in order to determine the compensation to be awarded to the petitioner.

13. Now coming to the income of the petitioner his contention is that he is not only doing business, but also having agriculture and earning Rs.10,000/- per month on business and Rs.3,00,000/- per annum on agriculture. To show that he is doing business he has not filed any document what soever to prove the same. Now coming to the agriculture according to the petitioner he is having Ac.12.06 gts. of land in his name, Ac.11.23 gts. of land in the name of his mother, Ac.2.28 gts. in the name of his wife. Further, he used to cultivate the land measuring

Ac.10.00 of his aunt and he used to raise cotton, chilly and paddy and thereby earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. To prove the same he relied upon Ex.A.9/pahanies and Ex.A.10/Income Tax counter filed from 2005 to 2007. Admittedly, he has not filed either pattedar pass book or Title deed evidencing himself, wife and aunt etc. are having the aforesaid land in their names. Ex.A.9/pahanies issued by Panchayat Secreary,

Thanagampadu reveals that Ac.!2.16 gts. Stands in the name for the years 2005-06 i.e. 1415 Fasli. Admittedly, the petitioner has not examined the said Panchayat Secretary to show that land is in his 8 possession and cultivation who is the competent person to speak about the possession of the land; atleast he could not able to examine any of the elders much less the Sarpanch to show that he own lands. If really he own land, definitely the Revenue authorities would have granted pattedar pass book and title deed. I do not know for what reason the petitioner failed to file the same. In the absence of any other revenue record, much less examination of any other Revenue official, I am of the view it cannot be concluded positively that the petitioner is having only

Ac.12.16 gts. of land and also he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, it can be held that since the petitioner is hale and healthy as on the date of accident, having good physic there is every likelihood that he would earn some amount towards not only for his livelihood, but also to the livelihood of his family members.

14. The petitioner further relied on Ex.A.10/Income Tax returns filed from 2005-07. Admittedly, the accident has occurred on 12.08.2006, till then it appears that the petitioner has not filed any Income Tax returns either to prove his business or income on agriculture. Admittedly, he has not examined the Income Tax authorities or his Auditor s to show the income derived. Further, he has not examined the relevant authorities for the agriculture people or atleast summoning the st atistical returns of the income of the relevant year. In the absence of the same, I am of the view that merely basing on Ex.A.10 it cannot be held that the petitioner is getting the income noted thereon. On a careful reading of the evidence let in by the petitioner it appears to me that subsequent to the accident as an after thought he filed Ex.A.10/returns for the reasons best known to him. For all these reasons, in order to assess the income of the injured Ex.A.9 and Ex.A.10 in my view cannot be conside red.

15. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances and taking into consideration of the age of the injured and physic the income of the injured as on the date of accident can be determined as Rs.4000/ - per month inorder to determine the compensation to be awarded to the 9 petitioner. As the petitioner is aged between 35 to 40 years and suffered 50% disability and having income of Rs.4,000/-, he is entitled for

Rs.3,84,000/- towards injuries i.e. amputation of right hand by applying suitable multiplier (48000X 50/100 X16).

16. It is the contention of the petitioner that he requires Myo

Electric hand which is functional enough to perform daily activities supporting activities of daily living, as the present hand is functional usage and is only for physical appearance and the Myo Electric hand requires Rs.3,74,800/- and the maintenance replacement battery costs

Rs.25,000/-. Thus, he requires Rs.3,74,800/- for purchase of the same.

To prove the same he relied upon the evidence of P.W.3/Branch manager of Endolite India Limited, Hyderabad and Ex.A.11/quotation issued by their Branch. The petitioner averments does not disclose he requires Myo electric hand. The quotation said to have been issued vide

Ex.A.11 does not contain the signature of its competent authority. Since reasonable amount is granted after assessing the disability of the petitioner and in view of the reasons stated supra, the claim of the petitioner for Myo electric hand cannot be considered.

17. The learned counsel for the contesting Respondent vehemently contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having hazardous driving licence to drive the crime vehicle at the time of accident; therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation. To prove the same, the Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company is examined as R.W.1 and the Administrative Officer of Road Transport

Office is examined as R.W.2, Exs.R.1 to R.4 are marked. It is the case of the petitioner that on the date of accident the driver of the Gas supply van drove the Van in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the contesting Respondent since it is Gas supply van, hazardous driving licence is necessary to drove the crime vehicle.

10

18. The evidence of R.W.2/Administrative Officer of Road

Transport Office clearly goes to show that Ex.B.3 is the Registration

Certificate of the crime vehicle and its driver has no licence to drive the

Hazardous vehicle as on the date of the accident. As per Registration certificate the vehicle is not permitted to transport the goods and stated in cross examination that as per the licence the driver is authorized to drive Transport vehicle, but not hazardous vehicle. He further stated that he has not filed any document to show that the driver is transporting the

Gas and he is not competent to drive hazardous vehicle. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, there is no evidence placed on record as on the date of accident the driver of the crime vehicle is transporting the Gas cylinder in a Van. The record shows only that he is driving the

Gas supply vehicle that does not men to say that he is carrying Gas cylinder on the vehicle. There is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that the driver of the crime vehicle is transporting Gas cylinders in the crime vehicle. In the absence of the same, it cannot be held that he is transporting the Gas cylinders which requires hazardous licence. The evidence of R.W.2 clearly reveals that the driver of the crime vehicl e is having valid driving licence to drove the vehicle. P.W.3 the owner of the crime vehicle is examined and he stated in cross-examination that their vehicle is having valid permit and no suggestion is put to him that on the date of accident the driver of the crime vehicle is transporting the Gas cylinders which requires hazardous licence. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no violations as contended by the learned counsel for the contesting Respondent as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As such, the Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

18. In view of the decision reported in 2005 SCCL.Com. 234 in a case between New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Charlie and 11 another, the petitioners are awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% only from the date of petition till realization.

Issue No.2 answered, accordingly.

19. Issue No.3:

In the result, petition is ALLOWED in part, awarding compensation of Rs.6,04,000/- (Rupees six lakh four thousand only ) together with costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount and they are directed to deposit the said amount within two months from today.

On deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw Rs.2,00,000/- and the remaining amount shall be kept in FDR for a period of (2) years.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.5000/-

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of October,

2013.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(DISTRICT JUDGE), KHAMMAM.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner: P.W.1 : Ramedi Ramesh P.W.2 : Dr.Bharatendu Swain P.W.3 : G.Suresh P.W.4 : Dr.P.Satish Kumar

Respondents: R.W.1 : R.Narayana R.W.2 : J.Aruna R.W.3 : Kolli Ranga Rao

Exhibits marked for Petitioner:

Ex.A1 - Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.194/06 of PS. Khammam Rural 12

Ex.A2 - Certified copy of charge sheet

Ex.A3 – Certified copy of Medical Certificate.

Ex.A4 – Discharge summary

Ex.A5– Prescriptions No.8

Ex.A6 – Medical Bills (27)

Ex.A7 – Clinical reports

Ex.A8 – Disability certificate

Ex.A9 – Pahanies

Ex.A10- Income Tax Counter foils

Ex.A11- Estimation for Artificial hand issued by Endolite for Rs.3,74,800/- marked Subject to objection.

Respondents:

Ex.B.1 : Copy of Insurance policy Ex.B.2 : Driving licence extract. Ex.B.3 : Form NO.24 B.Register of Motor vehicle.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(DISTRICT JUDGE), KHAMMAM.

13

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KHAMMAM

Dated this the 29th day of October, 2013

Present: Sri H.Ananda Rao, Prl. Sessions Judge, Khammam.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.15/2012

From which Court, the appeal is : I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First preferred. Class, Khammam.

Lower Court Case Number : C.C.No. 493/2009

Description of the Appellant : 1. Naraboina Narasimha Rao, S/o.Narayana, Age: 28 yrs., Yadava, R/o. Nalalpadu, Guntur Rural Mandal.

2. Naraboina Narayana, S/o.Masthan, Age: 60 yrs., Yadava, R/o. Nalalpadu, Guntur Rural Mandal.

3. Naraboina Saidamma, W/o.Narayana, Age: 55 yrs., House wife, Yadava, Agriculure, R/o. Nalalpadu, Guntur Rural Mandal.

4. Balagani Dhana Laxmi, W/o. Venkat Rao, R/o. Ravipadu of Guntur District.

5. Panam Shiva Parvathi, W/o.Gangaraju, Age: 25 yrs., Yadava, Agriculture, R/o. Roopenaguntla, Nakriekal Mandal, Guntur District.

6. Panam Gangaraju, W/o.Venkateswarlu, Age: 29 yrs., Yadava, Agriculture, R/o. Roopenaguntla, Nakriekal Mandal, Guntur Rural Mandal.

Description of the Respondent : The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Women P.S.Khammam.

Sentence or order passed by the : The appellant No.1 to 6 was found Lower Court guilty for the offence under section 498-A IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act accordingly, A.1 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer Simple 2 �

Imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 498-A IPC and it is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under section 4 of D.P.Act. A.2 and A.3 are sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of (6) months each and shall also pay a fine Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) I/D Simple Imprisonment for a period of six(6) months each and shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for 15 days, for the offence under sec.498-A IPC. They are also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months each for the offence u/s.4 of D.P.Act. Accused No.4 is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six months and shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only), in default S.I. for 15 days for the offence under section 498-A IPC. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 are sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and shall pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only), in default of fine, he shall suffer Simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under section 498-A IPC.

Whether confirmed, modified or : REVERSED. reversed. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of on or which ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presen- Filing Notice Bail bond of Appellant Hearing Order tation issued appellant ordered to on bail appear ============================================================ 25-01-12 23-02-12 23-02-12 -- 23-02-12 23-10-13 29-03-13

This appeal coming before me on 23-10-2013 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Appellant; and of Public Prosecutor for the State; upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

3 �

J U D G M E N T

1. The appellant was accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.493/2009 on the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam. The appellant No.1 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 498-A IPC and it is further sentenced to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under section 4 of D.P.Act. A.2 and A.3 are sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of (6) months each and shall also pay a fine Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) I/D Simple Imprisonment for a period of six(6) months each and shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for 15 days, for the offence under sec.498-A IPC. They are also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months each for the offence u/s.4 of D.P.Act. Accused No.4 is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six months and shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only), in default S.I. for 15 days for the offence under section 498-A IPC. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 are sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default of fine, he shall suffer Simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under section 498-A IPC.

2. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. The case of the prosecution is that;

The Appellant No.1 being the husband of the defacto- complainant, Appellants No.2 to 6 are parents and brothers -in- 4 � law of Appellant No.1. After marriage, the defacto- complainant led marital life with Appellant No.1 and thereupon all appellants have subjected the defacto-complainant to cruelty by demanding additional dowry, when she failed to pay all of them necked out her and on that the defacto-complainant tried to change the attitude of the accused through mediators, but invain. Hence, this case.

On receipt of report, the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Women Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.22/2009 for the offence under section 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act and issued FIR and drafted crime details form in the presence of mediators. After completion of investigation police filed the charge sheet.

4. The case was taken on file by the learned I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Khammam for the offences punishable Under

section 498-A IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants.

5. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

6. The appellants No.1 to 6 were also examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

for which they denied the prosecution evidence.

7. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Court below found guilty of the appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable

Under section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.

8. Aggrieved with Judgment, the present appeal is filed alleging that the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate is bad and erroneous under law and against the principles of natural justice. The 5 �

Judgment of conviction and sentence order passed by the learned

Magistrate is illegal and arbitrary. The appellants contended that the

prosecution failed to establish the case about demand of additional dowry as charged and there is no incriminating and corroborating evidence found in prosecution witnesses that parents of P.W.1 presented dowry at the time of marriage; the Lower Court failed to consider the fact that P.W.1 in order to extract amounts and to gain wrongfully from appellants, without there being any harassment and any cogent reason. It is also submitted that P.W.4 and P.W.5 are planted witnesses who are interested, even then also there is a contradiction in their evidence relating to the evidence of P.W.1 to

P.W.3, but the prosecution failed to establish the case and in mechanical manner filed the charge sheet; and that the Lower Court failed to consider the fact that the appellants are old aged persons, at this stage harassing and demanding for dowry is far from truth and also submitted that there is no cogent and clinching evidence inspiring the confidence of the Lower Court, but the same was mis-conceived by the Court and convicted the appellant and finally submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants/accused and hence, prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Lower Court.

9. The Public prosecutor mainly contended that on scrutiny of the entire evidence on record only, the Court below found the appellants/accused guilty convicted and sentenced them. There is no need to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the

Lower Court. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant.

6 �

10. Now the point for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence passed by the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam in

C.C.No.493/2009 on 06.01.2012 is liable to be set aside or not?

11. POINT:

The case of prosecution in brief is that;

The Appellant No.1 is the husband of the defacto-complainant,

Appellants No.2 to 6 are parents and brothers-in- law of Appellant No.1. After marriage, the defacto-complainant led marital life with Appellant No.1 and thereupon all appellants have subjected the defacto-complainant to cruelty by demanding additional dowry. When she failed to pay all of them necked out her and on that the defacto-complainant tried to change the attitude of the accused through mediators, but invain. Hence, this case. As seen from the trend of cross-examination the case of the defence is total denial.

12. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant, P.W.2 is father of P.W.1,

P.W.3 is brother-in-law of P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the mediators,

P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer who on receipt of Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 registered the case and investigated into. Thus, it is evident except the interested testimonies of P.Ws 1 to 4, there is no independent evidence to speak about the offence proper.

13. It is evident as seen from record, the prosecution leveled charges against the accused under section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. Now, I would like to deal with all prosecution witnesses in respect of charges levelled against them under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498-A IPC.

7 �

14. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, reads as follows;

4. Penalty for demanding dowry.- If any person demands directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that at the time of marriage her parents presented Rs.5,30,000/-, Gold Jewellery worth

Rs.1,50,000/- and household articles worth Rs.40,000/- towards dowry and stated in her cross-examination that at the time of marriage the amount and other articles were given before the elders P.W.4 and

P.W.5 and her father mobilize the said amount by selling a plot, but they did not file any receipt showing purchase of Gold ornaments as for Rs.1,50,000/. The evidence of P.W.2, who is father of P.W.1 corroborated the evidence of in respect of giving dowry, Gold articles and household articles. However, stated in cross-examination he paid

Rs.5,30,000/- as dowry to the Accused No.4 at the time of marriage of

P.W.1 by selling his plot, but he did not file the documents of the same. He also stated he did not file receipt of Gold ornaments given by him to accused at the time of marriage. The evidence of P.W.3 also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 in respect of demand of dowry, household articles and Gold articles, but stated in cross - examination that P.W.2 arranged the said amount by selling his plot and the same was stated before police.

15. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, it is evident that they gave dowry amount, Gold articles and household articles by 8 � selling plot and Gold, but no proof is filed evidencing the same.

Therefore, it is the duty of the prosecution to verify to whom P.W.1 sold his plot and Gold and obtained receipt, but in this regard the

Investigating Officer did not choose to examine the relevant persons to find out the sources of income of P.W.1. In the absence of such evidence basing on the interested testimonies of PW 1 to 3, it is impossible for me to come to conclusion that P.W.1 and P.W.2 gave dowry amount as contended by them.

16. It is also in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that they paid the dowry amount and Gold articles in the presence of P.W.4 and

P.W.5. P.W.4 stated in his evidence that at the time of marriage

P.W.2 was working as Hamali and by selling his plot he gave dowry amount and Gold articles, but stated in cross-examination that he did not state before the police that P.W.2 gave dowry by selling his plot.

Whereas, P.W.5 did not state about the alleged payment of dowry,

Gold articles and household articles in his presence to Accused No.1 or his parents. If really the dowry amount as stated by P.W.1 to P.W.3 was paid in the presence of mediators P.W.4 and P.w.5 they would have stated the same, but their evidence is silent in this regard.

Therefore, it can be held the prosecution failed to establish by examining independent witnesses in respect of the factum of payment of dowry amount, Gold articles and household articles to the accused at the time of marriage. On scrutiny of evidence as a whole, I am of the opinion that the evidence on record is not sufficient to come to conclusion that on demand by the accused the defacto-complainant and parents paid dowry etc. to the accused and thereby failed to prove the charge under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

9 �

17. Now coming to the charge under section 498-A IPC, the evidence of P.W.1 clearly and categorically goes to show after marriage she joined with Accused No.1 and led happy marital life in her in laws house for about one and half year at Nallapadu village of

Guntur District; thereafter all accused started harassing her for

additional dowry to Rs.5,00,000/- and she informed the same to her

parents in the year 2007 and her parents advised to adjust with them and in the year November, 2008, all the accused quarreled and necked out her from matrimonial home demanding additional dowry and due to un-bearable harassment and as the accused necked out from her matrimonial home, as there is no other go she came to her parents house at Khammam and then she placed the matter before the elders and the elders admonished all the accused, but they did not listen their words and insisted for additional dowry and her parents expressed inability to pay the amount. Her evidence also goes to show that on 26.04.2009 her mother-in-law, husband and elder sister came to her at Khammam and quarreled with her to give divorce or to gi ve

additional dowry and beat her with hands and Accused No.1 beat her

with hands and her husband pulled Mangalasuthram from her neck, at that time L.Ws 8 and 9 also present there and tried to pacify and matter and thereafter she presented Ex.P.1/report to police.

18. The evidence of P.W.2 and father goes to show that P.W.1 and accused lived happily for a period of one year; thereafter all accused started harassing P.W.1 mentally and physically demanding dowry and thereby all accused necked out P.W.1 by beating her by demanding additional dowry and on that P.W.1 returned to his house and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in all respects.

1 0 �

19. P.W.3 who is the close relative of P.Ws 1 and 2 also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to demanding of dowry by the accused from P.W.1.

20. P.W.4 stated to be the elder examined to speak that one and half year after the marriage, P.W.2 informed about the disputes between P.W.1 and accused; on that they went to the house of accused as elders and admonished them and thereafter on one day,

P.W.2 came and informed that accused necked out P.W.1 demanding

additional dowry.

21. The evidence of P.W.5 goes to show that all accused were creating galata at the house of P.W.2, then P.W.2 came and sto od infornt of his house, then he asked P.W.1 about the disputes, then

P.W.1 stated that accused are creating galata demanding additional dowry, then he went to the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and admonished the accused and that time the Accused No.1 tried to snatch Mangalasuthram from the neck of P.W.1 and stated in cross- examination he witnessed the galata at the house of P.W.2, at that time accused did not beat P.W.1 and he does not know the names of accused persons who came to the house of P.W.2 on the date of incident. Whereas, P.W.4 stated in cross-examination he did not inform about narrating the incident to the accused and elders and he came to know about the dispute through P.W.2. Thus, as seen from the admissions made by P.W.4 and P.w.5 during the course of their cross-examination it can be held that they do not have knowledge about the disputes or differences in between the accused and P.W.1 and 2 and they came to know the same through prosecution witnesses only. Therefore, I am of the view that they are having no direct 1 1 � knowledge about disputes in between accused and P.W.1 and 2 etc.

Therefore, on scrutiny of their evidence it cannot be said that they are having knowledge that the defacto-complainant was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused.

22. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 is consistent and corroborative with regard to Ex.P.1 in respect of subjecting to cruelty and harassment by Accused No.1 only and there is no consistent and corroborative evidence with regard to other accused who are residing elsewhere and not in the house of P.W.1 and Accused No.1. In the cases like this nature the Investigating Officer has to carefully investigate by examining the neighbours of the house of P.W.1 and accused where they lived and led conjugal life and examine the elders of the village. Unfortunately, the Investigating Officer has not made investigation in this direction. I do not understand why the

Investigating Officer could not examine those persons who are aware of the day to day activities of P.W.1 and accused in the village. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances and in the absence of independent evidence and basing on the interested testimonies of

P.Ws 1 to 3, I am of the view that does not safe to convict the accused. In the light of my discussion, I find the accused not guilty for the charge under section 498-A IPC.

23. On careful reading of the Judgment of the Court below, it appears to me that without going into the ingredients of section of law under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and positive evidence on record, the Court below erred in coming to conclusion by find ing the accused guilty for the charge under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

On careful perusal of the findings in respect of section 498-A IPC, it appears to me that the Court below wrongly came to conclusion that the evidence of interested testimony is corroborated by independent 1 2 � witness, without proper appreciation of evidence available on record.

For these reasons, the Judgment of the Lower Court is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Khammam against the appellants in C.C.No. 493/2009 on 06.01.2012. The appellants are entitled for refund of fine amount paid from the Lower Court, after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of October,

2013.

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Appendix of Evidence --Nil—

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

1 3 �

1

PIN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(DISTRICT JUDGE) AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 30th day of October, 2013

Present: Sri H.Ananda Rao Chairman, MACT (District Judge), Khammam.

M V.O.P.No. 771/2009 Between:

Gunti Ramakrishna, S/o.Lingaiah, Age: 23 yrs., Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Papaigudem village, Thirumalayapelm Mandal, Khammam District. ..Claim-Petitioner

and

1. Sandeep Sharma, S/o.Rama Sharma, Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry No.HR 55 C 5722, R/o.Faridabad, Haryana State.

2. National Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Floor, Deenadaya Upadhyaya Bhavan, 7-E, New Delhi, through local Branch, Khammam (Policy No.350281/31/07/ 6300005844, valid from 23.02.2008 to 22.02.2009).

..Respondents

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 15-10-2013 in the presence of Sri M.Suguna Rao, Advocate for the Claim-Petitioner; the Respondent No.1 remained exparte; and of Smt.P.Padmavathi, Advocate for Respondent ; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1. This Petition is filed Under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioner/claimant claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 15-06-2008 at 08.00 hrs. near Chandru Thanda on High Way Road,

Tirumalayapalem.

2. The brief facts of the petition are as follows:

On 15-06-2008 the claim petitioner and his friend by name Gunti

Venkanna were proceeding to sandy at Bungalow driving the cow, on the way at about 08.00 hrs. at Chandru Thanda stage, a Turbo Lorry bearing

No.HR 55 C 5722 proceeding from Khammam to Bungalow side driven by it’s driver in rash and negligent manner dashed against the claim 2 petitioner and cow, due to which the claim petitioner sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and fracture of metatarsal 4th toe left.

The Police, Tirumalayapalem registered a case in Cr.No.60/2008 for the offence under section 337 IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle.

Immediately after the accident, the claim petitioner was shifted to to Government Hospital, Khammam. Later, shifted to Siva Orthopaedic

Hospital, Khammam run by Dr.N.Sunil Kumar and treated as inpatient.

During the course of treatment the Doctor conducted operation and inserted steel rods and nail plates and given necessary treatment and applied necessary bandages. The petitioner also took treatment in private hospital, Khammam. In all the petitioner spent Rs.30,000/ - towards medical and other expenses and he required Rs.20,000/- for future treatment and removal of steel rods.

3. The Respondent No.1 remained exparte. The Respondent

No.2/Insurance company filed counter denying the averments made in the petition. It denied the age, income and avocation of the petitioner and the mode and manner of investigation. It also denied about the injuries sustained by the petitioner. It contended that there is no negligence on the part of the Lorry bearing No.HR 55 C 5722. It further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle lorry is not having valid licence and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed.

1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Crime Vehicle by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation for the injuries sustained by him? If so, to what amount and from which of the Respondents?

3. To what relief?

3

5. To prove the case, the injured himself was examined as PW1, the

P.W.2 who treated the injured is examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A5 are marked. On the other hand on behalf of the contesting respondents, none being examined, but Ex.B.1 is marked.

6. Heard both sides with regard to their respective contentions.

7. ISSUE NO.1:

The injured/Claim-Petitioner in his affidavit filed examination in chief had sworn to the relevant contents of the Petition. During the course of cross examination he denied the suggestions to the contrary.

His evidence gets corroboration from the contents of copy of First

Information Report and Charge sheet, Exs.A.1 and A.2 respectively and they go to show that during the course of investigation into the crime, the Investigating officer found the driver of the crime vehicle is to be responsible for the accident and accordingly prosecuted him for the relevant offences. Except merely denying, the contesting Respondent did not adduce any evidence to disprove the above mentioned material on record by the Petitioner. In the circumstances and foregoing reasons, I am inclined to hold this issue in favour of the Petitioner and against the

Respondents.

8. ISSUE NO.2:

The petitioner claiming an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is in the evidence of the petitioner, immediate to the accident he was shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam and later to Siva Orthopaedic

Hospital, Khammam, where he took treatment as in-patient and during the course of treatment the Doctor conducted operation and inserted steel rods and nail plates and given necessary treatment and in that regard he spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical and other expenses. To substantiate the same he relied upon Ex.A.3/certified copy of Medical 4

Certificate, Ex.A.4/Prescriptions, Ex.A.5/Medical Bills for Rs.48,623/ - besides examining P.W.2 who stated in his evidence that he found two fractures and they are grievous in nature and he conducted surgery and he also stated about issuing of Ex.A.3 to Ex.A.5 and further stated in cross-examination after two months of the surgery, fractures were he ald.

Thus, on a careful reading of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, I am of the opinion that the petitioner established that he sustained injuries in the accident and they are grievous in nature. As seen from the nature of the injuries, as the petitioner sustained grievous, I award an amount of

Rs.20,000/- each for two injuries i.e. Rs.40,000/- as just and reasonable compensation. I further award amount incurred by petitioner vide Ex.A.5 towards medical expenses i.e. Rs.49,000/-.

9. The evidence on record goes to show that the injuries sustained by petitioner are grievous in nature. Therefore, there is every likelihood he would suffer pain and mental agony for a considera ble time. Therefore, I award an amount of Rs.10,000/- as just and reasonable compensation towards pain and suffering and mental agony.

Since the petitioner firstly admitted in Government Hospital and later in the hospital of P.W.2 he would have incurred reasonable amount not only towards Transport to hospital, but also towards attendant charges.

Therefore, I award Rs.2,500/- each i.e. Total Rs.5000/-. Since the injuries sustained are grievous, there is every likelihood that he would have taken extra care while taking food in order to heal up his injuries at an early point of time. Therefore, I award an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards special diet.

10. It is in the evidence of petitioner that he is an agriculturist and used to earn Rs.1,00,000/- per annum, since no documents are filed evidencing the same and in view of the physic, hale and healthy condition of the petitioner, there is every likelihood even by attending coolie work he would easily earn not less than Rs.3,000/ - per 5 month. In all probability due to the injuries sustained by him, there is every likelihood that he would have confined to bed atleast for three months. Having regard to these circumstances, I award an amount of

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings. In all, I award an amount of

Rs.1,16,500/- towards compensation.

11. The Respondent No.1 being the owner and Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

Issue No.2 answered, accordingly.

12. Issue No.3:

In the result, petition is ALLOWED in part, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,16,500/- (Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand five hundred only) together with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of deposit and the respondents are liable to pay the said compensation and the Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to pay the said amount within two months from today.

On deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of October,

2013.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(DISTRICT JUDGE), KHAMMAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for Petitioner: P.W.1 : G.Ramakrishna. P.W.2 : Dr.N.Sunil Kumar

Respondents:

- None - 6

Exhibits marked for Petitioner:

Ex.A1 - Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.60/08 of P.S. Tirumalayapalem. Ex.A2 - Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A3 – Certified copy of Medical Certificate. Ex.A4 – Prescriptions (6) in number Ex.A5 - Medical bills (14) in number for Rs.48,623/-

Respondents:

Ex.B.1 : Certified copy of Insurance policy.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(DISTRICT JUDGE), KHAMMAM.

7

TSKH000009842013

Presented on : 13-06-2013 Registered on : 26-08-2013 Decided on : 29-10-2013 Duration : 0 years, 4 months, 16 days

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, KHAMMAM

OP/100670/2013

Pilli Sowjanya VERSUS Pilli Ravi KUmar ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : K.Nageswara Rao Advocate for : appearing for Pilli Ravi KUmar: Advocate appearing for respectively.

ORDER

Petitioner is present and filed proof affidavit. Heard. Perused the averments of proof affidavit. Satisfied. Petition is allowed.

Date : 29-10-2013 PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM