K. Bhavani Prasad

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT: SRI K. BHAVANI PRASAD,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet. FAC IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Siddipet.

Thursday, the 18 th day of July, 2019.

O.P. NO. 24 of 2016 (MV Act)

Between:-

1.Basiboina Janaki W/o Ramu @ Ramulu, aged 32 years, Occ: Labour

2.Basibouina Ramu @ Ramulu S/o Venkateshwarlu, aged 36 years, Occ: Labour Both N/o Burgampadu, Khammam, now residing at Akbarpet (v), Mirdoddi Mandal, District Medak. …Claimants

A N D

1.Viboodi Ellam S/o Maraiah, aged Major, R/o H.No.10-8, Nizampet village of Ramayampet Mandal, Medak Dist. (Registered owner of DCM bearing No.AP25 T9459)

2.M.A. Rafeeq S/o M.A.Fakeerpasha, aged Major, R/o H.No.1-3-77/25, Jambikunta, Medak-502 110 (crime vehicle insurance policy stands on the name of Respondent No.2)

3.Kammari Srinivas S/o Anjaiah, aged Major, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No.9-82, Nizampet village of Ramayampet Mandal, Medak Dist. (Driver of crime vehicle i.e. DCM bearing No.AP25 T 9459)

4.The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. TP Hub & Motor OD Dept. 2nd floor, Possnet Bhavan, Tilak Road, Hyderabad-500 001 (Telangana) (Policy No.0514033114P111078506, valid from 13-03-2015 to 12-03-2016)

...Respondents

This petition having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Rajeshwar Reddy, Advocate for claimants and Sri N.Balaiah, Advocate for Respondent No.1, Sri T.Ali Mirza, Advocate for Respondent No.4 while respondents No.2 and 3 remained ex parte, upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: -

:: O R D E R ::

1.This is a claim petition filed by the claimants/petitioners against respondents under Section 166 of M.V.Act, 1988, R/W Rule 455 of A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules, 2 MV OP 24 of 2016 IV ADJ (FTC), Siddipet 1989 R/W Section 140 of M.V.Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on the death of their son Basiboina Vamshi Krishna in the motor vehicle accident.

Petition averments:

2.1On 01-10-2015 deceased Basiboina Vamshi Krishna was proceeding

Nizampet village towards Poultry Farm on bicycle where himself and his parents work. When he reached outskirts of Nizampet village on Ramayampet-Siddipet road at about 15-45 hours, at that time one DCM vehicle bearing No.AP25 T9459 (hereinafter referred as 'crime vehicle') was coming from Siddipet to Ramayampet driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed the deceased in opposite direction, due to which deceased received grievous injuries on vital parts, immediately injured was shifted to Govt.Hospital, Ramayampet from there he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad where he succumbed to injuries. The accident took place only due to fault of driver of crime vehicle as he drove the same at high speed in rash and negligent manner. There is no fault on the part of deceased.

2.2On a complaint, a case in Cr.No.203 of 2015 under Section 304-A IPC was registered by Police Ramayampet against the driver of crime vehicle. At the time of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 15 years and was studying 8th class in ZPHS Nizampet village and used to work as a worker in Poultry

Farm at Nizampet village after school hours and used to earn not less than

Rs.4,500/- per month and used to contribute the same among his family members.

Deceased was brilliant student and had bright future. Due to the sudden untimely death of deceased claimants who are parents of deceased suffered much mental pain and agony. Respondent No.1 is owner of crime vehicle, the Insurance policy stands in the name of respondent No.2, respondent No.3 is driver of crime vehicle and respondent No.4 is insurer of crime vehicle. Respondents No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the claimants.

Counter averments of Respondent No.1:

3.All the petition averments are denied. There is no fault on the part of driver of

Crime Vehicle. Driver of crime vehicle is having valid driving licence at the time of accident. The compensation claimed are highly excessive, exorbitant and claimants are not entitled for any amount. Crime vehicle was validly insured with respondent 3 MV OP 24 of 2016 IV ADJ (FTC), Siddipet

No.4 by covering period of accident and compensation may be awarded against respondent No.4 only. Hence, petition may be dismissed against respondent No.1.

4.Respondents No.2 and 3 remained ex parte.

Counter averments of Respondent No.4:

5.All the petition averments are denied. As per R.C. respondent No.1 is owner of the crime vehicle, but the policy is obtained in the name of respondent No.2, as the name of respondent No.2 is not in FIR, respondent No.4 does not have any liability to pay compensation. Accident was occurred only due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The amount of compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/- claimed is highly excessive, exorbitant and claimants are not entitled for any amount. There is no negligence on the part of driver of crime vehicle.

Respondent No.4 is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, petition may be dismissed against respondent No.4.

6.Basing on the pleadings of the petitioner and respondent, petition and counter and basing on material available on record, my learned Predecessor in Office set the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM vehicle bearing No.AP25 T9459?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom ?

3. To what relief?

7.In support of claimants, claimant No.1 got herself examined as PW2 and also got examined PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A6. On respondents side RW1 and

RW2 were got examined and got marked Ex.B1 and B2.

8.Heard both sides.

Issues No.1 to 3:

9.Principle of law is plead and prove. Pleadings of PW1 is that petitioner No.2 is her husband, on 01-10-2015 her deceased son Basiboina Vamshi Krishna was proceeding towards poultry farm Nizampet village on bicycle where they have been 4 MV OP 24 of 2016 IV ADJ (FTC), Siddipet attending works, when he reached outskirts of Nizampet village on Ramayampet-

Siddipet road at about 15-45 hours, at that time one DCM vehicle bearing No.AP25

T9459 was coming from Siddipet to Ramayampet driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed her deceased son in opposite direction, due to which her son received grievous injuries on vital parts, after the accident he was shifted to Govt.Hospital, Ramayampet from there he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad for better treatment where he succumbed to injuries and that the accident occurred due to fault of driver of DCM vehicle bearing No.AP25 T9459 who drove in in rash and negligent manner and her husband lodged a complaint and police registered a case in Cr.No.203 of 2015 against the driver of DCM vehicle bearing No.AP25 T9459 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC for his rash and negligent driving and at the time of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 15 years and was studying 8th class in ZPHS Nizampet village and used to work as a worker in Poultry Farm at Nizampet village after school hours and used to earn not less than Rs.4,500/- per month and used to contribute to the petitioners, respondent No.1 is owner of DCM vehicle bearing No.AP25 T9459, the

Insurance policy stands in the name of respondent No.2, respondent No.3 is driver of crime vehicle which is validly insured with respondent No.4 at the time of accident, as such all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

10.In support of her pleadings, PW1 got marked Ex.A1 to A6 which clearly indicates that the police found the crime vehicle to be responsible for the accident as such a case under Section 304-A IPC was booked against the driver of DCM vehicle bearing No.AP25 T9459.

11.PW2's evidence is that on 01-10-2015 he was proceedings towards

Pothareddipet village on his motorcycle at about 15-45 hours, when he reached outskirts of Nizampet village on Ramayampet-Siddipet road, drove by its driver in rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed a boy in opposite direction proceeding on his bicycle towards poultry farm situated on the outskirts of Nizampet village, the boy received grievous injuries on vital parts, after accident PW2 along with others shifted him to Government Hospital, Ramayampet and later on he came to know that the boy was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries and also came to know his name as Basiboina Vamshi Krishna aged 15 years and this witness clearly stated that the accident took place only due to the fault of 5 MV OP 24 of 2016 IV ADJ (FTC), Siddipet driver of DCM vehicle bearing No.AP25 T9459 who drove it at high speed in rash and negligent manner and that there is no fault on the part of the deceased. Even in the cross-examination this witness denied that fault lies with the boy and also denied that he did not witness the accident and clearly stated that at the time of accident he was travelling on his motorcycle in the opposite direction of the crime vehicle, as such, it can be easily be presumed the presence of PW2 at the time of accident, as such his evidence cannot be negatived and even PW1 was suggested in the cross- examination that her son was going on bicycle in the middle of the road. Though, several things were suggested in the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, but nothing contra was elicited from the mouth of PW1 and PW2. The suggestions put to PW1 and PW2 are unsupported by any documentary evidence. In the absence of any abundant proof for the suggestions put to PW1 and PW2, such suggestions cannot be appreciated and they do not stand in the eye of law.

12.Respondents filed their counter taking all the possible defence to counter attack case of PW1 and PW2, but they could not prove their pleadings with the relevant documentary evidence, so as to deny the claim of PW1 and PW2. RW1 clearly admitted that insurance policy was issued to the crime vehicle bearing

No.AP25 T 9459 and the exhibits clearly goes to show the existence of the policy on the date of accident and further this witness admitted that the policy was issued to the vehicle on due verification of all the documents in respect of crime vehicle and it is also stated in the evidence of RW1 that their insurance company issued notice to respondent No.2 for producing RC book and driving licence of driver of crime vehicle. Immediately this witness stated that he did not file copy of notice or acknowledgement before the court, as such his evidence cannot be appreciated.

There must be a proof on a particular thing pleaded by respondents and this witness also stated that they have not obtained any certificate from the RTO Medak regarding driving licence of driver of crime vehicle, but further states that the driver has been charge sheeted under Section 181 M.V.Act. Mere charge sheeting under a particular section, does not amount to admission of that fact, unless it is proved in the court of law and that RW1 did not verify personally with the authorities concerned if the driver of the crime vehicle was having valid driving licence or not.

13.RW2's evidence is that he is working as Administrative Officer, RTO Medak and that he authorized to give evidence by the Regional Transport Office stated that he cannot say whether the driver of the crime vehicle by name Kamari Srinivas (R3) 6 MV OP 24 of 2016 IV ADJ (FTC), Siddipet was having valid driving licence on the date of accident or not, unless he goes through the RTO office records and further got marked Ex.B1 authorisation issued by DTO Medak and further stated as per the records, respondent No.3 had no driving licence to drive the crime vehicle at the time of accident and it is also his evidence admitting that with the driving licence number they can search in the system and that there is no possibility to search for the driving licence number when it is not fed in the system and that he has not brought with him any prints of his search regarding the driving licence of R3. However, this point is not answered positively by respondent No.3 by producing his driving licence. In the absence of production of original driving licence, an adverse inference can be drawn against respondent No.3. However, the proposition of law is different since the act itself is a beneficial welfare legislation, the matter has to be looked in that angle. The

Insurance company respondent No.4 is liable to pay compensation and then recover from respondent No.1 owner, respondent No.2 who insured the crime vehicle and respondent No.3 driver of the crime vehicle on pay and recovery.

14.In so far as the evidence of PW1 regarding the income source of the deceased and employment as pleaded by PW1, but then there is no supporting documentary evidence produced before the court to appreciate her evidence. In the absence of any such proof it can safely be deemed that there is no such record for the pleadings of PW1 and such pleadings cannot be looked into for any purpose.

15.Now the point is what is “just compensation” to be appreciated in the matter, under the facts and circumstances. At the outset there is no denial about the death of the deceased and involvement of the crime vehicle and it is only brought on evidence that respondent No.3 was not having any driving licence, as the income source is not made out or the employment of the deceased. However, considering his age having long life span and one cannot predict his future basing on the evidence under the facts and circumstances notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month to be fixed as “just compensation”. As there is no clear proof of earnings of the deceased, it would be fair, reasonable and justifiable to fix the amount at Rs.3,000/- per month which in this Court opinion “Just Compensation” considering the cost of living and conditions of living following the structured formula under Section 163-A as laid down in Sarala Varma case.

16.The next aspect to be decided is what is the ‘just compensation’ to which the 7 MV OP 24 of 2016 IV ADJ (FTC), Siddipet petitioners are entitled to from the respondents. To arrive at just compensation, adhering to the Guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in case of Sarlaverma vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation (AIR 2009 SC 3104), three aspects to be decided are – 1) Age of the deceased at the time of the accident, 2) Income of the deceased and

3) Multiplier applicable.

17.In the petition age of the deceased at the time of accident is shown as 15 years. Ex.A1 FIR along with complaint, Ex.A3 Inquest report and Ex.A4

Postmortem examination report shows the age of the deceased as 15 years as on the date of the accident and there is no contra evidence from the respondents side to deny the evidence of claimants side. Thus, at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased can be safely arrived at 15 years. As the accident is not disputed and the fault on the part of the deceased is not proved by the respondents side, since the act is beneficial and welfare legislation, under the facts and circumstances it would be justifiable and reasonable to fix Rs.3,000/- per month.

18.As stated above the income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.3,000/- and the age of the deceased at the time of accident was only 15 years.

19.The petition is filed by parents of the deceased. Thus, there are 2 dependents.

As the deceased was unmarried with two dependents on him, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is 50% and contribution to the family is 50% out of the income as laid down in Sarla Verma's case referred supra.

20.As per the schedule given in Sarla Verma case, the multiplier applicable to the persons in the age group upto 15 years is '15' and in the instant case, the age of the deceased at the time of the accident is arrived at 15 years and so, the relevant multiplier to be applied is '15'. A sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.50,000/- towards love and affection can be granted. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to is calculated as under:

DescriptionCalculationAmount in Rs.

Income per month3,0003,000

Income per annum3,000 x 1236,000

Personal expenses½18,000

Contribution to family36,000 – 18,00018,000 8 MV OP 24 of 2016 IV ADJ (FTC), Siddipet

Multiplier15

Compensation on applying 18,000 x 152,70,000 multiplier

Transportation charges 10,00010,000

For love and affection50,00050,000

Total compensation 3,30,000

21.Thus, the just compensation to which the claimants are entitled to from R1 to

R4 is Rs.3,30,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand only) as against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/-.

22.IN THE RESULT, the petition is Allowed partly by awarding total compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. Respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and that they are directed to deposit said amount within one month from the date of this order. After deposit of such amount, petitioners No. 1 and 2 are entitled to their share of compensation of

Rs.1,65,000/- each along with costs and interest accrued thereon. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their share amount along with costs and interest at once. Respondent No.4 is at liberty to recover the compensation amount along with interest and costs from respondents No.1 to 3 on pay and recovery policy. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.4,000/-.

Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed by him, Corrected and

Pronounced by Me in the Open court on this the 18 th day of July, 2019.

VI Addl. District Judge, Siddipet. FAC IV Addl. District Judge(FTC), Siddipet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Claimants Respondents

PW1 B. Janaki RW1 M. Jwanesu PW2 Ch. Anil Kumar RW2 V. Narsimha Reddy 9 MV OP 24 of 2016 IV ADJ (FTC), Siddipet

EXHIBITS MARKED

Claimants side:

Ex.A1 CC of FIR along with Complaint in Cr.No.203/2015 of PS Ramayampet Ex.A2 CC of Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch in Cr.No.203/2015 of PS Ramayampet Ex.A3CC of Inquest panchanama of deceased Basaboina Vamshikrishna Ex.A4 CC of Postmortem Examination Report of deceased Basaboina Vamshikrishna Ex.A5 CC of charge sheet in Cr.No.203/2015 of PS Ramayampet Ex.A6 Original bona fide certificate of deceased Basaboina Vamshikrishna issued by ZPHS Nizampet.

Respondents side:

Ex.B1Attested Copy of Policy Ex.B2Authorisation letter issued by DTO Medak

VI Addl. District Judge,

Siddipet, FAC IV Addl. District Judge(FTC), Siddipet.

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT: SRI K. BHAVANI PRASAD,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet. FAC IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Siddipet.

Thursday, the 30 th day of May, 2019.

O.P. NO. 71 of 2015 (MV Act)

Between:-

1.Poosa Mallamma W/o Yadagiri, aged about 60 years, Occ: Housewife

2.Poosa Yadagiri S/o Pentaiah, aged about 65 years, Occ: Labour

3.Poosa Kavitha D/o Yadagiri, aged about 16 years, Occ: Student All are R/o Kodakandla village of Gajwel (M), Dist. Medak TS (C-3 is minor under the guardianship of C-1 natural mother and guardian) …Petitioners/Claimants

A N D

1.Nagesh Sankar S/o Rajamallu, age: 35 years, H.No.15-2-29, Jawahar Nagar, Ramagundam, District Karimnagar.

2.K. Shobharani W/o Vijendar Reddy, aged about Major, Occ: Owner of the crime vehicle Toyota Innova bearing Regd.No.AP36 R6886, R/o H.No.4-60/52/7/1, Theegalaguttapally, Arepally of Karimnagar Dist. TS

3.Regional Manager, IFCO-TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd. IFCO SADAN, C-1, Dist. Centre, Saket New Delhi-110017: Area Office at II Floor, UMA CHAMBERS, Banjarahills Road, Panjagutta 500 082.

(Policy No.1-26461BV P400 Policy 34391301, validity period 28-06-2013 to 27-06- 2014)

...Respondents

This petition having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for claimants and Sri V.Rajesh, Advocate for respondent No.2 and Sri K.Shivacharan, Advocate for respondent No.3 while respondent No.1 remained ex parte, upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: -

:: O R D E R ::

1.This is a claim petition filed for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by three claimants who are parents and sister of deceased Poosa Mallesham, against R1 to

R3.

2 of 8 OP 71 of 2015 IV ADJ (FTC), Siddipet

Brief case of the petitioners is as under:

2.On 30-05-2014 the deceased Poosa Mallesham was going on his bicycle to attend work at Nandala Cheruvu (Pond) at about 10.15 am while he was about to cross the Rajiv Rahadari road before Prasad Seeds, at that time driver of crime vehicle INNOVA care bearing No.AP23 R6886 (hereinafter referred as 'crime vehicle') drove in rash and negligent manner at high speed which is proceeding from

Karimnagar to Hyderabad dashed cyclist, due to which cyclist sustained head injury.

The nearby people shifted him in 108 ambulance to Government Area Hospital,

Gajwel, where he was given first aid and referred to Gandhi Hospital, there while undergoing treatment deceased died at about 20.30 hours in the night. The matter was reported to police Kuknoorpally and a case in Cr.No.146/2014 was registered for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against driver of crime vehicle. The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident, was working as watchman (sub-station 33/KV) (Sri Sai Enterprises) and was getting Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to his family members. Due to accident parents of deceased fell in shock, deceased having one unmarried sister. The claimants are depending on the earnings of deceased. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle. Respondent No.1 is driver, respondent

No.2 is owner and respondent No.3 is insurer of crime vehicle. Claimants are claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. As such R1 to R3 are liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

Counter averments of Respondents No.2:

3.All the petition averments are denied. Claimants are put to strict proof about the involvement of the crime vehicle in the given accident. Respondent No.1 is having valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident. The Insurance policy is existing at the time accident to the Innova car bearing No.AP 13 R 6886 of which

Respondent No.3 is the insurer. Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation as the crime vehicle is insured with respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The claim is excessive and exorbitant. Hence, petition may be dismissed against respondent No.2.

Counter averments of Respondents No.3:

4.All the petition averments are denied. Claimants are put to strict proof about 3 of 8 OP 71 of 2015 IV ADJ (FTC), Siddipet the involvement of the crime vehicle in the given accident. Driver of crime vehicle did not possess valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident. Claimants did not file any document to prove the income of the deceased. The claim is excessive and exorbitant. Crime vehicle is falsely planted in this case to extract money from respondent No.3. There is no proof of age, occupation and earning of deceased.

Hence, petition may be dismissed.

5.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, my learned Predecessor in Office set the following Issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of INNOVA car bearing No.AP13 R6886?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom ?

3. To what relief?

6.During the course of Trial on petitioners' side PW1 to PW3 were got examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A6 and none were got examined on respondents side (Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 filed counters). Ex.B1 got marked with consent.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Perused the material available on record.

Issues No.1 to 3:

9.The principle of law is plead and prove. The evidence of PW1 is that he is the claimant No.2, that he filed petition claiming compensation for the death of his son, on 30-05-2014, his son Poosa Mallesham going on bicycle to attend at Nandala

Cheruvu at about 10.15 am when he was crossing Rajiv Rahadari road before Prasad

Seeds, at that time driver of crime vehicle Innova car bearing No.AP13 R 6886 drove his vehicle at high speed in rash and negligent manner proceeding from

Karimnagar to Hyderabad side and dashed the cycle of his son due to which cycle was damaged, his son received severe injuries and shifted in 108 ambulance to Area

Hospital, Gajwel, after first aid, due to his serious condition he shifted to Gandhi

Hospital, Secunderabad, while undergoing treatment his son died. PW1 further evidence is that basing on the report, police Kukunoorpally registered a case in 4 of 8 OP 71 of 2015 IV ADJ (FTC), Siddipet

Cr.No.146/2014 under Section 304-A IPC against driver of crime vehicle and that his son was hale and healthy and working as watchman (sub-station 33 KV)

Kodakandla Sri Sai Enterprises and was getting Rs.10,000/- per month and got marked Ex.A1 to A6, Ex.A1 attested copy of FIR along with complaint, Ex.A2 attested copy of inquest, Ex.A3 attested copy of postmortem examination report,

Ex.A4 Xerox copy of Insurance policy of crime vehicle, Ex.A5 Xerox copy of RC of crime vehicle, Ex.A6 salary certificate issued by Sri Sai Enterprises, Pregnapur,

Gajwel.

10.In support of his evidence he got examined PW2 who stated that the accident occurred on 30-05-2014 at about 10.15 am when he was crossing Rajiv Rahadari

before Prasad Seeds at Kodakandla village, at that time the driver of crime vehicle

Innova car bearing No.AP13 R6886 drove his vehicle at high speed in rash and negligent manner proceeding from Hyderabad to Karimnagar side dashed the deceased Poosa Mallesham and that he is an eye witness to the above accident and

PW3 states that the deceased Poosa Mallesham S/o Yadaiah R/o Kondapaka village was recruited as watchman in 37 KV Electric Sub-Station at Kodakandla, since 2008 deceased worked as Watchman till his death and during his employment deceased was paid Rs.10,000/- per month and he himself issued salary certificate to the deceased to that effect.

11.The evidence of PW1 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A6 clearly establishes that the crime No.146/2014 was booked under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and the ingredients of the documentary evidence goes to show that the driver of the crime vehicle drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner thereby caused death of the deceased for which crime was booked under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle.

12.Though respondents No.2 and 3 filed their counters denying the case of PW1, but failed to adduce their evidence either to establish their counter contentions or to disprove the contentions of PW1 and the evidence of PW1 to PW3. In the absence of examining themselves by respondents, contents of their counters do not sustain in the eye of law, they remained mere pleadings without any valid proof of their contentions. Had their contentions were genuine, they would have appeared before the court and lead evidence to establish their own case and to disprove the case of

PW1.

5 of 8 OP 71 of 2015 IV ADJ (FTC), Siddipet

13.Though, PW1 to PW3 were cross-examined at length, nothing contra was elicited from the mouth of PW1 to PW3. PW1 father of deceased, PW2 eye witness and PW3 who issued certificate that the deceased worked under him. The accident is not in dispute and it is not disputed that the crime vehicle was not involved in the accident.

14.Coming to the aspect of earnings of the deceased at the time of death, his age is shown in the petition as 23 years. The evidence of PW3 is that the deceased was recruited as watchman in 37 KV Electric Sub-station at Kodakandla, but in support of his evidence, he did not file any proceedings to have recruited the deceased in 37

KV Electric Sub-station Kodakandla and it is not there in the evidence in what capacity PW3 can give such certificate. Except, certificate under Ex.A6 dated 25- 03-2015, no other connected record is filed to appreciate the fact that the deceased worked under PW3, at least salary slips for few years not filed nor got examined any of the other employees to believe his version with some documentary evidence and it is not there in their evidence whether he is sole proprietor and got authority to issue such certificate. In the absence of production of the record of the deceased who worked in Sri Sai Enterprises. Mere certificate issued by PW3 cannot be appreciated. Though PW3 examined, its probative value has to be doubted, under the circumstances where there is no other relevant continuous record filed to show that the deceased was employed under PW3 and his evidence that the deceased was paid Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be appreciated.

15.The accident is not disputed and the death of deceased is not disputed and involvement of crime vehicle is not disputed. It is the evidence of PW3 that electricity department gave him contract of maintenance of sub-station and that he maintained two sub-stations and that each sub-station got 10 employees working under him, but then he not placed any evidence to appreciate his evidence he was given contract of maintenance of sub-station and that he maintained two sub-stations employing of 10 persons and this witness clearly stated that he does not have any acknowledgement to show that he submitted his registers of paying salary and used to obtain signatures of the employees including the deceased in the register to the department, except Ex.A6 he does not have any record to show that he paid

Rs.10,000/- per month to the deceased and that he did not maintain any labour register showing that the deceased worked under him. No contra evidence placed

before the Court by the respondents' side that the deceased contributed to the

6 of 8 OP 71 of 2015 IV ADJ (FTC), Siddipet accident and the evidence on record shows that the policy was alive on the date of the accident. In the absence of clear cut proof of income as stated by PW1 and as the evidence of PW3 is not inspired confidence in the mind of the court about the salary alleged to have paid to the deceased by PW3. As such under the facts and circumstances it would be appropriate, reasonable and justifiable to fix income of the deceased notionally considered daily wages of the labour, standard and conditions of living to fix Rs.3,000/- per month. The evidence goes to show that respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. As there is no clear proof of earnings of the deceased, it would be fair, reasonable and justifiable to fix the amount at Rs.3,000/- per month which in this Court opinion “Just

Compensation” considering the cost of living and conditions of living following the structured formula under Section 163-A as laid down in Sarala Varma case.

16.The next aspect to be decided is what is the ‘just compensation’ to which the petitioners are entitled to from the respondents. To arrive at just compensation, adhering to the Guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in case of Sarlaverma vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation (AIR 2009 SC 3104), three aspects to be decided are – 1) Age of the deceased at the time of the accident, 2) Income of the deceased and

3) Multiplier applicable.

17.In the petition age of the deceased at the time of accident is shown as 23 years. Ex.A1 FIR along with complaint, Ex.A2 Inquest report and Ex.A3

Postmortem examination report shows the age of the deceased as 23 years as on the date of the accident and there is no contra evidence from the respondents side to deny the evidence of claimants side. Thus, at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased can be safely arrived at 23 years. As the accident is not disputed and the fault on the part of the deceased is not proved by the respondents side, since the act is beneficial and welfare legislation, under the facts and circumstances it would be justifiable and reasonable to fix Rs.3,000/- per month.

18.As stated above the income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.3,000/- and the age of the deceased at the time of accident was only 23 years.

19.The petition is filed by parents and unmarried sister of the deceased. Thus, there are 3 dependents. As the deceased was unmarried with three dependents on him, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is 1/3rd and contribution to the family is 2/3rd out of the income as laid down in Sarla Verma's 7 of 8 OP 71 of 2015 IV ADJ (FTC), Siddipet case referred supra.

20.As per the schedule given in Sarla Verma case, the multiplier applicable to the persons in the age group of 21-25 years is '18' and in the instant case, the age of the deceased at the time of the accident is arrived at 23 years and so, the relevant multiplier to be applied is '18'. A sum of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges can be granted. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to is calculated as under:

DescriptionCalculationAmount in Rs.

Income per month3,0003,000

Income per annum3,000 x 1236,000

Personal expenses1/3rd12,000

Contribution to family36,000 – 12,00024,000

Multiplier18

Compensation on applying 24,000 x 184,32,000 multiplier

Transportation charges 15,00015,000

Funeral expenses15,00015,000

Total compensation 4,62,000

21.Thus, the just compensation to which the claimants are entitled to from R1 to

R3 is Rs.4,62,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand only) as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. Claimant No.3 is aged 16 years minor at the time of filing of the petition, as such claimant No.1 has to file a petition to get herself discahrge as guardian of claimant No.3.

22.IN THE RESULT, the petition is Allowed partly by awarding total compensation of Rs.4,62,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. Respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and that they are directed to deposit said amount within one month from the date of this order. After deposit of such amount, petitioners No. 1 to 3 are entitled their share of compensation of

Rs.1,54,000/- each along with costs and interest accrued thereon. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their share amount along with costs and interest at once. Petitioner No.3 can withdraw her share of amount only on filing a petition showing proof of her attaining majority and on the petition being allowed and also 8 of 8 OP 71 of 2015 IV ADJ (FTC), Siddipet on the petition of her mother petitioner No.1 to get herself discharged from the guardianship of petitioner No.3 and also on the petition being allowed. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.I), Transcribed by him, Corrected and

Pronounced by Me in the Open court on this the 30 th day of May, 2019.

Sd/-

VI Addl. District Judge, Siddipet. FAC IV Addl. District Judge(FTC), Siddipet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Claimants Respondents

PW1 Poosa Yadagiri --Nil-- PW2 Terala Chandramouli PW3 G.Srinivas

EXHIBITS MARKED

Claimant side:

Ex.A1 Attested copy of FIR along with Complaint in Cr.No.146/2014 of PS Kuknoorpally village Ex.A2 Attested copy of Inquest report of Poosa Mallesham Ex.A3Attested copy of Postmortem Examination report of Poosa Mallesham Ex.A4 Photocopy of Insurance policy of crime vehicle Ex.A5 Photocopy of RC of crime vehicle Ex.A6Salary certificate issued by Sri Sai Enterprises, Pregnapur, Gajwel

Respondents:

Ex.B1Copy of policy (with consent)

Sd/-

VI Addl. District Judge, Siddipet. FAC IV Addl. District Judge(FTC), Siddipet.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

SIDDIPET

PRESENT: SRI K. BHAVANI PRASAD, VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

Friday, the 12 th day of June, 2020

Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2019

Between:-

Botka Yellam S/o Venkaiah, aged 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Mubaraspur village, Doulthabad Mandal, Medak District.

…Appellant/Accused

A N D

The State of Telangana, through P.S.Doulthabad.

...Respondent/Complainant

Aggrieved by the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 31-01-2019 passed by

the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajwel in

Calendar Case No. 124 of 2015

Between:-

P.S.Doulthabad. …Complainant

A N D

Botka Yellam

...Accused

This criminal appeal having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Balaiah, Advocate for Appellant/Accused and Sri Venkat Lingam Yasala, APP for the Respondent, upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is an appeal filed by the Appellant/Accused under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the Judgment passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class

Magistrate at Gajwel in CC No. 124 of 2015 dated 31-01-2019 wherein the learned

Magistrate convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight

Thousand only) in default to pay fine, shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 2 of 7 Crl.App.9 of 2019

VI AD & SJ

one month for the offence punishable under Section 7(1), (a), (ii) of Essential

Commodities Act, 1995.

Prosecution story in brief as under:

2.On 10-08-2010 during afternoon time when the de facto complainant/PW1/N.Mahender, Mandal Revenue Officer was in his office, some unknown person informed him through phone that in Mubaraspur village at Sangani

Isthari's house illegal stock of Urea bags stored. On that information he along with

Mandal Agricultural Officer/PW7 and Mandal Revenue Inspector/PW8 went to Sangani

Isthari's house at Mubaraspur village and noticed 156 bags of Urea and 72 bags of

Organic Fertilizer. On enquiry with the neighbours they came to know that Sangani

Isthari was staying at Hyderabad and has given that house to Botka Yellam/Accused.

Accused who was present there revealed that the stock is his own and stated that he purchased that stock at Venkateshwara Fertilizer shop and stored here. Further when accused was asked to know whether he has licence for such storage, he failed to produce licence. Immediately, PW1 seized that illegal stock and conducted seizure panchanama in the presence of villagers and informed the same through phone to R.D.O. Siddipet,

A.D.A. Dubbak, J.D.A. Sangareddy and District Collector, Medak Dist. On the instructions of his higher authorities PW1 handed over the saale proceeds to

A.D.A.Dubbak. PW7 sold away the seized property i.e. 156 bags of Urea to the farmers on the spot. Later PW1 lodged report at police and requested to take necessary action and

PW1 also handed over the unsold 72 bags of organic fertilizer at police station. Based on the report of PW1, PW9/K.Surender Reddy, S.I.of Police, Doulthabad registered a case in

Cr.No.55/2010 under Section 3(2)(d) of ECA and FCO, issued FIR to all concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, PW9 examined and recorded statement of PW1, PW7 and PW8. PW7 handed over to PW2 the Demand Draft copy of sale proceeds of 156 Urea Bags along with other 244 Urea Bags (which were in a lorry for the purpose of distributing to the farmers on the day when sale proceeds of 156 Urea bags relating to this offence were conducted). PW7 also handed over to PW9 attested xerox copy of the list of the farmers who have purchased the Urea. Later PW9 went to the scene of offence at Mubaraspur village and recorded the statements of PW2 and PW6. PW9 also examined and recorded the statement of LW6/Sangani Isthari, who is the owner of the house from where the case property was seized. On completion of investigation, PW9 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 7(ii) of Essential

Commodities Act, 1955.

3 of 7 Crl.App.9 of 2019

VI AD & SJ

3.Trial Court taken cognizance against sole accused for the offence punishable under

Section 7(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On appearance of sole accused, he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and he denied the charge levelled against him.

4.During the course of trial, prosecution got examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P10 after completion of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he denied the prosecution evidence, reported no evidence on his behalf.

5.On hearing both sides and on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found Accused guilty for the offence under Section 7(ii) of Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 and convicted as stated above.

6.Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the court below Accused No.1 filed this appeal under following grounds:

Grounds of Appeal:

1.The Judgment under appeal is against the law and facts on record, illegal, incorrect, improper and resulted in miscarriage of natural justice, hence liable to be set aside.

2.Trial Court has committed grave error in accepting the testimony of the prosecution case being inadmissible, manifestly erroneous and the conviction is utterly unsustainable and bad in law.

3.Trial Court did not appreciate that independent witnesses PW2 to PW6 were turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

4.Trial Court failed to appreciate that the evidecne of PW1, PW7 & PW8 is not corroborated with each other. Moreover, ther is a delay of 2 days in lodging the complaint and the cause of delay also not explained.

5.Trial Court did not appreciate that there are several contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the prosecution case, which have been overlooked by the Trial Court.

6.The sentence is much too severe.

7.Heard arguments of learned counsel for appellant/Accused and learned Additional

Public Prosecutor.

8.It is argued by the learned counsel for appellant that the Judgment of the Trial

Court is against the evidence on record and not properly appreciated resulted in failure of 4 of 7 Crl.App.9 of 2019

VI AD & SJ

justice. It is argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Judgment passed by the Trial Judge is in accordance with law and there is no illegality or irregularity in the

Judgment.

9.The points for consideration are –

1. Whether the appellant/Accused is rightly found guilty for the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act?

2. Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below is sustainable under law?

Points No.1 & 2:

10.The present Criminal Appeal germane from the conviction against the appellant/accused by the Trial Judge in CC 124 of 2015 sentencing him to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.8,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1995.

11.The prosecution to prove its case against the accused, out of ten listed witnesses examined nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9. PW1 is the complainant Mandal Revenue

Officer, PW7 Mandal Agricultural Officer, PW8 Retired Revenue Inspector and PW9 is the Investigation Officer.

12.PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 turned hostile to the case of prosecution and they did not support the prosecution case. PW2 and PW6 are shown as direct witnesses, but these two direct witnesses turned hostile. PW2 stated that during the year 2010 while he was at Venkateshwara Fertilizer shop, MRO came to him and took his signature on one white paper and that he does not know for what purpose his signature was taken and that he does not know anything about this case. PW6 simply stated that he does not know anything about this case, police have never examined him and recorded his statement.

PW3, PW4 and PW5 are the panchas for seizure also turned hostile. PW3 clearly stated that he does not know anything about this case, MRO Doulthabad did not conduct any panchanama in his presence and they obtained his signature on a paper. However, he identified his signature on seizure panchanama as Ex.P4. PW4 another panch for seizure 5 of 7 Crl.App.9 of 2019

VI AD & SJ

also stated that he does not know anything about this case, MRO Doulthabad did not conduct any panchanama in his presence and they obtained his signature on a paper.

However, he identified his signature on seizure panchanama as Ex.P5. PW5 another panch for seizure also stated in the similar lines of what PW3 and PW4 stated, identifying his signature as Ex.P6. With the evidence of PW3 to PW5, the very conducting of panchanama is not proved, as such the seizure become dubious and they clearly denied even in their cross-examination. The procedure contemplated under Section 100 Cr.P.C. is not followed in the case. What prevented the prosecution from picking up two independent witnesses of that locality at the time of seizure. What made Mandal Revenue

Officer, Doulthabad to obtain signatures of PW3 to PW5 on a paper, which clearly gives indication that it was not seized as per the prosecution version in the presence of prosecution witnesses as alleged by them. Even PW2 stated Mandal Revenue Officer came to him and taken his signature on one white paper and that he does not know the purpose of his signature is taken. When PW6 states that he does not know anything about this case, police never examined him, this gives inference to the Court that the case of the prosecution is totally dubious.

13.PW9, Investigation Officer clearly stated that he has not collected any document to show that Sanghani Isthari whose evidence was closed as died was the owner of the alleged scene of offence house and that he has no idea about use of urea for one acre and that he has not enquired about receipts to show that accused purchased urea and that he has not enquired about distribution by MRO distributing 3 bags each acre and when there are no receipts against accused to have purchased urea, then how case is booked against the accused. Owner of house of accused is a very important and key witness to speak the truth of the case, unfortunately he is no more.

14.PW8 clearly says that they came to know premises belongs to Sangani Isthari from the gathered villagers over there and that they did not collect any document to show that premises belongs to Sangani Isthari and that he was not present when urea bags were sold to the villagers, as such he does not exactly know how many bags were sold to each villager.

15.Interestingly, PW7 Mandal Agricultural Officer evidence is that when they came to know from the villagers that premises belongs to Sangam Isthari they did not enquire it at

Gram Panchayath to collect any documents showing that the premises belongs to Sangam 6 of 7 Crl.App.9 of 2019

VI AD & SJ

Isthari and they have handed over 72 bags organic fertilizer to the police and that he does not know what happened to the stock of 72 bags because they follow the directions of the

Court once they handed over to the police. There is no concrete evidence against the accused to connect him with the stock and also the stock which is in the lorry and there is no concrete proof to connect the accused with the seized stock of urea and organic fertilizer.

16.Though, PW1 stated that one unknown person called him through phone and informed that at Mubaraspur at the house of Sangani Isthari stock of illegal fertilizer, but he did not disclose source of information of the person through which he got information.

It is the evidence of PW1 that accused stated that he purchased urea and organic fertilizer from Venkateshwara Fertilizer shop at Ahmednagar and it was for his use and he failed to show any valid licence. Though he stated that he conducted panchanama in the presence of prosecution witnesses, but they denied the same. Though case property produced

before the Court, but not got it marked. In the absence of which, especially when seizure

of the property is not proved, the very seizure becomes dubious and it is also his evidence though accused stated that he purchased seized stock, but has not shown any receipt.

Though, he stated that he was given instructions by the Collector, but further stated that he has not filed any document in the Court regarding instructions of the Collector.

17.Absolutely, neither panchanama is proved, much less seizure of the alleged urea and organic fertilizer and as per the record, there is a delay of 2 days in lodging complaint and there is no proper explanation coming forth for the delay of 2 days in lodging complaint. In this case, apart from the official witnesses, no other independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and even the evidence of official witnesses is dubious. The independent and eye witnesses were declared hostile, panchas for seizure have not supported the case of the prosecution. There is no evidence that the urea bags were sold to the persons. None of the said persons got examined to appreciate the evidence of prosecution. The owner of the house was not examined, unfortunately, his evidence was closed as died who could have been a very key witness. No order of the higher official for dispose off the case property is filed and even though it was produced

before the Court, but not got marked in favour of the prosecution to prove their case. In

the absence of marking of case property, case of the prosecution cannot be appreciated.

For all these defects in prosecution evidence and for no corroboration in material particular i.e., though case property produced, but the prosecution did not get it marked, 7 of 7 Crl.App.9 of 2019

VI AD & SJ

only makes the case of the prosecution dubious. The total case of the prosecution is dubious. The Trial Court could have observed the lack of evidence in material particulars and should have extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, the appreciation of the evidence of the Trial Court is not on proper lines. The evidence on record does not prove the guilt of accused beyond shadow of doubt.

18.In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

19.IN THE RESULT, Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2019 is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the court below against appellant/Accused in CC 124 of 2015

dated 31-01-2019 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gajwel is

hereby set aside. The appellant/Accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 7(1),

(a), (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1995, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled, the fine amount if any paid by the appellant/accused shall be returned to him after revision or revision time is over. The order of Trial Judge in the Judgment that unmarked case property deposited vide CPR No.560/15/2010 i.e., 72 organic fertilizer bags and which was given to safe custody of police, Doulthabad on 23-12-2020 shall be confiscated to

State after expiry of appeal time holds good after revision or revision time is over.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, Corrected & Pronounced

by Me on this the 12 th day of June, 2020.

VI ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

SIDDIPET

PRESENT: SRI K. BHAVANI PRASAD, VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

Friday, the 22 nd day of May, 2020

Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019

Between:-

Ballepu Mahesh S/o Muthyalu, aged 35 years, Occ: Carpenter, R/o H.No.1-6-174/5/20/1, Babjinagar, Morambanda, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

…Appellant/Accused No.1

A N D

The State of Telangana, through P.S.Doulthabad.

...Respondent/Complainant

Aggrieved by the Judgment of Conviction and sentence dated 03-10-2019 passed by

the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajwel in

Calendar Case No. 475 of 2015

Between:-

The State of Telangan, represented by Sub-Inspector, P.S.Doulthabad. …Complainant

A N D

1.Ballaepu Mahesh S/o Muthyalu, aged 35 years, Occ: Carpenter

2.Ballepu Laxmi W/o Ashok, aged 40 years, Occ: Household, Both are R/o H.No.1-6-174/5/20/1, Babjinagar, Morambanda, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

3.Yellaboina Saibaba S/o Sathaiah, aged 55 years, Occ: BSNL employee, R/o Koukoor village, Bollaram, Secunderabad.

4.Yellaboina Pentaiah S/o Sathaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ: Employee in Metro Water Works at Narayanguda, R/o H.No.12-11-127, Lalapet, Hyderabad.

...Accused No.1 to 4

This criminal appeal having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Rajeshwar Reddy, Advocate for Appellant/Accused No.1 and Sri Venkat Lingam Yasala, APP for the Respondent, upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is an appeal filed by the Appellant/Accused No.1 under Section 374 Cr.P.C.

2 of 7 Crl.App.52 of 2019

VI AD & SJ

against the Judgment passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class

Magistrate at Gajwel in CC No. 475 of 2015 dated 03-10-2019 wherein the learned

Magistrate convicted the appellant/accused No.1 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of 6 months (six months) and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in default to pay fine, shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.

Prosecution story in brief as under:

2.One Smt. Ballepu Lavanya @ Swapna, the de facto complainant/PW1 lodged a private complaint before the Court which was referred under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to

Doulthabad P.S. in which it was mentioned that the marriage of PW1 was performed with

Ballepu Mallesh/A1 on 27-11-2004 at her parental house Manthur village. At the time of marriage PW1's parents gave 3 tolas gold, 20 tolas silver and household articles and clothes worth Rs.20,000/-, wrist watch and bicycle worth Rs.4,000/-, cash Rs.80,000/- and Rs.5,000/ cash to Ballepu Laxmi/A2 as Adapadchu Katnam. PW1 and her husband/Accused No.1 led happy marital life for about 2 years, during the wedlock PW1 blessed with two male children by names 1) Tahneesh, 2) Vamshi and one female child by name 3) Dhana Laxmi. At the time of her child's 21st day ceremony PW1's parents gave amount of Rs.50,000/- to Ballepu Laxmi/A2 before Jodu Narsaiah/PW2. Later A1 to A$ and A2's husband Ashok, A3's wife Sunitha, A4's wife Balamani, harassed PW1 for

additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. PW1 informed her parents about harassment for

additional dowry and PW1's father expressed his inability. Father of PW1 conducted

panchayaths several times but all the accused did not turn up. In the panchayath the elders advised to look after PW1 well, not to harass and not to beat and not to abuse PW1. After the panchayath PW1 joined the company of her husband/A1 and they led marital life for some period. After A1 took PW1 to his company again A1, A2, A3, A4 and A2's husband

Ashok, A3's wife Sunitha, A4's wife Balamani all harassed PW1 and beat and abused

PW1 in filthy language to bring additional dowry. A1 necked out PW1 from their house.

As such PW1 is residing at her parental house at Mantoor village along with her children.

Basing on the complaint filed by PW1, the Investigation Officer LW9/Y.Ravinder registered a case in Cr.No.25/2012 for the offence under Section 498(A) r/w 34 IPC and

Secdtions 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and took up investigation. On 20-04-2012 LW9 visited

Manthur village and examined PW1 and recorded the statement. During the course of investigation on 18-05-2012 PW8/D. Srinivas Reddy received CD file from LW9 for further investigation and on 22-05-2012 PW8 visited Manthur village and examined PW3, 3 of 7 Crl.App.52 of 2019

VI AD & SJ

LW3, PW2, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7 and recorded their statements. As the investigation did not disclose any case against A2's husband Ashok, A3's wife Sunitha and

A4's wife Balamani, their names were deleted. On completion of investigation charge sheet is filed against A1 to A4.

3.Trial Court taken cognizance against A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On appearance of A1 to A4, they were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and they denied the charge levelled against them.

4.During the course of trial, prosecution got examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P3, after completion of prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 were examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied the prosecution evidence, reported no evidence on their behalf.

5.On hearing both sides and on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found Accused No.1 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and convicted as stated above and A1 to A4 found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, whereas A2 to A4 found not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

6.Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the court below Accused No.1 filed this appeal under following grounds:

Grounds of Appeal:

1.The Judgment under appeal is against the law and facts on record, illegal, incorrect, improper and resulted in miscarriage of natural justice, hence liable to be set aside.

2.Trial Court has committed grave error in accepting the testimony of the prosecution case being inadmissible, manifestly erroneous and the conviction is utterly unsustainable and bad in law.

3.Trial Court did not appreciate that PW1 to PW3 are relatives each other and PW4 to PW7 are interested witnesses, moreover PW2 to PW7 are not having personal knowledge about PW1 was harassed by appellant herein, so the evidence of PW2 to PW7 inadmissible and their evidence cannot be considered.

4.Trial Court did not appreciate that no witness stated about specific instances of harassment, mode of harassment, except common allegation that PW1 was harassed by accused persons physically and mentaloly for additional dowry. The entire incident took place at the residence of in-laws of PW1, but prosecution 4 of 7 Crl.App.52 of 2019

VI AD & SJ

failed to examine any neighbours or independent witnesses.

5.There is no corroboration in between the evidence of PW1 to PW8 and there are several contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the prosecution case which have been overlooked by the Trial Court.

6.The sentence is much too severe.

7.Heard arguments of learned counsel for appellant/Accused No.1 and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor.

8.It is argued by the learned counsel for appellant that the evidence on record not properly appreciated and the Judgment passed is not in accordance with law and the sentence imposed is not sustainable and that the matter ended in failure of justice. It is argued by the Additional Public Prosecutor that the Judgment passed by the Trial Judge in sentencing the accused is on proper lines.

9.The points for consideration are –

1. Whether the appellant/Accused No.1 is rightly found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC?

2. Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below is sustainable under law?

Points No.1 & 2:

10.The present Criminal Appeal germane for convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC sentencing to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to pay fine amount Accused No.1 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for ten days for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

11.The prosecution in order to establish its case in all examined 8 prosecution witnesses out of ten listed witnesses. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW3 mother of the victim and LW9 first investigation Officer and the matter has been brought

before this Court by Accused No.1 for re-appreciation of Trial Court evidence.

12.Learned Trial Judge held that Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly 5 of 7 Crl.App.52 of 2019

VI AD & SJ

acquitted them under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence and further held that

Accused No.2 to 4 not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and further held that Accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

13.Now it has to be seen whether the ingredients under Section 498-A IPC are fulfilled through the evidence of PW1 to PW8 and whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was properly appreciated.

14.PW1 is the complainant-cum-victim clearly stated in her evidence that she did not lodge any report in writing at Police Station Doulthabad and that she stated orally, she did not say that her complaint was reduced into writing, read over to her having understood the same she lodged report with the police. She admitted that Accused No.1 lodged a report against her stating that she took gold ornaments belonging to accused family. This witness clearly stated that “she has not filed any document to show that dowry and presentations were given at the time of marriage because they did not maintain anything in writing at the time of marriage as she did not expect this thing to happen”. She further admitted that “in the complaint the word dowry is not specifically mentioned in Para-1”.

15.PW2 states that PW1 is the daughter of his younger brother Jodu Ramaiah i.e.

PW3 and his evidence is that he only knows that A1 beat PW1 and remaining family members A2 to A4 abused PW1, apart from this, he does not know anything and that police never asked him regarding this case.

16.PW3 states that PW1 is his daughter and that A1 used to come in drunken stated and used to beat PW1, A1 used to harass PW1 for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and that panchayaths were held in this regard, but then prosecution did not file any documentary evidence in support of their case to appreciate their evidence that A1 beat

PW1 and harassed her for additional dowry. Had it been genuine, what prevented these prosecution witnesses i.e. complainant and other witnesses from lodging police complaint against Accused No.1. In the absence of any such evidence, it creates a doubt on the prosecution case. Even PW3, father of PW3 clearly admitted that “he has not filed any document to show that he gave dowry as he stated in his chief and accused used to beat

PW1” and further admitted that “PW2, LW5 to LW8 belongs to his village”. Even no single independent witness is examined to appreciate the evidence of PW3 that A1 used to beat PW1.

6 of 7 Crl.App.52 of 2019

VI AD & SJ

17.PW4 in his evidence clearly admitted that he came to know about the harassment of additional dowry through PW1 and her parents.

18.PW5 states that he knows PW1’s family as they belong to his village and that he stood as one of the elder in the panchayath like PW4. Even this witness also admitted that he came to know that PW1’s matrimonial relatives are demanding dowry through PW1 and her family members. There is no direct evidence for the allegations against Accused

No.1 to have committed the offence under Section 498-A IPC. There is no evidence so far about the cruelty or harassment meted out to PW1 by Accused No.1.

19.PW6 says that PW1 belongs to his village and that he did not state about the names of family members of Accused No.1 to the police and there is no substantial incriminating evidence against Accused No.1 to have committed the offence through prosecution evidence.

20.PW7 states that PW1 is her elder sister’s daughter and that she does not know exactly what was given in the form of dowry to Accused No.1 and that he came to know that there were disputes between Pw1 and her husband and this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.

21.PW8 is none other than the Investigation Officer, who clearly admitted that he did not take signature of the complainant on the F.I.R. and no G.D. entry was made pertaining to FIR and further admitted that he did not conduct any panchanama in this case.

22.On the whole evidence of prosecution, there are no independent witnesses except verbal allegations, there is no supporting documentary evidence against accused No.1 to have demanded for additional dowry and to have harassed PW1 and to have perpetrated cruelty on PW1. In the absence of any proof for the verbal allegation, such evidence cannot be appreciated at all. The appreciation of the evidence by Trial Court is not on proper lines. Mere allegations do not stand without any proof, such evidence has to be brushed aside and such evidence can never be appreciated and no credence can be given to such testimony. Either the prosecution witnesses belong to one village or connected to

PW1, but not even a single independent witness is examined to appreciate the evidence of prosecution case and convicting the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC without establishing the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC is not proper. The Trial Court 7 of 7 Crl.App.52 of 2019

VI AD & SJ

should have extended the benefit of doubt to accused No.1 keeping in view of the evidence unsupported by any independent evidence and substantial documentary evidence. It is also brought on record that a case was filed by Accused No.1 against the complainant and as it could be motive with which the case is filed against accused No.1 and there is no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses except verbal evidence and the total evidence is suspicious. All in all, absolutely there is no incriminating evidence against accused No.1 to have committed the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

23.In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

24.IN THE RESULT, Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2019 is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against appellant/Accused No.1 in CC 475 of 2015

dated 03-10-2019 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gajwel is

hereby set aside. The appellant/Accused No.1 is acquitted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled, the fine amount if any paid by the appellant/accused No.1 shall be returned to him after revision or revision time is over.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, Corrected & Pronounced

by Me in the Open Court on this the 22 nd day of May, 2020.

VI ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

SIDDIPET

PRESENT: SRI K. BHAVANI PRASAD, VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

Monday, the 13 th day of July, 2020

Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2018

Between:-

Jakkula Narsaiah S/o Kishtaiah, Age about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Nancharupally village of Siddipet Mandal and District.

…Appellant

A N D

1.Jakkula Lasmaiah S/o Kishtaiah, Age 50 years, Occ: Agriculture

2.Jakkula Yellavva W/o Lasmaiah, Age 45 years, Occ: Agriculture

3.Jakkula Kishtaiah S/o Lasmaiah, Age 25 years, Occ: Auto Driver

4.Jakkula Sudhakar S/o Lasmaiah, Age 22 years, Occ: Agriculture All are residents of Nancharupally village of Siddipet urban Mandal, Dist. Siddipet.

5.Jangapally Rajaiah S/o Bhumaiah, Age 50 years, Occ: Labour, R/o near Sharebeshwara Temple, Siddipet.

6.Jangapally Kishtavva W/o Rajaiah, Age 45 years, Occ: Labour, R/o near Sharebeshwara Temple, Siddipet.

7.Malyala Bugga Raju S/o Mallesham, Age 30 years , Occ: Labour, R/o Vivekananda Colony, Siddipet.

8.Malyala Ravi S/o Mallesham, Age Major, Occ: Labour, R/o Vivekananda Colony, Siddipet.

...Respondents/Accused

Aggrieved by the Judgment of Acquittal dated 29-08-2018 passed by the Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet in

Calendar Case No. 418 of 2011

Between:-

P.S. Siddipet Rural …Complainant

A N D

1.Jakkula Lasmaiah S/o Kishtaiah, Age 50 years, Occ: Agriculture

2.Jakkula Yellavva W/o Lasmaiah, Age 45 years, Occ: Agriculture

3.Jakkula Kishtaiah S/o Lasmaiah, Age 25 years, Occ: Auto Driver

4.Jakkula Sudhakar S/o Lasmaiah, Age 22 years, Occ: Agriculture All are residents of Nancharupally village of Siddipet urban Mandal, Dist. Siddipet.

2 of 7 Crl.App.92 of 2018

VI AD & SJ

5.Jangapally Rajaiah S/o Bhumaiah, Age 50 years, Occ: Labour, R/o near Sharebeshwara Temple, Siddipet.

6.Jangapally Kishtavva W/o Rajaiah, Age 45 years, Occ: Labour, R/o near Sharebeshwara Temple, Siddipet.

7.Malyala Bugga Raju S/o Mallesham, Age 30 years , Occ: Labour, R/o Vivekananda Colony, Siddipet.

8. Malyala Ravi S/o Mallesham, Age Major, Occ: Labour, R/o Vivekananda Colony, Siddipet. (Case against Accused No.8 is split up vide CC No.257 of 2016)

...Accused

This Criminal Appeal having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Uppara Mallesham and Sri V.V. Chary, Advocates for Appellant, while Sri N.Balaiah, Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 7, upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is an appeal filed by the Appellant/SHO PS Siddipet-Rural represented by

Additional Public Prosecutor under Section 378 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order of

acquittal passed by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet in CC No.418 of 2011 dated 29-08-2018 against respondents No.1 to 7/Accused No.1 to 7 for the offences under Sections 148, 448, 447, 427, 504 and 506 IPC allowing the appeal and punish them as per law.

Prosecution story in brief as under:

2.1On 30-06-2011 at midnight hours at 1.15 am all the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant and threatened to pour kerosene on inmates of the house and set them on fire if they do not compromise the court case pending between them. Accused also beat all the inmates of the house. As such, afraid of the said acts the inmates went to the house of Badaboina Yadavva and took shelter in said house for that night. On the next day i.e. on 01-07-2011 all the accused went to the agriculture village of PW1 and caused damage to the cattle shed, boundary stones and destroyed the crop with a tractor. The loss caused by the accused to the complainant is about Rs.1,00,000/-. When the complainant approaching police station on 01-07-2011 to lodge a complaint, accused No.1 stopped the complainant on the way and requested to compromise the case. As such, no complaint was lodged on that day. On 03-07-2011 when compromise talks were scheduled, accused refused to compromise and stated that they suggested compromise only to misguide the complainant. As such, on 03-07-2011 complainant lodged the present complaint with the police.

3 of 7 Crl.App.92 of 2018

VI AD & SJ

3.Trial Court taken cognizance against A1 to A8 for the offences punishable under

Sections 148, 427, 447, 504 and 506 IPC and the matter was posted for examination. As

NBW was pending and not appeared before the Court the case against A8 was split up and numbered as CC 257 of 2016. Accused No.1 to 7 were examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C. and they denied the charge levelled against them.

4.During the course of trial, prosecution got examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P18, after completion of prosecution evidence, A1 to A7 were examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against them, they denied the prosecution evidence, reported no evidence on their behalf, but Ex.D1 to D3 were marked in 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW1,

PW3 and PW6 respectively.

5.On hearing both sides and on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found A1 to A7 not guilty for the offences under Sections 148, 448, 427, 504 and 506 IPC and acquitted them.

6.Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the court below the complainant filed this appeal with the following grounds:

Grounds of Appeal:

1. The Judgment of the Court below is contrary to law weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2. The Judgment of the Court below is based on only presumptions, surmises and conjectures which are not relevant to the circumstances of the case.

3. The learned Judge should have held that the circumstances relied upon by the accused are insufficient and not proved to throw away the case of the prosecution.

4. The learned Judge ought to have appreciate the evidence produced on behalf of prosecution.

5. Trial Court ought to have observe that accused have not made out any defence to tern them as reasonable doubts.

6. Trial Court ought to have not considered the evidence of the witnesses. The complainant and accused are the nearest family members, even after this accused have recklessly behaved with the complainant, criminally trespassed into the complainant’s land and cuased damage, caused heavy loss to the complainant and beat him indiscriminately and abused him in filthy language, but the Trial Court not considered the same and acquitted them.

4 of 7 Crl.App.92 of 2018

VI AD & SJ

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8.Learned counsel for appellant argued that the Judgment of the Trial Court is not in accordance with law. Learned respondents’ counsel argued that the Judgment of the Trial

Court is on proper lines, needs no interference.

9.The point for consideration is –

Whether the Judgment of the Trial Court in CC 418 of 2011 dated 29-08-2018

passed by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet,

acquitting A1 to A7 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 427, 447,

504 and 506 IPC is sustainable?

Point:

10.On perusal, this Criminal Appeal germane from the Judgment of acquitting A1 to

A7/respondents 1 to 7 passed by the Trial Judge in CC 418 of 2011 dated 29-08-2018 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 448, 427, 504 and 506 IPC.

11.The prosecution to prove its case against the A1 to A7 in all examined 11 prosecution witnesses out of 16 listed witnesses.

12.The main crux of the evidence of PW1 is that on 30-06-2011 at 12.00 midnight or 1.00 am while he along with his family members were sleeping at his house in

Nancharpally village, A1 to A6 along with 10 to 15 members knocked the doors of their house, on opening the doors, A1, A3, A4 and A5 threatened them to compromise the civil case pending on the file of Civil Court at Siddipet, thereafter accused went away, at about 8.00 am 50 members including A1 to A6 came to their agricultural field, demolished cattle shed, damaged pillar stones and levelled their land to an extent of one acre with the tractor, thereafter he went to police station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P1.

Immediately, in the cross-examination this witness states A1 is his younger brother, A2 is wife of A1, A3 and A4 are sons of A1 and A2, A5 is younger brother of A2 and his house is surrounded by other houses. This witness clearly stated that nobody came to the scene when accused persons knocked their door and when the incident took place. I clearly goes to show that there are no witnesses for the evidence of PW1 and it is also his evidence that he himself witnessed demolishing the cattle shed and levelling the 5 of 7 Crl.App.92 of 2018

VI AD & SJ

agricultural land by the accused. It is not clear from his evidence, whether A1 to A6 came to their agricultural field along with 50 members at 8.00 am on 30-06-2011 or some other date. There is no whisper date on which he witnessed demolishing cattle shed and levelling the agricultural land by accused. In the absence of any independent evidence, direct and best evidence, the evidence of PW1 cannot be appreciated at all. He did not whisper as to the persons who witnessed either accused coming to her house or other persons witnessed accused demolishing cattle shed and levelling the agricultural land.

13.PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 are all connected with each other by family relationship and there are no independent witnesses.

14. PW7 turned hostile, whose evidence is hearsay evidence that PW6 came to his house and informed that there was a galata by A1’s family with PW1’s family.

15.PW8 evidence is that about two years back he was present at his agricultural field at that time 20 members were came there and demolished the vorams, water canals and cattle shed of PW1 land with the help of a Tractor and thrown away the bowls and he cannot identify who damaged PW1’s land and it is also his evidence that he has no lands surrounding of scene of offence.

16.PW9 says that he does not know anything about this case, police did not conduct any scene of offence panchanama, police obtained his signature on white papers and

PW10 stated that he does not know anything about this case, he did not witness any incident and that he is not examined by the police. PW9 says that Ex.P6 is his signature on scene of offence panchanama. In view of his evidence the very conducting of scene of offence panchanama is ruled out.

17.PW11 the Investigation Officer clearly stated in his evidence that there are civil disputes between them and that A1 and PW1 are own brothers and admitted that prior to the date of first offence i.e. 30-06-2011, A1 obtained injunction order from the Court against PW1 in respect of the land alleged under the complaint and that there are other houses surrounding to the house of PW1 and clearly stated that PW1 is not an eye witness to the incident which occurred on 01-07-2011 and he also stated that PW1 stated to him that at the time of incident one Akkula Durgaiah, PW3 and PW6 were present and that he came to know about said incident through them. PW11 further stated that PW2 stated in 6 of 7 Crl.App.92 of 2018

VI AD & SJ

her statement that on 30-06-2011 PW1 to PW5 went to their field for shelter and PW6 went to the house of Bandaramoina Yadavva/LW8, according to 161 Cr.P.C.statement of

PW3, LW6/Jakkula Yadavva took shelter in the house of LW8, PW6 took shelter in the house of PW7 and PW1 to PW5 took shelter in their field. There is no corroboration among the prosecution witnesses. Investigation Officer also stated that PW6 stated before him as in Ex.D3 and she has never stated before him that she witnessed the alleged incident on 01-07-2011 and that he has not received any information about the alleged offences before 30-07-2011 and that PW4 did not state before him that PW2 and PW6 took shelter in the house of PW7 and LW7 slept in the house of LW8 on 30-06-2011.

18.With the evidence of PW11 Investigation Officer, it is clear that there are civil disputes between the parties and that by then A1 obtained injunction order from the court against PW1 in respect of the land alleged under the complaint. Perhaps it could be the motive for the present litigation. The evidence of PW1 developed by other prosecution witnesses, as such their evidence has to be doubted keeping in view of the civil disputes pending between them and there are no independent direct witnesses to any of the incidents. It is only the evidence of related family members. PW2 clearly stated that all the accused are her relatives, total 50 persons came to her house on the date of incident and that no one eye witnessed the incident and that they are not eye witnesses to the damage caused by the accused in the field. Surprisingly, this witness PW2 stated they all the seven persons slept in one Srinivas Goud and Yadavva houses on the date of incident.

PW3 also admitted that there are civil disputes between them and that A1 obtained injunction order one day prior to the incident. None of the adjacent land owners are examined to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses. There is no proof for the evidence of PW2 to PW6 as no material object is said to have been seized by the

Investigation Officer. Neither they are produced nor got it marked making the case of the prosecution dubious.

19.Absolutely, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused. Neither identity of the accused is proved, much less involvement in the alleged incident. Had the evidence of other related prosecution witnesses is correct, what prevented PW1 to say all those particulars in his evidence. It appears the related witnesses evidence is improved version, without there being any supporting independent evidence. Apart from the complainant and her family members, no other independent witnesses examined to appreciate the evidence of prosecution. No best evidence is produced before the Court, as 7 of 7 Crl.App.92 of 2018

VI AD & SJ

such the evidence of prosecution cannot be appreciated.

20.PW2 clearly stated that one Bonala Bhasker, B.Bixapathi, Satyanarayana,

B.Shivaiah houses are there surrounding her house, then why they are not picked up as independent witnesses to prove the case of the prosecution.

21.Viewed in any angle, there is no irregularity or illegality in the Trial Court

Judgment and the Trial Court Judgment does not require interference of this Court as

Learned Trial Judge properly appreciated the evidence, in coming to the conclusion of acquittal of Accused No.1 to 7.

22.IN THE RESULT, Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2018 is dismissed, while confirming the Judgment of the Trial Court in CC 418 of 2011 dated 29-08-2018 on the file of

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, Corrected & Pronounced

by Me on this the 13 th day of July, 2020.

VI ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.