K.kusha

BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE, CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT-CUM-

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: AT HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 11 th day of May, 2026

Present: SRI K.Kusha,

Chief Judge, CSCC-Cum-Chairman, MACT, Hyderabad

MVOP.No.550 of 2021

Between:-

Guntur Sowmya Sree D/o.Sri Guntur Sri Ramulu, aged 23 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.12-2-831/10, MIGH-16, Kaman Road,

Medhipatnam, Hyderabad.... Petitioner

AND

1.Henil Patil S/o. Jignesh Patel, aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o.16-10-234/4/5, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad.

2.IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd, Through its Authorized Signatory, II Floor, Above Con Agra Foods, Road No.31, Lane Opposite to DBR Diagnostics, S.D. Road,

Secunderabad.... Respondents

The claim petition is coming before me on 17.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Venkatesham, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Nilesh Narania,Advocate for Respondent No.1 and of Sri G.Srinivasacharyulu, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

A W A R D

The present claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of 18,00,000/- (Rupees₹

Eighteen lakhs only) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/injured in 2 MVOP.No.550 of 2021 the motor vehicle accident occurred on 02.05.2019 at 07:15 P.M., near

Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

PLEADINGS OF THE PETITIONER:

2.

(i) The pleadings show that on 02.05.2019 at about 07-15 PM injured/Sowmya was crossing the road at RTA office Khairtabad Bus Stop, one two wheeler bearing No.TS 11 EQ 3836, came from left side of her with rash and negligent manner and dashed to the injured and fled away from there. Due to which, the petitioner fell down on the road and then she was shifted to Yashoda Hospital for medical treatment. The Doctors examined and noticed in X-ray that her left knee bone was fractured.

(ii) The Police Panjagutta has registered a case in Crime No.233 of 2019 under Section 337 of IPC., against the driver of the vehicle bearing

No.Yamaha FZ, TS-EQ-3836.

(iii) At the time of accident, the injured was 23 years of age and was a private employee and was earning monthly income of Rs.20,000/- per month. On account of injury has lost earnings and sought for compensation of Rs.18,00,000/-.

(iv)The respondent No.1/Owner-cum-driver of bike bearing No.TS-

EQ-3836, respondent No.2/Insurer are liable to pay compensation.

3 MVOP.No.550 of 2021

PLEADINGS OF THE RESPONDENT No.1:

3.

The Respondent No.1 filed Counter. Counter pleadings of

Respondent No.1 show that, the vehicle bearing No.TS-EQ-3836 which is insured with the respondent No.2/Insurance company vide Policy

No.YIT/97363549 from 30.03.2019 to 29.03.2020 and the said policy was in force as on the date of accident ie., 02.05.2019 and that the respondent

No.1 has all the necessary documents, driving licence and while driving has taken care hence, no liability rise on respondent No.1. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

PLEADINGS OF THE RESPONDENT No.2:

4.

(i) The Respondent No.2 filed Counter. Counter pleadings of

Respondent No.1 show that, the Insurance Company did not admit the accident as narrated by the petitioner and involvement of the bike bearing

No.TS-EQ-3836, rash and negligence on the part of driver of bike bearing

No.TS-EQ-3836 and also did not admit the injuries referred by the petitioner. The Insurance Company also denied the age, avocation and earnings of the injured and the amount spent for the treatment.

(ii)The respondent specifically submits that the driver of the alleged crime vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the time of 4 MVOP.No.550 of 2021 accident and further was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license and further had not satisfied the requirements of the

Section 3 of the MV Act. Further the alleged accident took place due to sole negligence on the part of the petitioner as she was crossing the road without observing ongoing traffic but not due to the negligence on the part of insured vehicle driver. Hence, it is prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.

5.Upon the pleadings, the following issues were framed for consideration:

1. Whether the injuries sustained by Gunturu Soumaya Sree D/o.Sri Guntur Sri Ramulu, in a motor accident occurred on 02.05.2019, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle Yamaha bearing No.FZ-TS-11-EQ-3836?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom?

3. To what relief?

EVIDENCE:

6.The petitioner to support her case examined PWs.1 to 3 and relied upon Exs.A1 to A10. No evidence was let in by respondent No.2/Insurance company except by filing Ex.B1 policy.

5 MVOP.No.550 of 2021

7.Heard arguments of both the learned counsel on record. Arguments on behalf of respondent no.1 is treated as heard. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed certain legal authoritiesand the same have been taken on record.

ISSUE No.1:

8.The accident occurred on 02.05.2019 near the RTA Office,

Khairatabad Bus Stop, Hyderabad.

9.The petitioner, being both an eyewitness and an injured party, is the most competent person to describe the manner of the accident.

PW1/injured deposed that, while she was crossing the road near the RTA

Office, Khairatabad Bus Stop, Hyderabad. At that time, the driver-cum- owner (Respondent No.1) of the two-wheeler bearing No.TS-11-EQ-3836 came from the left side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against petitioner, resulting in, she fell on the road and sustained a fracture to her left knee.She was immediately shifted to Yashoda Hospitals, Somajiguda and later she was shifted to Care Hospital, Banjara Hills for better treatment. Ex.A1 is the complaint given by the father of the injured, Sri G.

Sree Ramulu, on 13.05.2019.

6 MVOP.No.550 of 2021

10.The defense of respondent No.2/Insurance Company is that, since there is a delay of eleven(11) days in lodging the complaint by the petitioner/PW1, and there is every possibility of planting offending vehicle i.e., two-wheeler bearing No.TS-11-EQ-3836 which is for getting compensation.

11.It is true that there is a delay of (11) days in lodging complaint but in a case like this the top priority will be given for treatment rather for lodging complaint. Moreover, the Injured/PW1 is the best person to say as to how the accident occurred. During cross examination PW1 admitted that her father lodged police complaint after the delay of (11) days. A perusal of Ex.A2, F.I.R., lodged by the Mr.G. Sree Ramulu, who is father of the petitioner. The police registered a case and filed charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.TS-11-EQ-3836.

Therefore, the delay by itself cannot have impact on the testimony of

PW1 with regard to involvement of offending vehicle in the accident.

12.A perusal of Ex.A3, the charge sheet, reveals that the rider of the two-wheeler bearing No.TS-11-EQ-3836, while driving in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner who was crossing the road, as a result of which she sustained injuries. The said rider of the two wheeler was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the IPC.

7 MVOP.No.550 of 2021

13.PW1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for Respondent

No.2, the Insurance Company; however, nothing favorable to the respondents was elicited to discredit her version or to suggest any rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioner. Exs. A1, A2 and A3 corroborate the testimony of PW1 with respect to the manner in which the accident occurred and the involvement of the offending Yamaha FZ bike bearing No.TS-11-EQ-3836. Thus, I hold that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Yamaha FZ bike bearing

No.TS-11-EQ-3836 driven by Respondent No.1/Owner-cum-driver.

Therefore, I hold that the accident was resulted due to the negligence of the driver of the Yamaha FZ bike bearing No.TS-11-EQ-3836. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO:2:

14.The petitioner claims that, on account of accident she got injury of knee cup fracture. Ex.A7 is the Wound Certificate dated 18.05.2019, issued by Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda, shows that the petitioner sustained RTA Left Tibial Platean, Schtzler-II. Ex.A8 is the out-patient

Discharge summary issued by Yashoda Hospitals, which goes to show that the petitioner sustained Left tibia schtar II fracture.

15.Further, the petitioner examined PW2/C. Arpitha, Radiologist,

Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda, who deposed that one patient by name 8 MVOP.No.550 of 2021

Sowmya Sree visited their hospital as an outpatient on 02.05.2019 with a history of road traffic accident. According to PW2, the patient was conscious and coherent and her blood pressure was recorded as 110/70.

PW2 further deposed that the petitioner sustained injury to the left knee and the clinical findings revealed: (1) comminuted displaced fracture of lateral tibial plateau with depression, (2) mild lateral subluxation of patella, (3) moderate lipohaemarthrosis, (4) mild wavy contour of patellar tendon, and (5) subcutaneous and myofascial edema.

16.PW2, during cross-examination, admitted that she had certified only the CT-Scan relating to the left knee joint of the petitioner. She further admitted that the petitioner was treated conservatively by the Emergency

Physician and that, at the time of admission in the emergency ward, the petitioner was conscious and coherent.

17.PW1 further deposed that immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda and later on treated in Care

Hospital, for follow up treatment. She further admitted that as per the

Discharge Summary, there is an endorsement that on 16.05.2019, her condition was stable. Ex.A.10 bunch of medical bills including Inpatient

Final bill summary issued by Care Hospital, shows that PW1 was admitted on 07.05.2019 and discharged on the same day.

9 MVOP.No.550 of 2021

18.To substantiate the injuries and treatment, the petitioner examined

PW3/Dr. Anand Nagarani, Orthopedic Surgeon, Care Hospital, Banjara

Hills, Hyderabad. PW3 deposed that one patient by name Guntur Sowmya

Sree, aged about 23 years, was examined by him on 03.05.2019 and was diagnosed with left proximal tibia fracture. He further deposed that first aid treatment was administered and the patient was sent home with an advice and plan for surgery.

19.PW3 further stated that the petitioner was admitted in Care Hospital on 07.05.2019 and underwent open reduction internal fixation and bone grafting with plates and screws on the very same day. According to PW3, the petitioner was discharged on the same day evening with advice not to walk and to attend review after two days for dressing and after ten days for suture removal. PW3 further deposed that the injury sustained by the petitioner was grievous in nature and that she was again reviewed on 19.07.2019 for physiotherapy and was advised removal of implants. He also stated that the Discharge Summary was issued by Care Hospitals.

20.PW3, during cross-examination, admitted that the patient was admitted and discharged on the same day and that the patient sustained only one fracture. PW3 further admitted that at the time of discharge the patient condition was stable. PW3 also admitted that generally these type of fractures would heel in two or three months.

10 MVOP.No.550 of 2021 21.The petitioner/PW1 further deposed that she has incurred substantial expenses towards medical treatment. In support of her claim, the petitioner produced Ex.A8 is the out-patient discharge summary issued by Yashoda Hospitals, which shows that the petitioner was treated for Left Tibia Schtar II Fracture on 02.05.2019. Ex. A9 is the CT Scan Bill of Yashoda Hospitals and Ex.A.10 is the bunch of medical bills dated 02.05.2019 of Yashoda Hospital, In-patient Final bill summary. Further the Discharge summary issued by Care Hospitals which shows that the petitioner was admitted on 07.05.2019 and discharged on the same day and also the in-patient Discharge Summary issued by Aries Maternity

Hospital shows that the petitioner was admitted on 08.05.2019 and discharged on 16.05.2019. Taking into consideration the Exs.A8, A9 and

A10, the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of Rs.2,76,915/- under the head of medical expenditure.

22.The petitioner/PW1 claims that she was working as a private employee in BMW Show-room, Khairtabad, Hyderabad and used to earn

Rs.20,000/- per month and that due to the injuries, she has lost the income of ten months. During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that she has not filed any document to show that she was working as an employee in BMW and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month and also not filed any documents to prove that after the accident she was terminated from 11 MVOP.No.550 of 2021 employment and lost her earning. PW1 further admitted that she did not file any document like a bank statement, appointment order, wage register and TDS certificate and even did not choose to examine any authorized person from BMW show-room, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, showing her employment monthly income is Rs.20,000/-. In the absence of reliable and cogent documentary evidence, the claim of petitioner regarding her alleged income of Rs.20,000/- per month cannot be accepted. In the absence of income proof, the minimum Wages Act would come into operation and a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month is fixed.

23.Though Ex.A3-Charge Sheet mentions the injuries sustained by the petitioner as simple in nature, the medical evidence placed on record, particularly Exs.A7 to A10 coupled with the evidence of PW2 and PW3, discloses that the petitioner had sustained left proximal tibia fracture injury. However, it is also relevant to note that PW3 admitted that the petitioner sustained only one fracture, was discharged on the same day in stable condition and such fracture would generally heal within two to three months.. Considering the nature of injuries, treatment undergone and the period required for recovery, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to loss of income for a period of five (5) months.

24.Exs.A.8 and A.9 OP Discharge Summary and CT-scan bill issued by

Yashoda Hospital and Ex.A.10 bunch of medical bills of Yashoda Hospitals, 12 MVOP.No.550 of 2021

Discharge Summary issued by Care Hospitals, Hyderabad, and Discharge summary of Aries Hospital, Hyderabad. In all, the petitioner is entitled to

Rs.2,76,915/- towards medical expenses. Additionally, the petitioner is also entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering,

Rs.3,000/- towards extra-nourishment and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges can be awarded as the petitioner/injured visited the hospitals thrice.

25.Further the petitioner had taken treatment as an outpatient and no documentary evidence such as bills or receipts has been filed to substantiate the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- towards attendant charges.

Considering the nature of injury sustained by the petitioner this Tribunal feels that she does not required any kind of assistance while discharging her day to day activities. Therefore, the claim that she spent an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards attendant charges cannot be accepted.

Total Compensation:

26. The calculation is arrived as follows:

1. Loss of earnings Rs. 40,000-00

Rs.8,000x 5 months

2. Pain and Sufferings Rs.50,000-00 13 MVOP.No.550 of 2021

3. Medical expenditure Rs.2,76,915-00

4. Extra Nourishment Rs. 3,000-00

5. Transportation Rs. 2,000-00

Total amount of compensation: Rs. 3,71,915-00

Less:25% Contributory negligenceRs. 92,979-00 by the petitioner/injured. Total amount of compensation Rs.2,78,936-00 payable to the petitioner/injured.

The total compensation would works out to an amount of

Rs.2,78,936/-(Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Nine hundred and thirty six only). Issue No.2, answered accordingly.

LIABILITY:

27.It is the case of the respondent No.2 Insurance Company that, the accident resulted on account of Contributory Negligence by the petitioner/injured while crossing the road without observing ongoing traffic. The further contention of respondent No.2 Insurance company is that the rider of the offending vehicle has no valid driving license as on the date of accident i.e.,02.05.2019.

28.Admittedly, the accident occurred at 7:15 P.M. Ex.A2 is the FIR

dated 13.05.2019 which goes to show that the petitioner/Ms.Sowmya met

14 MVOP.No.550 of 2021 with an accident at RTA Office, Khairatabad bus stop. Ex.A3 is the charge sheet further goes to show that, the injured while crossing the road at RTA

Office, Khairatabad bus stop at about 7:25 PM. one two wheeler bearing

No.TS-11EQ- 3836 came from her left side in rash and negligent manner hit the petitioner resulting in left knee bone fracture to the petitioner.

29.The pleadings of the petitioner are that, while crossing the road the injured met with an accident by a two wheeler bearing No.TS-11EQ-3836 near RTA Office, Khairtabad bus-stop.

30.Ex.A.4 is the statement of G.Sreeramulu, who is father of the petitioner/injured Ex.A.5 is the statement of G.Sowmya/injured and

Ex.A.6 is the statement of Mullaguri Venkatesh/claimed to be an eyewitness were examined by police wherein it was recorded that the injured was met with an accident while crossing the road near RTA office bus stop at that time one bike bearing No. TS-11EQ-3836 came in rash and negligent manner and gave dash to the petitioner. However, the name of Mullaguri Venkatesh is shown as the eyewitness to the accident in

Ex.A3, but he has not been examined before the Court. Ex.A3 Charge

Sheet indicates that Respondent No.1/Patel Henil, the owner-cum-driver, drove the Yamaha FZ Bike bearing No. TS-11-EQ-3836 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner who was crossing the road, 15 MVOP.No.550 of 2021 resulting in injuries.PW1 during cross examination by learned Counsel

for respondent No.2 Insurance Company, suggested that the accident was

resulted on account of contributory negligence by the injured.

31.It is no doubt true that, the accident occurred at about 7:15 P.M.

The petitioner/injured must be cautious while crossing the road which she has not adhered to. So, because of the petitioner’s negligence while crossing the road without observing traffic on the road, the accident occurred. The said finding is also corroborating with the findings of the investigating officer who filed charge sheet under Ex.A3. Therefore, there is a contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner/injured while crossing the road. In this context, the learned counsel for Respondent

No.2 Insurance Company has relied upon the Judgment of our own High

Court at Hyderabad reported in 2002 ACJ 1804 between Divisional

Managar APSRTC Vs. Zaheera Begum and others wherein it was observed at para-13 as under:

“There is a duty of care owned by all road users to avoid harm or injury to others. An essential part of this duty consists in regulating the speed at which a vehicle is driven in a particular area or locality. The deceased too cannot escape blame in that he had proceeded to go across the road without taking due care to see whether it was safe to do so. In the circumstances, therefore, it must be held that the accident here was caused by 16 MVOP.No.550 of 2021 the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver and there was also contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 25 percent." 32.Similarly, in the present case, the injured did not take proper care to see whether it was safe to cross the road. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 Insurance Company is aptly applicable to the present case. Considering the above facts, I feel that some negligence can also be attributed to the injured who was crossing the road without observing the traffic. The negligence is more on the part of the bike rider and some negligence is also on the part of the petitioner/injured.

Hence, the negligence caused by both is apportioned in the ratio of 75% and 25% in between the driver of the bike and the petitioner/injured.

33.A perusal of Ex.A3-Charge Sheet reveals that notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused, namely Patel Henil S/o Patel

Jignesh, and pursuant thereto, the accused appeared before the

Investigating Officer on 16.05.2019. The Investigating Officer verified the registration particulars of the offending vehicle as well as the driving licence of the accused and found the same to be genuine and valid.

34.Further, the petitioner has also produced the online copy of the driving licence of respondent No.1, who is the driver-cum-owner of the 17 MVOP.No.550 of 2021 offending vehicle, and the said driving licence was valid up to 07.04.2034.

Hence, the contention of respondent No.2 Insurance Company that the rider of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident is not sustainable.

35.A perusal of Ex.B1 Policy reveals that, the policy belongs to

Respondent No.1/Henil Patil, valid from 30.03.2019 to midnight 29.03.2020 and same is in existence as on date of accident 02.05.2019.

There are no violations in terms and conditions of the Ex.B1 Policy. The said Policy also covers third party insurance.Thus, the Respondent

No.1/owner-cum-rider of the offending vehicle and Respondent

No.2/IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited are jointly

and severally liable to pay 75% of compensation to the

petitioner/injured.

ISSUE NO.4:

36.In the result, the petition is partly allowed, with proportionate costs and interest as under:

(i) the award is passed awarding a sum of Rs.2,78,936/-(Rupees

Two Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Nine hundred and thirty six only) to the petitioner against the respondents with future interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization; 18 MVOP.No.550 of 2021 (ii)the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount into the court within one(1) month from today.

(iii) On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw her entire share of amounts.

(iv) The petitioner is directed to pay court fee on the claimed amount within one month from today.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT-CUM-

CHAIRMAN-M.A.C.T., HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner For Respondents:

PW.1 : Guntur Sowmya Sree,-Nil- PW.2 : C.Arpitha PW.3 : Dr.Anand Naragani.

Exhibits Marked

For the Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Complaint to SHO Punjagutta, 19 MVOP.No.550 of 2021

Ex.A2: Certified copy of FIR,

Ex.A3: Certified copy of Charge Sheet,

Ex.A4: Certified copy of Statement by petitioner father,

Ex.A5: Certified copy of statement,

Ex.A6: Certified copy of Statement,

Ex.A7: Wound Certificate,

Ex.A8: Emergency ward bill,

Ex.A9: CT Scan bill,

Ex.A10 : Bunch of Medical bills,

For Respondents:

Ex.B1 – True copy of Policy schedule of IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Limited,

Sd/-

CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT-CUM-

CHAIRMAN-M.A.C.T., HYDERABAD.

20 MVOP.No.550 of 2021

Judgement in SC.184 OF 2022 1 of 9 dated.11-04-2023

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

Present: Sri K.Kusha, I-Addl Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 11th day of April, 2023

SC No.184 of 2022

1.Name of the complainant: The State of Telangana through the Inspector of police, R.P.S. Secunderabad.

2.Name of the Accused: A2 – Raina Salim Shaik, w/o. Late Salim Shaik, aged 29 years, occ: catering, r/o. Ambedkar nagar, Kalyan, khadavali Thane, Maharastra.

A3 –Pinku Feroz Shaik, w/o.Feroz Shaik aged 29 years, occ: labour, r/o. Flat No.303, 3rd foor, C- Wing Imran apartment Building No.14, Kausa Mumbra, Moti Baig, Thane, Maharastra

3.Ofence under Section: 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act 1985

4.Cr. No. and Name of Police : Cr.No.326/2021 of R.P.S, Secunderabad. Station

5.P.R.C. No.: --

6.Case committed by: --

7.Plea of the accused: Not guilty

8.Finding of the Court: Not guilty

9.Sentence or Order: In the result, the A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the ofence under section 8(c) r/w.20 (b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The A2 and A3 are ordered to be released forth with, if they are not required in any other case. MO.1 to 61 are ordered to be forwarded to The Drugs Disposal Committee for disposal as per section 52-A of the NDPS Act after expiry of appeal time.

10 Prosecution conducted bySri S.Mukunda Reddy, Addl.PP 11Defence conducted by: Sri Md.Asif Ali, Habeeba Siddique, Counsel for A2 and A3

This case coming on this day before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri S. Mukunda Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and Sri Md. Asif Ali, Habeeba Siddique, counsel for A2 and A3 and , upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Secunderabad has fled charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.326/2021 for the ofence

Under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act 1985.

Judgement in SC.184 OF 2022 2 of 9 dated.11-04-2023

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

a) On 03-12-2021 at about 10-45 AM, while LW.1/M.A.Majeed, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Railway Police station, Secunderabad LW2/Reserved Sub

Inspector, LW3/ARHC 321, LW4/ARHC 324, LW5/ARHC 329, LW6/ARHC 335, LW7/

RPF Sub Inspector Subbarao, LW8/RPF constable 637, LW9/RPF constable 106,

LW10/RPF Home Guard 700, LW11/RPF Home Guard 506 and

LW12/Smt.Vijayashanti, WRPC 458 boarded Train No.18519 LTT Express at

Kajipet Railway Junction as per the instructions of superior ofcer for checking the entire train as they have received some information of illegal transportation of Narcotics drugs in the said train. Then they started checking all the coaches and at about 1.00 p.m., when the train reached near Secunderabad railway station they have checked S-8 coach Birth No.51 and 54 and found two women, but they tried to get concealed on seeing them. Then they enquired the said women about their concealment, then they disclosed their particulars as A2 and A3 and they have noticed four trolley suitcases under their berth seats and also three shoulder bags and one luggage bag. Thereafter, he enquired about the carrying huge luggage, for which they disclosed that the bags contains dry ganja. They also told the name of one person Deepak Sanghle who is leading them and traveling in another coach. They also told that the said luggage bags containing 72 Kgs of ganja wrapped in 30 packets and also disclosed that they brought the said ganja from Araku of Vishakapatnam

District and transporting to Mumbai of Maharasthra State. When the train reached the railway platform No.10 of Secunderabad station they de-boarded the accused persons along with luggage bags. Then he kept his staf for guarding the accused and contraband, went to GRP police station which on

Platform No.01 and gave report

b)Basing on the report, LW17/M.Srinu, Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.326/2021 U/Sec.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C)of NDPS Act and issued FIR. Then he examined and recorded the statement of LW1. Then he visited the platform

No.10 of Secunderabad Railway Station and found A2 and A3 in the custody of police who were guarding them. he found 3 shoulder bags and 4 trolley bags and one luggage bag in their custody. Then he secured the presence of mediators LW.13/Mallella Pooja and LW14/Kunchada Siva in whose presence he enquired the accused with regard to search by giving option. For which A2 and

A3 have opted for gazetted ofcer. Then he intimated the wish of the accused to PW4 gazetted ofcer who came to the spot. After arrival of

LW.15/A.Emanuel, Inspector of Railway Police, Secunderabad. and after obtaining willingness letter from A2 and A3 has searched 8 bags and found leaves, fowers and stems which were smelling like ganja which are kept in 30

Judgement in SC.184 OF 2022 3 of 9 dated.11-04-2023

packets wrapped with brown colour tape. With the help of electronic machine which he carried to the spot got weighed the said contraband which weighed about 72 Kgs of ganja. Then he have collected 60 samples of 25 grams each from all 8 bags for the purpose of chemical examination and to the court in the presence of the mediators and gazetted ofcer, The remaining contraband was packed and parcel by afxing seal and signatures and also panch slips. he have seized one online passenger train ticket and one mobile phone from A2.

Thereafter, he brought the A2 and A3 along with seized property to GRP

Railway police station and after completion of formalities arrest, he forwarded them to the court for judicial remand. he also prepared scene of ofence panchanama under crime detail form also intimated to his superior ofcer

U/Sec.57 of NDPS Act. On 4.12.2021 he forwarded the samples to the FSL for chemical examination and report. After receipt of FSL report and on completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against the accused No.2 and 3 for the ofence under section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act 1985. He further submitted that separate charge sheet will be fled on apprehension of A1/Deepak

Sangle. Hence the charge.

3.This case was taken on fle by taking cognizance of the ofence under

Section 20(b)(ii) (C) of NDPS Act 1985 against A2 and A3 on the fle of

Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, and numbered as NDPS SC.184/2022

and made over to this court for disposal according to law.

4.On production of the A2 and A3 from central prison, Hyderabad, case copies and documents are furnished to them as contemplated under

Section 208 of Cr.P.C.,

5. After hearing both the learned APP on behalf of the prosecution and the learned counsel for Accused and upon considering the material on record, a charge U/s.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 has been framed against the A2 & A3, read over and explained to them in their known language for which they denied the allegation, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined LW.1/M.A.Majeed,

Sub-Inspector, RPS, Secunderabad as PW.1, LW.12/Smt.M.Vijaya Shanthi

WRPC who assisted the investigation ofcer as PW.2, LW.13/Mallela Pooja,

Panch witness as PW.3, LW.15/A.Emaneul, Gazetted ofcer as PW.4, LW.17/

M.Srinu, Investigating ofcer as PW.5, The prosecution has given up the other Police party witnesses and prosecution evidence was closed.

Judgement in SC.184 OF 2022 4 of 9 dated.11-04-2023

7.After, closure of the prosecution evidence, A2 and A3 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution and pleaded false implication and reported no defence evidence. They did not chose to lead any evidence in their defence.

8.Heard arguments from both sides.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submits that the prosecution has examined Pws-1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P10 and

Mos-1 to 61 and proved its case against the A2 and A3 and thus, they are liable to be punished in accordance with law.

10. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the A2 and A3 would submits that there is no trustworthy evidence on record and that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Pws-1 to PW5 and thus the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the A2 and A3 beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the

A2 and A3 have to be acquitted.

11.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the A2 and A3 beyond reasonable doubt or not”?

12.POINT:

To bring home the guilt of the accused, the question is whether a case under Section 20(b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act 1985 has been made out by the prosecution.

13.In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything is essential to establish the charge against the accused is always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until and unless the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed; subject to, of course, to some statutory exception.

14.Before adverting the evidence of the prosecution, it is proper to have a bird’s eye view over the provision under Section 8(c) r/w.20(b) (ii) (B)(C) of

NDPS Act 1985. The ofence U/s. 20(b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act 1985:

20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis-

Judgement in SC.184 OF 2022 5 of 9 dated.11-04-2023

Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder:

(b) Produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable: (ii) Where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b):

(B) if anyone produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis and the quantity involved is lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity then that person shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fne which may extend to one lakh rupees.

(C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fne which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees;

15.In the light of the above statutory provision and cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, what is the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case has to be looked into.

16.According to prosecution, A2 and A3 were nabbed by the railway police Secunderabad on 03-12-2021 when they were in transit on LTT

Express bound from Vishakhapatnam to Mumbai enroute Hyderabad.

Altogether 72 kgs of ganja kept in four bags were recovered from A2 and A3 lead by one Deepak Sangle who were travelling in the said train in another reserved compartment.

17.Ex.P.1 is the complaint given by PW.1 who boarded LTT Express on 03- 12-2021 at Khazipet railway junction heading towards Mumbai enroute

Hyderabad from Visakhapatnam. The said document further recites that one

Deepak Sangle who was travelling in another coach was leading them during the journey.

18.According to PW.1, four trolley suit cases, 3 shoulder bags and one luggage bag was kept underneath the berth of A2 and A3 in S8 coach of LTT

Express and intercepted them when the train arrived at Platform No.10 of

Secunderabad Railway station. Therefore the prosecution is under obligation to establish that the A2 and A3 were carrying four trolley suit case, 3 shoulder bags and one luggage bag containing 72 kgs of ganja. Ex.P.4 is the photostat copy of 3-ticket, showing A2 and A3 boarded LTT Special express train at Visakhapatnam on 02-12-2021. The said document discloses the

Judgement in SC.184 OF 2022 6 of 9 dated.11-04-2023

names of A2 and A3 but the author of the complaint/PW.1 who intercepted

A2 and A3 from LTT special express train deposed that he has boarded

Konark express at Kazipet railway junction of Warangal District which was heading towards Mumbai of Maharastra State and further deposed that the bags were kept underneath the berth. He also admitted that he did not mention in his complaint about the berth No.51 and 54, he was suggested that A2 and A3 were travelling in Konark express train to Mumbai of

Maharastra State. Thus, PW.1 has made inconsistent statement with regard to boarding of LTT express at railway station Khazipet junction as Konark express.

19.PW.3 Woman Police constable has deposed that on 03-12-2021 at about 2-00 PM, on the instructions given by superior ofcer, went on to the platform No.10, meanwhile LTT express arrived and boarded S-8 coach and found two men in the custody of police having 4 luggage bag, two trolley bags containing ganja. PW.2 during cross examination has categorically stated that she has received phone call from PW.1 at about 12-50 PM, and reached the spot at 1-00 PM, which is at platform No.10 and further admitted that it is not possible to carry all the bags on the shoulder by A2 and A3.

20.PW.3 one of the mediators has deposed that on platform No.10, she found police and two women in their custody in whose presence police searched the bags and found ganja in it. And then seized under cover of

Ex.P.2/Panchanama. She did not tell about the name of the train in which A2 and A3 were travelling and all the way she has noticed A2 and a3 in the custody of police. The fact remain that A2 and a3 are not in physical possession of the trolley bags, shoulder bags and luggage bags as they were kept underneath berth No.51 and 54.

21.It is interesting to note that the evidence of PW3/mediator reveals that the accused themselves have obtained the bags and shown the contraband and samples were drawn by the accused themselves. Therefore, the presence of PW.3/M.Pooja child helpline worker is toe be doubted at the relevant point of time. If her evidence is taken into consideration that the accused themselves have drawn the samples, then the very search and seizure made by PW.5 ,Inspector of Police railway police has to be negated.

Judgement in SC.184 OF 2022 7 of 9 dated.11-04-2023

22.PW.4 is the gazetted ofcer has deposed that PW.5 has obtained willingness letter from a2 and a3 and then he opened all the bags and found 30 packets containing ganja. Whereas the evidence of PW.3/mediator shows that the accused themselves have opened all the bags and shown 72 kgs of ganja. Thus, there is contradictory statement in between the evidence of

PW.3/mediator and PW.4/Gazetted ofcer, inf act it is the gazetted ofcer who has to obtain willingness letter from a2 and a3 not by the investigating ofcer/PW.5. Therefore, the presence of PW.4 on 03-12-2021 at platform

No.10 is to be doubted.

23.Above all, Ex.P.3/panchanama of a2 and a3 has been written in Telugu language. Undisputedly, A2 and A3 belonged to Muslim community and the natives of Thane of Maharastra State. PW.4/ Gazetted ofcer in whose presence, the contraband was recovered from the bags has deposed that confessional panchanama does not disclose in which language, the accused were asked and they gave answers. Ex.P.6 is the notice under section 50 of

NDPS Act given to A2 and A3 Which also shows that it was written in English but there is no mention that in which language A2 and A3 have been questioned. The said document further recites the question No.2 as under “I will call Gazetted Ofcer Sri S.Shekar Babu/RI/RPAR/Secunderabad, have you agree?, then the A2 and A3 have answered “yes”.

24.The notice given to A2 and A3 shows that PW5 who apprehended the accused intended to search the bags in the presence of Gazetted ofcer Sri

S.Shekar Babu, for which they gave consent. But surprisingly, Sri

A.Emaneul/ PW.4 has come into the picture for which A2 and A3 did not consent. Even PW.4 did not say that he has introduced as a gazetted ofcer to A2 and E3. Thus, recitals in Ex.P.6/notice u/s.50 of NDPS Act is contradicting the version of PW.4 as gazetted ofcer. There is inconsistency with regard to gazetted ofcer if Ex.p.6/section 50 notice given to A2 and A3 is considered that one S.Shekar Babu is the proposed Gazetted ofcer then the evidence of PW.4/A.Emaneul has to be completely ruled out and has to be eschieved from consideration. Therefore, the very search and seizure becomes illegal and invalid. That apart, PW.1 in his chief says that he has boarded LTT Express at Kazipet junction, but during the cross examination, he gave another version that he has Konark express. There is no certainty with regard to boarding of train by PW.1 at Khazipet junction of Warangal district.

Judgement in SC.184 OF 2022 8 of 9 dated.11-04-2023

25.It is no doubt true A2 & A3 were travelling in S8 coach of LTT Express train.

All the bags numbering 9 were kept underneath berth No.51 & 54. PW.5 did not examine any other passengers who are travelling in S8 coach showing that A2 &

A3 have boarded the train along with the said luggage, except Ex.P.2 confessional statement of A2 &A3 that too in the language not known to them, there is not other evidence to tag the luggage bags containing contraband with the accused.

Ex.P.4/passenger travelling ticket is not sufcient enough to tag the accused with the contraband. Even otherwise, one person by name Deepak Sangle of

Maharastra was leading these women. PW.5 did not make any eforts to trace out the said person till date. Therefore, it is not safe to rely only on the confessional statement of A2 and A3. It is quite natural that one cannot lift 72 kgs kept in all the nine bags hardly by two women.

26.The evidence of PW.1 who boarded train at Khazipet railway junction has spotted the accused inLTT Express, but he has somersault by giving diferent version that he has spotted them in Konark Express. Therefore, I do not fnd any truth in the testimony of PW.1 with regard to his boarding of train. Thus, there is no reliable and trustworthy evidence on record showing that A2 and a3 were carrying 9 bags containing 72 kgs of ganja. Ex.P.4 was written in Telugu language ,which was not explained to them in their known language as admitted

PW.4/Gazetted ofcer whose evidence has been tainted. Furthermore,

Ex.P.3/Crime detail form prepared by PW.5 also goes to show that the name of

PW.3/M.Pooja has been interpolated after erasing some name which was admitted by the said witness. This creates a suspicion/doubt with regard to search and siezure on 03-12-2021 either of Konark Express or LTT Express train.

Ex.P.6/notice given to A2 and A3 falsifes the entire search and seizure. In all, prosecution has produced two inconsistent views with regard to interception of train ie., LTT Express or Konark express. Therefore the view which is in favour of the accused has to be taken into consideration. If this is so, the entire search and seizure of contraband from the luggage becomes illegal and invalid. Except the evidence fo police ofcials, PW.1, PW.2, PW.4 and PW.5, there is no other evidence to come to a conclusion that the contraband was being recovered from

A2 and A3 while they were in transit.

27.On careful examination of the entire evidence of the prosecution that of

PWs1 to PW5 and coupled with Ex.P.1 to P10 and MO.1 to MO.61, this court feels that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, consequent thereto, accused has to be acquitted.

Point is answered, accordingly.

Judgement in SC.184 OF 2022 9 of 9 dated.11-04-2023

28.In the result, the A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the ofence under section 8(c) r/w.20 (b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The A2 and A3 are ordered to be released forth with, if they are not required in any other case. MO.1 to 61 are ordered to be forwarded to The Drugs Disposal Committee for disposal as per section 52-A of the NDPS Act after expiry of appeal time.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of April, 2023.

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE NIL

PW-1: M.A.Majeed, Sub-Inspector PW-2: M.Vijaya Shanthi, woman constable. PW.3: Mallela Pooja, panch witness, PW-4: A.Emaneul,Gazetted ofcer PW-5: M.Srinu, Investigating ofcer

Exhibits Marked for

Prosecution Defence : Nil

Ex.P1 is the report Ex.P2 is the relevant portion of confessional cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3 is the crime detail from Ex.P4 is the rain ticket Ex.P5 is the FIR Ex.P6 is the Sec.50 NDPS Act notice issued to A2 and A3 Ex.P7 is the intimation letter. Ex.P8 is the FSL report. Ex.P9 is the inventory. Ex.P10 is the photograph along with CD showing destruction of remaining contraband.

MOs Marked

MO1 to MO60 are the samples. MO61 is the mobile phone of A2

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD

Judgment in Crl.Appeal.845/2018 1 of 11 dated 12-04-2023

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE ::

HYDERABAD

Present:Sri K.Kusha, I-Addl Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2023

Crl. Appeal No. 845 of 2018

Between:-

R.Prithvi Narayana Reddy, s/o. R.Ramalinga Reddy, aged about 65 years, occ: Busienss, r/ o. Flat No.502, Priya Darshini Apartments, H.No.1-10-10, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad.

...Appellant/Accused

T.Bhaskar Reddy, s/o. Nagendra Reddy, aged about 55 years, r/o. Flat No.501, Priya Darshini Apartments, H.no.1-10-10, Ashok nagar, Hyderabad.

...Respondent/Complainant

Against: Judgment of conviction passed in C.C. No.43 of 2015

dated 31-07-2018 on the fle of I Special Magistrate,

Hyderabad

Between:- T.Bhaskar Reddy, s/o. Nagendra Reddy, aged about 55 years, r/o. Flat No.501, Priya Darshini Apartments, H.No.1-10-10, Ashok nagar, Hyderabad. … Complainant

And

R.Prithvi Narayana Reddy, s/o. R.Ramalinga Reddy, aged about 65 years, occ: Busienss, r/ o. Flat No.502, Priya Darshini Apartments, H.No.1-10-10, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad. … Accused

This criminal appeal is coming before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri Shanmukha Rao, Counsel for the Appellant/accused and Sri S.V.Ramana Rao, Counsel for the respondent/complainant, and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

Judgment in Crl.Appeal.845/2018 2 of 11 dated 12-04-2023

J U D G M E N T

1.This is an Appeal fled by the accused challenging the judgment of I-

Special Magistrate, Hyderabad in CC No.43/2015, dated 31-07-2018 by which the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and he is also directed to pay a fne of

Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees sixty Lakhs only) and in default to undergo SI for 2 months. The entire fne amount is awarded as compensation to the complainant U/sec. 357 of Cr.P.C.

2.The brief facts of the case for deciding the appeal are that:-

a)The accused is the owner of the fat No.503 adm.2100 sq.ft on plot

No.48, situated at Hrishika Residency, Siddartha Nagar, Hyderabad entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant on 23-01-2010 for the sale of the said fat fro a consideration of Rs.52,50,000/- and the complainant had agreed to purchase for the said consideration. The total consideration was paid to the accused prior to 23-01-2010. the accused has acknowledged the same and passed as a receipt agreeing to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant within one year form the above said date of agreement. But inspite of several requests the accused has not come forward to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant. Then the complainant came to know that the accused has mortgaged the property to

LIC of India and further executed an agreement cum GPA in favour of third party prior to the agreement with the complaint. Thus the accused has cheated the complainant, and the complainant has revoked the agreement of sale dated 23-01-2010 and demanded the accused to refund the sale consideration with interest @ 18% PA, accordingly, the accused issued fve cheques towards the discharge of his liability, cheque Nos.672953 DATED 6- 11-2013, AND OTHE CHEQUES BEARING No. 672954 TO 672957 ALL DATED 6- 12-2013 for Rs.10,00,000/- each drawn on S.B.I, Ashok nagar branch

Hyderabad towards part satisfaction of the refund of hee sale consideration to the complainant and agreeing to pay the balance amount with interest in a short time. When the compalinatn presented the said cheques for encashment, the same were returned dishonoured on 7-12-2013 on the ground “funds insufcientn The same was intimated to the accused, but he

Judgment in Crl.Appeal.845/2018 3 of 11 dated 12-04-2023

did not respond, and fnally the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 19-12-2013, calling upon the accused to pay the dishonoured cheque amount, the said notice was received by the accused on 21-12-2013. However, accused did not make any payment within statutory time. Then, a complaint was brought under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3.Initially the case was taken on fle by the learned III.Addl. Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the ofence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and thereafter, the said case was transferred to the learned I Special Magistrate, Hyderabad and re-registered as C.C.No.43/2015. On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to him and thereafter examined u/s 251 of Cr.P.C., for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then, the complainant got examined himself as PW1 and in support of his evidence got marked Ex.P1 to P.41. Ex.P.1 to P.5 are the cheques in question, Ex.P.6 to P.10 are the cheque return memos

Ex.P.11 is the ofce copy of legal notice, Ex.P12/Postal acknowledgment

Ex.P.13/ Postal Receipt, Ex.P14/ original agreement of sale, P.15 is original lease deed Ex.P16 is specifc demand draft, Ex.P.17 another specifc demand draft, P18 and P.19 are the two cheques, P.20 and P.21 are the return memos,

Ex.p.22 is the bank statement, Ex.P.23 is the copy of cheque, Ex.P.24 is the

IDBI Bank letter, Ex.P.25 Allahabad bank letter, ex.P.126 MOU, Ex.P.27 to P.40 are the original receipts, Ex.P.41 is the certifed copy of vakalat.

4.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and pleaded his false implication.

5.The accused, in support of his defence, got marked Ex.D-1 to D24,

Ex.C1 the letter addressed by Truth labs is marked.

6.The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record, found the accused guilty for the ofence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced, as indicated.

Judgment in Crl.Appeal.845/2018 4 of 11 dated 12-04-2023

7.Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant on the following grounds:

a) That the judgment passed by the learned magistrate is contrary to law, weight of evidence and the same is illegal.

b) That the judgment passed by the trial court is based on presumptions, surmises conjectures which are not relevant to the circumstances of the case.

c) The trial court mechanically without verifying the fle and understanding the facts of the case, erroneously gave the fnding on oral revocation and failed to consider that the complainant had not fled any documentary evidence or lead evidence to prove the oral revocation of agreement of sale which creates the legally enforceable liability.

d) The learned magistrate failed to consider that the Flat No.503 was not at all mortgaged to any fnancial institutions as pleaded by the complainant.

e) The trial court failed to consider that the primary loan was cleared on 16-2-2013 and issued clearance certifcate by the banker.

f) The trial court has failed to consider the defence of the appellant that on the collusion between complainant and one Ranga Rao, several documents were created including the cheques.

g)The leaned magistrate ought to have sen that the complainant has not examined any witness to prove the contents of the documents, and fnally prayed to set aside the judgment of the trial court.

8.On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent has urged that the trial Court has rightly appreciated material evidence on record in proper and perspective manner and rightly recorded the guilt of the accused, which is in accordance with law and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence and sought to dismiss the appeal.

9.On the basis of oral and written submission made by the parties, the following points are emerged for consideration:

Judgment in Crl.Appeal.845/2018 5 of 11 dated 12-04-2023

(i)Whether the prosecution/complainant has proved the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt?

(ii)Whether the Judgment in CC No.43/2015 dated 31-07-2018 on the fle of I.Special Magistrate, Hyderabad is liable to be set aside?n

(iii)To what result?

10.POINT No.1:-

In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against the accused always rest on the prosecution and there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, of course subject to statutory exceptions.

11.Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 reads as follows:

138. Dishonour of cheque for insufciency, etc., of funds in the account.—Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufcient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an ofence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years’], or with fne which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within ffteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Judgment in Crl.Appeal.845/2018 6 of 11 dated 12-04-2023

12.In the light of above statutory provisions and cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, what is the evidence adduced by the prosecution/ complainant in this case is to be looked into.

13.The evidence on record is the evidence of Pw1 besides documentary evidence i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P41 and Ex.D1 to D24 and Ex.C1.

14.At the outset it is to be stated that none of the parties to the appeal has adduced any additional evidence in this appeal and the Court was called upon to dispose of the appeal basing on the evidence available on record adduced

before the trial Court.

15.According to PW-1, the accused made an ofer of sale of fat No.503, for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.52,50,000/- for which he agreed to purchase and entered into sale agreement by paying total sale consideration, for which the accused has acknowledged and agreed to execute sale deed within one year as and when demanded.

16.It is his evidence that the appellant/accused did not come forward to execute the sale deed inspite of requests and demands. And thereafter came to know that the appellant/accused has mortgaged the property with LIC of

India and further came to know that he has executed an agreement cum GPA in favour of III party even prior to the sale agreement. Having no other alternative, got revoked the agreement dated 23-01-2010 by demanding the appellant/accused for refund of total consideration amount for which accused has issued fve cheques for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each and when presented returned with endorsement “funds insufcientn and they have got issued

Ex.P.11/notice which was received by the accused and even then, he did not chose to pay the cheque amounts of Rs.50,00,000/-.

17.PW.1 in support of his oral evidence got marked Ex.P.1 to P.44.

Judgment in Crl.Appeal.845/2018 7 of 11 dated 12-04-2023

18.The defence of the appellant/accused before the trial court is of total denial, and that he never ofered any fat for sale tot he respondent/complainant and never received sale consideration amount of

Rs.52,50,000/- and never executed sale agreement nor promised to execute the sale deed. In fact, he had a money transaction with one Ranga Rao who is the friend of the respondent/complainant and also mediated and during the said period has obtained certain signed blank papers and chques which were misused by the complainant in collusion with the said Ranga Rao and Ex.p.14/ agreement of sale was brought into existence for illegal gain.

19.Initially the burden is on the respondent/complainant to establish that there exists a legally enforceable debt or other liability. PW.1 has relied upon

Ex.P.14/an unregistered agreement of sale dated 23-01-2010 by and between him and the accused. The said document recites that the appellant/accused has ofered to sell fat No.503, adm.2100 sq.ft bearing Plot No.48, situated at

Hrishika Residency, Siddhartha nagar, Hyderabad for a total sale consideration of Rs.52,50,000/-. The said document further recites that the appellant/accused has received full sale consideration amount. Ex.P.15 is unregistered lease deed in between PW.1 and the appellant/accused in respect of the fat No.501. It can be gathered from the recitals of

Ex.P.14/agreement of sale and Ex.P.15/lease deed that the appellant/accused is the absolute owner and possessor of residential apartment bearing fat

Nos.501 and 503. of Hrishika Residency, situated at Siddhartha nagar,

Hyderabad. Ex.P.26 is the memo of undertaking dated 01-01-2011, in between PW.1 and the appellant/accused showing some fnancial transaction.

The said document further recites that the appellant/accused owe a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant. Ex.P.27 is the receipt showing that the appellant/accused has received earnest money of Rs.5,00,000/- from

PW.1 towards part payment of sale consideration in respect of fat No.501 and 503 in Hrishika Residency. Therefore, the aforesaid document clinchingly establish that the appellant/accused have entered into agreement of sale with

PW.1 in respect of Flat No.503 by receiving full purchase money.

Judgment in Crl.Appeal.845/2018 8 of 11 dated 12-04-2023

20.During the cross examination, a specifc question was put to PW.1 that when the accused came to sell the fat No.501 then why he had entered into agreement in respect of fat No.503, for which he gave answer that the accused came to sell both the fats, he entered into agreement of sale in respect of Flat NO.503 only. The said evidence is also butressed with

Ex.P.27/receipt. That apart, Ex.p15/Lease deed dated 15-9-2004 goes to show that the respondent/complainant is in possession of Flat No.501. The fact remains that the respondent/complainant has entered into agreement of sale in respect of the fat No.503.

21.PW.1 was suggested that blank signed documents and blank signed cheques were given to Ranga Rao who is the friend of PW.1 and subsequent thereto, misused and got fled the present complaint. Ex.P.1 to P.5 are the cheques for a sum of rs.10,00,000/- each dated.06-11-2013 and 06-12-2013 which are not in dispute. Except denial of issuance of Ex.P.1 to P.5 and

Execution of Ex.P.14/agreement of sale, nothing is got in by the appellant/accused to show that the said documents were issued in favour of one Ranga Rao which were misused by the respondent/complainant.

Therefore, I do not fnd any strength in the said assertion.

22.On the other hand, the evidence of CW1/Narender Singh, Scientifc

Ofcer working as Director, Truth labs, Hyderabad further goes to show that the admitted signatures and the standard signatures of the appellant/accused has been compared wherein the disputed documents were written and signed by the same person.

23.Be that as it may, appellant/accused is examined as DW1 who deposed that he has approached A.Ranga Rao, through PW.1 in the frst week of

November, 2009 and requested him to advance hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- for his business purpose and promised to repay within one month. And accordingly, he has arranged Rs.8,00,000/- and as he failed to repay the same, then the said Ranga Rao and PW.1 came and demanded for repayment of the amount and obtained signatures forcibly on empty stamp papers and

Judgment in Crl.Appeal.845/2018 9 of 11 dated 12-04-2023

other empty papers. And in the month of December, 2010, Mr.Ranga Rao took two cheques bearing No.672951 and 672952 and again in the month of

January, 2011 took blank signed cheques Nos.672953 to 672957 towards security.

24.He further deposed that he has executed an agreement of sale-cum-

GPA with possession in favour of S.Ramesh vide document No.3954/2006

dated 29-07-2006 in respect of Flat No.503, which was sold to one Miss Rani

vide Doc.No.2955/2009 dated 09-10-2009 and that he never executed Ex.P.14 in favour of the respondent/complainant at any point of time.

25.During the cross examination, he has admitted that Ex.p.1 to P.5 cheques bear his signatures. But however, denied the signature on Ex.p.14.

He further admitted that amount of Rs.8,25,000/- by way of Demand Draft was credited to his account on 24-05-2007 from the respondent/complainant.

Ex.P.1 to P.5, Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 were subjected to examination by Truth labs with regard to execution and signatures of the appellant/accused and CW1 opined that the person who wrote S1 to S5 also wrote blue enclosed signatures marked as Q1 to Q41 and Q5/1. Ex.C1 is the letter of the Truth lab.

26.The appellant/accused during the cross examination has admitted that he has not executed any document in favour of Mr.Ranga Rao for having borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and therefore he is estopped.

Ex.D8/agreement of sale in between the accused and Ranga Rao in respect of

Flat No.501 and there is no mention of payment of Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, the theory put forth by the appellant/accused with regard to availing of loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from Ranga Rao is said to be false and invented just for the sake of defence.

27.The learned trial court has meticulously paid attention to the defence raised in respect of execution of Ex.P.1 to P.5, Ex.P.14 in favour of the respondent/complainant and rightly came to a conclusion that it is the appellant/accused who has executed Ex.P1.4 in favour of the respondent/complainant for sale of fat No.503. Therefore, the respondent/

Judgment in Crl.Appeal.845/2018 10 of 11 dated 12-04-2023

complainant has established the fact of sale of fat No.503 by the appellant/accused and having paid full purchase money of Rs.52,50,000/-.

Ex.P.1 to P.5 are the cheques issued by the appellant/accused towards discharge of refund of full purchase money. Since the contract in between the appellant/accused and the respondent/complainant has become frustrated as such, respondent/complainant has rightly revoked the contract. So therefore, the appellant/accused has to refund the entire purchase money for which he has issued Ex.P.1 to P.5 cheques. Learned trial court has also considered the legal position urged by the counsel for the accused while negating the defence. At para No.29 of the judgment dated 31-07-2018, the learned trial court has observed as under:

“From the above discussion,court is of the opinion that the accused received sale consideration for Flat No.503 from the complainant, executed Ex.p1.4/agreement of sale, upon revocation of the agreement by complainant due to accused encumbering the property towards collateral security for the loan obtained by him from State Bank of Hyderabad issued the fve subject Cepheus towards refund of the sale consideration but failed to maintain sufcient balance in his account to honour the cheques, received statutory legal notice and failed to make good the dishonoured cheques amountn.

28.In all, the appellant/accused failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 of The Negotiable Instruments Act by raising the probable defence. Therefore, I do not fnd any illegality while recording the guilt of the appellant/accused, Learned trial court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence while recording the guilt of the accused. Therefore, there is no need to disturb the judgment of conviction and sentence. Hence the appeal fails.

Point is answered accordingly.

Judgment in Crl.Appeal.845/2018 11 of 11 dated 12-04-2023

29. Point no.2:

In view of the discussion at length this court feels that trial court has not committed any error and has come to a just conclusion about the existence of legally enforceable debt and therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence does not require any interference.

Point is answered accordingly.

30.POINT No.3:

In the result, Appeal is dismissed in the following manner:

(i)The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence in CC.43/2015 on the fle of I Special Magistrate Hyderabad dated 31-07-2018 is hereby confrmed.

(ii) The learned trial court is directed to take consequential measures and appropriate steps for execution of the sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused.

Partly typed to my dictation, partly Dictated to the Stenographer

Grade-II, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court on this the 12 th day of April, 2023.

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD

(Fair)

BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE : CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT-cum-

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: AT

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

Present: SRI K.Kusha, Chief Judge, CSCC-cum- Chairman, MACT, Hyderabad

MVOP.No.1516 of 2019

Between:-

Krishna. C., S/o Jangaiah, aged about 53 years, occ:Ex.Pvt.Employee, R/o H.No.16-4-991/3, Malakpet, Hyderabad. … Petitioner AND

1. Venkatiah.V., S/o Jangaiah, aged major, occ:Business, R/o 3-57, Appareddyguda, Kothur, Mahboobnagar, (Owner of Crime Vehicle Tata 407 bearing No.AP 22 Y 8116)

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its branch Manager, Branch Office, R/o Flat Nos.401,402 & 403 4th Floor, Sai Datta Archade, Street No.6, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad. (Insurer Crime vehicle No.Tata 407 bearing No.AP 22 Y 8116 vide Policy No.10003/31/15/017978,Valid from:18.04.2014 to 17.04.2015)

3. Srikanth. S, S/o Narsimhulu.S, Aged 25 years, occ:Driver, R/o 7-126, Mustipalle, Kondurg, Mahaboobnagar,(Driver of Crime vehicle Tata 407 bearing No.AP 22 Y 8116) …Respondents

This claim petition is coming before me on for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Thirupathi Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri K.Ravi Shankar Babu, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:- 2 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019

A W A R D

The present claim petition has been filed under section 166 of the

Motor Vehicle Act,1988 and Rule 455 of M.V.Rules read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 claiming compensation of ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Krishna.C., S/o Jangaiah in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 04.11.2014 at 05:00 hours.

3. PLEADINGS OF THE PETITIONER:

(i) The pleadings show that on 04.11.2014 at about 05-00 hours the in injured and his colleague as inamtes, were proceeding by Tata 407 bearing No.AP 22Y 8116, from Tadipathri side to Kothur side, on 04.11.2014, when they reached near Devarabad bus stop, on Hyderabad

Bangalore Highway. Dhone(M), at the same time, the driver of said Tata 407 bearing No.AP 22Y 8116 turned turtle on the road, at about 05:00 hours. Due to which the petitioner and other inmates, fell down and sustained grievous fracture injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident the injured was shifted to Govt Hospital, Dhone for first aid,

Later he was shifted and admitted in Govt. Hospital, Kurnool. Then the petitioner has taken treatment in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.

3 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019

(ii) The Police Dhone, Kurnool District have issued First

Information Report in Crime No.263 of 2014 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the Tata 407 bearing No.AP 22Y 8116.

(iii) At the time of accident, the injured was 48 years of age and was working as Supervisor, in Venkteshwara Hatcheries and earning monthly income of Rs.25,000/- per month. On account of injury has lost earnings and sought for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

(iv)The respondent No.1/Owner of Tata 407 bearing No.AP 22Y 8116, respondent No.2/Insurer and respondent No.3 said to be the driver of the offending vehicle are liable to pay compensation.

4.The respondent No.1/Venkataiah.V, Owner and respondnet

No.3/Srikanth.S Driver of Tata 407 bearing No.AP 22Y 8116, remained exparte and did not choose to contest the matter.

5. PLEADINGS OF THE RESPONDENT No.2:

The Respondent No.2 filed Counter. Counter pleadings of

Respondent No.2 show that, the Insurance Company did not admit the accident as narrated by the petitioner and involvement of the Tata 407 bearing No.AP 22Y 8116, rash and negligence on the part of driver of

Tata 407 bearing No.AP 22Y 8116 and also did not admit the injuries 4 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019 referred by the petitioner. The Insurance Company also denied the age, avocation and earnings of the injured and the amount spent for the treatment. Further, the petitioner was traveling as an unauthorized passenger in the Tata 407 bearing No.AP 22Y 8116 which is a goods vehicle and that as per RC the seating capacity of the Tata 407 is only one i.e., for the driver as such the petitioner was traveling on the said

Tata 407 bearing No.AP 22Y 8116 against to seating capacity. As such respondent company is not liable to pay the compensation.

(ii) The respondent specifically submits that the driver of the alleged crime vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident and grossly violated the terms and conditions of the policy and prays to dismiss the claim petition.

6.Upon the pleadings, the following issues were framed for consideration:

1. Whether the accident that occurred on 04.11.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA 407 bearing No. AP 22 Y 8116?

2. Whether sustained injuries in the said accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, what is the quantum of the compensation and from which of the Respondents?

4. To what relief?

5 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019

EVIDENCE:

7.The petitioners to support their case examined PWs.1 and 2 and relied upon Exs.A1 to A22. The respondent No.2 has examined RW1 and relied upon Ex.B1 Insurance policy.

8.Heard. Both counsel have filed their respective written arguments along with certain legal authorities, which are taken on record.

ISSUE No.1:

9.Ex.A1 is the F.I.R. dated 04.11.2014, lodged by the Krishna C.,

S/o Jangaiah/injured, which indicates that PW1 and another person named Golla Hari Kumar were traveling as inmates in the TATA 407 bearing No. AP 22 Y 8116, along with its driver (R3). It further reveals that PW1 and Yennam Madhava Reddy were seated on either side of the driver in the said TATA-407 Van. PW1 is the eyewitness and an injured person; hence, he is the best witness to speak about the accident. The evidence of PW1 shows that the accident occurred on outskirts of

Devarabanda village, Bangalore Highway, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool

District, wherein the driver/R3 of the TATA 407 bearing No. AP 22 Y 8116 drove in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the road 6 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019 side culvert, due to said impact the TATA 407 Van turned turtle on the road. As a result, the petitioner sustained multiple fracture injuries allover his body, along with other inmates.

10.Ex.A1 is the F.I.R., and Ex.A4 is the charge sheet, both of which show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the TATA 407 bearing No. AP 22 Y 8116(R3-driver), who was in fact charge-sheeted. The cross-examination of PW1 reveals that he was traveling along with the driver and another person in the TATA 407 bearing No. AP 22 Y 8116., without any valid permit, in a vehicle meant solely for transporting goods.

11.Respondent No.2, the insurance company, has not disputed the occurrence of the accident or the involvement of the TATA 407 bearing

No. AP 22 Y 8116 on 04.11.2014 at 5:00 hours on the outskirts of

Devarabanda village, Bangalore Highway, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool

District. The only point of contention is that the TATA 407 Vam is a goods carrier, which is not supposed to carry any passengers. Therefore, there is a serious violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy cum schedule, which provides coverage only to the driver in the event of an accident.

7 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019

12.The eyewitness account is consistent with the findings of the final investigation conducted by the police. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the investigation report, and his testimony was not impeached with regard to the aspect of negligence. Therefore, I hold that the accident was the result of the negligence of the driver/R3 of the

TATA 407 bearing No. AP 22 Y 8116 alone. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE No:2 and 3:

13.The petitioner claimed that he suffered multiple fracture injuries all over the body, namely: i) Fracture of left femur, ii) fracture of left acetabulum and 3) other Multiple injuries all over the body.

14.Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the wound certificate, and Ex.A4 is the discharge summary. Both documents establish that the petitioner sustained fracture injuries on his left leg.

15.Further deposed that, immediately, after the accident he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Dhone, for first aid. Later he was shifted and admitted in Govt. Hospital, Kurnool. Then he has taken treatment in

NIMS Hospital, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. Ex.A5 and A6 are the OP registration card of the NIMS and Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad.

8 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019

16.PW1, the injured, further deposed that, on account of the multiple fracture injuries, he has sustained permanent disability and is unable to perform any work as he could prior to the accident. Ex.A9 is the

Orthopedically Handicapped Certificate issued by PW2.

17.To substantiate the percentage of disability the petitioner has relied upon the evidence of PW2/Dr.G.Subhash Rao, Orthopaedic

Surgeon, who deposed that he has examined PW1 on 03.06.2016 with history of RTA and found that severe stiffness left hip with painful movements of ROM decreased in all directions and limping, because of above complication, the patient cannot sit and squat cannot walk without support, cannot do heavy works and shortening of left lower limb by two inch.

18.PW2, during cross-examination, admitted that he has not treated the patient immediately after the accident. He further stated that, as per the records the patient condition was stable at the time of accident. He further admitted that he issued the handicapped certificate after lapse of 2 years and 2 months of the accident. Ex.A9 is not the disability certificate but it is only Medical Certificate issued in respect of the

Orthopedically Handicapped Candidate issued by PW2 who never treated the injured at any point of time and even according to him he has not 9 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019 stated the range of movement for the limbs and hip.

19.It is further noted that, PW2 is a Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon practicing privately. Therefore, his evidence, by itself, cannot be relied upon to establish his competency to issue the disability certificate. He specifically stated that he issued the handicapped certificate after lapse of 2 years and 2 months of the accident. A perusal of the Ex.A9 handicapped certificate reveals that it was obtained by the petitioner/injured more than one and half year after the accident. In such circumstances, the handicapped certificate marked as Ex.A9 cannot be accepted in its entirety, except to the limited extent that it confirms the petitioner sustained injuries.

20.Exhibit A10 is the disability certificate issued by the competent medical board, dated 05.09.2019 for a person with disability issued by

Government of Telangana, shows that the petitioner has sustained 75% of disability. The petitioner did not choose to examine any one of the

Board member who issued the certificate establishing the percentage of functional disability. Even according to PW1 he worked as supervisor in

Venkateshwara Hacharies in the year 2014 and even at the time of examination. The petitioner being supervisor has no bearing of 75% of disability for the reason that he can perform work by manipulating with 10 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019 fingers and so on so forth which does not requires any physical strength.

Therefore, in the said circumstances, the functional disability can be assessed to an extent of 30% only.

21.PW1 has deposed that, he was aged about 48 years as on the date of accident and he used to earn a sum of Rs.25,000/-per month by working as Supervisor, in Venkateswara Hacheries. No proof is filed to substantiate the claim of income of Rs.25,000/- per month by working as Supervisor and that due to the injuries, he has lost the said monthly income. During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he was working as labour at poultry farms at Shadnagar of RR District and used to earn

Rs.25,000/- per month. PW1 further admitted that he did not file any proof of income. The petitioner even did not choose to examine any authorized person from poultry farms at Shadnagar of RR District showing his employment monthly income of Rs.25,000/- per month. In the absence of reliable and cogent documentary evidence, the claim of petitioner regarding his alleged income of Rs.25,000/- per month cannot be accepted. In the absence of income proof, the minimum Wages Act would come into operation and a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month is fixed.

22.The petitioner contended that he had incurred huge expenditure towards medical treatment amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. However, the 11 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019 petitioner has filed a statement of medical bills showing the total medical expenditure at Rs.40,182/-. Exs.A11 to A21 are the bunch of medical bills filed in connection with the treatment received by the petitioner/injured, along with the statement of bills pertaining to purchase of medicines during the treatment period, amounting to

Rs.40,182/-.

23.A perusal of Exs.A1 to A21 discloses that, the petitioner incurred expenditure towards purchase of medicines and treatment charges during the further treatment period from 12.09.2015 to 24.09.2022.

During cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that, his entire treatment was taken under the Aarogyasri Health Care Trust Scheme free of cost. A perusal of Ex.A1 to A21 discloses that, the petitioner has paid Pharmacy amount for purchase of medicines for the treatment of the injured during his further treatment period from 12.09.2015 to 24.09.2022, which amounting to Rs.40,182/- towards treatment charges, which are accepted. Accordingly, under the head of medical expenses, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.40,182/-. Additionally, the petitioner is also entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,000/- towards extra-nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges can be awarded as the petitioner/injured visited 12 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019 the hospitals thrice.

Total Compensation:

24. The calculation is arrived as follows:

1. Loss of earnings Rs.3,74,400-00

Rs.8,000x12x13x30/100)

2. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 50,000-00

3. Medical expenditure Rs. 40,182-00

4. Extra NourishmentRs. 3,000-00

5. Transportation Rs. 5,000-00

Total amount of compensation: Rs. 4,72,582-00

The total compensation would works out to an amount of

Rs.4,72,582 /-(Rupees Four lakh Seventy Two Thousand Five hundred and eighty two only). Issue No.2, answered accordingly.

LIABILITY:

25.The bone of contention of Respondent No.2, the insurance company, is that since the crime vehicle is a goods carrier, the injured and another person were not permitted to travel along with R3/driver.

In the event of an accident, the insurance policy covers only the driver.

Therefore, the company contends that it is not liable to pay any compensation due to the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy certificate cum schedule.

13 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019

26.Admittedly, the offending vehicle is a goods carrier in which the petitioner/PW1 was traveling along with driver and another person and carrying chicks at the time of accident. The accident was resulted on account of rash and negligent driving by its driver who is respondent

No.3. No doubt that, the respondent No.3 drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash to the culvert due to which it turned turtle on the road, resulting injuries to the petitioner.

27.According to RW1, Ex.B1 policy was issued in respect of the offending vehicle; however, the coverage under the policy does not extend to passengers traveling in the said vehicle. Nevertheless, during the course of cross- examination, RW1 admitted that under the terms of the policy relating to a goods carriage vehicle, 2+1 (two plus one) persons are permitted to travel in the vehicle. RW1 further admitted that, as on the date of the accident, there were only three persons traveling in the offending vehicle.

28.Ex.B1 is the certificate cum policy schedule issued by respondent

No.2 further goes to show that, seat cap(inclusive driver) ‘2+1’. Thus, the claim of RW1 that,, the petitioner is gratuitous passenger has to be negated. Since, the accident resulted on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the respondent No.3 as such, the company cannot be exonerated from any liability. The Judgment relied upon by 14 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019 the respondent No.2 in case of Rachala Bichamma and others Vs.

Abdul Hakeem and others reported in 2007 (4) ALT 344 wherein it was observed at para-17 as under:

“In view of the principles laid down by the apex Court in the above decisions, it is held that the claimant being a passenger in goods vehicle, the appellant/injured cannot be compensated with any liability to pay compensation to the claimant, as the risk in respect of such passenger has not covered by the policy cannot be applicable.”

29. In view of the fact that Ex.B1 policy covers the risk of 2+1. A perusal of Ex.B1 Policy reveals that, the policy belongs to Respondent

No.1/Venkataiah.V S/o Jangaiah, valid from 18.04.2014 to midnight 17.04.2015 and same is in existence as on date of accident 04.11.2014.

There is no material on record to show that there was any violation of the terms and conditions of Ex.B1 policy.Therefore, Respondent

No.1/owner, Respondent No.2/Shriram General Insurance Company

Limited and Respondent No.3/driver of the offending vehicle are

jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the

petitioner/injured.

15 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019

ISSUE No.4:

30.In the result, the petition is partly allowed, with proportionate costs and interest as under:

(i) the award is passed awarding a sum of Rs.4,72,582 /-(Rupees

Four lakh Seventy Two Thousand Five hundred and eighty two only) to the petitioner against the respondents with future interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization; (ii)the respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount into the court within one(1) month from today.

(iii) On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw his entire share of amounts.

(iv) The petitioner is directed to pay court fee on the claimed amount within one month from today.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3000/-.

Typed to my Dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT-CUM-

CHAIRMAN-M.A.C.T., HYDERABAD.

16 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Claimants: For Respondents :

PW1: C.Krishna, RW1: M.Srihari Singh, PW2: Dr.G.Subhash Rao,

Documents marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 – Attested copy of FIR No.263/2014, dtd:04.11.2014,

Ex.A2 – Attested copy of wound certificate issued by Olive Hospital,

dt:16.12.2014,

Ex.A3 – another Wound certificate issued by community health center, Dhone District of A.P. dtd:09.01.2015,

Ex.A4 – Attested copy of charge sheet filed by the police Dhone, rural

PS, dated 11.01.2015

Ex.A5 – OP registration card issued by NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad,

Ex.A6 – OP issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad,

Ex.A7 – 2D Echo Report issued by Dr.Shivaram Naik, Othopedic hospital,

Ex.A8 – prescription issued by Indus Hospital, Hyderabad,

Ex.A9 – Orthopedically handicapped certificate issued by Dr.G.Subash

Rao, Othopedic surgeon dtd:03.06.2016,

Ex.A10 – Disability certificate issued by Medical Board, Government of Telangana, Ex.A11 – receipt for Rs.1090/- issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad,

Ex.A12 – receipt for Rs.900/- issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad,

Ex.A13 – receipt for Rs.20,000/- issued by Indus Hospital, Kothapet,

Hyderabad, dt:24.09.2022,

Ex.A14 – receipt for Rs.1500/- issued by Indus Hospital, Kothapet,

Hyderabad, dtd:25.09.2022, Ex.A15 – Consultation receipt for Rs.100/- issued by NIMS, Hyderabad, 17 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019

Ex.A16 – Billing service receipt for Rs.600/- issued by NIMS, Hyderabad,

Ex.A17 – Billing service receipt for Rs.850/- issued by NIMS, Hyderabad,

Ex.A18 – consultation fees for Rs.100/- issued by NIMS, Hyderabad,

Ex.A19 – Billing service receipt for Rs.1000/- issued by NIMS, Hyderabad,

Ex.A20 – Pharmacy bill receipt for Rs.78/- issued by Indus Pharmacy,

Ex.A21 – Pharmacy Bill receipt for Rs.108/- issued by Indus Pharmacy,

Ex.A22 – X-ray film, issued by NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad,

For Respondents:

Ex.B1 – True copy of Policy certificate cum schedule in respect of Tata 407 bearing No.AP 22Y 8116, valid for the period from 18.04.2014 to 17.04.2015

Sd/-

CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT-CUM-

CHAIRMAN-M.A.C.T., HYDERABAD.

KSL.

18 MVOP.No.1516 of 2019

Judgment in SC.43 OF 2019 1 of 9 dated :06-04-2023

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

Present: Sri K.Kusha, I-Addl Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 6th day of April, 2023

SC No.43/2019

1.Name of the complainant: The State of Telangana through Inspector of Police of PS Jubilee Hills Hyderabad.

2.Name of the Accused: A1 – Medak Anoop Kumar, s/o. Late M.Rajeshwar Rao, aged 25 years, occ: employee at BDL, r/o. H.no.11-1-883/4/5,Sitarambagh,Malepally, Hyderabad. A2 – Mehanke Suchin Yadav, s/o. M.Sudhakar, aged 20 years, student, r/o. H.No.17-2- 309/123/72, Kurmaguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad. A3 – Kambalapalli Vikesh, s/o. K.Bikshapathi, aged 21 years, occ: Hotel Management student, r/o.H.No.17-2-870/34, madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. A4 – Shaik jamal, s/o. Shaik Khaja, aged 25 years, occ: Junior Artist in Telugu flms, r/o.H.No.8-3-229/ E/75/A, Venkatagiri, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

3.Ofence under Section: Section.302 r/w.34 IPC

4.Cr. No. and Name of : Cr.No.160/2018 of PS.Jubilee Hills Hyderabad Police Station

5.P.R.C. No.: 47/2018

6.Case committed by:XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

7.Plea of the accused:Not guilty

8.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

9.Sentence or Order: In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the ofence punishable under section 302 r/w.34 of IPC and they are acquitted u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal time. MO.1/Pulsar bike, MO.2/LG.Cell phone and MO.5/Activa bike are already given to safe/ interim custody shall be made absolute and MO.3 and 4/Cell phones are ordered to be returned to the persons entitled, after expiry of appeal time.

10Prosecution conducted by:Sri S. Mukunda Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor 11Defence conducted by:Sri.Bhoopal Raj counsel for A1 to A4

Judgment in SC.43 OF 2019 2 of 9 dated :06-04-2023

This case coming on this day before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri S. Mukunda Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and Sri S.Bhoopal Raj, counsel for the accused No.1 to 4 and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police of PS.Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad has fled charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 in Cr.No.160/2018 for the ofences punishable Under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16-3-2018 at 5-30 hrs, LW.1/Ramavath Dhanraj Sharma lodged a complaint stating that on 15-3- 2018 at about 10-30 PM, his childhood friend by name Sudheer Kumar called over phone and said that his brother got married and he ofered to give party, and he asked to come home. At about 11-00 PM, Sudheer came to their residence and both went to Sai wines at Indira nagar and ofered to have drinks, when he said he has no money, Sudheer said “I don’t need your friendship ra” and so saying, he left on his two wheeler from SBI Bank, krishna nagar beside lane through wrong route, meantime, he hit to one two wheeler who were coming in opposite direction, then the two persons on two wheeler and another two persons on another two wheeler coming along them, attacked

Sudheer saying “wrong route lo vastavara”, and gave blows to him and when he went to his rescue, he was also beaten up by the said persons, Sudheer collapsed on the road and all the accused persons went away, and he shifted his friend Sudheer to Apollo hospital with the help of road passers in an auto and doctors declared him as brought dead and requested to take necessary action.

b)On the basis of the above complaint, LW.17/B.Nagarjuna Reddy, Sub

Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.160/2018 under sections 302 r/w. 34 of IPC and issued FIR and handed over the investigation to

LW.18/P.Chandrashekar, Inspector of police for investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.18 examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, hen he proceeded to APOLLO Hospital, Hyderabad and collected death certifcate of the deceased/ G.Sudheer Kumar. Thereafter, he visited the

Judgment in SC.43 OF 2019 3 of 9 dated :06-04-2023

scene of ofence and try to record the circumstances witnesses surrounding the area but none came forward as the ofence occurred during midnight. Then he secured 2 mediators LW.8/P.Venkatesham and LW9/P.Raju VRO, Shaikpet and prepared scene of ofence panchanama and also rough sketch. Thereafter, he visited mortuary of OGH and secured the dead body of G.Sudheer kumar for the purpose of conducting inquest. In the presence of LW10/D.Ravi Goud and

LW11/K.Raja kUmar goud conducted inquest over the deadbody. During the course of inquest he recorded the statements of relatives LW4/G.Renuka w/o of the deceased, LW5/T.Suresh brother of the deceased, LW6/D.Srinivas senior paternal uncle of the deceased and LW7/G.Srinivas uncle of the deceased.

Thereafter, he gave requisition forensics medical department for conducting autopsy and thereafter handed over the dead body to the relatives for performing fnal rites. On 17.03.2018 at 1.00 pm he arrested A1 to A4 and interrogated them who confessed about the commission of ofence then forwarded to the court for judicial remand. On 29.03.2018 he obtained police custody of A1 to A4 for the purpose of investigation. During the course of investigation the accused took to there residents where he recovered pulsur motor bike under cover of panchanama. On 30.03.2018 accused led to their house where he recovered mobile phones and Honda Activa under cover of panchanama in the presence of Lw12/K.Krishna and Lw13/Manu Naik. . After completion of investigation he reproduced the accused before the court. On his requisition LW16/A.Veeraiah XVI ACMM has conducted test identifcation parade of A1 to A4 wherein PW1 has identifed the accused. After collecting

PME report and completion of the investigation he laid charge sheet against A1 to A4 for the ofences under section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC. Hence the charge.

3.The case against the accused No.1 to 4 was taken on fle by taking cognizance for the ofence under Sections 302 r/w. 34 of IPC vide PRC

No.47/2018 on the fle of learned XVII.Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at

Hyderabad.

4.On appearance of accused , case copies and the documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and as the ofence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. and the

Judgment in SC.43 OF 2019 4 of 9 dated :06-04-2023

same was numbered as SC.43/2019, and was made over to this court for disposal, in accordance with law.

5.The A1 to A4 were examined u/s.228 Cr.P.C and charges under sections 302 r/w. 34 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to A1 to A4 for which they denied the allegation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

LW.1/R.Dhanraj Sharma complainant as PW.1, LW.2/Syed Wajid, eye witness as

PW.2, LW.3/Gajae Venkateshwar Rao, circumstantial witness as PW.3,

LW.8/P.Venkatesham panch witness as PW.4, LW.17/B.Naagarjuna Reddy, investigating ofcer as PW.5, LW.15/Dr.M.Sugatha, FSL expert as PW.6 and

LW.18/P.Chandra Shekar Investigating ofcer as PW.6. The prosecution has given up LW.4 to LW.7, 9 to 14, who are circumstantial witnesses, panchas and the ofcials who assisted the investigation and closed the evidence of LW.16., and the prosecution evidence was reported closed.

7.After, closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.2 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution and pleaded false implication. However, he did not choose to lead any kind of evidence in defence.

8.Heard arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the A1 to A4.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submits that the prosecution has examined Pws-1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P12 and thus proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charged ofence and as such, the accused is to be punished in accordance with law.

10. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the accused would submits that there is no trustworthy evidence on record and that no reliance can be placed in the evidence of Pws-1 to 7 and that the prosecution has failed to

Judgment in SC.43 OF 2019 5 of 9 dated :06-04-2023

establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, the accused have to be acquitted.

11.Now the point for consideration is : “Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the Accused No.1 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt or not?

12. POINT:

To bring home the guilt of the A1 to A4, the question is whether a case under Section 302 of IPC has been made out by the prosecution.

13.In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything is essential to establish the charge against the accused is always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until and unless the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed; subject to, of course, to some statutory exception.

14.Before adverting the evidence of the prosecution, it is proper to have a bird’s eye view over the provision under Section 302 and 201 of IPC.

15.Section 300 of The Indian Penal Code

300. Murder — Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or — Secondly — If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the ofender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or —

Thirdly -- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufcient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or— Fourthly -- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fne.

Judgment in SC.43 OF 2019 6 of 9 dated :06-04-2023

16.In the light of the above statutory provision and cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, what is the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case has to be looked into.

17.The evidence on record is the evidence of PW1 to PW7.

18.This is a case of “murder” of the deceased/Sudheer which occurred in a road rage fght. According to the prosecution, the deceased was going on a motorcycle along with the pillion rider and when reached near Yousufguda and while taking “U” turn, the accused coming there on motorcycles and on seeing opposite vehicle has applied sudden brake, which is on one way route, and then an altercation took place in between the deceased and the accused, wherein the accused has beaten the deceased indiscriminately, due to which, sustained injuries and died.

19.The investigating ofcer has charge sheeted the accused for the ofence u/s.302 r/w. 34 of IPC. In so far as the death of the deceased G.Sudheer is concerned, there is no dispute. Ex.P.7/Post mortem examination report goes to show that cause of death is due to “head injury”.

20.The other aspect to be proved by the prosecution is that A1 to A4 have done the act with the knowledge that is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

21.Th prosecution has placed the occular evidence of PW.1 to 7 coupled with Ex.P.1 to P.12 and MO.1/bike. PW.1 is the defacto-complainant and pillion rider of the two wheeler has deposed that about 5 years ago, in the month of

March, at about 1-00 midnight he along with the deceased while going on pulsar motorcycle, reached near Yousuf guda t that time, one two wheeler came in high speed and gave a dash to their motor cycle while taking “U” turn and fell down and sustained injuries. He further deposed that the deceased has sustained head injury and he sustained injury on left leg. Then immediately shifted to Apollo hospital for treatment, the doctors after examination declared as brought dead. Then he lodged complaint. Ex.P.1 is the complaint.

Judgment in SC.43 OF 2019 7 of 9 dated :06-04-2023

22.PW.2/Syed Wajid eye witness has deposed that he did not witness any incident that took place on 16-3-2018 near SBI bank Krishna nagar lane.

23.PW.3/G.Venkateshwar Rao is the father of the deceased has deposed that on 15-3-2018, his son along with PW.1 left the house at 10-30 PM, to meet their friends and around 2-30 AM came to know that his son met with an accident at Krishna nagar and was undergoing treatment at Apollo Hospital and then he along with family members went to said hospital and came to know about the death of the deceased. He further deposed that he was told that his son died in a road accident.

24.The evidence of PW.4/one of the mediator for scene of ofence panchanama is not in dispute.

25.PW.5 is the investigating ofcer who has issued Ex.P.7/FIR, whose evidence also is not in dispute.

26.PW.6 is the medical ofcer who conducted autopsy over the dead body, whose evidence is also not in dispute.

27.PW.7 is the investigating ofcer who deposed as to the line of investigation and fling of charge sheet.

28.None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has identifed the culprits as accused. The investigating ofcer, PW.7 also got conducted Test

Identifcation parade with the eye witness ie., PW.2, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that A1 to A4 are the persons who beat the deceased G.Sudheer indiscriminately on the head and all over the body, causing head injury and death. The evidence of PW.6 and PW.7/investigating ofcers goes uncorroborated with the evidence of PW.2. Moreover., the incident has happened on the intervening night on 15/16-3-2018 at 1-30 AM near SBI Bank lane, Krishna nagar colony. The right person to identify is the PW.1, who is the pillion rider. According to him, while approaching “U” turn, their vehicle got skid and fell down, due to which, they sustained injury. Thus the prosecution evidence is going contra with regard to the manner in which the incident was happened, which resulted death of the deceased/G.Sudheer. Except the

Judgment in SC.43 OF 2019 8 of 9 dated :06-04-2023

evidence of PW.6 and 7 the investigating ofcers, there is no other evidence to tag the accused for the charged ofence u/s.302 of IPC. It is no doubt true that the deceased has died but there is no legally acceptable evidence showing that

A1 to A4 has manhandled the deceased indiscriminately, which happened on 15/16-3-2018 at 1-30 AM.

29.This is a case where there is ample evidence with regard to the death of the deceased/G.Sudheer, who died on account of head injury. But in so far as accused causing the head injury is concerned, there is no other evidence except the confession of the accused and the evidence of the investigating ofcer. It is a settled law, that confession made before police ofcer is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has produced two inconsistent views with regard to the manner of incident and death of the deceased. It is settled law that the one view which is in favour of the accused has to be taken into consideration. If this is so, prosecution has no case at all.

30.On careful consideration of the entire evidence of the prosecution that of PW.1 to PW.7 coupled with Ex.p.1 to P.12 , this court feels that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the A1 to A4 with common intention have committed the murder, And thus failed to establish the guilt of the A1 to A4 for the charged ofence beyond reasonable doubt and consequent thereto, the accused have to be acquitted.

Point answered accordingly.

31. In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the ofence punishable under section 302 r/w.34 of IPC and they are acquitted u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. The

Bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal time.

MO.1/Pulsar bike, MO.2/LG.Cell phone and MO.5/Activa bike are already given to safe/ interim custody shall be made absolute and MO.3 and 4/Cell phones are ordered to be returned to the persons entitled, after expiry of appeal time.

Partly typed to my dictation, partly dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of April, 2023.

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

Judgment in SC.43 OF 2019 9 of 9 dated :06-04-2023

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

Witnesses examined on behalf of

PROSECUTION DEFENCE NIL

PW-1 : Ramavath Dhanraj Sharma, Complainant PW-2 : Syed Wajeed, eye witness PW-3 : G.Venkateshwar Rao, father of the deceased PW-4 : P.Venkatesham panch witness PW-5 : B.Nagarjuna Reddy, Investigating ofcer, PW-6 : Dr.M.Sugatha, Medical ofcer PW-7 : [P.Chandra shekar, Investigating ofcer.

Exhibits Marked for

For Prosecution FOR DEFENCE: Nil

Ex.P.1 is the complaint Ex.p.2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1, Ex.P.3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P4 and P5 are the scene observation panchanama and rough sketch Ex.P6 is the relevant portion of the confessional cum seizure panchanama of

A1 to A4

Ex.P7 is the FIR

Ex.P.8 is the PME report and

Ex.P.9 is fnal opinion

Ex.P10 is the inquest report.

Ex.P11 is the relevant portion of confessional cum seizure panchanama.

Ex.P12 is the TIP proceedings

MOs Marked

Mo1 is the photograph showing motor bike (Vehicle belonging to A1).

Mo2,3 and 4 are the mobile phones.

MO.5 is the Honda Activa bike.

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD