Sri K.Nageswara Rao

1

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP

C A L E N D A R

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

(POA) ACT-CUM-XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Sri K. NAGESWARA RAO, Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-XI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, the 26th day of July 2017

SESSIONS CASE NO.99/2016

(P.R.C.17/2016 on the file of III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM in Cr.No.409/15 of Pendurthi Police Station)

Name of the Complainant : State represented by the Asst.Commissioner of police, SC/ST Cell-II, Visakhapatnam city.

Name of the accused:Namala Arjun Kumar, S/o.N.Venkata Swamy,age 50 years, Padmasali (BC) D.No.3-77, Gangampeta, Garapalli (Panchayat) Pendurthi Mandal, Visakha- patnam.

Date, time and Place of offence : 5-10-2015 at 19.30 hrs., at Gangampeta village.

Date of complaint: 8-10-2015

Date of apprehension : 20-11-2015

Whether the accused is in : Accused is in Jail. Jail or on bail

Date of Commitment: 20.10.2016

Date of commencement of trial : On 16.3.2017

Date of Closure of Trial: On 11.5.2017

Date of Judgment :On 26.7.2017

Explanation for the delay: No unavoidable delay.

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-XI

Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

2

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP

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

(POA) ACT-CUM-XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Sri K. NAGESWARA RAO, Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-XI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, the 26th day of July 2017

SESSIONS CASE NO.99/2016

(P.R.C.17/2016 on the file of III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM in Cr.No.409/15 of Pendurthi Police Station)

Name of the Complainant : State represented by the Asst.Commissioner of police, SC/ST Cell-II, Visakhapatnam city.

Name of the accused:Namala Arjun Kumar, S/o.N.Venkata Swamy,age 50 years, Padmasali (BC) D.No.3-77, Gangampeta, Garapalli (Panchayat) Pendurthi Mandal, Visakha- patnam.

Date, time and Place of offence : 5-10-2015 at 19.30 hrs., at Gangampeta village.

Charges: Under secs.3(1)(X) of SC ST (POA) Act & under sec.324 IPC.,

Plea of the accused : The Accused pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court : The accused found guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences under secs.3(1)(x) of SC ST (POA) Act and 324 IPC., and he is convicted under sec.235(ii) Cr.P.C.,

Prosecution conducted by : Sri. S.Sreenivasu, Spl. Sessions Judge’s Court for trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, Visakhapatnam

Accused was defended by : Sri A.Raj Kumar, A.ANN Susmitha, K.Padma, Advocates for accused

This case is coming on 27-6-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. S.Sreenivasu, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri A.Raj Kumar,

A.ANN Susmitha, K.Padma Advocates for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered the following:

3

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP

J U D G M E N T

01.The case of the prosecution in brief as per the charge sheet filed by

PW.10 M.Rajarao, ACP, SC ST Cell – 2, Visakhapatnam under sec.3(1)(x) of SC ST (POA) Act and 324 IPC., in crime NO.409 /15 of Pendurthi p.s., is that the accused and PW.1 Sollangi Apparao (defacto complainant cum victim) are residents of

Gangampeta, Gorapalli village, Pendurthi Mandal and they are padmasali BC-D and

SC Madiga by caste respectively. P.W.3 Sollangi Lakshmi is wife of PW.1. PW.2, 4 ,5

Kakara Nookaraju, Bora Venkata Rao, Girida Santoshi Kumari, LW.6 Lakkoji Mani,

L.W.8 Swarnapudi Kondamma, LW.9 Duvvada Venkatarao, PW.9 Kakara Malleswara

Rao are witnesses to the incident and they are also residents of Gangampeta village. PW.1 is a coolie in flour mill in the village. On 5.10.2015 evening, when

PW.1 was coming back to his house after completing his duty and reached in front of the house of the accused, the accused sang a song by insulting PW.1 as “guddi papi batukulu ante, papulamumemu etc., as PW.1 is a blind man. PW.1 replied as “na kallu kanipinchakapote, nee intiki vachi adukkuntana”. On that the accused abused

PW.1 in filthy language touching his caste as “orai madiga lanja kodaka, naa dari venta raka, nee milu maku antuku potundi” and caused bleeding injury on the head of PW.1 by beating with stick. Spectacles of PW.1 fell down and when PW.1 was searching for the same, the accused crushed them with his legs. On hearing the cries of PW.1, his wife came to rescue him, the accused pushed her by keeping his hands on her chest and abused her in filthy language. PW.2 seeing the incident, intervened. After getting treatment at Government hospital, Pendurthi and KGH.,

Visakhapatnam, Pws.1 to 3 went to Pendurthi p.s., and lodged report on 8.10.2015 at 4.00 P.M., and same was registered as a crime in this case by PW.7 K.Laxmana

Murthy, Inspector of police. PW.10 was appointed as I.O by Commissioner of Police,

Visakhapatnam and he investigated in this case by going to the scene of offence, examining the witnesses, obtaining wound certificate from PW.8 G.Sadhana,

Casualty Medical Officer, Visakhapatnam and caste certificates of both the parties from PW.6 C.V.C.Pandurangareddy, Tashildar, Pendurthi Mandal. The accused was arrested on 18.11.2015 and sent for remand. Thus, the accused committed the offences.

02)The learned III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, Visakhapatnam has taken the case on file under secs.3(1)(x) of SC ST (POA) Act & 324 IPC., and assigned PRC 4

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP

No.17/2016 and on the appearance of the accused by following due process of law, committed the same to the court of Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act

Cases, Visakhapatnam. This case was numbered as SC.99/2016 by the Spl. Sessions

Judge for SC & ST Cases, Visakhapatnam for disposal in accordance with law.

03.After hearing both sides, charges under sections 3(1)(x) of SC ST (POA)

Act and sec.324 IPC., were framed against the accused and those were read over and explained to him in Telugu and he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

04.During the course of trial, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. LW.6 Lakkoji Mani, LW.8 Swarnapudi Kondamma, LW.9

Duvvada Venkatarao were given up by Special Public Prosecutor by endorsing on the charge sheet. The prosecution evidence was closed as reported by Spl.P.P.

05.During 313 Cr.P.C., examination accused admitted his community as well as the community of PW.1 and denied incriminating evidence against him when read over and explained to him in Telugu. He stated that he did not commit any offence and this case is politically foisted against him. Initially, he reported that he got defence witnesses and later filed memo reporting no defence evidence.

06.Heard both sides.

07.Now the point for determination is: Whether the Prosecution is able to prove the guilt against the accused for the charges under sections 3(1)

(x) of SC ST (POA) Act, 324 IPC., beyond all reasonable doubt?

08.POINT:During trial, PW.1 deposed that he is resident of

Gangampeta, Rice Mill driver in their village, SC Madiga, PW.3 is his wife, he knew other witnesses and the accused since his childhood. Accused is Padmasali by caste. Daily he come back to his house after duty at about 7.00 or 7.30 P.M., via the house of the accused. Likewise, when he was coming on one day in the year 2015 at about 7.00 P.M., the accused sang a song as “papulamayya nee guddibatukuintenayya” by standing in front of his house and when he questioned the accused whether he was begging him by coming to his house, the accused abused him as “Madiga Lanja kodaka nuvvu maa intimundu ravadamvalla myla vastundi”. When he questioned the accused for the same, the accused beat on his 5

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP head with a stick and his spectacles fell down on the ground and when he was searching for the same, the accused crushed the spectacles with legs. Meanwhile, his wife came there and he suffered bleeding injury on head. She questioned the accused for his high handed behaviour and the accused pushed her by laying his hand on her chest and scolded her and threatened her to beat with same stick. He along with his wife and PW.2 Nookaraju went to police station and on their advise, they went to Government hospital, Pendurthi and on their advise, they went to

KGH., Visakhapatnam on the next day where he was treated and injury was sutured.

They returned to the house. 2 days thereafter, they presented Ex.P1 report dt.5.10.2015 at police station scribed by PW.2. Police examined him.

09.PW.2 K.Nookaraju deposed that he is resident of Gangampeta, private plumber, SC Mala. He knew PW.1, 3 and other witnesses and also the accused.

Accused is Padmasali by caste, PW.1 and 3 are SC Madiga. On 5.10.2015 at about 7.00 or 7.15 P.M., when PW.1 was going to his house after the duty and reached the house of the accused, the accused sang a song as “papulamayya guddivalabatukuluintenayya”. PW.1 questioned the accused that even though he has no good vision, he did not come to his house for begging. The accused beat

PW.1 on his head with a stick. Spectacles of PW.1 fell down on ground. The accused damaged the spectacles by crushing with legs and abused PW.1 touching his caste as “Madiga lanja kodaka, yee dariventa vasthe maaku mila antukupotundi nee valla”. PW.1 sustained bleeding injury. Meanwhile, PW.3 came there. The accused beat her on her chest and threatened her to beat her with same stick. He accompanied Pws.1 and 3 to police station. On police advise, they went to

Government hospital, Pendurthi and first aid was given to PW.1 and on medical advise they went to KGH., Visakhapatnam for further treatment on the next day morning. PW.1 was treated there. 2 days thereafter, PW.1 lodged police report scribed by him on the instructions of PW.1 and his wife. PW.2 did not do well during those two days.

10.PW.3 Sollangi Lakshmi deposed that they are SC Madiga, PW.1's right eye is completely blind and the accused is Padmasali by caste. About 1 ½ years ago, on one day at about 7.00 P.M., when PW.1 was returning after his duty and reached near the house of the accused, the accused abused PW.1 as “guddibatukuluintera” , PW.1 questioned the accused that he did not come to his 6

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP house for begging. The accused abused PW.1 as “nuvvu madigavadivi, nuvvu ituvaipu vaste maaku mila antukuntundi” and beat him with a stick on his head and caused bleeding injury. She rushed to the spot and found PW.1 with a bleeding injury and PW.1 was in search of crushed spectacles due to the act of the accused.

She lifted PW.1 up and questioned the accused. The accused pushed her aside laying his hands on her chest and threatened her to be beaten with the same stick.

Out of fear, she along with Pws.1 and 2 went to police station and on their words in view of bleeding injury of PW.1, they went to Government hospital, Pendurthi and bandage applied to the injury of PW.1 and on advise, on the next day morning they went to KGH., Visakhapatnam where PW.1 was treated and injury was sutured.

Later they gave police report.

11.P.W.4 Bora Venkata Rao deposed that he is resident of Gangampeta working as VRA, Gorapalli, SC Mala. Pws.1 and 3 are SC Madiga. Accused is his neighbour and Padmasali by caste. On 5.10.2015 at about 6.00 or 7.00 P.M., on hearing some cries, he came outside of his house and found PW.1 lying on the ground and accused was armed with stick and by then darkness set in. PW.1 has vision problem. PW.1 was searching for his spectacles. Meanwhile PW.3 came there. Accused abused Pws.1 and 3 as “yee mala vala andaru na yeeka to samanam, mee mala valandaru nannu yemi cheyaleru.” Later all of them went away. Accused is a problem maker and used to heckle ladies and abuse villagers in filthy language.

12.PW.5 Girida Santoshi Kumari deposed that she is the resident of

Gangampeta, Pamasali by caste, accused is her distant relative. She married to a person of SC Mala. She knew Pws.1 and 3. About 1 1½ years ago, on one day evening while she was at her house, on hearing some shoutings, she came outside and observed the accused abusing PW.1 as madiga lanja kodaka yenduku vastunavu ma throvanta mee mila maku antukuntundi, ila ravaddu, maku avamanamga vundi and beat PW.1 with stick on his head. Several persons gathered there and provided water to PW.1. There was some verbal exchange between them.

Pw.1 suffered bleeding injury and was taken to hospital. Accused heckles the passersby.

13.PW.6 C.V.S.Panduranga Reddy deposed that he is working as Tashildar,

Pendurthi, on the requisition of ACP, Visakhapatnam, he got enquired the caste 7

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP particulars of PW.1 and the accused through VRO and MRI and on their report, he addressed Ex.P2 letter stating P.W.1 is SC Madiga and the accused is Padmasali BC.

14.PW.7 K.Lakshmana Murhty deposed that while he was working as

Inspector of police, Pendurthi p.s., on 8.10.2015 at 4.00 P.M., he received ExP1 report from P.W.1 and registered crime in this case and issued ExP3 Printed FIR.

15.P.W.8 Dr.Ċh.Sadana CAS., KGH., Visakhapatnam deposed that on 6.10.2015 at about 10.00 A.M., she examined PW.1 and found external injuries 1.abrasion on forehead, 2. bruise on right leg. PW.1 was treated as out-patient.

She issued Ex.P4 wound certificate opining that the injuries are simple in nature. It was informed that PW.1 was beaten with a stick by known person on 5.10.2015 at about 7.00 P.M.,

16.PW.9 Kakara Malleswara Rao, resident of Gangampeta village deposed that he is SC Mala and a watchman. Pws.1 and 3 are SC Madiga and accused is

Padmasali by caste. Accused used to abuse passersby staying at his house and comment against ladies. About 1 ½ years back, he came to know through some of the villagers that there was some altercation between the accused and PW.1.

17.PW.10 M.Rajarao deposed that while he was working as ACP SC ST Cell- 2 Visakhapatnam, on 14.10.2015 he received Ex.P5 proceedings dt.9.10.2015 from

C.P., Visakhapatnam to investigate in this case and accordingly, he took up investigation and went to the scene of offence situated in front of the house of the accused at Gangampeta and examined the scene and prepared Ex.P6 rough sketch and examined Pws.1 to 5, 9 and other witnesses. On 20.11.2015 at 1.15 P.M., he arrested the accused at Gorapalli junction and sent him to the court for remand. He also obtained caste certificates of both the parties and wound certificate of PW.1 from the concerned officials.

18.Admitted facts from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are that

PW.3 is wife of PW.1. Pws.1 to 5, 9 and the accused are residents of Gangampeta village. They got acquaintance with one another even prior to the incident alleged.

Delay in lodging FIR:

19.According to prosecution and evidence of the witnesses, the date of offence is 5.10.2015 at 7.30 P.M., at Gangampeta village. The evidence of Pws.1 to 8

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP 3, 7 is that on 8.10.2015 at 4.00 P.M., Ex.P1 report was lodged and the same was registered as crime in this case and Ex.P3 printed FIR was issued. There is a delay of nearly 3 days in lodging Ex.P1 report. Evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is that soon after the incident, they had been to police station and on their advise in view of the injury of PW.1, they went to Government hospital, Pendurthi for first aid and on their advise, they went to KGH., Visakhapatnam on the following day and 2 days PW.1 did not do well and then Ex.P1 report was lodged. Pws.1 to 3 were not cross examined on the above aspects. Nothing was elicited from Pws.1 to 3 by the accused to doubt the case of the prosecution on the ground of delay in lodging Ex.P1 report.

Therefore, delay in lodging Ex.P1 report is explained by the prosecution satisfactorily.

20.It is the evidence of PW.1 that Ex.P1 is drafted by PW.2 and he knew the contents thereof and the signature thereon is belonging to him. The evidence of

PW.2 is that on the instructions of Pws.1 and 3, he scribed Ex.P1. In cross examination he stated that PW.1 did not affix his thumb mark on Ex.P1, but he voluntarily stated that PW.1 affixed his signature on the report on the date of presentation. He stated that signature on Ex.P1 is not that of PW.1. When such is the evidence of PW.2 and when PW.1 claimed that signature on Ex.P1 is belonging to him, he was not cross examined contrary to the same. PW.1 is the proper person to admit or deny signature on Ex.P1 report. When he was not cross examined, the accused cannot question the validity of Ex.P1. Therefore, suggestion given to PW.7 that Ex.P1 is not valid carries no value. PW.7 in cross examination stated that PW.1 signed on Ex.P1. Therefore, Ex.P1 report and its lodging by PW.1 is proved by the prosecution.

21.According to the prosecution, the scene of offence is situated in front of the house of the accused at Gangampeta village. The evidence of Pws.1 to 5 would reveal that the incident occurred in front of the house of the accused, when PW.1 reached there on his way back to his house after his duty. Except suggesting to

Pws.1 to 5 that the accused did not commit any offence, they were not cross examined by the accused with regard to the scene of offence. The evidence of

PW.10 would reveal his going to the scene of offence and preparation of Ex.P6 rough sketch after observing the same. He denied that he did not investigate in this case 9

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP personally. He was not cross examined regarding the features shown in the rough sketch. Therefore, the scene of offence is proved.

22.Since, a charge is there against the accused covered by the provisions of SC ST (POA) Act, prosecution has to prove initially the communities of PW.1 and the accused as claimed and the case was investigated by the competent authority as per the rules. The evidence of Pws.1 to 4 and 9 is that Pws.1 and 3 are SC

Madiga, while the accused is Padmasali by caste. They were not cross examined by the accused on this aspect. Apart from this, the evidence of PW.6 is very clear that on the requisition of PW.10, he got enquired the caste particulars of PW.1 and the accused through his officials and addressed Ex.P2 stating that PW.1 is SC Madiga and accused is Padmasali BC. He denied that to accommodate the police, he issued

Ex.P2. In 313 Cr.P.C., examination accused categorically admitted his community as well as the caste of PW.1 as claimed by the prosecution. So, the castes of PW.1 and the accused are proved by the prosecution.

23.The oral testimony of PW.10 coupled with Ex.P5 proceedings issued by

C.P., Visakhapatnam goes to show that PW.10 was authorised to investigate in this case as per the rules.

24.According to prosecution, PW.9 Kakara Malleswara Rao is a witness to the incident. The evidence of PW.9 would not reveal his witnessing the incident. On the other hand, his evidence reveals his coming to know through some of the villagers that there was some altercation between the accused and PW.1. So, his evidence is only hear say and not useful to the case of the prosecution.

25.It is the case of the prosecution that while the incident was going on,

PW.3 rushed there and tried to rescue PW.1. Even though, the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 in their chief examination would reveal the presence of PW.3 while the incident was going on, PW.1 in cross examination stated that half an hour after the incident, his wife came there. PW.3 in cross examination stated that one hour after the incident, she went to the spot. She denied that she did not witness anything and being the wife of PW.1, her deposing falsehood. So, in the light of evidence of Pws.1 and 3 in their cross examination, it is clear that PW.3 was not present at the time of incident and thereby her evidence cannot be relied upon as far as the incident is concerned.

10

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP

26.Charge under sec.3(1)(x) of SC ST (POA) Act against the accused.

Since, the communities of PW.1 and the accused are proved as discussed earlier, the prosecution has to prove that the accused intentionally insulted and humiliated PW.1 by abusing touching his caste within public view.

27.Material witness to speak to the same is PW.1. He categorically stated in chief examination itself that at the relevant time on seeing him, the accused abused him touching his caste as Madiga Lanja Kodaka. He further stated that he has no good vision. PW.3 also stated that PW.1's right eye is completely blind.

PW.2 also stated that PW.1 has no good vision. PW.1 stated that the accused sang a song as Papulamayya nee guddibatuku intenayya. Pws.1 to 3 were not cross examined regarding the vision of PW.1 as spoken to by them. PW.5 is a distant relative of the accused as can be seen from her cross examination. PW.4 is VRA of

Garapalli and independent witness. The evidence of Pws.4 and 5 would reveal that the accused used to heckle ladies and also passersby on that way. They were not cross examined on this aspect. Therefore, their evidence corroborates the version of Pws.1 and 2 as to accused singing a song seeing PW.1 in an insulting manner.

Except suggesting to PW.1 that the accused did not abuse him, nothing was elicited from PW.1 for his speaking false against the accused. The evidence of PW.2 also would reveal his presence at that time and his witnessing the incident. It was suggested to PW.2 that the accused did not commit any offence and his speaking falsehood, he being scheduled caste person and at the instance of PW.1. So, except this, nothing is there in his cross examination to discredit his evidence.

Therefore, his evidence corroborates the version of PW.1. The evidence of PW.4 is that the accused abused PW.1 touching his caste as Mala. PW.1 is SC Madiga. The case of prosecution is that the accused abused him touching his caste as Madiga

Lanja Kodaka. But the evidence of PW.4 is on the other lines and not in line with the case of the prosecution. So, his testimony is not useful to the case of the prosecution for this charge. The evidence of PW.5 in chief examination corroborates the evidence of PW.1. In cross examination she stated that road is intervening her house and the house of the accused and she went to the spot from her house soon after hearing the shoutings from the spot. She denied that she did not witness the incident and her speaking false out of family disputes with the accused. Accused 11

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP did not elicit the details of the family disputes and he did not also state anything on this aspect in his 313 Cr.P.C., examination. So, the testimony of PW.5 and her presence at the relevant time need not be doubted. Therefore, the evidence of

PW.1 is corroborated by Pws.2 and 5. PW.5 is Padmasali by caste and distant relative of the accused. Even though, she is married to SC Person, it cannot be said that she is also SC Person and thereby she is interested witness to prosecution.

Therefore, her presence being other than scheduled caste woman, will come under the purview of public view. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the accused intentionally abused P.W.1 touching his caste and humiliated him within public view and accordingly this charge is proved against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Charge under sec.324 IPC.,

28.The case of the prosecution is that at the relevant time, when PW.1 questioned the accused for his abusing touching his caste, the accused beat him on his head with a stick and caused bleeding injury. The defence is complete denial.

So, the prosecution has to prove that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW.1 by means of a stick.

29.The evidence of PW.1 is that at that time on his questioning the accused for his abusing and insulting him, the accused beat on his head with a stick and he sustained bleeding injury on his head and meanwhile PW.3 came there and the accused pushed her and threatened her and he was taken by Pws.2 and 3 to police station and from there to Government hospital, Pendurthi and from there to

KGH., Visakhapatnam and he was treated there and his injury was sutured. In cross examination he stated that he did not observe the length and circumference of the stick. He stated that the accused beat him coming in front of him. He denied that the accused did not beat him with a stick. It was suggested to him that at that time, he beat the accused and the accused sustained fracture injury to his finger.

So, this suggestion proves the presence of PW.1 and the accused at the spot at that time. Except suggesting on the above lines, the accused did not place any evidence on the above aspect, nor did he state the said fact during 313 Cr.P.C., examination. So, the suggestion to PW.1 on the above lines finds no force. The evidence on record proves that PW.1 has no good vision and his right eye is completely blind. Therefore, the testimony of PW.1 that he did not observe the 12

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP length and circumference of the stick is not doubtful. The evidence of PW.2 in chief examination corroborated the testimony of PW.1 with regard to this charge. Nothing is there in his cross examination to discredit his evidence. PW.4 did not speak as to accused beating PW.1 with a stick on his head in chief examination itself. So, her evidence is not useful for this charge. PW.5 stated that the accused beat PW.1 with a stick on his head and PW.1 was taken to hospital for his bleeding injury. Therefore, her evidence also proves the offence against PW.1 by the accused.

30.Adverting to medical evidence, the evidence of PW.8 is that she examined PW.1 and found two simple injuries. 1. Abrasion on forehead, 2. Bruise on right leg and she issued Ex.P4 wound certificate. She did not rule out the possibility of sustaining such injuries, if a person falls down. She further stated that as per their record PW.1 did not have injuries on his head and no sutures were given. She denied that patient was not treated. Even though, the evidence of PW.8 falsifies the version of Pws.1 to 3 with regard to suturing the injury of PW.1, still the injury i.e., abrasion on forehead as stated by PW.8 would go to show that PW.1 sustained injury at the hands of the accused as the evidence of PW.1 goes to show that he is a rice mill driver only. Being a layman, he may not be in a position to give the exact part of his body whereon he was beaten. Even though, the Doctor did not rule out the possibility of sustaining such injuries by fall, in view of the consistent evidence of Pws.1,2 and 5 and when there is no other evidence to doubt their testimony and to implicate the accused in this case, it cannot be said that the cause of the injury of PW.1 is otherwise. Therefore, the oral evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. Hence, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt against the accused under this charge beyond all reasonable doubt.

31In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences under secs.3(1)(x) of SC ST (POA) Act and 324 IPC., and he is convicted under sec.235(ii) Cr.P.C.,

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of July 2017

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-XI

Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

On questioning with regard to quantum of punishment to be

imposed on the accused, the accused stated that he did not commit

any offence, he has wife and children, he is poor person and pleaded

mercy.

13

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP

Considering the submissions of the accused and in view of the

nature of the offences, the accused is sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to

suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under

sec.3(1)(x) of SC ST (POA) Act. He is further sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under sec.324 IPC., The

sentence of imprisonment for both the offences shall run concurrently.

Accused is entitled to set off the remand period already he had

undergone under sec.428 Cr.P.C., Accused is informed his right to

appeal against the Judgment.

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-XI

Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined on behalf of

Prosecution: Defence

P.W.1/Sollangi Apparao - Nil - P.W.2/Kakara Nooka Raju P.W.3/Sollangi Lakshmi P.W.4/Bora Venkata Rao P.W.5/Girida Santhoshi Kumari P.W.6/C.V.S.Panduranga Reddy P.W.7/K.Lakshmana Murthy P.W.8/Dr.Ch.Sadana P.W.9/Kakara Malleswara Rao P.W.10/M.Raja Rao

Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution: Ex.P.1/: Report dt.05.10.2015. Ex.P.2/: Letter dt.31.12.2015 Ex.P.3/: Printed FIR. Ex.P.4/: Wound certificate Ex.P.5/: Proceedings Ex.P.6/: Rough sketch

Documents marked on behalf of Defence :

NIL

Material objects:

NIL

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-XI

Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

14

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP 15

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP 16

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP 17

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP 18

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP

Copy to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

2. The Superintendent of Police Visakhapatnam.

3. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, Spl. Sessions Judge’s Court for SC & ST Cases, Visakhapatnam // True copy forwarded by order // 19

SC No.99/16

XI ADJ/VSP

1MOP 932/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: - Sri. K. Nageswara Rao, Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act -Cum - Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam. (FAC)XII Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, the 1st day of February, 2017

MOP NO.932/2015

Between:

1. Korikana Sreedhar, S/o Nandikeswara Rao, aged 32 years, residing at D.No.35-31-88/1, Green Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

2. Bevara Anantha Rama Rajendra Prasad, S/o Dala Appalanaidu, aged 54 years, at present address D.No.35-31-88/1, Green Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

3. Bevara Padmavathi, W/o Bevara Anantha Rama Rajendra Prasad, aged 47 years, at present address D.No.35-31-88/1, Green Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. …Petitioners

And:

1. Kondapaneni Hanumanthu Rao, S/o Raja Rao, aged about 30 years, residing at Gollamudi, Nandhigama Mandal, Krishna District.

2. B.Lakshmi Prasanthi, W/o B.Radha Krishna, aged not known, residing at D.No.11-98, House No.9, Road No.6, Mahadevauram Colony, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Do-1, DeviManor Hotel, Upstairs of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Labbi Peta, M.G.Road, Vijayawada.

...Respondents.

This petition has come up on 11-01-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. S.Gandhi, Advocate, for the Petitioners and

Sri B.D.V.Prasad, Advocates for Respondents 1 and 2, and of Sri

A.Venugopala Rao, Advocate for 3rd Respondent and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners under sec.166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest and costs for the death of Smt. Korikana Suguna in motor vehicle accident on 21.05.2011.

2MOP 932/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP

2.The petition in brief is that the 1st petitioner is husband and petitioners 2 and 3 are father and mother of the deceased respectively. The petitioners are residents of Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. On 21.05.2011 the deceased and the 1st petitioner were going on their motor cycle bearing No.AP 31 AG 2208 from Marripalem to attend a marriage function at Gajuwaka and 1st petitioner is rider and the deceased was pillion rider and when they reached near Air Port junction at 6-15 p.m and when one auto was also going on their left side parallelly, R1 drove his trailer bearing No.AP 16 TX 6469, while proceeding from NAD Kotha Road towards Gajuwaka, rash and negligently and without blowing horn and dashed 1st petitioner's motorcycle and the auto and as a result motorcycle was dragged to a distance and the deceased and 1st petitioner fell down on the road and both the legs of the deceased were run over by the back wheels of tailer and she suffered grievous injuries.

1St petitioner also received injuries to his legs, right forearm. Soon after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Care Trauma Hospital,

Visakhapatnam and while undergoing treatment there, she died on 22.05.2011 at 9-50 a.m. A case in Crime No.162/2011 under Section 304-

A, 338 & 337 IPC was registered against the 1st respondent at IV Town

Traffic P.S., Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam on 22.05.2011. By the time of the accident the deceased was 27 years old and she was educated and being DTP Operator in Akshraprabha Telugu Daily newspaper, she used to earn Rs.8,600/- per month and used to contribute the same for the maintenance of the family and all the petitioners are dependants on the income of the deceased. The 1st petitioner being the husband of the deceased lost his matrimonial life. 2Nd respondent is owner and third respondent is insurer of the crime vehicle trailer. All the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

3.2Nd respondent filed counter, which was adopted by the 1st respondent by way of memo, denying the petition averments specifically and more 3MOP 932/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP particularly regarding manner of accident, negligence of R1, age, avocation, injuries and death of the deceased due to injuries and income of the deceased and dependency of the petitioners on the income of the deceased and pleaded interalia that the 1st petitioner was negligent in driving his motorcycle and contributed to the accident without following the traffic rules and inspite of horn given by the 1st respondent and the compensation claimed is excessive and petitioners 2 and 3 are not entitled to claim compensation as they are not dependents on the deceased and the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.3Rd respondent filed counter denying the petition averments and more specifically regarding manner of accident, involvement of the trailer, rash and negligent act of R1, age, avocation, earnings of the deceased and also death of the deceased as claimed by the petitioners and dependency of the petitioners and the income of the deceased and pleaded interalia that the accident was due to gross negligence of the 1st petitioner only in driving his motorcycle at the relevant time as he was not going on his motorcycle on the left side of the road and he was going on the middle of the road and the 1st petitioner confused himself while going parallel to the auto and hearing the horn blown by the 1st respondent and dashed his motorcycle against the trailer and fell down on the road and received injuries and thereby R3 is not at all liable to pay compensation. The trailer was not insured with R3. R1 did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the trailer at the material point of time. The 1st petitioner did not possess valid driving licence to drive his motorcycle. Since the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the 1st petitioner alone, the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties that is owner and insurance company of the motorcycle. The claim of compensation under different heads is excessive. The provisions under

Motor Vehicle Act were not complied by the owner of the trailer as well as 4MOP 932/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP police authorities concerned soon after the alleged accident. This petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the deceased died due to injuries sustained in motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.05.2011 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Trailer bearing No.AP 16 TX 6469, by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, on the petitioners’ side, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13, Ex.X1 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by R1 and R2. R3 filed memo confirming insurance policy of the trailer and reporting no oral or documentary evidence. R3 filed a petition in I.A.No.972/16 under sec.170 of M.V.Act and that was allowed.

7. Heard both sides.

ISSUE NO.1:

8.The admitted facts are that the petitioners are residents of Marripalem,

Visakhapatnam. 1St petitioner, who is examined as PW.1, is the husband, while the petitioners 2 and 3 are parents of the deceased -Korikana

Suguna. 1St respondent is driver, 2nd respondent is owner of trailer bearing NO. AP 16 TX 6469 and R3 is insurer as on the date of the accident 21.5.2011. It is also not in dispute that on 21.5.2011 while the 1st petitioner being the rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 AG 2208 and the deceased being pillion rider were going towards Gajuwaka from

Marripalem, one auto belonging to PW.3-M.C.Pandian was also going in the same direction of the 1st petitioner's motorcycle on its left side and R1 being the driver of the trailer was driving the trailer from NAD Kotha road towards Gajuwaka.

5MOP 932/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP

9.According to the petitioners, when the 1st petitioner and the deceased reached near airport junction at about 6-50 p.m the 1st respondent drove the trailer rash and negligently and without blowing horn and dashed the motorcycle and auto and consequently they fell down and the legs of the deceased were run over by the back wheels of the trailer and she sustained grievous injuries. The stand of the respondents is that there was no negligence at all on the part of R1 and that the negligence was due to the 1st petitioner only who confused himself on hearing horn given by the 1st respondent and dashed the trailer with his motorcycle and fell down. Therefore the parties have to prove their stands by placing evidence on record.

10.The petitioners in support of their plea examined the 1st petitioner as PW.1. He filed his sworn affidavit in lieu of chief examination reiterating the contents in the petition more particularly regarding manner of accident and that it was due to rash and negligent driving of the trailer by R1. He also exhibited Ex.A1 attested copy of Fir in

Cr.No.162/2011 registered under section 338 of IPC at Kancharapalem

Traffic P.S basing on his complaint, Ex.A2 attested copy of inquest report of the deceased, Ex.A3 attested copy of P.M report of the deceased issued by Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam, Ex.A4 attested copy of MVI report of the trailer stating that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle and Ex.A5 attested copy of charge sheet filed by police concerned after full investigation pleading that the accident was due to rash and negligent act of R1. Ex.A3 P.M report would reveal that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to multiple injuries. PW.1 in cross examination specifically denied the stand of the respondents to the effect that there was no negligence on the part of R1 and that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by him when suggested. The evidence of PW.3 also corroborated the testimony of PW.1 regarding the manner of the 6MOP 932/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP accident as claimed by the petitioners and that it was due to rash and negligent driving of the trailer by R1. He also denied the stand of the respondents when suggested to him in the cross examination. Even though it is the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 in their cross examination that motorcycle and auto were damaged and they received injuries and that they did not file any claim petitions thereon the same cannot be considered as a ground to say that the accident did not take place as claimed by the petitioners. When such is the evidence on record on the petitioners side, the respondents did not place either oral or documentary evidence in support of their plea. R1, being the driver of the trailer at the relevant time is material and best witness for the respondents to substantiate their plea and disprove the stand of the petitioners. So, non- examination of the best witness by the respondents runs adverse to their defence. Admittedly a criminal case has been initiated against the 1st respondent by the police by filing Ex.A5 charge sheet under section 304-

A, 338 and 337 IPC. PW.1 and 3 having admitted as to their giving evidence in criminal case, pleaded ignorance as to the result of the criminal case in acquittal. Even though the criminal case was ended in acquittal against the accused, still it cannot be said that the accident was not due to rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent. Because the judgment in criminal case is not binding on the civil court. In criminal case the judgment will be given considering evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. In civil case the decision will be taken basing on preponderance of probabilities in the evidence on record. In the present case the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence, which was not controverted by the respondents by placing either oral or documentary evidence, proves that the accident was due to rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent alone and that resulted the deceased receiving injuries and her death consequently. Therefore this issue is answered accordingly.

7MOP 932/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP

ISSUE NO.2:

11.Admittedly PW.1 is the husband and the petitioners 2 and 3 are parents of the deceased. Being husband of the deceased, the 1st petitioner is entitled to claim compensation. The case of the petitioners and the testimony of PW.1 is that the petitioners 2 and 3 are old persons and they also depended on the earnings of the deceased. PW.1 specifically denied that petitioners 2 and 3 are not dependents on the earnings of the deceased. Contrary to the same no evidence has been placed by R.3 and in support of their contention. Therefore the petitioners 2 and 3 being the parents of the deceased and dependents on her income, they are entitled to claim compensation. Even though PW.1 admitted in cross examination that his gross salary is Rs.30,000/- and odd, still it does not prevent him from claiming compensation consequent to death of his wife as he lost her multifarious services rendered towards the family during her life time being house wife.

12.To determine loss of compensation age, avocation and earnings of the deceased are to be seen initially. According to the petitioners, the deceased was 27 years old and used to earn Rs.8,600/- per month being an employee i.e DTP Operator in Akshraprabha Telugu Daily by the time of the accident. Since the same was disputed by the other side the petitioners have to prove the same. The case of the petitioners and the testimony of the PW.1 is that the deceased did intermediate and also diploma in Computer applications. He exhibited Ex.A12 copy of

Secondary School certificate of the deceased showing date of birth of the deceased as 5.4.1984. Apart from this Ex.A3 P.M report of the deceased also would reveal that the deceased was 27 years old. The accident is dt.21.5.2011. Therefore in the light of above evidence it is clear that the deceased was 27 years old by then. Ex.A13 certificate of efficiency issued by pioneer computer, Visakhapatnam shows that the deceased did 8MOP 932/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP Diploma in computer applications during the year 2008. PW.1 exhibited

Ex.A8 salary certificate containing no date said to have been issued by

Akshraprabha Telugu Daily, Visakhapatnam in support of the employment of the deceased therein and her salary at Rs.8,600/- per month as on the date of the accident. He denied the creation of Ex.A8 for the purpose of this petition. To prove Ex.A8 the petitioners examined PW.2 P.Vijaya

Bhaskar Kumar. His evidence would reveal that he is Editor-cum-Publisher of said Telugu newspaper and Ex.X1 is his I.D card issued by District

Collector, Visakhapatnam. He further stated that the deceased worked as an outsourcing employee as a DTP Operator on monthly salary of

Rs.8,600/- and he issued Ex.A8 certificate. He denied that the deceased did not work as such and Ex.A8 was issued at the instance of the petitioners. He admitted that no date was mentioned in Ex.A8. No explanation was given by him for not mentioning the date of issuance in

Ex.A8 certificate. He further stated in cross examination that he did not bring any record to show that the deceased worked as DTP Operator. He also stated that he did not maintain attendance register. He further stated that he did not take signatures of the deceased on the receipts at the time of paying salary as the deceased was outsourcing person. Even for a moment it is considered to be true that the deceased served as an outsourcing employee under PW.2, he is supposed to maintain attendance register and obtain the signatures of the deceased on receipts evidencing the payment of salaries. He also did not produce any record showing the employment of the deceased as DTP Operator. Ex.A8 does not mention the date of issuance. It also does not mention details of the salary i.e. pay and other allowances. So, in the light of Ex.A8 it is not possible to ascertain the actual income of the deceased excluding statutory deductions like professional tax etc. So, in the light of the above evidence it is a difficult to rely upon the evidence of PW.2 and thereby to accept Ex.A8. So, Ex.A8 is not proved. Therefore the petitioners failed to 9MOP 932/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP prove the employment and earnings of the deceased as claimed by petitioners. However the deceased being the house wife her notional income can be considered at Rs.3,000/- per month in the light of the decision reported in2010 ACJ 2161(SC) Arun Kumar Agarwal and

another vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and others and 2006(2) ALD

409 Nagarapu Balaiah and others vs. K.Venugopal and another in case of house wifes, even in the absence of any evidence, taking into account her multifarious services and her constant love and affection ,as also her personal care, attention to her children as a mother and as a wife to her husband a narrow meaning should not be given and as per judgment of the Apex court in late Wadwad vs State of Bihar 2001(8) SCC 197 a modest estimation of the monthly income of the house wife should be as Rs.3000/- per month." So, the deceased was 27 years old and her notional monthly income was

Rs.3,000/- by the time of her death.

13.Since the petitioners are dependents on the deceased, loss of income to the family is to be worked out in view of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 ACJ 1298 SC). As per the above citation when dependent family members are three in number, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and proper multiplier is to be applied depending on the age of the deceased. Since the petitioners herein are three in number, 1/3rd is to be deducted from the income of the deceased to assess loss of income and then it is to be multiplied with “17” as the deceased was 27 years old by then. On doing so monthly loss of income will be Rs.2,000/-. Annual loss of income will be

Rs.24,000/-. Total loss of income will be Rs.4,08,000/-.

14. The evidence of PW.1 is that soon after the accident the deceased was shifted to Care Trauma hospital, Visakhapatnam and while undertaking treatment there, she succumbed to injuries on 22.5.2011 and they spent amount for treatment. PW.1 exhibited Ex.A7 bunch of medical bills for Rs.28,688/-. The same was not disputed by other side.

10MOP 932/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP Therefore the petitioners are entitled to this amount towards medical expenses.

15.The petitioners also claimed a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards transport charges to the hospital. Even though no receipt is filed by the petitioners they are entitled to an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards expenses of transport to the hospital. The petitioners are also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate. 1st petitioner being the husband of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium.

16. Therefore, the total amount of compensation is as follows:

1)Towards loss of dependency: Rs.4,08,000-00

2)Towards funeral expenses: Rs. 10,000-00

3)Towards loss of estate: Rs. 5,000-00

4) Towards transportation charges: Rs. 3,000-00

5) Towards medical expenses : Rs. 28,688-00

6)Towards loss of consortium: Rs. 10,000-00 ---------------------- Total : Rs.4,64,688-00 ===========

17.Admittedly, R1 is the driver, R2 is owner and R3 is insurer of the crime vehicle trailer by the time of the accident. Since the accident was due to rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent is vicariously liable for the same and the 3rd respondent is liable to indemnify R2 to pay compensation as admittedly the deceased is third party to insurance company. Ex.A4 MVI report discloses possession of valid and effective driving licence by R1 and possession of fitness certificate and permit of the trailer by R.2 by then. So, no violations are there regarding the terms of policy. Ex.A11 copy of DL shows that PW.1 possessed valid driving licence to drive the motorcycle. Therefore all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to petitioners. Accordingly this issues is answered.

11MOP 932/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP ISSUE NO.3:

18. In view of my findings on issues 1 and 2 the petition is to be allowed in part.

19.In the result, petition is allowed in-part awarding compensation of Rs.4,64,688/- (Rupees four lakhs sixty four thousand six hundred and eighty eight only) with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition and till realization against the respondents jointly and severally. The respondents are directed to deposit the award amount within two months from the date of this award. On such deposit the 1st petitioner is entitled to compensation of

Rs.3,64,688/- towards his share and the Petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.50,000/- each towards their share of compensation and all the petitioners are permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/- from their respective shares and remaining balance share amounts shall be invested in fixed deposits in any Nationalized bank for a period of one year and thereafter the petitioners are entitled to withdraw their respective amounts with accrued interest thereon. Rest of the petition claim is dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade I transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 1st day of February,

2017.

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases Under SC & ST(POA) Act-cum– XI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam FAC XII Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses Examined on behalf of

Petitioners Respondents

P.W.1 : Korikana Sreedhar …..None....

P.W.2 : P.V.Vijaya Bhaskar Kumar

P.W.3 : M.C.Pandian 12MOP 932/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP

Documents Marked on behalf of

Petitioners Ex.A.1– Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.162/2011 of Kancharapalem P.S. Ex.A.2– Attested copy of inquest report. Ex.A.3 – Attested copy of P.M report. Ex.A.4 – Attested copy of MVI Report. Ex.A.5 – Attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A.6 – Photostat copy of policy. Ex.A.7- Bunch of medical bills for Rs.28,688/-. Ex.A.8 – Salary certificate. Ex.A.9 – Photostat copy of D.L of 1st respondent. Ex.A10- Photostat copy of fitness certificate of crime vehicle. Ex.A11- Attested copy of D. Ex.A12- Photostat copy of 10th class certificate. Ex.A13- Photostat copy of certificate of efficiency “Diploma in Computer Applications” (compared with original).

Respondents ......Nil.....

“ X” Series

Ex.X1- Self attested copy of I.D. card (compared with original).

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases Under SC & ST(POA) Act-cum– XI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam FAC XII Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam 13MOP 932/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP

Date of Presentation: 6.12.2012 Date of Filing: 14.08.2015

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: - Sri. K. Nageswara Rao, Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act -Cum - Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam. (FAC)XII Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, the 1st day of February, 2017

MOP NO.932/2015

Between:

1. Korikana Sreedhar, S/o Nandikeswara Rao, aged 32 years, residing at D.No.35-31-88/1, Green Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

2. Bevara Anantha Rama Rajendra Prasad, S/o Dala Appalanaidu, aged 54 years, at present address D.No.35-31-88/1, Green Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

3. Bevara Padmavathi, W/o Bevara Anantha Rama Rajendra Prasad, aged 47 years, at present address D.No.35-31-88/1, Green Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. …Petitioners And:

1. Kondapaneni Hanumanthu Rao, S/o Raja Rao, aged about 30 years, residing at Gollamudi, Nandhigama Mandal, Krishna District.

2. B.Lakshmi Prasanthi, W/o B.Radha Krishna, aged not known, residing at D.No.11-98, House No.9, Road No.6, Mahadevauram Colony, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Do-1, DeviManor Hotel, Upstairs of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Labbi Peta, M.G.Road, Vijayawada.

...Respondents.

This petition is filed by the petitioners under Sec.166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest and costs for the death of Smt. Korikana Suguna in motor vehicle accident on 21.05.2011.

Amount claimed is Rs.15,00,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.9,360/- is paid under rule 475(1) of A.P.M.V. Rules.

This petition has come up on 11-01-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. S.Gandhi, Advocate, for the Petitioners and

Sri B.D.V.Prasad, Advocates for Respondents 1 and 2, and of Sri

A.Venugopala Rao, Advocate for 3rd Respondent and upon hearing the arguments on both side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and:

14MOP 932/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP

D E C R E E

1. that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed in-part awarding compensation of Rs.4,64,688/- (Rupees four lakhs sixty four thousand six hundred and eighty eight only) with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition and till realization against the respondents jointly and severally; and

2. that the respondents are hereby directed to deposit the award amount within two months from the date of this award; and

3. that on such deposit, the 1st petitioner be and is hereby entitled to compensation of Rs.3,64,688/- towards his share; and

4. that the Petitioners 2 and 3 be and are hereby entitled to Rs.50,000/- each towards their share of compensation; and

5. that all the petitioners be and are hereby permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/- from their respective shares and remaining balance share amounts shall be invested in fixed deposits in any Nationalized bank for a period of one year and thereafter the petitioners are entitled to withdraw their respective amounts with accrued interest thereon;

and

6. that the rest of the petition claim is dismissed; and

7. that the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-; and

8. that the respondents do also pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.5,500/- towards proportionate costs of the petition.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 1st day of February, 2017.

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases Under SC & ST(POA) Act-cum– XI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam FAC XII Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS

Stamp on Vakalat:Rs. , 2-00 Court Fee:Rs.9,360-00 Stamp on Process:Rs. ,120-00 Typewriting & Misc. charges:Rs. ,200-00 ----------------- Costs Allowable:Rs.9,682.-00 ---------------- Proportionate costs :Rs.4,500-00 Advocate fee (fixed by :Rs.1,000-00 court) :Rs.5,500-00 Proportionate costs allowed

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases Under SC & ST(POA) Act-cum– XI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam FAC XII Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam 15MOP 932/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP

1

SC No.65/15

XI ADJ/VSP

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: - Sri. K. Nageswara Rao, Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act -Cum - Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam. (FAC)XII Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Friday, the 3rd day of March 2017

SESSIONS CASE NO.65/2015

(P.R.C.1/2015 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yelamanchili in Cr.No.65/2012 of Rambilli Police Station)

Name of the Complainant :State represented by the Inspector of Police, Yelamanchili circle.

Name of the Accused:Ummidi Dharma Rao, S/o.Satyarao, 24 years, Vadabalija, Trig welder, Kothapatnam village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

Date, time and Place of offence:02-11-2012 at Kothapatnam village

Date of complaint:On 02.11.2012

Date of apprehension :16.11.2012

Whether the accused is in :Accused is on Bail Jail or on bail

Date of Commitment:On 05-06-2015

Date of commencement of trial:On 26-09-2016

Date of Closure of Trial:On 09-01-2017

Date of Judgment :On 03.03.2017

Explanation for the delay:No unavoidable delay.

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act -Cum – Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam (FAC) XII Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2

SC No.65/15

XI ADJ/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: - Sri. K. Nageswara Rao, Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act -Cum - Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam. (FAC)XII Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Friday, the 3rd day of March 2017

SESSIONS CASE NO.65/2015

(P.R.C.1/2015 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yelamanchili in Cr.No.65/2012 of Rambilli Police Station)

Name of the Complainant :State represented by the Inspector of Police, Yelamanchili circle.

Name of the Accused:Ummidi Dharma Rao, S/o.Satyarao, 24 years, Vadabalija, Trig welder, Kothapatnam village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

Date, time and Place of offence:02-11-2012 at Kothapatnam village

Charges: u/secs.417 IPC., 420 IPC., 376 IPC.,

Plea of the accused : The Accused pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court : The accused found not guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences under secs.417, 420 and 376 IPC., and he is acquitted of the same under sec.232 Cr.P.C., Bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled forthwith.

Prosecution conducted by : Sri. Venugopala Rao, Visakhapatnam

Accused was defended by : Sri M.Ravi, Advocate for accused

This case is coming on 01.03.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. M.Venugopala Rao, Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri M.Ravi, Advocate

for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day and this court

delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The case of the prosecution in brief as per the charge sheet filed in crime

No.65/12 under sections 417, 420 and 376 IPC., of Rambilli police station is that the accused and defacto complainant PW.1 Garikina Bhoolaxmi are residents of

Kothapatnam village. PW.1 is the daughter of PW.2 Garikina Kasulamma, PW.3

Garikina Satyarao. PWs.4 to 7 Garikina Kasula, Chodipalli Musalayya, Garikina 3

SC No.65/15

XI ADJ/VSP Veeramma, Garikina Manga are related to PWs.1 to 3 and they are also residents of

Kothapatnam village. While PW.1 was studying 9th class in ZP High school, Rambilli village, the accused loved her and they had sexual intercourse in the under construction building of one Chintakayala Yerrayya situated nearby the house of

PW.1. Both of them used to speak on mobile phones with each other. The accused promised PW.1 that he would marry her after his coming back from Singapore within 4 months and PW.1 thereby did not inform about their affair to their parents. PW.1 got 8th month pregnancy. Noticing the same when her parents questioned, PW.1 informed her affair with the accused. The accused used to speak to PW.1 over phone even from Singapore and promised to marry her. PWs.2 and 3 moved the matter

before elders PWs.8 to 10 Ch.Nookaraju, Ch.Satyanarayana, Ch.Mangaraju

respectively of their village. The elders and parents of the victim went to the house of the accused and discussed with the family members of the accused about the affair between PW.1 and the accused and parents of the accused told that the accused is not responsible for the pregnancy of PW.1. P.W.1 obtained her date of birth certificate from her school. She gave report at Rambilli police station on 2.11.2012 at 1.45 P.M., and same was registered as a crime in the present case.

PW.1 was referred to Area hospital, Anakapalli for medical examination. The case was investigated by Inspector of police, Yellamanchili circle and he arrested the accused on 16.11.2012 at his house in the presence of mediators and sent him for judicial custody after potency test. As per the medical opinion, PW.1 was carrying 8th month pregnancy and the accused was not impotent. PW.1 was blessed with a female child. Investigating Officer got conducted DNA test by forwarding PW.1, her baby and the accused to FSL Hyderabad through court to know biological father. As per DNA report, accused is biological father of the child born to P.W.1. Thus the accused committed the offences.

2)The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yelamanchili has taken the case on file u/secs.417, 420, 376 IPC., and assigned PRC No.1/2015 and on the appearance of the accused by following due process of law, committed the same to this court, Visakhapatnam. This case was numbered as SC.65/2015 by this Court for disposal in accordance with law.

4

SC No.65/15

XI ADJ/VSP

3) After hearing both sides, charges under sections 417, 420, 376 IPC., were framed against the accused and those were read over and explained to him in

Telugu and he denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4)During the course of trial, Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 19 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.19. The prosecution evidence was closed as reported.

5)After closure of evidence on the prosecution side, during examination under sec.313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied incriminating evidence against him when read over and explained to him in telugu. He reported no defence witness on his side.

He stated that this case is falsely foisted against him.

6)Heard both sides.

7)Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

8)POINT:The case of the prosecution is that since one year prior to 2.11.2012 while PW.1 was prosecuting 9th class, the accused under the pretext of love and promise to marry her, had sexual intercourse with her at the building of

Chintakayala Yerrayya, which was under construction, at Kothapatnam village and

PW.1 became pregnant and he went to Singapore and used to speak to her on phone promising that he would marry PW.1 and later on coming to know that PW.1 was pregnant, PWs.2 and 3, being parents of PW.1, went to the family members of the accused along with village elders PWs.8 to 10 and they were informed that accused was not responsible for the pregnancy of PW.1 and thereby the accused committed the offences. The defence is complete denial.

9)The material witness to speak to the case of the prosecution is PW.1. Her evidence is that as on 2.11.2012 she was studying 9th class at ZP High school,

Rambilli. She studied up to 9th class. She do not know the accused and anything about this case and did not give police report at any time. In view of her evidence she was declared hostile and cross examined by P.P. wherein she stated that she did not state before the police as in Ex.P1 relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C., statement.

She also denied her carrying 8th month pregnancy by the time of police report dt.2.11.2012 and also undergoing DNA Test. The evidence of PW.15 V.Krishna Rao is that while he was working as S.I of police, Rambilli p.s., PW.1 came to police station and presented Ex.P14 report and he registered the same as a case in the 5

SC No.65/15

XI ADJ/VSP present crime and issued Ex.P14 printed FIR. He denied that PW.1 did not present

Ex.P14 report. It is significant to note that when PW.1 denied her lodging Ex.P1 report and also denying her signature in the said report, the evidence of PW.15 is not useful to prove the contents of the said report.

10)The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 who are the parents of PW.1 also did not support the case of the prosecution by turning hostile and pleading that they do not know the accused and about this case. PWs.4 to 7 Garikina Kasula, Chodipalli

Musalayya, Garikina Veeramma, Garikina Manga, who are residents of Kothapatnam village and related to PWs.1 to 3, also did not support the case of the prosecution by turning hostile and speaking that they do not know anything about this case. PWs.8 to 10 who are villagers of Kothapatnam and Fishermen by community deposed that

PWs.1 to 3 did not request them to conduct panchayat and they do not know anything about this case. Since, PWs 2 to 10 completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution they were cross examined by P.P. Since they resiled from their previous statements before the police those were marked as Exs.P2 to P9 in their cross examination by P.P. PWs.1 to 10 denied that the matter was settled out of the court and their deposing falsehood. So, nothing is there in the cross examination of

PWs.1 to 10 by P.P supporting the case of the prosecution.

11)The evidence of PW.11 D.Pydiraju resident of Kothapatnam is that he is doing business by running welding training centre and the accused underwent training in their institute for 4 months and went to Singapore. He did not know anything more.

In view of his evidence he was declared hostile and in cross examination by P.P., he denied his giving statement before the police as in Ex.P11 as to his knowledge about the accused cheating PW.1 by making false promise to marry her and caused pregnancy and later refused to marry her. So, his evidence is also not useful to the case of the prosecution.

12)Even though PW.1 did not support the case of the prosecution by turning hostile completely, the medical evidence available on record is to be analysed to ascertain whether PW.1 had sexual intercourse and got pregnancy as on the date of

Ex.P14 report. PW.15 who registered crime in this case deposed that he referred

PW.1 to KGH., for medical examination. Of course, he denied that PW.1 was not referred for medical examination. The evidence of PW.12 Dr.R.Geetha Vandana is 6

SC No.65/15

XI ADJ/VSP that while she was working as Asst.Professor, Gynecology, KGH., Visakhapatnam on the requisition of S.I. of police, Rambilli p.s., she examined PW.1 on 7.11.2012 at 4.20 P.M., and on general examination she found that secondary sexual characters were well developed. On per-abdomen examination, uterus 30-32 weeks size, hymen not intact, vagina admitting medium sized speculum, cervix and vagina healthy, ultra sound scan report reflects single live fetus, gestational age 31 weeks 3 days and basing on clinical examination findings on investigation report, she issued Ex.P12 final opinion certificate to the effect that PW.1 was pregnant by 31 weeks 3 days. She denied that she did not examine PW.1 and that she issued

Ex.P12 certificate at the instance of the police. So, in view of the categorical evidence of PW.12, it is clear that on being referred by the police, she examined

PW.1 and found that PW.1 was carrying 8th month pregnancy. So, PW.1 underwent sexual intercourse and consequently got pregnancy.

13)The evidence of PW.17 K.Rama Rao is that while he was working as Inspector of police, Yelamanchili, on 3.11.2012 he took up investigation in this case and during course of investigation he arrested the accused on 16.11.2012 at

Kothapatnam village at his house in the presence of PW.15 V.Krishna Rao and PW.10

Ch.Manga Raju and another mediator under cover of mediators report and sent him to medical officer for potency test and later received Ex.P16 potency certificate.

He denied that he did not arrest the accused in the presence of mediators. Of course PW.10 did not support on this aspect by turning hostile. It is significant to note that it was not suggested to PW.17 that he did not refer the accused for medical examination for potency test.

14)The evidence of PW.16 T.Sivayya is that while he was working as Civil

Assistant Surgeon in Community Health centre, Yellamanchili, on 16.11.2012 he examined the accused brought by P.C.No.505 and issued Ex.P16 certificate opining that the accused is able to perform sexual act. He was not cross examined.

Therefore, his evidence proves that the accused was examined by him and found to be sexually potent.

15)Now the point to be seen is whether the accused is responsible for the pregnancy of PW.1. The evidence of PW.19 H.Malleswara Rao is that while he was working as Inspector of police, Yelamanchili he took up further investigation in this 7

SC No.65/15

XI ADJ/VSP matter on 30.11.2013 after taking over from PW.17 and filed a memo on the file of

AJFCM., Yellamanchili, for DNA Test on 31.5.2014 and again on 9.6.2014 and thereupon PW.1, her baby and the accused were referred to APFSL., Hyderabad for

DNA test as per Ex.P18 and later he received Ex.P19 report and filed the charge sheet.

16)The evidence of PW.18 Dr.G.Gopinath is that he is working as Assistant

Director, FSL., Hyderabad, on the requisition of AJFCM., Yelamanchili under Ex.P18 in respect of DNA profiling examination in paternity dispute of the accused with PW.1

Bhulakshmi, they collected blood samples from PW.1, her female child of 20 months old and the accused on 15.7.2014 and conducted DNA Test by extracting DNA from blood samples of all the said three persons and DNA profile of female child was compared with DNA profiles alleles from PW.1 and found the presence of a set of paternal alleles from the accused and a set of maternal alleles from PW.1 are present in the allelic pattern of female child of PW.1 and that conclusively proves the accused is a biological father of female child of PW.1. Ex.P19 is DNA report dt.30.8.2014 along with DNA profiles 4 in number. He denied that no blood sample was collected from the accused and 3rd blood samples noted in Ex.P19 is not that of the accused and no DNA test was conducted and they issued such report at the instance of the police and the accused is not biological father of female child of

PW.1. When such is the specific evidence of PW.18, it cannot be said that there was no intimacy between PW.1 and the accused and PW.1 did not get pregnancy and female child born to her is not that of the daughter of the accused.

17)However, the prosecution is not free from proving that the accused by inducing PW.1, under the pretext of love and promise to marry her, enjoyed her sexually and caused pregnancy and later refused to marry her. Even though PWs.1 to 10 did not support the case of the prosecution, as discussed above, the medical evidence proves that there was physical relationship between PW.1 and the accused and consequently PW.1 become pregnant and delivered a child. Since PW.1, who is material witness, did not speak against the accused that he enjoyed her physically by making false promise to marry her and under the pretext of love, it cannot be said that he cheated her and thereby the charges under secs.417 and 420 IPC., fail.

8

SC No.65/15

XI ADJ/VSP

18)With regard to the offence under sec.376 IPC., is concerned, age of the deceased plays vital role to ascertain whether there was consent on her part or not for sexual intercourse with the accused. As per the provisions under sec.376 IPC., if the victim is less than 16 years old her consent plays no significance to decide the charge. If the victim is below 16 years old by the time of the alleged incident, the accused will be responsible irrespective of her consent for the sexual act. According to prosecution, by the time of Ex.P14 report dt.2.11.2012 PW.1 was studying 9th class and since one year prior thereto PW.1 and the accused used to participate in sexual intercourse now and then. PWs.1 to 3 are material witnesses to speak to the age of PW1 by the time of the alleged incident. Nowhere in their evidence they spoke to the same. Even Ex.P14 report does not mention the same. However, the evidence of PW.15 who registered the crime, is that PW.1 presented Ex.P14 report along with Ex.P13 certificate. Of course, he denied that no such certificate was presented. PW.1 also did not speak to the presentation of such report to the police.

To prove Ex.P13 prosecution examined PW.13 M.Tulasi Satyavathi. Her evidence is that she is working as Physical Director, ZP High school, Rambilli, on 2.11.2012 she was incharge Headmaster of that school, PW.1 studied 9th class in their school, on the request of S.I of police, Rambilli, she issued Ex.P13 certificate as per the admission register and attendance register stating that date of birth of PW.1 is 10.6.1995. In cross examination she admitted that as per the transfer certificate issued by Primary Elementary school they entered the date of birth of candidate in their admission register and police did not obtain copy of T.C., of PW.1 issued by

Primary Elementary school. She denied that Ex.P13 is not valid. Even though her evidence proves the issuance of Ex.P13, the same cannot be relied upon to accept the age of PW.1 as mentioned therein as the original admission register of PW.1 in elementary school was not produced nor did copy of T.C issued by the said school.

The prosecution also did not examine the person concerned to say on whose information the date of birth was noted in the admission register of elementary school. In the absence of such evidence, Ex.P13 cannot be relied on safely. So, the prosecution is not able to prove the age of the deceased that she was below 16 years old by the time of the alleged incident.

19)Even for a moment it I considered that date of birth as mentioned in Ex.P13 is true, what was the age of PW.1 just one year prior to Ex.P14 report is to be seen.

9

SC No.65/15

XI ADJ/VSP Ex.P14 is dt.2.11.2012. According to the prosecution, since one year prior thereto

PW.1 and the accused participated in sexual intercourse. So it might be since 2.11.2011 when as per Ex.P13 the date of birth of PW.1 is 10.6.1995, by the date of 2.11.2011 she was more than 16 years old. Therefore, when PW.1 was more than 16 years old at the relevant time and in the absence of evidence from the material witness PW.1 that the accused, under the pretext of love and promise to marry her had sexual intercourse with her, her sexual intercourse with the accused is only with her consent and in which case, it cannot be said that the accused committed rape against her. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charge under sec.376

IPC., also against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

20)The evidence of PW.17 would reveal his investigation in this case by going to the Area hospital, Anakapalli, scene of offence, preparation of Ex.P17 rough sketch and examining the witnesses. However, when PWs.1 to 10 did not support the case of the prosecution, his evidence will not improve the case of the prosecution.

Therefore, the accused is entitled to acquittal for all the charges.

21)In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences under secs.417, 420 and 376 IPC., and he is acquitted of the same under sec.232 Cr.P.C., Bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled forthwith.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade I transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 3rd day of March 2017.

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act -Cum – Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam (FAC) XII Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined on behalf of

Prosecution: Defence

P.W.1/G.Bhoolakshmi - Nil - P.W.2/G.Kasulamma P.W.3/G.Satya Rao P.W.4/G.Kasulu P.W.5/Ch.Musalayya P.W.6/G.Veeramma P.W.7/G.Manga P.W.8/Ch.Nookaraju P.W.9/Ch.Satyanarayana P.W.10/Ch.Mangaraju 10

SC No.65/15

XI ADJ/VSP P.W.11/D.Pydiraju P.W.12/R.Geetha Vandana P.W.13/M.Tulasi Satyavathi P.W.14/T.Ramana P.W.15/V.Krishna Rao P.W.16/T.Sivayya P.W.17/K.Rama Rao P.W.18/Dr.G.Gopinath P.W.19/H.Malleswara Rao

Documents marked on behalf of

Prosecution: Defence

Ex.P.1: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1 - Nil - Ex.P.2: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-2 Ex.P.3: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.4: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.5: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.6: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.7: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.8: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.8 Ex.P.9: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.9 Ex.P.10: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.10 Ex.P11: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.11 Ex.P12:Final opinion. Ex.P13: Date of birth certificate Ex.P14: Report Ex.P15:FIR Ex.P16: Potency certificate Ex.P17: Rough sketch Ex.P18: Requisition received from AJFCM., Yelamanchili Ex.P19: DNA report dt.30.8.2014 along with D.N.A Profiles (4 in number)

Material objects:

NIL

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act -Cum – Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam (FAC) XII Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

11

SC No.65/15

XI ADJ/VSP 12

SC No.65/15

XI ADJ/VSP

1 MOP 1052/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: - Sri. K. Nageswara Rao, Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act -Cum - Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam. (FAC)XII Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, the 15th day of February, 2017

MOP NO.1052/2015

Between:

1. Thangeti Chinnammalu, W/o late Achari @ Veerachari, Hindu, aged 70 years, House wife, R/at 29-38, Durga Colony, Payakaraopeta Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2. Thangeti Prakash Rao, S/o late Achari @ Veerachari, Hindu, aged 48 years, Cycle Mechanic, R/at 29-38, Durga Colony, Payakaraopeta Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3. Thangeti Appa Rao, S/o late Achari @ Veerachari, Hindu, aged 46 years, Cycle Mechanic, R/at 22-72-1, Peda Gantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

4. Thangeti Veerababu, S/o late Achari @ Veerachari, Hindu, aged 44 years, Cycle Mechanic, R/at 29-38, Durga Colony, Payakaraopeta Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

5. Kadimi Nagalaxmi, W/o late Raju, D/o late Achari @ Veerachari, Hindu, aged 70 years, House wife, R/at 22-76-1/4, Peda Gantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

6. Thangeti Sattibabu, S/o late Achari @ Veerachari, Hindu, aged 35 years, Cycle Mechanic, R/at 23-77, Gavarapeta, Tuni, East Godavri District.

7. Rayala Devi, W/o Simhachalam, D/o late Achari @ Veerachari, aged 28 years, House wife, R/at 22-73-7, Pedagantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

8. Thangeti Ramana, S/o late Atchari @ Veerachari, Hindu, aged 25 years, Cycle Mechanic, R/at Donkata, via Godicherla, Nakkapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Petitioners And:

1. Bogireddy Venkata Srinivasa Rao @ Srinivasulu, s/o Subbarao, Hindu, aged 41 years, Driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. accident Bus No.AP 05 Z 0020, Employee No.965910, Kakinada R.T.C Depot, R/at Door No.2-31-13, RTC Complex road, Opp. Kokila Centre, Bhanugudi Junction Kakinada, E.G.District. Pin. 533 001.

2. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C Depot, Bus Station Complex, Kakinada, East Godavari District. Pin.533 001.

3. The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

...Respondents.

2 MOP 1052/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP

This petition has come up on 2-02-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Katta Jagannadham, Advocate, for the Petitioners and of Smt P.Bhavani, Advocate for 1st Respondent, and of Sri

U.Satyanarayana, Advocate for 3rd Respondent and 2nd respondent remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments on both side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This petition is filed by the petitioners under Sec.166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of Tangeti Achari @

Veerachari, son of Naganna in motor vehicle accident.

2. The petition in brief is that the 1st petitioner is wife, petitioner 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 are sons of the deceased and petitioners 5 and 7 are daughters of deceased. Petitioners 1, 2 and 4 are residents of Payakaraopeta village and other petitioners are residing at different places. Petitioners 2 to 8 are married. The deceased was 75 years old and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month being a night Watchman and by doing goldsmith works by the time of the accident and used to maintain all the family members without any trouble. Parents of the deceased predeceased to him. On 26.10.2013 at 8-00 a.m while the deceased was going towards his house after completing his night Watchman duty and reached Thandava Junction, N.H.16 road,

Payakaraopeta, R1 being driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 0020, which was proceeding towards Nakkapalli side, drove the bus rash and negligently at high speed without following traffic rules and dashed against the deceased and as a result the deceased received severe head injury and turned unconscious. Soon he was shifted to Government Area hospital, Tuni and from there, on medical advise, moved to Government General Hospital,

Kakinada for better treatment and while undergoing treatment died on 26.10.2013. The accident was due to rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent only. Payakaraopeta police registered a case in Cr.No.174/2013 under Section 338 IPC and after the death of the deceased, the same was 3 MOP 1052/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP altered to Section 304-AIPC and R1 was also charge sheeted. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners suffered mental agony, lost love and affection and also their dependency. 1St petitioner lost her consortium. R2 and R3 are the masters of R1 and thereby all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

3. 2Nd respondent remained exparte.

4. 3Rd respondent filed counter, which was adopted by the 1st respondent by way of memo, denying the petition averments, more specifically, regarding manner of accident, negligence of R1, age, avocation, earnings of the deceased, dependency of the petitioners on the deceased and pleaded interalia that the deceased was negligent while crossing national Highway without observing the vehicles and petition claim is excessive and petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the death of the deceased caused in motor vehicle accident occurred on 26.10.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 0020 driven by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation ? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial on the petitioners’ side, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On the respondents side Rw.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced.

7.Heard both sides.

ISSUE NO.1:

8.Occurrence of motor vehicle accident on 26.10.2013 at about 8- 00 a.m near Thandava junction, on NH-16 road, at Payakaraopeta and involvement of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 05 Z 0020 belonging to R2 and R3 and driven by R1 while proceeding from Kakinada towards Visakhapatnam 4 MOP 1052/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP and receiving of injuries by deceased and his death on the next day while undergoing treatment in hospital at Kakinada are not in dispute. Ex.A3 P.M report issued by Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada would reveal that the deceased died due to head injury. Dispute between the parties is with regard to negligence that resulted in the accident. According to the petitioners the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by R1. The stand of the respondents is that the accident was due to negligence of the deceased himself. So, the burden is on the petitioners to prove their plea and the accident was not due to the negligence of the deceased.

9.The petitioners in support of their case examined the 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, as PW.1. She filed her sworn chief affidavit reiterating the contents in the petition regarding manner of accident. She denied the stand of the respondents when suggested.

Ofcourse she admitted that she is not an eye witness to the accident. So other evidence on record is to be seen. The petitioners examined Thangeti

Veerababu, who is the 4th petitioner and son of the deceased, as PW.2. He filed his sworn affidavit in chief reiterating the contents in the petition. He further stated that at the relevant time he was waiting on the road for arrival of his father and witnessed the accident. He also further stated that after the accident the deceased was shifted to hospital. He further stated that he preferred Ex.A1 report to the police registered under section 338 IPC. He further stated that after the death of the deceased and on his report covered by Ex.A2 FIR was altered from Sec.338 IPC to Sec.304-A IPC. He denied that after receipt of information on phone only with regard to accident, he rushed to the spot and that he did not witness the accident. He further denied while his father was coming back after his duty in sleeplessness and due to his negligence the accident occurred and there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. As against this evidence, 1st respondent was examined as

RW.1. His evidence is that he drove the bus at the relevant time by taking all the precautions to prevent the accident, but the accident occurred due to 5 MOP 1052/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP negligence of the deceased only. It was suggested to him that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent act only. It is significant to note that

RW.1 did not specifically state how the deceased was negligent at the time and that resulted in the accident. He also did not speak that the deceased was in sleeplessness by then as suggested to PW.2. Being driver of the crime vehicle, he is supposed to give the full details of the manner of the accident, but he did not. No other evidence is also placed by the respondents to substantiate their stand. Admittedly the police after full investigation preferred Ex.A6 charge sheet against R1 under Section 304-A IPC. According to RW.1 that case was ended in acquittal. He admitted that he did not file copy of judgment therein. RW.1 was not suggested contrary to the same. So, non filing of copy of judgment will not effect the testimony of RW.1 as to his acquittal in the criminal case. However judgment in criminal case is not binding on the Civil Court as the Civil case is to be decided basing on preponderance of probabilities in the evidence. Whereas in the criminal case offence is to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. So, acquittal of

RW.1 in criminal case has no bearing in deciding the matter on hand. As discussed above the evidence of PW.2 is very specific as to his presence at the time of the accident and his witnessing the same and it was due to rash and negligent act of R1. The conduct of PW.1 would further strengthen the veracity of his testimony as he lodged Ex.A1 report immediately after the accident. Ex.A4 inquest report of the deceased would reveal the cause of the death of the deceased as claimed by the petitioners. Ex.A5 MVI report discloses that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. Ex.A4 charge sheet filed against R1 reflects that the accident was due to rash and negligent act of R1. Ex.A8 is copy of driving licence of

R1. Hence the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the above documents proves that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by R1 and as a result the deceased sustained severe injuries and later while 6 MOP 1052/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP undergoing treatment in the hospital died consequently. Accordingly this issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.2:

10.The relationship between the petitioners and deceased is not in dispute. The petitioners 2 to 8 are married and thereby they cannot be termed as dependents on the deceased. However all the petitioners being

Class-I heirs of the deceased they are entitled to claim compensation.

11.To determine compensation, age, avocation, earnings and dependency of the 1st petitioner who is the wife of the deceased, are to be seen. According to the petitioners as well as postmortem report, the deceased was 75 years old by the time of the accident. Except oral testimony of Pws.1 and 2 that the deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month being night watchman and goldsmith, they did not adduce any evidence to substantiate the same inspite of specific cross examination by the respondents. Therefore in view of the age of the deceased, his monthly income can be considered Rs.3,000/- per month notionally in view of the deceased between P.Yasodamma & Others (Vs.) T.Butchireddy &

Another wherein it was held that a labourer would get Rs.100/- per day as daily wages.

12.Since the 1st petitioner being wife of the deceased is alone dependent on the income of the deceased, as per the decision between

Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

another (2009 ACJ 1298 SC) compensation towards loss of dependency is to be worked out. As per the above citation 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, when the deceased was married and the number of dependent family members are 2 to 3 and proper multiplier is “5” for the persons above 65 years old. Since the 1st petitioner is only dependent on the deceased and the deceased was 75 years old by the time of the accident, as per the above judgment 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and annual loss of 7 MOP 1052/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP income is to be capitalized with multiplier 5. On doing so, annual loss of income will be Rs.24,000/-{(Rs.3,000 – Rs.1,000) X 12}. Total loss of income will be Rs.1,20,000/-(Rs.24,000 X 5).

13.The petitioners are entitled to Rs.3,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and 1St petitioner being wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Therefore the total amount of compensation is Rs.1,53,000/-.

14.Since the accident was due to rash and negligent act of R1, R2 and R3 are vicariously liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly this issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.3:

15.In view of my findings on issues 1 and 2 the petition is to be allowed in part.

16.In the result, petition is allowed in-part awarding compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty three thousand only) with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization against all the respondents jointly and severally. The respondents are directed to deposit the award amount within two months from the date of this award. On such deposit the 1st petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- towards her share and the Petitioners 2 to 8 are entitled to Rs.4,000/- each towards their share of compensation and all the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective shares of compensation. Rest of the petition claim is dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade I transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15th day of February, 2017.

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases Under SC & ST(POA) Act-cum– XI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam FAC XII Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam 8 MOP 1052/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses Examined on behalf of

Petitioners Respondents

P.W.1 : T.ChinnammaluRW.1:B.Venkata Srinivasa Rao

P.W.2 : T.Veerababu

Documents Marked on behalf of

Petitioners Ex.A.1– Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.174/2013 of Payakaraopeta P.S. Ex.A.2 – Attested copy of altered FIR. Ex.A.3 – Attested copy of P.M report. Ex.A.4 – Attested copy of Inquest Report. Ex.A.5 – Attested copy of MVI report. Ex.A.6 – Attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A.7- Photostat copy of R.C of crime vehicle. Ex.A.8 – Photostat copy of D.L of driver of crime vehicle.

Respondents ......Nil.....

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases Under SC & ST(POA) Act-cum– XI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam FAC XII Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam 9 MOP 1052/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP Date of Presentation: 3.09.2015 Date of Filing: 11.09.2015

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: - Sri. K. Nageswara Rao, Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act -Cum - Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam. (FAC)XII Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, the 15th day of February, 2017

MOP NO.1052/2015

Between:

1. Thangeti Chinnammalu, W/o late Achari @ Veerachari, Hindu, aged 70 years, House wife, R/at 29-38, Durga Colony, Payakaraopeta Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2. Thangeti Prakash Rao, S/o late Achari @ Veerachari, Hindu, aged 48 years, Cycle Mechanic, R/at 29-38, Durga Colony, Payakaraopeta Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3. Thangeti Appa Rao, S/o late Achari @ Veerachari, Hindu, aged 46 years, Cycle Mechanic, R/at 22-72-1, Peda Gantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

4. Thangeti Veerababu, S/o late Achari @ Veerachari, Hindu, aged 44 years, Cycle Mechanic, R/at 29-38, Durga Colony, Payakaraopeta Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

5. Kadimi Nagalaxmi, W/o late Raju, D/o late Achari @ Veerachari, Hindu, aged 70 years, House wife, R/at 22-76-1/4, Peda Gantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

6. Thangeti Sattibabu, S/o late Achari @ Veerachari, Hindu, aged 35 years, Cycle Mechanic, R/at 23-77, Gavarapeta, Tuni, East Godavri District.

7. Rayala Devi, W/o Simhachalam, D/o late Achari @ Veerachari, aged 28 years, House wife, R/at 22-73-7, Pedagantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

8. Thangeti Ramana, S/o late Atchari @ Veerachari, Hindu, aged 25 years, Cycle Mechanic, R/at Donkata, via Godicherla, Nakkapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Petitioners And:

1. Bogireddy Venkata Srinivasa Rao @ Srinivasulu, s/o Subbarao, Hindu, aged 41 years, Driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. accident Bus No.AP 05 Z 0020, Employee No.965910, Kakinada R.T.C Depot, R/at Door No.2-31-13, RTC Complex road, Opp. Kokila Centre, Bhanugudi Junction Kakinada, E.G.District. Pin. 533 001.

2. the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C Depot, Bus Station Complex, Kakinada, East Godavari District. Pin.533 001.

3. The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

...Respondents.

10

MOP 1052/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP This petition is filed by the petitioners under Sec.166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of Tangeti Achari @ Veerachari, son of Naganna in motor vehicle accident.

Amount claimed is Rs.6,00,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.5,360/- is paid under rule 475(1) of A.P.M.V. Rules.

This petition has come up on 2-02-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Katta Jagannadham, Advocate, for the Petitioners and of Smt P.Bhavani, Advocate for 1st Respondent, and of Sri U.Satyanarayana, Advocate for 3rd Respondent and 2nd respondent remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments on both side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order:

D E C R E E

1. that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed in-part awarding compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty three thousand only) with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization against all the respondents jointly and severally; and

2. that the respondents be and are hereby directed to deposit the award amount within two months from the date of this award; and

3. that on such deposit, the 1st petitioner be and is hereby entitled to compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- towards her share and the Petitioners 2 to 8 be and are hereby entitled to Rs.4,000/- each towards their share of compensation and all the petitioners be and are hereby permitted to withdraw their respective shares of compensation; and

4. that the rest of the petition claim be and the same is hereby dismissed; and

5. that the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

6. that the respondents do also pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.2,425/- to- wards proportionate costs of the petition.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 15th day of February, 2017.

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases Under SC & ST(POA) Act-cum– XI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam FAC XII Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS:

Stamp on Vakalat:Rs. 2-00No costs memo filed Court Fee:Rs. 5,360-00 Stamp on Process:Rs. 120-00 Stamps on documents:Rs. 5-00 Typing charges:Rs. 100-00 -------------------- Costs Allowable:Rs. 5,587-00 -------------------- Proportionate costs : Rs. 1,425-00 Advocate fee (fixed by court): Rs. 1,000-00 -------------------- Pro-costs allowed : Rs.2,425-00 ---------------------- XI ADJ/VSP FAC XII ADJ/VSP 11 MOP 1052/2015 X1I ADJ/VSP

1 SC No.17/2015 XI ADJ/VSP

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC & ST (POA)

ACT-CUM-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Sri K. NAGESWARA RAO, Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, the 19th day of July 2017

SESSIONS CASE NO.17/2015

(P.R.C.9/2016 on the file of II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM in Cr.No.12/2012 of GOPALAPATNAM Police Station)

Name of the Complainant :State represented by the Asst.Commissioner of police, North Sub-Division, Visakhapatnam city.

Name of the accused:1. Palepu Venkata Sesha Rao,S/o.Surya Rao,Age 43 years, Kapu by caste, R/o.D.No.9-367/3, Pineapple colony, Krishnapuram, Simhachalam, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam city.

2. Polamarasetti Rajeswararao, S/o.late Balara- maswamy, age 58 years, Gavara by caste, R/o.D.No.19-366, Pineapple colony, Krishnapuram, Simhachalam, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam city. (died)

Date, time and Place of offence: 18.01.2012 at 21.30hrs., in Pineapple colony

Date of complaint:18.1.2012

Date of apprehension :25.9.2012

Whether the accused is in :Accused are on Bail Jail or on bail

Date of Commitment:31-07-2014

Date of commencement of trial:On 03.07.2017

Date of Closure of Trial:On 18.07.2017

Date of Judgment :On 19.7.2017

Explanation for the delay:No unavoidable delay.

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-

Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

2 SC No.17/2015 XI ADJ/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC & ST (POA)

ACT-CUM-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Sri K. NAGESWARA RAO, Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Thursday, the 20th day of July 2017

SESSIONS CASE NO.17/2015

(P.R.C.9/2016 on the file of II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM in Cr.No.12/2012 of GOPALAPATNAM Police Station)

Name of the Complainant :State represented by the Asst.Commissioner of police, North Sub-Division, Visakhapatnam city.

Name of the accused:1. Palepu Venkata Sesha Rao,S/o.Surya Rao,Age 43 years, Kapu by caste, R/o.D.No.9-367/3, Pineapple colony, Krishnapuram, Simhachalam, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam city.

2. Polamarasetti Rajeswararao, S/o.late Balara- maswamy, age 58 years, Gavara by caste, R/o.D.No.19-366, Pineapple colony, Krishnapuram, Simhachalam, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam city (died)

Date, time and Place of offence: 18.01.2012 at 21.30hrs., in Pineapple colony

Charges: Under sec.3(1)(viii) of SC ST (POA) Act

Plea of the accused : The Accused pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court : The accused found not guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence under sec.3(1)(viii) of SC ST (POA) Act and he is acquitted of the same under sec.232 Cr.P.C., Bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled forthwith.

Prosecution conducted by : Sri. S.Sreenivasu, Spl. Sessions Judge’s Court for trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, Visakhapatnam

Accused was defended by : Sri M.Shyam Babu, Advocate for accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri. S.Sreenivasu, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri M.Shyam Babu,

Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The case of the prosecution in brief as per the charge sheet filed under section 3(1)(viii) of SC ST (POA) Act in crime No.12/2012 of Gopalapatnam p.s., is 3 SC No.17/2015 XI ADJ/VSP that A1 and A2 are residents of Pineapple colony, Chinagadili, Visakhapatnam and they are Kapu and Gavara by communities respectively. Defacto complainant LW.1

Katru Kutumba Rao is SC Mala by caste and resident of same locality. Land possession certificates were given by the AP State Government to 200 families including LW.1 in S.No.20 of Pineapple colony and sanctioned pucca houses under

UPHS Scheme. Defacto complainant, being an advocate, used to advise the beneficiaries for their legal problems. A1 and A2 claimed ownership over the land that was issued to the beneficiaries and started collecting money from them. LW.1 put a break to the activities of the accused. The accused bore grudge against LW.1 and preferred a complaint against him to Bar Counsel of the State of A.P. vide

S.R.No.104/2007 dt.01.10.2007 and on enquiry no prima facie case was found against L.W.1 and that case was rejected. A1 and A2 also moved a petition against the defacto complainant to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam in Prajavani with false and frivolous allegations on 4.7.2011 and thereupon an inquiry was conducted by the Special Grade Deputy Collector (Land Protection), Visakhapatnam and found the allegations against LW.1 were false and inquiry report was submitted consequently to his superiors. A1 and A2 threatened LW.1 to leave pineapple colony otherwise he will be foisted with false cases. LW.1 moved a private complaint and the same was endorsed to SHO., Gopalapatnam p.s., under sec.156(3) Cr.P.C., and crime was registered in this case and the same was investigated by the then ACP, on being appointed as I.O, in this case. He visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses, obtained caste certificates of the parties and also enquiry reports from the concerned officials and arrested the accused on 25.9.2012 and sent them to the court for remand. Thus, the accused committed the offence.

02.In view of the memo filed by Spl.P.P. along with original death certificate of A2 on 12.7.2016, case against A2 is abated.

03)The learned II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM has taken the case on file under sec.3(1)(viii) of SC ST (POA) Act and assigned PRC

No.15/2013 and on the appearance of the accused by following due process of law, committed the same to the court of Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act

Cases, Visakhapatnam. This case was numbered as SC.17/2015 by the Spl. Sessions

Judge for SC & ST Cases, Visakhapatnam for disposal in accordance with law.

4 SC No.17/2015 XI ADJ/VSP

04) After hearing both sides, charge under section 3(1)(viii) of SC ST (POA) Act was framed against the accused and read over and explained to him in Telugu and he denied the charges and claimed for trial.

05)During the course of trial, Prosecution examined Pws.1 to 9 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P10. LW.1 Katru Kutumba Rao, LW.3 Edara Anil Kumar, LW.6 Uppada

Baburao (died), LW.8 Lakhe Eswaramma, LW.9 Dalai Pydamma, LW.10 Dalai

Simhachalam, LW.11 Thota David Raju, LW.12 Jami Ramu, LW.13 Kurada

Satyanarayana Patnaik, LW.14 Kasireddy Satyananda Krishna Chandra Patnaik, LW.15

Dumpala Venkata Satya Prasada Rao, LW.16 Rajana Chinna Rao, LW.17 Namburu

Vijay Kumar, LW.21 N.Renuka were given up by Special Public Prosecutor by endorsing on the charge sheet. The prosecution evidence was closed as reported.

06)During examination under sec.313 Cr.P.C., accused denied incriminating evidence against him, when read over and explained to him in Telugu. He reported no defence witnesses on his side. He stated that there were disputes between A2 and defacto complainant Katru Kutumbarao in that regard and he being the friend of

A2, this false case is foisted against him. He did not commit any offence.

07)Heard both sides.

08.Now the point for determination is: Whether the Prosecution is able to prove the guilt against the accused for the charge under section 3(1)

(viii) of SC ST (POA) Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

09)Point:Admittedly, the defacto complainant Katru Kutumbarao is no more now. A2 is no more now.

10)Since the charge against the accused is that he and A2 are other than SC or

ST and LW.1 is SC Mala by community and that when LW.1 put a break to A1 and A2 in collecting money from the beneficiaries of the land that was granted to them by the A.P.State Government at the Pineapple colony, A1 and A2 made a complaint against the defacto complainant before A.P. State Bar counsel and that was found false on enquiry and later A1 and A2 preferred a petition against LW.1 before District

Collector and on enquiry that was found false, the prosecution has to prove the above things to prove the charge against the accused.

5 SC No.17/2015 XI ADJ/VSP

11)According to prosecution, A1 is Kapu by community; A2 was Gavara (BC) by community. The evidence of PW.1 Althi Bangaramma resident of pineapple colony,

PW.3 Kurmaji Gangabhavani resident of Pineapple colony to the effect that A1 is

Kapu by caste is not disputed by the accused. In 313 Cr.P.C., examination accused also did not dispute the evidence of PW.9. The evidence of PW.5 D.Peddi Raju,

Tashildar, Visakhapatnam Rural would reveal as to his issuing Ex.P5 certifying that

A1 is Kapu by community and Ex.P6 certificate certifying that A2 was Gavara BC by community after conducting enquiry. So, the community of A1 is proved.

12)The Prosecution claims that defacto complainant Katru Kutumbarao was SC

Mala by community. The evidence of PW.1 & PW.3 is that PW.1 was SC Mala by community. They were not cross examined. A1 admitted the community of PW1 as such as spoken to by PW.1 during his 313 Cr.P.C., examination. Prosecution examined PW.7 J.R.Ravindranath the then Tashildar, Visakhapatnam Rural. His evidence is that he got enquired the caste particulars of the defacto complainant through his officials and issued Ex.P7 certificate certifying that Kutumbarao is SC

Mala by community. Even though, he was cross examined to the effect that

Kutumbarao was Christian and he did not conduct proper enquiry still the same carries no value in view of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 as discussed above.

Therefore, the prosecution has proved that PW.1 is SC Mala by community.

13.Now the point to be seen is whether complaints were made against the defacto complainant by A1 and A2 with false pleas before AP State Bar counsel and

District Collector, Visakhapatnam and on enquiry they were found false.

14.Admittedly, defacto complainant is no more now. The evidence of PW.1 is that she knew the accused as well as the defacto complainant and there were land disputes between them. Except this, she did not speak anything more with regard to the case of prosecution against the accused. The evidence of PW.2 Vaddadi

Lakshmi resident of pineapple colony is that she knew A1 and A2 and also the deceased Kutumbarao. She did not know anything about this case and pleaded ignorance if there were disputes if any between the accused and deceased

Kutumbarao. The evidence of PW.3 K.Gangabhavani is that she knew both the parties and she did not know anything in this case. The evidence of PW.4 Adapa

Vanisri resident of Pineapple colony is that she knew the defacto complainant and both the accused but not affairs between them and also about this case. PWs.1 to 4 6 SC No.17/2015 XI ADJ/VSP being independent witnesses to the case of prosecution did not speak to the case of the prosecution by turning hostile. They were cross examined by Spl.P.P. and Exs.P1 to P4 their respective portions of 161 Cr.P.C., statements recorded by I.O., were marked. Those were also confronted to PW.9 B.Prasada Rao the then

Asst.Commissioner of police North, Visakhapatnam and I.O in this case as per

Ex.P10 proceedings issued by C.P., Visakhapatnam and who recorded their statements. PWs.1 to 4 also categorically denied suggestion that on the intervention of village elders and due to death of Kutumbarao, their deposing falsehood to help A1. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is not useful to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused.

15.The evidence of PW.8 K.Kumara Swamy the then Inspector of police,

Gopalapatnam is that on 18.1.2012at 9.30 P.M., he received Ex.P8 endorsed complaint under sec.156(3) Cr.P.C., from II A.C.M.M.,Court, Visakhapatnam and he registered crime in this case and issued Ex.P9 printed FIR and he assisted Assistant

Commissioner of Police during investigation.

16.The evidence of PW.9 B.Prasada Rao I.O., is that he addressed a letter to

District Collector, Visakhapatnam to furnish enquiry report conducted by Special

Deputy Collector on the allegations against the defacto complainant and also addressed a letter to Tashildar, Chinagadili to furnish list of beneficiaries to whom land possession certificates were issued during the year 2006 and he received letter from Tashildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal on 3.5.2012, wherein it was informed that LPC records were not available and he further stated that he received attested copy of enquiry report of Special Deputy Collector, Visakhapatnam on 10.3.2012 and he further stated that he addressed a letter to Registrar, Disciplinary committee, Bar counsel of A.P., Hyderabad to furnish complaint copy filed against the defacto complainant and on 20.9.2012 he received copy of complaint along with copy of order in S.R.No.104/2007 wherein it was found that allegations against the defacto complainant were found false. In cross examination he stated that during his investigation, it has not come to his notice as to land disputes between A2 and some of the beneficiaries and he denied that land disputes were there between A2 and some of the beneficiaries and in that connection A1 was implicated in this case.

He further stated that A2 only preferred complaint against the defacto complainant

before Bar counsel of A.P. So, in the light of the above evidence of PW.9, complaint

7 SC No.17/2015 XI ADJ/VSP was made by the deceased A2 only against the defacto complainant before Bar counsel of A.P. Hence, A1 has nothing to do with the same. In 313 Cr.P.C., examination also A1 spoke to the said fact. Therefore, it cannot be said that A1 preferred a false complaint against the defacto complainant before A.P.State Bar counsel.

17.The evidence of PW.6 is that on 4.7.2011 A1 submitted a grievance petition to

District Collector, Visakhapatnam and that was forwarded to him on 7.7.2011 and in turn he got it enquired through Special Deputy Tashildar and Special R.I and on their report, he issued an endorsement to A1 vide RC.No.9/11 dt.8.8.2011. He denied suggestion that he did not conduct enquiry personally and properly. It is significant to note that except oral testimony of PW.6, enquiry report and alleged endorsement given to A1 were not filed by the prosecution. In the light of the evidence of I.O., it appears land disputes between the parties were not brought to his notice. In the absence of the record and in view of the death of the defacto complainant and when PWs.1 to 4 being independent witnesses did not speak to the case of the prosecution, it is not safe to rely on the oral testimony of PW.6 and 9.

Therefore, there is no evidence on record to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and he is entitled to acquittal.

18)In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence under sec.3(1)(viii) of SC

ST (POA) Act and he is acquitted of the same under sec.232 Cr.P.C., Bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled forthwith.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade I, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 19th day of July 2017.

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-

Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined on behalf of

Prosecution: Defence

P.W.1/Althi bangaramma - Nil - P.W.2/Vaddadi Lakshmi P.W.3/Kurmaji Gangabhavani 8 SC No.17/2015 XI ADJ/VSP

P.W.4/Adapa Vanisri P.W.5/D.Peddi Raju P.W.6/U.C.G.Nageswara Rao P.W.7/J.R.Ravindranath P.W.8/K.Kumara Swamy P.W.9/B.Prasada Rao

Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution: Ex.P.1/3.7.17: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1/LW.2. Ex.P.2/3.7.17: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2/LW.4. Ex.P.3/4.7.17: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.3/LW.5. Ex.P.4/4.7.17: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4/LW.7. Ex.P.5/6.7.17: Caste Certificate of A1 is kapu (OC) dt.29.2.2012 Ex.P.6/6.7.17: caste Certificate of A2 is Gavara (BC-D) dt.29.2.2012 Ex.P.7/6.7.17: Caste certificate of PW.1/Kutumbarao (SC Mala) Ex.P.8/6.7.17: Endorsed complaint from II ACMM Court, Visakhapatnam. Ex.P9/6.7.17: Printed FIR Ex.P10/18.7.17: Proceedings

Documents marked on behalf of Defence :

NIL

Material objects:

NIL

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-

Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

9 SC No.17/2015 XI ADJ/VSP

Copy to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

2. The Superintendent of Police Visakhapatnam.

3. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, Spl. Sessions Judge’s Court for SC & ST Cases, Visakhapatnam // True copy forwarded by order // 10 SC No.17/2015 XI ADJ/VSP