Smt. K. Neelima

1 MVOP.No.822/2022, Dt:29 29.04.2026

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM CUM-V

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL SPECIAL

JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCE AGAINST WOMEN, GUNTUR JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCE AGAINST WOMEN, GUNTUR JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCE AGAINST WOMEN, GUNTUR

Present: Present: Smt.K.Neelima, V Addl. District & Sessions JudgeV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur APGU000037142022

Wednesday Wednesday, this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

M.V.O.P.No.822/2022

Between:

1. Vijaya Lakshmi W/o Lavu Bhadraiah, aged 49 years,Vijaya Lakshmi W/o Lavu Bhadraiah, aged 49 years,

2. Lavu Sarath Chandra S/o Bhadraiah, aged 23 years,2. Lavu Sarath Chandra S/o Bhadraiah, aged 23 years,

3. Lavu Pavani D/o Bhadraiah, aged 21 years,3. Lavu Pavani D/o Bhadraiah, aged 21 years, All are R/o F.No.402, J.R.Towers, 3All are R/o F.No.402, J.R.Towers, 3rd lane, Chaitanyapuri, Sai Baba Road, Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur. Sai Baba Road, Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur.

…..Petitioner …..Petitioners

And

1. Shaik Riyaz Basha S/o Amanulla, aged 37 years,Shaik Riyaz Basha S/o Amanulla, aged 37 years, D.No.16-18-201, Venugopala Swamy Street, Old Guntur, Guntur. 201, Venugopala Swamy Street, Old Guntur, Guntur. 201, Venugopala Swamy Street, Old Guntur, Guntur. (Driver of the motor cycle bearing No.AP39BU7863the motor cycle bearing No.AP39BU7863)

2. Sk Arshiya Asmeen D/o Shanvaz, aged 35 years,Sk Arshiya Asmeen D/o Shanvaz, aged 35 years, D.No.26-18-74/A, Kankaragunta Gate, Masque Street, Guntur. 74/A, Kankaragunta Gate, Masque Street, Guntur. 74/A, Kankaragunta Gate, Masque Street, Guntur. (Owner of the motor cycle bearing No.AP39BU7863)of the motor cycle bearing No.AP39BU7863)

3. Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, 6-3-885/7, 3rd floor, Saphire Square, Rajiv Gandhi Circle, Somajiguda, floor, Saphire Square, Rajiv Gandhi Circle, Somajiguda, floor, Saphire Square, Rajiv Gandhi Circle, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Hyderabad, Telangana State. Policy No : 201250010119701220200000 of Guntur Branch201250010119701220200000 of Guntur Branch, Valid upto 12.08.2024.. …….Respondents …….Respondents ***

This petition came on etition came on 20.04.2026 before me for hearing in the before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Lavu Ankamma ChowdaryLavu Ankamma Chowdary, Advocate for Petitioners and, Advocate for Petitioners and of Sri M.S.N.Prasad.L., Advocate for respondent No.2 and of of Sri M.S.N.Prasad.L., Advocate for respondent No.2 and of Sri M.S.N.Prasad.L., Advocate for respondent No.2 and Sri Katakamsetty Srinivasa RaoKatakamsetty Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.3 No.3 and Respondent No.1 is set exis set ex-party and upon perusing the material upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration, till this day available on record and having stood over for consideration, till this day available on record and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Tribunal made the following:this Tribunal made the following:- 2 MVOP.No.822/2022, Dt:29.04.2026

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners 1 to 3 filed this petition under Sections 164 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 455 and 476 of Andhra Pradesh Motor

Vehicle Rules seeking compensation from the respondents 1 to 3.

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

i) The petitioners 1 to 3 are wife, son and daughter of the deceased Lavu Bhadraiah. The deceased along with his friend proceeding on foot between RTA office to JKC college on 30.08.2021 at about 07.30P.M., when they reached Venkateswara Chicken shop, in the mean time, the rider of pulsar motor cycle bearing No.AP39BU7863 ride his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the deceased from his behind as a result the deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries all over the body and immediately shifted him to Seshaiah hospital and later shifted him to Lalitha Super Specialty for better treatment where he died on 02.09.2021 at 11.00A.M. while undergoing treatment. The said accident reported before police who registered the same as a case in Crime No.838/2021 under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and later altered to 304-A of the Indian Penal

Code against the rider of the crime vehicle.

ii) Further petitioners submitted that the deceased is aged about 59 years and during his life time he worked as teacher in ZP High

School, Chinakondrupadu and used to earn Rs.1,10,154/- per month as on the date of accident. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost their future dependency and support and they mentally depressed and the 1st petitioner lost her matrimonial life and all the petitioners lost their future dependency in addition to love and affection.

The accident caused due to respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 being 3 MVOP.No.822/2022, Dt:29.04.2026 owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligent act committed by the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 being insurer also responsible to pay compensation to the petitioners and thus the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- towards compensation with subsequent interest @12%p.a. from the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and thus requested the court to pass an award in their favour.

3. The respondent No.2 filed written statements and submitted that the petition averments are false and denied the manner of the accident described in the petition and submitted that there is no negligence on the part of rider of crime vehicle who possessed valid driving licence and the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 which is in force as on the date of accident and thus respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and thus request the court to dismiss the petition against respondent No.2.

4. The contesting respondent No.3 filed written statement and denied petition averments including age, avocation and income of the deceased and manner of the accident and contended that there is no negligence on the part of the rider of the crime vehicle which was caused due to the negligence of the deceased himself who proceed on road without observing vehicular traffic and rider of the crime vehicle has no valid driving licence and the claim of the petitioners is highly excessive and thus requested the court to dismiss the petition with costs against respondent No.3.

5. Basing on the pleadings the following issues are settled for trail:

1) Whether the deceased Lavu Bhadraiah, died due to multiple injuries sustained in the road accident that was occurred on 4 MVOP.No.822/2022, Dt:29.04.2026 30.08.2021 at about 07.30P.M. at JKC college road, Guntur due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle bearing No.AP39BU7863 by the respondent No.1 ?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so to what extent and from whom ?

3) To what relief?

6. To prove the claim of the petitioners PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.X1 and X2. No oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondents.

7. Heard arguments submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents.

POINT

8. Issue No. 1) Whether the deceased Lavu Bhadraiah, died due to multiple injuries sustained in the road accident that was occurred on 30.08.2021 at about 07.30P.M. at JKC college road, Guntur due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle bearing No.AP39BU7863 by the respondent No.1?

9. In view of the rival contentions the burden lies on the petitioners to show that the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligence riding of the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 being owner and respondent No.3 being insurer of the crime vehicle are also liable and all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

10. In order to prove their contention 1st petitioner Peddi Vijaya 5 MVOP.No.822/2022, Dt:29.04.2026 Lakshmi was examined as PW1. She reiterated petition averments in her chief examination and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 in order to substantiate their contention. Of which Ex.A1 is certified copy of FIR in Crime

No.838/2021 of Nallapadu Police Station which reveals that the FIR registered against rider of the motor cycle under Section 337 of the

Indian Penal Code. Ex.A2 is certified copy of section alteration memo shows that Section of law altered from 337 to 304-A of the Indian Penal

Code. Ex.A3 is certified copy of charge sheet which is filed against the accused/respondent No.1 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Ex.A4 is certified copy of Inquest Report which reveals that the inquestdars opined that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident caused by the rider of motor cycle bearing

No.AP39BU7863. Ex.A5 is certified copy of the Postmortem Report wherein the medical officer opined that the deceased died due to “Head injury”. Ex.A6 is certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector report. Motor

Vehicle Inspector opined that the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle involved in the accident.

11. During cross-examination PW1 admitted that she did not file any documentary proof regarding age and income of the deceased. PW1 denied that her husband conversing with two others while they went for walk in the middle of the road without observing traffic, the rider of motor cycle hit her husband and thus there is no negligence on the part of the rider of the crime vehicle and their claim is excessive. PW1 admitted that she received death benefits of her husband and she is working woman.

12. Lavu Bhargav Prasad who is eye witness to the accident was examined as PW2. He deposed that while he along with deceased went 6 MVOP.No.822/2022, Dt:29.04.2026 for walking and they proceeding on left side road margin, the rider of crime vehicle came in rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and hit the deceased from his behind as a result the deceased fell down on road and sustained multiple injuries including head injury and died while undergoing treatment after three days.

13. During cross examination PW2 admitted that deceased is his junior paternal uncle and petitioners 1 and 2 are employed and they filed report one day after the accident. PW2 denied the suggestions that were posed to him that the deceased proceeding in the middle of the road and being a relative he is deposing false with a view to help the petitioners.

14. Petitioners further chosen to examine J. Vijaya Kumar, Head

Master, ZPHS, Chinakondrupadu as PW3. The petitioners got marked

Exs.X1 and X2 through PW3. Of which Ex.X1 is salary certificate of the deceased for the month of Sep, 2021 which shows that deceased drawn

Rs.85,574/- towards salary per month as on the date of accident. Ex.X2 is revised salary certificate of the deceased shows that if deceased is alive he could have earn Rs.1,10,504/- per month as on the date of accident. During cross examination, PW3 admitted that as per service register date of birth of the deceased is 15.07.1962 and his last pay is

Rs.85,574/- and family pension fixed at Rs.26,295/- and they paid gratuity of Rs.12,00,000/-.

15. On a careful examination of the record, it is observed that the crime registered and charge sheet filed against the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. respondent No.1 under Sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court relayed on case laws held between APSRTC Mushirabad Vs. J Pedda Bhimeswar, 7 MVOP.No.822/2022, Dt:29.04.2026 Reported in 2011(3) ALD, 433, Wherein Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh held that “When the petitioner filed FIR, Charge Sheet and MVI report etc., and there is no contrary evidence it can be said that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e. against whom FIR is registered.”. Further this court relayed on a case law held between the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs.

Pazhaniammal, Reported in 2011 ACJ 1370 Wherein the Hon’ble court held that “wherever a crime has been registered in respect of the accident and the Investigation has culminated in filing of a charge sheet by the police, such charge sheet is filed and the same is reckoned as sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the inductee.”

The ratio held in the above case law squarely applicable to the present set of facts since the petitioners filed Ex.A1 FIR and Ex.A3 charge sheet which are filed against the driver of the crime vehicle. Thus it can be considered that Ex.A3 charge sheet is sufficient to establish negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle.

16. In the case on hand, the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 supported by documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A6 and the evidence established that the rider of the crime vehicle drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn and hit the deceased from his behind as a result the deceased fell down on road and sustained multiple injuries including head injury and died while undergoing treatment. Hence I hold that the deceased Bhadraiah died due to the injuries sustained in the road accident which was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 i.e rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP39BU7861. Hence issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners.

8 MVOP.No.822/2022, Dt:29.04.2026

17. Issue No.2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so to what extent and from whom ?

18. In view of my above discussion in issue No.1 it is clear that the death of the deceased Bhadraiah was happened due to the head injury sustained in the road accident dated 30.08.2021 at about 07.30P.M.

Hence I have no hesitation to hold that the rider i.e. respondent No.1 who is the cause for the death is liable to pay compensation to the bereaved family of the deceased.

19. It is the specific contention of the respondent No.3 that the accident caused due to the negligence of the deceased himself who is walking in the middle of the road without observing vehicular traffic and sustained injuries and died. Therefore it is for the respondent No.3 to prove their contention by adducing evidence. The record shows that the respondent No.3 participated in the trail by way of filing written statement and conducting cross-examination of petitioner’s witnesses but failed place any evidence in order to prove their contention for the reasons best known to them. As per settled principle’s of law mere filing written statement is not sufficient to prove the contents pleaded in the written statement and the pleading shall established by the respondent by way of adducing evidence. The pleadings without any amount of evidence cannot be considered. Even during cross examination of PWs.1 to 3 nothing was elicited and there is no evidence that supports the case of the respondents.

20. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case held between

Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikya Rao and another, reported in AIR 1999, SC 1441: “where a party to the suit does not enter into the witness box to 9 MVOP.No.822/2022, Dt:29.04.2026 state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross- examined by the other side a presumption could arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High courts and the counsel beginning from the decision in

Sardhar Gurbhakh Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh and another.”

21. In view of the failure of the respondent No.3 to place evidence

before the court a presumption can be drawn that the case set up by the

respondent No.3 is false. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case I am of the considered opinion that motor vehicles act is a beneficial legislation and in view of the oral and documentary evidence and ratio held in the case law filed by the petitioners I hold that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 being owner is vicariously liable for the negligent driving of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.3 being insurer is also liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Therefore respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Issue

No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioners.

22. Issue No.3) To what relief?

23. Coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioners. As per the recitals in Ex.A3 to A5, the age of the deceased was shown as 59 years. As per the evidence of PW3 and as per Ex.X1 it is evident that the deceased used to earn net salary of

Rs.85,574/- per month as on the date of accident. During cross examination of PWs.1 to 3, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 elicited that PWs.1 and 2 are employers and not depending on the earning of the deceased and the petitioners got death benefits from the 10 MVOP.No.822/2022, Dt:29.04.2026 employer and the 1st petitioner got family pension.

24. In addition to the oral and documentary evidence let in by the petitioner through PWs.1 to 3 and Ex.A1 to A6 and Exs.X1 and X2, the learned counsel for the petitioner relayed on the following case laws:

1) Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2018) 5

SCC 566 wherein it was held that “no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased” 2) Sarala Varma & others Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein it was held that “actual salary/income of the deceased at the time of death for computing the multiplication”. 3) Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 wherein it was held that “the purpose of award of compensation under Section 166 r/w Section 168 of the Act is to place the distressed dependents of the victim of a fatal road accident in approximately the same financial position they would have been in had the death not occurred” 4) Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar, reported in (2020) SCC Online 752, wherein it was held that “Just compensation includes trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident” 5) Seema Rani & ors. Vs. The oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2025 INSC 192, wherein it was held that “it could not be said that to exclude if major sons residing with deceased whether they were self-sufficient or independent of the deceased.” 6) Helen C. Rebello Vs. Maharashtra SRTC, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90, wherein it was held that “benefits such as provident fund, gratuity, life insurance are the result of the deceased’s own contributions and contractual entitlement and have no correlation with the accident.” While relaying the above case laws the learned counsel for the petitioner requested the court to grant compensation to the petitioners as 11 MVOP.No.822/2022, Dt:29.04.2026 per the principles laid down in the case laws referred above.

25. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 relayed on the following case laws: 1) 2004(3) ALD NOC 312 2004 (4) ALD (NOC) 313 wherein it was held that “the allegations in the charge sheet have to be proved by adducing oral evidence. The investigating officer would assist the court by getting panchanama and rough sketch of scene of offence” 2) 2008 (1) An. W. R. 58 (MAD) wherein it was held that “appeal dismissed while eyewitnesses stated that both the driver and deceased were responsible for mishap during pedestrian crossing the road.” 3)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. B. Ayyappa and others, reported in

ACJ 2009 page No.3 1391 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vinishjian and ors, reported in 2018 SCC 619, wherein it was held that “50% of compensation awarded since the claimants are manor and married children and the claimants are not dependent on the earnings of the deceased”. 4) 2008 SAR (Civil) 828, wherein it was held that “benefits which the claimants receive on account of death have to be considered while quantifying quantum of compensation.” The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 requested the court to consider the facts that there is contributory negligence and the petitioners are minors and not dependents on the earnings of the deceased.

26. In view of the rival contentions of the both the parties, this tribunal relayed on a case law held between Sarala Varma and others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another.

“Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable on the facts and circumstances of the case to make good the loss suffers as a result of the wrong as far as money can do so by 12 MVOP.No.822/2022, Dt:29.04.2026 applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza larges or source of profit. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act give paramount importance to the concept of just and fair compensation. Section 168 of MV Acts gives with the concept of just compensation which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. All though such determination can never be automatically exact or perfect an endeavor should be made by the court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the petitioners.”

27. It is an admitted fact that the 1st petitioner has been getting pension of Rs.26,295/- and the petitioners have not filed detailed pay slips expect filing Exs.X1 and X2. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the considered opinion it is just and proper to take into consideration the monthly income of the deceased @Rs.60,000/- would meet ends of the justice.

28. Further in view of Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, the present petition before this court is maintainable and it is not the case of the respondent No.3 that the petition have moved such petition elsewhere.

The deceased aged 59 years as on the date of accident and this court relayed upon the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court. In cases held between:

1) Sarala Varma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others

Reported in 2009 ACT 1298 S.C.2

2) National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others

Reported in SLP 25590/2014 and in 2017 SCC Online SC 1270.

As per the said judgment, “reasonable figures on conventional heads, 13 MVOP.No.822/2022, Dt:29.04.2026 namely, loss of estate and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/- each.” This court relayed on the guidelines given in the above said citations for determination of compensation which includes future prospects also.

29. This court taken into consideration that the deceased used to get

Rs.7,20,000/- per annum (60,000x12). Taking into the age of the deceased as 59 years as he is permanent job holder towards future prospects @15% of the income has to be added and the same comes to

Rs.1,08,000.00(15% of Rs.7,20,000/-). Therefore the total income of the deceased can be fixed @Rs.8,28,000/-p.a.(7,20,000.00+1,08,000.00).

30. Coming to the deductions towards personal and living expenses as per the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, the deduction should be @1/3 of the income of the deceased who was married and died leaving his wife, son and daughter as his legal heirs. If 1/3 deduction i.e.

Rs.2,76,000/- is to be deducted from the total annual income it comes

Rs.5,52,000/- (Rs.8,28,000-2,76,000/-). So the annual contribution of the deceased to his legal heirs would have been Rs.5,52,000/-. So the multiplier to be applied is “9” considering the age of the deceased as 59 years. Then it comes to Rs.49,68,000/- (Rs.5,52,000/-x9).

31. Further the amounts to be awarded under conventional heads are to be added to the above amounts towards consortium as the petitioners are wife, son and daughter of the deceased are entitled to loss of estate and funeral expenses. Considering the guidelines given in Pranay Sethi’s case towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/- loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000x3) and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- respectively are fixed. By addition of the said amounts under conventional heads comes to 14 MVOP.No.822/2022, Dt:29.04.2026 Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore in view of above calculation the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.51,18,000/- under all heads.

Therefore respondent No.3 insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

32. In view of my findings in the above paragraphs, the petitioners are entitled to get Rs.51,18,000/- towards compensation from respondents 1 to 3. Issue No.3 answered in favour of the petitioners.

33. In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs by granting compensation of Rs.51,18,000/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs

Eighteen Thousand only) to the petitioners and respondents 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation. Rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed without cots.

1) Out of the compensation amount the petitioners 1 to 3 being wife son and daughter of the deceased are awarded as follows:

i) A sum of Rs.21,18,000/- is apportioned to 1st petitioner who is wife of the deceased.

ii) A sum of Rs.15,00,000/- each is apportioned to petitioners 2 and 3 who are son and daughter of the deceased.

2) The respondent No.3 insurer is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded along with proportionate costs with accrued interest @7.5%p.a on the entire amount awarded from the date of filing of the petition till realization within thirty days from the date of this order directly to the respective bank accounts of the petitioners in view of the decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme court in “Parminder Singh Vs.

Honey Goyal and others.

3) The petitioners 1 to 3 are directed to furnish the photocopy of their 15 MVOP.No.822/2022, Dt:29.04.2026 bank passbooks to respondent No.3 insurer or its counsel for depositing the said amounts in their respective bank accounts.

4) The advocate fee is fixed @ Rs.7,000/-.

5) Decree follows after verification of court fee due if any.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III on my desktop, typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 29th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-K.Neelima

V Addl. District and Sessions Judge -cum-Spl. Judge for trial of offences against Women, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners :-

P.W.1 : Peddi Vijaya Lakshmi P.W.2 : L. Bhargav Prasad P.W.3 : J. Vijaya Kumar

For Respondents :-

None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner :-

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of FIR Ex.A2 : Certified copy of Alteration memo Ex.A3 : Certified copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.A4 : Certified copy of Inquest Report. Ex.A5 : Certified copy of Postmortem Report. Ex.A4 : Certified copy of MVI Report. Ex.A6 : Original SSC marks memo, Ex.X1 : Salary certificate of deceased relating to Sep, 2021. Ex.X2 : Salary certificate of deceased as per PRC.

For Respondents :-

Nil

Sd/-K.Neelima

V Addl. District and Sessions Judge -cum-Spl. Judge for trial of offences against Women, Guntur.

1 MVOP.No.729/2018, Dt:30.04.2026

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-V

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL

JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCE AGAINST WOMEN, GUNTUR

Present: Smt.K.Neelima, V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur

Thursday, this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

M.V.O.P.No.729/2018

Between:

1. Pulivarthi Srinivas Rao S/o Subbaiah, aged 55 years, (died)

2. Pulivarthi Vengamma W/o late Srinivasa Rao, aged 52 years,

3. Pulivarthi Rama Krishna S/o late Srinivasa Rao, aged 30 years,

4. Pulivarthi Revathi D/o late Srinivasa Rao, aged 30 years,

5. Pulivarthi Tejaswini D/o late Srinivasa Rao, aged 27 years, All the petitioners are residents of 16/2, Arundelpet, Guntur.

…..Petitioners

And

1. Shaik Sarver Saheb, S/o Mahammad Khasim, D.No.3-15, Kachavaram, Donabanda post, Ibrahimpatnam mandal, Krishna District. (Owner of the car bearing No.AP07AS6777)

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Kalyani Road, near Donbosco high school, Ring road, Guntur. Policy No:62070331170100000364, Valid from 25.05.2017 to 24.05.2018.

3. Sk. Gali Saida, S/o Abdul Karim, Jujjuru village, Veerulapadu mandal, Krishna District. (Driver of the car bearing No.AP07AS6777) …….Respondents *** This petition came on 21.04.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri V. Brahma Reddy, Advocate for Petitioners and of Sri Ch. Yagna Narayana, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Smt.A.Lavanya, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.1 is set ex-party and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Tribunal made the following:- 2 MVOP.No.729/2018, Dt:30.04.2026

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner No.1 filed this petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 455 and 476 of Andhra Pradesh Motor

Vehicle Rules seeking compensation from the respondents 1 to 3 on account of injuries sustained by him in road accident dated 21.12.2017 and the petitioner No.1 died during trial due to the injuries and his legal heirs impleaded as petitioner Nos.2 to 5.

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

i) The petitioners 2 to 5 are wife, children of petitioner No.1 i.e.

deceased Pulivarthi Srinivasa Rao. The deceased proceeding on motor cycle along with another towards Amaravathi road, in the mean time, the driver of car bearing No.AP07AS6777 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the deceased motor cycle from behind as a result the deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe fracture injuries all over the body and died after two years on 19.08.2019 after obtaining treatment for the fracture injuries at Lalitha

Super Specialty, Guntur and at Appolo hospital, Chennai. The said accident was report to police who registered the same as a case in Crime

No.651/2017 under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle.

ii) Further petitioners submitted that the deceased is aged about 55 years and during his life time he worked as an agriculturist and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to sudden demise of the deceased/petitioner No.1, the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 lost their future dependency and support and they mentally depressed and the petitioner

No.2 lost her matrimonial life and all the petitioners lost their dependency in addition to love and affection. The accident caused due to respondent 3 MVOP.No.729/2018, Dt:30.04.2026 No.3 and respondent No.1 being owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligent act committed by his driver and respondent No.2 being insurer also responsible to pay compensation to the petitioners and thus the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- towards compensation including no fault liability with subsequent interest @12%p.a. from the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and thus requested the court to pass an award in their favour.

3. The respondent No.3 filed written statements and submitted that the petition averments are false and denied the manner of the accident described in the petition and submitted that there is no negligence on the part of driver of crime vehicle who possessed valid driving licence and the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 which is in force as on the date of accident and thus respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and thus request the court to dismiss the petition against respondent No.3.

4. The contesting respondent No.2 filed written statement and denied petition averments including age, avocation and income of the deceased and manner of the accident and contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle which was caused due to the negligence of the deceased himself who ride his vehicle without wearing helmet and driver of the crime vehicle has no valid driving licence and the claim of the petitioners is excessive and thus requested the court to dismiss the petition with costs against respondent No.2.

5. Basing on the pleadings the following issues are settled for trail:

1) Whether the accident that was occurred on 21.12.2017 at 06.00P.M. near Peach Ashram, Amaravathi Road, Guntur in which 4 MVOP.No.729/2018, Dt:30.04.2026 the petitioner sustained injuries is due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing No.AP07AS6777 by respondent No.3?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so to what extent and from whom ?

3) To what relief?

6. To prove the claim of the petitioners PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A11 and Exs.X1 to X4. On behalf of the respondents Ex.B1 got marked.

7. Heard arguments submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents.

POINT

8. Issue No. 1) Whether the accident that was occurred on 21.12.2017 at 06.00P.M. near Peach Ashram, Amaravathi Road, Guntur in which the petitioner sustained injuries is due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing No.AP07AS6777 by respondent No.1?

9. In view of the rival contentions the burden lies on the petitioners to show that the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of the respondent No.3 and respondent No.1 being owner and respondent No.2 being insurer of the crime vehicle are also liable and all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

10. In order to prove their contention petitioner No.2 P. Vengamma was examined as PW1. She reiterated petition averments in her chief examination and in order to substantiate their contention the petitioners 5 MVOP.No.729/2018, Dt:30.04.2026 got marked Exs.A1 to A11. Of which Ex.A1 is certified copy of FIR in

Crime No.651/2017 of Nallapadu Police Station which reveals that the

FIR registered against driver of car bearing No.AP07AS6777. Ex.A2 is certified copy of wound certificate shows that the petitioner No.1 sustained two simple abrasion injuries in left shoulder and skin near right hip. Ex.A3 is certified copy of charge sheet which is filed against the accused/respondent No.3 under Section 338 and 337 of the Indian Penal

Code. Ex.A4 is discharge summary relating to Lalitha Super Specialty hospital. Exs.A5 and A6 are IP final bills. Ex.A7 is discharge summary issued by Apollo hospitals, Hyderabad wherein it was observed that the petitioner No.1 admitted on 24.05.2018 with traumatic brain injury caused due to road accident. Exs.A8 to A11 are medical bills relating to Apollo hospital.

11. During cross-examination PW1 admitted that she did not file any documentary proof to show that her husband used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month and her three children are settled and doing their respective jobs and as on the date of accident petitioner No.3 did software job and her husband sustained head injury in the accident and they did not get insurance claim regarding repair of their motor cycle and no surgeries conducted to her husband at Apollo hospital and they tried to bring back her husband from coma while her husband went to coma state after the accident. PW1 denied that petitioner No.3 having medical re- imbursement facility and they claimed medical expenditure through re- imbursement and wound certificate shows simple injury but not shown head injury and their claim is excessive.

12. The petitioners further chosen to examine Dr.P.Nagarathnam, 6 MVOP.No.729/2018, Dt:30.04.2026 casualty medical officer, Apollo hospital as PW2. The petitioners got marked Exs.X1 to X3 through PW2. Of which Ex.X1 is authorization letter. Ex.X2 is case sheet and Ex.X3 is medical bill which also marked by the petitioners as Ex.A9. PW2 deposed that the petitioners paid

Rs.2,11,745.00 for the treatment obtained in their hospital. PW2 further deposed that the deceased admitted in their hospital on 05.01.2018 with history of road accident and discharged on 18.01.2018. During cross examination PW2 admitted that he did not give treatment to the petitioner

No.1 and he appeared before court to submit case sheet and gave evidence relaying on record.

13. The petitioners further examined Dr.N.Srinivasa Rao, neurosurgeon, Lalitha Super Specialty hospital as PW3. The petitioners got marked Ex.X4 case sheet through PW3. He deposed that petitioner

No.1 admitted on 21.12.2017 with arachnoid hemorrhage and multiple contusions and discharged for better treatment on 05.01.2018 in unconscious stage. Exs.A4 to A8 are issued by their hospital. During cross examination PW3 admitted that no surgery done to the deceased in their hospital and the petitioner underwent tracheotomy and on ventilator and the petitioner joined in their hospital with head injury and chest injury and on the request of the relatives of the deceased they discharged for better treatment.

14. It is the specific contention of the respondent that the petitioner

No.1 has not died due to the injuries sustained in the accident and the petitioner No.1 died two years of the accident and no postmortem report and inquest report is there and hence the petition is liable for dismissed.

In this regard this court is of the opinion that as per the record placed 7 MVOP.No.729/2018, Dt:30.04.2026

before the court petitioner No.1 went into coma after accident and he has

not regained conscious till his death. Further there is no pleading regarding the same and as such the objection raised by the respondent does not hold any strength.

15. On a careful examination of the record, it is observed that the crime registered and charge sheet filed against the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. respondent No.3 under Sections 338 of Indian Penal Code. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court relayed on case laws held between APSRTC Mushirabad Vs. J Pedda Bhimeswar,

Reported in 2011(3) ALD, 433, Wherein Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh held that “When the petitioner filed FIR, Charge Sheet and MVI report etc., and there is no contrary evidence it can be said that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e. against whom FIR is registered.”. Further this court relayed on a case law held between the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs.

Pazhaniammal, Reported in 2011 ACJ 1370 Wherein the Hon’ble court held that “wherever a crime has been registered in respect of the accident and the Investigation has culminated in filing of a charge sheet by the police, such charge sheet is filed and the same is reckoned as sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the inductee.”

The ratio held in the above case law squarely applicable to the present set of facts since the petitioners filed Ex.A1 FIR and Ex.A3 charge sheet which are filed against the driver of the crime vehicle. Thus it can be considered that Ex.A3 charge sheet is sufficient to establish negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle.

16. In the case on hand, the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 supported by 8 MVOP.No.729/2018, Dt:30.04.2026 documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A3 and the evidence established that the driver of the crime vehicle drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed without observing traffic rules and hit the motor cycle as a result deceased fell down on road and sustained multiple injuries including head injury and died after two years while undergoing treatment. Hence I hold that the petitioner No.1 Srinivasa Rao died due to the injuries sustained in the road accident which was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.3 i.e driver of car bearing No.AP07AS6777. Hence issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners.

17. Issue No.2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so to what extent and from whom ?

18. In view of my above discussion it is clear that the death of the deceased Srinivasa Rao was happened due to the injuries sustained in the road accident dated 21.12.2017. Hence I have no hesitation to hold that the driver i.e. respondent No.3 who is the cause for the death is liable to pay compensation to the bereaved family of the deceased.

19. It is the specific contention of the respondent No.2 that the accident caused due to the negligence of the deceased himself who ride the motor cycle without wearing helmet and sustained injuries and died.

Therefore it is for the respondent No.2 to prove their contention by adducing evidence. The record shows that the respondent No.2 participated in the trail by way of filing written statement and conducting cross-examination of petitioner’s witnesses but failed place any evidence in order to prove their contention for the reasons best known to them. As per settled principles of law mere filing written statement is not sufficient 9 MVOP.No.729/2018, Dt:30.04.2026 to prove the contents pleaded in the written statement and the pleading shall established by the respondent by way of adducing evidence. The pleadings without any amount of evidence cannot be considered. Even during cross examination of PWs.1 to 3 nothing was elicited and there is no evidence that supports the case of the respondents.

20. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case held between

Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikya Rao and another, reported in AIR 1999, SC 1441: “where a party to the suit does not enter into the witness box to state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross- examined by the other side a presumption could arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High courts and the counsel beginning from the decision in

Sardhar Gurbhakh Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh and another.”

21. In view of the failure of the respondent No.2 to place evidence

before the court a presumption can be drawn that the case set up by the

respondent No.2 is false. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case I am of the considered opinion that motor vehicles act is a beneficial legislation and in view of the oral and documentary evidence and ratio held in the case law filed by the petitioners I hold that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.3. The respondent No.1 being owner is vicariously liable for the negligent driving of the respondent No.3. The respondent No.2 being insurer is also liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Therefore respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Issue

No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioners.

22. Issue No.3) To what relief?

10 MVOP.No.729/2018, Dt:30.04.2026

23. Coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioners. As per the recitals in Ex.A1 to A3, the age of the deceased was shown as 55 years. Further as per the petition averments and oral testimony PW1, the deceased during his life time worked as an agriculturist and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month but the petitioners have not filed any proof regarding earnings of the deceased. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion it is just and proper to consider the monthly income of the deceased/ petitioner No.1 @Rs.10,000/- would meet the ends of Justice.

24. Further in view of Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, the present petition before this court is maintainable and it is not the case of the respondent No.2 that the petition have moved such petition elsewhere.

The deceased aged 55 years as on the date of accident and this court relayed upon the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court. In cases held between:

1) Sarala Varma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others

Reported in 2009 ACT 1298 S.C.2

2) National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others

Reported in SLP 25590/2014 and in 2017 SCC Online SC 1270.

As per the said judgment, “reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/- each.” This court relayed on the guidelines given in the above said citations for determination of compensation which includes future prospects also.

25. This court taken into consideration that the deceased used to get

Rs.1,20,000/- per annum (10,000x12). Taking into the age of the 11 MVOP.No.729/2018, Dt:30.04.2026 deceased as 55 years as he is permanent job holder towards future prospects @10% of the income has to be added and the same comes to

Rs.12,000.00(10% of Rs.1,20,000/-). Therefore the total income of the deceased can be fixed @Rs.1,32,000/-p.a.(1,20,000.00+12,000.00).

26. Coming to the deductions towards personal and living expenses as per the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, the deduction should be @1/4 of the income of the deceased who was married and died leaving his wife, son and two daughters as his legal heirs. If 1/4 deduction i.e.

Rs.33,000/- is to be deducted from the total annual income it comes

Rs.99,000/- (Rs.1,32,000-33,000). So the annual contribution of the deceased to his legal heirs would have been Rs.99,000/-. So the multiplier to be applied is “9” considering the age of the deceased as 55 years. Then it comes to Rs.8,91,000/- (Rs.99,000/-x16).

27. Further the amounts to be awarded under conventional heads are to be added to the above amounts towards consortium as the petitioners are wife, daughter and mother of the deceased are entitled to loss of estate and funeral expenses. Considering the guidelines given in Pranay

Sethi’s case towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/- loss of consortium

Rs.1,60,000/-(40,000x4) and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- respectively are fixed. By addition of the said amounts under conventional heads comes to Rs.1,90,000/-. Therefore in view of above calculation the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,81,000/- under all heads.

Further the petitioners spent huge amounts towards medical expenditure approximately Rs.15,00,000/- and the petitioner No.1 suffered pain and sufferance for two years and so also the petitioners 2 to 5 gave their services to the injured/1st petitioner till his death. Therefore I am of the 12 MVOP.No.729/2018, Dt:30.04.2026 considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled for Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation under all heads on account of death of the deceased/1st petitioner. Therefore respondent No.2 insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

28. Therefore an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to be awarded to the petitioner towards compensation. Hence I hold that the respondents 1 to 3 being owner, insurer and rider of the offending vehicle are liable to pay compensation and the petitioner is entitled to get compensation. Issue

No.2 answered in favour of the petitioner.

29. In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs by awarding compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) to the petitioners and the respondent No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed without cots.

1) The petitioners 2 to 5 being wife and children of the deceased are awarded compensation as follows:

i) A sum of Rs.16,00,000/- is apportioned to 1st petitioner who is wife of the deceased.

ii) A sum of Rs.3,00,000/- each is apportioned to petitioners 3 to 5 who are children of the deceased.

2) The respondent No.2 insurer company is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded along with proportionate costs with accrued interest @7.5%p.a on the entire amount awarded from the date of filing of the petition till realization within thirty days from the date of this order directly to the respective bank accounts of the petitioners 2 to 5 in view of the decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme 13 MVOP.No.729/2018, Dt:30.04.2026 court in “Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal and others.

3) The petitioners 2 to 5 are directed to furnish the photocopy of their bank passbooks to respondent No.2 insurer or its counsel for depositing the said amounts in their respective bank accounts.

4) The advocate fee is fixed @ Rs.7,000/-.

5) Decree follows after verification of court fee due if any.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III on my desktop, typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-K.Neelima

V Addl. District and Sessions Judge -cum-Spl. Judge for trial of offences against Women, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners :-

P.W.1 : P. Vengamma

P.W.2 : Dr.P.Nagarathnam

P.W.3 : Dr.N.Srinivasa Rao

For Respondents :-

None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner :-

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of FIR

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of Wound Certificate.

Ex.A3 : Certified copy of Charge Sheet.

Ex.A4 : Discharge summary of Lalitha Super Specialty

Ex.A5 : IP final bill for Rs.86,850/-.

Ex.A6 : IP final bill for Rs.1,71,800/-.

Ex.A7 : Discharge summary issued by Apollo hospital

Ex.A8 : Medical bills for Rs.1,45,000/-

Ex.A9 : IP final bill for Rs.724141/- 14 MVOP.No.729/2018, Dt:30.04.2026 Ex.A10 : Equipment bill for Rs.1,16,200/-

Ex.A11 : Medical bills (4 Nos) for Rs.19,84,592/-,

Ex.X1 : Authorization letter.

Ex.X2 : Cash sheet issued by Apollo hospital

Ex.X3 : Medical bill

Ex.X4 : Cash sheet of Lalitha Super Specialty

For Respondents :-

Ex.B1 : Attested copy of insurance policy

Sd/-K.Neelima

V Addl. District and Sessions Judge -cum-Spl. Judge for trial of offences against Women, Guntur.

1 S.C.No.402/2023, Dt:30.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN, GUNTUR

Present: Smt.K.Neelima, V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Guntur

Thursday, this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

SESSIONS CASE No.402 of 2023

Between: The State: Inspector of Police, Nallapadu Police Station.

…………..Complainant

Vs.

Mittapalli Pavan Kumar S/o Venkateswarlu, age 39 years, D.No.15-17-112, Behind BJP office, Dwaraka Nagar, Khammam Town, Telangana State.

………...Accused

*** This case came up before me on 28.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri D. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Nallapadu Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 417 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.247/2021.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

The defacto-complainant/victim married her relative Kumar in the presence of elders and they both separated through elders and Kumar got another marriage. The victim used work as teacher in St.Josephs English

Medium school, Vejendla village where she got acquaintance as a class teacher with LW6/ Gudeti Chenchaiah who joined her daughter in that 2 S.C.No.402/2023, Dt:30.04.2026 school and through him she got acquaintance with the accused who is native of Khammam. The victim and accused used to move closely and the accused used to visit house of victim and the same knows to her mother. Later the accused took the victim to Khammam and kept her for ten days by introducing to his neighbours as the victim is his wife and enjoyed her sexually. Later accused took the victim to Maremma Thalli temple at Thiruvuru where met the priest who performed rituals in their names. Things stood thus the accused took the victim to his sister’s house at Mangalagiri and kept her for one week. After that accused used to post phone their marriage by saying that his sister would not accept for their marriage and thus the victim lodged report against the accused before police who registered the said report as a case in Crime No.247/2021 under Sections 417 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation, LW16/B. Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of police,

Nallapadu police station filed charge sheet before the learned Judicial

Magistrate for First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur.

3. After producing the accused before the court, the learned Judicial

Magistrate for First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur has taken

cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 417 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and furnished copies of the same to the accused. Later learned Magistrate committed the case to the

Hon’ble District Court, Guntur as the said offence exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions.

4. Thereafter the said case was numbered as sessions case vide

S.C.No.402/2023 and made over to this court for trial and disposal according to law. The accused were examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C.

3 S.C.No.402/2023, Dt:30.04.2026 and charge under Sections 417 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code are framed against the accused and accusation is read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trail the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. The evidence of the remaining witnesses was given up by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. No oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the accused.

6. After the closer of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and explained the incriminating evidence and the accused denied the same and represented no evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard arguments submitted by learned counsel for the accused and

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the charges leveled against

the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 417 and

376(1) of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. i) To prove the offence punishable under Section 417 of the

Indian Penal Code the prosecution has to establish that the accused got acquaintance with the prosecutrix and had physical relationship with her under a false promise of marriage and later cheated her by refusing to marry her and if proved, the accused can be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, 4 S.C.No.402/2023, Dt:30.04.2026 or with both.

ii) To prove the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the

Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish that the accused committed rape on the victim woman by believing her that he would marry her and if proved, the accused can be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

POINT

10. Now I am going to examine whether the charges leveled against the accused are proved by the prosecution or not. The prosecution filed charge sheet along with memo of evidence showing LWs.1 to 16 but chose to examine PWs.1 to 6 only and got marked Exs.P1 to P13.

11. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined victim as PW1. PW1 deposed that she scribed her signature in report without knowing the contents of the report and thus her signature portions in report was marked as Ex.P1. PW1 pleaded ignorance and failed to disclose anything about the facts of the case and thus she was declared as hostile witness. During cross examination by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, she denied the contents of her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and thus his signature portion in his 161 Cr.P.C.

statement was marked as Ex.P2.

12. Mother of the victim was examined as PW2. They both pleaded ignorance and failed to disclose anything about the facts of the case and thus she was declared as hostile witness. During cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she denied the contents of her 5 S.C.No.402/2023, Dt:30.04.2026 statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and thus signature portion in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement was marked as Ex.P3.

13. Medical officer Dr.P.Rajya Lakshmi was examined as PW3. He deposed that she examined the victim and issued Ex.P4 wound certificate and collected Ex.P5 RFSL report and gave her final opinion that possibility of sexual assault may not be ruled out. Accordingly PW3 issued Ex.P6 final opinion.

14. Shai Baji babu who acted as mediator was turned hostile and his evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. Through this witness the prosecution got marked his signature portion in Scene observation report and mediators report under Ex.P7 and P8.

15. Now coming to the evidence of K. Veera Swamy, CI of police who examined as PW5. He deposed that he received report from victim and registered FIR. Ex.P9 is original FIR. PW5 recorded the statements of

PWs.1 and 2 and sent the victim for medical examination. PW5 proceeded to scene of offence and observed the scene and drafted scene observation report and rough sketch under Exs.P10 and P11. PW5 along with mediators proceeded to Chillies centre, Guntur, Tenali and arrested you in the presence of mediators under a cover of Ex.P12 mediators report. PW5 filed requisition for adding section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. PW5 further proceeded to Khamam and Vissannapet. Later B.Premaiah, CI of police who examined as PW6 conducted further investigation and received wound certificate and RFSL and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet in this case on 30.10.2022.

16. On a careful perusal of the evidence let in by the prosecution, it is noticed that the prosecutrix, her mother were examined as PWs.1 and 2 6 S.C.No.402/2023, Dt:30.04.2026 and they pleaded ignorance and not disclosed any material evidence against the accused and denied the contents of their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Medical Officer who examined as PW3 deposed that there is possibility of sexual intercourse may not be ruled out.

Mediator who examined as PW4 turned hostile. Except the evidence of official investigating officers who examined PWs.5 and 6 there is nothing incriminating evidence before the court since the prosecutrix has not disclosed anything incriminating against the accused.

17. In this regard, this court relayed on following case law held between:

Ramesh and another Vs. State of Haryana

Reported in 2014 SCC online P&H 24721 (Crl.A.No.3526/2014)

Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “threat and intimidation has been one of the major causes for the hostility of witness. ‘Witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice’. When the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in the court of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times even hardened criminals escape the conviction. It shakes public confidence in the criminal justice delivery system. It is for this reason there has been a lot of discussion on witnesses protection and from various quarters demand is made for the State to play a definite role in coming out with witness protection programme.

The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. ”

18. In the above case law the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborately 7 S.C.No.402/2023, Dt:30.04.2026 discussed about hostile witnesses and what are the situations that compelling the witnesses to resile from their earlier statements and what steps to be taken for protection of witnesses.

19. In the case on hand it is already held by me all material witnesses turned hostile except official witnesses. In the absence of evidence of victim woman as PW1 the other evidence does not establish the alleged offence committed by the accused under Section 354 of the Indian Penal

Code. This is because in cases relating to sexual assault the victim evidence is crucial. Hence the victim’s statement is significant. The case on hand the victim PW1 does not depose anything against the accused.

The material placed on record does not establish the case of the prosecution. In view of the facts and circumstances of the above case, I am of the considered opinion that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused. Therefore the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt from the charged offences and hence they are entitled for acquittal from the charged offence.

20. In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 417 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of 6(six) months from the date of this judgment under 437-A of Cr.P.C. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Steno Gr.III on my desktop, typed by her corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-K.Neelima

V Addl. District and Sessions Judge -cum-Spl. Judge for trial of offences against Women, Guntur.

8 S.C.No.402/2023, Dt:30.04.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution :- P.W.1 : Kotagiri Syamala (L.W.1) P.W.2 : Kotagiri Sadalaxmi (L.W.2) P.W.3 : Dr.P.Rajyalakshmi (L.W.12) P.W.4 : Shaik Baji Babu (L.W.10) P.W.5 : K. Veeraswamy (L.W.14) Investigating Officer P.W.5 : P. Premaiah (L.W.15) Investigating Officer For Defence:- None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution :- Ex.P1 : Signature portion of PW1 on report Ex.P2 : Signature portion of PW1 in 161 Cr.P.C. statement Ex.P3 : Signature portion of PW2 in 161 Cr.P.C. statement Ex.P4 : Wound Certificate Ex.P5 : RFSL report Ex.P6 : Final opinion Ex.P7 : Signature portion of PW4 in Scene observation report Ex.P8 : Signature portion of PW4 in Mediators report Ex.P9 : Original FIR dated 13.03.2021 Ex.P10 : Scene observation report Ex.P11 : Rough sketch Ex.P12 : Mediators report Ex.P13 : Memo dated 18.04.2021 For Defence :- Nil M.Os. Nil

Sd/-K.Neelima

V Addl. District and Sessions Judge -cum-Spl. Judge for trial of offences against Women, Guntur.

9 S.C.No.402/2023, Dt:30.04.2026

TABULAR FORM UNDER RULE 67 Crl.R.P.

IN THE COURT OF V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN, GUNTUR

1Number of the Sessions case : S.C.No.402/2023 2 Name of the committal Court learned Judicial Magistrate for : First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur. 3 Name & description of complainant State: Inspector of Police, : Nallapadu Police Station (Cr.No.247/2021). 4 Name & Description of Accused :

Mittapalli Pavan Kumar S/o Venkateswarlu, age 39 years, D.No.15-17-112, Behind BJP office, Dwaraka Nagar, Khammam Town, Telangana State. 5 Date of offence : 30.03.2021 6 Date of committal : 22.06.2023 7 Date of apprehension of accused : 13.09.2023 8 Date of commencement of trial : 31.10.2025 9 Date of close of trial : 06.04.2026 10 Date of Judgment : 30.04.2026

11. Nature of Offence : under Sections 417, and 376(1) of the IPC.

12. Plea of accused : Not guilty

13. Finding of the court : Accused found not guilty.

14. Sentence or Order:

In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 417 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Codeand he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of 6(six) months from the date of this judgment under 437-A of Cr.P.C. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

10 S.C.No.402/2023, Dt:30.04.2026

15. Explanation for delay:

Originally this case was received from the learned Judicial

Magistrate for First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur vide PRC.No.2

/2023 against the accused by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions and the

Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur has made over the same to the

V Additional Sessions Court, Guntur for trial and disposal according to law and as this court is established for trial of offences against Women, the said case is transferred to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble

Principal Sessions Court, Guntur.

On 24.11.2023 accused was examined and charge under Sections 417 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code are framed against the accused and the accusation is read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 31.10.2025, the prosecution has commenced its trial and closed its evidence on 06.04.2026 by examining P.Ws.1 to 6 besides marking Exs.P1 to P13. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. On dated 27.04.2026 accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on the incriminating evidence for which he pleaded not guilty. Heard final arguments on 28.04.2026 and the Judgment

pronounced on 30.04.2026. Hence there is no delay.

Sd/-K.Neelima

V Addl. District and Sessions Judge -cum-Spl. Judge for trial of offences against Women, Guntur. Copies to:

1. The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) High court of A.P., through (CD)

2. The Hon'ble District & Sessions Judge, Guntur

3. The Director of Prosecution, Vijayawada.

4. The Inspector of Police, Nallapadu Police Station.

5. The ld. Judicial Magistrate for I Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

1

IN THE COURT OF V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN, GUNTUR

Present : Smt.K.Neelima, V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur

Thursday, this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Crl.M.P.No.608/2026 in Cr.No.10/2026

of Rajupalem Police Station

Between: Kothapalli Sudhakar S/o Chinna Venkeswarlu, 26 years, R/o Chejerla village, Nakarikallu mandal, Palnadu district.

...Petitioner/Accused No.1

And

The State: SHO, Rajupalem Police Station.

...Respondent/Complainant.

*** This petition came before me on 29.04.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri G. Alexander Sudhakar, advocate for the Petitioner/ Accused and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/ Complainant, and upon perusing the petition, the Case Diary, and the entire material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

The petitioner filed this petition under Section 480 and 483 of the

B.N.S.S. praying this court to enlarge him on bail.

2. The brief averments mentioned in the petition are as follows:

i) The petitioner/accused No.1 submitted that the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.10/2026 against him and another for the offence punishable under Sections 69 and 49 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 basing on the report filed by the defacto-complainant and arrested him on 09.02.2026 and produced him before the learned II

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

ii) The petitioner further submitted that he did not commit any offence as alleged by the victim and he is working as lineman in

2

Sachivalayam at Nagavaram village and the victim at the instance of local busy bodies, implicated the petitioner in this case and the petitioner is the only bread winner to his family having wife, old aged parents who are suffering from diabetic and blood pressure etc., and he has undertaken that he would abide by the conditions if any while granting bail by the court and thus requested the court to enlarge him on bail.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed this bail application stating that investigation is not yet completed in this case and

FSL reports pending for verification of voice recordings and the petitioner is habitual offender having contracted two marriages and maintaining extra-marital relationships by exploiting his position and if the petitioner is released on bail, he may threaten the victim and her family members and thus requested the court to dismiss the petition.

4. Now the point for determination is:

Whether there are any merits in the petition to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail?

5. Heard arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

POINT

6. The Sub-Inspector of police, Rajupalem Police Station registered this case in Crime No.10/2026 against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 49 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 basing on the report filed by the victim alleging that the father of the victim bedridden and that he requested the father of the accused No.1 for money and as per instructions of her father she also used to ask money from the father of accused No.1 and that accused No.1 got acquaintance with the victim and asked her to come to railway station

3

to collect money. Accordingly the victim girl went to railway station to receive money from accused No.1 but he made her to consume intoxicating substance and he has taken her to Hyderabad and kept her in a room and sexually assaulted her under the false promise of marriage.

Later accused No.1 shifted her to Rajupalem under the guise of marriage and had cohabitation with her. Later with the help of accused No.2, accused No.1 brought mobile phone to her. Things stood thus she asked the accused No.1 to marry her but he refused for the same and she came to know that accused No.1 already married and in living relationship with another woman and then she went to parents house and informed the incidents to her parents and elders. Accused No.2 came to her house and quarreled with her father that he would circulate the photos relating to victim and accused No.1 in public and defame them in the society and also threaten the victim to co-operate with accused No.1 and thus the victim lodged report against accused No.1 and 2.

7. On careful perusal of the record, it is observed that this is the third bail application filed by petitioner who remanded to judicial custody on 09.02.2026. As per the version of the petitioner, he did not commit any offence though the victim foisted false case against him with the influence of local busy bodies.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relayed on the case laws held between Dulla Kishore and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon’ble High Court granted bail to accused No.1 while considering the consensual nature of relationship and absence of evidence indicating false promise to marry”. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that most of the investigation completed and there is delay in filing

FIR for more than one year and no material shows false intention from inception and thus requested the court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

4

9. On a perusal of the record, it is evident that entire investigation completed except receiving reports and thus question of tampering evidence and threatening witnesses does not arise. The learned counsel

for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is the only person to look after

the welfare of his family. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and completion of investigation and petitioner languishing in jail from 09.02.2026, I am of the considered opinion it is just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

10. In the result the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on execution of personal bond for Rs.15,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli on the following conditions:

1) The petitioner shall attend before court regularly during trail without fail.

2) The petitioner shall not make any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with the crime and prevents the person from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper the evidence.

3) The petitioner shall furnish address particulars and property details and bank account after release on bail on the next hearing date before court.

4) If any reason the petitioner failed to comply the above conditions the respondent is at liberty to take steps against the petitioner.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III on my desktop, typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-K.Neelima

V Addl. District and Sessions Judge -cum-Spl. Judge for trial of offences against Women, Guntur. Copy to:

1. The SHO, Rajupalem Police Station.

2. The learned II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

3. The Superintendent, Subjail, Sattenapalli.

4. The petitioner/accused (through the Supt., District Jail, Guntur).

1

Crl.MP.No.1032/2024 in Cr.No.260/2024

of Nagarampalem P.S, Dt: 15.10.2024

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT (POCSO

ACT), GUNTUR.

Present: Smt. K.Neelima, V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for the Offences against Women, Guntur, FAC Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Guntur

Thursday, this the 10 th day of October, 2024

Crl.M.P.No. 1032 / 2024

in

Cr.No. 260 / 2024

Nagarampalem Police Station of

Between: Korivi Ajay, S/o.Chennaiah, 27 yrs, R/o.D.No.6-77, Medikonduru village, Tadikonda mandal, Guntur District. …Petitioner/A4

A N D

The State : SHO, Nagarampalem P.S.... Respondent/Complainant

This Petition came up on 14.10.2024 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Santha Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner/A4 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant and having heard both sides and having perused the record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This is anticipatory bail petition filed under Sec.482 of BNSS, by the petitioner/A4 in Cr.No.260/2024 of Nagarampalem P.S., under

Sec.127(2), 137(2), 75 r/w 3(5) of BNS and Sec.8 r/w 7 & Sec.12 r/w 11

POCSO Act, seeking an order to release him on bail on the event of his arrest.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioner is innocent and he is nothing to do with the offence. As per prosecution case, on 31.8.2024 at about 11.00 PM A1 who is working as watch woman of

Government B.C.Welfare Girls Hostel, kidnapped the four victim girls who were aged about 14 years respectively, and took them out from the hostel by confining the remaining students in the hostel by closing the door from outside and A1 handed over the victim girls to A2 & A3 and A2 directed A3 to guard him and A2 took one of the victims to the dark place and laid his hand on her shoulder by saying that he is loving her and intents to marry her and hugged her and kissed her and on 31.8.2024 at about 1.00 PM A4 took A3 to hostel for rectifying minor repairs and there is involvement of A4 in commiting the offence. Assistant B.C Welfare Officer of Guntur urban Division, gave complaint to the police. On complaint, police registered the above case and 2

Crl.MP.No.1032/2024 in Cr.No.260/2024

of Nagarampalem P.S, Dt: 15.10.2024

trying to arrest the petitioner/A4. Hence, the petitioner got filed this present petition.

3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed this petition.

4.At the event of enquiry, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Special Public Prosecutor.

5.Now the point for determination is, whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

P O I N T :

6.The case of the petitioner/A4 is that he did not commit any offence and he is no way concerned with alleged offence. As per prosecution case, on 31.8.2024 at about 11.00 PM A1 who is working as watch woman of Government B.C.Welfare Girls Hostel, kidnapped the four victim girls who were aged about 14 years respectively, and took them out from the hostel by confining the remaining students in the hostel by closing the door from outside and A1 handed over the victim girls to A2 & A3 and A2 directed A3 to guard him and A2 took one of the victims to the dark place and laid his hand on her shoulder by saying that he is loving her and intents to marry her and hugged her and kissed her and on 31.8.2024 at about 1.00 PM petitioner/A4 took A3 to hostel for rectifying minor repairs and there is involvement of petitioner/A4 in commiting the offence. As per petitioner/A4, he did not commit any offence.

8.The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner/A4 was falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that all other accused in this case are released on bail and there is no prima-facie material against the petitioner and hence requested to grand anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A4. The learned

Special Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.

9.On perusal of record, it is observed that there is a prima-facie material against the petitioner and as such the complaint was registered by police. The petitioner has to show before the court that there is irregularity and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation conducted by the police.

But as seen from the contents of the petition, no such undertaking by the 3

Crl.MP.No.1032/2024 in Cr.No.260/2024

of Nagarampalem P.S, Dt: 15.10.2024

petitioner that he will cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that there is prima-facie material and I do not find any irregularity in the prosecution version and as such there is no material to grant anticipatory bail.

10.As rightly contented by the respondent and also as per the principles of law the power conferred under Sec.482 of BNSS, 2023 is an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. The petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail the court must be satisfied on material placed before it the allegations are substantial and the acquisition appears to be false and groundless.

11.In view of the above principles the petitioner has to show before the court that it is exceptional case and he is entitled to get anticipatory bail. As seen from the contents of the petition I found no reasons assigned by the petitioner to consider his claim as special case to exercise the power to grant anticipatory bail. In view of the same I am of the considered opinion the petitioner failed to establish that he has special case and exceptional reasons to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest.

12.In view of the above stated peculiar circumstances, I of the considered opinion there are no grounds to consider the request of the petitioner and thus I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the point is answered against to the petitioner.

13.In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15th day of October, 2024.

Sd/- K.Neelima

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, FAC Judge, POCSO Court, Guntur.