Sri. K .Ramesh

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, (FTC), NIZAMABAD AT BODHAN.

Present :- Sri. K. RAMESH, B.Sc., LL.B., III Additional District and Sessions Judge, FAC : VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan.

Dated this the 4th day of October, 2012.

SESSIONS CASE No.74 OF 2011 .

1)Name of the Accused::1) Battu Raju S/o. Balaiah, age: 28 years, Caste: BAestha, N/o. Kupriyal village of SS Nagar mandal, R/o. Keshavnagar, Thoopran of Medak district.

2) Bingi Ramavva @ Battu Rama @ Battu Radha W/o. Battu Raju, age: 33 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, N/o. Ethonda village, Kotagiri mandal, R/o. Keshavnagar, Thoopran of Medak district.

2.Offence::Under Section 302, 380 of Indian Penal Code. ::Pleaded not guilty

3.Plea of the accused.

4.Finding of the Judge.::Found guilty

5.Sentence or Order of the Court.::A1 and A2 sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for an offence punishable U/s.302 and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.100/- each. In default of payment of fine A1 and A2 shall undergo SI for a period of 15 days and further sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of 7 years for the offence U/Sec.380 of I.P.C. and also pay a fine of Rs.100/- each I.D. to suffer to S.I. for a period of 15 days. MOs .1 to 8 were already given to Pw1 towards Interim custody and the said order holds good and Pw1 directed to retain the said properties under the same terms and conditions till the expiry of appeal time. MOs. 9 to 12 and 17 shall be returned to the Pw1 and MOs.13 to 16 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal 2S.C. No.74 of 2011 time

6.Prosecution conducted by::Sri. Md. Faheemuddin, Additional Public Prosecutor, Bodhan.

7.Defence conducted by::Sri.Md. Irfan, Advocate for accused (PRC.No.3 of 2011 on the file of JFCM., Bodhan P.S., Bodhan.

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

1-The accused here in stands charged for the offences punishable Under

Section 302 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.

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

That the both the accused went to the house of the deceased

Smt. Anusuya on the pretext to take a room on rent and introduced to the deceased and asked a room for rent and later on he left to Toopran. Again on 21st June 2010 A1 and A2 came to Bodhan and A2 alone went to the house of the deceased while A1 was waiting outside and A2 talked with the deceased for a room on rent and later on she came out of the house and informed A1 and after some time Lw2 D.Seetharam husband of the deceased left for

Yedpally to attend the school and A1 and A2 came across him while they were going to towards his house and A1 and A2 went to the house of the deceased Smt.Anasuya and talked for some time, later on A1 wrapped a petty coat thread around her neck and strangulated her to death, while A2 caught hold hands and legs and thereafter A2 came out of the house to watch the movements and A1 again wrapped the towel and a saree worn by the deceased around her neck and confirmed her death. Later on A1 committed theft of gold nalla pusala golusu, gold pusthela tadu, two rows of gold chain, gold ear tops studs, gold ring with red stone, one gold bangle.

And later on A1 shifted the dead body of the deceased from bedroom to another a room abutting the bedroom and opened the almirah and committed theft of pair of gold bangles, pair of gold ear tops, two silk sarees, two

T-shirts and while leaving the place A1 also took one gold colour wrist watch, one cell phone and silver kumkum barini from the house and 3S.C. No.74 of 2011 decamped with the booty in a auto rickshaw. A1 and A2 are motorious criminals and committed murder of three innocent women and committed theft of gold silver ornaments and other articles from their bodies and houses.

The modus opeendi is that selecting isolated houses to find out staying of women lonely in order to commit murder for gain.

3- The son of the deceased namely B.Paninder lodged a written report on 21-6-2010 at2-00 P.M. and the SI of Police, PS Bodhan registered a case in cr.No.196/2010 U/s.302 and 380 of IPC. The Inspector of Police took up the further investigation of the case and utilized the services of clues team and dog squads from Nizamabad. The Inspector of Police got photographed the scene of offence as well as dead body of the deceased and secured with the presence of M.Venkateshwar sharma., M.Rayma sharma, and

Smt.Bhaskaramma (Lw.10 to 12) and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and seized a white thread and a towel which were used to strangulate the deceased and he also seized broken spectacles and bangles of the deceased from the scene and drawn rough sketch map and then he examined the witnesses namely B.Phaninder. D.Seetharam, Smt.M.Anjana

Devi. M.Venkataramna Smt.B.Laxmi Gayathri and P.Ramu (Lws.1 to 6).

The Inspector of police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of same mediators and later on subjected the dead body for

PME at Area Hospital, Bodhan and a doctor who conducted the autopsy reserved viscera and hyoid bone for analysis. The Inspector of police seized saree of the deceased after autopsy which was used to strangulate the deceased.

4- On 12-7-2010 at about 11`-00 A.M. on information from the S.I.

of Police, the Inspector of Police rushed to Yedpally and arrested A1 and A2 and interrogated them in the presence of N.Sanjeev Kumar and D.Narayan

Reddy (Lws. 13 and 14) and A1 and A2 confessed to have committed this offence apart other offences at Vemulawada of Karimnagar Dist and that they 4S.C. No.74 of 2011 further confessed that they kept some booty of murdered women of Bodhan and some other cases at their rented house at Toopran and A.1 took out one gold nalla pustheladanda and one gold ring studded with red stone and A2 took out two lines gold chain pertaining to this case and they further disclosed that they came to Yedpally to dispose of the stolen property and to commit another offence and that they can show booty which was kept at

Toopran in a rented room . The inspector of police recorded the confessional statement of A.1 and A.2 separately in the presence of mediators and recovered one gold nalla pusthela dana weighing about 28 grams and one gold ring studded with red stone weighing about 1 ½ gram from the possession of A1 and two rows gold chain weighing about 2 tolas from the possession of A2 in the presence mediators under a cover of confessional panchanama.

5- According to confession made by A1 and A2 at about 2-30 PM.

the inspector of police both the mediators,. police personal started in the

Government Sumo vehicle to Toopran lead by A1 and A2 and at about 5-15 PM they reached Toopran where A1 and A2 lead them to rented room situated at Keshavnagar and shown the building consisting of ground floor and first floor and the said house belongs to Smt.R.Rainamma (Lw8) and

A1 and A2 led the Inspector of Police and both the mediators to the first floor and A1 opened the lock of the room and then A1 and A2 brought one suitcase from the bedroom and opened the suit case and took out three covers containing the ornaments pertain to Bodhan case and two cases of

Vemulawada and the Inspector of police, recovered 1) Gold pusthela thadu wg. About 28 grams 2) Pair of gold ear tops studded wg about3 grams 3)

Pair of Plain gold ear tops wg. about 3 grams 4) one gold Bangle wg about 8 grams, 5) Pair of gold Bangles wg about 23 grams 6) Silver

Kum-Kum Barini wg about 2 and half tulas 7) One Sonata Gold color wrist watch 8) One Nokia Cell Phone Model No.1209 IMEI 5S.C. No.74 of 2011

No.356422024151868 9) Two silk sarees and 10) Two T shirts (The property pertains to this case Cr.No.196/2010 U/s.302 380 IPC of PS

Bodhan town)

2) Silver leg Kadas wg about 30 tulas (The property pertains to

Cr.No.79/2010 U/s. 302, 380 IPC of PS Vemulawada of Karimnagar Dist.

3) 1) One gold pusthela thadu wg about 24 grams 2) Pair of ear tops and gold Maties wg about 11 grams and 3) Silver leg chain wg about 20 tulas (The property pertains to Cr.No.160/2010 U/s. 302, 380 of IPC of PS Vemulawada of Karimnagdar Dist.)

Inspector of Police, examined smt. R.Rainamma owner of the house and

Damadohar chary who weighed the ornaments, thereafter the inspector of police affected the arrest of the A1 and A2 and took their finger print and produced them before the court for judicial custody. The Inspector of police forwarded the finger print impression of A1 and A2 to the Expert finger print unit CID Nizamabad for examination with chance print obtained from the scene of offence. The finger print expert sent a report that the chance print marked “C” is identical with right ring finger impression marked as “S1” of Bingi Ramavva (A2) .

6- On 13-7-2010 conducted property identification parade by Lws. 1 ands 2 before Sk.Javeed and D.Vishwanathappa (Lws.15 and 16). The

Inspector of Police filed the requisition to conduct the TIP parade of A1 and

A2 and Judicial First Class Magistrate, Banswada conducted the Test identification parade of A1 and A2 wherein Lws. 1 and 2 identified A1 and

A2. The Inspector of Police after completion of the investigation of case laid the charge sheet against the accused.

7- The Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bodhan took the case on file U/s.302, 380 of Indian Penal Code, supplied the copies of documents 6S.C. No.74 of 2011 proposed to be relied upon by the prosecution as required U/Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the court of sessions.

8- Hon’ble Court of Sessions., Nizamabad took the case on file U/s.302, 380 of IPC and made over to this court for disposal of the case according to law.

9- On production of the accused and after hearing both sides, a charges

U/Sec.302, 380 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused in telugu, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10- In order to unfold allegations leveled against the accused, the prosecution altogether examined Pws.1 to 17 and marked Ex.P1 to P20 and

MOs1 to 17.

11-After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. in order to explain them the incriminating circumstance appearing against them to which they denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defense evidence .

12- Heard both sides.

13- The learned Addl. PP contended that the prosecution examined the

Pws. 1 to 17 and marked Ex.P1 to P20and MOs 1 to 17 and proved the case against the accused and that the minor discrepancies in the evidence of Pws.

1 and 2, Pw.9 may not effect the case of the prosecution and that the neighbours of the house of the deceased came after the incident and non examination of the neighbours may not create any kind of doubt and prayed to convict the accused according to law.

14- On the other hand the learned counsel for accused contended that the age of the suspects as deposed by Pw1 is 40 and 38 years whereas according to charge sheet the age is 28 and 33 and that Pw2 did not say that he saw the accused at the place of the incident and when they came to take the house on rent and that the Police only took Pw1 and 2 to the Dist. Jail,

Premises so the identification of the accused by Pw1 and to creates a doubt 7S.C. No.74 of 2011 and that the evidence of the Pws. 9 and 10 who are the mediators of confession and recovery of material objects does not corroborate with each other and that they are stock witnesses of police, and their evidence is inadmissible in evidence and that the property identification conducted by IO is not in accordance with law and that JFCM, Banswada who conducted TI parade has failed to conduct as per rules and that he has not mentioned the age, and colour of the non suspects and that the evidence of the finger print experts (Pw14) is also not believable and that the investigating officer involved the accused in a false case and prayed to acquit them.

15- The point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

POINT:

The first question that falls for consideration of the court is whether the death of the deceased Anasuya is on account of Homicide or Suicide?

Prosecution examined Pw8 M.Venkateshwar Sharma who testifies that after knowing the death of a woman behind Sreenivasa theatre, Shakkarnagar

X-road he went there at about 1-00 P.M. and found the dead body lying on the ground and the neck was tied with a towel and saree of the deceased and that he is also found a black spot around the neck of the deceased and the police conducted inquest panchanamna. Pw11. Dr.Arthi Kalyan Pad who conducted autopsy testifies that a ligature mark in front of the neck transversely below the thyroid cartilage extending from right mastoid muscles to left mastoid muscle measuring 15 x 3 cms base contused black in colour and opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to strangulation. Thus in view of the evidence of Pw8 and Pw11 there is no any doubt that the death of the deceased is only on account of homicide.

8S.C. No.74 of 2011 16- It is the case of the prosecution that the accused visited the house of the deceased about 10 or 15 days prior to the date of incident in order to verify whether any portion is available for rent and left the house and thereafter on 21-6-2010 A1 and A2 again visited the house of the deceased and enquired with the deceased about the room for rent and thereafter A.2 came out of the house and later on both the accused again went to the house of the deceased and taking advantage of her loneliness A1 and A2 committed the murder of the deceased and stolen the gold ornaments etc. The plea of the accused is that of total denial.

17- The case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence, followed by the confession of A1 and A2 and recovery of gold ornaments from the possession of A1 and A2 .

18- Pw1 D.Phaninder who is the son of the deceased lodged a written complaint on 21-6-2010 at 2-00 P.M. wherein he narrated the incident that on 21-6-2010 at about 11-30 A.M. he telephoned to his house and his mother informed him that the person who came for rent earlier again came and then he informed her not to give room for rent and thereafter the call was disconnected and that some time thereafter his father Seetharam (Pw2) informed his material uncle Ramana, that his mother fell down and then they all came to their house and found the dead body in the second room hall with a towel, thread, and saree around her neck and that all the articles found in pelmel condition and that Pw1 enquired his father who informed him that a woman came for rent earlier and again came and went away and at about 9-30 AM while he was going to Yedpally on the way he saw one woman and one male person who were coming towards their house and then he went to Yedpally and came back to the house at 12-45 A.M. and found the dead body of the deceased in the second room hall and gold ornaments were found missing and that about 15 days back when Pw1 his father and 9S.C. No.74 of 2011 mother, were in the house at about 3-30 P.M. one woman and one male person came to their house and enquired about the room for rent and when they refused they went away and again they came to their house on the date of incident and committed the murder of his mother and took away the gold ornaments and that the woman who came to their house is aged about 30 years and height is about 5. “4” and where as the male person is aged about 40 years height is 5 feet 6 inches and black in colour and they talk in telangana telugu, 19- Prosecution examined Pw1. P.Paninder who testifies about the incident as narrated by him in Ex.P1 complaint. Pw1 further says that on the date of incident at about 11-30 AM he made a phone call to his mother who informed him that a male person aged about 40 years and a woman aged about 30 years came for rent about 10 days prior to that day and that they again came today to take a portion for rent and that he opposed for giving a portion for rent. Pw1 in his re-examination stated that he saw A1 and A2 ten days prior to the date of incident when they came to the house for the purpose of the rent and that again he saw them during the TI parade at Sarangapur

Jail. The version as spoken by Pw1 so far as seeing A1 and A2 15 days prior to the date of incident is as per his statement recorded by the Inspector of police U/Sec.161 Cr. P.C.

20- Pw2 D.Seetharam who is the husband of the deceased testifies that at the time of incident he was working as a teacher in a private school at Yedpally and on the date of incident he left his house at about 9-30 A.M.

to go to the school and saws A1 and A2 near by the house. Pw2 further says that A2 came to their house at about 8-30 A.M for the purpose of taking room on rent and they refused. Thus the testimony of Pws. 1 and 2 goes to show that they saw A1 and A2 prior to the incident and also by Pw2 on the date of incident.

10S.C. No.74 of 2011 21- The Pws.1 and 2 were summoned to the Dist. Jail, Premises,

Nizamabad where the judicial First Class Magistrate, Banswada conducted

TI Parade and Pws. 1 and 2 correctly identified A1 and A2. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the Magistrate who conducted TI

Parade has not followed the procedure while conducting the parade and that the Police officials accompanied Pw1 and 2 to the Dist. Jail and showed the photographs of the suspect . He relied upon a judgment in the case of

Thamalapakula Sudhakar Reddy @ Sudha Reddy V.State of A.P reported in 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 83 (A.P.) wherein their Lordships observed that “ It is for the Magistrate to follow these rules framed under criminal rules of practice and circular orders scrupulously and he has to mention the necessary things in his report., If the Magistrate fails to follow or observe the said rules, his act loses its weight. He has to mention all those aspects in his report., Hence it is clear that the identification parade is not conducted properly as per Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders and identification proceedings do not carry weight in this case and they cannot be considered.” 22- In the case on hand Pw13 learned JFCM, Banswada testifies that on 24-7-2010 he visited the Dist. Jail, Premises, Nizamabad , recorded the statement of the witnesses namely D.Paninder (Pw1, D.Seetharam (Pw2) and then he secured presence of two suspects and 5 non-suspects for each accused and that he conducted TI Parade in one of the room of the jail premises where from one cannot have access to the proceedings and that he secured 5 non suspects who were of similar in age, general in appearance with that of suspect and that suspect No.1 Battu Raju, stood in between non suspect no.l3 and 4 and then he summoned Pw1 from out side of the jail and he identified the suspect . The Pw13 also followed similar procedure in respect of suspect No.2 Bingi Ramavva. The proceedings of TI Parade under Ex.P15 goes to reveal that the learned JFCM, Banswada followed the procedure as 11S.C. No.74 of 2011 per criminal rules of practice and circular orders. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel in that regard does not hold water . In view of the testimony of the Pws. 1 and 2 with regard of the identification of the A1 ands

A2 not only at the first time when they visited their house but also at the time of the identification parade may not create any doubt about the identification of A1 and A2. There is no any reason for Pws.1 and 2 to implicate the accused falsely instead of real culprits who committed the murder of the deceased woman.

23- The prosecution relies upon the evidence of Pw9 N.Sanjeev

Kumar and Pw10 D.Narayan Reddy who are the mediators for confession cum recovery of MOs.1 to 8. Both of them stated that the Inspector of police,

Bodhan called them Laxmi Narsimha silver merchants, Yedpally at about 11-00 or 11-30 AM and that they found both the accused and Inspector of

Police and that at the instance of inspector of police, they enquired A1 and

A2 separately and they confessed to have committed murder of a woman at

Shakkarnagar and also stolen away the golden ornaments and A1 produced one gold ring with red stones (MO4) , and Nalla pusthela thadu (MO2) and whereas A2 produced MO3 :Pusthela tadu and the police recovered the said items after recording the confession and thereafter the accused led them to the house where they took on rent at Toopran and there they produced

Pusthela tadu, Gold bangles,. Ear tops from the almirahs, three gold bangles, two pairs of gold ear studs, and kum -kum barini, and the said items were also recovered under a cover of panchanama under Ex.P9.

24- The learned counsel for the accused contended that both the mediators are the VROs and stock witnesses for police and he relies upon a

judgment in the case of Annamalai ..Appellant Vs. State by Inspector of

Police – Respondents reported in 1996 CRI.L.J. 535 and the said decision with regard to the extra judicial confession of the accused and the principles laid down in the said decision seems to be inapplicable to the facts of the 12S.C. No.74 of 2011 present case because there is no any extra judicial confession of the accused in the case on hand. Nothing has been brought on record to show that P.w.9 and P.w.10 acted as mediators in other police cases.

25-The testimony of the Pws.9 and 10 is at some variance because the

Pw9 says that the panchanama was conducted at the Police station. The said version of Pw9 seems to be unbelievable because he being educated person and having agreed that he put his signature on the said panchanamas after knowing the contents thereof . The testimony of Pw10 is very clear so far as the confession of A1 and A2 leading to recovery of MOs.1 to 8 from the possession of the accused 26- The version of the prosecution further supported by the evidence of Pw5 R.Rainamma whose evidence goes to show that A1 and A2 resided in the first portion of her house on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/ at Keshav nagar Toopran where from part of the stolen items were recovered.

27- The evidence of Pw6 lends credence to the version as spoken to by Pw5. The Pw6 stated that both the accused resided in the house of Pw5 as a tenants for a period of one month and that on 12-7-2010 the Inspector of

Police, Bodhan came to the house of Pw5 along with the accused and at the instance of Inspector of police he weigh pustala tadu bangles, pairs of ear studs. Pw7 P.Dattadri testifies that on 12-7-2010 at about 10-30 AM A1 and A2 came to his shop and A1 produced Nalla pustela tadu from his shirt pocket and whereas A2 removed the pusthela tadu from her purse and asked him to purchase the said items as they need of money and that developed suspicion and informed to the SI of Police, who came to his shop and that he weighed MOs,.2 and 3. The testimony of the Pw7 also probablize the version of the prosecution.

13S.C. No.74 of 2011 28-The evidence of Pw14 I.J.Jalandhar Rao finger print expert and according to his evidence the chance print marked as C is identical with right finger marked as S1 of A2 Bingi Ramavva.

29-The learned counsel for the accused contended that the evidence of the finger print expert is not a substantial evidence. There is no any doubt about the proposition of law as laid down in the afore mentioned judgment and evidence of Pw14 is only in addition to the evidence already available on record against A2.

30-The prosecution examined Pws.12 D.Vishwanathappa who testifies that he conducted test identification parade of material objects No.1 to12 and

Pws.1 and 2 identified the said items. The identification parade of the material objects by Pw.12 seems to be improper because identification parade of properties shall be held in the court of Magistrate where the property are lodged by mixing with four or five similar objects. Thus the evidence of

Pw12 is of no use. However Pws. 1 and 2 have claimed the property belonging to the deceased and they are the only proper persons to identify the said property.

31-On careful examination of the evidence of Pws. 1, 2, 5 to 7 Pws. 9 and 10, Pw13, and 14 which clearly goes to show that the accused with a pre – plan visited the house of the deceased about 10 days prior to the date of the incident on the pretext of taking portion on rent and again visited on the date of the incident and committed the murder of the deceased taking advantage of her loneliness and committed theft of gold ornaments and other articles .

The minor discrepancies pointed by the learned counsel seems to be insignificant and may not create any kind of doubt about the commission of the crime by the accused as put forth by the prosecution beyond all 14S.C. No.74 of 2011 reasonable doubt. Hence A1 and A2 found guilty U/s.235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the charges Punishable U/s.302 and 380 of IPC.

FAC: VII Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge, (FTC) Nizamabad at Bodhan.

The accused are questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed as required U/s.235 (2) Cr.P.C. The accused stated that :

Both the accused stated that they have got three children and prayed to take lenient view of sentence.

The prosecution also alleged that A.1 committed property offence in

Crime No.67 of 2003, U/Sec.380 of Indian Penal Code of P.S., Velpoor and prayed to impose enhanced punishment U/Sec.75 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has failed to produce any material to charge A.1 for the enhanced the punishment U/Sec.75 of Indian Penal Code. Hence the Court is in not a position to impose enhanced punishment.

Taking into account the nature of offence and facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the sentence of imprisonment of life and fine of the

Rs.100/- each. In default of payment of fine S.I. for the period of 15 days and further sentenced to suffer R.I. 7 years for the offence punishable

U/Sec.380 of Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.100/- each. In default of payment of fine they shall suffer S.I. for the period of 15 days. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

32-IN THE RESULT, A1 and A2 sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for an offence punishable U/s.302 and also to pay a fine amount of

Rs.100/- each. In default of payment of fine A1 and A2 shall undergo SI for a period of 15 days and further sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years for the offence U/Sec.380 of I.P.C. and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each. I.D. to suffer S.I. for 15 days. MOs . 1 to 8 were already given to Pw1 towards 15S.C. No.74 of 2011

Interim custody and the said order holds good and Pw1 directed to retain the said properties under the same terms and conditions till the expiry of appeal time. MOs. 9 to 12 and 17 shall be returned to the Pw1 and MOs.13 to 16 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation by Steno-Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of October, 2012.

FAC : VII Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined on behalf of Petitioner Respondent :

P.w.1 : D. Paninder. –NIL-- P.w.2 : D. Seetharam. P.w.3 : M. Venkata Ramana. P.w.4 : S. Ramulu. P.w.5 : R. Ranamma. P.w.6 : Y. Damodara Chari. P.w.7 : P. Dattadri. P.w.8 : M. Venkateshwara Sharma. P.w.9 : Neeradi Sanjeev Kumar. P.w.10 : D. Narayan Reddy. P.w.11 : Dr. Arthy Kalyanpad. P.w.12 : D. Vishwanathappa. P.w.13 : V. Shiva Ram Srinivas Prasad. P.w.14 : I.J. Jalander Rao. P.w.15 : M.A. Javeed. P.w.16 : P. Shanker. P.w.17 : E. Chandra Shekar Goud.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Petitioner : Respondents : Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.2 : 7 Photograph. Ex.P.3 : Seizure panchanama. Ex.P.4 : Inquest panchanama. Ex.P.5 : Rough sketch. Ex.P.6 : Signature of P.w.9. Ex.P.7 : Relevant portion of P.w.9. Ex.P.8 : Relevant portion of P.w.9. Ex.P.9 : Seizure panchanama. Ex.P.10 : P.M.E., Report. Ex.P.11 : Final opinion. Ex.P.12 : F.S.L., Report. Ex.P.13 : Panchanama of property. Ex.P.14 : Requisition. Ex.P.15 : T.I. parade proceeding. Ex.P.16 : Letter. Ex.P.17 : Finger Print expert report. Ex.P.18 : Visiting report developed.

16S.C. No.74 of 2011

Ex.P.19 : Chance print. Ex.P.20 : Original First Information Report.

M.Os. MARKED

MO1: Two lines of gold chain. MO2: Nalla pusthela thadu. MO3: Pusthal tadu. MO4: Gold ring finger. MO5: Pair of gold Ear top studs MO6: 3 gold bangles MO7: Pair of ear studs MO8: Silver Kumkum barini MO9: Two sarees MO10: Two T-shirts MO11: Wrist watch MO12: Cell phone NOKIA MO13: Towel MO14: Thread MO15: Broken specticle MO16: 5 pieces of broken bangles MO17: Saree of deceased.

FAC: VII Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan.

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, (FTC), NIZAMABAD AT BODHAN.

Present :- Sri. K. RAMESH, B.Sc., LL.B., III Additional District and Sessions Judge, FAC : VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan.

Dated this the 20th day of September, 2012.

SESSIONS CASE No. 225 OF 2007.

1)Name of the Accused::A.1: Aiti Kiran @ Ramana S/o. Rajanna, age: 21 years, Caste: Munnuru Kapu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chintakunta village of Varni mandal, Nizamabad district.

A.4: Edla Muttanna S/o. Jallaiah, Age: 23 years, Caste: Mala, Occ: Gulf Agent and Agriculture, R/o. Chikli of Makloor mandal, Nizamabad district.

2.Offence::Under Section 364(A), 120-B of IPC U/s.25 I.A. Act and U/s.5 of ES Act.. ::

3.Plea of the accused.Pleaded not guilty

4.Finding of the Judge.::A1 found guilty offence U/s.364(A) of IPC. A1 found not guilty of the charge U/s.25 of IA Act and u/s.5 of ES Act. A4 found not guilty of the charge U/s.120(B) of IPC.

5.Sentence or Order of the Court.::A1 found guilty of offence U/s.364(A) of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. In default to pay fine amount the accused shall suffer SI for a period of one week

6.Prosecution conducted by::Additional Public Prosecutor.

7.Defence conducted by::Sri. Md. Irfan, Advocate for Accused.

This case is coming before me on 26th day of July 2012 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Md. Faheemuddin, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Md. Irfan, Advocate for the accused, and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2S.C. No.225 of 2007 :: J U D G M E N T ::

1-The accused herein i.e., A1 and A4 stands charged for the offences punishable under section 364 (A), 120(B) of IPC Under Section. 25 of Indian

Arms Act, and Sec. 5 of ES Act.

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

That on 09-02-2005 at about 6-10 P.M. one Beerkoor Ajay Shanker left the house on a motor bike bearing No.AP25-L-4846 to bring his mother who went for shopping at old bus stand, Bodhan, In the meanwhile the father of the victim namely Beerkoor Nadipi Devaiah received a telephonic call at 6-35 P.M. from some unknown persons stating that his son Ajay

Shanker is in their custody and they kidnapped him and they also warned him not to inform the police and threatened with dire consequences. The father of the victim again received a phone call at 8-38 P.M. from kidnappers in which he listened the voice of his son who was crying. The father of the victim lodged a complaint with the police on 9-2-2005 at about 9-00 P.M. with ASI of Police, Safdar Ali PS, Bodhan and he registered a case in Cr.No.33/2005 U/s.366 of IPC. Later on the Inspector of police, Bodhan took up the investigation of the case and sought the ID caller facility to the phone Number 222501 pertaining to the complainant.

The in coming calls received to phone No.222501 from Airtel Mobile

No.9849366804 and Airtel authorities furnished the details of MTO, MCO calls of the said phone numbers and basing on the said details, the various police parties sent to various places. The mother of victim Smt.Pushpa

Latha stated that the kidnappers demanded to bring the land registration 3S.C. No.225 of 2007 documents and later on demanded to bring Rs,3,00,000/ and the parents of the victim bargained for Rs.1,00,000/- and they agreed for Rs.2,00,000/- on 10-2-2005 and they agreed to receive Rs.1,00,000/- on 10-2-2005 and remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- after wards. As per the demand of the kidnappers, the parents and some other went to Nizamabad bus stand plot

No.6 with a cash of Rs.90,000/ and exchanged the cash and the victim.

3- On 10-2-2005 at about 10-00 P.M. as per plan arranged shadow party could apprehend A2 with a net cash of Rs.90,000/-, One country made revolver and during the said operation A1 escaped from the clutches of the Police. A2 was interrogated in the presence of one

B.Posshetty and G.Laxman (Lws.7 and8) and A2 confessed to have committed the offence and the police seized Rs,90,000/ and one country made revolver, and 3 live rounds and Motorcycle bearing Registration

No.AP25-L-4846. A2 reveals about A1 and efforts made to search for A1 but in vain. The IO took the custody of A2 from Sub-Jail, Bodhan on 17- 2-2005 as per orders of court and further interrogated A2 who stated that one E.Muthanna (A3) helped in the commission of offence and provided food to A1, A2 and the victim and also provided two bed sheets . A2 further stated that A4.Edla Muthanna also accompanied them on 9-2-2005 and A4 guarded the victim as per the instructions of A1 to A3 at the agricultural fields of A2. As per the confession of A2 the Inspector of police along with SI of police and other force, two panchas went to Kanjar village and took the custody of A5 Ajja Madhu and then they along with

A2, A5 and panch witnesses went to Chikli village and taken into custody of A4 Ajja Madhu and recovered bed sheets which were used by A1 and

A2. A4 and A5 also found responsible for commission of offences.

4- On 27-2-2005 at about 5-30 A.M. while the Inspector of Police was conducting vehicle checking at Achanpally bye pass road, two motor cycles carrying each three persons were entering in to Bodhan town and 4S.C. No.225 of 2007 on seeing them they stopped the two motorcycle and when the Police party questioned them to show the vehicle documents etc but they tried to fled away from the place and police party took all the six persons into custody including two motorcycles. The Inspector of Police secured two respective panchas namely Embelli Gangaram and Pangeri Nadipi Sailu ( Lws. 9 and 10) and interrogated and they confessed to have committed the offences and also other offences in Cr.No.367/2004 U/s.506 IPC of PS

Bodhan and other offences. The Inspector of Police recovered the case properties pertaining to the other crimes. Thereafter as per the confession of

A1 and A3 they proceeded to the house of A7 where A8 and A9 were also present and A7 confessed about the commission of crime No.367/2004,

A7 to A10 conspired to commit the offences along with A1 to A3..

5- Smt.D.Vani and D.Kishore whose names mentioned in the FIR are not found responsible. The Inspector of police sought permission from the Dist..Collector and Magistrate. Nizamabad to prosecute A1 to A10

U/s.25 of Indian Arms Act and U/s,.5 of ES Act and after completion of the investigation case he filed the charge sheet.

6- The Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Bodhan took the case on file U/s.364-A of IPC, sec. 25 of Indian Arms Act, Sec,.5 of ES Act and U/s.120(B) of IPC, supplied the copies of documents proposed to be relied upon by the prosecution as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C. and committed the case in respect of A1, A3, A5 to A10 Vide PRC No,.33/2005 dated 17-10-2005.

7- On production of A1 and A3 and on appearance of A4 , A6 to

A10 and after hearing both sides, charges U/s.364(A) of IPC U/s.25 of

Indian Arms Act and U/s.5 of ES Act were framed against A1 and charge

U/s.120(B) was framed against A3, A4, A6 to A10, read over and explained to the accused in telugu who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5S.C. No.225 of 2007 8- The prosecution in order to unfold the allegations leveled against the accused all together examined Pws.1 to 9 and marked Ex.P1 to P8 and

Mos. 1 to 3.

9- After closure of prosecution side evidence, A1 and A4 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. in order to explain them incriminating circumstances appearing against them to which they denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defense evidence.

10- The case as against A3 was tried Vide SC.No.276/2005 and disposed off on 29-6-2006. The case as against A6 to A10 tried Vide SC

No.279/06 and disposed off on 25th December 2008 11- Now the split up case remains pending as against A1 and A4.

12- Heard both sides.

13- THE POINT FOR CONSIDERATION IS :

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14-POINT :

It is the case of the prosecution that on 9-2-2005 at abut 6-10 P.m. A1 and A2 kidnapped the victim B.Ajay Shanker while he was going on a motor bike on a point of country made revolver and demanded his father to register Ac.00-17 guntas of land in the name of Vani or to pay ransom and threatened to cause death or hurt to the said victim, in order to compel his father to register the said land. The plea of the accused is that of total denial.

15- The persecution in order to make out the first charge must prove the essential ingredients of the offence U/.s.364-A of IPC 1) Kidnap or abducts any person 2) Keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and 3) threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, by his conduct gives rise to reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt or causes hurt or death to such person and in order to 6S.C. No.225 of 2007 compel the government or any foreign state or international inter- governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or pay a ransom.

16- The Prosecution examined the father of the victim Birkur Nadipdi

Devaiah as Pw1 and he testifies that on the date of occurrence, his son went to vegetable market Bodhan at about 6-10 P.M. where his mother also went to get the vegetables and that at about 6-30 P.M. he received a phone call from unknown persons intimating about the kidnap of his son and the said culprit told him that earlier also they visited his house and threatened him with regard to the land transaction and that 5 months earlier to the date of the occurrence A1 along with two others visited his house and demanded him to register his land in the name of a person chosen by them and that they threatened him and informed him that they would come again after 15 days and demanded to keep ready all the document for registration and also threatened not to disclose the matter to the police and that they will kill him if the matter is reported to the police and they also threatened his family members. Pw1 further says that the person who called him through phone informed him that he reported the matter to the police pertaining the earlier incident and they kidnapped his son and again at about 8-30 P.M. he received another phone to make ready all the documents and again they would calling him 17- The Pw1 further says he approached the police and lodged the complaint under Ex.P1 and that again in the morning on the next day at about 6-30 and also in the evening at about 8-30 he received phone call demanding payment of Rs.3,00,000/ and in the evening at about 4-30 also received another phone call directing him to bring Rs.3,00,000/ to the plot

No.6 RTC Bus stand, Nizamabad and at about 7-30 P.M. he received another phone call demanding him to pay the money and he pleaded inability in providing Rs.3,00,000/ and informed him that he got only Rs.90,000/ 7S.C. No.225 of 2007 18- Pw1 further testifies that he along with his wife went to Nizamabad bus stand around 9-00 P.M. along with Rs.90,000 and one person approached him and ascertained his identity and took him to the behind bus stand and that he demanded said person to show his son and that person went away and came back with his son along with A1 in an auto rickshaw and after handing his son they took away the cash from him and in the meanwhile the police apprehended another person who first came to the bus stand and A1 escaped . Admittedly the Pw1 lodged the complaint after the kidnap and at that time his statement was recorded. Therefore the details of the incident subsequent to the kidnap have not been recorded in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. So far as the demand for ransom from Pw1 by

A1 is very clear from the evidence of Pw1 and at that time A1 was along with another person was present at the time of payment of Rs.90,000/ for the release of a victim.

19- The prosecution examined the crucial and important witness who is the victim of the offence namely Birkur Ajay Shanker (Pw2) and he testifies that on 9-2-2005 at about 6-00 P.M. he went to vegetable market to escort his mother back to the house and somebody called him by name on the way and he saw two persons on a Hero Honda motorcycle and one of among them i.e. A1 approached him and sat on his motorcycle and threatened to kill him if he opens his mouth with one country made revolver which was found in the hands of A1 and that A1 demanded him to proceed towards Arkay Engineering College, Bodhan and after passing

Arkay College, A1 directed him to proceed towards the road which branches from the main road leading to agricultural lands and there he ascertained the telephone number of his residence and made a phone call to his house and threatened that in spite of their warning they gave police complaint as such they kidnapped him and A1 also demanded to bring the documents and with draw the case against one Vani and Pw2 was taken to 8S.C. No.225 of 2007

Nizamabad and thereafter towards Armoor road. A1 stopped the motorcycle at the area called Gangasthan for refuel of petrol and A1 and another person kept their motorcycle and he was taken to Nandipet, Makloor on his motorcycle and that on the way he was threatened by those two persons that would kill him if his father could not register the lands as per their direction.

20- The Pw2 further testifies that he was taken to Nandiept where some agricultural lands are there and A1 left to fetch food and blanket by leaving another person with him as a guard and A1 returned with some food pockets and returned back to Gangasthan and around 8-00 or 9-00

P.M. one of them telephoned to his residence directing his father to bring the documents and money to a place to be intimated later on in the morning.

21- A1 again sat on his motorcycle and another man took their motorcycle and came to Vinayak Nagar and then to Manchippa and there

A1 took the motorcycle for bringing another man leaving Bhumaiah (A2) as a guard and at about 12-30 in the mid night when they reached Utnoor,

A1 again made a telephone call to his residence and again repeated the same demand and that they slept during the night at Utnoor.

22- Pw2 further says that in the morning around 6-00 or 7-00 AM

A1 and Bhumaiah went to the hospital for treatment of injuries sustained by A1 and the other person was kept as a guard and around 11-00 or 12-00 in the morning Bhumaiah brought one note book and one dress and threatened Pw2 that he would be killed just like a naxalite and again in the evening both Bhumaiah and A1 came to the fields again made a phone call to his house demanding ransom of Rs.3,00,000/- instead of land and on the bargain the amount was settled at Rs.2,00,000/ and that they demanded to bring Rs.1,00,000/- at the first instance and the remaining Rs,.1,00,000/ after 3 months and that they directed his father to come to plot No.6 RTC bus 9S.C. No.225 of 2007 stand at 9-00 P.M. and from there A1 brought him to Nizamabad and they parked his motorcycle at Mayura Hotel, Nizamabad and they engaged an auto rickshaw and brought him to the back side of the RTC bus stand and leaving behind him and Bhumaiah in the auto rickshaw, Aiti Kiran (A1) went to fetch the amount and within two minutes, A1 came back and brought him and Bhumaiah to Ashoka cinema theatre in the same auto where Pw2 noticed his father standing opposite to the theatre and after taking money Bhumaiah and A1 handed over him to his father and when A1 and Bhumaiah about to leave the said place, police came and apprehended

Bhumaiah (A2) while A1 escaped from the said place.

23- The evidence of Pw2 goes to show that he was kidnapped on 9-2-2005 at about 6-10 P.M. while he was going on a motorcycle and he was taken to various places at the point of country made revolver and ultimately settled the payment for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and the parents of victim brought an amount of Rs.90,000/- and handed over to the accused and while they were about to leave the said place, police apprehended A2 and

A1 escaped.

24- The learned counsel for A1 contended that except the evidence of

Pw2 there is no any other evidence in support of the story of the prosecution and that the Pw2 has not raised his voice though he was taken to various places and that the evidence of Pws. 1 ands 2 is contradictory to each other . and that the investigation officer has failed to conduct any test identification parade and that there is no any explanation for deleting the names of the persons mentioned in Ex.P1.

25- On the other hand the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of Pw2 clearly goes to establish the case of the prosecution and that the minor contradictions in the evidence of Pws, 1 and 2 may not effect the case of the prosecution.

10S.C. No.225 of 2007 26- So far as the conducting of the test identification is concerned,

Pw2 was in the custody of A1 and A2 right from the time and date of kidnapping i.e., on 9-2-2005 ate 6-10 P.M. till he was released on 10-2- 2005 at 9-00 P.M. So the identification of A1 not only by Pw2, but also by

Pw1 seems to be sufficient to identify A1 because the Pw2 was in custody of A1 for more than 24 hours. So it is not very difficult for Pw2 to identify his on culprit, who kidnapped him.

27- The minor contradictions that has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused that Pw1 stated that one person approached him and ascertained his identify and took him behind bus stand and Pw1 demanded the said person to show his son and that person went away and came back with his son along with A1 in a auto rickshaw and after handing over his son, they took cash from him and where as Pw2 B.Ajay Shanker stated that he was brought to back side of RTC bus stand leaving behind him and Bhumaiah in the auto, A1 went to fetch the amount and within 2 minutes A1 came back and took him and Bhumaiah (A2) to Ashoka cinema theatre and after taking money Bhumaiah (A2) and A1 handed over him to his father. A reading of the evidence of the Pws.1 and 2 about the handing over the cash of Rs.90,000/ may not amount to a material contradiction and the fact remains to be seen whether the accused demanded the amount and received from the Pw1 and said amount was recovered from them is the material fact. The Pw1 stated that he handed over the amount to the said persons and it is marked as MO3.,

Thus it is very clear that A1 who is the master mind behind the kidnap originally demanded the registration of land in the name of one

Vani and later on demanded for ransom and ultimately it was settled at

Rs.2,00,000/ and from the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 it is very clear that

A1 is the master who is behind the kidnapped of Pw2 to get the ransom amount from Pw1.

11S.C. No.225 of 2007 28- The next point argued by learned counsel for the accused that the

Pw2 has not raised his voice at any place even though according to Pw2 he was taken to various places. In this regard it is relevant to consider the evidence of Pw2 who stated that he was not only threatened at the point of revolver at the place kidnap and later on also he was threatened from time to time. So in such circumstances Pw2 who is the young boy aged about 19 years as on the date of kidnap may not venture to take the risk of his life by raising his voice. So the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused No.1 in that regard may not be acceptable.

29- The prosecution examined Pw3 P.Hanmanthu who stated that he cultivated the lands of Pw1 for a period of one year and the said lands are located behind RTC new bus stand, Bodhan.

30- The investigation officer of the case mentioned in the charge sheet that Smt.Varni and D.Kishore, whose names mentioned in the FIR are not found responsible so far in this case.

31- Pw4 G.Laxman who is one of the mediator for the confession of

A2, Pw5 Md.Safdar Ali, ASI of police who registered the crime and examined Pw1.

32- Pw6-B.Venu Gopal is said to be an eye witness and the driver of the auto but his evidence will not useful to the case of the prosecution because he stated that he cannot identify four persons who boarded his auto.

33- Pw7 P.Nadipi Sailoo who is one of the mediator for confession of

A1, A3 and A7 and he stated that about one year back police summoned him to PS Bodhan and he found A1 and A3 in the police station and that

A1 and A3 confessed about the offence in their presence and that no property was seized in his presence from A1 and A3.

Pw8- E.Gangaram who is the another mediator also stated that A1, A3,

A7 confessed about the offence and no property were seized from them.

12S.C. No.225 of 2007 34- The evidence of Pws. 7 and 8 is in -admissible in evidence because nothing has been recovered in pursuance of confession of accused.

35- The testimony of the Pws.1 and 2 who are father and the son clearly goes to show that A1 particularly along with other accused kidnapped the victim B.Ajay Shanker (Pw2) while he was going on a motor bike to the vegetable market on 9-2-2005 at about 6-10 P.M. and took him to various places by threatening him at the point of country made revolver and ultimately received Rs.90,000/- and relieved the victim. Pw2 cross examined on behalf of A1 and except putting some suggestions nothing has been brought on record to discredit his evidence in any manner.

The Pw2 appears to be honest and on scrutiny of his evidence found to be very straight forward convincing and cogent and inspires the confidence of court, and there are no any reasons to the disbelieve or discard his testimony who narrated the entire incident very clearly and categorically right from the time and date of kidnap till he was handed over to Pw1 on the next day at about 9-00 P.M. There is no any reasons for Pw1 and Pw2 to give any false evidence against A1 in order to involve him in a false case. It is settled Law that the evidence is not to be counted but only weighed and it is not the quantity of evidence but the quality that matters.

As discussed supra the evidence of the victim itself seems to be entirely trust worthy and by taking into consideration the material evidence available on record, it can be held that the prosecution could able to prove all the necessary ingredients of sec.364-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt as against A1. The material evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution does not incriminate A4 in any manner because the Pws. 1 and 2 have not stated anything against A4 in the commission of the offence. Though the investigating officer seems to have seized one country made revolver and 3 live rounds but the said material object were not marked by prosecution or supported by any other piece of evidence. Therefore it can be held that the 13S.C. No.225 of 2007 prosecution has not brought home the charges U/s.25 of Indian Arms Act,

U/s.5 of ES Act, against A1 and U/s.120 (B) of Indian Penal Code as against A4.

. A1 is found guilty of an offence punishable U/s.364-A and accordingly he is convicted U/s.235(2) Cr.P.C.

He is questioned U/s.235(2) Cr.P.C. about the quantum of sentence to be imposed and he stated that he has got old aged parents and they are depending upon him and that he got married recently about six months back and that his entire family depending upon his income and prayed to take lenient view of sentence.

III Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge (FTC) Nizamabad FAC: VII Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan.

The offence U/s.364-A of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and also with fine. In the case on hand may not seems to be a rarest of rare case in order to impose the death penalty . Hence the accused can only be sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. In default to suffer SI for a period of one week.

24)IN THE RESULT: A1 found guilty of charge punishable U/s.364-

A of IPC and accordingly he is convicted U/s.235(2) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo SI for a period of one week.

A1 found not guilty of the charges punishable U/s.25 of Indian

Arms Act and U/s.5 of ES Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.235 (1)

Cr.P.C.

A4 found not guilty of the charge punishable U/Sec.120-B of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C and A4 shall be set at liberty forth with, if he is not required in any other crime.

14S.C. No.225 of 2007

MO1 and 2 shall be preserved till the disposal of the case as against

A2 and A5. MO3 cash of Rs.90,000/- returned to Pw1 towards interim custody and he is directed to retain the same as per the terms and conditions of the order.

Typed to dictation by PA, corrected, and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of September, 2012.

III Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge (FTC) Nizamabad FAC: VII Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined on behalf of

For prosecution: For accused: P.w.1 : Birkur Nadipi Devaiah. –NIL-- P.w.2 : Birkur Ajay Shanker. P.w.3 : P. Hanmanthu. P.w.4 : G. Laxman. P.w.5 : Md. Safdar Ali. P.w.6 : B. Venu Gopal. P.w.7 : P. Nadipi Sailoo. P.w.8 : E. Gangaram. P.w.9 : B. Manohar. P.w.10 : Ravella Srinivas Kumar.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

For prosecution For accused :

Ex.P.1 : Complaint. -- NIL -- Ex.P.2 : Recovery portion in complaint statement. Ex.P.3 : F.I.R. Ex.P.4 : Recovery panchanama of A.1. Ex.P.5 : Recovery panchanama of A.3. Ex.P.6 : Recovery panchanama of A.7. Ex.P.7 : Permission of District Collector to prosecute Under Indian Arms Act. Ex.P.8 : F.S.L., Report.

M.Os. MARKED

1) M.O.1 : Blanket.

2) M.O.2 : Blanket.

3) M.O.3 : Cash of Rs.90,000/-.

III Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge (FTC) Nizamabad FAC: VII Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan.

15S.C. No.225 of 2007

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, (FTC), NIZAMABAD AT BODHAN.

Present :- Sri. K. RAMESH, B.Sc., LL.B., III Additional District and Sessions Judge, FAC : VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan.

Dated this the 9th day of August, 2012.

SESSIONS CASE No.99 OF 2011.

1)Name of the Accused::Rangari Venkati S/o.Balakram, age 28 years, Caste: Rangari, Occ: Wall painter R/o. Old Banswada

2.Offence::Under Section 498(A), 302, Indian Penal Code. ::

3.Plea of the accused.Pleaded not guilty

4.Finding of the Judge.::Found Guilty

5.Sentence or Order of the Court.::Accused found guilty of the charge punishable U/s.302 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is convicted U/s.235(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/ In default of payment of fine, the accused shall under go SI for a period of 15 days.

6.Prosecution conducted by::Sri. Md. Faheemuddin, Additional Public Prosecutor, Bodhan.

7.Defence conducted by::Sri.Md. Irfan, Advocate for accused (PRC.No.9/2011 on the file of JFCM., Banswada P.S., Banswada.

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

1-The accused here in stands charged for the offences punishable

U/s.302, 498(A) of Indian Penal Code.

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

That one Rangari Nagalaxmi (deceased) married the accused about 3 ½ years back and since then they are residing at Banswada at different 2S.C. No.99 of 2011 areas by taking the house on rent. After the marriage the deceased developed friendship with one Mangali Sujatha and Sepula Nagamani (Lws.

6 and 7) and the accused objected for the same. But the deceased kept deaf ear towards her husband and continued friendship with them and in that regard the accused beat the deceased two or three times.

3)On 04-01-2011 at about noon time one un-known male person telephoned to deceased Cell No.9963171914 and asked her to come to a movie at 2-00 P.M., show along with him and for which she was getting ready to go to the picture but the accused obstructed her and warned not go to the picture but she did not care. After argument she slept on a mat and the accused has planned to eliminate her as she was not listening to his words by suspecting her fidelity and accordingly at 5-00P.M. when the deceased was in deep sleep the accused took a white towel, and folded it and strangulated his wife with the said towel and committed the murder of his wife..

4- The brother of the deceased namely Battu Durgesh lodged a written complaint on 5-1-2011 at morning hours and the SI of Police PS

Banswada, registered a case in Cr.No.3/2011 U/s.498-A, and 302 IPC. The

SI of Police examined the complainant and submitted a requisition to the

Tahsildaar Banswada (Lw15) to conduct the inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The SI of Police and Inspector of Police, rushed to the house of the deceased situated at Dalmal Kuccha, Kotagalli road, of Banswada along with the complainant where the Inspector of Police observed the scene of offence minutely, so also the dead body of the deceased found lying on the floor in the back room and on observation of the dead body a ligature mark was found around the neck of the deceased and Inspector of Police secured S.Laxman and K.Shanker, (Lws. 9 and 10) and in their presence observed the scene and conducted a panchanama and also drawn rough sketch map and the Inspector of Police also got photographed the dead 3S.C. No.99 of 2011 body of the deceased with the help of Lw8 K.Mallesh through a digital camera. The Inspector of Police examined the witnesses and recorded the statements whose version corroborates with the statement of the complainant.

In the mean time Tahsildaar Banswada (Lw15) came to the scene of offence and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators namely S.Laxman, K.Shanker, K.Gangamani (Lws. 9 to 11) and later on the dead body of the deceased was subjected to PME. The medical officer (Lw14) opined that the cause of the death was due to “ASPHYXIA CAUSING CARDIO PULMONAREY ARREST DUE TO

STRANGULATION”.

5- On 11-1-2011 at 1-00 P.M. on reliable information about the accused, Inspector of Police, SI of Police of Banswada rushed to the Old

Banswada near Chaman School and apprehended the accused and on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and the Inspector of Police secured the presence of Sattaboina

Narayana and Upparigari Narsugonda (Lws. 12 and 13) and recorded the confession of the accused at 2-00 P.M. and thereafter the accused lead them to his rented house, went inside and brought one white towel and shown to the police and Inspector of Police, Banswada seized the same under a cover of panchanamna at 3-15 P.M. and thereafter the accused was sent for judicial custody.

6- The Inspector of Police after completion of the investigation case filed the charge sheet against the accused U/s.498 (A) and 302 IPC.

7- The Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Banswada took the case on file U/s.498(A) and 302 of Indian Penal Code, supplied the copies of documents proposed to relied upon by the prosecution as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the court of sessions.

4S.C. No.99 of 2011 8- Court of Sessions., Nizamabad took the case on file U/s.498 (A) and 302 of IPC and made over to this court for disposal of the case according to law.

9- On production of the accused and after hearing both sides, a charge

U/s.302, of IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in telugu, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10- In order to unfold allegations leveled against the accused, the prosecution altogether examined Pws.1 to 13 and marked Ex.P1 to P9 and

MO1: white towel.

11-After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. in order to explain him the incriminating circumstance appearing against him to which he denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defense evidence .

12- Heard both sides.

13- The point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

POINT:

14- It is the case of the prosecution that the accused and the deceased used to quarrel each other and that the deceased has not listening to the advise of the accused and on the date of the incident she wanted to go to a matinee show with some body who telephoned her and for which the accused raised an objection and ultimately at about 5-00 P,M when the deceased was in deep sleep the accused committed murder of his wife by way of strangulation. The plea of the accused is that of total denial.

15 Out of the material witnesses Pw5-Mangali Sujatha, Pw6-Sepula

Nagamani turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Now the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of Pws. 1 to 4 and 7 to 10.

16- The occurrence of the incident came to light through Ex.P1 complaint lodged by the brother of the deceased namely Battu Durgesh and 5S.C. No.99 of 2011 the contents of the said complaint discloses that the deceased got the acquaintance with one Pushpalatha and developed bad habits and in the mean time the deceased came into contact with the accused and both of them loved each other and married about 3 ½ years back and the accused used to beat the deceased earlier 2 or 3 times due to her attitude and that on 05-01-2011 in the morning hours he came to know that his sister died in the house and there is a mark around the neck and when he enquired the accused who discloses that he several times warned the deceased not to move out side but she did not listen and that on 4-1-2011 after noon hours, one male person telephoned to her and asked to come for a movie and when she getting ready, the accused objected and then the accused thought that she is not changing her life and wanted to kill her and that she slept in the house and at about 5-00 P.M. he committed the murder of his wife and that he informed one

Nagalaxmi friend of the deceased stating that she committed suicide and that the accused also discloses to the neighbours of the house.

17- The first point that is to be seen is :

Whether the death of the deceased was due to homicide or suicide?

The prosecution examined Pw8 Dr. Ashwini Babu, who testifies that on 5-1-2011 at 4-15 P.M. he received a requisition from Police Banswada to conduct PME over the dead body of the deceased Smt. Nagalaxmi and accordingly he conducted the autopsy from 4-30 PM to 6-00 PM and found the following ante-mortem injuries over the dead body of the deceased.

1-Abrasion over the front of the right chest measuring ½ x ½ centimeters.

2-Abrasion over the front of the right chest measuring ½ x ½ centimeters.

3-Abrasion over the front of the left side chest measuring ½ x ½ centimeters.

4-Ligature mark encircling the neck measuring 1.5-2 Cms.

6S.C. No.99 of 2011 18-The Pw8 further testifies that the cause of the death to the best of my knowledge is ASPHYXIA CAUSING CARDIO PULMONARY ARREST

DUE TO STRANGULATION” and accordingly he issued Ex.P6 PME report. The Pw8 during the course of cross examination stated that the towel shown to him is sufficient to cause the ligature mark over the neck 19-Ex.P6 PME report reveals that thyroid cartilage, superior cornu broken. Apart from the evidence of Pw8 and Ex.P6, there is also evidence of

Pw11Mahmood Ali Khan, the then Tahsildaar Banswada who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and he testifies that he conducted the inquest panchanama in thepresence of S.Laxman (Pw7), A.Shanker (Lw10 who is reported as died) and Smt.Keerthi Gangmani (Pw9) and that he found black mark around the neck of the deceased. Thus in view of evidence of Pw8 and 11 it is very clear that the deceased died due to strangulation and accordingly her death is only on account of homicide.

The citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused in the case of Kocherla Veera Swamy Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2006 (1) ALD (Crl.) 975 (A.P.) where in their Lordships observed that the evidence of medical officer leads to raise a doubt crept in the mind of the court as to the cause of the death of the deceased. Apart from that, in view of the failure to recover any material object and also in view of the failure to elicit the nature of the material object in the medical evidence, with which the strangulation could be possible, we feel that it is very difficult to conclude that the deceased died due to strangulation in view of wobbly evidence of the medical officer. The principles laid down in the aforementioned judgment seems to be inapplicable to the facts of the present case because in view of the clear evidence of Pw8 and Pw11 there is no any doubt that the deceased died on account of strangulation.

20-The prosecution examined Pw1 Battu Durgesh who is the brother of the deceased and complainant. He stated in his evidence that his sister 7S.C. No.99 of 2011

Naga Laxmi married the accused about 3 years back and that his sister used to move with one Pushpa here and there and on one day she wanted to go for a movie but the accused refused and that now and then the accused used to beat his sister and his sister has not given up her bad activities in spite of his advise. About more than one year back during the night time the accused committed murder of his sister in a rented house and that he came and saw the dead body and found a towel around the neck there are also marks over the leg and that he lodged the complaint Ex.P1.

21- Pw2 K.Suresh who is the owner of the house where the accused and deceased took a portion on a rent and he stated in his evidence that accused and the deceased stayed in his house for one month 3 days and after 25 days the accused and deceased quarreled with each other and lastly he saw the accused and the deceased Nagalaxmi in the house at about 5-00 PM and on the next day morning at about 6-00 AM another tenant informed him about the incident and he along with other tenant went to see the deceased and found dead body was lying on a mat and the accused was weeping.

22- Pw3: K.Anasuya who is the wife of Pw2 and she stated in his evidence that about one year back the accused and deceased took a portion of her house on rent and 20 days after the tenancy, the accused and deceased quarreled with each other and they asked them to vacate the house. On the date of the incident the accused and the deceased from morning to evening and even during the night time quarreled and on the next day morning at about 6-30 or 7-00 A.M., and she found the accused weeping and informed that his wife has not woke-up and she died, and she along with other persons went there and saw the dead-body which was lying on the ground and her neck was found with some marks 23-Pw4: P.Nagarani is also one of the tenant in the house of Pws. 2 and 3 who stated in her evidence that the accused and his wife used to reside in some other portion in the same house and quarreled with each other once and 8S.C. No.99 of 2011 on the evening both the accused and his wife were happy and on the next day morning the accused informed the owner of the house that his wife died and that on the night of the incident both the accused and his wife quarreled with each other.

For the evidence of Pws. 1 to 4 it is very clear that on the date and time of the incident the accused and deceased were there in their portion and their evidence further discloses that particularly Pw1 that the deceased used to move outside and in spite advise she did not mend her way of living for which the accused seems to have bore grudge.

24- The Learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution has not examined Pushpalatha with whom the deceased developed friendship and that the investigating officer examined the witnesses at 8-00 or 9-00 AM and failed to seize the cell phone of the deceased and that the investigation officer also not examined the family members of the deceased.

25-Before appreciation of the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 it is relevant to refer a Judgment in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharasthra reported in 2006(2) ALD (Crl.) 872 (SC) where in Lord ships observed at

Para No.17 “ Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence taken place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is strong circumstance which indicate that he is responsible for the commissioner the crime.

26-Admittedly Pw 1 is the brother of the deceased and Pws. 2 to 4 are the neighbors of the accused and deceased and their evidence is clearly goes to establish the accused and deceased used to reside in a portion of house on rent and that the accused and deceased used to quarrel now and then and 9S.C. No.99 of 2011

Pw1’s evidence further discloses that the deceased used to move to out side and did not mend her way of living. The Pws. 2 to 4 who are the independent witnesses and neighbors of the accused have no any kind of animosity to speak falsehood against the accused and their evidence clearly goes to establish the presence of the accused on 4-1-2011 in the evening hours and the accused himself admitted the commission of the offence, according to the evidence of Pw1 and the said fact has not been disputed by the accused The

Pw.2 , 3 denied the suggestion to the effect that the accused was not present in the house on 4-1-2011 and the denial of the said suggestion by Pws. 2 and 3 goes to strengthen the version of the prosecution the accused was in the house as on the date of the incident and more particularly the accused being the husband of the deceased normally resides in the house. Thus the presence of the accused in the house on the date of the incident is very clear through the evidence of Pws.2 to 4, The minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused with regard to the time of examination etc may not go to effect the root cause of the incident. Admittedly the witnesses are from the village circle and they may not speak as it is due to lapse of time.

27-The accused except denying the commission of the crime has not offered any kind of explanation as to how his wife received the injuries and died and admittedly the offence was committed within the four corners of the house and there are no any other persons other than the deceased and accused. So in the absence of any kind of explanation from the side of the accused it goes to add a link to the commission of offence by the accused and except the accused none else committed the murder of the deceased.

28-The other citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused in the case of Thadepalli Srinivasa Murthy Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010(2) ALD (Crl.) 96 (A.P) wherein their Lordships observed that in a case based upon circumstantial evidence the prosecution must prove 10S.C. No.99 of 2011 the motive for commission of offence. In the case on hand there is evidence of P:w1 that the deceased used to move out side and even after advise she did not mend her way of living and that is the motive for the commission of crime by the accused who is no other than the husband of the deceased.

29-There is also evidence of Pw.10 S.Narayana before whom the accused confessed to have committed the murder of his wife and produced MO.1 a towel. This piece of evidence also lends credence to the version of the prosecution. Thus on careful consideration material evidence available on record it appears that the said evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt about the commission of offence of murder of his wife and thereby it could be held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the accused found guilty of the charge punishable U/s.302

IPC and convicted U/s.235 (2) Cr.P.C.

FAC: VII Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge, (FTC) Nizamabad at Bodhan.

The accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed as required U/s.235 (2) Cr.P.C. The accused stated that :

He has got old aged mother and sister who are depending upon his earnings and prayed to take lenient view of the sentence. The offence U/s.302

IPC punishable imprisonment for life and fine or capital punishment.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.100/-. In default of payment of fine 15 days SI seems to be sufficient.

13-IN THE RESULT, Accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.100/-. In default of payment of fine

SI for a period of 15 days.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 9th day of August, 2012.

11S.C. No.99 of 2011

FAC : VII Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined on behalf of Petitioner Respondent : P.w.1 : B. Durgesh –NIL-- P.w.2 : Kotturu Suresh. P.w.3 : K. Anasuya. P.w.4 : P. Nagarani. P.w.5 : Mangali Sujatha. P.w.6 : S. Nagamani. P.w.7 : S. Laxman. P.w.8 : Aswini Babu. P.w.9 : K. Gangamani. P.w.10 : S. Narayana. P.w.11 : Mahemood Ali Khan. P.w.12 : A. Sudhaker. P.w.13 : G. Srinivas.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Petitioner : Respondents : Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.2 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.. statement of Pw5 Ex.P.3 : Section 161 Statement of Pw6. Ex.P.4 : Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P.5 : Rough sketch. Ex.P.6 : P.M.E., report. Ex.P.7 : Inquest panchanama. Ex.P.8 : Relevant portion of confession. Ex.P.9 : Original FIR.

M.Os. MARKED

MO1: White towel.

FAC: VII Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan.

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONSJUDGE) (FTC) NIZAMABAD

Present: SRI. K. RAMESH, B.Sc., LL.B., Chairman (MACT)(III-ADJ). Nizamabad.

Friday the 21st day of September, 2012.

O.P. No.1407 of 2004.

Between:

1-S.Krishna Reddy s/o.Nagi Reddy aged 55 years, occ: Agriculture R/ o.;Sherkan Vanka (v), Kalakadi mandal Chittoor Dist.

2-S.Nirmallamma D/o.Krishna Reddy, aged 25 years, occ: Household R/o:Sherkan Vanka (v), Kalakadi mandal Chittoor Dist.

3-S.Sulochana D/o.Krishna Reddy, aged 23 years, occ: Household R/ o.Sherkan Vanka (v), Kalakadi mandal Chittoor Dist.

4-S.Manjulamma D/o.Krishna Reddy aged 21 years, occ: Household R/o.;Sherkan Vanka (v), Kalakadi mandal Chittoor Dist.

Petitioner.

And

1- B.Narasimha Rao S/o.B.Yellaiah, aged 40 years, occ: Business cum owner of lorry tipper bearing No.AP-25-U-3632 R/o.H.No.11-1-36/8/2, Armoor road, Nizamabad 2- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, branch office, near Mayuri hotel, Go down road , Nizamabad (Policy No.431205/2004/979/2003/989 valid from 21-2-2004 to 20-2-2005.)

Respondents

This petition coming on 7th day of September 2012 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri.P.Hanmanth Reddy, Advocate for

petitioners, and R1 is set ex-parte and Smt.G.Vasantha Kumari, Advocate

for respondent No.2 and having heard and stood over for consideration till

this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

ORDER

1-This is a petition filed U/s. 166 (1)(c) and 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles

Act 1988 by legal representatives on account of the death of the deceased namely Smt.S.Padmavatamma in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 4-6-2004 for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- 2-The brief facts leading to the mentioned accident are as under :

That on 4-6-2004 the deceased along with others was traveling in a Tata Sumo jeep bearing No.AP-03-V-7152 from Shirdi and going 2 towards the Hyderabad side. The driver of the jeep drove the jeep very slowly and cautiously and when they reached near Dharmaram (B) village at about 6-00 AM and at the same time a tipper lorry bearing No.AP25-

U-3632 came in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed in opposite direction on wrong side of the road and dashed against the Tata sumo vehicle due to which the jeep completely damaged and deceased received multiple crush injuries and fracture injuries and died on the spot.

Other persons who are traveling in the jeep also received injuries.

The deceased was an agriculturist and vegetable vendor and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute her entire earnings to the petitioners. The petitioners are only the legal heirs and dependants on the deceased and they are put to loss and hardship due to sudden death of the deceased and prayed to award a compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- with costs and interest.

3- The R1/owner of the Tata Sumo served with the notice, called absent and set ex-parte on 1-3-2005.

4- The R2/the Oriental Insurance Company Limited filed its counter and denied the claim of the petitioners in toto and also denied the manner of accident and receipt of the injuries resulting the death of the deceased, so also the age, avocation and earning capacity of the deceased.

5- The alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the said lorry is not admitted. The accident occurred due to contributory negligence of both the vehicles and the petitioners have not made the insurer and insured of the jeep as parties to the petition hence the petition is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties.

R2 also disputed that the person who drove the jeep as well as lorry were holding the valid driving license as on the date of the accident.

6- The petitioner has given insurance policy

No.431205/2004/979/2003/989 valid from 21-2-2004 to 20-2-2005, but the same is subject to verification of the policy. R2 denied that that the lorry is insured with the R2 at the time of the accident. Even if the vehicle 3 is insured, the liability of the respondent is to be strictly governed by the provisions of MV Act, terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the breach of which does not make R2 liable for any compensation.

7- The R1 has not intimated regarding the alleged accident soon after the accident and has not furnished the driving license, RC, etc. The concerned Police also has not informed about the alleged accident in the form No.54 U/s.158(6) of the M.V.Act within 30 days from the date of the accident. The R2 sought protection of provisionsU/s.147, 149(2) and 170 of the M.V. Act. and that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

8-On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed :

1- Whether the accident occurred on 4-6-2004 due to rash and negligent driving of lorry tipper bearing No.AP25-U-3632 driven by its driver as per S.166 of MV Act.?

2- Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3- To what relief?

9-In order to substantiate the claim, the petitioner No.1 examined as

Pw1 and marked Exs. A1 to A6 and also examined Pw2. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has not adduced any oral evidence but marked

Ex.B1 insurance policy with consent.

10-The R2 filed an application U/s.170 of the M.V.Act Vide

IA.No.1239/2007 and the same was allowed on 23-11-2007.

11- Heard both sides.

12-ISSUE No.(1) :- It is the case of the petitioners that the wife of the petitioner No.1 and the mother of the petitioner No.2 to 4 was traveling in a Tata sumo vehicle from Shirdi to Hyderabad and the driver of the Tata sumo was driving the vehicle slowly and cautiously and that at about 6-00 A.M. the said vehicle reached Dharmaram(B) village, and at the same time offending lorry came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Tata sumo jeep as a result the 4 deceased sustained multiple fracture injuries and died on the spot. The

R2 disputed the manner of accident.

13- The petitioner No.1 filed his chief affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and once again reiterated the circumstances leading to the accident as well as rash and negligent manner of driving on the part of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP25-U-3632 resulting the accident and death of the deceased and marked Ex.A1 Copy of FIR, Ex.A2 CC of charge sheet.

Admittedly Pw1 is not an eye witness to the accident, therefore his evidence is not useful to establish the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry. The petitioners examined Pw2 K.Srinivas

Reddy and he testifies that on 4-6-2004 he along with S.Padmavathamma (deceased), Manjulamma and Suman Kumar Reddy were traveling in a

Tata Sumo Jeep bearing No.AP-03-V-7152 from Shirdi to Hyderabad and driver of the Tata sumo drove it slowly and cautiously and when they reached Dharmaram (B) village and at the same time the tipper lorry bearing No.AP25-U-3632 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and dashed against the jeep as a result she sustained multiple fracture and died on the spot. Pw2 was cross examined on behalf of the R2/ insurance company but nothing substantial has been brought on record to show that there was no any rash or negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry. The

R2/insurance company has not adduced any evidence in rebuttal contra to the testimony of Pw2 and Exs. A1 and A2.

14- The accident in question occurred on 4-6-2004 at 6-00 A.M. and the same was reported to the concerned police on the same day at about 8-30P.M. which resulted in Cr.No.75/2004. The ASI of Police, Dichpally and SI of Police Dichpally thoroughly investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP25-U-3632 holding him responsible for the accident. Thus by taking into account the oral testimony of Pw2 and coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, there is no any other option for the tribunal except to hold that the accident occurred 5 due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry and accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of petitioner.

15- Issue No.2 :

The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on the ground that the deceased Padmavathamma was hale and healthy and she was doing agriculture and vegetable business and also raising commercial crops and she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The Pw1 who is the husband of the deceased once again reiterated about the avocation and income of the deceased but Pw1 has not produced any other evidence either oral or documentary to substantiate the said claim. So in the absence of any evidence with regard to income of the deceased a modest income of the deceased who was aged about 55 years as per Ex.A1, A3 and A6 can be taken to be Rs.3,000/- per month.

16- The deceased was aged about 55 years and appropriate multiplier for the age group of persons is 11 as per the principles laid down in the Judgment in the case of Smt.Sarla Varma Vs.Delhi Transport

Corporation reported in 2009 (4) ACJ 91. If the monthly income of

Rs.3,000/- is multiplied for 12 months, it comes to Rs.36,000/- and 1 /3 rd of the amount is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs.12,000/ per annum and net annual income of the deceased to be contributed to the family is Rs.24,000/ and if

Rs.24,000/ is multiplied with 11 it comes to Rs.2,64,000/- 17- The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners

No.2 to 4 who are the daughters of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation being the legal representatives. On the other hand the learned counsel for R2/Insurance company contended that the petitioner

No.2 to 4 married daughters and they are not entitled to claim compensation. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the

Judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co.Ltd.Kakinada

Vs.Namala Chinna Apparao and others reported in 2001 ACJ 313 wherein their Lordships observed that 6 “It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act to specify the person or to whom compensation shall be paid”.

It is to be seen whether the petitioner No.2 to 4 are the actual dependants on the income of the deceased as on the date of the accident.

As per Ex.A6 inquest panchanama the name of the petitioner No.4 is only shown as daughter of the deceased. The petitioner No.4 seems to be married because she is shown as wife of Srinivasulu Reddy, so when the petitioner No.4 are already married who is the younger one then the petitioner No.2 and 3 are also married daughters of the deceased and who are all depending upon their respective husbands. Thus it can be held that the petitioner No.2 to 4 are not the dependants on the income of deceased.

The offending lorry which caused the accident was insured with the

R2 as on the date of the accident under Ex.B1, as such R1 and R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,64,000/- +

Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and also Rs.5,000/- towards the loss of consortium and total amount comes to Rs.2,71,000/- and accordingly the issue is decided in favour of the petitioner No.1 who is the husband of the deceased.

18- IN THE RESULT: the petition is allowed partly awarding a compensation of Rs.2,71,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs seventy one thousand only) in favour of the petitioner No.1 with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5.% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

The petition of the petitioner No.2 to 4 is dismissed.

Both the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month.

The petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,50,000/ and the balance amount of Rs.1,21,000/ shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of two years.

7

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only).

Typed to dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of September,

2012.

Chairman, MACT, III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: (witnesses examined for)

For Petitioner :For respondents :

P.w.1 : S.Krishna Reddy. - NIL -.

P.w.2 : K.Srinivas Reddy.

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

Ex.A.1 : Xerox copy of F.I.R., Ex.B1:Policy marked by consent

Ex.A2 : C.C. of charge sheet.

Ex.A.3 : CC of PME report

Ex.A.4 : Xerox copy of MVI report

Ex.A.5 : Xerox copy of registration certificate

Ex.A6 : Inquest panchanama marked by Pw1.

Chairman, MACT, III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Nizamabad.

8

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II . ADDL. DIST.JUDGE) AT NIZAMABAD.

Monday, the 19th day of March, 2012.

Present: SRI. K. RAMESH, B.Sc., LL.B., Chairman (MACT)(III-ADJ). Nizamabad.

O.P. No. 571 of 2005.

Between:

1. Sinde Shanker, S/o. Maruthi, aged 20 years, Occu: Driver, R/o. Weekly bazar gole Hanuman, Nizamabad.

Petitioner.

And

Shaik Ahmad, S/o Allaha Bakash, aged major, Occ: Owner of the Lorrry 1. bearing No. AP-16-TT-0839, R/o. H.No. 9-17-50/51, Shanthinagar Colony, Nizamabad.

2.. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office At APSFC Bldg, 1st floor, Subhashnagar, Opp: Z.P. Office Nizamabad – 503 002 (Insurer of Lorry bearing No. AP-16-TT-0839 Vide Insurance Policy No. 620604/31/04/04110 valid from 1-1-2005 to 31-12-2005).

Respondents.

CLAIM: This petition is filed U/s 166 (1) (a) and 168 of the Motor

Vehicles Act. 1988 (for short the Act) read with rule 455 of

A.P.Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (for short the ‘Rules”) seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000 for grant of compensation an account of petitioner

sustained injuries, in a motor vehicle accident took place on

14-1-2003 9 at about 8.30 p.m. near Hanman temple Gurudwara, Nizamabad.

COURT Rs.1,360/- is paid under rule 475 (1) (b) of APMV Rules. FEE

This petition coming on 4-10-2010 for final hearing before me in the

presence of Sri. M. Rajendher Reddy, Advocate for petitioner, and of Sri.

M.Muti-Ur-Rahaman, Advocate for respondent no.2, and respondent No.1 set

exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, the tribunal

DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

In the result, the petition is partly allowed awarding a total compensation of

Rs.32,000/-with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of Original petition till date of deposit. The respondents No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally to the total compensation amount jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount and interest thereon, with proportionate costs, within one month from date of award. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount.

That the respondents shall also pay a sum of Rs. To the petitioner

towards the costs of the petition.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Petitioner. For respondents.

(Cost memo filed) (Cost memo not filed)

1. Stamp on petition Rs. Stamp on power Rs. 2-00

2. Stamp on power Rs.

3. Stamp on exhibits. Rs.

4. Advocate fee Rs.

5. Service of process. Rs.

6. Misc. Rs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Total Rs. Rs. 2/-

GIVEN under my hand and seal of the court on this the 13 th day of October,2010.

CHAIRMAN

MACT. II ADDL. DIST. JUDGE,

NIZAMABAD

10

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) NIZAMABAD.

Present: SRI. K. RAMESH, B.Sc., LL.B., Chairman (MACT)(III-ADJ). Nizamabad.

Dated this the 30th day of July, 2012.

O.P. No.694 of 2008.

Between:

D.Hari Shankar s/o.D.Dharmaiah, aged 35 years, occ: Driver, R/o.Kotagally, Nizamabad Petitioner.

And

1S.Manohar s/o.S.Rajeshwar, aged 30 years, Occ:Business cum owner of the lorry bearing No.AP-15-W-1269 R/o.Kothi Rampur village, Karimnagar Dist.

11 2- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited rep.by its Branch Manager, branch office, Godown road, Nizamabad. (Policy No.3215/2003, valid from 13-12-2002 to 12-12-2003).

CLAIM: Petition filed U/s 166 (1) (b) of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 r/w. Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with costs and interest @24% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of realization from the respondents, the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 17-10-2003 at about 12-15 A.M. near Boregaon village sivar, Dist. Nizamabad.

COURT FEE: Court fee of Rs.1,360/ - is paid under rule 475 (1) (b) of APMV Rules.

This petition coming on 16th day of July 2012 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri. P.Hanmanth Reddy, Advocate for

petitioner, and R1 is set ex-parte and Sri.P.Anand Reddy, Advocate for R2 and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the tribunal DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

1-That the petition is allowed partly awarding a compensation of Rs.35,000/- (Rs.Thirty five thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5.% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

2-That both the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of the order.

3-That this tribunal doth further order that the petitioner is permitted to with draw the entire compensation amount along with costs and interest.

4-The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ (Rupees One thousand only) 5-That this Tribunal doth order that the respondents do pay a sum of Rs. to the petitioner towards the proportionate costs of the

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-III ADDL. DIST.&SESSIONS,

JUDGE

(FTC)NIZAMABAD

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Petitioner. For

respondents.

12 (Cost memo filed) (Cost memo not filed)

1.Stamp on petition Rs.

2. Stamp on power Rs.

3. Stamp on exhibits. Rs.

4. Advocate fee Rs.

5. Service of process. Rs.

6. Commissioner fee Rs.

7. Misc.Charges Rs.

8. Publication charges Rs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

GIVEN under my hand and seal of the court on this the 30th day of July 2012.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-III ADDL. DIST.&SESSIONS,

JUDGE

(FTC)NIZAMABAD

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) NIZAMABAD.

Present: SRI. K. RAMESH, B.Sc., LL.B., Chairman (MACT)(III-ADJ). Nizamabad.

Saturday, the 15th day of September, 2012.

13

O.P. No.132 of 2006.

Between:

Kurukonda Niranjan s/o.Narayana, aged 45 years, occ: Police Constable No.524 PS Bodhan and Agriculture R/o.H.No.11-1-668, Chandrashekar nagar colony, Nizamabad.

Petitioner.

And

1- N.Mohan Reddy s/o.Govind Reddy, aged 38 years, occ: Business cum owner of jeep bearing No.AP25-U-84 R/o.H.No.1-13, Godmegaon, Pitlam mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

2- United Indian Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch office, near hotel Mayuri, godown road, Nizamabad. (Policy No.484246 valid from 12-5-2005 to 11-5-2006)

Respondents

CLAIM: Petition filed U/s 166 (1) (a) of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 r/w. Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with costs and interest @24% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of realization from the respondents, the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 30-5-2005 at about 8-00 P.M. near over bridge, Nizamabad.

COURT FEE: Court fee of Rs.1,360/ - is paid under rule 475 (1) (b) of APMV Rules.

This petition coming on 11th day of September 2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.P.Hanmanth Reddy, Advocate

for petitioner, and R1 is set exparte and Sri. M.V.Narsimha Rao,

Advocate for respondent No.2 and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the tribunal DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

1-That the petition is allowed partly awarding a compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5.% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

2-That both the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of the order.

3-That this tribunal doth further order that the petitioner is permitted to with draw the entire compensation amount along with costs and interest.

4-The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ (Rupees One thousand only) 5-That this Tribunal doth order that the respondents do pay a sum of Rs. to the petitioner towards the proportionate costs of the 14

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-III ADDL. DIST.&SESSIONS,

JUDGE

(FTC)NIZAMABAD

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Petitioner. For

respondents. (Cost memo filed) (Cost memo not filed)

1.Stamp on petition Rs.

2. Stamp on power Rs.

3. Stamp on exhibits. Rs.

4. Advocate fee Rs.

5. Service of process. Rs.

6. Commissioner fee Rs.

7. Misc.Charges Rs.

8. Publication charges Rs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GIVEN under my hand and seal of the court on this the 15th day of September 2012.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-III ADDL. DIST.&SESSIONS,

JUDGE (FTC)NIZAMABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONSJUDGE) (FTC) NIZAMABAD

Present: SRI. K. RAMESH, B.Sc., LL.B., Chairman (MACT)(III-ADJ). Nizamabad.

Saturday the 22nd day of September, 2012.

O.P. No.1108 of 2007.

Between:

G.M.Shankar S/o.Gangaram aged 50years, occ: Supervisor in Adult Education R/o.H.No.1-1-1/6, Housing Board Colony, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad.

Petitioner.

And

1- The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Nizamabad Depot-I, Nizamabad.

2- The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad Hyderabad. Respondents.

This petition coming on 18th day of September 2012 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri.P.Ravikanth Sharma, Advocate for petitioner,

and Smt.V.Suma Ravinder Rao, Advocate for R1 and R2 and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

ORDER

1- This is a petition filed U/s 166 (1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 read with

Rule 455 of A. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for grant of compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 3-10-2007 at about 4-10 A.M.

2-The brief facts leading to the above mentioned accident are as under :

The petitioner is working as Supervisor in Adult Education Department at

Siddipet of Medak Dist. and that on 3-10-2007 in order to go to Siddipet the petitioner is waiting for a bus at about 4-10A.M. at Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad and the petitioner has shown his hand to stop the bus, and the bus is stopped by the driver and the petitioner boarded the bus and requested the driver to issue ticket up to Ramayampet and then the driver replied that it is a non stop one man super luxury bus and it will not be stopped at Ramayampet and asked the petitioner to get down from the bus and while the petitioner is about to get 2 the bus, the driver started the bus due to which the petitioner was thrown out of the bus as a result he sustained grievous injuries and immediately the persons who are going on the road rescued and informed to 108 vehicle and his family members and in the mean while his wife came to the spot and shifted him to

R.Bhupathi Reddy Nursing Home. The petitioner was in patient in the said hospital. The petitioner is having wife and two daughters there is no any other male member to help him and after discharge from the hospital the wife of the petitioner lodged a complaint in traffic PS. Thus the delay was caused in lodging the complaint.

3- The petitioner has been advised for rest for 6 months due to grievous injuries and incurred Rs.50,000/ towards medical expenditure and still he require further amount for the purpose of further treatment. The petitioner cannot squat, sit on the floor, and also not attending to his work and requires support 4- That the accident took place due to care less and rash driving of the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-28Z-2229 for which the respondents are the authorities hence both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/ .

5- The R1and R2 filed its counter and denied the claim of the petitioner in toto and further denied that the petitioner sustained fracture of right leg hip region and multiple injuries all over the body and that he was admitted in Dr. Bhupathi

Reddy Hospital at Nizamabad and was treated as inpatient and so far he incurred Rs.50,000/- for the treatment and that sustained permanent disability at hip region. The R1 and R2 denied the age, avocation and income of the petitioner @16,000/per.

6- The respondents further pleaded that the petitioner has suppressed the real facts and filed the petition on false allegations in order to get wrongful gain.

7- The respondents denied that on 3-10-2007 no passenger alighted from the bus bearing No.AP28-Z-2229 at Vinayaknagar Nizamabad and that the petitioner had shown his hand at Vinayaknagar to stop the said bus and the driver of the bus stopped the bus and the petitioner boarded the bus and asked the bus driver to give ticket for Ramayampet and that driver replied that it is a 3 non stop bus and it will not be stopped at Ramayampet and that the petitioner while alighting the bus the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner due to which the petitioner fell down and received injuries. That the wife of the petitioner lodged the complaint after 19 days of the alleged accident clearly shows that the petitioner managed the police and got filed false case against the driver of the bus, and that on the said date no accident was occurred with the bus bearing No.AP28-Z-2229 and that the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

8-On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed :

1- Whether the accident occurred on 3-10-2007 at about 4-10 A.M. due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Super Luxury Hi tech Bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-2229 by its driver?

2- Whether the petitioner is entitled to Compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3- To what relief?

9-In order to substantiate the claim petitioner himself examined as Pw1 and

Dr.R.Bhupathi Reddy examined as Pw2 and marked Exs.A1 to A6 and X1. On the other hand, the respondents have not adduced any evidence.

10- Heard both sides.

11-ISSUE No.(1) :- It is the case of the petitioner that on 3-10-2007 in order to go to Siddipet he was waiting at Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad at about 4-00 A.M.

and he has shown his hand to stop the bus and the bus was stopped by the driver and when the petitioner boarded the bus and asked to issue a ticket upto

Ramayampet and the driver of the bus informed him that the said bus being a non stop bus may not be stopped at Ramayampet and while the petitioner getting down the bus, the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner as a result the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. The R1 and R2 disputed the manner of accident.

12- In order to prove the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the

RTC bus, the petitioner filed his chief affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and once again reiterated the circumstances leading to the accident as well as rash and negligent manner of driving on the part of the driver of the RTC bus 4 bearing No.AP28-Z-2229 resulting the accident and marked Ex.A1 CC of FIR,

Ex.A2 CC of charge sheet. The Pw1 was cross examined on behalf of the

Respondents but nothing substantial has been brought on record to show that there was no any rash or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The R1 and R2 have not adduced any evidence in rebuttal contra to the testimony of the

Pw1 and Exs. A1and A2.

13- The accident in question occurred on 3-10-2007 at 4-10 A.M. and the report was lodged on 22-10-2007 at about 10-30 A.M. which resulted in

Cr.No.197/2007. The CI of Police PS traffic Nizamabad thoroughly investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the driver of the Bus namely

T.Balarama Krishna Murthy holding him responsible for the accident.

14- Admittedly there is a delay of 19 days in lodging the complaint with the police and it is the contention of the respondents that it is a fabricated case. The wife of the injured filed the complaint on 22-10-2007 wherein it is mentioned that she shifted her husband to the hospital and that her husband was discharged on 12-10-2007 and that he was unable to stand and there are no male persons in her family therefore there is a delay. The Pw2 Doctor stated that the petitioner came to his hospital on 3-10-2007 and after treatment the injured was discharged on 12-10-2007.

15- The counsel for the petitioner contended that as there are no any person to lodged the complaint and that the wife of the injured was with him as he was unable to stand therefore the delay occurred and relied upon a judgment in the

case of Ravi .. Appelant Vs.Badari Narayan and others .. Respondents reported

in 2011 ACJ 911 wherein their Lordships at para No.20 of the Judgment held as under:

It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimants case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to a police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush the police station, Under such circumstances they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus 5 cannot be the ground to deny justified to the claim. In case of delay the courts are required to examine the evidence with the closure scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also de- scrutinized more carefully if court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground .

The reasons assigned by the wife of the injured seems to be genuine one because the medical evidence also goes to show that the injured was under treatment till 12-10-2007 and thereafter he was unable to move. In addition to that as there are no any male member in the family of the injured as such the delay in lodging the report may not create any kind of doubt with regard to the accident in question and more particularly when the responsible police officer investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the driver the RTC bus.

The respondents have not chosen to examine the driver or any other official from the department to show that there was no any accident with the offending bus. Hence by taking into account the oral testimony of the Pw1 and coupled with

Ex.A1 and A2 it can be held that the accident resulted only due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and accordingly this issue is answered in favour of petitioner.

16- Issue No.2 :

The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on the ground that he sustained fracture of right leg hip region, and multiple injuries all over the body. The petitioner who is examined as Pw1 once again reiterated about the receipt of the afore said injuries in the accident and marked Ex.A4 CC of the injury certificate, Ex.A5 X-ray films and Ex.X1 cash sheet. In order to prove the nature of the injuries and treatment thereof the petitioner examined Pw2

Dr.R.Bhupathi Reddy who testifies that he examined the petitioner G.M.Shanker on 3-10-2007 and found the following injuries:

1- Intra capsular fracture neck of the femur right side 6

Pw2 further says that he conducted surgery on 4-10-2007 and discharged on 10-12-2007 and that the petitioner might have incurred Rs.15,000/- to 20,000/- towards hospital charges and medical expenses and marked Ex.X1.

According to the evidence of Pw2 and coupled with Ex.A4 CC of injury certificate, Ex.A5 X-ray films and Ex.X1 case sheet it appears that the petitioner sustained one grievous injuries.

17- The petitioner claimed that he incurred expenditure of Rs.50,000/- towards the medical treatment, and that he is a Govt. Employee and due to the fracture injury he sustained permanent partial disability and unable to walk. The petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence about the expenditure of

Rs.50,000/ incurred by him towards the treatment and that he is a Govt.

Employee. So far as permanent partial disability is concerned the petitioner has not produced the disability certificate. Pw2 Dr.R.Bhupthi Reddy in his chief examination itself stated that the petitioner can do normal work and also admitted during the course of cross examination that the condition of the petitioner was satisfactory at the time of the discharge and did not speak anything about the permanent partial disability. Therefore it appears that the petitioner is entitled to claim a reasonable amount of compensation towards the grievous injury sustained by him as well as reasonable amount towards the treatment of the said injuries as noted below:

1-One grievous injuryRs. 15,000/- 2-Medical expensesRs. 10,000/- 3-Pain and sufferingRs. 15,000/- ----------------- Rs. 40,000/- ------------------ 18- Both the respondents under whose control the RTC Bus in question is being run hence both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and accordingly the issue is answer in favour of the petitioner.

19- IN THE RESULT: the petition is allowed partly awarding a compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5.% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

7

Both the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month.

The petitioner is permitted to with draw the entire compensation along with costs and interest on such deposit.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only).

Typed to dictation byPersonal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of September, 2012.

Chairman, MACT, III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: (witnesses examined for)

For Petitioner :For respondents :

P.w.1 : G.M.Shankar. - NIL -.

P.w.2 : Dr.R.Bhupathi Reddy.

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

Ex.A.1 : C.C. of F.I.R., -NIL-

Ex.A2 : C.C. of charge sheet.

Ex.A.3 : CC of rough sketch map

Ex.A.4 : CC of injury certificate

Ex.A.5 : X-ray films.

Ex.A6 : Four photographs with negatives

Ex.X1 : Case sheet marked by Pw2

Chairman, MACT, III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad.

8

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) NIZAMABAD.

Present: SRI. K. RAMESH, B.Sc., LL.B., Chairman (MACT)(III-ADJ). Nizamabad.

Saturday the 22nd day of September, 2012.

O.P. No.1108 of 2007.

Between:

G.M.Shankar S/o.Gangaram aged 50years, occ: Supervisor in Adult Education R/o.H.No.1-1-1/6, Housing Board Colony, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad.

Petitioner.

And

1- The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Nizamabad Depot-I, Nizamabad.

3- The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad Hyderabad. Respondents.

CLAIM: Petition filed U/s 166 (1) (a) of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 r/w. Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with costs and interest @24% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of realization from the respondents, the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 3-10-2007 at about 4-10 A.M. at Vinayaknagar. Nizamabad.

COURT FEE: Court fee of Rs.1,860/ - is paid under rule 475 (1) (b) of APMV Rules.

This petition coming on 18th day of September 2012 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri.P.Ravikanth Sharma, Advocate for petitioner,

and Smt.V.Suma Ravinder Rao, Advocate for R1 and R2 and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the tribunal DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

1-That the petition is allowed partly awarding a compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5.% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

2-That both the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of the order.

3-That this tribunal doth further order that the petitioner is permitted to with draw the entire compensation amount along with costs and interest.

9 4-The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ (Rupees One thousand only) 5-That this Tribunal doth order that the respondents do pay a sum of Rs. to the petitioner towards the proportionate costs of the

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-III ADDL. DIST.&SESSIONS,

JUDGE (FTC)NIZAMABAD

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Petitioner. For respondents.

(Cost memo filed) (Cost memo not filed)

1.Stamp on petition Rs.

2. Stamp on power Rs.

3. Stamp on exhibits. Rs.

4. Advocate fee Rs.

5. Service of process. Rs.

6. Commissioner fee Rs.

7. Misc.Charges Rs.

8. Publication charges Rs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GIVEN under my hand and seal of the court on this the 22nd day of September 2012.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-III ADDL. DIST.&SESSIONS,

JUDGE (FTC)NIZAMABAD

10

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) NIZAMABAD.

Present: SRI. K. RAMESH, B.Sc., LL.B., Chairman (MACT)(III-ADJ). Nizamabad.

Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2012.

AS. No.38 of 2011.

Between:

J.Bharathi W/o.Sanjeev Reddy, aged about 54 years, occ: Beedi roller R/o.H.No.3-15, Gupanpally Post:Mubaraknagar, Nizamabad mandal and Dist.

Petitioner.

And

1- The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Office, Nyalkal road,//////////// -I, Nizamabad.

4- The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad Hyderabad. Respondents.

CLAIM: Petition filed U/s 166 (1) (a) of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 r/w. Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with costs and interest @24% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of realization from the respondents, the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 3-10-2007 at about 4-10 A.M. at Vinayaknagar. Nizamabad.

COURT FEE: Court fee of Rs.1,860/ - is paid under rule 475 (1) (b) of APMV Rules.

This petition coming on 18th day of September 2012 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri.P.Ravikanth Sharma, Advocate for petitioner,

and Smt.V.Suma Ravinder Rao, Advocate for R1 and R2 and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the tribunal DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

1-That the petition is allowed partly awarding a compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5.% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

2-That both the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of the order.

3-That this tribunal doth further order that the petitioner is permitted to with draw the entire compensation amount along with costs and interest.

11 4-The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ (Rupees One thousand only) 5-That this Tribunal doth order that the respondents do pay a sum of Rs. to the petitioner towards the proportionate costs of the

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-III ADDL. DIST.&SESSIONS,

JUDGE (FTC)NIZAMABAD

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Petitioner. For respondents.

(Cost memo filed) (Cost memo not filed)

1.Stamp on petition Rs.

2. Stamp on power Rs.

3. Stamp on exhibits. Rs.

4. Advocate fee Rs.

5. Service of process. Rs.

6. Commissioner fee Rs.

7. Misc.Charges Rs.

8. Publication charges Rs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GIVEN under my hand and seal of the court on this the 22nd day of September 2012.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-III ADDL. DIST.&SESSIONS,

JUDGE (FTC)NIZAMABAD

12