Smt M. Madhuri

1

APEG010034792023

FORM -A

[Rule 67 (1) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAMAHENDRAVRAM.

PRESENT: Smt. M.Madhuri, Judge,

Family Court cum IX Addl. District and Sessions Court,

Rajamahendravaram

Wednesday, the 15th day of April, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No.142/2023

(P.R.C.No.17/2022 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Addateegala in Crime No.92/2021 of Rajavommangi Police Station )

Complainant State – Represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Circle.

Represented by Additional Public Prosecutor, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.

Accused

1. Manda Murali Durgaprasad, S/o.Sathibabu, A/19 years, C/T.Kapu, Sriramanagar, Ra javommangi Village and Mandal.

2. Manda Nagamani, W/o. Sathibabu, A/40 years, C/T.Kapu, Sriramnagar, Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

3. Manda Lovababu, S/o.Sathibabu, A/23 years, C/T.Kapu, Sriramanagar, Rajavom mangi Village and Mandal.

Represented by Sri P.Rama Raju, 2

FORM -B

[Rule 67 (2) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

Date of offence 08.10.2021

Date of First Information Report 09.10.2021

Date of Charge sheet 13.12.2021

Date of Framing of Charges 17.11.2025

Date of Commence of Evidence 23.02.2026

Date on which Judgment Reserved 01.04.2026

Date of the sentencing order, if any 15.04.2026

Accused Details

Rank of the accused 1st Accused

Name of the Accused Manda Murali Durgaprasad, S/o.Sathibabu, A/19 years, C/T.Kapu, Sriramanagar, Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

Rank of the accused 2nd accused. Name of the Accused Manda Nagamani, W/o. Sathibabu, A/40 years, C/T.Kapu, Sriramnagar, Rajavom mangi illage and Mandal.

Rank of the Accused 3rd accused Name of the accused Manda Lovababu, S/o.Sathibabu, A/23 years, C/T.Kapu, Sriramanagar, Rajavom mangi Village and Mandal.

Date of Arrest 15.10.2021 Date of Release on Bail ---- Offences charged with Section 302 and 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Whether acquitted or Found not guilty 3

Sentence imposed :

In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 are found not guilty for the charge under Section 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly they are acquitted for the above said charges under Section 258(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The ball bonds of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. M.O. 1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 01.04.2026 in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri

P.Rama Raju counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 3 and after hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused No. 1 is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are facing trial for the offence punishable under

Section 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC), in Crime

No.17/2022 of Rajavommangi Police Station.

2. The provenance of the case of the prosecution as per the averments made in the charge sheet pithily is :-

A1 and A3 are sons of A2 and deceased Manda Sathibabu, and they are residents of Sriram Nagar of Rajvomangi Village. A1, A3 and the deceased are masons and A2 is an agricultural coolie. The deceased Sathibabu is addicted to alcohol. Every day he used to quarrel with A1 to A3 in drunken state, abusing A2 and beating her. He was not in the habit of giving money for expenses to run the family. Therfore, A1 to A3 placed the matter before the elders, but the deceased did not change his attitude. Because of his behaviour, the accused Nos. 1 and 3 discontinued their studies and go for work. Thereby, they felt insult before the 4 caste elders. Due to that, the 1st accused who is younger son developed resentment against him and decided to kill.

(ii)On 08.10.2021, at about 08.00 p.m., when the accused Nos. 1 and 3 returned from mason work, they found the deceased quarreling and abusing accused no. 2. After sometime he went out and returned in a drunken state. Again he quarreled with accused no. 2, abused her in filthy language and slept on a folding cot in the varandah. A2 and A3 slept in the bedroom while A1 slept on another cot in the varandah. But the accused No.1 did not get sleep as he was furious against deceased. albeit his repeated admonishings, he did not change.

Therefore, he decided to kill him. He went to Cattle Shed, secured a small iron rod like crowbar, returned to the house, beat the deceased on chest, stabbed on his neck indiscriminately. On that the deceased raised cries as “Amma” and came to the doorway. Again the he beat the deceased with the iron rod. Due to that, the deceased fell on the stone, which is used for washing clothes, received bleeding injuries on his back and fell without movement.

(iii)Due to fear, the 1st accused went to bedroom, woke up accused nos.

2 and 3 and narrated the matter. They came outside and found him dead. Then accused no. 2 chastised the accused no. 1, stating ‘inthapani chesa ventira’ and shifted the dead body of the deceased to the folding cot. They changed the clothes of the deceased as there was bleeding, washed the blood-stained clothes, screened the blood stains on veranda, stone, also doorway, on the deceased and applied turmeric. They made rush as if they intended to take him to hospital to avoid suspicion in the public by making phone call to knowing persons by name

Marse Marini Raju, but as he did not pick up the call, accused No.2 went to the house of their neighbour of Annam Satyanarayan and informed that in a drunken state the deceased fell on the stone received injuries and died.

(iv)After that the 1st accused had thrown the iron rod used by him to stab the deceased in Somireddy Cheruvu near their house and returned. The 5 neighbour, Annam Satyanarayana, after receipt of information by accused No.2, rushed to the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying dead in front of his thatched house, with bleeding injuries on his face, neck, and back side of his head, and scratches on his person, blood stains near dead body, verandah, near clothes washing stone and noticed the wife of the deceased and his children are in fear and seeing the same, he suspected someone stabbed the deceased with a sharp-edged weapon and enquired A1 to A3 what had happened. They stated that the deceased fell on clothes washing stone and sustained bleeding injuries. He intimated the same to the mother of the deceased Manda Rajamma and another neighbour Narapareddy apparao. When the brothers and sister of the deceased i.e. Manda Narayanrao, Dhanaboyana Nookaratnam, asked the accused No.2 to lodge report before the police, she stated that what is to be happened has happened and they will proceed with the last rites.

(v)On comining to know about his suspicious death, the Village Revenue

Officer – 2, Kocha Bhulakshmi gave report. Basing on it, T.G.Prasad, the Sub

Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi registered a case in Crime No. 92 of 2021 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code on 09.10.2021 at 11.30 a.m., and the

Inspector of Rajabomangi took up further investigation as it is a grave in nature, examined the scene, prepared rough sketch, and prepared scene observation report in the presence of mediators Gallapudi Peddiraju, MPTC of Rajvomangi and Kanagiri Drakshayana Rao between 01.00 p.m. to 02.00 p.m. photographed the scene, collected blood stained earth and controll earth, conducted inquest over dead body between 02.10 p.m. to 04.10 p.m. in the presence of

Panchayathdas and blood relatives, examined the witnesses and forwarded the dead body to the autopsy to Community Health Centre at Addateegala. As the

Inspector suspected the involvement of family members of the deceased i.e.

accused nos. 1 to 3, he did not secure them and did not record their statements.

6

(vi)On 15.10.2021 at 10.00 a.m., the Village Revenue Officer by name

Suryakantam of Doosarapamu Village, came to police station along with accused

No.1 and presented a report contending that he gave confession and that the

Inspector secured mediators. K. Draksayana Rao and Kapu Appalakonda and recorded the confessional statement between 10.30 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. and in pursuance of the said confession, he arrested accused nos. 2 and 3 on 15.10.2021 at 12.15 p.m. at their house in the presence of same mediators and recorded their confessional statements of tampering the evidence. In pursuance of the confession of the accused No.1, he seized the weapon from

Somireddycharuvu with the help of Swimmer/ Matta Nanaji, in the presence of the said mediators between 03.45 p.m. to 04.45 p.m.

(vii)Subsequently, the material objects were sent to Regional Forensic

Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. The report of RFSL shows no poisonous substance in the material objects, blood is detected on the blood stained earth and it is of human origin and there was no blood is detected on the control earth. The doctor who conducted the autopsy gave final opinion that the death is due to asphyxia leads to cardio pulmonary arrest. Thus, A1 killed the deceased with iron rod and A2 and A3 are liable for the offence under Section 201 read with 34 IPC for tampering evidence.

3. Upon consideration of the entire material placed on record, the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addateegala took cognizance of offence

punishable under Section 302 and 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused Nos. 1 to 3. As the offences alleged under Section 302 and 201 r/w 34 of

Indian penal Code are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Court, East Godavari,

Rajamahendravaram after duly following the procedure under Section 209 of

Code of Criminal Procedure. The Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, East

Godavari Division, Rajamahendravaram took the case on file, numbered the same 7 as S.C.No.142/2023 and made over the same to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.

4. Upon appearance of the accused Nos. 1 to 3, heard the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel defending the accused respectively. Upon consideration of arguments of both sides, coupled with entire material placed on record, as per provisions of Section 251 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita (herein after referred to B.N.S.S) charges are framed for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they denied the above said charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused on behalf of the prosecution

PWs.1 to 11 are examined and Exs.P1 to P23 and Mo.1 is marked.

6. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused are examined under section 351 of B.N.S.S. explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same. The 2nd accused submitted that the deceased is habituated to alcohol and they used to bring home wherever he fell down. On 8th one Allam Satyanarayana came and informed that the deceased fell on the gravel road, they went there and found him unconscious. Then, Satyanarayana stated the deceased is no more, then they brought one Doctor and the doctor also stated the same. They three of them,

Satyanarayana and other three persons brought the deceased. They informed to their relatives and while they are preparing for last rites, the police came and took three of them. Again they were brought at the time of funerals and again took them to police station.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8

8. Now, the points for consideration are:- “Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the

charge leveled against the accused No. 1 for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and against

accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section

201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9.Point No.1:

The admitted facts are A3 is the elder son and A1 is younger son of A2 and the deceased. The deceased is addicted to alcohol. Accused nos. 1 and 3 and deceased are doing mason works and A2 is an agricultural coolie.

(ii)Before entering into discussion, it is apposite to mention here that,

Manda Rajamma, the mother of the deceased and one Annam Satyanarayana are cited as material witnesses, but they could not be examined since the said witnesses are expired.

10.The case of the prosecution is due to addiction to alcohol, the deceased, without giving his earnings for the family expenses, always used to quarrel with A1 to A3 and abuse and beat A2, due to which, A1 and A3 could not continue their studies, and there was no change in his behaviour in spite of admonitions by the elders when they placed the matter before them. Therefore, A1 developed grouse against the deceased. While things stood thus, on 08.10.2021 by the time A1 and

A3 returned from mason work at about 08.00 p.m. the deceased was quarreling and abusing A2. After sometime he went out and returned in a drunken state, again quarreled with accused No.2, abused her and slept on a folding cot in the varandah. A2 and A3 slept in the bedroom whereas A1 also slept on another folding cot in the varandah. But A1 did not get sleep, as he was enraged by the behaviour of the deceased, having decided to kill him, picked up an iron rod like crowbar from the cattle shed and beat the deceased on the chest, stabbed on his neck indiscriminately. When the deceased, by raising cries as Amma, came near 9 to the doorway, again he beat the deceased with iron rod, due to which he fell on clothes washing stone and received bleeding injury on his back and fell without any movement. Then A1 with fear went inside, woke up A2 and A3, narrated the same. Then A2 admonished A1 and came out and found the deceased dead, shifted him to the cot and cleaned the blood stains, blood stained clothes and blood stains in varandah, clothes wahsing stone and doorway and called the neighbours to avoid suspicion stating that he fell down in drunken state and died.

Subsequently on 15.10.2021, A1 made confession before the Village Revenue

Officer, Doosarpamu. Based on the confession of A1, A2 and A3 were arrested.

On the same day, and the weapon was recovered from Somireddywari tank.

11.It may be noted that there are no eyewitnesses to the case and the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. As rightly urged by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor by placing reliance on decision of Hon’ble

Apex Court in Nawab Vs. State of Uttarkhand 1 and Anees Vs. State of

Government of NCT 2 that as per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, if an offence takes place inside a Privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence is insisted by the courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished, and a judge also presides to see that a guilty man cannot be escaped. It is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of Evidence Act, it says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving the fact is upon him. But solely on that ground, the court cannot come to a conclusion, it is the inmates who committed the offence, unless there is any corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.

1(2020) 2 SCC 376 2Criminal Appeal No.437 of 2015 10

12.The law is well settled, suspicion how strong may be is not substitute for evidence. Therefore, in the backdrop of this admitted legal prepositions the evidence has to be appreciated.

13.The law is said to be set into motion basing on Ex.P1 report of PW1 Village

Revenue Officer-2 of Rajavommangi. She deposed that on 09.10.2021 at about 08.30 a.m., while she was at her house, on receipt of information from villagers about the death of the deceased Sathibabu, she rushed to his house in

Sriramnagar and found the dead body in the front yard. She also found turmeric was applied to his face and bleeding injuries on his cheek and on both sides of neck. As the neighbours did not give any information, she enquired with the wife of the accused and children A1 to A3. They also did not give any information. On suspicion, she lodged Ex. P1 report.

(ii)Manda Narayan Rao, the younger brother of the deceased is examined as PW2. His evidence goes to show he is residing in Irripaka Village.

He further deposed that the deceased and his family used to live happily. About 4 years ago( his evidence was recorded on 23.02.2026) on on 9th at 03.00 a.m., A3 rang and informed that his father fell on a stone by consuming liquor and died. At about 07.00 or 08.00 a.m., when he along with his wife reached the house of the deceased, they found the dead body in the varandah with injuries on his cheek and neck and turmeric was applied to his face. When he enquired about the accused, they did not give proper answer. He also deposed that the accused used to consume liquor and V.R.O. gave report to police.

(iii)Namburi Kanthamani is the younger sister of the deceased, she is examined as P.W.3. It is her evidence that they are total 5 siblings, among the five, the deceased is 2nd child. Her mother and the deceased used to reside in

Rajavommangi in different houses. She deposed that about 4 years ago (her evidence is recorded on 24.02.2026) at about 02.00 a.m., she received a phone call from the accused No.1 informing the deceased died by falling on a stone.

11

When she expressed that, no conveyance is available for her at that, he sent a vehicle. At about 05.00 a.m., she reached house and found the dead body in front of the house. Turmeric was applied on his face and injuries are on his body including neck. When she enquired what had happened they told that he fell on stone and died. On Suspicion, she asked them to give report, but they stated that there is no need. Then, the Village Revenue Officer came and gave report. She further deposed that the younger son was not found at that place and A2 and A3 were only present in the house and she does not know the A1 was inside the house or not. She also deposed that the deceased was in the habit of taking liquor. Long Prior to his death, once there was a dispute between the deceased and his wife, but again they reconciled, constructed a house, at that time also there was a dispute, but later they lived together. But she does not know the details of the disputes.

(iv)Narapureddy Apparao, is examined as a material witness being neighbour to show the circumstances giving raise to suspicion over the accused, as he did not find the 1st accused since the Village Revenue Officer gave report to the police and once, in his presence the accused No.1 threatened the deceased (to kill). But, he turned hostile and deposed that the deceased is a drunkard. But, he does not know about his family affairs. He does not know how the deceased died, but he died about 4 years ago. At about 06.00 a.m., on coming to know about his death,he saw the dead body by standing at a distance as by then he was constructing a new house, he was advised not to go to the house of the deceased and he does not know any other facts of the case.

(v)P.W.5 Gorle Suryakantham is the Village Revenue officer of

Dusarapamu. Her evidence is on 15.10.2021 at about 09.00 a.m., the accused

No.1 came to her house and made confession that by consuming liquor his father used to abuse him and his mother, that therefore, he vexed with his behaviour and decided to kill him. That on 08.10.2021 in the night also, his father by consuming 12 liquor as usual abused them. Therefore, he decided to kill him, took up an iron crowbar, which is like a rod available in their cattle shed behind their house and while his father is sleeping killed by stabbing several times. Then, he informed the same to his mother and elder brother. They chastised him as it will become a police case, they wiped out the blood stains in the house and also on the dead body and applied turmeric and escaped into the forest with a fear that the police may apprehend him.

(vi)She further deposed that he had told that he had thrown the weapon into the tank near their house. With fear that if the police apprehends him they may beat him, he came to her to surrender thinking that if he confesses the guilt, the police will not beat him. Then, she preared Ex.P3 report and handed over the accused to the police along with the report.

(vii)P.W.6 Matta Nanaji is examined to prove the recovery of M.O.1 iron rod from the tank on the confession of the the accused No.1. His evidence goes to show that he is a tractor driver and also knows swimming. It is his evidence that about 4 years ago(his evidence is recorded on 25.02.2026), on 15th at about 1.00 p.m., Rajavommani Police made a phone call and asked him to come to

Narapureddy Tank, but as he was already engaged in driving, he informed that he will be available in the afternoon. Then, they asked him to come by 3.00 p.m.

Accordingly, when he went there, the police, village elders like President and others also came there. The accused No.1 was also there. On the request of the police, he searched for the weapon and took out M.O.1 from the tank and handed over the same to the police.

(viii)P.W.7 Dr. G.Bhaskar, is the doctor, who is said to have conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P4 preliminary report and also Ex.P6 final report basing on

Ex.P5 RFSL Report.

13

(ix)P.W.8 Kanigiri Draskshayana Rao is the Village Revenue Officer of

Kindra is examined as a mediator to Ex.P7 scene observation report and Ex.P8 inquest. His evidence shows that during inquest, Exs.P9 to P16 photographed are taken. He also examined as mediator for arrest of the accused. He deposed that on 15.10.2021 at about 09.00 a.m., the Inspector through his staff made a phone call to him asking him to come to the police station. By 10.00 a.m., he reached the police station. By then, P.W.5 and another person were present along with the

Inspector. At about 10.30 a.m., he went into the chambers of the Inspector. Then, the Inspector interrogated the other person, who disclosed his name as Manda

Durga Prasad and also the names of his parents and brother. That his father addicted to alcohol and quarrels in the house daily and his confession reveals that his brother and mother helped him in wiping out the blood stains at his house and he had thrown the weapon into the tank behind his house under Ex.P17 admissible portion of the mediators report recorded between 10.30 a.m. to 12.00

Noon.

(x)It is his further evidence that in pursuance of the said confession under Ex.P17, the Inspector, himself and Village Revenue Assistant lead by the 1st accused/Durga Prasad proceeded to the house of the accused No.1 and there, on seeing the police, when accused Nos. 2 and 3 tried to escape, the Inspector apprehended them with the help of the staff and interrogated them separately, arrested and brought them to police Station.

(xi)He further deposed that the Inspector asked him to come at 3.30 p.m., after taking lunch. At about 3.10 p.m., he along with Inspector, the 1st accused/Durga Prasad, Village Revenue Assistant K.Appikonda proceeded to

Narapureddy Vari tank. P.W.6 also reached there. P.W.6 went into the tank and took out M.O.1 iron rod. The Inspector seized it under Ex.P18 seizure report and affixed identification slips.

14

(xii)P.W.9 is the then Sub-Inspector Of Police, Rajavommangi, deposed as to registering Ex.P19 First Information Report basing on Ex.P1 report of P.W.1 on 09.10.2021 at 11.30 a.m.,

(xiii)P.Ws 10 and 11 are the Investigation Officers.

14.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor by referring to the evidence of

P.Ws. 10 and Ex.P8 inquest report, urged the following 14 injuries are found during inquest and the inquest Panchayatdars opined that the deceased died due to the injuries.

1. A bleeding injury on the left side of the neck

2. A bleeding injury on the right side of collar bone

3. A bleeding injury on the right neck

4. A bleeding injury on the right side of the fore head.

5. A bleeding injury on the left side of the lips.

6. An abrasion on the middle of the chest.

7. An abrasion on the left side of the chest.

8. An abrasion on the left collar bone

9. A contusion on left ribs.

10. A bleeding injury on the back side of head in the shape of eye.

11. An abrasion on the right side of the back.

12. An abrasion on the middle of the back.

13. A contusion on the left shoulder.

14. A contusion on the left side of the back.

(ii)He further urged that though the defence counsel took the plea during cross-examination with regard to injuries that if a person fell on a road in a drunken state of mind, there is possibility of sustaining injuries which were find on the dead body of the deceased in this case. But, the medical report does not disclose about consumption of alcohol by the deceased. Therefore, at the time of incident, the deceased was not in the state of influence of alcohol. Therefore, it is only clear cut homicidal death.

(iii)It may be noted that though in Ex.P4 postmortem report, the doctor did not mention about the traces of any alcohol and Ex.P5 RFSL Report also does not show any traces of alcohol or poisonous substance, but, it may be noted that 15

P.W.7 who is said to have conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P4 only mentioned multiple contusion injuries all over the body and head region and observed bleeding from nose and mouth angle.

(iv)But, it is very sad to observe by this court such a postmortem

report is not at all expected from an expert like a Doctor. Even in Ex.P8

inquest report, Panchayatdars gave details of injuries found on the dead

body as 14 injuries (mentioned supra), which is deposed by P.W.10, the

Investigation Officer.

(v)It may be noted that it is very surprising to mention, according to the prosecution, the 1st accused stabbed with M.O.1 on his neck indiscriminately which is having sharp edge on one side. But, P.W.7 is not at all mentioned any incised wound. What is mentioned in the postmortem report is multiple contusion injuries. On the other hand, during cross-examination, he admitted that he did not find any incised injuries during postmortem examination. Further, in Ex.P4 postmortem report, he did not mention any injuries on head and neck region. On the other hand, it is mentioned skull is intact, brain and meninges and cerebral vessels are intact, orbital nasal, accessory nasal are intact, mouth, tongue and pharynx are intact, neck larvynx, thyroid and other neck structures are intact. But, surprisingly, when there was no injury to neck, he gave final opinion under Ex.P6 that the death might be Asphyxia leads to cardio pulmonary arrest. When this court examined P.W.7 for giving such opinion, he deposed that he found the cause of death is due to asphyxia as he found contusions around the neck.

(vi)Thus, the medical evidence is not corroborating the version of the prosecution. Moreover, the medical evidence of P.W.7 is not at all helpful which is even does not contain the details of the injuries find on the dead body except vague statement of multiple contusions all over the body.

16

(vii)The other evidence available for prosecution to connect the accused to the offence is, the confession said to have been made by the accused No.1 to

P.W.5. Such an evidence of extra judicial confession though relevant has to be appreciated with great caution. The reliability has to be tested with corroborative circumstances.

(viii)Coming to the case on hand, it is elicited from P.W.5 that she has no prior acquaintance with the accused No.1. The accused are residents of

Sriramnagar, Rajavommangi, whereas, P.W.5 is Village Revenue Officer of

Dusarapamu. When there is no acquaintance between the accused No.1 and

P.W.5, when she is not the Village Revenue officer of Rajavommangi going to her and giving confession after lapse of two days is doubtful. Moreover, as rightly contended by the learned defence counsel, the evidence of P.W.5 is, the accused

No.1 came to her house at 09.00 a.m., on 15.10.2021 to give confession. After giving confession, she went to the police station along with him and presented

Ex.P3 report. But, she has not recorded the confession of the accused No.1 separately and obtain his signature. What is Ex.P3 is a report give by her contending that the accused No.1 has stated to her. Then, it is an hearsay.

(ix)It is here peculiar to note as elicited from P.W.5 that there is ‘x’ mark at her signature. It is further elicited from her that she is in the habit of writing reports and whenever she writes any report, if signature of anybody is to be obtained, she keeps ‘x’ mark. But, in the case on hand, it is she, who is presenting report, but she placed ‘x’ mark. It creates any amount of suspicion, especially, when it is suggested to her that Ex.P3 is prepared by police and subsequently she signed on it.

(x)As already discussed supra, according to her the accused No.1 came to her at 09.00 a.m., and then, after giving confession by him, she went to police station. But the evidence of P.W.8, who is said to be mediator before whom, the inspector said to have interrogated the accused No.1 after presenting Ex.P3 17 report by P.W.5 along with the accused No.1, is the police called him to come to police station on 15.10.2021 at 09.00 a.m., If the evidence of P.W.5 is taken into consideration, by 09.00 a.m., P.W.10 has no knowledge that the accused No.1 is coming to give confession or P.W.5 is bringing the accused No.1. The evidence of

P.W.10 is, P.W.5 came with the 1st accused on 15.10.2021 at 10.00 a.m., and presented Ex.P3 report. Therefore, his calling P.W.8 at 09.00 a.m., itself gives raise to suspicion.

(xi)Above all, the evidence of P.Ws. 9 and 10, who took up investigation immediately after registration of Ex.P19 first information report is not that he did not find the accused Nos. 1 to 3 near the dead body on that day, but for the first time, the prosecution tried to improve the version from the evidence of P.W.3 by eliciting that she did not find the younger son (the accused No.1) at the place. At the same time, she gave an evasive reply that she does not know the accused

No.1 was inside the house or not. However, her evidence goes to show that she came to the house of the deceased at 05.00 a.m., But, according to her evidence, it is the accused No.1, who informed her over phone at 2.00 a.m., about the death of the deceased and also arranged vehicle when she expressed that no conveyance is available to her to come at that time.

(xii)Moreover, as per the evidence of P.W.2, the accused No.3 informed him over phone at 03.00 a.m., and he reached the house of the deceased at 07.00 or 08.00 a.m.. The evidence of P.W.1 is she came at about 08.30 a.m., and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is they enquired about the accused Nos. 1 to 3 as to what had happened after they reached the house of the deceased. Moreover, it is elicited from P.W.1 that the police enquired the accused Nos. 1 to 3 as to the cuase of the death. Therefore, the accused No.1 absconded, since the registration of first information is falsified by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2.

Further, as per the evidence of P.W.9 the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered

Ex.P19 first information report, has deposed that P.W.1 submitted report at 11.30 18 a.m., on 09.10.2021. But, it is elicited from P.Ws. 2 and 3 that the police came at about 09.00 a.m., and it is further elicited from P.W.3 that the dead body was shifted to Hospital at 10.00 a.m.. That means, even before registering Ex.P14-first information report, the police arrived and the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were there.

(xiii)The contention of the prosecution is since they suspected the involvement of the accused Nos. 1 to 3, they did not enquire them. But it is not that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are not found at that place. But, when the investigation officer did not enquire or get explanation from the accused Nos. 1 to 3, the prosecution now cannot contend that they did not explain how the death has happened as per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, as already stated, the accused No.2 during 313 examined gave her explanation in detail. Of course, it is not equivalent to evidence. But, the evidence of P.W.10 is he did not sought explanation from them.

(xiv)Further, P.W.3 categorically testified during cross-examination as the police took A2 and A3, they only performed the funerals as A2 and A3 were in police custody. P.W.1 also categorically testified during cross-examination the police took the accused into custody and taken them to Rajavommangi police station after sending the dead body for postmortem examination. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 shows the accused were taken into custody on 09.10.2021 itself.

(xv)Moreover, It is to be noted that the evidence of P.W.6 is, he took out

M.O.1 from Narapureddy Tank. It is elicited from P.W.5 that in Ex.P3 report, she has not mentioned that the accused No.1 confessed that he had thrown the weapon into the tank. It is admitted by P.W.6 that Somisettivari Tank is near to the house of the accused and there are several tanks in their village. P.W.8 also deposed as if M.O.1 is seized under Ex.P18 from Narapareddy Tank. But it is admitted by him during cross-examination that as per Ex.P18, the weapon was recovered from Somisetti Vari Tank. The evidence of P.W10 is after arresting the 19 accused Nos. 2 and 3 in pursuance of the confession of accused No.1, he along with the accused Nos. 1 to 3, proceeded to Somisetti Vari Tank where, the 1st accused told to have thrown way the weapon. Therefore, as per the evidence of

P.W.10 and Ex.P18, M.O.1 is recovered from Somisettivari Tank, but the evidence of P.W.6 and 8 is it is recovered from Narapareddyvari Tank.

(xvi)Further, according to P.W.10 the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were also taken to the tank at the time of recovery, but the evidence of P.W.6 does not disclose the presence of accused Nos. 2 and 3 at the time of recovery of M.O.1. It may be noted that the evidence of P.W.6 is, he has facial acquaintance with the accused

Nos. 1 to 3 and they belong to the same village. Therefore, had really, the accused Nos.2 and 3 were present, he would not have stated the presence of the 1st accused alone. Thus,there is no consistency and corroboration with regard to recovery of M.O.1.

(xvii) The another suspicious circumstance as per the version of the prosecution is applying turmeric on the face of the deceased. According to the prosecution, in order to cover up the injuries, turmeric was applied by the accused. But, it is admitted by P.W.2 that there is a custom in their community of applying turmeric before taking for funerals.

15.In the light of the above discussion, I found that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 302 of

Indian Penal Code and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence under Section 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

16. Point No.3:

In view of answer to point Nos. 1 and 2, it is found the prosecution failed to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.

20

In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 are found not guilty for the charge under Section 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly they are acquitted for the above said charges under Section 258(1) of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The ball bonds of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. M.O. 1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court, this the 15th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-Smt M.Madhuri

JUDGE,

Family court cum IX Additional District and Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram.

FORM -C

[Rule 67 (3) of Criminal Rules of Practice] List of prosecution/defence/court witnesses

A. Prosecution: RankNameNature of evidence P.W.1 Kocha Bhulakshmi Village Revenue Officer and complainant P.W.2 Manda Narayana Rao The brother of the deceased P.W.3 Namburi KanthamaniThe sister of the deceased to speak about informing the death of deceased by A1. P.W.4 Narapureddy Apparao is a neigbour and material evidence to prove the intention of the 1st accused to Kill the deceased. P.W.5 Gorle Surya KumariVillage Revenue Officer, before whom, the 1st accused gave confession about the offence. P.W.6 Matta Nagaraju Swimmer who took out the M.O.1 from Narapureddyvari Tank. P.W.7Dr.G.BhaskarThe Doctor who conducted autopsy and issued final report. P.W.8Kanigiri Draskhayana Mediator for scene observation, inquest Rao for arrest of the accused.

21

P.W.9T.S.N.Prasad The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajavomm- angi who regitered the crime. P.W.10R.Ravi Kumar The Investigation officer. P.W.11M.Naga Durga Rao The investigation who filed the charge Sheet.

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RankNameNature of evidence Nil. C. Court witnesses, if any:

RankNameNature of evidence Nil.

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS [Rule 67 (3) ]

A. Prosecution :

Sl.NExhibitMarkedDescription o.No.through 1Ex.P1P.W.1Report submitted by P.W.1 to the Police 2Ex.P2 P.W.4 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 3Ex.P3 P.W.5Report submitted to police by P.W.5 after recording the confession of teh accused.

4Ex.P4P.W.7Preliminary report given by the Doctor.

5Ex.P5 P.W.7Regional Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 24.01.2022 6Ex.P6P.W.7Final Opinon given by the doctor.

7. Ex.P7P.W.8Scene observatio Report.

8.Ex.P8P.W.8Inquest report

9. Ex.P9 toP.W.8Positive Photographs P.16 10Ex.P17P.W.8Admissible portion in the mediators report dated 15.10.2021 recorded between 10.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon.

11Ex.P18P.W.8Seizure report 22 12Ex.P19P.W.9First Information Report in Crime No.92/2021 13Ex.P20P.W.10Final opinon from RFSL 14Ex.P21P.W.11Letter of request dated 25.12.2021.

15Ex.P22P.W.11Letter of advise dated 25.10.2021

Material objects marked

M.O.1: Iron road (marked through P.W.6)

Sd/-Smt M.Madhuri

JUDGE,

Family court cum IX Additional District and Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram.

23

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAMAHENDRAVRAM.

PRESENT: Smt. M.Madhuri, Judge,

Family Court cum IX Addl. District and Sessions Court,

Rajamahendravaram

Wednesday, the 15th day of April, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No.142/2023

(P.R.C.No.17/2022 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Addateegala in Crime No.92/2021 of Rajavommangi Police Station )

Complainant State – Represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Circle.

Represented by Additional Public Prosecutor, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.

Accused

1. Manda Murali Durgaprasad, S/o.Sathibabu, A/19 years, C/T.Kapu, Sriramanagar, Ra javommangi Village and Mandal.

2. Manda Nagamani, W/o. Sathibabu, A/40 years, C/T.Kapu, Sriramnagar, Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

3. Manda Lovababu, S/o.Sathibabu, A/23 years, C/T.Kapu, Sriramanagar, Rajavom mangi Village and Mandal.

Represented by Sri P.Rama Raju, Defence Counsel.

Date of Arrest 15.10.2021 Date of Release on Bail 31.12.2021 Offences charged with 302, 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Plea of the accused Not guilty Whether acquitted or 24

In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 are found not guilty for the charge under Section 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly they are acquitted for the above said charges under Section 258(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The ball bonds of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. M.O. 1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

a) Offence 08.10.2021

b) Committal 02.05.2023

c) Receipt of record 10.05.2023

d) Appearance of accused 21.07.2023

e) Commencement of trial 23.02.2026

f) Closure of trial 13.03.2026

g) Judgment pronounced on 15.04.2026

Explanation for delay :

This case record is received as made over from the Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Court, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram on 12.06.2023. On 17.11.2025, the accused examined under Sec.251 B.N.S.S. and Charges have been framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the same and claimed to be tried. Trial is commenced from 23.02.2026 and concluded on 13.03.2026. Accused were examined under Section 351 B.N.S.S. on 13.03.2026. After hearing the arguments on 01.04.2026, Judgment is pronounced on 15.04.2026. Hence there is no unavoidable delay.

Sd/-Smt M.Madhuri

JUDGE,

Family court cum IX Additional District and Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram.

1.The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District. 2.The Directorate of Prosecution, Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District. 3.The Hon'ble District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada. 5.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Addateegala. 6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Rajamahendravaram.

APEG010062942025

FORM -A

[Rule 67 (1) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAMAHENDRAVRAM.

PRESENT: Smt. M.Madhuri, Judge,

Family Court cum IX Addl. District and Sessions Court,

Rajamahendravaram

Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No.382/2025

(P.R.C.No.37/2025 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Rampachodavaram in Crime No.31/2025 of Maredumilli Police Station )

Complainant State – Represented by the Inspector of Police, Maredumilli Circle. Alluri Seetharamaraju District.

Represented by Additional Public Prosecutor, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.

Accused Naini Lakshmi, W/o. Somi Reddy, Aged 49 years, Caste ST, Konda Reddy, D.No. 2-31/ A, Chaldirevula, Vaidipudi (v), Maredumilli Mandal.

Represented by Sri G.Mahesh, Legal Aid Counsel.

FORM -B

[Rule 67 (2) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

Date of offence 03.06.2025

Date of First Information Report 07.06.2025

Date of Charge sheet 25.09.2025

Date of Framing of Charges 31.12.2025 2

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

Date of Commence of Evidence 05.03.2026

Date on which Judgment Reserved 29.04.2026

Date of the sentencing order, if any 30.04.2026

Accused Details

Rank of the accused Sole Accused Name of the Accused Naini Lakshmi, W/o. Somi Reddy, Aged 49 years, Caste ST, Konda Reddy, D.No. 2-31/ A, Chaldirevula, Vaidipudi (v), Maredumilli

Date of Arrest 03.08.2025 Date of Release on Bail Under Trail Prisoner Offences charged with Section 105 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Whether acquitted or Found not guilty

Sentence imposed : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge under section 105 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha. Accordingly she is acquitted for the above said charges under Section 258(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. M.O. 1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. The Superintendent, State Jail for Women, Rajamahendravaram is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if she is not required in any other case.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 29.04.2026 in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri

G.Mahesh, Legal Aid Counsel for accused and after hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 105 of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (herein after referred as B.N.S.), in Crime No.31/2025 of

Maredumilli Police Station.

2. The provenance of the case of the prosecution as per the averments made in the charge sheet pithily is :- 3

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

The accused is the wife of the deceased Naini Somireddy. They are residents of Chalidirevula Street, Vydhapudi Village, D.V.Kota Panchayat,

Maredumilli and they blessed with two daughters who are Sundam Mahalakshmi and Bodika Satyaveni and they are married. The accused and the deceased used to grow cashew nut grove and also forming for their livelihood. The deceased

Naini Somireddy is a drunkard and used to quarrel with his wife i.e., the accused frequently. Their family disputes were placed before the elders viz., Battchala Adi

Reddy and Chavala Abbai Reddy. Though, the elders admonished the deceased for his acts and advised not to quarrel with the accused, he continued his harassment.

(ii)While so, on 06.06.2025 at 09.30 a.m., the younger brother of the deceased by name Naini Mangi Reddy, a resident of Sripuram Village on coming to know that the deceased was admitted in Area Hospital due to ill-health, he rushed there and noticed that his brother was undergoing treatment and the elder daughter of the deceased was there in the hospital. He found a bandage to his left knee, his left eye was black and was swollen. When he enquired his brother as to the injuries, his brother told him that he and his wife fought on 03.06.2025 and he was shifted to Vaidipudi Hospital, after getting first aid, he was shifted to areal hospital, Rampchodavaram by 108 Ambulance. Thereafter, the said Mangi reddy shifted his brother i.e., the deceased to the Government General Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram by 108 Ambulance and the Doctor, after examining him, at 07.45 p.m., declared him as brought dead. As he got suspicion about his death, he submitted report to police seeking necessary action.

(iii)Basing on his report, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Maredumilli,

K.Srinivasa Rao, on 07.06.2025 at 06.30 p.m., registered a case in Crime No.

31/2025 under Section 194 of B.N.S.S. and submitted First Information Report to

Mandal Executive Magistrate, Maredumilli and copies to concerned officers. Then, 4

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm by securing the Village Revenue Officer, Shaik Sattar Saheb and Village Revenue

Assistant Kintukuri Ananda Raju, he visited the scene of offence at Vaidapudi

Village on 08.06.2025 at 05.30 p.m., got drafted the scene observation report and prepared rough sketch there of and examined the informant Naini Mangi Reddy and four other witnesses and recorded their statements.

(iv)Then, he visited the mortuary at Government General Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram, secured the Panchayatdars, Shaik Sattar Saheb, Village

Revenue Officer, and Kintukuri Ananda Raju, Village Revenue Assistant and blood relatives and conducted inquest.

(v)On 03.08.2025 at 10.00 a.m., the accused approached Shaik Sattar

Saheb, The Village Revenue Officer, of D.V. Kota Village of Maredumilli Mandal and confessed that she beat the deceased Naini Somireddy with a bamboo stick on his head and body due to unbearable harassment caused by him and kept the bamboo stick in her house and left the village due to fear. Then, Shaik Sattar

Saheb, Village Revenue officer, basing on the statement, prepared report and produced the accused before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Maredumulli.

(vi)Basing on the report of Shaik Sattar Saheb and postmortem report issued by the Doctor, who conducted autopsy with his opinion that the deceased died due to head injury associated by other multiple injuries over the body, he altered the section of law from 194 of B.N.S.S. to Section 105 of B.N.S. on 03.08.2025 at 01.00 p.m., and filed alteration memo before the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court, Rampachodavram.

(vii)The Inspector of Police, Maredumilli Circle, TGN Prasad, took up investigation, secured the presence of Talluri Ganesh Reddy, Village Revenue

Officer, Maredumilli Circle and Village Revenue Assistant Kintukuri Ananda Raju and between 02.00 p.m. to 02.30 p.m., got recorded the confessional statement of 5

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm the accused and along with other staff, both mediators and accused visited the

Chalidirevula Street, Vaidapudi Village and seized bamboo stick contains blood stains from the roof of the house of the accused, seized the same between 04.30 p.m. to 05.00 p.m., under the cover of mediators report. He also secured the witnesses and examined and recorded their statements. Then, he arrested the accused at 03.30 p.m., and forwarded her to Judicial Custody.

(viii)He prepared letter of advise and sent the seized bamboo stick to

Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Vijayawada through the Sub-Divisional

Police Officer, Rampachodavaram for chemical analysis. After analyzing the said object, they issued report with an opinion that the stick contains ‘A’ group human blood and after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet.

3. Upon consideration of the entire material placed on record, the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram took cognizance of offence

punishable under Section 105 of B.N.S against accused. As the offence alleged under Section 105 of B.N.S. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Court, East Godavari,

Rajamahendravaram after duly following the procedure under Section 232 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (herein after will be referred as B.N.S.S.).

The Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari Division,

Rajamahendravaram took the case on file, numbered the same as

S.C.No.382/2025 and made over the same to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.

4. Upon appearance of the accused, heard the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor as well as the learned legal aid counsel on behalf of the accused respectively. Upon consideration of arguments of both sides, coupled with entire material placed on record, as per provisions of Section 251 of B.N.S.S. charges 6

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm are framed for the offence punishable under Section 105 B.N.S. against the accused, read over and explained to her in vernacular language, for which she denied the above said charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused on behalf of the prosecution

PWs.1 to 9 are examined and Exs.P1 to P19 and Mo.1 is marked.

6. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under section 351 of B.N.S.S. explaining the incriminating material found against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and she denied the same. She stated that her husband received injuries by falling from tree, but her brother-in-law, by taking money available in the almyrah in their house and their land, foisted the case.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8. Now, the points for consideration are:- “Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the

charge leveled against the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 105 of B.N.S. beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9.Point No.1:

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 is corroborative and consistent that the deceased informed them when they visited the hospital, while he was undergoing treatment in area hospital,

Rampachodavaram, when enquired as to the injuries found on his body and he told that on 03.06.2025, the accused quarreled with him. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.5 shows, the accused made confession that she beat the deceased and further M.O.1 seized basing on her confession from her house. The very fact that she escaped from the house is a circumstance proving that she killed the accused.

7

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

10.On the other hand, the learned legal aid counsel for the accused canvassed that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 during cross-examination shows they visited the hospital after the death of the deceased. P.W.4, who is son-in-law of the decesed categorically deposed that the deceased fell from tree and sustained injuries and his evidence during cross-examination shows P.W.1 also came only after he informed the death of the deceased. Therefore, the deceased informing

P.W.1 or any other witness that how he received the injuries cannot be believed and attract Section 26 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (herein after referred as

B.S.A.). Moreover, as per P.W.1, the deceased did not inform that the accused beat the deceased. What he stated is, there is a quarrel between them. Further, there are several discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the evidence of P.W.4 shows that immediately after the death of the deceased by implicating the accused in a false case, as she is an innocent gullible illiterate lady, P.W.1 grabbed her landed property as she has no male assistance and both her daughters are married and are living away. This proves, P.W.1 with a malafide intention to grab the property, implicated the accused in a false case.

11.The admitted facts are the accused is the wife of the deceased Naini

Somireddy. They are residents of Chalidirevula Street, Vaidapudi Village of

Maredumilli Mandal. They have two daughters, who are married. The deceased and the accused are growing cashew nut grove and also forming for their livelihood.

12.The simple case of the prosecution is, the accused is a drunkard and used to quarrel frequently with his wife i.e., accused, due to which, she placed the disputes before the elders Battchala Adi Reddy and Chavala Abbai Reddy.

Though, they admonished the deceased, he did not change his attitude. On 03.06.2025, when the deceased quarreled with the accused in drunken state, vexed with the same, the accused picked up a bamboo stick available there and 8

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm beat the deceased, due to which, he sustained injuries and succumbed to the same on 06.06.2025.

13.The law is set into motion basing on Ex.P1 report of P.W.1, who is a resident of Siripuram Village and brother of the deceased. His evidence is, about 10 months ago (he was examined on 05.03.2026) on 6th he came to know his brother was suffering from ill-health and was admitted in Government Hospital,

Rampachodavaram. He went to the hospital to see him. There, he saw injury on his knee, eye and bandage to his left leg, blood is oozing from injury to the leg and the daughter of the deceased Satyaveni was also there. When he enquired about the injury, the deceased told him that he quarreled with his wife after consuming liquor about 3 days ago, that during the said quarrel, she beat him with a stick and he was admitted in the hospital 3 days ago.

(ii)He further deposed that initially, his son-in-law Abbaireddy (P.W.4) took him to community health center Vaidapudi by motorcycle, he was shifted to

Rampachodavaram by Ambulance. He further deposed that as his health was deteriorating, the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram, by the time they reached at 07.30 p.m., the doctors declared him as brought dead.

(iii)P.W.2 Naini Bhumireddy, deposed that, he is a cousin of the deceased. He also deposed that on 06.06.2025, on coming to know that the deceased was admitted in the hospital due to ill-health, he visited the hospital at

Rampachodavaram and found bandage to his left leg, injury on his left eye and contusions all over the body. When he enquired about the injuries, the deceased informed that 3 days ago, he and his wife quarreled and his wife beat him. Then, his elder daughter Satyaveni and her husband Abbaireddy shifted him to Area

Hospital, Vaidapudi by motorcycle and from there, again he was brought to 9

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

Rampachodavaram. He also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 that on 06.06.2025 again he was taken to Government General Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram, where, he was declared as dead.

(iv)P.W.3 Naini Ramireddy, the son of P.W.1, also corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2.

(v)P.W.4 Bodika Abbaireddy, is the son-in-law of the deceased and resident of Dorachintalapalem Village of Maredumilli Mandal. He deposed that on 03.06.2025, in connection with the festival of Ganganamma, he along with his wife

Satyaveni visited the house of his parents-in-law at Vaidapudi Village. His sister- in-law Mahalakshmi informed that her father fell in the field and requested him to take him to the hospital. As motorcycle was there, he took him to the hospital at

Vaidpudi Village from the field. But, the doctors there, referred him to Area

Hospital Rampachodavaram. For two days, he was treated there, thereafter, the

Doctor referred to Government General Hospital, Rajamahendravaram for better treatment. On the way to the Government Hospital, he expired. The accused was in the village. However, he is declared as hostile by prosecution as he did not support its case as to his sister-in-law Mahalakshmi informing him as to quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused in the cashew nut grove while picking up cashew nuts.

(vi)P.W.5 Shaik Sattar Saheb is examined as a mediator to Ex.P3 scene observation report, Panchayatdar to Ex.P4 inquest report and further deposed as to confession of the accused to him.

(vii)It is his evidence that on 03.08.2025 when he was at his village

Sachivalayam at about 9.30 am, the accused came to him stating that she is the wife of the deceased Somireddy, she married him about 33 years ago and blessed with two daughters and both are married. He further stated that she also stated 10

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm that since the time of marriage her husband had been beating her by consuming alcohol, therefore she placed the matter before village elders, though they also admonished and advised him not to beat the accused, but the deceased continued to beat her. While so, in connection with Gangalamma festival in the village, Vaidapudi their younger daughter came to their village and she went to their cashew nut garden to pick up cashew nuts. She and her husband also went for picking up the cashew nuts and returned by 10.00 am., that the deceased by taking alcohol beat her, enraged by his behavior she picked up bamboo stick available there, beat him and left to the house in the village from the tiled house in the garden. In the meantime, their younger daughter returned to the tiled house in the garden and found the deceased unconscious. Then her younger daughter sent message to elder daughter. On the next day, her elder daughter and son -in- law came and shifted him to Area hospital, Vadapalli from there again shifted to

Area hospital, Rampachodavaram from there to General hospital,

Rajamahendravaram, where the doctor declared him as dead. She came to know that the brother of the deceased Mangireddy lodged a report at Police Station suspecting the cause of death. Then with apprehension that the police may arrest her, she escaped. But realizing that at any cost, the Police will arrest in such an event she has to face severe sentence she approached him. He further deposed that then he took her to Maredumilli Police Station and handed over to the inspector with Ex.P5 report.

(viii)P.W.6 Talluri Ganesh Kumar, Village Revenue Assistant of Maredumilli deposed as to the recording of the statement of the accused at Police Station on 03.08.2025 at 02.00 p.m. and the statement of the accused under Ex.P6 reveals that she hide the weapon in the eves of tiled house in their cashew nut grove. He further deposed as to seizure of M.O.1 under Ex.P7 by the Inspector of Police,

Maredumilli Police Station in pursuance of Ex.P6 statement.

11

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

(ix)P.W.7 Dr. S.Krishnamraju is the Doctor who conducted autopsy and deposed as to Ex.P8 postmortem report.

(x)P.W.8 K.Srinivasa Rao, is the Sub-Inspector of police, Maredumilli deposed as to registering Ex.P9 First Information report basing on Ex.P1 of P.W.1 on 7-6-2025 at about 6.30 p.m. securing P.W.5 K.Ananda Raju, observing the scene of offence on 08.06.2025 under Ex.P3 and taking Exs.P10 and P11 photographs between 05.30 a.m., to 06.00 a.m., and also conducting inquest under Ex.P4 and taking photographs during inquest under Exs.P12 and P13.

(xi)He further deposed that on 20.08.2025 he received Ex.P8 postmortem report and on 03.08.2025 he received Ex.P5 report from P.W.5 along with accused and basing on it, he altered the first information report under Ex.P14.

(xii)P.W.9 TGN Prasad, the Inspector of Police, Maredumilli Circle, deposed as to taking up investigation after altering the First Information Report by

P.W.8, securing P.W.6 Ananda Raju and examining the accused in their presence and recording disclosure statement under Ex.P6, visiting the scene of offence, preparing Ex.P15 rough sketch and seizure of M.O.1 under Ex.P7 and taking photographs under Ex.P16 and 17 and arrest of the accused and sending her to judicial Custody. It is his evidence that on 13.08.2025, he sent M.O.1 to Regional

Forensic Science Laboratory, Vijayawada under Ex.P18 letter of advise along with covering letter and receipt of Ex.P19 report from Regional Forensic Science

Laboratory with opinion that the blood found on M.O.1 is human origin with ‘A’ group and filing of charge sheet.

14.Admittedly, there is no direct witness to prove that the accused beat the deceased and caused injuries on 03.06.2025, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the statement said to have been made by the deceased on 06.06.2025 to P.W.1 at area hospital, 12

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

Rampachodavaram when he visited him on coming to know that the deceased was admitted in the hospital due to ill-health. At best, the prosecution is trying to fit the statement said to have made by the deceased to P.W.1 under Section 26 of

B.S.A. Secondly, the evidence of extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused to P.W.5 and thirdly is circumstantial evidence as to recovery of

M.O.1 under Ex.P7 basing on the disclosure statement said to have made by the accused under Ex.P6.

(ii)The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that though, the defence came up with a plea that the deceased by falling from tree sustained injuries, but referring to the evidence of P.W.7 the Medical Officer, wherein, he categorically stated that if a person beats with a stick like M.O.1, there is possibility of receiving head injury referred in Ex.P8 report and in the cross- examination, he stated that there is no possibility of receiving injuries mentioned in the postmortem examination by falling on a stone.

(iii)Though the prosecution is resting the case basing on the evidence of

P.W.1, who stated the deceased informed him on 06.06.2025 at the hospital that 3 days ago there was a quarrel between himself and the accused, in the said quarrel the accused beat him. but, it is admitted by P.W.9 that P.W.1 did not state

before him that the deceased informed him that his wife beat with a stick. In

Ex.P1 also, except mentioning that the deceased informed him that he and his wife quarreled, but he did not mention that the accused beat him.

(iv)Moreover, as per the version of the prosecution and even as per the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 initially, he was taken to Primary Health Centre,

Vadapalli, after providing fist aid, he was referred to area hospital,

Rampachodavaram and ultimately, while he was being taken to Government

Hospital, Rajamahendravaram, the deceased died. But, the prosecution did not 13

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm choose to produce the records and the treatment provided at Vadapalli health center and area hospital, Rampachodavaram, where, the deceased said to have taken treatment for 3 days. It is admitted by P.W9 that the hospital intimation shows that he was admitted in the hospital complaining that he received injuries by falling from tree. When such is the case, the medical records pertaining to treatment at Vadapalli and Rampachodavaram will have vital role to find the state of mind of the deceased to give such statement. None of the Doctors, especially, the doctor who treated at Rampachodavaram while the deceased was alive was not examined to show the state of mind of the deceased to give such a statement.

(v)Further, it is admitted by P.W.4 that he only informed to P.W.1 about the death of his father-in-law by making phone call. Though, P.Ws 2 and 3 deposed as if they they also enquired the deceased as to the cause of injuries. It is elicited from P.W.2 that he visited the Government Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram after the death of the deceased and he further admitted that he does not know the facts as he visited the hospital after the death of deceased.

P.W.3 also categorically testified during the cross-examination that after the death of the deceased, he visited the Government Hospital, Rajamahendravaram.

Under these circumstances, the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 that the deceased informed them about the quarrel that took place 3 days ago and his admission in the hospital cannot be believed.

(vi)Moreover, it is admitted by P.W.1 that it is the daughter and son-in-law i.e., P.W.4 who admitted the deceased in the hospital. Therefore, they are the best witnesses. Had really the deceased wanted to tell that the accused beat him, due to which he sustained injuries, he would have stated the same to his daughter as well as P.W.4, who admitted him in the hospital. Moreover, according to the prosecution, the younger daughter Mahalakshmi who informed P.W.4 and his wife as to her father falling in the field, requested him to take him to the hospital.

14

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

Therefore, as per the prosecution, his younger daughter is the first person who has seen him with injuries, but the prosecution did not choose to examine both the daughters of the deceased.

(vii)Further, had the deceased sustained injuries in the hands of the accused or there is any suspicion in receiving the injuries, the doctors at Vadapalli or at Rampachodavaram should have sent intimation to the police with regard to

Medico Legal Case. It is not the case of the prosecution that they received any such intimation from area Hospital Rampachodavaram while the deceased was undergoing treatment.

(viii)As per the prosecution and the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 at 07.30 p.m., on 06.06.2025, the deceased was declared as brought dead. But, the evidence of

P.W.7, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy under Ex.P8 opined and issued Ex.P8 deposed that the approximate time of death is between 12 to 24 hours prior to the postmortem examination. As per his evidence, he conducted autoposy between 12.30 p.m. to 01.30 p.m., on 08.06.2025. Therefore, the medical evidence under

Ex.P8 is not corroborating the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4.

(ix)Further the case of the prosecution is after P.W.1 gave report to police, the accused absconded. But, P.W.1 deposed that he did not find his sister- in-law(accused) since he visited the hospital at Maredumilli. It is elicited from

P.W.1 that as the deceased died in the hospital, he did not visit the village of the accused and the deceased. Admittedly, P.W.1 belongs to another village. If such is the case, his evidence that he did not find the accused cannot be taken into consideration. Gad she was absconding, her daughters are neighbours are the best persons to depose the same. But, as already stated, though, the daughters are cited as witnesses, they are not examined by prosecution and none of the neighbour is examined.

15

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

(x)Further, it is not that P.W.1 gave report soon after he visited the hospital. As per the prosecution, the deceased died on 06.06.2025 at 07.30 p.m., but the report was given on 07.06.2025 at 06.30 p.m.,. The evidence of P.W.4 is the accused was at the house in the village and the incident took place at the tiled shed in the cashew nut grove of the accused and the deceased.

(xi)Ex.P9 first information report is registered on 07.06.2025 at 06.30 p.m. But, it is not the case of P.W.8 the Sub-Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation that after registering the first information report they made any enquiries about the accused and tried to examine her. As per Ex.P4 inquest report that the panchayatdars opined the deceased might have died due to beating by the accused or any other reason. But, there is no explanation from

P.W.8 even after inquest also why he has not tried to examine the accused. It is not his evidence that he tried to secure the accused to record her statement, but she was no found.

(xii)The another aspect is circumstantial evidence in the shape of recovery of M.O.1. As per Regional Forensic Science Laboratory under Ex.P19, the object sent to it contain blood of human origin with ‘A’ group. However, the prosecutioin did not adduce any evidence to show at least that the blood group of accused is ‘A’. Much less, no steps have taken to find the D.N.A. on it to match with the deceased.

(xiii)Further, as per the prosecution, M.O.1 was seized under Ex.P7 on 03.08.2025. But, as could be seen from the record and it is admitted by P.W.9 the property is produced before the court under form-60 on 17.10.2025. It is elicited from P.W.5 the mediator to P.W.7 under which M.O.1 said to have seized and also

P.W.9 the investigation officer that it is mentioned in Ex.P7 that on the seized stick identification slip is affixed which contains the signature of the accused also. But, 16

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm it is admitted by them, the identification slip on M.O.1 does not bear the signature of the accused. It is further elicited from P.W.9 that as per Ex.P19 report of

Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, the property sent to them is wrapped in gauge cloth. But, M.O.1 produced before the court is wrapped with gunny bag.

Therefore, it creates any amount of suspicion whether M.O.1 is the stick said to be seized on 03.08.2025.

(xiv)Moreover, M.O.1 said to be seized from the eves of tiled house of the accused in the cashew nut grove. There is a gap of two months between the incident said to have taken place and the date of recovery. It is not that it is a secluded place or nobody will have access. A cashew nut grove will have access to every one. Further, it is admitted by P.W.4 that after the death of his father-in- law (deceased) P.W.1 took possession of the said land and also the house property of the deceased excluding his wife and daughters.

(xv)Moreover, Section 105 of B.N.S.S. mandates seizure of property shall be recorded through any audio, video electronic mode preferably mobile phone and the police officer shall without delay forward such recording to the

District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the First

Class. But, the said mandatory provision is not followed in this case. Therefore, the recovery of M.O.1 is suspicion.

(xvi)The other evidence remained is the extra judicial confession said to be made to P.W.5 on 03.08.2025.

(xvii) Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the reliability of confession and its valuation can be taken basing on the surrounding circumstances. In this regard, I am buttressed by the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex

Court in Moorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1027 and also the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 17

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

K.Brahmachari @ Kammari Brahamachari v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2004 (1) A.L.T. (Crl.) 1 (.A.P) and Boya Akuthota Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2018(2) A.L.T. (Crl.) 290 (DB) (A.P.).

(xviii) It is not the case of the prosecution that there is any prior acquaintance between the accused and P.W.5. His evidence shows he is a resident of Rampachodavaram, whereas, the accused is a resident of vaidapudi village. Therefore, nearly after two months coming to P.W.5 to give confession gives rise to suspicion. Moreover, the prosecution did not adduce any evidence to show from 06.06.2025 to 03.08.2025 where the accused hide to come suddenly on 03.08.2025 to give confession. Therefore, the extra judicial confession is very week to rely.

(xix)Moreover, P.W.5 did not record the statement of the accused. When the extra judicial confession produced in order to be relied it must be in the verbatim of the accused, but he did not record such statement and Ex.P5 does not bear the signature of the accused. Under these circumstances, making such confession before P.W.5 is also not reliable.

15.In the light of the above discussion, I found that the prosecution failed to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 105 of B.N.S.

16. Point No.2:

In view of answer to point No. 1, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for charge under Section 105 of B.N.S.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge under section 105 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha. Accordingly she is acquitted for the above said charges under Section 258(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. M.O. 1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. The Superintendent, State Jail for 18

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

Women, Rajamahendravaram is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if she is not required in any other case.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30th

day of April, 2026.

Sd/-Smt M.Madhuri

JUDGE,

Family court cum IX Additional District and Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram.

FORM -C

[Rule 67 (3) of Criminal Rules of Practice] List of prosecution/defence/court witnesses

A. Prosecution: RankNameNature of evidence

P.W.1 Naini Mangi Reddy coming to know through P.W.1 that the injuries caused by accused and submitting report to police. P.W.2 Naini Bhumireddy To speak about the deceased informed as to the injuries caused to him. P.W.3 Naini Ramireddy To speak about the incident P.W.4 Boddika Abbaireddy To speak about shifting the injured to Hospital. P.W.5 Shaik Sattar SahebMediator to scene observation, inquest to speak about extra judicial confession of the accused. P.W.6Tallu Ganesh Reddy Mediator for seizure of M.O.1 P.W.7 Dr. S.Krishnam RajuThe doctor who conduted autopsy P.W.8 K.Srinivasa Rao To speak about registering FIR conducting investigation and filing altered FIR. P.W9TGN Prasad Investigation Officer.

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RankNameNature of evidence Nil.

19

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

C. Court witnesses, if any:

RankNameNature of evidence Nil.

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS [Rule 67 (3) ] A. Prosecution : Sl.NExhibitMarkedDescription o.No.through 1Ex.P1P.W.1Report submitted by P.W.1 to the Police 2Ex.P2 P.W.4 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 3Ex.P3 P.W.5Scene observation reort 4Ex.P4P.W.5Inquest Report .

5Ex.P5 P.W.5Report of the Village Revenue Officer recording the confession of the accused.

6Ex.P6P.W.6Mediation reoprt dated 03.08.2025

7. Ex.P7P.W.6Seizure Report .

8.Ex.P8P.W.7Postmortem report

9.Ex.P9P.W.8First Information report in Crime No.31/2025

10. Ex.P10P.W.8Positive Photograph

11. Ex.P11P.W.8 Positive Photograph 12Ex.P12P.W.8Positive Photograph 13Ex.P13P.W.8Positive Photograph 14Ex.P14P.W.8Altered First Information Report in Crime No.31/2025 15Ex.P15 P.W.9Rough Sketch 16Ex.P16P.W.9Postive Photograph 17Ex.P17P.W.9Positive Photograph 18Ex.P18 P.W.9Letter of advise to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Vijayawada.

19Ex.P19P.W.9Report from Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Vijayawada 20

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

Material objects marked

M.O.1: Bamboo stick (marked through P.W.6)

Sd/-Smt M.Madhuri

JUDGE,

Family court cum IX Additional District and Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram.

21

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAMAHENDRAVRAM.

PRESENT: Smt. M.Madhuri, Judge,

Family Court cum IX Addl. District and Sessions Court,

Rajamahendravaram

Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No.382/2025

(P.R.C.No.37/2025 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Rampachodavaram in Crime No.31/2025 of Maredumilli Police Station )

Complainant State – Represented by the Inspector of Police, Maredumilli Circle. Alluri Seetharamaraju District.

Represented by Additional Public Prosecutor, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.

Accused Naini Lakshmi, W/o. Somi Reddy, Aged 49 years, Caste ST, Konda Reddy, D.No. 2-31/ A, Chaldirevula, Vaidipudi (v), Maredumilli Mandal.

Represented by Sri G.Mahesh, Legal Aid Counsel.

Date of Arrest 03.08.2025 Date of Release on Bail Under Trial Prisoner Offences charged with 105 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanitha. Plea of the accused Not guilty Whether acquitted or Found not guilty

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge under section 105 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha. Accordingly she is acquitted for the above said charges under Section 258(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. M.O. 1 shall be destroyed, 22

Sessions Case No.382/2025

IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm after expiry of appeal time. The Superintendent, State Jail for Women, Rajamahendravaram is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if she is not required in any other case.

a) Offence 03.06.2025

b) Committal 13.10.2025

c) Receipt of record05.11.2025

d) Appearance of accused 03.12.2025

e) Commencement of trial 05.03.2026

f) Closure of trial 28.04.2026

g) Judgment pronounced on 30.04.2026

Explanation for delay :

This case record is received as made over from the Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Court, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram on 05.11.2025. On 31.12.2025, the accused examined under Sec.351 B.N.S.S. and Charges have been framed against her, read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which, she denied the same and claimed to be tried. Trial is commenced from 05.03.2026 and concluded on 28.04.2026. Accused were examined under Section 351 B.N.S.S. on 28.04.2026. After hearing the arguments on 29.04.2026, Judgment is pronounced on 30.04.2026. Hence there is no unavoidable delay.

JUDGE,

Family court cum IX Additional District and Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram.

1.The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District. 2.The Directorate of Prosecution, Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District. 3.The Hon'ble District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada. 5.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Addateegala. 6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Rajamahendravaram.

APEG010066592023

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL : (FAMILY COURT-CUM-IX ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS

COURT) EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT: Smt. M.MADHURI, Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - Judge, Family Court cum IX Addl. District and Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram

Monday, the 20th day of April, 2026

MVOP No.570/2023

Between:

Kamuju Rama Krishna, S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, Hindu, Aged 55 years, R/o.D.No.6-99, Thimmapuram Katrenikona Mandal, Konaseema District. … Petitioner

And

1. Kandikatla Raja Ashok @ Kandikattu Raja Ashok, S/o.Sahadevarao, Hindu, Aged 24 years, Owner cum Rider of Royal Enfiled Himalayan Motor Cycle Registered bearing No.AP 39 QY 0012, R/o.D.No.1-120, Sivakodu Village, Kandikatlavari Group, Sivakudu Razole Mandal, East Godavari District. Pin 533 244.

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Legal Manager, Danavaipet, Rajamahendravaram.… Respondent

This petition coming up before me, on 17.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.G.Srinivas, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri

U.V.S.P.Avadhani, Advocate for 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent is remained ex parte and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

2 MVOP No. 570/2023 Family Court, Rjvrm.

J U D G M E NT

This petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the Act) read with Rule 475 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 by the petitioner claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest from the date of application till date of realization for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.07.2023 at Razole Village.

2.The case of the petitioner as per the averments made in the petition succinctly is -

He is aged 55 years by the date of accident, qualified fitter and working as a

Fitter (OFF) in NPCC Abu Dhabi Emirates and drawing 1320 AE Dirhams equal to

Rs.30,000/- in Indian Currency as on 31.07.2023. He has wife and two sons residing in Thimmapuram Village of Katrenikona Mandal, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar

Konaseema District.

(ii)On 05.07.2023, he came to India on leave for a short trip and booked ticket for his return travel on 18.08.2023. While so, on 08.07.2023, he along with his wife went to Antharvedi to have darshan of Lord by riding his motorcycle bearing

No. AP 05 EN 0938. After darshan, while returning by riding his motorcycle along with his as a pillion rider, slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road margin, when reached near Church, Razole at about 10.00 a.m., the 1st respondent, who was coming by riding his Royal Enfield Motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 39

QY 0012 in a rash and negligent manner with abnormal speed without blowing horn came in opposite direction and hit his motorcycle. As a result, both of them fell down on the road, resulting in grievous injury over his right leg and also abrasion over left leg and contusion over right knee and other injuries.

3 MVOP No. 570/2023 Family Court, Rjvrm.

(iii)Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Razole, where first aid was given. Immediately, referred to Anil Ortho Hospital, Amalapuram, where it is diagnosed that his left leg was fractured completely into pieces and referred to

Apollo Hospital, Kakinada. There, from 08.07.2023 to 12.07.2023 he took treatment as inpatient with an advise of follow up treatment. During the said period, he was twice operated with major surgeries by inter-locking of nailing of right tibia, screw fixation, debridement of wounds, skin grafting etc., for which he incurred

Rs.2,50,000/-. He was further advised to undergo removal of implants in future, which costs around Rs.1,00,000/-.

(iv)Due to the same, he lost his avocation and income. He also spent

Rs.50,000/- towards to and fro charges from Katrenikona to Kakinada for treatment for himself and his two attendants. The 1st respondent being the rider of offending

Royal Enfiled Motorcycle and the 2nd respondent being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3.The 1st respondent remained ex parte.

4.The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying the mode and manner of accident, putting the petitioner to strict proof of his age, income and avocation and claiming protection under Section 147, 149 (2) of the Act and also non compliance of mandatory provisions 134 (c) and 158 (6) of the Act, inter-alia, contending that as the contents of the petitioner itself shows involvement of two motorcycles in the accident, but the petitioner did not join the owner and insurer of the motorcycle which the petitioner was riding. Therefore, the petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties.

(ii)He further pleaded that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver and the negligence on the part of the petitioner is more it has to be considered. Moreover, the petitioner without having driving license and headgear, without following traffic Rules was riding the motorcycle. On the other 4 MVOP No. 570/2023 Family Court, Rjvrm.

hand, the 1st respondent, rider of Royal Enfile of Himalaya Motorcycle bearing NO.

AP 39 QY 0012 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and he was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license.

Thus, the 1st respondent willfully and intentionally was riding the motorcycle by violating the rules and the provisions of the Act and committed breach of contract by violating the terms of the policy. The claim and rate of interest is excessive.

Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for enquiry:

1. Whether in the accident dated 08.07.2023 the petitioner received injuries and that the accident took place in the mode and manner as pleaded by the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, at what rate and from which respondent?

3. To what relief?

6.During trial, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are examined and

Exs.A1 to A12 and Exs.X1 to X4 are marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B1 and Exs.X5 and X6 are marked.

7.Heard the petitioner. The respondent side reported may be treated as heard.

Perused the record.

8.Issue No.1:

Whether in the accident dated 08.07.2023 the petitioner received injuries and that the accident took place in the mode and manner as pleaded by the petitioner?

The case of the petitioner is on 08.07.2023, the petitioner while riding his motorcycle bearing No. AP 05 EN 0938 from Antharvedi to Katrenikona, along with his wife as pillion rider, at about 10.00 a.m., when reached Church in Razole, the 1st respondent who was riding Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing No. AP 39 QY 0012 in a rash and negligent manner with abnormal speed without blowing horn by coming 5 MVOP No. 570/2023 Family Court, Rjvrm.

in opposite direction hit his motorcycle. Consequently, he and his wife fell down and he sustained injuries to his right leg and other injuries.

(ii)In order to prove his version, the petitioner as P.W.1 in his chief examination by way of affidavit while reiterating his version got marked attested copies of First Information report, wound certificate, Motor Vehicle Inspector Report, charge sheet, bunch of 4 medical bills for Rs.9,238/-, bunch of 35 medical bills for

Rs.1,74,013/-, bunch of 9 travelling bills for Rs.27,000/-, employment certificate, X- rays in 4 nos as Exs.A1 to A12 respectively.

(iii)The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborative with Ex.A1 First Information

Report which was registered on 08.07.2023 itself at 07.00 p.m. and Ex.A1 shows his statement was recorded at 1.30 p.m., by Head Constable of Razole Police

Station. The Investigation Officer also filed charge sheet under Ex.A4 against the 1st respondent for the offence under Section 338 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.

However, it is elicited from P.W.1 that the road where the accident took place is a wide road of 40 feet and it is further elicited from him that the accident took place in the middle of the road. When the accident took place in the middle of the road, which is a width of 40 Feet and the accident is due to head on collision of motorcycles in a broad day light at 10.00 a.m., and the evidence of P.W.1 further shows he has seen the opposite vehicle at a distance of 10 meters, therfore, the petitioner also to some extent contributed for the accident. His contribution can be assessed at 20% as he could see the 1st respondent only at 10 meters distance, which shows the 1st respondent was so rash and contributed 80%. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

9.Issue No.2:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, at what rate and from which respondent?

6 MVOP No. 570/2023 Family Court, Rjvrm.

The evidence of P.W.1 is that, in the accident he sustained grievous injury to his right left. He deposed that immediately after the accident, he was shifted to

Government Hospital, Razole. After first Aid, he was referred to Anil Orthopedic

Hospital, Amalapuram. There after, diagnosing fracture, he was referred to Apollo

Hospital, Kakinada, where, he was admitted on 08.07.2023 and discahrged on 12.07.2023 with an advise to follow up treatment. During the said treatment, two major surgeries were conducted for inter-locking nailing of right tibia, screw was fixed, debridement of wound and skin grafting was done. After discharge from the hospital also, as he was getting unbearable pain for his right leg and unable to move his left leg due to infection, he again admitted in the same hospital on 30.11.2023 and another operation was conducted and rods were inserted. He got marked Ex.A2 wound certificate issued by Apollo Hospital, Kakinada, which shows, a laceration of 5 x 4 cms of right leg and laceration of 4 x 3 cms on above right knee and X-ray of right leg disclosed, displaced segmental fracture of mid and distal shaft and of right tibia, segmental fracture of right distal fibula.

(ii)He also examined P.W.2 Partha Pratim Chatterjee, Orthopedic

Surgeon, Apollo Hospital, Kakinada. He corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 that on 8.7.2023 P.W.1 was admitted in their hospital due to road traffic accident due to collision of two vehicle and he corroborated the injuries mentioned in Ex.A2 wound certificate. His evidence with support of Ex.X1 shows, there is compound segment fracture of right leg bones segmental fracture of right tibia with comminution of distal fragment and segmental fracture of right fibula fracture at three places. On 10.07.2023, the right tibia interlocking nailing, right fibula nailing, screw fixation for tibia comminution, debridement of wounds and skin grafting were done and was discharged on 12.07.2023 in a stable condition. His evidence further shows, as the petitioner is a diabetic patient, risk of infection and non union and possible need of further surgery clearly explained at the time of discharge.

7 MVOP No. 570/2023 Family Court, Rjvrm.

(iii)He further deposed that on 06.05.2024, he was again admitted for re- surgery in view of non union and developed infection in post operated period, about 2 to 3 times, non union developed and re-surgery was planned . On 11.05.2024, he underwent surgery for removal of old implants and re-fixation and fixation with nail and bone grafting and discharged on 13.05.2024. Through him, Ex.X2 case sheet for the said period is marked. He further deposed that on 30.01.2025, the petitioner met him at Amalapuram Clinic and Ex.X3 X-ray was taken and Ex.X4 are the consultation papers. On that day, he was walking with support because his bone is showing delayed union and is slowly consolidating. It is difficult for hims to do strenuous work or standing for long hours. He further deposed that Exs.A1 to A12

X-rays are pertaining to follow up treatment.

(iv)Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 corroborated by Ex.A2, X1 to X4 and

Exs.A10 to A12 shows the petitioner received grievous injury to right leg due to compounding segment fracture of right leg bone, segmental fracture of right tibia with communiation of distal frament, segmental fracture of right fibula fracture of three places. The evidence of P.W.2 shows, compound fracture means, open fracture i.e., fracture with soft tissue injuries. The fractures in tibia and fibula were segmental means that the long bones where fractures of more than one place.

Therefore, considering the nature of fractures, this tribunal feels it is just and proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries and Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering. The petitioner filed Ex.A5 and A6 bunch of medical bills for a total amount of

Rs.1,83,025/-

(v)It may be a fact that R.W.1 deposed that one of the bill under Ex.A5 is issued by Srinidhi Multi Specialty Hospital, Amalapuram. The 3rd respondent contends that P.W.1 did not depose that he was treated in Srinidhi Multi Specialty

Hospital, but he was treated in Government Hospital, Razole and Anil Orthopedic

Hospital, Amalapuram prior to he was taken to Apollo Hospital, Kakinada.

However, P.W.2 deposed no referral letter to Apollo Hospital, Kakinada. Whatever it 8 MVOP No. 570/2023 Family Court, Rjvrm.

be, the date of accident is 08.07.2023. Ex.X1 and A2 shows the petitioner was brought to Apollo Hospital, Kakinada on 08.07.2023 itself. Moreover, P.W.2 categorically deposed that when he visited Amalapuram, the petitioner came there for follow up treatment. Therefore, simply because P.W.1 did not specifically depose the name of the hospital, the bill cannot be discarded. In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,83,025/- towards medical expenses.

(vi)The evidence of P.W.1 gets corroboration from P.W.2 that from the date of accident, he had to come to Hospital several times for surgeries as well as follow up treatment. The petitioner filed 9 travels bills of S.R.Travels, Amalapuram totaling to Rs.27,000/-. Admittedly, the petitioner is a reident of Katrenikona and he had taken treatment in Kakinada Apollo Hospitals and each bill is for Rs.3,000/- which appears to be reasonable and proper. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to

Rs.27,000/- towards travelling expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded for extra nourishment.

(vii)The petitioner claimed Rs.60,000/- for loss of earnings and for permanent disability Rs.1,40,000/-. His evidence is, due to the accident, he lost his job and and earnings permanently and disqualified to do any job in any other allied nature of work apart from continuously sufferance of unbearable pain around the clock, in spite of medication regularly. But, as rightly contended by the 2nd respondent and deposed by R.W.1 the petitioner did not file any certificate issued by qualified Doctor that the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability to show the extent of disability.

(viii)On the other hand, the P.W.2 categorical stated that he cannot say whether he will have any permanent disability as on the date of examination i.e., on 30.01.2025, the fracture is slowly consolidating. However, his evidence shows even by that date, he was walking with support and it is showing delayed union.

The accident took place on 08.07.2023 even by 30.01.2025, he is not completely 9 MVOP No. 570/2023 Family Court, Rjvrm.

recovered. P.W.2 further categorically deposed as per today’s condition, it is difficult for him to do strenuous works or long standing hours. The evidence of

P.W.1 is by the date of accident, he was working as a Fitter in NPCC, Abu Dhabi

Emirates and getting 1320 AE Dirhams equal to Rs.30,000/- to the Indian Currency per month. To corroborate the same, he filed Ex.A8 certificate. Hence, considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and also considering the circumstances, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the petitioner for his loss of earnings is just and proper.

10.Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled to the following amounts:

HeadCompensation (Rs.) Grievous injury & for fractures Rs.1,00,000.00

Pain and suffering Rs.25,000.00

Medical Bills Rs.1,83,025.00

Transport charges Rs.27,000.00

Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000.00

Loss of job and earnings Rs. 2,00,000.00

TotalRs.5,45,025.00

(Rupees Five Lakhs Fortyfive Thousand and Twenty Five only)

11.As already opined, the negligence on the part of the petitioner is to an extent of 20% and on the part of the 1st respondent is 80% in occurring the accident.

Hence, the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 4,36,020/- (rounded to Rs.4,36,000/-)

12.The Honourable Supreme Court of India in Jaik Hussein v. Sabir and

others in Civil Appeal No. 2006 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 981 OF

2014) decided on 18.02.2015 held that:

10 MVOP No. 570/2023 Family Court, Rjvrm.

"As regards the rate of interest to be awarded on the compensation awarded in this appeal, we are of the view that the Tribunal and High Court have erred in granting interest at only 07% p.a. and 08% p.a. respectively on the total compensation amount instead of 09% by applying the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2011) 14 SC 481 = AIR 2012 SC 100. Accordingly, we award the interest @ 09% per annum on the compensation determined in the present appeal”

(ii)In view of the above proposition of law, it is proper to award interest at 9% per annum, on Rs.4,36,000/- from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization.

(iii) Now, the contention of the 2nd respondent is, the 1st respondent is not having valid and effective driving license to ride the offending motorcycle i.e., Royal

Enfield Himalaya bearing No. AP 39 QY 0012. The 2nd respondent examined its

Manager, legal, U.Appanna as R.W.1. While, deposing on the lines of the 2nd respondent, he categorical deposed that the 1st respondent/owner-driver had no driving license at the time of accident.

(iv)No doubt, it is elicited from R.W.1 that Ex.A4 charge sheet is not filed under Section 181 and 182 of the Act and further, it is admitted by him that in the charge sheet, the Investigation Officer mentioned, he collected the photostat copies of driving license and Aadhar card of the 1st respondent and vehicle record.

(v)However, the 2nd respondent examined one P.Venkata Satyanarayana

Raju, Administrative Officer of Road Transport Office, who is authorised under

Ex.X5 to give evidence on behalf of the Road Transport Officer and produced

Ex.X6 B-Register extract of the offending vehicle and he deposed that they have

Vahana Website which dislcoses the driving license of the individuals basing on the

Aadhar numbers all over India and his evidence shows, the Aadhar number of the 1st respondent, which is furnished to him, with the help of Ex.A4 charge sheet does not disclose any license is issued to the 1st respondent.

11 MVOP No. 570/2023 Family Court, Rjvrm.

(vi)Though, there is specific pleading by the 2nd respondent that the 1st respondent is not having any driving license, he did not choose to come into witness box to depose and he has driving license or produced any driving license.

Therefore, by evidence of R.W.2, the Insurance Company had discharged its burden that the 1st respondent has no driving license as on the date of accident.

However, the evidence of R.W.1 with support of Ex.B1 shows, as on the date of accident, the offending vehicle is validly insure with the 2nd respondent insurance company and the policy is in force. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying on the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others1 and

M.Ananth and Others Vs. P.Venkatesan and another2, the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation to the petitioner. It can pay the compensation in the first instance to the petitioner and recover from the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.ISSUE NO.3:

In view of the findings on issues 1 and 2, the petitioner is entitled for compensation as detailed above against the respondent No. 1 and 2. The 2nd respondent-insurance company shall pay the compensation at first and recover the same from the respondent No. 1.

In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs, against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 awarding compensation of Rs.4,36,000/- (Rupees

Four Lakhs and Thirtysix Thousand only) with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

(ii)The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this order and recover the same from the respondent No. 1.

12004 (2) ALD 36 (SC) 2Civil Appeal No.1175/2025 in SLP(C) No.377/2023 dated 29.01.2025.

12 MVOP No. 570/2023 Family Court, Rjvrm.

(iii)Out of the total compensation amount granted to the petitioner, he is permitted to withdraw Rs. 2,36,000/- with proportionate costs and accrued interest thereon and the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with accrued interest thereon to be deposited in any Nationalized Bank for one year.

(vi)Respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the amount permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner i.e., Rs.2,36,000/- with accrued interest thereon and costs in his bank Account No. 083410011012159 of Union Bank of India, IFSC

No.UBIN0808342 of Katrenikona. The balance amount of the petitioner shall be deposited before this Tribunal by following prescribed procedure.

(v)Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).

Dictated to the Stenographer of this court, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, on this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-Smt M.Madhuri

Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-Judge, Family Court- cum-IX Adddl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:

P.W.1 : Kamuju Rama Krishna P.W.2 : Dr. Partha Pratim Chatterjee.

For Respondents:

R.W.1: U.Appanna R.W.2 : P.Venkata Satyanarayana Raju

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For petitioner:

Ex.A1 is the attested copy of the First Information Report dated 08.07.2023 in Crime No. 186/2023 of Razole Police Station.

Ex.A2 is the Attested copy of wound certificate dated 28.07.2023 issued by Casualty Medical Officer, Apollo Hospital, Kakinada.

Ex.A3 is the attested copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector report dated 27.06.2023 inCrime NO.186/2023 of Razole Police Station.

13 MVOP No. 570/2023 Family Court, Rjvrm.

Ex.A4 is the charge sheet in Crime No.186/2023 of Razole Police Station.

Ex.A5 are the bunch of 4 medical bills for Rs.9,238/-

Ex.A6 are the bunch of 36 medical bills for Rs. 1,74,013/-

Ex.A7 are the bunch of 9 bills for travellig expenses for Rs.27,000/-

Ex.A8 is the employment certificate dated 03.07.2023 issued by NPCC Abudhabi UAE.

Ex.A9 is the X-ray dated 17.08.2023.

Ex.A10 is the X-ray dated 17.11.2023

Ex.A11 is the X-ray dated 30.01.2024

Ex.A12 is the X-ray dated 27.06.2024.

Ex.X1 is the original case sheet with IP No. 67406

Ex.X2 is the Original case sheet

Ex.X3 is the X-rays dated 30.01.2025

Ex.X4 is the consultation papers total two numbers

For Respondents :

Ex.B1 is the copy of the insurance policy.

Ex.X5 is the Authorization to R.W.2

Ex.X6 is the B-Register Extract of offending vehicle.

Sd/-Smt M.Madhuri

Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-Judge, Family Court- cum-IX Adddl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

APEG010003232019

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL : (FAMILY COURT-CUM-IX ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS

COURT) EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT: Smt. M.MADHURI, Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - Judge, Family Court cum IX Addl. District and Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram

Thursday, the 9th day of April, 2026

MVOP No.58/2019

Between: Pulagam Bhasara Reddi, S/o. Venkata Swami, Aged 60 years, Bus Driver, resident of D.No. 5-159/1, Kutukuluru Anaparthi, East Godavari District, Anaparthi DMC. … Petitioner

And

1. Karri Venkata Reddi, S/o.Krishna Reddi, Aged 52 years, rider of Motorcycle bearing No. AP 05 DY 8767, resident of D.No. 6-192, Anaparthi, East Godavari District.

2. Samgula Ramana, S/o.Appa rao, Aged 50 years, owner of Motorcycle bearing No. AP 05 DY 8767, SCBC Colony, Ramavavaram, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District.

3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Rajamahendravaram.… Respondents.

This petition coming up before me, on 10.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A.Murali Krishna, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri

Ch.S.N.Laxmi, Advocate for 2nd respondent and of Sri K.Sudheer Kumar,

Advocate for the 3rd respondent and the 1st respondent is remained ex parte and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

2 MVOP No. 58/2019 Family Court, Rjvrm.

J U D G M E NT

This petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the Act) read with Rule 475 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 by the petitioner claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest from the date of application till date of deposit for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.01.2018 at Kutukuluru.

2.The case of the petitioner as per the averments made in the petition succinctly is -

On 18.01.2018 at about 11.00 a.m., the petitioner while returning to his house in Kutukuluru from C.D.R. Hospital, Anaparthi as a pillion rider on the Glamour

Motorcycle bearing No. AP 05 DY 8767, when reached near canal bridge center,

Anaparthi, the 1st respondent, who was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed lost control over the motorcycle, as a result, it turned turtle and consequently, he fell down on the road and sustained fracture to his hip ball and injuries to his both upper limbs.

(ii)Immediately, he was taken to K.V.R. Hospitals, Rayavaram for treatment, there, he underwent treatment for about one month as inpatient. During the course of treatment, an operation was conducted to his right hip and a new ball was replaced due to fracture of the ball. Even by the time of filing of the petition itself, he is taking treatment in the said hospital as an outpatient. The injury resulted in permanent total disability, due to which, his social life is affected and his life became miserable. He is unable to move from the bed and even to attend calls of nature.

(iii)Prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and used to work as driver of bus of Chaitanya School, Mandapeta and used to get Rs.10,000/- per month as salary and other battas. He spent more than Rs.2,30,000/- for medical 3 MVOP No. 58/2019 Family Court, Rjvrm.

expenses, attendants in the hospital and for extra nourishment. Therefore, the 1st respondent being driver, the 2nd respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent with which the vehicle was insured are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3. Though, the 1st respondent entered appearance, did not choose to file written statement and consequently his right to file written statement is forfeited by the tribunal.

4.The 2nd respondent / owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement that he is not admitting the mode and manner of the accident and the details of the petitioner, his avocation and income, the medical expenses putting strict proof of the same, inter-alia, contending that the amount of compensation and rate of interest are excessive. Further, even otherwise, if the Tribunal comes to conclusion, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation it is only from the 3rd respondent insurance company with whom the vehicle is validly insured and the policy is in force at the time of accident.

5.The 3rd respondent / insurance company also filed counter denying the mode and manner of accident, putting the petitioner to strict proof of the age, income and avocation and other particulars of the petitioner, inter-alia, contending that, as per the police records, the accident took place on 18.01.2018, whereas, the petitioner lodged the complaint on 26.01.2018. Thus, there is a delay of 8 days in lodging the

First Information Report and the reason for delay is not convincing. The case of the petitioner is stage managed for the purpose of getting compensation in collusion with the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to have wrongful gain from the 3rd respondent.

Until and unless, the involvement of the insured vehicle is proved in the alleged accident, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Further, the 1st respondent is not holding valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Therefore, the 2nd respondent by willfully handing over the vehicle 4 MVOP No. 58/2019 Family Court, Rjvrm.

to the 1st petitioner, committed breach of policy conditions and violated the rules under Motor Vehicles Act.

(ii)He further pleaded that there is no compliance of mandatory provision under Section 134 (c) and 158 (6) of Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. The compensation and the rate of interest claimed are excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the then Presiding Officer settled the following issues for enquiry:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident occurred on 18.01.2018 due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent driver of the crime vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing No. AP 05 DY 8767?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7.During trial, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are examined and

Exs.A1 to A4 are marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B1 and Ex.X1 are marked.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.Issue No.1:

Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident occurred on 18.01.2018 due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent driver of the crime vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing No. AP 05 DY 8767?

The version of the petitioner is on 18.01.2018 at 11.00 a.m., while, he was returning to his house from CDR Hospitals, Anaparthy, as a pillion rider of motorcycle bearing No. AP 05 DY 8767, the 1st respondent, who was riding the 5 MVOP No. 58/2019 Family Court, Rjvrm.

motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed when reached near canal bridge center, Anaparthy, lost control, as a result, the motorcycle turned turtle on the road, consequently, he fell down and sustained fracture injury to his hip ball and other injuries to his upper limbs.

10.In order to prove the same, the petitioner as P.W.1 in his affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination, while reiterating his version got marked first information report dated 26.01.2018, wound certificate, charge sheet in Crime No. 32/2018 and

X-ray as Exs.A1 to A4 respectively.

(ii)The evidence of P.W.1 gets corroboration from Ex.A1 First Information

Report and further the investigation officer filed the charge sheet under Ex.A3 holding the 1st respondent is liable for the accident.

(iii)No doubt, it is elicited from P.W.1 that he gave report on 26.01.2018 and he has not explained the reason for the delay in giving the report. Therefore, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent canvassed that the abnormal delay in giving report which is unexplained shows the vehicle is subsequently planted.

(iv)It may be a fact that there is delay of 8 days in giving the report to the police. But, the law is well settled that delay in First Information Report itself will not dis-entitle the petitioner from claiming compensation. In this context, I am buttresed by the following judgments.

1. Ravi Vs. Badri Narayana and others1.

2. Kamlajit Kaur and others Vs. Balwindar Singh and others2.

3. United Insurance Company Vs. N.Srinivas3.

4. Konduru Venkatareddi Vs. Kondapalli Upender Reddy and others4.

5. National Insurance Company Vs. S.Gayatri5.

12011 ACJ 911 22017 ACJ 2628 3212 AAC 3334 42014 ACJ 1419 52013 ACJ 2376 (AP) 6 MVOP No. 58/2019 Family Court, Rjvrm.

(v)It is elicited from P.W.1 that the 1st respondent is his nephew and the 2nd respondent is his friend. The evidence of R.W.2, who is General Surgeon in

KVR Hospital, Rayavaram, who treated the injured, categorically deposed in the chief examination itself that at the time of admission, the petitioner has stated that there is no necessity to give intimation to the police and they did not send any intimation. Such statement to the Doctor cannot be doubted considering the relationship of the petitioner with the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent.

(vi)As per Ex.A2 wound certificate issued by KVR Hospitals, Rayavaram, at the time of admission, the injured had stated that he received the injuries by falling from motorcycle. Of course, as per R.W.2 and Ex.X1 discharge summary, it is mentioned fall due to hit by motorbike. But, as per Ex.A1 issued by the same hospital, it is fall from motorcycle. Apart from that, the Investigation Officer after conducting investigation, filed the charge sheet against the 1st respondent for the offence under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code under Ex.A3. Not only that, it is elicited from P.W.1 that the said case is compounded with the 1st respondent in the

Lok Adalat. This also probablizes, the 1st respondent was driving the motorcycle on which the petitioner is pillion rider. Therefore, the burden shifts on to the respondent to prove that the vehicle was planted subsequently or that there is no rashness or negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, further, the petitioner and the 1st respondent are colluded. Nothing prevented the respondent to take steps to examine the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to show that there is no involvement of offending motorcycle or there is no rashness or negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. Therefore, the respondent failed to discharge the burden shifted on them. Hence, the point is answered affirmatively in favour of the petitioner.

11Issue No.2:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the respondent?

7 MVOP No. 58/2019 Family Court, Rjvrm.

The version of the petitioner is in the accident he sustained fracture to his right hip apart from other injuries. To prove the same, he examined P.W.2 Dr. Karri

Srinivasa Reddy, Visiting Consultant and Orthopedic Surgeon, KVR Hospital,

Rayavaram, he deposed that on 18.01.2018, the petitioner was admitted in KVR

Hospital, Rayavaram with injury to his right hip due to falling from Motorcycle. On taking X-ray under Ex.A4, it is found a fracture of neck of right femur. On the same day, he was operated with bipolar prosthesis right hip and was discharged on 24.01.2018. During surgery, the broken hip of femur was removed and replaced with hip prosthesis. The petitioner also filed Ex.A2 wound certificate which corroborates the evidence of P.W.2. The X-rays under Ex.A4 shows the fracture of neck of right femur, which is grievous in nature.

(ii)Of course, it is elicited from P.W.2 that there is no record to show that he treated the injured. However, the 3rd respondent itself examined R.W.2 Dr.

T.Naveen, General Surgeon, KVR Hospital, Rayavaram, contending that he treated the injured. His evidence shows that he is General Surgeon in KVR Hospitals,

Rayavaram, that he treated the petitioner from 18.01.2018 to 24.01.2018 as inpatient and through him Ex.X-1 the discharge summary is marked.

(iii)It is elicited during his cross-examination that he issued Ex.A2 wound certificate. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 and R.W.2 corroborated by Exs.A2, A4 and Ex.X1 proves, in the accident, the petitioner sustained a grievous injury due to fracture of neck of right femur. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion, for the said injury, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.50,000/- and also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering.

(iv)Though, the petitioner claimed Rs.2,30,000/- towards medical expenses, but he did not file any medical bills nor stated by the P.W.2. In the absence of medical bills, this tribunal cannot award any amount towards medical expenses.

8 MVOP No. 58/2019 Family Court, Rjvrm.

(v)Though, the petitioner claimed compensation for loss of amenities in life and for permanent disability, but the petitioner has not adduced any evidence to show that he sutained any permanent disability. Though, P.W.2 and R.W.2 are examined, nothing was elicited from them to show that he is sustained any disability. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any amount towards permanent disability.

(vi)The petitioner claimed Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of earnings. The evidence of P.W.2 and R.W.2 show, he was treated as inpatient from 18.01.2018 to 24.01.2018 that means he underwent treatment as inpatient for 6 days. However, it cannot be ignored the petitioner underwent surgery for fracture of neck of femur.

Therefore, one cannot expect immediately he can to attend his works. Though, the evidence of R.W.2 shows, it is he who conducted operation to the petitioner, but the evidence of P.W.2 also cannot be brushed aside totally as the 3rd respondent does not deny that the P.W.2 is consultant Orthopedic Surgeon in the Hospital, where the petitioner was treated. Therefore, considering the nature of the injury, the bed rest for 3 months advised by the P.W.2 can be taken into consideration.

(vii)According to the petitioner, he was driver of school bus and earning

Rs.10,000/- per month and other Battas and amenities at the time of accident, but he did not produce any certificate of his salary. In the absence of such certificate issued by the employer, it cannot be considered. In such circumstances, the income of the petitioner has to be taken notionally. So, considering the year of accident, his income can be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, loss of earnings during convalescent period can be taken as Rs.24,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 3 months). Further, since the petitioner is a resident of Kutukuluru and he was treated at Rayavaram, an amount of Rs.6,000/- can be awarded for transportation charges. The petitioner also entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. Regarding attendant charges, no document is filed to show the number of persons attended, but the fact remains at least one person should have attended him in view of fracture to his 9 MVOP No. 58/2019 Family Court, Rjvrm.

neck femur. Considering the cost of medical attendants, I feel it just and proper to award Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges during his treatment in the hospital while considering his age.

12.Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled to the following amounts:

HeadCompensation (Rs.) Compensation for one grievous injury Rs.50,000.00

Pain and suffering Rs.10,000.00

Loss of income for three months Rs.24,000.00

Attendant charges Rs.5,000.00

Transport charges Rs.6,000.00

Extra Nourishment Rs.5,000.00

TotalRs.1,00,000.00

(Rupees One Lakh only)

13.The Honourable Supreme Court of India in Jaik Hussein v. Sabir and

others in Civil Appeal No. 2006 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 981 OF

2014) decided on 18.02.2015 held that:

"As regards the rate of interest to be awarded on the compensation awarded in this appeal, we are of the view that the Tribunal and High Court have erred in granting interest at only 07% p.a. and 08% p.a. respectively on the total compensation amount instead of 09% by applying the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2011) 14 SC 481 = AIR 2012 SC 100. Accordingly, we award the interest @ 09% per annum on the compensation determined in the present appeal”

(ii)In view of the above proposition of law, it is proper to award interest at 9% per annum, on Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization.

(iii)In view of the answer to Issue No.1, there is no dispute that, the 1st respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle and the 2nd respondent is its owner.

10 MVOP No. 58/2019 Family Court, Rjvrm.

It is also not in dispute that the offending vehicle is insured with the 3rd respondent /

Insurance Company vide Ex.B1 and it is valid from 25.10.2017 to 24.10.2018. The accident in this case took place on 18.01.2018. Therefore, it is clear that as on the date of accident, the policy is in force. Hence, since the 1st respondent being driver, the 2nd respondent being its owner and the 3rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle AP 05 DY 8767, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the respondents.

14.ISSUE NO.3:

In view of answers to Issue Nos. 1 and 2, the 1st respondent being driver, the 2nd respondent being owner and the 3rd respondent being insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs, against the respondents 1 to 3 awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

The 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this Order. Considering the amount of compensation and age of the petitioner, on such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount at once. The petitioner is directed to file his Bank account details as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (c) No.7 of 2024 dated 22.04.205 within seven days from today, by duly issuing notice to the respondent No. 3 or else, petitioner is not entitled to the interest from 09.04.2026 till filing bank account details.

The 3rd Respondent is directed to deposit the amount permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner in his bank account. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, on this the 9 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-Smt M.Madhuri

Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-Judge, Family Court- cum-IX Adddl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

11 MVOP No. 58/2019 Family Court, Rjvrm.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:

P.W.1 : Pulagam Bhaskara Reddy P.W.2 : Dr. Karri Srinivasa Reddy

for Respondent:

R.W.1 : M.Nageswara Rao R.W.2 : Dr.T.Naveen

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For petitioner:

Ex.A1 is the First Information Report dated 26.01.2018

Ex.A2 is the wound certificate

Ex.A3 is the Charge sheet in Crime No. 32/2018

Ex.A4 is the X-ray

For Respondents :

Ex.B1 is the copy of the insurance policy.

Ex.X-1 is the Discharge Summary

Sd/-Smt M.Madhuri

Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-Judge, Family Court- cum-IX Adddl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

APEG010017022025

FORM -A

[Rule 67 (1) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAMAHENDRAVRAM.

PRESENT: Smt. M.Madhuri, Judge, Family Court cum IX Addl. District and Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram

Wednesday, the 8th day of April, 2026.

SESSIONS CASE No. 81 /2025

(P.R.C.No.70/2022 of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Rajamahendravaram in Crime No.339/2022 of I Town L & O P.S. Rajamahendravaram)

Complainant Inspector of Police, I Town L & O P.S. Rajamahendravaram.

Represented by Additional Public Prosecutor, East Godavari District. Rajamahendravaram.

Accused 1. Cheliki Veeranna @ Double, S/o. Sudhakar, aged 33 years, D.No.41-2-135, Veerabhadranagar, 16th ward, Thadithota, Thummagunta School Street, Rajamahendravaram.

2. Anaparthi Sattibabu @ Safari, S/o. Laxminarayana (late), aged 27 years, D.No.41-2- 95, Veerabhadra Nagar, Kamela road last street, Rajamahendravaram.

3.Mutyala Chinni, S/o. Appa Rao, C/o. Srinu, aged 32 years, D.No.45-6-28, Relli Street, Ashok Nagar, Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram.

2 S.C.No.81/2025 IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

4. Kilari Srinivasa Rao, @ Srinu, S/o. Abraham, aged 42 years, D.No.45-22-32, Bye pass road, Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram.

Represented by Sri. J. Mahesh, Legal Aid Defence Counsel for accused No. 1 and 3. Sri. K.N.Bhulok, Advocate for accused No.2 Sri S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Accused No.4

FORM -B

[Rule 67 (2) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

Date of offence 11.10.2022

Date of First Information Report 11.10.2022

Date of Framing of Charges 17.12.2025

Date of Commence of Evidence 16.03.2026

Date on which Judgment Reserved 30.03.2026

Date of the sentencing order, if any08.04.2026

Accused Details

Rank of the accused 1. Cheliki Veeranna @ Double Name of the accused 2. Anaparthi Sattibabu @ Safari

3. Mutyala Chinni

4. Kilari Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu.

Date of Arrest Accused Nos. 1 to 4 12.10.2022

Offences charged with 307, 394, 397 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

Whether acquitted or Acquitted convicted 3 S.C.No.81/2025 IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

Sentence imposed In the result, accused Nos. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charge under section 307, 394, 397 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted for the above said charge under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. A1 and A2 set at liberty if they are not required in any other case. The bail bonds of A3 and A4 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time under Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 30.03.2026 in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri

J. Mahesh, Legal Aid Defence Counsel for accused Nos. 1 and 3and Sri.

K.N.Bhulok, Advocate for 2nd accusedand of Sri S.N.Murthy, Advocate for 4th accused and after hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused Nos. 1 to 4 are facing trial for the offence punishable under

Section 307, 394, 397 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, in Crime No.339/2022 of I

Town L & O P.S. Rajamahendravaram.

2.The provenance of the case of the prosecution as per the averments made in the charge sheet succinctly is:-

The informant Panthada Satish is a native of Yetimoga, Jagannadhapuram,

Kakinada. About 3 months prior to the incident in this case, he came to

Rajamahndravaram due to his family disputes. He got acquaintance recently with one Veeranna (A1) and his colleague Anaparthi Sattibabu (A2) and some others.

On 11.10.2022 at 6.00 am all of them started consuming alcohol near Ramakrishna

Theatre, Tadithota. There started wordy altercation, during which A1 Veeranna beat the informant with iron rod on his head and legs by saying by coming somewhere else he is causing obstruction to them, that even if he is killed he had nobody to question (“nuvvu yekkada numdo vachi ikkada maku addupaduthunnav, ninnu 4 S.C.No.81/2025 IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm champithe neeku dikku evadu ra lanja kodaka”). Meantime, another accused

Sathibabu kicked him by saying bastered died (“chachadu lanja koduku” “veedu chasten neeku yeduru undadu” )and A3 and A4 robbed Rs.500/- from his pocket, took his jio cell phone and slippers and escaped from there. Due to the said attack, he received severe bleeding injuries on his head, hands, face and blood also started oozing from the mouth. The surrounding people called 108 ambulance and shifted him to Government Hospital, Rajamahendravaram and the doctor treated him.

(ii)Basing on his statement on 11.10.2022 at 10.30 am, the ASI Ch.

Ramakrishna of I Town Law & Order Police Station, Rajamahendravaram recorded his statement. The Sub Inspector of Police S. Venkaiah registered a case in

Cr.No.339/2022 for the offences under Sections 307, 394, 397 r/w.34 IPC and investigated into.

(iii) During his investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough siketch and examined 5 witnesses. On 12.10.2022 at 9.00 am, on credible information, he secured mediators Dudi Srinivasa Rao and Kollu Dedeepya and arrested the accused at 9.30 am opposite to Gokul TVS Showroom,

Rajamahendravaram. The confession made by A1 to A4 discloses that A1 had thrown the crime weapon nearby transformer and took the police to the transformer situated nearby and produced the iron rod and handed-over to him, but no blood stains were found on the weapon due to rain. Their confession further revealed that they spent the cash of Rs.500/- taken from the informant for their needs and had thrown away slippers in intoxication condition and destroyed the mobile phone and thrown away the pieces. On 28.10.2022 his successor S. Venkaiah conducted investigation, obtained wound certificate and filed the charge sheet.

3.Upon consideration of the entire material placed on record, the learned II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram took cognizance

of offence punishable under Sections 307, 394 and 397 r/w.34 of Indian Penal 5 S.C.No.81/2025 IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

Code against the accused Nos. 1 to 4. As the offence alleged is under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Court, East Godavari,

Rajamahendravaram after duly following the procedure under Section 209 Code of

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.). The Hon’ble District and

Sessions Judge, East Godavari Division, Rajamahendravaram took the case on

file, numbered the same as S.C.No. 81/2025 and made over the same to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.

4.Upon appearance of the accused, heard the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel defending the accused Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. Upon consideration of arguments of both sides, coupled with entire material placed on record, as per provisions of Section 228 Cr.P.C, charge is framed for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 394 and 397 r/w.34 of Indian

Penal Code against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which, they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused Nos. 1 to 4, on behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 6 are examined and Exs.P1 to P8 and M.O.1 are marked.

6.Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused Nos 1 to 4 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence, but filed copy of the First Information Report in

Crime No. 339/2022 against the defaco-complainant/injured.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8.Now, the points for consideration are:- “Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the

charge leveled against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 307,

6 S.C.No.81/2025 IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

394 and 397 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

9.POINT:-

The simple case of the prosecution is on 11.10.2022 at 6.00 am while the informant and accused while consuming alcohol, an altercation took place between the accused on one hand and the informant on the other hand, in which A1 beat the informant on his head and legs with an iron rod with an intention to kill him, A2 also kicked him and took his mobile phone, A3 and A4 robbed Rs.500/- . Due to the said assault, the informant sustained bleeding injuries to his head and legs etc.

10.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused though the prosecution cited the informant P. Satish as a witness , but unfortunately he could not be examined as he was already died by the time of commencement of trial.

(I) According to prosecution P.Ws. 1 and 2 are business people and their shops are situated near the scene of offence. The prosecution examined one M.

Kumar Kushwaha and Gollavilli Krishna as material witnesses who have seen the injured with bleeding injuries and shifted him to the hospital by calling 108 ambulance and to whom the informant narrated the incident, but they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. P.Ws. 1 and 2 testified they are doing business but they do not know the facts fo the case.

(ii) P.W.3 D. Srinivasa Rao is the Ward Revenue Secretary. He is examined as mediator to Ex.P3 scene observation report and also one of the mediator for arrest of A1 to A4 and seizure of MO.1 under Ex.P4.

(iii) P.W.4 Dr. Deepika the Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Head Quarters

Hospital, Rajamahendravaram deposed as to Ex.P5 wound certificate issued by her after examining the injured on 11.10.2022 at 8.00 am.

7 S.C.No.81/2025 IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

(iv) PW.5 is the then Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, III Town Police

Station, deposed as to Ex.P6 statement of the injured recorded by him on 11.10.2022 at 8.30 am on receipt of intimation from the Government Hospital.

(v) PW6 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, I Town Law & Order Police

Station, Rajamahendravaram deposed as to registering Ex.P7 FIR on 11.10.2022 at 10.30 am basing on Ex.P6 statement of the injured recorded by PW5, visiting the scene of offence, examining witnesses, preparing Ex.P3 scene observation report and Ex.P8 rough sketch in the presence of P.W.3 and another mediator Dedeepya.

He further deposed as to arrest of A1 to A4 on 12.10.2022 in the presence of PW3 and another mediator Dedeepya at Gokul TVS Showroom, Tadithota and seizure of

MO1 under E.xP4 in pursuance of confession made by A1 to A4.

11.It may be noted that except the injured as per the prosecution there are no eye witnesses, but already stated the prosecution was unable to examine the injured as he expired even before commencement of trial. Though P.Ws. 2 and 3 are not eye witnesses, as per version of prosecution, the injured narrated the incident. But as already discussed, they have not supported the case of prosecution. The other material evidence is that of PW.4 medial officer who treated the injured, her evidence shows when she examined the injured on 11.10.2022 at 8.00 am, she found 1) A laceration over occipital region 3x1/2x1/2 inch. 2) A laceration over chin and left face 2x1x1 cms. He underwent treatment till 25.10.2022 as inpatient. Her evidence further shows that though she suggested for

MRI brain, but it was not taken. Therefore the General Surgeon opined the injuries are simple in nature. Whatever it be, her evidence only shows on 11.10.2022. the injured was admitted in the hospital with injuries on head and face but her evidence is not helpful to show it is the accused who caused the injuries.

(ii)The other evidence is circumstantial evidence of PW3, the mediator and PW5 the investigation officer. The confession made by the accused to PW5 is 8 S.C.No.81/2025 IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm not admissible under Sec. 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Though it is contended by the prosecution MO1 is seized in pursuance of the confession of the accused admittedly the place, where MO1 is seized is a public place having access to public at large. Moreover as per evidence of P.W.6 and Ex.P4 the measurements of the weapon seized is 41.5 centimeters with circumference of 12.3 centimeters. It is admitted by PW5, MO1 produced before the court is not 41.5 centimeters and 12.3 circumference. Therefore even if the evidence of PW5 is taken into consideration

MO1 cannot be said to be the weapon seized under Ex.P4.

12.In the light of the foregoing discussion, I found the prosecution failed to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to establish the guilt of the accused for the charges under Sec. 307, 394, 397 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

13.In the result, the accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charges under

Sec. 307, 394, 397 r/w.34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Sec.235(1)

Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. A1 and A2 are set at liberty if they are not required in any other case. The bail bonds of A3 and A4 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time under Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer of VIII ADJ court, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court, this the 8th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-Smt M.Madhuri

Family court cum IX Additional District and Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram.

9 S.C.No.81/2025 IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

FORM -C

[Rule 67 (3) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

List of prosecution/defence/court witnesses

A. Prosecution:

RankName Nature of evidence

P.W.1Mintu Kumar Proximate witness for scene of offence

P.W.2Gollavilli Krishna Proximate witness for scehene of offence

P.W.3 D. Srinivasa RaoMediator for arrest and seizure

P.W.4 Dr. DeepikaDoctor, who issued wound certificate

P.W.5 Ch. Ramakrishna Who recorded the statement of injured.

P.W.6 S. Venkaiah Investigation Officer.

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RankName Nature of evidence

Nil.

C. Court witnesses, if any: RankName Nature of evidence

Nil.

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS [Rule 67 (3) ] A. Prosecution :

Sl. No. Exhibit Description. Number

1. Ex.P1 Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1 (Though P.W.1)

2. Ex.P2 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 (Through P.W.2)

3.Ex.P3 is the scene observation report . (Through P.W.3) 10 S.C.No.81/2025 IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

4. Ex.P4 is admissible portion of mediators reported (Through P.W.3)dated 12.10.2022

5. Ex.P5 Wound Certificate dated 11.10.2022. (Through P.W.4)

6. Ex.P6 is the statement of Panthada Satish (Through P.W.5)

7. Ex.P7 the First Information Report in Cr.No.339/2022 (Through P.W.6)

8.Ex.P8 is the rough sketch. (Though P.W.6) B. Defence : Nil.

C. Court Exhibits : Nil.

D. Material Objects: Sl.No.Material object Description . number

1. M.O.1 is the iron rod. (Through P.W.3)

Sd/-Smt M.Madhuri

JUDGE,

Family court cum IX Additional District and Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram.

11 S.C.No.81/2025 IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, EAST GODAVARI AT RAJAMAHENDRAVRAM.

PRESENT: Smt. M.Madhuri, Judge, Family Court cum IX Addl. District and Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram

Wednesday, the 8th day of April, 2026.

SESSIONS CASE No. 81 /2025

(P.R.C.No.70/2022 of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Rajamahendravaram in Crime No.339/2022 of I Town L & O P.S. Rajamahendravaram)

Complainant Inspector of Police, I Town L & O P.S. Rajamahendravaram.

Represented by Additional Public Prosecutor, East Godavari District. Rajamahendravaram.

Accused 1. Cheliki Veeranna @ Double, S/o. Sudhakar, aged 33 years, D.No.41-2-135, Veerabhadranagar, 16th ward, Thadithota, Thummagunta School Street, Rajamahendravaram.

2. Anaparthi Sattibabu @ Safari, S/o. Laxminarayana (late), aged 27 years, D.No.41-2- 95, Veerabhadra Nagar, Kamela road last street, Rajamahendravaram.

3.Mutyala Chinni, S/o. Appa Rao, C/o. Srinu, aged 32 years, D.No.45-6-28, Relli Street, Ashok Nagar, Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram.

4. Kilari Srinivasa Rao, @ Srinu, S/o. Abraham, aged 42 years, D.No.45-22-32, Bye pass road, Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram.

Represented by Sri. J. Mahesh, Legal Aid Defence Counsel for accused No. 1 and 3. Sri. K.N.Bhulok, Advocate for accused No.2 Sri S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Accused No.4 12 S.C.No.81/2025 IX Addl. District Court, Rjvrm

Date of Arrest : 12.10.2022 Offences charged with : 307, 394 and 397 r/w.34 of Indian penal Code Plea of Accused :Pleaded not guilty Whether acquitted or convicted Acquitted.

Sentence imposed : In the result, accused Nos. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charge under section 307, 394, 397 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted for the above said charge under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. A1 and A2 set at liberty if they are not required in any other case. The bail bonds of A3 and A4 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time under Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C.

a) Offence :11.10.2022

b) Committal :19.11.2024

c) Receipt of record:21.03.2025

d) Appearance of accused:15.04.2025

e) Commencement of trial :16.03.2026

f) Closure of trial :23.03.2026

g) Judgment pronounced:08.04.2025

9. Explanation for delay : This case record is received as made over from the Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Court, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram on 21.03.2025. On 17.12.2025, the accused are examined under Sec.251 BNSS, and Charge has been framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the same and claimed to be tried. Trial is commenced from 16.03.2026 and concluded on 23.03.2026. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 26.03.2026. After hearing the arguments finally, on 30.03.2026 Judgment is

pronounced on 08.04.2026. Hence there is no unavoidable delay.

Sd/-Smt M.Madhuri

JUDGE,

Family court cum IX Additional District and Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram.

1.The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District.

2.The Directorate of Prosecution, Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District.

3.The Hon'ble District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

4.The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada.

5.The II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Rajamahendravaram

6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Kakinada.