Smt M.r.sunitha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.-CUM-I ADDL. DISTRICT

JUDGE AT NALGONDA.

Present: Smt. M.R.Sunitha, B.Com., LL.B.,

Chairman, MACT-cum-I Addl. Dist. Judge.

Dated this the 27th day of July, 2016.

O.P. NO. 927 OF 2010.

Between:

1. Ch. Yadagiri

2. Ch. Laxmi Petitioners.

And

1. G. Yella Reddy

2. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. ….Respondents.

This petition coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri P. Shyam Sunder, Advocate for petitioners and Sri A. Suresh Babu, Advocate

for respondent No.2, and respondent No.1 remained as exparte, and having

stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following:

ORDER

This is a petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V. Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules 1989 R/w Sec. 140 and 163-A of M.V. Act 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with costs and interest on account of the death of the deceased Chiluka Rajeswari in a motor vehicle accident.

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

That on 16-06-2010 at 07-15 P.M. the accused driver of Tipper vehicle bearing No. AP 12 V 0332 has drove the Tipper vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and was proceeding towards Koheda village from Peddaamberpet village and gave dash to seven seater passenger Auto bearing No. AP 13 V 7829 in opposite direction at

Kandala Sudhakar Reddy’s house at Uppartiguda, H/o Koheda village of

Hayathnagar Mandal, Cyberabad District.Later tipper Lorry hit to compound wall of Kandala Jangareddy house beside the road as a result of which seven seater auto driverSyed Muneer and passengers 2

Bhavedevi, Bharathi @ Rajeswari died on the spot. The deceased body was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for post mortem and all the injured were shifted to Hospital for treatment. Thus the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tipper

Lorry bearing no. AP 12 V 0332.The matter was reported to the police.

Prior to the accident, the deceased was quite hale and healthy, aged about 22 years, and studying B.Sc, and she would have been get good job and may get salary of Rs.30,000-00 per month, and used to contribute the same for the welfare and maintenance of her family members. The petitioners have no other source of income and depended on the earnings of the deceased.Due to the sudden demise of the deceased petitioners could not recover from the shock and they became destitute.Therefore, the petitioners are claiming compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads against the respondents No.1 & 2, owner and insurer of the Tipper Lorry bearing No. AP 12 V 0332, jointly and severally.

3.Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed counter with the following allegations;

The accident was not taken place in the manner as alleged. The age, income, avocation and health condition of the deceased are specifically denied. The driver of the Tipper Lorry was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident.The amount claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive. Claimants failed to implead the owner and insurer of the seven seater auto bearing No. AP 13

V 7829, and in their absence the petition is not maintainable. There are no merits in the petition and the same may be dismissed.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed; 3

1. Whether the death of the deceased by name Chiluka Rajeswari died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing No. AP 12 V 0332?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

5.In order to prove the claim of the petitioners, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the petitioners.

Ex.A-1 is C.C. Of F.I.R. Ex.A-2 is C.C. of Inquest.Ex.A-3 is C.C. of Post mortem Examination Report. Ex.A-4 is the C.C. of Charge sheet. Ex.A-5 is the C.C. of Motor vehicle Inspector’s Report.Ex.A-6 is the Academic

Records including caste certificate and Employment card of the deceased.

On behalf of the second respondent, R.W-1 was examined, and Ex. B-1 copy of insurance policy is marked with consent.

6.Arguments are heard.

Issue No.1:-

7.The deceased Rajeswari is the daughter of Claimants No.1 and 2 and she died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 16-06-2010 at about 07-15 P.M. while she was travelling in the auto which was hit by the tipper bearing No. AP 12 V 0332. Therefore, the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

8.P.W-1 is father of the deceased Rajeswari and he came before the court and reiterated the facts with regard to the date, time, place, mode and manner of the accident. According to him, on 16-06-2010 at 07-15

P.m. her daughter was travelling in the auto bearing No. AP 13 V 7829 and suddenly one Tipper bearing No. AP 12 V 0332 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the seven seater passenger auto from the opposite direction and also gave hit to the compound wall of oneKandala Jangareddy house at Uppariguda H/o

Koheda village and that due to the said accident of her daughter and 4 driver of the auto died on the spot. It was his further evidence that the case has been registered against the driver of the tipper by the police,

Hayathnagar P.S in crime No. 294/2010 for the offence under sec. 304-A and 337 IPC and that the main cause of the accident is the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper only.

9.P.W-2 is the eyewitness to the said accident and his evidence is that on 16-6-2010 at 07-15 P.M he was sitting infront of his house and suddenly the driver of the tipper bearing No. AP 12 V 0332 drove his tipper in a rash and negligent manner at high speed while proceeding towards Koheda village from Peddaamberpet and gave dash to a seven seater passenger auto bearing no. AP 13 V 7829 which was coming from the opposite direction and with the same force hit the compound wall of one K. Jangareddy’s house. As a result of which the auto driver Syed

Muneer and the passengers by name Bhavedevi, Bharathi @ Rajeshwari died on the spot and that the dead bodies of the deceased were shifted to

Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for post Mortem, while the other passengers were shifted to the Hospital for treatment. Nothing could be elicited to the cross examination of P.Ws 1 and 2 to disprove the mode and manner of the accident.

10.Further the petitioners not only evincing their evidence orally and also relied upon the documents exhibited under Ex.A-1 to A-6.Ex.A-1 is

C.C. Of F.I.R., which shows that a case has been registered in Cr.No.

294/2010 by the Police, Hayathnagar, against the driver of theTipper bearing No. AP 12 V 0332, for the offence under secs. 304-A, 337 of IPC.

Ex.A-2 is C.C. Of Inquest Report of the deceased Rajeshwari, wherein the

Panchas, who were present at the time of inquest opined that the death was due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. Ex.A-3 is C.C. of

Post mortem examination report, which shows that the deceased died due 5 to head injury. Ex. A-4 is C,C. of Charge Sheet, which shows that P.W-2 is the complainant in this case and first respondent is the accused and the

Police laid down charge sheet after thorough investigation fastening the liability against the first Respondent.Ex.A-5 is C.C. of Motor Vehicle

Inspectors report shows that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Therefore, from the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 coupled with the documents Ex.A-1 to A-5, it is crystal clear that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tipper bearing No. AP 12 V 0332, and the death of the deceased Rajeshwari is the outcome of the said accident.Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

Issue No.2:-

11.According to the evidence of P.W-1, the deceased Rajeshwari is prosecuting her B.Sc. degree and that she was a brilliant student, belonging to scheduled caste and she had many opportunities in

Government services and assessed the loss of future earnings of the deceased at 6,00,000/-. Though the deceased has completed her graduation of B.Sc, she was still a non-earning person at the time of her death. No one can forecast the future even of a living person without getting into any job. The death in this case occurred when the deceased was still prosecuting her education. Further it was not the case of the petitioners that the deceased was earning any amount by doing any part time or full time job. Therefore, treating the deceased as non-earning person, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.15,000/- per annum, as per the second schedule of Motor Vehicles Act.

12.The age of the deceased Rajeshwari as on the date of her death is 22 years, as per the post mortem examination report.Therefore, the 6 relevant multiplier applicable is “18” as per the formula prescribed in Para

No.21 of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma and

others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” reported in 2009

ACJ – 1298”. As the claimant is bachelor, as per the said decision, 50 per cent of the amount has to be deducted for the expenses, which the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive. As stated above, the earnings of the deceased was taken at

Rs.15,000/- per annum. Out of the above said amount, 50 per cent has to be deducted towards her personal expenses, had she been alive, which comes to Rs.7,500/-. So, the actual contribution of the deceased to her family is taken at Rs.7,500/- per annum. So, the loss of dependency and contribution of the deceased works out to Rs.1,35,000/- (Rs.7,500 x 18 multiplier = Rs.1,35,000/-). Further, the Petitioners are also entitled for

Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate, love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges.

Thus in all the petitioners are awarded an amount of Rs.1,97,000/- .

13.Now it has to be decided as to who has to pay the compensation on account of the death of the deceased Rajeshwari. First Respondent being owner of the tipper did not choose to attend the Court to defend his case and therefore, he was set exparte.Second respondent filed counter disputing the mode and manner of the accident, and he also examined their law officer to put forth their defence.

14.The evidence of R.W-1 is that the petitioners did not implead the driver of the crime vehicle as a party to their case and further they did not file scene of offence panchanama and the sketch map prepared by the police to fix the responsibility on the crime vehicle and further the driver of the crime vehicle was not possessing effective driving licence at the 7 material time of accident and that in view of the afore said reasons, the claim of the petitioners is not maintainable.

15.R.W-1 in his cross examination admitted that the charge sheet was filed against the crime vehicle mentioned in the F.I.R. and not against the driver of the auto, and as such, it is not essential to implead the driver of the auto as a party. This witness also admitted that the remaining claims filed by the other claimants were decreed at Rangareddy District Court. It was suggested to the witness that there is no necessity to file the scene of offence panchanama to prove the case as already charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the tipper.

16.Non adding of the driver as a party to the proceedings is not fatal to the case of the petitioners and further non-filing of scene of offence panchanama and sketch map prepared by the police is no way obstruct the case of the petitioners, as Ex.A-4 charge sheet is very much clear that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tipper. Furthermore, the evidence of PW-2 is also corroborating the charge sheet and the last grievance of second respondent that the driver was not possessing effective driving license at the material time of accident was not proved by this respondent, so as to conclude that the driver has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, having regard to the above discussion, it is crystal clear that the second respondent cannot escape from their liability. Furthermore, Ex.B-1 copy of insurance policy is filed by the second respondent, which shows that the crime vehicle was duly insured with them at the material time of accident.

Therefore, respondents No.1 and 2, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered.

ISSUE NO.3 :- 8

17.In the result, this petition is partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.1,97,000 /- (Rs. One Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation to the petitioners.Respondents No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and they are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this order. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled in equal shares.

On such deposit, both the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them.Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court on this the 27th day of July, 2016.

CHAIRMAN,

M.A.C.T. (I ADJ), NALGONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

PW-1 Chiluka Yadagiri – claimant No.1 PW-2 Kandala Ranga Reddy @ Bindu Ranga Reddy – Eyewitness.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

RW-1 S.Chandrashekar Reddy – Law officer in R-2 company.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Ex.A-1C.C. Of F.I.R. Ex.A-2C.C. of Inquest. Ex.A-3C.C. of Post mortem Examination Report. Ex.A-4C.C. of Charge sheet. Ex.A-5C.C. of Motor vehicle Inspector’s Report. Ex.A-6Academic Records including caste certificate and Employment card of the deceased.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Ex.B-1Copy of insurance policy.

CHAIRMAN,

M.A.C.T. (I ADJ), NALGONDA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.-CUM-I ADDL. DISTRICT

JUDGE AT NALGONDA.

Present: Smt. M.R.Sunitha, B.Com., LL.B.,

Chairman, MACT-cum-I Addl. Dist. Judge.

Dated this the 27th day of July, 2016.

O.P. NO. 975 OF 2013.

Between:

1. V. Rama @ Rama Devi

2. V. Nitesh Petitioners.

And

1. D. Bhagavan

2. Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. ….Respondents.

This petition coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri A. Vasantha Rao, Advocate for petitioners and Sri G. V. S. Chalapathi Rao, Advocate for respondent No.2, The respondent No.1 remained as exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following:

ORDER

This is a petition filed under Sec.163- A of M.V. Act, 1988R/w

Sec. 140 of M.V. Act 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with costs and interest on account of the death of the deceased Vangari

Kishore in a motor vehicle accident.

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

That on 18-09-2013 at 09-30 P.M. the deceased Vangari Kishore poured petrol in his motor cycle bearing No. A 12 K 4107 and he was proceeding towards Pochampally village and he has been driving the same in a moderate speed on the extreme left side of the road. When he reached near Meeseva while so a tractor bearing No. AP 24 TB 4727 and 4722 parked the same on the road without taking any precautionary steps such as put on the blinking lights or any cautions, as a result the deceased could not observed the same and dashed to the stationed tractor from its back side, as a result he sustained multiple injuries all over the body and head injury. Immediately he was shifted to Sunrise Hospital, Hayath 2

Nagar, Hyderabad where he succumbed to injuries on 19-09-2013, while undergoing treatment in the said Hospital. Thus the accident occurred due to the negligent parking of the tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 24 TB 4727 and 4722. The matter was reported to the police.

Prior to the accident, the deceased was quite hale and healthy, aged about 20 years, and had completed polytechnic course, and was earning Rs.300-00 per day, and used to contribute the same for the welfare and maintenance of his family members, who are solely depending on the earnings of the deceased. On account of the accident, the petitioners lost their source of income, and they became destitute.

Therefore, the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under various heads against the respondents No.1 & 2, owner and insurer of the tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 24 TB 4727 and 4722 jointly and severally.

3.Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed counter with the following allegations;

The accident was not taken place in the manner as alleged.The age, income, avocation and health condition of the deceased are specifically denied. The driver of the tractor and trailer was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident.The amount claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive.

There are no merits in the petition and the same may be dismissed.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed;

1. Whether the death of the deceased by name Vangari Kishore caused tractor and trolley bearing No. AP 24 TB 4727 and 4722?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

3

5.In order to prove the claim of the petitioners, Pw.1 examined and

Ex.A-1 to A-10 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. Ex.A-1 is C.C.

Of F.I.R. Ex.A-2 is C.C. of Inquest.Ex.A-3 is C.C. of Post mortem

Examination Report. Ex.A-4 is the C.C. of Charge sheet. Ex.A-5 is the

C.C. of Motor vehicle Inspector’s Report. Ex.A-6 is the IP final bill for Rs 14,600/- issued by the sunrise hospitals, Hyderabad. Ex.A-7 are bunch of medical bills for Rs.28,104/-.Ex. A-8 is the original salary Certificate issued by the Akash Metal Industries. Ex.A-9 is X-Ray film. Ex.A-10 is

Xerox copy of House hold card. On behalf of the second respondent, no witnesses were examined, and no document is marked.

6.Arguments are heard.

Issue No.1:-

7.The petitioners are the mother and brother of the deceased Vangari

Kishore who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 18-09- 2013. P.W-1 is the mother of the deceased and her evidence is that on 18-09-2013 her son was going on his motor cycle bearing No. AP 12 K 4107 from Pochampally village towards their village Jablakpally and on the way at about 09-00 P.M. when he reached near Meeseva at Pochampally village and a tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 24 TB 4727 and 4722 was parked on the road without taking any precautionary measures so as to enlighten the other vehicles that a heavy vehicle has been stationed on the road, as a result of which her son could not observe the said stationed tractor and trailer in the darkness and therefore, dashed it from its backside and sustained head injury and other multiple injuries all over the body and was shifted to Sunrise Hospital Hayath Nagar and that on the next day while he was undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries.

The further evidence of P.W-1 is that she spent an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards treatment and medicines for one day and that her son was 4 working as an employee in Akash Metal Industries, Narayangiri village of

Pochampally Mandal and was earning Rs. 300/- per day and looking after the welfare of their family as her husband died one and half year prior to the death of her son.

8.Perused the records filed by the petitioners exhibited under Ex.A-1 to A-10.Ex.A-1 is C.C. Of F.I.R., which shows that a case has been registered in Cr.No. 129/2013 by the Police, Pochampally, against the driver of the tractor and trolley bearing No. AP 24 TB 4727 and 4722, for the offence under sec. 304-A of IPC.Ex.A-2 is C.C. Of Inquest report shows that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Ex.A-3 is C.C. of Postmortem examination report, which shows that the deceased died due to head injury. Ex. A-4 is C,C. of Charge

Sheet, which shows that the Police laid down charge sheet after thorough investigation fastening the liability against the driver of tractor and trolley bearing No. AP 24 TB 4727 and 4722. Ex.A-5 is C.C. of Motor Vehicle

Inspectors report shows that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.On perusal of Ex.A-1 to A-5, it is crystal clear that the tractor and trolley bearing No. AP 24 TB 4727 and 4722 was stationed in the middle of the road without putting any blinking lights or indicators to show that a vehicle was stationed in the middle of the road, and as such the deceased could not observed the tractor and trolley gave dash to it and sustained injuries and died.Therefore, after considering all the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record it is crystal clear that the accident has taken place due to the negligent parking of the Tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 24 TB 4727 and 4722, and the death of the deceased Kishore is the outcome of the said accident. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

5

Issue No.2:-

9.Now it has to be decided as to what is the amount of compensation to be awarded to the petitioner.The evidence of P.W-1 shows that her deceased son aged about 20 years and was working as an employee in

Akash Metal Industries, Narayangiri village and was earning Rs. 300/- per day. She also filed the salary certificate of the deceased marked as Ex.A- 8, which shows that the deceased worked in the said industry from 1-7- 2012 to 18-09-2013 on contract basis and his wage is Rs. 300/- per day.

Though the petitioner filed the salary certificate of the deceased, she did not choose to examine the owner of the said industry. Furthermore, the employment of the deceased is purely on contract basis and there is no guarantee that he will continue in the said services for whole of his future.

Therefore, this court fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month.

10.As seen from the records, the age of the deceased is 20 years.

Therefore, the relevant multiplier applicable is “18” as per the formula prescribed in Para No.21 of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in “Sarla

Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another”

reported in 2009 ACJ – 1298”. As the claimant is bachelor, as per the said decision, 50 per cent of the amount has to be deducted for the expenses, which the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive. As stated above, the earnings of the deceased was taken as Rs.4,000/- per month. Out of the above said amount, 50 per cent has to be deducted towards his personal expenses, had he been alive, which comes to Rs.2,000/-. So, the actual monthly contribution of the deceased to his family is taken as Rs.2,000/- per month. So, the loss of dependency and contribution of the deceased works out to Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.2,000 x 12 x 18 multiplier = Rs.4,32,000/-).

6

Further, the Petitioners are also entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges. Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs.4,54,000/-, but the petitioner filed this petition seeking

compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- and therefore, the award amount

restricted to Rs. 4,00,000/-.

11.Though the petitioner filed medical bills she did not examine the concerned doctor to prove the treatment and expenses. Therefore, no amount is granted under the head of medical expenses.

12.Now it has to be decided as to who has to pay the compensation on account of the death of the deceased Kishore. As seen from the records

Respondent No.1 remained absent and the second Respondent filed counter disputing the mode and manner of the accident, but he did not choose to file the policy copy nor put forth any evidence. But the copy of insurance policy filed by the petitioners is available in the records. Second

Respondent did not choose to put forth any evidence to disprove the insurance of the crime vehicle with their company.Therefore, it is presumed that the crime vehicle is insured with the second Respondent and the burden of compensating the petitioners rests upon the both

Respondents and the Respondents No.1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the tractor and trolley are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered.

ISSUE NO.3 :-

13.In the result, this petition is allowed awarding compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lakhs only) with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation to the petitioners.Respondents No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and they are directed to deposit the 7 compensation amount within one month from the date of this order.

Petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs. 3,00,000/- and Petitioner No. 2 is entitled for Rs. 1,00,000/-.On such deposit, petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the remaining amount of her share shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years. Petitioner No.2 is permitted to withdraw the entire amount awarded to him.Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court on this the 27th day of July, 2016.

CHAIRMAN,

M.A.C.T. (I ADJ), NALGONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

PW-1 Vangari Rama @ Rama Devi – claimant No.1

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Ex.A-1C.C. Of F.I.R. Ex.A-2C.C. Of Inquest report Ex.A-3C.C. of Postmortem examination report, Ex. A-4C.C. of Charge Sheet. Ex.A-5C.C. of Motor Vehicle Inspectors report Ex.A-6IP final bill for Rs 14,600/- issued by the sunrise hospitals, Hyderabad. Ex.A-7Bunch of medical bills for Rs.28,104/-. Ex. A-8original salary Certificate issued by the Akash Metal Industries. Ex.A-9X-Ray film. Ex.A-10Xerox copy of House hold card.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

-NIL-

CHAIRMAN,

M.A.C.T. (I ADJ), NALGONDA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT

NALGONDA.

Dated this the 30th day of July, 2016.

Present: Smt. M.R.Sunitha,

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

SESSIONS CASE No. 71 of 2015.

Name and description of theS.H.O.,Thirumalagiri P.S. complainant Name and description of theA-1. Anugula Prashanth s/o. Lingamallu, accusedage; 20 years, occ; student, caste; Yadav, r/o. Kotilingala colony, Thirumalagiri village and Mandal. A-2. Anugula Komirelly s/o. Bakka Mallaiah, age; 36 years, caste; yadav, occ; Agrl, R/o. Kotilingala colony, Thirumalagiri village and Mandal.

Offence chargedSecs.354-D, 506 of IPC and Sec. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 against the accused No.1 and Sec.323IPC against the accused No.2.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Sentence or OrderThe accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Secs.354-D, 506 of IPC and Sec. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 and accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 323 of IPC, and accordingly, accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C., of the said charges. Bonds and bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall stands cancelled.

This Sessions Case is coming before me today for disposal in the presence of Sri J.Bhasker Reddy, Advocate for the accused and Sri S.R.Tagore, Addl. Public Prosecutor and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Thirumalgiri, has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offence punishable Under

Secs. 354(D), 506 IPC and Sec. 12 of the Protection of Children from 2

Sexual offences Act, 2012 and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Sec. 323 of IPC, with the following allegations:

That the victim girl herein has studied 10thclass in Kasturiba

Patashala at Sundaraiah Nagar, and the distance in between her

On 25-03-2015 10thclass house and school is half kilo meter.

exams started and her examination center is Krishnaveni Talent

English medium School at Suryapet road, Thirumala hills in front of

Fathima High School. The victim girl has attended the exams daily by walk from the Kasturiba School. The accused is waiting for an opportunity and that while she was coming lonely from her school to Krishnaveni Talent school for exams, the accused harassing her by saying he loved her and wanted to marry her and making the sign with eyes and shaking hands in the public place by using abusive words. Further the accused threatened the victim girl with dire consequences. However, she informed about this incident to her parents. On 31-03-2015 at 18-00 parents of the victim girl asked the accused in front of their house, in the meantime, accused No.2 has intervened and asked them why abused his elder brother’s son and picked up quarrel and beat the mother of the victim girl with hands on her left eye. Thus the accused No.1 is liable for the offence punishable under Secs.354-D, 506 of IPC and

Sec. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 and the accused is punishable under Sec. 323 IPC.

2.This case was taken on file against the accused No.1 for the offence under Secs. 354-D, 506 of IPC and Sec. 12 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 and against the accused No.2 for the offence under Sec. 323 of IPC.

3

3.On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2, they were furnished with copies of case documents and were examined under section 228(1)(b) Cr.P.C., and they denied the offence and wanted to be tried.Charges under Secs.354-D, 506 of IPC and Sec. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 against the accused No.1 and Sec. 323 IPC against the accused No.2 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 6 were examined and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material found in the evidence of the above said witnesses and they denied their evidence. No defence was reported.

6.Arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 are heard.

7.Now the point for determination is that whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

8.In order to establish the case of prosecution, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 6. PW-1 is the complainant and father of the victim girl. PW.2 is mother of the victim girl. PW-3 is the victim girl herein. PWs.4 and 5 are the eyewitnesses to the incident.

11.On careful scrutiny of the whole evidence on record, PWs.1 to 5, who are the material witnesses turned hostile and did not 4 support the case of prosecution.All the material witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution and did not state anything against the accused persons. PWs.4 to 6 stated in one voice that they do not know the facts of this case and they did not hear about the disputes between the accused family and the family of the victim girl. Further, as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused No.1 and 2, the examination of the accused No.1 and 2 under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.Therefore, having regard to the discussion made supra, it is crystal clear that there is no evidence on record to rope the accused No.1 and 2 with the alleged offences and the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 with the evidence on record and as such, the accusedNo.1 and 2 areentitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, point is answered.

12.In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Secs.354-D, 506 of IPC and Sec. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 and accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 323 of IPC, and accordingly, accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C., of the said charges. Bonds and bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall stands cancelled.

Dictated bythe Steno,transcribed and typed byhim,corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of July, 2016.

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Pw-1LW-1Singarapu RaviComplainant and father of victim. PW-2LW-2Singarapu Devendramother of victim PW-3LW-3Singarapu SandhyaVictim girl. PW-4LW-4Anugula SrinivasEyewitness.

5

PW-5LW-5Vanagandla Anjaiah-do- PW-6LW-6Sheela Mallaiah-do-

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1Signature of PW-1 on Complaint. Ex.P-2161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1 Ex.P-3161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2 Ex.P-4161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3. Ex.P-5161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4. Ex.P-6164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-5 Ex.P-7161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-6.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT

NALGONDA.

Dated this the 30th day of July, 2016.

Present: Smt. M.R.Sunitha,

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

SESSIONS CASE No. 130 of 2015.

Name and description of theS.H.O., Miryalguda I Town P.S. complainant Name and description of theShaik Niranjan s/o. Nizamoddin, age; 21 accusedyears, caste; Dudekula, occ; student, R/o. Bokkamanthalapahad V/o. Nidmanoor.

Offence chargedSecs. 366, 376 IPC, Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 and Sec.3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Sentence or OrderThe accused found not guilty for the offence under Secs. 366, 376 IPC, Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 and Sec.3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989and accordingly, accusedis acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C., of the said charges. Bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

This Sessions Case is coming before me today for disposal in the presence of Sri Ch.Nagaraju, Advocate for the accused and Sri S.R.Tagore, Addl. Public Prosecutor and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Miryalguda, has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable

Under Secs. 366, 376 IPC, Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual offences Act, 2012 and Sec.3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, with the following allegations:

2

Thatthe victim Dharmarapu Rajeshwari is studying

Intermediate 2ndyear (Bi.P.C) at Sri Gouthami Junior college at

Miryalaguda town.Being residents of the same village, the accused followed the victim very often and proposed to marry her.

Upon which, the victim girl also said to have been accepted his proposal and both fell in love. Having learnt about the affair between the accused and the victim, the parents of the victim admonished the victim girl. As such, the victim informed the matter to the accused. In turn the accused asked the victim to come out of her house assuring that he would marry her. On that, on 09-10- 2014 at about 13-00 hours the victim girl left her house on the pretext of attending exams, went to Shivalayam temple at

Miryalaguda from where the accused took her to the house of his relatives at Guntur, tied a black beads thread around the neck of the victim, pretended to have married her and had sex with her.

On 13-10-2014 on knowing about registration of a case at Police station, the accused sent the victim girl to Miryalaguda in bus.

Thus the accused is liable for the offence under Secs. 366, 376 IPC,

Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 and

Sec.3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Hence the charge sheet.

2.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Secs. 366, 376 IPC, Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 and Sec.3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (POA)

Act, 1989.

3.On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with copies of case documents and were examined under section 228(1)(b) 3

Cr.P.C., and he denied the offence and wanted to be tried.

Charges under Secs. 366, 376 IPC, Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 and Sec.3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (POA)

Act, 1989 against the accused were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-3.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

6.Arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused are heard.

7.Now the point for determination is that whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

8.In order to establish the case of prosecution, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. PW-1 is the complainant and father of the victim girl. PW.2 is the victim girl herself. PW-3 is the circumstantial witness and mother of the victim girl herein.

9.On careful scrutiny of the whole evidence on record, PW.1, who is the father of the victim girl and the defacto complainant, has stated that he performed the marriage of both the accused and the victim on their wish. Initially he gave complaint to the police, as he was not interested in their marriage due to religious difference, but both of them assured him that they lead happy life and therefore, 4 he performed the marriage and informed the same to the police also.

10.PW-2 is the victim girl herein and she stated that her parents at the first instance did not agree their marriage and her father threatened her by giving police complaint and thereafter, he agreed for their marriage and performed the same.

11.PW-3 who is the mother of the victim girl herein turned hostile to the case of prosecution and stated that the accused is their son in law and the marriage of the accused and the victim girl took place one year back and they are living happily and that they performed their marriage obliging their wish.Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. Therefore, having regard to the discussion made supra, it is crystal clear that there is no evidence on record to rope the accused with the alleged offences and the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and as such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, point is answered.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Secs. 366, 376 IPC, Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 and Sec.3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and accordingly, heis acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C., of the said charges. Bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

Typed by the Steno on my dictation, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of July, 2016.

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Pw-1LW-1Dharmarapu VenkannaComplainant PW-2LW-2Dharmarapu Rajeshwarivictim PW-3LW-3Dharmarapu RadhaMother of the Victim girl.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1Complaint. Ex.P-2164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1 Ex.P-3161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT

NALGONDA.

Dated this the 30th day of July, 2016.

Present: Smt. M.R.Sunitha,

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

SESSIONS CASE No. 22 of 2015.

Name and description of theS.H.O., Mothkur, P.S. complainant Name and description of theMothkuru Ramesh s/o. Yadaiah, age; 21 accusedyears, caste; SC.Madiga, occ; student, r/o. Paladugu village of Mothkur Mandal.

Offence chargedSecs. 354-A, 506 IPC and Sec. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Sentence or OrderThe accused found not guilty for the offence under Secs. 354-A, 506 IPC and Sec. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 and accordingly,he isacquitted under section 232of Cr.P.C., of the said charges. Bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

This Sessions Case is coming before me today for disposal in the presence of SriMd.Nazeeruddin,Advocate for the accusedand Sri S.R.Tagore, Addl. Public Prosecutor and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Mothkur, has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable Under Secs. 354-A, 506 IPC and Sec. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences

Act, 2012, with the following allegations:

That the victim girl herein is studying Diploma first year in

Civil at Thudi Ram Reddy Institute of Technology at Gudur village of Bibinagar Mandal and staying at the hostel of the same college and she came to her home for Sankranthi festival. That on 14-01- 2 2015 at 14-00 hours the victim girl returned to house from the kirana shop for purchasing kirana articles and on the way when she reached near water tank, in the meantime the accused went to her and obstructed her and caught hold her hand warned and abused her in filthy language saying that “Eme lanjadana Neeku

Balisinadane nenu cheppithe vinava nenu cheppinatlu vinakunda champuthanani”, and insulted her in public place and threatened her with dire consequences and thereafter she went to her home with crying and told the matter to her father, who inturn placed the matter before the villagers and lodged complaint against the accused.Thus, the accused is liable for the offence punishable under Secs. 354-A, 506 IPC and Sec. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012.

2.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Secs. 354-A, 506 IPC and Sec. 12 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012.

3.On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with copies of case documents and was examined under section 228(1)(b)

Cr.P.C., and he denied the offence and wanted to be tried.

Charges under Secs. 354-A, 506 IPC and Sec. 12 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 against the accused were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-4.

3

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

6.Arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused are heard.

7.Now the point for determination is that whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

8.In order to establish the case of prosecution, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. PW-1 is the complainant and father of the victim girl. PW.2 is the victim girl herself. PW-3 is the circumstantial witness and mother of the victim girl herein.

9.On careful scrutiny of the whole evidence on record, PWs.1 and 3, who are the parents of the victim girl herein, turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. PW-2 who is the victim herein stated that the accused is her relative and paternal uncle by courtesy and that he did not abuse her at any time, infact due to the land disputes, her father gave false complaint against him. She also turned hostile and did not state anything against the accused.Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. Therefore, having regard to the discussion made supra, it is crystal clear that there is no evidence on record to rope the accused with the alleged offences and the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and as such, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, point is answered.

4

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Secs. 354-A, 506 IPC and Sec. 12 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual offences Act, 2012 and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C., of the said charges. Bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

Typed on dictation by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of July, 2016.

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Pw-1LW-1Kompally GangaiahComplainant and father of victim. PW-2LW-2Kompally Prananyavictim PW-3LW-3Kompally MuthammaVictim girl.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1Signature of PW-1 on Complaint. Ex.P-2161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1 Ex.P-3164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2. Ex.P-4161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.