Smt. N.Satyasri

1 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 //Fair Judgment//

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC & ST

(POA)ACT-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,SRIKAKULAM.

Present:- Smt. N.Satya Sri., I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. (FAC).Spl. Judge for trail of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

Wednesday. the 21st day of October, 2015

Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2014

From What Court the Appeal is : Judicial Magistrate of First Class, preferred Amadalavalsa.

Number of the case in that Court : C.C.No.81/2012

Number of the Appeal : 85/2014

Name and description of the : Boddepalli Govinda Rao, S/o Ananda Appellant Rao, Hindu,25 years, Agricultural coolie, R/o Kottavalasa village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

(Defacto complainant in CC.81/2012 on Name and description of the the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Respondents/accused. Amadalavalasa) ------------------------------------------------------ 1.Ponnada Satyanarayana, S/o Rama Rao,Hindu, 24 years, R/o Kottavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

2.Ponnada Ramarao, S/o Late Narasimhulu, Hindu, aged 55 years, cultivation, R/o Kottavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

3.Ponnada Srikanth, S/o Ramarao, Hindu, 22 years, R/o Kottavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

4.Ponnada Rajulamma, W/o Ramarao, Hindu, 47 years, house wife, R/o Kottavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

5.Gurugubelli Surya Prakasa Rao,S/o Pentayya, 50 years, teacher, R/o Kottavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

(A1 to A5 in CC.No.81/2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Amadalavalasa) 2 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015

6. State represented by Public Prosecutor , Srikakulam.

The sentence and order which : In the result, the Accused No 1 to A5 are was imposed in the trial Court. found not guilty for the offence under section 324 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. Unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Whether confirmed/modified or : CONFIRMED. Reversed, if modified the modification

Date of presentation 24.10.2014

Date of filing : 30.10.2014

Notice issued by Court to appear : 31.10.2014

Bail bonds if appellant has been : -- let out on bail

Appellant ordered to appear : 03.12.2014

Date of hearing : 14.10.2015

Date of judgment : 21.10.2015

This Criminal Appeal coming on 14.10.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Seepana Govida Rao, learned Advocate for the Appellant/defacto complainant and of Sri H.Prasada Rao learned Advocate for the Respondents/Accused No1 to 5 and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T;

01. This Appeal was preferred by the Appellant/Defacto complainant against the trial court judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.81/2012 dated 28th day of

July, 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amadalavalasa.

02. The parties herein are referred as referred in the Trial Court.

03. This appeal was preferred by the defacto complainant/appellant against the acquittal judgment of trial court wherein the Sub Inspector of Police

Amadalavalasa Police station filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to A5 .

A1 and A3 are the sons of A2 and A4 and A5 is their relative. The offence took 3 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 place at Kothavalasa village. On the report of PW1 N.Venugopalarao, Sub

Inspector of Police, Amadalavalasa, registered a case in crime No.43/2012 under section 324 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation the Sub Inspector of Police inspected the scene of offence seized one knife and three bamboo sticks under cover of scene observation report, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and examined the witnesses, arrested accused A2 to A4 on 4.5.2012 and forwarded them to remand, A1 and A5 were arrested and enlarged on bail. After receipt of wound certificate of PW1 to 3 laid the charge sheet against the accused.

04. On appearance of all the accused in the Trial Court necessary copies of case documents were supplied to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and the accused were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and charge under Section 324 of I.P.C .r/w 34 of I.P.C.was framed to which they pleaded not guilty faced trial before the trial court.

05. Before the Trial Court after following the procedure as contemplated under law and after examination of P.W.1 to P.W. 9, Exs.P.1 to

Exhibits P.6 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 marked, after 313 Cr.P.C. examination of the accused and upon hearing both sides and after a full fledged trial, the learned

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Amadalavalasa acquitted the accused under

Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., of the said charge. Hence, this appeal was preferred by the appellant herein.

06. In the grounds of appeal it is contended that judgment of trial court is quite contrary to law, clear weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

The trial court failed to estimate the quantum of evidence. The trial court erroneously disbelieved the evidence of prosecution. The evidence of PW5 and 6 clearly corroborated with evidence of PW1 to 3 and PW8 is the official witness and his evidence clearly supported with the evidence of appellant and PW9 who is the investigating officer. The evidence of PW1 clearly corroborated with the evidence of PW2 and 3. Further the trial court failed to consider the wound 4 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 certificates of PW1 to 3 which were marked as Ex.P4 to P6 and failed to consider the Exs.P1, P3 and M.O1 and 2. Hence, the appellant prayed to set-aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Amadalavalasa in C.C.No. 81/2012 dt.28-07-2014 and to convict the respondents/accused No1 to 5.

07. Heard both sides.

08. The learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW1 which was supported by the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.9. He also contended that the trial court acquitted the accused without appreciating the evidence of PWs 4 to 8 who corroborated the evidence of PW1 to 3. PW1 to 3 are close relatives and only persons present at the time of offence and the injuries caused to the appellant/complainant are sufficient to convict the accused. He further argued that the trial court while acquitting the accused for the offence under section 324 IPC is silent for the offence punishable under section 323 r/w 34 IPC, the trial court erred in acquitting the accused and miserably failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution, hence prayed to allow the appeal and convict the accused for the offence with which they are charged.

09. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused submitted that as seen from Ex.P1 and the evidence of P.W.1 it clearly discloses that the allegations made against the respondents/accused herein were baseless and hence were acquitted by the trial court all other prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. One witness to scene of observation report turned hostile and scene of observation report and rough sketch are not marked, one witness to scene of observation report was not examined to prove scene of observation report and rough sketch. In both crimes 43/12 and 42/2012 common scene of observation report and rough sketch are prepared. The learned counsel

for the respondents/accused argued that previously two cases have been filed

and they are acquitted but the complainant kept quite and no appeal has been preferred. The incident occurred in the street in main road at the house of A1 to 5 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015

A3. Further argued that the prosecution did not examine the doctor who issued wound certificates with regard to injuries, wound certificate is not proved. In this case the material objects 1 and 2 were wrongly marked. The trial court rightly acquitted the respondents/accused. Hence prayed to confirm the trial court judgment by dismissing the appeal.

10. In the light of submissions made by both learned Special Public

Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused, the Point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:

1) Whether the findings and reasons given by the Trial Court in

acquitting the accused are contrary to law, weight of evidence and

probabilities of the case and whether the prosecution proved the

guilt of the Accused No.1 to A5 beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) To what relief?

11. P O I N T No.1: -

On perusal of the entire record of the case it clearly shows that absolutely there is no evidence to support the allegations made against the respondents/accused herein. Except the evidence of PW1 all other witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and more over PW1 in his cross examination admitted that he did not witness how many persons sustained injuries and he did not witness as it was dark. PW1 to 3 are belong to one family and they are blood relatives further PW4 and PW7 are the direct eye witnesses to the incident but they did not support to the case of the prosecution. PW8 and

PW9 are investigating officers in this case. The basic rule of Criminal jurisprudence is that guilt of the accused should be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. But in the instant case there is not even an iota of evidence to link the accused with the crime they have been charged with All the evidence of prosecution witnesses is contrary on material aspects with each of their evidence. In short the evidence of prosecution is discussed at this juncture.

12. It is the evidence of P.W.1 resident of Kothavalasa that PW2 is his father, PW3 is his mother. At about 7 months back at 6.00 P.M. when he was ploughing his land all the accused came to his house, questioned him why ploughed their land, A2 beat him with knife on his fore head, A1 beat his father 6 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 with stick on his head, right leg and thigh. A5 and Janardhan-A6 whose name was deleted from charge sheet by obtaining orders from Sub Divisional Police

Officer, Srikakulam beat her mother, they went to police station and presented

Ex.P.1 report identified M.O.1 knife.

In his cross examination he clearly stated that he does not know how they sustained injuries and that he did not witness the incident as it was dark.

13. P.W.2 deposed that PW1 is his son, PW3 is his wife, the parents of

PW3 had partitioned their properties since then each of them is cultivating their respective share, about 8 or 9 months back at 4.00 P.M While PW1 was ploughing land of his wife between 7.00 P.M. to 7.30 P.M.all the accused came to his house A1 beat on him on his thigh, head and leg with a stick, A2 beat

PW1 with a knife on the left side of the head. G.Prasadarao (A5) and

G.Janardhan beat his wife with sticks, they went to police station and gave report identified M.O.2 stick.

In his cross examination he clearly stated that he does not know how they sustained injuries, he did not witness the incident as it was dark. The accused had been to police station prior in time and gave a report, that they beat them he also gave report against the accused. In his cross examination he deposed that they attacked the accused and when they gave report he lodged a report against the accused.

14. P.W.3 wife of PW2 deposed that on the date of offence while PW1 was ploughing the land at about 8.00 P.M. all the accused and thier sister

Rajulamma and Janardhan trespassed into her house, A1 beat PW2 with stick on right side of the head and left thigh, A2 beat PW1 with a knife on the left side of head, A5 beat her. Nothing was elicited in her cross examination

15. PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution and his entire 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P2.

16. PW5 deposed that about 2 months back at 4.00 P.M. while PW1 was ploughing his land at 7.00 P.M., A2 came to the house of PW1, beat him 7 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 with knife and that PW1 sustained head injury, A1 beat PW2 with a stick on his head as well as left leg, A5 beat PW3 with a stick on her left hand.

In his cross examination stated that by the time he went to the house of PW2 he found PW1 to 3 and accused also had injuries.

17. PW6 deposed that the incident happened about 8 or 9 months at about 7 .00 P.M. all the accused trespassed into the house of PW1 to PW3 and

A5 beat PW3 with a stick, A2 beat PW1 with a stick on his head. The eldest son of Ramarao beat Anandarao with a stick on his head and left leg.

18. PW7 did not support the case of the prosecution and his entire 161

Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P.2.

19.. P.W.8 is V.R.O. who acted as mediator in preparation of scene observation repot and seizure of M.O.1 and 2 .

20. P.W.9 N.Venugopalarao is the investigating officer in this case registered the case in crime No.43/2012 under section 324 IPC basing on report

Ex.P.1 given by PW1 and issued FIR Ex.P3 and investigated into the case and after receipt of Ex.P5 and Ex.P.6 wound certificates of PWs1 to 3 filed the charge sheet against Respondents 1 to 5 .

21. On perusal of the entire case record evidence of prosecution witnesses and the evidence of PW1/defacto-complainant, PW1 deposed that A1 beat him on his thigh, head and leg with stick. PW3 wife of PW1 deposed that A2 beat PW1 with a knife on the left side of the head. As per the evidence of PW1 to 3 the time of offence as deposed by them is. Further the evidence of PW1 is not supported by the evidence of PW4 to PW9. Except the evidence of PW1 to 3 who are of the same family, the self serving testimony of PW1 to 3 is not trust worthy, not corroborated with each other with regard to the time of offence, who beat whom with sticks and knife is not established by the prosecution. Further the evidence PW4 and PW7 who are direct eye witnesses to the case of prosecution who turned hostile non examination of Kuppili Venkayya (LW10) and Dr. M.Krishnchaitanya LW11 who issued wound certificates, LW8 Kuna

Pydinaidu . The entire evidence of PW1 and PW5 and PW6 are contrary to each 8 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 other and no evidence is made out against the accused with regard to the commission of offence. The entire evidence of prosecution witnesses is inconsistent untrust worthy and contradictory in all material aspects ie time of offence material objects used in the offence, place of offence.Further the prosecution failed to examine the Doctor who treated the injured and issued wound certificates of the injured persons is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. In absence of incriminating material against the accused and in view of the above discussion the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused.

23. The Trial Court has scrutinized the evidence of prosecution witnesses and concluded that the evidence of P.W.1, who is the de facto complainant, is itself in contradiction with Ex.P.1 report given by him and there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW1. The entire evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 there are omissions and admissions, there is no cogent trust worthy corroboration. There is no independent witness to speak about the offence and the injuries caused by the accused to the appellant/de-facto complainant P.W.1.

Even in appeal no documentary proof and no additional evidence adduced to substantiate the case of the appellant that all the accused beat the appellant/defacto complainant/PW1 along with PW2 and caused injuries. Further except the bald assertion of P.W.1 that all the accused beat him with stick, knife and hands and caused injuries, there is no cogent and convincing evidence placed even before this Court to come to a conclusion that Accused Nos.1 to A5 beat the appellant/defacto complainant and caused injuries.

24. In the State of Punjab V. Karnil Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271 court opined that the paramount consideration of court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. The miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored a duty is cast upon the appellate court of re- appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose 9 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 and ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not.

The above stated principles have been reiterated in Jagundra Singh V. State of

Uttar Pradesh and Basappa V. State of Karnataka reported in (2012)6 SCC 297.

25. In Takhaji Hiraji V. Thakore Kubar Singh Chaman Singh reported in (2001) 6 SCC 145 it has been opined that if the material witness who unfolds the genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution case not convincingly brought to the fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made goodbye examining a witness who though available is not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and with holding of such material witness would oblige the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution, but if there is an overwhelming evidence available, and which can be placed reliance upon, non examination of such other witnesses may not be material. Similarly in case of acquittal the appellate court will not interfere unless there is glaring mistake of law and erroneous decision of trial court.

26. Therefore, there is every inconsistency of evidence in the above matter and there is no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in all material aspects and therefore, for the reasons discussed supra the appellant has not establish that the respondents herein are guilty for the offences they were charged with.

27. It is also settled legal proposition that in a case of acquittal in appeal, the appellate Court, when the reasons arrived at by the trial court are found to be just and proper will not interfere unless there is cogent evidence and a glaring mistake of appreciation of evidence by the trial court.

28. Therefore, the findings and observations made by the Trial Court are correct and there is nothing to interfere with the said findings and observations made by the Trial Court and the Trial Court rightly held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

10 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 29 In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the

Calendar and Judgment dated 28.07.2014 in C.C.No.81/2012 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Amadalavalasa .

Partly typed by me on lap top and partly dictated to the Grade-1 Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of October, 2015.

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. FAC .Spl. Judge for trail of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

Appendix of evidence

NIL.

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. FAC .Spl. Judge for trail of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

Copies:

To

1. The Registrar (Judicial),

Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana

and the State of Andhra Pradesh (In C.D. Form), Hyderabad.

2. The Director of Prosecution, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

4. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amadalavalasa, along with L.C. Record by RP.

11 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 ( 1) The appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded (2) The code of Civil Procedure 1973 puts no limitation, restriction of condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions such as,‘ substantial and compelling reasons‘, ‘ good and sufficient grounds`, `very strong circumstances`. `distorted conclusions`, `glaring mistakes`, etc., are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature` flourishes of languages` to emphasis the reluctance of the appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) an appellate court, however,must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.

Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

26. .In State of Rajastan V. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta reported in (2012) `1 SCC 602. it was observed by a Hon`ble Judge of the Bench that there may be no grave distinction between an appeal against acquittal and an appeal against conviction but the court has to keep in mind the value of the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused duly endorsed by order of the court, while the court exercises its appellate jurisdiction and dealt with the principles which may guide the exercise of jurisdiction by the appellate court in an appeal against a judgment of acquittal by observing.////////////////// The penal laws in India are primarily base upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption of innocence a person is presumed tobe innocent till proven guilty and once held tobe not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the 12 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 benefit of such presumption which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction . Where ever there is perversity of facts and/ or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for.

1 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 //Fair Judgment//

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC & ST

(POA)ACT-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,SRIKAKULAM.

Present:- Smt. N.Satya Sri., I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. (FAC).Spl. Judge for trail of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

Wednesday. the 21st day of October, 2015

Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2014

From What Court the Appeal is : Judicial Magistrate of First Class, preferred Amadalavalsa.

Number of the case in that Court : C.C.No.81/2012

Number of the Appeal : 85/2014

Name and description of the : Boddepalli Govinda Rao, S/o Ananda Appellant Rao, Hindu,25 years, Agricultural coolie, R/o Kottavalasa village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

(Defacto complainant in CC.81/2012 on Name and description of the the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Respondents/accused. Amadalavalasa) ------------------------------------------------------ 1.Ponnada Satyanarayana, S/o Rama Rao,Hindu, 24 years, R/o Kottavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

2.Ponnada Ramarao, S/o Late Narasimhulu, Hindu, aged 55 years, cultivation, R/o Kottavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

3.Ponnada Srikanth, S/o Ramarao, Hindu, 22 years, R/o Kottavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

4.Ponnada Rajulamma, W/o Ramarao, Hindu, 47 years, house wife, R/o Kottavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

5.Gurugubelli Surya Prakasa Rao,S/o Pentayya, 50 years, teacher, R/o Kottavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

(A1 to A5 in CC.No.81/2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Amadalavalasa) 2 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015

6. State represented by Public Prosecutor , Srikakulam.

The sentence and order which : In the result, the Accused No 1 to A5 are was imposed in the trial Court. found not guilty for the offence under section 324 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. Unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Whether confirmed/modified or : CONFIRMED. Reversed, if modified the modification

Date of presentation 24.10.2014

Date of filing : 30.10.2014

Notice issued by Court to appear : 31.10.2014

Bail bonds if appellant has been : -- let out on bail

Appellant ordered to appear : 03.12.2014

Date of hearing : 14.10.2015

Date of judgment : 21.10.2015

This Criminal Appeal coming on 14.10.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Seepana Govida Rao, learned Advocate for the Appellant/defacto complainant and of Sri H.Prasada Rao learned Advocate for the Respondents/Accused No1 to 5 and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T;

01. This Appeal was preferred by the Appellant/Defacto complainant against the trial court judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.81/2012 dated 28th day of

July, 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amadalavalasa.

02. The parties herein are referred as referred in the Trial Court.

03. This appeal was preferred by the defacto complainant/appellant against the acquittal judgment of trial court wherein the Sub Inspector of Police

Amadalavalasa Police station filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to A5 .

A1 and A3 are the sons of A2 and A4 and A5 is their relative. The offence took 3 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 place at Kothavalasa village. On the report of PW1 N.Venugopalarao, Sub

Inspector of Police, Amadalavalasa, registered a case in crime No.43/2012 under section 324 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation the Sub Inspector of Police inspected the scene of offence seized one knife and three bamboo sticks under cover of scene observation report, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and examined the witnesses, arrested accused A2 to A4 on 4.5.2012 and forwarded them to remand, A1 and A5 were arrested and enlarged on bail. After receipt of wound certificate of PW1 to 3 laid the charge sheet against the accused.

04. On appearance of all the accused in the Trial Court necessary copies of case documents were supplied to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and the accused were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and charge under Section 324 of I.P.C .r/w 34 of I.P.C.was framed to which they pleaded not guilty faced trial before the trial court.

05. Before the Trial Court after following the procedure as contemplated under law and after examination of P.W.1 to P.W. 9, Exs.P.1 to

Exhibits P.6 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 marked, after 313 Cr.P.C. examination of the accused and upon hearing both sides and after a full fledged trial, the learned

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Amadalavalasa acquitted the accused under

Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., of the said charge. Hence, this appeal was preferred by the appellant herein.

06. In the grounds of appeal it is contended that judgment of trial court is quite contrary to law, clear weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

The trial court failed to estimate the quantum of evidence. The trial court erroneously disbelieved the evidence of prosecution. The evidence of PW5 and 6 clearly corroborated with evidence of PW1 to 3 and PW8 is the official witness and his evidence clearly supported with the evidence of appellant and PW9 who is the investigating officer. The evidence of PW1 clearly corroborated with the evidence of PW2 and 3. Further the trial court failed to consider the wound 4 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 certificates of PW1 to 3 which were marked as Ex.P4 to P6 and failed to consider the Exs.P1, P3 and M.O1 and 2. Hence, the appellant prayed to set-aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Amadalavalasa in C.C.No. 81/2012 dt.28-07-2014 and to convict the respondents/accused No1 to 5.

07. Heard both sides.

08. The learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW1 which was supported by the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.9. He also contended that the trial court acquitted the accused without appreciating the evidence of PWs 4 to 8 who corroborated the evidence of PW1 to 3. PW1 to 3 are close relatives and only persons present at the time of offence and the injuries caused to the appellant/complainant are sufficient to convict the accused. He further argued that the trial court while acquitting the accused for the offence under section 324 IPC is silent for the offence punishable under section 323 r/w 34 IPC, the trial court erred in acquitting the accused and miserably failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution, hence prayed to allow the appeal and convict the accused for the offence with which they are charged.

09. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused submitted that as seen from Ex.P1 and the evidence of P.W.1 it clearly discloses that the allegations made against the respondents/accused herein were baseless and hence were acquitted by the trial court all other prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. One witness to scene of observation report turned hostile and scene of observation report and rough sketch are not marked, one witness to scene of observation report was not examined to prove scene of observation report and rough sketch. In both crimes 43/12 and 42/2012 common scene of observation report and rough sketch are prepared. The learned counsel

for the respondents/accused argued that previously two cases have been filed

and they are acquitted but the complainant kept quite and no appeal has been preferred. The incident occurred in the street in main road at the house of A1 to 5 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015

A3. Further argued that the prosecution did not examine the doctor who issued wound certificates with regard to injuries, wound certificate is not proved. In this case the material objects 1 and 2 were wrongly marked. The trial court rightly acquitted the respondents/accused. Hence prayed to confirm the trial court judgment by dismissing the appeal.

10. In the light of submissions made by both learned Special Public

Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused, the Point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:

1) Whether the findings and reasons given by the Trial Court in

acquitting the accused are contrary to law, weight of evidence and

probabilities of the case and whether the prosecution proved the

guilt of the Accused No.1 to A5 beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) To what relief?

11. P O I N T No.1: -

On perusal of the entire record of the case it clearly shows that absolutely there is no evidence to support the allegations made against the respondents/accused herein. Except the evidence of PW1 all other witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and more over PW1 in his cross examination admitted that he did not witness how many persons sustained injuries and he did not witness as it was dark. PW1 to 3 are belong to one family and they are blood relatives further PW4 and PW7 are the direct eye witnesses to the incident but they did not support to the case of the prosecution. PW8 and

PW9 are investigating officers in this case. The basic rule of Criminal jurisprudence is that guilt of the accused should be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. But in the instant case there is not even an iota of evidence to link the accused with the crime they have been charged with All the evidence of prosecution witnesses is contrary on material aspects with each of their evidence. In short the evidence of prosecution is discussed at this juncture.

12. It is the evidence of P.W.1 resident of Kothavalasa that PW2 is his father, PW3 is his mother. At about 7 months back at 6.00 P.M. when he was ploughing his land all the accused came to his house, questioned him why ploughed their land, A2 beat him with knife on his fore head, A1 beat his father 6 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 with stick on his head, right leg and thigh. A5 and Janardhan-A6 whose name was deleted from charge sheet by obtaining orders from Sub Divisional Police

Officer, Srikakulam beat her mother, they went to police station and presented

Ex.P.1 report identified M.O.1 knife.

In his cross examination he clearly stated that he does not know how they sustained injuries and that he did not witness the incident as it was dark.

13. P.W.2 deposed that PW1 is his son, PW3 is his wife, the parents of

PW3 had partitioned their properties since then each of them is cultivating their respective share, about 8 or 9 months back at 4.00 P.M While PW1 was ploughing land of his wife between 7.00 P.M. to 7.30 P.M.all the accused came to his house A1 beat on him on his thigh, head and leg with a stick, A2 beat

PW1 with a knife on the left side of the head. G.Prasadarao (A5) and

G.Janardhan beat his wife with sticks, they went to police station and gave report identified M.O.2 stick.

In his cross examination he clearly stated that he does not know how they sustained injuries, he did not witness the incident as it was dark. The accused had been to police station prior in time and gave a report, that they beat them he also gave report against the accused. In his cross examination he deposed that they attacked the accused and when they gave report he lodged a report against the accused.

14. P.W.3 wife of PW2 deposed that on the date of offence while PW1 was ploughing the land at about 8.00 P.M. all the accused and thier sister

Rajulamma and Janardhan trespassed into her house, A1 beat PW2 with stick on right side of the head and left thigh, A2 beat PW1 with a knife on the left side of head, A5 beat her. Nothing was elicited in her cross examination

15. PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution and his entire 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P2.

16. PW5 deposed that about 2 months back at 4.00 P.M. while PW1 was ploughing his land at 7.00 P.M., A2 came to the house of PW1, beat him 7 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 with knife and that PW1 sustained head injury, A1 beat PW2 with a stick on his head as well as left leg, A5 beat PW3 with a stick on her left hand.

In his cross examination stated that by the time he went to the house of PW2 he found PW1 to 3 and accused also had injuries.

17. PW6 deposed that the incident happened about 8 or 9 months at about 7 .00 P.M. all the accused trespassed into the house of PW1 to PW3 and

A5 beat PW3 with a stick, A2 beat PW1 with a stick on his head. The eldest son of Ramarao beat Anandarao with a stick on his head and left leg.

18. PW7 did not support the case of the prosecution and his entire 161

Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P.2.

19.. P.W.8 is V.R.O. who acted as mediator in preparation of scene observation repot and seizure of M.O.1 and 2 .

20. P.W.9 N.Venugopalarao is the investigating officer in this case registered the case in crime No.43/2012 under section 324 IPC basing on report

Ex.P.1 given by PW1 and issued FIR Ex.P3 and investigated into the case and after receipt of Ex.P5 and Ex.P.6 wound certificates of PWs1 to 3 filed the charge sheet against Respondents 1 to 5 .

21. On perusal of the entire case record evidence of prosecution witnesses and the evidence of PW1/defacto-complainant, PW1 deposed that A1 beat him on his thigh, head and leg with stick. PW3 wife of PW1 deposed that A2 beat PW1 with a knife on the left side of the head. As per the evidence of PW1 to 3 the time of offence as deposed by them is. Further the evidence of PW1 is not supported by the evidence of PW4 to PW9. Except the evidence of PW1 to 3 who are of the same family, the self serving testimony of PW1 to 3 is not trust worthy, not corroborated with each other with regard to the time of offence, who beat whom with sticks and knife is not established by the prosecution. Further the evidence PW4 and PW7 who are direct eye witnesses to the case of prosecution who turned hostile non examination of Kuppili Venkayya (LW10) and Dr. M.Krishnchaitanya LW11 who issued wound certificates, LW8 Kuna

Pydinaidu . The entire evidence of PW1 and PW5 and PW6 are contrary to each 8 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 other and no evidence is made out against the accused with regard to the commission of offence. The entire evidence of prosecution witnesses is inconsistent untrust worthy and contradictory in all material aspects ie time of offence material objects used in the offence, place of offence.Further the prosecution failed to examine the Doctor who treated the injured and issued wound certificates of the injured persons is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. In absence of incriminating material against the accused and in view of the above discussion the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused.

23. The Trial Court has scrutinized the evidence of prosecution witnesses and concluded that the evidence of P.W.1, who is the de facto complainant, is itself in contradiction with Ex.P.1 report given by him and there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW1. The entire evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 there are omissions and admissions, there is no cogent trust worthy corroboration. There is no independent witness to speak about the offence and the injuries caused by the accused to the appellant/de-facto complainant P.W.1.

Even in appeal no documentary proof and no additional evidence adduced to substantiate the case of the appellant that all the accused beat the appellant/defacto complainant/PW1 along with PW2 and caused injuries. Further except the bald assertion of P.W.1 that all the accused beat him with stick, knife and hands and caused injuries, there is no cogent and convincing evidence placed even before this Court to come to a conclusion that Accused Nos.1 to A5 beat the appellant/defacto complainant and caused injuries.

24. In the State of Punjab V. Karnil Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271 court opined that the paramount consideration of court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. The miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored a duty is cast upon the appellate court of re- appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose 9 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 and ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not.

The above stated principles have been reiterated in Jagundra Singh V. State of

Uttar Pradesh and Basappa V. State of Karnataka reported in (2012)6 SCC 297.

25. In Takhaji Hiraji V. Thakore Kubar Singh Chaman Singh reported in (2001) 6 SCC 145 it has been opined that if the material witness who unfolds the genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution case not convincingly brought to the fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made goodbye examining a witness who though available is not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and with holding of such material witness would oblige the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution, but if there is an overwhelming evidence available, and which can be placed reliance upon, non examination of such other witnesses may not be material. Similarly in case of acquittal the appellate court will not interfere unless there is glaring mistake of law and erroneous decision of trial court.

26. Therefore, there is every inconsistency of evidence in the above matter and there is no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in all material aspects and therefore, for the reasons discussed supra the appellant has not establish that the respondents herein are guilty for the offences they were charged with.

27. It is also settled legal proposition that in a case of acquittal in appeal, the appellate Court, when the reasons arrived at by the trial court are found to be just and proper will not interfere unless there is cogent evidence and a glaring mistake of appreciation of evidence by the trial court.

28. Therefore, the findings and observations made by the Trial Court are correct and there is nothing to interfere with the said findings and observations made by the Trial Court and the Trial Court rightly held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

10 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 29 In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the

Calendar and Judgment dated 28.07.2014 in C.C.No.81/2012 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Amadalavalasa .

Partly typed by me on lap top and partly dictated to the Grade-1 Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of October, 2015.

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. FAC .Spl. Judge for trail of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

Appendix of evidence

NIL.

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. FAC .Spl. Judge for trail of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

Copies:

To

1. The Registrar (Judicial),

Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana

and the State of Andhra Pradesh (In C.D. Form), Hyderabad.

2. The Director of Prosecution, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

4. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amadalavalasa, along with L.C. Record by RP.

11 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 ( 1) The appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded (2) The code of Civil Procedure 1973 puts no limitation, restriction of condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions such as,‘ substantial and compelling reasons‘, ‘ good and sufficient grounds`, `very strong circumstances`. `distorted conclusions`, `glaring mistakes`, etc., are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature` flourishes of languages` to emphasis the reluctance of the appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) an appellate court, however,must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.

Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

26. .In State of Rajastan V. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta reported in (2012) `1 SCC 602. it was observed by a Hon`ble Judge of the Bench that there may be no grave distinction between an appeal against acquittal and an appeal against conviction but the court has to keep in mind the value of the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused duly endorsed by order of the court, while the court exercises its appellate jurisdiction and dealt with the principles which may guide the exercise of jurisdiction by the appellate court in an appeal against a judgment of acquittal by observing.////////////////// The penal laws in India are primarily base upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption of innocence a person is presumed tobe innocent till proven guilty and once held tobe not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the 12 Crl.Appeal No.85/2014 IV A.D.& S J.SKLM, DT.21.10.2015 benefit of such presumption which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction . Where ever there is perversity of facts and/ or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for.

//Fair judgment// A.S.No.35/2012 1 IV A.D.S.J C.cum SC ST court, SKLM.26.10.2015.

In the court of the I Additional District Judge at Srikakulam.

Present:- Smt. N.Satya Sri., I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. FAC.Spl. Judge for trail of cases under SC ST (POA) Act 1989 IV Additional

District Judge, Srikakulam.

Appeal Suit No.35/2012:

Monday, this the 26 th day of October, 2015.

Between:

Menda Jogarao, S/o Narayudu, aged 43 years, agriculture labour R/o Desavanipeta Street, Narasannapeta town, post and Mandal, Srikakulam District.

…... Appellant/Defendant.

And: 1.Varanasi Harindham (died).

2.Varanasi Prasad S/o Late Harinadham, aged 38 years, R/o Kalivarapupeta street, Narasannapeta Town, Post and Mandal, Srikakulam District.

3.Varanasi Prabhakar S/o Late Harinadham, aged 35 years, R/o Kalivarapupeta street, Narasannapeta Town, Post and Mandal, Srikakulam District.

4.Gudla Roja W/o Saikumar, aged 32 years, Matham Street, Narasannapeta Town, Post and Mandal, Srikakulam District.

5.Pydisetti Rajayalaxmi, W/o Balaraju,aged about 40 years, R/o Kothapalli,village Kotabommali Mandal,Srikakulam District.

Respondents 21 to 5 are added as Respondents as per order in I.A.302/2012 dt. 06-11-2012.

...... Respondents/plaintiffs

Appeal filed against the Decree and Judgment made in O.S.169/2007, dated 04-01-2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

Between:

Varanasi Harinadham, s/o late Suryanarayana, aged 69 years, Hindu, resident of Kalivarapupeta, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District.

//Fair judgment// A.S.No.35/2012 2 IV A.D.S.J C.cum SC ST court, SKLM.26.10.2015.

….. Plaintiff

And:

Menda Jogarao, S/o Narayudu, aged 43 years, agriculture labour R/o Desavanipeta Street, Narasannapeta Town, Post and Mandal, Srikakulam District. …Defendant.

This appeal coming on 18.9.2015 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri Sripada Rama Krishna,

learned Advocate for the Appellant/Defendant and of Sri K.Nagabhushana Rao learned Advocate for Respondents/Plaintiffs and having heard both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T:

01. The sole Defendant is the Appellant. The Plaintiff filed the suit against sole Defendant in O.S.169/2007 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for recovery of amount based on receipt dated 19.4.2004. The said suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiff by Decree and Judgment

dt:4.1.2012. After filing of appeal the Respondent/Plaintiff died

and Respondents 2 to 5 are added as Legal Representatives of

Respondent/Plaintiff as per orders in I.A. 302/2012 Dt. 06-11- 2012.

02. I will refer the parties as figured in Trial Court.

03. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakh) from the plaintiff on 19.4.2004 to meet his own necessities and issued a receipt in favour of the plaintiff on small slip in the presence of witnesses //Fair judgment// A.S.No.35/2012 3 IV A.D.S.J C.cum SC ST court, SKLM.26.10.2015.

and also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 30% p.a.

subsequently the plaintiff demanded orally but the defendant postponed the same on some pretext or other. Lastly the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 5.1.2007 to call upon the payment of

Rs.1,00,000/- with interest but the defendant managed the postman and made an endorsement on the registered post that the defendant continuously absent for 7 days and returned the legal notice. The defendant did not pay suit amount. Hence the suit is filed for recovery of amount under the receipt. Dt 19.4.2004 against the defendant .

04. The Defendant filed his written statement by denying the material allegations of the plaint. He denied that he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 19.4.2004 for the purpose of meeting his own necessities and issued receipt in favour of the plaintiff on small slip in the presence of the witnesses and also agreed to pay interest @ 30% and subsequently the plaintiff demanded orally but the defendant postponing the same on some pretext of other and lastly the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 5.1.2007 and the defendant managed the post man and made an endorsement on the registered post that the defendant continuously absent for seven days and defendant knowing fully well the contents of the lawyer notice did not pay the suit amount. All these allegations are invented and manipulated by the plaintiff for the purpose of the filing of the suit only. The alleged receipt on which the suit is //Fair judgment// A.S.No.35/2012 4 IV A.D.S.J C.cum SC ST court, SKLM.26.10.2015.

based is not a receipt but it is a bond and it is liable for payment of stamp duty and penalty .The defendant is an illiterate and a marksman and he does not know how to sign his name. The defendant is eking out his livelihood by doing agricultural work. It is very much surprise to note that the plaintiff lent Rs.1,00,000/- on a small slip to the defendant, an agricultural labour. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend a huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the defendant has no need to borrow such huge amount as he has no capacity to repay the said amount. The interest claimed at 30% is usurious and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the same interest from the alleged date of lending till the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the defendant prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

05. The issues that are settled for trial are as follows:

1)Whether the suit document receipt dated 19.4.2004 is a bond and not a receipt and liable for penalty of stamp duty?

2) Whether the suit document is true, valid and for consideration?

3)Whether the interest claimed is excessive and usurious ?

4)To what relief?

06. Before the Trial Court, the Plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 and he also examined P.W.2 and got Exhibits A.1 to

A.3 marked. The defendant himself is examined got D.W.1.and no documents are marked on his behalf.

//Fair judgment// A.S.No.35/2012 5 IV A.D.S.J C.cum SC ST court, SKLM.26.10.2015.

07. The Trial Court on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence accepted the case of the Plaintiff resulting in passing of the Decree in favour of the Plaintiff as prayed.

09. Heard both sides.

10. The appellant/defendant in the grounds of appeal stated that the decision of the trial court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case. Further the trial court ought to have held that non filing of rejoinder by the respondent on the allegations in the written statement of the defendant is a clear case of admission by the respondent as per the decision reported in 2008(5) of A.L.T. 505 (DB) at 514 as such the respondent /plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. The trial court failed to see that DW1 is an iliterateand unsophisticated person he being a marks man, non production of voter identity card and other documents before the court is erroneous and the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of signature on Ex.A1 as to be of the defendant. The plaintiff failed to examine the truth, execution, validity and binding nature of Ex.A1 by examining the concerned person i.e. Dharmana Sairaju at the time of origin document, the plaintiff has no personal acquaintance with the defendant and the plaintiff lent one lakh rupees on small slip to the defendant, an agricultural labour. The trail court without considering the admissions made by the PW1 and PW2 erroneously passed decree in favour of the plaintiff. Hence the decree and Judgment //Fair judgment// A.S.No.35/2012 6 IV A.D.S.J C.cum SC ST court, SKLM.26.10.2015.

of trial court passed in O.S.No.169/2007 dt.4.01.2012 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam are liable to be set aside and allow the appeal .

11. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant filed his written arguments contended that the trial court without scanning the oral and documentary evidence on either side erroneously decreed the suit in favour of the deceased respondent/plaintiff. At the outset it is submitted that the deceased respondent/plaintiff has not approached the trial court with clean hands and the L.Rs of the deceased respondent/plaintiff are not entitled to the fruits of the Decree and Judgment. The appellant/defendant contended that he is an illiterate and Marksman and he is an agriculture labour and he did not borrow money from any body or from the plaintiff.

Further the trial court without going through the summons served on the defendant erroneously passed a decree. Further the respondent/plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant is a signatory for which he has not produced any proof like Voter

Card. The contention of the appellant/defendant is that there is enemity with Darmana Sairaju one of the attestor of the alleged suit receipt due to which the suit receipt might have been manipulated at the instance of the said Dharman Saiaju to wreck vengeance against him filed the false suit. The plaintiff is a chronic litigant The Appellant/ defendant submitted that the //Fair judgment// A.S.No.35/2012 7 IV A.D.S.J C.cum SC ST court, SKLM.26.10.2015.

latest judgment may be taken into consideration reported in 2014(1) ALT-512. It is well known that when a fact stated in the chief examination is not disputed in the cross examination it should be deemed to be admitted” In this regard the appellant/defendant relied upon a decision of our own Hon`ble

High Court, reported in 2007(1) A.L.T. 511. Further the respondent/ plaintiff has not examined the said Dharmana

Saiaju as his witness who is brother in law of the defendant, who is not in terms with the Respondent/plaintiff and he is behind this litigation, that the respondent/plaintiff has not taken any steps for filing Rejoinder to that effect for which it is a clear case of admission by the deceased respondent/plaintiff as per the decision reported in 2008(5) ALT, 505(DB) as such the deceased respondent/plaintiff or his L.Rs are not entitled for the relief . He further submitted that the respondent/ plaintiff has no capacity to lend an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant or to any body. PW1 admitted in his evidence that document writers, educated persons and employees are available in his village but the PW1 who is aged 72 years scribed Ex.A1, Ex.A1 is not a receipt but it is a bond and it is liable for payment of

Stamp duty and penalty. The appellant/defendant submitted that the alleged Ex.A1 was marked subject to proof and relevancy.

Further on Ex.A1 the revenue stamp was affixed on the end of running matter and on the said revenue stamp there is one horizontal line connecting the alleged signature of Menda //Fair judgment// A.S.No.35/2012 8 IV A.D.S.J C.cum SC ST court, SKLM.26.10.2015.

Jogarao and a small bit of stroke on its left top connecting the alleged signature of Manda Jogarao and a little bit of horizontal line on the right side of revenue stamp, that burden squarely lies on the respondent/ plaintiff to prove due execution its validity, binding nature and passing consideration and it is well settled law that the weakness in the evidence of the appellant/ defendant could not be taken as probabilising the claim of the respondent/plaintiff. In this regard the appellant/defendant relied upon a decision Hon`ble High court reported in 2013(5) A.L.T.

349. It is submitted viewing from any angle that the 1st respondent/plaintiff failed to establish his case. Therefore the appellant/defendant prayed to allow the appeal with costs.

13. It is argued by the Counsel for Plaintiff/Respondent that the Appellant/Defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the him on 19.4.2004 for his own necessities and he issued a receipt in his favour in the presence of the witnesses by agreeing to repay the same with interest at 30%p.a. but when subsequently the plaintiff/respondent demanded orally the defendant postponed the same and lastly he got issued legal notice dt. 5.1.2007 but the defendant managed the postman and returned the notice and the appellant/defendant did not pay the amount. The Appellant/

Defendant did not deny his signature on the alleged receipt dt.19.4.2004 but simply disputed passing of consideration that he proved passing of the receipt and the demand. As the //Fair judgment// A.S.No.35/2012 9 IV A.D.S.J C.cum SC ST court, SKLM.26.10.2015.

appellant/defendant failed to pay the amount, the respondent /Plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount.

.

14. In the light of the enlightened arguments, the points arise for consideration are:

1.Whether the trial court findings are correct and

proper?

2. To what relief?

POINT No.1 :-

15. P.W.1 Plaintiff to the suit filed his chief examination affidavit , which is nothing but replica of the Plain averments .

The stand taken by the defendan is that , the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant received the cash consideration from the plaintiff. He deposed that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from him on 19.4.2004 for the purpose of his own necessities and issued receipt in favour of the plaintiff on small slip/Receipt ExA1 in the presence of witnesses and also agreed to repay the same with interest at 30% p.a., subsequently he orally demanded but the defendant postponed the same on some pretext or other. He got issued a legal notice Ex.A2 on 5.1.2007 and Ex.A3 is the unserved registered postal letter. To support the evidence of PW1, the plaintiff also examined PW2 who also supported the evidence of

PW1 in all material particulars and nothing was elicited in his evidence in favour of the defendant.

//Fair judgment// A.S.No.35/2012 1 IV A.D.S.J C.cum SC ST court, SKLM.26.10.2015. 0

16. During the course of cross examination, it is straightly elicited that the plaintiff is the scribe of Ex.A1 document. Further the defendant is an educated person but not an illiterate person.

Prior to filing of the suit the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant through his counsel. He denied that due to disputes with

Dharmana Sairaju and the defendant the suit document is created in his name due to association with the said Sairaju.

17. The defendant who was examined as DW1 denied the borrowing of money from the plaintiff. The contention of the defendant in his written statement is that Ex.A1 is a bond but not a receipt. After careful scrutiny of Ex.A1 document upon careful perusal of the document it is nothing but a receipt merely because it contains receipt of debt amount with interest and it is stamped with one rupee. It can not be said that it is not a receipt.

The counsel for the defendant contended that it is a bond, but at this stage, it is relevant to note that the said question came up for consideration in I.A.No.414/2008 and trial court appreciated the contents of the document and has come to a conclusion that the said document is admissible in evidence as receipt. In the above said I.A. the defendant preferred a revision in

C.R.P.No.3865/2010 on the file of the Hon`ble High court of A.P.

Hyderabad and the Honorable Apex court dismissed the same and has observed that even if the receipt was attested by the two witnesses that itself does not constitute bond unless the //Fair judgment// A.S.No.35/2012 1 IV A.D.S.J C.cum SC ST court, SKLM.26.10.2015. 1 executants of the document have undertaken the obligation to pay the money thereunder. Hence considering the above recitals of Ex.A1 suit document this court is of opinion that Ex.A1 suit document is a receipt but not a bond.

18. Further the evidence of appellant/defendant shows that he never borrowed even a single pie from the plaintiff or from anybody and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend huge amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- and he has no need to borrow such huge amount as he has no capacity to repay the amount .One Dharmana

Sairaju one of the attestor of the suit receipt is behind this suit and he has enemical terms with him since long time. He further submitted that he suit receipt might have been manipulated at the instance of Dharmana Sairaju to wreck vengeance against him and the other attestor of the Ex.A1 is son in law of plaintiff.

19. In the above said contention of the appellant /defendant, that the appellant/defendant has not borrowed amount under Ex.A1 and the plaintiff to prove his case was examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint and Ex.A1 transaction. Further the evidence of PWs1 and 2 showed that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 19.4.2004 for the purpose of his own necessities and issued a receipt in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses and also agreed to repay the same with interest at 30% p.a. subsequently he //Fair judgment// A.S.No.35/2012 1 IV A.D.S.J C.cum SC ST court, SKLM.26.10.2015. 2 demanded orally but the defendant postponed the same and he got issued Ex.A2 legal notice to the defendant but the defendant managed the post man and returned the legal notice under Ex.A3. PW1 deposed in his cross examination that he is the scribe of Ex.A1 there are document writers available in their village and educated persons and employees are there in their village. Further the respondent/plaintiff has not filed any bank account copy to show that he has withdraw the amount on the date of transaction. The attestors of Ex.A1 are Dharmana Sairaju, Gudla Saikrihna Mohan, but the plaintiff examined only Gudla Saikrishna Mohan only. The plaintiff admitted that Sairaju was not examined and he is the brother in law of defendant, but the said fact was not disputed by the defendant. To dispute the same appellant/ defendant in this connection has not placed any material before the court that he had disputes with the Dharmana Sairaju. Further he did not specifically mention or let in evidence as to what were the disputes between them to support his case. There is no reason mentioned and evidence let in on record for non examination of the Dharamana Sairaju . Further PW1 claims that at the time of suit transaction Krishnamohan was present and he is not a relative of plaintiff but the said evidence of

PW1 appears to be in correct in view of the evidence of PW2.

//Fair judgment// A.S.No.35/2012 1 IV A.D.S.J C.cum SC ST court, SKLM.26.10.2015. 3

20. The evidence of PW2 also supported the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. He deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs1,00,000/- from the plaintiff in his presence and the in the presence of attestors and issued a receipt in favour of plaintiff. Further the evidence of PW1 that the defendant himself put his signature on Ex.A1 across the revenue stamp after signing himself both attestors signed on Ex.A1.and plaintiff mentioned the date on the top of the Ex.A1. PW2 deposed that the contents of document ExA1 were written with same pen but he used his pen to attest the document.

After careful reading of the evidence of PW1 and 2 and the documents Ex.A1 to A3 and the evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 shows that they categorically deposed about the execution of the Ex.A1 receipt by the defendant on receipt of cash of Rs.1,00,000/- The evidence of PW2 is consistent and corroborative with the evidence of PW1 and their evidence clearly and clinchingly establishes that the defendant executed Ex.A1 receipt in favour of the respondent /plaintiff after receipt of cash from the plaintiff in his presence.

21. Further the defendant did not place either oral or documentary evidence before the court to show that he never be a signatory and he affixed his left hand thumb impression.

Further the defendant did not place any material before the court to show that he is a marksman and it is a strong //Fair judgment// A.S.No.35/2012 1 IV A.D.S.J C.cum SC ST court, SKLM.26.10.2015. 4 circumstance to disbelieve the case of the defendant. Further he did not place any evidence that he had disputes with

Dharamana Sairaju as contended by him in his evidence. On perusal of Ex.A1 document it can be said that the defendant put his signature on Ex.A1 receipt after receipt of cash consideration from the plaintiff. Upon considering the evidence available on record and the documents filed by the plaintiff the plaintiff established that the defendant executed

Ex.A1 receipt in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of cash consideration and the defendant did not pay the said amount to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount . By virtue of my discussion and findings on point

No.1 the finding of trial court are correct. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

22. POINT No.2:

To what relief?

In the result, this Appeal is dismissed confirming the

Decree and Judgment in 169/2007 dt: 04.01.2012 on the file of

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. But considering the

facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

Partly dictated to the Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed by him, and partly typed by me in lap top, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 26th day of October,

2014.

I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. (FAC) Special Judge for trail of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act 1989-cum- IV Additional

District Judge, Srikakulam.

//Fair judgment// A.S.No.35/2012 1 IV A.D.S.J C.cum SC ST court, SKLM.26.10.2015. 5

Appendix of evidence.

NIL.

I Additional District Judge,

Srikakulam. (FAC) Special Judge for trail of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act 1989-cum- IV Additional

District Judge, Srikakulam.

Copy to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

//Fair Order// IV A.D.J.C. cum-SC& ST Court, SKLM. 1 M.V.O.P.No.69-2013 Dt 3.11.2015.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC& ST (POA)

ACT, 1989-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-CUM-CHAIRMAN MOTOR

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

SRIKAKULAM.

Present : Smt. N.Satya Sri,

Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

(FAC) Special Judge for trial of Cases Under SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

Tuesday, this the 3rd day of November, 2015.

M.V.O.P. 69/2013

Between :

1. Pitchika Lakshmi W/O Llate Appalaraju, Hindu, house wife aged 42 years, resident of door No.C/130-(1) Gayathri colony, Rajam Town, Srikakulam.

2. Pitchika Gunasagari D/O late Appalaraju, Hindu, minor aged about 15 years, 10th class passed, resident of door No.C/130-(1) Gayathri colony,Rajam Town, Srikakulam.

3. Pitchika Hemanth kumar S/O late Appalaraju, Hindu, minor aged about 13 years, 9th class studying, resident of door No.C/130-(1) Gayathri colony,Rajam Town, Srikakulam.

(Petitioner 2 and 3 being minors are represented by their mother as natural guardian 1st petitioner )

……..Petitioners.

And :

1. Vanumu Venkataswamy,S/O late Narasimhulu, Hindu, aged 50 years, Settigallu by caste, R/O Neeralavalasa colony, Bheemili, Visakhapatnam , Driver cum owner of Auto AP 31 TB 7076.

2. The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Visakhapatnam, Branch Office situated near Suryamahal Junction, Srikakulam Town and District.

..Respondents

This petition coming on 15.10.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Palgunaraju, learned Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri M.Surya

Prakasha Rao, learned advocate for the Respondent No.2, and Respondent No.1 having set exparte , and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

//Fair Order// IV A.D.J.C. cum-SC& ST Court, SKLM. 2 M.V.O.P.No.69-2013 Dt 3.11.2015.

ORDER

01. This is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) for the death of deceased – Pitchika Appararaju who is husband of 1st petitioner and father of 2nd and 3rd petitioners in the Motor Vehicle Accident.

02. Brief facts of the petition are as follows:-

The deceased/Pitchika Appalaraju is aged about 45 years by the date of accident and worked as a Katamestri in a ration depot and used to earn Rs.8000/- per month.

The 1st petitioner is the wife and 2nd and 3rd petitioners are his children.

On 3.7.2012 at about 1.00 P.M. while the deceased was returning home from

Rajam town on his bicycle and when he reached the Church at Gayatri colony, Rajam , in the meantime an auto bearing No. AP 31 TB 7076 which was driven by respondent NO.1 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn and dashed against the cycle of the deceased, resulting the deceased fell down and the auto ran over him and turned turtle,due to which the deceased died at the spot. The 1st respondent and the passengers who traveled in the auto also received injuries. The Station House Officer, Rajam registered a case in crime No.83/2012 under sections 304-A and 337 of IPC.

The petitioners submitted that the deceased was hale and healthy used to work as a Katamastry thereby earning Rs.8000/- per month. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, they have lost their bread winner, petitioners suffered lot of mental agony and petitioners also lost their bright future. Therefore, they have filed this petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally.

04. Respondent No.1 was set exparte.

05. Respondent No.2-M/s. The New India Assurance Company Limited, filed written statement denying the material averments of the petition, denying the rash and negligence on the part of driver of crime vehicle i.e, 1st respondent. It further denied the age of the deceased and his earning capacity . The claim made by the petitioners is highly exorbitant. The insurance company is not furnished with the required documents even by the //Fair Order// IV A.D.J.C. cum-SC& ST Court, SKLM. 3 M.V.O.P.No.69-2013 Dt 3.11.2015.

petitioners or by the police as per the statute. The 1st respondent is not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. The insurance company is not liable to pay unless all the terms and conditions of the policy are complied and the vehicle was duly insured with their company. The interest claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive Hence, prays to dismiss the petition

06. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.

ISSUES

01. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent Auto bearing No. AP 31 TB 7076 resulting death to Pitchika Appala Raju?

02. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount ?

03. To what relief?

07. To prove the case of the petitioners, Pw1 to PW3 are examined and marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 . On behalf of 2nd respondent, RW1 and RW2 are examined Ex.B1, Ex.B2 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X5 are got marked.

08. Respondent No.2 filed a petition under section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act and it was allowed.

09. Arguments Heard both sides.

10. ISSUE NO.1 : -

To prove the case of petitioners, 1st petitioner who is wife of deceased was examined as PW1 . Admittedly she is not an eye witness to the accident. Satyavarapu

Narayana Rao an eye witness was examined as PW2. Pitchuka Ramadevi is Fair Price

Shop dealer under whom the deceased was examined as RW3.

On behalf of the 2nd G.Aruna, Assistant Manager of 2nd respondent company was examined as R.W.1 and K.Kiran Kumar Raju, Typist in Road Transport Authority Office was examined as RW2.

11) PW1 is the wife of deceased but she does not khow the accident has occurred . The evidence of PW3 is only to show that she is a fair price shop dealer and the deceased //Fair Order// IV A.D.J.C. cum-SC& ST Court, SKLM. 4 M.V.O.P.No.69-2013 Dt 3.11.2015.

worked under her as a measurer and used to earn Rs.4000/- per month. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 and PW3 is not much material to decide the issue. The evidence of PW2 is crucial to decide whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent resulting in the death of deceased.

12) PW2-Satyavarapu Narayana Rao deposed that on 3.7.2012 at about 1.00 P.M while the deceased was returning home from Rajam on his cycle, when he reached the

Church at Gayatri colony, Rajam in the meantime the 1st respondent being the driver of auto bearing No. AP 31 TB 7076 drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn and dashed against the cycle of deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and the auto ran over him resulting the instantaneous death of deceased. He further stated that the 1st respondent and the passengers in the auto also sustained injuries in the accident.

In his cross examination, he admitted that the scene of offence ie., the place where the accident took place is a busy locality. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the negligent act on the part of deceased but not due to the rash or negligent act of 1st respondent.

13) The evidence of PW1 that after coming to know the accident, she gave report to police and the Station House Officer, Rajam registered a case in crime No.83/2012 under

Ex.A1. The investigation conducted by police immediately after the accident shows that the first respondent is the driver of the auto against whom they have filed charge sheet under

Ex.A2. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of post mortem certificate discloses that the deceased died due to “cardio respiratory failure due to head injury”. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of inquest report goes to show that the inquestdars conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died due to the accident. .

14) RW1-G.Aruna, working as Assistant Manager in Respondent No.2 company through this witness marked Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy and Ex.B2 certified copy of driving licence of Vonumu Venkata Swamy who is none other than the 1st respondent herein.

She categorically admitted in her cross examination that as per Ex.B2 copy of driving licence as on the date of accident 1st respondent is having driving licence to drive light motor vehicle and heavy transport vehicle.

//Fair Order// IV A.D.J.C. cum-SC& ST Court, SKLM. 5 M.V.O.P.No.69-2013 Dt 3.11.2015.

15) RW2-K.Kiran Kumar Raju, deposed that he is authorized to give evidence as per

Ex.X1 authorization letter. Ex.X2 is the true extract of Registration certificate of auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 31 TB 7076 meant for transport of passengers. Ex.X3 and Ex.X4 are permit and fitness certificate of the vehicle. Ex.X5 is driving licence extract of respondent No.1-

Vanumu Venkataswamy. As per Ex.X5 the 1st respondent is authorized to drive light motor vehicle non transport and transport of auto rickshaw. In the cross examination, R.W.2 stated that 1st respondent is having driving licence to drive auto rickshaw non transport and transport with badge and they were valid by the date of accident. Auto rickshaw is a light motor vehicle. The respondent No.1 has obtained driving licence in the year 1982 which is valid up to 7.2.2014 for light motor vehicle transport.

16) The learned counsel for the 1st respondent argued that the 1st respondent is not having valid driving licence to drove the auto which is a light motor vehicle and the vehicle was not duly insured with their company.

17) As could be seen from the evidence of PW2 who is an eye witness deposed that the deceased died due to rash and negligent act on the part of 1st respondent driver cum owner.. Ex.B1, Ex.B2 and Ex.X5 are the insurance policy, certified copy of insurance and extract of driving licence of 1st respondent and the evidence of RW1 and RW2 shows that the 1st respondent is having valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle like auto rickshaw as on the date of accident the insurance policy was in force. Ex.X3 and Ex.X4 discloses that the vehicle is having valid permit and fitness. After registering Ex.A1-certified copy of first information report, the police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A2 by showing the 1st respondent as accused who caused the accident. Ex.A3 and Ex.A5 are post mortem certificate and inquest report of the deceased respectively which established the death of deceased in the accident. Ex.A4 motor vehicle inspector's report discloses the Motor

Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and filed his report with an opinion that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. Further, the 1st respondent is the person who is able to depose the manner of accident and how accident occurred and who is responsible for the accident but he was not examined by the 2nd respondent.

//Fair Order// IV A.D.J.C. cum-SC& ST Court, SKLM. 6 M.V.O.P.No.69-2013 Dt 3.11.2015.

Thus the petitioners able to prove that the deceased- Appalaraju died in the accident due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the 1st respondent . Accordingly,

Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners.

18) . ISSUE NO.2: -

The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of deceased. The evidence of PW1 is that the deceased who is her husband was hale and healthy by the date of accident and he is aged about 45 years and used to earn Rs.8000/- per month as Katamastry in fair price shop of PW3.

19) The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that the petitioners have not filed any documentary proof to show the age of the deceased and earning capacity of the deceased, the petitioners are contended that the deceased is aged about 45 years and used to earn Rs.4000/- per month. He further argued that PW3 even though deposed that deceased worked under her as a measurer and used to earn 4000/- per month, but she has not filed any documentary proof to show the same. He further argued that there is a correction in the inquest report in respect of the age of the deceased , first it was noted as “50” but later it was changed to “45” by inserting number”4” before number”5” and by deleting “O” after number”5”.

20) PW1 in her cross examination admitted that she has not filed any documentary evidence to show the date of birth of her husband though the deceased studied upto 7th class , so also she has not filed any documents to prove that the deceased was paid Rs.8000/- per month in the Fair Price shop. She denied the suggestion that the deceased was aged more than 50 years by the accident and hence she has suppressed the records to claim more compensation. Coming to the evidence of PW3 she also admitted that deceased worked under her and she used to pay Rs.4000/- per month but she has no record to show the same.

21) From the above evidence of PW1 and PW3 it is clear that there is no documentary proof to show the earning of the deceased. But now a days even a labourer is getting one hundred per day by assuming the same it can safely be accepted that the deceased might be earning rupees 100 per day by doing katamastri work. Even though PW1 and PW3 claimed that deceased used to earn Rs.8000/- or Rs.4000/- in the absence of //Fair Order// IV A.D.J.C. cum-SC& ST Court, SKLM. 7 M.V.O.P.No.69-2013 Dt 3.11.2015.

documentary proof it is not safe to rely on the sole testimony of PW1 and PW3. Therefore, the deceased might have earned Rs.100/- per day which comes to Rs.3000/- per month.

Coming to the age of the deceased the evidence of PW1 is that he was aged about 45 years by the date of accident. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 discloses that the deceased was aged about 45 years whereas there is a correction in Ex.A5 inquest report in respect of the age of the deceased but much weight cannot be given to Ex.A5. Admittedly, the deceased is an illiterate and date of birth certificate of deceased is not filed by petitioners. The respondent No.2 even though he denied the age of deceased, but has not filed any documents to prove the same. In the absence of documentary proof taking into consideration the evidence of PW1 who is the wife of deceased and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 this Court is of the considered opinion that as on the date of accident the age of the deceased is 45 years.

22) As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court In Sarla Varma and others

Vs.Delhi Transport Corporation & another reported in in 2009 ACJ 1298 (S.C.) Hon’ble

Supreme Court laid down the guide lines to bring uniformity in granting compensation in motor accident cases:-

The following multipliers are fixed for each age group to avoid inconsistency.

M-18 for age of persons between 15 to 20 and between 21 and 25 ; reduced by one unit of every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 years for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, this is M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56-60 years and M-7 for 61 to 65 years and MO-5 for 66 to 70 years.

As per the decision multiplier applicable in this case is “14”

The earnings of deceased per day at Rs.100 per day for a month arises to x 30 = 3000/ -per month which comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum Since the deceased is having three dependents ie., petitioners 1 to 3, as per the above decision, one fourth of his income has to deducted towards his personal expenditure Then his family contribution will be of

Rs…27,000/- per annum 27,000 x 14 to Rs.3,78,000/- as per the multiplier . Hence, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.3,78,000./- towards compensation for the death of deceased.

//Fair Order// IV A.D.J.C. cum-SC& ST Court, SKLM. 8 M.V.O.P.No.69-2013 Dt 3.11.2015.

An amount of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation of dead body is awarded. An amount of

Rs30,000/-- towards loss of consortium is awarded as PW1 became widow at the young age even though it cannot be compensated by any means but the amount of compensation awarded to the victims would just and proper. The petitioners claimed Rs9,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings loss of amenities of life, loss of love and affection, loss of livelihood, expectation of life, loss of marriage educational prospectus of minor petitioners due to sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. But the petitioners could not explain in the claim petition or adduce any documentary evidence how they claimed Rs.9,00,000/- under the above heads. The petitioners are already granted Rs.3,78,000/- towards earnings of the deceased as per the multiplier in the decision referred to above. The petitioners also claimed

Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering which is just and reasonable hence the petitioners are entitled to claim Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,43,000/- which is payable by respondent No.2 Insurance

Company for the loss suffered by the petitioner as 1st respondent under Ex.B1 policy covers third party risk. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

18) Issue No.3 :-

In the result, the petition is partly allowed, granting compensation of

Rs.4,43,000/- ( Rupees four lakhs forty three thousand only) to the petitioners with proportionate costs, with subsequent interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition, till date of deposit of amount, failing which to pay the same with interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount payable by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd Respondent shall deposit the said amount within two months. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner is awarded Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only), 2nd Petitioner is awarded Rs.1,23,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty three thousand) only and 3rd Petitioner is awarded

Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand) only respectively. The 1st Petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only along with accrued interest on the total compensation amount of Rs4,43,000/- and the remaining amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only shall be kept in FDR in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. The amount awarded to the minor 2nd petitioner shall be //Fair Order// IV A.D.J.C. cum-SC& ST Court, SKLM. 9 M.V.O.P.No.69-2013 Dt 3.11.2015.

kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank till her marriage. The amount awarded to the 3rd petitioner shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank till he attains majority.

Rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed, but without costs.

The petition against Respondent No. 1 dismissed without costs.

Advocates’ Fee is fixed at Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only).

The petitioner No.1 is at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on the amounts of 2nd and 3rd petitioners every year. However, the petitioner No.1 is at liberty to move this Court with an application if any emergency arises.

Partly typed by my lap top and partly dictated to Stenographer Grade –I on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 3rd day of November, 2015.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM.

(FAC) Special Judge for trial of Cases Under SC & ST

(POA) Act, cum IV Additional District Judge,

Srikakulam.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for

Petitioner:- Respondents:- PW1:Pitchuka Lakshmi RW1:Smt. G.Aruna PW2:Satavarapu Narayanarao, RW2: K.Kiranakumar Raju PW3: Pitchuka Ramadevi.

Documents Marked for

PETITIONER

Ex.A1: Dt.3.7.2012:Certified copy of FIR Ex.A2: Dt.7.8.2012:Certified copy of Charge sheet. Ex.A3 Dt.3.7.2012:Certified copy of Post mortem certificate. Ex.A4:Dt. :Certified copy of M.V.Inspector report. Ex.A5: Dt.3.7.2012:Certified copy of inquest report.

Respondents Ex/B1: Copy of Insurance Policy Ex/B2/ Copy of Driving licence.

//Fair Order// IV A.D.J.C. cum-SC& ST Court, SKLM. 10 M.V.O.P.No.69-2013 Dt 3.11.2015.

X.Series marked

Ex.X1: Authorization letter dated:22-04-2015 Ex.X2: True extract of registration certificate dated:30-03-2015 Ex.X3: Vehicle permit dated:30-03-2015 Ex.X4:Fitness certificate 30-03-2015 Ex.X5: Extract of driving license dated:30-03-2015

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM.

(FAC) Special Judge for trial of Cases Under SC & ST

(POA) Act, cum IV Additional District Judge,

Srikakulam.

1

//Fair Order// SC&ST(POA)Act, 1989-cum IV A.D.J.S.K.L.M.

M.V.O.P.No. 70/2013.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

-CUM-SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER S.Cs. & S.Ts(POA)Act

–CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM.

PRESENT: Smt. N.Satya Sri,

Chairman,I Additional .District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam

(FAC) Special Judge for trial of cases under

SC & ST (POA) Act,1989-

cum IV Additional District Judge, ,

Srikakulam.

Thursday, this the 29 th day of October 2015.

MVOP NO. 70/2013

Between:

Guttula Srinivasa Rao,S/O. Nageswara Rao, aged about 43 years, Hindu, business, resident of Door No.3-173, Gandhinagar, Pedda Ganagalla peta village, Srikakulam mandal and District.

..Petitioner.

And:

1.Vemula Rajeswara Rao, alias V.Rajasekhar, S/O Late Malleswara Rao, aged about 28 years, Hindu,Driver of the crime vehice i.e, Car No. AP-31BY 8518, resident of Vengalarao Colony, Amadalavalasa Municipality, Amadalavalasa mandalam, Srikakulam District.

2.Gurugubelli Rajeswararao, S/O Swamibabu, aged about 43 years, Hindu, owner of the crime vehicle, Car bearing No. AP-31BY 8518, A.M.News Journalist, District Reporter, resident of Door No.17-1, Vengalarao Colony, Amadalavalasa Municipality, Amadalavalasa mandalam, Srikakulam district.

3.United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Door No.7-4-3, opposite to Suryamahal, G.T.Road, Srikakulam town and district.

..Respondents.

This petition coming on 07-09-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Chinna Rao, learned Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri M.Sampath kumar,learned Advocate for R1 and R2 and Sri P.V.Ramana Rao, learned Advocate for R3 and having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1)This claim petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of 2

//Draft Judgment// IV A.D.S.J.Court cum SC.ST.Court, SKLM. Dt.29.10.2015.

M.V.O.P.No. 70-2013.

Rs.6,00,000/- by the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident.

2) Brief facts of the petition are as follows:-

On 25-11-2012 while petitioner was coming from Pedda Ganagallapeta village on motor cycle No. AP-30P-4890 to go to Srikakulam market at about 9.30 hours and when he reached near R & B Office, Srikakulam 1st respondent drove the crime vehicle i.e Car No.AP-31By-8518 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained a grievous injury on his neck, left toe, left thigh and right elbow. Immediately he was shifted to RIMS General Hospital,

Srikakulam for treatment. The Station House Officer, Srikakuklam Traffic Police

Station registered a case in Cr No.104/2012 under section 338 of IPC against

Respondent No.1-driver and filed charge sheet numbered as CC. 796/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam. The 1st respondent being the driver of the crime vehicle and caused the accident during and in the course of employment of 2nd respondent with valid driving licence No.

DLFAP0302566009LMV issued by Licensing Authority RTA Srikakulam valid upto 12-02-2029 and 2nd being the owner of the same who insured the said vehicle with 3rdresondent insurance company under policy No.

1504003112P300905224 valid till 9-11-2013 and they are all jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

3) Respondent No.2 filed written statement which was adopted by

Respondent No.1, denying all the material allegations and their liability and contending that there was no rash and negligent driving of the car No. AP 31 BY- 8518 on the part of the respondent No.1 and he drove the vehicle very slowly and 3 cautiously from old bus stand to Collector Office side the petitioner who was coming from Peddaganagallapeta village to Srikakulam market side with high speed dashed against the car bearing No. AP 31 BY 8518 due to which the petitioner received injuries. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is very excessive, arbitrary and unjust. The petition is bad for non joinder of owner of motor cycle No.AP 30P-4890. He further contended that the 1st respondent is having valid driving licence and 2nd respondent insured the accident vehicle with 3rd respondent -insurance company and the driving licence and insurance policy are in force as on the date of accident i.e, 25-11-2012 . Therefore, he prays that if at all any award is passed granting compensation to the petitioner that can be passed against the 3rd respondent insurance company and not against the

Respondents 1 and 2.

4) The respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited filed written statement, denying material averments of the petition denying its liability. It is further contended that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation unless all the terms and conditions of policy are complied without any violations. It is further contended that the 1st respondent is not having valid driving licence by the date of accident. It is further submitted that the petition is bad for non joinder of are necessary parties in this case since the accident occurred between two vehicles and petition is not maintainable without impleading them. There is also negligence on the part of claimant. The claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and no disability was suffered and petition is liable to be dismissed.

6) On the basis of above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial.

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent Car bearing No. AP 31 BY 8518

resulting injuries to Guttula Srinivasa Rao?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation ? if so, to what amount?

4

3) To what relief ?

7) To prove the case of the petitioner, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11 were marked.

8) No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents But

Ex.B1 certified copy of Insurance policy was marked by consent for R3 R1,R2 and R3 reported no further evidence and did not adduce any other evidence..

9) A petition under section 170 of Motor Vehicle Act filed by

Respondent No.3 was allowed.

10) Heard both sides. Written arguments of petitioner filed.

11) ISSUE NO.1: -

Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent Car bearing No. AP 31 BY 8518

resulting injuries to Guttula Srinivasa Rao?

To prove the case of the petitioner that he sustained injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of car No.AP 31 BY 8518, petitioner Guttula

Srinivasarao was examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 are certified copies of First Information Report, Charge sheet, Motor Vehicle Inspector report, wound certificate respectively. PW.2 is Dr.Kotta Sridhar, who treated PW.1.

Ex.P.5 to Ex.A.11 documents are relating to the treatment of petitioner.

12) PW.1 Guttula Srinivasa Rao deposed in the similar lines of petition averments stating that, On 25-11-2012 while he was coming from Pedda

Ganagallapeta village on motor cycle No. AP-30P-4890 to go to Srikakulam market at about 9.30 A.M and when he reached near R & B Office, Srikakulam 1st respondent drove the crime vehicle i.e Car No.AP-31By-8518 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained a grievous injury on his neck, left toe, left thigh and right elbow. Immediately he was shifted to RIMS

General Hospital, Srikakulam for treatment. The Station House officer, Rajam 5 registered a case in Cr No.104/2012 under section 338 of IPC in which charge sheet filed and numbered as C.C 796/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Srikakulam. In the cross examination PW.1 denied the suggestion

that the accident occurred due to his negligence and he was driving the motor cycle in the middle of the road in a negligent manner and dashed against thes car. He also denied the suggestion that he influenced the police and got foisted the case against the car driver. Thus the evidence of PW.1 clearly goes to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver -1st Respondent. The evidence of PW.1 as well as investigation conducted by the police as seen from record go to establish that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of car bearing No. AP 31 BY 8518. Except putting suggestions to PW.1 no favourable answers are elicited from the cross examination by the counsel for the respondents. The respondents also did not choose to rebut the evidence of PW.1 with regard to rash and negligent driving on the part of 1st respondent-car driver by examining the car driver-R1 who is proper person to speak about the manner of accident. Issue answered accordingly.

13) Issue No.2:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation ? if so, to what amount?

In view of the finding on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of car -1st respondent in driving the car bearing No.AP 31

BY 8518, to prove the injuries of PW.1, petitioner examined PW.2 Dr.Kotta Sridhar

Consultant Neurosurgeon, Apex Hospital, Visakhapatnam. PW2 was examined by the

Advocate Commissioner, to prove the injuries treatment and operation of the petitioner.

PW2 deposed that he examined PW.1 on 27-11-2012. At the time of admission the power in the legs was 4+/5, upper limbs 3-4/5, grip is less than 50%. There is numbness in upper limbs and body below waist. M.R.I. scan shows injury to C-5-6 level with PIVD at C-5-6 and sublaxation at C-5-6. He was operated and anterior cervical (neck) and 6 ileac discatching crest grafting and plate and screw fixation was done. He had good neurological improvement and was discharged on 8-12-2012. PW.1 was operated on 28-11-2012. He advised PW.1 for regular physiotherapy. The plate and screws used for fusion are still in the body i.e, cervical part. If the construct is removed it may incur

additional expenditure of Rs. 75,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. There was residual weakness

on the right limbs and urinary problem because of his daily routine activities. Ex.A4 wound certificate was issued as per his opinion. PW2 further deposed that all the

Exs.A5 to A11 are issued by their pharmacy and hospital and pertaining to treatment given to PW.1 . PW.1 is having partial permanent disability because of the injury.

Though PW.2 was cross examined at length it is elicited that injuries suffered by PW.1 which is reliable as per PW2 evidence. However it is elicited in the cross examination that he did not give any disability certificate. He denied the suggestion that the treatment was given in their hospital under Arogya sri scheme .He asserted that the total cost of the treatment given to PW.1 in the hospital may be Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 1,80,000/-. PW.2 denied the suggestion that the said expenditure is not correct and it is not necessary for the injury sustained by the petitioner and it is exaggerated and excessive and the bills other medical record exaggerated to help the petitioner. He also asserted that there is small difficulty in doing fine works and he has dribbling of urine. No disability certificate is produced by the petitioner-PW1 with regard to partial permanent disability suffered by him.

14 The petitioner claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of earnings and permanent disability. The petitioner claimed Rs.10,000/- towards loss of monthly earnings on his business. But the petitioner did not mention what type of business he is doing and how is earning Rs.10,000/- per month. There is no document produced to prove the income of the petitioner except contending and claiming Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of earnings without adducing any proof with regard to income of PW1 now a days a cooli can easily earn Rs.100/- per day Rs.3,000/- per month. The petitioner was bed ridden for 6 months as stated by PW.1 in his chief examination. Nothing is elicited from PW.1 in his cross examination in this regard. Hence the petitioner is 7 entitled to claim Rs.18,000/- towards loss of income. The petitioner claimed

Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses and hospital expenses including doctor's fees.

The petitioner filed medical bills issued by the concerned hospital which are marked as Ex.A.5 worth Rs.1,90,654/-. PW.2 stated in his evidence that the petitioner may incur Rs. 75,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- for removal of pins. PW.2 admitted in his cross examination after good condition of health he discharged the petitioner from the hospital. The petitioner is entitled to claim Rs.1,90,654/- towards medical expenses and hospital expenses including doctor's fees. The petitioner is further entitled to claim

Rs.90,000/- for removal of pins. The petitioner claimed Rs.50,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment food and attendant charges. The petitioner produced four receipts worth of Rs.14,300/- towards transport charges for engaging taxi to go to

Visakhapatnam from Srikakulam. Hence the petitioner is entitled to claim Rs.14,300/- towards transport charges. The petitioner woud have incurred as per wound certificate only the one grievious injury is suffered by the petitioner ie., some expenses towards attendant charges to assist him during his treatment and towards extra nourishment food. Hence the petitioner is entitled to claim Rs.3,000/- towards attendant charges,

Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment food. The petitioner would have spent an amount of Rs.2000/- towards transport charges other than Ex.A6 taxi receipts Hence he is entitled to claim Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges. In total the petitioner is entitled to claim Rs.3,20,954/- towards compensation from the respondents.

The respondents contended that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e, owner and insurance company of motor cycle driven by the petitioner. The police filed charge sheet against the 1st respondent after proper investigation who is at fault in causing the accident due to his rash and negligent driving of the car. Hence the petition is filed showing proper parties by the petitioner.

The 1st respondent being the driver of the car bearing No.AP 31 BY 8518 who caused the accident during and in the course of employment of 2nd respondent- owner of the car is having valid and effective driving licence bearing

No.DLFAP03025662009 which is valid upto 12-02-2029. The 2nd respondent being the 8 owner of the car duly insured the same with 3rd respondent Insurance company under insurance policy No. 1504003112P300905224 which is valid from 10-11-2012 to 9-11-2013 marked by consent as Ex.B.1. Therefore all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Since there is valid and effect driving licence and insurance policy the 3rd respondent -Insurance company is responsible to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

16) Issue No.3:-

In the result, the petition is partly allowed, granting compensation of Rs.3,20,954/- (Rupees three lakh twenty thousand nine hundred and fifty four) only to the petitioner with proportionate costs, with subsequent interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition, till date of deposit of amount, failing which to pay the same with interest at 12/% p.a from the date of petition .

The Respondent No.3 shall deposit the said amount within three months from the date of this order. Soon after the amount deposited into the Court, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) along with accrued interest thereon and the balance amount of Rs.1,20,954/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand nine hundred and fifty four) only shall be kept in FDR in any

Nationalized Bank for a period of three years.

Rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed without costs.

The claim against respondents 1 and 2 is dismissed without costs.

Further in case of necessity the petitioner is at liberty to approach this

Tribunal for permission for withdrawal of balance amount.

The advocate fee fixed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only).

Partly typed by me on my lap top and partly dictated to the Grade I Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 29th day of October, 2015.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, (FAC), Special Judge for trial of cases under S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act,1989 cum IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

9

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Petitioner Respondent

PW.1/- Guttula Srinivasa Rao - Nil - PW.2/- Dr.Kotta Sridhar (examined on commission)

Documents Marked for Petitioner :

Ex.A.1/- Certified copy of First Information Reportin Cr.No.104/2012 of Srikakulam Rural P.S. Ex.A.2/- Certified copy of charge sheet in CC 796/2012 of JMFC,SKLM. Ex.A.3/- Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector Report . Ex.A.4/- Certified copy of wound certificate. Ex.A.5/- Bunch of Medical Bills and hospital bills worth Rs. 1,90,654/- Ex.A.6/- 4 Taxi receipts worth Rs.14,300/- Ex.A.7/- X ray films 5 in number. Ex.A.8/- Discharge summary issued by Surya Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A.9/- Discharge summary issued by Apex hospital, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A10/-Bunch of medical prescriptions. Ex.A11/-M.R.I.Scan of P.W.1 marked through Commissioner.

Respondents : Ex.B.1/- Certified copy of Insurance policy (marked by consent)

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, (FAC), Special Judge for trial of cases under S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act,1989 cum IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

10

IN THE HONOURABLE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM- IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FTC

SRIKAKULAM

PRESENT: Sri V.VENKATESWARA RAO, M.A., LLM., Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IInd Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam.

(FAC) IInd Addl. District Judge, FTC, Srikakulam.

Tuesday, this the 18th day of June,2012

MVOP.No.39/2010

Between:

…. …. ….Petitioner.

And:

… …….. Respondent.

This petition is coming on 25-05-2012 before me for final

hearing in the presence of P.Balakrishna Rao, Advocate for the

petitioner and of Sri Gorle Rama Rao, Avocate for respondent and

11

having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the

following:

IInd Addl. District Judge’s Court,, FTC, Srikakulam Date:18-06-2013.

N O T I C E

Please take notice that the Order in MVOP 39/2010on the file of this court will be pronounced today i.e on 18-06-2013.

// By Order //

Head Clerk To

1. Sri.R.Vijayakumar,,

Advocate for the petitioner

2. Sri.M.Janardhana Rao,

Advocate for respondent No.3

Petition against R4 dismissed as process not paid on 7-12-011.

Respondent No.1 and 2 remained exparte.

One copy affixed to the notice board.

IInd Addl. District Judge’s Court,, FTC, Srikakulam Date:18-06-2013.

N O T I C E

Please take notice that the Order in MVOP 39/2010on the file of this court will be pronounced today i.e on 18-06-2013.

// By Order //

Head Clerk To

1. Sri.R.Vijayakumar,,

Advocate for the petitioner

2. Sri.M.Janardhana Rao,

Advocate for respondent No.3

Petition against R4 dismissed process not paid on 7-12-2011.

Respondent No.1 and 2 remained exparte.

12 One copy affixed to the notice board.

IInd Addl. District Judge’s Court,, FTC, Srikakulam Date:28-10-2013.

N O T I C E

Please take notice that the Order in A.S 60/2007on the file of this court will be pronounced today i.e on 28-10-2013.

// By Order //

Head Clerk To

One copy affixed to the notice board.

IInd Addl. District Judge’s Court,, FTC, Srikakulam Date:28-10-2013.

N O T I C E

Please take notice that the Order in A.S 154/2010on the file of this court will be pronounced today i.e on 28-10-2013.

// By Order //

Head Clerk To

One copy affixed to the notice board.