Smt. P.Kamala Devi, SC and ST Judge

­1­

In the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs & STs Cases

– Cum – VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Present:- Smt P.Kamala Devi, Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs & STs Cases, Ananthapuramu

Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022.

Spl. Sessions Case No.127 of 2018

[Cr.No.19 of 2018 of Kanaganapalli P.S]

Name of complainant :Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell I Anantapuramu District.

Crime No. and PS:Cr.No.19 of 2018 of Kanaganapalli P.S

Name of accused:

1. K.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, S/o K.Venkata Ramireddy.

2. K.Manoj Kumar Reddy @ Manohar Reddy, S/o K.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy. Both are residents of Muthapuram village of Kanaganapalli Mandal.

Charges:Charges u/s.324 IPC and u/s.3 (1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes /Schedule Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 are framed against A1 and A2.

Plea of accused:Not guilty.

Finding of Judge:Not guilty.

Order or sentence:Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.324 IPC and u/s.3 (1)(r)

(s) of the Scheduled Castes /Schedule Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and accordingly they are acquitted of said charges u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by accused 1 and 2 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of 6 months, as contemplated u/s. 437-A of Cr.P.C. No property seized in this crime. Hence, no property orders passed regarding disposal of the case property.

Case conducted by:Sri K.Rama Naik, Spl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused is defended :Sri R.Harinath Reddy and Sri E.Lakshmi byKanthaiah, advocate for A1 and A2.

­2­

This case coming on 8.4.2022 for hearing before me and after hearing the counsel of both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case is filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST

Cell II, Anantapuramu District against the accused 1 and 2 u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC and u/s.3 (1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes /Schedule Tribes (POA) Amendment

Act, 2015 in Cr.No.96/2018 of Kanaganapalli P.S.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

Accused 1 and 2 are residents of Mamillapalli village of

Kanaganapalli Mandal and they both belongs to OC Kapu caste where as L.W.1

Katika Murali resident of same village and he belongs to SC Mala community.

There are ill feelings between L.W.1 and accused with regard to electrical wire connections from the transformer as well as soil loading.

On 6.3.2016 at about 3.20 p.m., while L.W.1 was present in his land and chitchatting with L.W.3 K.Vema Reddy, accused 1 and 2 came on motor bike and abused him in filthy language and by touching his caste name as “Ni Yakka na kodaka ni ayalinik dengha” and beat him with stones on his back side to his head, as a result L.W.1 sustained dumb injuries on his body.

Then L.Ws.3 to 5 viz., Vema Reddy, Gopal Reddy and T.Manjunatha Reddy came and rescued L.W.1 from the clutches of the accused and further A1 and

A2 went away by saying “Mala Na Kodaka.” After that L.W.1 reached to his house and narrated the incident to his father/L.W.2 Katika Nagappa, who immediately shifted L.w.1 to Govt., Hospital, Dharmavaram for treatment.

On the same day i.e., on 6.3.2018 on receipt of medical admit intimation from Govt., Hospital, Dharmavaram L.W.15 S.Muralidhar HC 1354

Kanaganapalli PS recorded the statement of L.W.1 and handed over the same to L.W.16 Srinivas SI of Police, Kanaganapalli P.S. Basing on the statement of

L.W.1, L.W.16 registered the case in Cr.No.19/2018 u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC and u/s.3 (1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes /Schedule Tribes (POA) Amendment

Act, 2015 and issued FIR and submitted it to all the officers concerned.

­3­

L.W.17 M.Venkataramana Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC ST Cell,

Ananthapuramu has been appointed as Investigating Officer in this case and he took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, drawn rough sketch of scene of offence, examined the material witnesses and recorded their statements, served 41-A Cr.P.C notices to A1 and A2 and released them after taking solvencies for their future appearance, collected the caste certificates of L.W.1 and accused 1 and 2 from

L.W.13/Kumar Swamy L.W.13 Tahsildar of Kanaganapalli Mandal, collected wound certificate from L.W.14 Dr Suhail CAS, Govt., Medical Hospital,

Dharmavaram. L.W.17 transferred and L.W.18 BVijaya Kumar Dy

Superintendent of Police, Dy Superintendent of Police Cell II, Ananthapuramu took up further investigation, verified the investigation done by L.W.17, found it on correct lines and ultimately basing on the material, he came to the conclusion that prima facie case is established against the accused, he filed charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2.

3.Considering the material on record, this Court took the case on file u/ss.324 r/w 34 IPC and section 3 (1)(r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes /Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 against the accused 1 and 2 and furnished copies of documents on which prosecution proposed to rely, soon after the accused made their appearance.

4.On appearance of accused 1 and 2 before this Court, an opportunity was given to the prosecution and also defences to submit its version at the stage of framing charges. Considering the material on record after hearing the Special Public Prosecutor appearing for state and defence counsel, charges u/ss.324 IPC and section 3 (1)(r )(s) of the Scheduled

Castes /Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is framed against

A1 and A2, read over and explained said charges to them in Telugu for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as PW.1, father of P.W.1 as P.W.2 and the persons, who are said to ­4­ be intervened and rescued P.W.1 from clutches of accused are examined as

P.Ws.3 to 5 and the person who investigated the case as PW.6 besides marking

Exs.P1 to P15. No witnesses are examined on behalf of defence. The learned

Spl. Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of L.Ws.6 to 16 and 18, as the material witnesses turned hostile and didn’t support the case of prosecution.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused 1 and 2 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C putting incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no evidence on behalf of the accused.

7.Now the point for determination is, “Whether the prosecution proved that Accused Nos.1 and 2 committed the offence punishable u/s.324 IPC and u/s 3 (1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes /Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted his arguments, contending as follows:

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6. Though P.Ws.1 to 5 [victim, father of the victim and eye witnesses] didn’t support the version of the prosecution, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Investigating officer/P.W.6, which establishes the accusation of entire charges leveled against the accused 1 and 2, hence he prays to punish the accused 1 and 2 according to law.

10.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel submitted his arguments, contending as follows:

The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, who are said to be victim as well as eye witnesses, didn’t support the version of the prosecution. The evidence of

P.W.6 Investigating Officer is not corroborated with the evidence of complainant as well as independent eye witnesses, hence, his evidence is not liable to be considered, so it makes clear that the prosecution utterly failed to ­5­ prove any of the charges leveled against the accused. Therefore he prays to acquit the accused for all the charges leveled against them.

11.POINT:-

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 besides marking Exs.P.1 to P.15. No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the defence.

12.P.W.1, who is no other than the victim as well as defacto complainant, his version is as follows:

Accused never abused him touching his caste and never beat him with stones and his statement was not recorded by police, in the year 2018, while he was getting treatment in the Government Hospital, Dharmavaram for his injuries, police people obtained his signature on a white paper he identified his signature on the statement recorded by police and it is marked as Ex.P1.

13.P.W.2, who is no other than father of P.W.1 and who came to know about the incident from P.W.1, his version is as follows:

PW1 never informed him that he was abused by accused touching their caste and beating him with stones, he does not know anything about this case and Police not examined him and not recorded his statement.

14.Coming to the other witnesses i.e., P.Ws.3 to 5, who are said to be witnessed the incident and rescued P.W.1 from the clutches of accused, their version is as follows:

P.Ws.2 to 5 deposed in one voice that they don’t know the accused in this case, they doesn’t know anything about this case, they never witnessed the incident and they were not examined by the police.

15.At this stage all these witnesses were declared as hostile by the learned Special Public Prosecutor as they did not support the version of the prosecution and they were cross-examined by the learned Special Public

Prosecutor with the permission of the Court. In their cross-examination, their 161 Cr.P.C. statements were marked as Exs.P.2 to P.6 respectively as they completely resiled from their earlier version as stated before the police.

Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 to 5 falsifies the entire contents mentioned in ­6­

Ex.P.8 Complaint of P.W.1, dt.6.3.2018.

15.Now coming to the evidence of P.W.6, who is no other than the

Investigating Officer, his version is as follows:

On 08.03.2018 he received copy of Ex.P.9/FIR from

LW16/Sreenivas S.I, Kanaganapalli P.S, who registered the case basing on the

Ex.P8/complaint given by PW1 in Cr.No.19/2018 U/Sec.324 r/w 34 IPC and

Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act,2015 and Ex.P.7/orders from Superintendent of police, Anantapuramu vide C.No.5728/C3/2018 dt. 24.02.2018, reached

Mamillapalli village, secured the presence of PWs 1 and 2, examined them, recorded their Exs.P2 & P3/statements, visited the scene of offence, situated near the fields of PW5, drawn Ex.P.10/rough sketch, sent requisition to

LW13/Kumar Swamy, Thasildar, Kanaganapalli, collected Exs.P.11 to P.12/caste certificates of Pw.1 and A1 and A2, which shows that P.W.1 belongs to SC/Mala and accused belongs to OC/Kapu, on 12.3.2018, he reached Mamillapalli village, secured the presence of Pws 3 to 5, examined them, recorded their

Exs.P.4 to P6/statements, on 15.3.2018 he examined Lws 6 to 8 Ramalinga

Reddy, Kasipathi, Venu Gopal Reddy, recorded their statements, on 19.3.2018 he examined Lws 9 to 12 Tulasi Das, Ramachandra Reddy, Krishnaiah,

Harinath Reddy, recorded their statements, on 25.3.2018 he served 41-A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused, obtained Ex.P.14/wound certificate of PW1 from

LW14/Dr.Suhail, CAS, Govt., Hospital, Dharmavaram, then on his transfer

LW18/B.Vijay Kumar, DSP, SC/ST Cell-II took up investigation and after obtaining Ex.P.15/approval of draft charge sheet from the S.P.,

Ananthapuramu, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

16.Though P.W.6 supported the version of the prosecution, as complaint was not marked through P.W.1 and it is marked through P.W.6 as

Ex.P.8, the entire complaint averments are not proved by the prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 falsifies the entire version as mentioned in Ex.P.8. So, the very origin of the case itself is not proved by the prosecution. In the light of the above mentioned circumstances, it is not at all safe to believe the testimony of P.W.6 to come to the conclusion that the prosecution proved any ­7­ of the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Therefore the accused are entitled for clean acquittal.

Thus, I hold that A.1 and A2 are not found guilty for the offences punishable u/s.324 IPC and Sec.3 (1)(r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes /Schedule

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

Accordingly the point is answered.

17.In the result, the Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.324 IPC and 3 (1)(r )(s) of the Scheduled Castes /Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and accordingly they are acquitted of said charges u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by accused 1 and 2 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of 6 months, as contemplated u/s.437-A of Cr.P.C. No property seized in this crime. Hence, no property orders passed regarding disposal of the case property.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11th day of April, 2022.

KAMALADigitally signed by

KAMALA DEVI

DEVIPALLAMPATI

PALLAMPATIDate: 2022.04.12 17:04:39 +0000 Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs & STs Cases, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

P.W.1 : Katika Murali. - None – P.W.2 : K.Nagappa. P.W.3: K.Vema reddy. P.W.4: K.Gopal Reddy P.W.5: T.Manjunath Reddy P.W.6: M.Venkataramana.

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.W.1 on the complaint. Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

­8­

Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.6 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.7: Appointment orders. Ex.P.8: Complaint of P.W.1. Ex.P.9: First Information Report. Ex.P.10: Rough Sketch. Ex.P.11: Caste certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P.12: Caste certificate of A1. Ex.P.13: Caste certificate of A2. Ex.P.14: Wound certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P.15: Approval orders for draft charge sheet.

Exhibits marked for defence: Nil.

Mos. marked for prosecution: Nil. Digitally signed KAMALAby KAMALA DEVI

DEVIPALLAMPATI

PALLAMPATIDate: 2022.04.12 17:04:50 +0000 Spl. Sessions Judge.

­9­

TABULAR FORM TO BE ANNEXED TO A JUDGMENT AS PER RULE 67

OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

(Before the Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs & STs Cases – Cum –

VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu)

Spl. Sessions Case No.127 of 2018

1.Name of ComplainantDeputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell II, Cr.No.Ananthapuramu.

Crime No. 19 of 2018 of Kanaganapalli Police Station.

2.Name of the accused

1. K.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, S/o K.Venkata Ramireddy,

2. K.Manoj Kumar Reddy @ Manohar Reddy, S/o K.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy. Both are residents of Muthapuram village of Kanaganapalli Mandal.

3.Date of offence06.03.2018

4.Date of complaint06.03.2018

5.Date of apprehension 25.03.2018 (41-A Cr.P.C. notice) of the accused

6.Date of release25.03.2018

7.Date of 29.03.2022 Commencement of trial

8.Date of close of trial07.04.2022

9.Date of sentence or11.04.2022 order

Explanation of the duration of the case in Committal Court:- ----

Explanation of the Duration of the case in Sessions Court:-

This case was taken on file cognizance on 23.08.2018 and since then the case was adjourned from time to time for engaging counsel and then for hearing on charges. The case is adjourned from time to time in view of

Circular of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., in ROC.No.192/SO/2020, dt.16.3.2020.

On 23.11.2021 charges were framed and posted for fixing schedule. On 25.2.2022 schedule was fixed. From 29.3.2022 to 7.4.2022 P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 marked and closed the prosecution evidence and posted for 313 Cr.P.C examination. On 8.4.2022 the accused 1 & 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating material ­10­ appearing against them out of prosecution witnesses, heard the arguments and posted the matter for judgment on 11.4.2022.

On 11.4.2022 Judgment pronounced. (VSJ). In the result, the Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.324 IPC and 3 (1)(r)

(s) of the Scheduled Castes /Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2015 and accordingly they are acquitted of said charges u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by accused 1 and 2 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of 6 months, as contemplated u/s. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

No property seized in this crime. Hence, no property orders passed regarding disposal of the case property. Digitally signed by KAMALA

KAMALA DEVI

DEVIPALLAMPATI

PALLAMPATIDate: 2022.04.12 17:05:02 +0000 Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs & ST Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Copy to:

1. The District Collector, Ananthapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu.

3. The Spl. P.P. SC/ST Court, Anantapuramu.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL

(BEFORE THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU)

Present:- Smt P.Kamala Devi, Chairman-cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu FAC III Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 22nd day of March, 2019

M.V.O.P. No.144/2017

Between :

… Petitioner Ballapuram Tejashwani @ Tejeswini being minor represented by her next friend/father B.Ramana

and

1.R.Sekhara

2.V.Satyanarayana Reddy *3The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Ananthapuramu (*Amended as per orders passed in IA No.1008/2017, dt.16.11.2017) … Respondents.

This petition coming on 18.2.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Ramu and Sri D.Raju, Advocates for the petitioner and of Sri P.Diwakarnath, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and the respondents

No. 1 and 2 having been called absent and set exparte, this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This claim petition has been filed u/s 140 and 166 of M.V. Act 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 on behalf of injured petitioner with a prayer to pass an award in favour of petitioner and against respondents with joint and several liability for payment of

Rs.2,00,000/- for injuries sustained by her in the road accident occurred on 9.10.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. near Vadiyampeta, B.K.Samudram 2

Mandal on Hyderabad – Bangalore NH-44 Road, together with interest from the date of accident till the date of payment and for costs of the petition.

2.THE MATERIAL AVERMENTS OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN

BRIEF ARE AS FOLLOWS:-

The petitioner was aged about 12 years, hale and healthy and she was pursuing her studies at the time of accident. On 9.10.2016 the petitioner and her family members proceeding to Nallamada village from

Burugu village, Shadnagar Mandal on their personal work in Ford Car bearing No. AP11-AC-5391 slowly and cautiously in a careful manner.

When they reached near Vadiyampeta, B.K.Samudram Mandal on

Hyderabad – Bangalore NH-44 Road, at about 2.00 p.m., at that time the stationed crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537, which is stationed near

Vadiyampeta Cross, suddenly moved rashly and negligently with high speed without observing the vehicle movement on the road and hit the petitioner’s car. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates received grievous injuries. The petitioner received grievous injuries i.e., 1)

Lacerated wound on lumber region and 2) Fracture of left tibia and other injuries. Immediately, all the injured were shifted to Savera Medical

Centre, Ananthapuramu for treatment and she was admitted as inpatient and incurred Rs.30,000/- towards medical, attendant and other expenses. The accident is occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537 i.e., the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner became partial and permanent disabled person and she is not in a position to sit and stand properly without any support due to injuries received by her and not in a position 3 to lift the weights due to injuries on her both shoulders and also unable to attend her works.

3.In this connection, a case in Cr.No.145/2016 of

B.K.Samudram PS was registered u/s. 337 IPC against the driver of the

Gas lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537 i.e., 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent is the driver of crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537, 2nd respondent is its owner and 3rd respondent is its insurer. Hence all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner with future interest from the date of accident till the date of realization.

4.Third respondent filed counter denying most of the allegations mentioned in the petition and submitted as follows,

It denied the manner of the accident and submitted that the driver of Car bearing No. AP11-AC-5391 himself was negligent in driving the car without observing vehicular road and dashed against the lorry.

The driver of the car has no valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle. Thus he negligently and rashly drove the car and contributed heavily for the accident. There is neither rashness nor negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, the driver of the lorry. Hence the respondents 2 and 3 are not at all liable to pay compensation. The claim of compensation is too high. The petitioner has not produced any records that she underwent treatment in various hospitals. Hence her claim is baseless. The offending lorry had no valid permit and fitness certificate on the date of alleged accident. The driver of the lorry R1 did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Liability of the respondent is only in accordance with the terms and conditions of 4 policy if there are no violations. The interest is liable to be reckoned from the date of award @ 6% p.a. The petition is bad for non-joinder of insurer and insured of the Car bearing No. AP11-AC-5391 and its driver for causing the accident, in a rash and negligent manner, contributing heavily for the accident. Thus he prays to dismiss the petition.

5.Considering the above said pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

1.Whether the petitioner B.Tejashwani @ Tejeswini (12 years) received grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred near Vadiyampeta village on Bangalore – Hyderabad NH-44, B.K. Samudram Mandal, on 9.10.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of Gas lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537 or not ?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation, If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ?

3.To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, father of petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and he examined medical officer in Savera hospital,

Ananthapuramu as PW.2 besides marking Exs.A1 to A5 and Ex.X1. No witnesses are examined on behalf of contesting 3rd respondent. Ex.B1 policy was marked with consent.

7.Heard both sides and perused the record.

8.ISSUE No.1:-The case of petitioner in brief is as follows:-

On 9.10.2016 the petitioner and her family members proceeding to Nallamada village from Burugu village, Shadnagar Mandal on their personal work in Ford Car bearing No. AP11-AC-5391 slowly and 5 cautiously in a careful manner. When they reached near Vadiyampeta,

B.K.Samudram Mandal on Hyderabad – Bangalore NH-44 Road, at about 2.00 p.m., at that time the stationed crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA- 6537, which is stationed near Vadiyampeta Cross, suddenly moved rashly and negligently with high speed without observing the vehicle movement on the road and hit the petitioner’s car. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates received grievous injuries. The petitioner received grievous injuries i.e., 1) Lacerated wound on lumber region and 2)

Fracture of left tibia and other injuries. Immediately, all the injured were shifted to Savera Medical Centre, Ananthapuramu for treatment and she was admitted as inpatient and incurred Rs.30,000/- towards medical, attendant and other expenses. The accident is occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA- 6537 i.e., the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner became partial and permanent disabled person and she is not in a position to sit and stand properly without any support due to injuries received by her and not in a position to lift the weights due to injuries on her both shoulders and also unable to attend her works.

9.The case of contesting 3rd respondent is as follows:-

The driver of Car bearing No. AP11-AC-5391 himself was negligent in driving the car without observing vehicular road and dashed against the lorry. The driver of the car has no valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle. Thus he drove the car negligently and rashly and contributed heavily for the accident. There is neither rashness nor negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, i.e., the driver of the lorry.

Hence the respondents 2 and 3 are not at all liable to pay compensation.

6

10.In order to prove the case of petitioner, father of petitioner was examined as P.W.1 besides marking Exs.A1 to A3. PW.1 swore in his chief affidavit in the same lines of petition averments. Coming to cross- examination of PW.1, there is no cross-examination to him by the counsel for the contesting 3rd respondent denying or challenging the manner of the accident as mentioned in Exs.A1 to A3. No evidence is placed by the contesting 3rd respondent showing the manner of accident contrary to the oral evidence of PW.1 as well as the manner shown in Exs.A1 and A3.

Thus it can safely be concluded that the manner of accident as spoken by

PW.1 and as mentioned in Exs.A1 and A3 can be safely relied upon. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 and A3, clearly shows that the petitioner received injuries in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 9.10.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. due to the the rash and negligent act of the driver of crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537. Thus, I hold that the petitioner B.Tejashwani @ Tejeswini (12 years) received grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred near Vadiyampeta village on

Bangalore – Hyderabad NH-44, B.K. Samudram Mandal, on 9.10.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of Gas lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537. Accordingly this issue is answered.

11.ISSUE No.2:- In view of the findings in issue No.1, the petitioner is entitled to compensation. Coming to the persons who are liable to pay compensation, there there is no dispute that the 1st respondent is the driver, the 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle. As no evidence is placed by the insurer/3rd respondent showing the violations of policy terms and conditions, it can safely be concluded that Ex.B1 policy is in force as on the date of accident and there are no violations of terms and conditions 7 as pleaded by the 3rd respondent. Hence I am of the view that the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner

12.Coming to quantum of compensation, it is the case of the petitioner that she suffered injuries as mentioned in Ex.A2 and she became partial and permanent disabled person and she is not in a position to sit and stand properly without any support due to injuries received by her and not in a position to lift the weights due to injuries on her both shoulders and also unable to attend her works and she incurred

Rs.30,000/- towards expenses of medical attendant and others, thus she is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards all heads.

13.The case of the contesting 3rd respondent is that the claim of compensation is excessive and baseless.

14.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, petitioner’s father was examined as PW.1 and he also examined PW.2 Dr.M.Sreeramulu, who issued wound certificate and Ex.A5 medical bills. PW.1 swore in his chief affidavit in the same lines of petition averments. PW.2 deposed that injury No.1 in Ex.A2 is simple in nature and injury no.2 is grievous in nature and he filed Ex.X1 case sheet and he deposed that Ex.A5 bills are issued by their hospital to PW.1. There is no cross-examination to PW.1 stating that PW.1 did not sustain injuries as mentioned in Ex.A2 wound certificate. So it can safely be concluded that due to accident, PW.1 sustained grievous and simple injuries as mentioned in Ex.A2 wound certificate. Thus I am of the view that it is just and proper to award compensation to a tune of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering of injuries sustained to PW.1 as in Ex.A2 wound certificate. The petitioner is 8 also entitled to claim medical expenses as shown in Ex.A5 as Ex.A5 document was duly proved. As such I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.14,082/- towards medical expenses. The petitioner is also entitled to claim an amount of Rs.918/- towards extra nourishment and future medical expenses if any. Thus, I am of the view that in total the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation of

Rs.30,000/- from all the respondents with joint and several liability together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Accordingly this issue is answered.

15.ISSUE No.3:- In view of findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2 as mentioned above, this petition shall be allowed partly with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner payable by all the respondents together with accrued interest there on at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit before the tribunal with joint and several liability. This petition in respect of rest of the claim of the petitioner shall be dismissed without costs.

Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit said compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of petition within 30 days from this day. On deposit of said compensation amount petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount at once along with accrued interest thereon and entire costs of petition payable to her.

16.In the result this claim petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner payable by the respondents 1 to 3 together with accrued 9 interest there on at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit before the tribunal with joint and several liability. This petition in respect of rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed without costs. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit said compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of petition within 30 days from this day. On deposit of said compensation amount petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount at once along with accrued interest thereon and entire costs of petition payable to her. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 22nd day of March, 2019.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE),ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC III ADDL. DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

PETITIONER RESPONDENTS

PW.1 : Ballapuram Tejashwani @ Tejeswini -None-

PW.2 : Dr.M.Sreeramulu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A.1 : Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.145/2016 of Bukkarayasamudram Police Station.

Ex.A.2 : Attested copy of wound certificate.

Ex.A.3 : Attested copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A.4 : Discharge summary issued by Saveera hospital, Ananthapuramu.

Ex.A.5 : Medical bills worth Rs.14,081-94 Ps.

10

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B.1: Certified copy of Insurance policy.

X-Series:

Ex.X1: Case sheet.

CHAIRMAN/III ADJ (FAC)

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL

(BEFORE THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU)

Present:- Smt P.Kamala Devi, Chairman-cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu FAC III Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Wednesday, the 20th day of March, 2019

M.V.O.P. No.141/2017

Between :

… Petitioner Ballapuram Ramana

and

1.R.Sekhara

2.V.Satyanarayana Reddy *3The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Ananthapuramu (*Amended as per orders passed in IA No.1005/2017, dt.16.11.2017) … Respondents.

This petition coming on 18.2.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Ramu and Sri D.Raju, Advocates for the petitioner and of Sri P.Diwakarnath, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and the respondents

No. 1 and 2 having been called absent and set exparte, this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This claim petition has been filed u/s 140 and 166-A of M.V.

Act 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 on behalf of injured petitioner with a prayer to pass an award in favour of petitioner and against respondents with joint and several liability for payment of

Rs.1,00,000/- for injuries sustained by him in the road accident occurred on 9.10.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. near Vadiyampeta Cross,

B.K.Samudram Mandal on Hyderabad – Bangalore NH-44 Road, together 2 with interest from the date of accident till the date of payment and for costs of the petition.

2.THE MATERIAL AVERMENTS OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN

BRIEF ARE AS FOLLOWS:-

The petitioner was aged about 35 years, hale and healthy and he was doing agriculture and fruit business at Burugu village, Shadnagar

Mandal, Mahaboob Nagar district and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month through his avocation. On 9.10.2016 the petitioner and his family members proceeding to Nallamada village from Burugu village,

Shadnagar Mandal on his personal work in Ford Car bearing No. AP11-

AC-5391 slowly and cautiously in a careful manner. When they reached near Vadiyampeta, B.K.Samudram Mandal on Hyderabad – Bangalore

NH-44 Road, at about 2.00 p.m., at that time the stationed crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537, which is stationed near Vadiyampeta Cross, suddenly moved rashly and negligently with high speed without observing the vehicle movement on the road and hit the petitioner’s car. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates received grievous injuries. The petitioner received grievous injuries i.e., 1) Abrasion on right leg, 2)

Abrasion on left hand, 3)Abrasion on right hand, 4) Lacerated wound on left temporal region and 5) Blunt injury on the spinal chord.

Immediately, all the injured were shifted to Savera Medical Centre,

Ananthapuramu for treatment and he was admitted as inpatient and incurred Rs.30,000/- towards medical, attendant and other expenses.

The accident is occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537 i.e., the 1st respondent herein. Due to the fateful accident, the petitioner became partial and 3 permanent disabled person and he is not in a position to lift the weights due to injuries on his both shoulders and also unable to attend his works.

3.In this connection, a case in Cr.No.145/2016 of

B.K.Samudram PS was registered u/s. 337 IPC against the driver of the

Gas lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537 i.e., 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent is the driver of crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537, 2nd respondent is its owner and 3rd respondent is its insurer. Hence all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner with future interest from the date of accident till the date of realization.

4.Third respondent filed counter denying most of the allegations mentioned in the petition and submitted as follows,

It denied the manner of the accident and submitted that the driver of Car bearing No. AP11-AC-5391 himself was negligent in driving the car without observing vehicular traffic and dashed against the lorry.

The driver of the car has no valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle. Thus he negligently and rashly drove the car and contributed heavily for the accident. There is neither rashness nor negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, the driver of the lorry. Hence the respondents 2 and 3 are not at all liable to pay compensation. The claim of compensation is too high. The petitioner has not produced any records that he underwent treatment in various hospitals. Hence his claim is baseless. The offending lorry had no valid permit and fitness certificate on the date of alleged accident. The driver of the lorry R1 did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Liability of the respondent is only in accordance with the terms and conditions of policy if there are no violations. The interest is liable to be reckoned from 4 the date of award @ 6% p.a. The petition is bad for non-joinder of insurer and insured of the Car bearing No. AP11-AC-5391 and its driver for causing the accident, in a rash and negligent manner, contributing heavily for the accident. Thus he prays to dismiss the petition.

5.Considering the above said pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

1.Whether the petitioner B.Ramana received grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred near Vadiyampeta village on Bangalore – Hyderabad NH-44, B.K. Samudram Mandal, on 9.10.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. due to rash and negligent act of the driver of Gas lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537 or not?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation, If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ?

3.To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, petitioner himself was examined as

P.W.1 and he examined medical officer in Savera hospital,

Ananthapuramu as PW.2 besides marking Exs.A1 to A4 and Ex.X1. No witnesses are examined on behalf of contesting 3rd respondent. Ex.B1 policy was marked with consent.

7.Heard both sides and perused the record.

8.ISSUE No.1:-The case of petitioner in brief is as follows:-

On 9.10.2016 the petitioner and his family members proceeding to Nallamada village from Burugu village, Shadnagar Mandal on his personal work in Ford Car bearing No. AP11-AC-5391 slowly and cautiously in a careful manner. When they reached near Vadiyampeta, 5

B.K.Samudram Mandal on Hyderabad – Bangalore NH-44 Road, at about 2.00 p.m., at that time the stationed crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA- 6537, which is stationed near Vadiyampeta Cross, suddenly moved rashly and negligently with high speed without observing the vehicle movement on the road and hit the petitioner’s car. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates received grievous injuries. The petitioner received grievous injuries i.e., 1) Abrasion on right leg, 2) Abrasion on left hand, 3)Abrasion on right hand, 4) Lacerated wound on left temporal region and 5) Blunt injury on the spinal chord. Immediately, all the injured were shifted to Savera Medical Centre, Ananthapuramu for treatment and he was admitted as inpatient and incurred Rs.30,000/- towards medical, attendant and other expenses. The accident is occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA- 6537 i.e., the 1st respondent herein. Due to the fateful accident, the petitioner became partial and permanent disabled person and he is not in a position to lift the weights due to injuries on his both shoulders and also unable to attend his works.

9.The case of contesting 3rd respondent is as follows:-

The driver of Car bearing No. AP11-AC-5391 himself was negligent in driving the car without observing vehicular traffic and dashed against the lorry. The driver of the car has no valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle. Thus he negligently and rashly drove the car and contributed heavily for the accident. There is neither rashness nor negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, the driver of the lorry.

Hence the respondents 2 and 3 are not at all liable to pay compensation.

6

10.In order to prove the case of petitioner, he himself was examined as P.W.1 besides marking Exs.A1 to A4. PW.1 swore in his chief affidavit in the same lines of petition averments. Coming to cross- examination of PW.1, there is no cross-examination to him by the counsel for the contesting 3rd respondent denying or challenging the manner of the accident as mentioned in Exs.A1 to A3. No evidence is placed by the contesting 3rd respondent showing the manner of accident contrary to the oral evidence of PW.1 as well as the manner shown in Exs.A1 and A3.

Thus it can safely be concluded that the manner of accident as spoken by

PW.1 and as mentioned in Exs.A1 and A3 can be safely relied upon. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 and A3, clearly shows that the petitioner received injuries in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 9.10.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. due to the the rash and negligent act of the driver of crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537. Thus I hold that the petitioner B.Ramana received grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred near Vadiyampeta village on Bangalore – Hyderabad

NH-44, B.K. Samudram Mandal, on 9.10.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. due to rash and negligent act of the driver of Gas lorry bearing No. AP29-TA- 6537. Accordingly this issue is answered.

11.ISSUE No.2:- In view of the findings in issue No.1, the petitioner is entitled to compensation. Coming to the persons who are liable to pay compensation, there there is no dispute that the 1st respondent is the driver, the 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle as no evidence is placed by the insurer/3rd respondent showing the violations of policy terms and conditions, it can safely be concluded that Ex.B1 policy is in force as on 7 the date of accident and there are no violations of terms and conditions as pleaded by the 3rd respondent. Hence I am of the view that the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

12.Coming to quantum of compensation, it is the case of the petitioner that he sustained injuries as mentioned in Ex.A2 and due to accident, he became partial and permanent disabled person and he is not in a position to sit and stand properly without any support due to injury to his spinal, he is not in a position to lift the weights due to injuries on his both shoulders and also unable to attend his works and he incurred

Rs.30,000/- towards expenses of medical attendant and others, thus he is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards all heads.

13.The case of the contesting 3rd respondent is that the claim of compensation is excessive and baseless.

14.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he himself examined as PW.1 and he also examined PW.2 Dr.M.Sreeramulu, who issued wound certificate and Ex.A4 medical bills. PW.1 swore in his chief affidavit in the same lines of petition averments. PW.2 deposed that injuries in Ex.A2 are simple in nature and he filed Ex.X1 case sheet and he deposed that Ex.A4 bills are issued by their hospital to PW.1. There is no cross-examination to PW.1 stating that the petitioner did not sustain injuries as mentioned in Ex.A2 wound certificate. So it can safely be concluded that due to accident, PW.1 sustained injuries as mentioned in

Ex.A2 wound certificate. Thus I am of the view that it is just and proper to award compensation to a tune of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and 8 suffering of injuries sustained in Ex.A2 wound certificate. The petitioner is also entitled to claim medical expenses as shown in Ex.A4 as Ex.A4 document was duly proved. As such I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.5,853/- towards medical expenses. The petitioner is also entitled to claim an amount of Rs.147/- towards extra nourishment and future medical expenses if any. Thus, I am of the view that in total the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation of

Rs.26,000/- from all the respondents with joint and several liability together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Accordingly this issue is answered.

15.ISSUE No.3:- In view of findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2 as mentioned above, this petition shall be allowed partly with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.26,000/- to the petitioner payable by all the respondents together with accrued interest there on at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit before the tribunal with joint and several liability. This petition in respect of rest of the claim of the petitioner shall be dismissed without costs.

Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit said compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of petition within 30 days from this day. On deposit of said compensation amount petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount at once along with accrued interest thereon and entire costs of petition payable to him.

16.In the result this claim petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.26,000/- to the 9 petitioner payable by the respondents 1 to 3 together with accrued interest there on at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit before the tribunal with joint and several liability. This petition in respect of rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed without costs. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit said compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of petition within 30 days from this day. On deposit of said compensation amount petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount at once along with accrued interest thereon and entire costs of petition payable to him. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 20th day of March, 2019.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE),ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC III ADDL. DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

PETITIONER RESPONDENTS

PW.1 : B.Ramana -None-

PW.2 : Dr.M.Sreeramulu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A.1 : Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.145/2016 of Bukkarayasamudram Police Station.

Ex.A.2 : Attested copy of wound certificate.

Ex.A.3 : Attested copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A.4 : Medical bills worth Rs.5,853/-.

10

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B.1: Certified copy of Insurance policy.

X-Series:

Ex.X1: Case sheet.

CHAIRMAN/III ADJ (FAC)

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL.

1

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES [PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES] ACT, 1989 –cum- VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT AT ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: SMT. P. KAMALA DEVI,

Special Judge,

Special Sessions Court for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act -cum- VIII Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Tuesday, the 12th day of April, 2022

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.436 of 2022 ================================== [in Crime No.45/2022 of SHO of Ananthapuramu I Town PS]

Between:-

1. Gogula Sudhakar, aged 25 years, S/o G.Venkatesu, R/o D.No.12/18, K.V.S.Na- gar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A7]

2. Shaik Masood Vali @ Masood, aged 25 yrs, S/o Shaik Baba Fakruddin, D.No.12/35, KVS Nagar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A8]

3. Kudumula Shashi Kumar, aged 25 years, S/o late Lalappa, D.No.12/13, K.V.S.- Nagar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A9]

4. Gajjala Bhargav @ Bhargava, aged 21 years, S/o G.Sabnkar, KVS Nagar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A10]

5. Peddireddy Kumar @ Konda Kumar, aged 20 years, S/o P.Vasu, D.No.12/171, KVS Nagar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A13]

6. Pamula Anjineyulu @ Sannodu, aged 38 yrs, S/o late Ramudu, Giri Prasad colony, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A16]

....Petitioners/A7, A8, A9,A10, A13 and A16.

And

State rep. by S.H.O., Ananthapuramu I Town P.S., …Respondent/Complainant.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.443 of 2022 ================================== [in Crime No.45/2022 of SHO of Ananthapuramu I Town PS]

Between:-

Pamula Mahesh @ Lavu Mahesh @ Mahi, aged 19 yrs, S/o Pamula Anjineyulu, Giri Prasad Nagar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal.

....Petitioner/A18.

And

State rep. by S.H.O., Ananthapuramu I Town P.S., …Respondent/Complainant.

2

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.473 of 2022 ================================== [in Crime No.45/2022 of SHO of Ananthapuramu I Town PS]

Between:-

1. Erikala Chinna Thirupathaiah @ Thirupathaiah, aged 46 years, S/o late Thiru- pathaiah, D.No.12/270, Giri Prasad colony, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A1]

2. Golla Thirupathaiah @ Pedda Thirupathaiah, aged 49 years, S/o late Venkatesu, D.No.12/245, Giri Prasad colony, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A2]

3. Erukala Ramesh, aged 35 years, S/o S.T Thirupalu, Giri Prasad nagar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A4]

4. Koneti Narendra Babu @ Narendra Yadav, aged 29 yrs, S/o K.Venkata Ra- mudu, D.No.12/291, Giri Prasad Nagar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A5]

....Petitioners/A1, A2, A4 & A5.

And

State rep. by S.H.O., Ananthapuramu I Town P.S., …Respondent/Complainant.

These petitions are coming on 11.4.2022 and 12.4.2022 for hearing

before me in the presence of Sri A.Govinda Rajulu and Sri C.Gafoor, Advocates

for the petitioners/A7 to A10, A13 and A16, Sri M.Venugopal, Advocate for the

petitioners/A18 and A1, A2, A4 and A5 and Spl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant, and after hearing both sides this Court made the following:-

COMMON ORDER

1.These applications [Crl.M.P.436 of 2022 for Petitioners/A7 to A10, A13 and A16 - 4th application, Crl.M.P.443 of 2022 for A18 - 4th application and

Crl.M.P.473/2022for A1, A2, A4 and A5 - 3rd application] have been filed u/s 439

of Cr.P.C to enlarge petitioners on bail in Cr.No.45/2022 of Ananthapuramu I Town P.S for the offence punishable U/sec.147, 148, 324, 427 and 302 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.3(1)(r) (s) and 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

Previous applications filed by the petitioners/A7 to A10, A13 and A16 vide Crl.M.Ps.370/2022, 371/2022 and 403/2022 were dismissed on 16.3.2022, 25.3.2022 respectively.

Previous application filed by A18 vide Crl.M.Ps.319 of 2022, 366 of 2022 and 405/2022 were dismissed on 3.3.2022, 16.3.2022 and 25.3.2022 respectively.

3

Previous application filed by A1, A2, A4 and A5 vide Crl.M.Ps.370 of 2022, 371 of 2022 and 415/2022 were dismissed on 16.3.2022 and 30.3.2022 respectively.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- “This is a case of rioting, murder of ST Caste person by other than SC/ST community” that occurred on 6.2.2022 at about 6.30 p.m., at D.No.18-1-42, Neeruganti street, Old town, Ananthapuramu town, wherein the accused Chinna Thirupathaiah along with 16 others formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with stones, came by about 15 motor cycles, picked up quarrel with Nallabothula Jagannatham Prasad [herein after referred to as ‘deceased’] and his relatives keeping the issue happened in the morning, wherein the deceased and relatives reprimanded the accused over driving of scooty rashly near SV talkies and abused the deceased in filthy language by touching his caste “yeruka” pounced on the deceased and his family members and as a result the deceased and his followers fled away from that place, the accused chased the deceased, pelted stones on him, as a result, the deceased fell down at Venugopal Nagar auto stand, on seeing it, the accused left that place.

On the complaint given by the complainant [wife of deceased], a case was registered in Cr.No.45 of 2022 of Ananthapuramu I Town P.S. During the course of investigation, the petitioners were remanded to judicial custody on 11.2.2022, 12.2.2022 and 16.2.2022 and since then they have been in jail.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Spl. Public Prosecutor for respondent/state.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they were falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners are in judicial remand since 11.2.2022 and 16.2.2022 i.e., nearly two months and if they are kept in judicial remand for more period, they may put to hardship and their respective family members may suffer a lot. The petitioners are law abiding citizens and leading respectable life. They further submitted that material part of investigation might have been completed and no specific overt acts attributed against any of the petitioners, the deceased died due to falling down on the road, the postmortem report shows no injury on the body of the deceased. The counsel for the petitioner No.2 further submitted that Accused No.2 is suffering with hernia in his stomach and it has to be operated. He further submitted that the petitioners have fixed abode and immovable properties and they are prepared to furnish sufficient sureties for their due appearance, thus prayed to release petitioners on bail.

4.The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is pending for examination of some more witnesses and arrest of other accused, who are 4 absconding since the date of occurrence. He further submitted that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may threaten the complainant to get compromise and tamper with the evidence, which become obstacle to further investigation and accused are waiting for an opportunity to take revenge against the complainant and her family members, which caused law or order problem and strongly opposed the bail.

4.Now the point that arose for determination in this petition is,

Whether the petitioners/Accused A7 to A10, A13, A16, A18, A1, A2, A4 and A5 are entitled to be released on bail?

5.POINT:-Complainant present and filed memo objecting to grant bail to the petitioners, contending that she is having life threat in the hands of the petitioners herein and that the accused, who were already enlarged on bail were also threatening her and she is also apprehending danger in the hands of the petitioners. Heard both sides. Perused the CD file. It appears that the investigation in this case is not yet completed and it is pending for examination of some more witnesses and to apprehend some of the accused. It is the specific case of the Investigating Officer that the accused is waiting for an opportunity to take retaliation against the victim’s family, if these petitioners are enlarged on bail and they may continue to commit the similar offence in near future. In the light of the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage.

But coming to the petitioner/A2 [vide Crl.M.P.473 of 2022, it is the specific case of the petitioner that A2 is sent for medical attendance from the District Jail and doctors diagnosed that the A2 is suffering with hernia in his stomach and it has to be operated. He filed medical report along with the memo. Taking into consideration of all these facts, I am of the view that it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner/A2 on some terms and conditions. Coming to the other petitioners in these applications, I am of the view that it is not fit case to enlarge the other petitioners [A7 to A10, A13, A16, A18, A1, A4 and A5] on bail, in the light of above mentioned circumstances.

Accordingly this point is answered.

6.In the result, the petition [Vide Crl.M.P.473 of 2022] is allowed in part and the petitioner/A2 is ordered to be released on bail on his executing self bond for Rs.20,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu for his due appearance before that Court, further on condition, 5 (1) Petitioner/A2 should furnish to Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuram about his detailed residential address along with an undertaking not to change said address without prior intimation to Ananthapuramu I town P.S about his proposed new address and similar undertaking till final disposal of the case registered in Cr.No.45/2022 of Ananthapuramu I town P.S. (2) Petitioner/A2 shall not threaten or persuade any of the prosecution witnesses or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case, further he should not indulge in any criminal activities.

(3) Petitioner/A2 shall appear before SHO, Ananthapuramu I Town P.S thrice in a week i.e., on Monday, Wednesday and Friday for a period of two months or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

The petitions [Vide Crl.M.P.436 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.443 of 2022

and Crl.M.P.473 of 2022] against A7 to A10, A13, A16, A18, A1, A4 and

A5 are dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of April, 2022.

KAMALADigitally signed by

KAMALA DEVI

DEVIPALLAMPATI

PALLAMPATIDate: 2022.04.12 17:04:11 +0000 Special Sessions Judge, for trial of SCs & STs Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Copy to :

The Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu The S.H.O, Ananthapuramu I Town P.S.

1

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES [PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES] ACT, 1989 –cum- VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT AT ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: SMT. P. KAMALA DEVI,

Special Judge,

Special Sessions Court for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act -cum- VIII Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Tuesday, the 12th day of April, 2022

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.436 of 2022 ================================== [in Crime No.45/2022 of SHO of Ananthapuramu I Town PS]

Between:-

1. Gogula Sudhakar, aged 25 years, S/o G.Venkatesu, R/o D.No.12/18, K.V.S.Na- gar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A7]

2. Shaik Masood Vali @ Masood, aged 25 yrs, S/o Shaik Baba Fakruddin, D.No.12/35, KVS Nagar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A8]

3. Kudumula Shashi Kumar, aged 25 years, S/o late Lalappa, D.No.12/13, K.V.S.- Nagar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A9]

4. Gajjala Bhargav @ Bhargava, aged 21 years, S/o G.Sabnkar, KVS Nagar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A10]

5. Peddireddy Kumar @ Konda Kumar, aged 20 years, S/o P.Vasu, D.No.12/171, KVS Nagar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A13]

6. Pamula Anjineyulu @ Sannodu, aged 38 yrs, S/o late Ramudu, Giri Prasad colony, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A16]

....Petitioners/A7, A8, A9,A10, A13 and A16.

And

State rep. by S.H.O., Ananthapuramu I Town P.S., …Respondent/Complainant.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.443 of 2022 ================================== [in Crime No.45/2022 of SHO of Ananthapuramu I Town PS]

Between:-

Pamula Mahesh @ Lavu Mahesh @ Mahi, aged 19 yrs, S/o Pamula Anjineyulu, Giri Prasad Nagar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal.

....Petitioner/A18.

And

State rep. by S.H.O., Ananthapuramu I Town P.S., …Respondent/Complainant.

2

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.473 of 2022 ================================== [in Crime No.45/2022 of SHO of Ananthapuramu I Town PS]

Between:-

1. Erikala Chinna Thirupathaiah @ Thirupathaiah, aged 46 years, S/o late Thiru- pathaiah, D.No.12/270, Giri Prasad colony, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A1]

2. Golla Thirupathaiah @ Pedda Thirupathaiah, aged 49 years, S/o late Venkatesu, D.No.12/245, Giri Prasad colony, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A2]

3. Erukala Ramesh, aged 35 years, S/o S.T Thirupalu, Giri Prasad nagar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A4]

4. Koneti Narendra Babu @ Narendra Yadav, aged 29 yrs, S/o K.Venkata Ra- mudu, D.No.12/291, Giri Prasad Nagar, B.K.Samudram village and Mandal. [A5]

....Petitioners/A1, A2, A4 & A5.

And

State rep. by S.H.O., Ananthapuramu I Town P.S., …Respondent/Complainant.

These petitions are coming on 11.4.2022 and 12.4.2022 for hearing

before me in the presence of Sri A.Govinda Rajulu and Sri C.Gafoor, Advocates

for the petitioners/A7 to A10, A13 and A16, Sri M.Venugopal, Advocate for the

petitioners/A18 and A1, A2, A4 and A5 and Spl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant, and after hearing both sides this Court made the following:-

COMMON ORDER

1.These applications [Crl.M.P.436 of 2022 for Petitioners/A7 to A10, A13 and A16 - 4th application, Crl.M.P.443 of 2022 for A18 - 4th application and

Crl.M.P.473/2022for A1, A2, A4 and A5 - 3rd application] have been filed u/s 439

of Cr.P.C to enlarge petitioners on bail in Cr.No.45/2022 of Ananthapuramu I Town P.S for the offence punishable U/sec.147, 148, 324, 427 and 302 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.3(1)(r) (s) and 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

Previous applications filed by the petitioners/A7 to A10, A13 and A16 vide Crl.M.Ps.370/2022, 371/2022 and 403/2022 were dismissed on 16.3.2022, 25.3.2022 respectively.

Previous application filed by A18 vide Crl.M.Ps.319 of 2022, 366 of 2022 and 405/2022 were dismissed on 3.3.2022, 16.3.2022 and 25.3.2022 respectively.

3

Previous application filed by A1, A2, A4 and A5 vide Crl.M.Ps.370 of 2022, 371 of 2022 and 415/2022 were dismissed on 16.3.2022 and 30.3.2022 respectively.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- “This is a case of rioting, murder of ST Caste person by other than SC/ST community” that occurred on 6.2.2022 at about 6.30 p.m., at D.No.18-1-42, Neeruganti street, Old town, Ananthapuramu town, wherein the accused Chinna Thirupathaiah along with 16 others formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with stones, came by about 15 motor cycles, picked up quarrel with Nallabothula Jagannatham Prasad [herein after referred to as ‘deceased’] and his relatives keeping the issue happened in the morning, wherein the deceased and relatives reprimanded the accused over driving of scooty rashly near SV talkies and abused the deceased in filthy language by touching his caste “yeruka” pounced on the deceased and his family members and as a result the deceased and his followers fled away from that place, the accused chased the deceased, pelted stones on him, as a result, the deceased fell down at Venugopal Nagar auto stand, on seeing it, the accused left that place.

On the complaint given by the complainant [wife of deceased], a case was registered in Cr.No.45 of 2022 of Ananthapuramu I Town P.S. During the course of investigation, the petitioners were remanded to judicial custody on 11.2.2022, 12.2.2022 and 16.2.2022 and since then they have been in jail.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Spl. Public Prosecutor for respondent/state.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they were falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners are in judicial remand since 11.2.2022 and 16.2.2022 i.e., nearly two months and if they are kept in judicial remand for more period, they may put to hardship and their respective family members may suffer a lot. The petitioners are law abiding citizens and leading respectable life. They further submitted that material part of investigation might have been completed and no specific overt acts attributed against any of the petitioners, the deceased died due to falling down on the road, the postmortem report shows no injury on the body of the deceased. The counsel for the petitioner No.2 further submitted that Accused No.2 is suffering with hernia in his stomach and it has to be operated. He further submitted that the petitioners have fixed abode and immovable properties and they are prepared to furnish sufficient sureties for their due appearance, thus prayed to release petitioners on bail.

4.The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is pending for examination of some more witnesses and arrest of other accused, who are 4 absconding since the date of occurrence. He further submitted that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may threaten the complainant to get compromise and tamper with the evidence, which become obstacle to further investigation and accused are waiting for an opportunity to take revenge against the complainant and her family members, which caused law or order problem and strongly opposed the bail.

4.Now the point that arose for determination in this petition is,

Whether the petitioners/Accused A7 to A10, A13, A16, A18, A1, A2, A4 and A5 are entitled to be released on bail?

5.POINT:-Complainant present and filed memo objecting to grant bail to the petitioners, contending that she is having life threat in the hands of the petitioners herein and that the accused, who were already enlarged on bail were also threatening her and she is also apprehending danger in the hands of the petitioners. Heard both sides. Perused the CD file. It appears that the investigation in this case is not yet completed and it is pending for examination of some more witnesses and to apprehend some of the accused. It is the specific case of the Investigating Officer that the accused is waiting for an opportunity to take retaliation against the victim’s family, if these petitioners are enlarged on bail and they may continue to commit the similar offence in near future. In the light of the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage.

But coming to the petitioner/A2 [vide Crl.M.P.473 of 2022, it is the specific case of the petitioner that A2 is sent for medical attendance from the District Jail and doctors diagnosed that the A2 is suffering with hernia in his stomach and it has to be operated. He filed medical report along with the memo. Taking into consideration of all these facts, I am of the view that it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner/A2 on some terms and conditions. Coming to the other petitioners in these applications, I am of the view that it is not fit case to enlarge the other petitioners [A7 to A10, A13, A16, A18, A1, A4 and A5] on bail, in the light of above mentioned circumstances.

Accordingly this point is answered.

6.In the result, the petition [Vide Crl.M.P.473 of 2022] is allowed in part and the petitioner/A2 is ordered to be released on bail on his executing self bond for Rs.20,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu for his due appearance before that Court, further on condition, 5 (1) Petitioner/A2 should furnish to Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuram about his detailed residential address along with an undertaking not to change said address without prior intimation to Ananthapuramu I town P.S about his proposed new address and similar undertaking till final disposal of the case registered in Cr.No.45/2022 of Ananthapuramu I town P.S. (2) Petitioner/A2 shall not threaten or persuade any of the prosecution witnesses or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case, further he should not indulge in any criminal activities.

(3) Petitioner/A2 shall appear before SHO, Ananthapuramu I Town P.S thrice in a week i.e., on Monday, Wednesday and Friday for a period of two months or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

The petitions [Vide Crl.M.P.436 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.443 of 2022

and Crl.M.P.473 of 2022] against A7 to A10, A13, A16, A18, A1, A4 and

A5 are dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of April, 2022.

KAMALADigitally signed by

KAMALA DEVI

DEVIPALLAMPATI

PALLAMPATIDate: 2022.04.12 17:04:11 +0000 Special Sessions Judge, for trial of SCs & STs Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Copy to :

The Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu The S.H.O, Ananthapuramu I Town P.S.