Sri P.Prabhakar

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE, 

FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC/ST [POA] ACT, 1989­CUM­VII ADDL. 

SESSIONS JUDGE: AT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

FAC II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 12th day of August, 2015.

Present:­ Sri P. Prabhakar, Spl. Sessions Judge, For trial of cases under SC/ST [POA] Act, 1989­cum­VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

S.C.No.622 of 2013

(Preliminarily Registered Case No.77 of 2013 committed by the Judicial 

Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar in Cr.No.88 of 2012 of PS Kondurg for the 

offence U/Sec.304 ­B IPC) Prosecution.Sri G.K. Harshavardhan Reddy, Addl. Public prosecutor, Mahabubnagar.

Accused1. Gadudula Mallesh s/o G. Maisaiah, Aged 26 yrs, caste: SC (Madiga) Occ. Cooli & waiter r/o Padmaram vlg, Kon­ durg ml.

2. Smt.Gadudula Ajamma @ Anjamma w/o Maisaiah, Aged 50 yrs, caste: SC (Madiga) Occ. Cooli r/o Padmaram vlg, Kondurg ml.

3. Gadudula Maisaiah s/o late Balaiah, Aged 55 yrs, caste: SC (Madiga) Occ. Cooli & Agrl. r/o Padmaram vlg, Kon­ durg ml.

Name of advocateS. Muralikrishna, Advocate for accused

Offenceunder 304­B IPC. section

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

FindingA1 found guilty for the offence u/s 304­B IPC and convicted him u/s 235[2] Cr.P.C. A2 and A3 found not guilty for the offence u/s 304­B IPC and acquitted them u/s 235[1] Cr.P.C.

Sentence or orderIn the result, A1 is found guilty for the offence u/s 304B IPC and convicted him u/s 235[2] Cr.P.C. A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 304B IPC and they are acquitted u/s 235[1] Cr.P.C. A1 sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of [10] years with fine of Rs.50,000/­ [Rs. Fifty thousand only] in default payment of fine he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year. Fince amount if collected is ordered to be paid to minor son of deceased and accused herein, who is living with maternal grand parents to PW1 Gaddam Papaiah as compensation u/s 357[1] Cr.P.C. on expiry of appeal time. MO1 shall be destroyed on expiry of appeal time. The remand period of the accused from from 15­ 10­2012 to 22­12­2012 [69 days] shall be set off from the substantive sentence u/s 428 Cr.P.C.

2

This case is coming up for hearing before me and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:­

 J U D G M E N T 

Sub Divisional Police Officer, Shadnagar charge sheeted A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under sec. 304­B IPC.

2.The case of prosecution is that, on 15­9­2012 at 1000 hours defacto complainant Gaddam Papaiah (PW1) resident of Jilled of Kondurg mandal lodged complaint stating that the marriage of his daughter Alivelu aged 23 years deceased in this case was performed six years ago with Mallesh accused herein. At the time of marriage he gave cash of Rs.20000/­ and 3 tulas gold towards dowry to his son­in­law. Since the time of marriage accused started harassing deceased on the pretext that dowry given is not sufficient and continued harassment to her physically and mentally. He also assaulted her 6 or 7 times demanding to bring 

additional dowry. In this regard panchayats were also held in the presence of 

elders and caste people and on counseling accused, deceased was sent to lead marital life. In spite of it accused did not change his attitude. On 14­9­2012 night at about 10­00 P.M. his relative namely Erragadda Srinu (LW6) informed him on phone that his daughter consumed poison and she was shifted to Community 

Health Center, Shadnagar for treatment. On 15­9­2012 at 7­00 a.m. he along with his relatives rushed to Govt. Hospital, Shadnagar and found his daughter died. He further added unable to bear continuous harassment in hands of accused and his parents who are A2 and A3, she vexed with her life and thereby consumed poison to die and requested for necessary action. 

Basing on complaint the Station House Officer, P.S. Kondurg has registered case in Cr.No.88 of 2012 u/s 304­B IPC and submitted express First Information 

Report to the court and copies to superiors. Examining PW1 and recording his statement i.e. took up investigation. In course of further investigation he also gave requisition to Tahsildar, Kondurg Mandal PW8 to hold inquest over the dead body of the deceased as she died within seven years of her marriage. In turn PW8 visited Community Health Center, Shadnagar and held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators namely Gaddam Chandramma and 

Potti Balachandraiah (LW11 and PW6) and then subjected dead body for postmortem. 

3

He also photographed dead body of the deceased with digital camera. At the time of inquest PW8 examined and recorded statements of Gaddam Papaiah Gaddam 

Padmamma, Gaddam Pedda Chinnaiah Padakanti Venkatesh, PWs 1 to 4 and also 

Gaddam Chinna Chinnaiah, Maddur Balaiah and Erragadda Sreenu (LWs 4 to 6) and recorded their statements. In course of further investigation PW9 visited scene of offence which is the house of accused situated at Jilled, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators Chenigari Bheemaiah and 

Bommagalla Ramesh (PW7 and LW14) preparing sketch of scene in crime details form and also seized empty poison tin of Trimida Imidaclotried systemic insecticide under cover of crime details form. 

Further investigation was taken up by PW10 the then SDPO, Shadnagar. He verified investigation done by PW9. Once again he visited scene of offence made enquiries with the witnesses already examined by PW9, who are kith and kin and also collected marriage photos from PW1. Later he examined and recorded statements of Padakanti Venkatesh and Potti Balachandraiah (PW4 or PW5) , 

Pullagiri Lingaiah and Yerrabothu Prathap Reddy (LWs 9 and 10) and recorded their statements. Subsequently he forwarded viscera of deceased preserved by 

Medical Officer, during postmortem examination seized poison tin sent to FSL 

Hyderabad for chemical analysis and report. In turn Expert of FSL furnished report No.TOX/3047/2012, dated 7­12­2012 opining that items No.1 to 5 are analyzed and imidacloprid an insecticide poison is found in items 1,2,3 and 5 but not in item No.4. Item No.4 is saline received as sample of preservative. PW11/ 

Medical Officer CHC, Shadnagar having conducted postmortem over dead body of deceased furnished final opinion basing on FSL report dated 7­12­2012 opining cause of death is due to Imidacloprid (an insecticide poison) and associated Head injury .

On 14­10­2012 he arrested A1 and sent him for judicial remand. On his transfer PW11 his successor in office took up further investigation of the case. 

During course of further investigation he gave requisition to the then Judl. 

Magistrate of First Class, Excise, Mahabubnagar (LW17) to record 164 Cr.P.C. 

statements of PWs 1 to 5 and others. 

On 9­8­2013 A2 and A3 are arrested and sent them for judicial remand. On completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 as his 4 investigation disclosed owing to continuous harassment of deceased on 14­9­2012 at 2200 hours deceased disgusted with her life took extreme step of committing suicide and consumed poison. Thus A1 to A3 are liable to be punished for the offence u/s 304­B IPC. 

3.On appearance of accused, Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 

Shadnagar has taken on file the case as PRC No.77 of 2013 under sections 304­B 

IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, on observing all the necessary formalities, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate felt that the matter is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and hence the case was committed and made over to this 

Court for trial.

5.This Court has received on file the case as S.C. No. 622 of 2013 and ordered issuance of summons to accused.

6.On appearance of accused and hearing both the Addl Public Prosecutor and the defence Counsel, charge for the offence under sec. 304­B IPC against the accused are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

7.On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW12 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and MO1 are marked.

8.On closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were examined u/s 313 

Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded not guilty denying incriminating circumstances appearing against them. On their behalf no witnesses are examined but contradiction elicited during cross examination of PW1 is marked as Ex.D1.

9PW1 is defacto complainant and father of deceased, PW2 is mother of deceased, PW3 is paternal uncle of deceased, PWs 4 and 5 are circumstantial witnesses, PWs 6 and 7 are mediators for scene of offence and inquest proceedings. PW8 is the then Tahsildar, who held inquest over dead body of deceased. PW9 is Head Constable who registered case and partly investigated case. PW10 and PW12 are investigation officers who conducted investigation and 5 filed charge sheet and arrested A1 to A3. PW11 is Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem examination over dead body of deceased.

10.Ex.P1 is complaint given by PW1. Ex.P2 is inquest panchanama. Ex.P3 is crime details form. Ex.P4 is First Information Report. Ex.P5 is postmortem report of deceased. MO1 is plastic empty pesticide bottle. Ex.D1 is contradiction elicited during cross of PW1.

11.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has made

out the case against the accused for the offence u/s 304­B IPC beyond all 

reasonable doubt?

12.It is case of the prosecution that the deceased in this case none other than wife of A1 and daughter­in­law of A2 and A3 committed suicide by consuming poison unable to bear harassment in the hands of accused within seven years of her marriage. It is further case of prosecution since the time of marriage A1 physically and mentally harassed and they tortured her demanding additional dowry not satisfying with amounts given by PW1 being father of deceased at the time of marriage. In order to prove case of prosecution it mainly relied upon on the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 none other than parents and uncle of deceased and circumstantial witnesses, apart from the evidence of official witnesses mediators for scene of offence and inquest proceedings testified as PWs 6 to 11.

13.PW1, father of victim girl, who lodged Ex.P1 complaint immediately after death of deceased deposed victim girl was given in marriage to A1 son of A2 and 

A3. His daughter led happy marital life with A1 for two years afterwards A1 to A3 started harassing deceased demanding for additional dowry and they also drove her from their marital home. He further deposed in that regard panchayats were held and after panchayats deceased was sent to house of A1 to lead marital life, one week thereafter again A1 to A3 harassing his daughter and A1 beat is daughter and also poured hot tea on his daughter and drove to his house to bring 

additional dowry of Rs.30000/­ At the time of marriage he gave dowry of 

Rs.20,000/­, [3] tulas of gold to A1. He sold silver kadiyalu of his wife for 

Rs.4000/­ and said amount was given to A1 while sending his daughter. 

Thereafter within 15 days his daughter died and one person informed them on 6 phone that his daughter died. Then they went to the house of A1 and by then dead body of his daughter was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Shadnagar and by then 

A1 to A3 were not present at the hospital. He does not know in what manner his daughter died. He gave complaint to the police, Ex.P1 is the complaint given by him to the police accepting his examination by the investigation officer. 

He was cross examined at length and during his cross examination it is elicited that A1 has been working in Hyderabad and he cannot say name of scribe of 

Ex.P1. He did not state to the police as in Ex.D1 a portion of 161 Cr.P.C. 

statement, that his wife asked deceased to arrange some amount from A1 and that his daughter informed his wife that no such amount will be given without knowledge of A1 and in that connection his wife quarreled with his daughter and and subsisted. A1 to A3 never caused any harassment nor beat deceased and that 

A1 to A3 were not at all responsible for death of deceased and falsely foisted case against accused. He categorically denied that A1 and his wife were residing separately from A2 and A3 after marriage and during time of alleged incident he asked A1 to setup family at his residence and that A1 and Alivelu also stayed with them for one year and that A1 to A3 never ill­treated Alivelu mentally and physically nor demanded additional dowry. He denied the suggestion that A1 was in Hyderabad on the date of death of Alivelu and that he did not sell silver kadiyams of his wife to pay amount to A1. He categorically denied all suggestions.. 

14.PW2, mother of deceased deposed that marriage of Alivelu took place nine years back. Deceased and A1 never lived happily as A1 to A3 started harass 

Alivelu physically and mentally with a demand to bring additional dowry from them and drove her daughter from their house. Elders of both villages held panchayat and that they sent Alivelu to A1. One week thereafter again A1 to A3 started harassing her daughter and A1 beat and drove to her house to bring 

additional dowry of Rs.30,000/­. Her daughter was blessed with one son aged six 

years. At the time of marriage she gave dowry of Rs.25000/­, 3 tulas gold and house hold articles worth of Rs.15000/­ to A1. She sold her silver kadiyalu for 

Rs.5000/­and given said amount to A1 while sending her daughter to the house of 

A1. Thereafter within a month her daughter died and one person informed them 7 on phone, then they went to hospital by then dead body of her daughter was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Shadnagar and by the time they reached A1 to A3 were not present at the hospital. A1 to A3 beat her daughter and killed her. 

She was also cross examined on behalf of the accused. Except making bald suggestions denying allegations leveled against accused during her chief examination, nothing elicited during her cross examination.

15.PW3, Paternal uncle of deceased deposed that A1 and deceased led marital life happily for three years. Thereafter A1 to A3 started to harass deceased physically and mentally with a demand to bring additional dowry from them and that they drove deceased away from their house. Elders of both villagers held panchayats and sent Alivelu to A1. One week thereafter again A1 to A3 started harassing Alivelelu drove away her to their house to bring additional dowry. At the time of marriage PW1 gave dowry of Rs.20,000/­ and 3 tulas of gold to A1. 

Thereafter within 15 days Alivelu died and one person informed them on phone about death of deceased. He further deposed then they went to house of A1 and bythendeadbodywasshiftedtoGovt.Hospital,

Shadnagar there A1 to A3 were not present. He stated that he was examined by the investigation officer. 

He was also cross examined but during his cross examination nothing is elicited except suggesting to him denying allegations leveled against accused during his chief, he categorically denied.

16.PW4, testified as circumstantial witness being mediator for panchayats held in between deceased and A1 at the instance of PWs 1 and 2 deposed that A1 led marital life happily with deceased for one and half years. Afterwards he started harassing deceased physically and mentally demanding to bring additional dowry and drove away deceased from his house. At that juncture he along with LWs 8 to 10 held panchayat and then sent deceased to the house of A1. One week thereafter again A1 to A3 started harassing deceased and she was driven out by 

A1 by beating her demanding to bring additional dowry. He further deposed at the time of marriage PW1 gave dowry of Rs.20,000/­ and three tolas of gold to A1 as dowry. About three years ago on death intimation of deceased they rushed to 8

Govt. Hospital, Shadnagar and by that time A1 to A3 were not present in the hospital. Dead body was kept in the hospital mortuary assertaing his examination by the investigation officer. PW5 who is also testified as circumstantial witness being mediator for panchayats held in between deceased and A1 also deposed in same lines. 

17.Both PWs 4 and 5 are cross examined on behalf of accused. Except making bald suggestions denying incriminating evidence spoken to by them during their chief examination nothing is elicited to doubt their trustworthiness. It is also suggested to both of them that mother of deceased examined as PW2 suffered with stomach pain then she asked deceased to arrange amount from A1, then she was told by deceased she cannot give amount without knowledge of A1 and on that score PW2 quarreled with deceased denying harassment meted out to deceased by A1 to A3 and the panchayat held in between deceased and A1. Both categorically denied all suggestions put to them.

18.PWs 6 and 7 mediators for scene of offence and inquest proceedings categorically stated in evidence in support of Ex.p2 and Ex.P3 proceedings held by 

PWs 9 and 8. Station House Officer, Kondurg and Tahsildar on requisition given by PW9 as deceased died within seven years of her marriage. PW6 mediator for inquest further deposed during inquest on enquiry they all opined that deceased died due to harassment suffered by her in the hands of her husband and in­laws demanding additional dowry. Both are cross examined and suggestions that they attested Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 at police station but they denied same.

19.PW8, Tahsildar who held inquest over dead body of deceased on requisition given by PW9 deposed in his evidence about inquest proceedings held by him and further on completion of inquest enquiry he concluded that the deceased consumed pesticide poison due to harassment of A1 to A3. He was also cross examined on behalf of accused suggesting denying veracity of Ex.P2 inquest proceedings prepared on his instructions. It is elicited during cross examination that A1 to A3 were also present at the time of inquest proceedings and A2 and A3 admitted deceased in the hospital on the night of occurrence and Ex.P2 was scribed by V.R.O. on his instructions.

9

20.PW11, Medical Officer Community Health Center, Shadnagar deposed that on requisition given by PW8 the then Tahsildar, conducted inquest over dead body of deceased, she conducted autopsy over dead body in between 3­30 PM and 4­30 P.M. During postmortem examination she found contusion on the occipup measuring 3x2 cm Ex.P5 is PME report. In her opinion cause of death is due to imidacloprid (an insecticide poison) and associated with head injury. It is elicited during her cross examination that she could able to name the poison basing on toxicology report given by Expert, FSL Hyderabad to whom material objects are sent more particularly MO1 poison tin and viscera for chemical analysis.

21.PW9, Head Constable, Kondurg police station who received Ex.P1 complaint from PW1 deposed about registration of Ex.P4 First Information Report and also examining of PW1 by him on same day took up investigation of case. He also deposed about his visit to scene of offence and preparing Ex.P3 crime details form in the presence of PW7 and others after giving requisition to PW8 to conduct inquest over dead body of deceased. 

22.PWs 10 and 12 the then Investigation Officers deposed in their evidence as to examination of PWs 1 to 5 and other witnesses in course of investigation and arrest of accused on 14­10­2012 about one month after occurrence and filing of charge sheet as the witnesses examined by them during course of investigation and report given by PW11 Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased gave opinion under Ex.P5 certifying that cause of death is due to 

Imidacloprid insecticide poison and associated with head injury and further deceased died unnaturally within seven years of her marriage unable to bear harassment made by A1 to A3 with their illegal demands for additional dowry. 

They are cross examined amd suggested that the investigation made by them is table made one denying examination of witnesses and their visit to scene of offence and Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 proceedings. They categorically denied the same. 

PW12 further deposed in his evidence that on 19­8­2013 he arrested A2 and A3 and also gave requisition to record 164 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs 1 to 4 and other witnesses before filing of charge sheet. It is suggested to him that as an after thought he got recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses due to pressure and 10 filed charge sheet without verifying investigation done by PWs 9 and 10 he simply denied the same.

23.Defence of accused is total denial. During 313 Cr.P.C. examination A1 none other than husband of deceased and also during cross examination of prosecution witnesses more particularly PWs 1 and 2 parents of deceased. Accused disowning their role and allegations leveled against them more particularly A1 as to the harassment made to deceased that additional demands for dowry since the time of marriage which admittedly took place within 5/6 years prior to death of deceased, took defence that deceased committed suicide by taking poison on account of altercation ensued in between her and her mother who allegedly came to the house of accused on the date of occurrence or few days earlier there to for her financial help as she allegedly suffered with stomach pain as deceased failed to part her gold ornaments for helping her without permission and knowledge of 

A1. Both PWs 1 and 2 during their cross examination denied same. Except his explanation during 313 Cr.P.C. examination there is no basis. Explanation offered by the accused more particularly A1 during his cross examination to the incriminatory evidence spoken by all prosecution witnesses in order to give opportunity to accused to explain the circumstances under which deceased took drastic step of committing suicide by consuming poison within seven years of her marriage is not convincing and it is not supported by any cogent proof.

24.Learned counsel for accused relied upon various authorities of Apex Court of India and also our Hon'ble High Court and High Courts of Chattisgarh, Punjab and Haryana and Delhi High Courts. 

Firstly, he relied upon a decision of Apex court of India reported in 1991 Crl.L.J. ­ 1391 referred in the case of PEDDI REDDY SUBBAREDDI AND OTHERS VS. 

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH for a proposition delay in lodging FIR is fatal to the prosecution and accused is entitled for acquittal if delay is not properly explained.Secondly, he relied upon another decision of Apex Court of India reported in 2014 (2) Acquittal 510 (SC) referred in the case of MANOHAR LAL 

VERSUS .. STATE OF HARYANA referring u/s 304­B IPC r/w 113B of Indian 

Evidence Act for proposition that unless all ingredients are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted u/s 304­B IPC. Thirdly, on another decision of Apex court 11 of India reported in 2007(1) Acquittal 227 (SC) referred in the case of 

CHANDRAPPA AND ORS VERSUS .. STATE OF KARNATAKA for the proposition that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court. For similar proposition he also relied upon another decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2014(2) Acquittal 239 (P&H) in the case of SURAJ BHAN VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA and on another decision of Delhi High Court reported in 2014(1) Acquittal 362 (Del.) rendered in the case of STATE VERSUS.. NARESH AND ORS for a proposition on 

General and vague allegations of dowry demands and beatings given to the deceased without detailing specific instances vague and inconsistent statements of interested witnesses such as parents, brothers and sisters of the deceased, bald statements made by prosecution witnesses which fall short of evidence to prove that the victim committed suicide on account of cruelty and harassment to which she was subjected just prior to her death, and improved statements made by prosecution witnesses for the first time in Court disclosing things not disclosed during investigation, are liable to be viewed with suspicion and the presumption of dowry death cannot be raised therefrom, and the accused cannot be convicted on the strength of such statements. Decision of Hon'ble High Court of AP reported in 2005(2) ALT (Crl) 111 (A.P.) for the proposition that where evidence of parents of deceased is vague regarding demand of dowry by the accused it cannot be said that the dowry death is proved, and lastly on another decision of 

High Court of Chattisgarh reported in 2008(1) Acquittal 523 (Chatt.) in the case of GOVERDHAN SHOBNATH BIND VERSUS STATE OF M.P. for the proposition that in offence u/s 498A IPC evidence of mother of victim deceased that victim when came to parents house narrated witness acts of cruelty committed by husband would come in category of hearsay evidence and conviction could not be sustained on such evidence. 

25.Admittedly death of deceased is unnatural and it took place within seven years of her marriage with A1. PWs 1 and 2 parents of deceased in their evidence categorically stated that A1 and deceased lived together happily hardly for a period of one year and thereafter he started harassing deceased demanding to bring additional dowry not satisfying with dowry given at the time of marriage. 

12

They also stated that on several occasions deceased was necked out from the house of A1 to bring additional dowry, panchayats were also held for amicable settlement and even after panchayats A1 did not change his attitude and continued harassing deceased. PW3, none other than paternal uncle of deceased also stated in same lines and evidence spoken by him is also duly corroborated' with the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 except the factum of harassment of deceased by 

A2 and A3 parents of A1. During his cross examination it is elicited A2 and A3 parents of A1 looked­after deceased well and they did not harass her to bring 

additional dowry.

26.PWs 4 and 5 mediators for the panchayat also deposed consistently in their evidence that the deceased was driven out by A1 several times to bring additional dowry and they advised A1 to look­after deceased properly but accused having promised to take care of deceased properly used to harass deceased without any change in his attitude. All the prosecution witnesses categorically stated in their evidence deceased was lastly sent to house of A1 to lead marital life 15 to 20 days prior to occurrence of incident. Thus in the circumstances from the evidence spoken by PWs 1 to 5 it can be safely said that the deceased was harassed soon after the occurrence by accused more particularly A1 demanding to bring 

additional dowry and she was also driven out from house of A1 to bring 

additional amounts demanded. Evidence spoken by PWs 1 to 3 further proved in 

order to satisfy A1 PWs 1 and 2 also gave additional amount demanded by A1 time and again to see their daughter happiness in the house of accused and to purchase peace.

27.Evidence spoken by prosecution witnesses as to harassment suffered by deceased in the hands of accused more particularly A1 husband of deceased for 

additional dowry is quite consistent, cogent and convincing. All are natural 

witnesses. Absolutely no grounds to discard the evidence spoken to by prosecution witnesses with regard to physical harassment suffered by deceased in the hands of A1. 

28.Whereas the evidence let in by the prosecution in proof of A2 and A3 connivance with A1 in demanding additional dowry is not consistent and not inspiring confidence. PW1 none other than father of deceased/ defacto 13 complainant in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by PW9 who registered case categorically stated that A2 and A3 had not harassed deceased for additional dowry and harassment was made for such demand only by A1. During cross examination relevant portion is also marked as Ex.D1. PW1 was once again examined by PW10, SDPO, Shadnagar who took up investigation from PW9. Even in the statement recorded by PW10, PW1 stated that his daughter was not harassed by A2 and A3. PW10 is also confronted with Ex.D1 contradiction which is denied by pW1 during cross examination before the court. PW10 duly asserted 

Ex.D1 contradiction by saying that he was told by PW1 that her daughter was not harassed by A2 and A3 parents of deceased before PW10. Not only PW1 but other prosecution witnesses testified as PWs 2 to 5 consistently stated that A2 and A3 have no role in harassment suffered by deceased in the hands of A1 for additional dowry during their examination by PW10.

29.PW11, who took up investigation of the case from PW10 and filed charge sheet got recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs 1,2,4 and 5 and LWs 4,5,6 and 

10. PWs 1 and 2 in their 164 Cr.P.C. statements consistently stated that the deceased was harassed by A1 and his parents. PW4 in his 164 Cr.P.C. statement stated that the deceased lived happily with the accused only for one year later she came back and complained harassment by her in­laws, then they settled the matter. He further stated that the deceased came to home with burn injuries caused by accused on pouring hot tea on her body and deceased was sent to the house of accused on undertaking given by A2 and A3 that they do not repeat such things but 15 days thereafter she died. PW5 also stated in his 164 Cr.P.C. 

statement that the deceased was harassed by A1 to A3 since the time of marriage and it was informed by deceased, then on convincing A1 to A3 not to do so deceased was sent to 15 days prior to her death. He further stated in the last panchayat deceased wept a lot but in order to continue marital life she went back to in­laws house at the instance of elders. He further stated that one cannot hear harassment meted out to deceased and deceased got four years son and he is now with his maternal grand parents. He further said that death intimation was also not given by accused to PWs 1 and 2 and having learnt about death of deceased through their relative they rushed to Shadnagar hospital to see dead body of deceased.

14

30.PW1 father of deceased also stated in his evidence about causing burn injuries by A1 to deceased by pouring tea on her body for her failure to bring 

additional dowry demanding to bring additional amount of Rs.30,000/­ as dowry 

not satisfying with dowry amount of Rs.20,000/­ cash and three tolas gold given to A1 at the time of marriage. Thus in the aforesaid circumstances evidence let in by prosecution though not consistent and cogent against A2 and A3 as to their role in harassment of deceased for additional dowry it is consistent against A1 husband of deceased. Defence of accused that he never harassed deceased for 

additional dowry is not inspiring confidence. In the light of consistent, cogent 

evidence let in by prosecution.

31.Evidence of PW11 Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over dead body of deceased also gives strength to the case of prosecution as to physical and mental harassment suffered by deceased in the hands of accused more particularly A1 for additional dowry. As per evidence of PW11 and Ex.P5 postmortem examination report deceased died due to consumption of poison and it is also associated with head injury as she also observed a contusion of 3x2 cm on occipup. In the light of Ex.P5 PME report and consistent and cogent evidence spoken to by prosecution witnesses it can be safely said that the deceased was beaten by A1 for her failure to fulfill his illegal demands obviously for additional dowry and thereafter deceased having disgusted with her marital life with A1 having suffered for over a period of three years as spoken by PWs 1 and 2 took drastic step of committing suicide and consumed poison and which ultimately resulted her death and it is a dowry death.

32.Sec. 304B IPC relates to dowry death which is relevant in the facts and circumstances reads as follows: “304B. Dowry death.— (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

15

Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub­section,“dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”

For the purpose of the said Section, a presumption can be raised U/s 113­B of 

Evidence Act only on proof of the following essentials:

(a) Death of the woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances.

(b) Such death took place within seven years of her marriage.

(c) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.

(d) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry and

(e) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.

33.In the facts and circumstances as the evidence let in by the prosecution duly proved the ingredients that are required to invoke sec. 304­B IPC as a matter of right prosecution is entitled to take benefit of presumption u/s 113­B of Indian 

Evidence Act as admittedly death of deceased is unnatural within seven years of her marriage. Hence in the circumstances it is a fit case to invoke sec. 304­B IPC against A1 as prosecution duly made out against him for the said offence giving benefit of doubt to A2 and A3 parents of A1 as evidence let in by the prosecution in proof of their connivance with A1 in harassment of deceased leading to dowry death is doubtful and not inspiring confidence. The above legal authorities relied upon by the accused in support of defence of accused will not come to the rescue of accused in the facts and circumstances in the light of consistent and cogent evidence of PWs 1 to 5 as to the dowry harassment of deceased by A1 in the case on hand. 

34.In the result, A1 is found guilty for the offence u/s 304B IPC and convicted him u/s 235[2] Cr.P.C. A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 304B 

IPC and they are acquitted u/s 235[1] Cr.P.C.

16

35.On appearance of A1 to A3, judgment pronounced. As A1 is found guilty for the offence u/s 304­B IPC. he is examined u/s 235[2] Cr.P.C. with regard to quantum of sentence. A1 pleaded mercy of court pleading not guilty. He further represented that his old aged parents are living with him and he has to take care of them as his elder brother is staying in Bombay. Except himself there are none to lookafter his old parents. This is a case of dowry death. Deceased committed suicide by consuming poison within seven years of her marriage unable to bear harassment meted out to her by the accused herein with his illegal demands for 

additional dowry. In spite of several panchayats and his admonition by the elders 

during panchayats, accused did not change his attitude and ultimately it resulted death of deceased. Only son of accused herein and deceased is also living with his maternal grand parents. Absolutely no mitigating circumstances to take any lenient view towards accused herein. In the facts and circumstances Rigorous 

Imprisonment for a period of [10] years with fine of Rs.50,000/­ [Rs. Fifty thousand only] will meet ends of justice.

36.In the result, A1 who is found guilty for the offence u/s 304­B IPC is convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of [10] years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/­ [Rs. Fifty thousand only] under sec. 235[2] 

Cr.P.C. In default he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year. 

Fine amount if collected is ordered to be paid to PW1 Gaddam Papaiah as compensation u/s 357[1] Cr.P.C. for the welfare of minor son of deceased and accused herein, who is living with maternal grand parents on expiry of appeal time. MO1 shall be destroyed on expiry of appeal time. The remand period of the accused from from 15­10­2012 to 22­12­2012 [69 days] shall be set off from the substantive sentence u/s 428 Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Sr. Asst. [working on deputation to attend the work of 

Stenographer], transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12th day of August, 2015.

Spl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

17

Appendix of Evidence: [Witnesses examined for] Prosecution: PW1 Gaddam Papaiah. PW2 Gaddam Padmamma. PW3 Gaddam Pedda Chinnaiah. PW4 Padakanti Venkatesh. PW5 Potti Balachandri PW6 Potti Balachandraiah PW7 Chenigari Bheemaiah PW8 R. Pandu, Tahsildar. PW9 N. Pandaiah HC 767 of Kondurg PS PW10 SV Madhav Reddy, SDPO PW11 Dr. P. Vijay Bhasker. PW12 P. Karunkar, SDPO

Defence: None. Exhibits marked for Prosecution: Ex.P1 is complaint given by PW1. Ex.P2 is inquest panchanama. Ex.P3 is crime details form. Ex.P4 is First Information Report. Ex.P5 is postmortem report of deceased. Defence: Ex.D1 is contradiction elicited during course of PW1.

Material Objects marked: MO1 is plastic empty pesticide bottle. 

Spl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE, 

FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC/ST [POA] ACT, 1989­CUM­VII ADDL. 

SESSIONS JUDGE: AT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

FAC II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 12th day of August, 2015.

Present:­ Sri P. Prabhakar, Spl. Sessions Judge, For trial of cases under SC/ST [POA] Act, 1989­cum­VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

S.C.No.622 of 2013

(Preliminarily Registered Case No.77 of 2013 committed by the Judicial 

Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar in Cr.No.88 of 2012 of PS Kondurg for the 

offence U/Sec.304 ­B IPC) Prosecution.Sri G.K. Harshavardhan Reddy, Addl. Public prosecutor, Mahabubnagar.

Accused1. Gadudula Mallesh s/o G. Maisaiah, Aged 26 yrs, caste: SC (Madiga) Occ. Cooli & waiter r/o Padmaram vlg, Kon­ durg ml.

2. Smt.Gadudula Ajamma @ Anjamma w/o Maisaiah, Aged 50 yrs, caste: SC (Madiga) Occ. Cooli r/o Padmaram vlg, Kondurg ml.

3. Gadudula Maisaiah s/o late Balaiah, Aged 55 yrs, caste: SC (Madiga) Occ. Cooli & Agrl. r/o Padmaram vlg, Kon­ durg ml.

Name of advocateS. Muralikrishna, Advocate for accused

Offenceunder 304­B IPC. section

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

FindingA1 found guilty for the offence u/s 304­B IPC and convicted him u/s 235[2] Cr.P.C. A2 and A3 found not guilty for the offence u/s 304­B IPC and acquitted them u/s 235[1] Cr.P.C.

Sentence or orderIn the result, A1 is found guilty for the offence u/s 304B IPC and convicted him u/s 235[2] Cr.P.C. A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 304B IPC and they are acquitted u/s 235[1] Cr.P.C. A1 sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of [10] years with fine of Rs.50,000/­ [Rs. Fifty thousand only] in default payment of fine he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year. Fince amount if collected is ordered to be paid to minor son of deceased and accused herein, who is living with maternal grand parents to PW1 Gaddam Papaiah as compensation u/s 357[1] Cr.P.C. on expiry of appeal time. MO1 shall be destroyed on expiry of appeal time. The remand period of the accused from from 15­ 10­2012 to 22­12­2012 [69 days] shall be set off from the substantive sentence u/s 428 Cr.P.C.

2

This case is coming up for hearing before me and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:­

 J U D G M E N T 

Sub Divisional Police Officer, Shadnagar charge sheeted A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under sec. 304­B IPC.

2.The case of prosecution is that, on 15­9­2012 at 1000 hours defacto complainant Gaddam Papaiah (PW1) resident of Jilled of Kondurg mandal lodged complaint stating that the marriage of his daughter Alivelu aged 23 years deceased in this case was performed six years ago with Mallesh accused herein. At the time of marriage he gave cash of Rs.20000/­ and 3 tulas gold towards dowry to his son­in­law. Since the time of marriage accused started harassing deceased on the pretext that dowry given is not sufficient and continued harassment to her physically and mentally. He also assaulted her 6 or 7 times demanding to bring 

additional dowry. In this regard panchayats were also held in the presence of 

elders and caste people and on counseling accused, deceased was sent to lead marital life. In spite of it accused did not change his attitude. On 14­9­2012 night at about 10­00 P.M. his relative namely Erragadda Srinu (LW6) informed him on phone that his daughter consumed poison and she was shifted to Community 

Health Center, Shadnagar for treatment. On 15­9­2012 at 7­00 a.m. he along with his relatives rushed to Govt. Hospital, Shadnagar and found his daughter died. He further added unable to bear continuous harassment in hands of accused and his parents who are A2 and A3, she vexed with her life and thereby consumed poison to die and requested for necessary action. 

Basing on complaint the Station House Officer, P.S. Kondurg has registered case in Cr.No.88 of 2012 u/s 304­B IPC and submitted express First Information 

Report to the court and copies to superiors. Examining PW1 and recording his statement i.e. took up investigation. In course of further investigation he also gave requisition to Tahsildar, Kondurg Mandal PW8 to hold inquest over the dead body of the deceased as she died within seven years of her marriage. In turn PW8 visited Community Health Center, Shadnagar and held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators namely Gaddam Chandramma and 

Potti Balachandraiah (LW11 and PW6) and then subjected dead body for postmortem. 

3

He also photographed dead body of the deceased with digital camera. At the time of inquest PW8 examined and recorded statements of Gaddam Papaiah Gaddam 

Padmamma, Gaddam Pedda Chinnaiah Padakanti Venkatesh, PWs 1 to 4 and also 

Gaddam Chinna Chinnaiah, Maddur Balaiah and Erragadda Sreenu (LWs 4 to 6) and recorded their statements. In course of further investigation PW9 visited scene of offence which is the house of accused situated at Jilled, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators Chenigari Bheemaiah and 

Bommagalla Ramesh (PW7 and LW14) preparing sketch of scene in crime details form and also seized empty poison tin of Trimida Imidaclotried systemic insecticide under cover of crime details form. 

Further investigation was taken up by PW10 the then SDPO, Shadnagar. He verified investigation done by PW9. Once again he visited scene of offence made enquiries with the witnesses already examined by PW9, who are kith and kin and also collected marriage photos from PW1. Later he examined and recorded statements of Padakanti Venkatesh and Potti Balachandraiah (PW4 or PW5) , 

Pullagiri Lingaiah and Yerrabothu Prathap Reddy (LWs 9 and 10) and recorded their statements. Subsequently he forwarded viscera of deceased preserved by 

Medical Officer, during postmortem examination seized poison tin sent to FSL 

Hyderabad for chemical analysis and report. In turn Expert of FSL furnished report No.TOX/3047/2012, dated 7­12­2012 opining that items No.1 to 5 are analyzed and imidacloprid an insecticide poison is found in items 1,2,3 and 5 but not in item No.4. Item No.4 is saline received as sample of preservative. PW11/ 

Medical Officer CHC, Shadnagar having conducted postmortem over dead body of deceased furnished final opinion basing on FSL report dated 7­12­2012 opining cause of death is due to Imidacloprid (an insecticide poison) and associated Head injury .

On 14­10­2012 he arrested A1 and sent him for judicial remand. On his transfer PW11 his successor in office took up further investigation of the case. 

During course of further investigation he gave requisition to the then Judl. 

Magistrate of First Class, Excise, Mahabubnagar (LW17) to record 164 Cr.P.C. 

statements of PWs 1 to 5 and others. 

On 9­8­2013 A2 and A3 are arrested and sent them for judicial remand. On completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 as his 4 investigation disclosed owing to continuous harassment of deceased on 14­9­2012 at 2200 hours deceased disgusted with her life took extreme step of committing suicide and consumed poison. Thus A1 to A3 are liable to be punished for the offence u/s 304­B IPC. 

3.On appearance of accused, Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 

Shadnagar has taken on file the case as PRC No.77 of 2013 under sections 304­B 

IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, on observing all the necessary formalities, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate felt that the matter is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and hence the case was committed and made over to this 

Court for trial.

5.This Court has received on file the case as S.C. No. 622 of 2013 and ordered issuance of summons to accused.

6.On appearance of accused and hearing both the Addl Public Prosecutor and the defence Counsel, charge for the offence under sec. 304­B IPC against the accused are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

7.On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW12 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and MO1 are marked.

8.On closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were examined u/s 313 

Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded not guilty denying incriminating circumstances appearing against them. On their behalf no witnesses are examined but contradiction elicited during cross examination of PW1 is marked as Ex.D1.

9PW1 is defacto complainant and father of deceased, PW2 is mother of deceased, PW3 is paternal uncle of deceased, PWs 4 and 5 are circumstantial witnesses, PWs 6 and 7 are mediators for scene of offence and inquest proceedings. PW8 is the then Tahsildar, who held inquest over dead body of deceased. PW9 is Head Constable who registered case and partly investigated case. PW10 and PW12 are investigation officers who conducted investigation and 5 filed charge sheet and arrested A1 to A3. PW11 is Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem examination over dead body of deceased.

10.Ex.P1 is complaint given by PW1. Ex.P2 is inquest panchanama. Ex.P3 is crime details form. Ex.P4 is First Information Report. Ex.P5 is postmortem report of deceased. MO1 is plastic empty pesticide bottle. Ex.D1 is contradiction elicited during cross of PW1.

11.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has made

out the case against the accused for the offence u/s 304­B IPC beyond all 

reasonable doubt?

12.It is case of the prosecution that the deceased in this case none other than wife of A1 and daughter­in­law of A2 and A3 committed suicide by consuming poison unable to bear harassment in the hands of accused within seven years of her marriage. It is further case of prosecution since the time of marriage A1 physically and mentally harassed and they tortured her demanding additional dowry not satisfying with amounts given by PW1 being father of deceased at the time of marriage. In order to prove case of prosecution it mainly relied upon on the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 none other than parents and uncle of deceased and circumstantial witnesses, apart from the evidence of official witnesses mediators for scene of offence and inquest proceedings testified as PWs 6 to 11.

13.PW1, father of victim girl, who lodged Ex.P1 complaint immediately after death of deceased deposed victim girl was given in marriage to A1 son of A2 and 

A3. His daughter led happy marital life with A1 for two years afterwards A1 to A3 started harassing deceased demanding for additional dowry and they also drove her from their marital home. He further deposed in that regard panchayats were held and after panchayats deceased was sent to house of A1 to lead marital life, one week thereafter again A1 to A3 harassing his daughter and A1 beat is daughter and also poured hot tea on his daughter and drove to his house to bring 

additional dowry of Rs.30000/­ At the time of marriage he gave dowry of 

Rs.20,000/­, [3] tulas of gold to A1. He sold silver kadiyalu of his wife for 

Rs.4000/­ and said amount was given to A1 while sending his daughter. 

Thereafter within 15 days his daughter died and one person informed them on 6 phone that his daughter died. Then they went to the house of A1 and by then dead body of his daughter was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Shadnagar and by then 

A1 to A3 were not present at the hospital. He does not know in what manner his daughter died. He gave complaint to the police, Ex.P1 is the complaint given by him to the police accepting his examination by the investigation officer. 

He was cross examined at length and during his cross examination it is elicited that A1 has been working in Hyderabad and he cannot say name of scribe of 

Ex.P1. He did not state to the police as in Ex.D1 a portion of 161 Cr.P.C. 

statement, that his wife asked deceased to arrange some amount from A1 and that his daughter informed his wife that no such amount will be given without knowledge of A1 and in that connection his wife quarreled with his daughter and and subsisted. A1 to A3 never caused any harassment nor beat deceased and that 

A1 to A3 were not at all responsible for death of deceased and falsely foisted case against accused. He categorically denied that A1 and his wife were residing separately from A2 and A3 after marriage and during time of alleged incident he asked A1 to setup family at his residence and that A1 and Alivelu also stayed with them for one year and that A1 to A3 never ill­treated Alivelu mentally and physically nor demanded additional dowry. He denied the suggestion that A1 was in Hyderabad on the date of death of Alivelu and that he did not sell silver kadiyams of his wife to pay amount to A1. He categorically denied all suggestions.. 

14.PW2, mother of deceased deposed that marriage of Alivelu took place nine years back. Deceased and A1 never lived happily as A1 to A3 started harass 

Alivelu physically and mentally with a demand to bring additional dowry from them and drove her daughter from their house. Elders of both villages held panchayat and that they sent Alivelu to A1. One week thereafter again A1 to A3 started harassing her daughter and A1 beat and drove to her house to bring 

additional dowry of Rs.30,000/­. Her daughter was blessed with one son aged six 

years. At the time of marriage she gave dowry of Rs.25000/­, 3 tulas gold and house hold articles worth of Rs.15000/­ to A1. She sold her silver kadiyalu for 

Rs.5000/­and given said amount to A1 while sending her daughter to the house of 

A1. Thereafter within a month her daughter died and one person informed them 7 on phone, then they went to hospital by then dead body of her daughter was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Shadnagar and by the time they reached A1 to A3 were not present at the hospital. A1 to A3 beat her daughter and killed her. 

She was also cross examined on behalf of the accused. Except making bald suggestions denying allegations leveled against accused during her chief examination, nothing elicited during her cross examination.

15.PW3, Paternal uncle of deceased deposed that A1 and deceased led marital life happily for three years. Thereafter A1 to A3 started to harass deceased physically and mentally with a demand to bring additional dowry from them and that they drove deceased away from their house. Elders of both villagers held panchayats and sent Alivelu to A1. One week thereafter again A1 to A3 started harassing Alivelelu drove away her to their house to bring additional dowry. At the time of marriage PW1 gave dowry of Rs.20,000/­ and 3 tulas of gold to A1. 

Thereafter within 15 days Alivelu died and one person informed them on phone about death of deceased. He further deposed then they went to house of A1 and bythendeadbodywasshiftedtoGovt.Hospital,

Shadnagar there A1 to A3 were not present. He stated that he was examined by the investigation officer. 

He was also cross examined but during his cross examination nothing is elicited except suggesting to him denying allegations leveled against accused during his chief, he categorically denied.

16.PW4, testified as circumstantial witness being mediator for panchayats held in between deceased and A1 at the instance of PWs 1 and 2 deposed that A1 led marital life happily with deceased for one and half years. Afterwards he started harassing deceased physically and mentally demanding to bring additional dowry and drove away deceased from his house. At that juncture he along with LWs 8 to 10 held panchayat and then sent deceased to the house of A1. One week thereafter again A1 to A3 started harassing deceased and she was driven out by 

A1 by beating her demanding to bring additional dowry. He further deposed at the time of marriage PW1 gave dowry of Rs.20,000/­ and three tolas of gold to A1 as dowry. About three years ago on death intimation of deceased they rushed to 8

Govt. Hospital, Shadnagar and by that time A1 to A3 were not present in the hospital. Dead body was kept in the hospital mortuary assertaing his examination by the investigation officer. PW5 who is also testified as circumstantial witness being mediator for panchayats held in between deceased and A1 also deposed in same lines. 

17.Both PWs 4 and 5 are cross examined on behalf of accused. Except making bald suggestions denying incriminating evidence spoken to by them during their chief examination nothing is elicited to doubt their trustworthiness. It is also suggested to both of them that mother of deceased examined as PW2 suffered with stomach pain then she asked deceased to arrange amount from A1, then she was told by deceased she cannot give amount without knowledge of A1 and on that score PW2 quarreled with deceased denying harassment meted out to deceased by A1 to A3 and the panchayat held in between deceased and A1. Both categorically denied all suggestions put to them.

18.PWs 6 and 7 mediators for scene of offence and inquest proceedings categorically stated in evidence in support of Ex.p2 and Ex.P3 proceedings held by 

PWs 9 and 8. Station House Officer, Kondurg and Tahsildar on requisition given by PW9 as deceased died within seven years of her marriage. PW6 mediator for inquest further deposed during inquest on enquiry they all opined that deceased died due to harassment suffered by her in the hands of her husband and in­laws demanding additional dowry. Both are cross examined and suggestions that they attested Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 at police station but they denied same.

19.PW8, Tahsildar who held inquest over dead body of deceased on requisition given by PW9 deposed in his evidence about inquest proceedings held by him and further on completion of inquest enquiry he concluded that the deceased consumed pesticide poison due to harassment of A1 to A3. He was also cross examined on behalf of accused suggesting denying veracity of Ex.P2 inquest proceedings prepared on his instructions. It is elicited during cross examination that A1 to A3 were also present at the time of inquest proceedings and A2 and A3 admitted deceased in the hospital on the night of occurrence and Ex.P2 was scribed by V.R.O. on his instructions.

9

20.PW11, Medical Officer Community Health Center, Shadnagar deposed that on requisition given by PW8 the then Tahsildar, conducted inquest over dead body of deceased, she conducted autopsy over dead body in between 3­30 PM and 4­30 P.M. During postmortem examination she found contusion on the occipup measuring 3x2 cm Ex.P5 is PME report. In her opinion cause of death is due to imidacloprid (an insecticide poison) and associated with head injury. It is elicited during her cross examination that she could able to name the poison basing on toxicology report given by Expert, FSL Hyderabad to whom material objects are sent more particularly MO1 poison tin and viscera for chemical analysis.

21.PW9, Head Constable, Kondurg police station who received Ex.P1 complaint from PW1 deposed about registration of Ex.P4 First Information Report and also examining of PW1 by him on same day took up investigation of case. He also deposed about his visit to scene of offence and preparing Ex.P3 crime details form in the presence of PW7 and others after giving requisition to PW8 to conduct inquest over dead body of deceased. 

22.PWs 10 and 12 the then Investigation Officers deposed in their evidence as to examination of PWs 1 to 5 and other witnesses in course of investigation and arrest of accused on 14­10­2012 about one month after occurrence and filing of charge sheet as the witnesses examined by them during course of investigation and report given by PW11 Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased gave opinion under Ex.P5 certifying that cause of death is due to 

Imidacloprid insecticide poison and associated with head injury and further deceased died unnaturally within seven years of her marriage unable to bear harassment made by A1 to A3 with their illegal demands for additional dowry. 

They are cross examined amd suggested that the investigation made by them is table made one denying examination of witnesses and their visit to scene of offence and Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 proceedings. They categorically denied the same. 

PW12 further deposed in his evidence that on 19­8­2013 he arrested A2 and A3 and also gave requisition to record 164 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs 1 to 4 and other witnesses before filing of charge sheet. It is suggested to him that as an after thought he got recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses due to pressure and 10 filed charge sheet without verifying investigation done by PWs 9 and 10 he simply denied the same.

23.Defence of accused is total denial. During 313 Cr.P.C. examination A1 none other than husband of deceased and also during cross examination of prosecution witnesses more particularly PWs 1 and 2 parents of deceased. Accused disowning their role and allegations leveled against them more particularly A1 as to the harassment made to deceased that additional demands for dowry since the time of marriage which admittedly took place within 5/6 years prior to death of deceased, took defence that deceased committed suicide by taking poison on account of altercation ensued in between her and her mother who allegedly came to the house of accused on the date of occurrence or few days earlier there to for her financial help as she allegedly suffered with stomach pain as deceased failed to part her gold ornaments for helping her without permission and knowledge of 

A1. Both PWs 1 and 2 during their cross examination denied same. Except his explanation during 313 Cr.P.C. examination there is no basis. Explanation offered by the accused more particularly A1 during his cross examination to the incriminatory evidence spoken by all prosecution witnesses in order to give opportunity to accused to explain the circumstances under which deceased took drastic step of committing suicide by consuming poison within seven years of her marriage is not convincing and it is not supported by any cogent proof.

24.Learned counsel for accused relied upon various authorities of Apex Court of India and also our Hon'ble High Court and High Courts of Chattisgarh, Punjab and Haryana and Delhi High Courts. 

Firstly, he relied upon a decision of Apex court of India reported in 1991 Crl.L.J. ­ 1391 referred in the case of PEDDI REDDY SUBBAREDDI AND OTHERS VS. 

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH for a proposition delay in lodging FIR is fatal to the prosecution and accused is entitled for acquittal if delay is not properly explained.Secondly, he relied upon another decision of Apex Court of India reported in 2014 (2) Acquittal 510 (SC) referred in the case of MANOHAR LAL 

VERSUS .. STATE OF HARYANA referring u/s 304­B IPC r/w 113B of Indian 

Evidence Act for proposition that unless all ingredients are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted u/s 304­B IPC. Thirdly, on another decision of Apex court 11 of India reported in 2007(1) Acquittal 227 (SC) referred in the case of 

CHANDRAPPA AND ORS VERSUS .. STATE OF KARNATAKA for the proposition that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court. For similar proposition he also relied upon another decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2014(2) Acquittal 239 (P&H) in the case of SURAJ BHAN VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA and on another decision of Delhi High Court reported in 2014(1) Acquittal 362 (Del.) rendered in the case of STATE VERSUS.. NARESH AND ORS for a proposition on 

General and vague allegations of dowry demands and beatings given to the deceased without detailing specific instances vague and inconsistent statements of interested witnesses such as parents, brothers and sisters of the deceased, bald statements made by prosecution witnesses which fall short of evidence to prove that the victim committed suicide on account of cruelty and harassment to which she was subjected just prior to her death, and improved statements made by prosecution witnesses for the first time in Court disclosing things not disclosed during investigation, are liable to be viewed with suspicion and the presumption of dowry death cannot be raised therefrom, and the accused cannot be convicted on the strength of such statements. Decision of Hon'ble High Court of AP reported in 2005(2) ALT (Crl) 111 (A.P.) for the proposition that where evidence of parents of deceased is vague regarding demand of dowry by the accused it cannot be said that the dowry death is proved, and lastly on another decision of 

High Court of Chattisgarh reported in 2008(1) Acquittal 523 (Chatt.) in the case of GOVERDHAN SHOBNATH BIND VERSUS STATE OF M.P. for the proposition that in offence u/s 498A IPC evidence of mother of victim deceased that victim when came to parents house narrated witness acts of cruelty committed by husband would come in category of hearsay evidence and conviction could not be sustained on such evidence. 

25.Admittedly death of deceased is unnatural and it took place within seven years of her marriage with A1. PWs 1 and 2 parents of deceased in their evidence categorically stated that A1 and deceased lived together happily hardly for a period of one year and thereafter he started harassing deceased demanding to bring additional dowry not satisfying with dowry given at the time of marriage. 

12

They also stated that on several occasions deceased was necked out from the house of A1 to bring additional dowry, panchayats were also held for amicable settlement and even after panchayats A1 did not change his attitude and continued harassing deceased. PW3, none other than paternal uncle of deceased also stated in same lines and evidence spoken by him is also duly corroborated' with the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 except the factum of harassment of deceased by 

A2 and A3 parents of A1. During his cross examination it is elicited A2 and A3 parents of A1 looked­after deceased well and they did not harass her to bring 

additional dowry.

26.PWs 4 and 5 mediators for the panchayat also deposed consistently in their evidence that the deceased was driven out by A1 several times to bring additional dowry and they advised A1 to look­after deceased properly but accused having promised to take care of deceased properly used to harass deceased without any change in his attitude. All the prosecution witnesses categorically stated in their evidence deceased was lastly sent to house of A1 to lead marital life 15 to 20 days prior to occurrence of incident. Thus in the circumstances from the evidence spoken by PWs 1 to 5 it can be safely said that the deceased was harassed soon after the occurrence by accused more particularly A1 demanding to bring 

additional dowry and she was also driven out from house of A1 to bring 

additional amounts demanded. Evidence spoken by PWs 1 to 3 further proved in 

order to satisfy A1 PWs 1 and 2 also gave additional amount demanded by A1 time and again to see their daughter happiness in the house of accused and to purchase peace.

27.Evidence spoken by prosecution witnesses as to harassment suffered by deceased in the hands of accused more particularly A1 husband of deceased for 

additional dowry is quite consistent, cogent and convincing. All are natural 

witnesses. Absolutely no grounds to discard the evidence spoken to by prosecution witnesses with regard to physical harassment suffered by deceased in the hands of A1. 

28.Whereas the evidence let in by the prosecution in proof of A2 and A3 connivance with A1 in demanding additional dowry is not consistent and not inspiring confidence. PW1 none other than father of deceased/ defacto 13 complainant in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by PW9 who registered case categorically stated that A2 and A3 had not harassed deceased for additional dowry and harassment was made for such demand only by A1. During cross examination relevant portion is also marked as Ex.D1. PW1 was once again examined by PW10, SDPO, Shadnagar who took up investigation from PW9. Even in the statement recorded by PW10, PW1 stated that his daughter was not harassed by A2 and A3. PW10 is also confronted with Ex.D1 contradiction which is denied by pW1 during cross examination before the court. PW10 duly asserted 

Ex.D1 contradiction by saying that he was told by PW1 that her daughter was not harassed by A2 and A3 parents of deceased before PW10. Not only PW1 but other prosecution witnesses testified as PWs 2 to 5 consistently stated that A2 and A3 have no role in harassment suffered by deceased in the hands of A1 for additional dowry during their examination by PW10.

29.PW11, who took up investigation of the case from PW10 and filed charge sheet got recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs 1,2,4 and 5 and LWs 4,5,6 and 

10. PWs 1 and 2 in their 164 Cr.P.C. statements consistently stated that the deceased was harassed by A1 and his parents. PW4 in his 164 Cr.P.C. statement stated that the deceased lived happily with the accused only for one year later she came back and complained harassment by her in­laws, then they settled the matter. He further stated that the deceased came to home with burn injuries caused by accused on pouring hot tea on her body and deceased was sent to the house of accused on undertaking given by A2 and A3 that they do not repeat such things but 15 days thereafter she died. PW5 also stated in his 164 Cr.P.C. 

statement that the deceased was harassed by A1 to A3 since the time of marriage and it was informed by deceased, then on convincing A1 to A3 not to do so deceased was sent to 15 days prior to her death. He further stated in the last panchayat deceased wept a lot but in order to continue marital life she went back to in­laws house at the instance of elders. He further stated that one cannot hear harassment meted out to deceased and deceased got four years son and he is now with his maternal grand parents. He further said that death intimation was also not given by accused to PWs 1 and 2 and having learnt about death of deceased through their relative they rushed to Shadnagar hospital to see dead body of deceased.

14

30.PW1 father of deceased also stated in his evidence about causing burn injuries by A1 to deceased by pouring tea on her body for her failure to bring 

additional dowry demanding to bring additional amount of Rs.30,000/­ as dowry 

not satisfying with dowry amount of Rs.20,000/­ cash and three tolas gold given to A1 at the time of marriage. Thus in the aforesaid circumstances evidence let in by prosecution though not consistent and cogent against A2 and A3 as to their role in harassment of deceased for additional dowry it is consistent against A1 husband of deceased. Defence of accused that he never harassed deceased for 

additional dowry is not inspiring confidence. In the light of consistent, cogent 

evidence let in by prosecution.

31.Evidence of PW11 Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over dead body of deceased also gives strength to the case of prosecution as to physical and mental harassment suffered by deceased in the hands of accused more particularly A1 for additional dowry. As per evidence of PW11 and Ex.P5 postmortem examination report deceased died due to consumption of poison and it is also associated with head injury as she also observed a contusion of 3x2 cm on occipup. In the light of Ex.P5 PME report and consistent and cogent evidence spoken to by prosecution witnesses it can be safely said that the deceased was beaten by A1 for her failure to fulfill his illegal demands obviously for additional dowry and thereafter deceased having disgusted with her marital life with A1 having suffered for over a period of three years as spoken by PWs 1 and 2 took drastic step of committing suicide and consumed poison and which ultimately resulted her death and it is a dowry death.

32.Sec. 304B IPC relates to dowry death which is relevant in the facts and circumstances reads as follows: “304B. Dowry death.— (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

15

Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub­section,“dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”

For the purpose of the said Section, a presumption can be raised U/s 113­B of 

Evidence Act only on proof of the following essentials:

(a) Death of the woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances.

(b) Such death took place within seven years of her marriage.

(c) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.

(d) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry and

(e) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.

33.In the facts and circumstances as the evidence let in by the prosecution duly proved the ingredients that are required to invoke sec. 304­B IPC as a matter of right prosecution is entitled to take benefit of presumption u/s 113­B of Indian 

Evidence Act as admittedly death of deceased is unnatural within seven years of her marriage. Hence in the circumstances it is a fit case to invoke sec. 304­B IPC against A1 as prosecution duly made out against him for the said offence giving benefit of doubt to A2 and A3 parents of A1 as evidence let in by the prosecution in proof of their connivance with A1 in harassment of deceased leading to dowry death is doubtful and not inspiring confidence. The above legal authorities relied upon by the accused in support of defence of accused will not come to the rescue of accused in the facts and circumstances in the light of consistent and cogent evidence of PWs 1 to 5 as to the dowry harassment of deceased by A1 in the case on hand. 

34.In the result, A1 is found guilty for the offence u/s 304B IPC and convicted him u/s 235[2] Cr.P.C. A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 304B 

IPC and they are acquitted u/s 235[1] Cr.P.C.

16

35.On appearance of A1 to A3, judgment pronounced. As A1 is found guilty for the offence u/s 304­B IPC. he is examined u/s 235[2] Cr.P.C. with regard to quantum of sentence. A1 pleaded mercy of court pleading not guilty. He further represented that his old aged parents are living with him and he has to take care of them as his elder brother is staying in Bombay. Except himself there are none to lookafter his old parents. This is a case of dowry death. Deceased committed suicide by consuming poison within seven years of her marriage unable to bear harassment meted out to her by the accused herein with his illegal demands for 

additional dowry. In spite of several panchayats and his admonition by the elders 

during panchayats, accused did not change his attitude and ultimately it resulted death of deceased. Only son of accused herein and deceased is also living with his maternal grand parents. Absolutely no mitigating circumstances to take any lenient view towards accused herein. In the facts and circumstances Rigorous 

Imprisonment for a period of [10] years with fine of Rs.50,000/­ [Rs. Fifty thousand only] will meet ends of justice.

36.In the result, A1 who is found guilty for the offence u/s 304­B IPC is convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of [10] years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/­ [Rs. Fifty thousand only] under sec. 235[2] 

Cr.P.C. In default he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year. 

Fine amount if collected is ordered to be paid to PW1 Gaddam Papaiah as compensation u/s 357[1] Cr.P.C. for the welfare of minor son of deceased and accused herein, who is living with maternal grand parents on expiry of appeal time. MO1 shall be destroyed on expiry of appeal time. The remand period of the accused from from 15­10­2012 to 22­12­2012 [69 days] shall be set off from the substantive sentence u/s 428 Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Sr. Asst. [working on deputation to attend the work of 

Stenographer], transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12th day of August, 2015.

Spl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

17

Appendix of Evidence: [Witnesses examined for] Prosecution: PW1 Gaddam Papaiah. PW2 Gaddam Padmamma. PW3 Gaddam Pedda Chinnaiah. PW4 Padakanti Venkatesh. PW5 Potti Balachandri PW6 Potti Balachandraiah PW7 Chenigari Bheemaiah PW8 R. Pandu, Tahsildar. PW9 N. Pandaiah HC 767 of Kondurg PS PW10 SV Madhav Reddy, SDPO PW11 Dr. P. Vijay Bhasker. PW12 P. Karunkar, SDPO

Defence: None. Exhibits marked for Prosecution: Ex.P1 is complaint given by PW1. Ex.P2 is inquest panchanama. Ex.P3 is crime details form. Ex.P4 is First Information Report. Ex.P5 is postmortem report of deceased. Defence: Ex.D1 is contradiction elicited during course of PW1.

Material Objects marked: MO1 is plastic empty pesticide bottle. 

Spl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

(FTC), MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday, the 29 TH day of March, 2018

Present:- Sri P.Prabhakar,

Special Sessions Judge – cum - VII Addl., District Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC II Addl.District Judge (FTC),

A.S.No.67 of 2011

Between:-

1. Khaja Imthyajuddin, S/o Khaja Nayeemuddin, Age 58 years,

2. Khaja Muzafaruddin, S/o Khaja Nayeemuddin, Age 48 years

3. Tahalathunnisa, D/o Khaja Nayeemuddin, Age 45 years,

4. Israthunisa, D/o Khaja Nayeemuddin, Age 43 years,

5. Farahathunnisa, D/o Khaja Nayeemuddin, Age 40 years, No.1 to 5 are R/o Chowlpalli village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

6. Meer Gulam Murthuza Ahmed, S/o late Meer Gulam Ghouse, Age 70 years, R/o H.No.23-1-954/A/1, Moghalpura, Hyderabad.

7. Meer Gulam Mujithaba Ahmed, S/o late Meer Gulam Ghouse, Age 47 years, R/o 17-8-533/147/B, Gagh-e-Jahan Area, Dabeerpura Hyderabad.

8. Mohammad Begum, D/o late Mir Gulam Ghouse, age 50 years,

9. Ahamadi Begum, D/olate Mir Gulam Ghouse, Age 53 years,

10.Mohd. Barduddin, S/o Mir Mohinuddin, Age 50 years, R/o Nawabpet village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

11.Ahmedi Beghum, W/o Maqbool Ahmed, Age 35 years, R/o H.No.5-1, Jadhcerla village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

12.Raziya Begum, w/o Habeeb Ali, Age 45 Years, R/o Nawabpet village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

13.Rasheedunnies Begum, W/o Hasan Ali Khan, R/o H.No.9- 10-430/16/B, Mohella Gunj, Golkonda Fort, Hyderabad,

14.Mohd. Abdul Rahaman, S/o M.A. Sammad, Age 31 years, R/o Shop No.23-2-432/A, Rahman Jewellers, Op. New Akbar Function Hall, Moghalpura, Hyderabad.

15.Saleha Sultana, d/o M.A. Sameed, Age 38 years, R/o. Shop No.23-2-432/A, Rahaman Jewellers, OPP. New Akbar Function Hall, Moghalpura, Hyderabad.

16.Acquila Sultana, D/o M.A. Sameed, Age 35 years, R/o Shop No.23-2-432/A, Rahman Jewellers, Op. New Akbar Function Hall, Moghalpura, Hyderabad.

17.Nasreen Sultana, D/o M.A. Sameed, Age 33years, R/o Shop No.23-2-432/A, Rahman Jewellers, Op. New Akbar Function Hall, Moghalpura, Hyderabad … Appellants/Plaintiffs.

2

And

1. Khaja Gayasuddin s/o Late Khaja Ziauddin, Age 42 years,

2. Khaja Riyazuddin, Late Khaja Ziauddin, Age 32 years,

3. Khaja Arshaduddin, S/o Khaja Ziauddin, Age 29 years,

4. Sajeeda Asma, D/o late Khaja Ziauddin, Age 40 years, No.1 to 4 are R/o H.No.18-8-45/A/91, kummarawadi Colony, Jyothi Bagh, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad.

5. Khaja Moinuddin, S/o llate khaja Alimuddin, Age 50 years,

6. Khaja Mirajuddin, S/o late Khaja Alimuddin, Age 41 years,

7. Khaja Altafuddin, S/o late kKhaja Alimuddin, Age 45 years,

8. Khaja Shabuddin @ nayeem, S/o late Khaja Alimuddin, Age 25 years,

9. Rafeequnnisa Khusro, D/o late Khaja Alimuddin, Age 22 years

10.Mohsin Bee, D/o late khaja Alimuddin, Age 20 years, No.5 to 10 R/o Cholepally village, Farooqnagar Mandal. Mahabubnagar District.

11.Khaja Saleemuddin, S/o late Khaja Shahabuddin, Died L.Rs. R.14 to R.20 Added as I.A.143/12

12. Khaja Saleemuddin, S/o late Khaja Shahabuddin, Age 67 years, R/o H.No.20-5-192/1, Khajapue, Hyderabad.

13. Asifunnisa Begum, D/o late Khaja Shahabuddin, Age Major, R/o Cholepally village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

14. Khaja Najeemuddin, Age 44 years,

15.Khaja Waseemuddin, Age 34,

16.Khaja Nizamuddin, Age 32 years,

17. Khaja Javeeduddin, Age 30 years,

18.Khaja Mujaffarudddin, Age 29 years, R.14 to R.18 all are S/o of late kKhaja Saleemuddin, R/o H.No.18-3-294/A/2, Vattepalym Fathimanagar, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.

19. Shabana, W/o Maqdoom Gouri, Age 27 years, R/o Backside of Ganesh Theatre Shadnagar.

20.Irfana, W/o Wajid, Age 25 years, C/o Khaja Mehek, Yenmangandla village, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

… Respondents/Defendants

Sub:-Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 CPC against the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.295 of 2009 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar,Dt: 28-05-2011.

#####

O.S. NO.295 OF 2009

Between:-

1. Khaja Imthyajuddin and others … Plaintiffs

And

3

1. Khaja Gayasuddin and others … Defendants.

Sub:Suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to get Ac.09.08 gts of land out of Ac.24.17 gts being 6/15th share and for costs of the suit. ##### This appeal suit is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Anand Rao Advocate for the Appellants/Plaintiffs and Sri C.Rajeev Kumar Advocate for the Respondents/Defendant Nos.3, 5,6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 and Respondents/Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 13 to 20 remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the Decree and

Judgment dated 28-05-2011 passed in OS No.295/09 by the court of Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar dismissing the suit of plaintiffs filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to get

Ac.9.08 gts out of Ac.24.17 gts being 6/15th share in schedule lands (P1 to P5 - 2/15, P6 to P9 - 1/15, P10 to 12 1/15th, P13-1/15th and P14 to 17 - 1/15th share ), costs of the suit and all the other reliefs as the court deem fit and necessary.

2.Case of appellants/plaintiffs is as follows:

Schedule lands are Maktha inam lands. Late Khaja

Shahabuddin is original inamdar of schedule lands who got the same in partition with his other inamdars. On his demise his heirs got the land partitioned. Other inamdars are not concerned with schedule extent. Hence, they are not made parties to the suit.

Khaja Shahabuddin had two wives. Both are blessed with six sons and six daughters who are plaintiffs and defendants shown in the family pedegree. On abolition of inams plaintiffs and defendants 4 approached RDO, Mahabubngar to grant ORC. Without proper enquiry RDO, Mahabubnagar granted ORC to defendants vide file no.K/32/06. Aggrieved by the Orders of RDO, appeal was filed

before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar vide Appeal

No.F2/13/2007. After hearing appeal Joint Collector observed that as to what extents of lands entitled to the parties is to be determined by the civil court and the appeal was allowed with a direction to get Decree of entitlement of the plaintiffs in schedule lands vide his Order dated 21-04-2009. No dispute in between plaintiffs and defendants as to their relationship with late Khaja

Shahabuddin. MRO Balanagar submitted report to RDO that the plaintiffs and defendants are in possession of schedule lands and entitled to get ORC in respect of schedule lands. For want of civil court Decree as to entitlement of shares of parties grant of ORC in respect of schedule lands is held up before competent authority.

Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their entitlement to 6/15th share in schedule land. Hence, the suit.

3.Defendants remained exparte.

4.On behalf of plaintiffs PW.1 examined and Exs.A1 to A4 marked.

5.Considering the oral and documentary evidence let in the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs without costs.

6.Aggrieved against the said Decree and Judgment unsuccessful plaintiffs preferred this appeal with the following grounds:-

1) Decree and Judgment passed by trial court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

5

2) The trial court failed to appreciate that the suit for partition of inam lands is not maintainable till the regrant is made as required to under Secs 4 to 8 of AP (TA) Abolition of Inams Act. Hence, the finding of trial court that the plaintiffs have not filed for suit for partition is not correct.

3) The trial court failed to see Ex.A1 khasra pahani which is the record of rights in Telangana Area. The trial court also failed to see Ex.A2, Order wherein it is clearly mentioned that the Khaja Shahabuddin is one of the Inamdars having 1/3rd share in total inam land admeasuring Ac.24.17 gts of Chowlapally village of Farooqnagar Mandal.

4) The trial court failed to see that the plaintiffs are claiming the share in the lands left by late Khaja Shahabuddin under Muslim Law property left by deceased Muslim either the male or female will be called as Matruka of the deceased and thereby the finding of the trial court that in support of Ex.A1 no document is filed to believe that the schedule property is Matruka property is not correct.

5) The trial court ought to have seen that in para 1 of plaint, it is clearly mentioned that the schedule lands are Matruka inam land and late Khaja Shahabuddin is original inamdar and plaintiffs and defendants are his legal heirs and thereby filed the suit for declaration of their entitlement in schedule lands. Thus, the finding of the trial court that the suit for relief of declaration that they are entitled to get Ac.09.08 gts in schedule lands and the order passed under Ex.A2 relating to the share of female heirs under Muslim Law where as praying the plaintiff for declaration to get landed property. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove that an extent of Ac.24.17 gts was left over by the predecessor or the ancestral of petitioners and they are entitled for share in Matruaka property. No document is filed to believe that the schedule property is Matruka property is not correct.

6) The trial court failed to see that the finding given by the Joint Collector in Ex.A2 Order that the revenue court is not competent to decide and determine the shares of the properties. question of female share under the provisions of Muslim Personal Law is to be agitated in different forum but not in revenue court and in view of the finding the civil court has got jurisdiction under Sec.9 of CPC. Thus, the finding of the trial court if at all the plaintiffs herein aggrieved by the Order of Joint Collector under Ex.A2, they 6 have to prefer appeal in appropriate forum either filing revision or appeal is not correct.

7) The trial court misread the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court reported in 1993 (1) ALT 293 which is rendered under the provisions of AP (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956. Whereas the schedule property is governed by AP (TA) Abolition of Inams Act.

8) The trial court neither discussed the proposition relied upon or given any finding as to how the said decision is applicable to the facts of this case and failed to take note the provisions of AP (TA) Abolition of Inams Act. Thus, the trial court wrongly relied on a decision which is not relevant to the facts of the case.

9) The trial court failed to see that there is no dispute that the daughters under Muslim Law are also entitled share in property if it is Matruka property under Sec.10 of Law of Succession.

10)Thus, the finding of the trial court that the present suit is different and plaintiffs are claiming share in the properties but their claim is not relating to entitlement of the share in the Matruka property is not correct.

11)The trial court failed to appreciate that Revenue court has no jurisdiction to decide who is entitled for ORC under the provisions of AP (TA) Abolition of Inams Act. Therefore, the suit for declaration only is the remedy to the parties in pursuance of the Order of the Joint Collector. Thus, the dismisal of the suit is contrary to the provisions of CPC and AP (TA) Abolition of Inams Act.

12)The trial court failed to appreciate that the plaintiffs claimed only relief of declaration as to entitlement of their share in schedule land and it is not for grant of ORC. Therefore, the finding of the trial court that it is not the case of plaintiffs that they are protected tenants and it is not the claim of plaintiffs that the deceased Khaja Shahabuddin was having property and no document is filed to believe that the Khaja Shahabuddin is left that the property and thus the plaintiffs are not entitled share in it is not correct and same is liable to be set aside.

For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing appeal may be allowed setting aside the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial court.

7.Appellant and Respondents herein are hereafter referred as Plaintiffs and Defendants as per their ranking before the trial court to avoid confusion and for the sake of convenience.

7

8.Now, the points for consideration are:

1)Whether suit for declaration is maintainable ?

2)Whether the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial court is sustainable ?

9.Point No.1:- Plaintiffs/Appellants filed this suit for mere declaration that they being legal representatives of late

Khaja Shahabuddin are entitled for an extent of Ac.9.08 gts out of ac.24.17 gts towards their 6/15 th share in schedule lands covered by Sy.Nos.251, 255, 256 and 258 and for costs. It is the case of plaintiffs late Khaja Shahabuddin is inamdar of schedule extents.

He had two wives and through his first wife he had four sons and three daugthers, through his second wife he had two sons and three daughters. Plaintiffs and defendants are his grand children.

Plaintiff nos.1 to 5 together entitled to the schedule land classified as Inam land. On demise of Khaja Shahabuddin it was succeeded by his sons and daughters and after their demise it was succeeded by plaintiffs and defendants. Some of the defendants without the knowledge of plaintiff nos.1 to 13 none other than children of

Khaja Shahabuddin’s grand children through the daughters of

Shahabuddin through his first and second wife and grand children through one of his sons born through first wife approached the revenue authorities and obtained ORC in their favour depriving the plaintiffs their legitimate share exclusively for themselves on 16- 04-2007 on the file of RDO, Mahabubnagar vide file no.K/32/06 and

K/777/06. Questioning the said Order plaintiffs approached the

Joint Collector, in appeal vide case No.F2/13/07 which was allowed on 21-04-2009 setting aside the Order of RDO, Mahabubnagar 8

dated 16-04-2007 vide file No.K/32/06 and K/777/06 the learned

Joint Collector while allowing the appeal that the revenue court is not competent to decide and determine share of the schedule property. Question of female shares under the provisions of

Muslims Provisional Law is to be agitated in different forum before the appropriate authority and not in revenue court. In the light of the Order of Joint Collector, passed in the appeal vide case

No.F2/13/07 plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit for declaration as civil court alone has jurisdiction competent to determine the shares of parties.

10.Plaintiff nos.1 to 5 together are entitled for 2/15th share.

Plaintiff nos.6 to 9 together are entitled for 1/15th share, plaintiff nos.10 to 12 are also together entitled for 1/15th share, plaintiff no.13 is alone entitled by 1/15th share and plaintiff nos.14 to 17 together are entitled for 1/15th share in the schedule land along with the defendants. Thus, the suit land has to be divisioned into 15 equal shares out of which plaintiff nos.1 to 17 together entitled for 6/15th share.

11.Before the trial court the defendants did not file any counter opposing the claim of plaintiffs. The trial court on recording the evidence of one of the plaintiffs testified as Pw.1 and on perusal of Exs.A1 to A4 certified copies of khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, certified copies of Orders of Joint Collector 24/09 and plaint in OS No.43/04 filed on the file of JCJ Court, Shadnagar in respect of some other property and registered partition deed in between the LRs of Khaja Shahabuddin and their cosharers dated 26-05-2008 marked as Exs.A1 to A4 dismissed the suit of plaintiffs 9 negativing the claim of plaintiffs on the ground that they failed to prove that the schedule proeprty is Matruka property and civil suit is not maintainable in pursuance of the Orders of Joint Collector. It is further observed against the Orders of Joint Collector they have to prefer appeal in appropriate forum either by filing revision or appeal and further observed that there is no document to show

Khaja Shahabuddin left over the schedule property and they are in possession and enjoyment of schedule property, since the time of abolition of inams under Inams Abolition Act, 1955.

12.It is not in dispute that under Sec.3 of AP (TA) Abolition of Inams Act 1955 with effect from the date of vesting of inams shall be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in the state as a consequence of the abolition of inams, the pre-existing right, title and interest of the inamdar or any person in occupation of inam lands stood divested and vested in the State until regrant is made. The right to partition itself also has been lost by the statutory operation unless regrant is made. While for the abolition of inams and vesting of the same in the State the date to be reckoned is 01-11-1973.

13.In the facts and circumstances, it is manifest that no regrant is made by the authorities under the Inams Abolition Act., either in favour of Khaja Shahabuddin said to be original inamdar or his children. Plaintiffs and defendants are claiming themselves to be the grand children of late Khaja Shahabuddin. No details as to the nature of inam or death of late Khaja Shahabuddin original inamdar and his children. For the first time some of the defendants herein approached revenue authorities in the year 2006, more 10 than 40 years after the date fixed for determination of occupancy rights.

14.Plaintiffs circumventing the provisions of Sec.3 of the

Act under the guise of the Orders passed by the Joint Collector in the appeal preferred aginast the Orders of RDO granting ORC in favour of some of the defendants knocked the doors of civil court.

Admittedly, ORC granted by RDO in favour of defendants is not in force and it is canceleld in the appeal preferred before the Joint

Collector by the plaintiffs herein. Had they approached the civil court for determination of their shares basing on the ORCS granted in favour of some of the defendants herein none other than their co-sharers the civil court would have entertained the suit as there will be no bar in entertaining suit for partition after regrant.

15.Plaintiffs cleverly sought the relief of bare declaration as they have no right to seek partition without any consequential relief. It is well settled principle that suit for bare declaration is not maintainable.

16.As observed by the trial court except Ex.A1 khasra pahani of 1954-55 and self serving testimony of one of the plaintiffs testified as Pw.1 absolutely there is no evidence to show that the schedule land is in possession and enjoyment of Khaja

Shahabuddin and his lenial decedents on the notified dates referred above. Even, there is no iota of evidence to show that late

Khaja Shahabuddin said to be the inamdar whose name is recorded in the khasra pahani 1954-55 which is marked as Ex.A1 was their ancestor except Exs.A3 and A4 CCS of plaint in OS

NO.43/04 and a registered partition deed among themselves and 11 their other co-shares which are self serving. Plaintiffs even did not choose to file the Order of RDO basing on which ORC certificates were granted in favour of defendants which was ultimately set aside by the Joint Collector in appeal vide Ex.A2 determining their possessory rights.

17.Contention of the counsel for plaintiffs/appellants that the schedule property is to be treated as their Matruka properties on death of a Khaja Shahabuddin as it is an estate develoved on legal heirs and they are to be treated as tenants in common is not tenable as admittedly no regrant after the Inams Abolition Act came into force in favour of late Khaja Shahabuddin claimed to be the Inamdar or lenial decents under Sec.10 of the Inams Abolition

Act. It seems the revenue authoriteis to save their skin having and ranted ORC at the first instance in favour of some of the parties ultimately cancelled it directing the parties to approach the right forum on the pretext that they do not have right to determine the shares in between the lineal descents of male and female heirs under Mohammadan Law.

18.The trial court rightly on careful scrutiny of the plaint pleadings and oral and documentary evidence let in rightly dismsised the suit of plaintiffs. The suit itself for mere declaration is filed to circumvent the bar on them to file suit for partition without regrant. Suit is misconceived. In the aforesaid circumstances, it can be safely said that the suit itself is not at maintainableandthispointisansweredagainst appellants/plaintiffs.

12

19.Point No.2:- In view of answering point no.1 against the plaintiffs/appellants in the circumstances as the framing of very suit itself is misconceived and plaintiffs have no right to seek such relief of declaration without regrant the trial court rightly dismissed the suit of plaintiffs. As observed by trial court merely on the ground that the defendants remained exparte, the suit of plaintiffs cannot be automatically decreed. It is well settled principle that when the defendants remained exparte the court must be very cautious while adjudicating the matter and the court cannot blindly decree the suits which are not even maintainable. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial court.

In the result, appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.

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

open Court, this the 29th day of March, 2018.

VII-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE

MAHABUBNAGAR

FAC II Addl.District Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined) (Exhibits Marked) -Nil –

VII-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE

MAHABUBNAGAR

FAC II Addl.District Judge

(FTC),

Mahabubnagar.

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC),

MAHABUBNAGAR

13

Thursday, the 29 TH day of March, 2018

Present:- Sri P.Prabhakar,

Special Sessions Judge – cum - VII Addl., District Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC II Addl.District Judge (FTC),

A.S.No.67 of 2011

Between:-

18.Khaja Imthyajuddin, S/o Khaja Nayeemuddin, Age 58 years,

19.Khaja Muzafaruddin, S/o Khaja Nayeemuddin, Age 48 years

20.Tahalathunnisa, D/o Khaja Nayeemuddin, Age 45 years,

21.Israthunisa, D/o Khaja Nayeemuddin, Age 43 years,

22.Farahathunnisa, D/o Khaja Nayeemuddin, Age 40 years, No.1 to 5 are R/o Chowlpalli village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

23.Meer Gulam Murthuza Ahmed, S/o late Meer Gulam Ghouse, Age 70 years, R/o H.No.23-1-954/A/1, Moghalpura, Hyderabad.

24.Meer Gulam Mujithaba Ahmed, S/o late Meer Gulam Ghouse, Age 47 years, R/o 17-8-533/147/B, Gagh-e-Jahan Area, Dabeerpura Hyderabad.

25.Mohammad Begum, D/o late Mir Gulam Ghouse, age 50 years,

26.Ahamadi Begum, D/o late Mir Gulam Ghouse, Age 53 years,

27.Mohd. Barduddin, S/o Mir Mohinuddin, Age 50 years, R/o Nawabpet village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

28.Ahmedi Beghum, W/o Maqbool Ahmed, Age 55 years, R/o H.No.5-1, Jadhcerla village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

29.Raziya Begum, w/o Habeeb Ali, Age 45 Years, R/o Nawabpet village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

30.Rasheedunnies Begum, W/o Hasan Ali Khan, R/o H.No.9- 10-430/16/B, Mohella Gunj, Golkonda Fort, Hyderabad,

31.Mohd. Abdul Rahaman, S/o M.A. Sammad, Age 31 years, R/o Shop No.23-2-432/A, Rahman Jewellers, Opp. New Akbar Function Hall, Moghalpura, Hyderabad.

32.Saleha Sultana, D/o M.A. Sameed, Age 38 years, R/o. Shop No.23-2-432/A, Rahaman Jewellers, OPP. New Akbar Function Hall, Moghalpura, Hyderabad.

33.Acquila Sultana, D/o M.A. Sameed, Age 35 years, R/o Shop No.23-2-432/A, Rahman Jewellers, Opp. New Akbar Function Hall, Moghalpura, Hyderabad.

34.Nasreen Sultana, D/o M.A. Sameed, Age 33 years, R/o Shop No.23-2-432/A, Rahman Jewellers, Op. New Akbar Function Hall, Moghalpura, Hyderabad … Appellants/Plaintiffs.

And

14

21.Khaja Gayasuddin S/o Late Khaja Ziauddin, Age 42 years,

22.Khaja Riyazuddin, Late Khaja Ziauddin, Age 31 years,

23.Khaja Arshaduddin, S/o Khaja Ziauddin, Age 29 years,

24.Sajeeda Asma, D/o late Khaja Ziauddin, Age 40 years, No.1 to 4 are R/o H.No.18-8-45/A/91, kummarawadi Colony, Jyothi Bagh, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad.

25.Khaja Moinuddin, S/o late khaja Alimuddin, Age 50 years,

26.Khaja Mirajuddin, S/o late Khaja Alimuddin, Age 41 years,

27.Khaja Altafuddin, S/o late kKhaja Alimuddin, Age 45 years,

28.Khaja Shabuddin @ Nayeem, S/o late Khaja Alimuddin, Age 25 years,

29.Rafeequnnisa Khusro, D/o late Khaja Alimuddin, Age 22 years

30.Mohsin Bee, D/o late khaja Alimuddin, Age 20 years, No.5 to 10 R/o Cholepally village, Farooqnagar Mandal. Mahabubnagar District.

31.Khaja Saleemuddin, S/o late Khaja Shahabuddin, Died L.Rs. R.14 to R.20 Added as I.A.143/12

32. Khaja Saleemuddin, S/o late Khaja Shahabuddin, Age 67 years, R/o H.No.20-5-192/1, Khajapue, Hyderabad.

33. Asifunnisa Begum, D/o late Khaja Shahabuddin, Age Major, R/o Cholepally village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

34. Khaja Najeemuddin, Age 44 years,

35. Khaja Waseemuddin, Age 34,

36. Khaja Nizamuddin, Age 32 years,

37. Khaja Javeeduddin, Age 30 years,

38. Khaja Mujaffarudddin, Age 29 years, R.14 to R.18 all are S/o of late Khaja Saleemuddin, R/o H.No.18-3-294/A/2, Vattepaly, Fathimanagar, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.

39. Shabana, W/o Maqdoom Gouri, Age 27 years, R/o Backside of Ganesh Theatre Shadnagar.

40. Irfana, W/o Wajid, Age 25 years, C/o Khaja Mehek, Yenmangandla village, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

… Respondents/Defendants.

Sub:-Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 CPC against the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.295 of 2009 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar,Dt: 28- 05-2011.

O.S.295 of 2009

Between:- Khaja Imthyajuddin and others … Plaintiffs.

15

And

Khaja Gayasuddin and others … Defendants.

Sub:-Suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to get Ac.09.08 gts of land out of Ac.24.17 gts being 6/15th share and for costs of the suit.

Valuation in Appeal: Appeal is valued as in the Lower Court at Rs.1,10,000/- on which a Court fee of Rs.3,526/- is paid U/s 24 (d) r/w 49 of AP C.F. and S.V. Act.

#####

This appeal suit is coming on before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri K.Anand Rao Advocate for the Appellants/Plaintiffs and Sri C.Rajeev Kumar Advocate for the Respondents/Defendant Nos.3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 and Respondents/Defendants Nos.1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 13 to 20 remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration, this COURT DOTH OODER AND DECREE:-

1. That the Appeal of the Appellants be and is hereby dismissed confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Prl.

Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar in O.S.No.295 of 2009

dated 28-05-2011.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 29th day of March, 2018.

Spl. Sessions Judge-Cum-VII ADJ., FAC II Addl. District Judge, (FTC) Mahabubnagar.

SCHEDULE OF COSTS

Sl.NoParticulars of CostsFor For Respondents/ .Appellants / Defendants Plaintiffs

1.Stamp on AppealRs. 3,526-00-

2.Stamp on vakalathRs. 2-00Rs.4-00

3.Stamp on processRs. - -

4.Stamp on documentsRs. --

5.Stamp on petitionRs. ---

6.Advocate fee ( not (Costs memo (Costs memo not certified)not filed)filed) 16

TotalRs. 3,528=00Rs.4=00

Spl. Sessions Judge-Cum-VII ADJ., FAC II Addl. District Judge, (FTC) Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ,

MAHABUBNAGAR

Wednesday, the 4th day of April , 2018

Present:- Sri P.Prabhakar,

Special Sessions Judge – cum - VII Addl., District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

A.S.No.11 of 2016

Between:- Myakala Venkataiah s/o Ramchandraiah, Age:54 years, Occupation:Agriculture R/o Dayapanthulapally H/o Yenmangandla village, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. … Appellant/Plaintiff

And

1] Chenchu Chandraiah s/o Ramaiah, Age:36 years, 2] Chenchu Yellaiah s/o Rajanna, Age:53 years, 3] Chenchu Ramaiah s/o Yellaiah, Age:58 years, 4] Masamma w/o Chinna Ramaiah, Age:53 years, 5] Yellamma w/o Ramaiah, Age:53 years, 6] Pokala Veeraiah s/o Laxmaiah, Age:68 years, 7] Pokala Krishnaiah s/o Laxmaiah, Age:64 years, 8] Pokala Lingamaiah s/o Laxmaiah, Age:60 years, All Occupation:Agriculture R/o Kondapur village, Nawabpet Mandal,, Mahabubnagar District.

… Respondents/Defendants

Sub:-Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 CPC against the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.144 of 2008 on the file of I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar Dt: 04-03-2016. ##### Between: Myakala Venkataiah … Plaintiff

And

1] Chenchu Chandraiah 2] Chenchu Yellaiah 3] Chenchu Ramaiah 4] Masamma 5] Yellamma 6] Pokala Veeraiah 7] Pokala Krishnaiah 8] Pokala Lingamaiah … Defendants

Sub:Suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them, their family members, agents, servants and supporters etc., from interfering with the 2 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land bearing Sy.No.2/C extent Ac.03.30 gts, dry covered with “Anjura” Fruit garden with bore-well located at Kondapur village as shown in Red colour of the plaint sketch. ##### This appeal suit is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Advocate for the Appellant/Plaintiff and Sri C.Rajendra Kumar Advocate for the Respondents/Defendants and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:-

-:: JUDGMENT ::-

This appeal arises against Decree and Judgment passed by the court of I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar

dated 04-03-2016 in OS No.144 of 2008 dismissing the suit filed by

the plaintiff/appellant herein for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule land covered by Sy.No.2/C admeasuring Ac.3.30 gts with Anjura Fruit garden and bore well situated at Kondapur village shown in the red colour of plain sketch.

2.Case of plaintiff/appellant is as follows:-

He is absolute owner and possessor of the schedule land. Defendant nos.1 to 8/respondents are utter strangers and nothing to do with the schedule land. Plaintiff purchased the schedule land originally covered by Sy.No.2 in the year 1987 from its original owner Yerrolla Lachamma w/o Ram Reddy under registered sale deed vide document no.859/87 dated 01-04-1987 presently shown as Sy.No.2/C in revenue records. Since the date of purchase plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His name was also entered in revenue records as pattadar and possessor. He dug borewell and developed the suit land. He also mortgaged the schedule land with SBH, Nawabpet and availed loan for Horticulture and raised “Anjura” garden in it.

Anjura garden raised by him is ripened and ready for yielding. He spent huge amounts for development of suit land.

3

3.Defendants who are strangers developed eyesore against plaintiff and in furtherance of their evil desire started illegally interfering with possession and enjoyment of schedule land and made the hectic efforts to dispossession. On the intervening night of 13/14-06-2008 defendants with a view to cause loss to plaintiff trespassed into suit land and damaged

Anjura plants and drip irrigation pipe line. He being physically handicapped person unable to resist the high handedness of defendants lodged a complaint with police against them and it is registered as case in Crime NO.75/2008 for the offences under

Secs 447,427 r/w 34 IPC. Defendants have muscle power and taking undue advantage of the same high handedly trying to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in respect of schedule land. Plaintiff is law abiding citizen and handicapped. He is not in a position to resist the high handedness of defendants. In the circumstances, having no other go he is constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction.

4.Case of defendant no.1 is schedule Sy.No.2/C admeasuring Ac.7.28gts belonging to Laxmamma w/o Rami Rami

Reddy. Her name is also recorded as owner in revenue records for the years 1986-87. Out of Ac.7.28 gts Government acquired

Ac.3.25 gts from pattadar in ceiling proceedings as such the said extent is recorded is Khariz Khata in revenue records in the pahani of 1987-88. As father of defendant nos.1 and 2 belong to schedule caste thereby government the land allotted to them and another person namely

Chowdapuram Hanmaiah on 14-08-1986 and provisional allotment certificate was issued vide File No.B/2412/85 as under:-

Sl. Sy.No. & Extent Allotee Name

No.

1.Sy.No.2 dry Ac.01.25Chenchu Pedda Ramaiah s/o Yellaiah gts

2.Sy.No.2,dryChenchu Rajaiah s/o Chenchu Naaiah Ac.01.00gts

3.Sy.No.2,dryChowdapuram Hanmaiah s/o Harijan Sayanna Ac.01.00gts 4

5.After allotment of the land and granting certificates to the above persons they were also put in possession of the extents assigned in the presence of villagers namely P.Narsimhulu s/o

Ramulu, K.Bala Kistaiah s/o Bheemaiah, D.Chenna Kistaiah s/o

Sayanna, D.Sayanna s/o Bala Kistaiah and K.Papaiah s/o

Chennaiah by Mandal Revenue Inspector, Nawabpet Mandal and prepared panchanama. Since, the date of delivery of possession respective assignees are in possession and enjoyment of the land till their death and after their demise their legal heirs are cultivating the same.

6.Chenchu Pedda Ramaiah father of defendant no.1 died leaving behind him his two sons namely Chenchu Chandraiah and

Chenchu Ramulu and they are cultivating the lands by partitioning the same. Revenue authorities also issued Pattadar pass Books affecting mutation in ROR. Chenchu Rajaiah died and on his demise the land is mutated in the name of his wife Chenchu

Papamma. She also died and the land allotted to them is being cultivated by his son defendant no.2. Third party Chowdapuram

Hanmaiah died and at present his son Chennaiah is cultivating the said extent. Defendant nos.1 and 2 belong to scheduled tribe and plaintiff belongs to backward class. Plaintiff served as Sarpanch of

Nawabpet village for a period of five years with political clout and muscle support. He always tried to harass poor persons. To harass the defendants who are poor and illiterate he filed the present suit. Plaintiff is never in possession of the schedule extent but the plaintiff vehemently tried to dispossess the defendants from schedule land and he was resisted in doing so.

7.They also submitted requisition to the District Collector in the month of February, 2008 for justice and production from the harassment of plaintiff. Tahsildar also visited the lands and directed the parties to maintain statusquo until further orders directing them to appear before him on 22-02-2008 for settlement of disputes. Plaintiff did not appear before him. Dispute is not settled before Tahsildar. Defendant nos.1 and 2 and his family members are continuing schedule land. In the month of July, 2007 5 plaintiff again tried to obstruct them from cultivating the schedule land. Once again on application made to District Collector,

Tahsildar, Nawabpet inspected the lands and submitted report preparing panchanama confirming the possession of defendant nos.1,2 and their family members.

8.Plaintiff is in possession the land covered by Sy.No.170 which is on South West corner of the land of defendant nos.1 and 2 and on Southern side of the land defendant nos.6 to 8 as shown in the sketch map annexed to the written statement plaintiff unsuccessfully trying to occupy the lands in possession of defendant nos.1,2 and sketch map annexed to it to his land covered by Sy.No.170 under the guise of the present suit plaintiff is making hectic efforts to encroach their land. Plaintiffs high handedness was questioned by adjoin lands owners also. Purely on that ground they are made parties to the suit. Plaintiff has no cause of action. Plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands and he is not entitled for possession and enjoyment of schedule land either on the date of filing of suit or earlier there to. Name of defendant no.3’s husband is also wrongly mentioned as Chinna

Ramaiah instead of Chinnaiah. In the circumstances, plaintiff is not entitled for equitable relief of injunction and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

9.Defendant nos.2 to 8 filed memo adopting written statement of defendant no.1.

10.On the above pleadings the following issues are framed for trial:-

1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for

2)To what relief ?

11.Before the trial court on behalf plaintiff PWs.1 to 3 examined and Exs.A1 to A32 marked. On behalf of defendants,

DWs.1 to 3 examined and Exs.B1 to B16 marked. On behalf of 6 defendant no.2 no oral evidence is let in and no documents marked.

12.On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence let in by both parties the trial court dismissed the suit of plaintiff with costs.

13.Having aggrieved against the said Decree and

Judgment unsuccessful plaintiff preferred this appeal with the following grounds:-

1)Decree and Judgment passed by the trial court is neither just nor proper either in law or on facts and hence he same is liable to be set aside.

2)The trial court erred in its finding and erred in coming to conclusion on presumptions and assumptions ignoring the factual and legal aspects.

3)The trial court has given undue credence to oral and documentary evidence as well as pleadings of defendants/respondents discarding the claim of plaintiff/appellant..

4)The trial court failed to see that the original pattadar Smt.Yerra Laxmamma @ Lachamma filed ceiling declaration in file No.CCNo.M/2412/75 and she was found in excess of ceiling area of 0.0649 and she surrendered an extent of Ac.3.25 cents in suit Sy.No.2 towards surplus holding and it was also accepted by the Land Reforms Tribunal by its Order dated 07-02-1985 vide Ex.A25.

5)The trial court failed to see that the surrender land was assigned to the assignees by the Government and it is on North Western portion of Sy.No.2 leaving the suit Western side portion to the land holder which was purchased by the appellant/plaintiff. Ex.A24 is showing the land assignee to the assignees. Thus, the trial court failed to appreciate Exs.A24 and A25 in proper perspective.

6)The trial court also failed to verify Ex.A26 wherein it is mentioned that the respondents/defendants are not accepted the survey of suit land and refused to continue their possession in the land assigned by the Government. It is specifically mentioned in Ex.A26 and that itself is sufficient to say that the respondents/defendants went up to cause of illegal interference to the peaceful 7 possession and enjoyment of petitioners/plaintiffs over suit lands as shown in the sketch appended to the plaint.

7)The trial court failed to notice that the appellant/plaintiff also made in efforts to summon RDO Mahabubnagar along with ceiling file possession as to the assigned land in IA No.67/14 but the same was negatived by the trial court with an observation and in the light of Exs.A24 to A27 no need to summon the RDO.

8)The trial court failed to see that the boundary shown in Ex.A1 as well as boundaries schedule in the plaint are one and the same and there is no discrepancy about it.

9)The trial court failed to puruse Ex.A25 wherein the land surrendered to Government o located on North Eastern side of Sy.No.2 leaving the South Western side to the Pattadar. Thus, the finding of the trial court that the Government acquired Northern of half of Sy.No.2 is not sustainable.

10)The trial court failed to see that no boundaries giveninExs.B1toB3filedby defendants/respondents. It also failed to see that Ex.B7 is not an authenticated document.

11)The trial court failed to consider Ex.B6 which reveal that the defendants never cultivated assigned land and they left the village long back and the assignee land was also occupied by appellant/plaintiff. Respondents/Defendants have no right to use force and they cannot be permitted to threaten appellant/plaintiff by using their caste They have to seek recovery of possession of their assigned land from the appellant whose possession is also confirmed by Ex.B8.

12)The trial court failed to see that there was not any sketch prepared by Surveyor showing the sub division numbers which is mentioned only for convenience and no discrepancy in the oral and documentary evidence let in on behalf of plaintiff/ appellant and the Judgment of trial court is not sustainable.

For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing appeal may be allowed setting aside the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial court and to Decree the suit of the plaintiff as prayed.

8

14.Parties to the appeal are hereafter referred as plaintiff and defendants as per their ranking before the trial court to avoid confusion and for the sake of convenience.

15.Now, the points for consideration are:

1)Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of schedule lands as on the date of filing of suit ?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

3)Whether the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial court is sustainable ?

16.Point No.1:- It is the case of plaintiff/appellant that he purchased the schedule land of Ac.3.30 gts originally in Sy.No.2 presently in Sy.No.2/C under a registered Sale Deed dated 01-04- 1987 from its owner Smt.Yerra Laxmamma @ Lachamma w/o Ram

Reddy. On the same day he was also put in possession of the same thus since the time of execution of registered sale deed he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said extent. It is his further case that the defendants who are nothing to do with the schedule extent having their land on Eastern side of the plaint schedule developed an eyesore and vehemently trying to occupy the schedule land by dispossessing him in one way or other. He being physically handicapped person is not in a position to resist their high handedness.

17.It is the case of defendants/respondents totally extent of suit Sy.No.2 is Ac.7.28 gts and it belonged to Laxmamma vendor of plaintiff/appellant. Out of the said extent Government acquired Ac.3.25 gts on its surrender by her in ceiling proceedings and it was assigned to Chenchu Pedda Ramaiah, Chenchu Rajaiah and Chowdapuram Hanmaiah in three plots admeasuring Ac.1.25,

Ac.1.00 gts and Ac.1.00 gts respectively as they belong to scheduled caste community.

18.On 14-08-1986 by MRO, Nawabpet and also issued provisional allotment certificates in file No.B/2412/85. Since the 9 time of allotment the original beneficiaries are in possession of it till their demise and at present extent of Chenchu Pedda Ramaiah is being enjoyed by his sons Chandraiah 1st defendant and

Chenchu Ramulaiah by partitioning the same. Extent of Chenchu

Rajaiah is also being enjoyed by his son Chenchu Yellaiah 2nd defendant. Recognizing their possession and enjoyment, ROR proceedings are also affected and Pattadar Pass Books are issued in their favour. Land assigned to Hanmaiah is being enjoyed by his son Chennaiah who is not party to the suit.

18.Their further case is the extent that was assigned to the above three beneficiaries is Western side portion. Toombs of their ancestors are also placed in their extent. Plaintiff is having land in

Sy.No.170 on South Western side of the land assigned to their ancestors and in order to annex the extents assigned to them with an ulterior motive he filed the present suit. They further pleaded in their temporary absence on their migration about 4 years ago for livelihood he encroached their extents. Having learnt the same they made application to the revenue authorities they got surveyed the land and they are put in possession of their extents. It is absolutely, false to say that the land of defendants is towards Eastern side of the suit land. Under the guise of the present suit plaintiff/appellant is trying to occupy their extent using his political clout being Sarpanch with his muscle force.

19.In the aforesaid circumstances it is for the plaintiff to prove his exclusive possession and enjoyment of the schedule extent and the correctness of the boundaries given in the plaint schedule. In order to prove the same plaintiff got examined himself as Pw.1 and mainly relied on Ex.A1 certified copy of his registered sale deed dated 01-04-1987. Boundaries mentioned in his sale deed to the extent of Ac.3.30 gts purchased by him are:-

East: Remaining extent of Sy.No.2, West:- Land of P.Eranna i.e.,

Land covered by Sy.No.4 and South: Cart track.

20.He also filed a panchanama dated 28-02-2008 apart from the pahanies and ROR marked as Ex.A21. As per Ex.A21 10 panchanama on 28-02-2008 Additional Revenue Inspector

Nawabpet on application made by plaintiff surveyed the land and as per the survey the land covered by Ex.A1 within the boundaries mentioned therein is being enjoyed by plaintiff by raising Anjura garden. He also filed the bank statement in proof of the loan availed on hypothecation of the land covered by Ex.A1 and it is marked as Ex.A22. He also filed true copy of extract of panchanama dated 03-06-1987 prepared at the time of assigning the land to the ancestors of defendant no.1, defendant no.2 and one Hanmanthu in three plots admeasuring Ac.3.25 gts to which a sketch is also enclosed showing the land acquired by the

Government on its surrender obviously in land ceiling proceedings by plaintiff’s vendor namely Lachamma w/o Ramreddy and it is marked as Ex.A24. As per the sketch annexed to Ex.A24 and panchanama the extent surrendered by plaintiff’s vendor is on

Northern side. Sketch is prepared in the month of January, 1987 five months prior to the date of panchanama Ex.A24.

21.Thus, in the aforesaid circumstances, it is patent the original land owner Lachamma surrendered Ac.3.25 gts to the

Government and it was assigned by the Government to the ancestors of defendant nos.1,2 and another. Defendants also filed their provisional assignment orders to substantiate the assignment marked Exs.B1 to B3. Unfortunately no sketch is annexed to

Exs.B1 to B3. Defendants also filed a panchanama dated 3-6-1987 which is the replica of Ex.A24 and it is also marked as Ex.B4. Thus, it is manifest from Ex.A24/Ex.B4 that the land acquired by the

Government from the plaintiffs vendor was assigned by the

Government to the extents of defendant nos.1,2 and another and they were also put in possession of the same. As per the sketch annexed to Ex.B24 but prepared in the month of January 1987 probably at the time of taking possession of land from the plaintiff’s vendor that the extent that was taken by the

Government and assigned to the ancestors of defendant nos.1, 2 and another is Northern part of the Sy.No.2 but in the Eastern part or Western part as claimed by both parties. It can also be safely said that the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1 sale deed of plaintiff 11 which came into existence in the month of April, 1987 three months after the surrender and with the boundaries mentioned in

Ex.A1 sale deed are not correlating with the sketch dated 25-01- 1987. In the plaint there is no whisper about acquisition of land initiated by the Government from his vendor in suit Sy.No and its assignment in favour of the ancestors of defendant nos.1,2 and others. Simply it is mentioned in the plaint that the defendants have land on Eastern side of the plaint schedule plaintiff filed the present suit in the month of July, 2008 on 21-07-2008. Pending suit once again survey was conducted. As per the survey the assignment land of Ac.3.25 gts was occupied by plaintiff and on demand made by the beneficiaries i.e., defendants they were shown the other extents. The said report is marked as Ex.B6.

22.On that day statements of Yerrolla Chandrashekar

Reddy and Yerrolla Raghavendar Reddy were also recorded. As per those statements beneficiaries enjoyed the land assigned for 17/18 years and afterwards they migrated to other places for their livelihood. A sketch is also prepared the showing land assigned to the ancestors of the defendants shown as “A”, whereas the land purchased by plaintiff under Ex.A1 is shown as “B” schedule. Their statements further revealed as plaintiff had shown the land and refused to vacate their extent occupied by him in their absence they dispossessed him and in the year 2008-09 and raised blackgram and other crops.

23.A report was also submitted by the then Tahsildar,

Nawabpet to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar basing on the statements and the panchanama marked as Ex.B6 confirming dispossession of plaintiff by the defendants being beneficiaries under assignment and about filing the present suit by the plaintiff seeking necessary instructions. As per sketch annexed to Ex.B6 marked as Ex.B7 the land assigned to the ancestors of the defendants is on Western side. Whereas the land purchased by plaintiff under Ex.A1 is on Eastern side.

12

24.Oral evidence of Pws.1 to 3 also duly substantiated the contents of the above referred documents. It is a fact plaintiff got some more land in Sy.No.170 on Western side of the land to the ancestors of defendants but as per the sketch it is in the name of

Porla Kistaiah s/o Laxmaiah strengthening the contention of the plaintiff did not denied his right over the land covered by

Sy.No.117 giving strength to the contention of the defendants that in order to annex the land assigned to the defendants he occupied it, taking advantage of defendants absence in the village in view of their migration to other places for livelihood.

25.It also creates doubt on his bonafidies in getting the

Ex.A1 sale deed with incorrect boundaries showing the Eastern boundary as the land acquired by the Government ultimately assigned to the ancestors of the defendants. Admittedly, the defendants belong to Chenchu community and schedule tribes.

Evidence spoken by defendants and the documents exhibited by them duly substantiated the encroachment of their land by plaintiff in their absence taking undue advantage of their innocence. The oral and documentary evidence let in on behalf of both parties further substantiated that the plaintiff was out of possession of the schedule extent and under the guise of the present suit he intend to take back the land of defendants as he was dispossessed by them. None of the documents filed by the plaintiff revealed existence of Anjura garden in the plaint schedule extent. Plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands suppressing the true facts which are very much within his knowledge. He is not in a possession and enjoyment of the schedule extent as on the date of the filing of the suit which was filed on 21-07-2008. Boundaries given in Ex.A1 sale deed are not correlating with the boundaries available on the spot. Ex.B1 boundaries are incorrect. If at all boundaries are incorrectly mentioned by oversight as contended by the plaintiff he ought to have taken remedial measures by getting rectification deed from his vendor. Defendants or their ancestors are not signatories to

Ex.A1 sale deed. Recitals of Ex.A1 sale deed are not binding on 13 them. Hence, in the circumstances, this issue is answered in favour of defendants/respondents and against plaintiff/appellant.

26.Point No.2:- In view of answering in issue no.1 against plaintiff and discussion while answering point no.1, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff/appellant was not in legal possession of plaint schedule extent till his dispossession by the defendants/respondents who are tribals. It is also manifest just

before filing of the suit he was also disposed of by the defendants

and as on the date of filing of the suit he was not in a possession of schedule extent. He approached the court with unclean hands suppressing true facts. Relief of injunction sought by him under specific relief act is equitable one. It is well settled principle that a person who seeks equitable relief must come to the court with clean hands. In the circumstances it is apparently clear that the plaintiff with an ulterior motive knowing fully well suppressed the acquisition proceedings of the Government in respect of the suit

Sy.No from his vendor Lachamma in the year 1987 and its assignment by the Government to the ancestors of defendants and another. Thus, in the circumstances as plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands he cannot get the relief of permanent injunction that too against defendants who are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same being beneficiaries under Exs.B1 to B3. Hence, this issue is also answered in favour of defendants/respondents and against plaintiff/appellant.

27.Point No.3:- The trial court rightly scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence let in by both parties and dismissed the suit of plaintiff. All the grounds that are urged by the plaintiff/ appellant herein are duly considered and rightly negatived. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court feels no necessity to interfere any of the observations and findings given by the trial court and absolutely no grounds to disturb the Judgment of trial court.

In the result, appeal is dismissed with costs confirming dismissal of the suit by the trial court vide its Judgment

OS No.144 of 2008 dated 04-03-2016.

14

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

open Court, this the 4th day of April, 2018.

VII-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE

MAHABUBNAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined) (Exhibits Marked) -Nil –

VII-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE

MAHABUBNAGAR

--4 I.. ' ',:JC

o5 9n r

c:. :. 11'

zn

)> 2>,

S TRIBUNAL

~ r- t , IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMR FAC IV ADJ

I

VII ADDL., DISTRICT JUDGE, AT MAHABUBNAGA

AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Tu esday, th e 1··1 cl ay of DecemlJe r, 2015 .

Present: - Sri.P.Prabhakar,

Spl s~s~io 11 s Juclgc-cu111 - . VII Acld l. DisLri cl and Sess ion s Judg e , Ma l1 abub11 aga 1·. FAC IV Add i.Dist .Judge (FTC) Mahabubnagar.

O.P.No.579 of 2010

Between : Ramulu s/o Rajappa, Age: 35 yea ,·s, Occupation:Coolie R/o Appampally village, Dhanwada Manda!, Mal1a bub 11 aga 1· District.

... Petitioner

And

l ] S.Vijay Kumar s/o S.Na1·aya 11 a, Age: Major, H. No.8 -3-18/A, Mettugadda, Mal,a bubnaga ,-.

2] The Manage,- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Sai Teja Complex, Raichur Road, Mahabubnagar . .. . Respondents

Sub :- Claim Petition fil ed U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act & MV Rules, for compensation of Rs. l, 50,000/- for the i 11j u ries su staine d by petitioner in a motor vehicle accident.

#####

This Original Petition coming up before me for final hearing on : 7-11-20 15 in the presence of Sri Mallika,·jun and Sri K.Ga uri Shan kar Swad esh Advocate for Petitioner· and Sri Advoca tes for the Respondent No.2 and the Respondent No. l re m ained ex parte a11d -: , -:- u pon pe rusing the material on reco rcl , and havin g fi11ally stood over f e r cons ideration till this day, tl, e court delivered th e follo wi ng :

0 R_Q_ E R

Tl1i s is an app li cation fil ed U/Sec 166 of M.V. Act r/w 47 5 of MV ·7<_;:1lc-~ claim ing an a in ou nt o f Rs. 1, SO ,000/- as con1 pens a ti on for t he · inj uri es sustai ned by petilio11er in m ot·or acc ident with in te res t @ 1 8 % per a , rn u m r ro rn t I 1 e cl a t e of a cc i cl e, 1 t ti 11 ,-ea I i z a ti O 17 c Ost 5 0 f th e peti tio n a nd all otl, e,· reli e fs as tl, c CO Lll't clee m fit a ncl necessa ry .

Ca se of Pet it ion er is as fo ll ows:

2.

rl ID C u 0 cc l.f) 0. >, l.f) <+-ID (lJ '-0.

r along with two more Per tsF

. . -,-. pet1t1one

15-12-2010

On

were engaged for coolie work in th~ narnely Raju and Ashireddy hennas feed at Shadnagar. . th Eicher van for loading and unloading e d •n the same van to their After unloading the feed they returne I d I On the way at about 05.00 vi llage Appampally of Dl1anwada Man a . d · er at high speed in ord e r . . p.ffi the driver of said van driven by its riv to avert the head of sheep which came on the road applied sudd en brakes, and unable to control the same he hit to a lorry bearing no.AET/939 which came in opposite direction . Petitioner and oth ers- sitting in the cabin sustained injuries. Immediately they were shifted to local Governn1ent hospital and from there to NIMS hospital,

Hyderabad in 108 Ambulance for treatment. Accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver. On a complaint given by the driver of lorry Devarkadra P.S registered a case in Crime No.5/2010, U/Sec 337 IPC and took up investigation .

Prior· to the accident petitioner was hale and healthy. He 3 . is skilled labour and used to attend the agricultural operation s in his leisure time . Petitioner· became permanently disabled as he sustained grievous injuries . Since, tl1e time of accident petitioner is not in a position to attencl any wor·k. Petitioner was treate d as inpatient in

,,.. -.

- NIMS l1ospital, Hyderabad for a period of one week ancl from there again he was ta ken to p1·ivate l1ospital for better treatm ent. Still he is unde1·g oing tr·eatment. He spen t huge amount for t rea tment. He suffe red lot of mer,tal pain and agony. Loss sustained by petiti on er cannot be compe nsated in terms of money . However, in the ci ,-cum stan ces on al l co un ts petitioner is advised to claim an amou 11t -0

(\) i~,

~ ~, ~,

rt :::r (\) of Rs.1,5 0 000/- , as compensution. Respond ent· no. l bein g owner and respondent 110 .2 beinci its insure, c1re jointly and severally li abl e to

Pa Y c I a i rn o I t 1, 0 t · t · , pc 1 1oncr. Rcs poncl <:nt no. l l)c ing ow ner 0 f t 11 e v eh I c I e i" v 1 - a , , 1 1 -'--ou~ Y 1<1ble tor the wron gtul ac ts of its cl riv er eng a c1 e ::i 0 " c, im e v ehicle as t he acc icle 11t took pl ace clue to Lhc rash and negl1ge11t drivi ng of ci-ime vehicle by him . Hence, petition .

Res po nde 11t no. l remained exparte. Respondent no.2 ril ed counter denyi ng the averments made in petition. Averments in b ri ef are : Petitioner is put to strict proof of the accident. and also the ma 11 ner in whic h the accident took place besides rash and negligence atuibuted to d river of crime vehicle . Petitioner is also put to strict proof th at the owner of vehicle has not viol ated any of the terms and co1,di t ion s of policy issued on crime vehicle and the provisions of M .V r\ct and Rules. Alleged accident took place due to the negligence on the part of d riv er of lorry bearing no .AET/939 . As the driver of said veh icle had no valid licence and it was not insured , crime vehicle is p lante d. No negligence on the part of driver of Eicher van. Crime vehicle is not road worthy . It has no valid road permit and fitnes s cerufica te. Claim of petitioner is highly excessive. Re spondent no. l violated th e prov ision s of Sec. 134 and 158(6) of M.V Act which are m and ato ry . Petitione r· l1as not sustained any pe,·m anent disability . He cJ id not sr en cl hu ~ie a mounts. Melli ca I ,·ecorcls a re m anipulated

Petitione r ,s u11autl1ori zed passenge r in th e u im e v el1icle. Being una ulh ori zc cJ pcisse ngr>r l1c is 11 0 1 c 11till ecl fm co mpensatio 11. Petitio n is also bacl for no 11 -jn ind e1· of necessa ry pa,·t ies. As 1·esponde11t 1, 0 . l (!J ~ VI VI 00

v 10 I ated the te rrns a nrl conditions of po Ii c Y and he is not I ia b~

indemnify respondent no. l anci prayed for dismissal of petition 09ciinst him .

5. On above pleadings the following issues are framed .

\\ Whether the accident dated 15-01-2010 at about 05.00 p.n, in the village lirnits of Chowderp al ly , occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Eicl1er Van bea ring No.AP .2 2 X/2419 and whether the petitioner su sta ined injuries in the said accident 7

2) Whether the accident was occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of driver of lo rry bearing No .AET/939 as contended by R-2 com pa ny ?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation if so 7 what amount and from whom 7

4) To what reli ef 7 6 . On behalf of Petitioner P\.1\/.1 examined and Exs.Al to Al2 m arked. On behalf of respondent no.2 no oral evidence is let in and ·-. no documents marked.

7. PW . l is peti ti oner. Ex. Al is C.C of ch arge sheet. Ex.A2 is

C.C -d'f FIR . Ex.A3 is Crime Details Forrn . Ex. A4 is C.C of Wound

Ce rti fi ca te. Ex.AS is MRI films . Ex. A6 is X-ray filrr1s. Ex. A7 is MRI scan ning report . Ex. AB is case sumrnary of sresth a l1ospital. Ex.A9 is ca se summ ary of susritl1 a hospital. Ex .AlO is ultra sound scan ning repo rt. Ex.All is bun ch of bill s. Ex. Al 2 is copy of policy issued on crim e veh icle.

) ) 1" r1" 0 ::)

In ord er to prove tl1e injuries lssu __ e Nos . l nJicl 2 : t · d b · · · . · nt of crime sus a me Y the pet1t1oner in th e road acc ident, 1nvo veme 1 V "' ' . I d . . e , ic e ai, rash and neg ligence attributed to t 1e I d .· er of crim e , ,v vehicle Eicher· Van bea ring No.AP .22X/2419. Petitioner got exam ined l,i mself as PW .1 by fi ling chief examination affid avit and reli ed on

Exs .Al to A4 ce r·tifi ed copies of crime records such as ch arg e sheet.

FIR . Cri me Details Forn, and wound certificate. Evidence spoken by

PW . l rei terating the averments made in petition duly correlated with the contents of Exs.Al to A4 . Thus , the evidence let in by petitioner duly prnved that he sustained injuries while he was returning in the va 11 bea r·ing no .AP . 22 X/2419 on account of the rash and negligent drivi ng of the vehicle by its driver being inmate along with others.

Tl1oug h he is cross examined at length nothing is elicited to doubt l1is ·trustworthiness and impeach the evidence spoken by him . No rebu tt al evidence is pla ced by the respondents. Respondents more partic ularly the respondent no.2 pleaded accident is resu lt of contribu tory negligence of driver of lorry bearing no .AET/939 . In fa ct case is reg istered on complaint given by driver of lorry stating Ei cher v an driv en by its driv er negligently dashed to his lorry. After du e investigation driver of Eicher Van bearing no.AP.22X/2419 was also ch arge sheeted. In th e circumstances contention of the respond ents that driv er of lorr-y wl, ich was dashecl by the crime vehicl e also co ntribu ted for the acc ident has no forc e and not tenable. Evidence of

PW. land Exs.Al to A4 co nclu sively proved th e ra-sh and negligen ce attributed to dr·ive r of Eicher van shown as crime vehicle in th e crim e

Q; '--V) ..._, ::; <::( U 0) (tl ~ ·.:: C Q; ..r:: ~ ..._,

.. ~ r- .0 ::;

..r:: ...., V) l::J 0 C records. Hence, in the circumst ances both these (tl l issu es are

dee.,~ ~-

in f avou r of petitio ner and against respond ents.

9 .

Issue No.3:

Petition er claimed an amount of Rs .1 ,50 ,000 /- as cornpensation for th e injuries sustained by him in accident. In his evidence he stated that he is aged 40 years, he is skilled laboure r and attending agriculture operations in the leisure hours. As a result of accident he became permanently disabled . He sustai ne d grievous injuries mentioned in Ex .A4 wound certificate issued by the Medical Officer, SVS Medical Hospital, Mahabubnagar in whi ch firstly l1e admitted with injuries . As per Ex .A4 wound certificate petitioner su stained al\ together six injuries among them two are grievous and four are simple . He sustained Avelgopon 12 x s x 2 cm on left mid l/3 'd leg and grade-II compound fracture on upper held their on right leg. Other four injuries are lacerations and linear abra sions on ankle, neck, eye and thigh. He furthe r deposed he too k -> ~r t reat:ment as inpatient in SVS Hospital for both the fractures an d othe r i~juries sustained by him and also taken treatment in Shusri th a

Hospita l and 5 .V .5 Hospital, Mahabubnagar and spent huge amou nt _ f.e)r tj ~s treatment and medications. All together petitioner filed the med ical bill s worth of Rs .12,735/- towards the expenditure incurrecl fo r his trea tm ent in v arious 11ospitals and investig ations. He also filed t h e investig a~ reports given wl1il e l,e w as under going treatment. . . . In proof of d 1sa b 1l1 t y l1e \1as no t fl ed any document nor exa mined any 1 dl·sa b1·11·ty certificate sustained by l,im. IN the Doctors to ce rtify circumstanc es it is ju st and proper to aware\ Rs.25 .000/- tog ether to

(t)

a.. n \ Q'

(t) '

~ '\ '~

both the fractures and Rs.4,000/- to tl1e simple injuries towards pain ' and suffering. As he also underwent two surgeries being. inpatient it is also just and proper to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- toward s inpatient. attendant charges and extra nourishment. Rs .5,000/- towards transpor·t ch arges and Rs .10,000/- towards loss of earnings besides the amount of Rs .12,73S/- spent by him for his treatment and all together an amount of Rs .66,735/- would be just and proper amount of compensation to the petitioner in and the facts circum stances of the case and claim of petitioner for Rs .1,50,000/- is highly excessive without any basis.

10. Respondent no.2 the insurer contended petitioner is gratuitous passenger and being gratuitous passenger he is not entitled to claim compensation and no liability can be fasEened on him and liability if any i$ only to the owner of vehicle on whose instructions he allegedly traveled in the vehicle as coolie for loading and unloading purposes . He further contended under Ex. Bl policy no extra premium is paid to the coolies . No coverage to the coolies .

Premium is paid only to the driver and cleaner of the vehicle which is admittedly a goods carrier. Hence, respondent no.2 is not liable to pay any amount . Admittedly, petitioner sustained injuries as inmate of tl1e veh icl e on accou nt of the negligence of driver of vehicle in wh ich he wa s inm ate all egedly on the instructions of respond ent no. l fo r loading and unloadi ng purposes. Except his oral testimony there is no materi al to sl1ow tl1at l7e traveled in the vehicle as coolie for lo ading a 11d unload ing purposes on th e instructions of respondent

I.._ Q) C ::: 0 ·.c r- C: ·.c

(i) a::: Q)

A _ l)initted by respondent no.2, Ex .Bl policy has no ~ Q

I.._ s:r--f

No. l. s su cav...,-

0 LL Q

to the coolies. coverage is only for driver and clea ner of the vehic\~

Seating capacity of the vehi cle is also 1 + 1. Petitioner in his Petition

and also in evidence categorically stated besides driver himself anu

two others sat in the cabin and travelled in the crime vehicle on the

oate of accident. Thus, in the circumstances as under Ex Bl pol icy no

coverage to the coolies, no liability can be fastend ed on the

respondent no.2 the insurer as petitioner is not a third party and

liability is to be fastened only on owner of vehicle i.e., respondent

no. l. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of respondent no.2 .

11.

Issue No.4: In view of answering in issue nos.l and 2 in

favou r of the petitioner and issue No.3 in favour of 2"' respondent an

amou nt of Rs.66,735/- (Sixty Six Thousand Only Seven Hundred &

Thirty Five Only) is awarded to the petitioner as compensation for the

inju ries sustained by him in road ac:cident with interest @ 9% pe r annu m from the date of filing of petition till realization against R- 1.

Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the sarne with interest accru ed lhere on deposit of the arnount. This petition is allowed acco1·dingly aga inst respond ent No. l dismissing the clairr, agsinst 211d respond ent v1ith f)rnpo rtio11atc costs.

12. Advoca te fee is fi xed at Rs. 1,000/-.

Dictatecl to LhP Str•nu(Jri-l f"lhPr, transuil)ccl l)y l, 1m , correltecl ,,ncl pronouncecl l)y me in the open courL on Lhis lhe J ,l clny of December, 201 5.

l - VII Addi., District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar FAC IV ADJ (FTC), Mahabubnagar 0 < <:::.. ro :r

(i)

n

CT)

APPEi !DIX OF EVI DEl,JCL

~

For Petitioner -I !Onf~- PW .1 Rar-rwlu

E YH IB IT S r t1 A J3KED

For Petitioner ex .Al Is C.C of ch arg e sheet. Ex .A2 is c.c of FIR . Ex. A3 is Crime Detail s Form . Ex .A4 is C.C of Wound Certificate . Ex .AS Is MRI films . Ex. A6 is X-ray films. Ex. A 7 is MRI scanning report. Ex. AS is case summary of srestha hospita l. Ex.A9 is case summary of susritha hospita l. Ex .AlO is ult ra sound sca nning report. Ex.All is bunch of bil ls. Ex.Al2 is copy of policy issued on crime ve hicle.

For Re_spondents . Ex. Bl is policy copy .

~ ~. ~~~~--...:,,----==--

Sp I. Sessions Judge- cum - VI I Add i., District and Sessions Ju dg e , rv1ohabub nagar FAC IV ADJ (FTC). Mahabubnagar.