P.Vijendar

III Addl. Dist and Session Judge

Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex · Jogulamba Gadwal · Telangana

Based on 12 recent orders

P.Vijendar, III Addl. Dist and Session Judge, is posted at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex, Jogulamba Gadwal, Telangana, India. 12 court orders on record since 2015. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC, MVOP, EP cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

SC/599/2013 Acquitted

Telugu Krishnaveni vs Harikrishna

01 Apr 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

GADWAL

Wednesday, this the 1st day of April, 2015.

PRESENT : Sri.P.Vijendar IX Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy FAC. III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal

Sessions Case No.599 of 2013

(Preliminary Registered Case No.42/2013 in Cr.No.66 of 2013 of Ieej P.S.was committed by Smt.M.Eunice, B.Com.,LLB., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal)

Name of the Accused :

A-1)Harikrishna S/o Madhusudhan, age 28 yrs, Occ: Coolie, R/o Ieej village and Mandal. A-2)Narsimha @ Narsimha Raju S/o Madhusudhan, age 26 yrs, Occ: Coolie, R/o Ieej village and Mandal.

Nature of offence : Under Sections 304-B IPC & Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER : The accused are acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/ss 304-B IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. MO-1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

*** This Sessions case is coming before me for final hearing on 25-03- 2015 in the presence of Sri Hemavardhan Reddy, Sri C.Rameshwar Reddy and Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Advocates for accused and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution, and the matter having stood

over for consideration till today this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The S.D.P.O. Gadwal laid the charge sheet against the above named accused for the offences u/ss 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act with the following accusations.

2.The deceased Manjula was the daughter of PW.1 Telugu

Krishnaveni and grand daughter of PW.2 Shankaramma. Her marriage was performed with A1 who is younger brother of A2 on 15.2.2013 and at the time of marriage a cash of Rs.50,000/- and two tulas of gold was presented 2 to A1 towards dowry. After the marriage the couple had a happy conjugal life for one month and thereafter both A1 and A2 started harassing the deceased physically and mentally in order to get additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and two tulas of gold from her parents. The deceased Manjula used to convey the demand of the accused for additional dowry to her parents and sisters by phone and also at the time of visit to the parents house. However her parents and other family members convinced her to settle herself the issue with the husband and his brother. PW.5 Masoom Bee and PW.6 Razia Bee are the immediate neighbours to the family of deceased and the accused and witnessed the harassment of the deceased for additional dowry. Due to unbearable harassment by the accused persons the deceased attempted to commit suicide by hanging with the saree on 11.5.2013 at 9 A.M. and on noticing it the accused themselves removed her from the hanging shifted her to Sanjeevini Hospital, Kurnool. On enquiry by PW.1 the accused persons admitted their guilt and promised to look after the deceased in future well.

But the deceased Manjula survived and after discharge from the hospital on 25.5.2013 the accused persons did not come to take her. As a result PW.1 took the deceased to her house at Gadwal and during the stay there her condition was critical with the throat injury and was suffering with exertion and was not able to speak and on 21.6.2013 she suffered severely with exertion and immediately she was taken to Gadwal Area Hospital where they were advised to shift her to Kurnool and while she was being shifted to

Kurnool in an ambulance on the way she died at about 11 P.M. There upon

PW.1 went to police station on 22.6.2013 at about 9 A.M. and presented complaint before police.

3.PW.14 H.Siddi Ramulu, the then A.S.I. at Ieej P.S. on receiving complaint in Ex.P1 registered the crime vide Ex.P10 F.I.R. for the offence u/s 304-B IPC and flashed the information to his higher officials. PW.16 T.Govind

Reddy the then SDPO Gadwal secured the presence of PWs 1 to 4, examined and recorded their statements, got photographed the dead body of the deceased through PW.15 M.Parashuramulu, on 23.6.2013 visited the place of 3 offence, prepared rough sketch; there to and seized saree said to have been used by the deceased for hanging under the cover of panchanama in the presence of PWs 9 and 10. He secured PWs 5 and 6, examined and recorded their statements. On 8.7.2013 the accused persons when surrendered before him effected their arrest and sent to court with a remand report. On 9.7.2013 he visited Sanjeevini Hospital, Kurnool examined and recorded the statement of PW.12 Dr.Venkatswamy, gave requisition for autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and after receiving P.M.E. and on completion of investigation filed the charge sheet.

4.The committal court after due formalities committed the case to the court of Sessions at Mahabubnagar, since the offence u/s 304-B IPC is exclusively triable by a court of Sessions. This court received the case record on the point of jurisdiction for disposal in accordance with law.

5.After appearance of the accused and on considering the material on record charges u/s 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language by my predecessor. Both the accused denied the charges and opted for trial.

6.In the trial proceedings for the prosecution 16 witnesses are examined as PWs 1 to 16 and 12 documents as Ex.P1 to P12 and one material object as MO-1 are got marked.

7.After the closure of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the evidence against them on the record. Both the accused denied the truth in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but they did not enter in to defence except marking 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of PW.7.

8.On hearing the arguments and considering the evidence both oral and documentary the point that emerged for consideration is ; Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges framed beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9.Point No.1 : Among the witnesses examined by the prosecution PW.1

Krishnaveni is the mother of deceased Manjula @ Sharada and informant of 4 the crime, PW.2 Shankaramma is the maternal grand mother of the deceased and mother of PW.1, PW.3 Balakrishna is the brother of PW.1 and son of PW.2.

PW.4 Telugu Krishna is cousin of PW.1, PW.5 Masoom Bee, PW.6 Razia Bee are said to be the immediate neighbours of the deceased and the accused and have knowledge of the harassment of the deceased for additional dowry by the accused but have not supported the prosecution version and are treated as hostile and their statements said to have been recorded by the investigating officer are got marked as Ex.P3 and P4 respectively. PW.7

Hameeda is also the neighbor of the deceased and she supported the prosecution version with regard to payment of cash of Rs.1 lakh as dowry and presenting of 3 tulas of gold to A1 at the time of marriage and subjecting of the deceased woman by the accused for additional dowry and an attempt by the deceased to commit suicide. PW.8 Smt.Sujatha is said to be one of the panchayatdar for inquest in Ex.P5; supported the prosecution version. She also deposed that deceased attempted to commit suicide because of the harassment by the accused persons. PW.9 Ramanjaneyulu and PW.10

K.Ravishekar said to be the mediators for the observation of scene of offence prepared by the investigating officer. But they have not supported the version by deposing that without informing them their signatures were obtained by the police. PW.11 Muneppa is the then Tahsildar of Ieej Mandal who held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in Ex.P5 as the deceased died of unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. PW.12 is a Neuro physician who rendered treatment to the deceased while she was admitted in Sanjeevani Hospital, Kurnool. His evidence is with regard to nature of treatment provided to the deceased when she was admitted in the hospital and her condition at the time of discharge. PW.13 is Dr.Ravindranath Shastry who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, PW.15 is photographer who took photographs on the dead body of the deceased in

Ex.P11 with its CD and PWs 14 and 16 are the investigating officers.

10.The evidence of PW.1 Krishnaveni in the chief examination is that deceased Manjula is her daughter, she died three months after her marriage 5 with A1, she was killed by A1 and A2 by hanging in the house of A1 and on telephonic message given by A2 about admission of her daughter in

Sanjivani Hospital at Kurnool she rushed to Kurnool and by the time she reached hospital her daughter was in I.C.U. in unconscious state, she was treated in that hospital for 25 days, on enquiry the deceased told that she attempted to commit suicide by hanging with a saree. She further deposed that when she enquired with the accused with regard to the gold ornaments of the deceased they told her that they have disposed of and the amount realized was spent for the treatment of her daughter. She also deposed that

A1 expressing his inability to bear the expenses requested the doctors of

Sanjeevani Hospital to discharge her daughter and it was told to her by the doctors. She was also told that A1 was admonished by them for making such request having promised to take care of the medical expenses till her discharge at the time of admission of her daughter in that hospital. It is also her evidence that 15 days after the admission of her daughter in the hospital

A1 left the hospital without information and treatment was continued to the deceased for 10 more days and finally she was discharged and at the time of discharge she paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- in the hospital as expenses towards treatment. At the time of discharge she intimated to the father of accused and requested him to take her daughter to their home but they refused. Having no alternative she took the deceased to her house and 4 or 5 days after discharge from hospital A1 came to her house and promised to take back h er daughter to his home, then she advised him to get his parents and relatives and during the said conversation all of a sudden deceased became restless with some breathing problem and immediately she was taken to local hospital and after taking treatment brought back to home and on the next day when she enquired with the deceased for the reason of her restlessness, informed that she was afraid of going back to the house of accused because of the harassment by the accused with a demand of

Rs.2,00,000/- as additional dowry and two tulas of gold for performing the marriage of sister of the accused. It is further informed to her by the 6 deceased that A1 and A2 tied a rope to her neck to project as it as suicide and this fact could not be revealed by the deceased earlier as she suffered with thyroid problem. Three days later deceased again became restless then she took her to private hospital and they are advised her to shift to Area

Hospital Gadwal where after first aid arranged oxygen and advised them to take her to Kurnool hospital for better treatment in an ambulance. While they are going to Kurnool deceased collapsed. This version of PW.1 is for the first time in the court because the same was not born out by her statement given to police and also in the complaint in Ex.P1 on whose strength the crime was registered. The substance of the complaint in Ex.P1 shows deceased was subjected to harassment and unable to bear with the harassment the deceased attempted to commit suicide on 11.5.2013 then she was rescued by the inmates of the house took her to Sanjeevani hospital, in unconscious state and the accused at that time admitted their fault and promised to look after the deceased well in future and the deceased was discharged on 25.5.2013 and inspite of telephonic information about the discharge the accused did not come to house and again on 21.6.2013 the deceased became restless then she was taken to local hospital where they were advised to take her to Government hospital, Kurnool and on the way to hospital in the ambulance; the deceased died. So the alleged enquiry made by PW.1 with the daughter after discharge from the hospital and that the deceased told that she was subjected to harassment for additional dowry and that when she was in semi conscious state A1 and A2 tied a rope to her neck to commit her murder and to create the scene of suicide etc., are not born out from Ex.P1 complaint and it shows PW.1 made an attempt to improve the version and it amounts to material omissions not admissible in evidence.

11.The evidence of PW.2 Shankaramma is that A1, A2 and their sister and mother whose names she do not remember killed the deceased by hanging and on intimation of A1 about the admission of deceased in the hospital she rushed to the said hospital and she was told by PW.1 about the 7 harassment for additional dowry. But it is not the case of prosecution that A1 and A2 killed the deceased by means of hanging. The evidence of PW.2 is that she was informed of the harassment of accused through PW.1 is only hear say and not admissible in evidence.

12.Now coming to the evidence of PW.3 Balakrishna is that accused telephoned to PW.1 and informed about the attempt of the deceased to commit suicide by hanging and her admission in the hospital and deceased was in the hospital about 20 days, accused attended her for about 10 days after discharge from the said hospital deceased again became sick and while she was being shifted died. It is also deposed by him that through his wife he learnt about the harassment of deceased for additional dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/- and two tulas of gold which was needed by them for performing the marriage of their daughter. So what all the harassment by A1 and A2 was informed to him by his wife which amounts to hear say evidence, cannot be taken into consideration.

13.The evidence of PW.4 Krishna the cousin of PW.1 is that the deceased Manjula was killed by the accused by hanging and one week after discharge from hospital she was told that she was beaten by the accused and they tied rope and hanged her to project it as suicide when she failed to meet their demand for additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and three tulas of gold. He also deposed the payment of cash and gold ornaments to A1 at the time of marriage. But this evidence of him is not born out by his statement recorded by the investigating officer u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and these are the improvements made at the evidence stage.

14.As already said PWs 5 and 6 who are treated as hostile. Coming to the evidence of PW.7 Smt.Hameeda, she deposed that at the time of marriage of the deceased PW.1 presented cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and three tulas of gold, and 1 ½ month only she had happy conjugal life with A1.

According to the prosecution version this PW.7 is not eye witness with regard to payment of dowry or harassment of the deceased by the accused for

additional dowry. It is also deposed by her that the deceased lost speak due

8 to cut injury to the neck and deceased told her by way of gestures that three persons made an attempt to kill by hanging for the purpose of money and on 2 or 3 occasions prior to death of deceased telephoned to PW.1 requesting her to take back alleging that she was being harassed by her husband and his relatives. But PW.1 herself has not deposed these facts. Infact PW.1 in her evidence has not deposed the payment of dowry either in cash or gold, only in Ex.P1 complaint she mentioned the payment of dowry of Rs.50,000/- in cash and giving of three tulas of gold ornaments. PWs 2 and 3 also spoken about the payment of cash of Rs.50,000/- only. But the evidence of PW.7 is

PW.1 gave cash of Rs.1 lakh as dowry speaks volumes of her attempt to speak false. Also it is not the evidence of PW.1 who attended PW.1 for 25 days in the hospital with the deceased that due to loss of speech she told by way of gestures that she was subjected to harassment by three persons for the purpose of money. This would go to show that PW.7 for the reasons best known to her made every attempt to speak false against the accused.

15.The evidence of PW.8, one of the panchayatdar is that deceased committed suicide by hanging unable to bear with the harassment by the accused for additional dowry. But according to prosecution she is only one of the mediator for the inquest and not the person having personal knowledge of facts of attempt of suicide by deceased and this goes to show that this witness is also for the reason best known to her is making improvements in her version. The evidence of panchayatdars is only with regard to an opinion expressed by the relations of the deceased during inquest.

16.PW.11 is the then Tahsildar who held inquest, but he has not recorded the statements of witnesses separately as required by the procedure.

17.PW.12 is doctor who is an important witness and it is he who rendered treatment to the deceased in his hospital for a period of 25 days.

His evidence is that on 11.5.2013 at about 11.05 hours deceased Sharada was admitted in the hospital in unconscious state with pulmonary edema, seizores (fits) is serious condition by her husband and immediately he 9 started treatment and put her on ventilators and for about 4,5 days she was in unconscious state and recovery started from 19.5.2013. After full recovery she was discharged from the hospital on 27.5.2013 and at the time of her discharge the case sheet was prepared; by him and he was informed by police that the deceased died. In the cross examination he stated that he noted hanging marks over the neck of the deceased at the time of admission; and said fact was duly noted in the case sheet. In case of hanging there will be ligature mark around the neck. The case sheet marked as Ex.X1 the same are shown specifically. His evidence in the cross examination shows that the status of epilepsy may also some time lead to pulmonary edema, seizors is also one of the feature in case of epilepsy. Insufficient supply of oxygen or its total absence to the brain lead to severe seizures. It is further deposed by him that he did not record the statement of the deceased after she recovered. It is further deposed by him in the cross examination that by the date of discharge the patient was totally recovered. He diagnosised the ailment suffered by the patient as Hypogegic encephalopathy and volunteers that it was due to hanging. But in Ex.X1 case sheet he scribed the portion that the patient hanged herself with her saree at 8.30 A.M. in her house on 11.5.2013 followed by loss of consciousness and the remaining hand writings are of his duty medical officer. What made him to add this portion by him when the entire case sheet was prepared in the hand writing of the duty medical officer is not explained. However the fact remains that by the date of discharge the patient was completely recovered and after satisfying himself she was discharged.

17.The evidence of PW.13 Dr.A.Ravindranath Shastry is also important one because it is he who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. His evidence is that during the autopsy found blood stains ooze with food particles through nose and mouth and cut section food bolus within pharynx and food contents within trachea and oesophagus and food particles with sanguinous liquid in stomach and intestine. The cause of death was due to food contents in to the respiratory track. His observations are 10 only external and internal features and they are note injuries. It is further deposed by him that entry of any foreign objects in to oesophagus and respiratory system will cause serious choking, restlessness and severe cough and at times may also cause severe strangunous without intervention of anybody or any external factors leading to asphyxia. It is also stated by him that the food particles that entered into respiratory track resulted asphyxia death. It is also stated by him that the chronic diseases, old age ailments, cordiac arrests etc., may cause obstruction to respiratory system leading to asphyxia death and in sufficient oxygen supply to the brain and other tissues. The observations made by him during autopsy that lead to death of deceased are due to entry of food particles in to respiratory track accidental and it is natural death. This medical evidence falsifies the entire testimony of prosecution witnesses more particularly PWs 1 to 4 that the deceased was either hanged by A1 or A2 or she made attempt to commit suicide on account of dowry harassment by the accused persons. The material on the record shows the deceased was in the hospital for 25 days before discharge and no attempt was made by the duty medical officer either to record the statement of the deceased to know the circumstances under which she was brought to the hospital and why she was in unconscious state when admitted in the hospital and no explanation is there from the prosecution side as to the duty medical officer has not communicated about the admission of the deceased in the hospital in an unconscious state either to the police or to the nearest. Judicial Magistrate of First Class to record the dying declaration even after regaining conscious by the deceased. No attempt was made to record her statement or to intimate to the police because if the evidence of PW.12 is taken into consideration he noted some injuries on the neck which can be due to hanging and in that event it is the medico legal case even then no attempt was made to get record the statement of deceased either by the police or by the medical officer himself. Even PW.1 who lodged report after death of the deceased has not reported the matter to the police till the deceased died, though for more than 1 ½ month time was there from the 11 date of admission of the deceased into the hospital to her death. It is the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 in the cross examination that after the death of the deceased a panchayat was convened demanding for return of gold articles of the deceased and cash alleged to have been paid at the time of marriage and accused have refused to give. The evidence of PW.1 speaks that the accused were unable to pay the expenses for the treatment of the deceased since they left the hospital while treatment was going on and did not turn up in all probabilities and PW.1 in order to get back the amount spent in the hospital for treatment raised panchayat before the elders and when her attempt resulted in futile she lodged complaint before police. Even if the case of the prosecution that the deceased was harassed for the additional dowry and because of it she made an attempt to commit suicide is to be believed then as to why no complaint was lodged during the life time of the deceased as she survived for more than 1 ½ months after the alleged attempt of suicide. The medical evidence of PW.13 who held autopsy shows the cause of death of the deceased was due to entry of food towards into respiratory track accidental and it is natural death itself falsifies the entire prosecution case. As such the charges framed against the accused have to fail. Accordingly the point is answered.

In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences u/ss 304-B IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. Mo-1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

Dictated to the Senior Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of

April, 2015.

IX Add.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy FAC.III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal 12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for PROSECUTION DEFENCE: PW.1 Smt.Telugu Krishnaveni -Nil- PW.2 Smt.Telugu Shankaramma PW.3 Telugu Balakrishna PW.4 Telugu Krishna PW.5 Poola Masoom Bee PW.6 Razia Bee PW.7 Smt.Hameeda PW.8 Smt.Sujatha PW.9 Boya Ramanjaneyulu PW.10 Kandle Ravishekar PW.11 L.Muneppa PW.12 Dr.Venkatswamy PW.13Dr.Ravindranath Shastry PW.14H.Siddiramulu PW.15 M.Parashuramulu PW.16 T.Govind Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6 Ex.P5 Inquest Panchanama Ex.P6 Signature of PW.9 on scene of offence Ex.P7 Signature of PW.9 on slip pasted on saree Ex.P8 Siganture of PW.10 on crime details form Ex.P9 P.M.E. report Ex.P10 Original F.I.R. Ex.P11 Photos Ex.P12 Crime details form

DEFENCE:- Ex.D1 Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.7 Ex.D2 Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.7 Ex.X1 Case sheet of deceased marked in the evidence of PW.12

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

MO-1 Saree

IX Add.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy FAC.III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal

SC/337/2014 Convicted

Telugu Narayana vs Pujari Maddileti

22 Apr 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

GADWAL

Wednesday, this the 22ndday of April, 2015.

PRESENT : Sri.P.Vijendar IX Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy FAC. III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal

Sessions Case No.337 of 2014

(Preliminary Registered Case No.31/2014 in Cr.No.141 of 2013 of P.S.Dharur was committed by Sri V.Eshwaraiah, B.Com.,LL.M., Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, dt.28.7.2014)

Name of the Accused :

Pujari Maddileti S/o Hanmanthu, age 45 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Obulonipally H/o Ryalampadu village, Dharur Mandal.

Nature of offence : Under Section 302 IPC

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court : Found guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER : The accused is convicted u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for two months. MOs 1 to 6 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

*** This Sessions case is coming before me for final hearing on 1-4-2015 in the presence of Sri K.Shafiulla, Advocate for accused and learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for prosecution, and the matter having stood over for consideration till today this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of police, Gadwal laid the charge sheet against the above named accused for the offences u/ss 498-A and 302 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Laxmi was the wife of the accused and their marriage took place 15 years prior to November, 2013. Out of the wedlock they are blessed with three female children and PW.1 Laxmi is their second daughter. The elder daughter Eshwaramma was employed by the accused as farm servant in the village Chenugonipally. The youngest daughter is Renuka is five years old girl. Deceased Laxmi and accused were eaking out their livelihood by doing coolie work.

About one year prior to November, 2013 the accused addicted to alcohol and not 2 attending any coolie work. He used to spend the daily wages of his wife and old age pension of his mother and wages earned by the eldest daughter Eshwaramma as farm servant for alcohol. Oftenly he used to harass his wife mentally and physically for collecting her wages earnings. About 20 days prior to 4.11.2013 deceased Laxmi was taken by her brothers to their village Obulonipally as she was being subjected to harassment and physical torture by the accused. When their children were crying for the mother the accused went to the house of his in-laws and made a request with his brother-in-laws including PW.2 Ramudu to send the wife with him. They refused and advised him to bring the elders to assure for safe guard the life of the deceased Laxmi.

Hence the accused returned back to the village and took PW.4 Chinna Naganna and

PW.5 Chinna Govindu his neighbours and elders of the village to the in-laws house and through them made a request with him brother-in-law Narayana to send his wife Laxmi with him with a promise to look after her carefully in future and not to subject her any assault or harassment. Believing him Narayana had sent the deceased Laxmi with the accused to her in-laws place. 10 days after her arrival at matrimonial house the deceased Laxmi was again subjected to harassment and torture by the accused in a drunken condition and he did not mend his ways.

3. While the matter’s stood thus on 3.11.2013 at 5 P.M. the accused went to home in a drunken condition and after having food went out. At about 8 P.M. he again returned back and told deceased Laxmi to serve food to him as he was in hungry mood and as there was no food in the house the deceased told him that she will prepare food and collected a glass of rice and while she was about to put it the rice bowl on the fire wood the accused picked up a cotpeg and hit the deceased Laxmi in a drunken condition on head and inflicted fatal injuries. Deceased Laxmi died instantaneously.

PW.1 Laxmi the second daughter of the accused and deceased Laxmi and Pujari

Chennamma, the mother of the accused were present in the house shouted on seeing the incident and on hearing their hue and cries PW.4 Naganna and PW.5 Govindu rushed to their house and they were informed by PW.1 Laxmi that the accused assaulted the deceased Laxmi with MO-1 cotpeg. Both PWs 4 and 5 chased the accused caught hold of him but the accused on the pretext of attending nature call fled away.

PW.5 Govindu made a telephone call to Narayana the elder brother of the deceased

Laxmi and informed that Laxmi was done to death by the accused. Soon after that

Narayana along with his brother PW.2 Ramudu rushed to the house of the accused on the next day morning and after seeing the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood in the kitchen room of the accused house the said Narayana went to the police station and presented complaint in Ex.P7.

4. PW.10 Chandra Mohan the then S.I. of police, Dharur P.S. on receiving

Ex.P7 complaint from Narayana registered the crime for the offences u/ss 409-A and 302 IPC vide Ex.P9 F.I.R. and flashed the information to the concerned officers. PW.11

Md.Shakir Hussain, the then Inspector of police, after he took up investigation of the crime rushed to the place of offence and conducted panchanama with rough sketch in

Ex.P1 in the presence of PW.6 and another. During the course of preparation of crime details form in Ex.P1 he also collected controlled earth and blood stains soils MOs 3 and 4 and MO-1 cotpeg then held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.6 and another under the cover of Ex.P2. He secured the presence of PWs 1 to 5 and 8 examined and recorded their statements. During the course of inquest he collected the blood stained clothes of the deceased in MOs 5 and 6 under the cover of panchanama. Later he got photographed the scene through PW.8 who took photographs in Ex.P5 and after developing the same handed over along with C.D.

PW.11 after completion of inquest dead body was dispatched to Government hospital with a requisition for autopsy. PW.9 Dr.Ravindranath Shastry on receipt of requisition held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased noted external injuries and issued report in Ex.P6 with his opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased was due to head injury caused by heavy object. On 6.11.2013 PW.10 and other PCs apprehended the accused at the bus stand and produced before PW.11 who interrogated and got recorded the confession of the accused in the presence of PW.7 G.Rajanikanth Reddy the then V.R.O. of Guvvaladinne village and another and in pursuance of the confession the cotpeg in MO-1 was recovered from the bushes situate by the side of the house of the accused under the cover of panchanama in Ex.P4 and later after collecting the FSL 4 report in Ex.P9 and P.M.E. report in Ex.P6 and on completion of investigation laid the charge sheet.

5. The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal on appearance of the accused furnished with the copies of the documents relied by the prosecution and since the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by a court of sessions he committed the case to court of Sessions at Mahabubnagar; by a separate committal order.

6. This court received the case record on the point of jurisdiction for disposal in accordance with law.

7. After receiving the case record and considering the material on record charge u/s 302 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language by my predecessor in office on 24.9.2014. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

8. In the trial proceedings the prosecution in order to sustain the charge framed against the accused got examined 11 witnesses as PWs 1 to 11 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.P1 to P9 and six objects as MOs 1 to 6.

9. On hearing the arguments and considering the evidence both oral and documentary the point that emerged for consideration is : Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge framed against him beyond a shadow of doubt ?

10. Point : In this particular case the prosecution could not examine Narayana on whose complaint under Ex.P7 the crime was registered by PW.10 the then S.I. of police,

Dharur P.S. because after lodging of the complaint and before commencement of the trial the said Narayana became mentally derailed person and his where abouts are not known. As a result complaint in Ex.P7 was got marked through PW.10 as he said to have received it from the informant Narayana.

11. Among the witnesses examined by the prosecution PW.1 Kum.Laxmi is the second daughter of deceased and the accused aged 12 years by the date of giving of evidence. My predecessor in office before proceeding to record the evidence of this minor girl to ascertain the understanding capacity and competence to give evidence had 5 put some preliminary questions and after satisfying himself with the answers given in a rational manner her evidence was recorded both in chief and cross.

12. PW.2 is Telugu Ramudu the brother of the deceased Laxmi and brother- in-law of the accused. According to the prosecution case and evidence of this witness he is not an eye witness to the incident as he is living in the village Rajoli, whereas the offence took place in the house of the accused situate in the village Obulonipally. His evidence before the court is deceased Laxmi was given in marriage to the accused and out of the wedlock deceased gave birth to three daughters including PW.1. The eldest daughter Eshwaramma was employed at Chenugonipally village. The accused addicted to alcohol and used to beat the deceased Laxmi frequently demanding money earned by her by attending coolie. On several occasions deceased Laxmi was driven out from the house and as a result she used to take shelter at the house of her brothers. It is further deposed by him that on the intervention of the elders the accused took away his wife Laxmi from the house of her brothers one week earlier to her death. On the date of incident he was informed by PW.5 Govindu on phone about the death of deceased

Laxmi in the hands of the accused and as there was no bus facility on that night to go to Obulonipally village, on the next day morning himself and his brother Narayana reached the said village saw the dead body of their sister Laxmi with bleeding injuries on the head in a pool of blood. On enquiry PW.1 told them that deceased Laxmi was beaten to death by the accused with cotpeg (manchamkodu) while the deceased was about to cook rice on demand made by the accused for food at 8 P.M. After learning the incident from PW.1 his brother Narayana went to the police station and lodged report.

13. PW.3 is one Bheem Reddy and his evidence is that, 20 days prior to death of the deceased Laxmi he was informed by Narayana, the informant of the crime that he took the deceased Laxmi to his house as she was harassed by the accused and 10 days thereafter on the request of the accused and assurance given by him before the elders deceased Laxmi was sent back with the accused to matrimonial home and 10 days thereafter he was informed that the accused beat the deceased on the night of 3.11.2013 for not preparing and serving the food in an angry mood. On receiving the 6 said information he rushed to the house of the accused, saw the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood. So he is not an eye witness to the incident and his entire evidence is only hearsay.

14. PW.4 is Chinna Naganna and PW.5 is Govindu are the independent witnesses and neighbours of the accused and their evidence in one voice is that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased Laxmi frequently demanding amount earned by her by attending coolie for his vices and he is not habituated to attend any work.

One month prior to the death of the deceased on the request of the accused both of them have accompanied the accused to Rajoli village and requested the brother of the deceased Laxmi to send Laxmi with the accused to lead matrimonial life and in their presence the accused made assurance to said Narayana that he will look after his wife properly. On the said assurance and promise by the accused, Narayana told them to take the deceased Laxmi with them from their house. It is further deposed by them that on the date of incident they were informed by PW.1 that the accused beat deceased

Laxmi with manchamkodu as Laxmi failed to cook and serve the food immediately.

Then they immediately rushed into the house of the accused, saw the deceased in a pool of blood and they chased the accused who fleeing away, apprehended him, but the accused on the pretext of attending nature call gave a slip to them and fled away.

Later PW.5 Govindu informed to Narayana about the death of the deceased.

15. PW.6 is Ranganna, one of the mediator for the preparation of the crime details form in Ex.P1 and for collecting of MO-2 a piece of cot peg and blood stained and controlled soil in MOs 3 and 4 from the scene under the cover of Ex.P1. He is also the mediator for the inquest in Ex.P2 held by PW.11 the chief investigating officer of the crime and he had spoken the prosecution version on these aspects. PW.7 is

G.Rajinikantha Rao the then V.R.O. of Guvvaladinne village one of the mediator for the alleged confession of the offence by the accused and recovery of MO-1 cotpeg in pursuance of the alleged confession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P4 panchanama and as already said PW.8 is the photographer who took photos in Ex.P5 and handed over the same to the investigating officer along with C.D. PW.9 is the

Medical Officer and PWs 10 and 11 are the investigating officers.

16. As against the above version of the prosecution the defence of the accused is denial of the committing of any offence. As seen from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses the version of the defence as to the cause of the death of the deceased was the accused was objecting the attempts of the deceased

Laxmi to employ PW.1 also part from elder daughter Eshwaramma and he wanted both the daughters to prosecuture studies. But inspite of it deceased Laxmi employed the eldest daughter and when she tried to employ PW.1 also he picked up quarrel. It is further suggested to PWs 1 and 2 that the deceased Laxmi accidentally fell on the so called manchamkodu and sustained injuries and died of it. A suggestion was also given to Medical Officer PW.9 the same effect, but the medical officer PW.9 has categorically stated the possibility of causing of injury No.1 in Ex.P6 P.M.E. report which is fatal one due to fall on any hard surface is very very demote. It is specifically deposed by PW.9 that the cause of death was head injury due to the heavy object, which means a forcible hit by means of MO-1 cotpeg and because of the said impact with the head of the deceased the cotpeg was broken into pieces and small piece marked as MO-2 which was collected during the course of preparation of crime details form in Ex.P1 and major part in MO-1 was recovered in pursuance of the confession of the accused from the bushes situate adjacent to the house of the accused.

17. The defence is admitting the death of the deceased Laxmi due to head injury caused inside the h ouse. When the possibility of causing of head injury by a mere fall is absolutely ruled out by the medical officer, then there is no other go except to say that the deceased was hit by a third party on her head with a blunt object by force. It is an admitted fact except the accused deceased their second daughter PW.1

Laxmi and bed ridden mother of the accused no other person was there in the house.

Since the accused’s mother is bed ridden and pentioner, the possibility of her picking up any quarrel and inflincing any injury on the deceased Laxmi does not arise. Since PW.1

Laxmi is a minor girl aged about 10 years by the date of incident there is no scope for inflicting injury to her mother for any reason. Then there is none else except the accused to inflict the injury on the head of the deceased and cause her instantaneous death.

18. The suggestion given to PW.1 in the cross examination is she was not in the house at the time of occurrence and she was outside playing with her friends which she denied. She also denied a suggestion that she had not seen the accused beating her mother with manchamkodu. She also denied a suggestion that her mother accidentally fell on manchamkodu and sustained head injury and died of it. She also denied a suggestion that she was tutored by the police, PWs 4 and 5 to give false evidence. There is no reason for this girl to speak false on oath against her father or to shield the real culprit for the death of her mother. She has vividly explained the incident which culminated into the murder of the deceased by the accused by means of MO-1 and 2 objects.

19. A suggestion given to PW.2 the brother of the deceased and brother-in- law of accused in the cross examination is he was deposing false at the instance of police and villagers of the Obulonipally to implicate the accused in a false case. What is the reason for the villagers of Obulonipally or the police to fix the accused for the murder of the deceased wife is not stated. There is no reason for this witness to shield the real culprit for murder of the deceased Laxmi. He has spoken as to the character and conduct of the accused before and after murder of the deceased Laxmi and his evidence corroborated by the testimony of PWs 4 and 5 who have categorically stated that about 20 days prior to the date of incident they were taken by the accused to the house of brother of deceased as elders and through them accused made a promise to his brother-in-laws to look after his wife Laxmi properly in future and not to subject her for harassment and on the intervention of these two persons Narayana and PW.2 the brothers of the deceased Laxmi have sent the deceased Laxmi with the accused and 10 days thereafter she was murdered. There is no animosity for these two witnesses to speak false against the accused and being immediate neighbours to the accused they are natural witnesses to speak about the conduct and character of the accused before and after the incident. As such there is no reason to disbelieve or discard their testimony which is in consonance with the testimony of direct witnesses, PW.1 the minor girl who has not reason to speak false on oath before the court.

20. The presenting of the original complaint in Ex.P7 by the Narayana the brother of the deceased Laxmi with the police has been proved by the evidence of

PW.10 who received it and registered the crime by issuing FIR in Ex.P8. The suggestion given to PW.10 in the cross examination is that at the behest of one Bheem Reddy political leader of Obulonipally case is foisted against the accused by manipulating Ex.P7 report in the name of Narayana which he denied. It is not the case of the accused during the course of 313 Cr.P.C. examination or through the cross examination of prosecution witnesses, that the accused is a political leader and got any animosity with the so called Bheem Reddy of Obulonipally village to give any credence to said suggestion. In Ex.P7 complaint it has been categorically stated by the complainant that the deceased Laxmi was subjected to harassment for about a year prior to the date of death by the accused as he was addicted to vices and used to collect the wages earned by the deceased for alcohol and he was not attending for any work. So the earliest version in Ex.P7 has also been proved by the testimony of PWs 5 and 6 with regard to the conduct and character of accused before the incident. The medical evidence on the record has proved that the death of the deceased was due to head injury inflicted with the heavy object and such injury is not possibility by a mere fall. The possibility of the injuries found on the head of the deceased by a fall on hard object from a considerable height of 20 feet can be believed, but in the present case such a situation is not there, because the house of the accused as seen from the crime details form in Ex.P1 is a small one consisting of small kitchen, a hall and verandah in the ground floor itself. As such it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the injury found on the head of the deceased would have been caused by a fall. As such it is to follow that it is none other than the accused who inflicted fatal injuries to the deceased by means of cot peg which was broken into pieces in MOs 1 and 2 which fact has been amply spoken by

PW.1 who is none other than the daughter of the deceased and the accused and has no reason to speak false against the father. Hence the point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence u/s 302 IPC and he is convicted u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. Accused is questioned with regard to quantum of 10 sentence and his plea is separately recorded. I do not find any reason to take a lenient view in this matter.

Dictated to the Senior Assistant of IX ADJ Court, Wanaparthy, transcribed

and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of April, 2015.

IX Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, FAC III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal.

Accused is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and also pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for two months for the offence u/s 302 IPC. MOs 1 to 6 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Senior Assistant of IX ADJ Court, Wanaparthy, transcribed

and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of April, 2015.

IX Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, FAC III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for

PROSECUTION DEFENCE:

PW.1 Kum.Pujari Laxmi -Nil- PW.2 Telugu Ramudu PW.3 Seemala Bheem Reddy PW.4 Chinna Naganna PW.5 Chinna Govindu PW.6 Maddelabanda Ranganna PW.7 G.Rajinikanth Reddy PW.8 Ravi PW.9 Dr.A.Ravindranath Shastry PW.10 B.Chandra Mohan PW.11 Md.Shakir Hussain

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 Crime details form Ex.P2 Inquest Ex.P3 Relevant portion in confession Ex.P4 Seizure panchanama Ex.P5 Photographs with CD Ex.P6 P.M.E. report Ex.P7 Complaint 11

Ex.P8 Original FIR in Cr.No.141/13 of P.S. Dharur Ex.P9 F.S.L. Report

DEFENCE:- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

MO-1 Manchamkodu MO-2 Manchamkodu piece MO-3 Blood stained earth MO-4 Control earth MO-5 Saree MO-6 Blouse

IX Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, FAC III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal.

CRLRP/49/2014

U.Narsimulu vs U.Jyothi

01 Apr 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

GADWAL

Wednesday, this the 1st day of April, 2015.

PRESENT : Sri.P.Vijendar IX Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy FAC. III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.49 OF 2014

Between :

U.Narsimulu S/o U.Thimmappa, age 41 years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o Jampapuram village, Kosgi Mandal, Kurnool District. …Revision Petitioner

And

1. U.Jyothi W/o U.Narsimulu, age 33 yrs, Occ: V.R.A, R/o Ieej village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

2. Mythri D/o U.Narsimulu, age 11 years (Minor), represented by her natural guardian i.e. R-1. … Respondents

Criminal Revision Petition filed under section 397, 399 r/w Sec.401 of

Cr.P.C. against the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal in

M.C.No.6 of 2010, dt.26.9.2014.

****

This Criminal Revision Petition is coming before me on 25.3.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Ravi Shankar, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner and of Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Advocate for the respondents, and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1. This Revision Petition is directed against the orders of the J.F.C.M. Gadwal in M.C.No.6 of 2010 which was the petition filed by the present respondents u/s 125

Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the revision petitioner.

2. The brief facts which gives rise for filing of the present revision are as under :

3. The array of the parties hereinafter as they are before the lower court for clarity and convenience.

4. The first petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 23.5.2004 and second petitioner is their daughter. At the 2 time of marriage the parents of the first petitioner have presented a cash of Rs.60,000/- and two tulas of gold to the respondent. After the birth of the second petitioner there was change in the behavior of the respondent towards the first petitioner as he started harassing her for securing additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh. Once she was beaten mercilessly and she informed to him that her parents are not in a position to meet his demand. Inspite of it the respondent necked out her from the matrimonial home along with second petitioner on 5.2.2010 with a warning to bring additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh. Ever since both the petitioners have been taking shelter with the parents of the first petitioner at Ieej. First petitioner having waited for a considerable time expecting change in the attitude of the husband, finally lodged complaint with Ieeja P.S. who registered a case in Cr.No.35 of 2010. The first petitioner has no source of income for her sustenance and her parents are also poor people. The respondent is having sufficient means with a salary income of Rs.30,000/- apart from other income and is capable of paying separate maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the first petitioner and

Rs.6000/- to the second petitioner. Hence the petition for said maintenance amount.

5. The respondent filed counter admitting the averments of maintenance petition relating to the marriage and birth of second petitioner, but denied the rest of the contents in the maintenance petition. His contentions are that only for a period of seven months himself and first petitioner had happy conjugal life, thereafter the first petitioner harassed him to set up separate family which was not agreed by him as his aged mother is depending on him. On that the first petitioner left his company along with second petitioner and started living at her parents at Ieeja. The first petitioner and her parents and brothers advised the respondent to put separate family at Kosgi which he obliged, after that he had happy conjugal life for two years. During that time the first petitioner informed that she want to study B.Ed., and he agreed for it and spent an amount of Rs.1 lakh and for that purpose family was set up at Adoni for one year and after completion of B.Ed., the first petitioner worked as teacher on contract basis in the

Government school and during that time the first petitioner again demanded him to set up family at Ieeja which is her parents place and also asked money for maintenance of her parents which he did not agree. A panchayat was held before the elders at Ieeja 3 where he was asked to set up separate family at Ieeja; which he refused. The elders then advised the first petitioner to change her behavour, but there was no change in her attitude. Thereafter the first petitioner left his company along with second petitioner without information and started living at her parents house at Ieeja. Having disgusted with her attitude he again approached the parents of the first petitioner and at that time he was abused in filthy language and necked out by his in-laws and threatened to file civil and criminal cases against him and his family members.

6. Later in order to subject him for harassment the first petitioner filed complaint with Ieeja police alleging the harassment and on the said complaint police registered a case in Cr.No.35/2010 for the offence u/s 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and said case is still pending before the court. The first petitioner has completed B.Sc., B.Ed., and working as teacher in a well recognized school on a salary of Rs.8000/- per month which is sufficient for maintaining of herself and second petitioner but the petitioner just to subject the respondent to harassment filing cases and on account of h er complaint the respondent was suspended from service, as a result he is suffering mentally and financially. He is not in a position to provide separate maintenance to the petitioners. With this contentions the respondent prayed for dismissal of the maintenance petition.

7. In the enquiry proceedings on behalf of petitioners, the first petitioner herself and her father are got examined as PWs 1 and 2 and similarly the respondent himself got examined as RW.1 and his brother Srinivasulu as RW.2. In support of his contentions he has got marked nine documents as Ex.R1 to R9.

8. The court below after conclusion of enquiry and on hearing the arguments and considering the material on the record awarded maintenance of Rs.4000/- to the first petitioner till April, 2012 and also Rs.1000/- per month from May, 2012 and second petitioner is awarded maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month from the date of filing of petition with a costs of Rs.1000/-.

9. Aggrieved by the findings of the lower court the present revision petition is preferred on the following grounds :

The orders of the enquiry court under revision are contrary to the law, weight of evidence and principles of natural justice. The court below ought to have seen that the first petitioner completed her B.Sc., B.Ed., examinations and the revision petitioner met all the education expenses by setting up a separate family at Adoni. This fact is also admitted by the father of the first petitioner in his evidence. The enquiry court ought to have seen that on account of false complaint by the first petitioner to

District Education Officer on 25.1.2010 he was suspended from services and without intimation to him the first petitioner left his company along with daughter in the month of February, 2010 after lodging the said complaint. Enquiry court ought to have seen that the respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Adoni and the first petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court

and got transferred the said OP to the S.C.J. Court, Gadwal and after filing vakalath on her behalf she was chosen to remain exparte finally the said OP was allowed. The court below ought to have seen that the first petitioner in the cross examination admitted that she has got income upon while herself and her child are surviving and it is sufficient enough to say that the petitioners have got income for their maintenance.

Whereas the respondent is not in a position to provide separate maintenance. Hence the findings of the lower court in the order under revision are liable to be set aside by allowing the revision.

10. There is no additional evidence in the revision stage by either of the parties to it.

11. On hearing the arguments and considering the material on record the following points have emerged for consideration :

1. Whether the petitioners 1 and 2 are capable of maintaining themselves without providing separate maintenance by the respondent ?

2. Whether the findings of the lower court in the order under revision needs an interference ?

3. To what relief ?

12. Point No.1 : There is no dispute between the parties with regard to their marriage as in the avered maintenance petition and counter thereto. Though an 5 attempt has been made by the petitioner to prove the payment of dowry at the time of marriage which fact has been disputed by the respondent in the counter, finding as to that effect is not germane to the present petition. It is the specific case of the maintenance petitioners that the respondent subjected the first petitioner to harassment with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh. The first petitioner expressed inability of her parents she was necked out from the matrimonial home. One cannot except an independent evidence on this aspect. Because the demand for

additional dowry by the husband with the wife or his parents will normally occur within

four corners of the house. But at the same time it does not mean that mere statements either by the wife of her father alleging dowry harassment itself is not sufficient and the attending circumstances must be taken into consideration.

13. The respondent specifically pleaded in the counter that after the marriage the first petitioner wanted to do B.Ed., and he obliged and spent Rs.1 lakh for it by setting separate family at Adoni. The first petitioner in her evidence in the cross examination admitted that she studied B.Ed., at Adoni during the academic year 2005- 06 and the respondent co-operated for it and with his co-operation she completed B.Ed.

She denied a suggestion that after 2008 she held panchayat stating that she will not reside in the village of the respondent and she want to live only in the town. At the same time she volunteed that after the said panchayat as per the advise of village elders they resided at Kosgi mandal headquarters in the year 2009 which shows her denial of holding of panchayat in the year 2008 is false. She also denied a suggestion that on 25.1.2010 she filed a petition before the D.E.O. Kurnool for taking action against the respondent. But the proceedings of the D.E.O. in Ex.R6 dt.13.5.2010 shows on a representation by first petitioner dt.25.1.2010 alleging demand of additional dowry by the husband he was placed under suspension as a crime was also registered against him for the offence u/s 498-A IPC and U/ss 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. These proceedings in Ex.R6 were not denied by the first petitioner. This goes to show that the denial of the suggestion by the first petitioner in the cross examination that she made a complaint before the D.E.O. is also false. In the cross examination she also admitted that she lodged a complaint in the month of April, 2010 against the respondent with 6

Ieej police, who admittedly registered a crime against the respondent. During the course of cross examination she added that her parents do not possess any landed property and her father is an agriculture labourer. But her father during the cross examination admitted that he has got Ac.5-00 of land at Ieej village and he is doing plots business on commission basis and he is prepared to file recorded proof of holding agricultural land. He also admitted holding of panchayat at Jampapuram for shifting of the family by the respondent to Kosgi Mandal head quarters and he further admitted that the respondent spent entire education expenses of the first petitioner when she prosecuted studies in B.Ed., course by setting up family at Adoni and before that she was living at Jampapuram village. These facts would go to show that the first petitioner is not speaking truth. Mere holding of the land by the first petitioner’s father itself is sufficient to say that the petitioners are entitled for maintenance. But this fact proves the falsity in the claims and the evidence of first petitioner. The first petitioner has got stated either in the chief examination or in the maintenance petition about her employment, but in the cross examination she admitted that she is working as Village

Revenue Assistant and getting salary of Rs.3000/- per month and her present place of work is at Ieeja. This goes to show that she intend to suppress the true facts.

14. The reasons assigned by the first petitioner to live from the respondent are that both the petitioners were necked out by the respondent with a demand of

additional dowry. If the respondent was in the nature of demand additional dowry he

would not have met the expenses for the completion of B.Ed. course to the first petitioner that too by setting up separate family at Adoni though he has aged mother and sister who was deserted by her husband and depending on him. As such the reason mentioned by the petitioner that the respondent necked out her for demand of

additional dowry cannot be believed.

15. The first petitioner also admitted that the respondent filed a O.P.15/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Adoni for restitution of conjugal life and that after engaging advocate in the said O.P. she approached the Hon’ble High Court with transfer petition for transfer of the said O.P. to Gadwal Senior Civil Judge’s Court in

C.M.P.No.296 of 2012 and the same was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court. It is also 7 further admitted by her that after transfer of said O.P to Gadwal SCJ court she engaged

Advocate, but did not chose to file counter. As a result she was set exparte and even as on today she has not taken steps to comply the decree or to file petition to set a side the exparte decree. This goes to show that the first petitioner is not willing to join the company of the respondent. She also admitted in the cross examination that she took several adjournments during the pendency of the O.P. on the ground of settlement which was not materialized and though exparte decree was passed on 22.7.2013, even after lapse of 1 ½ years by now she has not complied the orders. All this would go to show that there is no substance in the version of first petitioner that the respondent necked out her from the matrimonial home with a demand of additional dowry and on the other hand it is manifest that the first petitioner is not willing in the company of respondent as his aged mother and sister who was deserted by her husband are living with him. The very fact that a panchayat was held and in pursuance of it the respondent set up separate family at Kosgi Mandal headquarters speaks that the first petitioner is willing to live in the towns not in the villages. As such the petitioners have not made out a case of necking out them by respondent to seek separate maintenance.

16. As seen from the salary certificate of the respondent he is drawing a salary of Rs.11,000/- and odd and with that amount he has to sustain himself, his mother and sister. So admittedly hardly each of them will have Rs.3000/- and odd for their sustenance. Admittedly the first petitioner is drawing salary of Rs.3000/- per month as proved; by her salary certificate and observation of the lower court that since the first petitioner is working on contract basis and her termination can happen at any time is preposterous. The fact remains that even as on today she has not been terminated. So she has sufficient income for her sustenance.

17. The second petitioner being minor daughter of the first petitioner and respondent and she is entitled to be with the mother in childhood. A separate maintenance has to be provided by the respondent being the father and the findings of the lower court that the second petitioner is entitled for Rs.3000/- per month is reasonable and this aspect needs no interference. Accordingly the point is answered.

18. Point No.2 : For the aforesaid reasons the findings of lower court that the first petitioner is entitled for separate maintenance of Rs.4000/- is not sustainable in law and accordingly they are set aside and the findings with regard to awarding of maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the second petitioner is sustained. Accordingly the point is answered.

In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed setting aside the orders of the lower court with regard to separate maintenance to the first petitioner and confirming the findings relating to the grant of separate maintenance to the second petitioner at Rs.3000/- per month as ordered by the lower court and costs of the petition.

Dictated to the Senior Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of April, 2015.

IX Add.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy FAC.III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal

MVOP/17/2014

Krishnaiah vs K.Raja Reddy

22 Apr 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM -

III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT GADWAL

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2015

PRESENT:- Sri.P.Vijender

IX Addl.District Judge, Wanaparthy

FAC III Addl.Dist.Judge, Gadwal

O.P.No. 17 of 2014

Between:-

1.Krishnaiah S/o K.Bandenna, age 49 years,

2.K.Satyamma W/o Krishnaiah, age 44 years,

3.Jayamma D/o Krishnaiah, age 27 years

4.Anasuyamma D/o Krishnaiah, age 19 years

5.Venamma D/o Krishnaiah, age 16 years

All are Occ: Coolie, R/o Saddalonipally village, Maldakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Petitioner No.5 is minor under the guardianship

of Petitioner No.2. ….. Petitioners

And

1.K.Raja Reddy S/o K.Linga Reddy, Major, H.No.1-35, Konkanvanipally village, ATmakur Mandal ( Owner of the vehicle)

2.Thirumal Raju S/o Venkatswamy, age 30 years, Occ: Auto driver, H.No.2- 192, Amarachintha village, Atmakur Mandal. …Respondents

Claim : Claim petition filed under section 166 of M.V.Act, 1989 rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules 1989 r/w 140 of M.V.Act, 1988.

********

This Original petition coming on before me for final hearing on 1.4.2015 in the presence of Sri K.Ravi Prakash Goud, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri C.Raghavendra Chary, Advocate for R-1 and Respondent No.2 remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till today the court delivered the following.

O R D E R

1. This claim petition is u/s 166 of M.V.Act R/w 45 rule 455 of M.V.Rules, framed thereunder seeking a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Ravi Kumar who was the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 and brother of the

Petitioners 3 to 5 in a Motor Vehicle Accident.

2. The petition averments in brief are that, on 8.12.2008 deceased Ravi

Kumar along with Radhakrishna and Thirumalesh was travelling on a two wheeler and at about 9 A.M. when their two wheeler reached near Avanthi Godowns of

Saddalonipally village to Gadwal road a TATA ACE goods vehicle bearing No.AP22-

W-0687 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the two wheeler while over taking the RTC bus. Due to the said impact the deceased Ravi Kumar sustained head injury and died on the spot, whereas the pillion riders Radhakrishna and Thirumalesh sustained injuries. The first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the driver of the said vehicle. Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the goods vehicle the petitioners are seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of the deceased and the present petition is for recovery of the said amount with interest at 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization.

3. Resisting the claim the first respondent filed counter denying the petitioners version and interelia contended that the deceased Ravi Kumar and two others were proceeding on two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner on wrong side of the road and dashed to the auto and impact was resulted in an accident and the death of the deceased Ravi Kumar who sustained fatal injuries. The second respondent never drove the goods vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as alleged by the petitioners. Since the deceased Ravi Kumar was only a student there is no pecuniary loss to the claimants. The basic determination for the earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount which the deceased was spending for the dependants has to be taken into consideration while deciding the compensation amount. The mere assertion of the claimants that they have lost source of earnings for their sustenance itself is not sufficient to accept their claim.

Since the deceased was only student and was not an earning member, the question of loss of earnings and the support to the petitioners does not arise.

4. It is further contended by the first respondent in the counter that two weeks after the alleged accident a panchayat was held at Gadwal in the presence of

Thimma Reddy of Nagireddipally village and Rami Reddy of Konkanonipally village and in the said panchayat the claimants have agreed to receive Rs.1,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim and assured not to claim any compensation before any forum. But suppressing the said fact the petitioners filed the present claim petition and they are not entitled for any compensation.

5. On the above said pleadings the following issues are framed for enquiry on 4.7.2014.

1. Whether the deceased K.Ravi Kumar died in motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.AP22W-0687 ?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so from whom and what amount ?

3. To what relief ?

6. In the enquiry proceedings the first petitioner himself examined as PW.1.

To support his evidence got marked Ex.A1 to A8 documents. The first respondent himself examined as RW.1 without any other supporting evidence.

7. Issue No.1 : The evidence of first petitioner as PW.1 is consonance with the averments of the claim petition so also the evidence of RW.1 as per the counter. The petitioners to prove the nature of the accident have got filed CC of FIR, charge sheet, crime details form, MVI report, PME report, inquest panchanama as Ex.A1 to A6. AS seen from Ex.A1 it was registered on complaint by one Mahesh and as per the contents of the said complaint the complainant and one Ramanna were proceeding on two wheelers and ahead of them deceased Ravi Kumar, Radha Krishna and one Thirumalesh were proceeding on another motor cycle towards Gadwal. The complainant observed the crime vehicle TATA ACE coming in opposite direction over taking the RTC bus ahead of it and the crime vehicle driver was at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle of Ravi who sustained injuries and died on the spot, whereas the other injured persons were shifted to hospital by the complainant and another. The police Gadwal after due investigation of the crime filed charge sheet against the second respondent as driver of the crime vehicle. As seen from the charge sheet the complainant Mahesh is shown as eye witness to the accident along with three others. The substance of the charge sheet reads on the lines of the petitioners version with regard to the manner of accident. As per the P.M.E. report in Ex.A5 the death of the deceased Ravi Kumar was due to fatal injuries caused in the accident. The report of

MVI speaks that the crime vehicle was not having any mechanical defect. As such it fortifies the petitioners version that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the goods vehicle owned by the first respondent and driven by the second respondent. Accordingly the issue is answered.

8. Issue No.2 : As per the contents of the petition the deceased was a student aged 20 years, The PME report in Ex.A5 also shows the deceased was 20 years age.

The contest of the first respondent and the evidence by him is that since the deceased was only a student and not an earning member and was not possessed any technical qualification, his earning capacity by the date of demise cannot be assessed. Mere ascertain of the claimants that they lost support for their sustainance on account of untimely death of the deceased itself is not sufficient to award compensation. But this contest has no legs to stand. Because even the deceased was unable to secure job after completion of education would have earned money to support the parents. Since the deceased was a student, his notional income is taken at Rs.15,000/- per annum to apply the appropriate multiplier. The age of the second petitioner who is mother of the deceased has to be taken into consideration and she is 44 years as per the claim petition. The appropriate multiplier for the age group of 44 years in the multiplication table of Trilok Chandra’s case is 14. The amount so arrived is at Rs.2,10,000/-, in addition to it the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5000/- towards transportation charges and the same is awarded. Thus the petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-.

The entire compensation awarded to the petitioners is liable to be paid by the respondents individually as there is no insurance coverage to the crime vehicle. Though the petitioners claimed Rs.2,00,000/- in the claim petition this Tribunal finds granting of compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- is most reasonable by all means. As such the petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-. Accordingly the point is answered.

In the result, the O.P. is allowed for Rs.2,25,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Both the respondents are directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon before the court within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit the first petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,25,000/- with accrued interest thereon, petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled for Rs.25,000/- each with accrued interest thereon. Petitioners 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon and the second petitioner who is guardian of 5th petitioner is permitted to withdraw the share of compensation amount with accrued interest of 5th petitioner.

The office is directed to prepare decree on deposit of deficit court fee on

Rs.25,000/- within one month from the date of this order, on failure to deposit, prepared decree for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Senior Assistant of IX ADJ Court, Wanaparthy transcribed

and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of April, 2015.

IX Addl.District Judge,

Wanaparthy

FAC III Addl.Dist.Judge, Gadwal

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Petitioners : For Respondent No.1

PW.1 Krishnaiah RW.1 K.Raja Reddy

Exhibits Marked for

Petitioners :

Ex.A1 CC of FIR

Ex.A2 CC of charge sheet

Ex.A3 CC of crime details form

Ex.A4 CC of MVI report

Ex.A5 CC of PME report

Ex.A6 Copy of inquest panchanama

Ex.A7 Copy of RC of crime vehicle

Ex.A8 Copy of DL of crime vehicle

Respondents : Nil

IX Addl.District Judge,

Wanaparthy

FAC III Addl.Dist.Judge, Gadwal

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM -

III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT GADWAL

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2015

PRESENT:- Sri.P.Vijender

IX Addl.District Judge, Wanaparthy

FAC III Addl.Dist.Judge, Gadwal

O.P.No. 17 of 2014

Between:-

1.Krishnaiah S/o K.Bandenna, age 49 years,

2.K.Satyamma W/o Krishnaiah, age 44 years,

3.Jayamma D/o Krishnaiah, age 27 years

4.Anasuyamma D/o Krishnaiah, age 19 years

5.Venamma D/o Krishnaiah, age 16 years

All are Occ: Coolie, R/o Saddalonipally village, Maldakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Petitioner No.5 is minor under the guardianship

of Petitioner No.2. ….. Petitioners

And

1.K.Raja Reddy S/o K.Linga Reddy, Major, H.No.1-35, Konkanvanipally village, ATmakur Mandal (Owner of the vehicle) 2.Thirumal Raju S/o Venkatswamy, age 30 years, Occ: Auto driver, H.No.2- 192, Amarachintha village, Atmakur Mandal. …Respondents

This Original Petition is coming up for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri K.Ravi Prakash Goud, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri C.Raghavendra Chary, Advocate for Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2 remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows :

1. That the petition be and hereby is allowed for Rs.2,25,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs twenty five thousand only) with proportionate costs and with future interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 30-1-2014 till the date of realization of the amount against the respondents 1 and 2.

2. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month.

3. After deposit, On such deposit the first petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,25,000/- with accrued interest thereon, petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled for Rs.25,000/- each with accrued interest thereon. Petitioners 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon and the second petitioner who is guardian of 5th petitioner is permitted to withdraw the share of compensation amount with accrued interest of 5th petitioner.

: 2 :

4. That the respondents do also pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.4182=00 towards costs of the petition.

5. That the Advocate fees is fixed at Rs.2500/-.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 22nd day of

April, 2015.

IX-Addl.District Judge,

Wanaparthy

FAC III Addl.District Judge,

Gadwal.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For For For

Particulars Petitioners Respondent Respondent

No.1 No.2

Stamp on plaint Rs.1610=00 - - (Proportionate costs)

Stamp on Vakalat Rs. 2=00 2=00 Exparty

Stamp on process Rs. 64=00 - -

Stamp on petition Rs. 1=00 - -

Stamp on Rs. 5=00 - - documents

Advocate fee Rs.2500=00 - -

Total Rs. 4182=00 2=00 -

IX-Addl.District Judge,

Wanaparthy

FAC III Addl.District Judge,

Gadwal.

SC/39/2014 Acquitted

Harijan Jayalaxmi vs Yuvaraju

25 Mar 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

GADWAL

Wednesday, this the 25TH day of MARCH, 2015.

PRESENT : Sri.P.Vijendar IX Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy FAC. III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal

Sessions Case No.39 of 2014

(Preliminary Registered Case No.32/2013 in Cr.No.13/13 of P.S.Rajoli was committed by Dr.S.Srinivas Reddy, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur, dt.25.12.2013)

Name of the Accused : Yuvaraju S/o Tholla Beesanna, age 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Pedda Tandrapadu village of Waddepally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

Nature of offence : Under Section 304 IPC

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court : Accused found not guilty for the offence u/s 304 IPC

SENTENCE OR ORDER : The accused is acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 304 IPC. MO-1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

This Sessions case is coming on before me for final hearing on 18- 03-2015 in the presence of Sri K.Madan Mohan Reddy and

Smt.B.Shobha Rani, Advocates for the accused and Additional Public

Prosecutor for the complainant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till today this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Alampur laid charge against above named accused for the offences under section 304 IPC with the following accusations :

Deceased Jayakar, husband of PW.1 Jayalaxmi and the accused person are residents of Pedda Tandrapadu village. Deceased

Jayakar was suspecting the accused for practicing sorcery on his son who died of ill health about a year back. Hence he bore grudge against the accused and abused him in front of their house in a drunken condition. On 25.3.2013 deceased Jayakar after consuming liquor while crossing from infront of the house of accused abused him in loud voice, 2 then the accused became angry and uttered that he would kill the deceased, picked up a stick and tried to beat the deceased. Then the deceased ran away and while trying to escape he fell on CC road in the open place infront of the house of one Mathaiah and died on the spot.

2.Thereupon PW.1 Jayalaxmi went to the police station and presented Ex.P1 complaint. PW.10 T.Shiva Kumar the then S.I. of police,

Rajoli P.S. on receiving Ex.P1 registered the crime u/s 304 IPC vide

Ex.P9 FIR and furnished information to his superior officers, and secured the presence of PWs 1 to 4 examined and recorded their statements. He made a visit to the place of offence, examined it, prepared the observation report in the presence of PWs 5 and 6 under

Ex.P11 later PW.11 G.Raju the then Inspector of Police took up investigation on 26.3.2013 verified the investigation made by PW.10, apprehended the accused on 30.3.2013 and got recorded his confession in the presence of PWs 7 and 8 and in pursuance of confession of the accused in Ex.P12 recovered MO-1 stick used by the accused while chasing the deceased Jayakar under cover of said confession-cum-seizure panchanama in Ex.P12. He gave requisition to the Medical Officer for autopsy on the dead body of the deceased.

PW.9 Dr.B.Aparna held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, preserved viscera and the same was sent to the FSL with a letter of advice for examination and report and later after receiving FSL report in Ex.P13 and on completion of investigation charge sheet was laid.

3.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur before whose court the charge sheet was laid took cognizance of the case for the offence u/s 304 IPC and furnished the copies of documents relied by the prosecution to the accused on his appearance. Since the offence u/s 304 IPC is exclusively triable by a court of Sessions, the same was committed to the court of Sessions at Mahabubnagar. This court 3 received the record on the point of jurisdiction for disposal in accordance with law.

4.After appearance of the accused and on considering the material on record charge u/s 304 IPC was framed, read over and explained to him by my predecessor in office. The accused denied the charge and opted for trial.

5.In the trial proceedings for the prosecution 11 witnesses are examined as PWs 1 to 11 and 13 documents are marked as Ex.P1 to P13 and a stick was got marked as MO-1.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence the accused is examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence on record against him and he denied the truth of the same. The accused did not enter into defence except marking some portions in the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs 1 and 3 in their cross examination as

Ex.D1 and D2.

7.On hearing the arguments and considering the evidence both oral and documentary the point that emerged for consideration is : Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge framed against him beyond all reasonable doubt ?

8.POINT NO.1 : Among the witnesses examined by the prosecution PW.1 Jayalaxmi is the wife of the deceased Jayakar. The evidence of PW.1 is that she was informed by PW.2 Dinakar that a skuffle ensured between her husband and the accused and that the accused chased her husband with a stick and beat him caused his death in the land of one Muthaiah. Immediately she rushed to the spot saw the dead body of her husband with injuries on the head, chest, neck and other parts of the body, then went to the police station and presented complaint in Ex.P1. This evidence does not disclose that she personally saw the accused chasing the deceased and causing injuries 4 and she was informed of the incident by PW.2. As such it is hear say evidence.

9.PW.2 : evidence is that he noticed deceased proceeding from the village murmuring himself that his son was killed by the accused, on hearing the same the accused picked up a stick and chased the deceased to kill him and after running some distance the deceased fell down, then he rushed to the house of the deceased and informed to PW.1 and by the time of PW.1 and others arriving the deceased died. So what is the evidence of PW.2 is only he saw the accused chasing the deceased and it did not disclose causing of any injury by the accused to the deceased.

10.The evidence of PW.3 Praveenamma is when the deceased uttered to the accused that the accused caused the death of his son by practicing sorcery, accused became wild picked up a stick and threatened to kill the deceased, then the deceased ran away and while fleeing fell down and died of it.

11.The evidence of PW.4 Sudhakar is also to the same effect.

PWs 5 and 6 are said to be the mediators for the conducting of panchanama for the scene of offence, but they have not supported the prosecution by deposing that they simple subscribed their signatures to oblige the police and they are not aware of any panchanama for the scene of offence.

12.PW.8 is said to be one of the mediator for the alleged confession of offence by the deceased and recovery of stick at his instance. But he too has not supported the prosecution version by deposing that in his presence police have not got recorded any confession of the accused and the accused has not made any confession. PW.9 is the Medical Officer and PWs 10 and 11 are the

Investigating officers.

13.In this case the evidence of Medical Officer is important because the cause of death will be known only from the medical evidence. The evidence of PW.1 as already said soon after reaching the place of offence she noticed her husband with injuries on the head and other parts of the body. But the evidence of Medical Officer PW.9 is on examination of dead body of the deceased she noticed an abrasion on the right thigh and right ear. No other visible external injuries were there, she did not notice any abnormalities at the time of Post Mortem examination and preserved viscera sent to FSL for analysis and report.

The FSL report received stating that the death of the deceased was due to alcoholic intoxication and basing on it she gave her report in

Ex.P8. So the death of the deceased was not due to any injuries and it was on account of comsumption of excess alcohol for which the accused was nothing to do. If really the deceased sustained injury by fall while trying to flee away when he was being chased by the accused, certainly something can be attributed to the accused. But no such thing has happened in the present case. Hence even if the entire evidence of PWs 1 to 4 in chief examination is to b e believed, no case is made out against the accused to connect him for the death of deceased because as per the medical evidence the deceased died of consumption of excess alcohol. Hence the charge sheet framed against the accused has to fall. Accordingly the point is answered.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 304 IPC and he is acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. MO-1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Senior Assistant (to attend steno work) of IX

Addl.District Court, Wanaparthy, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of March, 2015.

III Add.Dist.& Sessions Judge, 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for PROSECUTION DEFENCE: PW.1 Smt.Harijan Jayalaxmi -Nil- PW.2 R.Dinakar PW.3 Smt.R.Praveenamma PW.4 R.Sudhakar PW.5 H.Samson PW.6 Daveed PW.7 S.Pedda Achanna PW.8 R.Devadas] PW.9 Dr.B.Aparna PW.10 T.Shiva Kumar PW.11 G.Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P2 Signature of PW.5 on inquest Ex.P3 Signature of PW.5 on crime details form Ex.P4 Signature of PW.6 on inquest Ex.P5 Signature of PW.6 on Crime details form Ex.P6 Signature of PW.8 on confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P7 Signature of PW.8 on panch chit Ex.P8 Post Mortem Examination report Ex.P9 Original FIR in Cr.No.13/13 of P.S.Rajoli, dt.26.3.2013. Ex.P10 Inquest report Ex.P11 Crime details form Ex.P12 Confession-cum-recovery panchanama Ex.P13 FSL report

DEFENCE:- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

MO-1 Stick

IX Add.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy FAC.III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal

Order Record 12 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
MVOP/17/2014	Krishnaiah vs K.Raja Reddy	22 Apr 2015	Order	—
SC/337/2014	Telugu Narayana vs Pujari Maddileti	22 Apr 2015	Judgement	Convicted
CRLRP/49/2014	U.Narsimulu vs U.Jyothi	01 Apr 2015	Order	—
SC/599/2013	Telugu Krishnaveni vs Harikrishna	01 Apr 2015	Judgement	Acquitted
SC/39/2014	Harijan Jayalaxmi vs Yuvaraju	25 Mar 2015	Judgement	Acquitted
MVOP/21/2014	P.Vijayalakshmi vs The United India Insurance Co.Ltd.	04 Mar 2015	Order	—
CC/144/2012	Boya Chowdamani vs Edigi Ramakrishna Goud	04 Mar 2015	Judgement	—
SC/209/2014	K.Chinna Beesanna vs Manda Raghu	04 Mar 2015	Judgement	—
SC/283/2013	Edigi Jayamma vs Mekala Hanmanthu	04 Mar 2015	Judgement	—
SC/63/2014	Smt.Karanam Rupavathamma vs Gonegandla Srinu	11 Feb 2015	Judgement	—
SC/296/2014	Smt.Fathima vs Pinjari Masoom	11 Feb 2015	Judgement	—
EP/9/2014	Molgera Ashanna vs P.Venkataiah	04 Feb 2015	Order	—

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has P.Vijendar handled?

P.Vijendar has handled 12 court orders since 2015 at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 3 orders per month.

What types of cases does P.Vijendar hear?

Based on available records, P.Vijendar primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Cases) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Civil matters (Execution Petitions) at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is P.Vijendar currently posted?

P.Vijendar is posted as III Addl. Dist and Session Judge at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex, Jogulamba Gadwal, Telangana.

Are judgments by P.Vijendar available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by P.Vijendar are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does P.Vijendar dispose cases?

P.Vijendar disposes approximately 3 cases per month, based on 12 orders handled over their tenure at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is P.Vijendar serving?

P.Vijendar has been serving at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex since 2015.

Case Types

SC 58%

MVOP 17%

EP 8%

CRLRP 8%

CC 8%

Posting History

Jan 2015 — May 2015

III Addl. Dist and Session Judge · 12 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 2

Convicted 1

Other Judges at this Court

S.ravi Kumar

Principal District and Sessions Judge Gadwal

12 orders

Vodela Srinivas

Fast Track Special Court for Rape and POCSO Act ca...

52 orders

Mr. Venkatesh Durva

Prl. Junior Civil Judges Court, Gadwal

0 orders

Sri. A.Nagaraju

Principal Senior Civil Judge cum Assistant Session...

0 orders

Smt.T Lakshmi

Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Assis...

205 orders

← View all judges at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex