Sri. S. Jagannadham

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MACT – CUM – DISTRICT JUDGE,

ADILABAD

Present:

S.Jagannadham,

CHAIRMAN, MACT-CUM-DISTRICT JUDGE,

ADILABAD

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012

MVOP NO: 216 OF 2010

Between:

1.Thangedipalli Ravi S/o. Dathu, aged 28 years, Occ.Carpenter.

2. Thangedipalli Latha @ Thangedipalli Ghanatha W/o. T.Ravi, aged 28 years, occ.Beedi roller. ( Both R/o. Gopalpet village mandal Sarangapur, Dist. Adilabad) … PETITIONERS

// AND //

1.Sable Nekku Singh S/o. Balaram aged 46 years, occ.Driver of Maheswar Public School bus bearing No. AP 20 T 9987 C/o. Maheshwara Public School, near Dyangapur village, mandal Sarangapur, Dist.Adilabad.

2. Maheshwara Public School, rep.by Sri A.Maheshwar Reddy S/o. Padmanabha Reddy, aged major years, Occ.MLA Nirmal and Owbner of School bus bearing No. AP 20 T 9987, R/o. Nirmal village mandal Nirmal, Dist.Adilabad. … RESPONDENTS

This original petition coming on for final hearing on 26-11-2012 in the presence of Sri A.Amarender Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and Respondents No. 1 and 2 remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court made the following:

O R D E R

1)This is a claim application filed Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 by the Petitioners Thangedipalli Ravi and Thangedipalli Latha parents of deceased by name Thangedipalli Swetha, aged 2 years, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000- 00 against respondent No.1 Sable Nekku Singh and R2 Maheshwara Public school for causing the death of the deceased Swetha by R1 by driving the School bus of

R2 bearing No. AP 20 T 9987 on 23-2-2010 at 1600 hours near GP Office, at

Gopalpet village, Sarangapur mandal of Adilabad District in a rash and negligent manner and running over the deceased and causing her instantaneous death.

2) The Police, Sarangapur registered case in Cr.No. 23 of 2010 against r1 U/s.

304-A IPC, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet also.

2

3)Originally R2 remained ex-parte and R1 filed written statement pleading interalia that he was licenced driver employed by R2 and driver of the bus which met with an accident and he was driving the bus occasionally and due to negligence of mother of deceased by leaving the tender girl on the road un-attended and due to suddenly coming on to the road by the deceased, she met with an accident and he was not responsible for the death of the deceased as he was not at all rash or negligent in driving the bus. R2 being the owner alone is responsible to pay the compensation and that the compensation claim is excessive, the Petitioners are not the Dependants of the deceased and so, he denied his liability.

4)The Tribunal framed the following issues basing on the pleadings.

1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in the death of the deceased .

2) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent act on the part of the driver of R-1’s vehicle ?

3) Whether the vehicle of R1 stood insured with R2 insurance company on the date of the accident and if so, whether that policy covers the risk of the deceased ?

4) Whether the Claimants are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and what is the liability of R-1 and R-2 ?

5) To what relief ?

5)During trial, PWs 1 and 2 are examined and Ex.A1 to A6 are marked for the

Petitioners. R1 having filed written statement also remained ex-parte.

6)Some errors occurred while framing the issues by my predecessor in issue

No.2 , it mentioned as whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of R1. In fact R1 himself is the driver. So, the issue should be whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, by R1.

7)In issue No.3, it was mentioned as though whether the vehicle of R1 stood insured with R2. In fact, R1 is the driver, R2 is the owner of the vehicle and no insurer is made as party, so this issue is un-necessarily. So the issues are re-caste as follows:

1) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the School bus of R2 by R1 ?

2) Whether the Claimants are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondent ?

3) To what relief ?

3

ISSUE NO.1:

8)Admittedly, the School bus which caused the accident is owned by R2. R1 was the driver of at the time of the accident. The accident is not in dispute. The death of the deceased in the accident is also not in dispute. The dispute is with regard to the rashness or negligence on the part of R1.

9)R1 having filed written statement remained ex-parte. He did not enter the witness box and explains how he is not responsible to the accident. The deceased was only aged about 2 years. So, she cannot have any road sense. The driver owe a duty to the young children. The evidence of PW-2 coupled with the contents mentioned in

Ex.A1 , the copy of FIR, Ex.A3 the copy of inquest report, Ex.A5 the copy of charge sheet discloses that the deceased was on the side of the road. R1 having dropped the children while going back drove the bus and the bus ran over on tender aged girl of 2 years. The evidence of PW-2 is clear that the driver was both negligent and rash in driving the bus without taking care of presence of tender girl on the road. So, the nature of the accident , the place of accident and the manner in which the accident took place explains that there was both rashness and negligence on the part of R1 in driving the bus. So this Court concludes that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver i.e. R1.

ISSUE NO.2 :

10)The deceased is a girl aged about 2 years. The Petitioners are young parents of the deceased. It was pleaded that the deceased alone was the child of the

Petitioners and they have undergone family planning operation and so, they are not likely to beget any further child. But no proof is placed before the Court that they underwent family planning operation and there is no possibility of their begetting any other child.

11) The deceased is a girl of tender age 2 years. So the Petitioners are not the dependants on the deceased. Further they have to spend money on the deceased and to bring her up, educate her and they have to spend money to perform her marriage in future and settle her life and their dependency on the deceased is remote. So the petitioners cannot be stated to be the dependants of the deceased.

4

12)The learned Counsel for the Claimants placed reliance the Judgment of the

Supreme Court in Manju Devi and another Vs. Musafir Paswan and another reported in 2005 ACJ 99 . In that case, the deceased was a boy aged 13 years. So the multiplier 15 was applied taking the income at Rs.15000-00 per annum being non earning member.

13)In this case, the deceased is female aged 2 years. So similar principle cannot be made applicable.

14)The learned Counsel placed reliance the Judgment of our High Court in National

Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Adilabad Vs. Pittala Ramulu and others reported in 2006 (5) ALT 688.

15)In the above case, the deceased is aged One year. So the multiplier 15 was applied being non earning member, the income was taken as Rs.15000-00 per annum and 1/3 was deducted and the remaining amount was awarded as compensation which was upheld by the High Court.

16)In the present case, the deceased is only female aged 2 years. So the parents depending upon female is remote. Further, they have to spend on the girl to bring her up to perform her marriage and to meet other expenses even thereafter and further she cannot provide any maintenance to parents . The parents have lost their beloved daughter. So they underwent mental agony. Further, the deduction should be half as the deceased is female. So keeping all the aspects in mind, this court is of the considered view that a fixed compensation of Rs.1,00,000-00 can be awarded to meet the ends of justice. So the compensation is arrived at Rs.1,00,000-00.

17) Respondent No.1 caused the accident and so, he is primarily responsible . He was working under Respondent No.2 . So Respondent No.2 is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners as his servant caused the accident while discharging his duties as driver under Respondent No.2 So both Respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner.

5

ISSUE NO.3 :

18)IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed.

i)The Petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000-00 payable by

Respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally with costs and with interest at 9% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of deposit of compensation in to Court.

ii)The Respondents 1 and 2 shall deposit the compensation within (30) days from the date of order.

iii)Petitioners are equally entitled for the compensation deposited.

iv)Petitioners are permitted to withdraw Rs.25,000-00 each on the deposit of compensation and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of three years.

v)As per the amended Rule 471 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, the

Petitioners are informed that they need not pay any percentage to their Counsel out of compensation.

vi)The rest of petition claim is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 5th day of December, 2012.

CHAIRMAN

M.A.C.T-CUM-DISTRICT JUDGE

ADILABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For PetitionersFor Respondents

PW-1: T.Ravi -Nil- PW-2: K.Rajeshwar

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.A-1: Attested copy of FIR -NIL- Ex.A-2: Attested copy of MVI Report Ex.A-3: Attested copy of Inquest report. Ex.A-4: Attested copy of PME report Ex.A-5: Attested copy of charge sheet Ex.A-6: True copy attested by Public Prosecutor of Certificate of registration of bus bearing No. AP 20 T 9985.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-DISTRICT JUDGE

ADILABAD

6

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MACT – CUM – DISTRICT JUDGE,

ADILABAD

Present:

S.Jagannadham,

CHAIRMAN, MACT-CUM-DISTRICT JUDGE,

ADILABAD

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012

MVOP NO: 216 OF 2010

Between:

1)Thangedipalli Ravi S/o. Dathu, aged 28 years, Occ.Carpenter.

2)Thangedipalli Latha @ Thangedipalli Ghanatha W/o. T.Ravi, aged 28 years, occ.Beedi roller. ( Both R/o. Gopalpet village mandal Sarangapur, Dist. Adilabad) … PETITIONERS

// AND //

1)Sable Nekku Singh S/o. Balaram aged 46 years, occ.Driver of Maheswar Public School bus bearing No. AP 20 T 9987 C/o. Maheshwara Public School, near Dyangapur village, mandal Sarangapur, Dist.Adilabad.

2)Maheshwara Public School, rep.by Sri A.Maheshwar Reddy S/o. Padmanabha Reddy, aged major years, Occ.MLA Nirmal and Owbner of School bus bearing No. AP 20 T 9987, R/o. Nirmal village mandal Nirmal, Dist.Adilabad. … RESPONDENTS

CLAIM FOR : The O.P is filed U/Sec. 166 (1) (c) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000-00 for the death of one Thangedipalli Swetha in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 23-2-2010 near Grampanchayath Office at Gopalpet village, Mandal Sarangapur, due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. AP 20 T 9987, by its driver.

VALUATION: A Court fee of Rs. _______/- is paid under Sec.475 (1) of M.V. Act.

PETITION PRESENTED ON :

PETITION FILED ON :

This original petition coming on for final hearing on 26-11-2012 in the

presence of Sri A.Amarender Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and Respondents

No. 1 and 2 remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth Order and Decree as follows:

i) That the petition is be and hereby partly allowed.

i)That the Petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000-00 payable by

Respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally with costs and with interest at 9% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of deposit of compensation in to Court.

7 ii)That the Respondents 1 and 2 shall deposit the compensation within (30) days from the date of order.

iii)That the Petitioners are equally entitled for the compensation deposited.

iv)That the Petitioners are permitted to withdraw Rs.25,000-00 each on the deposit of compensation and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of three years.

v)That as per the amended Rule 471 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, the

Petitioners are informed that they need not pay any percentage to their Counsel out of compensation.

vi)That the rest of petition claim is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

COST OF THE PETITION

For PetitionerAmount For RespondentAmount Rs.

Rs. Stamp on petitionStamp on power2.00 Stamp on powerStamp on Exhibits-- Stamp on ExhibitsPleaders Fee-- Pleaders fee Cf./N.CService of process-- Service of processMisc.-- Commissioner’s Fee-- Misc.-- Paper Publication receipt T O T A L :T O T A L :2.00

Given under my hand and seal of the court on this the 5th day of December, 2012.

CHAIRMAN

M.A.C.T-CUM-DISTRICT JUDGE

ADILABAD.

NOTE : The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as the record will be liable to be destroyed after 3 years or after 6 years from the date, according to the nature of the exhibits under the rules for the destruction of record.

8

Office of the Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class (Mobile) Court, Adilabad

From :To

Ms.G.Govinda Laxmi B.A.,BL., The Judicial First Class Magistrate Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class (Mobile) Court, Adilabad. Adilabad

Lr.Dis.No. /2012, dt. -12-2012

Madam,

Sub: Sending of entire record in PRC.No. 32/2012 on the file of this ( Old PRC No. 46/2012 on the file of JFCM, Adilabad), for want of Original report of RFSL, Karimnagar, in Cr.No. 25/2012 of PS Thamsi - Reg.

Ref: Hon'ble Prl.District and Sessions Court, Adilabad vide Dis.No. 6016/2012, dt. 1-12-2012.

***

With reference to the subject cited above, I am to state that the Committal record in PRC.No. 46/2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adilabad, was made over to this Court by transfer and subsequently the said PRC was numbered as PRC 32/2012 in this Court. Later the said case was committed to the Court of Hon'ble District and Sessions Court, Adilabad. There upon, the said record was returned to this Court from the Hon'ble District Court on the ground that the Original RFSL report was not found in the said file and on verification, the attested copy of the said RFSL report is only filed in this case.

9

Therefore, I am herewith returning the entire record in PRC.No. 32/2012 on the file of this Court (OLD PRC.No. 46/2012 on the file of JFCM, Adilabad) duly indexed, for want of the Original RFSL report so as to enable this Court to commit the said record to the Hon'ble District and Sessions Court, Adilabad.

Yours faithfully

Encl: Entire record in PRC 32/2012

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mobile (PCR), Adilabad.

OP.NO. 216/2010 DT. 5-12-2012

IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed.

i)The Petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000-00 payable by Respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally with costs and with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit of compensation in to Court. ii)The Respondents 1 and 2 shall deposit the compensation within (30) days from the date of order. iii)Petitioners are equally entitled for the compensation deposited.

1 iv)Petitioners are permitted to withdraw Rs.25,000-00 each on the deposit of compensation and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of three years.

v)As per the amended Rule 471 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, the Petitioners are informed that they need not pay any percentage to their Counsel out of compensation. vi)The rest of petition claim is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs/STs

(POA) ACT,

CUM ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT ADILABAD

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Spl.SC.No. 08/2011

1. Crime Number and Name of the P.S.: Cr.No. 48/2010 of PS Thiryani

2. Name and description of the accused:

A-1: Katherla Chandraiah, S/o Gangaiah, 45 years Occ: Shepherd R/o Gambiraop[et (V) of Thiryani Mandal A-2: Katherla Gattu, S/o Chandraiah, Age 19 years Occ: Student, R/o Gambiraop[et (V) of Thiryani Mandal A-3: Katherla Alaiah, S/o Ganaiah, Age 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gambiraop[et (V) of Thiryani Mandal A-4: Saidam Kumar, S/o Chandraiah, Age 25 years Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gambiraop[et (V) of Thiryani Mandal A-5: Polakani Lachaiah, S/o Rajaiah, Age 25 years Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gambiraop[et (V) of Thiryani Mandal

3. Date of Occurrence : 22.9.2010

4. Date of receipt of record: 03.03.2011

5. Apprehension of accused: 9.11.2010

6. Released on bail: 28.4.2011

7. Date of commitment: 04.02.2011

8. Commencement of Trial: 19.10.2012

9. Close of trial: 02.11.2012

10. Sentence/Order: 04.12.2012

11. Remarks:

In the result, the accused A-1 to A-5 are acquitted under section 235(1) of CrPC for the charges under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs(POA) Act, 1989 and they are set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds of the accused shall continue till the appeal time is over.

FAC: Special Judge for trial of cases under Scs/STs(POA) Act, cum

Additional Dist.& Sessions Judge,

Adilabad.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE AT : ADILABAD

Present:

S.JAGANNADHAM

Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad

Tuesday THE 4TH DAY OF December, 2012

Spl. S.C. NO. 8 OF 2011 (On committal by D.Venkatesh, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Asifabad by his order

dated 4.2.2011 in PRC No. 8/2011 in Cr.No. 48 of 2010 of Thiryani Police Station)

Name of the Complainant:: State of A.P., through SHO, PS, Thiryani PS.

Name of the Accused::

A-1: Katherla Chandraiah, S/o Gangaiah, 45 years

Occ: Shepherd R/o Gambiraop[et (V) of Thiryani Mandal

A-2: Katherla Gattu, S/o Chandraiah, Age 19 years

Occ: Student, R/o Gambiraop[et (V) of Thiryani Mandal

A-3: Katherla Alaiah, S/o Ganaiah, Age 40 years,

Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gambiraop[et (V) of Thiryani Mandal

A-4: Saidam Kumar, S/o Chandraiah, Age 25 years

Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gambiraop[et (V) of Thiryani Mandal

A-5: Polakani Lachaiah, S/o Rajaiah, Age 25 years

Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gambiraop[et (V) of Thiryani Mandal

Offence under section:: u/sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of SCs/STs (POA) Act.

Plea of the accused:: Not guilty

Finding :: Not guilty

Sentence or Order::

In the result, the accused A-1 to A-5 are acquitted under section 235(1) of

CrPC for the charges under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of

SCs/STs(POA) Act, 1989 and they are set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds of the accused shall continue till the appeal time is over.

Name of the counsel for:: Sri B. Praveen, Addl.P.P, I Addl.District Complainant and Sessions Court, Adilabad incharge of the post of Spl. Public Prosecutor

Name of the counsel for :: Sri Y.Vishnu Bhagawan, defence Advocate 3

This case coming on before me for final hearing on 27.11.2012 in the presence of Sri B. Praveen, Addl.P.P, I Addl.District and Sessions Court, Adilabad incharge of the post of Spl. Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri Y.Vishnu Bhagawan, Advocate

for accused and on hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for

consideration till this day, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1) The accused were arraigned before this court for the charges under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and under section 3 (1) (x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act,1989.

2) The SDPO, Bellampalli filed a report under section 173 CrPC before the

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Asifabad against A-1 to A-5 with the following averments innuse.

3)The brief facts of the prosecution case are that A-1 to A-5 are residents of

Gambiraopet village of Thiryani Mandal of Adilabad District. They are agricultural coolies. They belong to other than schedule Cast / Schedule tribe. PW-1 /

Manubothula Mallesh is also resident of same village and he belongs to Schedule Tribal.

On 22.9.2010 at about 2000 hours, there was a Ganesh ideal procession in

Gambiraopet, PW-1 was dancing in the procession, then A-1 obstructed him, beat him and pushed him from the procession, in the meanwhile A-2 caught hold of his throat and hit his head towards tractor trolley, resulting which, causing sever head injury on the back side of the head. A-3 to A-5 also beat him with hands and kicked him, when

PW-2 Manuvothula Naresh and PW-3 Badhi Srinu came to his rescue, A-1 to A-5 abused them in filthy language as “Naikapu Lanjakodukullara, Kulamthakko

Bhadukavullara, Maa Ganesh DEvuni Dhaggara Vachi Dance Chesthara” . PW-5 Methari

Shanker, PW-7 Suryanarayana and others intervened and subsided the matter. A-4 earlier quarrelled with PW-1 in a marriage function and thereby there were previous 4 grudges. Therefore PW-1 to 3 were beaten and abused by A-1 to A-5. PW-1 fell down and became unconscious and there by shifted him to hospital.

On 23.9.2010 at 0715 hours PW-1 complained to the police and Sub-Inspector of police, Thiryani registered the report as case in Cr.No. 48/2010 under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs(POA) Act, 1989 and submitted the First

Information Report to the Court and recorded the statement of PW-1 and sent him to

Government Hospital Thiryani for treatment. He sent Radio Message to the

Superintendent of Police for taking further action.

The Superintendent of police Adilabad vide memo C.No. 203/C2-DCRB/2010 (1563) dt: 23.9.2010 authorized the SDPO Bellampalli to conduct investigation, then the SDPO visited the scene of offence, secured the witnesses, examined them and recorded their statements, conducted scene of offence panchanama, drafted rough sketch of scene of offence. Obtained caste certificate of A-1 to A-5 and PW-1, obtained Wound certificate, thereafter filed charge sheet against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad.

4.After appearance of the accused the learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents and by following the procedure committed this case to this court.

5.This court numbered the PRC 8/2011 as Spl.SC 8/2011 by taking cognizance of the same against the accused.

6.After appearance of the accused and on hearing both sides this court framed the charges under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs(POA)

Act, Adilabad 1989 against A-1 to A-5 read over and explained to the accused, for which they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

5

7. This court fixed trial schedule, conducted trial. During trail PWs-1 to 15 examined, Ex.P-1 to P-21 are marked. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused were examined under section 313 CrPC, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they have denied the offence and stated that they have not committed any offence. They did not enter any defence.

8.This court has heard the public prosecutor and defence counsel.

9.Point for consideration :-

Whether the prosecution proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt ?

10.PW-1 defacto complainant / Manabothula Mallesh and all the eye witnesses completely turned hostile. PW-1 even denied the giving report to the police. Even the panch witnesses to the scene of offence also turned hostile. PW-1 stated that he fell down and sustained injury in the procession. So he has not attributed any overt acts to accused.

11.It is not in dispute that PW-1 belongs to ST community and accused belongs to non schedule caste and schedule tribe community. It is also not in dispute PW-1 sustained injury.

12.To attract the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. PW-1 must have sustained injury and the accused must have caused the injury with any dangerous object with an intention to cause hurt to him. PW-1 and eye witnesses completely turning hostile, there is no evidence to establish that the accused have caused any injury to PW-1 on the alleged date of offence. So the charge under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC is not proved.

13.To attract the offence under section 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs(POA) Act, 1989, PW-1 should have been insulted with an intention in a public view by touching his caste as PW- 6 1 and eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case, there is no evidence that accused either abused or insulted PW-1 in a public view. So the charge under section 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs(POA) Act, 1989 is also not established.

14.On considering the above evidence this court record finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused as there is absolutely no evidence in view of PW-1 and eye witnesses completely turning hostile.

So this court found accused not guilty for the charges under section 324 r/w 34 of

IPC and section 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs(POA) Act, 1989.

15.In the result, the accused A-1 to A-5 are acquitted under section 235(1) of

CrPC for the charges under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of

SCs/STs(POA) Act, 1989 and they are set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds of the accused shall continue till the appeal time is over.

Dictated to personal assistant, transcribed by her and after correction

pronounced by me in open court on this the 4th day of December, 2012.

SESSIONS JUDGE

ADILABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :

PW-1: Manubothula Mallesh, complainant and injured (LW1) PW-2: Manuvothula Naresh, eye witness (LW-2) PW-3: Badi Srinivas, eye witness (LW-3) PW-4: Korri Mogili, eye witness (LW-4) PW-5: Methari Shanker, eye witness (LW-5) PW-6: Bokkenapalli Munishwar, eye witness (LW-6) PW-7: Jaiswal Suryanarayana, eye witness (LW-7) PW-8: Gaddala Mogili, scriber of the petition (LW-10) PW-9: Muthem Rajaiah, panch witness for crime detail form (LW-11) PW-10: Jimmidi Kistaiah, panch witness for crime detail form (LW-12) PW-11: Manthaiah, Tahasildar, Thiryani (M), issued caste certificate of A-1 to A-5 and PW-1 (LW-13) PW-12: Dr. M. Manunjay, Medical Officer, treated and issued Wound Certificate of PW-1 (LW-14) PW-13: Manuvothula Shekar, eye witness (LW-8) PW-14: Ramtenki Banaiah, eye witness (LW-9) 7

PW-15: S. Satheesh Kumar, S.I. of police (IO)(LW-15)

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex;P-1Report of PW-1 given to Police, Ex:P-2U/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1 Ex:P-3U/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2 Ex:P-4U/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3 Ex:P-5U/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4 Ex:P-6U/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-5 Ex:P-7U/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-6 Ex:P-8U/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-7 Ex:P-9U/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-8 Ex.p-10 Signature of PW-9 on crime detail form Ex.P-11 Signature of PW-9 on the rough sketch Ex.P-12 Signature of PW-10 on crime detail form Ex.P-13 Signature of PW-10 on the rough sketch Ex.P-14 Caste certificates issued by PW-11 Ex.P-15 Medical certificate of PW-1 Ex.P-16 U/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-13 Ex.P-17 U/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-14 Ex.P-18 First Information Report Ex.P-19 Order of appointment of Y.Sudhakar, SDPO Ex.P-20 Crime detail form Ex.P-21 Rough sketch

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

SESSIONS JUDGE

ADILABAD

8

Dt: 04-12-2012

CRLMP.BAIL/300324/20121 / 1

TSAD000019822012

IN THE COURT OF THE Spl Judge for SCs STs Act

Cases:

Present: Spl Judge for SCs STs Act Cases, The 4th day of December 2012

CRLMP.BAIL/300324/2012

Between:

Pidugu Mahendar Address: So. Venkatesham, Age 26 years, Occ Badili Coal Filter at RK-5mine, Ro. Qtr. No. 19-4-19, station Road colony, Bellampalli, District Adilabad.

2: Kola Venkatesh Age: 19 Occupation : So. Narsaiah Age 19 years Occ. ITI 1st year student Ro. Budidagadda Basthi Bellampalli District Adilabad.

3: Sogalla Kannaiah Age: 27 Occupation : So. Rajesham Age 27 years Occ. Airtel Network Maintenance at Mancherial to Korutla Ro. Qtr.No. 176 Hanuman Basthi Bellampalli District Adilabad … Plaintiff/Petitioner

Dt: 04-12-2012

CRLMP.BAIL/300324/20121 / 1

AND

State of A.P. through P.S. Bellampalli-II Town Address: P.S. Bellampalli-II town, District Adilabad.

… Defendent/Respondent Counsel for Petitioner : A. Amarender Reddy,Advocate Counsel for Respondent : Spl.Public Prosecutor,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

In the result this petition is allowed.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 04-12-2012 Spl Judge for SCs STs Act Cases (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

Dt: 05-12-2012

CRLMP.BAIL/300108/20121 / 1

TSAD000019532012

IN THE COURT OF THE Spl Judge for SCs STs Act

Cases:

Present: Spl Judge for SCs STs Act Cases, The 5th day of December, 2012

CRLMP.BAIL/300108/2012

Between:

Manda Suman Address: So. Lingaiah, Age 22 years, Occ Auto Driver, now in Jail, Ro. B.Zone Ramkrishnapur, District Adilabad.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

The State of A.P. through S.H.O. PS. CCC Naspur Address: P.S. CCC Naspur, District Adilabad.

… Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : K. Sri Ram,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : Spl.Public Prosecutor,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Heard the counsel for the petitioner. In the result this petition is allowed.

Dt: 05-12-2012

CRLMP.BAIL/300108/20121 / 1

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 05-12-2012 Spl Judge for SCs STs Act Cases (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

Dt: 04-12-2012

CRLMP.BAIL/100998/20121 / 1

TSAD000020092012

IN THE COURT OF THE Spl Judge for SCs STs Act

Cases:

Present: Spl Judge for SCs STs Act Cases, The 4th day of December, 2012

CRLMP.BAIL/100998/2012

Between:

A8. Gedam Vittal Address: So. Bapu Rao, Aged 46 years, Occ. Agriculture, Ro. Tippa Village of Adilabad Mandal, Dist. Adilabad.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

State of A.P. through P.S. Adilabad Rural Address: P.S. Adilabad Rural, Dist. Adilabad.

… Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : M. Madhukar,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : Public Prosecutor,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Heard both sides. Orders pronounced -vide separate one. In the result, the

Dt: 04-12-2012

CRLMP.BAIL/100998/20121 / 1 petition is dismissed.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 04-12-2012 Spl Judge for SCs STs Act Cases (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)