Sri S.Krishnan Kutty

1

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAYACHOTY.

Present: Sri S.Krishnan Kutty, V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty.

Wednesday, this the 15th day of April, 2026.

Sessions Case No.164/2020

State: Represented by the Inspector of Name of the Complainant Police, Lakkireddypalle Circle.

Mallika Ramana, son of Yellaiah, 35 years, R/o. Kuppam Nadimpalli village Name of the Accused ofChakrayapetamandal,Yanadi, Agriculture labour,

Charges framedU/Secs. 302 of IPC.

Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge Accused is found not guilty

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.302 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of code of Criminal Procedure. The non valuable case property I.e, M.O.s 1 to 9 shall be returned to the committal Court Sentence of the Judgewith a direction to destroy the same after the expiry of appeal time. Since the accused is undergoing remand in Sub Jail, Rayachoty, the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Rayachoty is ordered to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any other cases.

Prosecution conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor

Accused defended byAdvocate Sri U. Ramanjaneyudu (Legal Aid counsel).

Crime No. and Police station. Cr.No.169 of 2019 of Chakrayapeta Police Station 2 P.R.C. No. and Name of theP.R.C.No. 05 of 2020 of Judicial committal court.Magistrate of First Class Court, Lakkireddypalle

Committed byJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Lakkireddypalle

Date of offence 26-12-2019

Date of report 27-12-2019

Date of remand04-01-2020

Date of release on bail--

Date of committal to17-06-2020

Sessions Court.

Date of commencement of 06-02-2026 trial

Date of close of trial10-04-2026

Date of Judgment 15-04-2026 :: JUDGMENT ::

1. The Inspector of police, Lakkireddipalle circle has submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC in Cr.No.169 of 2019 of Chakrayapeta police station.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 27-12-2019 at 9-00 A.M while the Sub-Inspector of police,

Chakrayapeta police station/PW-14 was present in the police station,

PW-1/Kamalamari Venkata Subbamma (Who is wife of the deceased) came to police station and presented a written complaint stating that she is the resident of Kuppam Nadimpalli village of Chakrayapeta mandal. She and her husband are blessed with two male children namely Prathap and Nagarjuna; and they are living by doing agriculture 3 labor works. Now and then her husband go to the wine shop situate at

Nagulaguttapalli for drinking alcohol and he used to fell down in the vicinity of the wine shop by consuming liquor; and later they would go there and took him back to house. While so, yesterday after noon i.e., on 26-12-2019 at about 1-00 p.m her husband went to Nagulaguttapalle in the auto of one Reddy Basha accompanied with their villagers namely

Srikanth, Devi and Lakshmikantha. Her husband got down from the auto at Nagulaguttapalle and went towards the wine shop along with her villager Beedila Ramana/Pw.8 and others; but not returned home till night. On enquiry the said Beedila Ramana/Pw.8 informed her that her husband was found wandering in the vicinity of the wine shop at

Nallaguttapalli along with one person caste by yanadi (i.e., accused) by drinking alcohol and not returned to village even called by him. As her husband did not return to house in the night, next day morning i.e., on 27-12-2019 at about 7-00 a.m she went to Nagulaguttapalle village and searched him in the vicinity of the wine shop. At that time some workers informed her that one person was found lying in a pool of blood near the heap of stones. Then she rushed there and identified that the dead body lying in a pool of blood with the injuries, is that of her husband.

Immediately, she came to Chakrayapeta police station and reported the same stating that yesterday night some unknown persons killed her husband by beating him.

4 3.Basing on the complaint of PW-1, the Sub-Inspector of police/PW-14 registered a case in Cr.No.169 of 2019 under section 302 of IPC of Chakrayapeta police station against unknown offender. The

Inspector of police/Investigating officer/Pw.15 took up investigation on the same day. The Investigating officer/PW-15 along with the Sub-

Inspector of police/PW-14 and his staff, and also PW-1 visited the scene of offence at about 9.45 AM. The investigating officer/PW-15 conducted inquest proceedings over the dead body of the deceased from 10.00AM to 1.00 PM in the presence of panchayatdars, and kith and kin of the deceased. He also seized the incriminating articles namely bloodstained boulder stone, bloodstained earth and control earth and etc., during the inquest proceedings. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and also photographs of the scene of offence and dead body of the deceased (no such photographs were filed and marked in this case).

During the inquest, the investigating officer/PW-15 secured the presence of P.Ws1 to 3 and other Lws and recorded their detailed statements.

Thereafter, he forwarded the dead body of the deceased to the government hospital, Vempalli for conducting autopsy. On the same day, he secured the presence of P.W4, P.W5, and other L.Ws examined them and recorded their detailed statements.

4.On 28-12-2019, the investigating officer/PW-15 secured the presence of P.ws6 and 7 and recorded their statements. During the course of investigation on 04-1-2020 morning the accused appeared 5

before the Village Revenue officer/PW-11 and confessed that he beat the

deceased with iron rod on 26-12-2019 during night hours due to previous grudges and killed him. Then the Village Revenue officer/PW-11 recorded the statement of accused and produced the accused before the investigating officer/PW-15 along with the statement/extra judicial confession of the accused. The investigating officer/PW-15 secured the presence of panchyatdars and interrogated the accused in their presence and arrested the accused under the cover of arrest and confession panchnama. During the interrogation, the accused led the investigating officer/P.W.15, Sub-Inspector of police/PW-14, police personnel and panchayatdars near to the scene of offence and picked out the crime weapon/Iron rod and produced the same before the

Investigating officer/PW-15. The investigating officer/PW-15 seized the same under the cover of panchanama. Later, the accused was produced for remand. On 25-01-2020, the investigating officer secured the presence of P.W8 and examined him and recorded his statement.

Thereafter, the investigating officer/PW-15 sent the seized materials to

R.F.S.L for examination and report. After completion of investigation and receipt of RFSL report (that human blood is detected in the M.Os except in the control earth, but blood group could not be determined) and P.M. Certificate, the investigating officer/PW-15 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC.

6

5.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Lakkireddypalle has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 302 of IPC and numbered it as P.R.C.No.05 of 2020. As the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Principal District and

Sessions Court, Kadapa, under Section 209 (a) of code of Criminal

Procedure after serving copies of documents to the accused under

Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, the Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa registered the case as S.C.No.164 of 2020 and made it over to this court for trial and disposal in accordance to law.

6. On appearance of accused before the Court, charge for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to P.W.15 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P16; and M.Os1 to 9. On behalf of the defense side, nobody was examined and nothing was marked.

8. P.W1 to PW3 have supported the prosecution case. Through

PW.1, the complaint was marked as Ex.P1. P.Ws4 and 5 turned hostile.

Hence, their section 161 Cr.P.C statements were marked as Exs.P2 and 7 P3. Pw.6 to PW8 supported the case of prosecution. The doctor/PW9 has deposed that on 27-12-2019 at about 2.00 p.m he received requisition from Inspector of police, Lakkireddypalle circle to conduct Postmortem over the dead body of the deceased/Kamalmarri Anjaneyulu (deceased).

Postmortem commenced at 2-30 p.m on the same day. The doctor (Pw.9) found the following external appearances on the dead body of the deceased; The body dressed in cotton full shirt with dried blood stains, white colour cotton pancha, rose colour full underwear with

AMISH TRUNKS letters and with red colour waist thread ( four lines).

Postmortem lividity is on the back. Rigor mortis present in lower limb;

Injuries:- 1) A laceration measuring 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep present obliquely over right side of frontal area with a depressed contusion. 2) A laceration measuring 3 cm x 1 cm x skin deep present obliquely over posterior aspect of right ear lobe. 3) An abrasion measuring 6 cm x 2 cm present over right side of lateral part of neck area with swelling injury. 4) On reflection of scalp- communited fracture of right temporal and frontal and parietal bones were noted with damage of brain tissue noted. 5) Head and neck: Injuries mentioned supra. All organs are found pale. The time of death is about 6 to 12 hours prior to P.M.

examination. The cause of death is due to head injury. Accordingly, he issued P.M. Certificate/Ex.P4. The injuries mentioned by him supra are possible by blunt object like rod and stone.

9. PW10 has deposed that the police conducted inquest proceedings in his presence. Through PW-10, inquest proceedings was 8 marked as Ex.P5. The Village Revenue officer/Pw-11 has deposed in support of the prosecution case. Through PW-11 extra judicial confession/report was marked as Ex.P6. The arrest, confession and recovery Mahazar panchayatdars/P.Ws12 and 13 turned hostile. Hence, their signatures on arrest, confession and seizure Mahazarnama were marked as Exs.P7 to P.10. The Sub-Inspector of police/ PW-14 deposed that he registered F.I.R. Through the Sub-Inspector of police/PW-14 ,

F.I.R was marked as Ex.P.11. The investigating officer/PW-15 has deposed about the investigation conducted by him including examination of the witnesses, recording their statements, arrest of the accused, seizure of crime weapon etc.,. Through Investigating officer/PW-15 , rough sketch of the scene of offence was marked as Ex.P.12. Admissible portion in arrest and confession panchanama was marked as Ex.P13, seizure Mahazarnama was marked as Ex.P14, letter of advise was marked as Ex.P15. RFSL report was marked as Ex.P16 and belongings of the deceased namely waist thread/M.O1, cotton thread/M.O2,

Pancha/M.O3, Full under wear/M.O4, so also bloodstained boulder stone/M.O5, bloodstained cotton swab/M.O6, bloodstained earth/M.O7, control ear/M.O.8 and iron rod/M.O9 were marked.

10. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating evidence elicited against him by the prosecution through the evidence of 9 prosecution side witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

11. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused punishable U/sec.302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

12. Heard. Perused.

13. POINT :-

As per the prosecution case, Kamalamarri Anjaneyulu (herein after referred to as deceased) is the resident of Kuppam village of

Chakrayapeta mandal. Now and then he used to go to brandy shop locate at Nagulaguttapalle for drinking alcohol and fell down in the vicinity of the brandy shop by consuming liquor. Later, his family members would go there and brought him back to his house. While so, on 26-12-2019 at about 1-00 p.m the deceased went to Nagulagutapalle in the auto of PW-6 accompanied with their villagers. On the way, the deceased got down at Nagulaguttapalle and started roaming there by drinking liquor along with a watchman caste by Yanadi i.e, accused, working in the garden of Nagaiah/L.W12 (LW.12 was not examined by the prosecution before the Court as he is no more). During the intervening night of 26-12-2019, the deceased did not return to his house. Then PW-1 who is the wife of the deceased along with her family 10 members enquired with their villagers and came to know through Nama

Ramanna @ Beedila Ramanna/PW8 that the deceased was found roaming in the vicinity of the brandy shop at Nagulaguttapalli along with the accused by drinking alcohol. As the deceased did not return to home, on the next day morning i.e, on 27-12-2019 at 7-00 a.m, Pw.1 along with her family members went to Nagulaguttapalle village and while searching found the dead body of the deceased lying in a pool of blood with injuries some distance away from the brandy shop of

Nagulaguttapalle. As per the prosecution case, there was previous grudge between the accused and the deceased as the accused did not sell fish for lesser price to the deceased. The prosecution case further that on 26-12-2019 the accused and the deceased roaming in the vicinity of the brandy shop at Nagulaguttapalle village by drinking alcohol, quarrel took place between them; and that at about 8.30 p.m the accused beat the deceased with a boulder stone and with an iron rod and thereby caused bleeding injuries on the head and other parts of the body of the deceased, as a result, deceased fell down and died in a pool of blood. Then the accused fled away from the scene of offence. Per contra, the defence contention is total denial of the accusation alleged against the accused.

14.The evidence of the doctor/PW-9 , Post mortem certificate/Ex.P4, the evidence of inquest panchayatdar/P.W11 and the inquest proceedings/Ex.P5 shows that the death of the deceased is homicidal.

11

15.Since nobody directly witnessed the crime, the entire case of prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence i.e., last seen theory,

extra judicial confession, confession leading to recovery of crime

weapon and the motive.

16.PW-1 who is the wife of deceased, PW2 who is the son of deceased and PW3 who is brother of the deceased have deposed that the deceased had gone to Nagulaguttapalle in the noon hours on 26.12.2019, but he did not come back to house during the intervening night; while they enquired with their villagers, they came to know through Nama Ramanna @ Beedila Ramanna/PW8 that at about 3-00 p.m he witnessed the deceased along with the accused were proceeding towards brandy shop locate at Nagulaguttapalle. Their evidence further shows that next day morning i.e, on 27-12-2019 at 7-00 a.m they went to Nagulaguttapalle for searching the deceased and they found the dead body of the deceased lying in a pool of blood with injuries, some distance away from the brandy shop of Nagulaguttapalle.

17.PW-4 who is resident of Nagulaguttapalle and PW-5 who is the sales man of brandy shop of Nagulaguttapalle were examined by the prosecution to prove that they witnessed the deceased and the accused roaming in the vicinity of the brandy shop by drinking alcohol, they 12 turned hostile by deposing that they do not know the accused and the deceased.

18.P.W6 and PW.7who are the villagers of the deceased have deposed that while they were proceeding towards Nagulaguttapalle in the auto of

PW.6, the deceased also boarded the auto and he got down at

Nagulaguttapalle. Their evidence further shows that on the next day they came to know that somebody murdered the deceased.

19.It is relevant to note here that the prosecution has examined

Nama Ramanna @ Beedila Ramanna/PW8 to prove that he witnessed the deceased and the accused at Nagulaguttapalle. So also, to prove that the deceased and the accused proceeded towards brandy shop of

Nagulaguttappalle. PW-8 has also reiterated the same before the Court deposing that on the fateful day of occurrence at about 1-00 p.m he went to Nagulaguttapalle for purchasing a new water tap. After purchasing the same, at about 3-00 p.m when he was boarding the auto to return to his village, he witnessed the deceased along with the accused at Nagulaguttapalle and he called the deceased to come along with him in the same auto to go to their village; but the deceased did not come along with him and proceeded towards brandy shop of

Nagulaguttapalle along with the accused. Nothing worthful was brought out through the cross-examination of PW-8 so as to disbelieve his evidence. Moreover, the said version of Pw.8 is mentioned in the 13 complaint/Ex.P1 also. Having considered the said circumstances, the

Court is of the opinion that through the evidence of P.Ws1 to 3, P.W6,

PW7 and PW8, the prosecution has proved that at about 3-00 p.m on 26-12-2019 the deceased and the accused were seen roaming in the vicinity of the brandy shop of Nagulaguttapalle by drinking alcohol.

20. It is significant to note here that Nagulaguttapalle, where the deceased and accused were last seen together, is a busy centre to the surrounding 20 to 30 villages and the same is evident in the evidence given by P.Ws1 and 2. The evidence of PW-2 who is the son of deceased further shows that up to 10-00 p.m the villagers gather there at

Nagulaguttapalle. As per the prosecution case, the time of the death of the deceased is after 8-30 p.m on 26-12-2019. As per the evidence of the doctor/Pw.9 and the P.M certificate/Ex.P4, time of death is about 6- 12 hrs prior to post-mortem examination which took place on 27.12.2019 at 2.30PM i.e., time of death is around midnight of 26.12.2019. It is significant to note here that no evidence was available in this case to prove that after 3-00 p.m on 26.12.2019, the accused and the deceased were seen together in the vicinity of Nagulaguttapalle or in and around the scene of offence. Considering the said circumstances, the possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime cannot be ruled out. In Rambraksh

Alias Jalim Vs State of Chattisgarh (delivered by the Hon’ble Apex

Court on 12th May, 2016), it is held that Normally, last seen theory 14

comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time

when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and

when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of

any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the

crime becomes impossible.

21.The evidence given by PW3 who is the brother of the deceased in his cross-examination clearly shows that on the next day of death of the deceased i.e., on 27-12-2019 itself, police caught hold of the accused and kept him in the police station. Considering the same, the evidence of Village Revenue officer/P.W11 that on 04-01-2020 at about 9-00 a.m when he was present in the Mandal Revenue office, Chakrayapeta one

Nagaiah/L.W12 (L.W12 was not examined by the prosecution before the

Court as he is no more) produced the accused before him /P.W11 and the accused gave confession before him that he murdered the deceased due to previous grudges; then he recorded the extra judicial confession/Ex.P6 of the accused and produced the accused before the police for arrest, is found unreliable. The observation made by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Jitendra Vora Vs Bhavana Y. Shah and

another (reporeted in 2016 (1) ALD ( Crl.) 14 (SC)) shows that “Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the Courts are to view it with greater care and caution. For an extra judicial confession to form the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.” 15

22. Considering the circumstances discussed supra, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of VRO/PW11 and the extra judicial confession/Ex.P6, is found unreliable as there is inherent discrepancy and improbability.

23.The prosecution has examined the Village Revenue officer/P.W12 and Village Revenue Assistant/P.W.13 to prove the arrest of the accused and confession leading to recovery of crime weapon i.e., iron rod/M.O.9.

The said Village Revenue officer/P.W12 and Village Revenue

Assistant/P.W.13, have turned hostile by deposing that in their presence, the police neither arrested the accused nor interrogated him, nor recovered any crime weapon. Considering the said evidence of P.Ws12 and 13 , this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove, particularly, the confession leading to recovery of crime weapon/M.O.9 as contemplated under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

24.It is relevant to note here that to prove the motive attributed by the prosecution against the accused that there was previous grudge between the deceased and the accused as the accused did not sell fish to the deceased for lesser price, no witness was examined by the prosecution. On the other hand, the evidence given by PW-1 in his cross-examination clearly shows that they have no enmity with the 16 accused. Moreover, the evidence given by PW1 in her cross-examination shows that she suspect that about 4 or 5 persons jointly attacked and murdered her husband as her husband was hale and healthy and one person cannot kill him. In TOMASO BRUNO AND ANOTHER VS STATE

OF UTTARPRADESH (reported in 2015 SCC Online SC 52), the Hon’ble

Apex court has held that, “ 33. Where the case is based on

circumstantial evidence, proof of motive will be an important

corroborative piece of evidence. If motive is indicated and

proved, it strengthens the probability of the commission of the

offence.” Since motive alleged against the accused is not proved by the prosecution, the same is also a draw back to the case of the prosecution against the accused in the instant case.

In Raja Nayakar v. State of Chhattisgarh (delivered by

Hon’ble Apex Court on 24th January, 2024), in a similar type of case

rests on the circumstantial evidence, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “ 8. It can thus clearly be seen that it is

necessary for the prosecution that the

circumstances from which the conclusion of the

guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

The Court hold that it is a primary principle that

the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’

proved guilty before a court can convict the

accused. It has been held that there is not only

a grammatical but a legal distinction between

‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be

17

proved’. It has been held that the facts so

established should be consistent only with the

guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should

not be explainable on any other hypothesis

except that the accused is guilty. It has further

been held that the circumstances should be

such that they exclude every possible

hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has

been held that there must be a chain of

evidence so complete as not to leave any

reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent

with the innocence of the accused and must

show that in all human probabilities the act

must have been done by the accused.

9. It is settled law that the suspicion,

however strong it may be, cannot take the

place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An

accused cannot be convicted on the ground of

suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An

accused is presumed to be innocent unless

proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” 25.Considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence available in the instant case discussed supra, in the light of the above referred observation of Hon’ble Apex Court, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused punishable under sec.302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, hence the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is decided against the prosecution.

18

26.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.302 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of code of Criminal Procedure. The non valuable case properties i.e.,

M.O.s 1 to 9 shall be returned to the committal Court with a direction to destroy the same after the expiry of appeal time.

Since the accused is undergoing remand in Sub Jail,

Rayachoty, the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Rayachoty is ordered

to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any other

case.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- S.Krishnan Kutty

V Additional Sessions Judge,

Rayachoty.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution:

PW1: K. Venkata Subbamma

PW2: K.Prathap.

PW3: K.Venkata Ramana

PW4: Shaik Rahamathulla

PW5: P. Harikrishna

PW6: G.Reddibasha

PW7: K.Srikanth

PW8: Nama Ramanna

PW9: Dr.C.Tajuddin Basha

PW10: Thota Ramakrishna

PW11: Syed Basheer Baba 19 P.W12: A. Kulayappa

PW13: P.Ramachandra

PW14: J. Ravi kumar

PW15 : V.Yugandhar.

Exhibits marked for prosecution: Ex.P1:Complaint given by PW-1

Ex.P.2:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4

Ex.P.3:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5

Ex.P.4:Postmortem certificate

Ex.P.5:Inquest proceedings

Ex.P.6:Confession statement of accused.

Ex.P.7:Signature of P.W12 on the arrest and confession Mahazar.

Ex.P.8:Signature of P.W12 on the seizure Mahazar

Ex.P.9:Signature of P.W13 on the arrest and confession Mahazar.

Ex.P10:Signature of P.W13 on the seizure Mahazar

Ex.P11:First Information Report in Cr.No.169 of 2019.

Ex.P12:Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P13:Admissible portion of confession and arrest panchanama

Ex.P.14:Seizure Mahazarnama

Ex.P.15:Copy of letter of advice

Ex.P.16:RFSL report.

Witnesses examined for defence: Nil.

Exhibits marked for defence: Nil.

Material Objects marked for prosecution:

M.O.1: Waist thread

M.O.2: Cotton shirt

M.O.3: Pancha.

M.O.4: Underwear

M.O.5: Bloodstained boulder stone

M.O.6: Bloodstains with a cotton swab 20 M.O.7: Bloodstained earth

M.O.8: Control earth

M.O.9: Iron rod.

Sd/- S.Krishnan Kutty

V A.S.J.

Rct.

1

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, RAYACHOTY.

Present: Sri S.Krishnan Kutty, V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty.

Friday, this the 10th day of April, 2026.

Sessions Case No.73/2023

State: Represented by the Inspector of Name of the ComplainantPolice, Rayachoty (Rural) Police station.

1.Katti Naresh, son of Ramachandra, 29 years, R/o.D.No.8/74, Chappidivandlapalli, h/o. G.Reddivaripalli village, T-Sundupalle mandal, Annamayya district.

2. Katti Pedda Reddeppa @ Pedda Reddi, sonofChinnappa,57years, R/o.D.No.8/67-A, Chappidivandlapalli, h/o. Name of the Accused G.Reddivaripalli village, T-Sundupalle mandal, Annamayya district.

3. Molakala Nagaiah, son of Venkata Subbaiah, 45 years, R/o.D.No.8/66, Chappidivandlapalli, h/o. G.Reddivaripalli village, T-Sundupalle mandal, Annamayya district. Charges framedU/Secs. 302 r/w.34 of IPC.

Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty

In the result, accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.302 r/w.34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused no.1 to 3 Sentence of the Judge shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The non valuable case properties i.e., M.O.s 1 to 11 shall be returned to the committal Court with a direction to destroy the same after the expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor

Accused defended byAdvocate Sri U. Ramanjaneyudu & Sri G. Sai Vamsikrishna.

Crime No. and Police station. Cr.No.200 of 2022 of Rayachoty (Rural) Police Station 2 P.R.C. No. and Name of theP.R.C.No. 68 of 2022 of Judicial committal court.Magistrate of First Class Court, Rayachoty.

Committed byJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty

Date of offence 05-09-2022

Date of report 06-09-2022

Date of remand10-09-2022

Date of release on bail29-11-2022

Date of committal to20-01-2023

Sessions Court.

Date of commencement of 02-01-2026 trial

Date of close of trial31-03-2026

Date of Judgment 10-04-2026 :: JUDGMENT ::

1. The Inspector of police, Rayachoty(Rural) circle has submitted the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w.34 of IPC in Cr.No.200 of 2022 of T.Sundupalli police station.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 06-09-2022 at about 9-30 a.m,while the Sub-Inspector of police, T- Sundupalle police station/PW-15 was present in the police station, one Chappidi Venkata Ramana Naidu/PW-1 came to the police station and presented a written complaint stating that he is resident of

Chappidivandlapalle village and living by doing cultivation; he begot two sons, both were living by working in Bangalore. His second son Chappidi

Mohan Reddy, aged 38 years (Herein after referred to as deceased) became addicted to consuming liquor. Now and then he used to come to

Chappidivandlapalle village and after staying few days, again he went to

Bangalore. Whenever the deceased consume liquor, he used to threaten 3 the villagers. The deceased had two wives, due to his unbearable harassment, his both wives discarded him and residing separately. About ten days back, the deceased came to Chappidivandlapalle village from

Bangalore. In the meantime, PW-1 went to Bangalore to receive some amount from his another son Venugopal Naidu/LW-2 (LW-2 was not examined before the Court by the prosecution), for his cultivation expenses. Yesterday i.e., on 05-09-2022 at about 9-00 p.m his villager

Molakala Suseelamma/PW-2 telephoned him/PW-1 and informed that

Katti Naresh/Accused No.1 and some others killed his second son/deceased infront of the house of accused No.1. On coming to know the occurrence, he/PW-1 along with his elder son/LW-2 left from

Bangalore and reached his village on 06-09-2022. PW-1 and LW-2 found the dead body of the deceased with severe bleeding injuries over his head, in a pool of blood. Then, he/PW-1 along with his elder son/LW-2 came to know that on the previous day, the deceased consumed liquor and in the evening time he caught hold of the hands of wife of Accused

No.1, on that accused No.1 felt ashamed and with an intention to end the life of the deceased, he along with accused Nos.2 and 3 and some other villagers beat the deceased at about 8-30 p.m and killed him.

3.The Sub-Inspector of police/PW-15 registered the complaint as a case in Cr.No.200 of 2022 for the offence under section 302 r/w.34 of

Indian Penal code. Thereafter, the Investigating officer/PW16 took up investigation. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in between 11- 30 a.m and 2-00 p.m. He forwarded the dead body of the deceased to the government hospital, Rayachoty for post-mortem examination. He 4 secured the presence of prosecution witnesses and recorded their detailed statements, he also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and also seized bloodstained cement earth and the control cement earth at the scene of offence under the cover of inquest proceedings. After the post-mortem examination, he seized the belongings of the deceased namely(1) bloodstained full shirt, 2)cut bunion 3) short 4) Yellow and Red colour thread. 5) One pair of chappals under the cover of police proceedings. On 09-09-2022, he along with his staff arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3 in the presence of panchyatdars.

During the interrogation, accused no.1 to 3 confessed the crime and they led the police party along with panchayatdars to the house of

AccusedNo.1situateatChappidivandlapallevillage, h/o.G.Reddyvaripalle village and accused No.1 produced bloodstained round shape old pestle, one fist size hard stick and one small hard stick(weapons used for the commission of crime) and a pair of paragon company plastic chappal stained with blood, from his house. The investigating officer/PW-16 seized the said material objects under the cover of seizure panchanama in the presence of panchayatdars. Later, he sent accused Nos. 1 to 3 to the Court for remand. During the investigation, through the statement of P.Ws the investigating officer/PW16 has found that the deceased used to misbehave with the ladies of his village under drunken state. Hence, accused no.1 to 3 decided to end the life of the deceased. Whileso, on 05.09.2022 at about 8.30PM the deceased tried to misbehave with A.Varalakshmi/Pw.5 while she was on the terrace of her house. On hearing her cries, the villagers

Pw.6 to 8 rushed there and took away the deceased. On seeing the same, accused no.1 who is the relative of accused no.2 along with their 5 close associate accused no.3 with the intention to kill the deceased waited in the darkness; when the deceased reached infront of the house of accused no.1, accused no.1 to 3 pounced upon him; bet him with pestle and hard sticks, and caused fatal injuries on his head and other parts of the body. As a result, the deceased fell down in a pool of blood and died at the spot. The investigation officer/Pw.16 has further found that there is no involvement of any other villagers in the commission of offence. Thereafter, the investigation officer/PW16 after receipt of RFSL report and Post mortem certificate filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w.34 of IPC.

4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty has taken cognizance against the accused No.s1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and numbered it as

P.R.C.No.68 of 2022. As the offence punishable under Section 302 of

Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kadapa, under Section 209 (a) of code of Criminal Procedure after serving copies of documents to the accused under Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. Subsequently, the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Kadapa registered the case as S.C.No.73 of 2023 and made it over to this court for trial and disposal in accordance to law.

5. On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 3, charge for the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6

6. During the trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to P.W.17 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P25; and M.Os1 to 11. On behalf of the defense side nobody was examined, but Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked through the cross-examination of PW-1.

7.The defacto complainant/father of the deceased/PW-1 has supported the prosecution case. Through PW-1 his complaint was marked as Ex.P1. PW-2 supported the prosecution case deposing that she informed the death of the deceased to PW-1 by phone. P.W.3 to

PW.10 turned hostile without supporting the prosecution case. Hence, their section 161(3) Cr.P.C statements were marked as Exs.P2 to P.9. The inquest panchayatdars/P.Ws11 to 13 have turned hostile. Hence, their signatures on the inquest report were marked as Exs.P.10, P.13 and P.16.

Likewise, P.Ws11 to 13 who are shown as panchayatdars for arrest of accused no.1 to 3, recording of confession and recovery of material objects, also turned hostile. Hence, their signatures on the arrest and confession Mahazarnama were marked as Exs.P.11 and P.14; and their signatures on seizure Mahazarnama were marked as Exs.P.12 and P.15.

The doctor/PW14 has deposed that on 06-09-2022 at about 4-00 p.m he received requisition from Rayachoty Rural police for conducting

Postmortem over the dead body of deceased/C.Mohan Naidu. He conducted P.M. Examination and found the injuries as follows; External appearances; Eyes closed, mouth closed, blood coming out of ears and nostrils. Hair is black in colour. Postmortem changes: Rigor mortis present. Postmortem Hypostasis present. Antimortem external wounds:

1) Right ear laceration of 4 x 1 cm present. 2)Right black eye is present 7 3)Multiple small abrasions measuring about 2x3 cms over right knee , largest measuring ( abrasion) 12x 3 cms irregular in shape. 4) Laceration of 7x4x3 cms in the middle of skull 5) Laceration of 10 x3x2 cms with underlying bone fracture over right parietal region. 6) Laceration of 4 x2 x2 cms in the occipital region. 7) Abrasion of 2x2 cms over dorsum of right foot .8) Multiple small abrasions of 0.5 x 0.5 cms over skin of right leg. Head and Neck: Hematoma of size 10 x 15 cms over right parietal and temporal region. Fracture of right parietal bone of 5 x ½ cms. Sub dural hematoma of 7x7 cms over right parietal, temporal region of brain.

Hyoid bone: Intact. Abdomen: Water fluid of about 200 ml is present.

Cavites: Partially filled with fluid. The approximate time of death is 18 to 24 hours prior to PM examination. Cause of death is due to head injury. The P.M report issued byhim is Ex.P.17.

8.The Sub-inspector of police/P.W-15 has deposed that he received the written complaint/Ex.P.1 and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.200 of 2022 under section 302 r/w.34 of IPC. Through the S.I of police/P.W-15, F.I.R was marked as Ex.P.18. The investigating officer/PW16 has deposed about the investigation conducted by him and also arrest of the accused and recovery of crime weapons and filing of charge sheet against accused No.s1 to 3. Through the I.O/PW16, inquest report was marked as Ex.P.19 , rough sketch of the scene of offence was marked as Ex.P.20. Police proceedings showing the seizure of belongings of the deceased was marked as Ex.P.21. The seizure panchanama was marked as Ex.P.22. Letter of advise was marked as

Ex.P.23, R.F.S.L report was marked as Ex.P.24 and bloodstained cement earth/M.O.1, control cement earth/M.O2, belongings of the deceased 8 namely Bloodstained biscuit colour full shirt /M.O.3, bloodstained poomex banion/M.O.4. Biscuit colour shirt/M.O.5, Yellow and red colour thread and bracelet/M.O.6, a pair of chappals/M.O.7 , crime weapon namely, bloodstained round shape old pestle /M.O.8.Hard sticks (02) in number/M.Os 9 and 10 and one pair of paragon company chappals stained with blood/M.O.11 were marked. Another eyewitness (Pw.17) has also turned hostile, hence his 161(3) Cr.P.C statement was marked as Ex.P.25.

9. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused no.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating evidence elicited against them by the prosecution through the evidence of prosecution side witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. Nobody was examined on behalf of accused, but Exs.D.1 (a portion of complaint/Ex.P1) and D.2 (part of

Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W1) were marked through the cross- examination of PW-1.

10. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.302 r/w.34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

11. Heard. Perused.

12. POINT :-

As per the prosecution case, the accused who was working in

Bangalore used to come to his native village Chappidivandlapalle now and then; and whenever he consume liquor he used to threaten the villagers. The accused had two wives. Due to his unbearable 9 harassment, his both wives discarded him and residing separately. About ten days prior to his death, the deceased came to Chappidivandlapalle village from Bangalore. The prosecution case further shows that as usual the deceased started his rowdyism after consuming liquor, so also started to misbehave with the ladies in his village at Chappidivandlapalli.

Then the accused No.1 and his relative accused No.2 along with their associate accused No.3, decided to end the life of the deceased. While so, on 05-09-2022 at about 8-30 p.m, the deceased tried to misbehave with one Varalakshmi/PW-5, while she was on the terrace of her house.

On hearing the cries, P.Ws6 to 8 rushed there and took away the deceased from there. On seeing the same, the accused Nos.1 to 3 decided to end the life of the deceased on the same day itself and they waited in the darkness. While the deceased came infront of the house of accused No.1, accused Nos.1 to 3pounced upon him, beat him with pestle and hard sticks and thereby caused multiple injuries on the head and other parts of the body, as a result, the deceased fell down and died on the spot in a pool of blood.

13.Per contra, the contention of the defence side is that some of the influential persons of their village killed the deceased unable to bear his rowdism and misbehaviour with the women flok of their village, but false case was foisted against the accused Nos.1 to 3 who are innocent and un influential persons of the village.

14. It is relevant to note here that the evidence of the doctor/PW-14 and Post mortem certificate/Ex.P.17 shows that the death of the deceased is homicidal due to head injury.

10 15.In the said circumstances, to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused Nos.1 to 3, the prosecution has examined P.ws3 to 10 and P.W.17 as eye witnesses to the occurrence. All the said eye witnesses/P.Ws3 to 10 and 17 turned hostile without supporting the prosecution case. Some of the said prosecution witnesses, have deposed that they came to know about the death of the deceased; then they rushed to the scene of offence and witnessed the dead body of the deceased, but they do not know who caused the death of the deceased and for what reason the deceased was murdered. The remaining prosecution witnesses have deposed that they did not witness the dead body of the deceased and they do not know who murdered the deceased and for what reason he was murdered. Having considered the said evidence of P.Ws3 to 10 and 17, the same is not helpful to the prosecution to prove that accused No.s1 to 3 killed the deceased.

16.PW-1 who is the father of the deceased is the defacto complainant who lodged the complaint/Ex.P1 with the police. The complaint/Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW-1 clearly shows that at the time of occurrence, he was not in the village but he was in Bangalore. The complaint/Ex.P1 and the evidence of P.W1 shows that

M.Suseelamma/PW-2 telephoned him and informed him that accused

No.s1 to 3 murdered the deceased, then he along with his another son rushed to Rayachoty and witnessed the dead body of the deceased. It is relevant to note that as per the prosecution case itself

M.Suseelamm/Pw.2 is not the eye witness to the occurrence, but she is a hearsay witness. The evidence given by M.Suseelamma/PW-2 before the 11 court also shows that she does not know who murdered the deceased and for what reason the deceased was murdered. Further, her evidence shows that she informed PW-1 at the request of PW-1’s brother, by cell phone that the deceased was died. The evidence of M.Suseelamma/PW-2 does not show that she witnessed the occurrence and that she informed

PW-1 through cell phone that accused Nos.1 to 3 murdered the deceased. Having considered the said circumstances, the complaint/Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW-1 that M.Suseelamma/PW-2 informed him by cell phone that the accused Nos.1 to 3 murdered his son/deceased, is found unreliable and the same is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused no.1 to 3. Moreover, the evidence of Pw.3 to 10 and Pw.17 (discussed supra) who are the villagers of Pw.1, also not supporting the evidence of Pw.1 that accused no.1 to 3 killed the deceased.

17.It is relevant to note here that in the complaint/Ex.P1 and in the

Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement, the defacto complainant/PW1 has stated that he came to know that the accused Nos.1 to 3 along with some other villagers killed his son/deceased. However, before the Court, P.W1 has not stated about the involvement of other villagers in the commission of offence. In the said circumstances, the relevant portion of the complaint/Ex.P1 and 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW-1, were marked by the defence side as Exs.D.1 and D.2. Though the contents of the complaint/Ex.P.1 and the evidence of Pw.1 is hear-say, the said Exs.D.1 and D.2 marked by the defence side , support the contention of defence that some influential persons of their village killed the deceased, but the police foisted the case against the accused No.1 to 3 who are innocent and un influential persons of the village.

12 18.It is relevant to note here that the prosecution has examined

P.Ws11 to 13 , so as to prove the inquest proceedings, arrest of accused no.1 to 3, their confession leading to recovery and seizure proceedings i.e., Exs.P.19 to P.22. The said panchayat dars/P.Ws11 to 13 also turned hostile without supporting the prosecution case by deposing that the police obtained their signatures in the police station. The remaining witnesses are only the Sub-Inspector of police/PW-15 who registered the

F.I.R/Ex.P.18 and Investigating officer/P.W16. Though the I.O/P.W16 has deposed that at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3, he recovered the crime weapons namely blood stained pestle/M.O.8 and hard sticks/M.Os 9 and 10 from the house of accused No.1, since the panchayatdars/P.Ws 11 to 13 did not support the said evidence of I.O/P.W.16 , it is unsafe to decide that at the instance of accused No.1 to 3, the I.O/P.W16 recovered the alleged crime weapons/M.Os 8 to 10.

19.Having considered the foregoing discussion, the Court is of the opinion that no reliable evidence is available to prove the guilt of the accused no.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, it is concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable under section 302 r/w.34 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point NO.1 is answered against the prosecution .

20.In the result, accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.302 r/w.34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused no.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The non valuable 13 case properties i.e., M.O.s 1 to 11 shall be returned to the committal

Court with a direction to destroy the same after the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- S.Krishnan Kutty

V Additional Sessions Judge,

Rayachoty.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution:

PW1: C.Venkata Ramana Naidu

PW2: M. Suseelamma

PW3: A. Ramesh

PW4: A. Surekha

PW5: A. Varalakshmi

PW6: J. Sreenivasulu

PW7: Katti Venkata Ramana

PW8: P. Venkata Ramana

PW9: C.Nagaiah

PW10: R. Venkata Naidu

PW11: T. Chittibabu

PW12: Gali Nagaraju

PW13: Ch. Koteswara Rao

PW14: Dr.B.Sunitha

PW15: P. Ramakrishna

PW16: S.Lingappa

PW17: Chappidi Ramesh Naidu

Exhibits marked for prosecution: Ex.P1:Written complaint given by PW-1 Ex.P.2:Section 161Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P.3:Section 161Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P.4:Section 161Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P.5:Section 161Cr.P.C statement of PW6.

14 Ex.P.6:Section 161Cr.P.C statement of PW7. Ex.P.7:Section 161Cr.P.C statement of PW8. Ex.P.8:Section 161Cr.P.C statement of PW9. Ex.P.9:Section 161Cr.P.C statement of PW10. Ex.P10:Signature of P.W.11 on the inquest report Ex.P11: Signature of P.W.11 on the arrest & confession Ex.P12:Signature of P.W.11 on the seizure Mahazar nama Ex.P13:Signature of P.W.12 on the inquest report Ex.P.14:Signature of P.W.12 on the arrest & confession Ex.P.15:Signature of P.W.12 on the seizure Mahazarnama Ex.P.16:Signature of P.W.13 on the inquest report Ex.P17:Postmortem report Ex.P18:F.I.R in Cr.No.200 of 2022 u/sec.302 r/w.34 of IPC Ex.P19 :Inquest report Ex.P20:Rough sketch Ex.P21:Police proceedings dated 6-09-2022 Ex.P22:Seizure panchanama dated 9-09-2022 Ex.P23:Letter of advise Ex.P24:R.F.S.L report Ex.P25:Section 161Cr.P.C statement of PW17.

Witnesses examined for defence: NIL Exhibits marked for defence: Ex.D.1: Portion of Statement given by P.W1 in his complaint. Ex.D.2: Portion of Statement given by P.W1 in his complaint. Material Objects marked for prosecution: M.O.1: Bloodstained cement earth M.O.2: Controlled cement earth M.O.3: Bloodstained biscuit colour full shirt M.O.4:Bloodstained poomex cut baniyan M.O5: Biscuit colour shirt M.O.6: Yellow red red colour threat and bracelet ( Kadiam) M.O.7: Pair of chappal M.O.8: Bloodstained round shaped old pestle M.O.9: Hard stick M.O.10: One small hard stick M.O.11: Blue plastic chappals stained with blood.

Sd/- S.Krishnan Kutty

V A.S.J.

Rct.

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: RAYACHOTY.

Present: Sri S.Krishnan Kutty, Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty. Thursday, this the 16th day of April, 2026.

M.V.O.P.No.66 of 2020

Bukke Anil Kumar @ Anil Naik

... Claimant ...

Vs.

1)Pellakuri Lakshmanna (Driver)

2)Murugu Sudhakara (Owner)

3)Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,.

... Respondents ...

This claim petition has come up on 09.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Nageswara Rao,

Advocate for the claimant and Sri D.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate

for respondent No.3 and respondent no.1 and 2 remained exparte,

and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This claim petition is filed by the claimant/injured against respondents under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

R/w Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 R/w Act 54 of 1994, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs 2 only) with interest for the injuries he sustained in a Motor Vehicle accident and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

The claimant/injured submits that on 04.04.2019 at about 5.30PM the claimant came to Galiveedu to purchase medicines for his father and after purchase of medicines the claimant took the pulsar motor cycle bearing no.AP04 Z 0960 belongs to his friend, to come back to his house. While returning, when the claimant reached near Dhanamreddygaripalli at about 7.30PM one tractor bearing no.AP04 AU 8216 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), its driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained bleedings injuries over his head, neck, left side of ears etc.,. After the accident he was shifted to Govt., hospital, Rayachoty for treatment. Then shifted to Sri Ramadevi hospital, Tirupati for better treatment.

3

The Claimant further submits that the Galiveedu police registered a case in Cr.No.80/2019 under sec.337 IPC and sec.134(a) and (b) r/w 187 of MV Act against the driver of the offending vehicle and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against respondent No.1 who was the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under section 338 of

IPC and sec. 134(a) and (b) r/w 187 of MV Act.

The claimant further submits that he sustained serious injuries due to the accident. The claimant further submits that he spent huge amount for his treatment. Accordingly, praying for compensation.

3.Respondent No.1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, remained exparte.

4.The brief averments of the written statement

filed by the respondent No.3/ Insurance company are as

follows:

Respondent No.3/ Insurance company submits interalia that the offending tractor bearing no.AP04 AU 8216 was not insured with it, hence respondent no.3/insurance company is not 4 liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Respondent no.3/Insurance company further submits that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license at the time of accident. The claimant is entitled for compensation only if there is no violation of terms and condition of the policy. Respondent

No.3/Insurance company further submits that the claimant has to prove that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle by way of documentary evidence. The compensation claimed under various heads are excessive. Accordingly, praying to dismiss the claim petition against the respondent No.3/Insurance company.

5.From the above said pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial :

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor bearing no.AP04 AU 8216 i.e., 1 st respondent, belonged to 2 nd respondent, insured with R3 near Cheepativandlapalli, crossing of Burujupalli village and came from Dhanamreddigaripalli, and that resulted in causing injuries to the claimant, on 04.04.2019 at about 7.30PM.?

2. Whether the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month prior to the accident as contended by the claimant?

3. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

4. To what relief?

5 6.From the claimant side, Pws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of respondent no.3, Rw.1 and Rw.2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

7.The petition under section 170 of the Motor Vehicle

Act filed by the respondent No.3/Insurance company in I.A.No.862 of 2024 was allowed.

8.Heard. Perused. Written argument also filed by both the side.

9.Issue No.1:

The injured/claimant got himself examined as

Pw.1. He has reiterated the claim petition averments in his chief examination. In support of the oral evidence of Pw.1, attested copy of FIR (Ex.A1), attested copy of wound certificate (Ex.A2), attested copy of charge sheet (Ex.A10) and other medical records hereinafter discussed, were filed by the claimant side. The said oral evidence of Pw.1 and the said documents shows that due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle, the accident took place, as a result the claimant sustained injuries.

6

Nothing worthful was brought out through his cross examination so as to substantiate the contention of respondent no.3/insurance company that the accident took place not due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle.

10. The claimant side has examined Pw.2 and Pw.3 also in support of their case. Admittedly, Pw.2 is the father cum defacto complainant who lodged FIR (Ex.A1) about the accident.

The evidence of Pw.2 and Pw.3 also support the case of the claimant that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle.

11.RespondentNo.3/Insurancecompanyhas examined its Assistant Manager, Legal as Rw.1. Admittedly, he is not the eye witness to the accident. Hence, the evidence of Rw.1 is not helpful to show that the accident took place not due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle.

12. Having considered the foregoing discussion, the tribunal is of the opinion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle which 7 caused injuries to the claimant. Accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favor of the claimant and against the respondents.

13. Issue No.2:-

Age:

The claimant has submitted that he was 22 years old at the time of accident. However, the complaint annexed with the FIR (Ex.A1) presented by the father of the claimant shows that the claimant was 19 years old at the time of accident. The wound certificate (Ex.A2) issued by the Govt., hospital, Rayachoty shows that the claimant was 23 years old. The discharge summary (Ex.A3) issued by Sri Ramadevi Super Specialty hospital, Tirupati shows that the claimant was 22 years old and the charge sheet (Ex.A10) shows that the claimant was 23 years old. Having considered the said documents, the tribunal is of the opinion that fixing the age of the claimant at 22 years old for the purpose of computation of compensation would meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the age of the claimant is fixed at 22 years for the purpose of computing compensation.

8

Income:

The claimant has submitted that he was working as

Technical worker and earning Rs.15,000/- per month prior to the accident which took place on 04.04.2019. However, to prove that the claimant has completed any technical course and doing technical job, no documentary proof was filed. Moreover, no reliable oral evidence was adduced and no documentary proof was filed so as to prove that the claimant was earning Rs.15,000/- per month prior to the accident. Considering the said circumstances, the tribunal is of the opinion that it is just and necessary to fix notional income of the claimant. Considering the foregoing discussion, the tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant would earn not less than Rs.400/- per day and he would work not less than 22 days per month. Accordingly, his monthly notional income is fixed at Rs.8,800/- (Rs.400/ x 22) and his annual notional income is fixed at Rs.1,05,600/- (Rs.8,800 x 12) prior to the accident which took place on 04.04.2019. Accordingly, issue no.2 is decided.

14.Issue No.3:

The evidence of claimant (Pw.1) and the wound certificate (Ex.A2) issued by Govt., hospital, Rayachoty shows that the claimant sustained the following injuries; 1) contusion over 9 right eyebrow, 2) communited fracture of right maxilla and 3) abrasion over both knee. The wound certificate (Ex.A2) further shows that subsequent treatment was taken by the claimant in Sri

Ramadevi Multi super Specialty hospital, Tirupati and diagnosed that fracture on right maxilla and mandible; and fracture of right clavicle bone (the said fractures are corresponding to injury no.1 and 2 mentioned supra). Hence, the above said injury no.1 and 2 are grievous in nature and injury no.3 is simple in nature.

15.The evidence of the Dr.D.Balaji Sasidhar Reddy (Pw.4), Managing Director cum Orthopedic surgeon of Ramadevi

Multi Super Specialty hospital, Tirupati and the discharge summary (Ex.A3) issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi Super Specialty hospital,

Tirupati, X- Rays (Ex.A4 and Ex.A5) shows that the claimant was treated in the said hospital. The claimant was treated conservatively for his head injury. The claimant undergone surgery for the fracture of right clavicle bone. The evidence of the doctor (Pw.4) and the said documents shows that at the time of his discharge wound were healed well and the claimant was stable, but advised for bed rest for 03 months and medical checkup and physiotherapy for 04 months. The evidence of the doctor and the inpatient final bill (Ex.A5) and bunch of bills (Ex.A9) included in the 10 final bill (Ex.A5) shows that the claimant has spent totally

Rs.3,32,768/- for his treatment at Sri Ramadevi Multi Super

Specialty hospital, Tirupati for the treatment of his head injury. The evidence of the doctor (Pw.4) further shows that the claimant took treatment for fracture of right clavicle bone under Arogya Sree

Scheme at free of cost. Nothing worthful was brought out through the cross examination of the doctor (Pw.4) to discredit his evidence. Having considered the said circumstances, the claimant is entitled for Rs.3,32,768/- under the head of treatment expenses.

It is relevant to note here that the claimant has marked pharmacy bills (Ex.A6) for Rs.3,061/- and Ex.A7 for Rs.2,700/-. However, to prove the said bills Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 nobody was examined, no medical prescription was marked by the claimant side. Considering the same, the claimant is not entitled for the said amount shown in

Ex.A6 and Ex.A7. Admittedly, no disability certificate was filed by the claimant side to show that the claimant sustained any disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for any amount under the head of loss of future earnings. However, considering the head injury and fracture on clavicle bone, so also, the treatment underwent by the claimant, the claimant is awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings. Considering the evidence of Pw.4 and the treatment 11 undergone by the claimant, the claimant would not have attend his work atleast for six months. Hence, he is awarded Rs.52,800/- (Rs.8,800/ x 6) under the head of loss of earning during the period of treatment. Further, the claimant is awarded Rs.15,000/- for the simple injury including its pain and suffering, so also awarded

Rs.10,000/- under the head of transport expenses, Rs.15,000/- under the head of attendant charges, Rs.25,000/- under the head of extra nourishment and Rs.25,000/- under the head of future medical expenses. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for the compensation as follows;

Description Amount;

Treatment expensesRs. 3,32,768 -00 Towards pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000-00 Loss of earnings during the period of treatment Rs. 52,800-00 Towards simple injury including its pain and sufferingRs. 15,000-00 Transport chargesRs. 10,000-00 Attendant chargesRs. 15,000-00 Extra nourishmentRs. 25,000-00 Future medical expensesRs. 25,000 -00 Total: Rs. 5,75,568-00 (Rupees Five Laksh Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Eight only)

16. Who has to pay:

The contention of respondent no.3/insurance company is that as per the FIR (Ex.A1) and the charge sheet (Ex.A10) the offending vehicle is mentioned as tractor bearing no.AP04 AU 12 8216. To substantiate the said contention respondent no.3/insurance company got examined SI of police, Galiveedu PS as Rw.2. Rw.2 has also reiterated that as per the FIR (Ex.A1) and 161 Crpc statement the tractor bearing no.AP04 AU 8216 is the offending vehicle. Here, Respondent no.3/Insurance company has contended that it has issued insurance policy (Ex.B1) for the tractor bearing no.AP04 AU 8215 and that AP04 AU 8216 mentioned as offending vehicle in the FIR(Ex.A1) and the charge sheet (Ex.A10) is the trailer of the said tractor. The said trailer bearing no.AP04 AU 8216 has not been insured with respondent no.3/insurance company, hence respondent no.3/insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant as the tractor bearing no.AP04 AU 8215 did not hit the claimant but the trailer bearing no.AP04 AU 8216 hit the claimant . The tribunal find no force in the said contention of respondent no.3/insurance company. In The Royal Sudaram Alliance Insurance Company

Limited Vs Smt.Honnamma and Ors. (delivered on 5th May, 2025) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held “13. Now on analysis of

these judgments and the provisions of law which have

been quoted above, we feel that the law has been correctly

appreciated by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Gunti

Devaiah v.Vaka Peddi Reddy (supra) and the reasons given

13

by him are sufficient to hold that under the Motor Vehicles

Act no separate insurance is contemplated for a trailer and

when the trailer is attached to the tractor which is insured,

it becomes the part of the tractor.”Considering the contention of Respondent no.3/Insurance company in the light of the above observation of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that

Respondent no.3/Insurance company herein is liable to pay compensation to the claimant though the trailer bearing no.AP04

AU 8216 has not been insured with it.

17.It is relevant to note that respondent no.3/insurance company has not proved any violation of terms and condition of the policy (Ex.B1). Admittedly, the policy (ExB1) was in force at the time of accident.

18.The Respondent no.3/Insurance company filed written argument stating that as per the criminal records the offending vehicle number is AP04 AU 8216, whereas the claim petition is filed against the vehicle bearing no.AP04 AU 8215, hence the claim of the claimant is false, doubtful and legally untenable. It is relevant to note here that, the original claim petition filed by the claimant side shows that the offending vehicle 14 number is AP04 AU 8216. The record shows that subsequently amendment was made in the original claim petition, then filed neat copy of claim petition on 19.12.2025. In the neat copy of claim petition dated 19.12.2025 in two places i.e., col.no.11 and 15 the offending vehicle number is mentioned as AP04 AU 8215, however in the main column no.16 the offending vehicle number is mentioned as AP04 AU 8216. Moreover, in the original claim petition in all the relevant columns offending vehicle number is correctly mentioned as AP04 AU 8216. Furthermore, in the chief examination affidavit of claimant (Pw.1) and his supporting witnesses (Pw.2 and Pw.3) offending vehicle number is correctly mentioned as AP04 AU 8216. Having considered the said circumstances, the tribunal find force in the argument of the claimant side that due to typographical error in Col.no.11 and 15 of neat copy of claim petition the offending vehicle number was mistakenly mentioned as AP04 AU 8215 instead of AP04 AU 8216.

In the said circumstances, the argument of respondent no.3/insurance company that the said mistake crept in the amended claim petition shows that the claim of the claimant is false, doubtful and legally untenable, is found unsustainable.

15

Having considered the foregoing discussion, respondent no.2 who is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent no.3 who is the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Accordingly, issue No.3 is decided in favor of the claimant and against the respondents.

19. Issue No.4:-

In the result, the claim petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs, awarding compensation of Rs.5,75,568/-

(Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred

and Sixty Eight only) to the claimant together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit.

(i) The respondent No.2 who is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent no.3/insurance company, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.

(ii) The respondent No.3/Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded to the claimant, into his

Bank Account within two (2) months from the date of this order; 16 on such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the compensation awarded to him supra, after filing Full Satisfaction

Memo into the Tribunal without delay.

(iii) Rest of the petition claim is hereby dismissed.

(iv) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two

Thousand only).

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 16th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- S.Krishnan Kutty

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - V Addl. District Judge, Rayachoty.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for claimant:

Pw.1: B.Anil Kumar @ Anil Naik

Pw.2: B.Badra Naik

Pw.3: B.Sunil Naik

Pw.4: Dr.Balaji Sasidhar Reddy

Exhibits marked for claimant:

Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.80/2019 of Galiveedu PS

Ex.A2: Attested copy of wound certificate,

Ex.A3: Discharge summary issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi speciality hospital, Tirupati,

Ex.A4: X-Ray films (03 in numbers) 17

Ex.A5: In patient medical bill issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi speciality hospital, Tirupati,

Ex.A6: Pharmacy bills of Apollo,

Ex.A7: Pharmacy bills,

Ex.A8: Certificate issued by Sapthagiri Scan centre dated 04.07.2019,

Ex.A9: Original medical bills,

Ex.A10:Attested copy of charge sheet.

Witnesses examined for Respondent No.3 :

Rw.1:A.Kiran Kumar, Assistant Manager, Legal

Rw.2: P.Ramakrishna, SI of Police, Galiveedu Ps.

Exhibits marked for respondent No.3:

Ex.B1: Insurance policy.

Sd/- S.Krishnan Kutty

Chairman,

MACT -cum- V ADJ,

Rayachoty.

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: RAYACHOTY.

Present: Sri S.Krishnan Kutty, Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty. Thursday, this the 09th day of April, 2026.

M.V.O.P.No.3 of 2023

C.Devamma

... Claimant ...

Vs.

1)Gubala Narasimhulu (Owner cum Driver)

2)Liberty General Insurance Company Ltd

... Respondents ...

This claim petition has come up on 08.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.C.Reddeppa Reddy,

Advocate for the claimant and Sri D.Nagamuni, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri D.Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for respondent no.2 /Insurance company, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This claim petition is filed by the claimant/injured against respondents No.1 and 2 under Sec.166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 476 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) with interest for the injuries/disability sustained in a Motor

Vehicle accident and for costs.

2

2. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

The claimant/injured submits that on 19.09.2022 at about 7.00 PM when the claimant was infront of her house situate beside Rayachoty – Madanapalli high way road at

Cheruvumundhara kuravapalli of Kothapalli village, Chinnamandem mandal, respondent no.1 being the driver of Bolero goods vehicle bearing regd.no.AP39 UD 1562 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from

Madanapalli side and hit the claimant, and that the offending vehicle ran over the right foot of the claimant. As a result, the claimant sustained contusion on her right wrist and bleeding injury on her right foot. Thereafter, she was shifted to Govt., hospital,

Rayachoty. After first aid she was shifted to Narendra Hospital,

Tirupati. Then shifted to RDT hospital, Batthalapalli and she took treatment as inpatient till 25.09.2022. During that period she underwent surgery, and 5th toe was amputated and rods were fixed for two toes. After discharge also the claimant has been attending the RDT hospital for periodical treatment. Even now she is not able to walk properly and do her routine works.

Claimant submits that the police registered a case in

Cr.No.152/2022 against the driver of the offending vehicle and 3 after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the respondent No.1 who is the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC.

The claimant further submits that she sustained disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, praying for compensation for the disability and also under other heads.

3.The brief averments of the written statement

filed by the respondent No.1/ Owner cum Driver are as

follows:

The Respondent no.1 submits interalia that the accident took place not due to his rash and negligent driving. The claimant has sustained injuries somewhere else and filed a false case to get wrongful gain. The compensation claimed under various heads are excessive. Respondent no.1 further submits that he has valid driving license and vehicle records, so also he has valid insurance coverage with respondent no.2, hence compensation if any has to be paid by the respondent no.2. Accordingly, praying to dismiss the claim petition against respondent no.1.

4

4.The brief averments of the written statement

filed by the respondent No.2/ Insurance company are as

follows:

Respondent No.2/ Insurance company submits interalia that the claimant has to prove that she met with accident and sustained injuries by way of documentary evidence. The respondent No.3/Insurance company further submits that the accident took place not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The respondent No.3/Insurance company further submits that the offending vehicle was planted in this case for claiming compensation. Respondent no.3/Insurance company further submits that the compensation claimed under various heads are excessive. Accordingly, praying to dismiss the claim petition against the respondent No.2/Insurance company.

5.From the above said pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial :

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Bolero Goods vehicles bearing regd no.AP39 UD 1562 belongs to 1 st respondent near Mallur Anjaneyaswamy temple, Malluru cross road on Rayachoty to Madanapalli main road, which resulted in causing injuries to the petitioner namely Cherlpalli Devamma on 19.09.2022 at about 7.00PM.?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

5 6.From the claimant side, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of respondents, nobody was examined but the policy Ex.B1 was marked by respondent no.2/insurance company.

7.The petition under section 170 of the Motor Vehicle

Act filed by the respondent No.2/Insurance company in I.A.No.323 of 2026 was allowed.

8.Heard. Perused.

9.Issue No.1:

The injured/claimant got herself examined as Pw.1.

She has reiterated the claim petition averments in her chief examination. In support of the oral evidence of Pw.1, attested copy of FIR (Ex.A1), attested copy of charge sheet (Ex.A2) and attested copy of wound certificate (Ex.A3) and other medical records hereinafter discussed, were filed by the claimant side.

It is relevant to note here that the statement/complaint of the injured/claimant enclosed with the FIR (Ex.A1) and the last para of the charge sheet (Ex.A2) show that while the injured/claimant was crossing the Madanapalli – Rayachoty road, the offending vehicle driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed against her, as a result she 6 sustained injuries. However, in the claim petition it is stated that while the injured/claimant was infront of her house, the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, hit against her, as a result she sustained injuries; the same is reiterated in the chief examination of claimant (Pw.1) also.

Considering the statement/complaint of the injured/claimant enclosed with the FIR (Ex.A1) and the last para of charge sheet (Ex.A2) discussed supra, the tribunal is of the opinion that mistake was crept in the claim petition averments and the said mistake is reiterated in the chief examination affidavit of claimant (Pw.1) .

Since the said statement/complaint of the injured/claimant enclosed with the FIR (Ex.A1) was recorded by the police immediately after the accident while the injured/claimant was admitted and undergoing treatment at Govt., hospital, Rayachoty, the manner of accident mentioned in the statement/complaint and the FIR (Ex.A1) is found reliable. Moreover, the last para of charge sheet (Ex.A2) filed by the police after completion of investigation also shows that the manner of accident mentioned in the statement/complaint and the FIR (Ex.A1) are true and correct. It is significant to note here that, the wound certificate (Ex.A3) issued by Govt., hospital, Rayachoty also shows that the injured/claimant was admitted immediately after the accident i.e., at 9.00PM on 19.09.2022 for the injuries sustained due to RTA.

7

10.It is pertinent to note here that, nothing worthful was brought out by respondents so as to substantiate their contention that the accident took place not due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle, so also to substantiate the contention of respondents that offending vehicle was planted in this case for claiming compensation.

11.Admittedly, neither any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence was adduced by respondents side so as to substantiate their contention that the accident took place not dueto the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle and offending vehicle not involved in the accident.

12. Having considered the foregoing discussion, the tribunal is of the opinion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle which caused injuries/disability to the claimant. Accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favor of the claimant and against the respondents.

13. Issue No.2:-

Age:

The claimant has submitted that she was 39 years old at the time of accident. The FIR (Ex.A1) and charge sheet (Ex.A2) also support the said submission of claimant. No contradictory evidence 8 was adducd by respondents to disprove the age of the claimant mentioned supra. Having considered the same, the age of the claimant is fixed at 39 years for the purpose of computing compensation.

Income:

The claimant has submitted that she was doing cultivation and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the statement/complaint of the injured/claimant enclosed with the FIR (Ex.A1) itself shows that the claimant was running petty shop prior to the accident. Neither any oral evidence nor any documentary vidence was adduced by the claimant side so as to show that the claimant was earning Rs.10,000/- per month prior to the accident which took place on 19.09.2022. Considering the said circumstances, it is just and necessary to fix notional income of the claimant. Having considered the age and avocation of the claimant mentioned supra, the tribunal is of the opinion that she would earn not less than Rs.400/- per day and she would work not less than 22 days per month. Accordingly, her monthly notional income is fixed at Rs.8,800/- (Rs.400/ x 22) and her annual notional income is fixed at Rs.1,05,600/- (Rs.8,800 x 12) prior to the accident which took place on 19.09.2022.

14. Quantum of Compensation:

The evidence of claimant (Pw.1) and the wound certificate (Ex.A3) issued by Govt., hospital, Rayachoty shows that 9 the claimant sustained crush injury on her right foot; and subsequent treatment was taken by the claimant in RDT hospital,

Bathalapalli. The out patient slip (Ex.A4) issued by Narendra hospital, Tirupati; the medical records (Ex.A6) issued by RDT hospital, Bathalapalli and X-Rays (Ex.A7) show that the claimant sustained crush injury on her right three toes and underwent debridement and K-wire fixation.

15.The claimant side got examined Dr.J.Nagesh,

Orthopedic surgeon of Kadapa as Pw.2. His evidence and the disability certificate (Ex.A9) issued by the said doctor shows that 5th toe of right foot of the claimant was amputated. And the claimant is suffering post traumatic sequel old crush of right foot operation, difficulty on walking uneven surfaces, climbing up and down, squatting and sitting on the floor. His evidence shows that he verified X-Rays, wound certificate, conducted clinical examination and perused discharge summary of RDT hospital,

Bathalapalli in Ananathapur District, and that he is of the opinion that the claimant is suffering 20% permanent disability to her right lower limb. Considering the above discussed medical records, the evidence of the doctor (Pw.2) and the disability certificate (Ex.A9) issued by him are found reliable.

10

16.Having considered the age and occupation of the claimant, her functional disability is also fixed at 20% for the purpose of computation of compensation. As per Sarla Varma

Case, the multiplier applicable is ‘15’ as the age of the claimant is fixed at 39 years supra. Accordingly, the total loss of future earnings of the claimant is fixed at Rs.3,16,800/- (Rs.1,05,600/- x 20/100 x 15). It is relevant to note here that no medical bills was filed by the claimant side to show that the claimant has spent any amount for her treatment. The said circumstances support the contention of respondent no.2/insurance company that the claimant took treatment at free of cost under Govt., scheme.

Considering the same, the claimant is not entitled for any amount under the head of treatment expenses. The claimant side has filed a bunch of bills to show that the claimant has spent Rs.41,500/- for her transportation during the time of treatment. However, nobody was examined except the self serving testimony of the claimant (Pw.1), to prove the said bills. However, considering the treatment undergone by the claimant mentioned in the above referred medical records, the claimant is awarded Rs.25,000/- under the head of transportation. Further, she is awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head of attendant charges, Rs.25,000/- under the head of extra nourishment. Considering the injuries and treatment undergone by the claimant, she would not have attended her work atleast for 4 11 months. Hence, she is awarded Rs.35,200/- (Rs.8,800/ x 4) under the head of loss of earnings during the period of treatment.

Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for the compensation as follows;

Description Amount;

Loss of future earningRs. 3,16,800 -00 Transport chargesRs. 25,000-00 Attendant chargesRs. 10,000-00 Extra nourishmentRs. 25,000-00 Loss of earnings during the period of treatmentRs. 35,200-00 Total: Rs. 4,12,000-00 (Rupees Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand only)

17. Who has to pay:

The discussion held and decision arrived in issue no.1 supra, show that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 who was the driver of the offending vehicle. The policy (Ex.B1) filed by respondent no.2/insurance company shows that respondent no.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance was in force from 08.04.2022 to 07.04.2023. Admittedly, the accident took place on 19.09.2022. Hence it is clear that at the time of accident the offending vehicle had valid insurance coverage with respondent no.2/insurance company. Admittedly, no violation of terms and condition of the policy (Ex.B1) is proved by the respondent no.2/insurance company. Having considered the said circumstances, the tribunal is of the opinion that respondent 12 no.2/insurance company is liable to indemnify respondent no.1/owner of the offending vehicle to pay compensation to the claimant. Accordingly, issue No.2 is decided in favor of the claimant.

18. Issue No.3:-

In the result, the claim petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs, awarding compensation of Rs. 4,12,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand only) to the claimant together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit.

(i) The respondent No.1/ owner cum driver of the offending vehicle and respondent no.2/insurance company, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.

(ii) The respondent No.2/Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded to the claimant, into her

Bank Account within two (2) months from the date of this order; on such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the compensation awarded to her supra, after filing Full Satisfaction

Memo into the Tribunal without delay.

(iii) Rest of the claim petition is hereby dismissed.

13

(iv) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three

Thousand only).

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 09th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- S.Krishnan Kutty

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - V Addl. District Judge, Rayachoty.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for claimant:

Pw.1: Ch.Devamma

Pw.2: Dr. J. Nagesh, Ortho surgeon, Kadapa Exhibits marked for claimant:

Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.152/2022 of Chinnamandem PS,

Ex.A2: Attested copy of charge sheet,

Ex.A3: Attested copy of wound certificate,

Ex.A4: OP slip issued by Narendra Hospital, Tirupati.

Ex.A5: Lab report issued by Narendra Hospital, Tirupati.

Ex.A6: MLC book issued by RDT hospital, Bathalapalli.

Ex.A7: X-Rays (2 in number)

Ex.A8: Transport bills for Rs.41,500/- Ex.A9: Disability certificate

Witnesses examined for Respondents : Nil

Exhibits marked for respondent No.2: Ex.B1: Insurance policy.

Sd/- S.Krishnan Kutty

Chairman,

MACT -cum- V ADJ,

Rayachoty.

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: RAYACHOTY.

Present: Sri S.Krishnan Kutty, Chairperson Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty. Monday, this the 13th day of April, 2026.

M.V.O.P.No. 68 of 2024

1.Jonnagadla Parvathamma

2. Jonnagadla Nagarjuna ... Claimants

Vs.

1. Syed Sakhila (Owner)

2. Badri Satish Kumar (Driver).

3.United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Rep by its Manager, Rayachtoy, Annamayya Dt.

... Respondents

This claim petition has come up on 25.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for claimants and Sri M.Chakrapani Raju, Advocate for respondent No.3, and respondent No.1 and 2 remained exparte, having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

The claim petition is filed by the claimants under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of APMV Rules, 1989 R/w Act 54 of 1994, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) for the death of deceased who is the son of claimant no.1 and brother of claimant no.2, in a motor vehicle accident, with interest and for costs.

2

2. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

The claimants submit that on 15.04.2021 at about 10.00AM

Jonnagadla Mallikarjuna (hereinafter referred to as deceased) left his house to go to town. On the same day evening at about 7.00PM while the deceased was proceeding beside Rayachoty – Kadapa main road, near chinthamvandlapalli cross, respondent no.2 being the driver of the car bearing no.AP02 AE 5859(hereinafter referred to as offending car) drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the speed and dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained multiple bleeding injuries and died on the spot. The passersby informed the accident to the VRO of Chitluru village by phone. The VRO reached the spot, got shifted the deceased to the Govt., hospital, Lakkireddipalli and kept the dead body of the deceased in the mortuary as the dead body of the deceased was not identified by anyone. Thereafter, lodged the FIR in Cr.No.59 of 2021 with

Ramapuram PS. The said FIR was registered against respondent no.2 under sec.304(A) IPC and 184 of MV Act.

3.On 17.04.2021 claimant no.1 who is the mother of the deceased and his relatives came to know the death of the deceased through the News paper, then approached the police and identified the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, police conducted inquest proceedings, got conducted postmortem over the dead body of the 3 deceased, examined the witnesses, having completed the investigation filed charge sheet against respondent no.2 for the offence punishable under sec.304(A) IPC and sec.184 of MV Act.

Accordingly, the claimants who are the dependents of the deceased have filed the present claim petition praying for compensation.

4. Respondent No.1 and 2 who are the owner and driver of the offending car remained exparte.

5. The brief averments of the written statement filed

by the Respondent No.3/Insurance company are as follows:

Respondent No.3/Insurance company submits interalia that the claimants have to prove that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending car by way of FIR, inquest, charge sheet etc.,.

Respondent no.3/Insurance company further submits that the claimants have to prove the occupation and income of the deceased. Claimant no.2 is married and living separately with his family, hence he is not dependent of the deceased. The compensation claimed is excessive.

Accordingly, praying to dismiss the petition.

6. From the above said pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial :

4

1. Whether the accident took place on 15.04.2021 at 7.00PM near Rayachoty – Kadapa main road, near chintamvandlapalli cross, Ramapuram mandal, Annamayya dt, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, as a result Jonnagadla Mallikarjuna sustained injuries and died.?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. From the claimants side, Pw.1 and Pw.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of Respondent No.3/Insurance company, nobody was examined but the policy (Ex.B1) was marked.

8. I.A.No.251/2026 filed by the Respondent no.3/Insurance company under sec.170 of MV Act was allowed.

9.Heard. Perused.

10. Issue No.1:

The claimant no.2 who is the brother of the deceased, and claimant no.1 who is the mother of the deceased got themselves examined as Pw.1 and Pw.2. Pw.1 and 2 have reiterated the claim petition averments in their chief examination. Though the claimants (Pw.1 and Pw.2) are not the eye witness to the accident and the same is admitted by them in their cross examination, the evidence given by them in their chief examination is supported by attested copy of FIR (Ex.A1), attested copy charge sheet (Ex.A2), attested copy of MVI report (Ex.A3), attested copy of postmortem certificate (Ex.A4) and attested 5 copy of inquest report (Ex.A5) apart from the records of the offending car hereinafter discussed. Nothing worthful was brought out through the cross examination of Pw.1 and Pw.2 so as to substantiate the contention of respondent no.3/insurance company that the accident took place not due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending car.

11. It is relevant to note here that, the contents of the FIR (Ex.A1) lodged by the VRO shows that since the dead body of the deceased was not identified, 2 days delay was caused in lodging the FIR (Ex.A1) with the police. Moreover, the charge sheet (Ex.A2) and inquest report (Ex.A5) shows that on 17.02.2021 claimant no.1 who is the mother of the deceased and other relatives of the deceased came to know the death of the deceased through the news paper, then approached the police and thereafter inquest proceedings (Ex.A5) and

P.M examination (Ex.A4) were conducted. It is relevant to note here that, the MVI report (Ex.A3) filed by the police also shows that due to the accident the offending car bumper sustained damages. Having considered the said circumstances, it is clear that claimant no.1 and 2 are the mother and brother of the deceased, so also the offending car is the vehicle dashed against the deceased and caused the accident.

Having considered the above referred oral and documentary evidence, non examination of eye witness of the accident also no way helpful to respondent no.3/insurance company to absolve its liability of payment of compensation to the claimants.

6

12.Neither any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence was adduced by respondent no.3/insurance company so as to substantiate the contention that, the accident took place not due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending car.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is decided that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2/driver of the offending car, as a result the deceased died at the spot. Accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favor of claimants and against the respondents.

14. Issue No.2:-

Age:-

The claimants have submitted that the deceased was aged 35 years old at the time of accident/death. The claimants /Pw.1 and Pw.2 have reiterated the same in their chief examination. The attested copy of FIR (Ex.A1), attested copy of charge sheet (Ex.A2), attested copy of

P.M certificate (Ex.A4) and attested copy of inquest report (Ex.A5) also shows that the deceased was aged 35 years at the time of accident/death. No contradictory evidence was adduced by respondent no.3/insurance company to disprove the age of the deceased. Having considered the said oral and documentary evidence, the age of the deceased is fixed at 35 years old at the time of accident/death for the purpose of computation of compensation.

7 Income:-

The claimants have stated that the deceased was a mason and was earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the inquest report (Ex.A5) shows that the deceased was a coolie. It is relevant to note here that, except the self serving testimony of claimants (Pw.1 and Pw.2) no other oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants side to prove the income of the deceased. Considering the said circumstances, it is just and necessary to fix notional income of the deceased. Having considered the age and avocation of the deceased as coolie, the tribunal is of the opinion that the deceased would earn not less than Rs.400/- per day and he would work not less than 22 days per month. Accordingly, the monthly notional income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.8,800/- (Rs.400/ x 22) and his annual notional income is fixed at Rs.1,05,600/- (Rs.8,800/ x 12) prior to the accident which took place on 15.04.2021. As per Pranay Sethicase, 40% of the said income has to be added under the head of future prospects of the deceased as the deceased was aged 35 years old at the time of accident/death.

Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is fixed at

Rs.1,47,840/- (Rs.1,05,600/ + Rs.42,240/-). As per Sarala Varma case, 50% of the said income has to be deducted under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased as the deceased was unmarried. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is fixed at

Rs.73,920/- (Rs.1,47,840/- - Rs.73,920/-). As per Sarala Varma case, the multiplier applicable is ‘16’ as the age of the deceased is fixed at 35 years supra. Accordingly, the total loss of future earnings of the 8 deceased/ loss of dependency is fixed at Rs.11,82,720/- (Rs.73,920/- X 16). As per Pranaya Sethi Case, the claimants are entitled for

Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for the compensation as follows:

Sl. Description Amount

No. Rs.11,82,720/- 1Towards loss of earning/dependency 2Towards loss of estateRs. 15,000/- 3Towards loss of consortiumRs. 40,000/- 4Towards funeral expensesRs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 12,52,720/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty only) 15. Who has to pay:

The discussion held and decision arrived in issue no.1 supra shows that, the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2 who was the driver of the offending car. The insurance policy (Ex.B1) shows that respondent no.1 is the owner of the offending car and the policy (Ex.B1) was in force from 29.01.2021 to 28.01.2022. Admittedly, the accident took place on 15.04.2021.

Considering the same, it is clear that the insurance policy (Ex.B1) of the offending car issued by respondent no.3/insurance company was in force at the time of accident. Admittedly, respondent no.3/insurance company has not proved any violation of terms and conditions of the policy (Ex.B1). Having considered the said circumstances, respondent no.1 who is the owner of the offending car and respondent no.3 who is the insurer 9 of the offending car are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, issue No.2 is decided in favor of the claimants.

It is relevant to note here that, since the deceased is unmarried, though claimant no.2 who is the brother of the deceased is residing separately with his wife and children, claimant no.2 also can be considered as dependant of the deceased.

16. Issue No.3:-

In the result, the claim petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs, awarding compensation of Rs. 12,52,720/-

(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and

Twenty only) to the claimants together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit.

(i) The respondent No.1 and 3 who are the owner and insurer of the offending car are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

(ii) The Claimant No.1 who is the mother of the deceased is entitled for Rs.8,52,720/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand

Seven Hundred and Twenty only), with proportionate interest and costs. The claimant no.2 who is the brother of the deceased is entitled for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only), with proportionate interest and costs.

10

(iii) The respondent No.3/Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded to the claimant no.1 and 2 with proportionate interest and costs, into their Bank Account within two (2) months from the date of this order; on such deposit, the claimants no.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw the compensation awarded to them supra, after filing Full Satisfaction Memo into the Tribunal without delay.

(iv) Rest of the petition claim is hereby dismissed.

(v) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four

Thousand only).

Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- S.Krishnan Kutty

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - V Addl. District Judge, Rayachoty.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for claimants:

Pw.1: J.Nagarjuna

Pw.2: J.Parvathamma Exhibits marked on behalf of Claimants : Ex.A1:Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.59/2021 of Ramapuram PS.

Ex.A2:Attested copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A3:Attested copy of MVI report.

Ex.A4:Attested copy of P.M certificate.

Ex.A5:Attested copy of inquest report.

Ex.A6:Photostat copy of insurance policy.

Ex.A7:Photostat copy of RC of crime vehicle.

Ex.A8:Photostat copy of driving license of the offending vehicle.

11 Witnesses examined for Respondents : Nil.

Exhibits marked for Respondent No.3:

Ex.B1 : Insurance Policy.

Sd/- S.Krishnan Kutty

Chairman,

MACT -cum- V ADJ,

Rayachoty.