S.N. Sreedevi

1 of 14

SC. No. 2 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

AT KAMAREDDY

Present: Smt. S.N. SREE DEVI,

Prl. Sessions Judge,

Kamareddy

Tuesday, the 7th day of June, 2022

S.C. No. 2 of 2021

1. Name of the Complainant :The State represented by Circle Inspector of Police, Bhiknoor

2. Name of the accused:PulluriSiddiRamulu, S/o. Shivaiah, aged 55 years, caste: SC (Madiga) occu: Agriculture, R/o. Jangampally village, Bhiknoor mandal, Kamareddy district

3. Charges:U/Section 302 and 201 IPC

4. Plea of the accused:Not guilty

5. Finding of the Judge:Found guilty

6. Sentence or order :Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 201 IPC and he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. HOWEVER, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence and sentenced to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand rupees only), in default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two (2) months.

7. Prosecution conducted by:Sri Nanda Ramesh

Additional Public Prosecutor

8. Accused defended by:Sri M. Venkatram Reddy, Legal Aid Counsel, Advocate, Kamareddy 2 of 14

This case coming before me for final hearing on 6.6.2022 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M. Venkatram Reddy, Legal Aid Counsel, for the accused and having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The case of the prosecution is as follows:

That on 30th May, 2018 at about 0830 hours the defacto complainant Smt. Athelli Jaya wife of Ramesh lodged a complaint stating that her husband Athelli Ramesh and the Chairman, Village

Development Committee (VDC), Jangaompally village, are eking out their livelihood by doing agricultural. On 29-5-2018 in the morning hours, her husband and Sarpanch Raju went to Medak in a Court case matter and returned home at 7.30 pm. Her husband had bath and went outside on his motor cycle on some work and there after her husband did not return home till 12 midnight and in the meanwhile when her daughter made a phone call, her husband informed her daughter that he would return home after one hour.

On 30-5-2018 at about 6.30 am the defacto complainant came to know that her husband Athelli Ramesh and her cousin Mudam

Ramulu were murdered by some unknown persons without any cause at Vasavi Garden, Jangampally village. Immediately, she along with her family members and neighbours visited the place of incident and found her husband was dead with blood injuries lying in supine position and she further found her cousin also dead with blood injuries line in prone position.

2) Basing on the said complaint, the SI of Police, Sri L. Raju (LW-25) registered a case in Crime No. 64 of 2018 under Section 302 IPC and issued FIR and then took up investigation. During the investigation, the SI of Police examined the defacto complainant and recorded her statement. Later the further investigation was taken over by the CI of Police Sri D. Bhikshpathi (LW-26). During his 3 of 14

SC. No. 2 of 2021

investigation the CI of Police proceeded to the scene of offence situated at Vasavi Gardens, Jangaompally village and found the dead bodies of the deceased Athelli Ramesh and Mudam Ramulu.

The scene of offence was observed and a guard was posted to guard the scene of offence till the In-charge clues team and dogs squad visited the scene for clues. The clues team obtained the chance prints from the scene and dogs squad was also utilized, but no clues were detected. Then the presence of two mediators by name

G. Suresh (LW-17) and S. Ramulu (LW-18) were secured and in their presence the scene panchanama was held and rough sketch of the scene including the photographs of the scene were all prepared.

Further, one Tata Water bottle, Imperial blue IB whisky bottle,

Fresco company cool drink water, a pair of black coloured slippers, another pair of chappals, white colour towel, a blood stained stone were all recovered under the cover of scene panchanama.

Thereafter in the presence of same mediators the CI of Police held inquest on the body of the deceased No.1 Athelli Ramesh and then held inquest on the body of the deceased No.2 Mudham Ramulu and then shifted the dead bodies to the mortuary room, Govt.

Hospital, Kamareddy for post mortem examination. Further, the CI of Police secured the presence of some of the witnesses, examined them and recorded their statements. Thereafter the further investigation was handed over to the CI of Police Sri D. Koteshwar

Rao (LW-27). During his investigation, on 2-6-2018 some of the circumstantial witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded as LW.12 to LW-15. Then on 3-6-2018 basing on a reliable information, the CI of Police with the assistance of his staff apprehended the suspect/accused, interrogated the accused thoroughly and recorded the confession panchanama of the accused in the presence of mediators P. Nagaiah (LW-22) and N.

Naresh (LW-23) and basing on the confession, the accused lead all of them to the place where seizure panchanama was conducted at the instance of the accused and the following items were seized. I) 4 of 14 white colour washed dhothi, ii) one dirty white colour full shirt, iii) Itex colour half baniyan, iv) red colour Kawasaki motor cycle bearing No. CG 08 A 2828 from cottage and v) the iron rod.

Thereafter the accused was brought to the police station, Bhiknoor, where his arrest was effected and was produced before the Court for judicial custody. Subsequently, the police custody of the accused was obtained through the Court order in Crl. M.P.No. 842 of 2018 and the accused was taken into police custody from 13-6-2018 to 15-6-2018 during which period, efforts wee made to recover the two cell phones of the deceased No.1 and 2 vide No.

358312060633930 and 353418099825470, but they could not recover. After collecting the post mortem examination reports of the deceased No.1 and 2 in which the Medical Officer Dr. Vijay

Kumar (LW-24) after taking into consideration the FSL report, opined that the cause of death was due to head injury and after completion of investigation the accused is charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, 201 IPC by the Circle

Inspector of Police Sri J. Rajashekar.

3) The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy took cognizance of the case against the accused and committed the case vide PRC No. 11 of 2019 to the Court of Sessions, Nizamabad.

The Hon’ble Prl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad took the case on file for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC against the accused and made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

4) After appearance of the accused, heard the Accused and the

Additional Public Prosecutor on charges. Based on the material

available on record, the plea of the Accused is recorded, wherein the

Accused denied the prosecution case are false, pleaded not guilty of the charges under Section 302 and 201 IPC framed against him and claimed to be tried.

5 of 14

SC. No. 2 of 2021

5) After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, putting the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. The accused denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

6)Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved its case against the Accused for the offence punishable Under Sections 302, 201 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8) The charge leveled against the accused is one under Section 302 and 201 IPC. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused, based on the circumstantial evidence at the first instance.

9) PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 who are the kith and kin of the deceased, categorically deposed that on 29-5-2018 the deceased

Athelli Ramesh went to Medak in connection with a Court case and returned home at 7.30 pm. That the said Ramulu had bath and went out of the house on his motor cycle, on some work and there after did not return home till 12 midnight and in the meanwhile the daughter of PW-1 made a phone call to Ramulu, who in turn informed that he would return home after one hour. That on 30-5-2018 at about 6.30 am all came to know that Athelli

Ramesh and VDC Chairman Mudam Ramulu were murdered by some unknown persons at Vasavi Gardens, Jangampally village.

Immediately, all the family members and neighbours visited the place of incident and found Athelli Ramesh dead with blood injuries and body lying in supine position and they further found Mudam 6 of 14

Ramulu also dead, with blood injuries and body lying in prone position. Complaint was given to the police marked Ex.P1. That the police examined all of them and recorded their statements.

10)Coming to the circumstantial evidence, PW-10 G. Ramulu and

PW-11 P. Ramaswamy are the crucial witnesses according to the prosecution. It is the testimony of PW-10 and PW.11 that on 29-5-2018 at about 10.30 pm while they along with one Athelli

Srinivas were standing at Vasavi Garden, the accused came there and raised dispute with deceased Athelli Ramesh questioning them as to why he was boycotted by their caste people and that their caste people boycotted him only because of Ramesh and that when

Ramesh replied saying that the Accused can do whatever he wants, the accused threatened saying that he would kill Ramesh and on the next day morning information was received that Athelli Ramesh and Mudam Ramulu were killed by some body at Vasavi Gardens.

That they suspect that the Accused to have killed the deceased persons as the accused had raised dispute against the deceased on the previous day night.

11) Both the said evidence of PW-10 and PW-11 stood unrebutted, except for trying to elicit that the accused never threatened of killing Ramesh (deceased No.1), from which case of the accused it is clear that, the fact that the accused came to Vasavi Garden at that relevant time as stated by PW-10 and PW-11 remained undisputed.

Even PW-12 and PW-13, who are also the circumstantial witnesses categorically spoke to the fact that on 29-5-2018 at about 11 pm, while they were attending to nature calls, they noticed the movement of the accused at that time and on the next day morning, they witnessed the dead bodies of Athelli Ramesh and Mudam

Ramulu at Vasavi Garden. Their evidence as to the date and approximate time of finding the accused is all corroborating the case of prosecution. Moreover, PW-1 to 4 are categorical in their 7 of 14

SC. No. 2 of 2021

say that the deceased Athelli Ramesh having gone out of the house at night time on 29-5-2018, the deceased did not return at all and atlast Athelli Ramesh and Mudam Ramulu were found dead at

Vasavi Garden.

12) Further, PW-6 the son of the deceased Mudam Ramulu, who is also related to the deceased Athelli Ramesh testified to the fact that on 29-5-2018 his father M. Ramulu (Deceased ) went out of the house and did not return for that day and on the next day morning, it was learnt from the villagers that his father M. Ramulu and his uncle Athelli Ramesh were killed by some body at Vasavi

Gardens.

13) PW-8, the wife of the deceased Mudam Ramulu, deposed that when her deceased husband had gone out of the house, her son telephoned to her husband at 10.45 pm asking him to come home and that her husband informed that he will be returning home within one hour, but never returned and on the next day morning, it was learnt that her husband Mudam Ramulu and Athelli Ramesh were killed by some body at Vasavi Gardens.

14) PW-9 the wife of PW-6 and daughter-in-law of the deceased

Mudam Ramulu also deposed corroborating the version her husband PW-6 as to the date and time of making a telephone call to the deceased Mudam Ramulu.

15) Though PW1 to PW-4, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9 are not the direct witnesses to the occurrence of the offence, the chain of events spoken to by the these witnesses co-relate to the events spoken to by the circumstantial witnesses.

16) Coming to point of further establishing the nexus between the accused and the commission of the offence, the seizure of case 8 of 14 property marked MO.1 to MO.11, the testimony of panch witnesses to the scene of offence i.e. PW-14, who deposed that on 30-5 -2018 the police conducted scene panchanama at Vasavi Garden in his presence under Ex.P6 and also drew rough sketch of the scene under Ex.P7. There is nothing elicited to impeach the testimony of

PW-14. PW-15 is another panch witness who also corroborated the case of the prosecution as to the seizure of MOs.12 to MO.14 which pertain to the deceased M. Ramulu. Considering all the unrebutted testimony of the circumstantial witnesses conclusions can be drawn regarding the intention and motive of the Accused behind the occurrence because it is the categorical case of the prosecution that there was a dispute between the deceased No.1 and 2 and the accused with regard to sale of illegal liquor by the accused and the deceased No.1 and 2 were instrumental in making the accused stop the illegal sale of the liquor and for closure of the belt shop of the accused.

17) Further, it is also the case of the prosecution that on 29-5-2018 the accused along with one Gunda Ralaiah went to a

Court in order to file a case against one Narsimlu and V.D.C.

Chairman and due to lack of knowledge in the Court processes, the accused and Gunda Rajaiah returned home. That after some time the accused started from his home on his motor cycle bearing CG- 08-2868 in order to attend Pochamma festival at Narsannapally village and on the way the accused stopped his vehicle at the belt shop, purchased 90 ml liquor bottle and while consuming liquor, one Chamarti Balaraju joined the accused and both of them proceeded on their individual motor cycles and while reaching

Jangampally village, the accused found Athelli Ramesh and Mudam

Ramulu (deceased No.1 and 2) at Laxmamma temple and immediately the accused went to them and questioned them regarding his boycott by the caste people and at that time the deceased No.1 abused the accused in filthy language and advised 9 of 14

SC. No. 2 of 2021

the accused to approach the caste elders and seek solution. Later, the accused memorized all the happenings with regard to his caste boycott affairs and decided to do way with life of the deceased No.1 and 2, who played their role in the process of his caste boycott and the accused did not return to his house and ultimately when he went near Vasavi Gardens, the accused found the deceased No.1 and 2 sitting there and consuming alcohol and the accused left his motor cycle at a distance and went on foot to Vasavi Garden i.e. to the place where the defendant No.1 and 2 were sitting and beat the deceased No.1 on the head with an iron rod and when the deceased

No.2 tried to rescue the deceased No.1, the accused also beat the deceased No.2 with a boulder/stone and went home on his motor cycle around 0100 hours. Then the accused having entertained doubt in his mind that the deceased persons in the process of occurrence the deceased persons might have recorded the happening in their cell phone, the accused came back to the scene of offence and took the two cell phones of the deceased persons and threw them in Laxmi Nagar thanda passage in order to conceal the evidence.

18) In order to substantiate the said contention of the prosecution, PW-16 the Village Revenue Officer Kachapur was examined by the prosecution. It is the say of PW-16 that on 3.6.2018 the police summoned him to in whose custody the accused was also present and in his presence the accused confessed about the disputes between him and his brothers and resolutions of the disputes by the VDC Chairman Mudam Ramulu (deceased No.2) and that the Accused having revealed about the concealment of weapon of offence and led all of them and the police to his house from where the police recovered an iron rod marked

MO.18 at the instance of the accused and the police further seized the motor cycle of the accused marked MO.19 under the cover of seizure panchanama marked Ex.P13. Even the said evidence of 10 of 14

PW-16 stood un-rebutted. There is no ill-will elicited against the accused from the mouth of the said witnesses. PW-16 being a

VRO and a Public Servant, he can not be expected speak falsehood at the instance of the police as suggested by the learned defence counsel.

19) Coming to the medical evidence, PW-17 Dr. Vijay Kumar, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Athelli Ramesh has noticed the injuries i.e. i) Laceration wound over left eye brow measuring 3 x ½ x ½ inch (fracture frontal bone supra orbital region left), ii) Fracture of occipital bone, iii) Fracture left partial bone, iv) Abrasion left upper arm 6 x 6 inches, v) Abrasion on left elbow 2x2 inches, vi) Abrasion on right forearm 4x4 inches.

20) The said injuries clearly show that the deceased Ramesh has mostly sustained injuries to the head region and upper portion of his body till the arms. It is also the final opinion (Ex.P16) of the doctor even after considering the F.S.L., report (Ex.P15) that the deceased Ramesh died due to head injury. So also the doctor

PW-17 has also categorically deposed about 10 injuries viz. i)

Lacerated wound over right eye brow of 4 x ½ x ½ , ii) Abrasion on right cheek of 2x2 inches, iii) Abrasion on right chest of 2x2 inch, iv) Fracture of occipital bone, v) Fracture of frontal bone, vi)

Fracture of nasal bones, vii) Contusion over left chest of 2x2 inches, viii) Fracture of right partial bone, ix) Lacerated wound over right partial region lateral and posterior aspects of 8 x ½ x ½ inch and x)

Lacerated wound over left scrotem ½ X ½ x ½ inch were found by him on the body of Mudam Ramulu and even the said deceased

Mudam Ramulu is died due to head injury vide the Final Report

Ex.P18. The entire evidence of the doctor also stood unrebutted, except for a suggestion that the injuries found on the body of the deceased persons can also be caused in an accident. If at all both the deceased persons met with an accident, the injuries would have 11 of 14

SC. No. 2 of 2021

been found on all parts of the body. Further head of a person is easily accessible for the perpetrators of crime to causing injuries with an iron rod and stone. In the instant case the prosecution is able to establish and prove with cogent evidence that the accused has used the iron rod and boulder/stone to hit both the deceased persons one after the other, on their head with an intention to do away with them.

21) PW-18 to PW-21 are the police officials who deposed about their conduct of investigation at various stages. PW-18 deposed that on 30-5-2018 he received Ex.P1 complaint from PW-1, based on it, he registered a case and issued Ex.P19 FIR in Crime No. 64 of 2018 under Section 302 IPC, recorded the statement of PW-1. PW- 18 and 19 deposed that they visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama, seized the material object, conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased persons and subjected the dead bodies for post mortem examination. PW- 21 deposed about the further investigation and recording of the statements of the witnesses and based on the same he apprehended the accused, interrogated him thoroughly and recorded the confession statement of the accused and in pursuance of his confession recovered the material objects, effected his arrest, produced the accused before the Court for judicial remand. PW-20 deposed that he received the CD file from PW-21 and on completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused.

22. All the said evidence is not of much consequence. Thee is no ill – will elicited against the accused for false implication as suggested.

23. However, there is no convincing evidence that the accused has tried to screen away the evidence in order to escape the criminal liability.

12 of 14

24) In view of all the above discussion it is held that the prosecution proved its case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

25) IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 201 IPC and he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. HOWEVER, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235 (2)

Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

Typed by Stenographer on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of June, 2022.

Principal Sessions Judge,

Kamareddy.

The accused is examined with regard to quantum of sentence, to which he had stated that he is falsely implicated in this case by his agnates as there were land disputes between him and his family members and he has depended family members.

Taking into consideration of the facts, circumstances of the case and gravity of the offence committed by the Accused, the accused is sentenced to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand rupees only), in default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two (2) months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

The Remand period of the accused from 15-6-2018 to 02-11-2018 (5 months 15 days) and from 26-10-2021 to 7-6-2022 (7 months 11 days) shall be set off as prescribed under section 428 of Cr.P.C.

13 of 14

SC. No. 2 of 2021

MO.1 to 18 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period.

MO.19/Motor cycle bearing No. CG-08-A-2868 ordered to be confiscated to the State.

The accused is apprised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by this Court.

The office is directed to furnish copy of the judgment to the accused forthwith.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 6h day of June, 2022.

Principal Sessions Judge,

Kamareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F or Prosecution :

PW.1 :Smt. Athelli Jaya (Defacto Complainant/Injured) PW-2 :Smt. Athelli Laxmi PW-3 :Athelli Thirumalesh PW-4 : Athelli Srinivas PW-5 :Kalvakuntla Srinivasasulu PW-6 : Mudam Naresh PW-7 : Thripal Kailas PW-8 : Mudam Manemma PW-9 : Mudam Lalitha PW-10: Gunda Ramulu PW-11: Pulluri Ramaswamy PW-12: Kandunoori Naresh PW-13: Midudhula Rajaiah PW-14: Gadi Suresh Kumar PW-15: Pulluri Swamy PW-16: Niradi Naresh PW-17: Dr. Vijay Kumar, CAS PW-18: Sri L. Raju, SIP (1st IO) PW-19: Sri D. Bhikshapathi, CIP (2nd IO) PW-20: Sri J. Rajashekar (4th IO filed charge sheet) PW-21: Sri G. Koteshwar Rao, (3rd IO)

F or Defence: None 14 of 14

D OCUMENTS MARKED

F or Prosecution : Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : Photograph Ex.P3 : Photograph Ex.P4 : Photograph Ex.P5 : Photograph Ex.P6 : Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P7 : Rough sketch Ex.P8 : Inquest panchanama of D1 Ex.P9 : Seizure panchanama Ex.P10:Inquest panchanama of D2 Ex.P11: Seizure panchanama Ex.P12: Relevant portion of confession panchanama Ex.p13: Seizure panchanama of iron rod Ex.P14: Post mortem examination report Ex.P15: FSL report Ex.P16: Final report of deceased Ramesh Ex.P17: Post mortem examination report of D2 Ex.P18: Final report of the deceased Ramulu Ex.P19: FIR

For Defence: None

Material Object : M.O.1 : Tata water bottle M.O.2 : Imperial blue whisky bottle M.O.3 : Fresco cool drink bottle M.O.4 : Pair of slippers M.O.5 : Pair of chappals M.O.6 : Towel M.O.7 : Stone M.O.8 : Torn pocket piece M.O.9 : Black coloured night pant M.O.10: Grey colour T-shirt M.O.11: Red colour underwear M.O.12: White colour shirt M.O.13: White baniyan M.O.14: White Dothi M.O.15: Dhothi of the Accused M.O.16: Shirt of the Accused M.O.17: Baniyan of the accused M.O.18: Rod M.O.19: Motor cycle bearing No. CG-08-A-2868

Principal Sessions Judge,

Kamareddy

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL- CUM-IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT

KAMAREDDY

Present: Smt. S.N. Sree Devi,

Chairman, (MACT—cum-IX ADJ),

Kamareddy

Dated this the 12 th day of May, 2022

O.P. No. 11 of 2016

Between:

1. Dudekula Farjana, W/o Dudekula Zakeer @ Zakeer Hussain, age: 34 years, Occ: Household,

2. Dudekula Sumayya Tanveer, D/o Dudekula Zakeer @ Zakeer Hussain, age: 5 years, Minor

3. Dudekula Shahadap, S/o Dudekula Zakeer @ Zakeer Hussain, age: 2 years, Minor, petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors under guardianship of their natural mother and next friend petitioner No.1.

4. Dudekula Mohammed Hussain, S/o Dudekula Yadul Sab, age: 62 years, Occ: Old age.

5. Dudekula Saleema, W/o Mohammed Hussain, age: 60 years, Occ: Housewife, All R/o R/o H.No.3-152, Kalwaral village of Sadashiva Nagar Mandal, District Nizamabad.

.. Petitioners

A N D

1) Koneru @ Erukala Shankar, S/o Pedda Balaiah, age: 40 years, Occ: Driver and Owner of the Tractor bearing No.TS-16-EA-0838 and Trolley No.AP-25-R-5443, R/o H.No.3-128, Guridi Wada Kalwaral village of Sadashivanagar Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

2) The Royal Sudndaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 8-3-300, 1st Floor Kothi Rampoor Hyderabad Road, Karimnagar, 515001 Vide Policy No.VOCO258258000100

.. Respondents

This petition coming on 10.05.2022 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri R.B.Naresh Kumar, Advocate for petitioners, and Sri V.L.Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Sri Ravindra Bhoopal, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

Chairman,

MACT,IX ADJ,KMR

OP No. 11 of 2016 Page No. 2 of 16

O R D E R

The petitioners filed this petition under section 166 (1) (c) and 163-A of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Act for claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs only) towards the death of Zakeer Hussain in an accident.

2)It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner is the wife of the deceased, second and third petitioners are the two children of the deceased and petitioners four and five are the parents of the deceased.

3)That on 06.02.2015 at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased was standing behind the tractor trailer bearing No.TS-EA-0838 and

Trolley No.AP-25-5443 and at that time the respondent No.1 negligently moved the vehicle on the rear side in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the tractor trolley hit the deceased and the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries to the head, fractures to legs and other parts of his body. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Kamareddy, from where he was again shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment, but the deceased succumbed to injuries on 07.02.2015 at about 6.15 p.m., while undergoing treatment.

4)It is further the case of the petitioners that the deceased was the only earning member in the family and all the petitioners were depending on his earnings. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, all the petitioners are put to lot of mental agony and

OP No. 11 of 2016 Page No. 3 of 16

the children lost the father’s love and affection and their brought up by good education and good nursing is all hampered. All the petitioners lost their bread earner and future support financially and emotionally. That the deceased was aged about 35 years by the time of this incident and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as a

Tractor driver. The deceased was also doing agriculture and he was hale and healthy prior to his death. That the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor trailer by the respondent No.1, who is the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.2 who is the insurer of the offending vehicle and as such the both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners to the tune of

Rs.9,00,000/-.

5)The Respondents No.1 filed counter admitting that he is the owner of the offending vehicle tractor trailer, which is insured with Rayal Sundaram General Insurance company and that the insurance policy is in force by the time of accident, while disputing the rest of the contents of the petition. It is further submitted that this respondent never drove the offending vehicle tractor trailer and he did not cause the subject accident as alleged by the petitioners.

In fact the police Sadashivanagar registered first information report in Cr.No.26/2015 against this respondent basing on a false complaint given by the father of the deceased. Therefore, he is not

OP No. 11 of 2016 Page No. 4 of 16

liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the petitioners and the petition be dismissed.

6)The written statement filed by the respondents No.2 denying the averments of the petition, further disputing the age, avocation, earning capacity of the deceased, manner of the accident and further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle has no driving licence as on the date of accident. That respondent No.1 insured the accident vehicle with their company and policy was in force as on the date of accident, but the respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of the policy, as the vehicle meant for agriculture purpose was used for commercial purpose without permit and hence, their Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Even otherwise the petitioners claimed excessive and exorbitant compensation under different heads and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7)Respondent No.2 filed additional written statement by contending that the driver cum owner of the tractor bearing No.TS- 16-EA-0838 and the trolley No.AP-25-R-5443 was not having any kind of licence at the time of accident and not obtained any driving licence from the concerned. Respondent No.1 owner cum driver of crime vehicle has violated statutory responsibility under section 5 of

MV Act 1988. The police concerned filed charge sheet even U/sec.

181 of MV Act against the driver of the crime vehicle.

OP No. 11 of 2016 Page No. 5 of 16

8)Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1)Whether Dudekula Zakeer @ Zakeer, S/o Hussain died due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing No.TS-16-EA-0838 and trolley No.AP-25-R-5443 on 06.02.2015?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, from whom and to what quantum?

3) To what relief?

9)During the case proceedings the following additional issues were settled for trial by my predecessor:

1) Whether the respondent No.1 driver cum owner of crime vehicle i.e., Tractor bearing No.TS-16-EA-838 and the trolley No.AP-25-R-5443 drove the vehicle without any driving license?

2) Whether the respondent No.1 owner cum driver of crime vehicle has violated statutory responsibility under section 5 of MV Act 1988?

10)On behalf of the case of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 got herself examined as PW.1 and one eyewitness is examined as

PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Respondent No.2 company got examined the Legal Manager as RW.1 and got marked Ex.B1, the copy of policy, Ex.B2, the office copy of notice, Ex.B3, the application to Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy and Ex.B4, the photocopy of death summary issued by Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad.

11)Heard both sides. Perused the case records.

OP No. 11 of 2016 Page No. 6 of 16

Issue No.1 and Additional issue No.1:

12)It is the contention of the petitioners and also the evidence of PW.1 and the wife of the deceased Zakeer Hussain that her deceased husband was working as driver with respondent No.1 on his tractor trailer and on 06.02.2015 her husband was informed to her that he met with an accident when the tractor trailer was drove in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed towards rear side, where her husband was standing and due to hitting by the tractor trailer, her husband sustained multiple grievous injuries to head, fracture to leg and other parts of his body. He was shifted to

Government Hospital, Kamareddy, from where again he was shifted

Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment, but the deceased succumbed to injuries on 07.02.2015 at about 6.15 p.m., while undergoing treatment.

13)It is further the contention of the PW.1 that her husband was hale and health prior to the accident and he was aged 35 years working as tractor driver under the respondent No.1 and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month with Rs.200/- towards batta per day.

That the deceased was contributing all his earnings to family needs and all of the petitioners were depending on the deceased for their livelihood. That due to sudden death of her husband, they not only lost the bread earner in the family but they also sustained financial loss, apart from being deprived of the love and affection of the deceased towards the family members. If at all the deceased was

OP No. 11 of 2016 Page No. 7 of 16

to be alive he would have had much more earning capacity and he would have earned more money and because of the incident there is a loss of future earnings and future prospects of the deceased.

Therefore, the respondent No.1 who is owner cum driver of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.2 being insurer of the offending vehicle, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

All the said contentions of the petitioners and the evidence of PW.1 stood un-rebutted except for a suggestion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased at the time of the occurrence. But it is seen from the copy of the first information report marked Ex.A1 and the charge sheet marked

Ex.A4, that a case under section 304-A IPC and sec. 181 of MV Act, has been registered by the police Sadashivanagar in Cr.No.26/2015 against the respondent No.1 herein. The material collected during investigation by the police does not whisper anything about the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Though respondent No.1, 2 alleged of negligence, no evidence is placed to that effect.

14)Further the petitioners got examined one Nidde Rahul, who is one of the eyewitness to the accident, as PW.2. It is the categorical say of PW.2 that on the fateful day he went as a labour in the offending vehicle tractor bearing No.TS-16-EA-0838 and trolley bearing No.AP-25-R-5443 and at about 5.00 p.m., their driver

OP No. 11 of 2016 Page No. 8 of 16

Zakeer Hussain i.e., deceased was standing behind the tractor trailer and in the meanwhile respondent No.1 suddenly moved the tractor trailer towards rear side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries to the head and grievous injuries to other parts of his body and the injured was shifted to Government Hospital,

Kamareddy from where again he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad for better treatment. But the deceased succumbed to injuries on 07.02.2015 at about 6.15 p.m., while undergoing treatment.

Even the said evidence of PW.2 stood un-rebutted. It is further observed that the respondent No.1 himself got elicited that one Shanker drove the tractor. The said Shanker, is none other than the respondent No.1 himself. All the above said circumstances coupled with the documents marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4, clearly show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing TS-16-EA-0838 and trolley bearing No.AP-25-R-5443, resulting in the death of the deceased Zakeer Hussain. Accordingly, the issue No.1 and additional issue No.1 are answered.

Issue No.2 and Additional issue No.2:

15)Coming to the claim of the compensation, the petitioners contended that the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 35 years, working as driver of tractor trailer and earning

Rs.15,000/- per month and that the deceased was the only earning

OP No. 11 of 2016 Page No. 9 of 16

member on whom all the petitioners were depending for their livelihood and due to the sudden death of the deceased, they are put to great financial loss apart from having lost elder member in the family, who was supporting them financially and emotionally.

More particularly the wife and children have lost the love and affection of the deceased. It is further contented that the respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle and the person responsible for the accident and the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the tune of rupees 9 lakhs.

16)On the other hand though the respondent No.1 filed his counter stating that he is no way responsible for the accident and that it was the deceased himself who was negligent and the incident took place on account of his own negligence, there is no evidence placed by the respondent No.1 to the said effect.

17)The respondent No.2 insurer does not dispute the accident and only disputes the manner of accident as stated by the petitioners. However, as it is held in point No.1 that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending tractor trailer, it is only to be seen on whom the liability is to be fastened.

It is the categorically contention of the respondent No.2 that at the time of accident the driver of the tractor trolley did not have a valid and effect driving licence. The photo copy of the driving licence marked Ex.A6 shows that the driving licence is valid up to 2028, but

OP No. 11 of 2016 Page No. 10 of 16

it is the driving licence of the deceased Zakeer Hussain. It is an admitted fact by the respondent No.1 himself that he employed the services of the deceased as a driver to his tractor trailer i.e., offending vehicle and that he was paying him monthly salary. There is nothing on record to suggest that at the time of the accident the deceased Zakeer Hussain was driving the tractor trolley. It is further observed that in the preamble of the petition, the respondent No.1 is described as driver cum owner of a tractor trolley. But respondent No.1 while admitting that he is owner of the offending vehicle tractor trolley, he does not specifically denied that he is not the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. The police have charge sheeted the respondent No.1 for the offence under section 304-A IPC and Section 181 of MV Act, which charge sheet marked Ex.A4, prima-facie shows that the accused therein i.e., the respondent No.1 herein had no driving licence. As such, there is force in the contention of the respondent No.2 insurer that the insured respondent No.1 breached the terms and conditions of the policy.

18)It is the further contention of second respondent and also the evidence of RW.1 the legal manager of Royal Sunderam

General Insurance Company Limited that the respondent No.1 had no permit for the offending tractor trolley to use it for commercial purpose as the vehicle was meant for use towards agriculture purpose only and in that regard the respondent No.1 being the

OP No. 11 of 2016 Page No. 11 of 16

owner had violated the terms and conditions of the policy schedule and as such the respondent No.1 as the owner of the offending vehicle is alone liable to pay compensation if any to the petitioners.

RW.1 saying that during their investigation, they secured a photocopy of the death summary issued by the Gandhi Hospital i.e.,

Ex.B4 which revealed that the deceased died while carrying big rock and not due to road traffic accident. It is also argued in the light of the said evidence that the tractor trolley was used for the commercial purpose without any permit and that the respondent

No.1 has further violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, as well as the terms and conditions of the policy.

19)On the other hand, RW.2 Dr. Neeli Sunil Kumar, Neuro

Surgeon of Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad categorically says that the injuries as shown in Ex.B4 are also possible if the patient met with a motor vehicle accident. Even the Postmortem Examination report marked Ex.A3 discloses the cause of death is due to head injury, which lead to cardio pulmonary arrest. Intheabove circumstances the liability is fastened on to respondent No.1, but the respondent No.2 being the insurer, it can as well pay compensation at the first instance and then recovery it from the respondent No.1.

20)Considering the all the above circumstances and having regard to the age of the deceased which is undisputedly 35 years, his profession which is undisputedly driver, his income

OP No. 11 of 2016 Page No. 12 of 16

approximately is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the multiplier 16 is applicable as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another; reported in 2009 ACJ1298.

21)PW.1 stated that she is the wife of the deceased and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are children of the deceased. The petitioner

No.4 and 5 are parents of the deceased. The petitioners got filed

Ex.A2, inquest report, which shows that the petitioner No.4 is the father of the deceased. On considering the evidence of PW.1 and

Ex.A2, it is proved that the petitioners are the dependants on the income of the deceased.

22)In absence of any definite proof of income, the monthly income of deceased is fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month in the year 2015 and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Company v/s Pranay Sethi and others, 40% shall be added towards future prospects of the deceased. Then it comes to Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2,000/-).

23)The petitioners are five in numbers. Hence, 1/4th of the earnings of the deceased should be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, 1/4th of Rs.7,000/-. Comes to Rs.1,750/- after deducting the same, the contribution to the family comes to

Rs.5,250/-. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.63,000/- (Rs.5,250/- X 12) per annum.

OP No. 11 of 2016 Page No. 13 of 16

24)The petitioners did not file any documentary evidence to show the age of the deceased at the time of his death. As per Ex.A2 the age of the deceased is 35 years, hence same is considered for the purpose of application of relevant multiplier which is 16 as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma and others v/s Delhi transport corporation and another to the persons who are aged between 31 to 35 years. Thus, Rs.63,000/- x 16 comes to Rs.10,08,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs eight thousand

only) is awarded towards loss of life and dependency.

25)Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) is awarded towards loss of estate.

26)Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) is awarded towards loss of consortium.

27)Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) is awarded towards funeral expenses.

28)In all, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of

Rs.10,78,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs seventy eight thousand only).

29)A perusal of Ex.A5 and Ex.B1 shows that the policy of the offending vehicle is in force as on the date of accident and police laid charge sheet under section 181 MV Act against the driver of the offending vehicle which certainly is violation of policy terms and conditions. Therefore, above circumstances, the respondent

No.2 company is directed to pay compensation first to the

OP No. 11 of 2016 Page No. 14 of 16

petitioners and then recover the same from respondent No.1 who is owner of the Tractor and trolley as per the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh [2004(3) SCC 297]. The issue No. 2 and additional issue No.2 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.3:

30) In the result, the petition is allowed with proportionate costs. Respondent No.2 is exempted from liability. However, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,78,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs seventy eight thousand only) towards total compensation payable to the petitioners with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the awarded compensation amount first, within one month from the date of this award and respondent No.2 shall recover the same from the respondent No.1. The awarded amount shall be apportioned as follows:

Petitioner No.1Wife Rs. 4,78,000-00 Petitioner No.2Daughter Rs. 2,00,000-00 Petitioner No.3sonRs. 2,00,000-00 Petitioner No.4Father Rs. 1,00,000-00 Petitioner No.5MotherRs. 1,00,000-00 TotalRs. 10,78,000-00

OP No. 11 of 2016 Page No. 15 of 16

The petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw her entire amount of Rs.4,78,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) with costs and interest accrued thereon.

The entire amounts of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall be kept in

Fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank in the name of petitioner

Nos.2 and 3 till attaining their majority under guardianship of their mother petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1 is at liberty to withdraw interest on the FDR monthly or quarterly and she can open a bank account for this purpose.

The petitioner No.4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their entire amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with costs and interest accrued thereon.

The petitioners are directed to pay deficit court fee within 15 days from the date of award.

The advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

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

CHAIRMAN,

MACT(IX Addl. District Judge), Kamareddy.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for Petitioner Respondents

PW-1: Smt. Dudekula Farjana RW.1: Sanjeeva Antharvedi PW-2: Sri. Midde Rahul RW.2: Dr. Neeli Sunil Kumar

OP No. 11 of 2016 Page No. 16 of 16

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.A1:Attested copy of Ex.B1: Attested copy of Policy with First Information conditions Report Ex.A2:Attested copy of inquestEx.B2:Office copy of notice issued to the respondent No.1 along with postal receipts Ex.A3:Attested copy of Ex.B3:Application to postmortem examination Superintendent of Police, report Kamareddy Ex.A4:Attested copy of charge Ex.B4:Photocopy of death sheetsummary issued by Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Ex.A5:Photo copy of policy Ex.A6:Xerox copy of driving licence of the deceased

CHAIRMAN,

MACT (IX Addl. District Judge), Kamareddy.

1 of 13 SC No.244 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

AT KAMAREDDY

Present: Smt. S.N. SREE DEVI,

Prl. Sessions Judge,

Kamareddy

Dated this the 01st day of April, 2024

S.C. No.244 of 2021

1. Name of the Complainant :The State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kamareddy.

2. Name of the accused:WaseemaBegum,W/o. Thajuddin, Age: 31 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-4-210/4, Bathukammakunta, Kamareddy Town and District.

3. Charges:U/Section 302 IPC and 309 IPC.

4. Plea of the accused:Not guilty

5. Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

6. Sentence or order :Accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 302 IPC and 309 IPC and is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled. MO.1 and MO.2 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

7. Prosecution conducted by:Sri T. Raj Gopal Goud,

Additional Public Prosecutor

8. Accused defended by:Sri V. Amrutha Rao, Advocate for the accused.

2 of 13 SC No.244 of 2021

This case coming before me for final hearing and disposal on this day in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V. Amrutha Rao, Advocate, Kamareddy for Accused and having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The contents of the charge sheet in brief are as follows:-

1.That on 05-07-2019, Lw1/Defacto-complainant Md. Shabbir lodged a Telugu written complaint stating that Waseema Begum i.e.,

Accused herein being the wife of his co-brother Thajuddin and their daughter Umeja Bhanu 5 year old, were living at Bathukammakunta,

Kamareddy Town. The husband of the Accused came out from

Dubai about 6 months back and at that time the Accused was suffering from mental disorder. On 05-07-2019 at about 03:30 PM his co-brother Thajuddin dropped his wife Waseema Begum and the daughter at his house on the pretext that Thajuddin was proceeding to Siddipet Town to attend a function. After Thajuddin left to

Siddipet Town, the Accused Waseema Begum took her minor daughter and went to her house at Bathukammakunta saying that she would return again. The defacto-complainant immediately raised suspecition when Waseema Begum (Accused) did not return to their house and he went to the house of Accused Waseema

Begum at Bathukammakunta at 04:00 PM and through the window he found that the doors were bolted from inside and Waseema

Begum tied Chunni over the neck of her daughter and killing her by pulling the Chunni, the defacto-complainant shouted and pushed the doors forcibly and entered in, by that time Waseema Begum consumed some unknown poison and attempted suicide.

3 of 13 SC No.244 of 2021

Immediately, he shifted them to Area Hospital, Kamareddy in an

Auto, the duty doctor examined and declared Umeja Begum (daughter of accused) died.

2.Based on the said compliant, Lw16/G. Rama Krishna, CI of

Police registered a case in Cr.No.313/2018 for the offence under section 302, 309 IPC, issued express FIR and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, Lw16/G. Rama Krishna, CI of

Police examined and recorded the statement of the defacto- complainant/Lw1. On 06-07-2019, Lw16/G. Rama Krishna, CI of

Police rushed to the scene of offence at H.No.1-4-210/4 at

Bathukammakunta, Kamareddy and after securing the presence of mediators Lw6/Md. Ramzan and Lw7/Md. Anwar Hussain observed the scene, held scene of offence panchanama and seized one knife under the cover of scene of offence panchanama. Lw16/G. Rama

Krishna, CI of Police visited the mortuary, found the corpse of the deceased Baby Umeja Bhanu laid in the mortuary, secured the presence of mediators i.e., Lw6/Md. Ramzan, Lw7/Md. Anwar Hussain and Lw8/Muneera Bhegum, observed the dead body, noted the physical features and injuries, noticed an injury on the abdomen, the skin on the neck was swollen to brownish colour and he inquest, duly examined and recorded the statements of Lw2/Tajuddin,

Lw3/Fathima, Lw4/Jaheerabi and Lw5/Md. Umar. Further, Lw16/G.

Rama Krishna, CI of Police sent a requisition to the Duty Medical

Officer, with a request to conduct autopsy over the corpse of the deceased baby Umeja Bhanu and furnish DPME report. The

Lw11/Dr.V.Vijay Kumar held autopsy and furnished DPME report opining the cause of death as Asphyxia due to strangulation. Later the dead body was handed over to the blood relatives for funerals.

4 of 13 SC No.244 of 2021

The accused Waseema Begum after commission of offence consumed cleaning acid to commit suicide. She survived at Sun

Shine Hospital, Secunderabad by Lw15/Dr. Vimalakar Reddy and subsquently, Lw12/Dr. Rajesh, Lw13/Dr. Rohan and Lw14/Dr. Shiva

Kumar also treated the accused at VINN Hospital, Kamareddy and discharged after a period of one month and then she is shifted to her maternal home at Dhemi Kalan Village, Tadwai Mandal.

2.ii.Lw17/CI of Police/S. Madhusudhan, assumed the investigation of the case on his transfer and posting to P.S., Kamareddy and verified the entire investigation done by the Lw16/CI of Police and found on proper lines.

2.iii. While the investigation was in progress, on 05-01-2020 on receiving reliable information, Lw17/CI of Police/S. Madhusudhan with force and WPC 2663 rushed to Dhemi Kalan village of Tadwai

Mandal and apprehended the accused 0700 hrs and interrogated her thoroughly, the accused confessed her guilt in the presence of

Lw9/Shaik Ismail and Lw10/Mohammad Julekha and seized the handed over the Chunni by the accused which was used in strangulation of her daughter/deceased bady Umeja Bhanu under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama. Later the arrest of the accused was effected after due procedure and sent her to judicial remand. After depositing the entire case property and after completion of entire investigation, Lw17/CI of Police/S. Madhusudhan laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302, 309 IPC.

5 of 13 SC No.244 of 2021

3.The learned Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy took cognizance of the case against the accused and committed the case vide PRC No.09 of 2021 to the Court of Sessions, Nizamabad.

The Hon’ble Prl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad took the case on file for the offence punishable under Section 302 & 309 IPC against the accused and made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.After appearance of the accused, heard the accused and the

Additional Public Prosecutor on charge. Based on the material

available on record, the plea of the accused is recorded, wherein the accused denied the prosecution case, pleaded not guilty of the charges under Section 302 & 309 IPC and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

PW.01 to PW.13 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and M.O.1 & M.O.2.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, putting the incriminating evidence appearing against her in the prosecution evidence. The accused denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence. No documents are marked by the defence.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:- “Whether the prosecution proved its case against the Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under sections 302 & 309 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?” 6 of 13 SC No.244 of 2021

POINT:-

9.In the instant case, the Accused is charged for the offences punishable under section 302 & 309 IPC.

10.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as (13) witnesses from out of (17) listed witnesses. Pw1 is the defacto-complainant who lodged complaint marked Ex.P1 before the Police and set criminal law into motion. It is his testimony that the Accused Waseema Begum is his sister-in-law (wife’s sister) and the deceased bady Umeja Bhanu is the daughter of the Accused. That about 5 years ago the accused and her husband Thajuddin (PW2) quarreled with each-other and two days prior to the subject incident the accused along with her daughter came to his house situated at a walk-able distance and stayed in his house for one day and on the next day when he went out on his work, he received phone call from his wife stating that the baby girl of the accused was missing from the house. Immediately he came to his house and took his wife and went in search of the missing baby Umeja Bhanu and in that process they went to the house of the accused and found the baby sleeping in their house and there was nobody in her house. The accused also came their and all of them tried to walk up the baby girl but she was not conscious and so they lifted the baby in their arms and took the hospital. That in the meanwhile the accused by looking at the condition of her baby she also fell unconscious and within a short time the accused came out of the house vomiting and so the accused was also shifted to

Hospital, where the doctors examined the baby girl Umeja Bhanu and declared her dead and the accused was referred to higher medical center and so the accused was taken in an ambulance for 7 of 13 SC No.244 of 2021 better treatment. Whereas, Pw2, the husband of the accused, deposes that as he had to go to Siddipet on some work, he dropped his wife i.e., Accused and daugther Umeja Bhanu in the house of Pw1 and on the same day evening at around 06:15 PM he received phone call from Pw1 saying that his wife (Accused) had locked the house from inside and even after knocking the door several times she was not opening the door and the child was found lying on the floor. Ultimately on his instruction Pw1 break open the door of the back side of kitchen and gained entry into the house. Around 08:00

PM he returned to Kamareddy and at that time his wife and his daughter and other family members were in the Govt. Hospital,

Kamareddy. He came to the hospital and found that his daughter wad dead and his wife was not in the hospital at Kamareddy and he was informed that his wife (Accused) was taken to hospital in

Hyderabad for better treatment.

Pw2 further voluntered stateding that his wife (Accused) was suffering from mental ill-health and he suspect that his wife (Accused) has killed the daughter Umeja Bhanu.

11.It is observed that both the said versions of Pw1 and Pw2 are not only in-consistence but also contradictory to each-other. It is further observed that Pw1 who set criminal law into motion is declared hostile as he resiled from the contents of his own complaint and from his own statement made before the Police at the earliest point of time.

12.Even, Pw3 who is own sister of the accused and also wife of

Pw1, has not supported the case of the prosecution and she is also 8 of 13 SC No.244 of 2021 declared hostile.

13.It is further observed that according to Pw1 and his wife Pw3, two days prior to this incident there was quarrel between the accused and her husband/Pw2, whereas Pw2 the husband of the

Accused says that there was no disputes between them and infact he took his wife (Accused ) to Dubai and enjoyed the trip and only due to mental ill-health he brought the family to India and were all put up in a house at Bathkammakunta of Kamareddy Town.

14.Pw4 is the mother-in-law of the accused who stated that she along with her younger son Shaik Samad went to Siddipet for attending a wedding and on the next day her elder son (PW2) came to Siddipet to attend reception, leaving his wife (Accused) and child in the house and when they were in Siddipet they received a phone call from Pw1 stating that the accused locked the doors from inside and she not opening the doors and later forcibly entered into house by broke opening the kitchen door and they found that the girl child was died and the accused was consumed acid. Later they all learnt that the girl child Umeja Begum was killed by strangulating the child with a Chunni and there was a stab injury also. Which version though a hearsay version, it is not only whispered by Pw2 who actually passed on the alleged information.

15.In view of all the in-consistencies and contradictory versions the case of the persecution as narrated in the charge sheet stating that the accused strangulated her own child with a Chunni and killed the child Umeja Bhanu becomes doubtful and the benefit of doubt is given to the accused. Under such circumstances, the evidence of 9 of 13 SC No.244 of 2021

Pw9/Dr. V. Vijay Kumar who conducted Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Umeja Bhanu, that on examination the body during postmortem examination he found injuries: 1) A ligature mark around the neck measuring 16cm x 1 ½ cm, 2) Knot mark 1 ½ x 1 ½ right side of the neck below the mandible and 3) Stabwound over right hypochondrium measuring ½ cm x 1 ½ cm depth and that in his opinion marked Ex.P10 the case of death is due to “Strangulation”, is not of much consequence as the material witnesses of the prosecution failed to establish the nexus between the accused and the alleged offence of Sec.302 IPC.

16.Pw5 to Pw8 did not support the case of the prosecution. They are all declared hostile.

17.Coming to the charge under section 309 IPC, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused is suffering with mental ill-health and so she taken for treatment to Dr.Rajesh/Pw10, Pw10 deposed that the mental condition of the accused was not stable as examined by a psychiatrist and the medical certificate issued by the VINN

Hospital marked Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 show that the accused has consumed Harpic/Toilet cleaner and the accused is found to have consumed on 03-07-2019 and the accused was treated for 3 to 4 days in the hospital. From the said evidence it can be inferred that the accused was not in the house as on the alleged date i.e., 05-07- 2019, the say that the girl baby Umeja Begum was killed by the

Accused in the house. Therefore it can be said that there is no clinching evidence to show that the accused is responsible for the death of Umeja Bhanu.

10 of 13 SC No.244 of 2021

18. It is further observed that the accused attempted suicide by consuming acid. The reason for doing so, is that the mental health of the accused was not stable. Pw11/Dr. Vimalakar Reddy, deposed that on 23-08-2019, a 28 years old female with the past history of consumption corrosive substance was admitted in Hospital, he treated the patient Waseema Begum and on 30-08-2019, discharged the patient from hospital. That the medical certificate issued by the

Sunshine Hospital marked is Ex.P13. His evidence is not of much consequence as the mental ill-health condition of the Accused is not disputed. Moreover, the prosecution at one point of time says that the Accused consumed Harpic and at another point of time says that she consumed Acid. But no such Harpic bottle or Acid bottle is seized.

19.Pw12, the 1st Investigation Officer, deposed that on 05-07- 2019, he received complaint from Pw1, basing on the complaint he registered a case in Cr.No.313 of 2019, U/sec. 302, 309 IPC and issued FIR marked Ex.P14. After issuing FIR, he sent the FIR to

Hon’ble Court and took up the investigation. He examined and

recorded the statement of Pw1 at Police station. On the next day, he visited the Scene of Offence at Bathukamma Kunta, there in the presence of Pw6 and Pw7, he conducted the Scene of Offence panchanama marked Ex.P15. Later, he seized a knife marked MO.10 from the Scene of Offence under cover of Panchanama.

He further deposed that, he proceeded to Govt. Hospital, and secured the presence of Pw6, Pw7 and Lw8/Muneera Begum, he held inquest over the body of the deceased/Umeja Bhanu. He examined witnesses, recorded the statements of Pw2 to Pw5. After completion 11 of 13 SC No.244 of 2021 of Inquest, he sent a requisition to the medical officer to conduct

Autopsy. After autopsy, he handed over the dead body to her father/Pw2. The Accused/Waseema Begum also consumed poison, she was also shifted to Govt. Hospital, Yellareddy and then to the

Hospital at Hyderabad for better treatment. That on his transfer,

Pw13/S. Madhusudan took up the further investigation.

Pw13, the 2nd Investigation Officer, deposed that on 05-01- 2021, he received CD file from Pw12/G. Ramakrishna, he verified the

CD file and found it in proper lines. He proceeded to Demikalan village along with his staff, where he apprehended the

Accused/Waseema Begum and he secured the mediators Lw9/Shaik

Ismail, Pw8 and he conducted Confession panchanama and in pursuance of the confession of the accused, he seized one chunni marked MO.2 at the instance of the Accused at her house through which the accused strangulated her daughter. He recorded a detailed panchanama which is under Ex.P17. Thereafter, the accused was brought to the police station and her arrest was effected and was produced before the court for Judicial Custody.

The said evidences of the investigation officers are not of much consequence as the material witnesses themselves did not support the case of the prosecution.

20.In view of all the above discussions, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused for the offences 302 IPC and 309 IPC.

12 of 13 SC No.244 of 2021

21. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 302 IPC and 309 IPC and is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled. MO.1 and MO.2 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

Partly dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 01st day of April, 2024.

Prl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F or Prosecution : Pw.1: Md. Shabbir. (Defacto-complainant, brother-in-law of Accused)

Pw.2: Shaik Tajuddin (Husband of Accused & father of deceased)

Pw.3: Fahima (Younger sister of Accused)

Pw.4: Zeheera Bee (Mother-in-law of Accused)

Pw.5: Md. Umar. (Circumstantial witness)

Pw.6: Md. Ramjan. (Panch witness)

Pw.7: Md. Anwar Hussain. (Panch witness)

Pw.8: Md. Julekha. (Panch witness)

Pw.9: Dr. V. Vijay Kumar (Medical Officer)

Pw.10: Dr. Rajesh (Medical Officer who treated Accused)

Pw.11: Dr. Vimalakar Reddy (Medical Officer who treated Accused for past history).

Pw.12: G. Ramakrishna (1st I.O)

Pw.13: S. Madhusudan (2nd I.O)

F or Defence: --Nil-- 13 of 13 SC No.244 of 2021

OCUMENTS MARKED D

F or Prosecution : Ex.P1: Complaint lodged by Pw1.

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1.

Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3.

Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw5.

Ex.P5: Signature of Pw6 on scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P6: Signature of Pw6 on inquest panchanama.

Ex.P7: Inquest Panchanama.

Ex.P8: Signature of Pw7 on scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P9: Signature of Pw8 on confession panchanama.

Ex.P10: Postmortem Examination Report.

Ex.P11 & Ex.P12 are Medical Certificates pertains to VINN Hospital.

Ex.P13: Medical Certificate pertains to Sunshine Hospital.

Ex.P14: F.I.R

Ex.P15: Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P16: Two photographs.

Ex.P17: Confession panchanama.

For Defence: --Nil--

Material Object: MO.1: Knife.

MO.2: Chunni.

Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Kamareddy 14 of 13 SC No.244 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KAMAREDDY

Present: Smt. S.N. SREE DEVI, Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

Dated this the 01st day of April, 2024

Sessions Case No.244 of 2021

(CALENDAR & JUDGMENT)

[On committal by the Court of Prl. JMFC, Kamareddy in PRC No.09 of 2021 in Crime No.313 of 2019 of P.S. Kamareddy] 1Name of Complainant:: The State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kamareddy.

2Description of the :: WaseemaBegum,W/o. accusedThajuddin, Age: 31 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-4-210/4, Bathukammakunta, Kamareddy Town and District.

3Offence:: U/Section 302 IPC and 309 IPC.

4Plea of Accused:: Not guilty 5Finding:: Found not guilty 6Date of Occurrence:: 05-07-2019 7Date of Report/Complaint:: 05-07-2019 8Date of Apprehension:: 05-01-2020 9Date of Release:: 21-01-2021 15 of 13 SC No.244 of 2021 10 Date of Commencement :: 29-01-2024 of trial 11 Date of Closure of trial:: 19-02-2024 12 Date of Judgment.:: 01-04-2024 13 Explanation for delay:: --

Principal Dist. & Sessions Judge,

Kamareddy Copy to: The Registrar (Judl), Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

1 of 12 OS No. 04 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

AT KAMAREDDY

Present :Smt. S.N. Sree Devi, Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

Monday, the 08th day of April, 2024

O.S. No. 04 of 2018

Between:-

Bandari Narendhar Reddy, S/o. Ramreddy, aged 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Vidyanagar Colony, Kamareddy Town and District.

…Plaintiff.

// And //

1. Alla Sanyasi Rao, S/o. Late Butchayya, aged 68 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.7-48, Main Road, Gopalapatnam Post, Visakhapatnam District, Andhrapradesh State- 530027 (died, through his LRs i.e., defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are already on record)

2. Alla Srinivas Rao, S/o. Sanyasirao, aged 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.7-48, Main Road, Gopalapatnam Post, Visakhapatnam District, Andhrapradesh State – 530027.

3. Alla Sathish, S/o. Sanyasirao, aged 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.7-48, Main Road, Gopalapatnam Post, Visakhapatnam District, Andhrapradesh State – 530027.

…Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 26-03-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Amrutha Rao & Sri B.Surender Reddy, Advocate, Kamareddy for the Plaintiff and Sri. Behara V.A.Kumar, Advocate, Visakhapatnam for the Defendant Nos.2 and 3 and having heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:- 2 of 12 OS No. 04 of 2018

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit for recovery of money of Rs.82,50,000/- with interest basing on a promissory note dated 25-07-2015.

2. Averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:-

It is submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 (deceased) out of acquaintance approached the plaintiff with a request to advance hand loan of Rs.50,00,000/- for personal necessity and for developing his business, promising to repay the money within a short period. Accordingly, the plaintiff agreed and advanced the said amount of Rs.50,00,000/- in cash to the defendant No.1 and his wife Alla Laxmi. Both the husband and wife executed promissory note on 25-07-2015 in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the same with interest @ 2% per month. As Alla

Laxmi died on 20-02-2018, the defendant No.2 and 3 are already on record as the legal heirs. The defendants failed to repay promissory note amount as promised in-spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs.82,50,000/- including the interest @ 2% per month from the date of taking the hand loan on 25-07-2015, till filing of the suit. The defendants having sufficient properties and means to pay the amounts due under the suit promissory note, they are evading to make the payments with a mala-fide intention and they are also trying to alienate all their properties in order to defend the claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to filed the present suit praying for a decree in his favour.

3 of 12 OS No. 04 of 2018

3. Averments of the defendants in brief are as follows:- 3.I.Written statements filed by the Defendant No.2 and 3 separately, in the same lines denying the entire case of the plaintiffs and further submitting that the defendant No.1 and his wife Alla

Laxmi never borrowed any such amount and never executed promissory note dt. 25-07-2015 and no such consideration was passed under the alleged suit promissory note. In-fact, the mother of these defendants Alla Laxmi was undergoing dialysis in the

Hospital at Visakhapatnam and the defendant No.1 being her husband, he was attending to her at the Hospital and as such there is no occasion for the defendant No.1 and his wife to come to

Kamareddy on the alleged date i.e., 25-07-2015 and borrow amounts as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 Alla

Sanyasi Rao died on 11-05-2018 and his wife Alla Laxmi pre- deceased him on 20-02-2018. In-fact no notices were served to both the said deceased, during their life time regarding subject promissory note claim. Therefore, it is clear that the promissory note is rank forged fabricated for the purpose of this false claim.

Further no notices is issued prior to filing of the suit and the defendants are deprived of an opportunity to give a suitable reply.

3.II. It is further submitted that the defendant No.1 and his wife Alla Laxmi had no necessity to borrow such amounts from anybody more so from the plaintiff herein. The defendant No.1 is an influenced person and if really he required amounts, he has several financiers at Visakhapatnam itself and there was no necessity for them to borrow amount from the plaintiff by coming over to

Kamareddy. There are no assets in the hands of these defendants 4 of 12 OS No. 04 of 2018 and therefore the defendants are also no personally liable to for the suit claim. There is no cause of action for filing of the suit.

Therefore, the suit be dismissed.

4.Based on the above pleadings the following issues are settled on 06-04-2022 by the learned predecessor of this Hon’ble Court :

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount as prayed?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest as prayed ?

3. Whether the defendant Nos.2 and 3 being legal heirs of 1st defendant and his wife, liable to pay suit amount of the plaintiff?

4. To what relief ?

5. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff Bandari

Narendhar Reddy got herself examined as PW1 and got marked

Ex.A1 original promissory note dt. 25-07-2015. The plaintiff got examined one of the attestor Sri. Emmadi Narsimlu as PW2. On behalf of defendants, the defendant No.2 Alla Srinivas Rao is examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 and one Karri Srinivas is got examined as DW2.

6.Heard arguments. Perused the case records. Perused the written arguments filed by the learned Counsel for the defendants.

5 of 12 OS No. 04 of 2018

7. Issues are recasted as follows:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration ?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim as prayed?

4. Whether the defendant Nos.2 and 3 being legal heirs of 1st defendant and his wife, liable to pay suit amount of the plaintiff?

5. To what relief ?

8. Issue No.1 and 2 together:-

1. Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration ?

2. Whether the suit promissory not is forged and fabricated ?

8. I. It is the contention of the plaintiff and also his evidence as PW1 that the defendant No.1 Alla Sanyasi Rao (deceased) out of acquaintance approached him and requested for advancing hand- loan of Rs.50,00,000/- for his personal necessities and for developing his business, with a promise to repay the same within a short period. Having oblige the request of the defendant No.1 (deceased), he advanced an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- in cash and the defendant No.1 having received the amount, the defendant No.1 and his wife Alla Laxmi (deceased) executed the suit promissory note marked Ex.A1 on 25-07-2015, promising to repay the said amount with interest @ 2% per month. After execution of promissory note, Alla Laxmi wife of the defendant No.1 died on 20- 6 of 12 OS No. 04 of 2018 02-2018 and during the pending of the suit the defendant No.1 Alla

Sanyasi Rao also died on 12-05-2018 and their two sons are on record as the defendant No.2 and 3. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 failed to repay the suit promissory note amount as well as interest in-spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff. Therefore, he is entitled for recovery of the suit claim against the defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are the legal heirs of the defendant No.1 Alla Sanyasi Rao and his wife Alla Laxmi.

8.II.Whereas, it is the contention of the defendants that there was no necessity for them to borrow the said money from the plaintiff by coming over to Kamareddy all the way from

Visakhapatnam. It is also their contention that the signatures of the defendants are forged and fabricated and false claim is made for wrongful gain and that no consideration was passed under the so called promissory note dated 25-07-2015.

8.III. Though, the defendant No.2 the son of the deceased Alla

Sanyasi Rao (defendant No.1) and Alla Laxmi, deposed as DW1, there is no evidence to show that no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note. However, the defendants have tried to put-forth the circumstances in order to show that on the date of suit promissory note, Alla Sanyasi Rao (defendant No.1) and his wife Alla Laxmi did not came to Kamareddy and in this regard, it is the evidence of DW1 that his mother Alla Laxmi was admitted in

Omni Hospital, Visakhapatnam on 25-07-2015 for dialysis and Alla

Sanyasi Rao was attending to his wife at the Hosptial and the document with reference to the treatment of Alla Laxmi is under

Ex.B1. As seen from Ex.B1, it is the letter issued on the letter head of the Omni Hospitals, Vishakhapatnam saying that one Alla Laxmi 7 of 12 OS No. 04 of 2018 received Medical Haemodialysis in Omin Hospitals, Ramnagar

Visakhapatnam on 25-07-2015, 27-07-2015 and on 30-07-2015.

But DW2 who is their own witness, states that since childhood he knows the defendants and the family affairs of the defendants. It is his evidence that Alla Laxmi was admitted in the Hospital as an inpatient for about 20 days and he was visiting her at the Hospital.

Which evidence of DW2 is coming against their own document

Ex.B1. It is further observed that the extract of the Out Patient

Register enclosed to Ex.B1 shows that the name of the patient is

A.Laxmi and even Ex.B1 letter also transpires the name of the patient is A.Laxmi. From bare reading of Ex.B1 and Out Patient

Register extract it cannot be said that A.Laxmi is the same Alla

Laxmi of this case. Admittedly, DW1 Alla Srinivas Rao who is none other-than the own son of Alla Sanyasi Rao (defendant No.1) and

Alla Laxmi has categorically stated in his cross-examination that his mother was never admitted as in-patient in Omni Hospitals

Visakhapatnam or in any other Hospital and he has not submitted any Hospital Bills or the case sheet or the medical prescriptions in connection with Ex.B1. Even, Ex.B1 does not disclose that she was as admitted as an in-patient. From the above circumstances it cannot be said that there was no occasion for Alla Sanyasi Rao and his wife to come over to Kamareddy and that they were not present in Kamareddy on that particular date of execution of the suit promissory note. The said circumstances does not rule out the possibility of the presence of Alla Sanyasi Rao (defendant No.1) and

Alla Laxmi in Kamareddy. Further when it is plea of the defendants that the suit document is forged and a fabricated document, in their written statement, DW1 being the son of both the deceased Alla

Sanyasi Rao (defendant No.1) and deceased Alla Laxmi, is the 8 of 12 OS No. 04 of 2018 proper person to identify the signatures of his parents on the suit document but the suit promissory note is not even confronted to this witness. No steps are taken by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 to send the disputed suit promissory note to the expert to know its genuineness.

8.IV. On the other hand, the plaintiff in order to prove the execution of suit promissory note in his favour, he got examined one of the attesting witnesses to the suit promissory note Sri.

Emmadi Narsimlu as PW2. It is the testimony of PW2 that he was called by the plaintiff to his shop and the suit transactions took place around 05 to 06 PM at the shop of PW1 that at the time of transactions there was 5 members in all i.e., the plaintiff (Bandari

Narendhar Reddy), the defendant No.1 (Alla Sanyasi Rao), his wife (Alla Laxmi) and himself along with other witness Narsimlu. The plaintiff paid Rs.50,00,000/- in cash to Alla Sanyasi Rao (defendant

No.1) and the cash denomination was in Rs.500/- notes and

Rs.1000/- notes and the said money transactions took place in the month of July, 2015. PW1 has also deposed in his cross-examination that after three months after asked him to lend Rs.50,00,000/-, he paid money in cash consisting of Rs.500/- notes and Rs.1000/- notes at his shop around 05 to 06 PM at that time the defendant No.1 and his wife came in a Car and took the cash in a bag. Having received the amount Alla Sanyasi Rao (deceased defendant No.1) and his wife Alla Laxmi executed promissory note and towards surety Alla

Sanyasi Rao give photo copies of some land documents.

8.V. All the said evidence of PW1 and PW2 with regard to the money transaction and execution of suit promissory note stood unrebutted. Therefore, the presumption under section 139 of the 9 of 12 OS No. 04 of 2018

Negotiable Instrument Act, is strongly in favour of the plaintiff and it is held that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration and promissory note is duly executed by the defendant No.1 and his wife Alla Laxmi.

8.VI. The initial burden of establishing the financial capacity of the plaintiff, it is the contention of the plaintiff that his father has 10 Acres of agricultural lands, he is running an Internet Cafe since 13 years, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- per month from out of the agriculture the plaintiff gets an income of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month from his Internet Cafe and he also into Real-estate in partnership since 10 years and so far he has constructed four ventures with partnership. He is an income tax assesse and files income tax returns from 2011 onwards. In the light of said evidence of the plaintiff, the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend such huge amounts and that no such money transaction took place between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 falls to ground. The defendants in order to rebut the presumption under section 139 of NI Act, they placed on record the oral evidence of DW1, DW2 and Ex.B1. It is the contention of the defendants and also the evidence of DW1 and DW2 that at the alleged time of execution of the so called promissory note, Alla

Sanyasi Rao and his wife Alla Laxmi were not at all present at the place where it is alleged to have been signed and in fact at that time Alla Laxmi the wife of the deceased defendant No.1 (Alla

Sanyasi Rao) was admitted in Omni Hospitals, Visakhapatnam undergoing “Dialysis” for kidney problem and the defendant No.1 was there attending to his wife. It is further contended that if the defendants were really in requirement of money they would have borrowed money from their relatives and friends at Visakhapatnam 10 of 12 OS No. 04 of 2018 and there was no necessity for them to come over to Kamareddy for borrowing money.

8.VII. As already discussed above, the defendants, even through the oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 and documentary evidence marked Ex.B1, the probability of the presence of Alla

Sanyasi Rao and his wife Alla Laxmi in Kamareddy is not ruled out.

Admittedly the acquaintance between the plaintiff and the defendants is not in dispute. It is the own pleadings of the defendants that the plaintiff taking advantage of the acquaintance with the defendants have forged and fabricated the suit document.

However, as the presumption under section 139 of NI Act is already drawn in favour of the plaintiff. The presumption under section 139 of NI Act is a rebuttal presumption and the onus is on the defendants. In discharge of such onus, the defendants contend raising the probable defences i.e.,

1) That the plaintiff has to prove initially his financial capacity, which the plaintiff failed to prove,

2) That the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit promissory note is not a forged document and

3) By marking Ex.B1 showing that the principal borrowers were never in Kamareddy at the time and date shown in Ex.A1.

All the said contentions and the probable defences are taken into consideration in the proceeding paragraphs and interference of preponderance of probabilities are drawn not only from the material brought on record by both parties but also with references to the facts and circumstances upon which the parties have relied.

11 of 12 OS No. 04 of 2018

9. Issue Nos.3 & 4 together :-

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim as prayed?

4. Whether the defendant Nos.2 and 3 being legal heirs of 1st defendant and his wife, liable to pay suit amount of the plaintiff?

In view of the findings of this Court under issue Nos.1 and 2 which are held in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of suit claim with interest from the defendants. The plaintiff has claimed for a personal decree against the defendants instead of claiming against the estate of the deceased borrower.

Admittedly, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons and legal heirs of deceased defendant No.1 Alla Sanyasi Rao and his deceased wife

Alla Laxmi, who borrowed money under Ex.A1. There is attachment of agriculture land already effected in this case as per orders in

IA.No.172/2018 dt. 27-04-2018. Therefore, it can be said that the

property of the deceased is in the hands of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 (sons). Defendants baldly deny having any properties. Issues

Nos.3 and 4 are answered accordingly.

10. Issue No.5:- To what relief ?

In view of the findings in issue Nos.1 to 4 which are held in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of recovery of suit claim with interest as against the estate of the deceased defendant No.1 Alla Sanyasi Rao in the hands of the defendant No.2 Alla Srinivas Rao and defendant No.3 Alla Sathish.

12 of 12 OS No. 04 of 2018

11. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.82,50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6 % per annum from the date of decree till its realization on the principal adjudged at Rs.50,00,000/-, as against the estate of the deceased defendant No.1 Alla Sanyasi Rao in the hands of the defendant No.2 Alla Srinivas Rao and Defendant

No.3 Alla Sathish.

Attachment effected as per orders in IA.No.172/2018 dt.

27-04-2018 is made absolute.

Partly dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this 08th day of April, 2024.

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F or Plaintiff: PW.1: Bandari Narendhar Reddy (Plaintiff). PW.2: Emmadi Narsimlu (Attestor to suit Pro-note).

For Defendants : DW.1: Alla Srinivas Rao (Defendant No.2). DW.2: Karri Srinivas.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Original Promissory Note dt. 25-07-2015.

For Defendants:-

Ex.B1: Letter issued by Omni Hospital, Visakhapatnam, dt. 13-09- 2023 along with the attested copy of the extract of the OP Register.

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

AT KAMAREDDY

PRESENT: SMT. S.N.SREE DEVI,

IX Additional Sessions Judge,

Kamareddy

Dated this the 13th day of May, 2022

SC No. 165 of 2015

1)Name of complainant : The Inspector of Police, Bhiknoor circle.

2)Name of accused : Pidugu Lavanya, W/o Naveen, age: 25 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Coolie, R/o Ambaripet village of Domakonda Mandal.

3)Charge/s:Under Section 302, 201 IPC

4) Plea of the accused: Accused pleaded not guilty.

5)Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty.

6)Prosecution :Sri Nanda Ramesh,

Additional Public Prosecutor, Kamareddy

conducted by

7)Accused defended by :Sri P.Srinivas Rao, Advocate, Kamareddy

8) Sentence/Order : Accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 IPC, she is acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. MO.1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time and the bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled.

This case coming on 13.05.2022 for hearing before me; upon hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

SC No. 165 of 2015 C 2of 12

JUDGMENT

The Circle Inspector of Police, Bhiknoor Circle, laid charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the defacto complainant Pidugu Naveen came to police station,

Domakonda lodged complaint on 21.08.2014 stating that about five years back his marriage was performed with Lavanya who is resident of Sircilla village. After the marriage they went to

Hyderabad for their livelihood, out of their wedlock they are blessed with one male child and one female child by names Nagachaitanya, and Pallavi, aged 4 years and 3 months respectively. On 18.08.2014 the defacto complainant and his family members i.e., the accused and the 2 children came to Ambaripet village for participating in Telangana Samgra Kutumba Survey. After the survey was over, on 20.08.2014 at about 9.00 a.m., the accused asked him to move to Hyderabad and when he replied that he is suffering ill-health and they would leave to Hyderabad after two days, the accused did not head to his request and she came out with the luggage. Then his neighbour Ambati Laxmi and Neela

Laxmi convinced her to stay back for 2 days, due to ill-health of

Naveen. Then his wife i.e., the accused sat in front of his house

SC No. 165 of 2015 C 3of 12

along with children and he went to sleep in the house. By about 4.00 p.m., when he woke-up he did not find his wife and children.

Then he and his family members searched for them in the surrounding agriculture fields and village tank. At about 8.00 p.m., one of his villager Domakonda Balagoud came to him and informed that his wife sat near the Gangamma Temple beside the road along with dead two children. Immediately he and his family members along with villagers went to Gangamma Temple and found his wife and deceased children lying in her lap. Further the complainant stated that frequently his wife Lavanya/accused quarrel with him and previously she filed a complaint against him in Sirsilla II-Town, police station. After that in the presence of mediators he took his wife along with him. The wife of the complainant is habituated to go out side leaving the children and himself and return back after two or three days. When he asked her whereabouts, she replied that she does not want the children and she does not want the husband and that on one day she would leave him and the children.

She developed animosity against him and the children and at about evening hours his wife i.e., the accused took children and killed them at village tank.

2(a) Basing on the above complaint and the statement of defacto complainant the Sub Inspector of Police, Domakonda, registered a case in Cr.No.71/2014 U/sec. 302 IPC and issued

SC No. 165 of 2015 C 4of 12

express first information report to all concerned. Then the Sub

Inspector of police recorded the statement of complainant. On the instruction of Circle Inspector of Police he visited the scene of offence at Ambaripet village near Gangamma Temple and then the

Circle Inspector of Police, Kamaredy, visited the scene and took up further investigation and conducted scene panchanama and also drew rough sketch of the scene in the presence of mediators. The photographs of dead bodies of the deceased were taken, collected sample of mud water in a plastic bottle and seized ladies chappals belonging to the accused and then shifted the dead bodies to

Mortuary, Government Area Hospital, Kamareddy for inquest and

Postmortem examination. He recorded the statements of LW.2 to

LW.6. The Circle Inspector of Police/LW.16 conducted inquest on the body of deceased No.1 and 2 in the presence of mediators and then subjected the dead body to postmortem examination. LW.14/doctor conducted postmortem examination over the dead bodies of deceased No.1 and 2, preserved the viscera and forwarded it for examination and opinion of FSL and then handed over the dead bodies to family members, on 21.08.2014 the accused was apprehended at Bus stand and on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and the confession statement of accused was recorded in the presence of mediators, and then the accused was brought to the police station,

SC No. 165 of 2015 C 5of 12

where her arrest was effected and then produced before the court for judicial remand.

2 (b) On 25.08.2014 he deposited the chepplas of accused

before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy vide

CPR.No.413/2014. He received the FSL report. On 27.08.2014

LW.18/Circle Inspector of Police took up the investigation from

LW.17 and found the investigation on proper lines. Basing on the

FSL report, the medical officer/LW.14 issued final opinion that “cause of death is asphyxia caused by respiratory tract obstruction”.

After completion of investigation and after obtaining material documents and objects, LW.18 laid the charge sheet before the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy for the offence

punishable Under Section 302 and 201 IPC.

3.The learned magistrate after completion of all the formalities relating to cognizance, took cognizance of the offence against the accused and registered as PRC.No.26/2015. Since this case is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the concerned

Magistrate committed the case to the learned Principal District and

Sessions judge, Nizamabad. In turn the learned Principal District

and Sessions Judge assigned SC.No.165/2015 and made over the same to this court to dispose off the case according to law.

4.On the appearance of accused and after hearing both sides on charges, charges under section 302, 201 IPC were framed,

SC No. 165 of 2015 C 6of 12

read over and explained to the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses i.e., PW.1 to PW.14 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 and MO.1.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating material brought on record by the prosecution is put to the accused under section 3l3 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence is adduced and marked Ex.D1 and

Ex.D2.

7.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the case record.

8.Now, the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT :

9.The prosecution in order to prove the charges under section 302 and 201 IPC against the lady accused, examined as many as fourteen witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 beside marking MO.1. It is the testimony of PW.1, the husband of that he

SC No. 165 of 2015 C 7of 12

along with accused and two children stay at Hyderabad and on 15.08.2014 they all came down to their village as they had to attend to the Telangana Samagra Kutumba Survey. On 18.08.2014 the survey was conducted. On 19.08.2014 the accused, PW.1 and the children had to return to Hyderabad, but due to some personal sickness PW.1 postponed the journey while the accused got ready to proceed to Hyderabad leaving away PW.1 in the village and at that time the accused was persuaded and requested to postponed the journey for that day. Suddenly by about 4.00 p.m., they found that the accused and children were missing from the house. When they were all searching for them, by about 8.00 p.m., one Balagoud informed them that the accused and children were present at

Gangamma Temple. Then they all rushed to Gangamma temple and found that both the children were dead and there was mud found on the legs of the accused as well as the dead bodies of the 2 children, PW.1 held his wife i.e., te accused responsible for killing the 2 children. PW.1 gave complaint to the police under Ex.P1.

That the accused during the interrogation by the police confessed that she killed her two children by throwing them in the mud.

10.Whereas, PW.2 who stated to have gone along with

PW.1 to Gangamma temple, deposed contrary version saying that when they went to Gangamma Temple they found the accused there with 2 children on her lap. It is not her version that the 2

SC No. 165 of 2015 C 8of 12

children were found dead. It is further observed that the informant

Balagoud, (PW.4) who according to the prosecution case informed

PW.1 and PW.2 the whereabouts of the accused and the children, has not supported the case of the prosecution and he is declared hostile, because it is his version that he does not know anything about this case. Moreover, it is the version of PW.1 to PW.3 that on the fateful day around 8.00 p.m., PW.4 Balagoud informed them that the accused and children were present at Gangamma Temple.

11.The above said evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, the so called material witnesses, no way establish even remotely for the prosecution case for the charges levelled against the accused.

12.Coming to the motive of the accused behind the alleged crime, according to the prosecution is that the accused ever since her marriage with PW.1, she was not at all interested in the family life and she was neglecting the husband and children. That the accused is used to luxurious life in Hyderabad, alone for 2-3 days and taking advantage of the quarrel, on the fateful day, she planned to kill the 2 children.

13.If at all the accused being a mother of the 2 children intended to get rid of the husband and the children, she would not have begotten children. Moreover, it is the own version of PW.1 that the accused filed case against him and it was settled though a compromise and that he married one lady by name Rekha and has a

SC No. 165 of 2015 C 9of 12

son through her as per Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. The said version of PW.1 including Ex.D1, Ex.D2 shows that the accused is implicated only to overcome the allegation as to his relationship with Rekha. Even

PW.3 the brother of PW.1 says that he does not know whether PW.1 married Rekha. It is not his version that there is no marriage between PW.1 and Rekha.

14.PW.5, PW.6 and PW.7 are the panch witnesses to the scene of offence marked Ex.P3, inquest panchanama marked Ex.P6 and confessional panchanama respectively. Their evidence is not of much consequences as neither the scene of offence nor the death of the deceased children are in dispute.

15.PW.4, PW.10, PW.11 and PW.12 have not supported the case of the prosecution and they declared hostile.

16.PW.8 is Dr. T.Tejaswini, who conducted Postmortem

Examination on the dead bodies of the deceased Nagachaitanya and

Pallavi, who says that having conducted postmortem examination under Ex.P10, she is of the opinion that deceased died due to

Asphyxia caused by respiratory tract obstruction. The Forensic

Science Laboratory report marked Ex.P8 and Ex.P11 is the final opinion given by PW.8 as to the cause of death, are no way helpful

SC No. 165 of 2015 C 10of 12

to the case of the prosecution as it is not the case of the prosecution that deceased children were poisoned.

17.PW.9, PW.13 and PW.,14 are the investigating officers in this case, it is the version of PW.9 that after the first information report under Ex.P12 was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, he took up the investigation and during his investigation he proceed to the scene of offence prepared scene of offence panchanama, dew rough sketch of the scene, marked Ex.P4 and seized MO.1 pair of chappals from the scene and then conducted inquest on the dead bodies of the deceased No.1 and 2 and took digital photographs marked Ex.P13 to Ex.P15 and the Compact Disc marked Ex.P16 and then apprehended the accused and effected her arrest and produced the accused before the court for judicial custody. It is the version of PW.13 says that he completed the remaining part of investigation and PW.14 states that he has laid the charge sheet on completion of investigation. All the above said witnesses are not of much consequence.

18.In view of the above said circumstances, it is held that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the charges against the accused and thus prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused.

SC No. 165 of 2015 C 11of 12

19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC, she is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. MO.1 ordered to be destroyed after appeal time and the bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of May, 2022.

IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1 : Sri P.Naveen - None - P.W.2 : Smt. P.Punnamma P.W.3 : Sri P.Ramesh P.W.4 : Sri Domakonda Balagoud P.W.5: Sri Rangol Mysa goud P.W.6 : Sri Kunta Kishtaiah P.W.7 : Sri Bandi Shyam P.W.8 : Dr. T.Tejaswini P.W.9 : Sri A.Subhash Chandra Bose, IO P.W.10: Smt. A.Laxmi P.W.11: Sri Neela Laxmi P.W.12: Kummari Rajashekar, Photographer P.W.13: Sri G.Shobhan Babu, IO P.W.14: Sri A.Sridhar Kumar, IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Complaint. Ex.D1} Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. and} Photographs Ex.P3: Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.D2} Ex.P4: Rough Sketch. Ex.P5: Inquest report of Nagachaitanya. Ex.P6: Inquest report of Pallavi. Ex.P7: Postmortem Examination Report of P.Nagachaitanya.

SC No. 165 of 2015 C 12of 12

Ex.P8: Forensic Laboratory Report Ex.P9: Final Opinion Ex.P10: Postmortem Examination Report of Pallavi. Ex.P11: Final Opinion Ex.P12: First Information Report Ex.P13} to } Photographs Ex.P15} Ex.P16: Compact Disc. Ex.P17: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.10 Ex.P18: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.11.

M.Os. MARKED

M.O.1: Pair of Cheppal.

IX Addl. Sessions Judge Kamareddy