Smt. Siripurapu Sreedevi

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-cum-

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR

PRESENT: SMT. SIRIPURAPU SRIDEVI,

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR

Wednesday, the 3rd day of April, 2019

M.V.O.P.No.1162/2015

Between:

1. Mogili Lakshmi.

2. Mogili Guravaiah.… Petitioners -And-

1. M.Ramesh.

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., rep by its Divisional Manager, Guntur.…Respondents

This petition came up on 1-4-19 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Pitchireddy, advocate for petitioners; Sri G.Srinivasu, advocate for 2nd respondent; 1st respondent remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:

A W A R D

The petitioners 1 and 2 filed this petition against the respondents 1 and 2 under Sec.163-A of M.V.Act and Rules 455 and 476 of APMV Rules claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on account of death of one Mogili Rohithkumar and the brief case of the petitioners is as follows:

The deceased Rohithkumar was residing at AT Agraharam, Guntur city.

The maternal uncle of deceased one Chirumamilla Srinivasarao used to run an auto bearing No.AP 07TD 4945 for hire as an owner cum driver. One Patakoti

Subbalaxmamma, her son Venkata Subbarao and her daughter Lavanya engaged the auto of the deceased Chirumamilla Srinivasarao bearing No.AP 07TD 4945 for hire at Vinukonda to go to Guntur hospital so as to consult a doctor for the daughter of Pathakoti Subbalaxmamma and to return to Vinukonda. Accordingly on 26-5-14 in the morning hours, Chirumamilla Srinivasarao and the above referred 3 passengers started at Vinukonda and went to Guntur. After consulting the doctor for Lavanya and while they were on their way to

Vinukonda, at the request of passengers Chirumamilla Srinivasarao went to AT 2 agraharam, 11th lane, Guntur to his sister's house and Srinivasarao spoke to his sister and brother in law who are the parents of deceased Mogili Rohithkumar and as his nephew Rohitkumar expressed his willingness to accompany him, he allowed him in the auto and while they were proceeding to Vinukonda and by the time the auto reached near Edga at 2-30 p.m after crossing Vemuluripadu village, the driver of 1st respondent lorry bearing No.AP 29TA 1067 which was proceeding from Narasaraopet to Guntur drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and came to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against the auto in it's opposite direction due to which Chirumamilla Srinivasarao and one of the passengers Subbalaxmi sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot, while the remaining passengers including the deceased herein sustained grievous injuries. Immediately they were taken to GGH, Guntur through 108 ambulance and the deceased Rohithkumar was treated as an inpatient and he died while undergoing treatment on the same day at about 12- 45 a.m/00-45 a.m.

Phirangipuram P.S. registered the accident as a case in Cr.No.60/14 under

Secs.337, 338 and 304-A IPC.

The accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 29TA 1067. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 7 years by the time of accident who was hale and healthy and completed his first class and entered into 2nd class. On account of the accident, the petitioners lost their dependency in future besides love and affection, etc. Had the deceased been alive, he would have spent all his future earnings. The deceased was the elder son of the petitioners.

The 1st respondent being the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 29TA 1067 and the 2nd respondent being it’s insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

2.The 1st respondent remained exparte as per the docket order dt.21-1-16.

3

3.The 2nd respondent filed written statement praying the Tribunal to dismiss the petition while denying the averments made in the petition specifically and the brief contents of it are as follows:

The 2nd respondent disputed the existence of policy to the vehicle involved in the accident. The 2nd respondent disputed the age, studies, future income, nature of injuries and death of the deceased besides contending that the petitioners never made any demand for any compensation and as such the petitioners are not entitled for any costs and interest. It is further contended that there was no rashness or negligence on part of the driver of lorry bearing

No.AP 29TA 1067. The driver of lorry bearing No.AP 29TA 1067 had no valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle had no valid RC, permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident which amounts to violation of conditions of insurance policy. The 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation unless it is proved that the vehicle involved in the accident is insured with 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent contended that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and that the driver of auto in which the deceased was travelling himself contributed for the accident. The 2nd respondent seeks protection under Sec.170 of MV Act. It is further contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners are excessive and that the interest may be restricted to 6% p.a from the date of award.

4. Based on the pleadings, my learned predecessor-in-office framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether Mogili Rohithkumar, s/o Guravaiah died in the accident on 26-05-14 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP-29-TA- 1067?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount, and against whom?

3. To what relief?

5.The 1st petitioner got herself examined as P.W.1, the supporting witness was examined as P.W2 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were exhibited on their behalf. The 4 administrative officer of 2nd respondent was examined as R.w.1 and Ex.B1 was exhibited.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the 2nd respondent.

7. ISSUE No.1:

The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on account of death of their son Mogili Rohithkumar by filing petition under Sec.163-A of MV Act.

8.The evidence of P.W.1 shows that her brother Chirumamilla Srinivasarao was running an auto bearing No.AP 07TD 4945. On 26-5-14, one Patakoti

Subbalaxmamma, her son Venkata Subbarao and her daughter Lavanya engaged the auto of her deceased brother bearing No.AP 07TD 4945 for hire at

Vinukonda to go to Guntur hospital so as to consult a doctor for the daughter of

Pathakoti Subbalaxmamma and to return to Vinukonda. Accordingly on the same day in the morning hours, Chirumamilla Srinivasarao and the above referred 3 passengers started at Vinukonda and went to Guntur. After consulting the doctor for Lavanya and while they were on their way to

Vinukonda, at the request of passengers Chirumamilla Srinivasarao went to AT agraharam, 11th lane, Guntur to his sister's house and Srinivasarao spoke to her and his brother in law who are the parents of deceased Mogili Rohithkumar and as his nephew Rohitkumar expressed his willingness to accompany him, he allowed him in the auto and while they were proceeding to Vinukonda and by the time the auto reached near Edga at 2-30 p.m after crossing Vemuluripadu village, the driver of 1st respondent lorry bearing No.AP 29TA 1067 which was proceeding from Narasaraopet to Guntur drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and came to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against the auto in it's opposite direction due to which the brother of PW1

Chirumamilla Srinivasarao and one of the passengers Subbalaxmi sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot, while the remaining passengers including the deceased herein sustained grievous injuries. Immediately they were taken to

GGH, Guntur through 108 ambulance and the deceased Rohithkumar was 5 treated as an inpatient and he died while undergoing treatment on the same day at about 12-45 a.m/00-45 a.m.

9.The evidence of PW2 is similar to the evidence of PW1 who stated in his evidence that his mother Pathakoti Subbalaxmamma, his sister Lavanya and himself engaged the auto bearing No.AP 07TD 4945 for hire of Rs.2,000/- and on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 29TA 1067, his mother and the driver of auto Chirumamilla Srinivasarao sustained injuries and died on the spot as the lorry dashed against the auto in which PW2 was traveling by coming in it's opposite direction. In the cross examination, PW1 stated that she has not filed any document showing the age and studies of the deceased. She denied the suggestion that the petition is bad for non joinder of insurer of the auto. She further denied the suggestion that due to negligence of the driver of auto, the accident was caused and there is no negligence on part of driver of lorry. PW2 stated in the cross examination that by the time of accident, he was traveling in the auto. His evidence shows that the deceased sat on the wooden seat on the back side of the driver's seat. He denied the suggestion that the accident was caused due to negligence of driver of auto in which they were traveling and that there was no negligence on part of driver of lorry.

10.The Administrative Officer of 2nd respondent got himself examined as

R.W.1 who reiterated the pleadings of 2nd respondent. His evidence shows that as per police record, the driver of auto himself contributed for the accident as he drove his auto in a rash and negligent manner. He further stated that the police came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and closed the case as abated and that the driver of auto had no driving licence. It is also the contention of 2nd respondent that the petition is liable to be dismissed, as the accident was caused due to negligence of driver of auto and through him Ex.B1 copy of policy was exhibited. In the cross examination, he admitted that Ex.B1 policy was in force 6 and that he did not file any document to show that the accident was caused due to negligence of driver of auto.

11.The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners proved the involvement of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and hence, they are entitled to claim compensation under Sec.163-A of MV Act.

Though the 2nd respondent contended about failure to possess valid driving licence by the driver of auto and that the petitioners did not approach the 2nd respondent etc., those aspects cannot be considered under the facts and circumstances of this case for the reason that the petitioners filed this OP under

Sec.163-A of MV Act.

12.When once the OP is filed under Sec.163-A, the owner of the motor vehicle or the insurer shall be liable to pay compensation in case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, as indicated in the II Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim as the case may be.

Therefore, the insurance company cannot take the plea that there is negligence on part of the driver of auto who is the maternal uncle of the deceased

Rohithkumar and it is sufficient for the petitioners if they prove the involvement of the vehicle of the owner concerned as the petitioners filed this OP under the special provisions as to payment of compensation on a structured formula basis.

13.In United India Insurance Co Ltd vs. Sunil Kumar and another 1 their lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court held in the last lines of para 8 as follows:

“In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.” ----------------------------------------------------

1. Civil Appeal No.9694/13 7

Their lordships further held at para 9 that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act it is not open for the Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim.

14.In the instant case also, the petitioners proved the involvement of the offending vehicle by the time of accident and so the owner of the lorry and the insurer shall be liable to pay compensation on a structured formula basis as per

Sec.163-A of MV Act.

15.Ex.A.1 copy of FIR shows that the same was given by one Pathakoti

Veeraiah. It shows that on 26-5-14 at about 2-30 p.m when he went to Vinukonda in connection with his work, somebody telephoned him through whom he came to know that accident was caused at Vemuluripadu village and his junior maternal aunt Subbalaxmamma died. Immediately he went to Vemuluripadu and came to know that on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto, the accident was caused as it dashed against the lorry.

16.Though the 2nd respondent adduced the evidence of R.W1, as held by their lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court, in the above referred Civil Appeal No.9694/13, held in between United India Insurance Co Ltd vs. Sunil Kumar, the 2nd respondent cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the driver of auto as the petitioners filed this petition under Sec.163-A of MV Act which provides payment of compensation on a structured formula basis. The oral and documentary evidence let in by the petitioners proved that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident involving the lorry bearing

No.AP 29TA 1067 while it was in use on a public place. Accordingly issue No.1 is answered holding that the deceased Mogili Rohithkumar died in the accident which involved the use of lorry bearing No.AP 29TA 1067 belongs to 1st respondent in a public place.

8

17. ISSUE No.2:

P.W.1 stated in her evidence that the deceased was aged about 7 years and was hale and healthy who entered into 2nd class. Ex.A.2 PM report shows that the deceased was aged about 7 years by the time of accident. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as 7 years. The multiplier that is applicable to this case as per the Second Schedule is 15. As per Sec.163-A of MV Act which contains a special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis and as per the Second schedule, the compensation has to be arrived at Rs.15,000/- as the deceased was aged about 7 years by the time of accident and so, his notional income has to be assessed as Rs.15,000/- p.a. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that the petitioners are entitled to get compensation as per the Second Schedule and the notional income has to be taken as Rs.15,000/-. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners while arguing that notional income of the deceased has to be taken as

Rs.30,000/- p.a, and the same has to be multiplied with multiplier shown in the

Second Schedule, relied upon a case held in between Manju Devi and another vs. Shankar Singh and others 2

The facts and circumstances of the above case are not similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand and so, it has no application to it.

18.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relied upon a case held in between Puttamma and others vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy and another 3 wherein their lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court held in the last lines of para 56 page 729 as follows:

---------------------------------------------------------------

2. 2015 ACJ 130.

3. AIR 2014 Supreme Court 706 9 “Till such amendment is made by the Central Government in exercise of power vested under sub-section (3) of Section 163 of the Act, 1988 or amendment is made by the Parliament, we hold and direct that for children upto the age of 5 years shall be entitled for fixed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) and persons more than 5 years of age shall be entitled for fixed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees one lakh and fifty thousand) or the amount may be determined in terms of Second Schedule whichever is higher.

Such amount is to be paid if any application is filed under Section 163A of the

Act, 1988.”

19.As the Hon'ble Apex Court directed paying fixed compensation of

Rs.1,50,000/- for the child who was aged more than 5 years, the petitioners are entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- but not the amount as per the

Second Schedule as Rs.1,50,000/- is higher under the head of loss of dependency.

20.In the above referred decision, their lordships further held that general damages shall be given as follows:

funeral expenses: Rs.2,000/-.

Loss of estate: Rs.2,500/-.

21.This tribunal by making guess work opines that the petitioners are entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges.

22.In toto, the petitioners are entitled to get total compensation of

Rs.1,59,500/-.

23.As the petition is filed under no fault liability, and as the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident involving the offending vehicle i.e., lorry when it was in use on public place, both the respondents 1 and 2 who are the owner and insurer of the lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly issue No.2 is answered.

24.ISSUE No.3:

IN THE RESULT, this petition is partly allowed.

10

The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,59,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. with proportionate costs.

The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with proportionate costs together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition i.e., 24-11-15 till the date of deposit within 30 days from today.

1st petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1,09,500/- with interest and proportionate costs and the 2nd petitioner is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.

On such deposit, the petitioners 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares of compensation.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 3rd day of April, 2019.

CHAIRMAN, MACT–cum–

III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

GUNTUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners:

P.W.1 Mogili Laxmi. P.W.2 Pathakoti Venkata Subbarao.

For 2 nd Respondent:

R.W.1 J.Seethrajiv.

Documents Marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 CC of FIR in Cr.No.60/14 of Phirangipuram P.S. Ex.A2 CC of PM report. Ex.A3 Inquest report.

For 2 nd Respondent:

Ex.B.1 Copy of policy.

CHAIRMAN, MACT–cum–

III ADJ, GUNTUR.

1

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT :: GUNTUR

PRESENT: Ms.A.Vasanthi,

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC: Judge, Special court for Speedy Trial of Offences under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Guntur.

Wednesday, the 4th day of August, 2021.

Crl.M.P.No.1275/2021 in Cr.No.229/2021 of Chilakaluripet Urban PS.

Between:

1. Molathoti Rajeswari, W/o. Late Srihari, a/a 47 years, Haridasulu/SC, N/o. Tarunavaryi village, Sangam Mandal, Nellore District and now at Opposite to Marine Police Station road, Suryalanka Beach Road, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Dugguluru Aparna, W/o. Ravi, a/a 24 years, SC, D.No.16.3.269 Ramalingapuram, Nellore Town and now at Darrsi Street, Simla Centre, Chinna Bazaar, Nellore Town.

..Petitioners /A2 & A3.

-And- The State: Sub Divisional Police Officer, Narasaraopet represented by Spl.PP Ongole.

.. Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came on 03.08.2021 for final hearing before me through Bluejeans app, in the presence of Sri Sk. Karimulla, Advocate for the petitioners/A2 & A3 and of learned Special Public Prosecutor for complainant through electronic media, and upon perusing the record, this court made the following :

O R D E R

1.This is the second bail application filed by petitioners/A2 & A3 under Secs.437 and 439 of Cr.P.C, seeking regular bail to them in

Cr.No.229/2021 of Chilakaluripet Urban P.S., for the alleged offences under

Secs.363, 366, 343, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 5 r/w 6 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.Notice given to the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor through Whats

App. Heard both sides through video conference.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire prosecution story is utterly false and there is no iota of truth in the allegations attributed against the petitioners and that they are innocent and 2 they did not commit any offences and they were falsely implicated in this case since A1 is their close relative and they never performed the marriage of A1 with the victim girl at any point of time and the victim girl gave false statement before police only with a view to get benefit from the petitioners as well as A1 and this case is foisted to wreck vengence agianst the petiitoners as A1 rejected and refused the love proposal of the victim girl and at the instance of local leaders and family members of the victim girl, it was brought into existence, and that the second petitioner is having a baby aged 2 years and that they do not have any criminal activities earlier and that

Lws.1 to 13 were examined, and that entire investigation has been completed.

4.The learned Spl.P.P., strictly opposed the bail to the petitioners with a submission that the victim girl is aged about 14 years, and that the prosecution has examined Lws.1 to 13, and that the statement of the victim girl under Sec.164 CRPC has been recorded, and that preliminary charge sheet is filed.

5.The point for consideration is -

Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of

regular bail?

6.POINT :

This is a case of kidnap, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation and aggravated penetrative sexual assault caused on the victim girl who is aged about 14 years. It shows that at about four months ago, the victim girl got acquaintance with one Ramu/A1 through instagram and since then, she used to chat with him. He used to tell her that he would marry her.

On coming to know the same her father warned her. When she informed the same to A1, by using his deceitful words, he asked her to come to Chirala.

On 05-05-2021, the victim girl packed her clothes and telephoned the friend of her elder sister namely Yeswanth and asked him to drop her and he in turn 3 had taken her in a car to his house. His parents asked him to drop the victim girl at her house. On 06-05-2021, while Yeswanth was taking her in the car to drop her at her house, the victim girl asked him to drop her at Chirala as her friend ie., A1 was there at Chirala. Then, Yeswanth dropped her at

Chirala Bus stand and left the premises. She telephoned A1 who in turn asked her to stay there itself ie., at Chirala Bus stand but he did not turn up.

In the meanwhile, one Ravi had taken her to Jandrapadu village, Prakasam

District to the house of his elder sister. Ravi telephoned his friend Nani who in turn came to the house of elder sister of Ravi at 11.30 PM. The victim girl telephoned the friend of A1 namely Siva/A5 resident of Marturu. A5 in turn came to that house and had taken her to his house at Marturu. He telephoned A1 and asked him to take the victim girl to Chilakaluripet Bus stand by dropping her at Chilakaluripet bus stand. Then, the friend of A1 namely Baji and his friend came on bike to Chilakaluripet RTC bus stand and had taken her to A1 at Surya Lanka, Bapatla. On the next day, A1 had taken her to the house of his sister-in-law namely Latha, Venkatachelam village.

Then, A1 called his mother Rajeswari / A2, his younger sister Aparna / A3 to

Venkatachelam village. On the next day, they have taken the victim girl to the house of A3 at Gandhi Statue Center, Nellore. A2, A3 and the brother-in- law of A1 and some others forcibly performed her marriage with A1 and had taken marriage photos. When the victim girl intended to inform the fact of her marriage to her parents and asked them to give phone to communicate the same, all of them threatened to kill her. On the third day of her marriage, A1 ravished her. On the next day, she was taken to the house of the junior maternal aunt of A1 and there also A1 ravished her twice or thrice and threatened her to kill her. He used to beat her and scold her. By consuming alcohol, he beat her and brought her to Nellore to the house of his sister. Being unable to bear the harassment, she consumed Harpic. The younger sister of A1 had taken her to Padmavathi Hospital, Nellore and later, brought her. On the next day, the cousin of A1 sent the victim girl and A1 to 4

Bapatla. From there A1 had taken her to his house at Surya Lanka. On 18- 06-2021, in the absence of A1, victim girl informed the same to her parents who in turn came there and brought her to Chilakaluripet where her statement has recorded. So far, LWs 1 to 13 were examined.

7. On perusal of the record, the age of the victim girl is 14 years, and that so far the prosecution has examined LWs 1 to 13, and that the statement of the victim girl under Sec.164 CrPC has been recorded, and that preliminary charge sheet is filed.

Though the preliminary charge sheet is filed, in view of gravity of offence, and in view of the above facts and circumstances, this court feels that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioners/ A2 & A3 at this stage.

8.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, on this the 4th day of August, 2021.

(SD/-) Ms.A.Vasanthi,

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC: Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Guntur.

Copy through electronic media to:

1. The Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

2. The Special Public Prosecutor, Special court for Speedy trial of offences under POCSO Act, Guntur.

3. The SHO, Chilakaluripet Urban PS.,

4. Sri Sk. Karimulla, Advocate for the petitioners/A2 & A3 Ph.No.80121782.

1

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT :: GUNTUR

PRESENT: Ms.A.Vasanthi,

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC: Judge, Special court for Speedy Trial of Offences under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Guntur.

Wednesday, the 4th day of August, 2021.

Crl.M.P.No.1296/2021 in Cr.No.69/2021 of Amarthaluru PS.

Between: Nalukurthi Aalwin, S/o.Yacob, aged about 24 years, Resident of Pedapudi village, Amarthaluru Mandal, Guntur District.

..Petitioner/A1.

-And- The State: Sub Inspector of Police,

Tenali II Town P.S. .. Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came on 02.08.2021 for final hearing before me through Bluejeans app, in the presence of Sri S.Muralidhar, Advocate for the petitioner/A1 and of learned Special Public Prosecutor for complainant through electronic media, and upon perusing the record, this court made the following :

O R D E R

1.This is the third bail application filed by petitioner/A1 under Secs.437 and 439 of Cr.P.C, seeking regular bail to him in Cr.No.69/2021 of Amarthaluru P.S., for the alleged offences under Secs. 448, 376, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 4 r/w 3(a) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,

2.Notice given to the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor through Whats App.

Heard both sides through video conference.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the allegations levelled against the petitioner / accused are all false and concocted and they are invented against the petitioner, and that the petitioner/ accused is no way connected with the alleged offences, and that the petitioner is eking his livelihood by working as coolie and he is only bread winner of his entire family, and that the victim girl and the petitioner/ accused got married on 8.5.2021 before the elders of both sides, and that there are no ingredients which attract the section in the FIR and remand report against the petitioner and at the instance of local busy bodies, it was brought in to existence, and that Lws.1 to 8 were examined, the statement of victim girl under Sec.164 CrPC was also recorded, and that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 23.6.2021, and that substantial part of investigation has been 2 completed.

4.The learned Spl.P.P., strictly opposed the bail to the petitioner with a submission that the victim girl is aged about 17 years, and that the prosecution has examined Lws.1 to 8, and that the statement of the victim girl under Sec.164 CRPC has been recorded, and the potency test of the petitioner/ accused has been conducted, and RFSL report is awaited, and preliminary charge sheet filed, and if the petitioner is released on bail, it will hurdle to the prosecution to proceed with the case further and prayed the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the petition.

5.The point for consideration is -

Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of regular

bail?

6.POINT :

This is a case of stalking, house trespass and causing penetrative sexual assault, including criminal intimidation on the victim girl, who is aged about 17 years, that occurred on 24.4.2021 in between 13.00 hours to 14.00 hours in the house of the victim girl in Pedapudi village, Amarthaluru mandal and reported on 29.04.2021 at 14.00 hours wherein the victim girl stated that one of her villagers namely Nalukurthy Aalwin/ petitioner used to tell her that he had fallen in love with her and used to follow her when she goes to college and thereby used to harass her.

On 24-04-2021, in between 1.00 and 2.00 PM while she was asleep, the petitioner trespassed into her house, ravished her by keeping her chunni in her mouth. He threatened to kill her if she discloses the same to her parents and ran away. When her parents on coming to know the incident, informed the same to the parents of the petitioner, they scolded them by saying that the petitioner would not commit such act. They placed the matter before the elders who summoned the petitioner and his parents and they also scolded the elders.

7. On perusal of the record, the age of the victim girl is 17 years, and that so far the prosecution has examined LWs 1 to 7, and that the statement of the victim girl under Sec.164 CrPC has been recorded, and that the Potency test of the petitioner has been conducted, and according to the prosecution preliminary charge sheet is filed.

3

As the statement of the victim girl under Sec.164 CrPC has been recorded, and that the potency test of the petitioner has been conducted, and receiving RFSL report is a procedural aspect, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the petition by imposing some stringent conditions.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed by imposing conditions, that the petitioner / accused shall be enlarged on bail subject to condition that he shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Tenali.

Further, the petitioner/ accused is directed that he shall appear before the concerned S.H.O., on every Sunday in between 10.00 A.M and 5 P.M., till filing of the charge sheet.

Further, the petitioner/ accused is directed to co-operate with the

Investigating Officer as and when his presence is required with regard to further investigation if any.

Further, the petitioner / accused is directed to maintain social distancing and he is further directed to follow the guidelines issued by the State from time to time regarding Covid-19, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, on this the 4th day of August, 2021.

(Sd/-) Ms.A.Vasanthi,

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC: Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Guntur.

Copy through electronic media to:

1. The II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali.

2. The Special Public Prosecutor, Special court for Speedy trial of offences under POCSO Act, Guntur.

3. The SHO, Amarthaluru PS.,

4. S.Muralidhar, Advocate for the petitioner/accused Ph.No.9440751811.

5. The Superintendent, District Jail, Guntur.

1

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT :: GUNTUR

PRESENT: Ms.A.Vasanthi,

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC: Judge, Special court for Speedy Trial of Offences under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Guntur.

Wednesday, the 4th day of August, 2021.

Crl.M.P.No.1295/2021 in Cr.No.527/2021 of Pedakakani PS.

(Under Investigation of Disha Women PS)

Between: Kanchumarthy Yesubabu, S/o.Apparao, aged aboiut 37 years, R/o.Jyothi Nagar, Pedakakani village & Mandal, Guntur District.

..Petitioner/Accused.

-And- The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Pedakakani P.S.,

.. Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came on 03.08.2021 for final hearing before me through Bluejeans app, in the presence of Sri K.L.Narayana, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused and of learned Special Public Prosecutor for complainant through electronic media, and upon perusing the record, this court made the following :

O R D E R

1.This is the second bail application filed by petitioner/accused under Secs.437 and 439 of Cr.P.C, seeking regular bail to him in

Cr.No.527/2021 of Pedakakani P.S., for the alleged offences under Secs.332, 354 of IPC and Sec.8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.Notice given to the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor through Whats

App. Heard both sides through video conference.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused is an innocent and he did not commit any offence and that he was falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry, and that the FIR is belated one and does not disclose any offence, much less the offence alleged, and that the ingredients of Secs.342, 354 of IPC or Sec.8 of POCSO

Act do not attract to the facts of the case, and that the petitioner is the sole 2 bread winner of his entire family consisting old age parents, and that the petitioner is having clean record of life, and that the statement of the victim girl under Sec.164 CrPC has been recorded, and that Lws.1 to 7 were examined, and that the prosecution filed charge sheet on 10.7.2021, and prayed the Hon’ble to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

4.The learned Spl.P.P., strictly opposed the bail to the petitioner with a submission that the victim girl is aged about 9 years, and that the prosecution has examined Lws.1 to 7, and that the statement of the victim girl under Sec.164 CRPC has been recorded, and that charge sheet was filed.

5.The point for consideration is -

Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of

regular bail?

6.POINT :

This is a case of wrongful confinement, outraging the modesty of minor girl by using criminal force and sexual assault that occurred on 4.7.2021 at about 2.30 p.m., in Jyothi Nagar, Pedakakani village & Mandal,

Guntur District and the same is complained on 5.7.2021 at 6 p.m., by the mother of victim girl viz., R.Subbulu, stating that she is working as coolie, and that the victim girl is aged about 10 years, and that the accused is the immediate neighbour of the complainant and the daughter of the accused and the victim girl are friends, and that the victim girl used to visit the house of the accused to play with the daughter of accused, and that accordingly on 04-07-2021 around 2.30 PM, the daughter of the accused visited the house of the complainant and took the victim girl with her to her house to play together, and that while the victim girl and the daughter of accused are playing, the accused with a mollified intention gave ten rupees to his daughter and advised her to go and purchase eatables, and that when his daughter left the house to purchase eatables from nearby shop at about 2.30

PM, the accused confined the victim girl wrongfully, pushed her on the bed, 3 removed his clothes and outraged the modesty of the victim girl by touching her body parts by using criminal force and thereby committed sexual assault, and that due to fear the victim girl started crying, and when the complainant, and others heard the cry of the victim girl and they rushed to the house of the accused and found the door is closed from inside and the victim girl is crying inside the house, and that the complainant, and others knocked the door and finally the accused opened the door and at that time he is completely nude, and that the victim girl approached the complainant while the accused wore his clothes and has escaped from there by using criminal force.

7. On perusal of the record, the age of the victim girl is 10 years, and that so far the prosecution has examined LWs 1 to 7, and that the statement of the victim girl under Sec.164 CrPC has been recorded, and that charge sheet filed on 10.7.2021.

Even though the charge sheet is filed, in view of gravity of offence committed by the petitioner/ accused, and basing on the facts and circumstances of the case, this court feels that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner/ accused at this stage.

8.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, on this the 4th day of August, 2021.

(Sd/-) Ms.A.Vasanathi,

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC: Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trial of Offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Guntur.

Copy through electronic media to:

1. The VI Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

2. The Special Public Prosecutor, Special court for Speedy trial of offences under POCSO Act, Guntur.

3. The SHO, Pedakakani PS.,

4. Sri K.L.Narayana, Advocate for the petitioner/accused Ph.No.9989367964.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:: GUNTUR

PRESENT: SMT. SIRIPURAPU SREEDEVI,

III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Tuesday, the 9th day of April, 2019

Crl.M.P.No.249/19 in Cr.No.400/18 of Old Guntur P.S.

Between:

1. Ramagiri Kishore, son of Pitchaiah, aged 22 years, Telaga, Opp.Sivalayam, Somuvari street, old Guntur, Guntur (A-2).

2. Shaik Mansoor alias Pattan Manssor, son of Patan Shamshoor, aged 21 years, 3/2nd lane, IPD colony, Lalapet, Guntur (A-4).

.. Petitioners/A-2, A-4

-And-

The State: SHO, Old Guntur P.S., Rep. by Addl.PP, Guntur.

.. Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up on 8-4-19 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri KST Singh, advocate for petitioners and of learned Addl.P.P. for respondent and upon perusing the record, this court made the following:

O R D E R

This is the 3rd bail petition filed by the petitioners/A-2 and A-4 under

Secs.437 and 439 Cr.P.C for the alleged offences under Secs.120-B, 364, 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC praying the Court to grant regular bail and the brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

A-1 to A-8 hatched a plan to kill the deceased and accordingly on 24-12-18 at 7 p.m., they sent A-8 to the house of deceased to know whether the deceased was available in the house or not and through A-8, they came to know that the deceased was available in his house. Then A-1 to A-7 asked A-8 to wait at 3 statues center so that they would bring the deceased in the auto and asked him to get in the auto at 3 statues center. A-1 to A-3 arranged two autos and A-1 to

A-5 got into one auto bearing No.AP 07TC 3302 and A-5 was driving the auto. A- 6 and A-7 were asked to get in another auto bearing No.AP 07TC 7841 and to proceed to the house of deceased. They stopped the autos at a distance and went to the house of deceased and asked him to come along with them to have tea in bypass road. When the deceased denied for their proposal, A-2 insisted him and made him to board the auto. They rushed to Yetukuru bypass in those 2 autos. A-8 who was waiting at 3 statues center got into their auto. When they reached Yetukuru bypass, A-5 stopped the auto and got down from the auto to get cigarettes. When A-5 got down from the auto, A-4 informed that he would drive the auto. Then A-1 asked A-5 for cigarettes and to come in 2nd auto. Then they proceeded towards Meadows fields of Pragathi nagar, old Guntur, proceeded to donka road, stopped their autos and they got down from the auto and were taking away the deceased into donka road. When the deceased asked them as to why they were taking him, they informed him that they were going for cake cutting. When they reached the fields, A-1 to A-8 surrounded the deceased and beat him with hands and legs severely. A-1 brought wooden plank, stick and iron rod. When he beat the deceased with wooden plank under his knees, he fell down under his knees. Immediately A-1 beat the deceased with wooden plank on the back side of his head, due to which the deceased sustained severe bleeding injury. A-2 picked up an iron rod and beat the deceased on the front side of his head, due to which he sustained bleeding injury. A-8 picked up another stick and beat the deceased on his left eye under chin, due to which he sustained injuries. A-2 picked up a cement concrete boulder and pelted on the head of the deceased twice, due to which the right hand finger of the deceased was cut. The deceased fell on the ground and blood was oozing from his nose and mouth. After some time, he became unconscious. In the process of beating, blood stains spill over the cloths of A-5 and A-7. When they tested the deceased, they noticed that he did not take breathe. Apprehending that police would identify the deceased, A-1 to A-5 proceeded to Budampadu petrol bunk in the first auto while A-4 was driving the auto. A-5 got the petrol in kinley water bottle. A-2 took the cell phone of deceased and kept the same in his pocket. A-4 took the petrol bottle and poured the petrol on the dead body of deceased from knee to head and lit fire to screen the evidence and fled away from there.

2.Notice given. Memo filed.

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. PP.

3

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners/A-2 and A-4 argued that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 30-12-18 and that the investigation has been completed.

5.By way of reply, the learned Addl.P.P argued that the investigation has been completed and the prosecution filed charge sheet.

6.On perusal of CD, it shows that the prosecution filed charge sheet. Hence, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

7.IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed by granting bail to the petitioners on their executing a self bond for Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 9th day of April, 2019.

III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR. Copy to VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.