Sri.T.Ramesh Babu

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: RANGA REDDY

Present: Sri TALLADA RAMESH BABU., M. Com., LL.B.,

IV Additional Sessions Judge, Monday, on this the 27th day of February, 2012.

Sessions Case No. 309 of 2008

Between: State Rep. by Police RaidurgamComplainant. A n d A1: Manjali Sambaiah, S/o.Late Yellappa, age:30years, Occ:coolie, caste : Vaddera, R/o.Kesava nagar, Gowlidoddi Raidurgam. A2: Manjali Kashamma, W/o: Manjali Sambaiah, age:25 years, Occ:Labour, caste: Vaddera, R/o :Kesava nagar, Gowlidoddi Raidurgam. Accused This Sessions Case is coming before me on 22-2-2012 in the presence of Sri A.Ananthsen Reddy, Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and Sri K.Hari Prasad, Counsel for accused and now this court delivered the following:--

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Raidurgam Police Station laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 498(A) and 302 Indian Penal Code in Crime. No.56/2008 before the

VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar alleging that the accused no.2 is the first wife of A1. A1 married Kurmamma, who is the sister of A1 as there were no children begotten to A1 and

A2. A1 led martial life with Kurmamma and they were blessed with one baby. A2 and Kurmamma is to quarrel on flimsy grounds. There upon A1 and A2 started harassing Kurmamma mentally and physically and they wanted to get rid of Kurmamma. On 6-3-2008 at about 6.30

P.M A1 and A2 closed the doors from inside and poured kerosene on

Kurmamma and set her to blaze. She came out from the house by hues and cries. The neighbours put off the fire and admitted her into Gandhi

Hospital for treatment. On the statement of her mother police registered a case and investigated. Her dying declaration was recorded by the VI

Additional C.M.M Nampally. Kurmamma died on 8-3-2008 at 2.15

A.M while undergoing treatment. Hence the charge.

2

2.The learned Magistratre took cognizance under Section 498(A) and and 302 Indian Penal Code in PRC No.57/2008.

3.After appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were supplied to them. On hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, the learned Magistrate came to conclusion that this case under section 302 I.P.C is exclusively tried by court of Sessions, and committed the case to Sessions Division under section 209 Cr.P.C.

4.After registering the case as S.C.No.309 of 2008, by Chief

Metropoliton Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy made over this case to

Additional Metropolitan Sessions court for trial. This case is made over

to this court as per District Court Proceedings in Dis No. 9071 of 2009

dated 16-12-2009.

5.After the appearance of accused before this court and hearing of both sides, this court framed charges against accused Under Section 498(A) and 302 Indian Penal Code. The said charges were read over and explained to accused in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and therefore, fixed the schedule for trial.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 and marked ExsP1 to P13.

7.The incriminating circumstances are explained to accused under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations against them.

8.The defence of the accused is total denial and no oral or documentary evidence is adduced by them on their defence.

9. Arguements of boths sides heard.

3

10.Perused the entire evidence on record. The point that arise for determination is :

Whether the prosecution proved that the accused poured kerosene on

Kurmamma and lit fire with an intention to kill her on 06-03-2008 at 6.30

P.M in their house ?

POINT

11.There is no dispute that the accused no.1 Manjali Sambaiah married A2 Kashamma. When they were not begotten children, A1 married sister of A1 by name Kurmamma. It is also not under dispute that they belong to Vaddera Community. It is also not under dispute that Kurmamma gave birth to the child through A1. It is allegation of the prosecution that A2 and Kurmamma used to quarrel on flimsy grounds. A1 and A2 harrassed Kurmamma mentally and physically.

On 6-3-2008 at 6.30 P.M A1 and A2 bolted the doors of the house inside and poured kerosene on Kurmamma and lit fire. She came out from the house by raising hues and cries the neighbours put off the flames and admitted her into Gandhi Hospital for treatment. While undergoing treatment she died on 8-3-2008 at 2.15 A.M in Gandhi

Hospital, Secunderabad.

12. To prove the said allegations the prosecution relied on evidence of Pws1 to Pws10. Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 .

13.PW1 Smt. Gogula Ananthamma, mother of deceased Kurmamma and A2, who gave statement to the police about the offence deposed that A2 and Kurmamma are her daughters, she performed marriage of

A2 with A1 and they could not beget children and therefore she performed the marriage of deceased Kurmamma with A1. They were 4 blessed with a daughter. There were disputes between accused and

Kurmamma. All of them resided in one house. About 3 years back she noticed public gathered at the house of the accused. When she went there she observed Kurmamma with burnt injuries. Immediately she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. She further stated that

Kurmamma committed suicide due to disputes with the accused. She did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. Ex.P1 is the portion of the statement recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. Her cross examination by the prosecution did not yeild any benefit to the prosecution case.

14. PW2 Gogula Sambaiah, the father of deceased Kurmamma and

A2. He is also deposed as deposed by his wife, Pw1. Ex.P2 is the portion of the statement recorded by the police under section 161

Cr.P.C. His evidence also no use to the prosecution.

15. PW3 Manjali Ramulamma, one of the sister of A2 and deceased

Kurmamma. She also did not support the prosecution. Ex.P3 is the portion of the statement recorded by the police under section 161

Cr.P.C.

16. PW4 Vullikoru Boddappa, who attested scene obsevation panchanama and rough sketch prepared by the police at the house of the accused did not support the prosecution.

17. Pw5 Smt. Y. Vijayalaxmi, Additional District Judge, Special

Judge for S.T and S.C cases at Khammam, who worked as VI

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally from July 2005 to

April 2008 deposed that on 7-3-2008 at about 2.55 P.M she recieved 5

Ex.P4 requisition from S.H.O, Raidurgam to record the dying declaration of Manjali Kurmamma, who was admitted in female burns ward, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. She rushed to the hospital identifed the patient through duty doctor P.Ramesh. She put preliminary questions to Kurmamma, she satisfied that Kurmamma was conscious state of mind and fit condition to give her declaration. The duty doctor also endorsed the same. Kurmamma stated to her that

before that day at 5.00 P.M her husband poured kerosene (gas oil) on

her and lit fire in her house. At that time herself and her husband were alone in the house. The Officer obtained the toe mark of Kurmamma as her both hands were burnt. The declaration of Kurmamma is Ex.P5.

PW5 stated that Kurmamma was coherent and conscious throughout the recording of declaration. The duty doctor also endorsed the same.

The learned advocate for the accused argued that PW5 could not say the designation of the duty doctor. That is not a ground to reject the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Officer. She categorically deposed that no nurse was present at the time of recording the declaration. She disclosed her identity to the duty doctor and

Kurmamma. The same is not mentioned in Ex.P5 in her own hand writing. She did not enquired about the drugs administered to

Kurmamma before recording her declaration. The duty doctor did not put her official stamp on Ex.P5. These minor things are not sufficient to disbelive the dying declaration recorded by a Judicial Officer, who is not related to the declarant. Her evidence is not with any contradictions to disbelieve her. The learned advocate for the accused argued that

before the Magistrate going to the hospital, Kurmamma was tutored to

state against the accused and that is why Kurmamma stated against the accused before the Magistrate. I cannot agree with the same. If she was really tutored, she definitely would say against A2 also. Kurmamma 6 specifically stated to the Magistrate that husband ( A1) poured kerosene on her and lit fire in the house. At that time she and her husband alone in the house. Therefore Kurmamma is not tutored by her relatives to state against the accused. If they really tutored there is no necessity for

PW1 to 3, who are parents and sister of deceased to turn hostile to the prosecution.

18.The learned advocate for accused relied on a case of Ramilaben

Hasmukhbhai Krista V/s State of Gujarath reported in 2002 A.I.R (S.C)2996.

In that case the dying declarations at various stages are contradicting each other. Hence the dying declarations for not accepted by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that case initially it was reported to the

police that the deceased received burnt injuries while warming around fire, at another stage it was reported that the deceased had burnt injuries by pouring kerosene at the backside of his house, at another stage it is alleged that one Ramilaben poured kerosene on him and one of her relatives lit fire. Initially the statement of injured was recorded by the

Duty Doctor, then Police Officer recorded the statement of the deceased. Thereafter the Executive Magistrate recorded dying declaration. Subsequently he was shifted to another hospsital for better treatment. There also the Executive Magistrate tried to record the dying declaration. He recorded partly and the deceased died in the middle.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court disbelieved the dying declarations. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate is free from any doubt, it can be acted upon and when the dying declaration contained lenghty statement it creats doubt and the same cannot be accepted without corroboration.

Thefore Hon'ble Supreme Court acquitted the accused. The said decision is not applicable to the defence of the accused.

7

19. Pw6 Pandigotti Dharmayya in whose presence the accused confessed the offence did not support the prosecution. The confession of the accused does not lead to recovery of any material object. Hence the evidence of PW6 has no help to the prosecution.

20.PW7 Muddangula Kashamma deposed that she was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of Kurmamma. She attested

ExP6 inquest report. She is an illiterate, she does no know the contents of Ex.P6. Inquest is not disputed by the accused but they conteded that

Kurmamma committed suicide.

21.PW8 V. Janayya, the then Sub Inspector of Police examined

PW1,3 and Baghavanth and recorded their statements. He prepared

Ex.P7 panchanama and Ex.P8 rough sketch and handed over the Case

Diary file to the Inspector of Police. In the cross examination he stated that the house of the accused was not locked when he visited. He did not observe any foreign material to the door of the house of the accused. By the time of examing PW1 to 3 by him the deceased was in the hospital. He could not record the dying declaration of Kurmamma.

Except a plastic can he did not find match box in the house of the accused. The investigation of this witness is not tainted with any improbability.

22. PW9. Dr.S.Mohan Singh, the Assistant Professor, Department of

Forensic Medicine of Gandhi Medical College deposed that he conducted Post Mortem Examination on the dead body of Manjali

Kurmamma on 9-3-2008 at 9.00 A.M. He found five anti mortem burn injuries. 81% of the body of Kurmamma was burnt. Ex.P9 is the autopsy report issued by him. A suggestion is given to this witness that he did not conduct the post mortem examination in proper manner. The 8 said suggestion is not shaking the evidence of this doctor. It is not in dispute that Kurmamma died due to burn injuries only. As per the dying declaration recorded by PW5, she died due to burnt injuries caused by A1 but not injuries caused by herself.

23.PW10 K.Changa Reddy, who worked as Inspector of Police,

Raidurgam deposed that he gave a requisition to PW5. He registered a case based on the report of PW1 Ex.P10, he issued F.I.R Ex.P11, he receive death intimation, he filed a memo Ex.P12 altering the section of law from 307 to 302 I.P.C into Court. He gave a requisition to Deputy

Collector, Balanagar to conduct inquest over the dead body, he sent the dead body to post mortem examination. Thereafter he handed over the dead body to the blood relatives of Kurmamma. He arrested the accused on 12-3-2008. The confession of A1 is recorded in the presence of mediators. The relavant portion of confession of the accused No.1 is Ex.P13. Latter he laid chargesheet. His evidence is formal, he admitted in the cross examination that, he received Ex.P10 after lapse of 24 hours. The said delay is not fatal to prosecution. There is no inconstituencies in the evidence of this witness to that of PW8.

The sole evidence of PW5 and the declaration recorded by her proved that A1 poured kerosene on Kurmamma on 6-3-2008 and lit fire in his house at 6.30 P.M. She survived for two days and died on 8-3-2008 at 2.15 A.M while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The contention of the learned advocate for the accused at one stage is that Kurmamma was tutored by her blood relatives against the accused. At another stage he contended that Kurmamma was not in conscious state to give her declaration to PW5. Both the defenses are not acceptable one. The evidence of PW5 proved that A1 with an intention to kill Kurmamma poured kerosene on her and lit fire in his house. A1 got knowledge if

Kurmamma is burnt she would There is no whisper against A2 by 9

Kurmamma in her declaration given to PW5. A1 did not shift her to the hospital. Hence prosecution failed to prove the case against A2. But prosecution proved the case against A1 beyond reasonable doubt under section 498 A and 302 I.P.C only. I have answered the point against

A1.

In the result, the prosecution failed to prove the charges under section

498 A and 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt against A2. A2 is acquitted

under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. Her bail bonds are

cancelled.

The prosecution faialed to prove the charge for the offence under

section 498 A IPC beyond reasonable doubt against A1. The accused no.1 is

not found guilty for the charge under section 498 A. He is acquitted under

section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the charge under section 498(A) I.P.C

Prosecution proved the charge under section 302 I.P.C beyond

reasonable doubt against A1. A1 is found guilty for the charge under section

302 I.P.C. He is convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C for the charge under

section 302 I.P.C.

Heard the accused No.1 with regard to the quantum of sentence to be

imposed on him. He represented that he is living by coolie works and he got a

wife and a daughter. He is the sole bread-winner to his family. He prays

mercy of the court. No mitigating circumstances to take a lenient view. Hence

the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay a

fine of Rs.1000/- IDSI for three months for the offence under section 302 IPC.

The remand period undergone by him from 12-3-2008 to 15-5-2008 shall be

set-off under section 428 Cr.P.C.

Directly dictated to Personal Assistant on computer, corrected and pronounced by 10 me in the open court on this 27.02.2012.

IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

R.R. DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of prosecution

PW1: Gogula Ananthamma PW2: Gogula Sambaiah. PW3: Manjali Ramulamma. PW4: Ullipolu Boddappa. PW5: Smt. Y.Vijaya Laxmi. PW6: Pandigotti Thimmayya. PW7: Mudangula Kasamma. PW8: V.Janayya. PW9: Dr.S.Mohan Singh. Pw10:K.Ganga Reddy.

On behalf of accused : Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of prosecution: Ex.P1: statement of PW1 recoded by police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P2: statement of PW2 recoded by police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P3: statement of PW3 recoded by police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. EX:P4: Requisition to the Magistrate to record the dying declaration of Kurmamma. Ex.P5: Dying declaration of Kurmamma recorded by Pw5. Ex.P6: Inquest Report Ex.P7: scene of offence Panchanama. Ex.P8: rough sketch Ex.P9: P.M. Examination. Ex.P10: statement of PW5 recorded by police. Ex.P11: F.I.R Ex.P12: is the memo altering section of law from 307 to 302 I.P.C. Ex.P13: is the relevant portion in the confession statement of A1. Material Objects Marked:

IV ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

R.R. DISTRICT.

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: RANGA REDDY

11

Present: Sri TALLADA RAMESH BABU., M. Com., LL.B.,

IV Additional Sessions Judge, Monday, on this the 27th day of February, 2012.

Sessions Case No. 309 of 2008

Between: State Rep. by Police RaidurgamComplainant. A n d A1: Manjali Sambaiah, S/o.Late Yellappa, age:30years, Occ:coolie, caste : Vaddera, R/o.Kesava nagar, Gowlidoddi Raidurgam. A2: Manjali Kashamma, W/o: Manjali Sambaiah, age:25 years, Occ:Labour, caste: Vaddera, R/o :Kesava nagar, Gowlidoddi Raidurgam.

Accused

CALENDAR

1. Serial number.: SC.No.309 of 2008

2. Complaint.: 07 - 03 - 2008

3. Apprehension of appearance : 12-03-2008

4. Release on bail: On Bail

5. case committed by : VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar

6. Commencement of trail.: 23-02-2011.

7. Charges framed under Sec.: 498 A and 302 IPC

8. Plea of accused.: Total denial

9. Prosecution conducted by.: Sri.A.Ananthsen Reddy P.P.

10. Accused defended by.: Sri. K.Hari Prasad

11. Closure of trail. : 22-02-2012.

12. finding of court.: A2 not found guilty for the charges u/s 498 A and 302 I.P.C but A1 found guilty for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C and he is not found guilty under section 498 A.

13. Sentence or order. : A2 is acquitted for the charge u/s 498 A and 302 I.P.C. A1 is not found guilty for the charge u/s 498 (A) 12

I.P.C. Accused no.1 found guilty for the charge u/s 302 I.P.C. A1 is sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- I.D.S.I for three months. The remand period from 12-03- 2008to 15 -05-2008 shall be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C.

14. Reasons for delay.: Originally the case was made over to Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court by chief

Metropolitan Sessions Judge. Subsequently it is transferred to this court as per District Cout Dis No 9071/2009 dated 16-12-2009 and received the bundle on 28-10-2010. Accused took time for hearing on charges and prosecution took time for production of witnesses. Hence the delay.

IVth Addl.Sessions Judge,

Ranga Reddy District

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT (FTC) Present:- Sri Tallada Ramesh Babu, M.Com, LL.B. Chairman cum IV Additional District Judge. Monday on this 27 day of Febraury, 2012

ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 464 OF 2008

Between; 1.B.Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Satya Reddy, age:24 years, Occ: Pvt Service, R/o:H.No.1-19/1, Peruru village, Devarakadara Mandal, Mahaboodnagar District.

Petitioner

A n d

1.Mohd.Usman, S/o Sadiq, age:40 years, Occ:Pvt. Employee, R/o: Chintalpally village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District.

2. M/s. Gcer Engineers Pvt. Ltd, rep by P.Srinivasa Rao, Plot No.1263, Road No.36, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad.

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, Rep by its Divisional Manager, VIfloor, 611, Babu Khan Estates, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. POLICY NO: 1550215/ 31/06/6300002733), Valid from 22-03-2007 to Midnight

Respondents

of 21-3-2008).

This Original Petition came for final hearing before me on 08-12-2011 in the presence of Sri. E.Venkataiah, advocate for Petitioner, Sri G. Satya Prasad, advocate for respondent No2, Sr. Neeli Anil Kumar, Advocate for R3 and R1 remained ex parte and stood over for consideration till this day and now delivering the following:-

AWARD

1.This petition is filed U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- to the petitioner on account of injuries to him in the motor vehicle accident.

2.The pleadings of the petitioner are that on 21-07-2007 at about 11.00 A.M the petitioner was proceeding on Pulser Motor Cycle driven by him from Kondapur to his office at Madhaput when he reached near NAC Cross roads area , the DCM bearing No. AP 09 X 2 6283 came in rash and negligent manner dashed him from his behind, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained grevious injuries.

The petitioner was admitted in Image Hospital, Ameerpet for treatment.

His right leg was fractured. Grevious fracture on both the legs, and multiple injuries all over his body. The Madhapur police, Cyberabad registered a case in Cr.No. 346/2007 U/s 337 I.P.C against the driver of the DCM Van and chargesheet was laid u/s 338 I.P.C. The first respondent pleaded guilty of the offence before IX Metropolitan

Magistrate. The petitioner was shifted to Image Hospital, Ameerpet

subsequently shifted to Sunitha Hospital. The petitioners right hand both the legs were crippled with permanent disability. He expended

Rs.3,50,000 for his treatment. Hence the petition.

3.The Ist respondent, who is the driver of the DCM Van(offending vehicle) remained exparte.

4.The second respondent who is the owner of the DCM Van filed his counter denying all the allegations and putting the petitioner to strict proof of all the allegations in the petition. He denied the manner of accident injuries to the petitioner, occupation and income of the petitioner. The accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioner.

The petitioner drove his vehicle without valid license and contributed to the accident. The claim of the petitioner is excessive, the petitioner received simple injuries only, the petitioner had no disability. His vehicle is insured with third respondent. The first respondent, who is driver of the offending vehicle got valid driving license at the time of the accident. The Insurance Policy was in force by the date of accident.

The third respondent alone liable to pay compensation. He prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

3

4.The third respondent, who is the insurer of the DCM Van of the

R2 filed his counter denying all the allegations and putting the petitioner to strict proof of all the allegations in the petition and has taken various pleas basing on the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act.

The driver of the van had no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and the van was not road worthy condition to ply. He dines the involvement of the van in the accident. He denied the age and income of the petitioner. There was con tributary negligence on the part of the first respondent. He denied the criminal case filed by the police against the first respondent. The petitioner was colluded with the second respondent to cause wrongful loss to this respondent. He reserves his right to file additional counter. The claim of the petitioner is excessive. He prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle

accident occurred on 21-07-2007 due to rash and negligent

driving of DCM Van bearing No. AP 9X 6283 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so

how much amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6. The 3rd respondent filed a petition U/S 170 of M.V.Act in I.A.No.

486/2011 and the same was allowed on 24-8-2011 by permitting the 3rd respondent to take all the defences that are available to 2nd respondent.

4

7.To prove the claim, P.Ravinder Reddy, the petitioner is examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A6 are marked, Dr. Srikanth, Plastic Surgeon of

NIMS Hospital is examined as PW2 to prove the treatment to the petitioner.

8.Ex.B1 Copy of Insurance Policy is marked on behalf of respondent no.3.

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by R2.

9. Arguments of both sides heard.

ISSUE NO 1:

10.To prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner Pinnam Cherla

Ravinder Reddy is examined as PW1. He is the eye witness and injured in the accident. He relied on the following documents:-

ExA1: Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.346/2007 of Madhapur police station, EXA2: Certified copy of chargesheet, Ex.A3: C.C. Of bunch of medical bills(63) for Rs.1,33,155/- Ex.A, Ex:A4: C.C of physically

Handicapped Certificate issued District Medical Board, kurnool, ExA5: X-

Ray films(4), Ex.A6: (3) photographs with negatives.

11. On the of report of G.Venkata Chalapathi, Police Constable no.

3821 of Madhapur Police Station police registered the case and the petitioner was shifted to Image Hospital, he is the eye witness to the accident . Madhapur police issued ExA1 F.I.R in crime. No. 346 of 2007 U/S 337 I.P.C against the driver of the offending DCM Van that is first respondent. The police after thorough investigation laid chargesheet against the driver of the DCM ( R1) before IX

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur U/S 338 I.P.C. The 5 copy of the chargesheet is Ex.A2. This is one of the circumstance to prove the negligence of R1 in driving the DCM Van. Immediately after the accident the petitioner was admitted into Image Hospital for treatment. Ex.A3 Bunch of medical bills proved the same. The independent agency appointed by State Government laid chargesheet against the driver (R1) of DCM Van of second respondent. This is one of the circumstance to show the driver of the DCM Van was negligent and caused injuries to the first claimant.

12.The petitioner who is Pw1 specifically stated in his chief affidavit that on 21-07-2007 at about 10.00 A.M the petitioner was proceeding on Pulser Motor Cycle driven by him from Kondapur to his office at

Madhapur when he reached near NAC Cross roads area, the DCM bearing No. AP 09 X 6283 came in rash and negligent manner dashed from behind, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained grevious injuries. The petitioner was admitted in Image Hospital,

Ameerpet for treatment. His right leg was fractured. Grevious fracture on both the legs, and multiple injuries all over his body.

13. In the cross examination he admitted that he and his friend jointly purchased the motor bike on which he was riding at the time of accident. The Registration Certificate relating to motor bike has not filed in to court. Though he stated that he got driving lincense he did not choose to file it into court. An adverse can be drawn against the petitioner U/s113 of Evidence Act that he has no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. He contributed to the happening of the accident. He did not choose to examine any independent witness to prove the nature of accident. He also admitted that immediately after the accident he was admitted into Image Hospital, Madhapur. But he 6 did not choose to file Medico Legal Record issued by the said hospital.

He stated that he took only first aid. The same is not pleaded in his petition. He also admitted in the cross examination that his vehicle has no Insurance Policy at the time of accident. In the light of above discussion there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner leading to accident. I have answered this issue partly in favour of the petitioner. The contributary negligence of the petitioner is notionally fixed at 20%.

ISSUE No. 2

14. Immediately after the accident the petitioner was admitted into

Image Hospital, but no proof is filed. He was shifted to Suvidha

Hospital, he also took treatment in Mythri hospital and NIMS hospital,

Ex.A3 medical bills proved the same. PW2 Dr.Srikanth, Plastic

Surgeon of NIMS hospital treated the petitioner. To shift the petitioner from the place of accident to the Hospitals, he might have spent some amount for transport. During the period of treatment in the hospitals, the family members of petitioner might have attended the petitioner to meet his requirements. They might have spent some amount for transport. I am of the considered opinion that awarding of a sum of

Rs. 5,000/- as compensation under the head of transport expenditure is just and reasonable . Hence I awarded Rs. 5,000/-.

15. The petitioner filed Medical bills, for Rs.43,890/- under Ex.A7 and for Rs.1,33,155/-- under Ex.A3. To prove the sum of the bills PW2 is examined. He took treatment in three hospitals mainly Suvidha,

Mythri and NIMS Hospitals. Therefore the medical bills claimed by the petitioner is not excessive one. The phtographs Ex.A6 and Xcray

Filsms Ex.A5 proved that the petitioner sustained fracture to his right hand and both the legs. PW2 supported the petitioner about the 7 injuries. The claim made by the petitioner is reasonable one Hence the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,33,155/-. The petitioner is awarded Rs.1,33,155/-under the head of extra nourishment and medicine.

17. The petitioner claimed that he got 40% of permanent disability.

HE filed Ex.A4 Medical Certificate issued by Medical Board, Kurnool but no doctor is examined to prove his disability . Without examining the doctor who issued Ex.A4 it is not proved the petitioner got 40% of permanent disability The evidence of Pw2 disclosed that he did not treat the petitioner but he gave evidence based on the records. He did not issue any disability certificate. He stated that patient does not need any operation in future. Hence he is not entitled to compensation under the head of permanent partial disability.

18.According to petitioner, he was a Security Officer in G4 Security

Services private Ltd, Hyderabad and was drawing Rs12,000/- per month and not filed any document to prove the same. In the absence of proof of income, it is presumed that his income is Rs.3,000/- per month. The petitioner took three or four months time to recover from the injuries. He lost income for the said four months period. He is entitled to compensation of Rs, 3,000X 4 months = Rs.12,000/-. In my view the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.12,000/- under the head of loss of earnings.

18. In my considered view the injuries sustained by first petitioner would definitely cause much bodily pain. It restricted the movements of the petitioner for a considerable time and would also cause much physical as well as mental pain. Pain is mental feeling. We cannot 8 translate mental feelings into monitory value but the petitioner must be compensated. After considering the nature of the injuries and the nature of the treatment taken by him. I am of the considered opinion that awarding of Rs10,000/- under the head of Pain and Suffering is just and reasonable. Hence I awarded the same.

19.After considering all the heads, the petitioner is entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.1,28,124/- (Rs.1,60,155 – 20% of Contributary

Negligence is Rs. 32,031=128,124).

ISSUE. No.3

20.The accident occurred by reason of rash and negligent driving of driver of the DCM Van . Ther second respondent is the owner of the

DCM Van, he is lilable to pay compensation. There is no dispute with regard to the coverage of the risk covered under Insurance Policy

Ex.B1 of the vehicle of R2 with R3. R3 is liable to indemnify R2.

R2 did not come to witness box to say anything against the Insurance

Policy and participate in the enquirty though he filed counter. R3 did not deny in his counter about the coverage of Insurance Policy in favour of Van of R2. Both the respondents 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. I have the answered this issue in favour of petitioner.

I ssue No.3:

In the result, the petition is allowed with costs and interest by granting the following reliefs:-

1. Petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.128,124/- with proportionate costs and interest payable by both the respondents 2and3.

2. Petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of presentation i.e. 28-04-2008 to till the realisation; 9

4. On deposit, petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount with interest and cost.

5. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/- and

6. Time granted for deposit of amount is 30 days from the date order.

Directly dictated to Junior Assistant on computer corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 27. 02. 2012.

Chairman cum IV Addl District Judge,

R.R.District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

On behalf of Petitioner: On behalf of Respondents: nil

PW1:P.Ravinder Reddy PW2: Dr.Srikanth.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Petitioner:

ExA1: Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.346/2007 of Madhapur police station,

EXA2: Certified copy of chargesheet,

Ex.A3: C.C. Of bunch of medical bills(63) for Rs.1,33,155/-

Ex.A, Ex:A4: C.C of physically Handicapped Certificate issued District

Medical Board, kurnool,

ExA5: X-Ray films(4),

Ex.A6: (3) photographs with negatives.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Respondent: Ex.B1 : Copy of Insurance policy issued by R2 10

Chairman, cum IV ADJ ,

R. R District.

DECREE

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT (FTC) Present:- Sri Tallada Ramesh Babu, M.Com, LL.B. Chairman cum IV Additional District Judge. Monday on this 27 day of Febraury, 2012

ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 464 OF 2008

Between; 1.B.Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Satya Reddy, age:24 years, Occ: Pvt Service, R/o:H.No.1- 19/1, Peruru village, Devarakadara Mandal, Mahaboodnagar District. Petitioner A n d 1.Mohd.Usman, S/o Sadiq, age:40 years, Occ:Pvt. Employee, R/o: Chintalpally village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District.

2. M/s. Gcer Engineers Pvt. Ltd, rep by P.Srinivasa Rao, Plot No.1263, Road No.36, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad.

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, Rep by its Divisional Manager, VIfloor, 611, Babu Khan Estates, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. POLICY NO: 1550215/ 31/06/6300002733), Valid from 22-03-2007 to Midnight of 21- 3-2008).Respondents

CLAIM :The petitioner filed this petition under section 166 of M.V.Act for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- on account of injuries to him in a Motor Vehicle Accident. CAUSE OF ACTION :For this petition the cause of action arose on 21-07-2007 when the injured met with a motor vehicle accident near NAC Cross Roads, Madhapur. VALUATION : The petitioner valued the petition at 3,50,000/- and paid the court fees of Rs.2,860/- under Rule 475/1B of APMV Rules.

COURT FEE PAID : Rs.2,860=00 /- PETITION PRESENTED ON : 28.04.2008 PETITION FILED ON : 30.04.2008

This Original Petition came for final hearing before me on 24-2-2012 in the presence of Sri. E.Venkataiah, advocate for Petitioner, Sri G. Satya Prasad, advocate for respondent No2, Sr. Neeli Anil Kumar, Advocate for R3 and R1 remained ex parte and having stood over for consideration till this day this court doth oder and decree as follows .

11

That the petition is allowed with proportionate costs and interest by granting the following reliefs:-

1. Petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,28,124/- with proportionate costs and interest payable by both the respondents 2and3.

2. Petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of presentation i.e. 28-04-2008 to till the realisation;

3. On deposit, petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount with interest and cost.

4. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/- and

5. Time granted for deposit of amount is 30 days from the date order.

6. That the Respondents 2 and 3 do pay to the petitioner a sum of

Rs. 5962/- towards costs of this petitioner.

Given under my hand and seal of this tribunal on this 27-02-2012

CHAIRMAN – CUM- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

MEMO OF COSTS

For PetitionerFor Respondents

Stamp on petition:Rs. 2,860=00 Stamp on vakalat:Rs 2=00 Rs. 2=00 Stamp on process:Rs 100=00 Advocate fee:Rs 3,000=00 __________________________________ TOTALRs. 5,962=00Rs. 2=00 _________________________________

CHAIRMAN – CUM- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGE RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE: R. R.DISTRICT

PRESENT: T.Ramesh Babu,M.Com,LL.B

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District

Thursday on this the 23 rd day of February, 2012.

ORIGINAL SUIT No 384 of 2007

Between:

M.Venkat Ramana Reddy, S/o Yadagiri Reddy, age: 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.234, Madhavanagar, Karmanagath, Saroornagar, R.R.District. Plaintiff.

And

1. M.Yadagiri Reddy, S/o Late Narsi Reddy, age:60 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Tummaluru Village, Maheswaram Mandal, R.R.District.

2. M.Karnakar Reddy, S/o M.Yadagiri Reddy, age: 30 years, occ:Business, R/o Plot No.234, Madhavanagar, Karmanaghat village, Saroornagar mandal, R.R.District.

3.M.Ramgopal Reddy, S/o Yadagiri Reddy, age:27 years, Occ: Business, R/o Tummaluru village, Maheswarm Mandal, R.R.District.

4. Smt. Ankireddy Sharmila Reddy, W/o A.Srinivasa Reddy, age:30 years, Occ:housewife, R/o.H.No.10-87,New Gaddinnaram Colony, Dilsukhnagr, Hyderabad.

5. Lingareddy Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o Lingareddy Narayana Reddy, age:40 years, Occ: Agriculture.

6. Lingareddy Jaswanth Reddy, S/o Lingareddy Narayana Reddy, age:42 years, Occ:agriculture.Defendants.

This Suit came before me for final hearing on 03.02.2012 in the presence of Sri.A.H.Chakravarthy, advocate for plaintiff, and Sri. M.Damodar Reddy, advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivering the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed for partition of plaint schedule property into four equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and for costs.

2

2. The brief allegations in the plaint are that the plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 are sons of defendant no.1. Late Maddi Narsi Reddy and Janga

Reddy constituted a Joint Hindu Family. They had acres 12.05 guntas in Sy.No.201 and acres 13.28 guntas in S.No.202 of Timmaluru village.

Narsi Reddy died intestate in the year 1984. After his death, his sons

Janga Redy and defendant no.1 are entitled to the above lands by Hindu

Succession Act. In the year 1985-86 they orally partitioned the lands in the presence of village elders. In the partition acres 6.02 ½ guntas in

Sy.No.201 and acres 6.34 guntas in Sy.No.202 fell to the share of defendant no.1 and it is the plaint schedule property. The remaining land fell to the share of Janga Reddy. Defendant no.1 performed the marriages of plaintiff and defendant no. 2. Plaintiff and defendant no.2 are residing in Hyderabad. The plaintiff, defendants no.1 to 3 are entitled to ¼ the share each. Defendant no.1 in collusion with defendants 2 and 3 sold part of plaint schedule property to defendants 4 to 6 under a registered sale deed dated 26-06-2000. The sale is not binding on the plaintiff. The efforts of plaintiff for partitioning of Plaint

Schedule Property became useless. Hence the suit.

3. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte.

4. Defendants 4 to 6 filed their common written statement contending that they do not know the relationship between plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. The property purchased by these defendants is exclusive property of defendant no.1. The suit property is the personal property of defendant no.1. One B.Rajashekar son of Sudhershan purchased entire plaint schedule property from defendant no.1 under

Registered Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 9-12-1997 vide document No.3321/1997. From said Rajashekar, 3 defendant no.4 purchased acres 2.23 guntas in S.No 201 in 2000, under a registered sale deed dated 30-06-2000 vide document No.2124/2000.

Gollapalli Harish and Gollapalli Shiridish Babu purchased acres 5.06 guntas from Rajashekar under a registered sale deed dated 23-10-2002 vide document No.2618/02. Similarly N.Bhasker Rao, Son of

Ramalinga Rao purchased acres 5.08 guntas from Rajashekar under

Registered Sale deed dated 30-6-2000 vide document No.2122/2000 and from N.Bhasker Rao, defendant no.6 purchased it under a

Registered Sale Deed dated 23-10-2002 vide document No.2619 of 2002. By virtue of sale deed defendant no.4 became absolute owner for acres 2.23 guntas and D5 for acres 5.06 guntas and D6 for acres 5.08 guntas in S.No.201 and 202. Defendant no.1 sold the properties for his family and legal necessity. Defendant no.1 acquired a house bearing

No.8-5-283/234 admeasuring 250 square yards at Madhavanagar colony, in Saroornagar. Defendant no.2 get issued a legal notice dated 23-11-2006 to defendant no.1 and defendant 3 to 6 seeking partition of plaint schedule property. On enquiry these defendants came to know that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are living together and they got acres 25 of land in S.No.113/A,114,115/A,119,276 and 290/A and a house in Tummaluru and another house in Madhavanagar Colony. All these things were brought to the notice of defendant no.2, who withdrew the notice. The plaintiff is not in joint possession of plaint schedule property and court fee paid under section 34(2) of Andhra

Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is not correct. They pray to dismiss the suit with costs.

5. The following issues are settled for trial.

i) Whether the suit schedule property is the undivided Hindu

Joint Family Property of the plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 3?

4

ii) Whether the Plaint Schedule Property is the exclusive property

of the 1 st defendant as contended by the defendants 4 to 6?

iii) Whether the Court Fee paid u/sec 34(2) of APCF & S.V Act is

correct?

iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek for partition of the plaint

schedule property into four equal shares and for allotment of one

such share as claimed in the plaint ?

iii) To what relief?

6. The plaintiff is examined as Pw1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6.

7 . Defendant no.6 is examined as Dw1 and B1 to B9 are marked on behalf of Defendants 4 to 6.

8. Arguments of both sides heard.

ISSUE NO.1 ,2 and 4

9. The plaintiff Venkata Ramana Reddy, defendant no.2 Karnakar

Reddy and defendant no.3 Ramgopal Reddy are the sons of defendant no.1 Yadagiri Reddy. Defendant no.1 Yadagiri Reddy got a brother

Janga Reddy and they are sons of late Maddae Narsi Reddy. The same is stated by plaintiff who is examined as PW1. No suggestion is given by defendants 4 to 6 to PW1 denying the said aspect. Ex.A1 to A6 are copies of Pahanies from 1984-85 to 1992-1993 disclose that defendant no.1 and his brother Janga Reddy got equal shares in acres 12.05 guntas and acres 12.08 guntas. Ex.A4 to A6 are copies of Pahanies from 1993- 94,1996-97 and 1999-2000 disclose that Defendant no.1 was enjoying the plaint schedule lands. They do not disclose how he acquired them.

But Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 show defendant no.1 and his brother got equal 5 right in the entire lands. Hence, they are their family property and partitioned in 1984. Once there is a partition between defendant no.1 and Janga Reddy, the plaint schedule property fell to the share of first defendant is his ancestral property. The plaintiff not pleaded when he was born that is before or after partition of the property. Since the first defendant got the plaint schedule property in partition with his brother

Janga Reddy, it is the ancestral property of Defendant no.1 but not self acquired property of defendant no.1. The plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 who are sons of defendant no.1 have right in the plaint schedule property and they can claim share as per Hindu Succession Act.

10.Even assumed for a moment that the property is Joint Hindu

Family property, defendants no.4 to 6 contend that Defendant no.1 sold the plaint schedule property to one B.Rajashekar son of Sudhershan under Agreement of sale Cum General Power of Attorney dated 9-12- 1997. The same is not denied by PW1 by filing a rejoinder or in his chief affidavit evidence. The plaintiff filed this suit in the year 2007.

The plaintiff kept silence for about 10 years. The plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 ousted from the possession for more than 10 years. They have no right to seek partition after long lapse of 10 years.

11. After purchase of plaint schedule property by Rajashekar, he sold acres 2.23 guntas in favour of defendant no.4 in S.No.201/2002 under a registered sale deed dated 30-06-2000. On the same day

Rajashekar also sold acres 5.06 guntas in S.No. 201 and 202 in favour of Gollapalli Harish Babu and Gollapalli Shiridish Babu under a registered sale deed dated 01-07-2002. Similarly one N.Bhaskara Rao,

Son of Ramalinga Rao purchased acres 5.08 guntas in S.No.201 of 2002 from Rajashekar under a registered sale deed dated 30-06-2000.

6

Bhaskar Rao in turn sold it to defendant no.6 under a registered sale deed dated 23-10-2002. The above facts are pleaded by defendants 4 to 6 in their common written statement. The plaintiff not denied them in his chief affidavit evidence. Defendant no.6, who is examined as Dw1 stated the same. Ex.B1 Certified Copy of registered as General Power of Attorney dated 10-12-1997 that defendant no.1 sold acres 6.03 guntas in S.No.201 and acres 6.34 in favour of B.Rajashekar. Ex.B2

Certified Copy of registered sale deed dated 30-06-2000 proved that defendant no.1 through his General Power of Attorney sold acres 2.23 guntas in S.No.201 and 202 in favour of defendant no.4. Ex.B4

Certified Copy of registered sale deed dated 1-7-2002 proved that

Gollapally Shiridish Babu sold acres 2.23 guntas in S.No 201 and 202 in favour of defendant no.5. Ex.B5 Certified Copy of registered sale deed dated 23-10-2002 proved that N.Bhaskar Rao sold acres 5.08 guntas in Sy.No. 201 and 202 in favour of defendant no.6, Ex.B7 to B9 copies of pahanis proved that Narsi Reddy got some other lands in addition to plaint schedule property. No explanation from plaintiff about these lands.

12. PW1 in his cross examination admitted that his father got acres 37 or 38 of land. He also admitted that he did not show all the lands fell to the share of his father in the suit schedule. He admitted that he filed this suit only for acres 12.37 guntas which was sold in favour of defendants 4 to 6 in the year 1997 under registered sale deeds. The reason explained by plaintiff in the cross examination is that the remaining land is in his cultivation. The same cannot be acceptable one.

13. PW1 in his further cross examination admitted that his father (Defendant no.1) purchased a house bearing No.8-5-283/234 in plot 7

No.234 admeasuring 250 square yards at Madhavanagar in Saroornagar in 1999. The same is not shown plaint schedule.

14. He also admitted that his family got an ancestral house in

Tummaluru. The same is not shown in the plaint schedule. A suit for partition with out including all joint family properties is bad and the suit is liable to be dismissed as reported in a case of

Kenchegowda (died) per L.Rs V/s Siddegowda @ Motegowda

reported in 1994 (4) S.Certified Copy 294.

In the light of above discussion, plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties of defendant no.1 and his brother Janga Reddy.

After oral partition with his brother Janga Reddy, it is the Hindu Joint

Family property of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition of plaint schedule property as prayed for in view of decision in issue no.4. I have answered issues 1,2 in favour of the plaintiff and 4 against the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.3:-

15.Though issue no.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff, in the year 1997 itself defendant no.1 sold away plaint schedule property in favour of B.Rajashekar under Ex.B1, the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 lost their possession over plaint schedule property. Hence court fixed court fee paid by plaintiff U/s 34(2) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fed and

Suits Valuation Act is not correct. I have decided this issue against the plaintiff.

ISSUE.NO.5:

8

16.As material issue no. 4 is decided against plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in this suit.

In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs

Dictated to Junior Assistant directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on 23rd February, 2012.

IV Addl. District Judge(FTC), Ranga Reddy District.

Appendix of Evidence:

For Plaintiff: For defendant:

PW1: Maddi Venkataramanareddy DW1: Lingareddygari Jaswanth Reddy For Plaintiff Exhibits: ExA1: Certified Copy of pahani for the yer 1984-85. ExA2: Certified Copy of pahani for the yer 1989-90. ExA1: Certified Copy of pahani for the yer 1992-93. ExA1: Certified Copy of pahani for the yer 1993-94. ExA1: Certified Copy of pahani for the yer 1996-97. ExA1: Certified Copy of pahani for the yer 1999-2000. For defendants Exhibits : Nil

IV Addl. District Judge(FTC), Ranga Reddy District.

9

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE: R. R.DISTRICT

PRESENT: T.Ramesh Babu,M.Com,LL.B

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District

Thursday on this the 23 rd day of February, 2012.

ORIGINAL SUIT No 384 of 2007

Between:

M.Venkat Ramana Reddy, S/o Yadagiri Reddy, age: 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.234, Madhavanagar, Karmanagath, Saroornagar, R.R.District. Plaintiff.

And

1. M.Yadagiri Reddy, S/o Late Narsi Reddy, age:60 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Tummaluru Village, Maheswaram Mandal, R.R.District.

2. M.Karnakar Reddy, S/o M.Yadagiri Reddy, age: 30 years, occ:Business, R/o Plot No.234, Madhavanagar, Karmanaghat village, Saroornagar mandal, R.R.District.

3.M.Ramgopal Reddy, S/o Yadagiri Reddy, age:27 years, Occ: Business, R/o Tummaluru village, Maheswarm Mandal, R.R.District.

4. Smt. Ankireddy Sharmila Reddy, W/o A.Srinivasa Reddy, age:30 years, Occ:housewife, R/o.H.No.10-87,New Gaddinnaram Colony, Dilsukhnagr, Hyderabad.

5. Lingareddy Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o Lingareddy Narayana Reddy, age:40 years, Occ: Agriculture.

6. Lingareddy Jaswanth Reddy, S/o Lingareddy Narayana Reddy, age:42 years, Occ:agriculture.Defendants.

CLAIM : The suit filed U/O.7 Rule 1 of CPC for partition of the suit schedule property into four equal shares and to allot 1/4th share to the, plaintiff and 3/4th share to D1 to D3 by metes and bounds of the suit 10 schedule property.

CAUSE OF ACTION : The cause of action aroused on 01-04-2007 and 10-4-2007 when the plaintiff made demand for partition for which the defendants No.1 to 3 refused for the same and all the defendants threatened that they will alienate the suit land to the third parties as per their whims and fancies, and due to open threates the cause of action is still subsisting .

VALUATION : The suit for partition is valued @ Rs.2,58,25,000/-, and plaintiff 1/4th share comes to Rs.64,56,250/- and 3/4th of market value is Rs.48,42,187.50 ps upon which a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid, U/s.34(2) of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act since Joint possession.

SUIT PRESENTED ON : 19.04.2007

SUIT NUMBERED ON : 19.04.2007

This Suit came before me for final hearing on 14.02.2012 in the presence of Sri.A.H.Chakravarthy, advocate for plaintiff, and Sri. M.Damodar Reddy, advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court doth order and decree as follows:-

1. That the suit be and the same is dismissed without costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on this 23rdday of

February, 2012.

IV Addl. District Judge,

R.R.District.

MEMO OF COSTS

For plaintiffs For Defendants

Stamp on Plaint : 2 00 =00 11

Stamp on Vakalat: 2=00 2=00

Process Fee: 10 0=00 --------------------------------------------------------

Total: 302=00 2=00 ---------------------------------------------------------

IV Addl. District Judge, R.R.District.

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that the part and parcel of the land in Sy.No.201 admeasuring AC.6.02 ½ Guntas; Sy.No.202 admeasuring Ac.6-34 Guntas; in total admeasuring Ac.12-36 1/2 guntas; situated at Thummaloor Village, Maheswaram Mandal, R.R.District, popularly known as Anjnthagadda or Agrajgadda or Anchulagadda bounded by.

West: : Road

East: Neighbours Land

North: Land belongs to Janga Reddy South: Neighbours Land

IV Addl. District Judge, R.R.District.

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: RANGA REDDY

Present: Sri TALLADA RAMESH BABU., M. Com., LL.B.,

IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tuesday, on this the 28th day of February, 2012.

Sessions Case No. 450 of 2011

Between: State Rep. by Police Yacharam Complainant. A n d Smt.Mudavath VijayaLaxmi, W/oManik Singh Age:41 years, Caste: Lambada,Occ:House wife , R/o.Block -I, Room.No.2, P.S.Quarters, Yacharam village and Mandal. Accused

This Sessions Case is coming before me on 28-02-2012 in the presence of Sri A. Ananthsen Reddy , Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and Sri S.Venkatesham, Counsel for Accused and now this court delivered the following:--

J U D G M E N T

1.The Circle Inspector of Police, Yacharam Circle laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. in

Cr. No.161/2010 before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

Ibrahimpatnam with the following allegations: Mudavath Manik singh was working as Assistant Sub Inspector in Yacharam Police Station and residing in Block No1, Quarter no.2 of Yacharam Police Station

Quarters along with his wife and children. He used to come to home in drunken condition and quarrelling with his wife. He got two sons and two daughters. The marriage engagement of his eldest daughter with one A.Santhosh Kumar belongs to Kummari (backward caste) community was celebrated on 10-10-2010. Mansingh belongs to

Schedule Tribe. He is not interested to perform the marriage of his daughter with the said boy. But his daughter was moving very close to the said body. He quarrelled with his wife and asked her to suggest his daughter not to move with the said boy. On 21-10-2010 he came to 2 home with drunken condition and abused all his family members. He caught hold the throat of his daughter Swathi, observing the same his wife rescued her and she pulled him to ground. He woke up and tried to beat Swathi again. It is alleged that his wife brought a pestle and bet him twice and strangulated him with the help of a cleaning cloth. She screened the evidence of murder and gave a colour that Manik Singh committed suicide by consuming Endosulphon Poison. Hence the charge.

2.The learned Magistratre took cognizance under Section 302 IPC in PRC No. 13/2011.

3.After appearnce of the accused, the copies of documents were supplied to her under section 207 Cr.P.C. On hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, the learned Magistrate came to conclusion that the offence under section 302 is exclusively tried by court of Sessions, and committed the case to Sessions Division under section 209 Cr.P.C.

4.The chief Metropolitan Sessions Judge, R.R.District made over the case to Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,after alloting

S.C.No. 450/2011. Subsequently, the case is transferred to this court as per District Court proceedings Dis.No.9071/2011 dated 20-12-2011 to try the case according to law.

5.After the appearance of accused and hearing of both sides, this court framed charges against accused Under Sections 302 and 201

Indian Penal Code. The said charges were read over and explained to 3 accused in Telugu . She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and therefore, fixed the schedule for trial.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 and marked ExsP1 to P7 .

7.The examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material against accused.

8. Arguements of boths sides heard.

9.Perused the entire evidence on record, the points that arise for determination are :

1. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused murdered her

husband Manik Singh on 21-10-2010 as he did not agree to perform

marriage of his eldest daughter with a boy of different community ?

2. Whether Prosecution proved that the accused screened the material evidence about murder of her husband?

POINT 1 and 2

10. It is undisputed fact that Manik Singh was working as Assistant

Sub Inspector of Police, Yacharam Police Station. He was residing along with his wife, two sons and two daughtes in Yacharam Police

Station Quarter -2 , in Block No.I . It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused addicted to alcohol and used to come to home in drunken condition and used to abuse his family members. It is further alleged that the marriage alliance of his eldest daughter was celebrated on 10- 10-2010 with A.Santhosh Kumar belongs to Kummara (backward caste) community. Manik Singh belongs to Schedule Tribe. He is not interested to perform the marriage of his daughter with the said boy.

But his daughter was moving very close to the said body. He quarrelled with his wife and asked her to suggest his daughter not to move with 4 the said boy. On 21-10-2010 he came to home with drunken condition and abused all his family members. He caught hold the throat of his daughter Swathi, observing the same his wife(accused) rescued her and she pulled him to ground. He woke up and again tried to beat Swathi.

It is alleged that his wife brought a pestle and bet him twice and strangulated him with the help of a cleaning cloth. It is also alleged that she poured Endosulphon poison in his mouth to show that he committed suicide. She screened the evidence and gave a colour that

Manik Singh committed suicide by consuming Endosulphon Poison.

11. To prove the said allegations prosecutions examined PW 1 to 10 and relied on Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.

12.Pw1 Mudavath Swathi, the daughter of Mansingh and accused deposed that her father Manik Singh was suffering from stomach ache.

About one and half years back he came to home and found at 4.00 a.m.

She does not know the reason for his death. She did not support the prosecution, turned hostile.

13. PW2 Kethavath Pandu, who is the brther in law of Manik Singh and brother of accused deposed that he was informed about the death of

Manik Singh. He does not know how he died.

14. PW3 Ramavath Ravinder, One of the Police Constable, working in the Yacharam Police Station deposed that he is residing in the Ist floor of the Yacharam Police Quarters. On 21-10-2010 he attended the Court duty and returned to home in the night. He noticed that accused was quarreling with her husband. The next day morning at 4.00 A.M , he found Manik Singh died diad. He did not say anything against the 5 accused except accused quarreling with Manik Singh. He admitted in the cross examination that Manik Singh used to consume alcohol regularly and his health was damaged, especially liver.

15. PW4 Katru Ravinder, another Police Constable deposed in the same fashion of PW3. In the cross examination he stated that there were no disputes between accused and Manik Singh. He also admitted that

Manik Singh addicted to alcohol and his health was damaged.

16. PW5, Billipuram Ravinder, another Constable deposed that on 21- 10-2010 , he returned to his quarter in the night and which he was talking on the phone heard some noise from the house of Manik Singh, he peeped from the window and noticed the accused and her children were quarreling with Manik Singh for half an hour. Next day morning he was informed that Manik Singh died. He got suspicion over the accused. In the cross examination, he admitted that he did not recognise the exact quarrell or talks in the house of Manik Singh. The suspicion however strong it may be , it cannot be acted upon to decide that the accused murdered her husband. This witnesses is not an eye witness to the offence. He did not state anything against the accused as alleged by the prosecution in the chargesheet. Hence his evidence has no help to the prosecution.

17. Pilli Laxmi Narayana , one of the Constable of Yacharam Police

Station was present when Ex.P1 scene observation report was prepared.

He was also present at the time of preparing rough sketch Ex.P2. He stated that police seized Endosulphon bottle and whisky bottle at the house of Manik Singh. He attested Ex.P3 inquest report at the dead body of Manik Singh. No material objects were marked to corroborate 6 his evidence. Even material objects are filed his evidence could not improve the prosecution case to prove that accused committed murder of her husband.

18. PW7 Muppidi Sriramulu, and PW8 Muppidi Sanjeeva who are

Panchayaathdars in whose presence the accused made confession of the offence and led them and police to recover a pestle and a cleaning cloth on her showing. They deposed that their signatures were obtained on some papers by police. They do know the contents of reports on which they signed. They never saw the accused in the police station . The accused never confessed the offence before them. The police did not seize any material objects from the accused in their presence. They did not support the prosecution and turned hostile.

19. Ex.P9, J.Venkatesh and PW10 Narkudi Mahender Photographers who took photographs at the dead body of ManikSingh and at the time of autopsy. The phtographs are Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. The evidence of

Doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Manik Singh and Investigating Officers are closed by Public Prosecutor. None of the circumstantial evidence does not link the circumstances proving that the accused committed murder of her husband on 21-10-2010 in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution also failed to prove that the accused screened evidence of murder,I have answered the points 1 and 2 against the prosecution.

In the result, the prosecution has failed to prove the

offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. against

7

accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is not found guilty

for the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. She is

acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C for the said charges. Her

bail bonds are cancelled.

Directly dictated to Personal Assistant on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 28-02 -2012.

IV ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

R.R. DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of prosecution PW1: Mudavath Swathi PW2: Kethavath Pandu. PW3: Remavath Ravinder PW4: Katru Ravinder 8

PW5:Billipuram Ravinder PW6: Pilli Laxminarayana PW7: Muppid Sriramulu. PW8: Muppidi Sanjeeva Pw9 : J.Venkatesh PW10:Narkudi Mahender PW15:K.Rambhupal Rao

On behalf of accused :Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of prosecution: Ex.P1: scene observation report Ex P2: rough sketch ExP3: inquest report Ex.P4: Confession statement of accused. EXP5:Seizure report Ex.P6 and 7: Photographs.

Material Objects Marked: Nil

IV

ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

R.R. DISTRICT.

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: RANGA REDDY

Present: Sri TALLADA RAMESH BABU., M. Com., LL.B.,

IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tuesday, on this the 28th day of February, 2012.

Sessions Case No. 450 of 2011

Between: State Rep. by Police Yacharam Complainant. A n d Smt.Mudavath VijayaLaxmi, W/oManik Singh Age:41 years, Caste: Lambada,Occ:House wife , R/o.Block -I, Room.No.2, P.S.Quarters, Yacharam village and Mandal. Accused 9

CALENDAR

1. Serial number.: SC.No.450 of 2011

2. Complaint.: 22-10-2010

3. Apprehension of accused : 20-12-2010

4. Release on bail: On Bail

5. case committed by: IV Metropolitan Magistrate Ibrahimpatnam

6. Commencement of trail.: 23-01-2012. 7.Charges framed under Sec.: 302 and 201 IPC

8. Plea of accused. : Not guilty

9. Prosecution conducted by.: Sri.A.Ananthsen Reddy P.P.

10. Accused defended by.: Sri. S.Venkatesham

11. Closure of trail. : 28-2-2012.

12. finding of court.: Found not guilty.

13. Sentence or order. : Acquitted.

14. Reasons for delay.: Originally the case was made over to

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court by chief Metropolitan Sessions Judge.

Subsequently it is transferred to this court as per District Cout Dis No 8972/2011

dated 20-12-2011 and received the bundle on 27-12-2011. Prosecution took time

for production of witnesses. Hence delay.

IVth Addl.Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:

R.R.DISTRICT

Present: Tallada Ramesh Babu,M.Com,LLB

IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tuesday on this the 28th day of February 2012 S.C. 529 of 2011

Between:

The State of A.P.,through P.S.Pahadishareef ---- Complainant

A n d Mohd. Javeed , S/o. Mohd.Gouse, age:35 yrs,Occu:Labour, R/o.Darga ,Pahadishareef (V), Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District . --- Accused

This matter came before me for hearing on 28-2- 2012 in the presence of Addl.Public Prosecutor Sri A.AnanthSen Reddy, for Prosecution and R.Kumar Goud, Advocate for accused and this court now delivering the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Sub Inspector of Police, Pahadishareef Police Station, laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable

U/sec.307 IPC in Cr.No.120 of 2011 before XIV Metropolitan

Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar alleging that on 26-3-2011 at

evening time the accused quarrelled with Sheik Abdul Sultana at that time Bin Salam Ba Ismael intervened and send the accused away. The accused bore grudge against him and decided to kill him. On the same day at about 8.00 P.M while he was standing near swimming pool of Pahadishareef the accused stabbed him on his head with an intention to kill him and caused bleeding injuries.

Hence the charge.

2

2.The learned Magistrate took cognisance under section 307

I.P.C.

3.After appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were supplied to him and after hearing both sides the learned

Magistrate committed the case to court of Sessions as the offence

under section 307 I.P.C is exclusively tried by court of Sessions .

4.The chief Metro Politan Sessions Judge,R.R.District made over the case to Additional Metro Politan Sessions Judge,after alloting S.C.No. 529/2011. Subsequently the case is transferred to this court as per District Court proceedings Dis.No.8972/2011

dated 20-12-2011 to try the case according to law.

5.On appearance of the accused before this court and on hearing both sides charge under section 307 I.P.C was framed against accused. The said charge was explained to accused in

Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed for trail.

6.Pw1 and 2 are examined Ex:P1 to Ex.P3 are marked on behalf of prosecution.

7.The examination of accused is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material against him.

8.Arguments of both sides heard.

9. The point for determination is whether the accused stabbed PW1

Obed Bin Salam Ba Ismail on his head with an intention to kill him on

3

26-3-2011 at 8.30 P.M near swimming pool of Pahadishareef ?

POINT:

10. It is an admitted fact that the accused Mohd Javeed and the injured Abed Bin Salam Ba Ismael , who is PW1 are residents of

Pahadishareef village. The prosecution alleged that on 23-6-2011 the accused and Sheik Abdul Sultan quarrelled each other and

PW1 intervened and send the accused away. The accused bore grudge and stabbed PW1 on the same day at 8.30 P.M with an intention to kill him.

11.To prove the prosecution case Prosecution examined the injured Obed Bin Salam Ba Ismail is examined as Pw1. He deposed that the accused never stabbed him. In March 2011 there was a galata near swimming pool of Pahadishareef. He went there to see the incident, one among the mob stabbed on his head he failed to say whether the accused was in the mob or not. Ex.P1 is his report , he did not support the prosecution and turned hostile.

He filed to identify the accused and failed to say who caused injuries to him.The part of his statement recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C is marked as Ex:P2. His evidence has no help to the prosecution case and cross examination of this witness could not bring any favourable information to the prosecution.

12.PW2 Ameer Bin Salam Ba Ismail, who is brother of PW1 and eye witness to the offence deposed that he does not know the accused and accused never stabbed PW1. He further deposed that in March 2011 there was a galata near swimming pool of 4

Pahadishareef. He went there to see the incident, PW1 went there somebody in the mob stabbed on his head. He failed to say whether the accused was in the mob or not. He did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. He filed to identify the accused and failed to say who caused injuries to PW1. The part of his statement recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C is marked as Ex:P3. His evidence has no help to the prosecution case and cross examination of this witness could not bring any favourable information to the prosecution.

13. The evidence of other witnessess is given up by the Public

Prosecutor as the injured and eye witness not supported the prosecution. Prosecution evidence is closed.

14. The examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material against him.

15. Arguments of both sides heard.

16.Since the material eye witnessess and injured not supported the prosecution the evidence of other witnessess are given by the

Public Prosecutor. In the light of above discussion prosecution failed to prove the charge under section 307 I.P.C against A1 to

A4. I have answered this point against the prosecution.

In the result, the prosecution failed to prove the charge under

section 307 I.P.C against accused beyond the reasonable

doubt. Accused is not found guilty for the charge under

section 307 I.P.C and he is acquitted under section 332 Cr.P.C.

5

His bail bonds are cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant on computer, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this 28th day of Febrauary 2012.

IV. ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE

R.R. DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of prosecution

PW1 - Obed Bin Salam Ba Ismail

PW2 - Ameer Bin Salam Ba Ismail

On behalf of accused : NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of prosecution:

Ex.P1 - report given to the police by Pw1

Ex.P2 - Statement of Pw1 recorded by police U/s 161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P3 - Statement of Pw2 recorded by police U/s 161 Cr.P.C.

6

Material objects marked : Nil

IV ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE

R.R. DISTRICT.

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:

R.R.DISTRICT

Present: Tallada Ramesh Babu,M.Com,LLB

IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tuesday on this the 28th day of February 2012 S.C. 529 of 2011

Between:

The State of A.P.,through P.S.Pahadishareef ---- Complainant

A n d Mohd. Javeed , S/o. Mohd.Gouse, age:35 yrs,Occu:Labour, R/o.Darga ,Pahadishareef (V), Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District .

---

Accused

CALENDAR

1. Serial number.: SC.No.529 of 2011. : 26-3-2011.

2. Complaint.

3. Apprehension of appearence : 01-09-2011.

7 4.Release on bail : On Bail. 5.case committed by: XIV Metropolitan Magistrate L.B.Nagar.

6. Commencement of trail.: 27-2-2012.

7. Charges framed under Sec.: 307 IPC

8. plea of accused. : Not guilty

9. Prosecution conducted by.: Sri.A.Ananthsen Reddy P.P.

10. Accused defended by.: Sri.R.Kumar Goud

11. Closure of trail. : 28-02-2012.

12. finding of court.: Found not guilty.

13. Sentence or order. : Acquitted.

14. Reasons for delay.: Originally the case was made over to

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court by chief Metropolitan Sessions Judge.

Subsequently it is transferred to this court as per District Cout Dis No 8972/2011

dated 20-12-2011. Accused took time for hearing on charges. Hence the delay.

IVth Addl.Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District