Dr T Srinivas Rao

1 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRPERSON, MOTOR

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-I-ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE, HANUMAKONDA

Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026

PRESENT: Dr.Thatta Srinivas Rao,

Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court,

Hanumakonda,

FAC Chairperson,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I-Additional District Judge,

Hanumakonda.

M.V.O.P.NO.26 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

1.Bandi Sharadha, w/o Babu Rao, Aged: 48 years, Occu: Housewife,

2.Bandi Babu Rao, s/o Saraiah, Aged: 53 years, Occu: Nil,

3.Bandi Nagaraju, s/o Babu Rao, Aged: 33 years, Occu: Agriculture, all are R/o H.No.1-25/1, Shanigaram Village, Man: Kamalapur, Dist: Hanumakonda.

4.Bandi Mounika, w/o Neduri Rajesh, d/o Babu Rao, Aged: 24 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o H.No.5-1-21, Padmashali Street, Jammikunta Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.…Petitioners 2 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023

AND

1.Nukalamarri Raghupathi, s/o Buchinarasaiah, Aged: Major, Occu: Driver of the crime vehicle, R/o H.No.11-58, Angadi Bazar, Kummariwada, Parkal Village and Mandal, Hanumakonda District.

2.Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.…Respondents

This Original Petition came up before me for final hearing on 20.4.2026 in the presence of Dr.T.Krishna Murthy, Counsel for the petitioners and of Sri T.Pradeep Kumar, Counsel for the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1 remained ex parte; upon hearing and on consideration of the material evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till date, this Tribunal made the following:

:: A W A R D ::

1.The petitioners filed the present petition under Section 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of

A.P.M.V. Rules 1989, against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.1,02,00,000/- (Rupees One crore two lakhs only) for the death of deceased-Bandi Naresh in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 19.1.2023 at about 15.30 hours at the outskirts of Cherlapally Village, Nadikuda Mandal, 3 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023

Hanumakonda District, involving TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP36

Z0168 driven by the respondent No.1 and owned by the respondent No.2.

2.The averments of the petition in nutshell are, as follows:

(i).That the deceased-Bandi Naresh, s/o Babu Rao, who is aged 27 years at the time of his death and he worked as CISF

Constable vide CISF No.170735115 CT/GD Rank (Central

Industrial Security Force) under Ministry of Home Affairs,

Government of India at PTPS Panki Unit, Commandant, O/o

CISF Unit PTPS Panki, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh and drawn salary of Rs.45,554/- per month and used to contribute the same to the petitioners, who are wholly depended upon him. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are parents, the petitioner No.3 is the brother and the petitioner No.4 is the sister of the deceased.

(ii).On 19.1.2023 the deceased-Bandi Naresh was proceeded to Varikole village to meet his friend on his Bajaj Pulsar

Motorcycle bearing No.TS03 FA553 who was having valid driving license and at about 15.30 hours when he reached at 4 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 the outskirts of Cherlapally village, meanwhile one TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP36 Z0168 (for short crime vehicle) driven by its driver came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased, resulting the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

(iii). It is further submitted that on the complaint made by one

Bandi Sambaiah, the police Parkal registered a case in

Cr.No.19/2023 under Section 304A of IPC against the driver of

TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP36 Z-0168.

(iv). It is further submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 27 years and worked as CISF

Constable and drawn salary of Rs.45,554/- per month and used to contribute the same to the welfare of his family members.

The deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was unmarried. Due to the death of the deceased, the petitioner were put to mental shock and agony and also lost love and affection and also lost future dependency on the 5 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 deceased. If the deceased would have alive, he would get promotions such as Head Constable, ASI, SI, CI and ASP, SP in the department and his salary may be increased. Therefore, the petitioners are claiming a total compensation of

Rs.1,02,00,000/- (Rupees One crore two lakhs only) against the respondents on all counts.

(v).It is further submitted that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle during the course of his employment with the respondent No.2, who is owner of the crime vehicle and who has appointed the respondent No.1 and permitted him to drive the crime vehicle, hence, the respondent is vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

3.Though the respondent No.1 appeared through his

Counsel, but he failed to file his counter, hence, he was set ex parte.

4(i). The respondent No.2 appeared before this tribunal and filed counter by denying the averments made in the petition 6 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 inter alia contended that the petitioners suppressed the real facts and filed the petition against the respondents in order to claim compensation. It is further submitted that the deceased drove his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed in opposite direction and dashed at front right side of the bus, resulting his death on the spot.

(ii).It is further submitted that the Inspector of Police, PS

Parkal submitted final report under Section 173 of Cr.PC which clearly shows that the deceased rode his bike in a rash and negligent manner and hit to the alleged bus in opposite direction and sustained injuries to his head and died and it is a fit case to refer as ‘Action Abated’ and referred the case as ‘Action Abated’. Hence, the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and the driver of the crime vehicle was not responsible for the accident, as such, the respondent

Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation.

(iii). It is further submitted that there are no merits in the petition. The respondent reserves its right for filing additional 7 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 counter as and when required in this case. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent with exemplary costs.

5.Basing on the above pleadings of both sides, the following issues are framed and settled for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred on 19.1.2023 at about 15.30 hours at the outskirts of Cherlapalli Village, Nadikuda Mandal, Hanumakonda District, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/ driver of the TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP36 Z0168?

2. Whether the deceased Bandi Naresh due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and in that accident he fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

4. To what relief?

6.During the trial, the petitioner No.3 examined himself as

PW1 and got marked Exs-A1 to A10. The petitioners also got examined PWs 2 and 3 and got marked Exs-A11 to A15 through 8 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023

PW3. On behalf of the respondent No.2, it got examined the respondent No.1 as RW1 and got marked Exs-B1 to B3 and also got examined RW2.

7.Heard arguments. Perused the entire record and the citations filed by the learned Counsels for the petitioners.

8.The learned Counsel for the petitioners filed the following case-laws:

I. National Insurance Company Limited vs

Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition 9 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.”

II. Bimla Devi and others vs Himachal Road

Transport Corporation and others reported in

2009 ACJ 1725, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “it was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.”

III. Harpeet Kaur and others vs Mohinder

Yadav and others in Civil Appeal No.9233 of

2022, dated 15.12.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation 10 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium.

Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the

Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.”

IV. Anjana Narayan Kamble and others vs

Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance

Company Limited and another reported in 2022

Supreme (SC) 1811, wherein the Hon’ble Apex

Court held that “in view of the enunciation of law, we find that the High Court was not justified in deducting 30% of the amount of compensation assessed by the

Tribunal for the reason that the deceased was triple 11 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 riding the motorcycle or was not wearing a helmet.

The violation of rules for driving a motor vehicle is not a ground to deduct the amount of compensation awarded unless there is proof of either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized.”

V. United India Insurance Company Limited

represented by its Divisional Manager vs

Smt.K.Swaroopa Rani and others reported in

2013 (1) ALD 369, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “contents of salary certificate can be looked into. Amendment of claim petition can be allowed at any stage. As no time limit prescribed for claiming compensation, question of enhanced claim being barred by limitation does not arise.”

VI. G.Ramulu alias Venkat Ramulu vs The

Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road

Transport Corporation reported in 2011 AAC

12 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 338, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “the learned Chief Judge except stating that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol while driving the vehicle, did not mention anything in his order as to what is the actual extent of alcohol in the blood and as to whether it exceeded the permissible limit of 30mg per 100 litre of blood so as to make the appellant incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle, as contemplated under Section 185 of

M.V. Act. Hence, the matter is liable to be remanded to the learned Chief Judge for fresh adjudication on this aspect.”

There is no dispute with regard to ratio laid down in the above cited decisions.

9.ISSUE NOs.1 AND 2:(1) Whether the accident

occurred on 19.1.2023 at about 15.30 hours at the

outskirts of Cherlapalli Village, Nadikuda Mandal,

Hanumakonda District, due to rash and negligent

13 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023

driving of respondent No.1/driver of the TSRTC Bus

bearing No.AP36 Z0168? AND (2) Whether the deceased

Bandi Naresh due to the rash and negligent driving of

respondent No.1 and in that accident he fell down on

the road and sustained fatal injuries and died on the

spot?

Since the Issue Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked with each other, they are answered together.

(i).This has been the case of the petitioners that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are parents, the petitioner No.3 is the brother and the petitioner No.4 is the sister of late Bandi

Naresh, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 19.1.2023 hereinafter will be called as deceased. Being the legal heirs of deceased, the petitioners are claiming compensation of

Rs.1,02,00,000/- for the death of deceased in the road traffic accident along with interest and costs.

(ii).On behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner No.3 examined himself as PW1 and has filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief 14 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 examination, as contemplated under Order XVIII Rule-4(1) of

CPC. His evidence is nothing but replica of petition pleadings.

During cross-examination, he stated that he got married and his sister’s marriage also performed. He further stated that,

RTC bus dashed against the bike of his brother, who worked as

CISF constable at Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh State and used to earn

Rs.45,300/- per month. The accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus. On the death of his brother they received Rs.3,30,000/- from his department and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Immediately after the accident photographs were taken. Therefore, even though the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent cross- examined PW1, the evidence of PW1 was unshaken to the extent of nature of accident occurred.

10.In order to prove the claim of the petitioners, the petitioner No.3 examined himself as PW1 and they got examined PWs 2 and 3 and got marked Exs-A1 to A15. Ex-A1 is certified copy of FIR along with complaint. Ex-A2 is certified copy of Inquest Report. Ex-A3 is certified copy of P.M.E.

15 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023

Report. Ex-A4 is original SSC Memo of the deceased. Ex-A5 is original BA consolidated memorandum of marks of deceased.

Ex-A6 is original Certificate of completion issued by Central

Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affair. Ex-A7 is original Identity Card of the deceased issued by CISF. Ex-A8 is certified copy of Protest petition in Crl.M.P.No. 523/2023 in

C.C.No.2/2025 on file of JMFC Court at Parkal. Ex-A9 is certified copy of Original FSL report. Ex-A10 is original Driving License of the deceased. Ex-A11 is attested copy of Authorization letter. Ex-A12 is attested copy of Service Report. Ex-A13 is attested copy of pay slip for the month of December, 2022.

Ex-A14 is attested copy of pay slip for the month of November, 2022. Ex-A15 is attested copy of pay matrix. On the other side the contesting respondent has got examined RWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs-B1 to B3. Ex-B1 is photographs along with pen drive. Ex-B2 is attested copy of final report (marked subject to objection). Ex-B3 is attested copy of trip sheet (marked subject to objection).

16 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023

11.In addition to the evidence of PW1, the petitioners got marked Ex-A1 certified copy of FIR along with complaint which discloses that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Therefore, through the oral testimony of PW1 coupled with documentary evidence of Ex-A1 certified copy of FIR along with complaint, the fact is categorically established by the petitioners that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent

No.1, resulting in the death of the deceased Bandi Naresh in a road traffic accident.

12.Whereas, coming to the testimony of PW2 who is said to be an eye witness to the alleged accident. He deposed that he saw the accident occurred on 19.1.2023 while he was proceeding to Venkateshwarlapally to Puligilla side and at about 15.30 hours when he reached at the outskirts of

Cherlapally village, at that time the deceased Bandi Naresh reached the said place on his Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle, meanwhile one TSRTC Bus bearing No.AP36 Z0168 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed 17 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased in opposite direction, resulting the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. He further deposed that, the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Even though, the learned Counsel for contested respondent cross- examined PW2, nothing was elicited to discard the evidence of

PW2. Thereby, the evidence of PW2 has been found purely reliable in respect of proof that PW2 is an eye witness to the accident and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle.

13.On the other side, the contesting respondent examined

RW1 who is driver of the crime vehicle i.e. respondent No.1.

According to him, he deposed that the deceased rode his

Pulsar bike bearing No.TS03 FA5543 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to his bus bearing

No.AP36 Z0168 to the right side headlight, who did not wear helmet and sustained head injuries and died on the spot. He further deposed that the deceased seems to be drunk and rode 18 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 his motorcycle. He further deposed that the passengers of the bus who sat in front seat witnessed the same and also conductor of the bus also witnessed the same. During the cross-examination of RW1, he admitted that the family members of the deceased contested the matter by filing protest petition, wherein he engaged Advocate and appeared

before the Court in C.C.No.2 of 2025.

14.The contesting respondent also got examined the conductor of the crime vehicle as RW2. According to her, she deposed that Bandi Naresh who drove his pulsar bike in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to TSRTC

Bus bearing No.AP36 Z0168. The driver of the bus stopped the bus and kept left side of the road, who did not wear helmet and died on the spot. She further deposed that, the driver of the bus informed about the accident to the police and reported the matter to their higher authorities and the police registered the case and she came to know that the case was closed against the driver of the bus. During the cross-examination of RW2, she deposed that the SR does not bear the signature of the 19 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 driver. She has not mentioned the ticket numbers and phone numbers of the passengers in the SR.

15.Though, the contesting respondent mentioned in its counter that the Inspector of Police, PS Parkal investigated the case and filed final report referring the case as ‘Action Abated’.

It is not in dispute that protest petition is filed by one Bandi

Sambaiah and the same is numbered as C.C.No.2 of 2025 which is pending on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Parkal. But the police Parkal did not challenge the

said order. Having seen the photographs under Ex-B1, the maxim Res ipsa Loquitor is applicable to this case, the tyre marks of the bus itself shows that there is rash or negligence driving on the part of respondent No.1/driver in driving the crime vehicle, because, admittedly it is a single road.

Therefore, the plea took by RWs 1 and 2 that due to negligence of the deceased the accident occurred is not acceptable.

16.In Bimla Devi and others vs Himachal Road

Transport Corporation and others, Kaushnumma Begum

20 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023

and others vs New Indira Assurance Company Limited

and in National Insurance Company Limited vs Pusha

Rana, it has been held that:

“the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable.”

17.However, Ex-B2 and Ex-B3 were marked subject to objection. Ex-B2 is marked as final report, though, it appears that it is a statistical ticket and accountal record (STAR) but it is no way helpful to the case of the respondents and also Ex-B3 is trip sheet is also no way helpful to the case of the respondent.

Therefore, they are marked subject to objection, the objection is not sustained.

18.In view of the above citation referred supra and from the material on record, it is clear that the deceased died in motor 21 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 vehicle accident and that the said accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle.

Accordingly, the Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

19.ISSUE NO.3:Whether the petitioners are entitled

to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from

whom?

Before adverting to the quantum of compensation, it is

settled law is that computation of compensation is based on the principle of ‘just compensation’ and Courts have consistently held that it should not be a bonanza or manna from heaven to the legal representatives of the deceased or injured, nor there should be an unjust enrichment.

20.The petitioners filed the petition by claiming compensation of Rs.1,02,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum, under all heads, as compensation for the death of the deceased in the accident.

22 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023

21.Further, though it is claimed by the petitioners that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 27 years. As per Ex.A4, the date of birth of the deceased is 6.2.1994. The accident occurred on 19.1.2023. Therefore, the deceased was aged about 28 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, this Court came to conclusion that the age of the deceased as 28 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, as per the decision of Sarla Verma’s case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the suitable multiplier is ‘17’.

22.In respect of employment and income of the deceased, the petitioners contended that the deceased worked as CISF

Constable and used to earn Rs.45,554/- per month. In support of their contention, the petitioners got examined PW3, who deposed that Bandi Naresh used to work as constable general duty and his gross salary for the month of December, 2022 is

Rs.45,554/-. He further deposed that there was a possibility for him to be promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police by the date of his superannuation if he was alive and through him Exs-A11 to A15 were marked. As per Ex-A13 attested copy of pay slip 23 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 for the month of December, 2022 his net pay is Rs.38,498/- after standard deductions. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased is considered as Rs.4,61,976/- (Rs.38,498/- X 12).

23.Further, the Honourable Supreme Court of India at New

Delhi in National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay

Sethi and others dated 31.10.2017 reported in 2017 ACJ

2700, their Lordships have observed as follows: “while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax and also observed as follows: “Reasonable figures under conventional heads, namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-,

Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively.” 24 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023

24.By following the said decision as the deceased was considered as CISF Constable and was aged about 28 years, hence there must be an addition of 50 percent to the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.

25.Therefore, in view of the above citation, the petitioners are entitled to compensation, accordingly as the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.38,498/- per month and his annual income works out to Rs.4,61,976/- (Rupees Four Lakhs

Sixty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Six only) (Rs.38,498/- X 12). As the age of the deceased was 28 years an addition of 50% to his actual income, which comes to

Rs.2,30,988/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Thousand Nine

Hundred and Eighty Eight only) (Rs.4,61,976/- X 50%) and the total annual income is Rs.6,92,964/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety

Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Four only) (Rs.4,61,976/- + Rs.2,30,988/-). As the deceased is a bachelor, therefore, 50% is deducted towards his personal expenses, which comes to Rs.3,46,482/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Six

Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty two only) (Rs.6,92,964/- X 25 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 50%) and after deducting the above said amount, he would have contributed to Rs.3,46,482/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty

Six Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty two only) (Rs.6,92,964/- minus Rs.3,46,482/-) towards his family for maintenance.

Since the deceased is aged about 28 years, the multiplier is 17. The annual income should be multiplied by 17.

Ultimately total income works out to Rs.58,90,194/- (Rupees

Fifty Eight Lakhs Ninety Thousand One Hundred and Ninety

Four only), (Rs.3,46,482/- X 17) and the same is awarded towards loss of dependency of the petitioners.

26.Further, in view of the guidelines of the aforementioned

Judgment, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses of deceased which comes to Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) under conventional head. In total the petitioners are entitled to

Rs.59,60,194/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Sixty Thousand One

Hundred and Ninety Four only) as shown in table below:

26 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023

SL. HEADS CALCULATION

NO.

1.Actual incomeRs.38,498-00 X 12 = Rs.4,61,976-00

2.Age of the deceased28 years

3.Add50%futureprospectsRs.2,30,988-00+ (Rs.4,61,976/-X50%=Rs.4,61,976/-= Rs.2,30,988/-)Rs.6,92,964-00

4.Deduct 50% towards his personalRs.6,92,964-00 minus expenses since the deceased isRs.3,46,482-00= Rs.3,46,482-00 bachelor (Rs.6,92,964 X 50% = Rs.3,46,482/-)

5.Multiplier17

6.Income X multiplierRs.3,46,482-00 X 17 = Rs.58,90,194-00

7.Compensation towards loss ofRs.15,000-00 estate

8.Funeral expensesRs.15,000-00

9.ConsortiumRs.40,000-00

Total compensation awarded Rs.59,60,194-00

27.Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.59,60,194-00 (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Sixty Thousand

One Hundred and Ninety Four only).

28.LIABILITY:It is the argument of the respondent No.2 that they are not liable to pay any compensation, as the deceased who was in drunken state and he himself was 27 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 negligent and is responsible for the accident. In support of its contention, it got examined the respondent No.1 as RW1 and got examined the conductor of the crime vehicle as RW2 but nothing worth was elicited to disprove the credibility of the evidence of the petitioners.

29.Moreover, the petitioners filed Ex-A9 certified copy of FSL report which discloses that the Item Nos.1 and 2 are analyzed but Ethyl Alcohol is not found in them. Therefore, the contention of the respondent No.2 that the deceased was in drunken state is not tenable.

30.In support of its contention, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 filed the following case-law:

I. Sohan Singh vs National Insurance

Company reported in 2009 (3) TAC 859 (HP), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “deceased himself driving vehicle when accident took place.

Liability under Section 163A of M.V Act being owner of vehicle. A person cannot be both a claimant as 28 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 also a respondent. Dependents of deceased cannot maintain a claim in terms of Section 163A of the Act.

More so one of claimants being owner of the vehicle and deceased was himself responsible for causing accident.”

The said citation is not applicable to the present case on hand, because, the deceased herein is not respondent in this case.

31.In view of the foregoing discussion and also in view of the findings in Issue Nos.1 and 2, the respondent No.1 being the driver of the crime vehicle, and the respondent No.2 is the

Managing Director of TSRTC at Hyderabad. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 2, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, as the respondent No.2 is vicariously liable for the acts of the respondent No.1. Therefore, respondent No.2 is liable for payment of the compensation.

32.RATE OF INTEREST: The petitioners are claiming interest @ Rs.12% per annum. As per the principles laid down 29 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 by the Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance

Company Limited vs Charlie and another, this tribunal award an interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

33.ISSUE NO.4:To what relief?

IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part by awarding total compensation for an amount of Rs.59,60,194/-

(Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Sixty Thousand One Hundred

and Ninety Four only) with costs against the respondents and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same, with subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount.

i.The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the awarded amount within ONE month from the date of this Order.

ii.After deposit of the above said amount, the petitioner No.1 is awarded an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) along with interest and proportionate costs, out of which, she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest and proportionate costs and the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be kept in deposit for a period of 2 years in any Nationalized bank.

30 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023 iii.That the petitioner No.2 is awarded an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) along with interest and proportionate costs, out of which, he is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest and proportionate costs and the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be kept in deposit for a period of 2 years in any Nationalized bank.

iv.That the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are awarded an amount of Rs.4,80,097/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Thousand and Ninety Seven only) each along with interest and proportionate costs and they are permitted to withdraw their respective share amount soon after the deposit is made along with interest and proportionate costs.

v.The Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 27th day of April, 2026)

Sd/- Dr.Thatta Srinivas Rao,

FAC CHAIRPERSON,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

31 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS

PETITION NAME OF THE DESCRIPTION

ER WITNESS

WITNESS

NUMBER

PW1Bandi NagarajuPetitioner No.3

PW2E.ThirupathiEye witness

PW3Aditya KumarAssistantCommandant Fire

FOR RESPONDENTS

RESPOND NAME OF THE DESCRIPTION

ENT WITNESS

WITNESS

NUMBER

RW1NukalamarriRespondent No.1 Raghupathi

RW2P.Usha RaniConductor of the crime vehicle

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROVED BY/

NUMBER EXHIBIT ATTESTED BY

Ex-A1Certified copy of FIR alongPW1 with complaint .

Ex-A2Certified copy of InquestPW1 Report.

32 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023

Ex-A3Certified copy of P.M.E.PW1 Report.

Ex-A4Original SSC Memo of thePW1 deceased.

Ex-A5Original BA consolidatedPW1 memorandum of marks of deceased.

Ex-A6OriginalCertificateofPW1 completion issued by Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affair.

Ex-A7Original Identity Card of thePW1 deceased issued by CISF.

Ex-A8Certified copy of ProtestPW1 petition in Crl.M.P.No. 523/2023 in C.C. No.2/2025 on file of JMFC Court at Parkal.

Ex-A9Certified copy of Original FSLPW1 report.

Ex-A10Original Driving License of thePW1 deceased.

Ex-A11AttestedcopyofPW3 Authorization letter.

Ex-A12Attested copy of ServicePW3 Report.

Ex-A13Attested copy of pay slip forPW3 the month of December, 2022.

Ex-A14Attested copy of pay slip forPW3 the month of November, 2022.

Ex-A15Attested copy of pay matrix. PW3 33 OF 33

MVOP NO.26 OF 2023

FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex-B1Photographs along with penRW1 drive.

Ex-B2Attested copy of final reportRW1 (marked subject to objection)

Ex-B3Attested copy of trip sheetRW1 (marked subject to objection)

Sd/- Dr.Thatta Srinivas Rao,

FAC CHAIRPERSON,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

1 OF 14 S.C(P).NO.52 OF 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

(I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE) HANUMAKONDA

Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026

PRESENT: Dr.Thatta Srinivas Rao, Chairman, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hanumakonda, FAC Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under POCSO Act (I-Additional Sessions Judge) Hanumakonda.

SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) NO.52 OF 2024

(in Crime No.295 of 2023 of P.S. Subedari)

1.Name and description ofThe State of Telangana, represented the complainantby the Inspector of Police, PS Subedari.

2.Name and description ofA1. Lankadasari Anil Kumar, s/o the accusedLingaiah, Aged: 30 years, SC Madiga, Occu: Boys Hostel Warden, R/o AmanagurthyVillage,Saidapur Mandal, Karimnagar District.

A2. Paripelly Nagaraju, s/o Sathyam,Aged:28years, Padmashali,Occu:PET,R/o Pulukurthy, Damera, Hanumakonda District.

A3. Lavudya Gavaskar @ Gaffer, s/o Hathiram, Aged: 28 years, Lambada,Occu:PET,R/o Seethampet, Badradri Kothagudem District.

2 OF 14 S.C(P).NO.52 OF 2024

3.Offences chargedSections 382, 376 read with 511, 354A and 354C read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 7 read with 8 and 11 read with 12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 66D and 66E of Information Technology Act.

4.Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

5.Finding of the CourtFound not guilty.

6.Conviction, sentence orIN THE RESULT, the accused Nos.1 acquittaland 2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 382, 376 read with 511, 354A and 354C read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 7 read with 8 and 11 read with 12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 66D and 66E of Information Technology Act and the accused No.3 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the above said offences. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months as provided under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarked case property i.e. Realme Norzo mobile phone silver colour which was given to the accused No.2 towards interim custody vide Orders in Crl.M.P.No.573 of 2023, dated 12.7.2023 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked non-valuable 3 OF 14 S.C(P).NO.52 OF 2024 case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7.Name of the Counsel forSri B.Rajamalla Reddy, Addl. P.P the prosecution

8.Name of the Counsel forSri K.Krupakar Rao, Advocate accused

This case is coming on for final hearing on 27.4.2026

before me in the presence of Sri B.Rajamalla Reddy,

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant

and of Sri K.Krupakar Rao, learned Counsel for the accused; upon hearing arguments, upon considering the material evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Police Station Subedari, had laid charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 382, 376 read with 511, 354A and 354C read with 34 of the

Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), Sections 7 read with 8 and 11 read with 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 (for short POCSO Act) and Sections 66D and 66E of Information Technology Act (for short IT Act) against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and for the offence 4 OF 14 S.C(P).NO.52 OF 2024 punishable under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused No.3 in Cr.No.295 of 2023.

2.The Alpha and Omega of the case of the prosecution is as follows:

(i).That on 18.5.2023 at 23.00 hours the de facto complainant/LW1, who is father of the victim girl/LW2 has lodged a complaint stating that, his daughter is studying

Bi.PC 2nd year in SR Prime College, Hunter Road, Shayampet,

Hanumakonda by staying in the hostel. About 30 days back, hostel warden namely Anil Kumar i.e. accused No.1 threatened his daughter saying that he is having her nude photos while bathing and harassed her and also extorted one gold chain weighing two tulas from his daughter. He also threatened his daughter that he will viral her nude photos in social media, Whatsapp if she informs the incident to anybody, as such, his daughter did not inform the same to anyone. On 17.5.2023 at about 08.00 hours one

Nagaraju i.e. accused No.2 who used to work in the same college also harassed his daughter by showing her nude photos in his mobile and not allowed her to come outside 5 OF 14 S.C(P).NO.52 OF 2024 the classroom and the accused No.2 with the help of Gafoor i.e. accused No.3 had attempted to commit rape on his daughter. The accused No.2 misbehaved with his daughter by touching her body and he also threatened his daughter that he will viral her nude photos in social media. Later, his daughter informed the said incident to college incharge, who inturn informed the same to them.

(ii).On the complaint given by the de facto complainant, the police Subedari registered a case in Cr.No.295/2023 under Sections 382, 354A, 354C read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code, Section 11 read with 12 of POCSO Act and Sections 66D and 66E of IT Act and issued FIR, examined and recorded the statement of the victim under video coverage and also examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared crime details form in the presence of two mediators, affected the arrest of A1 to A3 and recorded their confessional statement and seized Realme Norzo mobile phone silver colour from A2 under cover of panchanama in the presence of two mediators and on collection of relevant documents and after 6 OF 14 S.C(P).NO.52 OF 2024 completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences as mentioned above.

3.This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 382, 376 read with 511, 354A and 354C read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 7 read with 8 and 11 read with 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 66D and 66E of Information

Technology Act, against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and issued summons to them.

4.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 3, the copies of the documents were supplied to them as provided under

Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and the

Counsel representing the accused, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined and charges under Sections 382, 376 read with 511, 354A and 354C read with 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, Sections 7 read with 8 and 11 read with 12 of The

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 7 OF 14 S.C(P).NO.52 OF 2024

Sections 66D and 66E of Information Technology Act against

A1 and A2 and under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code against A3 were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they denied the said charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs-P1 to P4. Further, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

LWs 3 to 7, 9 to 13 (LW3-Smt.T.Shravani, LW4-

Smt.Kandugula Rajitha, LW5-Guguloth Gouthami, LW6-

Enugula Ramana Reddy, LW7-Manda Rajesh, LW9-Pathipaka

Arunkumar, LW10-Smt.Ch.Sravana Swathi, LW11-Ch.Raju,

LW12-M.A.Shukur and LW13-P.Satyanarayana Reddy) as PWs 1 to 3 turned hostile and there is no incriminating evidence against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of the 8 OF 14 S.C(P).NO.52 OF 2024 accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is dispensed with.

8.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also learned Counsel for the accused. Perused the entire record.

9.Now, the point for determination is “whether the

prosecution could bring home the guilt of the

accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable

under Sections 382, 376 read with 511, 354A and

354C read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections

7 read with 8 and 11 read with 12 of The Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and Sections

66D and 66E of Information Technology Act and under

Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code against A3

beyond reasonable doubt”?

10.POINT:This has been the charge framed against the accused that the accused Nos.1 to 3 committed theft of one gold chain from the victim by putting her in fear and that the accused Nos.1 and 2 attempted to commit rape on 9 OF 14 S.C(P).NO.52 OF 2024 the victim and also committed sexual harassment on the victim with physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures and also took nude photos of the victim in the cell phone without her consent violating the privacy of the victim and also threatened the victim by saying that A1 and A2 will viral the nude photos of the victim in social media and Whatsapp and thereby the accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offences as mentioned above.

11.In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused Nos.1 to 3, the prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs-P1 to P4. On the other side the plea of the accused is of total denial.

12.PW1 is the de facto complainant and father of the victim girl. PW2 is the victim girl. This is the testimony of

PW1 that about two and half years back dispute took place between his family and the accused, then he went to the police station to report the matter, there the police took his signature on written paper. He does not know what was 10 OF 14 S.C(P).NO.52 OF 2024 written in it and the police never examined him. But he admitted his signature on the complaint, dated 18.5.2023 which is marked as Ex-P1. Further, the testimony of PW2 who is victim girl is in the similar lines as that of PW1. She further deposed that she does not know further facts of the case and the police never examined her. The testimony of

PW3, who is panch witness for confession panchanama of the accused is that the he does not know the accused.

About three years back, he went to Subedari police station on his personal work, there the police took his signature on some papers. He does not know the contents mentioned therein. But he admitted his signature on the confession panchanama of the accused, dated 22.5.2023 which is marked as Ex-P4. Thereby, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 shows that they did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Accordingly, the 161 Cr.PC statements of

PWs 1 and 2 are marked as Ex-P2 and Ex-P3 respectively through cross-examination by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor. Further, in spite of cross-examination, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not elicit any fact 11 OF 14 S.C(P).NO.52 OF 2024 in favour of the prosecution. Therefore, it is clear that PW1 being de facto complainant and father of the victim, PW2 being victim girl and PW3 being panch witness for confession panchanama of the accused did not speak any incriminating evidence against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

13.Since all the material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, even if the other witnesses will be examined there will not be any development in the case of prosecution. Hence, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor has given up all the remaining

witnesses. So, in the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused Nos.1 to 3, their examination under

Section 313 of Cr.PC is dispensed with.

14.Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the charges levelled against them for the offences punishable under Sections 382, 376 read with 511, 354A and 354C read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 7 read with 8 and 11 read with 12 of The Protection of 12 OF 14 S.C(P).NO.52 OF 2024

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 66D and 66E of Information Technology Act against A1 and A2 and under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code against A3.

15.IN THE RESULT, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 382, 376 read with 511, 354A and 354C read with 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, Sections 7 read with 8 and 11 read with 12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 66D and 66E of Information Technology Act and the accused No.3 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for the above said offences. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months as provided under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarked case property i.e.

Realme Norzo mobile phone silver colour which was given to the accused No.2 towards interim custody vide Orders in

Crl.M.P.No.573 of 2023, dated 12.7.2023 shall be made

absolute after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked non- 13 OF 14 S.C(P).NO.52 OF 2024 valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of April, 2026)

Sd/- Dr.Thatta Srinivas Rao

FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER POCSO ACT

(I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE)

HANUMAKONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

PROSECU NAME OF THE DESCRIPTION/ROLE OF

TION WITNESS THE WITNESS

WITNESS

NUMBER

PW1Father of the victimDe facto complainant

PW2Victim girlVictim

PW3E.Ram ReddyPanchwitnessfor confession panchanama of the accused

FOR DEFENCE

DEFENCE NAME OF THE DESCRIPTION/ROLE OF

WITNESS WITNESS THE WITNESS

NUMBER

NONE 14 OF 14 S.C(P).NO.52 OF 2024

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROVED BY/

NUMBER EXHIBIT ATTESTED BY

Ex-P1Signature of PW1 onPW1 complaint, dated 18.5.2023

Ex-P2161 Cr.PC statement of PW1 PW1

Ex-P3161 Cr.PC statement of PW2 PW2

Ex-P4Signature of PW3 onPW3 confession panchanama of accused, dated 22.5.2023

FOR DEFENCE

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROVED BY/

OBJECT EXHIBIT ATTESTED BY

NUMBER

NIL

Sd/- Dr.Thatta Srinivas Rao

FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER POCSO ACT

(I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE)

HANUMAKONDA

1 OF 12 S.C(P).NO.28 OF 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

(I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE) HANUMAKONDA

Tuesday, this the 5th day of May, 2026

PRESENT: Dr.Thatta Srinivas Rao, Chairman, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hanumakonda, FAC Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under POCSO Act (I-Additional Sessions Judge) Hanumakonda.

SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) NO.28 OF 2025

(in Crime No.256 of 2025 of P.S. Subedari)

1.Name and description ofThe State of Telangana, represented the complainantby the Inspector of Police, PS Subedari.

2.Name and description ofMohammed Ameer Sohel, s/o the accusedAmeen, Aged: 25 years, Muslim, Occu: Worker in Yasmeen Chicken Center, Ramagundam, R/o H.No.1-8- 126, Mubharaknagar, Ramagundam, Peddapally District.

3.Offences chargedSections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(l) read with 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

4.Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

5.Finding of the CourtFound not guilty.

2 OF 12 S.C(P).NO.28 OF 2025

6.Conviction, sentence orIN THE RESULT, the accused is acquittalfound not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(l) read with 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the above said offences. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months as provided under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The unmarked case property i.e. VIVO Company Android mobile phone along with SIM shall be returned to the accused on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked non- valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7.Name of the Counsel forSri B.Rajamalla Reddy, Addl. P.P the prosecution

8.Name of the Counsel forSri Md.Shanwaz Khan, Advocate accused

This case is coming on for final hearing on 4.5.2026

before me in the presence of Sri B.Rajamalla Reddy,

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant

and of Sri Md.Shanwaz Khan, learned Counsel for the accused; upon hearing arguments, upon considering the material evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

3 OF 12 S.C(P).NO.28 OF 2025

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Police Station Subedari, had laid charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short BNS) and Section 5(l) read with 6 of The Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short POCSO

Act) in Cr.No.256 of 2025 against the accused.

2.The Alpha and Omega of the case of the prosecution is as follows:

(i).That on 24.4.2025 at 12.00 hours the de facto complainant/LW1, who is father of the victim girl/LW4 has lodged a complaint stating that, in Intermediate 1st year his elder daughter i.e. victim got low marks, as such, she became dull and on observing the same, he counselled her and stated to his daughter to get more marks. After having dinner all of them slept in home including his daughter. On 24.4.2025 at 04.00 hours they woke up and did not find their elder daughter and they searched for her, but in vain.

4 OF 12 S.C(P).NO.28 OF 2025

(ii).On the complaint given by the de facto complainant, the police Subedari registered a case in Cr.No.256/2025 under Sections 137(2) of BNS and issued FIR, examined and recorded the statement of the de facto complainant and other witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared crime details form in the presence of two mediators. Later, the de facto complainant brought the victim girl to the police station and the victim girl was examined under video coverage and basing on the statement of the victim girl, the police added Section 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 5(l) read with 6 of POCSO Act and submitted express Memo to the concerned, affected the arrest of the accused and recorded his confessional statement and seized VIVO Company

Android mobile phone along with SIM under cover of panchanama in the presence of two mediators and on collection of relevant documents and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences as mentioned above.

3.This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya 5 OF 12 S.C(P).NO.28 OF 2025

Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(l) read with 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused and issued summons to the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were supplied to him as provided under Section 231 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

5.After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and the

Counsel representing the accused, the accused was examined and charges under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(l) read with 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 were framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language, for which he denied the said charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs-P1 to P4. Further, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

LWs 3, 5 to 19 (LW3-Grandfather of the victim girl, LW5-

Smt.B.Manga, LW6-G.Ashusha, LW7-Paternal uncel of the 6 OF 12 S.C(P).NO.28 OF 2025 victim girl, LW8-Puli Uday, LW9-Syed Tahar Mohiuddin,

LW10-Md.Salahuddin, LW11-Md.Yakub Pasha, LW12-Syed

Raziuddin, LW13-Dr.D.Kavitha, LW14-Smt.Y.Neeraja, LW15-

Dr.S.Keerthi Manogna, LW16-A.Sudheep Kumar, LW17-

J.Jithender, LW18-Smt.Mohd.Fariha Ahmed and LW19-

D.V.Phani) as PWs 1 to 3 turned hostile and there is no incriminating evidence against the accused. Hence, the examination of Investigating Officer i.e. LW20-

P.Satyanarayana Reddy does not secure any purpose, as such, his evidence is closed by this Court.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSS) is dispensed with.

8.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also learned Counsel for the accused. Perused the entire record.

7 OF 12 S.C(P).NO.28 OF 2025

9.Now, the point for determination is “whether the

prosecution could bring home the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections

137(2) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 and Section 5(l) read with 6 of The Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 beyond

reasonable doubt”?

10.POINT:These have been the charges framed against the accused that the accused kidnapped the victim girl who is a minor from the lawful guardianship of her parents and committed rape on her repeatedly and also committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim without her consent and thereby the accused has committed the offences as mentioned above.

11.In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs-P1 to P4. On the other side the plea of the accused is of total denial.

8 OF 12 S.C(P).NO.28 OF 2025

12.PW1 is the de facto complainant and father of the victim girl. PW2 is the mother of the victim girl and PW3 is the victim girl. This is the testimony of PW1 that he does not know any facts of the case. He does not know the contents of the complaint. The signature belongs to him.

Ex-P1 is the complaint. The police never examined him.

Further, the testimony of PWs 2 and 3 who are mother of the victim girl and victim girl is that they do not know any facts of the case and the police never examined them. Thereby, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 shows that they did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Accordingly, the 161 Cr.PC statements (Section 180 of BNSS) of PWs 1 to 3 are marked as Exs-P2 to P4 respectively through cross- examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Further, in spite of cross-examination, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor could not elicit any fact in favour of the prosecution. Therefore, it is clear that PW1 being de facto complainant and father of the victim, PW2 being mother of the victim and PW3 being victim girl did not speak any incriminating evidence against the accused.

9 OF 12 S.C(P).NO.28 OF 2025

13.Since all the material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, even if the other witnesses will be examined there will not be any development in the case of prosecution. Hence, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor has given up all the remaining

witnesses. So, in the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, his examination under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is dispensed with.

14.Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(l) read with 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, this point is answered.

15.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(l) read 10 OF 12 S.C(P).NO.28 OF 2025 with 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the above said offences. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months as provided under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023. The unmarked case property i.e. VIVO

Company Android mobile phone along with SIM shall be returned to the accused on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked non-valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 5th day of May, 2026)

Sd/- Dr.Thatta Srinivas Rao

FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER POCSO ACT

(I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE)

HANUMAKONDA

11 OF 12 S.C(P).NO.28 OF 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

PROSECU NAME OF THE DESCRIPTION/ROLE OF

TION WITNESS THE WITNESS

WITNESS

NUMBER

PW1Father of the victimDe facto complainant

PW2Mother of the victimMother of the victim girl girl

PW3Victim girl Victim

FOR DEFENCE

DEFENCE NAME OF THE DESCRIPTION/ROLE OF

WITNESS WITNESS THE WITNESS

NUMBER

NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROVED BY/

NUMBER EXHIBIT ATTESTED BY

Ex-P1ComplaintPW1

Ex-P2161Cr.PCstatementPW1 (Section 180 of BNSS) of PW1

Ex-P3161Cr.PCstatementPW2 (Section 180 of BNSS) of PW2 12 OF 12 S.C(P).NO.28 OF 2025

Ex-P4161Cr.PCstatementPW3 (Section 180 of BNSS) of PW3

FOR DEFENCE

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROVED BY/

OBJECT EXHIBIT ATTESTED BY

NUMBER

NIL

Sd/- Dr.Thatta Srinivas Rao

FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER POCSO ACT

(I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE)

HANUMAKONDA

1 OF 11 S.C.NO.136 OF 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS

JUDGE, HANUMAKONDA

Tuesday, this the 5th day of May, 2026

PRESENT: Dr.Thatta Srinivas Rao, Chairman, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hanumakonda, FAC I-Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.

SESSIONS CASE NO.136 OF 2024

(P.R.C.No.68 of 2024 on the file of III-Additional Junior Civil

Judge-cum-III-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Hanumakonda, in Crime No.302/2024 of P.S. Subedari)

1.Name and description ofThe State of Telangana, represented the complainantby the Inspector of Police, PS Subedari.

2.Name and description ofShaik Anwar, s/o Yakub, Aged: 28 the accusedyears, Muslim, Occu: Kiranam Business,R/oH.No.4-72/4, Karnegandi H/o Musmi Village, Kothaguda Mandal, Mahabubabad.

3.Offences chargedSections 420, 376(2)(n), 506 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code.

4.Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

5.Finding of the CourtFound not guilty.

6.Conviction, sentence orIN THE RESULT, the accused is acquittalfound not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 376(2)(n), 506 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 232 of the 2 OF 11 S.C.NO.136 OF 2024

Code of Criminal Procedure for the above said offences. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months as provided under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarkednon-valuablecase property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Office is directed to forward the material object(s) and unmarked case properties, if any, to the committal Court, to carry out the order of disposal of the same, in terms of this Judgment.

7.Name of the Counsel forSri B.Rajamalla Reddy, Addl. P.P the prosecution

8.Name of the Counsel forR.Yamini, Advocate accused

This case is coming on for final hearing on 4.5.2026

before me in the presence of Sri B.Rajamalla Reddy,

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant

and of R.Yamini, learned Counsel for the accused; upon hearing arguments, upon considering the material evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Police Station Subedari, had laid charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 3 OF 11 S.C.NO.136 OF 2024 376(2)(n), 420, 506 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) in Cr.No.302 of 2024 against the accused.

2.The Alpha and Omega of the case of the prosecution is as follows:

(i).That on 25.5.2024 at 12.00 hours the de facto complainant/victim/LW1 has lodged a complaint stating that, her distant relative by name Shaik Anwar i.e. accused got introduced with her in the month of January, 2021 in a function at Deendayal Nagar, Hanumakonda, since then they both fell in love. After one year, the accused came to her house several times and in the absence of inmates committed rape on her repeatedly believing her that he will marry her, due to which she became pregnant and he brought tablets and got her abortion. Later, when she asked him to marry her, he dodged the matter. Her family members came to know about the issue and asked him to marry her, but he refused to marry her. When she confronted to marry her, he threatened her with dire consequences to kill her.

4 OF 11 S.C.NO.136 OF 2024

(ii).On the complaint given by the de facto complainant, the police Subedari registered a case in Cr.No.302/2024 under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, 506 and 313 of Indian Penal

Code and issued FIR, examined and recorded the statement of the victim under video coverage and also examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared crime details form in the presence of two mediators, affected the arrest of the accused and on collection of relevant documents and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences as mentioned above.

3. The learned III-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda,

took cognizance for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 and 313 of IPC against the accused and numbered it as

P.R.C.No.68/2024. Having secured the presence of the accused, the learned Committal Court, supplied him with the copies of documents. Since the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC alleged against the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, Hanumakonda, the learned 5 OF 11 S.C.NO.136 OF 2024

Committal Court has committed the case to the Court of

Sessions, Hanumakonda. The Court of Sessions,

Hanumakonda, registered the case as S.C.No.136 of 2024 and made over to Principal Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, for disposal according to law.

4.After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and the

Counsel representing the accused, the accused was examined and charges under Sections 420, 376(2)(n), 506 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code were framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language, for which he denied the said charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.At this stage, the Sessions Case No.136 of 2024 has been transferred by the Honourable Principal Sessions

Judge, Hanumakonda, to this Court, for disposal according to

law.

6.During the trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs-P1 to P3. Further, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

6 OF 11 S.C.NO.136 OF 2024

LWs 2, 3, 5 to 13 (LW2-T.Sravani, LW3-Devunuri Mounika,

LW5-Elder sister of the victim, LW6-Mother-in-law of the vicltim, LW7-Jakki Sandeep, LW8-Mohammad Haimad, LW9-

Dr.L.Radhika, LW10-A.Ramu, LW11-Dr.S.Kruthi Manogna,

LW12-Smt.Priyanka Sircilla and LW13-P.Satyanarayana

Reddy) as PWs 1 and 2 turned hostile and there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure is dispensed with.

8.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also learned Counsel for the accused. Perused the entire record.

9.Now, the point for determination is “whether the

prosecution could bring home the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections

7 OF 11 S.C.NO.136 OF 2024

420, 376(2)(n), 506 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code

beyond reasonable doubt”?

10.POINT:These have been the charges framed against the accused that the accused cheated the victim in the name of love and marriage and also committed rape on the victim repeatedly, resulting the victim became pregnant. Later, when the victim asked the accused to marry her, he refused to marry her and threatened to kill her and thereby the accused has committed the offences as mentioned above.

11.In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution got examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs-P1 to P3. On the other side the plea of the accused is of total denial.

12.PW1 is the de facto complainant and victim. PW2 is the mother of the victim. This is the testimony of PW1 that the accused is her husband. There was a galata in the month of May, 2024 between her family and the family of the accused, then she went to the police station, there the 8 OF 11 S.C.NO.136 OF 2024 police obtained her signature on white paper. She does not know what was written in it. She identified her signature under Ex-P1 on the complaint and the police never examined her. Further, the testimony of PW2 who is mother of the victim is that the accused is her son-in-law. She does not know any facts of the case and the police never examined her. Thereby, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 shows that they did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Accordingly, the 161 Cr.PC statements of PWs 1 and 2 are marked as Ex-P2 and Ex-P3 respectively through cross- examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Further, in spite of cross-examination, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor could not elicit any fact in favour of the prosecution. Therefore, it is clear that PW1 being de facto complainant and victim and PW2 being mother of the victim did not speak any incriminating evidence against the accused.

13.Since both the material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, even if the other witnesses will be examined there will not be any 9 OF 11 S.C.NO.136 OF 2024 development in the case of prosecution. Hence, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor has given up all the remaining

witnesses. So, in the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, his examination under Section 313 of

Cr.PC is dispensed with.

14.Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 376(2)(n), 506 and 313 of the Indian

Penal Code. Accordingly, this point is answered.

15.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 376(2)(n), 506 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for the above said offences. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months as provided under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The unmarked non-valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

10 OF 11 S.C.NO.136 OF 2024

Office is directed to forward the material object(s) and unmarked case properties, if any, to the committal Court, to carry out the order of disposal of the same, in terms of this

Judgment.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 5th day of May, 2026)

Sd/- Dr.Thatta Srinivas Rao,

FAC I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

PROSECU NAME OF THE DESCRIPTION/ROLE OF

TION WITNESS THE WITNESS

WITNESS

NUMBER

PW1Victim De facto complainant

PW2Mother of the victimMother of the victim

FOR DEFENCE

DEFENCE NAME OF THE DESCRIPTION/ROLE OF

WITNESS WITNESS THE WITNESS

NUMBER

NONE 11 OF 11 S.C.NO.136 OF 2024

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROVED BY/

NUMBER EXHIBIT ATTESTED BY

Ex-P1Signature of PW1 on thePW1 complaint

Ex-P2161 Cr.PC statement of PW1 PW1

Ex-P3161 Cr.PC statement of PW2 PW2

FOR DEFENCE

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROVED BY/

OBJECT EXHIBIT ATTESTED BY

NUMBER

NIL

Sd/- Dr.Thatta Srinivas Rao,

FAC I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.