Sri V.Srirama Chandra Murthy

1

In the court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Present:-V. Sri Rama Chandra Murthy, I Additional District & Sessions Judge.

Thursday, the 15 th ( Fifteen) day of February , 2018.

N.D.P.S. S.C. No. 13 of 2017

Cr.No. 18 of 2017 of Prohibition and Excise station, Tirupathi Urban

Complainant The State represented by Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tirupathi Urban Accused 1.Biswaranjan Singh, age 35 years, S/o Niranjan Singh, Caste: Christian, R/o Cheligar village, R. Udayagiri Post, Gajapathi T.Q. Bhuwaneswar District, Odisha State.

2.Susthiralima, age 25 years, S/o Keerthilima, Caste: Christian, R/o Cheligar village, R. Udayagiri post, Gajapathi T.Q. Bhuwaneswar District, Odisha State.

3.Dhanaraj, age 26 years, S/o Subhash, Caste: Munnar Reddy, R/o Hanumantha vadi village, Rajaeswar Post, Basavakalyan T.Q. Bidar District, Karnataka State. The prosecution is Sri K.S.Jayaram conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor. The accused are Sri K. Nagaraja Naidu, Legal aid counsel for accused. defended by OFFENCE Under section 8(c) r/w section 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Charges Under section 8(c) r/w section 20 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Plea of the accused Pleaded not Guilty Finding of the Accused 1 to 3 are found guilty court Sentence or order In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence under section 8(c) r/w section 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and they are convicted under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. Accused 1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for SEVEN YEARS each and also to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment each . The remand period already undergone from 30-03-2017 to this day shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. M.Os. 1 to 9 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

2

This case coming before me for final hearing on 9-2-2018 and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.S. Jayaram, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K. Nagaraja Naidu, Legal counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tirupathi Urban filed charge-sheet in crime No. 18 of 2017 for the offence under section 8(c ) r/w section 20 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

(i) It stated that the accused 1 and 2 are residents of Cheligar village, Odisha state and the accused No. 3 is resident of Hanumantha vadi village of Bidar District . On 30-3-2017 at about 5.00 A.M. the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tirupati Urban received reliable information about the transportation of dry Ganja, informed the same to the Prohibition and

Excise Superintendent, Tirupati and on instructions contacted Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Tirupati Urban to depute V.R.O. and V.R.A. to act as mediators, in turn Sri U. V. Ramana Reddy ( L.W.1) and Sri P. Simon (L.W.2) came forward to act as mediators, they hired vehicle bearing No.

AP03 TV 7056 , reached the scene of offence at about 6.00 A.M. which is situated at a distance of 100 feet. south-east Railway Garage, Rayalcheruvu railway gate at east side of said railway Garage compound wall, found accused No.1 to 3 in possession of one black colour bag each keeping on their right hands, on observing them, they tried to escape, on that with the assistance of staff, they were apprehended. Accused No.3 was able to talk in Telugu and conveying it to the accused 1 and 2 and on enquiry, they revealed their identity particulars, on that the Prohibition and Excise

Inspector in the presence of Panchayatdars told to the accused that search has to be made into the bags possessed by them and so saying a notice under section 50(1) of N.D.P.S. Act was issued, on that the accused gave consent allowing the Inspector to search their bags, on that they found 3 kgs. of dry Ganja each with accused No.1 and 2 and 2 kgs. of dry Ganja with accused No.3 and on further enquiry they confessed that they purchased dry Ganja at Odissa District and going to Katpadi town of

Tamilnadu State for sale at higher rates. Thereafter the Inspector collected 100 grams of dry Ganja from each bag , each sample packet is numbered as P1, P.2 and P3, each packet with the accused are numbered as S1, S2 and 3

S3 duly sealed and pasted panch slips duly attested by Panchayatdars, prepared rough sketch and also mediators report and seized the same. The accused were taken into custody, returned to the Excise Station, handed over to Prohibition and Excise Inspector, in turn he registered it as case in crime No. 18 of 2017 under section 8 (c ) r/w 20 (b) of N.D.P.S. Act and produced the accused before the court on 30-3-2017 in judicial custody.

The samples were sent to Chemical examiner, Chittoor , who analyzed and opined that the material received and analyzed is dry Ganja and the report is issued dated 22-6-2017. Therefore the accused 1 to 3 are liable to be punished under section 8 (c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985 and section 20(b) (ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985.

2. On production of the accused, copies of documents were furnished under section 207 Cr.P.C.

3. On production of the accused, heard the Additional Public

Prosecutor and the defence counsel and on perusal of the material on record, a charge under section 8(c) r/w section 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was framed , for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

4. Prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and M.Os. 1 to 7 .

5. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them, for which they stated that the evidence of the said witnesses is false and no defence evidence is adduced.

6. Heard the arguments of Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the defence counsel.

7. Upon considering the contentions of both parties, the following point arose for consideration.

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused

1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt?

8. POINT:

(i) The case of the prosecution is that on 30-3-2017 at about 5.00

A.M. the Prohibition and Excise Inspector received information about transporting Ganja by the accused, then the same was reported to Excise 4 and Prohibition Superintendent and after receiving instructions the said

Officer along with staff went to a vacant place situated 100 feet away from railway Garage compound wall situated on Rayalacheruvu railway gate, apprehended accused 1 to 3, informed them that they have to be searched and also about their right to be searched in the presence of Gazetteed

Officer or a Judicial Magistrate, if so required by the accused, but the accused consented to conduct search by the Excise and Prohibition

Inspector and accordingly the three bags carried by the accused were verified in the presence of two mediators and found 3 kgs. of Ganja each with accused 1 and 2 and 2 kgs. of Ganja with accused No.3. After seizure of the Ganja samples were collected from each bag and it was sealed and stamped and sent it to Chemical analysis report and the report revealed that the material seized from the accused is Ganja. The accused were unauthorisedly in possession of Ganja and transporting it from

Odissa State to Tamilnadu without any license or permit. Therefore they are liable to be punished as per the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Act. The accused 1 to 3 denied all the allegations levelled against them . Therefore burden is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.

(ii). In order to unfold the case of prosecution, the Prohibition and Excise Inspector B. Indira is examined as P.W.1, deposed that she is working at Tirupati Urban Station and on 30-3-2017 at about 5.00 A.M.

received credible information about transportation of Ganja, on that collected the mediators namely U.V. Ramana Reddy, V.R.O. Tirupati

Urban and one Simon who are cited as L.Ws. 1 and 2, along with other staff members went to Rayalcheruvu railway gate and found accused 1 to 3 in a public place at a distance of 100 feet from railway Garage compound wall, apprehended them, they were carrying one bag each and on enquiry accused No.3 revealed that they were possessing dry Ganja, on that P.W.1 told them that search of the bags are to be conducted and about their right to be searched in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and further she is also a Gazetted Officer, the accused expressed no objection , gave consent. The notice issued to the accused . Copy is marked as Ex.P.1. The consent given by the accused is marked as Ex.P.2. Thereupon the three bags with the accused were searched and found dry Ganja in each 5 bag. It was weighed and found 3 kgs. of dry Ganja in the bags of accused

No.1 and 2 and 2 kgs. of dry Ganja with the accused No.3. The bags with

Ganja with the accused No.1 and 2 are marked as M.Os. 1 to 4, the bag with Ganja with the possession of accused No. 3 is marked as M.Os. 5 and

6. She collected samples from each bag and those three samples are marked as M.Os. 7 to 9. The bags are numbered as Exs.P.1 to P.3 and samples are marked as S1 to S3, affixed identification slips. Accused No.1 and 2 were questioned in Tamil whereas accused No.3 was questioned in

Telugu, on that they confessed they purchased the contraband at Odissa

State at lesser amount and going to Katpadi for sale at higher price. A rough sketch was prepared marked as Ex.P.6. A mediators report was prepared while seizing the contraband which is marked as Ex.P.7. All the three accused were arrested and the same was informed to their blood- relatives, Ex.P.8 is the grounds of arrest. Thereafter in the Excise Station, a case in crime No. 18 of 2017 was registered under section 8 (c ) r/w 20 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and First

Information Report is Ex.P.9.

(iii). P.W.2 is the Excise Sub Inspector, Tirupati Urban, who accompanied P.W.1, deposed that he along with other staff members , mediators were present at the time of apprehension of the accused and seized dry Ganja. He identified the contraband that was seized and marked before the court. He attested on Ex.P.7 mediators report and he deposed in the same lines as testified by P.W.1.

(iv). P.W.3 is another Excise Sub Inspector, Tirupati Urban who received the C.D. file also received the chemical analysis report and it is opined that the seized contraband is Ganja, that chemical analysis report is marked as Ex.P.10. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

(v). P.W.4 is U.V. Ramana Reddy a mediator, working as

V.R.O. at Tirupati, testified that P. Simon ( L.W.2) is known to him. On 30-3-2017 at 5.30 A.M. he was instructed by his Mandal Revenue Officer to accompany Excise Inspector.Accordingly all of them went to Rayalacheruvu railway gate, found the accused in open place at a distance of railway garage compound and on observing them, they tried to escape, on that

Excise Inspector and staff apprehended the accused and on enquiry, they confessed the possession of Ganja in the three bags being carried by them.

6

The Excise Inspector appraised the accused about their right to be searched

before a Gazetted Officer or a Judicial Magistrate and so saying served

notice , for which the accused gave consent for search of their bags by

P.W.1 Excise Inspector and Ex.P.2 is the willingness letter. All the three bags were searched and found 3 kgs. of Ganja in the bags of accused No.1 and 2 and 2 kgs of Ganja in the bag carried by accused No.3. P.W.1 collected samples, duly sealed , mediators report was prepared, attested by him and also by Simon another mediator and the accused were taken to

Excise Station along with the contraband.

(vi). The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 corroborated by the testimony of the mediator examined as P.W.4 categorically goes to show the apprehension of the accused following the procedure prescribed and seizure of the Ganja. The confession of the accused goes to show that they secured the Ganja by purchasing at Odissa State and carrying for sale at Katpadi for higher rate without any valid permission or license to possess and transport the Ganja which is an offence, therefore the accused are liable to be punished.

(vii). The defence counsel argued that the place of seizure is at railway area near the railway station where Government railway police have to investigate the matter, but they were not involved . There were no independent witnesses at the time of search and seizure. The allegations that the accused confessed that they were carrying the Ganja to go to

Katpadi for sale at higher price is not true, because no train will stop at

Rayalacheruvu railway gate. Presence of P.W.4 at 5.30 A.M. and reaching the place of seizure at 6.00 A.M. are all not believable and sought for disbelieving the case of prosecution.

(viii). In this case on hand, P.W.1 is the Excise Inspector along with her staff members accompanied by P.W.4 V.R.O. and another mediator Simon proceeded to Rayalcheruvu road and apprehended the accused, who were carrying bags and on search found Ganja of 8 kgs. in all the three bags carried by the accused 1 to 3. The description of the place of apprehension of the accused goes to show that at a distance of 100 feet from the railway Garage compound wall and near Rayalcheruvu railway gate, but not within the railway station area or while walking by the accused on railway track. According to P.Ws. 1 to 4 the place where the 7 accused were apprehended is public place, but not railway area. In order to identify the place of seizure the places of railway names were referred to, but the place of seizure is a public place according to P.Ws. 1 to 4. If the accused is having any material that the place of seizure is a public place and that it is a railway area, then they ought to have adduced evidence by examining either by themselves or any witnesses to show that the place of seizure is within the railway area and Government railway police are having powers to apprehend and investigate into the case.

(ix). As per section 42 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 Act “Any Officer of the departments of central excise,

narcotics, customs, revenue , intelligences or any other department of the

Central Government or of the Border Security Force as is empowered in this

behalf by general; or special order by the Central Government, or any such

officer of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department

of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf to conduct search

and seize any contraband which is kept or concealed in any building,

conveyance or enclosed place, detain and search any person”. Therefore there is nothing prescribed in section 42 that in order to conduct a search within the railway area only Government railway police are having exclusive jurisdiction and that P.W.1 is not competent. In this case P.W.1 categorically deposed that she received credible information about the possession and transportation of Ganja by the accused and she being Excise department officer is empowered to conduct search and seizure of the contraband. In this behalf P.W.1 also deposed that she reported the possession and transportation of Ganja by unknown persons and obtained permission from Excise Superintendent who is superior Officer and then conducted search. In those circumstances coupled with section 42 of the

Act, P.W.1 is authorized to conduct search and seizure of the contraband as and when received credible information and to proceed with the same at any place. There is no bar that P.W.1 has no right to conduct search in railway area and that Government railway police alone have got absolute jurisdiction. This contention of accused is accepted for a moment, if the place where the seizure took place is belongs to railway department,

P.W.1 has not admitted that the place of seizure is railway area, but it is 8 very near to railway area. Therefore for not involving the Government railway police, the case of the prosecution need not be disbelieved.

(x). The defence counsel further argued that no written consent was obtained from the accused, therefore to disbelieve the search and seizure of the contraband. On this aspect as per section 50 of the N.D.P.S.

Act, the conditions that are stipulated under which search of person shall be conducted is when any Officer duly authorized under section 42 is about the search, in person under the provisions of Sections 41, 42 or 43 he shall, if such person so requires take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Magistrate or Gazetted Officer of any department. In this case on hand, the search was not conducted on the person, but the search was in the bags which are being carried by accused 1 to 3.

Therefore it is not a personal search, but it is bags which are in the possession of the accused and according to their confession , they are carrying those bags to go to railway station in order to go to Katpadi. The bags were not away from the accused, but they were carrying on their respective shoulders. Section 50 is applicable only a personal search is made. Anyhow the conditions of search stipulated to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or a Judicial Magistrate and that to if such person so requires to take such person to the nearest Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.

In this case on hand, P.Ws.1 , 2 and 4 categorically deposed that after apprehension of the accused, they were informed that search has to be conducted into their bags before a Gazetted Officer or a Judicial

Magistrate and requested the accused to opt and at the same time, it is

also informed that P.W.1 is also a Gazetted Officer. So saying a notice was issued to the accused which is marked as Ex.P.1 wherein it is categorically stated about their right to be searched in the presence of

Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. In that document all the three accused signed, it was also attested by P.W.4 mediator and another mediator P.

Simon. P.W.1 further deposed that the said three persons gave consent.

In Ex.P.2 against the numbers of the accused it was noted as though the accused signed, but what was required under section 50 of the of Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is to enlighten the right of the accused to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or a

Magistrate and accordingly P.W.1 informed the same to the accused by

9 issuing Ex.P.1 wherein the accused signed. Thus the requirements under section 50 of the Act were complied with.

(xi). The defence further argued that the presence of the mediator examined as P.W.4 is doubtful at 5.30 A.M. because he was a resident of Muchivulu village at Srikalahasthi mandal and said to have working at Tirupati Urban. On this aspect P.W.4 categorically deposed that at 5.30 A.M. while he was conducting enquiry on field about the caste of some person, then received instructions from the Mandal Revenue

Officer to assist the Excise Inspector and to act as mediator. The said particulars goes to show that P.W.4 is working as V.R.O. Tirupati Urban and he is residing at Bairagipatteda and he is not residing at Muchivulu village. Therefore there is no necessity to disbelieve the presence of P.W.4 and his attendance when called by P.W.2 Excise Inspector. If he is residing at Muchivulu village, then any amount of suspicion can be attached, but he is working as V.R.O. Tirupati Urban and he is supposed to stay within the place of his work, therefore he can attend to the Excise

Station immediately after receiving instructions from his Mandal Revenue

Officer even at 5.30 A.M. also.

(xii). The defence counsel further argued that accused No.1 and 2 does not know Telugu, it is not known how they gave consent to P.W.1 and further they did not sign on Ex.P.2. On this aspect P.W.1 deposed that accused No.1 and 2 do not know Telugu, but accused No.3 is able to understand Telugu and further accused No.1 and 2 were questioned in

Tamil. During section 313 Cr.P.C. examination accused No.1 and 2 were able to understand Hindi also. There is possibility of questioning accused

No.1 and 2 through accused No.3 or through a language known to the accused No.1 and 2. According to P.W.1, accused No.1 and 2 are able to understand Tamil and enquiry was conducted with those persons in

Tamil and she satisfied. If really accused No.1 and 2 are not known

Telugu or Tamil , then it is not known how they are going to Katpadi for selling the Ganja at higher rate. Though accused No.1 and 2 are residents of Odissa, but they are able to move in Tirupati and further they are going to Katpadi also. In those circumstances there is no hurdle for P.W.1 to enquire with the accused No.1 and 2 about the contraband in the language known to the accused No.1 and 2 either in Tamil or in Telugu or in Hindi 10 through accused No.3. On that ground the prosecution version need not be disbelieved.

(xiii). During the cross-examination of P.W.1 it is elicited about the time required to reach to the place where the accused were apprehended, about the vehicle that was used, carrying stationery and reporting to the Railway Protection Force or Government Railway Police personnel before conducting raid, preparation of Exs.P.1, P.2 and P.8 and marking the seized contraband. Except this nothing more was elicited to disbelieve that the accused were not in possession of the contraband.

During the cross-examination of P.W.2 who is Excise Sub-Inspector, it is questioned about the mediators’ report, presence of staff, distance from the Excise station to the place where the accused were apprehended. He denied to a suggestion that a false case is foisted against the accused.

During the cross-examination of P.W.3 it is suggested that the charge sheet is filed with false allegations and that nothing was seized from the accused and the accused are not concerned with the contraband. During cross- examination of P.W.4 mediator, it is also questioned about the distance between the place where he was on field duty at Bairagipatteda to Rayal

Cheruvu gate, occupation of the second mediator, distance between

Tirupati railway station to Rayal Cheruvu railway gate and explaining the proceedings i.e. mediators’ report, questioning under section 50 of the Act to the accused 1 and 2. It is suggested that nothing was seized from accused 1 to 3 and that he is deposing false at the instance of Excise officers.

Considering the above, it is not explained the necessity for P.W.4 who is working as V.R.O. in Revenue department to depose false against the accused that too at the instance of Excise officials who belongs to a different department. The said department has no control over the V.R. O. or any other revenue official. P.W.4 was deputed by his Mandal Revenue Officer when P.W.1 contacted Mandal Revenue Officer. Therefore P.W.4 acted as mediator on the instructions of Mandal Revenue Officer, but not at the instance of P.W.1 or any other Excise official. There is no enmity between

P.W.4 and the accused in order to implicate them in a false case and to depose as though contraband was seized from them. Accused 1 and 2 are belongs to Odissa State and accused No.3 belongs to some other place, whereas P.W.4 is working at Tirupati and they had no acquaintance with 11 each other earlier to this incident. It is also suggested to P.Ws. 1 to 4 that a false cease is foisted against the accused. On this aspect also it is not explained the necessity for P.Ws. 1 and 2 to implicate the accused who are strangers to them that too by planting 8 kgs. of Ganja. If really Excise officers are having intention to implicate the accused in a false case, then it is not necessary to secure 8 kgs. of Ganja and a small quantity like 250 grams or 500 grams is sufficient. It is also not placed exceptional circumstances which forced the Excise officials to develop grouse against the accused and somehow secured 8 kgs. of Ganja only with an intention to implicate the accused in a false case. Therefore absolutely there are no circumstances to conclude or to hold that P.Ws. 1 to 3 are having malafide intention to implicate the accused in a false case or influence P.W.4 to depose false against the accused. On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 it is established that the accused are in possession of 8 kgs. of Ganja in total.

(xiv). After seizure of the contraband it was handed over to P.W.3, in turn forwarded the same to Chemical Examiner for chemical analysis.

The samples of the contraband were received by the Government Regional

Prohibition and Excise Laboratory intact and after chemical analysis, found that the samples received are Ganja. The said analysis report is marked as

Ex.P.10. Thus the contraband that was seized from the accused 1 to 3 is proved to be Ganja as per Ex.P.10 chemical analysis report and possession of such contraband is prohibited.

(xv). As per section 8 (c ) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 possessing, selling, purchasing , transporting, import inter--State , export inter-State any narcotic drug is an offence. In this case on hand accused 1 to 3 were said to have going towards Tirupati railway- station to catch train to go to Katpadi for sale of the contraband at higher rate and in the meanwhile they were apprehended by the Excise officials.

The evidence of independent witness examined as P.W.4, mediator in whose presence the contraband was seized categorically deposed the possession of Ganja by the accused. When possession is established, then the accused has to establish how he came into possession of the same.

Section 54 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of presumption available in law. Presumption is available to be drawn 12 from possession of illicit articles. As discussed supra, the allegation of planting of 8 kgs. of Ganja by Excise officials as suggested by the accused is disbelieved. Therefore the possession of Ganja with accused is established. Now it is the burden of the accused to explain how they got possession of 8 kgs. of Ganja. No material is placed on record. Therefore the accused are conscious possession of Ganja in the bags, those are being carried by them and also aware that the said possession is contrary to the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and attracts penal clause.

(xvi). With regard to enquiry conducted with the accused and through whom the enquiry was conducted are all minor aspects, because during all the proceedings the accused 1 and 2 signed and acknowledged the proceedings and during cross-examination it is not suggested that they were unable to understand the proceedings taken up by P.Ws. 1 and 2. The entire prosecution case established that the accused 1 to 3 were carrying three bags, in the bags of accused 1 and 2 each 3 kgs. of Ganja was there and in the bag of accused No.3, 2 kgs. of Ganja was there which was seized in the presence of P.W.4 and another mediator and accused failed to establish how they secured 8 kgs. of Ganja and they confessed that they secured the same at Odissa State at lesser price and carrying the same to

Katpadi for sale at higher price and thus such possession and transporting

Ganja is an offence under section 8 (c ) of the Act. During the course of search proceedings conducted by P.W.1 some minor mistakes are bound to occur and as long as they does not touch the root of the case of the prosecution , much importance need not be given. The prosecution is able to establish the possession of Ganja by the accused and seizure. Therefore point is answered in favour of prosecution.

9. In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence under section 8(c) r/w section 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 and they are convicted under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer and after transcription by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of February, 2018.

Sd/ V. Sri Rama Chandra Murthy

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

13

The accused 1 to 3 are questioned about the sentence, on that they stated that they have not committed any offence and the contraband was not seized and a false case is foisted against them. The accused 1 and 2 were questioned and it was translated in Hindi, for which they stated that they have not committed the offence. On perusal of the record, 3 kgs. of Ganja each from accused 1 and 2 each was seized and 2 kgs. of Ganja was seized from accused No.3. The accused are aware that possession of Ganja is violation of the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act and intentionally they were possessing the same and transporting the same from Odissa State to Katpadi for sale.

Therefore, they are not entitled for any leniency.

Accused 1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for SEVEN YEARS each and also to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment each. The remand period already undergone from 30-03-2017 to this day shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. M.Os. 1 to 9 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer and after transcription by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of February, 2018.

Sd/ V. Sri Rama Chandra Murthy

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution : Defence: PW-1: B. Indira, Excise Inspector -Nil- PW-2: K. Nagaraju, S.I. of Police PW-3: C. Naresh Babu, S.I. of police PW-4: U.V.Ramana Reddy, V.RO.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution : Ex.P.1 : Notice under section 50(1) of NDPS Act Ex.P.2 : Consent letter of the accused Ex.P.3 : Search proceedings Ex.P.4 : Search proceedings Ex.P.5 : Search proceedings 14

Ex.P.6 : Rough sketch Ex.P.7 : Panchanama Ex.P.8 : Grounds of arrest Ex.P.8 : First Information Report Ex.P.10 : Analysis Report Defence : -Nil- Material Objects marked: M.O.1… Bag of accused No.1 M.O.2 … 3 kgs. of Ganja M.O.3… Bag of accused No.2 M.O.4 … 3 kgs. of Ganja M.O.5 ... Bag of accused No. 3 M.O.6 ... 2 kgs. of Ganja M.O.7 ... Sample packet of 100 grams of Ganja M.O.8 ... Sample packet of 100 grams of Ganja M.O.9 ... Sample packet of 100 grams of Ganja

Sd/ V. Sri Rama Chandra Murthy

I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

1

In the court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

Present:-V. Sri Rama Chandra Murthy, I Additional District & Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 24 th (Twenty Fourth) day of July, 2018.

S.C. No. 315 of 2012

Cr.No. 12 of 2012 of Penumur Police station

Complainant The State represented by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Chittoor.

Accused 1. Mekala Gopal Reddy, 30 years, S/o Sidda Reddy,

2. M.Sidda Reddy, 63 years, S/o Jambhavantha Reddy (died, abated)

3. Gokanti Reddemma, 28 years, W/o Rama swamy Reddy,

4. Gokanti Ramaswamy Reddy, 40 years, S/o Jayarami Reddy. All are residents of Elungundlapalle, h/o Pulikallu village of Penumuru Mandal. The prosecution is conducted bySri K.S.Jayaram, Additional Public Prosecutor.

The accused are Sri M.Krishnaiah Naidu, counsel for accused. defended by OFFENCEUnder sections 304-B IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ChargesUnder sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 r/w 34 IPC Plea of the Accused 1, 2 and 4 pleaded not guilty accused Finding of the courtAccused 1, 2 and 4 found not guilty

Sentence or order In the result, the accused 1, 3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 498-A, 304-B and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act and they are acquitted under section 232

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1,3 and 4 shall be in force for a period of six months.

M.Os.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. During the course of trial A2 died. Hence the case against him is abated.

This case coming before me for final hearing on this day and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.S. Jayaram, 2 the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Krishnaiah Naidu, counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Chittoor filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 in crime No. 12 of 2012 for the offence under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 of Penumur police station.

(I) It is stated that the accused 1 and 3 are the son and daughter of accused No.2. The wife of accused No.2 died, therefore the 3rd accused who is the daughter of 2nd accused is living with accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with her husband who is the 4th accused to look after the house and thus all the accused are living together. The 1st accused married the daughter of defacto- complainant i.e. LW-1 N.Janakirama Reddy on 10-09-2010. At the time of marriage he presented Rs.1,00,000/- cash and 10 sovereigns of gold towards dowry. Even after the marriage of 1st accused, the accused 3 and 4 continued to live with the accused 1 and 2. After the marriage the accused look after the deceased

Kalpana well for six months and started demanding additional dowry. Thereafter the deceased Kalpana gave birth of a male child and when the child was aged six months, then all the accused demanded the deceased to get cash of Rs.50,000/- and one gold chain to the child from her parents as additional dowry and thus they started harassing her and also insisted her to attend the agriculture work. This was informed to her parents but they expressed their inability and later they promised to meet their demand after disposed of their jaggery yield. They could not pay that amount and the accused further harassed her and unable to bear the same, the deceased committed suicide by hanging to the hook on the ceiling on 03-03-2012 at about 8-30 PM in the absence of the accused. The accused on coming to know the same raised hue and cry, the neighbours gathered and later the father of the deceased reported the matter to police and after investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

3

2. The learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Chittoor registered the charge sheet as P.R.C. 17 of 2012 against the accused for the offences under sections 304-B I.P.C.

and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and issued summons to the accused.

3. After appearance of the accused 1 to 4, copies of documents were furnished as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

and after perusal of the material on record, committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

4. On appearance of the accused, heard the Additional

Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and on perusal of the material on record, charges under sections 498-A, 302, 304-B r/w 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5. During the course of trial A2 died. Police filed a memo along with death certificate of A2, hence the case against him is abated.

6. Prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 8 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.10, M.O.1 to 3.

7. After closing the evidence of prosecution, the accused 1 to 4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. for which they denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as false and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the defence counsel.

9. Upon considering the contentions of both parties, the following point arose for consideration.

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of

the accused for the offence under sections 498-A, 302,

304-B r/w 34 I.P.C. and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

4

10. POINT:

(i) The case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused married the deceased Kalpana on 10-09-2010 and gave birth to a male child. At the time of marriage father of the deceased presented Rs.1,00,000/- cash and 10 sovereigns of gold. The 2nd accused is the father, the 3rd accused is the sister of the first accused. The 4th accused is the husband of 3rd accused. Since the wife of 2nd accused died, the 3rd accused is the daughter living with the accused 1 and 2, along with her husband who is the 4th accused. Earlier to delivering a child by the deceased, the accused used to demand for additional dowry. Even after the birth of a male child, the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- cash and one gold chain to the child as additional dowry. The parents of the deceased expressed their inability to meet their demand, but ultimately they conceded by selling jaggery yield. The accused further harassed the deceased, therefore unable to bear the same she committed suicide by hanging on 03-03-2012. The marriage of the deceased was on 10-09-2010, whereas the deceased died on 03-03-2012 that too for dowry harassment. Therefore the prosecution charged the accused for the offence under section 304-B, 302 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The accused 1, 3 and 4 denied all the allegations and pleaded not guilty. During the pendency of this case, the accused No.2 died.

Therefore, burden is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

(ii) In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, the mother of the deceased is examined as PW-1, she deposed that the 1st accused married her deceased daughter Kalpana, 2nd accused is father, 3rd accused is the sister of A1, 4th accused is the husband of 3rd accused. 1st accused married the deceased about 7 years ago at Puligundlaswaraswamy temple, Penumur mandal.

At the time of marriage they presented four sovereigns of gold, but no dowry was given. Kalpana died about 6 years ago and she blessed with one son who was aged six months by the date of her 5 death. The accused 1 to 4 were living in joint family after marriage at Yelugundlapalli. There were no mis- understandings between the accused and the deceased Kalpana. Unable to bear abdominal pain Kalpana committed suicide by hanging. They provided treatment at Pakala and Tirupati, but not cured abdominal pain. Accused also provided treatment to Kalpana for about four months after delivery. She came to know about the death of deceased while she was in the village at about 9-00 PM, they went to the village found the dead body of Kalpana in front of the house of accused. She identified the signature of her husband on the complaint marked as Ex.P1. MO-1 is the nighty, MO-2 is saree, MO-3 is petty coat of the deceased.

(iii) PW-2 is Janakiram Reddy deposed that the 1st accused married his deceased daughter Kalpana, 2nd accused is father, 3rd accused is the sister of A1, 4th accused is the husband of 3rd accused. 1st accused married the deceased about 7 years ago at Puligundlaswaraswamy temple, Penumur mandal. At the time of marriage they presented four sovereigns of gold, but no dowry was given. Kalpana died about 6 years ago and she blessed with one son who was aged six months by the date of her death. The accused 1 to 4 were living in joint family after marriage at

Yelugundlapalli. There were no mis- understandings between the accused and the deceased Kalpana. Unable to bear abdominal pain, Kalpana committed suicide by hanging. They provided treatment at Pakala and Tirupati, but not cured abdominal pain.

Accused also provided treatment to Kalpana for about four months after delivery. He came to know about the death of deceased while he was in the village at about 9-00 PM, they went to the village found the dead body of Kalpana in front of the house of accused. He identified his signature on the complaint marked as

Ex.P1.

(iv) PW-2 is Sampoornamma deposed that the deceased Kalpana and accused are known persons to her, they married about 7 years ago, her house is situated two houses away 6 from the house of accused. She found the accused and Kalpana lived happily after marriage, there were no misunderstandings, they blessed with one son who is six months old by the date of death of Kalpana. On one day night at 9-00 PM she heard cries from the house of accused and heard that the deceased Kalpana suffered abdominal pain and unable to bear the same she committed suicide.

(v) PW-4 is Damodara Reddy deposed that the accused and the deceased Kalpana are known persons to him, they married about 7 years ago, no dowry was presented at the time of marriage, it is the accused who incurred all the expenses for the marriage. After marriage they lived happily at Yelugundlapalle.

Kalpana and 1st accused were blessed with one son aged six months and later Kalpana died due to severe abdominal pain.

(vi) PW-5 Gopinatha Reddy deposed that the accused and deceased Kalpana are known persons to him. The 1st accused and deceased Kalpana lived happily till the death of deceased,

Kalpana died about six years ago and she blessed with one son aged six months by the date of her death. Kalpana died unable to bear abdominal pain.

(vii) PW-6 Doraswamy Reddy deposed about the marriage of 1st accused with the deceased Kalpana, no dowry was presented at the time of marriage. There were no mediations between the parties after the marriage in respect of additional dowry demand.

(viii) PW-7 Jaganatha Reddy deposed that the accused and deceased Kalpana are known persons to him . He was present at the time of inquest and his signature on inquest is marked as

Ex.P8. PW-8 B.Krishnaiah is the Investigating officer.

11. As per ingredients for the offence under section 304-B IPC., admittedly the daughter of PWs-1 and 2 married the 1st accused on 10-09-2010 and she died in the house of accused on 7 03-03-2012 which is two years within the date of the marriage.

The prosecution alleged that the 1st accused being the husband, second accused being the father-in-law and accused 3 and 4 are the in-laws harassed the deceased to get Rs.50,000/- cash and one gold chain for the child towards additional dowry. It is stated that she told the additional dowry demand by the accused to her parents on that they promised to give the same after disposal of jaggery yield, but they were unable to pay the same by making all these allegations that report was given to the police by PWs-1 and 2, but when the matter coming up for trial they did not stick on to the earlier versions, but stated that the deceased Kalpana died unable to bear abdominal pain. As per the ingredients of the above penal provision, burden is also on the accused to show under what circumstances the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage with the 1st accused. The accused denied all the allegations made by the prosecution. As per the established principle of law simply because, the deceased Kalpana died in the house of the accused, one cannot lead to presumption that there was a dowry demand, therefore primafacie the additional dowry demand has to be proved through the prosecution witnesses. Now the prosecution witnesses stated that no dowry was paid at the time of marriage and no dowry was demanded by the accused. As per the original prosecution case a mediation was arose when the accused demanded additional dowry but those mediators now stated that no mediation took place in their presence and that PW- 1, PW-2 and the accused never appeared before them for the mediation. It is also placed on record that it is the accused who met all the marriage expenses and married the deceased with the 1st accused. In those circumstances there is no primafacie material to show that the accused demanded the deceased

Kalpana for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and one gold chain for the male child.

12. Another circumstance is in this case on 03-03-2012 when the 1st accused and other accused raised cries, hearing the same, neighbours gathered and found that the deceased Kalpana 8 was lying on the ground and her head was on the lap of the 1st accused and were crying for the death of the deceased. It is also stated by them that during the absence of accused the deceased

Kalpana hanged herself and committed suicide. There are no allegations that the accused did something and it is the cause of death of the deceased in order to attract the ingredients for the offence under section 302 IPC. The only allegation made against the accused is that they demanded additional dowry, but now the prosecution witnesses stated that there was no such demand.

Thus considering the above material, the prosecution witnesses consistently stated that there was no additional dowry demand and the deceased suffered abdominal pain and unable to bear the same she committed suicide. There is no material to prove the ingredients of the offence under section 498-A, 302 304-B IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and thus the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Point is answered against the prosecution.

11. In the result, A1, A3 and A4 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 498-A, 302, 304-B r/w 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and they are acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1,3 and 4 shall be in force for a period of six months. M.Os.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. During the course of trial A2 died. Hence the case against him is abated.

Dictated to the Stenographer and after transcription

by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of July, 2018.

I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution : Defence: PW-1 : Nagabhusanamma None 9

PW-2 : Janakirama Reddy PW-3 : G.Sampoornamma PW-4 : M. Dhamodar Reddy PW-5 : V.Gopinath Reddy PW-6 : Doraswamy Reddy PW-7 : Jaganadha Reddy PW-8 : B.Krishnaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution : Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.W.1 in complaint Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.6 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.7 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.8 : Signature of P.W.7 in inquest report Ex.P.9 : Complaint Ex.P.10: FIR

Defence : -Nil- Material Objects marked: M.O.1 .. Nighty M.O.2 ... Saree M.O.3 ... Petty Coat

I Addl District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

10

Fair Judgment in SC.315 of 2012

dt: 24-07-2018

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

­CUM­ I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present: Sri V.Sri Rama Chandra Murthy, Chairman, MACT ­cum­ I Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

Monday, the Thirtieth (30th ) day of July, 2018

M.V.O.P. No. 180 of 2016

Between:

P.Arun Kumar ... Petitioner.

And:

1. P.Ramesh (driver cum­owner)

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Represented by its Branch Manager, Chittoor

...Respondents.

This petition coming on before me for final hearing on 19­07­2018 and upon perusing the petition, written statement and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.Damodaram , Advocate for petitioners and of Sri G.Rajaram, advocate for 2nd Respondent, 1st respondent called absent and remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

A W A R D

1.This petition is filed under Sec. 166 (1) (a ) of Motor Vehicles

Act, to award compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/­ with interest and costs.

2. (i) It is stated that on 31­03­2013 at about 3­30 PM the petitioner and one M.Gunasekhar were traveling on Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.AP03/AM­5385 to attend the function at

Nagireddipalli Harijanawada, Puthalapattu Mandal, reached near

Ankalamma temple on Chittoor­Kadapa road, M.Bandapalli village at about 4­30 PM, they were going on extreme left side of the road at that time the 1st respondent who is owner­cum­driver of TATA Indica car bearing No. TN­09/AT­2194 came in a rash and negligent manner in high 2 speed without taking due care and caution lost control over the vehicle resulting in hit the motorcycle of the petitioner. The petitioner who is the rider of the motor cycle and the pillion rider Gunasekhar fell down, the petitioner sustained fracture to his right leg and injuries all over the body.

The Pillion rider Gunasekhar died on the spot. The petitioner was shifted to Government hospital, Chittoor for treatment. On the complaint by

P.Sathya Babu, a case was registered by Puthalapattu police against the 1st respondent in Cr.No.45 of 2013 under section 304­A, 338, 279 IPC and after investigation filed charge sheet against the 1st respondent. The petitioner was aged 21 years by the date of accident was quite, hale and healthy and working as coolie, used to get Rs.2150/­ per day and the same was contributed to the welfare of the family. The petitioner sustained injuries like closed fracture both bones of right leg and laceration exposing Tendocills and he was shifted to CMC hospital,

Vellore for better treatment, where he was inpatient for about 12 days, operation was conducted on his right leg, iron nail was inserted. The petitioner spent Rs.1,00,000/­ towards his treatment. Due to accident there was shortening of right leg of 2 cms, now he cannot attend his normal duties as earlier, cannot walk without help of sticks, cannot sit, stand and squat on floor as earlier also cannot attend to coolie work to get his livelihood. He is permanently disabled, suffering pain. Hence the petitioner is filed to award compensation of Rs.4,00,000/­

3. The 1st respondent remained exparte. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying all the averments and required the petitioner to prove that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent and that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner and the pillion rider. It is also alleged that the 3 petitioner did not observe traffic rules, had no valid driving license while driving motorcycle . The 1st respondent alone is liable to pay compensation since he violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also to prove that the petitioner sustained fracture to his right leg, underwent treatment by spending huge amounts and was inpatient in

CMC hospital, Vellore. This petition is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e. insurance company of the motorcycle. The claim of the petitioner is very high and excessive. The age of the petitioner was noted wrongly. There is no disability at all and sought and for dismissal of the petition.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

1. Whether the accident in question was occurred due

to rash and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for

compensation If so, what amount from which

respondent?

3. To what relief ?

7.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner

PWs.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 are marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent no witnesses were examined, but Ex.B.1 was marked by consent.

8. Heard the arguments of petitioner and 2nd respondent. 

9.ISSUE No.1:

(i). The contention of the petitioner is that on 31­03­2013 at about 4­30 PM., while himself along with Gunasekhar were going on motorcycle and he was the rider of the motorcycle and Gunasekhar was the pillion rider, reached near Ankalamma Temple on Chittoor­Kadapa road, M.Bandapalli village, Puthalapattu Mandal at about 4­30 PM., when 4 the 1st respondent drove TATA Indica car bearing No. TN­09/AT­2194 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle resulting the petitioner fell down and died on the spot. They were shifted to

Government hospital, Chittoor for treatment from there the petitioner was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore where he was inpatient for 12 days. The respondent denied all the averments, therefore the burden is on the petitioner to establish that the 1st respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In order to substantiate his contention the petitioner is examined as PW­1 and deposed how the accident was occurred about the death of pillion rider, registration of the case against the 1st respondent in Puthalapattu police station and after investigation filed charge sheet against the 1st respondent. The copy of FIR is marked as Ex.A1. Charge sheet copy filed against the 1st respondent for the offence under section 304­A, 338 and 279 IPC in Cr.No.45 of 2013 is marked as Ex.A2. Ex.A4 is accident information report. Ex.A5 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report. There documents goes to show that the 1st respondent drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and was responsible for the accident, wherein the petitioner sustained injuries. During the cross­examination it is elicited that the petitioner is not the owner of the two wheeler bearing No. AP03/AM­5385 on which he was rider, he was having driving license but it is not filed into the court, he is attending to coolie work. He denied to a suggestion that the accident was occurred due to the negligent act of the petitioner. The other two witnesses examined by the petitioner are the medical officers.

In order to disprove the contention of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent did not examine any witness or produced any document. The 1st respondent is also not examined to show that there was no negligence on his part and further it is the petitioner who drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent a manner. Whatever suggested by the 2nd respondent was 5 denied by PW­1. Mere pleading in the written statement and making suggestion to PW­1 is not sufficient to establish the fact that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner while driving the motor cycle. The petitioner placed oral and documentary evidence and proved that it is the 1st respondent who was negligent in driving TATA Indica car. Therefore it is established that the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of TATA India car bearing No. TN­09/AT­2194 by the 1st respondent. Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

8. Issue No. 2 : (i) The contention of the petitioner is that in the accident his right leg was fractured, there was a laceration exposing tendocilles and that he was treated initially at Government hospital,

Chittoor, later at CMC Hospital, Vellore. It is also stated that he was inpatient for about 12 days at CMC hospital, Vellore. The 2nd respondent disputed the contention of the petitioner, therefore in order to prove sustaining of injuries in the accident, the petitioner deposed as PW­1 and got marked the copy of wound certificate as Ex.A3, discharge summary issued by CMC Hospital, Chittoor as Ex.A5. X­ray of right leg as ex.A6.

the said hospital issued consolidated medical bill for Rs.69,496/­.

Subsequent to the said treatment it is stated by the petitioner that he was treated by Dr. M.Sanjeeva Raidu, Madanapalle and the said medical prescription is marked as Ex.A9. During cross­examination the 2nd respondent suggested that the injuries sustained and medical treatment were all not true which was denied by PW­1. In order toprove the medical treatment the petitioner summoned the doctor who treated the petitioner at CMC Hospital, Vellore is examined as PW­3 and he deposed that on 01­04­2013 the petitioner was admitted in their hospital that alleged story of road accident at 4.00 PM on 31­03­2013 at Chittoor and on 6 examination found 3 x 4 cm laceration and similar 0.5 x 2 cms laceration over the heel exposing tendouchilles. There is abnormal inability over the right tibia associated with tenderness and cespitus and also found closed fracture both bone right leg laceration exposing tendouchilles. The surgery was done on right tibia by mailing debridement and saturating of the right heel and the petitioner was discharged on 12­04­2013 with a a recommendation to undergo physiotherapy and also non weight bearing crutch walking. Ex.A8 is the discharge summary. Ex.X1 is inpatient case sheet and Ex.X2 is the out patient case sheet. The petitioner was attended to follow up treatment at CMC Hospital till July, 2013. The above oral and documentary evidence goes to show that the petitioner sustained fracture to his right leg, therefore for sustaining grievous injury to right leg, as amount of Rs.50,000/­ is awarded to the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner stated that there is disability due to the injuries and he was treated further by Dr. M.Sanjeeva Raidu and that doctor is examined as PW­2. On 20­12­2014 he examined the petitioner and issued disability certificate stating that he found healed wounds, fracture is clinically healed, the petitioner was unable to sit and squat with difficulty. X­ray shows healed fracture of right tibia. He issued the disability certificate marked as Ex.A7 stating that disability is 20%.

During cross­examination he admitted that before issuing permanent disability certificate, he treated the petitioner, but did not verify the medical records maintained by CMC hospital, Vellore. But this witness issued disability certificate on physical and clinical examination of the petitioner. It is also suggested that PW­2 is not authorized to issue disability certificate. A perusal of Ex.A7 goes to show that medical certificate in respect of an Orthopedically handicapped candidate that PW­ 7 2examined the petitioner and issued certificate. On this aspect the disability certificate has to be issued by the medical board constituted by the head quarters hospital of each District, therefore Ex.A7 disability certificate as issued by PW­2 is not valid. It is not explained why the petitioner did not approach the medical board to get medical certificate even though he underwent medical treatment initially in Government hospital, Chittoor. The petitioner also not obtained disability certificate from PW­3 who treated him at CMC hospital. Nothing was elicited while examining PW­2 about the disability. PW­3 is the fit person to certify about the disability, but nothing was elicited as such the alleged disability is not proved. PW­2 is not competent and authorized person to issue disability certificate.

(iii) Regarding the medical expenses, the petitioner filed medical bills issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore marked as Ex.A5, Ex.A6 is X­ray film. Ex.A8 is consolidated bill for Rs.69,496/­. Therefore considering the evidence of Pw­3 and Exs.A5, a6 and A8 an amount of Rs.75,000/­ is awarded towards medical expenses .

(iv) The petitioner further stated that he is a resident of

Nagireddipalle Harijanawada, Puthalapattu Mandal and he underwent treatment at CMC hospital, Vellore, he was inpatient for 12 days.

Therefore he requires one attendant during the course of treatment at

Vellore for that purpose one attendant has to stay at Vellore and towards his boarding and lodging and for travelling, an amount of Rs.25,000/­ is awarded. The petitioner stated to be a coolie and used to earn Rs.250/­ per day, but no document is filed. The petitioner is aged about 21 years.

8

It is not stated the nature of coolie work he used to attend. Any way considering his age it is likely to earn Rs.100/­ per day. Due to this accident he might have lost his income for about six months and towards loss of income, an amount of Rs.20,000/­ is awarded. Towards transportation and for diet, an amount of Rs.10,000/­ is awarded. Thus the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,30,000/­.

(v) The 1st respondent is the owner­cum­driver of the crime vehicle. As per Ex.B1 insurance policy, the said crime vehicle was duly insured with the 2nd respondent, therefore the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, issue

No.2 is answered accordingly.

09. Issue No.3:

In the result, this petition is partly allowed, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/­ with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month, on deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount. Rest of the claim is dismissed. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/­.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me

and pronounced in Open Court, this the 30th day of July, 2018.

Sd/ V. Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Chairman, 9

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ­cum­ I Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the 

Petitioner: Respondents: P.W.1 P.Arun Kumar None P.W.2 Dr. M.Sanjeeva Raidu P.W.3 Rony Savio Kuruvilla

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE

Petitioner: Ex.A.1 ... Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A.2 ... Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A.3 ... Certified copy of Wound certificate Ex.A.4 ... Certified copy of Accident Information report Ex.A.5 ... Certified copy of Dischage summary issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore Ex.A.6 ... X­ray films of right leg Ex.A.7 … Permanent Disability certificate issued by Dr. Sanjeeva Raidu, Madanapalle Ex.A.8 … Consolidated bill for Rs.69,496/­ Ex.A.9 … Medical prescription issued by Dr. Sanjeeva Raidu, Madanapalle

Ex.X.1 … Inpatient case sheet Ex.X.2 … Out patient case sheet

Respondents: Ex.B.1:Certified copy of Insurance Policy

Sd/ V. Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Chairman, MACT­cum­I ADJ, CTR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present:­ Sri V. Sri Rama Chandra Murthy, I Addl. District & Sessions Judge. 

Friday the 20 th (Twentieth) day of July, 2018.

IESC No. 112 of 2012

Cr.No. 36 of 2012 of PTM Police Station

Complainant The State represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, PTM Police station.

Accused 1. Mukandla Lakshminarsu @ Narasimhulu, aged 35 years, S/o M.Narayana, Narevendlapalle, H/o Thavalam, Thanakallu Mandal, Ananthapur District

2. Chola Haricharan Reddy, age 35 years, S/o C.Srinivasulu Reddy, Kutagallu, Kadiri Mandal, Ananthapur District.

3. Madhumuri Narasimhulu, age 30 uyears, S/o M.Appanna, Narevendlapalle, H/o Thavalam, Thanakallu Mandal, Ananthapur District

The prosecution is Sri K.S.Jayaram conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor. The accused are Smt. V.Somasekhar Reddy, counsel for accused No.1 to 3 defended by

OFFENCEUnder section 136 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 ChargesUnder Section 136 (1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not Guilty

Finding of the Accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty court 

Sentence or order In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under section 136 (1) (b) of Electricity

Act and they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A3 shall be in force for a period of six months. The accused No.2 shall be released forthwith if his presence is not required in any other case. MO­1 Aluminum wire which was already handed over to PW­1 shall be of

APSPDCL after appeal time is over.

2

This case coming before me for final hearing on 18­07­2018 and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon perusing the arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V.Somasekhar Reddy, counsel for accused 1 to 3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, PTM Police station filed charge sheet the accused 1 to 3 for the offences under sections 136 of Electricity

Act in crime No. 36 of 2012 of PTM P.S.

2. It is stated that on the night of 23­07­2012 and 24­07­2012 at

Maddireddypalli, Dulamvaaripalli, Uyyalavaaripalli, Devappakota,

Marugaanipalli, Bommireddypalli, Chendryunipalli villages of PTM

Mandal some unknown offenders damaged 10 distribution transformers in various places and committed theft of 140 Kgs of Aluminum winding wire worth Rs.23,000/­. On the complaint of LW­1 B.Surendra Naik, Assistant

Engineer, APSPDCL, PTM, a case in Cr.No.36 of 2012 was registered, investigated, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and examined the witnesses. During the course of investigation on 25­08­2012 at 2­00 PM at Sarkarthopu bus stop on Kadiri road, h/o Angallu the accused 1 to 3 were apprehended by the S.I. of police, Madanapalle Taluk PS., in

Cr.No.125 of 2012 in the presence of two mediators and seized 60 Kgs of

Aluminum winding wire. The seized property was identified by LW­1

B.Surendra Naik, Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, PTM Mandal. Thus the accused 1 to 3 have committed an offence punishable under section 136(1)

(b) of Electricity Act. Hence the charge.

2. The case was taken on file for the offence under section 136(1)

(b) of Electricity Act, 2003.

3. On production of accused 1 to 3, copies of case documents were furnished to them. 

4. After hearing the prosecution and the learned defence counsel, a charge under section 136 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 has been framed 3 against the accused 1 to 3, read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty.

5. In proof of its case, the Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P­1 to P13 and MO­1. 

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused 1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them, for which they denied the evidence and stated that they have no defence evidence.

7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel

for the accused. 

8. Now the point for determination is: 

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence under section 136 of Electricity Act, 2003 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that some unknown offenders damaged 10 distribution transformers at Maddireddypalli,

Dulamvaaripalli, Uyyalavaaripalli, Devappakota, Marugaanipalli,

Bommireddypalli, Chendryunipalli villages and committed theft of 140 Kgs of Aluminum winding wire worth Rs.23,000/­ and part of the property was recovered from the accused. In order to prove the same, the Assistant

Engineer B.Surendra Naik is examined as PW­1, testified that his line

Inspector reported that ten transformers situated at Varadaiahgaripalle,

Vuyalavaripalle,Dulambaripalle,Devappakota,Marganipalle,

Bommireddipalle, Chendrayanapalle some unknown offenders committed theft of Aluminum wire. He made a complaint to police marked as Ex.P1.

The Investigating Officer who received Ex.P1 complaint is examined as

PW­4 C.L.Subramanyam, Asst. Sub­ Inspector of police. He issued FIR marked as Ex.P3, visited the places where theft was occurred, prepared rough sketches marked as Exs.P4 to P13. Another Investigating officer

T.Madhu is examined as PW­3 and he testified apprehension of the accused and seizure of Aluminum winding wire from them in the presence of mediators. The said property is marked as Mo.1 which belongs to

APSPDCL.

4

(ii) Regarding the seizure of the property, PW­3 T.Madhu, Inspector of police testified that while conducting investigation in Cr.No.125 of 2012 of Madanapalle Taluk Police station, on 25­08­2012 he received information about the movements of the accused at Sarkar Thopu bus stop on

Madanapalle – Angallu main road, apprehended all three accused with 8 gunny bags, opened those gunny bags, he found two bundles of 40 Kgs of

Aluminum winding wire out of 30 Kgs relates of K.V.Palle police station in

Cr.No.46 of 2012 and 15 Kgs relates to K.V.Palle police station in Cr.No.57 of 2012 in second bag found two bundles of 90 Kgs of Aluminum winding wire out of it 60 Kgs relates to PTM police station in Cr.No.36 of 2012 and 30

Kgs relates to PTM police station in Cr.No.39 of 2012. The third bag contains 40 Kgs of Aluminum winding wire relates to PTM police station in Cr.No.40 of 2012. In fourth bag contains 25 Kgs of Aluminum winding wire relates to

Molakalacheruvu police station in Cr.No.55 of 2012. In fifth bag contains 11.5 kgs of Aluminum ingots relates to Piler police station in Cr.No.144 of 2012. In sixth bag contains 30 Kgs of copper winding wire relates to

Madanapalle Taluk police station in Cr.No.125 of 2012. In seventh bag contains 50 Kgs of copper winding wire relates to Madanapalle Taluk Police station in Cr.No.151 of 2012. Eighth bag contains 30 Kgs of copper winding wire relates to Madanapalle Taluk police station in Cr.No.152 of 2012. He arrested the accused by preparing mahazar marked as Ex.P2, signed by him arrested by PW­2, M.Bharath and all the three accused. Later PW­1 came to police station and identified MO­1 Alluminum wire.

(iii) Pw­3 further deposed that he accused are inn possession of electrical winding wire and their possession is not substantiated, therefore the accused have either committed theft or in possession of stolen property or in possession of Aluminum winding wire. In order to corroborate the evidence of PW­3 the mediator is examined as PW­2 M.Srinivasulu and he also stated that he along with M.Bharath another mediator were present at the time of seizure of property from the accused, in their presence 8 bags were opened and found electrical winding wire. Ex.P2 is mediators report and Mo­1 is the said property.

5

(iv) The defence counsel argued that the presence of PW­2 and

M.Bharath, another mediator is doubtful, seizure of property is not proved and further Investigating officer did not follow the procedure prescribed for search and seizure of the property. On this aspect during the cross­ examination of PW­2 it is elicited that no requisition was issued by the police to MRO to depute PW­2 and another VRO M.Bharath. PW­2 also admitted that their names were not noted at the top of Ex.P2 mediators report.

(v) The defence counsel argued that if really PW­2 and M.Bharath were present at the time of seizure, then PW­3 ought to have noted the mediators names at the top of mediator’s report as though they were present and in their presence 8 bags were searched and seized. PW­2 further admitted that no punch slips or labels were affixed to the seized bag. There are houses at Sarkar Thopu where the property was seized, but no attempt was made to call the inmates of those houses to be present at the time of seizure. The witnesses were unable to identify the accused persons from whom theft property was seized. The crime numbers in Ex.P2 mediator’s report were noted but it is not stated how PW­3 Investigating

Officer got those names when the property was seized from the accused.

The signatures of the accused were obtained at the last page of Ex.P2 but not on each and every page. This version goes to show the very presence of

Pw­2 M.Srinivasulu and M.Bharath another mediator at the time of seizure of property is doubtful. It is not explained why the names of mediators were not noted at the top of the mediator’s report, except noting as in the presence of elders who are able to sign at the end of the mediator’s report.

Ex.P2 mediator’s report runs into six pages. At the foot of the mediator’s report PW­3 and another S.I. signed. The scribe who is constable signed and below their signatures, the signatures of the accused 1 to 3 were obtained and beneath their signatures, there is an endorsement that the above search and seizure took place in the presence of mediators, then the signatures of PW­2 and another VRO M.Bharath were obtained. The way in which the mediators signatures are obtained at the end of Ex.P2 mediator’s report in 6th page creates suspicion that there is possibility of altering 1 to 4 6 pages and to add something more to this report. Ex.P2 was prepared on 25­ 08­2012, but it was submitted to court on 27­08­2012 . It is not explained how PW­3 identified part of the property that was seized from the bags of the accused as though belongs to a particular station and particular crime number. Those particulars were not furnished by PW­3 before apprehension of the accused and before seizure of the property. There is no possibility for the accused to furnish the crime numbers of other police stations to PW­2. Strangely Pw­3 noted all the crime numbers in Ex.P2.

Regarding the identification of the property Pw­1 stated that he has not furnished the descriptive particulars of the property that was committed theft. PW­3 Investigating officer admitted that Aluminum wire that will be used in the transformers in similar. In those circumstances the

Investigating Officer should take proper steps to get the property identified at the time of seizure. He did not choose to paste identification slips in all the 8 bags and also to obtain the signatures of mediators on those slips. In order to avoid tampering of property from the date of seizure till it was deposited into court. He denied to a suggestion that similar to the property that was seized will be available in the open market.

(vi) The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that there is no necessity for the prosecution to plant huge electrical winding wire in order to implicate the accused. On this aspect no doubt the property seized is about 170 Kgs, in all the cases but the way in which it was said to have seized from the accused creates such an impression that the presence of mediators is doubtful and it is not explained how PW­3 identified the seized property as though belongs to some other crimes pending in other police stations.

Therefore seizure of some electrical winding wire is not sufficient, but seizure of the same from the accused in the presence of mediators is to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish the seizure of MO­1 from the accused, therefore point is answered against the prosecution.

10. In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under section 136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act and they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A3 shall be in force 7 for a period of six months. The accused No.2 shall be released forthwith if his presence is not required in any other case. MO­1 Aluminum wire which was already handed over to PW­1 shall be of APSPDCL after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer and after transcription by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20 th day of July, 2018.

I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For defence PW1 : B. Surendra Naik NIL. PW2 : M.Srinivasulu PW3 : T. Madhu PW4 : C.L. Subramanyam

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution: Ex.P­1 : Complaint in Cr.No.36 of 2012 Ex.P.2: Mahazar Ex.P.3: F.I.R. in Cr.No. 46 of 2012 Exs.P.4 to P13 Rough sketches 

For defence NIL Material Objects:

MO.1: 30 kgs. of Copper wire MO.2: 15 kgs. of Copper wire

I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

8

Fair Judgment in IESC. No.112 of 2012

dt: 20­07­2018

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

 ­CUM­ I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present: Sri V.Sri Rama Chandra Murthy, Chairman, MACT ­cum­ I Additional District

Judge, Chittoor.

Friday, the Twenty­Sixth (26th ) day of July, 2018

M.V.O.P. No. 291 of 2016

Between:

R.Kumar

... Petitioner

And:

1. Devineni Lokesh Kumar @ D.Lokesh Kumar (Owner ­cum­rider of motorcycle)

2. The National Insurance Corporation Ltd. Represented by its Branch Manager, Chittoor

...Respondents.

This petition coming on before me for final hearing on 19­ 07­2018 and upon perusing the petition, written statement and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.Lokanadham,  Advocate for petitioner and of Sri V.Murugan advocate for 1st Respondent, and Sri S.Vijayabhaskar Rao, advocate for 2nd respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

A W A R D

1.This petition is filed under Sec. 166 (1) (a ) of Motor

Vehicles Act, to award compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/­ with interest and costs. 

2. (i). It is stated that on 13­09­2014 the petitioner went to his work on his cycle and while returning at 10­30 PM proceeding infront of Mayuri Restaurant, Chittoor on the left side of the road, the 1strespondent drove Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing

No.AP03/AN­6603 in a rash and negligent manner lost control and dashed against the cycle of the petitioner resulting in the petitioner 2 sustained head injury became unconscious, immediately he was shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor and after providing first aid he was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore and he was admitted as in­patent from 14­09­2014 to 23­09­2014 and underwent operation. So far the petitioner spent Rs.1,00,000/­ towards medical expenses. He sustained injury on his head and also left frontal and temporal contusions. He made a complaint through his brother, the SHO Traffic Police station, Chittoor registered a case in Cr.No. 60 of 2014 under section 337 IPC against the 1st respondent. After investigation filed charge sheet in

CC.No. 507 of 2014 against the 1st respondent. Due to injuries the

petitioner became permanently disabled, unable to attend any work and he is suffering head­ache, while moving outside the house. The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and it was insured with the 2nd respondent, therefore both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

3. The 1st respondent remained exparte. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying all the averments and required the petitioner to prove that he was aged 42 years, working as painter earning Rs.20,000/­ per month and that he was riding cycle on the left side of the road on 13­09­2014 and the 1st respondent came on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 03 AN 6603 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner resulting in he sustained injury on the head and also on the left frontal and temporal region . It is also to prove that first aid is provided at Government Hospital, Chittoor and later he was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore where he spent Rs.1,00,000/­ while undergoing treatment as inpatient. It is also to prove that brother of the petitioner gave complaint, it was registered against the 1st respondent, Later filed charge sheet. It is further stated that there is delay in filing the complaint. The crime vehicle is not involved in this accident. It is planted vehicle . The compensation claimed is very high and excessive and sought for dismissal of the petition.

3

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

1. Whether the accident ink question was caused

due to the rash and negligent driving of the

rider­cum­owner of Bajaj Pulser Motor Cycle

bearing No. AP03/AN­6603? 

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any

compensation if so, to what amount and from

whom?

3. To what relief ?

5.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner

PWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 and Ex.X1 and X2 are marked. On behalf of the respondents Ex.B.1 is marked.

6. Heard the arguments of petitioners and 2nd respondent. 

7.ISSUE NO. 1 :

(i). The case of the petitioner is that on 13­09­2014 at 10­ 30 PM while he was returning from his painting work, reached in front of Mayuri Restaurant, Chittoor there the 1st respondent came on his motorcycle by riding the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner resulting in the petitioner sustained injuries on head and on left frontal and temporal region.

The 1st respondent remained exparte. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying all the averments, therefore in order to substantiate the contention of the petitioner, he examined himself as

PW­1 and deposed as per the averments in the petition. The copy of

FIR is marked as Ex.A1. After investigation charge sheet is filed against the 1st respondent and its copy is marked as Ex.A2. Ex.A3 is the wound certificate. Ex.A4 is the copy of accident information report. During cross­examination of PW­1 it is elicited about his working hours, he cannot say where he attended in painting work.

He admitted that complaint was given after three days. He denied to a suggestion that complaint is filed against the 1st respondent in 4 collusion with him with an intention to get compensation. Except this there are no other suggestions that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. The suggestion that the petitioner is at fault was denied by him. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed through PW­1, it is established that the 1st respondent drove the motor cycle and dashed against the petitioner and in that accident petitioner sustained injuries. In order to disprove the same, the 2nd respondent did not choose to examine any official. No documents are marked on his behalf. Simply denying the contention of the petitioner is not sufficient, but there should be some proof. The 1st respondent is also not examined any witness. Thus absolutely no material to show that the petitioner did not sustain injuries in the accident.

(ii) Regarding the delay in filling the complaint, it is stated by the petitioner that after the accident he was shifted to

Government hospital and from there to CMC Hospital, Vellore, he was admitted as inpatient from 14­09­2014 upto 23­09­2014 and underwent operation. Therefore on his behalf his brother gave a complaint to police and in that course some delay was occurred.

The 2nd respondent made an allegation that the delay was caused intentionally only to involve the 1st respondent and his vehicle to get compensation, but this allegation was made in the written statement and not examined any witness to prove the same. The SHO, Traffic police investigated into the case and filed charge sheet against the 1st respondent and copy is marked as Ex.A2. Therefore the investigation disclosed about the involvement of the 1st respondent and the crime vehicle. Therefore it is established that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent while riding Bajaj Pulser motorcycle bearing No.AP03/AN­6603.

Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitio9enr and against the respondents.

9 Issue No.2: The petitioner claimed compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/­ from the respondents. It is stated that he sustained 5 injuries to his head and left frontal and also on temporal contusions. In order to prove the same, the petitioner produced the wound certificate marked as Ex.A3, wherein the particulars of above injuries were noted. The accident information report is marked as Ex.A4. The petitioner was discharged from the hospital and that certificate is Ex.A5. The consolidation bill is Ex.A6. The medical bills are Ex.A7. The 2nd respondent required the petitioner to prove about the treatment in CMC hospital, Vellore about the injuries, therefore the petitioner summoned the medical officer from

CMC Hospital, Vellore who is examined as PW­2 produced the medical record marked as Exs.X1 and X2. He certified that Exs.A6 and A7 medical bills are issued by their hospital. During cross­ examination it is elicited that the injuries sustained by the petitioner is grievous in nature. Thus apart from the evidence of PW­1, the petitioner also produced medical evidence which established that the petitioner sustained grievous injury. Therefore for sustaining head injury an amount of Rs.50,000/­ is awarded. The petitioner sustained two contusions and for each contusion an amount of

Rs.10,000/­ each was awarded. Similar amount of Rs.50,000/­ +

Rs.10,000/­ and another sum of Rs.10,000/­ are awarded towards pain and suffering. The petitioner produced medical bills for

Rs.32,579/­ marked as Ex.A6 and another set of medical bills are for Rs. 26,730 marked as Ex.A7 and all these bills were originated from CMC Hospital, Vellore as confirmed by PW­2. Therefore a sum of Rs.35,000/­ and Rs.30,000/­ are awarded towards medical expenses. The petitioner was inpatient at CMC Hospital, Velllore from 14­09­2014 to 23­09­2014 for about 10 days due to head injury. Therefore he requires some assistance because the petitioner is a resident of Chittoor and one person has to stay along with the petitioner in the hospital. Therefore for lodging and boarding, a sum of Rs.25,000/­ is awarded. Considering the nature of injuries and inpatient period and also out patient record, the petitioner requires good diet for that a sum of Rs.10,000/­ is awarded. Towards transporting an amount of Rs.10,000/­ is awarded. In total the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/­ .

6

(iv). The 1st respondent is the owner­cum­rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP03/AN­6603 and the 2nd respondent is the Insurer. The policy was in force by the date of accident marked as Ex.B.1, therefore the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly. 

10.Issue No. 3 :

In the result, this petition is partly allowed, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/­ with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month , on such deposit the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount. Rest of the claim is dismissed. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs. 2,500/­.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected by me and pronounced in Open Court, this the 26th day of

July , 2018.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ­cum­ I Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the 

Petitioner: Respondents: P.W.1 R.Kumar None P.W.2 R.Ramesh

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE

Petitioner: Ex.A.1 ... Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A.2 ... Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A.3 ... Certified copy of Wound certificate Ex.A.4 ... Certified copy of Accident Information Report 7

Ex.A.5 ... Certified copy of Discharge summary Ex.A.6 ... Original consolidation bill Ex.A.7 … Original bills for Rs.26,739/­ 

Ex.X,1 … Admission record Ex.X2 … Oukt patient record.

Respondents: Ex.B.:Certified Copy of Insurance Policy 1

Chairman, MACT­cum­I ADJ, CTR.

8

Fair Order in MVOP. 291 of 2016

dt: 26­07­2018