Sri.Y.Jaya Prasad

Page 1 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT RAJENDRANAGAR

PRESENT: Y. JAYA PRASAD, XI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, FAC :: Special Judge for Trial and Disposal Of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Rajendranagar

DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

Sessions Case No. 622 of 2022

(Cr.No.540 of 2022 of P.S Rajendranagar)

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rajendranagar Division.

2 Name of the accusedPachala Sriramulu @ Pabbala Sriramulu S/o. Late Ramulu, Aged 37 Years, Occ: Labour R/o. Plot No.161, Maddiletti Laxminarsimha SwamyNilayam,AbhyudayaNagar, Bandlaguda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, R.R. Dist.

3 Offences Charged ofUnder Sections 376 (2) (f), 376 AB IPC and section 5 (m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 4 Crime No.& Name of the 540 of 2022 of P.S Rajendranagar PS 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

6 Finding of the CourtFound guilty.

7 Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (f), 376 (3), 376 AB Indian Penal Code and section 3 (a) r/w 4, section 5 (m) r/w 6, section 5 (n) r/w 6 POCSO Act accordingly convicted U/Sec.235 (2) Cr.P.C for the above charges.

8 Name of the Prosecution Sri B.Venkateswar Reddy counsel 9 Name of the defence Sri. Praveen Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel. counsel

Page 2 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of In charge Addl Public Prosecutor Sri B.Venkateswar Reddy, for the State and of Sri. Praveen Kumar, Legal Aid counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Rajendranagar Division, Cyberabad Commissionerate against the accused in Crime No. 540 of 2022 for the offences under section 376 (2) (f), 376 AB Indian Penal code and section 5 (m) (n) r/w 6 Pocso Act.

2. In brief prosecution case is to the following effect:

Victim girl was nine years of age at the time of offence and her family was residing in Abhyudaya Nagar colony, Bandlaguda Jagir, Gandipet,

Hyderabad. Victim girl’s mother works as maid servant, where as her father works as daily labourer. On 19.03.2022 as usually victim’s mother had gone away for her work as maid servant and got back to home at 4.00 pm. During her absence the victim girl and her father alone were present at home, and the mother observed the victim girl was looking dull and depressive mood. She thought that the victim girl was looking tiresome and weary as then half a day schools were operated, in hot summer day the victim girl gone on foot to schoo. On next day i.e. on 20.03.2022 at 8.30 pm after having dinner with her daughter and husband, the husband had gone away from house then victim girl went to her mother looking scary and frightened slowly told her mother that on 19.03.2022 while victim’s girl mother went away from house to her duty as maid servant, then accused/victim’s father and the victim girl only were present in the house then the accused – victim’s father had removed her underwear and also undressed himself and had inserted his private part into the private part of the victim girl – his daughter. As the victim girl felt pain

Page 3 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

accused had closed her mouth. That the accused had also threatened the victim girl – his daughter, to kill if she reveals the incident to her mother. On return of the accused to home victim’s mother had questioned him as to why he had done so, the accused had threatened her also. On next day victim’s mother informed the incident to her landlady and on her advise gone to police station and filed report. Same was registered as crime No. 540 of 2022 under section 376 (2) (f), 376 AB Indian Penal Code and section 5 (m) r/w 6 Pocso Act.

The Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statement of victim’s mother and got recorded the statement of victim girl by a lady police officer

LW15 – Ms. B. Swetha. Referred the victim girl to Government Hospital for examination and age determination, got recorded the statement of victim girl and her mother under section 164 Cr.P.C. Examined and recorded the statements of victim girl’s mother – LW1, LW3 – M. Padmavathi – House Owner,

LW4 – Kranthi Kumar Reddy – Son of House Owner, LW5 – Kumara Swamy –

Clues Team Police constable, LW6 – M. Anil Kumar – Police Constable –

Photographer of scene of offence. Visited scene of offence and observed in the presence of LW7 – G. Rajesh Goud, LW8 – Raghavendra Swamy. On 22.03.2022 arrested the accused and seized his wearing clothes and got him examined by doctor for potency. Then sent him to court for remand. Referred the body fluids of victim girl collected by the lady doctor to FSL. On conclusion of investigation after collecting the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report and potency certificate laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences under section 376 (2) (f) 376 AB Indian Penal Code and section 5 (m) r/w 6 Pocso Act.

3. Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (f), 376 AB,

Page 4 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

IPC and section 5 (m) r/w 6 Pocso Act against accused and registered as SC.622 of 2022 and issued summons to accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case papers were furnished

U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. By virtue of order Dt. 10.06.2022, vide ROC.No.346/E1/2022 of Hon’ble

High Court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad, Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District made over this case to this court, for trial and disposal.

6. Heard on charges, framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (f), 376 (3), 376 AB IPC and section 3 (a) r/w 4, section 5 (m) r/w 6, section 5 (n) r/w 6 Pocso Act., explained to accused in vernacular language, he pleaded not guilty & claimed to be tried.

7. During course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and marked

Ex.P1 to P11 and MOs1 to 5.

8. On completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and explained all the incriminating evidence against him on record, denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Case of the accused is of total denial and is innocent.

9. Learned prosecutor argues that there is sufficient legal evidence on record in proof of the charges, that this is a case of heinous offence where father committed sexual offence against a minor daughter, the accused being father is supposed to be the protector and benefactor himself turned monster and committed the offence unmindful of his relationship and also the tender age of his daughter the victim girl. That the victim girl and her mother and the

Page 5 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

circumstantial witnesses have categorically deposed giving graphic account as to the offence and how accused had resorted to the same. That the medical evidence substantiates and corroborates the ocular evidence of victim girl, her mother and other circumstantial witnesses. The case was registered promptly immediately after the occurrence of the offence followed by the investigation succinctly, which ultimately indicated the commission of offence by the accused. So, there is ample legal evidence against the accused in proof of the charges, thus the learned prosecutor requests to record conviction against the accused and sentence him appropriately as per the law.

10. On the other hand the learned counsel argues, let alone the legal evidence there is not even an iota of evidence. All the material witnesses have deposed in their own way per contra and inconsistently not only their ‘inter se’ evidence, but to the very case of the prosecution. That there is no consistency in the ocular testimony of victim and her mother. Medical evidence does not support the oral evidence of victim, and other circumstantial witnesses. That there are disputes and matrimonial strife between victim girl’s mother and accused, to avenge the same the false case was filed, in fact by mother of the victim girl used the victim girl as tool. That the accused is innocent, there is no evidence on record to drive home the guilt of the accused. So, the learned legal aid counsel requests to record clean acquittal.

11. Now the sole point that falls for consideration is whether

prosecution could prove the charge for the offences under section 376

(2) (f), 376 (3), 376 AB IPC and section 3a r/w 4, section 5 (m) r/w 6,

section 5 (n) r/w 6 Pocso Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

12. POINT: In order a charge for the offences referred to above be established prosecution needs to prove following facts with legal evidence.

Page 6 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

1. That the accused being the father of the victim girl committed rape on her.

2. That the accused committed rape on the victim girl who is below twelve years of age.

4. That the accused being the father committed sexual assault on his daughter.

13. Here it is apposite to state the charges for which accused stood trial, they read as follows:

“That you the accused being father of the victim, prior to 22.03.2022, in your house committed rape on her, who is aged about 9 years, who is minor and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 376 (2) (f) IPC.

That you the accused being father of the victim, prior to 22.03.2022, in your house committed rape on her, who is aged about 9 years, who is minor and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 376 (3) IPC.

That you the accused being father of the victim, prior to 22.03.2022, in your house committed rape on her, who is aged about 9 years, who is minor and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 376 AB IPC.

That you the accused being father of the victim, prior to 22.03.2022, in your house committed penetrative sexual assault on her, who is aged about 9 years, who is minor and thereby committed an offence punishable under sec- tion 3 (a) r/w 4 Pocso Act.

That you the accused being father of the victim, prior to 22.03.2022, in your house committed rape on her, who is aged about 9 years, who is minor and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 5 (m) r/w 6 Pocso Act.

That you the accused being father of the victim, prior to 22.03.2022, in your house committed rape on her, who is aged about 9 years, who is minor and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 5 (n) r/w 6 Pocso Act.”

14. In order to prove these charges following evidence is adduced.

Before adverting to the evidence with regard to offence proper, prosecu-

tion needs to prove firstly the minority of the victim girl in proof of a charge for the offence under Pocso Act. Therefore, now the evidence in proof of the minor- ity of the victim girl be evaluated.

Page 7 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

A. PROOF OF MINORITY OF VICTIM GIRL:

I. Ex.P1 is the report which contains the recital that the victim girl was nine years of age at the time of offence. Victim’s mother – PW1 deposes that the victim girl is her younger daughter, she is seven years of age, studying 3rd

Class a the time of the offence. PW2 is victim girl herself, states her age as nine years. In fact, before proceeding to record her evidence preliminary ques- tions have been put, after recording the satisfaction by the Honble Court the evidence was recorded. The victim girl deposes that, she was studying 2nd

Class at the time of offence. PW3 the circumstantial witnesses also states that the victim girl was “nine” years of age. PW9 is the doctor. She examined victim girl. She deposes, on the requisition made by Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Rajendranagar Sub Division she had examined the victim girl for determination of her age. The victim girl was 131 cms of Height, 25 Kilograms of Weight,

Chest 24 cms, abdominal width 22.5 cms, General Built – Appearance was nor- mal. Pubic hair – not present. Auxiliary hair – not present. Breast –Tanner stage – I.

Genitalia – Non developed. Menarche – Not attained.

Dental Examination – Total Number of Teeth – 24, Temporary -12, Perma- nent – 12.

Radiological examination - As per X-Ray No. 119, Age case Number – 150 – Osmania General Hospital, dated 23.03.2022. Department of Radiology.

1. X-Ray Shoulder Joint – Ossification center for the coracoids and the acromion has not appeared.

2. X-Ray elbow joint – Ossification center for medial epicordyle has ap- peared, but not fused. Center for the head of the radius and olecranon has ap- peared, but not fused.

3. X-Ray wrist joint – Ossification center for the lower end of the radious and ulna has appeared, but not fused. Pisiform has not appeared. Base of 1st metocorper and heads of other metacropers has not fused.

Page 8 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

4. X-Ray pelvis – Ossification enter for lessor prochantar has not ap- peared.

5. Triradiate Center for cartilage has not obliterated. Ischium and pubis fusion has occurred. Ossification center for head and greater trochanter has appeared, but not fused.

Opinion: “From my general, physical, dental and radiological examina- tion of the victim girl, I am of the opinion that Ms. Pabbala Chandana D/o. Pab- bala Sri Ramulu is 9 to 10 years. Ex.P7 is age determination certificate issued by me.”

II. Even PW3 with whom PW1 worked as maid servant, to whom the vic- tim girl was taken by PW1 states that the victim was minor. Aged about nine years. PW10 the medical doctor. She examined the victim girl clinically regard- ing the offence, she deposes that the victim girl was “nine years of age”. It is true admittedly the investigation officer has not collected the bonafide certifi- cate of victim girl where she was studying. However he reasons out, since he got the victim girl examined by Doctor for determination of age he had not filed the bonafide certificate. Keeping all these apart the evidence of PW9, the doctor who examined the victim girl through dental, general and radiological examination opined vide Ex.P7 - Age determination certificate, that “the victim girl was nine to ten years of age”. Besides, this when PW2 was examined on oath her age was stated as “nine years” and her evidence was recorded by this court after putting preliminary questions and after recording satisfaction that the victim girl was able to give rational answers. Such an exercise was under- taken by this court owing to the “tender age” of the victim girl. Therefore there cannot be any hesitation to hold that the victim girl was “nine” or “ten” years of age at the time of offence. Thus the prosecution could succinctly prove the age of the victim girl as such the provisions of Pocso Act squarely attracts to the case.

Page 9 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

B. PROOF OF OFFENCE PROPER:

I. In this regard the evidence of victim girl is of primordial consideration since the offence of this nature occurs in seclusion beyond the view and obser- vation of third persons. Moreover the offence in this instance took place in the house of the victim girl and the offender is victim’s own father. Admittedly the offence took place in the absence of the only other inmate of the house – the mother of the victim girl. Therefore, testimony of victim assumes significance and importance. That apart the evidence of victim’s mother – PW2 is also of much significance since for the first time the victim girl shared her agony and pain of the offence committed on her by her father with her mother – PW2, who inturn having informed the same to her landlady at her instance and advise lodged the report. Therefore, evidence of victim – PW2, her mother – PW1 and the owner of the house - PW3 where PW1 worked as maid servant and in- formed the offence soon after got to know its occurrence and of the evidence of PW4 the son of PW3, who took PW1 to police station at the time of filing of the report, are of much significance. The remaining witnesses are in proof of observation and recovery proceedings and the police officer who took the vic- tim girl to hospital and to Honble Magistrate to get her statement recorded un- der section 164 Cr.P.C., followed by the doctors who had examined the ‘victim girl’ clinically as regards the offence and her age followed thereby the evidence of investigation officers. So, now let the evidence of these witnesses be evalu- ated.

II. PW2, the victim girl deposes that at the time of offence she was study- ing second class. During half a day schools this offence was committed. On that day she had returned to home, then her mother had gone out for work as maid servant. She had lunch and while going out to play her father (accused)

Page 10 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

had called her. Then she had questioned her father, why he was calling her. Ac- cused without telling anything had closed the doors, then again the victim girl had questioned her father why he was closing the doors. Then the accused had removed her underwear and also removed his underwear and committed the offence. Here it would be opt to mention as to what exactly the victim girl de- posed before this court.

“on that day I completed my lunch and I was going out for playing, my father called me. I asked him why he called me and he said nothing and closed the doors, I asked why he was closing the doors, he removed my underwear and removed his underwear also, he kept his toilet part in my toilet part, I suf- fered pain, I cried, my father closed my mouth. After some time on hearing the gate sound the accused left me.”

III. After return of her mother she had not informed as her father had threatened her to kill if she discloses the offence to her mother. Due to fear she had not informed her mother. But on the next day – Sunday she had informed her mother at the time of dinner as her father had gone out of the house for closing the gate as his owner’s son was going out (Father – Accused works as watchman). Her mother had informed the occurrence to her owners at 6.00 am. Then her mother had filed report to police. She was taken to police station, a lady police had examined her, she was referred to hospital and her statement was recorded in court also. Be it seen that the learned legal aid counsel has not chosen to cross examine this witness and cross examination was reported - Nil.

IV. This court did not feel like recalling PW2 for cross examination. The

Presiding Officer who had recorded the evidence is different, yet since a plain perusal of evidence of victim girl is quite natural and apparently plain and it has got “ring of truth”. That apart the narration, of the order of occurrence of the offence has got consistency and the evidence of victim girl is corroborated by the evidence of her mother – PW1, so also the circumstantial witnesses,

Page 11 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

PW3 and 4 and also PW10 the lady doctor who had clinically examined the vic- tim girl as regards the occurrence of the offence, to whom the victim girl stated that accused – her father misbehaved with her on 19.03.2022 at 3.00 to 4.00 pm. Thus there is a line of consistency and corroboration in the testimony of

PW2 which is further substantiated by the evidence of PW1, 10 and the con- tents of Ex.P1 report. In the report it is mentioned that when PW1 returned to home after her work as maid servant, she found PW2 – victim girl in “de- pressed and pensive” mood and she had not stated to her mother – PW1, as to what had occurred to her. Which are a clear and natural indications of the cir- cumstances of the occurrence of the offence, something different behaviour is not expected of minor victim girl of sexual assault. Therefore this court is of the view that though the learned legal aid counsel had not chosen to cross exam- ine the victim minor girl aged about nine years, there cannot be any hesitation to believe whatever is testified by the victim girl. Even for a moment if the evi- dence of PW2 – victim girl if taken to be false, why should she tell falsehood against her father is concerned there is no answer or reason available. So, the testimony of PW2 can be believed and relied upon as to the charge against the accused.

V. PW1 is mother of the victim girl, though she is not, and of course can- not be an eye witness but no sooner had she returned to home, soon after the offence she could see PW2 – victim girl in a depressed and moody state of mind. Further PW1 states in report as well as before this court that having seen her daughter – victim girl in subdued state thought that since it was summer and half a day schools were being operated then victim girl happened to go to school by walk and got back to home on foot, could be the reason for her daughter looked moody. But on the next day night when the accused was away

Page 12 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

from the home then the victim girl slowly had narrated to her that, when she had gone out to duty as maid servant after lunch the accused had called his daughter closed the doors, having removed underwear of his daughter, and his underwear, had inserted his “private part” into the “vaginal part” of the victim girl and victim girl felt pain, as she cried the accused had closed her mouth.

Thus having learnt of the ghastly unexpected inhuman crime resorted to against her daughter by none other than her husband, immediately after his re- turn to home, she had questioned him upon which the accused had quarreled with PW1 and fought with her throughout night. Next day morning PW1 had gone to her owner’s house, where she worked as maid servant and informed the same, on their advise she had filed report on 21.03.2022 at 10.30 pm.

Upon which her statement was recorded. PW1, also stated that owing to of- fence her daughter was suffering a lot.

VI. Be it seen that the testimony of PW1 is consistent and corroborated by the evidence of her daughter – PW2 – the victim girl on every material par- ticular. The same can be traced in Ex.P1 report. Which came into light soon af- ter the offence. Thus there is a line of consistency in the evidence of PW1 and 2 which is substantiated and corroborated by the contents of Ex.P1 report. In cross examination of PW1 nothing substantial could be elicited except the fact that there were petty quarrel ensued between PW1 and accused and accused was in the habit of consumption of liquor and used to beat PW1, but the fact re- mains PW1, accused and victim girl – their daughter were deniably residing in the scene of offence house at the time of offence. Therefore, there is nothing in the evidence of PW1 and 2 to disbelieve their evidence. Here it is relevant to note that soon after the offence the investigation officer got recorded the

Page 13 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

statement of victim girl – PW2 and her mother – PW1. PW1 states before learned Magistrate as follows; “On 19.03.2022 that is on Saturday, I went outside for household work. On that day my husband was staying at home. I returned (back) home at 4.00 pm and observed my daughter was very dull, I did not doubt about my hus- band. On Sunday, my daughter said she is suffering from stomach and legs pain, but she did not disclose the fact. On the same day at around 7.30 she started crying and disclosed about the facts done by her father by stating that her father removed her pant and forcibly had sexual intercourse. On Monday, I approached police station and lodged complaint against him”

VII. PW2 the victim girl states before the learned Magistrate as follows:

“one day i.e on Saturday at about 2.00 pm myself and my father staying alone at home and mother left for household work. My father removed my pant and tried to had forcible sexual intercourse and also kissed me on my cheek and closed my mouth tightly, while I was making him and cry, but my father continued his act. My father was in drunken condition and for the first time he committed this act with me. He also threatened me if I disclose this with my mother he kills me. I revealed about this act with my mother on Sunday”

VIII. Thus it is obvious there is a line of consistency in the evidence of

PW1 and 2. The statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. by Judicial Mag- istrate of First Class has got significance in terms of section 80 Indian Evidence

Act which reads as follows:

“Whenever any document is produced before any court, purporting to be a record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any officer authorized by law to take such evidence, or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or ac- cused person, taken in accordance with law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by any such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume that the document is genuine; that any statement as to the circum- stances under which it was taken, purporting to be made by the persons sign- ing it, are true, and that such evidence, statement or confession was duly taken."

IX. Now it is relevant to refer to the evidence of PW10 – Doctor. She de- poses that on 22.03.2022 she had examined victim girl of nine years of age on the requisition made by Station House Officer, Rajendranagar Police Station.

The victim girl was accompanied by lady constable and her mother. The victim

Page 14 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

had stated to her that the victim’s father had misbehaved with victim on 19.03.2022 between 3.00 to 4.00 pm. Here it is worth noting that there is con- sistency as to the time of commission of offence as stated by PW1 and 2 and as recited in Ex.P1 report and the same is stated by PW10. But the doctor upon examination could not find any external injuries. There were no public hair. Vic- tim girl was only “nine years of age”. No injuries were found. Hymen was in- tact. That the doctor had refrained from doing “per vaginal examination” owing to the tender age of the victim girl. Here it is pertinent to be noted, this part of evidence of the doctor also suggests that the victim girl was of tender age.

That the doctor had collected vaginal, mouth and anal swabs to be sent to FSL for analysis. After receipt of the report she had given her final opinion under

Ex.P10, that – “Sexual intercourse may not occurred”

X. This witness was examined by learned legal aid counsel, but nothing specific could be hammered out to reject the evidence of PW10. However, the evidence of PW10 is not affirming either sexual assault or intercourse on the victim girl. Here it is to be noted given, the “expansive definition” for the of- fence of “Rape” after 2013 amendment Act and also the definition of “Penetra- tive Sexual Assault” – “Aggravated Sexual Assault” presence of injuries over “genitalia or finding of sperm and spermatozoa” are of not much significance and it is not “sine quanon” in proof of sexual assault or rape, as contemplated under section 375 Indian Penal Code or section 3 and 4 of Pocso Act. However, the significant part of the evidence of PW10 is that, she was told by “victim girl” that the “victim girl” was assaulted by the accused. This piece of evidence is sufficient to corroborate the evidence of victim girl herself – PW2 and that of her mother – PW1. Therefore, the evidence of PW10 cannot at all together be

Page 15 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

stated to be of no use to prosecution nor can it be stated to be of some use to the accused in proof of his innocence.

a. The law is settled in this regard in Dastagir Sab and another Vs.

State of Karnataka in Crl.Appeal.No.175/2003, the Hon’ble Apex Court ob- served :

“It is well settled that absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix would not by itself be sufficient to discard the prosecution case……

Injury on the body of the person of the victim is not a sine qua non to prove a charge of rape. Absence of injury having regard to overwhelming ocular evidence cannot, thus, be the sole criteria for coming to a conclu sion that no such offence had taken place”.

XI. PW3 and 4 are house owners where victim’s mother – PW1, worked as maid servant at the time of offence. PW4 is PW3’s son. PW3 deposes that she knows PW1 and 2 and the accused who is husband of PW1 and father of PW2.

On 21.03.2022, that is on the very next day morning of the offence PW1 had gone to her house at 6.30 am with victim girl – PW2 who according to PW3 was nine years of age. Having noticed PW2 also, PW3 had questioned PW1 as to why she had taken PW2 also to the house of PW3. PW1 had stated that PW2 was suffering from abdominal pain. A little thereafter while PW3 was cooking food all of a sudden PW1 had gone to her and held her feet and informed that the accused had committed rape on (her daughter) victim girl – PW2. On that

PW3 and her husband had advised PW1 to approach police. So, while going to duty o n the way PW3’s son – PW4 had taken PW1 to police station. It is elicited in the cross examination of PW3 that the report was lodged on 21.03.2022. Ex- cept that nothing could be hammered out in the cross examination of PW3 to disbelieve her evidence. In fact, a close examination of evidence of PW3 re-

Page 16 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

flects that it is quite plain and natural no embellishment or exaggeration can be seen it. In fact the way PW2 – victim girl also was also taken to the house of

PW3 and firstly upon being questioned PW1 telling that PW2 was suffering from abdominal pain, a little time thereafter PW1 touching the feet of PW3 and in- forming her that the accused had committed rape on her daughter. All these reflects a natural picturesque narration of the occurrence, which reveals that it has got ring of truth and cannot simply be brushed aside. Even otherwise why would a wife who is under the care and protection of her husband for herself and also her daughter also falsely implicate without there being any substance of an allegation of such a serious magnitude. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 which is consistent and convincing corroborates the evidence of PW1 and 2.

Supporting the evidence of PW3, PW4 deposes that he know the PW1, PW2 and the accused. On 21.03.2022 in the morning hours he had returned to home af- ter jogging, then he was told by PW3 – his mother, that the accused had com- mitted rape on minor. So his family members had advised PW1 to go to police station. Accordingly he took PW1 to police station. In the cross examination of

PW4 it is elicited that there was no earlier incident of accused’s attitude indi- cating the incidents of the nature alleged. That there were disputes between

PW1 and accused and accused used to quarrel with PW1. However, PW4 feigns ignorance as to PW1 filing false case against the accused. Therefore it is obvi- ous nothing could be hammered out in the evidence of PW4 to reject his evi- dence.

XII. PW5 and 6 are the members of CLUES team and photographers. Soon after the presentation of report they have visited scene of offence pho- tographed the same and the investigation officer – Assistant Commissioner of

Police had collected the wearing apparel of victim girl. So, there is nothing to

Page 17 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

disbelieve the evidence of PW5 and 6. PW5 exhibited twelve photographs as

Ex.P2 depicting the scene of offence building. To that extent the evidence of

PW5 and 6 proves the case of prosecution. PW7 is mediator for scene of of- fence observation proceeding, he deposes to the effect that, the police had ob- served scene of offence in his presence under Ex.P3, drew rough sketch – Ex.P4 and seized MO1 – Blue Colour Skirt, MO2 – Light Green T-Shirt, MO3 – Green colour underwear. So the evidence of PW7 corroborates the evidence of PW6 as regards the scene of offence observation proceedings being held by investiga- tion officer and seizure of wearing apparel of victim girl. PW8 is the mediator for seizure of wearing clothes of accused. He deposes to that effect and he identifies MO4 – Grey colour Pant, MO5 – Red Checks Shirt, Ex.P5 relevant por- tion of the recovery proceedings. In cross examination of this witness except formal suggestions nothing could be elicited.

XIII. Then comes the evidence of PW11 she is police officer escorted the victim to hospital at the time of her clinical and radiological examination. PW12 is the Inspector his evidence is that on 21.03.2022 at 10.30 pm PW1 had pre- sented Ex.P1, he had registered it as Crime No. 540 of 2022 for the offences under section 376 (2) (f) 376AB Indian Penal Code and section 5 (m) r/w 6

Pocso Act. He had forwarded the original report and printed FIR to XIV Addl.

Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. Thus what all the evi- dence of PW12 proves is that on 21.03.2022 at 10.30 pm PW1 gone to police station and filed report Ex.P1 and it was registered as Crime No. 540 of 2022.

Be it noted it is elicited in the cross examination that the offence was commit- ted on 19.03.2022 where the report was filed on 21.03.2022, thus there is a delay of two days in filing the report. Here it is contextual to be noted that in an offence of this nature obviously there occurs delay in lodging of report since

Page 18 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

it involves the reputation and honour of victim girl and of her family. Which in- variably drives family members to indulge in consultation and confabulations and it takes time to ultimately decide whether to file report or not. If the of- fender happens to be near relative of the victim girl the occurrence of delay in lodging of report is all the more quite natural. Therefore, the delay of two days occurring in filing of report is of little use and significance to the accused.

XIV. Then comes the evidence of PW13 the investigation officer. His evi- dence is that on 22.03.2022 after recording the statement of PW1 he had vis- ited the scene of offence and observed in the presence of PW7 and LW7 – Ra- jesh Goud under Ex.P3 and drew rough sketch – Ex.P4, and had seized victim clothes – MO1 to 3 and examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to 3, got referred victim girl to hospital for clinical examination. On the very day accused was arrested and after recovering his wearing apparel MO4 and 5 under Ex.P5 recovery proceedings, got the accused tested for potency, then affecting his arrest got him sent to court for remand. That he had also got recorded the statement of PW1 and 2 under section 164 Cr.P.C. On completion of investiga- tion after collecting FSL report, final opinion of doctor and potency certificate laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences under sections 376 (2)

(f), 376 AB IPC, and section 5 r/w 6 Pocso Act. In cross examination of this wit- ness it is elicited that though victim girl was studying 3rd standard, but PW13 had not chosen to collect bonafide certificate of the victim girl from the school.

However, PW13 states that he got examined the victim girl for age determina- tion, so he had not collected the bonafide certificate. As already noted herein- above regarding the age of the victim girl there is sufficient oral and medical evidence and also the observation of this court at the time of recording evi- dence of victim girl, which is sufficient in proof of age of victim, therefore,

Page 19 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

omission on part of PW13 in collecting bonafide certificate of victim girl is of lit- tle use to accused. Except that nothing worth pondering could be hammered out in the cross examination of PW13.

XV. PW14 is lady police officer, she recorded 161 Cr.P.C. statement of victim girl at her residence. Which viewed from any of the stand points cannot be doubted or taken exception to. Thus from the foregoing evaluation of oral and documentary evidence it is obvious prosecution could prove the charges against the accused for the offences under section 376 (2) (f), 376 (3), 376 AB,

IPC and section 3 a r/w 4, section 5 (m) r/w 6, 5 (n) r/w 6 Pocso Act.

15. In the Result:- Accused is found guilty of the offence under section 376 (2) (f), 376 (3), 376 AB, IPC and section 3 a r/w 4, section 5 (m) r/w 6, 5 (n) r/w 6 Pocso Act., and he is convicted of the same under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court

on this the 29th day of September, 2023.

XI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. FAC Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Rajendranagar

HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:

On questioning about quantum of sentence explaining the one provided under law the convict submits that this is false case filed by his wife just to for sake him. That the children of him were not with him and they are under the influence of their mother (his wife) that is the reason his daughter spoke and deposed against him and that he is innocent. So the convict requests to show mercy while imposing sentence.

Page 20 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

This is a case of inhuman act of father committing rape on daughter.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the grave nature of the offence for which the accused is found guilty and also the evidence of the victim girl and her mother this court feels that this is not at all a fit case to show mercy on the convict while imposing sentence. It is more so in the light of the intendment of the statute.

SENTENCE: Thus, in the facts and circumstances and to meet the ends of justice, the convict is sentenced as follows:-

I. For the offence under section 376 (2) (f) Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to suffer Twenty Years Imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

II. For the offence under section 376 (3) Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

III. For the offence under section 376 AB Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

IV. For the offence under section 3(a) r/w 4 Pocso Act the convict is sentenced to suffer Ten Years Imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs.3,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

V. For the offence under section 5 (m) (n) r/w 6 Pocso Act the convict is sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

Page 21 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

VI. Convict is informed of his right to prefer appeal before Hon’ble High

Court even from jail also, and he is entitled for legal aid.

COMPENSATION:

The victim girl is entitled for compensation under Telangana Victim

Compensation Scheme for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-.

A copy of Judgment shall be sent to the Secretary, District Legal Services

Authority. R.R. District.

Dictated to the Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court

on this the 29th day of September, 2023.

XI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. FAC Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Rajendranagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined)

For the prosecution:

PW.1Mother of Victim

PW.2Victim

PW.3M. Padmavathi

PW.4Kranthi Kumar

PW.5Kumara Swamy

PW.6M. Anil Kumar

PW.7Raghavendra Swamy

PW.8Ch. Naveen Kumar

PW.9Dr. G. Jhansi Laxmi

PW.10Dr. Suguna

PW.11M. Swathi

Page 22 of 22

SC No. 622/2022

PW.12K. Kanakaiah

PW.13B. Gangadhar

PW.14B. Swetha

For the defence:

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the prosecution:

Ex.P1Report Ex.P2Photographs (Nos.12)

Ex.P3Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P4Rough Sketch

Ex.P5Relevant portion of recovery proceedings

Ex.P6Potency Certificate

Ex.P7Age Determination Certificate

Ex.P8Examination Report

Ex.P9FSL Report

Ex.P10Final Opinion

Ex.P11Printed FIR in Crime No. 540 of 2022

For the defence: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1- Blue Colour Skirt MO2- Light Green T-Shirt MO3 – Green Colour Underwear MO4- Grey Colour Pant MO5 – Red Checks Shirt

XI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. FAC Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Rajendranagar.

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

-cum-XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present: Y. JAYA PRASAD, XI Addl.District& Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Wednesday, the 9thday of April 2025

M.V.O.P. No.274/2022

Between

Kondapalli Venkat Reddy, S/o Late Chandra Reddy Aged 57 years, Occ: Maintenance Mechanical Engineer at present NIL R/o H.No.3-12-92/2, 21/2-1, Sai Maruthi Residence Rock Town Colony, L.B.Nagar Ranga Reddy District … Claimant

AND

1.Syed Sadiq Pasha, S/o Syed Khadar Aged 36 years, Occ: Driver Lorry No.KA-01-AH-6804 R/o # 33, K.UpparahalliMallur Karnataka State

2.R.Jaideep Kumar, S/o Rama Krishna, Aged Major Occ: Business and owner of the Lorry No.KA-01-AH-6804 R/o # 3, 3rd Cross, II Main Nagappa Block Srirampuram, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 021.

3.Hamraz Khan, S/o Jalil Khan Aged Major, Owner of the Lorry No.KA-01-AH-6804 R/o # 15/26/6, B.Halli, Yellukumte Bangalore, Karnataka

4.The New India Assurance Company Limited Represented by its Divisional Manager Kengeri Micro Office # 150/151, 1st Floor, Chennaja Complex Beside Police Station, Kengeri Karnataka – 560 060. … Respondents

This Petition coming on 27.3.2025 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri T.Chandra Shekar Reddy, Counsel for the Claimant, and of Sri

P.Krishna, Counsel for the 4th respondent and the respondents 1 to 3 having remained exparte, and upon hearing, having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following— 2

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the Claimant under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of T.S.M.V. Rules 1989 read with Section 170 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of ₹.1,00,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident that took place on 2.10.2021 at about 5.00 PM at Mother Terisa junction on N.H. 44, whilst crossing, due to the rash and negligent act of the 1strespondent in driving the Lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-AH-6804 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the offending vehicle’) owned by the 2nd and 3rdrespondents, and insured with the 4threspondent.

(i)The petitioner claimed total compensation of ₹.1,00,00,000/- under the following heads of account--

Head of AccountCompensation Claimed (In Rs.)

Expenses relating to treatment and 5,00,000.00 hospitalization and transportation

Loss of earnings of family members36,00,000.00

Loss of future earnings15,00,000.00

Attendant charges1,00,000.00

Pain and sufferance, loss of amenities35,00,000.00

Future medical bills4,00,000.00

Artificial leg4,00,000.00

TOTAL 1,00,00,000.00

2.Contention of the claimant in brief: -The case of the claimant, as per the averments made in the claim petition, in brief, are as follows—

(i)The petitioner was aged about 57 years, hale and healthy and was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month as he was working as a Maintenance -: 3 :-

XI ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT at L.B.NAGAR M.V.O.P.274/2022

Engineer at N.S.L. Krishnaveni Sugars Limited, Ramakrishnapur

Village, Kothakota Mandal, as on the date of the accident and contributing the said earnings to his family members for maintenance.

(ii)On 02.10.2021, the claimant was returning home to Kothakota on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-AL-1460 after completing his duties. At around 5.00 PM, as he reached Mother Teresa Junction on National

Highway (N.H.) No.44, and while he was crossing the highway, the offending vehicle—proceeding from Hyderabad towards Kurnool, driven by the 1st respondent in rash and negligent manner—violently collided with the claimant's motorcycle. As a result, the claimant sustained a severe bleeding injury to his left leg and other injuries all over body.

(iii)The petitioner was immediately taken to Kothakota Area Hospital, where he received first aid and was subsequently referred to

Hyderabad for specialized treatment. He was then shifted to Apollo

Hospital, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, for better medical care. He underwent major surgeries on 02.10.2021 (making debridement external fixator left tiba + K wires to medial malleous), 03.10.2021 (re-exploration + Saphenous vein graft post Tibial artery repairs), 07.10.2021 (debridement of left leg + foot), 09.10.2021 (debridement of right leg and foot), 12.10.2021 (debridement + mid foot amputation), and finally, on 14.10.2021 (amputation was below the knee), an amputation was performed below the knee. He was 4 discharged on 16.10.2021 with advice to continue follow-up treatment.The petitioner incurred substantial expenses for medical treatment, transportation, and attendant care, and his treatment is still ongoing. He further stated that he spent approximately Rs.15,00,000/- on medical expenses, of which a portion was reimbursed through medical insurance; however, he bore significant costs for continued treatment out of his own pocket. Due to the horrific incident, the petitioner underwent a below-knee amputation and sustained 70% permanent disability, resulting in the loss of his income, future earning capacity, and means of livelihood, thereby affecting not only himself but also his family members. He also lost his job. Prior to the incident, he was a skilled worker employed in various companies, including M/s

Indo Japan Watch Compole Private Limited, Patancheru; M/s Rane

Engine Valves Limited, Medchal, Hyderabad; and M/s BPL Engineering

Limited, Patancheru, Hyderabad, earning a monthly salary of

Rs.1,00,000/-, which he contributed towards the maintenance of his family.Additionally, the petitioner has endured severe physical pain and immense mental agony.

(iv)The accident was reported to police on 2.10.2021, and a case in crime

No.200/221 was registered at Kothakota police station against the 1strespondent for the offence under Section 337 IPC. Later, altered section of law from 337 IPC to 338 IPC.

(v)As the accident, resulting in injuries to the claimant, took place due to rash and negligent act of the 1strespondent in driving the offending -: 5 :-

XI ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT at L.B.NAGAR M.V.O.P.274/2022 vehicle owned by the 2nd and 3rdrespondent, which stood validly insured with the 4threspondent as on the date of the accident, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. However, the claimant stated that the 2ndrespondent had sold the offending vehicle to the 3rdrespondent while the insurance policy was still in force. Hence, the 2ndrespondent was also added as a party to the petition.

3.The respondents 1 to 3, despite service of notice, did not choose to contest the proceedings and remained exparte.

4.Contention of the 4 th respondent: - The respondent filed counter, denying all the material allegations made in the claim petition regarding the age, avocation and income of the petitioner, including the manner of taking place of the accident, and while subjecting him to strict proof the same, interalia contended, in brief, as follows—

(i)The accident took place on 2.10.2021 at about 5.00 PM when the claimant was travelling on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-AL- 1460towardsKothakota side, when reached Mother Terisa junction at

N.H.44 road, while crossing it the offending vehicle dashed the claimant’s motorcycle, as a result of which his left leg got severe blood injury is incorrect, that respondent No.1 was in want of valid and effective driving licence at that time.

6

(ii)The petitioner must prove that the alleged accident being occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1strespondent, who failed to exercise the minimum care required while operating the insured vehicle. Unless negligence on the part of the 1st respondent is established, the 3rdrespondent cannot be held liable to pay compensation. The liability of the 4threspondent arises only under the terms of a valid insurance policy, and only if it is proved that the negligent act of the 1strespondent occurred while the driver held a valid and effective driving license appropriate for the category of the insured vehicle and complied with the requirements of the Central Motor

Vehicle Rules.

(iii)The contents of the petition reveal that the alleged accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the claimant, and there was no negligence on the part of the 1strespondent, the driver of the offending vehicle. Furthermore, the alleged incident was not reported to the 4threspondent by the 3rdrespondent, indicating a possible collusion with the claimant to make a false claim. The compensation amount of

Rs.1,00,00,000/- claimed is excessive, exorbitant, and highly exaggerated, and the claimant is not entitled to such an amount.

Accordingly, respondent No.4 seeks dismissal of the petition.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial — (1)Whether the accident occurred on 2.10.2021 at 1700 hours

wherein the injured i.e., Kondapalli Venkat Reddy, sustained

-: 7 :-

XI ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT at L.B.NAGAR M.V.O.P.274/2022

injuries and amputation of left leg below knee was due to the rash

and negligent driving of crime vehicle registration No.KA-01-AH-

6804 by its driver-respondent No.1?

(2)Whether the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation?

(3)Whether the petitioner is entitled as prayed for, if so, from whom for what amount?

(4)To what relief?

7.During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimant, PW-1 toPW-8 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A15 were marked, and on behalf of the 4threspondent, RW-1 was examined and Exhibits B1 to B3 were marked.

8.Ex.A1 is Certified copy of FIR along with complaint in Cr.No.200/2021 of PS Kothakota, dated 2.10.2021. Ex.A2 is Certified copy of Charge Sheet in

Cr.No.377/2018. Ex.A3 is Certified copy of Crime Detail Form. Ex.A4 is

Certified Copy of injury certificate issued by the Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad.Ex.A5 and A6are the discharge summaries issued by the Apollo

Hospital, JubileeHills, Hyderabad dated 16.10.2021 and 23.10.2021.Ex.A7 is bunch of medical bills issued by the Apollo Hospitals.Ex.A8is the bunch of receipts issued by Kavery Home Care Services. Ex.A9 is the Disability

Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Area Hospital, Vanasthalipuram,

Ranga Reddy District. Ex.A10 is the quotation of Nulife Transtibial

Prosthesis.Ex.A11 is the certification letter regarding complainant’s job role, salary, and commencement of working. Ex.A12 is the pay slips issued by the

Pioneer Distilleries Limited (5 in number). Ex.A13 is Income Tax Return 8 (ITR)-1 for the Assessment Year: 2020-21 of the complainant.Ex.A14 is bank statements of the complainant for the financial year 2020-21 and 2021-

22. Ex.A15 is the appointment order of the complainant in the year 2016 along with increasing of his Cost to Company (CTC) with effect from 1st

October 2018.Ex.R1 is photostat copy of crime detail form. Ex.R2 is the

Insurance Policy. Ex.R3 is the authorization letter dated 5.2.2025 of respondent No.4 company.Ex.C1is the Service Certificate issued by the

Senior General Manager.

9.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record including the written arguments of both sides.

10.Issue No.1 to 3: -Before answering the issues, it is to be noted here that, in a case reported in “United India Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Patrica Jean Mahajan”AIR 2002 SC 2067, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court interalia observed as follows:

“The purpose to compensate the dependants of the

victims is that they may not be suddenly deprived of source

of their maintenance and as far as possible they may be

provided with the means as were available to them before the

accident took place, it will be just and fair compensation, but

in cases where the amount of compensation may go much

higher than the amount providing the same amenities,

comforts and facilities and also the way of life, in such

circumstances also it may be a case where, while applying

the multiplier system, the lesser multiplier may be applied.

In such circumstances also it may be a case where, while

applying the multiplier system, the lesser multiplier may be

applied. In such cases amount of multiplicand becomes

relevant. The intention is not to overcompensate.” -: 9 :-

XI ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT at L.B.NAGAR M.V.O.P.274/2022

Therefore, in the light of the above observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it is clear that the victims of motor vehicle accident and the legal representatives of the deceased person of motor vehicle accident, should not be over-compensated, and they should be awarded damages not more than the damages that is caused to them.

(i)Since the petitioner herein claimed the compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in terms of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma and Others v.

D e lhi Transport Corporation and Another”2009 LawSuit (SC) 613, this tribunal has to deal with the following aspects for determination of just compensation payable to him.

11.Rashness and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident: -

It is trite in order a claim for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act be proved, the degree of proof of rash and negligence is not so strict and rigid unlike prosecution in criminal case. Roving enquiry is not need of law.

To that effect ratio is laid down in Kaushnumma Begum and others Vs.

New India Assurance Company Limited reported in 2001 ACJ 421

SC , it was held that, 10 “The issue of wrongful Act or omission on the part of the

motor vehicle involved has been left to a secondary

importance and mere usage or involvement of Motor vehicle

in causing bodily injuries or a death of human being or

damage to property would make the petition maintainable

under Secs.166 and 140 of the Act.”

The petitioner claims that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the 1strespondent. However, the 4threspondent contends that the alleged incident occurred solely due to the negligence of the claimant while driving his vehicle and that there was no negligence on the part of the 1strespondent. Furthermore, the fact that the alleged accident was not reported to the 4threspondent company by the alleged owner of the vehicle (3rdrespondent) itself indicates a collusion with the claimant in filing a false claim against the 4threspondent.

(i)To substantiate his version, the claimant examined himself as

PW-1 and marked Exhibits A1 to A15. Among these, Exhibits A1 to A4 are the most relevant documents supporting the present issue. These include certified copies of the FIR and charge sheet related to the case registered by the police in connection with the accident, the Crime Detail Form indicating the manner in which the offending vehicle was moving at the time of the road traffic accident (RTA), and the injury certificate issued by Apollo

Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, which details the injuries sustained by the claimant in the RTA. The injury certificate also records the date of admission and the date of discharge from the hospital.In his affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, the petitioner, as PW-1, categorically reiterated the version stated in his claim petition on this aspect. During his cross- -: 11 :-

XI ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT at L.B.NAGAR M.V.O.P.274/2022 examination by the learned counsel for the 4threspondent, it was elicited that following the accident, the claimant was initially taken to Wanaparthi Area

Hospital for first aid and was thereafter shifted to Apollo Hospital, Jubilee

Hills, Hyderabad, where he underwent treatment from 02.10.2021 to 16.10.2021. On 14.10.2021, his leg was amputated after undergoing four to five surgeries. The claimant stated that he was reimbursed Rs.12,00,000/- through medical insurance. He was attended to by his wife for about 13 days, after which he engaged a servant to assist him. At present, the claimant has been fitted with an artificial leg. He has submitted details of the expenses incurred for obtaining the artificial leg and stated that, due to the nature of his injuries, there is a future requirement to replace or refit another artificial leg.The claimant demonstrated his inability to walk properly and difficulty in accessing the witness podium. He stated that his role as a supervisor requires physical exertion and mobility to perform his duties effectively. He further added that, as a maintenance engineer, his responsibilities involve moving around machinery and the factory premises for supervision.

Furthermore, the claimant denied all the suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the 4threspondent, and no material contradictions or incriminating admissions were elicited during the cross-examination.

(ii)To substantiate its version, the 4threspondent did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

(iii)Upon a careful perusal of Ex.A1 (FIR), it is evident that a Police

Constable (PC) from Kothakota Police Station, who was performing Blue Colt 12 duties along with a Home Guard on the alleged date of the accident at NH- 44, witnessed the incident. He immediately rushed to the spot and reported the occurrence at Kothakota Police Station. This version corroborates the petitioner’s account regarding the manner in which the accident took place.

Similarly, Ex.A2 (Charge Sheet) reveals that after conducting a thorough investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the 1strespondent, holding him responsible for causing the accident which resulted in the petitioner’s injuries. Ex.A3 (Crime Detail Form) further indicates the manner in which the offending vehicle was moving at the time of the road traffic accident (RTA). Ex.A4 is the injury certificate issued by Apollo Hospital,

Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, detailing the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant during the RTA. Therefore, Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 collectively and clearly establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1strespondent, who, while the complainant was turning towards

Kothakota town, recklessly drove the offending vehicle and collided with the complainant’s motorcycle, resulting in a severe injury to his left leg. The claimant was immediately shifted to Wanaparthi Area Hospital for first aid and was later referred to Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, where he underwent treatment from 02.10.2021 to 16.10.2021. On 14.10.2021, following multiple surgeries, his leg was amputated.

(iv)During the cross-examination of RW-1, nothing contra was elicited to disprove the injuries sustained by the claimant in the RTA. This being the scenario when there is no cogent and convincing evidence put forth by the 4threspondent, contrary to the version of the claimant, there is no impediment for this tribunal to hold that the accident resulting the injuries to -: 13 :-

XI ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT at L.B.NAGAR M.V.O.P.274/2022 the claimant was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the 1strespondent. Accordingly, it is held.

12.Injuries sustained by the petitioner and his disability: -

According to the claimant, in the accident, he sustained grievous injuries, resulting loss of left leg amputation below the knee.

(i)To substantiate the same, in addition to his evidence as PW-1, the petitioner also got examined the doctors who treated him at Apollo

Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and Area Hospital, Vanasthalipuram as PW- 2, PW-3 and PW-4 and got marked Ex.A5 to A7 and A9which are discharge summaries of their hospitals dated 16.10.2021 and 23.10.2021, and bunch of medical bills issued by the Apollo Hospitals.

(ii)PW-2 testified that the claimant was admitted as an in-patient on 02.10.2021 due to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident (R.T.A.).

The claimant suffered injuries to both lower limbs. On 02.10.2021, debridement and external fixation were performed, and K-wire fixation was done to the medial malleolus of the left limb. On 03.10.2021, re-exploration was carried out, and saphenous vein grafting along with posterior tibial artery repair was performed. Debridement of the left lower limb was again carried out on 07.10.2021. On 09.10.2021, accompanied by PW-3, a plastic surgeon, debridement of the right leg was done. On 14.10.2021, due to non- viability of the foot and progressive necrosis of the tissues of the left leg, mid-foot amputation was performed, and ultimately, amputation of the left 14 leg below the knee was carried out. He specifically stated that stabilization of fractured bones was also done. He further deposed that, owing to the above injuries and treatment, it would be inconvenient for the patient to perform his routine field work and the nature of the disability is permanent. During cross-examination, he stated that while he is capable of assessing the disability, he is not the competent authority to issue a disability certificate.

He denied the suggestion that the amputation could have been performed on the first day itself, and he further denied all other suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the 4threspondent.

(iii)PW-3 testified that the petitioner was admitted as an in-patient on 02.10.2021 at around 8:00 P.M. with crush injuries and a compound fracture with vascular injury to the left leg, accompanied by active bleeding.

He, along with PW-2, performed wound debridement, external fixator application, and vascular repair on 02.10.2021. On the following day, i.e., 03.10.2021, it was observed that the vascular repair had developed thrombosis, and therefore, surgical exploration with repair of anastomoses using a saphenous vein graft was carried out for the posterior tibial artery.

Subsequently, the patient developed necrosis and infection of the soft tissues of the left lower limb, for which debridement was done on 07.10.2021. On 09.10.2021, debridement of the wounds on the right leg was performed. Due to extensive infection and gangrene of the toes and mid-foot, a mid-foot amputation was carried out on 12.10.2021. However, as the infection progressed further, a below-knee amputation was done on 14.10.2021. He further deposed that he conducted skin grafting as a plastic surgery procedure on 22.10.2021, after which the claimant was discharged from the -: 15 :-

XI ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT at L.B.NAGAR M.V.O.P.274/2022 hospital. He opined that, due to the said disability, the patient is unable to perform his regular duties and remains physically inactive. He stated that

Exs.P5 to P7 (medical bills) were issued by Apollo Hospital, where the treatment was undertaken. During cross-examination, the witness admitted that the treatment was prioritized to save the life of the patient. He denied the suggestion that diabetic patients usually do not respond to treatment and also denied the suggestion that the claimant had other pre-existing medical conditions that caused non-responsiveness to treatment. He further denied the suggestion that the patient’s previous medical history was not reflected in the discharge summary marked as Ex.P6.

(vi)PW-4, an M.D. in General Medicine and the Superintendent of

Area Hospital, Vanasthalipuram, testified thatEx.P9 (disability certificate) was issued by their hospital by the then Superintendent. The witness identified the signature of the then Superintendent and stated that the certificate records 70% disability. During cross-examination, he deposed that the disability arose due to the accident. He further added that the claimant is unable to walk without support and is currently walking with the aid of an artificial leg. He denied the suggestion that the disability could be reduced by using the artificial leg.

(viii)Upon perusal of Exhibits A5 and A6, which are discharge summaries, it is revealed that the petitioner was admitted at Apollo Hospital,

Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad due to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident 16 causedbytherashandnegligentdrivingofthe 1strespondent, who dashed the claimant while crossing NH44 at Mother Terisa junction. The doctors, examined as PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, proved the treatment given to the petitioner, which was corroborated by the contents of the aforementioned exhibits. Ex.A9, issued by the hospital of PW-4, indicates that the petitioner suffered permanent disability of 70% due to the accident, which is further corroborated by the evidence of PW-4. Additionally, upon perusal of Exhibits A5 to A7, it is evident that the claimant was admitted as an inpatient in the aforementioned hospital, received treatment, and was subsequently discharged.

(ix)As already stated, respondents 1 to 3 did not contest the proceedings and remained exparte. The 4threspondent claimed that the injuries sustained by the claimant was due negligence of himself while driving his vehicle. However, the doctors who treated the claimant stated that due to the RTA, the claimant left leg below the knee was amputated, resulting of which, the claimant got 70% disability which was corroborated with Ex.A9. No other evidence, either oral or documentary, contradicting the petitioner’s version, was presented by the 4threspondent.

(x)Whatever has been said and done, based on the evidence of PW- 2, PW-3 and PW-4, along with the recitals of Exhibits A5 to A7 and A9, there is no impediment for this Tribunal to conclude that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question.

15.Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation: -To substantiate the claim for medical expenses, the -: 17 :-

XI ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT at L.B.NAGAR M.V.O.P.274/2022 claimant himself testified as PW-1 and submitted Exhibits A7 (bunch of medical bills) issued by the Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The testimony of doctors PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, confirms that the medical bills and disability certificate were issued in the claimant's name and that he was admitted to these hospitals on different occasions due to R.T.A. The total medical expenses incurred amount to Rs.13,51,813/- as inpatient. Although the learned counsel for the 4threspondent cross-examined the doctors at length, no contradictory evidence was produced to dispute the claimant’s claim. However, during the cross-examination, the claimant admitted that he was reimbursed Rs..12,00,000/- through medical insurance, as such the claimant is entitled to reimbursement ofmedical expensesis

Rs.1,51,813/- (Rs.13,51,813- Rs.12,00,000), and the same is awarded.

(ii)Regarding transport expenses, it is undisputed that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the Road Traffic Accident (RTA) at

NH44, Mother Terisa junction at Kothakota. Immediately, he was taken

Kothakota Area hospital. For expert’s treatment, he was shifted to Apollo

Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Given these circumstances, it is evident that the claimant incurred transportation expenses. Considering the distances between the hospitals and the severity of his injuries, the petitioner is awarded Rs.50,000/- towards transport expenses, which would be just and reasonable.

16.Loss of future earnings and Permanent Disability, pain and sufferance:- The claimant sought compensation on account of 70% 18 permanent disability, as certified under Ex.A9 (Disability Certificate), which states that the claimant sustained 70% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb due to a post-traumatic amputation. As a result, the claimant experienced difficulty performing his routine field work as Supervisor at his workplace and became permanently disabled. This was supported by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, along with documentary exhibits marked as

Ex.A5 to A9.In his chief examination affidavit, the claimant stated that due to the road traffic accident (RTA), he lost his employment as Engineer (Assistant manager Project) at NSL Krishnaveni Sugars Limited, where he was drawing a salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. To support this contention, the claimant examined the Senior Vice President of NSL Krishnaveni Sugars Limited as

PW-7, who confirmed that the claimant was appointed on 15.09.2021 with a salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. However, the claimant met with an accident on 02.10.2021, i.e., 18 days after joining the company. During his cross-examination, he stated that the salaries were disbursed by the HR department based on technical references. However, to prove the salary, the claimant did not file any documentary evidence such as salary slips, relying solely on the oral evidence of PW-7. Nevertheless, on careful perusal of

Ex.A14 (Bank Statement) filed by the claimant for the financial year 2021– 22, it is observed that an amount of Rs.60,207/- was credited by NSL

Krishnaveni Sugars on 29.10.2021. This appears to be the proportionate salary for 18 days (Rs.1,00,000 ÷ 30 = Rs.3,333.33; Rs.3,333.33 × 18 days = Rs.60,000 approximately), which corroborates the claim. Thus, the evidence of PW-7, coupled with Ex.A14, substantiates that the claimant was receiving a salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Therefore, his annual salary is -: 19 :-

XI ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT at L.B.NAGAR M.V.O.P.274/2022

Rs.12,00,000/-. Furthermore, the claimant was aged 57 years as on the date of the alleged incident and was employed with NSL Krishnaveni Sugars

Limited, earning a monthly salary of Rs.1,00,000/-. As per the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi’s judgment, 15% of the salary is to be added towards future prospects in cases where the claimant’s aged is between 50 to 60 years of age. Accordingly, Rs.15,000/- (i.e., 15% of Rs.1,00,000/-) is added, making the total monthly income Rs.1,15,000/-. Thus, the claimant's established annual income would be Rs.13,80,000/- (Rs.1,15,000 × 12).

(ii)To determine the loss of future earnings of the claimant, it is essential first to calculate the income tax deductions applicable to the claimant for the financial year 2021–22, as detailed below—

1.Income tax upto Rs.2,50,000/-:NIL

2.Income tax from Rs.2,50,001/- to Rs.5,00,000/- :12,500.00 (@ 5%)

3.Income tax from Rs.5,00,001/- to Rs.10,00,000/-:1,00,000.00 (@ 20%)

4.Income on remaining amount Rs.3,80,000/- (@ :1,14,000.00 30%)

5.Education cess @ 4%:9,060.00 TOTAL:2,35,560.00

(iii)Therefore, the total tax to be deducted amounts to

Rs.2,35,560/-. After deducting the income tax of Rs.2,35,560/- from the gross annual income of Rs.13,80,000/-, the actual annual income of the 20 claimant comes to Rs.11,44,440/-. Hence, the established annual income of the claimant is Rs.11,44,440/-.

(iv)Taking into account the above, the loss of future earnings due to permanent disability is calculated as follows: To determine the same, the multiplier method—commonly used for assessing loss of dependency in death cases—is applied. As per the table laid down in Sarla Verma’s case, the applicable multiplier for the age group of 56 to 60 years is “9”. Accordingly, the claimant’s established annual income of Rs.11,44,440/-, when multiplied by the multiplier of “9”, comes to Rs.1,02,99,960/-.

(v)In this case, this Tribunal takes the disability of the petitioner as 70%. Therefore, the loss of future earnings would amount to Rs.72,09,972/- (i.e., 70% of Rs.1,02,99,960/-). Hence, an amount of Rs.72,09,972/- is awarded towards loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(vi)It is already established that the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident caused by the 1strespondent and underwent treatment twice at Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Further, a perusal of Ex.A15, which is the claimant’s appointment order for the year 2016 which is his earlier company along with the revised CTC, reveals that the claimant, being a skilled worker, was employed as an Assistant Manager (Project), where operating machinery requires mobility. Legs are crucial for moving around and supervising work. Therefore, considering the pain and hardship he would have endured during the treatment for the injuries— particularly the loss of his left leg below the knee due to amputation—along -: 21 :-

XI ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT at L.B.NAGAR M.V.O.P.274/2022 with the associated mental agony, it would be just and proper to award

Rs.3,00,000/- to the claimant under the head of 'Pain and Suffering'.

Accordingly, the said amount is awarded.

17.Attendant charges: -With regard to attendant charges, the claimant relied on Ex.A8, which consists of 10 receipts issued by Kaveri

Home Care Services for providing attendant services to the claimant during the period from 16.10.2021 to 01.10.2022, claiming a total amount of

Rs.2,50,000/-. However, the claimant failed to examine any witness to substantiate this claim. As such, Ex.A8 cannot be fully relied upon.

Nevertheless, considering the fact that the claimant suffered amputation of his left leg due to the accident and would have reasonably incurred attendant expenses during his recovery for a period of approximately one year, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (i.e., Rs.10,000/- per month × 12 months) under the attendant charges.

18.Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the surgeries undergone by the claimant, and the permanent disability suffered by him, it is evident that he would have required special and nutritious food for recovery, including vitamins and supplements for bone health. Taking all these aspects into consideration, this Tribunal deems it just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the claimant towards extra nourishment.

19.With regard to the purchase of an artificial leg, the claimant relied on

Ex.A10, which is a quotation for the cost of a Nulife Transtibial Prosthesis amounting to Rs.12,15,400/-. To support this claim, the claimant also relied 22 on the evidence of PW-6. However, upon perusal of the record, it is noted that no medical recommendation by any doctor has been placed on record for the said prosthesis. Nevertheless, considering the fact that the claimant underwent amputation of the left leg, it would be reasonable and just to award a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the cost of prosthesis, which would aid the claimant in performing his daily activities and serve the ends of justice.

20.For the reasons aforementioned, this Tribunal comes to conclusion that the petitioner shall be awarded compensation as under—

Head of AccountCompensation Awarded (in Rs.)

Medical expenses1,51,813.00

Transportation50,000.00

Loss of future earnings72,09,972.00

Pain and sufferance 3,00,000.00

Attendant charges1,20,000.00

Extra Nourishment25,000.00

Nulife Transtibial Prosthesis5,00,000.00

TOTAL 83,56,785.00

21.Liability for payment of compensation awarded: - Though the 4threspondent pleaded that it is not liable to indemnify them, arguing that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant (the rider of the motorcycle), it failed to substantiate this claim with cogent and convincing evidence. The 4threspondent submitted a copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle, marked as Exhibit R-2. Upon perusal of Exhibit R2, it is evident that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Since it has been established that the accident, which resulted in injuries to the -: 23 :-

XI ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT at L.B.NAGAR M.V.O.P.274/2022 claimant, was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the 1strespondent while operating the offending vehicle owned by the 3rdrespondent, which was validly insured with the 4threspondent under Exhibit R2, all the respondents

No.1, 3 and 4 are held jointly and severally liable. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.

22.Issue No.3 : To what relief?

In the result :-

i)The petition is allowed in part and an award is passed for a sum of

Rs.83,56,785/- with costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till realization against respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 jointly and severally with a direction to deposit the said amount within a month from today to the account of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy, Current Account No.

43390563207 of SBI, Ranga Reddy District Court Complex with IFSC

Code – SBIN0021100 and transaction details shall be submitted to the

Accounts Section of Hon’ble Principal District Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

ii)On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw

Rs.60,00,000/-, rest of the compensation apportioned in favour of petitioner shall be kept in FDR in his name in any nationalized bank for a period of two years iii)Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

24

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the Open Court on this the 9 th day of April, 2025.

CHAIRMAN, MACT-cum-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: PW.1 : K.Venkat Reddy RW.1 : K.Swamy Naik PW.2 : P.Somashekar Reddy PW.3 : G.Guruprasad Reddy PW.4 : N.Krishna PW.5 : Ch.Kasinath PW.6 : Premjit Kumar Sinha PW.7 : B.V.Krishna Reddy PW.8 : Gyan Prakash

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

Ex.A1Certified copy of FIR issued by PS Kothakota vide Cr.No.200/2021 Ex.A2Certified copy of charge sheet

Ex.A3Crime detail form

Ex.A4Certified copy of certificate issued by Apollo Hospital

Ex.A5Discharge summary dt.16.10.2021 issued by Apollo Hospitals

Ex.A6Discharge summary dt.23.10.2021 issued by Apollo Hospitals

Ex.A7Bunch of medical bills issued by Apollo Hospitals

Ex.A8Bunch of receipt issued by Kavery Home Care services Rs.2,50,000/-

Ex.A9Disability certificate issued by District Medical Board

Ex.A10Estimated bill issued by New Life

Ex.A11Appointment letter issued by NSL Sri Krishnaveni Sugars Limited, Banjara Hills,

Ex.A12Pay slips issued by Pioneer Company Form 16

Ex.A13I.T Returns for the year 2020-21 -: 25 :-

XI ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT at L.B.NAGAR M.V.O.P.274/2022

Ex.A14Bank statement for the period April, 2020 to March 2021 issued by S.B.I Dharmabad

Ex.A15Appointment order issued by Pioneer Distilleries Limited.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT :

Ex.R1Crime detail form Xerox copy Ex.R2Insurance policy No.67190331200100002311 valid from 13.08.2021 to 03.01.2022 issued in the name of Hamraz Khan in respect of vehicle No. KA 01 AH 6804 Ex.R3Authorization letter dt.05.02.2025 of respondent No.4 company

Ex.C1 : Service Certificate

CHAIRMAN, MACT-cum-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT L.B.NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Y. JAYA PRASAD, XI Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Tuesday, the 15th day of April, 2025

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

Between :

1. Siddella Satthaiah, S/o. Late Siddella Narayana, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Smt. Siddella Pedda Ailamma, W/o. S. Satthaiah, Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture Labour,

Both are R/o: H.No.5-75, Koheda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District. … Plaintiffs AND

Dachepally Amarnath @ Amarnath Guptha, S/o. Late Yadagiri Guptha, Age: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.5-112, Koheda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District.

... Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 27.02.2025 in the presence of Sri S.Vijay Prashanth, counsel for plaintiffs; Sri S.Vijay Kumar, counsel for defendant and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff, perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

JUDGMENT

This is suit for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale. 1.

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 2 of 22

Brief averments of the plaint are as follows : 2.

i)Plaintiff No.1 and 2 are husband and wife. Defendant is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.02-37 gts., in Sy.No.970, situated at Koheda Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Defendant had offered to sell the land for a sale consideration of Rs.99,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Lakhs Only) thus they entered into Agreement of

Sale on 08.11.2012 on the very day, plaintiff had paid Rs.5,00,000/-. The same was acknowledged by defendant and had handed over original

Pattadar Passbook, Title Deeds and copy of Deed of Partition and had also agreed to deliver vacant possession. As per the terms of agreement, the balance sale consideration of Rs.94,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration on or before 20.11.2012. On 09.11.2012 expressing his urgent necessities defendant had borrowed Rs.43,50,000/- as part sale consideration evidencing the same passed receipt and also undertaken that the balance sale consideration of Rs.54,50,000/- should be paid at the time of registration by 04.07.2013, to that effect defendant had passed receipt in plaintiffs favour. Besides that defendant had also delivered vacant possession of the suit schedule property to plaintiffs.

Thereafter, plaintiff No.1 many a time expressed his ready and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and obtained registered sale deed, but defendant procrastinated on one count or the other.

Sometime there after defendant informed plaintiff that he had borrowed loan from one Mr.Chikatimalla Sudhakar and had executed registered

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 3 of 22

Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession vide document No.2850/2011, dated 09.12.2011 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.01-00 gts., out of Ac.02-37 gts., in Sy.No.970 of Koheda

Village that was agreed to be sold to plaintiffs as per the Agreement dated 08.11.2012.

On being questioned, defendant admitting his mistake has ii) undertaken to clear off the entire amount due to Mr.CH.Sudhakar and get the registered document No.2850/2011, dated 19.12.2011 cancelled.

Thus reposing confidence in defendant plaintiffs had waited but there was no response from defendant, so a panchayath was held in the presence of elders defendant promised to clear the debt due to

Mr.Ch.Sudhakar and obtain cancellation of the Agreement of Sale-cum-

GPA document Nol.2850/2011 and would execute registered sale deed in plaintiffs favour in respect of the entire extent of Ac.02-37 gts., as was agreed under the deed of agreement of sale, dated 08.11.2012. On 22.11.2012, defendant had paid Rs.11,00,000/- to Mr.Chikatimalla

Sudhakar and had settled the loan due and got back the registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA document No.2850/2011, dated 09.12.2011 and had handed over the documents to plaintiff No.1. Besides that defendant had also delivered vacant possession of the entire extent of

Ac.02-37 gts., to plaintiffs and had promised to get the agreement of sale document No.2850/2011 cancelled by Mr.Ch.Sudhakar and then execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.1 or to his order. Thereafter,

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 4 of 22 several times plaintiffs had demanded the defendant to get the document

No.2850/2011 cancelled and execute registered sale deed in his favour in respect of Ac.02-37 gts., but the defendant had postponed on one reason or other, as such a panchayath was held with elders in the month of

June, 2013 wherein the defendant had denied payment of

Rs.11,00,000/- to Mr.CH.Sudhakar and had agreed to execute registered sale deed in plaintiffs favour to an extent of Ac.01.37 gts., in Sy.No.970 of

Koheda Village in favour of plaintiff towards adjustment of the paid sale consideration of Rs.48,50,000/- by the plaintiffs. That apart defendant had also categorically agreed that there was default on his part on getting the agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession document

No.2850/2011 cancelled. Thus agreed to sell Ac.01.37 gts., in plaintiffs favour accordingly on 27.06.2013 on the assurance by the defendant, plaintiffs paid stamp duty of Rs.1,84,800/- vide challan No.20074773 towards registration of the sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.2, plaintiff

No.1’s wife and had informed the same to defendant and requested him to execute registered sale deed. The defendant had agreed and promised to visit the Sub-Registrar office, Pedda Amberpet and execute the registered sale deed, but ultimately had not gone to the registration office and avoided plaintiff and had not executed registered sale deed. Thus noticing the indifferent attitude of defendant plaintiff got issued legal notice on 01.10.2014 and had demanded defendant to execute registered sale deed. Defendant had replied the legal notice denying the contents

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 5 of 22 but ultimately failed to execute registered sale deed in plaintiffs favour, on the other hand had resorted to an attempt of alienation of the property to third parties. Thus having not been left with any other option, plaintiff is before this Court seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale of suit schedule property.

3.Resisting the plaint denying and disputing the entire material assertions, allegations, claim and contention of the plaintiffs in toto while specifically admitting that the plaintiffs and defendant are the residents of same village and the defendant is the absolute owner of suit schedule property, asserted that the defendant had never executed any agreement of sale in favour of plaintiffs nor had received any part sale consideration and had never agreed to alienate suit schedule property in favour of either plaintiff No.1 or plaintiff No.2. In fact, it is the plaintiff trying to grab the property of the defendant illegally. That defendant had filed

OS.2064/2014 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judges Court, Ranga

Reddy District much before filing of this suit by plaintiffs and had also filed a criminal complaint against the conspirators and the plaintiffs who tried to knock away his property as a counter blast to those cases the present suit is filed. The legal notice of untenable and incorrect claim and assertions by the plaintiffs was replied in a befitting manner. In fact defendant had borrowed Rs.43,50,000/- from plaintiffs as hand loan to meet his personal needs by handing over all the original documents of the suit schedule with a agreement of sale-cum-GPA and other related

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 6 of 22 documents. That the defendant had repaid the loan amount with interest but the plaintiffs had failed to return the documents which were kept with plaintiffs with the sole purpose as security. Misusing those documents with an intention to grab the property of the defendant, plaintiffs filed this false suit, so defendant requested to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.In support of his claim, plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1, besides examining Mr.P.Dharma Reddy as PW.2 and Mr.S.Krishna

Goud as PW.3 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A11. On the other hand, defendant himself got examined as DW.1, examined Mr.P.Mallesh

Goud as DW.2 and Mr.D.Kishore as DW.3 and marked Exs.B1 to B3.

In support of this case, the learned counsel for defendant has taken 5.

this court through following proposition of law,

In Chodi Mahalakshmi Vs. Koppada Sathiraju and others reported

i) in 2011 LawSuit (AP) 40;

Satish Kumar Vs. Karan Singh and another reported in 2016 ii)

LawSuit (SC) 80;

Heard both the counsel. 6.

Basing on the rival pleadings following issues are settled :- 7.

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 7 of 22

i)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale deed dt. 08.11.2012 in respect of the suit schedule property?

ii)Whether the plaintiff is ready to perform his part of obligations as per the agreement of sale dt. 08.11.2012?

iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

iv)To what relief?

ISSUE Nos.1 & 2 : 8.

In support of his pleadings, Plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and testifies, reiterating the plaint pleadings that Plaintiff No.2 is his wife, defendant is known to both of them. Thus, defendant, in capacity of absolute owner of suit schedule property of larger extent of Ac.2.37 gts had offered to sell for sale a consideration of Rs.99 lakhs. Thus, they entered into agreement on 18-11-2012. On the same day, the plaintiff had paid Rs.5 lakhs as advance sale consideration. To that effect, the defendanthadexecutedcashreceipt-cum-agreement-of-sale dt.08.11.2012-Ex.A1, in Plaintiff's favour, by handing over original patta passbook, title deed and copy of deed of partition in respect of property, the same was attested and transaction had happened in the presence of

PWs.2 and 3, and PWs.2 and 3 also deposed substantiating the testimony of PW1 on this aspect and identified their signatures on Ex.P1 and P2. As per the terms the registration was to be made on or before

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 8 of 22 20-11-2012 and the balance sale consideration amount was also to be paid then by the plaintiff. While it was so, on the very next day on 09-11- 2012, defendant had approached plaintiff putting forth his financial necessity and had requested for a sum of Rs.43,50,000/- to be the part sale consideration. Accordingly, plaintiff had paid said amount and had undertaken to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.54,50,000/- at the time of registration. Thus, both of them had extended the time for registration till 04-07-2013, to that effect defendant also exhibited receipt of part payment of Rs.43,50,000/--Ex.P2, whereafter plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

While it was so, plaintiff was told by defendant that he had 9.

executed registered agreement of sale cum GPA with possession vide document No.2850 of 2011 dated 09-12-2011 in respect of Ac.1-00 gts of land out of Ac.2-37 gts in Survey No.970 that was agreed to be sold in favour of plaintiff. Thus, defendant had admitted his fault of suppression of the registered agreement executed in favour of Chikatimalla Sudhakar and also undertaken to release the property and get back the agreement of sale, so also get the property released. Said undertaking was made by defendant after several confabulation and panchayats in the presence of elders. Accordingly, on 22-11-2012, defendant had paid Rs.11,00,000/- to Ch.Sudhakar and got back the registered agreement of sale cum GPA with possession vide document No.2850 of 2011 dated 09-12-2011 and

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 9 of 22 handed over same to plaintiff with a promise sooner he would obtain a deed of cancellation of said agreement of sale by said Ch.Sudhakar. Thus plaintiff had believed defendant. Thereafter, the defendant had never come forth to obtain deed of cancellation of agreement of sale cum GPA executed in favour of Ch.Sudhakar. Therefore, the plaintiff had again held panchayat in the presence of elders and also PWs.1 and 2 where the defendant had has undertaken that he would execute registered sale deed in respect of Ac.1-37 gts towards the part sale consideration that was received from the plaintiff i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- on 08-11-2012 and

Rs.43,50,000/- on 09-11-2022. Thus on the assurance made by defendant, plaintiff had paid stamp duty of Rs.1,84,800/- on 27-06-2013 by Chalan No.274773 for registration of sale deed in favour of his wife

Siddella Peda Aliamma i.e. Plaintiff No. 2 and informed the same to defendant. But defendant avoided plaintiff and had not turned up before the Sub Registrar. Thereafter, had not kept his promise and assurance, as such the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 01-10-2014. Defendant had replied it with false assertion. Supporting this oral testimony, PW1 exhibited Ex.A1 cash receipt dated 08-11-2012, Ex.A2 cash receipt dated 09-11-2012, Ex.A3 copy of Patta Pass Book, Ex.A4 copy of title deed, both of these documents belonging to suit schedule property of the defendant. Ex.A5 the Agreement of Sale on GPA document No.2850 of 2011 dated 05-12-2011, this document was executed prior to the

Agreement of Sale in question dated 09-11-2012. Ex.A6 copy of receipt

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 10 of 22 for Rs.1,84,800- passed by State Bank of Hyderabad. This proves the claim and contention of the plaintiff that he had paid such an amount towards stamp duty. Ex.A7 is copy of Challan dated 27-06-2013 in respect of Ex.A6. Ex.A8 is draft sale deed in the name of Plaintiff No.2 in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.A9 is office copy of legal notice

dated 01-10-2014, Ex.A10 is original acknowledgement, Ex.A11 is reply

notice of defendant dated 21-10-2014.

Firstly, it is to be seen that the oral testimony of PW1 as is referred 10.

hereinabove is substantiated by the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A9. A plain perusal of these documents ‘ex facie’ does not disclose anything to take exception as to their validity or otherwise. It is the claim and contention of the defendant that no vendor at the time of mere execution of agreement of sale won't deliver his title documents vide

Ex.A3-patta pass book, Ex.A4-title deed. Be it known firstly that defendant does not deny his signature on Exs.A1 & A2 agreement of sale cum receipt. Secondly a plain perusal of these documents does not denote as contended by defendant, that they were executed merely as security for due repayment of the debt borrowed.

it is the claim and contention of the defendant that he merely 11.

borrowed money from the plaintiff and had repaid the debt, at the time of

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 11 of 22 borrowing money he had handed over these two documents, but as regards the repayment of the debt that allegedly borrowed by the defendant from plaintiff is concerned, there is no consistent and convincing evidence brought on record by defendant. Be it known at the same time that it is the contention of the plaintiff that subsequently plaintiff had come to know that defendant had executed agreement of sale cum GPA with possession document No.2850 of 2011 dated 09-12- 2011. The same was brought to the notice of plaintiff subsequent to the agreement in question. Upon being questioned, the defendant had handed over Ex.A5 original. If at all the defendant had merely borrowed money, what had prompted him to hand over agreement of sale cum GPA executed in favor of one Ch.Sudhakar is concerned, there is no plausible explanation comes forth from the defendant, be that as it may. It is significant to be noted if at all the defendant had merely borrowed money and had also repaid said money of Rs.48,50,000/-, why the plaintiff would unnecessarily spend Rs.1,84,800/- towards stamp duty and registration charges is a fact beyond comprehension, be that as it may.

Indeed there is no evidence in proof of the contention of defendant regarding either borrowing of amount from plaintiff by him, or its repayment.

In this regard, the testimony of PWs.2 and 3 is to the following 12.

effect, PW.2 deposes supporting the evidence of PW.1 as regards

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 12 of 22 execution of Ex.A1- receipt cum agreement of sale dated 08-11-2012 and he emphatically states that he was there at the time of transaction thereunder, it was executed in his presence and he had signed as one of the witness. Further, he asserts that the defendant had handed over original Patta Passbook, title deed and also a copy of Deed of Partition to the plaintiff and also delivered the possession of the property to him.

Further, he deposes that as per the terms of the agreement, defendant agreed to sell the land of defendant (suit schedule property) of Ac.2-37 gts for sale consideration of Rs.99,00,000/- under Ex.A1, plaintiff paid

Rs.5,00,000/- and agreed to pay balance at the time of registration, the balance sale consideration was to be paid of Rs.94,00,000/- was to be paid on or before 20-11-2012 at the time of the execution of registration sale deed in favour of Plaintiff No. 1 or his nominee. Further also, PW.2 deposes that on 09-11-2012, the defendant had borrowed further part sale consideration amount of Rs.43,50,000/- putting forth his urgent financial necessities. Thus there was only balance sale consideration of

Rs.54,50,000/- and it was agreed to be paid on or before 04-07-2013. So, the date of execution of registration sale deed got extended and subsequently it was surfaced that the defendant had executed agreement of sale cum GPA with possession vide document No.2850 of 2011 dated 09-12-2011 in respect of Ac.1-00 gts of land out of Ac.2-37 gts in Survey

No.970 in favour of one Ch.Sudhakar. Upon being questioned, the defendant had promised to clear the debt and get back the registered

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 13 of 22 agreement of sale cum GPA and also see that the said document gets cancelled. But the defendant not cancelled the document, merely got back the agreement of sale cum GPA with possession document No.2850 of 2011 dated 09-12-2011 claiming that he had paid an amount of

Rs.11,00,000/- on 22-11-2012 to said Ch.Sudhakar thereafter had undertaken to get the document cancelled and execute registered sale deed in plaintiff's favour by receiving balance sale consideration of

Rs.54,50,000/-. But he had subsequently avoided. When panchayat was held before the elders, he had undertaken to execute registered sale deed but he never came forth. Further, PW2 also deposes that on assurance made by defendant, PW1 had paid stamp duty of Rs.1,84,800/- vide

Challan No.274773 and intimated the same to the defendant. But the defendant had displayed his indifferent attitude prompting the plaintiff to issue legal notice and it was replied with falsehood.

On the same lines, PW3 also deposes emphatically stating that in 13.

his presence on 08-11-2012 defendant had executed Ex.A1 and he had signed as one of the witnesses. Further, he also testifies corroborating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that defendant had handed over original

Patta Pass book, title deed, copy of Deed of Partition to plaintiff in his presence on 08-11-2012. Further, PW3 deposes regarding the presence of

PW2 at the time of transaction in question, that defendant had been paid

Rs.43,50,000/- by plaintiff on the very next day i.e. on 9-11-2012. It is

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 14 of 22 also significant to be noted that PW3 deposes regarding the defendant had executed agreement of sale cum GPA with possession document

No.2850 of 2011 dated 09-12-2011 alienating Ac.1-00 gts of land out of

Ac.2-37 gts which is the subject matter of the suit even prior to Ex.A1- agreement of sale cum receipt. Upon being questioned, he had undertaken correcting his mistake and promised to clear the debt to

Ch.Sudhakar and get back the document. Accordingly, he got back the document and handed over to plaintiff and also promised in the presence of elders that he would register sale deed to the total extent of Ac.2-37 gts, but he did not get cancellation deed of document No.2850 of 2011

dated 09-12-2011. As such, Panchayat was held in the presence of

elders. In the Panchayat, defendant had agreed and undertaken to execute registered sale deed in respect of Ac.1-37 gts that was free from encumbrances towards part consideration already paid by plaintiff, subsequently even for that also defendant had not come forth. Plaintiff got issued legal notice and it was replied with all falsehood.

Be it known in the cross-examination PWs.2 and 3 deposed that 14.

they know both plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant since their childhood as all of them belong to same village. PWs.2 and 3 denied that there was no agreement made by defendant in terms of Exs.A1 and A2 and there was written correction in Exs.A1 and A2 which are not initialled. Be it known that it is not the specific case of the defendant that there are

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 15 of 22 material alterations. Thus a close examination testimony of PWs.1 to 3 in juxtaposition with the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A9, there doesn't seem any material could be brought to light by the defendant in support of his specific claim that he had executed Exs.A1 and A2 only as security towards repayment of loan he had borrowed from plaintiff and that he had discharged that loan.

Undoubtedly Exs.A1 and A2 are cash receipt and agreement of sale 15.

and there are no specific so many terms and conditions as is found in an ordinary agreement of sale. But a close examination of these two documents does not reveal anything that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as the case may be Rs.43,50,000/- and towards that amount to be repaid, these documents are executed. Therefore as is contended by defendant that Exs.A1 and A2 are merely executed as a security towards repayment of the debt he borrowed from the plaintiff is concerned, the contents of Exs.A1 and A2 are of little use to defendant.

On the other hand defendant himself got examined as DW1 and 16.

also examined DWs.2 & 3. Defendant deposes on the same lines as was pleaded in his written statement denying, disputing the entire material claim and assertion of plaintiff. It is specifically testified by defendant as

DW1 that he is absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 16 of 22 admeasuring Ac.2-35 gts in survey No.970 of Koheda village and Gram

Panchayat, Hayathnagar Mandal. That a false suit is filed on false averments to grab his property. In fact he had filed OS.No.2064 of 2014 on the file of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy

District, as a counter blast to said suit and criminal cases filed by him against plaintiff, this suit is filed just to grab his property. That he never executed any agreement of sale either in favor of plaintiff or in favor of

Ch.Sudharkar That he had merely executed documents evidencing borrowing of Rs.43,50,000/- from plaintiff as also Rs.11,00,000/- from

Ch.Sudhakar, but Ch.Sudhakar clandestinely obtained agreement of sale cum GPA without consent and knowledge of the defendant. The defendant had repaid the loan due to the plaintiff as well as Ch.Sudhakar but Ch.Sudhakar instead of executing reconveyance deed got transferred

Ac.1-00 gts of land in favor of his son Bhargav, thus for cancellation of those documents defendant had filed OS.No.2064 of 2014. So,

Ch.Sudhakar and plaintiff in connivance have filed this false suit.

Though Ch.Sudhakar had executed a handloan document on a Rs.100/- worth stamp paper after repayment it was destroyed but on insistence

Mr.Ch.Sudhakar had executed another “upanda patram” on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper on 22.11.2012, it was exhibited as Ex.A2 in

OS.No.2064 of 2014, thus defendant denies and disputes as DW1 the

entire pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff. However it is significant to be noted that defendant as DW1 states that Exs.A1 and A2 receipts cum

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 17 of 22 agreement of sale contain his signature. As is noted hereinabove a close examination of contents of Exs.A1 & A2 does not disclose anything as pleaded by defendant, that the defendant had executed them evidencing his borrowing of Rs.5,00,000/- or Rs.43,50,000/- as contended by him, but they reflect an undertaking to alienate his property, the defendant had executed them. That apart the defendant in no less clear terms states that he had not filed any paper or document to show that he had repaid the entire loan amount and interest whatever he claimed was due and borrowed from plaintiff.

That apart it is significant to be noted that defendant does not 17.

plead and assert as to the date on which and the mode how he had repaid the amount due to the plaintiff. So also he could not tell the persons in whose presence he had borrowed or repaid the debt. Besides this defendant admittedly had not initiated any action against plaintiff to get back his original documents nor even he issued any legal notice to the plaintiff for return of his original document. If at all as pleaded by defendant he had handed over the original documents merely as a security even after his repayment when the original documents of defendants are not returned, defendant cannot be expected to remain silent. Further defendant as DW1 states that he does not have any evidence to demonstrate that he had handed over all his original documents pertaining to suit schedule property including the agreement

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 18 of 22 of sale cum GPA that was executed in favor of his brother-in-law

Ch.Sudhakar only as a security for payment of loan due to plaintiff No.1.

Further defendant admits that he had not filed any criminal case against plaintiff alleging the misuse of his signed documents. Further in cross- examination defendant particularly states at page No.3 para 3 “it is true that on 8 11 2012 i received Rs.5,00,000/- from plaintiff No.1 and signed on Ex.A1, yes on that day i have handed over my property document

Ex.A3-patta pass book and other documents”.

Though DW1 was prompt enough to state that after receiving 18.

handloan of Rs.43,50,000/- from plaintiff he had handed over the documents as security, but as is noted herein above in proof of this particular assertion there is no evidence, thus the evidence of defendant as DW1 does not demonstrate anything in proof of the specific claim of the defendant that he had executed Exs.A1 & A2 only as a proof of his availment of loan from plaintiff and he had never executed them as agreement of sale alienating the suit schedule property.On the same lines DWs.2 & 3 also deposed supporting the claim and contention of defendant as DW1, but admittedly both of them are close associates and friends of DW.1 and they too could not depose anything consistently in support of the claim and contention of defendant and also the evidence of

DW1, rather DW2 states that the transaction under Exs.A1 & A2 was witnessed by one Dharma Reddy and Krishan Goud. Further DW.2 states

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 19 of 22 “I do not know whether defendant took handloan from plaintiff No.1 and afterwards repaid the handloan amount and defendant handed over all the original documents of above property to plaintiff and after repaying the above amount S.Sathaiah never returned back the document which kept for security purpose and plaintiff No.1 misused documents under to grab the property of defendant as mentioned in my chief affidavit”.

So by this denial DW2 in fact denies, disowns and disproves the 19.

claim and contention of defendant as regards his specific claim of availment of Rs.43,50,000/- from plaintiff as hand loan and in that regard he had handed over Exs.A1 & A2 and also patta passbook and title deed of defendant under Exs.A3 & A4. Likewise DW.3 also though testified supporting the claim and contention of defendant but he admits in cross examination that he had not signed any paper while defendant borrowed loan as stated by him in his evidence in chief. Further he asserts that he does not know how many papers defendant had signed and in whose presence he had signed at the time of borrowing money from the plaintiff. He also states that defendant had neither issued any legal notice nor filed any suit against plaintiff as regards the return of the original documents by plaintiff.

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 20 of 22

So viewed from any of the standpoint, the defendant could not 20.

prove his specific claim of the loan being borrowed from plaintiff, in that regard his handing over of title deeds and patta passbook. On the other hand plaintiff with consistent oral and documentary evidence could prove the defendant had executed Exs.A1 & A2 alienating the suit schedule property of Ac.2-37 gts, subsequently he agreed to alienate Ac.1-37 gts only towards part sale consideration amount since he had already sold

Ac.1-00 gts to his brother-in-law Ch.Sudhakar, he could not obtain deed of cancellation of said agreement of sale cum GPA executed by him in favor of his brother-in-law Ch.Sudhakar. Accordingly these issues are answered in favour of plaintiff.

Issue No.3 : 21.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as

prayed for?

In the light of the finding in Issue Nos.1 & 2 in favour of plaintiff, this issue also answered in plaintiff’s favour.

In the result :- Suit is decreed with costs granting specific with 22.

performance of agreement of sale dt.08.11.2012 in plaintiff's favour directing defendant to receive the balance sale consideration, if any and to execute

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 21 of 22 registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property in plaintiff's favour within forty five (45) days from this day in terms of agreement of sale dt.08.11.2012 and subsequent undertaking given by defendant. In the event defendant's failure to execute the sale deed, plaintiff shall be at liberty to get it executed by the Court.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15 th day of April, 2025.

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNSSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS: ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:

PW.1 : S.SatthaiahDW.1 : D.Amarnath PW.2 : P.Dharma ReddyDW.2 : P.Mallesh Goud PW.3 : S.Krishna GoudDW.3 : D.Kishore

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Cash receipt dt.08.11.2012 Ex.A2Cash receipt dt.09.11.2012 Ex.A3 Pattadar passbook Ex.A4 Title deed Ex.A5 Agreement of sale cum GPA document No.2850/2011 dt.09.12.2011 Ex.A6 Receipt of Rs.1,84,800/- passed by SBH bank Ex.A7 Challan copy dt.27.06.2013 Ex.A8Draft sale deed in the name of plaintiff No.2

Ex.A9Legal notice dt.01.10.2014

Ex.A10 Original acknowledgment Ex.A11 Reply notice dt.21.10.2014

O.S.No.1565 of 2014

XI ADJ Court Page No. 22 of 22

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1Certified copy of AGPA No.2850/2011 Ex.B2Certified copy of plaint in OS.No.2064/2014 on the file of I ASJ, RRD Ex.B3 Dharani pertaining to suit schedule property

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Page 1 of 19

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, AT RAJENDRANAGAR

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Y. JAYA PRASAD, XI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, FAC :: Special Judge for Trial and Disposal Of Rape and POCSO Act cases,

DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

Sessions Case No. 626 of 2022

(Cr.No.290 of 2022 of P.S Gachibowli)

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Inspector of Police, Gachibowli 2 Name of the accusedBuddhajoti Das @ Moondas, S/o.Babul Das, Age 27 years, Occ: Security Guard, R/o. H.No.1-11/61, Masidbanda, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. N/o. Nougom Village, Bebejiar District, Assam State 3 Offences Charged ofUnder Sections 377 IPC, Section 5 r/w.6 POCSO Act 4 Crime No.& Name of the PS290 of 2022 of P.S Gachibowli 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty. 6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty. 7 Sentence or orderAccused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 377, 506 IPC, Section 5 (1) r/w.6 POCSO Act, as such he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. 8 Name of the Prosecution Sri B.Venkateswar Reddy counsel 9 Name of the defence Smt.N.Sumalatha counsel

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of In charge Addl Public Prosecutor Sri B.Venkateswar Reddy, for the State and of Smt.N.Sumalatha, Legal Aid counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:

Page 2 of 19

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

1.This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the sub-Inspector of police,

Gachibowli police station in Cr.No.290/2022 for the offences under Sections 377, 506 IPC, Section 5 r/w.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

2.In brief, prosecution case is to the following effect :

i)On 19.03.2022 at about 11.30 PM while minor victim’s mother was in her home, her neighbor Mr.Javid had prompted her to come out from house forthwith, as such she came out and saw the accused was held by Mr.Javid, on being questioned it was stated that the accused was seen made her minor victim son lay down in prone state without his undergarments, the accused laid on him from behind. Then she had enquired with her son who had stated to her that on 19.03.2022 while he was playing outside his house, accused had called him to play PubG game in his mobile, thus took him to his house’s cellar dark place.

After playing for a little while, accused had removed his pant and made him lay down in prone state and himself had laid on the victim boy and had unnatural sexual intercourse.

ii)Thereafter accused also suck his penis. On seeing Mr.Javid, accused had left him in front of his house. That, the accused was resorting to such unnatural sex with her son quite for some time and had threatened her son to kill if he informs the sexual overture to others. Thus on presentation of report by victim boy’s mother, case in Cr.No.290/2022 was registered under Section 377

IPC and Section 5 r/w.6 POCSO Act.

Page 3 of 19 iii)The Inspector of police examined and recorded the statement of victim’s mother-LW.1 and victim boy-LW.2, LW.3-Shaik Javid - eye witness-LW.3,

LW.4 – Mohd.Gore Miya circumstantial witness, LW.5- Raju Ahmmed circumstantial witness, LW.6-K.Prasad circumstantial witness, collected the bonafide certificate from LW.7 – Vani Sree, Head Mistress where victim boy was pursuing his study, visited scene of offence and observed in the presence of

LW.8-G.Vijaya Kumar, LW.9-Mohd.Sameer, got examined the victim boy by

LW.10-Dr.K.Vamshi Krishna and got victim boy’s statement recorded by lady police officer LW.11 – K.Malathi.

iv)On 21.03.2022 arrested the accused and got him examined by LW.12-

Dr.K.Sudhakar Suresh for virility, got referred the swabs and smears collected from the private parts of the minor victim boy to LW.13 – Dr.Shaik Haseena

Parveen, Assistant Director TSFSL and also got recorded 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim minor boy by LW.14 – A.Praveen (learned Magistrate), on completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences under

Section 377 IPC and Section 5 r/w.6 POCSO Act.

3.The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 377 IPC and Section 5 r/w.6 POCSO Act against accused and registered as Spl.SC.626 of 2022 and issued summons to accused.

4.On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to accused

U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

Page 4 of 19

5.By virtue of order Dt. 09-11-2021 the Hon’ble Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District made over this case to this court, for trial

and disposal.

6.Heard on charges and framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 506 IPC, Section 5 r/w.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act explained to accused in vernacular language, he pleaded not guilty & claimed to be tried.

7.During course of trial, prosecution examined, PWs.1 to 12 and Ex.P1 to P13 were marked.

8.On completion of examination of witnesses by prosecution, accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and explained all the incriminating evidence available against him on record, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.The learned prosecutor argues that the testimony of PWs.1 to 12 is quite specific, consistent and convincing, besides being legal, that the accused had resorted to sexual assault of unnatural in nature whereby the victim boy was violated against nature many a time. Each of the witnesses have testified giving a graphic account of the offence in the cross examination of prosecution witnesses, nothing tangible could be elicited by the counsel for accused. There is a line of consistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which amply proves the offence against the accused. There is prompt registration of the case

Page 5 of 19 followed by investigation. The finding of the Investigation Officer is once again unfolded before this Court with succinct and consistent evidence, so the learned prosecutor requests to record conviction against the accused and sentence him appropriately as per law.

10.On the other hand the learned counsel argues seriously, let alone the legal evidence, there is not even an iota of evidence, even if the entire evidence on record is taken to be true on the face of it, it does not demonstrate much less the offence charged against the accused and nothing could be traceable in the evidence adduced. There are material inconsistencies as regards the very registration of the case, arrest of the accused and the offence proper. It is not certain as to where the scene of offence is located and it has not been pinpointed in the scene of offence observation proceedings. Admittedly PW.1 is not an eye witness. PW.3 – so called eye witness have testified in multi colours and several inconsistent tunes which demonstrates his evidence in a poor light, which is unworthy consideration. All other witnesses are circumstantial witnesses who have given quite inconsistent and diametrical opposite version to the case of the prosecution. Medical evidence in fact apparently is a fabricated and manufactured one to suit the case of prosecution. In the natural course of event, if a tender age boy gets sexually assaulted by sodomy, the traces of such an offence does not last long. In the instant case, two days after the crime, the boy was examined but the doctor states that the victim boy subjected to sexual assault cannot be believed. That the doctor admittedly had not photographed the “reddish colour” around anus, which could have been primary evidence thrown light on the factual side, the reasons best known to the prosecution held back an

Page 6 of 19 important piece of medical evidence. After all the evidence of the doctor is only “opinion evidence” which is not “magna carta” to be taken into consideration.

Though the victim boy allegedly subjected to sexual assault for a month or more, it is not known why the boy had not complained to his mother, these are the highly improbable circumstances which renders the case of the prosecution highly unbelievable despite there being presumptions to be drawn in terms of

Sections 29 & 30 POCSO Act. So, the learned counsel requests to record clean acquittal.

11.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Counsel.

12.Now the sole point that falls for consideration is:- Whether prosecution could prove the charge against the Accused for the offence under Section 377, 506 IPC and Section 5 r/w.6 POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

13.POINT : Before adverting to the oral and documentary evidence, it is apposite to state the charges for which the accused stood trial reads as follows :

Charge No.1 :- That you accused committed unnatural sexual assault against the order of nature on LW.1/victim boy who is minor and a child repeatedly and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 377 IPC.

Charge No.2 :- That you accused committed unnatural sexual assault against the order of nature on LW.1/victim boy who is minor and a child repeatedly and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5 (l) r/w.6 POCSO Act.

Charge No.3 :- That you accused having committed unnatural sexual assault against the order of nature on LW.1/victim boy who is minor and a child as mentioned in Charge No.1 threatened him to beat if he discloses the

Page 7 of 19 same to anyone and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.

14.Thus in order to establish the charges for the offence under Sections 376

IPC, prosecution needs to prove the following facts with legal evidence :

i)That the accused had carnal intercourse with the victim boy; ii)That the accused had such carnal intercourse against the order of nature.

15.In order to prove the charge for the offence under Section 506 IPC, prosecution needs to prove following facts :

i)That the accused intimidated the victim boy; ii)That the intimidation of victim boy was to do away with his life if he reveals to others about the commission of offence by the accused.

16.In order to prove the charge for the offence under Section 5 (l) POCSO Act, prosecution needs to prove,

i)That the victim was minor boy of below twelve years of age; ii)That the accused resorted to “Penetrative Sexual Assault” against the victim boy as was defined under Section 3 POCSO Act which reads as follows:

“3-Penetrative sexual assault. – A person is said to commit “penetrative sexual assault” if

(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

(b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

Page 8 of 19

(c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

(d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person”.

17.PROOF OF MINORITY OF THE VICTIM BOY :

i)Ex.P1 is the report which contains recital that the victim boy was eight years of age at the time of offence. Ex.P7 is the bonafide certificate of victim boy issued by the Head-Mistress of the school where the victim boy was studying. As per this certificate, the victim boy was born on 19.08.2013. The alleged offence was committed on 19.03.2022. Thus it is obvious the victim boy was eight years of age as on the date of the offence. The victim boy himself was examined as

PW.2, in fact his evidence was recorded by the then Presiding Officer putting preliminary questions to ascertain his ability to give rational answers to the questions put during the course of his examination as witness. This reveals the tender age of the victim boy, that apart his age was recorded in the deposition as “eight years”.

ii)PW.7 is school Head-Mistress who had issued Ex.P3, she deposes that on 12.04.2022 Sub-Inspector of police had filed requisition for issuance of Ex.P3- bonafide certificate, accordingly she had issued the same. As per said certificate-

Ex.P3 the date of birth of victim boy is 19.08.2013. Nothing could be hammered out in the cross examination of PW.7 to take exception to her evidence as regards the minority of the victim boy being aged eight years at the time of offence.

iii)PW.9 is the doctor, he deposes that he had examined the victim boy on the requisition made by Gachibowli police and the boy was “eight years of

Page 9 of 19 age”. Even PW.10-lady police officer who had recorded the statement of victim boy also deposes that the victim boy was eight years of age. Therefore there is nothing to perceive otherwise then the victim boy was only eight or nine years of age at the time of offence. Therefore prosecution could prove the minority of the victim boy being at the age of eight years at the time of offence.

18.PROOF OF THE CHARGES FOR THE OFFENCE PROPER :

i)PW.1 is victim’s mother, no doubt though she is not an eye witness to offence but she being the mother of victim boy her evidence assumes significance and importance. Her evidence is that on the very day of the offence when she got back to home after shopping at about 10.30 PM accused had called the victim boy and taken him out from his house, within no time PW.3 had knocked the door, on opening she found accused was held by PW.3 and complained that the accused was committing sodomy on her son. On being questioned her son also stated the same, confirming what was complained by

PW.3. It is pertinent to be noted that in Ex.P1 it is stated that upon PW.1 questioning PW.3 had stated that accused had taken her son to his house near cellar, while the victim boy laid down in prone state, accused himself had laid on him, then PW.3 had caught hold him. But said version is not there in the evidence of PW.1, PW.1 merely deposes as to what it revealed by her son to her. However, the point is as per Ex.P1 while victim boy laid down in prone state accused slept on him, whereas the eye witness PW.3 deposes that the accused had removed the underwear and pant of victim boy and the victim boy was made to bend by the accused and was doing “indecent act against him”. Thus, he had caught the

Page 10 of 19 accused and taken him to PW.1. Here the narration of PW.1 before this Court and the one alleged in Ex.P1 and the testimony of PW.3 are giving different facets of the occurrence.

ii)Then coming to the version of the victim boy, he deposes that while he was at his house accused had taken him to the house of the accused to a lane situated by the side of his house and accused had inserted his penis in his anus, same was observed by PW.3, then accused had thrown him from the wall towards his house.

iii) PW.3 said to be the eye witness. Now the question is whether was there any possibility of PW.3 watching the act of commission of the offence. In cross examination PW.3 states scene of offence house is sixty (60) feet away from his house. The wall around the scene of offence was to a height of 5 feet.

The incident happened not on the side of the gate, one cannot see what was happening from the gate and there was no light at the scene of offence and the offence had taken place at 11.45 PM. On hearing the shouting by the victim boy he had peeped over the wall. Here it is significant to be noted that the victim boy does not tell that he had screamed. Therefore the question of PW.3 hearing the screams does not arise. PW.1 deposes that the height of the compound wall around the house of the accused was to a height of 8 feet. Further she states, “it is true that a person who stands on the other side of 8 feet compound wall cannot view as to what happening within the compound wall”. Therefore it is obvious as per the evidence of PW.1 herself there was no possibility of PW.3 witnessing the commission of offence by the accused. Moreover admittedly the offence took place at 11.30 PM and there was no lights glowing, therefore how

Page 11 of 19 come PW.3 see the commission of offence is not perceptible without a pinch of sale. Even the evidence of PW.2-victim boy discloses that there was a wall around the scene of offence.

iv) Keeping all this aside, Pw.3 states that having watched the accused committing the offence, he had not disturbed them, he had meekly left the place and went to one Mr.Ashraf who resides nearby but he was not there in the house, so he had informed him over phone, in turn he had sent his younger brother by name Mr.Ashok, said Mr.Ashok had called the victim boy’s mother and informed.

Be it noted that as per the case of prosecution and evidence of PW.1 it is PW.3 to have called her and informed her holding the accused having taken him to her house. But as per the version of PW.3 it is not him but one Mr.Ashok who had informed the offence to PW.1. Said Mr.Ashok has neither been cited as witness nor been examined by prosecution, the reasons best known to it. Not only that

PW.3 so called eye witness deposes that, the house of said Mr.Ashok was about 50 to 60 feet away from scene of offence. Had it been so definitely the

Investigation Officer should have examined said Mr.Ashok, but it is not so.

v)PW.3 tells that at the time of incident he had come out for smoking and sat by the side of the wall. But in the same breathe he admits that he takes dinner daily at 9.30 PM but as per the case of prosecution and evidence of PW.1 the offence took place at around 10.30 or 11.00 PM. There is no any special reason as such stated by PW.3 for his having dinner at that late night on the date of offence to have come out to smoke. Therefore the evidence of PW.3 is not confidence conspiring. Once PW.3’s evidence is kept aside, there is only the evidence of victim boy. No doubt victim boy’s evidence is important being victim

Page 12 of 19 himself. The first question that crops up when the evidence of PW.3 is examined closely is that, why if at all accused was resorting to the offence, he had not complained to his mother, victim boy states that the accused had threatened him. It is significant to be noted that the victim boy merely states “on 20.03.2022 when I was present in my house, accused came to our house, took him to his house and even into a galli/lane situate besides his house, the accused inserted his penis into his anus, at the relevant time LW.3 his neighbour observed the same, by that time the accused thrown him from the wall towards his house which is situate besides the house of the accused”. Here it is to be noted that as per the evidence of PW.3-eye witness, it is one Mr.Ashok who got called by him, informed the incident to the mother of PW.2 (victim boy), but PW.2 states that it is he to have informed the incident to his mother having seen them, be that as it may.

vi) To a specific question by learned counsel, the victim boy states, “it is true the day when I came first to this Court, police had shown me the accused”.

This statement of victim boy gives rise to suspicion that the accused was shown to victim boy by police, if at all in fact such ghastly offence had at all been committed, definitely the victim boy does not forget the fact and features of the accused, there should not have been any need and necessity to the police to show the accused. These are the circumstances which give rise to suspicion as to the offence proper.

vii) Speaking as to the offence proper the victim boy states at relevant time PW.3 his neighbour has observed the same. But it is the specific evidence of

PW.3 that having observed the alleged commission of offence he had not

Page 13 of 19 disturbed them (accused and PW.2) but he had chosen to inform it to one

Mr.Ashraf as he was not there, he had called one Mr.Ashok. Therefore though the victim boy in no less clear terms states – “accused kept his penis into my anus”.

The inconsistency of evidence of PW.3-eye witness does not conspire confidence as to the evidence of PW.2-victim boy.

viii) PW.4 is not an eye witness, he is the landlord of the accused, he deposes that three months prior to his evidence on one day at about 8.30 PM he had seen accused held by PW.3, on hearing the commotion he happened to go to the scene of offence area, on enquiry PW.3 had stated him that the accused had committed rape on victim boy. PW.3 had beaten the accused with sticks.

However in cross examination PW.4 states that he had not noticed any similar incidents being resorted to by the accused earlier. The accused is tenant to him for an year, accused was nice person. He had never seen him indulging in any offence or inappropriate behavior. But surprisingly this witness deposes that there was light in front of his house where accused resides. If it were to be so, this statement of PW.4 is inconsistent with that of the evidence of PW.3-eye witness. To a specific question PW.4 states that he does not know anything about the facts of the case. However, he had seen PW.3 beating the accused indiscriminately and also advised not to beat him. Further this witness states that around his house there was wall to a height of 6 to 7 feet, unless one steps on some ladder or stone one cannot see what was happening inside in his house in cellar from outside. This testimony of PW.4 makes it clear that there was no possibility at all for PW.3 to see the occurrence of offence.

Page 14 of 19 ix) PWs.5 & 6 are circumstantial witnesses while PW.5 works as

Supervisor of Safe Well Security Services where accused was working as security guard. PW.6 was site incharge of R.V.Panchaganya Colony Welfare Association where the accused was discharging his duty as security guard being the employee of Safe Well Security Services. Both of these witnesses have come to know about the crime said to have been committed by the accused through police, except that they do not tell anything about the offence proper, its being committed by the accused. Admittedly they are not having personal knowledge of commission of offence by accused. Therefore their evidence is of little use and significance in proof of the charges.

x)PW.8 is the mediator for scene of offence proceedings, he deposes that the scene of offence was observed in his presence by police and it was a gulli (lane) of main road, be it noted that scene of offence is neither gulli/lane nor is it connecting to main road. Therefore obviously the evidence of PW.8 mediator for scene of offence observation proceedings is per contra to the evidence of

PW.3-the eye witness. That apart PW.8 so called mediator for observation proceedings states that the wall was to a height of 6 feet, one cannot see through the wall, be that as it may.

xi) PW.9 is the doctor. In the light of the nature of offence alleged, the evidence of PW.9-doctor assumes significance. Be it seen as per the case of prosecution the alleged sexual assault was not aggressive of such a nature causing bodily injury. Therefore the chances of the victim sustaining visible injuries are very less. The offence allegedly took place on 19.03.2022 at around 11.00 PM. As per the evidence of PW.9 the victim was examined on 20.03.2022

Page 15 of 19 at 3.15 PM about sixteen or seventeen hours after the crime. Admittedly no sperm and spermatozoa were found. So also the Investigation Officer-PW.12 admits that he had not collected wearing apparels of the victim boy, only the spears and swabs collected by doctor were referred to FSL, on their examination it was found no sperm and spermatozoa could be traced. However, the doctor basing on his observation that there was reddish colour at anus of victim boy he could conclude that sexual assault cannot be ruled out. Here it is important to be noted that in children warm infestation causes itching at anus which prompt children to scratch which will have likelihood of resulting in reddish colour at anus. That apart diarrhea, constipation also at times as admitted by PW.9 would cause reddish coloration at anus. Therefore the testimony of PW.9 merely because the anus was reddish in colour it cannot positively be ascertained that the victim boy was subjected to sexual assault.

xii) PW.10 is lady police officer, her evidence is only to the effect that she had recorded the statement of victim boy under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However she deposes that scene of offence was a small lane of two feet in the ground floor.

But this testimony as regards the location of scene of offence is per contra to that of the evidence of PW.8 mediator for scene of offence, be that as it may.

xiii) Then comes the evidence of PW.11 he is the medical doctor examined the accused and issued potency certificate, of course there is not much dispute regarding the virility of the accused, therefore prosecution could prove through the evidence of PW.11 and Ex.P9 that the accused was capable of performing sex.

Page 16 of 19 xiv)PW.12 is the Investigation Officer. He deposes that on presentation of

Ex.P1-report crime was registered and he proceeded with further investigation of recording the statement of PWs.1 to 7, referred the victim boy to hospital for medical examination, visited scene of offence and observed, then arrested the accused, got him examined by medical doctor, referred the smears and swabs collected by medical doctor from private parts of victim boy to FSL then arrested the accused. On completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the accused. It is the specific evidence of PW.1, the victim boy’s mother that accused was got held by PW.3 and brought to her. In the very night police had visited her house and took the accused with them. But it is the evidence of PW.12 that he had arrested the accused on the same day of report i.e., on 20.03.2022 and sent him to Court for remand. That apart to a specific question in cross examination

PW.12-Investigation officer states that the police have no knowledge about the offence till Ex.P1-report was filed on 20.03.2022 at 11.45 AM. This evidence of

Investigation Officer is per contra to the evidence of PW.1-mother of victim boy and contents of Ex.P1. It is the specific assertion of Investigation Officer that he had arrested the accused on 21.03.2022 at Masjid Banda since accused had fled away from scene of offence immediately after commission of the offence. As such the accused could be arrested at Masjid Banda, be it noted that it is the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 that the accused was immediately caught hold after the offence was committed and was handed over to police. Therefore, it is obvious prosecution has not come forth with fair and genuine case. Thus, prosecution could not prove the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, as such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

Page 17 of 19

19.In the result :- Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 377, 506 IPC, Section 5 (1) r/w.6 POCSO Act, as such he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months from this day under Section 437 (a) Cr.P.C. The Jail

Superintendent is directed to set free the accused, if not required in any other case. However, in the facts and circumstances the victim minor boy is entitled for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Accordingly, the learned Secretary,

District legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District shall take steps for payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to victim boy under Telangana Victim

Compensation Scheme.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court on this the 20 th day of October, 2023.

XI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. FAC Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Rajendranagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined)

For the prosecution:

PW.1Mother of victim PW.2Victim PW.3Shaik Javid PW.4Md.Gore Miya PW.5Raju Ahmed

PW.6K.Prasad

PW.7Vani Sree

Page 18 of 19

PW.8G.Vijay Kumar

PW.9Dr.K.Vamsi Krishna

PW.10K.Malathi

PW.11Dr.K.Sudhakar Suresh

PW.12T.Subramaniya Thota

For the defence: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the prosecution: Ex.P1Complaint Ex.P2Requisition to issue bonafide certificate

Ex.P3Bonafide certificate of victim dt.12.04.2022

Ex.P4Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P5Rough sketch for scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P6Preliminary examination medical report

Ex.P7FSL report dt.12.04.2022

Ex.P8Final opinion report dt.12.05.2022

Ex.P9Potency test certificate of accused dt.31.03.2022

Ex.P10FIR No.290/2022 of PS Gachibowli

Ex.P11Photographs

Ex.P12164 Cr.P.C statement of victim dt.10.05.2022

Ex.P13Certificate under Section 65 (B) Indian Evidence

Act dt.17.05.2022

For the defence: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : NIL

Page 19 of 19

XI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. FAC Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Rajendranagar

Page 1 of 8

SC No. 316 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE

AND POCSO ACT CASES, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT,

AT RAJENDRANAGAR

PRESENT: Y. JAYA PRASAD XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District At L.B. Nagar. FAC Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of RAPE and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar.

DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

S.C. No. 316 OF 2017

1. Name of the complainant : The State of Telangana, Through P.S. Miyapur

2. Name of the accused : Aslam Khan, S/o. Gaffar Khan Aged 20 Years, Occ: Auto Driver R/o. Road No.2, Adithyanagar New Hafeezpet, Miyapur.

3. Crime No. : 704/2016

4. Offence: 417, 420, 376 (i) and section 3 r/w 4 Pocso Act

5. Prosecution conducted by : Sri. B. Venkateshwar Reddy, Spl.P.P

6. Accused defended by : Sri. K. Srinivas Singh, Advocate

7. Plea of the accused: Not guilty

8. Finding of the court: In the result, Accused is found not guilty.

This Sessions case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Venkateshwar Reddy, Spl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Srinivas

Singh, counsel for Accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

1.This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police

Miyapur Police Station in Crime No. 704 of 2016 for the offences under section 417, 420, 376 (i), 376 AB Indian Penal Code and section 3 r/w 4 Pocso Act.

2. In brief prosecution case is to the following effect:

Page 2 of 8

SC No. 316 of 2017

The victim girl at the time of offence was seventeen years of age and she was working as sales girl in a cloth store at Kothaguda of Hyderabad. Three months prior to the offence while the victim girl was going to duty and while getting back to home, accused came into contact with her and was talking to her daily and used to take in her auto to shop and bring her back to home. In the process the accused had stated that he would marry her, and he was in love with her. So, believing the accused the victim girl used to travel in the auto of the accused. On 30.10.2016 at 9.00 pm victim girl called the accused and asked him to take her in his auto to her home. Then accused brought his friend in the auto while accused friend was driving the auto, accused sat in the rear seat by the side of victim girl and had closed both sides doors with some cloth instead of taking towards her house accused had taken towards Masjid Banda. Upon being questioned accused told her that he has got some work at majid Banda and however he would drop her at her house. But by the time they reached near

Hafeezpet, Bawarchi hotel it was around 2.00 am, then the accused asked victim girl whether would it ok, to go home at that time, then the victim girl told him that if she goes to home in that night her family members would scold her on that the accused got sent his friend away and took the auto in between two parked lorrys and had forcible sexual intercourse with victim girl despite her resistance telling that he would marry her. In the early morning hours at about 4.00 am accused took the victim girl and dropped her at her house and went away. The family members of victim girl scolded her, so the victim girl narrated them about the offence. The family members took the victim girl to accused and demanded him to marry her. The accused refused to marry, so victim girl went to police station and filed report, same was registered as Crime No. 704 of 2016 under section 417, 420, 376 (i) IPC and section 3 r/w 4 Pocso Act. The inspector of Police got recorded the statement of victim by lady police officer, referred her to hospital for medical examination. Got recorded her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. Then

Page 3 of 8

SC No. 316 of 2017

he examined and recorded the statements of LW1-Sana Begum – victim girl, LW2 –

Md Mahathab Ali – father of the victim, LW3 – Tasleem Begum – mother of the victim, LW4 – Md. Rawoof – Elder brother of the victim, LW5 – Afrin, LW6 – Manoj

Solanki. Visited scene of offence, observed in the presence of LW10 – Sk. Ghouse

Pasha, LW11 – Syed Harshad and seized victim clothes therefrom. On 07.11.2016 arrested the accused and examined in the presence of LW12 – Shaik Jaffer, LW13 –

Magdum Ali pursuant to his confession recovered auto registration No. TS 07 UC 3956 his wearing apparel and got him sent to hospital for potency test. LW17 – Dr.

J.V. Reddy examined the accused and issued potency certificate and LW14- Dr.

Archana Singh and LW15 – Dr. S. Gouthami had examined the victim girl, they collected the vaginal smears and swabs and the same were sent to FSL. LW16 –

Dr. G. Abhijit Subedari examined the victim girl for determination of her age. Then got sent the accused to court for remand. On completion of investigation after collecting FSL report and potency certificate so also the final opinion laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences under section 417, 420, 376 (i) Indian

Penal Code and section 3 and 4 Pocso Act.

3. Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 (i) Indian

Penal code and section 3 r/w 4 Pocso Act against accused and registered as SC.316 of 2017 and issued summons to accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case papers were furnished

U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. By virtue of order Dt. 10.06.2022, vide ROC.No.346/E1/2022 of Hon’ble

High Court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad, Hon’ble Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District made over this case to this court, for trial

and disposal.

Page 4 of 8

SC No. 316 of 2017

6. Heard on charges and framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 (2) (n) Indian Penal Code and section 5

(l) r/w 6 Pocso Act explained to accused in vernacular language, he pleaded not guilty & claimed to be tried.

7. During course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6, marked Ex.P1 to

P15 and MO1.

8. On completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C and explained entire incriminating evidence available against him on record, denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Case of the accused is of total denial and is innocent.

9. Learned Prosecutor fairly argues that all the material witnesses including victim girl and her parents have not supported the charges. Only evidence is that of investigation officer. So, he left to the discretion of this court.

10. On the other hand learned counsel also argued that there is no evidence at all in proof of the charges, all the material witnesses including the victim girl and her parents have not supported the charges, accused and victim girl got married and they are living together in harmony having being blessed with children. That is the reason the learned prosecutor given up all other witnesses.

So, the learned counsel requests to record clean acquittal.

11. Now the sole point that falls for consideration is whether the

prosecution could prove the charges against the accused for the offence

under section 4147, 420, 376 (2) (n) Indian Penal Code and section 5 (l)

r/w 6 Pocso Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

12. POINT: Before adverting to the evidence on record, it is apposite to state the charges for which the accused stood trial. They read as follows:

Page 5 of 8

SC No. 316 of 2017

“That you accused on 31.10.2016 at about 2.00 am forcibly committed rape repeatedly on victim girl, who is minor, thereby committed an offence punishable under section 376 (2) (n) Indian Penal code.

That you accused on 31.10.2016 at about 2.00 am forcibly committed penetrative sexual assault repeatedly on victim girl, who is minor, thereby committed an offence punishable under section 5 (l) r/w 6 Pocso Act.

That you accused cheated the victim by saying false promises that you would marry her and thereafter refused to marry and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 417 Indian Penal code.

That you accused on 31.10.2016 at about 2.00 am participated in sexual intercourse with the victim girl under the guise of love and marriage, thereafter refused to marry her and cheated dishonestly, thereby committed an offence punishable under section 420 Indian Penal code.”

13. In order to prove these facts following evidence is adduced.

I. PW1 is the victim girl, she deposes that the accused is her husband he had never cheated nor assaulted her sexually. She had never filed report against the accused/her husband. However PW1 while denying the contents of the report identifies her signature on report as Ex.P1. Further she states that the accused had never promised her to marry nor had sex with her under the pretext of marriage. Police had never examined nor recorded her statement. PW2 is mother of the victim girl she also deposes that she does not know anything about the facts of the case, police had not recorded her statement, accused had never cheated her daughter with false promise to marry and her daughter never presented report against the accused to police and police had not recorded her statement. PW3 is brother of the victim girl. His evidence is he does not know anything about the facts of the case, police had not examined him, accused had not cheated PW1 his sister with a false promise to marry her and her sister had not filed any report to police against the accused and police had not recorded his statement. PW4 is father of the accused. He too does not support the charges. He merely states that he does not know anything about the facts of the case, police

Page 6 of 8

SC No. 316 of 2017

had not examined him nor recorded his statement. Thus PW4 does not tell anything in proof of the charges or the crime facts attributable to accused.

II. PW5 is the lady police officer, her evidence is that on 01.11.2016 she was instructed by Station House Officer to record the statement of victim girl.

Accordingly she had examined and recorded the statement of PW1 under section 161 Cr.P.C. Nothing more was done by her in this case, during investigation. So, evidence of PW5 is also of little use to prosecution in proof of the charges.

III. Then comes the evidence of PW6 the investigation officer, his evidence is only in the nature of compliance of legal formality, and he is not an eye witnesses nor even circumstantial witness. He deposes that 01.11.2016 victim girl – PW1 had presented Ex.P6 report, he had registered it as Crime No. 704 of 2016 under section 417, 420, 376 (i) Indian Penal code and section 3 and 4 Pocso Act.

Submitted the report and Printed FIR to learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajendranagar. Then he got examined and recorded the statement of victim girl by lady police officer, referred the victim girl to hospital for medical examination, visited scene of offence and observed in the presence of mediators, got recorded the statement of victim girl under section 164 Cr.P.C. Examined and recorded the statements of PW2 to 4, arrested the accused, got him examined by medical doctor for virility, forwarded vaginal smears and swabs to FSL and after affecting the arrest of the accused got him sent to court for remand. On completion of investigation after collecting final opinion, FSL report, potency certificate laid charge sheet against the accused. Be it noted this witness was not chosen to be cross examined by accused. However, as is noted herein above PW6 is neither eye witness nor circumstantial witness. PW1 to 4 the victim girl and her parents and brother in toto have not supported the charges. They have not stated anything regarding offence attributable to accused. Therefore the evidence of investigation officer – PW6, is of little significance and use and in no way the evidence of PW6 is

Page 7 of 8

SC No. 316 of 2017

sufficient in proof of the charges. It is more so, in view of the fact that the material witnesses the victim girl and her parents and brother have supported the charges.

That apart the reason for the victim girl and her parents and brother not supporting the charges is obvious that the accused is none other than the husband of the victim girl.

IV. Therefore, viewed from any of the stand points, absolutely there is no evidence against the accused in proof of charges. So, prosecution could not prove the charges against the accused for the offences under sections 417,420, 376 (2)

(n) Indian Penal Code and section 5 (l) r/w 6 Pocso Act.

14. In the Result: Accused is found not guilty of the offences under sections 417, 420, 376 (2) (n) IPC and section 5 (l) r/w 6 of Pocso Act and he is acquitted of the same under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months from this day in terms of section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

MO1 mobile phone which is in damaged state shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Dictated to Typist, Typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

Open Court on this the 10th ` day of November, 2023.

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL

OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT RAJENDRANAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :

PW.1Sana Begum PW.2Tasleem Begum PW.3Md. Rawoof PW.4 Jaffar Khan PW.5S.Sunitha PW.6K. Ramesh

Page 8 of 8

SC No. 316 of 2017

FOR DEFENCE:- Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on report. Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P5161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P6Report Ex.P7Printed FIR in Crime No. 704 of 2016 Ex.P8164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P9Scene of offence observation proceedings Ex.P10Relevant Portion of Confession Ex.P11FSL Report Ex.P12 Medical Examination Report Ex.P13Final Opinion Ex.P14Potency Certificate Ex.P15Age Determination Certificate.

FOR DEFENCE:- NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

MO1 – Mobile Phone.

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL

OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT RAJENDRANAGAR