Police Charge Sheet Does Not Automatically Lead To Conclusion About Bonafides Of Case: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Court was hearing a Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal after the Tribunal ruled against the Petitioner, Busetty Srinivasulu on the ground that he failed to explain the delay of more than 3 months in lodging the report.

The bench of Justice A V Ravindra Babu observed, “Hence, at the outset, this Court is of the considered view that simply because the police laid charge sheet, it does not automatically leads to a conclusion about the bonafides of case.”

Advocate Nalluri Sahithi Aparna appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate V. Veerabhadra Chary appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The claim of the Petitioner, was that he along with Dande Narasimhulu left the village to go to Kadapa. At about 4:00 a.m., the rider of the motorcycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and as he was coming from the wrong side he dashed the petitioner. On account of the same, the petitioner sustained a fracture and some other injuries. He was shifted to various hospitals for surgeries. Later, he reported the incident to the police. The accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of the first respondent. The offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent, United India Insurance Company Limited. Hence, it was submitted that they are liable to pay compensation.

The Court noted that the Tribunal dismissed the case as it concluded that the petitioner failed to explain the delay in lodging the report and he did not reveal anything before the medical officer, who first treated him and according to the tribunal, the case of the petitioner was suspicious.

The Court noted that there was a delay of about more than 3.5 months in lodging the report. As per the Court, simply because the police filed a charge sheet based on the report lodged, it does not lead to any conclusion that the contents of the report and charge sheet are correct.

The Court further stated that one cannot deny the fact that there are occasions where fake claims are coming up and there are instances where the vehicles are planted.

The Court noted that the Petitioner was not under treatment continuously till the date of the report. It further stated that he was moving freely and did not bother to lodge a report with the police.

The Court found it distressing that the wound certificate which was presented to the Court was issued on the next day when the report was lodged which according to the Court throws any amount of suspicion about its bonafides.

The Court stated that the evidence of Petitioner was not convincing enough to say that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle.

According to the Court, the tribunal rightly dismissed the case.

Finally, the Court dismissed the MACMA.

Cause Title: Busetty Srinivasulu v. P. Srinivasulu (Neutral Citation: APHC010883752016)

Appearance:

Appellant: Adv. Nalluri Sahithi Aparna, Adv. Karri Murali Krishna