Sri B. Sadhu Babu

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

GOOTY

PRESENT: Sri B. SADHU BABU

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act-cum- VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

(FAC) VI Additional Sessions Judge, Gooty

Friday, the 10 th day of April, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No.136 of 2024

PRC No. 21/2024 of JFCM, Tadipatri Cr.No.391 of 2023 of Tadipatri Rural U/G Police Station

Name of Complainant:State represented by Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural Urban P.S.

Crime No. and Police:Cr.No.391/2023 of Tadipatri Rural Urban P.S. Station. Names & description of:Moogireddy Veera Raghavareddy @ Sekhar, the Accusedaged about 45 years, S/o. M. Obireddy, D.No. 1/50, Komali Village, Tadipatri Mandal.

Charges framed:U/Secs.302 I.P.C

Prosecution conducted:Addl. Public Prosecutor, Gooty. by Accused defended by:Sri Z. Sateesh, Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused

Plea of the accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Not guilty : Sentence or Order In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.302 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charge U/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond executed by the Accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. MO.1/ Sickle, MO.2/Wooden handle of the sickle, MO.3/Blood stained shirt, MO.4/Blood stained lungi, MO.5/Pair of chappals, MO.6/Blood stained control earth shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

This Sessions Case coming on for hearing before me on 13.03.2026 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri

Z.Sateesh, Legal Aid counsel for the Accused and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Urban P.S filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/secs.302 IPC in Cr.No.391/2023 of Tadipatri

Urban Police Station.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, the deceased/Chinthala Sunki

Reddy is resident of Kallumadi Village, Singanamala Mandal,

Ananthapuramu District. PW.2/Chinthala Lakshmi Narayanamma is wife of the deceased. PW.1/C. Ramachandra Reddy/de facto complainant and

PW.3/Chinthala Ravekananda Reddy are sons of the deceased. PW.4/M.

Rajeswari is daughter of the deceased. The deceased/Chinthala Sunki

Reddy is eking out his livelihood by doing cultivation. At about 22 years prior to 06.12.2023, the deceased had performed the marriage of PW.4/M.

Rajeswari with the accused, who is a resident of Komali Village of Tadipatri

Mandal. The accused is living by cultivation. But the accused did not attend the cultivation works and moved without doing any work. The accused also neglected his family welfare, and he is also harassing PW.4. Now and then, the deceased used to go to Komali Village to look after PW.4 and agriculture works in their lands. While so, about one week prior to 06.12.2023, the deceased went to the house of PW.4 at Komali Village to look after the agricultural works of the lands of the accused. The deceased had chastised the accused as he is not attending agricultural works by neglecting family welfare.

(a) While so on 06.12.2023 the deceased asked PW.5/P. Karunakar

Reddy to get his tractor for spraying pesticide on the red gram crop at

Komali Village fields belonging to the accused. Accordingly, on the same day at about 4.00 PM, the deceased and PW.5/P. Karunakar Reddy went to the fields of the accused and PW.5/P. Karunakar Reddy was spraying pesticide on the red gram crop with a tractor. At about 5.00 PM, the accused went to his house, took out a sickle and proceeded to his fields and found the deceased. On that, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased by questioning him as to why he is chastising him and what right he has to chastise him, and so saying, the accused attacked the deceased with the sickle and hacked on his head, neck and hands indiscriminately and caused severe bleeding injuries with an intention to murder him. PW.5/P. Karunakar

Reddy witnessed the incident and due to fear PW.5/P. Karunakar Reddy ran away from that place and went to the house of PW.4/M. Rajeswari informed her of the same. Immediately PW.4/M. Rajeswari rushed to the scene of offence and found her father was in the pool of blood, sustaining severe bleeding injuries, and he was unable to speak. Then PW.4/M. Rajeswari and others had called the 108-ambulance van and shifted the injured to the

Government Hospital, Tadipatri, informing PW.1 over the phone. Immediately

PW.1/C.Ramachendra Reddy, PW.2/C. Lakshminarayanamma, PW.3//C.

Ravekananda Reddy and LW.5/C. Ramakrishna Reddy reached the

Government Hospital, Tadiaptri and found the injured person in serious condition with severe bleeding injuries and was undergoing treatment. On the same day at about 7.22 PM, the injured succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. Later, PW.1 visited Tadipatri Rural Police Station and gave a report in this regard.

(b) On 06.12.2023 at 9.00 PM, PW.1 came to the Police Station and presented a written report. Based on the report of PW.1/C. Ramachandra

Reddy, PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri

Rural UPS, has registered a case in Cr.No.391/2023 U/S.302 IPC and submitted Express FIR copies to all concerned officers and took up an investigation into the case. As it was late in the night PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha

Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural UPS could not proceed with further investigation, and he deputed his staff to the scene of offence.

On 07.12.2023 PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police,

Tadipatri Rural UPS has proceeded to the Government General Hospital,

Ananthapuram and found the dead body of the deceased in the mortuary room. Then PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police,

Tadipatri Rural UPS has secured the presence of blood relatives, witnesses and Inquest Panchayatdars and commenced Inquest over the dead body of the deceased at 7.30 AM. During the course of the Inquest, PW.9/C.

Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural UPS has examined the dead body of the deceased and the mortuary room in which the dead body was lying. Then PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle

Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural UPS, has examined PW.1/C.

Ramachendra Reddy, PW.2/C. Lakshminarayanamma, PW.3//C.

Ravekananda Reddy, PW.4/M. Rajeswari, LW.5/C. Ramakrishna Reddy and

PW.5/P. Karunakar Reddy and recorded their statements, PW.9/C.

Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural UPS has concluded the inquest by 10:00 AM and forwarded the dead body of the deceased for autopsy. Then PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural UPS, visited the scene of offence at 11.00 AM and examined the scene of offence. There PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle

Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural UPS has seized the blood-stained earth and its control and chappal under cover of Scene Observation and Seizure

Police Proceedings. PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of

Police, Tadipatri Rural UPS has also drawn the rough sketch of the scene offence. At the scene of offence PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle

Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural UPS has tried to examine some more witnesses, but none came forward to speak about the incident,

(c) On 08.12.2023 at 11.00 AM, PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle

Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural UPS received credible information about the accused in this case and immediately he secured the presence of two mediators through P.C.3235 and proceeded to Chinna Polamada bus stop,

Tadipatri at 12.00 Noon. There PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle

Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural UPS found one male person and on seeing the arrival of the police, the said person tried to escape from that place and then PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police,

Tadipatri Rural UPS and his staff got down from the police jeeps and surrounded him and caught hold in the presence of mediators. On that

PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural

UPS, has enquired the said person about his identity particulars and as to why he was escaping from that place on seeing the police. For which the said person voluntarily disclosed his identity particulars as that of the accused, as noted above in the charge sheet. Further the accused voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence and categorically stated that the deceased used to chastise him as he is not attending agricultural works and on 06.12.2023 at about 4.00 PM, again the deceased chastised the accused and then the deceased proceeded to spray pesticide poison in red gram decided to eliminate the deceased as he is chastising him continuously and grew wild against him. Then the accused went to his house and took a sickle from their house, and went to their land on foot.

There, the deceased and PW.5/P. Karunakar Reddy are spraying pesticide with the tractor of PW.5/P. Karunakar Reddy. The accused went to the deceased and picked up a quarrel with him by questioning as to why he is chastising him and what right he has to chastise him, and so saying, the accused attacked the deceased with the sickle and hacked on his head, neck and hands indiscriminately and caused severe bleeding injuries. At that time, the sickle that was used in the incident was cut into two pieces. At that time, his left index finger was also cut off. Then the accused left the place with the two pieces of a broken sickle. Further, the accused stated to

PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural

UPS that he will show the place where the weapon was concealed.

(d) On that PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police,

Tadipatri Rural UPS, has observed left hand index finger of the accused was cut and had bleeding injuries. On observation of the clothes of the accused were stained with blood. Then PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle

Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural UPS, instructed the accused to change his dress by providing alternate clothes. Accordingly, the accused had changed his dress and produced his clothing, stained with blood, before

PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural

UPS. Then PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police,

Tadipatri Rural UPS, has examined those wearing apparel and found one blue colour cotton lungi having a flower design and one white colour full open shirt. PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police,

Tadipatri Rural UPS, found one Aadhar Card in his shirt pocket having

No.866321869649, which belongs to the accused. Then PW.9/C.

Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural UPS has confirmed the person as the accused in Cr.No.391/2023 U/S 302 IPC of

Tadipatri Rural UPS and arrested him at 1.00 PM under the cover of

Mahazarnama.

(e) In pursuance of the confession of the accused, PW.9/C.

Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural UPS, has proceeded to the land in Sy.No. 91 and 92 belong to the accused in the fields of Komali Village, Tadipatri Mandal. The accused went under a culvert, situated on a cart road and brought out two pieces of a sickle and produced them before PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police,

Tadipatri Rural UPS, stated that he used the same in the elimination of the deceased. Then PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police,

Tadipatri Rural UPS, examined the sickle in the presence of mediators and seized the same under the cover of Mahazarnama in the presence of mediators. Later PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police,

Tadipatri Rural UPS, brought the accused to the Police Station along with the seized property. Later, after complying with all the arrest formalities,

PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural

UPS, sent the accused to the judicial custody. On 11.12.2023 PW.9/C.

Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural UPS has received the Post Mortem Certificate of the deceased from PW.8/S.

Madhulatha, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Tadipatri. Subsequently,

PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural

UPS, forwarded the material objects to RFSL, Ananthapuram, for examination through SDPO, Tadipatri. PW.8/Dr. S. Madhulatha, Civil

Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Tadipatri, who conducted an autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued a post-mortem certificate stating that the deceased would appear to have died due to haemorrhage in the brain caused by head injury and excess blood loss, causing hypovolemic shock.

After completion of the investigation PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Circle

Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural UPS, filed a charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge sheet.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri took cognizance of the offence on file U/sec.302 IPC against the Accused. After supplying the copies of documents, which are relied on by the prosecution, to the accused as required U/sec.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Ananthapuramu and the same is made over to this court.

4.The accused was produced from Sub-Jail, Gooty and on due consideration charge U/sec.302 IPC was framed, read over and explained to him by my predecessor in office, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty.

5.During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 9 were examined on the prosecution side and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and Mos.1 to 6. Out of PWs.

1 to 9, PW.1/Chintala Rama Hendra Reddy is the complainant/son of the deceased (hearsay witness); PW.2/Chintala Lakshminarayanamma is the wife of the deceased (hearsay witness); PW.3/Chintala Ravekananda Reddy is the son of the deceased (hearsay witness); PW.4/M.Rajeswari daughter of the deceased and wife of the accused (hearsay witness); PW.5/P. Karunakar

Reddy is the sole eyewitness to the occurrence of the offence; PW.6/C.

Harinatha Reddy, relative of the deceased/ Inquest mediator; PW.7/L.

Hemalatha is VRO/ confession and seizure mediator; PW.8/Dr.S.

Madhulatha, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased; PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy is the Investigating Officer. On behalf of the defence, none were examined, and no documents were marked.

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, informed of the incriminating evidence available on record against him, for which he stated the same is false, and no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf.

7.Arguments heard on both sides. Perused the record.

8.The point that falls for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for

the charge U/sec.302 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt?

9. DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF: - In a criminal trial, one has to start with the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, which is also regarded as a human right because no one can be convicted and punished merely on the ground of suspicion, however strong it may be. Every person has a profound right not to be convicted for an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to “proof” is an exercise particular to each case. The prosecution is required to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

10. The accusation of prosecution is that the deceased/Chinthala Sunki

Reddy, is a resident of Kallumadi Village, Singanamala Mandal,

Ananthapuramu District. PW.2/Chinthala Lakshminarayanamma is the wife of the deceased. PW.1/C. Ramachandra Reddy (de facto complainant) and

PW.3/Chinthala Ravekananda Reddy are sons of the deceased. PW.4/M.

Rajeswari is the daughter of the deceased. The deceased/Chinthala Sunki

Reddy, is eking out his livelihood by doing cultivation. At about 22 years prior to 06.12.2023, the deceased had performed the marriage of PW.4/M.

Rajeswari with the accused, who is a resident of Komali Village of Tadipatri

Mandal. The accused is living by cultivation. But the accused did not attend the cultivation works and moved without doing any work. The accused also neglected his family welfare, and he is also harassing PW.4. Now and then, the deceased used to go to Komali Village to look after her daughter PW.4 and agriculture works in their lands. While so, about one week prior to 06.12.2023, the deceased went to the house of PW.4 at Komali Village to look after the agricultural works of the lands of the accused. The deceased had chastised the accused as he was not attending agricultural works by neglecting family welfare.

While so on 06.12.2023, the deceased asked PW.5/P. Karunakar

Reddy to get his tractor for spraying pesticide on the red gram crop in Komali

Village fields belonging to the accused. Accordingly, on the same day at about 4.00 PM, the deceased and PW.5/P. Karunakar Reddy went to the fields of the accused and PW.5/P. Karunakar Reddy was spraying pesticide on the red gram crop with a tractor. At about 5.00 PM, the accused went to his house, took out a sickle and proceeded to his fields and found the deceased. On that, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased by questioning him as to why he is chastising him and what right he has to chastise him, and so saying, the accused attacked the deceased with the sickle and hacked on his head, neck and hands indiscriminately and caused severe bleeding injuries with an intention to murder him. PW.5/P. Karunakar

Reddy witnessed the incident and due to fear PW.5/P. Karunakar Reddy ran away from that place and went to the house of PW.4/M. Rajeswari informed her of the same. Immediately PW.4/M. Rajeswari rushed to the scene of offence and found her father was in the pool of blood by sustaining severe bleeding injuries, and he was unable to speak. Then PW.4/M. Rajeswari and others had called the 108 ambulance van and shifted the injured to the

Government Hospital, Tadipatri, by informing the same to PW.1 over the phone.ImmediatelyPW.1/C.RamachendraReddy,PW.2/C.

Lakshminarayanamma, PW.3//C. Ravekananda Reddy and LW.5/C.

Ramakrishna Reddy reached the Government Hospital, Tadiaptri and found the injured person in serious condition with severe bleeding injuries and was undergoing treatment. On the same day at about 7.22 PM, the injured succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. Later, PW.1 visited

Tadipatri Rural Police Station and gave a report in this regard. Thus, the accused is liable to be punished u/s 302 IPC.

11.To prove this accusation, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P.9 documents and MOs.1 to 6. On behalf of the defence none were examined, and no documents were marked. PW.1/Chintala

Ramahendra Reddy is the complainant/son of the deceased (hearsay witness); PW.2/Chintala Lakshminarayanamma is the wife of the deceased (hearsay witness); PW.3/Chintala Ravekananda Reddy is the son of the deceased (hearsay witness); PW.4/M.Rajeswari daughter of the deceased (hearsay witness); PW.5/P. Karunakar Reddy is the sole eyewitness to the occurrence of offence; PW.6/C. Harinatha Reddy, relative of the deceased/

Inquest mediator; PW.7/L. Hemalatha is VRO/ confession and seizure mediator); PW.8/Dr.S. Madhulatha, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased; PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy is the Investigating

Officer. Ex.P1 is Report of PW.1, dated 06.12.2023., Ex.P2 is the

statement of PW.5 under section 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P3 is the Inquest report

dated 07.12.2023., Ex.P4 is confession, arrest and seizure

mahazarnama dated 08.12.2023 at 12:00 hours; Ex.P5 is Seizure

Mahazarnama dated 08.12.2023 at 1:25 PM., Ex.P6 is Aadhar Card of

Accused; Ex.P7 is Postmortem certificate of deceased; Ex.P8 is Rough

sketch of the scene of offence; Ex.P9 is Scene observation and seizure

police proceedings; MO.1 is Sickle, MO.2 is Wooden handle of the

sickle, MO.3 is blood-stained shirt., MO.4 is blood-stained lungi., MO.5

is a pair of chappals., MO.6 is a blood-stained control earth.

12. PW.1/Chintala Rama Hendra Reddy, son of the deceased,deposed in his evidence that he is a resident of Kallumadi Village of Singanamala

Mandal. LW.2/Chintala Lakshmi Narayamma is his mother. LW.3/Chinthala

Ravekananda Reddy is his younger brother. LW.4/M.Rajeswari is his younger sister. LW.5/Chintala Ramakrishna Reddy is his junior paternal uncle. He does not know the rest of the witnesses in this case. Accused herein is his brother-in-law, i.e. husband of Lw.4/M. Rajeswari. The deceased/ Chintala Sunki Reddy, is his father, and he died on 06.12.2023.

As the accused is not taking care of his fields, his father went to his fields to spray pesticides on the fields of the accused situated in Komala village on 04.12.2023 from their house. On 06.12.2023 at about 5.50 PM LW.4/M.

Rajeswari informed him by phone that his father received injuries after being hacked by the accused with a sickle. Then, he, along with LW.2/C.

Lakshminarayanamma, LW.3/C. Ravekananda Reddy and LW.5/C.

Ramakrishna Reddy went to the Government Hospital, Tadipatri and found the dead body of his father. On the same day, he went to the police station and gave a report to that effect. Ex.P1 is Report of PW.1, dated 06.12.2023.

Police examined him and recorded his statement.

(i) During the cross-examination of PW.1, he deposed that his father lived by cultivation. Himself and LW.3/C. Ravekananda Reddy is also living by cultivation. His father used to assist them in grazing cattle, as he was physically challenged. His father did not belong to any political party. He knows one Kosam Obireddy. He denied the suggestion that there were disputes between his father and Kosam Obireddy. He is residing separately with his brother, and his father used to reside in the house of his brother i.e.

LW.3/C. Ravekananda Reddy. His father possessed no landed property.

They reached the Government Hospital, Tadipatri, at about 7.45 PM on the date of the report. Police people were already present in the government hospital by the time they arrived. Two days after the Ex.P1/Report, the police examined him in this case. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit the alleged offence, and he gave a false report against him in order to grab his property.

13. PW.2/Chintala Lakshminarayanamma deposed in her evidence that she is a resident of Kallumadi Village of Singanamala Mandal. PW.1,

LW.3/Chinthala Ravekananda Reddy and LW.4/M.Rajeswari are her children. The deceased/Sunki Reddy is her husband. LW.5/Chintala

Ramakrishna Reddy is the younger brother of her husband. The Accused is her son-in-law i.e., husband of LW.4/M. Rajeswari. Her husband died about two years ago. About two years ago, her husband went to Komali Village along with another person by tractor to spray pesticides in the fields of the accused. On the next day, her daughter i.e. LW.4/M. Rajeswari informed

PW.1 by phone that her husband received injuries after being hacked by the accused with a sickle. Then, she, along with LW.2/C. Lakshminarayanamma,

LW.3/C.Ravekananda Reddy and LW.5/C. Ramakrishna Reddy went to the

Government Hospital, Tadipatri and found the dead body of her husband.

Police examined her and recorded her statement in this case.

(i) During the cross-examination of PW.2 she denied the suggestion that LW.4/M. Rajeswari did not inform anything against the accused to PW.1 by phone and that she is deposing falsely. Prior Postmortem they saw the dead body of her husband.

14. PW.3/Chintala Ravekananda Reddy, deposed in his evidence that he is a resident of Kallumadi Village of Singanamala Mandal. PW.1 is his elder brother, and PW.2 is his mother. LW.4/M.Rajeswari is his sister.

LW.5/Chintala Ramakrishna Reddy is his junior paternal uncle. He does not know the rest of the witnesses in this case. Accused herein is his brother-in- law i.e. husband of LW.4/M. Rajeswari. The deceased/Chintala Sunki

Reddy, is his father, and he died on 06.12.2023. On 06.12.2023 at about 6:00 PM LW.4/M. Rajeswari informed him by phone that his father received injuries after being hacked by the accused. Then, he, along with LW.2/C.

Lakshminarayanamma, LW.3/C.Ravekananda Reddy and LW.5/C.

Ramakrishna Reddy went to the Government Hospital, Tadipatri and found the dead body of his father. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

(i) During the cross-examination of PW.3, he denied the suggestion that LW.4/M. Rajeswari did not inform anything against the accused to him by phone on 06.12.2023. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit the alleged offence, and he, along with PW.1 created a false story and gave a false report against the accused to grab his property.

15. PW.4/M. Rajeswari, deposed that she is a resident of Komali village of Tadipatri Mandal. PW.1 and PW.3 are her brothers. PW.2 is her mother.

LW.5/Chintala Ramakrishna Reddy is her junior paternal uncle. She does not know the rest of the witnesses in this case. Accused herein is her husband.

The deceased/Chintala Sunki Reddy, is her father, and he died on 06.12.2023. About one and a half year ago, on 6th December in the evening hours, her father, along with LW.6/Karnakar Reddy, who is a tractor driver, went to their fields for spraying pesticides. After some time LW.6/P.

Karunakar Reddy came to her house and informed her that her husband had killed her father. Then she, along with junior paternal uncle of her husband by name Gopal Reddy, went to their fields and found her father lying on the ground. Then they shifted her father to Government Hospital Tadipatri, and her father died in the hospital while receiving treatment. Police examined her and recorded her statement in this case.

(i) During the cross-examination of PW.4, he deposed that she studied up to 5th class. On the date of the incident itself, the police examined her in this case at the Government hospital, Tadipatri. During the course of her examination by the police, her father died. She does not remember whether the police recorded her statement or not in writing. She denied the suggestion that LW.6/Karunakar Reddy did not inform anything against the accused and about the alleged incident, and the accused is in no way concerned with this case. She denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit the alleged offence, and she, along with her relatives, foisted this false case against him in collusion. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.

16. PW.5/P. Karunakar Reddy deposed that he is a resident of

Thimmanachreru village of Peddapappur Mandal. He does not know any of the witnesses, and is also accused of this case. He does not know the deceased Chinthala Sunki Reddy. He does not know anything about this case, and the police never examined him in this case. Even though he was cross-examined by the Special Public Prosecutor, PW.5 did not support the case of the prosecution, as he stated against the Accused as in Ex.P.2

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement recorded by police during the course of investigation.

17. PW.6/C. Harinatha Reddy deposed that he is a resident of Konduru village of Peddavadugur. He knows PWs 1 to 5 and is also accused of this case. He knew the deceased Chinthala Sunki Reddy, who was his relative.

On 07.12.2023 at about 7.30 PM he went to the Government Hospital,

Tadipatri, to see Chinthala Sunki Reddy as he was hacked by someone. The said Sunki Reddy died in the hospital while taking treatment prior to their reaching the hospital. Police came there and conducted an inquest over the dead body of Sunki Reddy in his presence, and prepared an Inquest Report and obtained his signature in the said Inquest Report, and he knew the contents of said Inquest Report. Ex.P3 is the Inquest Report, dated 07.12.2023. LW.7/K.Narayana Reddy and LW.9/Sunkara Nagendra were also present at the time of the inquest, and they also signed in Ex.P3/Inquest

Report as Panchayatdars.

(i) During the cross-examination of PW.6, he deposed that he does not know the cadre of the police officer who prepared Ex.P3/Inquest Report. Two police people were participated in the inquest. He does not know under whose narration Ex.P3 was prepared. He denied the suggestion that no inquest was conducted over the dead body of the Chintakal Sunki Reddy in his presence, and he signed Ex.P3 in the police station at the request of the police and that he is deposing falsely.

18. PW.7/L. Hemalatha, the then Village Revenue Officer, Komali Village,

Tadipatri Mandal, deposed that she knew LW.11/Mulla Azmat, who was her colleague, Village Revenue Officer. On 08.12.2023 at 11:00 AM, while she and LW.11/Mulla Azmat were present in Tahsildar Office of Tadipatri, their

Tahsildar instructed them to act as mediators in a criminal case of Tadipatri

Rural P.S. Accordingly, she, along with LW.11/Mulla Azmat went to Tadipatri

Rural P.S From there, she, LW.11/Mulla Azmat and LW.13/Lakshmikanth

Reddy, C.I of Police, Tadipatri Rural P.S., along with his staff, proceeded to

Chinnapolamada Cross Road, where they found the accused herein, who tried to skulk away on noticing the police. Then the police apprehended the accused, and on enquiry, he voluntarily confessed the alleged offence and also admitted that he kept the weapons used in the alleged offence at the scene of offence fields itself. They noticed that the left index finger of the accused was amputated, and there were some blood stains on his clothes.

Then the C.I of Police seized his Aadhar Card and blood-stained cloths and arrested the accused in the presence of herself and LW.11/Mulla Azmat under a cover of Confession, Arrest and seizure mahazarnama duly attested by themselves and the accused. As led by the accused, they, the mediators, police people and the accused went to the fields in Sy.No.91 and 92 of

Komali Village and C.I of Police seized one sickle, separated with its wooden handle from the fields as shown by the accused, which was used in the commission of the offence in the presence of herself and LW.11/Mulla Azmat under a cover of confession and seizure mahazarnanama, which was attested by themselves and the accused. Ex.P4 is Confession, arrest and

Seizure Mahazarnama dated 08.12.2023 at 12:00 hours. Ex.P5 is Seizure mahazarnama dated 08.12.2023 at 1:25 PM. Ex.P6 is the Aadhar Card of the Accused. MO.1 is Sickle. MO.2 is the wooden handle of the sickle. MO.3 is a blood-stained shirt. MO.4 is a blood-stained lungi.

(i) During the cross-examination, PW.7 deposed that their attendance is being recorded in Village Sacchivalayam. As on the date of the alleged offence she is working as a Village Revenue Officer, Komali Village. Police did not come to them with a request to act as mediators. No written instructions were given by their Tahsildar to them to act as a mediator, and the police also did not issue any summons in writing. She never acted as a mediator, except in this case. She denied the suggestion that she did not follow the prescribed procedure in acting as a mediator. She had a prior acquaintance with the accused. She denied the suggestion that, as per

Ex.P.4 she had no prior acquaintance with the accused and he is a stranger to her. She denied the suggestion that the place of arrest of the accused is a busy locality. Chinna Polamada Cross is of 3 Roads cross. One leads to

Chinna Polamada, the second road leads to Pedda Polamada, and the third road leads to Tadipatri. The distance between Tadipatri Rural Police Station and Chinna Polamada Cross is about 7 Kms. Before seizing the blood- stained cloths of the accused, one police constable brought another set of cloths to the accused. She does not know whether the said clothes were new or old. The C.I of police questioned the accused in the presence of herself, LW.11/M. Azmat, VRO and 2 or 3 Police constables. Herself and

LW.11/Azmat, VRO are possessing Android Phones at the time of arrest.

Ex.P4 was typed by one Constable. They did not record the alleged arrest and seizure on their Android phones. Ex.P4 proceedings completed within one hour. About 10 people of the public were gathered by the time of Ex.P4 proceedings. She admitted that one Probonanda Ashramam is nearby the place of arrest. She admitted that 100’s of devotees were used to visit the

Ashramam around the clock. She denied the suggestion that she is a stock witness to the police, and she signed in so many mahazars in the police station at the request of the police. She denied the suggestion that police did not arrest the accused at Chinna Polamada Cross and he did not confess the alleged offence and police did not seize MOs.1 to 4 and Ex.P6 and from the possession of the accused in their presence and herself and

LW.11 signed Exs.P4 and P5 in the police station itself at request of police and that she is deposing false at the instance of police. The place of seizure under Ex.P5 is the fields of the accused covered by Sy.No.91, 92 of Komali

Village.

19. PW.8/S. Madhulatha, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Area

Hospital, Tadipatri deposed that on 07.12.2023 at 10:30 AM she conducted a post mortem over the dead body of Chinthala Sunki Reddy, Male, age 68 years and found the External and Internal Injuries as mentioned in her Post

Mortem Certificate. After completion of the post-mortem examination, she came to the conclusion that the deceased would appear to have died due to haemorrhage in the brain caused by head injury and excess blood loss, causing Hypovolemic Shock. She issued the Post Mortem Certificate accordingly. Ex.P7 is a Post Mortem Certificate. The external and internal injuries found on the dead body of the deceased might have been caused by the MO.1 sickle.

(i) During the cross-examination, PW.8 deposed that it takes less than 30 minutes for the death of a person if he received the injuries mentioned in

Ex.P7 Post Mortem Certificate. She denied the suggestion that she did not conduct a post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased, and she issued

Ex.P7 Certificate at the request of the police and that she is deposing falsely.

20. PW.9/C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, the then Circle Inspector of Police,

Tadipatri Rural U.P.S, deposed that on 06.12.2023, about 9.00 P.M. while he was present in the Police Station, P.W.1 came to the Police Station and submitted a written report. He registered the same as case in

Cr.No.391/2023 of Tadipatri Rural P.S. U/Sec.302 IPC. He submitted the

Original F.I.R. to the concerned Hon'ble Court and copies to the concerned officials. On the next day i.e. on 07.12.2023, he took up an investigation in this case and rushed to the Government Area Hospital, Tadipatri. There he secured the presence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and LW.5/Chinthala Ramakrishna

Reddy, examined them and recorded their detailed statements U/Sec.161 of

Cr.P.C. Then he secured the presence of mediators i.e., P.W.6,

L.W.7/K.Narayana Reddy and LW.9/S.Nagendra and conducted an inquest over the dead body of Chinthala Sunki Reddy, S/o. S. Ranga Reddy in the premises of Government area Hospital, Tadiaptri, in the presence of mediators and blood relatives of the deceased under Ex.P.3 Inquest report.

Then he sent a requisition to P.W.8 to conduct an autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for postmortem. On the same day at 11.00 A.M he rushed to the scene of offence, which is the fields of the accused herein situated at the outskirts of Komali Village, Tadiaptri Mandal.

He minutely examined the scene of offence and drew the rough skecth of the same. He seized blood-stained control earth and one pair of chappals from the scene of offence under a cover of scene observation and seizer police proceedings.

(i) PW.9 further deposed that on 08.12.2023 he received credible information about the accused and secured the presence of PW.7 and

LW.11/Mulla Azmath and rushed to Chinnapolamada cross road. There they found the accused who tried to skulk away on noticing them. Then he detained him and on enquiry he voluntarily confessed the alleged offence and they noticed that left index finger of the accused was amputated and he seized blood stained Lungi, Shirt and laminated Aadhar Card of the accused from possession of the accused and arrested the accused in the presence of mediators i.e. P.W.7 and L.W.11/Mulla Azmath under a cover of Ex.P.4.

confession, arrest and seizure, Mahazarnama duly attested by the mediators and accused. As the accused also admitted that he would show the Weapon used in the alleged offence, he, along with mediators and the accused, rushed to a culvert situated near the fields of the accused. The accused brought one sickle and a wooden handle of the said sickle from the culvert.

On verification, he found bloodstains on the said sickle and the edge of the said sickle was broken. Then he seized the said items in the presence of mediators under a cover of Ex.P.5 seizure mahazarnama. Then he returned to the Police Station along with the accused and sent him for judicial remand after completion of legal formalities. On 11.12.2023, he received the

Postmortem Certificate of the deceased from P.W.8. He sent the seized material objects to R.F.S.L. Anantapuramu through SDPO, Tadipatri. Then he concluded his investigation in this case and filed a preliminary charge sheet before the concerned Hon'ble Court. After receipt of R.F.S.L. report he submitted the same before the concerned Hon'ble Court. Ex.P.8 is Rough

Sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P.9 is Scene observation and seizure

Police Proceedings dated 07.12.2023 at 11.00 A.M. MO.5 is one pair of

Chappls. MO.6 blood-stained control earth. P.W.5 stated before him as in

Ex.P.2.

(ii) During the cross-examination, PW.9 admitted that a police outpost is there in the premises of the Area Government Hospital, Tadiaptri. He does not know whether, even prior to submitting Ex.P.1 by P.W.1, the police were present at the dead body of the deceased in Area Government Hospital,

Tadiaptri. He denied the suggestion that they had information about the death of the deceased even prior to Ex.P.1/compliant and in order to help

P.W.1 he suppressed the same. He denied the suggestion that he did not examine any witness in this case, and he conducted table investigation in this case. He admitted that MO.1 is easily available in the open market. He denied the suggestion that the revenue officials, who acted as mediators, are their stock mediators. He sent requisitions to the concerned Tahsildars to secure the mediators. He denied the suggestion that he did not send any such requisitions to the concerned Tahsildars. There was no prior acquaintance between PW.7 and the accused. He denied the suggestion that he prepared Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5 in the Police Station with the help of the mediators. The distance between the culvert where they seized MOs. 1 and 2 and the field of the accused is about 500 meters. He denied the suggestion that there is no culvert nearby the fields of the accused. He denied the suggestion that the accused is no way concerned with this case and to close the investigation he falsely implicated the accused in this case by preparing entire record in the Police Station by conducting table investigation to help the complainant party in grabbing the properties of the accused and that he is deposing falsely.

21.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that as the prosecution proved the case against accused for the alleged offence on the strength of oral and documentary evidence, the accused is liable for punishment for the alleged offence and he prayed for conviction.

22.Per contra, the learned defence counsel submitted that the sole eyewitness to the alleged incident i.e P.W.5, did not support the case of the prosecution, and as the rest of the witnesses are hearsay account, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. He further submitted that as the alleged confession of the accused made under Ex.P.4 is made before the police, it is inadmissible in evidence as per section 25 of the Indian Evidence

Act. The learned defence counsel further submitted that the version of the prosecution that in pursuance of the Ex.P.4 confession of the accused the police seized the crime weapon is also unbelievable as there is no corroboration between the evidence of P.W.7 the alleged seizure mediator and the P.W.9 investigation officer regarding the place of seizure of the crime weapon and hence in view of the uncorroborated evidence of P.Ws.7 and 9 the prosecution is not entitled to take any advantage from the section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and prayed for acquittal.

23.On perusal of the record, even as per the case of the prosecution

P.Ws.1 to 4, who are sons, wife, and daughter of the deceased are not eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, and their evidence is a hearsay account. P.W.5 is the sole eyewitness to the alleged incident, and he did not support the case of the prosecution. Under such circumstances, it is for the prosecution to prove the case against the accused based on the circumstantial evidence by proving all circumstances without a missing link.

24.To prove the same, the prosecution solely relied on the confession made by the accused under Ex.P.4 and the seizure of the crime weapon allegedly recovered under Ex.P.5 in pursuance of Ex.P.4 confession of the accused. Admittedly, Ex.P.4 confession was made by the accused before the police, and hence it is inadmissible in evidence under section 25 of the

Indian Evidence Act, as rightly pointed out by the learned defence counsel.

The case of the prosecution is that, as in pursuance of the Ex.P.4 confession of the accused, the police seized the crime weapon, which is admissible in evidence under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and as the prosecution successfully connected the accused with the crime weapon, the accused is liable to punishment for the alleged offence.

25.So, the entire case of the prosecution depends on the evidence of

P.W.7, a revenue official, in the presence of whom the crime weapon was allegedly seized by the investigation officer in pursuance of the Ex,P.4 confession of the accused, and it is for the prosecution to prove the same to validate the alleged confession of the accused made under Ex.P.4.

26.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.7, she categorically admitted in her cross-examination that in pursuance of the confession made by the accused under Ex.P.4, the crime weapon was seized by the investigation officer in the fields of the accused. But as per the evidence of the investigation officer i.e

P.W.9, in pursuance of the Ex.P.4 confession of the accused, he seized the crime weapon from a culvert situated near the fields of the accused. He further admitted in his cross-examination that the distance between the said culvert and the fields of the accused is about 500 meters. So, it is clear that there is no corroboration between the crucial witnesses i.e P.Ws.7 and 9, regarding the place of the seizure of the crime weapon. So, the alleged confession of the accused under Ex.P.4 and seizure of the crime weapon in pursuance of Ex.P.4 under Ex.P.5 is doubtful to connect the accused with the alleged offence in the absence of direct evidence, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as rightly argued by the learned defence counsel.

27.The evidence of other prosecution witnesses i.e P.W.6 is limited to the extent of conducting an inquest over the dead body of the deceased, and the evidence of P.W.8(medical officer) is limited to the extent of conducting an autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Since the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the alleged offence, their evidence does not help to the case of the prosecution.

28.It is a cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proven beyond doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reason- able doubt. This general burden never shifts, and it always rests on the pros- ecution. Under the Circumstances of the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. In view of the above-discussed infirmities and shortcomings in the prosecution case, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to believe the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence. Therefore, the material pro- duced by the prosecution is hardly insufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the point is decided in the negative.

29.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty of the charge U/Sec.302

IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charge U/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bond executed by the Accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. MO.1/ Sickle,

MO.2/Wooden handle of the sickle, MO.3/Blood stained shirt, MO.4/Blood stained lungi, MO.5/Pair of chappals, MO.6/Blood stained control earth shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- B. Sadhu Babu

Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Ananthapuramu. (FAC) VI Additional Sessions Judge, Gooty.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution

Prosecutio

n Witness Name of Witness Description

No. PW.1Chintala Rama Hendra ReddyDe facto complainant/ hear say witness/son of the deceased. PW.2Chintala Lakshminarayanamma Hear say witness/ wife of the deceased. PW.3Chintala Ravekananda Reddy Hear say witness/Son of the deceased. PW.4M.Rajeswari Hear say witness/daughter of deceased. PW.5P. Karunakar Reddy. Eye witness to the occurrence of offence PW.6C. Harinatha Reddy Inquest mediator

PW.7L. Hemalatha VRO/ confession and seizure mediator. PW.8Dr.S. Madhulatha, MedicalOfficer,who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased. PW.9C. Lakshmikantha Reddy Investigating Officer.

Witnesses examined on behalf of Defence :- NIL

Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution

Exbhit No.Description of the ExhibitProved by / Approved by Ex.P1Report of PW.1, dated PW.1 06.12.2023 Ex.P2Statement of PW.5 underPW.5 section 161 Cr.P.C Ex.P3Inquest report dated 07.12.2023PW.6

Ex.P4Confession, arrest and seizure PW.7 mahazarnama dated 08.12.2023 at 12:00 hours Ex.P5Seizure Mahazarnama dated PW.7 08.12.2023 at 1:25 PM. Ex.P6report of LW.1/ Srinivasulu datedLW.1/Srinivasulu 23.02.2022 Ex.P7Postmortem certificate of PW.8 deceased Ex.P8Rough sketch of the scene of Pw.9 offence Ex.P9Scene observation and seizure PW.9 police proceedings

Documents marked on behalf of the Defence :- NIL

Material Objects marked

Material Objects No.Description of theProved by / Attested Exhibitby MO.1SicklePW.7

MO.2Wooden handle of thePW.7 sickle MO.3Blood stained shirtPW.7

MO.4Blood stained lungiPW.7

MO.5One pair of chappalsPW.9

MO.6Blood stained control PW.9 earth.

Sd/- B. Sadhu Babu

Spl. Judge.

(FAC) VI ASJ.

TABULAR FORM TO BE ANNEXED TO A JUDGMENT

AS PER RULE 67 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

(Before the Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under SCs and

STs (POA) Act – Cum – VIII Additional Sessions Judge,

Ananthapuramu)

SESSIONS CASE No.136 of 2024

PRC No. 21/2024 of JFCM, Tadipatri Cr.No.391 of 2023 of Tadipatri Rural U/G Police Station

1.Name of State represented by Inspector of Police, Complainant. Tadipatri Rural Urban P.S.

2.Crime No. and PoliceCr.No.391/2023 of Tadipatri Rural Urban P.S. Station. 3Moogireddy Veera Raghavareddy @ Sekhar, Name of the accusedaged about 45 years, S/o. M. Obireddy, D.No. 1/50, Komali Village, Tadipatri Mandal.

4Date of offence06.12.2023 5Date of complaint06.12.2023 6Date of 08.12.2023 apprehension of the accused 7Date of release12.04.2024 8Date of 25.07.2025 Commencement of trial 9Date of close of trial13.03.2026 10Date of sentence or10.04.2026 order

Explanation of the duration of the case in Committal Court:- ---- Explanation of the Duration of the case in Sessions Court:-

This case was taken on file the cognizance on 04.05.2024 and since then the case was adjourned from time to time for engaging counsel and then for hearing on charges. On 02.07.2024 charges were framed and posted for fixing schedule. On 25.07.2025 the schedule was fixed, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 and MOs.1 to 6 are marked and closed the prosecution evidence. The accused was examined under section 313

Cr.P.C, heard the arguments and posted for judgment on 27.03.2026. On 27.03.2026 being declared as public holiday the matter was posted to 10.04.2026 which is the next sitting day of the Presiding Officer. Hence, for

Judgment posted to 10.04.2026.

On 10.04.2026 Judgment pronounced (VSJ). In the result, the

Accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.302 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charge U/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond executed by the Accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. MO.1/ Sickle, MO.2/Wooden handle of the sickle, MO.3/Blood stained shirt, MO.4/Blood stained lungi,

MO.5/Pair of chappals, MO.6/Blood stained control earth shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- B. Sadhu Babu

Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Ananthapuramu. FAC/VI Addditional Sessions Judge, Gooty. Copy to:

1. The District Collector, Ananthapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu.

3. The Spl. P.P. SC/ST Court, Anantapuramu.

1

APAN000033882026

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES

[PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES] ACT, 1989 –cum-

VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: Sri B. SADHU BABU

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act-cum- VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Tuesday, the 28 th day of April, 2026

Crl.M.P.352/2026

(Cr.No.49/2026 of Ananthapuramu I Town P.S.)

Between:

Chinthamanu Surendra, aged 43 years, S/o. Late C. Yerrapeddanna, R/o. D.No.1-25, Pasuluru Village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal. Now residing at D.No.27/1-6, Near Church, YSR Colony, Ananthapuramu District. …Petitioner/Accused

And

State S.H.O. of Ananthapuramu I Town P.S.…Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on 27.04.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.J. Ravi Kumar, Sri B. Narayanaswamy, Advocates for the

Petitioner/Accused and the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant, and after hearing both sides this Court delivered the following:-

// ORDER //

2

1.This is a petition filed U/sec.483 of BNSS to enlarge the

Petitioner/Accused on bail in Cr.No. 49 of 2026 of Ananthapuramu I Town

P.S for the offence punishable under sections 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita.

2.Notice of this application has been given to the Spl. Public

Prosecutor.

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused and the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor.

4.Now the point for determination is “Whether the Petitioner/Accused is entitled for the bail” ?

5. Point:- The prosecution case in brief is that, the deceased/C.

Pradeed is son of accused. The de facto complainant/C.

Lakshminarasamma is wife of the accused. This is a case of voluntarily causing hurt with an iron rod that occurred on 12.02.2026 at about 4:30

AM near the church, YSR Colony, Ananthapuramu Town, wherein the accused quarreled with his son/victim Chinthamanu Pradeep, aged 20 years and assaulted him on the head with an iron rod. As a result, the victim sustained bleeding injuries on his head. The complainant who is the mother of the victim shifted the injured to Govt. General Hospital,

Ananthapuramu. Basing on the complaint of C. Lakshminarasamma, a case was registered against the accused. Later the Injured who was undergoing treatment at GGH. Kurnool succumbed to the Injures. This case was altered from section 118(1) BNS to 103 BNS Ananthapuramu I

Town PS.

6. The counsel for the petitioner / Accused submitted that the petitioner is remanded to judicial custody on 24.03.2026. The petitioner is living by coolie work and he is sole bread winner of his family and their family members are depending on the petitioner. The petitioner is law abiding 3 citizen and he has no intention to evade the process of law being vested upon him. The petitioner is having both movable and immovable properties. The petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble court in the event of his release on bail and requested this court to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail.

7.The learned Spl.P.P submitted that the the investigation is still pending for examination of some witnesses and await of post mortem and

FSL reports. If the accused enlarged on bail, he may threaten the complainant and witnesses to withdraw the complaint and tamper the evidence and opposed for grant of bail.

8.On perusal of the C.D, it discloses that a prima-facie accusation is made out against the petitioner/ Accused for the offence under Sec.103 of BNS which is major offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. As per the submissions made by the learned Spl.P.P the investigation in this case is not yet completed, await of Post Mortem and FSL reports and some more witnesses are to be examined. Under such circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner/Accused during this stage of pending investigation. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28th day of April, 2026

Sd/- B. Sadhu Babu

Special Judge

for trial of cases under SSs/STs (POA) Act, Ananthapuramu.

4

1

APAN000035322026

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES

[PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES] ACT, 1989 –cum-

VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: Sri B. SADHU BABU Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act-cum- VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Monday, the 27 th day of April, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.399/2026

In (C.C.No.2/2021 in Cr.No.200/2016 of Pamidi P.S)

Between:

B. Sekhar, age 20 years, S/o.B. Chandra Sekhar, Pamidi Village and Mandal. … Petitioner/Accused

And:

The S.H.O, Pamidi P.S. Rep. by the Public Prosecutor,

Ananthapuramu. ...Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming on 22.04.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri L. Narasimha Reddy, Sri D. Shafiulla, Advocates for the

Petitioner/Accused and of the learned Addl. P.P. for the state and on hearing both sides, this court passed the following:

2

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner/Accused under Sec.483 of BNS to enlarge him on bail in C.C.No.2/2021 in Cr.No.200/2016 of Pamidi Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sec.448, 455, 324 IPC.

2.The brief averments of the petition is that, on registering the case against the accused under Secs. 448, 455, 324 IPC vide Cr.No.200/2016 of

Pamidi P.S. The Petitioner/ Accused did not appear before this Hon’ble Court on 23.09.2025 and the Petitioner/Accused was remanded to Judicial Custody on 04.04.2026 by this Hon’ble Court on execution of NBW. The petitioner is working as coolie and he went to Bangalore for eking out his livelihood. The absence of the petitioner before this court was neither intentional nor willful.

Hence, the petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused submitted that the petitioner could not to attend before this Hon’ble Court on 23.09.2025, as the petitioner/accused is working as coolie and he went to Bangalore for eking out his livelihood and the Hon’ble Court was issued Non-bailable warrant against the Petitioner/Accused. The absence of the petitioner on 23.09.2025 is neither intentional nor willful. The petitioner is innocent of the said offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is respectable person owning movable and immovable properties and he is not likely to abscond. The petitioner undertakes that he will attend regularly for all the future adjournments without fail and prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. Notice of this application has been given to the Spl. Public Prosecutor.

5.Heard. Perused the record. The petitioner/Accused was remanded to judicial custody by this Court on execution of NBW on 04.04.2026. The record shows that investigation is already completed and charge sheet is 3 also filed and the same is numbered as C.C.2/2021. By considering the reasons mentioned in the petition for absence of accused on 23.09.2025, this court is inclined to allow this petition.

6.In the result, the petition is allowed and Petitioner/Accused is enlarged on bail on his execution of self bond for Rs.20,000/- with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of this court.

Typed by the Stenographer on my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- B. Sadhu Babu

Special Sessions Judge, for trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Ananthapuramu. Copy to the S.H.O, Pamidi P.S.

In the Court of :III Addl. District Judge

Case No. :EP/0000072/2019 Nalabala Obulappa Vs Kummetha Peddea Hanumantha reddy

Date : 28-12-2023

Presence: Nalabala Obulappa D. Shyam Prasad Kummetha Peddea Hanumantha reddy Kummatha Kesava Reddy Business: PW1/ Dhr called absent and no representation. Dhr failed to attend before this court for cross examination in spite of passing conditional order. That itself shows that he is not showing any interest to proceed with this case. Hence the EP is dismissed for default. Nature of : DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Disposal Date: 28-12-2023 III Addl. District Judge

In the Court of :III Addl. District Judge

Case No. :EP/0000429/2023 M/s. Shriram Finance Limited.(Formerly known as M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Com. Ltd.,) Vs C.Bairi Setty (J.Dr.2)

Date : 07-12-2023

Presence: M/s. Shriram Finance Limited.(Formerly known as M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Com. Ltd. )

PRABHAKAR REDDY.A

C.Bairi Setty (J.Dr.2) Business: DHr filed full satisfaction memo and the same is recorded. Hence the EP is terminated as full satisfaction recorded. Nature of Disposal : TERMINATED Disposal Date: 07-12-2023 III Addl. District Judge