Sri B.Sathaiah

IX Addl District and Sessions Judge

Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex · Kamareddy · Telangana

Sri B.Sathaiah, IX Addl District and Sessions Judge, is posted at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Kamareddy, Telangana, India. 305 court orders on record since 2017. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles EP, OS, SC cases.

305

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

SC/72/2018 Convicted

State through PS Devanpally vs Nomula Satyanarayana

25 Sep 2019

:: CALENDAR ::

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KAMAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri B. Sathaiah, IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy.

Wednesday, the 25th day of September, 2019

SC No. 72 of 2018

1. Crime No. & name of the PS: Crime No.172 of 2017 of PS Devanpally

2. Name and description of the accused :

Nomula Satyanarayana S/o Rajaiah, age: 30 years, Caste: Myadari, Occ: Coolie, R/o H.No.5-33, Devanpally village of Kamareddy Mandal and District.

3. Date of occurrence : 10.08.2017

4. Date of receipt of complaint : 11.08.2017

5. Apprehension of the accused : 16..08.2017

6. Released on bail : --

7. Commencement of trial : 12.10.2018

9. Closure of trial : 14.08.2019

10. Date of judgment : 25.09.2019

11. Remarks : ---

IX Additional Sessions Judge Kamareddy 2

SC 72-18

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KAMAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri B. Sathaiah, IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy.

Wednesday, the 25th day of September, 201

SC No. 72 of 2018

[On committal by the Court of JMFC, Kamareddy by order dated 06.04.2018 in PRC No.13 of 2018 in Crime No.172 of 2017 of PS Devanpally]

1)Name of complainant : The State through the Circle Inspector of Police, Kamareddy Rural Circle

2)Name of accused : Nomula Satyanarayana S/o Rajaiah, age: 30 years, Caste: Myadari, Occ: Coolie, R/o H.No.5-33, Devanpally village of Kamareddy Mandal and District.

3)Charges: Under Sections 302 and 201 IPC

4) Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

5)Finding of the Judge: Found guilty

6)Prosecution : Sri V. Amurtha Rao, conducted by Additional Public Prosecutor, Kamareddy.

7)Accused defended by : Sri P. Srinivas Rao, Advocate, Kamareddy

8) Sentence/Order In the result, the accused is found guilty for the ofences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

The accused is heard about the quantum of sentence and he stated that he did not commit the ofence and police falsely implicated him in this case and he is unconcerned with the ofence.

Considering the case facts and the gravity of the ofence, the accused found to be not entitled for any beneft in imposing punishment on him. Hence, the accused is sentenced to sufer life imprisonment and also sentenced to pay a fne of Rs.500/- (Rupees fve hundred only) for the ofence u/s 302 IPC. Further, the accused is sentenced 3

SC 72-18

to sufer Rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fne of Rs.500/- (Rupees fve hundred only) for the ofence u/s 201 IPC. In default to pay fne amounts by the accused, he shall also sufer simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for each default u/s 302 and 201 IPC, which shall run consecutively. However, both the sentences of life imprisonment and RI for three years for the ofences u/s 302 and 201 IPC shall run concurrently.

The accused is remanded to judicial custody on 16.08.2017 and since then he has been lodged in jail and the remand period i.e. from 16.08.2017 till the date already undergone by the accused shall be set of u/s 428 Cr.P.C. against the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused.

M.Os. 1 to 8 are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of Appeal time.

This case coming on before me for fnal hearing on 23.09.2019, in the presence of counsels for both the parties and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Circle Inspector of Police, Kamareddy Rural Circle, laid charge sheet against the accused for the ofences punishable under

Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that; accused is own son of deceased Nomula Venkatalaxmi. Apart from accused, two other sons are there to Venkatalaxmi who are hailing from Lingapur, but were shifted to Devanpally village as left with no properties in their village. The elder son of deceased Venkatalaxmi by name Swamy along with his family residing separately; whereas another son

Yadagiri had expired. Hence, the accused and his mother i.e.

Venkatalaxmi were residing as tenants in the house of one Krishna

Murthy at Devanpally village since two years and the deceased 4

SC 72-18

Venkatalaxmi had one plot and she sold it for Rs.1,20,000/- and said amount on interest basis was lent to one Sangaiah who is also milk supplier to the deceased. While so, the accused, who is unmarried, advised his mother to construct a house with the amount lent to one Sangaiah so that he can get married as his marriage was could not be performed due to not having any own house. However, the said proposal was rejected by the deceased and that caused angry to the accused and addicted to toddy. While so, at about 11.00 a.m. as usual, the milk supplier Sangaiah came to the deceased and paid monthly interest amount of Rs.3,000/- to her on 10.08.2017 and the accused asked his mother to give him Rs.200/-, accordingly, she gave the said amount to the accused and he left the house only to return again to the house at 4.00 p.m. having drunken toddy with the money of Rs.200/- and again asked for Rs.200/-, for which, he was abused in flthy language by his mother i.e. deceased

Venkatalaxmi stating that he was only drinking toddy without doing any works, upon which, the accused got angry and thought for himself that he can construct the house with the amount of

Rs.1,20,000/- by killing his mother and by collecting the said amount from one Sangaiah and accused beat his mother with stick and pushed her to a side of the house and took out one Bamboo cutting knife and cut on his mother’s neck and left jaw, as a result, the deceased received bleeding injury and died on the spot and the accused changed his dress and hidden bloodstained clothes and knife in the house and taken the rest of the amount of Rs.2,800/- from the house and left the house by locking the door to conceal and to cause disappearance of the evidence and he spent amount for his personal needs.

SC 72-18

3.On a complaint by PW.1 N. Siddiramulu, a case in

Cr.No.172/2017 u/s 302 IPC was registered by PW.9 B. Santosh

Kumar, SI of Police, PS Devanpally and FIR was issued to be submitted to all the concerned ofcials including the Court and further, information was given to PW.10. G. Koteshwar Rao, Circle

Inspector of Police.

4.During the course of investigation, PW.10 verifed the investigation done by PW.9 to be on proper lines and along with

PW.1 and PW.9 and PC No.760 and 2040, he proceeded to the scene of ofence situated at the deceased house No.5-33, Devanpally village of Kamareddy Mandal and observed the scene and dead body of the deceased and secured mediators PW.6 K. Narsimlu and

LW.11 Nomula Pochavva and in their presence conducted scene of ofence and drawn rough sketch of the scene. He further seieed from the scene of ofence Bloodstained earth, Controlled earth and bloodstained sticks in the presence of mediators and further examined and recorded the statement of PW.1. He also recorded the statements of Lws 2 to 5 by names A. Kishan, Nomula

Dasharath, Shaik Fasi (PW.2), and Nomula Venkat Ramulu respectively.

4(a) Further, examined the accused herein, but after his confessional statement made by the accused, his statement was removed from the list of witnesses and in the presence of same mediators, PW.10 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Smt. N. Venkatalaxmi, aged around 65 years in between 11.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. and further got photographed the dead body with the help of photographer PW.3 Ch. Pradeep and his 6

SC 72-18

statement was also recorded and thereafter dead body was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Kamareddy and there PW.10 seieed (1) bloodstained wheat & rose colour saree (2) bloodstained Yellow colour blouse (3) bloodstained white colour petticoat under cover of cloths seieure panchanama in the presence of inquest mediators and the dead body was subjected for autopsy. PW.8 Dr. Samreen,

Duty Medical Ofcer, Government Area Hospital, Kamareddy, conducted autopsy over the dead body and thereafter it was handed over to blood relatives of deceased for performing last rites under proper acknowledgment.

4(b)During the course of further investigation, PW.10 on 15.08.2017 again visited the deceased’s house bearing No.5-33 at

Devanpally village, examined and recorded the statements of deceased’s neighbours i.e. PW.4 K. Sangaiah, PW.5 U. Naresh and

Lws 8 and 9 by names D. Narsimlu and N. Umarani respectively.

During which, all of them expressed suspicion over the accused as responsible for murder of the deceased. While so, on 16.08.2017 at about 8.00 a.m., PW.10 upon receipt of reliable information, he along with PW.9 and PCs 760 and 2040 rushed to Ambedkar Statue situated at Devanpally village and apprehended the accused and interrogated him, during which, he confessed to have committed the ofence, soon PW.10 secured the presence of mediators by names PW.7 M. Naveen Kumar, and LW.14 N. Yadagiri and in their presence conducted confessional panchanama of accused, during which, he confessed the commission of ofence. Accordingly, the confession of accused was conducted in the presence of mediators.

During confession, the accused disclosed that his clothes and knife were kept in the house which were used at the time of ofence.

SC 72-18

Accordingly, PW.10, PW.9 along with mediators and constables at about 10.15 a.m. went to deceased’s house and seieed the clothes of accused i.e. (1) bloodstained light blue colour shirt (2) bloodstained black colour pant (3) bloodstained white colour handkerchief (4) one sharp bloodstained iron knife (Myadari knife) under cover of seieure panchanama at the instance of accused in the presence of mediators and later the accused was brought to

Police Station at about 11.00 a.m. and his arrest was efected and having complied all formalities during arrest, he was produced

before the Court for judicial remand.

4(c)On 23.8.2017, PW.11 D. Bikshapathi, Circle Inspector of

Police, Kamareddy Rural Circle, assumed the investigation of the case upon transfer of PW.10 and on 12.9.2017, PW.11 deposited the viscera of the deceased and clothes of the deceased and accused

before FSL authority vide FSL No. KMR/TOX/26/2017, dt.

12.09.2017, SFSL (TS)/8955/SE/1204/2017 dt.11.09.2017 and the

FSL authority issued opinion on 22.1.2018 and the same was submitted before the PW.8 Dr. Samren, Duty Medical Ofcer, who issued fnal opinion regarding the death of the deceased as “Heamoragic shock due to deep seated located injury” vide FSL

No.KMAR/TOX/26/2017 and FSL authorities issued opinion that human blood was detected on items No. 1 to 4, 6 to 9, but blood group could not be determined and blood was not detected on item

No.5 and 10 which is received as control for item No.9 vide FSL (TS)/ 8955/SER/1204/2017 dt. 11.9.2017 and after due investigation, charge sheet was laid.

SC 72-18

5.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy, committed the case in P.R.C. No.13 of 2018 (Crime

No.172 of 2017 of PS. Devanpally) to the Court of Sessions,

Nieamabad and the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Nieamabad, took the case on fle for the ofence U/Secs. 302 and 201 IPC and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

6. Upon production of the accused from the jail, the charges under sections 302 and 201 IPC were framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, who having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove its case, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11 and Mos 1 to 8.

8.PW1/N. Siddiramulu is the complainant.

PW2/Shaik Fasi is the witness. PW.3/Ch. Pradeep is the photographer. PW4/K. Sangaiah and PW.5/U. Naresh are witnesses.

PW.6/K. Narsimlu is panch for scene of ofence, inquest and seieure panchanama. PW.7/M. Naveen Kumar is panch for confession and recovery panchanama of the accused. PW.8/Dr. Samreen, Duty

Doctor, Govt. Area Hospital, Kamareddy, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and PW.9/B. Santosh Kumar,

PW.10/G. Koteshwar Rao and PW.11/D. Bikshapathi are the

Investigating Ofcers.

9.Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is fve photographs.

Ex.P3 is confession panchanama. Ex.P4 is seieure panchanama.

Ex.P5 is PME report. Ex.P6 is requisition given to FSL. Ex.P7 is the 9

SC 72-18

FSL report. Ex.P8 is FIR. Ex.P9 is scene of ofence panchanama.

Ex.P10 inquest panchanama. Ex.P11 is seieure panchanama

MO.1 is three sticks. MO.2 is saree. MO.3 is blouse.

MO.4 is knife. MO.5 is Handkerchief. MO.6 is pant. MO.7 shirt and

MO.8 is Petticoat.

10.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 3l3 Cr.P.C. stating the incriminating material made against him, for which, he denied the same and claimed no defence evidence.

11.The point for consideration is:

“Is the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

12.Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record.

POINT

13.According to PW.1, as under Ex.P1 he lodged a complaint and on 10.8.2017, the accused made call to him and informed him that his mother was killed by somebody, then he rushed to the house of accused and found the dead body of mother of the accused as killed by some one and further found injury on the neck of the deceased and on the next day, he lodged the complaint with the police and was examined by the police. This is the evidence of complainant.

14.PW.2 Shaik Fasi cited as witness deposed that he is resident of Devanpally as tenant and was residing along with accused and his mother in the same house and accused was in the 10

SC 72-18

habit of quarrelling with his mother whenever she did not give money to him for drinking of liquor and other vices and on 10.8.2017 at about 12.30 noon the accused quarrelled with his mother, but at that time he left his house to attend his labour works, again when he returned to the house at about 10.30 p.m., the house was locked by the accused and he waited outside of the house and on the next day, police came there and opened the lock and found that accused’s mother was killed with a knife used for cutting the bamboos and he further found the cut injury on the neck of the deceased.

15.PW.4 K. Sangaiah also witness deposed that he is a milk vendor and supplying milk to the deceased Nomula

Venkatalaxmi and accused is the son of the deceased and on 10.8.2017 at about 9.30 a.m. he went to the house of accused and gave some money to his mother as he was due to pay her, and accused also demanded his mother for giving Rs.200 to 300/- and chasted the accused and left from there. He further deposed that on the next day morning, as usually at about 8.30 a.m. for supplying milk, he went to the deceased’s house, but accused’s mother was already died by that time. He further deposed that previously also, accused quarreled with his mother for want of money for his liquor drinking habit and he advised him to stop the consumption of liquor and to his knowledge, no other person came to the house of the accused and he suspected that accused killed his mother and he was examined by the police.

16.So, the evidence of Pws. 2 and 4 disclosing that accused addicted to liquor and to meet its expenditure, demanding 11

SC 72-18

his mother to give money regularly and also in that regard there took place quarrels between them. Since Pws 2 and 4 are none other than the co-tenant of deceased and milk supplier to the deceased respectively and being so, supposed to be acquainted with the incidents in the deceased family and they are not new to the deceased family, but they have been watching and observing the quarrels between the accused and his mother; according to their versions. Thereby, their versions cannot be ignored in so far as taking place of quarrels between the accused and his mother.

Inasmuch as even in the cross-examination by the defence, PW.2 denied the suggestion that accused family not residing as tenants in the house in which he is residing, and PW.4 in his cross-examination denied the suggestion that accused never resided with his mother and he never advised the accused to stop the habit of consumption of liquor and further denied the suggestion that he did not pay the amount to mother of the accused and accused did not demand his mother for Rs.200 to 300/-. So also, as per PW.1, accused only made phone call to him stating that his mother was killed by somebody and in his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that accused never made any phone call to him on 10.8.2017 and not informed about the death of his mother.

17.PW.5 U. Naresh Kumar also witness deposed that he knows the accused and accused along with his mother residing nearby his house, Pw1 also resided in the same house as tenant and accused worked in the toddy shop and in the habit of drinking liquor. He further deposed that on 10.8.2017, in the morning while he was taking milk to his house, he observed the quarrel between the accused and his mother and at about 9.30 p.m. he was 12

SC 72-18

informed that accused mother was beat and killed by the accused.

In his cross-examination by the defence, he denied the suggestion that accused never beat and killed his mother and further denied the suggestion that accused had no habit of drinking liquor. So, this evidence of PW.5 is clearly against the accused and exposed the accused with his habit of drinking liquor and also quarrelling with his mother. Coupled with the evidence of Pws 2 and 4, the cumulative efect is that accused was the drunkered and to meet the expenditure on said drinking, he was demanding money from his mother and further quarrelling with his mother. All this evidence is clearly against the accused.

18.While so, the evidence of PW.7 M. Naveen Kumar, independent mediator for confession-cum-recovery panchanama of accused deposed that he was working as VRO Devenpally village and on 16-08-2017, when he was in the ofce, he received phone from police Kamareddy asking him to come to Ambedkar

Chowrastha, Devenpally and accordingly, he went there and found the accused with police and on instructions of police, he enquired with the accused and accused confessed that he demanded money from his mother, but she refused as she already gave Rs. 200/- to him, for that, he became angry and hacked his mother with a knife used to cut bamboo sticks and came out from the house and locked the house and informed to Sarpanch that his mother had disappeared and in pursuance of the confession, seieed the clothes worn by the accused at the time of ofence and the knife and also sticks bloodstained handkerchief and he signed it, so also, on the panch chits. MO 4. Knife, MO5 kerchief, MO6 pant MO7 shirt were recovered under cover of confession-cum-seieure panchanama as 13

SC 72-18

under ExP3 and ExP4 respectively. So, the evidence of PW.7 also disclosing the accused confessing the commission of ofence and in pursuance thereof, seieure of Mos 4 to 7 from the scene of ofence under cover of confession-cum-seieure panchanama and even when cross-examined by the defence, PW.7 denied a suggestion that he never acted as panch witness for confession-cum-seieure panchanama and deposing false. Thus, his chief version has not been shaken, is intact and when clubbed with the evidence of Pws 2, 4 and 5, the said versions corroborating each other and exposing the accused with the ofence of murdering his own mother and by way of hacking her with a knife.

19.A perusal of evidence of PW.3. Ch. Pradeep, photographer, disclosing that at the request of Police Devanpally, he took the photographs of the dead body of the deceased at the scene of ofence numbering 5 being a photographer and handed over the photos to police as under Ex.P2. A perusal of Ex.P2 photographs revealing the deceased in the pool of blood and died and also to the naked eye they are showing causing of injuries on the neck part of the deceased as entire head is in the pool of blood and thus, accused hacking his mother with a knife on the part of neck, is obviously very vivid from the photographs.

20.Likewise PW.6 K. Narsimlu, mediator for scene of ofence and the inquest and clothes of deceased seieure panchanama deposed that the SI of Police, PS Devanpally, while he was working as VRA, Devanpally village called him to the scene of ofence at where police conducted scene of ofence panchanama, inquest over the dead body of deceased and collected clothes from 14

SC 72-18

the dead body of the deceased and also collected three sticks and earth under cover of observation panchanama of scene and inquest and seieure panchanama. He further deposed that along with him,

Lw11N. Pochavva was also present and attested the panchanama, and MO.1, MO.2 and MO.3 respectively three sticks, saree and blouse were recovered by pasting chits on them and he identifed his signature on the panch chits of Mos 1 to 3. He further deposed that they found the injuries on the neck of dead body of the deceased at two places and the deceased died due to the injuries on her neck caused by knife and sticks etc., Ex.P9 is the scene of ofence panchanama conducted by the police and as under Ex.P10 inquest panchanama and as under Ex.P11 seieure panchanama are got marked in the evidence of PW.6 when he was recalled for further examination by the prosecution vide orders dt. 31.7.2019 in

Cr. MP No.54 of 2019 and in his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that in his presence no panchanamas were conducted by the police and further stated that Mos 2 and 3 saree and blouse of deceased were in Yellow colour. A perusal of Ex.P2 phoitos also showing saree and blouse in the said Yellow colour.

21.As per the medical evidence as deposed by PW.8

Dr. Samreen she issued Ex.P5, Postmortem examination report having conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased

Venkatalaxmi upon requisition from Police on 11.8.2017 being CAS,

Government Area Hospital, Kamareddy and the deceased died of haemmoragic shock due to deep seated lacerated injuries extending from neck to nape of neck of 38 X 8 Cms all major blood vessels, tissues, muscle, layer damage, left clavicle fracture. By mentioning such injuries and opinion, she issued PME report under 15

SC 72-18

Ex.P5. She further deposed that she collected and sent Viscera of dead body to FSL, Hyderabad, along with requisition for ascertainment of cause of death of deceased. Accordingly, FSL authority issued Report with an opinion that no poisonous substance was found in Items 1 to 3 pertaining to stomach, liver and kidney.

ExP7 is the FSL Report issued basing on requisition to FSL under

Ex.P6 and basing on FSL Report, cause of death of deceased was mentioned by her as due to haemmoragic shock due to deep seated lacerated injuries. Hence, this medical evidence is clearly in tune with the ocular evidence that accused hacked his mother on her neck that caused excessive bleeding and haemorrhagic shock, which fnally caused death of the deceased.

22.Likewise, a perusal of Ex.P7 FSL report disclosing that human blood was detected on items No.1 to 4, 6 to 9 corresponding to Mos 2 and 3 which are saree and blouse of deceased shown as item Nos.1 and 2. So also, MO.4 knife measuring 37 cms., with dark brown stains corresponding to item

No.7 was found to be with blood, was also detected to be with human blood. Likewise Petticoat MO.8, MO.6 pant, MO.7 shirt, MO.5

Kerchief were also detected to be with human blood. Hence, this medical evidence found to be clearly supporting the independent mediator for confession-cum-seieure panchanama, PW.7 that bloodstained clothes worn by the accused at the time of ofence and knife and kerchief were seieed by the police from the scene of ofence as under MOs 4 to 7, is found established, according to FSL report, no poisonous substance was found in the viscera of deceased. Thus, the death of the deceased out of any poisonous substance is ruled out, but the death was only on account of 16

SC 72-18

haemmoragic shock due to deep seated lacerated injuries and such injuries are caused in this case by way of hacking and by using the knife according to the evidence on record and such evidence in any way not been discredited by the defence, on the contrary found consistent on all material aspects.

23.PW.9 B. Santosh Kumar, SI of Police, stated that upon receiving written report from Pw1 at about 9.00 a.m. on 11.8.2017 he registered a case in Cr NO. 172 of 2017 U/S 302 IPC and issued Express FIR to all concerned. ExP8 is the FIR issued by him and he handed over the CD fle to PW.10, G. Koteshwar Rao, CI of Police, as the ofence was grave in nature.

24. It is the evidence of PW.10 that on receiving CD fle, he rushed to scene of ofence on 11.8.2017 along with SI of

Police and staf at about 10.00 a.m. and to the H.No.5-33 and found the dead body of one lady lying in the pool of blood with cut injury on the neck area and he recorded the statement of Pw1 at the spot and he also secured mediators Pw6 and Lw11. M. Pochavva and in their presence conducted scene of ofence, inquest over the dead body and further seieed bloodstained earth and control earth at the spot and also seieed Mo.1 (3) sticks from the spot. He further deposed that he examined and recorded statements of Lws 2 to 5 by names A. Kishan. N. Dashrath, Shaik Fasee and N. Venkat

Ramulu respectively and through Pw3 he got photographed the dead body and recorded his statement and later shifted the dead body to Area Hospital, Kamareddy, for autopsy at where he conducted seieure panchanama in the presence of same mediators i.e Pw6 and Lw11 and thereunder seieed MOs 2 and 3 saree and 17

SC 72-18

blouse and the dead body was subjected to autopsy. After autopsy, the dead body was handed over to blood relatives of the deceased for funeral rites. Further, he proceeded to scene of ofence and examined and recorded statements of Pw4, Pw5 and Lw8 and Lw9

D. Narshimlu and N. Umarani respectively, who stated to him that they have got suspicion over the son of deceased as responsible for the ofence. Upon that, on 16.08.2017 at about 8.00 a.m. and on reliable information himself along with SI and staf proceeded to

Ambekar Statue at Devenpally village and apprehended the accused and during interrogation accused was in the mood of confessing the ofence, he secured the mediators Pw7 and Lw14. N.

Yadagiri and in their presence he recorded confessional statement of the accused and accused confessed the ofence and also revealed hiding of weapons of ofence used by him i.e one sharp bloodstained iron knife ( Madari Katti), bloodstained light blue colour shirt, bloodstained black colour pant, and bloodstained white colour hand kerchief and also seieed one white colour petticoat, they are respectively marked as Mos 4, 7, 6, 5 and 8 from the house of deceased and along with seieed property, the accused was brought to PS and his arrest was efected and produced before the court for judicial remand, and on 20-08-2017, he sent Mos 1 to 7 to FSL,

Hyderabad along with requisition for analysis and report, and upon his transfer, he handed over CD fle to his successor PW.11

Bikshapathi, CI of police.

25. PW.11 deposed that he verifed the investigation done by PW.10 and found to be on proper lines having taken the CD fle on 23.8.2017 from PW.10 and on 12.09.2017 he deposited the case property i.e., the viscera and bloodstained clothes of deceased 18

SC 72-18

and also clothes of the accused before FSL for analysis and report through SDPO, Kamareddy, and on 22.01.2018, he received the FSL report as under Ex.P7 vide FSL No.KMR/Tox/26/2017 and after completion of investigation, he fled charge sheet for the ofences under sections 302 and 201 IPC.

26.Nothing could be gathered by the defence in its cross-examination of the Investigating Ofcers i.e. Pws 9 to 11 as they denied the suggestion that accused was falsely charge- sheeted and did not do due investigation. A perusal of Ex.P1, original report showing that it was lodged at about 9.00 a.m. on 11.8.2017 and accused herein at about 10.30 p.m. on 10.08.2017 phoned to the complainant N. Siddi Ramulu that in the afternoon hours, he along with his friend Bala Krishna went outside from the house and returned to house at about 9.30 p.m., but only to fnd that his house was locked from the outside and when he opened the lock and entered into the house, he found that his mother

Venkatalaxmi in dead condition in the corner of house with injuries caused on her neck and there was heavy bleeding, upon such information, the complainant rushed to the house and found the dead body of the deceased in the pool of blood and lodged a report with the police.

27.In this case, the accused himself did not lodge the complaint though he stated to the complainant that his mother was found dead in the pool of blood in his house when he returned to the house at about 9.30 p.m., which he could have done if he really not committed the ofence, which is also a strong circumstance against him. Inasmuch as it is the evidence of PW.2 that when he 19

SC 72-18

returned to the house at about 10.30 p.m., the accused locked the house and accused was waiting outside of the house and this evidence was after PW.2 stated that at about 12.30 p.m. on 10.08.2017 the accused quarrelled with his mother, but at that time, he left the house to attend his labour works and his further evidence is that as already noted accused was in the habit of quarrelling with his mother whenever she did not give money to him for drinking alcohol. Thus, none other can be found to be connected with the murder of the deceased except the accused only as evidence on record is overwhelmingly pointing the guilt towards the accused only but none else. Also to be noted that there was motive for the ofence as the accused was demanding money from his mother for his drinking, for which, there were quarrels between them, and the accused became angry when his mother did not give him money and thus, he lost control over himself and killed his mother by hacking her with the knife available in the house and thereby also killed the sentiments of mother and son and it was the culpable homicide and not otherwise and amounting to murder as it can be inferred that the accused was intentionally caused the death of his mother by very using of knife enough to hold that with such act, the accused was inficting injury on his mother mercilessly and in the ordinary course, it throws imminent danger to cause death of the person receiving such bodily injury and such act of attack was without any excuse and caused the death of his own mother and it is not the contention of accused that his act was out of any grave and sudden provocation nor in the exercise of right of private defence nor it was out of the consent by the deceased. As the accused even tried to conceal the ofence by screening himself as 20

SC 72-18

though he committed the ofence, projected it as committed by some other person and by way of not lodging any report and by way of locking the house, having committed the ofence and further passed over wrong information to the complainant that some other person killed his mother in the house. Therefore, this Court came to the conclusion that prosecution established its case against the accused u/s 302 and 201 IPC.

28.In view of above all reasons, it is held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the ofence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and this point is answered against the accused.

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

Court on this the 25th day of September, 2019.

IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

29.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the ofences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and convicted under

Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

The accused is heard about the quantum of sentence and he stated that he did not commit the ofence and police falsely implicated him in this case and he is unconcerned with the ofence.

Considering the case facts and the gravity of the ofence, the accused found to be not entitled for any beneft in imposing punishment on him. Hence, the accused is sentenced to sufer life imprisonment and also sentenced to pay a fne of Rs.500/- (Rupees fve hundred only) for the ofence u/s 302 IPC. Further, the accused is sentenced to sufer Rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fne of Rs.500/- (Rupees fve hundred only) 21

SC 72-18

for the ofence u/s 201 IPC. In default to pay fne amounts by the accused, he shall also sufer simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for each default u/s 302 and 201 IPC, which shall run consecutively. However, both the sentences of life imprisonment and RI for three years for the ofences u/s 302 and 201 IPC shall run concurrently.

M.Os. 1 to 8 are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of Appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of September, 2019..

IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KAMAREDDY.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: Sri N. Siddiramulu -NONE- PW.2: Sri Shaik Fasi PW.3: Sri Ch. Pradeep PW.4: Sri K. Sangaiah PW.5: Sri U. Naresh PW.6: Sri K. Narsimlu PW.7: Sri M. Naveen Kumar PW.8: Dr. Samreen, PW.9: Sri B. Santosh Kumar, IO PW.10: Sri G. Koteshwar Rao, IO PW.11: Sri D. Bikshapathi, IO :: EXHIBITS MARKED :: Ex.P1: Complaint. -Nil- Ex.P2: Five photographs Ex.P3: Confession panchanama Ex.P4: Seieure panchanama Ex.P5: PME report Ex.P6: Requisition given to FSL 22

SC 72-18

Ex.P7: FLS report Ex.P8: FIR Ex.P9: Scene of ofence panchanama. Ex.P10:Inquest Ex.P11:Seieure panchanama

M.Os. MARKED :: ::

MO.1: Three sticks. MO.2: Saree. MO.3: Blouse. MO.4: knife. MO.5: Handkerchief. MO.6 : Pant. MO.7: Shirt MO.8 : Petticoat.

IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KAMAREDDY.

SC/82/2016 Acquitted

State through PS Tadwai vs Namal Ramesh

09 Jun 2020

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KAMAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri B. Sathaiah, IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy.

Tuesday, this the 9th day of June, 2020

SC No. 82 of 2016

[On committal by the Court of JMFC, Kamareddy, by order dated 15.03.2016 in PRC No.20 of 2016 in Crime No.127 of 2015 of PS Tadwai]

1)Name of complainant : Circle Inspector of Police, Bhiknoor

2)Name of accused : Namala Ramesh S/o Bhumaiah, age: 30 years, Caste: Bestha, Occ: Coolie, R/o Tadwai village

3)Charges : Under Sections 302 and 324 IPC

4) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.

5)Finding of the Judge : Found not guilty

6)Prosecution : Sri V. Amurtha Rao, conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor, Kamareddy.

7)Accused defended by : Sri G. Jagannatham, Advocate, Kamareddy

8) Sentence/Order In the result, accused is found not guilty of the ofences punishable under

Sections 302 and 324 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Bail bonds of accused stand cancelled and

MOs 1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case coming on before me for fnal hearing on 20.05.2020, in the presence of counsels for both the parties and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The accused by name Namala Ramesh S/o Bhumaiah was chargesheeted for the ofences u/ss 302 and 324 IPC by the Circle

Inspector of Police, Bhiknoor.

SC No.82 of 2016

2.The case of the prosecution is that; accused herein and deceased Namala Srinivas and injured Namala Sailoo are siblings and sons of LW.2/Bhumaiah and PW.2/N. Pochavva. 45 days prior to the alleged incident on 15.10.2015, the deceased by name Namala

Srinivas had given an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the accused for the purpose of treatment of accused for his ill-health. However, regarding this money, there were quarrels between the accused and

Srinivas and also with regard to their house land. While so, on 15.10.2015 in the morning hours, accused approached the deceased Srinivas and asked him to pay Rs.900/- for the purpose of construction of Bathroom in the house, for which, the deceased

Srinivas replied that the said amount can be adjusted from the amount of Rs.5,000/- due to him by the accused, for which, the accused denied such proposal and quarrelled with the deceased and bore grudge in the mind and intended to kill the deceased and on the same day at about 9.00 p.m. when the deceased and his family members were present at their house having dinner, accused went there and quarrelled with the deceased and beat Sailu, his another brother, with a old wooden plank when said Sailu tried to rescue the deceased, upon which, the deceased became panic and started running away on the road, yet the accused beat on the head of

Srinivas with the same wooden plank, as a result, Srinivas, so also,

Sailu sufered injuries and Srinivas succumbed to injuries on the way when he was being shifted to Hospital at Kamareddy in 108

Ambulance.

2(a)On a complaint as under Ex.P1 by PW.1/ Namala Latha

W/o deceased Srinivas on 16.10.2015 at about 11.00 a.m. at Police 3

SC No.82 of 2016

Station, Tadwai, a case in Cr.No.127/2015 under sections 302 and 324 IPC was registered by PW.12/K. Nagaraju, the then SI of Police, and issued FIR as under Ex.P13 and recorded PW.1’s 161 Cr.P.C.

statement and handed over CD fle to PW.13 A. Sreedhar Kumar, CI of Police, along with Ex.P1 and 161 statement of PW.1 for the purpose of further investigation.

2(b) Thereafter, PW.13 along with PW.12 and staf proceeded to the scene of ofence situated at PW.1’s house at Tadwai village and observed the same and secured the mediators i.e. PW.6/M.

Narsimlu and LW.11/M. Balraj and in their presence, conducted scene of ofence panchanama and also drawn sketch of the scene.

So also, he visited the Government Area Hospital, Kamareddy, and observed the dead body of the deceased and examined PW.1 and recorded her statement and also recorded statements of eyewitnesses and family members of the deceased i.e. PW.2

Namala Pochavva, LW.2/Namala Bhumaiah, LW.4/U. Narsimlu, LW.5/

U. Bhumavva and further secured mediators PW.7/Y. Kishan and

LW.13/G. Chinna Gangaiah and in their presence conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Namala Srinivas and seized white half banyan having bloodstains and black pant under cover of clothes seizure panchanama in the presence of same mediators and got photographed the dead body of the deceased by PW.3/K.

Siddiramulu, photographer and examined and recorded the statement of photographer and the dead body was subjected for autopsy by PW.11/Dr. Samreen, CAS, Area Hospital, Kamareddy, who forwarded viscera box of the deceased Namala Srinivas to the

Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, for analysis and 4

SC No.82 of 2016

report and for opinion as to cause of death and after postmortem examination, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to blood relatives for fnal rites under proper acknowledgement.

2(c) PW.10/Dr. A. Sai Kiran, CAS, Government Area Hospital,

Kamareddy, treated the injured i.e. PW.5/Namala Sailu and opined that the injured sufered injuries in simple nature.

2(d)On 16.10.2015 at about 4.30 p.m. on reliable information, PW.13 along with force rushed to Tadwai village and apprehended accused at 5.30 p.m. and interrogated him, during which, the accused confessed the ofence hence PW.13 secured

PW.8/A. Shyam Rao and PW.9/M. Bhikshapathi, mediators for confession and recovery panchanama and in their presence, recorded confessional statement of the accused and further seized wooden plank (piece of door) which was used by the accused for the commission of ofence and it was in length of about 2 ½ feet and width about 2 inches with bloodstains and accused was brought to

Police Station Tadwai at 6.30 p.m. to be efected his arrest and duly following the procedure, he was produced before the Court and sent to judicial custody.

2(e)During the course of further investigation, PW.13 examined and recorded the statements of PW.4 L. Naresh, eyewitness, PW.5 Namala Sailu, injured and brother of accused and further obtained FSL report vide No.SER/1382/2015 dt. 7.12.2015 where under item Nos. 1 to 3 were examined, human blood was detected on them and blood group of bloodstains on item No.2 and 3 as of “B” Blood group, however, no blood group on item No.1 could be determined which were material objects forwarded by 5

SC No.82 of 2016

PW.13 on 21.01.2016 and which were recovered from the scene of ofence and at the time of inquest and deposited in the Court vide

CPR No.2/2016. So also, on 17.12.2015, PW.13 obtained Expert

Report vide RFS report No. KMR/TOX/487/2015 DT. 15.12.2015 of

APFSL, Hyderabad, through SDPO, Kamareddy and the Expert after examining the items No. 1 to 3 i.e. stomach and piece of intestine (2) Piece of liver, kidney and brain in crystalline substances pertaining to deceased Namala Srinivas viscera and gave opinion that items No. 1 to 3 were analysed and no poisonous substance was found in them. Basing on the said FSL report, fnal opinion as under Ex.P12 in PME report under Ex.P11, of cause of death of the deceased was furnished by PW.11/Dr. Samreen stating that the cause of death of the deceased was due to Hemorrhagic shock due to head injury, and the same was got mentioned in the PME report as under Ex.P12 basing on the FSL report as under Ex.P10.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy, committed the case in P.R.C.No.20 of 2016 (Crime

No.127 of 2015 of PS. Tadwai) to the Court of Sessions, Nizamabad and the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, took the case on fle for the ofences U/Secs. 302 and 324 IPC and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.On production of the accused from Jail, the charges under sections 302 and 324 IPC were framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, who having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

SC No.82 of 2016

5. To prove its case, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has examined PW.1 to PW.13 and got marked Ex.P1 to P13 and MOs 1 to 3.

6.PW1/Smt. Namala Latha is the complainant and wife of the deceased. PW.2/Smt. Namala Pochavva is the mother the deceased. PW.3/K. Siddiramulu is the photographer. PW.4/L. Naresh is the eyewitness. PW.5/Namala Sailu is the injured and brother of the accused. PW.6/M. Narsimlu is panch for scene of ofence.

PW.7/Y. Kishan is panch for inquest and clothes seizure panchanama. PW.8/A. Shyam Rao and PW.9/M. Bhikshapathi are panchas for confession and recovery panchanama of the accused.

PW.10/Dr. Sai Kiran, CAS, Govt. Area Hospital, Kamareddy, treated the injured and PW.11 Dr. Samreen, Duty Medical Ofcer, Govt. Area

Hospital, Kamareddy, held autopsy, and PW.12/K. Nagaraju and

PW.13/A. Sreedhar Kumar are the investigating ofcers.

7.Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the photograph of the injured. Ex.P3 is bunch of photographs of the deceased. Ex.P4 is part of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P5 is scene of ofence panchanama. Ex.P6 is the rough sketch. Ex.P7 is inquest panchanama. Ex.P8 is signatue of PW.8 on confessional panchanama. Ex. P9 is Medical certifcate. Ex.P10 is FSL report.

Ex.P11 is PME report. Ex.P12 is Final opinion. Ex.P13 is the FIR.

MO.1 is black colour pant, MO.2 is white banyan. MO.3 is stick (wrongly marked as MO.4).

SC No.82 of 2016

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 3l3 Cr.P.C. by stating the incriminating material made against him, for which, he denied the same and claimed no defence evidence.

9.The point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

10.Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record.

POINT

11.Since the accused denied the charge levelled against him, the burden of proof is only on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

12.Pw1 who is the de facto complainant and wife of deceased Srinivas and by name Smt. Namala Latha in her evidence

before the Court deposed that her husband deceased Srinivas and

accused are real brothers and about nine months prior to her evidence recorded on 13.5.2016, her husband died and she learnt it through phone from LW.2/N. Bhoomaiah, her father-in-law, and further known that there was loan transaction between her husband and the accused and in that connection, there was quarrel between them and LW.2/Bhoomaiah further informed her that accused asked for Rs.900/- from her husband for construction of bathroom, however, her husband did not give the said amount as accused was already taken an amount of Rs.5,000/- from her husband and she was at her parents’ house when she received phone call, upon said call, she rushed to Government Hospital, Kamareddy, and found 8

SC No.82 of 2016

dead body of her husband in the Hospital and her father-in-law LW.2/

Bhoomaiah told her that there was quarrel between accused and her deceased husband and she lodged Ex.P1 complaint at Police

Station and police examined and recorded her statement at Police

Station.

In the cross-examination PW.1 stated that she does not know the contents of Ex.P1 complaint, which was scribed by SI of

Police upon her instructions and she also admitted that there is no document to show that accused borrowed Rs.5,000/- from her husband.

As PW.1 disowned the contents of Ex.P1 complaint, a perusal of complaint is necessary at this juncture. Ex.P1 disclosing that accused herein having quarrelled with Srinivas i.e. husband of

PW.1, beat Srinivas with a stick on his head and when another brother Sailoo tried to rescue Srinvias, he was also beaten by the accused. Hence, they were shifted to Hospital in 108 Ambulance, however, on the way to Hospital, Srinivas died and upon knowing this, PW.1 rushed to the Hospital. But, this piece of evidence that accused beat Srinivas with a stick on the head, is not been revealed by PW.1 in her evidence who only got lodged complaint at Police

Station mentioning the same. Even the complaint was got scribed by one SI of Police on the instructions of PW.1. PW.1 is required to own the contents of Ex.P1, but she did not do it. On the contrary, she admitted that she does not know Ex.P1 complaint. Thus, the very evidence of de facto complainant and mentioning of ofence particulars in Ex.P1, are not been revealed in the evidence by PW.1 which found to be a lapse in this case. So also, as per PW.1, she 9

SC No.82 of 2016

came to know about the incident through her father-in-law LW.2/

Bhoomaiah herein, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, LW.2 is not at all examined by the prosecution in this case and the evidence of LW.2 is is not available in this case to know whether he made any phone call or not to PW.1 and whether he informed the incident to PW.1 or not. Moreover, LW.2 is cited as an eyewitness yet not been examined; had he been examined, his evidence could have been crucial for the case of prosecution.

13.Whereas PW.2/Namala Pochavva is also cited as witness and mother of the accused and deceased. In her chief evidence she deposed about taking place of quarrels between the accused and deceased and accused beating the deceased with a plank on his head, as a result, deceased sustained bleeding injury, herself and her husband/LW.2 Bhumaiah and others were present at the time of incident and her son Srinivas died on the way to Hospital and accused was responsible for the death of her deceased son.

Again in the cross-examination, PW.2 clearly admitted that the incident happened during night time and she did not identify the persons due to darkness. This admission of PW.2 thrown any amount of doubt about herself capacity to identify the accused beating the deceased with a wooden plank, for want of light availability as the incident was said to have been happened in the night time and there was darkness. So, PW.2 stating that accused was responsible for causing death of deceased, cannot be viewed without any suspicion in view of her own admission that she 10

SC No.82 of 2016

did not identify the persons due to darkness and incident happened during night time.

14.PW.4/L. Naresh, independent eyewitness as per the prosecution case, deposed that upon hearing cries, he went to

Shantaipet road and found lying of dead body of Namala Srinvias and one Sailu with bleeding injuries and he further heard that accused borrowed a loan of Rs.5,000/- from the deceased, thereafter, he does not know what happened and police did not examine him. As such, he was permitted to be declared as hostile by the prosecution which cross-examined him for eliciting, but he only denied to have stated as under Ex.P4, part of his 161 Cr.P.C.

statement and he clearly denied that he witnessed the accused beating the deceased with a wooden plank and also accused causing injuries to Sailu and he further denied the suggestion that he is deposing false to help the accused.

In the cross-examination by the defence, he admitted that he had no knowledge about any disputes between the accused and the deceased Srinivas and Sailu; thereby it is evident that the independent witness evidence as deposed by PW.4, is found to be against to the case of prosecution as he did not support it. Even other independent eyewitness cited as LW.8/L. Rajulu, is not examined by the prosecution at all as his examination is given up by the prosecution. Thus, in this case there is no availability of evidence of independent witnesses.

15.Whereas PW.5/Namala Sailu, injured and eyewitness and brother of both accused and deceased, deposed that there were 11

SC No.82 of 2016

quarrels between the accused and deceased regarding some amount borrowed by the accused from the deceased, the same was demanded by the deceased and it was refused by the accused and accused beat him with a stick on his head at his house; thereafter he does not know what happened and when he tried to interfere between the accused and deceased to pacify the matter, he was beaten by the accused.

In the cross-examination he admitted that there were misunderstandings between the accused and deceased and they did not quarrel each other at any time. This admission in one way or the other falsifying his chief evidence that there was quarrel between the accused and deceased and also falsifying that when he tried to interfere in the quarrel between the accused and deceased, he was beaten by the accused as it is PW.5’s admission that the accused and deceased did not quarrel at any time. Hence, PW.5’s interference to pacify the quarrel does not arise, much less, to be beaten by the accused when there was no quarrel at all. In view of this, the evidence of PW.5 is also found to be sufering with material discrepancy regarding the very existence and taking place of any quarrel between the accused and deceased.

16.While this is so, PW.8/A. Shyam Rao, mediator for confession and recovery panchanama, though supported the prosecution case in chief evidence regarding seizure of stick i.e.

weapon of ofence at the instance of accused from the house under cover of seizure panchanama as under Ex.P8 in pursuance of the confession of accused; in the cross-examination, again PW.8 12

SC No.82 of 2016

admitted that he used to sign on the papers at the request of police relating to the criminal cases of their village Tadwai, for which, he is working as VRO since 18.7.2015. This indicates that he is the stock witness for the police as bent upon signing the papers relating to the criminal cases of the village and further he admitted that stick marked as MO.4 is available anywhere and he did not witness whether MO.4 got any bloodstains and further admitted that he had not practically seen the accused producing the stick MO.4 as at that time he came outside of the house to answer the phone call received from M.R.O. So, this admission by PW.8 vitiated whether the stick was recovered from the house of accused or not, that too at the instance of accused or not and recovery of weapon of ofence i.e. stick from the possession of accused, is not clear due to the unclear evidence by PW.8, and it cannot be deemed that stick was recovered from the possession of the accused and its seizure from the accused’s possession, is not clearly established by the prosecution inasmuch as another mediator for confession and recovery panchanama of accused PW.9/M. Bhikshapathi also in his cross-examination by the defence, clearly stated that he did not witness M.O.4 stick whether having any bloodstains or not and he did not see the accused producing it. So, there is any cloud about seizure of stick from the possession of the accused. So all these are the material lapses in this case by virtue of which, it cannot be said that the case of prosecution is free from any suspicion as it is imperative for the prosecution to prove the case like this nature beyond all reasonable doubt to fx any liability on the accused and in that bid, it is found to be at failure.

SC No.82 of 2016

17.That apart, there was delay of nearly 12 hours in lodging report before the police though the ofence is very grave and considering the grave nature of ofence, this much delay of 12 hours is found to be so material which has not been properly explained by the prosecution inasmuch as the distance between the Police

Station, Tadwai and place of occurrence is put at one kilometer and considering the said distance and the delay occurred in lodging the report is found to be very unreasonable and any amount of latches are there in the case of prosecution and implicating the accused after due deliberations, cannot be ruled out in view of the delay in lodging report before the police. That apart, FIR was received in the

Court at about 10.56 p.m. on 16.10.2015 as against its lodging at about 11.00 a.m. in the morning on the same day. This also indicates that there was delay of nearly 12 hours in dispatching the

FIR to the Court and even as per PW.13, Investigating Ofcer, the distance between the Court of Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy, and Police Station, Tadwai, is about 13 kilometers.

Hence, it is clear that the delay in dispatching the FIR to the Court did not commensurate with the distance, so also, to be noted even

PW.13 denied occurrence of delay of 10 hours in sending FIR to the

Court, but the said denial is found to be not correct in view of endorsement on the FIR, Ex.P13, which clearly disclosing it was received in the Court at about 10.56 p.m. on 16.10.2015 as against its issuance at 11.00 a.m. in the morning on the same day. Also, as per PW.13, PW.4 stated to him as in Ex.P4, part of 161 statement of

PW.4 to the efect that PW.4 witnessed accused attacking the deceased Srinivas and Sailu sufering injury when tried to rescue 14

SC No.82 of 2016

Srinivas and Srinivas became panic and started escaping on the road, but not to escape again hitting by the accused on his head with the same wooden plank. As already noted, PW.4 did not state the same in his evidence before the Court as he only stated that he found lying of dead body of Namala Srinvias on the road and he does not know what happened and police not examined him at all.

18.Pws 8 and 9 both mediators for the confession-cum- recovery panchanama, in their evidence stated that one Namala

Ramesh fell sick and they enquired the accused, who was the person in the custody of police, as to why he murdered Ramesh, and due to there was quarrel with regard to loan amount obtained by the accused, he decided to kill Ramesh. So, this evidence of Pws 8 and 9 is also quite against the case of prosecution as it unveiled as if one Namala Ramesh who is accused herein as the victim of the ofence. Whatever may be the reason, this evidence by Pws 8 and 9 is also a major dent in the case of prosecution.

19.So also, as Pws 8 and 9, they have not witnessed as whether MO.4 stick was with any bloodstains, hence as per Ex.P10 which is the APFSL report, as per which, wooden stick in the analysis was found to be containing human blood as being examined as item

No.1. But the ocular evidence by Pws 8 and 9 did not disclose M.O.4 stick was with any bloodstains, at the time of its seizure. So also, as per medical evidence as deposed by PW.10/A. Sai Kiran, who examined the injured Namala Sailu, as CAS, Area Hospital,

Kamareddy, upon requisition from Police, Kamareddy, and issued

Ex.P9, injury certifcate, noting the injury of laceration 3x1 cm over 15

SC No.82 of 2016

frontal region fresh in nature and simple in nature and might have been caused with a blunt object and in his cross-examination by the defence, he admitted that this injury is also possible when a person falls on a hard and rocky surface. In view of injured PW.5’s own admission that except there were misunderstandings between the accused and deceased, they did not quarrel each other at any time hence himself tried to pacify the quarrel between the accused and deceased and in the process, was being hit by accused, is also, appears not free from any suspicion.

20.As per PW.11 Dr. Samreen, Medical Ofcer, who issued

Postmortem Examination Report as under Ex.P11, having carried out autopsy over the dead body, furnished opinion basing on the Ex.P10

FSL report as cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock due to head injury. This evidence disclosing death of the deceased which is not in dispute and so also, in the cross-examination PW.11 admitted that when a person with a force was hit with stick like

MO.4, there will be causing of bloodstains to the stick and also further admitted that if any person falls on the hard and rocky surface also, the injury might be caused i.e. lacerated injury of 10x5 cm at occipital bone and its fracture. As already noted, Pws 8 and 9 did not notice any bloodstains on the stick MO.4 which ought to have been present according to the admission by PW.11 when it was used to beat a person with force. So, this is also found to be a lapse.

21.As per PW.3 K. Siddiramulu, photographer, at the request of SI of Police, he photographed the dead body of Namala Srinivas 16

SC No.82 of 2016

at Mortuary room at Government Area Hospital, Kamareddy, as under Ex.P2 and P3 which were handed over to police by him, but in the cross-examination he admitted that he did not issue any receipt to show that he received amount from the police for photographs taken by him over the dead body of Namala Srinivas. If at all photographs were taken by him, he ought to have passed the receipt towards the charges of the photos, but said receipt did not see the light of the day.

22.As per PW.7 Y. Kishan, mediator for inquest and seizure of clothes, deposed that as under Ex.P7, inquest panchanama was conducted by police over the dead body of Namala Srinivas at Area

Hospital, Kamareddy, in his presence and also in the presence of one Sangaiah and also police brought black pant from mortuary room and shown to them MO.1 black pant and MO.2 inner banyan and they were seized by the police in their presence. This evidence only showing conducting of inquest and seizure of clothes of deceased by the police.

23.As per PW.12/K. Nagaraju, frst Investigating Ofcer and SI of Police, upon lodging of report as under Ex.P1 by PW.1 at 11.00 a.m. on 16.10.2015, he registered a case and issued FIR as under

Ex.P13 and for further investigation, he handed over CD fle to

PW.13 whose evidence is that, he along with PW.12 upon receipt of

CD fle, went to the house of PW.1 at Tadwai i.e. scene of ofence and as under Ex.P5, so also, as under Ex.P6 scene of ofence panchanama and rough sketch of the scene, were conducted in the presence of PW.6 and LW.11/M. Balraju and he further went to Area 17

SC No.82 of 2016

Hospital, Kamareddy and conducted inquest over the dead body of

Namala Srinivas by securing mediators PW.7 and LW.13 as under

Ex.P7 and he collected bloodstained cut banyan and black colour pant of the deceased in the presence of mediators which are MOs 1 and 2 from the dead body of Srinivas, after conducting inquest, got photographed the dead body with PW.3 and he subjected the dead body to postmortem examination and further in pursuance of confession by the accused, in the presence of Pws 8 and 9, he seized the stick i.e. piece of door from the accused and he efected the arrest of accused and produced before the Court for judicial remand and he further submitted the seized articles to FSL through

SDPO and collected Ex.P10, so also, Ex.P12, fnal opinion of postmortem examination and he deposited MOs 1 and 2 before the

Judl. Magistrate First Class Court, Kamareddy, and his investigation revealed that accused committed the murder of Namala Srinivas, accordingly, laid charge-sheet upon completion of investigation.

24.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment reported in 2002 (6) Supreme Court Cases 81 in the case of Krishna Mochi and others Vs. State of Bihar, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that “Recovery of incriminating material from the accused cannot alone be taken as a ground to exonerate the accused from the charges, more so when their participation in the crime is unfolded in ocular account of the occurrence given by the witnesses, whose evidence has been found to be unimpeachable.”

(a) He further relied upon another judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court reported in (2002)7 Supreme Court Cases 198 in the 18

SC No.82 of 2016

case of Lakshmi and others Vs. State of U.P., it was held that “When prosecution case is established on the basis of trustworthy testimony of the eyewitnesses, non-identifcation of the deceased, non-ascertainment of cause of death and non-recovery of the crime weapons would not be fatal to the prosecution.”

But in view of the several contradictions, embellishments and interpolations are found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is found to be not cogent on material particulars and even the independent eyewitnesses not supported the prosecution case, so also, the injured. The above two rulings are found to be not applicable to the set of facts in this case.

25.The learned defence counsel for the accused relied upon the judgment reported in 2016(3) ALT (Crl.) 302 (DB) (A.P.), our own

Hon’ble High Court held that “When prosecution failed to prove the

guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled for beneft of doubt. This ruling is found to be applicable to the instant case as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt in this case in view of the adduced evidence sufered with several inconsistencies and discrepancies, which were found crept in from the witness to witness.

(a) The learned defence counsel also relied upon another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2018(1) ALT (Crl.) 397 (SC) in a case of Sudhakar @ Sudharsan Vs. State of Tamil

Nadu, the Hon’ble Apex Court at para No.22 held that “When there exists reasonable doubt in the case as the case of prosecution is un- 19

SC No.82 of 2016

supported by independent witnesses, ridden with contradictions, good motive for false prosecution and flled with suspicious circumstances and when there is not only insufciency of evidence but also lack of credibility on the trustworthiness of witnesses which culminated into disproving the prosecution case and alleged guilt of the accused. Under those circumstances, prosecution found to be failed in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing cogent evidence. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. This ruling is aptly applicable to the set of facts of the case. Hence, followed by this Court. Therefore, this Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused for the ofences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC.

Accordingly, the point is decided.

26. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the charged ofences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and he is acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused stand cancelled and MOs 1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 9th day of June, 2020.

IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KAMAREDDY.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW.1: Smt. Namala Latha -NONE- PW.2: Smt. Namala Pochavva PW.3: Sri K. Siddiramulu PW.4: Sri L. Naresh 20

SC No.82 of 2016

PW.5: Sri Namala Sailu PW.6: Sri M. Narsimlu PW.7: Sri Y. Kishan PW.8: Sri A. Shyam Rao PW.9: Sri M. Bhikshapathi PW.10: Dr. Sai Kiran, CAS, Govt. Area Hospital, Kamareddy, PW.11: Dr. Samreen, Duty Medical Ofcer, Govt. Area Hospital, Kamareddy, PW.12: Sri K. Nagaraju, IO PW.13: Sri A. Sreedhar Kumar, IO :: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

Ex.P1: Complaint. Ex.P2: Photograph of the injured. Ex.P3: Bunch of photographs of the deceased. Ex.P4: Part of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P5: Scene of ofence panchanama. Ex.P6: Rough sketch. Ex.P7:Inquest panchanama. Ex.P8: Signatue of PW.8 on confessional panchanama. Ex.P9: Medical certifcate. Ex.P10: FSL report. Ex.P11: PME report. Ex.P12: Final opinion. Ex.P13 is the FIR. M.Os. MARKED :: ::

MO.1 :Black colour pant, MO.2: White banyan. MO.3: Stick (wrongly marked as MO.4).

IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KAMAREDDY.

SC No.82 of 2016

:: CALENDAR ::

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KAMAREDDY

SC No. 82 of 2016

Between:

The State P.S. Tadwai ..Complainant

And

Namala Ramesh .. Accused

1Date of ofence/occurrence 15.10.2015 2Date of report/Complaint 16-10-2015 3Name of complainant Circle Inspector of Police, Bhiknoor 4OfencesU/S 302 and 324 of IPC 5Date of commencement of trial13-05-2016 6Date of closure of trial20-10-2017

7.Date of Judgment 09.06.2020

8.Finding of the JudgeFound not Guilty

9.Sentence or order. In the result, accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the ofences punishable under Sections 342, 324 and 302 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused stand cancelled. Unmarked non-vaulable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

10Explanation for delayNo delay after commencement of trial

IX Additional Sessions Judge Kamareddy To The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl), High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana

SC/158/2017 Acquitted

State through PS Kamareddy vs Gardas Laxmi

31 Jan 2019

Dt: 31.01.2019 1 SC.No.158/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT KAMAREDDY.

Present: Sri B.SATHAIAH,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Kamareddy.

Wednesday, the 31st day of January, 2019.

SC. No. 158 of 2017

1. Name of the Complainant :The State represented by Inspector of Police, PS Kamareddy.

2. Name of accused:A1: Smt. Gardas @ Chamanthula Laxmi, W/o Srikanth, 23 years, Caste:Padmashali,Occ: Housewife,R/oShergalli, Kamareddy. A2:Gardas @ Chanmanthula Srikanth, S/o Balaraju, 26 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Salesman in Srinivasa Garments, KMR, R/o Shergalli, Kamareddy

3. Charges:U/sec.306 r/w 34 IPC

4. Plea of the accused:Not guilty

5. Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

6. Sentence or order :Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the charges u/sec. 306 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the same u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C., and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after six months period from today. The Mo.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

7. Prosecution conducted by:Sri Mohan Rao Kulkarni, Additional Public Prosecutor.

8. Accused defended by:Sri G.Jagannatham, Advocate for accused.

This case coming before me for final hearing on this the 31st day of January, 2019 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.Jagannatham, Advocate for the accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:-

Dt: 31.01.2019 2 SC.No.158/2017

J U D G M E N T

1.PW.12 A.Sreedhar Kumar, Inspector of Police, Police Station

Kamareddy, charge sheeted the accused for the offence under Section 306

R/w 34 IPC in Cr.No.92/2017 of Police Station Kamareddy, which is subject matter in PRC.No.27/2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy.

2.The prosecution case is that: the deceased Kum. Gaddam Rajitha and the accused No.1 Smt. Gardas @ Chamanthula Laxmi’s mother houses are at Harijanwada, Kamareddy, the accused No.1 and accused No.2/Gardas @ Chamanthula Srikanth are the resident of Shergalli, Kamareddy, in the recent past prior to 2 months the PW.1/Gaddam Raja Lingam performed the engagement of his daughter/deceased Kum. Gaddam Rajitha with the resident of Vemulawada of Rajanna/Sircilla district, the both accused with jealousy decided to break the match and contacted the would be of the deceased, they defamed the deceased as a characterless woman, owing to the situation the daughter of PW.1/complainant went to the accused persons, they spoke that they do not allow her to marry her would be, due to which on 13.03.2017 at 0945 hours the deceased dejected on her life, committed suicide at Harijanawada, Kamareddy in her house by hanging to the ceiling loop.

3.On a report by PW.1 Sri Gaddam Rajalingam, the PW.12

A.Sreedhar Kumar, Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.92/2017

Under section 306 IPC, and investigated into.

Dt: 31.01.2019 3 SC.No.158/2017

4.During which, the PW.12 A.Sreedhar Kumar, Inspector of Police,

Kamareddy, examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 and immediately PW.12 rushed to the scene of offence at Harijanawada,

Kamareddy and held scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW.9-

Erralla Ravi and PW.08-Sarkeli Nagaraju and preserved the scene by means of rough sketch in crime detail form, then found the dead body of the deceased Kum.Gaddam Rajitha hung dead to the ceiling loop with her chunni, PW.12 observed the body, got photographed while hanging and after laying on the floor, noted the physical features, found mark of ligature, he held inquest in the presence of PW.09-Gurjala Raju, LW.12-Gulal Raju and

PW.10-Kothuru Narsavva, from 1300 to 1500 hours and also examined and recorded the statement of PW.2 to PW.5 by names Smt. Gaddam Laxmi, Kum.

Gaddam Meena, Smt. Gaddam Kalpana and Smt. Kunthati Yellavva respectively, the PW.12 subjected the corpse to Area Hospital, Kamareddy for postmortem examination with a requisition to PW.11-Dr.Hima Bindu, Civil

Assistant Surgeon to conduct autopsy over the dead body, accordingly PW.11 held autopsy and furnished DPME report opining the cause of death as asphyxia due to hanging, the dead body was handed over to the blood relatives for final rites.

5.Further, the PW.12 recorded the independent witnesses PW.6-

Smt. Gajawda Sulochana and PW.7-Smt. Mangali Kousalya. On 15.03.2017 at 1200 hours the PW.12 along with force rushed to Shergalli, Kamareddy and apprehended the accused No.1 and 2 at their residence, on interrogation they confessed the guilt, and brought them to police station and effected their arrest and produced them before the court for judicial remand, on 16.03.2017 PW.12 examined and recorded the statement of photographer-

Dt: 31.01.2019 4 SC.No.158/2017

LW.8-Kummari Rajashekar, who photographed the deceased, the case property was deposited before the Court, which was given to the police for safe custody and after completion of investigation the PW.12 A.Sreedhar

Kumar, Inspector of Police, laid charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence U/Sec.306 R/w 34 IPC.

6.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, committed the case in P.R.C.No.27 of 2017 (Crime No.92 of 2017 of PS.

Kamareddy) to the Court of Sessions, Nizamabad and the Hon’ble Prl.

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, took the case on file for the offence U/Sec. 306

r/w 34 IPC and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

7.After appearance of the accused No.1 and 2 the charge under section 306 r/w 34 IPC was framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu, who having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined (12) witnesses and got marked documents, PW.1 Gaddam Raja Lingam, is the complainant and father of the deceased, PW.2 Smt. Gaddam Laxmi, is the witness/mother of deceased, PW.3 Kum. Gaddam Meena, is the witness/sister of deceased, PW.4 Smt. Gaddam Kalpana, is the witness and sister of deceased, PW.5

Smt. Kunthati Yellavva, is the independent witness, PW.6 Smt. Gajawada Sulochana, is the independent witness, PW.7 Smt. Mangali Kousalya, is the independent witness, PW.8 Sarkeli Nagaraju, is the panch witness for scene of offence, PW.9

Gurjal Raju, is the panch witness for inquest, PW.10 Kothuru Narsavva, is the panch witness for inquest, PW.11 Dr. B.Hima Bindu, is the medical officer, who held autopsy and PW.12 A.Sreedhar Kumar, Inspector of police/investigating officer.

Dt: 31.01.2019 5 SC.No.158/2017

Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW.1, Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.5, Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6, Ex.P4 is the 161

Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7, Ex.P5 is the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P6 is the inquest panchanama, Ex.P7 is the postmortem examination report, Ex.P8 is the first information report, Ex.P9 is the 8 photos with compact disc and MO.1: Chunni seized by PW.12.

9.After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused No.1 and 2 is done under section 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence appeared against them, the accused No.1 and 2 denied the same and they reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

10.Heard both sides.

11.Now the point for consideration is,

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 for the charge Under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:-

12.PW.1 Gaddam Rajalingam and father of the deceased Rajitha deposed that deceased Rajitha was his elder daughter died on 13.03.2017 by way of hanging herself in their house and she was divorcee, however again they got match for second marriage of his daughter Rajitha with one person by name Sanjeev from Vemulawada and also betrothal ceremony was took place at their house, but the accused who are their neighbours over phone informed his daughter Rajitha’s fiance Sanjeev that Rajitha was not with good character and having some affairs with some persons, upon such information said Sanjeev refused to marry his daughter Rajitha and even stated the same to his daughter and his daughter informed the same to him

Dt: 31.01.2019 6 SC.No.158/2017

and he further deposed that on 12.03.2017 his daughter Rajitha went to accused house and asked them about their phone call to Sanjeev and on information about her character to said Sanjeev, upon which the accused abused his daughter in filthy language and even stated to her to commit suicide, due to humiliation by the accused his daughter committed suicide on the next day by hanging to hook of lintel with chunni in their house and later he went to Police Station Kamareddy and lodged report as under Ex.P1 with police by putting his signature and police examined him and recorded his statement.

13. PW.2 Gaddam Laxmi, wife of PW.1 also deposed like that of

PW.1 that accused over phone informed Sanjeev, the fiance of her daughter

Rajitha that her daughter was not keeping good character and having affairs with some persons, upon which Sanjeev refused to marry her daughter and even told the same to her daughter over phone, upon that her daughter

Rajitha and herself went to accused house and questioned their phone call to

Sanjeev about character of Rajitha, upon which accused asked and challenged her daughter to commit suicide and due to torture by the accused and also due to refusal of marriage by Sanjeev, her daughter depressed and committed suicide by hanging to hook of lintel with chunni in their house, police examined her and recorded her statement.

14.Both PW.1 and PW.2 parents of deceased Rajitha revealed about both the accused being their neibours over phone informing Sanjeev fiance of deceased Rajitha projecting her to be without good character and further having affairs with some other people, due to which said Sanjeev refused to marry their daughter and they further revealed that their daughter was divorcee, but in the cross examination of PW.1 he admitted that he does not

Dt: 31.01.2019 7 SC.No.158/2017

remember name of his daughter Rajitha’s first husband with whom divorce through Court took place to his daughter, muchless the said divorce decree was not handed over to police, so as to show that there took place divorce through court between Rajitha and her first husband and even PW.1 denied a suggestion that her daughter Rajitha first husband name as Balaswamy, but

PW.2 admitted that her daughter first husband name is Balaswamy. So in this regard there is very much contradiction from the versions of PW.1 to

PW.2, even regarding their own son-in-law’s name being parents apart from that no divorce decree is filed to show, ever taking place of divorce through

Court between their daughter Rjitha and their first son-in-law, so also both

PW.1 and PW.2 in their cross examination admitted that both the accused are not belonging to their caste but of different caste and also both of them except stating that accused abused their daughter in filthy language when she went to accused house and questioned their phone call to her fiance

Sanjeev, no specific abusive words are as uttered by the accused on deceased Rajitha are mentioned by both PW.1 and PW.2, so as to cause humiliation to deceased Rajitha prompting her to commit suicide out of such humiliation.

15.Inasmuch as the mere mentioning of abusing by the accused cannot be of much help in the absence of specific abusive words as ever made by the accused on the deceased Rajitha, which in the back drop of there being no relationship between accused and deceased Rajitha as admitted to be representing different castes, appears to be very important aspect and there was no need for accused to project the Rajitha as with bad character as they are no way related to the deceased family except being neighbours. Inasmuch as there is no motive for the accused as established

Dt: 31.01.2019 8 SC.No.158/2017

by the prosecution, for indulging such act of character assassination of

Rajitha as both PW.1 and PW.2 did not reveal any reason for such alleged character assassination as done by the accused, so also to be noted that as per the PW.2 she too accompanied her daughter Rajitha to the accused house, but the same is not revealed by the PW.1 at all, hence as deceased alone went to the house of accused or with her mother PW.2 is also not clear.

16.Likewise, PW.3 and PW.4 Meena and G.Kalpana respectively, also daughters of PW.1 and PW.2 and sisters of deceased Rajitha in their evidence revealed about the accused phoning to Sanjeev and telling about their sister with bad character and becoming responsible for break up of proposed marriage between their sister and Sanjeev that finally lead to commit suicide by their sister Rajitha, but in the cross examination PW.3 admitted that her late sister Rajitha and accused are friends and further admitted that there was no refusal by the Sanjeev for marrying her sister Rajitha after phone call to Sanjeev by the accused and also admitted that her sister Rajitha did not left any suicide note showing the accused as responsible for suicide, all these admissions by PW.3 who is no other than the own sister of deceased

Rajitha, clearly showing no animosity between deceased Rajitha and accused, instead there was friendship between them, if at all deceased

Rajitha committed suicide due to alleged humiliation by the accused, also there could have been any suicide note so as to fix any liability on accused, but nothing such suicide note was left over by the deceased Rajitha, which gains importance in view of admissions by PW.3 that even after phone call by the accused to Sanjeev, the Sanjeev not refused to marry her sister Rajitha, thus any intensity of allegation that due to alleged phone call by the accused

Dt: 31.01.2019 9 SC.No.158/2017

to the Sanjeev, caused break up of her marriage and prompted to commit suicide by Rajitha is significant lapse.

17.Further more PW.4 another sister of late Rajitha, in her cross examination admitted that her late sister Rajitha and accused are friends and there were no disputes between them before death of her sister Rajitha, this admission also not in support of the prosecution case, but running against it and in one way or other no motive is attributable for the accused so as to presume that they indulged in the alleged character assassination.

Further more PW.4 admitted in her cross examination that her sister Rajitha fiance Sanjeev only questioned her sister about her sister divorce with

Balaswamy and suppressing the same from revealing to him, upon that only her sister felt insulted and fed up with life and committed suicide, this in other words excluding the alleged character assassination of Rajitha by the accused as only when Sanjeev questioned Rajitha about not revealing the divorce with Balaswamy, Rajitha felt insulted and committed suicide, this admission is quite against the case of the prosecution. So it is clear that several contradictions and embellishments are found in the versions of PW.1 to PW.4 who are no other than the one family members and related to deceased Rajitha.

18.While this is so the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution as PW.5 to PW.7 by name K.Yellavva, G.Sulochana, M.Kowsalya, all of them not supported the prosecution case, as only stated that they do not know for what reasons Rajitha committed suicide and all of them are neighbours of deceased Rajitha, yet none of them revealed anything against the accused herein as responsible for, in any way for the alleged offence and all of them also stated that they were not examined by the police at all nor

Dt: 31.01.2019 10 SC.No.158/2017

their statements were recorded and when cross examined by the prosecution after declared hostile all of them denied to have stated as in Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 their respective statements and further denied a suggestion that due to compromise with the accused they are deposing false, as such evidence of independent witnesses is lacking in this case, added to the fact that even versions of PW.1 to PW.4 suffered several inconsistencies, even with regard to accused involvement in the alleged offence, that apart PW.12 A.Sreedhar

Kumar, investigating officer in his cross examination admitted that no divorce decree was furnished to him by PW.1 pertaining to deceased first marriage and he did not collect any phone call data of deceased or accused and also admitted that witnesses in their statements did not state about phone calls said to be exchanged between accused and deceased’s fiance

Sanjeev, these admissions are also spelling out any amount of ambiguity, whether any phone calls ever made by the accused to Sanjeev or not, as no phone calls data is collected nor filed before this Court, which alleged to be the crux of the offence, even then it is admission of investigating officer that no witness stated about the exchange of phone calls between accused and

Rajitha’s fiance Sanjeev, as such, in this aspect the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 is only the improvement, even then also not supported with any calls data.

Further more it is admission by investigating officer that he did not record the statement of Sanjeev at all, this also is material lapse in this case and in case of statement was recorded it could have been made known whether accused made any phone call to him or not and touching upon the bad character of deceased Rajitha or not. So also admittedly there was delay of 29 hours in lodging the report with police by PW.1, which is also never explained and it is also admitted that column No.14 in Ex.P8 first information report it was kept blank and signature of complainant was not obtained at

Dt: 31.01.2019 11 SC.No.158/2017

all, which is also appears to be material in view of the evidence of PW.1 that he is illiterate and only learnt putting his signature and his signature was required to be obtained on column No.14 of Ex.P8.

19.Rest of the evidence is that of PW.8, PW.9 and PW.10 who are mediators of scene of offence and inquest and by names S.Nagaraju, G.Raju and K.Narsavva, as per PW.8 as under Ex.P5 scene of offence panchanama was conducted at the place of offence by police and he put his signature and as per PW.9 and PW.10 police conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased Rajitha at Government Area Hospital, Kamareddy as under

Ex.P6, which bears their signatures, this evidence very much shows conducting of panchanama by the police, so also the evidence of PW.11

B.Himabindu, Medical Officer is that as under Ex.P7, she issued Postmortem examination report after conducting postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased Rajitha on 13.03.2017 upon requisition by the police with an opinion that deceased died by hanging due to asphyxia it only shows the version of death of deceased by way of hanging, which is not in dispute and conducting of inquest panchanama and scene of offence panchanama were also not going to improve the prosecution case, so also Ex.P8 is the first information report marked through the evidence of PW.12 Ex.P9 is the photos with compact disc, and MO.1 Chunni are got marked in the evidence of

PW.12 investigating officer, who also deposed that PW.5 to PW.7 stated to him as in Ex.P2 to Ex.P4, but as already noted PW.5 to PW.7 denied to have stated as in Ex.P2 to Ex.P4.

20.The counsel for the accused also relied upon a judgment reported in AIR 2010 SC 327 in a case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v.

State of Andhra Pradesh, it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that some

Dt: 31.01.2019 12 SC.No.158/2017

positive act by accused is essential to constitute abetment, which involves mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding person to do certain thing. In another case reported in AIR 2010 SC 512 in a case of

Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, it was held by the

Hon’ble Apex Court that accused are entitled for acquittal, when there was

no direct evidence to show that accused had by their acts instigated deceased to commit suicide, these rulings squarely applicable to facts of this case, hence followed by this Court.

21.For proving an offence under Section 306 read with 34 IPC, who ever abets the commission of suicide is to be established, but here in this case no such abetment as caused by the accused for prompting the deceased to commit suicide is established beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as many inconsistencies are found in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 itself, apart from not being supported by the independent witnesses and even the motive for the offence also not established by the prosecution and even the alleged call data is not being collected, so as to show exchange of phone calls between accused and Sanjeev and even the statement of

Sanjeev not been recorded by the investigating officer.

22.Therefore, this court came to conclusion that prosecution failed to prove its case against both the accused for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, hence both the accused found not guilty for the offence under section 306 R/w 34 IPC and they are liable to be acquitted. Point answered accordingly.

Dt: 31.01.2019 13 SC.No.158/2017

23.In the result, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the same under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., and the bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months period from today. The Mo.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of January, 2019.

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KAMAREDDY.

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW.1: Gaddam Raja Lingam, is the - None - complainant and father of the deceased, PW.2: Smt. Gaddam Laxmi, is the witness/mother of deceased, PW.3: Kum. Gaddam Meena, is the witness/sister of deceased, PW.4: Smt. Gaddam Kalpana, is the witness and sister of deceased, PW.5: Smt. Kunthati Yellavva, is the independent witness, PW.6: Smt. Gajawada Sulochana, is the independent witness, PW.7: Smt. Mangali Kousalya, is the independent witness, PW.8: Sarkeli Nagaraju, is the panch witness for scene of offence, PW.9: Gurjal Raju, is the panch witness for inquest, PW.10: Kothuru Narsavva, is the panch witness for inquest, PW.11: Dr. B.Hima Bindu, is the medical officer, who held autopsy PW.12: A.Sreedhar Kumar, Inspector of police/investigating officer.

Dt: 31.01.2019 14 SC.No.158/2017

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Report lodged by PW.1, - Nil - Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5, Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6, Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7, Ex.P5: Scene of offence panchanama by Pw.8, Ex.P6: Inquest panchanama by PW.9, Ex.P7: Postmortem examination report by Pw.11, Ex.P8: First information report by Pw.12, Ex.P9: 8 photos with compact disc by Pw.12,

:: SMOs marked ::

MO.1: Chunni by Pw.12.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

KAMAREDDY.

CRLA/13/2019 Acquitted

D.Krishna vs Chinthala Gopi

15 Jun 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KAMAREDDY

Present: Sri B. SATHAIAH,

IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

Dated this the 15 th day of June, 2020

Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2019

From what court Appeal is Judl. Magistrate of First Class, preferred. Kamareddy

Number of the case in that C. C. No. 100 of 2013 court. Name and description of the D. Krishna S/o D. Gopal, age: 48 appellant/accused:years, Occ: Police Ofcer, present workingVRSiddipet Commissionarate, Telangana.

Name of the Chinthala Gopi S/o Anjaiah, age 43 respondent/complainant years, Occ: Legal Practitioner, R/o H.No.2-9-7/B, Old Gadi road, Kamareddy town, Mandal & District.

The sentence and law underAppellant/Accused is found guilty of which it was imposed in thethe ofences punishable under Lower Court.Section 323, 347 and 506 IPC and the accused is convicted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for each of the ofence u/s 323, 347 and 506 IPC and to pay a fne amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fne amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Whether confrmed, modifedReversed or reversed.

This appeal is coming on before me for fnal hearing on 08.06.2020 in the presence of M/s A.G. Arvind Reddy, A. Sanjeev Reddy, A. Govind Reddy, Advocates for appellant and Sri V. Amrutha Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for State and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following :

2/Crl.A 13-2019

J U D G M E N T

The appellant/accused D. Krishna S/o Gopal felt aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him by the

Trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, in CC No.

100 of 2013 where under the sentence to sufer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for each of the ofence u/s 323, 347 and 506 IPC and to pay a fne amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fne amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, impugned the same in this appeal.

2. The grounds of appeal are that against the established norms and principles and in disregard of legal provisions and contrary to law, the trial Court passed the judgment basing on the assumptions and presumptions and without properly appreciating the evidence on record. Hence, to rectify it, the indulgence of this Court in this appeal is necessary and though at page No.26 of the judgment and though was observed that there were certain contradictions in the evidence of complainant and his witnesses and they were found to be of minor and not afected the main case. But, once contradiction is found, the onus and burden shifts to the complainant to prove the fact but it was ignored by the trial Court and though the complainant approached the Court by way of fling complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C., failed to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant/accused ought to have been acquitted by the Trial Court, but on the contrary, he was convicted for the alleged ofences u/ss 323, 347 and 506 IPC.

3. Further grounds are that without properly appreciating the documentary evidence which did not establish ownership and 3/Crl.A 13-2019 possession of the complainant over the disputed land, yet the trial

Court believed the story of the complainant and came to erroneous conclusion of the case and by ignoring the proper appreciation of

Ex.P6 and Ex.D1 and much reliance was placed on the oral testimonies of the witnesses of complainant though they are interested witnesses as belonging to one family and professional colleagues. As a matter of fact, the alleged incident of roughing up and beating of complainant i.e. PW.1, was taken place at Police

Station, Kamareddy, for which, the appellant/accused was Station

House Ofcer of it and was discharging his ofcial duties and thus, the very case was hit by Sec.197 Cr.P.C. and ought not to have taken cognizance of the ofences by the trial Court for want of sanction of

Government as mandatory u/s 197 Cr.P.C. which was sine-qua-non for proceeding against the public servants when any allegation against such public servants were attributed or made while discharging ofcial duties by such public servants.

4.The complainant who was examined as PW.1, failed to name any realtor or realtors who said to have encroached or interfered with the lands of PW.1. Hence, the appellant/accused allegedly colluded with such alleged realtor for want of mentioning of names, does not arise at all. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.

5.During the course of hearing of the appeal, and with due permission from this Court, the appellant/accused vide orders passed in Crl.MP No.20/2020 dt. 11.2.2020, allowed to produce further evidence on his behalf, by virtue of which, he himself is examined as

DW.1 and in his evidence got marked Ex.D2 which is the report of 4/Crl.A 13-2019

Departmental Enquiry conducted by DSP V. Manohar with regard to allegations against the appellant/accused made by Ch.

Gopi/complainant/PW.1 and said report was submitted before the

Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad, wherein clean chit was given to appellant/accused holding the allegations levelled against him were found to be baseless.

6.A perusal of Ex.D2 quite disclosing the very same fact that the appellant/accused did not commit any ofence and as a matter of fact, due to land disputes, there were two groups which lodged petitions and counter petitions before the Police against each other but being advocate and journalist, PW.1 managed to motivate the local advocates and journalists who gave Bandh call on 1.4.2013 and stalled the commercial activities for two hours from 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. and as a matter of fact, the complainant/PW.1 was accused in assaulting Tractor driver belonging to SC community and obstructed the SHO, PS Kamareddy, i.e. appellant/accused herein while discharging his duties and he was neither beaten by SHO,

Kamareddy, nor abused in any manner on the alleged date of incident i.e. 30.3.2013 when he went to lodge a report at the Police Station against the alleged fxing of boundaries by the realtors in his land.

7. The appellant/accused relied upon more on Ex.D2, apart from that Ex.D1 which is statement of Dr. M. Saritha, CAS, Area Hospital,

Kamareddy, recorded by Smt. Padmaja, Addl. Superintendent of

Police, (Admn.), Nizamabad, dt. 16.4.2013 in which it was mentioned that on 30.3.2013 PW.1/Ch. Gopi was said to have been beaten up by the known people at about 4.00 p.m., regarding land disputes nearby

Frobles School, Kamareddy, outskirts, as she examined PW.1 vide OP 5/Crl.A 13-2019

No. 4153 being CAS then, and she issued Ex.P6 case-sheet as she treated the patient Ch. Gopi/PW.1 in which also it was mentioned that

Ch. Gopi alleged to have been beaten by known person at about 4.00 p.m. on 30.3.2013 and by virtue of Ex.P6 and Ex.D1 and D2, it is crystal clear that the appellant/accused did not commit the alleged ofences for which he was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as very saying is that PW.1 was beaten up by known persons as is evident under Ex.D1 and Ex.P6, the same is making the allegations against the appellant/accused that he beat and abused PW.1 in the police station premises when PW.1 came to lodge a report against the realtors as suspicious.

8.As per Ex.P1, which is the original complaint lodged by PW.1

before the Court u/s 200 Cr.P.C. disclosing that the appellant/accused

herein when PW.1 entered his chamber, door was closed by the accused and snatched the cellphone of PW.1 and gave fst blows on the cheeks of PW.1 and abused by saying that “EMIRAA NEEVU

ADVOCATE AITHE ENDIRAA, MEE BHOOMI AMMANANNAVATA,

KANEESAM RODDU KUDA IVVAVATA, ATU SIDE PEDDA PEDDOLU

UNNARU, NENU NEE MEEDA MEE KUTUMBAMU ANDARI MEEDA

KESULU PEDITHE JAIL NUNCHI BAYATAKU RARU, SETTLE CHESUKO.” and it is alleged that by taking side of the realtors, the appellant/accused in support of them pressurized PW.1 along with his brothers i.e. Pws 2 and 3. But, as already noted, no name of any realtors is got mentioned by PW.1 in Ex.P1 or in his evidence before the Court except stating that at about 5.30 p.m. on 30.03.2013 the

Real Estate Owners intentionally placed stones into their land boundary and in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not mention the total number of persons and their particulars who tried to 6/Crl.A 13-2019 encroach into their property and he did not mention the venture’s name. In the absence of not mentioning the names of any particular realtor or realtors said to have encroached the land of PW.1 and his brothers, it is imaginary to presume that the appellant/accused had colluded with Real Estate people for fxing any specifc liability, having made such allegation that appellant/accused colluded with realtors their names ought to have been found place or revealed by PW.1, but it did not occur anywhere right from the lodging of complaint and while deposing before the Court which is a major blow to the case of prosecution, when that is so, by taking side of the realtors, the appellant/accused beating up PW.1 and his brothers inside the police station premises when they visited it to lodge the report, is also of without any ambiguity inasmuch as, as already noted except the brothers and interested witnesses, no independent witness is examined in this case on behalf of prosecution. Even as per Ex.P1, the SI of Police Sangameshwar was present at the Police Station in the frst instance at about 6.30 p.m. when Pws 1 to 3 went to Police

Station, by which time, the SHO, who is the appellant/accused herein was not available at the Police Station, due to which, PW.1 left the

Station only to go back again at 7.00 p.m. and only to be beaten up by the appellant/accused inside the chambers. But, to elicit this, the said SI of Police Sangameshwar neither being summoned nor examined on behalf of prosecution which ought to have done it in order to establish its case and to rule out any ambiguity about the absence of appellant/accused at the Police Station in the frst instance. Even presuming that SI of Police is subordinate to the appellant/accused, who was the SHO in the cadre of CI of Police, at least lodging of complaint by Pws 1 to 3 at 6.30 p.m. at the Police

Station with SI of Police, could have been revealed inasmuch as the 7/Crl.A 13-2019 allegation that there was inaction on the part of police in not registering the case at the threshold, necessitating and driving the

PW.1 to lodge this complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court.

9.Likewise, as per Ex.P1 Pws 1 to 3 owning the land to an extent of Ac.8-00 gts., in Sy.No.873/2 and 874 and relied upon Ex.P2,

Adangal Pahani for the year 2006-07 and Ex.P3 also pahani for the year 2009-10, so also, Ex.P4 pahani dt. 17.4.2013 issued by VRO,

Kamareddy. Their perusal disclosing as per Ex.P2 that for Sy.No.874 one Venkata Chary was shown as pattedar and possessor of the land extent Ac.0-10 gts., So in what way this Venkata Chary related to

Pws 1 to 3 nowhere came-forth and this entry not showing any ownership of said land by Pws 1 to 3 and in fact, they are unconcerned with the land of Ac.0-10 gts., in Sy.No.874. As per

Ex.P3, the Sy.No.873/2 extent Ac.0-39 gts., is shown to be held by one Chintala Balraju as its owner and possessor. In this regard also, there is no material to presume that Pws 1 to 3 as owners of this land or existence of any relationship between them and one Chintala

Balraju. That too only for extent of Ac.0-30 gts., which is also same as per Ex.P4 as it is also disclosing that one Chintala Balraju as pattedar and possessor of Ac.0-39 gts., in Sy.No.873/2. Thus, the claim of PW.1 that along with his cousin brothers i.e. Pws 2 and 3 they are owning extent of Ac.8-00 gts., of land in Sy.No.873/2 and 874 appears to be not correct and by virtue of Ex.P2 to P4 coupled with due to non-fling of pattedar passbook and title deed, no ownership of any land, much less, Ac.8-00 gts., of land as held by PW.1 and his cousin brothers Pws 2 and 3, is found to be not established at all.

When that is so, the realtors putting the stones by encroaching into the land of Pws 1 to 3 and pressurizing them for selling their land to 8/Crl.A 13-2019 them and in the said bid, the appellant/accused taking side of realtors, all appears to be a cooked up story for want of specifc material in that regard i.e. non-mentioning of names of realtors and non-fling of land ownership documents, much contributed to presume the case of prosecution with full of ambiguity, also in view of the fact that as already noted Ex.D1 and D2 clearly found to be against the case of prosecution.

10. It is be noted that as per Ex.D1, PW.1 was at about 4.00 p.m. on 30.3.2013 regarding the land dispute, was beaten up by some known people at Frobles School in the outskirts of Kamareddy. So, this statement given by Dr. M. Saritha, who treated PW.1 at Area Hospital,

Kamareddy, being CAS and was recorded by Smt. Padmaja, Addl.

Superintendent of Police (Admn.), Nizamabad, making it false that

PW.1 was beaten up by the appellant/accused in his chamber at

Police Station; the same is also got mentioned in Ex.P6 case-sheet of

PW.1. Thereby Ex.D1 and Ex.P6 together showing that PW.1 was beaten up at about 4.00 p.m. by known people, which is going to root of the case of prosecution, according to which, PW.1 was beaten up by the appellant/accused in the police station. That apart, Ex.D1 and

Ex.P6 also disclosing that PW.1 without any information, left the

Hospital at about 8.00 a.m. on 2.4.2013. This is also a material discrepancy in the case of prosecution as there was no need for PW.1 for abruptly leaving the Hospital while undergoing treatment and he was required to wait till his discharge by the Hospital authorities, what made him to leave the Hospital, is not been explained properly.

11.It is also to be noted that, though the lower Court observed at page No.21 of judgment that “since the dates of Ex.P6 are diferent, it 9/Crl.A 13-2019 cannot be relied upon” and when it is discarded, PW.1 sufering injuries and availing treatment for such injuries, has also become unacceptable, yet the Lower Court even by ignoring Ex.P6, convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced him. So also, at page No.20 of its judgment, the lower Court observed that “Ex.D1 since it is the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and it is a xerox copy, it would not be useful and has no evidentiary value.” But, once it was marked, it cannot be brushed aside, that has to be looked into for its contents.

Inasmuch as PW.6 in her cross-examination by the defence, clearly admitted that her statement was recorded by the Addl.

Superintendent of Police Padmaja as under Ex.D1 on 16.4.2013.

12.PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that Ex.P5 photo does not contain his face to show that he only sufered injuries. So also, no photo is containing date and year as under Ex.P5. This admission by

PW.1 is also found to be against the case of prosecution. It is also to be noted that as per PW.4, PW.1 told him that his brothers received injuries at the disputed land. This is also falsifying PW.1’s brothers sufering injuries at the Police Station and in the hands of the appellant/accused. That apart, there was delay of 9 days in lodging the complaint before the Court on 9.4.2013 as against the alleged date of ofence on 30.03.2013 and this delay is also going against the case of prosecution for want of its proper explanation and also it did not came-forth whether any civil case was fled or not against the land encroachers i.e. realtors as it is the civil nature dispute.

13.During pendency of appeal, it is represented across the Bench that no more grievance is there for PW.1, who already settled the terms with the appellant/accused and came to understanding. Though 10Crl.A 13-2019 this cannot have any bearing on the disposal of the appeal, as a subsequent development can be considered in view of arriving of compromise by PW.1 and the appellant/accused outside the Court as both of them, so also, their Counsels orally represented the same

before the Court and further revealed out of such compromise case

against PW.1 registered u/s SC/ST (PoA) Act, was ended in acquittal.

Thus, it indicates both parties had arrived at mutual settlement to resolve their disputes and grievance.

13.Further more, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused relied upon the judgment reported in (2015) 12 Supreme Court Cases 231 in the case of D.T. Virupakshappa Vs. C. Subhash; at para No.7 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “If the protection given u/s 197

Cr.P.C. is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for ofences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants. The policy of the Legislature is to aford adequate protection to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in the discharge of their ofcial duties without reasonable cause, and if in doing his ofcial duty, public servants acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the ofcial duty, the excess will not be a sufcient ground to deprive the public servant of the protection.”

The above ruling is clearly applicable to set of facts in this case as it is not even the case of prosecution that the appellant/accused deviating from his original stream, committed the ofence but the place of alleged ofence was police station premises itself where the appellant/accused was supposed to be discharging and purported to 11Crl.A 13-2019 discharge his ofcial duties. Thus, case is hit by Sec.197 Cr.P.C. as taking cognizance of ofence by the lower Court itself is hit by

Sec.197 Cr.P.C. and the observation by the lower Court that appellant/accused exceeded his limits and beyond his powers, is of no avail so as to undo Sec.197 Cr.P.C. in view of ruling by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court that public servant acted in excess of his duty, but when there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the ofcial duty, the excess will not be a sufcient ground to deprive the public servant of the protection available u/s 197 Cr.P.C. and it was further held that the ofcial act can be performed both in the discharge of ofcial duty as well as in dereliction of duty and act must fall within the scope and range of the ofcial duties of the public servant concerned.

14. Even otherwise also, as already noted, the ownership of land by

Pws 1 to 3 as claimed by them is not been established at the cost of repetition, it may be noted that the appellant/accused roughing up

Pws 1 to 3 inside the Police Station believing them to be owners of land and by taking side of the realtors and by pressurizing Pws 1 to 3 to sell away the land to the alleged realtors, is viewed without any merits and appears to be a cooked up story. Therefore, this Court is of opinion that the conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court against the appellant/accused is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside, hence it is set aside.

15.IN THE RESULT, the criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment and the conviction and sentence of imprisonment including payment of fne amount passed therein in CC No. 100 of 2013 dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 12Crl.A 13-2019

Kamareddy are hereby set aside and the accused is found not guilty of the ofences punishable under section 323, 347 and 506 IPC and accordingly the accused is acquitted and the bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. The fne amount already paid by the accused shall be refunded to the accused after the expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of June,

2020.

IX Additional Sessions Judge Kamareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Appellant/Accused Respondent/Complainant

DW.1: Sri D. Krishna None

Documents marked

Ex.D2: Report of Departmental enquiry conducted by DSP dt. 31.3.2013 Nil

IX Additional Sessions Judge Kamareddy

CRLA/18/2020 Acquitted

Dandla Babu @ Babu Balaji Gaikwad vs State through PS Kamareddy

08 Apr 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KAMAREDDY

Present: Sri B. SATHAIAH,

IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

Dated this the 8 th day of April, 2021

Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2020

From what court Appeal is Assistant Sessions Judge, Kamareddy preferred. Number of the case in that SC No. 158 of 2019 court. Name and description of the Dandla Babu @ Babu Balaji Gaikwad appellant/accused No.2:S/o Balaji, age: 35 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ: Lorry driver, R/o Mahalaxminagar,Vaagugadda, Manikbandar shivar, Makloor Mandal, Nizamabad district, native of Khanapur pata, Degloor Taluq, Nanded District, Maharashtra State.

Name of the The State through Circle Inspector of respondent/complainant Police, Kamareddy, represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Kamareddy.

The sentence and law underAppellant/Accused No.2 is found which it was imposed in theguilty of the ofence punishable Lower Court.under Section 397 IPC and the accused is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of SEVEN YEARS. The remand period of the accused from 20.11.2018 to 20.01.2019 (93) days and from 9.8.2019 to 26.6.2020 (323) days; total (416) days shall be set of as prescribed u/s 428 Cr.P.C.

Whether confrmed, modifedReversed or reversed.

This appeal is coming on before me for fnal hearing on 31.03.2021 in the presence of M/s K. Sheshu & T. Suresh, Advocates for appellant/accused No.2 and Sri Nanda Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor for State and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The appellant/Accused No.2 herein fled this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure praying this

Court to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed 2 of 10Crl.A 18 of 2020 against him by the Trial Court i.e. the Asst. Session Judge, Kamareddy in Sessions Case No. 158 of 2019, wherein the appellant/Accused

No.2 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of (7) years for the ofence punishable under Section 397 I.P.C. and as against the conviction period, the remand period in all 416 days was ordered to be set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

2.The said conviction and sentence is challenged in this appeal on the ground that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and material available on record in proper prospective, on account of which miscarriage of justice was occasioned to him and the Trial

Court erred in believing the evidence of PW-1, who categorically stated that six persons beat him from backside and there was no medical evidence with regard to PW-1 availing treatment that too for a period of three months. Further PW-2 categorically stated that she can not identify the persons who beat PW-1 and also the persons who snatched away ornament from her and even the prosecution failed to recover the alleged rolled gold chain allegedly snatched away from

PW-2.

3.It is further submitted that the suspects during the conducting of Test Identifcation Parade, the appellant/Accused No.2 categorically stated that photos were shown to the witnesses i.e. PW.1 and 2 while he was in police station. Moreover, PW-1 not mentioned the injuries received by him in the alleged incident in the complaint lodged with the police and also the doctor, who said to have treated PW-1, is not shown as witness at all in the charge sheet. So also the prosecution did not recover any deadly weapon used in the commission of ofence allegedly by the accused that itself is not attracting the ofence under

Section 397 IPC at all against the accused as seizure and exhibition of 3 of 10Crl.A 18 of 2020 deadly weapon allegedly used in the commission of ofence is requisite ingredient to bring home the ofence under Section 397 IPC, apart from that nothing has been recovered from the appellant/Accused No.2 to expose him with the alleged ofence of dacoity and also the Trial Court though observed that there was fault in investigation with regard to the seizure of material objects and not seizing of crime weapon etc, yet the Lower Court convicted the accused/Appellant No.2 against whom only, the Trial was conducted as he was the undertrial prisoner and rest of the Accused i.e. Accused

Nos.1 and 3 , NBWs were pending and the Accused Nos.4 and 5 were absconding and, therefore fnally, it is the plea of the appellant/Accused No.2 to allow this appeal as prayed for by setting aside the judgment and conviction and sentence passed against him.

4.The prosecution case is that PW-1 was working under one builder namely Anil Kumar as watchman at Jayashankar colony,

Kamareddy and that on 21.8.2018 during the intervening night at 1.20 am , PW-1 heard sound at gate and he woke up and found some unknown persons at gate and enquired about their presence at there, who replied that they were gurkhas, upon such reply, PW-1 got suspicion, hence came out from the house, upon that one person pushed him from back side, as a result he fell down and four others came out assaulted him with sticks and hands and by showing knives.

He raised alarm and hue and cry, at the same time PW-2/Smt. Ollepu

Sayavva who is also watchman at newly under construction house woke up and rushed to the spot and one of the ofenders snatched her rolled gold chain from her neck, upon that PW-2 also raised hue and cry and due to which the ofenders fed away from the spot and

PW-1 made phone call to his friend Jakkula Sandeep (PW-3), who 4 of 10Crl.A 18 of 2020 came to the spot along with the police and they shifted him to the

Government Area Hospital, Kamareddy for treatment and the ofenders while absconding, they took away the mobile phone marked as M.O.1 worth Rs.7,000/-.

5.PW-8/A. Sreedhar Kumar, Inspector of Police received information about the ofence on 22.8.2018, hence he deputed PW- 12/M. Satya Narayana, Head Constable, who proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW-1 and handover the same to PW-8, hence the case was registered. Basing on such statement of

PW-1 by PW-8, in Crime No. 283/2019 for the ofence punishable under Section 397 IPC and FIR was issued as under Ex./P7 and after due investigation charge sheet was laid against the Accused Nos.1 to 3 and also prayed to fle supplementary charge sheet against the

Accused No.4 and 5 by name Shambu and Chandu Ramdas Mohithe respectively.

6.On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence i.e. the evidence of Pws.1 to 12 and Exs.P1 to P10 and M.O.1 which is the evidence adduced by the prosecution on its behalf to bring home the guilt of the accused and the Trial Court found the appellant/Accused

No.2 guilty and convicted him under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C for the ofence as mentioned above.

7.The main say of the counsel for the appellant/Accused No.2 is that when the Trial Court wholly erred in passing judgment and failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and there were many inconsistencies and discrepancies and even the prosecution not got marked seized weapon of ofence, so also the stolen rolled gold chain of PW-2 in this case and as a matter of fact, nothing was recovered 5 of 10Crl.A 18 of 2020 from the appellant/Accused No.2, who is having four daughters and rearing them along with his aged parents and on account of his languishing in jail, all his family members being dependents upon him facing starvation. The appellant/Accused No.2 no way concerned with the alleged ofence and the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the Appellant/Accused No.2 for the alleged ofence under Section 397 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, he is entitled for acquittal, therefore, the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court

8.PW-1 in his evidence stated that when he came out from the gate, six persons beat him from back side and they shown knife and he raised alarm and PW-2 came out from the hut and one person out of six persons went near PW-2 and snatched away her chain from her neck, but in this case neither knife nor chain was recovered and got marked in this case by the prosecution. PW-1 further deposed that the police came to the spot and shifted him to the Government

Hospital, but as per PW-8 he received information about the incident at 4 pm, hence he deputed PW-12 , who proceeded to hospital and recorded the statement of PW-1 and based on such statement, he registered a case and issued FIR under Ex.P7. As per PW-1 he was shifted to hospital by police and as per PW-8, the statement of PW-1 was recorded by PW-12 on his deputation. So there is ambiguity whether PW-1 was shifted by the police or himself went to hospital.

PW-1 in his cross examination admitted that he did not mention the particulars of his phone and its make and company of phone and further PW-8 in his cross examination admitted that when he recorded the statement of PW-1, PW-1 stated to him that the make of phone lost by him is ‘ Oppo’ and again PW-8 admitted that the seized 6 of 10Crl.A 18 of 2020 phone in this crime is not that of ‘Oppo’ company, so in this regard also there is ambiguity whether the phone was actually lost by PW-1 was of ‘Oppo’ make or not. As a matter of fact, PW-6 who is the mediator for seizure panchanama stated that one Micro Max phone was seized from the Accused No.3 at National High 44 road near

Adloor village bridge and it was seized by the police under the cover of panchanama and M.O.1 is the said Micro Max phone siezed by the police from the Accused No.3. This piece of evidence regarding seizure of MicroMax phone is quite against to the evidence of PW-8, who stated that one Oppo phone was lost by PW-1, so whichever is correct is highly doubtful. In this case when Mo.1 was said to have been not recovered from the Appellant/Accused No.2, but from the accused No.3 as per the evidence of PW-6, so also PW-8/Investigating

Officer in his evidence stating that on the same day of the incident, he visited the scene of ofence, where he examined and recorded the statement of P.Ws.1 to 3. This piece of evidence also quite against to the evidence of PW-12. According to him he recorded the statement of PW-1 at Hospital and handed over the same to PW8 necessitating the registration of case, so also PW-8 in his evidence stated that in the presence of mediators i.e. PW4 and in the presence of

LW-4/Shankar, he observed the scene of ofence and seized the sticks in the presence of mediators and under the cover of scene of ofence panchanama under crime detail form and drawn the rough sketch, so also as per PW-4/Srikanth, the mediators for the scene of ofence panchanama, police seized some sticks under the scene of ofence panchanam under Ex.P2, but so seized sticks are not got marked in this case and not seen the light of the day as already noted no knife got exhibited in this case. In this regard at this juncture it is to be noted that the seizure of deadly weapon allegedly used by the 7 of 10Crl.A 18 of 2020 accused for the ofence under section 397 IPC and by using that weapon the accused causing of grievous hurt to any person while committing robbery or dacoity the ofence is attracted. Due to non- seizure of stick or knife, the main ingredient of using of deadly weapon by the ofender in committing robbery by causing grievous hurt to the victim not emanated in this case at all.

9.That apart PW-5 mediator for the confession cum seizure panchanama, in his evidence he stated as in Ex.P3 confession and seizure panchanama. The Police seized gold ornament and one knife and Carbon Company mobile phone from the possession of the

Accused. Further deposed that the mobile phone which was shown to him in the Court is not the same which was seized by the police from the accused. As already noted, no gold ornament and no knife are got marked in this case and also during conducting of T.I parade, PW-2 not identifed the appellant/Accused No.2 and also though

PW-1 identifed, the Appellant/Accused No.2, his contention is that his photos were shown to the witnesses at Police Station. Hence identifcation of the appellant/Accused No.2 by PW-1 is also appearing to be not free from any suspicion. In view of lot of discrepancies found and appearing in the evidence of PW-1 so also PW-8 in his cross examination admitted that he did not examine the builder Anil Kumar under whom PW-1 was working as watchman. This also appearing to be a lapse in this case in order to show that PW-1 ever worked as watchman under Anil Kumar. His examination had been done, would have revealed the same and his non-examination thrown any amount of doubt as to whether PW-1 ever worked as watchman or not. In view of evidence of PW-1 as already mentioned to be with lot of discrepancy and further PW-8 admitted that he did not examine the 8 of 10Crl.A 18 of 2020 medical officer, who treated PW-1. So also, PW-9 another

Investigating Officer stated that no case property was seized from the possession of the Appellant/Accused No.2 by him. So also PW-10 another Investigating Officer stated that he did not deposit the seized stick in the Court and he did not examine the doctor, who treated PW- 1 and he did not fle medical certifcate of PW-1 as against this PW-11 deposed that he issued Ex.P9 medical certifcate of PW-1 having treated him on 22.8.2018 by mentioning two injuries as found by him.

They are i) Laceration injury measuring 4x1 cm at middle 1/3rd of anterior aspect of right leg suture applied, ii)Multiple abrasion at both shoulders, back and right hand. As already noted in the charge sheet, the name of the doctor is not mentioned. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.2 that there was any amount of laxity in the case of the prosecution fabricating Ex.P9 by planting PW-11 as after thought can not be ruled out in this case as not mentioning of doctor as witness in the charge sheet is clearly thrown any amount of doubt in the case of prosecution.

10.The learned counsel for the appellant/Accused No.2 relied upon the judgment in the case of Ghanshyam @ Bablu in Crl. Appeal No.

757 of 2007 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. In this case the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at Para No. 19 held that in the absence of any recovery of deadly weapon at the instance of the accused/appellant punishment for 7 years imprisonment under

Section 397 IPC is not sustainable and also held that in the absence of recovery of knife allegedly used in the commission of the ofence of robbery or dacoity, it can not be presumed that the knife so used was a deadly weapon, but as a matter of fact, in this case no knife is marked by the prosecution at all and thus this ruling is aptly 9 of 10Crl.A 18 of 2020 applicable to the facts of the instance case, hence followed by this

Court as there is no recovery of deadly weapon in this case.

11.That the Trial Court while convicting the appellant/Accused No2 relied the judgment of the Hon’ble Court Supreme Court in the case of

State of UP vs. Naresh in the case of Criminal Appeal No. 674 of 2006 date of judgment 08-3-2011, wherein the Apex Court held that in all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, therefore, mere marginal variations in the statement of witnesses can not be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier, but the omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially afect the trial or core of the prosecution’s case, render the testimony of the witness liable tobe discredited. In view of the material particulars i.e. non-seizure of sticks and knife so also chain are found to be going to the root of the case and it is applicable to the case of defence rather than the prosecution.

12.In another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashraq vs. State, it was held that what is essential to satisfy the word ‘uses’ for the purpose of section 397 IPC is robbery being committed by an ofender who was armed with deadly weapon, which was within the vision of the victim, so as to capable of creating terror in the mind of victim and not that it should be further shown to have been actually used for cutting stabbing shooting as the case may be.

This ruling also more applicable to defence than the prosecution as no deadly weapon is got marked in this case.

10 of 10Crl.A 18 of 2020

13.It is needless to say that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused in a criminal case for the charged ofence beyond all reasonable doubt, but in the instant case, the same is found missing for the discrepancies and embezzlements which are found material in this case as mentioned above, therefore, it can not be said that the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant/Accused No.2 for the ofence under Section 397 IPC, therefore, upon re-appraisal of its evidence and material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the

Lower Court is not sustainable and liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal.

14. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment passed by the Lower Court in SC. No. 158 of 2019 and accordingly the Appellant/Accused No.2 is acquitted under Section 386(b)(i) Cr.P.C. for the charged ofence under Section 397 IPC and he be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

M.O.1 shall be preserved till disposal of case against all other accused.

Dictated to Stenographer (Asst. Sessions Court, Kamareddy), transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this 8th April, 2021.

IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy :: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:: NIL

IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

Order Record 305 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CRLA/86/2017	Vattam Raj Kumar @ Raju vs Vattam Vasantha	09 Jun 2021	Judgment	—
CRLA/18/2020	Dandla Babu @ Babu Balaji Gaikwad vs State through PS Kamareddy	08 Apr 2021	Judgment	Acquitted
CRLRP/24/2017	Vattam Raj Kumar @ Raju vs Vattam Vasantha	10 Mar 2021	Order	—
MVOP/33/2019	Chennam @ Panthula Srikanth vs Kammari Srinivas	10 Feb 2021	Order	—
MVOP/53/2017	Dhammanapeta Koteshwerlu vs Padndimukula Parwaaiah	18 Jan 2021	Order	—
CRLA/60/2019	Srimalla Shiva Shanker vs Srimalla Shivaleela	07 Dec 2020	Judgment	—
CMA/1/2020	Yada Nageshwar Rao vs Richpal Singh	22 Jun 2020	Order	—
CRLA/13/2019	D.Krishna vs Chinthala Gopi	15 Jun 2020	Judgment	Acquitted
SC/82/2016	State through PS Tadwai vs Namal Ramesh	09 Jun 2020	Judgment	Acquitted
MVOP/107/2015	Pabboji Laxmi vs Doddliya Sai kumar	19 Mar 2020	Order	—
MVOP/44/2014	Mohd Shamsuddin vs Kondal Rakesh	18 Mar 2020	Order	—
MVOP/54/2014	Kubra Bee vs Kondal Rakesh	18 Mar 2020	Order	—
EP/19/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Lingala Srinivas Goud and Others	18 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/68/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Chimma Sailoo	18 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/71/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Sunchu Prabhakar	18 Feb 2020	Order	—
MVOP/11/2014	Rendla @ Redlya Sudhakar vs Dr. E. Siddiramulu	18 Feb 2020	Order	—
MVOP/6/2014	Tannuri veera Narayana vs Jukanti Sudhakar Reddy	13 Feb 2020	Order	—
MVOP/8/2014	Pullboinda Vijay vs Burla Shankaraiah	11 Feb 2020	Order	—
MVOP/10/2014	Gajjela Lavanya vs Burla Shankariaah	11 Feb 2020	Order	—
MVOP/37/2013	Boina Sai Theja vs A1 Light Motor Driving School represented by Its Syed Raheem	10 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/3/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Kumbala Prabhakar and Others	07 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/29/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Annepally Gangadhar	07 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/30/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Peddakanthi Ramesh	07 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/44/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Ganta Krishna Murthy and Others	07 Feb 2020	Order	—
CRLA/95/2017	Esannapally Bhoomanna vs Esannapally Rani	04 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
EP/11/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs G.Tulasiram	31 Jan 2020	Order	—
EP/78/2018	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs G.Sevay	31 Jan 2020	Order	—
EP/83/2018	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Devasath Mansingh	31 Jan 2020	Order	—
EP/84/2018	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Ande Raghu Goud	31 Jan 2020	Order	—
EP/101/2018	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs R.Muralidhar Reddy	31 Jan 2020	Order	—
EP/104/2018	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Edul Sailu	31 Jan 2020	Order	—
SC/195/2015	State through PS Sadashivanagar vs Battu Balamani	31 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
EP/52/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Kaskurthy Srinivas Rao and Others	10 Jan 2020	Order	—
EP/57/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Bhanuprakash Reddy Meesala and Others	10 Jan 2020	Order	—
EP/20/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Mailaram Budaiah and Others	31 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/46/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Palamakula Santhosh Goud and Others	31 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/48/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Jajarie Yeshwanth and Others	31 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/54/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Chakali Yadagiri and Others	31 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/56/2018	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Duvvala Krishna Mohan and Others	31 Dec 2019	Order	—
SC/116/2018	State through PS Tadwai vs Gaddam Chinna Balraju	30 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CMA/1/2016	Gandla Satish Kumar vs Gandla Bhupathi	27 Dec 2019	Order	—
CMA/2/2016	Gandla Vittal vs Gandla Bhupathi	27 Dec 2019	Order	—
AS/2/2014	Kondam Yellaiah vs Aleshetty Bala Ganesh Swamy	20 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
SC/122/2015	State through PS Gandhari vs Posula Ramesh	20 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
EP/39/2018	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Patha Gangasharan and Others	19 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/58/2018	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Shaik Roshan Vali and Others	19 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/94/2018	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Sharbani Devaraj and Others	19 Dec 2019	Order	—
SC/207/2015	State through PS Kamareddy vs Bondhi Mallaiah	19 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
EP/28/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Balaji Pundalik Gaikwad	18 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/35/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Suram Bheemaiah	18 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/109/2018	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Gotrala Balraju and Others	18 Dec 2019	Order	—
OS/7/2019	Gollena Padma vs Parsi Kannaiah	18 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
S.O.P/4/2019	Thatipally Sabitha @ Raheelu Salatha vs Thatipally Satyyanarayana @ Samuel	17 Dec 2019	Order	—
SC/53/2019	State through PS Kamareddy vs Savuru Varalaxmi @ Pinky	16 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
EP/33/2018	Y. Rama Krishna vs Md. Fayeem	13 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/80/2018	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Ande Swamy Goud	13 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/86/2018	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Jangam Balraju	13 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/97/2018	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Samala Neelender Reddy	13 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/98/2018	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Shaik Abdul Jahangir	13 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/25/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co Ltd vs Sathelle Amba Goud	12 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/26/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Yerukala Srinivas	12 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/30/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Harshaverdhan Reddy	12 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/41/2017	Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Mosin Syed	12 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/16/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co Ltd vs Mohd Khaja Moinuddin	11 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/17/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co Ltd vs Sitannagari Ratnakareddy	11 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/24/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co Ltd vs Chinthakunta Srinivas	11 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/12/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Mohd Yousaf Ali	06 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/13/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Gani Pasha Shaik	06 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/14/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co Ltd vs B.Kishan	06 Dec 2019	Order	—
OS/13/2019	Vanjari Davender vs Parsi Kannaiah	06 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
EP/26/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs AD Madhu Sudhan and Others	04 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/27/2018	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Gurram Prashanth and Others	04 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/110/2018	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Ashok Kumar Nagelli and Others	04 Dec 2019	Order	—
EP/41/2018	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs R.Jyothi and Others	22 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/44/2018	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Maskoori Swamy and Others	22 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/95/2018	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Erra Sailoo and Others	22 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/1/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Mohammed Rasheed and Others	21 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/9/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Kashetty Ramuloo and Others	21 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/13/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Gunda Dayanand and Others	21 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/17/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Harinath Gundlapalli and Others	21 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/18/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Bhasker Reddy Ummannagari and Others	21 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/20/2018	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Routh Madhu Babu and Others	21 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/33/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Sai Reddy Nallavelly and Others	21 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/38/2018	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Annavaram Raju and Others	21 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/4/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Naziyasultana	20 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/5/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Bavuri Badal Singh	20 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/6/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Kejari Ramulu	20 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/10/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Thannuru Srinivas	20 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/20/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co Ltd vs Muthygari Jeevanreddy	20 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/22/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co Ltd vs Gajula Ramesh Goud	20 Nov 2019	Order	—
EP/23/2017	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co Ltd vs MD.Gousepasha	20 Nov 2019	Order	—
SC/34/2018	State through PS Lingampet vs Gaddi Hanmanthu	11 Nov 2019	Judgment	—
SC/72/2018	State through PS Devanpally vs Nomula Satyanarayana	25 Sep 2019	Judgment	Convicted
CMA/3/2018	Gaddam Venkata Ramana Reddy vs Koyyala Siddavva	24 Sep 2019	Order	—
MVOP/139/2015	Gorinta Sreevani @ Ramya vs The Commissioner Municipal Counsil	20 Sep 2019	Order	—
MVOP/87/2013	Guduri Naveenkumar vs ShyamSundherreddy Takkalla	19 Sep 2019	Order	—
CRLA/35/2015	State through PS Devenpally vs M.A Mquem	13 Sep 2019	Judgment	Acquitted
CRLRP/32/2018	Gampala Sandya vs Gampala Narsimloo	12 Sep 2019	Order	—
MVOP/125/2014	Sirloncha Bhaskar vs APSRTC Managing Director, Secunderabad	04 Sep 2019	Order	—
EP/14/2018	M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Md.Washeem Khan	29 Aug 2019	Order	—

Showing 100 of 305 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jun 2021		1
Apr 2021		1
Mar 2021		1
Feb 2021		1
Jan 2021		1
Dec 2020		1
Jun 2020		3
Mar 2020		3
Feb 2020		13
Jan 2020		9
Dec 2019		39
Nov 2019		19

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri B.Sathaiah handled?

Sri B.Sathaiah has handled 305 court orders since 2017 at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 6 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri B.Sathaiah hear?

Based on available records, Sri B.Sathaiah primarily handles Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Original Suits) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Appeals) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri B.Sathaiah currently posted?

Sri B.Sathaiah is posted as IX Addl District and Sessions Judge at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Kamareddy, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri B.Sathaiah available online?

Yes. 15 judgments by Sri B.Sathaiah are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri B.Sathaiah dispose cases?

Sri B.Sathaiah disposes approximately 6 cases per month, based on 305 orders handled over their tenure at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri B.Sathaiah serving?

Sri B.Sathaiah has been serving at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex since 2017.

Case Types

EP 27%

OS 23%

SC 19%

OP 18%

MVOP 8%

CRLA 2%

CRLRP 2%

CMA 1%

Posting History

Aug 2021 — Aug 2021

IX Addl District and Sessions Judge
Nov 2019 — Jul 2021

IX Addl District and Sessions Judge · 92 orders
Feb 2019 — Sep 2019

IX Addl District and Sessions Judge · 49 orders
May 2017 — Feb 2019

Senior Civil Judge · 164 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 9

Convicted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Ms. B. Deeksha

Addl JCJ Cum Spl Mobile Judge Kamareddy

497 orders

Dr. Ch. V.R.R. Varaprasad

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

538 orders

K. Sudhakar

Prl. Junior Civil Judge court, Kamareddy

601 orders

Smt. Dr. S. Sumalatha

Senior Civil Judge

565 orders

← View all judges at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex