Sri. B. Srinivasulu

IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT CHEVELLA.

Present: Sri.B.Srinivasulu, XVIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.53 OF 2024.

Between:-

Gunnala Sriramreddy, S/o. Venakt Ramreddy, Age 23 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.1-78, Kothmarpally Village, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad District. .… Appellant/Accused.

AND

The State of Telangana, P.S. Shankarpally, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor. …Respondent/Complainant.

This Criminal Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and sentence in S.C.No.07/2022 dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella in:

S.C.No.07/2022

Between:-

The State of Telangana, P.S. Shankarpally, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor. … Complainant. AND

Gunnala Sriramreddy, S/o. Venakt Ramreddy, Age 23 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.1-78, Kothmarpally Village, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad District. … Accused.

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 2 of 17

This appeal is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 11.12.2025 in the presence of Sri.E.Sreenivas Reddy, learned counsel for appellant/accused and Smt.I.Deepa Rani, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

1.This appeal is preferred by appellant/accused against the respondent/complainant aggrieved by the judgment rendered in S.C.No.07/2022 by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 354 D of IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of fine amount, appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of

IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of fine amount, appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Hence, appellant/accused filed this appeal and being referred to as appellant/accused in this judgment for the sake of convenience.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case, in nutshell, are as follows:

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 3 of 17

On 02-11-2019 at 0800 hours PW1 lodged a police report by alleging that her daughter i.e. deceased Soumya Reddy was studying B.Tech III year at IBS college situated Donthanpally village and residing at her sister's house i.e. PW3 at

Shankerpally Village. The accused is a relative of PW1 and used to visit his maternal grand mother's house very often, which is situated in the opposite house of PW1. During his visits he used to move closely with the PW1 and her family members including deceased. Taking advantage of such closeness, accused proposed his love with deceased and also started asking her to love him. Initially she did not disclose the matter to anyone of her inmates as the accused is their relative and denied his proposal saying that she is having many expectations on her life. Even though the said person did not change his attitude and further started calling the deceased to her mobile phone 9603492865 from his mobile phone 7675819344 saying that he wanted to marry her and demanded and threatened the deceased. She informed the same to PW1. The deceased also informed about the harassment of the accused to his father but the accused did not change his attitude. Since the harassment is not stopped on 30.10.2019 at about 1230 hours during the temporary absence of inmates at the house of PW3 at Shankarpally the deceased has committed suicide by consuming Monorin pesticide poison. Basing on the above said complaint, PW10 Sub-Inspector of

Police, registered a case in crime No.257 of 2019 under sections 354-D and 306 of

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 4 of 17

IPC. During the course of investigation, he examined the prosecution witnesses.

He visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and drafted rough sketch and conducted inquest over the corpse of deceased and PW11 the Doctor conducted postmortem examination and issued report. On 19.11.2019 accused was apprehended and confession panchanama was recorded and seized mobile phone from his possession in the presence of mediators and arrested him and produced him before the court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under

Sections 354-D and 306 of IPC.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at

Chevella has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 354-D and 306 of IPC.

After furnishing the copies to the accused u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. As the case was triable by the Court of Session, it was committed to the Assistant Sessions Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at Chevella. The accused was examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C, explaining the substance of accusation against him for the offence under

Section 354-D and 306 of IPC, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, PW1 to PW11 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P12 documents were marked. After closure of prosecution evidence, the

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 5 of 17 accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which he denied the incriminating evidence and reported no evidence on his behalf. On behalf of the accused no witness is examined and no documents were marked.

5(a). After hearing both the counsel, the accused was convicted, as referred supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment, present appeal is preferred by the accused on the following grounds:- 5(b).Grounds of appeal pleaded by the appellant/accused counsel that the trial court has not materialized the ingredients of the charge levelled against the appellant, has not appreciated the evidence on the record in accordance with the provisions of the evidence Act, the trial court to seen that there is glaring discrepancy between the evidence of PW1 to Pw11 and the prosecution failed to examine the independent witnesses to corroborate the evidence.

5(c).Further pleaded that the trial court failed to appreciate the ExsP7 and P8, which are call data record. PW-10 admitted that there is a delay in lodging the

Ex.P1 from the date of consuming poison by the deceased. Moreover deceased in the hospital while taking treatment during her last breath, no report given. In the cross of PW1 and she admitted that she did not lodge any police report when the

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 6 of 17 deceased informed PW1 that the accused was harassing her. PW2 admitted that she has no personal knowledge about the issues between accused and deceased, police did not examine her and also failed to appreciate the cross of PW4 and the trial court have totally misinterpreted and mis-conceal the various discrepancies raised by the appellant. Hence the sentence of conviction passed against the appellant/accused is fit to be set aside.

6.Heard the counsel for appellant, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and perused the record.

7. Now, the point for determination is

Whether the conviction judgment passed by the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge, Chevella is sustainable for the offences under

Sections 354-D and 306 of IPC?

8. POINT:

Counsel for the appellant/accused argued that the case of the prosecution suffers from many infirmities. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. All the witnesses are interested witnesses and family members of the deceased. Further argued that there is delay in lodging the complaint and also argued that prosecution not examined Nodal Officer who issued call data of the deceased, any doubt arising in the case of the prosecution,

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 7 of 17 it will be awarded to the accused. Further pleaded that all the evidence is circumstantial and hearsay evidence. Their evidence cannot be relied. There is no documentary evidence to show that deceased has committed suicide due to the abetment or instigation of the accused, evidence of prosecution is impeached. The abnormal delay in lodging report is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

Prosecution case suffers from many infirmities and trial judge in order to discard evidence relied evidence, convicted the accused. The cross examination admissions are not considered by the trial court judge, only relied chief of evidence. Further learned counsel for appellant has relied following citations: 2021 (3) ALT (Crl.) 356 (SC) between Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2017 (2) ALT (Crl.) 123 (SC) between Gurcharan Singh vs. State of

Punjab, 2006 (1) ALD (Crl.) 980 (AP) between Allaveni Rajeshwari vs. State of A.P.

MANU/TL/0757/2024 between Asadi Prasanna Kumar and Ors. vs. P.P., HYD, 2020 (2) ALD (Crl.) 476 (AP) between Devarla Muali vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 (1) ALD (Crl.) 493 (AP) between P.Gangadhar vs. State of A.P., 2011 (1) ALD (Crl.) 616 (SC) between Dr.Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and others vs.

State of Maharashtra, the law is very well settled for instigation of abetment of suicide “22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under

Section 306 of IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 8 of 17 of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased.”

9.Another charge of the accused i.e. 354-D. Admittedly, accused never followed the deceased, the case of the prosecution that accused expressed his love to the deceased and called her. Even in the evidence of investigation officer, there is no whisper with regard to calls made by the accused to the deceased and on which dates, prosecution also unable to prove the case for the offence under

Section 354-D of IPC. The trial court has not appreciate the evidence on proper perspective.

10.Contra to this, learned Additional Public Prosecution submitted in her arguments that as per the evidence of PW1 to PW6, cannot discarded that they are

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 9 of 17 near relatives of the deceased. Further deceased has talked with PW1 and informed that accused harassed her. The evidence on record clearly reveals that accused has committed for the offence 354-D and 306 of IPC. Further argued that accused is relative of the deceased, by taking advantage, accused has instigated the deceased to love him and she refused for that inspite of that accused has constantly harassed her by proposing his love to her, as such she extremely suffered and decided to commit suicide by unbearable torture by the accused.

Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of PW1 to PW6, exaggeration of benefit of doubt is harmful to the society.

11.After hearing rival submissions of both parties, perusing the evidence of

PW1 who is mother of deceased, she deposed that deceased studying B.Tech third year, accused is her the relative, about 03 years back accused proposed his love to deceased and forced her to accept his love, inspite of refusal of love, accused did not stop and continued to harassed deceased and tortured her. Then, PW1 questioned her daughter and she stated that one must take birth as a boy but not as a girl and when she further questioned her, she informed that accused insisted her to love him and forcing her to marry him though she rejected his proposal.

PW1 admonished accused and instructed not to harass deceased, though the accused harassed deceased by threatening that her father going to die soon.

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 10 of 17

Then, deceased informed the same to the father of the accused but he neither reply nor control his son. Due to unbearable harassment, having vexed with the her life, on 30.10.2019 she consumed poison and committed suicide at

Shankerpally.

12.PW2 is the brother of the deceased and son of PW1, he also deposed the similar lines of PW1. PW2 further deposed that accused harassed deceased and he came to know through PW1.

13.PW3 is the resident of Shankarpally and sister of PW1, in the house of

PW3, deceased studied B.Tech, third year at Donthanpally village in the year 2019.

Deceased informed PW1 that the accused was harassing her in connection with love and due to his harassment, PW1 also questioned his elders but they did not admonish the accused and accused continued his torture against the deceased.

Due to the unbearable harassment on 30.10.2019 deceased consumed pesticide in the house of PW3 and he was not present in the house at that time and PW1 called

PW3 and informed about the same, as such herself and PW4 went to the scene of offence and shifted the deceased to Balaji hospital, Sanga Reddy from there again shifted her to Medicure Hospital, Madhapur. Due to their financial condition, they shifted her to Government hospital, Chevella as her condition was critical but on

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 11 of 17 the way on 01.11.2019 at about 8.00 PM the deceased was died. The deceased committed suicide only due to the harassment of the accused.

14.Another brother of PW1 i.e. PW4, his evidence is also hearsay evidence. He also deposed that accused is the only responsible for the death of deceased.

15.PW5 also brother of PW1 and resident of Shankarpally Village, he also deposed in the similar lines of PW3 and further deposed that she consumed pesticide while there were no family members in the house, on the way deceased succumbed to poison.

16.PW6 is the son of PW3, he is resident of Shankarpally Village, deceased used to reside in his house since her childhood at Shankarplly village. She was studying third year in Engineer College at Donthanpally village. Deceased used to informed me that accused was harassing her that he is in love and to love him and to marry me and he advised the deceased to inform PW1 so that she will admonish the accused. The deceased informed PW1 about the harassment of the accused and PW1 admonished the accused. The accused did not listen to PW1 and continued to harass deceased to love him. As the accused continued to harass the deceased she called the father of accused and she informed about accused and

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 12 of 17 asked that to stop the accused other wise she has to die. The father of the accused consoled the deceased and informed that he will admonish the accused. After two or three days on 30.10.2019 at 12:30 PM, deceased consumed poison and committed suicide. When PW1 called the deceased at that time she informed that due to the harassment of the accused she consumed poison and PW1 informed

PW4. PW4 came to his house and shifted the deceased to Sangareddy Balaji hospital. From there, they shifted to Medicore hospital Madhapur. On the advise of doctors she was being shifted to Government hospital Chevella and meanwhile she was succumbed to poison. Deceased committed suicide due to the harassment of the accused to marry him and love him.

17.PW7 mediator for inquest panchanama, PW8 mediator of crime details form, PW9 mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused and

MO1, PW10 Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.257/2019 and basing the report Ex.P5, he conducted investigation and recorded statements of list of witnesses. PW11 the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination, `and issued Ex.P12 and opined that the the cause of death of deceased due to organophosphate poisoning an insecticide.

18.The allegations against the accused that he harassed deceased to love him. Admittedly, deceased is studied B.Tech third year at Donthupally. Prosecution

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 13 of 17 has not collected any study certificates of the deceased and also failed to examine the nodal officer who issued call data recordings. There is lacunaes in the case of the prosecution that PW1 came to know that deceased has consumed pesticide poison, when she called her daughter, there is no evidence that PW1 called her daughter on 30.10.2019. Admittedly, deceased resided in the house of PW3 at

Shankarpally village, PW1 residing at Kondapur. PW3 is the younger sister of PW1.

19.Coming to the cross examination of PW1 that she also admitted that accused is distant relative and no complaint was lodged for harassment of the deceased by the accused. She lodged report on 30.10.2019, in the contrary the complaint was lodged on 02.11.2019. PW2 also admitted in his cross examination that accused is distant relative, accused used to came to his house at Kondapur, neither PW1 nor deceased did not lodge any report when they got the information that the accused used to harassed the deceased. Admitted that due to harassment of accused, deceased consumed poison. That, there is no eye witness or inmates of PW3 that accused harassed deceased provocation of love. About 3 years of her

B.Tech, deceased residing at Shankarpally, since then he was harassed deceased but no one take steps against the accused prior to her death.

20.PW4 is the maternal uncle of deceased, admitted in his cross examination that approximately 15 or 10 days prior to the death of deceased, she went to the

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 14 of 17 house of PW1, PW4 did not know whether the accused directly used to meet deceased and harass her. Further admitted that on the information given by PW1, he came to know about the death of deceased.

21.PW5 is the another maternal uncle, admitted in his cross examination that deceased who is also residing at Shankarpally, he also admitted that he did not see the accused in Shankarpallyand on the information given by PW1, he came to the scene of offence.

22.PW6 who is the son of PW3, admitted in his cross examination that on the date of incident, she went to college together with him in a normal condition and he do not know the reason as to why she came to the house early. Further admitted that though deceased informed him and PW1 about the alleged harassment by the accused but they did not take any steps to lodge complaint

before the police. He do not know the details of the house of accused opposite to

the house of PW1 at Kondapur but he know that the accused is his relative.

23.In the cross examination of PW10, it is admitted that there is two days delay in filing the report from the date of incident. He also admitted that he did not enquire whether accused’s grand mother house is located at Kondapur.

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 15 of 17

Accused physically did not visit the house of deceased at Shankarpally. Further admitted that PW1 to PW6 are the family members of deceased. Upon perusing the judgment rendered by the trial court, no discussion was made by the trial court about the admissions in the cross examinations. Filing the report with delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Deceased also studied B.Tech third year, there is no proof of evidence that on 30.10.2019 PW1 called her daughter, deceased informed her that she consumed pesticide and no other person was available in the house. There is no suicide note or mobile chat of the deceased with the accused. There is no direct eye witnesses in this case and the prosecution failed to examine the nodal officer who issued call data records, to enable that whether it is persistent calls. Admittedly, at the time of incident, PW1 at Kondapur and deceased committed suicide at Shankarpally.

24.Learned counsel for appellant relied on the citation with regard to abetment relied in 2021 (3) ALT (Crl.) 356 (SC) between Geo Varghese vs. State of

Rajasthan and another, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the abetment of suicide, there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide, mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself.

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 16 of 17

25.The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in proper way instead of awarding benefit of doubt convicted the accused. When two views on the prosecution evidence, the benefit of doubt was not placed and convicted the accused. Hence, from the above discussion, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and consequently, the conviction rendered by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

26.In the result, Criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned assistant Sessions Judge, Chevella in SC No.7/2022 dated 21-02-2024, where under the appellant had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) years for the offence punishable under section 354D of IPC and he is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and accused is sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for offence punishable U/sec 306 IPC and he is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five Thousand Only) and in default of payment to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of another six (06) months.

The default sentence awarded for nonpayment of fine shall run consecutively. The appellant/convict is hereby under sections 354D and 306 of Indian Penal code under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled,

Crl.Appeal.53 of 2024 XVIII ADJ Court Page 17 of 17 and the fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded after the expiry of the appeal period.

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

this, on this the 18 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-.

XVIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT CHEVELLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-.

XVIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT CHEVELLA.

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 1 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT CHEVELLA.

Present: Sri.B.Srinivasulu, XVIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.

ARBITRATION PETITION No.01 of 2025. Between:

1. Mrs. Ch. Varshini D/o.Ch.Damodar Rao, Age 29 years, Occ: Software Employee, R/o.H.No.1-10/235 & 236, Madeenaguda, Ranga Reddy District. Presently staying At Canada. Represented by her G.P.A. holder Ch. Damodar Rao.

2. Mrs.Ch.Sunitha W/o.Ch.Damodar Rao, Age 50 years, Occ Business, R/o.H.No.1-10/235 & 236, Madeenaguda, Ranga Reddy District.

… Petitioners.

M/s.V. V. Infra Projects. Office at Villa No. 112, Reliance Green, Mokila Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Represented by it's Managing Partner Veluvolu Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Chittaranjan Das, Age 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.2-23-1/11, Plot No.23, Shatavahana Nagar Colony, Opp: Shatavahana High School, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72 and Velagapudi Purna Chandra Rao, S/o.V.S.R. Mohan Rao, Age 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Block No.31, Flat No.308, Malaysian Township, Rain Tree Park, K.P.H.B. Hyderabad-85. … Respondent.

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 2 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

This petition having come before me for final hearing on 10.12.2025 in the presence of Sri.Y.Kondal Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioners, Sri.N.Krishna, learned counsel for respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to restrain the respondent not to alienate, encumbering or creating any charge in and over the petition schedule A and B properties covered by the written Development Agreements dated 17.02.2016 and 18.02.2016 not to give the property to third party for its development.

2(a).The brief averments of the petition are that, petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of petition schedule A property of Ac.1-09 gts. in

Sy.No.42/A1 and Ac.2-00 gts. in Sy.No.42/E1, total admeasuring Ac.3-09 gts.

situated at Chandippa Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of the petition schedule B property of land bearing Sy.No.43 admeasuring Ac.5-35 gts. situated at

Chandippa Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2(b). Petitioners contended that one M. Buchi Reddy and others have sold the petition schedule A property to petitioner No.1 under registered sale deed

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 3 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

doc.No.2201/2016 dated 17.02.2016. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 has entered into registered Development Agreement -cum- General Power of Attorney document No.2155/2016 dated 18.02.2016 with the respondent for the purpose of development of schedule A property.

2(c).Petitioners further contended that one Dudhyala Gajender and Dudhyala

Devender have jointly sold the schedule B property to petitioner No.2 through registered agreement of sale -cum- General Power of Attorney document

No.4033/2012 dated 09.11.2012. Subsequently, petitioner No.2 representing her

principals has executed registered sale deed doc.No.2148/2016 dated 17.02.2016

in favour of petitioner No.2 herein in respect of suit schedule B property. Similarly

Dudhyala Raghavender and Sherigudem Pentaiah have jointly sold agricultural land in an extent of Ac.0-36 gts. and Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.43 situated at Chandippa

Village to Tigalanagaram Narsimha through registered sale deed doc.No.9428/2005 dated 19.10.2005. The said Tigalanagaram Narsimha, inturn sold the same to petitioner No.2 through registered agreement of sale cum G.P.A.

document No.4503/2012 dated 13.12.2012. The petitioner No.2 representing her

principal inturn has executed registered sale deed document bearing

No.2147/2016 dated dated 17.02.2016 in favour of petitioner No.2. Similarly one

Dudhyala Mallaiah and his sons and daughter have sold agricultural land in to an

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 4 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

extent of Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.43 situated at Chandippa Village to petitioner No.2 through Registered Agreement of sale cum G.P.A. dated 31-10-2012 bearing document No. 3889 of 2012. Petitioner No.2 representing her principals inturn has executed Registered sale deed dated 17.02.2016 bearing document No.2146 of 2016 in favour of petitioner No.2. Thus, the petitioner No.2 being the absolute owner and possessor of schedule B property. Thereafter, petitioner No.2 has entered into registered Development Agreement -cum- G.P.A. dated 17.02.2016 bearing document No.2152 of 2016 in favour of respondent for development in respect of schedule B land 2(d). Petitioners further submit that as per the terms and conditions of development agreement, the respondent/developer shall develop both the petition schedule A and B properties as per the norms and specifications of

HMDA duly obtaining permission and by converting the said lands from agriculture to non-agriculture and the respondent shall complete the development of the lay out within 12 months from the date of obtaining permission from HMDA and both the parties hereby agreed that they shall share the total plotted area in the lay out is 1300 Sq. yards net area per acre to petitioners and the remaining net area of plotted land to respondent. After obtaining the tentative lay out, both the parties shall execute supplementary agreement for allotment of plots to their respective shares and both the parties

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 5 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

should not sell or make any sale agreement without getting layout permission number.

2(e). Petitioner further submit that respondent also entered into Development

Agreement cum G.P.A. with adjacent land owners. Therefore, the respondent has obtained land conversion proceedings No.7777/Plg.1(1)2017 dated 10.02.2022 for schedule lands as well as other lands from Government after six years from the date of development agreement. The respondent has obtained layout permit

No.000214/LO/PIg/HMDA/2023 dated 12-12-2023 from HMDA after seven years from the date of development agreement in respect of lands total admeasuring 175159.42 sq.meters in Sy.Nos.31/A, 31/E, 37/A, 39, 38/ΑΑ, 38/Α/2, 39/A, 39/EE, 39/U, 31/A3A, 39/A/1/1A, 32, 42, 42/8/2/2, 42/Α1/Α2, 42/AA2, 42/A1/E1, 42/E and 43 situated at Chandippa Village. The respondent has obtained joint conversion proceedings and joint lay out permission in respect of schedule properties as well as other adjacent lands without consent the petitioners, without entering into supplementary agreement, gave the above lands to Vedantha Developers for development and marketing by violating the terms and conditions of development agreement. The petitioners have requested and demanded the respondent on several times to obtain the permission from HMDA immediately but the respondent kept postponed the same one or the other reason. Finally

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 6 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

after seven years, respondent obtained permission from HMDA but failed to proceed work.

2(f).It is further contended that petitioners have requested respondent to provide information with regard to development of project and there is lot of delay caused by initiating the development of project by keeping the petitioners in dark and also requested him to provide the alleged supplementary deeds executed by other land owners and to furnish draft supplementary deed proposed by him and also to provide the copy of the map by super imposing

HMDA lay out with village Map with survey numbers. The respondent has violated the terms and conditions of development agreement. The petitioners have requested the respondent on several times after obtaining permission, to enter into supplementary agreement but he deliberately avoided. The respondent without the consent of petitioners, gave the above land to Vedantha

Developers for development and marketing. The said Vedantha Developers have erected their advertisement boards and also erected some flags in the site, which is illegal on the part of respondent. Respondent has no right to give the schedule lands to third party either for development or for sale without consent of petitioners. Infact, there is no clause in the development agreement to give the schedule property by respondent to third party for sub-contract.

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 7 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

2(g).It is further submit by the petitioners that the respondent created litigation over the schedule properties, due to which petitioners being the land owners would suffer financial loss. Respondent successfully dragged the matter for a period of nine years without developing the property. As per the increase of prices, the share of petitioners to be increased. But in the instant case, the respondent is refusing to increase the share of petitioners.

2(h). Petitioners further submits that the respondent already sold out some of the plots without consent of petitioners. The Vedantha Developers have sold one plot and received advance amount of Rs.50,000/- from Chilkmari Narsimulu. After paying the amount, he verified the brochure. After verifying brochure, he found that Vedantha Developers is not the developer and respondent herein is developer. Therefore, he demanded the Vedanth Developers to refund the advance amount but they refused to refund the amount, therefore, he made complaint before P.S. Shankarpally against respondent and Vedantha Developers and the police registered a case in Crime No.202 of 2024 for the offence under

Section 420 of I.P.C. and the same is pending. The respondent failed to perform it's part of contract and violated the terms and conditions of development agreement of sale.

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 8 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

2(i).Petitioners further averred that the respondent is trying to alienate the plots to third parties without allocation of plots towards it's share, without entering into supplementary agreement and without development of project.

That the date of permission is 12.12.2023 and the completion of the project is within one year from the date of obtaining permission but the respondent so far did not complete the work. All of sudden, respondent got issued speculative notice dated 28.01.2025 to the petitioners alleging that inspite of notice issued by it to the petitioners did not come forwar for execution of supplementary agreement and further requested the petitioners to come to Sub-Registrar,

Shankarpally on 10-2-2025 for execution of supplementary agreement The petitioners have approached the respondent on several times before expiry of stipulated period but did not choose to complete the work and did not choose to come forward to enter into supplementary agreement but after expiry of stipulated period, got issued legal notice. The petitioners got issued suitable reply dated 13.02.2025 by denying the allegations made in the notice and further requested the respondent to provide approved lay out proceedings with map by imposing the survey numbers but they did not furnish. Thereafter, the petitioners sent notice dated 06.03.2025 to respondent with a request to provide 11 documents and also issued reminder on 11.03.2025 to respondent but they did not furnish all documents. The respondent got issued reply dated 29.03.2025 to petitioners along with some of the documents. Therefore, the petitioners sent

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 9 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

another notice dated 07.04.2025 to respondent to furnish all the documents but so far did not furnish the same. The respondent instead of furnishing all the documents, to counter blast, has sent notice dated 16-4-2025 to petitioners to furnish original documents referred in Development Agreement cum General

Power of Attorney.

2(j).Petitioners further averred that respondent failed to complete the development works and failed to come forward for execution of supplementary agreement, some of the land owners have filed Arbitration O.P.No.4 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble XII Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Hence, the petition for the relief of ad-interim injunction order against the respondent from alienating or from creating any charge or encumbrance over the schedule properties to third parties.

3.Notice given to the respondent, respondent filed counter affidavit by opposing the application, admitted the flow of title in respect of petition schedule properties and admitted that the respondent company obtained permission. Respondent company mainly pleads that he fulfilled the work within stipulated time as per the terms and conditions of Development

Agreement -cum- G.P.A., though the petitioner did not execute the

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 10 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

supplementary deed. Further contended that at the time of Development agreement cum General Power of Attorney in 2016, the government charges per square meet and now the charges per square meter has increased exponentially, in the interest of the venture, the respondent without imposing any burden on the petitioners and without claiming any additional demands.

Petitioners with an ill intentions have been dragged the matter and vague reasons for not executing the supplementary deed. As a developer the delay incompletion of the project directly effects the respondent and the alleged delay by the respondent is far away from truth. Petitioners are not coming forward for the execution of the supplementary deed. No specific reasons in relation to the violation of the terms and conditions of the DGPA inspite of fulfillment of the works by the respondent, petitioners filed this petition for extract more money from the respondent. No cause of action arose to file this petition, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.Heard both the counsel and perused the material placed on record.

5.Now the sole point that falls for consideration is,

Whether the petitioner is entitled for interim orders under Section 9

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as prayed for?

6.Point:

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 11 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

Counsel for petitioners argued the contents of the petition affidavit.

Further submitted that from the beginning respondent company has committed many violations and there is every possibility of alienation by the respondent and if the interim order is not effected, petitioners would be sustained irreparable loss. There is every possibility of creating third party alienation by the respondent of schedule A and B properties.

7.Contra, the learned counsel for respondent argued that respondent is ready to give the share of petitioners as per the development agreement.

Respondent always ready to execute supplementary deed. Petitioners have not come forward for execution of supplementary deed. From the beginning, petitioners are not come forward for execution of supplementary deed. The petition is filed to extract more money from the respondent. Arbitration petition

No.04/2025 has dismissed as withdrawn. Inspite of readiness by the respondent, petitioners are not come forward for supplementary agreement.

8.After hearing rival submissions and perusing the record, this O.P. filed under Section 9 of Arbitration Act. In this O.P., an Advocate Commissioner also appointed to visit the schedule property, accordingly, he visited the site and noticed that the development was done by the respondent. Respondent ready to execute the supplementary agreement and also express willingness to execute

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 12 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

supplementary agreement in favour of petitioners. Development agreement cum

General Power of Attorney executed by the petitioners on 18.02.2106 for schedule property of Ac.1-09 land out of Ac.5-09 in Sy.No.42/AA, land admeasuring Ac.2-00 out of Ac.3-05 gts. in Sy.No.42/E1, total admeasuring

Ac.3-09 gts. situated at Chandippa Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District. As per the said agreement, 1300 sq.yards per acre shall share to the petitioner No.1 herein and the balance to the second party i.e. respondent herein, the plots will be allotted to the petitioner No.1 in which respective survey numbers and obtaining tentative layout both parties shall execute supplementary agreement for allotment of plots to their respective shares. As per the petitioners, supplementary agreement has not been entered. As per the respondent, petitioners did not come forward to effect the supplementary agreement.

9.Perusing the advocate commissioner report shows that already the site area was developed road was formed and amenities also provided as per the commissioner report.

10.As per clause 19 of the Development Agreement -cum- General Power of

Attorneys, the disputes shall be initially resolved by mutual discussions within

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 13 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

30 days among the owner and developer or the nominated representatives of both the parties. In case of disputes not resolved by mutual discussions, the same will be resorting to Arbitration proceedings. The said Arbitrator on such reference shall resolve the said issues in accordance with provisions of the

Arbitration and conciliation Act. The arbitrator will be named jointly with the agreement of both the parties.

11.As per the respondent, ready to execute the supplementary agreement for the share of the plots to the petitioner No.1 herein in terms of development agreement dated 18.02.2016. For the party i.e. petitioner No.2 herein entered into development agreement cum General Power of Attorney

dated 17.02.2016 that respondent for the land in Sy.No.43 admeasuring Ac.2-

00 admeasuring out of Ac.3-27 gts. situated at Chandippa Village,

Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. As per the development agreement dated 17.02.2016, 1300 sq.yards plotted area to the petitioner

No.2 herein per acre and the balance to the second party i.e. respondent herein, the plots will be allotted to the petitioner No.2 in which respective survey numbers and obtaining tentative layout both parties shall execute supplementary agreement for allotment of plots to their respective shares. As per the petitioners, supplementary agreement has not been entered. As per

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 14 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

the respondent, petitioners did not come forward to effect the supplementary agreement.

12.As per the Section 19 of the Arbitration Act, this court cannot go into detail enquiry and the Section 9 is only for interim relief and only to protect the property. As per the docket order, the status quo was granted by this court. Learned counsel for respondent, during the enquiry, he also submitted that they are ready to execute the supplementary agreement for the plots in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein, inspite of their requests, petitioners did not come forward to effect the supplementary agreement as per the terms of the development agreements, only to demand more money.

13.Contra to this, counsel for petitioners submitted that there are many violations committed by the respondent and not completed the projects within stipulation period and made several allegations against the respondent as mentioned in the petition. The object of Section 9 of the Act, to keep the property not to alienate, respondent counsel submitted that they are ready to execute supplementary agreement. As per the Section 9 of the Act, interim measures by court. Considering the arguments and perusing the pleadings of the both parties. This court ordered the restraining the respondent not to

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 15 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

alienate the petitioners’ share of plots as per the development agreement doc.No.2155/2016 dated 18.02.2016 and development agreement doc.No.2152/2016 dated 17.02.2016. Accordingly, this court granted interim stay against the respondent not to change the nature of the plotted area of petitioners’ share in terms of development agreements. Accordingly, point is answered.

14.In the result, petition is disposed off by granting interim orders restraining the respondent not to alienate the share of petitioners as per the development agreement cum of General Power of Attorney doc.No.2155/2016

dated 18.02.2016 and development agreement cum General Power of

Attorney doc.No.2152/2016 dated 17.02.2016, without costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16 th day of December, 2025).

Sd/-.

XVIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT CHEVELLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:

-Nil.

A.R.O.P.No.01 of 2025 16 of 16 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.16.12.2025.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

-Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

-Nil.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

-Nil.

Sd/-.

XVIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT CHEVELLA.

S.C.No.01 of 2022 1 of 13 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.24.11.2025.

IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT CHEVELLA.

Present: Sri.B.Srinivasulu, XVIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella.

MONDAY, THIS THE 24th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025.

SESSIONS CASE No.01 of 2022.

(PRC NO.14/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT CHEVELLA).

1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through SHO P.S. complainantShankarpally. 2Name and description of the :Syed Masood Husain, S/o. Syed Jahangir accusedHussain, Aged 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.18-13, Noori Nagar, Bandlaguda, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.

3Crime No.:472 of 2020.

4Offence with which charged:Under section 304-II of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 5Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty 6Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty 7Sentence or order:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 304-II of IPC and Section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and accordingly accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under Section 304-II of IPC and Section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force till six months from today. The unmarked motor bike shall be returned to the accused along with original RC after expiry of appeal time. 8Prosecution conducted by:Smt. I.Deepa Rani, Additional Public Prosecutor.

S.C.No.01 of 2022 2 of 13 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.24.11.2025.

9Accused defended by:Sri. D.Ramulu.

This case having come before me on 21.11.2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Smt. I.Deepa Rani, Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri. D.Ramulu, learned counsel for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The case arises out of the charge sheet filed by Inspector of Police, P.S.

Shankarpally against the accused in Crime No.472/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 304-II of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and

Section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

On 03.12.2020 at 2000 hours, LW1/Akthari Begum (PW1) who is the mother of the deceased Yadullah, has presented the complaint against the accused

before the police Shankarpally. On 02.12.2020 at 0800 hours deceased Yadullah

left the house to Sangareddy for welding work on the bike of accused i.e. Honda

Dream bearing No.AP 12 P 8195. On 03.12.2020 at about 1730 hours someone informed to accused over phone that one person was lying in the bushes beside the road between Parveda to Tangadipally. Immediately, PW1 along with her another son Sadulu and accused were went there and found deceased Yadullah lying dead in prone position in the bushes with head injuries beside the fencing

S.C.No.01 of 2022 3 of 13 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.24.11.2025.

stone at a turning 500 meters from Parveda Village arch on the road of Parveda to Thangadipally. The above crime vehicle also damaged. The incident occurred due to rash and negligent manner while negotiating the turning due to which the vehicle went out of control.

3.Basing on the report preferred by PW1, LW14/N.Laxminarayana (PW13)

Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case as in Crime No.472 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 304-a of IPC and issued first information report and took up the investigation. During the course of his investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1. He visited the scene of offence situated at Parveda to Thangadipally road and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW5/Cheguri Venkat Reddy (PW5) and

LW6/B.Narsimhulu (PW6) and drawn rough sketch and seized Honda Dream motor cycle bearing No.AP 12 P 8195 under the cover of panchanama and he found that deceased did not wear helmet due to which he sustained injuries over his face and head. On 04.12.2020 PW13 visited Government Hospital, Chevella and held inquest on the corpse of deceased in the presence of LW7/B.Vishnu

Vardhan Reddy (PW10) and LW8/Md. Rayis (PW7). Thereafter, he examined and recorded the statements of LW2/Md. Nawab (PW2), LW3/Md. Sadullah (PW3),

Lw4/Md. Mahaboob Husain (PW4). Later, LW11/Dr.Raghunath (PW12) held autopsy over dead body of deceased and forwarded the viscera to the FSL,

S.C.No.01 of 2022 4 of 13 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.24.11.2025.

Hyderabad for its analysis and report regarding poisonous substance, if any etc.

Basing on the statements and investigation done by PW13, deceased being the minor and having no driving license, thus he altered the section of law from 304-

(a) IPC to 304-II IPC and added sections 181, 192(1) and 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Upon the transfer of PW13, hand over the case to LW15/G.Gopinath,

Inspector of Police (PW14).

4.On 20.02.20201 at 0700 hours, accused who is the owner of the crime vehicle was apprehended him and produced before PW14 and on interrogation, he confessed guilt that he allowed deceased boy to drive his motor bike though he being the minor and having no driving license. Thereafter, PW14 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of LW9/K.pandu (PW8) and

LW10/K.Gopal (PW9) and seized RC of crime vehicle. Later, accused was arrested and produced before the court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, PW14 filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable Under Section 304-II IPC and added sections 181, 192(1) and 196 of

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

5.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella took cognizance for the said offences under Section 304-II IPC and added sections 181, 192(1) and 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against accused. After ascertaining the copies

S.C.No.01 of 2022 5 of 13 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.24.11.2025.

furnished to the accused under Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the

Hon’ble District and Sessions Court, Ranga Reddy District under Section 209

Cr.P.C. by notifying the public prosecutor and complying all the conditions.

6.On appearance of the accused after perusal of the report, statements of the witnesses and material papers on record, upon hearing, the Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, this court framed charges

under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. for the offences Under Section 304-II of IPC and added Section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read over the contents of charges and explained to accused in vernacular language. Having understood the same, they denied the charges and opted for trial.

7.Prosecution examined PW1 to PW14 in all and got marked Exs.P1 to P18.

8.On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, when Accused was examined

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting the entire incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he pleaded as false, reported no evidence on his behalf.

Hence, defence evidence closed.

9.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

S.C.No.01 of 2022 6 of 13 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.24.11.2025.

10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though the material witnesses failed to support the prosecution’s version, the testimony of PW11 to PW14 are consistent and can form the basis of conviction, hence prayed to convict the accused.

11.On the contrary, the learned counsel for accused vehemently contended that the crucial witnesses mother, father, brother and maternal uncle of deceased, the mediators for scene of offence panchanama, inquest panchanama and and confession cum seizure panchanama, failed to testify anything against the accused. It is further contended that the uncorroborated testimony of PW11 to Pw14 cannot form the basis for convicting the accused. Hence prayed to acquit the accused.

12.Now the point for determination is

Whe ther the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences Under Section 304-II of IPC and added Section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 beyond reasonabl e doubt?

13.POINT:

Perused the evidence of PW1 to PW11. PW1 is the defacto complainant and mother of deceased Yadulla, PW2 to PW4 are the father, brother and maternal uncle of deceased respectively, PW5 and PW6 are the panch witness for

S.C.No.01 of 2022 7 of 13 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.24.11.2025.

scene of offence panchanama, PW7 and PW10 are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama, PW8 and PW9 panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama, PW11 Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the crime vehicle,

PW12 the Doctor who held autopsy, PW13 Sub-inspector of Police first investigation officer and PW14 Inspector of Police second investigation officer who filed charge sheet.

14.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the accused is senior paternal uncle of the deceased and he knows that deceased is minor boy and handed over the bike. Further, said bike also not having any insurance, due to blood relation, prosecution witnesses went turned hostile. Prosecution examined official witnesses i.e. PW11 to PW14 and their testimonies are inspiring the confidence that accused is the owner of the crime vehicle and handed over the crime vehicle to the deceased and deceased died due to driving the bike in a rash and negligent manner.

15.On the contrary to that learned Additional Public Prosector, learned counsel for accused argued that prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. None of the crucial witnesses to support the prosecution case as the crime bike handed over to the deceased. Mere standing registration of bike on the name of the accused does not constitute any offence. Prosecution

S.C.No.01 of 2022 8 of 13 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.24.11.2025.

has to prove at first that accused has handed over the crime vehicle to the deceased. In the evidence of PW11 to PW14 are formal. Further argued that

PW11 examined who inspected the crime vehicle after one month of the accident.

16.Prosecution enable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and pleads for the benefit of doubt.

17.After hearing of rival submissions, it is true that PW1 is the defacto complainant and mother of deceased, and the set the criminal law into motion has turned hostile.

18.PW2 is the father of the deceased and husband of PW1, he also turned hostile. PW3 brother of the deceased, he also turned hostile. PW4 is the maternal uncle of deceased, he also turned hostile. PW1 to PW4 did not stated anything against accused but they deposed that on receiving a phone call, they went to

Parveda Village and noticed the dead body of the deceased. Further deposed that they do not know as to how the accident was occurred at Parveda Village and who is the responsible for his accident. Nothing has been elicited from the crucial witnesses i.e. PW1 to PW4, disprove their testimonies.

S.C.No.01 of 2022 9 of 13 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.24.11.2025.

19.PW5 and PW6 are the mediators for scene of offence panchanama, they also completely turned hostile. PW7 and PW10 are the mediators for inquest panchanama, they also turned hostile. PW8 and PW9 are the mediators for confession cum seizure panchanama from the portion of the accused also turned hostile.

20.PW11 Motor Vehicle Inspector, he deposed that he issued Ex.P12 MVI report that the accident did not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 12 P 8195 motor cycle. PW12 Doctor who issued postmortem examination report, who opened that the deceased died due to road traffic accident.

21.PW13 the Sub-inspector of Police who deposed about the investigation that on 03.12.2020 at 20:00 hrs, he received a complaint from the PW-1, basing on which, he registered a case as in Ex.P14 First Information Report. He examined and recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses and he visited the scene of offence at Parveda village and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW5 and PW6, drawn sketch map of the scene and seized one crime vehicle motor cycle bearing No.AP 12 P 8195. On 04.12.2020, he visited the

Government Hospital, Chevella, there he conducted inquest panchanama of deceased in the presence of PW7 and PW10 and he filed requisition to PW12 to

S.C.No.01 of 2022 10 of 13 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.24.11.2025.

conduct autopsy. Basing on the statements of witnesses, he identified the deceased as minor boy, thus, PW13 was altered section of law from 304-A IPC to 304-II IPC and

Sections 181, 192(1) and 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1986 and handed over the case file to PW14 for further investigation.

22.PW14 the Inspector of Police laid charge sheet after completion of investigation, who deposed that on 20.02.2021 accused was arrested and on interrogation of the accused, he recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of PW8 and PW9 and seized crime vehicle bearing No.AP 12 P 8195 and one original RC under Ex.P16. After collecting FSL report, MVI report, he laid charge sheet and also collected Ex.P18 four photos. Admittedly, none of the witnesses has stated that accused handed over the crime vehicle motor cycle to the deceased.

23.The case filed against accused, merely that crime vehicle stands on the name of accused. Absolutely, there is evidence that accused handed over the bike to the deceased and deceased went to Sangareddy on the work of the accused. Though, prosecution has proved the death of the deceased in road accident but unable to prove that the accused handed over the bike to the deceased. Hence, from the above discussion, prosecution unable to prove its case and hostile of PW1 to PW10 also fatal to case of the prosecution.

S.C.No.01 of 2022 11 of 13 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.24.11.2025.

24.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 304-II of IPC and Section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and accordingly accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under Section 304-II of IPC and Section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force till six months from today. The unmarked motor cycle bearing

No.AP 12 P 8195 shall be returned to the accused along with original RC after expiry of appeal time.

(Dictated by me to the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24 th day of November, 2025).

Sd/-.

XVIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT CHEVELLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Akthar Begum.

PW2:Md. Nawab.

PW3:Md.Sadulla.

PW4:Md.Mahabub Hussain.

PW5:Ch.Venkat Reddy.

PW6:B.Narsimhul.

PW7:Md.Riyeez.

PW8:K.Pandu.

PW9:K.Gopal.

PW10 :Vishnu Vardhan Reddy.

S.C.No.01 of 2022 12 of 13 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.24.11.2025.

PW11 :R.Vijay Rao.

PW12 :Dr.Raghunath.

PW13 :Nagula Laxminarayana.

PW14 :G.Gopinath.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on report.

Ex.P2:161 cr.p.c. statement of PW1.

Ex.P3:161 cr.p.c. statement of PW2.

Ex.P4:161 cr.p.c. statement of PW3.

Ex.P5:161 cr.p.c. statement of PW4.

Ex.P6:Signature of Pw5 on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama along rough sketch

Ex.P7:Signature of Pw6 on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama along rough sketch

Ex.P8:Signature of Pw7 on inquest panchanama.

Ex.P9Signature of Pw8 on confession cum seizure panchanama.

Ex.P10Signature of Pw9 on confession cum seizure panchanama.

Ex.P11Signature of Pw7 on inquest panchanama.

Ex.P12Motor Vehicle Inspection report.

Ex.P13Postmortem examination report.

Ex.P14First information report.

Ex.P15Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama along rough sketch.

Ex.P16Confession cum seizure panchanama.

Ex.P17FSL report.

Ex.P18Four photos of deceased.

S.C.No.01 of 2022 13 of 13 XVIII ADJ, CHEVELLA Dt.24.11.2025.

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

-Nil.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil.

Sd/-.

XVIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT CHEVELLA.

IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT CHEVELLA.

Present: Sri.B.Srinivasulu, XVIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.154 OF 2023.

Between:-

Nandigama Ravi Kanth, S/o. Vishnumurthy, Age 33 years, Occ: Driver of the RTC Bus, R/o.H.No.1-48, Rapole Village, Pargi Mandal R.R.District. .… Appellant/Accused.

AND

The State of Telangana, P.S. Chevella, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor. …Respondent/Complainant.

This Criminal Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and sentence in C.C.No.137/2016 dated 22.11.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella in:

C.C.No.137/2016

Between:-

The State of Telangana, P.S. Chevella, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor. … Complainant. AND

Nandigama Ravi Kanth, S/o. Vishnumurthy, Age 33 years, Occ: Driver of the RTC Bus, R/o.H.No.1-48, Rapole Village, Pargi Mandal R.R.District. … Accused.

This appeal is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 12.12.2025 in the presence of Sri.P.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel

for appellant/accused and Smt.I.Deepa Rani, Additional Public

Crl.Appeal.154 of 2023 XVIII ADJ Court Page 2 of 33

Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

1.This appeal is preferred by appellant/accused against the respondent/complainant aggrieved by the judgment rendered in C.C.No.137/2016 by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also imposed fine of

Rs.1,000/-, in default of fine amount, appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Hence, appellant/accused filed this appeal and being referred to as appellant/accused in this judgment for the sake of convenience.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case, in nutshell, are as follows:

On 09.2.2016 at 10.00 hours, father of PW1 Buchi Reddy went to Khanapur gate from Regadiganapur Village on a two wheeler of his villager namely

Sreekanth and he dropped him at Khanapur gate and while the deceased was crossing the road, in the mean time, the driver of RTC bus bearing No.TS07-UA- 9509 coming from Hyderabad to Pargi drove in a rash or negligent manner and hit to the deceased. As a result, the deceased received bleeding injuries on his head and other parts of the deceased and died on the spot. Basing on the above said

Crl.Appeal.154 of 2023 XVIII ADJ Court Page 3 of 33 complaint, PW7 Investigating officer registered a case in crime No.24 of 2016 under section 304-A IPC. During the course of investigation, he examined the prosecution witnesses and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of two mediators. Subsequently, he went to the Government Hospital, Chevella, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of two mediators. Later he handed over the dead body of the deceased to the Medical Officer for autopsy. On 10.2.2016, PW7 served a notice under section 41-A of Cr.P.C, to the accused with a direction to attend the court as and when summons receives. After collecting the postmortem examination report and Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under

Section 304-A of IPC.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at

Chevella had took cognizance for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. After furnishing the copies to the accused u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C., the accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, explaining the substance of accusation against him for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Crl.Appeal.154 of 2023 XVIII ADJ Court Page 4 of 33

4.During the course of trial, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 documents were marked. After closure of complainant evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which he denied the incriminating evidence and reported no evidence on his behalf. On behalf of the accused no witness is examined and no documents were marked.

5(a). After hearing both the counsel, the accused was convicted, as referred supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment, present appeal is preferred by the accused on the following grounds:- 5(b).Grounds of appeal pleaded by the appellant/accused counsel that the ingredients of 304-A of IPC is not made out by the prosecution. Further pleaded that according to evidence of PW1 to PW6 are not supported to the prosecution except PW3 who is the eye witness in this case and stated in his chief examination that the incident occurred at Ghanapur stage but he stated before police in 161

Cr.P.c. statement that the incident occurred at Khanapur gate in fact the Kanapoor gate and Ghanapur gate is different and the PW3 stated in his cross examination that the RTC Bus stopped there after the accident and also stated that he seen the driver of the RTC bus but he was not stated the above facts in his 161 Cr.P.C.

statement. Investigation officer also admitted this facts in his cross examination.

Crl.Appeal.154 of 2023 XVIII ADJ Court Page 5 of 33

Further, PW3 stated that he seen the accused for the first time in the court today and also as per his chief examination that he identified the accused in open court after seven years in fact how he identified the accused after seven years. Further the PW3 stated in his cross examination that he was at the place of the incident 30 minutes prior to the accident further he stated that the place of the incident road was busy hence being a passenger need not to stay for a five minutes to board the vehicles why he waited for 30 minutes and also stated that there is a little curve further from the place of the accident. Hence, there is no possibility that a vehicle can go at high speed due to the curve road. Further stated that he belongs to same villager of the deceased Buchi Reddy, hence he is not an independent witness he is interested witness of the deceased Buchi Reddy, his evidence is not believable. There are contradictions and omissions in the evidence about the alleged incident the PWs are developed there chief examination as the appellant involved in the alleged incident and they spoke only for compensation.

5(c).PW8 was not the witness in Charge sheet and he not cited as witness in charge sheet but acted as a witness, hence his witness is not accountable in this case further stated in his cross examination that he recorderded the statement of the PW3 at Government Hospital but the PW3 state in his cross examination that the police recorded his statement at police station hence his investigation was

Crl.Appeal.154 of 2023 XVIII ADJ Court Page 6 of 33 false and concocted story for only compensation furtherPW8 admitted in his cross examination that there is turning on the road at the scene of offence hence there is no chance of rash or negligence of the crime vehicle driver. The alleged accident is not occurred, due to negligence of appellant and created these false allegations against appellant. The evidence of prosecution witnesses was only on briefing by the prosecution they are interested witnesses. Hence the sentence of conviction passed against the appellant/accused is fit to be set aside.

6.Heard the counsel for appellant, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and perused the record.

7. Now, the point for determination is whether the conviction judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella is sustainable for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC?

8. POINT:

Counsel for the appellant/accused argued that none of the witnesses as stated in their own 161 Cr.P.C. statements that they can identify the accused i.e.

RTC Bus Driver. First-time identification in the court is a weak evidence and cannot be relied upon. The Ex.P1 complaint states that the RTC bus driver hit the

Crl.Appeal.154 of 2023 XVIII ADJ Court Page 7 of 33 deceased in a rash or negligent manner and mentions the RTC bus number, but even the statements do not mention that the witnesses could identify the driver.

The star witness of the prosecution, i.e. PW3 who is the eyewitness to the incident.

In his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that he identified the accused for the first time in court today. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt also argued grounds of appeal.

9.Contra to this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that PW3 is the eyewitness to the incident, that he witnessed the incident, and that he identified the accused in open court. As such, the identification of the accused was believed by the lower court, and the same is discussed in the judgment. Mere absence of mention in the statements does not affect the prosecution's case.

Upon perusing the judgment of the lower court with regard to the identification of the accused and the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver, the trial court believed the evidence of PW3 as the crucial eye witness to the incident who identified the accused. In her arguments supported the conviction passed by the trial court.

10.After hearing rival submissions, the trial court has disbelieved the admission made by PW3 in cross-examination. Admittedly, the prosecution not

Crl.Appeal.154 of 2023 XVIII ADJ Court Page 8 of 33 examined the owner of the bus. The prosecution has not examined the owner of the bus/crime vehicle who hired the said bus to the Parigi Depot. Trip chits were also not seized by the police. The conductor of the bus is also a crucial witness but has not been examined. The accused was arrested by the police on his surrender.

PW1 and PW2's evidence is hearsay, they merely came to know about the incident.

PW3 admitted in cross-examination that he saw the accused for the first time in court today. Nowhere in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement did he state that he could identify the accused/bus driver. PW8, in his cross-examination also admitted that PW3 did not stated to him that he could identify the accused. Identification of the accused for the first time in court is a weak evidence, and there is a possibility of mistaken identification at the instance of the police. Hence, from the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was the driver of the crime bus vehicle at the time of the accident.

11.It is for the prosecution to prove that the accused drove the crime bus vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. Prosecution case is that the accident occurred while the deceased was crossing the road. A person suddenly crossing the road means the driver of the bus cannot control the vehicle in time.

Admittedly, it is a passenger bus, if the bus suddenly applied brakes, there is every possibility of it overturning. The deceased was also negligent while crossing the

Crl.Appeal.154 of 2023 XVIII ADJ Court Page 9 of 33 road. As per the prosecution's case, while the bus was proceeding towards Parigi and the deceased was crossing the road, the accident occurred in the meantime. It was for the deceased to take care while crossing the road. Further, PW8 admitted in cross-examination that it is true there is a turning on the road at the scene of the offence. The prosecution has not cited the vehicle passengers, i.e. the crime vehicle bus passengers, neither examined them nor cited them as witnesses. The bus conductor is also a competent witness to the accident, but the prosecution has not examined her. Basing on the statements and the report, the police conducted a table investigation and laid the charge sheet. There is a curve on the road, before the accident. Admittedly, accident has occurred at gate, as such speed of the bus, is minimum. All RTC buses are having speed lock. As per the record, it is a hired bus, while the deceased was crossing the road, a road accident occurred. As such, there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

The testimony of PW3 does not inspire confidence to show that the accused drove the bus in a rash or negligent manner.

12.PW3 also admitted that while the deceased was crossing the road, the accident occurred. He also admitted that there is a slight curve. Hence, from the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused drove the bus in a rash or negligent manner.

Crl.Appeal.154 of 2023 XVIII ADJ Court Page 10 of 33

13.It is further for the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The judgment passed by the trial court states, inadvertently while the deceased at para No. 18 that the accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the deceased from the opposite direction, resulting in the death of the deceased. Moreover, upon perusing the Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination conducted by the trial court, it omitted the evidence of PW8, which caused great prejudice to the accused. The presumption of innocence is a human right. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 is also biased. PW3 is also a resident of the deceased's village. Hence, from the above discussion, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and consequently, the conviction rendered by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

14.In the result, Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella in

C.C.No.137/2016 dated 22.11.2023, whereunder the appellant had been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of another three (03) months. The appellant/convict is hereby acquitted of the allegation for the offence

Crl.Appeal.154 of 2023 XVIII ADJ Court Page 11 of 33 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled, and the fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded after the expiry of the appeal period.

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

this, on this the 19 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-.

XVIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT CHEVELLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-.

XVIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT CHEVELLA.

IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT CHEVELLA.

Present: Sri.B.Srinivasulu, XVIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella.

MONDAY, THIS THE 22nd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.139 OF 2022.

Between:-

Janumala Naresh, S/o. Sathaiah, Age 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Elvarthi Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .… Appellant/Accused.

AND

The State of Telangana, P.S. Shankarpally, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor. …Respondent/Complainant.

This Criminal Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and sentence in S.C.No.119/2016 dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella in:

S.C.No.119/2016

Between:-

The State of Telangana, P.S. Shankarpally, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor. … Complainant. AND

Janumala Naresh, S/o. Sathaiah, Age 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Elvarthi Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Accused.

Crl.Appeal.139 of 2022 XVIII ADJ Court Page 2 of 11

This appeal is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 18.12.2025 in the presence of M/s.B.Venkatesham, learned counsel for appellant/accused and Smt.I.Deepa Rani, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

1.This appeal is preferred by appellant/accused against the respondent/complainant aggrieved by the judgment rendered in S.C.No.119/2016 by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of fine amount, appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Hence, appellant/accused filed this appeal and being referred to as appellant/accused in this judgment for the sake of convenience.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case, in nutshell, are as follows:

On 23.04.2016 at 07.00 A.M. deceased (Janumula Santhosha) committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil over her body, accused being husband of the deceased caused mental and physical cruelty in the martial relationship. One day prior to 23-04-2016, deceased received a wrong call to her mobile phone, on which accused suspected deceased to have maintained illicit relationship with one

Crl.Appeal.139 of 2022 XVIII ADJ Court Page 3 of 11 person, as such accused abused her in filthy language and beat her, due to unbearable harassment of the accused, deceased committed suicide on 23-4- 2016. While undergoing treatment, deceased succumbed to the burn injuries on same day. Basing on the above said complaint, PW13 Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in crime No.51 of 2016 under sections 498-A and 306 IPC.

During the course of investigation, he examined the prosecution witnesses.

Tahsildar, Shankarpally Mandal held inquest panchanama and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of two mediators. Subsequently, PW10 Assistant Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, conducted autopsy over the corpse of deceased and issued PME report. Upon the request of police, PW11 the then Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sanga Reddy recorded dying declaration of deceased and issued report. On 07.05.2016 arrested the accused and produced him before the court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at

Chevella had took cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC.

After furnishing the copies to the accused u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. As the case was triable by the Court of Session, it was committed to the Assistant Sessions Judge,

Crl.Appeal.139 of 2022 XVIII ADJ Court Page 4 of 11

Ranga Reddy District at Chevella, the accused was examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C, explaining the substance of accusation against him for the offence under

Section 498-A and 306 of IPC, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, PW1 to PW14 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P18 documents were marked. After closure of complainant evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which he denied the incriminating evidence and reported no evidence on his behalf. On behalf of the accused no witness is examined and no documents were marked.

5(a). After hearing both the counsel, the accused was convicted, as referred supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment, present appeal is preferred by the accused on the following grounds:- 5(b).Grounds of appeal pleaded by the appellant/accused counsel that the ingredients of 498-A of IPC is not made out by the prosecution. Further pleaded that without appreciating evidence on record and convicted the appellant and sentenced the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC. Hence the sentence of conviction passed against the appellant/accused is fit to be set aside.

Crl.Appeal.139 of 2022 XVIII ADJ Court Page 5 of 11

6.Heard the counsel for appellant, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and perused the record.

7. Now, the point for determination is

Whether the conviction judgment passed by the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge, Chevella is sustainable for the offence under Section

498-A of IPC?

8. POINT:

Counsel for the appellant/accused argued that basing on the dying declaration recorded by the PW11 who is Magistrate cannot be relied, whose evidence is not inspiring the confidence but the trial court has relied the dying declaration. The trial court convict the accused though all the witnesses i.e. blood relatives of the deceased turned hostile, basing on the sold testimony of PW11, the trial court convicted the accused, which is not sustained in law. Counsel for appellant further argued that the deceased has sustained 100% burns and she has committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil over her body and lit it, as such conviction cannot be sustainable for the offence under Section 498-Aof IPC.

Further argued that when the offence under Section 306 of IPC is not proved by the prosecution, the prosecution also not proved for the offence u/sec.498-A of

IPC.

Crl.Appeal.139 of 2022 XVIII ADJ Court Page 6 of 11

9.Learned counsel for appellant has relied a citation of 2019 Lawsuit (SC) 1030 between Sampat Babso Kale & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (from Bombay) Division Bench has held that when

the deceased has 98% burns, her dying declaration was discarded and the accused is entitled acquittal by set aside the judgment of the trial court. Further argued that at para No.10 of the judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in case of patients of serious burn injuries painkillers are administered to the patients, in such cases the trauma by cause delusion in the mind of the person and the accused was acquitted by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

10.Contra to this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the dying declaration of the deceased can be used as it is the last testimony of the deceased, no corroboration is required. The law is well settled, basing on the sole testimony, conviction can be used.

11.After hearing rival submissions, it is true that PW1 to PW3 are the blood relatives of deceased. PW1 is the father, PW2 is the brother and PW3 is the mother of deceased, they completely turned hostile. PW4 is the uncle and PW4 is the brother in law of the deceased, they also turned hostile. PW1 deposed that accused never harassed deceased physically and mentally at any point of time.

Crl.Appeal.139 of 2022 XVIII ADJ Court Page 7 of 11

PW2 to PW4 deposed that deceased has committed suicide as unable to tolerate her stomach pain. PW5 brother in law of deceased, who shifted her to

Government Hospital, Sanga Reddy in 108 ambulance, he further deposed that deceased poured kerosene on herself and set fire to herself and made an attempt to commit suicide, which was observed the flames from the house of accused and observed with burnt injuries. PW6 and PW7 the mediators for scene of offence panchanama, turned hostile. PW8 and PW9 the mediators for inquest panchanama, they turned hostile.

12.PW10 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination report, he deposed that on 23.04.2016 upon receiving the requisition from PS Shankarpally, he conducted postmortem examination over the corpse of deceased, he found injuries as mentioned in column No.11 of PME report, conducted in between 04:00

PM to 05:00 PM, the approximate time of death of the deceased was 08 to 10 hours, prior to her death and the cause of death of deceased was due to extensive burns 100%. Accordingly, Ex.P11 postmortem examination report issued. In his cross examination, he stated that the deceased has sustained 10% burns.

13.PW11 the then Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sanga Reddy deposed that on 23.04.2016 she received requisition from Government Hospital, Sanga

Crl.Appeal.139 of 2022 XVIII ADJ Court Page 8 of 11

Reddy at about 10:05 AM to record dying declaration of deceased/Smt.Santhosh, accordingly, she along with her office subordinate rushed to government hospital and entered into casualty with the help of duty doctor, she identified the patient and proceedings commenced by 10:15 AM. The duty doctor certified the mental condition of patient before commencement of dying declaration of the patient. To know the mental condition of the patient, she put some questions to her and she gave rational answers. Hence, she satisfy herself regarding mental condition of the patient and on further questioning, she stated that her marriage was performed about four years back, she got no issues and her husband was not doing any work, he was harassing her. Day before yesterday, from that day, she received wrong call on her cell phone, her husband suspected her character and picked up quarrel with her, he beat her indiscriminately, he used to insult her and he used to beat her as she was fed up with the attitude with her husband, she has set fire to herself. At the relevant time nobody was in house and her brother-in- laws extinguish the flames. Because of her husband only, she has set fire to herself. After recording her dying declaration, she read over the contents to her, she admitted the same to be true and correct. In her cross examination, she stated that while certifying the condition of the deceased in Ex.P14 dying declaration, the doctor has not mentioned the time beneath his signature.

Crl.Appeal.139 of 2022 XVIII ADJ Court Page 9 of 11

14.PW12 the then Tahsildar, Bachupally held inquest under Ex.P15. PW13 and

PW14 are the investigation officers who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.

15.Rightly the trial court acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and convicted the accused under Section 498-A of IPC. As per the arguments of the counsel for appellant, deceased condition was not stable, she is unable to give statement as sustained 100% burn injuries.

16.As per the case of the prosecution that on 23.04.2016 at about 0700 hours incident was occurred and deceased died at 11:15 AM at Sangareddy Government

Hospital. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of PW1 to PW5 by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor except marking their statements. Upon perusing the dying declaration under Ex.P14 that PW11 recorded the statement of deceased but no way it is mentioned that she recorded the statement by sending the relatives of the deceased and no blood relatives of the deceased are found by her. Basing on the sole testimony of PW11, conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 498-A cannot be sustained. Moreover, when deceased has sustained 100% burn injuries and she was shifted by PW5 to Sangareddy

Government Hospital ant at that time, they given complaint against the accused

Crl.Appeal.139 of 2022 XVIII ADJ Court Page 10 of 11 by alleging that the accused harassed deceased, as such she set herself ablaze but they turned hostile. Ex.P14 nowhere discloses that it is recorded in the absence of relatives of the deceased and she sustained 100% burn injuries and her statement recorded at 10:05 AM and she stated and she was shifted to Sangareddy hospital at 0700 hours by her parents. The sole testimony of PW11 and the dying declaration of deceased is not corroborated with any of the independent witnesses including her parents. As such, conviction of trial court basing on the sole evidence of PW11 and Ex.P14 cannot be sustained. Hence, from the above discussion, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and consequently, the conviction rendered by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

17.In the result, Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of the

Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella in S.C.No.119/2016

dated 15.11.2022, whereunder the appellant had been sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of another six (06) months. The appellant/convict is hereby acquitted of the allegation for the offence under

Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of

Crl.Appeal.139 of 2022 XVIII ADJ Court Page 11 of 11 the appellant shall stand cancelled, and the fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded after the expiry of the appeal period.

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

this, on this the 22 nd day of December, 2025.

Sd/-

XVIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT CHEVELLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-

XVIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT CHEVELLA.