CH. Ramesh Babu

IX Addl District and Sessions Judge

Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex · Kamareddy · Telangana

CH. Ramesh Babu, IX Addl District and Sessions Judge, is posted at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Kamareddy, Telangana, India. 329 court orders on record since 2021. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles MVOP, SC, EP cases.

329

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

SC/134/2015 Acquitted

State through PS Tadwai vs Bhogari Laxmipathi

11 Apr 2022

1 of 19 SC 134/2015

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

AT KAMAREDDY

Present: Sri CH. RAMESH BABU,

IX Additional Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022

S.C. No. 134 of 2015

1. Name of the Complainant :The State represented by Sub- DivisionalPoliceOfficer, Kamareddy.

2. Name of the accused:A1) Bogari Laxmipathi, S/o. Late Sangaiah, aged 29 years,

A2) smt. Bogari Narsavva, W/o. Late Sangaiah, aged 50 years,

A3) Smt. Allainda Lavanya @ Bogari Lavanya, W/o. Narsa Goud, aged about 23 years,

A4) Bogari Agamaiah, S/o. Bheemaiah, aged 50 years, caste: Padmashali, (DIED) (Case against A4 is abated on 29-10-2021)

A5) Smt. Bhogari Mathadi, W/o. Agamaiah, aged 48 years, occu: Padmashali, all occu: Coolie, r/o. Kondapur village, Tadwai mandal

3. Charges:U/Section 304(B) IPC

4. Plea of the accused:Not guilty

5. Finding of the Judge:Accused No.1 is found guilty

6. Sentence or order :Accused No.1 found guilty for the offence under section 304-B IPC and he is convicted under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. The accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 304-B IPC and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C.

Case against Accused No.4 was abated on 29-10-2021.

Accused No.1 is sentenced to under R.I. for a period of SEVEN years for the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC 2 of 19 SC 134/2015

7. Prosecution conducted by:Sri Nanda Ramesh,

Additional Public Prosecutor

8. Accused defended by:Sri V.L. Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for Accused, Kamareddy

This case coming before me for final hearing on 7.2.2022 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V.L. Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kamareddy has filed the charge sheet in Crime No. 26 of 2014 of Police Station,

Tadwai for the offence punishable under Section 304 (B) IPC alleging that the deceased married to accused No.1 eight months prior to her death, at the time of her marriage, her parents presented three tulas of gold and silver ornaments etc.

After the marriage, the deceased and her husband i.e. the

Accused No.1 lived happily for a period of three months, later the deceased and her husband and the in-laws of the deceased started harassing the deceased physically and mentally by demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- from her parents. Due to frequent harassment by the Accused No.1 to 5, three months prior to the death of the deceased, PW-1 presentedRs.50,000/-andhandedoverher son-in-law/accused No.1. On 19-2-2014 in the after noon hours, the deceased unable to bear the harassment of the

Accused No.1 to 5, she made an attempt to commit suicide by hanging with saree, which was noticed by PW-6, who raised hue and cry and neighbours rescued the deceased by shifting to Rudra Hospital, Kamareddy for treatment and while undergoing treatment, the deceased died about 6 pm at Rudra

Hospital. Later the dead body was shifted to the Government 3 of 19 SC 134/2015

Hospital, Kamareddy. Thus the acts of the accused Nos.1 to 5 constitute the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC.

2. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy preliminarily registered the case as PRC No. 39 of 2014 and committed the record to the Court of Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad. The learned Sessions Judge, Nizamabad vide

Sessions Case No. 134 of 2015 for the offence punishable

Section 304(B) IPC and made over to IX Addl. Sessions Court,

Kamareddy on the point of jurisdiction for disposal according to law.

3. On receipt of the case, on hearing the accused, this Court framed the charge against the Accused for the offence punishable Section 304(B) IPC. The Accused after understanding the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, PW.1 to 18 were examined, Ex.P1 to P21 were marked and

MO.1 was marked.

5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining him incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

Accused for the charge under Section 304(B) IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

4 of 19 SC 134/2015

Point:-

8.Case of the prosecution is that the deceased married to accused No.1 eight months prior to her death, at the time of her marriage, her parents presented three tulas of gold and silver ornaments etc. After the marriage, the deceased and her husband i.e. the Accused No.1 lived happily for a period of three months, later the deceased and her husband and the in- laws of the deceased started harassing the deceased physically and mentally by demanding to bring additional dowry of

Rs.50,000/- from her parents. Due to frequent harassment by the Accused No.1 to 5, three months prior to the death of the deceased, PW-1 presented Rs.50,000/- and handed over her son-in-law/accused No.1. On 19-2-2014 in the after noon hours, the deceased unable to bear the harassment of the

Hospital. Later the dead body was shifted to the Government

Hospital, Kamareddy. Thus the acts of the accused Nos.1 to 5 constitute the offence punisable under section 304-B IPC.

9.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, PW-1 who is the mother of the deceased, stated that the deceased is her daughter, the accused NO.1 is her son-in-aw, the accused No.2 is the mother of the Accused No.1, accused No.3 is the sister of the Accused No.1, the Accused No.4 is cousin of the Accused

No.1 and the Accused No.5 is the wife of the Accused No.4.

Pw-1 further stated that the deceased lived happily with the

Accused No.1 to 3 at Hyderabad for about three months of her marriage, thereafter the deceased and the accused No.1 shifted 5 of 19 SC 134/2015 to Kondapoor village and stayed for two months, where the accused No.1 harassed the deceased for additional dowry, the

Accused No.1 demanded for additional dowry, when he was at

Hyderabad. Hence Pw-1 paid Rs.50,000/- towards additional dowry as demanded the Accused NO.1. Pw-1 further deposed that she also paid Rs.15,000/- when the accused was at

Kondapoor village. Again the Accused No.1 started harassing the deceased for additional dowry, for which PW-1 expressed her inability to pay additional dowry. About eight years back, on one day, PW-1 made a telephone call stating that the deceased was shifted to Rudra Hospital, Kamareddy.

Immediately she rushed to Rudra Hospital, Kamareddy and noticed the dead body of the deceased. PW-1 further state that she gave complaint to the police against the accused.

10.PW-2 to PW-5 are close relative of the deceased, they deposed that the marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused no.1 about seven years back and they lived happily along with the Accused No.1 to 3 at Hyderabad for a period of 3 months, thereafter the deceased Srilatha and the

Accused No.1 were shifted to Kndapoor village. After (15) days, they came to know that the deceased committed suicide, but

PW-2 to Pw-4 did not support the case of the prosecution with regard to the demand made by the accused for additional dowry from the deceased.

11.PW-6/Smt. B. Mounika stated that PW-1 is her aunt and the deceased died about seven years back. On one day when she was returning from college and went to the house of the deceased and open the door and noticed that the deceased was hanging to a beam. Then she raised hue and cry, on hearing hue and cry, all the relatives and neighbours shifted to 6 of 19 SC 134/2015 hospital. But Pw-6 did not support the case of the prosecution in respect of the demand of additional dowry by the accused.

12. PW-7 is the photographer. He stated that he took the photographs under Ex.P7 to P12.

13. PW-8 to 10 are the independent witnesses. They stated that PW-1 obtained loan of Rs.50,000/- from DWACRA group after the marriage of her daughter. They further deposed that

PW-1 also taken loan of Rs.15,000/- from Grama Samgam after marriage of her daughter and PW-1 gave the said loan for giving the same to accused No.1 as demanded by them.

14. PW-11 and PW-12 are independent witnesses, but they have state anything about the case and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-13 is a panch for inquest and she stated that the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW-14 is the panch for scene of offence. He stated that the police conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized MO.1 saree. PW-15 is the then Mandal Revenue Officer, who deposed that he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased.

15. PW-16 is the doctor, who conducted Pme over the dead body of the deceased Srilatha alongwith Dr. Samreen and found the following injuries.

i) ‘U’ shaped ligature mark seen in front of the neck extending from below one ear to the other measuring 16x1.5 cm ii) Abrasion of size 2 x1 cm seen below the chin iii) Abrasion of 1x1 cm seen on the back.

She gave opinion based on the FSL report that the deceased died due to cardio respiratory arrest due to hanging and accordingly she gave Ex.P20 final opinion.

7 of 19 SC 134/2015

16. PW-17 is the ASI of Police. He deposed that previously he worked as Head constable at PS, Tadwai and during that period on 20-2-2014 at 1 pm he received Ex.p1 from PW-1 and basing on it he registered a case in Crime No. 26 of 2014 under

Section 304-B IPC and issued FIR under Ex.p21.

17. PW-18 is the Investigation Officer. He stated that he examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama, photographed the dead body of the deceased. He further stated that on 4.3.2014 he arrested the Accused No.1 to 3 and send them to court for judicial remand. Later on 9-4-2014 PW-17 apprehended the

Accused No.4 and 5 and produced before him and he effected arrest of the Accused No.4 and 5 and send them to court for judicial remand. After collection of PME report, FSL report and on completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

18. In this context it is relevant to refer ingredient to prove the dowry death under Section 304-B IPC and presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act., as under:

i) If a woman dies within seven years of marriage with burns or bodily injuries, soon after her death she was subjected to cruelty or harass by the husband or any of the relatives of husband in connection with the demand of dowry, then the death of woman will be considered as dowry death. ii) Death must be occurred within seven years of their marriage iii) Soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harass by her husband or any other relative of husband. iv) Cruelty or harassment on her should be in connection with demand of dowry.

19. Proximity between cruelty and the dowry death must be proved. Above referred ingredient must be kept in mind 8 of 19 SC 134/2015 while deciding the proximity between the dowry death and harassment.

20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satbir Singh Vs. the State of Hariyana in Crl. Appeal No. 1735−1736 OF 2010A1) Bogari Laxmipathi, S/o. Late Sangaiah, aged 29 years, vide its judgment dated 28-5-2021 at para No. 36 it is held as follows:

“36. At the cost of repetition, the law under Section 304−B, IPC read with Section 113−B, Evidence Act can be summarized below: i. Section 304−B, IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.

ii. The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304−B, IPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113−B, Evidence Act operates against the accused.

iii. The phrase soon before as appearing in Section 304−B, IPC cannot be construed to mean immediately before. The prosecution must establish existence of proximate and live link between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives.

iv. Section 304−B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The reason for such non categorization is due to the fact that death occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental.

v. Due to the precarious nature of Section 304−B, IPC read with 113−B, Evidence Act, Judges, prosecution and defence should be careful during conduction of trial.

vi. It is a matter of grave concern that, often, Trial Courts record the statement under Section 313, CrPC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense. It ought to be noted that the examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it based on the fundamental principle of fairness. This aforesaid provision incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice audi alteram partem as it enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on the court to question the accused fairly, with care and caution.

9 of 19 SC 134/2015 vii. The Court must put incriminating circumstances

before the accused and seek his response. A duty is also cast

on the counsel of the accused to prepare his defense since the inception of the Trial with due caution, keeping in consideration the peculiarities of Section 304−B, IPC read with Section 113−B, Evidence Act.

viii. Section 232, CrPC provides that, If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the

Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused

committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal. Such discretion must be utilized by the Trial Courts as an obligation of best efforts.

ix. Once the Trial Court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per the provisions of Section 232, CrPC, it must move on and fix hearings specifically for defence evidence, calling upon the accused to present his defense as per the procedure provided under Section 233, CrPC, which is also an invaluable right provided to the accused.

x. In the same breath, Trial Courts need to balance other important considerations such as the right to a speedy trial. In this regard, we may caution that the above provisions should not be allowed to be misused as delay tactics.

xi. Apart from the above, the presiding Judge should follow the guidelines laid down by this Court while sentencing and imposing appropriate punishment.

xii. Undoubtedly, as discussed above, the menace of dowry death is increasing day by day. However, it is also observed that sometimes family members of the husband are roped in, even though they have no active role in commission of the offence and are residing at distant places. In these cases, the Court need to be cautious in its approach.

21. The first ingredient to prove the offence punishable under

Section 304-B IPC is that the prosecution has to prove that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage. In this aspect Pw-1, who is mother of the deceased, stated that the deceased lived happily with the Accused No.1 to 3 at

Hyderabad for a period of three months, thereafter the deceased and the Accused No.1 shifted to Kondapoor village 10 of 19 SC 134/2015 and stayed for two months. During that period, the accused

No.1 harassed the deceased for additonal dowry.

22. Pws.2 to Pw-5 have not supported the case of prosecution, but they stated that the marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused No.1 about seven years back.

Thus the prosecution witnesses i.e. the blood relatives of the deceased has categorically stated that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage, therefore, the prosecution has proved that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage with the accused No.1

23. In order to prove the second ingredient, the prosecution has to prove that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for additional dowry.

24.PW-1, mother of the deceased, categoricially stated that immediately after the marriage of the deceased lived happily with the Accused No.1 at Hyderabad for about three months, thereafter the deceased and the Accused No.1 were shifted to

Kondapoor village and stayed for two months. During that period, the Accused No.1 harassed the deceased for additonal dory. PW-1 further stated that the Accused No.1 harassed the deceased for additional dowry while the accused no.1 was residing at Hyderabad. Pw-1 paid Rs.50,000/- when the

Accused No.1 was at Hyderabad and also paid Rs.15,000/- to the accused No.1 while the accused No.1 was at Kondapoor village, again the Accused No.1 harassed the deceased for

additional dowry, the same was informed to him to her then

the Accused No.1 expressed her inability to pay the additional dowry.

25. Pws.2 to 5 has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the harassment made by the Accused, but they 11 of 19 SC 134/2015 stated that the deceased lived happily with the Accused NO.1 to 3 at Hyderabad for about three months, thereafter they shifted to Kondapoor village, 15 days thereafter, they came to know that the deceased committed suicide. In this context, the evidence of Pw-6 is mot important. She stated that about 7 years back, on one day when she returned from her college and went to the house of the deceased, on opening the doors, she noticed that the deceased was hanging to a beam, then she raised hue and cry, on hearing the cries of Pw-6, all the relatives and neighbours rushed to the scene and the deceased was shifted to hospital.

26. On this aspect , the evidence of PW.8 to 11 are crucial.

PW-8 who is an independent witness. She stated that Pw-1 is a member of their DWACRA group and she obtained loan of

Rs.50,000/- from the group. PW-1 also obtained loan of

Rs.15,000/- from Grama Sangam after marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1. PW-8 further stated that PW- 1 obtained loan for giving the said amount to the Accused No.1.

during the cross examination by the learned Addl. P.P., Pw-8 stated that PW-1 obtained the loan to give the said amount to the accused No.1 as he was harassed the deceased by demanding additional dowry. During the cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused also PW-8 stated that she came to know through PW-1 that the accused NO.1 was raising dispute.

27. PW-9 who is also member of the DWACRA group. She stated tha PW-1 obtained loan of Rs.50,000/- from their group after the marriage of the deceased with the Accused No.1. PW- 1 also obtained loan of Rs.15,000/- from Grama sangam and the Pw-1 obtained the loan on the pretext that the said amount has to be paid to the Accused No.1. during the cross examination by the learned Addl.P.P. , PW-9 stated that PW-1 12 of 19 SC 134/2015 informed to her that the accused No.1 harassed the deceased for additional dowry, for which she obtained loan and she also stated that the accused harassed thedeceased for additional dowry, for which she committed suicide. During the cross examination of the counsel for the accused, Pw-9 categorically stated that they made dharna before the Government Hospital for seeking justice to the deceased.

28. PW-10 who is also member of DWACRA group. She stated that on coming to know about the death of the deceased,

PW-1 and other DWACRA and Mahila Sangam and made dharna in front of the government Hospital, Kamareddy. Pw- 10 further stated that Pw-1 obtained the loan of Rs.50,000/- on the pretext that the loan amount has to be paid to the accused No.1. When they demanded Pw-1 for repayment of the loan amount, then Pw-1 stated that she will pay the said amount when the accused No.1 repays to her. PW-10 also stated that PW-1 obtained loan of rs.15,000/- from Grama

Sangam after two to three months after obtaining loan from

DWACRA group on the pretext that the deceased was demanding amount. Pw-1 obtained the loan for giving the said amount to the Accused No.1. During the cross examination by the Addl. Public Prosecutor, PW-10 stated that PW-1 informed to her that the accused No.1 harassed the deceased for

additional dowry, for which PW-1 obtained loan of Rs.50,000/-

and Rs.15,000/-.

29. It is to be noted that the deceased is none other than the close relative of the Accused, and Pws.2 to 6 are relatives of the deceased as well as the Accused. PW-2 to 6 have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the demand of the dowry made by the accused. They only supported the case of the prosecution to an extent that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage.

13 of 19 SC 134/2015

30. PW-6 is the witness, who noticed the dead body of the deceased hanging to a beam for the first time and she supported the case to that extent only, but she did not support the case of the prosecution with regard to harassment made by the accused to the deceased.

31. PW-1 mother of the deceased categorically stated that she obtained loan of Rs.50,000/- from DWACRA group and

Rs.15,000/- from Grama Sangam and paid to the Accused

No.1 while the deceased and the Accused No.1 were at

Hyderabad and Kondapoor village respectively. It is also to be noticed that the DWACRA group members were examined as

PW.8 to 10 and they categorically stated that PW-1 obtained loan of Rs.50,000/- from DWACRA group and Rs.15,000/- from Grama Sangam and they also stated that Pw-1 obtained loan to pay the same to the accused No.1. PW-8 to 11 during the chief examination, they have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the harassment of the accused No.1 to the deceased, but during the cross examination made by the

Addl. Public Prosecutor, they stated that the accused harassed the deceased for additional dowry. PW9 and 10 also stated while cross examination by the Addl. P.P. that Pw-1 obtained loan from DWACRA group and gram sangam to satisfy the demand made by the accused No.1.

32. PW-13 who is the panch witness for the inquest. She has categorically stated that the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW-15 is the Tahsildar, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, categorically stated that when he examine the witnesses during the inquest panchanama, the panchadars opined that the deceased died due to harassment made by the accused. Thus the manner in which the evidence of PW.1, 8 to 10 clearly shows that PW-1 obtained loan from DWACRA and Grama 14 of 19 SC 134/2015

Sangam in order to give the same to the accused No.1. The evidence of Pw-1, 8 to 11 clearly shows that PW-1 has obtained the loan to satisfy the demand made by the accused No.1. In this context the evidence of PW.8 to 11 is crucial. They are independent witnesses and they categorically stated that they made dharna in front of Govt. Hospital, Kamareddy when the deceased died. While deposing the evidence, they have not supported the case of the prosecution in respect of demand of dowry made by the accused, but they admitted in the cross examination about Pw-1 informed to them about the harassment made by the Accused No.1 and Pw-1 obtained loan from DWACRA group and Grama Sangam to satisfy the demand made by the accused No.1. The manner in which the evidence made by Pw-8 to 11 is the trusth worthy and they deposed the evidence as a natural witnesses. Further evidence of Pw-1 and evidence of Pws.8 to 10 read together, it is clearly shows that PW-1 obtained loan of Rs.50,000/- and

Rs.15,000/- in order to pay the same to the accused No.1 who was harassing the deceased by demanding the additional dowry. It is a prudent principal that when the prosecution has proved that PW-1 has paid Rs.50,000/- and Rs.15,000/- to the

Accused No.1 towards the demand of dowry, the burden shifted on the accused to disprove that he has not made any such demand of dowry, but during the cross examination of PW-1 and PW8 to 10 they categorically stated that due to harassment made by the accused No.1 only, Pw-1 obtained the above said loan amount and paid the said amount to the accused. The contents of inquest report, evidence of Tahsildar coupled with evidence of panch for inquest clearly shows that the deceased committed suicide due to harassment made by the Accused No.1. On considering the evidence of PW-1 and 8 to 11 it reveals that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to harassment for additional dowry and 15 of 19 SC 134/2015 accordingly Pw-1 paid Rs.50,000/- and Rs.15,000/- to the accused no.1 on demand for additional dowry. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has proved that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty for

additional dowry.

33. In order to prove the third ingredient, the death of the deceased was a suspicious one, PW-1 stated that the accused no.1 made a telephone call to her and stated that the deceased was shifted to Rudra Hospital, kamareddy as she hanged herself. Pws.2 to 5 who are blood relatives of the accused as well as the deceased, more particularly close relatives of the accused, they have not supported the case of the prosecution, but they categorically stated that 15 days after shifting to

Kondapoor village, they came to know that the deceased committed suicide by hanging.

34. PW-6, who first saw the dead body of the deceased hanging to a beam, deposed that when she returned from college and went to the house of the deceased by opening the doors of the house, she noticed that the dead body of the deceased was hanging to a beam and when she raised hue and cry, the relatives and neighbours gathered and shifted to hospital, which shows that the death of the deceased is suspicious one. Further PW8 to 10 who are independent witnesses has categorically stated that she committed suicide which is suspicious one. Pw-12 who has not supported the case of the prosecution but deposed that the deceased committed suicide by hanging in her house.

34. The inquest report, report of the Tahsildar, evidence of panch witness for inquest panchanama and the evidence of doctor, who conducted post mortem examination clearly shows that the deceased died due to injuries on her body i.e. ‘U’ 16 of 19 SC 134/2015 shaped ligature mark seen in front of her neck, abrasions on below the chin and back clearly shows that the deceased died due to hanging. The doctor, who conducted post mortem examination also opined that the deceased died due to cardio respiratory arrest due to hanging. The evidence of doctor coupled with the prosecution witnesses shows that the deceased committed suicide which is a suspicious death.

35. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has proved that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage, soon after her death she was subjected to cruelty by demanding the dowry by the accused and that the death of the deceased is a suspicious one, which clearly attracts the offence as defined under Section 304-B of IPC. Thus the prosecution has proved the case against the Accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt.

36. Further none of the prosecution witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution to prove the case against the

Accused No.2 to 5, as such they had any role for demanding of dowry and harassment of the deceased. Only evidence available on behalf of the prosecution is against the Accused

No.1, PW-1 has categorically stated that the accused no.1 harassed the deceased for additional dowry and she paid the dowry amount. PW-8 to 10 also stated that PW-1 informed to them that she obtained loan to meet the dowry demand made by the accused no.1, but they have not stated anything against the Accused No. 2 to 5. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has proved the case against the Accused No.1 only, and has miserably failed to prove case against the

Accused No.2 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt under section 304-B IPC. Accordingly informed to the accused.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court on this the 11th day of April, 2022.

17 of 19 SC 134/2015

IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KAMAREDDY

Accused No.1, 2, 3 are present. Accused No.5 is absent.

Petition filed and allowed.

37.In the result, the accused No.1 found guilty for the offence under section 304-B IPC and he is convicted under section 235 (2)

Cr.P.C. The accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 304-B IPC and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C.

38.Heard the the accused No.1 under section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

regarding sentence. The accused No.1 pleaded mercy of the Court.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of SEVEN (7) years for the offence punishable under section

Section 304-B IPC.

The remand period undergone by the Accused No.1 shall be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to 3, 5 stands cancelled. Case against the Accused No.4 is abated on 29-10-2021.

The MO.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Accused No.1 is intimated about the right of appeal and that he can seek for legal aid if he do not have sufficient means.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of April, 2022.

IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F or Prosecution : F or Defence:

-None - 18 of 19 SC 134/2015

PW-1 Smt. I. Gangavva

PW-2 I. Narsimlu

PW-3 Smt. I. Jyothi

PW-4 I. Parandhamulu

PW-5 Smt. I. Krishnaveni

PW-6 Smt. B. Mounika

PW-7 K. Siddi ramulu

PW-8 Smt. Bhoopathi swaroopa

PW-9 Smt. M. Jayamma

PW-10 Smt. Hemalatha

PW-11 Y. Vittal

PW-12 Ch. Dharmapuri

PW-13 Smt. Bathina Kamala

PW-14 Golla Lachaiah

PW-15 Shivaram

PW-16Smt. M. Saritha

PW-17B. Narsimlu

PW-18Surender Reddy, IO

D OCUMENTS MARKED

F or Prosecution : Ex.P1 Complaint

Ex.P2Relevant portion of section 161 Cr.P.c. statement of PW-1

Ex.P3Relevant portion of section 161 Cr.P.c. statement of PW-2

Ex.P4Relevant portion of section 161 Cr.P.c. statement of PW-3

Ex.P5 Relevant portion of section 161 Cr.P.c. statement of PW-4

Ex.P6 Relevant portion of section 161 Cr.P.c. statement of PW-5

Ex.P7Relevant portion of section 161 Cr.P.c. statement of PW-6

Ex.P8Photographs of the dead body of the deceased

Ex.P9Photographs of the dead body of the deceased

Ex.P10Photographs of the dead body of the deceased

Ex.P11Photographs of the dead body of the deceased Ex.P12 Photographs of the dead body of the deceased

Ex.P13Relevant portion of section 161 Cr.P.c. statement of PW-11

Ex.P14Relevant portion of section 161 Cr.P.c. statement of PW-12

Ex.P15 Inquest report Ex.P16 Scene of offence panchanam

Ex.P17Rough sketch 19 of 19 SC 134/2015

Ex.P18Post mortem examination report Ex.P19 FSL report Ex.P20Final opinion Ex.P21 F.I.R. For Defence: NIL Material Object: M.O. 1 : Saree

IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

SC/217/2016 Acquitted

State through PS Tadwai vs Gargul Rajaiah

12 Apr 2022

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

AT KAMAREDDY

PRESENT:SRI CH. RAMESH BABU,

IX Additional Sessions Judge,

Kamareddy

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2022

SC No. 217 of 2016

(committal by the Court of Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Kamareddy by order dated 14.09.2016 in PRC No. 46 of 2015 in Crime No. 6 of 2015 of PS, Tadwai]

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

2)Name of accused : Garugul Rajaiah, S/o Rajaiah, age: 40 years, Caste: Bestha, Occ: Labour, R/o H.No.4-49. Tadwai village and Mandal

3)Charge/s:Under Section 302 and 201 IPC

4) Plea of the accused: Accused pleaded not guilty.

5)Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty (Benefit of doubt

6)Prosecution :Sri Nanda Ramesh,

Additional Public Prosecutor, Kamareddy

conducted by

7)Accused defended by :Sri N.Sridhar, Advocate, Kamareddy

8) Sentence/Order : Accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC, and he is acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, MOs 1 to 6 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case coming on 31.01.2022 for hearing before me; upon hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 2 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, Bhiknoor, filed charge sheet in Crime

No.6/2015 for the offences under Section 302 and 201 IPC of Police station, Tadwai, against accused, contending that the accused performed the marriage of Uma Devi who is his second wife daughter with the deceased, but Umadevi and deceased did not led good conjugal life and she left the deceased and went to her grand mother’s house, for which several panchayaths were conducted, but matter was not settled. After few days the second wife of the accused Padma and son Santhosh also left the house of the accused and accused is living alone, for which the accused developed grudge against the deceased, on 09.01.2015 at about 7.30 p.m., accused went to the house of deceased and took the deceased along with him on the pretext of catch fishes at Chinna Cheruvu, situated at

Yerrapahad village shivar, on the way the accused purchased the liquor and went to Chinna Cheruvu of Yerrapahad and both of them spread the fish net in the pond and consumed the liquor, when the deceased was in drunken condition the accused took him to the water and forcibly drowned in the water and killed him. To conceal the said fact that the accused dragged the dead body of deceased and thrown away into the bushes and in the meanwhile the accused on heard the sound of the vehicles and fled away from the scene.

The acts of the accused constituted the offence punishable Under section 302, 201 IPC.

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 3 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR

2.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, took the case on file as PRC No.46 of 2015 for the offences under Section 302, 201 IPC against accused and furnished the copies of documents to the accused on his appearance before the court.

Since the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC alleged against the accused, is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, committed the case

against the accused to the court of Sessions, Nizamabad. The

Principal Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, registered the same as SC No.

217 of 2016 and made over the same to the IX Addl. Sessions Judge,

Kamareddy on the point of jurisdiction.

3.This court, after hearing both side counsel, charge under

Section under Section 302 and 201 IPC, were framed against the accused and the same were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which, the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In proof the case of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 16 were examined and Exs.P1 to P36 and MOs.1 to 5 were marked.

5. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in order to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 4 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR prosecution witnesses against the accused, to which, the accused denied the same.

6. Heard the arguments submitted by both side counsels.

7. Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 302 and 201 IPC against accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT

8. The case of the prosecution is that the accused performed the marriage of Uma Devi who is second wife daughter with the deceased, but Umadevi and deceased did not lead good conjugal life she left the deceased and went to her grand mothers house, for which several panchayaths were conducted, but matter was not settled. After few days the second wife of the accused

Padma and son Santhosh also left the house of the accused and accused is living alone, for which the accused developed grudge against the deceased on 09.01.2015 at about 7.30 p.m., accused went to the house of deceased and took him along with accused on the pretext of catch fishes at Chinna Cheruvu, situated at

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 5 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR water and forcibly drowned in the water and killed. To conceal the said fact that the accused dragged the dead body of deceased and thrown away into the bushes and the accused on heard the sound of the vehicles and fled away from the scene. The acts of the accused constituted the offence punishable Under section 302 and 201 IPC.

9. In prove the case of the prosecution is that the wife of the deceased was examined as PW.1, she stated that on 09.01.2015 at about 7.30 p.m., when her husband was breaking the wood, the accused came to their house and took her husband on the pretext that they wanted to catch fish. She stated that on the next day morning her husband did not returned, for which she informed to her in laws, then PW.1 and her in laws went to the house of accused and questioned him. On that accused informed that he do not know about the deceased. Then PW.1 took accused to the village while doing so she received information that a male dead body was found on the tank bund on the outskirts of Yerrapahad village. Then they rushed there and noticed the dead body of her husband. PW.1 further stated that the deceased had injuries on the back of the head, hands and legs. On her instructions police prepared Ex.P1 complaint.

10. Father of the deceased was examined as PW.2, he stated that PW.1 informed to him that on 09.01.2015 at about 7.30 p.m., when his son was breaking the wood, the accused came to the

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 6 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR house and took his son on the pretext that they wanted to catch fish. On the next day morning PW.1 informed to PW.2 that her son did not returned, then PW.2 went to the village and enquired and he came to know that a male dead body was found on the tank bund in the outskirts of Yerrapahad village. Then PW.1 and other family members, caste elders were rushed to Tank bund and noticed the dead body belongs to his son. PW.2 further stated that he noticed that the deceased had injuries on the back of the head, on forehead, hands and legs. PW.2 stated that the police came to the scene and conducted panchanama and PW.2 suspected the accused might have killed the deceased.

11. PW.3 who is mother of the deceased stated that about 6 years back, PW.1 informed to her that on one day at about 7.30 p.m., when his son was breaking the wood, accused came to her house and took her son on the pretext that they wanted to catch fish. On the next day morning PW.1 informed to PW.3 that PW.3 son was not returned to his house. Meanwhile, they came to know that a male dead body was found on the tank bund in the outskirts of

Yerrapahad village. PW.3 stated that then they rushed to Tank Bund and noticed the dead body belongs to her son and deceased had injuries on forehead, hands and legs and also on nose. PW.3 stated that deceased cloths i.e., sweater, pant and shirt were missing and she suspected the accused might have killed the deceased.

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 7 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR

12. PW.4 is the uncle of the deceased he stated that PW.1

Informed to PW.2 and PW.3 that their son did not returned to their house. Meanwhile, they came to know that a male dead body was found on the tank bund in the outskirts of Yerrapahad village. Then they rushed to Tank Bund and noticed the dead body of the deceased, deceased had injuries on back of the head, forehead, hands and legs. PW.4 stated that he suspected the accused might have killed the deceased.

13. PW.5 is the witness who noticed the dead body at the first instance, he stated that in the year 2015 on one day at about 7.30 a.m., he went to attend natural call to Chinna Cheruvu, where he noticed a male dead body and he informed to police, police came to the scene.

14. PW.6 is the photographer, he stated that on the request of police he took photographs of the deceased.

15. PW.7 who is sister of the deceased, she stated that on 10.01.2015 she received telephone call from her father and stating that deceased died. Immediately she rushed to their village and witnessed the dead body. And noticed that the deceased had injuries all over the body. PW.1 informed to her that the accused took the deceased on 09.01.2015 at about 7.30 p.m., for catching fish, but the deceased did not return and they suspected that accused might have killed the deceased.

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 8 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR

16. The panch witness for the scene of offence was examined as PW.8, he stated that in the year 2015 he went to the scene on coming to know about the death of the deceased and rushed the scene. But he has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard preparing the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch and also seizure of deceased clothes.

17. PW.9 who is another panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama, he stated that in the year 2015 he went to the scene on coming to know about the death of the deceased and rushed the scene. He is also not supported the case of prosecution with regard to preparing the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch and also seizure of deceased clothes.

18. PW10 as per the case of the prosecution, he is the panch witness for the inquest, he has not supported the case of the prosecution, he stated that in the year 2015 he came to know about the death of the deceased and rushed to the scene. PW.11 is the another panch witness for the inquest panchanama, he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he stated in the year 2015 he came to know about the death of the deceased and rushed to the scene.

19. PW.12 is the panch witness for the confession of the accused and recovery of material objects, he has partly supported the case of the prosecution, he stated that in the year 2015 police

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 9 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR summoned him to the house of the accused, on enquiry accused confessed that he killed the deceased and police seized coat from the accused and also seized beer bottle, MO.1 is the coat, MO.2 is the bear bottle. During the cross examination of learned Additional

Public Prosecutor PW.12 stated police shown one button, MO.3 is button. They compared with MO.3 buttonm the available button on the coat. PW.13 is the doctor who conducted Postmortem

Examination over the dead body of the deceased. He stated that he found following injuries.

1) Abrasion 4 x 10 cm extending from left lumbar region to left hip region.

2) Abrasion 4 x 5 c, pm the right side chest at level 5th and 6th inter costal spaces.

3) Abrasion 3 x 4 cms left shoulder at deltoid region.

4) Abrasion 2 x 2 cm right side of the fore head 2 inches below the hair line.

5) Abrasion 2 x 2 cm left fore hand 2 cm below the elbow joint.

6) abrasion 3 x 4 cms below the right knee joint.

Doctor who conducted postmortem examination, he given final opinion, on perusal of the FSL report stating that deceased died due to drowning.

20. PW.14 is panch witness for the confession of the accused and recovery of material objects, he stated that on

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 10 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR 12.01.2015 at about 3.30 p.m., police, Bhiknoor summoned him to the house of the accused, where he enquired with the accused, the accused confessed that he took the deceased for catch fishing, they purchased liquor, water glasses, they consumed liquor at water tank, Yerrapahad. PW.14 stated that the accused confessed that fishing net was tied around the neck of the deceased and killed him.

In pursuance of the confession of the accused, he shown coat button, MO.3 is the coat Button.

21. PW.15 is the Sub Inspector of police, who registered the first information report, he stated that on 10.01.2015 he received

Ex.P1 complaint from PW.1, basing on it he registered a case in

Cr.No.6/2015 U/sec. 302 IPC. PW.16 is the investigating officer, he stated that on 10.01.2015 he received CD file from PW.15 and visited the scene of offence and recorded the statement of PW.1 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch, he seized one cycle, bear bottle, officer choice empty bottle and also seized waste paper pieces and button. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Hospital, on 12.01.2015 he apprehended the accused and recorded the confession statement of the accused, in pursuance of the confession of the accused, he recovered the MO.1 coat and compared the coat button found at the scene.

22. The case rest on circumstantial evidence, in view of the judgment render by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to prove the case

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 11 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR under circumstantial evidence. The pancha sheela sutras enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has to be followed:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, it may be noted here that this court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not may be established. Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty

before a court can convict and the mental distance

between ‘may be’ vague conjectures from sure conclusions.’

2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

4)They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

23. The first circumstances relied by the prosecution is that the deceased wife has lost seen company of the accused with the deceased. PW.1 stated that on 09.01.2015 at about 7.,30 p.m.,

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 12 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR while her husband breaking wood accused came to her house and took her husband on the pretext that they wanted to catch fish.

PW.2 who is the father of the deceased stated that PW.1 informed to him that on 09.01.2015 at about 7.30 p.m., when the deceased was breaking the wood, accused came to his house and took him on the pretext that they wanted to catch fish. PW.3 is the mother of the deceased, he stated that PW.1 informed to her that on one day at about 7.30 p.m., while his son was breaking the wood, the accused came to her house and took him on the pretext that they wanted to catch fish.

24. It is to be noted in the complaint it is mentioned that on 09.01.2015 at about 7.30 p.m., while the deceased was breaking the wood, accused came to her house and took him on the pretext that they wanted to catch fish. But the deceased did not returned to their house. PW.1 further sated that even on the next day morning her husband did not return, for which PW.1 and her parents-in-laws went to the house of the accused and questioned him. On that he informed that he do not know about the deceased.

Then PW.1 took the accused to the village, while doing so she received information that a male dead body was found on the tank bund in the outskirts of Yerrapahad village. Whereas, PW.2 and

PW.3 have not supported that they also accompanied PW.1 and went to the house of the accused and questioned him about his son, in the complaint PW.1 has not mentioned that PW.1 to PW.3 went to

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 13 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR the house of the accused on 10.01.2015 and questioned the accused and PW.1 took the accused to the village. It is also to be noted that as per the evidence of PW.5, he stated that in the year 2015 on one day at about 7.30 a.m., he went to attend natural call to Chinna Cheruvu, where he noticed the male dead body and informed to police.

25. As per the evidence of PW.1 police came to the scene at about 10.00 a.m., and he examined PW.1 at about 10.30 a.m. PW.2 stated that police examined him at about 9.30 a.m. PW.3 also stated that police examined her at about 9.30 a.m. PW.4 also stated that police examined him at about 9.30 a.m. PW.5 who witnessed the dead body at the first instance, he stated that police came to the scene within 30 minutes after informing to them.

26. It is shows that PW.15 Sub Inspector of Police, who received complaint, he stated that on 10.01.2015 he received Ex.P1 complaint. In the cross examination he admitted that he received information about the presence of the dad body near water tank prior to receipt of Ex.P1 complaint. He also stated that he has not visited the scene before receiving Ex.P1. PW.16 stated that he visited the scene of offence on 10.01.2015 and conducted scene of offence panchanama. The Ex.P33 is the scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P34 is the rough sketch. Which shows it was prepared on 10.01.2015, whereas time was mentioned as 5.30 p.m.

The inquest panchanama was prepared on 11.01.2015.

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 14 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR

27. It is to be noted that as per the evidence of PW.1 to

PW.4 police examined them between 9.30 to 10.30 a.m., on 10.01.2015. It is to be noted that the police conducted scene of offence panchanama in the evening at 5.30 p.m., Sub Inspector of police registered the case as stated that prior to submitting Ex.P1 complaint he received information about the dead body of the deceased laying on the outskirts of the Yerrapahad village. As per the recital of the Ex.P1 the complaint was submitted at 4.00 p.m. It shows that before registering the first information report the police examined the witnesses. The admission made by the Sub Inspector of police that he had knowledge about the dead body prior to issuing Ex.P1 report. But he only visited the scene after receiving

Ex.P1 complaint, which shows that he went to the scene after 4.00 p.m., on 10.01.2015 and the first information report reached to the court at 8.00 p.m., on 10.01.2015. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 and the Sub Inspector of police, who registered the first information report clearly shows that from the morning on 10.01.2015 the police and the villagers were very much present at the scene, but the

Ex.P1 complaint was submitted by evening at 4.00 p.m. which shows that there is a delay of lodging in complaint before the police and there is every apprehension of fabricating the complaint by the police even though they have knowledg of dead body laying at

Chinna Cheruvu, in the outskirts of Yerrapahad village. The manner in which the police admitted that they had knowledged about the

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 15 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR dead body present prior to Ex.P1 complaint clearly shows that there is every chance of fabricating the complaint.

28. As per the case of the PW.1 accused took her husband, but in Ex.P1 she stated that she suspected accused and some others are responsible for the death of the deceased.

29. The next circumstances which the prosecution has to prove that as per the photographs the deceased had no clothes and only he had small pieces of cloth. Which was tied to hip. Whereas, the scene of offence panchanama shows that the police have seized clothes of the deceased, there is no mention who has covered the dead body of the deceased with the clothes and from whom those clothes were recovered.

30. The next circumstances relied by the prosecution is confession of the accused and recovery of coat, the panch witnesses for the scene of offence and inquest have not supported the case of the prosecution and the only evidence available on record is the police witnesses who supported the scene of offence panchanama and inquest. As per the scene of offence panchanma the police recovered coat button from the scene.

31. The Panch witness for the confession i.e., PW.12, he stated that in the year 2015 police summoned him to the house of the accused on enquiry the accused confessed that he killed the deceased and police seized coat from the accused and beer bottle.

During the cross examination of Additional Public Prosecutor PW.12

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 16 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR stated that police shown one button and compared button with the available button on the coat. During the cross examination of the accused, PW.12 stated that he alone went to the house of the accused, he has not questioned the accused and police questioned the accused. Whereas, PW.14 is the another panch witness for the confession of the accused, he stated that on 12.01.2015 at about 3.30 p.m., police, Bhiknoor summoned him to the house of the accused, he enquired with the accused, he confessed that he took the deceased for fishing and they purchased the liquor and consumed liquor at water tank, Yerrapahad, the accused confessed that fishing net was tied around the neck of the deceased and killed him. As per the confession panchanama, the accused put the deceased in the water due to suffocation he died. The confession panch who supported the case of the prosecution stated that the accused confessed that he tied the fishing net around the neck of the deceased and killed him. Which clearly shows that the evidence of panch witnesses i.e., PW.12 and PW.14 are not corroborating with each other apart from that the evidence of PW.12 and PW.14 is also not corroborating with the confession made by the accused before them.

32. The evidence of panch witnesses of the confession of the accused is in-consisting and it is not supporting the case of the prosecution. The remaining evidence available is the police, the investigating officer stated that the accused confessed and in

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 17 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR pursuance of the confession of the accused police has recovered the coat from the accused. It is to be noted that the photographs and evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 shows that the deceased had bleading injuries. As per the evidence of doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased also shows that there are several abrasions on the deceased, which are antimortem in nature. The Forensic Science Laboratory report shows that there is no poisonous substance. The Postmortem examination report shows that lungs filled with clear flued and she opined that the deceased died due to drowning. The panch witness for the confession stated that the confession of the accused is not corroborating with the evidence of the prosecution case. Even for motive the prosecution contended that the accused daughter had dispute with the deceased. PW.1 to PW.3 admitted that the accused has no talking terms with them, where the accused had no talking terms with them, what made him to invite the deceased for catching fish.

33. On one hand the prosecution contended that the accused hatched a plan to kill the deceased, but during the cross examination they admitted that the have had no talking terms with the accused. If the accused had no talking terms with the PW.1 to

PW.3, the question of accused inviting the deceased for catching fish does not arise. The way in which there is a delay in lodging the

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 18 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR complaint, clearly shows that there is every possibility of false implication of the accused due to previous enmities.

34. It is not out of place to mention that when PW.1 categorically mentioned that the accused took her husband on 09.01.2015 at 7.30 pm., on the pretext of catching fish, but he did not return to her house. PW.1 to PW3 went to the house of the accused and questioned the accused, the said fact was not referred in Ex.P1 complaint. Apart from that the Sub Inspector of Police who has knowledged about the death of the deceased prior to Ex.P1 complaint. He stated that he has not visited the scene. Which also clearly shows that there is a delay in lodging the complaint, which also creates suspicion in lodging complaint with a delay. When the

PW.1 noticed the dead body in the morning what made her to kept quite till 4.00 p.m., in submitting the complaint. These facts clearly creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution in addition to that the panch witnesses for confession of the accused has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the ingredients to prove the circumstantial evidence against the accused is not only cogent but also inconsistent and beyond reality.

35. In view of the above discussion the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused took the deceased on 09.01.2015 at about 7.30 p.m., from his house on the pretext of catching fish. Apart from that the prosecution has not explained the delay in lodging the complaint and the evidence of Sub Inspector of

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 19 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR

Police also shows that he had a knowledge about the dead body of the deceased prior to submitting the complaint. And all the villagers went to the scene in the morning and the PW.1 to PW.3 categorically stated that police examined them in the morning on 10.01.2015 and PW.1 given complaint on 10.01.2015 at about 4.00 p.m., which clearly shows that some evidence was taken to prepare the complaint having previous amenity with the accused. It is not out of place mentioned that in Ex.P1 complaint PW.1 not only expressed doubt on the accused she also expressed doubt against some others in causing the death of the deceased. These facts clearly shows that there is a very chance of implicating the accused.

Therefore, the benefit of doubt must given to the accused.

36.In view of the above discussions, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

37.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 IPC, he is acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled,

MOs 1 to 6 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of April, 2022.

IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 20 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1 : Sri. L.Lasya None P.W.2 : Sri L.Gangaram P.W.3 : Smt. L.Manemma P.W.4 : Sri L.Balaiah P.W.5: Sri D.Jalandar Reddy P.W.6 : Sri K.Siddaramulu, Photographer P.W.7 : Smt. L.Nagarani, Staff Nurse P.W.8 : Sri B.Thirupathi Reddy P.W.9 : Sri B.Balareddy P.W.10: Sri Mudam Narsimlu PW.11: Sri D.Bhaskar Reddy PW.12: Sri P.Narender Reddy, RI PW.13: Dr. Jayachandra, PW.14: Sri P.Premdas, Panchayath Secretary, PW.15: Sri K.Nagaraju, IO PW.16: Sri A.Sridhar Kumar, IO,

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Statement of PW.1 - Nil - Ex.P2 } to }: Photographs Ex.P16}

Ex.P17} and } Signatures of PW.8 on scene of offence Ex.P18} panchanama

Ex.P19: Signature of PW.8 on rough sketch Ex.P20} and}: Signatures of PW.9 on scene of offence Ex.P21} panchanama.

Ex.P22: Signature of PW.9 on rough sketch. Ex.P23} to} Signature of PW.10 on inquest Ex.P25} panchanama.

SC No. 217 of 2016 C 21 of 21

IX ADJ Court, KMR

Ex.P26} to} Signature of PW.11 on inquest Ex.P28} panchanama

Ex.P29: Postmortem Examination report. Ex.P30: Forensic Science Laboratory report. Ex.P31: Final Opinion. Ex.P32: First Information Report Ex.P33: Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P34: Rough sketch. Ex.P35: Inquest report. Ex.P36: Receipt of Forensic Science Laboratory report.

M.Os. MARKED M.O.1: Coat M.O.2: Beer bottle M.O.3: Button on the Coat M.O.4: One cycle M.O.5 : Officer Choice empty bottle M.O.6 : Wast paper pieces

IX Addl. Sessions Judge Kamareddy

SC/192/2015 Acquitted

State through PS Bhiknoor vs Yerrola Chinna Beeraiah @ Anchanoor Beeraiah

25 Apr 2022

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

AT KAMAREDDY

PRESENT:SRI CH. RAMESH BABU,

IX Additional Sessions Judge,

Kamareddy

Dated this the 25th day of April, 2022

SC No. 192 of 2015

(committal by the Court of Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Kamareddy by order

dated 30.04.2015 in PRC No. 83 of 2013 in Crime No. 157 of 2013 of PS,

Bhiknoor]

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

2)Name of accused : 1. Yerrolla Chinna Beeraiah @ Anchanoor Beeraiah, S/o Balaiah, aged 35 years, Caste:Kurma,Occ:Coolie,R/o Peddamallareddy village of Bhiknoor Mandal.

2. Kotha Kurma Shanker, S/o Balaiah, aged 45 years, Caste: Kurma, Occ: Labour, R/o Peddamallareddy village of Bhiknoor Mandal.

3. Koyyala Naresh, S/o Late Bagaiah, aged 19 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Coolie, R/o Peddamallareddy village of Bhiknoor Mandal. The case against the accused No.1 abated on 18.02.2020.

3)Charge/s:Under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC

4) Plea of the accused: Accused pleaded not guilty.

5)Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty.

6)Prosecution :Sri Nanda Ramesh,

Additional Public Prosecutor, Kamareddy

conducted by

7)Accused defended by :Sri R.B. Ramesh Chand, Advocate, Kamareddy

8) Sentence/Order : Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are found not guilty of the

C 2 of 14 SC No. 192 of 2015 offences punishable under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC, they are acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed and MO.2 shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time and the bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled.

This case coming on 20.04.2022 for hearing before me; upon hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, Bhiknoor, filed charge sheet in Crime

No.157/2013 of Bhiknoor Police Station, for the offences under

Section 302, 201 read with 34 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 3, alleging that, the accused developed illegal intimacy with Koyyala

Padma who is wife of deceased for the last 4 years, the accused

No.1 and Koyyala Padma and her daughter/PW.6 went to

Mushrabad, Hyderabad for livelihood. About 3 months prior to this offence, due to natural death of mother of deceased Koyyala

Govravva, the Mudhiraj caste elders call back the Koyyala Padma, accused No.1 and PW.6 to attend the death customary of mother of deceased. They returned to Peddamallareddy village as per the advice of caste elders the Koyyala Padma, PW.6 went to the house of the deceased and all together residing in the same house at village. There is no chance to meet the Koyyhala Padma by the accused No.1, the accused No.1 developed bore grudge on the

C 3 of 14 SC No. 192 of 2015

Koyyala Bagaiah (husband of his concubine Padma) and planed to eliminate the deceased Koyyala Bagaiah, by accused No.1 with the help of accused No.2. On 19.04.2013 at 6.30 p.m., as per their plan accused No.2 called the deceased to Cheruvu Alugu near Bondala

Gadda in the outskirts of Peddamallareddy village the accused No.1 already present and both the accused No.1 and 2 quarrel with the deceased and beat with stone on his head and both temples and killed him. They packing the dead body of the deceased in a bag, while the accused No.3 who is son of deceased searching his father (deceased) reached the scene, then accused No.1 and 2 threatened the accused No.3 and took his assistance for packing the dead body of the deceased in a plastic bag, shifting the same to Devendurni

Gutta near quarry in the out skirts of Peddamallareddy village and buried the deceased in the stock dust of quarry.

It is the further the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 to 3 shifting the dead body of the deceased from near Bondala

Gadda to Devendurni Gutta near quarry on the way PW.3 and PW.4 witnessed. On missing of deceased, on 02.05.2013 morning the

LW.1, PW.2 and PW.12 and others questioned the son of the deceased/accused No.3 about his father, then accused No.3 confessed before LW.1, PW.2 and PW.12 about the murder of his father/deceased by accused No.1 and 2, basing on confession they went to Devendurni Gutta near quarry in the out skirts of

C 4 of 14 SC No. 192 of 2015

Peddamallareddy village and they confirmed that accused No.1 and 2 killed the deceased and buried the dead body by accused No.1 to

3. The acts of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 constituted the offence punishable u/s 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC and the acts of accused No.3 constituted an offence punishable u/s 201 IPC.

2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, took the case on file as PRC No.83 of 2013 for the offences under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.1 and 2 and u/s 201 IPC against the accused No.3 and furnished the copies of documents to the accused on their appearance before the court. Since the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC alleged against the accused, is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, committed the case against

the accused to the court of Sessions, Nizamabad. The Principal

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, registered the same as SC No. 192 of

2015 and made over the same to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.

3.After hearing both side counsel, charge under Section under Section 302 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2, and u/s 201 r/w 34 IPC against the accused No.3, were framed and the same were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which, they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C 5 of 14 SC No. 192 of 2015

4.To substantiate the charges, the prosecution got examined PW.1 to PW.13 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P22 apart from marking M.Os. 1 and 2.

5.PW.1 is the extra judicial confession and caste elder.

PW.2 to PW.5 are the circumstantial witnesses. PW.6 is the witness and daughter of the deceased. PW.7 is the panch for scene of offence and inquest. PW.8 and PW.9 are panch witness for confession and recovery of accused and 1st scene of offence panchanama. PW.10 is body exhumation and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased. PW.11 is medical officer. PW.12 is the witness and sister of the deceased. PW.13 is the investigating officer.

6.Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.1.

Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 are 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.2 to PW.4. Ex.P6 to

Ex.P9 are photographs. Ex.P10 is the Compact Disc. Ex.P11 is 161

Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6. Ex.P12 is the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P13 is the inquest panchanama. Ex.P14 is the seizure panchanama of MO.1/stone, Ex.P15 is signature of PW.8 on seizure panchanama of cycle. Ex.P16 is the signature of PW.8 on confession panchanama of accused No.3. Ex.P17 is the seizure panchanama of MO.2/Cycle. Ex.P18 is the Postmortem Examination

Report. Ex.P19 is the complaint from K.Pochaiah. Ex.P20 is the First

C 6 of 14 SC No. 192 of 2015

Information Report. Ex.P21 is the rough sketch. Ex.P22 is the

Forensic Science Laboratory Report.

M.O.1 is stone. MO.2 is cycle.

7.During the course of trial the accused No.1 died and the case against the accused No.1 abated.

8.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused No.2 and 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in order to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution side witnesses against the accused, to which, the accused No.2 and 3 denied the same and stated that they have no defence witnesses to be examined on their behalf.

9.Heard the arguments submitted by both side counsels.

10.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences offences under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.2, and u/s 201 IPC against the accused No.3 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that, the accused No.1 developed illegal intimacy with the wife of

C 7 of 14 SC No. 192 of 2015 deceased and the accused No.1, wife of the deceased and daughter of deceased went to the Mushrabad, Hyderabad for their livelihood.

On the request of the caste elders the accused No.1, wife of the deceased and her daughter came to the Peddmallareddy village and lived. There is no chance to meet the wife of deceased by accused

No.1, the accused No.1 developed bore grudge on the deceased and hatched a plan with the help of accused No.2, the accused No.2 called the deceased to the 1st scene of offence where the accused

No.1 present and they quarreled with deceased and beat the deceased with stone on his head and killed the deceased. While they packing the dead body of the deceased in a bag, while accused

No.3 searching his father/deceased, the accused No.1 and 2 threatened the accused No.3 and took his assistance in shifting the dead body and packed the dead body of the deceased in a plastic bag, shifted to 2nd scene of offence and buried. Later, on 02.05.2013 morning LW.1, PW.2 and PW.12 and other questioned the accused No.3/son of deceased, he confessed about the murder of his father by accused No.1 and 2 and they confirmed that accused No.1 to 3 buried the dead body of the deceased.

12.As per the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 4 are the case elder and circumstantial witnesses. They have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.1 to PW.4 stated that they do not

C 8 of 14 SC No. 192 of 2015 know anything about this case, but they were examined by the police.

13.PW.5 is the photographer who took the photographs of the dead body. He supported the case of the prosecution.

14.PW.6 is the daughter of deceased, she stated that she does not know how he died, but she was examined by the police.

Her evidence not supported the case of the prosecution.

15.PW.7 is the panch for scene of offence and inquest stated that police conducted scene of offence panchanama and also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased.

16.PW.8 and PW.9 are panch witnesses for confession and recovery of material objects, PW.8 stated that in the year 2013 police took their village elders to Peddamallareddy village outskirts, where accused No.1 and 2 were present, police brought accused

No.1 and 2 and the accused confessed that they killed deceased with a stone and shown one stone. PW.9 stated that in the year 2013 he went to the house of accused No.2 on seeing the gathering he noticed the presence of accused No.1 to 3. Accused No.1 and 2 and accused confessed before the police that they killed deceased

C 9 of 14 SC No. 192 of 2015 with a stone. Police seized one stone and cycle. They supported the case of the prosecution.

17.PW.10 is the Tahsildar, he stated that on 02.05.2013 he conducted scene of offence panchanama and he also conducted inquest. He supported the case of the prosecution.

18.PW.11 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. He stated that he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of Koyyala

Bhagaiah and found the following injuries:

1) Skull separated from trunk.

2) Complete absence of left hand.

3) Right hand humerus was seen along with elbow but not the radius and ulna bone are seen.

4) Both fracture of femur bones are seen.

5) Naked bones of tibia, fibula are seen.

6) Highly putrefied decomposed body, no viscera available.

No Hyoid bone present, brain matter not available. Lungs are shrunken. He issued Postmortem Examination Report. He have not given any opinion with regard to death of the deceased as body is highly putrefied.

19.PW.12 is the witness and sister of deceased, she stated that about 9 year back deceased wife came to her house and stayed for 12 days, during her stay she informed that deceased was missing. Her elder brother K.Pochaiah gave complaint to the police.

Accused No.3 confessed before he along with accused No.1 and 2

C 10 of 14 SC No. 192 of 2015 killed deceased. The evidence of PW.12 is hearsay evidence, hence her evidence not supported the case of the prosecution.

20.PW.13 is the Investigating Officer who stated that on 02.05.2013 he received a complaint from K.Pochaiah, basing on it,

Sub Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.157/2013 u/s 302, 201 IPC and issued First Information Report. He received CD file and he visited the scene and sent the requisition to MRO for exhumation of dead body of the decease. He conducted scene of offence panchanama. MRO conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared scene of offence panchanama.

Tahsildar examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 and

PW.12, K.Pochaiah, they identified the dead body of the deceased as

Bagaiah. He examined PW.1, PW.12, PW.2, PW.5, M.Babu and

K.Pochaiah. He prepared rough sketch. On 18.05.2013 at 2.00 p.m., he apprehended the accused No.1 to 3 at house of accused No.2 at

Peddamallareddy village. He recorded the confessional statement of accused in the presence of PW.8 and PW.9. He produced the accused No.1 to 3 before the Judicial Magistrate of First class,

Kamaredy for judicial remand. In pursuance of confession of accused MO.1 and MO.2 were recovered and send the MO.1 and

MO.2 to FSL. On receipt of FSL report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused. PW.2 to

PW.6 stated before as in Ex.P3, P4, P5 and P11.

C 11 of 14 SC No. 192 of 2015

21.The case of the prosecution is that on 19.04.2013 at 6.30 p.m., at Cheruvu Alugu near Bondala Gadda in the outskirts of

Peddamallareddy village, the accused No.1 and 2 beat the deceased with stones and killed him and accused No.3 noticed the dead body of the deceased, when accused No.3 questioned accused No.1 and 2, they threatened. On 02.05.2013 accused No.3 informed to the caste elders about the incident. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused No.3 made extra judicial confession before PW.1

M.Shankaraiah. He has not supported the case of the prosecution.

The other witnesses i.e., sister of the deceased and elders of the village who are examined as PW.3 and PW.4, PW.6 who is the daughter of the deceased also not supported the case of the prosecution. The only evidence available is the confession witnesses. PW.8 who is the panch witness for confession of the accused No.1. He stated that police brought the accused No.1 and 2 and they confessed that they killed the deceased. According to the prosecution, the accused No.1 was confessed before the panch witnesses at 1.30 a.m., whereas accused No.2 confessed at 2.15 p.m., on 08.05.2013 and as per confession panchanama was made at the house of the accused No.1 where the panch witness stated that police took them to Peddamallareddy village outskirts. Another panch witness is PW.9, he stated that accused No.1 to 3 made confession, which shows the evidence of panch witnesses for

C 12 of 14 SC No. 192 of 2015 confession i.e., PW.8 and PW.9 are not corroborated with each other. The investigating officer stated that accused No.1 to 3 were apprehended at 1.00 p.m., on 08.05.2013 at the house of accused

No.2 and recorded the statement, whereas the confession panch witness stated that the accused were present at the outskirts of

Peddamallareddy village. The panch witness has stated that they do not know the contents of the confession panchanama.

22.It is to be noted that body was exhumed on 02.05.2013, on which date the accused No.3 has made confession before the elders, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution.

But in inquest report there is no mention that accused No.3 made a extra judicial confession before the elders of the Peddamallareddy village. The photographs shows that only skeleton is there, the prosecution has not taken any steps to take DNA analysis. As per the case of the prosecution the deceased was found missing, only 15 days prior to detecting the dead body. But photographs shows that the dead body of the deceased remains only skeleton, within 15 days human body will not be decomposed, in such a way and which was reflected in photographs.

23.None of the prosecution witnesses has not supported the case of the prosecution except the evidence of investigating officer, there is no evidence to attribute the offence against the accused. It is a prudent principle that the evidence of police witnesses cannot be relied unless there is corroboration of the other

C 13 of 14 SC No. 192 of 2015 witnesses. Even the panch witnesses for the confession also not supported the case of the prosecution.

24.In view of the above discussions, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused No.3 made an extra judicial confession before the caste elders and apart from that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused made confession before

PW.8 and PW.9 and in pursuance of the confession of accused and they recovered MO.1 and MO.2. Apart from that the prosecution has failed to miserably failed to prove that the dead body of the deceased is that of Koyyala Bhagaiah. Hence, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charged offences under section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC.

25.In the result, the accused Nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 read with 34 IPC, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed and MO.2 shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time and the bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of April, 2022.

IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

C 14 of 14 SC No. 192 of 2015

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW.1 : Sri. M.Shankaraiah None PW.2 : Sri M.Siddaramulu PW.3 : Sri Y.Yellaiah PW.4 : Sri Vadla Bhumaiah PW.5: Sri M.Siddaramulu PW.6 : Smt. K.Lavanya PW.7 : Sri Poshaiah PW.8 : Sri M.Swamy PW.9 : Sri R.Ramesh PW.10: Sri Y. Srinivas Reddy, Tahsildar PW.11: Dr. Adi Srinivas PW.12: Sri K.Pochavva PW.13: Sri Sardar Sing, IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.2 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.3. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.4. Ex.P6 } to } Photographs. Ex.P9} Ex.P10: Compact Disc. Ex.P11: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6. Ex.P12: Scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P13: Inquest panchanama. Ex.P14: Seizure panchanama of MO.1, Ex.P15: Signature of PW.8 on seizure panchanam of cycle. Ex.P16: Signature of PW.8 on confession panchanama of accused No.3. Ex.P17: Seizure panchanama of MO.2. Ex.P18: Postmortem Examination Report. Ex.P19: Complaint from K.Pochaiah. Ex.P20: First Information Report. Ex.P21: Rough sketch. Ex.P22: Forensic Science Laboratory Report.

M.Os. MARKED M.O.1: Stone. M.O.2: Cycle.

IX Addl. Sessions Judge Kamareddy.

SC/166/2015 Acquitted

State through PS Kamareddy vs Palle Ashok

25 Apr 2022

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

AT KAMAREDDY

PRESENT:SRI CH. RAMESH BABU,

IX Additional Sessions Judge,

Kamareddy

Dated this the 25th day of April, 2022

SC No. 166 of 2015

(committal by the Court of Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Kamareddy by order

dated 13.07.2015 in PRC No. 4 of 2015 in Crime No. 634 of 2013 of PS,

Kamareddy Town)

1)Name of complainant : The Inspector of Police, Kamareddy Town.

2)Name of accused : A1: Palle Ashok, S/o Pedda Sailu, 20 years, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kankal (v), Tadwai (M). (died)

A2: Mallugari Narsimhulu, S/o Rajaiah, 38 years, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Agriculture, R/oH.No.7-78,Lingapur(v), Kamareddy (M).

The case against the accused No.1 abated on 04.10.2021.

3)Charge/s:Under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC

4) Plea of the accused: Accused pleaded not guilty.

5)Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty.

6)Prosecution :Sri Nanda Ramesh,

Additional Public Prosecutor, Kamareddy

conducted by

7)Accused defended by :Sri V.L.Narsimha Reddy, Advocate, Kamareddy

8) Sentence/Order : Accused No.2 is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC, he is acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. MO.1 to MO.3 and MO.5 to MO.7 shall be destroyed and MO.4 shall be

C 2 of 12 SC No. 166 of 2015 confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time and the bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled.

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, Kamareddy Town, filed charge sheet in Crime No.634/2013 of Kamareddy Police Station, for the offences under Section 302, 201 read with 34 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2, alleging that, the deceased frequently quarrel with his wife/PW.1 and son/accused No.1 in terms family matters, and he used to create panic and fear in home by beating them and thrown the household articles like plates and glasses over his wife/LW.1 and some time she caused hurt. For the last one month back the accused No.1 kicked on the testicles of the deceased and got him sever hurt, but the attitude of the deceased did not change and he continued to subject the PW.1 to cruelty, he informed the same to his maternal uncle/accused No.2 on phone, they decided to do away him and waiting for an occasion to come.

It is further the case of the prosecution that on 28.11.2013 the deceased has been to Kamareddy to attend marriage function, at

C 3 of 12 SC No. 166 of 2015 the same time PW.1 advised him to sell the lemons at Kamareddy, at 1.00 p.m., PW.3 who is daughter of deceased contacted him as to where he is, the deceased informed that he is at Old bus stand,

Kamareddy and he will return back, but in wain. As per the expectation the deceased was very well available in the toddy shop and found by the accused No.1 and 2, by that the deceased consumed lot of toddy, again the accused persons taken one more toddy bottle and offered the deceased to sit some where else and taken him towards the isolated place near the low lying area of

Kamareddy village tank, they made consume him the toddy and suddenly the accused No.1 attacked on his father/deceased with toddy bottle, gave him a blow on the lower jaw and caused bleeding injury, immediately he threw a stone forcibly on the chest and caused his death on the spot. Then both accused shifted the dead body to the dry irrigation canal and accused No.1 took the mobile of deceased and thrown it in the nearby bushes by making it switched off and also stone and empty toddy bottle thrown in the bushes.

Then they went away to their respective villages. On 30.11.2013 when the PW.1 forced her son/accused No.1 to get search his father, he was accompanied by PW.2, the accused No.1 slowly led towards the dead body and sent the PW.2 towards the side of dead body and he was acting on the other side, the PW.2 identified the dead body and informed to all. The acts of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 constituted the offence punishable u/s 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC.

C 4 of 12 SC No. 166 of 2015

2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, took the case on file as PRC No.4 of 2015 for the offences under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.1 and 2 and furnished the copies of documents to the accused on their appearance before the court.

Since the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC alleged against the accused, is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, committed the case

against the accused to the court of Sessions, Nizamabad. The

Principal Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, registered the same as SC No.

4 of 2015 and made over the same to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.

3.After hearing both side counsel, charge under Section under Section 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2, were framed and the same were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which, they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To substantiate the charges, the prosecution got examined PW.1 to PW.10 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P22 apart from marking M.Os. 1 and 7.

5.PW.1 is the complainant and wife of the deceased, PW.2 and PW.3 are witnesses and son-in-law and daughter of deceased.

PW.4 is witness, PW.5 is the circumstantial witness. PW.6 is the

C 5 of 12 SC No. 166 of 2015 doctor who conducted autopsy. PW.7 is the photographer. PW.8 is the panch for scene of offence and inquest. PW.9 is the panch for confession and seizure panchanama. PW.10 is the investigating officer.

6.Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5. Ex.P3 is the postmortem examination report. Ex.P4 is the

Forensic Science Laboratory Report. Ex.P5 is the Forensic Science

Laboratory Report. Ex.P6 is the final report. Ex.P7 to Ex.P13 are photographs. Ex.P14 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P15 is the inquest. Ex.P16 to Ex.P21 are signatures of PW.9 on confession and seizure panchanamas. Ex.P22 is the First Information Report.

M.O.1 is white colour shift. MO.2 is the dothi. MO.3 is the watch. MO.4 is the ring. MO.5 is Nokia cell phone. MO.6 is the YX tell cell phone. MO.7 is beer bottle.

7.During the course of trial the accused No.1 died and the case against the accused No.1 abated.

8.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused No.2 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in order to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution side witnesses against the accused, to which, the accused No.2 denied the same and stated that he has no defence witnesses to be examined on his behalf.

C 6 of 12 SC No. 166 of 2015

9.Heard the arguments submitted by both side counsels.

10.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences offences under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that, the deceased harassed his wife/PW.1 and his son/accused No.1 by using beat them, the accused No.1 informed the same to accused

No.2 who is maternal uncle of A1 and they decided to kill him. On 28.11.2013 accused No.1 and 2 found the deceased at the toddy shop at Nizamsagar X-Road, Kamareddy while taking toddy and they offered one more toddy bottle to the deceased and took him to isolated place near the Kamareddy village tank and attacked on deceased with toddy bottle and gave blows on the lower jaw of deceased and threw a stone forcibly on the chest and caused his death on the spot and both the accused shifted the dead body to dry irrigation canal and accused No.1 took the mobile phone of deceased and threw it in the bushes by making it switched off and also thrown the stone and toddy bottle into the bushes.

12.As per the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 3 are the wife and son-in-law and daughter of deceased. They have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.1 to PW.3 are stated that

C 7 of 12 SC No. 166 of 2015 about 8 year back the deceased took lemon to sell at Kamareddy

Market and PW.3 made telephone call to deceased, he replied that he will return his house, but he did not return, they searched for him, two days thereafter both the accused informed them about the dead body of the deceased, then they rushed to Kamareddy water tank and found the dead body of the deceased. They do not know the reason for the death of the deceased.

13.PW.4 is witness who stated that PW.2 informed him that the deceased dead body was found near Kamareddy water tank, then they rushed to the scene and witnessed the dead body. His evidence also not supported the case of the prosecution.

14.PW.5 is the circumstantial witness, he stated that he do not know anything about this case. His evidence also not supported the case of the prosecution.

15.PW.6 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination, he stated that he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Palle Chakali Sailu and found the following injuries:

1) Laceration wound over right ear lobule ½ X 2 X ½ inch,

2) Contusion around the neck 1 ½ X 5 inches,

3) Contusion over right stern clavicle region,

4) Contusion over right cheek 1 X 4 inch,

5) Abrasion over left hand fingers.

C 8 of 12 SC No. 166 of 2015

He notice bio-lateral Mandible fracture right and left noted hyoid bone fracture noted. Neck space, fracture right 2 and 3 ribs contusion on right upper parts of the lung. He issued

Postmortem Examination report. Basing on the Forensic Science

Laboratory report he gave final opinion by mentioning that the deceased died due to poly traume haemorrigic shock.

16.PW.7 is the photographer who took the photographs of the dead body of the deceased.

17.PW.8 is the panch for scene of offence, he stated that about 8 years back he went to scene on coming to know about the death of the deceased and he witnessed the dead body and police obtained his signature.

18.PW.9 is the panch for confession and seizure panchanama, he stated that he do not know anything about this case. Police obtained his signature on white papers when he visited the police station.

19.PW.10 is the investigating officer, who stated that on 30.11.2013 at 2.00 p.m., PW.1 came to police station and submitted complaint. Basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.634/2013

U/sec. 302 IPC and issued FIR. He rushed to scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW.8 and Sailu, he took photographs of the deceased with the help of

C 9 of 12 SC No. 166 of 2015

Sailu, he examined PWs.2, 3 and 4. He seized the cloths of the deceased i.e., white colour shirt, dothi, watch and ring which are marked as MO.1 to MO.4. On 09.12.2013 at 11.00 a.m., he apprehended accused No.1 and he recorded the confession statement of accused No.1 in the presence of PW.9 and Durgaiah.

In pursuance of confession of accused No.1 seized Nokia Cell phone (MO.1), and he led them to his village where he apprehend accused

No.2 and recorded the confession statement of accused No.2 and seized YX Tell Cell phone(MO.6), both of accused led to scene and where he seized toddy bottle, he produced the accused No.1 and 2

before the JFCM Kamareddy for judicial remand. On 12.12.2013 he

examined PW.5 and Chakali Sailu. He send material objects to FSL.

On receipt of FSL report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

20.As per the case of the prosecution, accused No.1 and 2 informed to the wife of the deceased that they witnessed the dead body at water tank. The only evidence the prosecution relied on the confession of the accused and recovery of the material objects i.e., cell phone. The panch witnesses for the confession of the accused was examined as PW.9 and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. The only evidence is the investigating officer, he stated that on 09.12.2013 he apprehended the accused No.1 and secured the presence of PW.9 and Durgaiah and recorded the

C 10 of 12 SC No. 166 of 2015 confession statement. In pursuance of confession of the accused

No.1, he seized Nokia cell phone which is MO.5 and in pursuance of the confession of the accused No.1 he arrested the accused No.2 and he recorded the confession of accused No.2 and he seized cell phone which is MO.6.

21.It is to be noted that as per the confession panchanama the accused made telephone call to the deceased, but the prosecution has not made any efforts to trace out the call data. The inquest report shows that on 30.11.2013 the deceased son and son- in-law searched for the dead body of the deceased and they found the dead body in the Kamareddy tank.

22.The prosecution is relied on the confession of the accused and recovery of cell phone, the confession panch witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is prudent principle that the confession before the police is not admissible, it has to be corroborated with the evidence of an independent witness and comply the section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

23.In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has relied on the circumstantial evidence and miserably failed to prove the chain of event. Apart from that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the confession made by the accused is voluntarily and they have satisfied the ingredients leveled under section 27 of

Indian Evidence Act. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the

C 11 of 12 SC No. 166 of 2015 accused, in view of the above discussion the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the case of the prosecution under section 302, 201 read with 34 IPC.

24.In the result, the accused Nos.2 is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 read with 34 IPC, he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. MO.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 shall be destroyed and MO.4 shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time and the bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of April, 2022.

IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1 : Smt. P.Sathavva - None - P.W.2 : Sri D.Srinu P.W.3 : Sri P.Savithri P.W.4 : Sri G.Balaswamy P.W.5: Sri Swamy Reddy P.W.6 : Dr. Vijay Kumar P.W.7 : Sri Kummari Rajashekar P.W.8 : Sri Chakali Bhagaiah P.W.9 : Sri N.Bhagaiah P.W.10: Sri D.Krishna, IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Complaint. - Nil - Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5.

C 12 of 12 SC No. 166 of 2015

Ex.P3: Postmortem examination report. Ex.P4: Forensic Science Laboratory Report. Ex.P5: Forensic Science Laboratory Report. Ex.P6: Final report. Ex.P7 } to } Photographs. Ex.P13} Ex.P14: Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P15: Inquest. Ex.P16} to } Signatures of PW.9 on confession and Ex.P21} seizure panchanamas. Ex.P22: First Information Report.

M.Os. MARKED

M.O.1: White colour shift. MO.2: Dothi. MO.3: Watch. MO.4: Ring.

MO.5: Nokia cell phone. MO.6: YX tell cell phone. MO.7: Beer bottle.

IX Addl. Sessions Judge Kamareddy

OS/25/2019

Paidi Sunil Reddy vs Gundedi Ganga Reddy

19 Apr 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT KAMAREDDY

Present: Sri CH. Ramesh Babu, IX Additional District Judge Kamareddy

Dated this the 19th day of April, 2022

OS. No. 25 of 2019

Between:

1. Paidi Sunil Reddy, S/o Late Ramreddy, aged 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o B-62, Balanagar, Hyderabad.

2. A.Praveen Reddy, S/o A.R.Prabhakar Reddy, aged 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.404, Suryan Mansion Dubai Gate, Boinpally, Hyderabad.

3. Gaddam Sujith Kumar Reddy, S/o Goverdhan Reddy, aged 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.27, Sanjeevaiah Co-Op Housing Society, Secunderabad.

.. Plaintiffs

A N D

1. Gundedi Ganga Reddy, S/o Bhoomanna, aged 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Chinthalapally Narsa Reddy, S/o Chinna Narsaiah, aged 41 years, Occ: agriculture, Both R/o Munipally village of Jakranpally Mandal, Nizamabad district.

.. Defendants

This suit coming on 02.03.2022 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri P.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs, and defendants set exparte and having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Plaintiffs filed this suit for specific performance of contract, basing on agreement of sale dated 11.03.2019 in respect of suit schedule property i.e. agriculture land bearing Sy.Nos.80/2B1 and

IX ADJ, KMR

OS No. 25 of 2019 2 of 8

IX ADJ Court, KMR.

80/2B2 total extent of Ac.3.20 guntas, situated at Padmajiwadi village of Sadashivanagar Mandal, Kamareddy district.

2. The plaintiffs averred in the plaint that defendant No.1 and 2 are absolute joint owners of the plaint schedule property i.e., agriculture land bearing Sy.No.80/2B1 to an extent of Ac.2-20 guntas, and agriculture land bearing Sy.No.80/2B2 to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas in total extent of Ac.3-20 guntas, which is referred as suit schedule property.

3.The plaintiffs further averred that defendant No.1 and 2 jointly applied for mutation of revenue records in their names and pattedar pass books also issued in their favour. Defendant No.1 and 2 offered to sell the suit schedule property for a valid consideration of

Rs.67,37,500/- (Rupees sixty seven lakhs thirty seven thousand and five hundred only) @ Rs.19,25,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakhs twenty five thousand only)per acre. Defendant No.1 and 2 executed agreement of sale on 11.03.2019 by receiving Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lahs only) towards sale consideration. The plaintiffs agreed to pay balance sale consideration within 50 days from the date of execution of agreement of sale. As per the agreement the defendant No.1 and 2 as to demarcate the 33.0 feet wide road with the help of revenue officials, but the defendant No.1 and 2 did not receive the balance sale consideration and failed to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiffs

OS No. 25 of 2019 3 of 8

IX ADJ Court, KMR.

got issued legal notice dated 19.10.2019 demanding them to execute the registered sale deed on receipt of balance sale consideration and also measuring with revenue officials by showing 33.0 feet wide road.

The defendants received the same, but did not issued any replay nor executed the registered sale deed. Hence, the plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of contract and praying the court to direct the defendant No.1 and 2 to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration, if they failed to do the same, the court may execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs under due process of law.

4.The defendants No.1 and 2 were set exparte.

5.In proof of the case of the plaintiffs, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined, Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked.

6.Heard, perused the record.

7.Basing on the pleadings, the following points were framed for trial:

i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of contract as prayed for?

ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for alternative relief?

iii) To what relief?

Point Nos.1:

OS No. 25 of 2019 4 of 8

IX ADJ Court, KMR.

8.The contention of the plaintiffs is referred supra, hence there is no need to reiterate the same. The plaintiffs contended that defendant No.1 and 2 executed an agreement of sale dated 11.03.2019 in respect of the suit schedule property and they received

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) towards part sale consideration and the plaintiffs have to pay remaining balance sale consideration of

Rs.57,37,500/- (Rupees fifty seven lakhs thirty seven thousand and five hundred only). The plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their contract, the defendants are failed to perform their contract.

9.In proof the case of the plaintiffs, PW.1 was examined his evidence in consonance with the pleading of plaint and he got filed

Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. in proof of the case of the plaintiffs one of the attestor was examined as PW.2, he supported the case of the plaintiffs. ]

10.It is to be noted that Ex.A1 agreement of sale shows that it was executed on 11.03.2019 and the defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property for sale a consideration of Rs.67,37,500/- (Rupees sixty seven lakhs thirty seven thousand and five hundred only), at the rate of Rs.19,25,000/- per acre. The plaintiffs paid Rs.10,00,000/- towards part sale consideration and they have to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.57,37,500/-(Rupees fifty seven lakhs thirty seven thousand and five hundred only). The contention of the plaintiffs is that Ex.A2 shows that plaintiff No.1 and 2 has purchased the property,

OS No. 25 of 2019 5 of 8

IX ADJ Court, KMR.

out of which defendant No.1 has 71.4% share and defendant No.2 has 28.59% share in the property referred in Ex.A2 sale deed. Ex.A3 is legal notice, which is reflecting the contents of the plaint. Ex.A4 are postal receipts, Ex.A5 are the acknowledgments, Ex.A6 is the

Encumbrance certificate.

11.It is to be noted that schedule of property referred in Ex.A2 is not tallying with the schedule of property mentioned in Ex.A1. In

Ex.A1 towards north there is government land, towards East there is a

Road, the schedule of property referred in Ex.A1 towards north agriculture land of J.Bhoom Rao and towards east also the agriculture land of Bhoom Rao. In the agreement it is mentioned that the vendors shall provide the road width of 33.0 feet with the assistance of revenue officials.

12.It is to be noted that even as per the documents filed by the plaintiffs, on which side the vendors i.e., defendants has to provide the 33.0 feet road. Apart from that the schedule property referred in the agreement of sale there is a road on eastern side. The boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1 to the schedule property is not corroborating with the boundaries mentioned in the Ex.A2 sale deed under which the defendant No.1 and 2 acquired title.

13.It is also to be noted that in the plaint it is averred that defendants got mutated the property, Xerox copy of pattedar pass

OS No. 25 of 2019 6 of 8

IX ADJ Court, KMR.

books does not show the schedule of property. The plaintiffs have not assign any reasons that after purchasing the property boundaries of the property was changed.

14.It is to be noted that if any private parties has purchased the property certainly the boundaries will be changed. But in this case under Ex.A2 private parties properties were situated they shown as boundaries to the schedule property. Whereas, in Ex.A1 agreement of sale boundaries shown to the schedule of property is different and on north side there is a government land and eastern side there is a road.

If the government has acquired the land from private owners i.e., L.

Bhoom Rao, certainly a land acquisition proceeding has to be initiated.

Therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to prove under what circumstances the boundaries of the suit schedule property was changed from the schedule property referred in Ex.A2 and schedule property referred in

Ex.A1.

15.It is to be noted that as per the recital of the agreement of sale, the plaintiffs have to pay balance sale consideration within 50 days from the date of agreement of sale. But the plaintiffs have not filed any document to prove that they are ready and willing to perform the contract within 50 days from the date agreement of sale. The legal

OS No. 25 of 2019 7 of 8

IX ADJ Court, KMR.

notice was issued by the plaintiffs on 19.10.2019 i.e., they issued legal notice after 7 months of the agreement of sale. If the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their contract within 50 days, they ought to have issued legal notice immediately after lapse of 50 days, but the plaintiffs got issued legal notice after six months of stipulated time.

Therefore, the acts of the plaintiffs shown there is no bonafides, apart from that the boundaries shown in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are different and distance. Under these circumstance the plaintiffs are not entitled for specific performance of contract as prayed.

Point No.2:

16.It is already noted that the plaintiffs have not assign any reasons about the change of boundaries as referred in Ex.A2 and

Ex.A1, apart from that plaintiffs failed to show their bonafide that they are ready to perform their part of contract within the 50 days from the date of agreement of sale. Therefore, to safe guard the interest of the both the parties, it is relevant to order return of consideration received by the defendants from the plaintiffs. Therefore, the defendant No.1 and 2 are directed to return the Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till reaslization. Accordingly point No.

2 is answered.

OS No. 25 of 2019 8 of 8

IX ADJ Court, KMR.

Point No.3:

17.In the result, the suit is disposed off with an observation that the plaintiffs are not entitled to specific performance of contract and they are entitled to recovery of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) from the defendant No.1 and 2 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The plaintiffs are entitled for proportionate costs.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of April, 2022.

IX Addl. District Judge Kamareddy. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff Defendants PW-1: Sri Paidi Sunil Reddy, None PW.2: Sri Burra Venugopal.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

Ex.A1:Original Agreement of sale deed along Nil with cash receipt dt: 11.03.2019 Ex.A2: Copy of registered sale deed document no.4483/2015 of SRO Kamareddy of defendant No.1 and 2. Ex.A3:Copy of legal notice dated 19.10.2019 Ex.A4:Two postal receipts dt:25.10.2019 Ex.A5:Two served postal acknowledgments of defendant NO.1 and 2. Ex.A6:Encumbrance Certificate.

IX Addl. District Judge Kamareddy.

Order Record 326 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/14/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Pitla Ramesh and Others	28 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/119/2018	Yelugu Padma vs Mohammed Nawaz	28 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/85/2015	Uppala Lingam vs Mohammad Manzoor	27 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/123/2019	Gade Chinna Sidhayya @ Gaje Siddaiah vs Oddepallapu Sailoo	27 Apr 2022	Order	—
CRLRP/9/2022	Bhoomaiah Devi vs SHO Rajampet	27 Apr 2022	Order	—
CRLRP/10/2022	Nimmala Shyam Prasad vs SHo Rajampet	27 Apr 2022	Order	—
EP/57/2018	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Guguloth Ganesh and Others	26 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/14/2016	Jukanti Anil Reddy vs Jangam Neelaiah	26 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/30/2020	Godavari Shankar vs Minupuri Sripal Reddy	26 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/31/2020	Salla @ Challa Balnarsu vs Fahmeeda Begum	26 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/45/2021	Shaik Mehaboob Bhee vs Pushpak Freight Carriers-Shoury Transport Co.	26 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/65/2016	Reddy Shetty Rama Devi vs Kaspu Shiva Raju	26 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/80/2019	Sukka Sangagoud @ Chukka Egonda Sangagoud vs Jangili Naresh	26 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/82/2020	Manne Yadamma vs M.Prashanth	26 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/118/2018	Gunda Balraj vs Atmakuri Rajeshwar	26 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/141/2017	Dodla Bhulaxmi vs Poreddy Krishna Reddy	26 Apr 2022	Order	—
S.O.P/4/2020	Jala Sumalatha vs Jala Pradeep	26 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/11/2017	Nagarthi Mallareddy vs Jeedi Ranjith Kumar	25 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/40/2021	Uradi Prabhakar vs Sama Anjan Reddy	25 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/43/2018	Yedla Babu vs Pappula Devender	25 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/73/2018	Chinthagi Swaroopa vs Bottu Narsimlu	25 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/81/2020	Teku Shekhar vs Gaddameddi Santhosh Kumar	25 Apr 2022	Order	—
SC/166/2015	State through PS Kamareddy vs Palle Ashok	25 Apr 2022	Judgment	Acquitted
SC/192/2015	State through PS Bhiknoor vs Yerrola Chinna Beeraiah @ Anchanoor Beeraiah	25 Apr 2022	Judgment	Acquitted
EP/4/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs B.Mahesh Goud and Others	20 Apr 2022	Order	—
EP/6/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Indrasena Reddy Rangaiahgari and Others	20 Apr 2022	Order	—
EP/15/2020	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Vadikadi Krishnakar Rao	20 Apr 2022	Order	—
EP/59/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Pogula Ravi and Others	20 Apr 2022	Order	—
EP/67/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Mohammad Sadak	20 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/34/2020	Thota Rajulu vs Gowarthanan Gnanasekaran	20 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/36/2021	Megavath Sangu vs Ramindla Bhushanam	20 Apr 2022	Order	—
EP/16/2020	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Valipishetty Bhaskar	19 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/122/2014	Poshaboina Rukumini vs Garede Vijayender Rao	19 Apr 2022	Order	—
OS/25/2019	Paidi Sunil Reddy vs Gundedi Ganga Reddy	19 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
MVOP/19/2018	Koppula Chinna Raji Reddy vs Shaik Gaffar	18 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/22/2018	Parveen vs Shaik Gaffar	18 Apr 2022	Order	—
AS/2/2015	Wali Mohammed vs Waliya Bee	13 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/3/2019	Abbaraboina Narsimlu vs Gaddameedi Sathish Goud	13 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/4/2019	Nalla Rajitha vs Gaddameedi Sathish Goud	13 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/81/2019	Sukka Anasuya @ Chukka Egonda Anasuya vs Jangili Naresh	13 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/9/2018	Mittapally Yadhagiri vs R.Pradeep Kumar	12 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/78/2017	Naram Anil vs Jeelani Pasha	12 Apr 2022	Order	—
SC/217/2016	State through PS Tadwai vs Gargul Rajaiah	12 Apr 2022	Judgment	Acquitted
MVOP/64/2021	Badavath Latha vs Islavath Gopal	11 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/77/2018	Dyagala Uma Sri vs Komati Anil	11 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/103/2019	Kandunoori Manamma vs Pothuganti Srinivas	11 Apr 2022	Order	—
SC/134/2015	State through PS Tadwai vs Bhogari Laxmipathi	11 Apr 2022	Judgment	Acquitted
SC/225/2016	State through PS Sadashivanagar vs Narsapooram Prabhakar	11 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
MVOP/83/2020	Gangayala Lavanya vs Kammari Navya Sri	07 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/121/2017	Dandugula Buddiah vs Dandugula Devender Reddy	07 Apr 2022	Order	—
OS/23/2019	Chidura Srinivas vs Moramshetty Mohan Kumar	07 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/54/2019	Maloth Kamsi vs Mahmad Anwar @ Anwar Pasha Mohd	06 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/88/2019	Moodavath Mohan @ Bansi vs Abdulla Bin Ali	06 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/98/2019	Meesala Rajavva vs Guguloth Ambaji	06 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/178/2017	Manne Chandram vs Chinthala Naresh	06 Apr 2022	Order	—
EP/5/2016	Malavath Gori vs Md. Osman Ali	04 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/136/2018	Chennaboina Surya Chandra vs Bodasu Shekhar	04 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/25/2019	Yadigari Sangavva vs Pramod Anandrao Tayde	01 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/30/2019	Kummari Padma vs Pramod Anandrao Tayde	01 Apr 2022	Order	—
MVOP/86/2019	Shetty Vijaya vs B.Suresh Babu	01 Apr 2022	Order	—
SC/162/2015	State through PS Gandhari vs Bimari Rajaiah	01 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
MVOP/7/2017	Vitam Santosh vs Bandari Santosh Reddy	31 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/49/2017	Bandari Mallesham vs Kunta Srinivas	31 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/82/2017	Sabbani Raju vs Dudekula Yousuf	31 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/70/2017	Bhoompally Yashaswini vs Abdul Rasheed	30 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/73/2017	Akula Naveen vs Yama Prabhudas	30 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/132/2019	Medudhula Ashwini vs Kurra @ Erukala Mahesh	30 Mar 2022	Order	—
EP/5/2021	Pabboji Laxmi vs Doddlya Sai Kumar	28 Mar 2022	Order	—
EP/62/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Kammari Krishna Murthi and Others	28 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/49/2016	Gadila Narsimloo vs Syed Moinuddin	25 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/80/2016	Gangala Pochaiah vs Erugu Veeranna	23 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/36/2016	Shivapuja Lingaiah vs Hussain Lambadi	22 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/71/2015	Gardas Balanarsaiah vs Boddu Narshimulu	22 Mar 2022	Order	—
SC/35/2018	State through PS Nagireddypet vs Kalali Sathyanarayana Goud	22 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
SC/208/2015	State through PS Kamareddy vs Gurajala Ramesh Goud	21 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
MVOP/9/2021	Akula Ramdas vs Kandunuri Dayanand Goud	17 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/44/2018	Bakshi Kamala vs Poonaram Saran	17 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/51/2020	Thanneru Sujatha vs Puttla Sagar	17 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/52/2020	Vallepu Prameela vs Puttla Sagar	17 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/6/2018	Kalakuntla Narayana vs Usike Siddiramulu	16 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/9/2016	Sherla Naresh vs Fakruddin	16 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/140/2017	Sara Sathyanarayana vs Anmala @ Erukala Yadagiri	16 Mar 2022	Order	—
EP/9/2021	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Paven Kumar Naikoti	15 Mar 2022	Order	—
EP/61/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Veerabhadraiah Akula and Others	15 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/36/2018	Bhoomraogari Soujanya vs Md Azeez	15 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/141/2019	Veera Laxman vs Challa Mallareddy	15 Mar 2022	Order	—
SC/137/2015	State through PS Devanpally vs Patthipuram Narsimlu	15 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
MVOP/19/2020	Ippa Ramesh vs Neerukonda Veeramma	09 Mar 2022	Order	—
EP/6/2021	Md.Ismail @ Mohd. Ismail Kureshi vs M.Surya Teja and others	08 Mar 2022	Order	—
EP/11/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Mashetty Sridhar and Others	08 Mar 2022	Order	—
EP/49/2018	M/s Sriram City Union Finance Limited vs Syed Nusrath and others	08 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/78/2018	Bommadeni Shivaraju vs Md.Chand Pasha	07 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/81/2017	Rathod Balvan Singh vs Mudimala Naresh	07 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/43/2020	Banavath @ Banoth Prakash vs Ramavath Badya	04 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/62/2019	Bestha Chintala Isthari vs Nakka Anuradha	04 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/116/2019	Thadepu Laxmi vs Varikuppala Shekar	04 Mar 2022	Order	—
CRLA/35/2018	State through PS Bhiknoor vs Gajje Gopal	04 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
CRLRP/2/2022	Kakarla Vikas vs SHO Devenpally	04 Mar 2022	Order	—
MVOP/19/2015	Allrui Rajmani vs Ch.Maruthi	03 Mar 2022	Order	—
G.W.O.P/3/2021	Bheemari Siddamma vs The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner	03 Mar 2022	Order	—

Showing 100 of 326 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2022		62
Mar 2022		39
Feb 2022		42
Jan 2022		62
Dec 2021		33
Nov 2021		49
Oct 2021		29
Sep 2021		13

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has CH. Ramesh Babu handled?

CH. Ramesh Babu has handled 329 court orders since 2021 at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 42 orders per month.

What types of cases does CH. Ramesh Babu hear?

Based on available records, CH. Ramesh Babu primarily handles Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Appeals) and Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Civil Misc. Appeals) at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is CH. Ramesh Babu currently posted?

CH. Ramesh Babu is posted as IX Addl District and Sessions Judge at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Kamareddy, Telangana.

Are judgments by CH. Ramesh Babu available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by CH. Ramesh Babu are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does CH. Ramesh Babu dispose cases?

CH. Ramesh Babu disposes approximately 42 cases per month, based on 329 orders handled over their tenure at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is CH. Ramesh Babu serving?

CH. Ramesh Babu has been serving at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex since 2021.

Case Types

MVOP 66%

SC 9%

EP 9%

CRLA 6%

CMA 3%

CRLRP 3%

AS 3%

G 2%

Posting History

Sep 2021 — May 2022

IX Addl District and Sessions Judge · 329 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

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