S.C.No.220/2013 and 1 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
IN THE COURT OF V-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
KURNOOL at ALLAGADDA.
Present:- Sri D.Ammanna Raja,
III-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, FAC.V-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Allagadda.
Dated : Monday, this the 30 th day of March, 2026.
SESSIONS CASE No. 220 of 2013
and
SESSIONS CASE No. 227 of 2018
(P.R.C.No.7/2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Allagadda) (Crime No.21/2012 of Allagadda Town Police Station)
1. Complainant State, represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dhone
2. Accused(1) Injeti Venkata Raghava Reddy @ Raghava Reddy, aged 35 years,Son of Venkatrami Reddy (A-1) (2) Injeti Siva Kumar Reddy, aged 29 years S/o.Venaktrami Reddy (A-2) (3) Kunduru Rami Reddy @ Kunduru Ramudu, aged 42 years, S/o Dastagiri Reddy (A-4) (4) Kristipadu Pedda Dastagiri Reddy @ Dastagiri Reddy, aged 75 years, S/o Siva Reddy (A-5) (5) Golla Pandlagalla Nagaseshudu @ Shesu @ Anji, aged 30 years, S/o. Subbarayudu (A-6) (6) Kunduru Venkatrami Reddy, aged 57 years, S/o.Yella Reddy (A-7) (7) Bussabgari Hussain Vali @ Tailor Basha, aged 27 years, S/o Mohammed
S.C.No.220/2013 and 2 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
Hussain (A-8) (8) Kammubaigari Kamal Vali @ Kamal Basaha @ Gokari, aged 24 years, S/o. Musthafa (A-9) (9) Kammubaigari Mahaboob Basha @ Mabbasha@ Barugodlodu, aged 25 years, S/o.Pedda Mabu Vali (A-10) (10) Kammubaigari Babu Basha, aged 25 years S/o Pedda Mabu Vali (A-11) (11) Kammubaigari Chinna Babu Vali @ Bujjulu @ Pedda Moulali, aged 38 years, S/o.Fakursa @ Kakrun Sab (A-12) (12) Pattusagari Pakkir Vali, aged 26 yrs S/o Pakkri Sab @ Pattusa (A-13) (13) Shaik Chand Basha @ Uyyalawada Chand Basha, aged 45 years, S/o. Hussain sa @ Hussaini (A-14) (14) Madiga Kinnera Pedda Ankalu @ Pedda Ankalu, aged 46 years, S/o. Chinnabbai @ Obanna (A-15) (15) Mala Suraboina Tirupalu @ Potti, S/o. Venkataiah, aged 25 yrs (A-16) (16) Mala Ulladi Peddanna @ Driver Peddanna, aged 40 years, S/o.Pedda Maddilety (A-17) (17) Lakku Mala Sreenu @ Auto Sreenu, aged 32 years S/o Manesha (A-18) (18) Mekala Abraham @ Koppu Tirupalu @ Koppodu, aged 30 years, S/o. late Subbarayudu (A-19)
All are of Chintakunta village, Allagadda Mandal
S.C.No.220/2013 and 3 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
The case against A1, A3, A5, A6, A7, A17 and A19 abated as they died.
The case against A13 split-up and assigned as S.C.No.227/2018.
3.Offences charged1) U/Sec.148 of IPC against A1 to A19,
2) U/Sec.452 of IPC against A1 to A19,
3) U/Sec.109 of IPC against A5,
4) U/Sec.302 of IPC against A1 to A4, A6 to A18,
5) U/Sec.302 r/w 149 of IPC against A5 and A19,
6) U/Sec.307 of IPC against A2, A3 & A19 4.Plea of the Accused Total denial. 5.Finding of the JudgeA2, A4, A8 to A16 and A18 are found guilty for the offences under Secs.148, 452, 302 of Indian Penal Code. A2 is also found guilty for the offence under Sec.307 of Indian Penal Code and they are convicted under Sec.235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code. 6.Sentence or order A2, A4, A8 to A16 and A18 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months each for the offence under Sec.148 of the Indian Penal Code. A2, A4, A8 to A16 and A18 are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprison- ment for a period of seven (07) years and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months each for the offence under Sec.452 of the Indian Penal Code.
S.C.No.220/2013 and 4 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
A2, A4, A8 to A16 and A18 are further sentenced to undergo imprison- ment for life and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months each for the offence under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code. A2 also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Prosecution conducted Sri S.N.Rajeswara Reddy, Additional by: Public Prosecutor. 8.Accused defended bySri P.Guru Prasad, Sri C.Sivarami Reddy, Advocates for A2, A4, A8, A9, A11, A12, A14 to A16 and A18, Sri M.Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate for A10.
9. P.R.C. Committed by Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Allagadda 10.Date of offence 24.02.2012, 22.45 hours Date of report 25.02.2012. 00.15 hours Date of remand 29.2.2012 : A10 to A14 and A17 to A19 04.3.2012 : A1, A2, A4, A6, A8,A9, A15 and A16 9.11.2012 : A5 10.7.2012 : A7 Date of release on bail A2 : 27.4.2013 A4 : 27.4.2013 A8 to A10, A12 to 19: 18.4.2013 Again A13 arrested on 3.1.2022 and released on 19.2.2022. Date of Committal Order 15.03.2013. Date of commencement of 20.01.2020 in S.C.No.220/2013 trial 01.08.2024 in S.C.No.227/2018 Date of close of trial 16.12.2021 in S.C.No.220/2013 05.12.2024 in S.C.No.227/2018
S.C.No.220/2013 and 5 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
Date of Judgment 30.03.2026
These cases coming on 13-03-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.N.Rajeswara Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri C.Sivarami Reddy, Advocate for Accused, having heard on both sides, having perused the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dhone filed charge sheet against A1 to A19 in Crime No.21/2012 of Allagadda Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sec.452, 148, 302, 307 r/w 149 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. The conspectus of the case of the prosecution: 2.1 Thede facto complainant PW1/ Shaik Chand Basha has been working as a clerk in the automobile spare parts shop of Itikyala
Chandra Shekar Reddy, who is the son-in- law of D2 / Injeti Krishna
Reddy. On 24.02.2012 at about 9.30 pm D3/ Mabey alias Mabu went to the automobile spare parts shop and informed to PW1/ Shaik Chand
Basha that he was required to pay lease amount to D2 / Injeti Krishna
Reddy and requested PW1/ Shaik Chand Basha to accompany him to the residence of D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy. Then PW1 Shaik Chand Basha and D3/ Mabey alias Mabu have reached the house of D2 / Injeti Krishna
Reddy on a motor bike. They entered into the house of D2 / Injeti Krishna
Reddy through the passage gate as the main gate was closed. At that time D1/ Govindamma, D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy, Mallikharjuna Reddy,
LW8 / Ramasubba Reddy, PW2 / Kethireddy Jayarami Reddy, PW3 /
Annem Sunitha, LW 5/ Saraboina Sujatha, were present in the house.
D1/ Govindamma served dinner to PW1 / Shaik Chand Basha . At about 10.45 pm one jeep rammed into the main gate. We heard a loud crashing
S.C.No.220/2013 and 6 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
noise and immediate turned our attention towards the gate. A1 / Injeti
Venkata Raghava Reddy @ Raghava Reddy, A2 / Injeti Sivakumar
Reddy, A3 / Injeti Venkatrami Reddy, A4 / Kunduru Rami Reddy @
Kunduru Ramudu, A5 / Kristipadu Peda Dastagiri Reddy @ Dastagiri
Reddy, A6 / Golla Pandlagalla Nagaseshudu @ Shesu @ Anji along with other accused, arrived in a utility Jeep and a caaaar, and deliberately rammed the main gate, thereby gaining unlawful entry into the house compound. All the accused were armed with deadly weapons, including machetes, sickles and iron pipes, and trespassed into the house of D2 /
Injeti Krishna Reddy.
2.2 A5/Kristipadu Peda Dastagiri Reddy @ Dastagiri Reddy uttered ' hack all the persons', immediately A1 / Injeti Venkata Raghava
Reddy @ Raghava Reddy hacked on the head of D3 / Mabey alias Mabu with machetes. D3 / Mabey alias Mabu fell down on the ground. A16 /
Mala Suraboina Tirupalu @ Polli beat D3 / Mabey alias Mabu with iron pipe. A6 / Golla Pandlagalla Nagaseshudu @ Shesu @ Anji stabbed D3 /
Mabey alias Mabu on his back with a knife. When D2 / Injeti Krishna
Reddy attempted to recue D3 / Mabey alias Mabu, A1/ Injeti Venkata
Raghava Reddy @ Raghava Reddy attacked D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy and hacked on his left shoulder. As a result D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy fell on the ground. When D1 / Govindamma tried to intervene and rescue
D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy, A2 / Injeti Sivakumar Reddy, along with A9 /
Kammubaigari Kamal Vali @ Kamal Basha @ Gokari assaulted her hacking her on the head with machetes. Thereafter, A6 / Golla
Pandlagalla Nagaseshudu @ Shesu @ Anji stabbed D1 / Govindamma on her abdomen with a knife, causing grievous injuries, with her intestines protruding. All the accused, armed with dealdy weapons, attacked the deceaed / D1 to D3 and Mallikarjuna Reddy, LW 8 / Sathugari Rama
S.C.No.220/2013 and 7 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
Subba Reddy caused grievous injuries. PW1 / Shaik Chand Basha, out of fear, hid himself behind an iron almirah and witnesses the entire incident.
2.3 D1 / Govindamma succumbed to her injuries at the scene of offence. Thereafter PW1 / Shaik Chand Basha along with PW2 /
Kethireddy Jayarami Reddy shifted the injured D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy,
D3 / Mabey alias Mabu, LW8 / S. Ramaubba Reddy and Mallikarjuna
Reddey to the Government hospital, Allagadda for treatment.
Subsequently, PW1 / Shaik Chand Basha accompanied by PW2 /
Kethireddy Jayarami Reddy proceeded to the Allagadda police station, and PW1 / Shaik Chand Basha lodged Ex P1 / Report.
2.4 Based on Ex.P1/Report dated 25.02.2012, PW14 / M.
Ramesh Babu registered a case in Cr. NO: 21 / 2012 and issued Ex P13 /
FIR for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 452, 302, 307 R / w 149 IPC. PW14 / M. Ramesh Babu submitted original FIR to the
Honorable Court and forwarded copies to the authorities concern. PW14 /
M. Ramesh Babu has seized the blood-stained clothes (MO1 and MO2) of PW1 / Shaik Chand Basha and PW2 / Kethireddy Jayarami Reddy under the cover of Ex P14 / Police proceedings. Thereafter PW 15 / I
Sudhakar Reddy took up further investigation.
2.5 On 25.02.2012 PW17 took up investigation, and visited the scene of offence which is situated at the house of D2 / Injeti Krishna
Reddy at Chintakunta village along with PW.13 and PW14, and deploy police at the scene of offence and the in the village. On the same day i.e., on 25.02.2012 at 9.30 am, PW 17 observed the scene of offence which is situated at the house of D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy, P Chntakunda
Village and prepared Ex P15/ Panchanama in the presence of PW6 /
S.C.No.220/2013 and 8 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
Yerrabothula Chandra Sekhara Reddy and LW 15 / Ambati Rama
Sanjeeva Reddy and seized broken glass pieces. PW 17 recoded the detailed statements of PWS.1, PW.3 ad PW.6.
2.6 PW 17 conducted inquest over the body of the deceased, D1 / Govindamma, at the scene of offence in the presence of the mediator ,
PW6 LW 13 / Bareddy Raja Gopal Reddy and LW 15 / Ambati Rama
Sanjeeva Reddy and prepared Ex P2 / Inquest Report and the inquest mediators have opined that the deceased, D1 / Govindamma died due to hack injuries. PW17 got shifted the body of the deceased, D1 /
Govindamma to the Government Hospital, Allagadda for postmortem examination.
2.7 On 25.02.2012 at 9.30 am, PW 16 / G. Ravi Kumar conducted inquest over the body of the deceased, D 4 / Injeti
Mallikarjuna Reddy at Government Hospital, Allagadda, in the presence of the mediator, PW 7 / Perumalla Ramudu, LW 16 / Bhuma Prabjakar
Reddy, LW 18 / K. Subba Rayudu and got prepared Ex P5 / Inquest
Report and the inquest mediators have opined that the deceased, D 4 /
Injeti Mallikarjuna Reddy died due to injuries. PW16 got shifted the body of the deceased, D 4 / Injeti Mallikarjuna Reddy to the Government
Hospital, Allagadda for postmortem examination.
2.8 On 25.02.2012 PW 15 / I Sudhakar Reddy conducted inquest over the body of the deceased, D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy at
Government Hospital, Allagadda, in the presence of the mediator , PW6,
LW 13 / Bareddy Raja Gopal Reddy and LW 15 / Ambati Rama Sanjeeva
Reddy and preparted Ex P3 / Inquest Report and the inquest mediators have opined that the deceased, D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy died due to injuries. PW15 got shifted the body of the deceased, D2 / Injeti Krishna
S.C.No.220/2013 and 9 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
Reddy to the Government Hospital, Allagadda for postmortem examination.
2.9 On 25.02.2012 as per the instructions of PW 17 / B. R.
Sreenivalusl, PW13 conducted inquest over the body of the deceased,
D3 / Pakkir Nadipi Mabu @ Bubbey at Community Health Center,
Allagadda at 9.30 am in the presence of PW 6 / Yerrabothula Chandra
Sekhara Reddy, LW 13 / Bareddy Raja Gopal Reddy, and LW 15 / Ambati
Rama Sanjeeva Reddy, and other blood relatives and prepared Ex P4 /
Inquest report, and the inquest mediators have opined that the deceased,
D3 / Pakkir Nadipi Mabu @ Bubbey, died due to hack injuries.
2.10 On 29-02-2012 at about 9.00 am on prior information, PW 17 along with PW15, PW13, PW14 and the independent mediators LW.19 /
V.Brahmaiah and PW.9 / Gajula Peda Hussain Sa have reached Battaluru village outskirts and arrested A 10 to A14, A17 to A 19, recorded the confession statements of the accused ( Ex P 16) and seized MO 12 to
MO 19 under cover of Ex P17 / Arrest and confession panchanama.
PW17 produced A 10 to A14, A17 to A 19 before the court for judicial remand.
2.11 On 04.03.2012 on prior information when PW17 along with
PW15, PW14 and other police staff while conducting route watch and vehicle cheeking, at about 9.00 am they have noticed a Bolero camper gold utility vehicle bearing registration NO : AP 16 TA 2515 while it was coming from Chagalamarri village and notice A1, A2 , A4, A6, A8, A9, A15 and A16 in the said vehicle. In the presence of the independent mediators
LW 21 / Annem Chinna Poli Reddy and LW22 Kattubadi Abdulla, PW17 arrested A1, A2 , A4, A6, A8, A9, A15 and A16 and seized MO 20 to MO 27, and MO 28 under cover of Ex P / Panchanama dated 04.03.2012.
S.C.No.220/2013 and 10 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
PW17 produced A1, A2 , A4, A6, A8, A9, A15 and A16 before the court for judicial remand.
2.12 PW18 conducted further investigated and, on 17.05.2012, visited the scene of offence, where he examined PW1 to PW4, as well as
LW4 (Khammam Naga Sulochana), LW5 (Saraboina Sujatha), LW7 (Madiga Bala Hussain), and LW8 (Sathugani Rama Subba Reddy).
Subsequently, on 26.05.2012, pursuant to the directions of the
Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, PW18 conducted an inquiry into the plea of alibi raised by A3 and, upon investigation, found that the said plea of alibi was substantiated. Thereafter, on 23.06.2012, PW18 secured the presence of relevant witnesses and conducted a further inquiry into the pleas of alibi raised by A5 and A7. Upon completion of the inquiry, he concluded that the said pleas of alibi were not substantiated.
2.13 On 10.07.2012 PW18 arrested A7 at New Bus stand ,
Allgadda and produced him before the court for judicial remand. On 04.08.2012 PW18 received Ex P21 / RSL Report and on 14.08.2012
PW18 received order from the Superintendent of Police, Karnool permitting to delete name of A3 from the list of accused in the charge sheet. On 08.11.2012 PW18 arrested A5 / Kristipadu Dasthagiri Reddy at four road junction, Allagadda and produced him before the court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation PW18 filed charge sheet
before the court against A1, A2, A4 to A19.
3. This case was taken on file under Section 148 IPC against
A1 to A19, under section 452 IPC against A1 to A19, under section 109
IPC against A5, under section 302 IPC against A1 to A4 , A6, to A18, under section 302 IPC Read with 149 IPC against A5 and A19 and under section 307 IPC against A2 , A3, and A19.
S.C.No.220/2013 and 11 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
4.On appearance of Accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, furnished the copies of documents, as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and on hearing both sides, these cases were committed to the Court of Sessions, Kurnool Division and the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool has made over this case to
this Court for disposal according to law.
5.On appearance of accused, charges under Sec.148 of IPC against A1 to A19, under Sec.452 of IPC against A1 to A19, under
Sec.109 of IPC against A5, under Sec.302 of IPC against A1 to A4, A6 to
A18, under Sec.302 r/w 149 of IPC against A5 and A19, and under
Sec.307 of IPC against A2, A3 and A19 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During pendency of trial, A1, A5, A6, A7, A17 and A19 died and hence the case against them abated as died. The case against A3 deleted.
7. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution in
S.C.No.220/2013 examined PW 1 to PW18 marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23 and marked MO1 and MO28. During cross-examination of witnesses, the defense got marked Ex.D1 to D12 on their behalf; and S.C.No.227/2018 also the Prosecution examined PW-1 to PW16, marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and MOs1 to MO28. During cross-examination of witnesses, the defense got marked Ex.D1 to D12.
8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C for which they denied the incriminating
S.C.No.220/2013 and 12 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
evidence appearing against them and reported no defence evidence.
9.Heard on both sides.
10. Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused for the offences under Sec.148, 452, 109, 307 and 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt or not?” 11.1 PW1 is the direct witness. He is the de facto complainant.
LW9 / Inikyala Chandra shekar Reddy was the son-in-law of D2 / Injeti
Krishna Reddy. As on the date of offence PW1 was working in the shop of LW9 / Inikyala Chandra shekar Reddy. PW2 is the direct witness. He was present at the time of the incident. PW3 is the direct witness. D2 /
Injeti Krishna Reddy is her junior paternal uncle. PW4 the direct witness direct witness. He was present at the time of the incident.
11.2 PW5 is the elder brother of D3/ Pakkiri Nadipi Mabu @
Dubbey. He was present at the time of inquest over the body of D3 /
Pakkiri Nadipi Mabu @ Dubbey. PW6 is an independnet mediator. He was present at the time of inquest over the body of the deceased D1/
Injeti Govindamma. She is his sister in law by courtesy. PW7 and PW 8 are independent mediators. They were present at the time of inquest over the body of the deceased D 4/ Injeti Mallikarjuna Reddy. PW9 is an independent mediator. He was present at the time of arrest of A 10 to
A14, A17 to A 19 and seizure of MO 12 to MO 19 under cover of mediator report dated 29.02.2012.
11.3 PW10 is a Assistant civil Surgeon. She conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased D3 / Pakkiri Nadipi Mabu @ Dubbey and issued Ex P 8 PM Report. PW11 is a Assistant civil Surgeon. She
S.C.No.220/2013 and 13 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased D1 / Injeti
Govindamma Ex P 9 PM Report. PW11 also conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy. PW11 examined S.
Rama Subba Reddy and issued Ex P11 wound certificate. PW12 is a
Assistant civil Surgeon. She conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased D 4 / Injeti Mallikarjuna Reddy and issued Ex P 12 PM Report.
11.4 PW13 is the investigating officer. He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased D3 / Pakkiri Nadipi Mabu @ Dubbey in the presence of PW6, LW 13 / Bareddy Raja Gopal Reddy and LW 15 /
Ambati rama Sanjeeva Reddy. PW14 is the investigating officer. He received Ex P1 / Report from PW1 and registered a case in Cr . NO: 21 of 2012 and issued Ex. P13/ FIR. He also seized apparels of PW1 and
PW2 (MO1 and MO2) under cover of police proceedings / Ex P14 and produced before the court. PW15 is the investigating officer. He assisted
PW18 in his investigation. PW 15 conducted inquest over the body of the deceased D2/ Injeti Krishna Reddy in the presence of PW6, LW 13 /
Bareddy Raja Gopal Reddy and LW 15 / Ambati rama Sanjeeva Reddy and prepared Ex P3 / Inquest Report. PW15 assisted PW19 on 29.02.2012.
11.5 PW16 is the investigating officer. He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased D 4 / Injeti Mallikarjuna Reddy in the presence of PW7, PW8 and LW 16 / Bbhuma Prabhakar Reddy. PW17, the
Investigating Officer. He conducted the inquest over the dead body of
D1, Injeti Govindamma and recorded the detailed statements of PW1,
PW3, and PW6. During the course of investigation on 29.02.2012 PW17 arrested A10 to A12, A14, and A17 to A19, and seized material objects (MOs 12 to 19) under the cover of Ex. P7 in the presence of mediators.
S.C.No.220/2013 and 14 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
On 04.03.2012, PW17 arrested A1, A2, A4, A6, A8, A9, A15, and A16, and effected seizure of material objects (MOs 12 to 27 and MO 28) under the cover of Ex. P 17. PW18 conducted further investiatin and filed charge sheet.
12. Date, time and place of offence: In criminal law, the date, time, and place of an offence (often referred to as the corpus delicti context) are crucial elements that constitute the foundation of the prosecution's case. Their accurate determination is vital for establishing the guilt of the accused, 12.1 Evidence of PW1 : PW1 is the direct witness. He is the de facto complainant. On a careful appreciation of the evidence of PW1, it emerges that on 24.02.2012, at about 8:30 to 9:00 p.m., D3, Pakkiri
Nadipi Mabu @ Dubbey, approached the shop of LW9, Sathugari Rama
Subba Reddy, where PW1 was working, and requested him to accompany him to the residence of D2, Injeti Krishna Reddy, for payment of the lease amount. Pursuant thereto, after closing the shop, PW1 and
D3 proceeded to the house of D2 on a motorbike.
12.2 The evidence of PW1 further discloses that they entered the premises of the house of D2 at about 9:30 p.m. through a smaller gate, as the main gate was found closed. While they were present inside the premises, PW1 heard a loud crashing noise and, upon noticing, found that a jeep had rammed into the main gate and entered the compound of the house of D2. PW1 has categorically deposed that thereafter a group of about 18 to 20 persons, armed with deadly weapons such as sickles (including hunting sickles) and iron pipes, forcibly entered the premises.
According to PW1, the incident of attack took place at about 10:45 p.m.
S.C.No.220/2013 and 15 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
12.3 Evidence of PW2 : PW2 is an eyewitness to the occurrence.
In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that on the night of the incident in the year 2012, at about 8:30 to 9:00 p.m., he went to the house of D2 /
Injeti Krishna Reddy, to discuss a land matter. At that time, LW6 (Kondaiah) and LW7 (Bala Hussain) were conversing in the compound of the said house. PW2 thereafter entered the house, where PW3, LW 4/
Khammam Naga Sulochana, LW5. / Saraboina Sujatha, LW8 / Rama
Subba Reddy, and the deceased, namely Krishna Reddy / D2 and
Govindamma / D1 were present. PW2 further deposed that about 10 to 15 minutes thereafter, PW1 along with D3 (Dubbey @ Mabu) arrived at the house. Within a short interval, the deceased Mallikarjuna Reddy also came there. While PW2 was present inside the house, he heard a loud noise, and immediately thereafter, all the accused, armed with deadly weapons such as hunting sickles, knives, and iron rods, forcibly entered the house of Krishna Reddy.
12.4 In his cross-examination, PW2 deposed that on the said day, he had returned home at about 6:30 p.m. after ploughing his land, and that his house is situated approximately 25 feet away from the house of
Krishna Reddy. He further deposed that the main gates and entrance doors of Krishna Reddy’s house were closed, and that LW6 and LW7 opened a smaller gate, through which entry was made.
12.5 The evidence of PW2, being that of a direct witness, substantially corroborates the version of PW1 with regard to the presence of the deceased and other persons at the scene, as well as the manner in which the accused entered the premises armed with deadly weapons.
12.6 Evidence of PW3 :PW3 is also an eyewitness to the occurrence and was present at the scene of offence at the time of
S.C.No.220/2013 and 16 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
incident. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that on 24.02.2012, at about 10:30 to 10:45 p.m., while he was in the house of D2, Injeti Krishna
Reddy, he heard a loud noise. Upon noticing the source of the disturbance from the staircase, he observed that all the accused armed with weapons had forcibly entered the house of D2.
12.7 In his cross-examination, PW3 stated that he was unable to specify the exact date and day of the incident in the year 2012, except stating that he had gone to the house of D2 in the month of February 2012. It is pertinent to note that the inability of PW3 to recall the exact date and day does not materially affect the core of his testimony, as his presence at the scene and his account of the accused entering the house upon hearing a loud noise remain consistent with the evidence of other eyewitnesses.
12.8 Evidence of PW4 :PW4 deposed that on the date of the incident, at about 8:00 p.m., he, along with LW7 (Bala Hussain), was sitting in the compound of the house of D2, Injeti Krishna Reddy. At about 8:30 p.m., PW2 arrived at the house through a small gate and went inside. At that time, D1 (Govindamma), LW8 (Sathugari Rama Subba
Reddy), PW3 (Sunithamma), LW4 (Sulochana), and LW5 (Sujatha) were present in the house. PW4 further deposed that at about 9:00 to 9:30 p.m., D3 (Dubbey @ Mabu) and PW1 came to the house of D2.
Thereafter, at about 10:30 to 10:45 p.m., he heard a loud noise and noticed that two vehicles, namely a Mahindra utility vehicle and a car, had rammed the main gate and entered the compound of the house of D2,
Injeti Krishna Reddy.
12.9 In his cross-examination, PW4 reiterated that PW2 had come to the house at about 8:30 p.m. and entered through the small gate. He
S.C.No.220/2013 and 17 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
further confirmed that D3 and PW1 arrived at about 9:00 to 9:30 p.m., and that he heard the loud noise of the gate being hit at about 10:30 to 10:45 p.m. The evidence of PW4 thus corroborates the timeline of the occurrence as deposed by other eyewitnesses.
12.10 Date, time and place of offence as per ExP1/ Report and
Ex P13 / FIR :A perusal of the contents of Ex. P1 reveals that on 24.02.2012, at about 9:30 p.m., D3, Pakkiri Nadipi Mabu @ Dubbey, along with PW1, went to the residence of D2, Injeti Krishna Reddy, for the purpose of paying the lease amount due to D2. It is further stated therein that at about 10:45 p.m., all the accused, armed with deadly weapons, criminally trespassed into the house premises of D2 and assaulted the deceased, resulting in the instantaneous death of D1, Injeti Govindamma.
12.11 The contents of Ex. P1 also disclose that PW1 lodged the said report, based on which PW14, M. Ramesh Babu, the then
Investigating Officer, registered a case in Crime No. 21 of 2012 on 25.02.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302, and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and issued Ex. P13 (FIR).
12.12 The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Ibrahim v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 2908, (2006) 10 SCC 601, to contend that in the absence of consistency regarding the place of occurrence, the prosecution case becomes doubtful and cannot be relied upon. It is argued that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the present case suffers from inconsistencies with regard to the scene of offence, and therefore, the benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the accused. In the decision referred supra, the Honourable Apex Court observed that where the very place of occurrence has not been clearly established, it would
S.C.No.220/2013 and 18 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
not be proper to accept the prosecution version. In that case, the prosecution witnesses had indicated multiple and conflicting places as the scene of occurrence. Notably, the witness therein stated in his examination-in-chief that the incident occurred in his house, whereas in cross-examination he stated that it occurred in the house of his wife, i.e., the deceased’s mother, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the place of occurrence.
12.13 However, the facts of the present case stand on an entirely different footing. In the case on hand, all the prosecution witnesses have consistently and unequivocally deposed that the occurrence took place at the residence of D2, Injeti Krishna Reddy. There is no material contradiction or inconsistency in their evidence with regard to the place of occurrence. In view of such consistent and cogent evidence, the ratio laid down in Syed Ibrahim v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the accused on this ground is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.
12.14 Thus, upon a careful consideration of the evidence on record, it is clearly and consistently established that the occurrence took place on the night of 24.02.2012, at about 10:45 p.m., at the residence of D2 / Injeti
Krishna Reddy.
13. Specific Overt acts - a precise role attributed to a particular accused in the crime : In criminal jurisprudence, “specific overt acts” refer to the precise and identifiable role played by each accused person in the commission of an offence. It means that the prosecution must clearly state and prove what exactly each accused did during the incident, rather than making vague or general allegations
S.C.No.220/2013 and 19 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
against a group.
13.1 Evidence of PW1 :PW1, in his evidence, has specifically spoken to the overt acts attributed to the accused persons. He deposed that, at the time of the incident, A5 exhorted the other accused by uttering that all the persons present should be hacked. Thereupon, A1, Injeti
Raghava Reddy, attacked D3 (Mabu) by hacking him on the head with a hunting sickle, as a result of which Mabu fell to the ground. Immediately thereafter, A16 (Tirupalu) assaulted Mabu with an iron pipe, and A6 (Golla
Seshu) stabbed him on his back with a knife. In the meanwhile, when D2,
Krishna Reddy, attempted to rescue Mabu, A1 again attacked him by hacking him on his left shoulder, causing him to fall down. When D1,
Govindamma, intervened and tried to rescue Krishna Reddy, A2 (Injeti
Sivakumar Reddy) and A9 (Kamal Vali) hacked her on the head with hunting sickles. A6 (Golla Seshu) further stabbed Govindamma in the abdomen with a knife, resulting in her intestines protruding.
13.2 PW1 further deposed that A3, A4, A10 (Mehaboob Basha),
A15, A8, and A14 (Chand Basha) indiscriminately hacked Krishna Reddy with hunting sickles on his head, hands, and other parts of the body. He also deposed that Pedda Moulali, A10 (Mehaboob Basha), A7 (K.
Venkata Rami Reddy), A18 (Mala Srinu), A17 (Peddanna), and A13 (Phaker Vali) attacked Mallikarjuna Reddy and hacked him indiscriminately all over his body with hunting sickles. PW1 further deposed that when LW8, Sathugari Rama Subba Reddy, attempted to intervene, A2, A3, and A19 (Koppu Abraham) attacked him by hacking with hunting sickles on his head and other parts of the body. Thereafter, the accused left the house of D2, Injeti Krishna Reddy, in the same jeep in which they had arrived.
S.C.No.220/2013 and 20 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
13.3 Evidence of PW2 :PW2, who is also an eyewitness, has corroborated the version of PW1 with regard to the manner of attack and the roles played by the accused. He deposed that A5 exhorted the others to hack all the persons present in the house. Immediately thereafter, A1 hacked D3 (Mabu @ Dubbey) on his head with a hunting sickle, while A6 attacked him on his back and A16 beat him with an iron rod. PW2 further stated that when D2, Krishna Reddy, attempted to rescue Mabu, A1 hacked him on the left shoulder. When D1, Govindamma, intervened, A2 and A9 hacked her on the head, and A6 stabbed her on the abdomen, resulting in her intestines protruding.
13.4 PW2 also deposed that A2, A4, A10, A15, A14, and others indiscriminately attacked Krishna Reddy, hacking him all over the body.
Further, A18, A19, and A8 attacked Mallikarjuna Reddy by hacking and beating him with pipes. PW2 also stated that A2, A3, and A19 attacked
LW8, Sathugari Rama Subba Reddy, by hacking him indiscriminately.
Thus, the evidence of PW2 lends substantial corroboration to the testimony of PW1 in respect of the overt acts attributed to the accused and the manner in which the offence was committed.
13.5 Evidence of PW3 :PW3, an eyewitness to the occurrence, deposed that A5 exhorted the other accused to hack all the persons present in the house. Pursuant to such exhortation, A1 and A16 attacked
D3 (Dubbey @ Mabu) with hunting sickles, while A6 stabbed him on his back. He further deposed that when D2, Injeti Krishna Reddy, attempted to intervene, A1 hacked him on his left shoulder with a hunting sickle.
When D1, Govindamma, came forward to rescue Krishna Reddy, A2 and
A9 hacked her on the lower jaw, and A6 stabbed her in the abdomen, as a result of which her intestines protruded and she died on the spot.
S.C.No.220/2013 and 21 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
13.6 PW3 also deposed that when Krishna Reddy attempted to get up, A3, A4, A14, and A10 attacked him with sickles and beat him with iron rods. Further, when Mallikarjuna Reddy attempted to ward off the attack, A4, A9, A18, and A17 hacked him with hunting sickles, causing severe bleeding injuries. He also stated that A1 to A3 and A19 attacked
LW8, Sathugari Rama Subba Reddy, with sickles and rods. PW3 stated that he witnessed the entire incident in a state of shock.
13.7 Evidence of PW4:PW4 has also corroborated the version of the prosecution in material particulars. He deposed that all the accused arrived in vehicles, alighted therefrom armed with hunting sickles, knives, and iron rods, and that A5 exhorted them to hack all the persons present.
Thereupon, A1 hacked D3 (Dubbey) on his head with a hunting sickle,
A16 beat him on his back with an iron pipe, and A6 stabbed him on his back. PW4 further stated that when D2, Krishna Reddy, attempted to intervene, A1 hacked him on the shoulder. When D1, Govindamma, came to rescue him, A2, A9, and A6 attacked her by hacking on the head and face, and A6 stabbed her in the abdomen, resulting in her intestines coming out.
13.8 PW4 also deposed that A3, A4, A9, A10, and A15 attacked
Krishna Reddy indiscriminately on his head and other parts of the body with hunting sickles. Further, when Mallikarjuna Reddy attempted to intervene, A7, A12, and A18 attacked him with hunting sickles and beat him with pipes. When LW8, Sathugari Rama Subba Reddy, intervened,
A2, A3, and A9 attacked him with hunting sickles on his head and other parts of the body. PW4 additionally stated that, while leaving the scene, the accused damaged the car and window panes of the house of Krishna
Reddy and thereafter fled in the same vehicles in which they had arrived.
S.C.No.220/2013 and 22 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
13.9 Upon a comprehensive and cumulative appreciation of the evidence of PW1 to PW4, all of whom are eyewitnesses to the occurrence, this Court finds that their testimonies are consistent, cogent, and mutually corroborative on all material particulars relating to the manner of occurrence and the overt acts attributed to the accused.
13.10 All the eyewitnesses have consistently deposed that A5 exhorted the other accused to hack all the persons present in the house, which clearly establishes the element of common object and instigation at the inception of the occurrence. Pursuant to such exhortation, A1 initiated the attack by hacking D3 (Mabu @ Dubbey) with a hunting sickle, which is uniformly spoken to by PW1 to PW4. The subsequent acts of A6 stabbing the deceased and A16 assaulting him with an iron rod have also been consistently narrated by the witnesses.
13.11 The evidence further reveals that when D2, Injeti Krishna
Reddy, attempted to intervene, he was attacked by A1 and thereafter by several other accused, including A3, A4, A10, A14, and A15, who indiscriminately hacked him with deadly weapons. Similarly, the role attributed to A2, A9, and A6 in attacking D1, Govindamma, resulting in her instantaneous death, is consistently spoken to by all the eyewitnesses, with specific reference to the fatal injuries inflicted on her.
13.12 The testimonies also uniformly establish that when
Mallikarjuna Reddy attempted to intervene, he was attacked by multiple accused, including A7, A17, and A18, and was subjected to indiscriminate hacking and assault. Likewise, the attack on LW8, Sathugari Rama
Subba Reddy, by A2, A3, and A19 is consistently deposed to by the witnesses. Though there are minor variations in the narration of specific
S.C.No.220/2013 and 23 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
overt acts, such discrepancies are natural and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. On the contrary, the core of the prosecution version remains intact, and the presence of the accused, their unlawful assembly, the exhortation by A5, and the overt acts of assault by the accused stand firmly established.
13.13 The evidence of PW3 and PW4 substantially corroborates the testimony of PW1 and PW2 with regard to the overt acts attributed to the accused and the manner in which the offence was carried out. Thus, the cumulative evidence of PW1 to PW4 clearly proves that all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, and in prosecution of their common object, committed the offences by brutally attacking the deceased and other injured persons.
14. Contention of the accused in defense on the ground of reliability of evidence of hostile witnesses :Learned Council for the accused contended that PW1 to PW4 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and their evidnce deposed earlier is not credit worth.
14.1 PW1 examined in chief and cross on 20.01.2020. PW1 during further cross-examination after lapse of six years on 30.01.2026, the witness resiled from his previous version and turned hostile and deposed:
I have not mentioned the names of A7 to A19 as they were not present. …I was running auto spare parts shop. Till 10.00 pm I used to open my shop and after 10.00 pm I left my shop. after closing m shop, when I went to my village, there was no power supply there. By 11.30 or 12.00 pm power was restored. There was entire dark to non availability of power support. After restoration of power, I came out from my house. After I came to know about the offence, I went to the house of the deceased. By that time I went to the scene of offence, no one was present except dead bodies. Later I called the villagers and informed
S.C.No.220/2013 and 24 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
about the offence. Then only PW2, PW4 to PW8 came to the scene of offence. PW3 came on the next day morning. I do not know whether there was political rivalry between accused family and the deceased family. It is true as per the instructions of one Gangula Prabakar Reddy I gave the names of A1 to A6 on suspicion. It is true earlier I was gave evidence when somebody formed me to give evidence.
14.2 PW2 examined in chief and cross on 20.01.2020. PW2 during further cross-examination after lapse of six years on 30.01.2026 resiled from his previous version and turned hostile and deposed ;
The distance between my house and deceased NO: 1 is half kilometer. I used to sleep by 8.30 or 9.00pm after having dinner. There is no reason for me to go to the house of the deceased NO: 1 more particularly during nigh time. There was no power in the village on the date of offence from 9.00 pc to 12.00. After power is restored when I came to know that some incident has taken place in the house of the deceased. I went there along with others. When I went to the house of the deceased: 1 found the dead bodies o f S1 to D4 and none were present. I was not examined by the police. It is true on earlier occasions I gave evidence at the instance of one Maddileti Reddya and Bhushanam.
14.3 PW3 examined in chief and cross on 21.01.2020. PW2 during further cross-examination after lapse of six years on 30.01.2026, the witness resiled from her previous version and turned hostile and deposed ;
It is true that I am residing with my family at Allagadda. Bu the date of offence I was having 3 or 4 years baby. Whenever I used t leave my house I always carry my baby. I is true that I am having faith and regard over the family of the deceased No:1. Three or four days prior to offence Radhotsavam was performed in Chintakunta Village. After participating in Radhostavam I returned back to Allagadda. On the next day at about 1.30 or 2.00 AM I came to know about offence. Immediate I rushed to the house of the deceased. By that time, Maddilety Reddy, Prabakar Reddy and Bhushanam were
S.C.No.220/2013 and 25 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
present. It is true that the above said elders pressurized me to give statement and figured as a witness and their instance I gave evidence before the court on earlier occasion. It is true whatever I stated in my chief examination is not correct.
14.4 PW4 examined in chief and cross on 22.01.2020. PW4 during further cross-examination after lapse of six years on 30.01.2026, the witness resiled from his previous version and turned hostile and deposed;
The distance between my village and Chintakunta is about 3 or 4 Kilometers. I have no acquaintance with deceased NO 1 to 4. I never went to their house. I am having relatives in Chintakunta Village on the date of offence and by that time no power supply was in my village. After restoration of power I went to the house of the deceased along with other villagers. It is true that my relatives are followers of deceased NO: 1. It is true at the instance of my relatives I am figured as a witness. It is true on earlier occasion I gave evidence at the instance of my relatives when they tutored me.
14.5If a witness is treated as 'hostile' and is cross- examined, his evidence cannot be written off altogether : In Neeraj Dutta .v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731 the Honourable Apex Court held that even if a witness is treated as 'hostile' and is cross- examined, his evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be considered with due care and circumspection and that part of the testimony which is creditworthy must be considered and acted upon. The Hon'ble Court further laid down that as a matter of prudence to consider the extent of evidence which is creditworthy for the purpose of proof of the case. In other words, the fact that a witness has been declared "hostile" does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence of a "hostile witness" if it finds corroboration from the facts of the case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a "hostile witness" testimony if
S.C.No.220/2013 and 26 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
corroborated by other reliable evidence.
Before proceeding further, let us refer to some important case law with
respect to the witnesses resiling from their previous statements and turning 'hostile':- 14.6 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh .v. State of
Punjab, 2000 SCC Online SC 808 held;
It has become more or less a fashion to have a criminal case adjourned again and again till the witness tires and gives up. It is the game of unscrupulous lawyers to get the adjournments for one excuse or the other till a witness is won over or is tired. In adjourning the matter without any valid cause a Court unwittingly becomes party to miscarriage of justice. A witness is then not treated with respect in the court. He is pushed out from the crowded court room by the peon. He waits for the whole deny and then he finds that the matter is adjourned. For all these reasons a person abhors becoming a witness. It is the administration of justice that suffers
14.7 Even a chief examination could be termed as evidence
:In Rajesh Yadav .v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 12
SCC 200 the Supreme Court held; 21.The expression “hostile witness” does not find a place in the Indian Evidence Act. It is coined to mean testimony of a witness turning to depose in favour of the opposite party. We must bear it in mind that a witness may depose in favour of a party in whose favour it is meant to be giving through his chief examination, while later on change his view in favour of the opposite side. Similarly, there would be cases where a witness does not support the case of the party starting from chief examination itself. This classification has to be borne in mind by the Court. With respect to the first category, the Court is not denuded of its power to make an appropriate assessment of the evidence rendered by such a witness. Even a chief examination could be termed as evidence. Such evidence would become complete after the cross examination.
S.C.No.220/2013 and 27 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
14.8 The Honorable Apex Court further held that once evidence is completed, the said testimony as a whole is meant for the court to assess and appreciate qua a fact. Therefore, not only the specific part in which a witness has turned hostile but the circumstances under which it happened can also be considered, particularly in a situation where the chief examination was completed and there are circumstances indicating the reasons behind the subsequent statement, which could be deciphered by the court. It is well within the powers of the court to make an assessment, being a matter before it and come to the correct conclusion. In the instant case, some of the material witnesses i.e. B. Kamal (PW.86); and R.
Maruthu (PW.51) turned hostile. Their evidence has been taken into consideration by the courts below strictly in accordance with law.
14.9Even a chief-examination could be termed as evidence :
In Rajesh Yadav .v. State of UP, (2022) 12 SCC 200 it was observed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court that a witness may depose in favour of a party in
whose favour it is meant to be giving his evidence through his chief- examination, while later on change his view in favour of the opposite side.
Similarly, there would be cases where a witness does not support the case of the party starting from chief-examination itself. This classification has to be borne in mind by the Court. With respect to the first category, the Court is not denuded of its power to make an appropriate assessment of the evidence rendered by such a witness. Even a chief-examination
could be termed as evidence. Such evidence would become
complete after the cross-examination. Once evidence is completed,
the said testimony as a whole is meant for the court to assess and
appreciate qua a fact.
14.10The evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be treated as
S.C.No.220/2013 and 28 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be
accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a
careful scrutiny thereof: Therefore, not only the specific part in which a witness has turned hostile but the circumstances under which it happened can also be considered, particularly in a situation where the chief-examination was completed and there are circumstances indicating the reasons behind the subsequent statement, which could be deciphered by the court. It is well within the powers of the court to make an assessment, being a matter before it and come to the correct conclusion".
The evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross- examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as
effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be
accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a
careful scrutiny thereof.
14.11 Law permits the court to take into consideration
the deposition of a hostile witness, to the extent that same is in
consonance with prosecution case and is found to be reliable upon
careful judicial scrutiny: In Rohtash Kumar .v. State of
Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434 Honourable Suprme Court held that in this case that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross- examined him. The law permits the court to take into consideration the deposition of a hostile witness, to the extent that same is in consonance with prosecution case and is found to be reliable upon careful judicial scrutiny.
14.12 There is no rule of law that deposition of a hostile
S.C.No.220/2013 and 29 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
witness is to be discarded in toto : In C. Muniappan & Ors .v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2010 SC 3718, 2010 (9) SCC 567 the Supreme
Court held that it is settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examine him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
(vide Bhagwan Singh .v. The State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202;
Rabindra Kumar Dey .v. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170; Syad Akbar .v.
State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848; and Khujji @ Surendra tiwari .v.
State of Madhya Prdesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853).
14.13 In State of U.P .v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, AIR 1996
SC 2766, the Apex Court held that evidence of a hostile witness would
not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated in Balu
Sonba Shinde .v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 543; Gagan
Kanojia Anr .v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516; Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb .v. State of U.P, AIR 2006 SC 951; Sarvesh Naraian Shukla .v. Daroga Singh , AIR 2008 SC 320; and Subbu Singh .v. State, (2009) 6
SCC 462.
14.14 PW1 to PW4 were examined in chief and cross in the year 2020. However, during their further cross-examination conducted after a lapse of nearly six years from the date of their earlier evidence,
PW1 to PW4 resiled from their previous version and turned hostile. In the
S.C.No.220/2013 and 30 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
light of the established precedents that the evidence of a hostile
witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof
which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the
defence and considering the fact that the witnesses resiled from their previous evidence after lapse of six years, this court on careful scrutiny find that the contention of the council for the accused is not sustainable.
15.1 Non-Mention of names of all Accused in FIR in Cases of
Mob Attack – Not Fatal : Learned counsel for the accused relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Raghuvir Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 158, contended that non-mention of the names of all the accused in the FIR is fatal to the case of the prosecution. This Court has carefully perused the said judgment.
The decision highlights an important principle relating to the credibility of an eye-witness and the evidentiary value of the FIR. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that where an informant claims to be an eye-witness, and the incident allegedly involves multiple known accused persons, it is expected that the informant would mention all such accused persons in the FIR, particularly when their identities are known to him at the time of lodging the report. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such omission is not a minor discrepancy but a material omission. It further observed that such omission is a relevant fact under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence
Act, as it affects the probability and credibility of the prosecution case.
The Court held that this circumstance gives rise to a serious doubt as to whether the informant had actually witnessed the entire occurrence or whether the prosecution version was subsequently improved or developed.
15.2 It is pertinent to note that in State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Raghuvir Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 158, the prosecution case was that three persons had committed the offence. However, in the FIR, the
S.C.No.220/2013 and 31 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
informant named only one accused while omitting the names of the other two (juvenile accused), despite allegedly knowing them. The informant also failed to offer any explanation for such omission.
15.3 In Govind Mandavi .v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025
LiveLaw (SC) 1182, the essence of the Court’s reasoning is that when a witness gives a detailed and vivid account of an incident, omission of a crucial fact—such as the name of a known accused—seriously undermines the credibility of the prosecution case. The facts of the case reveal that the witness (PW-2) narrated minute and specific details of the occurrence, including the arrival of the assailants, their physical features, the weapons carried, the sequence of events, and the conduct of the accused. Despite giving such a comprehensive and coherent account, she failed to mention the name of a known accused (Govind Mandavi) while narrating the incident to PW-1 (her father-in-law).
15.4 The explanation offered—that she was unwell—was found to be unconvincing, as a person capable of recalling and narrating intricate details would not ordinarily omit such a vital fact. The Court held that if a witness is otherwise detailed and reliable in narration, but omits to mention a crucial fact such as the identity of an accused, such omission seriously affects the credibility of the witness and may render the prosecution version untrustworthy to that extent. In a nutshell, selective omission of a vital fact, amidst an otherwise detailed narration, is treated as a serious infirmity and not a trivial discrepancy.
15.5 In the instant case, the accused involved constitute a mob of about 18 to 20 persons. PW1 has mentioned the names of A1 to A6 and has also stated that other SC and Muslim persons were among the perpetrators. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel
S.C.No.220/2013 and 32 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
for the accused has no application to the facts and circumstances of the
present case. Moreover, it is well settled that the First Information Report (FIR) is not expected to be an exhaustive account of all the details of the occurrence. Its primary object is merely to set the criminal law in motion and to furnish the earliest version of the incident.
15.6 It is an established legal principle that, in cases involving a large unlawful assembly or mob attack consisting of 18 to 20 persons, it may not always be possible for the informant or an eye-witness to identify and name each and every assailant with precision, particularly when the occurrence is sudden, violent, and takes place under conditions of panic and confusion. Therefore, non-mention of all the accused in the FIR is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution case. Thus, in cases of mob violence, the Court adopts a practical and realistic approach, recognizing that certain omissions in the FIR are natural, while at the same time scrutinizing whether such omissions are material and indicative of afterthought or false implication.
15.7In case of Betal Singh .v. State of M.P., reported at 1996
Crl.J. page 4006 (SC), Babu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1996 (33) ACC 474 SC Baldev Singh .v. State of Punjab 1995 ACC 752 (SC) Bijay Singh .v. State of Bihar 2003 SCC (Crl.) 1093, Hon'ble Supreme Court in these cases has held that mention of few facts or vague facts or if detailed particulars of occurrence are not mentioned in the FIR, then minute details of occurrence is not required as FIR is not encyclopaedia of occurrence. In case of Bijay Singh (supra), it is also held that FIR is not substantive piece of evidence of occurrence.
15.8Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused
S.C.No.220/2013 and 33 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
that the non-mention of the names of all the accused in the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case is not sustainable. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, which involve a large unlawful assembly, it is neither expected nor practicable for the informant to identify and name each and every assailant with precision at the earliest point of time. The omission to mention all the accused, by itself, does not vitiate the prosecution case, particularly when the core of the prosecution version remains consistent and is supported by reliable ocular and medical evidence. Accordingly, the said contention deserves to be rejected.
16. An inquest report is prepared to ascertain the apparent cause of death—whether natural, suicidal, or homicidal : In
Brahm Swaroop .v. State of U.P, AIR 2011 SC 280, 2011 (6) SCC 288,
the honourable Supreme court held that the whole purpose of preparing an inquest report under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to investigate into and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds as may be found on the body of the deceased and stating as in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument such wounds appear to have been inflicted. For the purpose of holding the inquest it is neither necessary nor obligatory on the part of the
Investigating Officer to investigate into or ascertain who were the persons responsible for the death. The object of the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.PC is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death and, if so, what was its apparent cause.
16.1 The evidence of PW6, PW 17 reveals that on on 25.02.2012
PW17 conducted inquest over the body of the deceased, D1 /
Govindamma, at the scene of offence in the presence of the mediator ,
S.C.No.220/2013 and 34 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
PW6, LW 13 / Bareddy Raja Gopal Reddy and LW 15 / Ambati Rama
Sanjeeva Reddy and prepared Ex P2 / Inquest Report and the inquest mediators have opined that the deceased, D1 / Govindamma died due to hack injuries. PW17 deposed that he got shifted the body of the deceased, D1 / Govindamma to the Governemnt Hospital, Allagadda for postmortem examination.
16.2 The evidence of PW7, PW 16 manifest that on 25.02.2012 at 9.30 am, PW 16 / G. Ravi Kumar conducted inquest over the body of the deceased, D 4 / Injeti Mallikarjuna Reddy at Government Hospital,
Allagadda, in the presence of the mediator, PW 7 / Perumalla Ramudu,
LW 16 / Bhuma Prabjakar Reddy, LW 18 / K. Subba Rayudu and got prepared Ex P5 / Inquest Report and the inquest mediators have opined that the deceased, D 4 / Injeti Mallikarjuna Reddy died due to injuries.
PW16 got shifted the body of the deceased, D 4 / Injeti Mallikarjuna
Reddy to the Government Hospital, Allagadda for postmortem examination.
16.3 The evidence of PW6, PW15 discloses that on 25.02.2012
PW 15 / I Sudhakar Reddy conducted inquest over the body of the deceased, D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy at Government Hospital, Allagadda, in the presence of the mediator , PW6, LW 13 / Bareddy Raja Gopal
Reddy and LW 15 / Ambati Rama Sanjeeva Reddy and prepared Ex P3 /
Inquest Report and the inquest mediators have opined that the deceased,
D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy died due to injuries. PW15 deposed that he got shifted the body of the deceased, D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy to the
Government Hospital, Allagadda for postmortem examination.
16.4 The evidence of PW5, PW6 and PW13 established that on 25.02.2012 PW13 conducted inquest over the body of the deceased,
S.C.No.220/2013 and 35 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
D3 / Pakkir Nadipi Mabu @ Bubbey at Community Health Center,
Allagadda at 9.30 am in the presence of PW 6 / Yerrabothula Chandra
Sekhara Reddy, LW 13 / Bareddy Raja Gopal Reddy, and LW 15 / Ambati
Rama Sanjeeva Reddy, and other blood relatives and prepared Ex P4 /
Inquest report, and the inquest mediators have opined that the deceased,
D3 / Pakkir Nadipi Mabu @ Bubbey, died due to hack injuries.
16.5 The question regarding the details of how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of inquest proceedings i.e.
the inquest report is not the statement of any person wherein all the names of the persons accused must be mentioned. Omissions in the inquest report are not sufficient to put the prosecution out of court.
16.6 The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery etc. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report. Evidence of eyewitnesses can not be discarded if their names do not figure in the inquest report prepared at the earliest point of time. The inquest report cannot be treated as substantive evidence but may be utilised for contradicting the witnesses of inquest.
16.7 The evidence of PW5, PW6, PW7, investigating officers /
PW13, PW15 to PW17 manifest that the D1 to D4 died to due to hack injuries and the opinion of the inquest mediators is consistent with the case of the prosecution.
17. The injuries noted in the postmortem reports are
S.C.No.220/2013 and 36 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
corroborated in material particulars by the consistent ocular
evidence: The medical evidence in the present case is supported by the post-mortem reports marked through the respective Medical Officers.
PW10, the Doctor, proved Ex. P8, the post-mortem examination report relating to D3 / Pakkiri Nadipi Mabu @ Dubbey. PW11, the Doctor, proved
Ex. P9 and Ex. P10, being the post-mortem examination reports of D1 /
Injeti Govindamma, and D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy, respectively. PW12, the Doctor, proved Ex. P12 / the post-mortem examination report of D4,
Injeti Mallikarjuna Reddy. These medical documents, duly proved through the concerned doctors, form part of the substantive evidence regarding the nature of injuries and cause of death of the deceased persons.
17.1 PW10, the Medical Officer, deposed that on 25.02.2012 at about 11:30 a.m., she conducted the autopsy over the dead body of D3,
Pakkiri Nadipi Mabu @ Dubbey, son of Late Mabu Saheb, on the requisition made by the Inspector of Police through PC No. 453 of
Allagadda Town Police Station. He stated that the post-mortem examination commenced at 11:30 a.m.
17.2 On external examination, PW10 observed that the tongue of the deceased was protruding between the teeth. He further noted that rigor mortis was present in both the upper and lower limbs. He also observed post-mortem staining on the posterior surfaces of the neck, trunk, and limbs. Upon further examination of the body, PW10 found the following injuries:
External Injuries;
1.Cut laceration with sharp edges placed obliquely extending from
Right frontal area to left temporal area, across the left partial area measuring 24 x 4 cm and bone deep (3 cm). skull bone is fractured
S.C.No.220/2013 and 37 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
along with the laceration and brain matter is exposed 9 cm x 2 cm triangular scalp, skin flap is raised within the wound.
2.Cut laceration with sharp borders, placed transversely on the left partial area, 4 cm x 1 cm bone deep, underlying skull bone appears fractures and depth is 2 cm.
3.Cut laceration placed horizontally across left occipital area of skull, measures 4 cm x 1 cm bone deep.
4.Right eye appears contused. Both eyelids are swollen and black.
Cut wound measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep is seen above right eye brow.
5.Pressure contusion 6 ½ cm size, place obliquely behind the left shoulder.
6.Left hand little finger is lacerated in distal half on dorsal aspect 4 cm x ½ cm size.
7.Cut wound placed horizontally across mid back measures 6 cm x 3 cm x 3 ½ cm deep.
On internal examination, the witness deposed that she found the following injuries;
1.Skull: on opening scalp, haemotoma is seen covering the frontal and temporal areas on the bone on left side, left temporal bone fracture is seen 7 cm size with sharp margins.
2.Parital bone is fractured on the left side, medial end placed 2 cm from the midline, extending inferiorly upto left temporal bone, size is 14 cm (length) x 1 cm (width) x1 cm deep. Underlying meninges are also cut exposing the brain matters.
3.Extensive haematoma is seen over the right cebral hemisphere, especially on the parital areas. Vessals of brain are very much
S.C.No.220/2013 and 38 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
comsted. Let temporal lobe is lacerated. Laceration measures, 13 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm size.
4.Neck: internal structures of neck appear normal.
5.Thorax: Plural cavities and lungs appear pale.
6.Heart is normal.
7.Abdomen: No intraperitonel bleeding seen. Viscera appear pale.
8.Spine: normal.
17.3 Medical Opinion – Cause of Death of D3, Pakkiri Nadipi
Mabu @ Dubbey : PW10, the Medical Officer who conducted the post- mortem examination, has opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to fatal injuries to the head and brain, coupled with multiple lacerated injuries, resulting in shock and death. He further opined that the time of death was approximately 10 to 18 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. Ex. P8 is the post-mortem certificate issued by PW10 in this regard. The witness has also stated that he concluded the post-mortem examination at about 1:30 p.m. on the same day.
17.4 PW11, the Medical Officer, deposed that she has been working as a Civil Assistant Surgeon at CHC, Allagadda, since June 2014 and had previously served in the same capacity at CHC, Allagadda, from the year 2003 to May 2012. She further deposed that on 25.02.2012, on receipt of a requisition from the SDPO, Allagadda, vide letter dated 25.02.2012, she conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of D1, Injeti Govindamma, which was brought and identified through
Police Constable No. 1913 of Allagadda Town Police Station. Upon conducting the post-mortem examination, PW1 found the following injuries:
S.C.No.220/2013 and 39 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
External Injuries:
1.Deep cut wound placed horizontally across upper jaw extending from left side of neck 5 cm behind penia, cutting the upperjaw structures including teeth, palate upto angle of mouth on right side, measuring 22 cm long, 8 cm deep and 5 cm wide.
2.Deep cut wound over the chin placed horizontally across the lowerjaw and chin extending from one angle of mandible to the other measuring 12 cm long 2 ½ cm wide and 4 cm deep; and cutting open the submandible of structures and tongue.
3.Deep cut wound placed horizontally across the right infra orbital area and measuring 10 cm long, 5 cm wide and 3 ½ cm deep. The facial bones and nasal bones are fractured and underlying facial muscles are cut.
4.Cut wound placed horizontally in the upper umbilical area with regular boarders, measuring 14 ½ cm long, 6 cm wide and cutting open the peritoneal cavity. Intestines are protruding from the wound.
On internal examination, the witness deposed that she found the following injuries;
1.Skull: Cranial calvity is normal, meninges are intact. Cerebral vessels of right hemisphere and vessels around midbrain structures are congested and hemorrhagic.
2.Neck: Hyoid bone cricolds and thoroid cartilages are normal,
Muscles and subcutanesse are normal.
3.Thorax: No bleeding in the plural cavities. Both lungs are pale pink in colour.
4.Abdomen: peritoneal cavity is cut at the wound over the abdomen,
Liver Spleen, Kidneys and other visceral structures appear pale.
S.C.No.220/2013 and 40 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
5.Spine: in intact 17.5 Medical Opinion – Cause of Death of D3, Pakkiri Nadipi
Mabu @ Dubbey PW11, the Medical Officer, opined that the deceased appeared to have died due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from multiple fatal injuries, including mild intracerebral hemorrhage. She further stated that the time of death was approximately 16 to 18 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. Ex. P9 is the post-mortem certificate issued by her in this regard. The witness also deposed that she commenced the post-mortem examination at about 9:15 a.m. and concluded the same at about 11:15 a.m. on that day.
17.6 PW11 deposed that on the same day, i.e., 25.02.2012, at about 11:30 a.m., the Medical Officer / PW 11 conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy, on the requisition made by the Inspector of Police, Allagadda Circle, vide letter
dated 25.02.2012. The dead body was brought and was in the custody of
Police Constable No. 1106 of Allagadda Town Police Station. On external examination of the body, the Medical Officer found the following injuries:
1.Cut wound placed para sagitally on left parital area of head, borders are sharp, measuring 8 cm long, 1 ½ cm wide and underlying skull bone is exposed. Skull bone appears to be fractures.
2.Cut wound with sharp margins placed 3 cm apart towards left to the previous would on left side of head, measures 6 cm long, 1 ½ cm wide and underlying skull bone is exposed.
3.Left earlobe is cut and upper half of cut fragment is missing, the wound is 5 cm long.
4.Cut wound with sharp margins placed obliquely from left temporal to occipital area of head, measures 11 cm long, 3 cm wide and underlying bone is exposed.
S.C.No.220/2013 and 41 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
5.Cut wound placed obliquely 2 cm behind left ear on left side of head, measuring 4 cm x 2 cm with underlying bone being exposed.
6.Cut wound with avulsion of upper edge, placed vertically 2 cm behind the left ear, measures 6 ½ cm long, 3 cm wide and underlying bone is exposed.
7.Cut wound placed obliquely along left side of neck in the supraclavilcular area, upper and placed laterally measures 6 ½ cm x 2 cm x2 cm deep underlying neck muscles are cut sharply.
8.Cut wound with sharp border 2 cm long, 1 cm wide and 1 cm deep infront of left deltoid area.
On internal examination, the witness deposed that she found the following injuries;
1.Neck: left sterno-cleido mastoid muscle is lacerated in lower part.
Hyoid bone, cricoids and thyroid cartilages are intact.
2.Thorax: Right side ribs are intact. Left 4th, 5th, and 6th ribs are fractured anteriourly near the anterior axulury line. Hemorrhage is seen in left plural cavity. Left lung is lacerated in upper lobe anterolaterally, above 4 cm size, surrounding lung tissue appears contused.
3.Abdomen: Peritoneal cavity has minimal bleeding internally, Viscera appear pale.
4.Spine: Is intact.
17.7 PW11, the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem examination, has deposed that, in her opinion, the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from multiple injuries, including intracerebral hemorrhage. She further opined that the time of death was approximately 8 to 16 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. Ex.
P10 is the post-mortem certificate issued by PW11 in support of her
S.C.No.220/2013 and 42 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
findings. The witness has also stated that she completed the post-mortem examination at about 1:30 p.m. on the same day.
17.8 PW12, the Medical Officer, deposed that she has been working as a Civil Surgeon at the District Hospital, Proddatur, since
September 2019. Prior to that, she served as a Civil Assistant Surgeon at the District Hospital, Nandyal, from November 2010 to August 2019. She further deposed that on 25.02.2012, on the requisition of the Inspector of
Police, Nandyal Town, vide letter dated 25.02.2012, she conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of D4 / Injeti Mallikarjuna
Reddy, in connection with Crime No. 21 of 2012. The dead body was brought and was in the custody of Police Constable No. 943 of Allagadda
Town Police Station. PW12 stated that she commenced the post-mortem examination at about 1:00 p.m., and on external examination, she found the following injuries:
External injuries;
1.An incised wound of 15 x 2 x 1 cm present over the left side of the skull extending from nose to the occipital bone in horizontal direction exposing the skull bone.
2.An incised wound 5 x 1 x 1 cm over the occipital bone on the left side in horizontal direction above the first wound.
3.An incised wound 4 x 2 x 1 cm over the left parital bone above the second wound.
4.An incised wound 4 x 1 x 1 cm behind the left ear in vertical direction.
5.An incised wound 3 x 1 x 1 cm behind the left ear vertically below the fourth wound.
6.A 4 x 2 x 1 cm incised wound over the Right side of occipital bone.
S.C.No.220/2013 and 43 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
7.A 5 x 1 x 1 cm incised wound behind the right ear.
8.Ear lobule was cut and separated.
9.Incised wound 5 x 2 cm x 1 cm over the angle of the mandible with separated skin.
10.A contusion present over the right shoulder sized about 6 x 3 cm.
11.Upper lip was cut and separated on the left side.
12.An incised wound sized 3 x 2 x2 cm bone deep exposing the radius and ulna at the wrist joint horizontally. Edges of the wounds were clear cut, blood clots present
On internal examination, I found the flowing injuries;
1. Skull: Vault Norma, Brain Parenchyima – congested – meninges – congested.
2. Neck: Structures normal;
3. Chest: Rib cage normal; heart; Fluid blood noted in the chambers on cut section.
4. Lungs: congested – cut section congested.
5. Abdomen: Stomach-congested
6. On cut section semi digested food particles were noted. No peculiar smell
7. Liver – congested, cut section congested.
8. Intestines congested – cut section congested, kidneys – congested – cut section congested.
9. Spleen – congested-cut section congested.
10. Urinary bladder and rectum empty.
11. Spine and other long bones: Normal.
17.9 Medical Opinion – Cause of Death of D1, Injeti
Govindamma : PW12, the Medical Officer, deposed that the injuries
S.C.No.220/2013 and 44 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
found on the body of the deceased D4 / Injeti Mallikarjuna Reddy, were ante-mortem in nature. She further opined that the time of death was approximately 8 to 16 hours prior to the post-mortem examination.
According to her, the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock resulting from multiple injuries sustained by the deceased. Ex. P12 is the post- mortem certificate issued by her in support of the said findings. The witness further stated that she concluded the post-mortem examination at about 3:00 p.m. on the same day. She also opined that the injuries noted in the post-mortem report are possible with the weapons shown to her during the course of examination.
17.10 Medical Opinion with Reference to Weapons : Showing the alleged weapon to a doctor conducting an autopsy (post-mortem) is a standard, critical investigative procedure used to determine if the injuries found on a body correspond to the weapon. This process aims to link the physical evidence to the cause of death.
17.11 During the examination in chief of PW10, the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, D3 /
Pakkiri Nadipi Mabu @ Dubbey the learned Additional Public Prosecutor confronted the witness with the Material Objects / weapons alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence. PW10, upon being shown the weapons, deposed that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were possible with the weapons so shown. She further stated that the contusions and abrasions noted on the body could be caused by blunt objects such as an iron pipe. Upon being shown a sickle, she opined that the cut and incised injuries, as well as punctured wounds, were possible by such weapon. Similarly, on being shown a knife, PW10 stated that the deep injuries observed on the body of the deceased could
S.C.No.220/2013 and 45 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
be caused by the said weapon. Thus, the evidence of PW10 establishes that the injuries sustained by the deceased are consistent with the use of the weapons alleged by the prosecution, thereby lending corroboration to the ocular testimony.
17.12 PW11, the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem examination of D1 / Injeti Govindamma,, deposed that the injuries noted in the post-mortem report are possible with the weapons shown to her during the course of examination. During her deposition, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor confronted PW11 with the material objects
alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence. Upon being shown the knife, PW11 categorically opined that the deep injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by such a weapon. She further affirmed that the nature, size, and depth of the injuries, as recorded in the post-mortem report, are consistent with the use of sharp- edged weapons, and that the injuries could have been inflicted in the manner alleged by the prosecution.
17.13 PW11, the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of D2, Injeti Krishna Reddy, deposed that the injuries noted in her post-mortem report are possible with the weapons shown to her during the course of examination. During her deposition, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor confronted the witness with a knife, and upon such demonstration, PW11 opined that the deep injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by the said weapon. Thus, the medical evidence of PW11 supports the prosecution case with regard to the nature of the weapons used and the manner in which the injuries were inflicted.
17.14. PW12, the Medical Officer, deposed that she
S.C.No.220/2013 and 46 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
concluded the post-mortem examination at about 3:00 p.m. on the same day. She also opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased,
D4/Injeti Mallikarjuna Reddy, as noted in the post-mortem report, are possible with the weapons shown to her during the course of examination.
17.15 The discussion supra manifest that the medical opinion supports the prosecution case regarding the nature of the weapons used and the manner in which the injuries were inflicted. Thus, the evidence of
PW10, PW11, PW12 establishes that the post-mortem examination was duly conducted and provides the foundational medical findings regarding the condition of the dead body at the time of examination and the evidence of PW10, PW11, PW12 clearly establishes that the injuries sustained by the deceased are compatible with the weapons used, thereby lending corroborative support to the ocular testimony regarding the manner of assault and the weapons employed.
17.16 In Khurshid Ahmed .v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2018 7 SCC 429 :: 2018 SCC Online SC 529, the accused were charged with murder assault with weapons. The surgeon who conducted post-mortem (P.W.13) after marking the post-mortem report (Annexure P2) of the deceased giving the details of the injuries found on the body opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient to cause death. On the said evidence, the Court found that the post-mortem report and the evidence of Doctor (P.W.13) corroborated the evidence of P.W.9, who described about the assault made by the accused and therefore, the
Court convicted the accused observing that the direct oral evidence on record coupled with medical evidence point out the guilt of the accused.
Paragraph 23 is extracted as follows:
S.C.No.220/2013 and 47 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
23. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the direct oral evidence available on record coupled with the medical evidence, points at the guilt of the accused and not proving the motive for commission of the offence lost its significance in the facts of the case.
17.17 The post-mortem report, if its genuineness is not
disputed by the opposite party, the said post-mortem report can be
read as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of its
contents : It is pertinent to note the judgment of the Honourable Apex
Court delivered in the case of Akhtar .v. Staet of Uttaranchal, (2009) 13
SCC 722, wherein the Apex Court has laid down that it is settled position of law that if the genuineness of any document filed by a party is not disputed by the opposite party it can be read as substantive evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC. Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its genuineness is not disputed by the opposite party, the said post-mortem report can be read as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of its contents without the doctor concerned being examined.
The relevant paragraph of this judgment is quoted herein below-
It has been argued that non-examination of the medical officers concerned is fatal for the prosecution. However, there is no denial of the fact that the defence admitted the genuineness of the injury reports and the post-mortem examination reports
before the trial court. So the genuineness and authenticity of
the documents stands proved and shall be treated as valid evidence under Section 294 CrPC. It is settled position of law that if the genuineness of any document filed by a party is not disputed by the opposite party it can be read as substantive evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC. Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its genuineness is not disputed by the opposite party, the said post-mortem report can be read as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of its
S.C.No.220/2013 and 48 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
contents without the doctor concerned being examined." (emphasis supplied) 17.18 The cross-examination conduced could not demolish the evidence in chief of the medical officers. In the present case, the
Doctors who conducted the post-mortem examinations over the deceased, namely D3/Pakkiri Nadipi Mabu @ Dubbey, D1/Injeti
Govindamma, D2/Injeti Krishna Reddy, and D4/Injeti Mallikarjuna Reddy, were examined as PW10, PW11, and PW12, respectively. Through their evidence, the post-mortem reports were marked as Exs. P8, P9, P10, and
P12. It is pertinent to note that no objection was raised on behalf of the defence at the time of marking the said post-mortem reports. In such circumstances, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Akhtar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2009) 13 SCC 722, the post- mortem reports marked as Exs. P8, P9, P10, and P12 can be relied upon as substantive evidence to establish the correctness of their contents, even in the absence of formal proof by examining the author of the document. Accordingly, the said post-mortem reports form part of the substantive medical evidence in the case.
18. Injuries to LW8 – Consistency of Ocular Evidence and
Proof of Presence ; Substantiate prosecution case : It is established precedent that conviction can be based upon the version put forth by the eyewitness and the medical evidence must be considered only for the purpose of corroboration of the ocular evidence.
18.1 PW1 has deposed that LW8 / S. Rama Subba Reddy, is a close relative of D2/Injeti Krishna Reddy and was present in the house at the time of the occurrence along with other inmates. He has clearly deposed that when LW8 attempted to intervene during the assault, A2,
S.C.No.220/2013 and 49 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
A3, and A19 attacked him with hunting sickles on his head and other parts of the body. PW1 has further deposed that he, along with LW8/Jayarami
Reddy, shifted the injured, including LW8, to the Government Hospital,
Allagadda, in the vehicle belonging to D2 / Krishna Reddy.
18.2 PW2 has also deposed about the presence of LW8 / S. Rama
Subba Reddy at the scene and has corroborated the fact that A2, A3, and
A19 attacked and bet him indiscriminately. Though certain suggestions were made during cross-examination, including that no stab injuries were sustained, the same were specifically denied by the witness. The minor inconsistency regarding whether LW8 / S. Rama Subba Reddy disclosed the names of the assailants does not affect the core of the prosecution case.
18.3 PW3 and PW4 have further corroborated the prosecution version by consistently deposing that when LW8 / S. Rama Subba Reddy intervened, A2, A3, and A19 attacked him with hunting sickles, causing injuries on his head and body.
18.4 Thus, the evidence of PW1 to PW4, who are direct eyewitnesses, is consistent and cogent with regard to
(i) the presence of LW8 at the scene of offence, and
(ii) the overt acts attributed to A2, A3, and A19 in causing injuries to him.
The consistency in their testimony on these material particulars inspires confidence and establishes beyond doubt that LW8 / S. Rama
Subba Reddy was present at the scene and sustained injuries during the course of the same occurrence.
18.5 Medical Evidence Relating to Injuries of LW8 : PW11, the
S.C.No.220/2013 and 50 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
Medical Officer, deposed that on 24.02.2012 at about 10:30 p.m., he examined the injured, S. Rama Subba Reddy (LW8), and found the following injuries:
1.A cut wound with sharp edges, placed antero-posteriorly on the right frontal area, measuring 11 cm × 1 cm × ½ cm.
2.A cut wound with sharp edges, curved in shape (convex side upwards), commencing about 3 inches above the left pinna and extending over the left parietal region up to the right occipital region, measuring 25 cm × 1 cm × 1 cm.
3.A cut wound with sharp borders along the medial side of the upper third of the left forearm, placed obliquely, measuring 10 cm × 1 cm × 1 cm.
18.6 PW11 opined that the said injuries were simple in nature and that the age of the injuries was approximately within six hours prior to the examination. Ex.P11 is the wound certificate issued by PW11 in this regard. The witness further deposed that the injuries noted in Ex. P11 are possible with the weapons shown to her during the course of examination.
18.7 The ocular testimony of PW1 to PW4 finds clear corrobora- tion from the medical evidence. PW11, the Medical Officer, deposed that she examined LW8 / S. Rama Subba Reddy on 24.02.2012 at about 10:30 p.m. and found multiple cut injuries on the head and forearm, as detailed in Ex. P11 wound certificate. She opined that the injuries were simple in nature and were caused within about six hours prior to examination.she further stated that the injuries were possible with the weapons shown to him and that the injured reported a history of assault.
18.8 Thus, the consistent and cogent evidence of PW1 to PW4
S.C.No.220/2013 and 51 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
regarding the assault on LW8 / S. Rama Subba Reddy is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of PW11. The nature, location, and timing of the injuries, as recorded in Ex.P11, lend assurance to the prosecution version. Accordingly, the prosecution has satisfactorily established that LW8 / S. Rama Subba Reddy sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence at the hands of A2, A3, and A19.
19. It is established principles that discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses are not uncommon and should not automatically lead to their rejection unless they strike at the root of the prosecution’s case. While there were minor discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts, these did not detract from the core narrative implicating the accused. The testimonies of key witnesses were consistent on material points, such as the presence of the accused at the scene and the manner of assault.
Hence, it is not necessary to place undue emphasis on trivial inconsistencies rather than evaluating the evidence as a whole. Baban
Shankar Daphal & Ors. .v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC Online SC
137) (Para 18)
20. Identity of accused is not denied hence not in dispute : All the accused are residents of P Chintakunta village.. PW 1, PW2 deposed that they know all the accused with their names. Other direct witnesses also deposed that they know all the accused as villages. In view of the acquaintance with the accused, it is not necessary to conduct test identification parade. Hence the prosecution proved the identity of the accused.
21. Rioting, armed with deadly weapon under section 148 IPC :
In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant under Section 148 IPC,
S.C.No.220/2013 and 52 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
the prosecution was required to prove that the appellant was the part of an unlawful assembly and she was armed with a deadly weapon or anything which, if used as a weapon, was likely to cause death.
Basic ingredient of Section 148 IPC IPC and Section 149 IPC is unlawful assembly, which in terms of Section 141 IPC, must consist of at least five members. Section 148 IPC deals with offence of rioting armed with deadly weapons. Section 148 runs like this;
Section 148 IPC . Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.—
Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 148 IPC is an independent offence having two basic ingredients:
(i) that the accused was guilty of rioting
(ii) that while participating in the riots, the accused was armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which if used as a weapon is likely to cause death.
21.1 Section 146 IPC provides that whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, then every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. Section 149 IPC provides that every member of unlawful assembly is guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
21.2 From the testimony of PW1 to PW4, it is established that A1 to A19 participated in the riot armed with deadly weapons attacked the deceased (D1 to D4) and injured LW.8 / S.Rama Subba Reddy. There
S.C.No.220/2013 and 53 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
by prosecution established the basic ingredients of section 148 IPC.
Prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A19 for the offence under section 148 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. In the result A2, A4, A8 to A16 and A18 found guilt for the offence under section 148 IPC.
22. Section 452 IPC (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint) : The offence punishable under
Section 452 IPC is an aggravated form of 'house trespass', which is defined in Section 442 IPC and is made punishable under Section 448
IPC. Essential ingredients of offense of house trespass are:
(i) the accused must commit criminal trespass
(ii) by entering into or by remaining on the property unlawfully after initial lawful entry;
(iii) that such trespass was in respect of a building, tent or vessel; and
(iv) that such building, tent or vessel was used as a human dwelling or as a place of worship or as a place for storing property.
22.1. Therefore, an essential ingredient of Section 452 IPC is that the trespass must occur within a building, tent, or vessel and that such building must be used as human dwelling. Further, to establish an offense under Section 452 IPC, the presence of a preparatory intent for assault, hurt, or wrongful restraint is imperative. Mere trespass, coupled with an act of aggression, is insufficient to meet the criteria of Section 452 IPC.
An element of preparation to commit harm or restraint is indispensable to bring the offense within the ambit of Section 452 IPC.
22.2. The evidence on record established beyond reasonable doubt that A2, A4, A8 to A16 and A18 committed house-trespass, by entering into the house of D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy after making
S.C.No.220/2013 and 54 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
preparation for causing death of D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy and his family members and thereby established all ingredients to constitute of offence punishable under section 452. In the result A2, A4, A8 to A16 and A18 found guilt for the offence under section 452 IPC.
23. In order to convict accused for the offence under section 109
IPC, the relationship between the abetment, and the actual occurrence of the offence, must be both immediate and sufficiently clear. Section 109 is life this;
Section 109 IPC Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment. :
Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.Explanation.— An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.
23.1 Essential Ingredients of Section 109 IPC
1.There must be abetment: The accused must have abetted through instigation, conspiracy, or assistance to commit the offence.
2.The offence abetted must be committed: The offence must actually be committed due to that abetment.
3.There is no different punishment: Section 109 only applies when the IPC does not include another separate provision to punish the offence of abetment.
S.C.No.220/2013 and 55 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
4.Mens Rea: The abettor must have the purpose or knowledge that his abetting is likely to induce the commitment of the offence.
23.2 PW1 to PW4 deposed that A5 / Kristipadu Peda Dastagiri
Reddy @ Dastagiri Reddy uttered ' hack all the persons', immediately A1 / Injeti Venkata Raghava Reddy @ Raghava Reddy hacked. The said evidence on record shows that the ingredients of the offence under section 109 of the IPC are present in the case. The prosecution proved the guilt of accused (A5) for the offence under section 109 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
24. Section 300 of Indian Penal Code speaks about murder under which it has been stipulated that except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or, secondly, if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or thirdly, if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or fourthly, if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
24.1 The intention of the accused was to cause the death : In
Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy .v. State of A.P, AIR 2006 SC 2006 (11) SCC 444, the court observed that the intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the
S.C.No.220/2013 and 56 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
following, among other, circumstances :
a.nature of the weapon used; b.whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; c.whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; d.the amount of force employed in causing injury; e.whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; f.whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; g.whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; h.whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; i.whether it was in the heat of passion; j.whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; k.whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows.
24.1 The above enumeration of circumstances narrated in the evidence, though not exhaustive, is sufficient to throw considerable light on the question of intention. The evidence on record manifest that ;
1. there was a long standing enmity between D2 / Injeti Krishna
Reddy and A5.
2. All the accused attacked D2 / Injeti Krishna Reddy and his family members due to the disputes regarding the village supremacy and due to property disputes
3. Prior to the incident, there was an altercation between D2 /Injeti
S.C.No.220/2013 and 57 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
Krishna Reddy and A5 in mediation before the then Allagadda MLA
Bhuma Nagireddy.
4. All the accused armed with deadly weapons
5. The deceased were unarmed.
6. There was no provocation, sudden quarrel or fight.
7. There was no indication of any cause for an apprehension on the part of the accused that the deceased may attack him.
8. The stabbings were with great force, causing an injury on a vital part of body, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
9. A2 / Injeti Sivakumar Reddy, along with A9 / Kammubaigari Kamal
Vali @ Kamal Basha @ Gokari assaulted D1 / Govindamma and hacking her on the head with machetes, and A6 / Golla Pandlagalla
Nagaseshudu @ Shesu @ Anji stabbed D1 / Govindamma on her abdomen with a knife, causing grievous injuries resulting in instantaneous collapse leading to her death.
10. The description of the injury and cause for death given by
PW-11, who conducted the post mortem is telling the intention to cause death or at all events intention of causing bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death was made out.
All the above circumstances leave no room to doubt that the intention of the accrued was to cause the death or, at all events, cause bodily injury, which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
24.2 Upon a careful appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has cogently and convincingly established all the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The nature of the
S.C.No.220/2013 and 58 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
injuries inflicted, the weapons employed, the manner of the assault, and the concerted acts of the accused clearly demonstrate the requisite intention and knowledge attributable to the offence of murder.
Accordingly, the cumulative circumstances and the evidence adduced by the prosecution unerringly point to the guilt of Accused Nos. A2, A3, A4,
A8 to A16, and A18, and prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
25. In view of the evidence narrated supra and in view of the discussion supra, A5 and A19 found guilty for the offence under sections 302 r/w 149.
26. If a person causes hurt with the intention or knowledge that he may cause death, it would attract Section 307 : It is pertinent to extract section 307 of IPC hereunder:
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if “hurt” is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
26.1 Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code contemplates the causing of “hurt” with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that if death had ensued, the act would amount to murder.
Thus, the essential ingredient is the intention or knowledge to cause death.
S.C.No.220/2013 and 59 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
26.2 In the present case, all the direct witnesses have consistently deposed that when LW8, S. Rama Subba Reddy, attempted to intervene during the course of the assault, Accused Nos. A2, A3, and A19 attacked him with hunting sickles on his head and other parts of the body. Their testimony, being cogent and consistent, inspires confidence.
The medical evidence further lends corroboration to the ocular version.
PW11, the Medical Officer, examined the injured S. Rama Subba Reddy and issued Ex. P11—wound certificate, noting the injuries sustained by him, which are consistent with the weapons alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence.
26.3 In view of the consistent and reliable testimony of the eyewitnesses, duly corroborated by the medical evidence, this Court holds that the prosecution has successfully established, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of Accused Nos. A2, A3, and A19 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
27. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a comprehensive appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court arrives at the following concusion:
a. Accused Nos. A2, A4, A8 to A16 and A18 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 452 of the Indian
Penal Code.
b. Accused No. A5 is found guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 109 IPC.
c. Accused Nos. A2, A3, A4, A8 to A16, and A18 are held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution having proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
d. Accused Nos. A5 and A19 are found guilty for the offence
S.C.No.220/2013 and 60 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
e. Accused Nos. A2, A3, and A19 are further held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
Accordingly, the point under consideration is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.
28.Hence, A2, A4, A8 to A16 and A18 are found guilty for the offences under Secs.148, 452, 302 of Indian Penal Code. A2 is also found guilty for the offence under Sec.307 of Indian Penal Code and they are convicted under Sec.235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
III-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, FAC.V-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Allagadda.
29. Heard the accused with regard to the quantum of sentence:-
A2 represented that his father died and his mother is old aged person and he is having two children and pleaded mercy.
A4 represented that his mother is old aged person and he is having children and are depending upon him and pleaded mercy.
A8 represented that he is aged about 45 years, his wife died and his family is depending upon him and pleaded mercy.
A9 represented that he is having two children who are depending upon him and pleaded mercy.
A10 represented that his father died and he is having two children who are depending upon him and pleaded mercy.
A11 represented that he is having two children who are depending upon him and pleaded mercy.
A12 represented that he is having tender aged children who are
S.C.No.220/2013 and 61 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
depending upon him and pleaded mercy.
A14 represented that his wife died and pleaded mercy.
A15 represented that he is having three daughters and his wife is suffering with paralysis and pleaded mercy.
A16 represented that his younger brother died, his children are depending upon him and pleaded mercy.
A18 represented that he is having two children who are depending upon him and pleaded mercy.
A13 represented that he is having three daughters who are depending upon him and pleaded mercy.
In view of gruesome murder of the deceased, the benevolent provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be applied to this case.
30. In the result,A2, A4, A8 to A16 and A18 are found guilty for the offences under Secs.148, 452, 302 of Indian Penal Code; A2 is also found guilty for the offence under Sec.307 of Indian Penal Code and they are convicted under Sec.235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
A2, A4, A8 to A16 and A18 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months each for the offence under Sec.148 of the
Indian Penal Code.
A2, A4, A8 to A16 and A18 are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven (07) years and shall pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months each for the offence under
Sec.452 of the Indian Penal Code.
A2, A4, A8 to A16 and A18 are further sentenced to undergo
S.C.No.220/2013 and 62 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
imprisonment for life and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months each for the offence under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal
Code.
A2 also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code.
All the sentences awarded for the charges shall run concurrently.
The period of remand undergone by the accused shall be set off under sec.428 Cr.P.C. MO-28 in S.C.220/2013 which was given for interim custody is ordered to be in regular custody of its registered owner. Mos-1 to 27 shall be destroyed after appeal time. The accused are enlightened about right of appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by this
Court before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and they are also informed about the right of free Legal Aid.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in open court, on this the 30 th day of March, 2026.
III-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, FAC.V-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Allagadda. List of deceased : D1 : Injeti Govindamma D2 : Injeti Krishna Reddy D3 : Pakkiri Nadipi Mabu @ Dubbey D 4 : Injeti Mallikarjuna Reddy
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE in S.C.No.220/2013
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION: ACCUSED:- Nil
S.C.No.220/2013 and 63 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
PW1 : Shaik Chand Basha PW2 : Kethireddy Jayarami Reddy PW3 : Annem Sunitha PW4 : Boya Kondaiah PW5 : Pakkir Bikari Saheb PW6 : Yerrabothula Chandra Sekhara Reddy PW7 : Perumalla Ramdu PW8 : Kedam Subbarayudu PW9 : Gajula Pedda Hussain Sab PW10 : Dr. G. Siva Madhavi PW11 : Dr. M. Sujatha PW12 : Dr. M. Sailaja PW13 : M. Ramaiah Naidu PW14 : M. Ramesh Babu PW15 : I. Sudhakar Reddy PW16 : G. Ravi Kumar PW17 : V.R. Srinivasulu PW18 : Dr. K. Tirumalesvara Reddy.
Exhibits Marked- For Prosecution
Ex.P1 :Statement (Report) recorded by Police
Ex.P2 :Inquest on D1 (Injeti Govindamma)
Ex.P3 :Inquest on D2 (Krishna Reddy)
Ex.P4 :Inquest on D3 (Dubbey)
Ex.P5 :Inquest on D4 (Mallikarjuna Reddy)
Ex.P6 :Arrest panchanama Dt.29.2.2012 Admissible portion
Ex.P7 :Seizure panchanama Dt.29.2.2012
Ex.P8 :Postmortem examination report of D3 (Nadipi Mabu)
Ex.P9 :Postmortem examination report of D1 (Injeti Govindamma)
Ex.P10 :Postmortem examination report of D2 (Krishna Reddy)
Ex.P11 :Wound certificate of LW.8 S.Rama Subba Reddy
Ex.P12 :Postmortem examination report of D4 (Mallikarjuna Reddy)
Ex.P13 :F.I.R.
Ex.P14 :Police Proceedings
Ex.P15 :Scene observation panchanama Dt.25.2.2012
S.C.No.220/2013 and 64 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
Ex.P16 :Statement of accused A1 to A12, A14,A17 to A19
Ex.P17 :Panchanama Dt.4.3.2012
Ex.P18 :Memo from DIG,Kurnool
Ex.P19 :Letter from S.P., Kurnool to furnish call details Dt.5.5.2012
Ex.P20 :Call details form (Exs.P19 and P20 marked subject to objection
Ex.P21 :RFSL report
Ex.P22 :Proceedings of S.P. Kurnool for deletion of A3
Ex.P23 :Served notice to complainant by PW.1
Exhibits marked- for Defence
Ex.D1 :Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW1
Exs.D2 Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW2
Ex.D3 :Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW2
Ex.D4 :Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW3
Ex.D5 :Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW3
Ex.D6 :Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW4
Ex.D7 :Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW4
Ex.D8 :Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW4
Ex.D9 :Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW4
Ex.D10:Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW4
Ex.D11:Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW4
Ex.D12:Photostat copy of proceedings of S.P., Kurnool.
Material Objects Marked
M.O.1 :Blue colour shirt
M.O.2 :pant
M.O.3 :shirt
M.O.4 :lungie
M.O.5 :Blood stained cut banian
S.C.No.220/2013 and 65 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
M.O.6 :Blue colour underwear
M.O.7 :Yellow ash colour checks design ready-made shirt blood stained
M.O.8 :White and black colour shirt
M.O.9 :Saree of Deceased No.1
M.O.10 :Blouse of Deceased No.1
M.O.11 :White colour pettycoat
M.O.12 :Hunting sickle
M.O.13 :Hunting sickle
M.O.14 :Hunting sickle
M.O.15 :Iron pipe
M.O.16 :Iron pipe
M.O.17 :Iron Pipe
M.O.18 : Sickle
M.O.19: Sickle
M.O.20: Hunting sickle
M.O.21: Hunting sickle
M.O.22: Knife
M.O.23:Iron Pipe
M.O.24:Hunting sickle
M.O.25:Sickle
M.O.26:Iron pipe
M.O.27:Hunting sickle
M.O.28:Bolero vehicle AP 16 TA 2515.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE in S.C.No.227/2018
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION: ACCUSED:- Nil
PW1 : B.Rajagopal Reddy, V.R.O. PW2 : Perumalla Ramudu, PW3 : Gajula Pedda Hussain Sab PW4 : Dr. Sujatha PW5 : Dr. M. Sailaja
S.C.No.220/2013 and 66 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
PW6 : Shaik Chand Basha PW7 : Kethireddy Jayarami Reddy PW8 : Boya Kondaiah PW9 : Pakkir Bikari Saheb PW10 : Annem Sunitha PW11 : M. Ramaiah Naidu, Inspector of Police PW12 : G. Ravi Kumar, Inspector of Police PW13 : M. Ramesh Babu, Inspector of Police PW14 : B.R. Srinivasulu, SDPO, Allagadda PW15 : I. Sudhakar Reddy, Inspector of Police PW16 : Dr. K. Tirumalesvara Reddy.
Exhibits Marked- For Prosecution
Ex.P1 :Copy of Inquest report of deceased Injeti Govindamma (D1)
Ex.P2 :Copy of Inquest report of deceased Mallikarjuna Reddy (D4)
Ex.P3 :Signature of PW.3 on panchanama
Ex.P4 :Signature of LW.19 Vadla Brahmaiah on panchanama Dt.29.2.2012
Ex.P5 :Copy of Postmortem report of D1 (Injeti Govindamma)
Ex.P6 :Copy of Postmortem report of D4 (Injeti Krishna Reddy)
Ex.P7 :Wound certificate of S.Ramasubba Reddy (LW.8)
Ex.P8 :Postmortem examination report of D4 (Mallikarjuna Reddy)
Ex.P9 :Report/Complaint Dt.25.2.2012
Ex.P10 :Inquest report of deceased Pakkir Mabu @ Dubbey (D3)
Ex.P11 :CC of F.I.R. in Cr.No.21/2012 of Allagadda Town P.S.
Ex.P12 :Police Proceedings
Ex.P13 :Inquest report of deceased D4 (Mallikarjuna Reddy)
Ex.P14 :Scene observation panchanama Dt.25.2.2012
Ex.P15 :Statement of Accused recorded by PW.14.
Ex.P16 :Seizure panchanama by PW.14, SDPO from A19
Ex.P17 :Seizure panchanama by PW.14 SDPO from A1
Exhibits marked- For Defence
Ex.D1 :Relevant Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW6 Dt.25.2.2012
S.C.No.220/2013 and 67 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
Ex.D2 :Relevant Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW7
Ex.D3 :Relevant Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW7
Ex.D4 :Relevant Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW8
Ex.D5 :Relevant Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW8
Ex.D6 :Relevant Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW8
Ex.D7 :Relevant Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW8
Ex.D8 :Relevant Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW8
Ex.D9 :Relevant Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW8
Ex.D10:Relevant Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW8
Ex.D11:Relevant Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW8
Ex.D12:Relevant Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW10 Dt.17.05.2012.
Material Objects Marked
M.O.1 :Iron rod
M.O.2 :Shirt
M.O.3 :Pant
M.O.4 :Shirt
M.O.5 :Lungie
M.O.6 :Yellow ash colour checks design ready-made shirt blood stained
M.O.7 :White shirt
M.O.8 :Saree
M.O.9 :Blouse
M.O.10 :White colour pettycoat
M.O.11 :Hunting sickle
M.O.12 :Hunting sickle
M.O.13 :Hunting sickle
M.O.14 :Iron pipe
M.O.15 :Iron pipe
M.O.16 :Iron Pipe
S.C.No.220/2013 and 68 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.
M.O.17 :Sickle
M.O.18 : Sickle
M.O.19: Hunting sickle
M.O.20: Hunting sickle
M.O.21: Knife
M.O.22: Iron Pipe
M.O.23:Hunting sickle
M.O.24:Sickle
M.O.25:Iron pipe
M.O.26:Hunting sickle
M.O.27:Banian
M.O.28: Underwear
III-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, FAC.V-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Allagadda.
Copy to the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Amaravathi, by way of C.D. Copy communicated to:-
1. The Director of Prosec9ution, D.No.109 to 112, 1st Floor, M.G. road, Vijayawada.
2. The District Collector, Nandyal.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Nandyal.
4. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Allagadda.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Allagadda.
S.C.No.220/2013 and 69 V-Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge’s Court, S.C.No.227/2018 Kurnool at Allagadda, Dt.30-03- 2026.