1 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-III ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE: NALGONDA.
Present: Sri D.Durga Prasad,
Judge, Family Court-cum-III Addl.
Sessions Court, Nalgonda
Dated, this the 7th Day of October, 2025
SC.No.28 OF 2025
(P.R.C. No. 28 of 2023 on the file of the Prl. J.M.F.C, Devarakonda in Crime No. 108/2021 of P.S. Chinthapally)
COMPLAINANT:The Sub Inspector of Police PS Chinthapally
ACCUSED:
A-1: Kadari Srisailam S/o Peddaiah, Age: 27 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Baddamvarigudem H/o Vinjamoor village of Chinthapally mandal, Nalgonda District.
A-2: Kadari Kiran S/o Peddaiah, Age: 22 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Baddamvarigudem H/o Vinjamoor village of Chinthapally mandal, Nalgonda District.
A-3: Kadari Bixamaiah S/o Chandraiah, Age: 40 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Baddamvarigudem H/o Vinjamoor village of Chinthapally mandal, Nalgonda District.
A-4: Kadari Yadaiah S/o Sathaiah, Age: 32 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Baddamvarigudem H/o Vinjamoor village of Chinthapally mandal, Nalgonda District.
A-5: Kadari Bujjamma W/o Peddaiah, Age: 43 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Baddamvarigudem H/o Vinjamoor village of Chinthapally mandal, Nalgonda District.
A-6: Kadari Santhosha W/o Srisailam, Age: 31 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Baddamvarigudem H/o Vinjamoor village of Chinthapally mandal, Nalgonda
2 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
District.
A-7: Kadari Manjula W/o Bixamaiah, Age: 35 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Baddamvarigudem H/o Vinjamoor village of Chinthapally mandal, Nalgonda District.
A-8: Kadari Manjula W/o Yadaiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Baddamvarigudem H/o Vinjamoor village of Chinthapally mandal, Nalgonda District.
A-9: Kadari Ramulamma W/o Sathaiah, Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Baddamvarigudem, H/o Vinjamoor village of Chinthapally mandal, Nalgonda District.
A-10: Kadari Chandraiah S/o Jangaiah, Age: 58 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ Agriculture, R/o: Baddamvarigudem H/o Vinjamoor village of Chinthapally mandal, Nalgonda District. ( died)
A-11: Kadari Narendar S/o Chandraiah, Age: 22 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ Agriculture, R/o: Baddamvarigudem H/o Vinjamoor village of Chinthapally mandal, Nalgonda District.
A-12: Kadari Yadaiah S/o Jangaiah, Age: 53 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Baddamvarigudem H/o Vinjamoor village of Chinthapally mandal, Nalgonda District.
Offences Charged :u/Sec.307, 324, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC.
Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.
Prosecution conducted by:Sri G. Jawaharlal Addl. P.P.
Accused is defended by:Sri N. Narsimha Reddy, counsel for the accused.
3 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
In the result, I find A1 to A9, A11 and Sentence of order: A12 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections. 307, 324, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34
IPC. Accordingly they are acquitted under
Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offenceS.
The bail bonds of A1 to A9, A11 and A12 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.
MOs.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over through committal court.
This case having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Jawaharlal, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of Prosecution and of Sri N. Narsimha Reddy, learned counsel for accused, upon hearing the both the sides and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chinthapally had filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1to 12 in Cr.No.108/2021, PS. Chinthapally for the offences under Sections 307, 324, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC.
4 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
GIST OF CHARGE SHEET
2. In brief, the gravamen of the accusation levelled against all the accused are that this is a case of “Attempt to murder” due to land disputes.
ii. As per investigation record, there is a land dispute running among PW-1 family and the accused A-1 family about the land in Sy.No. 1005 at the outskirts of
Baddamvarigudem H/o Vinjamoor(v). Both families are quarreling each other by claiming the same land. In this connection several disputes arose among them. A-1 Kadari Srisailam decided to eliminate PW.5 with the help of A-2 to A-4 and the same matter was informed to them and all of them decided to kill PW-5 who is the husband of the PW-1 and that they are waiting for chance to kill PW-5.
iii. On 08-06-2021 at about 18-30 hours, PWs-1 to 5 while performing agriculture works in their land in Sy.No. 1005 at the outskirts of Baddamvarigudem H/o Vinjamoor(v),
Chinthapally(m), in the meantime A-1 to A-4 came to them with an intention to kill PW-5 and attacked on them with iron rods and plow stick, sticks and stones by threatening them with dire consequences. A-1 beat PW-5 with iron rod on his head, A-2 to A-4 also beat PW- 2 & PW-5. All the accused beat them and caused bleeding injuries to them. Further, the accused persons pulled mobile phones of PW-1 family and damaged. At the same remaining accused persons A-5 to A-12, thinking that there would be a quarrelling, they came there and beat them by abusing and threatening them.
5 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
iv. Thus the accused persons A-1 to A-4 committed an offence punishable U/Sec.
307, 427, 506 R/w 34 1.P.C and A-5 to A-12 committed an offence punishable U/Sec 324, 504, 506 R/w 34 I.P.C.
v. On 09.06.2021 at about 13:00 hours, PW.1 lodged a report. On 09-06-2021 at 13:00 hours, PW.12, SI of Police, received report from P.W.1, he registered case in
Crime.No.108/2021 for the offence under Section. 307, 427 ,506 R/W 34 IPC and issued
F.I.R and he sent FIR to concerned court. Further, he examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 and 2 at police station and then he visited the scene of offence situated at
Vinjamuri village outskirts and drawn rough sketch and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.w.8 and 9 and there he recorded the statements of P.w.3 and 4. Further, he visited the Army hospital, Secunderabad and there he recorded the statement of injured i.e, P.W.5. On 18-06-2021 he arrested the accused. No.1 to 4 and conducted confession cum recovery panchanama in the presence of P.w.7 and 10.
vi. In that panchanama he recovered one Mahindra Tractor, one iron rod and three sticks. On 15-07-2021 he visited Badhavarigudem village and he examined and recorded the statements of P.w.11,6 and L.W.8 to 10. Basing on the statements of P.w.11, 6 and
L.w.8 to 10, the prima facie of the case is made out against the accused. No.5 to 12 for the offence punishable under section 324, 504, 506 IPC. As per that he added the section of law 324, 504 to the existing sections. On 19-06-2021, he issued 41(a)(c) Crpc notice to A-5 to
A-12. Further he handed over CD file to PW.13.
6 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
vii. PW.13 received CD file from P.W.12 on 05-06-2023 and found it on correct lines. He took up investigation and obtained wound certificate of P.W.2 and P.W.5 from
L.W.15 and for P.w.5 it was opined as Lama. P.W.5 is joined in the Military hospital on 09- 06-2021 and got discharged on 19-06-2021, when requested for MLC, they informed to obtain the same from Osmaina hospital vide MLC.No.18353. After completion of investigation and depositing the case property report he filed charge sheet.
3. On considering the entire record, this case was taken on file, for the offences
U/secs. 307, 324, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC against all the accused and registered it as PRC
No 28 of 2023.
4. On appearance of all the accused, the copies of all the documents were furnished to them U/s 207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently on perusal of the record, the committal court committed the case to the Court of sessions, and in turn, this case is made over to this
Court for disposal according to law.
5. On appearance of all the accused before this court, all the accused are examined U/s.228 Cr.P.C., for which they denied the offence, and upon consideration, charges U/secs.307, 324, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC have been framed, read over and
7 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
explained to all the accused in their own language, for which, they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried as per law.
6. In order to establish the accusation made against all the accused, the prosecution during the course of trial, has got examined PW.1 to PW.13 of which
1. PW.1 Varala Srisailamma is the de facto complainant and wife of the PW.5,
2. PW.2 Varala Jagadheeshwar is the injured and son of PW.1 and PW.5
3. PW.3 Varala Renuka is the eye witness,
4. PW.4 Varala Rameshwaramma is the eyewitness,
5. PW.5 Varala Pedda Ramachandram is the injured,
6. PW.6 Kadari Anjaiah is the eyewitness,
7. PW.7 P. Ramaswamy is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 to A4,
8. PW.8 D. Vijayaprasad is the panch witness for scene of offence ( CDF)
9. PW.9 Mekala Harikrishna Reddy is the panch witness for scene of offence ( CDF)
10. PW.10 Baikani Sathaiah is the panch for confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 to
A4.
11. PW.11 Kadari Venkataiah is the eye witness,
12. PW.12 A.Venkateshwarlu is the investigation officer issued FIR,
13. PW.13 D. Sathish reddy, is investigation officer filed charge sheet.
8 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
7. The prosecution also relied on the following documentary evidence.
1.Ex.P1 is the report,
2.Ex.P2 is the Medical certificate vide outpatient medical record dt.08.06.2021,
3.Ex.P3 are the OP chits ( 24.06.2021)
4.Ex.P4 is the OP chits ( 09.06.2021)
5.Ex.P5 is the OP chits ( 24.06.2021)
6.Ex.P6 is the MLC record dt.08.06.2021,
7.Ex.P7 is the discharge summary dt.19.06.2021 along with medical prescriptions,
8.Ex.P8 is the letter dt.24.06.2020,
9.Ex.P9 is the copy of complaint to MRO dt.01.06.2020,
10.Ex.P10 is the letter dt. 25.06.2020,
11.Ex.P11 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6,
12.Ex.P12 is the Signature of PW.7 on confession cum seizure panchanama,
13.Ex.P13 is the signature of PW.8 on CDF,
14.Ex.P14 is the signature of PW.9 on CDF,
15.Ex.P15 is the signature of PW.10 on confession cum seizure panchanama,
16.Ex.P16 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.11,
17.Ex.P17 is the FIR,
18.Ex.P18 is the CDF,
19.Ex.P19 is the confession panchanama,
9 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
8. Apart from the documentary evidence, the prosecution also relied on the material objects vide M.O.1 is Iron Rod, MOs.2 to 4 are the sticks (3).
9. During the course of trial, A10 died and Death certificate is filed as such the case against A10 is abated.
10. After completion of prosecution evidence, A1 to A9, A11 and A12 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the contents of incriminating evidence available against them, which he denied and reported no defence evidence.
11. Heard the learned Addl. P.P. who says basing on evidence lead by the prosecution, A1 to A9, A11 & A12 shall be held responsible and liable for conviction. The learned counsel for A1 to A9, A11 & A12 argued that there is no material evidence against all the accused and they are no way related to the allegations made.
12. Now the points that arises for determination are that:-
1. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 to A9, A11 & A12 beyond all the reasonable doubt for offences U/secs. 307, 324, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC?
10 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A9, A11 & A12 herein beyond all reasonable doubt?
13. As seen from the record, it appears that the learned APP has given up the evidence of LW.8/ Kadari Sambaiah, LW.9/ Kadari Ravi, LW.10/ Thalari Mahendhar and
LW.15/ Dr. Sowmya.
POINT:-
14. Pw1 is the defacto complainant who has moved the law into motion by way of giving report to the police vide Ex.P1 which is registered as FIR vide Ex.P17.
15. The oral evidence of P.W.1 discloses that their family owns about 10 acres of agricultural land situated at Badhavarigudem, where they cultivate cotton and jowar crops.
P.W.5 has been engaged in social work for the past 30 to 40 years, and prior to that, he was involved in agricultural activities. It is stated that the Government officials, namely the
MRO and MPDO, had planted trees in government land located adjacent to their fields.
Subsequently, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-10, and others, who are present before the Court, went to the said government land and unlawfully ploughed it. On noticing this, P.W.5 made a written representation to the government officials regarding their act. Acting upon the complaint, the officials visited the spot and evicted the accused persons from the land.
11 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
Aggrieved by this, A-1, A-2, A-5, along with others, attacked P.W.5 and assaulted him with tractor plough sticks and iron rods, causing injuries on his leg and head, as a result of which he fell down. On learning about the incident, P.W.1 rushed to the scene and found P.W.5 bleeding from his injuries. It is further stated that the accused also assaulted P.W.2 and
P.W.3, and specifically, A-1 and A-2 beat P.W.3. Thereafter, her son informed the police over the phone. She further stated that P.W.5 was immediately shifted to Osmania General
Hospital, Hyderabad, where he remained as an inpatient for 4 to 5 days, and was later transferred to the Military Hospital, Secunderabad, where he underwent treatment for about 20 days and during his further evidence he stated that the property shown to him are not the crime weapons.
16. Pw2, the son of Pw1, and Pw3, his wife, corroborated the testimony of Pw1.
They deposed that their family owns about 25 acres of agricultural land situated at
Baddavarigudem (10 acres), Kurumapally (18 acres), and Vinjamur village (9.5 guntas) in
Survey Nos. 1002–1005. Out of this, 1.05 guntas stand in Pw2’s name, 6 acres in his father’s name, and 2.30 guntas in Pw4’s name. They further stated that about 50–100 acres of government land adjoining their fields at Baddavarigudem was planted with saplings by
Pw5 under the Haritha Haram scheme with official permission. During the night, except
A12, all other accused encroached upon the said government land and destroyed the plantation. Pw1 lodged complaints with the MRO, RDO, and Collector, upon which the
12 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
MRO inspected the site, removed the encroachments, and re-planted the area.
Subsequently, on 08-06-2021, while Pw2, his father, wife, and sister were working in their field, A1 came driving a red tractor without a number plate and began ploughing their land.
When Pw2 attempted to record the incident, A1 threw away his phone. Pw3 then took another video, but A2 snatched her phone, pushed her onto the tractor, and assaulted her with a rod and kicks, causing head and leg injuries. A2 and others then attacked Pw2’s father with an iron rod on his head, rendering him unconscious. All the accused thereafter beat Pw2, his wife, father, and sister Eswaramma and Pw4 with rods and sticks, causing bleeding injuries. Pw3 became unconscious, and the accused fled the scene. Pw2 called 100 and 108; police and his brother Devender arrived, and the injured were shifted to Osmania
Hospital, Hyderabad, and later to the Military Hospital, Secunderabad, due to heavy
COVID-19 rush. Pw4 evidence stood on the same lines with that of the evidence of Pw2 and 3 substantiating the version of Pw1. Pw6, Pw11 did not support the case and he resiled from his statement vide Ex.P11, P16.
17. The counsel for all the accused has vehemently contended that the evidence of the Pw1 to Pw4 suffers with material improvements hitting the case of the prosecution.
18. During the cross examination of Pw1 it is elicited that they have have agricultural land in three different places in Badhamvarigudem and dispute took place in
13 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
their 10 Acres of land. Further, though she denied that the suggestions that she did not state to the police about the social work done by my husband, that A-1 to A-3 and A-10 and others ploughed the government land and P.W.5 made an application to the government regarding the said Act and the government officials came and evacuated the accused then
A-1, A-2, A-5 along with others beat P.W.5 causing injuries on the leg and head and fell down, that all the accused did not beat with plough stick with iron rods, that she found her husband with bleeding injuries and that P.W.2 and P.W.3 were beaten, that A-1 and A-2 beat
L.w.3, that she went to the place of the incident on knowing about the incident.
19. The contradictory version of Pw3 as first claims she was present at the scene.
But later says:
> “It is not true to suggest that I went to the place of incident on knowing about the incident.” and “I do not know when I gave Ex.P1 to the police but I gave in the police station.” “I do not know whether the police examined me or not.” is fatal to the case of the prosecution as her presence at the scene itself suffers with doubt. Her testimony about being an eyewitness becomes doubtful and she appears uncertain whether she was actually present during the assault. Such vacillation seriously weakens her credibility.
14 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
20. Further, She disowns knowledge of the FIR contents, indicating it may not have been given voluntarily or by her. Thus, the FIR loses evidentiary value as the true version of the occurrence.
21. Even her evidence lacks clarity about the arrival of the police as she stated that she “I do not know when the police came to the place of the incident.” “Police came to the place when I was at the field and we did not give any report at the field.” There is no plausible explanation as to why report is not given on the spot. Further, Pw12 admitted that
P.w.1 is not the eye witness to the incident. Thus, her evidence does not inspire confidence and cannot safely be relied upon to convict the accused.
22. Though Pw2 states that A-1 came with a red tractor, A2 beat his wife and father, used rod, sticks, coulter, and caused bleeding injuries and Pw3 similarly narrates a detailed violent episode with iron rods, sticks, and a video recording but both admit police did not seize any weapons, blood-stained clothes, or mobile phone. Further, PW2 states that his brother Devender called an auto to take injured persons. Later, he admits Devender was in Punjab or Kashmir at the time of incident. PW3 also repeats Devender’s name as helper.
This is a major contradiction regarding the presence of a key witness undermines the truth of the occurrence.
15 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
23. PW2 says wife took a video of the incident. PW3 says the same but admits the phone was not damaged or seized by police. If such crucial video existed, its non- production creates a strong adverse inference under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act, suggesting suppression of material evidence.
24. Pw4 denied that she did state to the police that her mother-in-law/p.W.1 was presented with us on 08-06-2021 at 6:30 P.M at thier agricultural land and that they are picking up cotton steams, that A-1 came with tractor and ploughed their land and also did not state to the police that while P.W.2 is recorded the incident and that A-1 came and pushed away the mobile phone and then P.W.3 took the cell phone and recorded the incident and that time A-2 has thrown away the mobile phone and hit me to the tractor and beat me with Coulter.
25. Pw4 admits that no government official or written complaint supports their claim of sapling removal. Her version about the police visit and incident details is inconsistent and uncertain. She denies several police statements and cannot recall specific facts. Medical evidence of injuries is not established. The witness admits that some family members acted in films, affecting credibility. The evidence appears exaggerated and lacks corroboration. Overall, her testimony contains contradictions and omissions, favouring the defence case.
16 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
26. Apart from oral evidence, Pw2 and 3 also relied on medical evidence Ex.P-2 is the medical certificate vide outpatient medical record dated 08-06-2021, Ex.P-3 are the
OP chits ( 24-06-2021), Ex.P-4 is the OP chits ( 09-06-2021), Ex.P-5 is the OP chits ( 24- 06-2021).
27. But during the cross examination, PW2 admits he was treated only as an outpatient, and police did not refer him to any hospital and PW3 admits the OP receipts were not taken by police and phone was not seized as MO. Further, Pw13 admitted that except P.w.5, he did not notice about injuries sustained by any other witnesses and also admitted that it is not mentioned in the charge sheet that I collected medical certificate of
P.W.2 and filed along with the charge sheet.
28. The testimony of P.W.5 forms the crux of the prosecution case, as he vividly narrated the incident of 08-06-2021, alleging that A1 to A12 encroached upon government land where he had earlier planted saplings under Haritha Haram and that on the said date,
A1 attempted to run him over with a tractor while A1 and A2 assaulted him with ring spanners, causing bleeding head injuries, and others beat him with sticks. He also substantiated his version through documentary evidence such as Exs.P6 to P10, including medical records and prior complaints to authorities, suggesting a consistent course of
17 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
conduct. However, during cross-examination, serious contradictions and admissions weaken his credibility. He admitted that he never served in the Army, contrary to his chief claim, and that he is also involved in acting and drama, which casts doubt on his earlier assertions of being an ex-serviceman and social worker. His admission of multiple criminal cases against himself and within his family, including those filed by his own sons, indicates strained familial and social relations, which could point to bias or motive. He also conceded that no official complaint was filed by the government regarding the alleged removal of saplings, undermining the plantation claim. Further, he was unaware of the government’s
Haritha Haram committees and acknowledged that A1 was a ward member in the same panchayat, suggesting possible administrative involvement rather than criminal intent.
Although his injuries are supported by medical documents, the failure of the police to seize blood-stained clothes or collect photographic evidence, and his own uncertainty about those aspects, creates doubt about the alleged assault’s intensity. Taken together, while P.W.5’s evidence narrates a plausible incident of land-related confrontation, inconsistencies about his background, prior disputes, and procedural lapses in investigation materially affect the reliability of his testimony, requiring corroboration before it can safely sustain conviction.
29. No plausible explanation offered from Pw13 as to why he did not go to the
Military hospital and he admitted that as per the records of the military hospital, no MLC is
18 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
recorded in this case and that there is no opinion given in the certificate vide Ex.P-6 given to P.W.5.
30. The investigation officers has stated the investigation process done by them in chronological manner. The learned APP has got marked Ex.P-18 is CDF, Ex.P-19 is the confession panchanama. M.O.1 is the Iron rod, M.O.2 to 4 are the sticks (3).
31. Pw8 and 9 are the panch witness for the CDF and they did not support the case of the prosecution as such the learned APP has got marked Ex.P13 and P14 signatures on CDF. Thus, the learned APP has failed to establish that police has conducted CDF vide
Ex.P18 in the presence of panch witness.
32. Pw7 and 10 are the panch witness for the confession cum seizure panchanama and they did not support the case as such the learned APP has got marked their signatures vide Ex.P12 and P15. Thus, the learned APP has failed to establish that police has conducted confession panchanama vide Ex.P19 in the presence of panch witness. Even failed to establish seizure of case property Iron rod vide MO1, sticks ( 3) vide MO2 to 4.
33. During the cross examination of Pw1 it is elicited that “It is true all the accused standing in the dock belong to six families.” and “I do not know whether case
19 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
number 704/2024 is pending against me, my husband, and son filed by daughter-in-law.” “I do not know whether six criminal cases are pending against us in Chinthapally police station.”
34. Pw12 admits that there are land disputes between A-1 and P.w.1 family and cases pending against P.w.5 filed by others and he also lodged cases against others and as per his investigation the use of plough share, Coulter is not revealed and admitted that his investigation does not reveal about except P.w.5, where the other injured persons took the treatment and that he did not take any assistance for revenue department to ascertain about the ownership of land in scene of offence. He also admitted that he did not enquiry with any authority about the disputes pertaining to Haritha haram program. No report is filed in the court about any disputes pertaining to Haritha haram program.
35. Thus, history of litigations and land disputes shows a pattern of mutual animosity, weakening the credibility of the complaint as a retaliatory step in civil rivalry.
36. Therefore, In the light of the fore going reasons discussed supra, I am of the humble belief that the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of all the accused for the offence charged against them and thus they are entitled for acquittal.
20 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
37. In the result, I find A1 to A9, A11 and A12 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections. 307, 324, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offenceS. The bail bonds of A1 to
A9, A11 and A12 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. MOs.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over through committal court.
Typed to my dictation by the stenographer Gr-I of this court, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 7 th day of October 2025.
Judge, Family Court-cum-
III Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE : NIL
1.PW.1 Varala Srisailamma is the de facto complainant and wife of the PW.5,
2.PW.2 Varala Jagadheeshwar is the injured and son of PW.1 and PW.5
3.PW.3 Varala Renuka is the eye witness,
4.PW.4 Varala Rameshwaramma is the eyewitness,
5.PW.5 Varala Pedda Ramachandram is the injured,
6.PW.6 Kadari Anjaiah is the eyewitness,
7.PW.7 P. Ramaswamy is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 to A4,
21 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
8.PW.8 D. Vijayaprasad is the panch witness for scene of offence (CDF)
9.PW.9 Mekala Harikrishna Reddy is the panch witness for scene of offence ( CDF)
10.PW.10 Baikani Sathaiah is the panch for confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 to A4.
11.PW.11 Kadari Venkataiah is the eye witness,
12.PW.12 A.Venkateshwarlu is the investigation officer issued FIR,
13.PW.13 D. Sathish reddy,is investigation officer filed charge sheet.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE :NIL.
1.Ex.P1 is the report,
2.Ex.P2 is the Medical certificate vide outpatient medical record dt.08.06.2021,
3.Ex.P3 are the OP chits ( 24.06.2021)
4.Ex.P4 is the OP chits ( 09.06.2021)
5.Ex.P5 is the OP chits ( 24.06.2021)
6.Ex.P6 is the MLC record dt.08.06.2021,
7.Ex.P7 is the discharge summary dt.19.06.2021 along with medical prescriptions,
8.Ex.P8 is the letter dt.24.06.2020,
9.Ex.P9 is the copy of complaint to MRO dt.01.06.2020,
10.Ex.P10 is the letter dt. 25.06.2020,
22 Of 22 SC NO: 28 OF 2025
11.Ex.P11 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6,
12.Ex.P12 is the Signature of PW.7 on confession cum seizure panchanama,
13.Ex.P13 is the signature of PW.8 on CDF,
14.Ex.P14 is the signature of PW.9 on CDF,
15.Ex.P15 is the signature of PW.10 on confession cum seizure panchanama,
16.Ex.P16 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.11,
17.Ex.P17 is the FIR,
18.Ex.P18 is the CDF,
19.Ex.P19 is the confession panchanama,
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL
1.M.O.1 is Iron Rod,
2.MOs.2 to 4 are the sticks (3).
Judge, Family Court-cum-
III Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda