Sri. D.kiran Kumar

1 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT : AT KUSHAIGUDA

PRESENT : Sri D.Kiran Kumar, Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda

Tuesday, 17th day of October, 2023

SESSIONS CASE NO.774 OF 2014

Name of the Complainant :The State of Telengana through SHO, P.S.Malkajgiri

Name of the accused:A1: DSS Sastry @ P.K.Srinivas, S/o.Late DS Sastry, Age: 43 years, Occ:Business, Caste:Bramhin, R/o.H.No.23- 154, RK Nagar, Malkajgiri, R.R.District.

A2: Modem Ramesh, S/o.Mallaiah, Age: 43 years, Caste:Goud, Occ:Business, R/o.Plot No.50, Vimaladevi Nagar, Malkajgiri, R.R.District.

A3: Madhunala Rajshekar Goud, S/o.Late Anjaneyulu, Age: 25 years, Occ:Cable Distributor, Caste:Goud, R/o.H.No.29-1433, Kakatiya Nagar, Neredmet, R.R.District.

2 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

A4: Modem Rajesh, S/o.Mallaiah, Age: 30 years, Caste: Goud,Occ:Business, R/o.Plot No.50, Vimaladevi Nagar, Malkajgiri, R.R.District.

A5: Naretla Francis, S/o.Prakash Raj, Age: 27 years, Caste:Christian (BC-C), Occ:Office Boy, R/o.Flat No.4, Sri Sai Maruthi Apartments, Vishnupuri Colony, Malkajgiri, R.R.District.

A6: Jhony Bash, S/o.Shaik Syed, Age: 25 years, Occ:Office Boy, Caste:Muslim, R/o.Sri Sai Maruthi Apartments, Vishnupuri Colony, Malakajgiri, R.R.District.

A7: Mamidi Praveen, S/o.Pochaiah,Age: 25 years, Occ:HDFC Employee,Caste: Gouds, R/o.H.No.29-324, Vinayak Nagar, Neredmet, R.R.District.

A8: C.Balaraj, S/o.Shivaraj, Age: 21 years, Occ:Student, Caste: SC Mala, R/o.H.No.10-53, PVN Colony, Malkajgiri, R.R.District.

3 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

A9:Badugu Varun, S/o.Laxman, Age: 20 years, Occ:Student, Caste:SC/Mala, R/o.H.No.10-40, PVN Colony, Malakajgiri, R.R.District.

A10: Mandula Sai, S/o.Nagula, Age: 25 years, Caste:Mudiraj, Occ:Un-employee, R/o.H.No.1- 37, Santhoshimatha Nagar, Malkajgiri, R.R.District.

A11: Singavarapu Srinu, S/o.Late Rajendra Kumar, Age: 20 years, Occ:Tent House Worker, Caste: Christian, R/o.H.No.LIGH-100, HB Colony, Phase-II, Moula-Ali,Hyderabad.

A16: D.Gopal, S/o.D.R.K.Rao, Occ:Business, R/o.Flat No.201, Rakesh Arcade, Vishnupuri Colony, Malkajgiri. (A12 to A15 are absconding and separate charge sheet is

filed).

Crime Number:44 of 2012 of P.S.Malkajgiri.

Offences Under Sections: 143, 448, 452, 307, 324 R/w.34 IPC

4 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

PRC No.:05 of 2014 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri

Case committed by :Smt.P.Sreedevi, X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri

Prosecution conducted by :Smt. C.Nirmala,

Additional Public Prosecutor

Sentence of Order:In the result, accused No. 1 to 11 and A16 are found not guilty for the offence U/s. 143, 448, 452, 307, 324 R/w.34 IPC PC and accordingly, the accused are acquitted for the same U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C. for above said offences. Bail bonds of accused are ordered to be inforce for a period of 6 months U/s.437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., M.O.1 two sticks, M.O.2 iron rod are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

This case is coming up before me on 05-10-2023 for final hearing for disposal in the presence of Smt.C.Nirmala, Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri K.Raghava Reddy, Counsel for accused and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

5 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

JUDGMENT

1.This is a case of an unlawful assembly with common intention to commit murder, trespass into the house armed with weapons and causing grievous hurts for which the accused herein charged for offences U/s.143, 448, 452, 307, 324 R/w.34 IPC by

SHO, Malkajgiri Police Station. (Accused No.12 to 15 are absconding and filed separate charge sheet)

The case of prosecution in brief is as follows:

2.

One Somishetti Venu Naidu S/o.Smt.Raja Ratnam are residents of house No.20-86, he engaged in business of Poultry farms and Aqua Business, he entered into a business of real estate and construction. The accused No.1 and 2 are known persons to him since long time they are friends, in the year 2000

A1 and A2 approached said Venu Naidu and requested to provide support as such A1 and A2 were involved in the real estate business under an understanding to pay commission for the services rendered by them. The accused No.3 is friend of A1 and

A2. In the year 2002 RK Nagar, Mallapur property dealing work entrusted to the accused No.1 and 2 in that process said Venu

6 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

Naidu purchased plots in the name of his brother and resold those plots to the accused No.1 and 2 with an intention to get commission, A1 and A2 developed evil intention to earn money and they played fraud on Venu Naidu, Venu Naidu on inducement of A1 and A2 purchased plot of 380 sq.yards in the name of one

M.Rajesh (A4) who is brother of A2 for later disposal, contrary to it the accused No.1 and 2 along with A4 sold out said plots to third parties there after another plot purchased in the name of A1 and

A2 and it was also resold by accused No.1 and 2 by manipulating accounts, having come to know about fraudulent activities of the accused No.1 and 2 Venu Naidu got issued a legal notice and also filed a civil case for specific performance against Ailesh Yadav then A1 and A2 developed grudge against Venu Naidu subsequently A1 and A2 have come to the house of Venu Naidu requested him not to file any cases in respect of properties, they have threatened him with dire consequences and also warned that, they will kill his family members thereafter the accused No.1 and 2 have come to a conclusion to kill Venu Naidu in view of real estate property disputes.

7 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

3.The accused No.1 and 2 with the help of A3 by promising him to pay Rs.3 lakhs prepared a plan and secured presence of A4 to A30 to kill Venu Naidu by offering handful returns and decided to kill him on 24-01-2012 during midnight. On 24-01-2012 Venu

Naiud went to Madras on his business work, the accused as per their plan armed with sticks and iron rods assembled in an open plot near R.K.Nagar consumed alcohol at 7.00 pm after one hour they left said place in cars and motorcycles, reached to the house of Venu Naidu by 8.00 pm and trespassed into his house, on seeing mob entering into the compound one P.Laxmi who is maid servant rushed in to the house called Smt.Raja Ratnam and other inmates, thereafter the mob followed by A1 to A3 questioned

Venu Naidu stating they will eliminate him, in the meantime the accused came to know that Venu Naidu is out of station as such they decided to eliminate available family members of Venu Naidu,

Vishwanadham and Hemanth Kumar have come out of the house on seeing them the accused have attacked on them. The accused

No.2 along with A7 to A9 bet Vishwanadham with sticks and iron rods on back and neck. The accused No.2 fisted hand of

Rajarathan, caught hold her then A6 slapped her as such she fell

8 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

down, the accused No.6 further pressed her neck to the ground with legs with an intention to kill her in the meantime the accused

No.1 and others attacked on Hemanth Kumar gave fist blows and kicks caused injury on his testicle. Wife of Venu Naidu by name

Pavani and his son Rohan, Manju came out then the accused attacked on them in that process Pavani pushed her son into a room and bolted from outside in the meantime Rajaratnam fell unconscious then she made hue and cries that Rajarathnam died then accused fled away from that place in two cars and motorcycles.

4.The matter was reported to police at 10.45 pm basing on that, case registered during the course of investigation statements of the witnesses are recorded, the injured were referred to Gandhi Hospital, scene of offence panchanama was conducted on the next day morning at scene of offence two vehicles which were left by the accused under seizure panchanama, the accused were arrested and injury certificate received by the Investigation Officer as such charge sheet is filed for the offences U/s.143, 448, 452, 307, 324 R/w.34 IPC.

9 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

5.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s.

143, 448, 452, 307, 324 R/w.34 IPC IPC against accused No.1 to 11 and A16 in PRC No.05 of 2014 on the file of X Metropolitan

Magistrate, at Malkajgiri.

6.The copies of the charge sheet and documents furnished to accused No.1 to 11 and A16 as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has perused the material on record and committed case to the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, as the case is exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions. The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Cyberabad at Ranga Reddy District registered the case as SC

No.774 of 2014 and made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge,

Malkajgiri. As per the orders of the Hon’ble Prl.District and

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar vide

Dis.No.2942/2021, dated 9-6-2021 and on 9-6-2021 on establishment of this Court this case is transferred to this Court for disposal accordingly.

7.After appearance of accused No.1 to 11 and A16 before this

Court and upon hearing the charge U/s. 143, 448, 452, 307, 324

10 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

R/w.34 IPC are framed against them and explaining the same in

Telugu, the accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

8.To substantiate its case, the prosecution listed 09 witnesses out of them got examined PW1 to PW16 witnesses and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P15 documents, M.O.1 and M.O.1 are marked. For defence exhibited for Ex.D1 to D3 marked.

9. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 11 and A16 are examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances, appearing in the prosecution evidence, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

10Having heard arguments submitted by both sides and on perusal of oral and documentary evidence and contents of charge sheet the following point arises for determination:

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of accused for charged offences beyond reasonable doubt, if so, Whether the accused are punishable for charged U/s.143, 448, 452, 307, 324 R/w.34 IPC”?

11 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

POINT:

11.

The accused No.1 to 16 herein are charged for the offence of unlawful assembly and criminal tresspass, having made preparation for causing hurt and attempted to kill Mr.Venu and his family members and on 24-01-2012 at 8.00 PM, in furtherance of their common intention the accused attempted and caused injuries to S.Raja Ratnam and her family members with sticks, rods and caused bleeding injuries.

12.As per the contents of charge sheet the accused No.1 to 3 and Mr.Venu Naidu/(son of complainant) are having real estate disputes, there are civil cases pending, the relations between them are strained in view of the differences in real estate business as such the accused No.1 to 4 with aid of A5 to A16 intended to kill

Mr.Venu Naidu and made an attempt on 24-01-2012 at 8.00 pm at that time Venu Naidu was not available as such the accused attacked on his family members.

13.The prosecution to establish guilt of accused relied on oral evidence of PW1 to PW16 out of them PW1 to PW3 are injured

12 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

persons, PW4 and PW5 are testified as eye witnesses, PW6 is circumstantial witness. PW7 to PW10 are eye witnesses to the incident. PW12 and PW14 are witnesses for scene of offence panchanama. PW13 is medical officer who gave treatment to the injured. PW15 and PW16 are Investigation officers.

14.Learned public prosecutor submitted oral arguments contending that the prosecution eye witnesses and injured persons have consistently deposed as to incident, they have identified the accused who is close friend of son of PW1. More than 20 persons have attacked as such the prosecution evidence is sufficient to convict the accused therefore prayed to convict the accused.

15.Learned counsel for the accused submitted oral arguments and also filed written arguments contended that, there are several material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution, there is previous enmity between them, PW11 is having disputes with A1 and A2. The scene of offence panchanama witnesses are not residents of the locality. As per

13 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

injury certificate in Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 issued by PW13 one day prior to the date of incident they are issued as such injury certificates are false, the injuries mentioned are different that off the injuries stated by PW1 to PW3, there is delay in reporting the matter to the police. The place of offence is not established by the prosecution as such benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused and therefore prayed to acquit the accused.

16.The prosecution evidence in brief is as follows:

PW1/injured deposed that, on 24-01-2012 her maid servant informed her that somebody calling her from outside then

Ramesh, A1 and A2 group of people were present, A2 abused her and her family members in vulgar language, started beating PW2 and PW3. When she questioned A1 slapped on her ear as such her ear ring flew off. A2 thrown her to the ground and one of the member put his leg on her neck and others were shouting to end her life, she became unconscious meantime her daughter-in-law/

PW4 came out from the house and made cries on that the accused left from that place. PW1 further deposed that the accused have come in two cars, bikes and also deposed car number as

AP291234, the incident took place at 8.00 pm. In cross-

14 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

examination as to place of incident PW1 deposed that the incident took place at back door of her house, there is 20 feet distance between her back door and compound wall and 20 feet distance between front door and compound wall, colony people informed her about vehicle numbers and she did not go to the hospital immediately.

17.PW2 is another injured, his evidence is that on 24-01-2012

S.Manju (PW9) informed her that some people have come to their house, then he enquired about the persons who have come meantime A2 hold his shirt coller and slapped him, Hemanth came out from house thereafter the accused persons are divided into two groups of 10 persons each attacked him and another group attacked on PW3 (Hemanth), they have kicked them on stomach, bet with iron rods in the meantime PW1 came then accused fisted her on hand, slapped her, pushed her neck with their legs and tried to kill her meantime PW4 came out by crying then accused and other persons ran away, the accused came in cars.

15 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

18.PW3 another witness/injured deposed that A1, A2 and mob of persons have come to their house at that time he along with

PW2 were working on lap tops in a room in the first floor on seeing accused they immediately come down, then A1 and A2 along with other persons were present, PW1 came out A2 bet PW2 then he interfered then A2 along with five or six members bet him pushed him to the ground and they also hit him hard on his testicles, the accused also bet PW1 in the meantime PW4 came out shouted then accused left that place in cars.

19.PW4 is wife of Venu Naidu, she testified as an eye witness to the incident. Her evidence is that A1 to A3 and about 20 or 30 persons came to their house, A2 bet PW1, and caused injuries, the accused bet PW3 on his testicles, they pushed PW1 kicked with legs, A2 tried to kill her son then she pushed him into a room thereafter on seeing PW1 fell unconscious on the ground she shouted loudly as PW1 died then accused escaped. On the date of incident servants and staff of their house were present.

16 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

20.PW5 is son of Venu Naidu he deposed that about 25 to 30 persons came to their house, at kitchen area they attacked PW1 to

PW3, thereafter his mother shouted loudly then accused ran away. PW6 is examined as circumstantial witness to incident he went to the scene then PW1 to PW4 informed about the incident, he is brother of Venu Naidu.

21.The prosecution witness PW7 is maid servant in the house of PW1. Her evidence is that at 8.00 pm about 20 to 30 persons have come to their house, PW1 opened the door, and she was pulled by somebody and fell down from the stair case then she went to PW2 and PW3, they came down from upstairs,the accused bet PW2 with an iron rod and kicked PW3, in the meantime PW4 came and she pushed her son PW5 in to a room.

By that time PW1 fell unconscious thereafter the accused left that place.

22.The prosecution witness PW8 deposed that he came to know about the incident through PW1 to PW4, her husband works in poultry farm of Venu Naidu. Another witness PW9 deposed that on 24-01-2012 at 8.00 pm she was returning to her house, seen

17 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

20 or 30 persons entering into their house and there were several bikes and cars immediately she made a call to PW2 and informed him, when she went outside of the house said persons were present at back side near to kitchen beating PW3, they pushed

PW1 aside thereafter PW4 shouted then accused escaped. PW10 is examined as circumstantial witness, he deposed that he saw the accused No.1 going away from the house of PW1 in a car and went to inside and seen PW1 to PW3 with injuries.

23.Venu Naidu is examined as PW11 he deposed as to real estate differences with the accused and Ex.D1 memorandum of understanding marked through him. PW12 witness for scene of offence panchana turned hostile to the prosecution version. PW13 medical officer deposed as to issuing Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, as per evidence she gave treatment to PW1 and PW2 on 24-01-2012 at 12.10 pm.

24.PW14 another witness for scene of offence panchanama turned hostile to the prosecution version.

18 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

25.PW15 is first Investigation Officer who received Exd.P1 and registered case, PW16 is the Investigation Officer he deposed that he recorded statements of witnesses, Ex.P9 is scene of offence panchanama and according to him the accused attempted on PW1 to PW3.

26.On examination of above oral evidence of prosecution witnesses there is variation as to the place, time and manner of incident because as per prosecution about 20 persons have come to the house of PW1 then PW7 who is a maid servant called PW1 then accused attacked on PW1, thereafter PW2 and PW3 have come down then accused attacked on them. As per the evidence of PW2 and PW3, PW7 informed to PW2 that, somebody have come inside the compound wall then he enquired who has come, in the mean time the accused No.2 heard about enquiry and attacked on him thereafter the accused bet PW1. The evidence of

PW2, PW3 and PW9 is that the accused No.2 and others have bet

PW2 and PW3 at first then they attacked on PW1. Whereas evidence of PW1, PW7 is that first the accused attacked on PW1 then PW2 and PW3 have come down then accused also bet PW2

19 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

and PW3 thereafter PW4 came and shouted. Therefore there is variation as to the attack of the accused on PW1 to PW3 and it is material to doubt the case of accused.

27.On examination of oral evidence there is contradiction in the evidence of witnesses as to place of incident PW5 deposed that the incident took place in the kitchen, PW1 deposed the incident took place at back side door of her house whereas PW2 and PW3 injured persons in their cross-examination deposed that, there are two gates to their house, the accused have attacked on them from the gate of compound wall which is at distance of 10 feet to the back door. The eye witnesses and injured have deposed contrary as to the exact place of incident.

28.The prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW3 who are injured persons except name of accused No.2 they have not stated any specific overt-acts on the part of the accused independently, all the witnesses deposed A1, A2 and some other persons were present, A2 bet PW1 to PW3 and at the same time other accused also bet PW1 to PW3 This statement of witnesses as to attack by

20 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

the accused No.2 is not acceptable because the accused No.2 cannot attack on PW1 to PW3 at same time. Except names of A1 and A2 by injured and eye witnesses have not stated anything about the names of remaining accused persons. The investigation officer in his evidence not stated how he involved the accused

No.4 to 16 in this case as there is no reference of their names in the statements given by the witnesses, no confession of the accused is recorded as such the very involvement of the accused

No.4 to 16 in the present case is doubtful.

29.PW11 in his evidence clearly deposed that A1 and A2 are having real estate dealings with him and there are differences.

PW1 to PW3 are family members of PW11 in veiw of real estate business differences with accused No.1 to 3 to PW11 there is every possibility of speaking false against the accused as such evidence of prosecution witnesses is to be examined carefully. In the present case there are in consistent statements as to place of the incident, there are inconsistent versions as to attack of the accused first instance on PW1 or PW2 and PW3. Overt-acts on

21 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

the part of accused are not deposed all these inconsistencies creates a doubt to believe the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

30.In criminal trial it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused without any shadow of doubt, but in the present case in view of the doubtful evidence as to place of incident, attacks on the injured, overt-acts and involvement of the accused and their identification the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused accordingly the accused are entitled for acquitted on benefit of doubt.

31.In the result, the accused No.1 to 11 and A16 are found not guilty for the offence U/s. 143, 448, 452, 307, 324 R/w.34

IPC IPC and accordingly the accused No.1 to 11 and A16 are acquitted for the same U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused are ordered to be inforce for a period of 6 months U/s.437A Cr.P.C.

The case property i.e., M.O.1 two sticks. M.O.2 Iron road are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer G-II directly on the computer and after corrections, pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17th day of October, 2023.

Asst Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda

22 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTIONFOR THE DEFENCE

PW1-S.Rajaratnam-None- PW2-A.Vishwanath PW3-G.Hemanth Kumar PW4-S.Pavani PW5:S.Rohan PW6:S.Vinod PW7:Laxmi PW8:P.Sumalatha PW9:S.Manju PW10:E.Srikanth PW11:S.Venu Naidu PW12:K.Raju PW13:Madhavi Latha PW14:P.Naveen Kumar PW15:A.Venkateshwarlu PW16:K.Shiva Shanker

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Complainant Ex.P2: Signature of PW12 on Scene of offence Ex.P3: Signature of PW12 on rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P4: Accident register having the name of PW2 Ex.P5: Accident register having the name of PW1 Ex.P6: Signature of PW14 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P7: Signature of PW14 on rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P8: First Information Report Ex.P9: Scene of offence and rough sketch map Ex.P10:Photographs of motorcycles bearing No.AP-29-AM-4566 Ex.P11:Photographs of motorcycles bearing No.,AP-24-A- 7770(Bajaj Caliber Red Colour) Ex.P12: Two photographs of Car bearing No.AP-10-AM-1234 Ex.P13: Photographs of car bearing No.AP-29-AH-2850 Ex.P14: Confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 and A2 Ex.P15: Certificate of LW3

23 of 23

SC No.774 of 2014

FOR THE DEFENCE: Ex.D1: Part of 161 Cr.P.C.Statement) Ex.D2: Section 161 Cr.P.C.statement Ex.D3: Memorandum of understanding copy

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR THE PROSECUTION: M.O.1: Two sticks M.O.2: Iron Rod

FOR THE DEFENCE: - Nil - Asst Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

1 of 11 Crl.Appeal No.01 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Present: Sri D.Kiran Kumar, IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

Wednesday, the 13 th day of May, 2026

Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2019

Between: Siripuram Srinivas, S/o.Sri Pandari, Aged about 45 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.1-10-1/215/7, Near Saibaba Temple, Chakripuram, Kushaiguda, RR District

Appellant/accused AND

1. M.Ramesh, S/o.Sri Sathaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ:Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.1-10-1/213, A/19, Chakripuram, Kushaiguda, RR District … Respondent/complainant

2. The State of Telangana

(Represented by Public Prosecutor) ...Respondent

On being aggrieved by the judgment of the Court of Special Magistrate-III,

Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri dated 17.12.2018

in

C.C.No.156 of 2017

Between:

M.Ramesh, S/o.Sri Sathaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ:Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.1-10-1/213, A/19, Chakripuram, Kushaiguda, RR District … Complainant.

And

Siripuram Srinivas, S/o.Sri Pandari, Aged about 45 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.1-10-1/215/7, Near Saibaba Temple, Chakripuram, Kushaiguda, RR District … Accused 2 of 11 Crl.Appeal No.01 of 2019

This appeal came before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri Gopal Reddy, Legal-Aid Defence Advocate, for the appellant/accused and none appeared for the respondent/complainant and upon hearing and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

This Criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.12.2018 in CC No.156 of 2017 delivered by the learned

Special Magistrate-III, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, in convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also directed to pay fine of Rs.75,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’), and further out of the fine amount,

Rs.60,000/- is awarded as compensation to the complainant after appeal period is over.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they stand before the learned trial Court i.e., ‘the complainant’ and ‘the accused’.

3.The complainant filed a complaint before the learned trial Court against the accused alleging the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, the averments of which, in brief, are: The complainant and the accused are known to each other, the accused approached the complainant and requested for hand loan of

Rs.3,00,000/-, in good faith the complainant advanced said amount, accused executed promissory note dated 20.11.2016 and promised to repay the same as 3 of 11 Crl.Appeal No.01 of 2019 expeditiously as possible and when the complainant was in need of money in

March, 2017, he requested accused to repay the hand loan amount, but accused asked complainant to wait for a month and when complainant again approached accused, accused issued a cheque bearing No.000020 dated 17.04.2017 for Rs.3 lakhs drawn on HDFC Bank, Nagarjuna Nagar Colony, Kapra, Hyderabad Branch, wheen the complainant presented the said cheque, it was returned on 24.04.2017 with endorsement “funds insufficient”, the complainant informed the same to accused, upon persistent requests accused issued another cheque bearing No.000012

dated 17.08.2017 for Rs. 3 lakhs drawn on HDFC Bank, Nagarjuna Nagar Colony,

Kapra, Hyderabad Branch and when the complainant presented the said cheque, it was also dishonoured with endorsement “Funds Insufficient” on 21.08.2017, the complainant informed the same to accused and as there was no response from accused, the complainant got issued legal notice on 09.09.2017 through RPAD but accused refused to receive the notice on 11.09.2017, accused neither paid the cheque amount nor replied to the legal notice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

4.The learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and issued process to the accused. In response to the said process, the accused appeared before the learned trial Court and when he was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the allegations made in the complaint, he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 of 11 Crl.Appeal No.01 of 2019

5.The prosecution during the course of trial examined PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 documents were marked. The accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. On behalf of the defence, accused is examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 documents.

6.On considering oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial

Court found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him as stated above.

7.Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Special Magistrate-III, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, the accused preferred this Appeal setting out various grounds.

8.This appeal was filed in the year 2019, since then the appellant called absent. There is no representation even after issuance of NBW. Accused/appellant not attended, as such the case entrusted to Legal-Aid Counsel to represent on behalf of the appellant/accused. Heard learned Legal-Aid counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent/complainant.

9.The learned Legal-Aid counsel for the appellant contended in terms of memorandum of grounds of appeal stating that learned trial Court failed to see that the necessary requirements under Section 138 of NI Act are not satisfied, the complainant not complied Section 138(b) of NI Act i.e., notice has not been served on the appellant. Learned Counsel further contended that the complainant is not having financial capacity to lend an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, the source of income 5 of 11 Crl.Appeal No.01 of 2019 is not explained by the complainant. At the time of the transaction, there was demonetization, circulation of old currency notes was banned, they have withdrawn and new currency introduced, withdrawal limits form the bank are fixed. Under these circumstances, mobilizing of currency lending amount to the accused is improbable and therefore, prayed to set aside the conviction.

10.None-appeared for the respondent.

11.Now the points for determination in this appeal are as follows:

1. Whether the trial Court committed error in recording the

conviction and sentence against the appellant/accused?

2. To what relief?

Point No.1:

12. As seen from grounds of appeal and arguments submitted by learned legal-Aid Counsel, it is the main contention of the accused/appellant that there is no legally enforceable debt, the complainant/respondent not having capacity to pay such huge amount as hand loan, further the cheque returned with endorsement ‘‘Funds Insufficient’ is not under offence under Section 138 of NI Act, therefore, prayed to set aside the conviction.

13.As seen from the findings of learned trial Court, it is recorded that the accused has admitted his signature on Ex.P3 cheque dated 17.08.2017 and Ex.P8 cheque dated 17.04.2017. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are promissory note and undertaking given by the accused are also not denied, as such there is statutory presumption in 6 of 11 Crl.Appeal No.01 of 2019 favour of the complainant. The complainant working as a lecturer in Engineering

College, as such he is having financial capacity. On 08.11.2016, demonetization of the currency notes was introduced, the complainant on 20.11.2016 gave said amount, but the notes have to be surrendered to the concerned banks before 30.12.2016, as such the money was advanced during the validity of old currency notes. The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption and by recording these reasons learned trial Court convicted the accused.

14.Since it is the case of dishonor of cheque under Section 138 of NI Act, the following essential ingredients are required to be proved by the complainant.

After that there is a statutory presumption in favour of the complainant.

i. Drawing of the cheque in discharge of legally recoverable debt or liability.

ii. Presentation of the cheque with the bank iii. Retuming of the cheque unpaid by the drawee Bank iv. Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding Payment of the cheque amount, and v. failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice

15. It is pertinent to mention here that there are two presumptions of law as mandated by the Negotiable instruments Act. Under Section 118 of the

Negotiable instruments Act, there is a legal presumption in favour of the complainant that every negotiable Instrument (which includes a cheque) was made or drawn for consideration. The legal presumption is also regarding date of cheque.

7 of 11 Crl.Appeal No.01 of 2019 time of its acceptance, time of transfer, order of endorsement and also as to stamps.

16.According to Section 139 of NI Act "it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved that the holder of a cheque received the cheque for discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability." Under Section 139 of Negotiable

Instruments Act there is a legal presumption that the cheque was issued for discharging a liability and that presumption can be rebutted only by the person who drew the cheque. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused by adducing evidence. So the burden of proof is on the accused.

17. In Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee AIR 2010 SC 1898, it was held "The words 'unless the contrary is proved' which occur in this provision (Section 139) make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by 'proof and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the

Court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted......".

18.In the present case, Ex.P3 and Ex.P8/cheques were dishonoured in terms of Ex.P4 and Ex.P9/cheque return memos with reason ‘Funds Insufficient’. It is not the case of the accused that said cheques not belongs to him, the signature appearing on said cheques not belongs to him. When a cheque is returned with endorsement ‘‘Funds Insufficient in the account’, then there is a statutory 8 of 11 Crl.Appeal No.01 of 2019 presumption under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act as to Ex.P4 and

Ex.P9 bankers memo, the accused has to adduce evidence and prove that those cheques not issued by him in discharge of liability.

19.As to service of statutory notice under Section 138(b) of NI Act,

Hon’ble Supreme Court of Inaia in a reported decision between CC Alavi Haji Vs.

Palapetty Muhammad and another reported in (2007) 6 SCC 555, held as follows:

According to Section 114 of the Act, read with illustration , (f) thereunder, when it appears to the Court that the common course of business renders it probable that a thing would happen, the Court may draw presumption that the thing would have happened, unless there are circumstances in a particular case to show that the common course of business was not followed. Thus, Section 114 enables the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Consequently, the court can presume that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases. When applied to communications sent by post, Section 114 enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. But the presumption that is raised under Section 27 of the G.C.

Act is a far stronger presumption. Further, while Section 114 of Evidence Act refers to a general presumption, Section 27 refers to a specific presumption.

For the sake of ready reference, Section 27 of G.C. Act is extracted below:

Meaning of service by post - Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression serve or either of the expressions give or send or any other expression is used, then, unless a 9 of 11 Crl.Appeal No.01 of 2019 different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

20.In view of the above judgment there is presumption of due service of statutory notice on the accused. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case between Jagadish Singh vs. Natthu Singh reported in AIR 1992 SC 1604 held that “where the addressee manages to have the notices returned with postal remarks “refused”, “not available in the house”, “house locked” and “shop closed”, respectively it must be deemed that notices have been served on the addressee. In the present case, Ex.P5 demand notice returned under Ex.P7 as not available. As per the above judgment it is to be considered that the notice is served on accused.

21.As to capacity and source of income of the complainant to advance such amount, the complainant in his evidence as PW1 clearly deposed that he is working as a Lecturer in Engineering College, he is paying income tax. Learned trial Court also recorded since the complainant is working as a Lecturer, he is competent to advance such amount. The complainant explained his financial capacity. Here it is relevant to mention judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India reported in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2019 (5)

Scale 138 , wherein it is held as follows:

10 of 11 Crl.Appeal No.01 of 2019 “Even after purportedly drawing the presumption under

Section 139 of the NI Act, the trial Court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused and want of examination of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that this approach of the trial Court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law. After such presumption, the onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour, any doubt on the complainant’s case could not have been raised for want of evidence regarding the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused-appellant”.

22.Regarding objection as to demonetization, possibility of advancing money by way of cash, learned trial Court gave clear findings that on 08.11.2016,

Government of India passed orders banning the currency notes, time stipulated up to 30.12.2016 for surrender. But, in this case on 20.11.2016, the complainant advanced money, therefore, there is no illegality.

23.In view of the above said circumstances, the grounds raised by the appellant are not acceptable, the law is well settled on the issues raised.

Accordingly the conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial Court cannot be set aside.

11 of 11 Crl.Appeal No.01 of 2019

Point No.2: To what relief?

24.In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction imposed against the appellant/accused by the learned Special Magistrate-III,

Cyberabad at Malkajgiri vide Judgment in C.C.No.156 of 2017 dated 17.12.2018 under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. The accused is directed to surrender before trial Court, on or

before 12.06.2026, on such surrender, the learned trial Court shall commit him to

prison to receive the substantive sentence of imprisonment. If the appellant/accused fail to surrender on or before the said date, the learned trail Court shall secure his presence by issuing a non-bailable warrant and commit him to prison to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed against him.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.I), corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

Appendix of evidence (Witnesses examined and exhibits marked) -Nil-

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

12 of 11 Crl.Appeal No.01 of 2019

page1 of 9 SC No. 802 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Present: Sri D.Kiran Kumar, IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

Tuesday, the 12th day of May, 2026

Sessions Case No.802 of 2023

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Inspector of Police, PS Keesara 2 Name of the accused1. Eega Shiva Kumar, S/o.Bikshapathi, Aged about 29 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.3- 144, Ismaelkhanguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal District

2. Kandula Sai Baba, S/o.Chandraiah, Aged about 30 years, Occ:Centring work, R/o.Yadgarpally Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal District

3. Buggi Satyanarayana, S/o.Gandaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ:Centring work, R/o.H.No.4-1/46, Ismaelkhanguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal District 3 Crime No. & Name of the PS Crime No.520 of 2021 of PS Keesara 4 Offences complained ofUnder Sections 302 and 323 r/w. 34 IPC 5 PRC No.61 of 2023 on the file of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Kushaiguda 6 Case committed bySri Chirag Mehta, III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Kushagidua 7 Prosecution conducted bySmt.S.Komalatha, Additional Public Prosecutor 8 Sentence of order In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 323 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal page2 of 9 SC No. 802 of 2023 time. The unmarked case property ie., Unicorn motorcycle bearing No.TS 08EE 758 returned to its owner i.e., A3 shall be made absolute after the appeal time is over.

This Sessions Case is coming up before me on 11.05.2026 for final hearing for disposal in the presence of Smt. S.Komalatha, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Ravikanth, Counsel for the accused 1 to 3 and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused 1 to 3 are charged for the offences punishable under

Sections 302 and 323 r/w. 34 IPC in Cr.No.530 of 2021 of PS Keesara.

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

The deceased Koyeda Naresh was auto driver by profession, he borrowed money from T.Raghavender and others, on 28.08.2021 afternoon the deceased received a missed call from mobile of said Raghavender Singh, the deceased intended to pay off the dues, as such, he went to near Lucky Wines, there said

Raghavender Singh was present, the deceased, Raghavender Singh along with

LW2 to LW4 started consuming liquor in a permit room of Lucky Wines. After some time, the accused No.1 who was also present in said Wines consuming liquor was passing through table of deceased and LW2 to LW4 to go to toilet, in the mean time LW2/K.Venu asked accused No.1 to go from other way, not through their table, later an altercation took place between all the parties, accused No.2 and page3 of 9 SC No. 802 of 2023 accused No.3 were also present along with accused No.1, accused No.1 to 3 started abusing K.Venu, Shoukath Ali and Ashok in filthy language, the accused caught hold the shirt collars, noting the same the deceased went to them and intervened, then accused No.1 to 3 kicked the deceased with hands and legs, due to said incident the deceased sustained serious injuries on his stomach and other parts of the body, Venu, Shoukath and Ashok are also sustained injuries, later the deceased Koyeda Naresh was shifted to hospital, while undergoing treatment, he died, wife of the deceased lodged a report, based on that the Inspector of Police,

PS Keesara registered a case, he recorded statements of the eye witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama, inquest over the dead body and arrested the accused No.1 to 3, seized motorcycle from the possession of the accused No.3, subjected dead body of the deceased to PME examination by medical officer,

Gandhi Hospital and also got conducted Test Identification Parade of the accused by the eye witnesses and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 323 r/w. Section 34 of

IPC.

3.COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 209 Cr.P.C.:

The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused in PRC No. 61 of 2023 on the file of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Kushaiguda.

page4 of 9 SC No. 802 of 2023

4.The copies of the charge sheet and documents furnished to accused

No.1 to 3 as required under Section 207 of C.P.C. The learned Magistrate has perused the material on record and committed case to the Sessions Division,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District, vide order dated 20.11.2023, under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda registered the case as S.C.No.802 of 2023 and made over the same to the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, At

Kushaiguda, subsequently, the case file is transferred to this Court.

5.On appearance of accused No.1 to 3 and upon hearing the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel appearing for the accused

No.1 to 3, the Court framed charge under Sections 302, 323 r/w. Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code against accused No.1 to 3, read over and explained the same to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. Evidence of the Prosecution:

To substantiate its case, the prosecution listed 21 witnesses out of them, PW1 to PW9 witnesses are examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 documents are exhibited. No material objects are marked.

7.Examination of the Accused u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C:

After completion of the examination of the witnesses for the prosecution, accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the page5 of 9 SC No. 802 of 2023 incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of the prosecution and accused, they denied the evidence and pleaded not guilty for the charges, reported no defence evidence.

8. Arguments:

Learned Counsel for the accused No.1 to 3 submitted that there is no evidence against the accused, testimonies of prosecution witnesses is hostile in nature and therefore, prayed to acquit the accused.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State argued that the evidence of PW9/investigation officer is consistent and it is sufficient to convict the accused, in view of compromise the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, prayed to convict the accused.

9.Having heard the arguments submitted by both sides and on perusal of oral and documentary evidence and contents of the charge, the following point arises for determination:

Whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to conclude that accused No.1 to 3 committed murder of Koyeda Naresh and caused injuries to LW1 to LW3/K.Venu, Shoukath Ali and B.Ashok ? If so, whether the accused No.1 to 3 can be punished for charges under Sections 302, 323 r/w. Section 34 of IPC? Point:

10.Before adverting to the oral, documentary, and circumstantial evidence, apart from real evidence adduced by the prosecution, it necessary to page6 of 9 SC No. 802 of 2023 mention here the cardinal principles of Criminal law as to Burden of proof and

Doctrine of Innocence. It is settled proposition of law that in Criminal law every accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved. Presumption of innocence is in favour of accused until guilt is proved.

11.In the present case, the prosecution mainly alleged that the accused

No.1 to 3 on 28.08.2021 at about 15.30 hours at Lucky wines accused No.1 to 3 abused LW2 to LW4/K.Veny, Mohd. Shoukath Ali and B.Ashok in filthy language, beat them, with hands and legs with intention to kill them, somehow LW2/K.Venu and LW4/B.Ashok escaped from there and came out from there, while so, A1 to

A3 beat LW3/Mohd. Shoukath Ali and Koyeda Naresh, due to which Koyeda

Naresh fell down and went into unconscious state and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in Vijaya Hospital.

12.The prosecution relied on oral evidence of PW1 who is wife of the deceased Koyeda Naresh and PW2 to PW8 who are eye witnesses to the incident.

According to PW1 who is wife of Koyeda Naresh deposed that she do not know how her husband died and that as she noticed injuries on his body, she gave complaint to police. PW2 and PW3 who are said to be present along with deceased on the date of incident stated that they do not know how the deceased died. PW4 stated that he is working as Supervisor in Lucky Wines and that he do not know anything about the case. PW5 who is listed as eye witness deposed that about 3 years back on one day he consumed liquor at Lucky Wines and left the place, page7 of 9 SC No. 802 of 2023 thereafter he came to know that quarrel took place in which one person died. PW6 stated that he worked as Supervisor in Lucky wines and about 5 years back during afternoon time one person fell on the ground and he was shifted to hospital and that he do not know what has happened. PW7 stated that he worked as supplier in

Lucky wines situated at RTC Colony, Rampally and that he came to know that one quarrel took place in Lucky wines and that he has not seen any incident. PW8 who is cited as eye witness deposed that about 7 or 8 years back he was selling boti near Lucky Wines and that he has not seen any incident.

13. PW9, the investigation officer deposed as to receiving report from

PW1 and recording the statements of the witnesses, conducting scene of offence and inquest over dead body of deceased and also deposed about conducting PME.

He also deposed that he seized Network video recorder containing CCTV footage of the incident between accused, deceased and LW2 to LW4 and seized the same under seizure panchanama and forwarded to TS FSL to retrieve CCTV footage and that he made requisition to Magistrate to conduct TI Parade and the TI Parade was conducted, subsequently on his transfer LW21/A.Venkataiah, Inspector of Police took up the investigation and filed charge sheet.

14.As seen from prosecution evidence, it appears that the parties have settled the matter outside the Court and not deposed against the accused. Sole evidence of PW9 who is investigation officer is not sufficient to conclude that the page8 of 9 SC No. 802 of 2023 accused No.1 to 3 have committed murder of Koyeda Naresh and caused injuries to LW2 to LW4 because, his evidence is based on the statements of the witnesses recorded by him, once the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and denied the statements recorded by PW9, the oral evidence of PW9 is not sufficient to conclude the accused No.1 to 3 committed charged offences.

Since there is no evidence against the accused persons, the accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal.

15. In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 323 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property ie., Unicorn motorcycle bearing No.TS 08EE 758 returned to its owner i.e., A3 shall be made absolute after the appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 12th day of May, 2026

IV Additional Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined)

For the prosecution: PW1: Smt.Koyeda Hemavathi @ Hymavati, Complainant/wife of deceased PW2: Koyeda Venu, Eye witness/brother of deceased PW3: Mohd. Shoukath Ali, Eye witness PW4: P.Shiva Reddy, Eye Witness PW5: T.Raghavendra Singh, Witness page9 of 9 SC No. 802 of 2023

PW6: K.Ramu, Eye witness (cashier of Lucky wines) PW7: T.Venkanna, Eye witness PW8: E.Suresh Babu, Eye witness PW9: J.Narender Goud, Inspector of Police, PS Keesara, Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on report Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3 Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4 Ex.P6: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW6 Ex.P7: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW7 Ex.P8: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW8 Ex.P9: FIR Ex.P10: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P11: Inquest panchanama Ex.P12: Seizure panchanama Ex.P13: PME report Ex.P14: Test Identification Parade proceedings Ex.P15: Confession panchanama of A1 to A3 For the defence: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

1 of 8 Crl.Appeal No.58 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Present: Sri D.Kiran Kumar, IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

Friday, the 15 th day of May, 2026

Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2020

Between:

Kanmanthreddi Upender Reddy, S/o.Sanjeeva Reddy, Aged about 24 years, Occ:Driver, H.No.1-56, Thonda Village, Thirumalgiri Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana State

…..Appellant /accused

AND

The State of Telangana, PSMalkajgiri, through PP … Respondent/complainant

On being aggrieved by the judgment of the Court of Special Magistrate-I,

Cyberabad at Malkajgiri dated 09.01.2020

in

C.C.No.60 of 2016

Between: The state of Telangana, PS Malkajgiri

... Complainant

AND

Kanmanthreddi Upender Reddy, S/o.Sanjeeva Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Water tanker Driver, R/o.Near Vivekananda School, Adarsh Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad, N/o. Thonda Village, Thirumalgiri Mandal, Nalgonda District … Accused

This appeal came before me for final hearing the presence of Sri P.Gopal Reddy, Legal-Aid-Counsel for the appellant/accused and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the 2 of 8 Crl.Appeal No.58 of 2020 following:

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

1.This Criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.01.2020 in CC No.60 of 2016 delivered by the learned

Special Magistrate-I, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, in convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also directed to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet filed by the Police

Malkajgiri that on 09.02.2015 the accused being driver of water tanker lorry No.AP 29

U 8163 at about 7.00 p.m., drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to one

Activa vehicle from back side near RFC turning, Moulali road, resulting in which the rider of the Activa vehicle namely Deepthi fell down on other side of the road, the pillion rider namely Slaghya fell down to the left side of the road, then the water tanker backside tyre run over her head due to which her head was crushed under the tyre and she died on the spot, thereafter a report was given to the police, investigation completed, charge sheet is filed against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

3.The prosecution during the course of trial examined PW1 to PW6 witnesses and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 documents were marked. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

3 of 8 Crl.Appeal No.58 of 2020

4.On considering oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him as stated above.

5.Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Special Magistrate-I Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, the accused preferred this Appeal setting out various grounds.

6.Heard learned legal-aid-counsel for the appellant and learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the State.

7.The learned legal-aid-counsel for the appellant contended that, the trial

Court failed to note that there is no satisfactory evidence in support of the prosecution to hold that the accused drove the crime vehicle rashly and negligently, the rider of the

Honda Activa vehicle namely Deepthi though cited as a witness not examined by

prosecution, therefore the conviction is against to the law and prayed to set aside the conviction.

8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state on the other hand contended that, the trial Court on considering the entire evidence on record including the plea of the accused and his identity, convicted him. The evidence of Prosecution witnesses is clear as to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. The trial Court also observed the accused himself surrendered before the police, as such his involvement is proved and found him guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and the same was valid, need not to be set aside and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

4 of 8 Crl.Appeal No.58 of 2020

9.Now the points for determination in this appeal are as follows:

1. Whether the trial Court committed error in recording the conviction and sentence against the appellant/accused?

2. To what relief?

Point No.1:

10. Charge against the accused is for offences punishable under Section 304-A

IPC, to punish an accused for said charges, it is the primary duty of the prosecution to establish that the driver of offending vehicle which caused accident drove it rashly or negligently, on such proof alone such driver is liable to be punished.

11.In the present case, the prosecution witnesses PW1 and PW2 t are parents of the deceased, they are circumstantial witnesses to the incident. PW3 is a witness for inquest panchanama, PW5 is MVI, PW6 is investigation officer. PW4 is examined as eye witness whose evidence is very crucial.

12.The learned trial Court while recording conviction against the accused came to conclusion that there is an accident, in said accident one water tanker lorry and

Honda Activa vehicle are involved, pillion rider of Honda Activa vehicle namely Slaghya

died due to crush injury on her head. It is also recorded by learned trial Court that the accused after the accident himself went to the police, surrendered stating that he is the driver of the said water tanker lorry.

13.The appellant/convict also not disputed as to occurrence of an accident, death of deceased, driving the crime vehicle water tanker by the accused. The charge 5 of 8 Crl.Appeal No.58 of 2020 against the accused is for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution has to prove rashness or negligence on the part of the accused while driving said lorry, there is no presumption in law that mere driving a lorry and committing an accident itself is an offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

14.As stated above, PW4 is testified as an eye witness to the incident. His oral account is very important as to rashness and negligence on the part of the accused.

He deposed that on 09.02.2015, he was coming on his bike, the deceased and Deepthi were going on another bike and after crossing Lalapet bridge near road leading to

Upparguda he was ahead from the bike of Deepthi and deceased and he heard a sound and turned back and by that time the bike of Deepthi and Slaghya fallen down, he went back towards their bike, one tyre was went on the body of Slaghya, one water tanker dashed to Activa vehicle. The evidence of this witness is satisfactorily established as to accident, involvement of the accused as a driver of crime vehicle and also death of the deceased and it is clear that at the time of accident he was on his bike ahead from the bike of the deceased, only on hearing a sound he turned and saw back. As such, this witness not seen the manner of driving of crime vehicle by the accused and there is nothing in his evidence as to rashness or negligence on the part of the accused.

15.Learned trial Court believed evidence of PW4 who deposed that at the time of accident he was in front of Activa vehicle on his motorcycle and heard sound, turned back, as such came to conclusion that the lorry was driven in ‘speedily manner’.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between State of Karnataka vs. Satish, reported in

6 of 8 Crl.Appeal No.58 of 2020 1998 8 SCC 493, as to rash and negligent driving held as follows:

“ Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road or mechanical failure. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle had submitted his report. That report is not forthcoming from the record and the Inspector was not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. This is a serious infirmity and lacuna in the prosecution case.

There being no evidence on the record to establish "negligence" or "rashness" in driving the truck on the part of the respondent, it cannot be said that the view taken by the High Court in acquitting the respondent is a perverse view. To us it appears that the view of the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is a reasonably possible view. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal.

7 of 8 Crl.Appeal No.58 of 2020

The appeal fails and is dismissed. The respondent is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.”

16.Similarly, in a recent decision of Hon’ble High Court for the State of

Telangana in between G.Sreenivasulu vs. State of AP in Crl.RC No.1602 of 2007 dated 21.03.2026 held that “merely because the offending vehicle was driven at high speed it does not amounts to rashness or negligence”. There must be cogent and convincing evidence to establish negligence on the part of the accused is required and finally set aside the conviction for offences under Sections 304-A of IPC.

17.Coming to the present case, absolutely there is no evidence as to rashness or negligence on the part of the accused, the learned trial Court recorded strange findings as to involvement and commission of offence by the accused and assumed that since the accused himself surrendered before the Police, if there was no wrong on the part of the accused in driving a lorry, he ought not to have surrendered before the police, the accused voluntarily surrendered before the police, there is no compulsion or force on his part, therefore, it is nothing but guilty conscious of the driver of the crime vehicle with regard to the commission of alleged offence, since the accused himself surrendered, he is liable to be punished and accordingly, convicted him.

18.Such findings of learned trial Court are against to the legal principles, as stated above, mere driving a vehicle and committing accident not amounts to rashness or negligence, there must be satisfactory evidence, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove charge against the accused with satisfactory evidence, therefore, in the present case, there 8 of 8 Crl.Appeal No.58 of 2020 is no satisfactory evidence as to rashness and negligence on the part of the accused, accordingly the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is not sustainable.

For these reasons, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court needs to be set aside.

Point No.2: To what result?

19.In the result, this appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Magistrate-I, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, in

CC No.60 of 2016 dated 09.01.2020.

The appellant/accused is acquitted for charge under Sections 304-A IPC.

His bail bonds are ordered to be cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The fine amount of Rs.10,000/- already paid as compensation to the victim’s relative, hence there are no orders as to refund of fine amount.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.I), corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

Appendix of evidence

(Witnesses examined and exhibits marked) -Nil-

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

1 of 9 Crl.Appeal No.100 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Present: Sri D.Kiran Kumar, IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

Monday, the 11 th day of May, 2026

Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2018

Between: Ravinder, S/o.Raghavulu, R/o.H.No.4-210/57A, Pradhampuri Colony, Near Nethaji Nagar, Kapra, ECIL Post, RR District

Appellant/accused AND

1. Smt.Boda Sunitha, S/o.Ramulu B, Aged about 36 years, Occ:Tailoring, R/o.H.No.Plot No.29-A, Pradampuri Colony, Near Nethaji Nagar, Kapra, ECIL Post, RR District … Respondent/complainant

2. The State of Telangana

(Represented by Public Prosecutor) ...Respondent

On being aggrieved by the judgment of the Court of Special Magistrate-III,

Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri dated 02.01.2018

in

C.C.No.34 of 2017

Between:

Smt.Boda Sunitha, S/o.B. Ramulu, Aged about 36 years, Occ:Tailoring, R/o.H.No.Plot No.29-A, Pradhampuri Colony, Near Netaji Nagar, Kapra, ECIL Post, Hyderabad 500 062 … Complainant

And

R.Ravinder, S/o.Raghavulu, R/o.H.No.4-210/57A, Pradhampuri Colony, Near Nethaji Nagar, Kapra, ECIL Post, Hyderabad 500 062 2 of 9 Crl.Appeal No.100 of 2018 … Accused

This appeal came before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri S. Santosh Kumar, Legal-Aid Defence Advocate, for the appellant/accused and none appeared for the respondent/complainantand upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

This Criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.01.2018 in CC No.34 of 2017 delivered by the learned

Special Magistrate-III, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, in convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also directed to pay fine of Rs.60,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’), and further out of the fine amount,

Rs.50,000/- is awarded as compensation to the complainant after appeal period is over.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they stand before the learned trial Court i.e., ‘the complainant’ and ‘the accused’.

3.The complainant filed a complaint before the learned trial Court against the accused alleging the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, the averments of which, in brief, are: The complainant and the accused are known to each other, the accused approached the complainant and requested her to arrange 3 of 9 Crl.Appeal No.100 of 2018 hand loan of Rs.2,40,000/- in the last week of Febraury, 2015 for his family business purpose, the complainant arranged said amount on various dates, the accused agreed to repay Rs.2,40,000/- by September, 2016, but he failed to pay it, after repeated demands the accused issued a cheque, on its presentation, it was dishonoured and subsequently demand notice was given, the accused issued a reply admitting the loan amount, but not paid the cheque amount, as such the complaint is filed to punish the accused.

4.The learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and issued process to the accused. In response to the said process, the accused appeared before the learned trial Court and when he was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the allegations made in the complaint, he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution during the course of trial examined PW1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 documents were marked. The accused was examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C. On behalf of the defence, accused is examined as DW1 and got examined

DW2 and DW3. No documents are marked.

6.On considering oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial

Court found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him as stated above.

4 of 9 Crl.Appeal No.100 of 2018

7.Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Special Magistrate-III, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, the accused preferred this Appeal setting out various grounds.

8.This appeal was filed in the year 2018, since then the appellant called absent. As seen from the record, the appellant and counsel regularly called absent, as such the case entrusted to Legal-Aid Counsel to represent on behalf of the appellant/accused. Heard learned Legal-Aid counsel for the appellant.

9.The learned Legal-Aid counsel for the appellant filed written arguments and also submitted oral arguments contending that there is no witness to the transaction, the subject cheque is a security cheque misused by the complainant, the complainant is doing financial business without any license, no account statement is filed. It is further contended that there is no capacity to the complainant to pay said amount and therefore, prayed to set aside the conviction.

10.None appeared for the respondent.

11.Now the points for determination in this appeal are as follows:

1. Whether the trial Court committed error in recording the

conviction and sentence against the appellant/accused?

2. To what relief?

Point No.1:

12. As seen from grounds of appeal and arguments submitted by learned 5 of 9 Crl.Appeal No.100 of 2018 legal-Aid Counsel, it is the main contention of the accused/appellant is that the accused not borrowed money from the complainant, the complainant has no financial capacity. Rs.1,50,000/- borrowed by the accused from the complainant, out of said amount, Rs.15,000/- and thereafter, Rs.35,000/- paid to the husband of the complainant, receipts also issued for said amount, the complainant’s husband beat the accused with a stone, as such he sustained bleeding injury, in this regard, a police case is registered. Thereafter, in the presence of police the accused has paid

Rs.95,000/- to the husband of the complainant, further a bond paper is executed by the accused admitting that he is still due of Rs.1,30,000/-, therefore, there is no liability.

13.Since it is the case of dishonor of cheque under Section 138 of NI Act, the following essential ingredients are required to be proved by the complainant.

Then only there is a statutory presumption in favour of the complainant.

i. Drawing of the cheque in discharge of legally recoverable debt or liability.

ii. Presentation of the cheque with the bank iii. Retuming of the cheque unpaid by the drawee Bank iv. Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding Payment of the cheque amount, and v. failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice

14. It is pertinent to mention here that there are two presumptions of law 6 of 9 Crl.Appeal No.100 of 2018 as mandated by the Negotiable instruments Act. Under Section 118 of the

Negotiable instruments Act, there is a legal presumption in favour of the complainant that every negotiable Instrument (which includes a cheque) was made or drawn for consideration. The legal presumption is also regarding date of cheque.

time of its acceptance, time of transfer, order of endorsement and also as to stamps.

15.According to Section 139 of NI Act "it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved that the holder of a cheque received the cheque for discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability." Under Section 139 of Negotiable

Instruments Act there is a legal presumption that the cheque was issued for discharging a liability and that presumption can be rebutted only by the person who drew the cheque. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused by adducing evidence. So the burden of proof is on the accused.

16. In Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee AIR 2010 SC 1898, it was held "The words 'unless the contrary is proved' which occur in this provision (Section 139) make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by 'proof and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted......".

7 of 9 Crl.Appeal No.100 of 2018

17.In the present case, Ex.P1/cheque was dishonoured in terms of

Ex.P2/cheque return memo with reason ‘Funds insufficient’ in the account of the accused. It is not the case of the appellant that said cheque not belongs to him, the signature appearing on said cheque not belongs to him. When a cheque is returned with endorsement ‘Funds insufficient’, then there is a statutory presumption under

Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act as to Ex.P2 bankers memo, the accused has to adduce evidence and prove that there is no liability on his part.

18.As seen from the defence of the appellant before the trial Court, he adduced defence evidence, i.e., oral evidence of DW1 to DW3. DW1 is the accused/appellant, DW2 and DW3 are examined as witnesses to support the case of the accused. Learned trial Court recorded that DW1 gave oral evidence without filing any documentary evidence in support of his contention that the liability is only to the extent of Rs.1,30,000/-, and registering a case with police. Except oral testimony there is no supporting evidence. Similarly, DW2 and DW3 evidence discarded by the trial Court on the ground that these two witnesses are not present at the time of loan transaction, their testimonies are hear-say, as such the trial Court not believed the defence of the accused and presumed as to legally enforceable liability on the part of the accused, convicted him.

19.In the present case, the accused taken a defence of discharge and part payment to the complainant, but as seen from the record, no receipts, bank statements, FIR, account books to show the accused paid money to the complainant.

8 of 9 Crl.Appeal No.100 of 2018

In reply notice, the accused clearly admitted the liability.

20.The essential ingredients to constitute offence under Section 138 NI

Act are established by the complainant, but the accused failed to rebut the presumption by leading such evidence. Further, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 419, wherein it is held that “the accused can rebut statutory presumption by creating a doubt about the financial status to pay the amount”, in the present case, the defence of the accused is on another lines i.e., the complainant is a money lender, he made part payments,

Ex.P1 cheque is misused, but there are no details as to date of said part payments, no steps have been taken by the accused to take back his signed cheques, for all theses reasons the defence of the accused is not sufficient to conclude that there is no legally enforceable liability on his part, accordingly, the conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial Court is in terms of law, it cannot be set aside.

Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the respondent.

Point No.2: To what relief?

20.In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction imposed against the appellant/accused by the learned Special Magistrate-III,

Cyberabad at Malkajgiri vide Judgment in C.C.No.34 of 2017 dated 01.01.2018 under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. The accused is directed to surrender before trial Court, on or

before 11.06.2026, on such surrender, the learned trial Court shall commit him to

9 of 9 Crl.Appeal No.100 of 2018 prison to receive the substantive sentence of imprisonment. If the appellant/accused fail to surrender on or before the said date, the learned trail Court shall secure his presence by issuing a non-bailable warrant and commit him to prison to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed against him.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.I), corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 11th day of May, 2026.

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

Appendix of evidence (Witnesses examined and exhibits marked) -Nil-

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.