Page 1 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS
JUDGE:: AT NALGONDA
Present: D.V.R. Tejo Karthik Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
Wednesday, on this 16 th day of April, 2025
Sessions Case No. 545 of 2022
1. Name of the :: The State through P.S. Nalgonda complainant Rural 2. Name of the accused ::
A1: Pogaku Srinu S/o Pichaiah, age: 38 years,
A2: Pogaku Yadaiah S/o Pichaiah, age: 42 years,
A3: Pogaku Chandrakala W/o Srinu, age: 36 years,
All are Occu: Coolie and R/o Anneparthy village of Nalgonda Mandal.
3. Section(s) of Law :: 504 r/w 34, 506 (Part 1) r/w 34 and 306 r/w 511 IPC 4. Cr.No., and P.S. :: Cr.No.73/2022 of P.S. Nalgonda Rural
5. PRC No. :: 61 of 2022
Page 2 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda 6. Name of the Court :: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, which committed the Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda. case 7 Prosecution :: Sri Jayaram Naiak, Addl. P.P. conducted by 8. Defence conducted :: Sri S. Venkat Reddy, Advocate by 9. Plea of the accused :: Not guilty
10. Finding of Court :: Not guilty
11. Result : In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.504 r/w 34, 506 (Part 1) r/w 34 and 306 r/w 511 IPC. Accordingly the accused are acquitted u/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall continue to be in force for a period of six months as per Sec. 437 A Cr.P.C from the date of this judgment for preferring appeal to the higher court against this judgment by the prosecution or by the de-facto complainant or by the victim. The MO.1/pesticide bottle shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period through committal court.
This case is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri Jayaram Naiak, Additional Public Prosecutorfor the prosecution; Sri S. Venkat Reddy, Learned Counsel for the accused; and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
Page 3 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda :: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The State represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Police Station Nalgonda Rural laid charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 in Cr.No.73/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 306 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code.
2.STEERING CLEAR OF RED HERRINGS THE FACTUAL
SCENARIO OF THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IS :
i. That the accused No.1 and 2 are brothers and accused No.3 is the wife of A1 and the accused No.1 and 2 are none other than maternal uncles of PW2 and accused No.3 is the elder sister of PW2. PW3 is the father of PW2 and PW1 is the younger sister of PW2. PW2 is the victim in the case. The prosecution alleged that the marriage of PW2 was fixed with the daughter of one Doti Lingaiah who is the resident of
Bodangiparthy village of Munugode Mandal. The marriage was scheduled to take place on 05.05.2022. The marriage cards were also printed for inviting the friends and relatives. That the accused No.1 to 3 have polluted the mind of Doti Lingaiah by projecting PW2 in bad light and thus, he had canceled the marriage. That it is also alleged that A1 to
A3 have also played their part in getting marriage of PW2 canceled thrice
Page 4 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda which were finalized. On 22.05.2022 an argument took place between
PW2 and accused Nos.1 to 3 wherein Pw2 had questioned the accused and held them responsible for getting his marriage proposals canceled and the accused have threatened PW2 that they would get the matches canceled and they would see that he would not get married and also harassed him. Due to the harassment of the accused, PW2 contemplated to commit suicide and on 25.05.2022 at about 6.30 a.m., PW2 consumed pesticide poison at his agricultural fields which is situated at the outskirts of Dandempally village and he returned to the house and in front of the house he fell unconscious. That PW3 had shifted PW2 to the
Government Hospital, Nalgonda where PW2 underwent treatment.
While PW2 was undergoing treatment PW1 who is the younger sister of
PW2 had set the criminal law into motion by lodging report with PW6 seeking necessary action against the accused.
ii. On receipt of the report, PW6, the then SI of Police being satisfied that the ingredients in the report disclosed cognizable offences, registered a case in Cr.No. 73/2022 for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 504, 506, 306 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code and issued FIR and took up investigation.
Page 5 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda iii. In the course of investigation, PW6 had examined and recorded the statement of PW1 as per Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C at police station and later he visited Govt. Hospital, Nalgonda and examined and recorded the statement of PW2. Thereafter he visited scene of offence which is the agricultural fields of PW2 situated at the outskirts of
Dandampally Village and caused enquires about the incident and he secured the presence of Pw4 and Lw6/ Pandaiah and in their presence he had prepared crime detail forms and also drew the rough sketch. He had seized one pesticide poison bottle on which it was written as
Marino. Thereafter he examined and recorded the statements of Pw3,
Lw4/ Santhoshi and Lw5/Parusharamulu. He had issued Sec.41-A
Cr.P.C notices to accused directing them to appear before him within two days after receipt of the notices. While the investigation was in progress on 04-07-2022 he effected the arrest of the accused as they did not comply the directions in Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notices which were issued to them. In the course of interrogation when the accused were above to confess their guilt of offence he secured the presence of Pw5 and Lw9/Shankar before whom the accused have confessed their guilt of offence. Thereafter he had produced the accused before the Jurisdictional Court for judicial remand. Subsequently he had handed over the C.D file to LW11/U.
Page 6 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda
Suresh for further investigation. On 05-07-2022, LW11/Suresh addressed a letter to Superintendent of Govt. Hospital, Nalgonda with a request to furnish the case sheet of Pw2 who underwent treatment. The
Superintendent, Govt. Hospital, Nalgonda had furnished the copy of the case sheet vide registered No.8115, dated.25-05-2022. The seized pesticide bottle was deposited in the Court by LW11/U. Suresh vide
CPR.No.100/2022. On completion of investigation basing on the evidence LW11/U. Suresh had laid the charge sheet against the accused.
3.Upon intellection of the material placed before the Court, the learned JMFC, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda took cognizance as per
Section 190 (1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 306 r/w 511 of Indian Penal
Code against A1 to A3 and the case was numbered as PRC 61/2022.
4.On appearance of the Accused No.1 to 3 before the learned
JMFC, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda the copies of documents were furnished to them as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thenceforth, the PRC 61/2022 was committed to Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions
Judge, Nalgonda as per Sec.209 Cr.P.C.
Page 7 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda
5.On receipt of the case file, the Hon’ble Prl. District and
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda took cognizance for the offences Under
Sections 341, 504, 506, 306 r/w 511 IPC against the accused A1 to A3 as per Sec.193 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was numbered as
SC No. 545/2022 and it was made over to this court for trial and disposal
accordant with law.
6.On appearance of A1 to A3, on hearing the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused and upon considering the material, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined Under Section 228 Cr.P.C by this court for the accusation for the offences punishable under Sections 504 r/w 34, 506 (Part 1) r/w 34 and 306 r/w 511 IPC, for which they denied and charges for the offences punishable under Sections 504 r/w 34, 506 (Part 1) r/w 34 and 306 r/w 511 IPC were framed and read over and explained to the accused in Telugu and having understood the same, the accused No.1 to 3 had denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.
7.For bringing home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 as Prosecution Witnesses and exhibited
Exs.P1 to P6 as documentary evidence and MO.1 as material object.
Page 8 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION:
PW1 – Y. Renuka is the de facto complainant and younger sister of PW2
PW2 – S. Yadagiri is the victim
PW3 – S. Gangaiah is the eyewitness and father of PWs.1 and 2
PW4 – R. Anjaneyulu is the panch witness for crime details form and rough sketch
PW5 –S. Shiva Kumar is the Panch witness for the confessional panchanama of A1 to A3
PW6 – J. Gopal Rao is the 1st investigating officer who registered the case and investigated the case
The prosecution gave up LW4/Santoshi, LW5/Parashuramulu,
LW6/Pandaiah, LW9/Shankar and LW11/Suresh.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW1 exhibited through PW1
Ex.P2 is the wedding card with photos which were taken when the marriage of PW2 was fixed with the daughter of Doti Yadaiah exhibited through PW1
Ex.P3 is the crime details form exhibited through PW4
Ex.P4 is the rough sketch exhibited through PW4
Ex.P5 is the FIR exhibited through PW6
Ex.P6 is the acknowledged copy of requisition addressed to the
Superintendent, Government Hospital, Nalgonda exhibited through PW6
Page 9 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda
MATERIAL OBJECT EXHIBITED BY THE PROSECUTION
M.O.1 is the pesticide bottle exhibited through PW4
8.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C enabling them to explain personally the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the evidence and when the accused were called upon to enter their defence evidence, they reported defence evidence on their side and behalf of the accused, the accused No.1 got examined as DW1 and exhibited Exs.D1 to D3 as documentary evidence.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:
Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the charge sheet in FIR No.294 of 2021 by PS Nalgonda Rural
Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the charge sheet in FIR No.136 of 2021 of PS Nalgonda Rural
Ex.D3 is the attested copy of charge sheet in FIR No.150 of 2022 of PS Nalgonda II Town
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE
9. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused A1 to A3. The learned Additional PP would
Page 10 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda contend that the prosecution could establish the charges against the
Accused Nos.1 to 3 as the witnesses had consistently testified that due to the harassment meted out by the accused PW2 was forced to commit suicide and he consumed pesticide poison, however, he recovered after treatment and his act of consuming pesticide poison was only due to the incessant harassment by the accused by spoiling the marriage prospects of PW2 and that the accused have even spoiled those matches which were finalized and marriage dates were fixed and the material on record would clinchingly show that the accused are responsible for the offences for which they were charged as such they are required to be punished for the offences charged.
10.In oppugnation the learned counsel for Accused Nos.1 to 3 argued that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in as much as proving the essentials of the offences for which the accused were tried are concerned. It was also argued that the evidence of the witnesses do not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused were falsely implicated and Exs.D1 to D3 would establish that PW2 was involved in multiple crimes and that PW2 harassed the daughter of Doti Lingaiah
Page 11 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda whose marriage was fixed with another person after cancellation of the marriage with PW2 and PW2 was harassing the daughter of Doti
Lingaiah and PW2 taking advantage of the photographs which were taken at the time of his engagement with the daughter of Doti Lingaiah had sent those photographs to one M. Rajender with whom the marriage of the daughter of Doti Lingaiah was fixed to be performed on 26.05.2022 and from 19.05.2022 Pw2 was threatening Doti Lingaiah that the marriage of his daughter would be canceled with Rajender and PW2 was also stalking the daughter of Doti Lingaiah and harassing her by making rounds around her house and she lodged a report with police on 23.05.2022 and a crime was registered against PW2 and charge sheet was laid against Pw2 under Ex.D3 and as the police were searching for PW2 for arresting him fearing that he may be arrested he consumed pesticide poison on 25.05.2022 and taking advantage of it, he foisted a case against the accused through PW1 on 26.05.2022 thinking that the accused were responsible for his situation. It was also argued by the learned counsel that there is no legal evidence on record for convicting the accused and hence, he prayed the court to acquit the accused.
Page 12 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda
11.Now, the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/Secs.504 r/w 34, 506 (Part 1) r/w 34 and 306 r/w 511 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt?
POINT:
12.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of PW2 was fixed with the daughter of one Doti Lingaiah and the marriage was scheduled to take place on 05.05.2022. That the accused No.1 to 3 have spoiled the mind of Doti Lingaiah by projecting PW2 in bad light and thus, he had canceled the marriage. That A1 to A3 have also played their part in getting marriage of PW2 canceled thrice which were finalized.
On 22.05.2022 an argument took place between PW2 and accused Nos.1 to 3 wherein Pw2 had questioned the accused and held them responsible for cancellation of marriage and the accused have threatened PW2 that they would get the matches canceled and they would see that he would not get married and also harassed him. Due to the harassment of the accused, PW2 contemplated to commit suicide and on 25.05.2022 at about 6.30 a.m., he consumed pesticide poison at his agricultural fields which is situated at the outskirts of Dandempally village and he returned to the
Page 13 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda house and in front of the house he fell unconscious and subsequently he underwent treatment and recovered. Therefore, the accused are held responsible for the incident.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
13.PW1 is the younger sister of the PW2 who had lodged the report with the police, thereby had set the criminal law into motion in her evidence testified that the marriage of her elder brother PW2 was fixed with the daughter of Doti Lingaiah and the marriage was on 05.05.2022 and the marriage cards were printed three days before the marriage. The accused telephoned to the parents of the bride ie., Doti
Lingaiah and his wife and they have said unnecessary things to them with an intention to see that the marriage would be called off and due to which Doti Lingaiah had cancelled the marriage. Later, the accused came to their house on 23.04.2022 and picked up an argument with them and they have stated that they would ensure that the marriage alliances of
PW2 would be spoiled. That the accused Nos.1 to 3 have previously spoiled three marriage alliances prior to the present one and they questioned them as to why they have spoiled the previous alliances.
They have harassed PW2. Due to which PW2 felt humiliated and was disgusted on his life and he consumed pesticide poison on 25.05.2022 in
Page 14 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda their agricultural fields in order to commit suicide and after consuming the pesticide poison he came to their house and in front of their house he fell unconscious. Her father PW3 who was present in the house shifted
PW2 to Government Hospital, Nalgonda and he underwent treatment.
On the following day ie., 26.05.2022 she went to police station and lodged report with police against the accused nos.1 to 3 seeking necessary action against them. That she had also handed over the Wedding card and the photos which were taken when the marriage of PW2 was fixed with the daughter of Doti Yadaiah. That Police had examined her and recorded her statement.
14.In the course of cross-examination, PW1 testified that she did not know whether the accused Nos.1 and 2 have purchased land to an extent of 334 sq., yards from her father and her brother PW2 and thereafter her father and brother have occupied the same land and accused Nos.1 and 2 have lodged a police report against her father and brother and a criminal case was registered against them on 04.12.2021 vide Cr.No.294/2021 of police station, Nalgonda rural. She denied that her father and her brother Yadagiri together have killed her mother in the year 2021 and a criminal case was also registered against them and that she was the complainant in that case vide Cr.No.136/2021 of Police
Page 15 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda station Nalgonda rural (SC.No.295/2022). She also denied that the parents of the bride Nagamani have cancelled the marriage alliance due to the behavior of PW2 and subsequently another marriage alliance was fixed to Nagamani and PW2 started sending photos to the Bride groom and Nagamani had lodged a police report against PW2 and a criminal case vide Cr.No.150/2022 of Police station, Nalgonda II Town was registered against PW2 on 23.05.2022. Likewise, PW1 also denied that as the case was registered against PW2 on 23.05.2022 and also earlier case in connection with the murder of her mother as such PW2 consumed pesticide poison on 25.05.2022 fearing that he may be arrested and sent to
Jail by the police and later they colluded with police and foisted a case against the accused on 26.05.2022.
15.PW1 admitted that previously PW2 got married before seeing the alliance with Nagamani. That PW2 obtained divorce from his wife. PW1 volunteered that PW2 took divorce because of the harassment of the accused. She denied that as PW2 harassed his previous wife therefore, divorce was obtained.
16.PW1 denied the suggestion that she did not state to the police in her previous statement that the accused had telephoned to the parents of the bride ie., Doti Lingaiah and his wife and they have said
Page 16 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda unnecessary things to them with an intention to see that the marriage is called off and due to which Doti Lingaiah had cancelled the marriage (omission – brought on record – to be confronted with I.O ).
17.She also denied that she did not state to the police in her previous statement that the accused Nos.1 to 3 came to their house and picked up argument with them and that they have previously spoiled three marriage alliances prior to the present one and they questioned them as to why they have spoiled the previous alliances (omission – brought on record – to be confronted with I.O ).
18.It is also the denial of PW1 that they are not in talking terms with the accused since the registration of the case by them and that they never came to their house and they never picked up any argument with them and they never spoiled the marriage alliances of PW2 and a false story was created against the accused and a case was foisted against them in order to come out of the criminal cases filed against her father and brother for illegally occupying the land of the accused and also in connection with the murder of her mother.
19.PW2 who is the victim and the star witness in his evidence testified that in the year 2008, the accused Nos.1 and 2 had fraudulently obtained his signature and the signature of his father on an empty bond
Page 17 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda paper stating that their signatures are necessary for withdrawing LIC money and occupied their land to an extent of 334 sq. yards. They have created a document as if they have executed it in their favour selling 334 sq., yards. Subsequently, for 8 to 9 years, the accused did not interfere with them and when he came of the marriageable age his father started looking for matches. The accused have spoiled the marriage alliances. In the year 2022, a match was fixed with the daughter of one Doti Lingaiah who is the resident of Bodangiparthy village of Munugode mandal and the marriage was fixed on 05.05.2022. On 23.04.2022 the accused came to their house and stated in the presence of parents of the bride and others that his father and he have executed a document in their favour selling 334 sq.,yards and they did not have any house and that they would live on the roads and if the girl is given in marriage then they would finish her off. Then the parents of the bride have cancelled the marriage and thereafter the accused have threatened him that they would eliminate him and that they would see to it that all the marriage alliances of him would be spoiled and they have demanded that 334 sq., yards should be given to them. That even prior to the incident in question the accused have spoiled his three marriage alliances. As his maternal uncles are spoiling his marriage alliances therefore, he was perturbed and vexed
Page 18 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda with his life and he consumed pesticide poison on 25.05.2022 at their agricultural fields and thereafter he came to the house and fell in front of the house. His father who was in the house shifted him to Government hospital, Nalgonda along with LW.5/Parashuramulu. That on 26.05.2022, the Sub- Inspector of Police came to the hospital and examined him and recorded his statement.
20.In the course of cross-examination, PW2 denied the suggestions that on 27.05.2011 his father and he have executed a document in favour of A1 selling 334 sq., yards of plot for a consideration of Rs.1,00,200/- , that despite selling the plot his father and he tried to construct a room and A1 had lodged a police report against them on 04.12.2021 and a crime was registered against them vide Cr.No.294/2021 by police, Nalgonda rural under Secs.420, 448, 323, 504 and 506 r/w 34
IPC, that his father and he have killed his mother and a criminal case was also registered against them vide Cr.No.136/2021 U/sec.302 r/w 34 IPC by Police, Nalgonda Rural on the report lodged by PW.1 and the same is the subject matter of S.C.No.295/2022 on the file of Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. PW2 volunteered that the said case ended in acquittal.
Page 19 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda
21.PW2 also denied that the parents of Nagamani namely Doti
Lingaiah and his wife have cancelled the marriage because of his behavior.
22.PW2 testified that he did not know whether subsequently the marriage of Nagamani was settled with one Mukkamula Rajender of
Anneparthy village and the marriage was scheduled on 26.05.2022.
23.PW2 further denied the suggestions that from four days prior to the marriage of the daughter of Lingaiah he had been sending messages and photos to Rajender in order to spoil the marriage of
Nagamani with Rajender, that he had even used to harass Nagamani by going around her house and demanding her to marry him by threatening her, that Nagamani had lodged a police report against him on 23.05.2022 with police Nalgonda II town vide Cr.No.150/2022 which is now the subject matter of CC.No.1829/2022 on the file of III Addl. JMFC,
Nalgonda, that as the case was registered against him on 23.05.2022 and also the previous cases therefore, he had consumed pesticide poison fearing that police may arrest him in crime number 150/2022 as he was already interrogated by police in connection with the murder of his mother, that subsequently his father, his sister and he have colluded with the police and foisted a case against the accused.
Page 20 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda
24.PW2 admitted that he did not state in his previous statement that in the year 2008, the accused Nos.1 and 2 had fraudulently obtained his signature and the signature of his father on an empty bond paper stating that their signatures are necessary for withdrawing LIC money and occupied their land to an extent of 334 sq. yards. They have created a document as if they have executed it in their favour selling 334 sq., yards (omission – admitted – proved).
25.Similarly PW2 also admitted that he did not state in his previous statement that on 23.04.2022 the accused came to their house and stated in the presence of parents of the bride and others that his father and he have executed a document in their favour selling 334 sq., yards and they did not have any house and that they would live on the roads and if the girl is given in marriage then they would finish her off.
Then the parents of the bride have cancelled the marriage and thereafter the accused have threatened him that they would eliminate him and that they would see to it that all the marriage alliances of his would be spoiled and they have demanded that 334 sq., yards should be given to them (omission – admitted – proved).
26.PW2 denied the suggestion that as the accused No.1 was prosecuting the case in connection with 334 sq. yards of land therefore, at
Page 21 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda his instance and at the instance of his father a false case was foisted against the accused and that the accused are no way concerned with the alleged offences and they were falsely implicated.
27.PW2 testified that he was in the hospital undergoing treatment for 6 or 7 days.
28.PW3 who is the father of Pws.1 and 2 in his evidence testified that about 2 years ago, PW2’s marriage was fixed with the daughter of one D.Lingaiah resident of Bodiparthy Village. The accused
Nos.1 to 3 have threatened PW.2 that they would kill him if he marries the daughter of D.Lingaiah. That he has a house and the accused have demanded that the house should be given to them and if the same is not done then they would spoil the marriage and also they would eliminate
PW.2. As the accused have previously too have spoiled the marriage prospects of his son therefore, having felt annoyed he consumed pesticide poison at their agricultural well at Dandempally Village. After consuming the pesticide poison his son came to their house and in front of the house he fell unconscious then he shifted him to Government hospital, Nalgonda. Along with him LW.5/Parashuramulu was also present at the time of shifting his son to the hospital. The accused are responsible for the incident as his son was disgusted as the accused have
Page 22 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda been spoiling the marriage alliances of his son. Police have examined him and recorded his statement on the following day of the incident at his house.
29.In the course of cross-examination, PW3 denied the suggestions that on 27.05.2011 his son and he had executed a document in favour of the accused no.1 selling 334 sq., yards of his house plot at
Rs.1,00,200/- as sale consideration, that despite executing a document as they did not give the house plot and started constructing a room for which the accused no.1 had lodged a report with police against him and his son ie., PW.2 vide Cr.No.294/2021 by Police station, Nalgonda rural on 04.12.2021, that PW.2 and he had killed his wife as she was against selling agricultural land to third parties and a crime was registered against them vide Cr.No.136/2021 by Police station Nalgonda rural on 07.06.2021 which was the subject matter in SC.No.295/2022 on the file of
Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Nalgonda.
30.PW3 admitted that after the above mentioned two cases, they are not in talking terms with the accused.
31.PW3 also denied the suggestions that D.Lingaiah and his wife have cancelled the marriage of their daughter with PW.2 due to the behavior of PW.2 and subsequently they have decided to perform the
Page 23 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda marriage with one Rajender on 26.05.2022, that on 22.05.2022 PW.2 went to the house of D.Lingaiah and harassed his daughter for which a report was lodged with police, Nalgonda II Town by the daughter of
D.Lingaiah vide Cr.No.150/2022 dt. 23.05.2022 which is now the subject matter in CC.No.1829/2022 on the file of III Addl. JMFC, Nalgonda, that as case was registered on 23.05.2022 and as the police wanted to arrest his son in the said case therefore, fearing the arrest his son had consumed pesticide poison on 25.05.2022 and taking advantage of the same a case was foisted against the accused as already two cases were registered previously against PW.2 and him, that a case was foisted in order to see that the land which was previously sold to the accused is not delivered to them and that it remains with them and that they wanted to enjoy the land, that the accused are no way concerned with the alleged offences and they never spoiled the marriage alliances of PW.2 at any point of time and all the allegations made with regard to the marriage alliances of
PW.2 being spoiled were cancelled due to the behavior of PW.2 and the accused are no way involved with them and that in order to avoid the delivery of the property to the accused they were implicated at the instance of his daughter who lodged report at his behest.
Page 24 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda
32.PW4 who is the panch witness for crime details form and rough sketch in his evidence testified that about 2 ½ years ago in the afternoon he was summoned by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Police station Nalgonda Rural to the agricultural fields of PW.3 and the Sub-
Inspector of Police had conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized one pesticide bottle and he was informed that PW.2 had consumed the pesticide. He was informed that panchanama was conducted as PW.2 attempted to commit suicide as his marriage alliances were spoiled by the accused. The Sub- Inspector of Police had also drawn rough sketch. After conducting the panchanama he had appended his signatures.
33.In the course of cross-examination PW4 admitted that he is not the resident of Dandampally Village. That LW.6/Pandaiah, Pw.5 and
LW9/Shankar are the residents of his colony where he resides. PW4 denied that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and pesticide bottle was not seized in his presence and police have obtained his signatures at police station.
34.PW5 in his evidence testified that on 04.07.2022 at about 10.00 am he was summoned by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station
Nalgonda Rural to the village of PWs.2 and 3 and on questioning by the
Page 25 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda police and by them the accused have informed that they have spoiled the marriage alliances of PW2 and that there are some disputes with regard to the plot. Thereafter, the same was reduced into writing and he had appended his signature. The A1 had also informed that he had purchased the plot for Rs.1,00,000/- from PW.3 who is the father of PW.2 and in that connection disputes arose.
35.In the course of cross-examination PW5 denied the suggestions that he never went to the Village of PWs.2 and 3 and that the accused never confessed admitting their guilt of offence to him and no panchanama was conducted in his presence.
36.PW6 is the investigating officer and he had testified the chronology of investigation as conducted in his chief examination, therefore, chronicle of those facts over again will not serve any useful purpose.
37.In the course of cross-examination, PW6 admitted that the accused are relatives of Pws.1 to 3. That the case was registered against
Pws.2 and 3 by their police station vide Crime No.294/2021 on the report lodged by A1 for the offences punishable Under Secs.420, 448, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC. That against Pws.2 and 3 a case vide Crime No.136/2021 was registered for the offence punishable U/Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC basing
Page 26 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda on the report lodged by Pw1. That P.S. Rural and P.S II Town fall within the same circle. That on 23-05-2022 a crime was registered against Pw2
Crime No.150/2022 for the offences punishable U/Secs.384, 354-D basing on the report lodged by D. Nagamani with whom the marriage of Pw2 was fixed. That in the previous statement of Pw1 did not state that the accused had telephoned to the parents of bride i.e., D. Lingaiah and his wife and said unnecessary things to them with an intention to see that marriage is called off due to which D. Lingaiah had cancelled the marriage (Omission – Confronted - Proved).
38. PW6 denied the suggestions that he did not conduct scene of offence panchanama and did not drew the rough sketch and he did not investigate the case properly and did not collect proper evidence and did perfunctory investigation, that MO-1 was planted for the purpose of this case.
39. PW6 admitted that as per the investigation and charge sheet the confessional panchanama of the accused was conducted at the house of A1.
40.PW6 also denied the suggestion that as the case was registered against Pw2 basing on the report of D. Nagamani with police
II Town and as the police were in the hunt of apprehending Pw2
Page 27 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda therefore due to the fear of his arrest he consumed pesticide poison and taking that as an advantage he foisted case against accused No. 1 to 3 as both the stations i.e., Rural and II Town fall within the same circle.
41.PW6 admitted that no dying declaration of Pw2 was recorded and Doctor was not examined and the Doctor was not cited as witness. That none of the elders were examined in order to show that on 25-05-2022 the accused have threatened Pw2 stating that they would spoil his marriage alliances. That the parents of the so called brides with whom the marriage alliances of Pw2 were called off were not examined in the course of investigation.
42.After closure of the prosecution evidence as indicated above, the accused have adduced evidence. The accused No.1 got examined himself as DW1. In his evidence he testified that they never spoiled the marriage alliances of PW2 as alleged. Further they never threatened PW2 on 23.04.2022 and there was no harassment by them. In fact, PW2 was involved in criminal offences vide FIR No.294 of 2021 registered by P.S.
Nalgonda Rural and he is also involved in FIR No.136 of 2021 by P.S.
Nalgonda Rural. PWs.2 and 3 are the accused in the said crimes. Further,
PW2 is also involved in FIR No.150 of 2022 registered by Nalgonda II
Page 28 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda
Town P.S. wherein one D. Nagamani had lodged a report alleging that
PW2 was sending photographs to her fiance Rajender and the photographs were taken at the time of the engagement with PW2 and later, the marriage was cancelled as her father came to know that PW2 was having bad character and keeping that in mind, he was sending the photographs to Rajender in order to spoil her marriage and that he further threatened her and her father that if she does not marry him, he would kill her and her father. Because the crime was registered against
PW2 and as the police were making efforts to arrest him, therefore, in order to escape from them, he consumed pesticide poison and taking advantage of it, by colluding with the police, he foisted a case against them. FIR No.150 of 2022 was registered on 23.05.2022 and the alleged incident in question took place on 25.05.2022 and the FIR in the instant case was lodged on 26.05.2022. That they are innocent and they did not commit any offence.
43.In the course of cross-examination by the learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor, he testified that he had purchased the plot in the year 2011 from Gangaiah who is his brother in law and who is the father of
Pw2 and Pw3. He did not file any document pertaining to the purchase
Page 29 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda in the instant case. He did not know the Survey number of the plot purchased from Gangaiah. He had constructed compound wall in the year 2015 or 2016 in the land purchased by him but Gangaiah constructed house in the land sold to him about 2 years ago. He denied the suggestion that Gangaiah did not sell any plot to him and that he had illegal occupied it and therefore he did not file any document pertaining to the alleged purchase.
44.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence on record to prove the offence Under Section 504 r/w 34 IPC the prosecution is required to prove that the accused have intentionally insulted PW2 and the accused have thereby intended to give provocation to PW2 and that the accused knew that it was likely that such provocation would cause PW2 to commit a breach of peace or to commit any other offence. The prosecution did not demonstrate what abusive words was uttered by the accused. According to the prosecution that on 23.05.2022 an argument took place between the accused and PW2 and that the accused have hurled abuses. However, neither in Ex.P1 nor in the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, the so called abusive words alleged to have been hurled by the accused
Page 30 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda were stated. The section prescribes punishment for intentional insult with an intent to cause breach of peace. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the abusive words uttered if any were accompanied with an intention to cause a breach of peace or knowledge on the part of the accused that a breach of peace is likely to be caused thereby. In the absence of actual words used by the accused in the report or in the charge framed against the accused or in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, conviction under Section 504 IPC cannot be sustained. In Ex.P1 and in Ex.P5 the actual abusive words alleged to have been used by the accused were not stated and further in the evidence of
Pws.1 to 3 they did not state the actual words uttered by the accused.
Therefore, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 504 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
45.For bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 (Part I) IPC, the prosecution should establish that the accused have threatened PW2 with injury to his person, reputation, or property or to the person, reputation or property of another in whom PW2 was interested and the accused did so with intent
Page 31 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda to cause alarm to PW2 of offence or the accused did so to cause PW2 to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do.
46.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Romesh Chandra
Arora v. The State., AIR 1960 SC 154., held that the section consists of two parts. The first part refers to the act of threatening another with injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested. The second part refers to the intent with which the threatening is done and it is of two categories :
one is intent to cause alarm to the person threatened and the second is to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
47.In the case at hand, the prosecution asserted that the so called threat was that the accused have stated that they would spoil marriage alliances and that they would see that Pw2 will not married. In
Ex.P1 it is stated in the following words “Nuvvu kudurchukunna pelli sambandalanu alage chedagotti neeku pelli kakunda chestam”. Such usage of words cannot be treated as threat of injury to constitute criminal intimidation. The intention referred to in the section is an essential
Page 32 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda ingredient of the offence under the Section. Where intent is a necessary ingredient of the offence, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution.
In the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 nowhere it came on record as to how the accused have threatened PW2 with injury to his person or reputation or to the person or reputation of another in whom Pw2 is interested. Merely alleging that the accused have threatened will not suffice and the prosecution is bound to demonstrate that the essentials envisaged under the section were satisfied in order to prove that the accused have really threatened Pw2 with an intention to cause alarm to him and to cause
PW2 to perform an act which he was not legally bound to do. In the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 the essentials constituting the offence were not brought on record.
48.In order to establish the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 511 IPC the prosecution had to establish at the outset that the accused have abetted PW2 to commit suicide. The word abetment has not been explained in Section 106 IPC. In this context the definition of abetment as provided under Section 107 IPC is pertinent. Section 306 IPC seeks to punish those who abet the commission of suicide of other.
Whether the person has abetted the commission of suicide of another or
Page 33 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda not is to be gathered from facts and circumstances of each case and to be found out by continuous conduct of the accused involving the mental element. Such a requirement can be perceived from the reading of
Section 107 IPC. In the case at hand, it is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused have been spoiling the marriage prospects of PW2 and they have spoiled marriage alliances wherein the marriage of PW2 was already fixed with. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of
PW2 was fixed with Nagamani who is the daughter of Doti Lingaiah and the same was scheduled on 05.05.2022 and the accused have polluted the mind of Doti Lingaiah wherein PW2 was projected in a bad light and therefore, Doti Lingaiah had called off the marriage and that an argument took place between accused and PW2 wherein the accused have harassed PW2 stating that they would spoil his marriage prospects and that they would ensure that he would not get married and as the accused are responsible for his marriage being called off, Pw2 felt humiliated and perturbed which ultimately led him to take a decision to end his life and on 25.05.2022 at 6.30 a.m. he consumed pesticide poison to end his life but fortunately he survived after taking treatment. In order to establish the charge under Section 306 r/w 511 IPC, the prosecution must establish at the outset that there was direct abetment
Page 34 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda by the accused and that the accused had intention that PW2 should commit suicide. Even when the accused have no such intention yet the prosecution must establish that the accused have created a situation causing tremendous mental tension to PW2 so as to drive PW2 to commit suicide. In the evidence of PW1 she testified that the accused have telephoned to the parents of Nagamani i.e., Doti Lingaiah and his wife and they have said certain unnecessary things with an intention to see that the marriage of PW2 with Nagamani would be called off and Doti
Lingaiah had canceled the marriage. This particular statement which
PW1 had testified in her chief examination was not stated in her previous statement to the police or in Ex.P1. There is a significant omission. When
PW1 was confronted with such omission in her cross-examination she denied that she did not state the above mentioned statement in her previous statement. The omission which was brought on record was confronted to PW6 who recorded the previous statement of PW1 and
PW6 in his evidence testified that PW1 in her previous statement did not state as stated by her in her chief examination. Therefore, the omission which was brought on record stood proved. Now the court has to consider whether such omission which was proved is significant or not.
As per Section 162 Cr.P.C. in the explanation part an omission to state a
Page 35 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in Section 162 (1) of
Cr.P.C. may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to contradiction in a particular context shall be a question of fact. In the case at hand, the omission which stood proved is a significant omission having regard to the context in which such omission had occurred.
49.PW2 in his evidence testified that the motive behind spoiling his marriage alliances by the accused is due to the incident which had taken place in the year 2008. PW2 testified that in the year 2008 the accused Nos.1 and 2 have fraudulently obtained his signature and the signature of his father on an empty bond paper stating that their signatures are necessary for withdrawing LIC money and occupied their land to an extent of 334 square yards by creating a document as if such document was executed selling the land and disputes arose subsequently and keeping that in mind, the accused were bent upon to spoil his marriage alliances. However, in his previous statement, this particular fact which PW2 had testified in his chief examination was not stated and when PW2 was confronted in the course of his cross-examination that the
Page 36 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda fact which he had testified in his chief examination referred above was not stated by him in his previous statement to the police, PW2 admitted that he did not state in his previous statement as narrated in his chief examination. The omission which was confronted to the witness PW2 stood proved as he admitted that he did not state the same in his previous statement.
50.In the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 there are significant omissions and those omissions are material in nature. The correct method of evaluation and assessing evidence of a witness is by scrutinizing it on merits. Omissions which are significant and otherwise relevant to the context in which such omission occurs would certainly corrode the credibility of the prosecution and where the omission amounts to contradiction creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and the other witness who also makes material improvements
before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, then it is not
safe to rely upon such evidence. PW2 in his chief examination also testified that on 23.04.2022 the accused came to their house and in the presence of the parents of the bride i.e., Nagamani and others have stated that his father and he have executed a document in their favour selling
Page 37 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda 334 square yards and they (Pws.2 and 3) did not have any house and if girl is given in marriage, then they would live on the roads and they would also finish her off. Therefore, the parents of bride have cancelled the marriage and thereafter, the accused have threatened him that they would eliminate him and they would see that all his marriage alliances would be spoiled and that the accused have demanded that 334 square yards of land should be given to them. This particular statement/ testimony as stated by PW2 in his chief examination was not stated in his previous statement and when PW2 was confronted that he did not state the above mentioned fact in his previous statement he testified in affirmative. There is glaring omission on record which is very vital and significant. On holistic appreciation of evidence of Pws.1 and 2 there are significant omissions which are not normal discrepancies and certainly they would corrode the credibility of Pws.1 and 2 and if the evidence of
Pws.1 and 2 read as a whole it appears to have the ring of truth missing.
51.PW3 who is the father of PW2 had testified in his evidence that on registration of crimes against him and his son vide FIR No.294 of 2021 and 136 of 2021 by Police Rural, they are not in talking terms with the accused. As per the statement of Pw3 there is an axe to grind against
Page 38 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda the accused and the accused are inimical with Pws.2 and 3. An “inimical witness” is a witness who harbors animosity or ill-will towards the accused. Their testimony is subject to careful scrutiny and must be corroborated with other evidence due to the potential for bias or malicious intent. Enmity is a double-edged sword. It can be a ground for assault. It can also be a ground for false implication. Nonetheless, it is well settled that the testimony of witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the point of inimical background. Such a finding would be erroneous and would result in grave miscarriage of justice. But since the reliability of inimical witness is tainted by bias and interestedness, their testimony is warily evaluated. Their testimony should be corroborated with evidence,
judged with great caution and diligence and if the Court thinks that it is
creditworthy then it has to be admitted. Absence of such reassuring factors, the evidence must be eschewed.
52.In the case at hand, on evaluation of the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, there is no potent evidence on record which would establish the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt.
53.Further, it has come on record when PW6 was cross- examined that none of the elders were examined in order to show that on
Page 39 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda 23.05.2022, the accused came to the house of Pws.1 to 3 and they have threatened PW2 stating that they would spoil marriage alliances. Further, the so called parents of brides with whom the marriage alliances of PW2 were called off were not examined in the course of investigation by PW6 or by LW7/U. Suresh who laid charge sheet against the accused. As to why the elders and the parents of the brides were not examined by the prosecution must be left for the reasons that are better known to them.
Further, it is the assertion of the prosecution that PW2 had consumed pesticide poison and he was shifted to government hospital, Nalgonda for treatment. However, no medical record was filed by the prosecution and no record was exhibited as documentary evidence and the doctor who treated PW2 was not examined and he was not cited even as a prosecution witness. When PW2 was found to have consumed pesticide poison and underwent treatment, the prosecution is supposed to adduce evidence to that effect by examining the doctor and also by exhibiting relevant medical record. Why such medical record was not produce and why the doctor was not examined by the prosecution must be left for the reasons that are best known to the prosecution and the disposition of the prosecution is leaves much to be desired. Further, PW2 in his evidence testified that he was in the hospital undergoing treatment for 6 or 7 days.
Page 40 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda
Absolutely there is no record to establish the same and at the outset there is no proof at all to demonstrate that PW2 had in fact consumed pesticide poison by way of medical evidence and that he underwent treatment.
The evidence of PW4 is to the extent of demonstrating that crime details form and rough sketch and pesticide bottle were seized at the scene of offence. Admittedly, the incident had taken place at Dandampally village and PW4 is the resident of Reddy colony in Nalgonda Town and as to why a person residing in Reddy colony was chosen by the police to act as a panch witness rather than selecting a person who is the resident of
Dandampally village to be the panch witness is not explained by the prosecution. PW5 is the panch witness for confession panchanama of the accused. There is no discovery of a fact basing on the confession of the accused, therefore, the confession of the accused in the presence of the police and in the presence of PW5 has no evidentiary value. Section 24 of the Evidence Act says that a confession made by an accused is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the confession appears to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise and Section 25 of the Evidence Act says that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the person accused of an offence. Admittedly, as per the evidence of PW5 the accused were questioned by police and in the presence of police, the
Page 41 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda confession was reduced into writing and the accused have admitted their guilt of offence to the police and to him. Such confession has no evidentiary value and prosecution cannot rely on such confession.
Furthermore, the accused are the residents of Anneparthy village and the so called confession was conducted at the house of the accused, whereas
PW5 is the resident of Reddy colony which is in Nalgonda Town and as to why a person who is the resident of Reddy colony was taken to
Anneparthy village to the house of the accused to act as panch witness is not explained by the prosecution. The evidence of PW6 is on the lines of investigation. Therefore, his evidence alone cannot be said to be sufficient for proving the guilt of the accused.
54.Though the accused have led evidence but at the outset the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and thereafter the evidence of the accused can be relied or considered and even in the cross examination of DW1 nothing significant was elicited by the prosecution.
55.On comprehensive consideration of the evidence and the material placed before the Court, I am of the view that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Page 42 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda
One of the fundamental principles in Anglo-Saxon Criminal
Jurisprudence is that incontrovertibly the burden of proof precisely rests on the prosecution and it never shifts. There can be no gainsaying that conviction cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. It is also well settled principle that suspicion however grave cannot take the place of legal proof. The gravity of the offence cannot by itself over-weigh the legal proof. It is the duty of the prosecution to satisfy the Court that various circumstances in the chain of evidence are established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. The prosecution is expected to travel all the way from “may be true” to “must be true” to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore accused are entitled for acquittal.
RESULT
56.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.504 r/w 34, 506 (Part 1) r/w 34 and 306 r/w 511 IPC. Accordingly, the accused are acquitted u/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of accused shall continue to be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437 A Cr.P.C from the date of this judgment for preferring appeal to the higher court against this judgment by the prosecution or by the de-facto complainant or by the victim. The
Page 43 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda
MO.1/pesticide bottle shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period through committal court.
Typed to my dictation by Grade-I Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16 th day of April, 2025.
PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
NALGONDA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1 – Y. Renuka is the de facto complainant and younger sister of PW2
PW2 – S. Yadagiri is the victim
PW3 – S. Gangaiah is the eyewitness and father of PWs.1 and 2
PW4 – R. Anjaneyulu is the panch witness for crime details form and rough sketch
PW5 –S. Shiva Kumar is the Panch witness for the confessional panchanama of A1 to A3
PW6 – J. Gopal Rao is the 1st investigating officer who registered the case and investigated the case
FOR DEFENCE:
DW1: Pogaku Sreenu
Page 44 of 44
Judgment dt.16.04.2025 in Sessions Case No.545 of 2022 of Prl. ASJ, Nalgonda
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW1
Ex.P2 is the wedding card with photos which were taken when the marriage of PW2 was fixed with the daughter of Doti Yadaiah
Ex.P3 is the crime details form
Ex.P4 is the rough sketch
Ex.P5 is the FIR
Ex.P6 is the acknowledged copy of requisition addressed to the
Superintendent, Government Hospital, Nalgonda
FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the charge sheet in FIR No.294 of 2021 by PS Nalgonda Rural
Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the charge sheet in FIR No.136 of 2021 of PS Nalgonda Rural
Ex.D3 is the attested copy of charge sheet in FIR No.150 of 2022 of PS Nalgonda II Town
MATERIAL OBJECT:
M.O.1 is the pesticide bottle
PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
NALGONDA