1/26 S.C No.62 of 2024
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
AT NIRMAL
Present:-
Smt. G. Radhika,
Assistant Sessions Judge, Nirmal
Monday, this the 20th day of April, 2026
S essions C ase No. 62 of 202 4
(On committal by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa by order, dated 05.09.2024 in P.R.C. No.27 of 2023 in Crime No.39 of 2023 of P.S. Bhainsa Town)
Name of : The State of Telangana through Sub ComplainantInspector of Police, P.S. Bhainsa Town.
Name of accused: 1)Pitlolla Rahul @ Raju, S/o.Pitlolla Lingaiah, Age : 24 years, Caste : Bestha, Occ : Private Employee,
2) Pitla Lingaiah, S/o.Pitla Gangaram, Age : 47 years, Caste : Bestha, Occ : Record Assistant at Government Jr. College,
3) Pitla Meena, W/o.Pitla Lingaiah, Age : 42 years, Caste : Bestha, Occ : AWT Teacher, A1 to A3 are R/o.H.No.1-4-61, Battigally (A1), Boyagalli of Bhainsa Town.
4)Dumpalwar Mamatha, W/o.Prakash, Age : 35 years, Caste : Bestha, Occ : Housewife,
5) Dumpalwar Prakash, S/o.Lingam, Age : 41 years, Caste : Bestha, Occ : Labour, A4 and A5 are R/o.H.No.1-4-101/a, Boyagally of Bhainsa Town.
2/26 S.C No.62 of 2024
Nature of Offence: Under Section 294-B, 323, 324 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC
Plea of accused: Not guilty
Finding of the Court: Found not guilty
Sentence /Order: In the result, the accused No.1 is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 323 of IPC and then Accused No.2 to 5 are also acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand canceled after a period of six months in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO1- Wrist ring (Kadem) is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period.
Counsel for the : Sri K. Vinod Rao, Public Prosecutor, In prosecutioncharge Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for defence: Sri D.Rajashekhar, Counsel for accused
This Case is coming before me for final hearing on 01.04.2026 in the presence of Sri K. Vinod Rao, Public Prosecutor, In charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri D.Rajashekhar, learned Counsel for Accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following : **************
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Accused No.1 is tried for the offence punishable under section 307 and section 323 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) whereas accused no.2 to 5 are tried for the offence punishable under sections 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC.
3/26 S.C No.62 of 2024
2. The case of prosecution is that on 19.03.2023 at 1900 hours the defacto complainant/Potpelliwar Uma came to Bhainsa town police station and lodged a Telugu written petition stating that on 19.03.2023 at 1100 hours, while her husband namely Potpelliwar
Raju/LW2 was cleaning the garbage, informing her that unknown persons dropped bottle pieces in front of their house. On hearing the same, their neighbors namely Pitla Lingaiah/A2, his wife
Meena/A3 came there and abused LW2 in filthy language and beat him with hands. Later, accused no.3, who is son of accused no.2 and 3 came there and beat her husband with wrist ring over his head and when she tried to rescue LW2, they also beat her.
LW3/Bapurao and LW4/Poshetty who are their neighbors, rescued her and LW2 from the clutches of the accused persons. As such she requested to take necessary action.
3.Basing on the complaint of LW1, LW10/Md. Sadiqu Hussain,
Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Bhainsa Town registered a case in Crime No.39/2023 under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation.
4/26 S.C No.62 of 2024
4.During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of the LW1. Subsequently, the injured/Potpelliwar Raju was sent to Government Area Hospital,
Bhainsa for treatment. Thereafter, LW10 sent requisition to the duty doctor/LW9 to provide treatment and issue certificate. On 20.03.2023, he visited the scene of offence situated at Battigally of
Bhainsa and observed the scene minutely and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence, prepared the Crime Details Form in the presence of LW5/Tharadapolla Krishna and LW6/Mantholla
Sandesh. Later, LW10 examined and recorded the statements of
LW2/Potpelliwar Raju, LW3/Allem Bapurao, LW4/Ravulawar
Poshetty. While the efforts are in progress, he apprehend the accused no.1 on 06.04.2023, and took them into custody at 12:00 hrs at his residence, then commenced interrogation. During the course of interrogation, accused no.1 admitted to have committed the offence, immediately, LW10 conducted confession panchanama of the accused in the presence of LW7/Suryavamshi Dayanand and LW8/Chandre Uttam. Basing on the confession of accused no.1, he has seized the crime weapon i.e. wrist ring/kadem under the cover of panchanama. Later, he brought the accused no.1 to the Police Station, on the same day i.e. on 06-04-2023 at 12:00 5/26 S.C No.62 of 2024 hours and he affected the arrest of accused no.1 duly complying all legal formalities under sections 50 and 50(a) the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Then, LW10 produced the accused no.1
before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa for judicial
remand.
5.On 19.04.2023, LW10 received information through letter
Dis.No:287/2023 dated 19.04.2023 that accused No.2 and 3 surrender before the court on 18.04.2023. On 20.04.2023, accused No.4 and 5 came to Police Station and voluntarily surrendered before him. Later, LW10 took them to custody and interrogated them, on interrogation they admitted their guilty and confessed to have committed this offence. Later, LW10 served
Notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C to the accused persons and instructed them to appear before the court for facing trial and released them on personal bond. Later, LW10 deposited the case property before the Court at Bhainsa vide Case Property No:
245/2023. During the course of the investigation, LW10 collected the Medical certificate of the injured/LW2 from LW9 in which,
LW9 opined that the injuries received by the injured are "Simple in
Nature".
6/26 S.C No.62 of 2024
6.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa took cognizance of the offence under Section 307 of IPC against the accused No.1 and under Section 294(b), 323 and 324 r/w 34 of
IPC against accused No.2 to 5 and registered the case as PRC
No.27/2023. After securing presence of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207
Cr.P.C. Since the accusation is well founded for the offence under
Section 307 IPC, which is exclusively triable by the court of
Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa
committed the case under Section 209 (a) Cr.P.C to the Hon’ble court of Sessions, Nirmal, as per the orders dated 05.09.2024 in
PRC.No.27/2023.
7.The Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Nirmal took the case on file for the offence under Section 307 of IPC against accused No.1 and for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 r/w 34 of IPC against accused No.2 to 5 and registered it as Sessions Case No.62 of 2024 and made over it to this Court for disposal according to law.
7/26 S.C No.62 of 2024 8.Accused No.1 to 5 appeared before this court and after hearing both side counsels and after perusing the case record, charge under Section 307 and 323 of IPC was framed against the accused No.1, and charge under Section 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC was framed against accused No.2 to 5, read over and explained the same to the accused, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9.In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined all together 9 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 besides marking M.O.1/Wrist ring (Kadem). On behalf of accused Ex.D1- out patient ticket of Mamatha/A4 was marked.
10.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 5 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining them about the incriminatory circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence, as such the defence evidence was closed.
11.During hearing the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW2 who is injured witness is crucial to the case 8/26 S.C No.62 of 2024 and then his evidence alone is sufficient to convict the accused.
In support of his submissions the learned prosecutor relied on the following citations;
1. In Lakshman Singh Vs. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal
No.630-631 and 2021-SC,the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld convictions for rioting and causing hurt, affirming that the testimony of an injured witness holds high evidentiary value and that all members of an unlawful assembly are vicariously liable. Addressing a 1989 election-related incident of booth capturing and assault, the
Court emphasized that such electoral offenses must be handled with an iron hand, thus affirming the six-month sentence.
2. In Mohd. Aslam Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2001 SC 1810,the Hon’ble Apex Court relied significantly on the testimony of reliable eyewitnesses who identified the assailants in a properly conducted test identification parade, ruling that minor procedural lapses or the occurrence of the crime at night did not vitiate their evidence. Additionally, the Court affirmed the recovery of lethal weapons from Aslam's residence, emphasizing that the hostile testimony of "panch" (independent) witnesses does not 9/26 S.C No.62 of 2024 automatically invalidate a recovery if the seizing officer's account is credible and substantiated by physical evidence produced in court.
3. In Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. Vs. State of
Gujarat, reported in AIR 2011 SC (SUPP) 577,the Hon’ble Court reinforced the legal principle that witnesses may lie but circumstances do not, establishing that a conviction can be sustained entirely on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
Key evidence included the recovery of blood-stained weapons (knives) and a motorcycle, as well as a blood-stained loan application form bearing the first appellant’s name found at the crime scene. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the testimony of a hostile witness is not discarded in its entirety but can be relied upon to the extent it remains reliable and corroborates other evidence. It also ruled that the evidence of investigating officers should be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be rejected solely because they are public servants interested in the case's success.
4. In Vanka Narasimha Murthy Vs. State of A.P, reported in 2000(2) ALT (Crl.) 457 (A.P), the Hon’ble Court upheld the conviction, affirming that inconsistent statements by witnesses in 10/26 S.C No.62 of 2024 cross-examination do not automatically invalidate their entire evidence if a competent expert’s account remains credible.
5.In Kholi Laxman Bhain Chanabhai Vs. State of Gujarath, reported in (16.11.1999) SC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reinforced the critical evidentiary principle that the testimony of a hostile witness is not completely "washed off the record" or automatically discarded. The Court ruled that even if a witness is declared hostile, their evidence remains admissible and can be relied upon to the extent that it supports the prosecution’s version, provided it is corroborated by other reliable evidence. In this specific case, the Court upheld the murder conviction by selectively relying on the dependable portions of a hostile eyewitness's testimony, which was further strengthened by the recovery of a blood-stained knife and clothing belonging to the accused. This judgment remains a key authority for the rule that courts are not barred from basing a conviction on the corroborated testimony of a hostile witness.
12.On the other hand, the learned defense counsel submitted that accused persons are the victims in the hands of PW1 & PW2.
He further contended that PW1 and PW2 abused accused persons for no reason and beat accused no.4 who suffered hand injury. He 11/26 S.C No.62 of 2024 further contended that PW2 sustained injuries accidentally and those injuries are not caused by accused. Finally he contended that there is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged offense. In support of his defense, he also relied on the following citation;
In Sivamani and Anr. vs. State Rep. by Vellore Police (2023 INSC 1027), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on
November 28, 2023, modified the conviction of appellants from
Section 307 of IPC to Sections 323/324 of IPC, noting that the victims sustained only simple injuries, no vital parts were hit, and the requisite intent to cause death was not established, thereby reducing the imprisonment from 10 years to the period already served.
13.Perused the entire material on record. Now the point for consideration are;
1) Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the
accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 307
and 323 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?
2) Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the
accused No.2 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section
294(b) r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?
12/26 S.C No.62 of 2024
14.Offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under
Section 307 of IPC is constituted by the concurrence of mens rea followed by an actus-reus. An intent per-se is not an attempt. It implies purpose and attempt is an actual effort made in execution of the purpose. The attempt for purpose of section 307 of IPC should stem from a specific intention to commit murder. The nature of the weapon used, the manner in which it is used, motive of the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury was inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention of the accused.
15.One of the main ingredients of section 307 of IPC is that the accused must have intention or knowledge that the act intended to be done, to cause the death of victim. In the case on hand, accused and victim are belongs to the same village and are neighbors.
16.PW1 is the wife of victim and informant in this case, PW2 is the victim and PW3 and PW4 are the independent eye witnesses and also neighbors of PW1 and accused, PW5 cited as one of the panch witness for CDF, PW6 and PW7 are panch witnesses to the 13/26 S.C No.62 of 2024 confession of A1 and also seizure panchanama, PW8 is the doctor who examined PW2 on the date of alleged incident and issued wound certificate/Ex.P8 and PW9 is the Investigating Officer.
POINT NO1 & 2:
17.Serious allegations are leveled against Accused no.1.
According to prosecution, he caused injury to PW2 on his head with MO.1 with an intention to kill him. To prove the same, prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW1 to 4. So, it is appropriate to reproduce their evidence hereunder;
18.PW1 deposed before this court that about 2 years ago, at about 11.00 a.m, when PW2 was sweeping in front of their house, informing her about glass pieces, A1 to A5 came there and beat
PW2 with MO.1 as such, PW2 sustained head injury. She intervened, PW3 and PW4 also came there and stopped accused.
Then she took PW2 to government hospital, Bhainsa for treatment and later, she lodged complaint with Police.
19.During cross-examination, she admitted that she is illiterate and Ex.P1 was scribed by police. Her house and house of accused are separated by three houses. The house of PW3 situated beside 14/26 S.C No.62 of 2024 her house, the accused also resides besides their house. She stated that there were no talking terms between them and accused. She admitted that there were cordial relations between them and accused prior to the incident. She also stated that when
PW2 was scolding the persons who threw garbage in their open place, A2 to A5 presumed that PW2 was scolding them, then they all came to the spot. She admitted that the house of accused situated adjacent to their open place. She also admitted that initially A1 was not in the spot. She denied that during the fight herself and PW2 beat accused No.4 due to which she suffered hand injury, the villagers separated them. She admitted that A2 and A3 are government employees. She denied the rest of suggestions given by learned defence counsel regarding the defence of accused.
20.PW2 deposed that all the accused reside opposite to their house, about two years ago, unknown persons laid glass pieces in his plot which is existing in front of his house. While he was clearing them, informing PW1 about glass pieces, accused thought that they were abusing them, then A2 and A3, one Lingu Ram and sister of A3 beat him, after one hour A1 came and beat him with 15/26 S.C No.62 of 2024
MO.1 on the back side of his head. Then PW3 and PW4 rescued him, if not, A1 could have killed him, when PW1 came to his rescue, accused threw her down to a corner.
21.During cross-examination, he stated that there were cordial talks between him and accused prior to the incident. He was treated as out patient at government hospital. He admitted that he scolded the persons who were responsible for throwing glass pieces and garbage in their open place. He admitted that house of accused situated adjacent to said open place. He denied that he and PW1 abused accused, when accused questioned them in a polite manner, they attacked A4 due to which she suffered hand injury. He denied that he sustained injuries as he fell down accidentally at the spot and contacted broken glass pieces. He admitted that initially A1 was not at the spot. He denied the rest of the suggestions.
22.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, who are wife and husband and also victims, it is observed that though their evidence holds higher value as they sustained injuries in the hands of accused persons as stated by the hon’ble apex court in 16/26 S.C No.62 of 2024
Lakshman Singh Vs. State of Bihar, but their evidence is contradicting with each other regarding alleged beating of PW2 by accused no.1 and also beating of PW1 by accused persons. Their evidence is completely silent regarding alleged threat given by
Accused no.1 against PW2 and also abusive words uttered by all the accused against them. For the first time, PW1 and PW2 in their cross-examination admitted that they have abused the persons who were responsible for throwing garbage and glass pieces in their open place. Further, the evidence of PW1 is contradicting with the averments of Ex.P1 and also her statement given to police. Even, the evidence of PW2 is also contradicting with the evidence of PW1 and averments of his statement given to police.
23.No doubt , PW1 and PW2 are interested witness in success of the case, but, as per the version of prosecution PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries in the hands of accused, as such, their evidence is crucial to decide the case and it must be supported by independent evidence. It is the defense of the accused that on the date of alleged incident, PW1 and PW2 abused all the accused persons, when they questioned, PW1 and PW2, beat Accused no.4 17/26 S.C No.62 of 2024 due to which she sustained hand injury but police did not entertain their complaint. In these circumstances, the evidence of
PW3 and PW4 who cited as independent eye witnesses and also
PW8, who is the doctor examined PW2 as well as accused No.4, on the date of alleged incident, are crucial to the case.
24.PW3 deposed that about 2 years ago, in the morning hours, he heard galata and came out. He noticed that Accused no.1 and
PW2 were holding collars of each other and then he stopped
Accused no.1 from beating. Since PW3 did not support the case of prosecution completely and also gave contradictory statement about Accused no.1 and PW2, learned APP declared him as hostile and cross-examined him with the leave of the court. During cross-examination, PW3 admitted that all the accused were present at the place of the incident, PW1 was also present, he denied his statement given to police, he admitted that he intervened and rescued PW2.
25.PW4 deposed before this court that two years ago, between 11.00 a.m, and 12.00 noon, while PW2 was sweeping his house, there was a quarrel regarding clearing of glass pieces and accused 18/26 S.C No.62 of 2024 stated that they did not threw said glass pieces, in this regard quarrel took place. Then he left from the spot, after two hours, when he returned, he came to know that PW2 was taken to hospital. Since, PW4 did not support the case of prosecution completely and also gave contradictory statement about accused and PW2, learned APP declared him as hostile and cross-examined him with the leave of the court. During cross-examination, he stated that while PW2 was sweeping garbage by informing the same to PW1, accused went there and picked up quarrel with him.
He denied that he witnessed while accused were beating PW2 and
Accused no.1 beating PW2 with MO1 and he rescued PW2. He admitted that PW1 was also pushed aside by accused. He denied his statement given to police, but he volunteered that he witnessed while Accused no.1 was beating PW2 with MO1.
26.According, prosecution PW3 and PW4 are independent eye witness but they did not support the case of prosecution in toto as such the learned public prosecutor declared these witness as hostile and cross examined them with the leave of the court but nothing important elicited in support of his case. As stated by the
Hon’ble Court in Kholi Laxman Bhain Chanabhai Vs. State of
19/26 S.C No.62 of 2024
Gujarath, that the evidence of hostile witness cannot be washed off completely but the part which is relevant to the case of prosecution need to be taken into consideration. But PW3 and
PW4 deposed in one voice that they went to the spot on hearing the quarrel and they never stated that they witnessed the incident.
However, PW3 and PW4 deposed different versions about the incident. Surprisingly, PW3 stated that he rescued PW2 whereas
PW4 stated that he witnessed while Accused no.1 was beating
PW2 with MO1. In the circumstances and also in the absence of convincing and cogent evidence, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PW3 and PW4 completely. However, from the evidence of PWs1 to 4, it can be safely presumed that on the date of alleged incident there was a fight between both the parties regarding throwing garbage in the open place of PW1 and PW2.
27.Now, the crucial witness is PW7 who examined PW2 on the date of alleged incident and issued Ex.P8/wound certificate.
According to PW8, he received requisition/Ex.P7 from the police.
Accordingly, he examined and noted three injuries namely
Lacerations over left temporal region, and behind the left ear, and abrasion over elbow front and back. He also stated that said 20/26 S.C No.62 of 2024 injuries can be caused by blunt object, are simple in nature and age of those injuries is 2 to 3 hours prior to his examination.
28.During cross-examination, he admitted that Ex.P8 did not contain the identification marks of PW2, date and time of admission, discharge details and In Patient number. He stated that PW2 came to hospital on his own. The learned defence counsel confronted Ex.D1/out patient ticket of injured/Mamatha (Accused no.4), for which PW8 admitted that he issued Ex.D1 on the same day of examination of PW2, wherein he has mentioned that Mamatha reported that she sustained injury as neighbors beat her.
29.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 also contradicting with number of injuries sustained by PW2. According to PW1 and
PW2, PW2 sustained one head injury. PW3 and PW4 did not specifically state that on that day, PW2 sustained head injury.
Moreover, PW8 admitted Ex.D1 which discloses that on the date of alleged incident, Accused no.4 reported assault by the neighbors at Battigally of Bhainsa and sustained injury to her left arm. In these circumstances, this court finds some force in the defence of 21/26 S.C No.62 of 2024 the accused persons that PW1 and PW2 abused them regarding throwing of garbage in front of their house, attacking of Accused no.4 etc.
30.The evidence of PW5 who cited as one of the panch witness for CDF is also inconsistent regarding alleged visit by police to the scene of the incident and preparing CDF as he stated in his chief examination that police visited spot and prepared CDF with rough sketch after enquiry and obtaining his signature on CDF. But, during cross-examination he stated that CDF not drafted in his presence and he added that police brought draft rough sketch to the spot.
31.PW6 and PW7 who cited as panch witnesses for alleged confession of Accused no.1 and also seizure of MO.1 under the cover of panchanama basing on the confession of Accused no.1.
As per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, the confession of accused which lead to the seizure of material object is relevant.
But in the case on hand, PW6 and PW7 completely turned hostile, as such, the learned APP declared them as hostile and cross- examined them with the leave of the court but nothing is elicited 22/26 S.C No.62 of 2024 in support of his case. Therefore, it is safely presumed that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged seizure of MO1 from the possession of Accused no.1.
32.PW9 is the investigating officer who deposed about his investigation in chronological order. During cross-examination he admitted that the distance between scene of incident spot and police station is 400 yards, Ex.P1 is lodged after 8 hours of the incident, his investigation not revealed any cases and any quarrel between Accused no.1 and injured family, Ex.P1 was scribed by
PW1, he has no idea whether Accused no.4 presented report on the same day alleging that she sustained injury in the hands of family members of PW2. He denied that he did not receive any report from A4. He does not know whether Accused no.4 got treated in government hospital, Bhainsa. He admitted that charge-sheet does not disclose that A2 to A4 attacked PW2 with any weapon. He denied the rest of the suggestions given by the learned defence counsel touching several lapses in his investigation.
23/26 S.C No.62 of 2024
33.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW9, it is observed that he did not investigate the case properly and it appears that he filed a formal charge-sheet, because PW1 clearly deposed before this court that she is illiterate and Ex.P1 was scribed by police. But, the same is denied by PW9 stating that Ex.P1 scribed by PW1.
PW9 pleaded ignorance about the injury sustained by Accused no.4 on the date and during relevant time of the alleged incident.
At this juncture, this court is inclined to refer the below decision of the hon’ble Apex Court which is squarely applicable to the present set of facts;
34.In Krishnegowda and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2017 SC 1657, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India set aside a High Court conviction and restored a trial court's acquittal, ruling that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused due to material contradictions, inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, and serious investigative lapses. The Court deemed the eyewitness testimony untrustworthy, thereby reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
24/26 S.C No.62 of 2024
35.In the light of the above discussion and also serious lapses appearing in the investigation of PW9 and also several contradictions appearing in the evidence of PW1 and PW2, and also considering the defence of accused especially admission of
Ex.D1 by PW8, this court is of the view that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, these points are answered.
36. In the result, the accused No.1 is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 323 of IPC and then Accused No.2 to 5 are also acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand canceled after a period of six months in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO1-Wrist ring (Kadem) is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer and after corrections
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20 th day of April, 2026.
Sd/-
Assistant Sessions Judge, Nirmal 25/26 S.C No.62 of 2024
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution:- For Defence:-
PW1 : P. Uma None PW2 : P. Raju PW3 : A. Bapu Rao PW4 : R. Poshetty PW5 : M. Sandesh PW6 : Chandre Utham PW7 : Surya Vamshi Dayanand PW8 : Dr.B.Siddarth PW9 : M.D. Sadiq Hussain
Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution:-
Ex.P1 : Report Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P4 : Crime Details Form with rough sketch Ex.P5 : Signature of PW6 on Confession-and- Seizure panchanama Ex.P6 : Signature of PW7 on Confession and Seizure panchanama Ex.P7 : Requisition to Medical Officer Ex.P8 : Injury Certificate of P.Raju/PW2 Ex.P9 : First Information Report Ex.P10: Relevant portion of Confession and Seizure panchanama dated 06.04.2023 Ex.P11: Section Adding Memo
For Defence:-
Ex.D1: Out patient ticket of Mamatha 26/26 S.C No.62 of 2024
Material Objects
MO1: Wrist Ring (Kadem)
Sd/-
Assistant Sessions Judge, Nirmal