Sri. K. Prabhakara Rao

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

Present:

Sri.K.Prabhakara Rao,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Adilabad

Wednesday, the 15th day of April, 2026

SC.NO.33 of 202 5

(On committal by Smt Mounika Ponnapalli, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor, by order dated 19.05.2025 in PRC.No.18 of 2024 in Cr.No.109 of 2024 of PS Utnoor)

Name of the ComplainantState represented by Circle Inspector of Police, Utnoor. Name of the AccusedA1:Darshana Raju S/o Rajanna, Age:38years,Caste:SC Nethakani, Occ:Coolie, R/o Old Utnoor of Utnoor Mandal (died on 10.06.2025, case abated on 18.07.2025). A2:Darshana Haritha W/o Raju, Age:33 years, Caste: SC Nethakani, Occ:Coolie, R/o Old Utnoor of Utnoor Mandal.

Charge/s294(b) and 302 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 and A2 Plea of accusedNot Guilty Finding of JudgeNot Guilty Prosecution conducted by: Sri Ahmed Abdul Raheem, Public Prosecutor, Adilabad Accused defended by:Sri.Banda Ram, Advocate for accused No.2 Sentence or OrderIn the result, Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 302 r/w 34 IPC and she is accordingly acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused No.2 shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A CrPC. MOs.1 to 3 deposited videCP.No.29/2025shallbe

SC.No.33 of 2025

2 destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

This case is coming on 07.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ahmed Abdul Raheem, Public Prosecutor for State and Sri.Banda Ram, Advocate for accused No.2 and on considering the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Circle Inspector of Police, Utnoor filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.109/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b) and 302 r/w 34 of

IPC.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

a)Deceased Rathod Mohan belongs to Old Utnoor was working as Senior Assistant in RDO Office, Bhainsa, accused No.1 was working as Mason in Old Utnoor and neighbour to deceased whereas accused No.2 is wife of accused No.1, accused No.1 had three brothers and they were 34 guntas in Sy.No.386 at Old Utnoor and they all distributed the property by sharing 11 guntas of land each. The elder brother of deceased namely, Rajanna sold his 2 guntas of land situated beside BT road leading towards Ram Mandir to Old Utnoor to the deceased in the year 2012, since then there were disputes in between deceased and accused No.1 for pathway, deceased removed his old tin shed and constructing a new RCC

SC.No.33 of 2025

3 building in the same land, in that connection accused No.1 and his wife/A2 hatched a plan to end the life of deceased.

b)On 22.05.2024 at about 11.30 hours while deceased and his son/PW2 along with labours were working at his newly constructing house, A1 and his wife A2 picked quarrel with deceased and A1 attacked him with stone over his head and A2 also beat him with stick with an intention to kill him, resulting which deceased sustained bleeding injuries over his head, meanwhile PW2 interfered into the quarrel in rescue of his deceased father from the clutches of accused Nos.1 and 2 but accused No.2 beat PW2 with stick resulting which he sustained injuries over his back, later PW2 with the help of his friend shifted his deceased father to CHC, Utnoor for treatment and later he was referred to RIMS, Adilabad and from there to

Hyderabad but on 24.05.2024 at about 3.00 hours deceased died with severe head injury while undergoing treatment at EXCEL hospital, Secunderabad.

c)PW1/Rathod Nithish, elder son of deceased lodged report on 23.05.2024 at 11.00 hours, basing on the said complaint,

PW14/K.Manohar, SI of police registered the case in Cr.No.109/2024 under Sections 294(b), 307 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR, rushed to scene of offence, examined and recorded the statement of LWs 1 to 11, in the presence of mediators conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch, received death intimation of

SC.No.33 of 2025

4 deceased, basing on the statement of the wife of deceased i.e.

LW2/Sarojabai, he altered the Section of law to 302 IPC.

d)Subsequently, PW15/G.Mogili, CI of Police took up further investigation, rushed to the scene of offence and later rushed to mortuary room at Govt.Hospital, Utnoor, observed the dead body of deceased and in the presence of mediators conducted inquest over the dead body by obtaining photographs, subjected the dead body for PME, in turn PW13/Dr.Nikisha Reddy conducted PME, sent the viscera to FSL for analysis, on 25.05.2024 at 7.00 hours, PW15 rushed to Old Utnoor and apprehended A1 and A2 and on interrogation they confessed to have committed the offence and in pursuance of their confession seized crime weapons stone and stick from A1 and A2, arrested them and sent for judicial remand, later received FSL report, got examined the statements of witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. through Magistrate. After completion of the investigation PW15 filed the charge sheet against the accused

Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC.

3.Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 302, 294(b) r/w 34 IPC against accused Nos.1 and 2. On appearance of accused Nos.1 and 2 and after complying the procedure required under Sections 207 and 209

SC.No.33 of 2025

5

Cr.P.C. case was committed to this court and numbered as SC.33 of 2025. Subsequently, police filed death certificate of accused No.1 submitting that he died on 10.06.2025, hence the case against accused No.1 was abated on 18.07.2025.

4.On appearance of accused No.2 and on hearing both sides, this court framed charge under Sections 294(b) and 302 r/w 34 of IPC against A2, read over and explained to her. She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial PWs 1 to 15 examined, Exs.P1 to P14 and MOs 1 to 3 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence adduced through defence.

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused No.2 examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating substance appearing against her, for which she denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.The learned Public Prosecutor argued that in order to prove the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 15 examined, Exs.P1 to P14 and

MOs.1 to 3 marked on behalf of the prosecution, in the oral evidence

SC.No.33 of 2025

6 of the prosecution witnesses they have categorically deposed that the accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention abused the deceased in filthy language, later killed him by using

MO.1 wooden log and MO.3 stone.

He further argued that the cause of death was proved by examining PWs 12 and 13 by marking Exs.P9 to P11. He further argued that PWs 1 to 4 are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident and they clearly deposed how the accused Nos.1 and 2 abused and beat the deceased by using MOs.1 and 3, as such the accused No.2 is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC.

9.Per contra the learned counsel for the accused argued that when the Ex.P1 First Information report submitted by PW1 before

SHO, Utnoor wherein she did not mention that the accused No.2 beat the deceased by using MO.1 wooden log, subsequently the investigation officer planted the witnesses and developed the version in the statements of the witnesses that the accused No.2 also beat the deceased by using MO.1 wooden log, it shows the doubt in the case of the prosecution, hence the accused No.2 is entitled for acquittal for the alleged charges.

He further argued that no independent witnesses examined, the motive for the offence was not proved, as such the accused No.2

SC.No.33 of 2025

7 is entitled for acquittal. He further argued that the objects like

MOs.1 and 3 may be available at any place, as per the prosecution story those are containing blood stains but on seeing them, those were not containing the blood stains, it also shows doubt in the case of the prosecution.

He further argued that only to implicate the accused No.2 in a serious offence like 302 r/w 34 IPC, the investigation officer planted all the witnesses and recorded their statements to suit their case, hence the accused No.2 is entitled for acquittal for the alleged offence.

10.Now this court will scrutinize the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution whether it is sufficient to believe that the accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired together and killed the deceased by chasing him from in front of Dubai Pan shop to Raj

Hospital with the help of MOs 1, 2 and 18 and does committed the offence punishable under Sections 120B and 302 r/w 34 IPC.

11.Upon hearing both sides, considering the facts of the present case, the following points arise for determination:

1.Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the death of the deceased Rathod Mohan is homicidal or not?

2.Whether the prosecution is able to prove that the accused No.2 in furtherance of her common

SC.No.33 of 2025

8 intention with accused No.1 abused the deceased in filthy language, later beat the deceased by using MO.1 wooden log punishable under Sections 294(b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC?

POINT No.1:

12.In this case, after the incident the deceased was admitted in

Excel Hospital, Old Alwal, Secunderabad for treatment, while undergoing treatment the deceased was died on 24.05.2024 at 3 a.m. In order to prove the said fact the prosecution examined

PW12/Dr.M.V.Goverdhan Rao who treated the deceased. In his examination PW12 deposed that as per hospital records the cause of death is Cardio Pulmonary arrest, which means heart and lungs function was completely stoppage and in the death report, it was not specifically mentioned that the Cardio Pulmonary arrest of the deceased was due to head injury.

13.PW13/Dr.Nikisha Reddy who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, as per her evidence on 24.05.2024 she conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued

Ex.P9 preliminary postmortem examination report and Ex.P11 final opinion stating that the cause of the death is due to head trauma.

The above said versions of PWs 12 and 13 are contradictory to each other. As per the version of PW12 who treated the deceased, the injured died due to cardio pulmonary arrest. As per the evidence of

SC.No.33 of 2025

9

PW13 who conducted autopsy the deceased died due to head trauma. In the said circumstances the evidence of PW12 is relevant and trustworthy to come to a conclusion with regard to the cause of the death of the deceased, hence this court comes to the conclusion that the deceased died due to cardio pulmonary arrest and in his evidence PW12 categorically deposed that the death report not containing that the cardio pulmonary arrest of the deceased was due to head injury. As such, the prosecution failed to prove the cause of the death is head injury as alleged. Accordingly the Point No.1 is answered against the prosecution.

POINT No.2:

14.In this case PW1 is son of the deceased and who lodged Ex.P1 in police station and set the law into motion. As can be seen from

Ex.P1 first information report submitted by the PW1 before the SHO,

Utnoor wherein he mentioned that accused No.2 beat the PW2

Rathod Tarun by using MO.1 wooden log. Even in his statement recorded at the earliest point of time under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he stated that the accused No.2 beat his brother Rathod Tarun/PW2 by using MO.1 wooden log. Even in his statement PW2/Rathod Tarun stated that the accused No.2 beat him by using wooden log while he tried to stop the accused Nos.1 and 2. Subsequently, he developed

SC.No.33 of 2025

10 the version that the accused No.2 also beat his father by using wooden log and threatened with dire consequences.

15.In this case PW2 is eye witness-cum-injured, as per his evidence the accused No.2 beat him by using MO.1 wooden log as a result he fell down on ground and received abrasions to his hand but the prosecution did not place any material before the court to show that the PW2 received abrasions when he was allegedly beaten by accused No.2. In his chief examination PW2 nowhere stated that the accused No.2 beat his father by using wooden log. In this case PW2 is eye witness, as per his evidence accused No.2 did not beat the deceased by using wooden log.

16.PW3 is also one of the alleged eye witnesses, as per her evidence accused No.2 beat the deceased Mohan by using stick as a result the deceased Mohan received bleeding injuries and fell down.

Later the PW2 came to the spot, by then accused No.2 beat him by using a stick and she witnessed the said incident. The above said version of the PW3 showing that PW2 is not eye witness when the accused allegedly beat the deceased. The cross-examination of PW3 reveled that herself and deceased belong to same community.

SC.No.33 of 2025

11

17.PW4 is another eye witness to the alleged incident, as per his evidence the accused No.1 picked up stone and beat the deceased

Mohan, later accused No.2 beat the deceased by using stick, later

PW2 came to the spot and tried to stop the accused, by then accused No.2 beat him by using stick. The said version of PW4 is also showing that the PW2 is not eye witness to the alleged incident.

The said version of PW4 is also developed one, which is not inspiring the confidence of the court regarding the alleged incident.

18.PW5 is not eye witness to the alleged incident and he is only hearsay witness.

19.Even as can be seen from the evidence of PW6, the PW2 is not an eye witness to the alleged incident. As per his evidence accused

No.2 beat the deceased by using MO.1 wooden log. But the doctors have not found any injuries on the backside of the deceased allegedly have been caused by the PW2 by using MO.1 wooden log.

The cross-examination of PW6 also revealed that he and deceased belong to same caste. As such, the testimony of PW6 is also not inspiring the confidence of the court.

20.PW7 is the photographer who photographed the dead body of the deceased. PW8 is the mediator for the observation of the scene

SC.No.33 of 2025

12 of offence. As per the version of the prosecution, after the alleged incident the accused Nos.1 and 2 left the scene of offence by leaving

MOs.1 and 3 but PW8 mediator for the observation for the scene of offence has not found the MOs.1 and 3 at the time of the observation of the scene of offence, as such the testimony of PW8 is doubtful regarding the observation of the scene of offence.

21.PW9 is the mediator for the inquest and preparation of Ex.P6 inquest panchanama, in his cross-examination he admitted that there are several corrections and over-writings in Ex.P6 inquest panchanama.

22.PW10 is the mediator for the confession-cum-seizure panchanama, as per his evidence the accused Nos.1 and 2 confessed that they beat the deceased by using MOs.1 and 3 and in pursuance of their confession the police seized the same. Initially he did not support the version of the prosecution, later he was declared as hostile, during his examination by the Public Prosecutor he identified the confession statement, seizure panchanama and MOs.1 to 3. He further stated that he has not found any blood stains over

MOs.1 to 3. PW11 is another mediator for the confession-cum- seizure of MOs.1 and 3, he also did not support the version of the prosecution.

SC.No.33 of 2025

13

23.PW14 is the SI of Police who received the Ex.P1 and issued

Ex.P12 FIR, initially he recorded the statements of PWs 2 to 5 and other witnesses, after the death of the deceased he altered section of law by adding Section 302 IPC and issued Ex.P13 Section

Alteration Memo, dated 25.04.2025 and handed over the CD file to the CI of Police, Utnoor. In his cross-examination PW14 deposed that as per the statements of the witnesses recorded by him the deceased sustained bleeding injury and fell down at the scene of offence. But MOs.1 and 3 are not containing blood stains. Further the investigation officer did not collect the blood stained earth and control earth at the scene of offence. He also admitted that in Ex.P1 report PW1 did not state that the accused No.2 beat the deceased at the time of alleged incident. In this case the investigation officer who filed the charge sheet did not file the statements recorded by

PW14 which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. PW15 is the investigation officer who conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

24.In this case, as can be seen from Ex.P6 inquest the said inquest panchanama was conducted on 24.05.2024 from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m.

but as can be seen from Ex.P9 postmortem examination report in

Column No.4 it was noted that the date and time of receipt of

SC.No.33 of 2025

14 requisition as 1.10 p.m., the autopsy was commenced at 1.30 p.m.

and concluded at 4 p.m. The above said discrepancy is showing any amount of doubt in the evidence of the prosecution whether the PWs 14 and 15 have done the investigation under correct lines.

25.As can be seen from the confession-cum-seizure panchanama,

dated 25.05.2024, the date and time was altered. The investigation

officer also failed to collect any documents pertaining to the disputed land which is genesis for the present case. PW15 also admitted that in his report PW12/M.V.Goverdhan Rao stated that the cause of the death is cardiac pulmonary arrest.

26.On overall scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it suffers from several material omissions, contradictions and developments, which is not inspiring the confidence of the court, as such this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused to punish her for the charges under

Sections 294(b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC, hence accused No.2 is entitled for acquittal for the said offence. Accordingly Point No.2 is answered.

27.In the result, Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 302 r/w 34 IPC and she is accordingly acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said

SC.No.33 of 2025

15 charges. The bail bonds of accused No.2 shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A CrPC. MOs.1 to 3 deposited vide

CP.No.29/2025 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 15 th day of April, 2026. Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR

RAO KALLURU

SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1:Rathod Nithish (complainant/elder son of deceased) PW2:Rathod Tharun (Younger son of deceased/eye witness) PW3:Ade Mamatha (eye witness) PW4:Gedam Ramesh (eye witness) PW5:Chawan Amith Kumar (Circumstantial witness) PW6:Banoth Ajay (eye witness) PW7:Thakur Bharath Singh (Photographer) PW8:Mogala Laxminarayana (panch witness of CDF) PW9:Chouhan Vilas (panch for inquest panchanama) PW10: Rathod Utham (panch for confession cum seizure panchanama) PW11: Yata Indoor (panch for confession cum seizure panchanama) PW12: Dr.M.V.Goverdhan Rao (Medical officer, treated the deceased while undergoing treatment) PW13: Dr.Nikisha Reddy (Medical Officer, conducted PME over the dead body of deceased) PW14: K.Manohar (SI of Police/1st IO) PW15: G.Mogili (CI of Police/IO)

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

SC.No.33 of 2025

16

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1:Written report, dated 23.05.2024 submitted by PW1 Ex.P2:Photos of the dead body Ex.P3:Photos of scene of offence Ex.P4:DVD corresponding to Exs.P2 and P3 Ex.P5:Scene of offence observation report along with rough sketch (CDF) Ex.P6:Inquest panchanama of deceased Ex.P7:Relevant portion in the confession statement dated 25.05.2024 pertaining to seizure of stone Ex.P8:Relevant portion in the confession statement dated 25.05.2024 pertaining to seizure of stick Ex.P9:Preliminary postmortem examination report, dated 24.05.2024 Ex.P10:Report given by RFSL, Karimnagar, dated 25.06.2024 Ex.P11:Final opinion issued by PW13 Ex.P12:First information report Ex.P13:Section Alteration Memo, dated 24.05.2024 Ex.P14:Report of RFSL, Karimnagar

Exhibits marked for Defence : - Nil -

Material Objects Marked

MO.1:Wooden Log (Moddhu) MO.2:Lungi of deceased MO.3:Stone Digitally signed by

PRABHAKAR

RAO KALLURU

SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

Present: Sri.K.Prabhakara Rao,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Adilabad

Tuesday, the 21st day of April, 2026

SC.NO. 63 of 202 5

(On committal by Sri B.Hussain, Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad, FAC: II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad, by order dated 20.08.2025 in PRC.No.29 of 2024 in Cr.No.149 of 2023 of PS Jainath)

Name of the ComplainantState represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Jainath.

Name of the AccusedA1:Mahipal Reddy S/o Lingareddy, Age:40 years, Caste:Gurudakapu, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Laxmipur (v) of Jainath (Mdl).

A2:KatpelliSrinivasReddyS/o Lingareddy,Age:42years, Caste:Gurudakapu, Occ:Agriculture, R/o 3-28/A, Laxmipur village of Jainath (Mdl).

A3:Katipelly Nithin Reddy S/o Thirupathi Reddy,Age:19years, Caste:Gurudakapu, Occ:Agriculture, R/o 3-20/B, Laxmipur village of Jainath (Mdl).

Charge/s307 IPC and Sections 294(b), 427 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.1 294(b), 427 r/w 34 IPC against accused Nos.2 and 3

Plea of accusedNot Guilty

Finding of JudgeNot Guilty

Prosecution conducted by: Sri Ahmed Abdul Raheem, Public Prosecutor, Adilabad

SC.No.63 of 20252

Accused defended by:Sri.Afroz Ahmed, Advocate for Accused Nos.1 to 3 Sentence or OrderIn the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and Sections 294(b), 427 r/w 34 IPC and Accused Nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 427 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A CrPC. MOs.1 and 2 deposited vide CP.No.9/2026 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal period.

This case is coming on 15.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ahmed Abdul Raheem, Public Prosecutor for State, Sri.Afroz Ahmed, Advocate for accused Nos.1 to 3 and on considering the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, PS Jainath filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.149/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 294(b), 427 r/w 34

IPC against accused No.1 and under Sections 294(b) and 427 r/w 34

IPC.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

a)Complainant/PW1 is eking his livelihood as a driver, on 18.10.2023 at about 13.30 hours in view of election campaign PW1

SC.No.63 of 20253

along with PWs 2 and 3 started from Sathnala village towards Bela through Eicher vehicle bearing No.AP25W1600 fixed with sound system, LED scree and generator pertaining to BRS party, while proceeding, when they reached Laxmipur village of Jainath Mandal at about 13.30 hours accused Nos.1 to 3 stopped the vehicle and pickedup quarrel with them, abused them in filthy language and accused No.1 attacked them with sickles, stones by saying to stay away from their village and vacate, otherwise they would see their end.

b)Terrifying with the said sudden attack without any option

PWs 1 to 3 got down from the vehicle and ran away but accused

No.1 chased them and attacked with sickle and stones with an intention to kill them whereas accused Nos.2 and 3 thrown stones on the vehicle, as a result they sustained injuries and the sound system of their vehicle was damaged to a tune of 30 to 35 lakhs, later PWs 1 to 3 were admitted in RIMS hospital for treatment, further PW1 expressed that accused No.1 keeping enmity over BRS party attacked them with an intention to kill with sickles and stones.

c) On complaint given by PW1, the SI of Police, Jainath registered the case in Cr.No.149/2023 and took up investigation, examined and recorded the statement of PW1, visited scene of offence, prepared Crime Details Form in the presence of mediators

SC.No.63 of 20254

and seized four stones under cover of panchanama, on 20.10.2023

PW9, SI of Police rushed to Laxmipur village and apprehended accused No.1 at 8.00 hours at his house and on interrogation he confessed to have committed the offence along with accused Nos.2 and 3 and in pursuance of the same seized sickle under confession and seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators, arrested him and produced before the Magistrate for judicial remand, later obtained medical certificates of injured from the medical officer. On 10.01.2024 at about 14.00 hours accused Nos.2 and 3 came to PS and surrendered themselves before PW9, on interrogation they confessed to have committed the offence, as such released them under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., after completion of the investigation and receipt of all relevant documents PW10/V.Purushotham, SI of Police filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offene punishable under Sections 307, 294(b) and 427 r/w 34 IPC and against accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under

Sections 294(b) and 427 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.Learned II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 294(b), 307, 427 r/w 34

IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3. On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 3 and after complying the procedure required under Sections 207

SC.No.63 of 20255

and 209 Cr.P.C. case was committed to this court and numbered as

SC.63 of 2025.

4.On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 3 and on hearing both sides, this court framed charge under Sections 307, 294(b) and 427 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.1 and under Sections 294(b) and 427 r/w 34 IPC against accused Nos.2 and 3, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial PWs 1 to 9 examined, Exs.P1 to P7 and MOs.1 and 2 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused Nos.1 to 3 examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating substance appearing against them, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.The learned Public Prosecutor argued that in order to prove the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 9 examined Exs.P1 to P7 and MOs 1 and 2 are marked, wherein the PWs 1 to 3 are the injured in this case, in their evidence they have categorically deposed how all the

SC.No.63 of 20256

accused in furtherance of their common intention abused them, caused damage to the vehicle to a tune of rupees 30 to 40 lakhs and also made an attempt to kill the PWs 1 to 3 by hurling stones and by using MO.2 sickle, as a result PWs 1 to 3 sustained bleeding injuries.

He further argued that the scene of offence was proved by examining PWs 4 and 5, the seizure of MO.2 sickle was proved by examining PW6 and the injuries over the body of PWs 1 to 3 proved by examining PWs 7 and 8 coupled with Exs.P4 to P6. He further argued that PW9 is the investigation officer who deposed about the registration of the crime, his investigation, visiting the scene of offence, seizure of crime weapons, examining and recording the statements of the witnesses and arrest of the accused. He finally submitted that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused, hence they are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 294(b) and 427 r/w 34 IPC.

9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 who are injured not corroborating with each other, their injuries are not supported by the medical evidence.

Further he submitted that this is politically motivated case at the instance of BRS leaders who are the then ruling party people. He further argued that the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 also not helpful to

SC.No.63 of 20257

believe the version of the prosecution with regard to the seizure of

MO.1. He further submitted that PW6 is the stock witness to the PS,

Jainath and he used to work as driver to the SI of Police, PS Jainath hence his testimony cannot be relied upon.

He further argued that as per the version of PWs 1 to 3 they went to RIMS hospital on 18.10.2023 for treatment but Exs.P4 to P6 showing that they went to RIMS hospital on 19.10.2023 and further, the injury certificate of PW1 showing that he received healed abrasions, that itself speaks falsity of the prosecution case hence he finally requested to acquit the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the alleged charges.

10.Now this court will evaluate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution whether it is sufficient to prove the charge under Sections 307, 294(b) and 427 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.1 and under Sections 294(b) and 427 r/w 34 IPC against accused Nos.2 and 3.

11.The Point for consideration is :

1.Whether the prosecution is able to establish the offence under Section 427 r/w 34 IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubts?

2.Whether the prosecution is able to establish the offence under Section 294(b) r/w 34 IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubts?

SC.No.63 of 20258

3.Whether the prosecution is able to establish the offence under Section 307 IPC against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT No.1:

12.In this case as per the version of PWs 1 to 3 the accused thrown stones on the vehicle carrying the DJ set and led screens, as a result the front side of the van, LED screens were damaged and they have sustained loss of Rs.30 to 35 lakhs. In order to establish the said fact the investigation officer did not place any material along with the charge sheet. He did not inspect the above said van which carrying

LED screens and generator. The investigation officer failed to conduct the observation of the said van before the mediators and also get certification from the experts to show that due to the alleged attack by the accused, injured persons sustained loss of

Rs.30 to 35 lakhs. The investigation officer even failed to collect any document to show that the PWs 1 to 3 have using the said vehicle as on the date of alleged incident. In the absence of any material from the prosecution, it cannot be presumed that the accused in furtherance of their common intention damaged the van, LED screens and generator to a tune of Rs.30 to 35 lakhs, as such the accused are entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable under

Section 427 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

SC.No.63 of 20259

POINT No.2:

13.During their evidence PWs 1 to 3 did not state what are the abusive words used by the accused against them and further they have not stated the same during their statements recorded by the investigation officer. In the absence of specific words, it cannot be said that those were abusive one and thus the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 294(b) r/w 34 IPC. In the said circumstances this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 294(b) r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly Point No.2 is answered.

POINT No.3:

14.As per the version of the PWs 1 to 3 on 18.10.2023 at 1.00 p.m.

when they were going from Sathnala to Bela Village on Eicher Van bearing No.AP-25-W-1600 which containing LED screens, sound system and generator pertaining to Jogu Ramanna of BRS Party, when their van reached Laxmipur village, the accused Nos.1 to 3 stopped the said van, later they have attacked against PWs 1 to 3 by using stones and sickle, then they have got down from the cabin of the van and tried to escape, by then accused Nos.1 to 3 hurled sickle and stones against them, as a result PW1 sustained injury to his left leg, from there they have escaped and reached to RIMS Hospital,

SC.No.63 of 202510

Adilabad, after the treatment all of them went to Jainath Police

Station and submitted Ex.P1 report by PW1, basing on it the police examined and recorded their statements.

15.PW2 deposed that in the said attack he has sustained injuries to his legs and PW3 sustained injury to his right leg.

16.In this case, PW7 Dr.Rehan Ahmed who treated PW1 deposed that on 18.10.2023 PW1 came to RIMS hospital, he examined and treated him and found the following injury:

Healed abrasion 3x0.5 cm on left ankle which is simple in nature might be caused by sharp object.

Accordingly, he issued Ex.P4. In his cross-examination PW7 deposed that healed abrasion means it may be received by the injured about 2 days ago but as per the version of PW1, on the same day of the incident he went to RIMS and took treatment. So there was major variation in the version of PWs 1 and 7 in respect of the injury sustained by PW1. If really PW1 sustained injury on 18.10.2023 and on the same day he went to RIMS hospital, Adilabad for treatment the said injury might be fresh in nature but not in healed condition. Hence, in the said circumstances the version of

SC.No.63 of 202511

the PW1 is not inspiring the confidence of the court regarding the injury and alleged incident.

17.PW1 is the driver of the above said van and he did not submit his licence, permission letter to run the said van during the election time to the investigation officer. As such it is fatal to the case of the prosecution and gives any amount of doubt whether PW1 really worked as driver on the said van and sustained injury on 18.10.2023.

18.As per the version of PWs 2 and 3 they have also gone to RIMS

Hospital on 18.10.2023 and took the treatment. But in the instant case PW8/Dr.Shireen who treated PWs 2 and 3 deposed that on 19.10.2023, SHO, PS Jainath sent a requisition along with injured for examination and treatment. Accordingly she treated PWs 2 and 3 and issued Exs.P5 and P6 respectively. In the instant case, the version of the prosecution is that PWs 1 to 3 after the incident directly went to RIMS hospital on 18.10.2023, later came to Police

Station and lodged the report but as per the evidence of PW8 on 19.10.2023 the SHO, PS Jainath sent a requisition along with injured i.e. PWs 2 and 3 to the RIMS hospital for examination and treatment.

So the said version of PW8 is quite contradictory to the version of the prosecution, so it also throws any amount of doubt in the mind of the

SC.No.63 of 202512

court whether the PWs 2 and 3 have really sustained injury on 18.10.2023 at the scene of offence as alleged by the prosecution.

In view of the above said material contradictions, developments and omissions it is showing any amount of doubt in the version of the prosecution.

19.In this case PW6 is the mediator for the seizure of confession- cum-seizure of MO.2 sickle from the accused No.1 As can be seen from the cross-examination of PW6 it shows that the police enquired accused No.1 which is contrary to the confession statement of the accused No.1. The cross-examination of PW6 also revealed that he provided services to the police as driver and he also attended the birthday function in the house of SI of Police, Jainath. He further admitted that the mother of LW7/R.Adellu used to work in PS, Jainath.

It shows that PW6 and LW7/R.Adellu are the henchmen of the police,

Jainath. As such it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of PW6.

20.PW9 is the investigation officer in this case. In his examination by the counsel for accused he deposed that he did not seize the damaged articles and van and also not conducted any observation panchanama pertaining to the damage. He further deposed that the damaged van was not inspected by the MVI and he has not found the

SC.No.63 of 202513

van, articles thereon at the scene of offence when he visited on 19.10.2023. He also admitted that PW1 did not submit his driving licence and permission letters for canvassing and he also did not examine the owner of the van. The above said version of investigation officer is throwing any amount of doubt regarding the alleged incident.

21.It is well settled principle of law that when there are two possible views before the court, the view which is beneficial to the accused can be adopted. In the instant case, the case of the prosecution is suffering from several material contradictions, developments and omissions and there was no corroboration in between the prosecution witnesses. In the said circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Hence the accused No.1 is entitled for acquittal for the said charge.

22.In view of the above said discussions and findings, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 307 IPC and Sections 294(b) and 427 r/w 34 IPC and accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable

SC.No.63 of 202514

under Sections 294(b) and 427 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly Point No.3 is answered.

23.In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and Sections 294(b), 427 r/w 34

IPC and Accused Nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 427 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A CrPC. MOs.1 and 2 deposited vide CP.No.9/2026 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 21 st day of April, 2026. Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR

RAO KALLURU

SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Padigela Ravi Teja (complainant/injured) PW2:Sengnar Somesh (eye witness/injured) PW3:Sangari Sai Kumar (eye witness/injured) PW4:Gajunula Swamy (panch witness for CDF) PW5:Dasari Ramulu (panch witness for CDF) PW6:Abdul Shafath (panch for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused No.1)

SC.No.63 of 202515

PW7:Dr.Rehan Ahmed (medical officer, who treated PW1) PW8:Dr.Shireen (medical officer, who treated PWs 2 and 3) PW9:V.Purushotham (SI of Police/IO)

FOR DEFENCE: - None -

Exhibits marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P1:Report, dated 18.10.2023 submitted by PW1 to police Ex.P2:Observation panchanama along with rough sketch Ex.P3:Relevant portion of confession and seizure panchanama of accused No.1 Ex.P4:Injury form of PW1 issued by PW7 Ex.P5:Injury form of PW2 issued by PW8 Ex.P6:Injury form of PW3 issued by PW8 Ex.P7:First information report

Exhibits marked for Defence : - Nil -

Material Objects Marked

MO.1:Four stones MO.2:Sickle

Digitally signed by

PRABHAKAR

RAO KALLURU

SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

Present:

Sri.K.Prabhakara Rao,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Adilabad

Thursday, the 16th day of April, 2026

SC.NO. 32 of 202 4

(On committal by Smt Mounika Ponnapalli, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor, by her order dated 07.11.2024 in PRC.No.10 of 2023 in Cr.No.107 of 2023 of PS Indervelly)

Name of the ComplainantState represented by Sub Inspector of Police, PS Indervelly. Name of the AccusedSonkamble Vilas S/o Piraji, Age:43 years,Caste:SC-Mahar, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Bursanpatar (v) of Indervelly (M).

Charge/s353, 307, 332 r/w 34 IPC Plea of accusedNot Guilty Finding of JudgeNot Guilty Prosecution conducted by: Sri Ahmed Abdul Raheem, Public Prosecutor, Adilabad Accused defended by:Sri.Mohammad Ghouse, Advocate for accused Sentence or OrderIn the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 307 and 332 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A CrPC. MO.1 deposited vide CP.No.11/2025 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

This case is coming on 10.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ahmed Abdul Raheem, Public Prosecutor for State and Sri Mohammad Ghouse, Advocate for accused and on

SC.No.32 of 2024

2 considering the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, PS Indervelly filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 307, 332 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

a)PWs 1 and 2 are Forest Officials and discharging duties at

Indravelly Forest Range whereas accused and his son (CCL) are residents of Bursanpatar (v), the forest officials have set up a bamboo plantation in the Indervelly, S-beat Compartment No.344 situated at the outskirts of Bursanpatar (v), abutting to the plantation accused has own land to an extent of 5 Acres but without revenue patta, the Forest Officials used to go to plantation from bund edge of accused land for transporting bamboo saplings which was not accepted by accused and requested them not to take the tractor from the bund of his land.

b)As there was no other way except the land of accused and it was uncultivated, on 28.07.2023 at about 1100 hours PWs 1 and 2 went to the Compartment No.344 on a tractor and while returning with the load of bamboo saplings, on the way accused and his

SC.No.32 of 2024

3 son/CCL went to the said tractor and abused PWs 1 and 2 in filthy language as “Lanja, Badakav and Lambdi” and deterred them from discharging their duties by pelting stones on them as to why the were taking the tractor from his land, PWs 1 and 2 managed to escape from the spot but accused chased them and caught PW1 and hit him with an axe over his head resulting which PW1 received severe head injury.

c)Immediately PW1/Maskuri Narsaiah, Forest Section Officer rushed to PS Indervelly and lodged a report the same day i.e.

28.07.2023, basing on it, PW11/D.Sunil, SI of Police registered the same as case in Cr.No.107/2023 under Sections 353, 307, 332 r/w 34

IPC and issued FIR, sent the original to all concerned, examined and recorded the statements of PWs 1 and 2 and referred PW1 to hospital for treatment, visited the scene of offence and and in the presence of mediators conducted panchanama and drew rough sketch, addressed letter to Head Master, MPP school, Bursanpatar village with a request to issue Bonafide certificate of CCL and obtained the same.

d)On 29.07.2022 at about 9.00 hours PW11 along with force rushed to Bursanpatar village and apprehended accused along with

CCL and on interrogation, the accused confessed to have committed the offence along with CCL and in pursuance of his confession, PW11

SC.No.32 of 2024

4 seized the crime weapon i.e. axe from the possession of accused under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators, arrested the accused and produced before Magistrate for judicial remand and produced CCL before JJB, Adilabad, later examined and recorded the statements of remaining witnesses. After completion of investigation and collecting the wound certificate of PW1, PW11 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 307, 332 r/w 34 IPC.

3.Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 353, 307, 332 r/w 34 IPC against accused. On appearance of accused and after complying the procedure required under Sections 207 and 209 Cr.P.C. case was committed to this court and numbered as SC.32 of 2024.

4.On appearance of accused and on hearing both sides, this court framed charge under Sections 353, 307, 332 r/w 34 IPC against accused, read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial PWs 1 to 11 examined, Exs.P1 to P8 and MO.1 was marked on behalf of the prosecution.

SC.No.32 of 2024

5

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating substance appearing against him, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of Sri.Ahmed Abdul Raheem, learned Public

Prosecutor and Sri.Mohammad Ghouse, Advocate appeared on behalf of the accused.

8.The learned Public Prosecutor argued that in order to prove the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 11 examined, Exs.P1 to P8 and

MO.1 marked, wherein PW1 is the victim who clearly deposed the overt acts of the accused, his version was well supported by PW2 who is eye witness and colleague of PW1 and PW3 who was transporting the bamboo plants on the tractor.

He further argued that the injuries on the body of injured was proved by examining PW10 and by marking Ex.P6. He further argued that PW11 is the investigation officer in this case, who clearly deposed about his investigation, recording the statements of the witnesses, observing the scene of offence, arrest of the accused and sending him to the prison, later filing the charge sheet against the

SC.No.32 of 2024

6 accused. He further argued that the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly established the evidence against the accused, hence he is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under

Sections 353, 307 and 332 r/w 34 IPC.

9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of material omissions, contradictions and developments, as such their testimony cannot be relied upon to convict the accused. He further argued that PWs 4 to 6 who are alleged eye witnesses did not support the version of the prosecution, further the mediators for the observation of the scene of offence also did not support the version of the prosecution.

He further argued that though Ex.P4 pen drive was marked, it is not proved by the prosecution with cogent evidence hence the testimony of PW9 and Exs.P4 and P5 cannot be relied upon. He further argued that as per the version of the PWs 1 and 2, immediately after the incident the police brought the accused to the police station and the police handed over the mobile phone to the

PW2 but as per the evidence of PW11 he arrested the accused on the same day i.e. 28.07.2023 but as per the confession-cum-seizure panchanama, the accused was allegedly arrested on 29.07.2023, as

SC.No.32 of 2024

7 such the seizure of MO.1 axe is highly doubtful and finally requested to acquit the accused for the alleged charges.

10.Now this court will scrutinize the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution whether it is sufficient to believe that the accused along with CCL prevented the Forest

Officials in execution of their duties and in consequences of the said prevention, attempted to kill PW1 and voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 in discharge of his duty as such public servant and did commit the offence punishable under Sections 353, 307, 332 r/w 34 IPC as alleged by the prosecution.

11.The Point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the charge under Sections 353, 307, 332 r/w 34 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

12.In order to prove the offence under Sections 353 and 332 IPC the prosecution must prove that the PWs 1 and 2 are public servants and they are engaged on duty at the time of alleged offence but in the instant case the investigation officer did not collect any document to show that the PWs 1 and 2 are employees in Forest

SC.No.32 of 2024

8

Department, they were on duty at the relevant point of time, as such it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

13.As per the evidence of PW1, on 28.07.2023 at 11 a.m. he along with PW2 and the workers went to Beat No.344, which is at the outskirts of Bursanpatar village to plant the bamboo saplings, when they are transporting the said bamboo saplings on a tractor, it was entered into the agricultural field of the accused to some extent, later they have unloaded the bamboo plants and while transporting the same with the help of labour, the accused along with his son came to the spot, abused the PW2 in filthy language, for which the

PW1 questioned him, then the accused abused him in filthy language, later caught hold his shirt collar and beat on his head by using an axe, as a result he received injury, the same was witnessed by PW4, for which he lodged Ex.P1 report in the police station.

14.PW2 is eye witness and colleague of the PW1, as per her evidence on 28.07.2023 at about 11 a.m. she along with PW1 in order to attend their duty i.e. to plant the bamboo saplings in beat

No.344 proceeding towards the Beat No.344, while they are transporting the bamboo saplings on tractor at the edge of the field of the accused, the accused objected and abused PW1 as ‘Bhadkav’,

SC.No.32 of 2024

9 he also abused her in filthy language for which PW1 questioned the accused, then the accused made attack against PW1 by using axe, as a result PW1 sustained injury.

15.Upon comparing the above said versions of PWs 1 and 2, there was deviation with regard to the manner of the incident. PW1 deposed that while the bamboo saplings were planting the accused along with his son attacked him whereas PW2 deposed that while they were transporting the bamboo saplings on a tractor the accused attacked PW1. So it is a material contradiction in the version of PWs 1 and 2. Hence, the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 is not inspiring the confidence of the court with regard to the alleged incident.

16.As per the evidence of PW2, she recorded the alleged incident in her mobile phone, the same was taken by the son of the accused, later on the same day the police collected the said mobile phone from the accused and handed over to her. PW2 further deposed that the said mobile phone was not seized by the police wherein she videographed the alleged incident and on the same day at 3 p.m. the

SI of Police handed over the said phone to her, by then the accused was in police station. As per the case record, the SI of Police arrested the accused on 29.07.2023 while he was absconding. But

SC.No.32 of 2024

10 as per the evidence of PW2, the accused was very much present in the police station on the date of the alleged incident, as such the arrest of the accused, his alleged confession and seizure of MO.1 is very much doubtful in the said circumstances.

17.Later on 15.05.2023 the PW2 handed over her mobile phone in

Indervelly Police Station, then the PW9 retrieved the alleged incident from her mobile phone and copied the same into his Ex.P4 pen drive and also issued Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. As can be seen from the cross-examination of PW9 he deposed that Ex.P5 certificate is not containing any date and the SI of Police, Indervelly has not issued any written requisition to him to copy the videos from the mobile phone of PW2 into the computer system of the police station, later into the pen drive. He also admitted that Ex.P5 is not affixed with police station seal and stamp and also not mentioned the mobile phone number of the PW2, the manufacture name and brand name of the mobile phone of PW2 in Ex.P5. He further admitted that the date and time pertaining to the videos were not mentioned in

Ex.P5 certificate and further stated that he cannot say basing on

Ex.P5 to which date and time the above said videos were captured in the mobile phone of PW2. He further admitted that he was not trained in retrieving the data from the mobile phones. In the said

SC.No.32 of 2024

11 circumstances, the evidence of PW9 coupled with Ex.P4 pen drive and Ex.P5 certificate are not helpful to believe the version of the prosecution.

18.PW3 is another eye witness to the alleged incident, as per his evidence while the tractor was entered into the field of the accused he raised objection and beat the PW1 by using axe. His version also contradictory to the version of PW1 with regard to the alleged incident.

19.PWs 4 to 8 who are material witnesses did not support the version of the prosecution. PW11 is the investigation officer in this case, as per his evidence he arrested the accused on 28.07.2023 which is contradictory to the arrest, confession-cum-seizure panchanama. He admitted that PW2 did not state before him that she recorded the alleged incident in her mobile phone and PW1 also not stated the said fact either in Ex.P1 or in his statement. He further admitted that in Ex.P8 Crime Details Form, he has not shown the way through which the tractor of the Forest Department moved and he has no idea about the ownership of the tractor used by the

Forest Department and he did not mention the registration number of the said tractor in the charge sheet.

SC.No.32 of 2024

12

20.On overall scrutinizing the above said evidence of prosecution witnesses, their testimony is full of material omissions, contradictions and developments and not inspiring the confidence of the court with regard to the alleged incident. The investigation officer failed to collect any document to show that the PWs 1 and 2 are working in Forest Department, on relevant date they were planting bamboo samplings in Beat No.344 and further the PWs 1 and 2 were on duty. In the said circumstances, this court is inclined to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and he is entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 307 and 332 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly the Point is answered.

21.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 307 and 332 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A CrPC. MO.1 deposited vide

CP.No.11/2025 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 16 th day of April, 2026. Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR

RAO KALLURU

SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

SC.No.32 of 2024

13

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1:Maskuri Narsaiah (Forest Section Officer/complainant and injured) PW2:Jadhav Jyothsna Devi (Forest Beat Officer/eye witness) PW3:Tekam Mukund Rao (eye witness) PW4:Kamble Nanda Bai (eye witness) PW5:Madavi Vijay Kumar (panch witness for CDF) PW6:Pendur Manohar (panch witness for CDF) PW7:Kasulwar Ankush (Mediator for confession and recovery panchanama of accused) PW8:Pawar Shivaji (Mediator for confession and recovery panchanama of accused) PW9:Kommu Sai Kiran (Constable who issued Section 65-B certificate, examined as per the orders in Crl.M.P.98/2025) PW10: Dr.Nikisha Reddy (Medical officer, examined PW1 and issued medical certificate) PW11: D.Sunil (SI of Police/IO)

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1:Written report of PW1, dated 28.07.2023 Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P3:Signature of PW8 on confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P4:Pen drive Ex.P5:Certificate issued by PW9 under Section 65-B of Evidence Act Ex.P6:Injury certificate of PW1 Ex.P7:First Information Act Ex.P8:Crime details form with rough sketch

Exhibits marked for Defence: - Nil -

Material Objects Marked

MO.1:AxeDigitally signed by PRABHAKAR

RAO KALLURU

SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

Present:

Sri.K.Prabhakara Rao,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Adilabad

Friday, the 17th day of April, 2026

SC.NO. 81 of 202 5

(On committal by Smt Mounika Ponnapalli, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor, by her order dated 23.09.2025 in PRC.No.3 of 2025 in Cr.No.133 of 2024 of PS Indervelly)

Name of the ComplainantState represented by Sub Inspector of Police, PS Indervelly

Name of the AccusedShaik Imran S/o Apsar, age 35 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Driver, R/o Bheemnagar, Indravelly village and mandal, District Adilabad.

Charge/s329(4) and 109 BNS

Plea of accusedNot Guilty Finding of JudgeNot Guilty Prosecution conducted by: Sri Ahmed Abdul Raheem, Public Prosecutor, Adilabad Accused defended by:Sri.Burri Grahesh, Advocate Sentence or OrderIn the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 329(4) and 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 258(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 481(1) of BNSS.

This case is coming on 15.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.A.Raheem, Public Prosecutor for State and Sri.Burri Grahesh, Advocate for accused and on considering the

SC.No.81 of 2025

2 evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, PS Indervelly filed the charge sheet against Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 329(4) and 109 BNS in Cr.No.133/2024 of PS

Indervelly.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

a)The complainant/PW1 is resident of Bheemnagar,

Indravelly Mandal and accused also belong to same village, got acquaintance with PW1 since 7 years and in the year 2021 the accused came to PW1 and requested her to arrange money of

Rs.6,00,000/- as debt to purchase car for business purpose, on that

PW1 gave money of Rs.6,00,000/- to accused, after one year when

PW1 asked the accused to return the said amount, he refused to return, on that PW1 approached the village elders and they conducted panchayath, even then he did not return the said money.

b)Later, in the month of September, 2024 PW1 again conducted panchayath with accused in the presence of elders in which accused agreed to return the amount but till date he did not repay, when PW1 frequently asked accused to repay the amount, he

SC.No.81 of 2025

3 used to quarrrel with her and stated to her that if she asks money he would kill her, accordingly on 03.10.2024 at about 13.00 hours accused decided to kill PW1 and came to PW1’s house by jumping wall and entered into PW1 house in the absence of her children and pressed her throat with his hands with an intention to kill her but she kicked the accused with her legs to save her life and raised hues and cries, on hearing the same her neighbours came to PW1, on seeing them accused fled away.

c)PW1/Chate Laxmi lodged report in PS, Indervelly on 03.10.2024 at about 18.00 hours, basing on it LW12/K.Bheemrao, ASI of Police received the report, registered the same as case in

Cr.No.133/2024 under Sections 329(4), 109 BNS and issued FIR, sent the original to the Magistrate and copies to all concerned, examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and referred her to hospital for treatment, visited the scene of offence recorded the statements witnesses, in the presence of mediators held scene observation under crime details form and drew rough sketch.

d)On 04.10.2024 at about 14.00 hours, apprehended accused at Ambedkar Chowk, Indravelly and on interrogation he confessed to have committed the offence, as such arrested the accused and produced before the Magistrate for judicial remand and

SC.No.81 of 2025

4 later filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 329(4) and 109 BNS.

3.Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 329(4) and 109 BNS against accused. On appearance of accused and after complying the procedure required under Sections 231 and 232 BNS case was committed to this court and numbered as SC.81 of 2025.

4.On appearance of accused and on hearing both sides, this court framed charge under Sections 329(4) and 109 BNS against accused, read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial PWs 1 to 6 examined, Exs.P1 to P8 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence accused was examined under Section 351 BNSS by explaining the incriminating substance appearing against him, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of Sri.A.A.Raheem, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri.Burri Grahesh, Advocate on behalf of accused.

SC.No.81 of 2025

5

8.The learned Public Prosecutor argued that in order to establish the case of the prosecution PWs 1 to 6 examined, Exs.P1 to P8 are marked, wherein PW1 is the victim in this case but she did not support the version of the prosecution, however PWs 2 and 3 are eye witnesses to the alleged incident they have clearly deposed the acts committed by the accused against PW1, considering the said evidence the court may punish the accused for the alleged charges.

9.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the present case was foisted at the instance of PWs 2 and 3 who are having inimical terms with the accused, they have pressurized the PW1 to lodge the police report against the accused, as such she deposed the truth before this court, hence considering the evidence of PW1 the accused may be acquitted for the alleged charges.

10.Now this court will evaluate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution whether it is sufficient to prove the charge under Sections 329(4) and 109 BNS levelled against the accused.

11.The Point for consideration :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 329(4) and 109 BNS?

SC.No.81 of 2025

6

POINT:

12.In this case PW1 is the victim, as per her chief examination she did not lodge any report in Indervelly police station against the accused, about 1 ½ year ago one day she was present at the house of LW6/D.Maruthi, police came and obtained her signature i.e. Ex.P1 on a blank paper and she do not know the contents of the paper which containing Ex.P1 signature, police neither examined nor recorded her statement. At the request of the learned Public

Prosecutor PW1 declared as hostile and permission is granted for examination, wherein she denied the suggestion that on 03.10.2024 at 6 p.m. she lodged a report alleging that the accused came to her house and tried to kill her by pressing her throat, then she raised hues and cries, upon hearing the same neighbours came and on seeing them the accused fled away from her house, basing on the said report the police registered the case, examined and recorded her statement and she stated as in Ex.P2. During examination by the Public Prosecutor no worthwhile substance was derived from

PW1.

13.PWs 2 and 3 are the alleged eye witnesses, as per their version in the year 2024 a panchayath was held before the elders with

SC.No.81 of 2025

7 regard to money transaction in between PW1 and accused, wherein the accused agreed to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to PW1 after one year of the said panchayath, a quarrel was took place in between PW1 and accused by then PW1 informed to him that the accused pressed her throat. It appears that the PW2 is not eye witness to the alleged incident.

14.PW3 deposed that a panchayath was held in between PW1 and accused in respect of money transaction, later one day the accused went to the house of PW1 to ask the money, for which a quarrel was took place in between them, during the said quarrel accused pressed the throat of PW1, upon hearing the cries of PW1 the neighbours gathered and he witnessed the above said incident. In his cross- examination PW3 deposed that it is not possible to watch the incident taken place inside of the house of PW1 and he has no personal knowledge about the monetary transaction of PW1 and accused and he was not the member of the panchayath, which was conducted in between PW1 and accused. The above said cross- examination of PW3 shows that he is not having any personal knowledge about the money transactions and he has no scope to watch the offence took place inside of the house of PW1, as such the testimony of PW3 is not inspiring the confidence of the court.

SC.No.81 of 2025

8

15.PWs 4 and 5 are the mediators for the observation of the scene of offence, initially they have not supported the version of the prosecution, later they have declared as hostile and upon further examination they have admitted the police observed the scene of offence. In the cross-examination by the counsel for accused they deposed that they do not know the contents of Ex.P5 crime details form.

16.PW6 is the investigation officer who received the Ex.P6 report,

dated 03.10.2024 from the PW1, basing on it he issued Ex.P7 FIR,

took up the investigation, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P5 later he arrested the accused on 04.10.2024 and produced before the court of law and he also collected Ex.P8 wound certificate of PW1. In his cross-examination PW6 deposed that the houses of PWs 2 and 3,

LW3/K.Shyam, LW4/K.Ganesh and LW6/D.Maruthi are not appearing and he also not examined and recorded the statements of the neighbours of PW1. It shows that the investigation officer examined the selected witnesses who are not neighbours to the PW1. When the PW1 herself did not support the version of the prosecution and the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is suffering from material omissions,

SC.No.81 of 2025

9 contradictions and developments, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 329(4) and 109 of BNS, for which he is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly point is answered.

17.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 329(4) and 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 258(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 481(1) of BNSS.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her and after

correction pronounced by me in open court on this the 17 th day of April, 2026. Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR

RAO KALLURU

SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Chate Laxmi (complainant/victim) PW2:Chate Jagadish (eye witness) PW3:Sondkar Dayanand (eye witness) PW4:Thitte Sumith (panch for CDF panchanama) PW5:Sarkale Sumith (panch for CDF panchanama) PW6:D.Sunil (SI of Police/IO)

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

SC.No.81 of 2025

10

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on report Ex.P2:Section 180 BNSS statement of PW1 Ex.P3:Signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4:Signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5:Scene of offence observation report (CDF) Ex.P6:Report, dated 03.10.2024 submitted by PW1 to police Ex.P7:First information report Ex.P8:Wound certificate of PW1

Exhibits marked for Defence: - Nil -

Material Objects Marked

- Nil - Digitally signed by

PRABHAKAR

RAO KALLURU

SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

Present:

Sri.K.Prabhakara Rao,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Adilabad

Friday, the 10th day of April, 2026

SC.NO. 65 of 202 5

(On committal by Ms.Manjula Suryawar, Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad, by order dated 04.01.2022 in PRC.No.14 of 2019 in Cr.No.277 of 2016 of PS Adilabad II Town)

Name of the ComplainantState represented by Sub Inspector of Police, PS Adilabad II Town

Name of the AccusedA1:Aitawar Satish @ Dobbadu S/o Ramesh, Age:27 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occ:Auto Driver, R/o Thirpelli, Adilabad(died on 19.03.2021, case abated on 22.10.2021 by Prl.JFCM, Adilabad)

A2:Esari Anil S/o Mallesh Age:22 years, Caste:Mala, Occ:Stadium swimming pool filter operator, R/o Khilla, Adilabad.

Charge/s 307 r/w 34 IPC

Plea of accusedNot Guilty

Finding of JudgeNot Guilty

Prosecution conducted by: Sri Ahmed Abdul Raheem, Public Prosecutor, Adilabad Accused defended by:Sri.P.Akhilesh, Advocate

Sentence or OrderIn the result, Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC and

SC.No.65 of 20252

accordingly he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused No.2 shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A CrPC. MOs.1, 3 and 4 deposited vide C.P.No.10/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. MO.2 Auto bearing AP-01-X-5541 shall be returned to its rightful owner, after expiry of appeal period.

This case is coming on 07.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ahmed Abdul Raheem, Public Prosecutor for State and Sri.P.Akhilesh, Advocate for accused No.2 and on considering the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station

Adilabad II Town filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC against accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.277/2016.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

a)PW1 is resident of Chilukurilaxminagar, Adilabad,

LW2/Shaik Salam is his relative and living by begging while accused

Nos.1 and 2 are friends R/o Adilabad and addicted to smoking Ganja, as and when they wanted to smoke Ganja they used to go to Railway station and take Ganja from LW2/Shaik Salam and LW4/Narayana

Bharathi @ Maharaj, on 05.08.2016 at about 0030 hours A1 and A2

SC.No.65 of 20253

went to railway station in an auto bearing No.AP01X-5541 and requested LWs 2 and 4 to give Ganja (cannabis) for smoking but they stated that they are not having Ganja, upon which A1 and A2 asked

LWs 2 and 4 to get into their auto and LW2/Shaik Salam boarded auto but LW4 refused and told them that he would come by walk, then A1 and A2 took LW2 towards Ganesh temple by demanding to give Ganja assuming that LW2 had ganja, when the auto reached

Hindi High school, LW2 jumped from the auto, immediately A1 and

A2 caught him and A1 stabbed LW2 with a knife on his stomach while

A2 caught hold him tightly by demanding to give ganja, as such PW1 who is relative of LW2/Shaik Salam lodged report in PS, Adilabad II town.

b)Basing on the complaint, PW4/N.Venkata Swamy,

Inspector of Police registered the case in Cr.No.277/2016 under

Section 307 r/w 34 IPC and conducted investigation by visiting the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of mediators, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, sent the injured to hospital for treatment, collected wound certificate, arrested accused and sent them to judicial remand, seized material objects in the presence of mediators under cover of panchanama and after completion of investigation and receipt of all relevant documents he

SC.No.65 of 20254

filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC.

3.Learned Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad has taken cognizance of offence under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC against accused

Nos.1 and 2. On 22.10.2021 police filed death certificate of accused

No.1 stating that he died on 19.03.2021, hence the case against

Accused No.1 was abated. On appearance of accused No.2 and after complying the procedure required under Sections 207 and 209 Cr.P.C.

case was committed to this court and numbered as SC.65 of 2025.

4.On appearance of accused and on hearing both sides, this court framed charge under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.1, read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial PWs 1 to 4 examined, Exs.P1 to P8 and MOs.1 to 4 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused No.2 examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating substance appearing against him, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

SC.No.65 of 20255

7.Heard on both sides.

8.Learned Public Prosecutor argued that PW1 is the relative of

LW2/Shaik Salam (injured) who deposed that LW2/injured was found in RIMS hospital, Adilabad with injury to his stomach, PW2 is panch witness for CDF, PW3 is panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama and the evidence of PW4/investigating officer gives strength to the case of prosecution, as such the accused No.2 is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC.

9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused argued that though PW1 did not depose anything against the accused No.2, PW2 who is the panch for CDF simply deposed that police obtained his signatures on a panchanama and PW3 who is the crucial witness turned hostile and the sole testimony of PW4/Investigation officer is no way helpful to the case of prosecution without corroboration, hence accused No.2 entitled for acquittal for the said charge.

10.Now this court will evaluate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution whether it is sufficient to prove the charges under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.2.

SC.No.65 of 20256

11.The Point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

12.It is the case of the prosecution that LW2/Salam is a begger and begging along with LW4/Narayana Bharathi @ Maharaj, accused

Nos.1 and 2 both are friends and addicted to smoke ganja and used to go to Railway station to take ganja from LWs 2 and 4, accordingly on 05.08.2016 at about 0030 hours, A1 and A2 went to railway station in their auto bearing No.AP01X5541 to request Lws 2 and 4 for ganja but Lws 2 and 4 refused to provide saying that they had no ganja but A1 and A2 assuming that they were having ganja, asked them to sit in their auto, accordingly LW2/Shaik Salam sat in the auto but LW4 refused, as such A1 and A2 took LW2 in their auto and when they reached near Hindi High school LW2/Shaik Salam jumped from the auto but A1 and A2 caught hold of him and A1 stabbed him with a knife on his stomach while A2 caught him tightly by demanding ganja, for which PW1 submitted a report in PS, Adilabad II Town.

SC.No.65 of 20257

13.In this case PW1 who is the complainant and relative of

LW2/Shaik Salam (injured) deposed that he received phone call from the son of injured LW2/Shaik Salam that he was admitted in hospital, accordingly on 05.08.2016 during morning hours he went to RIMS hospital, Adilabad and found LW2/Shaik Salam was on bed with injury to his stomach and not in a position to speak and the person who admitted LW2 in hospital informed him that two persons stabbed

LW2/Shaik Salam for the purpose of ganja, as such he lodged Ex.P1 report. PW1 was declared as hostile and nothing worthwhile substance was derived from his cross examination by learned Public

Prosecutor.

14.PW2 is the panch witness for panchanama and rough sketch, he deposed that on 05.08.2016 while he was going towards Tirpelly, police called him and obtained his signature on a panchanama pertaining to a murder case and prepared rough sketch as in Ex.P2.

However, in his cross-examination he categorically admitted that rough sketch is not containing his signature, police did not issue summons to him to act as mediator and he do not know the contents of Ex.P2, hence it is clear that the evidence of PW2 is not at all useful to the case of prosecution.

SC.No.65 of 20258

15.PW3 who is the crucial witness to the prosecution regarding confession of accused and seizure of material objects, he turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution his signature was marked as Ex.P3 and no material was elicited during his cross- examination in favour of prosecution.

16.PW4 is the investigation officer who filed charge sheet, he deposed about the issuing of FIR, the investigation done by him and arrest of accused. In this case except the evidence of police official, no other independent evidence is available. The independent witnesses i.e. PW1 who is relative of LW2/Shaik Salam did not speak anything against accused and PWs 2 and 3 did not support the case of prosecution. In the absence of any corroboration from the independent witnesses, the sole testimony of police official cannot be relied upon to believe the version of the prosecution as such this court is inclined to extend benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the accused No.2 is entitled for acquittal for the alleged charge. Accordingly point is answered.

17.In the result, Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly he is

SC.No.65 of 20259

acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused No.2 shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A CrPC. MOs.1, 3 and 4 deposited vide

C.P.No.10/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

MO.2 Auto bearing AP-01-X-5541 shall be returned to its rightful owner, after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer and after correction

pronounced by me in open court on this the 10 th day of April, 2026.

Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR

RAO KALLURU

SESSIONS JUDGE

ADILABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Rahees Chous (complainant) PW2:Anarcha Ramsingh (panch witness for CDF) PW3:Wagmare Manohar (panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama) PW4:N.Venkata Swamy, Inspector of Police/IO)

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1:Report dated 05.08.2016 given by PW1 Ex.P2:Panchanama with rough sketch Ex.P3:Signature of PW3 on confession and seizure panchanama of accused Ex.P4:First information report Ex.P5:Relevant portion in the confession statement pertaining to seizure of knife and auto

SC.No.65 of 202510

Ex.P6:Relevant portion in the confession statement regarding seizure of ganja smoking pipe Ex.P7:Wound certificate of LW2/Sk.Salam Ex.P8:Report issued by RFSL, Karimnagar

Exhibits marked for Defence - Nil -

Material Objects Marked

MO.1: Knife MO.2: Bajaj Auto bearing No.AP-01-X-5541 MO.3: Ganja smoking pipe MO.4: Blood stained white colourshirtof LW2/Sk.Salam

Digitally signed by

PRABHAKAR

RAO KALLURU

SESSIONS JUDGE

ADILABAD