1 S.C.No.41 of 2014
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
VIKARABAD DISTRICT.
PRESENT: K.Sudarshan,
Principal Sessions Judge,
Vikarabad District.
Friday, this the 19th day of April, 2024
SC No. 41 of 2014
1. Name of the complainant : The State through P.S. Karankote
2. Cr. No. : 24 of 2013
3. Name & description of : Manchiryala Lingappa S/o Rama Swamy, the accused. Aged 27 Years, Occ: Labour, Vadde R/o. Karankote Village of Tandur Mandal, N/o Maddikanti village, Sedam TQ, Gulbarga District.
4. Offences under Section : 302 of IPC
5. Prosecution conducted by: Addl. Public Prosecutor.
6. Defence conducted by : Sri M. Gopal Reddy, Advocate.
7. Plea of the accused: Not guilty.
8. Finding of the Court : Found guilty
9. Sentence or order of the : In the result, (i) the accused is Court found guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC, convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and in default of payment of the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years.
(ii) The fine amount of Rs.50,000/- (the accused being engaged in private chits business), if any paid by the accused, shall be paid to the 2 children of the deceased 2 S.C.No.41 of 2014
Smt. Vadde Shyamalamma, on their proper acknowledgment and identification, towards compensation under section 357(1) of
Cr.P.C.
(iii) The accused is provided with a free copy of the judgment, and apprised of his right to prefer an appeal against this judgment, if he so chooses and to avail the benefit of legal aid, if necessary, in preferring the said appeal.
(iv) MOs.1 and 2 non-valuable case properties shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period.
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M. Gopal Reddy, Advocate
for accused and upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record
and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day; this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
This is a case of murder of the deceased Smt. Vadde
Shyamalamma (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) allegedly committed by the accused Manchiryala Lingappa by dousing the deceased with kerosene oil and setting ablaze, due to which the deceased sustained burn injuries and later succumbed to the said injuries in the hospital, punishable under section 302 of IPC.
2(a). The case of the prosecution, briefly, as per the charge sheet laid by LW23 N. Srinivas, Circle Inspector of Police, Tandur Rural Circle, the then Ranga Reddy District, is that the accused had borrowed
Rs.30,000/- and 1 ½ tula of gold „nanu‟ (ring worn above the elbow, by 3 S.C.No.41 of 2014 women, hereinafter referred to as the „gold ring‟) from the deceased and later though the deceased demanded for return of the same several times, the accused used to postpone the same. While so, on 17-2-2013 at 8:00 P.M the accused came to the house of the deceased and then the deceased asked for return of the cash and gold ring and thereby the accused got angry, poured kerosene oil available there in a tin and set her ablaze. Due to it, the deceased sustained burn injuries and the accused also got burn injuries and then he fled away. The deceased was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, Tandur and next to
Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment, where she succumbed to the injuries on 19-2-2013 at 10:45 P.M., while undergoing treatment.
2(b). On 18-2-2013 in the morning hours, LW22 P. Srinivas, Sub
Inspector of Police, Karankote Police Station received a phone call from
Government Hospital, Tandur stating that the deceased was admitted in the said hospital with burn injuries. Immediately the said Sub Inspector of Police rushed to the said hospital and recorded her statement, wherein she narrated the facts leading to her sustaining burn injuries. The Sub
Inspector of Police returned to the police station and based on the said statement of the deceased, he registered a case in Crime No.24 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and issued FIR. After due investigation and completion thereof, LW23 N. Srinivas, Circle
Inspector of Police, Tandur Rural Circle filed the charge sheet. Hence the charge.
3. The above said offence was taken cognizance by the learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur and after compliance of
requirements under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., she by her order dated 17.01.2014 committed the case to this Court under section 209 of 4 S.C.No.41 of 2014
Criminal Procedure Code vide PRC No. 58 of 2013. The same was taken on file as S.C. No.41 of 2014 for disposal according to law.
4. On appearance of the accused before the Court and on hearing both sides, charge was framed for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 17 were got examined and Exs.P1 to P9 and MOs.1 and 2 were got marked.
6. After completion of examination of witnesses on behalf of prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence found against him and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
7. Now the point for consideration of this court is whether the prosecution could prove the charge against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubts?
8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.
9(a). Point: As per the material on record, the undisputed facts of this case are that the accused Manchiryala Lingappa is the younger brother of the deceased Vadde Shyamalamma by courtesy. The name of the husband of the deceased is Vadde Lingappa (other than the accused).
PW6 Kasthuri Maremma is the mother of the deceased. PW2 K. Vittal is the elder brother of the deceased. PW4 V. Maheshwari is the daughter of the deceased and LW5 Vadde Durga Prasad is the son of the deceased.
About 8 years prior to the incident, the husband of the deceased had married another woman, deserted the deceased and went away with the said woman. Since then the deceased is living along with her 2 children in 5 S.C.No.41 of 2014
Karankote village. PW1 Vadde Bheemappa was the tenant of the deceased at the relevant time of the incident. Though the accused was a native of Maddikanti village, Sedam Taluka in the State of Karnataka, he was a tenant of one Vadde Ramulu (other than PW9 Shabad Vadde
Ramulu). There are 10 houses between the houses of PW2 and the deceased. There are 15 houses between the houses of PW2 and PW5
Vadde Dasu. PW7 Vadde Nagappa is a co-worker or co-labourer of the accused and PW7 is the neighbour of the deceased. PW9 Shadab Vadde
Ramulu is also the neighbour of PWs.1 to 8 Vadde Bhemappa, Kanusuri
Vittal, Vadde Shanthamma, Vadde Maheshwari, Vadde Dass, Kasthuri
Maremma, Vadde Nagappa and Gundrala Bheemaiah respectively. The deceased is the senior maternal aunt of PW10 Vadde Subhash.
9(b). The accused was doing business by conducting chits privately for a period of about 1 ½ years at the time of the incident. PWs.1 to 6 and 8 and the deceased belong to the same caste. PW3 was a subscriber of a chit with the accused. He heard that the deceased was also a subscriber to a chit with the accused. He did not know whether the deceased was the prizedsubscriberof the said chit and whether she paid the prize money received from the accused, to PW2. There is no written record to show that the accused was conducting the business in chits privately and that PW3 and the deceased and others were subscribers of the chits with the accused.
10. While the case of the prosecution is that about 2 years prior to the incident, the accused had borrowed Rs.30,000/- and 1½ tulas of gold ring from deceased by depositing the title deeds of his house, but later despite the several demands made by the accused for discharge of the said debt, he dodged the matter and on 17.02.2013 at about 8:00 p.m., 6 S.C.No.41 of 2014 the accused came to the house of the deceased and when the deceased demanded and insisted him for return of the said amount and gold ring, the accused became angry and poured kerosene oil on her available in
MO1 plastic tin and set her ablaze. Both the deceased and the accused got burn injuries in the said incident and the accused fled away. The deceased was immediately shifted to the District Head Quarter Hospital,
Tandur and next to Gandhi Hosptial, Secunderabad for better treatment.
The deceased succumbed to the said injuries on 19.02.2013 at 10:45 p.m., in the said hospital.
11. As against the above said case of the prosecution, the defence of the accused is two fold, firstly that the accused was conducting the chits privately in Karankote village, that the deceased, PWs.2, 3, 5 and others had subscribed to the chits with the accused, that the chit amount subscribed by the deceased was Rs.30,000/- with 20 members for a period of 20 months, that the deceased was the prized subscriber of the said chit, that the prize money was paid by the accused to the deceased and in turn, the deceased paid the said prize money to her elder brother
PW2, that quarrels took place between deceased and PW2 in respect of the said prize money, that the deceased could not pay the installments of the said chit in future to the accused, that therefore she committed suicide by self-immolation, that thus, PW2 was responsible for her suicide. Another defence story brought on record by the accused is that the deceased being deserted by her husband about 8 years ago, having married another woman and left the village, the deceased suffered from depression and thereby she committed suicide by self-immolation.
12. There is no dispute that while the deceased was being admitted in District Head Quarter Hospital, Tandur with burn injuries, on 7 S.C.No.41 of 2014 18.02.2013 PW15 Smt. Harisha, the then learned Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Tandur recorded Ex.P4 dying declaration of the deceased from
9:40 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. As seen from the said dying declaration and also stated by PW15, on 17.02.2013 at 10:00 p.m., while the deceased was alone in her house in the village, the accused came to her and on the demand made by her for repayment of the loan amount, the accused quarreled with her, poured kerosene, which was present there in her house, on her and set ablaze. As the deceased was not able to tolerate the flames, she poured water on her herself and extinguished the flames.
It is significant to note that as stated by the deceased in her dying declaration recorded by PW15, on hearing her cries, some persons came into her house, they locked the accused in a room of her house and shifted her to the said hospital. There is no eye witness to the actual incident of the accused allegedly pouring kerosene oil on the deceased and setting her ablaze. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as well as Ex.P4 dying declaration of the deceased recorded by PW15. There was cordial relationship among the accused, deceased and PWs.2 and 5, prior to the incident and the accused used to visit the house of the deceased now and then.
13. PW16 P. Srinivas, the then Sub Inspector of Police of Karankote
Police Station stated before this court that on 19.02.2013, on reliable information, the accused was apprehended by him and other police staff at 8:00 p.m., at the house of the accused in Karankote village and was brought to the police station. He admitted that the accused had suffered burn injuries on his hands etc., in the incident. PW17 N. Srinivas, the then Circle Inspector of Police, Tandur Rural Circle also admitted the fact that the accused also sustained burn injuries in the incident. PW14 Dr.
Sridhar, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Head Quarter Hospital, 8 S.C.No.41 of 2014
Tandur stated about the accused coming to the said hospital accompanied by a Police Constable of Karankote Police Station on 20.02.2013 at 4:00 p.m. At the request of the said police, he examined the accused and found approximately 11% of burn injuries on the body of the accused, which are as follows:
1. Anterior chest wall – 4%
2. Left leg - 5%
3. Left forearm – 2%
14. As per the deposition of PW14, the accused stated to PW14 that he sustained the burn injuries on 17.02.2013. ExP3 is the wound certificate dated 20.02.2013 issued by PW14 relating to the accused. As stated by PW14, the accused had sustained Grade-I burn injuries (1⁰) and that the accused had sustained superficial injuries. PW14 was of the opinion that the burns sustained by the accused are not of extreme nature and are of 1st degree. In his cross-examination, PW14 admitted that the above said injuries were possible to be sustained by a person in the process of rescuing the victim in the flames. PW2 denied the suggestions put to him in his cross examination that the accused himself first went to the rescue of the deceased, that in the process of rescuing her, the accused also sustained burn injuries to his hands etc. It is suggested to PW5 in his cross-examination and denied by him that after the incident, the accused was confined in the room and thereafter he was handed over to the police by the prosecution party. He further stated that he did not observe whether the accused went for the rescue of the deceased, when the deceased suffered burn injuries and whether the accused also sustained injuries to his hands in the said process and whether, thereafter, the accused was also shifted to the hospital by the police.
9 S.C.No.41 of 2014
15. In the present case, there is a specific mention in the charge sheet about the accused also sustaining burn injuries and examination of him by PW14 Dr. Sridhar, who issued Ex.P3 wound certificate dated 20.02.2013. It is not specifically mentioned in the charge sheet by the police that the accused had sustained the said injuries in the same incident and whether said injuries were sustained by him while committing the offence against the deceased or while allegedly rescuing her. As already observed by this court, and as stated by PW14 as mentioned in the said wound certificate, the said injuries were superficial one, not of extreme in nature and are of 1st degree. The accused stated to PW14 that he sustained burn injuries on 17.02.2013 (date of occurrence of the incident), but not about the manner of sustaining or the circumstances in which he sustained the same, at least in outlines. To say simply, had the accused really sustained the said injuries in the process of allegedly rescuing the deceased from being burnt in flames and in extinguishing the said flames, he would have at least loosely stated the said circumstance of sustaining injuries by him, to PW14. Consciously he did not do so, at both times- once, before he being examined by PW14 and twice, during his examination under section 313, Cr.P.C. before this court. For all the aforesaid discussion, it is held by this court that the accused had sustained the above said injuries while committing the offence against the deceased by setting her fire, but not while he allegedly rescuing her.
16. With regard to the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused, by the police in the charge sheet, the learned counsel for the accused placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court made in
Nand Lal and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 SCC Online SC 262 (F.B.). In the said case, where the prosecution did not explain the injuries 10 S.C.No.41 of 2014 sustained by A11, the court gave benefit of doubt to him taking into consideration of a further fact that the prosecution has also suppressed the earlier FIR lodged by PW1 therein. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below:
“ 25. We will first consider the issue with regard to non- explanation of injuries sustained by accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. In the case of Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394, which case also arose out of a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, this Court had an occasion to consider the issue of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused.
This Court, after referring to the earlier judgments on the issue, observed thus:
“12……It seems to us that in a murder case, the non- explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences:
“(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.” 11 S.C.No.41 of 2014
The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution, then it will be difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to have given due consideration to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution case. We must hasten to add that as held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima [(1975) 2 SCC 7 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 384] there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and the High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises.” (Emphasis supplied).
17. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the material brought on record from both sides, 12 S.C.No.41 of 2014 this court is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid judgment does not come to the aid of the accused herein and on the other hand, it goes against him. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case, in the portion underlined and emphasized by this court, clearly goes against the accused in the present case and in favour of the prosecution, wherein it is stated that there may be cases where non-explanation of the injuries of the accused, by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case.
Such cases are those where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, which outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries of the accused. In the instant case, as clearly stated by PW14 Dr. Sridhar, the injuries sustained by the accused are also superficial in nature, not extreme in nature and are of 1st degree. When in Ex.P4 dying declaration, the deceased herself stated to have extinguished the flames by pouring water on her body, the question of the accused coming to her rescue does not arise at all. In fact, he was not her savior, but was her killer. Therefore, the non-explanation of injuries caused to the accused in the above said incident by the prosecution, is not fatal to its case.
18. On evidence, the fact remains proved that at the relevant time of the incident, which is night time, the deceased being abandoned or deserted by her husband long ago, was residing alone in her house along with her children, but at the time of the incident her children were also away from the house; the accused came to the house of the deceased and asked for return of the documents of his house, which he kept with the deceased (as security for discharge of the debt incurred by him), the deceased asked for repayment of the loan amount. Due to it, the accused quarreled with her, poured kerosene oil present in the house on her and 13 S.C.No.41 of 2014 set her ablaze. She categorically further stated that being unable to bear with the flames, she herself poured water and extinguished the flames, that on hearing her cries, the people came and confined the accused in a room and locked it and then shifted her to the hospital. It is a fact proved by the prosecution that the accused is a resident of Karankote Village, being the tenant of Vadde Ramulu and was visiting the house of the deceased now and then and the accused was close to the deceased.
19. In the bonafide and considered view of this court and as stated by PW15, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, who recorded the Ex.P4 dying declaration of the deceased dated 18.02.2013, there is no need or requirement in law for her to take the consent of the declarant for recording the dying declaration of the deceased. Except for the suggestion made to PW15 with regard to the assumed requirement of obtaining the consent of the declarant in recording her dying declaration by PW15, there is nothing on record to discard the truthfulness of the said dying declaration. It is well settled in law that dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction, if it inspires full confidence of the court, without any further corroboration (Naeem vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 237). In view of the above, it is held by this court that the dying declaration of the deceased in the present case, being truthful and devoid of an outcome of any extraneous tutoring, can be relied upon in the present case in support of the case of the prosecution.
20. Considering the defence version of the accused in respect of the 1st degree of injuries sustained by him, which are superficial in nature as stated by PW14 Dr. Sridhar, who examined the accused and issued Ex.P3 wound certificate of the accused dated 20.02.2013, that the injuries sustained by the accused were possible in the process of rescuing the 14 S.C.No.41 of 2014 victim in the flames, it is to be borne in mind that PW14 further stated that the accused stated to him that he sustained the said burn injuries on 17.02.2013, which is the date of incident of this case. The above said defence version of the accused to have sustained the said burn injuries in the process of rescuing the deceased, is refuted by the deceased herself in her dying declaration by stating categorically that she being unable to bear with the flames, had poured water and extinguished the flames herself. Added to the above, the accused in his examination under 313
Cr.P.C., also did not put forth any of his defence version except simply denying the incriminating evidence put forth against him. The further statement of the deceased in her dying declaration that people who came there, on hearing her cries, had confined the accused in a room and locked it, goes to show the falsity of the above said defence version. No woman who is about to die in a short period, would generally speak against an innocent person. Therefore, had the accused been innocent on one hand and was her savior in attempting to rescue her from the flames, the deceased would not have stated the accused to be responsible for the said burn injuries in so many clear terms and would not have falsely implicated him. All the above said facts put together, including the specific statement of the accused made to PW14 that he sustained the burn injuries on the same day of the incident, clinchingly go to prove that the accused was very well present at the time of the incident with the deceased, who was alone in her house at that time and it is the accused and none else, who set fire to her.
21. In the light of the above said discussion, which is mostly based on undisputed or proved facts, it is a futile exercise to broaden this judgment by discussing the evidence of all other witnesses at length. The discussion of the evidence of all such other witnesses is not so material, 15 S.C.No.41 of 2014 for the reason that all other witnesses of the prosecution party are not the eye witnesses to the actual incident of the accused setting fire to the deceased and they are circumstantial and such other witnesses. For the discussion made above, it is held by this court that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the charge made against him beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore he is found guilty of commission of the offence of the murder of the deceased. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.
22. When the accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence proposed in law for the charge proved against him, he represented that he has his mother, wife and a son aged 12 years and that they are dependent upon him for their livelihood and prayed to take a lenient view in sentencing him.
23. Heard both sides with regard to quantum of sentence proposed in law for the offence proved against the accused and perused the record.
24. It is seen from the record that the accused being an able bodied young person having taken money and gold item from the deceased, had resorted to killing the lonely deceased woman in a brutal manner by burning her alive, when she demanded him for refund of the said amount and gold item. Thus, the accused knowingly had resorted to the gruesome murder of a helpless deserted mother of 2 children, for no fault of her. Considering the gravity of the offence proved against him and the manner in which he committed the same, this court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for applying the beneficial provisions of
Section 360 of Cr.P.C. to him and that he does not deserve for any leniency in sentencing him.
16 S.C.No.41 of 2014
25. Taking into consideration of the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the accused, the nature and gravity of the offence proved against him and the circumstances in which it was committed by him, this court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice will be met by awarding imprisonment for life, besides fine to the accused for the said offence.
26. In the result, (i) the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, convicted under Section 235 (2) of
Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and in default of payment of the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years.
(ii) The fine amount of Rs.50,000/- (the accused being engaged in private chits business), if any paid by the accused, shall be paid to the 2 children of the deceased Smt. Vadde Shyamalamma, on their proper acknowledgment and identification, towards compensation under section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.
(iii) The accused is provided with a free copy of the judgment, and apprised of his right to prefer an appeal against this judgment, if he so chooses and to avail the benefit of legal aid, if necessary, in preferring the said appeal.
(iv) MOs.1 and 2 non-valuable case properties shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 19th day of April, 2024.
Principal Sessions Judge,
Vikarabad District.
17 S.C.No.41 of 2014
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:-
PW1: Vadde Bheemappa. -Nil- PW2: Kasthuri Vittal. PW3: Vadde Shanthamma. PW4: Vadde Maheshwari. PW5: Vadde Dass. PW6: Kasthuri Maremma. PW7: Vadde Nagappa. PW8: Gundrala Bheemaiah. PW9: Shabad Vadde Ramulu. PW10: Vadde Subhash. PW11: Myathari Mogulappa. PW12: Mestri Maruthi. PW13: Udigi Siddappa. PW14: Dr. Sridhar. PW15: Smt. Harisha. PW16: P. Srinivas. PW17: N. Srinivas.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1: Scene of offence panchanama cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P1(a): Rough sketch map of scene of offence. Ex.P2: Inquest panchanama. Ex.P3: Wound Certificate dated 20-2-2013. Ex.P4: Dying declaration dated 18-2-2013. Ex.P5: Statement of deceased Vadde Shyamalamma. Ex.P6: First Information Report. Ex.P7: Report of PW5 dated 20-2-2013. Ex.P8: Memo of alteration of section of law dated 20-2-2013. Ex.P9: Post mortem examination report dated 20-2-2013.
FOR DEFENCE:
Nil MOs. MARKED
MO.1: Red plastic tin without cap. MO.2: Burn saree pieces.
Principal Sessions Judge,
Vikarabad District.