Currently Serving

K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao

V Addl Dist and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda

Miryalaguda, V ADJ Court Complex · Nalgonda · Telangana

Based on 13 recent orders

K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao, V Addl Dist and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, is posted at Miryalaguda, V ADJ Court Complex, Nalgonda, Telangana, India. 13 court orders on record since 2025. 9 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CRLA, OS, G cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

SC/509/2022 Convicted

STATE OF TELANGANA SHO NIDMANOOR vs Shaik Ramzan @ Ramzan Vali

06 Mar 2026

1 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

IN THE COURT OF V - ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT: MIRYALAGUDA, NALGONDA DISTRICT

Friday, the 6 th day of March, 202 6

Present: Sri K.V.Chandra Shekar Rao,

V – Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda.

S.C. No. 509 of 20 22

1Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Circle Inspector of Police, Haliya Circle.

2Name of the accusedShaik Ramzan @ Ramzan Vali, S/o.Janimiya, Age:34 years, Occ:Driver of Lorry bearing No.TS-05-UC-6166,R/o.BapujiNagar, Miryalaguda town, Nalgonda District.

3Offences complained ofUnder Sections 304-II, 338 & 337 I.P.C.

4Crime No. & Name of the PS82/2021 of Nidamanoor police station.

5Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6Finding of the CourtAccused found guilty.

7Sentence or orderIn the result: the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (05) years for the offence punishable under Section 304-II I.P.C, simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C and for a period of three (03) months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C, all the sentences shall run concurrently.

This Sessions Case is coming before me on 26-02-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Raghu Rama Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Paramesh, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

:: JUDGMENT ::

The Circle Inspector of Police, Haliya filed charge sheet against the 1.

accused in Crime No.82 of 2021 of Nidamanoor police station to punish him for the offences punishable under Sections 304-II, 338 & 337 Indian

Penal Code.

2. The facts of the case are that hat LW-1 – Cherukupally Ashok lodged report vide Ex.P.1 alleging that on 02-04-2021 at about 5-30 p.m., in front of Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor at 5-00 p.m., the accused who is the driver of lorry bearing No.TS-05-UC-6166 resident of

Bapujinagar, Miryalaguda, drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner in a drunken condition and proceeding towards Haliya from Miryalaguda side and dashed one TATA AC coming in opposite direction as a result two persons died on the spot and five persons were received injuries, further two persons died while undergoing treatment.

3 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

3.LW-1 / Cherukupally Ashok lodged Ex.P.1 in his report submitted that on 02-04-2021 at 3-00 p.m., he received information from his elder son-law / Thari Srinu herein the deceased No.1 with regard to invitation of his younger daughter / Jeevitha at Mupparam village. Accordingly, deceased Nos.1 to 4 herein Thari Srinu who is driving the Yamaha 125 motorcycle bearing No.TS-05-FD8658 along with his wife / Thari Vijaya, herein deceased No.2, Thari Srividya herein deceased No.3 and Thari

Varshith herein deceased No.4 to attend Annaprasana programme and at about 5-40 p.m., he received information from his villager LW-2 / PW-2 by phone call that deceased No.1 & 2 died in road accident in Nidamanoor village. Immediately, he and his family members visited the scene of offence at Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nidamanoor and saw deceased Nos.1 & 2 died with severe blood injuries. Then, PW-1 made enquiry with PW-2 as to how the accident occurred, accordingly, PW-2 replied that LW4 / Chinthakayala Venkanna (died) PW-6 / Nagaraju and his son / K.Yashwanth, LW-3 / PW-3 – Gannapuram Venkatamma, who were coming along with his driver of TATA AC Auto bearing No.AP-24-X- 4 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 6494 LW-10 / PW-7 Shaik Dasthagiri going to Mupparam village from

Chandur with water melon load at the same time deceased Nos.1 to 4 were also proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.TS-05-FD-8658 from behind their auto and when they reached near Judicial Magistrate of First

Class Court, Miryalaguda at 5-30 p.m., one lorry bearing No.TS-05-UC- 6166 driven by its driver came in a opposite direction proceeding towards

Haliya from Miryalaguda with loaded rice in a rash and negligent manner and hit the auto, as a result, the auto fell down on the road side and in the said incident, PW-6 and his son / K.Yashwanth who are seated in the cabin of the auto driver PW-7 sustained blood injuries at the same time the said lorry dashed the motorcycle of deceased No.1 and in the said incident deceased No.1 & 2 died on the spot, whereas deceased No.3 & 4 along with the son of PW-6 / K.Yashwanth and PW-9 were shifted to

Government Area Hospital, Miryalaguda in a 108 ambulance, while undergoing treatment, deceased No.3 & 4 died at 6-30 p.m., later he came to know that the name of the driver of the crime vehicle is Ramzan 5 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 who suspect the said lorry drove the lorry in drunken condition, accordingly, lodged a report.

4.Basing on the report vide Ex.P.1, PW-19 First Investigation officer registered a case and issued F.I.R vide Ex.P.17 under Section 304-II & 337

I.P.C. Further, PW-19 before the receipt of Ex.P.1, he received information with regard to major road accident then, PW-19 along with his force rushed to the scene of offence due to law and order problem and shifted the deceased Nos.1 & 2 to the Government Area Hospital, Miryalaguda and kept them in mortuary and also shifted the remaining injured to the

Government Area Hospital in a 108 ambulance. Subsequently, he informed the same to PW-20 / Circle Inspector of Police, Haliya.

5.During the course of investigation, PW-20 upon receipt of Case Diary from PW-19 according to the directions of Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Miryalaguda formed two special teams one with PW-19 along with his staff and the second team consisting of Sub-Inspector of Police,

Miryalaguda Rural and apprehended the accused. Later, PW-20 visited the 6 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama vide Ex.P.8 and also drawn rough sketch in the presence of PW-8 & LW-11 and observed that there is a newly forming national highway 167 with width 18 meters and on one side 8-25 meters and another side 8-25 meters and the divider is 1-05 meters further on one side road is completed and the other side the work is under progress, as such, the traffic was moving on one side.

6.Thereafter, PW-20 proceeded to the Government Area Hospital,

Miryalaguda and recorded the statements LWs-2 to 8 herein. According to the proceedings of Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Miryalaguda to conduct inquest over the deceased, he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased No.1 – Thari Srinivas in the presence of PW-9 & LW-14 vide

Ex.P.3 LW-28 / M.Rammurthy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Tripuraram conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased No.2 in the presence of PW-10 & LW-16 / K.Yallamma vide Ex.P.4, LW-29 / N.Anthi

Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda I-Town conducted inquest 7 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 over the dead body of deceased No.3 – Thari Srividya in the presence of

PW-11 & LW-18 / Y.Gangaiah vide Ex.P.5 and LW-10 / T.Ramchandra Raju,

Sub-Inspector of Police II-Town conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased No.4 – Thari Varshit in the presence of PW-12 and LW-19 /

R.Sandeep vide Ex.P.6 and sent the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 to 4 for postmortem examination and thereafter, after completion of postmortem the dead bodies were handed over to the family of deceased.

7.On the same day at 9-00 p.m., the accused was apprehended and conducted B.A.C test i.e., Blood Alcohol Content and found blood alcohol content measuring 184 mg / 100 ml, thereafter the special team produced the accused before PW-20 and sent him to Government Area

Hospital, Miryalaguda, where the blood samples, urine and head hairs of the accused were collected for sending the same to F.S.L with regarding to the drunken status, accordingly, PW-16 / Dr.B.Srinivas Naik of 8 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

Government Area Hospital, Miryalaguda collected the above said samples and the same were forward to FSL, Hyderabad for opinion and report.

8.PW-20 conduced confession panchanama of the accused in the presence of PW-13 and LW-22 / V.Satyanarayana vide Ex.P.7 and recovered original driving license vide MO.6 by affixing panch slips and produced the accused before the Court on 03-04-2021at 12-30 midnight by following due procedure.

9.PW-20 further visited the scene of offence and conducted Ex.P.2 and recovered MO.1 to 5 in the presence of PW-8 and LW-11.

10.PW-6 Medical Officer, performed autopsy over the dead body of deceased Nos.1 & 2 and issued Ex.P.12 & 13 and opined that cause of death of deceased No.1 is as poly trauma and died, deceased No.2 head injury, whereas PW-14 Dr.B.Kumar another Medical Officer performed autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.3 & 4 vide Ex.P.9 & 10 and 9 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 opined that cause of death of deceased No.3 & 4 as multiple injury over the body and head injury.

11.On 04-04-2021, PW-20 visited Navya Multi Specialty Hospital,

Nalgonda and recorded the statement of PW-6 and proceeded to Sri Sai

Ortho Care Center, Miryalaguda and recorded the statement of PW-7 herein the driver of TATA AC Auto.

12.On 06-04-2021 PW-18 / Shaik Jilani, Motor Vehicle Inspector,

Miryalaguda inspected the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.TS-05-UC-6166 and opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the above said crime vehicle.

13.Further, PW-20 sent the urine of the accused in the plastic tubes which was collected by the Medical Officer for chemical analysis, wherein he received FSL report vide Ex.P.19 that item No.1 to 4 and found 24.975% mg (ethyl alcohol in Item No.1, 38.85% mg found ethyl alcohol 38.85% mg of found in Item No.2 and 63.25% mg found ethyl alcohol in

Item No.3 & 4. Later, PW-20 has taken police custody of the accused with 10 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 the permission of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor for two days and on 16-04-2021, the accused was taken into police custody and as per the confession made by the accused, accused led him to the land of Anumula Narsimha Reddy, near H.P Petrol Pump in the outskirts of

Tripuraram village, wherein the accused shown two empty liquor bottles of 180 ml were seized in the presence of mediators PW-13 and LW-22 /

V.Sathyanarayana vide MO.7.

14.PW-15 Dr. V.Srinivas Raju issued injury certificate of PW-7 vide

Ex.P.11 and opined that the injuries sustained are simple in nature.

PW-17 / Dr.Cheruku Suhas who treated the son of PW-6 / K.Yashwanth and opined that the injuries are grievance in nature Ex.P.14 is the injury certificate of son of PW-6 and after completion investigation, he filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 304-II, 337 & 338

I.P.C.

15. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor before whom the above charge-sheet was filed, took cognizance for the offences 11 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 punishable under Sections 304-II, 338 & 337 of Indian Penal Code and registered the case as P.R.C.No.16 of 2021 and committed the same under Section 209(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure to the Sessions

Division, Nalgonda vide Order dated 05-08-2022. The Hon’ble Sessions

Judge, Nalgonda registered the case as S.C.No.509 of 2022 and made over

the same to this court for trial and disposal as per law.

16.Upon appearance of the accused before this court and consideration of material available on record and also after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused, this Court framed charges under Sections 304-II, 338 & 337 of

Indian Penal Code, read over and explained the same to the accused, to which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

17.The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, examined PWs.1 to 20 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.19 and M.O.1 to 7.

After the closure of prosecution side evidence, when the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with 12 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 reference to the incriminating circumstances & material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same. He did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

18. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused. Perused the written arguments filed by them. Heard, the learned counsel for accused submitted that the prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Basing on the evidence of prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused submits the accused is not the driver of the crime vehicle on the day of accident and he did not take a plea of driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, taking the contention that the breath analyzer test cannot believed and the blood has to be tested for coming to conclusion of B.A.C test i.e., blood alcohol content on this aspect as already discussed below that the prosecution already relied on two reports i.e.,

Ex.P.18 & P.19 which is sufficient, if at all the consumption of alcohol is kept aside the rash and negligent act of the driver is proved as he is 13 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 supposed to drive the vehicle in slow manner on one side of the road where the expansion of laying of road is going on and vehicles are moving on one side of the road is sufficient fact, he knows that if he drives the vehicle in a negligent manner even after there is no clear road that accidents are bound to occur to which, he has not taken cautions to drive the vehicle properly, hence, the contentions raised by the defense counsel are not accepted and the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused.

Now, the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-II, 338 & 337 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt ?

Point No.1:-

19.PW-1 who is father of deceased No.2 – Thari Vijay and father-in-law of deceased No.1 – Thari Srinivas stated that about four years back deceased No.1 to 4 were coming on a motorcycle from Teppalamadugu village to attend the Annaprasana ceremony and when they reached near 14 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 to the Court at about 5-00 or 5-30 p.m., one lorry coming in opposite direction from Miryalaguda with high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed one TATA ACE vehicle with water melon load due to which the TATA ACE vehicle fell towards the right of the road thereafter, the said lorry dashed to the motorcycle of deceased No.1, due to which deceased Nos.1 to 4 fell down and in the said incident deceased Nos.1 & 2 died on the spot and deceased Nos.3 & 4 were shifted to the hospital by the time when he reached to the scene of offence as informed to him by

PW-2 / Gannapuram Giri who belongs to his village on enquiry he came to know that the offending lorry driver – Shaik Ramzan R/o.Miryalaguda drove the lorry in drunken condition with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident accordingly, he lodged Ex.P.1.

Here the evidence of PW-1 is not helpful to the case of prosecution as he is not the direct eye-witness to the accident and visited the scene of offence on the information given by their villager herein PW-2.

15 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

20.PW-5 who is the mother of deceased No.1 – Thari Srinivas came to know about the accident and stated about the accident and she is not the direct eye-witness, hence the evidence of PW-5 is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

21.PW-7 who is owner of TATA AC Auto bearing No.AP-24-X-6494 stated that PW-6 engaged his auto to collect water melons from Chandur to

Mupparam village, accordingly, he along with PW-6 and his son –

Yashwanth, PW-2, PW-3 & LW-4 / Chinthakayala Venkanna (died) where proceeding in the said auto and when they reached to the Court at

Nidamanoor around 5-00 or 5-30 p.m., one lorry bearing No.TS-05-UC- 6166 coming in opposite direction came into their way and dashed their auto, due to which their auto damaged and he along with the occupants in the auto sustained injuries, accordingly, one motorcycle which was coming from behind their auto was dashed by the said lorry, due to which the family members along with two children fell down and sustained 16 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 injuries, wherein, the rider of the motorcycle and his wife died on the spot, thereafter, they were shifted in 108 ambulance.

22.Here, the evidence of PW-7 that he is driving the TATA AC Auto in which, he saw the lorry hit his auto from opposite direction the witness identified the accused who was present in the Court. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused put a suggestion that he has seen the accused for the first time in the Court, on perusal of the statement given by PW-7 to the police he did not state that he can identify the driver of the lorry if shown to him, whereas he identified the driver of the lorry for the first time, in the Court, hence, the identification of the driver with PW-7 is not proved, except the happening of the accident with the lorry and further denied the suggestion that in order to claim insurance he is deposing false.

23.PW-6 also stated the similar version as stated by PW-7 and he identified the driver of crime lorry in the Court, whereas he did not state 17 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 to the police in his statement that he can identify the accused if shown to him, hence, identification of the driver of the crime vehicle is not proved by PW-3.

24.PW-2 & 3 who are travelling in the auto of PW-7, stated the similar version as stated by PW-6 & 7 and they identified the driver of the crime vehicle herein the accused in the Court for the first time and they admitted in their cross-examination that they did not state before the police that they can identify the driver of the lorry if shown to them, hence identification of the driver of the crime lorry is also not proved in the evidence of PW-2 & PW-3.

25.As per the evidence of PW-1 to 3, 5 to 7, though the identified the driver of crime vehicle in the Court who saw him for the first time cannot be believed as they did not state before the police that they can identify the driver of the lorry if shown to them.

18 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

26.Now, the entire case of prosecution is based on circumstantial witness as already discussed above that PW-1 & 2 are not direct eye- witnesses, whereas PW-2, PW-3, PW-6, LW-3 and PW-7 were all travelling in TATA AC Auto bearing No.AP-24-X-6494 stated that they were coming towards Miryalaguda in the above said auto, wherein, the lorry bearing

No.TS-05-UC-6166 came in a opposite direction and dashed their auto, due to which they sustained injuries among them PW-6 along with his son and driver of the auto PW-7 sustained injuries, wherein PW-7 sustained injuries and they are treated by Dr.V.Srinivasa Raju, Sri Sai Ortho Care

Center, Miryalaguda and gave injury certificate vide Ex.P.11 and the injuries are in simple in nature in the same way the son of PW-6 by name

K.Yashwanth aged about 7 years was treated by Dr.Cheruku Suhas of

Navya Multi Specialty Hospital, Nalgonda and he issued injury certificate vide Ex.P.14 and gave his opinion that vide Ex.P.14 goes to show that the son of PW-6 injuries as follows: 1). laceration 6 x 1 cms over right temporal region which is fresh and grievous in nature 2). Fracture of right side scal is also fresh and grievous in nature. The evidence of PW-2, PW-3, 19 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

PW-6 and PW-7 it is clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. Similarly, in the said accident deceased No.1 to 4 were died and said accident is not in dispute, except the identification of the driver.

27.Now, coming to the point with regard to identification of the driver the evidence of PW-4 is very much important in this case. PW-4 in his evidence stated that about four years back at about 3-00 or 4-00 p.m., while he was going to Tea Stall located opposite to the Court at

Nidmanoor one lorry coming from the side of Miryalaguda dashed one auto coming from opposite with a water melon load due to which the occupants of the auto sustained injuries and the auto was damaged in the meanwhile one motorcyclist and his family having two children were coming on the way the lorry dashed their motorcycle due to which, the rider of the motorcycle and his wife died on the spot and the local people shifted their two children in a 108 ambulance and also the occupants of the auto, later he came to know that both the children were died.

20 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

28.He further stated that the left side of the road leading to Haliya from

Miryalaguda was laying, as such, the vehicles coming from Haliya side were proceeding towards the way leading to Miryalaguda on the right side. He further stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by its driver vide lorry bearing No.TS-05-UC-6166 and he identified the driver of lorry in the Court who was in drunken condition under the influence of alcohol on the day of accident. He further stated that on the date of accident the accused managed to fled away from the scene of offence. PW-4 denied the suggestion that he identified the accused in the Court for the first time. On perusal of the statement given to the police PW-4 stated before the police in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C that he can identify the driver of the lorry if shown to him.

Hence, the evidence of PW-4 is believable.

29.On the other hand, the counsel for the accused contended that the accused is not the driver who drove the crime vehicle on the day of 21 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 accident. Though PW-4 identified the driver, but the police did not conduct test identification parade in order to prove the identification of the driver, though the Investigation officer did not conduct the test identification parade is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW-4 and the other evidence is available on record, on this aspect PW-19 the first Investigation officer who received information about the accident, immediately, reached to the spot, thereafter he registered F.I.R on the report given by PW-1 vide Ex.P.1 and on the same day he along with his team apprehended the accused at 9-00 p.m., and got tested with breath analyzer and found the alcohol content is 184 mg / 100 ml and Ex.P.18 is the breath analyzer report which contains the signature of the accused and also signed by PW-19 and in order to further strengthen the case of prosecution the accused was produced before PW-20 who laid charge sheet and conducted further investigation, stated that the urine, blood and head hairs of the accused were collected by PW-6 / Dr.B.Srinivas Naik and the same was sent to F.S.L, Hyderabad and the report was given by

F.S.L, Hyderabad vide Ex.P.19, whereas it is mentioned that item No.1 to 4 22 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 contains alcohol, hence, it is clear that both the tests i.e., breath analyzer vide Ex.P.18 & Ex.P.19 are proved to shows that the accused was under the influence of alcohol more than the permitted limit i.e., permitted limit is 30 mg / 100 ml, as such, the driver was not under control to drive the vehicle and the evidence of PW-3 to 7 goes to show that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Prosecution in order to prove that the accused consumed liquor.

30.PW-20 further took the accused for two days police custody and on interrogation that he consumed alcohol and he was ready to show the place where he has found the liquor quarter bottles, accordingly, the accused led PW-20 in the outskirts of Tripuraram near H.P Petrol Pump on national highway 167, beside NH 67 on 16-04-2021 at 1-30 p.m.,

Ex.P.8 was conducted in the presence of mediators PW-13 & LW-22 and recovered two empty liquor bottles of 180 ml each whiskey bottles of

Manjeera Classic Brand marked as MO.7 to show that the accused consumed alcohol at Tripuraram village outskirts.

23 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

31.Further, in order strengthen the case of prosecution that the accused was driving the crime vehicle is that PW-19 the first Investigation officer after conducing breath analyzer test vide Ex.P.18 he handed over the Case Diary to PW-20, wherein he conducted confession and seizure panchanama in the presence of PW-12 & LW-22, wherein PW-13 who is panch witness to the Ex.P.7 stated that he worked as Village Secretary on the relevant time on 02-04-2021 on the instructions of their MPDO he along with LW-22 / V.Sathayanarayana went to Government Area

Hospital, Miryalaguda and PW-20 shown one Shaik Ramzan herein accused and requested him to enquiry, wherein on enquiry the accused disclosed that he is working as a Driver under Devabathula Murali who is owner of crime vehicle and the accused was bringing rice load and on the way he stopped the lorry to purchase two liquor bottle and after consuming the liquor the accused was proceeding towards Haliya and on the way nearby the Court the accused caused accident and he was apprehended by the police and brought to the Government Area 24 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

Hospital, Miryalaguda for conducting medical test, wherein the accused gave his blood samples and also shown original driving license the same was seized vide MO.6 is the original driving license of the accused and on 16-04-2021 Ex.P.6 seizure panchanama was conducted at Tripuraram village, wherein the accused consumed liquor and thrown the liquor bottles.

32.In order to further strengthen the case of prosecution with regard to identity of driver, PW-8 was examined and he deposed that on 02-04- 2021 he was called upon by the police to act as panch witness to conduct scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch in the said panchanama the police seized MO.1 Vehicle Registration Certificate, insurance papers,

MO.2 are 18 documents connecting to the lorry weighting and invoices,

MO.3 is National permit of the lorry, MO.4 is Aadhar card of the accused,

MO.5 is copy of driving incense of the accused. A perusal of MO.2 out of 18 documents two documents are pertaining to lorry weighing bridge receipt issued by Sri Seetharama Weigh Bridge of Nellore District as the 25 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 lorry was weighed at 3-18 p.m., on 01-04-2021 for the weight of 32,000 kgs containing 640 bags and the suppler of rice is Sri Vigneshwara Paddy and Cotton Trading, Kondapuram vide transport bill No.754, dated 01-04- 2021 in which complete details are mentioned in which the accused signed as a driver and the owner of the vehicle name is also mentioned including the driving license number and phone numbers and lorry number, and on the next day i.e., 02-04-2021 at 5-00 p.m., the crime vehicle was arrived and was involved in accident and a chain of evidence is linked to the above said documents to show that the accused was driving the crime vehicle on the day of incident.

33.Further from the beginning the counsel for the accused contention is that the accused was not the driver of the crime vehicle and submitted that on the day of incident the accused was picked by the police from the transport adda i.e., transport site at Miryalaguda, on this aspect assuming at transport add when there are several persons i.e., drivers, cleaners available what made the police to arrest only the accused from the said 26 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 adda, further the counsel for the accused failed to give answer as to where was the accused present on the day of accident for which, there is no reason or reply, if at all the accused is somewhere he should give an answer as to where was he on the date of accident in order believe that the accused is somewhere i.e., taking the shelter of alibi and this Court has taken the aid of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, now the burden is on the accused when part of the burden is proved by the prosecution with the evidence of PW-4 eye-witness, MO.1 to 7 and the evidence of

Investigation officers and Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act states that if a person does any act with an intention other than what circumstance suggest they must prove that intention:

It applies in criminal cases only after the prosecution has established a prima facie case the purpose is it addresses scenario, where it is impossible or difficult for the prosecution to prove certain facts that the accused can easily explain and this is an exception to the general rule that the prosecution must prove its case and which are exclusively within the knowledge of the accused and the burden lies on the accused for 27 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 which, the accused failed to give answer as to where was he present at the time of accident.

34.Further, on perusal of entire record and the documents available this Court observed in a petition filed by the owner of the crime vehicle by name Devabathula Murali for release of the crime vehicle in interim custody under Section 451 Cr.P.C and the same was numbered as

Crl.M.P.No.246/2021, dated 26-04-2021, wherein, the owner of crime

vehicle clearly mentioned in his petition as follows:

That the respondent / accused in the above crime committed an accident occurred in the outskirts of Nidamanoor village by the driver of the petitioner / owner of the property i.e., Lorry bearing No.TS-05-UC- 6166 which was deposited before the trial Court vide C.P.No.36 / 2021 this also gives clear evidence to show that the accused was driving the crime vehicle on the date of accident.

28 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

35.PW-18 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Miryalaguda who issued

Motor Vehicle Report vide Ex.P.15 he stated that on 03-04-2021 he inspected the crime vehicle and found there the springs and suspension of the vehicle damaged including the shield glass broken and in his opinion that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect and the said Ex.P.15 also goes to show that the lorry was coming in high speed and involved in the accident, due to which the vehicle is damaged to show that the accused was driving in rash and negligent manner.

36.Further, this Court at a time of argument and also on the admission made by the Investigation officer / PW-20 he did not examine the owner of crime vehicle which is lacuna on the part of Investigation officer, accordingly, this Court sumoto issued summons to the owner of the crime vehicle by name Devabathula Murali as mentioned in the MVI report by invoking the Section 311 of Cr.P.C on 16-01-2026 further on 23-01-2026, the Inspector of Police informed to the Court and gave a report that the owner of the crime vehicle was died on 02-04-2025 accordingly, submitted the death certificate of owner of the crime vehicle 29 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 in order to bring out the truth as to who was the driver of the crime vehicle, but unfortunately, the evidence could not be elicited from the mouth of owner of crime vehicle, hence, this Court has looked into the other circumstantial evidence as discussed above i.e., three documents pertaining to MO.2 out of 18 documents are connected to this crime lorry.

Similarly, the interim custody petition filed by the owner of the crime vehicle for interim custody he has mentioned the name of accused as driver who committed the accident on the relevant date, similarly the accused failed to answer as to where was he present on the day of accident, hence the reverse burden is on the accused when some cloud in apparent in the evidence of prosecution. Hence, the driver of the crime lorry is proved that he drove the crime vehicle on the day of accident.

37.Now, the death of deceased Nos.1 to 4 is not a dispute Ex.P.3 to P.6 are inquest reports of deceased Nos.1 to 4 marked with PW-9 to PW-12.

Similarly, Ex.P.9 to PW-13 are the postmortem examination reports of deceased Nos.1 to 4 goes to show that the injury sustained by deceased 30 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

Nos.1 to 4 in the said accident as already discussed above the accident occurred in front of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Miryalaguda on the national highway 167 and the said crime lorry was coming from

Nellore and entered into Miryalaguda and proceeding towards Haliya and on the left side the vehicles are not allowed to move as there was road laying was going on, as such, the vehicles from the two sides are allowed to be moved in the remaining half road towards right side and the injured / were travelling in TATA ACE auto and deceased Nos.1 to 4 who are coming from behind the TATA ACE auto, where coming from Haliya towards Miryalaguda and when they reached in front of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court, Miryalaguda the accident occurred and

the conduct of accused / driver is clear that he has consumed alcohol and the breath analyzer test along the FSL report vide Ex.P.18 & P.19 goes to show that the accused was under the influence of alcohol and driving a heavy vehicle with 32,000/- kgs of rice and it is the duty of the driver to take caution while driving the vehicle and specially when the vehicles of both sides are moving and the sides of vehicles are allowed to move only 31 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 on one side i.e., right side it for the riders and drivers of the vehicles to move slowly, but in this case the driver of the crime vehicle in the state of heavy intoxication drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the driver knows the consequences and had knowledge that if one consumes alcohol heavily they will loss control over the vehicle and there is every scope of committing road accidents for which, the accused driver did not take proper caution knowingly well that driving the vehicle shall cause accident. Apart from that he has not taken care of driving the vehicle slowly, when the road laying work is going on one side and also failed to apply breaks and M.V.I report goes to show that there are no mechanical defects to the crime vehicle, due to the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry three persons are injured and four people in the same family died in the said accident that too, the age of deceased No.1 is 35 years, the age of deceased No.2 is 32 years, the age of deceased No.3 is 8 years, and deceased No.4 is 6 years.

32 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

38.The learned defense counsel also filed his written arguments and also relied on the judgments various Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and taking into consideration the written arguments filed by the defense counsel this Court has discussed the evidence in detailed and the judgments filed by the defense counsel are not applicable to the facts and circumstance of this case.

In view of the above discussed facts, the ingredients Section 304-II, 337 & 338 I.P.C are attracted and the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result: Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under

Sections 304-II, 338 & 337 of Indian Penal Code only. Therefore, he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal procedure for the said charge. The MO.1 to 6 shall return back to the accused and MO.7 shall be destroyed after the Appeal time is over if no Appeal is preferred against the judgment.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.I) and after transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court, on this the 2 nd day of March, 2026.

\ V-Additional District Judge Miryalaguda 33 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

Accused is produced before me on execution of NBW through

PC.No.3014 of P.S Nidamanoor. Heard the accused on quntam of sentence to be imposed on him to which, the accused submitted that he is the only earning member of his family, wherein, his wife, two children i.e., daughter aged about 16 years and son aged about 15 years, parents aged about 50 to 60 years are entirely depended on him and he is the only bread winner of his family earning Rs.500/- per day as and when his services are hired by the transporters, hence sought to take a lenient view.

The punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under sections 304-II, 338 & 337 I.P.C is imprisonment up to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. Hence, heard the accused on quantum of sentence contemplated under Section 304-II, 338 & 337 I.P.C. vide separate

Questionnaire.

In this case four persons of the same family died i.e., wife & husband aged about 32 to 35 years, and minor children i.e., son & daughter of deceased No.3 & 4 aged about below 15 years. On the other 34 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022 hand, the family members who are depended on the accused is also very much important as he is the only bread winner to his family and if he is sent to jail their entire family including his parents shall come on the road.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case some lenient view is taken in instead of imposing complete sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304-II I.P.C.

In the result: the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (05) years for the offence punishable under Section 304-II I.P.C, simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C and for a period of three (03) months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C, all the sentences shall run concurrently.

The remand period undergone by the accused from 03-04-2021 to 03-06-2021 (61 days) shall be set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The accused is informed of his right to prefer an Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the judgment of this Court.

35 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

A copy of judgment is handover to the accused and also his right to free Legal Aid, if does not have an Advocate.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.I) and after transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court, on this the 6 th day of March, 2026.

V – Additional Sessions Judge

Miryalaguda

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

On behalf of the Prosecution:-

PW.1LW.1 Cherukupally AshokComplainant & father of deceased No.2, father-in-law of deceased No.1 & Grandfather of deceased Nos.3 & 4.

PW.2LW.2Ganapuram GiriEye witness.

PW.3LW.3 Ganapuram VenkatammaEye witness.

PW.4LW.5 Jamalpur NarsingEye witness.

PW.5LW.6 Thari PentammaCircumstantial witness & Mother of deceased No.1, Mother-in-law of deceased No.2 and Grandmother of deceased No.3 & 4.

PW.6LW.9 Kolli NagarajuFather of the injured – Yashwanth.

PW.7LW.10 Shaik DasthagiriInjured person & driver of the TATA Ace.

PW.8LW.12 Shaik MadarPanch witness for the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama.

PW.9LW.13 Thari MaheshPanch witness for the Inquest of deceased No.1.

PW.10LW.15 Janapati NareshPanch witness for the Inquest of deceased No.2.

36 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

PW.11LW.17 Janapati LaxmaiahPanch witness for the Inquest of deceased No.3.

PW.12LW.20 Dhanavath RameshPanch witness for the Inquest of deceased No.4.

PW.13LW.21 Kothoju Narsimha CharyPanch witness for the confession of accused and seizure panchanama.

PW.14LW.24 Dr.B.KumarConducted postmortem examination of deceased Nos.3 & 4 and issued report.

PW.15LW.25 Dr.V.Srinivas RajuTreated the PW-7 and issued Medical Certificate.

PW.16LW.23 Dr.B.Srinivas NaikConducted postmortem examination of deceased Nos.1 & 2 and issued report.

PW.17LW.26 Dr.Cheruku Suhas Treated the son of PW-6 and issued Medical Certificate.

PW.18LW.27 Shaik JilaniInspected the crime vehicle & issued report.

PW.19LW.31 K.Kondal ReddyIssued First Information Report & 1st Investigation Officer.

PW.20LW.32 P.Veera RaghavuluInvestigation Officer & filed charge- sheet.

On behalf of the Accused: -None-

Exhibits marked

On behalf of the Prosecution:-

Ex.P.1Report, dated 02-04-2021.

Ex.P.2Crime Detail Form.

Ex.P.3Inquest report of deceased No.1 / Thari Srinivas.

Ex.P.4Inquest report of deceased No.2 / Thari Vijaya.

Ex.P.5Inquest report of deceased No.3 / Thari Srividya.

37 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

Ex.P.6Inquest report of deceased No.4 / Thari Varshith.

Ex.P.7Confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused.

Ex.P.8Seizure panchanama.

Ex.P.9Postmortem Examination Report of deceased No.3 / Thari Srividya.

Ex.P.10 Postmortem Examination Report of deceased No.4 / Thari Varshith

Ex.P.11 Injury certificate of PW-7.

Ex.P.12 Postmortem Examination Report of deceased No.1 / Thari Srinivas.

Ex.P.13 Inquest report of deceased No.4 / Thari Vijaya.

Ex.P.14 Injury certificate.

Ex.P.15 Motor Vehicle Inspection Report.

Ex.P.16 Release order of the lorry.

Ex.P.17 First Information Report vide Crime No.82/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 337 & 304-II I.P.C.

Ex.P.18 Breath Analyzer Report.

Ex.P.19 Forensic Science Laboratory Report.

On behalf of the accused: NIL

Material Objects Marked

On behalf of the Prosecution:-

M.O.1: Registration Certificate & Insurance papers.

M.O.2: Documents related to the lorry and road including way bills (18 papers).

M.O.3: Permit papers of the lorry.

M.O.4: Copy of Aadhar card of accused.

M.O.5: Copy of Driving license of accused.

M.O.6:Original Driving license of accused.

M.O.7: Two seized empty whiskey bottles (Manjeera Classic).

38 / 38SC.No.509 / 2022

On behalf of the accused:- - NIL -

V – Additional Sessions Judge

Miryalaguda

CRLA/45/2022 Acquitted

Mandari Rambabu vs The State of Telangana Rep by Addl. P.P

09 Mar 2026

1 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022

IN THE COURT OF V - ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT: MIRYALAGUDA, NALGONDA DISTRICT.

Monday, the 9 th day of March, 202 6

Present: Sri K.V.Chandra Shekar Rao,

V – Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda.

Crl. Appeal No. 45 of 20 22

Between: Mandari Rambabu, S/o.Eddaiah, Age:35 years, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Battugudem village, Nidamanoor mandal, Nalgonda District. … Appellant / Accused No.1

AND

The State of Telangana represented by Station House Officer, Nidamanoor Police Station.

...Complainant

arisen against the judgment dated 15-06-2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nidmanoor in C.C.No. 407 of 2016

B etween: The State of Telangana, represented by Station House Officer, Nidamanoor Police Station.

...Complainant

AND

1. Mandari Rambabu, S/o.Eddaiah, Age:35 years, Occ:Coolie,

2. Perumalla Sayamma, W/o.Chinna Ramulu, Age:55 years, Occ:Coolie,

3. Perumalla Chinna Ramulu, S/o.Rajaiah, Age:65 years, Occ:Coolie,

4. Mandari Nagalaxmi, W/o.Rambabu, Age:24 years, Occ:Coolie, All are R/o.Battugudem village, Nidamanoor mandal, Nalgonda District. … Accused Nos.1 to 4

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 02-03-2026 in the presence of Sri V.Venkatramana Reddy Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Ch.Raghu Rama Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:

2 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022

JUDGMENT :: ::

This is a Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(3) Cr.P.C by the 1.

Appellant / Accused No.1 praying the Court to set aside the judgment of conviction in C.C.No.407 / 2016, dated 15-06-2022 passed by Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor, he was convicted under Section

255(2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

The remaining accused No.2 to 4 were acquitted under Section 255(1)

Cr.P.C.

The brief facts of case are that on 01-07-2015 on reliable 2.

information about selling of illicitly distilled liquor illegally at about 8-00 a.m., PW.1 to 5 & 9 raided the houses of accused No.1 & 2 at Battugudem village and found 15 liters of illicitly distilled liquor in each house which is banned by the Government and contrary to the Excise Act. While, accused

No.1 was taken into custody, accused No.1 assaulted upon them with hands and escaped from the custody. When they have taken custody of 3 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022 accused No.2 and proceeding in their jeep, accused No.3 i.e., husband of accused No.2 waylaid their jeep, obstructed their legitimate duties and taken away accused No.2 from their custody. Accused No.4 wife of accused No.1 obstructed their legitimate duties and abused them in filthy language.

PW-1 reported the information to PW-10 Station House Officer by 3.

lodging report vide Ex.P.1. PW-10 registered a case in Crime No.87/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 I.P.C and took up investigation, examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 to 5 & PW- 9, visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statement of

PW-6, secured presence of PW.7 & 8, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in their presence. PW-10 felt that no case is made out against Perumalla Pedda Eddaiah, as such, seeking permission from Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Miryalaguda deleted his name. On 03-08-2015, PW-10 served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C to accused Nos.1 to 4 and on their voluntarily appearance on 08-08-20115 by admitting their guilt, he released them by serving notices under 4 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022

Section 41-A(3) Cr.P.C, after completion of investigation, PW-10 filed charge sheet.

The Appellant in his petition mentioned the grounds for Appeal as 4.

follows:

1. The trial Court passed the judgment is contrary to the law, facts and evidence on record and that prosecution did not establish the essential ingredients of Section 353 I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubts.

2.The trial Court failed to prove that from whom the prosecution came to know about the alleged commission of offence of ID liquor and that the accused No.1 was falsely implicated though there inordinate delay and there are no supporting independent witnesses and that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are contradicting and conflicting with other evidence which is based on assumption and presumption and further non examination of necessary persons by the Investigation officer.

Hence, sought the Court to allow the Appeal.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 5.

submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the

Appellant / Accused No.1 after appreciating the entire prosecution witnesses on record and sought to dismiss the Appeal.

5 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022

Heard. 6.

Now, the point for arises for consideration is:

1. Whether this Court can convicted with the judgment and conviction and the

Appellant / Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C ?

2. To what relief ?

POINT No.1 & 2:-

Further, during the course of oral argument the learned counsel for 7.

Appellant mainly stressed upon that there is a delay 4 to 5 hours in lodging F.I.R by PW-1 and that due to political rivalry against the accused the police falsely implicated them in this case.

According to PW-1 who lodged Ex.P.1 before the Sub-Inspector of 8.

Police stated that on 01-07-2015 in the morning hours at 8-00 a.m., he along with PW.1 to 5 & 9 and other constables i.e., LW-2 / M.Shankar,

LW-4 / Kethavath Rajya Naik and LW-5 / A.Ramaswamy proceeded to

Battugudem village, Peddavoora mandal to check illicit liquor basing on the information received by PW-9 that accused is preparing liquor, they found 15 liters of liquor in a white can and sized the can at the time the 6 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022 accused pushed them and ran away. Later, they raided the house of accused No.2 and they found 15 liters of ID liquor and they were about shift accused No.2 in TATA sumo at that time accused No.3 who is husband of accused No.2 made quarrel with them and set free accused

No.2 from their custody and when they where about to started the TATA sumo accused No.4 also obstructed them and abused after that they went to police station and lodged report. In his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he lodged Ex.P.1 in the police station at 12-00 noon and they searched the houses at about 8-15 a.m., and the distance from the place of offence to the police station Peddavoora is about 6 kilo meters he denied the suggestion that they were not in uniform and also that they can reach the police station within five minutes which is about 2 kilo meters from the place of offence and not 6 kilo meters. He denied the suggestion that they did not seized 15 liters of ID liquor from house of accused No.1 & 2 and that they did not assault them and that accused

No.3 did not quarrel with them and accused No.2 free from their custody.

7 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022

The counsel for the Appellant submitted that the accused No.4 was 9.

not present on that day and she was at her parental house, as such, there is no scope of accused No.4 assaulting upon them and the same questions were put by the defense counsel to all the Excise officials on this aspect accused No.4 is not present at the time of incident, then the defense counsel did not produced any witnesses on his side in order to believe that accused No.4 was not present at the time of incident and at the time of incident she was at her parental house.

PW-2 Excise constable stated that he along with PW-1, 3 to 5 10.

proceeded to Battugudem village, Peddavoora mandal to check illicit liquor as they received information that accused No.1 is preparing liquor and found 15 liters can containing the liquor and apprehended accused

No.1 and brought into the TATA sumo jeep at that time the accused threatened and escape with the can thereafter, he do not know what happened, here the evidence of PW-2 is only to the acts of accused No.1 not the other accused Nos.2 to 4.

8 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022

PW-3 who is who is a woman Excise constable stated that she 11.

along with PW-1, 2, 4, 5 & 9 went to raid at Battugudem village on 01-07-2015 they found ID liquor in the house of accused No.1 and while taking accused No.1 into jeep he pushed and escaped .

Accused No.4 who is the wife of accused No.1 abused them and on 12.

the same day they went to the house of accused No.2 and found liquor, accordingly, they apprehend accused No.2 and brought her to the jeep at the time accused No.3 who is the husband of accused No.2 obstructed the jeep and thereafter, they came back to the police station and lodged report. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that accused

No.4 was not present on the day of incident and she was at her maternal home and she denied the suggestion that they did not raid the house of accused No.2 and her husband did not obstructed them, here in the evidence of PW-3 nothing is elicited from the cross-examination with regard to seizure of ID liquor from the house accused No.1, hence, it is clear that accused No.1 pushed them while he was apprehend and taking 9 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022 towards the jeep. Hence, the evidence of PW-3 is supporting the witness of prosecution.

PW-4 other Excise constable stated that he along with PW.1 to 3, 5 13.

& 9 went for raid at Battugudem village at 01-07-2015 at about 8-00 a.m., on receipt of information from Haliya station that accused No.1 is selling

ID liquor and on search they found ID liquor, accordingly, they apprehended accused No.1 and kept in their vehicle. Later, they also raided the house of accused No.2 and seized ID liquor and took her into custody and while they were taking them to Excise station accused No.1 & 4 made galata in the meanwhile accused No.1 escaped from the jeep along with accused No.2 thereafter, they returned back to Excise station with the property and reported the matter to their Inspector. PW-4 denied the suggestion that they did not seize the ID liquor from the possession of accused No.1 & 2 and that there is no scope of escaping by accused No.2 as she is old aged woman and also that accused No.3 was taken away by her husband. He further denied the suggestion that accused No.4 was not present at the time of incident and she was at her 10 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022 parental house. The evidence of PW-4 is corroborating with the evidence of PW-1.

PW-5 who is another Excise constable stated that he along with 14.

PW-1 to 4 and LW-2 / M.Shankar and LW-7 / Narayana visited Battugudem village on 01-07-2015 at 8-00 a.m., on the information that ID liquor is being sold in the village and they raided the house of accused No.1 and on search they found ID liquor, accordingly, they apprehended the accused No.1 and brought him into the jeep at the time the mother, the wife of accused No.1 i.e., accused No.4 and one Sriramulu pushed the constable and got released accused No.1, thereafter, they lodged report in Police station Peddavoora. PW-5 denied the suggestion that they did not conducted raid in the house of accused No.1 and that the family members of accused No.1 did not obstruct them and also accused No.3 & 4 were not present at the scene of offence, here the evidence of PW-5 is only with regard to accused No.1, he did not speak anything about accused No.2.

11 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022

PW-6 who is independent witness did not support the case of 15.

prosecution and he denied the contents of 161 Cr.P.C statement marked as Ex.P.2. PW-7 & 8 who are the panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchanama did not support the case of prosecution and stated that police obtained the signatures on some white papers and they identified the signatures on the scene of offence and marked as Ex.P.3 to P.6.

PW-9 who is the Excise Inspector stated that he along with PW-1 to 16.

5 proceeded to Battugudem village on 01-07-2015 at 8-00 a.m., to conduct raid on getting credible information about the sale of ID liquor.

Accordingly, they searched the house of accused No.1 by issuing search memo in the presence of accused and they seized 10 liters of ID liquor containing 3 bottles under the cover of panchanama in the presence of

PW-7 & 8 and apprehended the accused along with seized contraband and moved the accused No.1 into their TATA sumo hired by them at the time accused No.1 pushed PW-1 and escaped from them in the said incident PW-1 fell down and later, the wife of accused No.1 herein accused No.4 came to them and made galata by abusing them.

12 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022

Later, they went to the house of accused No.2 and issued search 17.

memo and on search found 5 liters of ID liquor containing 2 bottles which was seized under the cover of panchanama in which, PW-3 apprehended accused No.2 and brought her to the TATA sumo, but the husband of accused No.2 i.e., accused No.3 came to them, abused and obstructed in arresting accused No.2, whereas, accused No.3 caught hold the collar of

PW-1 and pushed him, thereafter, the villagers tried to made a mob and attacked upon them, as such, they are forced to return to the police station and lodged a report given by PW-1. In cross-examination, PW-8 denied the suggestion that they did not seize the 10 liters of ID liquor from the house of accused No.1 and also from the house of accused No.2 and that accused No.4 did not obstructed them in their duties and that accused No.3 did not abuse them in filthy language by obstructing their duties. The evidence of PW-9 is corroborating with the evidence of the other official witnesses to the extent mainly against accused No.1.

13 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022

PW-10 who is Investigation officer stated that on 01-07-2015 at 18.

1-00 p.m., he received Ex.P.1 from PW-1 basing on it, he issued F.I.R vide

Crime No.87/2015 under Section 353 r/w 34 I.P.C, Ex.P.7 is F.I.R, thereafter, he recorded the statements of PW.1 to 6 and PW-9, thereafter, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW-7 & 8 and also drawn rough sketch vide Ex.P.8 & 9. Further, stated that PW-6 stated

before him as in 161 Cr.P.C statement he denied the suggestion that he

did not visited Battugudem village and conducted Ex.P.8 & 9 in the presence of mediators and deposing false against the accused as all the witnesses belongs to Excise department and that he filed a false charge sheet by conducting table investigation.

Perused the entire entire evidence on record, the learned counsel 19.

for the Appellant mainly stressed upon that there was a delay 5 hours in

lodging F.I.R by PW-1 on this aspect the defense counsel have not taken any plea before the trial Court by posing a question to PW-1, PW-9 or PW- 10 and only raising this point in this Court which is not tenable. Similarly, he has taken a plea that the entire excise officials in this case were not in 14 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022 uniform, it is to be noted that PW.1 to 5 & 9 are in same voice stated that they were on duty and went to the place offence on 01-07-2015 at 8-00 a.m., further, it is to be noted that the police officials including the excise officials shall be on duty for 24 hours and further, the contention of the

Appellant is that the seized property was not produced in this Court on this aspect, it is excise officials register COR and after completion of investigation, file a charge in the special court dealing with excise cases.

Though, it is a lacuna on the part of investigation officer / PW-10 to collect the COR and the conduct of investigation from the excise officials which he did not do the same and mere lacuna on the part of Investigation officer is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the remaining witnesses. Further, it is the contention of the Appellant that accused No.4 was not present at the place of incident and she was at her parental house on this aspect the Appellant did not adduce any evidence before the trial Court to rebut the contention of the Appellant that accused No.4 was at her parental house on the day of incident. It is further the contention of the Appellant that the accused are falsely implicated due to political grudges on this aspect nothing came on record before the trial 15 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022

Court as to with whom the political rivalry is there is completely silent, hence, the contention raised by the Appellant that they were falsely implicated due to political rivalry cannot be believed. Further, the excise officials shall be on regular raids and why altogether six excise team went for raid by leaving other work and there is no grudge on the part of excise officials to implicate them in this case and the same was not rebutted by the defense in the trial Court.

The evidence of PW-1 is corroborating with the evidence of PW.2 to 20.

5 and PW-9 with regard to overt acts of accused No.1 with the excise officials while they went to the house of accused No.1 & 2 to raid while discharging their official duties. In view of the above discussed facts, the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper perspective, as such, there is nothing to interfere with the conclusion arrived by the learned trial Court.

In the result: the Appeal is partly allowed by modifying the sentence of imprisonment of six (06) months with only sentencing the Appellant / 16 / 16Crl.Appeal No.45 / 2022

Accused No.1 to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. The accused is directed to deposit the fine amount before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nidamanoor on or before 16-03-2026 failing which Appellant / Accused

No.1 will suffer simple imprisonment for three (03) months. The same shall be intimated to this Court. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.I) and after transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court, on this the 9 th day of March, 2026.

V- Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses Examined

- NIL -

V- Additional Sessions Judge,

Miryalaguda.

Copy to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor.

CRLA/10/2023 Acquitted

Nakka Narshima vs State of T.S through Addl. Public Prosecutor

10 Mar 2026

1 / 15Crl.Appeal No.10 / 2023

IN THE COURT OF V - ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT: MIRYALAGUDA, NALGONDA DISTRICT.

Tuesday, the 10th day of March, 202 6

Present: Sri K.V.Chandra Shekar Rao,

V – Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda.

Crl. Appeal No. 10 of 20 23

Between:

1. Nakka Narsimha, S/o.Thirupathaiah, Age:51 years, Occ:Fisherman, R/o.Shabunagar, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District.

2. Challa Venkata Rama Rao, S/o.Thirupathaiah, Age:58 years, Occ:Gumastha, R/o.H.No.MIG-85, Housing Board Colony, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District. … Appellants / Accused Nos.2 & 4

AND

The State of Telangana represented by Station House Officer, Nidamanoor Police Station.

...Complainant

arisen against the judgment dated 10-02-2023 passed by 1 st Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda in C.C.No. 462 of 2017

B etween: The State of Telangana, represented by Station House Officer, Miryalaguda I-Town Police Station.

...Complainant

AND

1. Cherukuri Kutumba Rao, S/o.Subba Rao, Age:70 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.8-2-1/4, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, N/o.Housing Board Colony, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District.

2. Nakka Narsimha, S/o.Thirupathaiah, Age:51 years, Occ:Fisherman, R/o.Shabunagar, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District.

2 / 15Crl.Appeal No.10 / 2023

3. Mahenderkar Ramu, S/o.Munnaji, Age:52 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Srinivasa Apartment, Nagarjuna Nagar, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District.

4. Challa Venkata Rama Rao, S/o.Thirupathaiah, Age:58 years, Occ:Gumastha, R/o.H.No.MIG-85, Housing Board Colony, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District. … Accused Nos.1 to 4

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 06-03-2026 in the presence of Sri B.Chandra Shekar Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants / Accused Nos.2 & 4 and of Sri Ch.Raghu Rama Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT :: ::

This is a Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C by the 1.

Appellants / Accused No.2 & 4 praying the Court to set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Miryalaguda, dated 10-02-2023 in C.C.No.462 / 2017 for the

offences punishable under Sections 448 & 427 r/w 34 I.P.C, wherein, the trial Court sentenced accused Nos.2 & 4 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 427 r/w 34 I.P.C and simple imprisonment for six (06) months and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default of payment of fine of Rs.500/- each to undergo simple 3 / 15Crl.Appeal No.10 / 2023 imprisonment for two (02) days and in default of payment of fine of

Rs.2000/- to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen (15) days each. The accused No.3 was not found guilty for the offences punishable under

Sections 448, 427 r/w 34 I.P.C and he is acquitted under Section 255(1)

Cr.P.C. The case against the accused No.1 is abated.

The brief facts of case are that on 29-12-2014 at 3-00 hours, PW-1 2.

lodged a Telugu written complaint stating that on 28-12-2014 night at about 11-00 p.m., the accused persons started to damage their ‘Pila

Delphia Church with JCB. Immediately, he along with some others rushed to the spot and found the church was fallen down. He added that accused

Nos.1 to 4 damaged the church with JCB bearing No.AP-24-AX-7744 and taken away the bore and its motor. On receipt of information, PW-8 registered a case in Crime No.239/2014 for the offence punishable under

Sections 448. 427, 379 r/w 34 I.P.C and took up the investigation.

4 / 15Crl.Appeal No.10 / 2023

During the course of investigation, PW-8 examined PW-1 and 3.

recorded his statement. Later, visited the scene of offence situated at

Shabunagar, Miryalaguda and observed the scene, examined and recorded the statements of PW-2 to 5 and also conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW-6 & 7, besides drawing its rough sketch and seized one Texmo company motor pump which was found between bricks of dismantled compound wall and also said JCB, which was used in commission of offence under cover of panchanama. As per the evidence collected, during the course of investigation, a detailed and discreet enquiries of the alleged accused person by name 1).

Vantepaka Mahesh and 2). Chalapati Rao are no way concerned with this offence, as they did not participated in this offence. As such, the above alleged accused are deleted from this case and their names are mentioned in the charge sheet in the column of ‘accused persons not charge sheeted’. Further, no case is made out for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C, as such, the same section is also deleted from this case, as the alleged stolen motor pump is available at the scene of 5 / 15Crl.Appeal No.10 / 2023 offence and the same was seized. However, prima facie case is made out against the accused Nos.1 to 4. On 30-12-2014, PW-8 served notices on accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 41-A (1) Cr.P.C to appear before the

PW-8 on 05-01-2015 at 10-00 hours, to ascertain facts and circumstances from them. On 23-02-2015 at 10-00 hours, accused Nos.1 to 4 came to police station and appeared before the him and they confessed to have committed this offence. Further accused Nos.1 to 4 furnished sureties. As such, PW-8 issued notices to the accused persons under Section 41-A (3)

Cr.P.C and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 448 & 427 r/w 34 I.P.C.

On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 4 before the trial Court, i.e., 4.

1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda, charges under

Sections 448 & 427 r/w 34 I.P.C were framed, read over and explained to them, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later, as the accused No.1 died, case against him was abated. During the course of 6 / 15Crl.Appeal No.10 / 2023 trial, prosecution got examined the PW-1 to PW-8 and also got exhibited

Ex.P.1 to P.7, Ex.D.1 & D.2 and MO.1 & 2 are marked. After the completion of evidence from prosecution side, Accused Nos.2 to 4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence adduced by prosecution, and to which, they denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

After considering the evidence on record, trial court found that 5.

accused Nos.2 & 4 were guilty and accordingly, convicted them under

Section 255(2) Cr.P.C and imposed sentence. Challenging the same,

Appellant / Accused Nos.2 & 4 filed this Appeal contending inter alia:

1. That the trial Court failed to see the evidence of PW-1 to 8 and failed to consider the cross-examination elicited by the defense counsel.

2.That the trial Court failed to observe the evidence of PW-1 who is not the eyewitness and that at the time of incident PW-3 & 4 who are the circumstantial witnesses.

3.That the trial Court also failed to consider that wife of accused No.1 obtained a decree on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda in OS.No.137/2014, dated 28-08-2017, which are admitted facts and came to the wrong conclusion.

4.That the trial Court failed to see and consider the cross-examination that PW-2 receive phone call from 10-00 to 10-30 p.m., prior to the time of incident and that PW-2 was 7 / 15Crl.Appeal No.10 / 2023 residing at his house at 11-00 p.m., hence, there is a contradiction in his evidence and that of PW-1.

5.That the trial Court failed to consider the cross-examination of PW-8 who is the Investigation officer and he has not given the names of accused persons in the complaint that some unknown persons damaged the property and not examined the driver of the crime vehicle which is fatal to the case of prosecution.

Apart from the above grounds the counsel for the Appellants argued orally that the worth of damage is not collected by the prosecution.

Similarly, in this case the informant LW-1 and accused No.1 already died and that the trial Court failed to consider the judgment on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda in OS.No.137/2014, dated 28-08-2017 and also not collected the supporting document from the informant as to who is in possession of the property. Hence, sought the Court to allow the Appeal.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 6.

submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant /

Accused Nos.2 & 4 after appreciating the entire prosecution witnesses on record and sought to dismiss the Appeal.

Heard. 7.

8 / 15Crl.Appeal No.10 / 2023

Now, the point for arises for consideration is:

1. Whether this Court can interfere with the judgment and conviction against the Appellants / Accused Nos.2 & 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 448 & 457 r/w 34 I.P.C ?

2. To what relief ?

POINT No.1 & 2:-

PW-1 who is the informant lodged a report vide Ex.P.1 on 8.

28-12-2014 at about 7-30 p.m., that he constructed a compound wall and erected a gate at Ramnagar, Miryalaguda and his house is opposite to the church and living in a rented house and at 11-30 p.m., he heard a big sound and found nearly 20 to 30 persons along with JCB present in front of the church and they started demolishing the wall by shouting and by giving direction to the JCB driver, further accused No.2 stated that church should be demolished from the basement leve, to which, he informed accused No.1 that he is not demolishing the church, but the God’s house and he will be punished by the God and went to the police station and brought one constable with him along with PW-2 & 4, wherein, all the persons stated that the Ajay and the Pastor must be eliminated due to 9 / 15Crl.Appeal No.10 / 2023 which, PW-2 ran away from his house and came into the house of PW-1.

Later, he caught hold the JCB driver took the possession and brought the said JCB with the help of the driver to the police station.

PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not hand over 9.

the Indigenous Churches in Indias Trust appointed him as a Servant of

God and that he did not hand over the copy of letter to the police and the distance between his house and church is 50 to 100 yards marked as

Ex.B.1.

He further stated that he did not stated before the police that some 10.

people came there and demolished the church, but the police had written like that marked as Ex.D.1. Similarly, he did not state before the police that accused No.2 demanded to demolish the structure of the church marked as Ex.D.1 and also that originally the land belongs to one

Mandula Mallaiah and after thorough verification by the MRO the land was allotted to them and that he do not know Puspavathi has purchased 10 / 15Crl.Appeal No.10 / 2023 the said land in the year 1974 from Idukulla Satyanarayana marked as

Ex.D.1. The above evidence goes to show that there are civil disputes between parties, but no documents were collected by the Investigation officer, though the alleged acts are evident from the evidence PW-1 and other witnesses.

The evidence of PW-2 is that he came to the scene of offence basing 11.

on the information given by PW-1 on phone and saw some persons demolishing the church with JCB bearing No.AP-NX-7744 and he has seen the accused Nos.1, 2 & 4 at the place of incident who were giving instructions to the JCB operator and when he questioned them they informed that he is no way concerned to interfere in this issue and abused him in filthy language and threatened to beat him, accordingly,

PW-3 also came to the scene of offence on giving the information, then all the accused went away from there. Hence, the evidence of PW-2 is also helpful to the case of prosecution that they saw accused No.1, 2 & 4 instructing the JCB operator in demolishing the church, but the 11 / 15Crl.Appeal No.10 / 2023 prosecution failed to collect any record i.e., photographs at the scene of offence as there is a doubt whether the church compound wall was demolished or the church itself as there are two versions as per PW-1 it is the compound wall which is demolished and according to the evidence of

PW-2 it is demolishing of the church, though some mischief occurred.

PW-3 stated that he was called by PW-2 that a galata was taken place at the church and asked him to come there immediately within half an hour, he reached the scene of offence and found the church was completely demolished and he saw PW-1 & 2 along with accused Nos.1, 2 & 4 at the scene of offence and when they questioned the accused they stated that the said land belongs to them in his cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that there are 40 to 50 persons, but the prosecution did not examine the independent witnesses except the known persons to PW-1.

PW-4 stated that he received telephone information from PW-1 at 12.

11-00 p.m., that there was some noise near the church, then immediately, he called PW-2 and informed the incident and within five minutes, he 12 / 15Crl.Appeal No.10 / 2023 contacted PW-2 and reached the scene of offence and saw one JCB after demolishing the church passing in front of him and he handed over the

JCB to the police, wherein the JCB driver informed the names of accused

Nos.1 to 4, but the counsel for the defense did not elicit in the evidence of

PW-4 that the JCB was coming in front of him after demolishing the church.

PW-5 stated that he received information from PW-4 that church 13.

was demolished, he immediately rushed to the church and found church was completely demolished and also saw one JCB vehicle as mentioned above and he is not a direct eyewitness to the incident and he came know through PW-4 that accused are responsible for demolishing the church.

PW-5 in his cross-examination denied the suggestion that at the instance of PW-1 he is deposing false. PW-6 & 7 who are panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchanama did not supported the case of prosecution and stated that about three years back while they were passing from the police station their signatures were obtained on some white papers and 13 / 15Crl.Appeal No.10 / 2023 they identified their signatures on the scene of offence panchanama marked as Ex.P.2 to P.5.

PW-8 is the Investigation officer, after receiving Ex.P.1 from PW-1, 14.

he registered F.I.R vide Ex.P.6 and also conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW-6 & 7 vide Ex.P.7 and sized one

Texmo Motor Pump marked as MO.1 and also JCB vehicle bearing No. AP- 24-NX-7744 in yellow colour marked as MO.2 and after apprehending the accused by following due procedure and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. PW-8 in his cross-examination admitted that the said Shabunagar is a residential area and he did not examine neighours at the scene of offence and also did not collect any record from

PW-1 he further admitted, he did not mention the worth of damage occurred due to the acts of the accused, he further denied that he do not know that the wife of accused No.1 filed a civil suit in OS.No.137/2014 and also denied the suggestion that OS.No.279/2014 is not pertaining to this

Court and that he did not collect any record pertaining to the civil cases.

14 / 15Crl.Appeal No.10 / 2023

Though, the evidence on record goes to show that there is defective investigation by the Investigation officer, due to which, the evidence of the material witnesses cannot be discarded with regarding to the happening of incident though there is no clarity as to whether compound wall was demolished or the church was demolished, the Investigation officer did not taken the photographs in order to come to the conclusion and also the civil litigation pending between the parties, however, taking into the consideration, the acts of the accused the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellants / Accused Nos.2 & 4 and acquitted the accused No.3.

In view of the lacuna in the case of the prosecution, this Court is of 15.

the opinion that imposing fine shall meet the ends of justice instead of confirming the sentence of imprisonment for the offences proved.

In the result: the Appeal is partly allowed by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment against Appellants / Accused Nos.2 & 4 for the offences 15 / 15Crl.Appeal No.10 / 2023 punishable under Sections 448 & 427 r/w 34 I.P.C and by confirming the sentence of fine of Rs.500/- & Rs.2,000/- each against Appellants /

Accused No.2 & 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 448 & 427 r/w 34 I.P.C, the Appellants / Accused Nos.2 & 4 have already paid fine

before the trial Court vide receipt No.8203 & 8204 on 10-02-2023.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.I) and after transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court, on this the 10 th day of March, 2026.

V- Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses Examined

- NIL -

V- Additional Sessions Judge,

Miryalaguda.

Copy to the 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda.

CRLRP/8/2024

Naddi Shankar @ Shankar Yadav vs Naddi Saritha and another

30 Jan 2026

1 Crl. R.P.No.08 / 2024 in

M.C.No.10 / 2021

IN THE COURT OF V - ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, AT: MIRYALAGUDA,

NALGONDA DISTRICT

Friday, the 30 th day of January, 2026

Present: Sri K.V.Chandra Shekar Rao,

V – Additional Sessions Judge,

Miryalaguda.

Crl. R .P. No. 08 of 202 4

Between: Naddi Shankar @ Shankar Yadav, S/o.Mallaiah, Age:36 years, Occ:Ex.Private Teacher, R/o.H.No.1-68. Peddavoora village & mandal, Nalgonda District. … Revision Petitioner

AND

1. Naddi Saritha, W/o.Shankar @ Shankar Yadav, Age:30 years, Occ:House hold,

2. Naddi Akshith, S/o.Shankar @ Shankar Yadav, Age:10 years, Occ:Student, Both are R/o.Peddavoora village & mandal, Nalgonda District, presently residing at C/o.Chimata Krishnaiah, Velmagudem village, Peddavoora mandal, Nalgonda District. … Respondents arisen against the Order dated 14-03-2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor in M.C.No.10 / 2021

B etween:

1. Naddi Saritha, W/o.Shankar @ Shankar Yadav, Age:30 years, Occ:House hold,

AND

Naddi Shankar @ Shankar Yadav, S/o.Mallaiah, Age:36 years, Occ:Ex.Private Teacher, R/o.H.No.1-68. Peddavoora village & mandal, Nalgonda District. … Respondent

This petition is coming for final hearing before me today on 30-01-2026 in the presence of Sri G.Venkat Reddy, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner and of Sri M.Ramulu, Advocate for the Respondent and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:

2 Crl. R.P.No.08 / 2024 in

M.C.No.10 / 2021

:: ORDER ::

1.This is a petition filed by Revision petitioner / respondent under Section 399 of Cr.P.C to allow the Revision by setting aside the order in M.C.No.10 / 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor, dated 14.03.2023.

2.For the sake of convenience the Revision petitioner and the respondents are hereinafter called as petitioner and respondents as mentioned in the cause title of M.C.No.10 / 2021.

3.The Brief facts of the case:- It is submitted that the respondents herein filed the maintenance case against the petitioner herein. The respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is their son. The contention of the respondents in their maintenance case is that at the time of marriage parents of the respondent No.1 gave an amount of Rs.5-00 lakhs cash and a Bajaj Pulsar bike worth of Rs.1-00 lakh, ½ tula gold ring, 1 ½ tula gold chain, 2 tulas gold bracelet and 11 tuals gold ornaments, 25 tulas silver ornaments and house hold articles worth of Rs.2-00 lakhs and Rs.50,000/- to sister of petitioner as Adapaduchu katnam and that the respondent No.1 3 Crl. R.P.No.08 / 2024 in

M.C.No.10 / 2021

and petitioner were lived happily for a period of one year and out of their wedlock they blessed with the respondent No.2 and that the delivery charges were incurred by the parents of the respondent No.1 and that later the petitioner and his family members started harassing respondent No.1 physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.8-00 lakhs and demanded to register land to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts in his favour and necked her out of the house and that panchayath were held where elders found fault with petitioner and advised him to look after the respondents with love and affection, but the petitioner failed to change his attitude and got addicted to bad habits like playing cards, drinking alcohol having illegal contacts with other lady and came to house at late nights and raised quarrels with her and beat her indiscriminately and that his parents also supported him and that the respondents came to know that the petitioner married another women by name Mendu Alivelu, as such, the respondent No.1 lodged case, but police failed to register case and as such, she filed a private complaint and that the respondent No.2 is suffering from Asthama disease and incurring an amount of

Rs.10,000/- per month for treatment and on the other hand the petitioner is having sufficient means such as he purchased open site through registered sale deed bearing document No.832/2009 and constructed a high school and 4 Crl. R.P.No.08 / 2024 in

M.C.No.10 / 2021

running it and that he also purchased two other vacant sites vide document

No.1680/2016 & 626/2016 and he is also having a share in the agricultural lands owned by his family members and that parents of the respondent are not depending on him as they have sufficient means and properties and that the petitioner intentionally neglected the respondents. Hence, prayed to grant maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- to the respondent No.2 per month.

4.That the petitioner filed counter admitting the relationship with the respondents and denied all allegations made in the petition and submitted that the respondent No.1 is daughter of his maternal aunt and that prior to the marriage he used to work as PET in Nagarjuna Group of Schools at Hyderabad and was drawing Rs.12,000/- per month as salary and that he worked there for three years and that he loved the respondent No.1 and performed the marriage as per his love and affection without demanding any dowry from the parents of the respondent No.1 and he gave Rs.2-00 lakhs to the parents of the respondent No.1 for marriage expenses and that prior to the marriage itself he was having Pulsar bike and it is only ½ tula gold that was given to him and that the respondent No.1 herself left his company along with her belongings after 5 Crl. R.P.No.08 / 2024 in

M.C.No.10 / 2021

three months of the marriage and she never came back and the petitioner spent Rs.20,000/- at Parmita Children Hospital, Dilsukhnagar when the respondent No.2 fell ill and that father of the petitioner has given Ac.2-00 gts land to the sister of the petitioner as pasupu kumkuma and that during the last days of his father the respondent No.1 along with her parents forced his father to execute a will in favour of the respondent No.2 with regard to land in

Sy.No.62 and he died due to such harassment and he never demanded

additional dowry and that the respondent No.1 used to talk on phone with

strangers secretly and she used to leave the company of petitioner without any intimation to him and that on the insistence of the respondent No.1, the petitioner shifted his residence from Hyderabad to his native place and quit his job at Hyderabad and that he is only one of the share holders at Sidhardha

High School, Telugu medium, but no such school is running today due to

English medium pandemonium in the mandal and as such now the petitioner is jobless person and that the respondent No.1 is having illicit relationship with her brother-in-law who is the husband of her sister by name Vijayalakshmi and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6 Crl. R.P.No.08 / 2024 in

M.C.No.10 / 2021

5.The learned trial Court allowed the petition directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- to the respondent No.2 from the date of filing this petition on or before 5th of every succeeding month.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the grounds for

Revision:

6.That the trial Court failed to take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the petitioner to pay for his support.

7.That the trial Court ought to have observe that maintenance is dependent upon factual situations and that the trial Court failed to mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.

8.That the trial Court failed to take into consideration the financial capacity of the petitioner, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid.

7 Crl. R.P.No.08 / 2024 in

M.C.No.10 / 2021

9.That the trial Court failed to determine that the maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the spouse, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home and that the trial Court ought to have drawn a careful and just balance between all relevant factors.

10.That the trail Court ought to have observed that the maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extemes i.e., maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the spouse, nor should it be so meager that it drives the wife to penury and that the sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that his wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort and wrongly awarded maintenance to the respondents without considering the means of the petitioner.

11.Further, submitted written arguments submitting the reasons for granting excess amount as maintenance along with rulings of Hon’ble Supreme

Court:

8 Crl. R.P.No.08 / 2024 in

M.C.No.10 / 2021

a). Capacity to Pay is Paramount: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj Vs.

Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 3 (6) held that while determining maintenance, the Court must have due regard to the earning capacity and financial status of the husband.

b). Maintenance should be Realistic, not Punitive: In Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha

Jain [(20170 15 15 SCC 801], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the object of maintenance is not to punish a husband for his poverty, but to ensure that the wife and children are not left destitute. Maintenance must be reasonable and practical.

c). Obligation to Maintain Second Family: In Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah

Godese [(2014) 1 SCC 188], the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphyasized that while social justice requires protection of the first wife and child, the husband’s liability must be balanced with his subsequent responsibilities, including maintenance of children from the second marriage.

d). Maintenance not to be Beyond Means: In Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs.Meena [(2015) 6 SCC 353], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that maintenance must strike a balance between the needs of the claimants and the means of the person liable to pay.

e). Earning Capacity Vs. Mere Assumptions: In Rajnesh Vs. Neha @ Anr. [(2021), the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that actual income and liabilities of the husband must be considered while fixing maintenance, and not based on conjectures or inflated assumptions.

12.On perusal of the evidence on record, it is an admitted fact that the respondents and the petitioner are legally married and their marriage was performed on 02-06-2023 as per the averments of the petition, petitioner 9 Crl. R.P.No.08 / 2024 in

M.C.No.10 / 2021

submitted that her parents gave Rs.5-00 lakhs cash, Bajaj Pulsar bike, ½ gold ring, ½ tula gold chain, 2 tulas of gold bracelet and 11 tulas of gold ornaments and 25 tulas of silver ornaments and also house hold articles worth of Rs.2-00 lakhs and Rs.50,000/- as Adapaduchu Katnam i.e., amount given to the sister of respondent, but there is no documentary evidence to prove that the respondent received the above said gold, silver, cash and other house hold articles. Further, it is the contention of the respondent that he has given Rs.2-00 lakhs to the parents of the petitioner for the marriage expenses and that prior to the marriage itself the respondent having Pulsar bike on this aspect the petitioner / respondent not submitted the R.C of the Bajaj Pulsar bike to show when it was purchased in order to come to the conclusion that the above said bike was presented at the time of marriage or purchased by the respondent prior to the marriage. It is the contention of the petitioner that he cannot offered to pay as per the orders of trial Court which is execses as he is doing agricultural work and now his income has reduced. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents submit that the respondent is having plots as mentioned in Ex.P.1 Encumbrance certificate dated 06-09-2021. On perusal of the said sale transaction in Sy.No.627/3, measuring 372 sq. yards which is jointly purchased by three persons including the respondent, in Sy.No.268 10 Crl. R.P.No.08 / 2024 in

M.C.No.10 / 2021

measuring 254 sq. yards is purchased jointly by three persons including the respondent and in Sy.No.281/1 measuring 1435 sq. yards is also purchased by five persons including the respondent herein. Further it is submitted that Sri

Siddardha High School was running under two partners namely S.Venkataiah &

K.Srinivas Reddy registered in the said document bearing No.1618/2016 measuring 372 sq. yards.

13.Heard both sides.

Now, the point that arises is:

1. Whether the respondent is unable to maintained herself and whether the petitioner refused to maintained the respondent ?

2. Whether the petitioner is having sufficient means and give maintenance to the respondents ?

3. Whether the order of trial Court needs to be raised ?

4. To what relief ?

POINT No.1 to 3:

14. On the perusal of the above evidence on record, neither the respondent nor petitioner able to prove the source of income earned by them and it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion. Merely saying that that the respondent 11 Crl. R.P.No.08 / 2024 in

M.C.No.10 / 2021

requires Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2 is not sufficient.

a). Capacity to Pay is Paramount: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj Vs.

Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 3 (6) held that while determining maintenance, the Court must have due regard to the earning capacity and financial status of the husband.

b). Maintenance should be Realistic, not Punitive: In Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha

c). Obligation to Maintain Second Family: In Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah

15.Taking into consideration the present day cost of living and nature of their status, expenses so as to meet the minimum needs to survive. The respondents sought Rs.30,000/- to them, but the learned trial Court order

Rs.5,000/- to the respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- to the respondent No.2 and this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly apprceiated the evidence on record by taking all the factors into consideration and minimum needs of the respondents in the present day cost of living, hence, this 12 Crl. R.P.No.08 / 2024 in

M.C.No.10 / 2021

Court is of the opinion that the order of the trial Court needs no interference and deserves to be confirmed.

In the result: the Revision petition is dismissed by confirming the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor in M.C.No.10 / 2021 dated 14-03-2023.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.I) and after transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30 th day of January, 2026.

V- Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda.

CRLA/68/2022 Convicted

Dharmarapu Kondalu vs The State of T.S. through SHO, Nidamanoor

22 Jan 2026

1 / 12Crl.Appeal No.68 / 2022

IN THE COURT OF V - ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT: MIRYALAGUDA, NALGONDA DISTRICT.

Thursday, the 22 nd day of January, 2026

Present: Sri K.V.Chandra Shekar Rao,

V – Additional Sessions Judge,

Miryalaguda.

Crl. Appeal No. 68 of 20 22

Between: Dharmarapu Kondalu, S/o.Ramaiah, Age:22 years, Occ:Student, R/o.Bokkamunthalapad village, Nidamanoor mandal, Nalgonda District. … Appellant

AND

The State of Telangana represented by Station House Officer, Nidamanoor Police Station.

...Complainant

arisen against the judgment dated 28-11-2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nidmanoor.

C.C.No. 428 of 2017

B etween: The State of Telangana, represented by Station House Officer, Nidamanoor Police Station.

...Complainant

AND

Dharmarapu Kondalu, S/o.Ramaiah, Age:22 years, Occ:Student, R/o.Bokkamunthalapad village, Nidamanoor mandal, Nalgonda District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 21-01-2026 in the presence of Sri J.Yellaiah, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Ch.Raghu Rama Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor

for the Respondent and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court

made the following:

2 / 12Crl.Appeal No.68 / 2022

JUDGMENT :: ::

This is a Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C by the 1.

Appellant / Accused against conviction and sentence of fine passed by the trial Court i.e., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor in

C.C.No.428 of 2017, dated 28-11-2022 by convicting the Appellant under

Section 354 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

The Appellant in his petition mentioned the grounds for Appeal as 2.

follows:

1.That the judgment and conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor in C.C.No.428/2017 dated 28-11-2022, is contrary to law, facts of the case and the evidence on record and the same is liable to be set aside.

2. That the trial Court should have seen the prosecution failed to place any cogent and reliable evidence to convict the accused under Section 354 I.P.C.

3. That the trial Court failed to notice the contradictions in the evidence of PW-1, which is contradicting with the report vide Ex.P.1 similarly contradicting to the evidence of PW-2 who is the husband of PW-1 similarly the evidence of PW-1 is not corroborating with the other witnesses including the scene of offence panchanama.

4.That the trial Court should have seen that there is a delay in lodging Ex.P.1 against the accused.

3 / 12Crl.Appeal No.68 / 2022

5.That the trial Court should have seen the Investigation officer / PW-5 never stated that accused was handed over to him by anyone on the alleged day of offence to lend support to the version given by PW-1, 2 & 4 and that the trial Court should have meticulously scrutinized the evidence of PW-1, 2, 4 & 5 while giving the Judgment of conviction, hence, sought the Court to allow this Appeal by setting aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor in C.C.No.428/2017

dated 28-11-2022.

Accordingly, Appellant prayed to allow the Appeal.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 3.

contended that the trial Court has rightly convicted, after appreciating the evidence of the witnesses and there is no need to interfere with the judgment of the conviction and sentence of the trial Court.

Heard the learned Appellant counsel and the learned Additional 4.

Public Prosecutor.

Now, the point for arises for consideration is:

1. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the charges against the accused for the under Section 354 I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt ?

2. Whether the conviction and judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.428/2017 dated 28-11-2022 warrants any interference by this Court by setting aside the judgment ?

3. To what relief ?

4 / 12Crl.Appeal No.68 / 2022

POINT No.1 to 3:-

The case of the prosecution is that on 25.03.2016 at 1-00 p.m, PW-1 5.

lodged a Telugu written complaint vide Ex.P.1, stating that on 23.03.2016 at about 9-00 p.m, while she was near the main canal base side and attending natural calls, wherein three villagers namely Vikram, Rambabu & Kondalu were proceeding towards their village from outside canal base and on seeing them she stood up and waited for their passing from that place, out of which three persons Vikram & Rambabu went away by getting down from canal base and another person herein the accused came to her at distance by calling her name to which, she did not reply to the accused. Again the accused came to her and caught hold her hands and outraged her modesty and forced her to come along with him and threatened to kill if she reject his desire, accordingly, the accused tried to pelt a stone on PW-1. Immediately, PW-1 resisted the accused by taking her right leg slipper and beat the accused on his cheek, then the accused took the stone from the ground and again the accused caught her hands, wherein she rescued herself from the clutches of accused and started running, then the accused followed her and caught her waist and 5 / 12Crl.Appeal No.68 / 2022 outraged her modesty. Then, PW-1 raised hues and cries and her husband / PW-2 heard the noise and rushed to them and warned the accused for his bad activities at that time the accused took small stone piece and kicked her husband on his left hand shoulder and below hand.

Meanwhile, her villagers Ramavath Ranga / PW-3 came there and rescued by separating them accordingly, she sought to take legal action against the accused. Basing on the same, PW-5 / Investigation officer registered a case in Crime No.66/2016 under Section 354 & 323 I.P.C and he recorded the statements PW-1 to 3 and LW-4 / Dharmarapu Alivelu. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch vide Ex.P.3 & P.4 in the presence of PW-4 & LW-5 / Ramavath Shankar. On 31-03-2016, the accused was served notice under Section 41-A (1) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, on 02-04-2016 the accused came to police station to which PW-5 informed the accused to appear

before the trial Court as and when he received summons and after

completion of investigation, PW-5 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable punishable under Sections 354 & 323 I.P.C.

6 / 12Crl.Appeal No.68 / 2022

PW-1 who is the victim and lodged Ex.P.1 / Report in the police 6.

station, stated that about six years ago at 9-00 p.m, she went to canal bund to attend natural calls one Rambabu, Vikram and accused came to canal and among them Rambabu & Vikram get down and went away, but the accused came to her, then she stood up as the accused is male person and the accused called her by name, further the accused caught hold her right hand and dragged her, due to which, PW-1 hit the accused with chappal, then the accused forced her to come with him by caught hold her waist to which PW-1 raised hues and cries and on hearing the same, her husband / PW-2 came to her and PW-2 questioned the accused for his behavior, as such, the accused also hit PW-2 with the stone on left shoulder and left ribs. Meanwhile, PW-3 & LW-4 came to them and pacified the matter. Thereafter, they went to police station on the next day morning, but the police did not take any action, as such, they approached superior officer and on 25-03-2016 the police registered the case.

7 / 12Crl.Appeal No.68 / 2022

The counsel for the Appellant submitted that the parents of PW-1 7.

will hear the sound if she calls them on this aspect PW-1 stated that her father was sleeping in a drunken condition, PW-1 stated in her cross- examination that her parents did not come at the time of incident as her father slept in a drunken condition. It is further contention of Appellant that there was no lighting at the canal, as such, somebody might have committed the offence instead of the accused on this aspect PW-1 stated that the accused and two others i.e., Vikram & Rambabu belong to their villagers and she knows them further the said Vikram & Rambabu left the place except the accused who committed the offence against PW-1.

Further PW-1 stated that the accused called her by name, as such, question of identification of the accused is not in dispute, if really she wants to lodge a case falsely she would have lodged a case against the other two persons i.e., Vikram and Rambabu, but she lodge a case against the accused only further there are no previous grudges between the family of PW-1 and the accused, in order to implicate the accused falsely and also to extract money, hence the evidence of PW-1 is corroborating 8 / 12Crl.Appeal No.68 / 2022 with the report given to the police vide Ex.P.1 and the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of PW-1 in correct perspective.

PW-2 who is the husband of PW-1, stated that in the year 2016 on 8.

25-03-2016, his wife / PW-1 went to attend natural calls at about 9-00 p.m, at that time one Rambabu, Vikram & the accused, were at the canal by drinking alcohol out of which, one Rambabu & Vikram got down from the canal and went away, but the accused came to his wife and forced her by outraging her modesty and when she raised hues and cries, he heard and rushed to the scene of offence and questioned the accused for his behavior to which the accused quarreled with him and picked up a stone and beat on his left shoulder and ribs, thereafter PW-3 & LW-4 /

Dharmarapu Alivelu came to them and pacified the matter and on the next day they went to police station and lodged Ex.P.1. In his cross- examination of PW-2, he stated that the accused and two others drinking alcohol at canal side from 8-00 p.m onwards till the incident occurred. He further stated that he knows the accused who attends coolie work and 9 / 12Crl.Appeal No.68 / 2022 that they have no disputes with the accused. Hence, the evidence of PW-2 is corroborating with the evidence of PW-1.

PW-3 who is the circumstantial witness and the villager of PW-1, did 9.

not support the case of prosecution and denied the contents of under

Section 161 Cr.P.C statement. PW-4 is the panch witness to the scene of offence and rough sketch and recovery of MO.1 / Stone by the police, he denied the suggestion that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and LW-7 / Ramavath Shankar vide Ex.P.3 & 4 and recovery of stone vide MO.1.

PW-5 who is the Investigation officer, registered the case against the 10.

accused basing on Ex.P.1 lodged by PW-1, he issued First Information

Report vide Ex.P.5 and after recording the statements of witnesses and conducting scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch vide Ex.P.3 & 4 and recovery of MO.1 from the scene of offence and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. In his cross-examination, PW-5 admitted that Ex.P.1 was lodged two days after the incident. He further 10 / 12Crl.Appeal No.68 / 2022 stated he did not receive any pressure from higher officials to register the case against the accused. The counsel for the Appellant contended that the trial Court failed to see that the Investigation officer the accused was not handed over to him by anyone on the alleged day of ofence to lend support to the version of PW-1, 2 & 4 on this aspect the PW-5 stated that the accused was not found in the village, as such, he issued notice under

Section 41-A Cr.P.C on 31-03-2016 and denied the suggestion that the accused was very much available in the village and he did not arrest the accused. PW-5 denied the suggestion that a false case was registered at the instance of PW-1 in order to grab the money from the accused, on this aspect if PW-1 really want to extract money from the accused she would have lodged report against the other two persons namely

Rambabu & Vikram also, hence the contention of the Appellant that to extract money and false case is registered against the accused cannot be accepted.

11.In view of the above discussed facts held in Point No.1, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by 11 / 12Crl.Appeal No.68 / 2022

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor in C.C.No.428 / 2017 does

not require any interference by this Court, by setting aside the judgment.

In the result: the Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of fine imposed against the Appellant / Accused by the Court of

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor vide judgment in

C.C.No.428 of 2017 dated 28-11-2022.

The Appellant / Accused is present. He is already paid fine of

Rs.2,000/- before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor on 28-11-2022 on the day of suspension of sentence vide

Crl.M.P.No.542/2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nidamanoor, the accused is on bail and his bail bonds shall stand canceled. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nalgonda is directed to receive the accused with warrant.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.I) and after transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court, on this the 22 nd day of January, 2026.

V- Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda.

12 / 12Crl.Appeal No.68 / 2022

Appendix of evidence Witnesses Examined

- NIL -

V- Additional Sessions Judge,

Miryalaguda. Copy to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor.

Order Record 13 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CRLA/28/2020	Nandikonda Saidaiah @Saidulu A1 vs SHO PS Vijayapuri	11 Mar 2026	judgment	Acquitted
CRLA/10/2023	Nakka Narshima vs State of T.S through Addl. Public Prosecutor	10 Mar 2026	judgment	Acquitted
CRLA/45/2022	Mandari Rambabu vs The State of Telangana Rep by Addl. P.P	09 Mar 2026	judgment	Acquitted
SC/509/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO NIDMANOOR vs Shaik Ramzan @ Ramzan Vali	06 Mar 2026	judgment	Convicted
G.W.O.P/4/2025	Karnati Haritha vs To whom so ever it may concern	03 Mar 2026	order	—
AS/11/2024	Munagala Saidi Reddy vs Dubbakula Purushotham Reddy	24 Feb 2026	judgment	—
OS/100022/2015	MS Deccan Traders vs MS Bagalkot Cement and Industries Ltd6	23 Feb 2026	judgment	—
MVOP/94/2016	Vanam Chandramouli vs Memuni Rambabu and Others	20 Feb 2026	order	—
CMA/12/2023	Jonnalagadda Narsaiah @ Narsimha Reddy vs Tangella Lalitha	19 Feb 2026	judgment	—
CRLA/63/2022	Jupelli Madhu vs The State of Telangana through SHO of P.S. Peddavoora	30 Jan 2026	judgment	—
CRLRP/8/2024	Naddi Shankar @ Shankar Yadav vs Naddi Saritha and another	30 Jan 2026	judgment	—
CRLA/34/2023	Athunuru Chennappa vs The State of Telangana Rep by Public Prosecutor	22 Jan 2026	judgment	Acquitted
CRLA/68/2022	Dharmarapu Kondalu vs The State of T.S. through SHO, Nidamanoor	22 Jan 2026	judgment	Convicted

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao handled?

K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao has handled 13 court orders since 2025 at Miryalaguda, V ADJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 2 orders per month.

What types of cases does K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao hear?

Based on available records, K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Appeals, Sessions Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Appeal Suits) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at Miryalaguda, V ADJ Court Complex.

Where is K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao currently posted?

K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao is posted as V Addl Dist and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda at Miryalaguda, V ADJ Court Complex, Nalgonda, Telangana.

Are judgments by K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao available online?

Yes. 9 judgments by K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao dispose cases?

K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao disposes approximately 2 cases per month, based on 13 orders handled over their tenure at Miryalaguda, V ADJ Court Complex.

Since when is K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao serving?

K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao has been serving at Miryalaguda, V ADJ Court Complex since 2025. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

CRLA 46%

OS 8%

G 8%

MVOP 8%

CRLRP 8%

AS 8%

CMA 8%

SC 8%

Posting History

Feb 2026 — Present

V Addl Dist and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda · 9 orders
Dec 2025 — Feb 2026

V Addl Dist and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda · 4 orders
Nov 2025 — Nov 2025

V Addl Dist and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Convicted 2

Other Judges at this Court

M.Arjun

Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda

0 orders

P.Pavan Kumar

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda

109 orders

Ms. M.Lavanya Rani

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda

88 orders

Mr. Viyyapu Arun Tej

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Miryalaguda

55 orders

← View all judges at Miryalaguda, V ADJ Court Complex