M.g. Priyadarshini

III ADJ, NDL.S.C.39/2015Page 1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KURNOOL at NANDYAL.

Present:- Smt. M.G.Priyadarshini, III Additional District Judge,

Monday, this the 28th day of March, 2016

SESSIONS CASE No.39/2015

Name of the ComplainantThe Inspector of Police, Nandyal (R) Circle. Name of the accused A1) Derangula Hanumanthu, 40 years, S/o.Dullanna, Venkatapuram village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. A2) Elakapati Israil @ Guravaiah, 33 years, S/o.Dibbanna, Venkatapuram village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. A3)GoddendlaRamesh, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged 27 years, Siddapuram village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. A4) Derangula Sunkanna, 35 years, S/o.Subbanna, Nannur village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool Dist. A5) Gogula Nagaraju, S/o.Subbanna, 35 years, Nannur village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool Dist. A6) Thammisetty Polaiah,27 years, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Mothkupalli Village, Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District. A7) Annaladasu Nireekshan @ Niranjan, 30 years, S/o.Pullaiah, Siddapuram village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. A8) Yanabera Samson, S/o.Y.George, 35 years, Chinthala Agraharam, Dornala Mandal, Prakasham District. A9) Vinukonda Prakash @ Prathap, 26 yrs, S/o.Pedda Polaiah, Bommalapuram village, Dornala Mandal, Prakasham District. A10) Dasari Subbarayudu @ Ponnam Subbarayudu, 52 years, S/o.late Ponnam Dasari Pedda Ramudu, Nannur village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. A11) Sunkulammagari Narayana @ Narayana, 32 years, S/o.late Chatri Marenna, r/o.E.Thandrapadu village,

III ADJ, NDL.S.C.39/2015Page 2

Kurnool Mandal & District.

A12) Dasari Polimena Balu, 28 years, S/o.Sunkanna, r/o. Nannur village, Orvakal Mandal, Now at LM Compound, Ramula Devalayam, Koilkuntla village & Mandal, Kurnool Dist., ChargesU/Sec.395 IPC against A1 to A12 Plea of the accusedNot guilty Finding of the JudgeNot guilty Sentence of order A1 to A12 are found not guilty for the offence under section 395 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted u/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Prosecution conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor, Nandyal Defence conducted bySri P.V.Siva Reddy, Advocate, Nandyal.

This case was committed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal, as per order dated 01-12-2014 in P.R.C.No.25/2014 (Concerned in Cr.No.98/2013 of Nandyal Rural Police Station).

This Case is coming on 09-03-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V.Siva Reddy, Advocate for the accused and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Nandyal Rural Circle, laid the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Nandyal against the accused for the offences punishable under section 395 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.98/2013 of Nandyal Rural Police

Station.

2.The case of the Prosecution as set out in the charge sheet, is as follows:-

III ADJ, NDL.S.C.39/2015Page 3

The de-facto complainant is the Inspector of Police (LW-8)

Nandyal Rural Circle. The complainant/Informer Pola Satyanarayana (LW-1) is the resident of Madapalli village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari

District. LW-2 M.Venkata Ramana is the resident of Linrugu village of

Eluru Mandal of West Godavari district, both are doing hair business.

Prior to four days of the incident, A1 called LW-1 through Phone for sale of hair. On 3.4.2013 Satyanarayana (LW-1) and Venkata Ramana (LW-

2) started in order to go Nandyal. On 4.4.2013 at 6.00 a.m. they reached

Nandyal Bus-stand. At about 10.00 a.m. A1 met them and asked LW-1 for cash. LW-1 stated that he is having Rs.1,70,000/-, on that A1 took

LWs.1 and 2 in an Auto towards Nandamuri Nagar at Eedga, they got down from the Auto. In the meanwhile, two persons came there and showed hair in the bags. At that time, one vehicle came there and took them forcibly in that vehicle, took away an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- from

LWs.1 and 2, and also took away the cell phone and remaining amount, abused, beat them, threaten them in dire consequences and thrown them from the vehicle. Due to fear they went to their residents and informed their relatives. On their advise, they gave complaint to Rural

Police, Nandyal. Based on the complaint, SI of Police (LW-6) registered a case in crime No.98/2013 under Sec.395 IPC and issued FIR to the concerned officers and investigated into.

3. On 16.5.2013, the Inspector of Police, Vinukonda Circle arrested A1 to A7 in this case, in crime No.94/2013 under Sections 420, 365, 395 IPC of Vinukonda Police Station and on their confessional statements, seized Rs.1,50,000/- from the possession of A1 under cover of panchanama, A1 to A7 were produced before the Judicial Magistrate

III ADJ, NDL.S.C.39/2015Page 4 of First Class, Vinukonda and remanded to judicial custody. On 25.5.2013, the Inspector of Police (LW-7), Nandyal Rural Circle produced

A1 to A7 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal under PT warrant. On 13.12.2013 A8 and A9; on 25.2.2014, A12; on 4.3.2014,

A10 and A11 were arrested by the police and remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police,

Nandyal Rural Circle filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.On appearance of A1 to A12 before the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal copies of case documents were

furnished to them as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C. and as the offences u/s.395 I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Kurnool and the same was numbered as S.C.No.39/2015 and made over to this Court, for disposal.

5. After considering the material on record, charge under

Section 395 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty of the alleged offence and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case, the Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4.

7. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C, explaining to them, the incriminating circumstances appearing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

III ADJ, NDL.S.C.39/2015Page 5

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is “whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.395 IPC against A1 to A12 ?”

10. POINT:-

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

P.W.1, who is injured and the de-facto complainant in this case deposed that he is doing hair business and for his business purpose he travels from place to place to buy hair. Two years back, he received a phone call to his cell phone from an unknown person of Nandyal stating that he is having hair to purchase. On that himself and PW-2 came to Nandyal at 6.00 a.m., that unknown person received them and took them to Nandamuri Nagar in an Auto. After reaching Nandamuri

Nagar, they got down from the Auto and the unknown persons have shown the hair in a packet. At that time, some other unknown persons came there in a Car, pulled them inside and took them, on the way they beat them and took away an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and pushed them out of the car and went away. There are five or six persons in the car who have committed the offence. As pW-1 is suffering with ill-health, he left to Eluru without giving complaint. One month after the incident, he came back to Nandyal and lodged Ex.P1 complaint in Nandyal Taluk

Police station. He has received Rs.1,50,000/- from the Court and he cannot identify the accused in the dock.

11.PW-2 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

III ADJ, NDL.S.C.39/2015Page 6

12.PW-3 deposed that on 16.5.2013 at around 11.00 a.m., when he was at Vinukonda MRO office, Vinukonda police called him and LW-4

Ranga Rao to the Police station, wherein the police requested to accompany them. Then they all went to Gundlagama cross-road which is situated at 8 KM from Vinukonda. The Inspector of Police started checking the vehicle. At that time, they all observed one black colour

Tavera Car bearing No.AP 11 P 27. After seeing the police, they turned back the vehicle. The police chased them and caught hold of 8 persons including the driver and interrogated them. On interrogation, they all confessed about the commission of offence. Police have seized 2 Kgs. of hair, one car, two cell phones from their possession in crime No.94/2013 and drafted seizure panchanama.

13. PW-4, who is Inspector of Police at the relevant time deposed that he has received Express F.I.R. from LW-7. Based on the same, he took up investigation, sent requisition to the Magistrate to conduct Test Identification Parade of accused. Meanwhile, he got transferred and handed over the case file to PW-5.

14.PW-5 Inspector of Police, Nandyal took up the file and verified the investigation done by PW-4 and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

15. PW-6, at the relevant time Inspector of Police, Vinukonda deposed that on 16.5.2013 at 11.00 a.m. he received credible information about the accused, then, he secured the presence of mediators, PW-3 and LW-4, along with other staff members, rushed to

Gundlakamma cross road and started conducting vehicle check-up,

III ADJ, NDL.S.C.39/2015Page 7 wherein they all observed one Black colour Tavera car bearing No.AP 11

P 27 coming towards Markapuram side. On seeing the police, they got perturbed and try to reverse back the car and then the police chased and caught hold of them and interrogated. All the accused confessed about the commission of the offence in the presence of the mediators.

Then, police seized two cell phones, one Tavera vehicle in crime

No.94/2013 of Vinukonda Police station, Based on the confession they proceeded to Venkatapuram wherein A1 brought two bags of hair and one Rs.1,50,000/- cash. Then, the he arrested the accused.

In the cross-examination, he deposed that the case in crime

No.94/2013 of SC 182/2013 is ended in acquittal.

16.PW-7, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluk Police station deposed that on 12.5.2013, PW-1 gave complaint, based on the same, he registered a case in crime No.98/2013 under Sec.395 IPC. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he received the report one month after the incident.

17. Now coming to the discussion, this is a case of theft by the accused. As per the prosecution witnesses, some unknown persons called PW.1 to Nandyal to purchase hair, on that PW-1 and 2 came to

Nandyal wherein that unknown person took them to Nandamuri Nagar, when they got down from the Auto and checking the hair, in the meanwhile, one car came there and took them forcibly in the car and taken away Rs.1,70,000/- from them and pushed them out of the car.

Due to fear no complaint was given. However, one month after the incident, they gave complaint in the Police station. Even though the

III ADJ, NDL.S.C.39/2015Page 8 prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7, none of the witnesses could establish that A1 to A12 have participated in the crime. Even though as per the evidence of Investigating Officer, a requisition was filed before the Magistrate to conduct test identification parade, but surprisingly, there is no test identification parade report is filed before this Court and further, the Magistrate who conducted test identification parade neither cited nor examined as a witness in this case. PW-3, V.R.O., deposed that he can identify the accused, who are present in the court-hall, but, his evidence is of no help to the prosecution case for the reason, he had seen them prior to the trial and further as per the evidence of PW-3, all the accused confessed about the commission of offence before the police. Therefore, based on the confession statement before the police, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence. It is pertinent to state that the seizure of the property was made in crime No.94/2013 and absolutely there is no seizure of property in the instant case. Further

PW-2 did not support the case of the prosecution also raises a doubt in the mind of the court. Therefore, when there is no test identification parade and non-seizure of any property, the accused cannot be convicted. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, absolutely, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence.

Hence, I conclude that the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/s.395 of

Indian Penal Code, and accordingly the accused are entitled for acquittal. I answered the point accordingly.

III ADJ, NDL.S.C.39/2015Page 9

18. IN THE RESULT, A1 to A12 are found not guilty for the offence under section 395 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted u/ sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and Typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of March, 2016.

(Sd/- Smt M.G.Priya Darshini)

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

Kurnool at Nandyal.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence: None

PW.1: Pola Satyanarayana, S/o.Ranga Rao PW.2: Marumudi Venkata Ramana, S/o.Radha Krishna PW.3: Shaik Khasim Saheb, S/o.Mahaboob Subhan, VRO, Guntur District. PW.4: G.Hussain Peera, S/o.Hussainappa,Inspector of Police. PW.5: M.Siva Prasad, Inspector of Police. PW.6: Ch.V.Bala Subramanyam, S/o.Koteswara Rao, Inspector of Police, Guntur District. PW.7: D.Ramu, Sub-Inspector of Police.

Documents Marked

For prosecution:-

Ex.P.1:Complaint given by PW-1. Ex.P.2:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-2 Ex.P.3:Rough sketch Ex.P.4: FIR in Crime No.98/2013 of Nandyal Rural Taluk P.S.

Material objects Marked -NIL- (Sd/- Smt M.G.Priya Darshini)

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

Kurnool at Nandyal.

Copy to the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by way of C.D.

Copy communicated to :

III ADJ, NDL.S.C.39/2015Page 10

1. The Director of Prosecutions, Government of Andhra Pradesh, D.G. & I.G. Office Complex, Hyderabad.

2. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandyal.

3. The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Nandyal.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool.

5. The District Collector, Kurnool.

// By order //

Superintendent III ADJ Court, Nandyal.

III ADJ, NDL.SC 453/2015 Page 1/8

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KURNOOL at NANDYAL Present:- Smt. M.G.Priyadarsini, III Additional Sessions Judge.

Friday, this the 6thday of May, 2016

SESSIONS CASE No. 453of 201 5

Name of the ComplainantState, represented by the Inspector of Police, Ban aganapalle Circle. Name of the accused 1) Talari Ramanaiah S/o.Pedda Yerranna,

Aged 36 years, Hindu, Cultivation R/o.Lingambodu Village, Owk Mandal.

2) Talari Naidu @ Boddugadu, S/o.Boya Pedda Venkateshwarlu, Aged 20 years, R/o.Lingambodu Village, Owk Mandal.

3) Talari Venkata Srinivasulu @ Seenu S/o.Chinna Pullanna, aged 42 years, H.No.16/150/2, Rambhupal Nagar, Banaganapalli Mandal. Charges302 r/w.34, 307 r/w 34 and 120-B of I.P.C. Plea of the accusedNot guilty Finding of the Judge Not guilty Sentence of order A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for offence under Sec.120(B) IPC, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sec.302 IPC and 307 r/w.34 IPC and A-1 to A-3 are acquitted under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months as mandated under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. MOs.2 to 14 which are non- valuable properties are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The interim orders passed by the Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Banaganapalli with regard to return of Bajaj motorcycle (MO-1) and Tractor (MO-

15) hold good.

Prosecution conducted byAddl.Public Prosecutor, Nandyal.

Defense conducted bySri P.V. Siva Reddy, Advocate, Nandyal

This case was committed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banag anapalle, as per order in P.R.C.No.22/2014 (Concerned in Cr.No.96/2012 of

Owk Police Station).

III ADJ, NDL.SC 453/2015 Page 2/8

This case is coming on 18-04-2016 for final hearing before me in the pre sence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri P.V.Siv a Reddy, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing on both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Station House Officer, SHO, Owk Police station, laid charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Banaganapalli against the accused in Crime No.96/2012 of

BanaganapalliPolicestation,fortheoffencesunder

Sections.302,307,324 r/w.34 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.

2) The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet, is as follows:-

The deceased Boya Talari Naidu (D-1) and Boya Talari Venkata

Subbaiah (D-2) are residents of Obulapuram village, Owk Mandal.

Deceased No.1 is the brother of A-1 by courtesy. There are disputes between D-1 and A-1 with regard to house site and lands. On 22.10.2012 LW-1 Madhukumar has purchased new Discover Bajaj 100

CC motor cycle. On 02-11-12 LW-1 told D-1 and D-2 that he is going to

Maddilety Swamy temple for performing pooja to his motor cycle then D- 1 and D-2 asked LW-1 to take them along with him on his motor cycle to

Maddilety Swamy temple as they wanted to see their cattle in the temple.

On 03-11-12 at 8.30 a.m., LW-1 , D-1 and D-2 left Obulapuram village in the motor cycle and after completion of pooja while they were returning back, on the way they met LW-5 S.Meera Hussain and discussed about purchase of She-Buffaloes and had tea at LW-6 Tea stall

III ADJ, NDL.SC 453/2015 Page 3/8 wherein LWs-7 and 8 Subramanyam and Sreeramulu met them and all of them had chitchat for some time and they started back home. At around 3.30 p.m., when they reached Lingambodu bus stop , A-1 and A- 2 suddenly appeared before them on a Mahindra tractor from near by fields with the information given by A-3, who was watching the movements of D-1 and D-2 and drove the vehicle at high speed and dashed the motor cycle as a result three of them fell down from the motor cycle. A-1 and A-2 shouted by saying “Iddarini Champandira” , A-1 and A-2 beat D-1 and D-2 with sticks and rods till their death and A-3 assisted them. After seeing the same LW-1 tried to ran away from that place. Then A-1 to A-3 chased him but some how he could escape from them. However he has sustained injuries to his right ankle joint and left ankle joint. Hence, the complaint.

Based on the complaint, the Station House Officer, Owk Police

Station registered a case in No.96/2012 under Sections. 302, 307, 324 r/ w.34 and 120 B IPC. During the course of investigation, the SHO, Owk

PS examined the witnesses, recorded statements of witnesses, conducted inquest on the dead body. After completion of investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against the accused.

3) On appearance of accused before the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Banaganapalli, copies of documents were

furnished to them as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C. Since the offence under section 302 and 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions, committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Sessions Division,

Kurnool and the same was numbered as Sessions Case No.453/2015 and made over to this court for disposal.

III ADJ, NDL.SC 453/2015 Page 4/8 4) On appearance of the accused before this Court and after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, charges under sections 302 r/w.34 and under Sec.307 r/w.34 IPC against

A1 and A2; charge under Sec.120(B) IPC against A1 to A3 were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty of the alleged offences and claimed to be tried.

5) In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has examined

P.Ws 1 to 7 out of the list of 16 cited witnesses. The learned APP has given-up the evidence of L.Ws.6,7,9,10 to 15 and got marked Exs.P-1 to

P-14 documents, MOs.1 to 15. As there is no incriminating testimony in the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 7.

6)After completion of Prosecution evidence, the accused 1 to 3 were examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C., read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses. No defence evidence is reported by the accused.

7)Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

8) Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences u/secs. 302, 307,324 r/w.34 and 120 B IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 3, beyond all reasonable doubt?

9) POINT:-

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 7. PW-1 is the relative of the deceased No.1 and D-2.

PW-2 is the wife D-1. PW-3 is the daughter of D-1, PW-4 is the son of D-1.

PWs-5 and 6 are the independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and turn hostile.

III ADJ, NDL.SC 453/2015 Page 5/8

PW.1 ,who is the relative of D-1 and D-2 deposed that 3 years back on the previous day of incident D-2 has taken his new Bajaj

Discovery motor cycle which was not yet registered, after the murder of

D-1 and D-2 police have seized his motor cycle and handed over to him through Banaganapalli court. He do not know A-1 to A-3 and the cause of the death of D-1 and D-2 and he do not know anything about this case.

10)PWs.2 to 4 who are the blood relatives and family members of D-1 and D-2 on one voice stated that they do not know A-1 to A-3 and they do not know the cause of death and has no knowledge about the case and they were not examined by the police. Likewise

PWs.5 and 6 who are independent witnesses also did not state anything against the accused and stated that they do not know anything about this case.

11)PW-7 Investing officer deposed that on 03-11-12 has received express FIR and took up the investigation visited the scene of offence secured the presence of PWs.1 to 4 and panchayatdars, LWs-9 to 11 Balamaddilety, Boya Rangaswamy, Chikati Ramudu in their presence he has conduct inquest over the dead body of D-1 and seized

MOs.2 to 5 (Blood stained clothes of the D-1) and drafted Ex.P-9 report.

On the same day he has conducted inquest over the dead body of D-2 in the presence of above panchayatdars and seized MOs.6 and 7 (blood stained clothes of D-2) after completion of inquest he drafted Ex.P-10 inquest report. Then he has sent the dead body of D-1 and D-2 to government hospital for autopsy and later drawn rough sketch, he has also seized MO.1 motor cycle, MOs-8 and 9 two sticks, MOs.10 and 11

III ADJ, NDL.SC 453/2015 Page 6/8 two rods, MO-12 broken and fell down tractor head light , MO-13 blood stain earth, MO-14 control earth.

12) On 23-11-12 on credible information he secured the presence of LW-12 and 13 Shivasankar Reddy and Nagaraju went to

Vemulapadu Metta and found A-1 and A-2, caught hold of them , they confessed about the commission of the offence and lead them to

Lingambodu bushes and shown one tractor, based on the same he seized MO-15 tractor under cover of seizure panchnama. On 28-01-13 on credible information they caught hold of A-3 and arrested him and produced before Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Banaganapalli for judicial custody and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet, in the cross examination he denied the suggestion that with the instance of political leaders they foisted a false case against A-1 to A-3 by implicating them in the crime and also by taking advantage of hit and run of an unknown vehicle and the tractor and trailer was not at all involved in the crime.

13) A perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses discloses that the material witnesses PWs.1 to 6 did not disclose that the accused have committed the alleged offence, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor cross-examined PWs.1 to 6, but he could not elicit about the commission of offence by the accused. However, the evidence of PW-7 is not useful to the case of prosecution as the investing officer could not establish the motive of the accused that there are any disputes between the deceased and accused, whether the death of the deceased is caused due to accident or by murder. Further the doctor was not examined to establish the cause of death of the deceased and the prosecution has also given up the evidence of the other witnesses as the material

III ADJ, NDL.SC 453/2015 Page 7/8 witnesses have turned hostile. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused through PWs.1 to 6 as they have not supported the case of the prosecution and the evidence of PW-7 could not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

14) Therefore, in view of the above discussion this court is of the considered opinion that there is no evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused to connect with charges framed against them and no case is made out against them. Therefore, I conclude that the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences under section 302, 307,324 r/w.34 and 120B of Indian Penal

Code and accordingly the accused is entitled for acquittal. I answered the point accordingly.

15) IN THE RESULT, A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for offence offence under section 120(B) IPC, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sec.302 r/w.34 IPC and 307 r/w 34 of IPC and A-1 o A- 3 are acquitted under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months as mandated under

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. MOs.2 to 14 which are non-valuable properties are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The interim orders passed by the Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Banaganapalli with regard o return of Bajaj Motorcycle (MO-1) and Tractor (MO-15) hold good.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 6th day of May, 2016.

(Sd/- Smt M.G.Priya Darshini) III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.

III ADJ, NDL.SC 453/2015 Page 8/8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

for Prosecution:- for defense:- NONE PW1 : T.Madhukumar, T.Chinna Maddilety PW2 : T.Lakshmi Devi, W/o.Boya Talari Naidu, PW3 : T.Adilakshmi, W/o.Venkata Subbaih PW4 : T.Ramudu, S/o.Boya Talari Naidu PW5 : S.Meera Hussain, Syed Sajjar Hussain PW6 : T.Sreeramulu, S/o.Boya Kondanna PW7 : T.Sreenivasulu, S/o.T.Venkataswamy,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:- Ex.P.1: Signature of PW-1 on the complaint Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-1 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.6 Ex.P.8: Express FIR Ex.P.9: Inquest report of D-1 Ex.P.10: Inquest report of D-2 Ex.P.11: Inquest report of D-2 in column No.8 Ex.P.12: Rough sketch Ex.P.13: Letter of advice Ex.P.14: Seizure Panchnama

For defence: NIL

M.Os Marked: MO-1 : Bajaj Discovery motor cycle. MO-2 : Blood stained terricotton white full hands shirt. MO-3 : Blood stained polyester white colour pancha. MO-4 : Blood stained white colour cut bunion. MO-5 : Blood stained green colour underwear. MO-6 : Blood stained red designed dots half hands shirt. MO-7 : Blood stained black colour jeans pant with white colour stripes. MOs-8 and 9: Two sticks MOs-10 and 11 : Two rods MO-12 : Tractor head light MO-13 : Blood stain earth MO-14 : Control earth MO-15 : Mahindra and Mahindra company tractor bearing No.AP21AD6947 in charges No.NAB 0107 and Engine No.AP0107. (Sd/- Smt M.G.Priya Darshini)

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

Kurnool at Nandyal.

III ADJ, NDL.SC 453/2015 Page 9/8

Copy to the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by way of C.D.

Copy communicated to:-

1. The Director of Prosecutions, D.G. & I.G. Office Complex, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

2. The Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Banaganapalli.

3. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nandyal

4. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool.

5. The District Collector, Kurnool.

III ADJ, NDL.SC 274/2015Page 1/5

IN THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KURNOOL at NANDYAL Present:- Smt. M.G.Priyadarsini, III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal

Tuesday, the 19thday of April, 2016

SESSIONS CASE No. 274of 201 5

Name of the ComplainantState, represented by the

Station House Officer, Nandyal III Town Police station. Name of the accused 1) Sari Jagath Kiran S/o.John Srinivasa Rao, Aged 36 years, R/o.Syam Nagar, Nandyal.

2) B.Sabastian Raju, S/o.John, Aged 33 years, Asst.Manager, AP Grameena Bank, Nunepalli Branch, Nandyal.

3) Jallipalli Dilip Kumar, 39 yrs, R/o.Shyam Nagar, Nandyal. ChargesUnder Secs.302,324, 323 and 509 IPC Plea of the accusedNot guilty Finding of the Judge Accused are found not guilty Sentence of order In the result, A1 is found not guilty for offences under Secs.302, 324 and 509 IPC; A2 is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.323 IPC; and A3 is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.302 r/w.109 IPC; A1 to A3 are acquitted under Sec.232 Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months as mandated under sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable property in CPR No.7/2016 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Prosecution conducted byAddl.Public Prosecutor, Nandyal.

Defense conducted bySri P.V.Siva Reddy, Advocate for A2

Sri J.V.Manohar Reddy,Advocate for A1& A3

This case was committed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, as p er order in P.R.C.No.18/2015 (Concerned in Cr.No.86/2014 of Nandyal III Town Polic e Station).

This case is coming on 13-04-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri Sri P.V.Siva Reddy, A

III ADJ, NDL.SC 274/2015Page 2/5 dvocate for A2; Sri J.V.Manohar Reddy,Advocate for A1& A3 and hearing on both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the followin g:-

J U D G M E N T

The Station House Officer, Nandyal III town Police station, laid charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandyal against the accused in Crime No.86/2014 of Nandyal III Town Police station, for the offences under Sections.323,324,307,302,509 and 109 r/w.34 IPC.

2) The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet, is as follows:- The deceased Vanka Jayaraju is the resident of Shymnagar,

Nandyal. A-1 and A-2 are close friends and A-1 is follower of A-3, LW-1

Padmavathi, LW-2 Vinay, LW-3 Sikhamani are sons and LW-4 Mounika is the daughter of the deceased. Due to financial problems the deceased took some money from A-3 and the deceased used to behave as if the deceased family are in his control and used to threaten them. While so A-1 abused LW-2 Vinay and made bad propagation against Vinay before his friends Rakesh and Vijay and advise them not to move with him on knowing the same when LW-1 questioned A-1 on that A-1 brought a knife from his house and abused LW-1 and deceased by saying “YEMIRA KODUKULARA LANJADANA NEE KODUKONU

ANTE YEMINA PEEKUTARA MEMALNI ANDARNI CHAMPUTANU” and stabbed below the neck of LW-1. when LW-2 intervened A-1 stabbed on his right hand and when A-2 came there and beat LW-1 and deceased with hands and legs.

On hearing the cries of LW-1 and deceased, LW-3 and 4 rescued LW-1 and deceased and shifted them to Government Hospital, Nandyal. The deceased died on 21.05.15 based on the complaint SHO, Nandyal III Town PS registered a case in No.86/2014 under Sections.323,324,307,302,509, 109 r/w.34 IPC.

During the course of investigation, the SHO, Nandyal III Town PS examined the witnesses, recorded statements of witnesses, conducted inquest on the dead body. After completion of investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against the accused.

III ADJ, NDL.SC 274/2015Page 3/5 3) On appearance of accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nandyal, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C. Since the offence under section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Sessions

Division, Kurnool and the same was numbered as Sessions Case No.274/2015 and made over to this court for disposal.

4) On appearance of the accused before this court and after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, charges under sections 323,324,307,302,509,109 r/w.34 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty of the alleged offences and claimed to be tried.

5) In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has cited 16 witnesses, and examined P.Ws 1 to 7, and the learned APP has given-up the evidence of

L.Ws.8 to 16 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 documents. As there is no incriminating testimony in the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 7, the examination of the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. No defence evidence is reported by the accused.

6)Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

7) Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences u/secs. 323,324,302,307, 509, 109 r/w.34 IPC, against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt?

8) POINT:-

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 7. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased, PWs-2 and 3 are sons, PW-4 is the daughter of the deceased. PWs-5 to 6 are the neighbours and independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and turn hostile. PWs.1 to 4 who are the wife and children of the deceased deposed that they do not know who killed the deceased and police did not examine and recorded their statements. PW-5 is the mason, PW-6 is the watchmen in SC hostel, and PW-7

III ADJ, NDL.SC 274/2015Page 4/5 is the teacher, who are neighbours and independent witnesses deposed in one voice that they do not know anything about this case.

9)As the material witnesses PWs.1 to 7 did not disclose that the accused have committed the alleged offence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross-examined Pws.1 to 7, but he could not elicit anything about the commission of offence by the accused. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused through PWs.1 to 7 as they turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. In this context reliance can be placed in the judgment by the

Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., in the matter between

Neesam Subbarao @ Subbayya Vs. State, 2008(1) ALD Crl. page 585

A.P., wherein it was held that:

“Evidence of hostile witnesses is off no consequence in any aspect and respect.”

The above decision squarely applies to this case, as the main material witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 7, turned hostile, there is no evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused. Under these circumstances and in view of the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 7, this Court is of the opinion that there is no incriminating material against the accused to connect the accused with charges framed against them and no case is made out against them.

Therefore, I conclude that the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections Under Secs.302,324, 323 and 509 of

Indian Penal Code and accordingly the accused is entitled for acquittal. I answered the point accordingly.

10)IN THE RESULT, In the result, A1 is found not guilty for offences under Secs.302, 324 and 509 IPC; A2 is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec.323 IPC; and A3 is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.302 r/w.109

IPC; A1 to A3 are acquitted under Sec.232 Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months as mandated under sec.437-A

III ADJ, NDL.SC 274/2015Page 5/5

Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable property in CPR No.7/2016 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of April, 2016.

(Sd/- Smt M.G.Priyadarshini) III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For defense:- NONE PW1: V.Padmavathi PW2 : V.Vinay PW3 : V.Shikamani PW4 : V.Mounika PW5 : S.Khadar Basha PW6 : E.Manohar PW7 : I.Lazar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:- Ex.P.1: Signature of PW-1 on the complaint Ex.P-2:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.6:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6 Ex.P.8: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7

For defence: NIL M.Os Marked: NIL (Sd/- Smt M.G.Priyadarshini)

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

Kurnool at Nandyal.

Copy to the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by way of C.D.

Copy communicated to :

1. The Director of Prosecutions, D.G. & I.G.Office Complex, Hyderabad.

2. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandyal.

3. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nandyal

4. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool.

5. The District Collector, Kurnool.

// By order //

Superintendent III ADJ Court, Nandyal.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KURNOOL at

NANDYAL

Present:- Smt. M.G.Priyadarsini, III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal

Thursday, the 21stday of April, 2016

SESSIONS CASE No. 277of 201 5

Name of the ComplainantState, represented by the

Station House Officer, Nandyal III Town Police station. Name of the accused Shaik Anwar Basha S/o.Shaik Abdul Khadar, Aged 40 years, RF Road, 2, Noonepalli, Nandyal. Charges498-(A), 304 Part-II of I.P.C. Plea of the accusedNot guilty Finding of the Judge Accused found not guilty Sentence of order A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 302 r/w.34 and 201 o f I.P.C. and are acquitted u/sec.232 Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The unmarked property in this case if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. Prosecution conducted byAddl.Public Prosecutor, Nandyal.

Defense conducted bySri M.V.Ramana, Advocate for A2 Sri M.Kri shnamurthy, Advocate for A3.

This case was committed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, as p er order in P.R.C.No.29/2015 (Concerned in Cr.No.38/2015 of Nandyal III Town Polic e Station).

This case is coming on 01-04-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri M.V.Ramana, Sri

M.Krishna Murthy, Advocates for A2 and A3 and hearing on both sides, and having stoo d over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Station House Officer, Nandyal III town Police station, laid charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandyal 2 against the accused in Crime No.38/2015 of Nandyal III Town Police station, for the offences under Sections.498-A,304 Part-II IPC. 2) The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet, is as follows:- The deceased Shaik Jaheera Begum is the resident of Boilakuntla village,

Sirvel Mandal. A-1 is her husband. The marriage between the deceased and accused was performed about 16 years back. They were blessed with two daughters. The deceased is suffering with uterus fibroids for the last few months due to which she used to suffer severe stomach pain and undergoing treatment and used to take rest in the house. The accused knowing full well of her health problem, used to harass the deceased and abused the deceased for not attending household works. On 22-02-15 at 21.30 hours deceased brought meat prepared curry and served the accused. But the accused refused to eat, grew wild, abused, beat her and forcibly pushed her aside. As a result she fell conscious edge of sofa and sustained injury in her stomach and suffered severe stomach pain then she was shifted to District Hospital, Nandyal for treatment and the advice of doctors she was shifted to Govt.General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment while undergoing treatment she died on 25-02-15 at 12.30 hours. Hence, the complaint.

Based on the complaint SHO, Nandyal III Town PS registered a case in

No.38/2015 under Sections.498-A,304 Part-II IPC. During the course of investigation, the SHO, Nandyal III Town PS examined the witnesses, recorded statements of witnesses, conducted inquest on the dead body. After completion of investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against the accused.

3) On appearance of accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nandyal, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C. Since the offence under section 304-Part II IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Sessions Judge,

Sessions Division, Kurnool and the same was numbered as Sessions Case

No.277/2015 and made over to this court for disposal.

3 4) On appearance of the accused before this court and after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, charges under sections 498-A, 304 Part-II IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty of the alleged offences and claimed to be tried.

5) In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has cited 12 witnesses, and examined P.Ws.1 to 6, and the learned APP has given-up the evidence of

L.Ws.9 to 12 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 documents. As there is no incriminating testimony in the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 6, the examination of the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. No defence evidence is reported by the accused.

6)Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

7) Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences u/secs. 498 (A), 304 Part-II IPC, against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt?

8) POINT:-

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 6. PWs-1 and 3 are the brothers of the deceased, PW-2 is the mother of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution and turn hostile.

They being blood relatives and family members of the deceased. They deposed that she died due to ill health while undergoing treatment in the hospital. PWs.4 is the cable operator, PW-5 is the retired government employee, PW-6 who is doing cloth business. PWs.4 to 6 who are neighbours and independent witnesses deposed in one voice that they do not know anything about this case.

9)As the material witnesses PWs.1 to 6 did not disclose that the accused have committed the alleged offence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 4 cross-examined PWs.1 to 6, but he could not elicit about the commission of offence by the accused. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused through PWs.1 to 6 as they turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. In this context reliance can be placed in the judgment by the Division Bench of the

Hon’ble High Court of A.P., in the matter between Neesam Subbarao @

Subbayya Vs. State, 2008(1) ALD Crl. page 585 A.P., wherein it was held that:

“Evidence of hostile witnesses is off no consequence in any aspect and respect.”

The above decision squarely applies to this case, as the main material witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 6, turned hostile , there is no evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused. Under these circumstances and in view of the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 6, this Court is of the opinion that there is no incriminating material against the accused to connect the accused with charges framed against them and no case is made out against them.

Therefore, I conclude that the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences under section 498 (A), 304 Part-II Indian Penal Code and accordingly the accused is entitled for acquittal. I answered the point accordingly.

10)IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 498-A, 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code and is acquitted u/sec.232 Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The unmarked property in this case shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist on bench, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 21st day of April, 2016.

III Additional Sessions Judge, 5

Kurnool at Nandyal .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For defense:- NONE PW1 : S.Ahammed Hussain PW2 : S.Alima Bee PW3 : S.Ahammed Basha PW4 : B.Nageswara Rao PW5 : T.V.Duggeswaraiah PW6 : Chowdam Chinna Rama Subbaiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:- Ex.P.1: Signature of PW-1 on the complaint Ex.P-2:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-1 Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.6:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.6

For defence: NIL M.Os Marked: NIL

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

Kurnool at Nandyal.

Copy to the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by way of C.D.

Copy communicated to :

1. The Director of Prosecutions, D.G. & I.G.Office Complex, Hyderabad.

2. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nandyal

3. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool.

4. The District Collector, Kurnool.

CHARGE WITH TWO OR MORE HEADS

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :

KURNOOL at NANDYAL.

SESSIONS CASE No.231 of 2014

(P.R.C.No.20 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Banaganapalle) (Split up from P.R.C.No.4 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Banaganapalle)

(Crime No.88 of 2006 of Nandivargam P.S.)

I, Sri N.Ramalinga Reddy, M.A., LL.B., I Additional District

Judge, Kurnool F/A/C. III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at

Nandyal, do hereby charge you:-

1) Vadde Mallela Venkateswarlu, S/o.Pedda Raju, (A4) Aged 22 years, R/o.Gorredindla Thanda, Atmakur Mandal, Ananthapur District.

2) Battu Venkata Swamy, S/o.Venkatappa, (A12) aged 54 years, H.Kottala village, Bethamcherla Mandal, Kurnool District.

as follows:

Firstly:- That you A4 along with other accused, on 11.10.2006 at 6.40 p.m. at Gani Gunthalu near Thodella Biluku between

Ramakrishna Puram and Govindapalle village, Benthamcherla Mandal, were a member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of said assembly of rioting and at that time were armed with deadly weapons like sticks and sickles to murder

Balapalapalli Venkateswara Reddy committed an offence punishable under section 148 IPC and within my cognizance.

Secondly:- That you A4 along with other accused, on the same day, time and place as mentioned in charge No.1 supra being a member of an unlawful assembly committed murder intentionally causing the death of Mallu Narayana Reddy and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.149 of I.P.Cand within my cognizance.

Thirdly : - That you A12 along with other accused, prior to 11.10.2006 conspired to murder Balapalapalli Venkateswara Reddy and besides the above said conspiracy (agreement) that you did same acts in pursuance of said agreement to commit the offence of murder and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section r/w.120(B) r/w.302 of I.P.Cand within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges.

Dated this the 19th day of September, 2014.

I Additional District Judge, Kurnool F/A/C. III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal

Plea of accused

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :

KURNOOL at NANDYAL.

SESSIONS CASE No.231 of 2014

(P.R.C.No.20 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Banaganapalle) (Split up from P.R.C.No.4 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Banaganapalle)

(Crime No.88 of 2006 of Nandivargam P.S.)

Complainant : State rep., by Inspector of Police, Panyam.

Accused:

1) Vadde Mallela Venkateswarlu

2) Battu Venkata Swamy Charges: 1) Under Section 148 IPC against A4

2) Under Section 302 r/w.149 IPC against A4

3) Under Section 120(B) r/w.302 IPC against A12

The above charges have been read over & explained to the accused in

Telugu and having understood the same he pleaded as follows:

For Charge No.1 under Section 148 of I.P.C.

A4 pleads:

For Charge No.2 under section 302 r/w.149 IPC

A4 pleads:

For Charge No.3 u/s 120 r/w 302 IPC.

A12 pleaded

Dated this the 19th day of September, 2014.

I Additional District Judge, Kurnool F/A/C. III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal