Sri. M.venkateswara Rao

-1- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT:- Sri M. Venkateswara Rao III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, M.M.District, At Kukatpally

Thursday on this the 7th Day of May, 2026 (Date of Pronouncing Judgment of Conviction)

Sessions Case. No. 683 of 2023

1.Name of the ::TheStatethroughP.S., complainant Sanathnagar

2.Name & description of ::A1: Imran Ali Khan @ Fiza S/o. the AccusedKaramath Ali Khan, Aged 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 7-2-1607/21/A,Allauddinkoti, Sanathnagar.

A2: Mohd. Rafiq S/o. Mohd. Rasheed, Aged 35 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. H. No.8-4- 548/48/3/1, South Shankarlal Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

3.Section of Law::364, 302, 202, 201 of IPC

4.Crime No.& P.S.::Cr.No.279/2023, P.S. Sanathnagar

5.PRC.No.::124/2023

6.Name of the Officer, :: XII Addl. M.M., MM District, who committed the Kukatpally case 7Prosecution conducted ::Addl. Public Prosecutor by

8.Defence conducted by ::Sri. K. Muralidhar, Advocate.

9.Plea of the accused:: Pleaded not guilty

10. Finding of the Court::Found guilty -2- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. K.

Muralidhar, Learned Counsel for the accused Nos.1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following : -

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.Inspector of Police, P.S. Sanathnagar, filed Charge- sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Cr.No.279/2023 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 364, 302, 202, 201 of IPC.

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that:

i. On 20.04.2023 at 2100 hours that complainant/PW1 came to PS Sanathnagar and lodged a report that he had three children ie., two daughters and one son. On 20.04.2023 in the evening at about 0500 pm, he along with his son Abdul Wahid

Khan, aged 8 years, Student of 3rd class went to Masjid at

Allauddin Koti. After completing the Namaz, he returned to his house, but his son did not return. At about 06.00 pm, he went to the said Masjid and searched for his son but he couldn’t find him anywhere near the Masjid. They have caused enquiry in the surrounding places, but could not get any information. At the time of leaving the house, his son was wearing Blue colour T- -3- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP shirt, Green colour pant, he is height of 2’-5’’, fair complexion, he can speak Telugu and Urdu. As such he requested for taking action.

3.On receipt of said report, PW18/LW28/Sri. M. Muthu

Yadav, Inspector of Police, P.S, Sanathnagar has registered a case in Cr.No.279 of 2023, U/Sec.363 of IPC and entrusted the investigation to LW27/Sri. K. Murali Goud, SI of police.

4.During the course of investigation, the LW27/K

Murali Goud, Sub Inspector of Police examined the PW1 and recorded his statement. Later PW18/M. Muthu Yadav visited the scene of offence ie., house of the PW1 situated at Allauddin Koti,

Sanathnagar and examined the scene and conducted scene of offence panchanama in presence of mediators PW12 and

LW17/Syed Dawood and prepared Crime Details Form (CDF), with rough sketch which is already marked as Ex.P2. He have seized

MO.1 Black Colour a pair Chappal of deceased at Allauddinkoti

Colony.

5.Later, PW18 deputed PW6/Shekar to verify and retrieve the CCTV footage in that area. PW6 noticed CCTV camera in the house of Shaik Farooq/PW4 and checked the CCTV footage with the permission of PW4 and he noticed the difference of 15 minutes late in said CCTV footage than real time. He collected CCTV footage and handed over to PW18. The said CCTV footage shows that the deceased and A1 went inside the house -4- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP of A1. Later, A1 came out of his house and went to his godown which is opposite to the house of PW4 and got one White colour plastic cover and went inside of the house. The CCTV footage further shows that A2 came to the house of A1 with Auto and later A1 and A2 brought said White colour package into the Auto of A2 and they went in the said Auto with the said package. The said Auto went towards Deen Dayal Nala. PW6 downloaded CCTV footages of the house of PW4 and cameras of Command Control.

MO1 is said Two pendrives along with 65-B certificate.

6.Later, A1 and A2 were apprehended at Erragadda by his team and produced before him. He interrogated A1 and A2 in the presence of PW13 and LW19/G.Sailu Yadav, and the accused confessed this offence. Basing on the said confession, he recovered MO.2-Vivo mobile from the A1. He recovered MO.3-

Auto bearing No.TS-34-TA-1886 and MO.4-Samsung Blue Colour mobile from the possession of A2.

7.A1 and A2 confessed that they thrown the dead body of the deceased boy in Deen Dayal Nagar Nala and they lead them to said Nala and showed the Plastic Cover and a

Plastic Drum in the said Nala containing the dead body of deceased boy. Upon, that he removed the said Drum containing the dead body of the deceased boy from the said Nala in the presence of said mediators. They noticed dead body of deceased boy in the Drum and they noticed Hands and Legs of the -5- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP deceased boy were tied with ropes (Nada). He also noticed a

Green and White Colour Muflar around the Neck of the deceased boy. He prepared Ex.P7-Dead body recovery Panchanama along with rough sketch. He recovered MO.5 to MO.8.

8.Later accused lead them to the house of A1 situated at Allauaddinkoti, Sanathnagar and showed his house confessing that accused killed the deceased boy in the said house. Upon, that he prepared Ex.P8-Scene Observation Report along with rough sketch. Basing on the confessional statement of the accused, he have altered the section of law from 363 of IPC to 364, 302, 202, 201 of IPC and the same was intimated to the concerned officials. Later he send the accused to court for remand.

9.Later he visited the Gandhi hospital and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, and prepared

Ex.P9/Inquest Report. Later, dead body of the deceased boy was shifted to post mortem examination. He examined PW5, LW6 to 8 by names Javid Khan, Salambeen Ahmed and S.K.Nayab. Later, he examined PW7 and PW8. He forwarded the Vicera and Anal

Swabs to the FSL. He have collected Call Data records of A1 and

A2 from PW15 and PW17.

10. Further, PW19, Inspector of police took up the further investigation in this case and verified the investigation done by PW18 and found the same in a correct lines. He have -6- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP collected customer application forms of A1 and A2 from PW15 and PW16 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet for the offence U/sec. 364, 302, 202, 201 of IPC.

11. The learned Magistrate Court, took cognizance of offences punishable u/s. 364, 302, 202, 201 of IPC against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 vide PRC No.124/2023 and issued summons to them. After their appearance, the learned

Magistrate furnished them copies of documents and as the

offence u/s. 364, 302, 202, 201 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Hon’ble

Sessions Court and in turn, the Metropolitan Sessions Court

assigned SC No.683 of 2023 and made over the case to this

Court for disposal according to Law.

12. After receiving this case, summons was issued to the accused Nos. 1 and 2. After their appearance, the accused were examined U/Sec.227 Cr.P.C and a Charge u/s. 364, 302, 202, 201 r/w 34 of IPC were framed against the accused, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

13. During trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and also got marked MO.1 to MO.8. Due to oversight, the though MO.1

Slippers were already marked, again the two Pendrives with

CCTV Footage were marked as MO.1. To avoid confusion, the said

Two pen Driver are read and treated as Marked as MO.1A; The -7- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP learned PP has given up examination LW6/Javeed Khan,

LW7/Salam Bin Abeed, LW8/SK. Nayab, LW14/Abdul Azeem,

LW17/Syed Dawood, LW19/Gaddameedi Sailu Yadav, LW21/SK.

Aziz, LW25/A. Raja Naik, LW26/T. Murali Mohan, LW27/K. Murali

Goud, reported no further evidence. After closing prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., for which they denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

14. Initially, a legal aid counsel was appointed on behalf of the A.1 and A.2 was represented by Sri.Muralidhar, learned

Counsel. At later point of time, said Sri.Muriladhar, learned

Counsel filed memo of appearance on behalf of A.1 as well and reported that he adopted his cross examination for A.1 as swell.

15. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record including written arguments submitted by both sides;

16. Now, the point for determination is:- "Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all

reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 is guilty of offences

punishable under Sections 364, 302 of IPC, and that

Accused Nos.1 and 2 are guilty of offence punishable

under Section 201, 202 read with Section 34 of IPC?"?

Point :

17. The prosecution's case is that on 20,04.2023, at about 5:10 p.m. at Sanathnagar, Accused No. 1 (A1) kidnapped a -8- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP boy named Abdul Waheed Khan, who was below 18 years of age, with the intention of killing him, and thereafter, A1 murdered the deceased boy. It is further alleged that Accused No.1 and

Accused No. 2, in furtherance of their common intention, caused disappearance of evidence of the said murder by concealing the dead body in a plastic drum, placing that drum inside a white plastic cover, and then shifting the dead body in A2's auto to

Deendayal Nagar Nala, where they threw the dead body into the

Nala. Hence, A1 and A2 have committed offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, and 201 read with Section 34 of the

IPC.

18. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17 and also got marked

MO.1 to MO.8.

19. PW1 is said to defacto complainant and father of the deceased, PW2 is the mother of the deceased and circumstantial witness, PW3 is the Paternal uncle of the deceased and circumstantial witness, PW4 is the circumstantial witness and provided CCTV footages and also issued 65-B IEA certificate, PW5 is the witness who witnessed when dead body was recovered from Deen Dayalnagar Nalal, PW6 is the Police constable of PS

Sanathnagar, who retrieved CC footages from the CC Cameras near by the scene of offence, PW7, PW.8 is the witness who is said to have seen while the deceased boy going into the house of -9- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP accused No.1; PW.9 is brother in law of PW.1 to show the motive of accused as to dues payable by the A.1 in respect of a Chit

Transaction; PW.10 is circumstantial witness to show that the boy was missing at relevant date and time; PW.11 is also a witness to prove the motive of A.1 and disputes between the A.1 and PW.1 as to the said Chit transaction; PW12 is the panch for scene of offence and rough sketch and CCTV footage's retrieved panchanama for both places, PW13 is the panch for confessional cum seizure panchanama of accused and body recover panchanama & scene of offence panchama-II at Nala and scene offence panchanama at accused house, PW14 panch for inquest panchanama, PW15 and PW17 are the Provided CDRs & CAF certificate u/s 65 (B) (4) © of IE Act of A1 and A2 phone numbers,

PW16 is the Medical Officer, PW18 and PW19 are the

Investigating Officers.

20. Ex.P1 is the Complaint of PW1, Ex.P2 is the Rough

Sketch, Ex.P3 is the CCTV Footage recovery Mediators report signature, Ex.P4 is the CCTV Footage Recovery Panchanama,

Ex.P5 is the Relevant portion of confession and recovery panchanama of A1, Ex.P6 is the Relevant portion of confession and recovery panchanama of A2, Ex.P7 is the Dead body recovery panchanama along with rough sketch, Ex.P8 is Scene

Observation Report along with rough sketch, Ex.P9 is the Inquest

Report, Ex.P10 is the Covering letter along with application form -10- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP of A1, Ex.P11 is Section 65-B Certificate, Ex.P12 is the Post mortem examination report, Ex.P13 is the Final Opinion Report,

Ex.P14 is the TSFSL Report, Ex.P15 is the Covering letter dated 28.07.2023 along with 65-B Certificate, Ex.P16 is the Application form along with CDR, and Ex.P17 is the FIR. MO.1 is the One pair

Slippers, MO.2 is the Vivo silver colour mobile (not working),

MO.3 is the Auto, MO.4 is the Samsung blue colour mobile, MO.5 is the White colour plastic bag, MO.6 is the Orange colour plastic drum with a black colour cap, MO.7 is the Green and white colour cloth piece, and MO.8 is the 4 threads.

21. To prove the charges against the accused under

Sections 364, 302, and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, the prosecution must establish beyond all reasonable doubt that

Accused No. 1 (A1) committed the murder of the deceased boy,

Abdul Waheed Khan. It further must prove that A1, with the intention of causing disappearance of evidence of the said murder, tied the hands and legs of the deceased with a rope (nada), concealed the dead body inside a plastic drum, placed that drum inside a plastic cover, and thereafter, A1 along with

Accused No. 2 (A2), in furtherance of their common intention, threw the said dead body into the nala at Deendayal Nagar.

Additionally, the prosecution must prove that the accused

intentionally suppressed information about the commission of the offence.

-11- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

22. This is a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The law is well-settled that for a conviction to rest on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a chain of circumstances so complete that it unequivocally points to the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence.

23. Appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record;

The evidence of PW1 is showing that he knows accused

Nos. 1 and 2 and that the deceased/Abdul Waheed Khan is his youngest son. The evidence of PW1 further shows that at the time of death of his son, he was 8 years old. The evidence of PW1 further shows that on 20.04.2023, himself and the deceased went to the Masjid at about 4:30 PM to offer Namaz, and that the

Masjid is at a walkable distance from his house. The evidence of

PW1 further shows that after the Namaz, he returned back home, but the deceased did not return, so he again went to the Masjid to find his son, where he found the slippers of the deceased but the deceased was not there. The evidence of PW1 further shows that by that time the deceased was missing, he was wearing a T- shirt and track pant. The evidence of PW1 further shows that he,

PW3, and other relatives searched for the deceased in the locality of the Masjid and in the locality of his house, but they could not trace the deceased, so on the same night he went to -12- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP the police station and lodged the complaint (Ex.P1), after which the police recorded his statement.

24. The evidence of PW1 further shows that on the same night, the police came to his locality and searched for the deceased but they too could not trace him. The evidence of PW1 further shows that when the CCTV cameras at the house of LW4 were verified by them and by the police, they found that at about 5:10 PM, the deceased went to the house of A1. The evidence of

PW1 further shows that the CCTV footage shows that at about 6:50 PM, A1 came out from his house, went to a godown near his house, and took a white bag to his house. The evidence of PW1 further shows that the CC footage shows that at about 7:10 PM,

Accused No. 2 brought an auto to the house of A1 and went into the house of A1, and 5 minutes later, A1 and A2 came out from the house of A1 with the white bag and kept the same in the auto of A2.

25. The evidence of PW1 further shows that the police verified the CC cameras available at other places and went to

Deen Dayal Nagar, and on the same night, the police called him to Deen Dayal Nagar, at which time A1 and A2 were at that place. The evidence of PW1 further shows that A1 and A2 showed the place where that white bag was dropped, and the police and the people who gathered there brought out the white bag from the Nala and opened it, and inside it he found the dead body of -13- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP his son. The evidence of PW1 further shows that the house of A1 is at a walkable distance from his house.

26. The evidence of PW1 further shows that four months

before the incident, his brother-in-law by name Asim Khan

subscribed 3 chits two for 2 lakhs each and one for 1 lakh and thereafter A1 did not return the money to his brother-in-law in spite of demands. The evidence of PW1 further shows that four months prior to the death of his son, he himself borrowed Rs. 1 lakh from A1, and on 17.04.2023, A1 assured to pay Rs. 1 lakh to his brother-in-law on 21.04.2023 by adjusting the amount borrowed by him. The PW1 further deposed that in the meanwhile, A1 and A2 killed his son on 20.04.2023.

27. The evidence of PW1 further shows that after tracing the dead body of his son, on the next day the police again recorded his statement, and before that, after seeing the CC camera footage, the police recorded his statement in total, the police recorded his statement on three occasions. The evidence of PW1 further shows that the police themselves seized the chappals of the deceased at the Masjid, and MO.1 is the pair of slippers of the deceased that were left at the Masjid on 20.04.2023. The evidence of PW1 further shows that the photographs shown to him are of his deceased son. The evidence of PW1 further shows that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 who were standing in the court hall are Imran Ali Khan and Mohd. Rafiq, -14- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP who killed his son. The evidence of PW1 further shows that when the dead body of his son was placed in the white bag, the dead body was in a drum, and further, the hands and legs of the dead body were tied to fit the dead body in the drum.

28. Further, the mother of deceased was examined as

PW.2. The evidence of PW2 further shows that she knows accused Nos. 1 and 2 who were standing in the court hall and their names are Imran Ali Khan and Mohd. Rafiq. The evidence of

PW2 further shows that she has two daughters and 1 son, and

Abdul Waheed Khan/deceased is her son, and by the time of his death he was 8 years old and was studying in 3rd class, and he died on 20.04.2023.

29. The evidence of PW2 further shows that on that day at about 4:30 PM, PW1 and the deceased went to the Masjid to offer Namaz, and that Masjid is at a walkable distance from her house. The evidence of PW2 further shows that at about 6:00 PM,

PW1 alone came back, and as the deceased did not return, again

PW1 went to the Masjid. The evidence of PW2 further shows that later PW1 returned back with the slippers of the deceased and informed that the deceased was not at the Masjid. The evidence of PW2 further shows that she, PW1, and their relatives searched for the deceased in their locality, but he was not traced, and as such PW1 and PW3 went to the police station and PW1 lodged the complaint. The evidence of PW2 further shows that then the -15- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP police came to their locality and searched for the deceased, but they could not trace the deceased. The evidence of PW2 further shows that then they verified the CCTV footage at the house of

LW4, and the CCTV footage reveals the deceased going to the house of A1, after some time A1 taking a white bag to his house,

A2 coming to the house of A1 in the auto, and later A1 and A2 taking that white bag to somewhere in that auto. The evidence of

PW2 further shows that she too has seen the CCTV footage.

30. PW.1 and PW.2 were cross examined on behalf of both accused; A careful scrutiny of the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 reveals that nothing substantial was elicited to discredit their evidence or to impeach their credibility. The defense could not elicit any contradictions, omissions, or inconsistencies on material facts. The cross-examination did not cause any dent to their evidence as to the material facts. Consequently, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 even after the test of cross- examination is categorically showing that the deceased boy,

Abdul Waheed Khan, aged 8 years, went missing on 20.04.2023 after accompanying PW1 to the Masjid; that the deceased was last seen alive entering the house of Accused No. 1 at about 5:10

PM, as seen in CCTV footage; that A1 was thereafter seen bringing a white bag into his house, following which Accused No.

2 arrived with his auto, and both accused together loaded the said white bag into the auto and proceeded towards Deendayal -16- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Nala; that A1 and A2 subsequently led the police to the said Nala, where the white bag was recovered containing a plastic drum inside which lay the dead body of the deceased with his hands and legs tied by ropes; Thus, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 remains unshaken and squarely supports the case of prosecution.

31. Further, the above evidence of PW1 and PW2 is corroborated with the evidence of PW3, who is also circumstantial witness and paternal uncle of deceased. His evidence is also showing that knows accused Nos.1 and 2 who were standing in the court hall and their names are Imran Ali

Khan and Mohd.Rafiq, and the accused No.1 is living in his locality. He further deposed that on 20.04.2023 the son of the

PW1 by name Abdul Waheed Khan died, by that time his age was 8 years.

32. The evidence of PW3 is showing that he is a circumstantial witness and the paternal uncle of the deceased.

The evidence of PW3 further shows that PW1 is his brother and

PW2 is the wife of PW1. The evidence of PW3 further shows that he knows accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are standing in the court hall and their names are Imran Ali Khan and Mohd. Rafiq, and that accused No. 1 is living in his locality. The evidence of PW3 further shows that PW1 has 2 daughters and 1 son, and on 20.04.2023, the son of PW1 by name Abdul Waheed Khan died, and by that time his age was 8 years.

-17- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

33. The evidence of PW3 further shows that on 20.04.2023, himself, PW1, and the deceased went to the Masjid at about 4:30 PM to offer Namaz. The evidence of PW3 further shows that at about 5:30 PM, himself and PW1 returned back home, but the deceased did not return, as such they again went to the Masjid, where they found the slippers of the deceased, but the deceased was not there, as such they searched for the deceased in the locality of the Masjid as well as in the locality of their house. The evidence of PW3 further shows that as the deceased was not found, PW1 went to the police station and gave a complaint about the missing of the deceased. The evidence of PW3 further shows that the police came to their locality and searched for the deceased but they could not find the deceased, and then the police verified the CCTV footage from the CC camera at the house of PW4. The evidence of PW3 further shows that the CCTV footage reveals the deceased going to the house of A1 at about 5:10 PM, accused No. 1 coming out from his house and taking back a white bag into his house at about 6:50

PM, and at about 7:16 PM, accused No. 2 came and 4 minutes later, accused Nos. 1 and 2 kept the white bag in the auto of A2 and went somewhere.

34. The evidence of PW3 further shows that on the same night at about 2:00 to 3:00 AM, accused Nos. 1 and 2 showed the Nala where that white bag was dumped, and the -18- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP police opened that white bag and found the body of the deceased in a drum, and the dead body was tied with a rope to fit in the drum. The evidence of PW3 further shows that earlier to the incident, the brother-in-law of PW1 subscribed chits with A1, and A1 kept assuring repayment of that amount, and that on 17.04.2023, himself, PW1, and others went to the house of A1 for the purpose of that amount, and A1 assured to pay that amount on 21.04.2023. The evidence of PW3 further shows that on 17.04.2023, PW1 recorded the incident that took place at the house of A1. The evidence of PW3 further shows that accused No.

1, with a grudge against his brother, killed the son of his brother, and after tracing the dead body of the deceased, on the next day the police recorded his statement.

35. The evidence of PW4 is showing that he is a resident opposite to the house of the accused who provided the

CCTV footage. The evidence of PW4 shows that he knows PW1 to

PW3, and he knows the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The evidence of

PW4 further shows that on 20.04.2023 at about 8:00 PM, police from Sanathnagar came to his house and asked him to retrieve the CCTV footage from the cameras installed in front of his house. The evidence of PW4 further shows that he verified the

CCTV footage from the cameras installed at his house, and then he downloaded the CCTV footage into two pendrives. The evidence of PW4 further shows that he noticed in the footage -19- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP that the deceased was proceeding to the house of A1 on 20.04.2023 at about 5:00 or 5:30 PM. The evidence of PW4 further shows that he also noticed in the CCTV footage that accused No. 1 brought one white colour bag from the godown to his house at about 6:30 or 6:40 PM. The evidence of PW4 further shows that he also noticed in the CCTV footage that one auto came to the house of A1 at about 7:10 or 7:15 PM, and after some time, the auto driver (A2) and accused No. 1 brought the said bag and kept it in the auto and went away. The evidence of

PW4 further shows that he handed over the two pendrives to the police, and police also obtained his signatures in the certificate regarding retrieving the footage and handing over the pendrives.

The evidence of PW4 further shows that thereafter, himself and his colony people went to Fathenagar, Balanagar at the Nala, where the colony people removed the said white bag from the

Nala in the presence of police and opened the said bag and noticed an orange colour box (drum) in the bag. The evidence of

PW4 further shows that the colony people opened the box in the presence of police and found the dead body of the deceased/Wahed Khan, and he also noticed that his hands and legs were tied with cloth (Dasthi). The evidence of PW4 further shows that MO.1 (sic.MO.1A)is the two pendrives along with

Section 65-B Certificate.

-20- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

36. The learned counsel for the A.2 (presently A.1 and

A.2) cross examined PW.4 also. Though initially, no cross examination was not done on behalf of A.1, the same counsel appeared for A.1 as well and he reported though a memo that he adopted same cross examination. A careful examination of the cross-examination of PW4 reveals that nothing substantial was elicited to discredit his testimony or to impeach his credibility.

The defense could not elicit any contradictions or inconsistencies on material facts. The cross-examination of PW4 did not cause any dent to his evidence as to the material facts. PW4 categorically admitted that he had nine cameras installed in and around his house, all of which were working at the time of the incident, and that the CCTV footage is original with no manipulations. He candidly disclosed that there is a 15-minute time difference between the CCTV cameras and real time, and that he had informed the police about this discrepancy. He further clarified that he copied the footage from the DVR onto one pendrive and that the footage clearly shows the deceased boy moving in front of the CCTV camera at 5:10 PM, A1 passing through the camera with the deceased boy following him, and A2 arriving at about 7:20 PM. PW4 also stated that he has no enmity with the accused and denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely due to any disputes with the accused's family.

The mere fact that police did not give a written requisition or that -21- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

PW4 did not produce receipts for purchase of cameras does not in any way impeach the veracity or credibility of his ocular evidence regarding what he saw in the CCTV footage. The core factual narrative that the deceased was last seen entering A1's house, that A1 brought a white bag, and that A1 and A2 together loaded the bag into the auto remains unshaken and fully corroborates the testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW3. Thus, the evidence of PW4 stands intact and squarely supports the prosecution's case.

37. Further, PW.5 is circumstantial witness who witnessed while dead body of deceased was recovered at the instance of Accused. The evidence of PW5 shows that he is a resident of Allauddinkoti, Sanathnagar, and he is a driver. The evidence of PW5 further shows that he knows LW6 to LW8 by names Javid Khan, Salman Bin Ahmed, and SK Nayab. The evidence of PW5 further shows that on 24.04.2023 at about 3:00 or 4:00 AM, he came to know that the deceased Abdul Waheed

Khan was killed and left in Deen Dayal Nagar Nala. The evidence of PW5 further shows that upon that, he along with LW6 to LW8 by names Javid Khan, Salman Bin Ahmed, and SK Nayab went there and found the dead body in a plastic drum. The evidence of

PW5 further shows that he and LW6 to LW8 / Javid Khan, Salman

Bin Ahmed, and SK Nayab removed the dead body from the said

Nala. The evidence of PW5 further shows that they noticed that -22- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP the hands and legs of the deceased were tied with ropes. The evidence of PW5 further shows that later police shifted the dead body for post mortem examination.

38. The learned counsel for the accused cross- examined PW5 extensively, but nothing substantial was elicited to discredit the above evidence of PW5. No contradictions, omissions, or inconsistencies on material facts could be brought out by the defense. The evidence of PW5 even after the test of cross-examination supports the case of prosecution that the dead body of the deceased boy, Abdul Waheed Khan, was found in a plastic drum in Deen Dayal Nagar Nala; that PW5 along with LW6 to LW8/ Javid Khan, Salman Bin Ahmed, and SK Nayab, removed the said dead body from the Nala; and that at the time of removal, they noticed that the hands and legs of the deceased were tied with ropes. Thus, the testimony of PW5 remains unshaken and fully corroborates the prosecution's narrative that the accused, after murdering the deceased, caused disappearance of evidence by concealing the dead body in a drum and throwing it into the Nala, with hands and legs tied to fit the body inside the drum.

39. Further, PW6 is said police constable who retrieved

MO.1A-CC footages from the CC cameras near by the scene of offence ie., PW4 house and Deen Dayal Nagar, Sanathnagar, gave in his evidence that on 20.04.2023 at the instructions of -23- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP their SHO in Cr.No.279/2023, he went to Allauddinkoti in respect of boy missing case, and that he searched for CCTV Footages in and around Masjid at Allauddinkoti, and there he noticed CCTV camera to the house of Shaik Farooq (PW4) and he checked the said CCTV Footage with the permission of PW4, and he noticed the time difference of 15 minutes late in the said CCTV Footage than the real time, and that he have noticed in the CCTV Footage that on 20.04.2023 at about 05.10 PM the deceased and A1 went to inside the house of A1.

40. PW6 further deposed that the said CCTV Footage further showed that A1 came out of his house at about 06.44 PM and went to a godown which is opposite to the house of PW4 and got one white colour plastic cover and went inside of his house, and further the CCTV footage of 17.16 PM shows that one person came to the house of A1 in his auto and went into the house of

A1. The said CCTV Footage further shows that within four minutes i.e, 17.19 PM the A1 and A2 brought said white colour package into the Auto of A2 and they went in an Auto with said white colour package.

41. PW6 further deposed that he have got it downloaded the above CCTV Footage in Pendrive in the presence of two mediators and handed over to SI of police along with

Section 65-B Certificate. Later he further verified the Cameras on the route in which the accused went in Auto in Command Control -24- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Cameras in our police station. In said Command Control

Cameras, he noticed in Deen Dayal Camera and it shows that at about 07.36 PM, one auto came near to Deen Dayal Nala and the

A1 and A2 got down from the Auto and that the A1 and A2 throwed the said package which was brought in the Auto into the said Deen Dayal Nagar Nala and went away.

42. PW.6 further deposed that in the presence of two mediators the said CCTV Footage was downloaded in the presence of two mediators from the Commissioner Office,

Cyberabad at PSIOC building in a Pendrive and obtained 65-B certificate.

43. The learned counsel for accused cross examined

PW6 as well. The cross-examination of PW6 did not cause any dent to his evidence as to the material facts. The core factual narrative testified by PW6 remains unshaken and intact that the

CCTV footage from PW4's house clearly shows the deceased entering A1's house at about 5:10 PM; that A1 brought a white colour plastic cover from the godown to his house at about 6:44

PM; that A2 came to the house of A1 in his auto at about 7:16

PM; that within four minutes, A1 and A2 brought the said white colour package into the auto and went away; and that Command

Control Cameras further show that at about 7:36 PM, A1 and A2 threw the said package into Deen Dayal Nagar Nala. Minor omissions regarding the auto number, duration in Form-65, or the -25- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP number of cameras searched do not in any way impeach the credibility or veracity of PW6's evidence. Thus, the evidence of

PW6 fully supports the prosecution's case on material particulars.

44. The evidence of PW7 shows that he is a resident of

Allauddinkoti, Sanathnagar, and he is a vegetable vendor who sells vegetables on a push cart by roaming in the colonies. The evidence of PW7 further shows that the house of PW1 is near to his house and the house of accused No. 1 is after three houses from his house, and he knows the accused, PW1, and the deceased boy. The evidence of PW7 further shows that on 20.04.2023, he went to sell vegetables and returned back in the afternoon, and he did not go back out in view of Ramzan month, and that he slept and woke up to attend evening Namaz. The evidence of PW7 further shows that at about 5:00 PM, he was in front of his house, and at that time he saw that accused No. 1 was going to his house while the deceased boy followed him, and that accused No. 1 and the deceased boy went inside the house of accused No. 1. The evidence of PW7 further shows that he stayed in front of his house for 10 to 15 minutes and later he went to the Masjid, and from there he went to Erragadda. The evidence of PW7 further shows that when he returned back to his house, he came to know that accused No. 1 killed the deceased boy and packed him in a drum and kept it in a plastic cover and shifted the dead body in an auto and thrown it in a Nala, and that -26- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP the said dead body was removed from the said Nala. The evidence of PW7 further shows that police examined him and recorded his statement.

45. Further, the evidence of PW8 shows that he is a resident of Allauddinkoti, Sanathnagar, and he is a driver by profession. The evidence of PW8 further shows that he knows the accused, and he knows PW1 and the deceased boy. The evidence of PW8 further shows that the distance between his house and the house of A1 is about 150 meters, and the house of PW1 is at 200 meters. The evidence of PW8 further shows that on 20.04.2023 at about 5:00 PM, he came out of his house, and at that time he noticed that A1 was proceeding in front of his house and the deceased boy also followed him into the house of A1.

The evidence of PW8 further shows that later he went to his work, and on the next day evening he came back to his house.

The evidence of PW8 further shows that he came to know that accused No. 1 killed the deceased boy and packed him in a plastic drum and wrapped in a plastic cover and threw it into a

Nala by taking it in an auto, and that the police got removed the dead body and got post mortem conducted at Gandhi Hospital.

46. The learned counsel for the accused cross- examined PW7 and PW8 extensively, but nothing substantial was elicited to discredit their evidence or to impeach their credibility.

No contradictions, omissions, or inconsistencies on material facts -27- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP could be brought out by the defense. The cross-examination did not cause any dent to their evidence as to the material facts. The testimony of both PW7 and PW8 remains unshaken and fully supports the prosecution's case that on 20.04.2023 at about 5:00

PM, both witnesses independently saw A1 proceeding towards his house with the deceased boy following him, and both witnessed the deceased boy entering the house of A1. This crucial last-seen evidence squarely establishes that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of A1, shortly before his death. The subsequent knowledge of both witnesses about the killing, packing in a drum, and throwing in the Nala, though hearsay as to the actual commission of the offence, corroborates the general narrative of the prosecution. Thus, the evidence of PW7 and PW8 remains intact and squarely supports the charges.

47. The evidence of PW9 shows that he is a resident of

Necknoor village, Beed Taluk, Maharashtra, and he is a motor cycle mechanic by profession. The evidence of PW9 further shows that PW1 is the husband of his sister and they reside at

Allauddinkoti, Sanathnagar, and that he used to visit the house of

PW1, as such he got acquaintance with A1 who used to run private chits. The evidence of PW9 further shows that he subscribed 3 chits with A1—one chit for Rs. 1,00,000/- and the other two chits for Rs. 2,00,000/- each, and he used to pay Rs.

25,000/- per month. The evidence of PW9 further shows that A1 -28- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP promised that he would give the first chit to him, and upon such belief he joined the chits of A1. The evidence of PW9 further shows that he came to know that PW1 was indebted Rs.

1,00,000/- to A1. The evidence of PW9 further shows that he asked A1 to adjust the said debt of Rs. 1,00,000/- and pay back the balance chit amount to him, but A1 did not pay the chit amount and when he asked, A1 used to altercate. The evidence of PW9 further shows that upon that, on 16.04.2023 he came to the house of PW1, and on the next day at about 6:00 PM, himself,

PW1, and PW10 went to the house of A1 demanding the chit amounts. The evidence of PW9 further shows that A1 promised that he would give the chit amount on 21.04.2023, and PW1 videographed the same on 17.04.2023, after which he went away to his village. The evidence of PW9 further shows that on 20.04.2023, he received information that A1 killed the deceased boy and packed him in a drum and thrown into a Nala, and he went to the hospital and saw the deceased. The evidence of PW9 further shows that police examined him and recorded his statement.

48. Further, the evidence of PW11 shows that he is a resident of Allauddinkoti, Sanathnagar. The evidence of PW11 further shows that he knows A1, and he used to subscribe chits with A1, and that he has subscribed for two chits for Rs.

1,00,000/- each. The evidence of PW11 further shows that he -29- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP knows PW1 who also subscribed chits with A1, and he knows PW9 who is the brother-in-law of PW1 and who also laid chits with A1.

The evidence of PW11 further shows that there happened disputes between A1 and PW9 in respect of payment of chit amount by A1, and he witnessed the said disputes. The evidence of PW11 further shows that PW1 owed Rs. 1,00,000/- to A1 and

PW9 asked A1 to return his chit amount by adjusting the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The evidence of PW11 further shows that while so, on 20.04.2023, PW1 and the deceased went to the

Masjid, but the deceased did not return back and they searched for him, as such PW1 reported the matter to the police. The evidence of PW11 further shows that later police came and found

CCTV cameras, and he came to know that A1 killed the deceased and thrown the dead body in Deen Dayal Nagar Nala by packing him in a drum. The evidence of PW11 further shows that he also went to the said Deen Dayal Nala and found the dead body. The evidence of PW11 further shows that A1 killed the deceased in view of the above chit disputes.

49. The learned counsel for the accused cross-examined

PW9 and PW11, but nothing substantial was elicited to discredit their evidence or to impeach their credibility. No contradictions, omissions, or inconsistencies on material facts could be brought out by the defense. The cross-examination did not cause any dent to their evidence as to the material facts. The testimony of -30- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

PW9 clearly establishes the motive behind the crime namely, that A1 was running private chits, that PW9 had subscribed 3 chits totaling Rs. 5,00,000/-, that PW1 owed Rs. 1,00,000/- to A1, and that on 17.04.2023, just three days prior to the murder, PW9,

PW1, and PW10 went to A1's house demanding the chit amount, upon which A1 promised to pay on 21.04.2023. This establishes a clear grudge and financial motive for A1 to commit the crime.

PW11 further corroborates this by stating that he witnessed the disputes between A1 and PW9 regarding the chit amounts, and that A1 killed the deceased in view of the above chit disputes.

The evidence of both witnesses remains unshaken and squarely supports the prosecution's case that A1 had a strong motive to kill the son of PW1 as an act of vengeance or pressure in connection with the chit money disputes. Thus, the evidence of

PW9 and PW11 fully supports case of prosecution.

50. Further, the evidence of PW10 shows that he is a resident of Allauddinkoti, Sanathnagar. The evidence of PW10 further shows that the deceased is his grandson and PW1 is his son. The evidence of PW10 further shows that on 20.04.2023 at about 4:30 to 5:00 PM, PW1 and the deceased went to offer

Namaz, and later PW1 alone returned back home, but the deceased did not come back. The evidence of PW10 further shows that they waited till 6:00 PM, thinking that he was playing somewhere, and thereafter they started searching for the -31- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP deceased and found the chappals of the deceased in front of the

Masjid. The evidence of PW10 further shows that later they gave a report to the police, and they came to know that A1 killed the deceased and packed him in a drum and cover and later dropped him in Deen Dayal Nala with the help of A2. The evidence of

PW10 further shows that the reason for killing the deceased by

A1 was financial disputes between PW1 and A1 and chit amounts which had to be given to PW9. The evidence of PW10 further shows that police examined him and recorded his statement.

51. The learned counsel for the accused cross-examined

PW10 also, but nothing substantial was elicited to discredit his evidence or to impeach his credibility. No contradictions, omissions, or inconsistencies on material facts could be brought out by the defense. The cross-examination did not cause any dent to his evidence as to the material facts. The testimony of

PW10 remains unshaken and fully supports the prosecution's case that the deceased went missing after going to the Masjid with PW1, that his chappals were found at the Masjid, and that

A1, motivated by financial disputes and chit amounts due to

PW9, killed the deceased with the help of A2 and disposed of the body in Deen Dayal Nala. Thus, the evidence of PW10 squarely corroborates the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW9, and PW11.

-32- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

52. Further, PW.12 is mediator for CDF while recovery of

MO.1A CCTV Footage; The evidence of PW12 shows that he is a resident of Allauddinkoti, Sanathnagar, and he is doing business.

The evidence of PW12 further shows that he knows LW17/Syed

Dawood. The evidence of PW12 further shows that on 20.04.2023, in the afternoon hours, police observed the CCTV cameras and thereafter they prepared a Crime Detail Form with rough sketch. The evidence of PW12 further shows that Ex.P2 is the rough sketch dated 20.04.2023. The evidence of PW12 further shows that one of the CCTV cameras which is in front of the house of PW4 discloses that A1 was going to his house while the deceased followed A1 into his house. The evidence of PW12 further shows that the CCTV camera further disclosed that A1 came out of the house and went to a Cloth Godown and brought one plastic bag and went into his house. The evidence of PW12 further shows that the CCTV footage further shows that A2 came to the house of A1 with his auto, and A1 and A2 came out with the said plastic bag and placed the same in the auto and went away. The evidence of PW12 further shows that the second CCTV footage shows that A1 and A2 went in the auto towards Deen

Dayal Nagar. The evidence of PW12 further shows that the police had taken footage of the said CCTVs under cover of a mediators report which is marked as Ex.P3, and that Ex.P3 bears his signature and the signature of LW17/Syed Dawood. The evidence -33- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP of PW12 further shows that on 22.04.2023 in the afternoon, police called him and LW17/Syed Dawood to PSIOC, Gachibowli, where police verified the CCTV footage which disclosed that the accused thrown the said bag with the dead body into the Deen

Dayal Nagar Nala. The evidence of PW12 further shows that the police prepared a Panchanama while copying CCTV footage into a pendrive in their presence, and that Ex.P4 is the CCTV Footage

Recovery Panchanama dated 22.04.2023 which bears his signature and the signature of LW17/Syed Dawood.

53. The learned counsel for the accused cross- examined PW12, but nothing substantial was elicited to discredit his evidence or to impeach his credibility. The admissions made by PW12 in cross-examination that the deceased himself followed

A1 (meaning there was no forceful grabbing in public view) and that he does not know the directions are minor and do not contradict the core prosecution narrative. The fact that the deceased voluntarily followed A1 does not negate the charge of kidnapping, as kidnapping can be accomplished by persuasion, allurement, or inducement without the use of physical force. The admission that there were two cameras near the house of A1 and that the police copied the footage into a black colour pendrive further supports the authenticity of the evidence. PW12 firmly denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of police. No material contradictions, omissions, or -34- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP inconsistencies on material facts could be brought out by the defense. The cross-examination did not cause any dent to his evidence as to the material facts. The testimony of PW12, a mediator/panch witness, remains unshaken and fully supports the prosecution's case that the CCTV footage was recovered and copied in the presence of independent mediators, that the rough sketch (Ex.P2) was prepared, and that the CCTV footage clearly shows the sequence of events the deceased following A1 into his house, A1 bringing a plastic bag from the godown, A2 arriving with his auto, both accused placing the bag in the auto and leaving towards Deen Dayal Nagar, and the accused throwing the said bag containing the dead body into the Nala. Thus, the evidence of PW12 fully corroborates the testimonies of PW4,

PW6, and other prosecution witnesses and squarely supports the prosecution case.

54. Further, the PW.13 is a crucial witness as to confession of accused persons leading to discovery of dead body.

The evidence of PW13 shows that he is a resident of

Allauddinkoti, Sanathnagar, and he is running a Barber Shop. The evidence of PW13 further shows that he knows LW19/Sailoo

Yadav. The evidence of PW13 further shows that on 21.04.2023, in between 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM, Sanathnagar Police called them to the Police Station, where they noticed A1 and A2. The evidence of PW13 further shows that police asked them to -35- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP enquire with A1 and A2, and A1 and A2 confessed this offence.

The evidence of PW13 further shows that basing on the said confession, police recovered one Vivo Mobile from the possession of A1 under cover of a mediators report, and Ex.P5 is the relevant portion of the confession and recovery Panchanama of A1. The evidence of PW13 further shows that basing on the confession of

A2, police recovered the Auto of A2 bearing number 1886 and also one Samsung Blue colour Mobile in their presence under cover of a mediators report, and Ex.P6 is the relevant portion of the confession and recovery Panchanama of A2. The evidence of

PW13 further shows that MO2 is the said Vivo Silver colour

Mobile, MO3 is the said Auto (not produced stating that it is dilapidated), and MO4 is the Samsung Blue colour Mobile (not working). The evidence of PW13 further shows that A1 and A2 confessed that they have thrown the dead body of the deceased boy in Deen Dayal Nagar Nala and they led them to Deen Dayal

Nagar Nala and showed the Plastic Cover and a Plastic Drum in the said Nala containing the dead body of the deceased boy. The evidence of PW13 further shows that upon that, the police removed the said Drum containing the dead body of the deceased boy from the Nala, and they found the dead body of the deceased boy in the said Drum, and they noticed that the hands and legs of the deceased boy were tied with ropes. The evidence of PW13 further shows that they noticed a Green and -36- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

White Cloth Mufliar around the neck of the deceased boy. The evidence of PW13 further shows that police conducted a scene of offence Panchanama at Deen Dayal Nagar Nala and seized the said plastic Drum, plastic cover, 4 small size ropes, and one

Mufliar under cover of a mediators report. The evidence of PW13 further shows that Ex.P7 is the dead body recovery Panchanama along with rough sketch. The evidence of PW13 further shows that MO5 is the White colour Plastic Bag, MO6 is the Orange

Colour Plastic Drum with a Black colour Cap, MO7 is the Green and White colour cloth piece (Mufliar), and MO8 is the 4 threads (ropes). The evidence of PW13 further shows that later the accused led them to the house of A1 situated at Allauddinkoti,

Sanathnagar and showed his house stating that he killed the deceased boy in his house, and there police observed the scene of offence and prepared a Scene Observation Report along with a rough sketch, and Ex.P8 is the Scene Observation Report along with rough sketch.

55. The learned counsel for the accused cross- examined PW13, but nothing substantial was elicited to discredit his evidence or to impeach his credibility. The admissions made by PW13 in cross-examination that he does not remember the nature of the vehicle, that no blood stains were noticed in the house of A1 or on the deceased body, that he did not remove the dead body, and that he does not know where the dead body was -37- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP sent are minor and do not contradict the core prosecution narrative. The absence of blood stains does not negate the fact of murder, as death could have been caused by strangulation (as evidenced by the Mufliar around the neck) or suffocation without external bleeding. The fact that PW13 saw the white cover bag from a distance and then saw it while unveiling supports the recovery process. Most importantly, PW13 firmly denied the suggestions that he was deposing falsely to help PW1 and that the accused never confessed and no properties were recovered.

No materialcontradictions, omissions, or inconsistencies on material facts could be brought out by the defense. The cross- examination did not cause any dent to his evidence as to the material facts. The testimony of PW13, an independent mediator/panch witness, remains unshaken and fully supports the prosecution's case that the accused voluntarily confessed to the offence, that recoveries were made from them (Vivo mobile from A1, auto and Samsung mobile from A2), that the accused led the police to Deen Dayal Nagar Nala where the dead body was recovered from a plastic drum with hands and legs tied by ropes and a Mufliar around the neck, and that the accused showed the house of A1 as the place of killing. Thus, the evidence of PW13 also squarely supports the case of proseution.

56. Further, PW.14 is inquest mediator and the evidence of PW14 shows that he is a resident of Allauddinkoti -38- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP and he is an Auto driver by profession. The evidence of PW14 further shows that he knows LW21/SK Azi, and he knows the deceased/Abdul Waheed Khan. The evidence of PW14 further shows that on 21.04.2023 at 10:00 AM, the police called him and

SK Azi to Gandhi Hospital, where police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the Inquest report. The evidence of PW14 further shows that they found injuries on the face and the neck of the deceased, and they opined that the deceased died as he was killed. The evidence of PW14 further shows that Ex.P9 is the Inquest Report.

57. The learned counsel for the accused cross-examined

PW14 as well, but nothing whatsoever was elicited to discredit his evidence or to impeach his credibility. No contradictions, omissions, or inconsistencies on material facts could be brought out by the defense. The cross-examination did not cause any dent to his evidence as to the material facts. The testimony of

PW14, an independent mediator/panch witness for the inquest, remains unshaken and fully supports the prosecution's case that the inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased at Gandhi Hospital, that injuries were found on the face and neck of the deceased, and that the opinion of the panch witnesses was that the deceased died as a result of being killed. This evidence corroborates the prosecution's case of homicidal death.

-39- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

58. The evidence of PW15 shows that he is the Nodal

Officer of Reliance Info. The evidence of PW15 further shows that he provided CDRs (Call Data Records) and a CAF (Customer

Application Form) Certificate under Section 65-B(4)(c) of the

Indian Evidence Act in respect of the phone number of A1. The evidence of PW15 further shows that on 18.07.2023, he received a requisition from the DCP, Balanagar requesting Call Data

Records of Mobile No. 8309388464 for the duration from 01.04.2023 to 22.04.2023. The evidence of PW15 further shows that accordingly, he submitted the Call Data Records of the said mobile number on 07.08.2023 along with a 65-B Certificate and a covering letter. The evidence of PW15 further shows that the mobile number stands in the name of Imran Ali Khan (A1). The evidence of PW15 further shows that Ex.P10 is the covering letter along with the application form of A1 and the Call Data Records of the above mobile number, and Ex.P11 is the Section 65-B

Certificate.

59. The evidence of PW17 shows that he is the Nodal

Officer at Bharathi Airtel, Begumpet, and he issued CDRs and a

CAF Certificate under Section 65-B(4)(c) of the Indian Evidence

Act in respect of the phone number of A2. The evidence of PW17 further shows that he received summons in this case to give evidence. The evidence of PW17 further shows that on 04.05.2023, his predecessor by name Venkat Narayana received -40- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP a requisition from the DCP, Balanagar to furnish CDR and CAF of

Cell No. 7288985130 for the period from 01.04.2023 to 22.04.2023. The evidence of PW17 further shows that accordingly, he furnished the Call Data Records and Customer

Application Form to the DCP, Balanagar in respect of the said mobile number. The evidence of PW17 further shows that Ex.P15 is the covering letter dated 28.07.2023 along with the 65-B

Certificate, and Ex.P16 is the Application Form along with the

CDR. The evidence of PW17 further shows that as per their records, the said mobile number stands in the name of Mohd.

Rafiq S/o Mohd. Rasheed (A2). The evidence of PW17 further shows that the said Venkata Narayana (his predecessor) is now retired.

60. The learned counsel for the accused cross-examined

PW15 and PW17, but nothing whatsoever was elicited to discredit their evidence or to impeach their credibility. No material material contradictions, omissions, or inconsistencies on material facts could be brought out by the defense. The cross-examination did not cause any dent to their evidence as to the material facts.

The testimony of PW15 conclusively establishes that the mobile number 8309388464 belonged to A1 (Imran Ali Khan), and the

Call Data Records for the relevant period (01.04.2023 to 22.04.2023) were duly produced along with the requisite certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

-41- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Similarly, the testimony of PW17 conclusively establishes that the mobile number 7288985130 belonged to A2 (Mohd. Rafiq), and the Call Data Records and Customer Application Form for the relevant period were duly produced along with the requisite 65-B

Certificate. Although PW17's predecessor had received the requisition and PW17 had furnished the records, the evidence remains admissible and credible. The CDRs of both accused are crucial pieces of circumstantial evidence that can corroborate their movements, communications, and association with each other during the relevant period. Thus, the evidence of PW15 and

PW17 remains intact, fully supports the prosecution's case, and is admissible in evidence under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence

Act.

61. The evidence of PW16 shows that he is the Medical

Officer who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued the Post Mortem Examination (PME) report.

The evidence of PW16 further shows that on 21.04.2023, on the requisition of the Station House Officer, Sanathnagar Police, he conducted an autopsy over the dead body of the deceased/Abdul

Waheed Khan, aged about 8 years. The evidence of PW16 further shows that he noted ante mortem 24 injuries that have been mentioned in Column No. 9 of the post mortem examination report dated 21.04.2023. The evidence of PW16 further shows that he issued the post mortem examination report, which is -42- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP marked as Ex.P12. The evidence of PW16 further shows that the cause of death is due to ligature strangulation. The evidence of

PW16 further shows that he preserved viscera and anal swabs for

FSL analysis. The evidence of PW16 further shows that after receiving the report from the TSFSL (Telangana State Forensic

Science Laboratory), he gave his final opinion. The evidence of

PW16 further shows that Ex.P13 is the Final Opinion Report dated 28.06.2023, and Ex.P14 is the TSFSL Report dated 25.05.2023.

62. The learned counsel for the accused cross- examined PW16 also, but nothing whatsoever was elicited to discredit his evidence or to impeach his credibility. No material contradictions, omissions, or inconsistencies on material facts could be brought out by the defense. The cross-examination did not cause any dent to his evidence as to the material facts. The testimony of PW16, an independent medical expert, remains unshaken and is of paramount importance to the prosecution's case. His evidence conclusively establishes that the death of the 8-year-old boy was homicidal and not accidental or natural, with the cause of death being ligature strangulation. This finding directly corroborates the other circumstantial evidence, particularly the testimony of PW13 who noticed a green and white cloth mufliar around the neck of the deceased and that the hands and legs of the deceased were tied with ropes. The 24 ante mortem injuries noted on the body of the deceased further -43- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP indicate the brutality of the crime. The preservation of viscera and anal swabs, along with the FSL report (Ex.P14), adds further scientific credibility to the autopsy findings. Thus, the evidence of

PW16 squarely supports the charge under Section 302 of IPC (murder) and his opinion of ligature strangulation as the cause of death remains unimpeached.

63. Further, PW18 is Investigating Officer, and his evidence showing that on 20.04.2023 at about 09.00 PM, he received a Ex.P1 report of PW1. Basing on which he registered this case in Cr.No.279/2023 for offence punishable U/Sec.363 IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P17 is the FIR. During course of investigation

LW27/Murali Goud examined PW1 and recorded his statement.

Later he visited the scene of offence situated at house of PW1, and he observed house of PW1 in the presence of PW12/Ghani and LW17/Syed Dawood and prepared CDF with rough sketch which is already marked as Ex.P2. He was seized MO1 Black

Colour a pair Chappal of deceased at Allauaddinkoti colony.

64. PW18 further deposed that he deputed PW6/Shekar to verify and retrieve the CCTV footage in that area. PW6 noticed

CCTV camera in the house of Shaik Farooq (PW4) and checked the CCTV footage with the permission of PW4 and he noticed the difference of 15 minutes late in said CCTV footage than real time.

He collected CCTV footage and handed over to him. The said

CCTV footage shows that the deceased and A1 went inside the -44- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP house of A1. Later, A1 came out of his house and went to his godown which is opposite to the house of PW4 and got one White

Colour plastic cover and went inside of the house. The CCTV footage further shows that A2 came to the house of A1 with Auto and later A1 and A2 brought said White colour package into the

Auto of A2 and they went in the said Auto with the said package.

The said Auto went towards Deen Dayal Nala. PW6 downloaded

CCTV footages of the house of PW4 and cameras of Command

Control. MO1 is said Two pendrives along with 65-B certificate.

65. PW18 further deposed that A1 and A2 were apprehended at Erragadda by his team and produced before him.

He interrogated A1 and A2 in the presence of PW13 and

LW19/G.Sailu Yadav, and the accused confessed this offence.

Basing on the said confession, he recovered MO2-Vivo mobile from the A1, and he recovered MO3-Auto bearing No.TS-34-TA- 1886 and MO4-Samsung Blue Colour mobile from the possession of A2.

66. PW18 further deposed that A1 and A2 confessed that they thrown the dead body of the deceased boy in Deen

Dayal Nagar Nala and they lead them to said Nala and showed the Plastic Cover and a Plastic Drum in the said Nala containing the dead body of deceased boy. Upon, that he removed the said

Drum containing the dead body of the deceased boy from the said Nala in the presence of said mediators. They noticed dead -45- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP body of deceased boy in the Drum and they noticed Hands and

Legs of the deceased boy were tied with ropes (Nada). He also noticed a Green and White Colour Muflar around the Neck of the deceased boy. He prepared Ex.P7-Dead body recovery

Panchanama along with rough sketch, and he recovered MO.5 to 8.

67. PW18 further deposed that accused lead them to the house of A1 situated at Allauaddinkoti, Sanathnagar and showed his house confessing that he killed the deceased boy in the said house. Upon, that he prepared Ex.P8-Scene Observation

Report along with rough sketch. Later he send the accused to court for remand.

68. PW18 further deposed that later, he visited the

Gandhi Hospital and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, and prepared Ex.P9/Inquest Report. Later, dead body of the deceased boy was shifted to post mortem examination. He examined PW5, LW6 to LW8 by names, Javid Khan, Salambeen

Ahmed and S.K.Nayab. Later, he examined PW7 and PW8, and he forwarded the Vicera and Anal Swabs to the FSL. He was collected Call Data records of A1 and A2 from PW15 and PW17, and on his transfer PW19/J.Balaraju filed charge sheet.

69. Further, PW19 is the investigating officer and his evidence showing that he took up further investigation in this case and verified the investigation done by PW18 and found the -46- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP same in a correct lines. He was collected Customer Application forms of A1 and A2 from PW15 and PW16, and he filed charge sheet against A1 and A2.

70. The learned counsel for the accused cross-examined

PW18 also, but nothing substantial was elicited to discredit his evidence or to impeach his credibility. No major contradictions or inconsistencies on material facts could be brought out by the defense. The minor omissions and admissions such as not mentioning the complainant's identification of chappals in the charge sheet, not verifying whether the mediators were relatives, not filing a document to show PW6 as an expert, not specifically describing the white cover, not taking photographs of the drum, and not finding blood stains inside the drum are merely procedural or technical in nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution's case. The absence of blood stains inside the drum does not negate the cause of death (ligature strangulation), which does not necessarily result in external bleeding. The fact that the CDR shows A1 contacted A2 at 7:03 PM and A2 arrived at 7:16 PM (a 13-minute gap) is consistent with the CCTV footage and actually corroborates the prosecution's case of prior communication and common intention between the accused. The cross-examination did not cause any dent to the evidence of

PW18 as to the material facts.

-47- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

71. Further, during cross-examination of PW19, nothing has been brought to the attention of this Court to indicate that any dent was caused to the evidence of PW19. In the absence of any material contradictions or omissions being pointed out, the evidence of PW19 remains unchallenged and fully credible.

72. The testimonies of the Investigating Officers (PW18 and PW19) remain unshaken and fully support the prosecution's case that the accused were properly apprehended, that they voluntarily confessed, that recoveries were made, that the dead body was recovered from the Nala with hands and legs tied and a muflar around the neck, that the scene of offence was observed, and that all procedural requirements were substantially complied with.

73. The above evidence on record is consistant,

cogent and convincing to establish that accused the had

committed their respective offence; As already stated

supra, th i s case entirely rests on the circumstantial

evidence. In Sarad Birdhi Cirdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of

Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1162, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court laid down following rules regarding Circumstantial evidence.

1. The circumstances should be fully established, from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn.

2. Circumstances should be of conclusive nature, -48- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

3. They should exclude every possible hypothesis,

4. It must show that will all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.

74.In Krishnan v. State represented by

Inspector of Police (2008) 15 SCC 430, Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that to rely upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency un-erringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that with all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and

75. Now this court will appreciate the chain of circumstances is forged link by link as follows:

76. Link No.1: Motive (against A1):

The above evidence of PW9 and PW11 establishes the motive of A1. The evidence of PW9 shows that he subscribed three chits with A1 – one chit for Rs.1,00,000/- and two chits for

Rs.2,00,000/- each. PW1 was indebted Rs.1,00,000/- to A1. PW9 -49- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP asked A1 to adjust the said debt and pay the balance chit amount, but A1 did not pay and used to altercate. On 17.04.2023, PW9, PW1, and PW10 went to A1's house demanding the chit amounts, and A1 promised to pay on 21.04.2023.

Evidence of PW11 shows that he witnessed the disputes between

A1 and PW9 regarding the chit payments and specifically stated that A1 killed the deceased in view of the said chit disputes. As already stated supra, both PW9 and PW11 remained unshaken in cross-examination. The murder occurring on 20.04.2023 just one day before the promised payment of 21.04.2023 conclusively establishes that A1 had a strong, cogent, and immediate motive to kidnap and murder the innocent 8-year-old son of PW1.

77. Link No.2: Last Seen Together (against A1);

The evidence of PW7 shows that on 20.04.2023 at about 5:00 PM, he was in front of his house and saw A1 going to his house while the deceased boy followed him, and both went inside the house of A1. The evidence of PW8, even after the test of cross-examination, firmly established that on the same day at about 5:00 PM, he came out of his house and noticed A1 proceeding in front of his house and the deceased boy following him into the house of A1. The evidence of PW4, even after the test of cross-examination, established that he verified the CCTV footage from cameras installed in front of his house (opposite

A1's house) and noticed the deceased proceeding to A1's house -50- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP at about 5:00 or 5:30 PM, and he downloaded the footage into two pendrives and handed them over to the police along with a 65-B Certificate. The evidence of PW6, even after the test of cross-examination, established that he retrieved the CCTV footage, noticed a 15-minute time difference, and that at about 5:10 PM (real time) the deceased and A1 went inside A1's house.

The evidence of PW12, even after the test of cross-examination, established that as a mediator, he witnessed that the CCTV footage disclosed A1 going to his house while the deceased followed A1 into his house. The same is corroborated by the

CCTV footage (MO.1 – two pendrives along with 65-B Certificate).

Further, it is corroborated by Ex.P3 (CCTV Footage Mediators

Report Signature) and Ex.P4 (CCTV Footage Recovery

Panchanama). The deceased was thus last seen alive only in the company of A1, entering his house at about 5:10 PM, and the dead body was discovered the next day. A1 offered no explanation in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement as to what happened to the child inside his house.

78. Link No.3: Incriminating Conduct of A1 (Post-

Entry into House)

The evidence of PW4 shows that he noticed in the CCTV footage that A1 brought one white colour bag from the godown to his house at about 6:30 or 6:40 PM. The evidence of PW6 shows that the CCTV footage further showed that A1 came out of -51- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP his house at about 6:44 PM, went to a godown opposite PW4's house, got one white colour plastic cover, and went inside his house. The evidence of PW12 shows that the CCTV footage disclosed A1 coming out of the house and going to a cloth godown and bringing one plastic bag into his house. The evidence of PW13 shows that A1 confessed that he killed the deceased boy in his house, and later led the police to his house and showed it as the place where he killed the deceased. None of these witnesses were shaken in cross-examination. The same is corroborated by the CCTV footage (MO.1 – two pendrives along with 65-B Certificate) and Ex.P3 (CCTV Footage Mediators Report

Signature) and Ex.P4 (CCTV Footage Recovery Panchanama). The 94-minute window between the deceased entering A1's house at 5:10 PM and A1 fetching the white plastic cover at 6:44 PM is the period during which, consistent with A1's own confession, he committed the murder. A1 had no legitimate purpose to fetch a large plastic cover at 6:44 PM in the evening, and the same cover was subsequently used to conceal the body. The absence of blood stains was explained by the cause of death being ligature strangulation, and A1 offered no explanation for his conduct in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement.

79. Link No.4: Common Intention and Overt Act of

A2 (against A1 and A2);

The evidence of PW4 shows that he noticed in -52- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP the CCTV footage that one auto came to A1's house at about 7:10 or 7:15 PM, and the auto driver (A2) and A1 brought the white bag, kept it in the auto, and went away. The evidence of

PW6 shows that as per said CCTV Footage at 7:16 PM, A2 came to A1's house in his auto and went inside, and within four minutes at 7:19 PM, A1 and A2 brought the white colour package into the auto and went away. The evidence of PW12 shows that the CCTV footage disclosed A2 coming to A1's house with his auto, and A1 and A2 coming out with the plastic bag, placing it in the auto, and going away. The evidence of PW13 shows that based on A2's confession, police recovered the Auto bearing

No.TS-34-TA-1886 (MO.3) and A2's Samsung mobile (MO.4). The evidence of PW15 and PW17, the Nodal Officers, shows that the

CDRs prove that A1 (mobile 8309388464) and A2 (mobile 7288985130) were in contact, and specifically show a call between A1 and A2 at 7:03 PM on 20.04.2023 – just 13 minutes

before A2 arrived at A1's house. The timing of A2's arrival at

night, his active participation in loading the white package, the joint disposal of the package into the nala, the prior telephonic communication, and the absence of any innocent explanation from A2 in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement collectively establish that A1 and A2 acted in furtherance of a common intention to cause disappearance of evidence. However, this link does not sufficiently establish that A2 had knowledge of the kidnapping or -53- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP murder prior to his arrival, as his involvement began after the death had already occurred. Therefore, A2 is liable under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC but not under Sections 364 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

80. Link No.5: Disposal of the Dead Body (against

A1 and A2):

The evidence of PW6 shows that he verified the

Command Control Cameras in the police station, and in the Deen

Dayal Camera, he noticed that at about 7:36 PM, one auto came near Deen Dayal Nala and A1 and A2 got down from the auto and threw the white package (which was brought in the auto) into the said Nala and went away. The evidence of PW4 shows that he along with colony people went to the Nala, where they removed the white bag from the Nala in the presence of police and noticed an orange colour drum in the bag, and upon opening the drum they found the dead body of the deceased. The

Command Control CCTV footage is government-owned and has not been alleged to be tampered with. The temporal continuity is consistent: A2 arrived at 7:16 PM, both left at 7:19 PM, they were seen throwing the package at 7:36 PM, and the same package was recovered the next day. The accused voluntarily went to the nala to dispose of evidence, which shows consciousness of guilt.

81. Link No.6: Discovery of Dead Body Pursuant to

Confession (Section 27 Evidence Act – against A1 and A2)

-54- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

The evidence of PW13, an independent mediator, shows that on 21.04.2023, between 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM, police called him to the Police Station where A1 and A2 were present, and they confessed the offence. Based on A1's confession, police recovered MO.2 (Vivo mobile) from A1 under Ex.P5. Based on

A2's confession, police recovered MO.3 (Auto) and MO.4 (Samsung mobile) from A2 under Ex.P6. PW13 further deposed that A1 and A2 confessed that they threw the dead body in Deen

Dayal Nagar Nala and they led the police to the said Nala and showed the Plastic Cover and a Plastic Drum containing the dead body. Upon that, police removed the drum and found the dead body with hands and legs tied with ropes and a green and white muflar around the neck. Ex.P7 is the dead body recovery panchanama. The accused then led the police to A1's house and showed it as the place of killing under Ex.P8. The evidence of

PW5 also shows that he along with others went to the Nala and found the dead body in a plastic drum with hands and legs tied.

The evidence of PW18, the Investigating Officer, confirms the said discovery. PW13 was extensively cross-examined but remained unshaken. The above evidence is further corroborated by the mediators reports/panchanamas, namely Ex.P5 (relevant portion of confession and recovery panchanama of A1), Ex.P6 (relevant portion of confession and recovery panchanama of A2),

Ex.P7 (dead body recovery panchanama along with rough -55- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP sketch), and Ex.P8 (scene observation report along with rough sketch). The discovery of the dead body pursuant to the disclosures is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Only the perpetrators could have known that the dead body was in a drum inside a white plastic cover in Deen Dayal Nagar Nala.

The body was found exactly where the accused said it would be found, which could not be a coincidence.

82. Link No.7: Condition of the Dead Body and

Medical Evidence (against A1 and corroboration for A2's

role)

The evidence of PW13 shows that when the drum was opened, they noticed the dead body with hands and legs tied with ropes and a green and white colour muflar around the neck of the deceased boy. The evidence of PW14, the inquest mediator, shows that inquest was held over the dead body at

Gandhi Hospital under Ex.P9, and they found injuries on the face and neck of the deceased, and opined that the deceased died as he was killed. The evidence of PW16, the Medical Officer, is of paramount importance. He deposed that he conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the 8-year-old deceased and noted 24 ante-mortem injuries in the post-mortem report (Ex.P12). He unequivocally stated that the cause of death is due to ligature strangulation. He preserved viscera and anal swabs for FSL analysis, and issued the Final Opinion Report (Ex.P13) -56- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP after receiving the TSFSL Report (Ex.P14). PW16 was cross- examined, but his medical opinion remained unimpeached. The condition of the dead body perfectly corroborates the prosecution narrative. The medical opinion of ligature strangulation confirms a homicidal death. The tying of hands and legs with ropes is consistent with the need to fit the body into a drum, showing pre- meditation and deliberate concealment. The muflar around the neck matches the ligature strangulation finding. The 24 ante- mortem injuries indicate the brutality of the crime.

83. Link No.8: Call Data Records (corroboration against A1 and A2);

The evidence of PW15, the Nodal Officer of

Reliance Info, shows that he provided CDRs and a CAF Certificate under Section 65-B(4)(c) of the Indian Evidence Act for mobile number 8309388464. He received a requisition for CDRs from 01.04.2023 to 22.04.2023, and submitted the same along with

Ex.P10 (covering letter with CAF) and Ex.P11 (65-B Certificate).

The mobile number stands in the name of Imran Ali Khan (A1).

The evidence of PW17, the Nodal Officer of Bharathi Airtel, shows that he provided CDRs and a CAF Certificate for mobile number 7288985130. He submitted Ex.P15 (covering letter with 65-B

Certificate) and Ex.P16 (CAF with CDR). The mobile number stands in the name of Mohd. Rafiq (A2). The CDRs specifically show a call between A1 and A2 at 7:03 PM on 20.04.2023 – just -57- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP 13 minutes before A2 arrived at A1's house. The defence could not elicit any material contradictions from PW15 or PW17, and the CDRs were produced with proper certification. The CDRs thus corroborate Link No.4 by establishing prior telephonic communication and concert between the accused.

84. Each link reinforces the other, leaving no room for any hypothesis inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. The silence of the accused in the face of this overwhelming evidence only strengthens the presumption of his culpability.

85. Though initially, the learned counsel for A.1 did not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, at a later point of time, the present learned counsel who had extensively cross-examined the witnesses on behalf of A.2, filed a memo of appearance for

A.1 as well and reported before this Court that his cross- examination conducted on behalf of A.2 is being adopted for A.1 also. Consequently, a memo to that effect was placed on record.

In the opinion of this Court, the initial non-cross-examination by the earlier counsel for A.1 stands fully cured by the said memo adopting the detailed cross-examination conducted by the present counsel on behalf of A.2. Since the defence of both accused is substantially common and the present counsel subjected the prosecution witnesses to a rigorous and extensive cross-examination on material aspects, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to A.1.

-58- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

86. Evaluation of Defence of A.1 and A2: The defence has raised a few arguments, which are dealt with as under:

1.Argument that the deceased voluntarily followed A1 and hence no kidnapping: This argument is fallacious. Section 361 IPC defines kidnapping from lawful guardianship as taking or enticing a minor (under 16 years for males, under 18 for females) without the consent of the guardian. An 8-year-old child can be enticed by any lure. The consent of a child of such tender age is no consent in law. The fact that the deceased followed voluntarily does not negate the offence of kidnapping. The prosecution has established that the child was taken away from the lawful guardianship of his parents without their consent and with the intention of causing his murder.

2.Argument that there is no eye witness to the murder: Circumstantial evidence is a legitimate and recognized mode of proof. The chain of circumstances presented by the prosecution is complete and unbroken, pointing inexorably to the guilt of A1. The absence of an eye witness is not fatal.

3.Argument that there are no blood stains in

A1's house: The cause of death is ligature strangulation, which may not result in external bleeding. The presence of a muflar -59- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP around the neck and the medical opinion of ligature strangulation explain the absence of blood stains. This argument has no merit.

4.Argument that A2 did not know the contents of the package: The circumstances – night time, the secrecy of the act, the fact that A2 helped load the package and then proceeded to throw it into a Nala, the prior telephonic communication collectively establish that A2 had knowledge of the illicit nature of the package. Moreover, under Section 201 IPC, causing disappearance of evidence does not require knowledge of the primary offence; it requires knowledge that an offence has been committed and an intention to screen the offender. A2, by helping dispose of the body, clearly intended to cause disappearance of evidence.

5.No defence evidence or plausible alternative hypothesis: The accused have not adduced any defence evidence nor offered any plausible alternative explanation for the entire sequence of events. The suggestion of false implication has been rightly rejected.

6.CCTV Footage (MO.1A); The arguments advanced on behalf of A.1 and A.2 that no original footage was filed, no hard disk, DVR, chip or device was produced, no forensic analysis was conducted, and no independent witness from the

CCTV footage house was examined, rendering the CCTV footage inadmissible, are not sustainable and are beyond the record. The -60- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP evidence of PW4, the owner of the CCTV cameras, clearly establishes that he voluntarily permitted the police to retrieve the footage from his cameras, that he personally verified the footage, and that he downloaded the same into two pendrives (MO.1A) and handed them over to the police along with a 65-B

Certificate (Ex.P11). The law does not mandate the production of the original hard disk, DVR, or chip when the footage has been duly downloaded into a pendrive and certified under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act by a competent person. The requirement of

Section 65-B is to produce a certificate from a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the computer device. PW4, being the owner and operator of the

CCTV cameras installed at his house, is fully competent to issue such certificate, which he did. The non-examination of an "independent witness" from the CCTV house is meaningless because PW4 himself is the independent owner of the cameras and a neutral witness having no relation with either party. His evidence has remained unshaken in cross-examination, and no suggestion of tampering or manipulation was put to him.

7.The further argument that PW4 admitted that police did not give any written requisition and that he did not hand over any receipt of cameras, and that the duration of CCTV footage was not mentioned in the 65-B certificate, and that there is no evidence to show that the child entered the house of the -61- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP accused, are also not sustainable. The absence of a written requisition from the police does not render the CCTV footage inadmissible; PW4 voluntarily allowed the police to access the footage as a responsible citizen assisting in a missing child investigation. The non-production of camera purchase receipts is wholly irrelevant to the authenticity of the footage captured by those working cameras. As regards the duration of CCTV footage not being mentioned in the 65-B certificate, this is a minor procedural omission that does not go to the root of admissibility, especially when PW4 and PW6 have both deposed with certainty about the time stamps observed in the footage, and PW6 even explained the 15-minute time difference between the CCTV time and real time. Most crucially, the contention that there is no evidence to show the child entered the house of the accused is factually false and contrary to the record. The evidence of PW7 and PW8, two independent eyewitnesses tested in cross- examination, categorically states that they saw the deceased boy following A1 and entering A1's house. This oral testimony is powerfully corroborated by the CCTV footage seen by PW4, PW6, and PW12, and captured in the pendrives (MO.1A). The accused cannot be heard to argue that there is no evidence of the child's entry when multiple witnesses and digital evidence conclusively prove the same. These arguments are, therefore, rejected.

-62- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

8.The prosecution has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bodhraj @ Bodha

and Others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, reported in

(2002) 8 SCC 45 , to fortify its submission that the chain of circumstantial evidence established against the accused is complete and unbroken, warranting conviction. This Court finds that the legal principles enunciated in the said judgment are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

9.In Bodhraj (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal position that for a conviction to be based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn must be fully established, must be conclusive in nature, must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and must exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. The

Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that there must be a chain of

evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused, and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the "last seen together" theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found -63- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP dead is so small that the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.

10. In the present case, applying the above principles, this Court finds that the prosecution has established an unbroken chain of circumstances. The deceased was last seen alive with A1 entering his house at 5:10 PM, and the dead body was discovered the next day a minimal time gap during which A1 offered no explanation. A1 was seen fetching a white plastic cover at 6:44 PM, which was subsequently used to conceal the body. A2 arrived at 7:16 PM after a telephonic call from A1 at 7:03 PM, and both accused jointly loaded the white package into

A2's auto and threw it into Deen Dayal Nagar Nala at 7:36 PM.

Pursuant to their disclosure statements under Section 27 of the

Evidence Act, the dead body was recovered from the exact location disclosed by the accused, with hands and legs tied and a muflar around the neck corroborated by the medical evidence of ligature strangulation. All these circumstances, taken cumulatively, form a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of A1 under Sections 364, 302, and 201/34 IPC, and the guilt of A2 under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC, leaving no reasonable hypothesis consistent with their innocence. Therefore, the legal principles laid down in Bodhraj (supra) fully support the prosecution's case and the findings recorded by this Court.

-64- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

87. Therefore, in view of above discussion and for the reasons mentioned in the comprehensive analysis of the eight links of circumstantial evidence and after considering the written arguments of both sides, this Court holds as follows:

1.The prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Accused No.1, Imran Ali Khan, kidnapped the 8-year- old boy Abdul Waheed Khan from the lawful guardianship of his parents on 20.04.2023 at about 5:10 PM, with the intention of causing his murder. The prosecution has further proved that

Accused No.1 thereafter committed the murder of the said boy by ligature strangulation inside his house. The circumstances of motive, last seen together, incriminating conduct, disposal of the body, discovery of the body pursuant to confession, medical evidence, and call data records form an unbroken chain pointing conclusively to the guilt of Accused No.1. The charges under

Sections 364 and 302 IPC against Accused No.1 are proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

2.However, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Accused No.2, Mohd. Rafiq, had knowledge of the kidnapping or murder prior to his arrival at A1's house or that he shared the common intention to commit the said substantive offences. There is no evidence to show that A2 participated in or abetted the kidnapping or murder. The charges under Sections 364 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC against -65- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Accused No.2 are not proved and A.2 is entitled for acquittal from the offences punishable under Sec.364 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.However, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that both Accused No.1 and Accused No.2, in furtherance of their common intention, caused disappearance of evidence of the murder of Abdul Waheed Khan with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment. Therefore, this court holds that, prosecution is able to prove the charge under

Section 201, 202 read with Section 34 IPC against both Accused

No.1 and Accused No.2 is beyond all reasonable doubt and the

A.1 and A.2 are liable for conviction for the charge under Section 201, 202 read with Section 34 IPC

88.In the result, Accused No.1 (Imran Ali Khan) is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is convicted under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C; Further,

Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201, 202 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are convicted under

Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C. However, A.2 is found not guilty of the of the offence punishable U/sec.364, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

-66- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

89. The convicted accused persons shall be committed to Central Prison, Cherlapally of Ranga Reddy District and they shall be produced before this Court on 12-05-2025 for hearing the convicted accused, his defense counsel and also the Public

Prosecutor on the question of quantum of sentence. The

Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally is directed to produce the convicted accused persons before this Court on 12-05-2025 without fail.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. Venkateswara Rao

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, M. M District, at Kukatpally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1 : Wasim Khan

PW.2 : Heena Khan

PW.3 : Thasim Khan

PW.4 : Sheik Farooq

PW.5 : Junaid Khan

PW.6 : N. Shekar

PW.7 : Mohd. Osman

PW.8 : Althar Khan

PW.9 : Shaik Aseem -67- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

PW.10 : Farzana Begum

PW.11 : Mohd. Arshad Khan

PW.12 : Mohd. Ghani

PW.13 : Mohd. Khaja

PW.14 : Mohd. Razak

PW.15 : G. Hari Prasad

PW.16 : Sri. Dr. N. Laxmi Kanth Reddy

PW.17 : Sri. B. Santhosh Kumar

PW.18 : Sri. M. Muthu Yadav

PW.19 : Sri. J. Balaraju

FOR DEFENCE:

- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 : Complaint.

Ex.P2 : Rough Sketch.

Ex.P3 : CCTV Footage Mediators report

Ex.P4 : CCTV Footage Recovery Panchanama.

Ex.P5 : Relevant portion of confession and recovery panchanama of

A1.

Ex.P6 : Relevant portion of confession and recovery panchanama of

A2.

Ex.P7 : Dead body recovery panchanama along with rough sketch.

Ex.P8 : Scene observation report along with rough sketch.

-68- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Ex.P9 : Inquest Report.

Ex.P10 : Covering letter along with application form of A1.

Ex.P11 : Section 65-B Certificate.

Ex.P12 : Post mortem examination report.

Ex.P13 : Final Opinion Report.

Ex.P14 : TSFSL Report.

Ex.P15 : Covering letter dated 28.07.2023 along with 65-B certificate.

Ex.P16 : Application form along with CDR.

Ex.P17 : FIR.

FOR DEFENCE:

- None -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 : One Pair Slippers.

MO.1A: Two pendrives with CCTV footage

MO.2 : Vivo Silver colour Mobile (Not working).

MO.3 : Auto.

MO.4 : Samsung Blue colour Mobile.

MO.5 : White colour Plastic Bag.

MO.6 : Orange Colour Plastic Drum with a Black colour Cap.

MO.7 : Green and White colour cloth piece.

MO.8 : 4 Threads.

Sd/- M. Venkateswara Rao

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, M. M District, at Kukatpally.

Continued ……...

-69- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT:- Sri M. Venkateswara Rao III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, M.M.District, At Kukatpally

Tuesday on this the 12th Day of May, 2026 (Date of Pronouncing Judgment of Conviction)

Sessions Case. No. 683 of 2023

(Date of Pronouncing Sentence )

Judgment of Sentence:

1.The court vide its judgment dt.07.05.2026 found Accused No.1 (Imran Ali Khan) guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201,202 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is convicted under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C; Further, Accused No.1 and

Accused No.2 were found guilty of the offence punishable under

Section 201, 202 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are convicted under Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C.

2.The A.1 and A.2 who were convicted vide above judgment are produced from the Central Prison, Cherlapally

before this court today i.e., on 12-05-2026 for hearing under

section 235(2) of Cr.PC on the quantum of sentence.

3.Heard the accused and their learned counsels.

Further, heard Learned Addl.PP. Perused the record.

-70- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Law with regard to Principles of Sentencing:

4.It is critical to emphasize that the sentencing hearing contemplated under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure is far more than a procedural formality or a mere oral submission. Its fundamental objective is to ensure a substantive and meaningful opportunity for both the prosecution and the accused. This stage is deliberately structured to enable the placement before the court of all relevant facts and materials pertaining to the myriad factors that inform sentencing. Moreover, should either party seek to do so, they possess the right to adduce evidence to establish mitigating factors favoring a lesser sentence, or aggravating circumstances justifying the imposition of the death penalty.

5. In the landmark judgment of Bachan Singh Vs.

State of Punjab 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively held that the court must adopt a proactive role at this juncture to record all relevant information. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that certain information pertaining to the crime can be gathered from the trial phase preceding the sentencing hearing.

This encompasses aspects such as the nature, motive, and societal impact of the crime, as well as the culpability of the convict. The judgment placed significant emphasis on the legislative intent behind Sections 235(2) and 354(3) of the Cr.P.C, 1.[(1980) 2 SCC 684] -71- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP which mandate a bifurcated procedure separating the stages of conviction and sentencing for capital offences. This structured process, the Court concluded, signifies continued legislative sanction for the death penalty, thereby reflecting the will of the people.

6.In light of the foregoing legal principles, the present case was adjourned for sentencing after recording a finding of guilt. Following the conviction of the accused (as stated supra) by said judgment dated 07-05-2026, they were committed to the

Central Prison, Cherlapally. The matter posted today after a reasonable interval of five days, i.e., today (12-05-2026). This adjournment was expressly granted to afford both the prosecution and the accused a fair and adequate opportunity to place on record all relevant facts and materials pertaining to sentencing, and to adduce evidence on mitigating or aggravating factors, should they wish to do so.

7. In accordance with the mandate of Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C, this court proceeded to hear the accused on the question of the quantum of sentence.

8.Upon being specifically asked by the court as to whether they wished to adduce any oral evidence or submit any written statement or material concerning the sentence, the accused persons responded. Accused No.1 submitted that he is -72- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP unmarried person and his family members abandoned him. He finally submitted that a lenient view may be taken in his case.

Like wise, A.2 submitted that he is married person and having small three children and finally prayed to take lenient view;

9. The learned counsel for both accused has submitted that a lenient view may be taken against the accused

No.1 by imposing life imprisonment and also prayed to take lenient view against A.2 as well;

10. On the other hand, the Addl.Public Prosecutor, has argued that A.1 is deserved for Capital punishment in view of killing of an innocent body who was aged about less than 9 years and that the A.1 do not deserve any mercy;

11.Before proceeding to evaluate the merits of the respective submissions, it is imperative to delineate the established legal framework governing the imposition of an appropriate sentence in offences that entail capital punishment.

12. In a celebrated judgment of far reaching import in

Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2 (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court laid down that life imprisonment is the rule, and death penalty is the exception and death penalty can be imposed only in “the rarest of the rare cases” and the courts are required to consider the issue whether the case falls within “the rarest of 2{(1980) 2 SCC 684} -73- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP the rare” category or not? Before death penalty can be imposed, the courts must consider the circumstances of the crime, and of the criminal and therefore, a balancing act need to be performed between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances in a given case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has illustrated some of the aggravating circumstances such as (a) pre- planned manner of the execution of the crime, (b) calculated cold-blooded murders, (c) murders diabolically conceived and cruelly executed, (d) the weapon used and the manner of their use, and (e) the horrendous feature of the crime and the helpless state of the victim.

13. In Machhi Singh Vs State of Punjab 3 , the Hon'ble

Supreme Court categorically emphasized that in order to determine whether the case falls within the category of “rarest of the rare case”, which would invite the imposition of a death sentence, the court should consider two issues, viz.,

1) Is there something uncommon about the

crime, which renders sentence of imprisonment for life

inadequate and calls for a death sentence?

2) Are the circumstances of the crime such that

there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even

after according maximum weightage to the mitigating

3{(1983) 3 SCC 470} -74- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

circumstances which speak in favor of the offender?

14. In Machhi Singh's case (cited above), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down five “tests” which should

be applied while considering the possible imposition of the death penalty. They are as under:

1)When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.

2)When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g. murder by hired assassin for money or reward, or cold-blooded murder for gains of a person vis-à-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust; or murder is committed in the course of betrayal of the mother land.

3)When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath; or in cases of ‘bride burning’ or ‘dowry deaths’ or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation.

4)When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the -75- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed.

5)When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a person vis-à-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position, or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision has also held that the court is required to take a holistic view while considering these factors, and should not choose merely one test to be applied while ignoring the other factors and if upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances in the light of the aforesaid propositions and taking into account the answers to the questions posed by way of the test, for the rarest of the rare case, the circumstances of the case are such the death sentence is warranted, the court would proceed to do so.

16. In Sangeet Vs. State of Haryana 4, the Hon'ble

Supreme court lamented the continuing lack of attention given to circumstances of the criminal, reiterated that balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and failure to apply the Bachan Singh's sentencing framework uniformly, was leading to judge-centric and inconsistent jurisprudence in death penalty matters.

4.{(2012) 2 SCC 452} -76- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

17. InShankar Kisanrao Khade Vs.State of

Maharashtra 5the Hon'ble Supreme court laid down yet another framework of the ‘crime test’, criminal test’ and ‘rarest of rare test’. T he Hon’ble Supreme Court of India established a three-pronged framework for imposing the death penalty, comprising the “crime test,” the “criminal test,” and the “rarest of rare test” (R-R test), rejecting a simple balancing approach.

According to this framework, the death sentence can only be awarded if the “crime test” is fully satisfied (i.e., the aggravating circumstances are met to the extent of 100%). Thereafter, the “criminal test” requires that there be no mitigating circumstances favouring the accused such as lack of intention to commit the crime, possibility of reformation, young age, no prior criminal record, or that the accused is not a menace to society.

Only when both the crime and criminal tests are satisfied does the court proceed to the final “rarest of rare test,” which is society-centric rather than judge-centric. This test depends on whether society would approve the death sentence for the particular type of crime, taking into account factors such as society’s abhorrence, extreme indignation, and antipathy toward certain offenses for example, sexual assault and murder of intellectually challenged minor girls, or old and infirm women with disabilities. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that such 5{(2013) 5 SCC 546} -77- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP examples are illustrative, not exhaustive, and that the death sentence is imposed not by the will of the judges but due to constitutional compulsion reflecting the will of the people.

18. In Manoj Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh 6it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the absence of an individual’s capacity to effectively bring forth mitigating factors as held in Bachan Singh's case, the burden of eliciting mitigating circumstances is on the court, which has to consider them liberally and expansively, whereas the responsibility of providing material to show that the accused is beyond the scope of reform or rehabilitation, thereby unquestionably foreclosing the option of life imprisonment and making it is a fit case for imposition of death penalty, is one which falls squarely on the

StateandtheProbationOfficer'sreportand psychiatric/psychological evaluation report of the accused for considering his socio-economic background and character while awarding appropriate sentence. In this decision, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under:

1)To do this, the trial court must elicit information from the accused and the state, both. The state, must - for an offence carrying capital punishment - at the appropriate stage, produce material which is preferably collected

beforehand, before the Sessions Court disclosing

psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused.

6.{(2023) 2 SCC 353} -78- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

This will help establish proximity (in terms of timeline), to the accused person‘s frame of mind (or mental illness, if any) at the time of committing the crime and offer guidance on mitigating factors (1), (5),(6) and (7) spelled out in

Bachan Singh. Even for the other factors of (3) and (4) - an onus placed squarely on the state – conducting this form of psychiatric and psychological evaluation close on the heels of commission of the offence, will provide a baseline for the appellate courts to use for comparison, i.e., to evaluate the progress of the accused towards reformation, achieved during the incarceration period.

2)Next, the State, must in a time-bound manner, collect additional information pertaining to the accused. An illustrative, but not exhaustive list is as follows:

1.Age

2.Early family background (siblings, protection of parents, any history of violence or neglect)

3.Present family background (surviving family members, whether married, has children, etc.)

4.Type and level of education

5.Socio-economic background (including conditions of poverty or deprivation, if any)

6.Criminal antecedents (details of offence and whether convicted, sentence served, if any)

7.Income and the kind of employment (whether none, or temporary or permanent etc);

8.Other factors such as history of unstable social behaviour, or mental or psychological ailment(s), -79- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP alienation of the individual (with reasons, if any) etc. This information should mandatorily be available to the trial court, at the sentencing stage.

The accused too, should be given the same opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal, towards establishing all mitigating circumstances.

9.Lastly, information regarding the accused‘s jail conduct and behaviour, work done (if any), activities the accused has involved themselves in, and other related details should be called for in the form of a report from the relevant jail authorities (i.e., probation and welfare officer, superintendent of jail, etc.).

19. Having regard to the aforesaid directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj's case (cited above), this

Court before conclusion of trial has called for the Probation

Officer's report and also the Psychological Evaluation Report of the accused which are received by this Court.

20. Smt. A.S.Gouthami, District Probation Officer,

Medchal Malkajgiri District submitted her report dt.02.02.2026 in sealed cover. After conviction, today this court opened the said sealed cover. The probation officer's report states that A1 is an unmarried male with three brothers and three sisters whose details he refused to disclose; The report further reveals that his (A.1’s) Family has not visited him since the incident. Regarding the present offense, the report further stated that, A1 claimed -80- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP the victim's father owed him ₹3 lakh from hand loans taken during COVID, and after a quarrel during Ramzan in which the victim's father threatened him he would not left to look at the

Moon after the Ramzan Ferstifal, as such A1 planned to kill the victim boy so that the victim's family would "not look at the moon" during the festival and accordingly he(A.1) lured the victim with a chocolate, strangled him with his hands and a cloth, packed the body in a plastic drum, and with the help of an auto driver (A.2), disposed of the drum in a Nala before both were taken into custody. The report of the probationary officer further reveals that A1 has no regrets for his actions, and the

District Probation Officer observed that while A1 claims he committed the offense in a moment to make the victim's family repent, he remains mentally stable with no remorse, and no recommendation for probation is indicated.

21. However, during his.313 Cr.P.C examination before this court, when questioned by this court, the A.1 denied that he committed the offence. It appears this probation report is based on information furnished by the accused No.1.

22. This court has also obtained the Psychological

Evaluation Report of the accused. The Superintendent,

Government Hospital for Mental Care, Hyderabad forwarded the

Psychologist report of accused, wherein the Clinical Psychologist -81- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad gave report as under :

“ Psychometry was done, his attention and concentration was adequate, his speech present its relevant and coherent, he maintained adequate eye to eye contact and able to follow instructions. Rapport could be established.

The tests administered were SPM, MPQ, DASS, IPDE MCMC

The tests findings are suggestive of at present No active psychopathology”.

23. However, the above report does not in any way show that accused was mentally unsound or abnormal at the time of committing the murder nor does it proves that he can be reformed and rehabilitated, despite committing murder of victim brutally.

24. Considering the plea of the accused and the submissions of the Public Prosecutor, the Probation Officer's report reveals that Accused No.1 has no regrets for his actions, and the District Probation Officer observed that while A1 claims he committed the offense in a moment to make the victim's family repent, he remains mentally stable with no remorse.

25. The Psychological Evaluation Report manifests no history of unstable social behavior, mental illness, or alienation at the time of the offence. Therefore the mitigating circumstances -82- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP projected, at the time of the crime, do not establish any mental abnormality. Even when accorded maximum weight, these mitigating factors cannot outweigh the potent aggravating circumstances evident from the record, which demonstrate: (a) a pre-planned execution of the murder of an innocent boy of 8 years; (b) calculated, cold-blooded murder; (c) a diabolically conceived and cruelly executed crime, highlighting its horrendous nature and the victims' helpless state.

26. Furthermore, the sheer brutality of the act is underscored by the multiple injuries inflicted upon the deceased.

The Ex.P.12 shows the multiple antemortum injuries as

under;

1) Abrasion 2 x 0.5 ms below and lateral to left angle of mouth region.

2) Linear abrasion 1 x 0.5 cms on left cheek.

3) Contusion 1 x 1 cms below and left side of chin.

4) Linear abrasion 1.5 x 0.5 cms on right cheek.

5) Swollen both lips with contusions 0.5 x 0.5 ms on buccal aspect of left side of upper lip 0.5 x 0.5 cms on buccal aspect of middle part of lower lip.

6) Abrasion 1 x 1 cms over left infra clavicular region of the chest.

7) Ligature mark of length 28 cms with a varying width of 1-4 cms, Transversely placed, completely encircling the neck,

Reddish brown in colour placed just above thyroid cartilage, more prominent on middle and right side of front of the neck, right side -83- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP of back of the neck located 4 cms from right mastoid process, 6s cms from chin, 4 cms from left mastoid process, 3.5 cms below hair line on back side of the neck, base of the ligature mark is soft, red in colour. Upon incision hemorrhages of subcutaneous tissue of the neck noted with intact hyoid bone, thyroid cartilage, multiple abrasions noted over an area of 7 x 4 cms on front side in middle part, left side of the neck.

8) Contusion 2 x 1 cms noted on top of left shoulder.

9) Contusion 1.5 x 1.5 cms noted on front of right shoulder.

10)Upon reflection of scalp flap contusions 6 x 5 cms noted on temporal region on right side, 7 x 6 cms on temporal region of left side of scalp noted along with contusion 2 x 2 cms left side of occupital region of the scalp.

11)Abraded contusion 2 x 1 cms noted on upper part of right arm in lateral aspect.

12)Linear abrasion 2 x 0.5 cms noted on lateral aspect of middle 1/3rd part of right fore arm.

13)Contusion 13 x 1.5 cms noted around right wrist joint region.

14)Abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cms noted on bak of left elbow joint.

15)Contusion 12 x 2 cms noted around left wrist joint region.

16)Abrasion 1.5 x 0.5 cms noted on lateral aspect of -84- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP left thumb.

17)Contusion 2 x 2 cms noted on lower part of front of right knee.

18)Contusion 20 x 1.5 cms noted around right ankle joint.

19)Abrasion 1 x 0.5 cms noted on dorsal area of right ankle joint.

20)Contusion 3 x 1 cms noted on front of upper part of left knee.

21)Contusion 19 x 2.5 cms noted around left ankle joint.

22)Contusion over an area of medial aspect of both buttocks.

23)Upon reflection of chest wall flap contusions 4 x 3 cms over 6, 7 ribs on right side, 3 x 2 ms over 5, 6 ribs on left side of anterior chest wall along mid clavicular line.

24)Abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 ms noted on front of right ear region.

27. The above multiple antemortum injuries reflects not merely an intent to cause death, but a savagery and excess indicative of profound depravity and a total disregard for human life and suffering. The multiplicity of wounds demonstrates a sustained and furious assault, far beyond what was necessary to accomplish the fatal objective, thereby amplifying the heinous and grotesque character of the crime.

-85- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

28. Thus, after serious consideration of the aggravating circumstances placed on record and the plea of the accused, considering the fact that he has committed brutal murder of the victim with multiple injuries in a gruesome manner, the report of the Probation Officer and his psychological evaluation medical report do not in any way depict that there is any scope for his reformation or that he can be reformed, rehabilitated and reintegrated into society, inasmuch as the Probation Officer's report is based on the opinion of the mother of the accused and also on his narration as depicted therein which clearly shows his committing the murder without any remorse.

29. A three judge bench decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Shatrughna Baban Meshram Vs. The State

Of Maharashtra 7while surveying the entire case law on the question as to whether imposition of death penalty is permissible to be awarded in circumstantial evidence cases, and while answering in the affirmative, has laid down as under:

It can therefore be summed up :-

1)it is not as if imposition of death penalty is impermissible to be awarded in circumstantial evidence cases; and

2)if the circumstantial evidence is of an 7{2021 (1) SCC 596} -86- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP unimpeachable character in establishing the guilt of the accused and leads to an exceptional case or the evidence sufficiently convinces the judicial mind that the option of a sentence lesser than death penalty is foreclosed, the death penalty can be imposed.

30. A bench of three judges of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras 8has categorically held that the first question which the court has to consider in a case like this, is whether the accused has been proved, to the satisfaction of the court, to have committed the crime. If the court is convinced about the truth of the prosecution story, conviction has to follow. The question of sentence has to be determined, not with reference to the volume or character of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case, but with reference to the fact whether there are any extenuating circumstances which can be said to mitigate the enormity of the crime. If the court is satisfied that there are such mitigating circumstances, only then, it would be justified in imposing the lesser of the two sentences provided by law. In other words, the nature of the proof has nothing to with the character of the punishment. The nature of the proof can only bear upon the question of conviction - whether or not the accused has been proved to be guilty. If the court comes to the 8{(1957) SCR 981} -87- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP conclusion that the guilt has been brought home to the accused, and conviction follows, the process of proof is at an end. The question as to what punishment should be imposed is for the court to decide in all the circumstances of the case with particular reference to any extenuating circumstances.

31. On a careful consideration of the factual matrix and in the light of the aforesaid legal position, this Court finds that the method and manner of committing the murder by Accused

No.1 are diabolic and cruel, apart from being heinous against a helpless victim. It is amply clear from the material on record that the accused took undue advantage and acted in a cruel manner even though the deceased was unarmed, and the boy did not even have the capacity to resist or protest. This act and conduct of Accused No.1 clearly manifests the enormous proportion of the said crime, which is socially abhorrent and committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, and dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community, evincing total depravity and meanness on his part without any remorse.

32. Further, it is amply clear from the material on record that the accused took undue advantage and acted in a cruel or unusual manner even though the deceased was unarmed, and -88- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP more so it was not a mutual fight between two individuals and

Boydid not even have the capacity to resist or to protest his cruel act. Thus, this act and conduct of the accused No.2 clearly manifests the enormous proportion of the said crime which is socially abhorrent and clearly committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, and dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community and evinces total depravity and meanness on his part, without any remorse.

33. Further, the accused’s criminal act and inflicting said multiple injuries to the deceased boy and even till today he had no repentance or remorse of his act, is not merely a footnote but a critical aggravating factor that underscores his entrenched and recurrent disregard for the law and human life. This pattern of conduct of A.1 reflects a sustained propensity for violence, negating any claim to a one-time aberration and demonstrating a character beyond the pale of reformation.

34. The acts of the accused first making the victim to enter into his house and inflicted said multiple injuries to the innocent boy in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, and dastardly manner so as to arouse the intense and extreme indignation of the community. This brutality, evidenced by the multiple injuries inflicted upon the defenceless child, reveals a depth of depravity and cruelty that is not only -89- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP exceptional but also indicative of a diabolical mind operating with calculated cold-bloodedness. The victim, being wholly innocent and completely vulnerable to the accused by virtue of familial trust and physical helplessness, amplify the moral monstrosity of the crime. In light of these circumstances, where the crime is of the utmost brutality, the criminal exhibits a pattern of incorrigible violence, and the mitigating factors are overwhelmingly eclipsed by the gravity of the aggravating factors, the imposition of any sentence lesser than death would be a travesty of justice. This case, in the opinion of this court, therefore, meets and surpasses the stringent threshold of the “rarest of rare” doctrine, leaving the court with no alternative but to affirm the death penalty.

35. The evidence adduced by the prosecution in the form of circumstantial evidence is of an unimpeachable character in establishing the guilt of Accused No.1 and leads to an exceptional case. The possibility of Accused No.1 getting reformed and rehabilitated, or that he could still become a useful member of society, is totally bleak and remote. There is no "residual doubt" tilting towards mitigating circumstances. This

Court is of the considered view that the evidence sufficiently convinces the judicial mind that this case unhesitatingly falls within "the rarest of rare" category and is an exceptional case.

The accused's act of inflicting multiple injuries upon the deceased boy, and his continued lack of repentance or remorse -90- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP even till today, is a critical aggravating factor that underscores his entrenched disregard for law and human life, reflecting a sustained propensity for violence and demonstrating a character beyond the pale of reformation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) laid down that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception, to be imposed only in the "rarest of rare" cases where the alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. Applying the five tests enunciated in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, this Court finds that the present case satisfies multiple tests simultaneously: (a) the murder was committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, and dastardly manner, as evidenced by 24 ante- mortem injuries including ligature strangulation, multiple contusions, abrasions, and injuries over vital parts of the body of an 8-year-old child; (b) the motive evinces total depravity and meanness, as A1 killed an innocent child to exact revenge over a financial dispute of ₹1 lakh, with the diabolical intention that the victim's family would "not look at the moon" during the Ramzan festival; and (c) the victim was an innocent child of tender age, completely helpless, unarmed, and incapable of resistance, and the murderer was in a dominating position having lured the child with a chocolate.

-91- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

36. Further, applying the three-pronged framework of "crime test," "criminal test," and "rarest of rare test" laid down in

Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (referred

supra), this Court finds that the "crime test" is satisfied to 100% given the pre-planned execution, calculated cold-bloodedness, diabolical conception, cruel execution, and the horrendous feature of the crime against a helpless child. The "criminal test" reveals no mitigating circumstances favouring A1: the Probation

Officer's report confirms he has no remorse for his actions, remains mentally stable, his family has not visited him since the incident, and his claim of committing the offence in a "moment" stands contradicted by the pre-meditated act of luring the child with a chocolate, fetching a white plastic cover, tying the body, and disposing it with the help of A2. The Psychological Evaluation

Report confirms no active psychopathology, no mental illness, and no history of unstable social behaviour at the time of the offence. There is no possibility of reformation or rehabilitation, as

A1 has shown no regret or repentance even till today.

37. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in the form of circumstantial evidence is of an unimpeachable character in establishing the guilt of the accused

No.1 and leads to an exceptional case and as the possibility of the accused No.1 getting reformed and rehabilitated and the -92- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP possibility that he could still become a useful member of society in case he is given a chance to do so, is totally bleak and remote.

Further, there is also no “residual doubt” although not relevant for conviction, tilting towards mitigating circumstances to be taken note of whilst considering whether the case falls under the “rarest of rare” category. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence sufficiently convinces the judicial mind of this court that this case unhesitatingly falls within “the rarest of the rare” category and is an exceptional case. If the said evidence has been found to be credible, cogent and trustworthy for the purpose of recording conviction, to treat that evidence as a mitigating circumstance, would amount to consideration of an irrelevant aspect.

38. Therefore, in view of above discussion and after considering the mitigating circumstances projected on behalf of the accused as indicated above, this court holds that theaccused

No.1 and Accused No.2 are not entitled tothe benefit of the provisions of Sec.3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Thus, left with no other option, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the accused No.1 (Imran Khan) is liable to be sentenced to death to be hanged by neck till his death for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC with fine;

39. Coming to the quantum of sentence for the offence -93- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the Court notes that the offence to which the evidence relates, namely the murder of the eight-year-old deceased boy by Accused No.1 under Section 302 of the IPC, is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Consequently, the punishment for causing disappearance of evidence of such an offence is prescribed under the first part of Section 201 of the IPC. Accordingly, Accused

No.1 and Accused No.2 having been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and convicted under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C., are liable to be sentenced to upto seven (7) years each and fine;

In the result:

40. The accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence under section 302 of IPC and he is convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., and accused No.1 (Imran Khan) is sentenced to

Death to be hanged by Neck till his Death for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and also liable to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousands only), and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer further simple imprisonment for six (6) months, for the offence punishable U/Sec. 302 IPC.

41. Further, Accused No. 1 (Imran Ali Khan) is further convicted under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a -94- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine, Accused No. 1 shall suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence punishable under Section 364 of the IPC.

42. Further, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2, having been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and convicted under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C., are hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for seven (7) years each and to pay a fine

of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) each and in default of payment of the fine amount, each of the accused shall suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months, for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with

Section 34 of the IPC.

43. Further, Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 are hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) each and in default of payment of the fine amount, each of the accused shall suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month, for the offence punishable under Section 202 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

-95- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

44. However, A.2 is found not guilty of the of the offence punishable U/sec.364, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

45. All sentences imposed upon the accused shall run concurrently.

46. The accused No.1 is in judicial Custody from 22.04.2023 to till date (12.05.2026). The said remand period of A.1 shall be set off U/sec. 428 of Cr.P.C.

47. The accused No.2 is in judicial Custody from 22.04.2023 to 31.08.2023 and From 07.05.2026 to till date (12.05.2026) and this remand period, shall be set off U/sec. 428 of Cr.P.C.

48. Office is directed to submit the entire case record duly indexed forthwith, to the Hon'ble High Court for the State of

Telangana for confirmation of death sentence in terms of section 366(1) of Cr.P.C.,

49. Accused are apprised of their right to prefer an appeal against this judgment to the Hon'ble High Court for the

State of Telangana, if he so chooses and to avail the benefit of legal aid in preferring the said appeal. Ac c u s e d a re also informed that this Court will submit the entire case record to the -96- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana for confirmation of

death sentence in terms of section 366(1) of Cr.P.C., and till such time, the above sentence against him will not be executed.

50.MO.1-one pair of Black colour slippers (chappal) of the deceased, MO.2-Vivo Silver colour mobile phone (not working), MO.4-Samsung Blue colour mobile phone (not working).

MO.5-White colour plastic bag, MO.6-Orange colour plastic drum with a black colour cap, MO.7-Green and White colour cloth piece (Muflar) and MO.8 a four small threads (ropes/nada), shall be destroyed subject to the result of the judgment of the Hon'ble

High Court for the State of Telangana in the Criminal Appeal and the reference made by this Court. Office is directed to return the case property to Committal Court for disposal of case property as directed.

51. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally is directed to lodge the accused No.1 in the said jail till the Hon'ble

High Court for the State of Telangana decides the criminal appeal or reference against this death sentence imposed against the accused No.1 by this Court. The death sentence imposed is subject to ratification of Hon’ble High Court;

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of May,

2026.

Sd/- M. Venkateswara Rao

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, M.M District, at Kukatpally.

-97- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1 : Wasim Khan PW.2 : Heena Khan PW.3 : Thasim Khan PW.4 : Sheik Farooq PW.5 : Junaid Khan PW.6 : N. Shekar PW.7 : Mohd. Osman PW.8 : Althar Khan PW.9 : Shaik Aseem PW.10 : Farzana Begum PW.11 : Mohd. Arshad Khan PW.12 : Mohd. Ghani PW.13 : Mohd. Khaja PW.14 : Mohd. Razak PW.15 : G. Hari Prasad PW.16 : Sri. Dr. N. Laxmi Kanth Reddy PW.17 : Sri. B. Santhosh Kumar PW.18 : Sri. M. Muthu Yadav PW.19 : Sri. J. Balaraju

FOR DEFENCE:

- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 : Complaint. Ex.P2 : Rough Sketch. Ex.P3 : CCTV Footage Mediators report Ex.P4 : CCTV Footage Recovery Panchanama. Ex.P5 : Relevant portion of confession and recovery panchanama of A1. Ex.P6 : Relevant portion of confession and recovery panchanama of A2. Ex.P7 : Dead body recovery panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P8 : Scene observation report along with rough sketch. Ex.P9 : Inquest Report. Ex.P10 : Covering letter along with application form of A1.

-98- Judgment in Sessions Case No.683 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Ex.P11 : Section 65-B Certificate. Ex.P12 : Post mortem examination report. Ex.P13 : Final Opinion Report. Ex.P14 : TSFSL Report. Ex.P15 : Covering letter dated 28.07.2023 along with 65-B certificate. Ex.P16 : Application form along with CDR. Ex.P17 : FIR.

FOR DEFENCE:

- None -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 : One Pair Slippers.

MO.1A: Two pendrives with CCTV footage

MO.2 : Vivo Silver colour Mobile (Not working).

MO.3 : Auto.

MO.4 : Samsung Blue colour Mobile.

MO.5 : White colour Plastic Bag.

MO.6 : Orange Colour Plastic Drum with a Black colour Cap.

MO.7 : Green and White colour cloth piece.

MO.8 : 4 Threads.

Sd/- M. Venkateswara Rao

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, M. M District, at Kukatpally.

- 1 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDCHAL – MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT MEDCHAL

PRESENT:Sri. M. Venkateswara Rao III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally FAC : II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, M.M. District at Medchal

Friday on this the 17 th day Of October, 2025

OS No. 125 of 2022

(Old OS.No. 157 of 2004)

BETWEEN :-

Smt. P.Balamani alias Vimalamma, W/o.Ulla Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Uddamarri Village, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R.District. .........Plaintif AND

1. M.Veerabhadra Reddy, S/o.Late Anji Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. M.Narsimha Reddy, S/o.late Anji Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. M.Balvanth Reddy, S/o.Late Bhupal Reddy, Aged 25 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4. M.Hanumanth Reddy, S/o.Late Bhupal Reddy, Aged 21 years, Occ: Agriculture,

5. M.Shamala, W/o.late Bhupal Reddy, Aged 45 years, Occ: Housewife,

All R/o. Lalgadi Malakpet Village, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R District.

- 2 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

6. Shamala, W/o.Venkat Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Jagadevpur Village & Mandal, Medak District.

7. Sudha, W/o.Buchi Reddy, Aged about 26 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Kollur Village, BHEL, Medak District,

8. Pushpa, W/o.Venkat Reddy, Aged about 24 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

9. Y.Ravinder Reddy, S/o.Shivaram Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Occ: Advocate,

10. Y.Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Shivaram Reddy, Aged about 22 years, Occ : Business, 9 and 10 R/o. Uddamarri Village, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R.District

11. K.Susheela, W/o. Raghupathi Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Jagdevpur Village & Mandal, Medak District.

12. M.Sharath Chandra Reddy, S/o.Late M.Rami Reddy, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Civil Assistant Surgeon, R/o.Plot No.83, Anupuram Colony, Hyderabad – 62, (Defendant No.12 impleaded as per IA.No. 282/08,

dated 25.09.08)

…. Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. T.Narsimha Reddy, Learned Counsel for plaintiff; and of M/s. M.Yadagiri Reddy, Learned counsel for Defendant No.1 and of M/s. N.Ranga Rao, Learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 to 5 and the defendant Nos.6 to 11 remained set ex-parte and of M.Sharath Chandra Reddy, party in person (D.12); and upon hearing both sides, on perusal of the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :- - 3 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This suit is filed for Partition and separate possession of Suit Schedule Property.

2.The averments of plaint in brief is that;

1)The father of the plaintif Medipally Bala Muthyam

Reddy and father of Defendant No.1 later Medipally Anji Reddy were the brothers and they are children of Medipally Venkat

Reddy.

2) The plaintif is only surviving legal heir of Late

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy.

3) The said Anji Reddy died leaving behind his four sons and two daughters such as Defendant No.1, Defendant

No.2, late Bhupal Reddy, Late Sanjeeva Reddy, Late Varamma and D11. The said Bhupal Reddy died leaving behind his two sons and wife i.e., D3 to D5 as legal heirs while said Sanjeeva

Reddy died issueless and said late Venkatamma died leaving behind D6 to D10. ( There is no dispute as to the above relationship between the parties) - 4 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

4) Further contention of the plaintif is that during their life time said Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy acquired the suit schedule property i.e., agricultural lands in

Sy.No. 251, admeasuring Ac.2-08 gts, in Sy.No. 756 admeasuring

Ac.6-18 gts, in Sy.No. 757 admeasuring Ac.2-04 gts, in Sy.No. 780 admeasuring Ac.0-26 gts, in Sy.No.781 admeasuring Ac.8-00 gts, in Sy.No. 787 admeasuring Ac.12-25 gts, in Sy.No. 794 admeasuring Ac.8-01 gts, and in Sy.No. 779 admeasuring Ac.1- 14 gts totally admeasuring Ac.41-16 gts, situated at Lalgadi

Malakpet Village, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R District herein after referred to as Suit Schedule Properties. The said late Medipally

Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy having equal share over the suit properties and to that their names also mutated in Revenue

Records as a joint cultivated the Suit Schedule Properties.

5) Further contention of plaintif is that as her father late Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy died intestate, the plaintif being the sole surviving legal heir succeeded the ½ shareholder over the all Suit Schedule Properties and also after death of Anji

Reddy, the defendants together were having ½ share over the

Suit Schedule Properties. There is no partition took place during life time of Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and after death also - 5 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal no partition took place. The plaintif and defendants are in joint possession over all Suit Schedule Properties and the plaintif permitted Defendant No.1 to D5 to cultivate Suit Schedule

Property and they used to pay lease amounts to the plaintif.

6) The plaintif further contention that Defendant No.1,

Defendant No.2 and husband of D5 in collusion with Revenue

Authorities got mutated the Suit Schedule Property in their names and after death of said Bhupal Reddy and Anjeeva Reddy the same was mutated in the name of D3, D5 and in the name of

Kistamma, who is wife of Anji Reddy. The plaintif claims that she came to know the said illegal acts of Defendant No.1 to D.5 in the month of July, 2003. Upon that she preferred Revision before the Joint Collector, R.R. District to set aside said mutation proceedings under Revision No. D5/5655/2003. The plaintif further claims that after filing said appeal in the month of August, 2003, she demanded defendants partition and separate possession of her share in the Suit Schedule Property. The defendants postponed the partition and finally on 02.07.2004, they refused for partition in the Panchayath. Therefore, the plaintif filed the present suit seeking partition and separate possession of Suit Schedule Property.

- 6 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

3.D6 to D11 are remained ex-parte:-

4.Defendant No.1 filed written statement and

additional written statement. Defendant No.2 to D5 also filed

their written statement.

5.D12 who is claiming title through plaintif was impleaded himself as D12 and he filed his individual written statement.

6.The brief averments of Written Statement of

Defendant No.1: -

1) The Defendant No.1 admitted that the father of plaintif by name Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and father of

Defendant No.1 by name Anji Reddy were real brothers and sons of Venkat Reddy.

2) The Defendant No.1 further admitted that plaintif is daughter of said late Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and also admitted that said Anji Reddy died leaving his four sons and two daughters. Thus, the relationship between the parties is admitted by defendants.

- 7 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

3) Defendant No.1 further admitted that during their life time father of plaintif by name late Medipally Bala Muthyam

Reddy and father of Defendant No.1 by name late Anji Reddy had jointly acquired above said Suit Schedule Property/ agricultural lands as claimed by the plaintif. It is further admitted by

Defendant No.1 that due to jointness of the Family, the said

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy cultivated the

Suit Schedule Property jointly as joint Pattedars.

4) Defendant No.1 claims that in view of ill-health of

Medipally Bala Buthyam Reddy, the Anji Reddy used to manage entire joint family and the marriage of plaintif was performed in the year, 1971, i.e., on 12.05.1971 by Anji Reddy and since the date of marriage the plaintif has been residing at her in laws house.

5) The Defendant No.1 denied the allegations that plaintif is entitled for ½ share in the Suit Schedule Property by alleging no partition has taken place and denied joint possession of Suit Schedule Property with plaintif and also denied that plaintif permitted the Defendant No.1 to D5 to cultivate the said

Suit Schedule Property Defendant No.1 to D5 used to pay lease amount the plaintif.

- 8 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

6) The Defendant No.1 further denied the allegation that the Defendant No.1 and his brothers in collusion with each other got mutated the Suit Schedule Property in their names and plaintif got knowledge in the month of 2003, as such he filed

Revision before Revenue Divisional Officer and that she demanded for partition in the month of August, 2003.

7) The main contention of the Defendant No.1 is that father of plaintif and late Anji Reddy were brothers and they acquired the Suit Schedule Property as they were in joint family.

Defendant No.1 further claims that said Medipally Bala Muthyam

Reddy died on 12.05.1971 and after he death Anji Reddy along with his sons cultivated Suit Schedule Property and that said Anji

Reddy died on 13.11.1980 leaving his four sons and two daughters.

8) Defendant No.1 further claims that after death of his father, Anji Reddy, Defendant No.1 and his brothers filed application before the Tahsildar in the year, 1985, for mutation of

Suit Schedule Property in their names, against which the plaintif filed objections claiming share of the Medipally Bala Muthyam

Reddy as his successor. Upon that a panchayath was held before village elders in the year 1985, and in said panchayath - 9 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

plaintiff agreed and received Rs.75,000/- from the

defendants towards consideration of her share in the Suit

Schedule Property as well as her share in a house in the

village and thereby the plaintiff relinquished all her

rights in the Suit Schedule Property in favour of legal

heirs of said Anji Reddy and accordingly, she filed an

affidavit and application before Tahsildar reporting that

she was withdrawing her objection petition and reported no objection for mutation of Suit Schedule Property in the name of legal heirs of said Anji Reddy. In pursuance of the same the

Tahsildar issued mutation proceedings in the name of Defendant

No.1 and his brothers.

9) Defendant No.1 further claims that the plaintif,

Defendant No.1 and his brothers entered an agreement on 02.12.1985 and in said Agreement, it was admitted that in view of receiving of total amount of Rs.75,000/- i.e., Rs.72,000/- is for consideration of relinquishing plaintif’s share in half of Suit

Schedule Property i.e., Ac.20-28 gts and Rs.3,000/- for half portion of house and thereby the plaintif relinquished all her shares over Suit Schedule Property. However, the plaintif suppressed all the facts and filed present suit and also filed - 10 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

Revision Case No. D5/5655/03 before Joint Collector, Ranga

Reddy District with an allegation that she came to know about mutation proceedings in the month of July 2003.

10)Thus, crux of contention of Defendant No.1 is that the plaintif had already relinquished all her rights over her half share in Suit Schedule Property in favour of Defendant No.1 and his siblings by receiving Sale consideration and again filed suit for partition, as such plaintif is not entitled for her half share in the Suit Schedule Property.

11)In his Additional Written Statement Defendant No.1 further claims that plaintif in collusion with D12 executed

Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney having no right or title over the Suit Schedule Property as she already relinquished all her rights in her half share in the Suit Schedule

Property by receiving Sale consideration in the year, 1985 itself, as such D12 will not get any right over the Suit Schedule

Property.

- 11 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

7.Brief averments of Written Statement of

Defendant No.2 to D5 :-

1) Defendant No.2 to D5 also did not dispute as to the relationship of parties to the suit and the fact that plaintif is daughter of Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy, who is brother of

Anji Reddy and they also not disputed the fact that said Medipally

Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy acquired the Suit Schedule

Property during their life time jointly and that said Medipally Bala

Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy were the joint owners of the Suit

Schedule Property.

2) Defendant No.2 to D5 further claims that since said

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy had no male children, he entrusted responsibility of his daughter (plaintif herein) to said

Anji Reddy and accordingly, said Anji Reddy performed the marriage of plaintif on 12.05.1971 by giving sufficient amounts, gold ornaments etc., towards her Pusupukunkuma.

3) Defendant No.2 to D5 denied that the plaintif permitted the Defendant No.1 to D5 to cultivate the Suit

Schedule Property and that defendants used to pay lease amount.

- 12 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

4) Defendant No.2 to D5 further claims that after death of Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy father of Defendant No.1 (Anji

Reddy) used to look after the family afairs and after death of said Anji Reddy his sons cultivating the said lands.

5) Defendant No.2 to D5 also contended that when they filed mutation application before the Tahsildar, the plaintif filed objections claiming her share as successor of her father

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy, upon that a panchayath was held in the year 1985. The Defendant No.2 to D5 also claimed that in said panchayath the plaintif had received Rs.75,000/- towards consideration of her half share in the Suit Schedule

Property and in a residential house. Defendant No.2 to D5 contended that in view of the final settlement before the said elders all sons of late Anji Reddy have purchased her half share from the plaintif by paying total Sale consideration of

Rs.75,000/- to the plaintif. Defendant No.2 to D5 further contended that having received the said Sale consideration and having sold her half share after suit lands, the plaintif along with her husband executed a document dated 02.12.1985 in respect of her share in the Suit Schedule Property to an extent of Ac.20- 28 gts and half portion of residential house No.3-98. Thereafter, - 13 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal the Suit Schedule Property was mutated in the name of

Defendant No.1 and his brothers. Upon application of plaintif which was filed through an Advocate before Mandal Revenue

Officer, Shameerpet and upon statement of no objection by the plaintif in the year 1985, the Thasildar mutated names of

Defendant No.1 and his brothers in respect of Suit Schedule

Property in revenue records vide proceeding Nos.A3/1943/1985, since then the Defendant No.1 to 5 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of Suit Schedule Property and thereby perfected their title by adverse possession.

6) The crux of contentions of Defendant No.2 to D5 is that the plaintif sold her half share in the Suit Schedule Property by receiving Sale consideration, as such she has no right to claim any partition in Suit Schedule Property, however, she filed present suit as well as Revision before Revenue Divisional Officer vide Revision bearing No.D5/5655/03, before Joint Collector and that no property is left for partition, as such suit is liable to be dismissed.

- 14 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

8.Brief averments of written statement of

D.12 :- i. His written statement shows that he is sailing with plaintif. His specific case is that the Defendant No.1 to D11 by playing fraud and in collusion with Revenue authorities got mutated their names in Revenue Records by cheating plaintifs and that the plaintif is entitled for half share in the Suit Schedule

Property as successor of Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and the

Defendant No.1 to D11 being legal heirs of Late Anji Reddy are entitled for remaining half share in the Suit Schedule Property and that on the admission of defendants, the suit is to be decreed in favour of plaintif.

9. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trail : -

1) “ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule mentioned properties as prayed for“?

2) “ To what relief ” ?

- 15 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

Additional Issue :- After impleading D.12, the

following additional issue was framed.

“ Whether the Agreement of Sale cum GPA,

dated 25.02.2006 executed by plaintiff in

favour of D12 is true, valid and binding a plaintiff “?

10. During trial, on her behalf, plaintif herself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Further, in order to prove her case, plaintif also examined her son P.Srinivas

Reddy as PW2 on her behalf. Further on behalf of defendants,

DW.1 to DW.4 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B51 are marked.

11.Heard both sides. Perused the record. Written

Arguments filed on behalf of defendant No.12.

12.Additional Issue: “Whether the

Agreement of Sale cum GPA, dated 25.02.2006 executed

by plaintiff in favour of D12 is true, valid and binding a

plaintiff ? ”

13.The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.2 to 5 argued that since D12 did not enter to the witness box and since he did not cross examine PW1 he is not entitle to any relief.

- 16 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

14.The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.2 to 5 relied on citations in case of Iswar Bhai C. Patel @ Bachu

Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera and Another reported in

1999 3 Supreme 121 and Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao and

another reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441 and argued that, if a defendant does not enter into witness box to make statement on oath in support of his pleadings set out in the written statement an adverse inference would arise that what he had stated in written statement was not correct.

15.Admittedly, in this case, D12 did not enter into witness box and even he did not cross examine PW1. However, the plaintif did not claim any relief against D12. Even D12 also sailing with plaintif.

16.The claim advanced by Defendant No. 12, that he obtained a registered Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney from the plaintif during the pendency of the present suit, is squarely governed by the doctrine of lis pendens as encapsulated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. This provision mandates that any transfer of, or dealing with, a property that is the subject matter of a pending litigation cannot afect the rights of any party to the suit under any decree or - 17 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal order that may be passed therein. Defendant No. 12 consciously acquired a derivative title from the plaintif at a time when the plaintif's very right, title, and interest over the suit schedule property were sub judice before this Court. Consequently, the right, title, and interest purportedly transferred to Defendant No.

12 are not independent or absolute, but are entirely contingent and parasitic upon the outcome of this case. Simply put, his rights are co-extensive with, and cannot exceed, the rights of the plaintif. If this Court ultimately decrees that the plaintif is entitled for a share in the Suit Schedule Property, Defendant No.

12 will get right to enforce his rights against plaintif. Conversely, if the plaintif's claim is dismissed, Defendant No. 12's agreement, being founded on a voidable title, will be rendered null and void. Therefore, rights of Defendant No. 12 is bound by the result of this suit. If the suit is decreed, the said agreement of

Sale cum General Power of Attorney is binding on the plaintif.

Additional issue is answered accordingly.

17.Issues No.1:Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule mentioned properties as prayed for?

- 18 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

I. Marshalling of facts for better understanding;

A. Plaintiff's Contentions:

1.The plaintif is the daughter and sole legal heir of M.

Bala Muthyam Reddy. Her case is straightforward as under:

i.Joint Property: The suit properties were jointly acquired and owned in equal shares (½ each) by her father, Bala

Muthyam Reddy, and his brother, Anji Reddy (father of the main defendants).

ii.Inheritance of Share: Upon her father's death, she, as his only heir, inherited his undivided ½ share in all the properties.

iii. No Partition: There was never any partition of the properties, and she remains a co-owner in joint possession.

iv. Fraudulent Mutation: The defendants, in collusion with revenue officials, illegally mutated the land records in their own names, excluding her. She only discovered this fraud in 2003.

v.Denial of Relinquishment: She categorically denies the defendants' story of a 1985 settlement. She states she never received Rs. 75,000/-, never executed any - 19 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal relinquishment agreement, and never gave a "no objection" affidavit to the authorities.

vi. Relief Sought: She prayed for the partition claiming her ½ share and separate possession of Suit Schedule

Property .

B. Defendants Nos.1 to 5’s Contentions (The Sons of Anji Reddy)

1.The defendants (D1 to D5) admit the initial ownership of further of plaintif and Anjireddy, but claim the plaintif has no right to the property for several key reasons:

i.Relinquishment/Sale of Share (Primary

Defense): Their main argument is that in 1985, the plaintif agreed to relinquish her entire ½ share in the properties and a house in exchange for Rs. 75,000/- in a panchayat settlement.

ii.Documentary Evidence Claim: They allege that pursuant to this settlement:

(a) The plaintif and her husband executed a document/agreement (dated 02.12.1985).

- 20 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

(b) She submitted a "no objection" affidavit to the

Tahsildar, leading to the lawful mutation of the properties in their names.

iii. Estoppel and Bar: Having sold her rights and consented to the mutation, she is estopped from filing this suit decades later, which they allege is motivated by a rise in land value.

iv.Alternative Defenses:

(a) Adverse Possession: They claim they have been in continuous, peaceful, and exclusive possession of the properties since the 1985 settlement, perfecting their title by adverse possession.

(b) Coparcenary Property: They contend the property was joint family coparcenary property, and the plaintif, being a married daughter (married in 1971 before relevant laws), has no right to it. (But the plea of coparcenary right is not taken in the pleadings. It is taken during chief examination of

DW.1 and DW.3).

(c) Prior Partition & Third-Party Rights: They executed a registered Partition Deed among themselves in 2004 and have since sold parts of the land to third parties, making - 21 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal partition impossible. (This plea also not taken in pleadings

of Defendant No.1 to D.5 and it is taken during chief

examination of witnesses as such such evidence is

without pleadings).

II . Admitted Facts:

After considering the entire pleadings of both sides and evidence on record, this court holds that, the following facts are not under dispute;

1.Relationship of the Parties:

i. Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy (father of the

Plaintif) and Medipally Anji Reddy (father of Defendant Nos. 1, 2, etc.) were real brothers, being the sons of Medipally Venkat

Reddy.

ii. The Plaintif is the daughter and sole surviving legal heir of Late Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and others are the legal heirs of Late Medipally Anji Reddy.

- 22 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

2. Acquisition and Initial Status of the Suit

Schedule Property:

i.During their lifetimes, Medipally Bala Muthyam

Reddy and Medipally Anji Reddy jointly acquired the suit schedule agricultural lands, totally admeasuring Ac.41-16 gts.

ii. Both brothers were joint owners/pattadars of the suit properties, having equal shares (½ each).

iii. The names of both brothers were recorded as joint pattadars and possessors in the Revenue Records (e.g., Ex.A1 and Ex.A2).

iv. No partition of the suit properties took place during the lifetimes of Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy.

3.Deaths and Succession (Basic Fact of Death

Admitted): It is admitted that Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy died intestate. It is admitted that Medipally Anji Reddy died subsequently.

- 23 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

III . Core dispute between Parties;

The entire suit hinges on a single, critical disputed fact :

1.The Plaintiff's Case: She inherited her father's ½ share and remains a co-owner in joint possession. The defendants mutated the records illegally, and she only discovered this in 2003. She never relinquished her rights.

2.The Defendants' Case (D1 to D5): In 1985, the

Plaintif relinquished all her rights to her ½ share in the suit properties in their favor in exchange for a total payment of Rs.

75,000/-. This was done through a panchayat, an agreement (dated 02.12.1985), and a no-objection affidavit given by the

Plaintif to the Revenue Authorities, which led to the mutation of the properties solely in the names of the defendants.

3.The Plaintif categorically denies receiving any money, executing any document, or relinquishing her share. The defendants, while asserting this defense, have faced challenges in their evidence, with witnesses making some admissions that support the Plaintif's claim of being the sole legal heir entitled to her father's share.

- 24 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

I V . Evidence on record :-

18. On behalf of plaintif was examined as PW1 and

Ex.A1 to A4 are marked. Her son was examined as PW2. On behalf of defendants Defendant No.1 was examined as DW1. D2 examined as DW3. DW2 and DW4 are third parties to the proceedings. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.52 are marked on behalf of contesting defendants.

V. The burden of Proof;

In a suit for partition, the initial burden is always rests on the plaintif. However, when it comes to present case, the relationship to the original owners and her status as the sole legal heir are already admitted by the Defendants. The defendants admitted the following facts which are leaning towards case of plaintif; i.Plaintif’s father and the defendants' father were joint owners.

ii.She is the sole legal heir of her father.

iii. No partition ever took place between original joint owners as admitted by pleadings of defendants.

- 25 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

2.On the basis of these admitted facts, plaintif is entitled to her father's half-share. The burden then shifts to the party (the defendants) who is disputing this right by asserting a special fact.

3.The core legal principle applied here is Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: "Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

4.The Defendants are Asserting a Special Fact:

i.The defendants are not merely denying the plaintif's claim. They are asserting a specific, affirmative defense: that the plaintif relinquished her share for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- in 1985. This is a new fact that, if true, would extinguish the plaintif's legal right. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the burden to prove this specific fact lies squarely on the defendants who are asserting it.

- 26 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal ii.Application of Section 103 of the Indian

Evidence Act:

(a)This section states: "The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence…".

(b)The "particular fact" the court must believe to dismiss the suit is the 1985 relinquishment agreement.

Hence, the defendants must prove it.

5.The Plaintiff's Secondary Burden:

While the primary and crucial burden is on the defendants, the plaintiff also carries a secondary burden:

i.She must prove her own case, which she has already done through admitted relationships and revenue records (Ex. A1, A2).

ii.If the defendants were to successfully discharge their burden and provide credible evidence of the relinquishment, the burden would then shift back to the plaintif to rebut that evidence.

- 27 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

VI.Case law:

a) Case law relied on by the plaintiff.

The Learned counsel for the plaintif relied on citations i.e., (1) Maktul Vs. Manbhari and Ors reported in AIR 1958

SC918 . 2. Kailash Rai Vs. Jai Jai Ram and Ors reported in

AIR 1973 SC 893, 3. Jagannath Amin Vs. Seetharama (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors reported in 2007 (49) AIC 426, 4.

Meenugu Mallaiah and Ors Vs. Ananthula Rajaiah and Ors

reported in Manu/AP/0769/2016 .

b) On behalf of defendant No.1 filed citations :-

The Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 relied on citation in cases of 1. Rohit Chauhan Vs. Surinder Singh & others reported in 2013 Supreme (SC) 634, 2. V. Rajamma Vs.

A.Rami Reddi & others reported in 2010 Supreme (AP) 748, 3. H.Vasanthi Vs. A.Santha (Dead) Through Lrs. And others reported in 2023 Supreme (SC) 761, 4. B.K Babu

Rao @ died per L.Rs and others Vs. Smt.A.Jaya Lakshmi reported in 2007 Supreme (AP) 964, 5. M.P Obanna Vs.

K.B Anjaneyulu reported in 1999 Supreme (AP) 594 and - 28 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

6. Controller of Estate Duty, Madras, Vs. Alladi

Kuppuswamy reported in 1977 Supreme (SC) 216.

c)Citations on behalf of defendant Nos.2 to 5 filed citations :-

2. The learned counsel for the Defendant No.2 to D.5 relied on citations in case of 1. Iswar Bhai C. Patel @

Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera & Anr reported in 1999 3 Supreme 121 ; 1999 0 Supreme (SC) 318, 2.

Vidhyadhar Vs. Mankikrao and another reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1441, 3. Shasidhar and others Vs.

Smt.Ashwini Uma Mathad and another reported in 2015 (3) ALT 7 (SC), 4. Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs.,

Vs.Bishun Narain Inter College and others reported in

AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1242, 5. Agasti Karuna and another Vs. Cherukuri Krishnaiah and others reported 1999 (5) ALD 387 and 6. Digambar Adhar Patil Vs.

Devram Girdhar Patil (died) and another reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1728.

d) Citations relied on by the D.12:

The learned D12 relied on citations in case of 1. Uttam Vs

Saubhag Singh and others reported in (2016) 4 - 29 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

Supreme Court Cases 68, Srinivas Raghavendra Rao

Desai (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. V.Kumar Vaman Rao @ Alok and

Ors and Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal and another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 491, SK. Golam Lalchand Vs.

Nandu Lal Shaw alias Nand Lal Keshri alias Nandu Lal

Bayes and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2456,Pugazhenthi and another Vs. Sundari Ammal and others reported in 2013 (2) CTC 160.

VII . Appreciation of Oral and Documentary Evidence on

Record;

19. To prove her case, plaintif herself was examined as

PW1 and Ex.A1 to A4 are marked. Her son was examined as

PW2.

20. In her evidence, the plaintif reiterated her plaint averments. The evidence of PW1 in brief is that during their life time her father Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and late Anji

Reddy acquired the Suit Schedule Property equally and their names was also mutated in Revenue Records as joint pattedars and possessors and that in view of death of her father, she is entitled for half share in the Suit Schedule Property and that in- - 30 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal spite of her demand the defendants failed to come forward for partition of Suit Schedule Property, however, the plaintif came to know in the year 2003, that the defendants got mutated entire

Suit Schedule Property in their names in collusion with Revenue authorities, as such she is entitled for partition.

21. In support of above evidence the plaintif as PW1 exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.4. Ex.A1 is Kasra Pahani for the year 1954-

55. It shows names of father of plaintif and father of Defendant

No.1 were shown as Pattadars and possessors of Suit Schedule

Property.

22. Ex.A2 is Certified Copy of Pahani for the year, 1984-85. Ex.A2 shows that the Suit Schedule Property was recorded in the name of father of plaintif (Medipally Bala

Muthyam Reddy) and father of Defendant No.1 (Anji Reddy) equally with their respective shares and separate extents in the

Suit Schedule Property by giving Sub-division numbers each. It shows that the property was not jointly recorded and the property was separately recorded with individual extents of

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and also individual extent of share of Anji Reddy.

- 31 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

23. Ex.A3 is Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2000-2001, in this Pahani the names of defendants alone reflected as pattadar and possessor by giving Sub-division numbers and individual extents.

24. Ex.A4 is market value certificate.

25. The PW1 was cross examined on behalf of

Defendant No.1 to D.5. During cross examination, PW1 deposed that she did not file any cases against her brothers prior to filing this case including cases before Mandal Revenue Officer,

Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectors or any other Tribunal and her son engaged Advocate and she is unaware whether her son is party to the case as she is illiterate. It establishes that the plaintif is illiterate person, therefore, no significance can be given as to the facts admitted by her during her cross examination, when the pleadings and the admissions of defendants Nos.1 to 5 establishes her Right over the Suit

Schedule Property.

26. It is elicited during cross examination of PW.1 that her mother and father performed Kanyadanam at her marriage and her parents were hale and healthy at the time of her - 32 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal marriage. PW.1 denied that her marriage was performed by Anji

Reddy by giving valuable gifts by spending huge amounts.

27. Further, during her cross examination, PW.1 admitted that her mother Laxmamma expired after five years of death of her father and that last rites of her father were performed by said Anji Reddy and that last rites of her mother were performed by Late Sanjeeva Reddy.

28. During her cross examination, it was elicited that

PW.1 never received any amount from Defendant No.1 to D5 and she never asked her father for share in the property during his life time and during life time of Anji Reddy. It is further elicited and cross examination of PW.1 that she along with her husband also used to cultivate Suit Schedule Properties along with Anji

Reddy and his sons and she do not know, on whose name the properties should as on the death of Medipally Bala Muthyam

Reddy and Anji Reddy and she does not know house number. It was further elicited that PW.1 does not know the value of said house was Rs.10,000/- and value of Land was Rs.2,500/- per acre as on the date of death of said Anji Reddy.

29. It was further elicited that a panchayath was held regarding her share, but they have not informed anything to - 33 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

PW.1 regarding the same. PW.1 admitted that she did not file any application for grant of succession in her name before

Mandal Revenue Officer in the year 1985, nor she filed any objection regarding Suit Schedule Property. PW.1 deposed during her cross examination that she filed suit for her father’s property, however, she claimed that she do not know for which properties she filed suit as she is illeterate and she do not know extents and boundaries and Sy.No. 5 of the property, but she came to know through her son there are 10 survey numbers and she does not know who are in possession and pattadars of Suit Schedule

Properties. During her cross examination, PW.1 expressed her ignorance as to issuance of mutation proceedings in the name of

Defendant No.1 and his brothers in the year 1985, and as to filing of appeal 5655 of 2003 before Joint Collector. During her cross examination, PW.1 pleaded ignorance and deposed that she do not know whether Defendant No.1 to D5 got Partitioned the Suit

Schedule Property through Registered Partition Deed and as to issuance of Pattadar Pass Books and as to subsequent alienations. Since the plaintif is illiterate and since there is no dispute that the Suit Schedule Property was acquired by father of the plaintif and his brother Anji reddy, the above answers are - 34 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal not significance and will not afect the rights of the plaintif over the Suit Schedule Property.

30. PW.1 denied a suggestion that the xerox copy shown to her was given by her to Mandal Revenue Officer reporting no objection for grant of mutation in favour of Veera Bhadra Reddy and his brothers. Significantly, during her cross examination,

PW.1 denied that she received Rs.75,000/- and executed a document dated 02.12.1985 by her and her husband in respect of Suit Schedule Property and she denied thumb impressions thereon and she further denied that after receipt of Sale consideration she relinquished all her rights in favour of

Defendant No.1 to D5 and PW.1 further denied the suggestion that she gave her no objection affidavit for mutation of Suit

Schedule Property in favour of Defendant No.1 to D5 and filed present suit falsely in view of escalation of Land value.

31. During her cross examination, PW.1 categorically denied the suggestion that she already sold out her share of

Land to Defendant No.1 to D5 and one Sanjeeva Reddy and they are in possession of said extents from the date of purchase till date and she filed falsehood. PW.1 firmly deposed during her cross examination that she never sold any part of Suit Schedule - 35 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

Property including D12 and denied execution the said General

Power of Attorney in favour of her husband or son and she denied the suggestion that she never cultivated the Land.

32. During cross examination of PW.1 by Defendant

No.2 to D5, it was elicited that she do not know whether

Defendant No.2 to D5 filed any written statement in the above case. It was further elicited that several times she requested for partition orally before filing suit, but she cannot give date.

33. During cross examination on behalf of Defendant

No.2 to D5, it was suggested to PW1 that she sold her share of

Land in the Suit Schedule Property to Defendant No.1 to

D.5 on 02.12.1985 and she took Rs.8,000/- from each

defendant and executed documents in their favour selling

her share in the Suit Schedule Property. However, PW.1 denied the documents shown to her and thumb impression thereon and also the suggestion that she received total Sale consideration of Rs.75,000/- from Defendant No.1 to D5 and that she is not entitled for any share in the Suit Schedule Properties in view of alleged Sale of her share in Suit Schedule Property.

34. After careful analysis of above evidence on record, this court holds that, the evidence of PW.1 is consistent with her - 36 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal pleadings as to her right over the Suit Schedule Property. No significance facts elicited to discredit the evidence of PW.1 denying her right over the Suit Schedule Property. During such cross examination nothing was elicited to establish the contention of defendant Nos.1 to 5 that the plaintif had relinquished her right over the Suit Schedule Property in favour of the plaintif and had made any statement before revenue authorities to mutate her share in the Suit Schedule Property in favour of the Defendant No.1 to D.5.

35. Thus, testimony of PW1 stands unshaken and wholly consistent with the pleadings, firmly establishing her right over the suit schedule property. Throughout her cross- examination, no material evidence was elicited by the contesting defendants that could even remotely substantiate their claim of relinquishment or cast doubt upon her title. The defence failed to draw forth any admission regarding the alleged receipt of ₹75,000/-, the execution of any relinquishment document dated 02.12.1985, or the submission of a no-objection affidavit to the revenue authorities. Consequently, the cross-examination of PW1 not only failed to discredit her evidence but, significantly, yielded nothing to support the foundational assertions of Defendants 1 to - 37 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal 5, thereby leaving their case entirely unsubstantiated and the plaintif's narrative unchallenged on its core tenets.

36. Further, evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by evidence of PW.1. On behalf of plaintiff, her son was examined as PW.2. PW.2 also deposed in the same lines of

PW.1 stating that his mother (plaintif) is a sole legal heir of

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and said Medipally Bala Muthyam

Reddy and his brother Anji Reddy jointly acquired Suit Schedule

Property. PW.1 further deposed that their family resides at

Uddamarri Village as it is their fathers’ native place, as such they used to go regularly to Lalgadi Malakpet Village to cultivate suit lands along with his paternal uncles i.e., sons of late Anji Reddy on some times they also give them on lease to the defendants who used to pay lease amounts to them.

37. PW.2 further deposed that in the year 2002, her mother asked the defendants for partition and initially his uncles agreed and later, he went to Tahsildar office and found that entire Land was recorded in the name of sons of Anji Reddy ignoring the name of his mother in Revenue Records, then by giving assistance to his mother filed an appeal before Joint

Collector and that the defendants refused for partition.

- 38 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

38. The PW.2 was also cross examined on behalf of defendants and during such cross examination, it was elicited that PW.1 do not know his date of birth and he do not know in which year Anji Reddy passed away and he also pleaded ignorance as to which year the Lands were mutated in the names of Defendant No.1 to D.5, but he claimed that he came to know about the mutation in the year, 2002. PW.2 denied the suggestion that Defendant No.1 to D5 paid Rs.72,000/- for agricultural lands and Rs.3,000/- on the demand of his mother (plaintif) towards full and final settlement of her rights over the

Suit Schedule Property and one house property and executed a document in the year 1985. PW.2 deposed that he do not know who are in possession of Suit Schedule Property and their extent and as to alienations.

39. The above cross examination of PW.2 did not cause any dent to the core evidence of PW.2. Testimony of PW2 also stands unshaken and wholly consistent with the pleadings, firmly establishing right of plaintif over the suit schedule property.

Throughout her cross-examination, no material evidence was elicited by the contesting defendants that could even remotely substantiate their claim of relinquishment or cast doubt upon her - 39 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal title. Consequently, the cross-examination of PW2 not only failed to discredit his evidence but, significantly, yielded nothing to support the foundational assertions of Defendants 1 to 5, thereby leaving their case entirely unsubstantiated and the plaintif's narrative unchallenged on its core tenets.

40.Further, the documentary evidence is also supporting the claim of plaintif. Ex. A1 (Pahani 1954-55) and Ex.

A2 (Pahani 1984-85) and the admission of contesting defendants in their pleadings, conclusively show the suit properties recorded in the names of both Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy, with their individual shares specified. Ex. A3 (Pahani 2000-2001) shows a dramatic shift, with the properties mutated solely in the names of Defendants 1 to 5. This supports the plaintif's case of illegal mutation and her subsequent discovery in 2003.

41. On the other hand, Defendant No.1 also in his

Written Statement admitted that father of plaintif Medipally

Bala Muthyam Reddy and father of Defendant No.1 Medipally Anji

Reddy were real brothers and sons of Medipally Venkat Reddy.

Defendant No.1 further admitted in his pleadings that plaintif is daughter of said late Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and he further admitted that, during their lifetime said Medipally Bala - 40 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy had jointly acquired above said suit schedule property/agricultural lands and that due to jointness of the family, said Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and

Anji Reddy cultivated the suit schedule property jointly as joint pattedars.

42. Likewise Defendant No.2 to D5 also did not dispute as to relationship of parties to the suit in their Written Statement and fact that plaintif is daughter of Medipally Bala Muthyam

Reddy. Further, it is not disputed the fact that said Medipally Bala

Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy acquired suit schedule property during their lifetime jointly. On the other hand, they admitted

that said Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy

were joint owners of suit schedule property.

43. Further, during his cross examination

Defendant No.1 as DW1 admitted that Plaintif is the only daughter of my paternal uncle Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy.

DW1 further deposed that names of his father (Anji Reddy) and his paternal uncle (Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy) was recorded as pattadars of equal shares in revenue records. DW.1 further admitted they did not purchase the same from the plaintif." [this is contrary to Sale plea of Defendant No.2 to Defendant - 41 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

No.5 in their written statement). DW.1 further admitted that by virtue of mutation proceedings they have no right over the property.

44. Likewise, DW2 also in Cross-examination admitted that Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy were owners of suit schedule property and that No partition was taken place between Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji

Reddy during lifetime and between families after their death and he pleaded ignorance about whether Medipally Bala Muthyam

Reddy had half share and whether plaintif got half share through her father.

45. Likewise, DW3 (Defendant No.2) in his Cross- examination admitted that Suit schedule properties are joint properties of my father Anji Reddy and father of plaintif

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and they are having half share each and that till 1984-85 suit schedule property was shown in name of Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy as joint pattadars and that Plaintif is sole legal heir of Medipally Bala

Muthyam Reddy entitled to succeed his estate. DW.3 further admitted that during lifetime of Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy, they acquired suit schedule property having - 42 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal equal shares and till 2004 no partition was taken place between me and my brothers and that admitted they have not obtained any registered sale deed from plaintif or her husband and that admitted that as per Ex.B1 Paisal Patti, mutation was granted due to death of owners, not due to alleged sale transaction.

46. DW4 (Nemuri Chandraiah - also in Cross- examination admitted that Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy are having equal share over suit schedule property and that Plaintif is only daughter of Medipally Bala

Muthyam Reddy and that after death of Medipally Bala Muthyam

Reddy, his share of land was succeeded by plaintif. DW.4 further admitted that, Plaintif did not execute any registered document in favour of Defendant No.1 to D4 towards her share and that he do not know property of Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy devolves on plaintif.

47. The collective admissions of Defendants 1 to 5, both in their pleadings and through the testimony of DW1 to DW4, create an irrefutable judicial foundation establishing the plaintif's title to her half-share in the suit schedule property. Their explicit concessions—that the property was jointly acquired with equal shares, that the plaintif is the sole legal heir of her father, and - 43 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal that no partition ever occurred during lifetime of original owners —conclusively validate the very core of the plaintif's case. These admissions are compounded by the defendants' own failure to prove their contrary assertions, as evidenced by DW1's statement that "we did not purchase from the plaintif," the absence of any registered sale deed, and DW3's acknowledgment that the mutation was based on succession, not a sale. Consequently, the defendants' own evidence not only fails to support their defense but actively dismantles it, leaving the plaintif's entitlement to her share unimpeachable and legally incontestable.

48. Therefore, in view of above discussion and for the reasons stated above this court holds that, the above evidence of

PW.1 and PW.2, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 coupled with the above admissions of the contesting defendants in their pleadings and evidence, this court holds that, the plaintif is able to establish her initial case that she is the sole legal heir of late Medipally

Bala Muthyam Reddy who died intestate and who was said to have half share over the Suit Schedule Property as such the plaintif is entitled to claim half share in the Suit Schedule

Property.

- 44 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

49. Now the burden is on the defendants to prove their contentions.

50. As already discussed the main defense of Defendant

No.1 to D.5, as per their pleadings, is that the plaintif, subsequent to the deaths of her father and uncle, relinquished her entire half-share in the suit schedule properties to them for a total sale consideration of Rs. 75,000/- during a panchayat settlement in 1985, which was followed by her execution of a written agreement and a no-objection affidavit leading to the mutation of the properties in their names in the revenue records; consequently, they have since been in continuous, exclusive, and peaceful possession, perfecting their title by adverse possession, and the plaintif, having alienated her rights, is estopped from seeking partition, a position further bolstered by their subsequent registered partition in 2004 and alienations of portions of the property to third parties.

51. To prove their case, on behalf of Defendant No.1, the Defendant No.1 himself was examined as DW.1 and he exhibited Exs.B1 to B22 documents and they are marked subject to objection of Defendant No.12 regarding admissibility vide memo dated 17.07.2019.

- 45 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

52. On behalf defendants Ex.B1 to B52 documents were marked as under:

53. Ex.B1 is C.C. of Paisala Patti for the year 1984-85.

The learned counsel for the Defendant No.1 submitted that it is filed to show that the sons of Anji Reddy i.e.. D1 and his brothers succeeded the suit schedule property as successors and comparisons of Anji Reddy and Bala Muthyam Reddy as joint family members.

54. Ex.B2 to Ex.B10 are the Certified Copy of pahani for the years 1985-86,1986-87,1987-88,1988-89,1990-91,1992- 93.1994-95,1996-97,2000-2001. The learned counsel for the D1 submitted that they are filed to show that in pursuance of Ex.B1

Paisal Patti, the names of D1 and his brothers mutated in revenue records as Pattadars and Possessors of suit schedule property by showing sub divisions and individual extents.

55. Ex.B11 is Certified Copy of Partition Deed Dt.06-06- 2004 among D1 to D5. The learned counsel for D1 argued that

Ex.B11 partition deed was registered according to oral partition made in the year 1984-85, confirming individual extents of the defendants with boundaries. The learned counsel for the D1 submitted that the partition among defendants was efected with - 46 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal metes and bounds. In page No.2 of the same document it was mentioned that Medipally Anji Reddy was sole absolute owner of entire land to an extent of Ac.41-16 gts, having required the same through his ancestral property and he is uninterupted possession.

56. The learned counsel for Defendant No.1 argued that since marraige of plaintif was taken place in the year 1971. prior to NTR Act, she is not entitled for share in the suit schedule property. He further argued that since the partition with metes and bounds was efected under Ex.A11 in the year 2004 itself, prior to commencement of 2005 amendment Act, the plaintif is not entitled to question the prior partition. Further the learned counsel for the D1 argued that at the time of death of Muthyam

Reddy, his wife was alive. However, she continued in the joint family till her death for 5 years according to the Women Property

Right Act 1937 and she died in the joint family without claiming any partition as such the property was the joint family devolved upon the living coparceners.

57. Ex.B12 is Old Pattadar pass book of D1 with Patta

No. 382, Ex.B13 is Old Title Deed Passbook. It is filed to show that - 47 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal the individual extent of D1 were mutated in the name of D1 which is part of suit schedule property.

58. Ex.B14 is Certified copy of Sale Deed Dt.18-12-2006.

It was executed by D1 infavour of his daughter/ G.Divya for consideration towards part of Suit Schedule Property.

59. Ex.B15 and B16 are Certified Copies of Gift

Settlement Deed Dt.13-12-2006, it is executed by D1 infavour of his daughters in respect of part of Suit Schedule Property.

60. Ex.B17 is Certified Copy of Sale deed Dt.01-12-2007 executed by D1 along with D2 to D5 infavour of one Praveen and 2 others/third parties in respect of part of Suit Schedule properties,

61. Ex.B18 to Ex.B20 are Certified Copy of Pahanies for the year Fasli 1422, 1423, 1424 each 19 sheets showing individual extents of D1 to D5 inresepect of Suit Schedule property.

62. Ex. B21 is Certified Copy of ROR proceedings issued by Tahsildar, Shamirpet dt. 05-02-2019 infavour of D5/Shamala in resepect of part of Suit Schedule property by giving sub division numbers on the individual extent out of Suit Schedule property.

- 48 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

63. Ex.B22 is marked through confrontation to DW.1 by

D12. Ex.B22 is Certified Copy of affidavit and petition filed by D1 to D5 in CRP.No. 991/2009 along with Civil M.P.No. 1413/2009.

The D12 argued that, in Ex.B22 documents, the D1 to D5 pleaded that plaintif sold her share by ordinary sale deed and the same was got validated by MRO U/s. 5-A of ROR Act and issued proceedings accordingly in the year 1985 and acordingly the disputed the entitlement of plaintif.

64. During his chief examination, DW.1 reiterated the contentions his written statement. The evidence of DW.1 in brief is that father of plaintif namely Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and his father Anji Reddy were real brothers and sons of late

Venkat Reddy and the joint family acquired the above properties from their father and their ancesters and that names of Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy were recorded in revenue records as pattadars and possessors and that the Suit

Schedule Property is joint family coparcenary property. This portion of evidence of DW1 as to “Joint Family Acquired the above properties from their father and ancestors and that Suit

Schedule Property is Joint Family and Coparcenary property is beyond the pleadings of Defendant No.1”.

- 49 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

65. DW.1 further deposed that the said Medipally Bala

Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy died in joint family and they used to live in the joint family which was managed by Anji Reddy and the marriage of plaintif was performed on 12.05.1971 and she has been residing at her in laws house, as such she is not member of joint family and that his father performed marriages of all his sons and daughters and that his sisters are living with them husbands at their respective villages, as such D6 to D11 are not the members of their joint family and not entitled in the share of joint family.

66. DW.1 further deposed that after death of his father who died in joint family leaving above joint family properties and a house in their village, as such he along with his brothers succeeded Suit Schedule Properties as joint family properties and joint family properties was cultivated and continued the names of Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji

Reddy as pattadars and possessors.

67. DW.1 further deposed that, in the year 1983, he along with his brothers filed application before Tahsildar for mutation of their names being legal heirs of Anji Reddy as - 50 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal coparcenars, at that time plaintif filed objections and demanded amounts to give no objection and as per settlement plaintif agreed to receive Rs.75,000/- from him and his brothers, accordingly, he along with his brothers paid Rs.75,000/- to the plaintif upon which the plaintif withdrawn her objection petition and gave a letter on 16.03.1985 to the Mandal Revenue Officer admitting claim of Defendant No.1 and his three brothers and reported no objection for mutation of names of Defendant No.1 and his three brothers in revenue records as pattadars and possessors in respect of Suit Schedule Property and also gave a letter dated 02.12.1985 in favour of DW.1 and his brother admitting their claim and admitted their title and possession over the Suit Schedule Property by relinquishing her rights if any over the Suit Schedule Property, upon which Mandal Revenue Officer issued mutation proceedings in revenue records and issued pattadar pass books to the individuals.

68. DW.1 further deposed that after death of his mother, he along with his brothers (Defendant No.2 to D5) as per their previous oral partition made in the year, 1983, again reduced the said oral partition in writing through a Registered

Partition Deed on 06.07.2004 and out of his share most of the - 51 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal lands were alienated in favour of third parties and some extent was given to his daughters to Registered Gift deeds and third parties are in possession and enjoyment of said lands. This portion of evidence of DW.1 contrary to his pleadings.

69. DW.1 further deposed that without any right and title the plaintif filed false suit with the wrong advise of D12 and taking advantage of innocence of plaintif, the D12 got executed a Registered Agreement cum General Power of Attorney in favour of part of Suit Schedule Property.

70. The above portion of evidence of DW.1 is contrary and beyond the pleadings of Defendant No.1. The defense mounted by Defendant No.1 represents a classic case of a litigant shifting its stand when its primary defense crumbles under scrutiny. His initial, and only pleaded, case was one of relinquishment of a specific, inherited share. Now the Defendant

No.1 improvised a new, unpleaded defense that Suit Schedule

Property is the “Joint Family Coparcenary property”, is not only procedurally invalid but also substantively incorrect in law and fact.

71. During cross examination DW.1 admitted that in his written statement as well as in the Written Statement of - 52 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

Defendant No.2 to D.5, admitted that Medipally Bala Muthyam

Reddy and Anji Reddy during their life time acquired Ac.41-16 gts of Land and they are joint owners and possessors of said lands, and they have cultivated the said Land and that said

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy did not partition the properties and that the plaintif filed the present suit seeking partition of her share in the property of her father.

72. During cross examination, DW1 deposed that on demand of plaintif they paid Rs.75,000/- towards her share, but, surprisingly, DW.1 claimed that they did not purchase the same from the plaintif. DW.1 further admitted that by virtue of mutation proceedings they have no right over the property. DW.1 further admitted that they have relationship with plaintif up to 2004 and that plaintif filed Revision against mutation proceeding

No. D5/5655/2003 passed by Tahsildar in their favour. DW.1 further admitted that after execution Ex.B11 partition Deed and after filing of this suit by the plaintif, he gifted and sold his share to third parties.

73. DW.1 further admitted the Certified Copy of petition in CRP. MP No. 1413 of 2001 in CRP.No. 991 of 2009. DW.1 deposed that he do not know the orders passed in IA.No. 2693 of - 53 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal 2008 in OS.No. 157 of 2004. During his cross examination DW.1 admitted that plaintif is the only daughter of his paternal uncle

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy.

74. DW.1 further admitted that names of his father (Anji

Reddy) and his paternal uncle (Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy ) was recorded as pattadars of equal shares in the revenue records. DW.1 claimed that it was till 1985. Further,it was admitted by DW.1 that they did not whisper the existence of plaintif while filing application for mutation on which mutation was passed.

Chief examination of DW1 is in valid:

75.Surprisingly, during cross examination DW.1 deposed that he do not aware the contents of his chief examination as well as his written statement. This, critical admission by DW.1 during cross-examination—that he was unaware of the contents of both his chief affidavit and written statement— completely eviscerates the evidentiary foundation of Defendant No.

1's case. This self-undermining testimony renders his entire deposition devoid of credibility and reliability, stripping his chief affidavit of any probative value. By disavowing knowledge of his own pleadings, DW.1 has efectively rendered the factual assertions - 54 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal in the written statement unproven and non-est, thereby leaving the plaintif's case uncontroverted and unsupported by any admissible evidence from the defendant's primary witness.

76. Further on behalf of Defendant No.1, one G.Venkat

Ram Reddy,who is third party and father in law of son of

Defendant No.1, was examined as DW.2. The evidence of DW.2 in brief is that he know the parties and that Medipally Bala

Muthyam Reddy was always sick due to ill health. DW.2 further deposed that said Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy together acquired the Suit Schedule Property and that the father of Defendant No.1 performed all marriages of his sons and daughters as well as marriage of plaintif in the year, 1971 and after marriage plaintif has been residing at her parents in laws house. DW.2 further deposed that after marriage sisters of

Defendant No.1 and plaintif has been residing at their in laws house and they are no way concerned with the joint family properties. DW.2 further deposed that after death of Anji Reddy

Defendant No.1 to D5 succeeded the joint family properties and they are in possession and enjoyment and therefore, Defendant

No.1 to D5 equally partition the said property in the year, 2004, and they are enjoying their lands according to their share and - 55 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal that they sold part of the Land to third parties and third parties are in possession of said Land.

77. The above evidence of DW.2 also beyond pleadings of Defendant No.1 that the plaintif had relinquished her share in the Suit Schedule Property by taking Rs.75,000/-.

78. During cross examination DW.2 admitted one of daughter of Defendant No.1 he is married to his son and he claimed that he do not know that Defendant No.1 sold Ac.4-00 gts of Land in favour of his daughter on 18.12.2006 vide Ex.B14.

DW.2 further admitted that Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and

Anji Reddy were the owners of the Suit Schedule Property. DW.2 claimed that properties were succeeded by them. DW.2 pleaded ignorance as to whether Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy have half share out of Suit Schedule Property and whether plaintif got half share through her father. This portion of evidence of DW.2 is contrary to the pleadings of defendants that the Suit Schedule

Property was jointly acquired by Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and his brother Anji Reddy. No whare it was mentioned in the pleadings of the Defendants that Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anjireddy acquired the property from their father. Therefore, the evidence of DW.2 is nothing but exaggeration of pleadings of - 56 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal defendants as to acquisition of Suit Schedule Property from

Venkatreddy and it renders his entire deposition devoid of credibility and reliability, stripping his chief affidavit of any probative value.

79. Further, Defendant No.2 himself was examined as DW3 :_-

80. DW.3 also reiterated the contentions of his Written

Statement. The evidence of DW.3 in brief is that plaintif filed suit for partition and separate possession of Suit Schedule Property and she never in possession of Suit Schedule Property and she is not entitled for any share.

81. DW.3 further deposed that during the life time of

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy, they acquired

Suit Schedule Property through succession from their ancesters, as such they were the joint owners and possessors of Suit

Schedule Property. This portion of evidence of Defendant No.2 as

DW.3 brush-asides the contentions advanced on behalf of

Defendant No.2 to D.5 that, Suit Schedule Property was acquired by Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and his brother from his father or ancestors and it is a coparcenary property.

- 57 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

82. DW.3 further deposed that Medipally Bala Muthyam

Reddy used to sufer ill-health and had no male issues as such he entrusted the responsibility of plaintif to the Anji Reddy who performed marriage of plaintif by giving sufficient amounts, gold etc., towards her Pasupukunkuma by spending huge amounts.

83. DW.3 further deposed that the defendants are in continuous, uninterpreted, peaceful possession and enjoyment of

Suit Schedule Property and that his father used to manage the joint family property and after death of his father (Anji Reddy), the defendant Nos.1 to 5 applied for mutation, on which the plaintif filed objections.

84. DW.3 further deposed that at that juncture a panchayath was held in which the plaintif received Rs.75,000/- from Defendant No.1 to D.5 towards relinquishing her rights in the Suit Schedule Property as per amicable settlement and thereby the plaintif had relinquished her share in the Suit

Schedule Property. DW.3 further deposed that plaintif and her husband had executed a document dated 02.12.1985 in respect of her share to an extent of Ac.20-28 gts and half portion of residential house, thereafter, the Defendant No.1 to D.5 approached Mandal Revenue Officer for mutation on which the - 58 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal plaintif gave an application before Mandal Revenue Officer and gave statement reported no objection to mutate the Suit

Schedule Property in the name of Defendant No.1 to D.5.

85. DW.3 further deposed that the defendants are in continuous, uninterpreted, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property since 1969 onwards and said property was mutated in the name of defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the year 1985 with the knowledge and consent of plaintif and thereby the defendants have perfected their title by way of adverse possession to the knowledge of plaintif.

86. Defendant No.2 as DW.3 further deposed that having relinquished her share in the Suit Schedule Property in favour of Defendant No.1 to D.5 by receiving settlement amount, the plaintif again filed suit to harass the defendants.

87. In support of above evidence, the DW.3 exhibited Ex.B23 to B52 documents as under:.

88. Ex.B23 is Registered partition deed Dt. 06-06-2004 (same as Ex.B11).

89. Ex.B24 is Registered Rectification Deed (Colour xerox), dt.01-11-2019. In this document in the month of - 59 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal exectuion of Ex.B23 partition deed was rectified from from 06.06.2004 to 06.07.2004. The learned counsel for D12. argued that after raising the validity of partition deed, the rectification was made to cover the defect that Ex.B23 was set to as executed prior to the Stamp date.

90. Ex.B25 and Ex.B26 are Mutation proceedings dt.11- 09-1998, 06-11-1999 and they are filed to show that after partition under Ex.B23/B11, the above proceedings were obtained in the name of defendants No.2 to 5 reflecting their individual extents in the Suit Schedule property.

91. ]Ex.827 is Order of Tahsildar, Dt.05-02-2019 in respect of share of D5/Shamala in the Suit Schedule property basing on Partition Deed.

92. Ex.B28 to Ex.B39 are the Certified Copy Pahanies for the years, 1985-86 to 1994/95, 1999-2000,2000-2001. These pahanies reflects the names of D2 to D5 reflecting their individual extents by giving sub division numbers in this Suit

Schedule property.

- 60 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

93. Ex.B40 is Certified Copy of ROR 1-B Register in the name of D4, relfecting individual extent of D4 in the Suit

Schedule property.

94. Ex.B41 and Ex.B42 are Pahanies in the name of

D4/Hanumanth Reddy and D3/Balvanth Reddy relfecting individual extent of D3 and D4 in the Suit Schedule property.

95. Ex.B43 is Certified Copy of 1-B ROR of D5/Shamala,

Ex.B44 is Certified Copy of Pahani for the eyar 2017 in the name of Shamala. These documents refecting individual extent of D5 in the Suit Schedule property.

96. Ex.B45 is Old Title Deed Passbook. Ex.846 is Old

Pattadar Passbook in the name of mother of D1 by name

Krishnamma relfecting individual extent in the Suit Schedule property.

97. Ex.847, Ex.848, Ex.B49 and Ex.850 are the Old

Pattadar Passbooks in the name of D2 to DS relfecting individual extent of D2 to D5 in the Suit Schedule property.

98. Ex.B51 is Orders Dt.27-04-2015, passed by RDO agaisnt the orders dt. 27-08-2012 of Tahsildar inrespect of Suit

Schedule property infavour of the aplaintif. The learned D12 - 61 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal argued that basing on the Writ Petition orders iof the Honble HC, the Tahsildar issued impugned orderdt. 27-12-2012 and that the said orders was challenged by D1 to D5 before RDO and the RDO directed the parties to approach the revenue authorities subsequent to the disposal of the this suit.

99. During cross examination Defendant No.2 as DW.3 also it was elicited that Suit Schedule Properties are joint

properties of his father Anji Reddy and father of plaintiff

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and they are having half

share each out of total Suit Schedule Property. This portion of admission of DW.3 also contradicts the contentions advanced on behalf of defendants that the Suit Schedule Property is a co- parcenary joint family property. When, the said Medipally Bala

Muthyam Reddy and Anjireddy were owners of their respective half share in the Suit Schedule Property as shows in Ex.A.1, the question of coparcenary does not arise.

100.Defendant No.2 as DW.3 further deposed that till 1984-85 the Suit Schedule Property was shown in the name of

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy as joint pattadars.

DW.3 admitted that he did not file any document to show that

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy died due to ill-health and that his - 62 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal father Anji Reddy performed the marriage of plaintif and to show that they are in exclusive possession of Suit Schedule Property after death of Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and to show that applying for sanction of mutation. DW.3 further admitted that he did not file any document with regard to objections said to have made by the plaintif before the Tahsildar.

101.Defendant No.2 as DW.3 further admitted that no documents were marked as exhibits to show that they have paid Rs.75,000/- towards relinquishment of share of plaintif over

Suit Schedule Property. DW.3 claimed that the document was filed, but not marked. DW.3 admitted that they have not filed proceedings No.A3/1943/1985. DW.3 denied the suggestion that the plaintif never relinquished her ½ share in the Suit Schedule

Property in favour of defendants. DW.3 admitted that till 2004 no partition was taken place between him and his brothers till 2004 through Ex.B23 and that before execution of Ex.B23 partition

Deed, the plaintif filed a case before a Joint Collector vide case

No.D5/5655/2003 and filed the present suit.

102. Defendant No.2 as DW.3 admitted that he did not file Ex.B23 to B47 along with Written Statement and they are filed along with his chief affidavit and that the said documents - 63 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal are not pleaded in Written Statement and did not state reasons for not filing said documents in his Written Statement.

103.Defendant No.2 as DW.3 further admitted that the plaintif is the sole legal heir of Medipally Bala Muthyam

Reddy entitled to succeed his estate and that during life time of said Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy, they acquired Suit Schedule Property and their having equal shares.

104.Defendant No.2 as DW.3 further admitted that they (Defendant No.2 to D.5) pleaded in their written statement that they purchased the share of plaintiff for Sale consideration of Rs.75,000/-. DW.3 admitted that they have not obtained any

Registered Sale Deed from plaintif or her husband. DW.3 admitted that as per written statement they pleaded that the plaintif executed a document dated 02.12.1985 stile as

Agreement and he pleaded ignorance whether the said

Agreement was filed. DW.3 admitted that in pursuance of orders in Writ Petition No.20120 of 2009, Mandal Revenue Officer issued proceedings, Pass Book and recorded in Revenue entries, title deeds in favour of plaintif.

105.DW.3 further admitted that as per Ex.B1 Pisal

Patti, the mutation was granted in view of death of Medipally - 64 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy, but not due to alleged Sale transaction set up by Defendant No.1 to D.5. This portion of admission of DW.1 establishes that, mutations was made in view of death of said Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy, but not due to alleged Sale transaction. It nagitives the contention of

Defendant No.2 to D.5 that they have purchased share of plaintif by paying consideration.

106.Further on behalf of Defendant No.2 to

D4 one Nemuri Chandraiah was examined as DW.4. The evidence of DW.4 is that father of plaintif by name Medipally

Bala Muthyam Reddy and father of Defendant No.1 Anji Reddy are the brothers, they acquired Suit Schedule Property from their father. This portion of evidence of DW4 is Contrary to the pleadings of Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.4.

107. DW.4 further deposed that the said Anji Reddy and Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy lived together as joint family and they performed the marriage of plaintif and after marriage the plaintif is living with her husband at Uddamarri.

108.DW.4 further deposed that after death of their father Anji Reddy, Defendant No.1 and his brothers succeeded to the said properties as joint family members. DW.4 further - 65 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal deposed that he came to know that in settlement before elders the sons of late Anji Reddy paid Rs.40,000/- to plaintif towards her share and he further came to know that the four sons of said

Anji Reddy again paid Rs.32,000/- for the lands of Rs.3,000/- for the house property under an Agreement dated 02.12.1985 towards her share. Surprisingly, DW4 made a contradictory statement that said settlement was made in his presence and that plaintif admitted the elicit of entire amount of Rs.75,000/- and he was one of the attester of Agreement dated 02.12.1985 and that the sons of Anji Reddy are in continuous possession.

109.The above evidence of DW.4 is also contrary to the pleadings and evidence of DW.1 and DW.3. DW.1 and DW.3 never pleaded or never deposed that, settlement before elders the sons of late Anji Reddy paid Rs.40,000/- to plaintif towards her share and he further came to know that the four sons of said

Anji Reddy again paid Rs.32,000/- for the lands of Rs.3,000/-.

Further he deposed that he came to know about the above transaction as such his evidence is hearsay and exaggeration of material evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 and their pleadings as such his evidence is not from from suspecian.

- 66 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

110.DW.4 during his cross examination, deposed that Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy were having separate houses during their life time, but he do not know they were having separate mess.

111.DW.4 also admitted that Medipally Bala

Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy are having equal share over Suit

Schedule Property and plaintif is only daughter of Medipally Bala

Muthyam Reddy. DW.4 admitted that after death of

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy, his share of Land was

succeeded by plaintiff and that plaintiff did not execute

any Registered document in favour of Defendant No.1 to

D4 towards of her share. This portion of evidence of PW.1 establishing the contention of plaintif that after death of

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy, his share of Land was succeeded by plaintif. Therefore, the improved version of coparcenary property is devoid of merits. The acquisition of property by the plaintif is under Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act and not under

Sec.6 of Hindu Succession Act. Once, the property acquired under Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act, the plaintif would be considered as an absolute owner of the property and no body - 67 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal would acquire such property without any written and registered document as required U/sec.17 of Indian Registration Act.

112.DW.4 deposed during his cross examination that the said panchayath was held in the month of December, 1985, and Rs.40,000/- was paid to the plaintif by Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 and no document was executed by plaintif in favour Defendant No.1 to D5 for said payment of Rs.40,000/-.

DW.4 deposed that he do not know the property of Medipally Bala

Muthyam Reddy devolves on the plaintif. This portion of evidence is also contrary to the pleadings and evidence of DW.1 and DW.3.

113.Therefore, in view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above this court holds that the evidence of

DW1 to DW4 is Contrary and beyond their pleadings and that their evidence is mutually in consistent. Therefore, their evidence is not free from suspecian. Thus, their evidence is not establishing their case and on the other hand the admissions of

DW1 to DW4 supporting the claim of plaintif.

- 68 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

Significant Arguments advanced on behalf of Defendants;

a) Relinquishment of share of plaintiff in Suit Schedule

Property:

114. The core arguments and defense advanced on behalf of Defendants 1 to 5, is that the plaintif relinquished her half-share in the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs. 75,000/- in 1985, is the linchpin of their case.

115.On the other hand, arguments advanced on behalf of the plaintif is that the plaintif never relinquished her share in the Suit Schedule Property and that she is in joint and constructive possession of the Suit Schedule Property.

116.A meticulous examination of the pleadings, evidence, and applicable law reveals that this plea is not only unsubstantiated but also legally untenable. Crucially, this entire narrative, as pleaded, rests on the existence of specific documents: the relinquishment/sale agreement of 02.12.1985 and the no-objection affidavit. But, the DW.1 and DW.3 could not exhibit the said documents. This fatal omission creates a void at the very heart of their defense. A pleaded case, especially one alleging the extinguishment of a clear title, cannot be proved by - 69 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal mere oral assertions when the foundational documents are deliberately not exhibited for any reason.

117.Further, surprisingly, the Defendant No.1 as

DW.1 made a significant admission during his cross-examination.

DW.1 stated, "we did not purchase the same from the plaintif," directly contradicting the specific plea of D2-D5 that they had "purchased her half share." This admission severs the crucial link of a sale transaction.

118. DW3 admitted that no document was marked to prove the payment of Rs. 75,000/- and that the alleged agreement dated 02.12.1985, though referred to, was not exhibited. He also admitted that the plaintif is the "sole legal heir... entitled to succeed his estate," an admission that fundamentally concedes her initial right to the property, which they claim was later relinquished. The collective evidentiary value of oral testimony us self-serving, contradictory, and utterly uncorroborated by any contemporaneous documentary evidence.

119. The Legal Insurmountability: The Bar of

Section 17 of the Registration Act. Even if one were to ignore the evidentiary failures, the defendants' plea is doomed by a fundamental legal flaw. The transfer of a right, title, or interest in - 70 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal immovable property of a value exceeding Rs. 100 must be efected through a registered instrument.

120.Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, mandates the registration of any "non-testamentary instrument which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property."

121.Whether the defendants characterize the 1985 transaction as a "sale" or a "relinquishment," its legal efect was to extinguish the plaintif's right, title, and interest in her half- share of the property, which is undoubtedly valued far above Rs.

100. Any oral agreement or unregistered document purporting to efect such a transfer is void and inadmissible in evidence as proof of such transfer. Since the defendants have not produced any registered document, their entire case on the transfer of the plaintif's share is legally invalid and cannot be enforced.

- 71 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

b) Coparcenary Joint Family property;

122.Further, it was argued on behalf of Defendant

No.1 to D.5 that the Suit Schedule Property is a coparcenary joint family property and since the plaintif married in the year 1971 and left to her matrimonial house, she can not be part of joint family as such she is not entitled for joint family coparcenary property and that the Defendant No.1 to D.5 succeeded the entire suit schedule property as male members of coparcenary joint family property as such the plaintif is not entitled for any share in the property.

123.Further, the learned D12 relied on citations in case of Srinivas Raghavendra Rao Desai (Dead) by Lrs. Vs.

V.Kumar Vaman Rao @ Alok and Ors and Bachhaj Nahar

Vs. Nilima Mandal and another reported in (2008) 17 SCC

491. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that no evidence would be led beyond pleadings.

124.The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.2 to 5 relied on citations in case of Shasidhar and others Vs.

Smt. Ashwini Uma Mathad and another reported in 2015

(3) ALT 7 (SC), and argued that in a suit filed for partition and - 72 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal separate possession, it is necessary for the court to examine the nature and character of the properties in suit such as who was the original owner, how and by which source source he acquired the property whether it was self acquired or ancestral property, or joint property or coparcenary property in his/her hand and it so, who are/ were the coparceners or joint owners with him.

While admitting the law laid down in the above citations, this court is of considered opinion that the very pleading of the plaintif which is admitted by D1 to D5 shows that the said property said to have acquired by Medipally Bala Muthyam

Reddy and his brother Anji Reddy jointly. Further, Ex.A2 and the admissions of DW1 to DW4 as discussed above above also establishes that the suit schedule property was acquired by

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and his brother Anji Reddy jointly and the property was recorded in their respective names with respective extents by separate survey numbers. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the present case and facts and circumstances of above citations are entirely diferent.

Therefore, in the humble of the opinion of this court, the above citations is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

- 73 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

125.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintif argued that, the above plea of the Defendants as to

Coparcenary property is beyond the pleadings as such, it can not be considered.

126.The learned D12 relied on citations in case of

Uttam Vs Saubhag Singh and others reported in (2016) 4

Supreme Court Cases 68 and argued that after devolution of joint family property as per Sec. 8 of Hindu Succession Act upon death of male Hindu intestate, property would cease to be joint family property and said female heir and other coparceners succeeding to the same would hold their respective share in property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants.

127.After considering the arguments of both sides, this court perused the record. The above defense of Coparcenary property is admittedly beyond the pleadings. Their initial, and only pleaded, case was one of relinquishment of a specific, inherited share. When it comes to their evidence and arguments contesting defendants improvised a new, unpleaded defense that is not only procedurally invalid but also substantively incorrect in law and fact.

- 74 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

128.The fundamental rule of civil procedure is that "a party must stand or fall by the case set up in its pleadings." A fact must be pleaded and then proved. The written statement of

Defendants 1 to 5 is conspicuously silent on any assertion that the suit schedule property is a "coparcenary property" of a Hindu

Undivided Family (HUF) or that the plaintif is excluded for being a married daughter. Their pleadings explicitly state that the property was "jointly acquired" by the two brothers, Bala

Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy. A plea of "joint acquisition" is distinct in law from a plea of "coparcenary property." The former suggests a partnership or a tenancy-in-common, while the latter is a specific legal status governed by Hindu Law. By raising this new defense for the first time in the chief affidavits of DW1 and

DW3, the defendants committed a fatal procedural error. No amount of evidence can be permitted on a case that was never pleaded, as it deprives the plaintif of the opportunity to meet that specific case with counter-pleadings and evidence.

Therefore, this belated plea is inadmissible and must be struck down in limine.

129.The above law was settled by Hon’ble

Supreme court and the learned counsel for the D2 to D5 relied - 75 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal on the citations in case of Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs.,

Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1242, wherein it was held that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It was further held that it was also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. Further, held that the object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet and in order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise.

130.Further, Defendant No.2 to D.5 filed certified copies of Vasulbaki and Sewthwar though an IA No.492 of 2025 and the said IA.No.422/2025 was dismissed by this court on merits. Basing on the said orders Defendant No.2 to D.5 preferred a revision before the Hon’ble High Court, but the

Hon’ble High Court was not pleased to grant any stay. This court

had granted several adjournments to the Defendant No.2 to D.5 to submit arguments.

- 76 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

131.On the other hand, this matter pertains to the year 2004 and more than two decades elapsed without disposing the above matter.Thus, this Court is acutely conscious that the genesis of this litigation traces back to the year 2004, and the passage of more than two decades without a conclusive adjudication is a matter of profound judicial concern of this court.

132.It is settled proposition of law that, mere pendency of any appeal or revision is not a ground to stall proceedings before the trail court, more particularly, more than 20 years old litigation. Further, Sec.115 (3) of CPC says that “A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding

before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is

stayed by the High Court”

133.However, this court had granted sufficient adjournments to Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.4 and waited till date, though this court passed orders in IA No.490 and 491 of 2025 on 25.08.2025 against which revision is preferred. Its not the case, where IA orders passed yesterday and this court passing judgment very next day without waiting. This court had given fair opportunity to the Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.4 - 77 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal for several adjournments right from 25.08.2025 till date. On the other hand, the Hon’ble High Court for the state of Telangana vide its Circular in ROC No.2457/OP-CELL/2-25 dt. 28.03.2025, was pleased to direct all the courts in the state of Telangana must make an endeavour to dispose of the cases up to and inclusing the year 2020 on priority basis while giving special emphasis to 10 years old matters. When it comes to present case, it is old case belongs to the year 2004, which is more than 20 years old. Therefore, the endeavour of this court is to adhre to the circular directions of the Hon’ble High Court to dispose the matter which is of 20 years old.

134.F urther more, the Hon’ble High Court of

Telangana vide its orders in CRP No.1677 of 2019 dt.

21.10.2022 was pleased to direct this court to dispose

the above matter within three months from the date of

order. Now we are in the year 2025 and three years time has been elapsed since 2022 without disposing the matter as directed by he Hon’ble High Court. The said direction of Hon'ble

High Court of Telangana, in its directive dated 21.10.2022 in

C.R.P. No.1677 of 2019, had underscored the imperative for expeditious resolution by mandating the disposal of this matter - 78 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal within a period of three months. It is with a deep sense of introspection that this Court acknowledges the lapse of nearly three years since that explicit directive, a delay that stands in stark contrast to the intended expedition. The Hon’ble High court was pleased to direct this court to dispose the matter within 3 months, but after three years of such direction, the matter is being disposed today. The present disposition, while belated, is the culmination of the consistent and vigorous pursuance by the this court, galvanized by the humble cooperation and esteemed advocacy of the learned counsel for both the plaintifs and the defendants. This Court wishes to place on record its profound

sense of gratitude to the learned Advocates from both

sides. Their unwavering professionalism, scholarly

assistance, and constructive engagement throughout the

protracted lifespan of this two-decade-old litigation have

been instrumental in navigating its complexities. Ultimately,

it was the dedicated cooperation of all parties that brought

this extensive legal journey to its conclusion, offering

disposal of a more than 20 years litigation.

135.The revision preferred only against orders of this court denying receipt of Sethwar and Vasulbaki vide its order

IA No.490 & 491 of 2025. However, in this judgment, this court

- 79 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal considered the contentions advanced on behalf of Defendant

No.2 to D.5 basing on said Certified Copy of Sethwar and

Vasulbhaki also (which are filed along with IA NO.490 and 491 of 2025). It was argued on behalf of Defendant No.2 to D.5 that “originally the Suit Schedule Property was recorded in the name of father of Muthyam Reddy and Anjireddy by name Venkatreddy as such, the Suit Schedule Property can be considered as a coparcenary property”. However, this contention of Coparcenary, as already discussed, is beyond pleadings of Defendant No.1 to

D5. Even the said Sethwar or Vasulbakhi document are not referred in Written Statement of Defendant No.1 to D5.

Therefore, even if said documents are received are marked, they are not helpful to Defendant No.2 to D4, as it is settled principal of Law that any amount of evidence beyond pleadings are not admissible. Furthermore, even if said Sethwar & Vasulbhaki and argument of learned counsel for the Defendant No.2 to D.5 are taken into consideration, then also, the Suit Schedule Property does not acquire the character of Coparcenary Property.

136.In Hindu Law, a coparcenary is a much narrower body than a joint family. It consists of the common male ancestor and his lineal descendants in the male line within three - 80 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal generations. The essence of a coparcenary is the right by birth of its members in the coparcenary property, which is typically inherited from a common ancestor, not jointly acquired by the members. Further, even if the property was acquired from the father of Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Ajireddy after his death, it amounts to devolution of property under Sec.8 of Hindu

Succession Act and therefore, the property, even if property was acquired from the father of Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and

Anjireddy, as argued by Defendant No.2 to D.5 under said

Sethwar or Vasulbhaki, it is considered as Self property of

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji Reddy and not coparcenary property, as there is no material to establish that the title of property continued for 4 generations as on the date of devolution of property by Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and his brother Anji Reddy.

137.The pre-requisite of continuation of title for four generations i.e., propositus and his three lineal descendants is not there. It means there is no material to prove that the title of Suit Schedule Property continued by the eldest male member/Karth + his 3 generations as on the date of acquisition of property by Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and his brother.

- 81 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

Therefore, the contention of the defendants that the Suit

Schedule Property is co-parcenery property is not proved by any cogent evidence.

138.The Hon’ble Apex Court Yudhishter Vs.

Ashok Kumar (AIR 1987 SC 558) and Commissioner of Wealth

Tax, Kanpur and others Vs. Chander Sen and others reported in

AIR 1986 SC 1753, categorically held that as per the provisions of

Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act, the grand children of a Hindu male, who dies intestate are not entitled to succeed the estate of their grand father and the succession opens when the grand father dies and the property devolves only upon his Class-I heirs in exclusion of

Class-II heirs. In Chandersen’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court approved the observations of Full Bench decision of Hon’ble High

Court of Madras in Karuppan’s case and the Division Bench decision of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in Mukundgiriji’s case.

139.Further, in case of Bhanwar Singh vs Puran &

Ors on 12 February, 2008 the Hon’ble supreme Court held as under:

“It is true that the first Court of Appeal also entered into the question of legal necessity for Sant Ram to alienate the - 82 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal property in favour of the contesting respondents but the said issue was considered in the alternative to the principal issue. If the First Appellate Court was correct in its opinion and we do not see any reason to differ therewith

that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act was not

attracted to the facts of this case in view of the fact that

Sant Ram and his sisters having partitioned their

properties became owners to the extent of 1/4th share

each, he had the requisite right to transfer the lands

falling within his share.” “18. Furthermore, in terms of Section 19 of the Act, as Sant

Ram and his sisters became tenants in common and took the properties devolved upon them per capita and not per stirpes, each one of them was entitled to alienate their

share, particularly when different properties were

allotted in their favour. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that the Court of First Appeal arrived at a self- contradictory or inconsistent finding, as was submitted by

Mr. Gupta.”

140.Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

Uttam vs Saubhag Singh & Ors on 2 March, 2016 was

pleased to held as under; “On the application of Section 8 of the Act, either by reason of the death of a male Hindu leaving self-acquired property or by the application of Section 6 proviso, such property would devolve only by intestacy and not survivorship.” “(vi) On a conjoint reading of Sections 4 , 8 and 19 of the Act, after joint family property has been distributed in accordance - 83 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal with section 8 on principles of intestacy, the joint family property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to it as they hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants.” “21. Applying the law to the facts of this case, it is clear that on the death of Jagannath Singh in 1973, the joint family property which was ancestral property in the hands of Jagannath Singh and the other coparceners, devolved by succession under Section 8 of the Act. This being the case, the ancestral property ceased to be joint family property on the date of death of Jagannath Singh, and the other coparceners and his widow held the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. This being the case, on the date of the birth of the appellant in 1977 the said ancestral property, not being joint family property, the suit for partition of such property would not be maintainable.”

141.Thus, the plea of the defendants that the Suit

Schedule Property is coparcenary property is not proved with any cogent evidence.

142.Further, the plea of Coparcenary property is contradictory and beyond the pleadings of the defendants in their evidence. On the other hand, the defendants' own case, as pleaded and admitted by their witnesses, is that the property was "jointly acquired during their lifetimes" by the two brothers.

- 84 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

This admission is fatal to their new "coparcenary" theory.

Property that is "jointly acquired" by two individuals, even if they are brothers, does not automatically become "coparcenary property." It is more accurately characterized as joint property or property held in common, wherein each holder has a definite, albeit undivided, share ( per Ex.A.2). The plaintif's father, therefore, was not a coparcener in an HUF with his brother, but a co-owner with a specific one-half share. Upon his death, this defined share devolves upon his legal heirs by succession under

Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act, not by survivorship, which is the rule for coparcenary property.

143. In their written statements, Defendant No.1 to

D.5 also admitted that the property was "jointly acquired," establishing a tenancy-in-common, not a coparcenary. Further,

Defendant No.1 as DW.1 admitted during his cross-examination that the names of both brothers were recorded in revenue records as pattadars "having equal shares." This admission of a pre-existing, defined share is antithetical to the concept of a coparcenary, where shares are fluctuating and not defined until partition.

- 85 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

144.Further, Defendant No.2 as DW.3 also categorically admitted that the plaintif "is the sole legal heir of

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy entitled to succeed his estate."

This is a direct concession that the property devolves by succession (to a sole female heir), which is impossible if it were a coparcenary.

145.Further, Ex.A2 -the Pahani for 1984-85 is the most compelling objective evidence. It does not show the property in the name of a "joint family" or "HUF." Instead, it meticulously records the individual names of both Bala Muthyam

Reddy and Anji Reddy, assigning separate sub-division numbers and individual extents for each. This is the revenue record's way of recognizing two distinct ownership shares, conclusively proving the property was held in definite shares and not as a single, joint coparcenary.

146.Further, the defendants' argument that the plaintif, being a woman married in 1971, is not a coparcener is a red herring. This argument presupposes that the property is coparcenary property—a fact they have failed to establish. The question of whether a married daughter is a coparcener only becomes relevant once the property is first proven to be - 86 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal coparcenary. Since the property in question is demonstrably the self-acquired joint property of two brothers, the plaintif inherits her father's specific one-half share by virtue of being his Class-I legal heir under Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, irrespective of her gender or marital status. Her right is not as a coparcener but as a successor to a co-owner.

Inconsistent and Contradictory Pleas of Defendants

Nos.1 to 5:

147.The defense strategy employed by Defendants 1 to 5 is mutually destructive. A close examination of their pleadings and evidence lead on behalf of Defendant No.1 to D.5 reveals two fundamentally inconsistent narratives that cannot logically coexist. The substance of original pleas of Defendants 1 to 5 are that; 1. The suit property was "jointly acquired" by the plaintif's father and father of Defendant No.1. 2. Both brothers such as Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy and Anji reddy were "joint owners" with "equal shares." 3. Upon the death of the plaintif's father, she, as his sole legal heir, laid claim to his share. 4. It was to settle this very claim that a panchayat was held, and a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was paid to the plaintif . 5. In consideration of this payment, the plaintif "relinquished all her - 87 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal rights" or "sold her half share" in Suit Schedule Property in their favour.

148.In his testimony, DW1 reiterated that the plaintif filed objections to their mutation "claiming share of the

Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy as his successor," leading to the settlement and payment. DW3 similarly testified that the plaintif "received Rs.75,000/-... towards relinquishing her rights in the Suit Schedule Property." It was initial pleading of

Defendant No.2 to D.5 that the plaintif sold her share in favour of sons of Anji Reddy. This first plea is logically coherent on its own face: it acknowledges the plaintif's initial right and alleges a consensual act (relinquishment/sale) that extinguished that right.

Surprisingly, and in direct conflict with their first plea, the defendants Nos.1 to 5 introduced a second, contradictory defense during their evidence, asserting that the plaintif never had any right to the property at all.

149.While the core plea of coparcenary was not explicitly in the written statement, it was hinted at with assertions that the property was managed as a "joint family" and the plaintif, after marriage, resided at her in-laws' house. This plea was fully developed in the witness box. DW1 asserted that - 88 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal the suit property was a "joint family coparcenary property" and that the plaintif, being a married daughter, "is not a member of the joint family. DW2 supported this by stating that after marriage, the plaintif and the daughters of Anji Reddy "are no way concerned with the joint family properties." The logical conclusion of this plea is that the plaintif, as a female, was not a coparcener and thus had no right, title, or share to relinquish or sell in the first place. These two pleas cannot logically stand together. They represent a fundamental schism in the defendants' case:

1) If the first plea is true (Relinquishment), then the second plea that plaintiff has no right in he property would be improable. One cannot pay a substantial sum of

Rs. 75,000/- to purchase or acquire a right from a person who, according to their own alternate theory, never possessed that right. The very act of negotiating and paying consideration is a solemn admission of the other party's title.

By alleging a settlement, the defendants have unequivocally admitted that the plaintif had a legitimate claim that required a settlement.

- 89 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

2) If the second plea is true (No Title Ab Initio), then the first of relinquishment is false. If the plaintif had no legal right or share in the Suit Schedule Property, the entire story of the 1985 panchayat, the payment of Rs. 75,000/-, and the relinquishment of her right and share in the Suit

Schedule Property becomes a fabrication. There would have been no need to pay her any amount to give up a non- existent right.

150.This is not a case of legitimate alternative pleading but one of fundamental inconsistent contention which is developed during evidence without pleading. The first plea is an admission of the plaintif's case for the period up to 1985, while the second plea is a complete denial of it. The defendants cannot be permitted to "blow hot and cold" in this manner. The law requires a party to take a definite stand. The second plea is a belated, unpleaded, and legally untenable afterthought designed, which itself is contradicted by their own admissions and the documentary evidence (Ex. A2).

- 90 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

Comprehensive Appreciation of the Plea of

Adverse Possession:

151. The crux of contentions of Defendant No.2 to

D5 is that the plaintif sold her half share in the Suit Schedule

Property by receiving Sale consideration, as such she has no right to claim any partition in Suit Schedule Property and that

Defendant No.2 to 5 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of

Suit Schedule Property since date of and thereby perfected their title by adverse possession.

152. The doctrine of adverse possession is not a principle that is lightly entertained It is a hostile claim, founded on the contention that a person in possession has, over time, extinguished the title of the true owner. For a claim of adverse possession to succeed, the claimant must prove a constellation of facts that collectively demonstrate a possession which is:

1)Hostile and Adverse (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario): The possession must be in denial of the true owner's title. It must be without force, without secrecy, and without permission. The very foundation is the animus to hold - 91 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal the property as an owner, to the exclusion of all others, including the true owner.

2)Open and Notorious: The possession must be so visible and apparent that it gives the true owner a reasonable opportunity to discover the hostile claim and to take action to eject the claimant.

3)Continuous and Uninterrupted:The possession must persist without break for the entire statutory period. Any acknowledgment of the true owner's title, even implicitly, breaks this continuity and resets the clock.

4)Exclusive: The claimant must show that they have possessed the land to the exclusion of the true owner.

153.The burden of proof to establish each and every ingredient lies heavily on the person setting up the plea of adverse possession. Mere possession, however long, does not suffice; it is the hostile and adverse character of that possession that is paramount.

154. When it comes to present case, the plea of adverse possession put forth by Defendants 2 to 5 is - 92 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal irreconcilably at odds with their primary defense and is demolished by the plaintif's documented actions.

155. The Self-Contradictory Nature of the

Plea: The defendants' primary case, as pleaded by D1 and

Defendant No.2 to D5, is that the plaintif relinquished her share for a sale consideration of Rs. 75,000/- in 1985. This plea is fundamentally one of a lawful, consensual transfer of rights (if proved). It presupposes that the defendants are in possession with a legitimate title derived from the plaintif herself. A plea of adverse possession, in stark contrast, is founded on a hostile, non-consensual, and unauthorized possession from the very beginning. A person cannot claim to be in possession by right of a sale and simultaneously claim to be in possession hostile to the seller. These two pleas are mutually destructive. By alleging a lawful settlement, the defendants have unequivocally admitted that their initial possession was permissive and with the plaintif's implied consent, which completely negates the essential element of "hostility" required for adverse possession.

156. The Plaintiff's Vigilant Acts Negate "Ouster" and "Hostility": The defendants' claim of "continuous and uninterrupted" hostile possession is shattered - 93 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal by the plaintif's consistent and legally sound actions to assert her title. The pleadings and evidence establish that the plaintif:

1)Raised objections before the Tahsildar when the defendants first attempted mutation.

2)Filed a Revision before the Joint Collector (Revision No. D5/5655/2003) upon discovering the fraudulent mutation.

3)Instituted the present suit for partition seeking her legitimate share.

4) Pursued a Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High

Court, which resulted in a direction that led to the Tahsildar mutating the plaintif's name in the revenue records and issuing a Pattadar Pass Book in her favor.

157.Each of these actions is a clear, public, and unequivocal assertion of the plaintif's title. They serve as a direct interruption of any purported hostile possession and are a formal denial of the defendants' claim of ownership. Therefore, the plea of adverse possession by Defendants 2 to 5 is legally misconceived and not proved.

- 94 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal 158.In view of above discussion and for the reasons stated above this court holds that, Defendant No.1 to

D.5 failed to establish their contention that the plaintif had relinquished her share in the Suit Schedule Property or she sold the Suit Schedule Property in favour of the Defendant No.1 to D.5 by receiving Sale consideration of Rs.75,000/-. The defendants haveconspicuouslyfailedtoprovethealleged

Agreement/Relinquishment Deed dated 02.12.1985, the plaintif's alleged "no objection" affidavit submitted to the

Tahsildar and the mutation proceedings No. A3/1943/1985, which they claim were passed based on their settlement. Further, the Defendant No.1 to D.5 failed to establish that the Suit

Schedule Property is a coparcenary property. Further the

Defendant No.1 to D.5 failed to establish that they perfected their title over the Suit Schedule Property by adverse possession.

159. On the other hand, as already discussed the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 including the admissions of Defendant No.1 to D.5 in their pleadings and in the evidence lead on their behalf is categorically establishing that father of the plaintif by name Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy was the owner and possessor of half of the Suit Schedule - 95 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

Property who dies intestate leaving behind his wife and daughter (plaintif) and after death of his mother the plaintif is the only

Class-I legal heir of the said Medipally Bala Muthyam Reddy to succeed half of share in the Suit Schedule Property.

160.The Learned counsel for the plaintif relied on citations i.e., (1) Maktul Vs. Manbhari and Ors reported in

AIR 1958 SC918 and wherein it was held that a property as ancestral it should proceed from father, grand father and great grand father.

161.The Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on citation in case of Kailash Rai Vs. Jai Jai Ram and Ors

reported in AIR 1973 SC 893, wherein it was held that

possession of one co-sharer is possession of both of his behalf as well as on behalf of all other co-sharers and the other co-sharers must be considered to be in constructive possession of Land, as such it can not be denied only by plea of ouster.

162.The Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on citation in case of Jagannath Amin Vs. Seetharama (Dead)

by Lrs. And Ors reported in 2007 (49) AIC 426 wherein it

was held that, mere non payment of income from the joint - 96 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal family property subsequently, does not amount to exclusion of possession.

163.The Learned counsel for the plaintiff further relied on citations Meenugu Mallaiah and Ors Vs. Ananthula

Rajaiah and Ors reported in Manu/AP/0769/2016 and wherein it was argued that Defendants can not claim any right basing on unregistered Sale or relinquishment Deed.

164.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

D2 to D5 relied on citations in case of Agasti Karuna and another Vs. Cherukuri Krishnaiah and others reported in 1999 (5) ALD 387 and argued that suit filed beyond three years from the date of attaining majority of the plaintifs and also beyond 12 years from the date of sale to the defendants, the suit is barred by limitation. While admitting law laid down therein, this court is of considered opinion that the facts and circumstance of the present case and the facts and circumstance of the said citation are entirely diferent as such, in the humble opinion of this court, the above citation is not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case. The co-owner can not be treated to have ousted from the possession as such the question of limitation does not arise.

- 97 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

165.The learned D12 relied on citations in case of

SK. Golam Lalchand Vs. Nandu Lal Shaw alias Nand Lal

Keshri alias Nandu Lal Bayes and others reported in 2024

SCC Online SC 2456 wherein it was held that the co-owner is not competent to execute any sale deed and gift deed without partitioning the property with meets and bounds.

166.Further, the learned D12 relied on citations in case of Pugazhenthi and another Vs. Sundari Ammal and others reported in 2013 (2) CTC 160 and argued that when a partition deed executed excluding the co-owner and behind back of the plaintif, the said partition deed is null and void.

167.The learned counsel for the Defendant No.1 relied on citations in case of Rohit Chauhan Vs. Surinder

Singh & others reported in 2013 128 AIC 17, 2013

Supreme (SC) 634 wherein it was held that coparcenary is a narrower body than the Joint Hindu Family and a coparcener has no definite share in the coparcenary property but he has an undivided interest and a father as Kartha of joint family can transfer ancestral property. Further, argued that the facts and circumstances of the present case and facts and circumstances of above citation are entirely diferent. While admitting law laid - 98 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal down therein, this court is of considered opinion that the facts and circumstance of the present case and the facts and circumstance of the said citation are entirely diferent as such, in the humble opinion of this court, the above citation is not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case. In this case, as already discussed there is no pleading in the written statement that the suit schedule property is coparcenary property. Further, there is no material to establish that the suit schedule property is coparcenary property, as such this court holds that the above citation is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

168.Further, the learned counsel for the Defendant

No.1 relied on citations in case of H.Vasanthi Vs. A.Santha (Dead) through Lrs. and others reported in 2023 Supreme (SC) 761, the above citation is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is no admission in the pleadings of the plaintif that the suit schedule property is a coparcenary property. Further, when the plaintif is able to show that she got half share in the suit schedule property any alienation if made during pendency of the suit is hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act and the rights of the transferee - 99 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal would depend on the result of the suit. Therefore, there is no applicability Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act in the present case. In this case, the plaintif is claiming her right U/sec. 8 of

Hindu Succession Act as successor of her father as Class-I legal heir and not U/sec. 6 of Hindu Succession Act as coparcerner.

Further, there is no pleading or proof to establish that the suit schedule property is a coparcenary property. Therefore, in the humble view of this court, the citation relied learned counsel for the Defendant No.1 is not applicable to the fact and circumstances of the present case.

169.Further, the learned counsel for the Defendant

No.1 relied on citations in case of M.P Obanna Vs. K.B

Anjaneyulu and Controller of Estate Duty, Madras Vs.

Alladi Kuppuswamy reported in 1999 Supreme (AP) 594 and argued that under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act 1937 a widow had a limited interest in the property of her deceased husband, and this interest was not a coparcenary interest. He further argued that if the widow died without seeking partition, her interest would merge into coparcenary property. Therefore, he claimed that the plaintif is not entitle for any right in the property. While admitting law laid down in the - 100 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal above citation, this court holds that the above citation is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As already discussed there is no pleading or evidence to establish that suit schedule property is coparcenary property. Further, the claim of the plaintif is U/sec. 8 of Hindu Succession Act an account of death of her father and not U/sec. 6 of Hindu

Succession Act. Therefore, in the humble view of this court the above citation is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

170.The learned counsel for the D2 to D5 argued that subsequent purchasers are not by party, as such the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. However, it is settled principle of law that the subsequent purchasers will not get any title over the property and they right would depend on result of the suit. As such, in the opinion of this court hold that, mere non joinder of subsequent purchasers is not fatal to the case of plaintif.

171.Therefore, in view of above discussion and for the reasons stated above and after considering the entire evidence on record and after considering the entire submission of both sides including their citations, this court holds that, suit - 101 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal schedule properties are liable to be partitioned between plaintif and defendants and that the plaintif is entitled partition and separate possession of ½ share in the Suit Schedule Property .

Issues No. 1 is answered accordingly.

172.Issue No.2: To what relief?

In view of finding on issues Nos.1, the suit of the plaintif is to be decreed with costs. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs and the suit schedule property shall be divided into two (2) equal shares; and the plaintif shall be entitled for half (½) share in Suit Schedule Property; and Defendant No.1 to D.11 are together entitled for remaining half (½) share in the Suit

Schedule Property, according to their entitlement, in the Suit

Schedule Property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of

October, 2025.

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge Medchal - Malkajgiri District, At Kukatpally FAC: II Additional District & Sessions Judge Medchal - Malkajgiri District, At Medchal - 102 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : - PW.1: Balamani @ Vimalamma PW.2 : P.Srinivas Reddy.

For Defendants : - DW1 : M.Veerabadra Reddy DW.2 : G.Venkata Ram Reddy DW.3 : M.Narasimha Reddy DW.4 : Nemuri Chandraiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff : -

Ex.A1 : CC of Kasara Pahani for the year (1954-55).

Ex.A2 : CC of Pahani for the year, (1984-85).

Ex.A3 : CC of Pahani for the year (2000-01).

Ex.A4 : Market Value certificate.

For Defendants : -

Ex.B1 : CC of Paisal Patti for the year 1984-85, showing names of D1 and his brothers.

Ex.B2 : CC of Pahani for the year (1985-86)

Ex.B3 : CC of Pahani for the year (1986-87)

Ex.B4 : CC of Pahani for the year (1987-88) - 103 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

Ex.B5 : CC of Pahani for the year (1988-89)

Ex.B6 : CC of Pahani for the year (1990-91)

Ex.B7 : CC of Pahani for the year (1992-93)

Ex.B8 : CC of Pahani for the year (1994-95)

Ex.B9 : CC of Pahani for the year (1996-97)

Ex.B10 : CC of Pahani for the year (2000-01)

Ex.B11 : CC of partition deed, dated 06.06.2004.

Ex.B12 : Original Pattadar Pass Book issued in favour of D1 with Patta No.382.

Ex.B13 : Original Title deed issued in favour of D1 with Patta No.382.

Ex.B14 : CC of sale deed in doc.No. 21214/2006, dt.18.12.2006.

Ex.B15 : CC of Gift settlement deed doc.No. 20705/2006, dt.13.12.2006.

Ex.B16 : CC of Gift settlement deed doc.No.20704/2006, dt.13.12.2006.

Ex.B17 : CC of sale deed in doc.No. 12752/2007, dt.01.12.2007.

Ex.B18 : CC of Pahani for Fasli 1422 (19 sheets), dt.18.12.2012

Ex.B19 : CC of Pahani for Fasli 1423 (19 sheets), dt.09.12.2014.

Ex.B20 : CC of Pahani for Fasli 1424 (19 sheets), dt.20.12.2014.

Ex.B21 : CC of ROR proceedings issued by Tahasildar, Shameerpet vide No.B/4703/2018, dated 05.02.2019.

Ex.B22 : CC of petition in CRP.MP.No. 1413/2009 in CRP.No. 991/2009 - 104 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

Ex.B23 : Original Regd. Partition deed doc.No. 7158/2004 (12 sheets) (7 sheets), dated 06.06.2004.

ExB24 : Original Rectification deed, doc No 9213/2019, dt.01.11.2019

Ex.B25 : Original Procs.No.B/1005/1998 of MRO, Shamirpet, dt.11.09.1998.

Ex.B26 : Original Procs.No.B/1005/1998 of MRO, Shamirpet, dt.11.09.1998.

Ex.B27 : Original Procs.No.B/1005/1998 of MRO, Shamirpet, dt.11.09.1998.

Ex.B28 : Original Procs.No.B/585/1999 of MRO, Shamirpet, dt.06.11.1999.

Ex.B29 : Original Procs.No.B/4703/2018, Tahsildar, Shamirpet (2 sheets), dated 05.02.2019.

Ex.B30 : CC of Pahani patriks for 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988- 89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1994-95, 1997- 98, 1999-2000 (Above pahanies contained 2 sheets) 1999-2000.

Ex.B31 : S.Dharani Pattadar Passbook of M.Hanumanth Reddy (2 sheets)

Ex.B32 : 1-B (ROR) of M.Hanumanth Reddy (2 sheets), (T.S).

Ex.B33 : CC of (T.S) Pahani for 2017 (18 Nos.) of M.Hanumanth Reddy.

Ex.B34 : Dharani Pattadar Passbook of M.Balwanth Reddy (3sheets)

Ex.B35 : CC of (T.S) Pahanies for 2017 (25 Nos.) of M.Balwanth Reddy

Ex.B36 : Dharani (T.S.)Pattadar Passbook of Smt.M.Shamala (2 sheets)

Ex.B37 : 1-B (ROR) (T.S) of Smt.M.Shamala (2 sheets).

- 105 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

Ex.B38 : CC of Pahani (T.S) for 2017 (24 Nos.) of Smt.M.Shamala

Ex.B39 : Original Title deed No.Z 373783, Patta No.660 of Smt. M Kishtamma.

Ex.B40 : Original Patta Pass Book No.Z 392781 of Smt.M.Kishtamma

Ex.B41 : Original Patta Pass Book No.Z 60963 of M.Narsimha Reddy.

Ex.B42 : Original Patta Pass Book No.Z 146539 of M.Balwanth Reddy

Ex.B43 : Original Patta Pass Book No.Z 146540 of M.Hanumanth Reddy

Ex.B44 : Original Patta Pass Book No.Z 146541 of Smt.M.Shamala

Ex.B45 : CC of RDO proceeding in Case No.A2/7282/2012, dt.27.04.2005

Ex.B46 : Copy of original sewthwar in respect of suit schedule property

Ex.B47 : Original Agreement dated 02.12.1985 executed by plaintif in favour of defendant No.1 to 5.

Ex.48, Ex.B49 and Ex.50 are the Old Pattadar Passbooks in the name of D2 to D5 reflecting individual extent of D2 to D5 in the Suit Schedule property.

Ex.B51 is Orders Dt.27-04-2015, passed by RDO against the orders

dt. 27-08-2012 of Tahsildar in respect of Suit Schedule property

infavour of the plaintif.

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge Medchal - Malkajgiri District, At Kukatpally FAC: II Additional District & Sessions Judge Medchal - Malkajgiri District, At Medchal - 106 - Judgment dt.17.10.2025 in OS No.125 of 2022 of II ADJ, Medchal

-1- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE – CUM - PRL. FAMILY COURT, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI

DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT:- Sri M. Venkateswara Rao III Addl. District & Sessions Judge -cum- Prl. Family Court, M.M.District At Kukatpally

Monday on this the 18th day of May, 2026

Sessions Case. No. 573 of 2023

1.Name of the ::The State through P.S., Bachupally complainant

2.Name & description of ::A1. Dil Prasad Saaru @ Kumar, S/o. the AccusedTandarilok Bahadur, Age 23 years, Occ: Fast Food Master , R/o. Behind the room of Ruchi Hotel, Indiranagar,Bachupally,N/o. PurtighatVillage,Kaligandaki Mandal, Geelmoi District Nepal.

A2 Bijay, S/o. Thandaridham Bahadur, Age 20 years, Occ: Fast FoodMaster,R/o. Rodamisthryanagar, Jagadgirigutta, Hyderabad, N/o.Bhurtung Village, Gulmi District, Nepal.

3.Section of Law::u/sec. 302, 392, 370(A), R/w. 34 of IPC.

4.Crime No.& P.S.::Cr.No.238 /2023, P.S. Bachupally

5.PRC.No.::86/2023

6.Name of the Officer, ::PJCJ Cum XI Additional Metropolitan who committed the Magistrate Kukatpally Cyberabad case -2- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

7.Prosecution conducted ::Addl. Public Prosecutor by

8.Defence conducted by ::Sri. Vasantha Rao

9.Plea of the accused::Not guilty

10. Finding of the Court::Found not guilty

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Vasantha Rao Learned Counsel for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following : -

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.Inspector of Police, P.S. Bahupally, filed Charge- sheet against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.238/2023 for the offence punishable U/Secs. 302, 392, 370, 370(A),r/w. 34 of IPC.

2. The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that : - i.On 21-04-2023 at about 11:50 hours, received a complaint from Sri. Sadu Vijay S/o. Suneel, R/o Madhusudhan

Reddy Nagar, Chinthal, Jeedimetla, in which he stated that on 21- 04-2023 at about 1100 hours when he was present in his house, he received a phone call from his mother's phone and informed that they are police Bachupally and asked who is that phone, he said that phone belongs to his mother by name Pooja W/o

Suneel. Then police told him to come to Indira Nagar, Bachupally.

Immediately he came to Indranagar, Bachupally and the police -3- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP were at the room behind Ruchi Hotel, they told him that one lady was expired and asked him to see and opened the door, he entered into the room and noticed that his mother Pooja was expired. When he checked, two round neck T-shirt blue and white colour inserted into her mouth, blue colour scarf with yellow pink flowers rounded her face and mouth and made her not to take breath and murdered her. When he enquired about the room belongs to whom, Mr. Kumar who is the Chinese Master in the

Ruchi Hotel alone is residing in that room. On 20.04.2023 at 1830 hours his mother left the house by saying that she is going to work, but she did not return to house. Everyday she used to come to house at 12 night or 0200 hours. As she did not come to house in the night, he called her phone so many times, but her phone was switched off. He came to know through the persons of hotel that yesterday night it seems that Kumar along with his friends has taken his mother to room and murdered her.

Thereafter, he requested to take necessary action.

ii.Basing on the statement of complainant/ Sadu Vijay,

Sri. N. Suman Kumar /LW23, Inspector of police, P.S. Bachupllay, has register a case in Cr. No.238/2023, U/sec. 302 of IPC and took up the investigation.

3.During the course of investigation, LW23/Sri. N.

Suman Kumar, secured the presence of the LW1/Sri. Sadu Vijay -4- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP who is the son of the deceased Pooja, examined and recorded his statement in detail which is incorporated as Part-II CD, in which, he has spoken the parallel facts of FIR content Immediately, LW- 23 visited the scene of offence, and examined minutely and secured the presence of the LWs 10 and 11 and conducted the scene of offence observation panchanama and rough sketch of the scene and seized one ACE company cell phone No 7842172166, one TSRTC bus ticket from Balanagar to KPHB, white blue colour round neck T shirt, Blue colour scarf having yellow pink colour flowers, one liter kinely empty water bottle,

Bisleri 2 liter empty water bottle, cement colour hand bag.

deceased hair clip pieces from the scene of offence under the cover of scene of offence observation cum seizure panchanama and also taken the photographs. Further the LW-23/Sri.Suman

Kumar, also conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased Smt, Pooja in presence of the LWs 10 to 12 by namely

Sri Syed Khaja, Sri Gongula Srinivas and Smt. Rangu Vijaya. After the Inquest the body was shifted to Gandhi Hospital mortuary for

PME, where the LW-19/Dr. Mahender, conducted the conducted the autopsy and handed over the deceased clothes i.e. red colour legging, Red, yellow lines top and 2 toe rings, one pair spurious gold ear rings to Police. After PME the dead body was handed over to the blood relatives of the deceased.

-5- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

4.During the course of investigation by LW23, it is elicited that the accused persons hail from Nepal. In the month of

December 2022 the A1/Dil Prasad Saaru @ Kumar S/o. Tnadarilok

Bahadur and about 3 months back the A2/Bijay S/o.

Thandaridham Bahadur came from Nepal to Hyderabad for eking their livelihood. One Khasim Thapa/LW8 previously worked in

Ruchi Hotel as Fast Food Cook, kept the A1 in Ruchi Hotel as Fast food cook. Presently the A1 is working in Ruchi Hotel Indirangar,

Bachupally and stayed in a room behind the Ruchi Hotel as tenant. The A2 is working in Mother Foods and Bakery at

Rodamisthrynagar. While the A1 was working previously in King

Fast food centre at Rodamisthry nagar. They both known to each other and became friends since they hails from Nepal.

5.On 20.04.2023 due to off duty to the A1, he went to

Gajularamaram and met with A2 and after swimming they came to the room of the A2. There they decided to engage a sex worker for fulfills their sexual desires. As such they both went to

Bhagyanagar, Kukatpally and engaged the victim/Pooja and when contacted she asked Rs.6,000/- for full night and indulge for the prostitution. The accused persons agreed and given the amount to her and boarded the auto and came to the room of the A1 behind Ruchi Hotel at about 1030 hours. The A1 kept her in the room and took 2 fried rice, where the LW2/Naveen who is the -6- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP owner of the Hotel asked about A2. The A1 informed that he is his villager and friend. Later the A1 went to the room and fulfilled his sexual desires. Later the A2 completed his sexual desires.

When the A1 and A2 asked to participate in sex in second time, she demanded Rs.2,000/- more. Then the A1 and A2 questioned that for full night only they gave Rs.6000/- and asked to ready for sex. But she denied, as such the A2 given Rs.1000/- to her, but she informed them that she will and tried to go outside. Seeing this the A2 picked her and pulled into the room, where the deceased tried to made shout told she will call the police, due to which the duo afraid in which the A2 shut her mouth and nose with scarf, mean time they found the cash in the deceased legging and robbed the same cash. Later the A1 took his T shirt and choked into the mouth of the deceased, caused she lost her breath and died. After confirming her death they boarded the ola auto of LW7/Rathlavath Ramesh and got down at Gajularamaram road and decided to go Nepal to avoid the arrest by the police and planned to go their native place.

6.On 21.04.2023 at about 07:00 pm, while the A1 was present in Sriram Footwear, Jagadgirigutta belongs to the shop of

A1 uncle, the police apprehended him and brought to PS and seized net cash of Rs.6,000/- and a cell phone from the possession of A1. Later the LW23 also arrested the A2/Bijay at -7- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Mother fast food centre, opp. Chittaramma Temple,

Gajularamaram and seized net cash of Rs.1000/- and a cell phone from his possession. Thus, the acts of the accused persons constitute an offence which liable to be punished U/sec. 302, 392, 370, 370(A) r/w 34 of IPC.

7.The learned PJCJ Cum XI Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate Court at Kukatpally, Cyberabad, took cognizance of

offences punishable U/secs. 302, 392, 370, 370(A), r/w 34 of IPC against the Accused Nos.1 and 2, vide PRC No.86/2023 and issued summons to them. After appearance of Accused Nos.1 and 2, the learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents to them and the offence U/sec. 302, 392, 370, 370(A), R/w. 34 IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Hon’ble Sessions Court and in turn, the Hon’ble

Metropolitan Sessions Court assigned SC No 573 of 2023 and made over the case to this Court for disposal according to Law.

8.After receiving this case, summons was issued to

A1 and A2. After their appearance, the A1 and A2 was examined

U/Sec.227 Cr.P.C and Charge U/sec. 302, 392, and 370(A) r/w 34 of IPC was framed against the accused Nos. 1 & 2, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.During trial, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to

PW.17 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P22, and -8- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

MO.1 to MO.10. The concerned police reported that BW issued to

LW1/Sri. Sadu Vijay, not executed, therefore, evidence of LW1 closed. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor had given up the evidence of LW4/Sri. Nakkalapalli Rajesh, LW8/ Sri. Khasam

Thapa, LW12/Smt. Rangu Vijaya and LW22/Sri. V. Ramesh. The police reported that LW6/Sri Gudikandula Manikanta, summons unserved as where about not known and witness not support to the facts of offence and reported no further evidence. After closing prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., for which they denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

10. Heard the arguments on both sides. Written

Arguments filed on behalf of the accused. Perused the record.

11. Now the point for determination is : - “Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of accused Nos. 1 & 2 for the offences punishable u/s. 302, 392 and 370(A) r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts ? ”

12. Point : - The case of prosecution is that, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were engaged the victim/deceased/Pooja for sexual enjoyment, and when contacted she asked Rs.6,000/- for full night and indulge for the prostitution. The accused persons agreed and given the amount to her and boarded the -9- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP auto and came to the room of the A1 behind Ruchi Hotel at about 1030 hours. The A1 kept her in the room and took two fried rice, where the LW2/Naveen who is the owner of the Hotel asked about A2. The A1 informed that he is his villager and friend. Later the A1 went to the room and fulfilled his sexual desires. Later the

A2 completed his sexual desires. When the A1 and A2 asked to participate in sex second time, she demanded Rs.2,000/- more.

Then the A1 and A2 questioned that for full night only they gave

Rs.6000/- and asked to ready for sex. But she denied, as such the

A2 given Rs.1000/- to her, but she informed them that she will and tried to go outside. Seeing this the A2 picked her and pulled into the room, where the deceased tried to made shout told she will call the police, due to which the duo afraid in which the A2 shut her mouth and nose with scarf, mean time they found the cash in the deceased legging and robbed the same cash. Later the A1 took his T shirt and choked into the mouth of the deceased, caused she lost her breath and died. After confirming her death they boarded the ola auto of LW7/Rathlavath Ramesh and got down at Gajularamaram road and decided to go Nepal to avoid the arrest by the police and planned to go their native place, and thereby, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable u/sec. 392, 370 and 370(A) r/w 34 of IPC.

13. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined -10- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

PWs.1 to 17 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22 and MO.1 to MO.10.

PW1 and PW2 are the witnesses 1st seen the deceased, PW3 is the circumstantial witness and informed to police, PW4 is the circumstantial witness and dropped the accused persons at

Shapur Nagar Main Road, PW5 is the Retrieved the CC footage and issued certificate u/section 65(B) IE Act, PW6 and PW7 are the Panch witnesses for SOC/inquest, PW8 and PW9 are the

Panch witnesses for confessional statement cum seizer panchanama of A1 and A2, PW10 is the dog squad incharge,

PW11 is the Nodel Officer, Reliance and Jio, issued certificate of

CDR/CAF of Cell No. 63006 38769, 98636 36483 (A2) and issued 65(B) certificate, PW12 is the Nodel Officer, Airtel, Barathi Mobile service, Issued certified copy of CDR/CAF of cell No.78421 72166 (deceased) and issued 65(B) certificate, PW13 is the Medical

Officer, who conducted potency test on A1 and A2 and issued report. PW14 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PME, PW15 is the

Magistrate, who conducted TI parade against the A1 and A2 by

LW7 on 27.05.2023,PW16 is Nodel Officer, Voda Phone service issued certified copy of CDR/CAF of cell No.96400 54386 (A1) and issued 65(B) certificate, PW17 is the Investigating officer.

14. Ex.P1 is Pen drive with CCTV footage, Ex.P2 is -11- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Scene Observation Report with rough sketch, Ex.P3 is inquest report, Ex.P4 is Signature of PW7 on Scene observation report,

Ex. P5 is Signature of PW7 on inquest report, Ex.P6 is Relevant

Portion of Confession Mediators report, dt.21.04.2023, Ex.P7 is

Relevant portion of confessional Statement of A1, Ex.P8 is

Relevant portion of confessional statement of A2, Ex.P9 is

Covering letter dated 16.06.2023 along with information, Ex.P10 is the 65-B Certificate, Ex. P11 is Application form along with

CDR, Ex.P12 is covering letter dated 01.06.2023 along with 65-B

Certificate, Ex.P13 is Application form along with CDR, Ex.P14 is

Potency Certificates of A1, Ex. P15 is potency Certificate of A2,

Ex.P16 is PME report, Ex.P17 is Test Identification Parade proceedings dt.27.05.2023, Ex.P18 is covering letter, dated 29.05.2023 along with information, Ex.P19 is the 65-B Certificate,

Ex. 20 is Application form along with CDR, Ex.P21 is FIR, Ex.P22 is

Report. MO.1 is Vivo Mobile Phone, MO.2 is Honor Mobile Phone,

MO.3 is ACE company keypad mobile phone (Not Working), MO.4 is Bus Ticket, MO.5 is White and Blue round neck T-Shirt, MO.6 is

Blue Colour Clap, MO.7 is One liter empty Kinley water bottle,

MO.8 is empty Bisleri water bottle (Two liters), MO.9 is Hand bag of deceased, and MO.10 is pieces of Hair clip of deceased.

15. To prove the charge against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 punishable U/sec. 302, 392, 370(A) r/w. 34 of IPC, the -12- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. In this regard PW1, who is said to 1st seen the deceased had deposed that he know LW3 and LW4 namely Ramu and Rajesh. LW5/Mangamma is his junior maternal aunt, and he know LW8/Khasam Thapa who earlier worked in Ruchi Hotel. He further deposed that he know accused No.1 who came in the place of LW8/Khasam Thapa in Ruchi Hotel, and the LW8/Khasam

Thapa employed the accused No.1 in Ruchi Hotel. He do not know accused No.2 earlier to the incident. PW.1 further deposed that the accused No.1 worked in Ruchi Hotel for 25 days.

17. PW1 further deposed that on 20.04.2023 the accused No.1 did not attended the work but he came at 11.00 to claim his one day salary. As the salary was not given, on that day accused No.1 refused to attend duty. On the same night about 10.15 A.1 came to hotel for having dinner long with the accused No.2 and that accused No.1 introduced A.2 as his friend.

Accused Nos.1 and 2 had parcel of the food and went to their room which is behind the hotel. On the next day morning the accused No.1 is supposed to attend duty by 10.00 AM, but he did not turn up as such he went to their room and called the accused

No.1. However nobody responded from the room. However the door was not locked and it is partly opened. PW.1 further -13- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP deposed that when he saw through that opening, he saw a person lying on the floor turning towards the right side. Accused

No.1 is very lean however the person lying on the ground is chubby as such he called said LW3/Ramu and LW.4/Rajesh for verification. After they came they opened the door and found a person lying on the ground. They have notice a chunni around the face of that person and there was T-shirt and pant on that person, as such they could not identify whether it is male or female. PW.1 further deposed that he passed the information to

LW5/Mangamma who in turn passed the information to the police. By the time he saw the person in the room of A1, the person was wearing chappals and there is a hand bag by the side of that person. Within 10 minutes after receiving information from LW5/Mangamma, the police came to the room of A1. The police removed the chunni around the face of the person and then they identified it as a lady. Further they found a cloth in the mouth of the said person. On the same day the police recorded his statement.

18. The learned counsel for the accused cross examined PW1,during such cross examination, it was suggested to the PW.1 that A.1 nerved worked in the Ruchi Hotel and he never lived in the room behind the hotel. During cross examination PW.1 deposed that he stated before the police that -14- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

A.1 refused to attend the work on 20.04.2023 as his wages were not given. But, here the evidence of PW.1 is not showing that the

A.1 and A.2 came along with a women/deceased.

19. The evidence of PW2, is also said to seen the deceased and he identified A.1 in the open court, however he deposed that he do not know A.2. PW.2 further deposed that worked in the Ruchi hotel since two years of his evidence. under

LW5/Mangamma. He know A1 as he worked as fast food master in Ruchi hotel for 20 days and used to stay a room behind the sid

Hotel.

20. Further PW2 deposed that on 20.04.2023 at about 10.00 AM the A1 came to the hotel and asked for salary, but PW1 refused to give the salary as A1 attended duty only for one day.

Then A1 left the hotel refusing to work. At 09.00 PM after completion of his duty he (PW.2) left the hotel. His evidence further shows that, on the next day morning he came to hotel at about 10.00 AM, in the mean time PW1 went to the room of the

A1 to call him to attend the work and PW.1 noticed deadbody of deceased in the room of A.1 and on information of

LW.5/Mangamma, police came. PW.2 further deposed that the police informed them that A1 brought that lady to his room.

21. The learned counsel for the accused cross examined

PW2,during such cross examination PW.2 deposed that he had -15- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP seen the A.1 on 20.04.2023 when he came to ask Salary, later he did not see the A.1. But, here the evidence of PW.2 is not showing that the A.1 and A.2 came along with a women/deceased.

22. Further, PW3/Mangamma is Circumstantial witness and informed to police and her evidence showing that she know

PW1, PW2 and LW4/Rajesh who are working in her hotel. She know the A1/Kumar, who worked as fast food master in her hotel for a period of 20 days. She running hotel by name Ruchi hotel from 6 months prior to the incident in this case. The PW1 used to make parcels in her hotel. The PW2 is the cook.

23. Further PW3 deposed that on 20.04.2023 the A1 did not come to attend duty but came to hotel in the morning and asked for daily wages of Rs.700/-. However that amount was not given as he did not attend the work. So A.1 left the hotel and again came to hotel about 10 or 10.30 pm and that he took rice parcel and left the hotel. On the next day morning A1 supposed to attend the duty by 09.30 am, but he did not come to hotel as such the PW.1 went to the room of A.1 and noticed dead body;

PW.1 further deposed that the son of the deceased came and identified the dead body. By that time PW.3 went to room of A1 except the body none were present. PW.3 identified A.1 in the open court. PW.3 further deposed that on 20.04.2023 at night -16- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP time A1 as well as A2 came to her hotel, took the rice parcel and went to the room of A1. Prior to the incident A1 started living in that room from 20 days.

24. The learned counsel for the accused cross examined

PW3,during such cross examination PW.1 deposed that prior to

A.1, someone else used to live in that room. PW.1 admitted that she maintain the register regarding work entrusted to her employees. PW.3 deposed that the room of A.1 is beside the road and there is a open space. PW.1 deposed during her cross that she has seen while accused entering into his room. Surprisingly, she made a contradictory statement that through PW.1 only she came to know that she went tot he room of A.1 and person lying in the room. She further deposed that on 20.04.2023, she saw the A.1 and A.2 when they came to hotel at night time for taking rice parcel and she had no prior acquittance. Surprisingly, PW.3 deposed that on the same day again she saw the accused in the police station. Here the evidence of PW.3 is self contradictory as such her evidence is appearing doubtful.

25. Further, PW.3 failed to produce any register to establish that the A.1 is working under PW.3 in the said Hotel. At least they should have produced attendance register or any other material to establish that the A.1 working in the said hotel and he present in the hotel on 20.04.2026. Further, there is no material -17- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP independent evidence or document is filed to establish that the said Room is Exclusively belongs to the A.1. Even evidence of

PW.1 to PW.3 is appearing self contradictory on material aspects.

Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 to PW.3 is highly doubtful.

26. PW4, a circumstantial witness, deposed that he is an auto driver of Auto bearing No. TS 05 UE 7069 for the last 10 years. He further deposed that on 21.04.2023 during night time at about 12:30 AM, while he was driving his Ola auto at

Bachupally, he received a booking to go from Bachupally to

Shapur Nagar. Thereafter, two male passengers came there, showed the OTP, and he took them to Shapur Nagar, dropping them at Roadamestry Nagar, for which they paid Rs. 204/-. He then left the place. On the same day, the police called him and enquired about the said two persons regarding their description and physical features; the police examined him and recorded his statement. Subsequently, the police took him to the jail, where he identified the said two persons who traveled in his auto. He further stated that he can identify those two male persons, and he deposed that A1 and A2, who are present in the court hall, were the same persons who traveled in Surprisingly, during his cross examination, PW.4 admitted that after some days ofSurprisingly, during his cross examination, PW.4 admitted that after some days of propping the accused, police have shown the -18- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

A.1 and A.2 at police station. This admission shows that before

Test identification, the A.1 and A.2 were shown to the witnesses.

It in validates the very identification of accused by the witnesses in test identification parade. propping the accused, police have shown the A.1 and A.2 at police station. This admission shows that before Test identification, the A.1 and A.2 were shown to the witnesses. It in validates the very identification of accused by the witnesses in test identification parade. his auto on that day.

27. Surprisingly, during his cross examination, PW.4 admitted that after some days of dropping the accused, police have shown the A.1 and A.2 at police station. This admission shows that before Test identification, the A.1 and A.2 were shown to the witnesses. It in validates the very identification of accused by the witnesses in test identification parade.

28. The evidence of PW5, who is Retrieved the CC footage and issued certificate U/S 65 (B) IE Act, deposed that he was working as CCTV technician. On 21.04.2023 at about 10.30

AM, the CI of police (LW23/Sri. Suman Kumar) called him to Indira

Nagar, Bachupally and asked him to download CCTV footage from Ruchi hotel. Accordingly, he have copied the said CCTV footage into a pendrive which reveals that two male persons and one female person got down from the auto in the front of the said hotel and walked away. he also issued 65-B certificate. Ex.P1 is -19- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP pendrive with CCTV footage.

29. This court thoroughly verified the said CCTV Fotage and perused the same, but it is not clear CCTV Footage to identify the persons who got down from the auto; Therefore, said

CCTV Footage is not establishing the exact identification of either accused or the deceased.

30. The evidence of PW6 is at best showing that the police observed the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P2 scene observation report with rough sketch and police held inquest over the dead body and prepare Ex.P3 is inquest report. Surprisingly,

PW.6 deposed that he do not know the contents of Ex.A.2 and

Ex.P.3. Therefore, the evidence of PW.6 is also not helpful to the case of prosecution.

31. PW7, said to a panch witness for the Scene of

Offence (SOC) and Inquest, deposed that he has been running a chicken center at Indira Nagar, Bachupally for 20 years, adjacent to PW6's barber shop, and both shops are near Ruchi Hotel. He stated that in 2023, one morning, he noticed the dead body of a woman in a room behind the said hotel, but claimed he knows nothing else about the case. He admitted that police obtained his signatures on papers; Ex.P4 is his signature on the scene observation report and Ex.P5 is his signature on the inquest report, though he claimed ignorance of the contents of both -20- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP documents. Consequently, PW7 was declared hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, his evidence is also not helpful to the case of prosecution.

32. PW8 and PW9, said to panch witnesses for the confessional statement cum seizure panchanama of A1 and A2, deposed that on 21.04.2023 (PW8) and 20.04.2023 (PW9), they were called to Bachupally Police Station where they found A1 and

A2 in police custody. There is a glaring contradiction between these two witnesses as to the fact as to when the said mediators reports were prepared and when the accused alleged to have confessed this offence. This itself is sufficient to doubt the alleged confessions and recovery of alleged Material objects and preparation of alleged mediators reports.

33. Further, both witnesses stated that upon interrogation, A1 and A2 confessed to the offence of killing the deceased, pursuant to which the police allegedly recovered Rs.

6,000/- and one mobile phone (MO1) from A2, and Rs. 1,000/- and another mobile phone (MO2) from A1, under cover of mediators' reports (Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P8). However, the evidence of both witnesses clearly establishes that the alleged confession and recoveries took place at the police station while the accused were in police custody. Since the purported confession was made

before a police officer and not in the manner prescribed under

-21- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and further, the recoveries did not lead to the discovery of any new fact as the articles were allegedly produced from the accused while already in custody at the police station, such evidence is not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The fundamental requirement for admissibility of a disclosure statement is that it must lead to the discovery of a fact previously unknown to the police, which is conspicuously absent in this case. Therefore, the alleged extra-judicial confessions

before PW8 and PW9, being recorded at the police station

without compliance with legal safeguards, are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon against the accused.

34. Further, the evidence of PW10, who is Dog squad incharge gave in his evidence that he was working as Police

Constable and he was incharge of Dog Squad of Cyberabad Police

Commissionarate. On 21.04.2023, at about 01.00 PM, he received information that one lady was murdered by unknown persons within Bachupally Police limits. As such, he went there along with Dog by name Spider, he have shown the dead body of deceased lady and he noticed some cloth was there in the mouth. After smelling the dead body, the said Dog went to 500 meters and stopped there. They did not find any Clue through their Dog. This evidence in no way helpful to the prosecution to -22- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP connect the accused to the alleged offence.

35. Further, PW11, who is Nodal Officer gave in his evidence that he was working as Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio,

Somajiguda, Hyderabad. He received summons in this case to give evidence. On 17.05.2023, he have received requisition from

DCP, Balanagar to furnish CDR/CAF of Cell Nos.6300638769, 9863636483. Accordingly, he have furnished Call Data Records and Customer Application Form to the DCP, Balanagar in respect of the said mobile numbers. Ex.P9 is covering letter dated 16.06.2023 along with information. Ex.P10 is the 65-B certificate. Ex.P11 is Application Form along with CDR. The

Mobile Nos.6300638769 stands in the name of Raj Kumar (A1), and 9863636483 stands in the name of Jessica.

36. The evidence of PW12, who is Nodal officer, gave in his evidence that he was working as Nodal Officer, Bharathi,

Airtel, Begumpet. He received summons in this case to give evidence. On 15.05.2023, his predecessor by name V.Venkata

Narayana have received requisition from DCP, Balanagar to furnish CDR/CAF of Cell No.7842172166 for the period from 01.04.2023 to 22.04.2023. Accordingly, he have furnished Call

Data Records and Customer Application Form to the DCP,

Balanagar in respect of the said mobile number. Ex.P12 is covering letter dated 01.06.2023 along with 65-B certificate.

-23- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Ex.P13 is Application Form along with CDR. The said mobile number stands in the name of Vijay Sadu S/o Sunil Sadu.

37. The evidence of PW11 and PW12 does not establish any incriminating material to connect A1 (Dil Prasad Saaru @

Kumar) or A2 (Bijay) to the alleged crime, nor does it show that either accused contacted the deceased, Sadhu Pooja. There is absolutely no evidence on record that any of the aforementioned mobile numbers belong to the deceased. The prosecution has not produced any number belonging to Sadhu Pooja. Similarly, there is no evidence linking A2 (Bijay) to any mobile number whatsoever. The number 9863636483 stands in the name of "Jessica," who is not connected to the deceased or the accused, and the number 7842172166 stands in the name of Vijay Sadu, an unrelated third party. Most critically, both PW11 and PW12 admitted during their cross-examination that the said mobile numbers deposed by them do not stand in the names of A1 or

A2. This admission directly contradicts PW11's initial claim and completely destroys the probative value of the nodal evidence.

Therefore, this evidence fails to connect the accused to the crime or to establish any communication between the accused and the deceased, Sadhu Pooja.

38. Further, the evidence of PW13, who is Medical

Officer, gave in his evidence that on 22.05.2023 on the -24- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP requisition of Inspector of Police he have conducted Potency Test of Dil Prasad Saru (A1) and Bijay (A2) and issued Potency

Certificates. Ex.P14 is Potency Certificate of A1. Ex.P15 is

Potency certificate of A2. He was of the opinion after general, physical and local examination of above individuals, there is nothing to suggest that they are not capable of performing

Sexual act.

39. The evidence of PW14, who is Medical Officer and gave in his evidence that he on 22.04.2023, on the requisition of

Station House Officer, Bachupally Police, he have conducted

Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased/Sadu Pooja, aged about 38 years and noted Ante Mortem injuries that have been mentioned in Column No.9 of Post Mortem Examination report

dated 22.04.2023. He issued post mortem examination report

which is marked Ex.P16. The cause of death is due to “Asphyxia, due to pressure over the Wind Pipe (Neck)”. This evidence at best is showing that deceased died due to Asphyxia, due to pressure over the Wind Pipe (Neck)

40. Further, the evidence of PW15, who is Magistrate of I

AJCJ-Cum-I Addl. JFCM, M. M. District at Kukatpally gave in her evidence that on 27.05.2023, she have conducted Test

Identification Parade at 10.45 AM, at Chenchalguda Jail premises on requisition of SI of police, Bachupally in respect of A1/Dil -25- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Prasad Saru @ Kumar and A2/ Bijay. She have authorized by the I

Addl. District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District to conduct Test

Identification Parade vide proceedings in Dis.No.1339, dated 26.05.2023. Basing on which she fixed date of conducting Test

Identification Parade on 27.05.2023 at the premises of Central

Prison Chenchalguda and issued proceedings to the

Superintendent of concerned jail and also issued summons to witness to appear before Central Prison, Chenchalguda on 27.05.2023 at 10.30 AM. Before proceeding for Test Identification

Parade, she have recorded the brief statement of witnesses by name Ramlavath Ramesh (PW4) to ascertain as to how he can identify the witness. Later she proceeded to conduct Test

Identification Parade of A1 and A2 in the conference hall which was closed by Four walls taking precautions as to privacy and that it will not appear to others. On her requisition, the

Superintendent, Chenchalguda arranged Ten Non Suspects who are with similar age, height and complexion with that of accused as per as possible. During such Test Identification Parade proceedings, the witness by name Ramlavath Ramesh (PW4) identified the A1 and A2. Later she sent back the Non Suspects and questioned the Suspect No.1/A1 and A2 and they pleaded nothing and they did not report any dissatisfaction as to the conducting of Test Identification Parade. Ex.P17 isTest -26- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Identification Parade proceedings dated 27.05.2023.

41. This evidence of PW15 is not helpful to the prosecution in view of the admission of PW4. As already noted in the evidence of PW4 himself, he was called by the police on the very same day of the incident (21.04.2023) and was taken to the jail, where he identified the said two persons who traveled in his auto. This means that PW4 had already seen and identified A1 and A2 in the police station premises at the instance of the police long before the formal Test Identification Parade conducted by

PW15 on 27.05.2023. The purpose of a Test Identification Parade is to test the memory and recognition ability of a witness who has had no prior exposure to the accused after the incident. Once

PW4 admits that he was taken to the jail and shown the accused by the police, the entire exercise of the TIP becomes meaningless and its evidentiary value is completely vitiated. Therefore, the purported identification of A1 and A2 by PW4 during the TIP conducted by PW15 carries no weight in law and cannot be relied upon to connect the accused to the alleged offence.

42. The evidence of PW16, who is Nodal Officer, gave in her evidence that she was working as Nodal Officer, Vodafone,

Idea, since 2016. She have received requisition from DCP,

Balanagar to furnish CDR/CAF of Cell Nos.9640054386 for the period from 01.04.2023 to 22.04.2023. Accordingly, she have -27- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP furnished Call Data Records and Customer Application Form to the DCP, Balanagar in respect of the said mobile number. Ex.P18 is covering letter dated 29.05.2023 along with information.

Ex.P19 is the 65-B certificate. Ex.P20 is Application Form along with CDR. The Mobile No. 9640054386 stands in the name of

Laxman Veer Bahadur Singh Viswa Karma.

43. This evidence of PW.16 also does not connect the accused to the alleged crime for the following reasons. Firstly, the mobile number 9640054386 stands in the name of Laxman

Veer Bahadur Singh Viswa Karma, who is neither A1 (Dil Prasad

Saaru @ Kumar) nor A2 (Bijay). Secondly, the prosecution has placed no evidence on record to show that this Laxman Veer

Bahadur Singh Viswa Karma is in any way connected to the deceased Sadhu Pooja or to the accused. Thirdly, there is no evidence whatsoever that any communication took place between this mobile number and any number belonging to the accused or the deceased. Merely producing the CDR and CAF of a mobile number belonging to an unrelated third party has no probative value and does not advance the prosecution's case in any manner. Therefore, the evidence of PW16 is completely irrelevant and useless for establishing any guilt against A1 or A2.

44. The prosecution may seek to rely upon the alleged confession of A1 and A2 and the recovery of mobile phones -28- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP thereunder, but such evidence is not admissible in law. As already noted, the alleged confession was made before the police at the police station while the accused were in police custody, and therefore it falls squarely within the prohibition under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , which renders confessions made before a police officer inadmissible. Furthermore, the recoveries of MO1 (Vivo mobile phone) and MO2 (Honor mobile phone) from A1 and A2 were also effected at the police station and did not lead to the discovery of any new fact previously unknown to the police, as required for admissibility under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the absence of any disclosure statement leading to the discovery of a fresh fact, the alleged seizure of mobile phones from the custody of the accused at the police station carries no evidentiary value. The panch witnesses (PW8 and PW9) themselves admitted that the confession and recovery took place at the police station, which vitiates the entire exercise. Therefore, the alleged confession and the recovery of mobile phones are both inadmissible and cannot be used against the accused.

45. Further, PW17, Investigating officer gave in his evidence that he was working as Inspector of Police, Kondapur.

Previously he worked as Inspector of Police, Police Station

Bachupally from March 2023 to December 2023. On 21.04.2023 -29- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP at about 11:50 am, he received a written report of LW1/Sadu

Vijay, basing on which he registered this case in Crime No. 238 of 2023 U/Sec. 302 of IPC, and issued FIR, which is marked as

Ex.P21. Ex.P22 is report. He examined LW1/Sadu Vijay, at Police station. Later he visited scene of offence which is situated at a

Room behind Ruchi Hotel, at Indira Nagar, Bachupally. Their he examined PWs 1 to 4 and LW4/Rajesh, LW6/Manikanta, and

LW9/Kasham Thapa and recorded their statements and he have collected CC TV footage. He examined scene of offence and prepared Ex.P2/Scene observation report and rough sketch. He have seized Phone of deceased at scene of offence and one Bus

Ticket. He have also seized White and Blue Colour T-Shirt, Blue

Colour Scarf, one liter Kinley water bottle, two liter Bisleri water bottle, Hand Bag of deceased, and Broken Hair Clips of deceased under cover of Ex.P2. MO.3 is Ace Company keypad mobile phone (Not Working), MO.4 is Bus Ticket, MO.5 is White and Blue Round

Neck T-Shirt, MO.6 is Blue Colour Clap, MO.7 is one liter empty

Kinley water Bottle, MO.8 is empty Bisleri water Bottle (Two liters), MO.9 is Hand Bag of deceased, MO.10 is pieces of Hair

Clip of deceased.

46. PW17 further deposed that later he have shifted the dead body to Gandhi Hospital, and their he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P3 is said inquest report. On -30- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP 21.04.2023, he arrested A1, and interrogated him in the presence of PW8 and PW9, and the accused confessed this offence. he stated that he would show the A2 if they accompany him. Upon such conclusion he recovered MO.2 Honour Cell Phone and Cash of Rs.6,000/-. Later A1 led his to the Mother & Food Bakery Shop, near Chittaramma Temple at Gajula Ramaram, where he arrested the A2 and the A2 also confessed this offence basing on which he recovered Rs.1000/- and MO.1 One Vivo Cell Phone from the possession of A2. Later he sent the accused to court for remand.

PW15 conducted Test Identified Parad. After collecting PME, he filed charge sheet.

47. However, the evidence of PW17 suffers from the same fatal infirmities as discussed earlier. The alleged confessions of A1 and A2 were made before the police officer (PW17 himself) while the accused were in police custody, and therefore such confessions are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, the recoveries of mobile phones and cash were effected at the police station and not pursuant to any disclosure statement leading to the discovery of a new fact unknown to the police, thereby failing to meet the stringent requirements of Section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. The panch witnesses PW8 and PW9, who were declared hostile or whose evidence was discredited, -31- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP admitted that the confession and recovery took place at the police station. Consequently, the entire investigation conducted by PW17, insofar as it relies upon the inadmissible confessions and recoveries, has no legal basis and cannot be used to convict the accused. The Test Identification Parade conducted by PW15 was also rendered meaningless as PW4 had already seen and identified the accused at the police station prior to the formal TIP.

Therefore, the evidence of PW17 does not advance the prosecution's case in any manner.

48. The above material on record shows that the

entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial

evidence;. In Sarad Birdhi Cirdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of

Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1162, the Supreme Court laid down following rules regarding Circumstantial evidence.

1. The circumstances should be fully established, from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn.

2. Circumstances should be of conclusive nature,

3. They should exclude every possible hypothesis,

4. It must show that will all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.

49. In Krishnan v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2008) 15 SCC 430, Supreme Court held that to rely upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the -32- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP following tests:

(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency un-erringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that with all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and

50. Now this Court will appreciate whether the

chain of circumstances is forged link by link as follows:

Link No.1: Motive (against A1 and A2):

The prosecution alleged that the motive for the murder arose when the deceased demanded an additional Rs.2,000/- for a second sexual act after having received Rs.6,000/- for the full night. This alleged motive is derived solely from the confessional statements of A1 and A2 made before the police (Ex.P7 and

Ex.P8). As already stated supra, a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872. No independent witness, including PW1, PW2, or PW3, has deposed to hearing any quarrel or demand for additional -33- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP money. The prosecution has produced no evidence of any financial transaction between the accused and the deceased. No cash was recovered from the scene of offence that could be linked to the alleged payment of Rs.6,000/-. The recoveries of

Rs.6,000/- from A1 and Rs.1,000/- from A2 were made at the police station and are inadmissible. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish any motive attributable to either A1 or

A2 through admissible evidence. This link is NOT PROVED.

51. Link No.2: The Accused Were Residing in the

Room Where the Dead Body Was Found (against A1):

The prosecution sought to prove that A1 was residing in the room behind Ruchi Hotel and that A2 came along with A.1.

The evidence of PW1 shows that A1 worked as a fast food master in Ruchi Hotel for about 20 days and stayed in a room behind the hotel. The evidence of PW2 corroborates that A1 worked in the hotel for 20 days and lived in the said room. The evidence of PW3 (owner of Ruchi Hotel) shows that A1 started living in that room from 20 days prior to the incident. However, even after the test of cross-examination, PW3 admitted that she maintained no attendance register or any documentary proof to establish that

A1 was working under her. No agreement and no independent witness has been produced to establish exclusive possession of the room by A1. PW3 further admitted that prior to A1, someone -34- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP else used to live in that room. The room being behind the hotel and accessible to others, the prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt that the room was in the exclusive possession and control of A1. Therefore, this link is NOT

PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

52. Link No.3: Last Seen Together – Accused with the Deceased (against A1 and A2):

The prosecution alleged that on 20.04.2023 at about 10:30 PM, A1 and A2 brought the deceased to the room of A1 behind Ruchi Hotel. The evidence of PW1 shows that on 20.04.2023 at about 10:15 PM, A1 and A2 came to Ruchi Hotel, took a parcel of food, and went to their room. However, PW1 did

not state that he saw any woman/deceased accompanying

A1 and A2. The evidence of PW2 also does not show that he saw any woman with the accused. The evidence of PW3 shows that she saw A1 and A2 when they came to the hotel at night for taking a rice parcel, but she did not depose that she saw the deceased with them. The evidence of PW5 (CCTV technician) shows that he downloaded CCTV footage from Ruchi Hotel which reveals that two male persons and one female person got down from an auto. However, this Court has verified the said CCTV footage (Ex.P1) and found that it is not clear to identify the persons. The identity of the two male persons as A1 and A2, and -35- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP the female person as the deceased, is not established from the footage. No witness has deposed to seeing the deceased alive in the company of the accused at any time on 20.04.2023.

Therefore, the crucial link of "last seen together" is completely missing. Therefore, this link is NOT PROVED.

53. Link No.4: The Deceased Was Found Dead in the Room of A1 (against A1):

The evidence of PW1 shows that on the next day morning (21.04.2023), he went to the room of A1 to call him for duty and noticed a person lying on the floor. The evidence of

PW2 and PW3 corroborates that the dead body was found in the room behind Ruchi Hotel. The evidence of PW6 and PW7 (panch witnesses) proves that the scene of offence observation panchanama (Ex.P2) and inquest report (Ex.P3) were prepared at the said room. The evidence of PW14 (Medical Officer) proves that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to pressure over the wind pipe. The dead body was found with a T-shirt (MO.5) inserted in the mouth and a scarf (MO.6) around the face. This link – that the deceased died a homicidal death and her body was found in the room behind Ruchi Hotel is PROVED. However, proof of the dead body in the room alone does not prove who placed it there or who caused the death.

54. Link No.5: Confessional Statements and -36- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Recovery of Material Objects (against A1 and A2):

The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW8 and PW9 as panch witnesses to prove that A1 and A2 confessed to the offence and led to the recovery of Rs.6,000/- and a mobile phone (MO.2) from A1, and Rs.1,000/- and a mobile phone (MO.1) from

A2. The evidence of PW8 and PW9 shows that the alleged confession and recovery took place at the police station while the accused were in police custody. PW8 deposed that the mediators report was prepared on 21.04.2023, while PW9 deposed that it was prepared on 20.04.2023 –a material contradiction. As already stated supra, a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The recovery of articles from the accused while in custody at the police station does not lead to the discovery of any new fact unknown to the police, and therefore does not attract Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The panch witnesses themselves admitted that the accused were already in police custody when the alleged confession and recovery took place.

Therefore, this entire link is INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE and cannot be relied upon against the accused.

55. Link No.6: Identification of Accused by Auto

Driver (against A1 and A2):

The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW4 (auto -37- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP driver) and PW15 (Magistrate) to prove that A1 and A2 were identified as the persons who fled from the scene in an auto. The evidence of PW4 shows that on 21.04.2023 at about 12:30 AM, he picked up two male passengers from Bachupally and dropped them at Shapur Nagar. The evidence of PW15 shows that she conducted a Test Identification Parade on 27.05.2023 and PW4 identified A1 and A2. However, even after the test of cross- examination, PW4 admitted that "after some days of

propping the accused, police have shown the A.1 and A.2

at police station". This admission is fatal to the prosecution.

The purpose of a TIP is to test the independent memory of a witness who has had no prior exposure to the accused. Once

PW4 admitted that the accused were shown to him at the police station before the TIP, the entire identification becomes valueless and is vitiated. Therefore, this link is NOT PROVED.

56. Link No.7: CCTV Footage (against A1 and A2):

The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW5 and

Ex.P1 (pendrive containing CCTV footage) to show that two male persons and one female persons got down from an auto in front of Ruchi Hotel. The evidence of PW5 shows that he downloaded the footage and issued a 65-B Certificate. However, this Court has thoroughly verified the said CCTV footage and found that it is not clear to identify the faces or features of any person. The -38- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP identity of the two male persons as A1 and A2 is not established from the footage. The identity of the female person as the deceased is also not established. The footage does not show the entry of any person into the room of A1. Therefore, this link is

NOT PROVED.

57. Link No.8: Call Data Records – Mobile Phone

Evidence (against A1 and A2):

The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW11 (Nodal

Officer, Reliance Jio), PW12 (Nodal Officer, Airtel), and PW16 (Nodal Officer, Vodafone) to produce CDRs and CAFs of mobile numbers allegedly used by the accused and the deceased. The evidence of PW11 shows that mobile number 6300638769 stands in the name of Raj Kumar (allegedly A1) and 9863636483 stands in the name of Jessica (allegedly A2). The evidence of PW12 shows that mobile number 78421772166 stands in the name of

Vijay Sadu (complainant), not the deceased. The evidence of

PW16 shows that mobile number 9640054386 stands in the name of Laxman Veer Bahadur Singh Viswa Karma, an unconnected person. Even after the test of cross-examination,

PW11 and PW12 admitted that the said mobile numbers do not stand in the names of A1 or A2. The prosecution has produced no evidence to show that the deceased owned or used any mobile number. There is no evidence of any communication -39- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP (calls or messages) between any number belonging to the accused and any number belonging to the deceased. Therefore, this link is NOT PROVED.

58. Link No.9: Incriminating Conduct – Flight from

Scene (against A1 and A2):

The prosecution alleged that after committing the murder, the accused fled from the scene and boarded an auto driven by PW4. As already held in Link No.6 above, the identification of the accused by PW4 has been vitiated due to the pre-TIP showing of the accused at the police station. The alleged confession of the accused (Link No.5) is inadmissible. There is no independent, admissible evidence to establish that the accused fled from the scene or that they were found absconding. The arrest of the accused on 21.04.2023, without any evidence of flight, does not prove any incriminating conduct. Therefore, this link is NOT PROVED.

59. Link No.10: Potency of the Accused (against

A1 and A2 – neutral circumstance):

The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW13 (Medical Officer) and Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 (Potency Certificates) to prove that the accused are capable of performing sexual acts.

Even after the test of cross-examination, this link stands

PROVED. However, this is a neutral circumstance. The fact that -40- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP the accused are capable of performing sexual acts does not connect them to the murder of the deceased. This link does not advance the prosecution's case in any manner.

60. Link No.11: Medical Evidence – Cause of Death (against no one specifically):

The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW14 (Medical Officer) and Ex.P16 (Post-Mortem Examination Report) to prove that the deceased died due to "Asphyxia due to pressure over the wind pipe (Neck)". The death was homicidal.

This link is PROVED. However, proof of homicidal death alone does not prove who caused the death.

61. Link No.12: Unexplained Discrepancy – No

Explanation from Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.:

The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

and they denied the incriminating evidence put to them. The prosecution argued that the accused offered no explanation as to how the deceased's body was found in the room behind Ruchi

Hotel. However, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the burden is on the prosecution to prove each link in the chain. The failure of the accused to explain a circumstance cannot supply the missing links that the prosecution has failed to prove. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the foundational links such as "last seen together" and "exclusive possession of the room," the -41- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP absence of explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. does not harm the accused.

62. FINAL CONCLUSION ON THE CHAIN OF

CIRCUMSTANCES: Link No.13 (Overall Assessment):

This Court has analyzed each link in the chain of circumstances as forged by the prosecution:

Link Number Circumstance Finding

1MotiveNOT PROVED 2Accused residing in the roomNOT PROVED 3Last seen togetherNOT PROVED 4Dead body found in the roomPROVED 5Confession and recoveryINADMISSIBLE

NOT PROVED

6TIP by auto driver (vitiated)

NOT PROVED

7CCTV footage (unclear) 8Call Data RecordsNOT PROVED 9Flight from sceneNOT PROVED 10Potency of accusedPROVED (neutral) 11Cause of death (homicidal)PROVED Unexplained under 313 Does not help 12 Cr.P.C.prosecution

63. The proved circumstances (Link Nos.4, 10, and 11) do not, by themselves, point conclusively to the guilt of A1 and

A2. The chain of circumstances is not complete. The links that are missing, not proved, or inadmissible (Link Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) break the chain completely. The hypothesis that some other person committed the offence is not excluded. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to forge a complete and unbroken -42- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP chain of circumstances leading to the only conclusion that the accused and none else committed the offence.

64. Therefore, in view of above discussion and for the reasons stated above this court holds that, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, and 370(A) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, they are entitled for acquittal from the offences punishable U/sec. 302, 392, and 370(A) read with 34 of the

Indian Penal Code. Point is answered accordingly.

65. In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, and 370(A) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, they are entitled for acquittal from the offences punishable U/sec.302, 392, and 370(A) read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and they are set at liberty. The Superintendent of the Central Prision, Chanchalguda is directed to release the accused Nos.1 and 2 forthwith, unless they are required in any other case.

66. The material objects such as MO.1 (Vivo Mobile

Phone), MO.2 (Honor Mobile Phone), MO.3 (ACE Company keypad mobile phone - not working), MO.4 (Bus Ticket), MO.5 (White and

Blue round neck T-Shirt), MO.6 (Blue Colour Scarf), MO.7 (One -43- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP liter empty Kinley water bottle), MO.8 (Empty Bisleri water bottle - two liters), MO.9 (Hand bag of deceased), and MO.10 (pieces of

Hair clip of deceased) are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period expires, as these items have no evidentiary value for future use and their retention is not warranted; however, the net cash of Rs.6,000/- (seized from A1) and net cash of Rs.1,000/- (seized from A2) which is now in the form of FDR No.723416 dt.04.07.2023 (available in the file) shall be confiscated to the

State after the appeal period expires, as the prosecution has failed to establish any link between the said cash and the alleged offence.

67. The office is directed to return the entire case property along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned committal court (PJCJ Cum XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate

Court, Kukatpally, Cyberabad) to dispose of the property strictly in accordance with the directions contained in this judgment.

Typed to my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, M.M District,at Kukatpally -44- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1 : G.Naveen.

PW.2 : M. Ramu.

PW.3 : I. Mangamma.

PW.4 : R. Ramesh.

PW.5 : I. Sheshagiri.

PW.6 : G. Srinivas.

PW.7 : Syed Khaja.

PW.8 : I. Srinivas Goud.

PW.9 : Ch. Sathyanarayana.

PW.10 : M. Ashok.

PW.11 : G. Jitender.

PW.12 : B. Santosh Kumar.

PW.13 : Dr. B. Vasanth Naik.

PW.14 : Dr. G. Mahender.

PW.15 : Smt. T. Girija.

PW.16 : P. Jayalakshmi.

PW.17 : Sri. N. Suman Kumar, Investigating Officer.

FOR DEFENCE: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Pen drive with CCTV Footage.

Ex.P2 : Scene observation report with rough sketch.

Ex.P3 : Inquest report.

Ex.P4 : Signature of PW7 on Scene observation report.

-45- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

Ex.P5 : Signature of PW7 on Inquest report.

Ex.P6 : Relevant Portion of Confession Mediators report, dt.21.04.2023

Ex.P7 : Relevant portion of confessional Statement of A1.

Ex.P8 : Relevant portion of confessional statement of A2.

Ex.P9 : Covering letter dated 16.06.2023 along with information.

Ex.P10 : 65-B Certificate.

Ex.P11 : Application form along with CDR.

Ex.P12 : Covering letter dated 01.06.2023 along with 65-B Certificate.

Ex.P13 : Application form along with CDR.

Ex.P14 : Potency Certificate of A1.

Ex.P15 : Potency Certificate of A2.

Ex.P16 : PME Report.

Ex.P17 : Test Identification Parade proceedings dt.27.05.2023.

Ex.P18 : Covering letter, dated 29.05.2023 along with information.

Ex.P19 : 65-B Certificate

Ex.P20 : Application form along with CDR

Ex.P21 : First Information Report.

Ex.P22 : Report

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 : Vivo Mobile Phone.

MO.2 : Honor Mobile Phone.

MO.3 : ACE company keypad mobile phone (Not Working).

MO.4 : Bus Ticket.

MO.5 : White and Blue round neck T-Shirt.

MO.6 : Blue Colour Clap.

-46- Judgment dt.18.05.2026 Sessions Case No.573 of 2023 of III ADJ, KKP

MO.7 : One liter empty Kinley water bottle.

MO.8 : Empty Bisleri water bottle (Two liters).

MO.9 : Hand bag of deceased.

MO.10 : Pieces of Hair clip of deceased.

Sd/-

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, M.M District,at Kukatpally

-1- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES, MEDCHAL - MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT:-Sri M. Venkateswara Rao III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally FAC : Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Medchal - Malkajgiri District At Kukatpally

Friday on this the 6 th day of February, 2026

Spl. SC. No. 682 of 2019

1.Name of the ::TheStatethroughP.S. complainant Jagadgirigutta

2.Name & description of ::Nagu Vikram @ Vikky, S/o. the AccusedVenkatesh, Age 24 years, Occ: Business, R/o.4-45-36, Srinivas Nagar, Jagadgirigutta.

3.Section of Law::448, 354, 509 IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act – 2012.

4.Crime No.& P.S.::Cr.No.173/2019, P.S. Jagadgirigutta

5.PRC.No.::-

6.Name of the Officer, :: who committed the - case 7Prosecution conducted ::Spl Public Prosecutor by(Smt.Santhosh Kumari)

8.Defence conducted by ::Sri.M.V.V Baswaraj, Advocate.

9.Plea of the accused::Not guilty -2- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

10. Finding of the Court::Found guilty

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Spl.Public Prosecutor, Smt.Santhosh Kumari for the State and Sri.M.V.V.Baswaraj, Learned Counsel for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following : -

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.Inspector of Police, P.S Jagadgirigutta, filed Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.173/2019 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 448, 354, 509 IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO

Act, 2012.

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that:

i.On 19th March 2019 at 8:00 PM, PW1/victim lodged a report alleging that on that day, between 11:00 AM and 12:00

PM, while she was alone in her house, the accused entered under the pretext of asking for cool water. The accused then began pretending to check for cockroaches, before seizing her hand, pulling her into a bedroom, and forcing her onto a bed where accused pressed her breast by laying her on the Bed. Despite

PW1 shouting in protest and confronting him, the accused brazenly intimidated her and compelled her to note down his phone number, which she did out of fear, considering her vulnerable and isolated situation. Finally, PW.1 gave report to police.

-3- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

3.On receipt of said report, LW9/ Sri. G.Ramulu, Sub-

Inspector of Police, P.S, Jagadgirigutta has registered a case in Cr.

No.173 of 2019, U/Sec.448, 354, 509 IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of

POCSO Act -2012 and entrusted the investigation to PW7.

4.During the course of investigation, PW7/Inspector of

Police, Jagardgirigutta, visited scene of offence in the presence of PW5 and PW6, he examined scene of offence and prepared crime detail form and also examined PW2 to PW4 and recorded their statements. LW5/ S.Sunitha, Inspector of police, Barosa

Center, Kondapur examined the victim and recorded her statement on the next day of incident. Later, PW7 served notice

U/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C to accused. However, the accused did not comply the terms of U/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notice, as such he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Later, he collected

SSC memo and bonafide certificate of the victim which are marked as Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. After completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

5.The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, took cognizance for the offences punishable U/secs. 448, 354, 509 IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act -2012 and numbered as Spl. SC

No.682/ 2019 by the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Cyberabad. Later, this case was transferred to this Court for disposal according to law.

-4- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

6. On appearance of the accused, case copies furnished to him and the accused was examined U/Sec.227 Cr.P.C and a Charge U/sec. 448, 354 IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act - 2012 was framed by this court against the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During trial, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to PW7 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P5. Examination of

LW.5/Sunitha is closed. The learned Spl.PP has given up examination LW.7/A.Anjaiah Kumkar, LW.9/G.Ramulu and reported no further evidence. After closing prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now, the point for determination are : - “ Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 448, 354

IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act -2012 beyond all reasonable doubt ? ”

10. Point :-The prosecution's case is that on 19.03.2019 between 1100 and 1200 hours, the accused wrongfully entered the house of PW1 on the pretext of asking for cool water and, under the guise of checking for cockroaches, caught hold of her hand, pulled her into a bedroom, forced her onto a bed, and pressed her breast, thereby, the accused has -5- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally committed offences punishable under Section 448 (House- trespass) and Section 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Section 7 read with Section 8 (Sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

11. For securing a conviction against the accused,

the prosecution is mandated to prove the following facts

beyond all reasonable doubt:

(i) That the victim was a "child" as defined under the

POCSO Act, i.e., below eighteen years of age, at the time of the commission of the offence.

(ii) The accused trespassed into the house of PW.1.

(iii) The accused used such criminal force with an intention to outrage modesty of such child/victim.

(iii)That the accused, with sexual intent, committed the act of touching the breast of the child (PW1) or caused the child to be touched, which constitutes "sexual assault" as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.

12. Thus, to prove the charge against the accused punishable U/sec. 448, 354 IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act - 2012, the prosecution has to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused tresspassed into the house of PW.1 and used criminal force with an intention to outrage her modesty the accused, with sexual intent, committed the act of touching -6- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally the breast of the child (PW1) or caused the child to be touched, which constitutes "sexual assault" as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act

Evidence on Record;

13. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to PW.7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. PW1 is said to defacto complainant cum victim, PW2 is said to mother of victim girl, PW3 is said to father of victim girl, PW4 is said to sister of victim girl, PW5 and PW6 are said to panch for CDF and PW7 is said to Investigating Officer.

14. Exs.P1 is the report, dated 19.03.2019, Ex.P2 is the crime detail form, Ex.P3 is the FIR, Ex.P4 is the attested copy of

SSC Memo of victim and Ex.P.5 is the attested copy of bonafide certificate of victim.

15. PW1 who is victim and deposed that PW2 and PW3 are her parents. PW4 is her elder sister. Further, PW.1 deposed that she do not know the accused. Further, PW.1 deposed that in the year 2019, PW1 completed her Intermediate 1st year.

16. Further, PW.1 deposed that she was resided at her parents house from 15.03.2019 to 01.06.2019, which period coincided with the summer vacation of her college. Further, PW.1 deposed that on 19.03.2019, around 9:00 AM, her parents PW2 and PW3 went for their Jobs while her sister (PW4) went to her college and she was alone in the house. PW.1 further deposed -7- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally that on the day of the incident, between approximately 11:00 AM and 12:00 noon, Vikky (the accused), the son of her house owner who resided on the first floor, came to her house on the third floor and knocked on the door. Upon her opening the door and inquiring as to his purpose, then accused said that he want water bottles belongs to them kept in her fridge.

17. PW.1 further deposed that she instructed accused to remain outside her residence and stated that she would biring the water bottles herself. She then proceeded to the refrigerator, obtained the bottles, and handed them to him while he stood in her hall. PW.1 further deposed that after she handed him the water bottles in the hall, the accused inquired whether there were any cockroaches in the house. While she responded, "No cockroaches are there, anna," he proceeded to enter the kitchen.

Upon returning to the hall, he asked her what she was doing, to which she replied that she had completed her first year of college.

18. PW.1 further deposed that, thereafter, the accused placed the water bottles on a sofa, suddenly caught hold of her hand, and dragged her towards the bedroom. She resisted physically and verbally, exclaiming, "What are you doing, anna?

Leave me!" She raised hue and cry and pleaded with him to let her go, even touching his feet, however, the accused did not -8- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally leave her and he laid her onto the Bed, pressed her Breast and also pressed her back and private parts.

19. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that then she raised voice loudly and requested him to leave her, upon which accused released her but threatened her and demanded she must write down his phone number and that out of fear, she complied, writing the number on a piece of newspaper with a pencil that was near the bed and the accused then left the house. She further deposed that, immediately afterwards, PW.1 closed all the doors and windows and remained inside. PW.1 further deposed that after 10 minutes, the accused returned and knocked on the windows, but she did not open them. She then telephoned her mother (PW.2) and informed her of the entire incident.

20. Further, PW.1 deposed that on the same day, around 1:00 PM, PW2 to PW4 came to the house then she informed them about the same. Further, PW.1 deposed that her parents went to the owner's house to questioned the acts of accused. However, parents of accused said that their son was not there in the house and they did not hear the same and denied the presence of their son on that day in the house. PW.1 further deposed that thereafter, they went to police station and gave Ex.P1 report to police.

-9- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

21. Further, PW.2 who is mother of victim and deposed that PW1 is her daughter. PW3 is her husband. PW4 is her elder daughter and she know the accused. PW.2 further deposed that in the year 2019, PW1 completed her Intermediate 1st year. PW.2 further deposed that PW1 remained at their house during summer vacation of her college for two months i.e., from 18.03.2019. PW.2 further deposed that on 19.03.2019, around 9:00 AM, herself and PW3 went for job and PW4 went to her college leaving PW1 alone in the house. PW.1 Further deposed that on the same day, around 12:00 noon, PW.1 telephoned her and informed her that the son of their house owner came to their house, situated on the third floor, and knocked on the door. PW.2 further deposed that when PW.1 opened the door and asked what he wanted, the accused said he wanted the water bottles belonging to them that were kept in their refrigerator. PW.2 further deposed that PW.1 then went inside the house to bring the water bottles, and the said accused went behind her into the house. PW.2 further deposed that when PW.1 questioned why he had entered inside the house, the accused replied, "Why can't I come inside the house?" and then caught hold of her hand and dragged her towards the bedroom. PW.2 further deposed that the accused threatened PW.1 to write down his phone number, and

PW.1 wrote his phone number on a newspaper with a pencil. PW.2 further deposed that in the meantime, the accused pressed her -10- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally breast, at which point she raised hue and cry. PW.2 further deposed that the accused then closed her mouth with his hand, but PW.1 loudly shouted and pushed him, shouting at him to go out of her house. PW.2 further deposed that the accused went out of the house, and PW.1 bolted the doors and windows from inside. PW.2 further deposed that thereafter, about ten minutes later, the accused again came and knocked on the door, but PW.1 did not open it and telephoned PW.2, PW.3, and PW.4. PW.2 further deposed that she immediately came to the house by 1:00

PM. PW.2 further deposed that thereafter, ten or fifteen minutes later, PW.3 and PW.4 also came to the house. PW.2 further deposed that on enquiry, PW.1 stated the same facts to PW.2,

PW.3, and PW.4. PW.2 further deposed that then she, along with

PW.3, PW.4, and the son of LW.3's brother, went to the house of their owner, situated on the first floor of the building, and informed them of the incident. PW.2 further deposed that the owner and his wife said that their son was not of that character.

PW.2 further deposed that when they asked the parents to call their son, they did not call him. PW.2 further deposed that they then went to the police station and gave a report to the police.

PW.2 further deposed that she could identify the said accused.v

22. Further, evidence of PW.3 who is father of victim and

PW.4 who is sister of victim is in the same lines of PW.2 and they deposed in the same lines of PW.2, as to the alleged incident.

-11- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

23. Further, PW.5 is mediator of scene observation and his evidence is that on 19.03.2019 about 8:30 PM, police called him and PW6 / Jyothi to the house of PW1 and conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence and drafted crime details form which is marked as Ex.P2. Further, PW.6 who is also mediator for scene of offence panchanama also deposed in the same lines of PW.5.

24. Further, PW.7 is Investigation Officer and his evidence showing that on 19.03.2019 at about 8:00 PM, LW9/

G.Ramulu, received Ex.P.1 report of PW., basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No. 173/2019, U/sec. 448, 354, 509 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act and issued FIR and then PW7 received FIR and proceeded for investigation. Further, PW.7 deposed that he visited scene of offence in the presence of PW5 and PW6 and then he examined scene of offence and prepared crime detail form and also examined PW2 to PW4 and recorded their statements. LW5/ S.Sunitha, Inspector of police, Barosa

Center, Kondapur examined the victim and recorded her statement on the next day of incident. Later, PW7 served notice

U/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C to accused. However, the accused did not comply the terms of U/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notice, as such he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Later, he collected

SSC memo and bonafide certificate of the victim which are -12- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally marked as Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. After completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

Appreciation of Evidence on record;

25.First this court will examine, whether the

prosecution is able to prove that victim was a "child" as

defined under the POCSO Act, i.e., below eighteen years

of age, at the time of the commission of the offence?

26. Proof of the Victim Being a "Child": The age of the victim is a jurisdictional fact under the POCSO Act. Based on a comprehensive examination of the evidence on record, this

Court holds that the prosecution has conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt proved that the victim, PW.1, was a "child" as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012, at the time of the offence on 19.03.2019. This finding is firmly anchored in

Ex.P4 (SSC Memorandum) and Ex.P5 (Bona Fide Certificate), which are unimpeached documentary records that consistently and specifically mention the date of birth of victim as 16.11.2001. Calculating from this date, PW.1 was undisputedly 17 years and 4 months old, on the date of the incident, firmly establishing her minority. Her own testimony about being a first- year college student during her summer vacation provides natural and credible corroboration to this documentary proof.

Most significantly, during the cross-examination of all material -13- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally witnesses, from PW.1 to PW.7, the defence did not challenge, deny, or even suggest that PW.1 was not a child on the relevant date. This fatal omission in cross-examination constitutes a tacit admission of this crucial fact. The consistent registration of the case under the POCSO Act from its inception and the absence of any contrary evidence from the defence further fortify this conclusion. Consequently, the legal prerequisite for the application of the POCSO Act, 2012, is unequivocally and irrevocably met.

27. Therefore, in view of above discussion and for the reasons state above, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved that the victim aged below 18 years at the time of alleged offence, making her a "child" under Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012.

28.Now this Court will examine whether the

prosecution is able to prove that the accused trespassed

into the house of PW.1, used criminal force with the

intention to outrage her modesty, and with sexual intent,

committed the act of touching her breast and private

parts, which constitutes sexual assault under Section 7 of

the POCSO Act.

29. Appreciation of Evidence in Consonance with

Legal Principles governing sexual assault.

30. The appreciation of evidence in cases of sexual offences, particularly those involving children, is guided by -14- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally distinct legal principles aimed at ensuring a sensitive and just evaluation while protecting the rights of the victim.

31. The Primacy and Credibility of the Victim's

Testimony: The settled legal position is that the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault is vital and can form the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be reliable, trustworthy, and of "sterling quality.1" The courts are mandated to appreciate such evidence with great sensitivity, keeping in mind the mental trauma and the consequent variations in behaviour and narration that a victim may exhibit.

32. In the present case, The evidence of PW.1 shows that she was resided at her house from 15.03.2019 to 01.06.2019, which period coincided with the summer vacation of her college. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that on 19.03.2019, around 9:00 AM, her parents and sister left for their jobs and college respectively, leaving her alone in the house. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that between approximately 11:00 AM and 12:00 noon, the accused, Vikky, came to her third- floor residence and knocked on the door, and upon her inquiry, stated he wanted water bottles kept in her refrigerator.

33. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that she instructed him to remain outside and went to retrieve the bottles, handing them to him while he stood in the hall. The evidence of 1 .In State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384] -15- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

PW.1 further shows that the accused then inquired about cockroaches and, despite her response that there were none, proceeded to enter the kitchen. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that upon returning to the hall, he asked about her studies and, after she replied that she had completed her first year of college, placed the water bottles on a sofa.

34. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that the accused then suddenly caught hold of her hand and dragged her towards the bedroom. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that she resisted physically and verbally, exclaiming and pleading with him to let her go, even touching his feet, but he did not relent. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that he laid her on the bed and pressed her breast, back, and private parts.

35. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that she then raised her voice loudly, upon which he released her but threatened her and demanded she write down his phone number, which she did out of fear on a piece of newspaper with a pencil near the bed. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that the accused then left the house, after which she immediately closed all doors and windows.

36. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that about ten minutes later, the accused returned and knocked on the windows, but she did not open them. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that she then telephoned her mother (PW.2) and -16- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally informed her of the entire incident. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that around 1:00 PM the same day, her family members (PW.2 to PW.4) came to the house and she informed them about the incident. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that her parents went to the house of the accused’s parents to question them, but they denied their son’s presence in the house that day. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that thereafter, she and her family went to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 report.

37. The above evidence of PW.1 is found to be cogent, credible and consistent with Ex.P1 report in proving the prosecution’s case against the accused. The evidence of PW.1 provides a clear, coherent and unwavering account of the incident that transpired on 19.03.2019, detailing the sequence from the accused’s entry under a false pretext to the specific acts amounting to trespass, criminal force and sexual assault.

38. PW.1 was examined in cross on behalf of accused and even after test of cross examination, evidence of PW.1 stands largely unshaken in its material particulars and as to the narrative, from the accused knocking on the door, requesting water bottles, pretending to check for cockroaches, forcibly dragging her to the bedroom, pressing her breast and private parts, compelling her to note his phone number, and his subsequent return. The above evidence of PW.1 remains consistent with her report (Ex.P1) and the corroborative -17- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally testimony of PW.2 to PW.4. This internal and external consistency strongly supports the reliability of her version of events.

39. On the other hand, the conduct of PW.1 in the immediate aftermath of the incident is natural, prompt and corroborative of her testimony. The acts of immediately securing the doors and windows, telephoning her mother (PW.2), disclosing the incident to her family upon their arrival, and promptly lodging Ex.P1 report, are all conduct consistent with that of a genuine victim of sexual assault, and lend significant credibility to her allegation.

40. As already stated, testimony of PW.1 is withstood the test of cross-examination. The defence failed to elicit any material contradiction or inconsistency that could cast reasonable doubt on the core allegation of sexual assault. In fact, certain suggestions put to her, such as her opening the door to the accused and informing her mother, inadvertently corroborate the prosecution’s case. Minor discrepancies regarding the non- recovery of the newspaper or the omission of mentioning the "She Team" in her chief examination testimony are peripheral and do not affect the affect the core offence of sexual assualt.

Except that nothing significant is elicited to discredit the evidence of PW.1.

-18- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

41.In Ranjith Hazarika Vs. State of Assam

Crl.Appeal No.190 of 1996 dated 28.02.1996 reported in

(1998) 8 SCC 635, their Lordships of our Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of Rape.The evidence of victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. The evidence of victim of sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Courts cannot cling to fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable”.

42. Further, in a case of State of Himachal Pradesh

Vs. Asha Ram in Criminal Appeal No.1266/1998 dated

17.11.2005reported in AIR 2006 SC 381, where in the

Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows : “Conviction can be founded

on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to -19- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally be reliable. It is alsoIn Ranjith Hazarika Vs. State of Assam

Crl.Appeal No.190 of 1996 dated 28.02.1996 reported in

(1998) 8 SCC 635, their Lordships of our Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of Rape.The evidence of victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. The evidence of victim of sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Courts cannot cling to fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable”.

43. Further, in a case of State of Himachal Pradesh

Vs. Asha Ram in Criminal Appeal No.1266/1998 dated

17.11.2005reported in AIR 2006 SC 381, where in the

Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows : “Conviction can be founded

on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to -20- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally be reliable. It is also well-settled principle of law that corroboration as a condition for judicial reliable on the testimony of the prosecutrix isot a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. Even minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case”.

44. Further, in a case Krishna Kumar Malik Vs.

State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130, it is observed and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:- “No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality”.

45. Thus, it is no doubt true that in sexual assault cases the evidence of the victim/prosecutrix is of predominant consideration and her sole testimony is sufficient to act upon if it inspires confidence in the mind of the Court about the commission of offense by the accused against her. The Hon’ble

Apex Court of India in most of the cases held that the evidence of prosecutrix in case of rape and other physical outrages is to be construed that of an injured witness where no corroboration is -21- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally required, however, the duty is also cast upon the Court to see that the accused must be protected against the possibility of false implication.

46. When it comes to present case, the above testimony of PW.1 even after test of cross examination is clear, consistent, and convincing to establish that the accused trespassed into the house of PW.1, used criminal force with the intention to outrage her modesty, and with sexual intent, committed the act of touching her breast and private parts, which constitutes sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and the offence punishable U/sec.448 and 354 of IPC.

47. Therefore, this court is of considered opinion that the evidence of PW.1 inspires complete confidence and meets the standard of sterling quality, therefore, her sole testimony is sufficient to convict the accused for the above offenses.

However, the evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 also corroborates with the evidence of PW.1.

48. The evidence of PW.2 (the mother), PW.3 (the father), and PW.4 (the sister) consistently and convincingly corroborates the testimony of PW.1 in material particulars. Their collective evidence establishes that PW.1 informed them first via telephone to PW.2 and later in person to all, that the accused had entered her house, forcibly dragged her, and pressed her breast.

This disclosure, made promptly after the incident, forms a crucial -22- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally link in the chain of events and demonstrates the victim’s consistent conduct and the absence of fabrication.

49. The evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 align squarely with the core allegations of the prosecution. Each witness confirms the essential narrative of trespass, use of criminal force, and the specific act of sexual assault, thereby lending substantial credibility to PW.1’s evidence. The sequence of reporting immediate telephonic communication with the mother followed by a detailed in-person disclosure to the entire family, is natural, spontaneous, and reinforces the genuineness of the complaint.

50. The learned counsel for the accused cross examined

PW.2 to PW.4 also. The cross-examination of PW.2 to PW.4 did not cause any dent to their credibility or the substance of their evidence. It merely elicited minor clarifications, such as the sequence of whom PW.1 informed first and which family members proceeded to the house of the accused’s parents.

These details are incidental and do not contradict the central allegation; rather, they affirm the logical and consistent flow of events following the trauma. No material contradiction or inconsistency was brought out to cast doubt on their supportive testimonies.

-23- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

51. Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 is wholly reliable and serves to strongly corroborate the testimony of PW.1 in all material aspects. Their consistent evidecne reinforce the prosecution's version of events and significantly strengthen the case against the accused.

52. During cross-examination on behalf of accused, a specific defence was put forward to the victim's family. It was suggested to PW.1 during her cross examination that financial disputes existed namely, that there were ongoing financial transactions between her mother and the mother of the accused, and that her parents had failed to pay rent for the past five years. The suggestion alleged that when the owners demanded payment, the present case was falsely foisted as a retaliatory measure. PW.1 categorically denied this suggestion.

53. The same line of suggestion was subsequently put to PW.2, PW.3, and PW.4, each of whom also unequivocally denied the allegation. Beyond these self-serving suggestions during cross examination of PW.1 to PW.4, the defence did not elicit any supporting facts or place any material evidence on record to substantiate the claim of a monetary dispute or overdue rent.

54. Therefore, the defence theory of false implication due to a rent dispute remains entirely unsubstantiated and is not proved. No evidence of prior animosity, financial conflict, or -24- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally ulterior motive has been established. The mere suggestion, denied by all witnesses and unsupported by any corroborative material, carries no weight and does not create a reasonable doubt regarding the occurrence of the incident or the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

55. Further, the defense did not succeed in eliciting any evidence of prior animosity, dispute, or ulterior motive on the part of the victim's family that could plausibly explain the fabrication of an allegation of this gravity. In the absence of any such established motive, and considering the severe personal and social ramifications that inevitably attend a prosecution of this nature for the victim and her family, the possibility of a false implication appears highly improbable. The testimonies of PW1 to

PW4 remain credible and consistent on this crucial aspect. In view of above reasons, this Court finds no infirmity in the evidence PW.1 to PW.4.

56. Further, the evidence of PW.5 and PW.6, the independent mediators for the scene of offence, is formal yet significant. They have consistently deposed that on 19.03.2019 at about 8:30 PM, they were called by the police to the house of PW.1. In their presence, the police conducted the scene observation panchnama and drafted the crime detail form, which is marked as Ex.P2. Their testimony establishes that the investigation commenced promptly on the very evening of the -25- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally report, thereby securing the scene without undue delay. No material contradictions were elicited during their cross- examination, and their evidence remains unshaken. Their depositions lend procedural credibility to the initial steps of the investigation and corroborate the prosecution's timeline.

57. Further, the evidence of PW.7, the Investigating

Officer, is comprehensive, reliable, and demonstrates a prompt and procedurally sound investigation. His testimony establishes the timely registration of the FIR (Crime No. 173/2019) on the same evening based on Ex.P1, his immediate visit to the scene of offence in the presence of independent mediators (PW.5 & PW.6), and the proper drafting of the scene observation report (Ex.P2).

Critically, his evidence proves the lawful collection of the victim's

SSC Memorandum (Ex.P4) and Bonafide Certificate (Ex.P5), which conclusively established her minority under the POCSO Act. He further detailed the sensitive recording of the victim's statement by a woman Inspector from the Bharosa Centre, the service of a

Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice, the subsequent arrest upon non- compliance, and the final filing of the charge sheet. No material contradictions were elicited during cross-examination. Therefore,

PW.7's evidence provides strong official corroboration to the prosecution's case, confirming that the investigation was conducted thoroughly, without undue delay, and in accordance with the law.

-26- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

Contentions of accused : -

(i) Non-examination of independent witnesses**

58. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution case is unreliable as it failed to examine any independent witnesses to the alleged incident.

59. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that in cases of sexual assault committed within the privacy of a home, the presence or examination of independent eyewitnesses is neither expected nor legally required. The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the victim, provided it is credible and trustworthy.

60. This Court has considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material on record. It is well-settled law that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault, if found cogent and reliable, can form the sole basis for conviction. Furthermore, it was elicited during the cross-examination of PW.1 that the other tenants in the building were absent at the time of the incident. Therefore, the non-examination of independent witnesses is neither an infirmity nor fatal to the prosecution's case.

-27- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

(ii) Omission of accused's subsequent return in

Ex.P1 report.

61. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the Ex.P1 report suffers from a material omission as it does not mention the accused's subsequent return to the house approximately ten minutes after the main incident, thereby casting doubt on the prosecution's version.

62. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that an

FIR is not an exhaustive chronicle of every event. Its primary purpose is to set the criminal law in motion by reporting the substantive offence. The omission of a subsequent, separate event does not undermine the core allegation of trespass and sexual assault which was promptly and specifically reported.

63. This Court has considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material on record. The contention is without merit. The FIR (Ex.P1) explicitly records the core incident of house-trespass and sexual assault. The accused's subsequent return, while part of the narrative, is a separate event following the main offence. Its omission does not create a contradiction or cast doubt on the veracity of the primary accusation. FIR is not encyclopedia.

(iii) Non-seizure of the newspaper**

64. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution's failure to seize and produce the newspaper on -28- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally which the victim allegedly wrote the phone number is a serious lapse that weakens the case.

65. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the newspaper is a peripheral object. The material fact is the accused's act of compelling the victim to note his number under threat, which is consistently testified to. Non-recovery of the medium used does not disprove this act.

66. This Court has considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material on record. The contention is rejected. The consistent and unchallenged testimony of PW.1 establishes that she wrote the number out of fear. Therefore, The non-recovery of a common, perishable object like a newspaper is inconsequential and does not create a reasonable doubt regarding the commission of the offence.

(iv) Non-examination of other tenants**

67. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution deliberately did not examine other tenants residing in the same building, who could have been material witnesses.

68. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the examination of other tenants was irrelevant, as it was established through the victim's own cross-examination that they were absent during the incident. There was thus no question of them being witnesses.

-29- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

69. This Court has considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material on record. The contention is rejected. PW.1 categorically stated during cross-examination that the other tenants were not present. In the absence of any evidence suggesting they witnessed the incident, their examination was wholly unnecessary and irrelevant.

(v) Contradictions regarding reporting and disclosure:

70. The learned counsel for the accused contended that there are material contradictions among prosecution witnesses regarding who went to the house of the accused's parents, whether the "She Team" was informed, and as to whom PW.1 first called after the incident.

71. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that these are minor discrepancies pertaining only to the sequence and manner of reporting after the crime. They relate to collateral details and do not touch upon the core incident of the assault itself.

72. This Court has considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material on record. The alleged variations concern actions taken in the aftermath of a traumatic event.

They do not relate to or contradict the specific acts constituting the offences of trespass, criminal force, and sexual assault. Such minor discrepancies in recalling the precise sequence of post- -30- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally event reporting are natural and do not discredit the otherwise consistent testimony on the core incident.

(vi) Scene mediators being relatives of the victim.

73. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the scene mediators, PW.5 and PW.6, are relatives of the victim (PW.1), and therefore their evidence is biased and cannot be relied upon.

74. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW.5 and PW.6 is purely formal, limited to corroborating that the police visited the scene and prepared the observation report (Ex.P2). Their relationship does not invalidate this official procedure, which is also supported by the testimony of the independent Investigating Officer (PW.7).

75. This Court has considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material on record. The contention is rejected. The testimony of PW.5 and PW.6 has not been challenged on the factum of their presence or the preparation of

Ex.P2. Their evidence is formal in nature. Even assuming a familial relationship, it does not, by itself, discredit the evidence regarding a police procedure they witnessed, especially when the

Investigating Officer's (PW.7) testimony on these steps remains unchallenged.

-31- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

76. None of the contentions raised by the defense are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt regarding the occurrence of the incident or the guilt of the accused.

77. The learned counsel for the accused relied on citation in case State of A.P Vs. Ravilla Nagabhushanam

Naidu reported in Criminal Appeal No.1095/2009 and Raj

Kumar @ Bheema Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in

LAWS (SC) – 2025-11-39. While admitting the law laid down in the above citations, this court is of considered opinion that, the facts and circumstances of the present case and the facts and circumstances of the above citations are entirely different as such, in the humble view of this court, the above citations are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

78. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, and having meticulously examined the entire evidence, this Court concludes that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused wrongfully entered the house of the victim (PW.1) and committed house-trespass; that he used criminal force upon her with the intent to outrage her modesty; and that, with sexual intent, he touched the breast and private parts of the child victim (PW.1), thereby committing sexual assault. Accordingly, the prosecution has proved its case for the offences punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; under Section 354 of the -32- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

Indian Penal Code, 1860; and under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

79. Thus, the prerequisite condition required to invoke the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is satisfied by the prosecution, and the onus to prove innocence or to disprove the allegations is shifted onto the accused. However, a perusal of the cross-examinations of PW.1 to PW.11 and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C failed to present any material from which it can be inferred that the accused is innocent. Consequently, the accused failed to discharge his reverse burden.

80. It is pertinent to mention that under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, a reverse burden is imposed on the accused. It is observed that there is a marked difference between the provisions of presumptions provided under the POCSO Act and those provided in negotiable instrumental acts, the Prevention of

Corruption Act, etc. Under the POCSO Act, there is no other requirement to be complied with by the prosecution to raise a presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, except to show that the accused has been prosecuted for any of the offenses as enumerated under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.

-33- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

81. While discussing Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the

Hon’ble Kolkata High Court observed in the case of Sahid

Hossain Biswas Vs.State of West Bengal, that “Once the foundation of the prosecution case is laid by leading legally admissible evidence, it becomes incumbent on the accused to establish from the evidence on record that he has not committed the offence or to show from the circumstances of a particular case that a man of ordinary prudence would most probably draw an inference of innocence of his favour. The accused may achieve such an end by leading defence evidence or by discrediting prosecution witnesses through effective cross- examination or by exposing the patent absurdities or inherent infirmities in their version by an analysis of the special features of the case.”

82. Furthermore, in S. Suresh vs. State of Tamil

Nadu (2017), the court held that “Section 30 provides the accused with the opportunity to prove his or her innocence, thereby making the presumption under Section 29 rebuttable. In this case, the accused was convicted under the POCSO Act, and he has not rebutted the presumption of Section 29. Therefore, the court observed that the failure to rebut the presumption also establishes the guilt of the accused”.

-34- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

83. It would be justified to refer to the case of Manoj

Kumar Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 5 SCC 667,

wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that – “In the absence of any existing enmity between the accused and the witnesses there exists no ground to question the veracity of the witnesses or to raise a ground of false implication…

84. In this case, the accused did not elicit any facts from the witnesses to show that the case was filed out of a grudge against the accused.

85. In a case of Bharanwada Bhogibhai Hirjibhai

Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR (1983) SC 753,

observed as follows: “It is quite unthinkable that the parents of the victim would go to the length of inventing a story of sexual assault on their own daughter and tutor her to narrate such version which would bring down their social status and spoil reputation in society. Ordinarily no parents would do so in Indian

Society as at present”.

86. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radha Krishna

Nagesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reportedin (2013) 11

SCC 688 observed as follows : “While appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the Court must keep in mind that the context of thevalues prevailing in the country, particularly in rural India, it would be unusual for a woman to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault so as to implicate an innocent -35- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally person”.

87. When it comes to present case, as already discussed supra, the defense did not succeed in eliciting any evidence of prior animosity, dispute, or ulterior motive on the part of the victim's family that could plausibly explain the fabrication of an allegation of this gravity. In the absence of any such established motive, and considering the severe personal and social ramifications that inevitably attend a prosecution of this nature for the victim and her family, the possibility of a false implication appears highly improbable.

88. Upon a holistic and careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, and in light of the governing legal principles, this court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused failed to rebut or discharge his reverse burden.

89. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is liable for conviction. The point is answered accordingly.

-36- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

90. In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of

February, 2026.

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District At Kukatpally FAC : Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Medchal - Malkajgiri District At Kukatpally

91. The accused questioned in respect of quantum of sentence and he submitted that his father died and he is having mother who is dependent on him. He further submitted that he is unmarried and that he is falsely implicated in this case and therefore, requested to take lenient view. The learned counsel

for the accused reqested to take lienent view. The learned Spl.

Public Prosecutor argued that the accused is not entitled for lenient view.

92. After considering the submissions of both sides on quantum of sentence and considering the facts stated by the accused and in view of manner of committing the offence, this -37- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

Court feels that the accused is not entitled for any lenient view and for the benefit of Provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of P.O. Act.

However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and the above mitigating facts submitted by accused and also considering the nature of offence of the acts of the accused, this Court feels that sentencing the accused as under would meet the ends of justice:

93. In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 448, 354 of IPC and U/sec. 7 r/w 8 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly, Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of FIVE (5) years and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees TEN Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, the accused have to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for theoffence punishable U/Sec. 7 r/w 8 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

94. Further accused is sentenced to undergo simple

Imprisonment for a period of (3) months and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, the accused have to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for theoffence punishable Sec.448 of Ipc.

-38- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

95. Both sentences shall run concurrently.

96. In view of Sec.42 of POCSO Act, no separate sentence is being imposed against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 354 of Indian Penal Code.

97. The fine amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven

Thousand) shall be paid to the Victim-girl/PW.1 to meet medical

Expenses and rehabilitation of the victim-Girl/PW.2.

98. Since the accused stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for having committed sexual assault on the victim girl, who was approximately 17 years of age, and considering the grave circumstances in which the offence was perpetrated, the profound physical and mental trauma endured by the victim, as well as the losses and agony she has suffered, this Court is of the firm view that she deserves compensation to address her needs for rehabilitation, medical care, and education. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees

Three Lakhs only) is hereby determined as just and appropriate compensation payable to the victim girl (PW-1).

99. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,

Medchal Malkajgiri District, is therefore directed to take immediate steps for the disbursement of the said compensation amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the victim -39- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally girl from the Victim Compensation Fund at the earliest possible opportunity.

100.The remand period of accused from 01.04.2019 to 02.05.2019 (both days inclusive) shall be set off

U/sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

101.The Accused is explained his right of Appeal against the above conviction and sentence before the Hon’ble

High Court of Telangana. He can seek legal Aid in preferring appeal as per the provision of Legal Services Authority Act. Office is directed to give a copy of judgment on free of cost forthwith to accused and obtain acknowledgment. Office is directed to forward a copy of this Judgment to the District Legal Services

Authority, Medchal Malkajgiri District to take steps for the disbursement of the said compensation amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the victim girl from the Victim

Compensation Fund at the earliest possible opportunity. The

Stenographer is directed to upload the Judgment in NJDG immediately.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of

February, 2026.

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District At Kukatpally FAC : Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Medchal - Malkajgiri District At Kukatpally -40- Judgment dt.06.02.2026 in Spl. SC No.682 of 2019 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1 : Victim. PW.2 : Mother of victim. PW.3 : Father of victim. PW.4 : Elder sister of victim. PW.5 : M.Venkanna. PW.6 : Jyothi. PW.7 : Sri.Md.Akram Baba (Inspector of Police)

FOR DEFENCE: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Report, dated 19.03.2019. Ex.P2 : Crime details form. Ex.P3 : First Information Report. Ex.P4 : Attested copy of SSC memo of victim. Ex.P5 : Attested copy of bonafide certificate of victim.

FOR DEFENCE:

- None -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil -

Sd/-

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District At Kukatpally FAC : Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Medchal - Malkajgiri District At Kukatpall

-1- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES, MEDCHAL - MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT:-Sri M. Venkateswara Rao

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

M.M.District at Kukatpally FAC : Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Medchal - Malkajgiri District At Kukatpally

Friday on this the 24 th day of April, 2026

SC. No. 614 of 2017

1.Name of the ::The State through P.S. Balanagar complainant

2.Name & description of ::Korra Shivashankar @ Raju S/o. the AccusedRaju, age: 32 years, Occ: Labour,R/o.H.No.8-2- 237/7/79/4,L.N.Nagar, YousufgudaCheckPost, Shaikpet, Hyderabad. Ph.No.97000 31818. N/o. Thummalal (V), Near Ananthapur, A.P.

3.Section of Law::U/Sec. 376 r/w 511, 342 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012

4.Crime No.& P.S.::Cr.No.232/2017, PS Balanagar.

5.PRC.No.::-

6.Name of the Officer, :: who committed the - case 7Prosecution conducted ::Spl. Public Prosecutor by(Smt.P.Santosh Kumari) -2- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

8.Defence conducted by ::Sri. T. Narayana Yadav, Advocate.

9.Plea of the accused::Not guilty

10. Finding of the Court::Guilty

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Spl.Public Prosecutor (Smt.P.Santosh Kumari) for the State and Sri. Narayana Yadav, Learned Counsel for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following : -

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.Inspector of Police, PS Balanagar, Cyberabad, filed

Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.232/2017 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 376 r/w 511, 342 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that:

i.On 05.06.2017 at 18.00 hours PW1/K. Kethavath

Hanimi gave report alleging that on 05.06.2017 morning she went to attend labour work and at about 02.00 pm, her brother in law/PW4/K. Pulia informed her on phone that some unknown personattemptedtocommitrapeonher daughter/PW3/Victim/Alivelu. On that information she rushed to her house and enquired. On enquiry, her daughter informed that on the same day at about 01.45 pm, one person came on motor -3- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally cycle and enquired the parents, entered the house and introduced himself as Doctor Raju and asked to bring drinking water. When she went inside, the said person followed and bolted the door from inside and caught hold her, gagged her mouth and removed her pant, kept his hands on her cut drawer. When she made hue and cries, neighbours reached her house, then the said person fled away from the house by leaving his motor cycle ie., Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.AP-28-AF-9726, and said that above incident to the PW.1 and that PW.1 lodged the report requesting to take action against the accused as per law.

3.On receipt of said report, PW8/Sri. P. Bishkhapathi,

Inspector of Police, P.S, Balanagar, has registered a case in

Cr.No.232 of 2017, U/Sec. 376 r/w 511, 342 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and took up investigation.

4.During the course of investigation of PW8, he examined and recorded the statement of complainant/PW1 and given requisition to women ASI/PW7/Smt. Indira to examine and record the statement of victim girl/PW3/Kum. Kethavath Alivelu.

Further, he visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW5/Dandu Narendar

Goud and LW7/P. Ganesh and seized one Hero Honda Splendor model bike bearing No.AP-28 AF 4726. Later he have examined and recorded the statement of PW2/Kethavath Raji,

LW4/Kethawath Anji, PW4/Katravath Pulia. On 14.06.2017 at -4- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally 10.30 hours apprehended the accused person at his house and brought to PS and recorded his confession statement in the presence of LW8/C. Pradeep and PW6/Yuvaraj Vinod Kumar and seized original RC and Election Photo ID Card from the accused and effected his arrest. Further, he filed a requisition report to the hon’ble court to record the 164 statement of the victim girl/PW3 and conduct TI Parade on the accused. Accordingly,

LW10/Smt. D. Varoodhini, XXV Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Kukatpally, recorded the 164 statement of the victim and also conducted TI parade and the accused by the victim.

Later, he deposited Motorcycle in the hon’ble court after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused on 03.08.2017.

5.The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, took cognizance for the offences punishable U/Sec. 376 r/w 511, 342 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and numbered as SC

No. 614 of 2017 by the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Cyberabad. Later, this case was transferred to this Court for disposal according to law.

6.During the trial, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to

PW8 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P7. The learned Spl. PP has given up examination LW4/Jatavath Anji,

LW7/Palakurthi Ganesh, LW8/C. Pradeep, and LW10/Smt. D.

Varoodhini, reported no further evidence. After closing -5- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

8.Now, the point for determination are : - “ Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 376 r/w 511, 342 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt ? ”

9.Point : The case of prosecution is that the accused committed aggravated sexual assault against the victim, thereby the accused was committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 376 r/w 511, 342 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.

10. Thus, to prove the charge against the accused punishable U/Sec. 376 r/w 511, 342 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of

POCSO Act, 2012, the prosecution has to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed aggravated sexual assault against the victim by way of attempting to commit rape against the victim;

Evidence on Record;

11. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. PW1 is said to defacto complainant, PW2 is said to eye witness, PW3 is said to victim, -6- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

PW4 is said to witness who informed the incident to PW1 on phone, PW5 is said to panch for scene cum seizure, PW6 is said to panch for confession and seizure of accused, PW7 is said to woman ASI, who is recorded the statement of victim girl, and

PW8 is said to Investigating Officer.

12. Exs.P1 is the report of PW.1, Ex.P2 is the scene observation report and rough sketch, Ex.P3 is the two photographs of Motor Cycle, Ex.P4 is the relevant portion of confession of accused regarding seizing the election ID card and

RC card, Ex.P5 is the election ID Card, Ex.P6 is the RC Card, and

Ex.P7 is the First Information Report.

13. In this regard, PW1 is said to defacto complaint and mother of the victim, deposed that she know PW2/K. Raji @ Boji, and she also know LW4/J. Anji. The victim/PW3 is her daughter.

PW1 deposed that about 5 years back the victim was studying 7th class and she was 13 years old. PW.1 further deposed that, during the summer vacation she brought the victim to

Hyderabad. PW.1 further deposed that, on one day while the victim was at home, she left the house to attend the work, while she was in work at about 01.00 or 02.00 pm, the PW4/K. Pulia came and informed that some person raped the victim by removing her cloths and that the person went away from there.

Immediately she returned back to her home, and by that time -7- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally she went there the victim was present in the home and she was wailing, and that time PW2 and LW4 were also present there.

14. PW1 further deposed that she asked the victim as to what happened, the victim stated that one hour after she went to attend the work, one person by name Raju came to the house on motor cycle, asked the victim for water, enquired her if her parents are at home. PW.1 further deposed that the victim further stated to her that when the victim went into the house to bring water, that person also entered the house, locked the house from inside, and pulled the cloths of the victim; that when the victim raised shouts, the accused closed her mouth with hand, pulled the cloths of the victim and touched her and that the victim was unable to say other acts done by the accused as she felt shy. Then PW.1 along with victim and her relatives went to police station and gave Ex.P.1 report.

15. Further, PW.2 who is said to witness deposed that she know PW1, PW3, LW4/J. Anji and PW4. She was living in

Dasari Basthi, Rajiv Colony in Balanagar. About 5 years back herself, PW1 and other went to attend the work and at that time the victim was alone at house. PW.2 further deposed that at about 02.00 pm, she returned home to have lunch, and that time the victim who was in her house was wailing and when she questioned the victim as to what happened, the victim stated to her that one person name by Raju came to her house, claimed -8- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally that he was a Doctor and asked the victim for water; that later he entered the house, locked the house from inside, pulled the cloths of the victim and touched her body; that when the victim raised cries, that person unlocked the door and went away. PW.2 deposed that she had seen that person, and the accused who is present in court hall on that day was the person whom she saw on the date of incident when he came out from the house of the victim. She further deposed that on that day they tried to catch that person, but he escaped. The victim stated that the person came on motor cycle.

16. PW.3 is the victim and in her evidence the

PW3/Victim girl, deposed that she was resident of Dasari Basthi,

Balanagar. She was studying Degree 1st year at Wanaparthi and she studied 5th class to 7th class in Government School

Appaipally, and from 7th to 10th she studied in Girls High School in

Wanaparthy as day scholar.

17. PW3 further deposed that on 05.07.2017 during the summer vacation she came to Hyderabad where her mother is living. On that day at about 01.40 pm, she was alone at the house as her mother went to attend work, and that time one male person came on motor cycle and enquired about her parents and her age. She informed that her mother went to attend work, and that said male person introduced himself as doctor, and that person got down from the motor cycle came to -9- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally their house and asked her for water. PW.3 victim further deposed that, when she went into the house to bring water, that person followed her into the house and locked the house from inside, and that person revealed his name as Raju and further gagged her mouth with his hand and that he forcibly removed her pant and under wear and placed with hand on her vagina and when she started shouting with fear, and that hearing the same the neighbours came and knocked the door. Then that person unlocked the door and ran away from there by leaving the motor cycle. Then she made phone call to the police. They came to the house after 15 minutes, and that 30 minutes after the incident her mother came and then herself and her mother went to police station and her mother gave complaint.

18. Further, PW.4 is witness who informed the incident to LW1, deposed that on 05.06.2017 at about 01.45 pm, he received phone call from neighbours of his house and informed that some unknown molested the victim/PW3. Then he made phone call to PW1 and informed the same. He went back home during evening, and by that time the police were present at the house of PW1 and they recorded his statement about what happened.

19. Further, PW.5 who is panch for scene cum seizure, deposed that he know LW7/P. Ganesh, whose house is opposite to his house. He deposed that, on 05.06.2017 while he was at his -10- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally house, the police came at about 07.00 or 08.00 pm, and conducted panchanama at their house, and at that time the LW7 was also present. The police seized a bike which was present in front of his room. Accordingly police prepared scene observation report and rough sketch, and that on the same himself and LW7 signed as witnesses. Ex.P2 is the said scene observation report and rough sketch. The motor cycle seized by the police is bearing

No.AP-28 AF 4726. Ex.P3 are two photographs of the said motor cycle.

20. In the evidence of PW6, who is panch for confession and seizure of accused, deposed that he know LW8/C. Pradeep.

He know the accused who is standing in the court hall. Earlier he saw him in Balanagar PS. On 14.06.2017 the police called him to

Balanagar PS, and that accordingly he went there at around 10.40 am, by that time LW8 as well as accused were present in the police station, and at the request of the police they questioned the accused, and that the accused revealed his name as Shiva Shankar @ Raju and further confessed about commission of offence against the PW3/victim on 05.06.2017 at the house of victim.

21. PW6 further deposed that after making confession, in their presence the police seized the election identity card and

RC book of the accused, and further the inspector of police also shown the motor cycle bearing No.AP-28 AF 4726 belonging to -11- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally the accused which was seized at the scene of offence.

Accordingly the police prepared confession seizure report. Ex.P4 is the relevant portion of confession of accused regarding seizing the election identity card and RC book. The vehicle in Ex.P3 is the vehicle that was seized at the scene of offence. Ex.P5 is the election identity card and Ex.P6 is the RC book that was seized from the accused, and that after preparing the confession and seizure report, on the same himself and LW8 signed as witnesses.

22. Further, PW7, who is Woman Asst. Sub-Inspector of police, deposed that on 05.06.2017 she received oral instructions from PW8/Inspector of police to record the statement of

PW3/victim, and that accordingly on the same the day she went to the house of the victim and recorded her statement, and during the recording the statement, mother of the victim/PW1 was present.

23. Further, PW.8 who is Investigation Officer and his evidence showing that on 05.06.2017 at 1800 hours, he received a complaint from PW1, upon that he registered a case in Crime

No.232 of 2017 U/sec. 376 r/w 511, 342 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of

POCSO Act, and took up the investigation, and that later, he have examined and recorded the statement of complainant/PW1 and given requisition to woman ASI/PW7 to examine and record the statement of victim girl/PW3. PW8 further deposed that he visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence -12- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally panchanama in the presence of PW5 and LW7/P. Ganesh and seized one Hero Honda Splendor model bike bearing No.AP-28 AF 4726, and he was examined and recorded the statement of PW2,

LW4/J. Anji, PW4.

24. PW8 further deposed that on 14.06.2017 at 1030 hours apprehended the accused person at his house and brought to PS and recorded his confession statement in the presence of

LW8/C. Pradeep and PW6 and seized original RC and election photo ID card from the accused and effected his arrest, and further he filed a requisition report to the hon’ble court to record the 164 statement of the victim girl and conduct TI Parade on the accused. Accordingly, LW10/Smt. D. Varoodhini, XXV Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, recorded the 164 statement

of the victim and also conducted TI Parade and the accused by the victim/PW3. He deposited motor cycle in the hon’ble court after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused on 03.08.2017. Ex.P7 is the FIR.

Appreciation of Evidence on record;

25. First this court will examine, whether the

prosecution is able to prove that victim was a "child" as

defined under the POCSO Act, i.e., below eighteen years

of age, at the time of the commission of the offence?

-13- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

26. Proof of the Victim Being a "Child": The age of the victim is a jurisdictional fact under the POCSO Act. The prosecution has placed reliance on the oral testimonies of PW.1 (the de facto complainant and mother of the victim) and PW.3 (the victim herself) to establish that the child was below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident.

27. PW.1 has consistently and categorically deposed that the victim is her daughter, that about 5 years back the victim was studying in 7th class, and that she was aged 13 years at the time of the incident. This testimony is materially corroborated by PW.3/victim, who has also stated her educational history, specifically that she studied 5th to 7th class in

Government School Appaipally and 7th to 10th in Girls High

School in Wanaparthy, and that on the date of the incident (05.07.2017) she was studying in 7th class. The date of the alleged offence is specifically 05.07.2017. As on that date, the victim, being a 7th class student generally aged between 12 to13 years, was clearly below the age of 18 years as prescribed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

28. Further, the cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.3 did not cause any dent or discredit these specific assertions regarding the victim's age or class of study. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the age of the victim as a "child" under the -14- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

POCSO Act stands sufficiently proved by the consistent, unimpeached, and cogent testimony of PW.1 and PW.3.

29. Furthermore, this Court observes that the accused has not denied or disputed the fact that the victim was aged about 13 years at the time of the alleged offence on 05.07.2017.

A careful perusal of the cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.3 reveals that no suggestion was put to either witness challenging the assertion regarding the victim's age or her class of study. The accused has also not led any evidence to contradict the prosecution's case on this aspect. The failure of the accused to deny the age of the victim, which is a jurisdictional fact under the

POCSO Act, further strengthens the prosecution's case. This conduct of the accused, in not disputing the victim's age, coupled with the consistent and unimpeached oral testimony of PW.1 and

PW.3, leaves no manner of doubt that the victim was a "child" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012 on the date of the incident.

30. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, this court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has proved that the victim was aged below 18 years at the time of the alleged offence on 05.07.2017, making her a "child" under Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012.

-15- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

31.Now this Court will examine whether the

prosecution is able to prove that the accused committed

of aggravated sexual assault against PW.2/victim within

the Meaning of Section 7 r/w 8 of the POCSO Act and

under Sec.376 r/w 511, 342 of IPC.

32. Appreciation of Evidence in Consonance with

Legal Principles governing sexual assault.

33. The appreciation of evidence in cases of sexual offences, particularly those involving children, is guided by distinct legal principles aimed at ensuring a sensitive and just evaluation while protecting the rights of the victim.

34. The Primacy and Credibility of the Victim's

Testimony: The settled legal position is that the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault is vital and can form the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be reliable, trustworthy, and of "sterling quality.1" The courts are mandated to appreciate such evidence with great sensitivity, keeping in mind the mental trauma and the consequent variations in behaviour and narration that a victim may exhibit.

35. The prosecution has convincingly established the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of the alleged offence.

PW.2, an eye witness, has deposed categorically that she had seen the person who came out from the house of the victim on the date of the incident, and she identified the accused present

in the court hall as the same person. PW.3, the victim herself, has

1 .In State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384] -16- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally consistently deposed that the person who came on the motorcycle, introduced himself as a doctor named Raju, followed her inside the house, locked the door, and committed the alleged acts, is the same person present in the court. The testimonies of

PW.2 and PW.3, even after the test of cross-examination, categorically establish that it was the accused who was present on the date of the incident at the house of the victim. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of either witness to discredit the identity of the accused. There is no suggestion or reason to infer that the victim or PW.2 would falsely identify the accused. Regarding PW.1, though she deposed in her cross- examination that she does not know the name of the accused or his address, she has nonetheless stated that she knows the accused. This minor discrepancy does not undermine the otherwise consistent, unimpeached, and cogent identification of the accused by PW.2 and PW.3, the two most material witnesses.

Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the identity of the accused stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.

36. Further, the evidence of PW.3, the victim herself, is crucial in establishing the offence alleged against the accused.

PW.3 has consistently and categorically deposed that on 05.07.2017 at about 1:40 pm, she was alone at the house in

Dasari Basthi, Balanagar, as her mother had gone to attend work. She deposed that one male person came on a motorcycle, -17- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally enquired about her parents and her age, and introduced himself as a doctor. She further deposed that when she went inside the house to bring water for him, that person followed her into the house, locked the house from inside, and revealed his name as

Raju. PW.3 stated that the accused gagged her mouth with his hand, forcibly removed her pant and underwear, and placed his hand on her vagina. She further deposed that when she started shouting with fear, the neighbours heard her cries and came and knocked on the door, upon which the accused unlocked the door and ran away from there, leaving his motorcycle behind.

37. The learned counsel for the accused cross- examined PW.3/victim at length and in depth. However, nothing substantive has been elicited to discredit the evidence of PW.3.

The cross-examination failed to shake her version of events or point out any material contradiction or omission that would render her testimony unreliable. The evidence of PW.3, even after the test of cross-examination, categorically establishes that the accused came to the house where the victim was alone, locked her from inside, gagged her mouth with his hand, forcibly removed her pant and underwear, and placed his hand on her vagina. These acts clearly constitute the offence of sexual assault as defined under the POCSO Act, 2012.

38. Furthermore, nothing has been elicited in the cross- examination of PW.3 to suggest any animosity or motive on her -18- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally part to depose falsehood against the accused. No prior enmity, ill-will, or reason to falsely implicate the accused has been brought on record. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the evidence of PW.3/victim appears trustworthy, credible, and inspires confidence. Her testimony stands unimpeached and is sufficient to convict the accused for the offence charged.

39. In Ranjith Hazarika Vs. State of Assam

Crl.Appeal No.190 of 1996 dated 28.02.1996 reported in

(1998) 8 SCC 635, their Lordships of our Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of Rape.The evidence of victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. The evidence of victim of sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Courts cannot cling to fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable”.

40. Further, in a case of State of Himachal Pradesh

Vs. Asha Ram in Criminal Appeal No.1266/1998 dated

17.11.2005reported in AIR 2006 SC 381, where in the

Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows : “Conviction can be founded

on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are -19- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is alsoIn Ranjith Hazarika Vs. State of Assam

Crl.Appeal No.190 of 1996 dated 28.02.1996 reported in

(1998) 8 SCC 635, their Lordships of our Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of Rape.The evidence of victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. The evidence of victim of sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Courts cannot cling to fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable”.

41. Further, in a case of State of Himachal Pradesh

Vs. Asha Ram in Criminal Appeal No.1266/1998 dated

17.11.2005reported in AIR 2006 SC 381, where in the

Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows : “Conviction can be founded

on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are -20- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is also well-settled principle of law that corroboration as a condition for judicial reliable on the testimony of the prosecutrix isot a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. Even minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case”.

42. Further, in a case Krishna Kumar Malik Vs.

State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130, it is observed and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:- “No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality”.

43. Thus, it is no doubt true that in sexual assault cases the evidence of the victim/prosecutrix is of predominant -21- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally consideration and her sole testimony is sufficient to act upon if it inspires confidence in the mind of the Court about the commission of offense by the accused against her. The Hon’ble

Apex Court of India in most of the cases held that the evidence of prosecutrix in case of rape and other physical outrages is to be construed that of an injured witness where no corroboration is required, however, the duty is also cast upon the Court to see that the accused must be protected against the possibility of false implication.

44. However, when it comes to present case, the evidence of PW.3/victim is materially corroborated by the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2.

45. PW.1, the mother of the victim and de-facto complainant, deposed that when she returned home after being informed by PW.4, she found the victim wailing. PW.1 further deposed that the victim narrated to her that a person named

Raju came on a motorcycle, asked for water, enquired about her parents, followed her inside the house, locked the house from inside, pulled her clothes, closed her mouth with his hand, and touched her. This narration given to PW.1 immediately after the incident is consistent with the version deposed by PW.3 before the court.

46. Further, PW.2, the eye witness, deposed that at about 2:00 pm, she returned home to have lunch and found the -22- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally victim wailing. PW.2 further deposed that the victim told her that a person named Raju came to her house, claimed to be a doctor, asked for water, later entered the house, locked the house from inside, pulled her clothes, and touched her body. PW.2 also deposed that she saw the accused coming out of the victim's house and identified him in the court. Thus, the testimonies of

PW.1 and PW.2 fully corroborate the evidence of PW.3/victim with respect to the identity of the accused, the sequence of events, the manner of the offence, and the immediate aftermath.

47. The learned counsel for the accused cross-examined

PW.1 and PW.2 at length and in depth. However, nothing substantive has been elicited to discredit their evidence. The cross-examination of PW.1 did not dent her assertion regarding the victim's narration or the condition of the victim upon her return. Similarly, the cross-examination of PW.2 failed to impeach her credibility regarding having seen the accused coming out of the victim's house or the victim's immediate disclosure to her. No material contradictions or omissions have been brought out to render the testimonies of PW.1 and PW.2 unreliable.

48. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, even after the test of cross-examination, consistently corroborates the victim's version on crucial aspects: that the victim was alone at home when the incident occurred; that the accused came on a motorcycle and introduced himself as a doctor/Raju; that the -23- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally accused entered the house, locked it from inside, pulled the victim's clothes, and touched her body; that the victim raised shouts; and that the accused fled when neighbours came. This corroboration lends immense credibility to the prosecution case.

49. Furthermore, nothing has been elicited in the cross- examination of PW.1 or PW.2 to suggest any animosity, motive, or reason on their part to depose falsehood against the accused. No prior enmity, ill-will, or any circumstance has been brought on record to show why the mother of the victim or the neighbour witness would falsely implicate the accused in a serious offence of this nature. The absence of any such motive strengthens the presumption that the testimonies of PW.1 and PW.2 are truthful and not actuated by any extraneous considerations.

50. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 appears trustworthy, credible, and inspires confidence. Their testimonies, being consistent, cogent, and materially corroborating the evidence of PW.3/victim, firmly establish the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.

51. The prosecution has further examined PW.4, PW.5,

PW.6, PW.7, and PW.8, whose testimonies lend substantial corroboration and evidentiary support to the prosecution case.

52. PW.4, who informed the incident to PW.1, deposed that on 05.06.2017 at about 1:45 pm, he received a phone call from neighbours informing him that some unknown person had -24- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally molested the victim/PW.3. He immediately made a phone call to

PW.1 and informed her about the same. This testimony establishes the prompt dissemination of information regarding the incident and the immediate reaction of the neighbours, which is consistent with the prosecution version that the victim raised shouts and neighbours gathered at the spot.

53. Further, PW.5, the panch witness for the scene of offence and seizure, deposed that on 05.06.2017 at about 7:00 or 8:00 pm, the police came to his house and conducted panchanama. He stated that the police seized a motorcycle bearing registration No. AP-28 AF 4726 which was present in front of his room. The police prepared the scene observation report and rough sketch (Ex.P2), and took photographs of the said motorcycle (Ex.P3). The testimony of PW.5 is crucial as it establishes the recovery of the motorcycle from the scene of offence, which the victim had consistently stated was left behind by the accused when he fled. This material object connects the accused directly to the crime scene.

54. Further, the panch witness for the confession and seizure from the accused, deposed that on 14.06.2017, he was called to Balanagar Police Station, where the accused revealed his name as Shiva Shankar @ Raju and confessed to committing the offence against PW.3/victim on 05.06.2017 at the victim's house. PW.6 further deposed that after the confession, the police -25- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally seized the election identity card (Ex.P5) and RC book (Ex.P6), and also showed the motorcycle bearing No. AP-28 AF 4726 belonging to the accused which had already been seized from the scene of offence. Since the confession is made before police, in the opinon of this court the said confession is not admissable in evidence.

55. Further, PW.7, the Woman Assistant Sub-Inspector of

Police, deposed that on 05.06.2017, she received oral instructions from PW.8 (Inspector of Police) to record the statement of PW.3/victim. She stated that she went to the victim's house on the same day and recorded her statement, during which the mother of the victim (PW.1) was present. This timely recording of the victim's statement soon after the incident lends authenticity to the prosecution version and rules out any possibility of delayed tutoring or fabrication.

56. Further, PW.8, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 05.06.2017 at 6:00 pm, he received the complaint from

PW.1 and registered the case in Crime No. 232 of 2017 under

Sections 376 read with 511, 342 of IPC and Sections 7 read with 8 of the POCSO Act. He further deposed that he visited the scene of offence, conducted panchanama in the presence of PW.5 and

LW.7, and seized the Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing

No. AP-28 AF 4726. He examined and recorded the statements of

PW.2, LW.4, and PW.4. On 14.06.2017, he apprehended the accused, recorded his confession in the presence of PW.6 and -26- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

LW.8, seized the original RC book and election photo ID card from the accused, and effected his arrest. He further deposed that he filed a requisition to the learned court to record the 164 statement of the victim and to conduct a Test Identification (TI)

Parade. Accordingly, LW.10 (XXV Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad) recorded the 164 statement of the victim and conducted a TI Parade, where the victim identified the accused.

After completion of investigation, PW.8 filed the charge sheet against the accused on 03.08.2017. Ex.P7 is the FIR. The meticulous investigation conducted by PW.8, including the prompt registration of the FIR, seizure of the motorcycle from the scene, recovery of incriminating documents from the accused, and the proper conduct of the TI Parade, has ensured the integrity of the prosecution case.

57. The aforementioned witnesses (PW.4, PW.5, PW.6,

PW.7, and PW.8) were also cross-examined at length and in depth on behalf of the accused. However, nothing has been elicited to cast any doubt upon the veracity or reliability of their evidence.

The cross-examination failed to point out any material contradictions, omissions, or irregularities in the investigation or the seizure proceedings. The testimonies of these witnesses remain consistent, cogent, and unimpeached. Consequently, the evidence of PW.4 to PW.8 is fully reliable and stands as a strong pillar supporting the prosecution case against the accused.

-27- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

58. The learned counsel for the accused placed reliance on the judgments in Guda Mahender v. State of Telangana*

reported in 2022(6) CPTEL 13, Bonala Ramesh v. State of

Telangana* reported in 2022(4) CPTEL 6, and Jawahar Lal

v. State* reported in Law Suit (Del) 2438. While this Court fully acknowledges and admits the legal principles enunciated in the said authorities, in the humble and bonafide view of this

Court, the cited rulings are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

59. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, and having meticulously examined the entire evidence, this Court holds that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused,

Shiva Shankar @ Raju, on 05.06.2017 at about 1:40 pm at the house of the victim in Dasari Basthi, Balanagar, Hyderabad, did commit sexual assault upon the victim/PW.3, a child aged about 13 years. The accused came on a motorcycle bearing registration

No. AP-28 AF 4726, introduced himself as a doctor, followed the victim into her house, locked the door from inside, gagged her mouth with his hand, forcibly removed her pant and underwear, and placed his hand on her vagina. These acts of the accused constitute the offence of aggravated sexual assault under

Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, as well as offences under Section 342 and Section 376 read with Section -28- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The consistent, cogent, and unimpeached testimonies of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.4, PW.5, PW.6,

PW.7, and PW.8, coupled with documentary evidence, leave no manner of doubt as to the guilt of the accused.

60. Thus, the prerequisite condition required to invoke the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is satisfied by the prosecution, and the onus to prove innocence or to disprove the allegations is shifted onto the accused. However, a perusal of the cross-examinations of PW.1 to PW.8 and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C failed to present any material from which it can be inferred that the accused is innocent. Consequently, the accused failed to discharge his reverse burden.

61. While discussing Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the

Hon’ble Kolkata High Court observed in the case of Sahid

Hossain Biswas Vs.State of West Bengal, that “Once the foundation of the prosecution case is laid by leading legally admissible evidence, it becomes incumbent on the accused to establish from the evidence on record that he has not committed the offence or to show from the circumstances of a particular case that a man of ordinary prudence would most probably draw an inference of innocence of his favour. The accused may achieve such an end by leading defence evidence or by discrediting prosecution witnesses through effective cross- -29- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally examination or by exposing the patent absurdities or inherent infirmities in their version by an analysis of the special features of the case.”

62. Furthermore, in S. Suresh vs. State of Tamil

Nadu (2017), the court held that “Section 30 provides the accused with the opportunity to prove his or her innocence, thereby making the presumption under Section 29 rebuttable. In this case, the accused was convicted under the POCSO Act, and he has not rebutted the presumption of Section 29. Therefore, the court observed that the failure to rebut the presumption also establishes the guilt of the accused”.

63. It would be justified to refer to the case of Manoj

Kumar Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 5 SCC 667,

wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that – “In the absence of any existing enmity between the accused and the witnesses there exists no ground to question the veracity of the witnesses or to raise a ground of false implication…

64. In this case, the accused did not elicit any facts from the witnesses to show that the case was filed out of a grudge against the accused.

65. In a case of Bharanwada Bhogibhai Hirjibhai

Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR (1983) SC 753,

observed as follows: “It is quite unthinkable that the parents of the victim would go to the length of inventing a story of sexual -30- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally assault on their own daughter and tutor her to narrate such version which would bring down their social status and spoil reputation in society. Ordinarily no parents would do so in Indian

Society as at present”.

66. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radha Krishna

Nagesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reportedin (2013) 11

SCC 688 observed as follows : “While appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the Court must keep in mind that the context of thevalues prevailing in the country, particularly in rural India, it would be unusual for a woman to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault so as to implicate an innocent person”.

67. When it comes to present case, as already discussed supra, the defense did not succeed in eliciting any evidence of prior animosity, dispute, or ulterior motive on the part of the victim's family that could plausibly explain the fabrication of an allegation of this gravity. In the absence of any such established motive, and considering the severe personal and social ramifications that inevitably attend a prosecution of this nature for the victim and her family, the possibility of a false implication appears highly improbable.

68. Upon a holistic and careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, and in light of the governing legal principles, this court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond -31- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally all reasonable doubt and the accused failed to rebut or discharge his reverse burden.

69. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under offence of sexual assault under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, as well as offences under Section 342 and

Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is liable for conviction. The point is answered accordingly.

70. In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act -2012 and as well as offences under Section 342 and Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is convicted under Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of April,

2026.

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, KKP FAC : Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Medchal - Malkajgiri District At Kukatpally -32- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

71. The accused is questioned in respect of quantum of sentence and he submitted that he is a married person and having two children and therefore, requested to take lenient view. The learned counsel for the accused reqested to take lienent view.

72. After considering the submissions of both sides on quantum of sentence and considering the facts stated by the accused and in view of manner of committing the offence, this

Court feels that the accused is not entitled for any lenient view and for the benefit of Provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of P.O. Act.

However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and the above mitigating facts submitted by accused and also considering the nature of offence of the acts of the accused, this Court feels that sentencing the accused as under would meet the ends of justice:

73. Sec.511 of IPC governs the punishment for attempting to commit an offence for which no express provision exists. It provides that whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment, and performs any act towards its commission, shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with fine, or with both.

-33- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

74. Further, section 57 of the IPC expressly clarifies the computation of fractions of terms of punishment. It states that for the purpose of calculating such fractions, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years. This provision serves a specific and limited mathematical function.

75. Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code prescribes the punishment for the offence of rape as rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

76. When an accused is charged with attempt to commit rape, no separate section expressly punishes such attempt.

Consequently, Sec.511 is invoked in conjunction with Section

376. Applying the computation mechanism under Sec. 57, imprisonment for life is reckoned as twenty years. One-half of twenty years is ten years.

77. Therefore, the maximum punishment that can be awarded for an offence under Section 376 read with Section 511

IPC (attempt to commit rape) is rigorous imprisonment for a term extending to ten years, along with fine.

78. Further, Sec. 8 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 prescribes the punishment for committing sexual assault against a child. It provides that whoever commits sexual assault shall be punished with -34- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine. Thus, the maximum punishment under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is therefore five years of imprisonment.

79. However, Sec.42 of the POCSO Act is a crucial provision that governs situations where the same act or omission of accused constitutes an offence both under the POCSO Act and under the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force. It explicitly states that the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment under the POCSO Act or under the Indian Penal Code, whichever provides for punishment that is greater in degree. This provision operates as an enabling provision, directing the court to choose the law that prescribes the higher punishment when there is an overlap between the general penal law and the special statute.

80. In the present case, the accused has been found guilty of attempt to commit rape under Section 376 read with

Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. As previously established, the maximum punishment for this offence is rigorous imprisonment for a term extending to ten years, representing one-half of the imprisonment for life computed as twenty years under Section 57 of the Indian Penal Code. However, had the same act been considered as sexual assault under Section 7 of -35- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally the POCSO Act, the punishment under Section 8 of that Act would extend only up to five years of imprisonment. Therefore, the punishment under the Indian Penal Code, namely ten years of rigorous imprisonment, is substantially higher than the maximum punishment of five years available under the POCSO Act.

81. Therefore, applying the mandate of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, when the same act constitutes an offence under both the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code, the court is bound to impose the punishment which is greater in degree. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that Section 42 is

the governing provision for such situations and that Section 42A, which gives the POCSO Act an overriding effect on other laws in case of inconsistency, cannot be interpreted to nullify the operation of Sec.. The fields of operation of both sections are distinct, with Section 42 specifically dealing with the quantum of punishment.

82. Therefore, in the opinion of his court, in this case, the accused shall be sentenced under Section 376 r/w 511 of IPC because the punishment prescribed thereunder, namely rigorous imprisonment extending up to ten years, is greater in degree than the punishment of up to five years prescribed under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The sentence is accordingly awarded under the Indian Penal Code.

-36- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

83. In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 376 r/w 511, 342 of IPC and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (10) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused have to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for theoffence punishableU/Sec. 376 r/w 511 IPC. Further, the accused is sentenced to under go Simple

Imprisonment for (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand only for the offence punishable under Sec.342 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the accused have to suffer further simple imprisonment for two months; Both sentences shall run concurrently.

84. In view of Sec.42 of POCSO Act, no separate sentence is being imposed against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.

85. The fine amount of Rs.11,000/- (Eleven thousands only) shall be paid to the Victim-girl/PW.3 on application under property identification, to meet medical

Expenses and rehabilitation of the victim-Girl/PW.3.

86. Since the accused stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for having committed sexual assault on the victim girl, who was approximately 13 -37- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally years of age, and considering the grave circumstances in which the offence was perpetrated, the profound physical and mental trauma endured by the victim, as well as the losses and injuries she has suffered, this Court is of the firm view that she deserves compensation to address her needs for rehabilitation, medical care, and education. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs.Three

Lakhs only) is hereby determined as just and appropriate compensation payable to the victim girl (PW-3) under proper identification.

87. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,

Medchal Malkajgiri District, is therefore directed to take immediate steps for the disbursement of the said compensation amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three lakhs only) to the victim girl from the Victim Compensation Fund at the earliest possible opportunity.

88. The remand period of accused from 14.06.2017 to 12.07.2017 (both days inclusive) shall be set off U/sec.428 of

Cr.P.C.

89. The Accused is explained his right of Appeal against the above conviction and sentence before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana. He can seek legal Aid in preferring appeal as per the provision of Legal Services Authority Act. Office is directed to give a copy of judgment on free of cost forthwith to accused and -38- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally obtain acknowledgment. Office is directed to forward a copy of this Judgment to the District Legal Services Authority, Medchal

Malkajgiri District to take steps for the disbursement of the said compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the victim girl from the

Victim Compensation Fund at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Stenographer is directed to upload the Judgment in NJDG immediately.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of April,

2026.

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, KKP FAC : Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Medchal - Malkajgiri District At Kukatpally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1 : Mother of the victim. PW.2 : Smt. Kethavath Raji @ Boji, Witness. PW.3 : Victim. PW.4 : Katravath Pulia, Witness. PW.5 : Dandu Narendar Goud, Panch for scene cum seizure. PW.6 : Yuvaraj Vinod Kumar, Panch for confession and seizure of accused. PW.7 : Smt. Indira, Woman Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police. PW.8 : Sri. P. Bikshapathi Rao, Investigating Officer.

FOR DEFENCE: - None - -39- Judgment dt.24.04.2026 in SC No.614 of 2017 of FTSJ for ET&DR & POCSO, Kukatpally

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 : Report. Ex.P2 : Scene observation report and rough sketch. Ex.P3 : Two photographs of motor cycle. Ex.P4 : Relevant portioin of confession of accused regarding the seizing the election ID card and RC Card. Ex.P5 : Election ID Card. Ex.P6 : RC Card. Ex.P7 : First Information Report.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil -

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, KKP FAC : Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Medchal - Malkajgiri District At Kukatpall