Pg.1 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, AT: VIKARABAD
On Tuesday, this the 05th day of May, 2026.
Present: M. VENKATESWARLU Assistant Sessions Judge Vikarabad.
SC.No. 194 of 2021
Preliminary Register Case No. 9 of 2021 committed by the Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, Parigi, in Crime No. 217 of 2020 of P.S. Parigi, for the offence under Section 307, 324 and 504 r/w 34 IPC.
Prosecution Smt. I. Deepa Rani, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Vikarabad.
Defence Sri M. Gopal Reddy, Counsel for A1, A2 and A4. Sri P. Ramu, Deputy Legal Aid Defence Counsel for A3.
Description of accused A1: Chakali Ramulu, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged about 50 years, Caste: BC Chakali, Occ: RMP persons Doctor, R/o. H.No.1-83, Chinchod Village of Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
A2: Chakali Anjaneyulu S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged about 35 years, Caste: BC-Chakali, Occ: Labour, R/o. Sulthanpur Village of Parigi Mandal.
A3: Smt. Anjamma @ Jangamma, W/o. Yellaiah, aged about 75 years, Caste: BC-Chakali, Occ: Labour, R/o. Sulthanpur Village of Parigi Mandal.
A4: Smt. Neeraja W/o. Anjaneyulu, aged about 30 years, Caste: BC-Chakali, Occ: Labour, R/o. Sulthanpur Village of Parigi Mandal. Offences under 307, 324 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC. Sections
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Pg.2 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
Finding of the court Found not guilty
Sentence of order In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 307, 324 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. MOs-1 and 2 which are deposited in this Court vide CPR No. 45 of 2021, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
This Sessions Case is coming up for final hearing before me and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Parigi Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pargi, in Crime
No. 217 of 2020 of P.S. Parigi, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that: LW1/Chakali Yadagiri is the resident of Sulthanpur village and A1 is the resident of Chinchod Village, Farooq Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, A2 and
A3 are residents of Sulthanpur village, Parigi Mandal, Vikarabad District. The
LW1/Chakali Yadagiri is seventh child to his parents i.e., four sisters and 3 brothers and he is the last one. After marriage they are all living separately. They have 2 acres of land in Sy.No.16 situated at Sulthanpur village in the name of A3 (who is the mother of LW1). There is a dispute between LW1 and his brothers i.e., A1 and
A2 on distribution of above said land between them. The accused/A1 and A2 used
Pg.3 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
to force several times LW1 to sell the land but he was denying. On 05.06.2020 at about 12.30 hours while LW1 along with LW2 are in their house, at that time, the accused persons A1 to A3 and his sister Narsamma came to his house in a Car to discuss regarding land distribution between them, suddenly the accused A3 started abusing him (LW1) in filthy language, A2 beat him with stone and A1 attacked on
LW1 with knife with intention to kill him, due to which LW1 received bleeding injuries to his left cheek and neck. Thus, the accused A1 committed an offence punishable U/s. 307 IPC and A2 committed an offence punishable U/s 324 IPC and
A3 committed an offence punishable U/s. 504 IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parigi, has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 307, 324 and 504 r/w 34 IPC against the accused persons, following committal procedure; committed the accused persons to the
Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Vikarabad District, along with case records vide
PRC.No. 9 of 2021. The Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Vikarabad District, took cognizance of the offence against the accused persons and made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.
4. Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this Court framed the charges for the offences under Sections 307, 324 and 504 r/w 34 IPC against the accused persons/A1 to A4; read over and explained to them in verbatim, for which they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Pg.4 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW14 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P14 and MOs-1 and 2 and reported closure of evidence.
6. LW8/Chakali Seenu who is the circumstantial witness, whose evidence is given up by the additional public prosecutor as he was not in a situation to give the evidence and their report is filed.
7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined
U/s.313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating evidence was put to them, they denied the allegations levelled against them and reported no defence evidence.
8. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the material on record.
9. Now the point for determination is:
i) “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused
persons/A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 and
504 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt”? ii) To what relief?
10. Point No.1:- In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and MOs-1 and 2. On behalf of the Defendants
Exs.D1 to D4 are marked in the cross-examinations of PWs.1 and 2.
11. PW1 is the complainant/victim and he deposed that, LW2 is his wife. A1 and A2 are his brothers, A3 is his mother and A4 is his sister-in-law. They are three brothers, they have Ac.00-34 gts., in survey No.174, in survey No.16 extent
Ac.00.30 gts., at Sulthanpur Village and also they have Ac.01-04 gts., in survey
Pg.5 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
No.64/1 at Raghavapur Village. They all together sold the land in Raghavapur. But his brothers A1 and A2 not given the share of his amount and also sisters and his mother, due to which disputes started between them. Thereafter A1 and A2 tried to sell the land at Sulthanpur in survey No.16 extent Ac.00-30 gts., for which he refused to sell the said land as he did not given his share of Raghavapur land. On that his brothers started abused and harassed him for to sell the land. As he refused to sell the land and requested them to only sell their share and give his part of share of land. On that A1 and A2 abused him and threatened him with dire consequences to kill him. In the month of June, 2020, when he was present in his house at
Sulthanpur along with his wife/PW2 and children, A1 to A4 are called him to come out, then he came out from his house, then A1 to A4 asked him about to sell the land, but he again refused to sell the same, they all together attacked him, A2 attacked him with stone on backside of his head, due to which he fell down, then his elder brother i.e. A1 attacked him with knife and A2 sat on his legs and he tried to rescue from their hands, he sustained injury on near left side of his mouth. Then he was trying to escape from their clutches, again they attacked him with knife on his right side of near ear and also he sustained injuries on his right side of back.
Then police shifted him to Government Hospital, Pargi, who saw the incident in their own Car. Police recorded his statement at Hospital. Ex.P1 is the Complaint.
Ex.P2 is his 4 photos along with Pendrive. Ex.P3 is the 65-B Certificate, signed by
PW1. MO-1 is the folded knife.
Pg.6 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
12. PW2 who is the wife of PW1 deposed in the similar lines as that of PW1.
On 05.06.2020 at about 12:30 p.m. all the accused persons came in a Car and called her husband to come out, on that his husband went out then discussed about selling of agricultural land then A3, A4 abused in filthy language by hearing the words she came out and found A2 beat her husband with stone on his back due to which PW.1 fell down. A1 and A2 bet Pw.1, A1 came with preplanned to kill the
PW.1 at that time he tried to kill the PW.1 with his knife on his neck of PW.1, when
Pw.1 tried to escape, he sustained stab injury near to PW.1 mouth. Again PW.1 escaped from the clutches of A1 and A2, A1 and A2 stabbed Pw.1 with knife near to right of ear. Due to which Pw.1 fell down in front of others house, police came and shifted him to Government Hospital, Parigi, from there shifted him to Osmania
Hospital, for better treatment. She (PW2) also went along with Pw.1. When PW1 is in Osmania hospital, police took the complaint. Police examined and recorded her statement at their village.
13. PWs.3 and 4 who are the eye witness to the incident have stated that they do not know anything about this case and further stated that they were never examined nor recorded the statement by the police.
14. PW5 is one Chakali Venkatesh stated in his chief examination that LW9 is his brother and he made a phone call to him. PW1 and accused persons quarreled with regard to the land disputes and shifted PW1 to the government hospital at
Parigi. Immediately, he went there and found PW1 is having injuries at the left side of the cheek and also back and PW5 enquired with PWs.1 and 2, they stated that
Pg.7 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
due to land disputes the accused persons came with knife and attacked to kill him.
From there, PW1 shifted to the Osmania General Hospital for better treatment as per instructions of the doctors. Police examined and recorded the statement of
PW5.
15. PW6 Chakali Bhasker deposed that LW9 is his father. He did not know A1 to A4. On 05.06.2020, at 12:30, PW2 called him through phone and stated that the brothers of PW1 came and attacked on PW1 cheek with knife with regard to the land disputes and brought PW1 to the Parigi Hospital. Immediately, PW6 and PW5 came to the Parigi Hospital and found PW1 with injuries, thereafter, PW1 shifted to the Osmania Hospital for better treatment. Police examined and recorded PW6 statement.
16. PW7 is one Chakali Satyanarayana who deposed that PWs. 1 and 2 are his son-in-law and daughter. PW5 is his brother. PW6 and LW7 are his sons. On 05.06.2020 at about 11:30 to 12:30 PW2 made a phone call to him and informed that PW1 and brothers quarreled with regard to the land disputes and his brothers attacked PW1 with knife and PW1 shifted to the Parigi Hospital. Immediately,
PW7 came to the Parigi hospital and found PW1 with injuries on his cheek and back. Thereafter, doctors advised to shift him to the Hyderabad Hospital. As such, they shifted him to the Osmania Hospital Hyderabad. PWs.5 and 6 are went to the
Osmania Hospital along with PW1. Police examined and recorded PW7’s statement at Sultanpur village.
Pg.8 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
17. PW8 Chakali Saikiran deposed in his chief examination that PWs.1 and 2 are his brother-in-law and sister and PW5 is his junior paternal uncle. PW6 is his brother. On 05.06.2020 at about 12:30 p.m. PW2 called him that her husband's brothers came and quarreled with her husband about the land issue by threatening and attacking with knife. One Ramulu is attacking with knife and one anjaneyulu attacking with stone then her husband try to escape from there and her (PW2) husband sustained with bleeding injuries to his right side cheek and back side of the left ear and also back and shifting him to the Parigi hospital. from there to
Osmania Hospital in an Ambulance. At that time he was in the Hyderabad, then he went to the Osmania Hospital, and found PW1/brother-in-law was with injuries.
On his enquiry PW1 disclosed that, his brothers attacked him with knife and stabbed him in land issues. Police examined and recorded his statement on the next day in Sultanpur village.
18. PWs.9 and 10 who are the panch witnesses for crime detail form cum seizure panchanama have stated in their chief examination that Police stopped them and taken their signatures. No panchanama was conducted in their presence and nothing was seized in their presence as stated by PWs.9 and 10. Ex.P6 is the signauture of PW9 on CDF and Ex.P7 is the signature of PW10 on CDF.
19. PW11 is one Dappu Narsimha, VRO of Sulthanpur Village and PW12
Kavali Anjaneyulu, VRA of Sulthanpur Vilage have stated in their chief examinations that on 06.06.2020, as per the instructions of MRO, they went to PS
Pg.9 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
Parigi, where SI present and one person is present in the PS, then SI informed that the person and his brothers quarreled and they attacked with knife and he shown one knife on table and obtained their signatures on written papers. Ex.P8 is
PW11’s signature on confession-cum-seizure panchanama and Ex.P9 are the signatures (5) of PW12 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama.
20. PW13 who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon CHC, Parigi from 2015 to 2023 deposed that on 05.06.2020 a patient by name Chakali Yadgiri/PW1 came to their hospital. PW1/injured was assaulted by two known persons with knife. PW13 examined and found one laceration infront of right ear measures 10 x 1 x 1 cm.
Laceration on the left cheek measures about 7 x 1 x 1 x 1 cm and contusion on right occipital area, the nature of injuries are simple injuries. Accordingly, PW13 issued the medical certificate under Ex.P10.
21. PW14 is R. Srisailam, SI of Police, PS Parigi from November 2019 to
August 2020. On 05.06.2020 at 16 hours he received a cell phone message from
Osmania Hospital about injured person PW1 was admitted in Osmania Hospital with injuries. Immediately he went to Osmania hospital, Hyderabad and recorded statement of PW1 at Osmania hospital and returned to PS and reached to PS at 10:00 P.M, on the same day basing on the statement of PW1 he (PW14) registered the case in Cr. No.217 of 2020 U/Sec 307, 324 and 504 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR.
Ex.P11 is the FIR. During the course of investigation he went to Sulthanpur village and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators. Ex.P12
Pg.10 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
is the CDF and recorded the statements of LWs.2 to 9 i.e., PWs.2 to 8 and LW8 and PW7. On 06.06.2020 he apprehended A1 and recorded his confession statement in the presence of PWs.11 and 12 and seized one folded blade which is already marked as MO1. Ex.P13 is the confession statement of A1 and also seized the blood stained clothes of accused/A1 i.e., white pant and white shirt. MO2 are the blood stained clothes i.e., white pant and white shirt. Thereafter, he (PW14) produced the accused before JFCM, Pargi for judicial custody. On the same day issued U/Sec 41-A Cr.PC., notice to A2 and A3. Thereafter, collected the medical certificates from PW13/Doctor which is already marked as Ex.P10 and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 along with form 66. Ex.P14 is the form 66.
22. PW1, who is the injured witness and the most important witness, in his chief examination stated that A1 attacked him with knife, A2 beat him with stone, and
A3 and A4 abused him in connection with land dispute. He relied on Ex.P1 complaint, Ex.P2 photographs, Ex.P3 65-B certificate, and MO1 knife as evidence.
However, in cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the land is ancestral property and originally stood in the name of his mother A3. He also admitted that there were already family arrangements regarding shares and that after filing the case, mutation was done in his favour and he even sold part of the land. These admissions clearly show that there is a serious property disputes between family members, which creates possibility of false implication. PW1 also made
Pg.11 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
improvements in court which were not stated to police earlier, such as A2 sitting on his legs. He was also not sure who took the photographs under Ex.P2 and was uncertain about seizure of his blood stained clothes. These contradictions reduce the reliability of his evidence. It was further pointed out that PW1 himself admitted in cross-examination that he was not aware who actually took the photographs and that he was in an unconscious state at the relevant time. This creates doubt about the authenticity and origin of the electronic record, and the defence contended that the certificate appears to have been prepared later only to support the prosecution version. The counsel for the accused also argued that mere production of a 65-B certificate without strict compliance of legal requirements does not automatically prove the genuineness of electronic evidence. Since the prosecution failed to examine the actual person who recorded or transferred the digital material, the reliability of Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 becomes doubtful.
23. PW2, wife of PW1, also supported the prosecution in her chief examination and stated that accused came in a car, abused PW1 and attacked him. She supported Ex.P1 complaint version. But in cross-examination, she admitted that
PW1 never became unconscious, which is contrary to seriousness of attack alleged.
She also admitted that she did not state many important facts to police under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., such as exact manner of fall, exact position of PW1, and full sequence of attack. She further admitted that she was briefed before giving evidence in court. She also admitted existence of family property dispute and equal
Pg.12 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
shares among family members. These admissions clearly show improvements and contradictions in her version.
24. Even though in the charge sheet the name of Accused No.4 (Neeraja) was not recorded, the record shows that as per the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of
LW1, it is stated that A4 also came along with A1 to A3 to the scene of offence and allegedly abused LW1 in filthy language. Based on this statement, the Court has observed that there is prima facie material against A4 and therefore cognizance was taken against her also. However, allegations against A4 does not stand on strong footing. PW1 in his chief examination made a general statement that all accused including A4 were present and participated in the incident. But in cross- examination, PW1 did not give any specific or clear role to A4 except a general allegation of abuse. There is no clear description of exact words used by A4, no specific overt act, and no evidence that she participated in any physical assault. His evidence mainly focuses on A1 and A2 as actual attackers with knife and stone.
PW2 also made a general statement that A3 and A4 abused PW1, but even she did not clearly specify the exact words or specific conduct of A4. Importantly, PW2 also admitted in cross-examination that many material facts were not stated to police earlier under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This shows that the allegation against A4 is an improvement made later during trial.
25. PWs.3 and 4, who were projected as eye witnesses, completely turned hostile and denied knowing anything about the incident. They also denied their
Pg.13 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
earlier statements recorded by police under Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Their evidence does not support the prosecution in any manner, which is a major weakness to the case.
26. PWs.5 to 8 are all relatives of PW1 and PW2. Their evidence is only based on what they heard through phone calls or what they saw after the incident in hospital. They did not directly witness the incident. In cross-examination, they also admitted that they did not state many facts earlier to police. Their evidence is only hearsay evidence and does not directly prove the occurrence of offence or involvement of accused.
27. PWs.9 and 10, who are panch witnesses for seizure, did not support the prosecution case. They clearly stated that no seizure of knife or any material was done in their presence. This makes Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 unreliable regarding seizure proceedings. It is also relevant to note that some of the witnesses including PW2 and other close relatives like PWs.5 to 8 have stated that when they saw PW1 at hospital, he was having injuries on his face and head region and those injuries were covered with bandages. Though there is no clear evidence that his entire face was fully covered, it is admitted that his injured portions on cheek and ear area were covered with medical bandages due to treatment. Therefore, the identification of
PW1 at the hospital stage was mainly based on prior knowledge and relationship and not only by clear visual observation of his face. This circumstance creates a minor doubt regarding initial observation at hospital stage, though it does not affect the fact that PW1 is the injured person.
Pg.14 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
28. Similarly, PWs.11 and 12, who were shown as witnesses for confession and seizure of knife, also turned hostile and denied that any confession or seizure took place in their presence. This creates serious doubt regarding recovery of MO1 knife and MO2 blood stained clothes.
29. PW13, the doctor, issued Ex.P10 medical certificate and stated that PW1 had laceration injuries on cheek and ear and contusion on back. He classified injuries as simple in nature. In cross-examination, he admitted that injury description depends on information given and general examination. The defence counsel strongly questioned Ex.P10 and pointed out that the injury description does not clearly match the alleged weapon or its manner of use. The doctor also admitted that there is no clear mention of direction, depth or detailed nature of injuries in
Ex.P10. He agreed that medical opinion must be consistent with medical jurisprudence, but Ex.P10 does not fully establish such correlation. Therefore,
Ex.P10 does not support the offence under Section 307 IPC. The counsel for the accused strongly challenged Ex.P10, the medical certificate issued by PW13 (Doctor). The defence contended that Ex.P10 is not a fully reliable document to prove the nature or seriousness of injuries, and therefore it cannot support the charge under Section 307 IPC.The counsel for the accused further contended that
Ex.P10 does not contain important details such as direction, depth, exact shape of injuries, or clear linkage with a particular sharp weapon, which are necessary to conclude that the injuries were caused by a dangerous weapon like a knife. It was
Pg.15 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
also argued that the doctor himself admitted in cross-examination that there is no strict correlation between the nature of injury and the exact weapon used.
30. PW14, the Investigating Officer, also admitted several serious lapses in investigation. He did not properly record hospital details like bed number or ward details. He did not obtain proper endorsement from duty doctor while recording statement of PW1. He did not send MO1 knife and MO2 clothes for forensic examination. He also did not produce the stone allegedly used by A2 before the court. He admitted that no proper General Diary entry was made regarding receipt of information and deployment of police. He also failed to include important land documents in charge sheet. These lapses clearly show that investigation was not properly conducted and important evidence was not scientifically verified. Further, the defence counsel pointed out that PW14 admitted he received information from the hospital and later proceeded to record the statement of PW1 at Osmania
General Hospital. However, he did not obtain proper hospital endorsement, ward details, or doctor’s permission, which creates doubt about whether the statement was recorded in a proper legal manner. It was also highlighted that no independent witnesses were present at the time of recording the statement except hospital staff, and no photographs of the injured were taken, which weakens the authenticity of the investigation. It was also pointed out that the alleged seizure of weapon (MO-1 knife) and blood-stained clothes (MO-2) was not supported by proper scientific testing, as they were not sent to FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) for chemical analysis, which is a serious lapse. The defence also highlighted contradictions in
Pg.16 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
the investigation officer’s version regarding the scene of offence panchanama (Ex.P12) and stated that the sketch and physical observations were not consistent with the prosecution story. It was further argued that important material such as stone allegedly used by A2 was not properly preserved, and no explanation was given for the same.
31. Most importantly, there are major contradictions between PW1 and PW2 regarding crucial aspects like unconsciousness of PW1, exact place of occurrence, and sequence of attack. Independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case. Panch witnesses denied recovery. Medical evidence shows only simple injuries. Investigation is incomplete and defective. These factors create serious doubt about prosecution version.
32. Regarding accused/A4, there is no specific overt act attributed to her. Only general allegation of abuse is made without any clear participation in assault.
Therefore, her involvement is not proved at all.
33. The most important witnesses PWs.3 and 4, who were projected as eye witnesses, did not support the prosecution version at all. They clearly stated that they did not witness the incident and were never properly examined by police.
They were declared hostile. This weakens the direct evidence of the alleged assault. The prosecution case mainly depends on PW1 (injured) and PW2 (wife).
However, their versions contain material improvements and contradictions. PW1’s statement and PW2’s statement do not fully match on important details like exact
Pg.17 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
manner of attack, position of injuries, and presence of accused at the spot. PW1 also admitted several facts in cross-examination showing property dispute and family settlement documents (Ex.D1 to Ex.D4), which support the defence theory of civil dispute. There are serious issues regarding medical evidence (Ex.P10). The doctor (PW13) confirmed that injuries are only simple in nature, and there is no strong medical opinion showing intention to kill. This creates doubt about applicability of Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder). Further, the electronic evidence (Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 – photographs and 65-B certificate) is not strongly proved. The source of photographs is unclear, and PW1 himself was not aware who took them. This reduces the reliability of digital evidence. Further, the investigating officer/PW14 evidence is not fully reliable as there was no No FSL report for knife (MO-1) or blood-stained clothes (MO-2), No proper hospital endorsement while recording statement, No proper preservation or scientific verification of evidence, Material objects were not sent for forensic examination.
The entire case is surrounded by admitted family and land dispute, as seen from
Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 and admissions of PW1 and PW2. This supports the defence version that the incident may have arisen out of civil dispute and not a clear intention to commit murder.
34. The panch witnesses PW9, PW10, PW11, PW12 turned hostile, and they denied seizure and confession proceedings. This makes recovery of weapon and seizure documents unreliable and untrustworthy. There is no strong independent
Pg.18 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
eyewitnesses support to the case of the prosecution. The Witnesses are inconsistent and partly hostile.
35. In criminal law, prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable doubt, benefit must go to accused. In this case, multiple doubts exist at every stage including occurrence, identity of assailants, nature of injuries, recovery of weapons, and credibility of witnesses.
36. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused A1 to A4 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, all the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt and are hereby acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
37. Point No.2:-In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 307, 324 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. MOs-1 and 2 which are deposited in this Court vide CPR No. 45 of 2021, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my direct dictation to Stenographer Grade III, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 05 th Day of May, 2026.
Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad.
Pg.19 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:
PW1: Chakali Yadagiri. PW2: Divya Vani @ Divya Rani. PW3: A. Krishna Reddy. PW4: Eppapalli Ramulu. PW5: Chakali Venkatesh. PW6: Chakali Bhaskar. PW7: Chakali Satyanarayana. PW8: Chakali Saikiran. PW9: Md. Saber @ Sameer. PW10: Mohd. Afroz. PW11: Dappu Narsimha. PW12: Kavali Anjaneyulu. PW13: Dr. S. Praveen Kumar. PW14: R. Srisailam/Investigating Officer.
For Defence: -None-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Complaint. Ex.P2: Photographs of injured PW1 (with pendrive) Ex.P3: Certificate under section 65-B signed by PW1 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW3. Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW4 Ex.P6: Signature of PW9 on Crime Details Form. Ex.P7: Signature of PW10 on Crime Details Form. Ex.P8: PW11’s signature on confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P9: Signatures (5) of PW12 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P10: Medical Wound Certificate issued by PW13 Ex.P11: FIR registered by PW14 Ex.P12: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P13: Confession statement of A1 Ex.P14: Form 66 (Charge sheet details)
For Defence:
Ex.D1: Settlement document dated 20-08-2019 showing sharing arrangement
Pg.20 of 20
SC.No. 194 of 2021
among family members Ex.D2: Sale deed executed document No.1670/2021 in favour of Gnaneshwar Reddy dated 05-08-2021 Ex.D3: Gift deed document No.292/2021in favour of PW1 by mother/A3 (Exs.D1 to D3 marked in the cross-examination of PW1) Ex.D4: Document dated 21-08-2019 relating to land sharing/rights among family members executed among PW1, A1 and A2. (marked in the cross-examination of PW2)
Material Objects:
MO1 – knife MO2 – Blood stained clothes of accused A1
Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad.