Mohd. Abdul Rafi
Principal District and Sessions Judge , Mahabubabad
Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex · Mahabubabad · Telangana
MOHD. ABDUL RAFI, Principal District and Sessions Judge , Mahabubabad, is posted at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex, Mahabubabad, Telangana, India. 321 court orders on record since 2025. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC, MVOP, AS cases.
Featured Judgments
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT:
MAHABUBABAD
MONDAY, THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MAY, 2026
Present: Mohd. Abdul Rafi
Principal Sessions Judge,
Mahabubabad
SESSIONS CASE No.136 of 2025
1.Name of the Complainant The State of Telangana represented by the Inspector of Police, P.S. Mahabubabad Town
2.Name of the Accused : Sampathu Srinu, S/o Ramaswamy, aged: 41 years, occ: Mason, R/o Bhupathanna Colony, Mahabubabad Mandal and district.
3.PRC No.51 / 2025
4.Name of the ofcer who Smt. Swathi Murarii committed the case to JFCMi Mahabubabad
Sessions Court
3.Crime Number304 / 2025 of Name of Police Station:P.S. Mahabubabad town
4.Prosecution conducted Sri K. Venkataiah Incharge Public Prosecutor, by : Mahabubabad
5.Defence conducted by :Sri D. Nageshwar Rao Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel
6.ChargeUnder Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023
7.Plea of the accused :Pleaded Not Guilty
8.Finding of the Court : Found guilty
9. Result : In the result, the accused is found guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023 and he is convicted under Section 258(2) of BNSS, 2023 for the said ofence.
2
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
Thus, the accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and he shall pay fne of Rs.5,000/n(Rupees Five Thousand only) in default of payment of fne, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the ofence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023. The remand period of the accused from 11n08n2025 to till date i.e., 04n05n 2026 shall be set of as against the term of imprisonment as per section 468 BNSS, 2023 The case property of M.O.1 is one pair of footwear, M.O.2 is white colour shirt with black checks, M.O.3 is blood stained shirt of the deceased, M.O.4 is blood stained tnshirt of the deceased, M.O.5 is one long stick which are useless shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The accused is also informed about the appeal provision and the facility of legal aid for fling an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by this court.
This case is coming up before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri K. Venkataiah, Incharge Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri D. Nageshwar Rao, Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the Accused; and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
::J U D G M E N T::
1.The State represented by the Inspector of Police, P.S.
Mahabubabad town, has laid a charge sheet against the accused in
3
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
Crime No. 304/2025 of P.S. Mahabubabad town; charged under
Section 103 of BNS, 2023 with the following allegations:
(i) That the deceased by name Thulla Prabhakar was a resident of
Lenin Nagar, Mahabubabad town. The parents and younger brother of the deceased were expired. The deceased was eking out his livelihood by doing coolie works and was residing in a rented house belonging to Kunusoth Babu situated at Lenin Nagar Mahabubabad
Town. The deceased was unmarried. The accused by name Sampathi
Srinu is 4th son of his parents. The accused was born and brought up at Lenin Nagar, Mahabubabad and he studied upto 7th standard.
Thereafter, the accused learned mason work and eking out his livelihood by attending coolie works near Railway station Adda at
Mahbubabad Town.
ii)It is further alleged that about 20 years ago, prior to August, 2025, the accused married one Chandrakala, resident of Gate
Gundratimudugu village of Kuravi mandal. Out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with one daughter. The accused addicted to consume alcohol and used to beat his wife, due to the harassment, the wife of the accused left him about 15 years ago, prior to August, 2025 and went to her parents home along with her daughter and staying there. Thereafter the elder brother and younger brother of
4
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
the accused sold away the house situated at Lenin nagar,
Mahabubabad town and went away.
iii)It is further alleged that about 8 years ago, the CPM Party members erected huts at Bhupathanna Colony, Mahabubabad town, then the accused also erected hut and used to stay there. After few days, when the CPM Party leaders gave house site, the accused constructed a room with cement bricks and he along with his mother used to live in that room. For the last 5 years, the mother of the accused by name Sampathu Laxmi has been sufering from paralysis.
The husband of 2nd sister of accused was demised, then his 2nd sister came to his house and used to live in his house and looked after his mother. Since, the wife of accused left him, the accused used to consume liquor and used to sleep wherever he wants. As such, the accused used to go to the rented house of the deceased.
iv)It is further alleged that The accused has well known the deceased from his childhood and the deceased alone used to live in the rented house at Leninnagar, Mahabubabad and he was unmarried. Then, the accused used to visit the rented house of the deceased and used to take the deceased along with him to attend mason work. They used to have meals together and used to have alcohol and sleep at the rented house of the deceased at Leninnagar,
Mahabubabad. Occasionally, the deceased was sleeping on CC road
5
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
and whenever the accused visit the rented room of the deceased, he also used to sleep on CC road at Lenin Nagar along with the deceased.
v)It is further alleged that about 10 days ago prior to the date of incident, the accused picked up quarrel with his mother and came to the rented room of the deceased and was staying with the deceased and used to attend mason work. One day before the date of death of the deceased i.e., on 03n08n2025, the accused went to attend coolie work at Indira Nagar colony at Mahabubabad and in the afternoon, he went to the room of the deceased and again he went to Indira Nagar and was working there and in the evening at about 6:30 pm, he went to the house of the deceased at Lenin Nagar Mahabubabad. The accused went outside and had liquor and purchased curry and rice at curry point and came back to the rented house of the deceased in the night at about 9:00 pm, then both the accused and the deceased had meals, as the rice was insufcient the deceased went outside to ask rice, when nobody provided the rice, the deceased came back to home and thereafter, the accused and deceased together slept on CC road, at Lenin Nagar, where the deceased was having alcohol.
vi)It is further alleged that then the accused questioned as to why he was having alcohol, whereupon the deceased abused the accused in flthy language as who was he to question him. Then accused also
6
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
abused him in flthy language, both abused each other.
Subsequently, on the same day in the night at about 10:30 pm, while the accused was going inside the house of the deceased, due to bite of mosquitoes, the deceased abused the accused saying as to why he was going inside his house. There upon, the accused got furious upon the deceased and all of a sudden decided to kill the deceased.
With an intention to kill the deceased, the accused picked up a long stick (Teak wood) from the front side of rack shed of Gandamalla
Anand (L.W.5) and when the deceased was sitting on a mat on CC
Road, the accused beat the deceased with long stick on his head and caused severe injuries. Then the deceased fell on the mat on CC road, Lenin Nagar.
vii)It is further alleged that the accused again beat the deceased with long stick for 2, 3 times on back side of the head to ensure that the deceased would die. Then the accused beat the deceased on face with same long stick and caused injuries and committed the murder of the deceased. After confrming that the death of the deceased, the accused kept the long stick, weapon of ofence at the same place from where he picked up stick from front side of rack shed of the scene. Thereafter the accused went to upside of CC road and sat in the auto of Nathi Suresh (P.W.8). Thereafter the accused went to the house of Nathi Suresh (P.W.8) and knocked the door and asked him
7
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
to open the doors of his house intimating that the deceased has died on CC road, Leninnagar, upon that P.W.8 admonished the accused and did not open the doors of his house.
viii)It is further alleged that on the night of 03n08n2025, the accused roamed in the same locality and tried to wake up local people but none of them woke up. The accused stayed at the place of ofence till morning hours around 06:30 am on 04.08.2025. The same was captured in the CC Footage of CC TV. surveillance cameras fxed at the house of Kotha Vineeth Reddy (P.W.5). Thereafter, the local residents people woke up and gathered at the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter noticing the relatives of the deceased arriving at the scene of ofence, the accused left the scene and went to his house and did not inform anything to his mother, and then the accused had bath and after having meals, the accused left his house and went to Railway Station Mahabubabad and boarded Push pull
Train and went to Khammam. Later on 11.08.2025 morning the accused boarded Golconda Train and came to Mahabubabad and while the accused was proceeding to his house, enrouted when the accused reached at Srinivasa Center Mahabubabad, he was apprehended by the police concerned.
ix)It is further alleged that on 04n08n2025 at about 10.15 am, the
Junior Maternal uncle of the deceased by name Vanagala Gattaiah
8
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
(P.W.1) went to P.S. Mahabubabad town and lodged a report narrating the aforesaid incident. Basing on the contents of the report lodged by P.W.1, a case in Cr.No. 304/2025 U/Sec.103(1) BNS,2023 was registered at P.S. Mahabubabad Town and investigated into.
During the course of investigation, T. Prashanth Babu, the then Subn
Inspector of police, P.S. Mahabubabad town (P.W.14) addressed a letter to the Clues team incharge. Mahabubabad with a request to visit the scene of ofence to trace and collect clues and also passed information to P. Sarvaiah, the then CirclenInspector of Police,
Mahabubabad rural circle incharge of Station House Ofcer P.S.
Mahbubabad town (P.W.15), as G. Mahender Reddy, regular Inspector of Police P.S. Mahabubabad town (P.W.16) went on (18) days of earned leave and the Superintendent of Police, Mahabubabad instructed P.W.15 to look after the duties of Station house ofce P.S.
Mahabubabad Town vide order DO No. 691/2025, C.No.
A4/ELnDPO/MHBD/924/2025, dated: 17.07.2025.
x)it is further alleged that on receipt of the copy of FIR, P.W.15 took up investigation in this case and collected CD fle from P.W.14.
During the course of investigation, P.W.15 proceeded to the scene of ofence situated at Leninnagar, Mahabubabad town, where he has examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1. P.W.15 secured the presence of two mediators namely Vaddi Nagaiah (L.W.11) and G.
9
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
Srikar (L.W.10) in their presence, he observed the scene of ofence minutely and incorporated their observations and physical features of the scene of ofence in crime detail form in the presence of the mediators and he got photographed the entire scene of ofence and the dead body of the deceased with the help of private photographer by name Shaik Jhony (P.W.6). Thereafter Bharathwaj Bijender, clues team PC No.1189(P.W.7) collected 1) blood stains on the dead body of the deceased, 2) blood stains besides the dead body of the deceased, 3) Control for sample No.2 from besides the dead body of deceased, 4) 1npair of footwear light sky blue colour, brand Aqualite, size No.8, 5) White Colour Shirt with black checks, brand VBRGE,
Medium size, packed the same and handed over to P.W.15 to forward the same to the chemical examination for analysis. P.W.15 has drawn the rough sketch for the scene of ofence and incorporated the physical features of the scene of ofence in the crime details form in the presence of the mediators.
xi)It is further alleged that thereafter P.W.15 has examined and recorded the statements of Vanagala Naveen (P.W.2), Nandipati
Iddamma (P.W.3),Surugu Narsaiah (P.W.4), Gandamalla Anand (L.W.5), Bethamalla Kousalya (L.W.6), Shaik Jhony (P.W.6),
Bharathwaj Bijender Singh (P.W.7) and he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and secured the presence of two
10
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
mediators namely Dandem Venkanna (P.W.9) and Akula Nagaraju (LWn14) and P.W.15 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of other mediators and referred the dead body of the deceased to the Govt. General Hospital, Mahabubabad for postmortem examination and submitted a requisition to the duty doctor, Government General Hospital, Mahabubabad, with a request to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly Dr. K. Ambika, Senior Resident, Department of
Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Mahabubabad (P.W.12) conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. After completion of postmortem examination the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the relatives of the deceased for funeral rites.
xii)It is further alleged that thereafter P.W.15 has examined and recorded the statements of Kotha Vineeth Reddy (P.W.5) and Nathi
Suresh (P.W.8) and he collected pen drive from P.W.5 containing
CCTV footage in, which accused was found knocking doors of residents and moving in surrounding area after commission of ofence. Subsequently he collected Certifcate U/Sec.63 (4) (c) of BSA, 2023 from P.W.5. While making eforts to apprehend the absconding accused, on 11n08n2025 in the morning on reliable information,
P.W.15 along with his staf rushed to Srinivasa Centre, near Railway
11
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
Station at Mahabubabad town and apprehended the accused at 11n 00 am. He submtited a requisition to the Tahsildar, Mahabubabad to depute two ofcial panchas, he secured the presence of two mediators namely Kurakula Srivastav (L.W.15) and Rajula
Veerbhadram (P.W.11) in their presence, he interrogated the accused. During the course of interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the ofence pertaining to this case and the confession of the accused was reduced into writing in the presence of the mediators.
xiii)It is further alleged that the accused stated that he would show the weapon which was used in commission of ofence i.e. long stick at the place where he kept the long stick. After reducing the confession of the accused into confession panchanama, as per the confession, the accused led the police party along with mediators to the place i.e. in front of rack shed of Gandamalla Anand (LWn5) at
Lenin Nagar Mahabubabad and shown the long stick, where P.W.16 seized a long stick (Teak Wood) which was used by the accused during commission of ofence. P.W.15 brought the accused along with seized property to P.S. Mahabubabad town at 1n20 pm and he efected the arrest of the accused, got him remanded to judicial custody after following the due procedure.
12
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
xiv) It is further alleged that Dr. K. Ambika (P.W.12) after conducting Postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem examination report duly preserving the viscera. The seized material objects i.e., 1) blood stains on the dead body of deceased, 2) blood stained earth, 3) Control earth, 4) blood stained shirt, 5. Blood stained T. shirt(Items 4 and 5) were collected from the dead body of the deceased on 04n08n2025 were forwarded to RFSL, Khammam on 11n08n2025 through SubnDivisional police Ofcer, Mahabubabad for chemical examination and report. On receipt of the material objects, Dr. B. Naga Laxmi, scientifc ofcer,
RFSL, Khammam (P.W.13) has analyzed the material objects and issued report dt: 22n08n2025 wherein she opined that that item nos.1 to 5 were examined, human blood was detected on Item Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, blood group of blood stains on item Nos. 1, 2 and 5 is of ‘B’ blood group. The blood group of blood stains on item No.4 could not be determined, blood was not not detected on item No.3 which was received as control, for item Nos.1 and 2.
xv) It is further alleged that the material objects namely item No.1:
stomach and small intestine with their contents, item No.2: liver and kidney, Item No.3: blood were presented by the Dr. K. Ambika (P.W.12) at the time of autopsy on 04n08n2025, forwarded to the
RFSL Khammam through SDPO, Mahabubabad on 11n08n2025 and on
13
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
reciept of material objects, Sri K. Sudhakar, Scientifc Ofcer, RFSL,
Khammam (L.W.19) has examined the same and issued a report dt:
26n08n2025, wherein he opined that items 1 to 3 were analyzed, but no poisonous substance was found in them. The seized material objects, i.e., blood stained long stick seized from the accused and forwarded through RFSL, Khammam through SDPO, Mahabubabad on 16n08n2025 and on receipt of the material objects K. Sudhakar,
Scientifc ofcer, RFSL, Khammam (L.W.19) analyzed the same and issued a report wherein he opined that item No.1 was examined, human blood was detected on item No.1 and its blood group is of B group.
xvi) It is further alleged that subsequently on 13n08n2025, G.
Mahender Reddy, inspector of police, P.S. Mahabubabad town (P.W.16) reported for duty from earned leave and took up the investigation in this case and verifed the investigation done by
P.W.15 and found it on proper lines. Basing on the examination report in respect of viscera and postmortem examination fndings Dr. K.
Ambika,SeniorResident,DepartmentofForensic
Medicine,Government Medical College, Mahabubabad (P.W.12) issued fnal opinion stating that the death of the deceased was due to head injury. After collecting all the documents and after completion of the
14
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
investigation, P.W.16 laid a charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.
2.This case was taken on fle under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023 against the accused by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mahabubabad vide PRC No. 51/2025. On production of the accused from District Jail, Khammam, before that court, all the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon were furnished to him as required under Section 230 of BNSS, 2023.
3.On 17n10n2025 a committal order was pronounced in the open court by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad, in PRC
No. 51/2025, wherein the case was committed to the court of
Sessions Division, Mahabubabad, as the ofence under Section 103
(1) of BNS, 2023 is exclusively triable by the court of sessions,
Mahabubabad.
4.On receipt of case record from the committal court, this
Principal Sessions court, Mahabubabad, registered the case as
S.C.No. 136/2025 and proceeded with the case against the accused.
5.On 09n01n2026 the accused was examined under Section 251 of BNSS, 2023 by explaining the accusation made against him, wherein he denied the commission of ofence, upon consideration of the case record and documents submitted therewith and after hearing submissions of both sides, it was opined that there is a
15
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
ground for presuming that the accused has committed the ofence, whereupon a charge under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023 was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 and M.Os.1 to 5. The prosecution has given up the evidence of Gandamalla Anand (L.W.5), Bethamalla
Kousalya (L.W.6) vaddi Nagaiah (L.W.11) Akula Nagaraju (L.W.14), and Kurakula Srivastav (L.W.15).
7.On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 351 BNSS, 2023 by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him found in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, he denied the incriminating circumstances and did not prefer to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.
8.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record, including written arguments fled on behalf of the prosecution.
9. Now the points for determination are :
i). Whether the accused inficted injuries on the body of the deceased by name Thulla Prabhakari leading to his death?
16
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
ii). Whether the prosecution is successful in
bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 103i1) of
BNSi 2023 beyond all reasonable doubts?
10.The prosecution story, in brief, is that : on 03n08n2025 during night time at about 10.30 pm, at Leninnagar, Mahabubabad town, the accused, who is known person of the deceased, beat the deceased by name Thulla Prabhakar with a long stick (Teak wood) on his head and other parts of the body indiscriminately and committed murder of the deceased on the pretext of the deceased was consuming alcohol and even after warning him and as such the accused is liable for punishment for the ofence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023. On the other hand, the defence of the accused is one of the total denial of the prosecution case.
11.In order to bring home the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses, out of them, the defacto complainant, who is the junior maternal uncle of the deceased by name Vanagalla Gattaiah was examined as P.W.1, another Junior material uncle of the deceased by name Vanagalla
Naveen, who is the circumstantial witness, was examined as P.W.2, the Senior maternal aunt of the deceased by name Nandipati
Iddamma was examined as P.W.3, neighbours of the deceased namely Surugu Narsaiah and Kotha Vineeth Reddy were examined as
17
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
P.Ws.4 and 5 respectively, the private photographer by name Shaik
Jhony pasha who has taken photographs of the scene of ofence, covering the dead body of the deceased was examined as P.W.6, the
Clues team constable PC No. 1189 of P.S. Mahabubabad town by name Bharadwaj Bijender Singh was examined as P.W.7, Nathi
Suresh, who is vicinity person of the scene of ofence was present was examined as P.W.8, the mediator by name Dandem Venkanna, who is said to be present at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased was examined as P.W.9, one of the mediators by name Gulagattu Srikar, who is said to be present at the time of conducing panchanama for the scene of ofence was examined as P.W.10, one of the mediators by name Ravula
Veerabhadram, who is said to be present at the time of interrogation of the accused was examined as P.W.11, Dr. K. Ambika, Senior resident, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical
College, Mahabubabad, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased was examined as P.W.12, Dr. V.
Nagalaxmi, scientifc ofcer, RFSL, Khammam, who analyzed the material objects was examined as P.W.13, T. Prashanth Babu, the then SubnInspector of Police, P.S.Mahabubabad town, who registered the crime and issued FIR was examined as P.W.14, P. Sarvaiah,
Circleninspector of Police, P.S. Mahabubabad rural circle, incharge of
18
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
Station House Ofcer,P.S. Mahabubabad town, who conducted major part of the investigation in this case, was examined as P.W.15, G.
Mahender Reddy, Inspector of Police, P.S. Mahabubabad town, who is the 2nd investigating ofcer in this case laid a charge sheet against the accused was examined as P.W.16.
12.In support of oral evidence, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the following documents and material objects. Ex.P1 is the police report dt; 04n08n2025 lodged by P.W.1, to the police concerned, Ex.P2 n pen drive with regard to CC tv footage downloaded from CCTV DVR, Ex.P3 : 9 positive photographs covering scene of ofence and the dead body of the deceased, Ex.P4 is inquest report of the deceased dt: 04n08n2025, Ex.P5 is the crime details form
dt: 04n08n2025, Ex.P6 is rough sketch for the scene of ofence dt: 04n
08n2025, Ex.P7 is relevant portion with regard to discovery of crime weapon i.e., stick in confession panchanama of the accused dt: 11n 08n2025, Ex.P8 is the seizure panchanama of the accused dt: 11n08n 2025, Ex.P9 is postmortem examination report dt: 04n08n2025 issued by P.W.12, Ex.P10 is the requisition dt: 04n08n2025 addressed by
Station House Ofcer, P.S. Mahabubabad town to the duty doctor,
Government General Hospital, Mahabubabad, Ex.P11 is the report of
RFSL, Khammam dt: 26n08n2025, with regard to viscera Ex.P12 is fnal opinion dt: 08n09n2025 issued by P.W.12 with regard to the
19
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
cause of death of the deceased, Ex.P13 report of RFSL,
Khammam,dated 22n08n2025, Ex.P14 is FIR dated 04n08n2025 issued by P.w.14, Ex.P15 is certifcate under Section 63(3)(c) of BSA, 2023,
Ex.P16 is report of RFSL, Khammam, dt: 22n08n2025, M.O.1 is a pair of footwear, M.O.2 is white colour shirt with black checks, M.O.3 is blood stained shirt of the deceased, M.O.4 is blood stained tnshirt of the deceased, M.O.5 is one long stick (Teak wood).
13.In order to establish the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 16, among them, P.Ws.1 to 5 & 8 are the main witnesses, on whose testimony the entire case of the prosecution is relied upon. In addition to the oral testimony of
P.Ws.1 to 16, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the documentary evidence and material objects. The oral evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 16, the documentary evidence, (Exs.P1 to P16) and material objects (M.Os.1 to 5) is to be appreciated by the court. No material discrepancies going to the root of the case have been elicited in the cross examination of material witnesses. Therefore, there is no reason for these witnesses is comingnforth to speak falsehood as against the accused. Thus, there is nothing to discredit the testimony of these material witnesses and their evidence is consistent through out and inspires the confdence of the court.
20
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
Therefore, these witnesses can be believed and can be depended upon in adjudicating the matter.
POINT Nos.i) & ii):-
14.In order to prove the case under Section 101 of BNS, 2023, the prosecution, frst it must establish that a bodily injury is present, secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved, thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to infict that particular bodily injury, that is to say that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these elements are established by the prosecution, the ofence is murder under Section 101 of BNS, 2023.
15.The Culpable homicide is murder, if the following conditions are satisfed i.e.,
a). that the act which causes death is done with the intention of causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury and b). that the injury intended to be inficted is sufcient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It must be proved that there was an intention to infict that particular bodily injury which, in the ordinary course of nature, was sufcient to cause death viz., that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inficted.
21
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
16.A perusal of Ex. P13 frst information report, it reveals that the incident took place on 03n08n2025 after 8n00 pm and on 04n08n2025 in the morning hours the incident came to the knowledge of the defacto complainant by name Vanagalla Gattaiah who is the junior maternal uncle of the deceased and forthwith on the same day at about 6n00 am, he lodged Ex.P1 report in P.S. Mahabubabad town i.e., within a short span of time from the time of his knowledge with regard to the incident. Thus, there appears to be no possibility for investigating agency or defacto complainant (P.W.1), who is the junior maternal uncle of the deceased, to develop the case against the accused at primary stage itself. P.W.1 in his evidence narrated the manner of causing the death of the deceased by the accused as in his Ex.P1 report, while giving evidence before the court.
17.It is to be frst seen whether the accused inficted the bodily injuries on the deceased by name Thulla Prabhakar in order to cause his death. In order to prove the actual incident, the prosecution has examined the relatives of the deceased and his negibhours. P.W.1 –
Vanagalla Gattaiah, who is the junior maternal uncle of the deceased, in his evidence stated that on 04.08.2025, at about 6.00am, while he was attending his work at Tifn center, Aleru, at that time, he received a phone call from Surugu Narsaiah(PW4) stating that the accused caused the death of the deceased on the CC road in front of
22
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
house of Gopaiah at Lenin Nagar, Mahabubabad. On receipt of the phone call from Surugu Narasaiah(PW4), he informed the death of the deceased to all his close relatives and himself, his wife and other family members rushed to the place of incident and found the deceased Prabhakar was lying on the CC road in the pool of blood.
Then, he enquired the inhabitants of the colony with regard to cause of death of the deceased, who caused his death. On his enquiry, he was informed by the inhabitants of the said locality that the accused and the deceased moved in the last night and due to the disputes in between them, the accused caused the death of the deceased and the deceased is no other than the son of his elder sister by name
Yellamma. The deceased sold out his house, two or three years ago and the deceased was residing in front of the house of Yellamma on rent by taking a room. The deceased was also attending mason work during his life time along with the accused.
18.P.W.1 in his evidence further stated that he was informed by the inhabitants of the colony that prior to the death of the deceased, the accused used to come to the room of the deceased and both of them used to consume liquor and eat food in the room of the deceased. The wife and children of the accused left the house of the accused and the accused was also residing alone. On that night, the
23
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
accused and the deceased were moving and chatting with the colony people and subsequently, there was dispute between the accused and the deceased and there was heated conversation in between them and the accused grew wild and caused the death of the deceased. The deceased was unmarried. After the death of the deceased, the accused was absconded from his house at Lenin nagar.
Then, he went to PS Mahabubabad town and lodged Ex.P1 report.
19.It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.1 on behalf of the accused that on receipt of the death intimation of the deceased on 04n08n2025 at about 6n00 am, he rushed to Leninnagar,
Mahabubabad and his village is at a distance of 14kms from
Mahabubabad. Ex.P1 report is not with his handwriting, some photographer scribed Ex.P1 report on his dictation. It was denied that prior to death of the deceased, the deceased was not residing in the
Lenin nagar, Mahabubabad and it was further denied that the accused and the deceased never went together for attending mason work. It was suggested to P.W.1 in his cross examination on behalf of the accused that the deceased never resided in Lenin Nagar,
Mahabubabad and during his life time he addicted to consume liquor and used to quarrel with the colony people and he used to fallen in the drunken stage and in that regard, the police concerned
24
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
admonished the deceased in several times, but there was no change in the behaviour of the deceased and on the night of 03.08.2025 in drunken condition, the deceased might have been fell down and sustained injuries leading to his death and the accused is no way responsible for the death of the deceased and the said suggestion was denied by P.W.1 in his cross examination.
20.P.W.2 – Vanagalla Naveen, who is another Junior Maternal Uncle of the deceased in his evidence stated in the similar manner as that of P.W.1 and thereby he supported the testimony of P.W.1 in all respects. It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.2 on behalf of the accused that the deceased was having own house, but it was in dismantled position and the deceased was residing in a rental room alone. It was denied that during the life time of the deceased, he never met the deceased at Lenin Nagar, Mahabubabad and the deceased, during his lifetime, did not do the mason work and the deceased addicted to consume liquor and he used to sleep on the roads. It was further denied that they suspected that the accused might have been caused the death of the deceased and falsely implicated the accused in this case. It was suggested to P.W.2 on behalf of the accused, in his cross examination that the colony people did not witness while the accused causing the death of the
25
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
deceased and due to suspicion against the accused, they only gave false information to them and the said suggestion was denied by
P.W.2 in his cross examination.
21.P.W.3nNandipati Iddamma, who is the Senior Maternal Aunt of the deceased, in her evidence stated that the deceased by name
Thulla Prabhakar and the accused used to do the mason work. On 04.08.2025, at about 6.00am, while she was in her house situated at
Redyala village, at that time, she received a phone call from PW1 stating that the deceased Prabhakar has died and her dead body was in front of the house of Gopaiah at Lenin Nagar, Mahabubabad and somebody caused his death. On receipt of the phone call from PW1, she along with her family members rushed to the place of incident and found dead body of the deceased by name Prabhakar was lying on the CC road in the pool of blood. Then, they enquired the inhabitants of the colony with regard to cause of death of the deceased and who caused his death. On their enquiry, they were informed by the inhabitants of the said locality that on the earlier day, the accused and the deceased attended mason work and in the night both were moving together by consuming alcohol and in the early hours, they found the dead body of the deceased on CC road in the pool of blood and the accused might have been caused the death
26
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
of the deceased. The accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. The parents of the deceased were no more and they were expired prior to the death of the deceased. The deceased was unmarried and the deceased was residing in the Lenin Colony,
Mahabubabad prior to his death.
22.It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.3 on behalf of the accused that the deceased was residing in the rented house belonging to Gopaiah, prior to his death. As and when, she came to the house of mother of the deceased, she used to see the accused in the company of the deceased. The accused was also residing in the same locality. He stated before the police that then and there, the deceased consumed liquor and slept on the CC road. It was suggested to P.W.3 in her cross examination on behalf of the accused that the accused is no way responsible for the death of the deceased and the accused never closely moved with the deceased and that they were not informed by the colony people that the accused caused the death of the deceased and the said suggestions were denied by P.W.3 in her cross examination.
23.P.W.4n Surugu Narsiah, who is the neighbour of the deceased, in his evidence stated that on the intervening night of 3/4n8n2025, the deceased Prabhakar has died. The deceased and the accused used to
27
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
do mason work and on 03n08n2025 at about 2.00pm, he has seen the deceased in the company of the accused nearby his house. The deceased was residing in rental room nearby his house for the last two years, prior to 03.08.2025. the deceased was residing at Lenin
Nagar, Mahabubabad from his childhood. The parents of the deceased have got own house at Lenin Nagar, Mahabubabad and after the death of parents and younger brother, the deceased sold out his own house and started residing in the rental room. The accused has got also own house at Lenin Nagar, Mahabubabad and he also sold out his own house. The accused had married and got one daughter and the wife of the accused deserted the accused long ago and left the house of the accused along with her daughter and since then, the accused was residing lonely. During the lifetime of the deceased, the accused and the deceased used to move closely by maintaining friendship by attending mason work and they used to consume alcohol together and they used to stay in the rental room of the deceased. He came to know that on the night of 03.08.2025, the accused and the deceased slept on the CC road. On 04.08.2025, in the early hours at about 6.00am, while he was coming out from the house for bringing milk and found the deceased was lying on the CC road with bleeding head injury and he was in the pool of blood.
28
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
24.P.W.4 in his evidence further stated that he called the neighbours to the scene of ofence. The neighbours told him that they have seen the deceased in the company of the accused on the
CC road in the night of 03.08.2025 and they enquired about the accused by the time, the accused was absconding. Then, they have suspected that the accused might have been caused the death of the deceased. The colony people came to conclusion that defnitely, the accused caused the death of the deceased, there is no other person to cause the death of the deceased. Then, he contacted the uncle of the deceased by name Gattaiah(PW1) over a mobile phone and informed him about the death of the deceased. Upon that PW1 and the other relatives of the deceased rushed to the scene of ofence and PW1 lodged a report in PS Mahabubabad Town.
25.It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.4 on behalf of the accused that the rough sketch drawn in the crime details form, his house is not shown, his house is some distance from the houses shown in the rough sketch for the scene of ofence. He did not state
before the police that he came to know through his neighbours that
on the night of 03.08.2025, the accused and the deceased moved together and slept on the CC road. It was suggested to P.W.4 in his cross examination on behalf of the accused that there were disputes
29
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
between the deceased and the person, who purchased his house and also there were disputes with his neighbours and he did not fnd the deceased in the company of the accused on 03.08.2025 at about 2.00pm and the deceased used to consume liquor heavily and in drunken stage frequently fell down under the infuence of the alcohol and the deceased himself fell down under the infuence of the alcohol due to which, he sustained head injury leading to his death and the said suggestions were denied by P.W.4 in his cross examination.
26.P.W.5n Kotha Vineeth Reddy, who is another neighbour of the deceased, in his evidence stated that on the intervening night of 03/04.08.2025, the deceased Prabhakar was killed. The police
Mahabubabad Town approached him on 04.08.2025 in the morning and asked him CC TV footage in respect of CC cameras installed in his house. On the request of the police concerned, he checked the CC
TV DVR and found on the intervening night of 03/04.08.2025, at 2.01am, the accused was going infront of his house and after fve minutes, he was returning back from infront of his house and at about 2.39am, the accused sat in the auto, which was stationed at thi road junction. The said auto belongs to Nathi Suresh(LW10) and the said auto was stationed in front of the house of the Nathi
Suresh(LW10). At 4.15am, the accused was coming out from the
30
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
house of Nathi Suresh(LW10). At 6.21am, the accused was going from infront of his house. At 6.27am, the accused was appeared infront of their house. The accused was captured in the CC camera at last at 6.27am. On the request of the police, Mahabubabad Town, the
CC camera data was downloaded in respect of 04.08.2025, at 2.00am upto 6.30am in the pen drive and handed over the said Ex.P2 pen drive to the said police, concerned with regard to the CC footage downloaded from CC TV DVR.
27.P.W.5 in his evidence further stated that on 04n08n2025 at about 7n00 am, he came out from the house and found the dead body of Prabhakar infront of the house of Prabhakar on CC road in the pool of blood. On enquiry they came to know that the accused might have been caused the death of the deceased in the intervening night of 03/04.08.2025. It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.5 on behalf of the accused that he can download CC footage data from CC
TV DVR to pendrive. There is no proof with him stating that he downloaded the CC footage from the CC TV DVR to pendrive and handed over the police concerned, except his oral assertion. The accused is residing in another colony and the accused used to spend his much time with the deceased by staying with the deceased’s at rented house. He denied his knowledge whether the deceased is
31
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
chronic drinker and he used to consume alcohol heavily and in the intoxication, he used to fell down. In the CC footage downloaded by him from CCTV DVR, it does not disclose on the night of 03/04.08.2025, the accused and the deceased together were proceeding from in front of his house. It was suggested to P.W.5, in his cross examination on behalf of the accused that the deceased under the infuence of the alcohol he fell down on the CC road and sustained bleeding head injury and the family members of the deceased falsely implicated the accused in this case and the said suggestion was denied by P.W.5 in his cross examination.
28. P.W.6n Shaik Johny Pasha, who is the private photographer, in his evidence stated that he is private photographer having photo studio under the name and style as Padmalaya photo studio at Nehru center, Mahabubabad. On 04.08.2025, at about 10.00am, while he was in his house at that time, he received a phone call from PS
Mahabubabad Town with a request to come to Lenin Nagar,
Mahabubabad for taking photographs of the scene of ofence.
Accordingly, on the same day, he reached Lenin Nagar,
Mahabubabad at about 11.00am. he found one dead body of the deceased was lying on the CC road in pool of blood, he also found one big stone nearby the dead body of the deceased. He also found
32
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
the Inspector of Police and his staf and clues team. On the request of the Inspector of police, Mahabubabad and his staf, he photographed the scene of ofence covering the dead body of the deceased and also videographed the scene of ofence. He handed over the Ex.P3n 9 positive photographs along with CD.
29.P.W.7nBharadwaj Bijender Singh, who is police constable of clues team, in his evidence stated that on 04n08n2025 at about 8.00am, while he was discharging his duties at Headquarters,
Mahabubabad at that time, he received a phone call from PS
Mahabubabad Town with a request to come to Lenin Nagar,
Mahabubabad, where one male person was killed. Accordingly, himself and homeguard reached the scene of ofence situated at
Lenin Nagar, Mahabubabad and started observing the scene of ofence minutely. they noticed one dead body of the deceased was lying on the CC road in pool of blood. They also noticed severe bleeding injuries on the head and back side of the head of the deceased. They also noticed a pair of chappals (M.O.1) and one blood stained shirt (M.O.2) and the same were collected from the scene of ofence and handed over the same to the Circleninspector of police,
Mahabubabad rural circle, who was incharge of Inspector of police,
Mahabubabad town police station.
33
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
30.P.W.8n Nathi Suresh, who is the neighbour of the deceased, in his evidence stated that on 04.08.2025, at about 5.00am, the accused came to his house and tapped the main door and then, he woke from the sleep, but he did not open the door. The accused told him from outside of the door that the deceased was in the pool of blood on the CC road, but he did not come to the door and continued to sleep. The accused used to come to the houses of colony people and used to tap the doors under the infuence of the alcohol and he thought that the accused was intoxicated state as usual and tap the door. At about 6.00 am, he came out from the house and he noticed the dead body of the deceased by name Prabhakar was in the pool blood on the CC road and in the meantime, the colony people gathered at the scene of ofence. By that time, the accused was also present along with the colony people. The colony people discussed that on the day before night, the deceased was moving in the company of the accused under intoxicated stage and in the night time, the accused might have been caused the death of the deceased and on hearing their discussion, the accused escaped from the colony.
31.P.W.8 in his evidence further stated that they also noticed severe bleeding injuries on the head of the deceased. On the day
34
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
before night, the accused and the deceased were moving together
and consuming alcohol and slept on the CC road and the accused must have been caused the death of the deceased and there is no other person to cause the death of the deceased.
32.It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.8 on behalf of the accused that the accused was residing in another colony. Earlier the accused has got a house at Leninnagar, Mahabubabad and the same was disposed of and the accused used to spend his time in the
Lenin nagar Colony with the deceased. The deceased has got a house and after the death of his mother, the deceased sold out his house and staying in the rented room at Lenin Nagar, Mahabubabad. He denied his knowledge whether there were disputes in between the deceased and the person who purchased the house of the deceased.
The deceased used to consume liquor and slept on the CC road either
before selling his house or after the sale of his house. He did not
open the door on 04.08.2025, at about 5.00am, but he heard the voice of the accused. It was suggested to P.W.8 in his cross examination on behalf of the accused that the deceased under the infuence of the alcohol fell down on the CC road and sustained bleeding head injuries resulting his death and the said suggestion was denied by P.W.8 in his cross examination.
35
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
33.P.W.12 – Dr. K. Ambika, Senior Resident, Department of
Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Mahabubabad, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, in her evidence stated that on 04n08n2025 at about 1.45pm, she received a requisition from Circleninspector of police,
Mahabubabad Rural circle, with a request to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased by name Thulla
Prabhakar. Accordingly, on the same day at 1.50pm, she commenced the postmortem examination and concluded by 2.50pm and found the following external injuries :
1. A laceration measuring 8cms x 1cm on skull deep, spindle in shape is present vertically over the left side of the scalp involving left frontal and parietal regions. Margins are irregular and contused scalp hair present along with margins is crushed. Bevelling is present at the inner margin.
2. A laceration measuring 3cms x 1cm on skull deep, spindle in shape is present horizontally over mid parietal region of the scalp. Margins are irregular, bevelling is present at the anterior margin.
3. Two parallel linear lacerations measuring 4cms x 0.5cm on scalp deep separated by 0.5cm from each other are present over mid occipital region of the scalp. Margins are irregular with tissue, bridging present at lower 1/3rd, abrasion of measuring 0.3cm present around the margins of lacerations.
4. On refection of scalp:
36
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
i. a contusion measuring 23 cms x 10 cms is present involving both the parietal regions.
ii. a contusion measuring 4cms x 3.8cms is present over left occipital region.
iii. Two contusions of 1. measuring 2cms x 2cms of left temporalis muscle and 2. measuring 3cms x 2cms of right temporalis muscle are present.
iv. a horizontal fssure fracture of measuring 29 cms of cranial vault(skull cap) from left to right side is present involving both sides temporal bones and middle 1/3rd of perital bone.
5. on refection of cranial vault and dura mater, difuse subndural, hemorrhage is present all over the superior surface of brain and sub arachnoid hemorrhage is present over superior surface of both the parietal lobs, right occipital, temporal lobs, inferior surface of right frontal lobe and vermis of cerebellum. On removing of the brain out of skull cavity, the fssure fracture mentioned above is extending from right temporal bone upto the base of the skull involving right half of middle cranial fossa.
6. Perin orbital contusion measuring 4cms x 3cms around left eye is present with associated swelling of surrounding soft tissue. Sub conjunctival hemorrhage of both the eyes is present.
7. a laceration of measuring 1cm x 1cm on sub cutaneous tissue deep, circular in shape surrounded by contusion of width of 0.25cm all around the laceration is present – 2 cms inner to right ear
8. two contusions measuring 2cms x 1.5 cms(over right cheek prominace) and measuring 1cm x 1 cm( over middle 1/3rd jaw bone on right side) directed from right to left side, separated by a distance of 6cms from each other are present over right cheek
37
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
9. a contusion measuring 2cms x 1cm vertically oblique is present – 1 cm outer to right corner of mouth. Closed commuted fracture of right cheek bone(maxilla) and jaw bone (body and symphysis menti mandible) present.
10. a laceration measuring 3cms x 1.5cms on oral cavity deep is present at outer 1/3 rd of lower lip on right side. On opening the mouth, a contusion of measuring 2cms x 2cms is present over inner surface of lower lip on right side. Avulsion of all the incisor teeth, right side canine teeth and lower right pre molars is present. Dried blood along with few clots are present in and around the teeth sockets. Avulsed laceration of measuring 3cms x 0.5cm with soft tissue deep is present over inner surface of middle 1/3rd of upper lip and frenulum.
34.P.w.12 in her evidence further stated that the time of death of the deceased is 12 to 18 hours prior to her postmortem examination, the cause of death of the deceased is pending await report from
Regional FSL, Khammam. She issued Ex.P9 postmortem examination report, dt: 04n08n2025, Ex.P10 is the requisition addressed by SHO,
PS Mahabubabad town to the duty doctor, GGH, Mahabubabad. She collected viscera from the dead body of the deceased and handed over the same to the police concerned for the chemical examination and the said viscera was forwarded to the RFSL, Khammam and received Ex.P11 report from RFSL, Khammam wherein Scientifc
Ofcer by name K. Sudhakar, which was approved and forwarded by
38
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
K. Narsimha, Assistant Director, RFSL, Khammam wherein Scientifc
Ofcer opined that the viscera was examined but no poisonous substance is found in them. On receipt of the Ex.P11 report from
RFSL, Khammam, she issued her Ex.P12 fnal opinion with regard to the cause of the death of the deceased wherein she opined that the cause of the death of the deceased is due to head injury.
35.P.W.13n Dr. V. Nagalaxmi, Scientifc Ofcer, RFSL, Khammam in her evidence stated that on 11n08n2025 their RFSL, Khammam received fve cloth line covers sealed with two to three seals which are intact and tallying with the sample seal through Smt. A. Usha,
WPC No.1716 of P.S. Mahabubabad town through SubnDivisional
Police Ofcer, Mahabubabad town in Cr.No.304/2025 of P.S.
Mahabubabad town
(i). A paper parcel contained a piece of gauze cloth with dark brown stains marked as item No.1,
(ii). A paper parcel contained a piece of gauze cloth dark brown marked as item No.2,
(iii). A paper cover contained a piece of gauze cloth marked as item
No.3,
(iv). A clothline cover contained a torn blue colour full sleeves cotton shirt with dark brown stains marked as item No.4,
(v) A cloth line cover contained a torn white and black colour mill made half sleeves round neck TnShirt with dark brown stains marked as item No.5, she conducted necessary tests including OnTolidine
39
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
test for identifcation of blood stains, gel difusion method for identifcation of origin of speices and absorption elution method for ascertaining the blood group of blood stains. The above item Nos.1 to 5 were examined, blood was detected on item No.1, 2, 4 and 5. The blood group of blood stains on item Nos.1, 2 and 5 is of BnBlood group, blood group of blood stains on item No.4 could not be determined blood was not detected on item No.3 which was received as control for item Nos.1 and 2. she issued Ex.P13 report to that efect.
36.P.w.14nT. Prashanth Babu, SubnInspector of police, P.S.
Mahabubabad town, who registered the crime in his evidence stated that on 04n08n2025 about 10.15am, while he was discharging his duties as incharge of SHO, PS Mahabubabad town at that time, PW1 came to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 report. Upon that basing on the contents of the report lodged by PW1, he registered a case in crime no.304/2025 under section 103(1) BNS, 2023 and issued
Ex.P14 FIR. He addressed a letter to the clues team incharge,
Mahabubabad with a request to visit the scene of ofence to trace out and collect clues. He passed the information to the Incharge of
Inspector of police, PS Mahabubabad town i.e., P.Saravaiah, Circlen inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Rural(P.W.15).
37. P.W.15 P. Sarvaiah, CirclenInspector of Police, P.S.
Mahabubabad Rural Circle, who conducted major part of investigation in this case, in his evidence stated that on 04.08.2025, he was
40
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
incharge of Inspector of Police, PS Mahabubabad Town. he received a
CD fle from PW14 and he visited the scene of ofence, which is situated at Lenin Nagar, Mahabubabad, where he has examined and recorded the statement of PW1. He secured the presence of the two mediators namely V.Nagaiah(LW11) and G.Srikar(PW10), in their presence, he observed the scene of ofence. PW14 submitted a requisition to the clues team incharge, Mahabubabad with a request to visit the scene of ofence to trace and collect clues. Accordingly, the clues team, Mahabubabad visited the scene of ofence while he was there. They observed the scene of ofence in the presence of the mediators and noticed blood stains on the dead body of the deceased, blood stains beside the dead body of the deceased, one pair of chappals, white colour shirt with black checks. he seized the same under the cover of Ex.P5 is crime details form and their observations and physical features were incorporated in crime details form. He drawn rough sketch for the scene of ofence (Ex.P6). After read over the contents of the CDF, obtained the signatures of the mediators on it. This part of testimony made by P.W.15 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.10, who is the mediator said to be present at the time of conducting panchanama for the scene of ofence.
41
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
38.P.W.10 – Gunagattu Srikar, in his evidence stated that on 04.08.2025, at about 10.00am, he came to know through his colony people that the deceased Prabhakar was killed and his dead body was lying on the CC road, Lenin Nagar, Mahabubabad. Upon that, he went to the scene of ofence to see the dead body of the deceased and found the dead body of the deceased was lying on the CC road in pool of blood. The police concerned conducted panchanama for the scene of ofence in his presence and in the presence of Vaddi
Nagaiah(LW11). They observed the scene of ofence and they noticed one pair of foot wear(chappal) (M.O.1), blood stained shirt with white and black colour checks (M.O.2). The police concerned seized MO.1n one pair of chappals, blood stains from the dead body of the deceased, blood stains from the pool of blood, controlled earth from the scene of ofence. Their observations were incorporated in crime details form. The police concerned drawn separate rough sketch for the scene of ofence. After read over the contents of the CDF, obtained the signatures of mediators on Ex.P5 is crime details form, dated.04.08.2025. Ex.P6 rough sketch for the scene of ofence.
39.P.W.15 in his evidence further stated that he got photographed the scene of ofence covering the dead body of the deceased with the help of private photographer by name Shaik Johny(PW6). The said
42
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
photographer handed over 9 positive photographs (Ex.P3). He got shifted the dead body of the deceased to the Mortuary of
Government Area Hospital, Mahabubabad for conducting postmortem examination. He has examined and recorded the statements of
Pws.2 to 4, 6 and 7, G. Anand(Lw5) and B. Koushalya(Lw6). He secured the presence of the mediators namely D. Venkanna (Pw9) and A. Nagaraju (LW14), in their presence he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and during the course of the inquest, the panchas opined that the cause of death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained by him. In this regard, an inquest report (Ex.P4) was reduced into writing in the presence of the mediators, after read over its contents, obtained the signatures of the mediators on Ex.P4 inquest report.This part of testimony made by P.W.15 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.9 with regard to conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased.
40.P.W.9nDandem Venkanna, who is the mediator said to be present at the time conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased, in his evidence stated that on 04.08.2025, at about 10.00am, he came to know that the deceased Prabhakar was killed at
Lenin Nagar, Mahabubabad. On knowing the said information, he reached the scene of ofence which is on the CC road Lenin Nagar,
43
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
where he found the dead body of the deceased was lying in the CC road in the pool of blood. The Circleninspector of police,
Mahabubabad Rural was present along with his staf, the relatives of the deceased were also present. The Circleninspector of police,
Mahabubabad rural conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and in the presence of Akula
Nagaraju(LW14) and the relatives of the deceased and during the course of inquest, the panchas opined that the death of the deceased was caused by injuries on his head. In this regard, an inquest report was reduced into writing in their presence by the said circle inspector of police and the panchas, after read over its contents put their signatures on Ex.P4 inquest report, dated.04.08.2025. The
Circleninspector of police, Mahabubabad Rural seized blood stained shirt (M.O.3), black and white colour tnshirt (M.O.4) from the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P4 inquest report.
41.P.W.15 in his evidence further stated that he submitted a requisition to the medical ofcer concerned with a request to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased.
Accordingly, Dr. K. Ambika, Senior Resident, Department of Forensic
Medicine, Government Medical College, Mahabubabad (Pw12) conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the
44
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
deceased and issued Ex.P9 postmortem examination report and received Viscera from the dead body of the deceased and the said vicera was forwarded to the RFSL, Khammam and received Ex.P11 report from RFSL, Khammam wherein scientifc ofcer by name
K.Sudhakar opined that the viscera was examined, but no poisonous substance is found in them. On receipt of Ex.P11 report from RFSL,
Khammam, PW12 issued her fnal opinion under Ex.P12 with regard to cause of death of the deceased due to head injury.
42.P.W.15 in his evidence further stated that after completion of the postmortem examination, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. Thereafter, he has examined and recorded the statement of Pws.5 and 8, who are neighbors of the scene of ofence and he collected CC footage from
PW5 in the pen drive. Ex.P2 is the same penndrive. The said CC TV footage containing the accused was found knocking the doors of the residents of the vicinity of the scene of ofence and moving in surrounding area after commission of the ofence. Subsequently, he collected Ex.P15 certifcate under section 63(4)(c) of BSA from PW5.
The aforesaid testimony made by P.W.15 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.12 who conducted postmortem examination over the
45
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P12 fnal opinion that the cause of death of the deceased was due to head injury.
43.P.W.15 in his evidence further stated that while the investigation was in progress to apprehend the accused, on 11.08.2025, during morning hours on reliable information he along with his staf rushed to Srinivasa center, near Railway station,
Mahabubabad town and apprehended the accused at 11.00am. he submitted a requisition to the Tahsildar, Mahabubabad mandal to depute two of his subordinates to act as mediators and he secured the presence of the two mediators namely K.Srivasthava(LW15) and
R.Veerabadram(PW11) in their presence, he interrogated the accused. During the course of the interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the ofence pertaining to this case. In this regard, a confession of the accused was reduced into writing and the accused further confessed that he show the weapon i.e. long stick which was used in the commission ofence, if they came along with him. Ex.P7 is the same relevant portion discover of the long stick in the confession panchanama of the accused.
44.P.W.5 in his evidence further stated that in pursuance of the confession of the accused, the accused led the police party and mediators to the place which is infront of the tin sheet shed of G.
46
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
Anand(LW5) at Lenin Nagar, Mahabubabad and shown the long stick and he picked up the said stick and handed over to him and he seized the said long stick (M.O.5) from the possession and at the instance of the accused under the cover Ex.P8 seizure panchanama.
The aforesaid testimony made by P.W.15 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.11 with regard to seizure of MO5 long stick from the possession and at the instance of the accused under Ex.P8 seizure panchanama.
45.P.W.11 – Ravula Veerabhadram, who is the mediator said to be present at the time of conducting interrogation of the accused, in his evidence stated that On 11.08.2025, at about 11.00am, while he was discharging his duties at Tahsildar Ofce, Mahabubabad mandal, at that time, he was called inside the chamber of the Tahsildar along with K.Srivasthava(LW15) and asked them to attend nearby
Srinivasa Talkies centre, Mahabubabad where the police concerned there and on the oral instructions of Tahsildar, himself and
K.Srivasthava(Lw15) went to nearby Srinivasa Theater center,
Mahabubabad and met the Inspector of police, Mahabubabad town and they noticed one person in the custody of the police concerned.
he can identify the said person, the accused is the same person, who is present in the court hall. The accused was interrogated in their
47
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
presence by the police concerned and during the course of interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the ofence pertaining to this case. In this regard, a confession panchanama was drafted in their presence by the police concerned.
The accused further confessed that, he would show the stick with which, he beat the deceased and caused his death, Ex.P7 is the discovery of the crime weapon in the confession panchanama of the accused, dated.11.08.2025. The accused led, the mediators and the police party to the place i.e., infront of tin shed belonging to G.Anand at Lenin Nagar, Mahabubabad and the accused picked up the stick where it was hide and handed over the same to the Circle Inspector of police. Accordingly, the Circleninspector of police seized the stick from the possession of the accused and in this regard, a seizure panchanama (Ex.P8) was drafted in their presence and obtained their signatures on it. M.O.5 is the stick, seized from the possession and at the instance of the accused under Ex.P8 seizure panchanama.
46.P.W.15 in his evidence further stated after completion of the aforesaid process, the accused was brought to PS Mahabubabad town and he efected the arrest of the accused and got him remanded to judicial custody after following the due procedure. He forwarded the long stick(Mo5) to the RFSL, Khammam through SDPO, Mahabubabad
48
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
and received Ex.P16 report wherein V.Nagalaxmi(PW13) has examined the long stick and found human blood on long stick and blood group is that of “B”. Ex.P16 is the report of the RFSL,
Khammam, dated.22.08.2025. He seized material objects i.e., 1.
blood stains on the deceased, 2. blood stains earth, 3. control earth,
4. blood stained shirt and 5. blood stained Tnshirt forwarded to the
RFSL, Khammam on 11.08.2025 for examination and report.
Accordingly, PW13 has examined the material objects and issued
Ex.P13 report. Further the material objects i.e., viscera were forwarded to the RFSL, Khammam through SDPO, Mahabubabad for examination and report and Accordingly, K.Sudhakar, Scientifc ofcer, RFSL, Khammam examined the viscera and issued report, dated.26.08.2025 wherein he opined that no poisonous substance is found in the viscera. He forwarded the blood stained long stick(MO5n teek wood) to the RFSL, Khammam through SDPO, Mahabubabad.
On 13.08.2025, he handed over the CD fle to the regular ofcer i.e.,
Inspector of police, PS Mahabubabad town by name Mahendar Reddy, who joined duty after availing EL, who conducted further investigation in this case and fled the charge sheet against the accused.
49
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
47.P.W.16n G. Mahender Reddy, who fled a charge sheet against the accused, in his evidence stated that he went on Earned leave and after availing earned leave, joined duty on 13.08.2025 and received
CD fle from PW15 and verifed the investigation done by P.,W.15 and on the basis of investigation conducted by PW15, he fled a charge sheet against the accused and deposited the case property before the court concerned.
48.As far as the existence of injuries on the person of the deceased by name Thulla Prabhakar is concerned, P.Ws.1 and 2 who are Junior Maternal uncles of the deceased in their evidence stated that on receipt of the death information over phone, they came to the place of incident and found the deceased by name Prabhakar was lying on the CC road in the pool of blood. This part of testimony made by P.Ws.1 and 2 is further corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 who is the Senior maternal aunt of the deceased, P.W.4 who is the neighbour of the deceased in his evidence stated that on 04.08.2025, in the early hours at about 6.00am, while he was coming out from the house for bringing milk and found the deceased was lying on the CC road with bleeding head injury and he was in the pool of blood. This part of testimony made by P.W.4 is corroborated by the evidence of
P.W.5 who is another neighbour of the deceased. P.W.7 who is clues
50
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
team constable in his evidence stated that himself and homeguard reached the scene of ofence on 04n08n2025 after 8n00 am at
Leninnagar, MahabubAbad and started observing the scene of ofence minutely and noticed one dead body of the deceased was lying on the CC road and they also noticed severe bleeding injuries on the head and back side of the head of the deceased.
49.P.W.9 who is the mediator said to be present at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased, in his evidence stated that P.W.15 nCirclenInspector of Police, Mahabubabad
Rural conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 04n 08n2025 after 10n00 am in his presence, in the presence of A.
Nagaiah (L.W.14) and the relatives of the deceased and during the course of inquest, they opined that the death of the deceased was caused by causing severe injury on his head and in this regard inquest report was reduced into writing in their presence and after read over its contents, obtained their signatures on Ex.P4 inquest report.
50.P.W.12, who is the medical ofcer conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, in her evidence stated that on 04.08.2025, at about 1.50 pm, she commenced postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and
51
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
concluded by 2.50 pm and found multiple injuries on the head of the deceased incorporated in her Ex.P9 postmortem examination report and after receiving report from Regional FSL, Khammam, she issued Ex.P12 fnal opinion with regard to the cause of death of the deceased, due to injuries on his head. P.W.15 who conducted major part of investigation in this case, in his evidence stated that he got photographed the scene of ofence covering the dead body of the deceased with the help of private photographer by name Shaik Jhony pasha (p.w.6) and taken over 9 positive photographs (Ex.P3) from
P.W.6 and he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at mortuary room of Government Area Hospital, Mahabubabad and during the course of inquest, the panchas opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained by him on head.
The testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 5, 7, 9, 15 and other witnesses is supported by the medical evidence through the testimony of P.W.12 with regard to the existence of antemortem multiple injuries on the head of the deceased by name Prabhakar.
51.There is no dispute from the side of the accused with regard to the existence of the injuries on the dead body of the deceased particularly multiple injuries on the head. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, 7, 9 and 15 is amply corroborated by the medical evidence of
52
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
P.W.12 and her given Ex.P9 postmortem examination with regard to the antemortem multiple injuries on the head of the deceased. As could be seen from the evidence of P.W.15, who is the investigating ofcer in this case, is left no material lacunaes, which can create any doubt over the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has established the existence of antemortem multiple injuries on the dead body of the deceased particularly multiple injuries on his head.
52.As far as recovery of M.O.5 long stick (teak wood) is concerned,
P.W.15 in his evidence categorically stated that while the investigation was in progress to apprehend the accused on 11n08n 2025 during morning hours on reliable information he along with his staf rushed to Srinivasa Centre, near the railway station,
Mahabubabad town and apprehended the accused at 11n00 am, he submitted a requisition to the Tahsildar, Mahabubabad mandal to depute two of his subordinates to act as mediators and he secured the presence of the two mediators namely K.Srivasthava(LW15) and
R.Veerabadram(PW11), in their presence, he interrogated the accused. During the course of the interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the ofence pertaining to this case. In this regard, a confession of the accused was reduced into writing and
53
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
the accused further confessed that he shows the weapon i.e., long stick which was used in the commission ofence. Ex.P7 is the relevant portion with regard to discover of the long stick in the confession panchanama of the accused. In pursuance of the confession of the accused, the accused led the police party and mediators to the place which is infront of the tin sheet shed of G. Anand(LW5) at Lenin
Nagar, Mahabubabad and shown the long stick and he picked up the said stick and handed over to him and he seized the said long stick from the possession and at the instance of the accused under the cover of Ex.P8 seizure panchanama.
53.The aforesaid testimony made by P.W.15 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.11 who is the Junior Assistant, Tahsildar Ofce,
Mahabubabad Mandal and he stated that on 11.08.2025, at about 11.00am, while he was discharging his duties at Tahsildar Ofce,
Mahabubabad mandal, at that time, he was called inside the chamber of the Tahsildar along with K.Srivasthava, Junior Assistant, Tahsildar
Ofce, Mahabubabad (LW15) and asked them to attend nearby
Srinivasa Talkies centre, Mahabubabad, where the police concerned were there and on the oral instructions of Tahsildar, himself and
K.Srivasthava(Lw15) went to nearby Srinivasa Theater center,
Mahabubabad, where they noticed one person in the custody of the
54
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
police concerned, the accused is the same person, who is present in the court hall. The accused was interrogated in their presence by the police concerned and during the course of interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the ofence pertaining to this case.
In this regard, Ex.P7 confession panchanama was drafted in their presence by the police concerned. The accused further confessed that, he would show the stick with which he beat the deceased and caused his death. The accused led, the mediators and the police party to the place i.e., infront of tin shed belonging to G. Anand at
Lenin Nagar, Mahabubabad and the accused picked up the stick where it was hiden and handed over the same to the Circle Inspector of police. Accordingly, the Circleninspector of police (P.W.15) seized
M.O.5 stick from the possession of the accused and in this regard,
Ex.P8 seizure panchanama was drafted in their presence and obtained their signatures on it.
54. The admission of guilt by the accused before P.W.15, who is the investigating ofcer in this case, is inadmissible in evidence for the simple reason that it is a confession made to the police ofcial and therefore, it is liable to be excluded from consideration. The only admissible evidence against the accused on record is that the accused disclosed the location of crime weapon said to have used in
55
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
the commission of ofence and the said admission portion was recorded under Ex.P7 confession panchanama of the accused and in pursuance of confession of the accused, P.W.15 seized M.O.5 long stick from the possession and at the instance of the accused under
Ex.P8 seizure panchanama. Therefore, the prosecution has established that M.O.5 long stick (teak wood) used in the commission of ofence by the accused with which the accused beat the deceased and caused multiple injuries leading to his death was seized by P.W.15 from the possession and at the instance of the accused under Ex.P8 seizure panchanama.
55.In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his/ their innocence At this juncture, the learned Chief Legal Aid defence counsel for the accused, has submitted that the circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused has not at all been established by the prosecution and further the manner in which the alleged crime
56
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
weapon (M.O.5) which was used in the commission of ofence was seized and sealed are not proper and probability of tampering of
M.O.5 cannot be ruled out. Further submitted that the prosecution is duty bound to eliminate other element of suspicion, in every circumstance relied upon by it, so as to enable the court to come to the hypothesis consistent with the guilt of the accused and simultaneously inconsistent with the innocence of the accused.
56.On the other hand, the learned incharge public prosecutor for the state submitted that the prosecution has also been able to prove the motive to commit the said crime, similarly the recovery of crime weapon i.e., M.O.5 said to have been used in the commission of ofence and postmortem examination report (Ex.P9) clearly indicates that injuries were from M.O.5 stick. Even though there is no eye witness to the actual crime, yet the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the ofence punishable under
Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023 by proving the complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. Further the accused neither during the course of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, nor in any explanation submitted in their statement recorded under
Section 351 BNSS, 2023, has been able to make a dent in the entire evidence and even in a case of circumstantial evidence, the evidence
57
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
has to be appreciated as a whole and not in pieces one bit here and one bit there.
57.Keeping in view of the aforesaid arguments advanced by the counsel on either side, I have perused the relevant record.
Admittedly, the entire evidence is based on circumstantial evidence as no one has seen the murder having been committed by the accused. It is settled principle of law that where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the frst instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Again, the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and the tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis, but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete has not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
58.It is also settled principle of law that an ofence can be proved not only by direct evidence, but also by circumstantial evidence, where there is no direct evidence. The court can drawn an inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found
58
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
to be totally incompatible with the innocence of the accused.
Ofcourse, the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt is drawn have proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact said to be inferred from those circumstances.
59.In the instant case, P.W.1, who is the junior Maternal uncle of the deceased in his evidence categorically stated that on receipt of the death information from P.W.4, on 04n08n2025 at about 6n00 am, he rushed to the place of incident along with his family members and relatives and found the deceased by name Thulla Prabhakar was lying on the CC road in the pool of blood, he enquired with the inhabitants of the said locality with regard to the cause of death of the deceased and who caused his death. On his enquiry, he was informed by the inhabitents of the said locality that the accused and the deceased moved in the night and due to the disputes in between them, the accused caused the death of the deceased.
60.As could be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he has no personal knowledge with regard to who caused the death of the deceased, P.W.2 who is another junior maternal uncle of the deceased, and P.W.3n who is Senior maternal aunt of the deceased, in their evidence stated in the similar manner as that of P.W.1, P.Ws.2
59
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
and 3 have also no personal knowledge with regard to the ofender who caused the death of the deceased. They came to know about the death of the deceased through neighbours of the scene of ofence that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused due to petty dispute.
61.P.W.4 who is the neighbour of the deceased, in his evidence stated that on 03n08n2025 at about 2n00 pm, he seen the deceased in the company of the accused nearby his house. On 04.08.2025, in the early hours at about 6.00am, while he was coming out from the house for bringing milk and found the deceased was lying on the CC road with bleeding head injury and he was in the pool of blood. Upon that, he called the neighbours to the scene of ofence. The neighbours told them that they have seen the deceased in the company of the accused on the CC road in the night of 03.08.2025 and they enquired about the accused by the time, the accused was absconded. Then, they have suspected that the accused might have been caused the death of the deceased. The colony people who gathered there, came to conclusion that defnitely, the accused caused the death of the deceased and there was no other person to cause the death of the deceased.
60
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
62.P.W.5 who is also the neighbour to the deceased in his evidence stated that on the intervening night of 03/04.08.2025, the deceased by name Prabhakar was killed. The police Mahabubabad
Town approached him on 04.08.2025 in the morning and asked him
CC footage in respect of CC cameras installed in his house. On the request of the police concerned checked the CC TV DVR and found on the intervening night of 03/04.08.2025, at 2.01am, the accused was going infront of his house and after fve minutes, he was returning back from infront of his house and at about 2.39am, the accused sat in the auto, which was stationed at three road junction. The said auto belongs to Nathi Suresh(LW10) and the said auto was stationed in front of the house of the Nathi Suresh(LW10). At 4.15am, the accused was coming out from the house of Nathi Suresh(LW10). At 6.21am, the accused was going from infront of his house. At 6.27am, the accused was appeared infront of their house. The accused was captured in the CC camera at last at 6.27am. On the request of the police Mahabubabad Town, the CC camera data was downloaded in respect of 04.08.2025, at 2.00am upto 6.30am in the pendrive and handed the said pen drive (Ex.P2) to the said police.
63.As could be seen from the evidence of P.W.5, the accused was moving infront of the house of P.W.5 on the intervening night of 3/4n
61
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
08n2025 from 2n01 am to 6.27 am and thereafter the accused was absconded from the scene of ofence. P.W.8n who is another neighbour of the deceased, in his evidence stated that on 04n08n2025 at about 5n00 am the accused came to his house and tapped the main door and then, he woke from the sleep, but he did not open the door. The accused told him from outside of the door that the deceased was in the pool of blood on the CC road, but he did not open the door and continued to sleep. The accused used to come to the houses of colony people and used to tap the doors under the infuence of the alcohol and he though that the accused was intoxicated state as usual and tap the door. At about 6.00am, he came out from the house and he noticed the dead body of the deceased by name Prabhakar was in the pool blood on the CC road and in the meantime, the colony people gathered at the scene of ofence. By that time, the accused was also present along with the colony people. then the colony people discussed that on the day
before night, the deceased was moving in the company of the
accused under intoxicated stage and in the night time, the accused might have been caused the death of the deceased and on hearing their discussion, the accused escaped from the colony.
62
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
64.As seen from the evidence of P.W.8, on 04n08n2025, at about 5n 00 am, the accused taped the door in intoxicated condition and told him from outside of the door that the deceased was in the pool of the blood on the CC road and the accused was present when the colony members gathered at the scene of ofence and thereafter when the colony members discussed that on the intervening night of 3/4n8n 2025 the deceased was moving in the company of the accused and the accused might have been caused the death of the deceased due to the petty dispute and then on hearing the said discussion of the colony people, accused escaped from the said colony.
65.P.W.12 who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found the multiple injuries on the head of the deceased and the said injuries were incorporated in Ex.P9 postmortem examination report of the deceased, P.W.15 who is investigating ofcer in this during the cross examination of the investigation, he seized M.O.5 stick said to have been rushed in the commission of ofence from the possession and at the instance of the accused, in the presence of P.W.11 and another under Ex.P8 seizure panchanama.
66.The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, 7 to 9 is ample support with the medical evidence through the testimony of P.W.12 and her given
63
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
Ex.P9 postmortem examination report and Ex.p12 fnal opinion with regard to cause of death of the deceased due to multiple injuries on the head of the deceased. The case of prosecution through reliable and trustworthy testimony of witnesses is more probable. As aforesaid an ample support from the medical evidence and ocular evidence available in the instant case for the prosecution there are no material discrepancies, which can create any kind of doubt over the case of the prosecution or over the testimony of any of the witnesses. The testimony of the aforesaid witnesses is quite reliable. I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve the testimony of any of the witnesses. The cross examination of these witnesses, on behalf of the accused could not extract any material for them to speak false or foist a false case against the accused.
67.The incident took place in the midnight. It is already stated supra that in the given circumstance, we can get eye witnesses to depose about the murder of the deceased by name Thulla Prabhakar, since it was happened in the night time, but in my considered view, in these type of cases, we can get only circumstantial witnesses and on the basis of evidence of the circumstantial witnesses, we can draw the inference of the murder of the deceased in the hands of the accused. In these type of cases, precautions are to be taken by the
64
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
ofenders from the view of others and fact of the murder has to be inferred from the circumstantial evidence.
68.It is already stated supra that the prosecution has established that the deceased Thulla Prabhakar has died due to multiple head injuries. Further the prosecution has established there is no possibility to cause the death of the deceased by any other persons except the accused, as the accused was moving infront of the house of P.W.5 on the intervening night of 3/4n08n2025, and the house of
P.W.5 is near by the scene of ofence, therefore, inview of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the accused caused the death of the deceased by name Thulla Prabhakar due to the petty dispute in between them.
69.At this juncture, the learned incharge Public prosecutor for the state has requested for convicting the accused for having committed the ofence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023 submitting that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge levelled against the accused by examining its witnesses whose testimonies are corroborative and reliable. On the other hand, the learned chief legal aid defence counsel for the accused requested for acquittal of the accused, submitting that there is nothing incriminating against the accused on record. Keeping in view of the aforesaid arguments of both the counsel on record, I
65
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
have perused the relevant record. It is already stated supra that the prosecution adduced positive oral as well as documentary evidence with regard to the commission of ofence. Accused has not led any evidence in his defence to substantiate his claim that he was falsely implicated in this case. Further the accused has failed to show any motive or malafde intention on the part of the family members of the deceased for implicating the accused in a false case. Accused failed to assign any malafde, motive on the part of the family members of the deceased that they would get him falsely implicated in this murder case. The defence of the accused, does not appear to be probable to the incident, there can be no question of doubt being raised with regard to the identity of the accused which has been correctly identifed the accused in the court by the witnesses.
70.At this juncture, the learned incharge public prosecutor for the state has argued that the evidence of material witnesses does not sufer from any inconsistency and is blemish free, while the learned
Chief Legal aid defence counsel for the accused has argued that no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of witnesses as there are many variations. It is apparently clear from the above that the allegations are specifc and consistent. There is no reason why the accused would has been falsely implicated. There is nothing on
66
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
record to indicate that the evidence of material witnesses is false or motivated and their evidence appears to be completely reliable and trustworthy.
71.The investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case has been substantially proved by P.W.15. He clearly deposed that he was informed about the murder of the deceased by P.W.14, he visited the scene of ofence which is situated at Leninnagar, Mahabubabad, where he has examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1, he secured the presence of two mediators in their presence, he observed the scene of ofence and submitted requisition to clues team incharge, Mahabubabad with a request to visit the scene of ofence to trace and collect the clues. Accordingly, he visited the scene of ofence and they observed the scene of ofence in the presence of two mediators and noticed blood stains on the dead body of the deceased and One pair of chappal (M.O.1), white colour shirt with black checks (M.O.2). He seized M.Os. 1 and 2 under the cover of Ex.P5 crime details form. He got photographed the scene of ofence covering the dead body of the deceased with the help of P.W.6 private photographer by name Shaik Jhony pasha and the said photographs were handed over to him Ex.P3 is 9 positive photographs. Later he got shifted the dead body of the deceased to the mortuary of Government General Hospital, Mahabubabad for
67
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
conducting postmortem examination. He has examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 to 4, 6 & 7 and two others. He secured the presence of two mediators, in their presence he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P4 inquest report.
72.P.W.15 in his evidence further stated that he submitted a requisition to the medical ofcer concerned with a request to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased.
Accordingly P.W.12 conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P9 postmortem examination and he received viscera from P.w.12 and the said viscera was forwardeded to RFSL, Khammam and received Ex.P11 report from RFSL, Khammam, wherein the Scientifc Ofcer by name
K. Sudhakar, opined that no poisonous substance was found in the vicera. On receipt of Ex.P11 RFSL report from Khammam, P.W.12 medical ofcer issued her fnal opinion under Ex.P12 with regard to cause of death of the deceased due to multiple head injuries. He has examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.5 & 8, who are the neighbours of the scene of ofence, he collected CC TV footage from
P.W.5 in pendrive. Ex.P2 is the same, CC Tv footage containing the accused was found knocking the doors at the scene of ofence and moving in the surrounding area after commission of ofence. Further
68
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
on 11n08n2025 the accused was arrested documents pertaining to his arrest were prepared and seized M.O.5 stick from the possession and at the instance of the accused under Ex.P8 seizure panchanama in the presence of two mediators. He forwarded the blood stained clothes and M.O.5 is stick to the RFSL, Khammam and received E.P16 report from RFSL, Khammam, wherein scientifc ofcer has examined and the material object and issued Ex.P13 report. Later he handed over the CD fle to the regular ofcer i.e., inspector of police, P.S.
Mahabubabad twon by name G. Mahender Reddy (P.W.16) who joined date after availing earned leave. There is nothing on record that the testimony of P.W.15 is false or not reliable.
73. It may also be observed that the accused has also failed to show that he is not the person, who beat the deceased and caused his death by beating with M.O.5 stick in multiple times. He has failed to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim or falsify the prosecution version or show that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not reliable and credible. It is evident from the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly P.Ws.1 to 5, 7 to 9, 11 is reliable, believable and trustworthy and the prosecution has established the case of murder. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The courts should examine
69
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignifcant discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, which are not of fatal nature to throw out allegations of murder.
74.In a particular case the material / eye witnesses may be able to narrate the incident with all details without mistake, if the occurrence had made an imprint on the canvass of his / her mind in the sequences in which, it occurred. He / she may be a person whose capacity for absorption or retention of events is stronger than anther person. It should be remember that what he / she witnessed was not something that happens usually but a very exception one so far as he / she is concerned. If he / she reproduces it in the same sequences as it registered in his / her mind the testimony cannot be dubbed as artifcial on that score alone, similar observations have also been made by our Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision referred in Bhag
Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1997 n VII AD SC 507.
75. When material witnesses are examined at length, it is quite possible for him/her to make some discrepancies. No true witnesses can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness, who is well tutored can successfully made his testimony totally nonndiscrepant. But courts should bear in mind that
70
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
it is only when discrepancies in evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justifed in jettisoning/discarding his evidence.
76.It is settled principle of law that in criminal trial conviction can be based even on the strength of the deposition of a single witness, in case it is found trustworthy and reliable as it is quality and not quantity of the evidence that count and the said view is strengthened by the decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Sheelam Ramesh and Another V/s State of A.P reported in J.T.1999i8) SC 537, wherein it was observed that “courts are concerned with quality and not with quantity of evidence and in a criminal trial, conviction can be based on the sole evidence of witness if it inspires confdence. There is nothing on record that the evidence of material witnesses is false or motivated, their evidence appears to be reliable and trustworthy.
77. The manner in which, the events have unfolded and the surrounding circumstances refected the truthful character of the deposition made by witnesses. In the Judgment reported as State of
Himachal Pradesh V/s Lekhraj and Another in J.T.1999 i9) SC 43, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the depositions of the witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such, discrepancies are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to
71
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and the like.
78.Further the prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the ofence has been committed, place of commission of ofence, the investigation including documents prepared. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and their testimonies do not sufer from any infrmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of Prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by the circumstantial evidence and the witnesses of the prosecution have been able to build up a continuous link. In view of the foregoing reasons, the conscience of this court is completely satisfed with the prosecution has been able to successfully bring home the charge levelled against the accused regarding the commission of ofence under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023.
79. The contention of the accused with regard to his false implication in this case is not supported and substantiated by any other evidence. The suggestion made to the material witnesses that the seizure panchanama was prepared at the police station and obtained the signatures of the mediators on it and the said suggestion was denied by P.Ws.11 and 15 in their cross examination.
72
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
80. Therefore, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the accused caused the death of the deceased by name
Thulla Prabhakar, due to the petty dispute. On careful scrutiny of the case, in its entirety and the aforesaid reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has established the charge levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Further, the prosecution is able to bring the crucial links in the chain of circumstances leading to the death of the deceased. Therefore, an inference can be drawn from the available evidence on record that the accused has caused the death of the deceased by name Thulla
Prabhakar due to the petty dispute.
81.On careful scrutiny of entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is able to prove the links in the chain of circumstances, motive, participation of the accused in the commission of ofence through the circumstantial evidence, therefore the case against the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubts, in respect of ofence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023. Accordingly this point is answered.
POINT NO.ii):-
82. The diference between murder and culpable homicide is intention. If the intention is present, the crime is said to be committed under Section 103 of BNS, 2023. If the intention is absent,
73
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
then the crime is dealt under Section 105 of BNS, 2023. The thin line is intention behind the act. All the murders are culpable homicide, but the vice versa is not true. Hence, whether the act done is culpable homicide or murder is a question of fact. The distinction between the two was aptly set forth in the decision rendered by our
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. Vs. R. Punnaiah, reported in
(1976) 4 SCC 382, wherein it was held that “in the scheme of penal code, “the culpable homicide” is genus and “murder” is specie. All murder is culpable homicide, but not vice n versa.
83.In the instant case, the intention is present to cause death of the deceased and as such the accused beat the deceased with M.O.5 long stick (teak wood) in number of times and caused multiple head injuries incorporated in Ex.P9npostmortem examination report by
P.W.12nmedical ofcer who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and therefore the crime is said to have been committed under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023. Therefore, the prosecution has established the ofence punishable under Section 103 of BNS, 2023 against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
Accordingly these points are answered.
74
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
RESULT:
In the result, the accused is found guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023 and he is convicted under Section 258(2) of BNSS, 2023 for the said ofence.
Dictated by me to the stenographer, after transcription, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04th day of May, 2026
Principal Sessions Judge,
Mahabubabad
Order of sentence / quantum of sentence:-
It is not the case where invoke the provisions of Probation of
Ofenders Act, or Section 401 of BNSS, 2023. When the accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be awarded on him, he represented that : “he got wife and children and they are depended upon him. Further his old aged mother is not keeping good health and he has to look after his mother and pleaded mercy of the court”.
Heard the arguments of Learned incharge public Prosecutor for the State and also the learned Chief Legal Aid defence counsel for the accused.
In the instant case, the accused has committed the heinous crime that he caused the death of the deceased by name Thulla
75
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
Prabhakar inhumanly by beating with M.O.5 stick in multiple times on his head and caused multiple head injuries leading to his death, as a result the deceased fell down on the CC road and died on the spot in the pool of blood and it is required to be dealt with by awarding suitable punishment. Therefore, showing mercy against the accused is unwarranted.
Having considered the nature and circumstances of the case and representation of the accused, I have passed the following sentence:n
Thus, the accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and he shall pay fne of Rs.5,000/n(Rupees Five Thousand only) in default of payment of fne, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the ofence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023.
The remand period of the accused from 11n08n2025 to till date i.e., 04n05n2026 shall be set of as against the term of imprisonment as per section 468 BNSS, 2023
The case property of M.O.1 is one pair of footwear, M.O.2 is white colour shirt with black checks, M.O.3 is blood stained shirt of the deceased, M.O.4 is blood stained tnshirt of the deceased, M.O.5 is one long stick, which are useless shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
76
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
The accused is also informed about the appeal provision and the facility of legal aid for fling an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by this court.
(Dictated by me to the stenographer, after transcription, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04th day of May, 2026)
Principal Sessions Judge,
Mahabubabad
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
P.Wn1Vanagalla GattaiahDefacto complainant / Junior maternal uncle of the deceased P.Wn2Vanagalla NaveenJunior Maternal uncle of the deceased P.Wn3Nandipati IddammaSenior Maternal aunt of the deceased / circumstantial witness P.Wn4Surugu NarsaiahCircumstantial witness, neighbour of the deceased P.Wn5Kotha Vineeth ReddyVicinity person of the scene of ofence P.Wn6Shaik Jhonny Private photographer P.Wn7Bharadwaj Bijender SinghClues team PC No.1189 P.Wn8Nathi SureshVicinity person of the scene of ofence P.Wn9Dandem VenkannaPanch witness for inquest P.Wn10Gulagattu Srikar Panch for crime details form & seizure P.Wn11Ravula VeerabhadramPanch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama P.Wn12Dr. K. Ambika, Senior Conducted autopsy over the dead Resident, Department of body of the deceased Forensic Medicine, Government Medical
77
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
College, Mahabubabad P.Wn13Dr. V. NagalaxmiChemical examiner, examined Scientifc Ofcer, RFSL, blood stained items and issued Khammamreport P.Wn14T. Prashanth BabuRegistered crime and issued FIR SubnInspector of police, P.S. Mahabubabad town P.Wn15P. Sarvaiah 1st investigating ofcer, conducted Circleninspector of Police, major part of investigation in this Mahabubabad Rural circlecase incharge of SHO P.S. Mahabubabad town P.Wn16G. Mahender Reddy, 2nd investigating ofcer, fled Inspector of Police, charge sheet against the accused. P.S. Mahabubabad town
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
nNiln
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
Ex.Pn1Police report dt; 04n08n2025 lodged by P.W.1, to the police concerned Ex.Pn2Pen drive with regard to CC tv footage downloaded from
CCTV DVR,
Ex.Pn39 positive photographs covering scene of ofence and the dead body of the deceased, Ex.Pn4Inquest report of the deceased dt: 04n08n2025, Ex.Pn5Crime details form dt: 04n08n2025, Ex.Pn6Rough sketch for the scene of ofence dt: 04n08n2025, Ex.Pn7Relevant portion with regard to discovery of crime weapon i.e., stick in confession panchanama of the accused
dt: 11n08n2025,
Ex.Pn8Seizure panchanama of the accused dt: 11n08n2025, Ex.Pn9Postmortem examination report dt: 04n08n2025 issued by P.W.12, Ex.Pn10 Requisition dt: 04n08n2025 addressed by Station House Ofcer, P.S. Mahabubabad town to the duty doctor Government General Hospital, Mahabubabad. Ex.Pn11 Report of RFSL, Khammam dt: 26n08n2025 with regard to viscera Ex.Pn12 Final opinion issued by P.W.12 with regard to the cause of death of the deceased
78
SC No.136 of 2025
Dated 04thday of May, 2026.
Ex.Pn13 Report of RFSL, Khammam dated 22n08n2025 Ex.Pn14 FIR dated 04n08n2025 issued by P.W.14 Ex.Pn15 Certifcate u/Sec. 63(3(c) of BSA, 2023, Ex.Pn16 Report of RFSL, Khammam, dt: 22n08n2025
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
Nil
MATERIAL OBJECTS
M.O.1 : One pair of footwear, M.O.2 : White colour shirt with black checks, M.O.3 : Blood stained shirt of the deceased, M.O.4 : Blood stained tnshirt of the deceased, M.O.5 : One long stick(Teak wood).
Principal Sessions Judge,
Mahabubabad
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT:
MAHABUBABAD
MONDAY, THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
Present: Mohd. Abdul Rafi
Principal Sessions Judge,
Mahabubabad
SESSIONS CASE No.121 of 2025
1.Name of the Complainant The State of Telangana represented by the Inspector of Railway Police, RP Circle, Khammam Line.
2.Name of the Accused : Yogesh S/o Ramanadh, aged: 26 years (Now 29 years), occ: Coolie, R/o Near MekaharaHospital,Rayapurof Chhattisgarh State.
3.PRC No.01 / 2024
4.Name of the ofcer who Ms. Ch. Leela Naga Susmitha committed the case to Judicial First Class Magistrate for
Sessions CourtRailways,
Kazipet
3.Crime Number22 / 2023 of Name of Police Station:R.P.S. Dornakal
4.Prosecution conducted Sri K. Venkataiah Incharge Public Prosecutor, by : Mahabubabad
5.Defence conducted by :Sri D. Nageshwar Rao Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel
6.ChargeUnder Section 302 of IPC.
7.Plea of the accused :Pleaded Not Guilty
8.Finding of the Court : Found guilty
9. Result : In the result, the accused is found guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said ofence.
2
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
Thus, the accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and he shall pay fne of Rs.1,000/n(Rupees One Thousand only) in default of payment of fne, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the ofence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The remand period of the accused from 13n04n2023 to till date 20n04n2026 shall be set of as against the term of imprisonment as per section 428 of Cr.P.C. The case property of M.O.1 Kaman patti (Iron rod), M.O.2 blood stained shirt, M.O.3 blood stained concrete stone pieces, M.O.4 blood stained cotton shirt of the deceased and M.O.5 blood stained pant of the deceased which are useless shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The accused is also informed about the appeal provision and the facility of legal aid for fling an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by this court.
This case is coming up before me on 15n04n2026, for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri K. Venkataiah, Incharge Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri D. Nageshwar Rao, Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the Accused; and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
::J U D G M E N T::
1.The State represented by the Inspector of Railway Police, RP
Circle, Khammam line, has fled a charge sheet against the accused
3
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
in Crime No. 22/2023 of RPS, Dornakal; charged under Section 302 of
IPC with the following allegations:
(i)That the accused by name Yogesh is from Chhattisgarh State and he came to Kothagudem from Raipur and was doing coolie works for his livelihood. The accused used to sleep on the bench at
Platform No.3 of Badrachalam Road Railway station at Kothagudem.
On 08.04.2023 at 4n00 pm, the accused went to his regular sleeping place on platform No.3 of Bhadrachalam Road Railway station and found the deceased by name Raavi Manmada Rao was sleeping on the bench, when the accused told the deceased to leave the place, but the deceased did not listen his words. In this regard, some quarrel has been occurred between the accused and deceased. Upon that the accused became anger and had beaten the deceased on his mouth with hand. Later, the deceased while leaving the place abused the accused, then the accused grew wild and picked up an
Iron rod which was beside at the railway track and had bet the on the mouth and forehead of the deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and fell down unconscious and died instantaneously on the spot.
ii)It is further alleged that while happening the aforesaid incident,
Patam Nayum Khan (P.W.5), Gurrala Srinivas (L.W.3) and Badavath
Badya Naik (P.W.2) were present at some distance from the scene of
4
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
ofence and witnessed the incident and then they make hues and shouting and they tried to catch up the accused, but the accused escaped from the said place. On 08n04n2023 at about 9n00 pm, the elder brother of the deceased by name Raavi Rambabu (P.W.1) went to RPS, Dornakal and lodged a report narrating the aforesaid incident.
Basing on the contents of the report lodged by P.W.1, a case in
Cr.No.22/2023 under Section 302 of IPC was registered at RPS
Dornakal and investigated into. During the course of investigation, K.
Srikanth, SubnInspector of police, Railway Protection Force, RPS
Dornakal (P.W.13) visited the scene of ofence and got shifted the dead body of the deceased to the Government Hospital,
Kothagudem, due to in convenience to trains moving and on receipt of information A. Venkateswara Rao, IRP RP Circle, Khammam (P.W.10) visited the government hospital, Kothagudem and he has examined and recorded the statements of Raavi Rambabu (P.W.1),
Patan Nayum Khan (P.W.5), Gurram Srinivas (L.W.3), Badavath
Badya Naik (P.W.2), Raavi Sandhya Rani (P.W.3), Raavi Srinivas (L.W.6), Kanchi Rajkumar (L.W.6), Banoth Srinivas (P.W.4), Vithya
Nageswara Rao (P.W.7).
iii)It is further alleged that P.W.10 has examined the dead body of the deceased which was kept in mortuary room of the Government
General Hospital, Kothagudem and he got photographed the dead
5
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
body of the deceased through private photographer by name Vemula
Anand (L.W.10), then he secured the presence of two mediators namely Bandi Dinesh Reddy (L.W.11) and Chappidi Ravi Kishore (P.W.7), in their presence he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. After completion of the inquest, he submitted a requisition to the medical ofcer, Government Hospital, Kothagudem with a request to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, Dr. Sandeep Kumar Civil Assistant Surgeon,
Government General Hospital, Bhadradri Kothagudem (P.W.12) has conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and preserved viscera, and clothes of the deceased for chemical examination. After completion of postmortem examination, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to his blood relatives for conducting funeral rites by taking proper acknowledgment.
iv)It is further alleged that later P.W.10 visited the scene of ofence along with clues team situated at Bhadrachalam Road,
Railway station, Platform No.3 towards Rudrampur and conducted scene observation panchanama duly drafting the crime details form in the presence of two mediators namely Vanam Kumar (P.W.8) and
Aravapalli Manoj Teja (L.W.14) and seized teeth of the deceased and other objects collected by the clues team. While the investigation
6
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
was in progress to apprehend the accused on 12n04n2023 at 4n30 pm,
P.W.10 along with his staf conducting vehicle checking and found one person under suspicious circumstance at Ramalayam temple, railway colony, then P.W.10 apprehended the said person and interrogated him thoroughly, on interrogation, accused revealed the case facts. Then he secured the presence of two mediators namely
Mahamad Jalauddin (P.W.9) and Aliveni Sammaiah (L.W.16), in their presence, he interrogated the accused. During the course of interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the ofence pertaining to this case. Further he furnished his name and other details. He further confessed that while running away from the place of incident, he had his chappals skid at the place and his chappals were in blue color sports Red company, No.08 size and he thrown away the Iron rod and blood stained shirt in to bushes from some distance to the crime scene of ofence. Further he confessed that he would show the place where he thrown the Iron rod and blood stain shirt.
v)It is further alleged that upon which, P.W.10 proceeded along with aforesaid mediators to the place which was 200mtrs distance from the crime scene of ofence and P.W.10 seized Iron rod and blood stained shirt from bushes under the cover of confession cum seizure
Panchanama in the presence of the aforesaid mediators. After
7
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
completion of confession cum seizure panchanama, the accused was brought to RPS Dornakal at 08.30 pm and he efected the arrest of the accused and got him remanded to judicial custody, after following the due procedure.
vi)It is further alleged that on 03n05n2023 P.W.10 forwarded the material objects to the State FSL, Hyderabad where A. Raja Naik,
Assistant Director, State FSL, Hyderabad (P.W.11) analyzed the material objects and he issued a report, stating that item Nos. 1 to 6 were examined, human blood was detected on item Nos. 1, 3 to 6.
Blood group of blood stains on item No's, 1, 3, 5 and 6 is of "A" blood group, blood group of blood stains on item No.4 could not be determined, blood was not detected on item No.2 which was received as control for item No. 1. On 03.05.2023, P.W.10 forwarded viscera which was preserved by the medical ofcer to RFSL, Warangal, where
Y. Neeraja, Assistant Director, RFSL, Warangal (L.W.19) analyzed the viscera and found Ethyl Alcohol in the viscera and no other chemical poison was found in the viscera.
vii)It is further alleged that on 11.07.2023 P.W.10 submitted a requisition to the court concerned with a request to nominate a
Magistrate to conduct Test Identifcation Parade of the accused with
the P.W.5nPatan Nayum Khan. On 22.07.2023 , Smt. V. Madhavi, IIIn
Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam (L.W.20)
8
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
conducted Test Identifcation Parade of the accused in the premises of District Jail, Khammam at 4.05 pm with P.W.5 and issued a report to that efect, wherein P.W.5 has correctly identifed the accused. On 28n08n2023 P.W.10 received fnal opinion from the Medical Ofcer,
Govt. General Hospital, Kothagudem (P.W.12), wherein he opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to "Head Injury and blunt Injury to Face". After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.10, fled a charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.
2.This case was taken on fle under Section 302 of IPC against the accused vide PRC No. 01/2024 by the court of IIInAddl. Judicial
Magistrate of First Class for Railway casesncumnJunior Civil Judge,
Kazipet and proceeded with the case against the accused. On production of the accused, before that court, all the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
3.On 06n10n2025 a committal order was pronounced in the open court by the IIInAddl. JFCM for Railway CasesncumnJunior Civil Judge,
Kazipet in PRC No. 01/2024, wherein the case was committed to the court of Sessions Division, Mahabubabad, as the ofence under
Section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of sessions,
Mahabubabad.
9
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
4.On receipt of case record from the committal court, this court registered the case as S.C.No. 121/2025 and proceeded with the case against the accused.
5.On 02n02n2026 on production of the accused before this court from District Jail, Khammam, he was examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against him, wherein he denied the commission of ofence, upon consideration of case record and documents submitted therewith and after hearing submissions of both sides, it was opined that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the ofence, whereupon a charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Hindi, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and M.Os.1 to 5. The evidence of
L.W.3nGurrala Srinivas was closed by this court on the basis of his death report fled by the police concerned through the learned incharge public prosecutor. The prosecution has given up the evidence of Bandi Dinesh Reddy (L.W.11), and Aravapalli Manoj Teja (L.W.14).
7.On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating
10
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
circumstances appearing against him found in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, he denied the incriminating circumstances and did not prefer to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.
8.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record, including written arguments fled on behalf of the prosecution.
9. Now the points for determination are :
i). Whether the accused inficted injuries on the body of the deceased by name Raavi
Mamadharaoi leading to his death?
ii). Whether the prosecution is successful in
bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?
10.The prosecution story, in brief, is that : on 08n04n2023 at about 4n00 pm at the end of platform NO.3 of Bhadrachalam road Railway station at Kothagudem, the accused by name Yogesh had beaten the deceased by name Raavi Manmadha Roa on his forehead and mouth with iron rod, as a result, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and died instantaneous on the spot due to petty quarrel on the sleeping bench of platform No.3 of Bhadrachalam road railway station, Kothagudem, and as such the accused is liable for punishment for the ofence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
11
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
11.In order to bring home the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses, out of them, the defacto complainant, who is the elder brother of the deceased by name Raavi Rambabu, was examined as P.W.1, the eye witnesses to the alleged incident namely Badavath Badiya Naik and Patan Nayeem
Khan were examined as P.Ws.2 and 5 respectively, the wife of the deceased by name Raavi Sandhya Rani was examined as P.W.3,
Banoth Srinivas, GRP PC No.388 of ROP, Bhadrachalam was examined as P.W.4, Muppidi Ravi Kishore, who is the mediator said to be present at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of the decease was examined as P.W.6, V. Nageshwar Rao Blue coat PC of Kothagudem 3 town police station was examined as P.W.7, Vanam
Kumar, who is the mediator said to be present at the time of conducting panchanama for the scene of ofence panchanama was examined as P.W.8, Mohd. Jalaluddin, who is the mediator said to be present at the time of interrogation of the accused, was examined as
P.W.9, A. Venkateshwar Rao, Line inspector, GRP Khammam, who is the invstigating ofcer in this case was examined as P.W.10, A Raja
Naik, Assistant Director, State FSL, Hyderabad who analyzed material objects, was examined as P.W.1, Dr. Sandeep Kumar, Civil Assistant
Surgeon, Government hospital, Kothagudem who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased was
12
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
examined as P.W.12, k. Srikanth, SubnInspector of Police, RPS
Dornakal who registered the crime was examined as P.W.13.
12.In support of oral evidence, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the following documents and material objects. Ex.P1 is the report dt; 08n04n2023 lodged by P.W.1, to the police concerned,
Ex.P2 n inquest report of the deceased dt: 09n04n2023, Ex.P3 is the crime details form dt: 09n04n2023, Ex.P4 is the relevant portion seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 is confessionncumnseizure panchanama of the accused dt: 12n04n2023, Ex.P5 is FIR issued by P.W.13, Ex.P6 9 positive photographs, Ex.P7 postmortem examination report dt: 09n 04n2023 issued by P.W.12, Ex.P8 is the report of the RFSL Warangal, 19n04n2023, Ex.P9 is the report of State FSL, Hyderabad dt: 18n05n 2023, Ex.P10 is the Test identifcation report issued by IIInAddl. JFCM,
Khammam, M.O.1 is Khaman patti (iron rod), M.O.2 blood stained shirt of the accused, M.O.3 blood stained two concrete stone pieces,
M.O.4 blood stained black colour full sleeved cotton shirt with green colour checks design of the deceased, M.O.5 blood stained pant of the deceased
13.In order to establish the charge levelled against the accused , the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 13, among them, P.Ws. 2 & 5 are the main witnesses, on whose testimony the entire case of the prosecution is relied upon. In addition to the oral testimony of
13
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
P.Ws.1 to 13, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the documentary evidence and material objects. The oral evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 13 and the documentary evidence, (Exs.P1 to P10) and material objects (M.Os.1 to 5) is to be appreciated by the court. No material discrepancies going to the root of the case have been elicited in the cross examination of material witnesses. Therefore, there is no reason for these witnesses is comingnforth to speak falsehood as against the accused. Thus, there is nothing to discredit the testimony of these material witnesses and their evidence is consistent through out and inspires the confdence of the court.
Therefore, these witnesses can be believed and can be depended upon in adjudicating the matter.
POINT No.i):-
14.In order to prove the case under Section 300 of IPC, the prosecution, frst it must establish that a bodily injury is present, secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved, thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to infict that particular bodily injury, that is to say that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these elements are established by the prosecution, the ofence is murder under Section 300 of IPC,
14
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
15.The Culpable homicide is murder, if the following conditions are satisfed i.e.,
a). that the act which causes death is done with the intention of causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury and b). that the injury intended to be inficted is sufcient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It must be proved that there was an intention to infict that particular bodily injury which, in the ordinary course of nature, was sufcient to cause death viz., that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inficted.
16.A perusal of Ex. P5 frst information report, it reveals that the incident took place on 08n04n2023 at about 4n00 pm, on coming to the knowledge about deceased, the elder brother of the deceased by name Raavi Rambabu (P.W.1) went to RPS Dornakal and lodged
Ex.P1 report on the same day at 9n00 pm i.e., within a short span of time from the time of his knowledge with regard to the incident.
Thus, there appears to be no possibility for investigating agency or defacto complainant (P.W.1), who is the elder brother of the deceased, to develop the case against the accused at primary stage itself. P.W.1 in his evidence narrated the manner of causing the death of the deceased by the accused as in his Ex.P1 report, while giving evidence before the court.
15
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
17.It is to be frst seen whether the accused inficted bodily injuries to the deceased by name Raavi Manmadha Rao in order to cause his death. In order to prove the actual incident, the prosecution has examined eye witnesses to the alleged incident and other circumstantial witnesses. P.W.1 – Raavi Rambabu, who is the elder brother of the deceased, in his evidence stated that On 08.04.2023, in between 4.00pm and 5.00pm, while he was in TRS party political meeting at Kothagudem. At that time, he received a phone call from
GRP, Kothagudem and they enquired him, his relationship with the deceased by name Manmadharao, for which, he replied that the deceased is his younger brother and they further asked him to come to Government Railway station, Kothagudem and accordingly, himself and his other relatives reached the GRP, Kothagudem, where he was informed by the police concerned that his younger brother by name
Manmadharao had died at Platform no.3 of Kothagudem railway station.
18.P.W.1 in his evidence further stated that then, he along with his relatives reached the place of incident on platform no.3 of
Kothagudem road railway station and found the dead body of his younger brother was lying on the platform no.3. They noticed bleeding blood injury to the back side of the head of the deceased.
16
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
Then, they enquired with Patan Nayeem Khan(LW2) and Gurrala
Srinivas(LW3), who informed them that the person belonging to
Raipur, state of Chhattisgarh beat the deceased with kamanpatti (iron rod) on the back side of head, resulting his death. After enquiry, he went to RPS, Dornakal and lodged Ex.P1 report narrating the aforesaid incident.
19. It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.1 on behalf of the accused that he himself scribed Ex.P1 report. He mentioned in
Ex.P1 report that some unknown person beat his younger brother at the end of the plat form no.2. He stated before the police that the deceased addicted to consume ganja and due to his bad vices, his wife left him along with the children fve years ago and the deceased was involved in ganja case and he was remanded to judicial custody and he got applied bail for the accused and subsequently, the deceased was released on bail, after releasing from the jail, the deceased did not come to the house and he was staying elsewhere. It was suggested to P.W.1 in his cross examination on behalf of the accused that somebody caused the death of his younger brother due to disputes in respect of ganja and that he lodged a false report in RPS, Dornakal and he did not enquire with P.Nayeem khan(P.W.5) and G.Srinivas(Lw3) and they did not state that one person from
17
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh state caused the death of his younger brother by beating with an iron rod on his head and the said suggestion was denied by P.W.1 in his cross examination.
20.P.W.2nBadavath Badya Naik, who is said to be an eye witness to the alleged incident in his evidence stated that on 08.04.2023, at about 4.30pm, while he was discharging his duties at work shed of railway station, being senior technician C&W, where wagons are repairing, at that time, they heard cries from plat no.3 of
Bhadrachalam road railway station (Kothagudem railway station), upon that they were looking towards plat form no.3 of the said railway station and they noticed one person was chasing the another person by holding the iron rod and the said person who was holding the iron rod beat the another person on his head with iron rod, on seeing the same, they ran away towards the said incident area, in the meantime, the ofender escaped from platform no.3 and they reached the place of incident and found one unknown person was lying on the platform no.3 in pool of blood and the blood was oozing from his head and the said person became unconscious. In the meantime, the other persons on the platform gathered at the place of incident. They came to know through the GRP police that the person
18
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
who was dead is one Manmadharao and the ofender who killed the deceased belonging to Raipur, state of Chhattisgarh.
21.It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.2 on behalf of the accused that the place of incident is situated at a distance of 150mts from his working place. It was denied that they did not look the incident through the window of their work shed. He did not inform to the Station master or the police concerned with regard to the incident, the station master and the police concerned came to know about the incident and reached the place of incident.
22.P.W.3nRaavi Sandhya Rani, who is the wife of the deceased, in her evidence stated that on 08.04.2023, in between 8.00pm and 9.00pm, while she was in her parents house at Warangal, at that time, she received a phone call from PW1 stating that somebody caused the death of her husband by name Manmadharao at Railway
Platform no.3, Kothagudem(Bhadrachalem road Railway station) by beating with iron rod on his head. On receipt of the phone call from
PW1, herself, her parents and her children rushed to the Kothagudem
Government Hospital and found the dead body of her husband at
Mortuary room of the said hospital. They noticed bleeding injuries on the nose, face and head of the deceased.
19
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
23. P.W.4nBanoth Srinivas, who is working as RPC No. 388 of
Bhadrachalam Road Railway station at Kothagudem, in his evidence stated that on 08.04.2023, from 2.00 pm onwards, he was discharging his duties in plat form no.1 of Bhadrachalam road
Railway station at Kothagudem, at about 4.30pm, while he was at
Plat form no.1, at that time one railway passenger came to him and informed him that one person was lying with bleeding injuries on plat form no.3. Upon that, he rushed to the said place and found one person was lying with bleeding injuries on plat form no.3 and he was in unconscious. He noticed bleeding injuries on the back side of the head and left side of the head. Then, for knowing the details of the said unknown person, he verifed the wearing clothes of the said person, found one Prisoners ID card in back side of the pant pocket and the said prisoners ID card reveals that his name is Raavi
Manmadha rao, S/o.Narsinga Rao.
24. P.W.4 in his evidence further stated that at about 5.00pm, one blue coat constable came from 3nTown PS Kothagudem, reached the place of ofence and he obtained the fnger prints of the said unknown death person. After taking fnger prints, the said blue coat constable verifed in his tab, upon that the address of the said unknown person exhibited in the tab. On the basis of address of the
20
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
said unknown person, his relatives are located. He intimated the same to his higher ofcers. As per the instructions of his higher ofcials, he intimated to PW1 that his younger brother was lying on plat form no.3 with bleeding injuries and he was unconscious. Upon that PW1 came to the place of incident and identifed the said person is his younger brother.
25. It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.4 on behalf of the accused that at that time, no passenger trains were not arrived on plat form no.3, without railway ticket or platform ticket, the persons have no access to come to the railway platforms. He informed his superior ofcer with regard to the incident over a phone at about 5.00pm or 5.10pm. The Inspector of Police of GRP, came to the scene of ofence, 3ntown Kothagudem PS is situated opposite to
Bhadrachalem road railway station at Kothagudem.
26. P.W.5nPatan Nayeem Khan, who is the eye witness to the incident, in his evidence stated that about three or four years ago, on one day after attending the coolie work at Bus station, Kothagudem while he was returning to his house through the platform of Railway station, Bhadrachalam road at Kothagudem, he found the accused was beating the deceased with iron rod at platform no.3 and the accused beat the deceased on the back side of the head of the
21
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
deceased and also beat on the face of the deceased, resulting the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on his face and back side of the head and the deceased fell down on plat form no.3 and became unconscious and seeing the same, the accused started running from platform no.3 towards coal wagon of the railway station and himself and another person chased the accused from his behind at some distance but they could not succeed in catch hold of the accused.
They informed the same to the Railway personnel and on their information, the railway personnels visited the scene of ofence and they were enquired by the railway personnel and they stated whatever they have seen. After 10 days of the incident, he was summoned to District Jail, Khammam where one Lady Magistrate conducted TI parade of the accused, wherein he correctly identifed the accused.
27.It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.5 on behalf of the accused that he completed his coolie work on the date of incident by 2.30 pm. After completion of the work, he was returning back to his house on foot through the railway station platforms which is nearer distance to his house. He used to return back to the house on foot, through railway station platforms which is short route, even though autos are available to return back to his house. He denied his
22
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
knowledge with regard to the motive part of the ofence as to why the accused beat the deceased. He has not seen what was happened in between the deceased and the accused soon before the incident.
He has seen the incident at a distance of 100mts to 200mts. It was denied that he cannot identify the ofender from a distance of 100mts to 200mts. he entered into the railway station platform from the second gate which was facing towards the Kothagudem bus station. Soon after the incident, he informed the incident to the railway personnel. It was further denied that prior to conducting TI parade, he was shown the photographs of the accused and as such, he correctly identifed the accused in the TI parade conducted by One
Lady judicial Magistrate. The CC cameras were not installed nearby the scene of ofence, as on the date of incident.
28.P.W.7nVatti Nageshwar Rao, PC No.712 of PS Kothagudem III town, in his evidence stated that on 08.04.2023, at about 5.00pm, while he was discharging his duties at Chinna Bazar, Kothagudem, at that time, he received a call on 100 stating that one dead body was lying on the Platform no.3 of Bhadrachalam road Railway station, at
Kothagudem. On receipt of the said phone call, he intimated the same to the Inspector of police, PS Kothagudem III town and then, he rushed to the platform no.3 of the said railway station and found one
23
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
unknown person dead body was lying and blood was oozing from the face and back side of the head. He obtained fngerprints of the said unknown dead body and the said fngerprints were verifed in his tab and found the said fngerprints, matched with the fngerprints of one
Raavi Manmadha rao, who was earlier involved in NDPS case for transporting the ganja and on the basis of his address, he came to know the family members and his elder brother by name Raavi
Rambabu, who was counselor of 53 ward of Kothagudem. Then he contacted Pw1nRaavi Rambabu over cell phone and informed about the death of his younger brother on platform no.3 of the said railway station.
29.P.W.12n Dr. Sandeep Kumar, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon,
Government General Hospital, Kothagudem, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, in his evidence stated that On 09.04.2023, at 10.15am, he received a requisition from RPS Dornakal with a request to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased by name Raavi
Manmadhrao. Accordingly, on the same day, at 10.30am, he commenced the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and concluded by 11.30am and found the following external appearance : body is supine in position, mouth and eyes are
24
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
closed, body dressed in blue, green mixed checks pattern full shirt, blue colour pant, blood stains are present over face and scalp.
Postmortem changes :
postmortem lividity is present over back of the body, fxed. Riger mortis is present all over the body.
30.P.W.12 in his evidence further stated that he found the following antemoretem external Injuries :
i). a laceration measuring 12cms x 4cms x bone deep, horizontally present over front of face extending from below the lateral end of right eye brow to the below of middle part of left eye brow and towards the root of nose on downside. Fracture of nasal bones are present, injury is fresh and red in colour.
ii). a laceration measuring 3cms x 2cms x ½ cm over right ear surrounded by contusion.
iii). a laceration measuring 5cms x 1.5cms x bone deep is present over right parietal region on refection of scalp, difuse contusion measuring 6cms x 4cms is present below the above laceration. A fracture of linear fracture of 6cms is present over right parietal region of the skull bone. Subdural and sub archoid hemorrhage is present all over the brain.
iv). a laceration measuring 3cmsx 1cm x scalp deep is present over left posterior aspect of parietal area of scalp.
25
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
v). a laceration measuring 4cms x 2 cms over left cheek upper and lower lips are contused in the middle upper and lower incisor are broken and missing vi). an abrasion measuring 2cms x 1cm is present over outer aspect of left forearm vii). an abrasion measuring 1 cm x ½ cm present over left ring fnger viii). an abrasion measuring 6cms x 2cm is present over lower aspect of back of abdomen.
31.P.W.12 in his evidence further stated that all the above injuries are fresh and red in colour. The time of death of the deceased about 18 hours to 24 hours prior to his postmortem examination. The cause of death of the deceased is pending for want of report from RFSL,
Warangal. He collected viscera from the dead body of the deceased and handed over the same to the police concerned, who forwarded the same to the RFSL, Warangal for chemical examination, where analyzed the viscera and issued Ex.P8 report, wherein the Assistant
Director, RFSL, Warangal opined that item nos.1 and 2 which are piece of stomach and intestine and piece of liver and kidney, are analyzed and ethyl alcohol is found in both of them, no other chemical poison is found in them. On receipt of Ex.P8 report from
RFSL, Warangal he issued his fnal opinion incorporated in Ex.P7
26
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
report that the cause of death of the deceased is due to head injury and blunt injury to face.
32.P.W.11 A. Raja Naik, Assistant Director, State FSL, Hyderabad who analayzed the material objects at State FSL Hyderabad, in his evidence stated that On 03.05.2023, their Laboratory received three sealed cloth line covers, one sealed gauze cloth parcel and one sealed plastic bag sealed with 3 to 7 seals, which are intact and tallying with the sample seal through PC No.841 of RPS Dornakal by name Azeez, in crime no.22/2023 of RPS Dornakal through DSP, GRP
Sub Division, Kazipet. The said sealed covers contained the following:
i). a piece of gauze clothe with two concrete stone pieces with dark brown stains marked as item no.1 ii). concrete stone pieces marked as item no.2.
iii). a torn black colour full sleeved cotton shirt with green colour checks design and dark brown stains marked as item no.3 iv). a torn grey colour millmade pant with dark brown stains marked as item no.4
v). an iron patti with dark brown stains marked as item no.5 vi). a green colour full sleeved cotton shirt with dark brown stains marked as item no.6.
27
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
He conducted necessary tests on item nos.1 to 6 incorporated in his report. Human blood was detected on item nos.1, 3 to 6, blood group of blood stains on item nos.1,3, 5 and 6 is of “A” blood group.
Blood group of blood stains on item no.4 could not be determined.
Blood was not detected on item no.2, which was received as control for item no.1. He issued Ex.P9 report to that efect.
33.The fnal evidence before the court is that of P.W.13nK.
Srikanth, the then Subninspector of Police, RPS Dornakal, who registered the crime in his evidence stated that on 08.04.2023, at about 9.00pm, while he was discharging his duties at RPS Dornakal, at that time, he received a report from PW1 and basing on the contents of the report lodged by PW1, he registered a case in crime no.22/2023 under section 302 of IPC and issued a Ex.P5 FIR. He has examined and recorded the statement of PW1, at RPS Dornakal. He visited the scene of ofence, which is situated at the end of platform no.3, Bhadrachalam Road Railway station at Kothagudem, he found the dead body of the deceased was lying on the platform no.3 in the pool of blood and he found bleeding head injury. he got shifted the dead body of the deceased to the Mortuary of the Government
Hospital, Kothagudem and handed over the CD fle to PW10 for
28
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
conducting investigation in this case as the ofence is grave in nature.
34.P.W.10 – A. Venkateshwar Rao, the then line Inspector, GRP
Khammam who conducted the investigation in this case, in his evidence stated that On 08.04.2023, at about 9.00pm, Ex.P8 report was lodged with K.Srikanth, Subninspector of police, RPS Dornakal (P.W.13), upon that P.W.13 registered the case in crime no.22 of 2023 under section 302 of IPC and a copy of FIR forwarded to him and passed information with regard to the death of a person at
Bhadrachalam Road Railway Station Kothagudem. Upon that he rushed to the RPS, Dornakal and collected the CD fle from P.W.13.
35.P.W.10 in his evidence further stated that on the following day i.e., 09.04.2023, he went to Mortuary of Government Hospital,
Kothagudam at about 8.00 am, where he has examined and recorded the statements of Pws.1 to 5, PW7, G.Srinivas(LW3), Raavi
Srinivas(LW6), K.Rajkumar(LW7). He secured the presence of one private photographer by name Vemula Anand(LW10) and got photographed covering the dead body of the deceased through the said photographer. Ex.P6 nine positive photographs. He secured the presence of two mediators namely B.Dinesh Reddy(LW11) and M.Ravi
Kishore(PW6), in their presence, he conducted inquest over the dead
29
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
body of the deceased, they found injuries on head, face of the dead body of the deceased. During the course of inquest, the mediators opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to the injuries sustained by the deceased. In this regard, an Ex.P2 inquest report was reduced into writing and obtained the signatures of the mediators on it.
36.the aforesaid part of testimony made by P.W.10 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.6 N. Ravi Kishore, who is said to be present at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased.
P.W.6n in his evidence stated that on 09.04.2023, in between 10.30am and 11.00am, he went to the Government Hospital,
Kothagudem to see the dead body of the deceased by name Raavi
Manmadha rao and he found the dead body of the deceased at
Mortuary of the said hospital. He found bleeding injuries on back side of the head and face etc of the deceased. The police concerned conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and in the presence of Dinesh Reddy(L.W.11). During the course of inquest, he and other mediators opined that the death of the deceased might have been due to the bleeding injuries on back side of the head and face of the deceased and somebody might have been beat the deceased and caused his death. An inquest report
30
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
(Ex.P2) was reduced into writing in their presence and obtained their signatures on it.
37.P.W.10 in his evidence further stated that he submitted a requisition to the medical ofcer concerned with a request to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, Dr.Sandeep Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon,
Government Hospital, Kothagudem (P.W.12) conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued
Ex.P7 n postmortem examination report, wherein he opined that the cause of death of the deceased was await from FSL report. The medical ofcer collected viscera from the dead body of the deceased and it was handed over to him and also he seized wearing clothes of the deceased. He forwarded the vicera of the deceased to the RFSL,
Warangal for analysis and received Ex.P8 report from RFSL,
Warangal, wherein the Assistant Director opined that ethoyal alcohol is found in the viscera and no other chemical poison is found in the viscera. The aforesaid testimony made by P.W.10 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.12 with regard to conducting postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P7 preliminary postmortem examination report dt: 09n04n2023.
31
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
38.P.W.10 in his evidence further stated that later, he visited the scene of ofence along with clues team which is situated at
Bhadrachalam road railway station on platform no.3 and secured the presence of the two mediators namely Vanam Kumar(PW8) and
A.Manoj Teja(lw14), in their presence, he conducted panchanama for the scene of ofence and their observations and physical features were incorporated in crime details form and he has drawn rough sketch for the scene of ofence in the column no.11 of Ex.P3 crime details form and obtained the signatures of the mediators on it. He has seized 6 teeth, slippers, blood stains, blood control from the scene of ofence under the cover of Ex.P3 CDF. This part of testimony made by P.W.10 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.8 Vanam
Kumar with regard to conducting panchamama for the scene of ofence in Ex.P3 CDF in his presence and in the presenc of Manoj
Teja.
39.P.W.8nVanam Kumar in his evidence stated that on 09.04.2023, the Inspector of police, Railway police conducted panchanama for the scene of ofence at plat form no.3 of Bhadrachalam road railway station at Kothagudem) in his presence and in the presence of A.
Manoj Teja(lW14) and their observations and physical features of the scene of ofence were incorporated in Ex.P3 crime details form and
32
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
the said inspector of police drawn rough sketch for the scene of ofence in the relevant column of the CDF and obtained their signatures on it.
40.P.W.10 in his evidence further stated that while the investigation was in progress to apprehend the accused, on 12.04.2023 at about 4.30pm, he along with his staf conducting checking around the railway station and found one person under suspicious circumstances at Ramalayam temple, Railway colony and then he apprehend the said person and interrogated him in the presence of two mediators namely Mohd.Jalaluddin(PW9) and
A.Sammaiah(LW16) and in their presence, he interrogated the said person and the said person furnished his name and other particulars.
The said person is no other than the accused involved in this case.
Accused is same person present in the court hall and facing the trial.
During the course of the interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the ofence pertaining to this case. The accused further confessed that he used kaman patti for beating the deceased and while escaping from the scene of ofence, he thrown the said kaman patti. Upon that he shown the said kaman patti which is used in the commission of ofence at a distance of 200mts from the scene of ofence and at the instance of the accused, he has seized MO1
33
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
kaman patti and blood stained shirt of the accused (M.O.2) under the
Ex.P4 confessionncumnseizure panchanama. After completion of the said process, the accused was brought to RPS, Dornakal and I efected the arrest of the accused and got him remanded to judicial custody after following the due procedure.
41.The aforesaid testimony made by P.W.10 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.9 – Mohd. Jalaluddin, who is said to be present at the time of interrogation of the accused. P.W.9nMohd. Jalaluddin in his evidence stated that on 12.04.2023, during evening time, at about 4.30pm, while he was working in the vehicle parking in railway station, at that time, he was called to the Ramalayam, which was situated by the side of the railway colony, Kothagudem by the
Inspector of police along with A.Sammaiah(LW16). Accordingly, they reached the said Ramalayam and found one person under the custody of the Inspector of police at Ramalayam temple, Railway colony and the said persons was interrogated in their presence.
During the course of interrogation, the said person disclosed his name and other particulars and confessed to have committed the ofence pertaining to this case. The accused, who is present in the court hall facing trial is the same person was in the custody of
P.W.10n Inspector of police.
34
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
42.P.W.9 in his evidence further stated that the accused further confessed that a dispute arose in between him and the deceased, due to which, he picked up iron rod(kaman patti) and beat on his face and head and caused injuries to him, due to which, the deceased fell down unconscious and then he escaped from the platform no.3 and he hide the iron rod(kaman patti) in the bushes near Ramalayam temple. In pursuance of the confession of the accused, he led the mediators and the police party at some distance from the
Ramalayam temple and the accused picked up one iron rod(kaman patti) and blood stained shirt from the bushes and handed over the same to P.W.10. MO1 is kaman patti(iron rod). MO2 is blood stained shirt of the accused. In this regard a confessionncumnseizure panchanama (Ex.P4) was reduced into writing in their presence and obtained their signatures on it.
43.P.W.10 in his evidence further stated that on 11.07.2023, he submitted a requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khammam with a request to nominate Judicial magistrate to conduct TI parade of the accused with Pattan Nayum Khan(PW5). Accordingly, III Addl.
JFCM, Khammam was nominated to conduct TI parade of the accused with PW5. On 22.07.2023, the III Addl. JFCM, Khammam by name
V.Madhavi, conducted TI parade of the accused inside the District Jail,
35
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
Khammam with PW5 wherein PW5 correctly identifed the accused and the said Judicial Magistrate submitted Ex.P10 report to that efect.
44.P.W.10 in his evidence further stated that on receipt of the
Exs.P8 and P9 reports from RFSL, Warangal and State FSL,
Hyderabad, the medical ofcer (P.W.12) who conducted PME over the dead body of the deceased issued fnal opinion with regard to the cause of death of the deceased was due to head injury and blunt injury to face and the said fnal opinion was incorporated in Ex.P7 postmortem report. MO3 is two concrete stone pieces containing blood stains. MO4 blood stained Black colour full sleeved cotton shirt with green colour checks designs of the deceased. MO5 is the blood stain pant of the deceased.After collecting all the documents and after completion of the investigation, he fled a charge sheet against the accused for the ofence punishable under section 302 of IPC and deposited the case property before the court concerned.
45.As seen from the evidence of P.W.10, who is the investigating ofcer in this case, left no material lacunaes, which can create any doubt over the case of the prosecution. As far as the existence of injuries on the person of deceased concerned, P.W.1 who is the elder brother of the deceased in his evidence categorically stated that on
36
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
08.04.2023 during evening time on receipt of a phone call from
Government railway police station, Kothagudem he along with his relatives reached the place of incident on platform No.3, of
Bhadrachalam road Railway station at Kothagudem and found the dead body of his younger brother was lying on the platform no.3.
they noticed bleeding injury to the back side of his head. P.W.2n
Senior Technician, Bhadrachalam Road Railway station, in his evidence stated that on witnessing the incident at a distance of 150 meters from his working place, he reached the scene of ofence on 08.04.2023, at evening hours and found one unknown person was lying on platfrom no.3 in pool of blood and the blood was oozing from his head and the said person became unconscious.
46.P.W.3 who is the wife of the deceased, in her evidence stated that on 08.04.2023, in between 8.00pm and 9.00pm, on receipt of phone call from PW1, while she was in her parents house at
Warangal, she along with her parents and children rushed to the
Government Hospital Kothagudem and found the dead body of her husband with bleeding injuries on the nose, face and head. P.W.4n
Banoth Srinivas, RPC No. 388 of 388 of Bhadrachalam road railway station, in his evidence stated that on 08.04.2023 at about 4n30 pm, while he was at Plat form no.1, on receipt of information he rushed
37
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
to the said place of incident and found one person was lying with bleeding injuries on plat form no.3 and the said person became unconscious and he noticed one bleeding injury on the back side of the head and left side of the head.
47.P.W.5, who is an eye witness to the incident, in his evidence stated that on the date of incident he found the accused was beating the deceased with iron rod on platform no.3 and the accused beat the deceased on his back side of the head and also beat on the face of the deceased, resulting the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on his face and back side of the head. P.W.6 who is the mediator said to be present at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased, in his evidence stated that on 09.04.2023, in between 10.30am and 11.00am, the police concerned conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and in the presence of Dinesh Reddy(lw11). During the course of inquest, the panchas opined that the death of the deceased might have been caused due to the bleeding injuries on back side of the head and face and somebody might have been beat the deceased and caused his death. An inquest report (Ex.P2) was prepared to that efect.
48.P.W.7 Vatti Nageshwar Rao, PC No.712 of PS Kothagudem in his evidence stated that on 08.04.2023, at about 5.00pm, in receipt
38
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
of information he rushed to the platform no.3 of Bhadrachalam road railway station, Kothagudem and he found one unknown person dead body was lying and blood was oozing from the face and back side of the head. P.W.12 medical ofcer, who conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased, in his evidence stated that on 09.04.2023, at about 10.30am, he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found the following antemortem external injuries i) a laceration over front of face extending from below the lateral end of right eye brow to the below of middle part of left eye brow and towards the root of nose on downside, fracture of nasal bones are present ii). a laceration over right ear surrounded by contusion.
iii). a laceration over right parietal region on refection of scalp, difuse contusion is present below the above laceration. A fracture of linear fracture is present over right parietal region of the skull bone. Subdural and sub archoid hemorrhage is present all over the brain.
iv). a laceration is present over left posterior aspect of parietal area of scalp.
v). a laceration over left cheek upper and lower lips are contused in the middle upper and lower incisor are broken and missing vi). an abrasion is present over outer aspect of left forearm
39
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
vii). an abrasion is present over left ring fnger viii). an abrasion is present over lower aspect of back of abdomen.
49.P.W.10, who is the investigating ofcer in this case, in his evidence he stated that during the course of investigation, on 09.04.2023, at 8n00 am, he went to Mortuary of Government
Hospital, Kothagudam and he secured the presence of two mediators namely B.Dinesh Reddy(LW11) and M.Ravi Kishore(PW6), in their presence, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, and found injuries on his head, face. During the course of inquest, the mediators opined that the cause of death of the deceased wasdue to the injuries sustained by the deceased.
50.The testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 6 and other witnesses are supported by the medical evidence through the testimony of P.W.12 with regard to existence of antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased by name Raavi Manmadha Rao. There is no dispute from the side of the accused with regard to the existence of the injuries on the dead body of the deceased. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and other witnesses is amply corroborated by the medical evidence of
P.W.12 and his given Ex.P7 postmortem examination report with regard to the existence of injuries on the dead body of the deceased particularly on back side of the head and face. Therefore, it can be
40
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
safely concluded that the prosecution has established that the existence of antemortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased particularly on the back side of the head and on the face of the deceased.
51.As far as recovery of M.O.1 Kamanpatti (iron rod) used in the commission of ofence is concerned, P.W.10 who is the investigating ofcer in this case, in his evidence categorically stated that while the investigation was in progress to apprehend the accused, on 12n04n 2023 at about 4.30pm, he along with his staf while conducting checking around the railway station and found one person under suspicions circumstances at Ramalayam temple, Railway colony and then he apprehend the said person and interrogated him by securing the presence of two mediators namely Mohd.Jalaluddin(PW9) and
A.Sammaiah(LW16), in their presence, he interrogated the said person who furnished his name and other particulars and the said person is no other than the accused involved in this case is present
in the court hall and facing the trial. During the course of the
interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the ofence pertaining to this case.
52.P.W.10 in his evidence further stated that the accused further confessed that he used kaman patti for beating the deceased and
41
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
while escaping from the scene of ofence, he thrown the said kaman patti. Upon that he shown the said kaman patti (M.O.1), which is used in the commission of ofence at a distance of 200mts from the scene of ofence, he has seized MO1 kaman patti and blood stained shirt of the accused (M.O.2) from the possession and at the instance of accused under Ex.P4 relevant portion of confessionncumnseizure panchanama. The aforesaid testimony made by P.W.10 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.9 with regard to seizure of M.O.1
Kamanpatti (Iron rod) from the possession and at the instance of the accused under Ex.P4 relevant portion in confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused dt: 12n04n2023.
53.The admission of guilt by the accused before P.W.10, who is the investigating ofcer in this case, is inadmissible in evidence for the simple reason that it is a confession made to the police ofcial and therefore, it is liable to be excluded from consideration. The only admissible evidence against the accused on record is that the accused disclosed the location of crime weapon said to have used in the commission of ofence and the said admission portion was recorded under Ex.P4 confession cum seizure panchanama and further the said crime weapon was seized under Ex.P4 panchanama from the possession and at the instance of the accused. Therefore,
42
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
the prosecution has established that M.O.1 kamanpatti (iron rod) used in the commission of ofence was seized by P.W.10 from the possession and at the instance of accused under Ex.P4 the relevant portion of confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused dated 12n04n2023. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has established the recovery of crime weapon (M.O.1) from the possession and at the instance of the accused under Ex.P4 n relevant portion of confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused.
54. The proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. At this juncture, the learned chief legal aid defence counsel for the accused has submitted that the circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused has not at all been established by the prosecution and further the manner in which the alleged crime weapon (M.O.1) used in the commission of ofence was seized and sealed is not proper and probability of tampering of
M.O.1 cannot be ruled out. Further submitted that the prosecution is duty bound to eliminate other element of suspicion, in every circumstance relied upon by it, so as to enable the court to come to
43
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
the hypothesis consistent with the guilt of the accused and simultaneously inconsistent with the innocence of the accused.
55.On the other hand, the learned incharge public prosecutor for the state submitted that the prosecution has also been able to prove the recovery of M.O.1 Kamanpatti (Iron rod) said to have been used in the commission of ofence and postmortem examination report (Ex.P7) clearly indicates that injuries were from M.O.1 kamanpatti.
Even through the eye witness (P.W.5) witnessed the actual crime from some distance, yet the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the ofence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC by proving the complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. Further the accused neither during the course of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, nor in any explanation submitted in their statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C., has been able to make a dent in the entire evidence and even in a case of circumstantial evidence, the evidence has to be appreciated as a whole and not in pieces one bit here and one bit there.
56.Keeping in view of the aforesaid arguments advanced by the counsel on either side, I have perused the relevant record. In the instant case P.W.2, who is said to be an eye witness to the alleged incident in his evidence stated that on 08n04n2025 while he was at
44
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
work shed of railway station, where wagons are repairing, at that time, they heard cries from the end of plat no.3 of Bhadrachalam road railway station, Kothagudem, upon that they were looking towards plat form no.3 of the said railway station and they noticed one person was chasing the another person by holding the iron rod and the said person who was holding the iron rod beat the another person on his head with iron rod, on seeing the same, they started running towards the said place of incident, in the meantime, the ofender escaped from platform no.3 and they reached the place of incident and found one unknown person was lying on the platform no.3 in pool of blood and the blood was oozing from his head and the said person became unconscious. This part of testimony made by P.W.2 is clearly discloses that he witnessed the actual incident but from 150 meters distance and as such he could not identify the ofender. But he narrated what was happened and the manner of causing the death of the deceased in the hands of the ofender.
57.P.W.5, who is the crucial witness, who witnessed the actual incident, in his evidence categorically stated that about three or four years ago, on one day after attending the coolie work at Bus station,
Kothagudem while he was returning to his house through the platform of Bhadrachalam road, railway station at Kothagudem, at he found the accused was beating the deceased with iron rod at
45
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
platform no.3 and the accused beat the deceased on the back side of the head of the deceased and also beat on the face of the deceased, resulting the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on his face and back side of the head and the deceased fell down on plat form no.3 and became unconscious and seeing the same, the accused started running from platform no.3 towards coal wagon of the railway station and himself and another person chased the accused from his behind, but they could not succeed in catch hold of the accused. After 10 days of the incident, he was summoned to District Jail, Khammam where one Lady Magistrate conducted TI parade, wherein he correctly identifed the accused.
58.P.W.10 who is the investigating ofcer in this case, in his evidence stated that on 11.07.2023, he submitted a requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khammam with a request to nominate to conduct TI parade of the accused with Pattan Nayum Khan(PW5).
Accordingly, III Addl. JFCM, Khammam was nominated to conduct TI parade of the accused with PW5. On 22.07.2023, the III Addl. JFCM,
Khammam by name V.Madhavi, conducted TI parade of the accused inside the District Jail, Khammam with PW5 wherein PW5 correctly identifed the accused and the learned magistrate prepared Ex.P10 report to that efect. As seen from the evidence of P.W.5, he
46
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
correctly identifed the accused while he was giving evidence in the court and also correctly identifed the accused on 22n07n2023 in the premises of District Jail, Khammam in the presence of Judicial
magistrate who conducted TI parade of accused with P.W.5 and
issued Ex.P10 Test Identifcation of the accused.
59.As aforesaid, an ample support from the medical evidence and ocular evidence available in the instant case for the prosecution there are no material discrepancies, which can create any kind of doubt over the case of the prosecution or over the testimony of any of the witnesses. The testimony of the aforesaid witnesses is quite reliable. I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve the testimony of any of the witnesses. The cross examination of these witnesses, on behalf of the accused could not extract any material for them to speak false or foist a false case against the accused.
60.It is already stated supra that the prosecution has established that the deceased has died due to the injuries sustained on his back side of the head and face further the prosecution has established that there is no possibility to cause the death of the deceased by any other person except the accused. Further the accused categorically confessed before P.W.10 in the presence of the mediators that he caused the death of the deceased by beating him with M.O.1 iron rod.
47
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the accused caused the death of the deceased, due to the quarrel in between them with regard to the bench on platform
No.3 for sleeping/relaxing.
61.At this juncture, the learned incharge Public prosecutor for the state has requested for convicting accused for having committed the ofence punishable under Section 302 of IPC submitting that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge levelled against the accused by examining its witnesses whose testimonies are corroborative and reliable. On the other hand, the learned chief legal aid defence counsel for the accused requested for acquittal of the accused, submitting that there is nothing incriminating against the accused on record. Keeping in view of the aforesaid arguments of both the counsel on record, I have perused the relevant record. It is already stated supra that the prosecution adduced positive oral as well as documentary evidence with regard to the commission of ofence. Accused has not lead any evidence in his defence to substantiate his claim that he was falsely implicated in this case. Further the accused has failed to show any motive or malafde intention on the part of the family members of the deceased for implicating him in a false case. Accused failed to assign any malafde, motive on the part of
48
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
the family members of the deceased that he would got him falsely implicated in this murder case. The defence of the accused, does not appear to be probable.
62.At this juncture, the learned incharge public prosecutor for the state has argued that the evidence of material witnesses does not sufer from any inconsistency and is blemish free, while the learned
Chief Legal aid defence counsel for the accused has argued that no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of witnesses as there are many variations. It is apparently clear from the above that the allegations are specifc and consistent. There is no reason why the accused would have been falsely implicated. There is nothing on record to indicate that the evidence of material witnesses is false or motivated and their evidence appears to be completely reliable and trustworthy.
63.The investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case has been substantially proved by P.W.10. He clearly deposed that he was informed about the murder of the deceased by P.W.13. He visited the mortuary of Government
Hospital, Kothagudem on 09n04n2023 at about 8n00 am, and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased by securing the presence of two mediators and he has examined the material witnesses and he submitted a requisition to medical ofcer concerned with a request to
49
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, he got photographed covering the dead body of the deceased through one private photographer and the accused was arrested, documents pertaining to his arrest was prepared and M.O.1 iron rod used in the commission of ofence was recovered in the presence of the mediators under Ex.P4 relevant portion of confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused, collected postmortem examination report and viscera was forwarded to the RFSL, Warangal for examination and collected the report from the said laboratory and forwarded the material objects to the State FSL, Hyderabad and received Ex.P9 report from State FSL, Hyderabad and submitted a requisition to the chief judicial magistrate Khammam with a request to nominate to conduct TI parade of the accused with P.W.5 and accordingly Judicial Magistrate conducted TI parade of the accused with P.W.5 on 22n07n2023 at the premises of District Jail, Khammam and obtained copy of the report from the court concerned. After completion of the investigation and collecting all the documents fled a charge sheet against the accused. There is nothing on record to show that the testimony of P.W.10 is false or not reliable.
64.It may also be observed that the accused has also failed to show that he is not the person, who beat the deceased and caused his death by beating with M.O.1 iron rod. He has failed to lead any
50
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
evidence to substantiate his claim or falsify the prosecution version or show that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not reliable and credible. It is evident from the evidence of material witnesses putforth by the prosecution is reliable, believable and trustworthy and the prosecution has established the case of murder. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Further Ex.P9nFSL report reveals that the expert (Assistant Director) found deceased blood stains on the shirt of the accused (A group blood) and the prosecution connected the accused with the crime.
65.It may be observed here that it is a general handicap attached to all the material witnesses, if they failed to speak with precision, their evidence would be assailed as vague and evasive, on the contrary if they speak to all the events very well and correctly, their evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored, both approaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The testimony of a witness should be viewed from broad angles. It is should not be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards. In a particular case the material / eye witnesses may be able to narrate the incident with all details without mistake, if the occurrence had made an
51
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
imprint on the canvass of his / her mind in the sequences in which, it occurred. He / she may be a person whose capacity for absorption or retention of events is stronger than anther person.
It should be remember that what he / she witnessed was not something that happens usually but a very exception one so far as he / she is concerned. If he / she reproduces it in the same sequences as it registered in his / her mind the testimony cannot be dubbed as artifcial on that score along, similar observations have also been made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the decision referred in Bhag Singh and others Vs.
State of Punjab reported in 1997 n VII AD SC 507.
66.When material witnesses are examined at length, it is quite possible for him/her to make some discrepancies. No true witnesses can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness, who is well tutored can successfully made his testimony totally nonndiscrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justifed in jettisoning/discarding his evidence.
However, I fnd that the material witnesses in their evidence before the court as well as their earlier statements recorded by the police
52
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
concerned, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. are consistent with regard to the manner of the accused caused the death of the deceased by beating with M.O.1 Kaman Patti (iron rod) indiscriminately.
67.It is settled principle of law that in criminal trial conviction can be based even on the strength of the deposition of a single witness, in case it is found trustworthy and reliable as it is quality and not quantity of the evidence that count and the said view is strengthened by the decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Sheelam
Ramesh and Another V/s State of A.P reported in J.T.1999(8) SC 537, wherein it was observed that “courts are concerned with quality and not with quantity of evidence and in a criminal trial, conviction can be based on the sole evidence of witness if it inspires confdence. There is nothing on record that the evidence of material witnesses is false or motivated, their evidence appears to be reliable and trustworthy.
There is nothing on record to indicate that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is false or motivated. Their evidence appears to be completely reliable and trustworthy.
68.Further the prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the ofence has been committed, place of commission of ofence, the investigation including documents prepared. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported
53
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
the prosecution case and their testimonies do not sufer from any infrmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of Prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by the circumstantial evidence and the witnesses of the prosecution have been able to build up a continuous link. In view of the foregoing reasons, the conscience of this court is completely satisfed with the prosecution has been able to successfully bring home the charge levelled against the accused regarding the commission of ofence under Section 302 of IPC.
69.It is already stated supra that P.W.5, who is said to be the eye witness in this case, there is no need for him to speak false against the accused. The recovery of M.O.1 Kaman patti (Iron rod) crime weapon from the possession and at the instance of the accused is proved to be fact through the testimony of P.W.10 is supported by the testimony of P.W.9 in clear substantiation of case of the prosecution. I fnd no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws.9 & 10, nor any reason could be assigned from any angle on behalf of the accused, that there could be a false case made against the accused.
The contention of the accused with regard to his false implication in this case is not supported and substantiated by any other evidence.
70. Therefore, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the accused caused the death of the deceased by name
54
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
Raavi Manmadha Rao, in humanly in order to get his bench on platform No.3 of Bhadrachalam road Railway station, Kothagudem.
On careful scrutiny of the case, in its entirety and the aforesaid reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has established the charge levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Further, the prosecution is able to bring the crucial links in the chain of circumstances leading to the death of the deceased.
71.On careful scrutiny of entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is able to prove the links in the chain of circumstances, motive, participation of the accused in the commission of ofence through the direct evidence and circumstantial evidence, therefore the case against the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubts, in respect of ofence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly this point is answered.
POINT NO.ii):-
72. The diference between murder and culpable homicide is intention. If the intention is present, the crime is said to be committed under Section 300 of IPC. If the intention is absent, then the crime is dealt under Section 304 of IPC. The thin line is intention behind the act. All the murders are culpable homicide, but the vice
55
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
versa is not true. In the instant case, the accused quarreled with the deceased for the bench on platform No.3 of Bhadrachalam road
Railway station, at Kothagudem for his relaxing / sleeping, in the said quarrel, the accused picked up Kaman patti (iron rod) and beat the deceased indiscriminately on the backside of the head and face and caused multiple injuries referred in Ex.P7 postmortem examination report. Therefore, it is clear intention, the accused caused the death of the deceased and therefore the the accused is liable for punishment for the ofence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
73.From the foregoing reasons, I am holding that the prosecution has successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the ofence punishable under Section 302 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.
RESULT:
In the result, the accused is found guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and he is convicted under
Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said ofence.
Dictated by me to the stenographer, after transcription,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2026
Principal Sessions Judge,
Mahabubabad
56
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
Order of sentence / quantum of sentence:-
It is not the case where invoke the provisions of Probation of
Ofenders Act, or Section 360 of Cr.P.C. when the accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be awarded on him, he represented that “ he did not commit any ofence and he was falsely implicated in this case and pleaded mercy of the court”
Heard the arguments of Learned incharge public Prosecutor and also the learned Chief Legal Aid defence counsel for the accused.
In the instant case, the accused has committed the heinous crime that he caused the death of the deceased by name Raavi
Manmadha Rao inhumanly on platform No.3 of the Bhadrachalam
Road Railway station at Kothagudem for his bench by beating with an iron rod indiscriminately on his backside of the head, face other parts of the body and it is required to be dealt with by awarding suitable punishment. Therefore, showing mercy against the accused is unwarranted.
Having considered the nature and circumstances of the case and representation of the accused, I have passed the following sentence:n
57
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
Thus, the accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and he shall pay fne of Rs.1,000/n(Rupees One Thousand only) in default of payment of fne, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the ofence punishable under Section 302of IPC.
The remand period of the accused from 13n04n2023 to till date 20n04n2026 shall be set of as against the term of imprisonment as per section 428 of Cr.P.C.
The case property of M.O.1 Kaman patti (Iron rod), M.O.2 blood stained shirt, M.O.3 blood stained concrete stone pieces, M.O.4 blood stained cotton shirt of the deceased and M.O.5 blood stained pant of the deceased which are useless shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
The accused is also informed about the appeal provision and the facility of legal aid for fling an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by this court.
Dictated by me to the stenographer, after transcription,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2026
Principal Sessions Judge,
Mahabubabad
58
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
P.Wn1Raavi RambabuDefacto complainant / elder brother of the deceased P.Wn2Badavath Badya NaikEye witness to the incident P.Wn3Raavi Sandhya RaniWife of the deceased P.Wn4Banoth Srinivas On duty constable/ circumstantial witness P.Wn5Patan Nayum KhanEye witness to the incident P.Wn6Muppedi RavikishorePanch for the inquest over the dead body of the deceased P.Wn7Vithya Nageswar RaoBlue clot PC of Kothagudem IIIn Town P.S. P.Wn8Vanam Kumar Panch for CDF, dated 09n04n2023 P.Wn9Mohd. JalaluddinPanch for confessionncumnseizure panchanama of the accused
dated:12n04n2023
P.Wn10A. Venkateswar RaoInvestigating ofcer, arrested the GRP Line Inspector, accused person and fled charge Khammam sheet P.Wn11A. Raja NaikExamined the material objects and Assistant Director FSL, issued report Hyderabad P.Wn12Dr. Sandeep Kumar, Conducted autopsy over the dead Civil Assistant Surgeonbody of the deceased Government General hospital, Kothagudem P.Wn13K. SrikanthIssued FIR. SIRP of RPS, Dornakal
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
nNiln
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
Ex.Pn1Police report dt; 08n04n2023 lodged by P.W.1, to the police concerned, Ex.Pn2Inquest report of the deceased dt: 09n04n2023 Ex.Pn3Crime details form dt: 09n04n2023 Ex.Pn4Relevant portion in Confessionncumnseizure panchanama
59
SC No.121 of 2025
Dated 20thday of April, 2026.
of the accused dt: 12n04n2023 Ex.Pn5FIR dt: 08n04n2023 Ex.Pn69 positive photographs Ex.Pn7Postmortem examination report dt: 09n04n2023 Ex.Pn8Report of RFSL, Warangal dt: 19n05n2023 Ex.Pn9Report of State FSL, Hyderabad dt: 18n05n2023 Ex.Pn10Test Identifcation of the accused issued by IIInAJFCM, Khammam, dt: 22n07n2023
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
Nil
MATERIAL OBJECTS
M.O.1 Kaman Patti (iron rod) M.O.2 Blood stained shirt of the accused M.O.3 Two concrete stone pieces M.O.4 Blood stained black colour full sleeved cotton shirt with green colour checks design of the deceased. M.O.5 Blood stained pant of the deceased.
Principal Sessions Judge,
Mahabubabad
IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE
FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE
AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST SEXUAL OFFENCES
ACT, 2012 AT: MAHABUBABAD
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
Present: Mohd. Abdul Raf,
Principal Sessions Judge,
Mahabubabad FAC Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Mahabubabad.
SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
1. Name of the Complainant :The State of Telangana, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Kesamudram
2. Names of the Accused A1. Boda Bhaskar, S/o Ramdhan, persons: aged: 30 years (now 36 years), occ: Agriculture, R/o Tota Dasru thanda,GudurMandal, Mahabubabad district.
A2. Banoth Veeru, (DIED/abated)
A3. Banoth Srinu, S/o Hari, aged: 30 years (now 36 years),occ: Coolie, R/o Bhavanigadda thanda of Kesamudram Mandal.
3. Crime Number 92 / 2020 of Name of Police Station:P.S. Kesamudram
4. Prosecution conducted by :Sri K. Venkataiah Special Public Prosecutor, Mahabubabad
2
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
5. Defence conducted by :Sri M. Satyanarayana, Advocate for A1
Sri D. Nageshwar Rao, Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for A2.
6. Charges Under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 against accused persons
7. Plea of the accused Pleaded Not Guilty persons :
8. Finding of the Court :Found not guilty
9. Result In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354- D, 506 r./w Sec. 34 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, accordingly accused Nos.1 and 3 are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The accused Nos.1 and 3 are in judicial custody and they shall be released forthwith in this case and set at liberty if they are not required to in any other cases. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
This case is coming on before me, for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri K. Venkataiah, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri M. Satyanarayana, Advocate for A1, Sri D. Nageshwar Rao, Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for A3 ; and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
3
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
::J U D G M E N T::
The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.
Kesamudram, has laid a charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 in
Cr. No. 92 / 2020 of P.S. Kesamudram, charged under Sections 354-
A, 354-D, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Section 11 read with Section 12 and Sec. 16 r/w Sec. 17 of POCSO Act, 2012, with the following allegations:
2. That the accused Nos.1 to 3 are friends and residents of different thandas of Kesamudram mandal, knowingly the victim girl (P.W.3) is a minor and is under the guardian ship of her parents, for the last few months, accused 1 to 3 were following her and other minor children, uttering flthy words to them insulting their modesty and also with an intention to outrage the modesty of the victim girl, in the absence of her parents. In this juncture, on 29-06-2020 at about 11-00 am, the parents of the victim girl (P.Ws.1 and 2 ) left their house, leaving the victim girl (P.W.3) and other minor children at the house and went to bank on their personal work. Seeing the opportunity of loneliness of the victim girl and other children, when the victim girl went to the bath room to attend nature calls at about 12.00 noon the accused 1 to 3 go up on the bathroom of the victim girl with the help of pipe and sprinkled ID liquor in the bath room, making vizils and started uttering flthy words towards her, asked her
4
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
to open the doors in loud voice , due to fear, she rushed inside of the house and bolted doors.
ii)It is further alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 armed with sticks, knocked the doors with sticks demanding the victim girl to open the doors and also threatened her if she would not open the doors, they would kill her. Due to fear, she made a phone call to her father (P.W.1) and informed the incident. Upon that her parents (P.Ws.1 and
2) rushed to their house and informed to the neighbours namely
Sankurathri Kiran (L.w.4) and Bhumati Purishotham Rao (L.W.5), who noticed the accused 1 to 3 at the house of P.W.1 and they all caught hold of the accused, 1 to 3, enquired their names and addresses, in the meanwhile, the accused Nos.1 to 3 managed to escape and absconded. On 29-06-2020 at 7-00 pm, the father of the victim girl (P.W.1) went to P.S. Kesamudram and lodged a report narrating the aforesaid incident. Basing on the strength of the contents of the report lodged by P.W.1, a case in Cr.No. 92/2020 under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC was registered at P.S.
Kesamudram and investigated into.
iii)It is further alleged that during the course of investigation, P.
Rajender, Assistant Sub-inspector of Police, P.S. Kesamudram (L.W.10) has examined and recorded the statements of parents of the victim girl (P.Ws.1 and 2). He got recorded the statement of the
5
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
victim girl through T. Hima, WPC No. 1767 of P.S. Kesamudram (L.W.6). Subsequently the said ASI of Police (L.W.10) visited the scene of offence at the house of P.W.1 situated at Kesamudram station, where he secured the presence of two mediators namely
Thonupunuri Sai Krishna (L.W.7) and Manne Nagaraju (P.W.5), in their presence, he observed the scene of offence and their observations and physical features of the scene of offence were incorporated in crime details form. He has examined and recorded the statements of
Sankurathri Kiran (P.W.4) and Bhumati Purishotham Rao (L.W.5).
iv)It is further alleged that subsequently B. Satheesh, Sub- inspector of Police, P.S. Kesamudram (P.W.6) took up further investigation, verifed the investigation done by ASI of Police (L.W.10) and found it on proper lines. Basing on the evidence of witnesses,
P.W.6 altered the section of law by adding Section 11 r/w Sec. 12,
Section 16 r/w Sec. 17 of POCSO Act to the existing Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and issued Section alteration memo to that effect. Subsequently Ch. Ramesh Babu, Sub-inspector of Police,
P.S. Kesamudram (P.W.7) took up the investigation in this case, verifed the investigation done by ASI of Police (L.W.10) and Sub- inspector of Police (P.W.6) and found on proper lines. On 10-08-2020 at 7-30 pm, P.W.6 served the notices under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. to the accused 1 to 3, on their surrender at P.S. Kesamudram with
6
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
instructions to attend before the court as and when they received summons from the court for answering the charges, on interrogation, accused Nos.1 to 3 voluntarily have confessed to have committed the offence pertaining to this case. On requisition, Smt. Radhika Jaiswal, the then JFCM, Mahabubabad (L.W.9) recorded the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.7 fled a charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3. Hence, the charge.
2.This case was taken on fle under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506 r/ w Sec. 34 of IPC, and Section 11 r/w Section 12, Sec. 16 r/w Sec. 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 against accused Nos.1 to 3 by the I-Addl.
Sessions court-cum-Special Sessions Court for Trial of Cases under
POCSO Act, 2012, Warangal vide S.C. (POCSO) No. 243 /2021 against accused Nos.1 to 3 and proceeded with the case against accused
Nos.1 to 3. Subsequently on 24-03-2020, this case was transferred to this newly established Fast Track Special Sessions Court for
Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape cases and Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Mahabubabad, as per the orders of the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions court, Warangal vide dis.No.823, dt: 10-02-2022.
3.On receipt of the case record from I-Addl. Sessions Court-cum-
Special Sessions court for trial of cases under POCSO Act, 2012,
7
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
Warangal, to this newly established Fast Track Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape Cases and Protection of
Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 proceeded with the case against the accused 1 to 3. On 13-12-2023 the case against the accused Nos.2 was abated due to his death and proceeded with the case against accused 1 and 3. On appearance of the accused 1 and 3
before this court, all the case documents on which the prosecution
has relied upon were furnished to them, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P,.C.
4. On 19-12-2025, on production of accused Nos.1 and 3, from
Sub-Jail, Mahabubabad they were examined under Section 228 of
Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against them, wherein they denied the commission of offences, whereupon charges under
Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC, and Section 12 of
POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against the accused Nos.1 & 3 read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The prosecution has given up the evidence of Bhumati Purishotham Rao (L.W.5), T. Hyma, WPC No.
1767 of P.S. Kesamudram (L.W.6) and Thonupunuri Sai Kirshna (L.W.7). The prosecution failed to examine P. Rajender, ASI of Police,
8
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
P.S. Kesamudram (L.W.10) inspite of giving sufcient time and several opportunities.
6.On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused Nos.1 and 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them found in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, they denied the incriminating circumstances and did not prefer to adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
7.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record.
8.Now the points for determination are :
(i)Whether accused Nos.1 & 3 along with deceased accused No.2 in furtherance of their common intention, uttering flthy words and thereby committed sexual harassment over the victim girl?
(ii)Whether the accused Nos.1 & 3 in the company of the deceased accused No.2 in furtherance of their common intention used to follow the victim girl and other minor children uttering flthy words towards the victim girl and other minor children insulting their modesty with an intention to outrage the modesty of the victim girl ?
(iii)Whether accused Nos.1 & 3 and deceased accused No.2 in furtherance of common intention committed criminal intimidation over the victim girl ?
(iv)Whether the prosecution has successful in bringing home the guilt of accused Nos.1 & 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubts?
9
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
9.The prosecution story, in brief, is that : accused Nos.1, 3 and deceased accused No.2 in furtherance of their common intention used to follow the victim girl by uttering flthy words, threatened her with dire consequences and on 29-06-2020 at about 12-00 noon, the victim girl went to bathroom, the accused 1 to 3 went upon the bathroom through pipe line and sprinkled ID liquor over the victim girl, making vizil and started abusing her in flthy language and demanded to open the door and knocked the doors with sticks and threatened to kill her and as such accused Nos.1 and 3 are liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.
10.In order to bring home the charges levelled against accused
Nos.1 and 3, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses, out of them the defacto complainant and father of the victim girl was examined as P.W.1, the mother of the victim girl was examined as P.W.2, the victim girl was examined as P.W.3, the junior maternal uncle of the victim girl by name Sankurathri Kiran was examined as P.W.4, Manne
Nagaraju, who is the mediator said to be present at the time of conducting panchanama for the scene of offence was examined as
P.W.5, the investigating ofcers namely B. Sathish Kumar, the then
Sub-inspector of Police, P.S. Kesamudram and Ch. Ramesh Babu, the
10
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
then Sub-inspector of Police, P.S. Kesamudram were examined as
P.Ws.6 and 7 respectively.
11.In support of oral evidence, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the following documents, Ex.P1 is report dt: 29-06-2020 lodged by P.W.1 to the police concerned, Ex.P2 is crime details form dt: 30- 06-2020, Ex.P3 is FIR, dt: 29-06-2020, Ex.P4 is section alteration memo, Ex.P5 is study, conduct and date of birth certifcate of the victim girl.
12.In order to establish the charges levelled against accused Nos.1 and 3, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7, among them,
P.Ws.1 to 4 are the main witnesses on whose testimony the entire case of the prosecution is relied upon. In addition to the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 7, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the documentary evidence (Exs.P1 to P5). The oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and the documentary evidence Exs.P1 to P5 has to be appreciated by the court.
POINT Nos.i) to iii):
13.It is to be frst seen whether the victim girl is a child as defned under Section 2 (d) of the Protection of children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012. As per the prosecution, the victim girl was aged 11 years as on the date of commission of offence. In order to establish the age of the victim girl, the prosecution has examined the
11
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
victim girl and her parents. P.W.3 – who is the victim girl in her evidence stated that she was born on 06-09-2009 and she was aged 17 years, as on the date of giving evidence before the court and as on the date of incident, she was 11 years old and she was studying 6th class at St. John’s High School at Kesamudram.
14.P.W.1 who is the father of the victim girl in his evidence stated that he got two children i.e., one son and one daughter, the victim girl who is his daughter was born in the year 2009 and she was 11 years old as on the date of the incident. At present she was aged 16 years and she was studying intermediate 2nd year. P.W.2 who is the mother of the victim girl stated in the similar manner as that of P.W.1 and thereby she supported the testimony of P.W.1 in respect of the age of the victim girl. P.W.6, who is the second investigating ofcer in this case, in his evidence stated that he collected the date of birth certifcate of the victim girl (Ex.P5) and it reveals that the date of birth of the victim girl was 06-09-2009.
15.On perusal of oral evidence of P.W.3 read together with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6, coupled with Ex.P5 study, conduct and date of birth certifcate of the victim girl. It establishes that the victim girl was aged about 11 years by the date and time of the incident.
There is no dispute from the side of accused Nos.1 & 3 with regard to the age of the victim girl as on the date of incident. Therefore, it can
12
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
be safely concluded that the prosecution has established that the victim girl was aged 11 years by the date of incident. Hence, the victim girl is a “child” and she was below the age of 18 years as on the date of incident as per Section 2 (d) of Protection of Children
From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
16.It is to be next seen whether accused Nos.1 & 3 have committed stalking, assault and used criminal force on the victim girl with an intention to outrage the modesty and threatened her with dire consequences to kill her. As per the prosecution, the accused
Nos.1, 3 and deceased accused No.2 used to follow the victim girl (P.W.3), abused her in flthy language and threatened her with dire consequences to kill her and tried to outrage the modesty of the victim girl. The court expects from the prosecution to produce the evidence to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 3 in particular case. In my opinion, it depends upon case to case and according to the case and circumstances, expectation of producing the evidence from the side of prosecution be made.
17.Section 11 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012, is quoated as under : A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent,—
(i) utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits any object or part of body with the intention that such word
13
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
or sound shall be heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child; or
(ii) makes a child exhibit his body or any part of his body so as it is seen by such person or any other person; or
(iii) shows any object to a child in any form or media for pornographic purposes;or
(iv) repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means; or
(v) threatens to use, in any form of media, a real or fabricated depiction through electronic, flm or digital or any other mode, of any part of the body of the child or the involvement of the child in a sexual act; or
(vi) entices a child for pornographic purposes or gives gratifcation therefor.
Explanation.—Any question which involves “sexual intent” shall be a question of fact.
18.Section 11 of POCSO Act, 2012 addresses sexual harassment of the children, it defnes a range of actions as sexual harassment, all involving sexual intent towards a child. These actions whether through direct interaction or through digital means are prohibited and punishable under the law. This section defne actions committed with sexual intent as harassment, making it clear that even verbal or
14
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
digital gestures can be considered as sexual harassment. The law covers various forms of harassment, such as verbal harassment, example making sexual comments, visual harassment, showing inappropriate objects and digital harassment i.e., contacting or following a child electronic means, the law specifcally prohibits showing or enticing a child for pornographic purposes in any form whether through media digital content or other form.
19.The person utters a sexually suggestive word, or makes an inappropriate gesture with the intent that it should be heard or seen by the child, this act falls under Section 11 of the POCSO Act and the offender may face legal consequences for sexual harassment. Further an individual repeatedly contacted a child through social media sending inappropriate massages or a content with sexual intent, this falls under Section 11 of POCSO Act as harassment using digital means. Therefore, Section 11 of POCSO Act, 2012 defnes sexual harassment as any act done with sexual intent including verbal, visual or digital harassment of a child it also includes showing pornography or enticing the child for such purposes.
20.Section 11 of POCSO Act, lays down a clear guide lines regarding sexual harassment of children. It criminalizes a variety of sexualized behaviour including verbal, visual and digital harassment by imposing penalties for these actions POCSO aims to protect
15
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
children from sexual exploitation of harassment in all forms. In
POCSO Act, Section 11 defnes sexual harassment of a child while
Section 12 out lines punishment for such harassment. Specifcally
Section 11 of the POCSO Act, 2012 defnes the act that constitute sexual harassment such as making a child exhibit themselves or showing them pornographic material, Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 then specifes that individual committing these acts can face imprisonment up to 3 years or fne.
21.P.W.1, who is the father of the victim girl, in his evidence stated that on 29.06.2020, as usual at about 6.00am, he left the house for attending his hotel business, his wife by name Srilatha (P.W.2) left the house at about 9.30am and she went to Bank. While leaving the house, they left their two children and they were playing in the front yard of their house along with neighbouring children. During afternoon time, while he was transacting his hotel business, he received a phone call from his victim daughter stating that three persons came to their house and they sprinkled the ID liquor on them while they were playing and the said three persons threatened them stating that they would be kidnapped and then due to fear, they went inside the house by bolting the door from inside, but the said three persons came to the door and shouted to open the door, else, they
16
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
threatened to kill them and due to fear, his victim daughter contacted him over a phone.
22.P.W.1 in his evidence further stated that on receipt of the phone call from his victim daughter, he rushed to his house, but he did not fnd the said three offenders in front yard of his house and he knocked the door and then, his children opened the door and they informed him the aforesaid incident and the said three persons did not fnd in the premises of their house and his both the children informed him that they could identify the said three persons. Then they searched for the said three offenders along with his children and neighbour children and they traced out the said three offenders in the bushes nearby their house and the said persons hided themselves in the bushes. Then, with the help of his neighbours namely S.Kiran(LW4) and P.Purshotham rao (LW5), they caught hold of the said three persons, accused nos.1 and 3 were among the said three persons. He contacted his wife over phone and informed her that both the children are afraid of due to the aforesaid incident, upon that his wife/ P.W.2 also returned back to the house and found
A1, A3 and deceased A2. On the same day, in the evening, he went to PS Kesamudram and lodged Ex.P1 report to the police concerned.
Earlier also the offenders came to their house and houses of neighbours and behaved rudely with their children, at that time, they
17
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
could not trace out the offenders and they could identify them and but, third time they caught hold of the said three offenders redhandedly.
23.It was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 on behalf of the accused 1 and 3 that he himself scribed Ex.P1 report. He contacted the police concerned over phone, upon that the police concerned came to their house and they handed over the accused persons to the custody of the police concerned and they accompanied the police and the accused persons to P.S.
Kesamudram, where he lodged Ex.P1-report to the police concerned.
Two children of their neighbours were also playing with his two children at the time of incident and their ages are about 5 years. The houses of S.Kiran (PW4) and B.Purushothamrao(LW5) are situated nearby his house. The police concerned did not seize wearing clothes of his children and children of his neighbours. He did not lodge any report against the accused persons in respect of two earlier incidents, but they orally informed about the said incidents. He has no prior acquaintance with accused Nos.1 and 3 and on the date of incident, he caught hold accused 1 and 3 red handedly.
24.P.W.2- who is the mother of the victim girl, in her evidence stated in the similar manner as that of P.W.1. P.W.1 in her evidence further stated that on 29-06-2020 at about 12.00 noon while she was
18
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
in the State Bank of India, Kesamudram station, at that time, he received a phone call from the victim girl stating that three strangers came to their playing place and abusing them, upon that she return back to the house. By the time, she reached the house the said three strangers escaped from the said place. Then she enquired with the victim girl what was happened, upon that the victim girl informed her that three strangers came to infront of their house when, she went to the bathroom, the said persons climbed the bathroom and sprinkled
ID liquor on her and abused them in flthy language and the said strangers demanded her to open the bathroom door and due to fear, she came out from the bathroom and entered into the house and she called her over a phone. Then she enquired with their neighbors about the said three strangers and also they searched for the said offenders, but they were not traced out. The said offenders earlier also done the same thing twice. Subsequently, her husband lodged a report in PS Kesamudram. On the same day, at about 4.00pm, they traced out the said three persons at the bushes nearby her house.
accused nos.1 and 3 are the persons among the said three strangers.
25.It was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 on behalf of the accused 1 and 3 that they did not lodge any report against the offenders with regard to the earlier two incidents. It was denied that her victim daughter did not contact her over a phone while she was
19
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
in SBI, Kesamudram station branch. It was denied that she did not state before the police that they traced out the said three strangers from the bushes nearby her house and for the frst time, she stated the same in her chief examination. It was further denied that due to disputes between her husband and accused persons, her husband falsely implicated the accused persons in this case.
26.P.W.3- who is the victim girl, in her evidence stated that on 29.06.2020, her parents left the house and they went to state bank of
India, Kesamudram branch at about 11.00am, while herself and her younger sister were in the house and herself and her younger sister along with her friends, who are neighbors, were playing inside of their house. At about 12 noon, she went to bathroom which is situated behind their house. At that time, three unknown persons climbed the bathroom and demanded her to open the door of the bathroom. Upon that the said three persons tapped the door by using force and abused her in flthy language and threatened her to open the door, else, they would kill her. Upon that, due to fear started crying and came inside her house from the bathroom. While she was in the bathroom, the said unknown persons sprinkled liquor on her and also abused her in flthy language. After coming into her house, she contacted her father(PW1) and informed about the incident. Upon
20
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
that her parents(Pws.1 and 2) rushed to their house and they searched for the said three unknown persons.
27.P.W.3 in her evidence further stated that prior to this incident, two or three times she has seen the said three unknown persons, who were collecting waste papers and at that time, she thought that they are mad persons and at that time also, they threatened her and others. On the same day, in the evening her father and their neighbors traced out the said three unknown persons, who were hided in the bushes backside of their house. Accused nos.1 and 3 who are in the court hall among the said three persons.
28.It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.3 on behalf of accused Nos.1 and 3 that her house is surrounded by other residential houses. There are trees and bushes around her house.
Herself and her younger sister and other negibhours were playing infront of their house prior to the incident. Other persons also then and there came to near by their house for collecting waste papers. It was denied that on 29-06-2020 in the evening her father and other neighbors did not trace accused persons. She denied her knowledge that after caught holding of the accused persons by her father and other neighbors what did her father and other neighbors do in respect of the accused persons. She was informed by her father that the accused persons were handed over in the police station
21
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
Kesamudram. On the following day, one lady constable recorded her statement at her house. After the incident, she did not see the accused persons again till the date. It was denied that somebody who used to collect the waste papers might have been threatened and abused her and sprinkled liquor on her while she was in the bathroom by climbing the wall and that they falsely implicated the accused nos.1 , 3 in this case. She did not state to the police that prior to the incident, twice or thrice accused persons threatened her while they were collecting waste papers.
29.P.W.4—Sankurathri Kiran, who is the junior Maternal uncle of the victim girl, in his evidence stated that on 29.06.2020, at about 12 noon, PW1 contacted him over a phone and asked him to come to his house stating that some unknown persons misbehaving with his children. Upon that he came to the house of PW1. When, he reached the house of the PW1, he found PW3 was sitting by crying. On his enquiry, PW3 informed him that while she was in the bathroom at that time, three unknown persons climbed the wall of the bathroom and they abused in flthy language and sprinkled liquor on her and threatened her with dire consequences and thereafter, himself, PW1 and other neighbors searched for the said unknown persons, but they were not traced out. On the same day, in the evening in between 4.30pm and 5.00pm, the said unknown persons were traced out by
22
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
them and caught hold of them. Accused no.3 was among the said three persons.
30.It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.4 on behalf of the accused 1 and 3 that he has no personal knowledge with regard to the incident and he came to know about the incident through
P.W.3. It was denied that he did not state before the police that on the same day in the evening they caught hold of unknown persons and handed over them to the police concerned.
31. P.W.6-B. Sathish, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.
Kesamudram, who is the second investigating ofcer in this case, in his evidence stated that on 29.06.2020, at about 7.00pm, on receipt of Ex.P1 report from P.W.1, P.Rajendar, ASI of police, PS
Kesamudram, registered the case in crime no.92/2020 under sections 354-A, 354-D, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and issued Ex.P3 FIR. The said
ASI is not keeping good health and he is suffering with paralysis. The said ASI of police during the course of investigation, he has examined and recorded the statements of Pws.1,2 and he got recorded the statement of the victim girl through WPC no.1767 of PS Kesamudram by name T.Hyma(LW6). The said ASI of police visited the scene of offence which is the house of PW1 situated at Kesamudram and conducted panchanama for the scene of offence under Ex.P2 CDF by securing the presence of two mediators.
23
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
32.The aforesaid testimony made by P.W.6 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5-M. Nagaraju, with regard to his presence at the time of conducting panchanama for the scene of offence with regard to Ex.P2 Crime details form. P.W.6 in his evidence further stated that subsequently, he took up the investigation in this case from ASI of Police. On 10.08.2020, he served the section 41-A Cr.PC. notice on accused nos.1 to 3. Basing on the statement of the victim girl, he altered the section of law by adding section 11 r/w section 12, section 16 read with section 17 of POCSO Act with the existing sections of 354(A), 354(D), 506 read with section 34 of IPC and issued Ex.P4 section alteration memo to that effect. He collected date of birth certifcate of the victim girl from St.Jhon’s High School, Kesamudram.
He submitted the requisition to the JFCM, Mahabubabad with a request to record the statement of the victim girl and accordingly,
Smt. Radhika Jaiswal, JFCM, Mahabubabad recorded the statement of the victim girl under section 164 of Cr.P.C. Later on his transfer from
PS Kesamudram, he handed over the CD fle to his Successor in ofce by name Ch.Ramesh Babu(P.W.7), for conducting further investigation in this case, who fled a charge sheet against the accused persons.
33.It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.6 on behalf of the accused Nos.1 and 3 that he did not examine and record the
24
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
statements of any of the witnesses. The witnesses in their statements stated before the ASI of police, that when the witnesses tried to caught hold of the offenders, they ran away from the scene of offence. He did not get any steps to conduct TI parade of the accused persons with the witnesses by submitting requisition to the
Magistrate concerned. He did not record the confessional statements
of the accused persons. He did not get any permission from his higher ofcials for altering the section of law. It was denied that they falsely implicated the accused persons in this case in order to close the FIR, even though the accused persons are not responsible for the acts committed towards the victim girl. The ASI of police did not collect ID liquor bottles from the scene of offence.
34.The fnal evidence before the court is that of P.W.7 Ch. Ramesh
Babu, the then Sub-inspector of police, P.S. Kesamudram, in his evidence stated that after assuming charge as Station House Ofcer,
PS Kesamudram, he took up the investigation in this case and verifed the investigation done by ASI of police, PS Kesamudram by name P.Rajendar(LW10) and PW6, and found their investigation in correct lines. After verifcation of the investigation, he fled the charge sheet against accused persons.
35.A perusal of Ex.P3 FIR, the incident took place on 29-06-2020 at about 12-00 noon and the same was reported in P.S. Kesamudram on
25
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
the same day at 7-00 pm by P.W.1 who is the father of the victim girl.
A perusal of Ex.P1 report lodged by P.W.1 in P.S. Kesamudram on 29- 06-2020 at about 7-00 pm, it reveals that on 29-06-2020 at about 11- 00 am, he and his wife both went to the Bank, at that time his two daughters and the children of neighbouring house are playing at their house. At about 12.00 noon his elder daughter / victim girl went to bathroom, there three unknown persons went upon the bathroom through pipe line and sprinkled ID liquor making vizils, started abusing in flthy language and asked her to open the door in a loud voice, due to fear, she rushed inside the house and bolted the door and the said persons armed with sticks and demanded her to open the doors and knocked the doors with sticks and threatened with dire consequences to kill her and due to fear, his victim daughter made phone call to him by weeping and informed the incident.
Immediately he and his wife rushed to their house on bike and with the help of negibhours, he got traced the said persons. The same version what was incorporated in Ex.P1-report was stated by P.W.1 and his wife P.W.2 and also his victim daughter (P.w.3). But P.Ws.1 to 3 changed their entire version, which was stated before the police concerned, in their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. while giving evidence before the court.
26
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
36.P.W.1 in his evidence stated that on 29-06-2020 as usual at about 6-00 am, he left the house for attending his hotel business.
This part of testimony made by P.W.1 reveals that he left the house on the date of incident at 6-00 am. which is contrary to his earlier version recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.c. statement and also his
Ex.P1 report lodged in P.S. Kesamudram that on the date of incident, at about 11-00 am, he left the house along with his wife and they both went to State Bank of India, Kesamudram station branch.
Further P.Ws.1 and 3 in their earlier statements made to the police concerned, they have stated that they both received phone call from their victim daughter at about 12-00 noon. Immediately they both rushed to the house on bike which is contrary to the evidence given by P.W.1 before the court that during afternoon time, while he was transacting his hotel business, he received a phone call from his victim daughter, wherein narrating the incident what was happened with her upon that he rushed to the house and enquired about P.W.3 with regard to the incident and thereafter he contacted his wife over phone and informed her that both the children are afraid of due to the aforesaid incident, upon that his wife also return back to the house and found the offenders.
37.Further P.W.2 in her evidence stated that on 29-06-2020 at about 9-30 am, she alone left the house and went to State Bank of
27
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
India, Kesamudram Station branch and the said version of P.W.2 is contrary to her earlier version made to the police concerned that she along with her husband left the house and went to State Bank of
India, Kesamudram Station branch. P.W.2 in her evidence further stated that at about 12-00 noon while she was in the State Bank of
India, Kesamudram branch at that time she received phone call from the victim girl narrating the incident, upon that she rushed to the house, by the time she reached the house, the three strangers escaped from the place of incident. The aforesaid part of testimony made by P.W.2 reveals that she received phone call from her victim daughter on the date of incident at about 12-00 noon upon that she rushed to her house. This part of testimony made by P.W.2 is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 that P.W.1 contacted his wife (P.W.2) over phone and informed her that both children are afraid of due to the aforesaid incident upon that P.W.2 returned back to the house.
38.Further P.W.3 – victim girl in her entire evidence did not state anywhere that she contacted her mother while she was in the bank and narrated the aforesaid incident. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 is contrary to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and also contrary to the earlier statement made to the police concerned. Further P.Ws.1 to 3 in their chief examination did not reveal their relationship with P.W.4,
28
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
but P.W.1 in his cross examination categorically stated that P.W.4 is none other than the younger brother of his wife. Therefore, P.Ws.1 to 4 are inter related to with each other. Further P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 have no personal knowledge with regard to the incident, and they came to know about the incident through the victim girl (P.W.3). As per
Section 60 of Indian Evidence Act, the oral evidence must be direct and the hearsay evidence is inadmissible in evidence.
39.Further P.Ws.1 to 4 in their evidence stated that on the same day of the incident, they caught hold of the accused persons and handed over to the police concerned. Further P.W.1 in his cross examination categorically stated that soon after the incident, he contacted the police concerned over phone, upon that, the police concerned came to his house and he and others handed over the accused persons to the police concerned and further they accompanied the police concerned and accused persons to P.S.
Kesamudram, where he lodged Ex.P1 report. But the charge sheet reveals that P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and others tried to catch hold of the offenders, but they were not succeeded in their attempt and the offenders ran away from the scene of offence. The contents of the charge sheet fled by the police concerned is totally contrary to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4.
29
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
40.Admittedly, P.Ws.1 to 4 have no acquaintance with the offenders and the offenders are strangers to them, when the offenders are strangers to the witnesses, it is the duty of the investigating ofcers to get conduct Test Identifcation Parade of the offenders with the witnesses by fling a requisition before the Judicial
Magistrate concerned, but the investigating ofcers did not do so.
Further P.Ws. 1 to 3 in their evidence stated that the accused persons behaved rudely with the victim girl twice prior to the incident. But
P.W.1 did not lodge any report to the police concerned in respect of the earlier incidents. Further the charge sheet further reveals that the accused persons used to follow the victim girl and harassed her threatened her with dire consequences, but such evidence is not put- forth by the prosecution before the court.
41.A perusal of the charge sheet it further reveals that major part of the investigation was conducted by Assistant Sub-inspector of
Police, of P.S. Kesamudram by name P. Rajender. But the prosecution did not examine the said ASI of Police by name P. Rajender who conducted major part of the investigation and non-examination of the investigating ofcer, who conducted major part of the investigation in this case is fatal to the case of prosecution as there are contradictions, material omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. There is no opportunity to the accused persons to place
30
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
contradictory statements and developments deposed by the material witnesses before the court through investigation ofcer. Except the evidence of the victim girl, there is no other witnesses to support the testimony of the victim girl. Admittedly on the date and time of the incident, the younger sister of the victim girl and neighbouring children were playing with the victim girl, but the police concerned did not examine the said material witnesses to corroborate the version of the victim girl. In the absence of evidence of other eye witnesses to support testimony of the victim girl, it cannot be said that the prosecution is able to establish the charges levelled against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts.
42.It is not out of the place to mention here that P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 in their evidence stated that they caught hold of the accused persons on the date of incident during evening time, who were hidden in the bushes behind by the house of P.W.1 and the accused persons were handed over to the police concerned. But the police concerned suppressed the said fact deposed by P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. On the other hand, the charge sheet was fled by P.W.7, it reveals that on 10-08- 2020 at 7-30 am, i.e., after 40 days of the incident, the accused
Nos.1 and 3 voluntarily surrendered before the police station kesamudram, upon that P.W.6 served notices under Section 41-A of
Cr.P.C. on the accused 1 to 3, and released them with instructions to
31
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
attend before the court as and when they are called for answering the charges, by taking the said undertaking from accused Nos.1 and
3. This part of testimony made by P.W.6 is contrary to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 that they have caught hold of the accused persons on the date of incident itself and handed over to the police concerned. It is another circumstances which creates doubt over the case of the prosecution.
43.It is already stated supra that there are developments and contradictions in the evidence of the victim girl and the evidence of the victim girl is not supported by any other independent witnesses, the police concerned did not put-forth any independent witnesses to support the testimony of P.W.1, even though eye witnesses were available on the date and time of the incident and the police concerned did not conduct proper investigation in this case and the charge sheet was fled in very very casual manner. Therefore, a beneft of doubt which arises shall be extended to the accused persons.
44.From the above discussion, I am holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against accused Nos.1 and 3 beyond all reasonable doubts and the beneft of doubt which arises shall be extended to accused Nos.1 and 3.
RESULT
32
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506 r./w Sec.
34 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 and 3 are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences.
The accused Nos.1 and 3 are in judicial custody and they shall be released forthwith in this case and set at liberty if they are not required to in any other cases.
The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated by me to the stenographer, after transcription,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of April, 2026.
Principal Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad
FAC : Fast Track Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape and Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Mahabubabad.
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
P.W-1Father of the victim girl Defacto complainant P.W-2Mother of the Victim girl P.W-3Victim girl P.W-4Sankurathri KiranJr. Maternal uncle of the victim
33
SC (POCSO) No.243 of 2021
Dated 22ndday of April 2026.
girl P.W-5Manne NagarajuPanch witness for CDF P.W-6B. Sateesh,2nd investigating ofcer Sub-inspector of Police, P.S. Kesamudram P.W-7Ch. Ramesh Babu3rd investigating ofcer, fled a Sub-inspector of policecharge sheet P.S. Kesamudram
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-Nil-
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
Ex.P-1Report lodged by P.W.1 in P.S. Dt: 29-06-2020 Kesamudram Ex.P-2Crime Details Form-I, dt: 30-06-2020 Ex.P-3FIR dt: 30-06-2020 Ex.P-4Section alteration memo Ex.P-5Study, conduct and date of birth certifcate of victim girl
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
- Nil -
Material Objects
- Nil -
Principal Sessions Judge,
Mahabubabad FAC : Fast Track Special Sessions
Judge for Expeditious Trial and
Disposal of Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Mahabubabad.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE MAHABUBABAD
Wednesday, this the 15th day of April, 2026
Present:- Sri Mohd. Abdul Raf
Principal District Judge,
Mahabubabad.
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Between:
1. Sriperumbuduru Srinivasulu @ Srinivasa Swamy(DIED)
2. Machidi Jawahar Kumari, D/o late Srinivasa Swamy @ Srinivasulu, W/o Ravi Teja, Aged: 50 years, occ: House hold, R/o presently residing at Manthani town of Peddapalli District. …Appellants 1 & 2 (Appellant No.2 came on record as per the orders in I.A.No.593/2025 dt:05-12-2025)
And
1. Thirukkovalluru Saroja, W/o late Venkateshwarlu aged: 75 years, occ: household, R/o Chandrugudem village and mandal Gudur of Mahabubabd district.
2. Thirukovalluru Satyanarayana Swamy, W/o late Venkateshwarlu, aged: 50 years, occ: Teacher, R/o H.No.3-9-274/A, Reddy colony, Hanamkonda Town and Mandal of Warangal district.
3. Chinnavalli Sarala, W/o Sheshu Babu, aged: 48 years, occ: Teacher, R/o H.No.32-842/9-27, Gulam Morinuddin Nagar, Chirthukunta, Vijayawada-4.
4. Thirunagiri Rama Devi, W./o Satyam, aged: 45 years occ: Household, R/o H.No.3-9-274/A, Reddy colony Hanamkonda town and Mandal of Warangal district. … Respondents
Appeal suit fled under Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC
aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.
1182015, dt: 08-03-2019, by the Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Mahabubabad.
2
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
O.S. No. 118 of 2015
Between:
Sriperumbuduru Srinivasulu @ Srinviasa Swamy through his S.P.A. holder Sriperumuduru Padma …Plaintif
And
1. Thirukkovalluru Saroja
2. Thirukovalluru Satyanarayana Swamy
3. Chinanvalli Sarala
4. Thirunagiri Rama Devi … Defendants
This appeal is coming up before me on 17-03-2026 for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri V. Kumaraswamy, Counsel for the appellant / plaintif and that of Sri N. Jalander Counsel for the respondents / defendants; upon hearing the arguments on both sides and upon perusing the entire material on record and after the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal fled by the unsuccessful plaintif under Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC being aggrieved by the dismissal judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.118/2015 dt: 08-03-2019 by the Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad on the following grounds:
i)That the trial court ought to have decreed the suit of the appellant / plaintif and failed to believe the oral and documentary evidence of appellant/plaintif and dismissed the suit, even though the 3
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
respondents have failed to prove their title by fling any of the document before the trial court.
ii)The trial court ought to have seen that even-though the burden of proof lies on their respondents/ defendants on all the issues, but they failed to discharge the burden and the trial court dismissed the suit which is against settled proposition of law and also the precedents. The respondents have taken the plea that their grandfather by name Appaiah had purchased the suit schedule land under Ex.B1. But the very Ex.B12 was created for the purpose of the suit proceedings by claiming the suit schedule land by way of creating cock and bull story and the said cock and bull story was believed by the trial court and dismissed the suit without having any documentary evidence as well as D.Ws.1 to 3 have not supported by the version of the respondents.
iii)Thetrialcourtcametoconclusionthatthe respondents/defendants are in the suit schedule land, but the trial court failed to consider Exs.A1 to A6 and oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, and the trial court has ignored the same and the same was erroneous.
iv)The trial court ought to have considered Exs.A1 to A5, but ignored the same and dismissed the suit basing on Exs.B1 to B9 which 4
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
are irrelevant, erroneous and it is against settled proposition of law.
The trial court without gone through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 simply dismissed the suit. D.W.3 is not at all adjacent land owner and supporter of respondents, but the trial court considered sue moto and without any oral and documentary evidence.
v)The trial court ought to have seen that Ex.B1 is the crucial document in disposal of the suit as well as the appeal, but the trial court failed to go through the contents of the document and there are so many lacunas. The very document is in the name of late T. Appaiah, but the stamp purchased on some other person’s name and the same was altered by over writing as T. Parthasarathi S/o Appaiah, who is
D.W.2 and the date of Ex.B1 altered and written as 22-04-1973, but the stamp of registration ofce seal clearly shown as 19th September, 1983, as well as the boundaries are mentioned in the Ex.B1 document but in the rough skech map does not tallying with each other and that the suit schedule land boundaries are not tallying with each other.
D.Ws.1 and 2 clearly admitted in their cross examination that Exs.B2 to B7 are created on the basis of Ex.B1 only, and that too the very
Ex.B1 is materially altered and manipulated, hence Ex.B1 is null and void under Section 87 of Negotiable Instrument Act and the very
Exs.B2 to B7 documents cannot be taken into consideration and 5
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
looked into and the trial court failed to do so. When Exs.B1 to B7 are null and void, the very evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 cannot believed. On the face of it is clearly even with naked eye shows that Ex.B1 was materially altered and manipulated by the defendants / respondents.
vi)The trial court ought to have seen the appellant clearly established her title even by way of adverse possession and physical possession over the suit schedule land under Exs.A1 to A5 and also
P.Ws.1 to 3, but the trial court has not taken into consideration and also failed to discuss the same and gone through the contents of it and the boundaries in Ex.A1 are not tallying with the boundaries shown in
Ex.B1 and the same was admitted by D.Ws.1 and 2 and also admitted that no documents have been fled by the defendants pertaining to the suit schedule land before the trial court, but unfortunately the trial court without having any legal and valid grounds dismissed the suit, which was better known to the trial court.
vii)The trial court while dismissing the suit has ignored the settled proposition of law and the burden is on the respondents/defendants failed to prove their case, but not on the weakness of the appellant / plaintif and the same is erroneous. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside and appeal to be allowed to declare the appellant / plaintif as owner and possessor 6
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
of the suit schedule land and restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant /plaintif over the suit schedule land by granting perpetual injunction.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in O.S.No.118/2015 before the trial court.
3.The case of the plaintif in the trial court, who is appellant herein, in brief, is as follows:
i)The Plaintif by name Perumbuduru Srinivaslu @ Srinivasa
Swamy had fled a suit in O.S.No.118/2015 before principla Junior Civil
Judge’s Court, Mahabuabasd through his special power of attorney
holder by name Perumbuduru Padma, who is his wife, against the above named defendants 1 to 4, seeking the relief of declaring him is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule land admeasuring 380 Sq. Yards, bearing door No. 6-1-109/4, situated at Mahabubabad
Town and Mandal in the specifed boundaries. He had purchased the suit schedule land from one Raghu Satyanarayana, on 09.06.1968 and the said sale transaction was reduced into writing on 05.05.1982, for a valid consideration. His vendor by name Raghu Satyanrayana who was the bonafde purchaser of the suit schedule land and he had 7
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
purchased the suit schedule land from one Akula Bhadraiah, on 09.10.1965. The possession of the suit schedule land was also delivered to him by his vendor Raghu Satyanarayana on 09-10-1968 since then he has been uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land. He could not get registered the suit schedule land and could not mutate his name in the Grama Panchayath records,
Mahabubabad, as he had purchased the same through unregistered agreement of sale. In the meanwhile, his vendor by name Raghu
Satyanarayana and also his vendor’s vendor by name Akula Bhadraiah were expired.
ii)It is further contended on behalf of the plaintif that the plaintif has got title over the suit schedule land, by way of adverse possession from 09.06.1968 to till the date of fling of the suit, in the year 2015. In the year 1997, the Grama Panchayat, Mahabubabad, allotted house number bearing door No. 6-1-109/4, to the suit schedule land. On 06.08.2000, when he was cutting the bushes and cleaning the land, the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants 2 to 4 by name Thirukkovalluru Venkatehwarlu and his two brothers, tried to interfere into the suit schedule land and upon which, the plaintif had fled a suit in O.S.No. 169/2000 for permanent injunction, on 14.08.2000 and the said suit was dismissed for default on 01.12.2008, 8
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
as he failed to lead the evidence. The defendants are strangers, and are not having any land adjacent to the suit schedule land and also they have no right what so ever nature over the suit schedule land and they never in possession over the suit schedule land, after the purchase of him. The Plaintif fled two petitions in I.A.Nos. 120/12 and 121/12 under Section 5 of Limitation Act and under Order 9 Rule 9
C.P.C. in O.S.NO.160/2000 seeking to set aside the default order passed in O.S.No.169/2000 and condoning the delay in fling of the said petition and restore the suit to fle and the said petitions were dismissed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubad on 07.07.2015.
iii)It is further contended on behalf of the plaintif that defendants No.1 to 4 even having knowledge that he had purchased of the suit schedule land, on 09.11.2015, when he was cutting the bushes in the suit schedule land, the defendants No. 1 to 4, along with some un social elements tried to interfere into his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land and also disputed his the title. Immediately, he with the help of neighbours with great difcult resisted the illegal activities of the defendants. Further, the defendants threatened that they will interfere into his peaceful possession over 9
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
the suit schedule land and disposses him at any time in future. Hence this suit.
4.On the other hand, defendants 1 to 4 fled their joint Written statement denying the averments made in the plaint fled on behalf of the plaintif and further submitted that the right of the plaintif was already decided in O.S.No.169/2000 on the fle of Principal Junior Civil
Judge’s Court, Mahabubabad and hence continuous possession of
plaintif is his self-serving statement. The nature of title possession is not explained in the plaint in any para. The house bearing door No.6-1- 109/4 was purchased by the Grandfather of defendants 2 to 4 by name Late Appaiah, who has got fve sons and two daughters, namely 1.T.Venkateshwarlu (died), 2.Parthsarathi, 3.Sheshaiah @ Sheshagiri,
4. kruishna (died) 5. Ravi Kumar, the above named persons are necessary parties to the suit proceedings and the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. The plaintif herein fled suit a O.S.No.
169/2000 on the fle of Junior Civil Judge Court at Mahabubabad, seeking the relief of permanent injunction and a petition in I.A.
No.362/2000 was fled for temporary Injunction and the said temporary injunction petition was dismissed on 31-10-2001 on merits.
No appeal was preferred aggrieved by the said order by the plaintif herein and subsequently the suit in O.S.No. 169/2000 was dismissed 10
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
for default and subsequent restoration petition and limitation petition vide I.A. No. 120/2012, I.A.No.121/2012 were also dismissed on 07-07- 2015. Therefore, at any point of time plaintif was not in possession of suit property.
ii)It is further contended on behalf of the defendants that they are the legal heirs of T. Venkateshwarlu, their father and his brothers are sons of late Thiruvakkaoluru Appaiah, who had purchased the suit schedule land from the plaintif and one Raghu Satyanarayana admeasuring 380 Sq. Yards situated in Mahabubabad village on 22-04- 1973 for the sale consideration of Rs.400/- within the specifed boundaries The said document was scribed by the plaintif in favour of
T.Appaiah i.e., Paternal grandfather of defendants 2 to 4, subsequently the said suit schedule property was mutated on the name of T.
Appaiah in the concerned revenue as well as Grama panchayath records. Their grandfather by name Thiruvokkoluru Appaiah was expired on 13-08-1981. After demise of said T. Appaiah, the names of his sons i.e., T. Venkateshwarlu and his brothers namely
Pardhasaradhi, Sheshaiah @ Sheshagiri and Ravi kumar became as owners and possessors entered their names into Grama Panchayath records in the year 1982 onwards. All these facts agitated in the
O.S.No. 169/2000 and the same was not disputed by the plaintif
11
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
herein and the above said facts are within the knowledge of the plaintif, by suppressing the above facts in order to misleading the court fled this present suit against the defendants with all the false contents. There is no ownership of the plaintif in any form over the suit schedule land, and there is no cause of action to fle the suit and the alleged cause of action is fals and created for the purpose of fling the suit. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
5. Basing on the strength of the above pleadings of both the parties to the suit and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the trial court framed the following issues for the purpose of trial:-
i)Whether the agreement of sale dt:09-06-1968 reduced into writing on 05-05-1982 is true, valid and binding on the defendants?
ii) Whether the agreement of sale dt: 22-04-1973 is true, valid and binding on the plaintif?
iii) Whether the plaintif is acquire the title through adverse possession?
iv) Whether the plaintif is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of fling of the suit?
v) Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief of declaration of title as prayed for?
vi) Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
vii) To what relief?
12
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
6. At the time of trial, the plaintif has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 documents. On the other hand, the defendants have examined D.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.B1 to B9 documents. After hearing the arguments of both sides and on considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court has dismissed the suit in O.S.No.118/2015on 08-03-2019. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintif preferred the present appeal through his special power of attorney holder by name Perumbuduru Padma on the above stated grounds.
The appellant / plaintif by name Perumuduru Srinivaslu @ Srinivasa
Swamy has died and his daughter by name Matidi Jawahar Kumari, being the sole legal heir came on the record as appellant No.2 and after the death of the appellant, his wife by name Perumuduru Padma was also expired.
7.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record.
8.Now the points for consideration in this appeal are :
i).Whether the plaintif was the owner and possessor of the suit schedule land and he was entitled for the relief of declaration of title and possession of the suit schedule 13
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
land? Further the plaintif is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
ii).Whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court?
POINT No.i)-
9.It is contended on behalf of the plaintif that he was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule land admeasuring 380 Sq.
Yards, in house bearing door No. 6-1-109/4, situated at Mahabubabad
Town and he had purchased the same on 09.06.1968 from his vendor by name Raghu Satyanarayana, and the said sale transaction was reduced into writing on 05.05.1982 and on the same day, he was delivered the possession of the suit schedule land. Since then he has been in uninterrupted possession of suit schedule land without any interference. He could not get registered the suit schedule land in his name from his vendor due to lack of funds. And subsequently his vendor by name Raghu Satyanarayana and vendor of his vendor by name Akula Bhadraiah were expired. He got title over the suit schedule land, by way of adverse possession from 09.06.1968 onwards. On 06-08-2000 when the father of defendants 2 to 4 and his two brothers tried to interfere into the suit schedule land, he had fled a suit in O.S.No. 169/2000 before Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Mahabubabad, for the relief of permanent injunction and the said suit 14
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
was dismissed for default on 01.12.2008, and he had also fled two petitions seeking to restore the suit along with delay condonation petition, and both the petitions were dismissed on 07-07-2015.
Further, on 09-11-2015, when the defendants 1 to 4 tried to interfere into his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land, with the help of his neighbours resisted the illegal acts of the defendants.
10.In support of the aforesaid contentions, the special power of attorney holder of the plaintif by name perumuduru Padma herself got examined as P.W.1, who fled her evidence afdavit for examination in chief, wherein she reiterated the contents of the plaint in toto. P.W.1 in her further examination in chief, marked Exs.A1 to A5 documents, out of which, Ex.A1 is agreement of sale dt: 05-05-1982, Ex.A2 certifed copy of encumbrance certifcate dt: 22-09-2015 in respect of the suit schedule property, Ex.A3 certifed copy of valuation certifcate dt: 22- 09-2015 in respect of the suit schedule property, Ex.A4 is ofce copy of representation made to Mahabubabad Municipality dt: 07-08-2012,
Ex.A5 special power of attorney dt: 28-10-2015.
11.It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.1 on behalf of the defendants that the plaintif is her husband and the plaintif can do own works without any help. He fled the present suit for the landed 15
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
property at Kankarboard, Mahabubabad. There is no house and it is only an open land. She cannot say on whose name was recorded in respect of the suit schedule property in the grampanchayath. She did not pay any tax for the suit schedule land. The plaintif had fled a suit in O.S.NO.169/2000 on the fle of Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Mahabubabad for the very same suit schedule property, stating that the said land belongs to him and the said suit was fled against one
Venkateshwarlu, Parthasaradhi, Sheshu and others and in the said suit, a petition in I.A.No.352/2000 was fled for the temporary injunction and the said petition was dismissed on 31-10-2001 and it became fnal and no appeal was preferred. Defendants 1 to 4 are the paternal grandsons of late Appaiah. It was denied that the suit schedule property is not in her possession from 1973 onwards, when late Appaiah had purchased the suit schedule property from the plaintif and his vendor. It was further elicited in the cross examination of P.W.1 on behalf of the defendants that she has been staying at Manthini of Karimnagar district. It was denied that none of her family members or relatives are residing at Mahabubabad. It was further denied that she is not in possession of the suit schedule land and to extract money from the defendants, she fled a false suit against the defendants and that her 16
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
husband has no right over the suit schedule land and they are not entitled to get any relief from the court.
12.Apart from the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintif has also examined wife of the vendor of the plaintif by name Raghu Subhadramma as
P.W.2, who fled her evidence afdavit for examination in chief, wherein she supported the testimony of P.W.1 with regard to purchasing the suit schedule land by the plaintif from her husband by name Raghu Satyanarayana, on 09-10-1968 for a valid sale consideration and the document was executed on 05-05-1982 and the possession was delivered to the plaintif, since then the plaintif was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land.
13.It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.2 on behalf of the defendants that the plaintif by name Perumuduru Srinivaslu @
Srinivasa Swamy, who is the husband of P.W.1, is her own brother.
Raghu Satyanarayana is her husband, both the plaintif and her husband are related to each other. They both had purchased around 10 acres of the land jointly and also sold out the same jointly. She knows late Appaiah, who is the grandfather of defendants. She cannot say the house number of the suit schedule property. The plaintif and her husband both jointly sold the suit schedule land to late Appaiah on 22-04-1973 for sale consideration of Rs.900/-. It was denied that after 17
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
selling the said property, late Appaiah was in possession of the suit schedule land. She cannot say whether late Appaiah paid NALA tax on 06-10-1977 and got mutated his name in the grampanchayath record.
It was denied that since then late Appaiah was residing in the suit schedule land and house number was allotted.
14.Further, the plaintif has also examined his known person by name Vennamalla Venkataswamy as P.W.3, who fled his evidence afdavit for examination in chief, wherein he supported the testimony of P.W.1 that the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land and the defendants have no right whatsoever over the suit schedule land and they never in possession of the suit schedule land and on 09-11-2015, the defendants along with their henchmen tried to interfere with the suit schedule land, he along with the wife of the plaintif and others resisted the said illegal activities of the defendants. It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.3 on behalf of defendants 1 to 4, that he denied his knowledge with regard to the contents of the chief evidence afdavit. He knows the plaintif as he was residing besides his house, but at present, he is not keeping good health. He denied his knowledge whether the plaintif or his legal heirs never in the possession of the suit schedule property. He is not the adjoining owner of the suit schedule property.
18
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
15.On the other hand, the defendants in their written statement have contended that the plaintif is neither the owner nor the possessor of the suit schedule property. The plaintif earlier fled a suit in O.S.No.169/2000 on the fle of Junior Civil judge’s Court,
Mahabubabad for the relief of permanent injunction and the said suit was dismissed for default and later restoration petition and limitation petition were also dismissed. Their paternal grandfather by name T.
Appaiah had purchased the suit schedule land from the plaintif and one Raghu Satyanarayana on 22-04-1973 for sale consideration of
Rs.400/- within the specifed boundaries and the said document was scribed by the plaintif in favour of late T. Appaiah and subsequently it was mutated in the name of Appaiah in the grampanchayath and revenue records and he was expired on 13-08-1981. After the demise of late Appaiah, their father by name T. Venkateshwarlu and his brothers became the owners and possessors and their names were entered into grampanchayath records in the year 1982 onwards and the said facts are within the knowledge of the plaintif, by suppressing the above facts fled the present suit by misleading the court.
16.In support of the aforesaid contentions, defendant No.2 himself got examined as D.W.1, who fled his evidence afdavit for examination in chief, wherein he reiterated the contents of the written 19
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
statement in toto. D.W.1 in his further examination in chief, marked
Exs.B1 to B9 documents, out of which, Ex.B1 is the sale agreement dt:
22-04-1973, Ex.B2 is land revenue receipt paid for NALA for the year 1997-1998 to 1981-1982 issued by the revenue patvari paid by T.
Appaiah, Ex.B3 is land revenue receipt dt: 06-10-1977 for the year 1976-1977, for NALA, Ex.B4 is mutation certifcate issued by Executive
Ofcer, grampanchayath, Mahabubabad dt: 10-11-1983 on the name of T. Venkateshwarlu-father of the defendants and his brother, Ex.B5 is certifcate issued by Executive ofcer, grampanchayath Mahababubad in favour of late Appaiah, Ex.B6 mutation certifcate dt: 28-08-1982 issued by Executive Ofcer, Grampanchayath, Mahabubbad vide
RC.No. 414/1982 changes from T. Appaiah to T. Venteshwarlu and
others, Ex.B7 is the original certifcate issued by Executive ofcer,
Grampanchayath Mahabubabad dt: 05-02-2009 fle No. 138/GPM/2009 from year 1995-1996 to 2008-2009, Ex.B8 is the certifed copy of order and decree in I.A.No.362/2000 in O.S.No.169/2000 dt: 31-10- 2001 on the fle of Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, Ex.B9 is certifed copy of plaint in O.S.No.169/2000 fled by Perumbuduru Srinivaslu i.e., the plaintif on the fle of Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad.
17.It was elicited in the cross examination of D.W.1 on behalf of the plaintif that the suit schedule land was purchased by late T. Appaiah 20
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
under Ex.B1 agreement of sale, but in the said document, it is mentioned that it was purchased by T. Parthasarathi. As per Ex.B1 the area of the land admeasuring 380 Sq. Yards. He denied his knowledge whether in Ex.B1 sale deed the digit ‘0’ was changed as ‘8’ in 380 Sq.
Yards. As per Ex.B1, the western side boundary is not shown as
Sathemma and also not mentioned the house number, survey number.
His father fled the written statement in O.S.No. 169/2000. It was denied that Ex.B1 does not belong to plaintif and the plaint schedule property boundaries difers from Ex.B1. It was further denied that the plaintif had purchased the land on 09-10-1968 for the valid sale consideration admeasuring 380 Sq. Yards and the same was reduced into writing on 05-05-1982.
18.Apart from the evidence of D.W.1, the defendants have also examined their junior maternal uncle by name T. Parthasaradhi as
D.W.2, who fled his evidence afdavit for examination in chief, wherein he supported the testimony of D.W.1 in all respects. It was elicited in the cross examination of D.W.2 on behalf of the plaintif that
Ex.A6 is the written statement fled by him and his other brothers in
O.S.No.169/2000 and the said suit was dismissed for default. Exs.B2 to
B9 are created on Ex.B1. In Ex.B1 on the frst page the date has been over writes and also on the second page the name Pardhasaradhi S/o 21
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
Apparao, R/o Mahabubabad is altered. It was denied that on the second page of Ex.B1 in the government seal the year is mentioned as 1983. Ex.B1 was released in the year 1983 on the frst page of Ex.B1 5th line the number ‘0’ is altered as ‘8’ to make 380 Sq. Yards. It was denied that he does not have any right in the suit schedule land.
19.Further the defendants have also examined their known person by name Paramkusham Satyanarayana as D.W.3, who fled his evidence afdavit for examination in chief, wherein he stated that his house is situated near by suit schedule house property. The defendants are the legal heirs of late Thirukkovaluru Appaiah. During his life time of T. Appaiah, he had purchased the suit schedule property and after his demise, his four sons became the absolute owners and possessors and their names were mutated in the concerned grampanchayath records. The plaintif is never in possession at any point of time.
20.The plaintif can sue to get declaration. So that he can get the declaration as to the status of legal character or legal right of him. But such declaration is the discretionary power of the Court, which would be sound, Judicious and based on the judicial principles. The objects of the declaratory decrees are :
22
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
(a)To protect the legal right and legal character of the owner from the adverse attack.
(b)To enjoy the legal character and legal right peacefully by owner
(c)To protect the law and peace where the adverse possession is noticed.
21.To maintain a suit under Section 34 of Specifc Relief Act, the following conditions are to be fulflled.
(a)The plaintif must be a person entitled to any legal character to any right as to any property.
(b)The defendant must be a person denying or interested to deny the plaintif’s title to such legal character or right.
(c)The declaration issued for must be a declaration that the plaintif is entitled to a legal character or to any right to the property; and
(d)Where the plaintif is able to seek further relief than a mere declaration, he must seek such relief.
23
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
22.Even though if the essential elements are established, yet it is a discretion of the Court to grant the relief. The relief of declaration cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In cases where the necessary parties are not joined, the Court can reject the suit for declaration.
Under Section 34 of Specifc relief Act, the discretion which the Court has to exercise is a judicial discretion. That discretion has to be exercised on well-settled principles. The Court has to consider the nature of obligation in respect of which performance is sought. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determining whether this discretionary relief should be granted or refused. The exercise of the discretion depends upon the chances of each case. A remote chance of succeeding an estate cannot give a right for obtaining a declaration that alienation by a limited owner is void.
23.In a suit for declaration of rights or character and injunction the plaintif will have to substantiate / prove his rights as claimed thereof.
If the plaintif fails to ft his case within the ambit of the section his suit necessarily fails, so a declaratory decree is one which resolves the legal uncertainity of the rights and status of the parties. However, passing of a declaratory decree is a matter of discretion of Court and it cannot be claimed as a right. In declaratory suits, plaintif’s task is not over once he proves that he is entitled to the legal character or right 24
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
to property, it is for him to convince the Court that the defendant has denied or interested to deny that legal character or right of the plaintif. Then only he can succeed in obtaining the declaration sought.
24.It is settled law that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden is heavily lies on the plaintif, the plaintif is not supposed to depend upon the weakness in the case set up by defendant. It was held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision in between Union of India Vs.
Vasavi Cooperation Housing Society Limited reported in AIR
2014 SC 937 and also our Hon’ble High Court in the judgment in between Paturu Sundaraiah Suri Vs. Ranganayakamma and another and also in between A. Panjurangam Since deceased per
L.Rs.. and others Vs. Darshanala Swamy since died and others reported in 2011 Law Suit (A.P.) 643:- “In a suit for declaration, heavy burden rests upon the plaintif to prove the title, particularly when it is in respect of an item of immovable property. There are certain known sources of acquisition of title, such as by way of succession, purchase, assignment from the Government, or even by perfecting the title by adverse possession. To prove the title, what becomes essential is to identify the erstwhile owner of the property and then to explain the manner in which it has accrued to the plaintif. Even if there exists certain missing links in the chain of events that connect the original owner and plaintif, the title can be said to have been established, in the absence of any stronger claim by the defendant”.
25
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
25.It is the specifc case of the plaintif that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule land admeasuring 380 SQ. Yards bearing house door No. 6-1-109/4, situated at Mahabubabad town and he had purchased the suit schedule land from his vendor by name Raghu Satyanarayana on 09-06-1968 through agreement of sale and the said sale transaction was reduced into writing on 05-05-1982 and his vendor by name Raghu
Satyanarayana was the bonafde vendor of the suit schedule land, who had purchased the suit schedule land from Aakula Bhadraiah on 09-10-1965. Since the date of purchase on 09-10-1968, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and when the father of the defendants 2 to 4 and his brothers on 06-08-2000 tried to interfere with the suit schedule land, he had fled the suit in
O.S.No.169/2000 seeking the relief of permanent injunction and the
said suit was dismissed for default on 01-12-2008 and he fled two petitions for restoration and delay condonation in fing restoration petition were dismissed on 07-07-2015 and further on 09-11-2015 when the defendants tried to interfere with the suit schedule land, he with the help of negibhours resisted the said illegal acts activities of the defendants.
26
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
26.The plaintif did not fle any documents to show that Akula
Bhadraiah was the original owner of the suit schedule land, from him, his vendor by name Raghu Satyanarayana had purchased the suit schedule land on 09-10-1965. Further the plaintif claimed that he had purchased the suit schedule land from Raghu Satyanarayana through agreement of sale on 09-06-1968, but the said sale transaction was reduced into writing on 05-05-1982. The plaintif relied upon the said agreement of sale dt: 05-05-1982, but it is unregistered agreement of sale and the said unregistered agreement of sale cannot be admitted into evidence for any purpose including for collateral purpose in the face of the bar under Section 35 of the Stamp Act marking of documents without order payment of proper stamp duty illegal.
27.Further, the plaintif claimed that he had purchased the suit schedule land on 09-06-1968 through the agreement of sale, but the said agreement of sale was reduced into writing on 05-05-1982 and the possession of the suit schedule land was delivered to him on 09- 06-1968 itself and he got title over the suit schedule land by way of adverse possession. Undisputedly the plaintif by name P. Srinivas @
Srinivasa Swamy had no document of title to prove his possession, but claimed possessory title, based on prior possession for number of 27
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
years. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintif failed to prove his title and possession over the suit schedule property.
28.As mentioned supra, the plaintif did not have any title deed with respect to the suit schedule property. He based on his claim merely on his long possession over the property and claimed that there was nobody with better title over it than him. Per contract, the defendants relied upon Ex.B1 sale agreement wherein their paternal grandfather had purchased the suit schedule land from the plaintif and also plaintif alleged vendor by name Raghu Satyanarayana and also the land revenue receipts and other documents showing their possession over the suit schedule land and further the name of their paternal grandfather by name late Appaiah has mutated in the grampanchayath records and after his demise, the sons of late
Appaiah names were mutated in the grampanchayath records and their father by name Venkateshwarlu one of the sons of late Appaiah.
The documents fled by the plaintif do not reveal anywhere that he was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of fling of the suit.
29.The only question to be decided in this appeal whether the plaintif had better title for the suit schedule property and whether he was in settled possession of the property. At this juncture, the learned 28
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the plaintif was never in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time, much less longer time lawfully. There is no material to show that the plaintif has possessory title over the suit schedule property. It cannot be disputed and is by now well settled possession or vacant possession of a person without title entitles him to protect his possession as if he were a true owner, if
Section 6 of Specifc Relief Act is employed, the plaintif need not prove title, and the title of the defendants does not avail him. When, however, the questions of title can be raised by the defendants and if they do so, the plaintif must establish a better title or fail. In other words, such a right is only restricted to possession in a suit under
Section 6 of the Specifc relief Act, but does not bar a suit on prior possession within 12 years from the date of dispossession and title need not be proved unless the defendant can provide one.
30. It is settled principle of law that a person in possession of land in assumed character of owner and exercising peacefully the ordinary rights of ownership as a perfectly good title against the entire world, except the rightful owner. In such a case, the defendant must show in himself or his predecessor a valid legal title and a probably a 29
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
possession prior to the plaintifs, and thus be able to raise a presumption prior in time.
31.The crux of matter is that a person who asserts possessory title over a particular property will have to show that he is under settled or established possession of the said property. But merely stray or intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. Settled possession means, such a possession over the property which has existed for a sufciently long period of time, and has been acquiesced to by the true owner. A casual act of possession does not have the efect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. A stray act of trespass, or a possession which has not matured into settled possession, can be obstructed or removed by the true owner, even by using necessary force. Settled possession must be i) efective, ii) undisturbed and iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at the concealment by the trespasser. There cannot be a strait jacket formula to determine settled possession. Occupation of a property by a person as an agent or servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual legal possession. The possession should contain an element of animus possidendi. The nature of possession of trespasser is to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
30
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
32.In order to prove the possession of the property, the plaintif relied upon Ex.A1, which is unregistered agreement of sale. Absolutely no material is found to show that the plaintif was in actual possession, much less continuous possession of the property for a longer period which may be called settled possession or established possession. As mentioned supra mere casual possession, would not prove settled possession of the plaintif. The plaintif has to prove his case to the satisfaction of the court. He cannot succeed on the weakness of the case of the defendants. Even otherwise, there is no confusion at all regarding the identity of the property in question and on the basis of material on record, since there is no documentary proof that the plaintif was in possession of the suit schedule property, that too for a long period, he cannot be allowed to succeed based on minor discrepancies in the evidence of the defendants.
33.Section 101 evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of proving fact is always lies upon the person, who asserts the fact until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case, the court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of other party.
31
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
34.Further the special power of attorney, who is the wife of the plaintif, was examined as P.W.1. A special power of attorney holder only can give evidence regarding facts within her personal knowledge arising from acts, they performed for the principal, they cannot depose on behalf of the principal for the transactions, facts or mental states solely known to the principal. The special power of attorney holder can testify only transactions they personally witnessed or managed.
The special power of attorney holder cannot substitute for the principal in the witness box to prove the principal’s own case. It is settled principle of law, that the power of attorney holders cannot give evidence about facts which is within the personal knowledge of the persons, they represent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court explained in recent judgment that a power of attorney holder can only depose about the facts within his personal knowledge and not about those facts which are not within his knowledge are within the personal knowledge of the person who he represents, observing that the power of attorney holder can depose about the fact within his knowledge, not about those facts.
35.In the instant case, the plaintif did not enter into the witness box to depose his evidence. The plaintif failed to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence to prove his title and possession over the 32
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
suit schedule property, therefore, the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintif is not entitled for the relief.
Accordingly this point is answered.
POINT No.ii):-
36.The trial court has rightly answered the issues in favour of the defendants against the plaintif and there are no grounds to interfere with the dismissal judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
Further the trial court appreciated the evidence on both the parties in right perspective and arrived at just conclusion. Further the trial court discussed the points elaborately and gave good reasoning and there are no gounds to interfere with the decree and judgment passed by the trial court. Therefore, having regard to the above discussion, this court has no option except to hold that the appellant / plaintif has failed to establish his case and point in this regard is answered in favour of respondents/defendants against the appellant / plaintif.
Therefore, the appeal to the suit is liable to be dismissed.
33
A.S.No.101 / 2019
Dt: 15nd April, 2026
RESULT:
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs, by confrming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Mahabubabad in O.S.NO. 118/2015 dt: 08-03-2019.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15th day of April, 2026)
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
MAHABUBABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
MAHABUBABAD.
1 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE
FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER THE OFFENCES OF NARCOTIC
DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985-CUM-
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
AT: MAHABUBABAD
FRIDAY, THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
Present : Mohd. Abdul Raf,
SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
CASES UNDER NARCOTIC DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985-
CUM- PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAHABUBABAD.
SESSIONS CASE (NDPS) No.05 of 2022
(old Sessions Case (NDPS) No.156/2021 on the fle of Spl. Sessions Judge
for trial of cases under NDPS Act-cum-I-Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal)
1.Name of the Complainant :The State of Telangana represented by the Circle-Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Rural Circle
2.Names of the Accused A1. Thodam Srinu @ Srinivas, S/o Seetharamaiah, aged: 26 years, persons : occ: Colie, R/o Kusumanapally, Ekapaka mandal, East Godavari District of A.P. State. A2. Banoth Kumar S/o Somla, aged: 23 years, occ:Coolie, R/o Bodagutta thanda
Crime Number17 / 2020 of 3. Name of Police Station:P.S. Mahabubabad Rural
4.Prosecution conducted by :Sri K. Venkataiah, incharge of Public Prosecutor, Mahabubabad
5.Defence conducted by :Sri M. Suresh Reddy, Advocate for the accused Nos.1 and 2
6.Charge Under Section 8(c) r/w section 20(b) of NDPS, Act, 1985.
2 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
7.Plea of the accused personsPleaded Not Guilty :
8.Finding of the Court : Found not guilty
9.Result : In the result, accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b) of NDPS Act, 1985. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said ofence. The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months from this date. The case property i.e., M.O.1- Vivo company cell phone of Accused No.1 and M.O.2 Samsung company cell phone of accused No.2 and unmarked case property of 3 unspent portion of ganja samples returned from State FSL, Hyderabad which are useless shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
This case is coming on 15-04-2026 before me, for finalhearinginthepresenceofSri K. Venkataiah, Incharge Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri M. Suresh Reddy, Advocate for the accused Nos. 1 & 2 and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
::J U D G M E N T::
1.The State represented by the Inspector of Police,
Mahabubabad Rural circle, has filed a charge sheet against accused
Nos. 1 and 2, in Crime No. 17/2020 of P.S. Mahabubabad Rural; 3 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
charged under Section 8(C) r/w Section 20 of NDPS Act, 1985 with the following allegations:
(i)That on 17-01-2020 at about 8-00 am, Ch. Ramesh Babu, Sub-
Inspector of Police P.S. Mahabubabad Rural (P.w.1) along with his staf consisting of PC No.3791 of P.S. Mahabubaad Rural by name N. Linga
Rao (L.W.2), P.C.No.2779 of P.S. Mahabubabad Rural by name Ch.
Narender (L.w.3) and P.C.No.468 of P.S.Mahabubabad Rural by name
M. Santhosh(L.W.4), as per the instructions of the Superior Ofcers, left the Mahabubabad Rural P.S., while proceeding to Kambalapally village to perform patrolling over Jamandlapally village, on their way, when reached at Muthyalammagudem -x- roads morning at about 08.30 am, they found 2 persons under suspicious circumstances under the tamarind tree (cheemachintha chettu) having 3 plastic bags on the right side of their way, on suspicion, while they were going to them, on seeing the police party, they tried to escape from there, then the police party chased some distance, caught hold of them and enquired. On enquiry, they disclosed their names and other particulars and they have confessed that for the last 2 years, they were doing dry Ganja business, and as usually, they were taking dry
Ganja to Hyderabad for the purpose of sell.
ii)It is further alleged that Immediately, P.W.1 informed the same to his higher ofcers, besides sending the PC No. 468 of P.S.
4 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
Mahabubbad Rural (L.W.4) to the Tahsildar, Mahabubabad with written requisition letter requesting to visit the scene of ofence along with two mediators. After some time, M.Ranjith Kumar, Tahsildar
Mahabubabad Rural (P.W.4) along with his sub-ordinate employees namely Billa Praveen Kumar Reddy, Revenue inspector, Mahabubabd mandal (P.W.3) and Thunga Ramesh, VRO Jamandlapally village (L.W.8) reached the scene of ofence. P.W.1 requested the Tahsildar namely M. Ranjith Kumar, to enquire accused Nos.1 and 2.
Accordingly P.W.4 enquired with accused Nos.1 and 2 in the presence of mediators and checked the plastic bags and found Ganja packets.
Immediately P.W.1 made a phone call to Ration shop dealer by name
Atika Ilaiah (L.W.5) to come to the scene of ofence along with electronic weighing machine. After the arrival of Atika Ilaiah (L.W.5) in the presence of the mediators opened one plastic bag and found 11 brown colour packets containing dry ganja and when weighed found 22 kgs of dry ganja, opened 2nd plastic bag found 13 brown colour packets containing dry ganja and weighed found 26 kgs of dry ganja, on seeing the 3rd plastic bag found 13 brown colour packets containing dry ganja and when weighed found 13 kgs of dry Ganja.
altogether 61 kgs of dry Ganja in 3 bags.
iii)It is further alleged that in the presence of the mediators, the
Tahsildar (P.W.4) drawn Ganja samples about 150 grams from each 5 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
bag for chemical examination. On checking of the accused Nos.1 and 2, seized the Vivo Smart cell phone black and blue colour from accused No.1 and also seized Samsung cell phone from accused No.2 and further seized the said bags containing brown colour packets under a cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Shaik Pasha (P.W.2), who is private photographer, obtained the photos of entire episode of confession -cum-seizure panchanama. After completion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama, the Tahsildar, Mahabubabad (P.w.4) handed over the seized property and accused 1 and 2 to P.W.1 and inturn P.W.1 brought the accused Nos.1 and 2 and seized dry ganja to PS Mahabuabad rural at 12.00 noon and lodged a report with
H. Anandam, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Mahabubabad
Rural (P.w.7) for taking necessary action. On receipt of the report from P.W.1, P.W.7 registered a case in Cr.No. 17/2020, U/s 8(c) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 at P.S. Mahabubabad Rural and investigated into.
iv)It is further alleged that during the course of the investigation J.
Venkatratnam, Circle-Inspector of Police Mahabubabad Rural, (P.W.8) has examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1, N. Linga Rao, PC
No.3791 of P.S. Mahabubabad Rural (L.W.2), Ch. Narender,
P.C.No.2779 of P.S. Mahabubabad Rural (L.w.3), M. Santhosh,
P.C.No.468 of P.S.Mahabubabad Rural (L.W.4), Atike Ilaiah (L.W.5) 6 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
and Shaik Pasha (P.w.2). Subsequently, he visited the scene of ofence situated at Mutyalammagudem -x- road, where he secured the presence of two mediators namely Sk. Noorsha (P.W.5) and Jekka
Sahadevi (P.W.6), in their presence he observed the scene of ofence and their observations and physical features of the scene of ofence were incorporated in crime details form and drawn rough sketch of the scene of ofence in the relevant column of crime details form.
Later he interrogated accused 1 and 2. During the course of interrogation, accused 1 and 2 have confessed to have committed the ofence pertaining to this case. After completion of the said process, P.W.8 efected the arrest of accused Nos.1 and 2 and got them remanded to judicial custody after following the due procedure.
v)It is further alleged that on 14-02-2020, P.W.8 forwarded the samples and dry Ganja to the State FSL Hyderabad, but he did not receive the report from the State FSL, Hyderabad. On 26.05.2021 he addressed a letter trough ASP, Mahabubabad with request to issue attested copy of FSL report. On 04-06-2021 he collected attested copy of FSL report, in which the expert opined that the item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were analysed and they are found to be Ganja, a narcotic drug.
After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, S. Ravi Kumar, circle Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad 7 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
Rural circle (P.W.9) filed a charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2.
Hence, the charge.
2.This case was taken on file under Section 8(c) r/w Sec. 20(b)(ii)
(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 against the accused 1 and 2 vide SC (NDPS)
No. 156/2021 by the Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases for the ofence under NDPS Act-cum-I-Addl. Sessions Court, Warangal and proceeded with the case against accused 1 and 2. On establishment of Principal District and Sessions Court at Mahabubabad, this case was transferred to this newly established court on point of jurisdiction from Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases for the ofence under
NDPS Act-cum-I-Addl. Sessions Court, Warangal, as per the orders of our Hon’ble High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad vide
ROC No. 346/E1/2021 dt: 01-06-2022 and on receipt of the case record from Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases for the ofence under NDPS Act-cum-I-Addl. Sessions Court, Warangal, this newly established Court, assigned SC (NDPS) No. 05/2022 and proceeded with the case against accused 1 and 2. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2 before this court all the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon the were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
3.On 01-09-2023 accused 1 and 2 were examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against them, 8 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
wherein they denied the commission of ofence, whereupon a charge under Section 8(C) r/w Section 20(b) of NDPS Act,1985 was framed against accused Nos.1 and 2, read over and explained to them in
Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and Mos.1 and 2. The evidence of
Ateke Ilaiah was closed by the court on the basis of his death report filed by the police concerned through the learned incharge public prosecutor. The prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses, namely N. Linga Rao PC No.3791 of P.S. Mahabubabad
Rural (L.W.2), Ch. Narender, P.C.No.2779 of P.S. Mahabubabad Rural (L.w.3), M. Santhosh P.C.No.468 of P.S.Mahabubabad Rural (L.W.4),
Thunga Ramesh Kumar, VRO of Jamandlapally village (L.W.8).
5.On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused 1 nd 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them found in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, they denied the incriminating circumstances and did not prefer to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.
6.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record.
9 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
7. Now the point for determination is:
“Whether the prosecution is successful in
bringing home the guilt of accused 1 & 2
for the ofence punishable under Sec. 8 (c) r/w
Section 20(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 beyond
all reasonable doubts?”
8.The prosecution story, in brief, is that : on 17-01-2020 at about 8-30 am while proceeding to Kambalapally village to perform patrolling duty over Jamandlapally village and reached at
Muthayalamma cross road, P.W.1 and his staf found accused Nos.1 and 2 under tamarind tree having three plastic bags and on checking the plastic bags, P.W.1 found 37 brown colour packets containing total 61 kgs of dry ganja and as such the accused 1 & 2 are liable for punishment for the ofence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w Sec.
20(b) of NDPS Act, 1985.
9.In order to establish the charge levelled against the accused 1 and 2, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and their evidence is to be appreciated by the court. P.W.1 - Ch. Ramesh Babu, the then
Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Mahabubabad Rural, who is the first informant and defacto complainant in this case, in his evidence stated that on 17.01.2020, at about 8.00 am, he along with his staf consisting of PC No.3791 of P.S. Mahabubabad Rural by name N.Linga
Rao (L.W.2), PC No.2779 of P.S. Mahabubabad Rural by name
Ch.Narendar (L.W.3), PC No.468 of P.S. Mahabubabad Rural by name 10 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
M.Santhosh (L.W.4) left PS Mahabubabad Rural for conducting patrolling on their way, when they reached near Mutyalammagudem cross roads, at about 8.30 am, they noticed two persons under suspicious circumstances under tamarind tree having three plastic bags on the right side of their way leads to Kambalapally road and on seeing the police party, the said two persons started running along with the three bags and they chased the said persons to some distance and caught hold of them and on their enquiry of the said persons, they admitted that they are having ganja. Immediately, he intimated the same to his superior ofcer and sent a requisition to the Tahsildar, Mahabubabad with a request to visit the scene of ofence along with two mediators to conduct panchanama at the scene of ofence. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Mahabubabad Mandal along with two mediators reached the aforesaid place.
10.P.W.1 in his evidence further stated that on verification of the said three plastic bags, they found ganja in the said plastic bags, the first plastic bag containing 11 brown colour packets, second plastic bag containing 13 brown colour packets and the third plastic bag containing 13 brown colour packets. Then, he interrogated the said two unknown persons in the presence of Tahsildar (P.W,.4)and mediators namely Billa Praveen Kumar, Revenue Inspector,
Mahabubabad Mandal (P.W.3) and T.Ramesh Kumar, VRO of 11 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
Jamandlapally (L.W.8) and during the course of interrogation, the said unknown persons furnished their names as A1 and A2 and further details and they have further confessed that they had purchased the ganja from the unknown person on cheaper rate and in order to sell the said ganja to higher rate at Hyderabad and on their way, they were apprehended by the police concerned. Then he secured the presence of one Ateke Illaiah for weighing the ganja and also secured the presence of private photographer to take the photos of the aforesaid process. The first bag containing 11 brown colour packets were weighed by P.W.2, and the each brown colour packet containing 2kgs of ganja and the second plastic bag containing 13 brown colour packets were weighed by P.W.2 and each brown colour packet containing 2 kgs of ganja and third plastic bag containing 13 brown colour packets were weighed by the said P.W.2 and each brown colour packet containing 1kg of ganja.
11.P.W.1 in his evidence further stated that he has drawn three samples of ganja 50grams each from each plastic bag altogether 9 samples of ganja were drawn for the purpose of chemical examination. On the assistance of Photographer by name Sk.Pasha, he got photographed the aforesaid process. In this regard a panchanama was reduced into writing in the presence of Tahsildar and mediators and after read over its contents, obtained their 12 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
signatures along with signatures of A1 and A2 on it. He seized the aforesaid ganja and further he seized one vivo mobile(M.O.1) from the possession of A1 and he has also seized one samsung mobile (M.O.2) from A2 and the same were incorporated in the ExP1 panchanama, dated.17.01.2020. After completion of the aforesaid process, accused nos.1 and 2 were brought to PS Mahabubabad rural along with seized ganja, samples, two cell phones(MOs1 and 2) and he lodged report by enclosing Ex.P1 panchanama with the Assistant
Sub-Inspector of police by name H.Anandam(lw13), for taking necessary action and handed over A1 and A2 to the said ASI of
Police. Ex.P3 is the report dt: 17-01-2020 lodged by him.
12.It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.1 on behalf of accused Nos.1 and 2, that among 11 brown colour packets in first plastic bag, he opened one brown colour packet and taken 150grams of ganja and divided the same in three samples in each 50grams and like wise, he drawn remaining six samples from remaining two bags by opening one brown colour packet from each two bags. The photographs were filed along with the charge sheet.
13.P.W.2 – Shaik Pasha, Private photographer, in his evidence stated that on 17.01.2020, in between 10.00am and 11.00am, while he was in his photo studio by attending his work, at that time, he received a phone call from Sub-inspector of police, PS Mahabubabad 13 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
Rural(PW1) with a request to come over to Muthyalammagudem cross roads at Jamandlapally village road and accordingly, he reached the said place at 11.00am. He found PW1, Tahsildar and others and also accused nos.1 and 2 and he also noticed three plastic bags. PW1 requested him to take the photographs covering the said place.
Accordingly, he photographed the plastic bags containing ganja and the persons who were present there. Ex.P2 are the three positive photographs along with CD.
14.P.W.3-Billa Praveen Kumar Reddy, who is the then Revenue
Inspector, Tahsildar Ofce, Mahabubabad Mandal, in his evidence stated that on 17.01.2020, at about 9.00am, while he was at
Tahsildar ofce, Mahabubabad by attending his works, at that time he was called inside the chamber of the Tahsildar, Mahabubabad by name M.Ranjith Kumar(P.W.4) along with T.Ramesh kumar, VRO of
Jamandlapally village, and as per the instructions of P.W.4, they have accompanied the Tahsildar to Muthyalammagudem cross roads and reached the said place at 9.30am, they noticed P.W.1-SI of police, PS
Mahabubabad rural and his staf and they also noticed two persons and three plastic bags. He can identify the said two persons.
Accused nos. 1 and 2 are the same persons, who were present in the custody of the police concerned.
14 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
15.P.W.3 in his evidence further stated that Accused nos.1 and 2 were interrogated in their presence and during the course of interrogation, accused nos.1 and 2 disclosed their names and other particulars and they further confessed that they had purchased the 61kgs of the ganja from the unknown person at East Godavari district, state of AP at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per kg and they intend to go to Hyderabad for selling the ganja and they were waiting for the auto at Muthyalammagudem cross roads, in the meant time, they were apprehended by the police concerned along with three plastic bags and the police concerned verified the three plastic bags in the presence of the Tahsildar and the mediators.
16.P.W.3 in his evidence further stated that the first bag containing 11 packets, the second bag containing 13 packets and third bag containing 13 packets and verified the said 37 browm colour packets and found dry ganja in it. Then, the Tahsildar secured the presence of one Illaiah, who is the ration dealer and he weighed the ganja with the help of the electronic weighing machine and the first bag containing 11 packets each weighing 2kgs, and second bag containing 13 packets, each weighing 2kgs of ganja and third bag containing 13 packets, each weighing 1kg of ganja, altogether 61kgs of ganja. The police concerned seized the said plastic bags along with brown colour packets containing ganja in their presence after 15 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
drawing 9 samples each 50grams and further the police concerned seized two cell phones from the possession of accused nos.1 and 2 and in this regard, a confession-cum-seizure panchanama (Ex.P1) was reduced into writing, after read over its contents, obtained their signatures on it. The police concerned also obtained signatures of
Tahsildar and accused nos.1 and 2 on Ex.P1 panchanama.
17.It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.3 on behalf of accused Nos.1 and 2 that 3 samples were drawn from each bag altogether 9 samples were drawn from three bags. It was denied that no panchanama was conducted at Muthyalammagudem cross roads and the police concerned obtained their signatures on the blank papers and the said suggestions were denied by P.W.3 in his cross examination.
18.P.W.4- M. Ranjith Kumar, the then Deputy Tahsildar,
Mahabubabad Mandal, Full additional charge to the post of Tahsildhar
Mahabubabad Mandal, in his evidence stated that on 17.01.2020, at about 9.30am, while he was discharging his duties at his ofce
Tahsildar, Mahabubabad mandal, he received a requisition from PW1, with a request to attend the scene of ofence at Muthyalammagudem cross roads, along with his two subordinate employees for acting as mediators. Accordingly he along with his two subordinate employee namely Billa Praveen Kumar Reddy, Revenue Inspector, 16 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
Mahabubabad mandal(PW3) and T.Ramesh Kumar, VRO of
Jamandlapally village(LW8) reached the scene of ofence in between 9.30am and 10.00am and they found PW1 along with his staf and two persons were in the custody of PW1 and they have also noticed three plastic bags. On the request of PW1, he enquired the said two persons as to why they were in the custody of the police concerned, upon that the said persons disclosed their names(as accused nos.1 and 2) and furnished their other particulars and they further confessed that they were carrying three bags containing ganja and the police concerned apprehended them.
19.P.W.4 in his evidence further stated that then, they checked three plastic bags, they noticed in the first bag containing 11 brown colour packets, 2nd plastic bags containing 13 brown colour packets, and 3rd bag containing 13 brown colour packets and altogether 37 brown colour packets. Then, he secured the local ration shop dealer by name Illaiah(LW5), for weighing the said ganja. The said Illaiah, came to the scene of ofence with electronic weighing machine and weighed the ganja in their presence and the said 37 packets containing total ganja of 61kgs. Then, they drawn 3 samples each 50 gram from each bag, altogether 9 samples were drawn for chemical examinatiom. The panch chits were afxed on the samples by obtaining the signatures of the mediators on it. PW1 seized two 17 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
mobile phones from accused nos.1 and 2 and secured one photographer, who took the photographs of the aforesaid process. In this regard, a panchanama (Ex.P1) was reduced into writing in their presence and obtained their signatures on it. Ex.P2 are 3 positive photographs along with CD.
20.P.W.5- Shaik Noorsha, who is said to be present at the time of conducting panchanama for the scene of ofence, in his evidence denied his presence at the time of conducting panchanama for the scene of ofence, but he identified his Ex.P4 signature on CDF dt: 17- 01-2020. P.W.6 – Jakka Sahadev, who is said to be present at the time of conducting panchanama for the scene of ofence, in his evidence stated that about four years ago, on one day himself and
PW5 were proceeding to Mahabubabad on the bike of PW5, on their way, when they reached Jamandlapally village, at about 1.30pm, at that time, the police Mahabubabad Rural stopped the bike of PW5 and obtained their signatures on already written papers. He has identified his Ex.P5 signature on the CDF, dated.17.01.2020.
21.As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6, they did not speak any incriminating circumstances against accused Nos.1 and 2 and they did not support the prosecution case. But they have identified their respective Exs.P4 and P5 signatures on Crime details form dt:
17-01-2020. Therefore at the instance of the learned incharge public 18 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
prosecutor to declare P.Ws.5 and 6 as hostile, subjected to cross examine them. Even-after their cross-examination nothing incriminating was elicited in support of the prosecution case.
22.P.W.7-H. Anandam, the then Assistant Sub-inspector of Police,
P.S. Mahabubabad Rural, who registered the crime, in his evidence stated that on 17.01.2020, at about 12 noon, while he was incharge of SHO, PS Mahabubabad Rural, he received Ex.P3 report along with
Ex.P1 panchanama, two cell phones, three plastic bags, 9 samples of dry ganja and accused nos.1 and 2 from PW1, upon that he registered a case in crime no.17/2020 under section 8(c) read with section 20 NDPS Act, 1985 and issued Ex.P6 FIR. Thereafter, he handed over CD file, the case property, accused nos.1 and 2 to the then Circle-inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Rural by name
J.Venkatrathnam for conducting investigation, as the ofence is grave in nature.
23.P.W.8 – J. Venkatratnam, the then Circle-inspector of Police,
Mahabubabad Rural circle, who conducted major part of the investigation in this case, in his evidence stated that on 17.01.2020, he took up the investigation in this case from PW7, taken over the CD file from PW7 along with accused Nos.1 and 2, case property. He has examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1, 2, N.Lingarao, PC
No.3791(Lw2), Ch.Narendar, PC no.2779(LW3), M.Santosh, PC 19 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
no.468(LW4) of PS Mahabubabad Rural and A. Illaiah(Lw5). He visited the scene of ofence situated at Muthyalammagudem cross roads, where he secured the presence of two mediators namely,
Sk.Nursha(PW5) and J.Sahadev(PW6), in their presence, he observed the scene of ofence and their observations and physical features of the scene of ofence were incorporated in crime details form and he has drawn rough sketch for the scene of ofence in the relevant column of Ex.P7 crime details form and after read over its contents, obtained the signatures of the mediators on it. He efected the arrest of A1 and A2 and got them remanded to judicial custody after following the due procedure.
24.P.W.8 in his evidence further stated that on 14.02.2020, he forwarded the three samples to the State FSL, Hyderabad for chemical examination along with letter of advice through SDPO,
Mahabubabad and collected FSL report, wherein the Assistant
Director opined that the said three samples were analyzed and they are found to be ganja, a narcotic drug. Ex.P8 is the report of the state
FSL, Hyderabad, dated.27.06.2020. On his transfer from
Mahabubabad Rural, he handed over the CD file his successor in ofce by name S.Ravi Kumar, who filed a charge sheet against
Accused nos.1 and 2 and deposited the case property before this court.
20 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
25.The final evidence before this court is that of P.W.9- S. Ravi
Kumar, the then Circle-inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Rural, who filed a charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2, in his evidence stated that on 21.11.2020, on receipt of CD file from PW8 and verified the investigation done by him. After collecting all the documents and after completion of the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against accused nos.1 and 2.
26.It is to be first seen whether P.W.1 found the ganja in the possession of the accused 1 and 2. P.W.1, who is the first informant, in his evidence stated that on 17.01.2020, at about 8.30 am, he along with his staf consisting of pc no.3791 by name N.Linga
Rao(lw2), Pc no.2779 by name Ch.Narendar(lw3), Pc no.468 by name
M.Santhosh(lw4) of PS Mahabubabad Rural left the PS Mahabubabad
Rural for conducting patrolling, on their way, when they reached near
Mutyalammagudem cross roads, at about 8.30am, they noticed two persons under suspicious circumstances under tamarind tree having three plastic bags on the right side of their way leads to
Kambalapally road and on seeing the police party, the said two persons started running along with the three bags and they chased the said persons to some distance and caught hold of them and on their enquiry of the said persons containing plastic bags, and the 21 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
said persons admitted that the said plastic pags containing ganja, then immediately he intimated the same to his superior ofcer and submitted a requisition to the Tahsildar (P.W.4), Mahabubabad
Mandal with a request to visit the scene of ofence along with two mediators for conducting seizure panchanama.
27.P.W.1 in his evidence further stated that accordingly, the
Tahsildar, Mahabubabad Mandal along with two mediators reached the aforesaid place and on verification of the said three plastic bags, they found ganja in the said plastic bags, the first plastic bag containing 11 brown colour packets, second plastic bag containing 13 brown colour packets and the third plastic bag containing 13 brown colour packets. Then, he interrogated the said persons in the presence of Tahsildar and mediators namely Billa Praveen Kumar,
Revenue Inspector, Mahabubabad Mandal(P,.W.3) and T.Ramesh
Kumar, VRO of Jamandlapally(L.W.8) and during the course of interrogation the said two persons furnished their names as A1 and
A2 and other details and they have further confessed that they had purchased the ganja from the unknown person on cheaper rate and in order to sell the said ganja to higher rate at Hyderabad and on their way, they were apprehended by the police concerned.
28.P.W.1 in his evidence further stated that he seized the said three plastic bags containing 37 brown colour packets, total 22 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
containing 61 kgs of dry ganja. Then he drawn three samples of ganja 50grams each from each plastic bag altogether 9 samples of ganja were drawn for the purpose of chemical examination in the presence of Tahsildar (P.W.4) and two mediators (P.W.3 and another) and he seized remaining contraband of ganja under Ex.P1 panchanama in the presence of Tahsildar and two meditors. This part of testimony made by P.w.1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4 – Thasildar with regard to seizure of 61 kgs of dry ganja from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 under Ex.P1 panchanama. This part of testimony made by P.Ws.1 and 4 is further corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 with regard to seizure of 61 kgs of dry ganja from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 under Ex.P1 panchanama, after drawing 9 samples each 50 grtams. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 is further corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2-photographer with regard to the aforesaid process, for which, he has taken photographs Ex.P2 are three positive photographs along with CD.
29.P.W.8 who conducted major part of the investigation in this case, in his evidence stated that on 14.02.2020, he forwarded the three samples to the State FSL, Hyderabad for chemical examination along with letter of advice through Superintendent of police,
Mahabubabad and collected Ex.P8 report from State FSL, Hyderabad, wherein the Assistant Director opined that the said three samples 23 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
were analyzed and they are found to be ganja, a narcotic drug. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, read together with the evidence of
P.Ws.3 and 4 coupled with Ex.P1 panchanama, Ex.P8 chemical examiner’s report, it establishes that P.W.1 has seized 61 kgs of dry ganja from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 under Ex.P1 panchanama after drawing 9 samples each 50 grams.
30.It is to be next seen whether the police concerned followed the procedure contemplated under Provisions of NDPS Act while seizure of contraband and drawing of the samples. As per the provision of
NDPS Act, the contraband has to be seized in the presence of the
Gazetted ofcer and samples should be drawn before the jurisdictional magistrate. P.W.1, who is the first informant, neither seized the contraband from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the presence of gazetted ofcer (P.W.4) who is the then Deputy
Tahsildar, Mahabubabad Mandal and FAC of Tahsildar Mahabubabad
Mandal, in his evidence categorically stated that he himself seized the contraband from the possession of the accused 1 and 2 under
Ex.P1 panchanama in the presence of mediators and he himself drawn nine samples from the contraband of ganja. The procedure followed by the police concerned is contrary to the provisions of
NDPS Act.
24 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
31.Sub-Section 2 of Section 52-A of NDPS Act, mandates a competent ofcer to prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs with adequate particulars. This has to be followed through an appropriate application to the magistrate concerned for the purpose of certifying the correctness of inventory, taking relevant photographs in his presence and certifying them as true or taking prior samples in his presence with due certification. Such an application can be filed for anyone of the aforesaid three purposes. The objective behind this provision is to have an element of supervision by the magistrate over disposal of seized contraband. Such inventories, photographs and list of samples drawn with certification by magistrates would constitute as a primary evidence. Therefore, when there is non-compliance of
Section 52-A of NDPS Act, where a certification of Magistrate is lacking any inventory, photographs or list of samples would not constitute primary evidence.
32.In the instant case, the investigating ofcers did not follow the mandatory provision of Sub Section 2 of Section 52A of NDPS Act and the investigating ofcers did not prepare the inventory and did not get certify the correctness of the inventory, taking relevant photographs in the presence of the magistrate concerned, certifying them as true or taking drawal of samples in his presence with due certification.
25 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
33.Further, our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered a decision
in Mangilal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023
INSC 634, wherein it was observed that “Before any proposed disposal/destruction mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, requires to be duly complied with starting with an application to that efect. A court should be satisfied with such compliance while deciding the case. The onus is entirely on the prosecution in a given case to satisfy the Court when such an issue arises for consideration. Production of seized material is a factor to establish seizure followed by recovery. One has to remember that the provisions of NDPS Act are both stringent and rigorous and therefore the burden heavily lies on the prosecution. Non-production of a physical evidence would lead to a negative inference within the meaning of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence act, 1872. The procedure contemplated through the notification has an element of fair play such as the deposit of the seal, numbering the containers in seriatim wise and keeping them in lots preceded by compliance of the procedure for drawing samples”.
In another decision of our Supreme court rendered in Yusuf
@ Asif V. state reported in AIR 2023 Supreme Court 5041
wherein it was held that :
“A simple reading of the aforesaid provisions as also stated earlier reveals that when any contraband / narcotic substance is seized and forwarded to the police or to the ofcer so mentioned under Section 53 of NDPS Act, the ofcers so referred to in Sub Section (1) shall prepare its inventory with details and the description of seized substance like quality, quantity, mode of packing, numbering and identifying marks and then make an application to any magistrate for the purposes of certifying its correctness and for allowing to draw representative samples of such substances in the presence of 26 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
the magistrate to certify the correctness of list of samples so drawn”.
34.In the instant case, the investigating ofcer (P.W.8) did not follow the aforesaid procedure contemplated under Sub Section 2
Section 52-A of NDPS Act. There is no acceptable material on record, to show that the samples of seized contraband were drawn in the presence of jurisdictional Magistrate. In the absence of any material on record to establish that the samples of seized contraband were drawn in the presence of the jurisdictional
magistrate and that the inventory of seized contraband was duly
certified by the Magistrate, it is apparent that the said seized contraband of the samples drawn where from would not be a valid piece of primary evidence in the trial, once there is no primary evidence available at the trial, as a whole stands vitiated.
35.Section 52-A of NDPS Act is to ensure that the contraband seized under cover of panchanama to be sealed and produced
before the jurisdictional Magistrate and to take certificate that the
contraband is not tampered with. As per Section 52-A of NDPS Act, the investigating ofcer has to produce the seized property before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and further the investigating ofcer has to prepare the inventory report in the presence of the
Magistrate, whereas in the present case such procedure was not
27 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
followed by the investigating ofcers (P.Ws.8 & 9). In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution is able to establish the charge levelled against the accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubts and as such the accused 1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.
36.From the above discussion, I am holding that the investigation ofcers (P.Ws.8 & 9) did not follow the procedure under Sub Section 2 of Section 52-A of NDPS Act and further the charge sheet was filed by P.W.9 is silent with regard to the remaining contraband whether it was destroyed or not and what was happened in respect of remaining contraband. Further the investigating ofcers did not deposit the plastic bags and remaining contraband before the designated court or did not place any material to show that the remaining contraband was destroyed by following the due procedure contemplated under the provisions of
NDPS Act. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the prosecution is able to establish the charge levelled against accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubts and as such the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly this point is answered.
28 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
RESULT:
In the result, accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b) of
NDPS Act, 1985. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said ofence.
The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months from this date.
The case property i.e., M.O.1- Vivo company cell phone of
Accused No.1 and M.O.2 Samsung company cell phone of accused
No.2 and unmarked case property of 3 unspent portion of ganja samples returned from State FSL, Hyderabad which are useless shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated by me to the stenographer, after transcription,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of April, 2026
Special Judge for trial of cases
under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum-
Principal Sessions Judge,
Mahabubabad.
29 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
P.W-1Ch. Ramesh Babu, S.I. of Defacto complainant / First informant Police, Mahabubabad Rural and seized the case property P.S. P.W-2Shaik PashaTook photographs covering the Private Photographercontraband of ganja P.W-3Billa Praveen Kumar ReddyMediator for confession-cum-seizure Revenue Inspectorpanchanama of accused Nos.1 and 2 Mahabubabad Mandal P.W-4M. Ranjith Kumar Conducted seizure panchanama of Deputy Tahsildar, ganja FAC Tahsildar, Mahabubabad Mandal
P.W.5SK. NoorshaPanch witness for Crime details Form
dated 17-01-2020
P.W-6Jakka SahadevPanch witness for crime details form
dated 17-01-2020
P.W.7H. AnandamRegistered crime and issued FIR Assistant Sub-inspector of Police, P.S. Mahabubabad Rural P.W.8J. Venkata Ratnam1st Investigating officer, Inspector of police, P.S. Mahabubabad town P.W-9S. Ravi Kumar2nd investigating ofcer filed charge Inspector of Police, sheet. P.S. Mahabubabad town
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-Nil-
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
Ex.P-1Panchanama dt: 17-01-2020 Ex.P-23 positive photographs with CD Ex.P-3Report dt:17-01-2020 Ex.P-4Signature of P.W.5 on Crime details form dt: 17-01-2020 Ex.P-5Signature of P.W.6 on Crime details Form dt:17-01-2020 Ex.P-6FIR, dt: 17-01-2020 Ex.P-7Crime details form dt: 17-10-2020 Ex.P-8Report of State FSL, Hyderabad dt: 27-06-2020 30 SC (NDPS) No. 05 / 2022
dt: 17th April, 2026
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS
M.O.1 : VIVO company cell phone M.O.2 : Samsung company cell phone
Special Judge for trial of cases
under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum-
Principal Sessions Judge,
Mahabubabad.
Order Record 305 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC/136/2025 | The SHO P.S. Mahabubabad Town vs Sampathu Srinu | 04 May 2026 | Copy of judgment | Convicted |
| SC.POCSO/243/2021 | Manne Srihari vs Boda Bhaskar | 22 Apr 2026 | Copy of judgment | Acquitted |
| SC/121/2025 | The RPS Dornakal vs Yogesh | 20 Apr 2026 | Copy of judgment | Convicted |
| SC.NDPS/5/2022 | PS MAHABUBABAD RURAL vs THODAM SRINU @ SRINIVAS | 17 Apr 2026 | Copy of judgment | Acquitted |
| AS/101/2019 | Sriperumbuduru Srinivasulu vs Thirukkovalluru Saroja | 15 Apr 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC/51/2023 | PS Danthalapally vs Donikena Narayana | 15 Apr 2026 | Copy of judgment | Acquitted |
| SC/233/2022 | PS Peddavangara vs Jitta Ramesh | 15 Apr 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/4/2024 | PS Thorrur vs Banoth Naresh | 15 Apr 2026 | Copy of judgment | Acquitted |
| MVOP/83/2025 | Seetha Suresh vs Sammeta Srikanth | 10 Apr 2026 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/87/2025 | Dharmarapu Uppalamma vs Vallamdasu Venkanna | 10 Apr 2026 | Copy of order | — |
| OS/6/2021 | Smt Pachika Vanisri vs Sri Ravula Buchi Reddy | 08 Apr 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/31/2023 | PS Mahabubabad Town vs Chegondi Akhil | 08 Apr 2026 | Copy of judgment | Acquitted |
| SC/365/2022 | PS Kesamudram vs Amgoth Harish | 07 Apr 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| CRLA/3/2023 | Gulagattu Sathish vs PS Danthalapally | 02 Apr 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/6/2024 | PS Nellikudur vs Banoth Praveen | 31 Mar 2026 | Copy of judgment | Acquitted |
| MVOP/137/2022 | Gugulothu Vinodha vs Gatla Ganesh | 30 Mar 2026 | Copy of order | — |
| SC/2/2023 | PS Seerole vs Dharavath Basha | 30 Mar 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| MVOP/30/2023 | Porla @ Nariga Yamuna vs Bobbani Madhukar | 28 Mar 2026 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/35/2024 | Bashipangu Venkanna vs Vennam Venkatesh | 28 Mar 2026 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/39/2025 | Vallapu Venkanna vs Meghnath Rai | 28 Mar 2026 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/44/2025 | Pallella Someshwar Rao vs Kondi Veeravenkata Satyanarayana | 28 Mar 2026 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/68/2023 | Kasnaboina Venkanna vs Shaik Mahaboob Pasha | 28 Mar 2026 | Copy of order | — |
| SC/289/2022 | The State of Telangana Through SHO P.S Thorrur vs Dharmarapu Anil | 26 Mar 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/37/2023 | PS Mahabubabad Town vs Sangishetty @ Kurapati Rajkumar | 25 Mar 2026 | Copy of judgment | Acquitted |
| MVOP/123/2022 | Mohd. Alamgir vs Chote | 24 Mar 2026 | Copy of order | — |
| CRLA/2/2023 | Guguloth Veeranna vs The State of Telangana, SHO PS Nellikuduru | 24 Mar 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| CRLRP/20/2024 | Sangam Veeranna vs Sangam Esumani | 17 Mar 2026 | Copy of order | — |
| SC.NDPS/27/2022 | PS GUDUR vs Chekka Kumara Swamy | 17 Mar 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| MVOP/48/2022 | Mahankali Shobha vs B. Ramesh | 12 Mar 2026 | Copy of order | — |
| OS/151/2018 | Renukuntla Veerendra Kumar @ Ganesh vs Renukuntla Rama Rao and 12others | 12 Mar 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC/444/2022 | Ps Pedda Vangara vs Chinthala Yakaiah | 12 Mar 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/35/2023 | PS Dornakal vs Shaik Sohali | 11 Mar 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/25/2023 | PS Thorrur vs Katta Prakash Raj @ Bujji | 10 Mar 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| OS/5/2024 | City Union Bank Ltd vs Mekapothula Manjula | 06 Mar 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC/367/2022 | PS Kuravi vs Banoth Badhru | 06 Mar 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| MVOP/166/2022 | Kommu Ailaiah vs G.Ganesh | 03 Mar 2026 | Copy of order | — |
| OS/210/2013 | Nokkala Pushpalatha vs Bandi Ravinder Reddy | 27 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| AS/172/2019 | Balusukuri Kuamraswamy @ Balaskuri Kuamraswamy vs Padishala Guruvaiah | 26 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/21/2025 | PS Bayyaram vs Mudishetty Venkatesh | 25 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/211/2022 | PS Mahabubabad Town vs Mudishetty Venkatesh | 25 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| AS/12/2021 | Ramchandruni Sandhya Rani vs Dhara Sujatha | 24 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/21/2023 | PS Maripeda vs Shaik Shareef @ Naga Shareef | 24 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC/30/2023 | SHO.PS.Chinna Guduru vs Ponnam Srinu | 23 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/8/2023 | PS Kesamudram vs Gandikota Kumar | 23 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.NDPS/60/2022 | PS Maripeda vs Ajmeera Hussain | 20 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| OS/47/2018 | Gaddam Ashok Kumar vs Bandi Jayamma | 19 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/6/2022 | Moodu Narender vs Dharamasoth Rajesh | 18 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| OS/15/2022 | Bommanaboina Srinivas vs Budda Upender and others | 09 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| AS/3/2019 | Guguloth Rambabu vs Guguloth Ramu | 06 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.NDPS/11/2022 | PS Mahabubabad rural vs Sanku Sharath | 06 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| MVOP/119/2023 | Lunavath Chinni vs Shaik Jani Basha | 05 Feb 2026 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/120/2023 | Lunavath Raghu vs Shaik Jani Basha | 05 Feb 2026 | Copy of order | — |
| SC.POCSO/188/2022 | PS GARLA vs Mullapally Sumanth | 05 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.NDPS/20/2022 | PS MARIPEDA vs BANOTH BALU | 03 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| MVOP/21/2023 | Dasari Ramana vs Avula Saidulu | 02 Feb 2026 | Copy of order | — |
| SC.POCSO/24/2023 | PS Dornakal vs Sika Suresh | 02 Feb 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| OS/23/2015 | Ravula Sudhakar Reddy vs Ravula Venkatram Reddy | 30 Jan 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/189/2022 | PS KESAMUDRAM vs Daravath Vinod | 29 Jan 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/48/2023 | PS Gudur vs Punem Sampath | 27 Jan 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.NDPS/7/2023 | PS Nellikudur vs Gugulothu Ravi | 23 Jan 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| AS/1/2019 | Kachwal Rameshwarlal Sharma and 5 others vs Doli Rama Swamy (Died) and 29 others | 21 Jan 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC/106/2022 | PS Dhanthalapally vs Gunde Ajith | 19 Jan 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/109/2021 | Bhukya Kishan vs A1.Simhadri Srinivasa Chaitanya Murari, | 16 Jan 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/185/2022 | PS Mahabubabad Town vs Nayini Raj Kumar | 09 Jan 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC/334/2022 | P.S.Garla Bayyaram vs Kondabathula Naresh | 08 Jan 2026 | Copy of judgment | — |
| MVOP/46/2024 | Guguloth Suresh vs Banoth Suman | 31 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| OS/128/2018 | Agriculture Market Committee, vs Laxmi Sharanya Trading Company | 31 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/2/2023 | PS Narsimhulapet vs Bayya Raju | 31 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| AS/134/2019 | Gogula Mallaiah vs Gandi Chandraiah | 30 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| MVOP/1/2025 | Jangala Nitheesha vs Penaka Pagadaiah | 30 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| SC.POCSO/124/2022 | PS Narsimhulapet vs Kandanoori Kothesh | 30 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| AS/88/2019 | Thota Sreenu vs Jinnareddy Venkateshwarlu | 29 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.NDPS/62/2022 | PS MAHABUBABAD TOWN vs Banoth Mangilal | 29 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| MVOP/10/2024 | Banoth Shirisha vs Anumala Nageshwar Rao | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/11/2024 | Banoth Prashanth vs Anumala Nageshwar Rao | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/16/2024 | Islavath Jorsingh vs Nandigama Venu | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/27/2023 | Vallapau Somalinga vs Nethavath Balaram | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/30/2025 | Kathi Uma vs Appikatla Nikhil Kumar | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/31/2024 | Nune Lalitha vs Jalagam Yakub | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| MVOP/32/2025 | Perla Krishna vs Gumpula Prasad | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/35/2025 | Kanuganti Raju vs Nemali Vamshi | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/41/2024 | Thudum Ravi vs Kodidala Raju | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/45/2025 | Bhadavath Sharada vs Gugulothu Srinu Alias Sreenu | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/63/2025 | Thodusu Saritha vs Mellacheruvu Brahmmam | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/64/2025 | Thodusu Venkanna vs Mellacheruvu Brahmmam | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/74/2022 | Anumula Sammaiah vs Gollapally Srinu | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/103/2024 | Patla Charan vs Perla Sripal | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/190/2022 | Shaik Sarvar Pasha vs Nalladi Kotaiah | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| MVOP/191/2022 | Shaik Yakub Bee vs Nalladi Kotaiah | 21 Dec 2025 | Copy of order | — |
| SC/80/2023 | PS Maripeda vs Banoth Mahesh | 19 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/5/2024 | PS Bayyaram vs Thimmidi Ganesh | 18 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/19/2023 | PS Thorrur vs Guguloth Anil | 17 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.NDPS/32/2022 | PS KESAMUDRAM vs BHUKYA LINGYA | 16 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC/317/2021 | SHO PS Kesamudram vs Elagalaboina Chandraiah | 11 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC/31/2023 | SHO.PS. MARIPEDA vs Tejavath Bhaskar | 10 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/26/2023 | PS Kuravi vs Gopi Naveen | 10 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC/209/2019 | SHO. Ps Thorrur vs Mangalapalli Venkanna @ Kodigudla Venkanna | 08 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.NDPS/23/2022 | PS Mahabubabad T vs Veeragani Krishna | 05 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.NDPS/33/2022 | PS Mahabubabad Rural vs Bhukaya Rajesh | 03 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
| SC.POCSO/1/2023 | PS MAHABFUBABAD RURAL vs Vankudoth Suresh | 03 Dec 2025 | Copy of judgment | — |
Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)
| May 2026 | 1 | |
| Apr 2026 | 13 | |
| Mar 2026 | 24 | |
| Feb 2026 | 20 | |
| Jan 2026 | 9 | |
| Dec 2025 | 40 | |
| Nov 2025 | 20 | |
| Oct 2025 | 26 | |
| Sep 2025 | 55 | |
| Aug 2025 | 33 | |
| Jul 2025 | 32 | |
| Jun 2025 | 33 |
Log in for full trend data.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has MOHD. ABDUL RAFI handled?
MOHD. ABDUL RAFI has handled 321 court orders since 2025 at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 24 orders per month.
What types of cases does MOHD. ABDUL RAFI hear?
Based on available records, MOHD. ABDUL RAFI primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Appeals) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Civil matters (Appeal Suits, Original Suits) at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex.
Where is MOHD. ABDUL RAFI currently posted?
MOHD. ABDUL RAFI is posted as Principal District and Sessions Judge , Mahabubabad at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex, Mahabubabad, Telangana.
Are judgments by MOHD. ABDUL RAFI available online?
Yes. 10 judgments by MOHD. ABDUL RAFI are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does MOHD. ABDUL RAFI dispose cases?
MOHD. ABDUL RAFI disposes approximately 24 cases per month, based on 321 orders handled over their tenure at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex.
Since when is MOHD. ABDUL RAFI serving?
MOHD. ABDUL RAFI has been serving at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex since 2025. and is currently posted there.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Apr 2025 — PresentPrincipal District and Sessions Judge , Mahabubabad · 252 orders
-
Apr 2025 — PresentFast Track Sessions Court for Expeditious Disposal of Cases of Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences POCSO Act 2012 at Mahabubabad · 69 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court