Sri.P.Anjaneyulu

1 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT SHADNAGAR.

Present: Sri. P. Anjaneyulu

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal

of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Rajendranagar. FAC XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, R.R.District at Shadnagar.

Monday, this the 16th day of June, 2025

Sessions Case No. 163 of 2022

(Crime No.87 of 2019 of P.S.Talakondapally)

1 Name of the The State of Telangana through the complainantInspector of Police, P.S. Talakondapally.

2 Name of the accusedA1:MeesalaLalaiah@Lalu, S/o.Sriramulu, age: 20 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o.Medakpally village, Talakondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

A2:Meesala Sony, W/o.Late Mallesh, age: 24 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.Sangaipally,H/o.Rampur village, Talakondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3 Offences charged of Under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC against A1 and Sections 302 r/w. 109 and 120-B of IPC against A2.

4 Crime No.& Name of the 87 of 2019 of P.S.Talakondapally. PS 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 7 Sentence or orderIn the result, both the accused are found not guilty of the offences 2 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall be in force for a period of (6) months as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1/motor cycle shall be returned to its original owner, after expiry of appeal time. M.Os 2 to 4 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

8 Name of the ProsecutionSri Naresh Kumar, Addl. Public counselProsecutor 9 Name of the Defence Sri Sripal Reddy, Advocate for accused counselNo.1.

Sri Raja Goverdhan Reddy, advocate for accused No.2.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Naresh Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Sripal Reddy, Advocate for accused No.1 and of Sri Raja Goverdhan Reddy, advocate for accused No.2, and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following: J U D G M E N T:: ::

1.The Circle Inspector of Police, Amangal Circle filed Charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201, 120(B) r/w. 34 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that LWs 1 and 2 are brothers of the deceased/Meesala Mallesh and accused No.2/Sony is the wife of the deceased and they are residing at Santoshnagar, 3 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

Hyderabad. The accused no.1 belongs to Medakpally village of

Talakondapally Mandal and he is a relative of the deceased. Accused

No.1 and 2 developed illicit relations for the last two years, for which the deceased suspected them and placed the matter before panchayath. Even after the said panchayath, A2 and the deceased have not stopped their relationship and moreover they together conspired and hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased. Accordingly,

A2 used to give the movements of the deceased upto date. When the deceased planned to visit his native village to collect Raithubandhu amount, A2 intimated the same to A1 to implement their plan of elimination of the deceased. On 01.08.2019, A1 went to his village.

On 04.08.2017 the deceased came down to his village and on the next day, A1 contacted the deceased and offered to have liquor and brought him to Talakondapally town and purchased a liquor bottle and a poison bottle to mix the same in the liquor of the deceased to kill him, but the said plan was failed due to the unexpected arrival of LWs 5 to 7 and hence he postponed the same. On 07.08.2019, A2 got the information about return of the deceased from the village and she informed the same to A1 and asked him to execute their plan of killing the deceased. Accordingly, A1 contacted the deceased and took him from Sangaipally village to Midjil village, where A1 purchased full bottle of liquor and both of them consumed the same 4 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 and again A1 purchased another half bottle of liquor and A1 took the deceased to the forest area located near Talakondapally road on his motor cycle and on the way A1 took away the mobile phone of the deceased and throw it at some unknown place by switching it off.

When they reached near check-dam No.1 in the reserved forest of

Padekal village, A1 offered the deceased to have the liquor. As per the plan, A1 mixed the Ratkil poison of the make of NOMOR in the liquor bottle of the deceased and without knowledge the deceased consumed the same and died on the spot. After confirming the death of the deceased, A1 dragged the body into the bushes and threw the empty liquor bottle and footwear of the deceased into the bushes and kept the empty poison bottle near the body and later he informed the same to A2.

On 11.08.2019, the complainant/LW1, who is brother of the deceased lodged report with police, stating that the deceased left the village to go to Hyderabad on 07.08.2019, but did not reach

Hyderabad and his whereabouts were not known, as his mobile phone was switched off and that on 11.08.2019, he received information from Peddur Thanda villagers that they found a male dead body lying in the limits of their village. Upon that, he went 5 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 there and identified the dead body as that of his brother, on seeing his clothes, body structure and bandage.

3.On receipt of said report from LW1, a case was registered in

Crime No.87/2019 under section 174 Cr.P.C and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer/LW17 examined LW1, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators and seized NOMOR empty plastic bottle. He shifted the dead body to CHC, Kalwakurthy and held inquest on the body. The

Medical Officer/LW15 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and preserved the viscera for analysis. Later, he examined and recorded the statement of LW5, who observed the deceased and

A1 prior to the death and LW1 stated that there was illegal intimacy between A1 and A2, for which a panchayath was held earlier. As such the involvement of accused was suspected. On 16.08.2019, A1 was apprehended and on interrogation in the presence of panch witnesses, he confessed the commission of offence and also the involvement of A2, with whom he had illicit relations. LW17 recorded the confession of A1 and seized his motor cycle under cover of panchanama. A1 led the police and panch witnesses to the scene of offence, where LW17 conducted panchanama and seized the 6 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 footwear of the deceased and empty liquor bottle near the bushes, under cover of panchanama. Basing on the confession of A1, A2 was also apprehended and she also confessed the commission of offence along with A1. Both the accused were arrested and produced before

Court for judicial custody. Basing on the above material, section of law was altered to 302, 201, 120(B) of IPC. LW18 took up further investigation, examined and recorded the statements of LWs 6 to 8.

He deposited the viscera and other parts of the deceased in the FSL.

After analysis, the FSL issued report stating that the material objects contained organophosphate and insecticide poison and basing on the said report, LW15/Medical Officer opined that the cause of death is due to the said poison. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused.

4.The Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC and registered as SC.No.181 of 2021 and made over made over it to II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar District.

5.By virtue of orders dated 01.06.2025 vide ROC.No.

346/E1/2022 of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, 7 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 the case was transferred to the court of Prl. District and Sessions

Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar and renumbered as

SC.No.163 of 2022 and same is made over to the court of IX Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar and on establishment of this court, the case was transferred to this court, for trial and disposal and directed the accused to appear

before the court on next date of hearing.

6.On appearance of accused no.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

7.Heard the counsel for the accused no.1 and 2 and the Addl.

Public Prosecutor on the charge. Charges Under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC against A1 and Sections 302 r/w. 109 and 120-B of

IPC against A2, have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the vernacular language under section 228 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined, PWs 1 to 14 and got marked Ex.P1 to P14 and M.Os 1 to 4 and on behalf 8 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 of accused, A1 himself examined as DW1 and got marked

Exs.D1 to D3.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused no.1 and 2 denied the said incriminating material and reported defence evidence on their behalf.

10.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

11.Now the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of

the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under

Sections 302, 201 and 120-B?”

POINT

12.The charge leveled against the accused No.1 and 2 is that, accused no.1 and 2 conspired together to eliminate the deceased, who is the husband of A2 and they hatched a plan to kill the deceased and accordingly A1 took the deceased with him and offered liquor to the deceased by mixing the insecticide poison, thereby 9 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 causing the death of the deceased and later screened the evidence and thereby both the accused committed the offence.

13.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 14, PW1 is the complainant and second brother of the deceased,

PW2 is the elder brother of the deceased, PW3 is the person, who had first seen the body of the deceased at the scene of offence. PWs 4, 5 and 7 are witnesses, who have last seen the deceased with A1.

PWs 6 and 10 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence and rough sketch. PW8 is a panch witness for inquest panchanama. PW9 is a panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of accused. PW11 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. PW12 is the FSL expert, who analyzed the material objects and gave report. PWs 13 and 14 are the investigating officers.

14.On behalf of the accused, A1 himself examined as DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D3.

15.The Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that, the evidence of the prosecution is clearly supporting the case of the prosecution and

PW4 is a person who had last seen A1 and deceased together 10 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 proceeding on a motor cycle and A1 failed to explain the circumstances under which he moved with deceased. He further submitted that, the prosecution has proved the illicit relationship between A1 and A2, which led to enter into conspiracy by both the accused, to eliminate the deceased and further the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that A1 administered the insecticide poison to the deceased in the liquor, which is clearly proved by the FSL report and later screened the evidence to disappear in order to escape from the incident.

16.On the other-hand, the counsel for the accused no.1 contended that, the name of the accused and the offence are not mentioned in the FIR and there was no suspicion against anybody in the report and that A1 was implicated falsely and that the prosecution failed to prove the disputes between A1 and deceased. It is also argued that, without any basis the section of law was altered from 174 Cr.P.C and there is no direct evidence and the entire case is depended on circumstantial evidence. It is further argued that, there were lapses on the part of investigating agency and PW5 did not identify A1 as he is said to have last seen A1 with the deceased. He further argued that, due to the land disputes between the parties the deceased committed suicide.

11 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

17.The counsel for the accused no.2 argued that, only basing on the alleged illegal contacts a false case was filed against A2 and that there is no direct evidence to prove the illegal contacts between A1 and A2 and the prosecution has failed to prove the panchayath held with regard to illegal contacts of A1 and A2 and further none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed about the illegal contacts between A1 and A2 and only basing on the alleged confession of A1,

A2 was implicated in this case. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature,

Hyderabad in Gopulapuram Balaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2006(3) ALT Criminal 403 DE and also another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babu vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2011(2) ALT Criminal 275 (SC).

18.In a case where the prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution is under obligation to prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt as well as the links between all the circumstances and if all the circumstances are taken cumulatively they should form into a complete chain and there should not be any escape from the conclusion that with all human probability the offence was committed by the accused and none else.

12 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

The prosecution must prove further that, the facts so proved must un-erringly point out guilty of the accused and further such evidence should not only be consisted with the guilt of the accused, but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

19.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jabir and Others Vs. State of

Uttarakhand, reported in 2023 (16) SCC 111, held the above aspect by relying on the previous decisions. While observing as above it held as under:

“This court is also of the opinion that apart from the above serious infirmities, there is no evidence, oral or any material object, which connects the appellant-accused with the crime. It has been repeatedly emphasized by this court, that the “last seen” doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstance.”

20.In the case on hand, the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and also the last seen theory. There is a gap of 4 days from the date of death and the date of finding the dead body. The main case of the prosecution is that the deceased was last seen in the company of A1 on the date of offence and the same was deposed by PW4/Davula Anjaneyulu. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of PW4 as he is the only person 13 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 who saw A1 while taking away the deceased on his motor cycle on the date of the offence. Apart from that, the prosecution has relied on the other circumstances. Following are the circumstances and chain of events, on which the prosecution has relied on to prove the guilt of the accused:

(i) A1 developed illegal relationship with A2 and upon which a panchayath was held in the presence of elders.

(ii)Inspite of the warning by the elders and PW1, A1 and A2 continued their illegal relationship and upon which the deceased objected for it and the same led both the accused to enter into the conspiracy to eliminate the deceased in order to continue their relationship.

(iii)A2 was in touch with A1 and waiting for an opportunity to eliminate the deceased and on one day, A2 contacted A1 so as to implement their plan as the deceased went to his village in connection with the land issue and A2 was in touch with A1 till the deceased was killed by A1.

14 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

(iv)On 05.08.2019 A1 purchased the liquor in a wine shop while taking the deceased on his motor cycle and later he alone purchased

NOMOR insecticide poison from Jai Kisan Fertilizers.

(v)A1 took the deceased with him on his motor cycle in order to implement his plan and near the outskirts of Talakondapally, PWs 4, 5 and LW7/Nagesh met A1 and the deceased and all of them consumed liquor on 05.08.2019 and as such the plan could not be implemented.

(vi)A1 made a phone call to the deceased on the afternoon of 07.08.2019 inviting him to consume liquor and A1 picked up the deceased near Sangaiapally gate.

(vii)In order to implement the plan of killing, A1 took the deceased with him and at about 3:15 p.m, A1 purchased liquor in

Venkateshwara wines and consumed there itself in the sitting room and even thereafter he purchased half bottle of liquor and again took the deceased on his motor cycle.

(viii) On the way, A1 purchased eatables (bajjilu) of Rs.40/- and at that time PW4 saw them at about 5:30 p.m.

15 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

(ix)A1 took the deceased on his motor cycle towards Padkal village and as per the pre-plan, A1 picked up the mobile phone of the deceased without his knowledge and switched off it and threw it at unknown place and took the deceased to check-dam-1 in the reserve forest and A1 offered the liquor to the deceased by mixing NOMOR insecticide poison with water, as a result the deceased fell down within 15 minutes and died by raising cries.

(x)After confirming the death of the deceased, A1 in order to screen the evidence, dragged the dead body and threw away in the bushes at some distance and the chappal and liquor bottle were hidden in the bushes of the tree and threw the NOMOR empty bottle near the dead body.

(xi)After the said incident, A1 made a phone call to A2 and informed about implementing their plan of killing the deceased and thereafter A1 went to Hyderabad to attend his driver duty and again returned to village on 16.08.2019, on which the police apprehended him.

16 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

(xii)On 11.08.2019 PW3 found a dead body of male person near the check-dam while proceeding on that way and then he called his villagers, who contacted the neighbouring villagers and found the name of the dead person and later PWs 1 and 2 came to the spot and identified the dead body as that of their brother by seeing the

Tattoo marks and bandage.

(xiii) Police visited the scene of offence and conducted panchanama and seized “NOMOR” bottle in the presence of panch witnesses PWs 6 and 10.

(xiv) The police after recording the confession of A1, took him to scene of offence where they seized liquor bottle and chappal of deceased and also the motor cycle of A1 under cover of panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses PW9 and LW14.

21.From a perusal of the above events, it is very much clear that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence and there is not even a single eye witness. The only witness that saw the deceased in the company of A1 is PW4. Therefore, the last seen theory is applicable to this case and the evidence of 17 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 prosecution, more particularly PW4, has to be scrutinized in order to find out the guilt of the accused.

22.From the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, who are the brothers of deceased, it shows that PW1 lodged report on 11.08.2019 after finding the dead body of the deceased in the forest area of Padakal village after receiving information from the other villagers. The evidence of PW1 also shows that the deceased left the village on 07.08.2019 to go to Hyderabad and when he made a phone call to the deceased on the same day night, it was switched off and later he found the dead body of the deceased on 11.08.2019. The evidence of

PWs 1 and 2 further shows that the panchanama was held earlier in the village with regard to the illegal relationship of A1 and A2 and it was decided to stay away with each other.

23.PW3 is the person who initially found the dead body of the deceased while proceeding near that place and later he informed his villagers who inturn made calls to the neighbouring villagers and later it was found that the body pertains to the deceased who is brother of PWs 1 and 2 and further PWs 1 and 2 came to the dead body and identified it.

18 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

24.PW4 is the crucial witness in this case and the prosecution case rests entirely on him as he had last seen the deceased in the company of A1 on the date of incident. PW4 deposed that on 05.08.2019 he along with PW5 and LW7/Naresh observed the deceased with A1 under Tamarind tree and except PW4, all others consumed liquor and later went away. PW4 further deposed that on 07.08.2019, he observed A1 and the deceased near the petrol bunk at Midjil and on enquiry they stated that they came to Midjil to consume liquor and as such he went away and subsequently on 11.08.2019, he came to know about the death of the deceased and at that time he informed PWs 1 and 2 about his witnessing A1 and deceased together at Midjl on 07.08.2019. PW5 also deposed about meeting A1 and the deceased on 05.08.2019 and later consuming liquor. PWs 6 and 10 are panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama and seizure of material objects. PW6 did not support the said panchanama and he was declared hostile and he only deposed that the police obtained signature on some papers. The evidence of PW10 another panch witness also shows that no panchanama was conducted in his presence.

25.PW7 is also a witness who is said to have seen A1 and deceased near Sangaiapally gate. She only deposed that 19 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 about 4 years ago she get down the bus at Sangaiapally gate and observed one person who is taking away the deceased on his bike and she did not observe the said person as she saw him from back side. PW8 is the panch witness for inquest panchanama and his evidence shows that he observed the dead body of Mallesh in the mortuary and police conducted inquest panchanama on the body of the deceased.

26.PW9 is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama of accused. He deposed that on 16.08.2019 he along with LW14 went to the police station where they observed A1 with the police and on the instructions of police, they enquired A1 and A1 confessed the offence in which he committed the murder of the deceased and after recording the confession, police seized the bike bearing No. TS 06 ED 1948 under the proceedings marked as M.O.1 and further they proceeded to outskirts of Padakal village near forest, where A1 showed chappals as well as liquor bottle which were seized under seizure report and marked as M.O.2 and 3 respectively.

27.PW11 is the Assistant Professor, Gandhi Medical College. His evidence shows that he conducted Post Mortem examination on the body of the deceased and opined that he preserved vicera for the 20 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 purpose of analysis by the FSL and after receiving FSL report, he opined that the cause of death is due to organo-phosphate an insecticide poison.

28.PW12 is the FSL expert who analyzed the vicera and other material objects collected from the deceased and opined that items 1 and 2 contains organo-phosphate an insecticide poison, whereas nothing was found in items 3 and 4.

29.PWs 13 and 14 are the investigation officers and they deposed about registration of the case, conducting investigation and filing of charge sheet against the accused.

30.On the other hand, A1 himself examined as DW1 in support of his defence and got marked Exs.D1 to D3. He deposed that the entire land of father of PWs 1 and 2 and the deceased was entered in the name of PWs 1 and 2 only and the marriage of the deceased and

A2 is a love marriage and A2 belongs to Schedule Tribe community and there were disputes between deceased and his brothers, for which the deceased and A2 left the village. He deposed that he did not visit the house of the deceased and later the police obtained his signatures on blank papers and no panchanama was conducted in 21 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 his presence and he is no way connected with the murder of the deceased.

31.In order to find the guilt of the accused, the prosecution must prove all the circumstances mentioned above, beyond reasonable doubt and also the links between all the circumstances and if all the circumstances are taken cumulatively, they should form into a complete chain and there shall not be escape from the conclusion that with all human probability, the accused has committed the offence and none else. In the case and hand, the prosecution has to prove the circumstances 1 to 14 as mentioned above with the evidence available on record, beyond reasonable doubts.

32.Insofar as, circumstances (i) to (iii) are concerned, as alleged by the prosecution, there was illegal relationship between A1 and A2, for which a panchayath was held in the presence of elders and PWs 1 and 2 and later when the deceased objected for the continuation of the relationship, both A1 and A2 entered into conspiracy to do away the deceased and when the deceased went to his village, the accused decided to kill him. A perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 on this aspect shows that, a panchayath was held in the presence of village elders. Except the statement of PWs 1 and 2 on the said aspect, the 22 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 prosecution has not examined any of the elders of the panchayath.

PW1 even did not mention about the illegal relationship of A1 and A2 and also about the panchayath in the report/Ex.P1. It is only in their statement before the police, they mentioned about the said panchayath. Except the above evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that A1 and A2 had contacted each-other either personally or through phone to discuss their plan. The investigating officer has not collected the call data of both A1 and A2, in order to prove their conspiracy and that they were in touch on phone and A2 was intimating the movements of the deceased till the date of his death.

33.Insofar as the circumstance no.(iv) is concerned, the accused no.1 took the deceased on his motor cycle and purchased liquor in a wine shop and also NOMOR insecticide poison from Jaikisan

Fertilizers on 05.08.2019. Absolutely there is no evidence on record to prove that A1 purchased liquor in wine shop and also the insecticide poison in the fertilizer shop. The investigating officer has not examined not even a single witness, either at the wine shop or in the fertilizer shop to prove it. He did not even collect any CC Tv footage at both the places and also did not enquire about presence of 23 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

CC Tvs. He also did not make any effort to take A1 to the said shops for his identification by the shop owners.

34.The circumstance No.(v) shows that, after purchasing the liquor and insecticide poison, A1 was taking the deceased on his motor cycle in the outskirts of Talakondapally, where PWs 4 and 5 and one Nagesh met them and upon that, A1 could not implement his plan and all of them consumed liquor. The evidence of PWs 4 and 5 in this regard shows that, A1 and deceased sat under a

Tamarind tree after crossing Talakondapally, and on seeing them

PWs 4 and 5 and another sat with them and all of them except PW4 consumed liquor. From the above, it is clear that except seeing A1 and deceased near the above place, PWs 4 and 5 have not deposed any incriminating circumstances against A1.

35.The other circumstances (vi) to (viii) are that, A1 made a phone call to the deceased on the afternoon of 07.08.2019 inviting him to come to him to consume liquor and upon that A1 picked up the deceased near Sangaipally gate at about 3.15 PM and A1 purchased liquor in Venkateshwara wines, where they consumed it in the sitting room and further A1 purchased half bottle of the liquor and took the deceased on his motor cycle towards Padkal village and on 24 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 the way A1 purchased eatables (bajjilu) of Rs.40/- at which time,

PW4 saw them at about 5.30 PM. In this regard, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW4 again. As stated above, PW4 deposed that, he saw A1 and the deceased near the petrol bunk at

Midjil on 07.08.2019 and on enquiry they stated that they came to

Midjil to consume liquor and upon that he went away from that place and later, on 11.08.2019 he came to know about the death of the deceased. As per the confession of A1, PW4 only saw them at the above place and it does not contain that PW4 enquired them. PW4 admitted in his cross examination that, he got no prior acquaintance with A1 and for the first time, he saw A1 on 05.08.2019. He categorically admitted that, he was not called by the police to identify A1. He stated that he cannot say the date of death of the deceased, he also stated that he informed PWs 1 and 2 after one or two days of his observing the deceased at Midjil and he stated the same thing to the police. The prosecution has also examined PW7 as the person, who also saw the deceased and A1 together, but PW7 did not support the case of the prosecution and she was declared hostile. She only deposed that at about 11.00 AM she observed one person taking the deceased on bike at Sangaipally gate and she did not observe him as she saw him from back side. As per the case of the prosecution, PW7 saw the deceased with A1 at 2.30 PM.

25 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

Therefore, the evidence of PW7 is contrary to the case of the prosecution and is not helpful.

36. From the above cross examination of PW4, it has to be noted that, he has no prior acquaintance with A1 and he was not called by the police to identify A1. If this is the version of PW4, it is not known as to how A1 was identified as the person that moved with the deceased. No test identification parade was conducted by the police to identify A1 by PW4 or PW5 and another. Further aspect is that, PW4 informed PW1 on 11.08.2019 about A1 and deceased moving together and he again added that one or two days after the date of incident, he informed the same to PW1. If really PW4 had seen A1 with deceased, he must have informed the same to PW1, who is very much known to PW4 on or before 11.08.2019.

Admittedly, PW1 lodged report on 11.08.2019, after the dead body was traced out and even then PW1 did not mention about the information given by PW4 about the movements of deceased with A1.

When PW1 stated before the police on 11.08.2019 about the illegal relationship of A1 and A2, he must have mentioned about the presence of A1 with the deceased, if at all PW4 informed him about presence A1 and deceased together on the date of incident.

26 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

37. Further more, as per the case of the prosecution, A1 purchased liquor in Venkateshwara wines on 07.08.2019 and A1 and deceased consumed the same in the sitting room of the wines. The investigating officer has not enquired anybody or examined anyone near the said wines or did not collect any CC Tv footage to prove the presence of A1 and deceased near the wines. Absolutely, there is no evidence on behalf of prosecution to prove the circumstance of A1 purchasing liquor and consuming with deceased in the wines itself.

The investigating officer also not examined any person from whom

A1 purchased the eatables (bajjilu) near the petrol bunk.

38.Insofar as circumstances (ix), (x), (xiii) and (xiv) are concerned,

A1 took the deceased towards Padkal village as per the preplan to do away him and on the way he picked up the mobile phone of the deceased without his knowledge and thew it away somewhere by switching it off and later took the deceased to check-dam no.1 in the reserved forest where he mixed NOMOR insecticide poison in the liquor by mixing water and offered it to the deceased, resulting in his death within (15) minutes and later threw the dead body at some distance and kept the NOMOR empty bottle near the dead body and hidden the chappal of the deceased and empty liquor bottle in the nearby bushes and subsequently, the police visited the scene of 27 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 offence and seized NOMOR bottle under cover of panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses/PWs 6 and 10. The prosecution has relied on the confession of accused and seizure of the material objects/M.Os 1 to 4 in order to establish the above circumstances.

39.The evidence of investigating officer/PW13 shows that, after issuing FIR, he proceeded to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PWs 6 and 10/independent panch witnesses and also seized M.O4/NOMOR bottle from the spot and later shifted the dead body to the hospital.

As admitted by PW13 in his cross examination, initially the case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C and the inquest was not conducted in the presence of Tahsildar and he did not take the finger print expert to the scene of offence and dog squad. He also admitted that, he did not take the photographs of the NOMOR bottle on the spot. From the above admissions of PW13, it is very much clear that, he has not taken the photographs of the dead body at the scene of offence. The photographs filed by him in the court appears to have been taken after shifting the dead body from the scene of offence.

The evidence of independent panch witnesses/PWs 6 and 10 shows that, they have not supported the scene of offence and seizure panchanama. None of the panch witnesses deposed about 28 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 conducting panchanama at the scene of offence or the seizure of

NOMOR bottle near the dead body. The case of the prosecution is that the plan of A1 is that, he made arrangements by placing the

NOMOR bottle near the dead body to presume that the deceased committed suicide by consuming the pesticide. In the said circumstances, the duty of the investigating officer is to establish the purchase of NOMOR bottle. Except mentioning the name of the fertilizer shop, the investigating officer has not collected any evidence or examined anybody to prove it. The only evidence remained on record is the confession of accused with regard to the murder of the deceased.

40.As per the evidence of PW9, A1 confessed the murder of the deceased and in pursuance of the said confession, they proceeded to the outskirts of Padikal village near the forest and accused no.1 shown the chappal and liquor bottle/M.Os 2 and 3 and they were seized by the police under cover of panchanama. The confession panchanama does not show that the accused showed the place where he committed the offence and also where he threw the dead body. Further, the evidence of PW9 or the investigating officer/PW13 does not show that the accused, himself taken out

M.Os 2 and 3 from the place where they were hidden. No 29 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 photographs were taken at the scene of offence to prove that M.Os 2 and 3 were seized in the presence of PW9. The entire case of the prosecution has been relied on the confession statement of accused.

As per section 26 of Evidence Act, the confession made before the police officer is inadmissible in court and same cannot be used against the accused to prove the truth of the statement or any other fact related to the crime.

41.The circumstance No.(xi) as mentioned above deals with the communication between A1 and A2 and that A1 informed A2 through phone about implementing their plan of eliminating the deceased and thereafter A1 went to Hyderabad, attended his driver duty and again returned to village on 16.08.2019, on which the police arrested him. As can be seen from the evidence of investigating officers and as admitted by them, absolutely there is no evidence to prove that A1 made a phone call to A2 on 07.08.2019, immediately after the incident. As per the confession of A1, he picked up the mobile phone of deceased and threw it some where by switching it off. The investigating officer has not made any effort to trace out the said phone and the accused did not lead the police to the place where he threw the mobile phone. Further more, the investigating officers have not collected the call data of phone 30 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 numbers of both A1 and A2 to prove the communication between them throughout the episode. They also did not make any effort to seize the mobile phone from A2. The investigating officers have also not examined the owner of A1 to prove the reporting of A1 to duty during the period from 01.08.2019 to 16.08.2019.

42.Insofar as the circumstance No.(xii) is concerned, the prosecution story is that, PW3 found the dead body of a male person at the scene of offence and he informed the same to his villagers, who in-turn informed the same to PWs 1 and 2 and PWs 1 and 2 came to the spot and identified the dead body. The evidence of PW3 in this regard shows that, on observing the dead body, he called the villagers and they made phone calls to the neighbouring villagers and upon which, PWs 1 and 2 came and identified the dead body.

PW3 admitted in his cross examination that, he did not see anything except the dead body. PW3 did not take the photograph of the deceased and he did not find anything near the dead body. If really

PWs 1 to 3 have seen the dead body at the scene of offence, they must have already seen the NOMOR bottle near the body.

43.In the light of the above discussion, as mentioned above, this court has mentioned the circumstances (i) to (xiv) based on the case 31 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 of the prosecution. As discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove some of the important circumstances, which it relied to find that the accused no.1 alone has committed the murder of the deceased. As discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential circumstances with cogent evidence. The main case of the prosecution is that, A1 committed murder of the deceased by administering insecticide poison in the liquor to the deceased. The prosecution has failed to prove the purchase of NOMOR insecticide poison from Jaikisan Fertilizers by A1 and also failed to prove the seizure of the said empty bottle from near the dead body of the deceased as both the independent panch witnesses/PWs 6 and 10 have not supported the seizure of the bottle/M.O4. Further more, the prosecution also failed to prove that A1 and deceased purchased liquor and they together consumed it in Venkateshwara wines in the permit room. The prosecution also failed to prove that A1 made phone call to deceased inviting him to consume liquor by collecting call data of A1 or the deceased. In addition to it, the prosecution also failed to collect call data of the phone numbers of A1 and A2 to establish the conspiracy between them to kill the deceased and also communicating the movements of the deceased from time to time for about two weeks.

32 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

44.Another important aspect is that, as per the case of the prosecution and evidence of scientific expert, the cause of death of the deceased is due to consumption of organ-phosphate an insecticide. The case of the prosecution is that the accused no.1 administered the insecticide poison by mixing it in the liquor. As per the FSL report, The insecticide poison was found in items No.(i) and

(ii) i.e., stomach and piece of intestine collected from the deceased and pieces of liver and kidney. PW12/FSL expert admitted in her cross examination that, the presence of alcohol is not there and there was no presence of insecticide poison in item No.(iv) i.e., empty plastic tin labeled as “NOMOR”. Even PW11/Assistant Professor admitted that, there is no presence of alcohol as mentioned in the

FSL report. The investigating officer has not confirmed that the

NOMOR bottle contains the organ-phosphate by examining the owner of fertilizer shop.

45.The learned counsel for the accused has contended that, the police have conducted table investigation and filed false case against the accused. The record shows that, initially the case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C and after the confession of accused it was altered to 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC. Strangely, as admitted by investigating officer/PW14, as on the date of recording the statement 33 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 of PWs 4 and 5, the case is still under section 174 Cr.P.C., but their statements show the offence under section 302, 201 and 120-B IPC.

A1 was arrested on 16.08.2019 and later he confessed the offence.

The investigating officer has conducted the scene of offence panchanama and seized NOMOR bottle on 11.08.2019. Strangely, the said panchanama also contains the offence under Section 302, 201, 120-B IPC. All the above instances clearly shows that, the investigating officers have conducted perfunctory investigation.

Since the case mostly rests on circumstantial evidence without any eye witness, the investigating agency must be cautious in gathering the evidence to link the circumstances so as to find the guilt of the accused.

46. As discussed above, the entire case of the prosecution depends on last seen theory under which circumstances, the prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts without leaving any doubt and seen that the chain of circumstances is complete without leaving any missing link. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Jabir and others case (supra) clearly held that, the last seen doctrine has limited application where the time gap between the deceased was seen last with the accused and the time of murder is narrow, and further more the court should not convict an accused 34 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 only on the basis of the last seen circumstance. In the present case as discussed above, except the evidence of PW4, who has last seen the deceased with A1, there is no other evidence on record in respect of the involvement of A1. However, the evidence of PW4 is inconsistent inasmuch as A1 is a stranger and he was not called to identify A1 after his apprehension. As discussed above, while dealing with these circumstances of the case, it has been observed that, the investigating officer has failed to collect evidence to prove many aspects to link the circumstances and there are several missing links in this case, more particularly, the purchase of

NOMOR poison bottle and its seizure. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution must lead to the conclusion of guilt only and they should not leave any ambiguity or inconsistency. The circumstances, if proved must lead to the only conclusion of guilt of accused and none else. As discussed above, it can be held that, the circumstances do not lead to the conclusion of guilt of accused and there are many missing links to form the chain of events in the case of prosecution. Further more, there is absolutely no evidence to prove the involvement of A2, who is the wife of deceased as the investigating officer has failed to collect the call data of the accused to prove their communication with regard to implement their plan to eliminate the deceased in pursuance of their conspiracy. Therefore, 35 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 it can be held that, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have entered into conspiracy of killing the deceased and accordingly, A1 killed the deceased and screened the evidence to disappear to escape from the offence, and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

47.In the result, both the accused are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall be in force for a period of (6) months as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1/motor cycle shall be returned to its original owner, after expiry of appeal time. M.Os 2 to 4 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by by me in the open Court, on this the 16 th day of June, 2025.

XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, R.R.District at Shadnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined) For the prosecution: PW1Meesala Rajender 36 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

PW2Meesala Ashok

PW3 Kethavath Naresh

PW4Daruvula Anjaneyulu

PW5B.Narsimha

PW6Kadamoni Ravi

PW7Vimalamma

PW8P.Thirupathaiah

PW9K.Krishnaiah

PW10R.Ramulu

PW11Dr.Ch.Sandeep

PW12D.Sujyothi Rani

PW13P.Suresh Yadav

PW14K.Narsimha Reddy

For the defence:

DW1Meesala Lalaih

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the prosecution:

Ex.P1Report.

Ex.P2The signature of PW6 on crime details form.

Ex.P3The signature of PW6 on seizure panchanama.

Ex.P4The relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7.

Ex.P5Inquest panchanama.

Ex.P6Seizure report.

Ex.P7The signature of PW10 on crime details form.

Ex.P8The signature of PW10 on observation of panchanama.

Ex.P9Postmortem examination report.

Ex.P10 FSL report.

Ex.P11 FIR.

37 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

Ex.P12 Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P13 Observation of scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P14 Section alteration memo.

For the defence:

Ex.D1Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 2007 and 2008.

Ex.D2Online Dharani record showing the name of Meesala Rajender in respect of land in Sy.No.525/2E/4/1 in respect of Ac.1.10 gts.,.

Ex.D3Online Dharani record showing the name of Meesala Ashok in respect of land in Sy.No.5252E/4/2 in respect of Ac.1.10 gts.,.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Bike bearing No.TS 06 ED 1948. M.O.2: Officer’s Choice liquor bottle. M.O.3: Chappals of deceased. M.O.4: NOMOR rat poison bottle.

XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, R.R.District at Shadnagar.

1 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT SHADNAGAR.

Present: Sri. P. Anjaneyulu

Special Judge for Trial and Disposal

of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Rajendranagar. FAC XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, R.R.District at Shadnagar.

Monday, this the 16th day of June, 2025

Sessions Case No. 163 of 2022

(Crime No.87 of 2019 of P.S.Talakondapally)

1 Name of the The State of Telangana through the complainantInspector of Police, P.S. Talakondapally.

2 Name of the accusedA1:MeesalaLalaiah@Lalu, S/o.Sriramulu, age: 20 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o.Medakpally village, Talakondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

A2:Meesala Sony, W/o.Late Mallesh, age: 24 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.Sangaipally,H/o.Rampur village, Talakondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3 Offences charged of Under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC against A1 and Sections 302 r/w. 109 and 120-B of IPC against A2.

4 Crime No.& Name of the 87 of 2019 of P.S.Talakondapally. PS 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 7 Sentence or orderIn the result, both the accused are found not guilty of the offences 2 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall be in force for a period of (6) months as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1/motor cycle shall be returned to its original owner, after expiry of appeal time. M.Os 2 to 4 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

8 Name of the ProsecutionSri Naresh Kumar, Addl. Public counselProsecutor 9 Name of the Defence Sri Sripal Reddy, Advocate for accused counselNo.1.

Sri Raja Goverdhan Reddy, advocate for accused No.2.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Naresh Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Sripal Reddy, Advocate for accused No.1 and of Sri Raja Goverdhan Reddy, advocate for accused No.2, and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following: J U D G M E N T:: ::

1.The Circle Inspector of Police, Amangal Circle filed Charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201, 120(B) r/w. 34 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that LWs 1 and 2 are brothers of the deceased/Meesala Mallesh and accused No.2/Sony is the wife of the deceased and they are residing at Santoshnagar, 3 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

Hyderabad. The accused no.1 belongs to Medakpally village of

Talakondapally Mandal and he is a relative of the deceased. Accused

No.1 and 2 developed illicit relations for the last two years, for which the deceased suspected them and placed the matter before panchayath. Even after the said panchayath, A2 and the deceased have not stopped their relationship and moreover they together conspired and hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased. Accordingly,

A2 used to give the movements of the deceased upto date. When the deceased planned to visit his native village to collect Raithubandhu amount, A2 intimated the same to A1 to implement their plan of elimination of the deceased. On 01.08.2019, A1 went to his village.

On 04.08.2017 the deceased came down to his village and on the next day, A1 contacted the deceased and offered to have liquor and brought him to Talakondapally town and purchased a liquor bottle and a poison bottle to mix the same in the liquor of the deceased to kill him, but the said plan was failed due to the unexpected arrival of LWs 5 to 7 and hence he postponed the same. On 07.08.2019, A2 got the information about return of the deceased from the village and she informed the same to A1 and asked him to execute their plan of killing the deceased. Accordingly, A1 contacted the deceased and took him from Sangaipally village to Midjil village, where A1 purchased full bottle of liquor and both of them consumed the same 4 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 and again A1 purchased another half bottle of liquor and A1 took the deceased to the forest area located near Talakondapally road on his motor cycle and on the way A1 took away the mobile phone of the deceased and throw it at some unknown place by switching it off.

When they reached near check-dam No.1 in the reserved forest of

Padekal village, A1 offered the deceased to have the liquor. As per the plan, A1 mixed the Ratkil poison of the make of NOMOR in the liquor bottle of the deceased and without knowledge the deceased consumed the same and died on the spot. After confirming the death of the deceased, A1 dragged the body into the bushes and threw the empty liquor bottle and footwear of the deceased into the bushes and kept the empty poison bottle near the body and later he informed the same to A2.

On 11.08.2019, the complainant/LW1, who is brother of the deceased lodged report with police, stating that the deceased left the village to go to Hyderabad on 07.08.2019, but did not reach

Hyderabad and his whereabouts were not known, as his mobile phone was switched off and that on 11.08.2019, he received information from Peddur Thanda villagers that they found a male dead body lying in the limits of their village. Upon that, he went 5 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 there and identified the dead body as that of his brother, on seeing his clothes, body structure and bandage.

3.On receipt of said report from LW1, a case was registered in

Crime No.87/2019 under section 174 Cr.P.C and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer/LW17 examined LW1, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators and seized NOMOR empty plastic bottle. He shifted the dead body to CHC, Kalwakurthy and held inquest on the body. The

Medical Officer/LW15 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and preserved the viscera for analysis. Later, he examined and recorded the statement of LW5, who observed the deceased and

A1 prior to the death and LW1 stated that there was illegal intimacy between A1 and A2, for which a panchayath was held earlier. As such the involvement of accused was suspected. On 16.08.2019, A1 was apprehended and on interrogation in the presence of panch witnesses, he confessed the commission of offence and also the involvement of A2, with whom he had illicit relations. LW17 recorded the confession of A1 and seized his motor cycle under cover of panchanama. A1 led the police and panch witnesses to the scene of offence, where LW17 conducted panchanama and seized the 6 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 footwear of the deceased and empty liquor bottle near the bushes, under cover of panchanama. Basing on the confession of A1, A2 was also apprehended and she also confessed the commission of offence along with A1. Both the accused were arrested and produced before

Court for judicial custody. Basing on the above material, section of law was altered to 302, 201, 120(B) of IPC. LW18 took up further investigation, examined and recorded the statements of LWs 6 to 8.

He deposited the viscera and other parts of the deceased in the FSL.

After analysis, the FSL issued report stating that the material objects contained organophosphate and insecticide poison and basing on the said report, LW15/Medical Officer opined that the cause of death is due to the said poison. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused.

4.The Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC and registered as SC.No.181 of 2021 and made over made over it to II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar District.

5.By virtue of orders dated 01.06.2025 vide ROC.No.

346/E1/2022 of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, 7 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 the case was transferred to the court of Prl. District and Sessions

Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar and renumbered as

SC.No.163 of 2022 and same is made over to the court of IX Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar and on establishment of this court, the case was transferred to this court, for trial and disposal and directed the accused to appear

before the court on next date of hearing.

6.On appearance of accused no.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

7.Heard the counsel for the accused no.1 and 2 and the Addl.

Public Prosecutor on the charge. Charges Under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC against A1 and Sections 302 r/w. 109 and 120-B of

IPC against A2, have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the vernacular language under section 228 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined, PWs 1 to 14 and got marked Ex.P1 to P14 and M.Os 1 to 4 and on behalf 8 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 of accused, A1 himself examined as DW1 and got marked

Exs.D1 to D3.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused no.1 and 2 denied the said incriminating material and reported defence evidence on their behalf.

10.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

11.Now the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of

the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under

Sections 302, 201 and 120-B?”

POINT

12.The charge leveled against the accused No.1 and 2 is that, accused no.1 and 2 conspired together to eliminate the deceased, who is the husband of A2 and they hatched a plan to kill the deceased and accordingly A1 took the deceased with him and offered liquor to the deceased by mixing the insecticide poison, thereby 9 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 causing the death of the deceased and later screened the evidence and thereby both the accused committed the offence.

13.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 14, PW1 is the complainant and second brother of the deceased,

PW2 is the elder brother of the deceased, PW3 is the person, who had first seen the body of the deceased at the scene of offence. PWs 4, 5 and 7 are witnesses, who have last seen the deceased with A1.

PWs 6 and 10 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence and rough sketch. PW8 is a panch witness for inquest panchanama. PW9 is a panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of accused. PW11 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. PW12 is the FSL expert, who analyzed the material objects and gave report. PWs 13 and 14 are the investigating officers.

14.On behalf of the accused, A1 himself examined as DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D3.

15.The Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that, the evidence of the prosecution is clearly supporting the case of the prosecution and

PW4 is a person who had last seen A1 and deceased together 10 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 proceeding on a motor cycle and A1 failed to explain the circumstances under which he moved with deceased. He further submitted that, the prosecution has proved the illicit relationship between A1 and A2, which led to enter into conspiracy by both the accused, to eliminate the deceased and further the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that A1 administered the insecticide poison to the deceased in the liquor, which is clearly proved by the FSL report and later screened the evidence to disappear in order to escape from the incident.

16.On the other-hand, the counsel for the accused no.1 contended that, the name of the accused and the offence are not mentioned in the FIR and there was no suspicion against anybody in the report and that A1 was implicated falsely and that the prosecution failed to prove the disputes between A1 and deceased. It is also argued that, without any basis the section of law was altered from 174 Cr.P.C and there is no direct evidence and the entire case is depended on circumstantial evidence. It is further argued that, there were lapses on the part of investigating agency and PW5 did not identify A1 as he is said to have last seen A1 with the deceased. He further argued that, due to the land disputes between the parties the deceased committed suicide.

11 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

17.The counsel for the accused no.2 argued that, only basing on the alleged illegal contacts a false case was filed against A2 and that there is no direct evidence to prove the illegal contacts between A1 and A2 and the prosecution has failed to prove the panchayath held with regard to illegal contacts of A1 and A2 and further none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed about the illegal contacts between A1 and A2 and only basing on the alleged confession of A1,

A2 was implicated in this case. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature,

Hyderabad in Gopulapuram Balaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2006(3) ALT Criminal 403 DE and also another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babu vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2011(2) ALT Criminal 275 (SC).

18.In a case where the prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution is under obligation to prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt as well as the links between all the circumstances and if all the circumstances are taken cumulatively they should form into a complete chain and there should not be any escape from the conclusion that with all human probability the offence was committed by the accused and none else.

12 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

The prosecution must prove further that, the facts so proved must un-erringly point out guilty of the accused and further such evidence should not only be consisted with the guilt of the accused, but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

19.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jabir and Others Vs. State of

Uttarakhand, reported in 2023 (16) SCC 111, held the above aspect by relying on the previous decisions. While observing as above it held as under:

“This court is also of the opinion that apart from the above serious infirmities, there is no evidence, oral or any material object, which connects the appellant-accused with the crime. It has been repeatedly emphasized by this court, that the “last seen” doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstance.”

20.In the case on hand, the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and also the last seen theory. There is a gap of 4 days from the date of death and the date of finding the dead body. The main case of the prosecution is that the deceased was last seen in the company of A1 on the date of offence and the same was deposed by PW4/Davula Anjaneyulu. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of PW4 as he is the only person 13 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 who saw A1 while taking away the deceased on his motor cycle on the date of the offence. Apart from that, the prosecution has relied on the other circumstances. Following are the circumstances and chain of events, on which the prosecution has relied on to prove the guilt of the accused:

(i) A1 developed illegal relationship with A2 and upon which a panchayath was held in the presence of elders.

(ii)Inspite of the warning by the elders and PW1, A1 and A2 continued their illegal relationship and upon which the deceased objected for it and the same led both the accused to enter into the conspiracy to eliminate the deceased in order to continue their relationship.

(iii)A2 was in touch with A1 and waiting for an opportunity to eliminate the deceased and on one day, A2 contacted A1 so as to implement their plan as the deceased went to his village in connection with the land issue and A2 was in touch with A1 till the deceased was killed by A1.

14 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

(iv)On 05.08.2019 A1 purchased the liquor in a wine shop while taking the deceased on his motor cycle and later he alone purchased

NOMOR insecticide poison from Jai Kisan Fertilizers.

(v)A1 took the deceased with him on his motor cycle in order to implement his plan and near the outskirts of Talakondapally, PWs 4, 5 and LW7/Nagesh met A1 and the deceased and all of them consumed liquor on 05.08.2019 and as such the plan could not be implemented.

(vi)A1 made a phone call to the deceased on the afternoon of 07.08.2019 inviting him to consume liquor and A1 picked up the deceased near Sangaiapally gate.

(vii)In order to implement the plan of killing, A1 took the deceased with him and at about 3:15 p.m, A1 purchased liquor in

Venkateshwara wines and consumed there itself in the sitting room and even thereafter he purchased half bottle of liquor and again took the deceased on his motor cycle.

(viii) On the way, A1 purchased eatables (bajjilu) of Rs.40/- and at that time PW4 saw them at about 5:30 p.m.

15 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

(ix)A1 took the deceased on his motor cycle towards Padkal village and as per the pre-plan, A1 picked up the mobile phone of the deceased without his knowledge and switched off it and threw it at unknown place and took the deceased to check-dam-1 in the reserve forest and A1 offered the liquor to the deceased by mixing NOMOR insecticide poison with water, as a result the deceased fell down within 15 minutes and died by raising cries.

(x)After confirming the death of the deceased, A1 in order to screen the evidence, dragged the dead body and threw away in the bushes at some distance and the chappal and liquor bottle were hidden in the bushes of the tree and threw the NOMOR empty bottle near the dead body.

(xi)After the said incident, A1 made a phone call to A2 and informed about implementing their plan of killing the deceased and thereafter A1 went to Hyderabad to attend his driver duty and again returned to village on 16.08.2019, on which the police apprehended him.

16 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

(xii)On 11.08.2019 PW3 found a dead body of male person near the check-dam while proceeding on that way and then he called his villagers, who contacted the neighbouring villagers and found the name of the dead person and later PWs 1 and 2 came to the spot and identified the dead body as that of their brother by seeing the

Tattoo marks and bandage.

(xiii) Police visited the scene of offence and conducted panchanama and seized “NOMOR” bottle in the presence of panch witnesses PWs 6 and 10.

(xiv) The police after recording the confession of A1, took him to scene of offence where they seized liquor bottle and chappal of deceased and also the motor cycle of A1 under cover of panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses PW9 and LW14.

21.From a perusal of the above events, it is very much clear that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence and there is not even a single eye witness. The only witness that saw the deceased in the company of A1 is PW4. Therefore, the last seen theory is applicable to this case and the evidence of 17 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 prosecution, more particularly PW4, has to be scrutinized in order to find out the guilt of the accused.

22.From the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, who are the brothers of deceased, it shows that PW1 lodged report on 11.08.2019 after finding the dead body of the deceased in the forest area of Padakal village after receiving information from the other villagers. The evidence of PW1 also shows that the deceased left the village on 07.08.2019 to go to Hyderabad and when he made a phone call to the deceased on the same day night, it was switched off and later he found the dead body of the deceased on 11.08.2019. The evidence of

PWs 1 and 2 further shows that the panchanama was held earlier in the village with regard to the illegal relationship of A1 and A2 and it was decided to stay away with each other.

23.PW3 is the person who initially found the dead body of the deceased while proceeding near that place and later he informed his villagers who inturn made calls to the neighbouring villagers and later it was found that the body pertains to the deceased who is brother of PWs 1 and 2 and further PWs 1 and 2 came to the dead body and identified it.

18 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

24.PW4 is the crucial witness in this case and the prosecution case rests entirely on him as he had last seen the deceased in the company of A1 on the date of incident. PW4 deposed that on 05.08.2019 he along with PW5 and LW7/Naresh observed the deceased with A1 under Tamarind tree and except PW4, all others consumed liquor and later went away. PW4 further deposed that on 07.08.2019, he observed A1 and the deceased near the petrol bunk at Midjil and on enquiry they stated that they came to Midjil to consume liquor and as such he went away and subsequently on 11.08.2019, he came to know about the death of the deceased and at that time he informed PWs 1 and 2 about his witnessing A1 and deceased together at Midjl on 07.08.2019. PW5 also deposed about meeting A1 and the deceased on 05.08.2019 and later consuming liquor. PWs 6 and 10 are panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama and seizure of material objects. PW6 did not support the said panchanama and he was declared hostile and he only deposed that the police obtained signature on some papers. The evidence of PW10 another panch witness also shows that no panchanama was conducted in his presence.

25.PW7 is also a witness who is said to have seen A1 and deceased near Sangaiapally gate. She only deposed that 19 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 about 4 years ago she get down the bus at Sangaiapally gate and observed one person who is taking away the deceased on his bike and she did not observe the said person as she saw him from back side. PW8 is the panch witness for inquest panchanama and his evidence shows that he observed the dead body of Mallesh in the mortuary and police conducted inquest panchanama on the body of the deceased.

26.PW9 is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama of accused. He deposed that on 16.08.2019 he along with LW14 went to the police station where they observed A1 with the police and on the instructions of police, they enquired A1 and A1 confessed the offence in which he committed the murder of the deceased and after recording the confession, police seized the bike bearing No. TS 06 ED 1948 under the proceedings marked as M.O.1 and further they proceeded to outskirts of Padakal village near forest, where A1 showed chappals as well as liquor bottle which were seized under seizure report and marked as M.O.2 and 3 respectively.

27.PW11 is the Assistant Professor, Gandhi Medical College. His evidence shows that he conducted Post Mortem examination on the body of the deceased and opined that he preserved vicera for the 20 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 purpose of analysis by the FSL and after receiving FSL report, he opined that the cause of death is due to organo-phosphate an insecticide poison.

28.PW12 is the FSL expert who analyzed the vicera and other material objects collected from the deceased and opined that items 1 and 2 contains organo-phosphate an insecticide poison, whereas nothing was found in items 3 and 4.

29.PWs 13 and 14 are the investigation officers and they deposed about registration of the case, conducting investigation and filing of charge sheet against the accused.

30.On the other hand, A1 himself examined as DW1 in support of his defence and got marked Exs.D1 to D3. He deposed that the entire land of father of PWs 1 and 2 and the deceased was entered in the name of PWs 1 and 2 only and the marriage of the deceased and

A2 is a love marriage and A2 belongs to Schedule Tribe community and there were disputes between deceased and his brothers, for which the deceased and A2 left the village. He deposed that he did not visit the house of the deceased and later the police obtained his signatures on blank papers and no panchanama was conducted in 21 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 his presence and he is no way connected with the murder of the deceased.

31.In order to find the guilt of the accused, the prosecution must prove all the circumstances mentioned above, beyond reasonable doubt and also the links between all the circumstances and if all the circumstances are taken cumulatively, they should form into a complete chain and there shall not be escape from the conclusion that with all human probability, the accused has committed the offence and none else. In the case and hand, the prosecution has to prove the circumstances 1 to 14 as mentioned above with the evidence available on record, beyond reasonable doubts.

32.Insofar as, circumstances (i) to (iii) are concerned, as alleged by the prosecution, there was illegal relationship between A1 and A2, for which a panchayath was held in the presence of elders and PWs 1 and 2 and later when the deceased objected for the continuation of the relationship, both A1 and A2 entered into conspiracy to do away the deceased and when the deceased went to his village, the accused decided to kill him. A perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 on this aspect shows that, a panchayath was held in the presence of village elders. Except the statement of PWs 1 and 2 on the said aspect, the 22 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 prosecution has not examined any of the elders of the panchayath.

PW1 even did not mention about the illegal relationship of A1 and A2 and also about the panchayath in the report/Ex.P1. It is only in their statement before the police, they mentioned about the said panchayath. Except the above evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that A1 and A2 had contacted each-other either personally or through phone to discuss their plan. The investigating officer has not collected the call data of both A1 and A2, in order to prove their conspiracy and that they were in touch on phone and A2 was intimating the movements of the deceased till the date of his death.

33.Insofar as the circumstance no.(iv) is concerned, the accused no.1 took the deceased on his motor cycle and purchased liquor in a wine shop and also NOMOR insecticide poison from Jaikisan

Fertilizers on 05.08.2019. Absolutely there is no evidence on record to prove that A1 purchased liquor in wine shop and also the insecticide poison in the fertilizer shop. The investigating officer has not examined not even a single witness, either at the wine shop or in the fertilizer shop to prove it. He did not even collect any CC Tv footage at both the places and also did not enquire about presence of 23 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

CC Tvs. He also did not make any effort to take A1 to the said shops for his identification by the shop owners.

34.The circumstance No.(v) shows that, after purchasing the liquor and insecticide poison, A1 was taking the deceased on his motor cycle in the outskirts of Talakondapally, where PWs 4 and 5 and one Nagesh met them and upon that, A1 could not implement his plan and all of them consumed liquor. The evidence of PWs 4 and 5 in this regard shows that, A1 and deceased sat under a

Tamarind tree after crossing Talakondapally, and on seeing them

PWs 4 and 5 and another sat with them and all of them except PW4 consumed liquor. From the above, it is clear that except seeing A1 and deceased near the above place, PWs 4 and 5 have not deposed any incriminating circumstances against A1.

35.The other circumstances (vi) to (viii) are that, A1 made a phone call to the deceased on the afternoon of 07.08.2019 inviting him to come to him to consume liquor and upon that A1 picked up the deceased near Sangaipally gate at about 3.15 PM and A1 purchased liquor in Venkateshwara wines, where they consumed it in the sitting room and further A1 purchased half bottle of the liquor and took the deceased on his motor cycle towards Padkal village and on 24 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 the way A1 purchased eatables (bajjilu) of Rs.40/- at which time,

PW4 saw them at about 5.30 PM. In this regard, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW4 again. As stated above, PW4 deposed that, he saw A1 and the deceased near the petrol bunk at

Midjil on 07.08.2019 and on enquiry they stated that they came to

Midjil to consume liquor and upon that he went away from that place and later, on 11.08.2019 he came to know about the death of the deceased. As per the confession of A1, PW4 only saw them at the above place and it does not contain that PW4 enquired them. PW4 admitted in his cross examination that, he got no prior acquaintance with A1 and for the first time, he saw A1 on 05.08.2019. He categorically admitted that, he was not called by the police to identify A1. He stated that he cannot say the date of death of the deceased, he also stated that he informed PWs 1 and 2 after one or two days of his observing the deceased at Midjil and he stated the same thing to the police. The prosecution has also examined PW7 as the person, who also saw the deceased and A1 together, but PW7 did not support the case of the prosecution and she was declared hostile. She only deposed that at about 11.00 AM she observed one person taking the deceased on bike at Sangaipally gate and she did not observe him as she saw him from back side. As per the case of the prosecution, PW7 saw the deceased with A1 at 2.30 PM.

25 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

Therefore, the evidence of PW7 is contrary to the case of the prosecution and is not helpful.

36. From the above cross examination of PW4, it has to be noted that, he has no prior acquaintance with A1 and he was not called by the police to identify A1. If this is the version of PW4, it is not known as to how A1 was identified as the person that moved with the deceased. No test identification parade was conducted by the police to identify A1 by PW4 or PW5 and another. Further aspect is that, PW4 informed PW1 on 11.08.2019 about A1 and deceased moving together and he again added that one or two days after the date of incident, he informed the same to PW1. If really PW4 had seen A1 with deceased, he must have informed the same to PW1, who is very much known to PW4 on or before 11.08.2019.

Admittedly, PW1 lodged report on 11.08.2019, after the dead body was traced out and even then PW1 did not mention about the information given by PW4 about the movements of deceased with A1.

When PW1 stated before the police on 11.08.2019 about the illegal relationship of A1 and A2, he must have mentioned about the presence of A1 with the deceased, if at all PW4 informed him about presence A1 and deceased together on the date of incident.

26 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

37. Further more, as per the case of the prosecution, A1 purchased liquor in Venkateshwara wines on 07.08.2019 and A1 and deceased consumed the same in the sitting room of the wines. The investigating officer has not enquired anybody or examined anyone near the said wines or did not collect any CC Tv footage to prove the presence of A1 and deceased near the wines. Absolutely, there is no evidence on behalf of prosecution to prove the circumstance of A1 purchasing liquor and consuming with deceased in the wines itself.

The investigating officer also not examined any person from whom

A1 purchased the eatables (bajjilu) near the petrol bunk.

38.Insofar as circumstances (ix), (x), (xiii) and (xiv) are concerned,

A1 took the deceased towards Padkal village as per the preplan to do away him and on the way he picked up the mobile phone of the deceased without his knowledge and thew it away somewhere by switching it off and later took the deceased to check-dam no.1 in the reserved forest where he mixed NOMOR insecticide poison in the liquor by mixing water and offered it to the deceased, resulting in his death within (15) minutes and later threw the dead body at some distance and kept the NOMOR empty bottle near the dead body and hidden the chappal of the deceased and empty liquor bottle in the nearby bushes and subsequently, the police visited the scene of 27 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 offence and seized NOMOR bottle under cover of panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses/PWs 6 and 10. The prosecution has relied on the confession of accused and seizure of the material objects/M.Os 1 to 4 in order to establish the above circumstances.

39.The evidence of investigating officer/PW13 shows that, after issuing FIR, he proceeded to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PWs 6 and 10/independent panch witnesses and also seized M.O4/NOMOR bottle from the spot and later shifted the dead body to the hospital.

As admitted by PW13 in his cross examination, initially the case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C and the inquest was not conducted in the presence of Tahsildar and he did not take the finger print expert to the scene of offence and dog squad. He also admitted that, he did not take the photographs of the NOMOR bottle on the spot. From the above admissions of PW13, it is very much clear that, he has not taken the photographs of the dead body at the scene of offence. The photographs filed by him in the court appears to have been taken after shifting the dead body from the scene of offence.

The evidence of independent panch witnesses/PWs 6 and 10 shows that, they have not supported the scene of offence and seizure panchanama. None of the panch witnesses deposed about 28 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 conducting panchanama at the scene of offence or the seizure of

NOMOR bottle near the dead body. The case of the prosecution is that the plan of A1 is that, he made arrangements by placing the

NOMOR bottle near the dead body to presume that the deceased committed suicide by consuming the pesticide. In the said circumstances, the duty of the investigating officer is to establish the purchase of NOMOR bottle. Except mentioning the name of the fertilizer shop, the investigating officer has not collected any evidence or examined anybody to prove it. The only evidence remained on record is the confession of accused with regard to the murder of the deceased.

40.As per the evidence of PW9, A1 confessed the murder of the deceased and in pursuance of the said confession, they proceeded to the outskirts of Padikal village near the forest and accused no.1 shown the chappal and liquor bottle/M.Os 2 and 3 and they were seized by the police under cover of panchanama. The confession panchanama does not show that the accused showed the place where he committed the offence and also where he threw the dead body. Further, the evidence of PW9 or the investigating officer/PW13 does not show that the accused, himself taken out

M.Os 2 and 3 from the place where they were hidden. No 29 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 photographs were taken at the scene of offence to prove that M.Os 2 and 3 were seized in the presence of PW9. The entire case of the prosecution has been relied on the confession statement of accused.

As per section 26 of Evidence Act, the confession made before the police officer is inadmissible in court and same cannot be used against the accused to prove the truth of the statement or any other fact related to the crime.

41.The circumstance No.(xi) as mentioned above deals with the communication between A1 and A2 and that A1 informed A2 through phone about implementing their plan of eliminating the deceased and thereafter A1 went to Hyderabad, attended his driver duty and again returned to village on 16.08.2019, on which the police arrested him. As can be seen from the evidence of investigating officers and as admitted by them, absolutely there is no evidence to prove that A1 made a phone call to A2 on 07.08.2019, immediately after the incident. As per the confession of A1, he picked up the mobile phone of deceased and threw it some where by switching it off. The investigating officer has not made any effort to trace out the said phone and the accused did not lead the police to the place where he threw the mobile phone. Further more, the investigating officers have not collected the call data of phone 30 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 numbers of both A1 and A2 to prove the communication between them throughout the episode. They also did not make any effort to seize the mobile phone from A2. The investigating officers have also not examined the owner of A1 to prove the reporting of A1 to duty during the period from 01.08.2019 to 16.08.2019.

42.Insofar as the circumstance No.(xii) is concerned, the prosecution story is that, PW3 found the dead body of a male person at the scene of offence and he informed the same to his villagers, who in-turn informed the same to PWs 1 and 2 and PWs 1 and 2 came to the spot and identified the dead body. The evidence of PW3 in this regard shows that, on observing the dead body, he called the villagers and they made phone calls to the neighbouring villagers and upon which, PWs 1 and 2 came and identified the dead body.

PW3 admitted in his cross examination that, he did not see anything except the dead body. PW3 did not take the photograph of the deceased and he did not find anything near the dead body. If really

PWs 1 to 3 have seen the dead body at the scene of offence, they must have already seen the NOMOR bottle near the body.

43.In the light of the above discussion, as mentioned above, this court has mentioned the circumstances (i) to (xiv) based on the case 31 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 of the prosecution. As discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove some of the important circumstances, which it relied to find that the accused no.1 alone has committed the murder of the deceased. As discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential circumstances with cogent evidence. The main case of the prosecution is that, A1 committed murder of the deceased by administering insecticide poison in the liquor to the deceased. The prosecution has failed to prove the purchase of NOMOR insecticide poison from Jaikisan Fertilizers by A1 and also failed to prove the seizure of the said empty bottle from near the dead body of the deceased as both the independent panch witnesses/PWs 6 and 10 have not supported the seizure of the bottle/M.O4. Further more, the prosecution also failed to prove that A1 and deceased purchased liquor and they together consumed it in Venkateshwara wines in the permit room. The prosecution also failed to prove that A1 made phone call to deceased inviting him to consume liquor by collecting call data of A1 or the deceased. In addition to it, the prosecution also failed to collect call data of the phone numbers of A1 and A2 to establish the conspiracy between them to kill the deceased and also communicating the movements of the deceased from time to time for about two weeks.

32 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

44.Another important aspect is that, as per the case of the prosecution and evidence of scientific expert, the cause of death of the deceased is due to consumption of organ-phosphate an insecticide. The case of the prosecution is that the accused no.1 administered the insecticide poison by mixing it in the liquor. As per the FSL report, The insecticide poison was found in items No.(i) and

(ii) i.e., stomach and piece of intestine collected from the deceased and pieces of liver and kidney. PW12/FSL expert admitted in her cross examination that, the presence of alcohol is not there and there was no presence of insecticide poison in item No.(iv) i.e., empty plastic tin labeled as “NOMOR”. Even PW11/Assistant Professor admitted that, there is no presence of alcohol as mentioned in the

FSL report. The investigating officer has not confirmed that the

NOMOR bottle contains the organ-phosphate by examining the owner of fertilizer shop.

45.The learned counsel for the accused has contended that, the police have conducted table investigation and filed false case against the accused. The record shows that, initially the case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C and after the confession of accused it was altered to 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC. Strangely, as admitted by investigating officer/PW14, as on the date of recording the statement 33 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 of PWs 4 and 5, the case is still under section 174 Cr.P.C., but their statements show the offence under section 302, 201 and 120-B IPC.

A1 was arrested on 16.08.2019 and later he confessed the offence.

The investigating officer has conducted the scene of offence panchanama and seized NOMOR bottle on 11.08.2019. Strangely, the said panchanama also contains the offence under Section 302, 201, 120-B IPC. All the above instances clearly shows that, the investigating officers have conducted perfunctory investigation.

Since the case mostly rests on circumstantial evidence without any eye witness, the investigating agency must be cautious in gathering the evidence to link the circumstances so as to find the guilt of the accused.

46. As discussed above, the entire case of the prosecution depends on last seen theory under which circumstances, the prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts without leaving any doubt and seen that the chain of circumstances is complete without leaving any missing link. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Jabir and others case (supra) clearly held that, the last seen doctrine has limited application where the time gap between the deceased was seen last with the accused and the time of murder is narrow, and further more the court should not convict an accused 34 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 only on the basis of the last seen circumstance. In the present case as discussed above, except the evidence of PW4, who has last seen the deceased with A1, there is no other evidence on record in respect of the involvement of A1. However, the evidence of PW4 is inconsistent inasmuch as A1 is a stranger and he was not called to identify A1 after his apprehension. As discussed above, while dealing with these circumstances of the case, it has been observed that, the investigating officer has failed to collect evidence to prove many aspects to link the circumstances and there are several missing links in this case, more particularly, the purchase of

NOMOR poison bottle and its seizure. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution must lead to the conclusion of guilt only and they should not leave any ambiguity or inconsistency. The circumstances, if proved must lead to the only conclusion of guilt of accused and none else. As discussed above, it can be held that, the circumstances do not lead to the conclusion of guilt of accused and there are many missing links to form the chain of events in the case of prosecution. Further more, there is absolutely no evidence to prove the involvement of A2, who is the wife of deceased as the investigating officer has failed to collect the call data of the accused to prove their communication with regard to implement their plan to eliminate the deceased in pursuance of their conspiracy. Therefore, 35 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025 it can be held that, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have entered into conspiracy of killing the deceased and accordingly, A1 killed the deceased and screened the evidence to disappear to escape from the offence, and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

47.In the result, both the accused are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall be in force for a period of (6) months as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1/motor cycle shall be returned to its original owner, after expiry of appeal time. M.Os 2 to 4 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by by me in the open Court, on this the 16 th day of June, 2025.

XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, R.R.District at Shadnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined) For the prosecution: PW1Meesala Rajender 36 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

PW2Meesala Ashok

PW3 Kethavath Naresh

PW4Daruvula Anjaneyulu

PW5B.Narsimha

PW6Kadamoni Ravi

PW7Vimalamma

PW8P.Thirupathaiah

PW9K.Krishnaiah

PW10R.Ramulu

PW11Dr.Ch.Sandeep

PW12D.Sujyothi Rani

PW13P.Suresh Yadav

PW14K.Narsimha Reddy

For the defence:

DW1Meesala Lalaih

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the prosecution:

Ex.P1Report.

Ex.P2The signature of PW6 on crime details form.

Ex.P3The signature of PW6 on seizure panchanama.

Ex.P4The relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7.

Ex.P5Inquest panchanama.

Ex.P6Seizure report.

Ex.P7The signature of PW10 on crime details form.

Ex.P8The signature of PW10 on observation of panchanama.

Ex.P9Postmortem examination report.

Ex.P10 FSL report.

Ex.P11 FIR.

37 Of 37 S.C.No. 163 of 2022 Date:16.06.2025

Ex.P12 Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P13 Observation of scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P14 Section alteration memo.

For the defence:

Ex.D1Certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 2007 and 2008.

Ex.D2Online Dharani record showing the name of Meesala Rajender in respect of land in Sy.No.525/2E/4/1 in respect of Ac.1.10 gts.,.

Ex.D3Online Dharani record showing the name of Meesala Ashok in respect of land in Sy.No.5252E/4/2 in respect of Ac.1.10 gts.,.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Bike bearing No.TS 06 ED 1948. M.O.2: Officer’s Choice liquor bottle. M.O.3: Chappals of deceased. M.O.4: NOMOR rat poison bottle.

XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, R.R.District at Shadnagar.

1 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT SHADNAGAR

PRESENT: P. Anjaneyulu, Fast Track Special Judge, R.R.District, at Rajendranagar. FAC. Spl. Sessions Judge, for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, R.R.District, At Shadnagar.

Monday, this the 8th day of September, 2025

Spl. Sessions Case No.357 of 2020

(Crime No.66 of 2020 of P.S. Madgul, Cyberabad)

1 Name of the complainant The State of Telangana through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Division.

2 Name of the accusedMeravath Srinu @ Charan S/o Kadiya, Age:23 years, Caste: ST-Lambada, Occ:Tractor driver, R/o.Rajeevnagar Tanda, H/o.Kolukulapally village of Madgul Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distrtict.

3 Offences charged of Under sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 323, 506 of IPC and section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

4 Crime No.& Name of the 66 of 2020 of P.S. Madgul, Cyberabad. PS 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

6 Finding of the CourtFound guilty.

7 Sentence or order In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 323, 506 of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly he is convicted under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C 2 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 for the said offences. The accused has to be questioned with regard to quantum of sentence which is to be imposed on him for the above offences.

Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence. He stated that, his first wife died and that he has two small children through second wife and that he has old age parents and all of them are depended on him and he is the only person to look after the entire family and hence, prayed to show mercy and take a lenient view.

In view of the facts of the case and the nature of offence, this court is not inclined to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. In view of the plea of accused on the quantum of sentence, his age and the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is sentenced as follows:

The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty (20) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousands) in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC and section 5(l) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act, in view of Section 42 of POCSO Act.

The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months, for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC.

3 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025

The accused is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year, for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC.

All the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of judicial custody already undergone by accused shall be set off, under section 428 Cr.P.C. M.O1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. The accused is at liberty to prefer appeal and can avail legal aid if required.

In view of the nature of the offence and the sufferance undergone by the victim/PW2 out of the sexual assault committed against her, this court feels it proper to award compensation to her. In view of the above circumstances, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) is awarded as victim compensation to the victim/PW2 payable from the Victim Compensation Fund. The copy of judgment shall be forwarded to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District for payment of compensation.

8 Name of the Prosecution Sri M.Shekara Chary, Spl. Public counselProsecutor 9 Name of the Defence Sri U.Jagan, Advocate for accused counsel

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Shekara Chary, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri U.Jagan, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:

4 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025

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

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ibrahimpatnam

Division filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 323, 506 of IPC and section 5(l) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that the victim girl and the accused are relatives. About 6 months ago, the victim was alone in the house and at that time the accused went to her house, closed the doors and asked her sexual favour by hugging her. The victim got angry and tried to beat him, but he escaped from that place and again he returned after 5 minutes and threatened to kill her parents if she revealed the incident to anyone. On 12.06.2020 at 2:00 p.m when LW2/victim was working in their fields, the accused went there, caught hold her tightly and forcibly took her to hill area and sexually assaulted her. Thereafter, the accused sexually assaulted the victim several times by threatening her not to reveal the same to her parents. On 14.06.2020 having vexed with the torture of the accused, the victim girl tried to commit suicide in her house, but on seeing it her aunt/LW3 rescued her. On 16.06.2020 at 8:00 a.m, when the victim and her father/LW4 were 5 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 working in their fields, the accused went there and caught hold her from behind and when she shouted, her father came there and tried to catch the accused, but the accused beat him with a stone and fled away from the spot.

On receiving report from the complainant/LW1/mother of victim to the above effect, LW15/S.I of Police registered a case in Cr.

No.66 of 2020 for the offence under sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 323, 506 of IPC and section 5(l) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation,

LW16/Inspector of Police examined the complainant and other witnesses. The statement of victim was recorded by the woman police officer. Later he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators. The victim was referred to Community Health Centre, Kalvakurthy where she was examined by the woman medical officer and collected vaginal swabs for analysis. On 19.06.2020 the accused was apprehended and on interrogation in the presence of panch witnesses/LWs 8 and 9, the accused confessed the commission of offence. The accused was produced before the medical officer/LW11, who conducted potency test and issued certificate. Basing on the

FSL report, medical officer/LW10 gave final opinion stating that 6 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 sexual assault cannot be ruled out. The statement of the victim was recorded by the Judicial Officer under section 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, LW17 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The Hon’ble I Addl.District and Sessions Judge at

Mahabubnagar took cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 323, 506 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012 and registered as Spl. SC.No. 357 of 2020.

4.By virtue of orders dated 29.10.2020 vide

Dis.No.2819/2020 of the Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar the case was transferred to this court for trial and disposal and directed the accused to appear before the court on next date of hearing.

5.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.Heard the Counsel for the accused and the Spl. Public

Prosecutor on the charge. Charges under sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 323, 506 of IPC and section 5 (l) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 have 7 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the vernacular language under section 228 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined,

PWs 1 to 14 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10 and M.O.1.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the said incriminating material and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9.Heard the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

10.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 323, 506 of IPC and section 5(l) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012?”

POINT

11.The charges leveled against the accused is that the accused committed rape on the minor victim girl/PW2 several times 8 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 and threatened her and also caused simple hurt to PW3 and thereby committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl.

12.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs 1 to 14. PW1 is the complainant and mother of victim girl. PW2 is the victim girl. PW3 is the father of the victim girl. PW4 is aunt of victim girl, PW5 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama, PW6 is the head master who issued bonafide certificate of the victim, PW7 is the panch witness for confession panchanama of accused. PW8 is the medical officer, who examined the victim girl, PW10 is the medical officer who conducted potency test on accused, PW9 is the woman head constable who recorded the statement of victim and PWs 11 to 14 are the investigation officers.

13. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused who is relative of the victim came to her house to fulfill his sexual desire with victim/PW2 and he threatened her not to inform the same to anybody and subsequently, the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim girl several times by threatening her and that on 14.06.2020 the victim attempted to commit suicide due to the sexual assault by the accused, but she was rescued by her aunt/PW4 and that on 16.06.2020 when the accused again tried to 9 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 commit sexual assault on the victim, her father came there and on seeing him the accused tried to beat him with a stone and thereby the accused had committed offence under sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 323, 506 of IPC and section 5(l) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

14.Section 29 of POCSO Act deals with presumption of the commission of offences falling under sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of

POCSO Act against the person prosecuted, unless the contrary is proved. Section 30 of POCSO Act also deals with presumption as to the culpable mental state and the Special Court should presume its existence. The explanation to section 30 reads that culpable mental state includes; intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in or reason to believe a fact. In view of sections 29 and 30 of POCSO

Act, the initial burden is on the prosecution to establish the offence against the accused by laying foundational facts through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. In the above circumstances, it has to be seen whether the prosecution has laid the foundation for drawing the presumptions under sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act.

15. The evidence of PW1 shows that she is the complainant and mother of victim. Her evidence in brief shows that about 3 or 4 years ago on 14th June at about 1:00 p.m, the victim girl/PW2 10 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 attempted to strangulate herself in the house and at that time, her aunt/PW4 came to her house and rescued her by opening the door and that on the next day, PW4 informed her about the incident stating that on her enquiry, the victim/PW2 revealed that the accused committed rape on her daughter for 4 to 5 times by threatening to kill her parents and brother. PW1 further deposed that on the next day she sent her husband/PW3 to the fields and also sent food to him through the victim and at that time, the accused came to the fields, caught hold the victim, for which she raised cries and on hearing the same, her husband came there and enquired her and also rescued her and upon the said incident she lodged report Ex.P1 to the police.

16. PW2 is the victim girl and she deposed before the court that about 4 or 5 years ago, the accused started harassing her to fulfill his sexual desire and also hugged her by entering into her house but she necked out him stating that she is his sister by relation and 5 minutes thereafter the accused again came to her house and threatened her not to inform the incident to anybody. She further deposed that 10 days thereafter, the accused again came to their fields when she was present there and expressed sorry and offered cool drink to her and when she was consuming the cool 11 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 drink, the accused caught hold her and took her to nearby hills and forcibly enjoyed her physically and he also threatened her to kill her brother if she reveals the incident and thereafter the accused enjoyed her physically for 2 or 3 times under the same threat and inspite of her repeated requests, the accused did not leave her. She further deposed that on 12.06.2020 in the afternoon, she went to the fields and at that time the accused caught hold her, threatened and dragged her to the fields and enjoyed her physically. She also deposed that on 14.06.2020 she attempted to commit suicide in her house by hanging to the ceiling at 1:00 p.m, but PW4/her aunt came and rescued her and on enquiry she revealed about the acts of accused and having physical relations with her for the last 6 months. She further deposed that on 15.06.2020 at 6:00 p.m, her parents returned from the fields and at that time, PW4 informed them about her committing suicide and also about her relationship with accused and that on 16.06.2020 in the morning hours, the victim went to the fields to give food to her father and at that time also, the accused came from behind and gagged her mouth, but she released from him and raised cries and upon hearing the same, her father came there and rescued her from the accused by pushing him, but the accused beat her father with a stone and escaped from that place and thereafter they lodged report with the police and later 12 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 she was referred to Government Hospital for medical examination and her statement was recorded by the police and Judicial Officer.

17. PW3 is the father of the victim girl and he also deposed about the sexual assault of the accused against his daughter several times and also the incident of attempt to commit suicide by his daughter in the house. PW3 further deposed that on one day i.e 16th

PW2 came to the fields to serve food to him and when she was present near mango tree, the accused came behind her and caught hold her, for which PW2 raised cries and upon hearing the said cries he came to PW2 and found the accused hugging PW2 and on seeing him, the accused left his daughter, picked up a stone and threw it on him, but he escaped and thereafter they returned home and lodged report to the police.

18. PW4 is the aunt of the victim girl and as per her evidence, on 14th day at 1:00 p.m she went to the house of victim and rescued her when she was attempting to commit suicide by strangulating to the ceiling and that on enquiry, the victim disclosed about the sexual assault committed by the accused against her several times by threatening her to kill her family members. She further deposed that she informed about the incident as stated by 13 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025

PW2 to her parents on the next day and upon that on the second day PWs 1 and 3 lodged report with the police.

19. PW5 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and he deposed that the police called him to the fields of one Venkataiah, where PW2 victim was present and showed the scene of offence and upon that the police conducted panchanama in his presence. PW6 is the Head Master and he issued bonafide certificate of PW2/victim, as per which, the date of birth of the victim is 02.10.2004. PW7 is the panch witness for confession panchanama of accused and his evidence shows that on 19.06.2020 at about 10:00 am went to the PS Madgul where the accused was present with the police and on his request he enquired the accused and the accused confessed about the sexual assault against the victim girl for the last 6 months and that on 16.06.2020 when the accused was attempting to commit rape on the victim her father witnessed the same and rescued her and the accused escaped from there by pelting stone on her father. He also deposed that the accused also stated that he is being called as Meravath Srinu but his

Aadhar card shows his name as Maravath Charan.

14 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025

20. PW8 is the medical officer and her evidence shows that she examined the victim/PW2 and collected vaginal swabs, pubic hair for analysis and also collected her cloths and on physical examination, she found scratch marks on the frontal neck and she also observed suture in the vagina and after receiving FSL report, she gave final opinion stating that the sexual assault on the victim cannot be ruled out.

21. PW9 is the woman police officer who recorded the statement of victim/PW2 at her residence. PW10 is the medical officer who conducted potency test on accused and issued opinion stating that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing the sexual intercourse. PWs 11 to 14 are the investigation officers and they deposed about the investigation done by them and filing of charge sheet against the accused.

22. From a perusal of evidence of victim/PW2 and other witnesses/PWs 1, 3 and 4, who are her parents and aunt, it clearly shows that their evidence is supporting the case of the prosecution on all aspects. From a reading of the evidence of PW2/victim, it is very much clear that the accused is none other than the close relative and he is her brother by relation and that the accused 15 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 followed her to fulfill his sexual desire and when she refused the same, by mentioning the relationship between them, the accused threatened her to kill her brother and parents and upon the said threatening, he had sexual intercourse with her for about 4 times.

Her evidence further shows that as the accused was not stopping the sexual assault inspite of her resistance, the victim finally decided to commit suicide and accordingly, when she attempted to commit suicide in her house in the absence of family members, her aunt/PW4 rescued her and on enquiry the victim revealed about the acts of accused to PW4. The evidence of PW2 further shows that even after her attempt to commit suicide, the accused tried to commit rape on her on 16.06.2020. but her father/PW3 came and rescued her on hearing her cries and then the accused tried to beat

PW3 with a stone and escaped. The above version of PW2/victim with regard to sexual assault against her by the accused and her attempt to commit suicide and later her rescue by her father from the accused, has been well corroborated by PWs 1, 3 and 4.

23. PW1 is the mother of the victim and also the complainant in this case. Her evidence as mentioned above is clearly supporting the case of the prosecution and also corroborating the version of

PW2/victim on all aspects. As per her version, PW4 informed her 16 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 about the acts of accused on the victim girl on the evening of 15th.

She also corroborated the incident of attempt of committing suicide by the victim in her house. Her evidence further shows that on 16th the victim girl went to the fields to give food to her father and at that time, the accused attempted to commit rape on her as was done earlier, but on interference of her husband/PW3, the accused escaped from that place. The evidence of PW3/father of victim is also corroborating the evidence of PW2 with regard to the earlier sexual assault by the accused on her. His evidence is also corroborating the version of PW2/victim that on 16th the victim came to the fields to serve food to him and when she stayed near the mango tree, the accused came to her from behind, caught hold her, for which the victim raised cries and upon that, he went there and saw the accused hugging PW2 and upon that, he rescued from the accused and that on seeing him, the accused picked up a stone and threw it on him, but he escaped and later the accused also escaped from that place. From the above version of PW3, it is very much clear that PW3 is the eye witness to the incident that happened on 16th June, wherein he had seen the accused hugging PW2/victim and also deposed about the attack of the accused on him.

17 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025

24.The version of PW2/victim before the court is very much corroborated by her statement before the Judge under section 164

Cr.P.C, wherein she categorically stated about the acts of sexual assault against her by the accused. Further, the statements of

PWs 1 and 4 before the Judge under section 164 Cr.P.C are also corroborating their respective versions before the court and also the evidence of PW2/victim.

25. PW4 is the aunt of PW2/victim. As per her evidence, she rescued the victim from committing suicide and on her enquiry the victim revealed the entire incident wherein the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim several times by threatening her and upon that she informed the same to PW1. The above version of

PW4 is clearly corroborating the version of PW2/victim about the acts of the accused and also her attempt to commit suicide in her house. From the above appreciation of the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 including the victim, it clearly goes to show that their evidence is consistent throughout and is well corroborated with each other to the extent that the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim girl/PW2, who is a minor, several times by threatening to kill her family members.

18 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025

26. Insofar as the medical evidence is concerned, PW2/victim was examined by the medical officer/PW8 in Community Health

Center, Kalvakurthy. Her evidence shows that she examined the victim/PW2 and collected vaginal swabs, pubic hair and also her cloths and on physical examination she found scratch marks on the frontal neck of victim. She further observed suture in the vagina.

PW8 gave final opinion stating that sexual assault on the victim cannot be ruled out. The evidence of PW8 is clearly corroborating the version of PW2/victim with regard to sexual assault against her and also corroborating her version about her attempt to commit suicide, as is evident from the scratch marks on her frontal neck.

27. As per the case of the prosecution, the victim/PW2 was minor at the time of incident and she studied upto 10th class by that time. The investigation officer has collected the bonafide certificate of the victim from the school where she studied 6th to 10th class during 2015 to 2020. As per the bonafide certificate/Ex.P5, the date of birth is 02.10.2004, that means the victim was aged below 16 years by the date of offence.

28. The above discussion clearly shows that the victim/PW2 was minor and aged below 16 years at the time of incident and the 19 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 accused is her brother by relation. The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 who are the crucial witnesses and also eye witnesses is clearly supporting the case of the prosecution with regard to the sexual assault committed by the accused against the victim and further, the medical evidence is also corroborating the evidence of

PW2/victim. Therefore, it can be held that the prosecution has established the foundational facts with regard to the offence charged against the accused and hence, the presumptions under sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act shall be drawn against the accused to the effect that the accused has committed the offence with intention, knowledge and belief of the facts. In view of drawing of above presumptions, the burden shifts on accused to rebut the same by establishing preponderance of probabilities either through the defence evidence or by cross examining the prosecution witnesses.

29. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence, but he thoroughly cross examined the prosecution witnesses. The counsel

for the accused argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the

foundational facts to draw the presumptions under sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act, which is not automatic and as the prosecution has failed to discharge its initial burden of proving foundational facts, the accused is entitled for acquittal. In support of the said 20 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 contention, he relied on the decision of Madurai Bench of Madras

High Court in Mariappan vs. The Inspector of Police in

Crl.A(MD).No.78 of 2023. He argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was minor at the time of incident and thereby failed to comply the directions given by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Jarnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7

SCC 263. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court for the

State of Telangana in Pailla Anjaneyulu vs. State of Telangana in

Crl.A.No.509 of 2021. He further argued that the medical evidence

is not supporting the evidence of PW2/victim with regard to the sexual assault committed against her. The main defence of accused is that due to disputes between the family of victim and accused with regard to watering the fields, a false case was filed against the accused.

30.The counsel for the accused has drawn the attention of this court to the cross examination of prosecution witnesses and argued that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, including the victim, is suffering from omissions and contradictions and hence, the same cannot be relied upon to establish the foundational facts in favour of the prosecution. PW1, who is the complainant and mother of the victim, admitted that the accused is the son of her brother-in-law 21 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 and he is her son by relation. She admitted that they did not complain the matter to the police on 15th June, as they thought of placing the same before the elders. She stated that the victim alone went to the fields to give food to her husband and her other children stayed in the house. The land of accused and her brother-in-law/Chander were situated adjacent to their lands and the accused has to go to his fields in front of her lands and that they dug a bore well in their fields and so also the accused. PW1 denied the suggestion that they created a story in view of water disputes between them and accused.

31.PW2/victim admitted in her cross examination that on her request, PW4 did not inform her parents about her suicide attempt and on 15.06.2020 she informed her parents about the same. She stated that her sisters and brother were playing outside the school as there were holidays to the school on 14.06.2020. She stated that PW4 saw through the window and forcibly opened the door and entered the house and rescued her. She also stated that on 15.06.2020 at 6.00 pm, PW4 informed her parents about the incident and on the next day, her father went to their fields and she was present near her father at a distance, which can be covered in 2 or 3 minutes. She admitted that she does not remember the dates of 22 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 other incidents and one incident occurred on 12.06.2020 at 2.00 pm. She also stated that there are no disputes between her family and that of accused and she never underwent any surgery. She denied the suggestion that she stated in 164 Cr.P.C statement that she came to the court to speak about the issue of her adapaduchu.

32.In the cross examination of PW3, who is father of victim, he admitted that he does not remember the month and year of the incident and that PW2 did not go to school on the date of incident and other children went to school. He stated that on 14th , he and his wife were in fields and PW4 did not inform them about the incident on the same day keeping in view the prestige of family. He stated that the lands of himself and accused are not abutting each other. He stated that it will take 10 minutes to reach the distance between him and his daughter in the fields and nobody was working in the neighbouring fields at the time of incident. He denied the suggestion that a false case was filed against the accused in view of disputes between them with regard to digging of bore well by them.

33.PW4 is aunt of the victim and in her cross examination she stated that her house is situated two lanes after the house of

PWs 1 to 3. She stated that the door was closed by the time she went 23 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 to the house of PW2 and she saw her through the window and the door was not bolted from inside and as such, she opened it and she rescued PW2 with the help of a chair. She further stated that PWs 1 and 3 went to the fields on 14th June and returned in the evening and the other three children went to agricultural fields at the time of incident. She admitted that she stated before the Judge in 164

Cr.P.C statement that on 16th while PW3 was working in the field, the accused came there and attempted to commit rape on victim/PW2.

She also denied the suggestion that due to previous disputes between both the families, she was deposing false.

34.From a perusal of the information elicited and the admissions made by PWs 1 to 4, who are the material witnesses to the case of prosecution, it is clear that the above admissions and the omissions in their evidence are only minor in nature and they cannot go to the root of the prosecution case to discard the entire version of PWs 1 to 4. Except the above discrepancies and minor omissions, there are no material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 to disbelieve their entire version with regard to the accused committing sexual assault on the victim several times. As discussed above, the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is clearly corroborating with each other on material aspects. The offence 24 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 occurred in the year 2020 and the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 has been recorded after 4 years and thereby naturally, there is every possibility of eliciting minor omissions and contradictions in their previous versions. On the other hand, the accused has failed to elicit any material omissions and contradictions through the above witnesses to establish that a false case was foisted against the accused due to previous disputes over the land. It is clear that the accused is the close relative of the witnesses and he is related as brother by relation to the victim. The accused has not made out any other probability for PWs 1 to 3 to lodge a false report against the accused. Even if it is presumed that there were family disputes between both the families, PWs 1 and 2 would not go to the extent of filing a false case against the accused at the cost of supreme character of their minor daughter. In the above circumstances, it can be held that the accused has failed to elicit preponderance of probabilities in the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 to discharge his burden and establish that he has not committed the offence with intention or knowledge of the facts. Therefore, the contention of the counsel

for the accused that the prosecution has failed to prove the

foundational facts to draw presumptions under sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act, cannot be accepted and on the other hand, the accused has failed to rebut the presumptions on the above aspect.

25 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025

35.The further contention of the accused is that the medical evidence on record is not supporting the case of prosecution with regard to the alleged sexual assault committed against the victim/PW2. It is contended that semen and spermatozoa were not detected on the samples collected by medical officer/PW8 and in view of the same, the final opinion given by PW8 that sexual assault on the victim cannot be ruled out, cannot be accepted and therefore, the evidence of PW2/victim is not corroborating with the medical evidence. It is also contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim through medical evidence, attracting the offence under section 5 of

POCSO Act. In this regard, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the evidence of PW2/victim, who only deposed that the accused forcibly enjoyed her physically for 2 to 3 times. Taking aid of this version, the counsel has argued that there is no penetration and hence, section 5 of POCSO Act does not attract.

36.The investigating officer/PW11 deposed before the court that he received a report from PW1 and registered a case for the offence under sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 323 of IPC and section 5 r/w. 6 of POCSO Act. A perusal of the report/Ex.P1 clearly shows 26 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 that, the accused removed the clothes of victim in the hill area and enjoyed her by sleeping over her forcibly by threatening her. The statement of PW2/victim under section 164 Cr.P.C also shows that the accused committed rape on her in the fields by threatening to kill her family members. The above version of PWs 1 and 2 clearly shows that the accused has committed rape forcibly on the victim.

Insofar as the medical evidence is concerned, PW8/medical officer deposed that she examined the victim girl/PW2 and observed suture in the vagina and finally she gave opinion stating that sexual assault cannot be ruled out. She admitted in her cross examination that she did not obtain the consent of mother of victim before examination and she found stich thread of around one inch and it appears to have done within 24 hours. PW8 also stated that she found scratch marks on the frontal neck of the victim, which is clearly corroborating the version of PW2 with regard to her attempt to commit suicide. The contention of the accused is that as admittedly the mother of victim stood outside the examination room, her consent was not obtained to examine the victim, which is mandatory under the provisions of POCSO Act and Rules. The medical evidence is only a corroborative piece of evidence and it can only be looked into in support of the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Since the evidence of victim, which is well corroborated by the other witnesses, 27 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 is clinchingly establishing that the accused committed rape on her several times, the medical evidence that the possibility of sexual assault on the victim cannot be ruled out, can be accepted as a corroboration to the evidence of victim. In this regard, in a latest decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhanei Prasad @ Raju vs.

State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2025 INSC 934, held that the testimony of a child victim, if found credible and trustworthy, required no corroboration. In the light of above discussion, the decision relied on by the counsel for the accused in Mariappan’s case (supra) cannot be relied upon as the facts are entirely different to the case on hand.

37.The counsel for the accused further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of victim as on the date of offence and hence, the offence charged under the provisions of

POCSO Act does not attract to the facts of the case. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of Honb’le Supreme Court in

Jarnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, (supra) wherein it was held that; (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificate, if available and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended, and in the absence whereof;

(iii) the birth certificate given by corporation or municipal authority 28 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 or a panchayath are very much required to prove the age of the victim. By relying on the above decision, the learned counsel argued that the entry made in the school register is incorrect and no supporting document is filed along with Ex.P5/bonafide certificate to prove the age of victim and in fact, the victim appears to be aged more than 18 years.

38.The prosecution has relied on the bonafide certificate/Ex.P5 issued by the school headmaster/PW6 to establish the age of the victim/PW2 as below 16 years by the date of offence.

As per Ex.P5, the date of birth of victim is 02.10.2004 and the victim studied from 6th to 10th class in ZPHS school during 2015-2020. As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the victim completed 10th class by the date of offence. It appears that the victim studied the previous classes in another school. PW6/headmaster admitted in his cross examination that basing on the transfer certificate furnished by the victim in the 6th class, they entered the date of birth in their records. It is a general practice that the parents would enter the age of the children in the first school in which they take admission. As per Ex.P5, the victim was aged below 16 years and probably the same would have been communicated to the SSC Board by the school authorities as the victim completed 10th class. The Hon’ble 29 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025

Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh’s case had also accepted the certificate issued by the school.

39.In addition to the above, as per section 34(2) of POCSO

Act, the Special Court is empowered to determine the age of a child after satisfying itself. In this case, PW6/headmaster issued

Ex.P5/bonafide certificate basing on the school record and previous transfer certificate furnished by the victim and further the same date of birth as mentioned in Ex.P5 might have been communicated to the SSC Board. In the above circumstances, this court has come to the conclusion that the date of birth mentioned in Ex.P5 can be relied upon as the correct one. Therefore, the contention of the accused in this regard cannot be accepted.

40.The learned counsel for the accused also contended that the name of accused has been mentioned in charge sheet as

Meravath Srinu @ Charan, but the prosecution has failed to file any document to prove that the accused is also being called as Srinu @

Charan. The record shows that from the beginning the name of the accused has been mentioned as Meravath Srinu @ Charan and in fact, the accused himself signed as M.Charan @ Srinu in the notice issued under section 50 Cr.P.C at the time of his arrest. Even the 30 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 accused himself signed as M.Srinu @ Charan in the memo of appearance dated 05.12.2022 and further he filed the bail petition with the same name as mentioned above. However, the accused is not a stranger to PW2/victim and he is close relative to them and the identification of the accused by the victim is sufficient to prove that the accused himself committed the offence. In the above circumstances, the contention of the accused in this regard cannot be accepted.

41.In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that the accused has failed to rebut the presumptions drawn in favour of the prosecution under sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act by establishing preponderance of probabilities to prove contra that the accused has not committed the offence with intention, knowledge and belief of the facts. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the accused is none other than the brother of the victim by relation and having knowledge of the same and inspite of the resistance by the victim/PW2 every time, the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim several times by threatening to kill her family members. It is also proved that as the accused was not listening to her words and continuing the sexual assault repeatedly, the victim girl had decided to end her life by committing 31 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 suicide and even soon after the suicide attempt of victim, the accused again committed sexual assault on the victim and the same was witnessed by father of the victim, who was also attacked by the accused. In the above circumstances, it can be held that the prosecution has proved that the accused has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim/PW2 by threatening her and also caused simple hurt to PW3/father of victim, which are punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 323, 506 of IPC and section 5(l) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act and hence, the accused is liable for punishment for the above offences. The point is answered accordingly.

42.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 323, 506 of IPC and section 5(l) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, he is convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The accused has to be questioned with regard to quantum of sentence which is to be imposed on him for the above offences.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 08 th day of September, 2025.

Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and

Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Shadnagar 32 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025

43.Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence. He stated that, his first wife died and that he has two small children through second wife and that he has old age parents and all of them are depended on him and he is the only person to look after the entire family and hence, prayed to show mercy and take a lenient view.

44.In view of the facts of the case and the nature of offence, this court is not inclined to apply the provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act. In view of the plea of accused on the quantum of sentence, his age and the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is sentenced as follows:

i.The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty (20) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees

Five Thousands) in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC and section 5(l) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act, in view of Section 42 of POCSO Act.

ii.The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06)months, for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC.

33 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025 iii.The accused is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01)year, for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC.

45.All the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of judicial custody already undergone by accused shall be set off, under section 428 Cr.P.C. M.O1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

The accused is at liberty to prefer appeal and can avail legal aid if required.

46.In view of the nature of the offence and the sufferance undergone by the victim/PW2 out of the sexual assault committed against her, this court feels it proper to award compensation to her.

In view of the above circumstances, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees

Five Lakhs only) is awarded as victim compensation to the victim/PW2 payable from the Victim Compensation Fund. The copy of judgment shall be forwarded to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,

Ranga Reddy District for payment of compensation.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 08 th day of September, 2025.

Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and

Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Shadnagar 34 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined) For the prosecution: PW1Mother of victim

PW2Victim

PW3 Father of victim

PW4Vijaya. M

PW5M. Chandar

PW6Mohd. Habeebuddin

PW7G. Jangaiah

PW8Dr. Alakananda

PW9Haseena, WPO

PW10Dr. Shivaram

PW11K. Badya Naik, S.I of Police, issued FIR

PW12P. Saidulu, Inspecor of Police, 1st I.O

PW13B. Upender Rao, Inspector of Police, 2nd I.O

PW14V. Yadagiri Reddy, ACP, 3rd I.O

For the defence: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the prosecution:

Ex.P1Report

Ex.P2Signature of PW2 on 164 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P3164 Cr.P.C statement of PW of PW4

Ex.P4Crime details form

Ex.P5Bonafide certificate of PW2

Ex.P6SignatureofPW7onconfession panchanama

Ex.P7Preliminary examination report

Ex.P8Final opinion issued by PW8

Ex.P9Potency certificate 35 Of 35 Spl.SC.No.357 of 2020 Date: 08.09.2025

Ex.P10 FIR

For the defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Clothes of victim.

Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and

Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Shadnagar

1 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025

IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL

AND EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT SHADNAGAR.

Present: Sri P.Anjaneyulu,

FAC Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Shadnagar

Monday, this the 25th day of August, 2025

Sessions Case No.68 of 2021

(Cr.No. 189 of 2019 of P.S. Nandigama, Cyberabad)

1 Name of the The State of Telangana through the complainantInspector of Police, PS Nandigama 2 Name of the accusedKatikapogu Raviprakash S/o.K.Yadaiah, Age: 25 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o.Nasrullabad,H/o.Mamidipally village, Nandigama mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3 Offences charged of Under Sections 376 (2) (n), 376 (3) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

4 Crime No.& Name of the 189 of 2019 of P.S. Nandigama, PSCyberabad.

5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

6 Finding of the CourtFound guilty 7 Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 354-A, 506 IPC and section 9

(m) r/w 10 of POCSO Ac, 2012 and accordingly he is convicted under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The accused has to be questioned with regard to quantum of sentence which is to be imposed on him for the above offences. Heard the 2 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 accused. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousands) in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under section 354-A of IPC and section 9(l) r/w. 10 of POCSO Act in view of Section 42 of POCSO Act.

The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC.

Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of judicial custody already undergone by accused shall be set off, under section 428 Cr.P.C. The accused is at liberty to prefer appeal and can avail legal aid if required.

The evidence of PW3/victim shows that presently she is staying in Prajwala Home for the last 4 years along with her son and on the date of evidence, she was brought to the court from Prajwala Home and her son was aged 4 years who also came along with her to the court. The record shows that, the victim girl became pregnant and delivered a baby due to sexual assault committed by other persons at the very young age and the child is staying with the victim girl in the rescue home. Keeping in view the pathetic condition of the victim girl and the future of her child, this court is 3 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 inclined to grant compensation to the victim girl. In view of the above circumstances, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) is awarded as victim compensation to the victim/PW3 payable from the Victim Compensation Fund. The copy of judgment shall be forwarded to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District for payment of compensation.

8 Name of the ProsecutionSri M.Shekara Chary, Spl. Public counselProsecutor 9 Name of the Defence Sri K. Manohar Reddy, Advocate for counselaccused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Shekara Chary, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Manohar Reddy, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Inspector of Police, PS Nandigama filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 376(2)(i)(n), 506 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that the victim girl lost her parents and she along with her brother were staying with her grand mother in the village. The victim girl and her cousin/LW3 used to go to the house of their neighbour/LW4 for watching T.V. About 6 months ago, the accused used to visit the 4 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 house of LW4 and as usual on one day he came to the house of LW4, while the victim and LW3 were watching T.V in the house of LW4. At that time, LW4 was cleaning vessels in front of her house and saw the accused entering into her house. The accused closed the doors, warned LW3 to stand nearby the door by turning towards the door and later the accused forcibly took the victim girl on to the bed and sexually assaulted her and also threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody. After few days, the victim and LW3 went to the outskirts of the village to collect Tamarind from the tree and on observing them, the accused took the victim girl inside the bushes and assaulted her sexually and again threatened her not to disclose the matter to anybody, as a result of the said acts, the victim became pregnant and thereafter they went to the police and lodged report.

On receiving report from the complainant/LW1 to the above effect, LW22/S.I of Police registered a case in Cr. No.189 of 2019 for the offence under section 376 (2) (i) (n), 506 of IPC and

Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW23/Circle Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statement of complainant and other witnesses. He visited the scene of offence and examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses. He also conducted scene 5 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators. He also collected the bonafide certificate of the victim from the school. The victim was referred to Government Hospital, Shadnagar, where she was examined by the medical office and the samples were collected.

The medical officer opined that the victim was pregnant of 24 weeks.

The statement of the victim was recorded by woman police officer.

The accused was arrested and on interrogation, he confessed the commission of offence. The statement of the victim and LW3 were recorded by the Judicial Officer under section 164 Cr.P.C. The victim delivered a male child and upon that the blood samples were collected from the victim and the child for DNA analysis. The blood samples of accused were also collected. The DNA report shows that, the accused is not the biological father of the male child and the victim is the biological mother of the child. The statement of the victim was again recorded by LW21, wherein she stated that some other villagers also assaulted her by force, but she does not remember their names except the accused. After completion of investigation, LW24 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge at

Mahabubnagar took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec 6 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 376 (2) (i) (n), 506 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and registered as Spl. SC.No. 68 of 2021.

4.By virtue of orders dated.29-10-2020 vide

Dis.No.2819/2020 of the Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar the case was transferred to this court for trial and disposal and directed the accused to appear before the court on next date of hearing.

5.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him Under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.Heard the Counsel for the accused and the Spl. Public

Prosecutor on the charge. Charges under sections 376 (2) (i) (n), 506 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the vernacular language under section 228 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined,

PWs 1 to 21 and got marked Ex.P1 to P20.

7 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the said incriminating material and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9.Heard the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

10.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(n), 506 of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012?”

POINT

11.The charges leveled against the accused is that the accused committed rape on the minor victim girl/PW3 on two occasions and thereby committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the minor girl.

12.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

Pws 1 to 21. PW1 is the complainant and grand mother of victim girl. PW2 is the grand father of victim girl. PW3 is the victim girl.

PW4 is neighbour and owner of the first scene of offence, PW5 is the 8 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 maternal uncle of victim, PW6 is the eye witness and friend of victim. PW7 is the maternal aunt of victim, PW8 is the Head Master who issued bonafide certificate of victim. PWs 9 and 10 are the circumstantial witnesses, PWs 11 and 12 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama. PWs 13 and 14 are the panch witnesses for confession statement of accused, PW15 is the medical officer who conducted potency test on accused. PW16 is the medical officer who examined the victim and collected samples. PWs 17 and 18 are the woman police officers who recorded the statement of victim. PWs 19 and 21 are the investigation officer who issued FIR, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet respectively.

13. PW1 is the grand mother of the victim girl and complainant in this case. The evidence of PW1 shows that she does not know the facts of the case and victim/PW3 delivered a male child and the victim was 4 years old at the time of incident. PW1 was declared hostile, PW2 is the grand father of victim girl and he also did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. PW4 is the owner of the house in which the first incident occurred and she also did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile.

9 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025

14. PW5 is the circumstantial witness and his evidence shows that, about 3 years ago, he returned from Vemulavada and at that time his mother informed that the victim was pregnant and the victim was staying in a hostel as she has no parents. PW5 was also declared hostile. PW9 and 10 are the circumstantial witnesses, but they did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. PW11 and 12 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and they also did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. PWs 13 and 14 are the panch witnesses for confession panchanama of accused and they also did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile.

15. The evidence of PW3/victim girl, PW6/cousin of victim and eye witness, PW7/circumstantial witness and PW8/Head

Master, who issued bonafide certificate of victim, are the crucial witnesses and they supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW3/victim shows that, presently she was staying in

Prajwala Home for the last 4 years and on the date of evidence, she was brought to the court by the Co-ordinator of Prajwala Home and her son is aged 4 years and he also came to the court along with her.

She deposed that about 5 years ago on one day, she along with PW6 went to the house of her sister-in-law/PW4 to watch T.V and at that 10 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 time, PW4 left the house for washing utensils and then one Ravi came to the house of PW4 and on the instructions of Ravi, PW6 closed the door from out side. PW3/victim identified the accused

Ravi on seeing his photo in the mobile phone of court constable. She further deposed that, the accused pushed her on the bed and raped her and she did not reveal the incident to anybody due to fear and two days thereafter she along with PW6 went to Tamarind tree for collecting Tamarind and at that place also the accused committed rape on her. She also deposed that after some days, PW1/grand mother observed bulging of her stomach and upon that she took the victim to hospital at Shadnagar, where the doctor declared her as six months pregnant and thereafter the victim was referred to Nilofer

Hospital, where she was treated for 20 days and thereafter she was referred to Prajwala Home and her statement was recorded by the police and later her statement was recorded by the Judge in the court and subsequently, she gave birth to a male child and she also deposed that she was brought up by PW1 as her mother died.

16. The evidence of PW6 who is the eye witness and cousin of victim, shows that she and victim used to go to the house of PW4 to watch T.V and on one day, the accused came to the house of PW4 and asked her to stand on the door side and the accused was went 11 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 inside the house with the victim and PW4 was washing utensils outside the house. She further deposed that, one day thereafter the victim alone went to Tamarind tree and later the victim became pregnant. The evidence of PW7 shows that, she came to know through villagers that the accused committed rape on the victim/PW3.

17.The evidence of PW8/Head Master shows that, he issued bonafide certificate of the victim on the requisition filed by the police and as per the said certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 09.12.2005. The evidence of PW16/medical officer shows that, she examined the victim/PW3 on 04.11.2019 and collected vaginal swabs for analysis and at the time of examination the victim was pregnant of 24 weeks and she gave final opinion basing on the paternity test.

18.Section 29 of POCSO Act deals with presumption of the commission of offences falling under sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of

POCSO Act against the person prosecuted, unless the contrary is proved. Section 30 of POCSO Act also deals with presumption as to the culpable mental state and the Special Court should presume its existence. The explanation to section 30 reads that culpable mental 12 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 state includes; intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in or reason to believe a fact. In view of sections 29 and 30 of POCSO

Act, the initial burden is on the prosecution to establish the offence against the accused by laying foundational facts through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. In the above circumstances, it has to be seen whether the prosecution has laid the foundation for drawing the presumptions under sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act.

19. This is a case where the DNA report is against the case of the prosecution about the paternity of the child born to the victim girl. The second statement of the victim girl before the woman police officer shows that, even earlier to the present incident, somebody belongs to her village slept over her and did as was done by accused.

In the said circumstances, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

PW3/victim and PW6/eye witness and PW7/circumstantial witness, coupled with the medical evidence has to be looked into.

20. The evidence of victim/PW3 shows that when she along with PW6 went to the house of their neighbour/PW4 and at that time, one Ravi entered the house of PW4 and on the instructions of

Ravi, PW6 closed the door from outside and thereafter the accused pushed her on the bed and raped her. PW3 further deposed that, 13 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 two days thereafter she along with PW6 went to the Tamarind tree in the afternoon and at that place also the accused committed rape on her and in the meanwhile, PW6 went away from that place. The very evidence of PW3 is contrary to her own version in the two statements recorded by two woman police officers at different times under section 161 Cr.P.C as well as her statement under section 164

Cr.P.C before the Judicial Officer. A reading of the first statement of victim before woman police officer/PW17 shows that, the accused entered the house of PW4 and asked PW6 to close the door and then he threw her on the bed, removed her cloths and did something by sleeping over her which she did not understand and thereafter went away. She further stated that some days later when she and PW6 went to collect Tamarind, the accused also came to the bushes and he slept over her and again did something. PW3/victim in her second statement before the woman police officer/PW18 also stated that the accused entered the house of PW4 and asked PW6 to close the door and did something to her and she also further stated that after some days she and PW6 went to collect Tamarind from the tree and then also the accused came there and took her into the trees and again slept over her and did something. She again stated that earlier to the accused, some male persons, whose names she does not remember, did the same thing as was done by the accused and 14 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 she only remembered the name of Ravi. From a reading of the statement of victim/PW3 before the Judicial Officer under section 164 Cr.P.C, it shows that, Ravi Prasad entered into the house of

PW4, closed the door, threw her on the bed, removed her cloths and caught hold her hands and inspite of her screaming, he did not leave her and that PW6 was present there. It also shows that once she and

PW6 were collecting Tamarind where also the said person removed her cloths forcibly and did the same thing as was done in the house and left the place.

21. From the above version of PW3/victim before the court on the one hand, and her statements before the woman police officers and Judicial Officer, on the other, clearly show that her version is contrary to each of them. For the first time, PW3 deposed before the court that the accused committed rape on her, whereas she did not use the word “rape” in her earlier three statements. From a perusal of the version of PW3 in those three statements it shows that, they shown that the accused threw her on the bed, removed her cloths and laid over her and did something which she does not know and even on the second time also the accused did the same thing which she does not know. The victim was aged about 14 years at the time of incident and she studied upto 7th class as per the case of the 15 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 prosecution. For a girl of 14 years of age, it is not very difficult for her to narrate the things happened to her in the sexual assault. The statement of PW1/complainant, who is the grand mother of victim recorded by the police, shows that the victim informed her that the accused laid on her and had forcible physical relation. PWs 1 and 2/grand parents of victim have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile.

22. The evidence of PW6 who is the cousin of PW3 and who was present with PW3 at the time of both the incidents, shows that on one day the accused came to the house of PW4 and while she and

PW3 were watching T.V, the accused asked her to stand on the door side and the accused was inside the house with the victim and at that time, PW4 was washing utensils outside the house. She also deposed that, one day thereafter, the victim alone went to Tamarind tree. PW6 in her cross examination stated that, she came to know about the pregnancy of the victim through the villagers and accused is no way connected with the pregnancy of the victim. The statement of PW6 was also recorded by the Judicial Officer under section 164

Cr.P.C, wherein she stated that the accused who is known to her came to the house of PW4 and closed the door and asked her to turn towards the door and then he threw the victim on the bed, removed 16 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 her pant and also his pant and slept over her and when the victim girl was screaming, he caught hold her hands and she stood on the other side of the bed. From the above version of PW6, it is clear that the accused entered into the house of PW4, who removed the cloths of victim and laid over her. It is also further clear from the evidence of PW3 that the accused again came to her while she was collecting

Tamarind and did the same thing by sleeping over her. The other important witness PW4, in whose house the incident occurred, did not support the case of the prosecution and she was declared hostile. From a perusal of the above version of PWs 3 and 6, it is very much clear that, the accused entered the house of PW4 while

PWs 3 and 6 were watching T.V and then he asked PW6 to close the door and removed cloths of victim as well as himself and slept over her. In this regard, the version of PW3/victim before the court that the accused committed rape on her twice, cannot be believed as it is a clear omission in her statement before the Police and Judicial

Officer. Now it has to be seen wether the above evidence of PW3 attracts the ingredients of penetrative sexual assault as laid down under Section 3 of POCSO Act. Section 3 of the POCSO Act reads as under follows:- “Section 3 describes various acts that constitute penetrative sexual assault when committed with a child. These include penetration of the penis or any other object 17 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 or body part into the child's vagina, mouth, urethra, or anus, or making the child do so. It also covers manipulating the child's body to cause penetration or applying the mouth to the child's genitals or anus. The core of Section 3 is any act of sexual penetration involving a child, regardless of the extent or means of penetration”

23. In order to prove the ingredients of section 3 of POCSO

Act, there must be penetration as explained in the above provision.

The version of PW1 before the court that the accused committed rape on her appears to be an after thought and her version before the police officers and Judicial Officer does not show any penetration by the accused. The statement of PW3 also shows that some other villagers, whose name she does not remember also committed sexual assault on her. The victim became pregnant and later she delivered a boy and thereafter DNA test was conducted by collecting the blood sample of accused, but it was concluded by the FSL expert that the accused is not the biological father of the victim. The result in the

DNA test about the paternity of the child, cannot discard the evidence of PW3/victim about the sexual assault committed twice against her by the accused. The act of accused entering into the house of PW4 and committing sexual assault on the victim by removing her cloths and throwing on the bed, clearly attracts the ingredients of section 354-A IPC and section 9(l) r/w. 10 of POCSO

Act, as the accused committed the sexual assault twice. Apart from 18 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 that, it is also proved through the evidence of PW3/victim that, the accused threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody, which attracts the offence punishable under section 506 IPC.

24. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that though the complainant and other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PW3/victim is clearly supporting the case of the prosecution with regard to the sexual assault committed by the accused. Furthermore, the evidence of

PW6/eye witness is also corroborating the evidence of PW3 with regard to the sexual assault committed by the accused. PW7 who is a circumstantial witness also supports the version of PW3 with regard to the sexual assault committed against the victim by the accused. Though PW7 did not support the entire case of the prosecution, the evidence with regard to the involvement of the accused can be relied upon. Further, though there are minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PWs 3 and 6, they are minor and they cannot discard the entire version of PWs 3 and 6 with regard to the sexual assault committed by the accused. In the above circumstances, it can be held that the prosecution has established that the accused committed aggrevated sexual assault on the minor victim/PW3 twice, which attracts the offences 19 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 punishable under sections 354-A, 506 IPC and section 9 (l) r/w 10 of POCSO Act and hence, the presumptions under sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act shall be drawn against the accused to the effect that the accused has committed the said offence with intention or knowledge of the facts.

25. As stated above, this court has drawn presumptions under sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act to the effect that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 9(l) r/w 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 and in view of the said presumptions, it is the duty of the accused to discharge his burden of rebutting the said presumptions by establishing preponderance of probabilities either through the defence evidence or by cross examining the prosecution witnesses.

26. The accused has not adduced any defence evidence on his behalf, but he thoroughly cross examined PWs 3 and 6 and other witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution. The defence of the accused is that the investigation officer has filed charge sheet against the accused namely Katikapogu Raviprakash

S/o.K.Yadaiah, whereas the statement of the witnesses and evidence of prosecution witnesses shows different names than the above one 20 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 and therefore, the accused is no way connected with the offence.

From a perusal of report/Ex.P1 lodged by PW1 it shows that the name of the accused was mentioned as Katikapogu Ravi Prasad. The victim girl in her statement before the police stated the name of accused as Katika Ravi. The statement of PW6 shows the name of accused as Katikapogu Ravi Prasad. PWs 3 and 6 have identified the accused in the open court as the person that committed the offence against the victim girl. The investigation officer/PW20 in his cross examination though stated that the names of Ravi Prakash and Ravi

Prasad are different, the accused is being called some times as Ravi and some times as Ravi Prasad and Ravi Prakash. Though the victim girl did not state the complete name of the accused, she mentioned the name in short as Ravi and moreover, she identified the accused as the offender. Except raising the said contention, the accused has not adduced any evidence to show that he is not being called as Ravi in the village and that he is not the person that committed the offence.

27. The other contention of the counsel for the accused is that since the DNA report is against the accused. it can be concluded that the accused is no way connected with the offence and the pregnancy of the victim. The statement of PW3 before the 21 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 woman police officer/PW18 shows that earlier to the accused, some other persons have committed assault on her, but she does not remember their names and probably the victim might have became pregnant through them. Merely because the DNA report shows that the accused is not the biological father of the child of the victim, the evidence of PWs 3 and 6 that the accused entered the house and committed sexual assault on the victim girl cannot be discard.

28. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Sri Immo @

Immar vs. State of Karnataka in Crl. Appeal No. 1739 of 2018 held that when there is no evidence of penetratative sexual assault on the victim girl and when the act of sexual assault is proved, the section 3 of POCSO Act can be converted into the aggravated sexual assault attracting section 9 of POCSO Act. As discussed above, since the prosecution has failed to prove the penetration the offence committed by the accused has been converted into one of aggravated sexual assault punishable under section 354-A IPC and section 9(l) r/w 10 of POCSO Act. Therefore, the contention of the accused in this regard cannot be accepted.

29. The counsel for the accused has further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove age of the victim as on the date of 22 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 incident and further the prosecution has failed to prove the date of incident. The investigation officer has collected the bonafide certificate of the victim from her school, wherein she studied 8th class and as per which, the date of birth of the victim is 09.12.2005. The evidence of PW8/Head Master clearly shows that on receiving requisition from the police, he issued bonafide certificate/Ex.P6 certifying the above date of birth. PW8 in his cross examination admitted that basing on the admission register, he issued Ex.P6. Even as per the version of the PW3/victim, she was aged 14 years at the time of incident. Except disputing the age of the victim and contending that the victim was major at the time of incident, the accused has not elicited anything in support of his said contention and hence, the same cannot be accepted.

30. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that the accused has failed to rebut the presumptions drawn under sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act by establishing the preponderance of probabilities in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he failed to prove that he has not committed the offence under sections 354-

A, 506 of IPC and section 9 (l) r/w 10 of POCSO Act, 2012. In the said circumstances, it can be held that the prosecution has proved the offence against the accused for the offence punishable under 23 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025 sections 354-A, 506 IPC and section 9 (l) r/w 10 of POCSO Act and hence, the accused is liable for punishment for the above offences.

Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

31.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 354-A, 506 IPC and section 9 (l) r/w 10 of POCSO Act, 2012, and accordingly, he is convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The accused has to be questioned with regard to quantum of sentence which is to be imposed on him for the above offences.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 25 th day of August, 2025.

Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and

Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Shadnagar

32.Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence. He stated that, he is recently married, his mother died recently and his father is old age person. He also stated that his brother is deaf and dumb, and that the accused is the only person to look after the entire family and hence, prayed to show mercy and take a lenient view.

33.In view of the facts of the case and the nature of offence, this court is not inclined to apply the provisions of Probation of 24 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025

Offenders Act. In view of the plea of accused on the quantum of sentence, his age and the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is sentenced as follow:

i.The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three

Thousands) in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under section 354-A of IPC and section 9(l) r/w. 10 of POCSO Act in view of

Section 42 of POCSO Act.

ii.The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC.

34.Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of judicial custody already undergone by accused shall be set off, under section 428 Cr.P.C. The accused is at liberty to prefer appeal and can avail legal aid if required.

35.The evidence of PW3/victim shows that presently she is staying in Prajwala Home for the last 4 years along with her son and on the date of evidence, she was brought to the court from Prajwala 25 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025

Home and her son was aged 4 years who also came along with her to the court. The record shows that, the victim girl became pregnant and delivered a baby due to sexual assault committed by other persons at the very young age and the child is staying with the victim girl in the rescue home. Keeping in view the pathetic condition of the victim girl and the future of her child, this court is inclined to grant compensation to the victim girl. In view of the above circumstances, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) is awarded as victim compensation to the victim/PW3 payable from the

Victim Compensation Fund. The copy of judgment shall be forwarded to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District for payment of compensation.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 25 th day of August, 2025.

Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and

Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Shadnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined) For the prosecution: PW1Grandmother of victim

PW2Grandfather of Victim

PW3 Victim

PW4G. Manasa

PW5K. Suresh 26 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025

PW6G. Srilatha

PW7K. Kavitha

PW8D. Sujan Ranjan Rao, H.M

PW9Raghupathi Reddy

PW10Ch. Prabhakar

PW11A. Ramchandraiah

PW12K. Nandam

PW13K. Venkataiah

PW14Ch. Narsimha

PW15Dr. M. Surendar Rao

PW16Dr. Kausthubha

PW17M. Renuka, Inspector of Police, WPO

PW18B. Shwetha, Sub Inspector of Police, WPO

PW19K. Venkateshwarlu, Inspector of Police,1st I.O

PW20M.G.S.Raamakrishna, DSP, 2nd I.O

PW21Ch. Ramaiah, Inspector of Police, 3rd I.O

For the defence: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the prosecution:

Ex.P1161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P3Signature of PW3 on 164 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4

Ex.P5161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5

Ex.P6Bonafide certificate of victim/PW3

Ex.P7161 Cr.P.C statement of PW9

Ex.P8161 Cr.P.C statement of PW10

Ex.P9Signature of PW11 on crime details form

Ex.P10 Signature of PW12 on crime details form, dt.4-11-2019 at 11:00 a.m 27 Of 27 S.C.No. 68 of 2021 Date: 25.08.2025

Ex.P11 Signature of PW12 on crime details form, dt.4-11-2019 at 12:05 p.m

Ex.P12 Signature of PW13 on confession panchanama form dt. 08-11-2019

Ex.P13 Signature of PW14 on confession panchanama form dt. 08-11-2019

Ex.P14 Potency certificate

Ex.P15 Final opionion

Ex.P16 Report

Ex.P17 FIR

Ex.P18 First scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P19 Second scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P20 DNA report

For the defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and

Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at Shadnagar

Page 1 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009

IN THE COURT OF THE PRLINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT: P.Anjaneyulu, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar

Tuesday, This the 26th day of September, 2023

O.S.No. 2515 of 2009

Between:

1. S.Balwanth Raj (Died per L.Rs)

2. Sara Padmavathi, W/o. Late S.Balwanth Raj, aged 46 years, Occ:Housewife

3. D.Swapna, W/o.D.Nayash, D/o.S.Balwanth Raj aged 29 years, Occ:Housewife,

4. Sara Vikram Raj, S/o. Late S.Balwanth Raj, aged 27 years, Occ:Architect

5. Sara Prem Raj, S/o. S.Balwanth Raj, aged 26 years, Occ:Private employee

All R/o. 1-31/32, Batasingaram, Hayathnagar, R.R.Dist.

(Plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are brought on record as per the orders passed in I.A.No.1280/2011 dated 23-02-2012)

...Plaintiffs

A N D

1. Vegesna Goutham Chakravarthy S/o. Prabhakara Raju, aged 31 years, Occ:Business, R/o. J.P.Road, Bhimavaram-2, West Godavari District.

2. P.Venkata Siva Prasada Murthy Raju, S/o. Sreerama Raju, aged 46 years, Occ:Business, R/o. Sreerampuram, Bhimavaram-1, West Godavari District.

3. Syed Najeemunnisa, W/o. Sameeula aged 51 years, Occ:Housewife,

4. Habibulla, S/o. Sameeulla, aged 27 years, Occ:Business

Defendant No.3 and 4 are R/o. 4-12-24/2A, Vanasthalipuram, R.R.District.

.... Defendants

Page 2 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009

This Original Suit is coming on 28-08-2023 or final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri P.Guru Prasad, Advocate for the

plaintiffs and T.Shyam Sunder Murthy, Advocate for defendant

No.1, Sri V.Venkat Srinivas, Advocate for defendant No.3 and 4 and

Sri Ch.Omer Nathan, Advocate for defendant No.2, and stood over

for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.The original plaintiff No.1 filed the suit against the defendants No.1 to 4 for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the land to an extent of

Ac.6.20 guntas in Sy.No.393/1, situated at Batasingaram village,

Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property). Since the original plaintiff No.1 died during the pendency of the suit, his legal hiers plaintiffs 2 to 5 were brought on record.

2.The brief avernments of the plaint are that the original plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor and occupier of the suit schedule property and originally, the father of the plaintiff was the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of 10.00 acres in the suit survey number and during the life time, his father sold away land to an extent of Ac.3.20 guntas to third parties under two registered sale deeds. After the death of the his father, the plaintiff is the only legal heir to the suit schedule property and succeeded it by operation of law and the plaintiff is enjoying the same without any interruption from any corner. The plaintiffs further stated that the defendants who are nothing to do with the suit schedule property based on some forged and fabricated documents claiming right, title and interest over the suit schedule property due to increase in the market value in the area, and interfering into it. The defendants came upon the suit schedule property on 12-12-2009 and on 13-12-2009 with anti-social elements to grab the suit schedule property with an intention to dispossess the plaintiff but, the plaintiff approached the police and on the advise of the police he field the present suit.

Page 3 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009

3.The defendant No.1 filed written statement-cum-counter claim. It is stated that the plaintiff himself represented the facts before this Court and obtained orders of status quo by suppressing the material facts and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction. He denied that the plaintiff is absolute owner, possessor and occupier of the suit schedule property and also denied that father of the plaintiff owned and possessed Ac.10.00 of land in the suit survey number and after his death, the plaintiff entitled the same.

The defendant No.1 also denied that he came to the suit schedule property with anti-social elements to dispossess the plaintiff and the cause of action shown by him is created by him for the purpose of the suit. In the above circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 submitted that he is absolute owner and possessor of the plot bearing No.130, admeasuring 552 square yards in Sy.No.390 and 393 of Buy Well Enclaves situated at

Batasingaram village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.Dist (hereinafter referred to as counter claim property) having purchased the same under registered sale deed document No.2265/1997, dated 13-05-1997, for a valuable consideration from K.Venkat Reddy and another represented by their GPA holder N.Chandra Shekar. He stated that his vendors K.Venkat Reddy and

K.Kavitha were joint absolute owners and possessors of Ac.4.11 guntas in

Sy.No.390 and 393 situated at Batasingaram village and Grampanchayat,

R.R.District by virtue of document No.5666/1992, dated 15-05-1992, document No.5003/1992, dated 28-04-1992 and document No.5665/1992,

dated 15-05-1992. It is further stated that the adjoining plot owners of

defendant No.1 filed suit for perpetual injunction videO.S.No.1670/2009 against the defendants therein including the plaintiffs herein, for perpetual injunction and suppressing the fact, the plaintiff obtained status quo in the

Page 4 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009 suit and under the guise of the status quo order the plaintiff is making illegal and unauthorized attempts to dispossess the defendant No.1 from the counter claim property.

4.The plaintiff filed the bogus and concocted documents with a motive to defeat the rights of the defendants. The plaintiffs have not filed any document of title such as, pattadar pass book or document of title issued by

Revenue Authorities and simply filed the pahanies which do not show that the plaintiff is in physical possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. The plaintiff has filed ROR proceedings dated 28-10- 1991 which does not reveal the basis on which the same was issued by MRO under ROR Act by deleting the name of Satyanarayana and mutating the name of the plaintiff and hence he prayed to dismiss the suit. The defendant No.1 further stated that on 25-12-2009 and 08-09-2010 when the plaintiff tried to dispossess him from the counter claim property, the defendant No.1 resisted him. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff and allow the counter claim by granting perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff and his men, etc.

5.The defendant No.2 filed written statement denying the avernments of the plaint. It is stated that defendant No.2 is absolute owner and possessor of the house plot bearing No.135, admeasuring 736 square yards in

Sy.No.309 and 393 of Batasingaram village, Hayathnagar Mandal,

R.R.District having purchased the same from the original owners under registered sale deed document No.1278/1997, dated 19-03-1997 for valuable consideration and he was put in vacant possession by his vendor and since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said plot.

This defendant has obtained permission from grampanchayat, Batasingaram

Page 5 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009 for construction of room and compound wall vide proceedings dated 01-09- 2009 by paying requisite fee through challan. He also obtained no objection certificate from grampanchayath to the extent of no due of taxes for obtaining electricity connection and the said documents are filed herewith.

This defendant has also constructed compound wall as per the sanction accorded by the grampanchayath and photographs are filed herewith. It is stated that the defendant has nothing to do with the claim of the plaintiff but the plaintiff is trying to dispossess defendant on the strength of

I.A.No.2859/2009 and trying to grab the property of the defendants. He also stated that the plot owners of the plot No.134, 131, 134 western part filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the plaintiff and others vide

O.S.No.1670/2009. He stated that the plaintiff is trying to grab the plot of

the defendant with the help of anti-social elements. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

6.The defendants No.3 and 4 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint with regard to the ownership over the suit schedule property. They stated that the defendants are the absolute owners of plot

No.100 in Sy.No.390 and 393(P), admeasuring 270 square yards of Kakatiya

Nagar of Batasingaram village, having purchased the same under the registered sale deed document No.1465/2008, dated 15-04-2008 from M/s.

Vamsi Krishna Housing Private Limited which inturn purchased the property from K.Venkat Reddy and K.Kavitha under registered sale deed. They also stated that the suit schedule property was way back converted into the plots and sold to the prospective purchasers and the plaintiff suppressed the said fact of conversion and approached the Hon'ble Court for interim orders.

Some of the purchasers of the plots also field suit O.S.No.1670/2009 against the plaintiff and others and obtained interim injunction and suppressed the

Page 6 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009 said fact, the plaintiff filed the present suit. The defendants 3 and 4 are in possession of the plot bearing No.100 since the date of purchase. Hence they prayed to dismiss the suit.

7.In view of the pleadings of the plaintiffs and defendants, the following issues have been framed for trial:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

8.In view of the counter claim filed by the defendant No.1, the following

additional issue was framed:

Whether the defendant No.1 is entitled for perpetual

injunction in relation to counter claim schedule property?

9.In support of the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.4 himself filed chief affidavit as PW1 and he filed additional chief affidavit also in view of the counter claim field by the defendant No.1 subsequently. The plaintiff

No.5 himself examined as PW2 by filing his chief affidavit. The plaintiffs also got examined PW3 who is the third party in support of their case. The plaintiffs got marked the documents Exs.A1 to A24 in support of their case.

10.On the other hand, the defendant No.1 himself examined as DW1 by filing the chief affidavit and additional chief affidavit and he got marked

EXs.B1 to B6. The defendant No.2 himself examined as DW2 by filing his chief affidavit and he got marked documents Exs.B7 to B17. The defendant

No.4 himself examined as DW3 and got marked the documents Exs.B18 to

B23.

Page 7 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009

11.Issue No.1:- The original plaintiff filed the present suit for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.6.20 guntas against the defendants No.1 to 4, on the ground that they are interfering into his possession. During the course of the trial, since the original plaintiff died, his legal representatives plaintiffs No.2 to 5, were brought on record and they gave evidence in support of the case of the plaintiffs. The plea of the plaintiffs is that originally one S.Satyanarayana who is the father of the plaintiff was the absolute owner and possessor of

Ac.10.00 of land in Sy.No.393/1 and during the life time, he sold out an extent of Ac.3.20 guntas of land out of total extent in favour of one

Smt.Susheela through registered sale deeds Exs.A23 and A24 and that after the death of S.Satyanarayana, the plaintiff became the legal heir and his name has been mutated as pattadar by way of ROR proceedings Ex.A2 and

A3 for the remaining land i.e., the suit schedule property. It is further pleaded that since the original plaintiff inherited the suit schedule property, he became the pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property from the year 1991-1992 till 2012-2013, as is evident from the pahanies marked as Ex.A4 to A19. It is also stated that since the defendants who are no way concerned with the suit schedule property, were interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants. The counsel for the plaintiffs has filed the written arguments and in support of his submission, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in Civil appeal No.10833 of 2010 in Nagar Palika

Raisinghanagar Vs Rameshwar Lal and another and another decision delivered in Civil Appeal No.2237/1994 in Karewwa and others vs

Hussensab Khansaheb Wajanthri which are to the effect that entries in the revenue records are conclusive proof. He also relied on the decision in

Page 8 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009

Civil Appeal No.1859/1967 in Sri Bhimeshwara Swami Varu Temple vs

Pedapudi Krishna Murthi and other which is to the effect that presumption arising from civil entries in Revenue Records from large number of years in respect of ownership of land, does not stand rebutted by mere stray entries in favour of others.

12.On the other hand, the contention of the defendant No.1 is that he is absolute owner and possessor of the plot No.130, admeasuring 552 square yards, which is the counter claim schedule property, having purchased the same from K.Venkat Reddy and another through their GPA holder under registered sale deed Ex.B3 and since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said plot and that his vendors have purchased the said land from the father of the plaintiff No.1 under registered sale deed and converted the same into plots. He contended that he made a counter claim for perpetual injunction against the plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff is interfering into the possession and enjoyment of the counter claim property.

13.The contention of the defendant No.2 who is another purchaser of plot, is that he purchased plot No.135 in Sy.No.390 and 393 to an extent of 736 square yards from the original owners under the registered sale deed Ex.B7 dt.19-03-1997, and since then he is in possession of the said plot and he also obtained permission from Grampanchayat and constructed a compound wall and he also filed the photographs to the said extent. He contended that plaintiff is interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of his plot.

14.In support of his contention, counsel for defendant No.2 has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prahalad Pradhan and others vs Sonu Kumhar and others, reported in 2019 0 Supreme

Page 9 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009 (SC) 1209, in Smt.Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) Th. LR vs Arthur

Import and Export company and others reported in 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 99, Which are to the effect that entries in the revenue records do not confer title of property and they only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded to pay land revenue in respect of land in question.

15.Defendants No.2 and 3 also contended that they are the owners of plot No.100 in Sy.No.390 and 393 to an extent of 270 square yards, having purchased the same from original owners M/s.Vamsi Krishna Housing Pvt.Ltd under registered sale deed dated 24-11-2000/Ex.B20 and that their vendors have purchased the said land from its original owner K.Venkat Reddy and

Kavitha under registered sale deeds. They also contended that the plaintiffs are interfering into their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plot.

16.The plaintiffs in support of their plea, examined themselves as PWs 1 and 2 and also examined independent witnesses PW3. The version of PWs 1 and 2 in their chief examination is supporting the avernments of the plaint and hence, they need not to be reiterated. The evidence of the independent witness PW3 shows that the original plaintiff is the son of Sara

Satyanarayana who is the original owner and pattadar of the land to an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas in Sy.No.393/1 and during the lifetime, he sold out an extent of Ac.3.20 guntas and he died about 25 years ago and after his death, the plaintiff No.1 was in possession of the suit schedule property and after the death of the original plaintiff, his children who are the plaintiffs

No.2 to 5, are in possession of the suit schedule property. He stated that, the defendants are interfering with the ownership and possession of the suit land without any concern and tried to dispossess the plaintiff.

Page 10 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009

17.In support of the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have filed the documents in respect of their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the pahani for the year 1989-1990 which shows that Sara Satyanarayana is the pattadar of land to an extent of

Ac.10.00 in Sy.No.393/1. Ex.A2 is the ROR proceedings dated 28-10-1991, issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal, which shows that the name of the original plaintiff was mutated by deleting the name of Sara

Sathyanarayana in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.6.28 guntas in

Sy.No.393/1, apart from other lands in Sy.No.29 and 136. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the 1B namoona, wherein the name of the original plaintiff was recorded as pattadhar for the land to an extent of Ac.6.20 guntas in

Sy.No.393/1 apart from other lands. EX.A4 to A7 are the certified copies of the pahanies for the years 1991-1992 to 1994-1995, wherein the name of the original plaintiff was shown as possessor and the name of father of the plaintiff was shown as pattadhar by stricking out the name of the original plaintiff. EX.A4 also shows the name of S.Susheela, W/o. Yella Reddy as pattadhar and possessor to an extent of Ac.3.20 guntas in suit survey number. Ex.A5 to A8 are the certified copies of pahanies for the years 1992- 1993 to 1996-1997 which show that the name of K.Kavitha, W/o. Venkat

Reddy was shown as pattadhar and owner to an extent of Ac.3.20 guntas in suit survey number. In further pahanies for the years 1996-1997, 2009- 2010 the name of the original plaintiff was shown as pattadhar and possessor of the suit schedule property which are marked as EXs. A8 and

A16. Plaintiff also filed subsequent pahanies for the years 2010-2011, 2012- 2013 wherein also the plaintiff name is mentioned. The plaintiffs further marked the document Exs.A20 which is the certified copy of statement in

O.S.No.1670/2009 on the file of this Court, which shows that the owner of

the plot No.134 in the suit survey number filed suit against the original

Page 11 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009 plaintiff. Ex.A21 is the certified copy of the memo in the said suit, whereunder the suit was dismissed as not pressed. The plaintiff also got marked Ex.A23 certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 12-04-1985, whereunder Sara Sathyanarayana sold an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas of land in favour of the one Susheela. Ex.A24 is the certified copy of the sale deed, whereunder the said S.Sathyanarayana also sold to an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in favour of S.Susheela.

18.On the other hand, the defendants got marked the documents Exs.B1 to B23 in support of their case. During the cross examination of PW1, the defendants got marked EX.B1 which is the amended copy of the plaint in

O.S.No.1670/2009 and Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the vakalath in the said

suit. The defendant No.1 got marked Ex.B3 sale deed dated 13-05-1997, whereunder D1 purchased the counter schedule property from the original owners K.Venkat Reddy and K.Kavitha. Ex.B4 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 08-04-1992, whereunder one Yella Reddy sold land to an extent of Ac.0.31 guntas and 22 square yards in favour of K.Venkat Reddy who is the vendor of D1. Ex.B5 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 15-05- 1992, whereunder S.Susheela, W/o. Yella Reddy sold an extent of Ac.2.00 in favour of K.Kavitha in the suit survey number. Ex.B6 is the certified copy of the sale deed, whereunder S.Susheela sold an extent of 20 guntas in favour of K.Venkat Reddy in suit survey number. The defendant No.2 got marked

Ex.B7 certified copy of the sale deed dated 19-03-1997, whereunder

K.Venkat Reddy and K.Kavitha sold land to an extent of 736 square yards in

Sy.No.390 and 393 in favour of defendant No.2. Ex.B8 and B9 are the copies of encumbrance certificates in respect of purchase of D2. Ex.B10 is the grampanchayat permission in favour of D2 for making construction in the plot. Ex.B12 is the no objection certificate. Ex.B13 is the copy of the order

Page 12 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009 in I.A.No.2021 of 2009 in O.S.No.1670 of 2009 filed by third parties against the plaintiffs herein, whereunder interim injunction was granted. Ex.B14 is the copy of CMA against orders in I.A. filed by the plaintiff herein, and the same was dismissed. Ex.B15 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 22-05-1992, whereunder one Susheela and K.Radha Krishna Kumari sold land to an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in favour of K.Venkat Reddy. EX.B16 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 28-04-1992, whereunder one Yella

Reddy sold the land to an extent of Ac.31.22 guntas in favour of K.Venkat

Reddy. Ex.B17 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 15-05-1992, whereunder one Susheela sold land to an extent of Ac.2.00 in favour of

K.Kavitha. The defendant No.4 as DW3 got marked Ex.B18 certified copy of the sale deed dated 05-04-2008, whereunder the defendant No.3 purchased the plot to an extent of 270 square yards in Sy.No.290 and 293 from the owners. Ex.B19 is the certified copy of the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, whereunder the vendor of D3 purchased the said plot from its previous owner. Ex.B20 is the certified copy of the sale deed, whereunder the vendor of D3 purchased the said plot from M/s.Vamshi Krishna Housing Private

Limited and Ex.B21 is the encumbrance certificate standing in the name of

D3 and D4. Ex.B22 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 11-05-1992, whereunder the original plaintiff sold land to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas, in suit survey number in favour of S.Susheela.

19.From a perusal of the documents filed by both parties in respect of their respective contentions, it shows that the original pattadar Sara

Sathyanarayana owned an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas of land and out of it, he sold an extent of Ac.3.20 guntas in favour of one Kavitha, who in turn sold it to different persons, who subsequently made it into plots and sold to different persons, including the defendants. Though, the defendants denied

Page 13 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009 the avernments of the plaint about the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, the defendants admitted in their cross examination that original owner Sara Sathyanarayana was the owner and possessor of

Ac.10.00 guntas of land in the suit survey number and it is also admitted that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property of Ac.6.20 guntas.

It is also clear from the plea of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is the vacant land, but the plaintiffs admitted in their cross examination that there are two rooms and a compound wall in the suit schedule property. The said version of the plaintiffs is contrary to the pleadings of the plaint.

Originally, an extent of Ac.6.28 guntas is recorded as per Ex.A2 ROR proceedings, and as admitted by PW1, an extent of 8 or 10 guntas was acquired by National Highway Authorities, but, no such acquisition proceedings have been filed by the plaintiffs.

20.In a suit for injunction, it is the obligation of the plaintiff to show that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, with specific boundaries to the knowledge of one and all and while deciding the lawful possession over the suit schedule property, the title of the plaintiff has also to be gone into incidentally, to establish the lawful possession of the plaintiff.

21.As per the version of the plaintiffs, the name of father of original plaintiff is Sara Sathyanarayana, s/o. Chandulal. A perusal of the pahanies filed by the plaintiffs shows the name of Sara Sathyanarayana as pattadar,

It is no doubt true that there is some confusion in mentioning the name of the father of the plaintiff in connection with his surname, the defendants have admitted that the father's name of the plaintiff is Sara Sathyanarayana who owned land to an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas, and the defendants are

Page 14 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009 claiming that their vendor's vendor purchased the land from the very same

Sara Sathyanarayana.

22.Insofar as, the boundaries of the suit schedule property are concerned, in the suit schedule, the plaintiff mentioned the boundaries as North:

National Highway Road, South: survey No.388 and 394, East: Sy.No.1, West:

Sy.No.393 of land of K.Venkat Reddy. The boundaries as mentioned in the suit schedule are after sale of Ac.3.20 guntas of land out of total extent of

Ac.10.00 guntas by father of plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs have not filed the map along with plaint showing the exact location of the land sold to one

Susheela by the father of the plaintiff and also location of suit schedule land.

As contended by the defendants and as admitted by the plaintiffs in their cross examination basing on the documents filed by both parties, the map appended to those documents clearly show different boundaries to the suit schedule property. As mentioned above, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to show that they are in possession of the property within the specific boundaries. The plaintiffs clearly admitted that there are two rooms and a compound wall situated in the suit schedule property, which itself shows that the plaintiffs are not particular about the location of the suit schedule property.

23.The pleadings of both the parties also show that some of the plot owners who purchased the plots out of the land purchased from the father of original plaintiff, filed suit for injunction against the plaintiffs but, for the reasons best known to both the parties, the suit was not pressed.

24.It is no doubt true that even the defendants admitted that the plaintiffs acquired Ac.6.20 guntas from their father after his death. The

Page 15 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009 crucial aspect elicited by the defendants from the plaintiffs by filing the documents EX.B22 and B23 through DW3. Under EX.B22 the certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No.5462/1992, dt 11-05-1992, the original plaintiff sold an extent of Ac.1.00 gunats of land in suit survey

No.393/1 in favour of one S.Susheela, W/o. Yella Reddy, whereunder the boundaries are shown as North:road, South: owners land, East: owners land,

West: vendees land. Ex.B23 is the statement of encumbrance certificate in respect of the transaction under Ex.B22. When the said sale deed Ex.B22 was confronted to PW1, in his cross examination, he stated that the said document was fabricated and he field the suit in the year 2013. In the cross examination of DW3, it was suggested by the plaintiffs' counsel that the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 filed suit for declaration of title vide O.S.No.1337/2013 on the file of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, in which S.Susheela was shown as D7 and she contested the suit whereunder, it was also stated that the document Ex.B22 herein is false and fabricated. A perusal of the chief affidavit filed by the plaintiffs shows that the chief affidavit was filed in the year 2015 and it appears that they have suppressed the fact of filing the suit against one S.Susheela for declaration of title in respect of the suit survey number in view of Ex.B22. Further, PW1 did not even mention the said fact in his additional chief affidavit filed in the year 2015.

25.In the light of the above actual situation in respect of Ex.B22, it is clear that the original plaintiff sold an extent of Ac.1.00 out of the suit schedule land of Ac.6.20 guntas, in favour of one S.Susheela who in turn sold it to different persons. From the record, it is clear that the original plaintiff died after filing the suit and thereafter his LRs plaintiffs No.2 to 5 filed the suit for declaration of title based on Ex.B22 sale deed in the year 2013. Having knowledge about the filing of the said suit, the plaintiffs have not mentioned

Page 16 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009 the same in their chief affidavit and the said suit, is still pending. Unless the suit is disposed of in respect of the document Ex.B22, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are in possession of Ac.6.20 guntas of land, as on the date of filing of the suit, since the Ex.B22 was executed in the year 1992 by the original plaintiff. In addition to it, as discussed above, the plaintiffs have failed to show the exact location of the suit schedule property with specific boundaries. In the light of the above discussion, it can be held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the original plaintiff No.1 was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of the suit.

Hence, the issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

26.Issue No.2:- In view of the finding on issue No.1 that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit, it is held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for perpetual injunction, as prayed for.

27.Additional issue:- The defendant No.1 while filing the written statement in the suit, made a counter claim with a prayer to grant perpetual injunction in respect of his plot No.130 to an extent of 552 square yards in

Sy.No.390 and 393, which is the counter claim schedule property. The plaintiffs have not filed any written reply to the counter claim of the defendant No.1 but, PW1 filed additional chief affidavit by filing the documents Exs.A21, A22 and A24.

28.The plea of the defendant No.1 in the counter claim is that he purchased the counter claim property from K.Venkat Reddy and another, represented by their GPA holder N.Chandrashekar, under registered sale deed Ex.B3 dated 13-05-1997, and further pleaded that their vendors

Page 17 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009 purchased the land from one S.Susheela in the year 1992 under Exs.B4 to

B6. He further contended that his vendor prepared the layout and made plots in the name of Buy Well Enclavesin Sy.No.390 and 393 and since the date of the purchase of the plot, D1 is in possession and enjoyment of the said plot and under guise of the orders of status quo obtained by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1670/2009 is making illegal attempts to dispossess the defendant

No.1.

29.On the other hand, the contention of the plaintiffs is that the original plaintiff No.1 is owner and possessor of the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.6.20 guntas and they relied on report of the Advocate

Commissioner filed in O.S.No.1670/2009 and marked as Ex.A21, and contended that the defendant No.1 has no right and he is not owner and possessor of the said counter claim property.

30.A perusal of the documents filed by the defendant No.1 which are marked as Ex.B3 to B6 clearly shows that defendant No.1 purchased the counter claim property under EX.B3 from his vendors and that the said vendors in turn purchased the land from its original owners under sale deeds

Ex.B4 to B6.

31.Under issue No.1, it was held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the plaintiff No.1 was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 has proved that he purchased the counter claim property from its owners who inturn purchased it from the father of the plaintiff No.1 and the same is not disputed by both the parties. In the said circumstances, it can be held that the defendant No.1 has proved that he purchased the counter claim

Page 18 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009 property and he is in possession of the same as on the date of filing of the counter claim. Hence, the issue is answered accordingly.

32.Issue No.3: To what relief?

In view of the findings on issue No.1, it is held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for and hence, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to the dismissed. Further, in view of the findings on

Additional Issue framed basing on the counter claim of D1, it is held that

defendant No.1 is entitled for perpetual injunction in respect of the counter claim property, restraining the plaintiffs and their men etc., as prayed for.

33.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed, without costs, and counter claim of defendant No.1 is decreed with costs, granting perpetual injunction in favour of defendant No.1, restraining the plaintiffs, their agents, henchmen, etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of defendant No.1 over the counter claim schedule property.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 26th day of September, 2023)

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Number Of Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff :For Defendant :

PW.1 : Sara Vikram Raj DW.1 : V.Gowtham Chakravarthy PW.2 : Sara Premraj DW.2 : Venkata Siva Prasada Murthy Raju PW.3 : K.Brahma Chary DW.3 : Habibulla

Number Of Exhibits Marked For Plaintiff Ex.A.1::CC of pahani for the year 1989-1990 Ex.A.2::Original ROR proceedings in file No.B/4748/01, dt 28-01-1991 Ex.A.3::C.C of 1-B Namoona

Page 19 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009

Ex.A.4::CC of pahani for the year 1991-92 Ex.A.5::CC of pahani for the year 1992-93 Ex.A.6::CC of pahani for the year 1993-94 Ex.A.7::CC of pahani for the year 1994-95 Ex.A.8::CC of pahani for the year 1996-97 Ex.A.9::CC of pahani for the year 1997-98 Ex.A.10::CC of pahani for the year 1998-99 Ex.A.11::CC of pahani for the year 1999-2000 Ex.A.12::CC of pahani for the year 2002-03 Ex.A.13::CC of pahani for the year 2005-06 Ex.A.14::CC of pahani for the year 2007-08 Ex.A.15::CC of pahani for the year 2008-09 Ex.A.16::CC of pahani for the year 2009-10 Ex.A.17::CC of pahani for the year 2010-11 Ex.A.18::CC of pahani for the year 2011-12 Ex.A.19::CC of pahani for the year 2012-13 Ex.A.20::CC of memo dt 28-07-2014 in O.S.No.1670/2009 Ex.A.21::CC of memo dt.28-07-2014 in O.S.No.1670/2009 Ex.A.22::CC of judgment in O.S.No.1670/1999 Ex.A.23::CC of registered sale deed document No.4663/1985, dt 12-04-1985 Ex.A.24::CC of sale deed document No.9508/1995, dt,29-07-1985

Number Of Exhibits Marked For Defendant

Ex.B.1:: Amended plaint in O.S.No.1670/2009 Ex.B.2::CC of vakalath in O.S.No.1670/09, dated 16-09-2009 Ex.B.3::CC of sale deed document No.2265/1997, dt 13-05-1997 Ex.B.4::CC of sale deed document No.5003/1992, dt 08-04-1992 Ex.B.5::CC of sale deed document No.5665/1992, dt 15-05-1992 Ex.B.6::CC of sale deed document No.5666/1992, dt 15-05-1992 Ex.B.7::CC of registered sale deed bearing No.1278/1997,

dt 19-03-1997

Ex.B.8::Original encumbrance certificate bearing No.729 for the period 01-05-1995 to 30-09-2007, dated 16-02-2010 Ex.B.9::Original E.C.No.301 for the period from 01-10-2007 to 02-03- 2010, dt. 02-03-2010 Ex.B.10::Original sanction number with attached plan, dt. 01-09-2009 Ex.B.11::Original challan receipt No.10547 of Rs.7000/-,

dt. 01-09-2009

Ex.B.12::Original no objection certificate dt.01-09-2009

Page 20 of 20 O.S.No. 2515 of 2009

Ex.B.13::C.C of judgment and decree in I.A.No.2021 of 2009 in

O.S.No.1670/2009, P.S.J, R.R.Dist., dt. 10-11-2009

Ex.B.14::C.C of judgment and decree in CMA No.769/2009, II ADJ, R.R.Dist, dt.15-12-2009 Ex.B.15::C.C of registered dale deed bearing No.5666/1992,

dt. 22-05-1992

Ex.B.16::C.C of registered sale deed document No.5003/1992,

dt. 28-04-1992

Ex.B.17::C.C of registered sale deed document No.5665/1992,

dt. 15-05-1992

Ex.B.18::CC of sale deed document No.1465/2008, dt.05-04-2008 Ex.B.19::CC of AGPA document No.939/2008, dt 03-03-2008 Ex.B.20::CC of sale deed document No.9756/2000, dt.24-11-2000 Ex.B.21::Encumbrance certificate of defendant No.3 and 4 plot. Ex.B.22::CC of sale deed bearing document No.5462/1992, dt.11-05-1992 Ex.B.23::CC of encumbrance certificate for the period 01-01-1983 to 30-04-1995, dt.12-09-2018.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District corrected