1 of 37
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT-CUM- III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT ADILABAD.
PRESENT: SMT. P.LAKSHMI KUMARI,
Judge, Family Court -cum-
III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Adilabad.
9th day of February, 2026
S.C.No.230 of 2021
Name of the complainant:The State of Telangana through Circle Inspector of Police, Talamadugu police station). Name of the accused:Madavi Ayyu @ Ramulu, S/o. Jangu, Age: 22 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Marripalle village of Kuchlapur GP, Talamadugu (Mdl). Crime number, police station:39 of 2018 Talamadugu Police station Offence punishable under:302 of the Indian Penal Code. sections PRC no.:2 of 2023 Case committed by: PRC no.2/2023 by the learned Special Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, mobile (PCR),
Adilabad Charges:Under section 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution conducted by: Sri. Mekala Madhukar,
Additional Public Prosecutor, Adilabad.
Defence conducted by:Sri A. Santosh Plea of the accused:Not Guilty. Finding of the Court:Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted for the said offences under section 235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code and the accused is found guilty for the commission of offence punishable under section 304 Part 1 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is convicted for the said offence under section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2 of 37
This sessions case is coming on 06.02.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State by name Sri Mekala Madhukar and of Sri A. Santosh Counsel for the sole accused and after hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration to till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1. The Circle Inspector of Police, Talamadugu has filed charge sheet against the accused in crime no.39/2018 of Talamadugu police station for the offences punishable under sections 302, 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2018 at 17:20 hours the defacto complainant/Pw1 had lodged report stating that her villagers PW.11/Athram Ravi, PW.3Athram Anjali were loving each other and the parents of Athram Anjali approached her uncle PW.2/Tekam
Bheemrao who is one of the caste elders and that on 17.06.2018 at 01:00
P.M. her uncle, caste elders and other relatives gathered in front of the house and her uncle PW.2/Tekam Bheemrao who is village elder has asked
PW.11/Athram Ravi to marry the said PW.3/Athram Anjali but the said
PW.11/Athram Ravi did not respond for the same and at that time
PW.2/Tekam Bheemrao questioned PW.11/Athram Ravi in a loud manner as to why he is not responding and then Accused/Madavi Ayyu S/o. Jangu had interfered and had assaulted upon PW.2/Takam Bheemrao with hands by saying that as to why he is threatening his friend PW.11/Athram Ravi and meantime the husband of complainant/Tekam Ayyu I.e Deceased had questioned the accused/Madavi Ayyu as to why he beat his father/PW.2 and then the accused /Madavi Ayyu got angry upon the deceased/Tekam Ayyu by cursing him that if he die there is no problem to PW.11/Athram Ravi
FA 3 of 37 and saying so, the accused took a Stone/MO-1 nearby and had beat the deceased I.e the husband of Pw1/Complainant with the said stone over his chest and also kicked over his testicles and thereafter the deceased I.e the husband of Pw1/Complainant had fell down on the ground and thereafter they have shifted the deceased husband of Pw1 to Adilabad in an Auto and on the way near kodad village, the Ambulance came at about 02:30
P.M. and the hospital staff had examined the deceased and told that the deceased is dead and thereafter they have shifted the dead body of the deceased in RIMS Hospital, Adilabad and kept the dead body in mortuary and thereafter the report under EXP.1 was lodged.
3. Basing on the report/EXP.1 of the complainant/Pw1, Lw27/Pw16 had registered a case in crime no. 39/2018 for the offence punishable under section 302, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and had issued First Information
Report under Ex.P.11 and during course of investigation the Pw.16 had re- examined Pw1 and recorded her statement and thereafter handed over the
Case Diary file to Lw.28/Pw.17 for further investigation and Pw.17.
thereafter PW.17 re-examined the Pw1 and that Pw.17 had not recorded the statement of Pw1 as she had mentioned the similar facts before Pw.16.
That Pw.17 thereafter visited the scene of offence situated at Marripally village of Kuchulapur Gram Panchayath and had observed the scene of offence, captured the photographs of scene of offence with the assistance of Lw.6/Marchetti Srikanth and secured the presence of panch witnesses
Lw.21/Doda Umakanthand Pw.12/Kodapa Jangu and had conducted scene observation panchanama in their presence and prepared crime details form along with rough sketch as covered under EXP.12 and thereafter Pw.17 on
FA 4 of 37 18.06.2018 had visited RIMS Hospital, Adilabad mortuary and found the dead body of the deceased Tekam Ayyu, S/o. Bheemrao in Mortuary of
RIMS Hospital, Adilabad and observed the dead body of the deceased and had captured the photographs of the dead body of the deceased with assistance of Lw6/Marshetti Srikanth and thereafter conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of Lw23/Pw13 Kothapalli
Ramesh and Lw.24/Pw14 Bellapu Purushotham as covered under EXP.14 and had seized the clothes of the deceased under MO.2 to MO.5 affixed panch chits over the said clothes and thereafter examined Lw.2/Pw2/Tekam
Bheemrao, Lw3/Kodapa Laxmi, Lw4/Kodapa Supari, Lw5/K. Raju,
Lw6/Marshetti Srikanth and recorded their statements under section 161(3)
Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Pw17 had handed over the dead body to the father of the deceased i.e. Lw2/Pw2/Tekam Bheemrao under proper acknowledgment. Lw25/Pw.15 Dr. B.Shankar Rao had held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Post-Mortem Examination report under EXP.10 with an opinion that the deceased died due to hemorrhage and shock due to blunt injury to chest and scortum. Thereafter, Pw17 had visited Marrepalli, Kuchulapur, Laxmipur and Sonapur villages and examined Lw7/Pw3 Athram Anjali, Lw8/Athram Laxman, Lw9/Athram
Laxmibai, Lw10/Pw4/Salla Devanna, Lw11/Pw5 B.Ganganna @Gangireddy,
Lw12/Madavi Ramu, Lw13/Tekam Somanna, Lw14/Pw6/Athram Jangu,
Lw15/T.Ramu, Lw16/Madavi Supari, Lw17//Pw8/K. Sainath and
Lw18/Pw9/Ragi Sainath and recorded their statements under section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter on 21.06.2018 Pw17 had proceeded to
Kuchulapur Bus Stand upon the information received from
FA 5 of 37
Lw27/Pw16/P.Subba Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Talamadugu and had apprehended the accused and interrogated him and had effected the arrest of the accused after following arrest formalities and later Pw17 had examined Lw19/Pw10/K. Meghashyama Reddy and Lw20/Pw11 Athram
Ravi and recorded their statement under section 161(3) Cr.P.C and thereafter examined and recorded the statement of Lw7/Pw3/Athram Anjali and later Pw17 had sent requisition for recording the statements of
Pw1/Lw1, Pw2/Lw2 and Pw3/Lw7 under section 164 Cr.P.C under EXP.15.
EXP.16 to EXP.18 is part of EXP.15. and after completion of the investigation, Pw17 had filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Cognizance of the charge-sheet was taken for the offence punishable under section 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused in
PRC no.2/2023 by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, mobile (PCR), Adilabad then committed this case to the Hon’ble Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad as the learned Magistrate having perused the record found the case as exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions after furnishing the case copies to the accused as contemplated
under section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad took the case on file in SC no.230/2021 and made over the case to this Court for the purpose of disposal according to law.
6. This Court having considered the record, framed charges under section 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, read over and
FA 6 of 37 explained to him in his vernacular language for which he denied the said charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.During the course of trial to prove its case the prosecution has examined
PWs.1 to 17 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18 apart from exhibiting MO.1 to 5.
8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against him for which he denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.
9.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.
10.The defence of the accused is that the accused has not committed any offence.
11.Heard the oral arguments advanced both sides. Learned counsel for the accused also filed written arguments. Learned additional Public prosecutor has also filed written argument on behalf of prosecution. Perused the material on record.
12.Points for determination are :
(i) Whether the prosecution did prove the guilt of the sole accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code?
(ii) To what finding?
13. POINT No.1 :
14.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined Pw1 to Pw17 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. Pw1/Lw1 is the complainant testified before this
Court that the deceased/Tekam Ayyu was her first husband and that Pw2 is the father of the deceased and Lw3/Kodapa Laxmi is the sister of the
FA 7 of 37 deceased. Lw4.K.Supari and Lw5/K.Raju are the relatives of the deceased and that she know Lw7/Pw3, Lw8/Athram Laxman, Lw9/Athram Laxmibai,
Lw10/Salla Devanna/Pw4, Lw11/Buyyami Ganganna @ Gangareddy/Pw5,
Lw12/Madavi Ramu, Lw13/Tekam Somanna, Lw14/Athram Jangu/Pw6,
Lw15/Tekam Ramu/Pw7, Lw16/Madavi Supari. Pw1 deposed that the accused had killed her husband i.e., deceased at about six years ago with a stone/MO.1. Pw1 deposed that in the panchyath held in the presence of panchayath elders with respect to love affair of Lw7/Pw3/Athram Anjali and
Lw20/Athram Ravi/Pw11 resident of Marepalli village wherein the said
Athram Ravi/Pw11/Lw20 had refused to marry Pw3/Lw7 due to which the said Athram Anjali/Pw3 approached the father in law of Pw1 i.e.,
Pw2/T.Bheemrao who is patel of Marepalli village and then Pw2 had called upon the said Athram Ravi/Pw11/Lw20 and had questioned him in presence of elders for refusing to marry Pw3/Lw7 and then the said Athram
Ravi/Pw11 along with the accused had bet the father in law of Pw1 and thereafter the deceased Tekam Ayyu had intervene to rescue Pw2 and by then the accused bet the deceased Tekam Ayyu on his stomach by using a stone and also kicked the deceased on his testicles and the deceased thereafter had deceased fell down on the ground and then the deceased was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Adilabad in an auto when they reached to
Kodad village, they shifted the deceased into Ambulance and from there they have brought the deceased to RIMS Hospital, Adilabad where the deceased was declared as brought dead.
15.Pw1 testified further that the above said incident had taken place at about 12:00 noon at the house of Pw2 who is father in law of Pw1 and the said
FA 8 of 37 incidentwaswitnessedbyLw4/K.Supari,Lw5/K.Raju,
Lw11/Buyyami.Ganganna@Gangareddy/Pw5,Pw3/Lw7/A.Anjali,
Lw8/A.Laxman and his wife Jangu Bai and some others were also present and thereafter they went to Talamadugu police station and submitted report under Ex.P1 and that thereafter police examined Pw1 and recorded her statement.
16.Pw1 testified further that the deceased was shifted in a auto belong to one
Chakali Ramana of Kuchalapur village. Pw1 testified further that after the death of the deceased she married one Laxman of Ambati Tanda of Kinwat
Taluqa of Maharashtra.
17.During course of cross-examination Pw1 expressed ignorance about the date of the incident however she mentioned the time of the incident at 12:00 noon. Pw1 deposed that she do not remember as to whether she had mentioned in Ex.P1 report or stated before the police that she was present and witnessed the incident. Pw1 admitted that she had not submitted report in out post police station of RIMS Hospital, Adilabad and denied that she had not mentioned before the police about the presence of village elders at the time of panchayath and about the place of the incident as infront of the house of Pw2. Pw1 deposed that she is illiterate as such she is not able to read and write Telugu language and denied that she is ignorant of Ex.P1 contents and that she did not mention before the police that Ex.P1 report was scribed by the police as per her dictation. Pw1 denied that the deceased was having habit of consuming liquor and as such the deceased on the date of incident had consumed liquor and fell down on hard object due to which the deceased received injuries and died.
FA 9 of 37
18.Pw1 denied that there are land disputes in between the accused and the family of Pw1 and therefore the accused was falsely implicated by Pw.1 was categorically denied by the PW.1.
19. Except giving suggestion to PW.1 that the deceased consumed liquor and fell down on hard surface object and as a result of injuries, the deceased and that there is land disputes in between the accused and family of the
PW.1, no material particulars extracted from the evidence of the PW.1 to prove that there is any previous enemity in between the accused family and the family of the PW.1 more particularly with respect to alleged land disputes to discredit the testimony of the PW.1 .
20. Pw2 is the father of the deceased and father in law of Pw1 has testified during his course of chief-examination that he is resident of Marepalli village of Kuchalapur and Lw3/K.Laxmi is his daughter. Lw4/K.Supari and
Lw5/K.Raju are his son in laws and that he know Lw7/Pw3/A.Anjali,
Lw8/Athram Laxman, Lw9/Athram LaxmiBai, Lw10/Pw4/Salla Devanna,
Lw11/Pw5/Buyyani Ganganna @ Gangireddy, Lw12/Madavi Ramu ,
Lw13/T.Somanna,Lw14/Pw6/A.Jangu,Lw15/Pw7/TekamRamu,
Lw16/Madavi Supari, Lw17/Pw8/K.Sainath, Lw18/Pw9/Ragi Sainath and the deceased. Pw2 testified that the deceased was only son of Pw2 who died about five years ago and the accused had bet the deceased with a stone/MO.1 on his chest and stomach. Pw2 testified that on one day the parents of Lw7/Pw3/A.Anjali along with Pw3/A.Anajali came to his house and informed him that Lw7/A.Anjali/Pw3 and one Athram Ravi/Pw7 are in love and asked Pw2 who is caste elder to assist their marriage and then
Pw2 called his caste elders and conveyed the panchayath by calling Athram
FA 10 of 37
Ravi/Pw11 and his parents and they have asked the Pw11 to marry
Pw3/Anjali for which the Athram Ravi accepted in the meantime the accused came against the Pw2 and questioned Pw2 as to why he called the
Athram Ravi/Pw7 and later the accused had pushed the Pw2 and then deceased had intervened and questioned the accused about the highhandedness against the Pw2 for which the accused bet the deceased with a a stone on his chest and stomach as a result the deceased died.
21.The evidence of the PW.2 no way reveals that he was assaulted by the accused or caused simple hurt such as bodily injury in the said panchayat .
Hence the offence under section 323 of indian penal code is not proved against the accused.
22.Pw2 testified that the said incident was occurred in infront of his house and later they have shifted the deceased to Government Hospital, Adilabad in a auto wherein the doctors declared the deceased as brought dead. Pw2 deposed that he lodged complaint to the police and later police examined him and recorded his statement.
23.Pw2 during cross-examination deposed that he is unable to read and write
Telugu and then SI of Police scribed report at his house and examined him and recorded his statement at his house. Pw2 expressed ignorance of contents of his complaint. Pw2 deposed that there is no Rayi centre in his village. Pw2 admitted that Lw7/Pw3/A.Anjali and Pw11/Athram Ravi are brother are sister by courtesy and they are under prohibited degree of marriage. Pw2 denied that no panchayth held infront of his house and no elders were present and that PW.2 did not state before the police about the presence of the deceased with Pw2 at the time alleged incident and
FA 11 of 37 denied that the accused had not bet his son/deceased. Pw2 denied that the deceased consumed liquor and fell down on hard surface and as a result the deceased received injuries and died and that accused is not responsible for death of the deceased.
24.Pw2 denied that due to previous disputes with the accused family and family of Pw2, accused was falsely implicated in this case to extract money and that the deceased consumed liquor and fell down on hard surface object and as a result of injuries, the deceased died.
25. Except giving suggestion to PW.2 that the deceased consumed liquor and fell down on hard surface object and as a result of injuries, the deceased died and that there is land disputes in between the accused and family of the PW.2, no material particulars extracted from the evidence of the PW.2 to prove that there is any previous enemity in between the accused family and the family of the PW.2 more particularly with respect to alleged land disputes to discredit the testimony of the PW.2 .
26. The evidence of the PW.2 discloses that he is an illiterate person and rustic witness and therefore his evidence that his complaint was also scribed by sub-inspector of police is only due to lack of education of PW.2 and not having technical knowledge. It is not the case of the accused that the PW.2 was never examined by the police at his house and that the statement of
PW.2 under section 161(3) code of criminal procedure was never recorded by the police. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that there are two complaints I.e one by the PW.1 and another by
PW.2 is not tenable since the scribe /PW.9 has categorically identified his signature and hand writings under EXP.1.
FA 12 of 37
27.Pw3 /Lw3/Athram Anjali deposed that she is resident of Marrepally village of Talamadugu mandal and that she know Pw1, Pw2, Lw3/K.Laxman,
Lw4/K.Supari,Lw5/K.Raju,Lw8/A.Laxmna,Lw9/A.LaxmiBai,
Lw10/S.Devanna, Lw11/B.Ganganna and the accused. Pw3 is deposed that about six years ago she and Pw11/Athram Ravi fell in love and had sexual relationship with the Pw11/Athram RAvi and a result Pw3 became pregnant for which Pw3 had placed the panchayath infront of the house of the Pw1 and that the village elders along with other village elders were present in the said panchayath and in the said panchayath Pw3 along with her parents and the Pw11/Athram Ravi along with his parents were present in the said panchayath and in the said Panchayath Pw3 had revelaed all the things to the elders but the Athram Ravi/Pw11 did not reveal anything as such Pw2 had questioned the said Ravi about his silence and had slapped him and later aunt of Athram Ravi/Pw11 had attempted to beat Pw3 as such the mother, sister in law and aunt of Pw3 had taken her to the house.
28.Pw3 testified that the deceased died as he was beaten by someone and expressed ignorance of the cause of death and was declared hostile by the prosecution. During course of cross-examination by learned Public
Prosecutor Pw3 testified that the accused was present at some distance from the panchayath area and that the accused is friend of said Athram
Ravi/Pw11. Pw3 admitted that the accused had asked Pw2 not to beat the said Athram Ravi/Pw11 and that by that time the deceased was also present at the panchayath. Pw3 deposed that she had not observed the altercation in between the accused the deceased. However after 4 or 5 days
Pw3 came to know that the accused beaten the deceased by using a
FA 13 of 37
MO.1/stone and thereafter the deceased was shifted to hospital where in the deceased was died. Pw3 denied that she stated before the police as in
Ex.P2.
29.Pw3 during course of cross-examination on behalf of the accused expressed ignorance about the incident taken place at the panchayth since she was shifted to another village and had not witnessed how the deceased died.
Pw3 admitted that no panchayath was held with regard to love affair with
Athram Ravi/Pw11. Pw3 expressed ignorance as to whether the accused and the deceased were present at the panchayath and that deceased himself fell down on the hard surface and died.
30. Though PW.3 has turned hostile to the case of prosecution however, it is elicited during the course of the cross examination of the PW.3 by the learned public prosecutor that the accused was also present at the time of the incident and same was admitted by the PW.3 and accused had asked the PW.2 not to beat the PW.11 in the said panchayat and that PW.3 later came to know the deceased was beaten to death by the accused with the help of stone/MO.1 and thereafter the deceased was shifted to hospital and died.
31.During the course of cross examination on behalf of the defence no suggestion was given to the PW.3 by the learned counsel for the accused that PW.3 along with her parents had not attended the said panchayat along with her parents I.e LW.8/A.Laxman and LW.9/A.Laxmi bai and that parents of the PW.11/Athram Ravi including PW.11 were also not present in the said panchayat and that PW.3 had not revealed about her love affairs with the PW.11 before the Panchayat elders and that the said A.Ravi/PW.11
FA 14 of 37 had not kept silent for which the PW.2 had not questioned the said PW.11 about the same and that PW.3 had never approached PW.2 for conveying the panchayat more particularly about 6 years ago with regard to her love affair and pregnancy through the PW.11 and about her revelations made about the same before the PW.2 and other panchayat elders.
32.It is pertinent to mention that a suggestion was given to the PW.3 by the learned counsel for the accused that the deceased himself fell down on hard and rough surface and as a result died and another suggestion given to
PW.3 as to how the deceased died and a suggestion as to whether the deceased and the accused were present in the said panchayat is contrary to one another and in any case, it suggests that the on the date of incident at relevant period, the accused and the deceased were present during course of panchayat.
33. No suggestion was given to the PW.3 by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused had never subjected the deceased to death and or the deceased was never beaten by any one and the evidence of the
PW.3 during course of cross examination by the learned public prosecutor regarding presence of the deceased and the accused in the said panchayat and about the knowledge of PW.3 that the accused had beaten the deceased with a MO.1 and about the altercation in between the deceased and the accused in the said panchayat is false.
34.The evidence of the PW.3 discloses that there was panchayat conveyed at the instance of the PW.3 in front of the house of the PW.1 with respect to love affairs of the PW.3 with PW.11 and village elders and other village elders had attended the said panchayat and the PW.3 along with her
FA 15 of 37 parents I.e LW.8/A.Laxman and LW.9/A.Laxmi bai and the parents of the
PW.11/Athram Ravi including PW.11 were also present and PW.3 had revealed about her love affairs with the PW.11 before the Panchayat elders and that the said A.Ravi/PW.11 kept silent for which the PW.2 had questioned the said PW.11 about the same and about the presence of the deceased and the accused in the said panchayat and about the altercation in between the deceased and the accused in the said panchayat and about the knowledge of PW.3 that the accused had beaten the deceased with a
MO.1.
35.Pw4/Lw10/Eye witness and one of the panchayath elder of Kuchalapur village has resiled from his previous statement and turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
36.Pw5/Lw11/ is also one of the eye witness and one of the panchayath elder of Kuchalapur village has resiled from his previous statement and turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
37.Pw6/Lw14/One of the Eye witness and Elder of Laxmipur village deposed that he know Pw1 , Pw2, Lw3/K.Laxman, Lw4/K.Supari, Lw5/K.Raju, Pw3 to Pw5, Lw8/Athram Laxman, Lw9/Athram Laxmibai, Lw10/Salla
Devanna/Pw4, Lw11/Buyyami Ganganna @ Gangareddy/Pw5, Lw12/Madavi
Ramu, Lw13/Tekam Somanna, Lw14/Athram Jangu/Pw6, Lw15/Tekam
Ramu/Pw7, Lw16/Madavi Supari, Lw17.K.Sainath, Lw20/A.Ravi/Pw11 and
Pw3. Pw6 deposed that Pw3 and Pw11 decided to marry but some disputes arose and as such a panchayath was held at the house of Pw2 at Marrepally village about 5 years ago and Pw2 who is father of the deceased in the said panchayath was the elders of the Marrepally village and Kuchalapur village
FA 16 of 37 elders had also participated in the said panchayath Pw11/Athram Ravi did not speak anything and then Pw2/K.Bheem Rao threatened the
Pw11/Athram Ravi as to why he was not speaking regarding the issue with
Pw3/Anjali and in the mean time the accused had beat the deceased on his chest with a stone/MO.1 and also beat the deceased over his testicles stating that why you are threatening Pw11/Athram Ravi and thereafter phone call was made for Ambulance to shift the deceased to hospital and since the Ambulance had not arrived in time as such the deceased was shifted in an auto and on the way when they reached to Kodad village, the
Ambulance came in opposite direction and then the deceased was shifted to the said Ambulance and was admitted in RIMS Hospital, Adilabad wherein the doctors declared the deceased as brought dead. Pw6 testified that the accused is responsible for the cause of the death of the deceased.
38.During course of cross-examination Pw6 deposed that on the date of incident he went to agricultural work from 09:00 AM and returned at 06:00
PM. Pw6 denied that deceased himself fell down from hard surface and received injuries and accused no way concerned with the said incident.
Pw6 admitted that Pw2 is his uncle.
39.Pw7/Lw15 is one of the Eye witness and elder of Laxmipur village deposed that he know Pw1 to Pw6, Lw4/K.Supari, Lw5/K.Raju, Lw8/Athram Laxman,
Lw9/Athram Laxmibai, Lw10/Salla Devanna/Pw4, Lw11/Buyyami Ganganna @ Gangareddy/Pw5, Lw12/Madavi Ramu, Lw13/Tekam Somanna,
Lw14/Athram Jangu/Pw6, Lw16/Madavi Supari, Lw17/ Pw8/Karenwar
Sainath, Lw8/A.Laxman and Lw20/A.Ravi/Pw11 and the accused. Pw7 deposed that about 5 years back a panchayath was held infront of house of
FA 17 of 37
Pw2 in respect of love affair of Pw3 and Pw11/Athram Ravi and the Athram
Ravi Pw11 did not heed the words of elders and the in the said panchayath the accused had bet the deceased by using MO.1/stone on his shoulder and chest but PW.7 had not seen the same. Pw7 deposed further that Pw2 admonished Pw11Athram Ravi as he refused to marry Pw3 and in meantime the accused came and beat the deceased with MO.1 as a result deceased died. Pw7 deposed further that deceased was intially shifted to hospital in a auto and thereafter when they reached to Kodada village, they shifted the deceased to Ambulance. Pw7 categorically deposed that the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased.
40.During the course of cross-examination of Pw7 deposed that Pw2 is the sone of his younger paternal uncle and that Pw7 live on agriculture and on the date of incident Pw7 had attended agricultural work at 09:00 AM and returned at 06:00 PM. Pw7 denied that he was not present at the panchayath and the accused had not bet the deceased. Pw7 admitted that
Pw3 and Pw11 are sister and brother by courtesy. Pw7 volunteer that the incident had taken place only due to issue of Pw3 and Pw11. Pw7 denied that deceased himself fell down on hard surface and received the injuries for which the accused is no way concerned.
41. The evidence of the PW.6 discloses that the accused bet the deceased on his chest and testicles, where as the evidence of PW.7 discloses that the accused had beat the deceased on his chest and shoulder and same was not seen by the PW.7 however, PW.7 deposed categorically that the accused is only responsible for the death of the deceased. No doubt the evidence of PW.7 is varying with regard to assault upon the part of the
FA 18 of 37 deceased, however the evidence of PW.6 and PW.7 is not destroyed in material particulars regarding the causing death of deceased due to assault inflicted upon the person of the deceased with a MO.1/stone when the PW.2 had admonished the PW.11 to accept for the marriage with PW.3 during course of panchayat in presence of the panchayat elders in front of the house of PW.2.
42.No doubt the evidence of Pw6 and Pw7 reveals that they have attended the agricultural field from 09:00 A.M. and returned to 06:00
P.M. however it is never the case of defence that there is no possibility for Pw6 and Pw7 to be present in the said panchayat held at Marrepalli vilalge during afternoon hours which is also lunch hour for any human being. It is also not the case of defence that Pw6 and
Pw7 cannot take leave out of their agricultural work. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the accused that Pw6 and Pw7 had not witnessed the incident at the relevant point of time since they have attended the agricultural work from 09:00 A.M. and returned to 06:00 P.M. is not tenable and this Court do not find force in the contention of learned counsel for the accused.
43.Pw9 Lw18 is the scribe of Ex.P1 report had turned hostile to the case of prosecution, however PW.9 admitted his signature and handwrittings under EXP.1/report
44.Pw8/Lw17 is the auto driver who shifted the deceased for the medical treatment deposed that at about 4 or 5 years ago at about 12:10 PM while
Pw8 was present at Kuchalapur auto stand at that time one of his villager
FA 19 of 37 came and informed him that a person felldown at Marrepally village and became unconscious and then Pw8 immediately rushed to Marrepally village and found a male person unconscious and then the villagers asked him to shift the said person to RIMS, Adilabad in his auto and accordingly
Pw8 shifted the deceased in his auto and on the way towards Adilabad near
Kodada village the Ambulance came in his opposite direction and the staff of the said Ambulance examined the said male person and declared that the said male person died and later Pw8 had shifted the dead body to the
RIMS Hsopital, Adilabad. Pw8 expressed his ignorance about the cause of the death of the deceased and turned hositle to the case of the prosecution.
During course of cross-examination by the learned Public Proseuction Pw8 denied that he stated before the police as in Ex.P5. During course of cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused denied that he did not shift the deceased in his auto from Mareepallyu village to RIMS, Adilabad.
45.Pw.10/Lw19 is one of the emergency medical technician of 108 Ambulance deposed that on 17-06-2018 at about 02:00 PM, he had received a phone call from his head office regarding violence case and informed that an injured person was being shifting to RIMS, Adilabad in a auto and asked
Pw10 to go and pick up the injured and accordingly Pw10 proceeded to
Kuchalapur village along with 108 Ambulance and when reached Kodada village the person who are shifting the said injured had stopped the vehicle and Pw10 got down from the Ambulance and checked the vitals of the injured and found that the vitals are totally zero and informed that the injured was almost died and suggested to shift the said injured to the nearest Government Hospital for confirmation of death and accordingly the
FA 20 of 37 injured was shifted to RIMS, Adilabad and later Pw10 came to know that the said injured is the deceased resident of Marrepally village. During course of cross-examination Pw10 admitted that he did not furnish any document to the police showing that he is working in 108 Ambulance. Pw10 denied that he is not employee of 108 Ambulance.
46.The evidence of the PW.8 and PW.10 are circumstantial in nature which proves that the deceased was shifted to nearest Government hospital in an auto at first instance and subsequently on the way to kodad village, PW.9 reached there upon the information from his head office regarding vilence case and found that the deceased is almost died.
47.Pw11/Lw20/Athram Ravi deposed that he is resident of Marrepally village of
Talamadugu mandal and doing coolie work and that he know Pw1 to Pw5 ,
Lw3/K.Laxmi, Lw4/K.Supari, Lw5/K.Raju, Lw6/M.Srikanth, Lw8/A.Laxman,
Lw9/A.Laxmibai and Lw12/M.Ramu apart from the accused and the deceased. Pw11 deposed that the deceased died about 6 years ago about 01:00 PM at marrepally village in the year 2018 and on one day village elders called him near the house of Pw2 with regard to his love affair with
Pw3/A.Anjali and in the said panchayath Pw2 had bet Pw11 with his hands and later the father and relatives of Pw11 had stopped Pw2 and took away
Pw11 from there and later Pw11 came to know that the said deceased died by falling on the ground due to high blood pressure.
48. Pw11 denied that he had personally witnessed the incident regarding accused beating the deceased with a stone/MO.1 and that Pw11 stated
before the police as in Ex.P7. Pw11 deposed that he married Pw3 after the
above said panchayath. Pw11 denied that deceased died due to attack by
FA 21 of 37 the accused and not due to blood pressure. During course of cross- examination on behalf of defense Pw11 deposed that he has not seen when the accused allegedly beating the deceased.
49. The evidence of Pw11 though turned hostile to the case of prosecution proves that there was panchayath held in between Pw3 and Pw11 in presence of Pw2 and other elders.
50.Pw12/Lw22/K.Jangu is panch for Crime Detail Form deposed that he is resident of Marrepally village of Talamadugu mandal and that about 4 years ago police obtained his thumb impression infront of house of Pw2 and expressed ignorance about the reason for the said thumb impression obtained by the police and Pw12 had turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
51.Pw13/Lw24/K.Ramesh is panch for inquest panchanama had turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
52.Pw14/Lw24/D.Purushotham is the panch for inquest panchanama also turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
53.Pw15/Lw25/Dr.B.Shekar Rao deposed that he conducted medical legal autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 18-06-2018 as per the requisition of Circle Inspector of Police, Adilabad Rural from 12:05 PM. To 01:05 PM. He found the following antemorrem external and internal injuries over the dead body of the deceased.
a) Grazed abrasion 1X1 CM present over forehead on left side.
b) Grazed abrasion 1X1.5 CM present over just below left eye.
c) Contusion 1X1.5 CM present over front of chest on left side near nipple.
FA 22 of 37
d) Contusion 1X1 CM present over front of chest on right side just below right nipple.
e) Contusion 4X3 CM present over right testes.
f) Contusion 4X3 CM present over left testes.
54.Pw15 deposed that he concluded the postmortem by 01:05 PM on same day and approximate time of death is below 24 hours prior to postmortem examination and opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to hammeroage and shock due to blunt injury to chest and scrotum as under
Ex.P10.During course of cross examination Pw15 deposed that there were no fractal injuries on chest and ribs of the deceased and also not found any internal injuries in the chest and the stomach part of the deceased. Pw15 deposed that if a stone is used against the person with a considerable force there is every chance of fracture of ribs and if a person falls on hard surface the above said injuries are possible. Pw15 deposed that he has not found rupture of any testicle.
55.Pw16/Lw27 is one of the Investigating Officer who registered First
Information Report on 17-06-2018 at 17:20 hours when Pw1 came to
Talamadugu police station and submitted Ex.P1report and basing on the
Ex.P1/report, Pw16 had registered the same as in case in Crime No.
39/2018 dated 17-06-2018 under section 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code of Talamdugu police station and later PW.16 examined and recorded the statement of Pw1 and handover the CD file to Pw17/Circle Inspector of
Police, Adilabad Rural for further investigation.
FA 23 of 37
56.Pw17/Lw28 is also one of the Investigating Officer deposed regarding chronology of investigation and filing of chargesheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code. During course of cross-examination Pw17 deposed that he has not received any written report from Pw1. Pw17 denied that no case property has been seized near the scene of offence and denied that MO1/stone cannot be thrown or pelted upon any human being with single hand since weight of MO1 is more than 10 KG. Pw17 admitted that no panch slips affixed to the material objects 1 to 5 however denied that he has not visited the scene of offence on 17-06-2018. Pw17 denied that no date mentioned in Ex.P12 with respect to preparation of crime details form and rough sketch. Pw17 denied further that Pw12 is not the local witness of the scene of offence and denied further that no independent witnesses examined during course of investigation. Pw17 denied further that there is fracture injuries upon the deceased as per Ex.P10 and that he conducted false investigation against the accused and filed false charge sheet against the accused. Pw17 denied that there is no proper transport from Sonapur village to Marlapally village of Adilabad District and that the same are located at far distance from the scene of offence.
57.Learned counsel for the accused has argued that there is a material contradiction on the case of prosecution with respect to scribing of ExP1 report as per the testimony of Pw1, PW.2,Pw16 and PW.17 and that Pw1 expressed ignorance about the exact date of the incident and that Pw1 had not filed any report before the outpost police station RIMS Hospital,
Adilabad and no such complaint or entry was lodged or registered suo-
FA 24 of 37 motto by the police authorities and there is also material contradictions in the evidence of Pw1, Pw2 with respect to beating Pw2 by the accused and the accused also beating the deceased with a MO.1/stone and that according to medical officer /Pw15 no injuries were found on the back of the deceased and no fracture injuries was found on the chest of the deceased and no post mortem injuries are shown to be consistent with the alleged beatings and no proof that stone blow caused the deceased and that the deceased might have fallen himself and there is also contradiction with respect to evidence of Pw4 and Pw5 who are eye witnesses apart from evidence of Pw6 and PW.7 and the evidence of Pw6 and Pw7 clearly discloses that they were not present at the time of incident and that they have attended their respective agricultural field from 09:00 AM to 06:00 PM and the evidence of Pw11 discloses that the deceased fell down on the ground due to high blood pressure which discloses that the accused had not assaulted upon the deceased at any point of the time and the evidence of
Pw17 discloses that material object no.1 to 5 were not having panch slips affixed over it and the panch for crime details form and inquest panchanama had turned hostile to the case of prosecution and that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
58. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the authority in Vadivelu Thevar vs State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614, Wherein it is held that a conviction can be based solely on the testimony of a single witness, provided that witness is "wholly reliable".
FA 25 of 37
59.Kali ram vs State of Himanchal Pradesh, 1973 2 SCC 808, Wherein it is held that, if there is reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt, the doubt is resolved in favor of the accused, leading to acquittal. The presumption of innocence, ruling that if two reasonable views of evidence exist, the one favoring the accused must prevail. The court acquitted Kali
Ram of double murder, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
60.State of Rajasthan vs Bhawani 2003 7 SCC 291, Wherein it is held that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross- examine him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
61.Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharastra 1984 4 SCC 116,
Wherein it is held that the law regarding the nature and character of proof of circumstantial evidence should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved..... it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
62.Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs State of M,P AIR 1952 SC 343, wherein it is held that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that conviction might be based on suspicions rather than legal proof. The Court in this case laid down the principles governing the circumstantial evidence: Circumstances from which the
FA 26 of 37 conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. Fact so established should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that accused is guilty. Facts should be of conclusive nature. The fact should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability must have been done by the accused.
63.Per contra learned additional public prosecutor representing the state has argued that the Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, allows conviction based on the testimony of even a single witness, provided the court finds such testimony to be reliable and trustworthy. He argued that the inconsistency pointed out in PW1 and PW.2’s earlier statement is not substantive in nature. The prosecution also pointed out that the FIR was lodged promptly, suggesting that testimony of PW.1 was not fabricated or influenced and that this crime is of year 2018 due to long lapse of time the slips affixed over MO.1 to 5 is not appearing and that MO.1 to 5 were duly seized under cover of panchanama after following due formalities and there is no illegalality regarding seizure of MO.1 to 5 and the evidence of the doctor/PW.15 proves that the deceased died due to blunt injury over chest and scortum and accordingly issued EXP.10 and there is no suggestion given to doctor denying that the cause of the death of the deceased is not due to blunt injury over chest and scortum and that the opinion of the doctor under EXP.10 is false and hence the evidence of doctor coupled with the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and the eye witnessess PW.6 and PW.7 apart from the evidence of the PW.3 and PW.11 proves the guilt of the
FA 27 of 37 accused in this case that the due to beatings by the accused through MO.1 upon the chest and scortum of the deceased resulted death of the deceased.
64.The learned Counsel for the accused contended that the opinionative evidence of PW-15-doctor does not corroborate the oral evidence of PW- 1,2.6 and 7 as to the manner in which the injury was caused to deceased with MO-1-stone and further stated that the evidence of PW-1,2.6 and 7 is sought to be assailed on the basis of answers elicited from PW-15-doctor.
65.The expert is not a witness of fact. Opinionative evidence of the doctor is primarily an evidence of opinion and not of fact. It is only a corroborative piece of evidence as to the possibility that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Unless the medical evidence Rules out such possibility of injury being caused in the manner alleged by the prosecution version, the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be doubted on the ground of its inconsistency with medical evidence. Though at one place, PW-15-doctor has stated that there were no fracture injuries on chest and no rupture of testicles. Considering the evidence of PW-15-doctor, there is no merit in the contention as to the alleged variance between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence.
66.Panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. MO-1-/stone was recovered from the scene of occurrence under
Ex.-P12- crime detail form along with rough sketch. On behalf of the
Accused, learned counsel contended that the evidence of PW-17 as to the recovery of MO-1-is doubtful when PWs 12 had turned hostile, no weight could be attached to the alleged recovery of MO-1-stone. There is no merit
FA 28 of 37 in the contention that merely because the panch witnesses turned hostile, the recovery of the weapon would stand vitiated. It is fairly well settled that the evidence of the Investigating Officer can be relied upon to prove the recovery even when the panch witnesses turned hostile. In Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1978) 4 SCC 435 it was observed that where the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution version. In Anter
Singh v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0096/2004 : (2004) 10 SCC
657, it was further held that even if panch witnesses turn hostile, which happens very often in criminal cases, the evidence of the person who effected the recovery would not stand vitiated. In the instant case, it is not the case of defence that the testimony of the investigating officer suffers from any infirmity or doubt.
67.PW-17 has clearly spoken about the recovery of MO-1/stone at the the scene of occurrence and his evidence cannot be discarded merely because panch witnesses have turned hostile.
68.From the evidence of PW-1,2,6 and 7, the prosecution has proved the overt act of Accused and the same is corroborated by the corresponding injuries as spoken by PW-15/doctor.
69.As discussed supra, in the present case, the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution witnesses PW.1, PW.2,
PW.6 and PW.7 have corroborated the case of prosecution and presence of the accused and the deceased also established with the evidence of the
FA 29 of 37
PW.3 on the date of offence near the scene of offence is established and the deceased was lastly seen alive with the accused in the said panchayat conveyed in front of the house of the PW.2 and when the deceased was beaten to death by the accused with the mo.1/stone was personally witnessed by them and others who were present in the said panchayat with the deceased and the accused and hence the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused is not applicable to facts of the present case.
70.In view of the foregoing discussions, the nexus between the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, their cause, the weapon of offence i.e.
the stone/Mo.1 and cause of the death of the deceased stands proved.
71.The evidence of PW.1, PW.2 PW.6 and PW.7 reveals that they have brought the deceased to the RIMS Hospital Adilabad. The evidence of PW1 reveals that she had accompanied the deceased along with the LW.3/L.Laxmi,
LW.4/ K.Supari, and PW.2 when the deceased was shifted to the Hospital.
PW-15 proved the MLC of the deceased Ex.P.10.
72. The evidence of the PW.1 clearly discloses that she is an illeterate and she approached to Talamadugu police and had lodged report under EXP.1 which was scribed as per her dictation and narration and it contains her thumb impression and failure to state the correct identity of the scribe of the
EXP.1/Report is not fatal to the case of the prosecution since the scribe/PW.9 has identified his signature on EXP.1 and admitted that it is scribed by him . It is not the case of the PW.9/scribe that the said report is got scribed through him by using undue influence at the instance of the
PW.1 and not based on narration of PW.1 or the PW.1 was not present at
FA 30 of 37 the time of scribing the report under EXP.1.
73.There is no suggestion given to the PW.1 by the learned counsel for the accused that she had not witnessed the incident or she was not available at the time of the incident. It is clear from the evidence of the PW.2, PW.3, 6,7 and PW.11 that the incident had taken place in front of the house of the
PW.1 and PW.2 and PW.1 is the daughter in law of the PW.2 and wife of the deceased and it is probable and natural regarding the presence of PW.1 at the time of the incident . It is no where suggested to PW.1 that the PW.1 had gone to attend any works or was not available at the relevant point of time.
74.The evidence of the PW.1, PW.2, PW.6 and PW.7 discloses that the deceased was subjected to death with the help of MO.1/Stone on his chest and stomach during course of panchayat when the deceased had intervened while the accused was turning against the PW.2 and when the accused had pushed the PW.2 in a heated argument in between the deceased and the accused and having raised his voice against the PW.2 when PW.2 admonished the PW.11 to accept for marrying PW.3.0000
75. The evidence of the PW.6 and PW.7 who are panchayat elders of Laxmi pur village and eye witnesses to the case of prosecution categorically deposed that the accused had beat the deceased to death during course of the panchayat held with regard to love affairs and marriage in between the PW.3 and PW.11 with the help of stone/MO.1.
76.The evidence of PW.11 proves that on one day village elders called him near the house of Pw2 with regard to his love affair with Pw3/A.Anjali and in
FA 31 of 37 the said panchayath , Pw2 had bet Pw11 with his hands. No doubt Pw11 turned hostile for the case of prosecution, however during the course of cross examination on behalf of prosecution, it was elicited in the evidence of the PW.11 that PW.11 came to know that the accused bet the deceased by using a stone as a result the deceased died.
77.The evidence of PW.8 reveals that he shifted the deceased to RIMS Hospital,
Adilabad in his Auto at about 4 or 5 years ago at about 12:10 p.m while the deceased was unconscious and while he reached near kodad village, ambulance came in opposite direction and the staff of the said ambulance examined the deceased and declared as dead and later he shifted the deceased to RIMS Hospital, Adilabad.
78. The evidence of the doctor/PW.15 proves that the cause of death of the deceased is due to hammeroage and shock due to blunt injury to chest and scrotum as under Ex.P10.
79.Looking to the act on part of the accused in targeting the part of body of the deceased that vital organs with a MO.1 coupled with intensity it has to be concluded that the accused is liable to be attributed with the knowledge that the injuries which he inflicted by using the weapon in hand, would be sufficient to result into death in ordinary course. At the same time, the sequence of event highlights that there was heated exchange of words between deceased and the accused prior to the incident. There was an element of impulse and anger on part of the accused. The accused picked up the MO.1/stone at the scene of crime, and he was not carrying the same.
There was no prior enmity between the deceased and the accused. The testimony of Pw.1,2,6 and 7 do not show that the accused while inflicting the
FA 32 of 37 injuries has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner.
Given the above aspects and in the totality of facts and circumstances emerging in the whole incident, it would not be correct to presume or view in respect of the conduct on part of the accused that the accused acted with premeditation to kill or that he acted in assailing the deceased with an intention to cause death. The degree of the offence committed could not be said to be partaking the act of murder as defined under section 300 of the
Indian Penal Code since it could be concluded that the intention to cause death was missing.
80.This Court is of the view after taking above factors cumulatively, this case will be covered by exception no.4 of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, and the act on part of the accused has to be treated as ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ falling under section 304 part I of the Indian
Penal Code. Since the offence under section 304 part I of the Indian Penal
Code is cognate to the major offence punishable under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, therefore, in the light of mandate of section 222(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code the accused can be convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 part I of the Indian Penal Code although he is not charged with it.
81. In view of the findings, this Court arrived at while adjudicating point nos.1 and 2, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has committed the offences punishable under section 302 and section 323 of the Indian Penal Code , and the accused is acquitted for the said offences under section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the proseccution has proved that the accused has committed an offence
FA 33 of 37 punishable under section 304 part I of the Indian Penal Code, and the accused is convicted for the said offence under section 235(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code. This point is answered accordingly.
Partly dictated to Stenographer Gr.1 and transcribed by him, partly typed to my dictation by the Typist and partly prepared by me in my official Laptop, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court on 9 th February, 2026.
Judge, Family Court-cum-
III Addl. District and Sessions
Judge ,Adilabad.
Heard the accused on quantum on sentence. The accused has stated that he is reporting no evidence with respect to quantum of sentence that may be imposed upon him by this court.
82.The accused has stated that he is having a wife who is pregnant at present and that he is having a daughter aged 6 years and that his parents are no more and that he live by agricultural labor work and only earning member in his family and prayed to take lenient view. In the instant case Pw.1, Pw.2, PW.6 and Pw.7 in their depositions have deposed before this court specifically on oath that the accused had altercated with the deceased and beaten the deceased with the stone/MO.1, upon his chest and testicals causing instant death of the deceased.
The offence committed by the accused depict his perverse mindset.
83.In the circumstance of the case in which the accused is convicted for the commission of an offence punishable Under Section 304 part 1 of Indian Penal
Code, the benefit of provisions of Section 360 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the probations of offender act 1958 to the accused is not extended.
84.Considering the nature of the offence proved against the accused and his plea for taking lenient view in sentencing him, this court feels that ends of Justice
FA 34 of 37 would meet on imposition of the sentence on the accused.
85.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for commission of offences punishable under sections 302 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted for the said offences under section 235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code and the accused is found guilty for commission of offence punishable under section 304 part 1 of Indian Penal Code and he is convicted for the said offence under section 235 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the said offence.
86.MO.1 to 5 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
87.The period of detention underwent by the accused during the investigation from 21.06.2018 to 28.09.2018 shall be set off under section 428 of Criminal
Procedure Code.
88.Accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the Judgment of this Court before Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.
89.The accused is given copy of this judgment free of cost immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment as per Section 363 of Criminal Procedure
Code.
Typed to my dictation by the Typist in open court on this 9th February 2026.
Judge, Family Court-cum-
III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad
FA 35 of 37
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE
PW1/Tekam Archana W/o. Laxman -NONE- LW1: PW2/Tekam Bheemrao S/o. Ramulu LW2: PW3/Athram Anjali W/o. Ravi LW7: PW4/Salla Devanna S/o. Kistanna LW10: PW5/B.Ganganna @ Ganga Reddy LW11:S/o.Kistanna PW6/Athram Jangu S/o. Punjanna LW14: PW7/Tekam Ramu S/o. Bheemrao LW15: PW8/K. Sainath, S/o. Ramulu LW17: PW9/Ragi Sainath S/o. Uttam LW18: PW10/K.Megha Shyam Reddy LW19:S/o.Shiva Reddy PW11/Athram Ravi S/o. Madhav LW20: PW12/K.Jangu S/o. Ayyu LW22: PW13/K.Ramesh S/o. Poshamallu LW23: PW14/D.Purushotham S/o. Bhumanna LW24: PW15/Dr.B.Shekar Rao S/o. B. Bapu LW25:Rao PW16/P.Subba Rao S/o. Appa Rao LW27: PW17/A. Pradeep Kumar S/o. Poshetty LW28:
FA 36 of 37
DOCUMENTS/EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE
Ex.P1:Written report of PW1 of PS Talamadugu - NIL - Ex.P2:Previous statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW3/LW7 Ex.P3:Previous statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW4/LW10 Ex.P4:Previous statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW5/LW11 Ex.P5:Previous statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW8/LW17 Ex.P6:Previous statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW9/LW18 Ex.P7:Previous statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW11/LW20 Ex.P8:Signature of PW13/LW23 on inquest panchanama,
dated: 18.06.2018
Ex.P9:Signature of PW14/LW24 on inquest panchanama,
dated: 18.06.2018
Ex.P10:Postmortem examination report of deceased Tekam Ayyu marked through PW15/LW25/Dr. B.Shekar Rao Ex.P11:Express First Information Report in Cr.No.39/2018,
dated: 17.06.2018 for the offence under section 302,
323 of Indian Penal Code of P.S. Talamadugu (Marked through PW16/LW27/Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Chennur). Ex.P12:Crime Details Form along with rough sketch (Marked through PW17/LW28/A. Pradeep Kumar, Inspector of Police, Karimnagar Rural) Ex.P13:Three positive colour photographs along with compact disk Marked through PW17/LW28/A. Pradeep Kumar, Inspector of Police, Karimnagar Rural) Ex.P14:Inquest panchanama dated: 18.06.2018 (Marked through PW17/LW28/A. Pradeep Kumar, Inspector of Police, Karimnagar Rural) Ex.P15:Original Requisition of Circle Inspector of Police, Adilabad (Marked through PW17/LW28/A. Pradeep Kumar, Inspector of Police, Karimnagar Rural) Ex.P16:Statement of PW1 under section 164 Cr.P.C. (Marked
FA 37 of 37 through PW17/LW28/A. Pradeep Kumar, Inspector of Police, Karimnagar Rural) Ex.P17:Statement of PW2 under section 164 Cr.P.C. (Marked through PW17/LW28/A. Pradeep Kumar, Inspector of Police, Karimnagar Rural) Ex.P18:Statement of PW3 under section 164 Cr.P.C. (Marked through PW17/LW28/A. Pradeep Kumar, Inspector of Police, Karimnagar Rural)
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE
MO.1 : Stone (Marked through PW17/LW28/A. Pradeep - NIL - Kumar, Inspector of Police, Karimnagar Rural) MO.2:One blue jeans ( Neeli rangu jean pant) (Marked through PW17/LW28/A. Pradeep Kumar, Inspector of Police, Karimnagar Rural) MO.3:One check shirt (Nallani Neeli rangu addamu niluvu geethalu gala full shirt) MO.4:Red colour banian MO.5: Black colour underwear.
Judge Family Court -cum-
III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.
FA