Currently Serving

Smt. P. Neeraja

Q: How many cases has Smt. P. Neeraja handled?

Smt. P. Neeraja has handled 171 court orders since 2025 at Rajanna Sircilla, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 13 orders per month.

Q: What types of cases does Smt. P. Neeraja hear?

Based on available records, Smt. P. Neeraja primarily handles Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Appeal Suits) and Criminal matters (Criminal Appeals, Sessions Cases) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at Rajanna Sircilla, PDJ Court Complex.

Q: Where is Smt. P. Neeraja currently posted?

Smt. P. Neeraja is posted as Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Rajanna Sircilla, PDJ Court Complex, Rajanna Siricilla, Telangana.

Q: Are judgments by Smt. P. Neeraja available online?

Yes. 11 judgments by Smt. P. Neeraja are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

Q: How fast does Smt. P. Neeraja dispose cases?

Smt. P. Neeraja disposes approximately 13 cases per month, based on 171 orders handled over their tenure at Rajanna Sircilla, PDJ Court Complex.

Q: Since when is Smt. P. Neeraja serving?

Smt. P. Neeraja has been serving at Rajanna Sircilla, PDJ Court Complex since 2025. and is currently posted there.

Prl. District and Sessions Judge

Rajanna Sircilla, PDJ Court Complex · Rajanna Siricilla · Telangana

Smt. P. Neeraja, Prl. District and Sessions Judge, is posted at Rajanna Sircilla, PDJ Court Complex, Rajanna Siricilla, Telangana, India. 171 court orders on record since 2025. 11 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles EP, CRLA, MVOP cases.

171

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

SC/75/2022 Acquitted

The State through Circle Inspector of Police, Sircilla Rural vs Kasthuri Ram Reddy @ Chinna Ramulu

29 Apr 2026

Fair 1of77 S.C.No.75of 2022

IN THECOURTOFTHEPRINCIPAL

SESSIONSJUDGE,

RAJANNASIRCILLA.

PRESENT:SMT.P.NEERAJA

PRINCIPALSESSIONS

JUDGE,

RAJANNASIRCILLA.

WEDNESDAY,THISTHEOF APRIL,

29THDAY2026

E.INSENO.75OF 2

'Nameofthe complainant

The StateInspector of|

throughCircle

Police,SircillaRural(Crime No.253of ,2020of P.S.Mustabad).

Description

ofthe accused(Al. Kasthuri

RamReddy @

ChinnaRamulu,S/o.Bhumaiah,

‘Age:46Reddy,

years,

A2, Kasthuri

Venkatesh,

S/o.RamReddy @Chinna

Ramulu,

Age:27Reddy,

years,

A3.KasthuriMahesh,

‘S/o.RamReddy @Chinna

Ramulu,

Age:23 years,Reddy,

A4.KasthuriManjula Wio.RamReddy @ChinnaRamulu,

Age:45years,Reddy,

ALRio. Bandanakal

to A4 are

villageof Mustabad

Mandal.

;A5.DevarayaSanjeevulu,

||S/o.Chandraiah,Age:27 years,

||ST-Erukala,

R/o.Bairanpalli (v)

||MaddurMandalof Siddipet.

¥

of 2022-* of77$.C.No.75 Fair2

NarasimhaSwamy

A6.Kontham Swamy,S/o.Sailu, @Narsa

25Mudiraj,

Age:years,

Bommakal(v) Jagdevpur(M)

R/o. lof SiddipetDistrict.

|A7.LingampalliNaveen, Bhumaiah,Age:26years, S/o.

Mudiraj,R/o.Cheekodu(v),

(M)ofMedakDistrict.

‘Papannapet

302,201,506 read with

UnderSections

Charges

134IPC.

j::_ Notguilty.

Pleaof theaccused1 to7

nos.THE RESULT,

accused

‘Finding

IN of theCourt ! foundnotguiltyforthe nos.5to7are

punishableunderSections;

offences readwith34ofILP.Cand ||302,201,506

accordinglythey

acquittedunder

are 235(1)ofCr.P.Cforthesaid

'|Section

offences.TheaccusedNos.1 to4are:

'|foundguiltyfor theoffencespunishable

Sections302,201,506read under withofI.P.Candaccordinglythey 34 underSection235(2)of! convicted ‘are

Cr.P.Cfor thesaidoffences.

In the result,

accused nos.5to 7’

|Sentenceorder

or | foundnotguiltyfortheoffences are

302, 201,

punishableunderSections readwith34ofI.P.Cand 506

jaccordinglythey are acquittedunder

os

Fair3of77 S.C.No.75of 2022

said|

Section235(4)ofCr.P.Cforthe

Nos. 1 to

offences.Theaccused4 are foundguiltyfortheoffencespunishable underSections302,201,506read with34ofLP.Candaccordinglythey) , convictedunderSection235(2)of are

‘CLP.C for

thesaidoffences.Accused nos.1to4sentencedtoundergo! are

to)

IMPRISONMENTFORLIFEandalso of Rs.3,000/-each payaFINE(Rupees ‘THREETHOUSANDONLY)andin defaultofpaymentoffine,theyshall undergoSIMPLEIMPRISONMENTfor a:

periodOFTHREEMONTHS,forthe loffenceunderSection302readwith

i34of

IPC.

,

Theaccused© No.1to4 are!

furthersentencedtoUndergo

IMPRISONMENTFORTHREEYEARS

of Rs.2,000/-|

landalsoFINE topaya

THOUSAND|

jeach(RupeesTWO

ONLY)andindefaultofpaymentof

fine,theyshallundergoSIMPLE

a period IMPRISONMENTforOFTWO

MONTHS,fortheoffenceunder

Section201readwith34ofIPC.

4of77S.C.No.75of 2022 Fair~ -

No.1to 4are

Theaccused lfurthersentencedtoUndergo

IMPRISONMENTFORONEYEARand of Rs.1,000/-each

JalsotoFINE

paya

(RupeesONE

THOUSANDONLY) and;

of paymentof fine, they shall’

in default ||undergoSIMPLEIMPRISONMENTfora:

periodONEMONTH,forthe}

OF offenceunderSection506readwith!

34ofIPC.

Theof

sentences imprisonmentimposedforallthe offencesshallconcurrently.The run

remandperiodalreadyundergoneby

;theaccusednos.1to4 shallbeset-off, providedunderSection428of Cr.P.C. as

M.Os.115shallbedestroyedand to

M.O.16shallbeconsfiscatedtothe

|

expiryofappeal

istate,aftertime.

4 are!

Theaccusednos.1to

prefer appeal:

apprisedoftheirrightto |againstthisJudgmentandavailabilityof if required.Office legal-aid,isdirected tofurnishofjudgmenttothe copy accusedno.1to 4 freeof cost.

|Fair5of77 S.C.No.75of2022

ProsecutionconductedbySriPentaSrinivas,

AdditionalPublicProsecutor.

conductedby

DefenceSri.Ch.MaheshGoud, n ||LearnedCounselfor A.1toA.5&A.7

Sri.V.SharathKumar,

}

LearnedCounselfor A.6.

Thisis comingfor final hearing

before15.04.2026in the

casemeon presenceofSriPentaSrinivas,AdditionalPublicProsecutorfor theState andofSri.Ch.MaheshGoud,Learnedcounselfor A.1toA.5& A.7and Sri.V.SharathKumar,LearnedCounselforAccused

No.6,perusing

upon thematerialrecord,hearingthe papersonuponargumentsandthematter havingstoodforconsiderationtill thisday,the overCourtdeliveredthe

following:

JUDGMENT

1)ThisfromthechargesheetfiledbytheCircle caseemerges

Inspectorof Police,

SircillaRuralin CrimeNo.253of 2020of P.S.Mustabad, fortheoffencesunderSections302,201,506readwith34 IPCagainst

AccusedNo.1to7.

2)Theoftheprosecutioninthechargesheet, caseassetoutin briefis,follows: as

On27-12-2020atabout20.30hours,thecomplainant a complaint Smt.DongalaPadmasubmittedbeforethepolice,whereinshe statedthather youngerbrother/deceasedKasthuriKarunakarReddyowned a dispute agriculturallandsandthereisbetweenherbrotherand younger theaccusedNo.1/KasthuriChinnaRamuluwithregardtoboundary.

to quarrel Accusedno.1usedwithheryoungerbrotherandthreatentokill d,

“A

Fair

6of77S.C.No.75of 2022 his family members,if heattendstheworksattheboundaryof the himand 27-12-2020about1600hours,whenherbrother fields.Whileatwas so,on boundaryof thefieldsandsheattendingthe attendingtheworksatthewas bythesideofthefieldofherbrother,KasthuriChinna

agriculturalworks

Venkatesh,Mahesh,wifeManjulaand Ramulu,hiselderyoungerson son altercationwithherbrother.Furtherthe (3)othersenteredintoyounger an

of agricultural field,

brotherin themudChinna accusedpushedher younger thehead,Venkateshaxedhimtheforehead, Ramuluaxedhimon on a spadeandManjulabeathimwith Maheshbeathimtheheadwitha on the(3)otheraccusedencouragedkill herbrother.Onseeing stickandto thesherushedtowardsherbrother,requestingtosortouttheissue same, amicably,butall theaccusedinvitedhertothespot sayingthatshewould

killedbythem,to which,shestayedtheplace.After,

alsobedueatsame brotherdiedwiththeinjuries,theaccusedJefttheof heryoungerscene

offence,with their

weapons.

3).of L.W.1,LW-18/Sub-Inspectorof Police,

Basingthereport

on registeredin Cr.No.253/2020underSections302,201,506r/w34 acase

On receiptof FIR, LW-19/Circleof Police,SircillaRural,took IPC.Inspector up investigationofthevisitedtheof offence,shiftedthedead case,scene

to Mortuary Room,DistHqrs Hospital,Sircilla,

bodyof thedeceasedGovt examinedLW-1andrecordedherdetailedstatement.Onthenextdayi.e.

Fair7of77S.C.No.75of 2022 28.12.2020,LW-19visitedGovtDistHqrs Hospital,Sircilla,securedthe on of twomediatorsi.e.LWs-12& 13, observedthedeadbodyof the presence deceasedin theof theabovemediators,got photographedthe presence deceasedwiththehelpof localphotographeri.e.LW-7,conductedinquest thedeadbodyof thedeceasedin theof theabovemediators overpresence andseizedbloodstainedbrowncolouredT-shirt,bluecolouredjeansshort

of inquest. After

andAshcolourcutdrawerof thedeceasedunderthe cover thehe subjectedfor autopsy inquest,thedeadbodyof thedeceasedunder a requisition toL.W-16MedicalOfficer,GovtDistHqrs Hospital,Sircilla,to knowtheof death.AccordinglyL.W.16conductedautopsythe causeover deadbodyof thedeceased.L.W.19examinedLWs-2to7 andrecorded theirdetailedstatements.

4).

Later,L.W.19visitedtheof offencealongwiththe scenesame in Sy.No.827 mediators,i.e.,LWs.12and13,situatedBadnakalvillage,

Mustabadmandalbelongingtotheaccusedandthedeceased,observed theof offence,recordeddetailedobservationsin theCrimeDetails scene a roughits surroundings, Form(CDF),drawnsketchof theandand scene seizedblood-stainedearthandcontrolearthunderthesaidCDF.The scene ofoffenceis boundedby:northagriculturallandof thedeceasedfollowed bythelandof ChallaBapu Reddy,westagriculturallandof AccusedNo.1

KasthuriChinnaRamulu,southagriculturallandof thedeceasedfollowed “a “’ S.C.No.75of 2022

Reddy,andpathwayleadingto

bythelandofKasthuriSridhareasta

Bandanakalvillage.

5).theeffortscontinuedforthearrestofAccused Whilewere to 7, on01.01.2011at about11:10hours,LW-19apprehendedall the Nos.1 a requisition accusedtheBusStandof Avunurvillageandsubmittedto at theTahsildar,Mustabad,deputeofficialstorecordtheir totworevenue confessionalAccordingly,theTahsildar,Mustabaddeputedtwo statements.

officials,i.e.,LWs.14and15.LW-19interrogatedtheAccused revenue to 7, whovoluntarilyconfessedthecommissionof theoffencesdue Nos.1

to previous grudge relatingdisputes,which,theirconfessional

toland upon reducedintopanchanamasintheofthesaid statementswerepresence of the voluntaryconfessionof Accusedto 4, panchas.In pursuanceNos.1

LW-19recoveredfromthepossessionofAccusedNo.1blood-stained a a light blackroundstainedblood,and andwhiteshirtwithspotswitha axe, bluecolourshort(nekkar)stainedwithblood;fromthepossessionof

AccusedNo.2,mobilephone,blood-stainedyellowcolour

oneaaxe,a

T-shirtstainedwithblood,anda browncolourpantstainedwithblood;from the possessionof Accusedblood-stainedspade,a redcolourT-shirt No.3, a stainedwithblood,andbluecolournight pant;andfromthepossessionof a

AccusedNo.4,blood-stainedstick,undertheofseparate acover panchanamasin theof thepanchas,LWs.14and15. presencesame

6B,

Fair9of77$.C.No.75of2022 wv

6).Then,LW-19broughttheaccusedalongwiththerecovered

propertytothePoliceStationand,afterobservingtheformalitiesof arrest, producedAccusedNos.1to7beforetheCourtforremandjudicial to

A custody.On09-01-2021,LW-19obtainedthedetailedpost-mortem : examinationreportfromDr.Mohd.Salman,CAS,GovernmentDistrict

HeadquartersHospital, Sircilla, wherein,thedoctoropinedthattheof

cause deathof thedeceaseddueto“headinjurycausedby heavyandsharp was

objects,resultingin intra-cerebralbleed".UpontheSDPO,Sircillaissuing

authorizationlettervideC.No.05/S/2020,dated11-01-2021,LW-19sentthe materialobjectsof thetoRFSLKarimnagarfor examinationandreport case 18-01-2021videRFSLFileNo.RFSL(KNR)/71/SER/14/2021, on 7).On10-01-2021,Lw-19submittedrequisitiontothe a 1

Addl.JFCM,Sircilla(Lw-17)to conductTestIdentificationParade(T.I.P.)for -

AccusedNos.5to7.Accordingly,T.I.P.ofAccusedNos.5to7 was

Lw-19

conductedinDistrictJail,Karimnagar.On16-01-2021,submitted anotherrequisitiontotheAddl.JFCM,Sircilla(Lw-17)torecordthe statementsofLws-1and6underSection164Cr.P.C.totheir preserve evidence,andaccordingly,thestatementsofLws-1and6recorded were underSection164Cr.P.C.On16-03-2021,LW-19collectedRFSLreport videRFSL(KNR)/71/SER/14/2021fromRFSLKarimnagaralongwith case

of 2022

Fair“

10of77S.C.NO.75 in whichtheopinedthat“HumanBloodis detecteditem propertyexperton 2, 3, 5, 6,8 to10,12and13.Bloodof bloodstainsitemNos. Nos.groupon 3, 5, 6, 8, 10,12and13is of ‘O’. Bloodof bloodstainsitemNos.2 groupon and9 couldbedetermined.Bloodis notdetecteditemsNo.1 which noton isreceivedcontrolforitemNo.2andbloodisnotdetecteditem ason

Nos.4,7, 11,14and15”.

8).transferof L.W-1904-04-2021,LW-20/CircleInspectorof On on

Police,tookfurtherinvestigationof theverifiedtheinvestigation upcase, donebyLWs-18& 19andfoundthelines.On12-05-2021, sameonproper

Lw-20visitedBandakalvillage,securedtheof theLWs-8to10, presence whothepanchayatheldersandneighboringlandexamined areowners, themandrecordedtheirstatements.On06-06-2021,LW-20visited

Bandakalvillage,securedtheoftheLW-11,whoisthe presenceeye- witnesstotheincident,examinedhimandrecordedhisdetailedstatement inPart-llCDs.Aftercompletionof theinvestigation,L.W.20filedcharge sheetagainstAccusedNos.1to7fortheoffencespunishableunder

Sections302,201and506readwith34IPC.

9).

Theinvestigationrevealsthatthelandsofaccusedno.1and deceasedsituatedadjacently.Sinceabout40there areyears,wasaway totheagriculturalfieldsfromthelandofthedeceased.Astheaccused

Ww Fair

11of77$.C.No.75of 2022

purchased 3acres

of land,thedeceasedhadclosedtheto thefieldsof way theaccusedanddemanded20of land,duewhich,there guntasto were to damage frequentquarrelsbetweenbothof them.Thedeceasedusedthe borewellandelectricstartersoftheaccusedregularly.Thedeceased etchedtheboundarybetweentheiragriculturallands,in everyseason causinglosstotheaccused.Theaccusedboregrudgeagainstthe deceasedforhisactsandharassmentanddecidedtoeliminatehim.

Panchyathsalsoheldin theof elders,but,thedeceaseddid werepresence notheartheadviseof eldersandcontinuedhisacts.Theaccusednos.1to 4havingdevelopedenemityagainstthedeceased,withthesupportof accusédnos.5to7 withpre-plan,eliminatedthedeceasedby beatinghim

withspadeandsticks,whenthedeceasedattendingagricultural

axes,was worksin his fields,27.12.2020. on 10).JudicialMagistrateof FirstClass,Sircillatook LearnedPrincipal cognizanceof theoffencesunderSections302,201,506readwith34IPC againstAccusednos.1to7.LearnedMagistratefurnishedcopiesof all the relevantdocumentstotheaccusednos.1to7,providedunderSection as committedthethePri.Courtof Sessions,Sessions 207Cr.P.Candto case

Division,KarimnagarunderSection209(a)Cr.P.C,theoffencesunder as

Sections302,201,506readwith34IPCexclusivelytriablebytheCourt are

Ser

of Sessions.

Fairofof 2022~ 1277S.C.No.75

11).Judge,Karimnagarregisteredthe

ThePrincipalSessionscase fortheoffencesunderSections302,201,506readwith34IPCagainst

Accusednos.1to7andmadethetotheCourtofIX Addl. oversame

is re-designated

SessionsJudge,Sircilla,whichPrincipalDistrictand

for disposalaccording

SessionsCourt,Sircillawitheffectfrom02.06.2022,

to law.

12).Afterof accused7 andafterhearingboth

appearanceno.1to sides,thisCourtframedchargesunderSections302,201,506readwith34 in Telugu. IPCagainstAccusedno.1to7,readandexplainedto them over not guilty and They pleadedclaimedto be tried.

13).examined

Duringtheoftrail,theprosecutionhas course

P.Ws.1to14andgotmarkedExs.P1toP20andM.Os.1to16.Exs.D1to

D4markedbehalfof theaccused. wereon

14).of prosecution,

Aftercompletionof evidenceaccusednos.1to7 examined.underSection313Cr.P.C.Theydeniedtheincriminating were

of prosecution

evidenceappearingagainstthemin thetestimonywitnesses andreporteddefenceevidence. no

Fair13of77$.C.No.75of2022 ww

15).

Heardargumentsbothsides.LearnedAdditionalPublic on

Prosecutorandlearnedcounselfortheaccused,filedtheirwritten

arguments.

16).

Thepointswhichfor determination emergeare:

(i)Whethertheprosecutionhasestablishedtheguiltofthe accusedno.1to7 for theoffencepunishableunderSection302 readwith34of IPC, beyondallreasonabledoubt?

(ii)Whethertheprosecutionhasestablishedtheguiltofthe accusedno.1to7 for theoffencepunishableunderSection201 readwith34of IPC,beyondallreasonabledoubt? AND

(iii)Whethertheprosecutionhasestablishedtheguiltofthe accusedno.1to7 for theoffencepunishableunderSection506 readwithof IPC, beyondall 34reasonabledoubt?

POINTSNos.1

17).

Astheaccusednos.1to7chargedfor theoffencesunder are

Sections302,201,506readwith34of IPC,theburdensquarelyrests upon theprosecutiontothatall theaccusedwithintentiontokill provecommon thedeceased/KasturiKarunakarReddy,wenthis field, theaccused tono.1 to4beatthedeceasedwithspadeandstickhisheadandright axes,on 7 encouragedkill him, accused5tothemtoall of themcaused eye,nos.

disappearanceof evidenceof theircommittingmurderof thedeceasedand alltheaccusedthreatenedthedefacto-complainanttokillheralso,when

oa

Fairof77$.C.No.75of 2022~’ 14 shetriedherbrother.Theaccusedhavepleadedinnocencefor torescue thechargeslevelledagainstthem.Theprosecutionin orderto substantiate itsexaminedP.Ws.1to14andexhibitedExs.P1toP20and case,got

M.Os.1to16.

18).incident,

Asthethreeoffencesarisesoutof thethey aresame willbeansweredtogetherforeffectiveadjudicationoftheThe case.

undisputedfactwhichfromthecontentionsof bothpartiesis that emerges theaccusedno.1anddeceasedhavinglandsadjacently.Theof arecase

the prosecutionthe parties

is thatthereboundarydisputebetweenboth was andpreviouslyalsotheaccusedquarreledwiththedeceasedin thatregard andtheincidentistheresultofsaidboundarydispute,however,the accusedhavedeniedthesaidboundarydisputes.Theoraland documentaryevidenceadducedbytheprosecutionneedtobescrutinized

and caution,

withtoascertaintherivalrybetweenbothpartieswhich care allegedlyleadto theincident.

19).

P.W.1whois thecomplainantdeposedthatthedeceasedis

of agriculturalland, adjacenther junior

having4toherlandandthat acres paternalunclehadlandofAc.2-20guntasadjacenttothelandofthe deceased,whichhesoldtoaccusedno.1about20andthat yearsago sincethen,thereboundarydisputesbetweenaccusedno.1andthe were

Fair15of77$.C.No.75of2022 w deceased.Shefurtherdeposedthat27-12-2020at about4.00while onpm, shecorrectingtheboundaryof heragriculturalfield,thedeceased waswas alsocorrectingtheboundaryofhisfieldandthatatthattime,Accused to 4 along with Nos.13 otherspicked up quarrelwiththedeceasedandthat

hearingthequarrel,shelookedintothefieldsof thedeceasedand

upon observedspadeandsticksin thehandsof theaccusedand axes,persons accusedno.1kickedthedeceasedandattackedhimwithhishead, axeon accusedno.2attackedhimwiththeforehead,accusedno.3 axeon a spade attackedtheleft sideof hisneckwithandaccusedno.4beatthe on his right eye deceasedwitha stickandthattheremainingthree onpersons encouragedaccusednos.1to 4, to beathimandkickhiminto. themud.She furtherdeposedthatwhenshetriedtostopthemandrequestedthemto settletheamicably,theaccusedthreatenedthattheywillkillher matter also,if sheinterferes.

20).a phone

P.W.1furtherstatedthatshemadecalltoherbrother- in-lawLaxmaReddyandherinformingthemabouttheincidentand son, thatafterassertingthatthedeceaseddied,all theaccusedfledawayfrom

theplacealongwithspadeandsticksandthatlater,shelodged

axes, complaintbeforepolice,underEx.P.1andthatthepoliceexaminedherand recordedherandthat15daysaftertheincident,policetookher statement to jail where,sheidentifiedaccused7 andthatherstatement nos.5towas %

of 2022

Fair16of77S.C.No.75~’ alsorecordedunderSection164Cr.P.Candthataccusednos.1to7 are responsiblefor thedeathof herbrother. younger

21).fromEx.Pi1-complaintandevidenceofP.W.1together,

As seen theyinwitheachother.Duringthecross-examinationof areconsonance

P.W.1,itsuggestedthattheredisputesbetweenherselfand waswere to pathway.furthersuggestedthatshelodged deceasedwithregardIt was a complaint againstplotatSiddipet herdeceasedbrother,withregardto the purchasedbythem.It wasfurthersuggestedtoP.W.1thatthedeceased hadboundariesdisputeswithL.Ws.4and9.By wayof cross-examination of P.W.1,it is thecontentionof theaccusedthat,shedoesnothave any landadjacenttothelandof thedeceased,whichshedenied.P.W.1in her cross-examinationdeposedthatthelandof deceasedis situatedadjacent to thelandof accusedno.1till thecartthelandof ChellaBapu Reddy way, is situatednorthernsideof landof thedeceased,southernsideland onon ofKasturiLinga ReddyandeasternsideandlandofDongala oneonone

ShankarReddyissituatedafterthecartLearnedcounselforthe way.

accusedin thisregard,drawntheattentionof thisCourttocrimedetails

FormunderEx.P6alongwithroughsketch,wherein,ofthe none boundariesof theofoffenceshownthelandof P'W.1,and scenewereas arguedthattheaboveevidenceofP.W.1inhercross-examinationalso supportsthedefenceof theaccusedthatshehaslandadjacenttothe no

Fair

17of77S.C.No.75of 2022 landofthedeceased,such,thequestionofhereye-witnessingthe as allegedincidentdoesnotarise.ThisCourtis notinclinedto acceptthe said argumentoflearnedcounselfortheaccusedforthethatto reasoneye witnesstheincident,thelandofP.W.1neednotbesituatedadjacentthe to landof theaccusedthe boundary ontheincidentbewitnessedif ascaneye herfandis situatedafterthelandsshownin theboundariesunderEx.P6-

CrimeDetailsForm.It isalsorelevanttonoteherethatP.W.1inher complaintdidnotstatethatherlandis situatedadjacenttothelandof the deceased.Theaccusedhaving suggestedtoP.W.1thatin viewofdisputes betweentheaccusedno.1to4andL.W.6,L.W.6hergot prepared son

to explain theof alleged disputes

Ex.P1-complaint,didnotchoosenature betweenthem,filedproofto thateffect. norany

22).

P.W.1inhercross-examinationdeposedthatshehasnot mentionedthedescriptiveparticularsofthreeunknownoffendersinher complaintandherstatementunderSection161Cr.P.C.In thisregard, a

of Ex.P1-complaint

perusalrevealsthatshedidnotgivetheirdescriptive

if they

particulars,exceptstatingthat,sheidentify them,shownto

canare

in Ex.P1-complaint.

her.SheaddressedthemunknownP.W.1 aspersons inhercross-examinationadmittedthatatthetimeofconductingtest identificationparade,shestatedtoL.W.17(Magistrate)thatthesuspects ae. © 18of77S.C.No.75of 2022~

day,thepolice

wearingmasks.P.W.1furtheradmittedthatthenext wereon 5 to 7, to herat police station. haveshowntheaccused nos.

23).Duringtheofcross-examinationofP.W.1and course a spade throughoutthethoughit is thedefenceof theaccusedthat case, underneaththebodyof thedeceasedsuch,theremightbe waspresentas otherforthedeathofthedeceased,hemighthave somereasonor receivedinjurieswiththesaidspade,thesaiddefenceabsolutelyhas no legsstand,it is theof theprosecutionthatwhilethedeceased toascase

carvingtheboundarywithspade,theincidentoccurred.Therefore,

was

thereispossibilityofthespadefallingthedeadbodyofthe

everynear deceasedwhentheaccusedattackedhim.Itsimply suggestedto was

P.W.1thatthedeceasedfelldowninthemudofthefields,without explaininginjuriestohisheadandright eye.Duringthe severecross- examinationofP.W.1,theaccusedexceptdenyingtheincidentand contendingthatshedeposedfalsehoodattheinstanceof herson/L.W.6,in

of disputesalleged

viewbetweenhimandaccusedno.1,failedto prove disputesbetweenbothofthemandgiveexplanationregardingthe any undisputedfatalinjuriessustainedbythedeceased.Theiratthe presence of offenceatthattimeof incidentalsonotdeniedbytheaccused scenewas duringthecross-examinationofP.W.1.Theaccusedhavenotattributed to giveto depose malafidestoP.W.1,falsecomplaintandfalsehood anya

Fair19of77S.C.No.75of 2022 » againstthem.It is nottheirthatthererivalrybetweenbothof casewasany them.Ontheotherhand,it wassuggestedbythemtoP.W.1that,there disputesbetweendeceasedandP.W.1anddeceasedandher wereson

L.W.6, regardingplotatSiddipet.

24).4 years

P.W.2wifeof thedeceaseddeposedthatabout ago,

of agricultural

disputewithregardtoboundaryfieldbetweenher arose husbandandaccusedno.1andthatsheinformedthephoneby wasover neighboursthataccusedno.1killedherhusbandandthatimmediatelyshe wenttothefieldsandfoundherhusbanddead.Shefurtherdeposedthat thedateof incident,theaccusedpushedherhusbandintothemud, on whilehecorrectingtheboundary,andthataccusednos.1and2 was attackedwithaccusedno.3attackedwithspadeandaccusedno.4 axes, attackedhimwithstickandkilledhimandthattheremainingthreeaccused threatenedPW.1andthatlaterpoliceexaminedheratGovernment

Hospital,Sircilla.ShefurtherdeposedthatA.1toA.4presentin theCourt responsiblefor thedeathof herhusband. are

25).Duringthecross-examinationofP.W.2also,theaccused

to explain theinjuriessustained exceptdenyingtheincident,didnotchoose bythedeceased.Theyhavenotattributedmalafidestoother anyany forthedeathofthedeceased,withfatalinjuries.Itsimply personwas

Fair20of77S.C.No.75of 2022~

suggestedP.W.2thatherhusbanddiedaccidentallyby fallingdownin

to thefields.It isbenotedthatfallingin thefield,doesnotresultin tomere suchmultiplefatalinjuries,to thedeceased.

26).of thedeceasedalsodeposedthat

P.W.3,whoisthesonon

in agricultural

27-12-2020about4.00whilehisfatherworking atpm,was

4 alongandpicked

fields,accusednos.1towiththreeotherscameup for correctingandthataccusedkickedhis quarreltheboundarytheno.1 fatherandattackedhimwithhishead,accusedno.2attackedwith axeon accusedno.3attackedwithspadeandaccusedno.4attackedwith axe, stickandthatremainingthreeencouragedthemtokill his father,by persons pushinghimin themudandthatearlieralsotheaccusedthreatenedhis fathertheboundary.HefurtherdeposedthatwhenPW.1 nottocorrect triedto stop them,theaccusedthreatenedkill herandthatthereafterall to theaccusedfledwithspadeandsticksandthatatthetimeof awayaxes, incidenthisfatherworkingin 4of landandthatAccusedNos.1to wasacres 4 along with 3 otherspresentin theCourtresponsibleforthedeathof are hisfather.Admittedly,P.W.3is notwitnesstotheincident.Except aneye denyingtheincidentandboundarydisputebetweenthedeceasedandthe accused,nothingcouldbeelicitedoutfromP.W.3.

Fair

21of77S.C.No.75of2022 Y 27).P.W.4,whoistheofhaving deposed sonP.W.1aboutthe incidentin thelinesof P.W.1,furtherstateca phone samethatP.W.1made calltohimandinformedabouttheincidentandthathe visitedthedead bodyatGovernmentHospital,Sircillaandthathe toknowthrough came

P.W.1thattheaccusedno.1to4responsibleforthedeathof arethe

Aline

deceased.of hisstatementunderSection164Cr.P.Cthat “hehad answeredthecallbecauseit wasshownunknownnumber’,marked aswas

Ex.Di.In fact,in his asP.W.4statementunderSection164Cr.P.Cstated

a

thathehadreceivedcallforKasturiVenkatesh(AccusedNo.2)about at 4.00PMandthathehadansweredthecallbecauseitshown wasas unknownnumber.P.W.4deniedthesuggestionthathehadinstructedhis

in drafting Ex.P4-complaint.

motherThough undisputedly

P.W.4wasnotat theplaceofof offencethedateof incident, sceneonit wassuggestedto

himthathegot preparedEx.P1-complaint.Exceptsimply suggesting

P.W.4that,hehasenimicaltermswiththeaccusedfamily,thefor reasons suchenimicaltermsneithersuggestedexplainedbytheaccused. werenor

4 regarding

VaguesuggestionsgiventoP.Ws.1andtheallegedrivalry

betweenaccusedno.1andP.W.4,withoutexplainingandproving them, are

to disproveof prosecution.

ofavailto theaccused,the nocase

a

of 2022

Fair22of77S.C.No.75~

the photographerwho

28).prosecutionhasexaminedP.W.5,

Theas takingphotographsofthedeceasedatGovernment deposedabouthis

Hospital,Sircillaand

of offence.Ex.P2-Photographs,Ex.P3- atthescene

Ex.P4-CertificateunderSection65-BofIndianEvidenceActwere CDand to objection by learnedcounselfor theaccused.It wasnot

markedsubject

his objectionfor markingof thesedocumentsby

specifiedtowhat aswas accused.ThoughP.W.5inhiscross-examination leamedcounselforthe theofEx.P4-Certificateunder deposedthathedoesnotknowcontents

of prosecution,

IndianEvidenceAct,it is notfataltothe Section65-Bcase

he signedhe gives

it.Whenadmittedlyevidencein 100's

admittedly

ason thisexpecthimtorememberthe ofphotographer,Courtcannot casesas

Section65-Bof IndianEvidenceActissuedin contentsof certificatesunder istheportionofstatementunderSection161Cr.P.C eachEx.D2 case.

he allegedly8.00AMtherequest wherein,statedthat28.12.2020aton on

Rural,heGovernmentHospitaltotake of CircleInspector,Sircillawentto thedeceased.ThoughP.W.5inhiscross-examination

photographsof

deposedthathetookthanthreephotographsattheof furthermorescene andthatthepolicehavefiledallthephotographs,absolutely offencenot isproofCross-examinationofP.W.5regarding thereforthesame. no modeloftheCamera,Computer,Printeretc.,doesnotdeserveany considerationEx.P2-Photographsof thedeceasedin mudatthe asscene ~Fair23of77 S.C.No.75of2022 ofoffenceandinjuriessustainedby him,deniedbytheaccused. arenot

Therefore,theobjectionof thelearnedfor marking of counselforaccused

Exs.P2toP4is notsustainable.

29).

P.W.6saidtobetheneighbouringlanddeposedthat owner ‘ about15to20accusedno.1purchasedlandadjacentto theland yearsago ofthedeceasedandthatsincethen,thereboundarydisputesand were severalpanchayatsheldandthatheto knowthat27.12.2020 werecameon accusednos.1to4 attackedandkilledthedeceasedandthathe wasnot presentatthetimeofincident,but,hetoknowthatit wasdue cameto

boundarydisputes.Duringhiscross-examination,P.W.6deposedthat

theredisputesbetweenthedeceasedandvendorof accusedno.1 wereno andthatafterpurchaseof land,theaccusedusedto cultivateit in the no.1 to ingress of hisvendorwithregardandto theland.It samewayasegress 4 of prosecution is thethatthereboundarydisputebetweenbothof casewas not ingressof P.W.6, ihembutandBy wayof cross-examinationthe egress.

contentionoftheaccusedisthatafter136daysoftheincident,his statementprepared,withoutexamininghim,whichdeniedbyhim. waswas

30).

P.W.7saidtobewitnesstotheincidentdeposedthat eyeon 27-12-2020atabout3.30hewenttothefieldsofthedeceasedfor pm, ploughingandthatwhileheploughing,thedeceasedsetting waswas

of 2022

FairofS.C.No.75

2477~

4 along withandpicked

boundaryandthataccusednos.1to3 otherscame up quarrelandthataccusedno.1kickedthedeceasedandattackedwith andthataccusedno.2attackedhimwithandthataccusedno.3 axeaxe attackedhimwithspadeandaccusedno.4attackedhimwithstickandthat remainingthreeencouragedthemtokill thedeceasedandthatdue persons to fearheleft theplace.P.W.7in hiscross-examinationdeposedthathedid notdrivinglicenseatthetimeof incidentandthattheof the possessowners vehiclethedrivers,whohavinglicense.P.W.7furtherdeposed engageare thatheatthevillagefromthedateof deathof thedeceasedandthat was heknowsthatthepolicehasvisitedthevillagewithregardtothedeathof thedeceased.P.W.7furtherdeposedthatwhilereturningfromtheof scene offence,thepolicetohishouse.It wassuggestedtoP.W.7thatthe came policehaspreparedhisstatementunderSection161Cr.P.Cstatement withoutexamininghim,after161daysof theincident,attheinstanceof

P.Ws.1and4 whichdeniedbyhim. was

31).in his

P.W.7cross-examinationdeniedExs.D3andD4partsof hisstatementunderSection161Cr.P.C,to theextentthat“on27.12.2020at 4.00PMtheinstructionsof hishewenttothelandof deceased onowner,

for ploughing

withtractorandthattheaccusedno.1to4 beatthedeceased withspadeandsticks”.In thisregard,P.W.7in hischief-examination axe, statedthat27.12.2020at3.30PMtheinstructionsofhis onasperowner,

Fair

25of77$.C.No.75of 2022 aa

for ploughinghe specified

hewenttothefieldsof deceasedandthe overt actsofaccusedno.1to4towardsdeceased.Learnedcounselforthe

accusedbytheinvestigating

arguedthatadmittedofficerandthe asasper record,abovewitnessexaminedafter161daysof theincidentandthat was

Ex.P1-complaint,statementsof P.W.1underSection161Cr.P.Candunder

Section164Cr.P.Cunderandherevidencesilentabouthis arepresenceat theof offence,whichmakesit clearthata planted sceneP.W.7iswitness, at theinstanceof P.Ws.1and4.It is relevanttonoteherethattheaccused havenotattributedmalafidestoP.W.7,tospeakfalsehoodagainst any them.

32).

P.W.8is thepanchwitnesstotheinquestpanchanamaofthe deceaseddt:28.12.2020andcrimedetailsform,whodeposedaboutthe

police conductinginquestpanchanamathedeadbodyof thedeceased

over inhisandhisobservingtheinjuries,besidetheright eye,right presence sideof forehead,head,rightsideofneckandbehindright eyeofthe deceased.Hefurtherdeposedaboutof clothsof thedeceasedby recovery thepoliceunderM.Os.1to3.PW.8furtherdeposedaboutthepolice with rough sketch preparingcrimedetailsformandseizureof bloodstained soilandcontrolsoilunderM.Os.4and5,in his presence.

Fair26of77S.C.No.75of 2022 ~ 33).inhiscross-examinationdeposedthatthelandofthe P.W.8 accusedis situatedheightthanthelandof deceasedandtheybe oncan easilydifferentiated.P.W.8deposedthatin histhephotographs presence, of deadbodytakeninGovernmentHospital,butnotattheof werescene offence.ThisevidenceofP.W.8cannotbetakenintoconsideration as

Ex.P2-Photographsofthedeceasedattheofoffenceremained scene

of prosecution

undeniedbytheaccusedandit is thethatpriorto crime case detailsform, photographstaken.It wasalsosuggestedtoP.W.4- werenot photographerthattheEx.P2-Photographsnottakenattheof werescene offence.

34).isthepanchwitnesstheconfessionand

P.W.9torecovery panchanamaoftheaccused,whodeposedthat01-01-2021atabout on a phoneof Mustabadmandalasking 11.00AM,hereceivedcallfromMRO himtotoAvunurbusstandtoactpanchwitnessincriminal goasacase andthatthepolicealsocalledL.W.15andthataccordinglybothofthem

AM, bythatof police,

wenttoAvunurbusstandby11.30time,ClSIof police,constablesand7 persons(accused)presentandthatClasked were themtoactpanchwitnessesforconfessionpanchanamaofaccused as nos.1to7.Hefurtherdeposedthataccusedno.1takenaside,where was heconfessedthattheredisputesbetweenhimselfanddeceased were

regardingandthatdeceasedcausinginconvenienceregarding

waywas

Fair

27of77S.C.No.75of2022 motorandstarter,andthathealongwithothersplannedtokill deceased/KarunakarReddyandfurtherconfessedthatifthepolice him, he wouldfor killing the accompanyshowtheuseddeceased. weapons

35).

P.W,.9furtherthattheaccusedno.2confessedthatthere were

disputesbetweenthemselvesanddeceased/KarunakarReddy,such,

as they plannedtokill himandthat27.12.2020,intheeveninghours, on accusedhit thehead,he (A.2) hit with no.1deceasedwith axeonaxeon

forehead,hit with spade

A.3neckandA.4beatwithstickandthatduring on theincidentPW.7ploughingthelandofthedeceased/Karunakar was

Reddywithtractorandthataccusedno.1threatenedPW.1kill,when ato shecomingtotheplaceof incidentandthatheinformedtheof wasson

P.W.1i.e.,PW.4phonethatif hismotherof offence, overcomestoscene theywill alsokill herandto askhernottoandthathereceivedinjury come to histeft handin theincident.

36).

AstheevidenceofP.W.9,accusednos.3and4also per confessedtohavecommittedtheoffence,in thelinesof accused same nos.1and2.

37).

P.W.9furtherdeposedthataccused5, 6,and7 weretaken nos.

of police questioned

asideandwhentheClthem,theyconfessedthatthey friendsandfellowstudentsof accused3 andthataccused3 wereno.no.

Fair28of77S.C.No.75of2022 ~ hadinformedthemofthelanddisputesbetweenhisfatherandthe deceasedKarunakarReddyandrequestedtheirhelpinkillingthe deceased,to which,they agreedandthattheyfurtherconfessedthat on beingcalledbyaccused3, theytheof 27-12-2020,no.wenttoscene upon

1toin killing the

offencetogetherandhelpedaccused4,deceased

nos.

specificof violence,

KarunakarReddyandthattheycorroboratedtheacts detailingthataccused1hitthedeceasedwiththehead, no.anaxeon accusedno.2hit himwiththeforehead,accusedno.3hit himwith anaxeon a spadewithstickhishead theneck,andaccused4 beathimaon onno.

andthattheyconfirmedtheofPW.7ploughingthelandwith presencea duringtheincidentandcorroboratedthethreatsbytheaccusedno.1 tractor

2 against

andaccusedPW.1andPW.4. no.

38).alltheaboveconfessional

P.W.9furtherdeposedthat statementsof accusednos.1to7recordedin theof himself werepresence

of police.

andLW.15bytheClHefurtherstatedthatbasingthese on statements,himself,LW.15,andthepolice accompaniedtheaccusedto a

2 brought

hutatBadanakalvillagewheretheaccusednos.1andthe axes,

the spade,

accusedno.3broughtandaccusedno.4broughtthestickwhich usedinthecommissionoftheoffence.P'W.9furtherstatedthat were accusednos.1to3 alsobroughttheclothes,theywearingatthetime were of theincident.P.W.9identifiedthesematerialobjects,includingthe axes

Fair

29of77S.C.No.75of 2022 7)

M.O.11), spade (v.0.14),

and variousitems

(M.O.6andstick(M.0.15),

clothing (M.O.7toM.0.10,M.0.12,andM.0.13).

Healsostatedthatthe

asilver

policerecoveredcolourMI cellphone (M.O.16)from

accusedno.2 atAvunurvillageathisinstance.Heconcludedthatallmaterialobjects

the confession-cum-recovery

seizedin theirandthey signed werepresence

panchanama(Ex.P.7)andtheseizurepanchanama(Ex.P.8).

39).P.W.9inhiscross-examinationdeposed

thatGudem

Ramalaxmanapalli,VenkatapurandTurkapallivillagesadjacent

areto

Avunuruvillageandthatinalltheabovevillages,V.R.Os,Panchyath

SecretariesandV.R.Asthere.ThoughPW.9cross-examined arewas regardingthemovementregisterof hisofficeandwrittenorderof thepolice tohimtoactpanchwitnesseic.,it is ofavail.Duringtheof asnocourse cross-examinationofP.W.9,theaccusedhavingdeniedtheirconfession andseizurepanchanamaspleadedthatP.W.9andL.W.15signed on

Exs.P7andP8atMustabadpolicestation.Theaccuseddenying

except

theseizureof materialobjectsfromthem,didnotdisowntheirclothesunder

M.Os.7to 10,12and13andM.O.16-cellphoneandstating weaponsthat theydonotbelongtothem.ThoughP.W.9deposedthatall theaccused confessedto havetheof P.W.7at theof offence,the seenpresencescene is not specifically denied

bythem.

same

Fair30of77S.C.No.75of 2022~

40).relevantherethatnowhere,theaccusednos.1

It is alsotonote theofoffenceatthetimeof to4havedeniedtheirpresenceatscene withtheandtheyhavenotattributedthe incident27.12.2020weapons on to anybody,suggestingthatthe injuriessustainedbythedeceasedexcept in thelandandsustainedinjuries, thoughsuchfatal deceasedfelldown iffallsin theland,consistingofmud.

injuriesnotpossible,person

area accusedhavedeniedtheofP.W.7attheof Thoughthepresencescene ploughingthelandof deceasedwitha tractorat thetimeof incident offence heexaminedafterthanfivemonthsof the thegroundthatmore onwas allegedconfessionstatementofaccusedno.1revealsthe incident, of P.W.7, ploughing thelandwithtractoratthetimeof incident. presence 41).CivilAssistantSurgeon,whoconductedautopsy PW.10,over thedeadbodyof thedeceaseddeposedthat28-12-2020,hereceived on requisitionfromCircleInspectorof Police,SircillaRural,to conductautopsy deadbodyofKarunakarReddyandthataccordinglyheconducted over postmortemandfound:

1. Lacerationfrontalregion7 cmx 3. cm over

2. Lacerationparietal region7x 2(right) overtemporocmcm

3. Lacerationtemporoparietal region5x 2(right) overcmcm

4. Lacerationbesideright eye7 cmx 2cm

Fair31of77 S.C.No.75of2022

Hefurtherdeposedthatof deathdueto “headinjury causewas causedwithheavyandsharpobjectsandintracerebralbleed”, Ex.P.9- requisitionandEx.P.10-postmortemexaminationmarked reportwere

throughP.W.10.

42).

P.W.10inhiscross-examinationdeposedthatsimilarinjuries or sharp edged possibleif a personfallsspadeobject.In this areonstones it is nobody's thattheresharp edgedstonesatthe case,casewerescene of offenceThereisevidencetoshowthatthedeceasedfelldown noon spade.P.W.10deniedthesuggestionthatthereispossibilityof death no withinjuriesno.1to4.Thecross-examinationofP.W.10regardingthe fordeathofthedeceasedby referringseveralhealthconditions, reason needbe considered,in thisadmittedly,thedeceased notascasereceived fatalinjuriestohisheadwithsharpobjectsandtherecannotbeother any forthesaidinjuries,whichleadtohisdeath.Thoughlearned reason counselfor theaccusedarguedthatmaterialobjectsnotforwardedto were

P.W.10,toascertainwhethersuchinjuriespossiblewiththem, areasseen fromtherecord,autopsyconducted28.12.2020andthematerial wason objectsseizedundertheofconfessionand werecoverrecovery panchanamasfromtheaccused,01.01.2021.Evenotherwise, on

is no

absolutelytherenecessityforwardmaterialobjectsa doctor,who toto conductsautopsy,toascertainwhethersuchinjuriespossiblewiththem are

Fair32of77S.C.No.75of 2022 ~

the objects usedinjuries

theygiventheiropinion, regardingtocause

ascan

by examiningtheinjuries.

43).investigatingofficer,whoreceivedthecomplaint

P.W.11is the registeredtheunderEx.P11.Thoughlearnedcounselforthe andFIR accusedsuggestedandarguedthatthedelayoffourandhalfhoursin lodging complaintunderEx.P1notexplainedandit weakensthecase was of prosecution,it is quite reasonableto lodge complaint timetakenbyP,W.1

in lodging

deposedby P.W.12/investigatingofficer.Thetime4 %hours as to delayfromshockof complaintdoesnotamountP.W.1after asrecovery witnessingtheincidentinformedP.W.4etc.,wenttopolicestationgot to preparedthecomplaintandlodgedit.Thoughit isthedefenceofthe to disputes accusedthatP.W.4got preparedEx.P1-complaint,duebetween himselfandaccusedno.1,absolutelythereiscross-examinationof no

P.W.11regardingthetoelicitallegeddisputes.P.W.1lodgingthe same, complaintnotdeniedby wayof cross-examinationof P.W.11. was

44).officer,whodeposedabouthis

P.W.12istheinvestigating

recordingtheof witnesses,conductinginquestthedead

statementsover

of panchhis preparing

bodyof thedeceased,in thewitnesses,

presence crimedetailsformwithroughsketchandseizureofmaterialobjects, recordingtheconfessionalpanchanamasofaccusedandseizureof

Fair

33of77S.C.No.75of 2022

them, pursuantto theirconfessions,Ex.P12-Health

materialobjectsfrom certificateof accusedmarkedthroughto objection no.2P.W.12,subject was bylearnedcounselfor theaccusedthegroundthatheis not oncompetent tomarkit.AsfromEx.P12,dt:02.01.2021,thereinjuryoverleft seenwas thumbof accusedno.2.Thesaidinjuryremainedundeniedbytheaccused.

Nowhere,it is theof theaccusedthat,accusedno.2didreceive casenot saidinjuryondateof incident.of injury theIn theabsenceof denialunder

for marking it, does

Ex.P12,theobjectionnotdeserveconsideration.In any thisregard,learnedAdditionalPublicProsectorarguedthattheinjuries sustainedbyaccusedno.2isnotproperlyexplainedbytheaccusedand furtherit is settledprinciplethatnon-explanationof theinjuriessustainedby theaccusedintheisstrongcircumstancepointing sameoccurrence,a

towardshisinvolvement.P.W.12furtherdeposedabouthissending

objectshis getting

materialtoRFSLexaminationandreportandconducted

TestIdentificationParadeof AccusedNos.5 to7 andgettingrecordedthe statementsof P.Ws.1and4 underSection164Cr.P.CthroughMagistratein

DistrictJail, Karimnagar.

45).

Ex.P13-RequisitionmadetoSDPO,Sircilla,dt:09.01.2021,

Ex.P14-Letterof Advise,Ex.P15-LetterofSDPO,Sircillaaddressed to

RFSL,dt:11.01.2021andEx.Pi6-ReportofRFSL,dt:16.03.2021 were

markedthroughP.W.12.AsEx.P16-ReportofFSL,dt:16.03.2021

per

of 2022

Fair34of77S.C.No.75

~ is detecteditemnos.2,3, 5, 6,8to10,12and13,blood “Humanbloodon stainsitem3, 5, 6, 8, 10,12and13is of ‘O’ blood of bloodonnos. group bloodofbloodstainsitemnos.2and9couldnotbe group,groupon determined,bloodis notdetecteditemno.1,whichis receivedcontrol onas for itemno.2andbioodis notdetecteditemnos.4,7, 11,14 and15”. on

46).hiscross-examination,thoughadmittedthat

P.W.12inasper

Ex.P6-CrimeDetailsForm,thereislandofP.W.1adjacenttoof noscene offence,theaccusedtakeshelterunderit,asit is nottheirdefence cannot in the vicinity of thedeceased.The thatthereislandof P.W.1landof the no be adjacentor abuttingthelandof deceased landofP.W.1neednottoto witnesstheincidentintheday lightanditbewitnessedfrom eyecan reasonabledistance,admittedlythedeceasedisherbrotherand asown accusedno.1to4knowntoher.P.W.12inhis arepersonscross-

his investigation,

examinationdeposedthataccordingtothedeceased was correctingtheboundarylinewithspade.P.W.12deniedthesuggestionthat thesaidspadeandstonesfoundunderthedeadbody.Hefurther were

it might

deposedthathedidnotfindthespadeattheof offence sceneas

first timethe accused

havebeenin mud.Forthehavetakensuchdefence thattherestonesunderthedeadbody. were

Fair35of77S.C.No.75of 2022 «

having admittedthat hehasnotshown

the hut of

47).

P.W.12 accusedno.1,incrimedetailsform,explainedthatafterofthe arrest

said hut.

accused,hisinformation,theyvisitedtheThisexplanationof on

P.W.12istobeaccepted,theyvisitedthehutforof material asrecovery objects,pursuantto theconfessionof accused.Whenadmittedlythelandof ‘ accusedno.1showninCrimeDetailsForm,towardsofthe wasone boundaries,hutin it, needbeshownseparately.The notaccusedhaving

duringtheis delay

contendedcross-examinationofP.W.12that,thereof 18 in forwardingto explain daysthematerialobjectstoFSL,didnotchoosein whatit effectedopinionof expertmaterialobjects. way,theAsfar onas

P.W.12securingP.W.9andL.W.15panchwitnessestotheconfession as

andseizurepanchanamas,theexplanationputforthbyP.W.12is thathe

cannottheofpanchwitnessesdirectlysuch,he securepresenceas a requisition submittedtoconcernedTahsildar.Theaccusedforthefirst rY time,duringtheofcross-examinationofP.W.12,introduced courseanew defencethatundertheinfluenceofalcohol,thedeceasedfelldown, sustainedinjuriesanddiedwhilecorrectingtheboundary.Asobservedin theprecedingparagraphssuchfatalinjuriesnotpossibleifthe are deceasedfallsdown,particularlywhentheremudin theland. morewas

48).cross-examinationdeposed.thathis

P.W.12inhisasper investigationPW.1andthetractordriverthewitnessestothe wereeye

Fair36of77S.C.No.75of 2022 ~ mentionedtheof tractordriver,in remand incident,but,hehasnotpresence farhisobtainingfingerprintsof accusedmaterial diary.Asnoton caseas objectsis concerned,P.W.12explainedthatthematerialobjectscontain as hardsurface,it is notpossiblefinger prints,such,hehasnot tocompareas obtainedfinger printsof accusedno.14forcomparison.Though theto

P.W.12inhiscross-examinationdeposedthatthearrestcardof asper injuryto thewristof left hand,it is neitherdenied accusedno.2,hereceived

explained bytheaccused,to howhereceivedthesaidinjury. During

noras

thecross-examinationofP.W.12,investigatingofficer,exceptsuggesting

thathehasfalselyimplicatedtheaccusedin thisthoughtheyhave case, to deny notcommittedoffences,theaccusednos.1to4 didnotchoose any theirat theof offence27.12.2020at thetimeof incident presencesceneon withdidnotdisownmaterialobjectsseizedfromthem.It isnot weapons not belong thedefenceof theaccusednos.1to4 thatmaterialobjectsdoto them.

49).JudicialMagistrateofFirstClass,Sircilia

P.W.13isthethen whoconductedTestIdentificationParadeofaccusednos.5to7for identificationbyP.W.1andrecordedthestatementsofwitnessesunder

Sections164ofCr.P.C.P.W.13elaboratedaboutthetestidentification

paradeconductedby her,by includingthesuspectswithnon-suspects.

P.W.13deposedthatthewitnessidentifiedthesuspectsno.1and3 andshe

Fair

37of77$.C.No.75of 2022 identifiedthenon-suspectno.9suspectno.2andthatduring asthe

Proceedings,thewitnessstatedthatthewearing suspectsweremasksat thetimeofincident.Ex.P19istheproceedingsofIdentification Test

Parade,dt:06.02.2019.Asfromthesaidproceedings,thewitness seen statedthatthesuspectswearingmasksandtheylooklikeandsimilar were tosuspectno.1and3andpointedoutthesuspectsno.1and3,with hesitation.Theproceedingsfurtherrevealthatthewitnesstooktime some to identify the suspectsandafterfiveminutes,sheidentifiedthesuspects no.1and3.P.W.13inhercross-examinationdeposedthatP.W.1inher statementrecordedbyherunderSection164Cr.P.Cdidthat,she notstate to 3 if they identifythesuspectsno.1shownherandshedid canaretonot stateabouttheirdescriptive particularsandidentification.P.W.13furtherin hercross-examinationdeposedthat,P'W.1hasnotstatedbeforehereither in herstatementunderSection164Cr.P.Cherstatementrecordedbefore or conductingTestIdentificationParadethat,thesuspectswearing were masksatthetimeofoffence.P.W.13furtherdeposedthatshehasnot

physicalof suspectsand

recordedthefeaturesnon-suspecis.Learned counselfortheaccusedinthisregardarguedthatintheabsenceof specifyingthephysicalfeaturesof suspectsand non-suspectsandin view

of delayin conducting

TIPandevidenceofP.W.1in hercross-examination thatshehastheaccusednos.57thedayin policestation, seentoonnext

Fair38of77S.C.No.75of 2022~ attachedtheproceedingsoftestidentification credencebeto nocan

parade.

50).hasexaminedtheinvestigatingofficer,who

Theprosecution andchargesheetP.W.14.P.W.14stated filedsectionalterationas memo

of further

visitedBadnakalvillage duringtheinvestigation

thathecourse recordedtheof P.W.6,L.Ws.8and10 andthat examinedandstatementson examinedandrecordedthestatementofP.W.7,added 06.06.2021,he ofandfiledchargesheetaftercompletionof SectionofLaw201IPC investigation.in hiscross-examinationdeposedthatP.Ws.1to4 P.W.14 andand5 didin theirstatementsunderSection161Cr.P.C L.Ws.4notstate and10actedpanchayateldersbetweentheaccused thatP.W.6,L.W.8as anddeceasedregardingtheirlanddisputesandP.W.1hasnotstatedthat

P.W.7thetimeof incidentandP.W.7hasnotstatedin his waspresentat underSection161Cr.P.CthatP.W.1presentatthetimeof statementwas is delay of 39in examining incident.P.W.14furtheradmittedthatthereand recordingtheofP'W.6L.Ws.7and8 andabouttwomonthsin statements examiningandrecordingthestatementofP.W.7,afterheassumedthe charge.TheexplanationofferedbyP.W.14forthisdelayisthatdueto secondphaseofpandemic,inviewofrestrictionsofpublic corona interactionandof therelativesofP.W.7effectedwithCovid, asonewas saiddelayoccurred.AboveexplanationofferedbyP.W.14notdenied was er

Fair39of77 S.C.No.75of 2022 ~

of further cross-examination.ae

itisan un-disputedBanat

see,

bytheaccused,by way

factthattheincidentoccurredduringthe SecondPhaseofCorona

Pandemic.Duringthecross-examinationof P.W.14,

exceptsuggestingthat

P.Ws.6,7andL.Ws.8to10plantedwitnessestheinstanceof P.W.1, areat

P.W.1witnessingtheincidentdeniedbythe eyewasnotaccused.

51).

Learnedcounselfortheaccusedinhiswritten

arguments

submittedthattheofP.W.1theofoffence presenceatsceneishighly doubtful,admittedlyherlandissituatedof the asnotanysidelandof on

deceasedadjoiningtoit andentiresurroundingiandsbelong

ortothird partiestheevidenceof P.W.1andtheroughsketchdrawn asperin Ex.P6- crimedetailsform.In thisregardalreadydiscussedin the aspreceding paragraphsP.W.1inhercomplaintdidthatthe notstatesheland owns adjacenttothelandof thedeceased.Shementionedcomplaint in herthat on27.12.2020at4’Oclock,whileshecorrectingboundaryin herfield, was theincidentoccurred,whichshowsthatwithinthevisibledistancefromher field,thelandof deceasedis situatedbutadjacently.landneed notHernot

beadjacenttothelandofdeceasedtowitnesstheincident.

eyeThe argumentof learnedcounselfortheaccusedin thisregardthatP.W.1 can a planted beconstruedwitness,fortheabovesaiddoes asreason,not deserveconsideration.Thoughitisfurthersubmittedbylearned any counsel.fortheaccusedinhiswrittenargumentsthat,thereseveral are

NZ ©

FairS.C.No.75of 2022~

40of77 in theevidenceofP.W.1whichshakes contradictionsandinconsistencies couldbefromEx.P1-complaintand credibilityofhertestimony,seen as

chief-examinationregardingtheincident.they

evidenceofP.W.1in herare eachotherandduringtheofcross- in-consonancewithevencourse remainedunrefuted.Theaccusednos.1to4 examination,hertestimony theofoffencewith disputinganddenyingtheirpresenceatscene not

theirexplainingtheinjuries

thetimeofincidentandnot weaponsat

accusedno.2,strengthentheof

sustainedbydeceasedandcase

prosecution.

52).fortheaccusedfurthersubmittedthatthe

Learnedcounsel of singleissufficienttheguiltof the evidencewitnessnottoprove eye of contradictionsandthatP.W.1notmaking anyattemptto accused,in view herbrotherfromtheclutchesof theaccusedmakesherpresenceat rescue ofoffencedoubtful.Inthisregard,learnedcounselforthe the scene accusedreliedtheJudgmentoftheHon’bleApexCourtbetween upon

SinghothersandState(NCTofDelhi)reportedin

Amarand

MANU/SC/0752/2020,whereinit washeldthat:

"W6...00 As a generalrulethe Courtcanandmayact

thetestimonyof singlewitnessprovidedheis oneye whollyreliable.Thereislegalimpedimentin no thesoletestimonyofsingle conwictingona aperson ThatthelogicofSection134ofthe witness.is EvidenceAct,1872.Butiftheredoubtsaboutthe are testimonyCourtswillinsistcorroboration.Itisnot on thenumber,thequantitybutqualitythatismaterial.

Fair41of77 S.C.No.75of 2022 a

Thetimehonouredprincipleisthatevidencehasto be weighedandnotcounted.Onthisprinciplestands

theedificeof Section134of theEvidenceAct.Thetest

has a ring of truth, iswhethertheevidenceis cogent, credibleandtrustworthyotherwise. or

20.Theassailantsonlyarmedwithhockey were sticksandknifeandnotwithfireIt aanyarms. unnaturalthattwobrotherspresent seemsveryon thespotwillnotmakeslightestattemptto even interveneandtrytotheotherbrotherbeing save assaulted,merelythethreatextendedbythe on assailantsarmedwithhockeya knife. sticksandThis unnaturalconducttotallyagainstnaturalhuman behaviourcastsseriousdoubtofshadowthe aon ofwitnessthespotatthetimeof presenceeyeon occurrence.

In the facts and

29.circumstancesofthethis case seriouslapsethepartoftheinvestigating wason officer. Thoughnormallyminorlapsesthepartof on theinvestigatingofficershouldnotintheof comeway acceptingwitnessaccount,ifotherwisereliable. eye Butinthecircumstancesoftheathandswhere case theconductof solewitnessisunnaturalandthere eye variousothersurroundingcircumstanceswhich are makehisatthesiteofincidentdoubtful, presence suchlapsethepartoftheinvestigatingofficer aon significancebe ignored.” assumedandisnotliableto 53).Aboveargumentoflearnedcounselfortheaccuseddoesnot A holdwater,therecontradictionsomissionsin theevidence anyasarenoor ofP.W.1andduringtheof cross-examinationthecredibilityof evencourse

her testimony,

remaineduntouched.Asfartheargumentof thelearned as counselfortheaccusedabouthernotmakingattempttothe anyrescue deceasedis concerned,shehascategoricallystatedthatshetriedto stop but they threatened theaccusedtokill herif sheinterferes.P.W.1being a of 59alonecouldnothavestoppedtheoutof womanyears,sevenpersons y

Fairof77S.C.No.75of 2022

42 whichsixmalefromattackingthedeceasedwithweapons. arepersons, of theaboveJudgmentbeappliedtothepresentsetof Thefactscannot factsin thisregard,in theabovetwomaledidnotmake ascasepersons

with hockey

intervenetheassailants,whoonlyarmed anyattemptstowere sticksandknife,whereasinthisP.W.1isof59years, acaseawoman accusedthereandaccusednos.1to4armedwith sevenwerewereaxes, spadeandstick,whichdeadlyandthey allegedlythreatened areweapons kill her,if sheinterferes.TheHon’bleApexCourtin theaboveJudgment to

of singleif it is

heldthattheCourtactthetestimonywitness mayoneye

in investigation

reliableandminorlapsesshailnotin the comeway.

54).LeamedAdditionalPublicProsecutorinsupportofhis argumentthatthetestimonyof P.W.1whois thewitnessto theincident eye isreliable,particularlyin viewofnon-denialoftheof the morepresence is nothing to discredit accusedat theof offencebythemandthere sceneas

hertestimony,placedreliancetheJudgmentoftheHon’bleApex

upon

CourtbetweenChandrashekarandanotherandStateinCriminal

AppealNo.1345of2012andBalasubramanyanandStateof Tamilnadu

in CriminalAppealNo.1346of 2012(commonjudgment,dt:22.05.2017),

whereinit washeldthat:

“9....Thenumberofinjuriestheheadofthe on deceasedissufficienttoconcludethenatureof murderousassaultmadebyailtheappellants.No

Fair

43of77S.C.No.75of 2022 ~ suggestiongiventothewitnessthathenot waswas presentatthetimeofassaultandthathenot was injuredintheItestablisheshis sameoccurrence. credibilityandreliabilitywitnessspeaking asaneye thetruth.Sincehewitnesstotheassault wasaneye whichtookplaceinbroaddaylight,andthenumber of injuriesmakesit evidentthatit continuedfor some is nothing time,theresuspiciousinhisevidencewhen hedescribesthenatureandof manner,weapon assaultbyeachoftheappellants.”

55).

In thisregardlearnedAdditionalPublicProsectorfurtherrelied

theJudgmentof theHon’bleHighCourtofPatna,dt:06.10.2016

upon betweenKamtaYadavandothersandStateofBihar.It is wellsettled lawthatthequalityof theevidenceof witnesswhichcountsfor convictionof

not quantity.

theaccusedfor theoffencebut

i!

ionHrovi

ofwitnesses

NumberNoparticularnumberof - witnessesshallinberequiredforthe anycase proofof anyfact.

56).

Learnedcounselfortheaccusedvehementlyarguedthat viewedfromangle,theprosecutionhasfailedtothatP.W.7 anyprovewas witnessto theallegedincidentEx.P1-complaint,statementsof P.W.1 eyeas underSections161and164Cr.P.Candherevidencesilentaboutthe are ofP.W.7atthetimeof incidentandforthethathe presencereasonwas examinedafteraboutsix monthsof theincident,thoughhemuch wasvery availableatthevillage.hisevidenceandthesaidinordinatedelay asper remainedunexplainedandthattheexplanationof secondphaseof Corona

Fair44of77S.C.No.75of 2022

Pandemicgiven byP.W.14is notsatisfactory,thechargesheetis silent as

Learnedcounselfortheaccusedfurtherarguedthatif aboutthe same.

reallyP.W.7witnessedtheincident,it wouldhavebeenmentionedin eye inquestwhichconductedimmediatelyaftertheincidentand thereport,was the prosecutionhasshownalonewitness throughouttheP.W.1aseye case

P.W.?7 directly contradict to theincidentandEx.D3andD4markedthrough histestimonyregardinghisattheofoffenceandthat presencescene in recordingmakesit clearthat abnormaldelayof161dayshisstatement a planted witnessabsolutelythereisexplanation,howhe heisnoasto as, emergedwitness.Learnedcounselfortheaccusedinthis asaneye regard,reliedtheJudgmentoftheHon’bleApexCourtbetween upon

of Rajasthan4 Supreme

ShahidKhanandStatereportedin(2016)

Court96,whereinit washeldthat: cases

of PW

“20.Thestatements25MirzaMajidBegand 3 days PW24MohamedShakirrecordedafter were

isforthcomingasto

of theNo explanation occurrence.

examined for 3 days.

why theynotItisalsonot were

as to howthepolicecameto knowthat these

known delayin recording witnessestheThe sawoccurrence. thestatementscastsseriousdoubtabouttheir a beingwitnessestotheIt maysuggest eyeoccurrence. thattheinvestigatingofficerdeliberatelymarking was a view to decideabout the shape to be

time with

givento the case and the eye witnesses to be

Thecircumstancesin this caselend such

introduced. significancetothisdelay.P.W.25MirzaMajidBeg

and PW24MohamedShakir,in viewof their

unexplainedsilenceanddelayedstatementtothe police,donottotobewhollyreliable appearus

yy

Fairof 2022 45of77S.C.No.75 witnesses.Thereiscorroborationoftheirevidence no JromotherindependentWe find anyeither.it source ratherunsafetorelytheirevidenceonly uponto upholdtheconvictionandoftheappellants.” sentence

Abovefactsnotapplicablehandin this aretocaseon ascase

in recording

delaytheofP.W.7hasbeen

statementexplainedbythe

prosecutionproperlyandthereis corroborativeevidencein this case. a

57),

Inthisregardlearnedcounselfortheaccusedfurther relied - theJudgmentoftheHon’bleApexCourtbetween uponKannaiahand

StateofMadhyaPradesh,reportedin2025 SCCOnlineSC2270, whereinit washeldthat:

“29.TheFIRoftheincidentbe todged cametothe on basisoftheoralstatementof Gobariya(PW-2) being

the fatherof deceased

Ramesh.However,hedidnot supporttheprosecutionanddeclared casewas hostile.IntheFIR,thereisreferencetothe no of Purtiya(PW-12),theso-called presenceeyewitness atthecrime scene.

31.Whatissignificanttomentionhereisthatthe a witness(PW-3)didnotmentionabouttheof presence his(PW-12),the place Puniyaatoftheincident.” son,

58).

LearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorin hiswrittenarguments submittedthatabovejudgmentsnotapplicablehandthe aretocaseon as

in compiete harmony with

evidenceof P.W.7is consistentandtheversionof

P.W.1andalsoconfessionmadebytheaccusedbeforeP.W.9.It is further submittedbylearnedin recording

AdditionalPublicProsectorthatthedelay

Fair«

46of77S.C.No.75of 2022

is clearly explainedby

theofP.W.7underSection161Cr.P.C statement thatdueCovid-19Pandemicandin P.W.14-investigatingofficerstatingto andof thefamilymembersofP.W.7 viewof restrictedmovementsonewas

relevantperiod,thesaiddelayoccurred,

effectedwithCovid,duringthe of prosecutionof learned isfataltheandtheargument whichnottocase theofP.W.7notincludedinFIRalso defencecounselthatnamewas of present consideredinthefactsandcircumstancescase.In cannotbe of his argument,learnedAdditionalPublicProsectorreliedthe supportupon

and Satish,

of theHon’bleApexCourtbetweenStateofU.P

Judgment

Court1000,whereinit washeldthat: reportedin AIR2005Supreme “As regardsdelayedexaminationofcertainwitnesses, thisCourtseveraldecisionshasheldthatunless in theInvestigatingofficeriscategorciallyaskedto as whytheredelayinexaminationforthewitnesses was thedefencecannotgainadvantagetherefrom.It any betaiddownruleofuniversalapplication cannotasa

that it there is any delay in examinationof

a particularwitnesstheprosecutionversionbecome woulddependseveralfactors.Ifthe suspect.Itupon explanationofferedforthedelayedexamination isplausibleandacceptableandthecourt theplausible,thereis acceptssameasno tointerferewiththeconctusion...... reason isbenotedthattheexplanation Itto whenofferedby1.0.beingquestionedthe onon aspectof delayedexamination,bytheaccused has to be tested by the Courton thetouchstone ofcredibility.Iftheexplanationisplausible

then no adverse inference can be drawn. Onthe

other hand, if the explanationis foundtobe

implausible,certainlytheCourtconsiderittobe can ofthefactorsto affect credibilityofthe witnesses one whoexaminedbelatedly.Itnothave weremayany

Fair

47of77S.C.No.75of 2022 ~~ effectthecredibilityofprosecution'sevidence on tenderedbytheotherwitnesses,”

59).In another

Judgmentof theHon’bleApexCourtrelied upon bythelearnedcounselfortheAdditionalPublicProsecutorbetween State ofU.PandKrishnaMaster,reportedinAIR2010SupremeCourt3071, it washeldthat:

“FIRneednotbeencyclopediaofminutedetailsof an theincidentit istomentionthereinthe nornecessary evidencewhichto rely prosecutionproposesatthe on

offiling

trial.ThebasicFIRistosetthe purpose

criminallawinto motionandnot to stateall the

minutedetailstherein.Itisrelevanttonoticethatsix brutalandmurdershadtakenplace gruesome

whereinfirearmsreality of

used.Thehardlife were isthatthewhohaslostkithandkinin persons horrificincidentislikelytosuffergreatshockand thereforelawwouldnotexpecthimtomention minutestdetailseitherinhisFIRstatementunder or Section161."

In thehandalsoP.W.1in shockandof caseonaswasagony

of accused inHerpresence,

loosingherbrotherin thebrutalattackeach andminutedetailsbe expectedfrom everycannother.

60).

LearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorinsupportofhis

of prosecution

argumentthatminordiscrepanciesin theandminor case

of investigation

lapsesin thetobeignored,whentheis casearecase establishedbeyondallreasonabledoubt,reliedtheJudgmentof the upon

Hon'bleApexCourtbetweenYogeshSinghandMahabeerSinghand

& “

S.C.No.75of 2022 reportedin 2017Crl.L.J291,2017(11)SCC195,whereinit was

others,

heldthat: .

a cardinalprincipleof criminaljurisprudence

‘ “15.Itis be provedbeyond thattheguiltoftheaccusedmust allreasonabledoubts.However,theburdenthe on prosecutionisonlytoestablishitsbeyondall case reasonabledoubtandnotalldoubts.

However,theruleregardingthebenefitofdoubt 17. doesnotwarrantacquittaloftheaccusedby resorting to surmises,or fancifulconsiderations.” conjectures

29.Itiswellsettledinlawthattheminor discrepanciesnottobegivenundueemphasis are be consideredfromthe andtheevidenceistopointof viewoftrustworthiness.Thetestiswhetherthe same

inspiresconfidencein the mindof the Court.If the

evidenceis incredibleandcannotbe acceptedbythe

thenit maycreateadentin the

testof prudence,

prosecutionversion.Ifomissiondiscrepancy anor

goes to the rootofthe matter and ushers in

incongruities,thedefencetakeadvantageofsuch can inconsistencies.Itneedsspecialemphasistostate no thatomissioncannottakeplaceofmaterial everya omissionand,therefore,minorcontradictions, inconsistenciesinsignificantembellishmentsdonot or affecttheoftheprosecutionandshouldnot corecase betakentobegroundtorejecttheprosecution a evidence.Theomissionshouldcreateseriousdoubt a aboutthetruthfulnesscreditworthinessof ora witness.Itisonlytheseriouscontradictionsand omissionswhichmateriallyaffecttheofthe case prosecutionbutnotcontradictionomission.— everyor be highly defective 30...“Thereinvestigationin may

it is to beexaminedas to whether

acase,However,

there ts any lapsebytheIOand whetherdueto such

lapsebenefitbe givenThe shouldtotheaccused. any lawthisissueiswellsettledthatthedefect 'on ininvestigationby itselfbea ground thecannot Joracquittal.If primacyis givendesigned tosuchor

)

Sex ~=«Fair49of77 $.C.No.75of2022 ~w negligentinvestigationstotheomissionslapses oror by perfunctorythe faith investigation,andconfidence ofthepeopleinthecriminaljusticeadministration wouldbeeroded.Wheretherehasbeennegligence on thepartoftheirwestigatingomissions, agencyoretc. whichresultedindefectiveinvestigation,thereis a legal obligationthepartof theto examinethe oncourt prosecutionevidencedehorssuchlapses,carefully,to Jindoutwhetherthesaidevidenceisreliablenot or

and to whatextentitis reliable andas to whether

suchlapsesaffectedtheobjectof findingoutthe truth.Therefore,theinvestigationisnotthesolitary for judicialscrutinyincriminaltrial.The areaa

ofthe trial

conclusioninthecannotbeallowedto case dependsolelythe probity of investigation.” on 46.....Therefore,inthereisdirecttrustworthy case evidenceofwitnessestocommissionofoffence, asan motivelosesitssignificance.Therefore,ifthe genesisofthemotiveoftheis occurrencenot proved,theoculartestimonyofthewitnesses as tothecouldnotbediscardedonly occurrenceon thegroundofabsenceof motive,ifotherwisethe evidenceis worthyofreliance.

61).In the

hand,it is thecontentionof theprosecutionthat caseon atthetimeofincidentPW.7ploughingthelandofdeceased was

admeasuringwithandtheplaceofincident,

4acrestractorP.W.1wasnear

in a tractor

therefore,heromittingtoP.W.7whodoesnoteffect namewas its case,P.W.7saidto bein tractorat thetimeof theincidentand aswasas

P.W.1inconditionof fearandmentatin viewof deathof her wasaagony, brotherinthehandsoftheaccused,inheratthetime ownpresence, lodgingcomplaintandrecordingherstatement,shecannotbefoundfault not naming withforP.W.7witnessto theincident. aseye

Fairof77S.C.No.75of 2022"© 50 62).Learnedcounselfortheaccusedfurtherarguedthatthe prosecutionhasfailedestablishmotivefortheallegedoffencethoughits to evidenceisdoubtfulandunreliableandtheabsenceofmotive assumes significanceandbecomesimportantcircumstancefavouringthe greatan accusedandplacedreliancetheJudgmentoftheHon'bleApex upon

CourtbetweenBabuandStateofKerala,reportedin

MANU/SC/0580/2010,whereinit washeldthat:

“The motive may beconsideredas a

22... circumstancewhichisrelevantforassessingthe evidencebutiftheevidenceis clearandunambiguous the guilt of the andthecircumstancesaccused, prove

the sameis not weakenedevenifthemotive

is nota

strong.Itisalsosetiledlawthatthe veryone. motivelosesallitsimportanceinwheredirect acase evidenceof eyewitnessesisavailable,because even a very strongmotivefor the accused

if there maybe

a particular tocommitcrime,theycannotbe persons convictediftheevidenceofeyewitnessesisnot

ifthere

convincing.Inthenot sameway,evenmay

if the evidenceofthe

be an apparent motivebut

eyewitnessesisclearandreliable,theabsence or

inadequacyofmotivecannotstand in the wayof

conwiction.”

63).

In thisregardlearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorarguedthat

they havegiven

whentherewitnessestotheincidentandwhen areeye credibleandconsistentevidencebeforetheCourt,proofofmotiveisnot

necessaryin the

heldaboveJudgmentreliedbylearnedcounsel

asupon

fora Judgment accused.InoftheHon’bleHighCourtfortheStateof

AndhraPradeshandTelanganabetweenKarriNageshwarRaoBujji

VIA

w

Fair51of77S.C.No.75of 2022

Pradesh,in CriminalAppeal

no.755

andanotherandStateofAndhra of2010and141of 2014,dt:16.02.2016,reliedbylearnedAdditional upon

PublicProsecutor,itheldthat“motiveplayinsignificantrolein wasa basedtheevidenceof eyewitness’. caseon

TheHon'bleHighCourtin theaboveJudgmentheldthat:

14.ThoughP.W.1isthebrotherof thedeceasedand the fact thereby,heisinterestedwitness,thatheis an

also a

victimof theattackbytheaccusedlendshigh credibilitytobistestimony,ordinarilyvictimis asa notexpectedtoshieldtherealculpritsandimplicate thewhohavenotperpetratedtheoffence persons, unlessthereexistsstrongmotivefor falseimplication. Thedefence failedtobringoutsuchmotivefor any suchfalseimplication.PW1iscategoricinhis evidenceabouttheparticipationoftheaccusedin in particular. generalandaccusedNos.iand2He the specific overt hasspokenaboutacts.

A careful perusaloftheofthis

15.cross-examination witnessshowsthatthedefencefailedtoelicit anythingtodiscredithistestimonyregardingthe participationtheinwhichtheaccused ormanner

himselfandthe

haveattackeddeceased.P.W.2,who isthebrother-in-lawofPW1, ie.,elderbrotherof wife ofPW1,hasalsotentcorroborationtothetestimony ofPW1.

64).Thoughlearnedcounselfortheaccusedsubmittedthatthe

a heightfeetand landof accusedno.1is situatedatof aboutthreeto four thatabsolutelythereisevidenceadducedbytheprosecutiontoprove no thatthereboundarydisputesbetweendeceasedandaccusedno.1, wereas

Fair&

52of77S.C.No.75of 2022 admittedlythelandsofaccusedno.1anddeceasedsituated were adjacently,thisCourthasnottodisbelievetheevidenceof seenanyreason

PW.1andotherprosecutionwitnesses,regardingboundarydispute

betweenbothof them,whichleadtotheincident.Learnedcounselforthe accusedfurthersubmittedin hiswrittenargumentsthattheinordinatedelay

in recordingof alleged

of136daysthestatementspanchyatheldersalso

disprovestheallegedboundarydisputesbetweenboththeparties.The

prosecutionin thisregardhasreliedtheJudgmentofHon’bleApex upon

CourtbetweenRavaSaheb@ Ravasahebagoudaetc.,andStateof

Karnakata,inCriminalAppealNos.1109-1110of2010,dt:16.03.2023, whereinit washeldthat:

“9.Atthisjuncture,recordtherelationship wemay betweentheaccusedandthedeceasedwhofar were offcousins.Boththepartiesholdinglands were adjacentt0CQCHOME... eeccecesesecseesesseestsesonee disputepersisted.ShasappaReddi(PW-7)whois also

a

relativeoftheparties,thoughinitiallystatedthat

there was no dispute between the deceased

Satyappaandaccusedbutthen,inthe verysame breath,clarifiesthat,15dayspriortotheincident,

disputeinrelationtothelandhadarisen and"asper

adviseaccused1 Ramappa myNo,hasnotprovided to Satyappa”. passersEvenPandappaSidareddi way (PW-8)doesthe factum deposeofthedisputebetween

the partiesinrelationto theland.Thus,toour

mind

thefindingsofthecourtsbelowinrelationthe to

Jactum of theinterse disputecannotbe said to be not

bornefromthematerialrecordincorrect onor ofevidenceled by the appreciationprosecution.

Fair

53of77S.C.No.75of 2022 “

25.PW-1isinterestedwitness,beingthebrotherof an thedeceased;alsohebeingthesolitarywitness as whichrelianceisplacedbythelearnedTrial upon is put forwarda groundto question Courtbefore asus theverdicts.ThepositionoflawheldinHarbans as KaurVs.Siateof Haryana[(2005)9 SCC195}tsclear instatingthatthereispropositionoflawwhich no doubtsthestatementofacloserelativesimply forthat Treason.

65).

Thoughthedefenceof theaccusedthroughouttheis that case thereboundarydisputesbetweendeceasedandaccused,in the wereno writtenargumentsfiledbehalfof theaccusedit wassubmittedcontrarily on that“itiswellsettledlawthatenmityisdoubleedgedwhich aweapon providesmotive,such,falseimplicationofaccusedduetoprevious as

not explained

enmitycannotberuledout”.Theaccusednos.1to 4 havethe forenmitybetweenboththeparties.intheabsenceof. any reason explanationtheversionof theprosecutionthatit wasboundary disputehas tobeaccepted.Theaccusedby wayofaboveargument,admittedthat thereenmitybetweenfamilyof accusedno.1anddeceased. was 66).Learnedcounselfortheaccusedfurtherarguedthatinthe absenceoftheinvestigatingcollectingthebloodofthe agencygroup deceased,thebloodstainedmaterialobjectsandbloodcannotbe group connectedtohimandthattheinvestigatingofficerhasnottakensteps any thatthebloodfoundmaterialobjectsis of thedeceased.On toproveon thislearnedcounselfortheaccusedplacedreliancethe aspectupon

Fairofof 20224« 5477S.C.No.75

JudgmentoftheHon’bleSupremeCourtofIndiabetweenBaljinder of Punjab,in MANU/SC/0924/2025,wherein KumarandStatereportedit hasbeenheldthat:

36.Further,tomakemattersforthe evenworse prosecution,therekeydeficienciesinthe are investigationandtheevidentiaryvalueofthealleged recoveriesremainsquestionable.Neitherthearrestof theaccusedtheallegedof theblood- norrecovery stainedclothesandthe(purportedlybased weapon thedisclosurestatementoftheaccused)is on supportedbyindependentwitiness.Whilethe any notbewhollydiscardedduetothelack recoverymay ofsupportingwitness,however,itundoubtedly a becomeshighlyquestionable,especiallywiththe Jfactumof long delayoftwomonthsinthediscovery

being effected.

37,Additionally,itisquiteconspicuousthatthe

investigatingagencytookminimumpainsto link the

discoveredarticlestotheincidentthedeceased or through forensicevidenceotherwise,The personsor only forensicevidenceinthisisthereportofthe case chemicalanalysiswhichmerelystatesthattheblood Joundis opinedofhumanorigin. ontheexhibitstobe is evidentlysufficient Thenottolinkthearticles same the specific offence........ to thedeceased or

been furtherheld

IntheaboveJudgmentithas that:

30.Thegeneralprincipleisthatonlysuchomissions whichamounttocontradictioninmaterialparticulars beusedtodiscreditthetestimonyofthewitness. can Whereascontradictioninthestatementofthewitness is fatal for theminordiscrepancyvariancein case,or evidencewillnotmaketheprosecution’s case doubtful.Materialdiscrepanciesthosewhich areare notnormalandnotexpectedofnormal aperson. Moreover,whenwitnesstestimoniesexhibit significantcontradictionsbetweentheirinitial statementsandtrialdepositions,theycannotbe reliedunlessindependentlycorroborated. upon

Fair‘

|55of 77S.C.No.75 of 2022

67).

LeamedAdditionalPublicProsecutorin this

regardsubmitted

thatheldbytheHon'ble asApexCourtin variousJudgments,defective investigationbea groundfor acquittal cannotof theaccusedwhenthe case

is proved otherwise,

by convincing evidence

andthatin thistheblood case stainedmaterialobjectsalso werenotdisownedbytheaccused nos.1to 4.

68),

Learnedcounselfortheaccusedfurther arguedthatthe

prosecutionfailedtotheallegedrecovery

proveconfessionand

panchanamaandseizureofmaterialobjects

fromtheaccusedinthe

of securing

absenceindependentwitnesses

fromnearby villages.In this regardP.W.14hasexplainedthat forsecuringpanchwitnessesfor

confessionandpanchanama,they

recoveryaddressrequisitionTahsildar whointurnprovidesthepanchwitnesses.This procedureisnotdeniedby wayoffurthercross-examination.Learnedcounselfor theaccusedfurther submittedthattheconfessionandpanchanama recoveryisofavailto no theofprosecutionandafterofthe caseasarrestaccused,they were prepared.Section27of IndianEvidencedoes Actnotattractandthatthere contradictionsregardingseizureofmaterialobjects areRCD-Ishows as thattheyhiddeninthebushesof agricultural werefieldsandEx.P8- recoverypanchanamarevealsthatthecrimeproduced weaponswerefrom underneaththeina hutandthatnon-productionof Exs.P7 grassandP8at

S “«

FairS.C.No.75of 2022

56of77 aboutgenuinetyofthesaid ofremandalsoraisesdoubt thetime documents.

accusedfurtherarguedthatafterarrest

69).Learnedcounselfor the

hours,theirallegedconfessionstatementswere oftheaccusedat110

andtimementionedin

recordedwhichisevidentfromArrestmemo reliedupon.Inthis panchanama,suchtheycannotbe confessionas is thatafterrecordingtheconfession

regard,theof theprosecution

case

andofmaterialobjects,they

oftheaccusedrecoverywere statements andthedateandtimespecifiedin the arrestedin thepolicestationper as to police1730hours

theybroughtstationat

arrest/surrendermemo,were

of apprehension

hoursisthetimeof the andarrested.Thetime11.10 accusedthechargesheet. evenasper 70).counsel!for theaccusedin thiscontextreliedthe Learnedupon betweenNareshaliasNehruand Judgmentof theHon’bleApexCourt

of Haryanaof Haryana,reported

& IrshadandanotherandState State in (2023)10 Supreme134,whereinit washeldthat: CourtCases noticedhereinabove,theevidenceofthe 16,Aseye- shouldbeof verysterlingqualityandcalibre witness andit shouldnotonlyinstilconfidenceinthecourtto butshouldalsobeversionof accepttheita same

suchnaturethat canbe acceptedat its facevalue.

ofRaiSandeep@ Deepu ThisCourtinthev. case

(NCT of Dethi)

hasheld:(SCC p.29,para22}. State

Fair

57of77S.C.No.75of 2022

22.Intheinstanttheconfessionalstatementof case, theaccusedreliedbytheprosecution uponwas admittedlyrecordedafterthearrestofthoseaccused whenaccused4,5,and6inpolice personswere custody.Hence,saidstatementwouldbecome inadmissiblehavingregardtotheprovisionsof Sections25and26oftheEvidenceAct,of1872.

of theActin nouncertain

Section25termsmakesit clearconfessiona policeofficershail thatmadeto no beprovedagainstaccusedof asapersonany affence.Likewise,Section26statesthatsuch any statementisinadmissibleif givenwhileinpolice custody.

71).of prosecutionis supportedof panch

Thebytheevidence case witnessesforconfessionandpanchanamaandthere recoverywasno delayin seizureof materialobjectsfromtheaccusednos.1to4.It is the ofprosecutionthatafterrecordingconfessionandseizure case

Ppanchanamasaccusedarrested.Intheinstantalready werecase,as discussedin theprecedingparagraphstheaccusednos.1to4havenot

disownedthebloodstainedmaterialobjectsparticularlytheirclothes,

more whichrecoveredfromtheirpossessionandit is for theaccused1 werenos.

4 to explain tothebloodstainsthesaidobjects.Justbecausethereis on documentaryevidencetothatthebloodmaterialobjects noproveon

of prosecution

belongstothedeceased,it is notfataltothein viewof case reliableevidenceofP.Ws.1and7 whothewitnessesandmedical areeye evidenceregardingtheinjuriessustainedbythedeceasedandof his cause deathandalsotheevidenceofpanchwitnesstotheconfessionand

Fair4

58of77S.C.No.75of2022 panchanamawhichleadtoof weapons.Thus,thefacts recoveryrecovery of theabovedistinguishabletopresentsetof facts.TheHon'ble caseare

ApexCourtintheaboveJudgmentheldthatminordiscrepancies or

of prosecution.

variancein evidencedonoteffecttheThisCourthas case todisbelievetheevidenceofP.W.9,regarding notseenanyreason confessionof theaccusednos.1to4whichleadtoofmaterial recovery objects.LearnedAdditionalPublicProsectorreliedtheJudgmentof upon theHon’bleApexCourtbetweenChandrashekarandanotherand

StateinCriminalAppealNo.1345of2012andBalasubramanyanand

StateofTamilnaduinCriminalAppealNo.1346of2012(common judgment,dt:22.05.2017),whereinit washeldthat:

“14,Theappellantstogetherarmedwith camea hammer,sickleandironrodrespectively,They assaultedthedeceasedindiscriminatelythehead on repeatedly,sensitivepartofthehumanbody avery of eachone reflectingtheindividualintentionofthem tothedeathof thedeceased.Thenumberof ensure injuriescausedtheheadspeaksforitself on regardingtheintentionoftheappellants.Thereis no needfortoconsiderandexamineissuesof us the factsofthe commonintention,in case.

15.Inviewoftheclearocularevidence available,issueswithregardtheconfession to statementandoftheof recoveryweapons

be _

assaultneednotconsideredfor corroboration.”

Lor ._@Fair59of77$.C.No.75of2022 4

for theaccusedfurtherarguedthatthedelay

72).

Learnedcounsel of 18 daysin forwarding thematerialobjectstoFSLis notexplainedandthe

prosecutionhassuppressedthematerialphotographstakenbyP.W.5.As

fromtherecord,theprosecutionhastakenstepsimmediately seento forwardthematerialobjectstoFSL09.01.2021itselfandthereis onno suchreportfromFSLthatthesaiddelayeffectstheiranalysisandreport.

Asfarallegedphotographsconcerned,theaccusedhasnottaken asare

stepstoproducethephotographsallegedlysuppressedbythe

any 4 prosecution,totheirallegation.Theargumentof learnedcounselfor prove theaccusedthatthedeceasedmighthavereceivedinjuries by fallingdown

the spadeis quite unbelievable

andunacceptablehewouldnothave onas

receivedsuchmultiplefatalinjuries, byhehimselfby fallingdown.

73).in support

Learnedcounselfortheaccusedofhisargument

of single

thatthetestimonywitnesscannotbereliedandtheview upon whichis favourabletotheaccusedistobeadoptedwhentwoviews are of prosecution, possibleandin viewof abovelapsesin theaccused case

for acquittal, placedthe Judgment

entitledrelianceof theHon’ble areupon

SupremeCourtofIndiabetweenHarbeerSinghandSheespaland others,&StateofRajasthanandSheeshpalandothers,reportedin (2016)16 SupremeCourt418,whereinit washeldthat: Cases

of 20224-

Fair60of77S.C.No.75

of criminaljurisprudence

11.Itiscardinalprinciple a thattheguiltoftheaccusedmustbeprovedbeyond allreasonabledoubt.Theburdenof provingits case beyondallreasonabledoubtliestheprosecution on anditshifts.Anothergoldenthreadwhich neverruns throughtheweboftheadministrationof justicein

that if two

are possible

criminalisviewsthe caseson

onepointingthe guilt

evidenceadducedintheto case,

of the accusedand the othertohis innocence,the

whichis favourabletheaccusedshouldbe viewto adopted.

to emphasise 20,However,donotwishthatthe we corroborationbyindependentwitnessesis an indispensableruleinwheretheprosecutionis cases primarilybasedtheevidenceofseemingly on interestedwitnesses.Itiswellsetiledthatitisthe

qualityofthe evidenceand not the quantityofthe

evidencewhichrequiredbe judgedbytheCourt isto to placecredencethe statement. on 74).Inthisregardlearnedcounselfortheaccusedfurtherrelied theJudgmentof Hon'bleApexCourtbetweenAsiamandStateof upon

in MANU/SC/0404/2025,

Mandhyapradesh,reportedwhereinit washeld that:

It is to be notedthat ShahidKhan(PW-1) is

13.00... thebrotherofdeceasedGudduandsuch,is asan interestedwitness.Nodoubtthatmerelywitness a beinginterestedwitnesscannotbegroundfor ana discardinghistestimony.However,theevidenceof suchwitnessisrequiredtobescrutinizedwith a greatercautionandcircumspection.

Fair

61of77 S.C.No.75of 2022 ‘

the Hon’ble

Judgment

75).

inanotherof ApexCourtbetween

AbdulWahidandOthersof Rajasthan andState& Abdul Shakurand

of Rajasthan,in MANU/SC/0290/2025,

Statereported reliedbythe upon learnedcounselfortheaccused, theHon'bleApexCourtinview of contradictionsin theevidenceof P.W.1therein,held that:

7Therefore,is for ittheprosecutiontoconnect

the accusedto the murderofthe deceasedby

producingcredibleandlegallyadmissible evidence. However,havethereiscredible asweseen,no evidenceatalltoconnecttheaccused personswith thehomicidaldeathofAhsan.Insuch circumstances, theappellantsentitledtothebenefit ofdoubt. are

76).

In thehand,absolutelythere caseonisto disbelieve noreason theevidenceofP.W.1forthe reasonsdiscussedinpreceding as paragraphsandtheHon’bieApexCourtin theabove

Judgmentsrelied

uponbythelearnedcounselfortheaccusedalsoheldthat

it is thequality

of theevidencethatis tobebutnotquantity.TheHon'ble seenApexCourt in variousJudgmentsheldthatevidencea single ofinterestedandrelated witnessbereliedforconvictionof the canuponaccused,if it is credibleand

inthisregard,theJudgmentsreliedbylearnedadditional

uponpublic

in the preceding paragraphs.

prosecutoralsocited were

77).

It is alsoarguedbythelearnedAdditionalPublicProsectorthat thedefectiveinvestigationcannotbegroundforacquittal awhen .y <

of 2022

Fair62of77S.C.No.75

theprosecutionandminor substantiveevidenceisadducedby furthersubmittedbylearned discrepanciesbeignored.Itis areto is sisterof deceased,whorushedto

AdditionalPublicProsecutorthatP.W.1

the Spot,

doesdepend

hearingthequarrelandherpresencenoton upon

accusedmagnifyingtrival

ownershipofthelandandthattheare

overwhelmingevidencepointingtowards

inconsistencieswhileignoringthe

theirguilt.

78).oftheaccusednos.5to7inthe Asfartheinvolvement as counselfortheaccusedarguedthat offencesisconcerned,learned

the incident.

convincingevidencetoconnectthemto absolutelythereis no describedtheaccusednos.5to7unknown P.W.1inhercomplaintas

in her complaint

Theirphysicalfeaturesnotdescribedeither persons.were

Cr.P.C.Admittedlyafterabout40 statementsunderSections161or164 or incident,identificationParadeconductedbyP.W.13. daysof theTestwas

79).accusedinthisregard,vehemently

Learnedcounselforthe

of prosecution,

arguedthatthisdelayisdoubtfataltothemore nocase particularlyin viewof admissionof P.W.1in hercross-examinationthat on

nos. 5 to

7 in the police station. theday,shehastheaccusedAs nextseen fromtheevidenceofP.W.13andEx.P19-ProceedingsofTest seen

IdentificationParade,P.W.1couldnotidentifyaccusedno.6andshe

Fair

63of77S.C.No.75of 2022

identified7 hesitatingly, stating

accusednos.Sandthatthe

suspects

were wearingmasksat thetimeof incidentandtheylooklike suspects no.1and 3 i.e.,accused nos.5and7.Whenadmittedlytheincidentoccurredduring

CoronaPandemicperiod,whenadmittedlythethreewhoallegedly persons accompaniedaccused14,wearingmasks,identification nos.towereof

7 byis highly

accused5andP.W.1inTestIdentificationParade, nos.

improbablewithoutherseeingthempriorit.inher toP.W.1evidence exceptstatingthatsheknowsall theaccusedpresentin theCourt,did not identifytheaccusednos.57 beforetheCourtspecifically. toIdentification of AccusedNo.5and7abovebyP.W.1hesitatingly,doesinspirethe asnot confidenceof thisCourt.

80).

P.W.7,whois alsocitedwitnesstotheincident,has asaneye deposedthatheknowstheaccused1 to 4 presentin the nos.Court.P.W.7 neitheridentifiedtheaccusednos.5to7in theCourtstatedthat opennor heknowsthem.Hesimplystatedthattheremainingthree persons

to 4 to

encouragedtheaccusednos.1kill thedeceased,withoutspecifying thatit wasAccusedNos.5 to7.Theprosecutionhasalsonotconducted

to 7 for identification

TestIdentificationParadeof AccusedNos.5byP.W.7.

It isof prosecutionis any notthethatthererivalrybetweenAccused case 5 to7 anddeceased.Prosecutionhasnotattributedmalafidesto nos.any to help Accused themnos.1to 4 to kill thedeceased.

Fair64of77S.C.No.75of2022~

81).AdditionalPublicProsecutorin thisregardrelied

Learnedupon

Hon’bleCourtbetweenDanaYadav@Dahu

theJudgmentof theApex

andofBiharreportedinAIR2002SupremeCourt andothersState 3325,whereintheHon’bleApexCourtheldthat:

“Theidentificationofaccusedbywitnessin ana substantiveevidencewhereasevidenceof courtis identificationidentificationparadeisthough intest evidencebutnotsubstantiveandthe primaryone usedonlycorroborateidentificationof beto samecan

theaccusedby awitnessincourt.

Itwellsettledthatidentificationparadesheld isare

ofthe

ordinarilytheinvestigatingofficer atinstance to identify fortheof enablingthewitnesses purpose eitherthepropertieswhichthesubjectmatterof are allegedoffencethewhoallegedto orpersonsare havebeeninvolvedintheoffence.

Onaperusaloftheaboverulingsitis clearthat the

failureholdthetestidentificationparade toeven afterdemandbytheaccusedisnotalwaysfatal a

andit ts onlyoneoftherelevantfactorsto betaken

intoconsiderationalongwiththeotherevidence on

Iftheclaimoftheocularwitnesses

that they

record.

knewthe accusedalreadyis foundto betrue, the

failuretoholdtestidentificationparadeis a inconsequential.” 82).Abovefactsbeappliedtothehandin the cannotcaseonas instantadmittedlyAccusedNos.5 to7unknownpersonstoP.W.1 caseare andevidenceofP.W.7issilentabouthisidentification.Theinvestigating officergettingconductedtheTestIdentificationparade,if thewitnessis not of identifying theto acquaintance capableaccuseddueandthewitnessnot

Fair

65of77 S.C.No.75of2022

in Testidentification

who are strangers.

properlyidentifyingtheaccused

Parade,twodifferent areaspectstobeconsidered.

83).

Learnedcounselfortheaccusedin this

regard,reliedby

upon theJudgmentof theHon'ble SupremeCourtofIndiabetween Gireesan

NairandothersandStateof1 Supreme

Kerala,reportedin(2023)

CourtCases180, whereinit washeld that:

“25.4therea delay wasofmonthbetween overone thedateof theincidentandthe datesof theTIP whichfacilitatedtheinvestigation officerto acclimatisethewitnessestothethe wayAccused’s look.Hereliedthedecisionof uponthisCourtin SureshChandraBahriStateofBihar v.whereit has beenheldthatTIPhasbe atoconductedatthe earliestpossibleopportunity.

33.Itissignificanttomaintainhealthy aratio

TIP. if

betweensuspectsandduring non-suspects a rulestothateffectprovided areinPrisonManuals or ifappropriateauthorityhas anissuedguidelines regardingtheratiotobemaintained, thensuch rules/guidelinesshallbefollowed. Theofficer conductingthea compelling TIPisunderobligationto mandatorilymaintaintheprescribed ratio.While

conducting a TIP,it isa sine quanonthat the non

shouldbe of the suspectsandshould sameage-group alsohavesimilarphysicalfeatures(size, weight,color, beard,marks,bodilyinjuriesetc.)thatofthe scars,to suspects.TheconcernedofficeroverseeingtheTIP shouldalsorecordsuchphysicalfeatures

before

TIP proceeding. commencingtheThisgivescredibility not just an totheTIPandthattheTIP ensuresis emptyformality(RajeshGovindJageshaof v.State MaharashtraandRaviv. State).

& rc

S.C.No.75of 2022

Fair66of77

Re: Delayin conductingtheTIP:

delayconductingTIPhasserious

50.Undueinaa credibilityoftheidentificationprocess. bearingthe on

Thoughthereis nofixedtimelinewithinwhichtheTIP

andofthedelay mustbeconductedtheconsequence factsandcircumstancesof woulddependthe upon

thecase,itisimperativeto holdtheTIPattheearliest.

ofTIPwitnessesseeingthe Thepossibilitythe sufficientcastdoubtabouttheir accusedisto credibility.

accusedarguedthattheaccused

84).Learnedcounselforthe

thisin theabsenceofproper 7cannotbeconnectedtoCourt nos.5to

delayof 40daysin conductingIdentification

andTest

identificationbyP.W.1

of prosecution.furtherarguedthat

isfataltheItwas paradetocase

recordedthephysical

admittedlyP.W.13learnedMagistratehasnot andforthesaidalsono featuresofsuspectsandnon-suspectsreason saidproceedings.Admittedlytheaccused credencebeattachedto can andtheydidnotcommit 7notcarryingweaponsany nos.5towereany deceased.Asper Ex.P1-complaint,threeunknown overtactstowardsthe

to kill

accusednos.14tokickhimin mudand encouragedtheto persons muchforcein theargumentof learned him.In thisregard,thisCourtfound theproceedingof TestIdentificationParade counselfortheaccusedthat of prosecution,theinvolvementof ofavailtothetoprove arenocase benotedthatP.W.1in suchpanic accused5to7.It isalsotoa nos.

observedandrememberedphysicalfeaturesof condition,wouldnothave yw

Fair

67of77 S.C.No.75of 2022

7. Theinordinatedelayofabout

40daysin conducting

5to

accused nos.

TestIdentificationParade,admission ofP.W.1thatshehas seenthe accused5 to7 in thepolicestation nos.thenextdayandevidenceof on

P.W.13aboutthestatementofP.W.1thatwearing three personswere masksatthetimeof incidentandidentifyingthe P.W.1accusednos.5 to7 not identifying the

hesitatinglyand

accusedno.6,raisegenuinedoubtabout theofaccusednos.5 presenceto7attheplaceofincidentalongwith accused1 to4 andtheirinvolvementin the nos.offences.In theabsence

and 7 and

of properidentificationof accused nos.5identificationof accused no.6,whoto P.W.1,for the forgoing discussion, arestrangersandthisCourt

isof theopinionthattheprosecutionhas

failedtothatit wasthe prove accused5 to7 whoaccompainedaccused nos.1 to4 to theof nos.scene offence.Thus,theoffencesunderSections302, 201,506readwith34IPC remainedunprovedagainstaccusednos.5 to7.

85).

Theprosecutionby adducing convincingandevidence

cogent

hasprovedthattheAccusedNos.14with tointention,attacked common thedeceasedduetoboundarydisputesandkilled himby beatingwith deadly weaponshishead.fartheoffence onAsasunderSection201read with34ofIPCisconcerned,theprosecutionby adducing

convincing

evidencewhichincludetheevidenceofP.W.9-Panchwitness tothe

confessionandpanchanamaandby getting

recoverymarkedtherelevant ¥2 ©

Fairof77S.C.No.75of 2022 68’ oftheaccused,whichleadto

portionoftheconfessionpanchanama

by gettingmarkedthematerialobjects

ofmaterialobjectsand recovery situatedin thelandofaccusedno.1whichnot seizedfromhutwere a to 4, provedthattheaccusedno.1to4 with disownedbytheaccusednos.1 of theevidenceaftercommitting intentioncauseddisappearance acommon murder.

86).chargedfortheoffenceunderSection

Theaccusedalso are the ground thattheythreatenedP.W.1to kill her 506readwith34of IPC on theof herdeceasedbrotherandto also,whenshecomingto wasrescue

deadlyThoughP.W.1and

themfrombeatinghim,withweapons.

stop

categoricallystatedthethereisspecific P.W.4herhavesame,no son it by thethreatened denialofaccused.Hadtheaccused1to4not nos.

shewouldhavetotheofher P.W.1withdireconsequences,gonerescue fromtheclutchesof theaccusedandmadehuesand brothertohim save for help.circumstancesof thediscussed criesInthefactsandcaseas isto disbelievetheevidenceof P.W.1and

aboveabsolutelythere

noreason in this regard. P.W.4 ,

87).Thoughlearnedcounselfortheaccusedreliedvarious

upon

be applied

Judgmentsof theHon'bleApexCourt,theycannottothepresent of facts,discussedin thepreceding paragraphs,thetestimonyof setasas «Fair69of77 S.C.No.75of 2022 .

GN 1

ob

deceasedremainedsini

P.W.1whoisthewitnessandsisterofthe eye undisturbedandunshakenduringthe evencourseofher cross-

“examination.

Theaccusednos.1to4notdenyingtheirthe presenceat

of offence

timeof incidentatthewiththe scenematerialobjectsand not

disowning them,of them,and

asnotexplainingtheinjuriessustained grave bydeceasedto sensitivepartsof his head,betweenhis land andlandof the

no.1,it abundantly

accusedmakeclearthattheaccused nos.1to4are responsibleforthedeathof deceased.It isalsorelevant torepeathere thattheaccusednos.1to4havenotattributedmalafideseither anyto

P.W.1to implicateto depose P.W.7themfalselyin thisfalsehood orcaseor againstthem.Itis wellsettledlawthatminordiscrepanciesin theof case

prosecutionandlapsesin theof investigationbe grounds

coursecannotfor acquittaloftheaccusedwhentheis proved caseotherwisebeyondail

doubt. Thus,

reasonableviewedfromanglethisCourthas

anynotseenany todisbelievethecredibleoralanddocumentaryevidenceadduced reason

bytheprosecutionin support

of itsagainstaccusednos.1to 4. case 88).. of ThisCourtconsiderationtotalityoffactsand upon circumstancesof theandfortheforegoingdiscussionmadein the case 4

lightoforalanddocumentaryevidenceadducedbytheprosecutionand

authoritativepronouncementsoftheHon'bleApexCourtreliedby upon

bothparties,is of theopinionthattheprosecutionby adducingconvincing

ee

Fair70of77S.C.No.75of2022 evidenceparticularlytheevidenceofP.Ws.1 oralanddocumentarymore witnesses,P.W.9panchwitnesstotheconfessionandrecovery and7 eye accused4,P.W.10-dector,whoconducted panchanamaoftheno.1to deadbodyof thedeceasedandinvestigatingofficershas autopsythe over of provingtheguiltof theaccusedno.14 for the dischargeditsburdento 302,201,506readwith34ofIPCbeyondall offencesunderSections reasonabledoubt.

89).theforegoingdiscussion,theirresistibleconclusionwhich

For

is thattheprosecutionby convincing,corroborative,cogentand

emerges the guilt of the4 for the credibleevidencehasestablishedaccusednos.1to underSections302,201,506readwith34ofIPC,beyondall offences failedto bringtheguiltof the reasonabledoubt.The prosecutionhashome

of convincing

accused5to7forthesaidoffencesintheabsence nos.

in the absence

identificationbyP.W.1andof anyconvincingevidenceto theirinvolvementintheoffencesalongwithaccused1to4. provenos.

for acquittalfor thesaidoffences..Accordingly,

Therefore,theyentitled

are

the points

answered. are

90).accusedfoundguiltyfor

iN THERESULT,nos.5to7not are theoffencespunishableunderSections302,201,506readwith34of

I.P.CandaccordinglytheyacquittedunderSection235(1)of Cr.P.Cfor are iy a

Fair

71of77S.C.No.75of 2022 thesaidoffences.TheaccusedNos.1to4foundguiltyforthe are offencespunishableunderSections302,201,506readwith34of I.P.C andaccordinglytheyconvictedunderSection235(2)of Cr.P.Cfor arethe saidoffences.

TypedtodictationbytheStenographerGrade-ll,

myseen, correctedandpronouncedbyin theCourtthisthe29"dayof meopenon

April,2026.

INS JUDGE,

PRINCIPALSE:

RAJANNASIRCILLA.

91)Whentheaccusedno.1to4heardthequantumof areon

be imposed

sentencetothemfor theoffencesunderSections302,201, on 506readwith34IPC.

old aged

Accusedno.1statedthathehastotakeof hismother- care in-law.

a singlein Hyderabad AccusedNo.2statedthatheisresiding person andhehasparents{A.1andA.2).

is newly married AccusedNo.3statedthatheandhasagedfive son monthsandhis wifeanddependentshim. sonareupon

is suffering

AccusedNo.4statedthatshefromill-healthandtaking medicines.

Fairof 2022

72of77S.C.No.75*

92)Havingregardtheseverityandnatureoftheoffences, tono betakenagainsttheaccusednos.1to4.In thefactsand lenientview can circumstancesof thethisCourtis of theopinionthatthisdoes case,case fallundertheoftoawarddeathsentencetothe notrarestrearcase accusednos.1to 4.

93).in theresult,accusednos.57foundnotguiltyforthe toare offencespunishableunderSections302,201,506readwith34ofI.P.C andaccordinglytheyacquittedunderSection235(1)ofCr.P.Cforthe are saidoffences.TheaccusedNos.1 to4foundguiltyfor theoffences are punishableunderSections302,201,506readwith34ofLPCand accordinglytheyconvictedunderSection235(2)of Cr.P.Cforthesaid are sentencedto undergoIMPRISONMENT offences.AccusedNos.1to4 are of Rs.3,000/-each(RupeesTHREE FORLIFEandalsotopayaFINE

ONLY)andin defaultof paymentof fine, they shallundergo

THOUSAND

SIMPLEIMPRISONMENTforperiodOFTHREEMONTHS,forthe a offenceunderSection302readwith34ofIPC.

94).accusedfurthersentencedUndergo

TheNo.1to4areto

IMPRISONMENTFORTHREEYEARSandalsotoFINEof paya

Rs.2,000/-each(RupeesTWOTHOUSANDONLY)andindefaultof of fine, theya period paymentshallundergoSIMPLEIMPRISONMENTfor one

. é

Fairof

7377S.C.NO.75of 2022

the offence

‘204read with

OFTWOMONTHS,forunderSection34of

IPC,

95).TheaccusedfurthersentencedUndergo

No.1to4areto

of Rs.1,000/-

IMPRISONMENTFORONEYEARandalsotoFINE paya

ONLY)andin defaultof paymentof fine, each(RupeesONETHOUSAND theyshallundergoSIMPLEIMPRISONMENTforperiodOFONE a

MONTH,fortheoffenceunderSection506readwith34ofIPC.

of imprisonment

96)Thesentencesimposedforalltheoffences shallconcurrently.Theremandperiodalreadyundergonebythe run accusednos.1to4shallbeset-off,providedunderSection428of as be destroyedshallbeconsfiscated Cr.P.C.M.Os.1to15shallandM.0.16

expiryofappeal

to thestate,aftertime.

97).apprisedoftheirrightprefer

Theaccusednos.1to4to are

this Judgmentavailabilityoflegal-aid,if required.

appeal againstandOffice

of judgmentto theaccused4 freeof cost. is directedto furnishno.1to copy

TypedtodictationbytheStenographerGrade-ll,corrected myseen,

29" day of April, 2026.

andpronouncedbymein theCourtthisthe openon

PRINCIPAL ence

Qe

RAJANNASIRCILLA.

of 2022@y

Fair74of77S.C.No.75

APPENDIXOFEVIDENCE

WITNESSESEXAMINED

FORPROSECUTION:

Prosecutio

Nameof WitnessDescription n Witness No.

1.DongalaPadma,Complainant/FirstInformant, Sisterof thedeceased.

KasthuriRekha,Wifeof thedeceased.

KasthuriPavanKumarSonof thedeceased.

Reddy

|Nephew

4,DongalaSrinivasReddyof thedeceased.

5.KamarapuVenuPhotographer.

6.KasthuriLinga ReddyNeighboringLandOwner

7.ChinthalaSatheeshTractorDriverwhocultivatethe landof deceasedand eye witnessto theincident.

8.RayamRanjithPanchwitnessforCrimeDetails form.

9.Bejjigam Laxman,Panchwitnessfor confession andpanchanamas. recovery

10.Dr. Salman,MedicalOfficer whoconducted autopsythedeadbodyof over deceased.

11.P.LakshmaReddy,1* Investigating Officer.

12.Md.Sarwar2"investigatingOfficer.

13.S.Manjula JudicialOfficer,recordedthe164 Cr.P.Cstatementsandconducted TestIdentificationParade.

14.B.Upender3" Investigating Officer, who filed

chargesheet.

Que

Fairof 7577S.C.No.75 _’of 2022

FORDEFENCE:

DefenceNameof WitnessDescription

4 Witness No.

None

HIBIT:

RKED:

FORPROSECUTION:

ExhibitNo.Descriptionof theExhibit

Provedby/

Attestedby

Complaint.

1. PW.1

2.Photographs(08) P.W.5

3.CompactDisc. P.W.5 4,65-BCertificate PW5 ry

5.InquestPanchanama. P.W.8

6.CrimeDetailsForm PW8

of confession-cum-recovery

7.RelevantPortions PW.9 panchanamaof accusednos.1to 7, dt:1.1.2021

8.SeizurePanchanamaof accusedno.1to 4, PW.9

dt:01.01.2021

9.Requisitiondt:28.12.2020 P.W.10

10.

PostmortemExaminationReport,dt:28.12.2020P.W.10

11.

FIRP.W.11

12.

HealthCertificateof AccusedNo.2P.W.12

13.to SDPO,

RequisitionmadeSircilla,

PW.12

dt:09.01.2021

14.Letterof Advise.P.W.12 of SDPO,|!

15.LetterSircillaaddressedto RFSL,pwi2

dt:11.01.2021

16.Reportof FSL,dt:16.03.2021 P.W.12

of 2022

76of77S.C.No.75 Fair to conductTestP.W.13

17.Reauisitiondt:10.01.2021 IdentificationParade.

18.of Witness/D.PadmaP.W.13 SwornStatement of TestIdentificationParade,P.W.13

19.Proceedings

dt:06.02.2021

AlterationMemo.P.W.14

20.Section

FOEFENCE:

Descriptionof theExhibitProvedby/ ExhibitNo.

Attestedby

of Section164Cr.P.Cstatementof PW4PW.4

1.Portion Portionof Section161Cr.P.Cstatementof PWSP.W.5 2.

Portionof Section161Cr.P.Cstatementof PW6P.W.6 3.

Portionof Section161Cr.P.Cstatementof PW6PW.6 4.

MATERIALOBJECTS:

MaterialDescriptionof theExhibitProvedby/

ObjectAttestedby

No.

ColourHalf T-ShirtP.W.8

1.Brown

BlueColourJeansPantshortPW.8 2.

GreyColourwithredcolourunder-wearP.W.8 3. Box containing controlearthPW.8 4, Box containingstainedearthPW.8

5.blood

AxePW.9

LightBlackandWhitedotsshirtP.W.9 7.

8.Bluecolourshort(nekkar)withtwobloodstainsPW.9

9.YellowColourT-Shirt.PW.9

10.stainedwheatcolourPW.9 Bloodpant.

AxePW.9

11.

wwFair77of77 S.C.No.75of 2022

12,

RedColourT-shirt PW.9

13.

Bluecolourpant PW.9

14.Spade P.W.9

15.

Stick PW.9

16.cell phoneof MI Company Silvercolour PW.9

PRINCIPALSESSIONSJUDGE,

a

RAJANNASIRCILLA.

SC.POCSO/85/2019 Acquitted

Asiniparthi Anjaiah vs Md. Amjad

14 Jul 2025

Fair 1 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT

FOR EXPEDITIOUS AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND

POCSO ACT CASES, AT RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

PRESENT: SMT. P. NEERAJA

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Rajanna Sircilla. FAC: Fast Track Spl. Judge for expeditious Trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Rajanna Sircilla.

MONDAY, THIS THE 14 TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

S.C. NO.85 OF 2019

Name of the complainant::The State through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, P.S. Vemulawada Town (Crime No.346 of 2018).

Description of the accused::Md. Amjad, S/o. Bashu Miya, Age: 20 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. Sankepalli village of Vemulawada Mandal.

Charges::Under Sections 366, 354-A, 354-D IPC and Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act-2012 and Section 3(1) (wi) and 3(2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

Plea of the accused::Not guilty.

Finding of the Court::Not guilty.

Sentence or order IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 354-A, 354-D IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act-2012 and Section 3(1) (xi) and 3(2) (v) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Fair 2 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019

Prosecution conducted by:Sri. Penta Srinivas, Special Additional Public Prosecutor.

Defence conducted by::Sri. T.Rajendra Prasad. Advocate for the Accused.

This case is coming before me on 04.07.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Penta Srinivas, Special Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. T.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) This case emerges from the charge sheet filed by Sub-

Divisional Inspector of Police, Vemulawada against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 354-A, 354-D IPC and Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act-2012 and Section 3(1) (wi) and 3(2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

2)The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

On 05.10.2018 the petitioner/yyyy father of the victim came to police station and lodged written complaint stating that he belong to SC-mala community, resident of Rudravaram village and a labourer. He has four daughters. The youngest is the victim/xxxx aged 17 years and studying Intermediate first year in Varenya College. On 04.10.2018, the victim left home as usual for college and did not return. The petitioner called his relatives and enquired with the local friends of his daughter.

While they were in search, on 05.10.2018, they came to know that their

Fair 3 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019 daughter is at Vemulawada. Himself and his wife went to Vemulawada and found their daughter in the police station-Vemulawada Town. She revealed that the accused/Md. Amjad S/o. Bashumiya, an auto driver used to stalk her on the name of love and marriage right from her studying in 9th class, as he used to take her in his auto to college, they used to talk to each other at

Vemulawada. On 04.08.2018, he abducted her to Kondagattu to marry her, when she went to Vemulawada to attend college. On coming to know that her father was searching for her, he dropped her back at Vemulawada. The complainant stated that the accused did not have physical relationship with his daughter.

3).Basing on the said complaint, L.W.14 registered a case in crime No.346/2018 under Sections 366, 354-A, 354-D IPC and Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act-2012 and Section 3(1) (w) and 3(2) (v) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and issued FIR. As per the proceedings in

C.No.89/D4/DCRB/RSLA/2018, dt: 05.10.2018, of Superintendent of Police,

Rajanna Sircilla, L.W.15 was appointed as Investigating Officer in this case as per Rule 7 of SC/STs (POA) Act. During the course of his investigation,

L.W.15 visited the crime scene i.e., the residential house of LW.1, secured the presence of L.Ws.1, 3 to 5, examined them and recorded their detailed statements and got recorded the statement of victim/L.W.2 through the

Women Police Officer/L.W.8 and L.W.13 also recorded her statement,

Fair 4 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019 prepared crime details from in the presence of L.Ws.9 and 10 and video- graphed the statements of L.Ws.1 to 5.

4).On requisition filed by L.W.15, L.W.11 furnished caste particulars of L.W.1 and L.W.2/victim girl and accused stating that L.Ws.1 and 2 belong to SC-Mala and accused belong to Muslim community. On the requisition L.W.7 issued study, conduct and date of birth certificate of the victim/L.W.2 showing her date of birth as 15.04.2002. On 12.10.2018, on receipt of reliable information, L.W.15 apprehended the accused in the bus stand, Vemulawada and on interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offences, L.W.15 arrested the accused.

On the requisition of L.W.15, L.W.12/JFCM, Jagityal recorded the statement of L.W.2/victim.

5).The investigation reveals that on 04.10.2018 the victim/L.W.2 left home as usual for college and did not return. After search by L.W.1 on 05.10.2018, he came to know that L.W.2 was at Vemulawada. L.Ws.1 and 3 went to Vemulawada town and found L.W.1 at police station. She revealed that accused/Md. Amjad used to stalk her in the name of love and marriage right from her 9th class. Thus, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 366, 354-A, 354-D IPC and Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act-2012 and Section 3(1) (wi) and 3(2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

Fair 5 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019

6)The I-Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar registered the case in S.C.No. 152 of 2017 and on appearance of accused, copies were furnished to him. Later, the case was made over to this Court on the point of jurisdiction vide order in Dis.No.1171/2022, dated:17.02.2022 of the

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

7). After hearing both sides, charges under Sections 366, 354-A, 354-D IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act-2012 and Section 3(1) (xi) and 3(2)

(v) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 were framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Vernacular language and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8)During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined, and

Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked.

9)After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. On behalf of accused, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined. NO documents were marked on his behalf.

Fair 6 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019

10) Heard both sides and perused the record, including the written arguments and citations filed by learned counsel for the accused.

11) The point which emerge for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 354-A, 354-D IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act-2012 and Sections 3(1) (xi) and 3(2) (v) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T:

12)The case of the prosecution is that the victim/girl is a minor and belongs to SC-Mala community and that the accused being Muslim, used to stalk her on the name of love and marriage, while she was traveling in his auto to the school and college and abducted her on 04.10.218 to marry at

Kondagattu and thereafter on coming to know that the father of the victim girl was searching for her, he again dropped her at Vemulawada and he did not have sexual intercourse with her.

13).In view of the above allegations levelled against the accused, the burden squarely rests upon the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused for the above offences, by proving the alleged abduction of victim girl who allegedly is a minor by the accused to marry her at

Kondagattu and prior to that, he used to stalk her while going to school and college.

Fair 7 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019 14).The prosecution in support of its case, has examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. P.W.1 is the complainant who deposed that on 04.10.2018, his daughter went to Varenya College, Vemulawada and did not return till evening, and that on the next day, he came to know that his daughter was in Police Station-Vemulawada and that on enquiry she revealed that one Amjad met her while going to college and followed her under the guise of love and took her to Kondagattu and on coming to know that they were searching for her, he brought her to P.S.Vemulawada.

Ex.P1-complaint was marked through P.W.1.

15).P.W.1 during the course of his cross-examination deposed that at the time of joining L.W.2 in school, he was not present and his wife got admitted her, as such, he does not know the Date of Birth of L.W.2, mentioned in the school. P.W.1 admitted that they do know about accused following his daughter on the pretext of love and they came to know about the same on 05.10.2018, when his daughter informed and L.W.2 used to go to college either by bus or auto as per her convenience. The defence set up by the accused by way of cross-examination of P.W.1 is that the daughter of P.W.1 went to Kondagattu on her own accord.

16).The victim girl was examined as P.W.2, who deposed that accused used to run the auto and take her to the school in his auto when

Fair 8 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019 she was studying in 9th class and that when she was studying in

Intermediate 1st year, on 04.10.2018, she left the house to go to college, and went to her maternal grandmother’s house, where her aunt Srilatha was present and she talked to her for some time and left for college and that while she was going to college, the accused came to her and induced her saying that he loves her and he will marry her and took her to

Kondagattu in his auto, but, she refused for the marriage as they belong to different communities. P.W.2 further deposed that the accused took her in his auto and roamed during the entire night and on the next day, on coming to know that her parents were searching for her, he brought her to Police

Station-Vemulawada and left there.

17).P.W.2 in her cross-examination deposed that when she was studying in 9th class, her friends used to go to school from Sankepalli village and that they used to come in the auto of the accused and she also used get into the auto, though her house is near to her school. P.W.2 in her cross-examination further deposed that she does not know what she stated in her 164 Cr.P.C statement given to L.W.12. It was suggested to P.W.2 in her cross-examination that as she was intending to visit Lord Hanuman

Temple, Kondagattu, the accused took her. P.W.2 in her cross-examination further deposed that she never informed her parents that the accused was loving her with fear that her parents may stop her education. It is quite

Fair 9 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019 unbelievable that P.W.2 kept quite without informing her parents about alleged harassment by the accused since 9th class i.e., for three long years.

Admittedly she herself used to get into the auto of accused, though her house is near to her school.

18).Learned counsel for the accused argued that the version of

P.W.2 at different stages is inconsistent and self contradictory and that the evidence of P.W.2 in her chief-examination is totally different from her statement recorded by Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In this regard, a perusal of the statement given by P.W.2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C reveals that on the date of incident, when she was on the way to college, the accused met her and said that he loves her, then she asked him whether he was ready to marry her and that on his reply that he would marry her, she said that she got faith on Lord Hanuman and asked him to take her to

Kondagattu, so that they can marry there and accordingly the accused took her to Kondagattu at about 11.00 AM on 04.10.2018 and they were at

Kondagattu till evening and that in the evening time, she changed her mind and told him that they should obtain consent of their parents and asked him to take her back to village. Accordingly he took her back to their village.

As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the accused, P.W.2 has given totally different version before the Magistrate while recording her statement

Fair 10 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As per her statement on the same day, they returned back to the village.

19).Mother of P.W.2 was examined as P.W.3. She deposed in the same lines of P.W.1 in her chief-examination. By way of cross-examination of P.W.3, the defence of the accused is that, she mentioned wrong date of birth of her daughter on the advise of head master, at the time of getting admission in school, by reducing her age by two years. P.W.3 in her cross- examination deposed that she cannot say the names of friends of her daughter whom, they have enquired, when she was missing.

20).P.W.4 said to be the neighbour, though deposed in the same lines of P.Ws.1 and 3 in his chief-examination, in his cross-examination stated that he had seen the accused driving the tractor and auto and he does not know about him and that he cannot say the names of friends of

P.W.2 whom they enquired.

21).P.W.5 said to be aunt of P.W.2 stated that P.W.2 came to her house on the date of incident and thereafter, she came to know that she was missing. The prosecution has examined Head Master of ZPHS,

Bonipalli as P.W.6, where P.W.2 allegedly studied. He deposed about his issuing Study, Conduct and Date of Birth Certificate of P.W.2 and stated that as per said certificate, her date of birth is 15.04.2002. Study, Conduct and

Fair 11 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019

Date of Birth Certificate of P.W.2 was marked as Ex.P2. P.W.6 in his cross- examination deposed that police never examined him and that he entered the Date of Birth of the candidate from the earlier school records. It is relevant to note here that though P.W.2 was studying Intermediate first year during the relevant period, the prosecution did not choose to file her SSC which is the authenticated proof of Date of Birth. It is well settled that

Study, Conduct and Date of Birth certificate issued separately by the school cannot be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim, in the cases filed under this Act. The evidence of P.W.6 is silent as to basing on which record, he had issued the said certificate.

22).Learned counsel for the accused in this regard relied upon the

Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad between Vishwanth Ahirwar

Vs. State of Utter Pradesh, dt: 27.04.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.323 of 2021, wherein it was held that:

“ 32…… the consideration of over all evidence on the question of age of the victim based on medical age determination, academic record of the victim and statement of the victim and her father, first informant, regarding her age it cannot be held to be proved with preponderance of probabilities that victim was minor on the date of incident and date of birth recorded in school record of victim is not free from doubt, therefore, benefit of doubt is liable to be given to accused on this point on peculiar facts and circumstances also.”

Fair 12 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019 23).The prosecution for the reasons best known to it, did not choose to file the SCC of P.W.2 to prove that she was minor, as on the date of alleged incident. P.W.8 is the photographer who allegedly videographed the statement of P.W.2, recorded by P.W.7. P.W.7 is the woman police constable, who allegedly recorded the statement of P.W.2. P.W.9 is the panch witness to the scene of offence, who deposed that on 07.10.2018, when he was proceeding on the road, police called him near the house of

P.W.1, prepared scene of offence panchanama with rough sketch and obtained signatures of himself and L.W.10. Ex.P5 is the Crime Details

Form. A perusal of Crime Detals Form reveals that it was conducted at the house of P.Ws.1 to 3, which is not at all the scene of offence, as admittedly from her house P.W.2 went to her Aunt’s house at Vemulawada and while she was proceeding to college, the accused alleadly took her to

Kondagattu. In this regard, there is no explanation putforth by the prosecution as to how the house of P.Ws.1 to 3, can be treated as scene of offence.

24).The prosecution has examined the investigating officer as

P.W.10, who deposed about the investigation done by him. Ex.P6 is FIR,

Ex.P7 caste caste certificate of P.W.2 and Ex.P8 caste certificate of P.W.1 and accused were marked. In this context, a perusal of FIR and complaint shows that the complaint was lodged on 05.10.2018 at 1500 hours i.e., on

Fair 13 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019 the next day of P.W.2 missing from home. P.W.10 in his cross-examination deposed that the age of the victim/P.W.2 was mentioned as 17 years in

Ex.P1, 161 Cr.P.C statement and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C and he had considered the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C of P.W.2, during the course of investigation. P.W.10 admitted that he has not enquired and examined any of the friends of P.W.10 and not made any enquiry with regard to mode of their traveling to Kondagattu. It is pertinent to note here that the entire case of prosecution is silent as to the mode of transportation of P.W.2 and accused, to Kondagattu from Vemulawada.

25).Learned counsel for the accused in his written arguments submitted that when the girl was missing, no complaint was lodged on the same day by her parents and that it is beyond the scope of imagination that one single person can manage to take the girl of 17 years old forcibly in the auto and the girl sat on the back side of auto, without crying and shouting.

26).The accused examined D.W.s1 and 2 on his behalf. D.W.1 deposed that accused is acquainted with the family of P.W.2 and he used to go to their house and that the victim used to go to temples like Agraharam along with him in a car and that they were in love with each other and that later, the accused refused to marry as they belong to different communities and that after the accused and himself informed the father of the victim about her readiness to marry the accused, he stopped her education and

Fair 14 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019 performed her marriage with another person. Though D.W.1 was cross- examined by learned Special Additional Public Prosecutor, nothing contra could be elicited out. The evidence in chief of D.W.1 was not contradicted by way of cross-examination by the prosecution. The evidence of D.W.2 is not note worthy.

27).In a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Criminal Appeals no.1410/2021, 1411/2021, 1412/2021, 1413/2021 and 1414/2021, dt: 18.11.2021, relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused, it was held that:

33. The most important ingredient for constituting the offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of the Act is the “sexual intent” and not the “skin to skin” contact with the child.

In the case on hand, as admittedly there was no physical relationship between both P.W.2 and accused on the date of alleged incident, this Court has not seen any attempt made by the accused to cause sexual assault on P.W.2.

28).In a Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, New Delhi,

dt:15.04.2024, between Veerpal @ Titu and State, relied upon by the

learned counsel for accused, it has been held that:

20. Section 29 of POCSO Act provides that Court shall presume that the accused has committed the offence for which he is charged with, until contrary is proved. However, the presumption would operate only when the prosecution proves the foundational facts in the context of allegation

Fair 15 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019 against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. After the prosecution establishes the foundational facts, the presumption raised against the accused can be rebutted by discrediting the prosecution witnesses through cross- examination and demonstrating the gaps in prosecution version or improbability of the incident or lead defence evidence in order to rebut the presumption by way of preponderance of probability.

29).Learned counsel for the accused in support of his arguments that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused for the alleged offences, further relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of

Madras, Madurai Bench between Mariappan and The Inspector of Police,

All women police station, regarding the presumptions under Section 29 of the Act. Learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, between Vijaya Singh and another and State of Uttarakhand, dt: 25.11.2022, wherein it was held that:

30…… The appellants failed to place any material on record to justify the allegation of threat and as discussed above, the statements of PW-3 and PW-4 recorded under Section 164 CrPC reflected the correct version of the events that transpired on the fateful day.

31. Having said so, we deem it fit to observe that a statement under Section 164 CrPC cannot be discarded at the drop of a hat and on a mere statement of the witness that it was not recorded correctly. For, a judicial satisfaction of the Magistrate, to the effect that the statement being recorded is the correct version of the facts stated by the witness, forms part of every such statement and a higher burden must be placed upon the witness to retract from the same. To permit retraction by a witness from a signed statement recorded before the Magistrate on flimsy grounds or on mere assertions would effectively negate the difference between a statement recorded by the police officer and that recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. In the present matter, there is no reasonable ground to reject the

Fair 16 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019 statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and reliance has correctly been placed upon the said statements by the courts below.

30).The evidence of prosecution witnesses as discussed above is not cogent and convincing regarding the accused allegedly abducting

P.W.2. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was expressing his love towards P.W.2 since from her 9th class. It is not the case of P.Ws.1 and 3 that they warned her at any point of time. P.W.2 not disclosing the same to her parents when she does not like him, is quite unacceptable Had there been such harassment by the accused, she would have at-least informed her mother about the same. Admittedly P.W.2 herself used to get into the auto of the accused, though her college is situated near to her house and as per her statement under Section 164

Cr.P.C, she herself asked the accused to take her to Kondagattu and on the same day they returned back. The most important lacunae on the part of the prosecution in this case is authenticated certificate of proof of Date of

Birth of the victim was not filed, though she was studying Intermediate by that time. Ex.P2-Study, Conduct and Date of Birth Certificate issued by

Head Master has not authenticity to prove that she was minor as on the date of date of alleged incident. None of the friends of the victim girl, who used to travel in the same auto were examined by the prosecution and

P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 do not even known their names. The evidence of P.W.2 is

Fair 17 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019 totally contradictory from her statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C which shows the false implication of accused in this case.

31).In view of the above discussion, it can be concluded that in the absence of corroborative, cogent and convincing evidence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 354-A, 354-D IPC and Section 8 of POCSO

Act-2012 and Section 3(1) (xi) and 3(2) (v) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment

Act, 2015, therefore, he is entitled for acquittal for the said offences.

Accordingly the point is answered.

31).IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 354-A, 354-D IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act-2012 and Section 3(1) (xi) and 3(2) (v) of SCs/STs (POA)

Amendment Act, 2015 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of July, 2025.

Principal Sessions Judge,

Rajanna Sircilla. FAC: Fast Track Spl. Judge for expeditious Trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Rajanna Sircilla.

Fair 18 OF 18 S.C. No.85 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: P.W-1: yyyy/ Father of victim/minor girl D.W.1: M.Rakesh, P.W-2: xxxx/Victim/minor girl D.W.2: T.Yellaiah. P.W-3: zzzz/Mother of victim/minor girl P.W-4: L.Thirupathi. P.W-5: E.Srilatha. P.W-6: K.Bhoomaiah, P.W-7: G.Amala, P.W-8: Puranam Naresh. P.W-9: M.Srihari, P.W-10: P.Venkat Ramana

EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1:Complaint.

Ex.P.2:Study, Conduct and Date of Birth Certificate of P.W.2.

Ex.P.3:Compact Disc.

Ex.P.4:65-B Certificate.

Ex.P.5:Crime Details Form.

Ex.P.6:FIR.

Ex.P.7:Caste Certificate of P.W.2.

Ex.P8: Caste Certificate of P.W.1 and accused.

FOR DEFENCE: --Nil-- MATERIAL OBJECTS:

Nil.

Principal Sessions Judge,

Rajanna Sircilla. FAC: Fast Track Spl. Judge for expeditious Trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Rajanna Sircilla.

SC.POCSO/69/2019 Acquitted

Vemula Lavanya vs A1 Dubasi Sai Krishna

19 May 2025

1 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK

SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE

AND POCSO CASES AT RAJANNA SIRICLLA.

PRESENT: P.NEERAJA, Prl. Sessions Judge, Rajanna Sircilla. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, FTS Court for Expeditious Trial & Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Rajanna Sircilla.

Monday, this the 19th day of May, 2025

SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) NO. 69 OF 2019

Name of the complainant::The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Thangallapally (Crime No.170 of 2018 of P.S. Thangallapally).

Description of the accused::A.1: Dubasi Sai Krishna, S/o Narayana, Aged: 20 years, Padmashali, R/o H.No.12-11-109/2,Pragathinagar, Sircilla, now at Padmanagar, H/o Thangallapally village(Abated as

died).

A.2: Botuku Anil Kumar, S/o Narsaiah, Aged: 19 years, Golla, R/o H.No.3-61, Ankushapur village of Thangallapally Mandal.

A.3:Kodimunja Ravinder, S/o Shankaraiah, Aged: 39 years, Kummari, R/o H.No.12-8-77, Opposite: Siddartha School, Pragathinagar, Sircilla Town.

2 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019

Charges::Under Sections 354-D, 506 of I.P.C and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Plea of the accused::Not guilty.

Finding of the Court::Not guilty.

Sentence or order The accused Nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Sections 354-D, 506 I.P.C and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.2 and 3 shall remain in force for a period of six months from today as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri Penta Srinivas, Spl. Public Prosecutor.

Defence conducted by::Sri P.Durga Reddy, Advocate for accused No.2. Sri V.V.Ramana Rao and Sri B.Vishnu, Advocates for accused No.3.

3 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019

This case is coming before me on 15.05.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Penta Srinivas, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Durga Reddy, Advocate for the accused No.2 while Sri V.V.Ramana Rao and Sri B.Vishnu, Advocates for the accused No.3, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1) The Sub Inspector of Police, Thangallapally Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.170 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D, 506 I.P.C and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.01)The facts of the case of the prosecution, as set-out in the charge sheet in brief, are as follows:-

On 23.07.2018 at 1800 hours, the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) by name Vemula Lavanya, W/o Raju, R/o Thangallapally village lodged a complaint stating that she is eking-out her livelihood by working in power loom mill. She has two daughters. Her elder daughter is L.W.2/xxx, aged:

18 years and younger daughter is L.W.3/xxx, aged: 16 years. Her elder daughter has completed Diploma Course and has been staying at home.

Her younger daughter is studying Intermediate II Year in Kakatiya College, 4 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019

Sircilla. Few days ago, one Dubasi Sai Krishna (accused No.1), S/o

Narayana, R/o Thangallapally, who is son of her co-worker namely Dubasi

Jayamma, teased her elder daughter/L.W.2/xxx on the name of love and when her daughter rejected his love, said Sai Krishna threatened to kill her.

On the information given by her daughter about the same, when she admonished said Sai Krishna, he threatened her stating that he will see the end of her daughter. Said Sai Krishna started threatening them over phone by making calls from various phone numbers. Having bore grudge against them, said Sai Krishna joined hands with his friends namely Botuku Anil (accused No.2), resident of Ankushapur village and Kodimunja Ravinder (accused No.3), resident of Sircilla Town. According to the directions of said Sai Krishna, Botuku Anil started harassing her younger daughter to love him, other-wise threatened to kill her. She did not lodge any complaint immediately, keeping in view her family reputation. Taking advantage of the same, the said persons are harassing her daughters.

2.02) Based on the said complaint, L.W.11/M.Maruthi, Sub Inspector of Police, Thangallapally registered a case in Crime No.170 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D, 506 I.P.C and Section 12 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and took-up 5 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019 investigation. As per the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012, the statements of the victims/L.Ws.2 and 3 were recorded by L.W.6/M.Sona, W.A.S.I – 2137 of P.S. Chandurthy by video- graphing their statements with the help of L.W.7/Kamarapu Venu,

Videographer. L.W.11 examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1, 6 and 7 viz., Vemula Lavanya, M.Sona, WASI – 2137 and Kamarapu Venu respectively. Further, L.W.11 visited the scene of offence located at

Padmanagar and prepared crime details form along with rough sketch in the presence of two mediators, i.e., L.W.8/Chanda Bhaskar and L.W.9/Orsu

Balakrishna. L.W.11 collected Date of Birth Certificates of victims (L.Ws.2 and 3) from L.W.4/Dusa Govardhan, Principal, Kakatiya Junior College,

Sircilla and L.W.5/Kotha Srinivas, Head Master, Zilla Parishad High School,

Thangallapally respectively, which disclose that L.W.2/xxx attained majority and L.W.3 is a minor girl. L.W.11 has also recorded the statements of

L.Ws.4 and 5.

2.03) On 25.07.2018 at 0900 hours, L.W.11/Investigating Officer has apprehended the accused Nos.1 and 2 and on interrogation, they voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence along with accused

No.3. L.W.11 effected their arrest and produced them before the Court for 6 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019 judicial custody. On 28.08.2018 at 1000 hours, L.W.11 arrested the accused No.3 at Thangallapally bus-stop and on interrogation, he voluntarily admitted his guilt. He was also produced before the Court for judicial custody. Later, L.W.11 filed a requisition before L.W.10/Sri T.Kanya

Lal, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada and got recorded the statements of L.Ws.2 and 3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

2.04)The investigation reveals that the accused No.1 developed sore eye on L.W.2 and stalked her on the pretext of love, inspite of her disinterest towards him. The accused No.1 threatened L.W.2 with dire consequences, if she does not love him. Upon the information given by

L.W.2 to the complainant/L.W.1, she (L.W.1) admonished the accused No.1.

Since then, the accused No.1 started harassing them with his threatenings even over the phone. Later, the accused No.1 targeted L.W.2/xxx with an intention to outrage her modesty, by taking the help of his friends, i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3.On his instructions, the accused Nos.2 and 3 followed

L.W.3/xxx and started harassing her while she was going to college and accused No.2 threatened to kill her, when she rejected his proposal. Thus, the accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offences punishable 7 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019 under Sections 354-D, 506 I.P.C and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3)The case was taken on file by I Addl. Sessions Judge,

Karimnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D, 506 I.P.C and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused Nos.1 to 3. As per the orders of the Prl. Sessions

Judge, Karimnagar in Dis.No.1171, dated 17.02.2022, the case was

transferred to IV Addl. Sessions Court, Karimnagar.

4)As per the orders of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in

Dis.No.1171, dated 17.02.2022, the case was transferred to Fast Track

Special Court at Sircilla on the point of jurisdiction, for disposal according to law.

5)On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 3, copies of the case records relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to them, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C and charges under Sections 354-D, 506 I.P.C and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 were framed against them, read over and explained to them in 8 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Accordingly, the matter was posted for trial.

6)When the case was at the stage of trial, the accused No.2 absconded and as Non-Bailable Warrant was pending against him since long time, the case against accused No.2 was split-up from S.C.No.69 of 2019 and numbered as S.C (POCSO) No.25 of 2024. Later, on 17.12.2024, the accused No.2 was present and N.B.W against him was recalled and the case against him was merged with S.C (POCSO) No.69 of 2019. While so, during the course of trial, the accused No.1 died and case against him was abated. Thereafter, the case is proceeded with against accused No.2 and 3.

7)During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and

Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

8)After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused Nos.2 and 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution. They reported no evidence on their behalf.

9 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019

9) Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

10) The point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has established the

guilt of the accused Nos.2 and 3 for the

offences punishable under Sections 354-D,

506 I.P.C and Section 12 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

beyond all reasonable doubt.

11) P O I N T:

The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 harassed

L.W.2/xxx, daughter of the complainant, on the name of love by following her and threatened to kill her if she does not accept his love and later, having developed grudge over her and her family members, in view of complainant admonishing him, the accused No.1 instigated the accused

Nos.2 and 3 to harass the younger daughter/L.W.3/xxx of the complainant and accordingly, the accused Nos.2 and 3 harassed L.W.3/xxx by following her, while she was going to college and by threatening to kill her and her family members, if she rejects the proposal of accused No.2. In view of the above allegations, the burden heavily rests upon the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.2 and 3 for the above offences, as they have pleaded innocence for the charges levelled against them.

10 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019

12)In support of its case, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7.

13)The evidence of P.W.1, who is the defacto-complainant, is that about 6 ½ years ago, she was working in power looms as coolie along with one Dubbasi Jayamma and that her elder daughter/L.W.2/xxx was staying at home after completing her Diploma Course and that the son of said

Jayamma, who is accused No.1, used to harass L.W.2/xxx to love him and on receiving the said information, she asked the accused No.1 not to harass her daughter, but the accused No.1 threatened her daughter/L.W.2/xxx with dire consequences for informing the same to her and thereafter, the accused No.1 encouraged accused Nos.2 and 3 with grudge against them, who in turn followed her younger daughter/L.W.3/xxx when she was studying in Kakatiya Junior College, Sircilla by following her in an Auto and harassed her. Ex.P.1/complaint was marked during the evidence of P.W.1.

14)As could be seen from the complaint under Ex.P.1, it was lodged on 23.07.2018. Though P.W.1 in her complaint stated that the accused No.1 harassed them even over phone, her evidence is silent about the same. Her evidence is further silent about accused Nos.2 and 3 11 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019 threatening her younger daughter/L.W.3/xxx to kill her, though it was mentioned in Ex.P.1/complaint. The complaint under Ex.P.1 is silent as to the date, month and year of accused Nos.1 to 3 harassing her elder and younger daughters. Admittedly, her elder daughter is staying at home after completing her Diploma Course. When her elder daughter is staying at home, it is not explained by P.W.1 as to where and when accused No.1 had occasion to follow and harass her.

15)P.W.1, in her cross-examination, admitted that she has not mentioned in her complaint and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C as to when the accused No.1 threatened her daughter with dire consequences.

P.W.1 admitted that she has not mentioned in her complaint and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C that the accused No.3 followed her younger daughter and accused Nos.1 to 3 are not classmates. In this regard, a perusal of the record reveals that the accused No.3 is aged 39 years and admittedly, the accused No.3 was working in the same company of P.W.1 and mother of accused No.1. P.W.1, in her cross-examination, admitted that she has not informed to the Police as to accused No.1 making phone calls to her and threatening to kill them and that she has not given her phone to the Police. Admittedly, the house of P.W.1 is situated in busy locality. The defence set-up- by the accused Nos.2 and 3 by way of cross- 12 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019 examination of P.W.1 is that they were falsely implicated in the above case due to disputes with accused No.1.

16)P.W.2 is the younger daughter of P.W.1. She deposed that about 1 ½ month prior to the date of complaint, the accused No.1 used to follow her elder sister and harassed her to love him and when her elder sister refused for the same and when her mother admonished him (A.1), the accused No.1 bore grudge against them and induced accused No.2, to follow and harass her and that accordingly, the accused No.2 along with accused No.3 followed her while she was going to college and accused

No.2 harassed her to love him, but she refused for the same and thereafter, the accused Nos.2 and 3 harassed her for about 2 to 3 days. Admittedly, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded by the Magistrate.

17)P.W.2, during her cross-examination, deposed that the accused

Nos.2 and 3 used to follow her in another Auto from Thangallapally Bridge till she reaches the college. P.W.2 has admitted that there are several shops and establishments near and around her college and it is a busy road and that whenever any incident occurs, it can be observed by the people around the college. P.W.2 further admitted that for going to her college, she has to pass through the Police Station, but she has not informed the same 13 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019 to the Police or college Principal. P.W.2 further deposed that she might have forgotten to state before the Police that 2 to 3 times, the accused

Nos.2 and 3 followed her in an Auto and harassed her. P.W.2 admitted that she has not stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C that the accused No.2 was harassing her to love him and that the accused Nos.2 and 3 followed her for 2 to 3 times. In this regard, a perusal of the statement of P.W.2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C reveals that, ‘she simply stated that during the last month, when she was going to college in an Auto, the accused Nos.1 to 3 followed her and all of them went to her and threatened to kill and that she informed the same to her mother and thereafter, they lodged a complaint’. As per the statement of P.W.2 under

Section 164 Cr.P.C., only once, the accused Nos.1 to 3 followed and threatened her. The evidence of P.W.2 is silent about accused No.1 also following her. As per the evidence of P.W.2, two to three days, the accused

Nos.2 and 3 harassed her by following her. Absolutely, there is no explanation put-forth by the prosecution regarding these inconsistencies.

18) The prosecution has examined the elder daughter of P.W.1 as

P.W.3, who deposed against accused No.1 that he used to follow her and threaten her if she refuses to love him and that on the instructions of accused No.1, his friends who are accused Nos.2 and 3, followed her 14 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019 younger sister at the time of going to college and that the accused Nos.1 to 3 threatened to kill her sister. The evidence of P.W.3 is silent as to how many times, the accused Nos.2 and 3 followed her younger sister. When accused No.1 was aged about 20 years, accused No.2 was aged about 19 years and accused No.3 was aged about 39 years, the question of friendship between accused No.1 and accused No.2, and accused No.3 does not arise. Even during the cross-examination of P.Ws.2 and 3, the defence of accused Nos.2 and 3 is that as they were acquainted with the family of accused No.1, they were falsely implicated in this case.

Admittedly, P.Ws.1 and 3 did not lodge any complaint when accused No.1 harassed P.W.3 and threatened to kill them, even over phone constantly and admittedly, as on the date of Ex.P.1/complaint, P.W.3 was major. In the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, there is no whisper as to when accused

Nos.1 to 3 followed P.W.2 and harassed her. The prosecution has not examined any eye witnesses to the alleged harassment by the accused towards P.W.2 or P.W.3, though admittedly, college of P.W.2 is situated in busy locality.

19)P.Ws.4 and 5 are Head Master, Z.P.H.S., Vallampatla village and Lecturer in Sai Sree Junior College, Sircilla respectively, who allegedly issued Bonafide and Conduct Certificate of P.W.3 and Study and Conduct 15 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019

Certificate of P.W.2, which were marked as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 respectively.

P.W.6 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, who recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 and 3, as provided under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. P.W.7 is the Photographer, who videographed the statements of P.Ws.2 and 3 recorded by P.W.6. P.W.7, in his cross- examination, deposed that he does not possess any licence to run photo studio and that he did not undergo any technical expertise to do video- graphy. P.W.8 is the panch witness to the crime details form under Ex.P.6.

As admittedly, it was prepared near the house of P.Ws.1 to 3 after lapse of several days of the alleged harassment by the accused, no authenticity can be attached to it, more particularly, when the alleged harassment took place near the college of P.W.2.

20)The prosecution has next examined the Investigating Officer as

P.W.9, who deposed about investigation done by him. His evidence regarding investigation does not disclose as to whether he has examined any neighbouring persons of residence of P.Ws.1 to 3 or college of P.W.2 to prove the alleged harassment by the accused towards P.Ws.2 and 3. The prosecution has not even examined the mother of accused No.1 to ascertain as to whether there was any acquaintance and friendship 16 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019 between accused Nos.1 to 3. Except P.Ws.1 to 3, who are interested witnesses, the prosecution has not examined any other witnesses. It is surprising to note here that when the complaint was lodged by P.W.1 on 23.07.2018, as per Ex.P.7, First Information Report was registered on 22.07.2018 itself. In this regard, P.W.9/Investigating Officer has categorically admitted that in column No.1 of Ex.P.7/F.I.R., the date of registering it was mentioned as ‘22.07.2018’ including column No.1 at page

No.2 and as per the complaint, it was given on 23.07.2018.

21)P.W.9 further admitted that there is no specific date, time and place of harassment of P.W.2 in the hands of accused Nos.1 to 3 anywhere in Ex.P.1/complaint or statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

P.W.9 further admitted that Ex.P.6/crime details form was prepared with regard to the alleged initial harassment of P.W.3 and that he has not examined and recorded the statements of any of the neighbours who are shown in the rough sketch of Ex.P.6 and that he has not collected the cell phone, Call Data Records and call location with regard to the alleged harassment and that he has not conducted scene of offence panchanama with regard to the alleged harassment towards P.W.2. P.W.9 further admitted that he has not examined and recorded the statements of 17 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019 witnesses at the college of P.W.2 with regard to alleged harassment and that he had not obtained the signature or thumb impression of P.W.1 on

Ex.P.7/F.I.R in column No.14. When the First Information Report was allegedly registered on 22.07.2018, it was received by the Court on 25.07.2018 admittedly. This delay in forwarding the First Information Report to the Court, remained unexplained by the prosecution.

22)In the above case, there is no date, month and year of harassment of accused towards P.Ws.2 and 3, either in the complaint or during the course of their evidence. It is an admitted fact that no complaint was lodged by P.W.1 or P.W.3, when accused No.1 allegedly harassed

P.W.3 to love him. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 regarding accused Nos.2 and 3 following P.W.2 and harassing her to love accused No.2 is not in corroboration and it does not disclose the date, month and year of alleged harassment. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is inconsistent to their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C regarding the alleged harassment by accused Nos.2 and 3. Admittedly, none of the witnesses were examined by the Investing Officer/P.W.9, either near the house of

P.Ws.1 to 3 or near the College where alleged offences took place. Crime

Details Form under Ex.P.6 admittedly conducted regarding harassment of 18 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019 accused No.1 towards P.W.3, is of no avail in this Case. P.W.9/

Investigating Officer registering the crime, one day prior to the alleged complaint, is also not explained by the prosecution, in spite of learned counsel for the accused raising the said aspect during the cross- examination of P.W.9 itself.

23) Thus, in the absence of convincing, cogent and corroborative evidence regarding the alleged harassment by the accused Nos.2 and 3 towards P.W.2 and in view of above lapses, as discussed in preceding paragraphs, it can be held that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D, 506 I.P.C and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and, therefore, the accused Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

24)IN THE RESULT, the accused Nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D, 506 I.P.C and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety 19 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019 bonds of the accused Nos.2 and 3 shall remain in force for a period of six months from today as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade - I, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of May, 2025.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

FAC: SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

POCSO COURT,

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W-1: Vemula Lavanya. P.W-2: Victim/xxx. P.W-3: Victim/xxx. P.W-4: D.Govardhan. P.W-5: Kotha Srinivas. --None-- P.W-6: Maloth Sona, WASI. P.W-7: Kamarapu Venu. P.W-8: Ch.Bhaskar. P.W-9: M.Maruthi, Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1:23.07.2018Original complaint given by P.W.1.

Ex.P.2:24.07.2018Bonafide and Conduct Certificate of P.W.3.

20 of 20

FairS.C.No.69 of 2019

Ex.P.3:24.07.2018Study and Conduct Certificate of P.W.2.

Ex.P.4:–Compact Disc.

Ex.P.5:23.07.2018Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.

Ex.P.6:23.07.2018Crime Details Form along with rough sketch.

Ex.P.7:23.07.2018First Information Report in Crime No.170 of 2018 of P.S. Thangallapally.

FOR DEFENCE:

--Nil-- MATERIAL OBJECTS: ---Nil---

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

FAC: SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

POCSO COURT,

RAJANNA SIRCILLA.

MVOP/52/2023

Kancham Laxmi vs Kancham Nandu @ Shiva Nandu

27 Sep 2025

Fair1of17M.V.O.P.No.52of2023

IN THECOURTOFTHECHAIRMAN,

MOTORACCIDENTSCLAIMSTRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPALDISTRICTJUDGE,AT-RAJANNASIRCILLA.

PRESENT:SMT.P.NEERAJA,

CHAIRMAN,MACT-CUM-

PRL.DISTRICTJUDGE,

RAJANNASIRCILLA.

SATURDAY,THISTHE27THDAYOFSEPTEMBER,2025.

N.V.O.P.NO.52OF2023

Between:-

4)KanchamLaxmi,W/o.Narsimhulu@ Narsaiah,Age:45Occ: years,

(Motherof thedeceased).

Household,

2)KanchamNarsimlu@ Narsaiah,S/o.Ellaiah,Age:50Occ: years, of the deceased).

Agriculture, (Father

BothresidingatH.No.3-50,HanumanNagar,Mustabadvillage

are in RajannaSircillaDistrict. andMandal Petitioners.

And

1)KanchamNandu@ShivaNandu,S/o.Anjaiah, Age:22Occ: years, DriveroftheTractorbearingNo.TS.23.F,5321,R/o.H.No.3-46, in Rajanna HanumanNagar,MustabadvillageandMandalSircilla District.

2)VaradaSathavva,W/o.Anjaiah,Age:54Occ:Ownerofthe years, TractorbearingNo.TS.23.F.5321,R/o.H.No.3-20,HanumanNagar,

in Rajanna

MustabadvillageandMandalSircillaDistrict.

3)CholamandaiamMSGeneralInsuranceCompanyLimited,R/byits

64, No.302,3"Floor,R Arcade,

Manager,#1-2-73/2,1-2-63toS Parklane,Hyderabad,Telangana500003. — (PolicyNo.3380/02169897/000/00,Validfrom30.06.2022to

29.06.2022).

sreenslRespondents.

Fairof 2023

2 of 17M.V.O.P.No.52

Thispetitioncoming.before04.09.2025forfinalhearingin meon

for the petitioners

theof SriV.RamanaReddy,Advocateandof presence Sri.SyedHasanuddinChisty,Advocatefortherespondentno.3and respondentsno.1and2remainedexparte,perusingthematerial upon record,hearingtheargumentsandthematterhaving papersonupon

the following:-

stoodforconsiderationtill thisdaytheCourtdelivered over

LORDER ::

a petition2 against

1)Thisisfiledbythepetitionersno.1and therespondentsno.1to3 underSection166(1)(c)of MotorVehiclesAct,

seekingcompensationof Rs.24,00,000/-(RupeesTwentyfourlakhsonly)

of petition till realization. withinterest@15%fromthedate perannum,

brief areas follows:-

2)Theffthin

Thepetitionerno.1isthemotherandpetitionerno.2isthe fatherofdeceasedKanchamNaveen,whodiedin’amotorvehicle accidentoccurred14.04.2023atabout1430hours,theoutskirtsof onon

Mustabadvillage involvingtheTractorbearingNo.TS.23.F.5321.The

petitionersthesolelegalheirsofthedeceased.Theaccident

are occurredduetorashandnegligentactofthetractordriver.The deceasedhis degree completedfromMitraDegreeCollege,Mustabadin

BachelorofArtsfrom2018-19to2020-21andheworking wasasa private employeein M/s.SaiKrishnaFertilizersandPesticidesandSeeds

ShopatPothgal village,Mustabadmandal,RajannaSircillaandearning

Rs.15,000/-month.Hehavingvaliddrivinglicensebearing

perwas

Fair

3 of17M.V.O.P.No.52of 2023

No.TS02320220001301withLMV,MCWGwhichisvalid upto 22.04.2040.Hehaleandhealthyandaged23onlyatthe waswasyears timeof his death.

3).Thesaidaccidentoccurredin on14.04.2023theafternoon

to homeéom

hours,whenthedeceasedKanchamNaveenreturning was theiragriculturalfieldhisfriend’sbikebearingNo.TS.36.F.0060,after on completionofhiswork,theoutskirtsofMustabadvillageinviewof on

rash,negligentandhigh speeddrivingof tractorbearingno.TS.23.F.5321

bytherespondentno.1.Asthesaidtractordashedthedeceased's

motorcycle,thedeceasedreceivedbleedinginjurieshishead,

severeto left hand,andotherof thebodywhich nosepartsgrievousin nature. are

Immediatelyaftertheaccident,heshiftedtoThirumalaNursing was

Home,MustabadfortreatmentandthereaftertoSurakshaHospitalfor bettertreatmentatSiddipet.Unfortunatelyhedied14.04.2023 onat 16.30hours,whileundergoingtreatment.Thepetitionershaveincurred amountofRs.20,000/-towardsMedicines,treatment,extra an

nourishmentandtransportationcharges.

the complaintregistered

4).

Thepolice Mustabad,in

onacase

Cr.No.77/2023underSection304-AofIPCagainsttheRespondentno.1, driverof thecrimevehicleandfiledchargesheetagainsthim.Dueto

Fair4ofM.V.O.P.No.52of 2023 17 suddenuntimelyandunnaturaldeathof thedeceased,thepetitioners

and

suffering greatshockandmentalTheylostloveandaffection areagony.

If thedeceasedisalive,hewouldhaveprovidedgood oftheirson.

thepetitionersin theirlife,theypurely dependents

prospectstoasare his earnings.thepetitionershavefacehardshipslead Nowtoto upon theirlives.TheisownedbytheRespondentNo.2andinsured tractor withtheRespondentno.3.Therefore,theRespondentsNo.1to3 are jointlyandseverallyliablethecompensationtothepetitioners. topay

5).Therespondentsno.1and2remainedexparte.The

of the petition.

respondentNo.3filedcounterdenyingtheavermentsThe is,in thefollowinglines: counterfiledbytheRespondentNo.3

6).drivingthevehiclehadJicensein force,

Thenoason person

of compensation

thedateof accidenttodrivethevehicle.Theamountof

Rs.25,00,000/-claimedbythepetitionersisexcessiveandexorbitant.

Thedriverof thetractorhasnotsatisfiedtherequirementsof Rule3 of theCentralMotorVehiclesRules,1989.Thefitnessofvehicleie.,

TractorbearingNo.TS.23.F.5321notvalidandit wasnotroadworthy was

As the deceased atthetimeof accident.himselfnotwearinghelmet was andviolatedthetrafficrules,heresponsiblefortheaccident, wasas

S oo

Fair

5 of17M.V.O.P.No.52of 2023 to pay any such,therespondentno.3isliablecompensationthe notto

petitioners.

7).

IntheRespondentno.3isheldtobeliable casetopay compensation,theinterestapplicableisthanThe notmore6%.

respondentno.2hasnotcompliedthestatutorydemandby furnishingthe particularsof thepolicyandthepoficeconcernedhasalsoforwarded not

30 days.

therelevantdocumentstoit withinTheprovisionsof Section64 (V) (B)ofInsuranceActcompliedin the arenotpresentcase.Asthe

of various conditions

respondenthascommittedbreachof policy, the no.1 respondentno.3is notliabletocompensation.Therespondent payno.3 withtheabovecontentions,prayedto dismissthepetitionwith costs.

8)Basingtheabovepleadingsofbothparties,following on issuesframedfor trial:- were

(i)WhetherthedeceasedKanchamNaveen,died on 14.04.2023atabout1430hoursatoutskirtsofMustabad village,duetorashandnegligent drivingof Tractorbearing No.TS.23.F.5321byits driveri.e.,therespondentno.1?

(i)Whetherthepetitionersentitledtoclaimcompensation, are andifhowmuchamountandfromwhichofthe so,

respondents?

(iil)To whatrelief?

9)Onbehalfof thepetitioners,P.Ws.1to3examinedand were

of Respondent

Exs.A1toA.15marked.OnbehalfNo.3,R.Ws.1 were

Fair6 ofM.V.O.P.No.52of 2023 17 and2examined,Exs.B1toBSmarked.Heardarguments wereon were bothsides.

ISSUENO.1and2:

10).petitionersclaiming compensationin viewof deathof

Theare

23 years in

theiragedaccidentduetorashandnegligentdriving sonan of tractor,by respondentno.1,whichisownedbytherespondentno.2.

TherespondentNo.3resistedtheclaimof thepetitionerstheground on thatRespondentno.1havingvaliddrivinglicensethedate wasnotason ofaccidentandthattheaccidentoccurredduetorashandnegligent of motorcycledeceased,wearinghelmet.It is divingbythewithoutan undisputedfactthattheoffendingvehicleinsuredwiththe was

Respondentno.3andit wassubsistingthedateof accidentandthe ason deceasedis thirdpartyto thepolicy.

11).petitionerexaminedherselfP.W.1and

Theno.1asgot markedExs.A.1toA.15Ex.A.1to A.7C.Cof FIRin Crimeno.77/2023 are

alongwithcomplaint report,dt: 14.04.2023,

of P.S.MustabadC.Cof PME report,dt:14.04.2023,C.Cof CrimeDetailsForm,dt:15.04.2023,C.Cof

MVI Report,no.54,and

dt:15.05.2023,C.CofFormdt:05.06.2023C.C

of Chargedt:respectively.Thepetitionersin order sheet,05.06.2023to theeducationalqualificationsof thedeceasedgotmarkedExs.A8 prove ws G

Fair

7 of 17 M.V.O.P.No.52of 2023 toA13.TheyOriginalSSCmarksissuedbyBoardof arememo,

SecondaryEducation,dt:17.05.2016,OriginalIntermediate

Pass

Certificate-cum-memorandumof marksissuedby TelanganaStateBoard

Boardof IntermediateEducation,dt: 13.04.2018,OriginalB.ASemester-|

dt: 20.05.2019,

certificateissuedbySatavahanaUniversity,Original

Semester-|Certificate,issuedbySatavahanaUniversity,dt: 28.02.2020,

OriginalB.ASemester-Ilcertificate,issuedbySatavahanaUniversity,dt:

26.04.2021andOriginalB.ASemester-IVcertificateofthedeceased issuedbySatavahanaUniversity,dt:26.04.2021respectively.The petitionersin supportof theircontention thatthedeceasedhaving was validdrivinglicensethedateofincidentandheearning asonwas

Rs.15,000/-monthreliedExs.A.14andA.15i.e,Original perupon

DrivingLicenseofthedeceased,issuedbyTelanganaState,dt:

his Original Salary Certificate,

10.03.2022anddt: 25.07.2023.

12).of cross-examinationof P.W.1,

By wayit is theof the case respondentno.3thatdeceasednotearningRs.15,000/-month wasper

is alleged

andEx.A.15is createdfor theof thisP.W.2 purposecase.eye

the accidentoccurred

witnessto theaccident,whostatedthatduetorash

drivingofrespondentin driving the

andnegligentno.1tractor.P.W.3is theallegedemployerofthedeceasedi.e.,ProperitorofSaiKrishna

FertilizersandPesticidesandSeeds,whostatedthatthedeceased

Fair8 ofM.V.O.P.No.52of2023 17

was working

KanchamNaveenemployeetolookaftertheaccounts asan andmaintenanceinhisbusinesssinceandheworkedtill his oneyear a monthly salaryof Rs.15,000/-. deathHecertifiedthatEx.P15was on issuedbyhim.ThoughP.W.3in hiscross-examinationstatedthathehas in his shop, recordtoshowthatthedeceasedworkingin viewof nowas hisevidenceoathandEx.A.15-certificateissuedhisletterpadwith onon seal,thisCourthasnottodisbelievetheevidenceof seenanyreason the employmentof thedeceased.

P.W.3regarding

13).Respondents,R.W.1-JuniorAssistantof

Onbehalfofthe

R.T.AOffice,SiricillaexaminedExs.B1andB2markedthrough waswere her.R.W.1deposedthattheirsearchandrecord,theRespondent asper

No.1doesnotvaliddrivinglicense.Ex.B2islicensesearch possess reportofrespondentno.1.Thoughitsuggestedbythepetitioners was thatrespondentno.1waspossessingvaliddrivinglicensethedate ason of accident,documentis filedthateffectandrebuttheevidence toto no of R.W.2-Manager ofR.W.1in thisregard.Eventheevidence asper

in Respondent

LegalNo.3,theRespondentno.1nothavingvalid was drivinglicensethédateofaccident,Ex.B3attestedof asoncopy

of offending

InsurancePolicyvehicle,Exs.B4andBSofficecopiesof legalnoticesissuedtoRespondentsno.iand2forproducingvalid documentsmarkedthroughR.W.2. were <p

Fair9of17M.V.O.P.No.52of 2023

14).

R.W.2inhiscross-examinationadmittedthatthe asper record,theRespondentno.1driverandrespondentno.2 waswasowner

of offending

vehiclethedateofaccidentandthatinsuranceof ason offendingvehiclewithhisinforcethedateof companywasason accidentanddeceasedis thirdpartyto theinsurance.

15).

Learnedcounselfor theRespondentNo.3arguedthatthe as respondentno.1notpossessingvaliddriving license,therespondent was no.3isnotliabletocompensation.Learnedcounselforthe pay

of principle

petitionersinthisregardarguedthatinviewofand pay

Apex Court,

recoverytheJudgmentsof theHon’blethepetitioners asper entitiedfor compensation fromtheRespondentno.3. are

16).

LearnedcounselforthepetitionersreliedtheJudgment upon of theHon'bleApexCourtbetweenS.MohammedHakkimandNational

InsuranceCompanyLimitedandothersregardingfixingofnotional

third year,

incomeofEngineeringStudentofwholosthisleginthe accident.Learnedcounselforthepetitionersfurtherreliedthe upon

JudgmentofHon'bleHighCourtofAllahabadbetweenICiCiLombard

GeneralInsuranceCompanyLtd.,andSmt.ArtiDeviandeight others, whereinit washeldthat:

“38,TheCourt,therefore,holdsthatomissionof mere provisoattachedsub-section(4) ofSection149afMotor to

Fair10 ofN.V.O.P.No.52of 2023 17

Vehicles Act, 1988afteritsreplacementbySection150of MotorVehicles{Amendment}Act,2019(32of2019}, neithertakestheliabilityoftheinsurertothe awaypay claimantsitsrighttothesaidamountfromthe norrecover Thelawthiseffectremainsintactandunaffected owner.to byAmendmentAct,2019and,hence,insurershall continuetoindemnifytheowner'sriskinrelationto accidenistakingplaceafter01.04.2022and“PAY& principlestillthefield RECOVER”willcontinuetogovern advancingsocialobject oftheStatuteprotectingthirdparty interest.PrincipleoflawlaiddownbytheSupremeCourt inNationalInsuranceCompanyLimitedSwaranSingh

vs.

JT2004its significance andothers,(1)SC109hasnotlost andbindingeffectdespiteomissionofproviso.Held accordingly”.

17).of theJudgmentof theHon'bleHighCourt

Acarefulreading

of TelanganaR.Nagaraju,Hyderabad

betweenB.Shivaji HyderabadVs.

in M.A.C.M.Aand800of 2017,dt: 21.01.2025,reliedby Nos.473upon thelearnedcounselforthepetitioners,regardingnotionalincomeof an

EngineeringStudent,revealsthatthefactsthereinnotapplicableto are thepresentsetof facts.

18).Having regardtheadmittedfactsandcircumstancesof the

to in respectof offending thatthepolicyexistingvehiclethe casewasason dateof accidentanddeceasedthirdpartytothepolicy,thisCourtis was oftheopinionthatthepetitionersentitledforcompensation.The are monthlyincomeofthedeceasedwhoaged23andArts wasyears isclaimedRs.15,000/-monthandin supportofthe Graduateasper thepetitionershavereliedtheevidenceofP.W.3and same,upon

of paymentof salary

Ex.A.15-SalaryCertificate.Admittedlydocument

no vo a

Fair

11 of17M.V.O.P.No.52of 2023 ofRs.15,000/-monthtothedeceasedisfiledbyP.W.3likecash per

receipttransferthroughBank.Having regardthequalification

ontoof deceasedandhisthisfoundit just age,Courttofix theincomeof the deceased@ Rs.14,000/-monthwhichwouldbereasonable. per

19).

Nowthefurtherquestioniswhatistheamountbe to deductedtowardspersonalandliving expensesof thedeceased.in this regard,theHon'bleApexCourtinSarlaVermaandothersVs.Delhi

TransportCorporationandanother,reportedin2009(6)SCC121 fixedtheliving expensesofBachelorat50%.Thus,fromtheearnings a of thedeceased,50%shallbedeductedsincethedeceaseddied asa

Bachelor.

20)

In thepresenthand,thedeceasedagedbelow caseonwas 40andprivateemployeefixedincome,such,40% yearsaonas

additionalincomeistobeaddedtowardsfutureprospectsthe

asper

JudgmentoftheHon’bleApexCourtbetweenNationalInsurance

CompanyLimitedandPranaySethiandothers,reportedin2017

ACJ2007.

21).In a Judgment

of theHon’bleApexCourtbetweenBhartiben

NayabhaKerandothersandSidabhaPethabhaMankeandothers in tl (2018) reportedACC634(SC),theHon'bleApexCourtupheldthe

Fair12 ofM.V.O.P.No.52of2023 .17 @9%thecompensationawardedbythe interestrateperannumon

Tribunal.

Havingregardto

22).thefactsandcircumstancesofthe case andevidenceof P.Ws.1to3 andR.Ws.1and2 andalsoto theof the age

it justhis monthly

deceased,thisCourtfoundandreasonableto assess income@ Rs.14,000/-monthandthemuitiplier applicabletothe perage ofthedeceasedis‘18'andhalfoftheamounthastobededucted

his personalaged

towardsAsthedeceasedwas23yearsat expenses.

the petitioners

thetimeof death,entitledfor futureprospects@40%. are

ThepetitionersentitledforRs.18,150/-towardsfuneral areexpenses,

Rs.18,150/-towardsLossof estateandpetitionerNos.iand2 areentitled

for parental consortiumof Rs.48,400/-

each.

23).discussion,thepetitioners

Inviewoftheforegoingare entitledtototalcompensationofRs.22,49,900/-abovewith as proportionatecostsandinterest@9%fromtherespondents. perannum

24).

ISSUENo.3:-

In viewof thediscussionin issueNos.1and2,thepetitioners entitledfor totalcompensationof Rs.22,49,900/-follows: areas

Monthlyincomeof thedeceasedisRs.14,000/- assessedat Rs.14,000/-

Fair

13 of17M.V.O.P.No.52of 2023

TheProspectsis added, Future40%Rs.19,600/- whichto Rs.14,000/- comesx 40% =Rs.5,600/-

Deductionof 1/2towardspersonalRs.9,800/- andliving expenses comesto 21000/2Rs.10,500/- =

AnnualIncomeof thedeceasedisRs.1,17,600/- Rs.9,800x12=

Multiplier applicableis “18”Rs.21,16,800-00

Rs.1,17,600x 18 =

Lossof estateRs.18,150-00

FuneralRs.18,150-00 expenses

Lossof consortium@ Rs.48,400/-Rs.96,800-00

and 2 (filial)

to petitioners eachNo.1

GrandTotalRs.22,49,900-00 liabilityofRespondentis concerned,

25)AsfartheNo.3it is as thecontentionof therespondentno.3thattheRespondentNo.1 wasnot possessingvaliddrivingthedateofaccident,therefore,the ason respondentsno.1and2liabletocompensationtothepetitioners. arepay

Thepetitionershavealsonotadducedevidencethatthe anytoprove respondentno.1havingvaliddrivinglicense.Ex.B2markedthrough was

R.W.1 makeit clearthathedid notdrivinglicensethedate possessason ofaccident.Inthesefactsandcircumstancesofthethe case,

pay compensation

respondentsno.1and2liabletotothepetitioners, are however,tomeettheendsof JusticeandMotorVehicle’sActbeing as

Fair14 0f 17M.V.O.P.No.52of 2023 it just torespondent beneficiallegislation,thisCourtfounddirecttheno.3 thecompensationthepetitioners,atthefirstinstanceandto topayto

from respondent Nos.1

theand2. recoversame

26)result,theclaimpetitionisallowedagainstthe Inthe respondentNos.1and2jointlyandseverally,awardingtotal compensationof Rs.22,49,900/-(RupeesTwentyTwoLakhsFortyNine thousandNinehundredonly)tothepetitionerNos.1and2with

proportionatecosts and

of filing the interest@9%fromthedate p.a.,

of payment,be apportioned

petitionto till thedatewhichis tothe among petitionerNos.1and2.Howevertomeettheendsofjustice,the

is directedto deposit(2)two

RespondentNo.3thesaidamountwithin monthsfromthedateofthisorderunderthePrincipleofPayand

RecoverandtothefromtheRespondentNos.1and2 recoversame in theExecutionPetition.

27).compensationpetitionermotherof

Outoftheamount,No.1

of Rs.11,49,900/-(RupeesEleven

thedeceasedisentitledtoshare a

LakhsFortyNinethousandandNinehundredonly)andthepetitioner

No.2fatherofthedeceasedisentitledtoshareofRs.11,00,000/- a (RupeesElevenlakhsonly).

Q

Fair

15 of17M.V.O.P.No.52of 2023

29).is permitted

Onsuchdeposit,thepetitionerNo.1withdraw to of Rs.7,49,900/- asum(RupeesSevenLakhsFortyNinethousandNine hundredonly)withproportionateandinterestofherentire costsshare andbalanceof Rs.4,00,000/- amount(RupeesFourlakhsonly)shailbe keptinFixedDepositwithNationalizedBankforperiodof anyatwo years.

30).

ThepetitionerNo.2ispermittedtowithdrawof asum

Rs.7,00,000/-(RupeesSevenlakhsonly)withproportionateand

costs interestof hisentireshareandbalanceof Rs.4,00,000/- amount(Rupees

Fourlakhsonly)shallbekeptinFixedDepositwithNationalized any a period of two Bankfor years.

31).

Thefeeof thelearnedcounselforthepetitionersis fixed at

Rs.3,000/-.

Partlytypedtodictationandpartlydictatedto my

StenographerGrade-ll,transcribedby him,correctedandpronouncedby

27" day of September,

in thecourtthisthe2025.

meon

eee

MACT-CUM-PRL.DISTRICTJUDGE,

RAJANNASIRCILLA.

Fair16 ofM.V.O.P.No.52of 2023 17

APPENDIXOF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESEXAMINED

FORTHEPETITIONERS:FORTHERESPONDENTS:

P.W.2:JalaBikshapathi,R.W.2:N.Prasad.

P.W.3:N.GopalRao,

EXHIBITMARKED

FORTHEPETITIONERS:

C.CofFIRinCrimeNo.77of2023ofP.S.Mustabadalong EX.A1 withcomplaint,dt:14.04.2023. of Inquestdt: 14.04.2023. EX.A.2C.Creport, EX.A.3C.Cof PMEReport,dt:14.04.2023. EX.A.4C.Cof CDF,dt: 15.04.2023. of MVI Report, EX.A5C.Cdt:15.05.2023. EX.A6C.CofFormNo.54,dt:05.06.2023. of Chargedt: 05.06.2023. Ex.A.7C.CSheet, Ex.A8&OriginalSSCmarksof thedeceased,issuedbyBoard memo

of Secondary

Education,dt: 17.05.2016. Ex.A.9OriginalintermediatePasscertificateMemoradumof cum —— marksofthedeceased,issuedby TelanganaStateBoardof IntermediateEducation,dt: 13.04.2018. Ex.A.10OriginalB.ASemester-|Certificateof thedeceasedissuedby SatavahanaUniversity,dt: 20.05.2019. Ex.A.11OriginalB.ASemesier-|certificateof thedeceasedissuedby SatavahanaUniversity,dt: 28.02.2020. Ex.A.12OriginalB.Asemester-Ilcertificateof thedeceasedissuedby SatavahanaUniversity,dt: 26.04.2021.

OriginalB.A

Ex.A.13SemesterIV certificateofthedeceasedissued bySatavahanaUniversity,dt: 26.04.2021.

Ex.A.14Original Drivinglicenseof thedeceased,issuedby Telangana

State,dt:10.03.2022. Ex.A.15Original SalaryCertificateof thedeceased,dt;25.07.2023.

Fair

' 17 of 17M.V.O.P.No.52of 2023

FORTHEONDENTS:

Ex.B.1:Authorization,dt:13.08.2025.

Ex.B.2:Licenseof RespondentNo.1(2 sheets).

Searchreport Ex.B.3:AttestedCopyof InsurancePolicyof CholaMS:General

InsuranceCompany.

CopyofLegal notice,

Ex.B.4:Officedt:26.03.2024issuedby Respondent

No.1alongwithpostalreceipt.

of Legal notice,to respondent Ex.B.5:OfficeCopydt: 26.03.2024issued

ano

MACT-CUM-PRL.DISTRICTJUDGE,

RAJANNASIRCILLA.

SC/1/2024 Acquitted

Boddula Lachavva vs Kodithela Srinivas

25 Sep 2025

Fairof

113S.C.No.01of 2024

IN THECOURTOFTHEPRINCIPALSESSIONSJUDGE,

RAJANNASIRCILLA.

PRESENT.SMT.P.NEERAJA

PRINCIPALSESSIONSJUDGE,

RAJANNASIRCILLA.

THURSDAY,THISTHE25™ DAYOFSEPTEMBER,2025

S.C.NO.01OF2024

of the complainant‘The “Stal

€ throughSub-Inspector

| "Nameof

Descriptionof theaccused Age:38Caste:Waddera,R/o. years, _ ThatipamulavillageofThirumaigiri

nowat

| Suryapetdistrict,H.No.6-29, Pegadapaiiivillageandmandalof

JagithyatDistrict.

ChargesUnderSection3ofExplosives :

|‘iSubstanceAct,andof

Section286337 |‘IndianPenalCode. i

'Pleaof theaccused

Findingof theCourt

SentenceorderIN THERESULT,theaccusedis or | foundnotguiltyfortheoffences i “punishableunderSections286and337 “ofIndianPenalCodeandSection3of

‘Exptosive

SubstancesActand

accordinglyheisacquittedunder

Section235(1)ofCr.P.Cforthesaid Soffences.Thebailbondsandsurety “bondsoftheaccusedshallremainin ! iforceforperiodofsixmonthsfrom a i todaySec.437-ACrP.C.The asper i “unmarkedpropertyi.e.,Tractor case ibearingNo.AP.26.X.8204isdirectedto

ibe returned

toitsregistered owneron

Ne q

Fairof

213S.C.No.01of 2024

“Tproper——sidentificationand.

| acknowledgment afterexpiryofappeal

‘time.

i ProsecutionconductedbySriPentaSrinivas, -:: =| Additional

PublicProsecutor.

ee- Defenceconductedby| Sri.NarmetaRamesh, ut

for theAccused.-

| LearnedCounsel

is coming

Thisbefore24.09.2025for finalhearingin casemeon theofSriPentaSrinivas,AdditionalPublicProsecutorforthe presence Stateandof SriNarmetaRamesh,Learnedcounselfor theaccused, upon perusingthematerialrecord,hearingtheargumentsand papersonupon thematterhavingstoodforconsiderationtillthisday,theCourt over

the following:

delivered

JUDGMENT

a)ThisemergesfromthechargesheetfiledbytheSub- cases

Inspectorof Police,P.S.Sircilla,againsttheaccusedfor theoffencesunder

3 of Explosive

Sections286,337of IPCandSectionSubstancesAct.

2)Theof theprosecutionsetoutin thechargesheet,in caseas briefis,asfollows:

On22.12.2018at1800hours,L.W.1lodgedcomplaintwith

L.W.11,statingthatherphysicallyhandicappeddaughterusedtocollect

plasticwaterglasses,

wastagebottlesandin thesurrounding coversareas andby sellingthem.Asusual22.12.2018,between1530to earnmoneyon 1600hours,herdaughtertookthewastagefromherhouse,pouredit in the

of Sirigiri Nampalli.As already

placesituatedbesidethehouse

opensome knownleftexplosivemateriali.e.,Gelatinsticksandelectric persons

we

Fair

3of13S.C.No.01of2024 detonatorsintheplace,explosiontookplaceandherdaughter same sustainedinjuriesherstomach,face,chest,hands,legsetc.,andshe on returnedhousewithinjuries.SheshiftedtotheGovernmenthospital, was

Sircilla,fortreatment.

3).Basingthecomplaint,L.W.11registeredincrime onacase 3 of Explosives no,392of2018underSections286,337IPCandSection

Substancevisitedtheof offence,seizedexplosivesubstances Act, scene remainsi.e.,8electricaldetonatorsand42Gelatinsticksfromthespot

‘ofL.WS.6

undertheof crimedetaitsformin theand7, got coverpresence photographedtheof offence,examinedandrecordedthe scenestatements of L.Ws.1to4.

4).

On07.02.2019atabout1000hours,L.W.11apprehendedthe at Celebrityroad,Sircilla,securedthefo accusedHote!bypasspresence

on interrogation,

L.Ws.8and9andinterrogatedhim.theaccused

is eking

voluntarilyadmittedtheguilt statingthatheouthislivetihoodby blastingrockswithexplosivematerialswiththehelpof tractor.Priortothis

of Sirigiri Nampalli, along

incident,hestayedatthehousewithhisfamily memberstenant.Atthattime,hepurchasedgelatinsticksand assome

for blasting rocks

detonatorsfromun-knownandusedthemandin persons themeantimedifferencesbetweenhimandcontractorin somearose y, 4of13S.C.No.01of 2024 sanctioningbills.Hevacatedthehousewithoutintimationtohouse owner andleftforGodavarikhanialongwithtractorandwhileleavingrented house,helefttheremaininggelationsticksanddetonatorsintheopen placeof saidhouseandGodavarikhani.Whileheproceeding wenttowas

Siddipetforengagingwork, police apprehended

towardshistractorother on is usingfor blastingrockswith him.Hehasshownthetractor,whichhethe explosivesmaterial.In pursuanceof confession,L.W.11seizedthetractor underof confessionandseizurepanchanama,effectedthearrestof cover

After completion

accused.of formalities,producedhimbeforetheCourtfor remandtoJudicialcustody.

5).LaterL.W.11depositedthepropertyi.e.,8Electrical case

stick andtractor

detonator,42GelatinbearingNo.AP.26.X.5204beforethe

of L.W.5/injured,

Court,examinedandrecordedthestatementaddressed a letterL.W.10withfurnishtheM.Cof L.W.5,L.W.10opined toarequestto thattheinjuriessimpleinLaterL.W.11filedrequisitionbefore arenature.

thePri.JMFC,Sircillaforwardthematerialobjectsto FSL, Hyderabadfor to examinationwith expertandAccordinglyFSLauthoritiesissuedFSL

report.

report,opiningthattheitemno.1analysedthemethodsand wasasper a composition ammoniumnitratealongwithemulsifierofhigh explosive substancefoundin it. was

y

Fair

5of13S.C.No.01of2024

6).Subsequentlytransferof

onL.W.11,L.W.12tookfurther up investigationandhistransfer,L.W.13tookfurtherinvestigation, onupfiled requisitionbeforetheSuperintendentofPolice,RajannaSircillafor prosecutionorderfromtheHon'bleCollectorandDistrictMagistrate to prosecutetheaccusedandreceivedthepermissionfromtheCollectorand

in this

DistrictMagistratetoprosecutetheaccusedvideProceedings case

No.C1/260/2023,dt:13.03.2023.Theinvestigationreveaisthattheaccused hascommittedtheoffencespunishableunderSections286,337IPCand 3 of Explosives SectionSubstanceAct.

7).LearnedPrincipalJudicialMagistrateof FirstClass,Sircillatook

cognizanceof theoffencesunderSections286,337IPCandSection3 of

ExplosivesSubstanceActagainstthesoleaccused.LearnedMagistrate furnishedcopiesof all therelevantdocumentsto theaccusedunderSection 207Cr.P.CandcommittedthetothePri.Courtof Sessions,Sessions case

Division,SircillaunderSection209(a)Cr.P.CtheoffenceunderSection3 as of Explosiveis exclusively SubstanceActtriablebytheCourtof Sessions.

8).Onoftheaccused,heexaminedunder appearancewas

Section228Cr.P.C.ChargesunderSections286,337IPCandSection3 of

ExplosivesSubstanceActframed.Theaccusedpleadednotguilty were andclaimedtobetried.

S.C.No.01of 2024

Duringtheof evidence,theprosecutionhasexamined 9).course

P.Ws.1to 8 andgotmarkedExs.P1toP10.

10).completionofevidenceofprosecution,accused

Afterwas examinedunderSection313Cr.PC.Theaccusedhasdeniedthe evidenceappearedagainsthiminthetestimonyof

incriminating

prosecutionwitnessesandreporteddefenceevidence. no

Heard arguments

11).bothsides.

on 12).Thepointwhichfor determinationis: emerges Whethertheprosecutionhasestablishedtheguiltofthe accusedfortheoffencespunishableunderSections286,337

of Explosivesbeyondall

{PCandSection3SubstanceAct, reasonabledoubt?

POINT:

123).is chargedpunishable

Astheaccusedfortheoffenceunder 3 of ExplosivesSubstances Sections286,337of IPCandSectionAct,the burdentheprosecutiontobringhomehisguiltforthesaid restsupon

by establishingthatto endager

offence,theaccused,withintentionthe an life negligentlyexplosivessubstanceshisrented humanthrownthenear house,whichcausedexplosionandinjuriestoL.W.5in viewof theaccused pleadinginnocencefor thesaidcharges.

Fair

7of13S.C.No.01of2024

14).to bring home

Theprosecutionin ordertheguiltof theaccused fortheoffenceunderSections287and337ofIPCandSection3of

ExplosivesSubstancesAct,reliedthetestimonyofPW’'s.1to8and upon gotmarkedEx.P.1toP.11.

15).is complainant

P.W.1,whoandmotherof theinjured deposed

that,herdaughterusedtocollectplasticandemptybottlesandsell covers theandthatdayin theeveninghours,shetookthegarbagefrom sameone theirhouseandthrownin openplacesituatedbythesideof theirhouseand setfiretoit andthatsomebodyleftdangerousexplosivesubstances as

negligently, explosiontookplaceandherdaughterreceivedinjuriestoher

forehead,face,hands,stomachandlegsandthatsheimmediatelyshifted hertoGovernmentHospital,Sircillaandsubsequentlyshetoknow came

is responsible

thattheaccusedfortheinjuriessustainedbyherdaughter.

A perusal Ex.P1complaintmarkedthroughP.W.1.ofEx.P1complaint was revealsthatP.W.1didnotsuspicionagainsttheaccusedfor expressany theallegedincidentandit is silentabouttheof theaccused.Onthe name otherhand,itmentionedinEx.P1complaintthatunknown wassome

left explosive substances,

in theplace.

personopen

16).

P.W.1inhercross-examinationadmittedthatherdaughteris mentallyretortedandthattherethreehousesinbetweenher personare y <a

S.C.No.01of 2024 of incident.Shefurtherstatedthattheof accusedis houseandplacename whereasinthistheoftheaccusedisKodithela Ramulu,case,name

in her cross-examination

furtherdeposedthatshedoesnot Srinivas.P.W.1 theplaceof incident,but,she knowwholefttheexplosivessubstancesat informedbytheneighboursthattheaccusedleft thesame. was

17).3 neighboursofdeposedin thelines

P.Ws.2andP.W.1same thathearinghugenoise,theyandfoundhugeexplosion aftercameoutas fire to theto explosiveleft by some theinjuredsetgarbageduesubstances

is responsible

body.ThoughP.W.2furtherdeposedthattheaccusedfor

theinjuriessustainedbytheinjuredhelefttheexplosivesubstances as negligentlyat theplaceof incident,his evidenceis silentaboutof his source

theaccused,placedtheexplosivesubstance

knowledgethatit waswhoat theplaceofincident,admittedlyheisnotthewitnessestothe aseye accusedplacingthem.P.W.2in hiscross-examinationdeposedthatatthe of explosion,theandhedidwitnessthe timehenotatnot wasscene accusedleavingtheexplosivesubstancesat theof offenceandthat scene whentheneighbourstalking,hetoknowthattheaccusedis werecame responsiblefor theincident.P.W.3in hischief-examinationfurtherdeposed thathedidnotwitnesstheincidentandhedoesnotknowwhois responsibleforthesaidincident.inhiscross-examinationP.W.3further

Fair

9of13S.C.No.01of 2024 deposedthatP.W.5informedhimthewhois neverastoperson, responsiblefor theincident.

18).

P.W.4,whois theof thehouseof theaccusedhasnot owner of prosecution. supportedtheHehasdeniedthattheaccusedhis casewas tenant.P.W.5is theinjured,whodeposedthatabouttwoback,when years

place situated

shesetfireto thewastein thebythesideof thehouse, open explosiontookplacein which,shereceivedinjuriesandthatshedoes an notknowwholefttheexplosivesubstancesatthatplace.PW.6isthe

deposed about police drawing

panchwitnesstothecrimedetailsform,who roughsketchat theP.W.6furtherstatedthatthepolicesearchedfor scene, explosivesubstances,buthedoesnotknowwhethertheyfoundthem or

of police,he signed

notandthatattheinstancepanchanama. onrecovery

Inhiscross-examinationbylearneddefencecounsel,P.W.6deposedthat hesignedblankpaperbeforethepolicedrawingroughsketchandthat on at the scene hedidnotexplosivesubstancesof offence. seeany

19).

P.W.7panchwitnessforconfession-cum-seizurepanchanama not supported hasalsotheof theprosecutionanddeposedthatpolice case

his signaturecontentsof which,

obtainedwrittenhedoes onsomepapers, notknow.P.W.8investigatingofficerdeposedthatabouttheinvestigation doneinthisandgotmarkedExs.P6toEx.P11.Ex.P6is theFIR, case 10of13S.C.No.01of 2024 istheseizurepanchanama,dt:22.12.2018,Ex.P8istherelevant Ex.P7 confession-cum-seizurepanchanama,dt:07.02.2019,Ex.P9is

portionof

of P.W.5 (markedcounsel)

themedicalcertificatewithconsentofdefence whichreceivedsimple injuries,Ex.P10is theFSLreportand perP.W.5 as istheproceedingsofCollector/DistrictMagistrate,dt:13.03.2023. Ex.P11

ThoughtheevidenceofP.W.8FSLreportrevealsthatitemno,1analyzed themethodsandammoniumnitratealongwithemulsifier aspera of high explosiveis foundin it, in theabsenceof any

compositionsubstance

it wasaccused,

evidencethatwhoplacedthesaidexplosivesubstanceat theofoffence,saidFSLreportisofavailtotheof scenenocase

prosecution.theevidenceofP.W.8,thepropertyi.e.,(8)

Aspercase electricaldetonatorsand(42) gelationsticksdefusedanddestroyed were

byAdditionalSuperintendentof Police,bombdisposal,CID,TSHyderabad

of police. A perusalof Ex.P3-CrimeDetails andtractoris in thesafecustody

Formrevealsthattheplacewheretheexplosivesubstancesfoundis were mentionedinit,whereasinseizurepanchanamaunderEx.P7 not conductedtheday,it wasmentionedthatdetonatorsandgelatin onsame

bythepolice.

sticksseized werewere

20).theexplosivessubstances

AsfromEx.P10-FSLreport, seen forwardedtoFSLafterthansixmonthsof theallegedincident. weremore

Thisdelayremainedun-explainedbytheprosecution.Absolutelythereis

yx"

Fair

11of13S.C.No.01of 2024 evidenceof theaccusedplacingtheexplosivesubstancesthe noatscene his possessing thepriortotheincident.Admittedlythereis orsamenoeye witnessestotheThereisevidencetotothatthe same.noevenprove

accusedresidingin thesaidlocalitytheallegedhas

wasasownernot

supportedtheof prosecution

anddeniedthattheaccusedhis casewas tenant.Intheabsenceofevidencetoconnecttheaccusedtothe any

of investigating

allegedexplosivesubstances,theevidenceofficerand

Exs.P5toP11markedthroughhimofavailtotheofthe arenocase prosecution,thepanchwitnessestotheconfessionandseizure as

panchanamasupportedtheof prosecution.

havealsonot case

21).

In theabsenceof anyevidencetoconnecttheaccusedtothe allegedexplosivesubstancestheof offence,theprosecutionhas atscene miserablyfailedtotheguiltoftheaccusedfortheoffences prove punishableunderSectionsandof Explosive 286337ofIPCandSection3

SubstancesAct.

22).

INTHERESULT,theaccusedisfoundnotguiftyforthe offencespunishableunderSections286and337of IndianPenalCodeand

of Explosiveis acquitted

Section3SubstancesActandaccordinglyhe underSection235(1)ofCr.P.Cforthesaidoffences.Thebailbondsand bondsof theaccusedshallremainin forcefora periodof sixmonths surety

VZ 12of13S.C.No.01of 2024

Sec.437-ACr.P.C.Theunmarkedpropertyie., fromtodaypercase as

its registered

bearingNo.AP.26.X.8204is directedtobereturnedto Tractor

identificationandexpiryofappeal

acknowledgmentafter owneronproper time.

Partly typeddictation,partlydictatedtoStenographer

tomyseen, correctedandpronouncedbyin theCourtthisthe Grade-il,meopenon 25" dayof September, 2025. .

PRINCIPALIONSJUDGE,

RAJANNASIRCILLA.

APPENDF EVIDENC!

WITNESSESEXAMINED

FORPROSECUTION:FORDEFENCE: P.W-1:BoddulaLachavva,--None--

P.W-2:JakkaniHarish, ,

P.W-3:GoudaAnjaneyulu,

PW-4:Sirigiri Devaraju,

P.W-5:BoddulaSathawa,

P.W-6:J.Ashok,

P.W-7:K.Srikanth,S/o.Laxman,

PW-8:K.Srikanth,S/o.Mallesham,

EXHIBITSMARKED: FORPROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1:Complaint.

Ex.P.2:Section161Cr.P.C.statementof P.W.4.

Ex.P.3:CrimeDetailsForm.

Ex.P.4:Signatureof P.W.6RecoveryPanchanama,dt: 22.12.2018. on of P.W.6 ondt: Ex.P.5:Signatureconfessionseizurepanchanama, cum 07.02.2019.

Fair

13of13S.C.No.01of2024

Ex.P.6:FIR.

Ex.P.7:SeizurePanchanama,dt: 22.12.2018.

Ex.P.8:Relevantportionofconfession-cum-seizurepanchanama,dt: 07.02.2019.

Ex.P.9:MedicalCertificateofP.W.5. Ex.P10:FSLReport.

Ex.P11:Proceedingsof Collector/DistrictMagistratedt: 13.03.2023.

FORDEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL

Nil.

aa

Gary

Ot

PRINCIPALSESSIONSJUDGE,

RAJANNASIRCILLA.

Order Record 171 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC/322/2021	The State through CI of Police Vemulawada Rural vs Bongani Parsharam @ Parsharamulu	18 May 2026	Judgement	—
CRLRP/11/2025	Ambala Mahesh son of Shankaraiah vs Ambala alias Adepu Shravani Wife of Mahesh R1	04 May 2026	Other	Compromised
EP/35/2024	Namani Lalitha vs JDR.1 Balla Anil	02 May 2026	Other	—
AS/5/2023	Kanne Devaiah vs Palnati Ramaswamy-R1	01 May 2026	Judgement	—
SC/75/2022	The State through Circle Inspector of Police, Sircilla Rural vs Kasthuri Ram Reddy @ Chinna Ramulu	29 Apr 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
MVOP/57/2020	Daki Prabhakar vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Bodhan Bus Depot r/by its Depot Manager	28 Apr 2026	Other	—
EP/4/2025	Gaddam Nagaraju Son of Late Pochaiah vs Gotte Ravi Son of Rajalingam	24 Apr 2026	Other	—
MVOP/44/2023	Tallapalli Rama Swamy vs Pilli Devender	24 Apr 2026	Order	—
CRLA/15/2024	Bheemavarapu Srinivas vs R1-Cheekoti Anil Kumar	24 Apr 2026	Other	—
CRLA/2/2024	Janga Bhooma Raju vs The State f Telangana Through the SH of PS Mustabad.	23 Apr 2026	Other	—
MVOP/38/2021	DUSA NARMADA vs MALOTH MADHAN	16 Apr 2026	Order	—
CRLA/16/2025	Vaddepalli Sathyam alias Erukala Sathyam Son of Rajaveeru vs Myakala Laxmi Wife of Late Gangaram	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CRLA/36/2024	Vaddepalli Sathyam alias Erukala Sathyam vs The State through Sub.Inspectior of Police, P.S. Sircilla	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
MVOP/53/2023	Jetti Sandhya vs Bhukya Raju Nayak	10 Apr 2026	Order	—
LPC/3/2022	SHADA YELLAVVA vs BOINI ANJANEYULU	10 Apr 2026	Order	—
SC/88/2023	Ranaveni Chandraiah vs Singaraveni Buchavva	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CRLRP/3/2025	Gattipally Krishna Rao Son of Pochaiah vs R1. Gattipally Rekha	08 Apr 2026	Order	—
AS/22/2019	LIKKIDI SUKKARAM (Died) vs LIKKIDI DHANRAJ	06 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
SC/293/2021	The State through SHO PS Rudrangi vs Singarapu Janardhan	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CMA/6/2025	Pendyala Rajesham vs Thaduri Rajesham	01 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
AS/8/2023	Mandala Kalavathi vs Dudam Nagabhushanam	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
MVOP/4/2025	Petitioner No.1 Pothukoori Swapna vs R1. Mogilicharla Siddhardha	28 Mar 2026	Other	—
MVOP/52/2020	Dulala Srinivas Goud vs Abdul Aziz MIya	28 Mar 2026	Other	—
MVOP/77/2025	Gadapa Vishnu vs Maggidi Harish	28 Mar 2026	Other	—
MVOP/101/2018	Bhoga Akash kumar vs Palli Rajesham	28 Mar 2026	Other	—
MVOP/57/2025	Beduru Laxmi Wife of Bhoomaiah vs Thummala Siddeshwar Son of Ramulu. R1	26 Mar 2026	Other	—
G.W.O.P/6/2025	Jakkani Manasa wife of late Sudhakar vs To whomsoever concerned	25 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
MVOP/8/2023	Yama Rajeshwari vs Kathroju Srinu @ Saikrishna-R1	12 Mar 2026	Order	—
CRLA/33/2024	Sunkari Raju vs The State through Police Mustabad, R/by Addl.Public Prosecutor, Session Court, Rajanna Sircilla	11 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CRLA/40/2024	Anarashi Kistaiah vs The State through SHO, PS Vemulawada Town its rep by Addl.P.P.	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CRLA/41/2024	Anarashi Kistaiah vs The State through SHO, PS Vemulawada Town its rep by Addl.P.P.	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OP/1/2023	Surasura Radha Krishna vs Surasura Sarala Devi	02 Mar 2026	Order	—
CRLRP/14/2025	Malyala Devaiah Son of Rajaiah vs The State through SHO PS Konaraopet Rby Addl.P.P Prl.Sessions Judge, Sircilla	02 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/12/2024	Erukulla Madhusudhan vs Akula Gangareddy - D.1	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/16/2018	KANCHERLA LAXMI vs ADEPU RAVI	27 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/57/2018	CHEPURI BUCHAIAH vs CHEPURI SHANKARAIAH	25 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CRLA/42/2024	Rendla Mahender alias Mahipal vs The State through SHO, Boinpally, Rep.by Addl.P.P. Dist.Court, Sircilla	23 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
MVOP/16/2024	Md Sajida vs R1-Jadav Deva	19 Feb 2026	Order	—
G.W.O.P/5/2024	Thummala Devender vs Thummala @ Gujjari Swarnalatha	18 Feb 2026	Order	—
CRLA/8/2024	Gangu Laxmirajam vs The Sub Inspector of Police, Represented by Additional P.P. Throough Vemulwada Rural	17 Feb 2026	Other	—
CRLA/25/2025	Erram Praveen Son of Erram Anajaiah. A1 vs The State through Inspector of Police, Vemulawada Rural Rby AddlPP Prl.Session Court Sircilla	17 Feb 2026	Other	—
AS/3/2025	Cherlapelli Balraj Reddy Son of Venkat Reddy vs Charlapalli alias Cherlapalli Thirumal Reddy. R1	13 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/27/2019	KULLA SATHAIAH vs SAMMETA VIJAYA	10 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CRLRP/15/2025	Sri Vijaya Laxmi Vastralayam, Yacharam vs Gajula Vishwanatham Wife of Late Shivaram	10 Feb 2026	Order	—
LPC/2/2024	The State through CI of Police, Chandurthy PS Akkannapet vs Adula Thirupathi	10 Feb 2026	Other	—
CMA/9/2023	Jitteveni Komuraiah vs Lala Mallaiah	09 Feb 2026	Order	—
SC/23/2022	The State through SHO of P.S. Vemulawada (T) vs Shivarathri Naresh	09 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC/39/2022	The State through Inspector of Police, Sircilla vs Iltem Gangadhar	05 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC/435/2021	The State through the Circle Inspector of Police, Sircilla Rural vs Dommati Venkatesham	04 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/18/2017	MARRI RANI vs MARRI GOLLA MALLAIAH	30 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
AS/17/2019	BITLA DEVAVVA vs THUMMA ANJAIAH	23 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CRLA/38/2024	Peddi Shravan alias Shravan Kumar vs The State Through SHO, PS Rudrangi	22 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OP/11/2024	Shivarathri Rathnam @ Rathnakar vs Shivarathri @ Muddangula Madhuri	19 Jan 2026	Order	—
G.W.O.P/3/2025	Kottepelly Anjaiah Son of Mallaiah vs Kottepelly alias Mand Hemalatha wife of Anjaiah Daughter of Manda Mohan	09 Jan 2026	Order	—
CRLA/5/2024	Challa Raji Reddy vs The State of Telangana Through Station Houses Officer, Police Station Konaraopet	08 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
AS/10/2025	Boddu Yellaiah Son of Peddiraju vs Annaveni Laxmi Wife of Ramulu	07 Jan 2026	Order	—
MVOP/50/2023	Myakala Vinoda vs Dasarapu Praveen	27 Dec 2025	Order	—
CRLRP/26/2024	Cherala Krishnamurthy vs Cherala Varshini @ Bachu Naeeraja	27 Dec 2025	Order	—
OS/4/2019	SMT YEGURLA VIJAYA LAXMI vs GURRAM YELLA REDDY	24 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CRLA/22/2024	Gangula Ramesh vs The State throygh Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Konaraopet.	24 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
G.W.O.P/3/2024	Uthkam Ramya @ Manswini vs Uthkam Srinivas	23 Dec 2025	Order	—
MVOP/64/2025	Kongari Pallavi Wife of Late Naresh vs Dhamera Ravi alias Damari Ravi son of Yakaiah. R1	22 Dec 2025	Other	—
OS/7/2019	CHIMMALLA MALLESHAM vs GALIPALLY MARUTHI	22 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
MVOP/11/2024	Nagapuri Balaraju Goud vs R1- Ragatla @ Rageti Hari Krishna	21 Dec 2025	Other	—
MVOP/14/2025	Ayilaveni Laxmi Wife of Late Srinivas vs Kodimyala Bhanuprasad Son of Venkata Swamy-R1.	21 Dec 2025	Other	—
CRLA/27/2024	Md. Raheemoddin @ Javed - A.1 vs The state through SHO PS Vemulawada Town, rep/by through P.P.	19 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
SC/222/2022	The State through SHO PS Thangallapalli/Ankaarapu Ravinder/ vs Konda Ramanjaneyulu	18 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
SC/264/2019	NAINI BUCHIREDDY vs VASIREDDY RAJENDER REDDY	12 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
EP/2/2025	Muchanthula Baskar Reddy Son of Raji Reddy vs Garige Mallaiah Son of Buchaiah	06 Oct 2025	Order	—
MVOP/52/2023	Kancham Laxmi vs Kancham Nandu @ Shiva Nandu	27 Sep 2025	Order	—
SC/1/2024	Boddula Lachavva vs Kodithela Srinivas	25 Sep 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
SC/27/2023	The State through S.H.O. P.S. Yellareddypet vs Shivarathri Srinivas	25 Sep 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CRLA/23/2024	Ragula @ Ravula Balakishan - A.1 vs The state through SHO PS Rudrangi - Represented by Public Prosecutor	24 Sep 2025	Order	Convicted
CRLA/24/2024	Ravula @ Ragula Venkatesh - A.1 vs The state through C.I. of police, Chandurthy.	24 Sep 2025	Order	—
AS/31/2019	GUDURI ASHAIAH vs GUDURI ANJAIAH	19 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CRLA/18/2024	Guduri Kiran Kumar vs Shaik Riyaz Pasha	19 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CRLA/19/2024	Kunta Nagaraju vs The State of Telangana through PS Gambhiraopet	18 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
G.W.O.P/2/2025	Pathri Ramavva Wife of Late Srinu vs Pathri alias Gandham Sharada Wife of Gandham Naveen Daughter of Late Pathri Durgaiah. R1	18 Sep 2025	Other	—
SC/30/2025	The State through Inspector of Police, PS Vemulawada Town Cr.No.219 of 2024 vs Anandam Manthri son of Narsaiah	16 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
AS/16/2022	THATIPAMULA RAMESH vs NALLA LAXMAN	15 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CRLRP/16/2025	Rafath Sulthana Wife of Late Syed Azmath vs Naziya Parveen Begum Wife of Maqsood	15 Sep 2025	Order	—
MVOP/5/2024	Singaraveni @ Shingaraveni Yellavva vs R-1, Shakali @ Chakali Sanjeevulu	13 Sep 2025	Order	—
MVOP/21/2025	Chepuri Savithri Wife of Late Kailasam vs Mohammad Abdul Son of Mohammad Hussain. R1	13 Sep 2025	Order	—
MVOP/36/2025	Santi Raju Son of Sudarshan vs Shaik Jani Pasha Son of Munna Saheb. R1	13 Sep 2025	Order	—
AS/25/2023	Nellutla Yadagiri vs The Karimnagar District co-op. Marketing society ltd. rep.by Its President	12 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CRLA/43/2025	Ms.Madas Textiles, Madas Dasharatham vs Bitla Venkatesham	12 Sep 2025	Order	—
CRLRP/12/2025	Vaddepalli Sathyam alias Erukala Satyam son of Rajaveeru vs The State through PS Sircilla R.by Add.PP Rajanna Sircilla District	09 Sep 2025	Order	—
CRLA/29/2024	Kinnera Mallavva vs The state through Public prosecutor, Sircilla.	08 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
MVOP/6/2023	Palli Renuka vs Shanigaram Ravi	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
MVOP/56/2022	Thummala Meghana vs Kudukula Jalender @ Kudukala Jashwanth	29 Aug 2025	Order	—
CRLA/1/2023	Bonddila Veena vs Yada Venkata Narsaiah	29 Aug 2025	Order	—
CRLA/11/2025	Kadasu Shankar Son of Chinna Yellaiah vs Lingampally Devaiah Son of Pochaiah	29 Aug 2025	Order	—
SC/31/2025	The State through Inspector of Police, PS Vemulawada Town Cr.No.165 of 2024 vs Thirupathi Dharra Son of Kuntaiah	28 Aug 2025	Judgement	—
G.W.O.P/11/2024	Gonepalli Vidya vs Gonepalli Sandeep Kumar	25 Aug 2025	Other	—
AS/15/2024	Choppadandi Narsimha Chary vs R1-Thallapelli Rangavva (Died)	22 Aug 2025	Judgement	—
AS/31/2023	Vasam Bhumesh vs Saggu Radhika	20 Aug 2025	Judgement	—
EP/50/2023	Jogu Mallavva vs Co-operative Electric Suply Society Limited (CESS) Rep.by Managing Director	20 Aug 2025	Order	—
CMA/5/2024	Banothu Gajan Lal vs The District Forest Officer/Authorized Officer, Rajanna Sircilla	19 Aug 2025	Order	—
AS/20/2022	Jagitiala @ Jogu Laxmi vs Jagitiala @ Jogu Srinivas	18 Aug 2025	Order	—
AS/34/2019	REVURI DEVAIAH vs MODUSU SHANKAR REDDY	18 Aug 2025	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 171 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		4
Apr 2026		16
Mar 2026		13
Feb 2026		16
Jan 2026		7
Dec 2025		12
Oct 2025		1
Sep 2025		20
Aug 2025		18
Jul 2025		33
Jun 2025		26
May 2025		4

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. P. Neeraja handled?

Smt. P. Neeraja has handled 171 court orders since 2025 at Rajanna Sircilla, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 13 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. P. Neeraja hear?

Based on available records, Smt. P. Neeraja primarily handles Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Appeal Suits) and Criminal matters (Criminal Appeals, Sessions Cases) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at Rajanna Sircilla, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt. P. Neeraja currently posted?

Smt. P. Neeraja is posted as Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Rajanna Sircilla, PDJ Court Complex, Rajanna Siricilla, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt. P. Neeraja available online?

Yes. 11 judgments by Smt. P. Neeraja are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. P. Neeraja dispose cases?

Smt. P. Neeraja disposes approximately 13 cases per month, based on 171 orders handled over their tenure at Rajanna Sircilla, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt. P. Neeraja serving?

Smt. P. Neeraja has been serving at Rajanna Sircilla, PDJ Court Complex since 2025. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

EP 24%

CRLA 19%

MVOP 17%

SC 12%

AS 10%

OS 8%

CRLRP 6%

G 4%

Posting History

Dec 2025 — Present

Prl. District and Sessions Judge · 68 orders
Apr 2025 — Oct 2025

Prl. District and Sessions Judge · 101 orders
Apr 2025 — Jul 2025

Spl. Sessions Judge of FTC for POCSO Cases · 2 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Convicted 1

Compromised 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt.V.Pushpalatha

I Addl District and Sessions Judge

206 orders

Radhika Jaiswal

Spl. Sessions Judge of FTC for POCSO Cases

82 orders

Sri. A. Praveen

Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate...

2,702 orders

Smt Kaveti Srujana

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional...

1,657 orders

Ms. Gaddam Meghana

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Addition...

817 orders

Sri P.Laxmana Chary

Senior Civil Judge

613 orders

Smt. K Jyothirmai

Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada

5,557 orders

Sri Ajay Kumar Jadhav

Senior Civil Judge Vemulawada

182 orders

← View all judges at Rajanna Sircilla, PDJ Court Complex