P.siva Rama Prasad
Fast Track Special Court for expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Suryapet
Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex · Suryapet · Telangana
Based on 28 recent ordersP.SIVA RAMA PRASAD, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Suryapet, is posted at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana, India. 28 court orders on record since 2026. 11 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CRL, CRLMP, SC cases.
Featured Judgments
Page 1 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE
HUZURNAGAR
Present: Dr.P.Siva Ram Prasad, I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet. FAC: II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar . . Friday, this the 15 th day of May, 2026
S.C.No.474 of 2022
1.Complainant:The Circle Inspector of Police, PS Kodad Rural Circle.
2.Names of the :A1. Redapangu Koteshwara Rao, accusedS/o. Venkateshwarlu, Age: 30 years, Occ: Student,
A2. Redapangu Srihari, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: Coolie,
A3. Parimi Mahesh, S/o.Veeraiah, Age:28 years, Occ: Student,
A4. Kothapally Naga Saidulu, S/o. Pedda Sathyam, Age:27 years, Occ: Painter, all are residents of Ramapuram Village, Mellachervu Mandal, Suryapet District.
3.Crime No.:Cr.No.95/2016 of P.S. Mellachervu
4.Prosecution :Sri. Bobba Koti Reddy, Addl. Public conducted by Prosecutor, Huzurnagar.
5.Defence conducted :Sri. M. Ramachandra Rao, byAdvocate, Huzurnagar.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 2 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
6.Charges :u/sec.120-B, 302 r/w Sec.34 and 201 IPC against A1 to A4.
7.Plea of the accused:A1 to A4 pleaded not guilty.
8.Finding of the Court: A1 to A4 are found guilty.
9.Sentence of order:In the result, A1 to A4 are found guilty for the offence under section 120-B, 302 r/w Sec.34 and 201 IPC, accordingly they are Convicted for the said offence under section235(2) Cr.P.C. After hearing on sentence, A1 to A4 are sentenced as follows:
A1 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
A2 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
A3 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 3 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
A4 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
The case properties marked as MO1 to MO9, which are not valuable properties and not claimed by anyone and not having any value, the same shall be destroyed after disposal of appeal if preferred or after appeal time is completed.
This case is coming up before me for final hearing and disposal on 08.05.2026 in the presence of Sri.Bobba Koti Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.M.Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for A1 to A4 and upon; perusing the material papers on record; upon considering written arguments of the learned defence counsel and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day; this Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
01. The Circle Inspector of Police, PS Kodad Rural Circle filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 in Cr.No.95/2016 of PS Mellachervu alleging offence u/sec. 120-B, 302, 201 r/w Sec.34 IPC.
Brief Facts of the Charge Sheet :- 02. The brief facts of the charge sheet are that on 16.04.2016 at 09.00 am the defacto complainant (Chatla Laxmipathi cited as
LW1, examined and referred as PW1) came to PS Mellachervu and
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 4 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar lodged complaint stating that on 15.04.2016 evening at 06.00 pm his son (Chatla Venkateswarlu herein after referred as “the deceased”), aged 21 years, auto driver, left their house to run the auto on hire, at 8.30 pm PW1 called the deceased who informed that he will return in half an hour, PW1 again called but the phone of the deceased was switch off, on 16.04.2016 at 6.30 am, the farmers while proceeding to their lands they noticed the dead body of the deceased at Bheema Cement Quarry-2 beside auto, the farmers informed the same to PW1 villagers, then PW1 along with others rushed to the said place and saw the dead body of the deceased. PW1 found pesticide smell at the dead body and noticed whole on the left testicle with oozing blood, the death was suspicious and PW1 lodged the said complaint to take action.
03. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that basing on the complaint of PW1, initially LW24 (Sk. Saida, Head Constable, PS
Mellachervu, examined and referred as PW11) registered the crime under section 174 Cr.P.C. (suspicious death) vide FIR No.95 of 2016 and investigation taken up after dispatch of FIR to the authorities. During investigation by PW11, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses namely PW1, LW2 (Chatla
Veeramma i.e. mother of the deceased-given up), LW3 (Chatla
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 5 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar Venkatramulu-cousin of the deceased, examined and referred as
PW2), LW5 (Chadapangu Lenin–relative of the deceased-examined and referred as PW3), LW6 (K.Saideshwar Rao-witness-examined and referred as PW4). Then PW11 visited the scene of offence i.e., Bheema Cement Quarry-2 at the outskirts of Revoor Village, observed the scene of offence and dead body of the deceased and taken the photos. PW11 conducted the scene of offence panchanama by securing panchas i.e., LW16 (K.Jaya Raju- examined and referred as PW7) and LW17 (V.Veera Babu-not examined) and also drawn the rough sketch. Then inquest were held over the dead body of the deceased in presence of said panchas. PW11 sent the dead body of the deceased to Area
Hospital, Huzurnagar for PME, Dr. S. Karun Kumar, (LW20/PW9-
Civil Assistant Surgeon) preserved the visera contents for chemical analysis and reserved his opinion pending FSL report and as per the statement of PW1, he strongly suspected A1 as he fallen in love with one Chatla Madhavi (cited as LW15, examined and referred as PW6) whom the deceased met earlier.
04. While so, PW9 issued PME report that the cause of death of the deceased was due to strangulation leading to asphyxia caused cardio respiratory arrest and the said report disclosed injuries over
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 6 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar the dead body i.e., (i) multiple grazed abrasions at lower abdomen, (ii) laceration over the left side scrotum, (iii) contusion over left side chest medial to left nipple, (iv) multiple small contusions on upper part of medial aspect of left thing, (v) multiple small contusions on forehead and fracture of hyoid bone on left, black clotted blood at anterior aspect of neck, bleeding from glens penis, the same discloses causing injuries to the deceased and killing him by strangulation.
05. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that basing on the said
PME report, PW11 altered section of law from Sec.174 Cr.P.C. to
Sec.302 IPC and filed section alteration memo, further investigation was taken up by LW25 (P.Madhusudhan Reddy,
Circle Inspector of Police, Kodad Rural Circle, examined and referred as PW12) as the offence is grave in nature. During investigation PW12 collected phone calls data (CDR) of the deceased and suspect i.e., A1 and also PW1, based on the same
A1 was identified as suspect, hence PW12 deputed staff to apprehend him, accordingly on 05.05.2016, PW11 apprehended
A1 and produced before PW12, on interrogation A1 confessed the offence. Accordingly, PW12 secured two official panchas (LW18-
B.Khasim, VRO Kandibanda-examined and referred as PW8),
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 7 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar LW19 (Chatla Nageshwara Rao-VRO, Ramapuram Village-not examined) in the presence of the said panchas A1 confessed to have killed the deceased along with his friends Redapangu Srihari (A2), Parimi Mahesh (A3), Kothapally Naga Saidulu (A4) and they killed him as A1 fall in love with PW6 (Chatla Madhavi) and they decided to marry, but the deceased also fall in love with her and developed illicit intimacy, accordingly PW12 apprehended A2 to A4 and got recorded the confession statements of A1 to A4.
06. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that during his confession A1 specifically mentioned that he fall in love with PW6, then went to Hyderabad for computer classes, while so the deceased developed illicit intimacy with her and did not change his attitude though warned, so A1 decided to eliminate the deceased, he planned the murder along with A2 to A4, thus they called the deceased on plea to provide auto for hire, then they mixed intoxic pills in cool drink and given it to the deceased, then committed his murder by pouring insecticide poison in the mouth and killed the deceased by strangulation with rope and thrown the dead body in
Bheema Cement Quarry. According to the plan which they prepared for murder of the deceased, they implemented the same. Owing to the confession of A1, PW11 seized the cell phone
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 8 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar and the remaining A2 to A4 were also apprehended and they too have also confessed the offence in similar way and in all nylon wire, four mobile phones, stone, pesticide tin are seized from them. Then, A1 to A4 lead the police to the scene of offence i.e.,
NSP field canal where separate scene of offence panchanama was prepared. Then PW12 recorded the statements of the remaining witnesses LW7 (Chatla Gopi-PW5), LW8 to LW14 (not examined in the court). PW12 secured the cell phone of PW6 and also obtained her call data from the service provider and after completion of entire investigation charge sheet is filed by PW13 due to transfer of PW12. Hence, the charge.
Cognizance:-
07. The charge sheet in this matter is filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar. The said
Court has taken on file this case for the offence punishable under sec. 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A4. After taking cognizance, the case is registered as PRC No.30 of 2018 and issued summons to A1 to A4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Huzurnagar found prima facie case for the offence
punishable under Sec.120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC and as the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 9 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar committal court has committed the case to the Court of Hon'ble
Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda under Section 209 (a) of Cr.P.C.
08.The Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge,
Nalgonda has numbered the case as SC No.84/2019 and
made over the same to VIII Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Miryalaguda for disposal according to law.
Subsequently the same case is made over to I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Suryapet. Again as per orders of
Hon’ble Prl, District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet, the
case is transferred to this court (II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar) on point of jurisdiction. At
the respective courts, on appearance of A1 to A4, copies of the case records relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C at the committal court.
Framing of Charge :-
09. On hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A1 to A4, they were examined under sec.228
Cr.P.C for the offence under sec.120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 IPCand the accusation against them is explained in their language to A1 to
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 10 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar A4, then they all denied the said accusation. As per the material on record there is prime-facie case against A1 to A4 to frame charge, accordingly charge for the offence under sec.120-B, 302 r/w 34 and 201 IPC was framed against A1 to A4 and the said charge was read over and explained to them in their language.
Having understood the charge, A1 to A4 denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As per the request of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A1 to
A4, trial schedule is given and witnesses are produced and examined. A1 to A4 engaged their counsel and their counsel defended them throughout the proceedings in this case at all the courts from the stage of crime to till the stage of arguments.
Witnesses Examined:-
10. On behalf of the prosecution, as per charge sheet, the list of witnesses cited are LW1 to LW26. Out of said witnesses, LW1,
LW4 to LW7, LW15, LW16, LW18 to LW20, LW24 to LW26 are examined as PW1 to PW13. The witnesses LW3, LW8 to LW14,
LW17 not examined and their evidence was closed. LW21 to LW23 evidence was given-up by the prosecution. Besides examination of
PW1 to PW13, the prosecution got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 documents and produced material objects i.e., MO1 to MO9.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 11 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar 313 Cr.P.C. Examination:-
11. After completion of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to them in their language. Having understood the same, A1 to A4 denied the evidence as false and further stated that they have no defence evidence.
Arguments:-
12. Learned Addl. PP submitted oral arguments whereas learned defence counsel filed written arguments and the same are perused along with the entire record. In his arguments, the Addl. PP repeated the contents of charge sheet and he submitted that all the witnesses supported prosecution case during Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements and also during their evidence before the court and there are no contradictions or omissions to eschew the same. He prays to convict A1 to A4.
13. On the other hand the learned defence counsel mentioned that the witnesses not supported the prosecution case. He prays to acquit A1 to A4 for the charge framed against them. The other arguments of the learned counsel on both sides and citations filed are discussed at the relevant point.
Points for Determination:-
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 12 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
14. Now the points for determination are:
(i) whether the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence under sec.120-B, 302 r/w 34 and 201 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
(ii) whether A1 to A4 can be found guilty and convicted for the offence under sec.120-B, 302 r/w 34 and 201 IPC?
(iii) to what result?
Findings on Points :-
15. After considering oral arguments of learned Addl. PP and the written arguments of learned defence counsel, on consideration of the entire material on record, it is very clear that the offence alleged against A1 to A4 is under sec.120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC, which is grave in nature and to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
16. In this context, the entireevidence placed by the prosecution is oral evidence of PW1 to PW13, the documents Ex.P1 to P10 and the material objects MO1 to MO9.
17. The defacto complainant (PW1) is none other than the father of the deceased and on his complaint (Ex.P1), the criminal law in this case is set to motion and the said complaint lead to the murder of the deceased during probe into the cause of death and the events unearthed during investigation.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 13 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar 18. Primary contention of the learned defence counsel is that even according to PW1 under Ex.P1, he has not suspected any of
A1 to A4, not suspected them and there was no other person responsible for the murder of the deceased as per Ex.P1. It is vehemently argued that FIR (Ex.P8) do not disclose names of A1 to A4 and the case is initially registered as suspicious death, A1 to
A4 are falsely implicated.
19. At the outset it is to be kept in mind that FIR is not an encyclopedia to contain each and every detail of the incident. PW1 might have not suspected A1 to A4 soon after he identified the dead body of the deceased, but it is not a ground to consider the case of the prosecution in a doubtful manner. However, PW1 clearly mentioned in Ex.P1 itself that the death of the deceased is unnatural and he has strong suspicion. It is due to his complaint (Ex.P1) investigation conducted and commission of murder of the deceased came to light by examining the witnesses and collection of evidence during the investigation. The Hon’ble Apex Court time and again reiterated that FIR is not an encyclopedia.
20. Even recently in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
Surjit Singh alias Gurmit Singh vs State of Punjab clearly held
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 14 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar " In this situation the aforesaid misdescription / omissions in the FIR about the number of shots fired and the absence of Taljit Singh's injuries or the appellant being not described as a military man become of lesser importance. FIR is not an encyclopedia
of the entire case and is even not a substantive piece of
evidence. It has value, no doubt, but only for the purpose
of corroborating or contradicting the maker. Here the maker was a young woman who had lost her husband before her very eyes. The misdescription / omission of these details in the FIR which was recorded most promptly, within three hours of the occurrence, would not doubt on the prosecution case or the statements of the eye-witnesses with regard to the participation of the appellant in the crime. …" 21. Now coming to the evidence of PW1 in the court, he deposed that he has one daughter and one son (deceased), his daughter doing nursing at Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad, whereas the deceased runs auto, on 15.04.2016 the deceased left their house at 6.00 pm to run the auto, at about 8.30 pm, PW1 called him and the deceased replied, he will return in half an hour, later his phone was switched off.
22. PW1 specifically deposed that on 16.04.2016 at 06.30 am, his villagers came to know through Revuvu Villagers that dead body was found at Bheema Cement Quarry-2, on that he went there and identified the dead body as his son. PW1 specifically stated that he felt pesticide smell from the dead body, he saw one
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 15 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar whole on left side testicle of the dead body with bleeding and due to suspicion he lodged the complaint (Ex.P1).
23. Further PW1 clearly deposed that on 14.04.2016 at 08.30 pm he received a call from mobile number 8142256539, one unknown person told that the deceased moving with PW6 and her family members may kill him at any time, while he was asking his details, the caller disconnected the phone. Further PW1 clearly deposed that on his enquiry he came to know that it was the cell number of A3 who gave his phone to A1, it was A1 who called
PW1 through the said phone and he also came to know that 10 days before the death A1 show the deceased and PW6 to her brother (PW5) who warned the deceased. Thus, PW1 finally stated that A1 to A4 killed his son by strangulation after giving sleeping pills, they beat him with stone on testicles.
24. The learned defence counsel cross examined PW1 wherein he clearly stated that on his narration, his brother Masthan scribed the complaint. It is suggested that the said scribe not endorsed as it was drafted by him, PW1 admitted the same, but PW1 clearly stated that on his narration the complaint was prepared, therefore the signature of scribe is not necessary.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 16 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
25. During his cross, PW1 admitted that there was gap between the bottom of the complaint and his signature, but the said gap is not a point to be considered cause at end of the contents in the complaint there was prayer of PW1 to conduct enquiry and rendered justice to him. Thus, the gap left in the complaint cannot be taken into consideration to doubt lodging of said complaint by
PW1.
26. In-fact, PW1 is none other than the father of the deceased and there is nothing to suspect regarding lodging of complaint by
PW1 after he saw the dead body of his son on 16.04.2016. More so, the dead body was identified by the Villagers of Revuru at 06.30 am near Bheema Cement Quarry-2, immediately they gave information to the Villagers of PW1, immediately PW1 rushed there, identified the dead body as belongs to his son and lodged complaint within no time i.e., on 16.04.2016 at 09.00 am.
27. This discussion shows that the evidence of PW1 is completely reliable and trustworthy and there is no proper cross examination to shake the veracity of PW1. PW1 is cross examined regarding phone call received before 2 days of the complaint and also threat of PW5 to the deceased not come again to the house of PW6, but these aspects in the cross examination add strength to the case of
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 17 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar prosecution, but not favour to A1 to A4 in any way. By looking into the cross examination of PW1, it can be said that there is no specific defence taken by A1 to A4 and there are no contradictions or omissions to discard the evidence of PW1 and his complaint (Ex.P1).
28. The learned defence counsel argued that as per admission of
PW1, it was PW5 who threatened the deceased, but there was no treat by A1. Eventhough, PW5 alleged to have threatened the deceased, there was sufficient evidence to show that A1 himself took PW5 to the house of PW6 while the deceased was in her house. Hence, threat of PW5 to the deceased cannot be considered and the same shows strong motive of A1 but not the motive of PW5 to eliminate the deceased.
29. In fact the cross examination of PW1 is mostly suicidal because it is elicited that the deceased spent expenditure for the surgery of PW6. It was suggested that the deceased called PW1 and stated that he is committing suicide because the relationship of the deceased with PW6 was not accepted by PW1. In any way
A1 to A4 tried to show the death of the deceased as suicide, but the medical evidence is otherwise. Hence, no useful purpose
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 18 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar served even after cross examination of PW1 and the evidence of
PW1 is highly reliable and trustworthy.
30. Now coming to PW2, his evidence reveal that on 15.04.2016 at 10.00 pm, he received call from PW1 enquiring about the deceased, he replied he do not know, on the next day they found the dead body of the deceased at Revuru second quarry. He clearly stated that PW1 informed about receiving a call and he was warned that Chalta people may kill the deceased, on enquiry the call was received from the phone of A3 and warned by A1. He specifically stated that the deceased and PW6 were seen by A1 in a room, A1 brought PW5 and they threatened the deceased not to meet her again. The learned defence counsel cross examined PW2 in which it was elicited that the alleged relationship of the deceased and PW6 known to PW2 also. This part of cross examination is showing the motive of A1 and particularly reveal that the deceased and PW6 were in a relationship, which was not digested by A1 and this was the reason for the incident.
31. PW3 deposed in the same lines with that of PW2 and on enquiry by PW1 about the deceased he expressed that he do not know and on the next day they found the dead body of the deceased at Bheema Cement Quarry, they all went and saw the
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 19 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar same. He too deposed that PW1 informed A1 threatened him as
PW6 moving closely with deceased and the deceased may be killed by her family members. Cross examination of PW3 goes to show that he is son-in-law of PW1 brother, but the said relationship is not a point to be considered because not only for PW1 but for the family members it is quite natural to call the near and dear and ask whereabouts of his son. Except regarding the relationship, nothing was brought from PW3 through cross examination. On the other hand, it is elicited that the Villagers know about the love affair of the deceased and PW6. Hence, there are no important points to be considered from the cross examination of PW3, however the evidence of PW3 established the intimacy between the deceased and PW6.
32. PW4 specifically deposed that on 16.04.2016 at 06.30 am through Villagers he came to know about the dead body, they all went to Bheema Cement Quarry and identified that he was son of
PW1 and also observed a whole to the left side of the testicles with bleeding. It is to be noted that there was no cross examination by A1 to A4, no suggestions were also given to him and his evidence is remained unchallenged. There are no reasons to discard the same.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 20 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar 33. The crucial witness for the entire prosecution case is PW5 who deposed that PW6 is his cousin. He deposed that one month prior to the incident A1 stopped him and asked him to enquire
PW6 as to who was present in her house, accordingly PW5 asked
PW6 and she replied none present, A1 opened the doors and the deceased was inside. Then PW5 admonished the deceased.
34. This particular incident was happened one month prior to the death of the deceased and goes to show that A1 waylaid and watch the movements of the deceased and also intentionally got admonished the deceased through PW5 since the others will suspect the family of PW6 in the event of deceased killed afterwards. Hence, the evidence of PW5 is completely sufficient to identify involvement, motive and preplan along with guilty intention of A1 for eliminating the deceased as he could not digest the intimacy among the deceased and PW6.
35. While cross examination of Pw5,A1 to A4 came up with a new defence that when the relationship between PW6 and deceased is prohibited, the Villagers believe that it is harmful to the Village. Even though PW5 was cross examined in those lines, nothing is further elicited that in particular Villagers identified the deceased and eliminated him. Moreso, none of the other witnesses
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 21 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar are cross examined in said line. When the total circumstances to the death of the deceased point towards A1 to A4, it is not possible to consider that the villagers murdered the deceased due to prohibited relationship among the deceased and PW6. Hence, even after consideration of the said plea also, it has no water to say that A1 does not involve in the offence.
36. PW5 is also cross examined regarding the disputes among
PW1 and the deceased, but it is very clear that PW1 even before the death of his son he made enquiries, he called the deceased and he rushed to the dead body on information of Villagers.
Hence, PW1 cannot be suspected as responsible person for the death of the deceased. In-fact, on reading the evidence of PW1, it shows he do not aware of the illicit intimacy between the deceased and PW6. Hence, by any stretch of imagination PW1 cannot be doubted for the murder of the deceased.
37. Now coming to the evidence of very important witness i.e.,
PW6, it is admitted fact that initially A1 and PW6 fall in love and subsequently the deceased developed relationship with her. It is to be noted that both A1 and deceased are interested in PW6 and they all belong to the same Village.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 22 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
38. It is version of A1 that the intimacy of PW6 and the deceased was among prohibited relation, but it is to be noted that A1 himself took PW5 (brother of PW6) while PW6 and the deceased were together at her house. How PW6 and the deceased maintained intimacy among prohibited relation, it is not matter for discussion, but the fact is that the deceased and PW6 were having close intimacy. Therefore, the said intimacy is the main motive of
A1 to eliminate the deceased. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution deposed the said fact clearly and none of the witnesses turned hostile in this case.
39. In her own words, PW6 completely supported the prosecution case and she admitted that she failed 10th class, she attended coolie work along with her mother, her two elder sisters are marred, she do not have television, so she used to go to the house of Masthan, where she was acquainted with A1.
40. PW6specifically testified that she and A1 loved each other, after two years A1 refused to marry her saying she had two sisters, her parents do not have properties, if he marry her, he shall look after her parents. She further deposed that her mother used to collect mirchi (chillies) in the auto of the deceased, one day the deceased came to her house and asked to give her
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 23 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar father’s aadhar card to take sim card, then A1 and PW5 came, they questioned her why the deceased was in her house. She replied that the deceased came to take aadhar card, A1 caught hold her hair and tried to beat her, then the deceased and A1 quarreled with each other. She deposed that PW5 asked them to go away and then A1 sent message that he cannot live without her, not maintaining good health and became sick, the same was told to her by friend of A1 i.e., A4 also.
41. PW6 further stated that she informed the intention of A1 to the deceased, but the deceased was at Revuru as he went on auto for hire, on the next day A1 stated that he do not want her and scolded her to marry the deceased. While so the Villagers were murmuring that the deceased was no more.
42. In the evidence of PW6 she specifically identified A1 and A4 and she surrendered her cell phone to the police i.e., MO1. In the cross examination also PW6 specifically stated that she loved the deceased and she denied that their intimacy was in prohibited relationship for marriage. The father of the deceased and PW5 do not like the same. Except the above, there is nothing to appreciate in the cross examination of PW6 and at the same time her chief
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 24 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar examination is sufficient to identify the grouse of A1 towards the deceased and also to know the nature and attitude of A1.
43. The evidence of PW7 is to the effect that on 16.04.2016 at 7.45 am he along with LW17 went to Bheema Cement Quarry-2, they saw the dead body, inquest was held over said dead body and it has bleeding injury. In his evidence the inquest panchanama is marked as Ex.P2. All the injuries on the dead body, its position and cause of death are clearly mentioned in the inquest panchanama. PW7 admitted that pesticide smell found at the mouth of the deceased, but it is not a material fact to ignore his evidence. The learned defence counsel vehemently argued that the witness deposed regarding pesticide smell after the dead body was found at Bheema Cement Quarry, but as per FSL report, in the stomach contents no pesticide was found, as such the case of prosecution shall be disbelieved. Even if there is no pesticide substance in the stomach of the deceased, it is to be noted that the major cause of death of the deceased is injury beside the testicles of the deceased and also strangulation at the neck area.
Even after commission of offence, the pesticide can be kept in the mouth of the deceased to create murder as suicide. Hence, the
FSL report may be silent regarding pesticide in the stomach of the
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 25 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar deceased. Thus, the submissions of the learned defence counsel are far from truth and cannot be accepted.
44. The evidence of PW8 is regarding confession statements of
A1 to A4 and seizure of the material objects MO2 (nylon wire),
MO3 (Nokia Mobile phone), MO4 (Photo of motor cycle), MO5 (mobile phone of A2, MO6 (Mobile phone of A3), MO7 (Mobile phone of A4), MO8 (Stone) and MO9 (pesticide tin). Apart from that in his evidence, the confession statements are also marked besides the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch.
Absolutely there is nothing to discard the evidence of PW8 as he is independent witness, responsible revenue official i.e., VRO,
Ramapuram at relevant time. He is cross examined at length, but there are no important aspects to be looked into and on the other hand his evidence add strength to the prosecution case.
45. It is submitted by the learned defence counsel that basing on the confession of A1 to A4 they cannot found guilty. It is to be noted that even after excluding confessions of A1 to A4, the rest of material is sufficient to establish the offence committed on the deceased. Under sec. 27 Evidence Act, confession leading to recovery can be taken into consideration and in this case also aforementioned MO2 to MO9 are recovered at the time of
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 26 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar confessions, as such the recovery part can be used to corroborate with other liking evidence placed by the prosecution. For better clarity, section 27 of Evidence Act is extracted, it is as follows:-
46. How much of information received from accused may be proved.
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Hence, the evidence of PW8 can be considered to corroborate with other chain of circumstances leading to the death of the deceased.
47. The evidence of PW9 goes to show that on 16.04.2016 at 12.15 pm he received requisition from the police to conduct autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, accordingly he conducted PME examination and found multiple 7-8 in number abrasions present all lower abdomen each of about 12x1 cm, laceration of about 1x1x½ cm over left sided chest medial to left nipple, multiple small contusions all over upper part of medial aspect of left thigh each about 3x½ cm, multiple small contusions each of about 1x1 cm all over forehead, fracture of hyoid bone on left side, black clotted blood at anterior aspect of neck on opening the anterior side of neck and bleeding present from glance penis.
He subsequently stated that the cause of death was because of strangulation leading to asphyxia that lead to cardio respiratory
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 27 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar arrest. He stated that Ex.P7 (PME report) was issued by him. Even after cross examination of PW9, nothing is elicited to brush aside his evidence from consideration. On the other hand his evidence establish that the injuries found all are caused prior to the death of the deceased.
48. As per the submissions of learned defence counsel, PW9 could not mention the nature of the injuries, whether antemortem or post mortem and there are no extra injuries around the neck. It is true that the evidence of PW9 do not disclose nature of the injuries whether antemortem or post mortem but on consideration of Ex.P7 i.e., PME report, it is specifically mentioned therein that the time of injuries was 16 to 20 hours prior to PME, as such the said injuries found on the deceased were clearly inflected before his death and those injuries only lead to his death. Therefore, the submissions of the learned defence counsel cannot be appreciated.
49. The evidence of PW10 to PW13 is technical evidence and investigation details. PW10 is Nodal Officer, vodafone, idea mobile networks, she furnished the call details of cell no.8142256539 in the name of one Parimi Veeraiah. It is true that PW10 not attended after partial chief examination and her evidence is incomplete. Eventhough PW10 evidence is not completed, still the
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 28 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar remaining evidence in the absence of her testimony clearly bring home the role of A1 to A4 in the offence. Here as per the evidence of PW1, A1 threated him by calling to his number with the cell phone of A3. Thus, involvement of A1 and A3 is manifested. PW6 clearly stated that A4 stated her that A1 is very much interested in her. Therefore, role of A4 cannot be denied. As per recovery aspect A2 was also associated with A1. Hence, even in the absence of evidence of PW10, the remaining material robes the A1 to A4 for the murder of the deceased. Hence, failure of PW10 in not attending for further chief examination is not a point to acquit
A1 to A4.
50. The evidence of PW11 to PW13 shows that they have specifically deposed regarding receipt of complaint from PW1 on 16.04.2016 at 09.00 am, and registration of Ex.P8 (FIR), proceeding to the scene of offence and observation of the same under panchanama (Ex.P9). PW12 testified his part of investigation i.e., filing of alteration memo by changing section of law from sec.174 Cr.P.C to current offence sections, apprehension of A1 to A4, their confession and recovery, securing technical evidence i.e., call data records and role of PW14 is collection of
FSL report and filing of charge sheet.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 29 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
51. Eventhough the learned defence counsel cross examined
PW11 to PW13 at length, there is no need to discard their evidence because minor investigation lapses cannot be exonerate
A1 to A4 of their liability.
52. Chain of circumstances linking with each other started from love affair of PW6 and A1, continuing intimacy between the deceased and PW6, A1 took the phone of A3 and threatened PW1 as if the deceased would be killed by PW6 family members, A1 shown the deceased and PW6 at her house and got warned them through PW5, the incident was happened on Sri Rama Navami day, the deceased was called to rent his auto, PW1 made call to the deceased on the night of 15.04.2016, on the next day morning the dead body was found at Bheema Cement quarry-2, the same mobile phones, nylon robe, stone and pesticide tin recovered from
A1 to A4 with which the deceased killed. Hence, there is no missing link in the chain of circumstances and it is only A1 to A4 who committed offence.
53. More so, recording conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence isacceptable as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following citation i.e., Bhim Singh & Anr Vs State Of
Uttarakhand reported in AIR 2015 SC (CRI) 666 in which it is
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 30 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar held that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt can be drawn must or should be fully established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and, there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused (reiterating the principles of Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment in
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State Of Maharashtra).Moreso, burden of proof of fact especially within accused's knowledge lies on him u/s 106 of the Evidence Act as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sandeep Vs. State of UP, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 107.
54. Hence, the said evidence placed by the prosecution clearly shows that the deceased fall in love with PW6 whom A1 had intimacy earlier and A1 could not digest the relationship of the deceased and PW6 and hatched plan to eliminate the deceased, in furtherance of their pre plan, A1 took the deceased on his auto for
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 31 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar hire, then gave cool drink, made him to lose control and then tied nylon robe on the neck of the deceased and caused murder of the deceased. Inflicting the injury particularly, at the testicles part shows that cruel nature of A1 as he could not digest the deceased having intimacy with his former girl friend i.e. PW6.
55. Apart from all the above, came out from the record that except A1 to A4 there is no other person who is responsible for the death of the deceased, the said A1 to A4 as per their preplan executed moves and brutally murdered the deceased. In this matter the evaluation of oral and documentary evidence establish the role of A1 to A4 not only as per the oral testimonies of the witnesses, but also as per the documents and through the material objects.
56. The charge framed is u/sec. 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC, but the witnesses not specifically stated regarding the conspiracy, as such A1 to A4 are to be acquitted of the said charge under section 120-B IPC. At the same time, there is no specific evidence showing disappearance of the dead body by A1 to A4 after murder of the deceased, as such charge u/sec.201 IPC also fails. Hence
A1 to A4 are to be acquitted for charge u/sec.120-B and 201 IPC.
But for the common intention of A1 to A4, they could not have
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 32 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar eliminated the deceased, as such A1 to A4 are are to be brought under sec.34 IPC. Thus, the remaining charge u/sec.302 r/w. 34
IPC is successfully established against A1 to A4 and they are liable for conviction. Accordingly, A1 to A4 can be found guilty and convicted for the offence u/sec.302 IPC. In this matter, the learned defence counsel filed following citations. (1). POORANMAL
Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR reported in 2026 Live Law (SC) 227 “Panchaseel” principles governing circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and form a complete chain that excludes every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused and sec.65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic records. (2). RAVI Vs STATE OF
PUNJAB reported in (2025) to SCC Criminal 222, though Doctor opined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to hanging with ligature marks on the neck, however, in the cross – examination, he admitted that the ligature marks could be on account of the long journey of the dead body and absence of explanation, as required under sec. 106 of the Evidence Act, not material, when the prosecution itself did not discharge its initial burden of prima facie establishing the guilt of the accused. (3). SADASHIV
DHONDIRAM PATIL Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 33 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar (2025) 2 SCC Criminal page 275 (4). KALINGA ALIAS KUSHAL Vs
STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in AIR 2024 SC(Criminal) 399 and (5). RAM NIWAS Vs STATE OF HARYANA reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) page 760, on consideration of the said citations, it is very clear that the principles evolved in those matter are different and not applicable to the present facts of the case. Hence, the said citations cannot be applied.
57. For the above reasons, the points for determination are answered
(i) that the prosecution has not proved the ingredients of the offence under section 120-B and 201 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, but the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt,
(ii) that A1 to A4 cannot be found guilty and convicted for the offence under section 120-B and 201 IPC, but A1 to A4 can be found guilty and convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC,
Point No.3:-
58. In the result, A1 to A4 are not found guilty for the offence under Section u/sec.120-B and 201 r/w. 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the said offence u/sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C.
However, A1 to A4 are found guilty for the offence under Section
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 34 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar u/sec.302 r/w. 34 IPC, accordingly they are convicted for the said offence under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
Partly dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, corrected in the court computer and laptop, then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 15 TH day of May, 2026.
I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SURYAPET.
FAC: II ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
HUZURNAGAR.
59. Quantum of Sentence :-
A1: On hearing of sentence the plea of A1 is as follows:
I am unmarried and I have old aged mother who is depending on me, except me there is no other person to look after my old aged mother.
A2: On hearing of sentence the plea of A2 is as follows:
My parents are old aged and except me there is no one to look after my parents.
A3: On hearing of sentence the plea of A3 is as follows:
My sister died and her children are under my parents. There is no other person to look after the children.
A4: On hearing of sentence the plea of A4 is as follows:
My father died during my childhood and my mother is suffering from heart stroke and breast problem. There is no other person to look after my mother.
Having considered the plea of A1 to A4 regarding the sentence, for the offence under section 302 IPC the punishment is death sentence, but since it is not a rarest of the rare case as
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 35 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar per judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Bachan Singh Vs. State, the court can award life imprisonment for the said offence.
Accordingly,
A1 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
A2 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
A3 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
A4 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
Total fine amount is Rs.4,000/-. The same shall be collected and deposited in the State Exchequer. The remand period of A1 to A4 already undergone by them during crime stage i.e., from 05.05.2016 to 29.07.2016 (for A1 to A3-85 days) and for A4 from 05.05.2016 to 02.08.2016 (for A4-90 days) shall be given set off from the imprisonment awarded as above.
A1 to A4 are informed about their right to file appeal against this judgment before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 36 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar Telangana at Hyderabad. A1 to A4 are informed about their right to take free Legal Aid from Legal Services Authority. A1 to A4 received each one free copy of this judgment.
60 Property Disposal Order:
The case properties marked as MO1 to MO9, which are not valuable properties and not claimed by anyone and not having any value, the same shall be destroyed after disposal of appeal if preferred or after appeal time is completed.
I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SURYAPET.
FAC: II ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
HUZURNAGAR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
PW.1: Chatla Laxmipathi – None -- PW.2: Ch. Nagaraju PW.3: Ch. Lenin PW.4: K. Saideshwar Rao PW.5: Ch.Gopi PW.6: Chatla Madhavi PW.7: K. Jaya Raju PW.8: B. Khasim PW.9: Dr.Karun Kumar PW.10: P.Jayalaxmi PW.11: Sk.Saida PW.12: P. Madhusudhan Reddy PW.13: G. Gopi
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 37 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
Ex.P1: Complaint lodged by PW1 -NIL- Ex.P2: Inquest panchanama Ex.P3: Relevant portion of Confessional cum seizure Panchanama of A1 Ex.P4: Seizure panchanama Ex.P5: Relevant partition of Confessional cum seizure Panchanama of A2 Ex.P6: Relevant portion of Confessional cum seizure Panchanama of A3 Ex.P7: Relevant portion of Confessional cum seizure Panchanama of A4 Ex.P8: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P9: Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama Ex.P10: Rough sketch Ex.P11: PME report Ex.P12: FIR Ex.P13: Scene of offence panchanama
MATERIAL OBJECTS:
MO1: Block colour Celcon mobile MO2: Nylon wire MO3: Nokia Mobile phone, MO4: Photograph of motor cycle, MO5: Mobile phone of A2, MO6: Mobile phone of A3, MO7: Mobile phone of A4, MO8: Stone MO9: Pesticide tin
I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SURYAPET.
FAC: II ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
HUZURNAGAR.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 1 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE
HUZURNAGAR
Present: Dr.P.Siva Ram Prasad, I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet. FAC: II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar . . Friday, this the 15 th day of May, 2026
S.C.No.474 of 2022
1.Complainant:The Circle Inspector of Police, PS Kodad Rural Circle.
2.Names of the :A1. Redapangu Koteshwara Rao, accusedS/o. Venkateshwarlu, Age: 30 years, Occ: Student,
A2. Redapangu Srihari, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: Coolie,
A3. Parimi Mahesh, S/o.Veeraiah, Age:28 years, Occ: Student,
A4. Kothapally Naga Saidulu, S/o. Pedda Sathyam, Age:27 years, Occ: Painter, all are residents of Ramapuram Village, Mellachervu Mandal, Suryapet District.
3.Crime No.:Cr.No.95/2016 of P.S. Mellachervu
4.Prosecution :Sri. Bobba Koti Reddy, Addl. Public conducted by Prosecutor, Huzurnagar.
5.Defence conducted :Sri. M. Ramachandra Rao, byAdvocate, Huzurnagar.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 2 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
6.Charges :u/sec.120-B, 302 r/w Sec.34 and 201 IPC against A1 to A4.
7.Plea of the accused:A1 to A4 pleaded not guilty.
8.Finding of the Court: A1 to A4 are found guilty.
9.Sentence of order:In the result, A1 to A4 are found guilty for the offence under section 120-B, 302 r/w Sec.34 and 201 IPC, accordingly they are Convicted for the said offence under section235(2) Cr.P.C. After hearing on sentence, A1 to A4 are sentenced as follows:
A1 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
A2 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
A3 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 3 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
A4 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
The case properties marked as MO1 to MO9, which are not valuable properties and not claimed by anyone and not having any value, the same shall be destroyed after disposal of appeal if preferred or after appeal time is completed.
This case is coming up before me for final hearing and disposal on 08.05.2026 in the presence of Sri.Bobba Koti Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.M.Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for A1 to A4 and upon; perusing the material papers on record; upon considering written arguments of the learned defence counsel and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day; this Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
01. The Circle Inspector of Police, PS Kodad Rural Circle filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 in Cr.No.95/2016 of PS Mellachervu alleging offence u/sec. 120-B, 302, 201 r/w Sec.34 IPC.
Brief Facts of the Charge Sheet :- 02. The brief facts of the charge sheet are that on 16.04.2016 at 09.00 am the defacto complainant (Chatla Laxmipathi cited as
LW1, examined and referred as PW1) came to PS Mellachervu and
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 4 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar lodged complaint stating that on 15.04.2016 evening at 06.00 pm his son (Chatla Venkateswarlu herein after referred as “the deceased”), aged 21 years, auto driver, left their house to run the auto on hire, at 8.30 pm PW1 called the deceased who informed that he will return in half an hour, PW1 again called but the phone of the deceased was switch off, on 16.04.2016 at 6.30 am, the farmers while proceeding to their lands they noticed the dead body of the deceased at Bheema Cement Quarry-2 beside auto, the farmers informed the same to PW1 villagers, then PW1 along with others rushed to the said place and saw the dead body of the deceased. PW1 found pesticide smell at the dead body and noticed whole on the left testicle with oozing blood, the death was suspicious and PW1 lodged the said complaint to take action.
03. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that basing on the complaint of PW1, initially LW24 (Sk. Saida, Head Constable, PS
Mellachervu, examined and referred as PW11) registered the crime under section 174 Cr.P.C. (suspicious death) vide FIR No.95 of 2016 and investigation taken up after dispatch of FIR to the authorities. During investigation by PW11, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses namely PW1, LW2 (Chatla
Veeramma i.e. mother of the deceased-given up), LW3 (Chatla
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 5 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar Venkatramulu-cousin of the deceased, examined and referred as
PW2), LW5 (Chadapangu Lenin–relative of the deceased-examined and referred as PW3), LW6 (K.Saideshwar Rao-witness-examined and referred as PW4). Then PW11 visited the scene of offence i.e., Bheema Cement Quarry-2 at the outskirts of Revoor Village, observed the scene of offence and dead body of the deceased and taken the photos. PW11 conducted the scene of offence panchanama by securing panchas i.e., LW16 (K.Jaya Raju- examined and referred as PW7) and LW17 (V.Veera Babu-not examined) and also drawn the rough sketch. Then inquest were held over the dead body of the deceased in presence of said panchas. PW11 sent the dead body of the deceased to Area
Hospital, Huzurnagar for PME, Dr. S. Karun Kumar, (LW20/PW9-
Civil Assistant Surgeon) preserved the visera contents for chemical analysis and reserved his opinion pending FSL report and as per the statement of PW1, he strongly suspected A1 as he fallen in love with one Chatla Madhavi (cited as LW15, examined and referred as PW6) whom the deceased met earlier.
04. While so, PW9 issued PME report that the cause of death of the deceased was due to strangulation leading to asphyxia caused cardio respiratory arrest and the said report disclosed injuries over
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 6 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar the dead body i.e., (i) multiple grazed abrasions at lower abdomen, (ii) laceration over the left side scrotum, (iii) contusion over left side chest medial to left nipple, (iv) multiple small contusions on upper part of medial aspect of left thing, (v) multiple small contusions on forehead and fracture of hyoid bone on left, black clotted blood at anterior aspect of neck, bleeding from glens penis, the same discloses causing injuries to the deceased and killing him by strangulation.
05. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that basing on the said
PME report, PW11 altered section of law from Sec.174 Cr.P.C. to
Sec.302 IPC and filed section alteration memo, further investigation was taken up by LW25 (P.Madhusudhan Reddy,
Circle Inspector of Police, Kodad Rural Circle, examined and referred as PW12) as the offence is grave in nature. During investigation PW12 collected phone calls data (CDR) of the deceased and suspect i.e., A1 and also PW1, based on the same
A1 was identified as suspect, hence PW12 deputed staff to apprehend him, accordingly on 05.05.2016, PW11 apprehended
A1 and produced before PW12, on interrogation A1 confessed the offence. Accordingly, PW12 secured two official panchas (LW18-
B.Khasim, VRO Kandibanda-examined and referred as PW8),
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 7 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar LW19 (Chatla Nageshwara Rao-VRO, Ramapuram Village-not examined) in the presence of the said panchas A1 confessed to have killed the deceased along with his friends Redapangu Srihari (A2), Parimi Mahesh (A3), Kothapally Naga Saidulu (A4) and they killed him as A1 fall in love with PW6 (Chatla Madhavi) and they decided to marry, but the deceased also fall in love with her and developed illicit intimacy, accordingly PW12 apprehended A2 to A4 and got recorded the confession statements of A1 to A4.
06. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that during his confession A1 specifically mentioned that he fall in love with PW6, then went to Hyderabad for computer classes, while so the deceased developed illicit intimacy with her and did not change his attitude though warned, so A1 decided to eliminate the deceased, he planned the murder along with A2 to A4, thus they called the deceased on plea to provide auto for hire, then they mixed intoxic pills in cool drink and given it to the deceased, then committed his murder by pouring insecticide poison in the mouth and killed the deceased by strangulation with rope and thrown the dead body in
Bheema Cement Quarry. According to the plan which they prepared for murder of the deceased, they implemented the same. Owing to the confession of A1, PW11 seized the cell phone
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 8 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar and the remaining A2 to A4 were also apprehended and they too have also confessed the offence in similar way and in all nylon wire, four mobile phones, stone, pesticide tin are seized from them. Then, A1 to A4 lead the police to the scene of offence i.e.,
NSP field canal where separate scene of offence panchanama was prepared. Then PW12 recorded the statements of the remaining witnesses LW7 (Chatla Gopi-PW5), LW8 to LW14 (not examined in the court). PW12 secured the cell phone of PW6 and also obtained her call data from the service provider and after completion of entire investigation charge sheet is filed by PW13 due to transfer of PW12. Hence, the charge.
Cognizance:-
07. The charge sheet in this matter is filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar. The said
Court has taken on file this case for the offence punishable under sec. 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A4. After taking cognizance, the case is registered as PRC No.30 of 2018 and issued summons to A1 to A4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Huzurnagar found prima facie case for the offence
punishable under Sec.120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC and as the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 9 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar committal court has committed the case to the Court of Hon'ble
Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda under Section 209 (a) of Cr.P.C.
08.The Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge,
Nalgonda has numbered the case as SC No.84/2019 and
made over the same to VIII Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Miryalaguda for disposal according to law.
Subsequently the same case is made over to I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Suryapet. Again as per orders of
Hon’ble Prl, District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet, the
case is transferred to this court (II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar) on point of jurisdiction. At
the respective courts, on appearance of A1 to A4, copies of the case records relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C at the committal court.
Framing of Charge :-
09. On hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A1 to A4, they were examined under sec.228
Cr.P.C for the offence under sec.120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 IPCand the accusation against them is explained in their language to A1 to
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 10 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar A4, then they all denied the said accusation. As per the material on record there is prime-facie case against A1 to A4 to frame charge, accordingly charge for the offence under sec.120-B, 302 r/w 34 and 201 IPC was framed against A1 to A4 and the said charge was read over and explained to them in their language.
Having understood the charge, A1 to A4 denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As per the request of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A1 to
A4, trial schedule is given and witnesses are produced and examined. A1 to A4 engaged their counsel and their counsel defended them throughout the proceedings in this case at all the courts from the stage of crime to till the stage of arguments.
Witnesses Examined:-
10. On behalf of the prosecution, as per charge sheet, the list of witnesses cited are LW1 to LW26. Out of said witnesses, LW1,
LW4 to LW7, LW15, LW16, LW18 to LW20, LW24 to LW26 are examined as PW1 to PW13. The witnesses LW3, LW8 to LW14,
LW17 not examined and their evidence was closed. LW21 to LW23 evidence was given-up by the prosecution. Besides examination of
PW1 to PW13, the prosecution got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 documents and produced material objects i.e., MO1 to MO9.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 11 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar 313 Cr.P.C. Examination:-
11. After completion of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to them in their language. Having understood the same, A1 to A4 denied the evidence as false and further stated that they have no defence evidence.
Arguments:-
12. Learned Addl. PP submitted oral arguments whereas learned defence counsel filed written arguments and the same are perused along with the entire record. In his arguments, the Addl. PP repeated the contents of charge sheet and he submitted that all the witnesses supported prosecution case during Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements and also during their evidence before the court and there are no contradictions or omissions to eschew the same. He prays to convict A1 to A4.
13. On the other hand the learned defence counsel mentioned that the witnesses not supported the prosecution case. He prays to acquit A1 to A4 for the charge framed against them. The other arguments of the learned counsel on both sides and citations filed are discussed at the relevant point.
Points for Determination:-
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 12 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
14. Now the points for determination are:
(i) whether the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence under sec.120-B, 302 r/w 34 and 201 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
(ii) whether A1 to A4 can be found guilty and convicted for the offence under sec.120-B, 302 r/w 34 and 201 IPC?
(iii) to what result?
Findings on Points :-
15. After considering oral arguments of learned Addl. PP and the written arguments of learned defence counsel, on consideration of the entire material on record, it is very clear that the offence alleged against A1 to A4 is under sec.120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC, which is grave in nature and to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
16. In this context, the entireevidence placed by the prosecution is oral evidence of PW1 to PW13, the documents Ex.P1 to P10 and the material objects MO1 to MO9.
17. The defacto complainant (PW1) is none other than the father of the deceased and on his complaint (Ex.P1), the criminal law in this case is set to motion and the said complaint lead to the murder of the deceased during probe into the cause of death and the events unearthed during investigation.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 13 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar 18. Primary contention of the learned defence counsel is that even according to PW1 under Ex.P1, he has not suspected any of
A1 to A4, not suspected them and there was no other person responsible for the murder of the deceased as per Ex.P1. It is vehemently argued that FIR (Ex.P8) do not disclose names of A1 to A4 and the case is initially registered as suspicious death, A1 to
A4 are falsely implicated.
19. At the outset it is to be kept in mind that FIR is not an encyclopedia to contain each and every detail of the incident. PW1 might have not suspected A1 to A4 soon after he identified the dead body of the deceased, but it is not a ground to consider the case of the prosecution in a doubtful manner. However, PW1 clearly mentioned in Ex.P1 itself that the death of the deceased is unnatural and he has strong suspicion. It is due to his complaint (Ex.P1) investigation conducted and commission of murder of the deceased came to light by examining the witnesses and collection of evidence during the investigation. The Hon’ble Apex Court time and again reiterated that FIR is not an encyclopedia.
20. Even recently in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
Surjit Singh alias Gurmit Singh vs State of Punjab clearly held
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 14 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar " In this situation the aforesaid misdescription / omissions in the FIR about the number of shots fired and the absence of Taljit Singh's injuries or the appellant being not described as a military man become of lesser importance. FIR is not an encyclopedia
of the entire case and is even not a substantive piece of
evidence. It has value, no doubt, but only for the purpose
of corroborating or contradicting the maker. Here the maker was a young woman who had lost her husband before her very eyes. The misdescription / omission of these details in the FIR which was recorded most promptly, within three hours of the occurrence, would not doubt on the prosecution case or the statements of the eye-witnesses with regard to the participation of the appellant in the crime. …" 21. Now coming to the evidence of PW1 in the court, he deposed that he has one daughter and one son (deceased), his daughter doing nursing at Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad, whereas the deceased runs auto, on 15.04.2016 the deceased left their house at 6.00 pm to run the auto, at about 8.30 pm, PW1 called him and the deceased replied, he will return in half an hour, later his phone was switched off.
22. PW1 specifically deposed that on 16.04.2016 at 06.30 am, his villagers came to know through Revuvu Villagers that dead body was found at Bheema Cement Quarry-2, on that he went there and identified the dead body as his son. PW1 specifically stated that he felt pesticide smell from the dead body, he saw one
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 15 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar whole on left side testicle of the dead body with bleeding and due to suspicion he lodged the complaint (Ex.P1).
23. Further PW1 clearly deposed that on 14.04.2016 at 08.30 pm he received a call from mobile number 8142256539, one unknown person told that the deceased moving with PW6 and her family members may kill him at any time, while he was asking his details, the caller disconnected the phone. Further PW1 clearly deposed that on his enquiry he came to know that it was the cell number of A3 who gave his phone to A1, it was A1 who called
PW1 through the said phone and he also came to know that 10 days before the death A1 show the deceased and PW6 to her brother (PW5) who warned the deceased. Thus, PW1 finally stated that A1 to A4 killed his son by strangulation after giving sleeping pills, they beat him with stone on testicles.
24. The learned defence counsel cross examined PW1 wherein he clearly stated that on his narration, his brother Masthan scribed the complaint. It is suggested that the said scribe not endorsed as it was drafted by him, PW1 admitted the same, but PW1 clearly stated that on his narration the complaint was prepared, therefore the signature of scribe is not necessary.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 16 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
25. During his cross, PW1 admitted that there was gap between the bottom of the complaint and his signature, but the said gap is not a point to be considered cause at end of the contents in the complaint there was prayer of PW1 to conduct enquiry and rendered justice to him. Thus, the gap left in the complaint cannot be taken into consideration to doubt lodging of said complaint by
PW1.
26. In-fact, PW1 is none other than the father of the deceased and there is nothing to suspect regarding lodging of complaint by
PW1 after he saw the dead body of his son on 16.04.2016. More so, the dead body was identified by the Villagers of Revuru at 06.30 am near Bheema Cement Quarry-2, immediately they gave information to the Villagers of PW1, immediately PW1 rushed there, identified the dead body as belongs to his son and lodged complaint within no time i.e., on 16.04.2016 at 09.00 am.
27. This discussion shows that the evidence of PW1 is completely reliable and trustworthy and there is no proper cross examination to shake the veracity of PW1. PW1 is cross examined regarding phone call received before 2 days of the complaint and also threat of PW5 to the deceased not come again to the house of PW6, but these aspects in the cross examination add strength to the case of
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 17 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar prosecution, but not favour to A1 to A4 in any way. By looking into the cross examination of PW1, it can be said that there is no specific defence taken by A1 to A4 and there are no contradictions or omissions to discard the evidence of PW1 and his complaint (Ex.P1).
28. The learned defence counsel argued that as per admission of
PW1, it was PW5 who threatened the deceased, but there was no treat by A1. Eventhough, PW5 alleged to have threatened the deceased, there was sufficient evidence to show that A1 himself took PW5 to the house of PW6 while the deceased was in her house. Hence, threat of PW5 to the deceased cannot be considered and the same shows strong motive of A1 but not the motive of PW5 to eliminate the deceased.
29. In fact the cross examination of PW1 is mostly suicidal because it is elicited that the deceased spent expenditure for the surgery of PW6. It was suggested that the deceased called PW1 and stated that he is committing suicide because the relationship of the deceased with PW6 was not accepted by PW1. In any way
A1 to A4 tried to show the death of the deceased as suicide, but the medical evidence is otherwise. Hence, no useful purpose
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 18 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar served even after cross examination of PW1 and the evidence of
PW1 is highly reliable and trustworthy.
30. Now coming to PW2, his evidence reveal that on 15.04.2016 at 10.00 pm, he received call from PW1 enquiring about the deceased, he replied he do not know, on the next day they found the dead body of the deceased at Revuru second quarry. He clearly stated that PW1 informed about receiving a call and he was warned that Chalta people may kill the deceased, on enquiry the call was received from the phone of A3 and warned by A1. He specifically stated that the deceased and PW6 were seen by A1 in a room, A1 brought PW5 and they threatened the deceased not to meet her again. The learned defence counsel cross examined PW2 in which it was elicited that the alleged relationship of the deceased and PW6 known to PW2 also. This part of cross examination is showing the motive of A1 and particularly reveal that the deceased and PW6 were in a relationship, which was not digested by A1 and this was the reason for the incident.
31. PW3 deposed in the same lines with that of PW2 and on enquiry by PW1 about the deceased he expressed that he do not know and on the next day they found the dead body of the deceased at Bheema Cement Quarry, they all went and saw the
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 19 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar same. He too deposed that PW1 informed A1 threatened him as
PW6 moving closely with deceased and the deceased may be killed by her family members. Cross examination of PW3 goes to show that he is son-in-law of PW1 brother, but the said relationship is not a point to be considered because not only for PW1 but for the family members it is quite natural to call the near and dear and ask whereabouts of his son. Except regarding the relationship, nothing was brought from PW3 through cross examination. On the other hand, it is elicited that the Villagers know about the love affair of the deceased and PW6. Hence, there are no important points to be considered from the cross examination of PW3, however the evidence of PW3 established the intimacy between the deceased and PW6.
32. PW4 specifically deposed that on 16.04.2016 at 06.30 am through Villagers he came to know about the dead body, they all went to Bheema Cement Quarry and identified that he was son of
PW1 and also observed a whole to the left side of the testicles with bleeding. It is to be noted that there was no cross examination by A1 to A4, no suggestions were also given to him and his evidence is remained unchallenged. There are no reasons to discard the same.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 20 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar 33. The crucial witness for the entire prosecution case is PW5 who deposed that PW6 is his cousin. He deposed that one month prior to the incident A1 stopped him and asked him to enquire
PW6 as to who was present in her house, accordingly PW5 asked
PW6 and she replied none present, A1 opened the doors and the deceased was inside. Then PW5 admonished the deceased.
34. This particular incident was happened one month prior to the death of the deceased and goes to show that A1 waylaid and watch the movements of the deceased and also intentionally got admonished the deceased through PW5 since the others will suspect the family of PW6 in the event of deceased killed afterwards. Hence, the evidence of PW5 is completely sufficient to identify involvement, motive and preplan along with guilty intention of A1 for eliminating the deceased as he could not digest the intimacy among the deceased and PW6.
35. While cross examination of Pw5,A1 to A4 came up with a new defence that when the relationship between PW6 and deceased is prohibited, the Villagers believe that it is harmful to the Village. Even though PW5 was cross examined in those lines, nothing is further elicited that in particular Villagers identified the deceased and eliminated him. Moreso, none of the other witnesses
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 21 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar are cross examined in said line. When the total circumstances to the death of the deceased point towards A1 to A4, it is not possible to consider that the villagers murdered the deceased due to prohibited relationship among the deceased and PW6. Hence, even after consideration of the said plea also, it has no water to say that A1 does not involve in the offence.
36. PW5 is also cross examined regarding the disputes among
PW1 and the deceased, but it is very clear that PW1 even before the death of his son he made enquiries, he called the deceased and he rushed to the dead body on information of Villagers.
Hence, PW1 cannot be suspected as responsible person for the death of the deceased. In-fact, on reading the evidence of PW1, it shows he do not aware of the illicit intimacy between the deceased and PW6. Hence, by any stretch of imagination PW1 cannot be doubted for the murder of the deceased.
37. Now coming to the evidence of very important witness i.e.,
PW6, it is admitted fact that initially A1 and PW6 fall in love and subsequently the deceased developed relationship with her. It is to be noted that both A1 and deceased are interested in PW6 and they all belong to the same Village.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 22 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
38. It is version of A1 that the intimacy of PW6 and the deceased was among prohibited relation, but it is to be noted that A1 himself took PW5 (brother of PW6) while PW6 and the deceased were together at her house. How PW6 and the deceased maintained intimacy among prohibited relation, it is not matter for discussion, but the fact is that the deceased and PW6 were having close intimacy. Therefore, the said intimacy is the main motive of
A1 to eliminate the deceased. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution deposed the said fact clearly and none of the witnesses turned hostile in this case.
39. In her own words, PW6 completely supported the prosecution case and she admitted that she failed 10th class, she attended coolie work along with her mother, her two elder sisters are marred, she do not have television, so she used to go to the house of Masthan, where she was acquainted with A1.
40. PW6specifically testified that she and A1 loved each other, after two years A1 refused to marry her saying she had two sisters, her parents do not have properties, if he marry her, he shall look after her parents. She further deposed that her mother used to collect mirchi (chillies) in the auto of the deceased, one day the deceased came to her house and asked to give her
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 23 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar father’s aadhar card to take sim card, then A1 and PW5 came, they questioned her why the deceased was in her house. She replied that the deceased came to take aadhar card, A1 caught hold her hair and tried to beat her, then the deceased and A1 quarreled with each other. She deposed that PW5 asked them to go away and then A1 sent message that he cannot live without her, not maintaining good health and became sick, the same was told to her by friend of A1 i.e., A4 also.
41. PW6 further stated that she informed the intention of A1 to the deceased, but the deceased was at Revuru as he went on auto for hire, on the next day A1 stated that he do not want her and scolded her to marry the deceased. While so the Villagers were murmuring that the deceased was no more.
42. In the evidence of PW6 she specifically identified A1 and A4 and she surrendered her cell phone to the police i.e., MO1. In the cross examination also PW6 specifically stated that she loved the deceased and she denied that their intimacy was in prohibited relationship for marriage. The father of the deceased and PW5 do not like the same. Except the above, there is nothing to appreciate in the cross examination of PW6 and at the same time her chief
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 24 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar examination is sufficient to identify the grouse of A1 towards the deceased and also to know the nature and attitude of A1.
43. The evidence of PW7 is to the effect that on 16.04.2016 at 7.45 am he along with LW17 went to Bheema Cement Quarry-2, they saw the dead body, inquest was held over said dead body and it has bleeding injury. In his evidence the inquest panchanama is marked as Ex.P2. All the injuries on the dead body, its position and cause of death are clearly mentioned in the inquest panchanama. PW7 admitted that pesticide smell found at the mouth of the deceased, but it is not a material fact to ignore his evidence. The learned defence counsel vehemently argued that the witness deposed regarding pesticide smell after the dead body was found at Bheema Cement Quarry, but as per FSL report, in the stomach contents no pesticide was found, as such the case of prosecution shall be disbelieved. Even if there is no pesticide substance in the stomach of the deceased, it is to be noted that the major cause of death of the deceased is injury beside the testicles of the deceased and also strangulation at the neck area.
Even after commission of offence, the pesticide can be kept in the mouth of the deceased to create murder as suicide. Hence, the
FSL report may be silent regarding pesticide in the stomach of the
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 25 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar deceased. Thus, the submissions of the learned defence counsel are far from truth and cannot be accepted.
44. The evidence of PW8 is regarding confession statements of
A1 to A4 and seizure of the material objects MO2 (nylon wire),
MO3 (Nokia Mobile phone), MO4 (Photo of motor cycle), MO5 (mobile phone of A2, MO6 (Mobile phone of A3), MO7 (Mobile phone of A4), MO8 (Stone) and MO9 (pesticide tin). Apart from that in his evidence, the confession statements are also marked besides the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch.
Absolutely there is nothing to discard the evidence of PW8 as he is independent witness, responsible revenue official i.e., VRO,
Ramapuram at relevant time. He is cross examined at length, but there are no important aspects to be looked into and on the other hand his evidence add strength to the prosecution case.
45. It is submitted by the learned defence counsel that basing on the confession of A1 to A4 they cannot found guilty. It is to be noted that even after excluding confessions of A1 to A4, the rest of material is sufficient to establish the offence committed on the deceased. Under sec. 27 Evidence Act, confession leading to recovery can be taken into consideration and in this case also aforementioned MO2 to MO9 are recovered at the time of
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 26 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar confessions, as such the recovery part can be used to corroborate with other liking evidence placed by the prosecution. For better clarity, section 27 of Evidence Act is extracted, it is as follows:-
46. How much of information received from accused may be proved.
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Hence, the evidence of PW8 can be considered to corroborate with other chain of circumstances leading to the death of the deceased.
47. The evidence of PW9 goes to show that on 16.04.2016 at 12.15 pm he received requisition from the police to conduct autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, accordingly he conducted PME examination and found multiple 7-8 in number abrasions present all lower abdomen each of about 12x1 cm, laceration of about 1x1x½ cm over left sided chest medial to left nipple, multiple small contusions all over upper part of medial aspect of left thigh each about 3x½ cm, multiple small contusions each of about 1x1 cm all over forehead, fracture of hyoid bone on left side, black clotted blood at anterior aspect of neck on opening the anterior side of neck and bleeding present from glance penis.
He subsequently stated that the cause of death was because of strangulation leading to asphyxia that lead to cardio respiratory
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 27 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar arrest. He stated that Ex.P7 (PME report) was issued by him. Even after cross examination of PW9, nothing is elicited to brush aside his evidence from consideration. On the other hand his evidence establish that the injuries found all are caused prior to the death of the deceased.
48. As per the submissions of learned defence counsel, PW9 could not mention the nature of the injuries, whether antemortem or post mortem and there are no extra injuries around the neck. It is true that the evidence of PW9 do not disclose nature of the injuries whether antemortem or post mortem but on consideration of Ex.P7 i.e., PME report, it is specifically mentioned therein that the time of injuries was 16 to 20 hours prior to PME, as such the said injuries found on the deceased were clearly inflected before his death and those injuries only lead to his death. Therefore, the submissions of the learned defence counsel cannot be appreciated.
49. The evidence of PW10 to PW13 is technical evidence and investigation details. PW10 is Nodal Officer, vodafone, idea mobile networks, she furnished the call details of cell no.8142256539 in the name of one Parimi Veeraiah. It is true that PW10 not attended after partial chief examination and her evidence is incomplete. Eventhough PW10 evidence is not completed, still the
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 28 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar remaining evidence in the absence of her testimony clearly bring home the role of A1 to A4 in the offence. Here as per the evidence of PW1, A1 threated him by calling to his number with the cell phone of A3. Thus, involvement of A1 and A3 is manifested. PW6 clearly stated that A4 stated her that A1 is very much interested in her. Therefore, role of A4 cannot be denied. As per recovery aspect A2 was also associated with A1. Hence, even in the absence of evidence of PW10, the remaining material robes the A1 to A4 for the murder of the deceased. Hence, failure of PW10 in not attending for further chief examination is not a point to acquit
A1 to A4.
50. The evidence of PW11 to PW13 shows that they have specifically deposed regarding receipt of complaint from PW1 on 16.04.2016 at 09.00 am, and registration of Ex.P8 (FIR), proceeding to the scene of offence and observation of the same under panchanama (Ex.P9). PW12 testified his part of investigation i.e., filing of alteration memo by changing section of law from sec.174 Cr.P.C to current offence sections, apprehension of A1 to A4, their confession and recovery, securing technical evidence i.e., call data records and role of PW14 is collection of
FSL report and filing of charge sheet.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 29 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
51. Eventhough the learned defence counsel cross examined
PW11 to PW13 at length, there is no need to discard their evidence because minor investigation lapses cannot be exonerate
A1 to A4 of their liability.
52. Chain of circumstances linking with each other started from love affair of PW6 and A1, continuing intimacy between the deceased and PW6, A1 took the phone of A3 and threatened PW1 as if the deceased would be killed by PW6 family members, A1 shown the deceased and PW6 at her house and got warned them through PW5, the incident was happened on Sri Rama Navami day, the deceased was called to rent his auto, PW1 made call to the deceased on the night of 15.04.2016, on the next day morning the dead body was found at Bheema Cement quarry-2, the same mobile phones, nylon robe, stone and pesticide tin recovered from
A1 to A4 with which the deceased killed. Hence, there is no missing link in the chain of circumstances and it is only A1 to A4 who committed offence.
53. More so, recording conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence isacceptable as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following citation i.e., Bhim Singh & Anr Vs State Of
Uttarakhand reported in AIR 2015 SC (CRI) 666 in which it is
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 30 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar held that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt can be drawn must or should be fully established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and, there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused (reiterating the principles of Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment in
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State Of Maharashtra).Moreso, burden of proof of fact especially within accused's knowledge lies on him u/s 106 of the Evidence Act as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sandeep Vs. State of UP, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 107.
54. Hence, the said evidence placed by the prosecution clearly shows that the deceased fall in love with PW6 whom A1 had intimacy earlier and A1 could not digest the relationship of the deceased and PW6 and hatched plan to eliminate the deceased, in furtherance of their pre plan, A1 took the deceased on his auto for
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 31 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar hire, then gave cool drink, made him to lose control and then tied nylon robe on the neck of the deceased and caused murder of the deceased. Inflicting the injury particularly, at the testicles part shows that cruel nature of A1 as he could not digest the deceased having intimacy with his former girl friend i.e. PW6.
55. Apart from all the above, came out from the record that except A1 to A4 there is no other person who is responsible for the death of the deceased, the said A1 to A4 as per their preplan executed moves and brutally murdered the deceased. In this matter the evaluation of oral and documentary evidence establish the role of A1 to A4 not only as per the oral testimonies of the witnesses, but also as per the documents and through the material objects.
56. The charge framed is u/sec. 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC, but the witnesses not specifically stated regarding the conspiracy, as such A1 to A4 are to be acquitted of the said charge under section 120-B IPC. At the same time, there is no specific evidence showing disappearance of the dead body by A1 to A4 after murder of the deceased, as such charge u/sec.201 IPC also fails. Hence
A1 to A4 are to be acquitted for charge u/sec.120-B and 201 IPC.
But for the common intention of A1 to A4, they could not have
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 32 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar eliminated the deceased, as such A1 to A4 are are to be brought under sec.34 IPC. Thus, the remaining charge u/sec.302 r/w. 34
IPC is successfully established against A1 to A4 and they are liable for conviction. Accordingly, A1 to A4 can be found guilty and convicted for the offence u/sec.302 IPC. In this matter, the learned defence counsel filed following citations. (1). POORANMAL
Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR reported in 2026 Live Law (SC) 227 “Panchaseel” principles governing circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and form a complete chain that excludes every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused and sec.65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic records. (2). RAVI Vs STATE OF
PUNJAB reported in (2025) to SCC Criminal 222, though Doctor opined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to hanging with ligature marks on the neck, however, in the cross – examination, he admitted that the ligature marks could be on account of the long journey of the dead body and absence of explanation, as required under sec. 106 of the Evidence Act, not material, when the prosecution itself did not discharge its initial burden of prima facie establishing the guilt of the accused. (3). SADASHIV
DHONDIRAM PATIL Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 33 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar (2025) 2 SCC Criminal page 275 (4). KALINGA ALIAS KUSHAL Vs
STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in AIR 2024 SC(Criminal) 399 and (5). RAM NIWAS Vs STATE OF HARYANA reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) page 760, on consideration of the said citations, it is very clear that the principles evolved in those matter are different and not applicable to the present facts of the case. Hence, the said citations cannot be applied.
57. For the above reasons, the points for determination are answered
(i) that the prosecution has not proved the ingredients of the offence under section 120-B and 201 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, but the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt,
(ii) that A1 to A4 cannot be found guilty and convicted for the offence under section 120-B and 201 IPC, but A1 to A4 can be found guilty and convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC,
Point No.3:-
58. In the result, A1 to A4 are not found guilty for the offence under Section u/sec.120-B and 201 r/w. 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the said offence u/sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C.
However, A1 to A4 are found guilty for the offence under Section
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 34 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar u/sec.302 r/w. 34 IPC, accordingly they are convicted for the said offence under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
Partly dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, corrected in the court computer and laptop, then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 15 TH day of May, 2026.
I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SURYAPET.
FAC: II ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
HUZURNAGAR.
59. Quantum of Sentence :-
A1: On hearing of sentence the plea of A1 is as follows:
I am unmarried and I have old aged mother who is depending on me, except me there is no other person to look after my old aged mother.
A2: On hearing of sentence the plea of A2 is as follows:
My parents are old aged and except me there is no one to look after my parents.
A3: On hearing of sentence the plea of A3 is as follows:
My sister died and her children are under my parents. There is no other person to look after the children.
A4: On hearing of sentence the plea of A4 is as follows:
My father died during my childhood and my mother is suffering from heart stroke and breast problem. There is no other person to look after my mother.
Having considered the plea of A1 to A4 regarding the sentence, for the offence under section 302 IPC the punishment is death sentence, but since it is not a rarest of the rare case as
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 35 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar per judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Bachan Singh Vs. State, the court can award life imprisonment for the said offence.
Accordingly,
A1 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
A2 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
A3 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
A4 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
Total fine amount is Rs.4,000/-. The same shall be collected and deposited in the State Exchequer. The remand period of A1 to A4 already undergone by them during crime stage i.e., from 05.05.2016 to 29.07.2016 (for A1 to A3-85 days) and for A4 from 05.05.2016 to 02.08.2016 (for A4-90 days) shall be given set off from the imprisonment awarded as above.
A1 to A4 are informed about their right to file appeal against this judgment before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 36 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar Telangana at Hyderabad. A1 to A4 are informed about their right to take free Legal Aid from Legal Services Authority. A1 to A4 received each one free copy of this judgment.
60 Property Disposal Order:
The case properties marked as MO1 to MO9, which are not valuable properties and not claimed by anyone and not having any value, the same shall be destroyed after disposal of appeal if preferred or after appeal time is completed.
I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SURYAPET.
FAC: II ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
HUZURNAGAR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
PW.1: Chatla Laxmipathi – None -- PW.2: Ch. Nagaraju PW.3: Ch. Lenin PW.4: K. Saideshwar Rao PW.5: Ch.Gopi PW.6: Chatla Madhavi PW.7: K. Jaya Raju PW.8: B. Khasim PW.9: Dr.Karun Kumar PW.10: P.Jayalaxmi PW.11: Sk.Saida PW.12: P. Madhusudhan Reddy PW.13: G. Gopi
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 37 of 37 Judgment in SC.No. 474 of 2022 dt 15-05-2026 II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
Ex.P1: Complaint lodged by PW1 -NIL- Ex.P2: Inquest panchanama Ex.P3: Relevant portion of Confessional cum seizure Panchanama of A1 Ex.P4: Seizure panchanama Ex.P5: Relevant partition of Confessional cum seizure Panchanama of A2 Ex.P6: Relevant portion of Confessional cum seizure Panchanama of A3 Ex.P7: Relevant portion of Confessional cum seizure Panchanama of A4 Ex.P8: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P9: Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama Ex.P10: Rough sketch Ex.P11: PME report Ex.P12: FIR Ex.P13: Scene of offence panchanama
MATERIAL OBJECTS:
MO1: Block colour Celcon mobile MO2: Nylon wire MO3: Nokia Mobile phone, MO4: Photograph of motor cycle, MO5: Mobile phone of A2, MO6: Mobile phone of A3, MO7: Mobile phone of A4, MO8: Stone MO9: Pesticide tin
I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SURYAPET.
FAC: II ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
HUZURNAGAR.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 1 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT &SESSIONS
JUDGE AT HUZURNAGAR
Present: Dr.P.Siva Ram Prasad, I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet. FAC: II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar
Friday, this the 08th day of May, 2026
S.C. No. 478 of 2022
1.Complainant:The Circle Inspector of Police PS Huzurnagar Circle.
2.Names of the :A1.Yedipala Papi Reddy, S/o.Linga accusedReddy, Age: 38 years,
A2.Yedipala Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Age: 35 years,
A3.Yedipala Upender Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Age: 29 years,
A4.Yedipala Saidi Reddy, S/o.Linga Reddy, Age: 42 years,
All are agriculturists, R/o. Ponugode village of Garidepally Mandal, Suryapet District.
3.Crime No.:Cr.No.138/2015 of P.S.Garidepally
4.Prosecution :Sri. Bobba Koti Reddy, Addl. Public conducted by Prosecutor, Huzurnagar.
5.Defence conducted :Sri. M. Ramachandra Rao, by Advocate, Suryapet.
6.Charges :u/sec.302, 201 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A4.
7.Plea of the accused:A1 to A4 pleaded not guilty.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 2 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022
8.Finding of the court: A1 to A4 are found guilty.
9.Sentence of order:In the result, A1 to A4 are found guilty for the offence under section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC, IPC accordingly they are Convicted for the said offence under section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
This case is coming up before me for final hearing and disposal on 01.05.2026 in the presence of Sri.Bobba Koti Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.M.Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for A1 to A4 and upon; perusing the material papers on record; upon considering written arguments on both sides and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day; this Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
01. The Circle Inspector of Police, PS Huzurnagar Circle filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 in Cr.No.138/2015 of PS
Garidepally alleging offence u/sec.302, 201 r/w 34 IPC.
Brief Averments of the Charge Sheet :- 02. The brief averments of the charge sheet are Yedipala Veera
Reddy (referred as “the deceased”) was brutally killed by A1 to A4 on 19.07.2015 at 20.00 hours (8.00 pm) at Ponugode reservoir in the outskirts of Ponugode village by beating with two iron rods on head, cut the throat and then caused disappearance of his dead body.
03. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that on 20.07.2015 at 11.00 am, the defacto complaint namely Yedipala Veera Bhaskar
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 3 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022
Reddy (cited as LW1 examined and referred as PW1) lodged complaint stating that on 19.07.2015 at 17.30 hours, his father (the deceased) went to their agricultural land near Agraharam, located on the left canal, his father used to consume toddy, attend agricultural works and returned to the house between 7.30 to 08.00 pm. At 19.15 hours PW1 called his father’s mobile (deceased) and asked the deceased who replied that he is at agricultural land and he will return after switch off motor, but the deceased did not return even after 09.00 pm. Hence, PW1 again rang the mobile of the deceased, but it was not reachable, due to suspicion he proceeded to the agricultural land and searched for the deceased, but he was not found. It is mentioned that PW1 returned to home and informed missing of the deceased to his elder sister and her husband, they all again searched, on the next day they have enquired relatives, but the deceased was not traced. Then, PW1 lodged the complaint, basing on the which the present case came to be registered as man missing case and investigation is taken up.
04. During the investigation, PW8 (LW14/Sk. Pentu, ASI of Police,
Garidepally) recorded the statement of PW1 and LW2 (Yedipala
Ramulamma (wife of deceased) not examined). PW8 issued notice
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 4 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022 and got published the details of the deceased in Police Stations at
Andhra and Telangana States. While so, on 21.07.2015 at 17.00 hours (5.00 pm) PW8 received information that a male dead body found at Ponugode reservoir in gunny bag decomposed state, immediately he proceeded and informed to PW1 and his family members who reached the spot and identified the dead body as that of the deceased (Yedipala Veera Reddy). Basing on the identification of the dead body, PW8 got altered the section of law to sec.302, 201 IPC, filed memo in the court and handed over the investigation to PW9 (LW5/Chanda Venkat Reddy, CI of Police,
Miryalaguda Rural i.e., in charge CI of Police for Huzurnagar
Circle).
05. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that PW9 examined PW1 and then he disclosed suspicion on A1 to A4 for murder of the deceased. PW9 involved clues team and proceeded to Ponugode reservoir on 22.07.2015, got gunny bag on to the ground and opened. The dead body inside is having two injuries on head, tongue outside, cutting of throat, then PW9 examined LW2 (wife of the deceased), PW2 (LW3/daughter of the deceased), PW3 (LW4 who saw dead body of the deceased first) and PW4 (LW5) meanwhile clues team efforts continued to trace incriminating
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 5 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022 material. PW9 got conducted enquiry over the dead body in presence of revenue officials i.e., PW6 (LW10/VRO) and sent the dead body to Area Hospital, Huzurnagar for autopsy and conducted scene of offence panchanama. PW7 (LW13 Dr. Karun
Kumar, CIS) conducted autopsy over and issued report and then the dead body was handed over to the family members. The other witnesses mainly the daughters of the deceased (LW6 and LW7 not examined in the court) disclosed land disputes between the deceased and A1 to A4 and A1 to A4 branded the deceased as sorcerer to have practiced the same and son of A1 who has been suffering ill health since many years, so they killed the deceased.
PW5 (LW8) and LW9 (not examined) are examined who witnessed
A1 to A4 going to the scene of offence on motor cycles. That on 25.07.2015 A1 to A4 were arrested, they too confessed that they killed the deceased with iron rods, kept the dead body in the gunny bag and caused disappearance of the same. Leading to the confession, two iron rods, saw blade and one spade and two bikes were recovered by recording the confession into writing in presence PW6 (LW10–VRO) and LW12 (Revenue Inspector not examined), A1 to A4 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody and on completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 6 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022 by PW10 (LW16-Circule Inspector of Police, Huzurnagar). Hence, the charge.
Cognizance:-
06. The charge sheet in this matter is filed in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar. The said Court has
taken on file this case for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A4. After taking cognizance, the case is registered as PRC No.60 of 2016 and issued summons to A1 to A4. The learned Magistrate has found a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC and as the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the committal court has committed the case to the Court of Hon'ble
Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet under Section 209 (a) of Cr.P.C.
07.The Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet
has numbered the case as SC No.478/2022 and made
over the same to this court for disposal according to law.
On appearance of A1 to A4, copies of the case records relied upon by the prosecution were already furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C at the committal court.
Framing of Charge :-
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 7 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022
08. On hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A1 to A4, they were examined under section 228 Cr.P.C for the offence under section 302, 201 r/w. 34 IPC and the accusation against them is explained to them. A1 to A4 denied the said accusation. As per the material on record there is prime- facie case against A1 to A4 to frame charge, accordingly charge for the offence under section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC was framed against A1 to A4 and the said charge was read over and explained to them in Telugu. Having understood the charge, A1 to A4 denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As per the request of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A1 to A4, trial schedule is given and witnesses are produced andexamined. A1 to A4 engaged their counsel and their counsel defended them throughout the proceedings in this case.
Witnesses Examined:-
09. On behalf of the prosecution, as per charge sheet, the list of witnesses cited are LW1 to LW16. Out of said witnesses, LW1,
LW3 to LW5, LW8, LW10, LW13 to LW16 are examined as PW1 to
PW10. The witnesses LW2, LW6, LW7, LW9, LW11 and LW12 are given-up by the prosecution. Besides examination of PW1 to
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 8 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022
PW10, the prosecution got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 documents and material objects i.e., MO1 to MO9.
313 Cr.P.C. Examination:-
10. After completion of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to them in Telugu. Having understood the same, A1 to A4 denied the evidence as false and further stated that they have no defence evidence.
Arguments:-
11. Learned counsels on both sides filed written arguments and the same are perused along with the entire record. In the written arguments, the Addl. PP repeated the contents of charge sheet and he submitted that the witnesses supported prosecution case during Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements, during their evidence before the court and there are no contradictions or omissions to eschew the same. He prays to convict A1 to A4.
12. On the other hand the learned defence counsel mentioned that the witnesses not supported the prosecution. He prays to acquit A1 to A4 for the charges framed against them. The other arguments of the counsel on both sides and citations filed are discussed at the relevant point.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 9 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022
Points for Determination:-
13. Now the points for determination are :
(i)whether the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence under section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
(ii)whether A1 to A4 can be found guilty and convicted for the offence under section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC?
(iii)to what result?
Findings on Points :-
14. After considering written arguments on both sides and after consideration of the entire material on record, it is very clear that the offence alleged against A1 to A4 is under section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC, which is grave in nature and to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
15. To prove the guilt of A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW10 and also on the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16, besides the material objects MO1 to MO9.
16. Regarding the present case, during his evidence in the court,
PW1 specifically stated that the deceased who is his father was having land in Ponugode village and does agriculture, A1 to A4 have their land adjacent to the land of the deceased and quarrel took place among the deceased and A1 to A4 on two or three
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 10 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022 occasions. He added that the deceased go to agriculture by 5.30 pm and returned by 7.30 or 08.00 pm after consuming toddy, on 19.07.2015 (sunday) the deceased went to land saying he will return after switching of motor and taking toddy, but he did not return till 7.30 pm, so PW1 called him who replied that he will return at 7.50 pm after switching off the motor, then PW1 waited for an hour and called his father, but his mobile was not reachable.
17. PW1 deposed regarding searches made for the tracing out the deceased at the surroundings in the night hours of 19.07.2015 and in the morning on 20.7.2015 and then lodged the complaint on 20.07.2015 at PS Garidepally, on the next day the police called him to identify the dead body at Chinnacheruvu reservoir and on opening the gunny bag, he saw the dead body of his father with two grievous injuries on head, cutting at throat and tongue came out from mouth, swelling condition with foul smell. He deposed that A1 to A4 killed his father suspecting black magic by the deceased on the son of A1 and due to land disputes.
18. The learned defence counsel cross examined PW1 at length, but there are no important aspects to be taken into consideration from the cross examination of PW1. It is elicited that panchayath
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 11 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022 was held in the presence of elders with regard to boundary dispute, but no resolution was passed. Even though there was no resolution passed for boundary dispute, the said fact proved the existence of boundary dispute and it supported the case of prosecution.
19. The evidence of PW1 is corroborating with Ex.P1 which is complaint lodged by him on 20.07.2015 at 04.00 pm regarding missing of the deceased. There is no delay in lodging of the complaint (Ex.P1) by PW1 after the deceased did not return from the agricultural land. There is no cross examination by the learned defence counsel on any aspects touching Ex.P1, as such there are no reasons to discard the same. It is not even denied that A1 to
A4 do not have grudge on the deceased for practicing black magic on son of A1 and no plausible defence taken to discard the evidence of PW1. Hence, his evidence is completely reliable and trustworthy.
20. PW2 is elder daughter of the deceased, she fully corroborated the evidence given by PW1, she specifically stated that quarrel took place between the deceased and A1 to A4 regarding boundary of land, usually the deceased return to the house on 7.30 pm having toddy, but on 19.07.2015 he did not
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 12 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022 return and search of PW1 went in vain, on the next day she too searched, but the deceased was not found so they lodged the complaint. She added that on 21.07.2015 at Chinnacheruvu, they all went and identified a dead body to be the deceased. She also narrated the facts leading to motive of A1 to A4 i.e., suspicion on the deceased to have black magic on the son of A1.
21. The learned defence counsel elicited from PW2 that she has been staying at Hyderabad for the past eleven years, however it is not a material fact, because she is originally belong to Ponugode village i.e., her father’s village and nothing is shown that in the said eleven years she did not visit her father’s place. Moreso, it is elicited in the cross examination that in 2014 the deceased was beaten by A1 and A2, the deceased did not lodge any complaint, panchayath was held in the presence of elders and the deceased stated the same to her. This particular part of cross examination is helpful to the prosecution to prove the motive of A1 to A4 and there are no reasons to eschew her evidence from consideration.
22. PW3 is an independent witness who saw the gunny bag and ran away. His evidence is crucial and shows that on 21.07.2015 morning hours he went to grazing cattle near reservoir, around 4.30 pm, he went near to water and found foul smell, went further
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 13 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022 near and found gunny bag with smell and he ran away. He deposed that he informed the same to villagers, they came to the spot, LW5 opened the bag and found the dead body of the deceased. He specifically stated regarding the injuries on fore head and cutting of throat on the dead body and arrival of police and family members of the deceased. Surprisingly, there is no cross examination by the learned defence counsel to shake the credibility of this witness who is star witness for the entire prosecution case. During cross examination, only two suggestions are put to give and there is no in-depth cross examination.
Therefore, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 categorically proved missing and death of the deceased.
23. The evidence of PW4 is akin to the evidence of PW3 who discloses the same facts and particularly that on 21.07.2015 at 4.45 pm the gunny bag was identified by PW3 near reservoir, he along with villagers rushed and saw the same. He himself opened the same and taken out the dead body, which is in decomposed condition having two injuries on head and cutting of throat, the police and the family members of the deceased came and identified dead body. This witness is also not seriously cross examined and his evidence remained unchallenged.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 14 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022
24. PW5 deposed that on 19.07.2015 around 8.00 pm he was returning to the village at that time he initially saw A1 and A2 and thereafter he saw A3 and A4 going to A1 and A2 within 10 minutes, on the same day night the deceased went missing. The learned defence counsel cross examined PW5, but nothing is found to consider from such cross examination. This evidence of PW5 revealed that it is A1 to A4 who way laid and planned for the murder of the deceased on the same day and by altogether with common intention and the evidence of PW5 established the same.
25. PW6 is panch for scene of offence panchanama, rough sketch and inquest over the dead body of the deceased and he clearly stated about the same and also about the confession of A1 to A4 and seizure of MO1 (saw blade). In the evidence of PW6, the prosecution got marked Ex.P2 (scene of offence panchanama),
Ex.P3 (rough sketch), Ex.P4 (inquest panchanama). Besides that
Ex.P5 to Ex.P12 (confession-cum-seizure panchanamas), material objects marked as MO1 (saw blade), MO2 and MO3 (two iron rods), MO4 (spade), MO5 (stone), MO6 (mud), MO7 (plain mud),
MO8 and MO9 (two motor cycles).
26. Thelearned defence counsel cross examined PW6 at length, but his evidence cannot be discarded. PW6 is responsible revenue
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 15 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022 official who worked as VRO at relevant time, he is individual witness and not interested in any way to depose false against A1 to A4. Pertaining to the evidence of PW6, it is mentioned in the written arguments that recovery of material objects from A1 to A4 while in the custody of police cannot be admitted and not possible to consider the same even u/sec.27 of Evidence Act. The learned defence counsel relied on the citation of Hon’ble Apex Court in
Raja Khan Vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in 2025 (2) Supreme
Court case Page:82 and also on the citation of Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Nayakar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in 2024 (2)
Supreme Court Cases Page No.179.
27. According to above citations, when there is any doubt regarding alleged disclosure made by the accused and recoveries will become in admissible and that the delay in recovery from place accessible to all makes recovery unbelievable.
28. In fact, the evidence of PW6 is not hit by any delay, it is not inadmissible and cannot be discarded. The said citations are not applicable. It is a fact that the deceased went missing on 19.07.2015 in the night hours, the confession of A1 to A4 was made on 25.07.2015 within reasonable time and not after months later.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 16 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022
29. The evidence of PW7 who conducted medical examination of dead body of the deceased on 22.07.2015, shows that he found transverse, lacerated injury on front of neck, laceration over right frontal bone, fracture of right sided frontal bone, laceration of right parietal bone, transverse (horizontal fracture of left side mandible). PW7 rendered opinion that the deceased died due to severe bleeding caused on neck leading to cardio respiratory arrest. The catching point in the evidence of PW7 is that the death of the deceased was three days prior to his autopsy. The said three days prior to autopsy was the same day i.e., 19.07.2015 on which date the deceased found missing and on the same day PW5 saw A1 to A4 together and going towards the agricultural land, as such there is no other evidence is required to pin point A1 to A4 for the murder of the deceased.
30. Now coming to the testimonies of PW8 to PW10, the role of
PW8 is receiving complaint from PW1, registration of FIR (Ex.P14 is a case of man missing) and he dispatched FIR to the Court.
There is nothing to appreciate from the evidence of PW8 as his task is limited to registration of FIR, recordings statements of PW1 and LW2. There are no contradictions, omissions or any other flaws with the evidence of the witnesses before the court and
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 17 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022 during their earlier statements. Further it was PW8 who received information on 21.07.2015 at 05.00 pm regarding availability of gunny bag with decomposed dead body in the reservoir, he rushed and got opened the same, called PW1 who identified the dead body to be the dead body of his father. PW8 then send section alteration memo (Ex.P15) to the court. There is no cross examination by the learned defence counsel seriously on any aspects deposed in the evidence of PW8.
31. The role of PW9 and PW10 is regarding the examination of witnesses, recording of statements, securing the clues from the scene of offence, inquest and autopsy over the dead body, apprehension of A1 to A4, their confessions, recovery of the material objects and filing of charge sheet on completion of investigation.
32. Even though the learned defence counsel cross examined the
Investigating Officers at length, it is a fact that minor irregularities in the investigation cannot weaken the prosecution case totally. It is tobe noted that there is sufficient evidence collected by PW8 to
PW10 showing intention of murder of the deceased by A1 to A4.
The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and every
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 18 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022 linking evidence is properly brought on record by the said officials, as such their evidence is material and can be considered.
33. It is a fact to be noted that the deceased was having agricultural land, A1 to A4 had land beside the land of the deceased, A1 to A4 had boundary dispute with him and they have quarreled with deceased on two or three occasions regarding the said dispute. As per the evidence of PW1, the deceased lastly went to agricultural land on 19.07.2015, but did not return. At the same time, as per the evidence of PW5, it was A1 to A4 who went to the agricultural land on the same day i.e., 19.07.2015 around 08.00 pm, normally the farmers will not go to the agricultural land at 08.00 pm without any reason. This linking circumstances between missing of the deceased and A1 to A4 going to his agriculture land is sufficient to conclude that it was A1 to A4 who brutally murdered the deceased due to previous enmity. The dead body was also recovered soon after the missing of the deceased i.e., within one day on 21.07.2015 at 4.30 pm. The injuries on the dead body particularly major laceration on the frontal bone and cutting of throat are possible only with saw blade (MO1) and iron rods (MO2 and MO3) which were recovered from A1 to A4 only.
More so, recording conviction on the basis of circumstantial
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 19 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022 evidence isacceptable as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following citation i.e., Bhim Singh & Anr Vs State Of
Uttarakhand reported in AIR 2015 SC (CRI) 666 in which it is held that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt can be drawn must or should be fully established. T he facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and, there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused (reiterating the principles of Hon’ble Apex Court
Judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State Of Maharashtra).
Moreso, burden of proof of fact especially within accused's knowledge lies on him u/s 106 of the Evidence Act as held by
Hon’ble Apex Court in Sandeep Vs. State of UP, reported in
(2012) 6 SCC 107.
34. All the above consolidated version from the oral, documentary and material evidence goes to show that A1 to A4 with a preplan and having closely monitored the movements of
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 20 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022 the deceased, they have taken advantage of the availability of the deceased without anyone at the scene of offence and brutally killed him in view of motive which they had.
35. Therefore, careful appreciation of oral documentary, material and medical evidence clearly established that A1 to A4 intentionally committed murder of the deceased punishable u/sec.
302 IPC.
36. Moreso, after the commission of offence, the dead body was kept in gunny bag and thrown in the reservoir which is nothing but causing disappearance of evidence punishable u/sec.201 IPC.
Finally, it is to be held that the prosecution successfully bring home the guilt of A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubt to record conviction u/sec.302, 201 r/w 34 IPC because they altogether hatched up the plan and committed the offence which attract common intention of A1 to A4. Accordingly, A1 to A4 can be found guilty and convicted for the said offence.
37. For the above reasons, the points for determination are answered
(i) that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence under section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt,
(ii) that A1 to A4 can be found guilty and convicted for the offence under section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 21 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022
Point No.3:-
38.In the result, A1 to A4 are found guilty for the offence under
Section u/sec. 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC, accordingly they are convicted for the said offence under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. The property involved in this case MO1: saw blade, MO2 : iron rod,
MO3 : iron rod, MO4 : spade, MO5 : stone, MO6 : mud, MO7 :
plain mud, these MO1 To MO7 unvaluable properties shall be destroyed after disposal of appeal, if no appeal preferred, shall be destroyed after appeal time. The properties MO8 : motor cycle bike bearing no. AP24-2-7384 and MO9 : motor cycle bike bearing no.AP-24-AC-1217, not claimed by anyone shall be sold in the auction and the proceeds shall be confiscated to the State, it shall be after disposal of appeal, if no appeal preferred, it shall be after appeal time.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 08 th day of May, 2026 .
I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SURYAPET.
FAC: II ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 22 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022
39. Quantum of Sentence :-
A1: On hearing of sentence the plea of A1 is as follows:
I have small kids i.e., 3 years son and one year daughter, I have wife and parents, all of them are depending on me.
A2: On hearing of sentence the plea of A2 is as follows:
I have small kid, i.e., 8 months daughter, I have wife and parents, all of them are depending on me, we all belong to joint family.
A3: On hearing of sentence the plea of A3 is as follows:
I have small boy having seven months age. I have wife and parents, all of them are depending on me, we all belong to joint family.
A4: On hearing of sentence the plea of A4 is as follows:
I having 8 years son who is school going I have wife and parents, all of them are depending on me, we all belong to joint family.
Having considered the plea of A1 to A4 regarding the sentence, for the offence under section 302 IPC the punishment is death sentence, but since it is not a rarest of the rare case as per judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Bachan Singh Vs. State, the court can award life imprisonment for the said offence.
Accordingly,
A1 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 23 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022
A2 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
A3 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
A4 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
For the offence under section 201 r/w. 34 IPC, A1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 3 years and pay fine of
Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under section 201 r/w.
34 IPC.
A2 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under section 201 r/w. 34 IPC.
A3 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under section 201 r/w. 34 IPC.
A4 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to suffer
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 24 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022 simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under section 201 r/w. 34 IPC.
Both sentences shall run concurrently. Total fine amount is
Rs.6,000/-. The same shall be collected and deposited in the
State Exchequer. The remand period of A1 to A4 already undergone by them during crime stage i.e., from 25.07.2015 to 01.09.2015 shall be given set off from the imprisonment awarded as above.
I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SURYAPET.
FAC: II ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
PW.1: Yedipala Veera Bhaskar Reddy – None -- PW.2: Katta Sudha PW.3: Dasari Lingaraju PW.4: Chanda Venkat Reddy PW.5: Karingula Venkaiah PW.6: Pulijala Venkata Ramana Rao PW.7: Dr. S. Karun Kumar PW.8: Sk. Pentu PW.9: K. Narsimha Reddy PW.10: Ch. Satyam
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
Ex.P1: Complaint lodged by PW1 -NIL-
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
Page 25 of 25 SC.No. 478 of 2022
Ex.P2: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: Rough sketch Ex.P4: Inquest panchanama Ex.P5: Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P6: Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P7: Confession panchanama of A2 Ex.P8: Confession cum seizure panchanama of A3 Ex.P9: Confession cum seizure panchanama of A3 Ex.P10: Confession cum seizure panchanama of A4 Ex.P11: Confession cum seizure panchanama of A4
Ex.P12: Seizure panchanama of A1 Ex.P13: PME report Ex.P14: FIR Ex.P15: Section alteration memo Ex.P16: FSL report
MATERIAL OBJECTS:
MO1: Excel blade (it is a saw blade) MO2 : Iron rod MO3 : Iron rod MO4 : Spade MO5 : Stone MO6 : Mud MO7 : Plaint mud MO8 : Motor cycle bike bearing no. AP24-2-7384, MO9 : Motor cycle bike bearing no.AP-24-AC-1217
I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SURYAPET.
FAC: II ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR
IADJ Suryapet FAC:II ADJ Huzurnaga r
1 Judgment in SC No.147/2020,
Dt: 11.05.2026 of POCSO Court-Suryapet.
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR
EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,
SURYAPET.
Present :Dr.P.Siva Ram Prasad, I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet. FAC: Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Suryapet.
Monday, this the 11 th day of May, 2026.
S.C.(POCSO) No.147 of 2020
1.Complainant:The Sub-Inspector of Police, Noothankal PS.
2.Name of the accused:A1: Itikala Ganesh, S/o. Venkanna, Age: 29 years, Occ:Photographer,
A2:Itikala Venkanna, S/o. Bixam, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture
A3: Itikala Chinna Bhadramma, W/o. Venkanna, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture (Died)
A4: Itikala Naveen, S/o. Venkanna, Age:45 years, Occ:Agriculture,
A5: Itikala Upender, S/o. Veeraiah, Age: 35 years, Occ:Toddy tapper
All are R/o.Bikkumalla Village of Noothankal Mandal.
3.Crime No.:Crime No. 38 of 2019, Noothankal PS
4.Prosecution conducted by :Sri. K. Raghu Ramaiah, Spl. Public Prosecutor, Suryapet.
5.Defence conducted by:Sri. Y. Venkata Bucheshwar Rao, counsel for A1 to A5.
6.Charges :Under Sections 448, 354-A IPC and Sec.8 of the POCSO Act-2012
I ADJ, Suryapet FAC: POCSO Court, Suryapet.
2 Judgment in SC No.147/2020,
Dt: 11.05.2026 of POCSO Court-Suryapet.
against A1 and Sec.323, 506, 504 r/w 34 IPC against the A2 to A5.
7.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty
8.Finding of the court: Found not guilty
9.Order of sentence or :In the result, A1 is found not guilty acquittalfor the offence under sections 448, 354-A IPC and Sec.8 of the POCSO Act and A2, A4 and A5 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 323, 506, 504 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly A1, A2, A4 and A5 are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of A1, A2, A4 and A5 shall remain in force for a period of Six months u/sec. 437(A) Cr.P.C./sec. 481 BNSS. There is no case property.
This case is coming up before me for final hearing and disposal on 11.05.2026 in the presence of Sri. K. Raghu Ramaiah, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Y. Venkata Bucheshwar Rao, counsel for A1 to A5 and upon; perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day; this Court delivered the following:-
: J U D G M E N T :
01. The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Noothankal has filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.38 of 2019 of PS Noothankal against A1 to A5 for the offence punishable under sections 448, 354-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.8 Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act (herein after referred as POCSO Act).
I ADJ, Suryapet FAC: POCSO Court, Suryapet.
3 Judgment in SC No.147/2020,
Dt: 11.05.2026 of POCSO Court-Suryapet.
Brief Facts of the Charge Sheet:-
02.The brief facts of the charge sheet are that, on 13.04.2019, at 15.00 hours the defacto-complainant/LW1/victim girl (examined and referred as PW1) came to Police Station and lodged a Telugu written complaint that her parents and her brothers have slept in front of their house. In the mid night at about 12.30 am, she sensed that somebody is touching her left cheek, after some time also she sensed that somebody’s hand is touching on her chest part, as such she wake up and told the same to her parents and found A1 was hidden under bed and they questioned him as to why he came to here, in the meantime, A2 to
A5 criminally trespassed into their house and asked them as to why they are abusing their son, A2 to A5 beat her father with hands and kicked.
A1 to A5 caught hold of tuft of LW2 who is mother of victim girl, pulled and beat her with hands besides abusing in filthy language and threatening them with dire consequences. She requested to take necessary legal action against the accused.
02(a). It is mentioned in the charge sheet that basing on the said complaint, LW15/Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Noothankal had registered a case in Cr.No.38 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 354-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 8 POCSO Act against A1 to A5 and issued FIR. Subsequently, on requisition of LW15, LW14/WSI
Suryapet Town PS visited the scene of offence, examined victim girl as
I ADJ, Suryapet FAC: POCSO Court, Suryapet.
4 Judgment in SC No.147/2020,
Dt: 11.05.2026 of POCSO Court-Suryapet.
LW1 and recorded her statement. LW15 visited scene of offence, examined LW2 to LW9 and recorded their statements, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in presence of LW11 and LW12. LW15 has collected study conduct certificate of the victim girl from LW10/Head Master of High School, Marripeda Banglow. As per the said certificate, the victim girl date of birth is 06.09.2004.
02.(b) It is mentioned in the charge sheet that on 15.04.2019, LW15/
Sub-Inspector, PS Noothankal apprehended A1 to A5 and sent them to judicial remand. On requisition of LW15, LW13/Prl. Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Suryapet recorded the statement U/sec.164 Cr.P.C. of victim
girl. After collecting all relevant documents and after completion of entire investigation, LW15 filed charge sheet against A1 to A5 alleging that A1 committed the offence and liable for punishment for the offence under sections 448, 354(A) IPC and Sec.8 POCSO Act and A2 to A5 committed the offence and liable for punishment for the offence under sections 448, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the charge.
Cognizance:-
03. The charge sheet in this matter is filed in the Court of I Additional
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. The said Court has taken on file this case for
the offence punishable u/secs.448, 354(A) IPC and Sec.8 POCSO Act against A1 and for the offence punishable u/sec. 448, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC against A2 to A5. After taking cognizance, the case is registered
I ADJ, Suryapet FAC: POCSO Court, Suryapet.
5 Judgment in SC No.147/2020,
Dt: 11.05.2026 of POCSO Court-Suryapet.
as SC.(POCSO).No.147 of 2020 and issued summons to A1 to A5. At this stage as per the Proceedings of Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge,
Suryapet vide Proc. Dis. No.3398/2020/A1 dt.05.10.2020, due to establishment of Fast Track Special Court (this Court), the case is transferred to this Court. On appearance of A1 to A5, copies of the case records relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. A3 died and death certificate of A3 filed before this Court on 12.10.2021, case against him was abated since died.
Framing of Charge:-
04. On hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A1, A2, A4 and A5, A1 was examined under section 228
Cr.P.C for the offence u/sec. 448, 354(A) IPC and Sec.8 POCSO Act and
A2, A4 and A5 were examined under section 228 Cr.P.C for the offence u/sec.448, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and the accusation against them is explained to them, but they denied the said accusation. As per the material on record there is prime-facie case against A1, A2, A4 and A5 to frame charge, accordingly charge for the offence under section 448, 354(A) IPC and Sec.8 POCSO Act was framed against A1 and under section 448, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC were framed against A2, A4 and
A5 and the said charge was read over and explained to them in Telugu.
Having understood the same, they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As per the request of learned Special Public
I ADJ, Suryapet FAC: POCSO Court, Suryapet.
6 Judgment in SC No.147/2020,
Dt: 11.05.2026 of POCSO Court-Suryapet.
Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A1, A2, A4 and A5, trial schedule is given and witnesses are produced and examined. A1, A2, A4 and A5 have engaged their counsel and their counsel defended them throughout the proceedings in this case.
Witnesses Examined:-
05. On behalf of the prosecution, as per charge sheet, the list of witnesses cited are LW1 to 15. Out of said witnesses, PWs1 to 8 are examined. The evidence of witnesses i.e., LW7, LW8, LW10 to LW14 are given-up by the prosecution. Besides examination of PWs1 to 8, the prosecution got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 documents and defence got marked Ex.D1 to D3. No material objects are produced.
Sec.313 Cr.P.C Examination:-
06. After completion of the prosecution evidence, A1, A2, A4 and A5 examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to them in Telugu. Having understood the same, A1,
A2, A4 and A5 denied the evidence as false and further stated that they have no defence evidence.
Arguments:-
07. Heard both sides and perused the record. At the time of arguments, the Spl.PP repeated the contents of charge sheet and he submitted that the witnesses supported prosecution case during Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements and the incriminating part in their evidence can be considered and he prays to convict A1, A2, A4 and A5.
I ADJ, Suryapet FAC: POCSO Court, Suryapet.
7 Judgment in SC No.147/2020,
Dt: 11.05.2026 of POCSO Court-Suryapet.
08. On the other hand the learned defence counsel submitted that there is no corroborating evidence among the material witnesses, PWs4 and 5,
PW7 and PW8 who are cited as eye witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, he prays to acquit A1, A2,
A4 and A5 for the charge framed against them. The other arguments of the counsel on both sides are discussed at the relevant point.
Points for Determination:-
09. Now the points for determination are :
(i) whether the victim (PW1) was below 18 years of age on the date of incident ?
(ii) whether the prosecution proved that A1 trespassed into the house of the victim (PW1) on the date of offence and whether there was outrage modesty of PW1 and assault by A2, A4 and A5 by trespassed into the house of PW1, beat and threatened her family ?
(iii) whether A1 can be found guilty and convicted for the offence under section 448, 354(A) IPC and Sec.8 POCSO Act and whether A2, A4 and A5 can be found guilty and convicted for the offence under section 448, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC ?
Findings on Points :-
10. After hearing the submissions of learned Addl.PP and defence counsel and on consideration of material on record, it is very clear that the offence alleged against A1 is u/sec.448, 354(A) IPC and Sec.8
POCSO Act and the offence alleged against A2, A4 and A5 is u/sec.448, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC.
11. To bring home the guilty of A1, A2, A4 and A5 for the charge, the prosecution is required to establish the ingredients of criminal house
I ADJ, Suryapet FAC: POCSO Court, Suryapet.
8 Judgment in SC No.147/2020,
Dt: 11.05.2026 of POCSO Court-Suryapet.
trespass, outrage modesty of woman, simple hurt, criminal intimidation and it shall be proved that the victim girl was a minor as on the date of offence to attract POCSO Act.
12. At the outset on looking into the evidence of PW1 she stated regarding the date of incident on 12.04.2019 around 12.00 or 12.30 pm, while she was sleeping some one slapped, she shouted as thief, her parents woke up, but not found anyone and they went to sleep. At that time they noticed some one under her bed. So, they pulled him who is her neighbour i.e., A1 and they were asking A1, meantime A2 to A5 threatened the victim girl and her parents. In the cross examination PW1 clearly admitted that mother of A1 and her father are cousins and A1 is her brother in law. During further cross examination PW1 clearly admitted that there are land disputes between her family and A1 family, they both filed cases. PW1 clearly admitted that her marriage with A1 was performed in the year 2022 and that her age was shown below her actual age in the SSC certificate to get employment in future.
13. Even though PW1 supported the case of the prosecution in chief examination, but while coming to cross examination she completely deposed in native manner not fitting to her chief examination.
Admittedly A1 family and PW1 family are close relations and also having land disputes. The time of incident stated by PW1 was 12.00 or 12.30 pm, it is afternoon time and how A1 can gain entry into the house of
I ADJ, Suryapet FAC: POCSO Court, Suryapet.
9 Judgment in SC No.147/2020,
Dt: 11.05.2026 of POCSO Court-Suryapet.
PW1 is not explained anywhere. If it is believed that it was at night time, how A1 entered inside her house is not deposed by PW1. In view of close relationship between both families and existing civil disputes by the time of incident, it create reasonable doubt to consider genuine facts in the evidence of PW1.
14. Now coming to the evidence of PW2 who is mother of PW1 she stated that the same facts like PW1, but in cross examination she too admitted that A1 to A5 are close relatives, there are disputes since long time and she deposed the chief as per the instructions of police. This testimony of PW2 shows that there is no corroboration among the deposition of PW1 and PW2. Hence, the same are to be discarded from consideration.
15. PW3 is brother of PW1 who deposed in the same lines with that of
PW1, but during her chief examination, PW1 not specifically stated the name of PW3 and that he was also present at the time of incident. She stated that her brothers are present, but she do not state that PW3 was present. Hence, whether PW3 was present or not present at the time of alleged incident is highly doubtful, as such his evidence shall be discarded.
16.Apart from that, Pw3 too admitted during cross examination that there are no terms between both families since long time and the evidence of PW3 shows that there is any amount of animosity for PW1
I ADJ, Suryapet FAC: POCSO Court, Suryapet.
10 Judgment in SC No.147/2020,
Dt: 11.05.2026 of POCSO Court-Suryapet.
to PW3 to implicate A1, A2, A4 and A5, as such the testimonies of PW1 to PW3 cannot be regarded as Gospel truth.
17. The evidence of Pw4 and Pw5 is not required to be taken into consideration because they both have turned hostile saying that they do not know anything about the facts of the case.
18.PW6 deposed regarding statement of PW1 recorded by him, but his evidence is legal requirement and his evidence cannot be neither corroborated nor add strength to the case of prosecution. Hence, the evidence of PW6 is not helpful.
19. Now coming to PW7, he is child witness and very prone for tutoring, as such his evidence cannot taken into consideration. However, he too turned hostile and not supported the prosecution version. The last witness is PW8, but he does not know anything about the present case.
Hence, it is very clear that most of the witnesses relied by the prosecution are turned hostile and the evidence of witnesses who supported it is not reliable and trustworthy. Due to family relations among PW1 family and A1 family, existing civil disputes, no cordial terms since long time, as such it is highly impossible to convict A1, A2,
A4 and A5 basing on the said evidence. Apart from that, the prosecution did not choose to examine the circumstantial witnesses and
Investigating Officer is also not examined, no serious efforts were not
I ADJ, Suryapet FAC: POCSO Court, Suryapet.
11 Judgment in SC No.147/2020,
Dt: 11.05.2026 of POCSO Court-Suryapet.
made to prove the ingredients of offence u/sec.448, 354-A and Sec.8
POCSO ACT.
20. The evidence of witnesses examined in this case is found to be highly not reliable and trustworthy, it is not safe to rely on the same. On thorough appropriation of oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution, it can be said that the evidence could not establish the guilt of A1, A2, A4 and A5 beyond all reasonable doubt and they shall be acquitted of the charge framed. Accordingly, the points for determination are answered that;
(i) that the prosecution has not proved the victim (PW1) was below 18 years of age on the date of incident,
(ii) that the prosecution could not prove that A1 trespassed into the house of victim (PW1) on the date of offence and there was outrage modesty of PW1 and assault and A2, A4 and A5 trespassed into the house of PW1, they beat and threatened her family,
(ii) that A1 cannot be found guilty and convicted for the offence under section 448, 354(A) IPC and Sec.8 POCSO Act and that A2, A4 and A5 cannot be found guilty and convicted for the offence under section 448, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC?, thus A1, A2, A4 and A5 shall be acquitted accordingly.
21. Point No.3:-
In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence under sections 448, 354-A IPC and Sec.8 of the POCSO Act and A2, A4 and A5 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 323, 506, 504 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly A1, A2, A4 and A5 are acquitted under section 235(1)
I ADJ, Suryapet FAC: POCSO Court, Suryapet.
12 Judgment in SC No.147/2020,
Dt: 11.05.2026 of POCSO Court-Suryapet.
Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of A1, A2, A4 and A5 shall remain in force for a period of six months u/sec. 437(A) Cr.P.C./sec. 481
BNSS. There is no case property..
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.
I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Suryapet FAC: Special Judge For Trial of Cases Under POCSO Act, Suryapet
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
Pw.1 : Victim girl(name not disclosed) - None
Pw.2 : Gandhasiri Bhikshamamma (mother of victim)
Pw.3 : Gandhasiri Jaya Prakash Narayana (eye witness)
Pw.4 : Gandhasiri Srinivas (eye witness)
Pw.5 : Morigala Veera Swamy (eye witness)
Pw.6 : M. Shiva Kumar (Investigating Officer filed charge sheet)
Pw.7 : Gandhasiri Akash (eye witness)
Pw.8 : Gandhasiri Venkanna (eye witness)
Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Report
Ex.P2: Attested copy of SSC Memo of Pw1
Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw4
Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw5
Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw6
Ex.P6: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw7
I ADJ, Suryapet FAC: POCSO Court, Suryapet.
13 Judgment in SC No.147/2020,
Dt: 11.05.2026 of POCSO Court-Suryapet.
For Defence:
Ex.D1: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1
Ex.D2: Two photographs
Ex.D3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2
Material Objects:
-NIL-
I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Suryapet FAC: Special Judge For Trial of Cases Under POCSO Act, Suryapet
I ADJ, Suryapet FAC: POCSO Court, Suryapet.
1 of 5
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
HUZURNAGAR
Present : Dr.P.Sivaram Prasad I Addl. Sessions Judge, Suryapet. FAC: II Addl. Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar.
Wednesday, this the 13 th day of May, 2026
Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2026
In
Cr. No. 77 of 2026
(PS Mattamaplly) Between :
1.Angoth Saida @ Dealer Saida, S/o.Gopa, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture (A1)
2.Angothu Babu, S/o. Gopa, Age:32 years, Occ:Agriculture (A3)
3.Angoth Nagu, S/o. Gopa, Age: 37 years, Occ:Agriculture (A4)
4.Maloth Seetharam, S/o. Sakru, Age: 52 years, Occ:Agriculture (A11)
5.Angoth Babu, S/o. Sevya, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture (A13)
6.Rupavath Saida, S/o. Seva, Age: 35 years, Occ:Agriculture (A4)
7.Dharath Vinod, S/o.Balu, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture (A15) all are R/o. Ramachandrapuram thanda, Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District.
...Petitioners/A1,3, 4, 11, 13, 14 & 15
//and//
The State of Telangana through SHO PS Mattampally.
….Respondent/Complainant
This petition came before me on 12.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Ch. Krishnaiah, Advocate for the Petitioners/A1,3, 4, 11, 13, 14 & 15, whereas Sri. Bobba Koti Reddy, Addl.PP for the State and on hearing and having perused the material on record, this Court made the following:
I ADJ,Suryapet 2 of 5
O R D E R
(Bail Order)
01. This is a second bail petition filed by the Petitioners/A1,A3, A4, A11,
A13, A14 & A15 u/sec.483 B.N.S.S (old sec.439 Cr.P.C.), requesting the
Court to enlarge them on bail in Cr.No.77 of 2026 of PS Mattampally. The petitioners in this petition are A1, A3, A4, A11, A13, A14 & A15 in the main crime and they are referred as “the petitioners”.
Brief Averments of the Petition:-
02. The brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioners are that PS
Mattampally registered Cr.No.77 of 2026 for the offence U/sec.191(2), 191(3), 109, 118(1), 324(4), 49 r/w 190 BNS (old Sec.147, 148, 307, 326, 427, 109 R/W 149 IPC) against the petitioners, the petitioners were arrested and they were produced before Addl. Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Huzurnagar on 28.04.2026, then remanded to judicial custody
at Sub-Jail, Huzurnagar.
03. It is mentioned in the petition that the allegations against the petitioners are false. That the complainant lodged a false complaint and falsely implicated the petitioners. That PS Mattampally failed to follow the procedure laid down under section 35 BNSS. That PS Mattampally completed the investigation by examining all material witnesses i.e., LW1 to LW17 including investigation officer and filing of charge sheet is pending. The petitioners having families and no further custodial interrogation is required. That the petitioners are permanent residents of
Ramachandrapuram Thanda, Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District and having movable and immovable properties and the petitioners are ready to furnish sufficient sureties. Finally, the petitioners prays to enlarge them on bail. Hence, the petition.
Notice and Counter:-
04. Notice given to the learned Spl.PP. He has produced CD file. The learned Spl.PP filed counter stating that there is prima facie case and reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners had committed the
FAC:IIADJ Huzurnagar 3 of 5 offence and some more witnesses are to be examined, if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every possibility for tampering of evidence and threatening witnesses and there is possibility for the petitioners to flee from this case. If the petitioners are released on bail, they will not attend before the court regularly and they will repeat the offence. If the petitioners are released on bail, their presence cannot be secured. Finally, the learned Spl. PP prays to dismiss the petition.
Arguments:-
06. Heard both sides and perused the record. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are not concerned with this crime. That the petitioners are in judicial custody since 28.04.2026 and investigation is almost completed. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The learned Spl.PP has strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioners. The other submissions of the counsel on both sides are discussed at relevant point.
Points for Consideration:-
07. Now the points for consideration are:
i). Whether there are any grounds to grant bail to the petitioners? ii). Whether the petition can be allowed as prayed for?
Answers to the Points:-
08. After hearing both sides and after consideration of the material on record, it is clear that the offences alleged against the petitioners are
U/sec. 191(2), 191(3), 109, 118(1), 324(4), 49 r/w 190 BNS (Old
Sec.147, 148, 307, 326, 427, 109 r/w 149 IPC). The said offence is grave and serious in nature and having punishment i.e., life imprisonment, as such no lenient view can be taken to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
09. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are already in judicial custody since 15 days, the sections mentioned in the
CD are not attracted and no previous cases against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that all witnesses were
FAC:IIADJ Huzurnagar 4 of 5 examined and investigation already completed. Eventhough, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the above aspects, the allegations in the complaint shows that the petitioners alleged to have formed into an unlawful assembly, arming with deadly weapons, brutally attacked on LW1 to LW6, caused multiple bleeding injuries with intention to kill them and with the instigation of other persons. The incident was due to land and political grudges. The case is at the stage of investigation and so for LW1 to LW17 are only shown in the case dairy and some more witnesses may be examined during remaining investigation. In this matter, charge sheet is not filed till now, hence it is not possible to say that investigation completed.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there is counter complaint at PS Mattampally basing on which the police registered Cr.
No.76 of 2026 on the same day. On consideration of contents in the complaint relating to this crime (Cr. No.77 of 2026), there is no possibility
for the petitioners to commit the offence as they are injured in their crime
(Cr.No.76 of 2026) and taking treatment in the hospital. Eventhough the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the said aspects, when the investigation is in progress, basing on the contents in the complaint, it is not possible to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Investigation is still going, as such it is not appropriate to decide the merits of the case and the petitioners are not entitled for bail at this stage. Moreover, the petitioners are remanded to judicial custody only on 28.04.2026 and even first remand extension is not completed to consider the request of the petitioners for bail. Apart from all the above, there are no changed circumstances from the earlier dismissal bail petition filed by the petitioners vide Crl.M.P. No.26 of 2026 dismissed on 06.05.2026 and no such circumstances mentioned in the petition. Hence, it is not fit case to consider bail to the petitioners at this stage.
11. In view of above reasons, it is very clear the petitioners are not entitled for bail and petition is liable to be dismissed.
FAC:IIADJ Huzurnagar 5 of 5
12. Accordingly, the points for consideration are answered as follows:
i). that there are no grounds to grant bail to the petitioners.
and
ii). that the petition cannot be allowed as prayed for.
Result:-
13. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer and after corrections,
pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 13 th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-
FAC:II Addl. District Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar Copy to : The SHO., of PS Mattampally.
FAC:IIADJ Huzurnagar
1 of 5
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
HUZURNAGAR
Present : Dr.P.Sivaram Prasad I Addl. Sessions Judge, Suryapet. FAC: II Addl. Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar.
Wednesday, this the 06 th day of May, 2026
Crl.M.P.No. 26 of 2026
In
Cr. No. 77 of 2026
(PS Mattamaplly) Between :
1.Angoth Saida @ Dealer Saida, S/o.Gopa, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture (A1)
2.Angothu Babu, S/o. Gopa, Age:32 years, Occ:Agriculture (A3)
3.Angoth Nagu, S/o. Gopa, Age: 37 years, Occ:Agriculture (A4)
4.Maloth Seetharam, S/o. Sakru, Age: 52 years, Occ:Agriculture (A11)
5.Angoth Babu, S/o. Sevya, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture (A13)
6.Rupavath Saida, S/o. Seva, Age: 35 years, Occ:Agriculture (A4)
7.Dharath Vinod, S/o.Balu, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture (A15) all are R/o. Ramachandrapuram thanda, Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District.
...Petitioners/A1,3, 4, 11, 13, 14 & 15
//and//
The State of Telangana through SHO PS Mattampally.
….Respondent/Complainant
This petition came before me on 04.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Ch. Krishnaiah, Advocate for the Petitioners/A1,3, 4, 11, 13, 14 & 15, whereas Sri. Bobba Koti Reddy, Addl.PP for the State and on hearing and having perused the material on record, this Court made the following:
I ADJ,Suryapet 2 of 5
O R D E R
(Bail Order)
01. This is a first bail petition filed by the Petitioners/A1,A3, A4, A11,
A13, A14 & A15 u/sec.483 B.N.S.S (old sec.439 Cr.P.C.), requesting the
Court to enlarge them on bail in Cr.No.77 of 2026 of PS Mattampally. The petitioners in this petition are A1, A3, A4, A11, A13, A14 & A15 in the main crime and they are referred as “the petitioners”.
Brief Averments of the Petition:-
02. The brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioners are that PS
Mattampally registered Cr.No.77 of 2026 for the offence U/sec.191(2), 191(3), 109, 118(1), 324(4), 49 r/w 190 BNS (old Sec.147, 148, 307, 326, 427, 109 R/W 149 IPC) against the petitioners, the petitioners were arrested and they were produced before Addl. Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Huzurnagar on 28.04.2026, then remanded to judicial custody
at Sub-Jail, Huzurnagar.
03. It is mentioned in the petition that the allegations against the petitioners are false. That the complainant lodged a false complaint and falsely implicated the petitioners. That PS Mattampally failed to follow the procedure laid down under section 35 BNS. PS Mattampally completed the investigation by examining all material witnesses i.e., LW1 to LW17 including investigation officer and filing of charge sheet is pending. The petitioners having families and no further custodial interrogation is required. That the petitioners are permanent resident of
Ramachandrapuram thanda, Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District and having movable and immovable properties and the petitioners are ready to furnish sufficient sureties. Finally, the petitioners prays to enlarge them on bail. Hence, the petition.
Notice and Counter:-
04. Notice given to the learned Spl.PP. He has produced CD file. The learned Spl.PP filed counter stating that there is prima facie case and reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners had committed the 3 of 5 offence and some more witnesses are to be examined, if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every possibility for tampering of evidence and threatening witnesses and there is possibility for the petitioners to flee from this case. If the petitioners are released on bail, they will not attend before the court regularly and they will repeat the offence. If the petitioners are released on bail, their presence cannot be secured. Finally, the learned Spl. PP prays to dismiss the petition.
Arguments:-
06. Heard both sides and perused the record. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are not concerned with this crime. That the petitioners are in judicial custody since 28.04.2026 and investigation is almost completed. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The learned Spl.PP has strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioners. The other submissions of the counsel on both sides are discussed at relevant point.
Points for Consideration:-
07. Now the points for consideration are:
i). Whether there are any grounds to grant bail to the petitioners? ii). Whether the petition can be allowed as prayed for?
Answers to the Points:-
08. After hearing both sides and after consideration of the material on record, it is clear that the offences alleged against the petitioners are
U/sec. 191(2), 191(3), 109, 118(1), 324(4), 49 r/w 190 BNS (Old
Sec.147, 148, 307,326,427,109 r/w 149 IPC). The said offence is grave and serious in nature and having punishment i.e. life imprisonment, as such no lenient view can be taken to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
09. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are already in judicial custody since 8 days, the sections mentioned in the CD are not attracted and no previous cases against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that all witnesses were 4 of 5 examined and investigation already completed. Eventhough, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the above aspects, the allegations in the complaint shows that the petitioners alleged to have formed into an unlawful assembly, arming with deadly weapons, brutally attacked on LW1 to LW6, caused multiple bleeding injuries with intention to kill them and with the instigation of other persons. The incident was due to land and political grudges. The case is at the stage of investigation and so for LW1 to LW17 are only shown in the case dairy and some more witnesses may be examined during remaining investigation. In this matter, charge sheet is not filed till now, hence it is not possible to say that investigation completed.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that they have also given complaint at PS Mattampally basing on which the police registered
Cr. No.76 of 2026 on the same day. On consideration of contents in the complaint relating to this crime (Cr. No. 77 of 2026), there is no possibility for the petitioners to commit the offence as they are injured in their crime (Cr.No.76 of 2026) and taking treatment in the hospital.
Eventhough the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the said aspects, when the investigation is in progress, basing on the contents in the complaint, it is not possible to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
Investigation is still going, as such it is not appropriate to decide the merits of the case and the petitioners are not entitled for bail at this stage. Moreover, the petitioners are remanded to judicial custody only on 28.04.2026 and even first remand extension is not completed to consider the request of the petitioners for bail. Hence, it is not fit case to consider bail to the petitioners at this stage.
11. In view of above reasons, it is very clear the petitioners are not entitled for bail and petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the points for consideration are answered as follows:
i). that there are no grounds to grant bail to the petitioners.
and
ii). that the petition cannot be allowed as prayed for.
5 of 5
Result:-
13. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer and after corrections,
pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 06 th day of May, 2026.
sd/-
FAC:II Addl. District Sessions Judge, Huzurnagar Copy to : The SHO., of PS Mattampally.
Order Record 28 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC/474/2022 | SHO PS MELLACHERUVU vs Redapangu Koteshwara Rao | 15 May 2026 | Judgement | Acquitted |
| CRLMP.BAIL/29/2026 | Angoth Saida A1 vs PS Mattampally | 13 May 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/137/2026 | Orsu Chanti vs SHO Chivvemla PS | 12 May 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/150/2026 | Bathu Balavardhan vs SHO PS Ananthagiri | 12 May 2026 | Order | — |
| SC.POCSO/147/2020 | STATE OF TELANGANA vs Itikala Ganesh | 11 May 2026 | Judgement | Acquitted |
| CRLMP.BAIL/27/2026 | Meegada Narasimha Rao vs PS Huzurnagar | 11 May 2026 | Order | — |
| SC/478/2022 | SHO PS Garidepally vs Yedipala Papi Reddy | 08 May 2026 | Judgement | Convicted |
| CRLMP.BAIL/138/2026 | Bollikonda alias Valigonda Padma and another vs State of Telangana | 06 May 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/142/2026 | Cherukupally Sai vs SHO Kodad Town PS | 06 May 2026 | Order | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/26/2026 | Angoth Saida A1 vs PS Mattampally | 06 May 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/125/2026 | Thallapaka Ajay vs SHO PS Munagala | 05 May 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/127/2026 | Kondeboina Srikanth and 3 others vs SHO PS Arvapally | 05 May 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/128/2026 | Mamidala Rithin vs SHO PS Suryapet II Town | 05 May 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/146/2026 | Shaik Gousiya vs SHO Palakaveedu PS | 05 May 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/148/2026 | Bommakanti Gopi vs SHO Penpahad PS | 05 May 2026 | Order | — |
| CMA/3/2026 | HCL Energy Addl Director Aavula Saideswara Rao Rep by His sale cum holders Vattem Manohar vs Podapala Koti Reddy | 01 May 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/126/2026 | Kumbham Naveen vs SHO PS Kodad Town | 30 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/25/2026 | Orsu Akhil A1 vs PS Chinthalapalem | 28 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/89/2026 | Ankireddy Mahesh vs SHO Arvapally PS | 23 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/90/2026 | Kondeboina Srikanth vs SHO Arvapally PS | 23 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/94/2026 | Chinthala Venkatesh vs SHO PS Penpahad | 23 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/100/2026 | Bommakanti Gopi 1 other vs SHO Penpahad PS | 23 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/91/2026 | Boda Sravan Kumar vs SHO Suryapet I Town PS | 22 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/76/2026 | Bora Sandeep vs SHO Athmakur s ps | 17 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/77/2026 | Pathakoti Vikram Devadanam vs SHO Garidepally PS | 17 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/80/2026 | Thallapaka Ajay vs SHO Munagala PS | 17 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/92/2026 | Kumbham Naveen vs SHO KODAD TOWN ps | 17 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/95/2026 | Samula Pratap Reddy vs SHO Huzurnagar | 17 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has P.SIVA RAMA PRASAD handled?
P.SIVA RAMA PRASAD has handled 28 court orders since 2026 at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 21 orders per month.
What types of cases does P.SIVA RAMA PRASAD hear?
Based on available records, P.SIVA RAMA PRASAD primarily handles Criminal matters (CRL, Sessions Cases) and Civil matters (Civil Misc. Appeals) at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex.
Where is P.SIVA RAMA PRASAD currently posted?
P.SIVA RAMA PRASAD is posted as Fast Track Special Court for expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Suryapet at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana.
Are judgments by P.SIVA RAMA PRASAD available online?
Yes. 11 judgments by P.SIVA RAMA PRASAD are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does P.SIVA RAMA PRASAD dispose cases?
P.SIVA RAMA PRASAD disposes approximately 21 cases per month, based on 28 orders handled over their tenure at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex.
Since when is P.SIVA RAMA PRASAD serving?
P.SIVA RAMA PRASAD has been serving at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex since 2026. and is currently posted there.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Apr 2026 — PresentFast Track Special Court for expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Suryapet · 1 orders
-
Apr 2026 — PresentI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet · 20 orders
-
Apr 2026 — PresentII Additional District and Sessions Court · 7 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court