Sri R.Raghunath Reddy

1 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Wednesday, the 21stday of May, 2025

Present: Sri R.Raghunath Reddy, I Additional Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

Sessions Case No.1163 of 2022

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Inspector of Police, Ghatkersar Police Station.

2 Name of the accusedMainam Ramulu @ Bottu Ramulu @ Ravi @ Talari Sailu, S/o.Chandraiah @ Kistaiah, Age 43 years, Occ:Driver, R/o.H.No.8-3-169/300, HF Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad, N/o.Arutla Village, Kandi Mandal, Sanga Reddy District 3 Offences complained ofUnder Sections 302, 201 and 392 IPC 4 Crime No. & Name of the PSCrime No.04 of 2021 of PS Ghatkesar 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6 Finding of the CourtFound guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

7 Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and sentenced to undergo-

(a) imprisonment for LIFE and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code;

(b) rigorous imprisonment for FIVE years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code; and

(c) rigorous imprisonment for SEVEN

2 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Thesubstantialsentencesof imprisonment imposed against the accused in this case and the life imprisonment imposed against the accused by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy in SC No. 507 of 2021, dated 16.04.2024 shall run concurrently under Section 427 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As seen from the record, the accused is in jail in this case since 27.01.2021. MO-1 (Rold gold chain) and MO-2 (Two silver anklets) shall be returned to the husband of the deceased Venkatamma by name Kavali @ Kura Ananthaiah (LW7) and MO-1(a) (one pair of paragon chappal), MO-2(a) (small cloth bag), MO-3 (red colour shirt), MO-4 (galaxy water bottle) and MO-6 (mobile phone) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This Sessions Case came before me for final hearing in the presence Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.Prabhakar Reddy and Ms.K.Swathi, Advocates for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Ghatkesar Police Station laid a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.04 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet, in brief, is: (a) On 01.01.2021, one Kavali @ Kura Ananthaiah (LW7), husband of the deceased

Venkatamma, lodged a report with the police of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad

3 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

stating that his wife Venkatamma went missing on 30.12.2020 and in that regard a case in Cr.No.01 of 2021 under the heading ‘Woman Missing’ was registered in Jubilee Hills

Police Station.

(b) While the things stood thus, on 04.01.2021 at about 8.00 p.m., Gyara

Balaswamy, Key Man of Railways (LW1), lodged a report with the Police of Ghatkesar

Police Station stating that on 04.01.2021, at about 3.00 p.m., when he was on duty, he received a phone call from one Kondal, Shepherd (LW2), that he found a dead body of an unknown woman in the bushes nearby railway track in the limits of Ankushapur

Village, upon which, he (LW1) rushed to the spot and found the dead body of an unknown female nearby KM Stone No.218/16-18, Unit No.III, Railway Track of

Ankushapur village, Ghatkesar Mandal in decomposed state. Based on the said report,

N.Chandra Babu, Inspector of Police, Ghatkesar Police Station (LW29) registered a case in Cr.No.04 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal

Code and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the said

Inspector of Police/LW29 examined and recorded the statement of Gyara Balaswamy (LW1), visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama in the presence of Smt.Chintakindi Renuka/LW14 and Ushigalla

Ganesh/LW15 and seized one pair of Paragon Chappal, petty cloth cash bag (chekkudu sanchi), red coloured lines shirt and Galaxy one litre bottle from the scene. The

Inspector of Police/LW29 examined and recorded the statements of Gullam Kondal, Puru

Srinivas, M.A.Mazal, Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station and K.Nageshwar

Rao, HC-504 of Railway Police Station (LW2 to LW5). The Inspector of Police/LW29

4 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

got shifted the dead body to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and, on 06.01.2021, he gave a requisition to the Doctor to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. During the post mortem examination, a small paper containing mobile number of Devi Chennaiah (LW6 ) was found inside the blouse on the dead body. Through the said phone number, the Inspector of Police/LW29 called the relatives of the deceased to the hospital for identifying the dead body. On 07.01.2021, Kavali @ Kura Ananthaiah (LW7), Bijaram Ashok (LW8) and Bijaram Ramesh (LW9) came to the Osmania

General Hospital and identified the body as that of Kavali Venkatamma. On examination, the said persons told the Inspector of Police/LW29 that the deceased

Venkatamma used to do labour work and, on 30.12.2020, in the morning hours, she left the home for labour work, but, did not return home and so, on 01.01.2021, they filed a report with the Police of Jubilee Hills Police Station stating that Venkatamma went missing and there a case in Cr.No.01 of 2021 was registered. Immediately, the Inspector of Police/LW29 approached S.Naveen Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police/LW10 and recorded his statement and thereafter, he (LW29) approached Kothapalli Prakash Goud (LW11), who is the owner of toddy shop near Yousufguda, and showed the photograph of the deceased and the said Prakash Goud (LW11) identified the person seen in the photograph as Venkatamma and stated that she occasionally used to come to his toddy shop and, as usually, on 30.12.2020 between 11.00 a.m., and 11.30 a.m., she came to the shop and after consuming toddy, she left the shop at around at 1.00 p.m., along with a male person aged between 40 to 45 years towards Yousufguda Cross-Roads. Based on the said information given by Kothapalli Prakash Goud (LW11), the Inspector of

Police/LW29 along with his staff started searching the CCTV footage at the surrounding

5 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

places of labour adda and the toddy shop. In the process, Inspector of Police/LW29 collected CCTV footage from Srirama Tiffin Centre where the deceased boarded an auto rickshaw along with a male person and he shared the said information to the North Zone

Task Force Police and CCS Police to identify the male person.

(c) On 08.01.2021, while searching the CCTV footage, the Inspector of

Police/LW29 found the deceased boarding metro train at Ameerpet Metro station and getting down at Uppal Metro Station and he shared the said information also to the Task

Force Police. From the visuals appearing in CCTV footage, the Inspector of

Police/LW29 identified the male person seen along with the deceased Venkatamma as

Mainam Ramulu and he, then, deputed ID party to apprehend the accused i.e., Mainam

Ramulu. On 26.01.2021 at 2.00 p.m.,, Nageshwar, Inspector of Police, Task Force,

North Zone, Hyderabad (LW27) apprehended the accused and brought him to North

Zone Task Force Office at Secunderabad. On interrogation, the accused confessed that he committed totally 18 murders, four property offences and one escort escaping. He also confessed that on 30.12.2020, when he was consuming alcohol at Yousufguda ‘x’ road, he met with a woman, aged about 45 to 50 years, and started discussion with her and he asked her to participate in sexual intercourse with him by offering some amount and the said woman has agreed to do so for Rs.1,200/- and at about 1.00 p.m., himself and the woman left the toddy shop, came to Yousufguda cross-roads, boarded the auto rickshaw in front of Srirama Tiffin Centre, went to Ameerpet metro station, travelled to

Uppal metro station by metro train and he purchased alcohol in a wine shop at Uppal and boarded an RTC bus at Uppal, got down from the bus at HPCL, Ankushapur Village on

6 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

NH-163 and from there, they went to an isolated place nearby railway track by foot and there they consumed alcohol, after consuming alcohol, at about 4.00 p.m., he tried to kill the said woman by strangling her throat with hands, but, the woman tried to escape from him and so, he strangled her throat tightly with her saree and after killing her, he committed theft of her nuptial chain, one pair of silver ankles, keypad mobile phone and net cash of Rs.4,700/- and thereafter, he burnt the face of the woman to make it unidentifiable and thereafter, he left the place by auto rickshaw, went to Ghatkesar and he pledged the silver anklets in a shop at Ghatkesar for Rs.3,500/- and left Ghatkesar by bus.

(d)Based on the above confession made by the accused, the Inspector of

Police/LW29 issued a memo adding Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code to the existing

Sections i.e., 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused led the Inspector of

Police/LW29 and panchas to his house and from the said house, the Inspector of

Police/LW29 seized one rold gold nuptial chain from the house of the accused and from there, the Inspector of Police/LW29 went to Ramdev Jewellery Shop at Ghatkesar and there, he seized one pair of silver anklets from the said shop and thereafter, the Inspector of Police/LW29 effected the arrest of the accused and sent him to the Court for remand and later, the Inspector of Police/LW29 obtained the accused for police custody and during the said custody, the accused led the Inspector of Police/LW29 and the panchas to the place of offence and confessed that he killed the deceased at the said place.

(e) The doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died due to “Asphyxia”. The Inspector of Police/LW29 sent the

7 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

sternum of the deceased to FSL along with blood samples of the mother of the deceased by name Bijaram Bichamma and FSL vide report No.DNA/68/2021 dated 16.02.2021 opined that the Autosomal STR analysis conclusively proves that the source of Sternum bone is biologically related to Bijaram Bichamma. The Inspector of Police/LW29 got conducted the Test Identification Parade of the accused wherein Kothapalli Prakash

Goud/LW11, owner of the toddy shop, identified the accused as the person who came to his toddy shop and took away the deceased. The Inspector of Police/LW29 got conducted Test Identification of stolen articles also by D.Devender Babu, Magistrate (LW26), wherein Bijaram Ashok and Bijaram Ramesh (LW8 and LW9), who are the brothers of the deceased Venkatamma, have identified the articles as that of their sister

Venkatamma. The Inspector of Police/LW29 collected the CAF particulars of the accused also from the Nodal Officer of Airtel. After due investigation, the Inspector of

Police/LW29 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.The learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at

Uppal, before whom the above charge sheet was filed, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and registered the case as

PRC No.28 of 2022 and committed the same to this Court, vide order dated 22.09.2022, under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and this Court registered the same as S.C.No.1163 of 2022 on the file of this Court.

4.Right from the beginning, the accused is in jail and initially he was defended by a Legal-Aid-Counsel by name Sri R.Thirupathi and later, he engaged Sri

8 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

G.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate to defend him. At the stage of arguments, the said Sri

G.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate filed a memo withdrawing the Memo of Appearance for the accused and then Ms.K.Swathi, Advocate filed Memo of Appearance for the accused.

5.Upon consideration of material available on record and after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, this Court framed charges under Sections 302, 201 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, read over and explained the same to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution, to bring home the guilt against the accused, got examined

PWs1 to PW20 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 and MOs 1 to 6.

7.PW1, G.Kondal, who is a Shepherd, speaks about his finding the dead body of a woman near to the railway track at Ankushapur village and informing the same to

Balaswamy/LW1, who works in Railways, over phone. PW3, G.Balaswamy, who is working as a key man in railways, states that on 04.01.2021, at 3.00 p.m., he received a phone call from PW1 that dead body of a woman is lying in the bushes near the railway track, Ankushapur and immediately, he went there, found the dead body of a woman in decomposed position and he informed the same to the railway police, Secunderabad over phone and they came to the spot, verified the situation and told him that the said place is not within their limits and advised him to report the matter to Ghatkesar Police Station and then, he went to Ghatkesar Police Station and there he gave report/Ex.P1. PW2,

M.A.Mazal, Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Police station, Secunderabad, states that on 04.01.2021 at about 3.00 p.m., he received a phone call from PW3 (Balaswamy) that

9 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

dead body of a woman is lying in decomposed state at KM Stone No.218/16-18 and then, he rushed to the said place and found that the said place is not within the limits of their Railway Police Station and, therefore, he advised PW3 to lodge a report with the

Police Station, Ghatkesar. PW4, Devi Chennaiah, states that the deceased Venkatamma was working under him as ‘adda coolie’. PW5, B.Ashok, and PW20, B.Ramesh, are brothers of the deceased Venkatamma and they speak about the missing of Venkatamma and their lodging a report with the police of Jubilee Hills Police Station. PW6,

K.Prakash Goud, is examined to speak that he has seen the deceased Venkatamma and the accused lastly at his toddy shop. PW7, S.Naveen Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Jubilee Hills Police Station, at the relevant time, speaks about his registering the case vide Cr.No.01 of 2021 for missing of Venkatamma. PW8, Ramdhari Babu, states that the accused was a tenant in his house at Habeeb Fathima Nagar, Borabanda, Yousufguda.

PW9, Ch.Renuka, is cited as one of the panchas for scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama and she speaks that one pair of paragon chappal (MO1), small cloth bag (MO2), red colour shirt (MO3) and Galaxy water bottle with water (MO4) were seized from the scene of offence. PW10,Madanlal, who is doing jewellery business under the name and style of ‘Ramdev Jewellery’ at Ghatkesar states that the accused came to him and pledged the silver anklets (MO5) with him for which he issued a receipt/Ex.P5 to the accused. PW11, M.Shashidhar, who is cited as one of the panchas for confession and recovery panchanama, states that one rold gold chain (MO1), two silver anklets (MO2) and mobile phone (MO6) were seized from and at the instance of the accused.

PW12, B.Anjaneyulu, is another panch for confession and he states that the accused took him and others to the place of offence and showed the same to them. PW13, Dr.

10 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

B.Vasanth Naik, Assistant Professor in Department of Forensic Medicine, Gandhi

Hospital, Secunderabad, speaks about his conducting post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. PW14, D.Balakrishna, CCTV Technician in Harsha

Technologies, Madhapur, states that on 07.01.2021, at the instance of Police, Ghatkesar, he copied the CCTV footage from the DVR arranged at Sri Rama Tiffin Center,

Yousufguda and handed over the same to the Police. PW15, Lokesh Saxena, Chief

Security Officer, L & T Metro, Hyderabad, speaks about his arranging CCTV footage of

Ameerpet and Uppal Metro Stations to the Police of Ghatkesar. PW16, Smt.Kavitha

Karnati, VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, at the relevant time, is the Magistrate who conducted Test Identification Parade of the accused. PW17,

D.Devendra Babu, VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar and in-charge of IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, is the officer who conducted the Test

Identification of stolen articles. PW18, D.Vijay Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Ghatkesar Police Station, speaks about his securing Laxmi Kanth Reddy/LW16 and

Shashidhar (PW11) to act as confession-cum-recovery panchas of the accused. PW19,

M.Chandra Babu, Inspector of Police, at the relevant time, is the investigating officer in the case.

8.It is to be noted that through PW5, who is the brother of the deceased and who was examined on 25.05.2023, one rold gold chain and two silver anklets that were stated to have been seized from the accused were marked as MO1 and MO2 respectively.

But, again, on 08.05.2024, one pair of Paragon chappal and one small cloth bag (chekkudu sanchi) were marked as MO1 and MO2 respectively through PW9. It may be

11 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

due to inadvertence. So, to avoid confusion and refer the material objects conveniently, pair of paragon chappal is re-marked as MO1(a) and small cloth bag is re-marked as

MO2(a). It is also to be noted that two silver anklets that were marked as MO2 through

PW5 were again marked as MO5 through PW10. Hence, it is clarified that MO2 and

MO5 are one and the same.

9.After closure of prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same. He, however, did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

10.It is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that PWs 5 and 20, who are the brothers of the deceased Venkatamma, identified the dead body of the woman that was found near KM Stone No. 218/16-18, Unit No.III,Railway track at

Ankushapur village as of their sister Venkatamma and that Ex.P9/DNA report also proves that the said dead body is of Venkatamma and from the evidence of PW6, it is obvious that on 30.12.2020, on which date Venkatamma went missing, Venkatamma and the accused have consumed toddy in his (PW6’s) toddy shop and further, from the CCTV footage contained in Ex.P19/pen drive, it is evident that on 30.12.2020 at 13.52 hours Venkatamma and the accused have boarded metro train at Ameerpet Metro Station and got down the train at Uppal Metro Station at 14.28 hours and as confessed by the accused himself, after getting down from the metro train at Uppal Metro Station, he took Venkatamma to

Ghatkesar by bus and from there, he took her into bushes nearby railway track, both of them have consumed liquor and that after consuming liquor, when Venkatamma went into

12 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

intoxication, he killed her by strangulating her neck with her chunni and thereafter, he took away cash of Rs.4,700/-, two silver anklets, rold gold pusthela chain and mobile phone from the said Venkatamma and from the evidence of PW10, it is obvious that the accused has pledged two silver anklets with him for Rs.3,500/- and so, the accused can be held guilty of the offences with which he is charged and can be convicted and sentenced for the said offences.

11.On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused does not know the deceased Venkatamma at all and that there is nothing on record to show that the dead body that was found at the alleged place is of Venkatamma and that the alleged CCTV footage contained in Ex.P19 is a created and fabricated one and further, the accused did not make any confession before PW19/Investigating Officer and that even if it taken taken for a moment that the accused had made such a confession, the same is inadmissible in view of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further contended by him that the accused is nothing to do with the death of Venkatamma and he is implicated falsely in the case and that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the alleged murder of Venkatamma and hence, he cannot be convicted and sentenced for the offences with which he is charged. The learned counsel, ultimately, prayed to acquit the accused of the offences with which he is charged.

12.In view of the above rival contentions, the following points would arise for determination:

1)Whether the dead body of a woman that was found near KM Stone No. 218/16-18, Unit No.III, Railway Track at Ankushapur village, Ghatkesar Mandal is of Venkatamma?

2)Whether the death of Venkatamma is homicidal?

13 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

3)Whether the deceased Venkatamma was seen lastly in the company of the accused before her death?

4)Whether the accused is liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code?

5)Whether the accused is liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code?

6)To what result?

13.Point No.1: Whether the dead body of a woman that was found near KM Stone No.218/16-18, Unit No.III, Railway Track at Ankushapur village, Ghatkesar Mandal is of Venkatamma?

Initially, this case was registered as a case of woman missing vide Crime No.01 of 2021 at Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad and later, the same turned to be a case of murder vide Crime No.04 of 2021 registered at Ghatkesar Police Station.

14.It is not in dispute that dead body of a woman was found near KM Stone No.

218/16-18, Unit No.III, Railway track at Ankushapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal.

According to the prosecution, the said dead body is of Venkatamma. But, the accused is vehemently disputing the said case of prosecution. So, it is for the prosecution to prove that the said dead body is of Venkatamma.

15.PW5, brother of Venkatamma, has stated that Venkatamma went missing on 30.10.2020 and Ananthaiah (LW7), husband of Venkatamma, informed the same to him and he was told that on that day i.e., 30.10.2020, Venkatamma went to labour adda at

Yousufguda and they went there and searched for Venkatamma, but, they did not find her and so, on 31.12.2020, they filed a case with Jubilee Hills Police Station stating that

Venkatamma is missing. PW20, another brother of Venkatamma, has stated that on 30.12.2020, as usually, Venkatamma went to attend her labour work, but, till night, she did not return to the house and so, the husband of Venkatamma i.e., Ananthaiah, called him

14 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

and informed him that Venkatamma did not return home and then, he went to the house of

Venkatamma and they waited till late night and on the next day morning, they went to the known persons and caused enquiry about Venkatamma, but, they told them that they do not know about Venkatamma and on the next day, they went to Jubilee Hills Police

Station and there, they filed a complaint stating that Venkatamma is missing.

16.PW4 has stated that in the year 2020 he was doing granite work at

Yousufguda locality and at that time, Venkatamma was working under him as adda coolie and she was coming to the work regularly and prior to 06.01.2021, the relatives of

Venkatamma called him and asked him whether she has come for the work and he replied them that he does not know about her and then the relatives of Venkatamma told him that they filed a case with the police of Jubilee Hills Police Station stating that Venkatamma is missing.

17.PW7, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jubilee Hills Police Station, at the relevant time, has stated that, on 01.01.2021, one Kavali Ananthaiah (LW7), Ashok (PW5) and

Ramesh (PW20) came to their police station and lodged a report stating that on 30.12.2020, Venkatamma (wife of Ananthaiah), as usually, went to attend the coolie work but she did not return home and based on the said report, he registered a case in Crime

No.01 of 2021 under the heading ‘woman missing’ and he recorded the statement of

Ananthaiah/LW7 and then, he went to the house of Ananthaiah along with Ananthaiah and caused enquiry about the missing of Venkatamma and on enquiry, he came to know that

Venkatamma used to go to toddy compound situated at Yousufguda regularly and then he went to the said toddy compound and caused enquiry with the owner of toddy compound by name Prakash (PW6) and the said Prakash revealed that on 30.12.2020, Venkatamma

15 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

came to his shop along with an unknown male person, drank toddy and they left the toddy shop at 1.00 p.m.

18.PW1 has stated that he is a resident of Ankushapur village and in the year 2021, he was a shepherd and on 04.01.2021, himself and Srinivas (LW3) were grazing sheep in Keerthi Venture near to the Railway track at Ankushapur village and at about 2.30 or 3.00 p.m., they smelt a bad smell from the bushes near to the railway track and then they went near to the bushes and found the dead body of a woman in the bushes and the said dead body was in decomposed state and it was lying in supine position and the face was in black colour and then he called Balaswamy (PW3), who works in railways, over phone and informed him about their finding the dead body and from the scene, they understood that somebody killed the woman and threw the dead body there.

19.PW3 has stated that he is working as key man in Railways, Unit No.III,

Ankushapur and on 04.01.2021 at about 3.00 p.m., when he was on duty, PW1, who belongs to Ankushapur village, called him over phone and informed him that dead body of a woman is lying in the bushes nearby railway track and he immediately went to the said place i.e., KM Stone No. 218/16-18, Unit No.III, Ankushapur Railway track and he went to the bushes and found the dead body of a woman in decomposed condition and the same was burnt and he informed the same to the Railway Police, Secunderabad over phone and they came to the spot and verified the situation and told him that the said place is not within their limits and they advised him to report the matter to Ghatkesar police and then, he went to Ghatkesar Police Station and gave a written report (Ex.P1).

20.PW2 has stated that he is working as Sub-Inspector of Police in Railway

Police Station, Secunderabad and on 04.01.2021, when he was in the police station on

16 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

duty, at about 3.00 p.m., he received a phone call from Balaswamy (PW3) stating that at

KM Stone No. 218/16-18, Ankushapur Village, dead body of a woman is lying in decomposed state and he immediately rushed to the said place and found the dead body in burnt and decomposed state and he has noticed that it was lying at a distance of 20 metres from the railway track in the bushes and the said place was not within the limits of

Railway Police Station and, therefore, he advised Balaswamy (PW3) to lodge report with the Police Station, Ghatkesar.

21.PW19, Inspector of Police, Ghatkesar Police Station, at the relevant time, has stated that on 04.01.2021 at 10.00 p.m., he received a written report/Ex.P1 from PW1 and based on the same, he registered a case in Crime No.04 of 2021 for the offences under

Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and issued FIR/Ex.P8; that he examined and recorded the statement of PW3; that he visited the scene of offence situated near KM

Stone No. 218/16-18, Unit No.III, Railway track of Ankushapur village; that he prepared a look out notice and circulated the same to three Police Commissionerates to establish the identify of the dead body found and since it was late in the night, he could not conduct any panchanama on that day and on the next day i.e. on 05.01.2021, he secured the presence of

PW9 and Ganesh (LW15) and by taking them, he visited the scene of offence again and there he conducted inquest panchanama (Ex.P4) over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of said panchas; that he seized one pair of paragon chappal [MO1 and re-marked as MO1(a)], petty cloth cash bag [MO2 and re-marked as MO2(a)], red colour lines shirt (MO3) and Galaxy one litre water bottle (MO4) from the scene of offence and later, he examined and recorded the statements of PW1, Srinivas (LW3), PW2 and Nageshwar Rao (LW5) at the scene and PW1 and Srinivas/LW3 stated that on 04.01.2021 at 2.05 p.m.,

17 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

while they were grazing sheep, they saw the dead body and informed the same to PW3.

He has further stated that he shifted the dead body to Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad for post mortem examination and on 06.01.2021, he gave a requisition to

PW13/doctor to conduct PME and during PME, he found phone number belonging to

PW4 written on a small paper that was kept inside the blouse of Venkatamma and through the said phone number, he called the relatives of the deceased to the hospital for identification of dead body and he also called PW4 to the hospital and recorded his statement at the hospital and through him, he secured the phone numbers of the relatives of the deceased; that on 07.01.2021, Ananthaiah/LW7, PW5 and PW20 came to Osmania

General Hospital, Hyderabad and identified the dead body as of Kavali Venkatamma and he examined and recorded their statements and as stated by the said witnesses, they lodged a complaint with the police of Jubilee Hills Police Station stating that Venkatamma is missing and upon which a case in Crime No.01 of 2021 was registered at the said Police

Station and he then, approached Naveen Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police (PW7), who is

Investigating Officer in Crime No.01 of 2021. He has also stated that he approached PW6, who is the owner of toddy shop near Yousufguda cross-road and showed him the photographs of the deceased and PW6 identified the deceased as Venkatamma and stated that Venkatamma used to come to his toddy shop occasionally and as usually on 30.12.2020 in between 11 and 11.30 am she came to the toddy shop to consume toddy, left the toddy shop at about 1.00 p.m., along with one male person, aged between 40 and 45 years, towards Yousufguda Cross-Roads.

22.PW9 has stated that she is working in Gram Panchayat, Ankushapur and on 05.01.2021, the police called her and Ganesh (LW15) near to Railway track, Ankushapur

18 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

stating that a dead body is lying there and by the time they went there, police people were present and the police observed the place and that dead body of a woman was lying there and her age appeared to be35 to 40 years and the dead body was in burnt condition and near the dead body, there was a pair of paragon chappal [MO1 and re-marked as MO1(a)] and small bag [MO2 and re-marked as MO2(a)] and at a little distance from the dead body, they found a white colour cover and in the said cover they found red shirt (MO3) and one

Galaxy water bottle (MO4) and the police seized all those things by preparing a panchanama (Ex.P2) and pasted chits containing their signatures on the said articles and the police prepared sketch (Ex.P3) of said place also. He has further stated that the police conducted a panchanama (Ex.P4) over the dead body and that herself and Ganesh (LW15) signed the said panchanama as witnesses and that there was red colour saree, red colour jacket and red colour bangles on the body.

23.PW5 has stated that on 04.01.2021 the police of Ghatkesar called him and informed him that dead body of Venkatamma was found and asked him to come to police station and he went to Ghatkesar Police Station and from there, he was taken to the mortuary of Osmania General Hospital and there, he identified the dead body as of

Venkatamma and there were toe rings on the toes of Venkatamma and when Venkatamma went missing she was wearing pusthelathadu, silver anklets and gold ear studs and that he was taken to a judge at LB Nagar Court and there he identified the rold gold chain (MO1) and two silver anklets (MO2) as of Venkatamma.

24. PW20 has stated that, on 6th or 7th January, 2021, Ghatkesar Police called them and told them that they found dead body of a woman and they asked them to come there and they went to the Ghatkesar Police Station and there they were told that the dead

19 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

body is at Osmania General Hospital and then they went there and by seeing the clothes and tatoo on right hand, they identified the dead body as that of Venkatamma. He has further stated that after 10 months, he was called to the Court and was asked to identify the silver anklets and neck chain of Venkatamma and he identified the silver anklets and chain of Venkatamma.

25.PW4 has stated that on 06.01.2021, the police of Ghatkesar called him and asked him to come to Police Station and he went to Ghatkesar Police Station. He has further stated that he wrote his phone number on a chit and gave the same to Venkatamma when she was working with him and with the help of said phone number, police called him and he gave the phone number of relatives to the police and the police told him that

Venkatamma died.

26.PW6 has stated that on 08.01.2021, the police of Ghatkesar Police Station came to him and told him that someone killed Venkatamma and the police questioned him whether he can identify the person who came along with Venkatamma to the shop and he told to the police that he can identify him if he sees him again.

27.PW13, Dr.Vasanth Nayak, has stated that on 06.01.2021, he received a requisition from the Station House Officer, Ghatkesar Police Station to conduct autopsy over the dead body of unknown female, aged 35 to 45 years, and he, accordingly, conducted autopsy on the same day between 11.20 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. He has further stated that he has preserved the viscera and sternum for the opinion of FSL and DNA analysis and that Ex.P9 is FSL report in File No. DNA/68/2021 dated 16.02.2021.

28.PW19/investigating officer has stated that he sent the Sternum of the deceased to FSL along with blood samples of the mother of the deceased by name

20 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

Smt.Bijaram Bichamma to conduct DNA test and FSL issued report in File

No.DNA/68/2021 dated 16.02.2021 (Ex.P9). PW5, brother of the deceased Venkatamma, in his cross-examination, has stated that the police have obtained blood samples from his mother.

29.As seen from Ex.P9/FSL report, one sealed card board box and a person by name Bijaram Bichamma were forwarded to TSFSL, Hyderabad and the blood sample collected from said Bijaram Bichamma was marked as item No.1 and the sternum bone that was kept in card board box was marked as item No.2 and the DNA extracted from item Nos.1 and 2 were subjected to autosomal STR analysis by using global filer kit and the DNA profile obtained from item No.2 i.e., sternum bone, was compared with DNA profile obtained from item No.1 i.e., Bijaram Bichamma, and it was concluded “the

Autosomal STR analysis conclusively proves that the source of item No.2 (Sternum bone) is biologically related to Bijaram Bichamma (source of item No.1)”.

30.From the above evidence, it is obvious that, initially, PWs 5 and 20, who are the brothers of Venkatamma along with the husband of Venkatamma by name

Ananthaiah/LW7 lodged a report with the police of Jubilee Hills police station on 30.12.2020 stating that Venkatamma went missing, upon which, PW7/Sub-Inspector of

Police, Jubilee Hills Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.01 of 2021; that on 04.01.2021, PW1 has noticed the dead body of a woman in the bushes near railway track at Ankushapur village, Ghatkesar Mandal and he informed the same to PW3 and PW3, in turn, lodged a report/Ex.P1 with PW19/Inspector of Police, Ghatkesar Police Station, who registered the case and investigated into the matter; that with the help of mobile number that was found in the chit which was in the blouse of the deceased Venkatamma,

21 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

PW19/Investigating Officer called PW4 with whom Venkatamma was working as a labour and through PW4, PW19/Investigating Officer has received the mobile numbers of PW5 and PW20, who are the brothers of Venkatamma, and he called them to the mortuary of

Osmania General Hospital and asked them to identify the dead body and they (PW5 and

PW20) by seeing the clothes, tatoo and ornaments found on the body identified the said dead body as of Venkatamma and they also identified rold gold chain/MO1 and two silver anklets/MO2 that were stated to have been recovered from the accused as that of

Venkatamma. This apart, Ex.P9/DNA report reveals that the allelic pattern of sternum bone of the deceased matches with the allelic pattern of DNA extracted from the mother of the deceased by name Bijaram Bichamma. The expert, ultimately, opined that the

Autosmal STR analysis conclusively proves that source of sternum bone is biologically related to Bijraram Bichamma.

31.It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the murder of

Venkatamma allegedly took place on 30.12.2020, whereas, PW1 found the dead body on 04.01.2021, i.e., five days after the alleged murder, and further, as stated by PWs 1 to 3, who stated to have seen the dead body firstly, the same was burnt completely and was in decomposed state and this apart, in Ex.P1/report, Ex.P4/inquest panchanama and

Ex.P7/PME report, it was referred to as unknown dead body and, therefore, PWs 5 and 20 identifying the dead body as that of Venkatamma cannot be believed to be true. This

Court is unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel. It is to be noted that PWs 5 and 20 are none other than the brothers of Venkatamma, about which there is no dispute.

They could identify the dead body as that of their sister Venkatamma based on physique and the clothes, ornaments and tatoo found on the dead body. It is not the case of the

22 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

accused that the dead body was burnt completely and so, it was not possible to identify the same. On the other hand, as per the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, who saw the dead body for the first time and also as mentioned in Ex.P7/PME report by the Doctor (PW13), who conducted PME, the face was only burnt that too partially. Besides all, as stated by PW5, brother of the deceased and PW19/Investigating Officer, the mother of the deceased

Venkatamma by name Bijaram Bichamma and sternum bone collected from the deceased

Venkatamma were subjected to DNA and the expert concerned in the Telangana State

Forensic Laboratory, vide Ex.P9, opined that sternum bone is biologically related to

Bijaram Bichamma. So, based on the oral evidence of PWs 5 and 20 coupled with the scientific evidence contained in Ex.P9, it can be held that the dead body of the woman that was found near KM Stone No. 218/16-18, Unit No.III, Railway track at Ankushapur,

Ghatkesar Mandal is of Venkatamma. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

32.Point No.2: Whether the death of Venkatamma is homicidal?

PW1, who has seen the dead body for the first time, has stated that from the scene they understood that somebody killed the woman and threw the dead body there. As seen from Ex.P4/inquest panchnama, the panchas opined that some body killed the said woman.

PW13, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, has stated that he found the following ante mortem injuries on the body:

1) Post mortem dermo epidermal first and second mixed flame burn injuries with charred skin, peeling of skin seen over the face, neck, front of the chest and both right and left shoulder and arm region noted.

2) A horizontally placed continuous ligature mark completely encircling the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage. The ligature mark is measuring 25 cm in length, varying width of 02-03 cm and is located at a distance of 05 cm, 05 cm, 05 cm successively beneath the

23 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

right ear, chin and left. The ligature mark is brown and parchamentised, on cut section base of the ligature mark is bruises of tissues noted above and below the mark. The hyoid bone noted fracture left tip of the greater horn with contusion seen.

3) On reflection of the neck flap : diffused contusion noted all over the neck, muscles and tissues seen.

4) On reflection of the chest flap : multiple fractures at the level of right second, third and fourth ribs with surrounding tissue contusion and bleeding noted. Fractured ribs pierced into right upper lobe of lung in posterior surface associated with laceration noted.

33.PW13/doctor has further stated that the cause of death was due to Asphyxia (strangulation and burking) and he issued a report (Ex.P7) accordingly.

34.From the above evidence of PW13/doctor, it is obvious that burn injuries with charred skin, peeling of skin over face, neck, front of the chest and both right and left shoulder and arm region were noted and there was a ligature mark completely encircling the neck and there were multiple fractures at the level of right 2nd , 3rd and 4th ribs with surrounding tissue contusion and bleeding was noted and the fractured ribs pierced into right upper lobe of lung in posterior surface associated with laceration was noted. It is not the case of the accused that the death of Venkatamma was not homicidal and it was suicidal or accidental. So, based on the evidence of PW13/doctor and also the evidence of

PW1 and Ex.P4, it can be held that the death of Venkatamma was homicidal. This point is answered accordingly.

35.Points No.3 and 4:

3) Whether the deceased Venkatamma was seen lastly in the company of the accused before her death?

4) Whether the accused is liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code? It is a fact that there is no eye witness account or direct evidence to connect the accused with the death of Venkatamma and that the entire case is rested on the last seen

24 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

theory and circumstantial evidence. It is now to be seen whether the prosecution is able to complete the chain and connect the accused with the death of Venkatamma.

36.As noted earlier, initially, the case was registered as a case of woman missing and later tuned to be a case of murder. PW19/Investigating Officer could locate the relatives of Venkatamma i.e., PWs 5 and 20, through PW4 with whom Venkatamma was working and whose mobile number was found on a paper slip in the blouse of

Venkatamma.

37.PW19/Investigating Officer has stated that he approached PW6, owner of toddy shop, Yousufguda Cross-Roads, and showed him the photographs of the deceased and he identified the deceased as Venkatamma and he (PW6) has stated that the deceased

Venkatamma used to come to his toddy shop to consume toddy occasionally and, as usually, on 30.12.2020 in between 11.00 and 11.30 a.m., she came to the shop, consumed toddy and left the toddy shop at about 1.00 p.m., along with a male person, aged between 40 and 45 years, towards Yousufguda cross-roads and then, he (PW19) started searching

CCTV footage at surrounding places of labour adda and toddy shop and he collected

CCTV footage from Sri Rama Tiffin Centre, where the deceased boarded auto rickshaw along with a male person and he obtained a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence

Act (Ex.P12) from PW14 and he shared the CCTV footage collected to North Zone Task

Force Police and CCS Police to identify the male person; that on 08.01.2021, he searched the CCTV footage and found that the deceased boarded a metro train at Ameerpet Station and travelled up to Uppal metro station and he then collected CCTV footage and obtained certificates under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act from PW15 and as per information available in CCTV footage, they identified the male person as Mainam Ramulu i.e., the

25 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

accused, and he deputed the ID party to apprehend the accused. He has further stated that he has collected CCTV footage from five locations in Ameerpet Metro station and from three locations at Uppal Metro Station and Ex.P19 is the pen drive containing CCTV footage collected from PW15; that in the CCTV footage collected from Sri Rama Tiffin

Centre, Yousufguda, the suspect was found smoking cigarette without face mask and in the CCTV footage collected from metro station, the suspect was found with face mask and a woman was also with him and the suspect and woman moved together in the metro station and according to his investigation, the suspect seen in the CCTV footage collected from the metro station is the accused person.

38.PW6, owner of toddy shop at Yousufguda, has stated that on 08.01.2021

Ghatkesar Police came to him and told him that some one killed Venkatamma and the police questioned him whether he can identify the person who came along with

Venkatamma to his shop and he told the police that he can identify him if he sees him again.

39.PW14 has stated that he worked as CCTV Technician in Harsha

Technologies, Madhapur and their company has installed CCTV cameras in Sri Rama

Tiffin Centre, Yousufguda and, on 07.01.2021, the Police Ghatkesar came to Harsha

Technologies and asked to provide CCTV footage from the DVR arranged at Sri Rama

Tiffin Centre, Yousufguda and on the same day, he went to Sri Rama Tiffin Centre,

Yousufguda and he has opened the video footage and shown to the police people and they asked him to make copy of video relating to 30.12.2020 and he copied the said video footage into a pen drive and from Sri Rama Tiffin Centre, he along with the police people went to their office and the police people asked his Sir to copy the data into the CD from

26 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

pen drive and his Sir copied the data to the CD (Ex.P11) and handed over the same to the police and that he issued a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act i.e., Ex.P12.

He, in his cross-examination, has stated that he has seen a man and woman present together in video footage.

40.PW15 has stated that he is working as Chief Security Officer, L & T Metro,

Hyderabad and on 08.01.2021, the police constables of Ghatkesar Police Station came to him and asked for CCTV footage of Ameerpet and Uppal metro stations dated 30.12.2020 and they asked him to provide the CCTV footage of fixed cameras 1 and 2 from 13.25 hours to 14.50 hours on 13.12.2020 at Ameerpet metro station and of fixed cameras 16 and 22 from 14.00 hours to 15.15 hours on 30.12.2020 at Uppal metro station and he then called a technician and asked him to download the required footage and technician has downloaded the footage, copied the same to the pen drive and handed over the same to the police and he issued two certificates under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and that

Ex.P13 is the certificate relating to the footage taken at Ameerpet metro station and Ex.P14 is the certificate relating to the footage taken at Uppal metro station. He, in his cross- examination, has stated that on 08.01.2021, he handed over Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 along with a pen drive to the constable of Ghatkesar Police Station.

41.As seen from Ex.P19/pen drive, a man with red shirt and black pant and a woman with red saree and red blouse were seen together and they entered into metro station, Ameerpet at 13.52 hours on 30.12.2020, bought tickets at the ticket counter, went to platform No.4, boarded the train and got down the train at Uppal metro station at 14.28 hours and went out of the said station at 14.30 hours.

27 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

42.PW19/Investigating Officer has stated that on 26.01.2021 at 2.00 p.m.,

Nageshwar, Inspector of Police, Task Force, North Zone/LW27 apprehended the accused and brought him to the North Zone Task Force Office at Secunderabad and on interrogation, the accused admitted that he committed totally 18 murders, 4 property offences and one escort escaping and after completion of formalities, he sent the accused to the Court for remand. He has further stated that he got conducted the Test Identification parade of the accused by Magistrate (PW16).

43.PW16, VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy

District, at LB Nagar, at the relevant time, has stated that on the requisition dated 08.02.2021 given by the Inspector of Police, Ghatkesar Police Station (PW19) to conduct

Test Identification Parade of the accused in Crime No.4 of 2021, she fixed 27.03.2021 as the date for conducting the Test Identification Parade of the accused and issued summons to the witness - Kothapally Prakash Goud (PW6) requiring him to appear before her at the

Central Prison, Cherlapally on 27.03.2021 and on 27.03.2021, she went to the Central

Prison, Cherlapally and there the witness - Kothapally Prakash Goud (PW6) was produced

before her and after examining the said witness, she has arranged the row of suspect and

non-suspects from east to west, got called the witness i.e., PW6, and asked him to identify the suspect from among the persons standing in the row and the witness i.e., PW6, after looking at the row for about a minute, identified the suspect, who stood in between non- suspect No.2 and non-suspect No.3. She has further stated that she has examined the suspect i.e., accused, and the accused has stated to her that the police showed him to the witness at the police station and that he is innocent and did not commit any offence and that she reduced the said statement of the accused to writing and obtained his signature and

28 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

that Ex.P15 is proceedings of Test Identification Parade prepared by her. She denied the suggestion that non-suspects were not similar in height and weight to that of the suspect and she did not follow the procedure contemplated under law in conducting the Test

Identification Parade of the accused.

44.From the evidence of PW6, who is the owner of toddy shop, it is obvious that on 30.12.2020, Venkatamma went to his toddy shop along with a male person and they both consumed toddy and left the shop at around 1.00 or 1.30 p.m. and as seen from

Ex.P11/CD, which contains the CCTV footage that was retrieved from DVR arranged at

Sri Rama Tiffin Centre, Yousufguda which is nearby the toddy shop of PW6, Venkatamma and the said male person boarded into an auto rickshaw and as seen from CCTV footage contained in Ex.P19/pen drive, Venkatamma and said male person boarded the metro train at the metro station, Ameerpet on the same day i.e., 30.12.2020, at about 13.52 hours and got down the said train on the same day at 14.28 hours at Uppal metro station. The male person, who was with Venkatamma was identified to be the accused. PW6 also, during the Test Identification Parade conducted by PW16/Magistrate in Central Prison

Cherlapally, identified the accused as the person who came along with Venkatamma to his toddy shop on 30.12.2020. As held in point No.1, the dead body of the woman which was retrieved from the bushes near railway track at Ankushapur village, Ghatkesar Mandal was identified to be of Venkatamma and as held in point No.2, the death of Venkatamma is homicidal. Since Venkatamma was seen lastly in the company of the accused, it is for the accused to explain as to when and under what circumstances he has parted the company of the deceased in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor cited a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Gopal v. State of

29 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

Madhya Pradesh [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 106 of the Evidence Act, held as under:

6. It may be noted that once the theory of “last seen together” was established by the prosecution, the accused was expected to offer some explanation as to when and under what circumstances he had parted the company of the deceased. It is true that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution, however in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Of course,Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove the guilt of the accused, nonetheless it is also equally settled legal position that if the accused does not throw any light upon the facts which are proved to be within his special knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such failure on the part of the accused may be used against the accused as it may provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances required to be proved against him. In the case based on circumstantial evidence, furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial fact, when the theory of “last seen together” as propounded by the prosecution was proved against him.

9. In view of the afore-stated legal position, it is discernible that though the last seen theory as propounded by the prosecution in a case based on circumstantial evidence may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to base conviction solely on such theory, when the said theory is proved coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused does owe an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death might have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established and some other corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of weapon etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, the conviction could be based on such evidence.

45.As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company with the deceased. But, the accused did not offer any explanation. His only defence is that he does not know the deceased Venkatamma and he did not kill her and he is implicated falsely in the case. But, he did not attribute any mala fides or grudge against anyone for his alleged implication in the case.

30 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

46.It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that as admitted by

PW19/Investigating Officer and as seen from Ex.P19/pen drive the data was copied on 12.02.2025 into the said pen drive and this clearly suggests that Ex.P19 is not the pen drive that was stated to have been handed over by PW15 and if that be so, the data contained in

Ex..P19/pen drive cannot be made as basis to come to a conclusion that the male person who was seen along with the deceased is the accused. It is true that as seen from Ex.P19/ pen drive, the data contained therein was copied on 12.02.2025. But, as seen from

Ex.P19/pen drive, the data that was collected relates to the timings from 13.25 to 14.50 hours on 30.12.2020 of Ameerpet Metro Station and from 14.00 hours to 15.15 hours on 30.12.2020 of Uppal Metro Station. It is not the case of the accused that the original data that was collected and furnished by PW15 was manipulated. Further, in Ex.P13 and

Ex.P14/certificates, PW15 has categorically stated that he got retrieved CCTV footage from camera Nos. FIXC-001 and FIXC-002 installed at Ameerpet metro station for the timings from 13.25 hours to 14.50 hours on 30.12.2020 and from camera Nos. FIXC-016 and FIXC-022 installed at Metro Station, Uppal for the timings from 14.00 hours to 15.15 hours on 30.12.2020. So, merely because the data contained in Ex.P19 was re-copied on 12.02.2025, the genuineness of said data cannot be doubted.

47.It is next contended by the learned counsel for the accused that, admittedly,

PW6 does not have prior acquaintance with the accused and so, the identification of the accused stated to have been made by PW6 during the Test Identification Parade held on 27.03.2021 i.e., nearly three months after PW6 seeing the accused in his toddy shop, cannot be made as basis to punish the accused with the alleged offences and further, the identification of the accused by a stranger is a weak piece of evidence and so, based on the

31 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

identification made by PW6 during the test identification parade conducted by PW16, the accused cannot said to be the person seen lastly with the deceased Venkatamma. It is true that PW6 did not have prior acquaintance with the accused and he has seen the accused for the first time in his toddy compound and later in the jail. But, as elicited from PW6, if a new customer sits in the shop for a long time, he can identify him at the subsequent time and he told the police of Jubilee Hills Police Station that another male person also came to the shop along with Venkatamma and he can identify the said male person if he sees him again. Further, as stated by PW6, Venkatamma and the male person came to his shop at about 11.00 am, sat together, consumed toddy and left the shop at around 1.00 or 1.30 pm.

He has admitted that he got good acquaintance with Venkatamma as she was coming to his shop regularly. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [AIR 1994 SC 2420], cited by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, held as under:

“…...There can be no dispute with regard to the principles as to the evidence relating to identification of a stranger accused involved in any crime. It is well settled that substantive evidence of the witness is his evidence in the court but

when the accused person is not previously known to the witness concerned

then identification of the accused by the witness soon after his arrest is of

great importance because it furnishes an assurance that the investigation is

proceeding on right lines in addition to furnishing corroboration of the

evidence to be given by the witness later in court at the trial. From this point of view it is a matter of great importance both for the investigating agency and

for the accused and a fortiori for the proper administration of justice that such

identification is held without avoidable and unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused and that all the necessary precautions and safeguards were effectively taken so that the investigation proceeds on correct lines for punishing the real culprit. It would, in addition, be fair to the witness concerned also who was a stranger to the accused because in that event the chances of his memory fading away are reduced and he is required to identify the alleged culprit at the earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence. It is in adopting this course alone

that justice and fair play can be assured both to the accused as well as to the

prosecution.”

48.As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision, when the accused person is not previously known to the witness concerned then identification of the

32 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

accused by the witness soon after his arrest is of great importance because it furnishes an assurance that the investigation is proceeding on right lines in addition to furnishing corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness later in court at the trial. In the instant case, as noticed above, PW6 in whose toddy shop the deceased and the accused have consumed toddy shop by sitting for about 2 ½ hours has identified the accused during the test identification parade proceedings conducted by PW16/Magistrate. Further, except putting a formal suggestion to PW6 that the accused did not come to his toddy shop at any time and that before conducting TI parade, the police showed him the accused outside the jail and therefore, he identified the accused in TI parade, did not attribute any mala fides or grudge against PW6 for his identifying and speaking against the accused.

49.PW19/Investigating Officer has stated that he recorded the confessional statement of the accused in the presence of Laxmikanth Reddy/LW17 and PW11 and seized a mobile phone (MO6) of the deceased Venkatamma from the accused under a panchanama and that the accused led him and the panchas to his residence at Borabanda and there he seized one rold gold nuptial chain (MO1) and from there, the accused took them to Ramdev Jewellery shop at Ghatkesar and there, he seized one pair of silver anklets (MO2/MO5) and that he examined the owner of said jewellery shop i.e., PW10, and returned to the Police Station and after completion of all the procedure, he sent the accused to the Court for remand. He has further stated that he obtained the police custody of the accused for seven days and during the said custody, the accused led him, PW12 and

Venkat Reddy/LW19 to the place of offence and there he (accused) confessed that he killed the deceased at the said place and that he recorded separate confession statement of the accused there.

33 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

50.PW8 has stated that he owns a house with door No.8-3-169/300 at

Habeeb Fathima Nagar and he knows the accused, as, he was a tenant in his house and on 26.01.2021, the police people along with the accused came to him and asked him whether the accused is staying as a tenant in his house and he told the police that the accused is staying in his house as a tenant and that the police told him that murder of a woman took place at Ghatkesar and the accused did the said murder. He, in his cross-examination, has stated that his house consists of ground and first floor and the accused was staying in the ground floor and the accused stayed with his wife and children in his house for six to eight months.

51.PW10 has stated that he is doing jewellery business under the name and style of ‘Ramdev Jewellery’ at Ghatkesar and on 30.12.2020 at 5.30 p.m., a person came to his shop with silver anklets and asked him to give Rs.5,000/- by taking the said silver anklets as pledge and he told the said person that he would give Rs.3,000/- only, but, the said person asked him to give some more amount and he gave Rs.3,500/- to the said person and the said person handed over silver anklets (2 Nos.) and he gave receipt (Ex.P5) to the said person. He has further stated that the said person told his name as Ramulu and that the accused present in the Court hall is said Ramulu. He has also stated that the police came to his shop on 26.01.2021 by taking the accused and conducted a panchanama and seized silver anklets (2 Nos.) from his shop. He denied the suggestion that the accused never came to him and pledged any silver anklets with him and he is deposing false at the instance of police.

52.PW11 has stated that on 26.01.2021 when he was going towards Ghatkesar, the Sub-Inspector of Police stopped him at Ghatkesar and asked him to act as panch for a

34 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

panchanama to be conducted and he has agreed for the same and then, he was taken to the

Task Force Office at Secunderabad in police vehicle and that Laxmiknath Reddy/LW16 also came there and a person by name Mainam Ramulu (accused) was in the custody of

N.Chandra Babu, Inspector of Police (PW19) and the said Inspector of Police asked him and Laxmikanth Reddy/LW16 to enquire with the accused by taking aside and they took the accused aside and questioned him and the accused revealed that since 2003 he has been targeting lonely women, stealing ornaments from them and killing them. He has further stated that the accused confessed that on 30.12.2020, he had acquaintance with a woman aged about 40 to 45 years at the toddy compound, took her near to railway track,

Ghatkesar, consumed liquor along with her and while consuming liquor, he attempted to take money from her, but, she resisted for the same and then he killed her by strangulating her with scarf and thereafter, he took cash of Rs.4,700/-, gold chain, silver anklets and he sold the said ornaments in jewellery shop at Ghatkesar for Rs.3,500/-; that the accused also revealed that the chain was found to be a rold gold one; that the accused told them that he left for MG Bus Station and switched on his mobile phone in the bus-station and that he would show the rold gold chain if they come to his house. It is also stated by him that the accused took them to his house and showed them the rold gold chain and from there, the accused took them to a jewellery shop at Ghatkesar and from the said shop, the police seized silver anklets and that the police seized a mobile phone also from the accused and that the articles shown to him i.e., rold gold chain, two silver anklets and mobile phone, are the articles that were seized in his presence and the Inspector of Police drafted a panchanama (Ex.P6) and obtained the signatures of him and Laxmikanth Reddy (LW16).

He denied the suggestion that he does not know the accused and that the accused did not

35 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

confess anything before him and that the police showed him the accused outside the Court and, therefore, he is able to identify the accused before the Court.

53.PW18, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ghatkesar Police Station, at the relevant time, has stated that on 26.01.2021, N.Chandra Babu, Inspector of Police (PW19) instructed him to secure two panchas to act as panchas for the confession-cum-recovery panchanama and he accordingly secured Laxmikanth Reddy/LW16 and Shashidhar

Reddy/PW11 and produced them in Task Force Office, North Zone, Hyderabad.

54.PW12 has stated that, on 04.02.2021, the Inspector of Police, Ghatkesar

Police Station (PW19) called him to the police station and the accused was in the police station and that the Inspector of Police told him and Venkat Reddy/LW19 that the accused is an accused in a murder case and asked them to question the accused and on their questioning, the accused told them that on 30.12.2020, at about 12.30 p.m., he went to toddy compound at Yousufguda for consuming toddy and that he had acquaintance with a woman there and proposed to have sex with her for which she has agreed and she asked him to give Rs.2,000/-, but, he has paid Rs.1,200/- and thereafter, he along with said woman went to Ameerpet metro railway station in an auto rickshaw and by metro train they went to Uppal metro station and that in a nearby wine shop, he has purchased two bottles of liquor and from there, he took the said woman to HPCL Company by bus and from there, he took the woman into the bushes nearby railway track and there himself and the woman consumed liquor and after consuming liquor, the woman went into intoxication and then, he killed her by strangulating her neck with her chunni and thereafter, he took cash of Rs.4,700/-, two silver anklets, rold gold pusthela chain and mobile phone from the said woman and thereafter, he poured the left over liquor on her face and set fire and from

36 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

there, he went to a Marwadi shop at the bus stop, Ghatkesar and pledged silver anklets for

Rs.3,500/- by saying that the said anklets are of his wife and from there, he went to MG bus station, Hyderabad and there he removed the SIM card from the phone of the woman, broke the same and threw into the drain and after going to the house, he could realise that the pusthela chain is a rold gold one and then he kept the same on the loft in his house and during interrogation, the police seized the said pusthela chain. He has further stated that when they questioned the accused whether will he show the spot, the accused replied that he will show the spot and from the police station, the accused took him, Venkat

Reddy/LW19, Sub-Inspector of Police and CI of Police to the spot at the railway track in the limits of Ankushapur Gram Panchayat and the said spot is at a distance of about 20 metres from the railway track and the Inspector of Police prepared a panchanama at the spot and obtained the signatures of him and Venkat Reddy/LW19 on the said panchanama.

He denied the suggestion that the accused did not confess anything before him and that the accused did not lead them anywhere and confess anything before him and that he is speaking false at the instance of the police.

55.PW19/Investigating Officer has stated that he got conducted Test

Identification of stolen articles by Magistrate/PW17.

56.PW17, In-charge IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at the relevant time, has stated that he received a requisition from the Station House Officer,

Ghatkesar Police Station in Crime No.04 of 2021 to conduct Test Identification Parade of the properties, i.e., one pair of silver anklets and one rold gold chain seized in the said crime, and the witnesses named were Bijaram Ashok (PW5) and Bijaram Ramesh (PW20) and he accordingly issued summonses to the said witnesses fixing the date as

37 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

30.12.2021 and, on 30.12.2021, the said witnesses were produced before him and he placed the said articles with other similar articles and the said witnesses identified the said articles and he has recorded the proceedings vide Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 respectively.

57.PW5, brother of the deceased Venkatamma, has stated that when

Venkatamma went missing she was wearing pusthelatadu, silver anklets, gold ear studs and he was taken to a Judge at LB Nagar Court and there he identified the rold gold chain (MO1) and two silver anklets (MO2) as of Venkatamma. PW20, another brother of the deceased Venkatamma, has stated that he was called to the Court at LB Nagar and asked to identify the silver anklets and neck chain of Venkatamma and he identified the neck chain and silver anklets of Venkatamma and that MOs 1 and 2 are the said chain and silver anklets.

58.From the above evidence, it is obvious that the accused took Venkatamma into the bushes near railway track, Ankushapur Village and they both consumed liquor and when he attempted to take money from Venkatamma, she resisted for the same and then he killed her by strangulating her with scarf and thereafter, he took cash of Rs.4,700/-, a gold chain and silver anklets and he pledged the silver anklets with PW10 for Rs.3,500/- and that Ex.P5/receipt issued by PW10 contains the signature of the accused as pawner and that PW19/Investigating Officer seized MO1-rold gold chain from the house of accused and MO2-two silver anklets from the jewellery shop of PW10 and that the accused has even taken PW19 and the panchas to the spot where he killed Venkatamma. This evidence also lends support to the case of the prosecution that the accused is the person who killed Venkatamma.

38 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

59.It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that since the alleged confession was made by the accused when he was in the custody of the police, the same cannot be used against the accused in view of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence

Act. There is no dispute about the said proposition. The confession of the accused to the extent that he took away Venkatamma, killed her and robbed money and ornaments from her is inadmissible. But, the confession made by him that led to the recovery of MO1-rold gold chain from his house and MO2-silver anklets from the jewellery shop of PW10 and identifying the place where he killed Venkatamma is admissible under Section 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act. Since it is proved that MOs 1, 2 and 6 belonged to Venkatamma and since it is proved that they were recovered from and at the instance of the accused and since the accused failed to explain as to how and from where he got the said articles, in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, an adverse inference has to be drawn against him that he killed Venkatamma and robbed those articles from her person.

60.As stated by PWs 1 to 3, the face of the deceased was found burnt and

PW13/doctor who conducted PME has also noted that there were burn injuries with charred skin, peeling of skin over face, neck, front of the chest and both right and left shoulder and arm. It is stated by PW12, one of the panchas for confession, that the accused confessed before them that he poured the left over liquor on the face of woman and set fire. It appears that the accused did so to cause disappearance of evidence of offence.

61.As noticed above, the prosecution is able to prove that the accused was last seen with the deceased Venkatamma, but, he failed to offer any explanation as to how and when he parted the company with the deceased Venkatamma. PW6, who has seen the

39 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

accused with the deceased lastly at his toddy shop, during the Test Identification Parade, has identified the accused. This apart, CCTV footage collected by PW19/Investigating

Officer in Ex.P11/CD and Ex.P19/pen drive proves the fact of the accused and the deceased Venkatamma moving together, boarding metro train at metro station, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad and getting down the said train at metro station, Uppal, Hyderabad. The recovery of MOs1, 2 and 6, which belonged to the deceased, from and at the instance of the accused, also strengthens the case of the prosecution that the accused took away

Venkatamma and killed her. Since the face of Venkatamma was burnt, it is to be taken that the accused did so to cause the disappearance of the evidence of the offence. Hence, there cannot be any hesitation to hold that the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and so, he is to be convicted and sentenced for the said offences. This point is, therefore, answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

62.Point No. 5:Whether the accused is liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code?

Yet another charge framed against the accused is under Section 392 of the Indian

Penal Code. As held in points No.3 and 4, the prosecution is able to establish that by putting the deceased Venkatamma in fear of instant death, robbed cash, rold gold chain and two silver anklets from her and killed her by strangling her neck with scarf. The prosecution is able to prove the recovery of rold gold chain/MO1, two silver anklets

MO2/MO5 and mobile phone/MO6 also from and at the instance of the accused. So, the accused can be held guilty of the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and

40 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

consequently, he is to be convicted and sentenced for the said offence. This point is, therefore, answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

63. Point No. 6. In view of the findings recorded in point Nos.1 to 5, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 392 of the

Indian Penal Code and he is, accordingly, convicted for the said offences, under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

64.Heard the accused on question of sentence. It is submitted by him that he did not commit the alleged offence and that he is implicated falsely in the case; that he has wife and two sons depending on him and that he has been in jail for the last four years and hence, he may be sentenced to lesser punishment. It is further submitted by him that he is already undergoing life imprisonment as per the judgment in SC No. 507 of 2021 dated 16.04.2024 rendered by the court of II Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Sanga Reddy and hence, the punishment that may be imposed in this case may be

directed to run concurrently with the punishment imposed in SC No. 507 of 2021. The learned counsel for the accused also requested to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence against the accused. It is not a rarest of rare case to impose the punishment of death, which is the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence proved. So, having regard to the nature of offence alleged and proved against the accused and having regard to the above submissions of the accused and his Advocate, some lenient view can be taken in imposing the sentence against the accused instead of imposing the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence proved.

41 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

65.In the result, the accused is convicted for the offences punishable under

Sections 302, 201 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and sentenced to undergo-

(a) imprisonment for LIFE and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code;

(b) rigorous imprisonment for FIVE years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code; and

(c) rigorous imprisonment for SEVEN years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

The substantial sentences of imprisonment imposed against the accused in this case and the life imprisonment imposed against the accused by the Court of II Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy in SC No. 507 of 2021, dated 16.04.2024 shall run concurrently under Section 427 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

As seen from the record, the accused is in jail in this case since 27.01.2021.

MO-1 (Rold gold chain) and MO-2 (Two silver anklets) shall be returned to the husband of the deceased Venkatamma by name Kavali @ Kura Ananthaiah (LW7) and

MO-1(a) (one pair of paragon chappal), MO-2(a) (small cloth bag), MO-3 (red colour shirt), MO-4 (galaxy water bottle) and MO-6 (mobile phone) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

42 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I) and after transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 21st day of May, 2025.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined)

For the prosecution:

PW1: G.Kondal, Witness PW2: M.A.Mazal, SI of Police, Railway Police Station. PW3: Gyara Balaswamy, De facto complainant PW4: Devi Chennaiah, Circumstantial witness PW5: B.Ashok, Circumstantial witness and brother of the deceased PW6: K.Prakash Goud, Circumstantial witness and owner of toddy shop. PW7: S.Naveen Reddy, SI of Police, Jubilee Hills Police Station. PW8: Ramdhari Babu, Circumstantial witness and landlord of the accused. PW9: Ch.Renuka, Panch for scene of offence and inquest panchanama PW10: Madhanlal, Circumstantial witness and owner of Jewellery shop PW11: Maddi Shashidhar, Confession-cum-seizure panchanama of the accused PW12: Bandaru Anjaneyulu, Panch for confession panchanama of the accused PW13: Dr.Vasanth Naik, conducted Autopsy and issued PME report. PW14: Dudiga Balakrishna, CCTV technician. PW15: Lokesh Saxena, Chief Security Officer. PW16: Smt. Kavitha Karnati, VI AMM, Cyberabad, conducted Test Identification Parade of the accused. PW17: D.Devender Babu, IV AMM, Cyberabad, conducted Test Identification of articles PW18: D.Vijay Babu, SI of Police. PW19: N.Chandra Babu, Inspector of Police, Ghatkesar PS PW20: B.Ramesh, Circumstantial witness and brother of deceased

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report lodged with the police by PW3 Ex.P2: Scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P3: Rough sketch Ex.P4: Inquest panchanama

43 of 43 SC No.1163 of 2022

Ex.P5: Receipt given by PW10 to the accused Ex.P6: Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama Ex.P7: PME Report Ex.P8: FSL Report in File No.SER/329/2021 dt.24.04.2021 Ex.P9: FSL Report in file No.DNA/68/2021 dt.21.05.2021 Ex.P10: Final opinion given by PW13/doctor. Ex.P11: CD containing CCTV footage Ex.P12: Certificate issued under Section 65-B of Evidence Act by PW14. Ex.P13: Certificate issued under Section 65-B of Evidence Act relating to the footage taken at Ameerpet Metro Station issued by PW15 Ex.P14: Certificate issued under Section 65-B of Evidence Act relating to the footage taken at Uppal Metro Station issued by PW15. Ex.P15: Proceedings of Test Identification Parade of the accused. Ex.P16: Test identification proceedings of articles conducted by PW17 Ex.P17: Test identification proceedings of Proceedings conducted by PW17 Ex.P18: FIR in Crime No.4/2021 of Ghatkesar Police Station. Ex.P19: Pendrive containing CCTV footage

For the defence: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: Rold gold chain MO1(a): Paragon chappal (re-marked in the judgment) MO2: Two silver anklets MO2(a): Small cloth bag (re-marked in the judgment) MO3: Red colour shirt MO4: Galaxy water bottle with water MO5: Two Silver articles (It is marked twice) MO6: Cell phone

I Additional Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

Vs

*

1 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018)

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA

Tuesday, the 20th day of May, 2025

Present: Sri R.Raghunath Reddy,

I Additional Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2022

(Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018)

Between:

1. V.Narender Reddy, S/o.Late V.Swami Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Plot No.74, H.No.42-310/1, Maruthinagar, Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. L.Pratap Reddy, S/o.L.Ram Reddy, Aged about 61 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Flat No.105, Sri Sai Asray Apartments, Ravindra Nagar, St.No.8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. (Complaint is not pressed against No.2)

3. A.Jalander Reddy, S/o.Hanumantha Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Flat No.222, Shalivahana Residency, Officer Colony, Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyderabad.

4. SLNS Industries, Masaipet Village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Nalgonda District, A Partnership firm represented by V.Narender Reddy, S/o.Late V.Swami Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Plot No.74, H.No.42-310/1, Maruthinagar, Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyderabad.

...Appellants/accused Nos.1, 3 and 4

AND

1. Pidugu Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.Narsimha Reddy, Aged 46 years, Occ:Pvt. Employees (Died as per Lrs).

2. Smt. Pidugu Sujatha, W/o.Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged 45 years, Occ:Housewife.

3. Kumari Pidugu Sravani, D/o.Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged 22 years, Occ:Student.

4. Kumari Pidugu Sandya Rani, D/o.Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged 21 years, Occ:Student.

5. Master Pidugu Naveen Reddy, S/o.Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged 16 years, Occ:Student.

2 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018) (Respondent No.5, being a minor, is represented by his natural mother and guardian i.e., respondent No.2)

6. Smt.Pidugu Narasamma, W/o.Narsimha Reddy, Aged 65 years, Occ:Housewife. All are R/o.H.No.1-75/5/235, Sri Sai Bhavani Nagar, Boduppal, Hyderabad.

...Respondents/complainants

On being aggrieved by the judgment of the Court of II Special Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hastinapuram dated 20.02.2018 in

C.C.No.37 of 2015

Between:

1. Pidugu Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.Narsimha Reddy, Aged 46 years, Occ:Pvt. Employees (Died as per Lrs).

2. Smt. Pidugu Sujatha, W/o.Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged 45 years, Occ:Housewife.

3. Kumari Pidugu Sravani, D/o.Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged 22 years, Occ:Student.

4. Kumari Pidugu Sandya Rani, D/o.Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged 21 years, Occ:Student.

5. Master Pidugu Naveen Reddy, S/o.Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged 16 years, Occ:Student. (Complainant No.5, being a minor, is represented by his natural mother and guardian i.e., the complainant No.2)

6. Smt.Pidugu Narasamma, W/o.Narsimha Reddy, Aged 65 years, Occ:Housewife. All are R/o.H.No.1-75/5/235, Sri Sai Bhavani Nagar, Boduppal, Hyderabad.

...Complainants

AND

1. V.Narender Reddy, S/o.Late V.Swami Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Plot No.74, H.No.42-310/1, Maruthinagar, Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. L.Pratap Reddy, S/o.L.Ram Reddy, Aged about 61 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Flat No.105, Sri Sai Asray Apartments, Ravindra Nagar, St.No.8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. (Complaint is not pressed against No.2)

3. A.Jalander Reddy, S/o.Hanumantha Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Flat No.222, Shalivahana Residency, Officer Colony, 3 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018)

Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyderabad.

4. SLNS Industries, Masaipet Village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Nalgonda District, A Partnership firm represented by V.Narender Reddy, S/o.Late V.Swami Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Plot No.74, H.No.42-310/1, Maruthinagar, Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyderabad.

... Accused

This appeal came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Mohan, Advocate for the appellants/accused and of Sri S.Vijay Prashanth, Advocate for the respondents/complainantsand upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

This appeal is directed against the judgment in C.C.No.37 of 2015 dated 20.02.2018 rendered by the Court of II Special Magistrate, Hastinapuram, Ranga

Reddy District whereunder the appellants/accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’) and directed to pay a compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the respondents/complainants.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they stand before the learned trial Court i.e., ‘the complainants’ and ‘the accused persons’.

3.Originally, this appeal was filed in the unit of Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar where it was registered as Crl.Appeal No.228 of

2018 and later, on creation of new judicial districts, the same was transferred to this

Court on the point of territorial jurisdiction and re-registered as Crl.Appeal No.276 4 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018) of 2022 on the file of this Court.

4. Originally, one Pidugu Satyanarayana Reddy filed the complaint

before the learned trial Court against the accused Nos.1 to 4 alleging the offence

under Section 138 of the NI Act and during the pendency of the case, the said

Pidugu Satyanarayana Reddy died and hence, his legal representatives were brought on record as the complainants No.2 to 6.

5.The averments made in the complaint, in brief, are: The complainant i.e., Pidugu Satyanarayana Reddy (since died) is a non- resident Indian and working at UAE. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are doing the partnership business under the name and style of ‘SNS Industries’ i.e., Accused No. 4. The accused No.1 is a friend and distant relative of the complainant. A1 to A3 are dealing with the day-to-day affairs of the business of the accused No.4/firm. In the month of February, 2012, A1 to A3 approached the complainant to arrange a loan of Rs.39,03,200/- for developing their business. Owing to the said request of A1 to A3, the complainant has arranged and paid the said loan amount to A1, who is an active partner of A4/firm, on various dates and on receipt of the said amount, A1 to A4 have promised to pay back the said amount within a period of one year along with interest at 24% per annum.

Since the complainant is an NRI, he requested all the accused persons over phone to repay the amount borrowed. But, the accused persons postponed the payment on one pretext or the other. Lastly, in the month of December, 2014, A1 informed the complainant that he will pay back the entire amount along with interest. But, he did 5 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018) not pay anything to the complainant. However, on 17.01.2015, A1 has executed a promissory note for Rs.39,03,200/- in favour of the complainant and gave the same to the wife of the complainant assuring that he will pay the said amount as early as possible. Later, A1 has also issued three post dated cheque Nos.697894, 697896 and 697897, all are dated 29.01.2015, for Rs.13,00,000/-, Rs.13,00,000/- and

Rs.13,03,200/- respectively as a partner of A4/firm for repayment of the amount covered by the promissory note dated 17.01.2015. A1 has also issued another cheque

No.697878 drawn on Indian Bank, Mallapuram Branch, Ranga Reddy District for

Rs.27,23,000/- towards the payment of interest amount. The complainant presented those cheques to his banker i.e., Bank of India, Boduppal Branch, Ranga Reddy

District, for payment, but, the said cheques were returned unpaid with a remark ‘Exceeds arrangement’. So, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 31.01.2015 calling upon A1 to A4 to pay the amount covered by the cheques within 15 days of receipt of said notice. A2 to A4 have managed to return the said covers unserved by getting an endorsement as ‘addressee left’, ‘no such person at the address’ and ‘door locked’ respectively. However, the accused No.1 had received the said notice. But, he, in stead of complying with the demand made, got issued a reply notice dated 12.02.2015 with false pleas and allegations. Thus, A1 to A4 are liable to be punished for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

6.The learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and issued process to A1 to A4. In response to the said process, A1 6 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018) and A3 have appeared before the learned trial Court. Since A2 did not appear, the learned trial Court issued NBW against him. But, on 25.10.2016, the complainants filed a memo not pressing the complaint against A2. Hence, the case remained against A1, A3 and A4 only and when they were examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the allegations made in the complaint, they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.On behalf of the complainants, complainant No.4 by name Kum.

Pidugu Sandhya Rani was examined as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 were marked.

They also got examined one P.Laxma Reddy, who is stated to be an attestor to

Ex.P1/promissory note, as PW2.

8.When A1, A3 and A4 were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. On behalf of the accused persons, A1 was examined as

DW1 and they also got examined one G.Sridhar as DW2. But, no documents were marked for the accused persons.

9.Upon evaluation of evidence adduced by the complainants and the accused persons and considering the rival contentions, the learned trial Court, by the impugned Judgment, convicted and sentenced A1, A3 and A4 for the offence under

Section 138 of the NI Act as noticed above and feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned trial Court, they filed this appeal.

10.It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused persons that 7 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018)

Ex.P1/promissory note was executed by A1 in his personal capacity, whereas cheques, i.e., Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8, issued by A1 belong to the account of

A4/firm and, therefore, the said cheques cannot be said to have been issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability due by A4/firm; that according to the complainant all the accused persons including A2 have approached him and obtained the loan and that A1 to A3 were active partners of A4/firm, but, without assigning any reasons, the complainants have withdrawn the case against A2, which is against the provisions of the NI Act; that A3 did not sign any document nor issued any cheque, but, the complainant has arrayed him as one of the accused persons and that the accused persons did not receive the legal notice stated to have been issued by the complainant, but, the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these things in right perspective and it simply convicted and sentenced the accused persons on mere assumptions and presumptions. It is further contended by him that the cheques in question were issued in previous transactions towards security and that the accused persons are able to prove the earlier transactions, etc., but, the learned trial Court did not appreciate the said aspect of the matter also in right perspective. It is, ultimately, contended by the learned counsel that the judgment of the learned trial Court is against the facts and settled principles of law and hence, the same is to be set aside and the accused persons are to be acquitted of the offence for which they were convicted and sentenced.

11.The advocate for the accused persons has filed written arguments also 8 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018) wherein he has reiterated the above contentions.

12.On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the complainants that admittedly Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8, cheques, belong to the account of A4/firm and A1, being the Managing Partner of A4/firm, has issued those cheques and that he is not disputing the fact that the signature of the executant on

Ex.P1/promissory note and the signatures of the drawers on Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.8/cheques belong to him and, therefore, the presumptions under Section 118

(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act would arise that A1 has executed

Ex.P1/promissory note for the contents mentioned in it and he issued Ex.P2, Ex.P4,

Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques for payment of the amount due under Ex.P1/promissory note and the learned trial Court rightly drew the said presumptions against the accused persons and convicted and sentenced them for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. It is further contended by him that the accused persons failed to prove the alleged earlier transaction in which A1 alleged to have given a signed blank promissory note and four signed blank cheques and for this reason also, it can be presumed that Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques were issued for the discharge of the amount borrowed from the complainant. The learned counsel, ultimately, submitted that the judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and hence, the same cannot and need not be upset by this

Court.

13.On the basis of above rival contentions, the following points would 9 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018) arise for determination:

1) Whether A1 to A3 have borrowed an amount of Rs.39,50,200/- from the complainant i.e., Pidugu Satyanarayana Reddy (since died) on different dates and A1 has executed Ex.P1/promissory note dated 17.01.2015 for the amount borrowed on behalf of A2 to A4 and issued Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques to the complainant for repayment of the said amount?

2) Whether the complainant i.e. Pidugu Satyanarayna Reddy, has demanded A1 to A4 to pay the amount covered by Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques as required under clause(b) of proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act?

3) Whether the complainant is able to make out the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused persons?

4) Whether the impugned judgment rendered by the learned trial Court is not tenable and if so, the same is liable to be set aside as prayed for by the appellants/A1, A3 and A4?

5) To what relief?

14.Point No.1:Whether A1 to A3 have borrowed an amount of Rs.39,50,200/- from the complainant i.e., Pidugu Satyanarayana Reddy (since died) on different dates and A1 has executed Ex.P1/promissory note dated 17.01.2015 for the amount borrowed on behalf of A2 to A4 and issued Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques to the complainant for repayment of the said amount?

As noticed above, after filing of the complaint, the original complainant i.e.,

Pidugu Satyanarayana Reddy, died and hence, his legal representatives were brought on record as the complainants No.2 to 6. The complainant No.4 is the daughter of

Pidugu Satyanrayana Reddy and she was examined as PW1 and she has reiterated the case of the original complainant Pidugu Satyanarayana Reddy. Ex.P1 is original promissory note dated 17.01.2015 for Rs.39,03,200/- stated to have been executed by A1 for and on behalf of himself and A2 to A4 in favour of the complainant.

Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8 are original cheque Nos. 697894, 697896, 697897 and 697878, all are dated 29.01.2015, for Rs.13,00,000, Rs.13,00,000,

Rs.13,03,200/- and Rs.27,23,000/- respectively stated to have been drawn by 10 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018)

A4/firm and signed by A1 and issued in favour of the complainant Pidugu

Satyanarayana Reddy.

15.It is stated by PW1 that during the pendency of the case, A1 gave a post dated cheque No.717141 dated 22.10.2016 (Ex.A20) for Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Mallapuram Branch in favour of her mother i.e., complainant No.2, along with a letter dated 08.02.2016 towards part payment of the amount due under the cheques in the case and they presented the said cheque to the bank for payment, but, the bank returned the said cheque unpaid with a reason, ‘funds insufficient’ in the account of the accused.

16.PW2, P.Laxma Reddy, has stated that he was present when A1 has executed Ex.P1/promissory note and gave Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques to the complainant and that he signed Ex.P1/promissory note as one of the attestors and that A3 also signed the said promissory note as another attestor. He has also stated that during the pendency of the case and after the death of the original complainant, A1 gave a post dated cheque bearing No.717141 dated 22.02.2016 for

Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Mallapur Branch in favour of the complainant

No.2 along with a letter dated 08.02.2016 towards part payment of the amount due under the cheques in the case.

17.PW1 denied the suggestion that A1 has borrowed an amount of Rs.5 lakhs from her mother and at that time, her mother has obtained four blank signed cheques and a blank signed promissory note from A1 towards security; that A1 got 11 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018) transferred an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the account of SLNS Industries to the account of her mother towards part payment of the amount borrowed from her mother and he has also paid an amount of Rs.48,000/- to her mother and that he is in due of Rs.1,52,000/- only to her mother, but, her mother got filled all the cheques and promissory note through her father and got filed this complaint against the accused persons falsely. She further denied the suggestion that the cheque under

Ex.P20 was given by A1 towards discharge of the amount of Rs.1,52,000/- due by

A1 to her mother including interest and other expenditure. She also denied the suggestion that she misused the signed blank cheques given by A1 on behalf of A4 and also the blank signed promissory note given by A1 and filed the complaint falsely.

18.PW2 denied the suggestion that the complainant No.2 i.e., Sujatha, advanced an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to A1 and at that time, she obtained four signed blank cheques and one signed blank promissory note from A1 towards security; that A1 has repaid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of transfer through bank and Rs.48,000/- in cash and the amount due is Rs.1,52,000/- only, but, the complainant No.2 got filled the blank signed cheques and promissory note through the deceased complainant and filed this complaint to gain wrongfully.

19.From the above suggestions put to PW1 and PW2, the defence of the accused persons is that A1 had borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the wife of the original complainant i.e., complainant No.2, and at that time, the complainant 12 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018)

No.2 has obtained a signed blank promissory note and four signed blank cheques as security for the said amount and A1 has totally repaid Rs.3,48,000/- to the complainant No.2 and for payment of remaining amount of Rs.1,52,000/-, interest and other expenses, A1 gave Ex.P20/cheque for Rs.8,00,000/-, but, the complainant

No.2 got filled the signed blank promissory note and signed four blank cheques through her husband i.e., original complainant, and got filed this complaint through her husband to gain wrongfully for herself.

20.A1 in his evidence as DW1 has reiterated his above case. One

Guvvadi Sridhar i.e., DW2, also has stated so in his evidence. But, A1 did not state as to when he has borrowed the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant No.2.

He also did not state whether he has borrowed the said amount for his own purpose or for the business purpose of A4/firm. As stated by him, in his cross-examination, he did not file any document to show that he has transferred Rs.3,00,000/- from the account of SLNS Industries to the account of the complainant No.2 and he also did not file any document to show that he has paid Rs.48,000/- to the complainant No.2 in cash. Further, if really the defence so pleaded by the accused persons is correct, they should have stated the same when they were examined under Section 251 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. But, except denying the total case of the complainant, they did not plead anything specifically. In the absence of any documentary proof as regards the borrowal of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant No.2 by A1 and also as regards the repayment of Rs.3,48,000/- by A1 to the complainant No.2, the above 13 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018) defence of the accused persons that A1 has borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from complainant No.2 and at that time the complainant No.2 has obtained a signed blank promissory note and signed four blank cheques from him (A1) and she has misused the said promissory note and cheques for filing this complaint cannot be believed to be true. On the other hand, since A1 is not disputing his signature on

Ex.P1/promissory note as its executant and A3 is not disputing his signature on

Ex.P1/promissory note as one of the attestors and since A1 is also not disputing the fact of his issuing Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6, Ex.P8/cheques belonging to A4/firm duly signed by him as drawer, as rightly held by the learned trial Court, a presumption under Section 118 (a) of the NI Act would arise that Ex.P1/promissory note was supported by consideration and so also, a presumption under Section 139 of the NI

Act would arise that Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques were issued to the complainant for the discharge of the amount borrowed under Ex.P1/promissory note, unless the contrary is proved. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Rangappa v. Mohan (AIR 2010 SC 1898), a presumption mandated by Section 139 of the NI Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Apart from relying on these presumptions, the complainants, to prove their case, are relying on the oral evidence of PW2 also, who is one of the attestors to

Ex.P1/promissory note and whose evidence almost remained unchallenged as nothing contra was elicited from him to dislodge his version.

21.It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused persons that as 14 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018) stated by PW1, in her cross-examination, they did not file any document to show that her father had capacity to advance the huge amount of Rs.39,03,200/- and that though she has stated that her father has shown the amount advanced to the accused persons in his income tax returns for the accounting year 2012-2013, she did not file any such returns into the Court and in the absence of any such evidence, it is not possible to believe the case of the complainant that he had lent such huge amount of

Rs.39,03,200/- and even if it is assumed for a moment that the complainant had lent the said amount, the same is to be taken as unaccounted money for not being shown in income tax returns and if that be so, the complainant cannot seek to recover the said amount. The learned counsel in support of this contention cited the following judgments:

1.K.Subramani v. K.Damodar Naidu [LAWS (SC) -2014-11-15]

2.R.Chennakesava Rao v. P.Laxmi Narasaiah [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-45]

3.K.Krishna Reddy v. K.Rajender [LAWS (APH)-2011-12-21]

4. K.Ashok Kumar Goud v. Sree Ramulu [LAWS (APH)-2016-12-41]

5. Vallabhaneni Srinivasa Rao v. Mangalapudi Venkateswarlu and another [LAWS (APH)-2014-8-147]

22.In Subramani’s case (supra), the complainant in another criminal case arising under Section 138 of the NI Act has stated that the present appellant/accused had not taken any loan from her husband and further, the complainant failed to give his source of income and it is under those circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

23.In R.Chennakesava Rao’s case (supra), the complainant was doing money lending business without obtaining necessary licence under the provisions of 15 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018) the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act and it is under those circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court held that the money stated to have been lent by the complainant to the accused can be held to be unaccounted money and the same cannot be sought to be recovered.

24.In K.Krishna Reddy’s case (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, having noted the inconsistent versions of PW1 about the subject transaction and execution of Ex.P1 and Ex.P4 and also the non-mentioning of loan in the income tax returns of PW1, held that the complainant failed to prove his case that he lent money to the accused and consequently, found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in K.Ashok Kumar Goud’s case (supra), by following the judgment in

K.Krishna Reddy’s case (supra) and also having regard to the facts of the case on hand, held that there exists no legally enforceable debt and consequently, held the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

25.In Vallabhaneni Srinivasa Rao’s case (supra), the complainant did not produce any document to prove the receipt of money from him by the accused and he (complainant), being a business man, did not produce any document to show that he lent the money and it is under those circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court disbelieved the case of the complainant that he lent money to the accused.

26.But, the facts in the above cases are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case on hand. In this case, admittedly, the signature of the executant on 16 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018)

Ex.P1/promissory note and signature of the drawer on Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and

Ex.P8/cheques belong to A1 and Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8 were drawn from the account of A4/firm in which A1 is a Managing Partner. This apart,

Ex.P1/promissory note is signed by A3 also as one of the attestors. So, a presumption arises in favour of the complainant that Ex.P1/promissory note was executed for the contents mentioned therein and Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8 cheques were drawn for payment of the amount due under Ex.P1/promissory note, unless the contrary is proved.The contrary case of A1 is that he gave

Ex.P1/promissory note and Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques duly signed in blank form to the complainant No.2 in some other transaction, but, she has misused those documents and got filed this complaint through her husband, which, as noticed above, she failed to substantiate. This apart, PW1, in her cross-examination, has added that her father (complainant) was getting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month as salary and he could accumulate Rs.30 lakhs and odd within three years and this statement of PW1 remained uncontroverted, as, no suggestion as such was put to her denying the said statement. According to the original complainant i.e., Pidugu

Satyanarayana Reddy, he was a non-resident Indian and working at UAE. PW1 also has stated so in her evidence. The accused persons did not put any suggestion to PW1 denying her said statement. A1/DW1, in his cross-examination, has stated that he knows that Satyanarayana Reddy (original complainant) worked in Dubai.

These circumstances suggest that the original complainant i.e., P.Satyanarayana 17 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018)

Reddy, has capacity to lend the amount to the accused persons. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in M/s.Kalamani Tex and another v. P.Balasubramanian [(2021) 5

SCC 283], while dealing with Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, held that when once the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is drawn, the Court cannot and need not require the complainant to prove source of funds for advancing loan by the complainant to the accused, unless the accused rebuts the said presumption. So, even if it is assumed for a moment that the complainant failed to prove his capacity to lend the amount, the accused persons, having failed to rebut the presumption contained in Section 139 of the NI Act, cannot avoid their liability under Ex.P2,

Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques.

27.It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused persons that any payment of money exceeding Rs.20,000/- has to be made by way of an account payee cheque only, but, in the instant case, the complainant did not state through what mode he has paid such huge amount to the accused persons and, therefore, the amount allegedly lent by the accused cannot be said to be an enforceable debt. He, in support of this contention, cited a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G Hegde [LAWS (SC)-2008-1-105].

29.As per Section 269SS of Income Tax Act, any advance taken by way of any loan of more than Rs.20,000/- was to be made by way of an account payee cheque only. Section 271D of the Income Tax Act says that if a person takes or accepts any loan or deposit in contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS, he 18 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018) shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit so taken or accepted. From this provision, it is obvious that the person who accepts any loan in contravention of Section 269SS of Income Tax Act shall be liable for penalty. In other words, the person who pays the loan amount in contravention of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act is not liable for any penalty.

So, the accused persons having violated the provisions of Section 269SS of Income

Tax Act by accepting the loan in cash cannot seek their exoneration from the liability covered by Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques.

30.It is next contended by the learned counsel for the accused persons that

A3 is not the partner of A4/firm and further, as admitted by PW1 in her cross- examination, there is no document to show that A3 is a partner of A4/firm and there is also no document to show that A3 is involved in day-to-day activities of A4/firm and so, A3 cannot be fastened with any liability for dishonour of Ex.P2, Ex.P4,

Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques. It is true that the complainant did not file any document into the Court to show that A3 is a partner of A4/firm and he is involved in the day- to-day activities of A4/firm. But, A1/DW1 himself in his cross-examination has stated that they established the SLNS Industry i.e., A4, in the year 2007, and the said

Industry is a partnership firm consisting of four partners i.e., himself, A2, A3 and one J.Sridhar. When A1 himself has admitted that A3 is also a partner of A4/firm, the complainant cannot be required to prove that A3 is a partner of A4/firm by producing any other evidence.

19 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018)

30.The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused persons is that the complainants, for the reasons known to them, have withdrawn the complaint against A2 and they, having withdrawn the complaint against A2, cannot continue the complaint against A3. As seen from the record of the learned trial

Court, on receipt of summons, A2 did not appear before the Court and so, the Court issued NBW against him. It appears that the complainants having unable to get executed the NBW against A2 have filed a memo not pressing the complaint against

A2. It is not that the complainants have withdrawn the complaint against A2 on the ground that A2 is not at all liable. So, A3, who is, admittedly, a partner of A4 firm and concerned with the day-to-day affairs of the firm, cannot seek to exempt him from the liability for dishonour of Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques on the ground that the complainants have withdrawn the complaint against A2.

31.Yet another contention raised by the accused persons is that there is no mention in Ex.P1/promissory note that the amount mentioned therein was borrowed for the purposes of A4/firm and so, Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques that were drawn from the account of A4/firm cannot be said to have been issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability due by A4/firm. It is true that there is no mention in Ex.P1/promissory note that the amount covered therein was borrowed for the purposes of A4/firm. But, it is to be noted that, admittedly, A1 is Managing

Partner of A4/firm and he has signed Ex.P1/promissory note as its executant. A3, who is one of the partners of A4/firm, also has signed Ex.P1/promissory note as one 20 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018) of the attestors. Nobody, much less, A3, who has been participating in the trial, has raised any objection for A1 issuing Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques relating to the bank account of A4/firm. Of course, A1 took a plea that he issued Ex.P2,

Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques duly signed and in blank form to the complainant

No.2 in some other transaction, but, she has misused the said cheques for getting filed this complaint through her husband i.e., the original complainant. But, as noticed above, he failed to substantiate his said case. Since Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques were drawn from the account of A4/firm and signed by A1, who is managing partner of said firm, it can be taken that they were issued for the discharge of the amount borrowed by A1 under Ex.P1/promissory note.

32.For the foregoing reasons, there cannot be any hesitation to hold that

A1 to A3 have borrowed an amount of Rs.39,03,200/- from the complainant on various dates for the business of A4/firm and A1 has executed Ex.P1/promissory note for the said amount and issued Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques for repayment of the amount borrowed under Ex.P1/promissory note as well as the interest thereon. This point is, therefore, answered in favour of the complainant and against A1, A3 and A4.

33.Point No.2: Whether the complainant i.e. Pidugu Satyanarayna Reddy, has demanded A1 to A4 to pay the amount covered by Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques as required under clause(b) of proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act?

As per clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act, the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, shall make a demand for 21 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018) payment of the amount of money covered by the cheque returned unpaid by the bank by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of said cheque as unpaid. To maintain a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, compliance of this requirement is mandatory.

34. The case of the complainant is that after dishonour of Ex.P2, Ex.P4,

Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques vide cheque return memos Ex.P3, Ex.P5, Ex.P7 and

Ex.P9 respectively with a remark “Exceeds arrangement”, he got issued Ex.P10/ notice dated 31.01.2015 calling upon A1 to A4 to pay the amount covered by those cheques within 15 days of receipt of said notice and that the covers through which the notice was sent to A2 to A4 were returned unserved (Ex.P16 to P18) and A1 having received the said notice gave a reply notice dated 12.02.2015 (Ex.P19) with false allegations and pleas. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that since the notice under Ex.P10 was not served on A3, the complaint against A3 is not maintainable. Ex.P18 is the cover through which Ex.P10/notice was sent to A3 and it was returned unserved with an endorsement ‘no such person at this address’.

It was addressed to Flat No.202, Shalivahana Residency Officer’s Colony,

Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyderabad. The very same address was mentioned in the complaint and summons sent to said address was received by A3 and in response to the said notice, he made his appearance. So, since Ex.A10/notice was sent to the correct address of A3 by RPAD, a presumption under Section 27 of the General 22 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018)

Clauses Act arises that the said notice was deemed to have been received by A3, unless the contrary is proved. A3 did not plead any contra case nor has produced any evidence to prove that the complainant has managed to return the said notice unserved. In the circumstances, there cannot be any hesitation to hold that the complainant has demanded A1, A3 and A4 to pay the amount due under Ex.P2, P4,

P6 and P8 /cheques as required under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the

NI Act. Therefore, this point is answered in favour of the complainant and against

A1, A3 and A4.

35.Point No.3: Whether the complainant is able to make out the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused persons?

As held in point No.1, there existed a legally enforceable debt and for discharge of the same, A1, A3 and A4 have issued Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and

Ex.P8/cheques. The said cheques were presented to the Bank of India, Boduppal

Branch, where the complainant was maintaining an account and as is evident from

Ex.P3, Ex.P5, Ex.P7 and Ex.P9/cheque return memos, the said cheques were returned unpaid with a remark ‘exceeds arrangement’. The accused persons are not disputing the fact of presentation of Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques to the bank for clearance and its dishonour by the Bank and the only case of A1 is that he did not issue Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8/cheques for the discharge of any debt or other liability due to the complainant and he gave said cheques duly signed and in blank form to the complainant No.2 in some other transaction, but, she has misused the said cheques and got filed this complaint through her husband, which he failed to 23 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018) substantiate as noticed in point No.1. As held in point No.2, the complainant has demanded the accused persons, by a notice in writing as required under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of NI Act, for repayment of the amount covered by

Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8 cheques. But, A1, A3 and A4 did not comply with the said demand. The complainant has, therefore, satisfied all the requirements and hence, it attracts the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Consequently, it can be held that the complainant has made out the offence under Section 138 of the NI

Act against the accused persons. This point is, therefore, answered in favour of the complainant and against A1, A3 and A4.

36.Point No.4: Whether the impugned judgment rendered by the learned trial Court is not tenable and if so, the same is liable to be set aside as prayed for by A1, A3 and A4?

The learned trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by both the parties and convicted and sentenced A1, A3 and A4 for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. This Court, for the reasons recorded in points No.1 to 3, concurs with the opinion of the learned trial Court and this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing A1, A3 and A4. Hence, the impugned judgment cannot and need not be interfered with and on the other hand, the same needs to be confirmed. This point is answered accordingly.

37.Point No.5: To what result?

In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence 24 of 24 Crl.Appeal No.276 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2018) imposed against the appellants/Accused No.1, Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 by the learned II Special Magistrate, Hastinapuram, Ranga Reddy District vide

Judgment in C.C.No.37 of 2015 dated 20.02.2018.

The appellants/Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 (Accused No.4 is a firm) are absent today. So, they are directed to surrender before the learned trial Court on or

before 20.06.2025and on such surrender, the learned trial Court shall commit them

to the prison to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed against them. If the appellants/Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 fail to surrender on or before the said date, the learned trail Court shall secure their presence by issuing a non-bailable warrant and commit them to the prison to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed against them.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.I) and after transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 20th day of May, 2025.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

Appendix of evidence (Witnesses examined and exhibits marked) -Nil-

I Additional Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

vs

*

1 of 15 A.S.No.37 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA

Wednesday, the 09th day of April, 2025

Present: Sri R.Raghunath Reddy I Addl. District Judge, FAC/IV Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

A.S.No.37 of 2023

Between:

1.Kanukula Ram Reddy S/o. Narsi Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Plot No.39, Chikri Puram Colony, Near Saibaba Temple, Kushaiguda, R.R.District.

2.Kanukula Venkat Reddy S/o. Buchi Reddy, Aged about 41 years, Occupation: Business, R/o.1-7-47/1, Kamala Nagar, Kushaiguda, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Kanukula Laxma Reddy S/o. Narsi Reddy, Aged about: 50 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. 1-7-202/2, Kamala Nagar , Kushaiguda, Ranga Reddy District.

4. Kanukula Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Late Sathi Reddy, Aged about: 35 years, Occupation: Business, R/o.1-7-206/2p-15, Kamala Nagar, Kushaiguda, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Kanukula Nagi Reddy (died as per LRs Appellants No.6 to 8)

6. K. Rami Reddy, S/o. Late Kanukula Nagi Reddy, Aged about: 58 years, Occupation: Private Employee, R/o.49-38, Cherukupally Colony, Plot No.80, HMT Road, Chintal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

7. K. Malla Reddy, S/o. Late Kanukula Nagi Reddy, Aged about: 56 years, Occupation: Private Employee, R/o. 49-38, Cherukupally Colony, Plot No.80, HMT Road, Chintal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

8. K. Ragi Reddy, S/o. Late Kanukula Nagi Reddy, Aged about : 54 years, Occupation: Private Employee, R/o. 49-38, Cherukupally Colony, Plot No.80, HMT Road, Chintal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

... Appellants/defendants No.1 to 5 and 10 to 12

AND

1. Kandadi Ranga Reddy, (died on 26-12-2021 after the judgment in suit was passed. The respondents No.2 to 5 are the Lrs of the deceased father Kandadi Ranga Reddy).

2. Dr. K.Jagadish Reddy, S/o. Kandadi Ranga Reddy, Age Not Known, Occupation: Doctor.

2 of 15 A.S.No.37 of 2023

3. Smt. K.Urmila Devi, W/o. Kandadi Ranga Reddy, Age Not Known, Occupation: Housewife.

4. Smt. Bhanu Rekha, D/o. Kandadi Ranga Reddy, Age Not Known, Occupation: Housewife.

5. Smt. Radha, D/o. Kandadi Ranga Reddy, Age Not Known, Occupation: Housewife.

R/o. C-4-133, Annapurna Colony, Beside Mudra Concept School, Mallapur, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District – 500 076

...Respondents/plaintiff (since died) and his Lrs.

6. Jakkula Bal Reddy, S/o. Penta Reddy, Aged about: 33 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o. Thimayapally Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. Jakkula Anji Reddy, S/o. Penta Reddy, Aged about: 34 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o. Thimayapally Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

8. Mangali Siva Raja, S/o. Anjaiah, Aged about: 63 years, Occupation: Agriculture R/o. Thimayapally Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. (Died. Abated on 21.10.2024)

9. V. Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, Aged about : 57 years, Occupation: Business, R/o.8-2-293/174/2, Street No.6, B.N. Reddy Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

...Respondents/defendants No.6 to 9

10. Smt. Ayyana Neeraja, W/o. Sri A.Subramani, D/o. Late Sri Kandadi Ranga Reddy, Aged about: 50 years, Occupation: Household, R/o. Plot No.16/S/P, Vivekananda Nagar, Mallapur, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District 500 076.

(Impleaded as per orders dated 13-02-2025 in IA.No.139 of 2025 in AS.No.37 of 2023) … Respondent/LR of the deceased plaintiff.

On being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2021 passed by the Court of

Senior Civil Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri.

in

O.S.No.1988 of 2006

Between:

Kandadi Ranga Reddy (Died on 26-12-2021 after the judgment in the suit was passed) 3 of 15 A.S.No.37 of 2023

... Plaintiff

AND 1.Kanukula Ram Reddy S/o. Narsi Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Plot No.39, Chikri Puram Colony, Near Saibaba Temple, Kushaiguda, R.R.District.

2.Kanukula Venkat Reddy S/o. Buchi Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Occupation: Business, R/o.1-7-47/1, Kamala Nagar, Kushaiguda, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Kanukula Laxma Reddy S/o. Narsi Reddy, Aged about: 40 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. 1-7-202/2, Kamala Nagar, Kushaiguda, Ranga Reddy District.

4. Kanukula Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Late Sathi Reddy, Aged about: 25 years, Occupation: Business, R/o.1-7-206/2p-15, Kamala Nagar, Kushaiguda, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Kanukula Nagi Reddy, S/o. Buchi Reddy, Aged about:67 years, Occupation: Agriculture (Died as per LRs defendants No.10 to 12)

6. Jakkula Bal Reddy, S/o. Penta Reddy, Aged about: 33 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

7. Jakkula Anji Reddy, S/o. Penta Reddy, Aged about: 34 years, Occupation: Agriculture,

8. Mangali Siva Raja, S/o. Anjaiah, Aged about: 63 years, Occupation: Agriculture (Defendants No.5 to 8 are R/o. Thimayapally Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9. V.Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, Aged about : 57 years, Occupation: Business, R/o.8-2-293/174/2, Street No.6, B.N. Reddy Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

10. K Rami Reddy, S/o. Late Kanukula Nagi Reddy, Aged about 58 years,

11. K Malla Reddy, S/o. Late Kanukula Nagi Reddy, Aged about 56 years,

12. K Ragi Reddy, S/o. Late Kanukula Nagi Reddy, Aged about 54 years,

Defendants No.10 to 12 are Private Employees and R/o. H.No.49-38, Cherukupally Colony, Plot No.80, HMT Road, Chintal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad).

(Defendants No.10 to 12 are brought on record as Lrs of defendant No.5 as per orders passed in IA.No.140 of 2012, dated 12-09-2012).

... Defendants

This appeal suit came before me for final hearing on 10.03.2025 in the presence of Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, Senior Counsel appearing for Sri N.Mahender Reddy, Advocate for the appellants and of Sri N.Ranga Rao, Advocate, for the respondents No.2 to 5 and 10 and 4 of 15 A.S.No.37 of 2023 of Sri S. Arvind Reddy, Advocate, for the respondents No.6 and 7 and appeal against respondent No.8 was dismissed as abated and the respondent No.9 remained ex parte and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

The defendants No.1 to 5 and 10 to 12 in O.S.No.1988 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2021 passed in the said suit whereunder the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession was decreed.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they stand in the suit before the learned trial Court i.e., ‘the plaintiff’ and ‘the defendants’.

3.The plaintiff i.e., Kandadi Ranga Reddy, filed the suit for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property i.e., agricultural land bearing survey

No.53/A, admeasuring Ac.4.05 guntas, situated at DharmaramVillage, Keesara Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, and to direct the defendants to deliver the possession of the said property to him and also for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property to any third party.

4.The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are: (a) Kandadi Balaiah @ Bal

Reddy and Kandadi Narasamma are husband and wife and they did not have any children and, therefore, they have adopted the plaintiff, who is the son of Achi Reddy (younger brother of Kandadi Balaiah @ Bal Reddy). The natural parents of the plaintiff i.e., Achi

Reddy and Venkatamma, died long back.

(b) Kandadi Balaiah @ Bal Reddy was the protected tenant of the suit schedule property and the revenue authorities have issued a certificate under Section 38-E of the 5 of 15 A.S.No.37 of 2023

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1956 (for short ‘the

Tenancy Act’) in his favour vide file No.B/195/LRE/75 dated 20-05-1975. The said Kandadi

Balaiah @ Bal Reddy died intestate on 19-06-1981 leaving behind him, the plaintiff and his wife Narsamma. On the application of the plaintiff and Narasamma, the revenue authorities, after due enquiry, issued a succession by declaring the plaintiff and Narsamma as successors of late Kandadi Bal Reddy vide proceedings No.B/4615/97 dated 19-05-1998 under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara had issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds and ROR proceedings also for Ac.2.02 ½ each in favour of the plaintiff and Narsamma. But, the defendants have illegally occupied the suit schedule property in the year 1998 and also managed to get recorded their names as pattadars and possessors of said property in the pahanies. But, in fact, the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff and his mother made an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal for restoration of possession of the suit schedule property, who, in- turn, issued a letter dated 20-08-1998 asking the Sub-Registrar, Keesara not to register any sale deeds in respect of the suit schedule property. The Mandal Revenue Officer has also informed the plaintiff and his mother that he has no authority to restore the possession of the suit schedule property after the certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act was issued in favour of late Kandadi

Balaiah @ Bal Reddy and advised them to approach the competent Civil Court for the said purpose.

(c) The mother of the plaintiff i.e., Smt Kandadi Narsamma, died on 17-02-2006 leaving behind her the plaintiff alone as her legal heir to succeed the property left by her. The plaintiff, being the sole legal heir of late Kandadi Balaiah @ Bal Reddy and late Smt.

6 of 15 A.S.No.37 of 2023

Kandadi Narsamma, is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and hence, he is entitled for a declaration that he is the owner of said property and for possession of said property.

5.The defendants No.1 to 7 filed a common written statement resisting the suit, the averments of which, in brief, are: The plaintiff is not the adopted son of late Kandadi

Narsamma and late Bal Reddy. The statement of the plaintiff that 38-E certificate was granted in favour of late Kandadi Bal Reddy in respect of the suit schedule property is not true and correct and that the said certificate is a created and fabricated document. The father of the defendant No.1 by name Kanukula Narsaiah, the defendant No.5, Padamati Anjaiah and the defendant No.8 have jointly purchased the land admeasuring Ac.14.39 guntas in suit survey No.53/A from its original owner Mir Yousuf Ali Khan under a registered sale deed bearing document No.269/1960 dated 09-08-1960 and the suit schedule property is a part of said land and ever since, they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land and that late Kandadi Bal Reddy was never in possession of the suit schedule property in any capacity. So also, the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, but, he along with Kandadi Narsamma, by misrepresentation and playing fraud, have obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds for Ac.2.25 guntas each in the suit schedule survey number and on coming to know the same, the defendant No.1 along with the other defendants, on 19-08-1998, lodged a complaint with the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara

Mandal and he, in turn, after due enquiry, sent a letter dated 20-08-1998 to the Sub-Registrar,

Shameerpet asking him not to registrar the suit land in the name of the plaintiff and Kandadi

Narsamma and that neither the plaintiff nor the said Kandadi Narsamma have challenged the said order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The defendant No.1 had sold his share of Ac.2-10 7 of 15 A.S.No.37 of 2023 guntas out of Ac.5.12 gunts of suit land in 1999 and the defendant No.5 is in possession of

Ac.2.10 guntas of the suit land which fell to his share. The plaintiff is nothing to do with the family of late Kandadi Bal Reddy and late Kandadi Narsamma and he left the village 30 years back and he has no property in the village. The plaintiff has got knowledge about the order dated 20-08-1998 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and further, as alleged by the plaintiff himself, the defendants have occupied the suit schedule property in the year 1998 and so, the suit, which is filed in 2006, is clearly barred by limitation provided under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. If really, the plaintiff had any interest in the suit schedule property, he could have challenged the sale deed dated 09-08-1960 through which the defendants have purchased the land. But, he did not choose to do so and for this reason also, the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and he has created the alleged cause of action only for the purpose of suit and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

6.The defendant No.8 was set ex parte.

7.The defendant No.9 filed written statement specifically denying the case of the plaintiff. It is stated by him that he is not concerned in any way with the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has arraigned him as the defendant No.9 in the suit without proper verification. It is pleaded by him that the suit is not maintainable and further it is time barred.

8.Based on the above rival pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property?

2) Whether the defendants are illegally occupied the suit schedule property in the year 1998 ?

3) Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation ?

8 of 15 A.S.No.37 of 2023

4) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties ?

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession as prayed for ?

6) To what relief?

9.During the trial, the plaintiff (Kandadi Ranga Reddy) was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A29. He also got examined one Bibi Dahar and V. Guruva Reddy as PWs 2 and 3. On behalf of the defendants, the defendants No.1 and 11 were examined as

DWs 1 and 2 respectively and they got marked Exs.B1 to B19.

10.Upon appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and, ultimately, decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner of the suit schedule property and directing the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the said property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of the judgment.

11.Against the above judgment and decree, the defendants No.1 to 4 and the defendants No.10 to 12, who are the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.5, have filed this appeal.

12.It is to be noted that after passing of the impugned judgment and decree, the sole plaintiff i.e, Kandadi Ranga Reddy, died on 26-12-2021 and hence, his legal representatives are arraigned as the respondents No.2 to 5 and 10 in this appeal. The defendants No.6 to 9 in the suit are arraigned as the respondent No.6 to 9 in this appeal.

13.The respondent No.8/defendant No.8 died and since no steps were taken to bring his legal representatives on record, the appeal against him was dismissed as abated on 21-10-2024. Though the respondent No.9/defendant No.9 was served with a notice, he did 9 of 15 A.S.No.37 of 2023 not turn up and hence, he was set ex parte.

14.It is contended by Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants that in view of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, but, the learned trial Court did not consider the said aspect of the matter. It is further contended by him that 38-E certificate stated to have been issued in favour of late Kandadi Balaiah @ K. Bal Reddy in respect of the suit schedule property is a created and fabricated document and further, there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was the adopted son of late Kandadi Balaiah @ K.Bal Reddy and late

Kandadi Narsamma and that the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, but, the learned trial Court held the plaintiff to be the adopted son of late

Kandadi Balaiah @ K.Bal Reddy and late Kandadi Narsamma erroneously by placing reliance on Exs.A2 and A4, which were, in fact, not proved by examining the authorities who issued them. It is also contended by him that Ex.B1/sale deed clearly proves the fact of purchase of the suit schedule property by the defendants on 09-08-1960 and the other revenue records filed by the defendants prove their continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and further, from the averments of the plaint itself it is clear that the suit is barred by limitation, but, the learned trial Court did not appreciate the said aspects in right perspective and it went on recording the findings in favour of the plaintiffs on mere assumptions and presumptions. The learned Senior Counsel, accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree and dismiss the suit.

15.On the other hand, Sri N.Ranga Rao, counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs supported the impugned judgment by contending that Ex.A1/38-E certificate clearly proves the fact that late Kandadi Balaiah @ K.Bal Reddy was the protected tenant of the land holder 10 of 15 A.S.No.37 of 2023

Mir Yousuf Ali Khan in respect of the suit schedule property and Ex.A2/succession proceedings issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and Ex.A14/transfer certificate clearly prove the fact that the plaintiff was the adopted son of late Kandadi Balaiah @ K. Bal Reddy and late Kandadi Narsamma and that PWs 2 and 3, who had acquaintance with the family of late Kandadi Balaiah @ Bal Reddy, have also categorically stated that the plaintiff was adopted by said Kandadi Balaiah @ K.Bal Reddy and that he was received as such by all the relatives and villagers and that the learned trial Court, having appreciated the evidence brought on record in right perspective, decreed the suit rightly and that the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. It is further contended by him that the defendants have no locus to question the status of the plaintiff as well as his right and interest over the suit schedule property. He, ultimately, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

16.Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned judgment and decree suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court?

17.The parties did not adduce any additional evidence in this appeal.

18.The plaintiff i.e., Kandadi Ranga Reddy (since died) on one hand and the defendants on the other are claiming ownership over the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, late Kandadi Balaiah @ K.Bal Reddy, being the protected tenant of the original land holder Mir Yousuf Ali Khan, has got the suit schedule property under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act vide Ex.A1 and since the said late Kandadi Balaiah @ K.Bal Reddy and his wife Kandadi Narsamma did not have children, they have adopted him, as, he is the son of younger brother of late Kandadi Balaiah @ Bal Reddy by name Achi Reddy, and that his 11 of 15 A.S.No.37 of 2023 natural parents i.e., Achi Reddy and Venkatamma, died long back and after the death of his adoptive parents, he became the owner of the suit schedule property.

19.The defendants in the written statement have categorically denied the grant of 38-E certificate in favour of late Kandadi Balaiah @ K. Bal Reddy in respect of the suit schedule property. It is alleged by them that the said certificate is a created and fabricated one. They, while denying the case of the plaintiff that he was adopted by late Kandadi

Balaiah @ K.Bal Reddy and his wife late Kandadi Narsamma, took a specific plea that the plaintiff was never adopted by said late Kandadi Balaiah @ K. Bal Reddy and late

Narsamma and that he (plaintiff) is nothing to do with their family and that the plaintiff, in fact, left the village about 30 years back and he has no property in the village.

20.During the course of hearing, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants that the plaintiff did not plead anywhere that provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 were followed by his alleged adoptive parents while taking him in alleged adoption and that the plaintiff did not produce any registered document in proof of adoption and he did not even examine the priest or the person alleged to be present at the adoption ceremony and so, the plaintiff cannot be treated as the adopted son of late Kandadi Balaiah @ K.Bal Reddy and if that be so, he would not be entitled to claim any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property that was alleged to have been acquired by late Kandadi Balaiah @ K.Bal Reddy under Ex.A1/38-E certificate.

21.On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the plaintiff was born in 1946 and within two or three years, he was taken in adoption and so, the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, 12 of 15 A.S.No.37 of 2023 which came into force in 1956, would not be applicable to the adoption of the plaintiff and further, the defendants, being the strangers, have no locus to question the status of the plaintiff.

22.The learned trial Court addressed the above aspect of matter from Para Nos.16 to 21 of its judgment and, ultimately, held that the plaintiff, being the adopted son of late

K.Balaiah, is legal heir of late K.Balaiah and late Narsamma.

23.From the above rival contentions, the dispute essentially relates to the status of the plaintiff i.e., whether he is the adopted son of late Kandadi Balaiah @ K.Bal Reddy and late Kandadi Narsamma. It is a well settled law that rendering a judgment in a civil suit without framing proper issues and giving opportunity to both the parties to lead necessary evidence is contrary to law more particularly to the rules contained in Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not that the Advocate for the plaintiff appeared before the learned trial Court was not conscious of the fact that framing of an issue concerning the status of the plaintiff is necessary. As noted by the learned trial Court in para No.19 of its judgment, the

Advocate for the plaintiff “argued that no issue has been framed with regard to the validity of adoption of the plaintiff by K. Balaiah as such he has not produced any evidence to establish the same”. From this noting made by the learned trial Court, it is obvious that the

Advocate for the plaintiff was conscious that an issue with regard to the validity of adoption of the plaintiff could have been framed so as to enable the plaintiff to produce the evidence to establish his adoption by K. Balaiah.

24.Here, it is necessary to notice the observations made and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court concerning the adoption of the plaintiff and they are as under:

13 of 15 A.S.No.37 of 2023 “Proof of a valid adoption is not fact in issue in the present case as the dispute with regard to the relationship between Kandadi Balaiah and plaintiff raised by not the persons who really would have been affected by the declaration of status of plaintiff as adopted son of K. Balaiah. ….there is no necessity for the plaintiff to prove his adoption when no such issue has been framed by the Court. ….Therefore in view of the above discussion this court is of the view that the plaintiff being adopted son of K. Balaiah is the legal heir of K. Balaiah and Narsamma”.

25.From the above, it is obvious that the opinion of the learned trial Court is self- contradictory. At one breathe, it opined that proof of a valid adoption is not a fact in issue in the present case and at another breathe, it opined that the plaintiff being the adopted son of

K.Balaiah is the legal heir of K. Balaiah and Narsamma. When the learned trial Court was of the view that proof of a valid adoption is not fact in issue, it could not have recorded a finding that the plaintiff, being the adopted son of K. Balaiah, is the legal heir of K.Balaiah and Narsamma. However, from the above noting, it is obvious that the learned trial Court was also of the view that an issue regarding the adoption of the plaintiff ought to have been framed and for not framing such an issue, the plaintiff could not produce any evidence regarding his adoption if that be so, the learned trial Court could have suo motu framed an issue in that regard.

26.Here, it is apt to notice a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in S.Siva Kota Reddy v. SBI, Indukurpeta Branch, Indukurpeta [2008 (5) ALD 317], wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that the very object of framing an issue is to determine the exact area of conflict and to enable the parties to lead evidence in those lines and in the absence of a specific issue, it will not be possible for the parties to lead evidence with regard to the specific controversy and even if any evidence is let in, the Court may not take it into consideration. The Hon’ble High Court further held that non-framing of an appropriate issue is not a mere curable irregularity and it deprives the liberty to adduce right evidence.

14 of 15 A.S.No.37 of 2023

27.In Apollo Health and Lifestyle Ltd., Chennai v. Anupam Saraogi [2015 (3)

ALD 681 (DB)], it was a suit for recovery of money and the trial Court framed only one issue i.e., “whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?”. The

Hon’ble High Court found fault with the said practice/procedure adopted by the trial Court

and observed that it was wrong and inadequate in the light of requirement of provisions contained in Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Hon’ble High Court also opined that the approach of learned judge is absolutely casual in dealing with the suit. So, opining, the Hon’ble High Court remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to frame proper issues and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law.

28.In view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble High Court in the above decisions, the practice/procedure adopted by the learned trial Court in this case in framing the issues and deciding the matter cannot be said to be correct, as, the same would not satisfy the requirements of provisions contained in Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, it is just and necessary to frame an additional issue concerning the status of the plaintiff i.e., whether the plaintiff was adopted by late Kandadi Balaiah @ K. Bal Reddy and late Kandadi

Narsamma and if so, the same is valid in law?.

29.To obtain the finding on the above additional issue, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the above decisions, the matter is to be remanded to the learned trial Court for fresh disposal, for which purpose it is necessary to set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial Court without going into its merits.

30.In the result, the appeal is allowed, without costs, and the impugned judgment and decree dated 10-12-2021 made in O.S.No.1988 of 2006 by the learned trial Court i.e., 15 of 15 A.S.No.37 of 2023 the Court of Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri, is set aside and the suit i.e., O.S.No.1988 of 2006, is restored to its original file and remanded to the learned trial Court with a direction to frame an additional issue as “whether the plaintiff i.e., Kandadi

Ranga Reddy, was the adopted son of late Kandadi Balaiah @ Kandadi Bal Reddy and late

Smt.Kandadi Narsamma and if so, the said adoption is valid in law?” and dispose of the matter afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce the further evidence, if any, on the additional issue framed, in accordance with law.

Dictated to the Copyist and after transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court, on this the 09th day of April, 2025.

I Addl. District Judge, FAC/IV Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

Appendix of evidence (Witnesses Examined and Exhibits Marked) -Nil-

I Addl. District Judge, FAC/IV Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda. s*

1 of 15 Crl.Appeal No.295 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018)

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA

Tuesday, the 20th day of May, 2025 Present: Sri R.Raghunath Reddy, I Addl.Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

Crl.Appeal No. 295 of 2022

(Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018)

Between:

Smt.R.Deepa, W/o.R.Venkatesh, Aged about 40 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No,.2-2-127/54/20, Vijayapuri Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad.

Appellant/accused AND

1. Smt.Challa Lakshmi, W/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged about 40 years, H.No.17- 10/82, Dharmapuri Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad 039

...Respondent/complainant

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor … Respondent

On being aggrieved by the judgment of the Court of III Special Magistrate at Hasthinapuram, Ranga Reddy District dated 28.03.2018 in

C.C.No.131 of 2017

Between:

Smt.Challa Lakshmi, W/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged about 40 years, H.No.17- 10/82, Dharmapuri Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad 039 … Complainant.

And

Smt.R.Deepa, W/o.R.Venkatesh, Aged about 40 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No,.2-2-127/54/20, Vijayapuri Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad … Accused

This appeal came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Dhanunjaya, Advocate, for the appellant/accused and of Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the respondent/complainant and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 of 15 Crl.Appeal No.295 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018)

:: JUDGMENT ::

This appeal is directed against the judgment in C.C.No.131 of 2017

dated 28.03.2018 rendered by the Court of III Special Magistrate at

Hasthinapuram, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’) and directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under

Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the respondent/complainant and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they stand before the learned trial Court i.e., ‘the complainant’ and ‘the accused’.

3.Originally, this appeal was filed in the unit of Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at LB Nagar where it was registered as Crl.Appeal

No.379 of 2018 and later, on creation of new judicial districts, the same was transferred to this Court on the point of territorial jurisdiction and re- registered as Criminal Appeal No.295 of 2022 on the file of this Court.

4.The complainant filed a complaint before the learned trial Court against the accused alleging the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, the averments of which, in brief, are: The complainant and the accused are having friendship for the last more than 15 years and out of the said acquaintance/intimacy, in the first week of March, 2015, the accused approached the complainant and requested her to lend an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as hand loan to meet her family necessities. Owing to the said request 3 of 15 Crl.Appeal No.295 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018) of the accused, on 21.03.2015, the complainant paid an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused and the accused, in turn, has executed a promissory note promising to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum as and when demanded. But, the accused failed keep up the said promise. However, on repeated demands to repay the amount borrowed, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.000007 dated 30.06.2017 for

Rs.2,80,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Uppal in favour of the complainant and when the complainant presented the said cheque to her banker i.e., State

Bank of India, Prashanth Nagar, Uppal Branch, Ranga Reddy District for payment, the bank returned the said cheque unpaid with a remark ‘drawer’s signature differs’. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 27.07.2017 calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered by the said cheque. But, the accused has managed to return the said notice unserved with a remark ‘unclaimed’.

5.The learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence under

Section 138 of the NI Act and issued process to the accused. In response to the said process, the accused appeared before the learned trial Court and when she was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the allegations made in the complaint, she denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The complainant herself was examined as PW1 and got marked

Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 before the learned trial Court. She also got examined one

Smt.P.Ramasubhamma, who is stated to be one of the attestors to the promissory note, as PW2.

7.When the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code 4 of 15 Crl.Appeal No.295 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018) of Criminal Procedure, she denied the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of PWs1 and 2. But, she did not choose to adduce any evidence on her behalf.

8.Upon evaluation of the evidence adduced by the complainant and the accused and considering the rival contentions, the learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and feeling aggrieved by the same, the accused had filed this appeal.

9.It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused does not know the complainant and she never borrowed any amount from the complainant and that the husband of the complainant is running unregistered chit business and the accused has subscribed a chit of

Rs.50,000/- with him and while availing prize money, the husband of the complainant has obtained an empty promissory note and empty cheque as security and though the accused has paid the subscription of remaining months, the husband of the complainant did not return the said empty promissory note and empty cheque and he misused them and got filed this complaint through the complainant by forging her signatures on Ex.P1 and

Ex.P2, but, the learned trial Court did not appreciate the said factual aspects of the matter in right perspective. It is further contended by him that as stated by PW1, she is a tailor, whereas as stated by PW2, the complainant is a housewife and that the complainant did not produce any evidence to show that she has capacity to lend such huge amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and further, she did not show the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in her income tax returns and so, the amount alleged to have been lent by the complainant to the 5 of 15 Crl.Appeal No.295 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018) accused is to be taken as unaccounted money and if that be so, the complainant cannot maintain the complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act based on dishonour of Ex.P2/cheque, but, the learned trial

Court did not appreciate the said aspect of the matter also in right perspective and simply convicted and sentenced the accused on mere assumptions and presumptions. It is also contended by him that Ex.P4/notice stated to have been sent by the complainant was not, admittedly, received by the accused and, therefore, the complaint itself is bad for non-compliance of the requirement under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act, but, the learned trial Court did not advert to the said aspect also. It is, ultimately, contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the judgment of the learned trial Court is against the facts and settled principles of law and hence, the same is to be set aside and the accused is to be acquitted of the offence for which she was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court.

10.On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant with her evidence as well as with the evidence of PW2 is able to prove her case that the accused having borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from her on 21.03.2015 has executed

Ex.P1/promissory note and for repayment of the said amount, the accused has issued Ex.P2/cheque and on the other hand, the accused did not produce any evidence to prove her defence that she gave a blank promissory note and a blank cheque to the husband of the complainant in some other transaction and the husband of the complainant has misused the said promissory note and cheque and got filed this complaint through the complainant and that the learned trial Court having appreciated the material available on record rightly 6 of 15 Crl.Appeal No.295 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018) held the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The learned counsel, ultimately, submitted that the judgment of the learned trial

Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and hence, the same cannot and need not be upset by this Court.

11.On the basis of above rival contentions, the following points would arise for determination:

1) Whether the accused has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 21.03.2015 by executing Ex.P1/promissory note and later issued Ex.P2/cheque to the complainant for repayment of the said amount with interest ?

2) Whether the complainant has demanded the accused to pay the amount due under Ex.P2/cheque as required under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act?

3) Whether the complainant is able to make out the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused?

4) Whether the impugned judgment rendered by the learned trial Court is not tenable and if so, the same is liable to be set aide as prayed for by the accused?

5) To what relief?

12.Point No.1: Whether the accused has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 21.03.2015 by executing Ex.P1/promissory note and later issued Ex.P2/cheque to the complainant for repayment of the said amount with interest ?

The complainant/PW1 in her evidence has reiterated her case, which is noticed above. Ex.P1 is original promissory note dated 21.03.2015 for Rs.2 lakhs stated to have been executed by the accused in favour of the complainant. Ex.P2 is original cheque bearing No.000007 for Rs.2,80,000/-

dated 30.06.2017 stated to have been drawn by the accused in favour of the

complainant.

13.The complainant/PW1, in her cross-examination, has stated that the person who accompanied the accused filled Ex.P1/promissory note and 7 of 15 Crl.Appeal No.295 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018) that Ex.P1/promissory note was executed at her residence and that Rama

Subbamma, Pullaiah, the accused, husband of the accused and another person who scribed Ex.P1, were present at that time and that she knows the accused for the last 15 years. She denied the suggestion that her husband is running unregistered chit business and also daily finance business; that the accused has subscribed a chit of Rs.50,000/- with her husband with a subscription of Rs.5,000/- per month for a period of 10 months and if the chit is auctioned, the amount payable would be Rs.6,000/- per month and that the accused has availed prize money in the first month itself and as a security, they took Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 without signature of the accused and that her husband has acknowledged the receipt of Rs.6,000/- per month for 10 months and issued a chit book. She further denied the suggestion that she filled up

Ex.P1 before filing this case and that she forged the signature of the accused on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

14. PW2, Smt. K.Ramasubhamma, has stated that she knows the complainant and the accused and in the first week of March, 2015, the accused requested the complainant to lend an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to meet her family necessities and on 21.03.2015, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused and the accused, in turn, has executed a promissory note promising to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum and the said transaction took place at the residence of the complainant and at that time, the accused, her husband and the said unknown person came to the house of the complainant and the said unknown person has scribed the promissory note and the accused signed the promissory note and that herself and one Pullaiah are witnesses to the said 8 of 15 Crl.Appeal No.295 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018) promissory note. She, in her cross-examination, has stated that on the date of

Ex.P1/promissory note, herself, PW1, husband of PW1, accused, husband of accused, and one Pentaiah were present and that the transaction took place at noon time and PW1 gave money to the accused in her presence. She denied the suggestion that the accused did not borrow any money from PW1 and execute any promissory note in favour of PW1 and that she is deposing false at the instance of PW1.

15.From the evidence of the complainant/PW1 and the evidence of

PW2, who is an independent witness, it is obvious that on 21.03.2015, the accused has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as hand loan from the complainant and executed Ex.P1/promissory note promising to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a. and PW2 signed the said promissory note as one of the witnesses. As elicited from the cross-examination of the complainant/PW1, the said transaction took place at her (complainant’s) residence and at that time, the accused, husband of the accused,

Ramasubhamma (PW2), Pullaiah and another person were present and the said another person has scribed Ex.P1/promissory note.

16.From the suggestions put to the complainant/PW1, the defence of the accused is that she did not borrow any amount from the complainant and execute any promissory note in favour of the complainant nor has issued any cheque in favour of the complainant for repayment of any amount and the husband of the complainant has been doing unregistered chit business and she (accused) has subscribed a chit of Rs.50,000/- with the husband of the complainant with a subscription of Rs.5,000/- per month to be paid for ten months and in the first month itself, she (accused) has availed prize money 9 of 15 Crl.Appeal No.295 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018) and at that time, the husband of the complainant took a blank promissory note and blank cheque without her signatures as security and though she (accused) has paid the subscription for all the months, the husband of the complainant did not return the said blank promissory note and blank cheque and he misused them and got filed this complaint by forging her signatures on the promissory note and cheque. But, except suggesting so, the accused did not adduce any evidence to prove her said defence. She could have at least entered into the witness box to speak her case. But, she did not choose to do so. As suggested to the complainant/PW1, the husband of the complainant/PW1 issued a chit book to the accused. But, the accused did not produce any such chit book also into the Court. It is a common knowledge that in financial transactions, normally, signed documents would be obtained as security and that no purpose would be served in obtaining unsigned blank promissory note and unsigned blank cheque as security. So, the case of the accused that an unsigned blank promissory note and unsigned blank cheque were obtained from her by the husband of the complainant as security in a chit transaction is some what improbable. Further, if really the husband of the complainant has obtained unsigned blank promissory note and unsigned blank cheque from her and misused the same, the accused could have complained the matter to some one. But, she did not choose to do so. Yet another aspect to be noted is that if really the signatures on Ex.P1/promissory note and Ex.P2/cheque are not her signatures, she could have taken steps to get compared those disputed signatures with that of her admitted signatures by the handwriting expert. But, she did not choose to do so also for the reasons known to her. However, the learned trial Court, in exercise of the 10 of 15 Crl.Appeal No.295 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018) power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, compared the disputed signatures of the accused on Ex.P1/promissory note and Ex.P2/cheque with that of her admitted signatures and opined that the disputed signatures on

Ex.P1/promissory note and Ex.P2/cheque are similar to the admitted signatures of the accused. So, based on the evidence of the complainant/PW1 and PW2, which almost remained uncontroverted, it can be held that the accused has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 21.03.2015 and executed Ex.P1/promissory note promising to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a. and for repayment of the said amount, she (accused) has issued Ex.P2/cheque in favour of the complainant.

17.It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the complainant did not produce any evidence to show that she has capacity to lend such huge amount of Rs.2 lakhs and that she did not show the said amount of Rs.2 lakhs in her income tax returns and further, the payment of money exceeding Rs.20,000/- has to be paid through account payee cheque only, but, the complainant did not state as to in what mode she has paid the said amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the accused and, therefore, the amount alleged to have been paid by the complainant to the accused is to be treated as unaccounted money and if that be so, the complainant cannot seek to recover the said amount under the guise of prosecution of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act for the dishonour of Ex.P2/cheque. But, it is to be noted that no question as such was put to the complainant/PW1 about her financial capacity and filing of income tax returns by her. Unless the complainant is an income tax assessee and files income tax returns, there would be no occasion for her to show the amount of Rs.2 lakhs paid by her to 11 of 15 Crl.Appeal No.295 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018) the accused in her income tax returns. However, it is a well settled law that if some amounts are not accounted for, the person would be visited with the penalty or at times even prosecution under the Income Tax Act, but, it does not mean that the borrower can refuse to pay the amount which he has borrowed simply because there is some infraction of the provisions of the

Income Tax Act. It is also a well settled law that the consequence of not lending the money above Rs.20,000/- through account payee cheque could only fasten the parties with the penalties under the Income Tax Act and under the guise of said infraction of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the borrower cannot avoid his liability to repay the amount borrowed or seek exoneration of his prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act for the dishonour of the cheque issued for the repayment of the amount borrowed.

The learned trial Court addressed the said contention of the accused and negatived the same. This Court fully concurs with the opinion of the learned trial Court in that regard, as, the complainant with her evidence as well as with the evidence of PW2 is able to prove her case that she lent the amount to the accused and the accused, in turn, has executed Ex.P1/promissory note and also issued Ex.P2/cheque for re-payment of the amount borrowed and on the other hand, the accused failed to prove her defence that she gave unsigned blank promissory note and unsigned blank cheque to the husband of the complainant in a chit transaction and he has misused the said documents for filing this complaint.

18.For the reasons recorded supra, there cannot be any hesitation to hold that the accused has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 21.03.2015 by executing Ex.P1/Promissory note and for 12 of 15 Crl.Appeal No.295 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018) repayment of the said amount, she has issued Ex.P2/cheque to the complainant. This point is, therefore, answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

19.Point No.2: Whether the complainant has demanded the accused to pay the amount due under Ex.P2/cheque as required under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act?

As per clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act, the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, shall make a demand for payment of the amount of money covered by the cheque returned unpaid by the bank by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the said cheque as unpaid. To maintain a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, compliance of this requirement is mandatory.

20.As seen from Ex.P3/cheque return memo, Ex.P2/cheque was presented by the complainant to her banker i.e., State Bank of India,

Prashanth Nagar, Uppal Branch, for encashment and the same was returned unpaid with a remark ‘drawer’s signature differs’. Through Ex.P4/notice, the complainant called upon the accused to pay the amount covered by

Ex.P2/cheque. As seen from Ex.P5/postal receipt, Ex.P4/notice was dispatched on 27.07.2017, Ex.P6 is returned postal cover with an endorsement ‘unclaimed’. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that since, admittedly, the accused did not receive Ex.P4/notice, the complainant cannot be said to have complied with the requirement under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act and if that be so, the accused cannot be held to have committed the offence under Section 138 of 13 of 15 Crl.Appeal No.295 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018) the NI Act. It is to be noted that Ex.P4/notice was addressed and sent to “H.No.2-2-127/54/20, Vijayapuri Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad”. It is not the case of the accused that the said address is not her address. Further, the summons in the complaint was sent to the very same address and the accused having received the same, appeared before the Court. So also, in the memorandum of grounds of appeal, the accused has shown her address as H.No.2-2- 127/54/20, Vijayapuri Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad. When the complainant has sent Ex.P4/notice to the correct address of the accused under registered post with acknowledgment due, a presumption under Section 27 of the General

Clauses Act would arise that the accused has received the said notice, unless the contrary is proved. But, the accused did not plead and establish any contra case in that regard. She did not even attribute anything adverse against the complainant for making such an endorsement on Ex.P6/postal cover. So, the complainant can be held to have complied with the requirement under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act. This point is, therefore, answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

21.Point No.3: Whether the complainant is able to make out the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused?

As held in point No.1, there existed a legally enforceable debt and for discharge of the same, the accused had issued Ex.P2/cheque. The said cheque was presented to the State Bank of India where the complainant was maintaining an account and as is evident from Ex.P4/cheque return memo, the said cheque was returned unpaid with a remark ‘drawer’s signature differs’. The accused is not disputing the fact of presentation of Ex.P2/cheque to the bank for clearance and its dishonour by the bank and her only case is 14 of 15 Crl.Appeal No.295 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018) that she did not issue Ex.P2/cheque in discharge of any debt or other liability and that she gave a cheque in blank form to the husband of the complainant in some other transaction, but, he has misused the said cheque for filing this complaint, which, she failed to substantiate, as noticed in point No.1. As held in point No.2, the complainant has demanded the accused to pay the amount due under Ex.P2/cheque by a notice in writing as required under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of NI Act. But, the accused did not comply with the said demand. The complainant has, therefore, satisfied all the requirements and hence, it attracts the offence under Section 138 of the NI

Act. Consequently, it can be held that the complainant has made out the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

22.Point No. 4 : Whether the impugned judgment rendered by the learned trial Court is not tenable and if so, the same is liable to be set aide as prayed for by the accused?

The learned trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the complainant and convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under

Section 138 of the NI Act. This Court, for the reasons recorded in points No.1 to 3, concurs with the opinion of the learned trial Court. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the accused. Hence, the impugned judgment cannot and need not be interfered with and on the other hand, the same needs to be confirmed. This point is answered accordingly.

23.Point No.5: To what relief?

In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused by the learned III Special 15 of 15 Crl.Appeal No.295 of 2022 (Old Crl.Appeal No.379 of 2018)

Magistrate, Hasthinapuram, LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District vide judgment in

C.C.No.131 of 2017 dated 28.03.2018.

The appellant/accused is absent today. So, she is directed to surrender

before the learned trial Court on or before 20.06.2025 and on such surrender,

the learned trial Court shall commit her to the prison to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed against her. If the appellant/accused fails to surrender on or before the said date, the learned trial Court shall secure her presence by issuing a non-bailable warrant and commit her to the prison to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed against her.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-1) and after transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 20th day of May, 2025.

I Addl.Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

Appendix of evidence (Witnesses examined and exhibits marked) -Nil-

I Addl.Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

vs

*

1 of 7 Crl.Appeal No.92 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA

Wednesday, the 21st day of May, 2025 Present: Sri R.Raghunath Reddy, I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

Crl.Appeal No. 92 of 202 4

Between: Mohd. Aleemuddin, S/o.Mohammed Samiuddin, Aged about 26 years, Occ:Labour, R/o.H.No.2-21-143/3, Chilkanagar, Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Appellant/respondent No.1 AND

Shaheen, W/o.Mohd. Aleemuddin, Aged about 24 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.4-6-34/2, Baba Nagar, Nacharam, Medchal-Malkajgiri-76

...Respondent/petitioner

On being aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2023 of the Court of I

Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at

Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in

Crl.MP.No.677 of 2019

in

D.V.C.No.84 of 2019

Between: Shaheen, W/o.Mohd. Aleemuddin, Aged about 24 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.4-6-34/2, Baba Nagar, Nacharam, Medchal-Malkajgiri-76 … Petitioner

And

Mohd. Aleemuddin, S/o.Mohammed Samiuddin, Aged about 26 years, Occ:Labour, R/o.H.No.2-21-143/3, Chilkanagar, Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri … Respondent No.1

This criminal appeal came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate for the appellant/respondent No.1 and of Sri K.Ravikanth, Advocate for the respondent/petitioner and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 of 7 Crl.Appeal No.92 of 2024

:: JUDGMENT ::

The appellant/husband filed this appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the DV Act’) against the order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in Crl.M.P.No.677 of 2019 in DVC.No.84 of 2019 directing him to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife towards interim maintenance from the date of petition till the disposal of main case.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as ‘the appellant/husband’ and ‘the respondent/wife’.

3.Indisputably, the marriage between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife was performed on 03.10.2013 and they did not have any children out of wedlock and presently they are living separately. The respondent/wife filed main DVC under Section 12 of the DV Act against the appellant/husband and his relatives, i.e., respondents No.2 to 6, seeking several reliefs. Along with the said DVC, she filed a petition being Crl.M.P.No. 677 of 2019 claiming Rs.20,000/- per month as interim maintenance. The appellant/husband filed counter opposing the said petition. The learned

Magistrate, by the impugned order, directed the appellant/husband to pay an

amount of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife towards interim maintenance from the date of petition. The appellant/husbandfiled this appeal to set aside the said order completely.

4.It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/husband that the respondent/wife basically is a tailor and she is running a beauty parlour 3 of 7 Crl.Appeal No.92 of 2024 and tailoring business with the help of her father under the name and style of “Shaheen Beauty Parlour” and “Shaheen Ladies Tailor” from which she is earning not less than Rs.25,000/- per month and apart from that she is having independent house in Ranga Reddy District and giving Arabic tuitions through which she is earning Rs.8,000/- per month and hence, the amount being earned by the respondent/wife is sufficient for her maintenance and on the other hand, the appellant/husband, being a helper, used to earn Rs.200/- to Rs.250/- per day whenever he gets work and with the said income he has to maintain his ailing old aged mother, his second wife and two children and that the said income is hardly sufficient for the maintenance of himself and his other family members and that because of the false propaganda made by the respondent/wife, the appellant/husband is finding it very difficulty to get the work, but, the learned

Magistrate did not appreciate these factual aspects in right perspective. It is

further contended by him that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order mechanically and without framing proper and necessary issues and appreciating the evidence available on record. It is ultimately contended by him that the impugned order is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

5.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife contended that right from the date of marriage, the appellant/husband and his family members have been harassing the respondent/wife with a demand to bring

additional dowry and finally they necked her out of the house and ever since she

is taking shelter in her parents’ house and that the appellant/husband did not produce any evidence to show that the respondent/wife has been earning 4 of 7 Crl.Appeal No.92 of 2024 sufficient amount and the same is sufficient for her maintenance and that the learned Magistrate having considered all these aspects in right perspective directed the appellant/husband to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife towards interim maintenance which is just and reasonable and hence, the order of the learned Magistrate cannot and need not be interfered with by this Court.

6.Now, the point that arises for determination is whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court?

7.Point: It is notin dispute that appellant/husband has married the respondent/wife on 03.10.2013 and presently they are residing separately.

8.From the respective cases of the appellant/husband and respondent/wife, it is obvious that they are making serious allegations against each other and blaming each other for the differences arose between them. But, the truth or otherwise of the said allegations made by them cannot be gone into and decided in this interim application and they can be gone into after adducing evidence by both parties in main DVC only. Further as held by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Sunita Kachwaha and others v. Anil Kachwaha, reported in 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 484 (SC), the proceedings for grant of maintenance are summary in nature and it is not necessary for the Court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and that minute details of matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into. So, the respective contentions of parties are left open to be raised during the enquiry in main maintenance case. The question whether the appellant/husband has committed domestic violence against the respondent/wife 5 of 7 Crl.Appeal No.92 of 2024 or not is also left open to be decided in main DVC case.

9.The respondent/wife sought interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m. But, the learned Magistrate, after considering the requirements of the respondent/wife and also the avocation and earnings of the appellant/husband, vide the impugned order, directed the appellant/husband to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife towards interim maintenance from the date of petition.

10.According to the respondent/wife, the appellant/husband is running transport business and earning Rs.80,000/- p.m., but, he has completely neglected to maintain her and that she has no means to maintain herself. On the other hand, the case of the appellant/husband is that the respondent/wife is running a beauty parlour and tailoring business under the name and style of “Shaheen Beauty Parlour” and “Shaheen Ladies Tailor” and she is also giving Arabic tuitions from which, in all, she is earning Rs.28,000/- per month and the said amount is sufficient for her maintenance. His further case is that he being an helper used to earn Rs.200/- to Rs.250/- per day whenever he gets work and with the said amount he has to maintain himself, his old aged mother, his second wife and two children and so, he cannot pay any separate maintenance to the respondent/wife. But, he did not produce any evidence to show that the respondent/wife is doing the beauty parlour and tailoring business and also giving Arabic tuitions and earning Rs.28,000/- per month. Of course, the respondent/wife also did not produce any evidence to show that the appellant/husband is doing transport business and earning Rs.80,000/- per month. But, the appellant, being the husband of the respondent, cannot deny 6 of 7 Crl.Appeal No.92 of 2024 his liability to maintain the respondent by citing his financial inability as a reason. Further, it is a well settled law that ‘means’ does not signify only visible means such as real property or definite employment and if a man is healthy and able bodied, he must be held to be possessed of means to support his wife. It is not the case of the appellant/husband that he is not able bodied or he is suffering from any ill-health and so he is unable to do any work and earn anything. So, the appellant/husband, by citing his meagre income and his obligation to maintain his old aged mother, second wife and his two children as a reason, cannot avoid to pay maintenance to the respondent/wife.

11.It is a fact that the respondent/wife is residing at Baba Nagar,

Nacharam, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, which is a part of Hyderabad City and where the cost of living is very high. So, having regard to the place of stay of the respondent/wife and cost of living, the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month granted by the learned Magistrate towards interim maintenance of the respondent/wife cannot be said to be on higher side and on the other hand, it can be held to be quite just and reasonable.

12.It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/husband that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order mechanically and without framing proper and necessary issues and appreciating the evidence and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. This Court is unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel. The proceedings under the DV Act are quasi-civil and quasi-criminal in nature. Further, as per Section 28(1) of the DV Act, all proceedings under Section 12 and Sections 18 to 23 and offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So, 7 of 7 Crl.Appeal No.92 of 2024 there was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to frame the issues and decide them unlike a civil suit. Further, as seen from the impugned order, either of the parties did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/husband that the learned Magistrate did not appreciate the evidence available on record is not tenable. Further, as per sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the DV Act, the Magistrate is empowered to grant an ex parte ad-interim relief in terms of Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act including the maintenance based on the affidavit of the aggrieved person alone. So, this

Court does not find any procedural irregularity in passing the impugned order by the learned Magistrate.

13.For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate and hence, the same cannot be upset at the instance of the appellant/husband.

14.In the result, the appeal is dismissed, however, without costs, confirming the order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the Court of I Additional Junior

Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Uppal, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District in Crl.M.P.No.677 of 2019 in DVC No.84 of 2019.

Dictated to the Stenographer(Grade-I) and after transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 21st day of May, 2025.

I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

Appendix of evidence (Witnesses examined and exhibits marked) -Nil-

I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

vs

*