Sri S Sasidhar Reddy

1 of 11 Crl. Appl. No. 13 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, SANGAREDDY

Present:- Sri S Sasidhar Reddy,

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy

FRIDAY, THE 16th DAY OF JUNE, 2023

Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2020

1.From which Court this Appeal isAssistant Sessions Court, Medak preferred

2.No. of the case in that CourtS.C. No. 234 of 2018

3.Name and description of theDodla Venkatesh, S/o: Ramulu, Aged about: 33 years, appellantOcc: Private Employee, R/o: Busareddypally village, Munipally Mandal, Sangareddy District

4.Name and description of theThe State represented by P.S. Hathnoora Respondent

5.Sentence and law under which itThe accused is found guilty for the offences was imposed by the lower courtpunishable under Sections 323, 354 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is convicted under Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one-and-a-half year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the appellant was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the appellant was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

6.Whether the appeal is confirmedThe Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the / modified / reversedconviction is modified.

2 of 11 Crl. Appl. No. 13 of 2020

7.Date of presentation of appeal18.02.2020

8.Date of filing of appeal20.02.2020

9.Notice issued by the Court25.02.2020

10.Bail bond if appellant is let outBail bonds not available. on bail

11.Appellant is ordered to appear27.03.2020

12.Date of hearing02.06.2023

13.Date of judgment16.06.2023

The case came up before me for final hearing on 02.06.2023 in the presence of M/s. G. Srividya, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri J. Srinivas Reddy, learned Pubic Prosecutor for the Respondent, having perused the material on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration, the court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is an appeal filed against the judgment dated 12.02.2020 in

S.C. No. 234 of 2018 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Medak.

2.The facts of the case are that the victim and the accused had an illicit relationship. The accused was a Security Guard in the Seeds Company where the deceased was working. That the accused had called the deceased on the day prior to the incident and the deceased did not answer the phone. When the deceased went to work on 16.07.2020 the accused accosted her and did not allow her inside and tried to beat her with a stick and outraged her modesty. The deceased returned home and set herself on fire. She was rescued by her daughter and neighbours and relatives and admitted in Government Hospital, Sangareddy and then shifted her to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad where her Dying Declaration 3 of 11 Crl. Appl. No. 13 of 2020 was recorded by P.W.5. She succumbed to her injuries while undergoing treament.

3.A complaint was lodged by P.W.1 which was registered as a case in Crime

No. 170 of 2017 by P.W.6. P.W.6 took up the investigation, conducted panchanama, recorded statements of witnesses. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

4.The same was taken cognizance of as P.R.C. No. 4 of 2018 by the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur. The learned Magistrate committed

the case for trial before the Sessions Court.

5.The same was taken cognizance of as S.C.No. 234 of 2018 and the case was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Medak.

6.Before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Medak accused was summoned and charges framed for the offences under Sections 323, 354 and 306 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860. The charges were put to the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.Accordingly, trial schedule was fixed and prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P9 and M.Os.1 and 2 in support of their case. Defence marked Ex.D1 in support of their case.

4 of 11 Crl. Appl. No. 13 of 2020

8.Accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and accused denied the entire evidence and reported no defence evidence. After considering the material on record, the Assistant Sessions Judge,

Medak, found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 306, 354 and 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one-and-a-half year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the appellant was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the appellant was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence the present appeal is filed.

9.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor.

10.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased herself had stated in her Dying Declaration that she had illicit relationship with the appellant and consequently the offence under Section 354 I.P.C is not made out.

5 of 11 Crl. Appl. No. 13 of 2020

Learned counsel further contended that the offence under Section 306 I.P.C is also not made out in the facts and circumstances of the case and placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mariano Anto

Bruno and another v. The Inspector of Police [2022 Live Law (SC) 834; Kashibai and others v. The State of Karnataka [2023 Live Law (SC) 149] and Geo

Varghese v. The State of Rajasthan and another [2021 SCC OnLine SC 873], to contend that there should be abetment to commit suicide to attract the offence under Section 306 and in this case the record does not show that there was any abetment to commit suicide.

11.The learned prosecutor contended that the record clearly indicates that the accused had tried to assault the victim in order to outrage her modesty and merely because the victim had a relationship with the appellant, it cannot be stated that when the victim refused the advances of the appellant in a particular instance and the appellant tried to force himself upon her it would not constitute an offence under Section 354 I.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the record clearly supports the findings of the trial court that the appellant had induced the victim to commit suicide.

12.Upon considering the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and upon considering the material on record, the points for consideration are:- 6 of 11 Crl. Appl. No. 13 of 2020

1. Whether the findings of the trial court are correct in the facts and circumstances of the case?

2. Whether the sentence imposed is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case?

P O I N T No. 1:-

13.It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant had abetted the suicide of the victim and had also tried to outrage her modesty and had beaten her.

14.In this case the prosecution had examined six witnesses in support of their case. But as seen from the record, P.Ws.1 to 3 who are cited as the material witnesses are not eye witnesses to the incident. The three witnesses are relatives of the deceased and they were all present in and around the house of the deceased when she set herself on fire or reached later on information being given about the incident. Their knowledge as to the incidents that occurred between the appellant and the deceased are hear-say since they are not eye witnesses to those incidents.

The only material available as to what happened between the appellant and the deceased is the Dying Declaration of the deceased. The Dying Declaration is believable and nothing was elicited to show that either the deceased was tutored or otherwise influenced. Therefore, the Dying Declaration in its entirety can be relied upon. The trial court relied upon the Dying Declaration and found the appellant guilty. Therefore, the contents of the Dying Declaration have to be 7 of 11 Crl. Appl. No. 13 of 2020 considered in order to see whether the offences alleged against the appellant are made out.

15.The deceased in her Dying Declaration stated that she and the appellant had illicit intimacy for the past three years. That she works in a farm in

Doultabad and the appellant works as a Security Guard in the said farm. That they had physical relationship. That on the night before he had phoned her and she did not notice the same. In the morning at 6’O clock when she went to the farm to work he stopped her from going into the farm and questioned her why she had not answered the phone. He insisted that she should accompany him to his house. He tried to hit her with a stick. When she was returning he told her to go and work in the farm and he threatened to inform everyone of their relationship. She went home and set herself on fire. He had tortured her for three years and forced her to satisfy his desire. She could not tell anyone about it. She further stated that the appellant was responsible for her state.

16.From the Dying Declaration what emerges is that when the deceased went to work, the appellant who was a Security Guard did not allow her to go into the farm, he tried to hit her with a stick and asked her to go to his house and when she was going back he told her to work in the farm and also threatened that he would inform everyone of their relationship and defame her.

8 of 11 Crl. Appl. No. 13 of 2020

17.The deceased did not state that the appellant had beat her, consequently the offence under Section 323 I.P.C is not made out. In so far as the offence under Section 306 I.P.C is concerned, the statement does not indicate that the appellant had any intention of forcing the deceased to commit suicide. The statement would show that the deceased and the appellant had illicit intimacy for about three years and the same was not known to anyone. It appears from the statement that the appellant was aggrieved by the perceived non-responsiveness of the deceased to his phone call the night before. He had asked her to accompany him to his house and he had tried to hit her with a stick and further threatened to defame her by revealing their relationship to others, but this does not indicate any intention on the part of the appellant that the deceased should be induced to commit suicide. Consequently since the record does not indicate any intention on the part of the appellant to force the deceased to commit suicide the offence under Section 306 I.P.C is also not made out.

18.In so far as the offence under Section 354 I.P.C is concerned, Section 354

I.P.C as amended by the State of Telangana reads as follows:-

354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:

9 of 11 Crl. Appl. No. 13 of 2020

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term which may be less than five years, but which shall not be less than two years.

The section requires the use of criminal force or assault upon the victim to outrage her modesty. Criminal force and assault are defined under Section 350 and 351 I.P.C as follows:-

350. Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.

351. Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.

Force is defined under Section 349 I.P.C.

349. Force.—A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other’s body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other’s sense of feeling: Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described.

10 of 11 Crl. Appl. No. 13 of 2020 (First) — By his own bodily power. (Secondly) —By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person. (Thirdly) — By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.

19.From the above criminal force is applied where the accused if he had acted in such a manner as to move the other person causing injury or annoyance to the other person. In the present case there is no such act attributed to the appellant in the Dying Declaration of the deceased. The overt act the appellant is alleged to have committed is that he had attempted to hit the deceased with a stick. This amounts to an assault. However, as seen from the record this was not done with an intention to compel the victim to accompany him or in order to outrage her modesty nor was it done as response to the deceased refusal to accompany the appellant. The deceased does not state that the appellant had laid a hand on her.

In these circumstances the offence under Section 354 I.P.C is also not made out.

However, the offence under Section 352 I.P.C is made out. Therefore, the findings of the trial court to this extent have to be set aside and modified.

P O I N T No. 2:-

20.In view of the above findings, the sentence imposed by the trial court is to be set aside. Since the offence under Section 352 is made out the sentence imposed is to be modified.

11 of 11 Crl. Appl. No. 13 of 2020

21.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction is modified and the appellant is found guilty of the offence under Section 352 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 354 and 306 I.P.C. The additional fine amount if any paid before the trial court shall be refunded. The bail bonds of the appellants shall stand cancelled.

The period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant shall be setoff under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of June, 2023.

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

1 of 10 Crl. Appl. No. 26 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, SANGAREDDY

Present:- Sri S Sasidhar Reddy,

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy

WEDNESDAY, THE 17th DAY OF MAY, 2023

Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2022

1.From which Court this Appeal isAssistant Sessions Court, Zaheerabad preferred

2.No. of the case in that CourtS.C. No. 140 of 2022

3.Name and description of theChintakoti @ Mochi Ambaji, S/o: Manik, Aged appellantabout: 31 years, Occ: Foot ware business, R/o: H.No. 3-60/1, Ranjol village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Sangareddy District

4.Name and description of theThe State represented by P.S. Zaheerabad Respondent

5.Sentence and law under which itThe appellant is found guilty for the offences was imposed by the lower courtpunishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is convicted under Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. appellant is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Both sentences shall run concurrently. appellant is entitled to the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C for the period undergone as under trial prisoner from 19.07.2021 to 19.08.2021.

6.Whether the appeal is confirmedThe Criminal Appeal is allowed. / modified / reversed 2 of 10 Crl. Appl. No. 26 of 2022

7.Date of presentation of appeal20.08.2022

8.Date of filing of appeal22.08.2022

9.Notice issued by the Court22.08.2022

10.Bail bond if appellant is let outBail bonds available. on bail

11.Appellant is ordered to appear30.11.2022

12.Date of hearing08.05.2023

13.Date of judgment17.05.2023

The case came up before me for final hearing on 08.05.2023 in the presence of Sri S.N. Chary, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri J. Srinivas Reddy, learned Pubic Prosecutor for the Respondent, having perused the material on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration, the court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is an appeal filed against the judgment dated 18.08.2022 in

S.C. No. 140 of 2022 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Zaheerabad.

2.The facts of the case are that the appellant was married to the deceased about nine years prior to her death. They had a daughter. The appellant was addicted to alcohol and used to harass the deceased. He sustained loss in his business and was demanding that the deceased should get money from her parents for making good the loss. On 18.07.2021 the deceased, unable to bear the harassment of the appellant, committed suicide by hanging herself. The appellant informed the same to his mother-in-law (P.W.1) and she and the appellant went to the house and found the deceased hanging in the room.

3 of 10 Crl. Appl. No. 26 of 2022

3.P.W.1 then went to the Zaheerabad Rural Police Station and submitted a report. Basing on which P.W.12 registered a case in Crime No. 83 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

P.W.12 conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. The same was committed for trial before the Assistant Session Judge, Zaheerabad. The appellant was summoned and charges were framed under Section 306 and 498-A. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Trial was conducted and prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and MO.1. After closure of prosecution evidence the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant denied the entire evidence and reported no defence evidence. The trial court found the appellant guilty of the offences under Section 306 and 498-A and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of three months for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved by this conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.

4 of 10 Crl. Appl. No. 26 of 2022

4.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant. That P.Ws.5 to 10 did not support the case of the prosecution. That the case was based on a false complaint and the record shows that none of the witnesses were present at the time of death of the deceased.

Learned counsel further contended that the evidence was not properly recorded because the suggestions put to the sisters were recorded as if the deceased was their daughter. The learned counsel further contended that none of the witnesses spoke about giving of dowry or any demand for additional dowry, therefore the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

5.The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence before the trial court clearly establishes the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

Nothing was elicited from the witnesses in the cross-examination to doubt their evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the material adduced by the prosecution categorically establishes the guilt of the appellant and the sentence imposed is justified in the circumstances of the case.

6.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public

Prosecutor and upon considering the material on record, the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the findings of the trial court are correct in the facts and circumstances of the case?

5 of 10 Crl. Appl. No. 26 of 2022

2. Whether the sentence imposed is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case?

P O I N T No. 1:-

7.The appellant was charged with offence under Section 306 and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

8.Section 306 reads as follows:-

Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

9.Section 306 requires the accused to abet the suicide of the victim.

10.Abetment is defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.—A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes 6 of 10 Crl. Appl. No. 26 of 2022 or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Illustration:-

A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to

A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

11.From the above in order to constitute an offence under Section 306 I.P.C there should be clear evidence of the appellant instigating the victim to commit suicide and the conduct of the appellant should be such that the victim has no other option except to commit suicide.

12.In the present case none of the witnesses were present in the house of the appellant and the deceased when the deceased committed suicide.

13.The two witnesses who were present in the house P.W.5 and P.W.6 did not support the case of the prosecution.

14.The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is very general in nature stating that the appellant had harassed the deceased under the influence of alcohol and further was demanding that the deceased should bring Rs.5,00,000/- to clear the debts. In 7 of 10 Crl. Appl. No. 26 of 2022 this regard it is to be noted that P.W.2 admitted that her sister never directly informed her about the incident. P.W.3 is a resident of the same village as the appellant and the deceased. P.W.4 and P.W.2 and P.W.1 are not residents of said village. In these circumstances, there is no direct evidence as to what transpired between the appellant and the deceased immediately prior to her death. Some positive evidence is required to show that the appellant was treating the deceased in such a manner that the appellant left no option to the deceased but to commit suicide and further that the appellant was subjecting the deceased to such conduct compelling her to commit suicide. No such material is available. The trial court relied upon the statement of P.W.3 that the deceased attempted to commit suicide by jumping into a well. However, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 do not refer to such conduct. It was suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant before the trial court that the deceased had attempted suicide earlier. But there is no material on the record to show that the deceased had attempted such suicide earlier. In fact

P.W.1 denied the suggestion. P.W.3 stated that her sister had earlier attempted to commit suicide by jumping into the well. This evidence is too nebulous to rely upon to hold that the victim was compelled by the appellant to commit suicide.

The trial court placing reliance these statements held that the conduct of the appellant compelled the victim to attempt suicide earlier and therefore the same is sufficient to hold that the appellant had abetted the suicide of the deceased.

However, this finding is not correct since the evidence as to the earlier attempt of 8 of 10 Crl. Appl. No. 26 of 2022 suicide is too tenuous and further there is no material to show that at the time the deceased committed suicide the appellant had compelled her to do so. In the circumstances, the findings of the trial court in regard to abetment of suicide are not correct.

15.The trial court had also charged the appellant under Section 498-A I.P.C.

Section 498-A I.P.C reads as follows:-

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

1[Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"—

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]

16.From the above the cruelty to which the accused subjects the victim should be of such nature that the accused causes grave injury to the life or limb of the victim or to her mental health or forces her to commit suicide or harassment of the victim with an intention to compel her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property.

9 of 10 Crl. Appl. No. 26 of 2022

17.In the present case the victim committed suicide. But the extent of the cruel treatment meted out by the appellant to the victim is not clear from the evidence of the witnesses. The witnesses all deposed that the appellant had harassed the victim demanding that she should get money for repayment his debts. This evidence is not contradicted in the cross-examination and all the witnesses spoke all these circumstances clearly and all the witnesses categorically deposed that the appellant suffered loss in his business and was demanding that the victim should bring money, therefore to this extent the trial court’s finding are correct.

18.The next question will be whether the harassment was for meeting the illegal demands for money made by the appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant suffered a loss in business and he was demanding the money to clear the debts. Such a demand per se would not be illegal. It would be illegal if the demand was additional dowry. Such is not the prosecution case. Therefore what emerges from the evidence is that the relationship between the appellant and the deceased was strained and he was harassing her to bring money to clear of the debts. There is no evidence as to the nature of the harassment. Whether there was physical and mental cruelty is not stated by the witnesses. The witnesses do not speak of the specific instances of the cruelty. Therefore, the findings of the trial court to this extent are not correct.

10 of 10 Crl. Appl. No. 26 of 2022

P O I N T No. 2:-

19.In view of the above, the sentence imposed by the trial court has to be set aside.

20.In the result, the appeal is allowed acquitting the appellant of all charges.

The bail bonds of the appellant are discharged. Fine amount if any paid shall be refunded.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of May, 2023.

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

1of 9 A.S. No. 30 of 2022 (Old A.S.No. 10 of 2019)

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri S. Sasidhar Reddy

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

FRIDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY, 2023

A.S. No. 30 of 2022

(Old A.S. No. 10 of 2019)

Between:-

1. Sara Santhosh Lal, S/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 52 years

2. Sara Mohan Lal, S/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 43 years

3. Sara Basanth Lal, S/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 41 years

4. Sara Saritharani, D/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 55 years

All are R/o: Korpole village, Pulkal Mandal, Sangareddy District

...Appellants

A N D

1. Sara @ Yenthoori Chilkamma, W/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 53 years

2. Sara @ Yenthoori Rajkumar, S/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 31 years

3. Sara @ Yenthoori Naresh, S/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 28 years

4. Sara @ Yenthoori Suresh, S/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 26 years

All are R/o: H.No. 6-69/1, Korpole village, Pulkal Mandal, Sangareddy District

...Respondents

2of 9 A.S. No. 30 of 2022 (Old A.S.No. 10 of 2019) The appellant preferred the Appeal Suit aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Medak in:-

O.S. No. 70 of 2011

Between:

1. Sara @ Yenthoori Chilkamma, W/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 53 years

2. Sara @ Yenthoori Rajkumar, S/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 31 years

3. Sara @ Yenthoori Naresh, S/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 28 years

4. Sara @ Yenthoori Suresh, S/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 26 years

All are R/o: H.No. 6-69/1, Korpole village, Pulkal Mandal, Sangareddy District …Plaintiffs

A N D

1. Sara Santhosh Lal, S/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 52 years

2. Sara Mohan Lal, S/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 43 years

3. Sara Basanth Lal, S/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 41 years

4. Sara Saritharani, D/o: Late Manik Lal, Aged about: 55 years

All are R/o: Korpole village, Pulkal Mandal, Sangareddy District

...Defendants

This Appeal Suit came up before me for final hearing on 10.07.2023 in the presence of Sri S. Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri S.N. Chary, Advocate for the Respondents, having perused the material on 3of 9 A.S. No. 30 of 2022 (Old A.S.No. 10 of 2019) record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is an appeal filed against the judgment dated 26.03.2019 in

O.S. No. 70 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak.

2.The facts of the case are that the appellants are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit for the sake of convenience.

3.The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property claiming 1/72 share to first plaintiff and 10/72 shares to each of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 1/72 share to 1st defendant and 10/72 shares to each of defendants 2 to 5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties belong to late Manik Lal. Late Manik Lal had inherited the property along with his brothers from their father. The suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. That plaintiff No. 1 is the lawful wedded wife of Manik Lal.

The defendants are not concerned with the suit schedule property. That after the death of Manik Lal the defendants had the property mutated in the name of defendant No. 1 and are refusing to give the plaintiffs their share.

4.The defendants resisted the suit contending that plaintiff No. 1 is not the wife of Manik Lal and defendant No. 1 is the only wife of Manik Lal and 4of 9 A.S. No. 30 of 2022 (Old A.S.No. 10 of 2019) defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are the only children of Manik Lal and plaintiffs have no claim in the suit schedule property.

5.Basing on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties i.e., plaintiff No. 1 1/72 share and plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 10/72 share each?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are no way concerned with the family of Maniklal?

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4. To what relief?

Additional Issue:-

Whether 1st plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Maniklal and she is entitled for share in the suit schedule properties of Maniklal?

6.Before the trial court the plaintiffs examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked

Exs.A1 to A17 in support of their case and defendants examined D.W.1 and

D.W.2 and marked Exs.B1 to B3 in support of their case.

7.After considering the material on record, the trial court decreed the suit allocating 10/72 shares to each of plaintiffs 2 to 4, 1/72 share to first defendant and 10/72 shares to each of defendants 2 to 5. The trial court refused to allot any share to first plaintiff holding that she is not the lawfully wedded wife of Manik

Lal.

5of 9 A.S. No. 30 of 2022 (Old A.S.No. 10 of 2019)

8.Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the defendants. The appeal was filed before the VIII Additional District Court,

Medak and numbered as A.S. No. 10 of 2019. After the reorganisation of the judicial districts the file was transferred to the Principal District Court,

Sangareddy on point of jurisdiction and renumbered as A.S. No. 30 of 2022.

9.Heard learned counsel for defendants and learned counsel for plaintiffs.

10.Learned counsel for plaintiffs contended that though the defendants originally contended that the first plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are not children of Manik Lal, D.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are his brothers and plaintiff No. 1 is the second wife of his father. Therefore, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are entitled for share in the suit schedule property. Learned counsel contended that it is admitted that the suit schedule property is a coparcenary property and consequently the shares worked out by the trial court are not correct and they have to be recalculated.

11.The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the trial court erred in holding that defendant No. 1 is the first wife and plaintiff No. 1 is the second wife of Manik Lal. The learned counsel contended that the record shows that in fact plaintiff No. 1 is the wife of Manik Lal and the trial court erred in placing reliance upon Ex.A8 which is a certificate issued by the Panchayat

Sarpanch who is not the authority for certifying the marital status of any person.

6of 9 A.S. No. 30 of 2022 (Old A.S.No. 10 of 2019) Learned counsel further contended that suggestions were given by the defendants to P.W.1 to the effect that plaintiff No. 1 is the first wife of Manik Lal and therefore the burden is on them to establish that she is not the first wife. Learned counsel further contended that the shares allocated are correct and the land is not coparcenary property but self-acquired property of Manik Lal.

12.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and upon considering the material on record, the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the findings of the trial court as to whether plaintiff No. 1 is the second wife of Manik Lal are correct?

2. Whether the shares allocated to the parties are correct?

3. What relief?

P O I N T No. 1:-

13.It is to be noted that D.W.1 admitted that plaintiffs 2 to 4 are his brothers.

He also admitted that plaintiff No. 1 is the second wife of his father. The trial court upon considering the material on record, held that the defendant No. 1 is the first wife and the plaintiff No. 1 is the second wife. In this regard, it is to be noted that there is no appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the findings of the trial court that plaintiff No. 1 is the second wife of Manik Lal and that the suit schedule property is the coparcenary property. Therefore, it is not open to the 7of 9 A.S. No. 30 of 2022 (Old A.S.No. 10 of 2019) plaintiffs to question the correctness of those findings in the appeal filed by the defendants. Be that as it may the documents filed by the plaintiffs themselves in

Exs.A7 and A8 clearly show that plaintiff No. 1 is the second wife of Manik Lal and defendant No. 1 is the first wife of Manik Lal. Ex.A7 is a representation made by plaintiff No. 1 to the Tahsildar. In Ex.A7 plaintiff No. 1 had asserts that she is the second wife of Manik Lal. Ex.A8 is a certificate issued by the Grama

Sarpanch. In Ex.A8 also plaintiff No. 1 is described as second wife of Manik Lal.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the document was issued without authority, but it is a document filed by the plaintiffs themselves and marked as evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is not open to the plaintiffs to question their own documents. In view of the above, there is no error in the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff No. 1 is the second wife of Manik Lal.

P O I N T No. 2:-

14.The trial court granted the shares as claimed by the plaintiff by allocating 10/72 shares to each plaintiffs 2 to 4 and defendants 2 to 5 and 1/72 share to defendant No. 1. There are three errors in this regard. Firstly mathematically all these shares counted together do not equal to one. Therefore, the calculation is erroneous. Secondly when the trial court found that the property is the coparcenery property of Manik Lal and defendants then Section 6 operates and the shares have to be worked out as per Section 6. Thirdly, since the trial court held that defendant No. 1 to be the first wife and the marriage between Manik Lal 8of 9 A.S. No. 30 of 2022 (Old A.S.No. 10 of 2019) and plaintiff No. 1 took place while the marriage between the defendant No. 1 and Manik Lal was subsisting and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 are illegitimate children of Manik Lal, plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 could not have been allocated shares equal to defendant No. 2 to 5, the legitimate children of Manik Lal.

15.Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jinia Keotin and others v Kumar Sitaram

Manjhi and others [(2003) 1 SCC 730], Neelamma and others v Sarojamma and others [(2006) 9 SCC 612] and Bharatha Matha and another v R. Vijaya

Renganathan and others [(2010) 11 SCC 483] held that illegitmate children cannot seek partition of the coparcenary property. Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Revanasiddappa and another v Mallikarju and others [(2011) 11 SCC 1] took a contrary view and referred the matter to a larger bench. However Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Ashok Sadarangani and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., [AIR 2012 SC 1563] held as follows:

“29. As was indicated in Harbhajan Singh case [Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 13 SCC 608 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1135] , the pendency of a reference to a larger Bench, does not mean that all other proceedings involving the same issue would remain stayed till a decision was rendered in the reference. The reference made in Gian Singh case [(2010) 15 SCC 118] need not, therefore, detain us. Till such time as the decisions cited at the Bar are not modified or altered in any way, they continue to hold the field.”

Therefore following the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the trial court ought have rejected the claim of the plaintiffs for a share in the coparcenary property. As per law the illegitimate children are only entitled for share in the separate property of the father. Thus when Section 6 operates, plaintiffs 2 to 4 as 9of 9 A.S. No. 30 of 2022 (Old A.S.No. 10 of 2019) illegitimate children of Manik Lal are entitled only to a share in the share of property that falls to Manik Lal upon partition. Therefore, the property has to be divided first equally among Manik Lal and plaintiffs 2 to 4. Then in the 1/5th share allocated to Manik Lal, plaintiffs 2 to 4 and defendants 1 to 5 are to be allocated equal shares. Consequently the shares of the parties as re-worked will come to 1/40th shares each to plaintiff Nos. 2, 3, 4 and defendant No. 1 and 9/40th shares each to defendants 2 to 5.

P O I N T No. 3:-

16.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with costs modifying the decree allocating the 1/40th share to plaintiff No. 2, 1/40th share to plaintiff No. 3, 1/40th share to plaintiff No. 4 and 1/40th share to defendant No. 1 and 9/40th share to defendant No. 2, 9/40th share to defendant No. 3, 9/40th share to defendant No. 4 and 9/40th share to defendant No. 5. The claim of plaintiff No. 1 is dismissed.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on the 21 st day of July, 2023.

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

1 of 8 S.C. No. 78 of 2020

COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

SANGAREDDY

Present:- Sri S Sasidhar Reddy

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

WEDNESDAY, THE 17th DAY OF MAY, 2023

S.C. No. 78 of 2020

(CRIME NO. 13 OF 2019 OF P.S. KANGTI) P.R.C. No. 16 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayankhed

Committed bySmt. P. Sreedevi, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayankhed

Crime No. & P.S.Crime No. 13 of 2019, P.S. Kangti

Description of the AccusedA1 Gondla Veeresham @ Harish, S/o: Ramulu, Age: 26 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Mason, R/o: Pochapur village, Sirgapur Mandal A2 Janmula Balraju, S/o: Vittal, Age: 30 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Fathepur village of Kalher Mandal

ChargesUnder Sections 302 r/w 34, 201 r/w 34 and Sections 302 and 201

Plea of accusedNot guilty

Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty and are acquitted of all charges. The bail bonds of accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall remain in force for a further period of six months as security for their appearance in any appeal or revision filed against the judgment of this court before any higher court. M.Os.1 to 5 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The interim custody of M.O.6 given to accused is made absolute. M.O.7 shall be returned to the accused No. 1. Forward the case property to the committal court for 2 of 8 S.C. No. 78 of 2020 execution of the property order.

Prosecution conducted bySri J. Srinivas Reddy, Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri G. Hanumantha Reddy, Advocate for Accused No. 1 and Sri P. Bal Reddy, Advocate for Accused No. 2

This case came up before me for final hearing on 11.05.2023 in the presence ofSri J. Srinivas Reddy, Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution, Sri G. Hanumantha Reddy, Advocate for Accused No. 1 and Sri P. Bal Reddy, Advocate for Accused No. 2, upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The case of the prosecution is that accused No. 1 is a relative of P.W.2 and the deceased is the father of P.W.1, L.W.2, P.W.2, P.W.3 and husband of L.W.5.

That he was performing poojas and had constructed a temple and he was also looking after laying bore points and advising on Vastu. Accused No. 1 suspected that the deceased had done sorcery on him and was the reason for him not getting married. Therefore he decided to kill the deceased. He sought the assistance of accused No. 2. Accused No. 2 contacted the deceased on phone and requested him to accompany him. Accused No. 2 took the deceased along with him and then both of them took the deceased to a forest area in the limits of Achampet village in Nizamsagar Mandal and killed the deceased.

2.When the deceased did not return home, his son P.W.1 submitted a complaint to the police which was received by G. Naresh, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Kangti Police Station (P.W.9). He took up the investigation and searched 3 of 8 S.C. No. 78 of 2020 the local areas. He collected the call-data records of the deceased and identified accused No. 2. Accused No. 2 confessed to the offence. Therefore P.W.9 altered the section of law from man-missing to Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and investigation was taken up by R. Thirupathi Yadav,

Circe-Inspector of Police, Kangti (P.W.10). Accused No. 2 led P.W.10 and panchas to the place where the dead body was hidden. There the P.W.10 summoned the relatives of the deceased and they identified the deceased. He conducted inquest, had spot post-mortem done and seized the clothes of the deceased and the stones used to kill the deceased. Later he arrested accused

No. 1. After collecting all material, he filed charge sheet before the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Narayankhed.

3.The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same as P.R.C No. 16 of 2019. The learned Magistrate after considering the material on record, committed the case for trial before the Sessions Court. The same was taken cognizance of as

S.C. No. 78 of 2020. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were summoned and charges framed under Sections 302 r/w 34, 201 r/w 34 and Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 against accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.Accordingly trial was conducted and prosecution examined P.W.1 to

P.W.10 and marked Exs.P1 to P12 and M.Os.1 to 7.

4 of 8 S.C. No. 78 of 2020

5.After closure of prosecutions evidence, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and accused Nos. 1 and 2 denied the entire evidence and reported no witnesses on their behalf.

6.Heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused No. 1 and learned counsel for accused No. 2.

7.Upon hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused No. 1 and learned counsel for accused No. 2 and upon considering the material on record, the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature?

2. Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that accused 1 and 2 had murdered the deceased?

3. Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that accused 1 and 2 concealed the evidence of the murder?

P O I N T Nos. 1 to 3:-

8.The case of the prosecution is entirely circumstantial in nature. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The circumstances on which the prosecution relies upon are that:-

1. The death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.

2. That accused No. 2 had taken the deceased with him and he is the last person with whom the deceased was seen alive.

3. Accused No. 1 suspected the deceased of committing sorcery upon him.

5 of 8 S.C. No. 78 of 2020

9.It is the case of the prosecution that the dead body was discovered at an isolated place at the instance of accused No. 2. In support of the same the prosecution relies upon the confessional statement of accused No. 2. However, the learned counsel for the accused would contend that the panchas deposed that they had gone to the scene of offence along with the relatives of the deceased and the accused was present there and in their presence the police had conducted panchanama and taken their signatures. Therefore the confession cannot be relied upon.

10.As seen from the record, the Investigating Officer P.W.10 deposed that he summoned the panchas to the police station and in their presence accused No. 2 confessed and accused No. 2 led the P.W.10 and the panchas to the place where the dead body was recovered. However, the evidence of the panchas is directly contradicting the evidence of the Investigating Officer. This creates doubt upon the confession and recovery of the dead body.

11.Further there is no material to show how accused No. 2 was identified as the person with whom the deceased left on the day he went missing. P.W.9 deposed that he identified accused No. 2 basing upon call-data records. That call-data records were not filed before the court along with the charge sheet. The call-data records remained in the file of the police and they were not served upon the accused. During the course of recording evidence of P.W.9 the learned 6 of 8 S.C. No. 78 of 2020 prosecutor sought to introduce the call data records. The learned counsel for the accused objected to receiving the call-data records contending that the same were not furnished to them and they were not filed along with the charge sheet and there is no material to show how call-data records were collected and who had issued the same. Therefore, the call-data records were not received. Hence, there is no material to tie accused No. 2 to the offence. In so far as accused No. 1 is concerned, there is no material at all except to the suspicion expressed by P.Ws.1 to 3. That the information of P.Ws.1 to 3 was provided by the police. They did not have any independent information as to the motive or as to whether accused

No. 2 was the person who had taken the deceased on the day deceased went missing. In these circumstances, considering the manner in which the dead body was found, the death has to be ruled to be a homicidal in nature. However there is no material to link accused Nos. 1 and 2 to the death. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the prosecution failed to establish the links in the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, prosecution has been failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

12.In the result, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty and are acquitted of all charges. The bail bonds of accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall remain in force for a further period of six months as security for their appearance in any appeal or revision filed against the judgment of this court before any higher court. M.Os.1 to 5 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The interim custody of M.O.6 7 of 8 S.C. No. 78 of 2020 given to accused is made absolute. M.O.7 shall be returned to the accused No. 1.

Forward the case property to the committal court for execution of the property order.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of May, 2023.

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: Kotagari Pandari -NIL- P.W.2: Kotagari Vittal P.W.3: Kotagari Dathu P.W.4: Dr. Laxmi Narsimha P.W.5: Kethavath Ramulu P.W.6: Chatroji Subash Rao P.W.7: Malipatel Muralidhar Rao P.W.8: R. Kistaiah P.W.9: G. Naresh P.W.10: R. Tirupathi Yadav

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Post Mortem Examination Report Ex.P.3: Photographs (4 Nos.) Ex.P.4: Signature of P.W.6 on scene of offence and seizure panchanama dated 06.04.2019 Ex.P.5: Signature of P.W.6 on rough sketch Ex.P.6: Signature of P.W.6 on confession panchanama of A2 Ex.P.7: Inquest report Ex.P.8: Scene of offence and seizure panchanama dated 06.04.2019 8 of 8 S.C. No. 78 of 2020

Ex.P.9: Rough sketch Ex.P.10: F.I.R Ex.P.11: Section alteration memo Ex.P.12: FSL Report

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: Rose colour shirt of deceased M.O.2: White dothi of deceased M.O.3: Light red colour towel M.O.4: Boulder M.O.5: Boulder M.O.6: Glamour bike red and black without registration, Engine No. JA06ERJGK51867 M.O.7: White colour NOKIA cell phone mobile No. 897857098

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

1 of 5 Crl. M.P. No. 231 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri S Sasidhar Reddy,

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy.

WEDNESDAY, THE 17th DAY OF MAY, 2023

Crl. M.P. No. 231 of 2023

in

Crime No. 47 of 2023

(P.S. B.D.L. Bhanoor)

Between:-

1. Mohd. Arshad, S/o: Abdullah, Aged: 32 years, Occ: Masjid Imam at Swarna village, Sarangapur Mandal, Nirmal District, N/o. Jeera Heera (v), Pahari Tahsil, Bharathpur District, Rajasthan State

2. Zakeer Khan @ Jakar, S/o: Hansi @ Hasan Mohammed, Aged: 30 years, Occ: Travels Driver, R/o: Hathiya village, Chatha Tq. Mathura District, U.P. State

3. Mohammed Sajid Khan, S/o: Aas Mohammed Khan, Aged: 30 years, Occ: Hariyana Dhaba Hotel Owner at Argul village, Jakranpally Mandal, Nizamabad District, R/o: Shadnagar, Adilabad

4. Mohd. Nasim @ Nasim, S/o: Abdullah, Aged: 23 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: Jeera Heera (v), Pahari Tahsil, Bharathpur District, Rajasthan State

5. Mustaq @ Mustaq Khan, S/o: Pratap, Aged: 24 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Hathiya village, Chatha Taluq, Mathura District, Uttar Pradesh State

...Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 7

AN D

The State of Telangana through, P.S. B.D.L. Bhanoor … Respondent/Complainant 2 of 5 Crl. M.P. No. 231 of 2023

This petition came up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri M.K. Nizamuddin, Advocate for the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 and Sri J. Srinivas Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant, upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing both sides, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners are accused

Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 in Crime No. 47 of 2023 on the file of B.D.L.

Bhanoor Police Station.

2.This is the third bail application. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he is withdrawing the applications for petitioners/accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7. The learned counsel contended that the elder brother of petitioner

No. 3/accused No. 3 is a religious scholar in Adilabad and his friend Mohd. Rafeeq who is a resident of Munipally village and

Mandal of Sangareddy District and Imam of the Mosque at

Munipally is willing to offer surety for securing the presence of petitioner No. 3/accused No. 3 and an undertaking affidavit is filed to that effect and therefore the petitioner may be 3 of 5 Crl. M.P. No. 231 of 2023 granted bail. The learned counsel further contended that nothing was recovered from the petitioner.

3.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending that the earlier applications were dismissed on the ground that it would be difficult to secure the presence of the petitioner for trial. That the investigation is still pending.

4.The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner connived with the other accused in the offence and provided the vehicle for committing the offence.

5.A perusal of the case diary produced before the court would show that the allegations against petitioner

No. 3/accused No. 3 that he had provided the vehicle which was used by the other accused to commit the offence. The record does not show that any stolen property was recovered from the possession of accused No. 3. Further considering the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an

Imam of a Mosque within Sangareddy District is willing to stand surety for the petitioner and that the petitioner

No. 3/accused No. 3’s family is a religious and respectable 4 of 5 Crl. M.P. No. 231 of 2023 family in Adilabad and will provide the sureties to ensure the presence of the petitioner for trial, this court accepts that sufficient surety is there to secure the presence of the petitioner for trial. Since the record does not show that any contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner and the petitioner is accused only of providing the vehicle and since after the date of remand the record does not show that any further investigation appears to have been done in this case, the contention that the material part of the investigation is complete is tenable. Therefore, the petitioner can be enlarged on bail.

6.In the result, the petition is partly allowed directing petitioner No. 3/accused No. 3 be enlarged on bail subject to petitioner No. 3/accused No. 3 furnishing a personal bond of

Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court),

Sangareddy. As undertaken before this court one of the sureties will be Mohd. Rafeeq; who has filed an undertaking affidavit before this court and the other surety Mohd. Younus 5 of 5 Crl. M.P. No. 231 of 2023

Khan, the younger brother of the petitioner. The petition is subject to further condition that the petitioner shall not influence or threaten the witnesses, shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not interfere with the further investigation if any. The petition of petitioners/accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of May, 2023.

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy