Page 1 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
APKR000031982025
IN THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM
Present: S. Sujatha,
IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.
WEDNESDAY, this the 15th day of April, 2026.
SESSIONS CASE No.141/2025
(PRC.No.24/2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Mylavaram in Crime No.134/2022 of Reddigudem Police Station)
Prosecution:Additional Public Prosecutor, Machilipatnam.
Defence Counsel:Sri P.Ravi Krishna, Advocate for Accused No.1. Sri K.N.Anjaneyulu, Advocate for Accused No.2.
Name(s) of the Accused:1.DevallaThirupathiRao,S/o Lakshmipathi, 29 years, Vaddera, Mutchenapalli village of Reddigudem Mandal.
2.Thanneru Suresh, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged 32 years, Repudi village, A- Konduru Mandal, NTR District.
Charges under Section(s):306 r/w 34 of IPC
Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the Court:Found not guilty
Result of the case:In the result, accused 1 and 2 found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC, thereby they are
Page 2 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of accused shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and MO-2 shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time.
The above numbered Sessions Case came before me on 13.4.2026 for final hearing, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. The state, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,
Reddigudem Police station has filed charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.134/2022 of Reddigudem Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC).
2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:
(a)The marriage of deceased namely Nimmalapudi Vara Lakshmi was performed prior to 18 years and she blessed with two daughters. The deceased gave an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to accused Nos.1 and 2 as hand loan without notice of her husband. The husband of deceased asked about the money in the process of constructing house, the deceased informed that she gave an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to accused Nos.1 and 2 and they are not returning money. On that the husband of deceased approached the defacto complainant/LW.1 who is elder brother of deceased and informed the same. The defacto complainant/LW.1 enquired the deceased over phone and she informed that the accused took money of Rs.4,00,000/- as hand loan from her and did not return the same. When the deceased asked the accused to
Page 3 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
return money, they stated that they will not return the money and asked the deceased to die, if she died they will be free from Satan. LW.1 consoled the deceased and informed her that they will place the matter before elders.
While LW.1 and husband of deceased are coming to Mutchenapalli, the deceased felt annoyed as accused Nos.1 and 2 did not return money and inorder to commit suicide consumed pesticide poison. While she is vomiting the elder daughter of deceased informed the same to LW.1 and shifted the deceased to Amma Hospital, Vissannpet for treatment and later she was shifted to Anu Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment. While undergoing treatment on 23.5.2022 she died.
(b)LW.19/ Sub-Inspector of Police, Reddigudem Police Station received the report of LW.1 on 24.5.2022 and registered the same as FIR in
Cr.No.134/2022 under Section 306 of IPC and took up investigation, inspected the scene of offence in the presence of LW.14 and LW.16, seized the poison tin. LW.19 held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of
Lws.14, 16 and 17. LW.19 examined Lws.1 to 5 who are blood relatives and also Lws.6 to 9 and recorded their statements. He arrested the accused No.1 on 27.5.2022 and produced him before the concerned Magistrate for remand.
Accused No.2 obtained anticipatory bail. Further LW.19 examined LWs.10 to 13 who are hearsay and circumstantial witnesses for the offence and forwarded MOs to RFSL. LW.18 who is Assistant Professor, Siddartha
Medical College, Vijayawada issued final opinion. After completion of investigation, LW.19 filed charge sheet.
3. The Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mylavaram has taken the case on file as PRC No.24/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused 1 and 2 and
Page 4 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
committed the case under Section 209 (a) of Cr.P.C., as the alleged offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, in turn, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam registered the case as SC.No.141/2025 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.
4. On the appearance of the accused 1 and 2 before the Court, they are examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., having heard the Additional Public
Prosecutor and the defence counsel, Charges under Sections 306 r/w 34 of
IPC have been framed against the accused, read over to them, for which they denied the same pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, prosecution in support of its case, examined PW.1 to PW.11, marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and Mos.1 and 2.
6. On closure of the evidence of prosecution, accused examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they termed the evidence as false, reported no evidence on their behalf.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence available on record, establishing the guilt of the accused, hence prays to convict them.
8. The defence counsel argued that, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused as the evidence is not supporting its version, hence, prays to acquit them.
Page 5 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
9. Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”
P O I N T:
10. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined
LW.1/Rayanapati Chennakesava Rao as PW.1 who is defacto complainant and elder brother of deceased, LW.3/Nimmalapudi Nageswara Rao as PW.2 who is husband of deceased, LW.4/Nimmalapudi Rajitha as PW.3 who is daughter of deceased, LW.5/Annavarapu Rama Thulasi as PW.4 who is elder sister of deceased, LW.6/Maragani Satyavathi, LW.7/Goda Kumari, LW.8/Goda
Pakeeraiah as Pws.5 to 7 respectively who are nighbours of deceased,
LW.9/Nimmalapudi Ranga Rao as PW.8 who is younger brother in law of deceased, LW.10/Shaik Nagul Meera as PW.9 who is mason mastry,
LW.14/Boyina Pandu as PW.10 who is VRO, Mutchenapalli and
LW.19/D.Ananda Kumar, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Reddigudem Police station as PW.11 who is investigating officer.
11.As seen from the chief evidence of PW.1, he deposed that deceased is her younger sister, the marriage of deceased was performed with
PW.2 about 18 years ago and they blessed with PW.3 and one Kavitha. The deceased used to work as Aaya in Anganvadi center, Muchenapalli, she started constructing house at Mutchenapalli. For construction both deceased and her husband together borrowed the amount in a private bank and the deceased also borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from PW.4. PW.2 also borrowed nearly an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the farmers in the Village and gave it to the deceased. The further construction of the house was
Page 6 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
stopped in view of death of relatives of mason. On 22.05.2022 at about 01.00 or 01.30 PM, PW.2 came to PW.1 and informed that deceased lent amount to accused nearly Rs.4,00,000/-, out of the amount borrowed for the construction of the house. On that he made a phone call to the deceased and enquired about the amount lent by her to accused, for which she also stated that she lent amount, accused promised to return the same at an early date and also stated that inspite of her requesting accused to return, they are not returning and in turn refused to repay the amount. The deceased also stated that she lent amount without knowledge of PW.2 and now accused are not responding to her phone calls and not returning the amount. The deceased also stated that accused bluntly refusing to repay the amount and inturn stating that whatever she want to do she can do and even she can die but they do not pay the amount. After half an hour again PW.3 made a phone call to PW.1 and informed that deceased consumed weeds poison on that PW.1 advised to shift the deceased to the Hospital. Accordingly she was shifted to ‘Amma’ Hospital,
Vissanapet. Immediately PW.1 also reached Hospital, by that time deceased was in unconscious stage. On the advise of doctors she was shifted to ‘Anu’
Hospital, Vijayawada where doctors examined her and not given life guarantee. On 23.05.2022 she gained conscious and stated to PW.1 that accused refusing the repayment of the amount lent by her without knowledge of PW.2 and also their house construction was stopped and unable to bear the situation, she consumed weeds poison. After two hours she died at about 05.00 or 06.00 PM. Then Police came and enquried about the death of deceased with him. On the next day he went to Reddigudem Police Station and narrated the incident to the Police who recorded the same and obtained his signature marked as Ex.P1.
Page 7 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
12.PW.1 further deposed that he had not lodged any report as he do not know writing the same. When FIR is confronted to him, he stated that it is stated by him to the Police at ‘Anu’ Hospital, Vijayawada but not at
Reddigudem Police Station. While deceased was at ‘Amma’ Hospital,
Reddigudem Police came there and recorded his statement and obtained his signature. The dead body was shifted to Government Hospital, Vijayawada by the Police. At the time of conducting inquest over the dead body police recorded his statement and the statements of LW.2, PW.2 to PW.4 and some others. In the said inquest it was opined the deceased consumed poison as accused refused to repay the loan to her and asked her to die. Police also seized the cell phone of deceased and note book maintained by her.
Contrary to his chief evidence, PW.1 during his cross-examination stated that PW.2 has not informed him that deceased lent amount to accused and deceased not informed him that accused asked her to die. Deceased consumed poison in view of the family dispute and also on account of her ill health. When he was at the hospital on account of death of the deceased, police came and obtained his signature on the blank paper and he do not know what was scribed subsequently on the said paper. In view of suspicion against accused they thought that deceased might have lent amount to them.
On enquiry they came to know that deceased has not lent any amount to accused.
13.The evidence of PW.2 in chief goes to show that in the year 2022 he borrowed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from Co-operative Bank,
Srirampuram and also an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from PW.4, an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- from PW.1 for the construction of house and the amount was kept in the house. After one month he asked his wife about the amount to pay
Page 8 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
to mason, for that she has not given amount and also proper reply. Then he approached PW.1 and informed that deceased is not giving money and stating that she is not having amount with her. On that PW.1 made a phone call to deceased and enquired about the amount for which deceased stated that she gave amount to accused. When he about to return to his village PW.3 made a phone call to PW.1 and informed that deceased consumed poison. On that himself, PW.1 went to ‘Amma’ Hospital, Vissannapet. From there she was shifted to ‘Anu’ Hospital, Vijayawada. When she questioned about the amount she stated that she lent amount to accused and they are refusing to repay the same and also asked her to die. In the inquest held at Government
Hospital, Vijayawada he was present and it was opined that she died by committing suicide as accused refused to pay amount.
Contrary to his chief evidence, PW.2 also during his cross- examination stated that deceased has not lent any amount to accused. As deceased was suffering with tumour in the uterus unable to bear the same, she consumed poison and she died. Accused are noway responsible for the death of deceased. In view of suspicion against accused they thought that deceased might have lent amount to them. On enquiry they came to know that deceased has not lent any amount to accused.
14.The evidence of PW.3 in chief goes to show that PW.2 borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from Co-operative Bank, Srirampuram, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from PW.4 and an amount of Rs.1,00,00/- from PW.1 and also an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the farmers of the village for construction of the house in the year 2022. But the construction of the house is stopped as the relatives of mason died. In the month of May, 2022 the said mason came and asked for money with PW.2 as he is going to start
Page 9 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
construction work, in turn PW.2 asked amount with her mother, for that her mother stated to PW.2 that she lent amount to neighbours and some other persons in the village. On the same day PW.2 went to the house of PW.1 at
Ravicherla to complain about her mother lending amount to others. At about 02.00 PM while PW.3 was at her grand mother’s house, her younger sister
Kavitha called her stating that her mother consumed something meanwhile her mother also came out side of the house with vomitings. Then PW.3 made a phone call to PW.1 and informed that her mother consumed poison. On that
PW.1 advised to shift the deceased to the Hospital. Then her mother was taken to ‘Amma’ Hospital, Vissanapet by PW.7, PW.8 and her paternal uncle
Hanumantharao in an auto. She also accompanied her. After admitting her mother in ‘Amma’ Hospital, the Doctors stated to shift her in some other
Hospital. Then her mother was shifted to ‘Anu’ Hospital, Vijayawada in an ambulance. On the next day at about 05.45 or 06.00 PM her mother died. On 23.05.2022 at about 02.00 or 02.30 PM her mother gained conscious and informed to PW.1 that she lent an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- or 5,00,000/- to accused as hand loan and when she asked for repayment of the same over phone in a conference call with both of accused, they refused to pay the amount and inturn asked her to die and the same is informed by PW.1 to
PW.3. On the next day after the death of deceased PW.1 went to
Reddigudem Police Station in the morning time and lodged report.
However, during her cross-examination PW.3 stated that her parents not borrow any amount for construction of the house from anybody.
PW.1 has not informed her that deceased lent amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to
Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused as hand loan and when she asked for repayment, the accused refused to pay and inturn asked her to die. In view of suspicion against accused they thought that deceased might have lent amount
Page 10 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
to them. On enquiry they came to know that deceased has not lent any amount to accused.
15.The evidence of PW.4 in chief goes to show that on 22.05.2022 at about 01.30 to 02.00 PM PW.1 made a phone call to her and informed that deceased consumed poison and she was admitted in Hospital. When she enquried PW.1 about the reason, he stated that deceased lent amount to accused which was borrowed by PW.2 for the construction of the house and when PW.2 asked amount to give the same to mason, the deceased stated that she lent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to accused and accused are not repaying the same inspite of requesting and inturn asked her to die. The same is stated by the deceased to PW.2 and PW.2 inturn approached PW.1 for solution. Immediately PW.4 rushed to ‘Amma’ Hospital Vissannapet, from there the deceased was shifted to ‘Anu’ Hospital, Vijayawada. On the next day deceased gained conscious at ‘Anu’ Hospital, Vijayawada and informed
PW.1 that she lent amount to accused without any proof and as accused refused to repay amount, the deceased felt insult and annoyed and consumed poison. On the same day at about 05.30 PM she died.
Contrary to her chief evidence, PW.4 also during her cross- examination stated that PW.1 has not informed her that deceased lent amount to accused and they are not repaying the same, inspite of requesting her and inturn accused asking her to die. In view of suspicion against accused they thought that deceased might have lent amount to them. On enquiry they came to know that deceased has not lent any amount to accused.
16.The evidence of PW.6 in chief goes to show that deceased is her neighbour. On the previous day of deceased consuming poison, the deceased
Page 11 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
person came to her house in the evening time at about 05.00 or 06.00 PM and informed that she lent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- nearly to accused without knowledge of PW.2 which was borrowed by him for construction of the house and when she asked for repayment of amount, accused giving evasive replies.
On that PW.6 advised to the deceased to inform the same to PW.2 and nothing to worry about the money. On the next day after return from the
School as he was working as Cook in Government School in the afternoon at about 2.00 o’clock, she found PW.3 and her sister crying, on that she went to the house of deceased, found that deceased was vomiting. Meanwhile they called LW.8 and LW.9 and shifted the deceased in an Auto to ‘Amma’ Hospital,
Vissannapet. On the next day evening the deceased died in a Hospital at
Vijayawada. When she enquired with PW.3 about the reason for deceased consuming poison, she stated that deceased informed to PW.1 that when she asked for repayment of amount with accused, they refused to pay the amount and asked her to die, thereby, the deceased consumed poison. Police examined her and recorded her statement.
Contrary to her chief evidence, PW.6 also during her cross- examination stated that at no point of time, deceased informed her that she lent amount of Rs.4,00,000/- nearly to the accused and PW.3 also not stated to her that deceased informed to PW.1 as accused refused to pay the amount and asked her to die, she consumed poison.
17.The evidence of PW.8 in chief goes to show that on 22.05.2022 the deceased consumed weeds poison at her house at about 02.00 PM. PW.3 raised cries stating that deceased consumed weeds poison. On hearing the same, he went to her and came to know through PW.3 that deceased consumed weeds poison. On that himself, PW.6 and PW.7 get the deceased
Page 12 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
into auto and taken her to ‘Amma’ Hospital, from there, she was shifted to ‘Anu’ Hospital, Vijayawada. On 23.05.2022 at about 05.00 PM, the deceased died. PW.1 informed him that the deceased lent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to accused and when she asked for repayment, accused gave evasive replies and asked the deceased to die. On that, the deceased consumed poison.
Contrary to his chief evidence, PW.8 also during his cross- examination stated that PW.1 has not informed him that deceased lent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused and when she asked for repayment, they gave evasive replies and asked her to die, on that she consumed poison.
In view of suspicion against the accused they though that deceased might have lent amount to them. On enquiry they came to know that deceased has not lent any amount to the accused.
18.The evidence of PW.5, PW.7 and PW.9 is that they came to know about the death of deceased and they do not know the reason for the death of deceased. By deposing likewise they also not supported the version of prosecution and turned hostile to it, thereby during the course of cross- examination by learned Public Prosecutor, PW.5, PW.7 and PW.9 denied their
Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 respectively.
19. The evidence of PW.10 goes to show thaton 24.05.2022 he went to Reddigudem Police Station along with LW.15, from there they accompanied
Police to the house of deceased. In their presence the Sub-Inspector of
Police inspected the scene by drafting scene observation report-Ex.P5 attested by himself and LW.19. At the time of scene observation they found pesticide plastic bottle and the same is seized by them. From there himself,
LW.15 along with police went to Government Hospital, Vijayawada. In their
Page 13 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
presence police held inquest over the dead body of deceased. In the said inquest it was opined that the deceased died by consuming pesticide and in the said inquest Police informed that the deceased committed suicide as she lent amount to two persons in the village and when they refused to pay amount the deceased committed suicide. Accordingly he scribed inquest report marked as Ex.P6 which is attested by himself, LW.15 and Sub-
Inspector of Police, village elders and blood relatives of the deceased also signed on the inquest report/Ex.P6. On 27.05.2022 at about 05.00 AM, LW.19 made a phone call to him and asked him to come to Police Station. On that himself, LW.15 went to Reddigudem Police Station, from there they all proceeded to Repudi village in the outskirts of Mutchenapalli village, found accused. On interrogation accused confessed that accused have borrowed amount from the deceased. Accordingly mediatornama prepared, attested by him, LW.15 and LW.19. Accused No.1 also singed on it. On that Sub-Inspector of Police arrested accused.
20.The evidence of PW.11-the then Sub-Inspector of Police,
Reddigudem Police Station goes to show that on 24.05.2022, at about 11.30
AM, PW.1 came to the Police Station and lodged a report-Ex.P7 andthe same is registered by him as FIR marked as Ex.P8 in Cr. No.134/2022 under
Section 306 r/w.34 IPC., and sent original FIR-Ex.P8 to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mylavaram and copies to the concerned Officers. Then he proceeded to the scene of offence which is the house of deceased at
Mutchenappali, inspected the scene in the presence of PW.10 and LW.15 prepared observation report-Ex.P5. He also seized a plastic tin which is a poison tin-MO.1 at the scene. He also prepared the rough sketch of the scene-Ex.P9 from there, he proceeded to ‘Anu’ Hospital, Vijayawada, shifted the dead body of deceased to Government Hospital, Vijayawada. He
Page 14 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
examined PW.1 to PW.4 and LW.2, recorded their Section 161 Cr.P.C statements. He held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of PW.10 and LW.15, and prepared inquest report-Ex.P6. On 25.05.2022 he examined PW.5 to PW.8 at Mutchenapalli and recorded their Section 161
Cr.P.C., statements. On 27.05.2022 on information he along with PW.10 and
LW.15 went to the outskirts of Mutchenapalli at Kotha Repudi Road, caught accused No.1 and on interrogation accused No.1 confessed the commission of offence, the same is recorded by him under the cover of mediatornama-
Ex.P10duly attested by PW.10 and LW.15 and arrested accused No.1 by seizing Samsung cell phone-MO.2. On 28.05.2022, he secured the presence of PW.9, LW.11 to LW.13 at Mutchenapalli, examined them and recorded their
Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements. On 24.06.2022 accused No.2 appeared along with anticipatory bail orders in Crl.M.P.No.514/2022 dated 03.06.2022, then he accepted sureties as per the Orders. On 18.06.2022 he received the postmortem certificate of the deceased-Ex.P11. On 25.07.2022 he received
RFSL report-Ex.P12. Subsequently, he received final postmortem report-
Ex.P13, after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
21.Upon perusing the above evidence on record, PW.1 who is said to have given report under Ex.P7 to the police which launched the criminal action into motion, in his chief evidence though deposed supporting the version of prosecution, but in his cross-examination he has given go-bye to his chief and deposed contrary to the same that while he was at the hospital on account of death of deceased, police came and obtained his signature on the blank paper and he do not know what was scribed subsequently on the said paper.
Further deceased consumed poison in view of family disputes and also on account of her ill health. PW.2 and PW.3 who are said to be husband and daughter of deceased respectively in their chief evidence though deposed
Page 15 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
supporting the version of prosecution, but in their cross-examination they have given go-bye to their chief and deposed contrary to the same that PW.2 has not approached PW.1 in connection with deceased not giving amount to him which was kept by him with deceased. PW.1 has not made any call to the deceased and informed that she lent amount to accused. As deceased was suffering with tumour in the uterus unable to bear the same, she consumed poison and she died. Accused are no way responsible for the death of deceased. The evidence of PW.3 also contrary to the version of prosecution that deceased has nto lent any amount to the accused. Pws.1 to 3 all together categorically stated during their cross examination that in view of suspicion against accused they thought that deceased might have lent amount to them.
On enquiry, they came to know that deceased has not lent any amount to the accused. So, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 is not consistent throughout their evidence and they spoke contrary versions. So, the evidence of PW.1 to
PW.3 who are material and relevant to speak about the alleged incident against the accused when not consistent is not inspiring confidence that they are speaking truth. The facts and allegations against the accused under
Ex.P7 not able to be proved through the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and they have not ascertained the version of prosecution by giving contrary evidence to it.
22.Further PW.4, PW.6 and PW.8 who are said to be sister, neighbour and brother-in-law of deceased also totally contrary to their chief evidence during their cross-examination stating that in view of suspicion against accused they thought that deceased might have lent amount to them.
On enquiry, they came to know that deceased has not lent any amount to the accused. Thereby their evidence which is inconsistent also goes to show that they are not speaking truth before the Court. PW.5, 7 and 9 also not supported
Page 16 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
the version of prosecution and turned hostile to it. The evidence of PW.10 and
PW.11 is not corroborated with the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, 4, 6, 8 with regard to all material facts. Thereby in view of evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, 4, 6, 8 not supporting the version of prosecution as alleged against the accused, though PW.10 and PW.11 given evidence, the same is not supported by the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, 4, 6, 8 who deposed contrary to the evidence of
PW.10 and PW.11. The evidence of PW.1 to 9 is not corroborated with the evidence of PW.10 and PW.11 with regard to all material facts since from the inception of giving statement under Ex.P7, contents therein including lodging the same which is the foundation for prosecution case. The investigation part as spoken by PW.11 is denied by PW.1 to PW.9. If the evidence of PW.1 to
PW.9 is to be believed, the evidence of PW.10 and PW.11 is difficult to believe as true and vice-versa. Further Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 are difficult to connect the accused and the alleged incident in the absence of evidence of
PW.1 to PW.9. Thereby, in the absence of corroboration by PW.1 and when he categorically denied Ex.P7 and allegations against the accused, it is difficult to consider Ex.P7 as per the version of prosecution.
23.Therefore the inconsistent and contradictory evidence of PW.1 to
PW.11 before the Court goes to show that, at every stage a doubt entertaining by the Court whether or not the offence has taken place as alleged by the prosecution and the accused have committed the said offence as per the
Charges leveled against them, which is not able to be clarified by the prosecution by dispelling such doubt. Hence, this Court is of the view that, prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Thereby, it is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt to the accused.
Page 17 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
24. In the result, accused 1 and 2 found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC, thereby they are acquitted under
Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of accused shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and MO-2 shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time.
Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 15th day of April, 2026.
S d/- S. Sujatha, IX Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Krishna, Machilipatnam.
Form C
(Rule 67 (3) of Criminal Rules of Practice)
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
PW-1RayanapatiComplainant/Elder Brother of deceased Chennakesava Raowho lodged report.
PW-2NimmalapudiTo corroborate the evidence of PW.1 in all Nageswara Raoaspects.
PW-3Nimmalapudi RajithaTo corroborate the evidence of PW.1 in all aspects.
PW-4AnnavarapuRamaTo speak about the offence. Thulasi
PW-5Maragani SatyavathiTo speak about the offence as neighbour of deceased
PW-6Goda KumariTo speak about the offence as neighbour of deceased
PW-7Goda PakeeraiahTo speak about the offence as neighbour of deceased
Page 18 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
PW-8Nimmalapudi Rangarao Brother in law of deceased who came to know about the offence.
PW-9Shaik Nagul MeeraTo speak about the harassment made by accused towards deceased by not returning money etc. facts.
PW-10 Boyina PanduVRO, Mutchenapalli to speak about his acting as mediator for scene observation report, inquest report and confession of accused etc. facts
PW-11 D.Ananda KumarThe then Sub-Inspector of Police, Reddigudem Police Station who registered FIR, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.
B. Defence Witnesses, if any:
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
C. Court Witnesses, if any:
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS
A. Prosecution Exhibits:
S.No. Exhibit Number Description
1.Ex.P1Signature of PW.1 on written report dt.24.5.2022.
2.Ex.P2Section 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.5.
3.Ex.P3Section 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.7.
4.Ex.P4Section 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.9.
5.Ex.P5Scene observation report.
Page 19 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
6.Ex.P6Inquest report.
7.Ex.P7Written Report dt. 24.5.2022.
8.Ex.P8FIR
9.Ex.P9Rough sketch.
10.Ex.P10Mediator report
11.Ex.P11Postmortem report
12.Ex.P12RFSL report
13.Ex.P13Final opinion
B. Defence Exhibits:
S.No. Exhibit Number Description
1.Ex.D1Portion in 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3
2.Ex.D2Portion in 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4
C. Court Exhibits:
S.No. Exhibit Number Description -Nil-
D. Material Objects:
S.No. Material Object Number Description
1.MO.1Plastic Tin
2.MO.2Samsung Cell phone
Sd/- S. Sujatha,
IX Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Krishna, Machilipatnam.
Page 20 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
APKR000031982025
TABULAR FORM TO BE APPEARED TO THE FAIR COPY OF THE
JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 71 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE IN SESSIONS CASE NO.141/2025 ON THE FILE OF
IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KRISHNA,
MACHILIPATNAM
1.Sessions Case No.:SC.No.141/2025
2.Complainant:The state, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Reddigudem Police station.
3.Description of the accused:1.Devalla Thirupathi Rao, S/o Lakshmipathi, 29 years, Vaddera, Mutchenapalli village of Reddigudem Mandal.
2.ThanneruSuresh,S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged 32 years, Repudi village, A-Konduru Mandal, NTR District.
4.Date of offence:22.5.2022
5.Date of complaint: 24.5.2022
6.Date of apprehension of: A1-27.5.2022 accusedA2- Obtained anticipatory bail
7.Date of Committal Order: 5.12.2023
8.Date of commencement of:31.3.2026 Trial
9.Date of closure of Trial:10.4.2026
10.Date of Sentence or Order:15.4.2026
11.Charges:U/Sec.306 r/w 34 of IPC
Page 21 of 21
SC.No.141/2025, Dt: 15-04-2026 IX ADJ COURT, MTM.,
RESULT: In the result, accused 1 and 2 found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC, thereby they are acquitted under
Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of accused shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and MO-2 shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time.
EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:
On 7.10.2025 the Hon'ble Principal District & Sessions Court, Krishna
Machilipatnam had made over this case to IX Additional District and Sessions
Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam and this Court has received the said record on 10.10.2025. The trial commenced on 31.3.2026 and concluded on 10.04.2026. In trial PW.1 to PW.11 are examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 are marked. On 10.4.2026 accused are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On 13.4.2026 heard arguments of both sides and Judgment pronounced on 15.4.2026. Hence, no delay in conducting trial of this case.
Sd/- S. Sujatha,
IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.
Copy to:
1) The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.,) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu through the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.
2) The Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam
3) The District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam
4) The Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mylavaram.
5) The Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam
6) The learned Public Prosecutor, IX Additional District and Sessions
Judge’s Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam
7) The Sub Inspector of Police, Reddigudem Police station.
8) The Director of Prosecutions, Durgapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District