Srinivas Thumkunta

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 1 of 45

IN THE COURT OF V-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BODHAN.

Present: Sri T.Srinivas,

Special Judge for Trial of cases

under SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum- II-Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: V-Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan. Dated this the17thday of September, 2025

S.C.No. 248 of 2021

(Cr.No.61 of 2021 of Rudrur Police Station )

1. Name of the Complainant:: Circle Inspector of Police, Rudrur Circle of Rudrur Police Station.

2. Name of the accused:: Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar S/o. Nadipi Rajaiah, Age: 35 years, Caste: Goondla, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. H.No.2-87, Vanjarigally, Rudrur village and Mandal of Nizamabad District.

3. Offence charges:: U/Sec.302, 201 of I.P.C.

4. Crime No. & Name of :: 61 of 2021 of Rudrur Police Station. Police Station

5. Plea of accused:: Pleaded not guilty.

6. Finding of the Judge:: Found not guilty.

7. Prosecution conducted by:: Sri G. Shyam Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

8. Accused defended by:: Sri N. Eshwar, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused.

9. Sentence or Order:: In the result, theaccused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.302 and 201 of I.P.C. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused person shall stands canceled after six months from the date of this Judgment. M.Os.1 to 7 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time is over.

This case coming on 11.06.2025 for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri G. Shyam Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri N. Eshwar, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Hon’ble Court delivered the following:

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 2 of 45

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

The Circle Inspector of Police laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.302 of I.P.C., on completion of investigation of the case registered on the report lodged by the defacto complainant/ PW1.

2.The conspectus of the prosecution case is follows as under:

a) On 23.07.2021 at 0500 hours one Bojadi Gangadhar S/o Nadipi

Rajaiah, Age 35 years, Caste: Goondla, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o H.No.2-87

Vanjara Galli, Rudrur came to Police Station and appeared before PW11 and stated that he committed murder of his wife Mallishwari, Age 30 years and daughter Rukwitha, Age 13 years due to fidelity over his wife

Mallishwari. Upon that PW11 enquired with the colony dwellers of said

Bojadi Gangadhar and known to be true. Accordingly PW11 secured the presence of two mediators i.e., PW7 and LW11 as panchas, before them conducted confession panchanama of accused. During confession he revealed his name as Bojadi Gangadhar S/o Nadipi Rajaiah, Age: 35 years,

Goondla by caste, Occ; Auto Driver, R/o H.No.2-87 Vanjaragalli, Rudrur (V & M) and stated that they are three daughters and two sons to their parents, out of them he is the younger one, all of them were married and residing separately. In the year 2006 his marriage solemnized with one

Mallishwari, Age 30 years resident of Peddamavandi village of Bodhan

Mandal, during their wedlock they blessed with one daughter by namely

Rukwitha, Age 13 years, since some days both of them were quarreling with each other by suspecting her fidelity. In this regard held panchayath

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 3 of 45

before their caste elders namely Gajjela Raju, Guradi Narayana. Ooradi

Bhumaiah and all of them were admonished them and told him and his led to lead their life happily, even though he did not changed his attitude and with the suspect over the character of his wife he used to quarrel with his wife regularly. In order to that on 21.07.2021 panchayath held before the elders regard to their quarrel, in that panchayath no one has supported his version and his daughter also supported to his wife. From 2 to 3 days his wife was not preparing food to him, for which on 22.07.2021 in the night hours he picked up quarrel with his wife, during quarrel his daughter also supported to his wife at that time he strongly decided to commit murder of them and hatched a plan to commit murder of them while they were in deep sleep to avoid quarrel between them and waited till their sleep. Further he confessed that today i.e., on 23.07.2021 in the early morning hours at about 4 a.m., while they were in deep sleep, he committed murder of his wife firstly with an axe by chopping over her neck, who slept over the cot by covering her body with blanket, after that he committed murder of his daughter, who slept besides to his wife over the cot with the same axe by chopping over her neck brutally, after confirming their deaths, he concealed the crime weapon i.e., axe below the cot and after that he directly visited Police Station, Rudrur and narrated the same before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rudrur. Further he stated that, if they followed him, he will show the dead bodies of his wife, daughter and crime weapon i.e., axe, which was used in the commission of offence. The confession panchanama concluded of 0715 hours.

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 4 of 45

b)As per confession panchanama made by the accused Bojadi

Gangadhar, W11 registered a case in Crime No.61 of 2021, U/Sec.302 of

I.P.C., and dispatched the express FIRs., to the Hon’ble Court, all concerned Officers and as well as informed to PW12 over phone about the registration of grave case and requested to visit Rudrur Police Station and took up the further investigation of this case.

c)In the meanwhile, the PW12 visited Rudrur Police Station and took up the further investigation of this case and examined the complainant/ accused orally before the mediators. After that on leading confession of accused, PW12 along with PW11, PW7 and LW11 and available cops rushed to scene of crime situated at Vanjara colony,

Rudrur, where the accused shown his house and also committed murder of his wife and daughter and opened the lock of house doors and shown the dead bodies of deceased persons and exhibited the crime weapon i.e.,

Axe, which was concealed below the cot bed. On that PW12 conducted seizure panchanama before the PW7 and LW11 and seized blood stained axe, which was used by the accused in the commission of offence from the instance and possession of accused under cover of seizure panchanama before the mediators. Further that PW12 also seized blood stained red and blue colour checks half hands cotton shirt of the accused

before the same mediators from the instance and possession of the

accused. After that PW12 observed the dead bodies of deceased persons in the pool of blood on the cot with multiple cut injuries over their necks, cheeks. Later PW12 photographed dead bodies of D1/ Smt. Bojadi

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 5 of 45

Mallishwari and D2/ Kum. Bojadi Rukwitha in different angles. Later PW12 in the presence of same mediators i.e., PW7 and LW11 as scene panchanamas before them conducted scene of crime panchanama and drawn rough sketch of the scene and seized control earth, blood stained earth, blood stained multi color cotton blanket and gold, maroon mixed color quilt from the scene of crime before the mediators and pasted panch chits on them and the same was brought to Police Station on the record.

d) Description of scene of crime : The scene of crime situated towards northeast direction from Police Station to a distance of 1 km. The scene of crime located Vanjara colony of Rudrur village and Mandal in the houe of accused bearing No.2-87. The house consisted with two rooms and the main door facing towards eastern side, the offence took place in the second room of the house, in the room the dead bodies of deceased lay down on the cot in a pool in upward position with multiple cut injuries over their necks and other parts of body by facing towards southern side.

The D1 having two cut injuries over right side jaw, one injury length about 2” and another one about 1”, about 1’ cut injury below the lower lip and about 1” cut injury over neck. The D2 having cut injuries over her left cheek, left ear back side, left chin, left side neck, middle of the left hand and left hand wrist. The deceased person’s blood spread in the cot to the blanket, which was covered by the D1 was stained in the blood and the quilt, which was lay down on the cot also stained with blood. Towards eastern side to the scene Errolla Nagaiah open plot, western side Bojadi

Pedda Gangadhar house and southern side Chintala Makkaiah house is

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 6 of 45 located. During enquiry and after verification of documents available in the house of accused, it is came to know that the name of accused is

Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar S/o. Nadipi Rajaiah.

e)After that PW12 secured the presence of PW1, P2 and LW3, who were the blood relatives of D1, examined them and recorded their statements in Part-II CDs. Later secured the presence of two mediators along with one female panch i.e., LW12, PW13 and LW14 as inquest panchas before them conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased/ D1/ Smt. Bojadi Mallishwari from 09:45 a.m., to 12:15 p.m., and subjected the dead body to P.M.E. In the mean while PW12 instructed the PW10 to conduct inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased D2. Upon the instructions of PW12, the PW10 secured the presence of PW1, PW2 and LW3, orally examined them and secured the presence of two mediators along with one female panch i.e., PW9 and

LW16, LW17 as inquest panchas before them conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased/ D2/ Kum. Bojadi Rukwitha from 09:45 a.m., to 12:15 p.m., and subjected the dead bodies to

Government Hospital, Bodhan for P.M.E. Later LW12 secured the presence of PW3 and PW4, who were panchayath elders, examined them and recorded their statements in Part-II CDs. The PW10/ Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of D1, D2 and issued DPME., report by opined that the cause of death of D1 is due to asphyxiated death secondary to injury to wind pipe and Hyoid fracture caused by sharp weapon injury and cause of death of D2 is due to Asphyxiated death

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 7 of 45 secondary to injury to neck structures i.e., hyoid fracture by sharp weapon injury.

f)After completion of inquest panchanama the PW12 brought the accused to Rudrur Police Station at 12:30 p.m., and affected his arrest by issued arrest memo to the accused and the grounds of arrest of accused informed to his relatives, duly following Notice U/Sec.50 of Cr.P.C., procedure and remanded him for judicial custody. On 24.07.2021 the

PW12 secured the presence of LW6, PW7, LW8 and LW9 who are the panchayath elders, examined them and recorded their statements in Part-

II CDs in details. Further the PW12 deposited the material objects at F.S.L.,

Hyderabad vide F.S.L. File No.SFSL(TS)6820/SER/1518/2021 for analysis and report and also obtained the F.S.L., report in which the expert has mentioned in report as Item No.1 to 8 are examined, Human blood is detected on item Nod.1 and 3 to 8. Blood group of blood stains on item

No.1 and 4 to 8 is of “A” blood group. Blood group of blood stains of item

No.3 could not be determined. Blood is not detected on item No.2 which is received as control for item No.1. Further, the PW12 deputed the men and brought the return of case property from F.S.L., Hyderabad and deposited

in the Court vide C.P.R. No.1 of 2022. The PW12 filed requisition before the

J.F.C.M., Court, Bodhan with request to record the Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., statements of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW5 and LW8. Then on 21.08.2021 the LW19/ J.F.c.M., Court, Bodhan recorded Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., statements of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW5 and LW8.

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 8 of 45

g)On completion of the investigation, PW12 filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences U/Sec.302 of I.P.C.

3.Upon perusal of the charge-sheet and documents filed, this Court had taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable

U/Sec.302 and 201 of I.P.C. The case is registered as Sessions Case and assigned the S.C.No.248 of 2021.

4.On completion of formalities and on appearance of the accused, furnished the documents to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Upon considering the material papers on record, on hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for accused, this

Court examined the accused U/Sec.228 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., the charges for the offences punishable U/Sec.302, 201 of I.P.C., were framed against the accused and the same was read over and explained to him in vernacular language as required under Sub-Sec.2 of Sec.228 of Cr.P.C.

6.To which, the plea of the accused complete denial and claimed to be tried.

7.This Court issued Trial Schedule U/Sec.230 of Cr.P.C., for the prosecution evidence.

8.In order to substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW12 and through them, got marked

Exs.P1 to P12 and M.Os.1 to 7 documents. Accordingly, the prosecution evidence is closed.

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 9 of 45

9.On completion of the prosecution evidence, accused is examined

U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution. The accused having understood the evidence, denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the arguments for the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the evidence and documents.

11.The learned Counsel for the accused cited the following case laws;

Munna Lal V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh – (Criminal Appeal No.490 of 2017) – Sheo Lal V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh – (Criminal Appeal No.491 of 2017):

“Significantly, Dr. Hanif, Kedar, Chhange Lal, Khemkaran and the Investigating Officer were not examined by the prosecution. Further, neither the gun and the tamancha nor the kanta and lathi were seized. Also, there were no forensic laboratory or ballistic reports”.

“Aggrieved by the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No.539 of 1986 by the High Court, Munna Lal and Sheo Lal applied for special leave to appeal whereupon leave was granted by this Court by an Order, dated 6th March, 2017.

“Next, referring to non-production of Dr. Hanif, Kedar, Chhange Lal and Khemkaran, as prosecution witnesses, it was contended by him that the same ought to have been held fatal for the prosecution case”.

“Mr. Giri further contended that Munna Lal’s double barrel gun was covered by a license and no attempt was ever made to seize such gun. Interestingly, a bullet having been seized at the place where Narayan’s dead body lay, there was also no attempt to obtain the opinion of a ballistic expert to ascertain whether the bullet could have been fired from Munna Lal’s gun”. “Non-examination of the Investigating Officer must result in prejudice to the accused; if no prejudice is caused, mere non-

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 10 of 45 examination would not render the prosecution case fatal.” “It is worthy of being noted that neither the trial Court nor the High Court considered the issue of non-examination of the Investigating Officer. In the facts of the present case, particularly conspicuous gaps in the prosecution case and the evidence of PW2 and PW3 not being wholly reliable, this Court holds the present case as one where examination of the Investigating Officer was vital since he could have adduced the expected evidence. His non-examination creates a material lacuna in the effort of the prosecution to nail the appellants, thereby creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution case”.

“As far as non-obtaining of ballistic report is concerned, it is no doubt true that its essentially would depend upon the circumstances of each case. Here, since no weapon of offence was seized, no ballistic report was called for and obtained. Although Mr. Giri contended that Munna Lal had a licensed gun, this Court has not been able to trace any evidence in the records in regard thereto. However, nothing turns on it. The failure/neglect to seize the weapons of offence, on facts and in the circumstances of the present case, has the effect of denting the prosecution story so much so that the same, together with non-examination of material witnesses constitutes a vital circumstances amongst others for granting the appellants the benefit of doubt”.

“Thirdly, the medical evidence tendered by PW1, if believed in its entirety, leads this Court to form an opinion that the evidence of PW4 of he having recovered a bullet leading to its seizure at the place of occurrence as doubtful. Injury Nos.5 and 8 were the exit points of such shots”.

12.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences U/Sec.302, 201 of I.P.C., beyond reasonable doubt?” If so, to what extent the accused is liable for punishment?.

13. POINT:-The accused is charged for the offences U/Sec.302, 201 of I.P.C., since he committed murder, voluntarily to his wife and daughter, by beating them mercilessly with dire consequences to kill them.

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 11 of 45

14.In order to substantiate, the charges against accused, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW12 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and M.Os.1 to 7.

15.In which, PW1 is the complainant and mother of D1 and grand mother of D2, who lodged the report with the Police against the accused,

PW2 is the younger brother of D1 and maternal uncle of D2, PW3 is panchayath elder/ witness, PW5 is panchayath elder/ witness, PW6 is panchayath elder/ witness, PW7 is panch for scene of crime and confession-cum-recovery panchanama of the accused, PW8 is panch for inquest of D1 and seizure of blood stained clothes of D1 and D2, PW9 is panch for inquest panchanama of D2, Ex.P10 is Dr. Nishath Afreen/ conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of D1 and D2, PW11 is Sub-

Inspector of Police, Rudrur Police Station/ recorded confessional statement of accused and issued F.I.R., and PW12 is Y. Ashok Reddy/ Circle Inspector of Police/ Investigation Officer and filed charge sheet in this case.

16.The documents exhibited through the prosecution witnesses are

Ex.P1 is confession statement of accused, Ex.P2 is recovery panchanama of material objects, Ex.P3 is scene of offence panchamama along with rough sketch of scene of offence, Ex.P4 is Inquest panchanama, Ex.P5 is seizure panchanama of PW8, Ex.P6 is Inquest panchanama of PW9, Ex.P7 is Authorization letter of PW10, Ex.P8 is Post Mortem Examination Report,

Ex.P9 is second Post Mortem Examination Report, Ex.P10 is confessions panchanama of PW11 and Ex.P12 is Forensic Science Laboratory Report

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 12 of 45 and, M.O.1 is iron axe, M.O.2 is half hands red and blue checks color shirt,

M.O.3 is multi color torn blanket, M.O.4 is terri-cotton bontha, M.O.5 is control earth, M.O.6 is brinjal color blouse of the deceased No.1 and M.O.7 is T-shirt belongs to deceased No.2.

17.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor have argued that the evidence of PW1 to PW9 are well supported by the evidence, by considering the said evidence, prayed the Court to punish the accused.

18.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C., hence, the accused cannot be found guilty for the said offences. With that, prayed the Court to acquit the accused in this case.

19. a)Now coming to the evidence of prosecution witnesses. As stated supra, the complainant is examined as PW1. PW1-Vennala

Chandrakala and PW1/ Vennalla Venkatesh, who are the mother and brother of the accused and wife/ Mallaeshwari deposed in their evidence that their daughter/ sister respectively namely Malleshwari marriage was performed with the accused and the accused are having one daughter, aged about 14 years, studying 7th Class at Rudrur village. The accused used to beat Malleshwari in drunken state of mind and 4 or 5 times they placed panchayats against the accused and the elders of panchayats advised the accused to live happily without any disputes and not be beat the accused wife/ Malleshwari. Three days prior to death of Malleshwari,

PW1 and PW2 along with PW4 and LW6/ A. Naganath came to Rudrur and

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 13 of 45 took place a panchayat with Malleshwari and the accused and to place panchayat with her daughter and the accused with regard to death of her daughter wherein, PW5, LW8/ U. Bhumaiah and PW6 acted as panchayath elders and the accused also participated in the said panchayath and all the elders found that the accused are mistaken and they advised the accused not to suspect the character of their daughter/ sister/ Malleshwari and led happy marital life. After she went to her house and came to know through PW3/ S. Laxmaiah, Sarpanch that their daughter/ sister was killed by the accused, they came to the house of the accused and found the dead bodies of their daughter/ sister and grand-daughter/ niece lying on the bed/ cot, found cut injuries on their neck, which might caused with an axe.

b)During the cross examination of PW1 admitted that her son-in- law name is B. Chinna Gangadhar. He used to drive Auto for his livelihood.

He cannot say exact day, month and year when the panchayath placed against the accused. After the marriage of her daughter, accused constructed new house and also purchased one acre agriculture land. He have no landed property. He further denied that herself, her son/ PW2 and her elder daughter insisted accused to live in her village. She was not eye witness to the incident. She do not now whether herself and her village elders went to the Police Station after the incident. He have not stated

before the Police that PW3/ S. Laxmaiah informed about the incident. She

might have not stated before the Police that her daughter and accused lived 10 years happy marital life. She denied that the accused is no way

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 14 of 45 concerned to the death of her daughter and grand-daughter and she is deposing false at the instance of the Police persons. House of the accused is exactly adjacent to the agricultural field. House of accused is last house in the said village. She denied that the accused was not present in the village of Rudrur and he went to Badapahad darga on 22.07.2021 on his business. He stated that the accused himself killed her daughter and his grand-daughter, later himself surrendered before the Police Rudrur. In general public used to visit Badapahad darga on Thursday to perform

Kandur on Friday. He denied that the accused never killed her daughter and her grand-daughter and she is deposing false. She denied that some unknown thieves murdered her daughter and her grand-daughter in night hours in the house of the accused and she is deposing false. She denied that herself along with her village elders went to the Police Station and informed the incident to accused where he was at Badapahad darga, and he came to the Police Station. She denied that they made demand to the accused for transfer his landed and house property on their favour and accused denied the same as such they foisted false case against the accused. She further denied that to claim the house and landed property of the accused after send him to Jail.

c)During the cross examination of PW2 denied that he have not stated

before the Police that PW3 Sarpanch Laxmaiah informed the incident and

he is deposing false. He have not stated before the Police as the accused and his sister lead 10 years happy marital life. After the marriage of his sister and accused, constructed a new house and also purchased one acre

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 15 of 45 agriculture land. They have no landed property. He denied that himself,

PW1 and his elder-sister insisted accused to live in his village. He was not eye witness to the incident. Himself, his mother/ PW1 and his village elders went to the Police Station after the incident. Police obtained the signatures in Police Station. He denied that the accused is no way concerned to the death of his sister and niece and he is deposing false at the instance of the Police persons. House of accused is exactly adjutant to the agricultural field. House of the accused is last house in the said village. He denied that accused was not present in the village of Rudrur and he went to Badapahad. During on 22.07.2021 on his business. In general public used to visit Badapahad darga on Thursday to perform

Kandur on Friday. He denied that the accused never killed his sister and his niece and he is deposing false. He denied that some unknown thieves murdered his sister and his niece in night hours in the absence of accused and he is deposing false. He denied that himself along with his village elders went to the Police Station and informed the incident to accused where he was at Badapahad darga, and he came to the Police Station. He further denied that they made demand to the accused for transfer his landed and house property on their favour and accused denied the same as such they foisted false case against the accused. He further denied that to claim the house and landed property of the accused after send him to Jail.

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 16 of 45

d)The testimony of PW3/ Suryuua Laxmaiah deposed he is resident of Pedda Mavandi village of Bodhan Mandal. He is working as

Surpanch of Peddamavandi village Bodhan Mandal. He know PW1 and 2 they are his villagers. He know LW4/ Thota Pothireddy, LW6-Naganath, they are his villagers. He also know PW5-G.Narayana, LW8-U Bhumaiah and PW6-G.Raju. They are Rudrur village elders. He know accused. He is the husband of deceased Malleshwari. Accused and Malleshwari blessed one daughter aged about 13 years. Wife of the accused and his daughter no more. During the life time of Malleshwari PW1 placed panchayath against the accused. Himself, PW4/ Pothireddy and LW6/K.Naganath also attended four or five times against the accused. As PW1 complainant them that accused used to beat her daughter and harassed and they advice accused not harass and live happily marital life. On 21.07.2021 himself, Pw1, Pw2, PW4 and Lw6 went to the Rudrur village to the house of accused. The PW5, LW8 Bhomaiah, PW6 G.Raju were acted as elders on behalf of the accused. Wife of accused/Malleshwari made allegation against the accused that he is suspected her chastity and used to beat her. Daughter of accused/ deceased No.2 also supported version of

Malleshwari/ Deceased No.1, being Panchayath elder they advised them not to dispute in family lead amicably and they returned their village prior to three days of incident. On 23.07.2021 he received phone call from

Police Station Rudrur that Malleshwari and her daughter/ Ruthuvika were killed by accused and accused himself surrendered before them. Police

Rudrur informed him to inform the same to parents of deceased. He

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 17 of 45 informed the same to PW1 and PW2. Later they proceeded to Police

Station, Rudrur. They have scene the dead body. Both dead bodies were lying on coat with a neck cut injuries. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

e)During the cross examination of PW3 stated that this is the first term as a Sarpanch. He is belongs to Schedule Caste Community.

Accused belongs to Backward Class Community. There is going village development of their village. He could not say exact date, month and year on which day panchayath conducted. He denied that he was not stated

before the Police that after receiving the information from the Police and

he informed the same to PW1 and PW2. He further denied that he have not stated before the Police that he seen the dead body of both deceased and found cut neck injuries on them. They have not reported anything to the Police about the place of the panchayath by that time. There is a practice of this town if any panchayath took place about the disputes, that persons should be deposit some amount to the panchayath/ Caste elders.

After deposit of amount by the parties then panchayath will be held and panchayath elder will be participated. He further denied that there was no disputes between accused and his wife. He denied that there was no panchayath placed by the PW1 and they have not conducted any panchayath and he is deposing false to support PW1 as she has his village. He denied that PW1, PW2 and wife of the accused/ Malleshwari were insisted to stay in their village and he was denied the same. He

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 18 of 45 further denied that due to which PW1 and PW2 and himself implicated him in death case of Malleshwari and his daughter. He denied that the accused himself not surrender before the Police Rudrur and he came to the Police

Station, Rudrur from the Badapahad after intimating the PW1 and PW2. He denied that some unknown thieves committed murder of Malleshwari/ wife of accused and their daughter/ Ruthvika. He further denied that they have collude each other as accused not listen their words and implicated him. He denied that the accused is not committed murder of his wife and his daughter and he was not present in their house.

f)The testimony of PW4/ Kota Pothi Reddy, deposed that he is doing cultivation. He know PW1 to PW3. He also know daughter of PW1 namely Malleshwari and her daughter/ Ruthivika. He know the accused.

The accused is son-in-law of PW1. PW1’s daughter namely Malleshwari marriage performed with accused about 15 years back. Accused and

Malleshwari blessed one daughter Ruthvika. Accused along with his wife lived at Rudrur village. He know LW6/ Naganath, LW7/ G. Narayana, LW8/

U. Bhumaiah and Lw9/ G. Raju. LW4 to LW6 are his villagers and their villager elders. LW7 to LW9 are belongs to Rudrur village and also panchayath elders. Four or five times they placed panchayath against the accused. On 21.07.2021 himself and PW4 along with PW1 and 2 went to “Rudrur village went to the Rudrur village to the house of accused. The

LW7 G. Narayana, LW8/ Bhomaiah, LW9/ G. Raju were acted as elders on behalf of the accused. Wife of the accused/ Malleshwari made allegation against the accused that he has suspected her chastity and used to beat

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 19 of 45 her. The daughter of the accused/ deceased No.2 also supported version of Malleshwari/ deceased Nod.1 being Panchayath elder they ad voiced them not to dispute in family lead amicably and they returned their village prior to three days of incident. On 23.07.2021 he received phone call from

Police Station, Rudrur that Malleshwari and her daughter/ Ruthvika were killed by accused and accused himself surrendered before them. Police

Rudrur informed him to inform the same to parents of deceased. He informed the same to PW1 and PW2. Later they proceeded to Police

Station, Rudrur. They have scene the dead body. Both dead bodies were lying on coat with a neck cut injuries. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

g)During her cross-examination of PW4 stated that accused belongs to backward class community. He can not say exact date, month and year on which day panchayath conducted. He further denied that he have not stated before the Police that he seen the dead body of both deceased and found cut neck injuries on them. They have not reported anything to the Police about the place of the panchayath by that time. He do not know whether any practice of this town if any panchayath took place about the disputes, that persons should be deposit some amount to the panchayath/ caste elders or not, and after deposit of amount by the parties then panchayath will be held and panchayath elder will be participated. He denied that there was no disputes between accused and his wife. He further denied that there was no panchayath placed by the

PW1 and they have not conducted any panchayath and he is deposing

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 20 of 45 false to support PW1 and they have not conducted any panchayath he is deposing false to support PW1 as she has his villager. He further denied that PW1, PW2 and wife of the accused Malleshwari were insisted to stay in their village and he was denied the same. He denied that due to which

PW1 and PW2 and himself implicated him in death case of Malleshwari and his daughter. He denied that the accused himself not surrender

before the Police, Rudrur and he came to the Police Station, Rudrur from

the Badapahad after intimating the PW1 and 2. He denied that some unknown thieves committed murder of Malleshwari/ wife of the accused and their daughter/ Rukthvika. He further denied that they have colluded each other as accused not listen their words and implicated him. He denied that the accused is not committed murder of his wife and his daughter and he was not present in their house.

20. a)In the testimony of PW5/ Guradi Narayana deposed that he is resident Pedagally of Rudrur village and mandal of Nizamabad District. He is doing agriculture. He know PW1. Accused got marriage with Malleshwari about 15 years back and they blessed one daughter. Accused is belongs to his caste and his villager. During the life time of wife of the accused, they conducted 3 panchayath for the disputes between accused and his wife/ Malleshwari. Wife of the accused reported before them that her husband used to harass her and suspect her chastity. Being village elder himself, LW8/ U. Bhumiah and LW9 acted as panchayath elder on behalf o the accused. PW3 and PW4 and LW6/ A. Naganath acted as a elders on behalf of the Malleshwari. Being panchas, they advised accused do not

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 21 of 45 suspect chastity of Malleshwari and lead amicably without harassment and peacefully. Lastly on 21.07.2021 panchayath placed and they all participated as a elders. Wife of the accused/ Malleshwari again placed same allegations. Daughter of the accused also supported version of her mother/ Malleshwari and she found mistake of her father/ accused. They again advised the accused do not repeat again and not harass to

Malleshwri. On 23.07.2021, he came to know that Malleshwari and he daughter killed by accused. After killing deceased Nos.1 and 2, accused himself surrender before the Police, Rudrur. Police examined him on 24.07.2021 and recorded his statement.

b)During her cross-examination of PW5 stated that he is belongs to Gangaputra Sangam at Rudrur. From the year, 2021 one Chintala

Gangaram is elected as President to Gangaputra Sangam. The tenure period of the President is 5 years. All Gangaputra members have elected to the President is 5 years. All Gangaputra members have elected to the

President. He do not know when he was elected in which year. He went to

Dubai in the year, 2018 and returned back in the year, 2020. LW8/ U.

Bhumaiah and LW9/ B. Raju were not President of their Association. PW3 and PW4 are not their caste persons and caste elders of their village and their village. There is practice in Bodhan Division caste elders might have form to specify disputes among the families. It is further stated that on 21.07.2021 President of their Association from their village or

Peddamavandi village not participated. Three Panchayath held after his returning from abroad. There was no written resolution put in writing for

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 22 of 45 the said panchayath. He denied that he did not stated the name of PW4,

LW5/ Nagnath, LW8/ U. Bhomaiah and LW9/ G. Raju participated as panchayath elders to the Police. He denied that he did not stated Police as he found injuries over the dead bodies. There is no specific rule to avoid the panchayath in case absent of caste elders. He denied that he is deposing false. He is a fisherman and he also do agriculture. He was in his village on 21.07.2021. He denied that there was no panchayath placed between accused his wife and they have not acted as panchayath elder and he is deposing false. He further denied that some un-known thieves killed wife of the accused and his daughter and they have falsely implicated his to harass him. He denied that the accused was not present at the day of the incident and he is deposing false to help the PW1 and

PW2. He further denied that he do not anything and he is deposing at the instance of the PW1 and 2 as they are his relatives.

21. a)In the testimony of PW6/ Gajula Raju deposed that he is resident of Petagally, Rudrur village and Mandal. He is a Fisherman and doing agriculture. He know PW1. Accused got marriage with Malleshwari about 15 years back and they blessed one daughter. Accused is belongs to his caste and his villager. During the life time of wife of accused, they conducted 3 times panchayath for the disputes between accused and his wife/ Malleshwari. Wife of the accused reported before them that her husband used to harass her and suspect her chastity. Being village elder himself, LW8/ U. Bhumaiah and PW5 acted as panchayath elder on behalf of the accused. PW3 and 4 and LW6/ A. Naganath acted as a elders on

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 23 of 45 behalf of the Malleshwari. Being panchas, they advised accused do not suspect chastity of Malleshwari and lead amicably without harassment and peacefully. Lastly on 21.07.2021 panchayath placed and they all participated as a elders. Wife of the accused/ Malleshwari again placed same allegations. Daughter of the accused also supported version of her mother/ Malleshwari and she found mistake of her father/ accused. They again advised the accused do not know repeat again and not harass

Malleshwari. On 23.07.2021 he came to know that Malleshwari and her daughter killed by the accused. After killing deceased Nos.1 and 2 accused himself surrender before the Police Rudrur. Police examined him on 24.o07.2021 and recorded his statement.

b) During her cross-examination, PW6 stated that he is 34 years.

He is belong to “Gangaputra Sangam” at Rudrur. Since the year, 2021, one Chintala Gangaram has been President to Gangaputra Sangam. The tenure period of the President is 5 years. All Gangaputra members have elected the President. He know PW5. Once time PW5 went to abroad. PW5 might have 3 to 5 years in abroad. Chintala Gangaram was elected as

President in the year, 2019 at the time of Assembly Election. He do not used to go other village to conduct panchayath. Himself or LW8/ U.

Bhumaiah and PW5 not President of their Association. PW3 and PW4 are not their caste persons and caste elders of their village and their village.

There is practice in Bodhan Division that caste elders might have form to specify disputes among the families. PW1 and 2 are not his relatives. He denied that there was no panchayath held between accused and his wife.

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 24 of 45

He denied that he have not acted as a panchayath elder as he is not caste elder of accused and he is deposing false. He denied that accused no way concerned to death of his wife and his daughter. He denied that some unknown thieves killed wife of accused and his daughter in order to commit death in night hours in absence of the accused. He denied that he is deposing false against the accused to help the PW1 and 2 due to accused denied to transfer his landed property on the name of PW1 and 2 and he is deposing false. He denied that he have not conducted any panchayath of accused and his wife and he is deposing false against the accused and in favour of the PW1 as she is his distentive relative. He denied that the accused was not present on the day of incident and he went to Badapahad darga and he is deposing false. He found PW2 present outside of the Court. He further that he is deposing false at the instance of the PW2.

22. a)In the testimony of PW7/ Machaboina Bharathi deposed that he is resident of Thagilepally village of Rudrur Mandal. He is working as

Revenue Inspector of Rudrur Mandal since, 2018 till today. On 23.07.2021 at the instruction of his Superior Office himself and LW11/ Hanmandlu went to the Rudrur Police Station. LW11/ Hanmandlu was present at Police

Station, Rudrur. LW11/ Hanmandlu is no more. On 23.07.2021 at about 6:00 a.m., accused was in Police custody. At the request of Sub-inspector of Police, Rudrur, himself and LW11/ Hanmandlu got inquire with accused about his Police custody; on which he stated his name as Bojadi Chinna

Gangaram S/o. Sayanna, Rudrur village; he stated that he is Auto Driver;

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 25 of 45 about 15 years back got married with Malleshwari and blessed one daughter aged about 13 years; he used to suspect character of his wife and used to beat her; several panchayath placed in presence of elders; the said panchayath elders suggest him not to harass his wife and do not quarrel and lead happy material life without any disputes; but he used to suspect his wife; on 21.07.2021 a panchayath placed in presence of elders at Rudrur; again the said panchayath find fault against him and advised same; his daughter namely/ Ruthivika also supported version of his wife; on 22.07.2021 also quarrel with his wife due to food not properly cocked; due to which he got bore grudge against his wife and daughter and decided to kill them. On 23.07.2021 at about 4:00 a.m., he killed his wife and daughter with axe and himself surrendered before the Police; he also stated before them that the said crime weapon axe hide under the coat in his house at Rudrur. He also stated before them that he will show the crime weapon will lead along with him. Police recorded confession statement of accused as in Ex.P1. Ex.P1 is confession statement of accused. He further stated that Police obtain their signatures in Ex.P1 after read over and explain by them and they also read over and put their signatures. LW2/ Y. Ashok Reddy lead them and accused to H.No.2-87,

Vanjarigally of Rudrur village and Mandal. Accused take keys from his pocket and opened door of his house. Accused entered in to second room and brought iron axe under cot. The said cot was decolam. They found the said crime weapon was blood stained one. They also shown half shirts stained with blood. Police seized blood stained axe and blood stained half

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 26 of 45 shirt in their presence. The said axe was about 5 inch in size with handle size about 5 inch. Police obtained their signatures on slips and the same was affixed on the material object in their presence. He could identified the material object if shown to him. Prosecution confronted the material object iron axe handle sized about 2 feets and witness identified the same. M.O.1 is iron axe. M.O.2 is half hands red and blue checks color shirt. Police drafted recovery panchanama in their presence and obtained their signatures. Ex.P2 is recovery panchanama of material object. He could identify the signature of his colleague/LW11/ B.Hanmandlu.

Prosecution confronted the signatures of LW11 and witness identified the same. On 23.07.2021 at about 8:30 Circle Inspector of Police, Rudrur

Police Station called them to observation of scene of offence. They observe the house of the accused which has consisting two rooms with

RCC slab. There is a T.V., in first room. Second room is bed room. They found multicolour blanket on cot. One “tericotton bonta”. They found torn blanket. There was a almarah and utensils in bed room. There was blood stains on cement floor.. Police collected sample of a blood stain floor and control earth from the scene of offence. Police obtained their signatures on sample of blood stained floor and sample of control earth. M.O.3 is multicolore torn blanket. M.O.4 is tericotton bontta. M.O.5 is control earth and blood stained cement floor. Police also obtained their signature on blood stained floors peaces and cement control earth. Ex.P3 is scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch of scene of offence. They have put their signatures on Ex.P3.

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 27 of 45

b) During her cross-examination, PW7 stated that he is Revenue

Inspector. He was promoted from V.R.O. He know measurements of land.

There is four kilometer distance in between Rudrur and Thagilepally village. He have two wheeler vehicle. He might have received call from

Police at about 5:30 a.m., at his home. LW11/ B. Hanmandlu is native of

Kodapgal village of Pitlam mandal. He do not know distance between

Rudrur and Kodapgal village. The said Kodapgal village was Bodhan

Division. He further stated that [he put one signature on panchanama in

Police Station. He admitted that M.O.2 is also having white colour lines in between blue and red colours. He denied that the accused made confession due to threat of the Police persons in their presence. He further denied that the accused never lead them to show the material object and

Police not seized the same from the possession of accused. He denied that himself or LW11/ B. Hanmandlu never acted as panchas for confession statement of accused under Ex.P1 or Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and he is deposing false at the instance of the Police. He further denied that he is deposing false at the instance of the Police personals. In the re-examination he stated that he have deposed before this Hon’ble Court that the length of handle of M.O.1 as 3 “inches” instead of “feets”. Police also mention the same i.e., feets in Ex.P2. In the re-examination he further denied that there was no handle to M.O.1/ axe as such he depose before this Hon’ble

Court length of the handle as in inches and he is deposing false after observing the handle in open Court and converted in to feets at the confrontation of the prosecution and he is deposing false. He further

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 28 of 45 denied that M.O.1 not seized in his presence and he is deposing false.

23. a)In the testimony of PW8/ Puli Mathaiah stated that he is resident of Peddamavandi village of Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District.

He is doing agriculture. He know PW1 and PW2 they are his villagers. The daughter of PW1 Malleshwari is no more. On 23.07.2021 Police, Rudrur called him and LW12/ Gangareddy and LW14/ Ch. Gangamani to the house of accused situated at Vanjaragally, Rudrur bearing H.No.2-87.

Police conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased

No.1 Malleshwari in Ex.P4. Ex.P4 is Inquest panchanama of deceased

No.1/ Malleshwari. After drafting and read over explained to them the contents under Ex.P4 Police obtained their signatures on Ex.P4. Thereafter they proceeded to Government Hospital, Bodhan, Police collected cloths material belongs to deceased No.1 and deceased No.2/ Ruthvika. Brinjal colour blouse/ D1 and ash colour T-shirt belongs to deceased No.2 He could identified the said cloths if show to him. M.O.6 is the brinjal colour blouse of the deceased No.1 and M.O.7 is T-shirt belongs to deceased

No.2. Police obtained his signatures on chits and the same affixed on

M.O.6 and M.O.7. Police drafted seizure panchanama in Ex.P5. Ex.P5 is the seizure panchanama of cloths.

b) During her cross-examination, PW8 denied that they have not acted as a panchas for Inquest panchanama under Ex.P4 and seizure panchanama. Ex.P5 and he is deposing false to help the accused. He denied that nothing was seizure in their presence and he is deposing false at the instance of Police personals.

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 29 of 45

24. a)In the testimony ofPW9/ Kamati Srinivas who is the panch for offence panchanama of D2 stated that he is resident of Peddamavandi village of Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. He is doing agriculture. He know LW16/ Naganath and LW17/ B. Poshavva. On 23.07.2021 Police,

Rudrur called all of them to the house of 2-87 Vanjaragally of Rudrur village. Himself LW16/ Naganath and B. Poshavva went the above house and found two dead bodies of Malleshwari and Ruthivika. They acted as panchas for inquest panchanama of deceased Ruthvika. They are witness entire proceedings. Police obtained their signature after read over and explained the contents under Ex.P6. He could identified his signature and other panchas LW16/ A. Naganath and LW17/ B. Poshavva who signed along with him. The prosecution confronted the signatures of the witness and witness identified the same.

b)During the cross examination of PW9 denied that himself or

LW16/ A. Naganath or LW17/ B. Poshavva never acted as a panchas for

Inquest panchanama of deceased Ruthvika. He denied that he do not now the contents under Ex.P6 and he is deposing false at the instance of the

Police to help PW1 as she is belongs to his villagers.

25. a)In the testimony of PW10/ Dr. Shaik Sofi Pasha stated that he have authorized by his superior Officer, Superintendent of Area Hospital, bodhan to depose the evidence on behalf of LW18/ Dr. Nishanth Afree. He could identify the hand writing of his colleague/ LW18 Dr. Nishanth Afreen.

LW18/ Dr. Nishanth Afreen was worked along with him from the month of

February, 2018 to December, 2021. Ex.P7 is his authorization letter, which

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 30 of 45 addressed to this Hon’ble Court by his superior authority. He deposed that on 23.07.2021 LW18/ Dr. Nishanth Afreen had received a requisition from

Police, Rudrur to concoct post mortem examination over the dead body of

Bojedi Malleshwari. Accordingly, she was conducted post mortem examination on 23.07.2021 and commenced 1:15 p.m., in mortuary of

Area Hospital, Bodhan. As per available record with them, the following injuries were noted in Column No.2 as 1) Contusion with laceration at right side neck sharp cut, 2) Hyiod bone right cornu fracture superior cornu, 3)

Tracheal right dislodged at C4-level. All the above injuries might to have caused due to sharp object axe. Post mortem examination was concluded at 2:10 p.m., on the same day. LW18/ Dr. Nishanth Afreen opined that the approximate time of death is 89-10 hours from commencement of autopsy and with the best of her knowledge the cause of death of asphyxiated death secondary to injury to wind pipe and hyiod fractures caused by sharp weapon injury. Ex.P8 is the P.M.E., report issued by

LW18/ Dr. Nishanth Afreen. He further deposed that on the same day she was also conducted another post mortem examination on the dead body of Bojedi Ruthvika. Post mortem commenced examination on the dead body of Bojedi Ruthvika. Post mortem commenced at 2:15 p.m., on 23.07.2021 and noted the following injuries. 1) On left cheek to bone with laceration injury causative weapon with axe, 2) Hyiod bone both superior crony fracture, causative weapon with axe, 3) Tracheal rings dislodge at

C3, C4 level, causative weapon with axe and 4) Left fore arm abrasion. He further deposed that the post mortem was concluded at 3:25 p.m., on the

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 31 of 45 same day and the approximate time of death is recorded as 9:10 hours from the commencement of autopsy and as per her opinion the cause of death is asphyxiated death secondary to injury to wind pipe and Hyiod fractures caused by sharp weapon injury. Ex.P9 is the second P.M.E., report issued by LW18/ Dr. Nishanth Afreen.

b)During cross-examination, PW10 stated that blade, sword, axe, knife etc., called as sharp weapon. There is no mention size of wound over the both dead bodies. There is a possible if any one hit by axe a deep would will be caused. There is no mention deep injuries in Ex.P8 and

Ex.P9. He further denied that the photos not look like which available with this Court file not causative weapon by axe. There is a passable to photograph over the injury in zoom size. He denied that himself or LW18/

Dr. Afreen never work in Area Hospital, Bodhan and he is deposing false at the instance of the Police personals. He have not received summons from this Court. He have also not participated in conduct in post mortem examination on 23.07.2021. The nature of the injuries not mentioned under Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 and also not mentioned the object either in sharp or blunt.

26. a)In the testimony of PW11 stated that he is resident of Rudrur village and Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. He is working as Sub-

Inspector of Police at Rudrur Police Station since 07.11.2019 till today. On 23.07.2021 at about 6:00 a.m., a person by name Bojedi Chinna

Gangadhar S/o. Chinna Gangadher aged about 33 years, resident of

Rudrur came to Police Station by walk and made confession before him as

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 32 of 45 he killed his wife and daughter. He secured the presence of PW7 and

LW11/ B. Hanmandlu and he recorded confession panchanama of accused the presence of the said panchas. Basing on the said panchanama he registered a case in Crime No.61 of 2021, U/Sec.302 of I.P.C. Ex.P10 is the said confession panchanama. Ex.P11 is F.I.R., in Crime No.61/ 2021 which register by him. He further stated that in the mean time LW21/ Y. Ashok

Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police along with him, himself, panch witnesses

PW7, LW11/B. Hanmandlu and accused went to the house of accused at

Vanjarigally of Rudrur village at the house 2-87. He have secured PW9 and

LW16/ A. Naganath and LW17/ B. Poshavva and they have conducted inquest panchanama of deceased No.2 namely/ Ruthvika. Ex.P4 is the

Inquest panchanama conducted by him. Later he have handed over C.D., file to his superior Office i.e., LW21/ Y. Ashok Reddy for further investigation.

b)During the course of cross-examination, PW1 stated that Circle

Inspector of Police and Thasildar of Rudrur mandal have been residing in

Rudrur village. He have not referred the accused to ascertain whether the accused suffer mental ill-health or not. In general in any grave offence they used to inform to the Thasildar of Mandal. They informed the present case to the Thasildar of Rudrur Mandal but he has not present as such he informed to Revenue Inspector. He have not reported to LW21/ Y. Ashok

Reddy accused himself came to Police Station and made confession. He further stated that after register the case in Crime No.61/ 2021 under

Ex.P11 he informed the same to LW21/ Y. Ashok. LW21/ Y. Ashok did not

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 33 of 45 examine him and not recorded his statement. He have not seized any material object at that time of recording the confession of accused from his possession. He denied that the accused never came to Police Station and not made any confession. He denied that after knowing the death of his wife and daughter they came to Police Station by the time their self foisted false case. He denied that some unknown thieves committed murder to wife of accused and his daughter in order to theft in night hours, but they have falsely implicated the accused on the instance of

Peddamavandi villagers. He further stated that in the month of June, July of 2021 several theft committed by thieves in Rudrur village. He further denied that the accused was not committed in murder and he never made confession before him on 23.07.2021 as he was at Badapahad village. He denied that the accused no way concerned for the death of his wife/

Malleshwari and his daughter/ Ruthvitha.

27. a)In the testimony of PW12/ Circle Inspector of Police deposed that on 23.07.2021 he have taken over the C.D., file from the PW12 P.

Ravinder Sub-Inspector of Police, Rudrur and verified the investigation done by him, found it correct lines. In continuation of the investigation, on the same day at about 7:20 a.m., he visited to Rudrur Police Station, found the presence of accused along with the panch witness/ PW7 and

LW1. The accused lead them to the scene of offence i.e., his house/

D.No.2-87 in Vanjarigally, Rudrur village, where he found two dead bodies lying on the cot, and also he shown the axe which was kept under the cot.

He seized the axe/ M.O.1, and also seized the blood stained shirt/ M.O.7

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 34 of 45 from the body of accused in presence of panch witness/ PW7 and LW11, prepared a panchanama to the effect/ Ex.P2. Then he observed the scene of offence, drawn rough sketch and recovered the blood stained floor from the scene and also control earth/ floor (cement floor), under Ex.P3.

Thereafter, he instructed the Sub-Inspector of Police to conduct inquest panchanama to the dead body of deceased No.2 Accordingly, he conducted the inquest over the dead body the deceased No.2. he conducted inquest to the dead body of the deceased No.1 in the presence of panch witness/ PW8, LW12 and LW14/ Ex.P4. During the inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of PWs1 to 4 and LW3. Then, he sent the dead bodies to Government Hospital, Bodhan for autopsy. The

PW10 conducted the autopsy over the dead bodies and gave the reports.

Ex.P8 and P9. Then, he effected the arrest of the accused and send to judicial custody. He further stated that on the same day at about 3:40 p.m., he visited the mortuary at Government Hospital, Bodhan, recovered the cloths on the dead bodies under Ex.P5. On 24.07.2021 he examined

PWs5, 6, LW6 and 8 and recorded their statements. He sent the material objects which were seized at scene of offence to the F.S.L., through A.C.P.,

Bodhan, and received the F.s.L., report. Ex.P12: F.S.L., report. On completion of investigation and receipt of the all the necessary documents. He filed charge sheet.

b)During the course of cross-examination, PW12 stated that he is not examined and recorded the statement of PW11. He is not examined and recorded the statement of the neighbours of the accused/ to the

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 35 of 45 scene of offence. He is not examined any of the Office bearers of the of

Gangaputra Sangam of Rudrur village. He denied that there was a time gap of half an hour between Ex.P2 and P3. The photographer to the scene of offence is not cited as a witness. He did not collect the blood of the deceased to find out whether the blood of deceased and also the blood stains on the axe are one and the same. The photographs available in the record does not reveal the blood stains on the shirt of the accused. He further stated that the stains will not appear in the photographs since the shot was taken from long distance. He denied that the accused was no way concerned for the death of the deceased Nos.1 and 2, and at that time the accused was at Badapahad darga. He denied that the PWs1 and 2 who were parents of D1, after death of D1, D2 demanded the accused for property, as he refused for the same, they have falsely implicated him in this case. He denied that the D1, D2 are dead in the hands of thieves/ decoits and the accused is nothing to do with the deaths of D1, D2. He denied that after PWs1 and 2 visited the Police Station, they secured the presence of the accused from Badapahad dargha. He denied that to suppress the fact breaking of the doors of the house of the accused, they did not engaged the photographer but they themselves created the photos and filed the charge sheet. He further denied that generally he used to cite the photographer as a witness. He further stated that in his case generally he used to photograph the scene of offence and dead bodies etc., with his service camera. He denied that he colluded with the

PWs1 and 2 and falsely implicated the accused in this case and he is

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 36 of 45 deposing false.

28.From the evidence of Pws 1 to 12 , it is elicited that when PW1 came to know about the deceased daughter and grand daughter PW2 is the brother of the deceased who came to know about the death of the deceased. PW3 to PW6 are the panchayath elders who conducted panchayath 3 times at the instance of the deceased with the accused.

PW7 is the panch witness for confession of the Accused. PW8 is the panch witness for Inquest Panchanama. PW9 is the panch witness for scene of offence. it is also admitted that prior to 2 to 3 days on the date of incident i.e., 21.07.2021 panchayath placed in presence of elders of

Rudrur village. On 22.07.2021 also quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused for not cooking the food properly. On the next day on 23.07.2021 at about 4.00 pm, the accused killed the deceased and his daughter with axe and surrendered before the Police. Ex.P1 is confession of the Accused. And seized MO1 and MO2 under the cover of recovery panchanama. Ex P2 is recovery panchanama and MO7 T Shirt of the deceased No.2 seized under the cover of seizure panchanama Ex.P5 is seizure Panchanama of the deceased No.2.

The principle "suspicion however strong it may be cannot be a ground of conviction" highlights the fundamental legal concept that a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not mere suspicion, however strong. Even a deeply rooted suspicion of guilt is insufficient for a conviction; the prosecution must present concrete evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt in the minds of the court or jury regarding the accused's guilt. 

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 37 of 45

Key Aspects of the Principle  Presumption of Innocence: This principle is tied to the presumption of innocence, where an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty.  Burden of Proof: The responsibility lies with the prosecution to present sufficient evidence to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 Beyond a Reasonable Doubt:

This is the highest legal standard of proof, meaning the evidence must be so convincing that it leaves no other logical explanation for the facts presented.

 Distinction from Suspicion:

Suspicion is a mere feeling or belief that someone may have committed a crime, while proof is based on established facts and evidence. Legal Precedent and Application.  Supreme Court of India: This doctrine is well-established in Indian law, with the Supreme Court consistently affirming that strong suspicion cannot substitute for proof.  Setting Aside Convictions: Courts have used this principle to set aside convictions when the evidence presented was based on strong suspicions rather than definitive proof.

Why This Distinction is Important  Protection of Rights: It protects individuals from being wrongfully punished based on mere conjecture or speculation.  Upholding Justice:

It ensures that the legal system operates on a foundation of proven facts, thereby upholding the principles of justice and fairness.

29.A court can convict an accused based on a confession and recovery, but certain conditions must be met. Confessions made to a police officer are generally inadmissible as evidence, except for specific information leading to a discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 38 of 45 discovery must be of a fact, and only the portion of the statement directly relating to the discovery is admissible. The confession itself cannot be the sole basis for conviction, and must be corroborated by other reliable evidence. Except the evidence of PW-7 no other evidence is adduced to prove that the accused committed the said offence.

A confession made to a police officer is generally inadmissible in court as evidence against the accused. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act specifically prohibits the use of such confessions. However, Section 27 of the same Act allows for the admissibility of a statement made by an accused in police custody if it leads to the discovery of a fact.

Section 27 only allows the Court to consider the specific part of the statement that directly led to the discovery. It does not permit the entire confession to be used as evidence. In other words, the court can only consider the information from the accused's statement that directly relates to the fact discovered, like the location of a weapon or the whereabouts of stolen goods.

A confession, even if admissible under Section 27, is generally considered a weak piece of evidence. It cannot be the sole basis for conviction. The court needs other reliable evidence to corroborate the confession and build a strong case against the accused. 

The Court can considering the evidence adduce before this Court no other circumstantial evidence, except ExP-2 is recovery panchanama of material object such as the recovery of incriminating objects at the instance of the accused, along with the confession, to build a strong case.

The Court must also be satisfied that the confession was voluntary and not obtained through coercion or undue influence.

In essence, while a confession leading to recovery can be used as evidence, it needs to be carefully scrutinized and corroborated by other evidence to ensure a fair trial and a just conviction.

The case of State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad and Others is a landmark Judgment of the Supreme Court of India that examined the interplay between Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Decided on 4 August 1961, this case clarified the scope of the constitutional protection against self-incrimination and the admissibility of evidence obtained through statements made by the accused during police custody. The Judgment remains pivotal in

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 39 of 45 understanding the balance between individual rights and investigative powers.

Facts of State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad and Others

1. Charges Against Oghad: Kathi Kalu Oghad was charged with murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 19(e) of the Indian Arms Act. During the investigation, the police obtained three specimen handwriting from Oghad in custody and matched them with a chit (Exhibit 5) found at the crime scene.

2. Discovery of Firearms: A statement made by Oghad under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act led to the recovery of firearms allegedly used in the crime.

3. Challenge to Evidence: Oghad’s defence argued that the specimen handwriting and the statement made under Section 27 violated his constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

Constitutional and Legal Provisions

1. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India:

 States that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves.

 Protects individuals from being forced to provide evidence that incriminates them.

2. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

 Provides that any information given by a person accused of an offence, if it leads to the discovery of a fact, is admissible in evidence.

 Applies irrespective of whether the accused is in custody or not, provided the information leads to the discovery of a relevant fact.

Issues

The primary issues in State of Bombay V/s. Kathi Kalu Oghad and Others

before the Supreme Court were:

1. Does compelling an accused person to provide specimen handwriting or signatures violate Article 20(3)?

2. Does the constitutionalprotection against self-incrimination invalidate Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act?

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 40 of 45

3. Can statements made by an accused under Section 27, which lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence, be admissible in Court?

State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad and Others Judgment

The Court in State of Bombay versus Kathi Kalu Oghad and Others examined both issues separately—the admissibility of handwriting specimens and the statements made under Section 27.

Admissibility of Handwriting Specimens

The Court clarified that the term “to be a witness” in Article 20(3) includes oral and written statements that incriminate the accused. However, it does not extend to:  Thumb impressions.  Handwriting samples.  Bodily exposures for identification purposes.

 Reasoning:

 The process of obtaining handwriting specimens is mechanical and does not involve the accused’s personal knowledge.  As such, it does not constitute self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

Constitutionality of Section 27

 Admissibility of Statements: The Court in State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad and Others held that information given by an accused leading to the discovery of facts is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

 Voluntariness of Statements: If the information is provided voluntarily without coercion, it does not violate Article 20(3). The Court emphasised that the discovery must result from facts uniquely within the accused’s knowledge.

 Limitations: Statements are inadmissible if obtained through compulsion or if the discovered evidence is publicly accessible or already known to investigators.

Judgment

The Supreme Court in State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad and Others delivered a balanced Judgment, ruling as follows:

 Handwriting Specimens: Taking handwriting specimens or thumb impressions from an accused does not violate Article 20(3).

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 41 of 45  Section 27: The constitutional validity of Section 27 was upheld. The provision does not violate Article 20(3) as long as the accused’s statement is voluntary and leads to the discovery of relevant facts.

 Admissibility of Evidence: The evidence obtained through Oghad’s statement under Section 27, leading to the recovery of firearms, was deemed admissible.

 Conviction Affirmed: Based on the admissible evidence, the Court upheld Oghad’s conviction for murder.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad is a landmark in Indian jurisprudence, offering clarity on the constitutional protection against self-incrimination. By upholding the admissibility of voluntary statements under Section 27 and distinguishing mechanical evidence from testimonial evidence, the Court set critical precedents. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing individual rights with the effective administration of justice, ensuring that constitutional safeguards are neither diluted nor misused.

31.In the present case on hand before this Court, the accused pleaded during his 313 examination that he was not present at the scene of offence and he was at Badapahad Darga. His mother-in-law and caste elders demanded to transfer his house and handed property and he rescued for the same as such he is falsely implicated in this case. He is no way concerned with the alleged offence.

32.This Court having considering the evidence brought on to the record, is of the view that prosecution neither proved that the accused have committed the offences, with which he is charged.

33.With the above discussion, this Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. As there is no conclusive evidence, as such,

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 42 of 45 the accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.302 and 201 of I.P.C.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

34. In the result, theaccused is found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec.302 and 201 of I.P.C. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the same

U/Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused person shall stands canceled after six months from the date of this

Judgment. M.Os.1 to 7 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17th day of September, 2025.

Sd/-

FAC: V Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

: : APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

:Witnesses examined:

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1 :VennallaChandrakalaMother of D1 and grand-mother of (LW1).D2. PW.2 :Vennalla Venkatesh (LW2).Younger brother of D1 and maternal uncle of D2. PW.3 :Surya Laxmaiah (LW4).Panchayath elder/ witness. PW.4 :Kota Pothi Reddy (LW5).Panchayath elder/ witness. PW.5 :Guradi Narayana (LW7).Panchayath elder/ witness. PW.6 :Gajula Raju (LW9).Panchayath elder/ witness. PW.7 :MachaboinaBharathiPanch for scene of crime and (LW10)confession-cum-recovery panchanama of the accused. PW.8 :Puli Mathaiah (LW13).Panch for scene of crime and confession- cum-recovery panchanama of the accused. PW.9 :Kamati Srinivas (LW15).Panch for inquest panchanama of D2. PW.10 :Dr. Shaik Sofi Pasha (LW18).Conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of D1 and D2.

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 43 of 45

PW.11 :P. Ravinder (LW20).Recorded confessional statement of accused and issued F.I.R. PW.12 :Y. Ashok Reddy (LW21).Investigation Officer filed charge sheet.

FOR DEFENCE:

- None -

: EXHIBITS MARKED :

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Confession statement of accused. Ex.P2 : Recovery panchanama of material object. Ex.P3 : Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P4 : Inquest panchanama. Ex.P5 : Seizure panchanama. Ex.P6 : Inquest panchanama. Ex.P7 : Authorization Letter. Ex.P8 : Post Mortem Examination Report. Ex.P9 : Second Post Mortem Examination Report. Ex.P10 : Confession panchanama. Ex.P11 : First Information Report. Ex.P12 : Forensic Science Laboratory Report.

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

:: MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ::

M.O.1 : Iron axe. M.O.2 : Half hands red and blue checks color shirt. M.O.3 : Multi color torn blanket. M.O.4 : Terri cotton bontha. M.O.5 : Control earth. M.O.6 : Brinjal color blouse of the deceased No.1. M.O.7 : T-Shirt belongs to deceased No.2.

Sd/-

FAC: V-Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

FAC: V ADJ.

S.C.No.248 of 2021, Rudrur Police Station V/s. Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar, Date: 17.09.2025, 44 of 45

:: CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT ::

IN THE COURT OF V-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BODHAN.

Present: Sri T.Srinivas, Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: V-Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan. Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025

S.C.No. 248 of 2021

(Cr.No. 61 of 2021 of Rudrur Police Station ) Between: The State of Telangana through the Circle Inspector of Police, Rudrur Police Station of Bodhan, Nizamabad District.

.. Complainant

A N D

Bojadi Chinna Gangadhar S/o. Nadipi Rajaiah, Age: 35 years, Caste: Goondla, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. H.No.2-87, Vanjarigally, Rudrur village and Mandal of Nizamabad District.

.. Accused

1Date of offence. 23.07.2021. 2Date of report or complaint. 23.07.2021. 3Date of apprehension of accused.23.07.2021.

4Date of release on bail.23.05.2022.

5Date of commitment.30.11.2021.

6Date of commencement of trial.30.05.2022.

7Date of close of trial.11.06.20o25.

8Date of Judgment. 17.09.2025.

9Explanation of delay and remarks.--

Encl: Copy of Judgment.

Sd/-

FAC:-V Additional Sessions Judge, To Bodhan. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

FAC: V ADJ.

1 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF V-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

BODHAN.

Present: Sri T.Srinivas,

Special Judge for Trial of cases

under SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum- II-Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: V-Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Dated this the24thday of September, 2025

S.C.No.15 of 2019

(Cr.No.28 of 2018 of Varni Police Station )

Name(s) & particulars of Gugloth Peerya S/o. Late Poolsingh, accused person (s)Age: 38 years, Caste: Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Belyanaik Thanda of Mallaram G.P., Varni Mandal of Nizamabad District.

ChargesU/Sec.302 and 379 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.28 of 2018.

Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of Court Accused found not guilty. Sentence or order In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.302 and 379 of I.P.C., and he is acquitted U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The non-valuable case property i.e. MOs.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and M.O.4 i.e., cycle shall be returned to its originalowneronproper identification and verification after expiry of appeal time is over.

FAC: V-ADJ.

2 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

This case is coming on this the 17.09.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State, and of Sri T. Rajendranath Jadhav, Advocate for the accused; and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The Circle Inspector of Police, Rudrur Circle of Varni Police

Station of Nizamabad District laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.302, 379 of I.P.C., on completion of investigation of the case registered on the report lodged by the defacto complainant/PW1.

2.The gist and kernel of the prosecution case is follows as hereunder:

a)On 09.02.2018 at 12-00 hours the PW1/ complainant/

Sangem Surender Reddy came to Varni Police Station and lodged a

Telugu written complaint in which he stated that he is working as

V.R.O., Varni since 2013. On 09.02.2018 at about 10:30 hours when he was present at Varni village, his V.R.A., by name

Gangaram/PW2 came to him and informed that he found an unknown female dead body at the backside of Sevalal Thanda in bushes in supine position. He further stated that he found abrasions on her left elbow, left knee below, on stomach and right cheek which were caused due to the dragging of the dead body

FAC: V-ADJ.

3 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 from other place to the spot. On that he along with said V.R.A., went to the spot and found the female dead body aged about 65 to 70 years lying on the hillock at a distance of 1 km., towards western side from Sevalal Thanda. The deceased was clad in

Lambadi dress. The hair of the dead body is in black and white.

Hence, he requested to take legal action into the matter as per law.

b) Basing on the said complaint, PW18/ Sub-Inspector of

Police, Varni Police Station has registered this case in Cr.No.28 of 2018, U/Sec.174 of Cr.P.C., (suspicious death) and took up investigation of the case.

c)During the course of investigation the PW18 has examined the PW1 in Police Station and recorded his statement in Part-II case diary. Then the PW18 rushed to the scene of offence and secured the presence of PW2, who informed to the complainant about the incident, examined and recorded his detailed statement in Part-II case diary, then PW18 has secured the presence of panch witnesses namely 1) Barla Sailu and 2) Shaik Mahaboob and conducted panchanama of the scene of offence in crime detail form.

FAC: V-ADJ.

4 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

d)He examined the scene of offence minutely for incriminating evidence, but nothing was found, conducted panchanama of the scene of offence in presence of above scene of offence panchas and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence in the CDF., then the S.I., has secured the presence of above two panchas namely 1) Bala Sailu and 2) Chinthala Chinnamma and held inquest over the dead body of the unknown female deceased.

The head of the body was found towards east and legs towards west, eyes were closed and mouth was just opened and small injuries were found on the left side neck, abrasions found on her left elbow, left knee below, on stomach, and right cheek (which were caused due to the dragging of the dead body). She was wearing chocolate color cotton Voni, one pink and blue color jacket stitched with white poosalu and small mirrors. One green color petticoat (gagra) having yellow color flower design. Maroon color bangles to her right hands are found. Brass kadas to right leg, ready made poosala danda in her neck, silver small rings (mateelu) are found to her right leg. White froth is found oozing from her mouth and nose. Photos of the deceased were taken, then the dead body was sent to Government Head Quarters

Hospital, Nizamabad for PME., and for preservation of the dead

FAC: V-ADJ.

5 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 body for identification of the deceased, then the PW18 sent look out notices to all the S.H.Os., in Telangana State with a request to inform if any clues about the unknown female deceased comes forth. Then the photographs of the deceased were sent to all

Newspapers for publishing the same and for establishing the identity of the unknown female deceased.

e)On 10.02.2018 the PW/3 came to Varni Police Station and informed that she identified the photographs of the deceased as her mother-in-law Kethavath Chilkibai. Up on which the PW16 has examined the PW/3 and recorded her detailed statement in part-II CD, in which she stated that her younger son Kethavath Sai

Krishna informed her that on 07.02.2018 at about 14-00 hours her distant relative by name Guguloth Peeria has come to their house and taken away her mother-in-law/Kethavath Chilki Bhai to her daughter's house but she has not returned. She found the dead body of her mother-in-law photo published in the Newspaper and came to P.S., the PW/16 took her and other relatives to mortuary room Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad and shown the dead body of the deceased preserved in the mortuary room, where the PW/3 identified the dead body as her mother-in-law by name Kethavath Chilkibai. She further stated that her mother-in-

FAC: V-ADJ.

6 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 law was wearing silver ornaments i.e., silver neck kante weight about 20 tulas, silver hand kadas-4 wg. about 30 tulas all weight 50 tulas, but now were found missing from her dead body then.

She has expressed suspicion over Peeria, who is her distant relative. Then the dead body of the deceased was subjected for

PME., after PME., the clothes of the deceased i.e., 1) one maroon color cotton voni, 2) one white poosalu stitched with small mirrors having pink and blue color jacket 3) one cotton petty coat having green color with yellow flower designed, were seized under a cover of seizure panchanama in presence of inquest panchas. After autopsy the corpse was handed over to the blood relatives of the deceased for last rites. Later the PW16 has given a requisition to the professor and head of the Department of Forensic Medicine

Government Medical College, Nizamabad with a request to mention the detailed particulars of the deceased in the PME., report, then he came to Police Station and sent an intimation letter to the Tahsildar, Varni stating that the unknown female dead body was identified by her relatives as Kethavath Chilki Bhai, W/o

Kethavath Kimya, Age: 70 years, Caste by Lambada, R/o Antapur

Tanda of Varni Mandal.

FAC: V-ADJ.

7 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

f)On 12.02.2018, the PW18 verified the investigation done by the PW16 and found it on proper lines. PW16 visited

Belyanaik Thanda of Mallaram G.P., of Varni Mandal and examined the PW4 to PW7 and LW18/ Kethavath Ramu, the blood relatives of the deceased and recorded their detailed statement in Part-II CD., they also corroborated the version of PW3 and PW4 and they expressed suspicion over Guguloth Peeria with regard to the death of the deceased namely Kethavath Chilkibai. Then the PW18 has tried to apprehend the suspect Peeria to examine his complicity in this case, but he is found absconding from the village. On 16.02.2018 the PW18 has obtained the detailed PME., report from the PW17/ Medical Officer, Dr. B.V. Naga Mohan Rao, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, wherein he opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to "Asphyxia consequent to strangulation" and also preserve the viscera for chemical analysis to rule out the evidence of intoxication. As such the PW18 has altered the Section of law from 174 of Cr.P.C., to Sec.302, 379 of I.P.C., and Section Alteration

Memo was sent to all the concerned and to Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court, Bodhan and the C.D., file was handed over to LW26 for taking up further investigation of the case. Then the

FAC: V-ADJ.

8 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

LW26 has deputed the ID., party PW15 and LW23/ M. Lalji along with PW18 to Belyanaik Thanda with instruction to apprehend the suspected person and to produce him before the LW26 for verifying his complicity in this case, but he is found absconding from the village.

g)On 17.02.2018 at about 0800 hours the LW26 deputed the LW23 and PW16 and PW18 to Belyanik "Thanda of Mallaram

G.P., of Varni Mandal, who apprehended the accused at 08-15 hours at his house by informing the ground of apprehension and brought him to P.S., at 0830 hours and produced him before the

LW26 at Varni Police Station. Thereafter the LW26 examined and interrogated him thoroughly. During interrogation he voluntarily confessed that he committed the offence in this case, then LW26 secured the presence of two panchas/ PW14 and LW20/ Sone

Kamble Ashok Rao and recorded his confessional panchanama wherein he pounced on the deceased while she was in intoxication state and tied her voni (cloth) to her neck and strangulated her to death and then he removed her sliver hands kadas numbering 4 and one neck silver kada (Kante) from her person, then he dragged the dead body to some distance and left the body behind the bushes to conceal the dead body. While he was dragging, the

FAC: V-ADJ.

9 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 deceased has sustained abrasions and he fled away from the scene of offence at about 1830 hours on his bicycle and he stolen silver ornaments of the deceased have fallen on the ground from his pant pocket. On seeing him the PWs 8, 9, LW11, PW12, LW13 and PW11 have identified him and informed the same to his brother by name Gugloth Kishan who was also consuming liquor in the same permit room, then his brother has sent him to their house with the help of K.Kishan/LW-13 and PW10 on the motor cycle of K. Kishan. Then he concealed the stolen silver ornaments of the deceased in the almirah in his house without knowledge of his family members. On the next day the accused went to the said permit room and brought his bicycle to his house and concealed the same in his house. After two days of commission of the offence, the accused came to know that Police registered a case and the photos of the deceased Smt. Chikili bahi were published in the News paper stating that she died (under suspicious circumstances) and he fled away from the village anticipating that

Police may apprehend him and wandered here and there. On 17.02.2018 morning when he came to his house, Police apprehended him.

FAC: V-ADJ.

10 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

h) As per confession, the accused shown the stolen silver ornaments and his cycle used in the commission of offence concealed in his house. After completion of confessional statement, he lead the Police and panchas to his H.No.1-69 situated at Belya Naik Thanda, he went into the house and brought the stolen silver ornaments concealed in the almirah and also showed the cycle used in the commission of offence before the panchas. They are 4 hand silver kadas weight about 283 grams and silver one neck kante weight about 202 grams and one of the corner of the kante is found broken (when it was being removed from the neck of the deceased by the accused) and the cycle seized under a cover of seizure panchanama in presence of above panchas and pasted panch chits on them, then the accused along with recovered property i.e., silver ornaments and bicycle are brought to P.S., at 1230 hours and affected his arrest by issuing arrest memo and informed him the grounds of his arrest and same is also informed to his relative U/Sec.50 of Cr.P.C., and remanded him for judicial custody.

i)Then the LW26 has secured the presence of PW8, 9

LW11, PW10 LW13, PW11 and PW11 examined them, recorded their detailed statements in Part-II CDs., the PW8 stated that on

FAC: V-ADJ.

11 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 07.02.2018 he along with PW10 and LW11/ Shaik Osman and

PW10 and LW13 were consuming liquor in the permit room of

PW11 and after consuming of liquor, when they went to the counter where they found the accused lying at the counter on the ground in intoxication state and silver ornaments were fallen from his pant, then the PW8 has asked the accused about the silver ornaments, then he replied that they are of his mother, then the

PW8 has informed the same to his brother namely Gugloth Kishan who also consuming liquor in the same permit room. On his request the accused was shifted to his house on the mother cycle of PW10 Kethavath Kishan. The PW9, LW11, PW10, LW13 and

PW11 have also corroborated the version of PW8. The LW15 is the toddy vendor speaks that on 07.02.2018 at about 1500 hours the accused came to his, toddy shop along with the deceased and the accused purchased two toddy packets from him and went away.

The LW26 sent the viscera of the deceased to F.S.L., Kamareddy and obtained CE., report. Basing on the CE., report, the PW17 issued final medical opinion as item No.1 to 3 are analyzed, but no poisons substance is found in them.

j)On completion of the investigation, LW26 has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable

FAC: V-ADJ.

12 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

U/Sec.302, 379 of I.P.C.

3.Upon perusal of the charge sheet and documents filed, this

Court had taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.302, 379 of I.P.C. The case is registered as

Sessions Case and assigned the S.C.No.15 of 2019.

4.On completion of formalities and on appearance of the accused, furnished the documents to him as contemplated

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Upon considering the material papers on record, on hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for accused person, this Court examined the accused U/Sec.228 (1)

(b) of Cr.P.C., the charges for the offences punishable U/Sec.302, 379 of I.P.C., were framed against the accused and the same was read over and explained to him in vernacular language as required under Sub-Sec.2 of Sec.228 of Cr.P.C.

6.To which, the plea of the accused is complete denial and claimed to be tried.

7.This Court issued Trial Schedule U/Sec.230 of Cr.P.C., for the prosecution evidence.

8.In order to substantiate the charges against accused person, prosecution had examined the PW1 to PW18 and through them,

FAC: V-ADJ.

13 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 got marked Exs.P1 to P17 and Mos.1 to 4. Accordingly, the prosecution evidence is closed.

9.On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution.

The accused having understood the evidence, denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard on both sides and perused the entire evidence and material placed on record. Perused the memo along with citations filed by the learned defence Counsel.

11. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.302, 379 of I.P.C., beyond reasonable doubt?. If so, to what extent the accused is liable for punishment?.

12. POINT:- The accusation leveled against the accused by the prosecution is that he committed murder of the deceased

Kethavath Chilki Bai, who is the mother-in-law of PW3 by attacking on her and committed theft of silver ornaments i.e., silver neck kante weight about 20 tulas, silver hand kadas-4 weight about 30 tulas all weight 50 tulas.

FAC: V-ADJ.

14 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

13. a)To bring home the guilty of the accused, the prosecution relied on the oral evidence of PW1 to PW19 and documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and MOs.1 to 4. In this case, PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW2 is the witness who informed about the dead body of deceased lying in the hillocks to

PW1, PW3 is daughter-in-law of deceased who identified the deceased on seeing the photographs of deceased in News paper and also physically in morture room, PW4 is eye witness and grand-son of deceased in whose presence the accused has taken away by the deceased, PW5 is circumstances witness and elder grand-son of the deceased, PW6 is witness and elder-son of the deceased speaks as PW3, PW7 is witness and 2nd daughter of the deceased and sister-in-law of the accused, PW8 circumstances witness speaks that on 07.02.2018 at about 2030 hours the accused came to permit room, consumed liquor and fell down in drunken state and he found silver ornaments fell on the ground from the pant packet of the accused, PW9 is circumstances witness, he corroborates with the version of PW8, PW10 is circumstances witness, he speaks as PW8, PW9, LW11 and LW11 and he along with LW13 shifted the accused to his house on the motor cycle of LW13, PW11 is circumstances witness, speaks the

FAC: V-ADJ.

15 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 version of PW8, LW11, PW12 and LW13, PW12 is panch for scene of offence and inquest and seizure of clothes of the deceased,

PW13 is panch for inquest and seizure of clothes of deceased,

PW14 is panch for confession of accused and recovery of stolen property i.e., cycle, PW15 is assisted to Investigation Officer, PW16 is examined the PW3, seized the clothes of the deceased, PW17 is conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued

DPME., and final medical opinion, PW18 and PW19 are

Investigating Officers.

b)The Ex.P1 is the complaint, dated 09.02.2018, Ex.P2 is

Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., statement of PW7, Ex.P3 is Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., statement of PW10, Ex.P4 is Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., statement of PW11,

Ex.P.5 is C.D.F., along with sketch, Ex.P.6 is Inquest report, Ex.P.7 is confessional panchanama, Ex.P.8 is photograph of silver jewelry,

Ex.P.9 (2) photographs of cycle, Ex.P.10 is seizure panchanama,

Ex.P.11 is seizure panchanama for the cloths from the dead body,

Ex.P.12 is P.M.E., report, Ex.P13 is F.S.L., report, Ex.P.14 if final opinion/ report, Ex.P15 are (04) photographs of dead body, Ex.P.16 is Section Alteration Memo and Ex.P.17 is F.I.R.

c)MO.1 is the cotton voni, MO.2 is white and blue color jacket, MO.3 is petty coat and MO.4 is cycle.

FAC: V-ADJ.

16 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

14.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor have argued that the evidence of PW1 is well supported by the evidence of PWs 2 to 9 and PW12 to PW19, by considering the said evidence, prayed the

Court to punish the accused person.

15.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused herein is committed the offences, with which, he is charged, hence, the accused cannot be found guilty for the said offences. With that, prayed the Court to acquit the accused in this case.

16.The accused herein are charged for the offence U/Sec.302, 279 of I.P.C., which prescribes punishment for the act of murder which is defined U/Sec.302, 379 of I.P.C., the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:

“the accused committed murder in any case not otherwise punishable by this code, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine”.

17.The accused herein are charged for the offence U/Sec.379 of

I.P.C., which prescribes punishment of theft and the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:

“whoever commits theft, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which

FAC: V-ADJ.

17 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”.

18.Now, coming to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

PW1/ S. Surender Reddy, Mandal Revenue Inspector deposed that on 09.02.2018 on information of VRA/PW2/ N. Gangaram as to the unknown dead body besides the Sevalal Thanda, immediately he visited the dead body, found that she was aged about 70 years, with injuries on the body, and also he found Lambada wearings of cloths and ornaments, then he lodged the complaint with the

Police, Varni. Ex.P1 is complaint dated 09.02.2018. Police examined him. During his cross-examination, he stated that his statement was not recorded by the Police.

19.PW2/ Neeradi Gangaram deposed that about 4 years back he found an unknown female dead body at the outskirts of Sevalal

Thanda and informed the same to the PW1. Police examined him.

During his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, PW2 denied that he did not found the female dead body as stated and

Police did not examine him, but he is deposing false evidence.

20. a)PW3/ Kethavath Sakuna who is the mother-in-law of deceased deposed that about five years back, she is asked her younger son/PW.4 to bring rice from the ration shop, accordingly

FAC: V-ADJ.

18 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 he brought the rice and kept in the house and remained in the house. When she returned to the home in the evening after attending her coolie work, did not found her mother-in-law. She inquired with her son as to the her mother-in-law who informed her that the accused who is brother-in-law of Ansibai/PW.7 came to her home and took her mother-in-law along with him. On her further enquiry her son informed her that there was a davath in the house of Ansibai/PW.7 and the Ansibai asked the accused to bring the deceased for the feast, as such the accused took her mother-in-law. After three days they came to know through paper news that there was a unknown dead body was found by the

Police. Then they went the Police Station of Varni, on their information they went to the mortuary of Nizamabad Government

Hospital and identified the dead body is her mother-in-law/ Chilki bai, they observed the missing of ornaments of silver around her neck and four hand kadias. Then they came back to the Police

Station and gave complaint. Police examined her.

b)During her cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, she stated that she gave complaint to the Police of Varni

Police Station on her complaint the Police examined her in the

Police Station. She stated to the Police that her son informed her

FAC: V-ADJ.

19 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 that the accused to her mother-in-law for Davath and also that her son brought ration and kept in the house. She further denied that she did not state to the Police that her son informed her that the accused took her mother-in-law for Davath and also that her son brought ration and kept in the house. She denied that the accused never came to her house and took her mother-in-law and her son also did not state the same to her. She denied that Police did not examined her and she is deposing false.

21. a)PW4/ Kethavath Sai Krishna deposed that PW is his mother. The deceased/ Chikli Bai is his paternal grand-mother who is dead about 5 years back, and on the date of her death he was at his home to bring rice from the ration shop. He stated that at about 2.00 p.m., the accused came to his home and took him grand mother/ Chikli bai along with him, saying that his paternal aunt Ansibai/Pw7 who is daughter of his grand mother/ Chikli bai, asked him to bring her mother as there was a Dawath/ feast.

During evening hours when his parents came from works, enquired with him about his grand mother and he informed that the accused took her along with him for the feast of Ansibai. He further stated that on 10.02.2018 a news appeared in the News paper that an un-kown female dead body was found by the Police,

FAC: V-ADJ.

20 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 beside the forest area of Shivalal Thanda, then they went to Varni

Police Station. Then the Police took them to the mortuary of the

Government Hospital, Nizamabad and they identified the dead body as of his grand-mother. Police examined him.

b)During his cross-examination, PW4 stated that the

Police that the accused took his grand-mother for Dawath. He further denied that he did not state to his parents that the accused came to their home and took him grand-mother along with him for

Dawath. He denied that the accused never came to his home and took his grand mother Chikli Bai along with him. He denied that the Police did not examine him and he did not state anything to them but giving false evidence.

22. a)PW5/ Kethavath Sairam deposed that on 07.02.2018 he accompanied his mother to the coolie work, came back to home at 6.00 p.m., on enquiry with the Pw4/ his brother as to the presence of his grand-mother, he informed them that the brother- in-law of Ansibai/ Pw7 who is his paternal aunt/ (accused) took her to the house of Ansibai. Thereafter, his grand-mother did not returned to home even after 3 days. He further stated that on 10.02.2018 a news appeared in the News paper that an un-kown female dead body was found by the Police, beside the forest area

FAC: V-ADJ.

21 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 of Shivalal Thanda, then they went to Varni Police Station. Then the Police took them to the mortuary of the Govt. Hospital,

Nizamabad and they identified the dead body as of his grand mother. Police examined him.

b)During his cross-examination, he denied that his brother/ PW4 did not state anything as to that the accused took their grand-mother along with him to the house of the PW7/

Ansibai, the Police did not examine him but he is deposing false.

23.PW6/ Kethavath Ganya deposed that on one day the came to know through paper that some un-known female dead body was lying near forest of Sevalal Thanda. On information he went to the

Government Hospital, Nizamabad along with PWs3 to 5 and others, identified the dead body as of his mother. They also found missing of silver ornaments from her dead body. Police examined him. During his cross-examination, PW6 denied that the Police did not examined him but he is deposing false to help the accused.

24. a)PW8/ Erupaji Venka Goud deposed that on 07.02.2018 at about 7.00 p.m., he saw the accused while consuming liquor in permit room of Vijaya Durga wines, Varni and he is also consuming the liquor in the same room. While they were leaving the permit room the accused also while exiting from the room in a full

FAC: V-ADJ.

22 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 drunken condition fell down, at that time from his packets 4 silver kadias and one neck-less of silver fell down on the ground. They called the Kishan who is brother of accused and also present in the permit room informing about the accused, when he came to the accused they questioned the accused and his brother about those silver ornaments, then the accused stated that those ornaments belongs to his mother and he brought those ornaments to sell.

Thereafter, the brother of accused/ Kishan took him to their home on motor cycle. Police examined him.

b)During his cross-examination, he stated that the Police examined him on 17.02.2018 at Mallaram village. he denied the suggestions put-forth by the learned defence counsel.

25.PW12/ Barla Sailu deposed that on information of PW1 himself and LW17/ Shaik Mahaboob and PW18 went to Sevalal

Thanda, where a female dead body was found, in their presence the Police conducted a panchanama to the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch then they attested the same. Ex.P5 is C.d.F.

The Police also conducted inquest over the dead body (dead body of Lambadi woman). Ex.P6 is Inquest Report. During his cross- examination, he denied the suggestions put-forth by the learned defence counsel.

FAC: V-ADJ.

23 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

26.PW13/ Ch. Chinnamma deposed that about five years back the Police conducted inquest over the dead body of one Lambadi woman in presence of himself, PW12 and LW17. During his cross- examination, he denied the suggestions put-forth by the learned defence counsel.

27. a)PW14/ G. Santosh Kumar deposed that on 17.02.2018 at 9.30 a.m., the C.l., of Police called him and LW20/ S.K.Ashok

Rao to the PS, Varni. They went to the Police Station, where they found the Cl., and his staff, in their custody the accused was present. then on instruction of the C.l., himself and Lw20 enquired the accused and he stated that he addicted to the vices, to met the expenses of same, stolen silver jewelry by killing the mother- in-law of his own brother. Police prepared panchanama and they attested the same. Ex.P7: confession panchanama. Thereafter, the accused took them to his home at Belyanaik Thanda, he brought the silver jewelry of mother-in-law of his brother, and to them i.e., contepatti (neck kaidaim), 4 hand kadias and old cycle which is belongs to the accused. (The silver jewelry was given to the legal heirs of deceased/Chikili bai as per order dated: 13.08.2018 in

Crl.MP. 1085/2018). The cycle was given to the Police for safe

custody by taking photographs. Ex.P8: Photograph of silver

FAC: V-ADJ.

24 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 jewelry. Ex.P9: 2 photographs of cycle. The silver jewelry and cycle seized by the Police and prepared a panchanama to that effect.

Ex.P10 seizure panchanama.

b)During the cross examination of PW14 stated that the house of the accused is bounded by West: the house of Bunny,

North: the house of Venkati, South: the house of brother of the accused and East: he cannot remember the whose house. They went to the house of accused by 11:20 a.m., and completed the panchanama by half an hour. The seizure panchanama was drafted by the C.I., he further denied that the accused did not confessed any thing in their presence and no silver jewelry and cycle shown them at his house and seized the same by Police in their presence but they attested the panchanamas in the Police

Station and deposing false. He further denied that the boundaries to the house of the accused are false and they did not visited the house of the accused. He denied that he acted as a panchayathdars in 4 or 5 cases of Varni Police Station. He stated that it is only 2 cases.

28.PW5/ K. Babu Rao deposed that on 17.02.2018 as per the instruction of the LW26, himself and LW23/ PC.952 accompanied the PW18 to the Belyanaik Thanda, went to the house of the

FAC: V-ADJ.

25 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 accused, where they apprehended the accused and produced

before the C.I., of Police. During his cross-examination, he denied

the suggestions put-forth by the learned defence counsel.

29. a)PW16/ S. Nagabhushan deposed that on the instruction of S.l., of Police/ PW18, he took the Pw3 to the mortuary of Govt.

Hospital, Nizamabad, where he shown the dead body of female and Pw3 identified the same as of her mother-in-law. Then he examine and recorded her statement at Govt. Hospital,

Nizamabad. Thereafter, he also seized cloths from the dead body of the deceased, in presence of Pws12 and 13, and prepared a panchanama to that effect. Ex.P11: seizure panchanama for the cloths from the dead body. MO.1: cotton voni. Mo.2: white and blue colour jacket. Mo.3: green color petticoat and he handed over the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police.

b)During the cross examination PW16 denied that the hand writing in statement U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., of PW3 and Ex.P6 is not of his writing. He further stated that it is his own hand writing. He admitted that the PW3 did not state that the accused took the deceased in the name of Davath. He admitted that the

PW3 did not state that her son brought the reason and kept in the house. He further stated that she stated that her son went to the

FAC: V-ADJ.

26 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 reason shop. He further denied that he never took the PW3 to mortuary of Government Hospital, Nizamabad, not examined her, not conducted any seizure of cloths of the deceased, but deposing false at the instance of his superior.

30.PW17/ Dr. Nagamohan Rao deposed that on 09.02.2018 on the requisition of SHO., Varni PS., he have conducted PME., over the dead body of the Kethavath Chikli bai, identified by the

ASI/Nagabhusan of Varni PS. 1. External appearance on cloths:

Body dressed in pink colour floral design blouse, green foral design with yellow border Lehengah, red colour glass bangles to right wrist, Coper clour metal anklets to right ankle, eyes closed, mouth partly opened, left eye congested, face swollen, decomposition, fluids, oozing, feacal soiling of inner clothing present. Cyanosis of finger nails of hands, ear lobes present, blood stains at nostral, both ears and 2) Post mortem change: rigor mortis passed off, post mortem lividiti present over back off trunk. He found the following injuries of antimortum: 1) abrasion 4 x 3 c.m., brown in colour over right cheek present, 2) abrasion 7 x 1 c.m., outer aspect of left elbow brown in colour, 3) abrasion 6 x 1.5. c.m., over front of left leg in upper part brown in colour. 4) ligature mark measuring 12 x 2.5 c.m., transversely placed present of over front

FAC: V-ADJ.

27 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 of neck in upper part of neck, the skin under ligature mark is brownish, parch mentised with abraded margins with underlying extra vastion of blood. In tissue and thyroid cartilage fracture present on the left side with fracture of left greater horn of hyoid bone with periosteal hemorrhages present. Extensive hemorrhages present in soft tissues of neck. He further stated that he have collected viscera and persevered the same. The P.M.E., conducted from 10:30 a.m., to 11:40 a.m. The approximate time of death to the best of his knowledge and belief is that due to asphyxia consequent to strangulation. However viscera for chemical examination to rule out evidence of intoxication. He issued P.M.E. Ex.P12: PME. On receipt of F.S.L., report he gave final report that the death is due asphyxia consequent to strangulation.

Ex.p13: F.S.L., report, Ex.AP14: Final opinion/ report. During the cross examination of PW17 he admitted that during P.M.E., he found some abnormal smell in stomach contents but in chemical examination/ F.S.L., report there is no alcohol is substance.

31.PW18/ U. Chandrashekar/ Inspector of Police deposed on 09.02.2018 at 12.00 hours he received a complaint from Pw1 and registered the same as case in Cr.No.28/2018, U/Sec.174 of

Cr.P.C., and submitted FIR., to all concerned, then he examine and

FAC: V-ADJ.

28 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 recorded the statements of Pw1, then proceeded to the scene of offense which a distance of 5 k.m., to the Police Station, where they found a female dead body, then he secure the presence of

Pws 10, 11 and Lw17, in their presence he observed the scene of offense, drawn rough sketch and incorporated in the CDF, he also photographed the scene of offense and dead body, examined and recorded the statements of Pw2, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of same panchayathdars and shifted the dead body Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad, for preservation.

Ex.P15: 4 Photographs of dead body. On 12.02.2018, he verified the investigation done by the Pw16 found it on correct lines, he examined and recorded the statements of Pws 4 to 7 and Lw8 and also reexamined the Pw3. On receipt of PME., report, he filed section alteration memo from Sec.174 of Cr.P.C., into Sec.302, 379 of I.P.C., and submitted the same to all concerned. Ex.P16 is

Section Alteration Memo. Further investigation taken over by the

LW26/ K. Srinivas Reddy/ Circle Inspector of Police. During his cross-examination, He stated that on 09.02.2018 at 12:00 hours the PW1 came to the Police Station and submitted complaint, he registered the same as case in Crime No.28 of 2018, U/Sec.174 of

Cr.P.C., and submitted F.I.R., to all concerned. Ex.P17 is F.I.R. and

FAC: V-ADJ.

29 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 he further denied the suggestions put-forth by the learned defence counsel.

32. a)PW19/ K. Srinivas Reddy deposed that on 16.02.2018 he received section alteration memo, from S.l., of Police,

Varni/Pw18 converting the case from Sec.174 of Cr.P.C., into

Sec.302, 379 of I.P.C., in Cr. No.28/2018, he took C.D., file verified the investigation done by the Pws 16 and 18 found it on correct lines. In continuation of his investigation, on 17.02.2018 he deputed the Pws 15 to 16 and 18 to apprehend the accused in

Belyanaik Thanda, accordingly, they apprehend the accused and produced before him in Varni, PS, at 8.30 a.m. On interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed the offence, then he secured the presence of Pw 14 and Lw20/ S.Kamble Ashok Rao, in their presence he recorded the confession of the accused. Thereafter, he along with the accused and the mediators i.e., Pw14 and Lw20, proceeded to the house of the accused where the accused shown the stolen property i.e., silver anklets/ Mos 1 to 3 and one cycle.

M.O. 4: Cycle, then he seized the same. Then brought the accused and property to the Police Station, effected the arrest of accused and sent him to judicial custody on following the procedure. Later, he examined and recorded the statements of PW8 to 11 and

FAC: V-ADJ.

30 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

LWs11, LW13 and LW15. On completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

b)During the cross-examination of PW19 he admitted that Ex.P7/ confession-cum-recovery panchanama is not with his handwriting. He stated that the name of scribe was mentioned underneath it. He is not recovered any chunni with which the accused said to have been killed the deceased from his possession,. He admitted that the did not conducted property identification parade for identification of MOs1 to 3. He further denied that the accused did not commit any offence, and he never confessed the offence, and they did not recover MOs1 to 4 from his house as stated but by doing table investigation they falsely implicated him in this case and deposing false.

33.On perusal of the entire prosecution evidence, in this case,

PWs 2 to 7 are the family members of the deceased and they are not the eye-witnesses to the incident. As per U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C.

statements of PW7, P10 and P11 i.e., Ex.P2 to Ex.4, no mention of theft of silver ornaments.

34.As per the evidence of PW16, he deposed that on the instruction of S.I., of Police/ LW25 he took the PW3 to the mortuary of Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad where he shown the dead body of

FAC: V-ADJ.

31 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 female and PW3 identified the same as on her mother-in-law, then he examine and recorded her statement at Government Hospital,

Nizamabad. Thereafter, he also seized cloths from the dead body of the deceased, in presence of PWs12 and 13, and prepared a panchanama to that effect Ex.P11: seizure panchanama for the cloths from the dead body. MO1 cotton vony, MO2 is white and blue colour jacket, M.O3 green colour petticoat and he handed over the same to the S.I.

35.The evidence of 19 the Investigation Officer in this case and was called by the Police to act as panch for confession and recovery of the accused, situated at Belyanaik Thanda. He further deposed that the accused confessed and confession-cum-recovery panchanama was prepared in his presence and seized MO.1 to

MO.4 from the accused. During the cross-examination of PW19, it is admitted that Ex.P7/ confession-cum-recovery panchanama is not with his handwriting. The name of scribe was mentioned underneath it. He is not recovered any chunni with which the accused said to have been killed the deceased from his possession. He admitted that they did not conduct property identification parade for identification of MOs1 to 3. He denied that the accused did not commit any offence, and he never

FAC: V-ADJ.

32 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 confessed the offence, and they did not recover MOs1 to 4 from his house as stated but by doing table investigation they falsely implicated him in this case.

36.In the Indian Legal System, the principle "When two views are possible, the view which favours the accused should be taken" is a well-established tenet of criminal jurisprudence. This principle stems from the presumption of innocence"" and the burden of proof" resting on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If, after considering the evidence, the Court can reasonably arrive at two different conclusions-one pointing to guilt and another to innocence-the latter must be adopted, even if it leads to acquittal.

Key Aspects of the Principle

Presumption of Innocence:

All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

1. Burden of Proof:

The responsibility lies with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

 Benefit of Doubt:

The principle ensures the accused receives the benefit of doubt, a fundamental aspect of a fair trial.

 Application in Circumstantial Evidence: This principle is particularly critical when a conviction relies on circumstantial evidence. If there are two equally reasonable interpretations of the circumstances, one that establishes guilt and

FAC: V-ADJ.

33 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 another that suggests innocence, the court must choose the interpretation that favors the accused. Examples and Cases  The case of Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra illustrates this principle, where the Supreme Court emphasized that if the evidence allows for two views, the one that favors the accused should be chosen.  Similarly, the Supreme Court reiterated this principle in various judgments, including State of U.P. vs. Gambhir Singh & Ors. and State of U.P. vs. Rahul Chaubey, affirming that if two reasonable views of the evidence are possible, the one in favor of the accused must be accepted.

37.Except the evidence of PW18, PW19 confession of the accused person and the confession panch and the evidence of

PW17 reveals that the deceased sustained injuries as per Ex.P14 the cause of death is due to asphyxia consequent to strangulation.

The prosecution failed to prove the link of the murder of the deceased with accused committing murder of the deceased.

38.In the list of witnesses, the prosecution witnesses, they never shown any chain of circumstances to believe that there are reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused person and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused person.

39.At the outset on perusal of entire evidence on record, this

Court finds that there are no circumstances to draw the inference that the accused person is committed the offences and the

FAC: V-ADJ.

34 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 evidence on record was not cogently and firmly established and the circumstances shown by the witnesses should be of no definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and there is no chain of circumstances to establish the offences and the evidence is incapable of explaining any other hypotheses than that of the guilt of the accused. In the absence of circumstantial evidence, the Court cannot find truth or made any inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established. The circumstantial evidence on record did not show any conclusion to draw the inference against the accused person that he committed the offences. In the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they never stated that the accused is committed murder of the deceased. It is very much doubtful that the accused person had committed the murder of the deceased.

40.The same has been disclosed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2023 (2) ALD (Crl.). 211 (SC) in between Jabir and others

Vs. State of Uttarakhand in para 21 and 23, in which, the

Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

“A basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that in circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt, as well the as the links between all circumstances; such circumstances, taken

FAC: V-ADJ.

35 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else; further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused, and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence, these were so stated in Sarad Birdichand Sarda’s case (supra). A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an Accused can be said to be fully established: the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri.) p. 1047] Certainly, it is a primary principle that the Accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the Accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the Accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so

FAC: V-ADJ.

36 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of 5 Ibid 3 the Accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the Accused.” These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” These panchsheel precepts, so to say, are now fundamental rules, iterated time and again, and require adherence not only for their precedential weight, but as the only safe bases upon which conviction in circumstantial evidence cases can soundly rest.

In Para 23, it is held that: “Apart from the above serious infirmities, there is no evidence, oral or any material object, which connects the appellant-accused with the crime. It has been repeatedly emphasized by this Court, that the “last seen” doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the Court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstances. In Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 438, this Court explained the soundness of such a rule:

‘Without probing further into the correctness of the "last-seen" version emanating from P.W. 14's evidence, even assuming that the deceased did accompany the accused in their vehicle, this circumstance by itself does not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Appellant and his companion had killed him and thrown the dead body in the culvert. It cannot be presumed that the Appellant and his companions were responsible for the murder, though grave suspicion arises against the accused. There is considerable time-gap between the deceased boarding the vehicle of the

FAC: V-ADJ.

37 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

Appellant and the time when P.W. 11 found the dead body. In the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence it is not possible to convict the Appellant solely on the basis of the "last- seen" evidence, even if the version of P.W. 14 in this regard is believed. In view of this, the evidence of P.W. 9 as regards the alleged confession made to him by the Appellant assumes importance’.

41.In Shaik Nazeer Ahmed @ Nazeer @ Bhayya Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in 2023 (2) ALD (Crl.) 323 T.S., in which the Hon’ble High Court held that ‘chain of events not completed’ and ‘many missing links’, benefit of doubt extended to the accused and also held in para 32 that:

‘Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the Apex Court Judgment reported in Munikrishna alias Krishna Vs. State by Ulsoor, 2022 SCC Online SC 1449, wherein it is held as under: “In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused. In other words, a very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. As early as in 1952, this Court in its seminal judgment of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343, had laid down the parameters under which the case of circumstantial evidence is to be evaluated. It states: “…….. It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established

FAC: V-ADJ.

38 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused …..” In Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 748,

dated 28.01.2010, this Court while discussing the

nature of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof of prosecution stated as under: In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look for complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not make a complete sequence. This Court finds that this case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, the Court must adopt a cautious approach as circumstantial evidence is “inferential evidence” and proof in such a case is derivable by inference from circumstances. Chief Justice Fletcher Moulton once observed that ‘proof does not mean rigid mathematical formula’ since ‘that is impossible’. However, proof must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a definite conclusion. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, has been compared by Lord Coleridge ‘like a gossamer thread, light and as unsubstantial as the air itself and may vanish with the merest of touches’. The learned Judge also observed that such evidence may be strong in parts but is may also leave great gaps and rents through which the accused may escape. Therefore, certain rules have been judicially evolved for appreciation of circumstantial evidence.

FAC: V-ADJ.

39 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

To my mind, the first rule is that the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial evidence must be clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If conviction rests solely on certified copy, it must create a network from which there is no escape for the accused. The facts evolving out of such circumstantial evidence must be such as not to admit of any inference except that of guilt of the accused (See Raghav Prapanna Tripathi vs. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 74 = (1963) 1 Cri. LJ 70). The second principle is that all th elinks in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they must exclude the evidence of guilt of any other person than the accused (See State of U.P. v. Dr.Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300 = 1992 SCC (Cri.) 642 – 1992 Crl LJ 3693, SCC P.309, Para 20). While appreciating circumstantial evidence, we must remember the principle laid down in Ashraf Ali v. Kind Emperor, 21 CWN 1152 = 43 IC 241, (IC at Para 14) that when in a criminal case there is conflict between presumption of innocence and any other presumption, the former must prevail.

The next principle is that in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and are incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypotheses except his guilt.

When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.

Nibaran Chandra Roy v. King Emperor 11 CWN 1085, it was held that the fact that an accused person was found with a gun in his hand immediately after a gun was fired and a man was killed on the spot from which the gun was fired may

FAC: V-ADJ.

40 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 be strong circumstantial evidence against the accused, but it is an error of law to hold that the burden of proving innocence lies upon the accused under such circumstances. It seems, therefore, to follow that whatever force a presumption arising under Section 106 of the Evidence Act may have in civil or in less serious criminal cases, in a trial for murder it is extremely weak in comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence.

The same principles have been followed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Govinda Reddy vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 SC 29 – 1960 Cri. LJ 137, where the learned Judges quoted the principles laid down in Hanmant Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343 = 1953 Cri. LJ 129. The ratio in Govind’s case (supra), quoted in AIR Para 5, P.30 of the Report in Govinda Reddy’s case (supra) are; “5…...’10….. in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances (which lead to the conclusion of guilt should be in the first instance) fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be (shown) that within all human probability the act must have been (committed) by the accused. (As observed in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another vs. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343 at Pp.345-46, Para 10).

The same principle has also been followed by this Court in Mohan Lal Pangasa v. State of U.P. (1974) 4 SCC 607 = 1974 SCC (Cri.) 643.”

FAC: V-ADJ.

41 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

42.In the instant case, the ‘last-seen’ theory is also not established in this case. At the outset, on perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution entirely rests on the circumstantial evidence, but failed to prove that the chain of circumstances not established and also ‘last-seen’ theory is also not established. There are no cogent and coherent reasons to believe that the accused person committed the offence as

Investigating Officers also failed to establish the nexus between the accused and the deceased as mentioned in supra that the

Investigating Officers never investigated the case about the enmity between the accused person and the deceased whether it is professional rivalry or any monitory rivalry or even family disputes prevails between them. In the absence of such evidence, this Court cannot come to conclusion that the accused is committed the offences. Hence, the benefit of doubt shall rightly be given to the accused person.

43.With the above discussion, this Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Sec.302, 379 of I.P.C., and the benefit of doubt shall be rightly given to the accused. As such, the accused can not be

FAC: V-ADJ.

42 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019 found guilty for the said charged offences. The point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.302 and 379 of I.P.C., and he is acquitted

U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

The non-valuable case property i.e. MOs.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and M.O.4 i.e., cycle shall be returned to its original owner on proper identification and verification after expiry of appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24th day of September, 2025.

Sd/-

FAC: V-Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

: : APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

Witnesses examined :: ::

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1 :S. Surender Reddy.:Complainant.

PW2 :Neeradi Gangaram.:Witness who informed about the dead body of deceased. PW3 :Kethavath Sakuna.:Daughter-in-law of deceased.

PW4 :Kethavath Sai Krishna. :Eye witness and grand-son of deceased. PW5 :Kethavath Sairam.:Circumstance witness and elder grand-son of the deceased.

FAC: V-ADJ.

43 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

PW6 :Kethavath Ganya.:Witness and elder son of the deceased. PW7 :Guguloth Hansibai.:Witness and 2nd daughter of the deceased and sister-in-law of the accused. PW8 :Erupaji Venka Goud.:Circumstantial witness.

PW9 :KethavathSavai:Circumstantial witness. Singh. PW10 :Salur Sailu.:Circumstantial witness.

PW11 :Karamtod Santosh.:Circumstantial witness. PW12 :Barla Sailu.:Panch for scene of offence and inquest and seizure of clothes of the deceased. PW13 :Ch. Chinnamma.:Panch for inquest and seizure of clothes of deceased. PW14 :G. Santosh Kumar.:Panch for confession of accused and recovery of stolen property, cycle.

PW15 :K. Babu Rao.:Assisted to Investigation Officer.

PW16 :S. Nagabhushan.:First Investigation Officer.

PW17 :Dr. Nagamohan Rao.:Conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued DPME., and final Medical opinion.

PW18 :U. Chandrashekar.:First Investigation Officer.

PW19 :K. Srinivas Reddy.:Investigation Officer, arrested the accused and laid charge sheet.

:: FOR PROSECUTION ::

Ex.P1 :Complaint, dated 09.02.2018. Ex.P2 :Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., statement of PW7. Ex.P3 :Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., statement of PW10. Ex.P4 :Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., statement of PW11.

FAC: V-ADJ.

44 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

Ex.P5 :Crime Detail Form.

Ex.P6 :Inquest Report.

Ex.P7 :Confessional panchanama.

Ex.P8 :Photographs of silver jewelry.

Ex.P9 :(2) photographs of cycle.

Ex.P10 : Seizure panchanama.

Ex.P11 : Seizure panchanama for the cloths from the dead body.

Ex.P12 : Post Mortem Examination Report.

Ex.P13 : Forensic Science Laboratory Report.

Ex.P14 : Final opinion/ Report.

Ex.P15 : (04) photographs of dead body. Ex.P16 : Section Alteration Memo.

Ex.P17 : First Information Report.

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

:: MATERIAL OBJECTS ::

MO.1: Cotton voni. MO.2: White and blue colour jacket. MO.3: Petty coat. MO.4: cycle.

Sd/-

FAC: V-Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

FAC: V-ADJ.

45 of 47 S.C.No.15 of 2019

:: CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT ::

IN THE COURT OF V-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BODHAN

PRESENT: Sri T.Srinivas, Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II-Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: V-Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan. Dated this the 24th day of September, 2025

S.C.No. 15 of 2019

(Cr.No. 28 of 2018 of Varni Police Station )

Between: The State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Rudrur Circle of Varni Police Station.

.. Complainant

A N D Gugloth Peerya S/o. Late Poolsingh, Age: 38 years, Caste: Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Belyanaik Thanda of Mallaram G.P., Varni Mandal of Nizamabad District.

.. Accused

1Date of offence 09.02.2018. 2Date of report or complaint 09.02.2018. 3Date of apprehension of accused17.02.2018.

4Date of release on bail21.03.2018.

5Date of commitment07.02.2019.

6Date of commencement of trial02.01.2023.

7Date of close of trial17.09.2025.

8Date of Judgment 24.09.2025.

9Explanation of delay and remarks--

Encl: Copy of Judgment.

Sd/-

FAC: V-Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan. To The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

FAC: V-ADJ.

1/39O.S. No.05 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF V-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

BODHAN

Present: Sri T. Srinivas, II-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: V-Additional District Judge, Bodhan.

Dated this the 24th day of September, 2025

O.S. No.05 of 2023

Between:

1.Kollipara Sambashivarao S/o. Venkateshwar Rao, aged: 57 years, R/o. at present ECIL., Kamalanagar, Medchal District.

2. Kollipara Rukmini Devi S/o. Late Subba Rao, aged 78 years, R/o. H.No.6-7, Devi Vihar, Devanpally, Kamareddy Mandal and District.

3. Kolli Para Murali Krishna S/o. K. Raja Rao, aged 53 years, R/o. Rudrur village and Mandal of Nizamabad District.

4. Kollipara Koteshwarao S/o. Krishnaiah, age: 76 years, R/o. at present USA., through His SPA holder Kollipara Murali Krishna S/o. K. Rajarao, R/o. Rudrur village and Mandal of Nizamabad District (Died) his L.Rs.

5. Kollipara Urmila Devi S/o. Late Kollipara Koteshwar Rao, aged 75 years, R/o. 3568, Perennial Ln Powell, Ohio-43065, U.S.A.

6. Kota Praveena Bose D/o. Late Kollipara Koteshwar Rao, aged 46 years, R/o. 3568 Perennial Ln Powell, Ohio-4365, U.S.A.

7. Gunrddy Pradeepa Bose D/o. Late Kollipara Koteshwar Rao, aged 42 years, R/o. 3568, Perennial Ln Powell, Ohio-43065, U.S.A. (Plaintiff Nos.5 to 7 are added as Legal Heirs of Plaintiff No.4 as per Orders in I.A. No.34 of 2024, dated 06.02.2024) The Plaintiff Nos.5 to 7 given SPA., to SPA., holder Kollipara Murali Krishna S/o. K. Rajarao, R/o. Rudrur village and Mandal of Nizamabad District.

..Plaintiffs.

AND

1.Dasari Phani Krishna S/o. Nageshwar Rao, aged 35 years, R/o. H.No.2-102, Pangra, G.P., Madhav Nagar, Nizamabad Mandal and District.

2.Proprietor, KUBUTO, Tractor work shop, D/o. No.3-115/17, Pangra, Madhavanagar, G.P., Nizamabad District.

FAC: V-ADJ.

2/39O.S. No.05 of 2023

3.Dasari Nageshwar Rao S/o. Satyanarayana, aged 69 years, Occ: PACCS., Chairman, Madhavnagar, R/o. Beside Ramalayam, Madhavnagar, Nizamabad Mandal and District.

4.Dasari Satyavathi W/o. Nageshwar Rao, aged 65 years, R/o. Beside Ramalayam, Madhavnagar, Nizamabad Mandal and District.

.. Defendant.

This suit coming on 17.09.2025 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri K. Subba Rao, Advocate for Plaintiffs; and Defendant No.2 set ex-parte and of Sri M. Srinivas Rao, Advocate for Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.The plaintiff filed the suit against Defendant Nos.1 to 4 seeking the declaration and recovery of possession by declaring the Plaintiffs are the Legal Heirs and successors of the late

Kollipara Nageshwar Rao and Nagamani and also declare as owner of suit schedule A and B properties shown in the schedule appended to this plaint and put the Plaintiff in possession.

2. a)The contents of the plaint are that the defendant

Nos.1, 3 and 4 are the distant relatives of the Plaintiffs. That the

Plaintiff No.1 is the elder brother's son of deceased Kollipara

Nageshwar Rao and the Plaintiff No.2 is the elder brother's wife of deceased K. Nageshwar Rao. The Plaintiff No.3 is the elder brother's son of deceased Kollipara Nageshwar Rao and the

Plaintiff No.4 is the elder brother of deceased Kollipara Nageshwar

Rao and that one Kollipara Nageshwar is the owner of the H.No.2-

FAC: V-ADJ.

3/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 102, 2-72, 3/115/17 and cattle shed and plot No.10, Plot No.37 and 38 situated at Pangra village, Madhav Nagar, Nizamabad

District. The said K. Nageshwar Rao was died on 26.09.2017.

Thereafter, the above house property was mutated in the name of his wife Kollipara Nagamani, she was also died on 25.04.2021.

That both couples have died issues less. That during life time the said Kollipara Nagamani leased out the above house No.2-102, to the defendant No.1 and the H.No.2-72 leased out to Defendant

No.2 and H.No.3/115/17 and also leased out the cattle shed to the

Defendant No.3 respectively.

b)It is further pleaded that Sri. K. Nageshwarao during his life time also purchased the open plot of H.No.2-19 extent of 590 Sq., yards at Dharmaram village of Nizamabad Mandal and

District and registered in the name of Kollipaka Nagamani and thereafter during the life time of K. Nagamani sold out the above plot for Rs.69,00,000/- in the capacity of legal heir, successor and wife of said late K. Nageshwarao Kommineni Sambaiah S/o.

Dharmaram. After sold out the said plot by Nagamani, she received sale consideration of Rs.69,00,000/-. Out of the above sale consideration the said K. Nagamani purchased 2 acres 16 guntas land in her name and five acres in the name of defendant

No.3 by name D. Nageshwar Rao, Ac.1.24 guntas in the name of the defendant No.4 by paying the entire sale consideration to her

FAC: V-ADJ.

4/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 vendor. That the said K. Nagamani paid the sale consideration to the vendors and got registered the land in the names of

Defendant Nos.3 and 4 respectively, before 1) Ravi Uday

Choudary S/o. Leela Prasad R/o. Kamareddy, 2) Ravi Harinath S/o.

Leela Prasad, R/o. Eklaspoor, Kotagiri Mandal. The details are as follows:

Sl.Sy. No., extent.Location ofWhose name No.land purchased.

1.1141/4, 0.32 gts.Ootpally D. Nageshwar Rao 1141/5, 0.32 gts.shivar. 1141/6, 0.32 gts. 1141/7, 0.32 gts. 1141/9, 0.32 gts. 1163/4, 1 acre

Total 5 acres.

2.1141/1, 0.32 gts.Ootpally M. Nithin Kumar. 1141/2, 0.32 gts.shivar. 1141/3, 0.16 gts. Total 1.24 gts.

3.1141/8, 0.32 gts.Ootpally K. Nagamani. 1141/10, 0.32 gtsshivar. 1141/3, 0.16 gts. Total 2 acres 16 gts.

It is further pleaded that the said K. Nagamani purchased the above lands in the name of Defendant Nos.3 and 4 and got registered in their names at SRO., Bodhan by paying her own amount to the vendors, that the said K. Nagamani during her life time given the above houses and landed properties to defendant

Nos.1 to 4 on lease. That the defendant Nos.1 to 4 neither paid

FAC: V-ADJ.

5/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 the lease amount to said Nagamani nor vacated the said property even after completion of lease period. That the plaintiffs are the predecessors, Class-I legal heirs to the deceased Kollipara

Nageshwar Rao and Kollipara Nagamani. That the defendant

Nos.1, 3 and 4 are distant relatives and no way concerned with the said properties and with the relationship of deceased persons.

That further all the defendants are lease holders and lessees for which the defendants have no right to enjoy the said properties as the lease period was already terminated, but all the defendants are in illegal occupation over the suit schedule property. That the plaintiffs are real and true Class-1 Legal heirs and successors to late deceased K. Nageshwar Rao and Smt. K. Nagamani. The

Plaintiffs given their family pedigree is as follows:

Kollipara Krishnaiah died ↓ Wife Smt. Laxmikanthamma died

K. Venkateshwar K. Subba Rao (Died)Raja Rao Koteswar Rao,DhanalaxmiNagasukamari Babu Rao Rao (Died) NRI US (died)(died) K. Nageswar Pl.No.4 Rao (died)

WifeSon K. Sambasivarao K. Sambasivarao Rukminidevi Murali Krishna Pl.No.1Pl.No.1 Pl.No.3Wife Pl.No.2 Nagamani (died) The sale Deeds executed by the vendors in the name of the defendant No.3 and 4 are not binding on them as the said late

K. Nagamani during her life time sold her husband's property and with the sale consideration amount purchased the above properties

FAC: V-ADJ.

6/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 in the names of the defendant Nos.3 and 4. that during pendency of the suit the plaintiff No.4 died. The plaintiff Nos.5 to 7 are Legal

Heirs of the Plaintiff No.4 on behalf of the Plaintiff Nos.4 to 7 are legal heirs of the Plaintiff No.4 on behalf of the Plaintiff No.4 the

Plaintiff Nos.5 to 7 are also having right over the suit schedule property.

3. a)The Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 filed written statement by submitted that the deceased K.Nagamani was the younger sister of the defendant No.3 D.Nageshwar Rao S/o.

Satyanarayana R/o. Madhav Nagar Nizamabad District, and her marriage was performed with one Kollipara Nageshwar Rao R/o.

Galibnagar Nandipet Mandal Nizamabad District. After performing the marriage the said Kollipara Nageshwar Rao and his wife Kollipara Nagamani shifted to Madhavanagar village within one year after the marriage and started living at

Madhavanagar. The father of the said Nagamani who is the father of the Defendant No.3 also has helped in their day-to- day affairs and both the families were very close and the said

Nageshwar Rao was running hatcheries at Madhavnagar. All the plaintiffs never visited the house of defendants nor Nageshwar

Rao and Nagamani. They never interfered in any of the affairs of the family and they have no talking terms and also they never visited and they never involved in any of the affairs of

FAC: V-ADJ.

7/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 the Late. Nageshwar Rao and Late. Nagamani.

b)That it is submitted that the K. Nageshwar Rao during his lifetime he did not brought anybody as an adoption because they are issue-less and similarly the Late. K.Nagamani also did not brought anybody for adoption. That the

K.Nageshwar Rao died on 26.09.2017 after his death the said

K.Nagamani was feeling alone and she wants somebody's support in day-do-day affairs and look after her welfare and to take her to hospitals whenever required. The son of Defendant

No.3 who is Defendant No.1 herein was residing at Hyderabad along with his wife and two children. There he establishes a transport business and leading happy life at Hyderabad. That the late K.Nagamani who is real sister of Defendant No.3 and paternal aunt of Defendant No.1 requested Defendant No.1 to come down to Madhavanagar and to stay with her and help her in daily routine life. Accepting this request the Defendant No.1 shifted her family to Madhavanagar and started residing along with K.Nagamani in her house. The Defendant No.1 and his wife looking after her nicely as and when she required medical advice and treatment the Defendant No.1 took her to the various hospitals at Nizamabad and Hyderabad till her death

Defendant No.1 served with full and conscious for the necessity of said K.Nagamani and she died on 25.04.2021. The defendant

FAC: V-ADJ.

8/39O.S. No.05 of 2023

Nos.1 and 3 performed her last rights at Madhavnagar and

Defendant No.3 has set fire to the dead body and he performed all rituals which have to performed as per Hindu rites and customs and even her 1st death anniversary was performed by

Defendants Nos.1, 3, 4 on 14.04.2022 and the second death anniversary was performed on 25.04.2023 at Madhavnagar in her residence. That it is submitted the open plots at

Madhavnagar are self-acquired properties of Late. Kollipara

Nageshwar Rao and he during his lifetime bequeathed all his plots to his wife Smt. Kollipara Nagamani. During the lifetime of

Kollipara Nageshwar Rao obtained loans from his close relatives and friends to the tune of more than Rs.3,00,000/- to meet the expenses to his treatment and after his death his wife Smt.

Kollipara Nagamani to discharge those debts and other expenses sold her H.No.2-19 at Dharmaram to one

K.Shashikumar for a valid consideration of Rs.4,12,000/- under a registered sale deed 903/2019 Dated 22.01.2019 and not for

Rs.69,00,000/- as exorbitantly alleged by plaintiffs. The sale proceeds for the above house though exclusively belongs to

Smt. Kollipara Nagamani she used the sale proceeds to discharge the debts incurred for the treatments of her husband

Late. Kollipara Nageshwar Rao and to meet other expenses.

That it is submitted the plaintiffs alleging that Kollipara

FAC: V-ADJ.

9/39O.S. No.05 of 2023

Nagamani Purchased 9Acres at Ootpally Village Bodhan Mandal

Nizamabad District in the name of Defendant Nos.3 and 4 and

K.Nagamani. It is absolutely false and baseless. In fact

D.Nageshwar Rao has purchased total extent of land 9 acres in

Survey No.1141 at Ootpally village for himself as per the advice of the elders for the livelihood of the widow sister he registered 2 Ac.16 guntas in her name. In fact Defendant No.3 has purchased entire land and vendor from Mara Nitinkumar and his brother Mara Praneeth Kumar and Defendant No.3 paid entire sale consideration. That it is submitted that Smt. Kollipara

Nagamani due to the love and affection and services rendered by Defendant No.1 she bequeathed all her properties in favour of Defendant No.1 Dasari Phani Krishna under a will deed

Dated: 23.01.2021 to become owner of all her properties

including the houses, plots and lands after her death which are more specifically mentioned in suit schedule property.

Accordingly, after the death of Smt. Kollipara Nagamani on 25.04.2021 that Defendant No.1 Dasari Phani Krishna become the absolute owner of all the properties of Smt. Kollipara

Nagamani by virtue of the Will Deed, dated 23.01.2021 and all the properties are in possession of Defendant No.1 as absolute owner. That it is submitted the Plaintiffs suppressing the real facts in mis-representing the real facts and filed false suit on

FAC: V-ADJ.

10/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 imaginary and baseless allegations.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that they are class-1 legal heirs of Kollipara Nageshwar Rao and Nagamani? and

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that they are owners of A, B suit schedule properties are recovery of its possession, and consequent direction to the Tahasildar, Bodhan to incorporate their makes and issue pass book (digital)? and

3. To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiffs examined them self as

Pws.1 to 5 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A33 and Ex.C1. Whereas, on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 4 examined them-self as DWs.1 to

DWs.4 and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B10.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

ISSUE NO.1:-

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that they are class-1 legal heirs of

Kollipara Nageshwar Rao and Nagamani? and

a)The preliminary burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to establish that they are joint owner of the suit schedule property and to establish that they are having undivided share.

It is seen that the plaintiffs marked Ex.A1 to A33 which are as follows: Ex.A1 is Death Certificate of Kollipara Nageshwar Rao,

FAC: V-ADJ.

11/39O.S. No.05 of 2023

dated 30.11.2022, Ex.A2 is Death Certificate of Kolipara

Nagamani, dated 01.07.2021, Ex.A3 is certified copy of Sale

Deed No.2491/14 old 14-03-2014 of H.No.3-115/A, dated 17.02.2022, Ex.A4 is certified copy of Sale Deed No.2873/2012 old 14-03-2012 of H.No.2-72, Ex.A5 is certified copy of Sale

Deed No.3492/12 old 29.03.2012 of Plot No.37 and 38, Ex.A6 is certified copy of Sale Deed No.3493/12 of Plot No.10, dated 29.03.2012, Ex.A7 is certified copy of (3) Adangal Pahani for the year, 2019-20, Ex.A8 is certified copy of Pahani obtained from

Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/2, dated 05.06.2021, Ex.A9 is certified copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy.

No.1141/1, Ex.A10 is certified copy of Pahani obtained from

Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/3, Ex.A11 is certified copy of

Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/8, Ex.A12 is certified copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy.

No.1141/10, Ex.A13 is certified copy of Pahani obtained from

Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/4, Ex.A14 is certified copy of

Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/5, Ex.A15 is certified copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy.

No.1141/6, Ex.A16 is certified copy of Pahani obtained from

Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/7, Ex.A17 is certified copy of

Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/9, Ex.A18 is certified copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy.

FAC: V-ADJ.

12/39O.S. No.05 of 2023

No.1163/4, Ex.A19 is certified copy of Legal Notice, dated 18.06.2021, Ex.A20 is reply notice issued by Counsel for D1,

D3, D4, dated 24.06.2021, Ex.A21 is Special Power of Attorney,

dated 05.01.2024 (marked subject to objection for registration),

Ex.A22 is MCN Intimation, dated 25.06.2024, Ex.A23 is

Municipal Administration Circular, dated 19.12.2019, Ex.A24 is

Property Tax details PTIN No.1046800776, Ex.A25 is MCN

Intimation, dated 25.06.2024, Ex.A26 is Property Tax details

PTIN No.1046800806, Ex.A27 is Municipal Administration

Circular, dated 19.12.2019, Ex.A28 is MCN Intimation, dated 25.06.2024, Ex.A29 is Property Tax details PTIN

No.1046801117, Ex.A30 is Municipal Administration Circular,

dated 19.12.2019, Ex.A31 is certified copy of Sale Deed

Doc.No.3686/2011, dated 05.09.2011, Ex.A32 is monthly resolutions Register and Ex.A33 is Report/opinion, dated 18.02.2025 issued by Assistant Director, TGFSL., Hyderabad.

Two sheets of bill containing questioned signature marked.

b)It is seen that the Pw.1 was got examined in cross examination of PW1 it is elicited that his chief examination does not contain the particulars of his profession, so also in the plaint. It is further elicited that he is not working in Police

Department. It is admitted by PW1 that the deceased Kollipara

Nagamani is own sister of Defendant No.3. At the time of

FAC: V-ADJ.

13/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 marriage of deceased Kollipara Nagamani, her husband was resident of Galib Nagar village, Makloor Mandal of Nizamabad

District. It is denied by PW-1 that one month after the marriage the Nagamani and her husband Nageshwar Rao shifted to

Madhavanagar village of Nizamabad Mandal and District. PW1 further admitted that the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 used to reside in Madhavanagar village from the beginning. At the time of death of the deceased Nagamani along with her husband resided in Madhavanagar village. It is further elicited by PW-1 that they came to Madhavanagar (v) four years back prior to the death of Nagamani. PW-1 further admitted that except himself and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, the other plaintiffs are residing in USA. PW-1 further admitted that the plaintiff No.2 is a retired employee, her husband died and they were issue- less/no children. It is denied by PW-1 that the plaintiff No.2 had adopted a male child. It is admitted by PW-1 that on the death of Nageshwar Rao, his wife Nagamani got all his properties. It is elicited and admitted by PW-1 that the Nageshwar Rao died on 29.06.2017. After death of her husband Nageshwar Rao, the

Nagamani was resided in Madhavanagar village till her death. It is elicited that the defendant No.3 performed the funerals and last rites of the deceased Nagamani. It is elicited by PW-1 that when he went to perform the funerals the defendant No.3

FAC: V-ADJ.

14/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 prevented him. He further denied that he never visited the dead body of the deceased Nagamani, but he is deposing false.

It is elicited that except PW-1 no other plaintiffs attended the dead body of the deceased Nagamani and her funerals. He says that at the time of Covid-19 is prevailing. He further admitted that the Nagamani succumbed to death with the effect of

Corona. PW-1 denied that the defendant No.3 paid the hospital bill for the treatment of deceased Nagamani. He further denied that after death of her husband, the Nagamani brought the defendant No.1 from Hyderabad to her home to live along with her. All the properties are self acquired properties of Nageshwar

Rao, H/o Nagamani. He denied that the Nageshwar Rao died with a debt of Rs.3,00,000/-, and his wife Nagamani sold a house with door No.2-19 of Dharmaram village and cleared the said Rs.3,00,000/- debt. He has not filed any document to show that the Nagamani sold the said house for an amount of Rs.69

Lakhs and with that amount she has purchased the B-schedule properties in the name of herself, D1, D3 and D4. He further stated that he do not know whether he payed the Court fee for

A-schedule properties on its valuation. He further stated that his counsel looking after the issue. It is admitted by PW-1 that all the documents related to the suit schedule properties are in possession of defendant No.1. PW1 does not know whether the

FAC: V-ADJ.

15/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 deceased Nagamani during her life time on 23.01.2021 executed a Will in presence of witness, bequeathing all her properties in favour of defendant No.1. He further admitted that issued a legal notice/Ex.A9 to the defendants and D1, D3 and D4 gave reply claiming that the properties of Nagamani under a Will dt: 23.01.2021. He further denied that they have no rights over the properties of deceased Nagamani, but filed a false suit and harassing the defendants.

c)PW2 filed his chief during the cross examination it is elicited that his marriage was held in 1993. After his marriage, he visited the deceased Kollipara Nageshwar Rao and his wife Nagamani. The Nageshwar Rao and his wife used to take his advice to purchase the properties. The Nageshwar Rao and his wife had one house, Kubota servicing center, cattle shed, two plots near Cancer hospital, Nizamabad, one house at

Dharmaram village. After demise of Nageshwar Rao, Nagamani sold the house at Dharmaram village and purchased 9 acres of land at Ootpally shivar with the said sale consideration. It is elicited that he do not know the plot numbers, its extents and survey numbers. It is elicited that PW-2 is not an attestor of sale deed for 9 acres purchased by Nagamani, so also one

Raavi Uday Chowdary was also not present at the time of registration of the said land. It is denied by PW-2 that he do not

FAC: V-ADJ.

16/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 know anything about the properties of Nageshwar Rao and

Nagamani and the arrangement made by the Nagamani for disposal of her properties after her death but he is giving false evidence to help the Pw1.

d)PW3 filed his chief and during the cross examination it is elicited that he is not related neither to plaintiffs nor to defendants. He is not a neighbour to the deceased Kollipara Nageshwar Rao and Nagamani at any point of time. The deceased Nageshwar never purchased any property through him. He further stated that one property sold through him for an amount of Rs.3,000/- in the year 2013 or 2014. The deceased Nagamani did not purchase or sold any property through him. The deceased Nagamani sold one house to Sambaiah for an amount of Rs.69 Lakhs and registered the same on Government value. He further stated that he was present at the time of purchasing of Ac.9-00 of land in Ootpally

(v) by deceased Nagamani and he is not attested any those documents. He further denied that he do not know any thing as to the sale transaction by the deceased Nageshwar Rao and

Nagamani but as he is an agent/broker of properties, he is giving false evidence at the instance of Pw.1.

e)During the Cross examination of PW-4 it is elicited that he is working as a Project Director in MEPMA., Nizamabad.

FAC: V-ADJ.

17/39O.S. No.05 of 2023

As per the directions of this Court, he brought Register relating to the resolutions book by Sree Sai self help group, which was started on 18.10.1997. The register relating to the period of

April, 2019 to April, 2024. He further elicited that originally, the records are all with the self help group people only i.e., with the first leader. Since, he received the summons from this Court, he secured the record from the group and produced before this

Court. As per the record Smt. Kollipera Nagamani was first leader of the group and it bears the signatures of the leaders and members of the group. Smt. Kollipera Nagamani is the first leader her signatures available in the record from 05.04.2019 to 04.09.2020. Ex.A32 is Monthly Resolutions Register. During the cross examination of PW4 it is elicited that he has does not have personal acquaintance with the signatures of the leaders and members of the self help group.

f)PW5 deposed that in support of his deposition

before this Court he is relying on the following document:

Ex.A33 is Report/ opinion dated: 18.02.2025 issued by Assistant

Director TGFSL., Hyderabad. Two sheets of bill containing questioned signature marked. He further stated that he is working as a Assistant Director, TGFSL., Hyderabad from June 2022 to till date. As per the directions of this Court, he brought compared questioned signature marked due to Q1 and Q2 with

FAC: V-ADJ.

18/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 the standard signatures marked S1 to S19 by using magnifiers stereo microscope and video spectral comparator basing on the above examination he gave opinion as follows: "The person who wrote the enclosed signatures marked S1 to S19 did not write the enclosed signatures marked Q1 and Q2. The above opinion was approved and forwarded by Joint Director TGFSL.,

Hyderabad".

g)During the cross examination he stated that in most of the cases he deposed in the similar report and issued in the same format as in Ex.A33. He admitted that, he did not mentioned about his profile in his report/Ex.A33. He stated that he do not have Letter of advise received from the Court. He stated that, there is forwarding letter from the Court to compare the questioned signatures. He issued report based on

Ex.A33 questioned signatures not on admitted signatures. As per Ex.A32 in the second para it is mentioned disputed signature of K. Nagamani and Ex.A32/ Register for comparing signatures on Ex.B1 Will. It is mentioned in Ex.A32 as admitted signatures of K. Nagamani. He further denied that Ex.B10 is admitted signatures where as all other signatures are disputed signatures. He admitted that he was Ex.B1 along with Ex.B10 and Ex A32 where sent to FSL., to find whether signature on

Ex.B1 and other signatures on Ex.B10 and Ex.A32 are affixed by

FAC: V-ADJ.

19/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 same person or not. He admitted that, he marked the signature on Ex.B10 as admitted signature. He admitted that, the signatures in Ex.A32 i.e., S2 to S19 where marked as admitted signatures. He came to know about the signatures in Ex.B10 and Ex.A32 as admitted signatures through Hon'ble Court vide order Dis.No.56 of 2025, dated 20.01.2025 from V-ADJ., Bodhan to director TSFSL., Hyderabad and the same is marked as

Ex.C1. As per the Ex.C1 his opinion is that the signatures in

Ex.A32 are admitted signatures and marked the same S2 to

S19. He further denied that, the signature on Ex.B10 is identical to the signature in Ex.A32, compared with 59. He denied that, the signature in S1 and S9 are not identical, but similar and written by one and the same person. He further denied that, the signature in S1 and S9 are not similar in compared with

Ex.B10. He further denied that, the signatures in S2 to S19 are not similar. He denied that, the signatures in S2 to 519 are put by different persons. Admitted signatures are related to 14.08.2019, Ex.A32 where as disputed signature in Ex.B1 are on 23.01.2021. The signatures in Ex.A32 are on dated 05.04.2019 and 04.09.2020. He further admitted that, there are slight deviations in the signatures of persons who can only write the name as signature. He admitted that, there are variations in standard writings S1 to S19. The signatures in Q1

FAC: V-ADJ.

20/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 and Q2 are entirely different and there is lot off difference. He do not know the success rate of his report. He admitted that, expert opinion is conclusive proof and only corroborative evidence. He admitted that, he have not furnished superimpose photographs of standard signatures with disputed signature

before this Court. He further stated that, no thumb impressions

where produce for comparison. He stated that it is not the general procedure to produced comparative charge of disputed signature with admitted signatures. He do not know whether the same procedure is adopted by other Labs. He further denied that, superimpose photographs, comparative charge of disputed signatures and admitted and relevant variation on marked documents to be produced before this Court and that he is deposing false. He further denied that, his testimony is not in accordance with the Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act.

7. a)DW.1, who field his examination in chief in the form of an affidavit by reiterating the contents of their written statement in a nutshell and marked Exs.B1 to Exs.B10 i.e.,

Ex.B1 is Will, dated 23.01.2021, Ex.B2 is Registered Sale Deed,

Doc.No.2667/1993, dated 04.06.1993, Ex.B3 is Registered Sale

Deed, Doc. No.2873/2012, dated 14.03.2012, Ex.B4 is

Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.3607/2012, dated 29.03.2012,

Ex.B5 is Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.3606/2012, dated

FAC: V-ADJ.

21/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 29.03.2012, Ex.B6 is Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.707/2019,

dated 18.01.2019, Ex.B7 is Registered Sale Deed

Doc.No.9753/2019, dated 16.08.2019, Ex.B8 is Patta Pass Book, bearing No.T11040371061, Ex.B9 is Patta Pass Book bearing

No.T11040371024 and Ex.B10 is Registered Sale Deed

Doc.No.9428/2019, dated 14.08.2019. It is seen that Dw.1 also cross examined by Advocate. During cross, he admitted that the Sale Deed was executed in favour of K. Sasi Kumar on 22.01.2019. He admitted that the lands purchased by the

Nagamani on 17.08.2019, vide Registered Documents/ Ex.B8 to

B10. The Ex.B10 contains the signature of K. Nagamani, besides her digital photographs and thumb impression. He admitted that there is a difference in the signature of Nagamani on Ex.B10 from her signature on Ex.B1. He stated that

Nagamani alone put her signature. He further stated that he have no objection to send the Ex.B1 and B10 to the expert opinion to know, whether the signature on Ex.B1 is of true signature of Nagamani or not. He admitted that himself and his father sold the house with D.No.3-115/17, to Bandela Prameela.

He further stated that the DWs.2 to DWs.4 are his villagers. The

D3 is his father and working as Chairman of PACS.,

Madhavanagar village. He stated that he received legal notice/

Ex.A19 and gave reply/ Ex.A20.

FAC: V-ADJ.

22/39O.S. No.05 of 2023

b)DW.1, who field his examination in chief in the form of an affidavit by reiterating the contents of their written statement that the D1, D3 and himself are belongs to same village. His house is situate at a distance of 400 meters, to the house of Nagamani. He further admitted that on 23.01.2021, the Nagamani was bed ridden. On the request of Nagamani, he took the papers to her for execution of Will. On narration of

Nagamani by sitting on bed. He scribed the Will/ Ex.BG1.

Except Nagamani no body present at her by the time, he reached her. The Will was scribed on arrival of DWs.3 and 4/

Pramod Kumar and Srinivas Rao to the Nagamani. He took half an hour to scribe the Will/ Ex.B1. He further stated that he is not familiar with the signature of Nagamani. The properties mentioned in the Will/ Ex.B1 are all in the name of Nagamani.

On the narration of Nagamani only, he scribed/ drafted the Will/

Ex.B1.

c)DW.3, who field his examination in chief in the form of an affidavit by reiterating the contents of their written statement he stated that in the year, 2021 about 3 or 4 months prior to death of Nagamani, she called him to her home.

Between 10 and 11 a.m., he went to the house of Nagamani on 23.01.2021. By the time he reached the Nagamani, the DW2 was present at her. A document was scribed by the DW2, and it

FAC: V-ADJ.

23/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 took about 1 hour. He was present until completion of the document. The DW2 read over the contents of the document.

At first the Nagamani put her signature on the document, then himself and another/ Srinivas Rao put their signatures on it. He could identify the signature of the Nagamani. The signature on

Ex.B10 is of Nagamani. The signature on Ex.B1 is also belongs to Nagamani. He further denied all the averment of his cross examination.

d)DW.4, who field his examination in chief in the form of an affidavit by reiterating the contents of their written statement he stated that he is neighbour of late Nagamani. The

DWs1 to 3 and D3, are his villagers. Nagamani called him to her home by the time she was bed ridden. By the time he reached

Nagamani the DWs2 and 3 were present at he. On the narration of Nagamani the DW2, scribed the Will/ Ex.B1. Half an hour time taken for scribing the Will. First the DW3 put his signature on the Will, then himself put his signature on it. By attesting the

Will, he went away from the house of Nagamani.

8.The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs relied on the following decisions:The learned counsel for the Plaintiff argued that suit for declaration is filed along with recovery of possession and argued that Plaintiffs are Legal Representatives of the deceased Kollipara Nagamani he is inherited the

FAC: V-ADJ.

24/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 schedule A and B suit properties from her deceased husband.

Schedule A properties consists fo 3 houses and 3 plots situated at Madhava Nagar Pangra Oatpally village. Schedule B properties Ac 9,00 guntas. It is argued that the plaintiffs are class I heirs. The Kollipara Nageshwar Rao husband of

Nagamani died on 26.09.2017 during her life time she executed a will deed bequeathing the schedule A and B properties in the name of Defendant No.1. It is alleged that Ac 5 Acres in kept in the name of Defendant No.3 and 1.24 guntas in the name of

Defendant No.4 and the remaining extent of land in the name of the deceased Nagamani. It is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the house property in schedule A taken on lease by D1 to D4 and not vacated the premises. The plaintiffs got issued notice through their counsel deceased Nagamani executed a will deed on 23-01-2021 as per Ex B1 unregistered will deed. DW-2 is a Scribe DW3 and DW4 are the attesting witness of will deed. Admittedly the deceased Nagamani was bedridden. The Alleged will deed is executed in the name of the brother’s son Ex B-1. All the properties stands in the name of the deceased. PW1 is the plaintiff No3 in this case Even as per the Evidence of PW2 who is witness to transaction between deceased Nagamani. PW-3 is another witness to the transaction of purchase of agriculture land by the deceased. Admittedly the

FAC: V-ADJ.

25/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 will Deed is unregistered will.

Before delving into the facts of the case, it is pertinent to

reproduce the relevant provisions dealing with the validity and execution of the Will.

“Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925

Execution of unprivileged wills Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare,or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:

(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.

(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will.

(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.

Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act 1872

Proof of Execution of document required by law to be attested If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence:

FAC: V-ADJ.

26/39O.S. No.05 of 2023

9.Thus, a bare reading of the above mentioned provisions would show that the requirements enshrined under Section 63 of the Succession Act have to be categorically complied with for the execution of the Will to be proven in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

10.A Will is an instrument of testamentary disposition of property. It is a legally acknowledged mode of bequeathing a testator’s property during his lifetime to be acted upon on his/her death and carries with it an element of sanctity. It speaks from the death of the testator. Since the testator/testatrix, at the time of testing the document for its validity, would not be available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the Will came to be executed, stringent requisites for the proof thereof have been statutorily enjoined to rule out the possibility of any manipulation.

11.Relying on "H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.

Thimmajamma, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426 (3Judge Bench),

Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur", (1994) 5 SCC 135 (3Judge

Bench), "Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91 (2 Judge Bench)" Yumnam Ongbi Tampha

Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh, (2009) 4 SCC 780 (3Judge Bench) and Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11

SCC 277 (3Judge Bench), we can deduce/infer the following principles required for proving the validity and execution of the

Will:

FAC: V-ADJ.

27/39O.S. No.05 of 2023

The Court has to consider two aspects: firstly, that the

Will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last Will executed by him; ii. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the pruden mind has to be applied.

iii. A Will is required to fulfill all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act, that is to say:

(a) The testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and the said signature or affixation shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a Will;

(b) It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is necessary;

(c) Each of the attesting witnesses must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of such signatures;

(d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, however, the presence of all witnesses at the same time is not required;

FAC: V-ADJ.

28/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 iv. For the purpose of proving the execution of the Will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject to the process of court, and capable of giving evidence, shall be examined; v. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator’s signatures but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator; vi. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the

Will, the examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with; vii. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the

Will fails to prove its due execution, then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence; viii. Whenever there exists any suspicion as to the execution of the Will, it is the responsibility of the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be accepted as the testator's last Will. In such cases, the initial onus on the propounder becomes heavier.

ix. The test of judicial conscience has been evolved for dealing with those cases where the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It requires to consider factors such as awareness of the testator as to the content as well as the consequences, nature and effect of the dispositions

FAC: V-ADJ.

29/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 in the Will; sound, certain and disposing state of mind and memory of the testator at the time of execution; testator executed the Will while acting on his own free Will; x. One who alleges fraud, fabrication, undue influence etc., has to prove the same. However, even in the absence of such allegations, if there are circumstances giving rise to doubt, then it becomes the duty of the propounder to dispel such suspicious circumstances by giving a cogent and convincing explanation. Suspicious circumstances must be ‘real, germane and valid’ and not merely ‘the fantasy of the doubting mind’ Whether a particular feature would qualify as ‘suspicious’ would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Any circumstance raising suspicion legitimate in nature would qualify as a suspicious circumstance for example, a shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the Will under which he receives a substantial benefit, etc.

In short, apart from statutory compliance, broadly it has to be proved that (a) the testator signed the Will out of his own free Will, (b) at the time of execution he had a sound state of mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d) the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances.

FAC: V-ADJ.

30/39O.S. No.05 of 2023

12.Coming to the facts of the case, a careful perusal of the relevant material on record and applying the provisions and the case laws it is evident that the Will was duly executed by the testator in the presence of witnesses out of his free Will in a sound disposing state of mind and the same stands proven through the testimony of the attesting witnesses, namely,

Mummaneni Venkateshwar Rao who was examined as DW2 by this Court. This witness categorically states that the testator executed the Will in question and, both he and the testator signed the Will in the presence of each other.

13. As far as allegations made by the Plaintiffs are concerned,we are of the opinion that there is no evidence on record to conclude that the deceased was not in a fit or stable mental condition at the time of execution of a Will, or that a Will was executed under suspicious circumstances, or the presence of any element of undue influence.

To prove an unregistered will in Court (under the Indian

Succession Act), you must show the will was properly executed by the testator and properly attested by at least two witnesses, with at least one witness giving testimony to that effect. While an unregistered will is legally valid, it must be presented to the

Court with evidence to overcome suspicion about its

FAC: V-ADJ.

31/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 authenticity, such as witness testimonies, proof of the testator's handwriting, and circumstances showing their intent.

In the present case on hand before this Court DW2 is

Scribe and DW3/Veeramachineni Pramod Kumar and

DW4/Kongara Srinivas Rao are attestors of will deed the defendants successfully proved the genuineness of Will Deed and disproved the claim of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

The evidence of PW-5/K/Vijayagoud who is expert from the

TSFSL., Hyderabad deposed the person who wrote the enclosed signatures marked S1 to S19 did not write the enclosed signatures marked in Q1 and Q2. The above opinion is approved by the Joint

Director TGFSL., Hyderabad. As per ExC1 the signatures in Ex A-32 are admitted signatures and marked and S1 to S19 and it is denied that signature on Ex.B-10 is identical to the signature in

Ex.A-32. It is denied that the Signature in S1 and S9 are not identical, but similar and written by one and the same person. It is admitted by PW5 that there are variations in standard writings S1 to S-19. The Signature in Q1 and Q2 are entirely different and there is lot of difference. It is admitted that the expert opinion in not conclusive proof and only corroborative evidence.

FAC: V-ADJ.

32/39O.S. No.05 of 2023

In this case there is a conflict with the evidence of

PW-5/K.Vijaya Goud, expert Report, Ex-C1 and the evidence of

DW2 to Dw4who deposed that the Testator signed the will as in Ex

B-1.

In such a scenario, the court would likely give greater weight to the testimony of the scribe/DW2 and the two attesting witnesses DW3 and DW4 and their evidence is credible and consistent with other circumstances, as it directly attests to the act of the testator signing the document, while an expert's opinion, though significant, can be inconclusive or overridden by positive and specific oral evidence. However, the court has the discretion to weigh all evidence, including the expert's opinion on the signature's validity, the consistency of the witnesses' accounts, and any suspicious circumstances surrounding the will's execution.

Factors the Court Considers  Direct vs. Indirect Evidence:

The attesting witnesses DW-3 and DW4 and the scribe was examined as DW-2 provide direct evidence of the act of execution of will by the Testator, which is crucial for proving a will's validity under the Indian Succession Act. The expert's opinion is indirect, focusing on the physical characteristics of the signature.  Credibility and Consistency:

The Court will assess the truthfulness and consistency of the attesting witnesses and the scribe. If their testimony is clear,

FAC: V-ADJ.

33/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 consistent, and free from suspicious circumstances, it will likely prevail.

 Expert's Opinion's Strength:

While an expert's opinion can be very persuasive, its weight depends on the strength and conclusiveness of their findings. If the expert's evidence is inconclusive, such as in cases of tremors or aging, the court may not give it as much weight as positive testimony from eyewitnesses.

 Circumstantial Evidence: The Court may also consider other circumstantial evidence to support or contradict the witnesses' claims.

 Suspicious Circumstances:

If there are other suspicious circumstances surrounding the will, the court's scrutiny will be heightened, and the burden will be on the propounder to resolve these doubts. Conclusion

The Court will not automatically favor one type of evidence over the other. It must evaluate the entirety of the evidence presented, giving due consideration to the credibility and reliability of the attesting witnesses and scribe, as well as the conclusive nature of the expert's findings. If the attesting witnesses provide clear and convincing evidence of the testator's signature, their testimony may well prevail over a doubtful expert opinion, especially if there are no other evidence.

It is brought before this court during the course of argument by the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs that the plaintiff are not the Class-I heirs of the deceased Nagamani.

Issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiffs and determined accordingly.

ISSUE NO.2 :-

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that they are owners of A, B suit schedule properties are recovery of its possession, and consequent direction to the Tahasildar, Bodhan to incorporate their makes and issue pass book (digital)? and

FAC: V-ADJ.

34/39O.S. No.05 of 2023

14.In view of the findings while deciding Issue No.1, it is answered against the plaintiffs and admitted as per the admission of the counsel after conclusion of the arguments when the case is posted for the Judgment the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed IA No.312 of 2025 in OS.No.5 of 2023 in the

CFR vide No.889 dated 15/09/2025 to amend the pleadings to delete Class I heirs in the first line of the Para No 7 of the plaint and also permit them to delete the word”True Class I legal heirs from the 8 line of Para 7 and permit the plaintiff/petitioner to add the word Class-2 heirs. This Court dismissed the same as it is filed at a belated stage vide separate order. It is evident that the plaintiff approached this court with unclean hands. As such the plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration that they are owners of A, B suit schedule properties are recovery of its possession, and consequent direction to the Tahasildar, Bodhan to incorporate their makes and issue pass book (digital)? Issue

No.2 is against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants determined accordingly.

ISSUE NO.3 :-

15.In view of the findings given while deciding Issue No.1 and 2, since the plaintiff failed to establish that they are the

Class I heirs of the deceased Nagamani and failed to disprove

FAC: V-ADJ.

35/39O.S. No.05 of 2023 the will executed by the Testator in favour of Defendant No.1 and failed to establish before this court Issue No.3 is answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants determined accordingly.

16. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs. All miscellaneous petition pending if any, stands closed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of September, 2025.

Sd/-

FAC: V-Additional District Judge, Bodhan.

:: Appendix of Evidence :: Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant:

PW1:Kollipara Murali Krishna.DW1:Dasari Phani Krishna PW2:Raavi Harinath.DW2:Mummaneni Venkateshwar Rao PW3:Parvathaneni Srinivas Rao. DW3:Veeramachineni Pramod Kumar. PW4:G. Rajender.DW4:Kongara Srinivas Rao. PW5:K. Vijaya Goud.

:: Exhibits Marked for :Plaintiff ::

Ex.A1:Death Certificate of Kollipara Nageshwar Rao, dated 30.11.2022. Ex.A2: Death Certificate of Kollipara Nagamani, dated 01.07.2021. Ex.A3: Certified copy of Sale Deed No.2491/14 old 14.03.2014of H.No.3-115/A, dated 17.02.2022. Ex.A4: Certified copy of Sale Deed No.2873/2012 old 14.03.2012 of H.No.2-72.

FAC: V-ADJ.

36/39O.S. No.05 of 2023

Ex.A5: Certified copy of Sale Deed No.3492/12 old 29.03.2012 of Plot No.37 and 38. Ex.A6 : Certified copy of Sale Deed No.3493/12 of Plot No.10,

dated 29.03.2012.

Ex.A7: Certified copy of (3) Adangal Pahani for the year 2019- 20. Ex.A8: Certified copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/2, dated 05.06.2021. Ex.A9: Certified copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/1. Ex.A10 : Certified copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/3. Ex.A11 : Certified copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/8. Ex.A12 : Certified copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/10. Ex.A13 : Certified copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/4. Ex.A14 : Certified copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/5. Ex.A15 : Certified copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/6. Ex.A16 : Certified copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/7.

Ex.A17 : Certified copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/9. Ex.A18 : Certified copy of Pahani obtained from Dharani Portal of Sy. No.1141/4. Ex.A19 : Certified copy of Legal Notice, dated 18.06.2021. Ex.A20 : Reply notice issued by Counsel for D1, D3, D4, dated 24.06.2021. Ex.A21 : Special Power of Attorney, dated 05.01.2024 (marked subject to objection for registration). Ex.A22 : MCN Intimation, dated 25.06.2024. Ex.A23 : Municipal Administration Circular, dated 19.12.2019. Ex.A24 : Property Tax details PTIN No.1046800776. Ex.A25 : MCN Intimation, dated 25.06.2024.

FAC: V-ADJ.

37/39O.S. No.05 of 2023

Ex.A26 : Property Tax details PTIN No.1046800806. Ex.A27 : Municipal Administration Circular, dated 19.12.2019. Ex.A28 : MCN Intimation, dated 25.06.2024. Ex.A29 : Property Tax details PTIN No.1046801117. Ex.A30 : Municipal Administration Circular, dated 19.12.2019. Ex.A31 : Certified copy of Sale Deed Doc.No.3686/2011, dated 05.09.2011. Ex.A32 : Monthly Resolutions Register. Ex.A33 : Report/ Opinion, dated 18.02.2025 issued by Assistant Director TGFSL., Hyderabad. Two sheets of bill containing questioned signature marked.

Ex.C1: From V-ADJ., Bodhan to Director TSFSL., Hyderabad.

:: Exhibits Marked for Defendants ::

Ex.B1: Will, dated 23.01.2021. Ex.B2:Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.2667/1993, dated 04.06.1993. Ex.B3:Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.2873/2012, dated 14.03.2012. Ex.B4:Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.3607/2012, dated 29.03.2012. Ex.B5:Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.3606/2012, dated 29.03.2012. Ex.B6:Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.707/2019, dated 18.01.2019. Ex.B7:Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.9753/2019, dated 16.08.2019. Ex.B8:Patta Pass Book b earing No.T11040371061. Ex.B9:Patta Pass Book bearing No.T11040371024. Ex.B10 :Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.9428/2019, dated 14.08.2019.

Sd/-

FAC: V-Additional District Judge, Bodhan.

FAC: V-ADJ.

1/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF V-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BODHAN.

Present:- Sri. T. Srinivas,

Special Judge for Trial cases SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum-

II-Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: V-Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Dated this the 6th day of November, 2025

A.S. No.06 of 2022

Between: Shaik Yousuf S/o. Shaik Ahmed, Aged 67 years, Occ: Fruit Vendor, R/o. Gouse Nagar, Bodhan Town of Nizamabad District.

.. Appellant.

AND

Ramesh Kumar Agarwal S/o. Haricharan Agarwal, Aged: 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-1651/3, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad, died on 23.06.2012, his L.Rs., brought on record in the Suit of Lower Court O.S.No.64 of 2011.

1. Shantha Devi Agarwal W/o. Late Ramesh Agarwal, aged 65 years, Occ: Household.

2. Sharad Agarwal S/o. Late Ramesh Agarwal, aged 45 years, Occ: Business.

3. Komal Agarwal W/o. Rajesh Agarwal, aged 44 years, Occ: Household.

4. Krish Agarwal S/o. Late Ramesh Agarwal, aged 42 years, Occ: Business.

5. Amrish Agarwal S/o. Late Ramesh Agarwal, aged 40 years, Occ: Household. All R/o. Flat No.301, S.S., Nest Apartments, H.No.1-1651/3, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad.

.. Respondents.

[Appeal U/Sec.96 R/w. Or.41 Rule (1) of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.12.2017 in OS No.64 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan]

Between :

Ramesh Kumar Agarwal S/o. Haricharan Agarwal, Aged: 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-1651/3, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad, died on 23.06.2012, his L.Rs., brought on record in the Suit of Lower Court O.S.No.64 of 2011.

FAC: V ADJ.

2/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022

1. Shantha Devi Agarwal W/o. Late Ramesh Agarwal, aged 65 years, Occ: Household.

2. Sharad Agarwal S/o. Late Ramesh Agarwal, aged 45 years, Occ: Business.

3. Komal Agarwal W/o. Rajesh Agarwal, aged 44 years, Occ: Household.

4. Krish Agarwal S/o. Late RameshAgarwal, aged 42 years, Occ: Business.

5. Amrish Agarwal S/o. Late Ramesh Agarwal, aged 40 years, Occ: Household. All R/o. Flat No.301, S.S., Nest Apartments, H.No.1-1651/3, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad.

..Plaintiffs.

V/s.

Shaik Yousuf S/o. Shaik Ahmed, aged 60 years, Occ: Fruit Vendor, R/o. Gouse Nagar, Bodhan Town of Nizamabad District.

.. Defendant.

This Appeal coming on before me today for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri V. Sangam, Advocate for the Appellant/Defendant and of Sri G. Shyam Rao, Advocate for the Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The appellant preferred this appeal against the respondents

U/Sec.96 R/w. Or.41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Bodhan, dated 26.12.2017 in O.S. No.64 of 2011 thereby decreed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant.

2.For the better convenience and understanding the parties herein shall be arrayed as is he was before the Trial Court.

a) The plaint averments before the Trial Court are that for the sake of convenience the parties are referred as they are arranged in Trial Court. The appellant is the defendant in lower

FAC: V ADJ.

3/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022

Court, the respondents are the plaintiffs in lower Court. That the claim of the plaintiffs that they are owners of the suit schedule property and the defendant is their tenant and the suit filed for eviction to the defendant from suit schedule property, as he defaulter and the plaintiffs need for their personal need. That there were exchanges of the Legal Notices between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that they terminated the tenancy between the plaintiffs and the defendant and the defendant has to vacate the suit premises and thus he is in illegal and un authorized occupation of the suit schedule property.

b)The claim of the defendant that he is not defaulter of the rents and there is no any need to the plaintiffs for their personal need and already an advance deposit amount of

Rs.30,000/- is with the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 who was died during pendentilite of the suit was died and his L.Rs., the plaintiff

Nos.2 to 6 brought on record, and during the life time of the plaintiff No.1 orally extended the lease for more five years just prior to filing of the eviction suit and the defendant possession of the suit property is not illegal and the plaintiff cannot evict the defendant. The defendant is a small Banana business man, his entire family depend on it, his earnings are hands to mouth to maintain his big family, old aged parents depend on him, and he prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs.

3.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues for trial.

i) Whether the plaintiff is owner and landlord of the suit schedule property?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant from suit schedule property?

FAC: V ADJ.

4/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022 iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears?

iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages?

v) To what relief?

4.That after commencement of the trial the plaintiffs examined one Sharad Agarwal who is Plaintiff No.2 as PW1 and got mark the documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. The defendant himself examined as DW1 and no any documents filed on his behalf. Then the lower Court come to wrong conclusion and passed the

Judgment and Decree against the defendant with costs, hence, the defendant preferred the appeal on the following grounds:

5.It is seen that on behalf of the plaintiff No.2 as PW.1 is examined and marked Exs.A1 to A6 and on behalf of defendants,

DW1 is examined and no documents are marked.

6.It is seen that after completion of trial and after hearing both the parties, the learned Trial Court Judge was pleased to decreed partly with costs directing the defendant to evict and to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property with in one month from the date of this Judgment. The defendant further directed to pay arrears of monthly rent of Rs.1,200/- for the period from 15.04.2010 to 14.03.2011 and subsequently till the date of vacating the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within one month. The defendant also directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- per month to the plaintiff towards unauthorized occupation and possession of the suit schedule property from 15.03.2011 till the day of delivery of possession to the plaintiff, aggrieved by which, the appellants/defendants filed this appeal on the following grounds.

FAC: V ADJ.

5/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022

1. That the Court below erred in properly appreciating the legal evidence on record and arrived at wrong conclusion with result in miscarriage of justice.

2. The Lower Court below erred in appreciating the evidence of the appellant.

3. The Lower Court below erred the cross examination of the appellant to the PW1.

4. That the Court below erred that the lease agreement between the Plaintiff No.1 and the defendant, but the Plaintiff No.1 died on 23.06.2012 during the pendentilite of the suit and his L.Rs., brought on record and they do not have personal knowledge of the lease agreement between the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant, but the Plaintiff No.3 shared Agarwal examined as PW1, basing on the contents of the plaint. The plaintiff did not file any document to prove their ownership of the suit property .

5. That the Court below erred that the Plaintiffs stated they are at Hyderabad and they did not shown to that they need the suit property for their personal need.

7.On receipt of notice, respondents made appearance through their Counsel and contested the appeal.

8.Heard the appellants and respondents Counsel.

9.Now the points for determination are

i)Whether the Respondent/plaintiff is owner and landlord of the suit schedule property?

ii)Whether the Respondent/plaintiff is entitled for eviction of Appellant/defendant from suit schedule property?

iii)Whether the Respondent/plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears?

iv)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages?

FAC: V ADJ.

6/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022

v)Whether the Decree passed by the Trial Court in

O.S.No.64 of 2011, dated 20.12.2017 in is suffering

with any lacuna, infirmity or any miscarriage of justice?

vi)Whether the Judgment and decree passed O.S. No.64 of 2011, dated 20.12.2017 is liable to be varied, set aside or modified or confirmed?

vii) To what extent?

POINT No.1 to 4:- 10.Perused the Judgment and decree in O.S. No.64 of 2011,

dated 20.12.2017. The suit is filed for set aside the decree and

Judgment of O.S. No.64 of 2011, dated 20.12.2017 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan as dismissed the suit of

the Plaintiff in lower Court with costs in the ends of justice and equity.

11.I perused the documents Ex A1 to A6 Ex A1 Unregistered lease agreement dated 31.03.2013, Ex.A-2, Office copy of legal notice dated 22.02.2021 Ex A-3, Postal Receipt Dated 22.02.2011,

Ex A-4 Postal Acknowledgment, Ex.A-5, Reply Notice by Defendant

dated 03.03.2011, Ex.A-6, certified copy of the judgment and

decree in O.S. No.50 of 2010 Court cannot admit it in evidence, as pertheJudgmentinthe case of Anthony (supra). A coordinate Bench in the case of

Shyam Narayan Prasad -vs- V. Krishna Prasad and Ors. [(2018) 7 SCC 646] has re-affirmed this view, referring to Section 49 of the Registration Act. This is a prohibition for the Court to implement and even if the Trial Court has taken it in evidence, the same cannot confer legitimacy to that document for being taken as evidence at the appellate stage. The parties cannot by implied consent confer upon such document its admissibility. It

FAC: V ADJ.

7/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022 is not in dispute in this case that the period between service of notice and institution of the suit fell short by four days of completion of six months. In any case, we do not consider it necessary to address this question as in our opinion, the requirement to give six months’ notice does not arise in this case.

That point has not been raised before them.

12. The fault line in the defendant’s case also lies on the point as to whether the lease was for manufacturing purpose or not, 17which was examined by the High Court and decided against the appellant. The defendant tried to establish from the clause of the lease agreement, statement made in the plaint as also his evidence before the Trial Court that the lease was for manufacturing purpose. All these materials no doubt point to the fact that the lease was given for commercial purpose (as pleaded in the plaint). In cross-examination, DW-1 had stated that he was doing business of rubber. In the case of

G. Mackertich -vs- Steuart and Co. Ltd. [(1971) 3 SCC 39], it has been held that burden of proving that the lease was for manufacturing purpose lies on the party who claims it to be so.

In the present appeal, it would have been for the defendant (appellant before us) to discharge this burden, as held by the

High Court. In the case of Shivaji Balaram Haibatti -vs-

Avinash Maruthi Pawar [(2018) 11 SCC 652] as also in a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Messers Shree

Nursing Timber Works and Messers. Shree Nursing Electric 18 Stores -vs- Sm. Amala Bala Dassi [1973 CWN 522], it has been held that on this ground, there must be pleading supported by evidence to prove that the lease was for manufacturing purpose.

12. On behalf of the appellant, however, it was urged, referring

FAC: V ADJ.

8/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022 to the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act that for establishing nature and purpose of possession, even an unregistered document could be looked into as that would come within the ambit of collateral purpose. On this point, judgment of this Court in the case of Sevoke Properties Ltd. -vs- West

Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited [(2020) 11 SCC 782] has been relied upon. In the case of Sevoke

Properties (supra) a coordinate Bench opined that as the agreement for lease in that case was unregistered, contents of the instrument were inadmissible in evidence. There was admission in the written statement of respondent in the case of Sevoke

Properties (supra) by the defendants that they were in 19 occupation under the lease agreement (in controversy in that case) for a period of fifteen years with effect from 1981 and that period of lease had expired on 24.05.1996. The issue decided in that case was whether the lease stood determined by efflux of time and once it did, what would be the position of the lessee?

The coordinate Bench found that the position of the lessee would be that of a tenant at sufferance. In that context, it was held that there was no necessity to terminate the lease under Section 106 of 1882 Act. That case was decided on the basis of admission in written statement and has no application to the facts of the present case. The observation made in the case of Sevoke

Properties (supra) that only purpose for which the lease can be looked at for assessing nature and character of the possession was in that context and that judgment proceeded on the basis that the period of lease had expired on a certain date. This decision is not an authority for the proposition that nature and character of the possession in an unregistered lease deed could 20always constitute collateral purpose so that the Court could

FAC: V ADJ.

9/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022 examine the deed for that reason. The purpose for which lease is granted forms an integral part of the lease deed in this case and this very issue forms one of the main disputes. The expression “collateral purpose” has been employed in proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act to imply that content of such a document can be used for purpose other than for which it has been executed or entered into by the parties or for a purpose remote to the main transaction. This view was taken by this Court in an earlier decision, in the case of K.B. Saha and Sons Private

Limited -vs- Development Consultant Limited [(2008) 8 SCC 564]. The position of law on this point has been summarized in paragraph 34 (of the report) in this judgment:- “34". From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to here-inabove,itisevidentthat:

1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the

Registration Act. 212. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the provision to Section 49 of the Registration Act.

3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration.

4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees

and

upwards.

FAC: V ADJ.

10/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022

5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose.”

13. In the case of Rai Chand Jain -vs- Miss Chandra Kanta

Khosla [(1991) 1 SCC 422], dispute arose as to whether certain premises were let out for residential purpose or as to whether there was an oral agreement of letting out the premises to the tenant, for running a press. It was in that perspective, it was held in the said case that a lease deed though unregistered, could be considered for collateral purposes to show the purpose for which the premises was leased out. Thus, the lease deed was referred to for the sole purpose to defeat the claim of subsistence of an oral agreement. The ratio of this authority has been considered in the 22case of K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited (supra) and we follow that ratio. In the case of Satish Chand Makhan (supra), another coordinate Bench of this Court declined to accept admissibility of an unregistered lease agreement for determining duration of the lease (9 years in that case) on the reasoning that terms of lease would not constitute collateral purpose. It was observed in this judgment that “nature and character of possession” could constitute collateral purpose but that was not the point which was directly in lis before this Court. In their opinion, nature and character of possession contained in a flawed document (being unregistered) in terms Section 107 of the 1882

Act and Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act can form collateral purpose when the “nature and character of possession” is not the main term of the lease and does not constitute the

FAC: V ADJ.

11/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022 main dispute for adjudication by the Court. In this case, the nature and character of possession constitutes the primary dispute and hence the Court is excluded by law from examining 23the unregistered deed for that purpose. In respect of the suit out of which this appeal arises, purpose of lease is the main lis, not a collateral incident.

14. They, however, need not further dilate on this question. The lease was for use by the predecessor of the appellants “for the purpose of his business and/or factory.” The property was described in the schedule to be estimated 16 cottahs of land “with a factory shed/godown space”. Such description would not be sufficient to establish that the same was for manufacturing purpose. In the decision of this Court in Allenbury Engineers

Pvt. Ltd. -vs- Ramkrishna Dalmia and Others [(1973) 1 SCC 7], the expression ‘manufacturing purpose’ as employed in Section 106 of the 1882 Act was explained to mean:- “8… The expression “manufacturing purposes” in Section 106, thus, means purposes for making or fabricating articles or materials by physical labour, or skill, or by mechanical power, vendible and useful as such. Such making or fabricating does not mean merely a change in an already existing article or material, but transforming it into a different article or material having a distinctive name, character or use or fabricating a previously known article by a novel process.”2415. In Park Street Properties Private

Limited -vs- DipakKumar Singh and Another [(2016) 9 SCC 268], which was cited in the case of Sevoke Properties (supra), it was observed that in the absence of a registered instrument, the

Courts are not precluded from determining the factum of tenancy

FAC: V ADJ.

12/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022 from other evidence on record as well as the purpose of tenancy.

In this case, factum of creation of tenancy has been established.

But the purpose of tenancy, so as to attract the six months’ notice period under Section 106 of the 1882 Act cannot be established by such evidence as in such a situation, registration of the deed would have been mandatory. The onus would be on the defendant to establish the fact that manufacturing activity was being carried on from the demised premises. A mere statement by the DW-1 to which we have referred earlier or the purpose of lease as specified in the lease agreement would not be sufficient to demonstrate the purpose of lease to be for manufacturing. This could be proved by explaining what kind of work was being carried on in the factory 25shed. In such a situation also, the registration of the deed would have been necessary. In absence of such registration, tenancy would have been of “month to month” character. For these reasons, we do not think the High Court erred in law in dismissing the defendant’s appeal. The present appeal shall stand dismissed on the same rationale.

15.There is no need to interfere with the decision of the lower court as it is rightly come to conclusion that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property, therefore, they are declared as owners of the property and the suit against defendants is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

In the present case before the hand of this court they relied on the evidence of the PW-1 who is the son of the

Respondent/plaintiffs in the present suit during the pendency of the suit his father died and subsequently himself and his family members were added as legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff in IA 433 of 2012.

FAC: V ADJ.

13/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022

The Appellant/defendant contended that he has been running the fruit business in the suit schedule property under the name and style of Yousef Fruit Merchant and that the defendant got constructed one tin shed in the suit schedule property with the knowledge of the plaintiff and that the suit schedule mulgi is measuring 15 feet in width and 18 feet in length. It is contend that the defendant that the monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- is commenced form 31.03.2010 to 30.03.2021 for the period of 11 months. It is further contended that the defendant that when the plaintiff herein and other unsocial elements disturbed his possession on 31.05.2010 he instituted a suit vide O.S. No.50 of 2010 on the file of this court for the relief of perpetual injunction. It is contend that the defendant that the plaintiff orally agreed to let out the suit schedule plot for a period for five years and the defendant is entitled to continue in the possession and enjoyment of the same and the Respondent/plaintiff is not entitled for eviction, damaged and recovery of rents, In order to prove the pleadings of the defendants he himself examined as DW1, admittedly, he instituted the suit vide O.S. No.50 of 2010 against the

Respondent/plaintiff for perpetual injunction and the same is dismissed on 18.01.2017 and no appeal is preferred by the

Defendant against the said dismissal of the suit. Defendant further admitted that he is not paying the rents of the suit schedule property. It is further admitted that the schedule property was open place and that no rental receipts was submitted by him.

Admittedly DW1 did not dispute Ex A1 to A6. PW1 also admitted that DW1 is not paying the rents for the last 4 years and the same was elicited during the evidence of the DW-1. The lease

FAC: V ADJ.

14/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022 was not extended by the plaintiff nor his family members to the defendant in respect of suit schedule property.

The legal principle that facts admitted need not be proved is established by Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Case law, explains this rule, which states that facts admitted by the parties or their agents in a proceeding do not require formal proof.

This includes admissions made during a hearing, in writing before a hearing, or through pleadings, though the court can still require proof at its discretion.

Key provisions from Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act  Agreed admission:

Facts are not required to be proved if the parties or their agents agree to admit them at the hearing.  Written admission:

Facts agreed to in writing by the parties or their agents before the hearing are also not required to be proved.

 Admissions by pleading: Facts deemed to have been admitted by the parties through their pleadings, according to the rules in force at that time, do not need to be proved.

 Court's discretion : The court has the discretion to require that even admitted facts be proven by other means.

Case law and examples  Illustration: In a landlord-tenant dispute, if the tenant admits in a written reply that they are the tenant, this admission can be relied upon by the landlord to prove the tenancy without having to adduce further evidence.

 Admissions by counsel: An admission of fact made by a counsel is binding on the client. However, in a criminal case, an admission made by the accused's

FAC: V ADJ.

15/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022 counsel is not a substitute for the prosecution's duty to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 Conclusive vs. non-conclusive proof: While admissions are a strong form of evidence, they may not always be considered conclusive and can sometimes be challenged and proven wrong later, depending on the case.

No evidence is brought on record by the defendant to show that he paid the rents to the plaintiff. Therefore this appellate court holds that the trial Court rightly held that the

Respondent/Plaintiffs are entitled to arrears of monthly rent and also on the ground that the defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit schedule property.

PRAKASH BHALOTIA (D) THR HIS LRS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

INDRA CHANDRA GOYAL (D) THRU. LRS RESPONDENT(S)

ಪರರನ್ನು��ಸಂ�ಪರ್ಕಿ�ಸಿ. ಇನ್ನು� ಷ್ಟು��ತಿಳಿಯಿರಿ

Under the Telangana Rent Control Act, "damages" can refer to two things: substantial damage to the property, which is a ground for eviction, and mesne profits, which are compensation for a tenant's unauthorized use of a property after an eviction decree has been passed. A landlord can seek eviction if a tenant has caused substantial damage that materially impairs the building's value or utility. After an eviction decree, a tenant is liable for mesne profits at a rate equal to what the landlord could have earned by renting the property to someone else. Substantial damage (ground for eviction)  Definition: Damage that "materially impairs the value or utility of the building".

 Proof: The landlord must prove the damage is substantial, not just a minor alteration.  Examples: Evidence might include expert opinions, photographs, or financial assessments of loss.  Outcome: If proven, this can be a valid ground for a landlord to seek eviction of the tenant. 

FAC: V ADJ.

16/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022

Mesne profits (compensation for unauthorized occupation)  When it applies: After an eviction decree is passed, if the tenant continues to occupy the property without authorization.  Calculation: The amount is determined by the market rate the landlord could have earned by renting the property to a new tenant.  Court's role: The court can order the tenant to pay a specific amount of compensation to the landlord.  Example: A court may set a monthly compensation amount for the unauthorized period of occupation, often based on recent rental rates for similar properties.  Section 10(2)(iv) in Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and ... Focus on how the court interpreted "substantial damage." Did it require proof of structural weakening, reduced market value, or so...

 The tenant is liable to pay mesne profit even if he continued to pay the monthly rent after the termination of the lease deed –  in view of the above the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs.5,000/- per month as the defendant committed willful default and did not pay monthly agreed rent form 15.04.2010 to 14.03.2011.

 Point Nos.1 to 4 are answered against the appellant and in favour of the Respondents/plaintiff and point is answered accordingly.

14.In the result, the Appeal suit is dismissed by confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan in O.S. No.64 of 2011, dated 20.12.2017 and needs not interference. All the miscellaneous petitions stands closed.

Typed to my dictation in the open Court on this the 6th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

FAC: V-Additional District Judge, Bodhan.

FAC: V ADJ.

17/17 Shaik Yousuf and Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and others. A.S.06 of 2022 ::Appendix of Evidence:: Witnesses Examined - Nil -

Sd/-

FAC: V-Additional District Judge, Bodhan.

FAC: V ADJ.

1/14 B. Lingam and another V/s. Chand Rakanth and others. A.S.16 of 2010

IN THE COURT OF THE V-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BODHAN.

Present:- Sri. T. Srinivas,

Special Judge for Trial cases SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum-II

Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad,

FAC: V-Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Dated this the 6th day of November, 2025

A.S. No.16 of 2010

Between:

1. B. Lingam S/o. Dev Rao, aged 40 yers, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-13-3, Yedpally village and Mandal of Nizamabad District.

2. Akula Ravinder S/o. Hanmandlu, Age: 45 years, R/o. Manikbhandhar, Makloor Mandal of Nizamabad District.

.. Appellants/ Defendant Nos.5 and 6.

AND

1. Chandrakanth S/o. Rajaiah, Age: 24 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-13-3, Yedpally village and Mandal of Nizamabad District.

2. Kum. Sadguna D/o. Rajaiah, aged 26 years, Occ: Contracted basis job, G.P., Mavandi, R/o. H.No.13-3, Yedpally village and Mandal of Nizamabad District.

3. Kum. Sucharitha D/o. Rajaiah, Age: 22 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.13-3, Yedpally village and Mandal of Nizamabad District.

.. Respondents.

[Appeal U/Or.41 Rule (1) R/w. Sec.96 (1) of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.01.2010 in O.S. No.76 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge Court, Bodhan] Between :

1) Chandrakanth S/o. Rajaiah, Age: 24 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-13-3, Yedpally village and Mandal of Nizamabad District.

2) Kum. Sadguna D/o. Rajaiah, aged 26 years, Occ: Contracted basis job, G.P., Mavandi, R/o. H.No.13-3, Yedpally village and Mandal of Nizamabad District.

3) Kum. Sucharitha D/o. Rajaiah, Age: 22 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.13-3, Yedpally village and Mandal of Nizamabad District.

FAC: V ADJ.

2/14 B. Lingam and another V/s. Chand Rakanth and others. A.S.16 of 2010

..Plaintiffs.

V/s.

1) Vijaya Laxmi W/o. Rajaiah, Age: 62 years, R/o. H.No.13-3, Yedpally.

2) Pushparani W/o. Laxman, Age: 34 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o. Pothangal, Kotgir Mandal.

3) Shobarani W/o. Sailoo, Age: 30 years, R/o. Udmeergally, Bodhan.

4) Om Prakash S/o. Rajaiah, Age; 28 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.13-3, Yedpally, Shankerpally village of Rangareddy District.

5) B. Lingam S/o. Devrao, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Yedpally.

6) Akula Ravinder S/o. Hanmandloo, Age; 45 years, R/o. H.No.2-139, Manikbhandar, Makloor Mandal of Nizamabad District.

.. Defendant.

This Appeal coming on before me today for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M. Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the Appellants/Defendants and of Sri V. Sangam, Advocate for the Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The appellants preferred this appeal against the respondents U/Sec.96 R/w. Or.41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the

Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan, dated 21.01.2010 in O.S. No.76 of 2007 thereby decreed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants.

2.For the better convenience and understanding the parties herein shall be arrayed as are they were before the Trial Court.

3. a)The appellants stated that, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court against the appellants/defendant Nos.5 and 6 are illegal and against the facts on record as such same is liable to

FAC: V ADJ.

3/14 B. Lingam and another V/s. Chand Rakanth and others. A.S.16 of 2010 be set-aside.

b)That the appellants/ defendant Nos.5 and 6 are filed their written statement in detail, dated 03.03.2008 which is not believed by the Trial Court and not considered the facts of written statements of the appellants, that the defendant Nos.1 is being the absolute owner of schedule property by virtue of patta pass book No.128354 and patta No.285 and sold the suit schedule property Sy. No.90 admeasuring Ac.2.07 guntas situated at

Ibrahimpur village of Yedpally G.P., limits to the Defendant Nos.5 and 6 and the said appellants/ Defendant Nos.5 and 6 paid the entire sale consideration and purchased the land under registration document No.6897/07 under G.P.A., holder.

c)It is further pleaded that the lower Court erroneously came to the conclusion and passed the Decree infavour of respondents herein, that the lower Court disbelieved the evidence of these appellants and came to wrong conclusion and passed

Judgment and decree against these appellants.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues for trial.

I.Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for preliminary Decree by allotting 1/7th share to each Plaintiffs by metes and bounds?

II.Whether the Plaintiffs are entitle to cancellation of the registered sale agreement-cum-G.P.A., dated 20.10.2007?

III. To what relief?

5.That after commencement of the trial, the plaintiffs examined PW1 and 2 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. On behalf of the defendants, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

FAC: V ADJ.

4/14 B. Lingam and another V/s. Chand Rakanth and others. A.S.16 of 2010

6.Basing on the availed record, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that, the suit schedule property is undivided joint Hindu family ancestral property of the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and

Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and accordingly the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs holding that the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and

Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are entire to allot 1/7 share each out of the suit schedule property with metes and bounds and issued preliminary decree accordingly. It is further decreed that as the registered agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A., dated 20.10.2007 which was executed by the first Defendant was not supported by the adequate sale consideration and it was a got up document that it is hereby cancelled. Therefore, the Office is hereby directed to inform the Sub-Registrar stating that the registered agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A., dated 20.10.2007 which were executed by the first Defendant in favour of Defendant Nos.5 and 6 have been cancelled. Further, Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are hereby directed to divide the property mentioned in the suit schedule into 7 equal shares and allot 1/7th share each to the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 with metes and bounds within the period of 3 months on or before 21.04.2010 and it is further decreed that if Defendant Nos.1 to 4 does not come forward for partitioning the property mentioned in the schedule annexed with the plaint as directed supra, the

Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 will be at liberty to file a petition for appointing a commissioner in order to partition the property mentioned in the schedule annexed with the plaint into 7 equal shares and inducting the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 in their respective 1/7th share each with the metes and bounds, aggrieved by which, the appellants/defendant Nos.5 and 6 preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned above.

FAC: V ADJ.

5/14 B. Lingam and another V/s. Chand Rakanth and others. A.S.16 of 2010

7.On receipt of notices, respondents herein made their appearance through Counsel and contested the appeal.

8.Heard the counsels for the appellants and respondents .

9.Now the points for determination are the Trial Court in O.S.

No.76 of 2007, dated 21.01.2010 in is suffering with any lacuna, infirmity or any miscarriage of justice?

1.Whether the Respondents/Plaintiffs are entitled for preliminary Decree by allotting 1/7th share to each Plaintiffs by metes and bounds?

2.Whether the Respondents Plaintiffs are entitle to cancellation of the registered sale agreement-cum- G.P.A., dated 20.10.2007?

3.Whether the Decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.76 of 2007, dated 21.1.2010 in is suffering with any lacuna, infirmity or any miscarriage of justice?

4.Whether the Judgment and decree passed O.S. No.76 of 2007, dated 21.01.2010 is liable to be varied, set aside or modified or confirmed?

5.To what extent?

POINT No.1 to 4:-

10.Perused the Judgment and decree in O.S. No.76 of 2007,

dated 21.01.2010. The appeal is filed to set aside the decree and

Judgment of O.S. No.76 of 2007, dated 21.01.2010 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan and dismiss the suit of the

Plaintiff in lower Court with costs in the ends of justice and equity.

11.Perused the documents and entire material placed on record

before this court PW1 & PW-2 examined Exs.A1 to A16 marked As

per Ex.A1 pahani D1 is pattadar and possessor A2 is market value

FAC: V ADJ.

6/14 B. Lingam and another V/s. Chand Rakanth and others. A.S.16 of 2010 and Exs.A3 and A4 are the certified copies of sale deed of D5 and

D6. Defendant No.1 executed Ex A3 and A4 for sale consideration of Rs.1,35,000/- and there is no evidence of partition of suit property D1 kept silence amount to fraud 12 years lapsed as per

Article 136 of Limitation Act Ex A3 and A4 cannot be cancelled.

On perusal of the record it is observed by this appellate court that the plaintiffs are non other than the legal heirs of the deceased Rajaiah. Defendant No.1 is none other than the mother of the plaintiffs. Defendant no2 to 4 are the family members. The suit schedule property is agricultural land bearing its Sy.No.90 to an extent of Ac. 2-07 guntas situated at Ibrahimpur village shivar of Yedapally Mandal another open plot in GP 12-46 admeasuring to an extent of 34 x 32 sq yards at Yedpally in ancestor property.

Therefore the plaintiff no1 to 3 and Defendant no1 to 4 constitute undivided share of suit schedule property.

The 6th Defendant is the friend of 5th Defendant. The 1st

Defendant is an old aged woman. The 5th and 6th Defendants misrepresented the facts to 1st Defendant and got executed agreement of sale cum GPA in their favour in respect of suit schedule A and B properties.

As admitted by 1st Defendant 5th Defendant and 6th

Defendant got executed the agreement of sale cum GPA by misrepresenting without paying any consideration. It is elicited that the 5th Defendant is not the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and got executed agreement of sale cum GPA by misrepresenting without paying any consideration. She stated that 4th Defendant is her son. Police arrested Defendant No.4. She stated that Akula Ravinder is the brother-in-law of Sri.

FAC: V ADJ.

7/14 B. Lingam and another V/s. Chand Rakanth and others. A.S.16 of 2010

N. Raghavender. She further stated that D5 and D6 approached her and took her to Sub-registrar office and obtained her signatures on the papers to get release 4th Defendant by Om

Prakash from the Police custody. She stated that believing their words she affixed her thumb impression. Point Nos.1 and 2 answered accordingly in favour of Respondent/ Plaintiff and against Appellant/ Defendants.

POINT No.3 AND 4 :

Now this Appellate Court Point for consideration is

Whether the Sale cum GPA executed by D1 in favour

of D5 and D6 are valid Registered GPA cum sale Exs.A3

and A4 prior to the Suraj Lamp Judgment are not affected

and remain valid. However, the final transfer of property must be completed through a registered sale deed. The Supreme Court ruling primarily restricted the use of "GPA sales" for property transfer after the judgment, emphasizing that only registered deeds can convey ownership.

Fate of GPA-cum-sales before the judgment  Valid: Transactions, including registered GPAs, executed

before October 11, 2011, are not impacted by the judgment.

 Ownership not transferred: A registered GPA does not, by itself, transfer ownership of immovable property. It grants authority to the holder to act on the owner's behalf.

 Final conveyance requires sale deed: To legally transfer the property, a registered sale deed must be executed by the GPA holder on behalf of the original owner. Key takeaway  The Suraj Lamp judgment was a prospective ruling that aimed to stop future illegal property transfers and protect

FAC: V ADJ.

8/14 B. Lingam and another V/s. Chand Rakanth and others. A.S.16 of 2010 public revenue by clarifying that only registered sale deeds can convey ownership.  For registered GPAs executed before the judgment, the transaction remains valid, but it is crucial to complete the process by executing a registered sale deed to finalize the transfer of ownership.

Registered GPA "sales" executed prior to the Suraj Lamp judgment remain valid and are unaffected, but future transfers from those transactions can only be completed through a registered sale deed. The judgment, which banned the use of GPA/Sale Agreement/Will transactions as a means of conveying property ownership, only applies to transactions occurring after its date of judgment. The original owners can still regularize these pre-existing transactions by obtaining a registered conveyance deed.

 Pre-existing GPA sales: These transactions are considered valid and are not disturbed by the Suraj Lamp ruling.  Post-judgment transfer: For a valid transfer of ownership to occur for a pre-existing GPA-sale, a registered sale deed must be executed. The holder of the GPA can then use it to execute the sale deed on behalf of the original owner.

 Purpose: The ruling was made to curb property-related tax evasion and fraudulent transactions, ensuring a clear title and reducing litigation by reinforcing that only a registered sale deed can legally transfer ownership.

a suit for declaration of title can still be maintainable even if a registered sale-cum-GPA was executed before the 2011 Suraj Lamp judgment, as long as the suit claims title based on a properly registered conveyance deed and not the invalid GPA sale itself. The Suraj Lamp judgment clarified that GPA sales are not valid modes of transferring title and cannot convey ownership, but it did not invalidate the right to claim title based on a properly executed and registered deed of conveyance. Key Points  Suraj Lamp Judgment:

This landmark 2011 Supreme Court judgment established that immovable property can only be transferred through a registered deed of conveyance.

FAC: V ADJ.

9/14 B. Lingam and another V/s. Chand Rakanth and others. A.S.16 of 2010  GPA Sales Invalid: The judgment held that "GPA sales" or "SA/GPA/will transfers" do not convey title and are not recognized as valid modes of property transfer.

 Maintainability of Suit:

A suit for declaration of title remains maintainable if the claim is based on a valid, registered deed of conveyance, not the transaction that involved the GPA sale.

 Basis of the Suit:

The suit's maintainability depends on whether you are seeking to establish ownership through the registered deed of conveyance or trying to use the unregistered GPA sale as the basis for title.

In summary: If your claim to title rests on a valid registered conveyance deed, a suit for declaration of title is maintainable. However, you cannot rely on an unregistered GPA-cum-sale document as a valid basis for transferring title, even if executed

before the Suraj Lamp judgment, as that type of transaction was

already recognized as invalid by the courts.

A registered GPA-cum-sale executed before the Suraj Lamps judgment is not a valid sale for transferring ownership of immovable property, even if stamp duty was paid, because it does not convey title. While such transactions were commonly misunderstood as transfers prior to the judgment, the Suraj Lamps judgment clarified that only a registered deed of conveyance can transfer title. Therefore, your registered GPA- cum-sale, even with paid stamp duty, is only an agreement to sell and a grant of power of attorney, not a complete transfer of ownership and requires a subsequent registered sale deed to be validly considered a conveyance. Sales made using General Power of Attorney (GPA) and Agreement to Sell (SA/GPA/Will) prior to the Suraj Lamp judgment in 2011 are generally not considered invalid solely on that basis, because the Supreme Court ruling in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana was prospective in nature. However, such pre-judgment transactions may still be challenged if they were not accompanied by a properly registered sale deed, as the judgment reiterated that only a registered conveyance deed can legally transfer ownership of immovable property.

FAC: V ADJ.

10/14 B. Lingam and another V/s. Chand Rakanth and others. A.S.16 of 2010

Key Points about Pre-Judgment GPA Sales:

 Prospective Application: The Suraj Lamp judgment primarily applies to property sales and transfers that occur after its pronouncement in 2011, not to past transactions.

 Validity of Existing Transactions: Transactions executed via GPA before 2011, even if incomplete or lacking a registered sale deed, were not automatically invalidated by the judgment.

 Evidence of Possession: Documents like an Agreement to Sell or GPA, when executed

before the judgment, could still be used as evidence to establish

possession of the property.

 Need for Registered Sale Deed:

The core principle of the Suraj Lamp case is that only a registered sale deed can legally transfer title to immovable property. Therefore, even for pre-Judgment sales, a registered conveyance would be required to definitively establish ownership.

 Potential for Legal Disputes: Despite the judgment's prospective nature, parties relying solely on unregistered GPA sales for title transfer before 2011 may still face legal challenges, as they might not have a legally recognized ownership right without a valid registered deed.

Supreme Court on Transfer of Property Through POA/ATS--

In a Latest Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court (Date of Decision – 27-02-2025, in the Case Titled as - M.S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. VS. J. Manjulaetc), Hon’ble Supreme Court by relying on its Previous Judgment in the Case of Suraj Lamps Vs. State of Haryana (dt. 11-10-2011)Pointed out various Law points (as mentioned Below) regarding Transfer of a Property and upheld that Valid mode of Transfer of a Property is only through a registered deed of Conveyance. Some important Law points of the Judgement in the form of short notes along with a Short Summary of the Case are mentioned below—

FAC: V ADJ.

11/14 B. Lingam and another V/s. Chand Rakanth and others. A.S.16 of 2010

Summary of the Case— - Brief Facts of the case are that the Suit Property was sold by the original owner on 04.04.1986by executing an Irrevocable Power of attorney and an Unregistered Agreement to Sell, in favour of one A. Saraswathi.

- On 30.01.1997, the original owner, executant of the POA died.

- On 01.04.1998, the holder of POA (after death of Executant of POA) executed a registered sale deed with respect to the Suit Property in favour of her son, i.e., the appellant No.2 -M.S. Ananthamurthy.

- On the other hand, several years after the death of the original owner, his legal heirs through a registered sale deed dated 21.03.2003 sold the same Suit Property to the respondent no. 7. Subsequently, respondent no. 7 sold the Suit Property to the respondent No.8 vide another registered sale deed dated 29.09.2003 AND on 06.12.2004, the respondent No.8 executed a registered gift deed in favour of her daughter, i.e., the answering respondent (J. Manjula).

-Now the Legal dispute is regarding valid ownership of the suit property—Whether title of J. Manjula (Travelled through Legal Heirs of Original Owner) is valid;ORtitle ofM.S. Ananthamurthy (Travelled through Holder of GPA/ATS) is valid-

Important Law Points as upheld by Hon’ble Supreme

Court-

Valid Transfer—Transfer of Property Act- Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of Conveyance. Transactions of the nature of “GPA sales” or “SA/GPA/will transfers” do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized as valid mode of transfer of immovable property. (Reliance Placed on 2011 Judgment of Suraj Lamps vs. State of Haryana)

Power of Attorney- when become Irrevocable- Contract Act- The relationship between the executant of a General power of attorney and the holder of the Power of Attorney is one of

Principal and Agent. Section 201 of the Contract Act prescribes

various ways of revocation of authority given by the principal to his agent. Section 202 of the Contract Act, as an exception to the

FAC: V ADJ.

12/14 B. Lingam and another V/s. Chand Rakanth and others. A.S.16 of 2010 general rule under Section 201, prescribes that where an agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject- matter of the agency, the agency cannot be terminated to the prejudice of such interest unless there is an express stipulation to the contrary. Therefore, the essentials of Section 202 of the Contract Act are, first, there shall be a relationship in the capacity of ‘principal and agent’ between the parties and secondly, there shall be agent’s interest in the subject-matter of the agency. If both the conditions are fulfilled the agency becomes irrevocable and cannot be terminated unilaterally at the behest of the principal.

Principle and Agent-Effect of Death of Principle- Section 201 and 202 of Contract Act- Principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet (A person cannot transfer a better title than he has)- Court Held that, Power of Attorney which is an agency Contract terminates on the death of Principle. As soon as the executant of POA dies, the right given to the agent comes to an end. – A POA is not an instrument of transfer qua any right, title or interest in any immovable property. Once the agency is terminated, the agent cannot act on the basis of the power granted to him under the GPA.

Agreement to Sell- Unregistered- Effect thereof- Registration

Act-It is a settled law that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance. An agreement to sell is not a conveyance. It is not a document of title or a deed of transfer of deed of transfer of property and does not confer ownership right or title. An agreement to sell does not meet the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act to effectuate a ‘transfer’.An agreement of sale only creates an interest in the Property and to enforce that interest the intended buyer is required to file a suit for specific performance by virtue of Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Further, if interest had been transferred by way of

a written document, it had to be compulsorily registered

as per Section 17(1) (b) of the Registration Act. In view of Section 17 of the Registration Act, a property worth Rs. 100 or more cannot be transferred without registration. In the present case, the value of property is more than Rs. 100, therefore, the original owner could not have transferred the property merely by an agreement to sell or GPA or by executing both.

FAC: V ADJ.

13/14 B. Lingam and another V/s. Chand Rakanth and others. A.S.16 of 2010

Conclusion-

Considering all the above mentioned Points, Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal and upheld the title of J. Manjulavide this Judgment, Relevant Portion of said Judgment is reproduced here as below- “The High Court rightly held that even though the GPA and the agreement to sell were contemporaneous documents executed by the original owner in favour of the holder, this alone cannot be a factor to reach the conclusion that she had an interest in the POA. Thus, even though the GPA and the agreement to sell were contemporaneous documents executed by the original owner in favour of the same beneficiary, this cannot be the sole factor to conclude that she had an interest in the subject-matter. Even if such an argument were to persuade this Court, the document must have been registered as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. In the absence of such registration, it would not be open for the holder of the POA to content that she had a valid right, title and interest in the immovable property to execute the registered sale deed in favour of appellant no. 2.”

Hence, it is upheld that Valid mode of Transfer of a Immovable Property is only through a registered deed of Conveyance. Transactions of the nature of “GPA sales” or “SA/GPA/will transfers” do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized as valid mode of transfer of immovable property. (Reliance Placed on 2011 Judgment of Suraj Lamps vs. State of Haryana).. As point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of Respondents/Plaintiffs, Point Nos.3 and 4 are answered in favour of Respondents/ Plaintiffs. Points are answered accordingly.

12.There is no need to interfere with the judgment of the lower court as it is rightly come to conclusion that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property, therefore, they are declared as owners of the property and the suit against defendants is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

FAC: V ADJ.

14/14 B. Lingam and another V/s. Chand Rakanth and others. A.S.16 of 2010

13. In the result, the Appeal suit is dismissed by confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan in O.S. No.76 of 2007, dated 21.01.2010 and needs not interference. All the miscellaneous petitions stands closed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation in the open Court on this the 6th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

FAC: V-Additional District Judge, Bodhan.

::Appendix of Evidence:: Witnesses Examined - Nil -

Sd/-

FAC: V-Additional District Judge, Bodhan.

FAC: V ADJ.