1 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE :: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT :: AT L.B. NAGAR
PRESENT : Sri M. Satish Kumar, VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. FAC X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar.
Monday, Dated this the 15th day of December, 2025
SESSIONS CASE No. 393 OF 2024
1. Name and description of the : The State of Telangana through complainant SHO P.S. Raidurgam 2 Name and description of the : A1. Sabhavath Lakpathi @ Lucky, accusedS/o.S.Jawaharlal, Age:34 years, Caste:ST Lambada, Occ: Marketing Vice President in TMR Group, R/o.Flat # 201, My Property Apartments, Venkateshwara colony, Neknampur,Puppalaguda, Manikonda, R.R.District, N/o. H # 2- 196, Yellamma Thanda, Manchal (M) Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District,#9000737085 & 9908809958.
A2.Smt. Dhanavath Roja, W/o.Dhanavath Ragya Nayak, Age: 29 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Housewife, R/o.P# 65, Anusha Nilayam, Road No 9, Manikonda Garden, Manikonda, R.R. District, N/o.Lavudi Thanda, Miryala Guda
(m) Nalgonda District #9100445901 & 8008864301.
A3.Chennupally Venkata Shiva Naga Malleshwar Rao, S/o. Krishna Rao, Age: 30 years, Occ: Marketing 2 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist Manager in TMR Group, R/o. Shamshi Guda of Pragathi Nagar, Bachu Pally (m) N/o H. No. 12- 1359, Mahanadu No. 15, Tadepalli, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh State # 9550402289 & 9666570647.
A4.Pathlavath Man Singh @ Gadah, S/o. Sangya, Age:32 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Fish business R/o. Bugga Thanda, Neredu Gumma(v),Chennampeta(m), Nalgonda District # 9390192536.
A5.Vankunavath Baloji, S/o Shankar, 23 years, ST Lambada caste, Farmer R/o.Bugga Thanda, Neredu Gumma (v) Chennampeta
(m) Nalgonda District # 7002915155 & 9381144214.
.... Accused No.1 to 5
3 Offence with which charged: 120 (B), 364, 302 and 201 of IPC.
4 Plea of the accused: Not guilty 5 Finding of the Judge: Not guilty 6 Sentence or order: In the result, accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty of the offences U/Sec.120-B, 364, 302 and 201 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall remain for a period of six months U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 to MO.4 and MO.6 to MO.11 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. MO.5 Tata Nexon Car which was given to interim custody shall be made absolute after appeal time is over.
3 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist 7 Prosecution conducted by : Addl. Public Prosecutor 8 Accused defended by:E. Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for accused No.1 to 5.
This case is coming up before me on 08-12-2025 for final hearing for disposal in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor, for prosecution and of Sri E.Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for accused No.1 to 5 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
:: JUDGMENT ::
1. The Inspector of Police, P.S. Raidurgam P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 5 for the offences U/sec.120(B), 364, 302 and 201 R/w. 34 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24/08/2022 at 1500 hours received a complaint from the complainant/ A2 Smt. Dhanavath Roja W/o.
Dhanavath Ragya Nayak in which she stated that her husband Ragya
Nayak, left the house on 20/08/2022 at about 06-00 hours on a temporary driver duty but did not come back. She called on his cell phone 9603004301 but he is not taking the call. They enquired in the neighboring places and enquired with relatives, friends etc, but he is not traced, he was in financial crises for some time, and she has furnished 4 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist descriptive particulars and photos of her missing husband and requested for necessary action.
3. Basing on the same, Pw.24 registered a case in Cr.No.682/2022,
U/head “Man Missing” and entrusted to Pw.22 for further investigation.
During the course of investigation, Pw.22 examined and recorded the statement of the complainant and visited the scene of offence i.e, pent house on P# 65, Anusha Nilayam, Road No.9, Manikonda garden,
Manikonda and conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch in the presence of mediators and Pw.22 examined the Lw.2/
Ranga Swamy, Lw.3/ D. Rajesh, Lw.4/ D. Laxman, Lw.5/ D.Mahesh, Lw.6,
D. Chatriya and Lw.7/ D. Achchi and susequently the case was taken up by Pw.24 from Pw.22. Thereafter Pw.24 deputed special party team and they apprehended the accused No.1 and produced him before the Pw.24 and on interrogation accused No.1 voluntarily confessed that he is having illicit relationship with the complainant/ A.2 but her husband / deceased was main obstruction for their relationship, as such they had planned to eliminate him and accused No.1 has also stated that deceased sold 25 guntas of his land to him and took total sale consideration but cheated him by refusing to transfer the property on his name demanded additional of Rs.10.00lakhs as such he has killed the missing person/ deceased
Dhanavath Ragya Naik on 19-08-2022 by transporting in his Tata Nexon 5 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist car bearing Registration No. TS 07/HK 4650 with the help of Accused
No.3 to 5 and disposed the dead body by throwing into the back waters of
Nagarjuna Sagar reservoir. Basing on the said confession panchanama, he altered the section of law man missing to 120 B, 364, 302, 201 R/w. 34
IPC and informed all concerned and he seized the Car i.e, Nexon Car
No.TS 07/ HK 4650 and mobile phones of the accused No.1 to 5 and mobile phone of deceased under cover of panchanama and obtained call data report from the telephone operators and thereafter Pw.25 was taken up further investigation and while the investigation was in progress, on 30-03-2023 he received phone call that an unidentified dead body (skeleton) wrapped in fishing net and which was found floating in the back water of Nagarjunasagar near Kachurajupalli pushkar ghat, then the body was shifted to the Govt. Area hospital, Devarakonda for preservation and on 31-03-2023, he inspected the dead body in the mortuary and identified the dead body pertaining to this case and sent the said dead body for autopsy in the Govt. Area Hospital, Devarakonda and seized femur bones and he conducted panchanama and seized one blue colour net (Chikkam), one rope length about 10 feets and one black colour jeans pant in the Govt. Area hospital, Devarakonda in the presence of mediators and sent the parents of the deceased along with femur bone of the deceased to FSL, Hyderabad for collection of blood samples for DNA 6 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist fingerprinting and opinion and after examination they opined that the source of item No.3 i.e., Long bones is biologically related to Dhanavath
Achchi ( Source of Item No.1 and Dhanavath Chatriya ( Source of item
No.2) and gave report and after completion of entire investigation, Pw.25 filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 5 for the offence punishable U/sec. 120(B), 364, 302 and 201 R/w.34 of IPC.
4.After taking cognizance of the case for the offence under Sections 120(B), 364, 302 & 201 R/w.34 IPC against the accused No.1 to 5 by the learned II Addl. Junior Civil Judge–cum–XIII Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate,
Rajendra nagar vide PRC No.124 of 2023, and after compliance of
Sec.209 (a) Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, numbered as S.C.No.393/2024 and made over to this Court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
District.
5.After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and the accused, this court framed charges for the offence punishable Under Sections 120(B), 364, 302 and 201 IPC, read over and explained to accused No.1 to 7 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist 5 in vernacular language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial the prosecution examined Pw.1 to Pw.25 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.80 and marked MO.1 to MO.11. i.e.,
Ex.P.1 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2
Ex.P.2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3
Ex.P.3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4
Ex.P.4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.5
Ex.P.5 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.6
Ex.P.6 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.7
Ex.P.7 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.8
Ex.P.8 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.12
Ex.P.9 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.13
Ex.P.10 is the signature of Pw.15 on scene of offence panchanama
Ex.P.11 is the signature of Pw.15 on rough sketch
Ex.P.12 is the signature of Pw.15 on the scene of offence report
Ex.P.13 is the signature of Pw.15 on the rough sketch of back water of
Nagarjun sagar dam, Kancherajupally Pushkar ghat.
Ex.P.14 is the signature of Pw.16 on the scene of offence panchanama
Ex.P.15 is the signature of Pw.16 on rough sketch of Plot NO.65, KPR colony, Manikonda gardens, Road NO.9, Manikonda.
8 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist Ex.P.16 is the signature of Pw.16 on the scene of offence panchanama of back water of Nagarjuna sagar dam, Kancherajupally, Pushkarghat,
Ex.P.17 is the signature of Pw.16 on the rough sketch of back water of
Nagarjunsagar dam, Kancherajupally, Pushkarghat.
Ex.P.18 is the Signature of Pw.17 on confession panchanama
Ex.P.19 is the signature of Pw.17 on the agreement
Ex.P.20 is the signature of Pw.17 on the panchanama
Ex.P.21 is the signature of Pw.17 on rough sketch.
Ex.P.22 is the signature of Pw.17 on the confession cum Seizure panchanama of accused No.1.
Ex.P.23 is the signature of Pw.17 on the confession cum Seizure panchanama of accused No.2
Ex.P.24 is the signature of Pw.17 on the confession cum Seizure panchanama of accused No.3
Ex.P.25 is the signature of Pw.17 on the confession cum Seizure panchanama of accused No.4
Ex.P.26 is the signature of Pw.17 on the confession cum Seizure panchanama of accused No.5
Ex.P.27 to 32 are scene of offence panchanamas & rough sketchs
Ex.P.33 is the Inquest panchanama contains signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.34 is the seizure panchanama 9 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist Ex.P.35 is signature of Pw.19 confession panchanama of accused No.1
Ex.P.36 is the signature of Pw.19 on the agreement,
Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38 are the signatures of Pw.19 on panchanama and rough sketch.
Ex.P.39 is the signature of Pw.19 on the confession panchanama of accused No.1
Ex.P.40 is the signature of Pw.19 on the confession panchanamas of accused No.2
Ex.P.41 is the signature of Pw.19 on the confession panchanamas of accused No.3
Ex.P.42 is the signature of Pw.19 on the confession panchanamas of accused No.4
Ex.P.43 is the signature of Pw.19 on the confession panchanamas of accused No.5
Ex.P.44 to Ex.P.49 are the panchanamas along with rough sketchs.
Ex.P.50 is the 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.51 is the complaint
Ex.P.52 is the FIR
Ex.P.53 is the scene observation report
Ex.P.54 is the rough sketch.
Ex.P.55 is the FSL report.
10 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist Ex.P.56 is the Post mortem report along with requisition
Ex.P.57 is the relevant portion of confession statement of the accused
No.1 marked with green ink.
Ex.P.58 is the seizure panchanama
Ex.P.59 is the section alteration memo
Ex.P.60 is the relavant portion of confession statement of accused No.2 marked with green ink
Ex.P.61 is the relevant portion of confession statement of accused NO.3 marked with green ink,
Ex.P.62 is the relevant portion of confession statement of accused NO.4 marked with green ink,
Ex.P.63 is the relevant portion of confession statement of accused NO.5 marked with green ink,
Ex.P.64 is the agreement of sale cum possession dt. 02-07-2022 and also photostat copy of pattedar pass book
Ex.P.65 is the photostat copy of pattedar pass book stands in the name of
Pw.4,
Ex.P.66 is the relevant portion of further confession statement of A.1 marked with green ink,
Ex.P.67 is the seizure panchanama 11 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist Ex.P.68 is the copy of customer application form of A.1 including ID proofs documents of Airtel.
Ex.P.69 is the copy of customer application from including ID proofs of deceased of airtel
Ex.P.70 is the copy of customer application form of A.1 including ID proofs documents of Airtel.
Ex.P.71 is the copy of customer application form of A.1 including ID proofs documents of Jio.
Ex.P.72 is the copy of customer application form of A.3 including ID proofs documents
Ex.P.73 is the copy of customer application form of A.5 including ID proofs documents.
Ex.P.74 is the copy of customer application form of deceased including ID proofs documents of JIO.
Ex.P.75 is the Sec. 65-B certificate
Ex.P.76 is the 65 B certificate issued by Airtel
Ex.P.77 is the CDR and CD
Ex.P.78 is the CDR issued by JIO
Ex.P.79 is the soft copy of CDR
Ex.P.80 is the soft copy of CDR 12 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist and MO.1 is the net, MO.2 is rope, MO.3 is the black colour jeans pant,
MO.4 is the one I phone, MO.5 is the Tata Nexon car Br.NO. TS HK 4650, MO.6 is TMR Group Diary, MO.7 is the Marker, MO.8 is Opp phone, MO.9 is samsung phone, MO.10 is vivo phone, MO.11 is vivo phone.
7.The Accused No.1 to 5 were examined under Section 313Cr.P.C.
by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
8.Heard arguments of both sides.
9.Now the point for determination is
whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused No.1 to 5 for
the offences U/sec.120B, 364, 302, 201 of IPC beyond all reasonable
doubt?
10. POINT:
The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 married the elder sister of the accused No.2, the deceased is husband of the accused
No.1. Accused No.1, the deceased used to torture the accused NO.2 and at that time the accused No.1 used to visit house of the accused No.1 and used to console accused No.2, thereby accused No.1 developed illegal intimacy with accused No.2 and accused No.1 and his father also sold 13 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist Ac.0-25gts of land to accused No.1, took total sale consideration, but refused to execute register sale deed and demanded additional amount of
Rs.10 lakhs and Accused No.1 also thought that deceased is obstruction for illegal relationship with the accused No.2, therefore, A.1 and A.2 conspired to kill the deceased and Accused No.1 took help of Accused
No.3, on 19-08-2022 Accused NO.1 contacted the deceased and directed him to meet him at Bharath petrol bunk, Shakepet at about 12-30hours, and Accused No.1 also took the help of Accused No.3 and Accused No.1 purchased 15 sleeping pills ( One strip ) at Srinidhi medical shop,
Manikonda with an intention to adminster the same to deceased and also purchased freezer box and took his Tata Nexon car B.No. TS 07 HK 4650 to Vijetha super market, Alkapuri township, Manikonda and purchased 4 badam milk bottles and Accused No.3 also joined at Jubilee hills check post and Accused No.3 made sleeping pills into powder and mixed half of it in badam milk shake and sealed it and deceased also joined at Bharath petrol bunk, Shakepet and they also purchased egg puffs and water bottles on the way they gave badam milk bottle which contain sleeping pill powder to the deceased, and after drinking the deceased fell unconscious and A.1 picked deceased cell phone throwed into loaded truck, and they met the Accused No.4 at Vizag colony, Nalgonda and Accused No.4 also took help of Accused NO.5 and A.4 offered Rs.40,000/-, then A.5 agreed, 14 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist thereafter they went to Kasarajupally pushkar ghat (Boating point), after that A.3 to A.5 shifted the deceased in the boat about 10 kms, at that time, A.1 was moving the car hear and there, and A.3 to A.5 put the deceased into fish net (Chikkam) and tied to rock tightly and thrown into water and came back and on 20-08-2022 A.1 informed about the murder of the deceased to accused No.2 and A.2 informed about missing of the deceased and her brother called to the deceased phone on 21-08-2022 and one Praveen kumar responded told that he found the phone in his truck, thereby Accused No.1 to 5 charged for the offences U/sec.120B, 364, 302 and 201 of IPC.
11. To prove the case of prosecution the prosecution examined Pw.1 to
Pw.25 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.80 and MO.1 to MO.11 as referred above.
12. Pw.1 N. Koteswar Rao is the owner of the house in which deceased and A.2 used to reside, as per his evidence about 4 years back the deceased Ragya Naik took their pent house on rent and in that house the
Ragya Naik/deceased along with accused No.2 with his two children used to reside and he further deposed that since three months prior to the death of deceased, he was not paying the rent and he asked deceased 15 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist for payment of the rent, two days prior to death of the deceased, the deceased promised him that he will pay the rent within two days and that is the last time he saw Ragya Naik, thereafter he came to know that deceased / Ragya Naik was killed, and he do not know the details of the persons, who killed him.
13. Pw.2 brother in law of the deceased, Pw.3 cousin of the deceased,
Pw.4 father of the deceased, Pw.5 mother of the deceased, they deposed that the deceased was died about two and half years ago and deceased is husband of accused NO.2 and they do not know how deceased was died and who were responsible for the death of the deceased.
14. Pw.6 and Pw.7 are the circumstantial witnesses, they deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and Pw.8 is cousin of the deceased deposed that he do not know how deceased died but deceased died about two and half years ago and accused were not responsible for the death of his cousin brother. Pw.2 to Pw.8 declared hostile and they were cross examined by the learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor with the permission of the court, but nothing elicited in favour of the prosecution, therefore, Pw.2 to Pw.8 evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case.
16 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist
15. Pw.9/Dhanavath Mahesh is the cousin of the deceased, he deposed that the deceased is his cousin brother and A.2 is his wife and he know A.1 and A.4 and A.1 is co-brother of deceased and he further deposed that on 19.08.2021 in the evening hours, he received a phone call from his another cousin brother PW3/Dhanavath Rajesh stating that since 18.08.2021 his deceased cousin brother Ragya Naik was not found, then he and PW3 went to the house of the Ragya Naik and accused No.2 and asked accused No.2 and accused NO.2 told that on the previous night the deceased came and beat her and broken her bangles and broken the vegetable stand and went away and accused No.2 also gave complaint in the police station, after hearing that, they went to the police station and asked the police about the deceased and they replied that they are searching, he informed that two months prior to that, there was a galata taken place in between the deceased and accused No.1 as accused No.1 is having illegal contacts with accused No.2 in the village in their presence also accused No.1 threatened his deceased brother that
Accused No.1 will see his end. When the deceased was not found, they intimated the same to the police and expressed their suspicion on accused No.1 and accused No.2.
17 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist In the cross examination Pw.9 denied suggestion that he did not stated before the police in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement the above said facts what he stated in his chief examination.
16. PW10/ K.Mallesh Yadav, circumstantial witness, he deposed that he is running Laxmi Sweets and Bakery, at Ibrahimpatnam for the last 25 years, about 1 year back, police came to their shop, through police, he came to know that accused No.3 came to their shop and purchased egg puffs and water bottles and Accused NO.1, 3, 4 mixed sleeping medicine in that, also in the milk shake and killed one person and thrown him in
Nagarjunsagar and he further deposed that he cannot identified the person who purchased the material from his shop.
Therefore, even the evidence of Pw.10 also no way useful to the prosecution.
17. PW11/Ramavath Mohan who is brother in law of the deceased. He deposed that deceased is his brother in law and A.2 is deceased wife and he further deposed that the dead body of the deceased was taken out from Nagarjuna Sagar dam and shifted to the mortuary of Government
Area Hospital. Devarakonda and he identified the dead body of the deceased, basing on the clothes and police conducted the panchanama and handed over dead body. He further deposed that accused No.1 18 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist developed illegal contact with accused No.2 for that a panchayath was held, and convinced and thereafter accused No.1 threatened the deceased that he will see his end and 20 days after that deceased was found missing. He further deposed that on coming to know about the missing of deceased, accused No.2 informed that he went to London or
Australia. He further deposed that since there was no educational qualification to the deceased, they suspected her and she gave police report about missing of deceased and they also enquired with the police and police stated that they are searching and thereafter the dead body of the deceased found in Nagarjun sagar and accused No.1 and accused
No.2 are the responsible for the death of the deceased.
In the cross examination, Pw.11 denied suggestion that he did not stated to the police in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that accused No.1 developed illegal contact with accused No.2 for that a panchayath was held, and convinced and thereafter accused No.1 threatened the deceased that he will see his end and 20 days after that deceased was found missing and on coming to know about the missing of deceased, accused No.2 informed that he went to London or Australia and since there was no educational qualification to the deceased, they suspected her and she gave police report about missing of deceased and they also enquired with the police and police stated that they are searching and 19 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist thereafter the dead body of the deceased found in Nagarjun sagar and accused No.1 and accused No.2 are the responsible for the death of the deceased.
18. Pw.12 and Pw.13 who are circumstantial witnesses, deposed that they do now know anything about the facts of the case and they are declared hostile and they are cross examined by the learned APP with the permission of the court, but nothing elicited in favour of prosecution, hence Pw.12 and Pw.13 evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution.
19. PW14/ T.Mahmood Baig, Head Constable, Raidurgam P.S. and he deposed that he went to the Vijetha Super Market, Alkapur, Manikonda and collected the CCTV Footage of 20.09.2022 as Accused No.1 confessed that he purchased the Badam Milk in that shop and he handed over the CD/compact Disk to their Inspector of Police.
In the cross examination Pw.14 deposed that he did not gave any
Sec.65-B certificate. More over Pw.14 also not stated that he obtained any Sec.65-B certificate from the owners of the said Vijetha super market.
Therefore, Pw.14 evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution.
20. Pw.15 and Pw.16 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and they deposed that no panchanama was conducted in 20 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist their presence, and they are declared hostile and they are cross examined by the learned APP with the permission of the court, but nothing elicited in favour of prosecuction, hence Pw.15 and Pw.16 evidence also no way helpful to the prosecution.
21.Pw.17 is one of Panch witness for confession of accused No.1 to 5, he deposed that in the second week of September, 2022, the police called him and another mediator Pw.19 to the police station Rayadurgam, there they obtained his signature, he further deposed that police seized one car and a cell phone.
22. Pw.19 is the another mediator for confession of Accused NO.1 to 5, he deposed that he saw the accused NO.1 to 5 in the police station about three years back, police shown them to him, and police obtained signature in the police station and nothing seized in his presence.
23. Pw.17 and Pw.19 are declared hostile and they are cross examined by the learned APP with the permission of the court, but nothing elicited in favour of prosecution, though Pw.17 deposed police seized car in the building and phone, but where the police seized from whom the said 21 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist articles seized not stated, hence Pw.17 and Pw.19 is no way helpful to the prosecution.
24. PW18/ Dhanavath Babu, one of the mediator for inquest, he deposed that police conducted the inquest over the skeleton of the deceased on 31-03-2023 at 12-00 noon at Govt. Hospital, Devarakonda and he also deposed that after conducting the inquest police seized one blue colour net and 10 ft rope which was tied to the neck and also black colour jeans pan of the skeleton under seizure panchanama. As per the evidence of Pw.18 it is proved police conducted inquest and seizure of the MO.1 to MO.3.
25. PW20/K. Rajesh, deposed that on the instructions of the police, he analyzed the call data submitted by the Nodal officer, and issued Sec.65-
B Certificate.
In the cross examination, Pw.20 deposed that Ex.P.50 Sec.65-B certificate prepared by their Inspector. Therefore, the evidence of Pw.20 is relevant only to the extent of he analyzed the call data.
26. PW21/P.Venkat is Police constable, he deposed that on information, he along with Lw.32 Raju, constable proceeded to the “My 22 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist Property Apartments, they apprehend accused No.1 and accused No.3 produced them before their Inspector of Police, Pw.24.
27. PW22/ B.Satish, who is one of the Investigation officer, he deposed that he received Ex.P.51 police report from accused No.2 on 24- 08-2022 at 3-00 p.m. that her husband was missing, then he registered the case and issued FIR and visited the scene of offence, drafted the rough sketch and examined the witnesses and thereafter handed over the file to their Inspector.
In the cross examination Pw.22 denied suggestion that Accused
No.2 did not gave any police report under Ex.P.51 which is fabricated document.
28. PW23/B.Mangata, Deputy Civil Surgeon who conducted the PME over the dead body of the deceased, he deposed that on the requisition of the police, he conducted PME over the skeleton of the deceased and no bone injuries found and he sent femur bone for DNA and skull bone for super imposition and further deposed that death is more than 5 months
before PME, after FSL report, he gave final report that skeleton
biologically related to deceased parents.
23 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist
29. PW24/N.Tirupathi, who is 2nd Investigation Officer, he deposed about the investigation done by him. He further deposed that he arrested the A.1 and recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators and A.1 confessed the offence and he seized
MO.4 phone, and thereafter A.1 led them to his house and in presence of mediators, he seized MO.5 car there and also MO.6 diary and MO.7 marker and he further deposed that he altered section of law by filing section alteration memo Ex.P.59 and he further deposed that in pursuance of confession of A.2, he seized mobile phone and he also seized mobile phone in pursuance of confession of Accused No.4 and he also collected the Ex.P.64 colour xerox copy of agreement of sale and also Ex.P.65 photostat copy of pattedar pass book in pursuance of confession of A.1 and he also collected CDR particulars of A.1 to A.5 and deceased and after collection of all the documents, he filed charge sheet.
In the cross examination he admitted that Pw.9 did not state before him that on 19-08-2021 he received phone call from Pw.3 that deceased not found, then he and Pw.3 went to the house of deceased and A.2 and asked the A.2 that what happened, A.2 replied that deceased came beat her broken her bangles, and broken vegetable stand and went away, she gave police complaint, after hearing that he went to police station and asked the police about the deceased and police replied that they 24 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist searching and informed that two months prior to that, there was galata took place between accused NO.1 and deceased and A.1 illegal contacts with Accused NO.2.
30. Pw.25 is the 3rd Investigation officer who filed charge sheet, he deposed about the investigation done by him and also deposed that he conducted inquest in the presence of mediators and at that time, he seized MO.1 and 2 and he sent thigh bone of the deceased along with parents of the deceased for DNA and for FSL, he also collected the CDR and customer application forms and he also deposed about collection of
FSL report and seized mobile phones also marked in his evidence and
MO.8 to MO.11. Though Ex.P.79 and Ex.P.80 marked subjected to objection that they not accompanied with 65-B certificate but already
Sec.65-B certificates marked under Ex.P.75, Ex.P.76, therefore, said objection is rejected.
31.In this case there is no direct evidence and this case is based on circumstantial evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in
Crl.Appeal No.868 to 869 of 2004 between Ramesh Bhai and another,
Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan, Respondent dt.24-4-2009 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed regarding circumstantial evidence in para 5 to 12 as under:
25 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist
5. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
6. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus:
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....".
7. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. (AIR 1990
SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
26 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist "(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken 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; and (4) 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.
8. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
9. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted".
27 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist
10. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch- stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952.
11. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed thus:
"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 be in the first instance be 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 such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
12. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC 1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned `must' or `should' and not `may be' established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should 28 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist 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 complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
32. Though Pw. 9 deposed that on 19.08.2021 in the evening hours, he received a phone call from his another cousin brother PW3/Dhanavath
Rajesh stating that since 18.08.2021 his deceased cousin brother Ragya
Naik was not found, then he and PW3 went to the house of the Ragya
Naik and accused No.2 and asked accused No.2 and accused No.2 told that on the previous night the deceased came and beat her and broken her bangles and broken the vegetable stand and went away and accused
No.2 also gave complaint in the police station, after hearing that, they went to the police station and asked the police about the deceased and they replied that they are searching, he informed that two months prior to that, there was a galata taken place in between the deceased and accused No.1 as accused No.1 is having illegal contacts with accused
No.2 in the village in their presence also accused No.1 threatened his deceased brother that Accused No.1 will see his end. When the deceased 29 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist was not found, they intimated the same to the police and expressed their suspicion on accused No.1 and accused No.2. But Pw.24 categorically deposed that Pw.9 did not state before him the above said facts, therefore, the entire evidence of Pw.9 is only improvement. Pw.11 also deposed that accused No.1 developed illegal contact with accused No.2 for that a panchayath was held, and convinced and thereafter accused
No.1 threatened the deceased that he will see his end and 20 days after that deceased was found missing. He further deposed that on coming to know about the missing of deceased, accused No.2 informed that he went to London or Australia. He further deposed that since there was no educational qualification to the deceased, they suspected accused No.2 and she gave police report about missing of deceased and they also enquired with the police and police stated that they are searching and thereafter the dead body of the deceased found in Nagarjun sagar and accused No.1 and 2 are the responsible for the death of the deceased.
But his evidence is silent that whether he participated in the said panchayath and where the said panchayath was held. More over
Investigation officer also not stated that prior to 20 days of missing of deceased, a panchayath was held regarding illegal intimacy between accused No.1 and accused No.2 in the presence of elders and in the said panchayath, Accused No.1 threatened to see the end of the deceased.
30 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist More over in this case the material witnesses were not supported the prosecution case, there was no an eye witnesses to prove that the accused No.1 and 3 took the deceased to the scene of offence and
Accused No.4 and 5 also met there. No doubt deceased dead body was found in the Nagarjun Sagar, there is no evidence that A.1 purchased the sleeping pills and they administered to deceased by mixing in badam milk. No doubt accused No.2 lodged complaint under Missing case, but the prosecution failed to prove the link of the chain to connect the A.1 to
A.5 to the commission of offence and the seizure of the car and phones are no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
NO.1 to 5. More over there were no witnesses to prove that the accused
NO.1 to A.4 brought the dead body to the scene of offence i.e., Nagarjun sagar back water, there A.3 to A.5 shifted the dead body in the boat for 10 kms approximately and thrown the dead body by kept in fish net and tied to a rock. In the absence of the direct evidence and more over material witnesses not supported the prosecution case, therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused NO.1 to 5 for the charges U/sec.
120-B, 364, 302 and 201 IPC.
33. In the result, accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty of the offences
U/Sec.120-B, 364, 302 and 201 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused 31 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist shall remain for a period of six months U/sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 to
MO.4, MO.6 to MO.11 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. MO.5
Tata Nexon Car which was given to interim custody shall be made absolute after appeal time is over.
(Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 15 th day of December, 2025)
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
VIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
FAC X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, L.B.NAGAR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of the Prosecution:
Pw.1 N. Koteswara Rao Pw.2 R. Ranga swamy Pw.3 Dhanavath Rajesh Pw.4 Dhanavath Chatriya Pw.5 Dhanavath Achchi Pw.6 Ch. Bangari Pw.7 G. Bangari Pw.8 Dhanavath Laxman Pw.9 Dhanavath Mahesh Pw.10 K. Mallesh yadav Pw.11 Ramavath Mohan Pw.12 Ch. Tata Rao Pw.13 Door Bavoji Pw.14 T. Mahmood Baig Pw.15 Dhanavath Hussain Pw.16 Dhanavath Ravi Pw.17 V.Malla Reddy Pw.18 Dhanavath Babu Pw.19 J. Laxma Reddy Pw.20 K.Rajesh 32 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist Pw.21 P. Venkat Pw.22 B. Satish Pw.23 B. Mangata Pw.24 N. Tirupathi, Inspector of Police Pw.25 M. Mahesh, Inspector of police.
On behalf of the Defence: NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2
Ex.P.2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3
Ex.P.3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4
Ex.P.4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.5
Ex.P.5 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.6
Ex.P.6 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.7
Ex.P.7 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.8
Ex.P.8 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.12
Ex.P.9 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.13
Ex.P.10 is the signature of Pw.15 on scene of offence panchanama
Ex.P.11 is the signature of Pw.15 on rough sketch
Ex.P.12 is the signature of Pw.15 on the scene of offence report
Ex.P.13 is the signature of Pw.15 on the rough sketch of back water of
Nagarjun sagar dam, Kancherajupally Pushkar ghat.
Ex.P.14 is the signature of Pw.16 on the scene of offence panchanama
Ex.P.15 is the signature of Pw.16 on rough sketch of Plot NO.65, KPR colony, Manikonda gardens, Road NO.9, Manikonda.
Ex.P.16 is the signature of Pw.16 on the scene of offence panchanama of back water of Nagarjuna sagar dam, Kancherajupally, Pushkarghat, 33 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist Ex.P.17 is the signature of Pw.16 on the rough sketch of back water of
Nagarjunsagar dam, Kancherajupally, Pushkarghat.
Ex.P.18 is the Signature of Pw.17 on confession panchanama
Ex.P.19 is the signature of Pw.17 on the agreement
Ex.P.20 is the signature of Pw.17 on the panchanama
Ex.P.21 is the signature of Pw.17 on rough sketch.
Ex.P.22 is the signature of Pw.17 on the confession cum Seizure panchanama of accused No.1.
Ex.P.23 is the signature of Pw.17 on the confession cum Seizure panchanama of accused No.2
Ex.P.24 is the signature of Pw.17 on the confession cum Seizure panchanama of accused No.3
Ex.P.25 is the signature of Pw.17 on the confession cum Seizure panchanama of accused No.4
Ex.P.26 is the signature of Pw.17 on the confession cum Seizure panchanama of accused No.5
Ex.P.27 to Ex.P.32 are the scene of offence panchanamas and rough sketchs
Ex.P.33 is the Inquest panchanama contains signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.34 is the seizure panchanama
Ex.P.35 is the signature of Pw.19 confession panchanama of accused
No.1
Ex.P.36 is the signature of Pw.19 on the agreement,
Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38 are the signatures of Pw.19 on panchanama and rough sketch.
Ex.P.39 is the signature of Pw.19 on the confession panchanama of accused No.1 34 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist Ex.P.40 is the signature of Pw.19 on the confession panchanamas of accused No.2
Ex.P.41 is the signature of Pw.19 on the confession panchanamas of accused No.3
Ex.P.42 is the signature of Pw.19 on the confession panchanamas of accused No.4
Ex.P.43 is the signature of Pw.19 on the confession panchanamas of accused No.5
Ex.P.44 to Ex.P.49 are the panchanamas along with rough sketchs.
Ex.P.50 is the 65-B certificate.
Ex.P.51 is the complaint
Ex.P.52 is the FIR
Ex.P.53 is the scene observation report
Ex.P.54 is the rough sketch.
Ex.P.55 is the FSL report.
Ex.P.56 is the Post mortem report along with requisition
Ex.P.57 is the relevant portion of confession statement of the accused
No.1 marked with green ink.
Ex.P.58 is the seizure panchanama
Ex.P.59 is the section alteration memo
Ex.P.60 is the relavant portion of confession statement of accused No.2 marked with green ink
Ex.P.61 is the relevant portion of confession statement of accused NO.3 marked with green ink,
Ex.P.62 is the relevant portion of confession statement of accused NO.4 marked with green ink,
Ex.P.63 is the relevant portion of confession statement of accused NO.5 marked with green ink, 35 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist Ex.P.64 is the agreement of sale cum possession dt. 02-07-2022 and also photostat copy of pattedar pass book
Ex.P.65 is the photostat copy of pattedar pass book stands in the name of
Pw.4,
Ex.P.66 is the relevant portion of further confession statement of A.1 marked with green ink,
Ex.P.67 is the seizure panchanama
Ex.P.68 is the copy of customer application form of A.1 including ID proofs documents of Airtel.
Ex.P.69 is the copy of customer application from including ID proofs of deceased of airtel.
Ex.P.70 is the copy of customer application form of A.1 including ID proofs documents of Airtel.
Ex.P.71 is the copy of customer application form of A.1 including ID proofs documents of Jio.
Ex.P.72 is the copy of customer application form of A.3 including ID proofs documents
Ex.P.73 is the copy of customer application form of A.5 including ID proofs documents.
Ex.P.74 is the copy of customer application form of deceased including ID proofs documents of JIO.
Ex.P.75 is the Sec. 65-B certificate
Ex.P.76 is the 65 B certificate issued by Airtel
Ex.P.77 is the CDR and CD
Ex.P.78 is the CDR issued by JIO
Ex.P.79 is the soft copy of CDR
Ex.P.80 is the soft copy of CDR 36 of 36 Judgment in S.C.No.393/2024 VIII ADJC, R.R.Dist On behalf of the Defence: NIL
Material Objects:
For prosecution:
MO.1 is the net,
MO.2 is rope,
MO.3 is the black colour jeans pant,
MO.4 is the one I phone,
MO.5 is the Tata Nexon car Br.NO.TS HK 4650,
MO.6 is TMR Group Diary,
MO.7 is the Marker,
MO.8 is Opp phone,
MO.9 is samsung phone,
MO.10 is vivo phone,
MO.11 is vivo phone.
For Accused : NIL
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
VIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
FAC X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, L.B.NAGAR