Smt. V.B. Nirmala Geethamba

SC No.275 of 2022

1 of 27

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

Wednesday, the 6" dayofMay,2026

PRESENT: V.B.Nirmala Geethamba,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Warangal.

75 of

SESSICASE

(Old SC No.300 of 2018)

Name andThe State of Telangana, represented by

1.descriptionof : the complainanttheCircleInspectorofPolice,P.S. Wardhannapet

2.Name anddescriptionof : the accused Al. Vallepu Raju, s/o, Komuraiah, age: 30 years, Caste: Waddera, Occu : Coolie, R/o. Deendayal Nagar, Hanumakonda.

A2 Orsu Ganesh, s/o. Yellaiha, Age: 24 years, Caste: Waddera, Occu : R/o.MedapallyofatVajpaiColony, Driver,Nallabelly,now Hanumakonda.

A3 Nalam Srikanth, s/o. Venkanna, age: 23 years,Caste: Gouda, Occu: Auto driver, R/o. Waddepalli, Hanumakonda.

A4 Chevvalla Sampath, s/o. Narayana, Age: 22 years, Caste: Kurma, : Agriculture, R/. Katriyala Village of Wardhannapet Mandal. Occu (Case againstA4 isabated on21.3.2022) Offence charged: Sec.120-B,379,201

3.302,r/w.34IPC againstAl toA3 Plea of the accused: They have pleaded not guilty.

Finding of theCourtFound not guilty : : Acquittal Conviction/sentence/ acquittal Counsel for prosecutionAddl. Public Prosecutor 7. : Counsel for the accusedSri M.Sahodar Reddy, Counsel for : accused

nJUDGMENT:

2The Circle Inspector of Police,PS Wardhannapet, filed a charge

Ney.5

2 of 27SC No.275 of 2022 sheet against the accusedNo.1 to3for the offences under Sec.120B, 302, 379, 201 r/w.34 IPC, against A4 for the offence under sec.404, 201 ofIPC.

The brevity of the prosecution case -

2.5.7.2017at11.00hours,PW1cametoPolicestation On

Wardhannapetand lodgeda complaint stating that her husband Vallepu

Komuraiah is doing contracting works.On her husband left from her house at about 10.00 hours to attendhis contract works of Missionat Kakatiya

Parvathagiri,whilehe was returning at about19.00 hours near Upparapally cross roads, her husband was deadina car bearingNo.AP 36 AG 3753under suspicious circumstances.On 5.7.2017 in between6 to 7 a.m., LW9/Elakatte

Immediately sherushed thereand found deceased Bhaskar informed to her.

neck was found with blackish and tongue was come outside and Rs.50,000/- net cash, mobile not found with him.

Based on the report filed by PW1, PW24 registered the casein Cr. a:

No.130/2017 under suspicious death u/s.174CrPC and issuedFIR.During the investigation,PW24examined and recorded the statementof PW1,visited the mortuaryroom of MGMhospital, secured the presenceof PW15 and

PW16 and referred the body for autopsy.Thereafter, he handed over the dead body to the relatives of deceased. Thereafter, PW24 visited the scene of offencein the presenceof PW20 andPW21, anddrafted the scene observation panchanama in crime detail form.On 1.8.2017 at 09.00 hours,

PW13 approached PW25 and produced A1 to A3 before him and made extra

Leap Zig”

SC No.275 of 2022

3 of 27 judicial confession about commission of offence and later produced them

While making efforts, on 2.11.2017

before the Court for judicial custody.

police apprehendedA4at his house and on interrogation he confessed the offence in the presenceof PW18 and PW19 and producedA4 before the Court

After the collectionof relevant documentsand the for judicialcustody.

a charge sheet against the of theinvestigation,PW25filed completion accused No.1 to3 for theoffences under Sec.120B, 302, 379, 201 r/w.34 IPC, againstA4 forthe offence under sec.404, 201 of IPC.

Ill Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Warangal

4.The learned took the case onfile asP.R.C. No.51/2018.Upon the accused's appearance

before the Court, copiesofthe documents were furnished to the accused as

As the offence under Sec.302 of IPC is envisaged under Sec.207CrPC.

exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case has been committed to the Principal District Court, Warangal, under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C, 4During the pendencyofcase,A4reporteddied and case against him is abated.

FRAMING OF CHARGES:

On appearance of accused before the Court,this Court framed a 6.

charge against accused No.1 to 3 for the offence under section u/s.120B, 302,379 and 201 r/w.34 of IPC, read itover and explained it to them in the vernacular language. The accused No.1 to 3pleadednot guilty to the charge

\rreipe

SC No.275 of 2022

4 of 27 and requested a trial.

TRIAL :

During the trial, the case was transferred from theII Addl. District 7.

& Sessions Judge’s Court, Warangal to the Court of Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB

Cases-cum-lill Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Warangal as perorders vide

Dis.No.2670, dt.14.11.2025.Later, againitwas transferredfrom Court of Spl.

Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-lll Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Warangal

to the Pri. Sessions Court, Warangal vide this Court proceedingsin Dis.No.45, dt.6.1.2026. To prove the prosecution's case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW25 and Exs.P1 to P56 andMO-1toMO-5 marked.

313 CrPC examination of accused

After the prosecution's evidence concluded, the accused No.1 to 8.

3 were examined under Sec.313 CrPC.They denied thematerial allegations against them and pleaded not guilty. The accused further stated that there is no evidence on their behalf.

Both counsels were present and heard. 9.

Upon considering therivalcontentions and perusing the available 10.

record, the point that arises for determination before this Court isasfollows :

Has the prosecution proved the guilt of the accusedNo.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sec.120B, 302, 379 and 201 r/w.34 ofIPC beyond a reasonable doubt? If so,

a

what relief?

\eyeisn

5 of 27SC No.275 of 2022

el for aed

Submissionsri 0}

il,thatall the

Thelearnedcounselforaccusedargued

material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the caseofthe

Through InvestigatingOfficer, the customer application

prosecution,

form and call records were marked but the tower location map was

not filed by the police to show that the accused1to4 was present at

the time of commission of offence near to the scene of offence and

A4 taken themobile phoneof the deceased and cash

alsoof

Rs.50,000/- after commission of offence. Thereis no such evidence on

record to connect the accused with the crime.Hence, prayed to

acquit the accused.

ed Addl.Prosect mi:H lic

The learned Public Prosecutor argued that Alisthe sonof

12.

thethough thematerialwitnessesturnedhostile, the

deceased,

prosecution proved the recoveryof mobilephonesfrom Al to A4 and

recoveryof net cash of Rs.50,000/- pertains to the deceased and the

mobile phoneof the deceased seized from theA4 and cash of

Rs.50,000/- given to the interim custody toA4and hewas died and

abated, on that the said amount was not produced before the Court.

He further argued that the prosecutionproved the deathof the

deceased by examining PW23 who conducted the postmortem over

NeyGaye

SC No.275 of 2022

6 of 27

the dead body of the deceased and opinedthat the deceased was

died due to asphyxia on the pressureoftheneck with theuse of MO1,

the sameisfatalandthedeath of the deceased is homicide and Al

himself committed the murderofthe deceased with the help of A2 to

A4 due to financial and family disputes. The mobilephonesof Al to

A4 seized by the police at the timeofconfession in the presenceof

mediators and it was proved by the prosecutionby examining Pw22

who acted as mediator alongwithPW17and also acted asmediator at

the time of observationofsceneof offence dt.1.8.2017 at about 14.00

hours and itis marked asEx.P19,Hence, prayed toconvict the

accused No.1 to3for theoffences Sec.120B, 302, 379 and 201 r/w.34 of IPC.

EVIDENCERECORI

ECIATIO!

is that Alis the son

The case of the prosecutionof

13.

deceased who alleged to be conspiredwith A2 to A4 and hatched a

plan to getrid ofthe deceasedsince onemonth soon before the death

in between

on 4.7.2017 due tofinancial issues and family disputes

themurderof the deceasedbrutally

themandcommittedby

squeezinghisneck with atowel (MO-1) and thrown the dead body of

the deceased at outskirts ofUpparapallyat National High Way and

abandoned on the road and caused the disappearanceof the evidence

As per the prosecution version, the offence

of murder of father of Al.

Mo peip4

7 of 27SC No.275 of 2022

took place on 4.7.2017 night at about 19.00 hours at Upparpalli cross

roads which is within the limits of Wardhannapet.

|. Motive for commissi:

The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.

14.To

prove the guiltof theaccused, the prosecution examinedPW1 to

PW25, Exs.P1 to P56 and MO1 to MO5 marked. As per the confession of Al to A3, they hatched a plan to get rid of the deceased who is father ofAl due to family and financial disputes. The family members of the deceased examined as PW1 to PW5 and they did not support

theof theturnedhostile. Therefore, the

caseprosecutionand

miserablyfails to prove the motive behind back of the

prosecution

alleged murder of the deceased.

fIin when deceased Theo:i: H

On the other hand, as per the prosecution version on the

15.

alleged dateofincident, they noticed the presenceofdeceased at

Parvathagiri on that accused proceeded towardsin an Parvathagiri auto bearing No.TS 03UB 3309 / Ex.P44 on the way Al alighted near the outskirts of Upparapalli village and A2, A3 proceededin an auto

towards Parvathagiri and noticed the presence of the deceased and

pretended that their auto was punctured,A2 boarded inthe carof the

Moye ispeb

SC No.275 of 2022

8 of 27 deceased, whereasA3 moved towardsUpparapallicross roads in his

auto meanwhileA2stopped the car nearby outskirts of Upparpalli for

attending the naturecalls, then Al and A3 joined with A2 and Al

strangulated the deceased with a towel and A3 caught hold the hands

of the deceased, Al open the door andclosed the mouth of his father,

caused his death and thereby Alto A3 committed the alleged offence.

To prove the same,PW11 was examinedwhoalleged to be

16.

noticed the deceased along with A2 and A3 in a car belongs to the in his auto and A2 drive the

deceased,and left towards Warangal

is sitting backside of the said car, as

deceased car and deceased

PW11 whoisrunning the puncture shop near Parvathagiri.However

support theof the

turnedanddidnotcase

shehostile

was

Thus, prosecutionfailed to provethe last seen theory

prosecution.

beyond reasonable doubt.

is the owner of the auto, he deposed thathe has

17.PW12

given the auto to A3toply onrent and A3 used topaythe rent

Rs.250/- per day but he didnot returntheauto,then hecameto know

that the police registered the crimeand seized the auto from A3.He

turned hostile and did not support the caseof theprosecution.

MON Cifcb

9 of 27SC No.275 of 2022

coveo MOS:

PW15 and PW16 are the inquest mediators turned hostile

18.

and did not support the case of the prosecution.PW17 isthe mediator

at the time of confession of Al toA3along with PW22.PW17 and

PW22 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

As per their version, except MO1 the police not seized anythingin

PW18 and PW19 are the mediators at the time of

their presence.

arrest ofA4 were turned hostile and did not support the caseofthe

toshowthat themobileofdeceasedand

prosecutionphone

Rs.50,000/- was seized from the possessionof A4.However, they

stated before the Court that the policeobtained theirsignaturesat

police station and did not support the caseofthe prosecution about

the seizure ofMO2 toMOS. Except at the instanceofAl,MO1 is

recovered on the alleged date of confession but admittedin cross-

PW17 that hehimself andPW22 signedon the

examination by

confession statement at a timeinthe police station.Therefore, the

recoveryof MO1 at the instance of Al is doubtful.On the other hand,

believed the versionof PW22 that on the alleged date of

if itis

incident they acted as mediators and seized Idea mobilephone having

calling No.9553641229 from Al, Oppo companymodel no.A1601 with

andhavingnumber

_No.8634497038564035SIM-1SIM2IMEI IMEI

nage

SC No.275 of 2022

10 of 27

Oppo mobilemarked asMO4 through PW22.

8634497038504027.

From A2 custody the police seized the black colour samsungmobile

number

phonehavingnumberSM-BIIOE/Dhaving IMEI and SIM-2is havingNo.353965/07/788134/7and 353964/07/788134/0IMEI

No.8801272394and Ideaphonemobile simAirtelcompanySIMcalling

The black colour Samsung key pad phoneMOS seized from No.9177549953,

A3. The police seizedItel company havingNo.911565659127880

SIMIMEI

and sim-2IMEINo, 9515365712 andit ismarked asMO-3.

19. | PW18 and PW19 are the mediators at the timeof confession of

As per their evidence they turned hostile.But as per the prosecution A4.

versiontheyshowntheSamsungwhitecolourhavingSIM-1IMEI

No.355632/07/18619/0of the deceased 355631/07/185619/2 and SIM-2 IMEI and also seized theSIMof deceased fromPW14.PW14 who alleged to be used the SIM card of the deceasedin her mobile phone anditwas alleged to be provided by A4 who is her neighbour by that time sheisstudying 6" or7" class. She turned hostile and did not support the caseof the prosecution and the said mobile phone of the deceased was not marked before the Court to ascertain the calling number of the deceased.On the other hand, PW1 mentioned the mobile number of the deceased under Ex.P40is9553122762

In the and also alleging that the said phone and Rs.50,000/- cash waslost.

absenceof proofofseizuremobileofdeceased,Rs.50,000/-from of

Wye4

11 of 27SC No.275 of 2022 possessionof A4 andother MO1 to MOS, this Court safely concluded that the prosecutionfailsto prove the recoveryof MO1 to MOS at the instance of Al to A4 beyond reasonable doubt.

tific evidence A mn:

To connect the said mobile phones with the alleged offence the 20.

Nodal officer of the Airtel and Ideal cell phones was not examined by the

On the other hand, the call data recordsof Al marked as prosecution.

Ex.P49,

21.To prove the same, the prosecution examined PW25 who worked as InspectorofPolice, Wardhannapet at relevant pointof time.As per his evidence he seized MO1 toMOSfrom the possessionofAl toA3and also

He madea requisition toNodal officer, Airtel & Idea to provide the from A4.

CDR and CAF of the mobile bearing No.8801272394 belongs to A2 and Mobile no.9553641229 belongs to Al, 9553122762 belongs to accused, 9515365712 to9177549953belongstoandanothermobile belongsA3,A2

No.8096868489 vide his letter dt.28.8.2017 and called for thecallrecords from 15.6.2017 to 6.1.2018.The call records of Al marked asEx.P45and customary application formed marked asEx.P46.65B marked as Ex.P47. The letter issued by Nodal officer dt.30.10.2017 marked asEx.P48. Thecustomer application form markedasEx.P49having mobile no.8801340830.The application formof Almarked asEx.P49having mobileNo. customary

Verein’

12 of 27SC No.275 of 2022 8801340830 under Ex.P49.Thecustomer application formof Komuraiah, is marked as Ex.P50,The customer applicationformof A2 S/o.Mysaiah marked as Ex.P51.As per Ex.A51 the mobile number of A2 is 9177549953.

CDR of mobile phone bearing No.8096868489marked as Ex.P52 and the sameconnectionstandsthenameofSudhaVenkateshwarlu, in is marked as Ex.P54.The call data records of the said S/o.Nagasheshaiah, mobile number marked as Ex.P55.The witness nothing stated how the said numberswere connectedwiththe commissionof offenceinhis mobile evidence and fails to connect the accusedwith the crime to prove the between Altoand their presencealongwith _criminalconspiracyA4 deceased at the time of commission of offence.

Appreciation of medical evidence

:

Theexaminedhisevidence,the

22.prosecutionPW23asper deceased was died due to asphyxia due to pressure over the neck.PW23 conducted post mortem over the dead body of deceased on 5.7.2023 and found the following injuries-

1. Contusion 5 x 3 cm., horizontally place over the front of the neck

2. Contusion 8 x 3 cm., on the throat over the hyoid, thyroid and cricoid and trachial rings.

in nature and no poison

23.The above injuries are antemortem substance was found as perRFSL report andit ismarked as Ex.P37. The post mortem report marked as Ex.P36m final report marked as Ex.P38. Therefore,

RO Son

SC No.275 of 2022

13 of 27 it clearly shows that the deceased was murderedand he was died due to

As per the version of the prosecution, Al himself pressure over the neck.

strangulated the neck of the deceased with MO1 but fails to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt and alsothey collected the lot of material i.e., all data applications andcalldata records.But the prosecution miserablyfails to connect the accusedwiththecrimehowtheyinterlinked with each other for commission of offence soon beforethe death of the deceased to prove the guilt of the accusedfor theoffence u/s.120B IPC.

APPLICATION OF LAW

: in the case of 1.Sharad Birdhi Chand As per the decision 24.

Sarda vs the State of Maharashtra(AIR 1984 SC 1622). The said

called the Panchasheelacircumstantialevidence. principles arealsoof

Therefore, the circumstancesfrom which the conclusion of the guilt should be drawn. The Hon‘ble APEX Court heldthat -

1. The circumstances from which theconclusion ofguiltis to be drawn should be fully established; should be consistentwith the facts soestablished

2.The hypothesis ofguiltand the accused; that is to say, they should other hypothesis except that the not be explainableonany accused is guilty;

3. The circumstancesshould be conclusive andtendency;

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

ere

LAIR 1984

SC 1622

14 of 27SC No.275 of 2022

5. The chain of evidence must be so complete that it does not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the accused's innocence and must show that,in all human probability, the accused must have done the act.

All the links has to be proved by the prosecution beyond 23:

reasonable doubt. Admittedly, the case is based on the circumstantial

evidence and the prosecution must link the chain of the circumstances

to connect the accused with the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

The same was upheld by the Hon'ble APEX Court in various 26.

cases and the conviction must be based on solely on circumstantial

evidence, requires complete chain of evidence ruling out of several

hypothesis except the accused guilt.There must be corroboration

with each circumstances.

In view of the evidence on record, for the offence u/s.120B

27.

of IPC, the prosecution must able to establish that there is a meeting

of minds between A1 to A4 to enter into agreement to commit illegal

acts for commission of offence soon before the death of the deceased.

In this case, the prosecution fails to connect the accused with the

crime through oral and documentary evidence beyond reasonable

doubt and further fails to establish that there was a meeting of minds

Niosub

LAIR 1984 SC 1622

SC No.275 of 2022

15 of 27

a plan to getrid ofthe

in between Al toA4 and they hatched is father of Al.On thatA2 to A4 helped Al for

deceased who

The same was

commission of offence on the alleged date of incident.

not proved by the prosecutionby leading cogent evidence and fails to

provethe offence u/s.120B of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.Thus,

Al toA3are entitled for acquittal for the offence u/s. 120B of

IPC.

IPC, theprosecutionmust

For theoffenceu/s.302of

28.

establish thatwith theexecution of their plan the accused Al to A4

noticed the presenceof deceased at Parvathagiri alone in his car and

UB 3309 and that Al

in their auto bearingNo. TS 03

proceeded

alighted near outskirts of Upparpalli Village then A2 and A3 proceeded

noticed the

and on the way atWadlakonda

towardsParvathagiri

presenceof deceased met him and taking advantage of the same and

changed the puncture tyrein the shop of PW11, the deceased and A2

proceededand A3 left in the auto bearing No.TS 03UB 3309.The

same was not provedby the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt

and also the presenceof A1 to A3 with the deceased at relevant point

of time and fails to connect thematerial objects alleged to be used by

the accusedfor commission of offence beyond reasonable doubt.

WenQyip

SC No.275 of 2022

16 of 27

To prove the guiltof the accused for the offence u/s.302 of

29.

IPC, the prosecution must establish that the death of a human being,

caused by an act done with the intention to cause death, intent to

knowledge that the act is inherently

causefatal bodilyinjury,or

dangerousand likely to cause death. Though, the prosecution proved

that the deceasedwas died due to asphyxia andit is a homicidal

death butfailsto connect the accused with the crime to establish that

recovered at the

MO1 i.e., towel usedfor commission of offence,

instanceofAl beyond reasonable doubt as the mediator PW17 turned

hostile and did not supportthe case of the prosecution and admitted

that they were signed on the confessional statement and seizure of

In the above said circumstances,it is

property atpolice station.

difficult to believe the evidence of PW17 and PW22 that on confession

of Al, Al lead them toUpparapalli cross roads and shown the MO-1

On the other hand,in is recovered. andathisinstanceMO-1

continuation of such confession, MO2 to MOS also recovered at the

instance of accused but the same was not proved by the prosecution

beyond reasonable doubt and fails to connect the accused with the

crime and failed to explainwhich mobile number belongs to Al to A3,

how they are connected to commit the murder of the deceased with

the crime beyond reasonable doubt by examining the nodal officer

oyeist-6

17 of 27SC No.275 of 2022

and the Investigating Officer is failed to extend how he was concluded

that Al to A4 committed the alleged offence through CDRs.

To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s.302 of

30.

IPC, the prosecution must establish that there isa motive behind back

of the allegedAs per the prosecution version, Al was

offence.

committed the death of the deceased due to family disputes and

financial crises, the same was not provedby the prosecution

by

examining the family membersof the deceased and they were turned

hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

The decision in 2.Nandu Singh Vs. State of Madhya

31.

Pradesh reported in [2022where the

SCCONLINEP1454],

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that -

where the convictionwas based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. The Court was of the view that the prosecution had failed to establish motive which was rightly observed by the Trial Court and further observed that if the entire caseisbased oncircumstantial evidence, though the deceased had met with a homicidal death, there must be corroboration from the over all circumstantial witnesses and it has to be proved the guilt of the accused and the prosecution has to be proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.The same view was upheld by theHon’ble APEX Court in a case of 2.Shankar v State of Maharashtra reported in [2023SCC OnLineSC 268,

decided on 15-03-2023].

In this case, the prosecution miserably fails to prove the

32.

motive behind back of the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt

v%ps

22022 SCC ONLINE PIA54 3.2023 SCC OnLine SC 268

SC No.275 of 2022

18 of 27

and it is also one of thelink to connect the accused withthecrime.

But the prosecutionfails to prove the same beyond

miserably

reasonable doubt to prove the guilt of the accusedfortheoffence u/s.

In the above said circumstances, the accused No.1

302 of I.P.C.

to3 are entitled for acquittal for theoffence u/s.302 of IPC

beyond reasonable doubt.

To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s.379of

33.

IPC, theft of mobile phone of deceased, Rs.50,000/- cash by A4 after

commission of offence, the prosecution must establish the same.On

the other hand, it shows that Rs.50,000/- was given tointerimcustody

to A4 and he was died and nothing was produced beforetheCourt.

The deceased mobile phone did not produce before theCourt andthe

mediators PW18 and PW19 turned hostile and didnot support the

caseofthe prosecution that at thetime ofarrest of A4,they seized

Rs.50,000/- of amount and mobile phone of the deceasedfromthe

In the above said circumstances, the

custodyof A4on 2.11.2017.

prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingredientsof sec.379 of IPC

In the above said

beyond reasonable doubt against Al to A3.

circumstances, the accusedNo.1to3are entitledfor acquittal

for the offence u/s. 379 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

Voor diy6

19 of 27‘SC No.275 of 2022

To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s.201 of

34.

IPC, to get rid of the commission of offence, the accused was taken

the dead body and left the deceased at the outskirts of Upparapally in

But as per the versionof the prosecution, the accused

his car.

travelled along with deceased thatA2 andin the car of the

A3

deceased and that Al joined with them at Upparpalli Village they were

committed the alleged offencein the car of the deceased itself and

left the place.The dead body was traced by the Investigating Officer

at Upparpalli cross road and observed the sceneof offencein the

presenceof PW20 and PW21 on 5.7.2017 and prepared the rough

sketch and also taken the photographs of the deceasedwith PW9 and

the saidmarked asEx.P10.Though the mediators

photogrpahs

turnedhostile, the photos itselfreflecting that the deceased was

committed murderin his car itself and thereisno evidence on record

they tried to screen away thematerial evidence of commissionof

In the above said circumstances, the

offenceby Al toA4.

accused No.1 to3 are entitled for acquittal for the offence

u/s.201 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case the prosecution fails to establish that Al toA3

35; were proceededinauto bearingNo.TS 03 UB 3309 which belongs to

A3 on the alleged date of incident ascertaining that the fatherof Al is

Wye sue

SC No.275 of 2022

20 of 27

available at Parvathagiriin hiscar nearUpparpalli cross roads, Al was

gotdown and A2 and A3 proceeded towards Upparpalli and boarded

the car of the deceased on that A3 left the place in the auto and A2

proceeded along with deceased by driving the car and taken him to

Upparpalli cross roads where Al joinedwith A2 to A4 and committed

The same was not proved by the prosecutionand

the allegedoffence.

further fails to produce themobilephoneof the deceased and also call

data records of Al toA4 andrecoveryof Rs.50,000/- and also mobile

phoneofthe deceased from A4 beyond reasonable doubt as discussed

above.

It is a time tested proposition that the primary burden falls

36.

uponthe shoulders of the prosecution and it is only if the prosecution

succeedsindischarging its burden beyond reasonable doubt.On the

other hand,iftwo two views are possible, theview which is favourable to the accusedisto be extendedand it is a probable and improbable

facts and circumstances of the case must beappreciatedby the Court

However, the motive behind back of the

in the course of criminal trial.

alleged offenceisthefinancial crisis andfamilydisputes between the

accused and deceased.In this case, the prosecution fails to establish

the same by leading cogent evidence and they were turned hostile

and did not support the case of the prosecution.

Mr cistb

21 of 27SC No.275 of 2022

As per the decision in a case of 4.Pannayar Vs. State of

37.

Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police reported in [2009(9)SC

P152], where theHon'bleHighCourt of Tamilnadu held that -

Absenceofmotiveinacasedependingon

circumstantial evidence is a fatal and that weighsinfavour

of the accused.

In a case based on substantial evidence, motive assumes

38.

great significance.It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link

in the case to be established by the prosecution andin its absence the

caseofthe prosecution must be discarded.But at the same time, the

completechain and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the

Thus, thecomplete absenceof motivealthoughnot

accused.

conclusiveisa relevant factorwhich weighsin favour of the accused,

no doubt becomeallthe caseshalldependuponthe weight of

andweightofcircumstantial

circumstantialevidenceisquality

evidence.

In this case, the testimonyof prosecution witnessesis 39.

invariably not supportingthe caseof the prosecution and fails to

establish the family disputesand financial crisis between Al and his

father. The wife of deceased also not supportingthe prosecution.

MOmG(AL

4.2009(9)SC P152

SC No.275 of 2022

22 of 27

Therefore, the absenceof motive raises serious questions and might

of the

have been acrucial factor in weighing the caseinfavor

hingessolelyon

theconviction

accused,particularlywhen

circumstantial evidence and the prosecution miserably fails to connect

the accusedwith the crime by complete the chain of link of all the

with the crime beyond reasonable

chains to connectthe accused

In the above said circumstances,the Al to A3 are entitled for

doubt.

acquittalfortheabove said charges.

In the above said circumstances,the prosecution miserably

40.

3 for the offences

failed to prove the guiltof the accused No.1 to

u/sec.120B, 302, 379 and 201 r/w.34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt

and that they are entitledforacquittal.

RESULT:

AS A RESULT, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the

IPC and 379and201r/w.34of

undersec.120B,302,

offences acquitted under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. The case against A4 is abated.

MO-2 to MO-5 are ordered MO-1 shall be destroyed after appealtime.

to be returned toits original owners on proper identification, after

expiryofappeal time.

(Dictated to the StenographerGrade-1, transcribed by her, corrected andgegenPRINCIPALssi by mein the Open Court on this 6” dayofMay, 2026)

JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

23 of 27SC No.275 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION |CUT

NAME OF THE WITNESS |

DESCRIPTION/ROLE OF

WITNESS NUMBERTHE WITNESS

> PW1/LW1|Vallepu Laxmanandwifeof| [Complainant deceased and mother of Al | _|Vallepu Sampath|Elderofdeceasedand PW2/LW2son [circumstantial witness

Pw4/LW6 ||

PW3/LW3 __| Vallepu Ravi |Nieceofdeceasedand circumstantial witness

Margam RavinderEye witness

PWS/LW7——_|Margam ManjulaEye witness PW6/LW5JannuBixapathiPhotographer —_|Bhukya RameshFarm servant of deceased and Pw7/LW4

PW9/LW11 |circumstantial witness

PW8/LW10 _|Thakkallapally Sudhakar

Neighbourof 1*scene

PWIO/LW12 |

Vadiakonda RavinderPhotographer

Alakuntla YadagiriExtra-judicial confession witness

pwiz/Lwi3 |

PW1i/LW8| Dadi Rajanna @ DabbaEyewitness |Rajanna

|

| Shaik Vali PashaOwner of auto bearing No.TS 03 UB 3309 which was used by A3 in thecommissionof offence |

PWi4/LWi6 |

andis circumstantial witness |

PW15/LW17 |3" brother of deceased

__|Vallepu Sailu PW13/LW14

PW16/LW18 |

Kamindla AkhilCircumstantial witness |

~~ PW17/LW21 |

~~Panch witness for inquest Alakunta Yakaiah Panch witness for inquest Allepu Kumar Ambati SuraiahPanch witness for confession of|

SC No.275 of 2022

24 of 27 ‘Al to A3 and seizure andCDF of|

pwis/Lw23 |

| 2" scene | Panch witness forconfession of| Thatikayala Ramesh | ‘Ad and seizure of mobile phone

Panch witnessfor confession of _|Kaitha Sampath PWi9/LW24 {Ad and seizure of mobile phone

|

_|Panch witness forCDF pw20iw20|Shivarathri Venkatnarsu __|Bontha KantamPanch witnessfor CDF PW2i/LW19 _|Panch witness for confessionof |Gudikandula Ramprasad PW22/LW22 Al toA3 and seizure and also CDF of2%scene |Conducted autopsy over dead) _|Dr.Mohd, Raza Mallik Khan Pw23/LW25 body of deceased

InvestigatingOfficer

PW25/Lw30 |_|G.Upender,SI of Police,1

Pw24/LW29 Thorrur Officerandfiled L.Adinarayana,Circleinvestigating | charge sheet Inspectorof Police

NAME OF THE WITNESS |

FOR DEFENCE

| DESCRIPTION/ROLE OF THE DEFENCE|

WITNESS

WITNESS

NUMBER NONE

a

|

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION

FOR

|PROVED BY/

DESCRIPTION OF THE EXHIBIT

EXHIBIT

ATTESTED BY

NUMBER PW Signatureof PW1on report dt.5.7.2017 ExP1 PW U/s.161CrPC statementof PW1 ExP2 U/s.161 CrPC statementof PW2Pw2 Ex.P3 [ExpU/s.161 CrPC statementof PW3Pw3 __|U/s.161 CrPC statementof PW4pwa |ExP5 U/s.161 CrPC statementof PWSPWS ExP6 25 of 27SC No.275 of 2022 {Ex.P7Photographs andCD PW6 U/s.161 CrPC statement of PW7 Ex.P8PW7 Ex.P9U/s.161 CrPC statement of PW8

Ex.P10 _| Six photographsPW8s

PW9 |U/s.161 CrPC statement of PW10 Ex.P11Pw10 Ex.P12|U/s.161 CrPC statement of PW11Pwil Ex.P13|U/s.161 CrPC statement of PW12Pwi2 Ex.P14U/s.161 CrPC statement of PW13 Pw13 U/s.161 CrPC statement ofPW14-Pwi4 Ex.P15 Signature of PW15 on inquestreport—Pwis Ex.P16 Ex.P17Signature of PW16 on inquest reportPw16 Ex.P18lead to recovery portionPwi7 Ex.P19CDF-Il, dt 01.08.2017 at about 14.00 hoursPwi7 Ex.P20Signature ofPW17on Ex.P19Pwi7 Ex.P21Signature ofPW17on confessional statement,PWi7 dt.01.08.2017 of Al between 10.00 am to 11.10 am Ex.P22Signature ofPW17on confessional statement!Pwi7 dt.01.08.2017 of A2 between 11.20 to 12.20 pm Ex.P23Signature of PW17 on confessional statementdt]PW17 01.08.2017 of A3 between 12.30 to 1.30 pm

Ex.P24Signature ofPW17on seizure panchanama dtPwi7 01.08.2017 at about 02.00 pm

Ex.P25Signature of PW18 on confessional statementdt:Pwis 02.11.2017 in between 10.30 am to 11.30 am

Ex.P26Signature of PW19 on confessional statement dt Pwi19 02.11.2017inbetween 10.30 am to 11.30

Ex.P27Signature of PW20 onCDFalongwithroughPw20 sketch, dt 05.07.2017 at 11.15 hours Signature of PW21 onCDFalong ‘with roughPw21 Ex.P28 sketch, dt 05.07.2017 at 11.15 hours

Signature of PW22onEx.P19Pw22 Ex.P29 Ex.P30Signature of PW22 on Ex.P19Pw22 Signature ofPW22on confessionalstatement|Pw22 Ex.P31 dt.1.8.2017 at 10 to 11 a.m.

SC No.275 of 2022

26 of 27

|

Signature of PW22 on confessional statement:pw22 [Ex.P32 dt.1,8.2017 at 11.20 to 12.20p.m. Signatureof PW22 on confessional statement}Pw22 "ExP33 _|dt.1.8.2017 at 12.30 p.m., to 1.30 p.m. [Signature of PW22 on seizure panchanama ofpw22 ExP34 Al dt.18,2017 at2p.m. : ExP35 __|Seizure panchanamadt.1.8.2017 at 2 p.m.Pw22 Pw23 Ex.P36__|PME report Pw23 |RFSL report dt.30.8.2017 Ex.P37__ Pw23 final opinion Ex.P38__| pw24 Ex.P39__|OriginalFIR pw24 Ex.P40|Report pw24 __|CDF along with rough sketch ExP41 __|Inquest report dt 05.07.2017 in between 11.30pw24 Ex.P42

Ex.P45 ||amto 1.30pm

Pw24 |Ex.P43Altered memo autohavingPw25 ofthesaid Ex.P44[photographs bearingNo. TS 03 UB 3309 Pw25 CDRs (7 pages) Pw25

Ex.P46[CAFi

__|65B CertificatePw25

Ex.P47ExP49 |

by theNodalPw25 [Letter addressedofficer,IDEA Ex.P48 cellular, dt 30.10.2017 CAF of V.Raju, S/o. V.Komuraiah, having mobilePw25 no. 8801340830 ql

§ExP52 |Pw25

__|CAF of Komuraiah, S/o. Mysaiah Ex.P50 ExP51 __|CAFstandsin thenameof Orsu Ganesh, havingPw25 mobile no. 9177549953 Letter dt 16.01.2018 issuedbythe IDEA Cellular]PW25

Ex.P54 |

mobile8096868489from [regardingno. ‘|01.07.2017 to 02.11.2017 2 _|65 B certificate issued by the IDEA cellualar andPw25 ExP53 Pw25 CAF of Sudha Venkateshwarlu, S/o.Nagashehsaiah havingmobile n0.8096868489 : __|call data records of the said mobile number (8Pw25 ExP55 27 of27SC No.275 of 2022

Bae

pages). |

_|CDissued bytheIDEA cellular

ExP56Pw25 ||

FOR DEFENCE

bleA |NIL

IAL OBIEED

{ MATERIALDESCRIPTION OF THE EXHIBITPROVED BY/ |

OBJECT NUMBERATTESTED BY

| Red colour towelPwi7 MO-1 | MO-2Karbon silver / white colour smart phone PW22. [ Mo-3Itel gold colour smart phonePw22 | | “MO-4Opposilver colour smart phone PW22 r MO-5‘Blackcolour Samsung keypad phonePw22 pRINCeALOesORe Mune?

WARANGAL.

lof19

CC No.27 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

Wednesday, the22™dayofApril, 2026

PRESENT: V.B.Nirmala Geethamba,

Principal Sessions Judge,

C.C.No.27Warangal.

{Old No.04of 2022

of2022)

description of]:| The Stateof Telangana rep. by

‘I.|Name

and

the complainant.the Sub-inspector of Police, Police Station Matwada 2.|Nameanddescription of the accused : 52 years, Caste: Munnurukapu,| Al Panchagiri Satyanarayana, s/o.Sambaiah, Age OccuChairmanofAchalaChitFundsPvt.Ltd.R/o.H.No.2-8-397, : Raghavendranagar,Hanumakonda.

A2PanchagiriPadma,w/o.PanchagiriSatyanarayana,Age45Caste years, ;: Munnurukapu, Occu: Managing Director of Achala Chit Funds Pvt, Ltd., R/o. H.No.2-8- 397, Raghavendranagar,Hanumakonda.

: 38 years, Caste; Gouda, Occu: Manager of A3 Thouti Rajesh, s/o. Veeraswamy, age AchalaChitFunds JakotiyaBranch,SnehaHanumakonda, ComplexR/o.Nagar, present atH.No.14-1-178, VenuraoColony, Warangal.

3. | Offence charged | U/s.420,406, 290, 506 riw.34LP.C.,, Sec.5 of :] TelanganaProtection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act

4,| Plea of the accused

—They have pleaded not guilty.

_|:|Al to A3 found not guilty.

Counsel for the prosecution |Acquittal

Sri S.Srinivas, Addl. Public Prosecutor. :)

8.| Counsel for accused

Sri Ch.Ramakrishna, Counsel for accused_|

This case is coming before me fora final hearing in the presence of respective advocates; on hearing both sides and upon considering the material evidence available on record and having stood over for considerationtillthis day, the Court delivered the following:~

Neg

CC No.27 of 2022

2o0f 19

JUDGMENT:

a charge sheet of Police, MatwadaP.S., filed aeTheInspector against the Al and A2 for the offences u/s.420, 406, 290, 506 r/w. 34 IPC,

Sec.5of the Telangana Protection ofDepositorsof Financial Establishments of the Act, 1999, and againstA3 for the offencesu/s.420Sec.5 IPC,

Telangana Protection ofDepositorsof Financial Establishments Act, 1999,

The brevityof the prosecution case- 2On 22.1.2022 at 7:30 hours, thePW1 came toP.S, Matwada and lodged a Telugu written complaint in which stated that he subscribed to

ChitFund.WarangalBranch,JakotiyaComplex, 5,00,000/-inAchala

Pochammaidan and paid chit amount throughChitAgent Gnaneshwar, it is

No.ACWT14J-11 anditwas commencedfrom 50 months Chit his chit bearing 31.7.2018, he paid an amountof Rs.10,000/- for about 36 months and on 29.9.2021 he paid the said chitforan amountof Rs.5,93,000/- and he has to whenhe approached the bereceivean amountofRs.4,40,700/-and

Manager Rajeshforpaymentsaid bid amount. he informed he will issue cheque after one month, believing to words, he waited and after one month

He promised to pay his amount after one month again heapproach him.

and when he approached to Vanchanagiri Satyanarayana,Chairman of Chit

Unpzfane

3 of 19CC No.27 of 2022

Fund and Vanchanagiri Padma, Manager of Chit fund, they have cheated him without giving his money.

On receipt of the complaint,PW13 registereda caseinCr. 3:

No.30/2022, u/s.420 of I.P.C., Sec.5 ofTelangana Protection ofDepositorof

Financial Establishment Act, and issuedDuring the investigation, he FIR.

examined PW1 and recorded his statement.Healso secured the presenceof

PW11 and PW12 drew a rough sketch map and seized the articles under the coverofthe panchanama,

4.thecourseofinvestigation,on22.1.2022,PW13 During apprehendedAlatthehouseofPinnintiAmarenderRaoand on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed the offence and produced him before theCourtforjudicialremand.On5.4.2022and17.4.2022,PW14 apprehendedA2 and A2respectively, and on interrogation, they voluntarily confessed the offence andproduced thembeforethe Court for judicial

After completing the investigation,PW14 filed a charge sheet remand.

against the Al and A2 for the offence u/s.420, 406, 290, 506 r/w. 34 IPC,

Sec. 5 of the Telangana Protection of DepositorsofFinancialEstablishments

Act, 1999, againstA3for the offence u/s.420IPC,Sec. 5 of the Telangana

Protection of Depositors of Financial EstablishmentsAct, 1999

Moats

4of19CC No.27 of 2022

The case was cognizant of offences under sec.420, 406, 290, 3.

506 r/w. 34 |.P.C., and Sec.5of the Telangana Protection ofDepositorsof

Financial Establishments Act against Al toA3.

FRAMING OF CHARGES

:

On the appearanceof Al to A3 before this Court, this Court

6.

framed charges against them for offences under sec.420, 406, 290, 506 r/w.

I.P.C., Sec.of TelanganaProtectionof DepositorsofFinancial 34of5 explained the same to themin the EstablishmentsAct, read over and vernacular language. They pleaded not guilty to the chargesand claimed to be tried.

TRIAL:

To prove the prosecution's case, the prosecution examinedPW1 hs to PW14, and Exs. P1 to P16 were marked.

313 CrPC examination of the accused

After the prosecution's evidence was presented, the accused 8.

was examineddenied thematerial allegations made u/s.313CrPC.He againsthimby theand pleaded notOnbehalf of prosecutionguilty.

accused, he examined himself as DW1, Ex.D1 marked.

9.Both counsels were present and heard.

erga

CC No.27 of 2022

Sof19 thecontentionsandperusingthe

10.consideringrival Upon available on record, the point that arises for determination before this Court is as follows :

Has the prosecution proved the guilt of accused of the offences punishable under sec.420,406, 290, 506 r/w. 34 I.P.C., Sec 5 of ProtectionofofFinancial theTelanganaDepositors Establishments Act, beyondall reasonable doubt?

Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor:

‘The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution 11.

examined PW1 to PW14, Exs.P1toP16 marked.To rebut the evidence of the prosecution, Alexamined asDW1, Ex.D1 marked.He further argued that as per the prosecution version the Alalongwith Kandi Srinivas Reddy,

Devenuri Anjaiah, Vadnala Nagaraju started the chit fund business under the

Chit Funds Pvt.in the year 2011 and name and styleof AchalaLtd.,

Devunuri Anjaiah left the chit fundin the year2018 and Vadnala Nagaraju left the companyin the year2019. Thereafter, the accused continued the business and he was running thechit fund company.On 22.1.2022,PW1 lodged the complaint allegingthat he has completed 36 instalments vide chit bearing No.ACWT14J-11 i.e., Rs.5,00,000/- chit for 50 months and chit auction was not conductedand theydid not repaythe amounts and thereby

Basing on the complaint, the cheated them and lodged the complaint.

PW4 to PW10 turned examined the above saidwitnesses. prosecution

verge

CC No.27 of 2022

6 of 19 hostile and did not support the caseof the prosecution.Hence, prayed to convict the accused for the above said charges.

Submissions of counselfor accused

:

counsel for accused argued that the Alis the

12.The learned

Chairman of Achala Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., and as perEx.D1hepaidthe entire amount to the chit subscribersthrough District LegalServices Authority,

Warangal andallthe amountswere paid throughthe Registrar of Chits and the Al himself filed the petition before the District LegalServices Authority to pay the said amounts and thereisno any dishonestintention to cheat the

He further argued that due to covid pandemic the subscribers subscribers.

did not come forward to pay the remaining chit amountsand did not became successful biddersintheabove said chit and during that periodthe paymentof chits wereextended for a period of five months to pay the amounts, but theydidnot come forward to pay the sameand that the PW1 falsely raised the complaint and he is not a successful bidder in the chit and due to covid period the chit fund company also not conducted any auction.

In the above said circumstances, the chit fund company unable to pay the chit amount to the subscribers.After filing the case the company chairman himself come forward and made an application to theDistrictLegalServices thechitamountstothesubscribers. Authority,Warangal,topay

Accordingly, he paid thechit amountsto the Registrarof chits and cleared

otal?

Vong

CC No.27 of 2022

7 of 19 the entire amount under Ex.D1 and he further argued that to prove the guilt of the accused for theoffence u/s.420 of IPC, the prosecution must establish that there is inducementand there must be dishonest intention since from the beginning andcommitted default in payment of the chit amounts, but period the chit fund nosuchoccasionexcept thepandemic thereis company never made any default in return of the amount and they cleared the entire amountwhich alleged to be paid by them to the subscribers.

Hence, prayed to acquit the accused

vidn_re

As per the evidenceof PW1, he joinedin the Achala Chit Fund 13.

companyon 31.7.2018, for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and he has to pay monthly instalments @Rs.10,000/- p.m., at 50 months that he will get a

Then, he was joinedinthe chit and paid 36 instalments and commission.

agreedto forego Rs.59,000/- out of Rs.5,00,000/- and accused is liable to

But he did not issued any legal notice.As per his pay Rs.4,40,000/-, evidence on record,itshows that PW1 is having house bearing No.15-4-351,

Matwada, Warangal and agreedto receive an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- from him outofRs.8,00,000/- was due by his cousin to Al and as per his evidence who. obtainedhis complaint againsthis cousin he has not givenany

PW3 is cousin of PW1. agreementand denied the other suggestions.

Vrpserne

GC No.27 of 2022 Bof 19

As per the evidence of PW2, heisthe DirectoroftheAchala Chit 14.

fund company and he resigned thesaid businessin the year 2018 prior to in the year 2015 thatKandi Srinivas Reddyand G.Rambabu also resigned

PW4 is one of the Director and did not state anything against the accused.

of Achala Chit Fund and he also resignedhispostin the year2019.As per

P.Padma arealonethe evidence,P.Satyanarayanaandcontinuing his company and did not state anything about the case.

As per the evidence of PWS, he isliable topay Rs.65,000/- and 15.

he deposed that he was not examinedbythepolice and turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.As per his evidence, the entire amounts were paid and he was transferred his chit amount to another chit after his cancellation and admitted thathe received entire amounts.PW6 to

PW9 turned hostile and did not support the caseofprosecution.PW10 and

PW10 turned hostile and did not support the case PW11 are the mediators.

of prosecution to show that Achala Chit FundCompanyis situated at3°

Floor of Jakotia Complex anditwas closed.

PW12 is the Chit Registrar, he admitted thathe hasnot received 16.

in this casefixed deposit vide andaccuseddeposited anycomplaint document bearing No.546929of KarurVyshyaBank,dt.24.7.2018 and also furnished the names of the group membersandno complaint was received in this case by him.

Ub Saarlon

9of 19CC No.27 of 2022 is the

17.PW13InvestigatingOfficerwhoregistered theFirst

Information Report.PW14 is the Investigating Officer who filed the charge sheet against the accused.They did not state anything that the said wasclosedandastheirevidenceletterof companypernooriginal agreementand rules were handed over by the witnesses toshow that they are the subscribers in the chit amount and he has not verified the chit agreement entered by PW1 with Achala Chit Fundcompany and denied the suggestions thathewas falsely implicated the accused on the complaint of

PW1 but he is not the successful bidder in the chit auction.

18.To rebut the evidence of the above said witnesses, Al himself examined as DW1.As per his evidence he paid the entire amounts through theDistrictLegal Servicesin termsof compromise Authority,Warangal entered by the accused and other witnesses and through him Ex.D1 marked i.e., full satisfaction memo signed byPW1.He followed the procedure and paid the entire amounts to the chit members, though PW1isa defaulter of the chit amount and he did not pay the amounts,Due to covid, the said persondid not come forward to pay remaining chitamountsandbecame defaulters.

In view of the oral and documentary evidenceon record,

19.it clearly shows that the accused have no dishonest intentionto cheat the subscribers and he himself filed application to pay the chit amounts to the

Nevin

10 of 19

CC No.27 of 2022

subscribers before the District Legal Services Authority, Warangal. On his request, theDistrict Legal Services Authority, Warangal called for the Chit

Registrar and both parties entered into compromise and paid the amounts.

On the other hand, the other members who are examined as PW5 to PW9 were turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution on the ground that they received the entire amounts and the accused was not cheated them.PW1 also admitted that he received the entire amount under

Ex.D1 under full satisfaction memo through District Legal Services Authority,

Warangal.

In the above said circumstances,

20.toprovetheguiltof the accused for the offence u/s.420 of IPC, the prosecution must establish that such inducement and dishonest intention were there from the beginning of the said business.

ateIn this case the prosecution miserablyfails to prove that the accused is having dishonest intention and that defraud the subscribers. On the other hand, in this case, PW1 is not a successful bidder and he has only paid 46 instalments.Subsequently, he was committed default as there was covidpandemic.Due to covid period, the companyalso not paid the amounts and period was extended for three months, Subsequently, he paid the entire amounts and there is no evidence on record to show that the said chit fund company was closed by the accused with intention to defraud the

Nerul

lof19

CC No.27 of 2022

In thesaid circumstances, the

subscribers.aboveprosecution

miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence

u/s. 420 of Indian Penal Code.

22.To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s. 406 of IPC, theremust be evidence that accusedcommittedbreachof trust with intention to defraud the subscribers. But there is no evidence on record. On the other hand, the accusedpaid the entire amounts and shownhis

In thethe

bonafidees.abovesaidcircumstances,prosecution

miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence

u/s.406 of Indian Penal Code.

To prove the guilt of accused for the offence u/s.290 of IPC, the 23.

prosecution mustbe established that AchalaChitFundsPvt. Ltd., created public nuisance and also caused injury and danger or annoyanceto the in general who live or occupyin the vicinity. public or peopleproperty

Admittedly, thereisno evidence on record produced by the prosecution to provetheguiltof the accused for the offence u/s. 290 of IPC.In the above

said circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the

guiltof the accused for the offence u/s.290ofIndian Penal Code.

To prove the guilt of accused for the offence u/s.506 of IPC, the 24.

prosecution must be established that the accused threat of injuryto a person, reputationorproperty mad with intent to cause alarm, or to force

Veope

12 of 19CC No.27 of 2022 the victim to do an act they are legally bound to do, or omit a legal act. In this case, the accused either verbal or written implied through conduct did not make any inducement or threat to the witnesses and none of the witnessesspokenabout the said acts andadmittedthat they never threatened or demanded any money from them even prior to lodging the complaint or after lodging the complaint and they paid the entire amount.

In the above said circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed

to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s.506 of Indian

Penal Code.

25.The Chit Fund Act 1982 is the Central Act falls under Act 1999, and TSPDFE is the State Act that falls under the List-IIl - Concurrent list of VII

Schedule to the Indian Constitution of India.

In the above-mentioned circumstances, when there are two Acts 26.

which prevail over the other, it is the point for consideration.

27,As per the decision in the case of 1.K.K. Baskaran vs State

rep., byitssecretary, Tamil Nadu and others reported in [2011(3)

SCC 793], where the Hon'ble APEX Court held that -

The Tamil Nadu Act was enacted to find a solution for the problem of the depositors who were deceived on a large scale by the fraudulent activities of certain financial establishments. There was a disastrous consequence both in the economic and

Isoyew (Vo

1,[2011(3) SCC 793] 13 of 19CC No.27 of 2022 social life of such depositors who were exploited by the false promiseofhighinterestreturns,These _ financial institutions/establishmentsdidnotunder eitherthe come Reserve Bank of India Act or the Banking Regulation Act, and hence they escaped public control.

By the impugned Act, the State not only proposed to attach the properties of such fraudulent establishments and the malafide transferees, but also provided for the sale of such properties and for the distribution of the sale proceeds amongst the innocent depositors. Hence,inour opinion, the doctrine of occupied field or repugnancy has no application in the present case.

Further discussed that -

The doctrine of pith and substance means that an enactment which substantially falls within the powers expressly conferred by the Constitution upon a Legislature which enacted it cannot be held to be invalid merely because it incidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another /egislature.

The Court must consider what constitutes in pith and substance thetruesubjectmatterofthelegislation.onsuch If, examination, it is found that the legislation is in substance one on a matter assigned to the legislature, then it must be held to be valid even though it incidentally trenches on matters beyond its legislative competenceis the asset of president is obtained.

The Hon'ble APEX Court further observed that -

Upheld the Act enacted by the Tamil Nadu Government and found that there is no repugnancy between the State Act and the Central Act, and it also referred to the Central Act.

Apart from theas per the decisionin the case

28.above,of

2.National Spot Exchange Ltd.Vs Union of India reported in [2025

INSC 694], where the Hon'ble APEX Court held in

It is true that sometimes the overlapping of legislation enactedwith regardto thematters relatable to different Entries in List-I and List-H in

ras=uj

Zj2025 NSC 694] 14 of 19CC No.27 of 2022

Seventh Schedule may occur, however in that case also as held by the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Limited and Others13, though, theList-! has priority overList-Ill and List-II, andList- ill has priority over List-ll, the 13 2004 (10) SCC 201 predominance of Union List would not prevent the State Legislature from dealing with any matter within List-ll, even if it may incidentally affect any item in List-l. In the case at hand, theSARFAESI Act andRDB Act having been enacted by the Parliament for the subject matter falling in List-| and the MPID Act having been enacted by the State Legislature for the subject matter fallingin List-Il in the Seventh Schedule, the latter would prevail in the State of Maharashtra in respect of the specific subject matter for which the said Act was enacted, in view of Clause (3) ofArticle 246.

As per sec. 14 of TSPDFE Act -

Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith containedin anyother law for the time beingin force or any customor usageor any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.

As per Sec. 3 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 -

3. Act to override other laws, memorandum, articles, etc.—Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,— theprovisionsof this Act shall have effect notwithstanding

(a) anything to the contrary containedinany otherlawfor the time beingin force or in the memorandum or articles of association or bye-laws or in any agreement orresolutionwhether the same be registered, executedor passed, as the case may be, before or after the commencement of this Act;

and

(b) any provision contained in the memorandum, articles, bye-laws, agreement orresolutionaforesaid,to the extenttowhichitis shall, repugnantto theprovisions of thisAct, become or bevoid, as the case may be.

29.Thus, both enactments have no repugnancy or overlap on each other.On the other hand, TSPDFE Act, 1999 extention of the Chit Funds Act,

oyZa\4 id

Zz 2[2025INSC694] 15 of 19CC No.27 of 2022 1982 as there is no any penalized provision for defaulters underChit Funds

Act, 1982.Thus, both enactments are applicable to the present case as discussed below :

As per the decision is reported in 3.Gunda Prakash RaoVs. 30.

State of TelanganainCrl.P.No.13181/2025, dt, 12.11.2025, where the

Hon'ble High Court for the StateofTelangana discussed theapplicationof

Act and the Chit Fund Act 1982 at the FinancialDepositorsAct TSPDFE length, and also discussed the definition u/s.2(c) of the TSPDFE Act, which deals with the financial establishment means -

Any person or group of individualsaccepting a deposit under any scheme or arrangement orinany othermanner,but does not include a corporation or a cooperative societyowned or controlled by anystate Government or the CentralGovernment or a bankingcompany as defined under clause (c) of sec.5 of the Banking RegulationAct, 1949, Sec 5 ofTSPDFE Act are asfollows : Financial Establishment means - Where any financial establishment defaultsinthe return of thedeposit eitherin cash orkindor defaults in thepayment of interest on the deposit as agreed upon, every person responsible for the management of the affairs of thefinancial establishment including the promoter, Manager orMember of the financial establishment shall be punished with imprisonment fora termwhich may extend toten yearsand with lakhandsuchfinancial whichmay extendtorupeesone fine establishment shall also be liable for fine whichmay extend torupees five lakhs.

In this case, the accused running the business, registered the

ah

companyunder the name and style of Achala Chit Fund and he is the

Weg ual

3.Crl.P.No.13181/2025 16 of 19CC No.27 of 2022

Director of the said company and the chit agreement was signed by the

Foreman of the company with chit subscribers.Admittedly, the foreman has not shown as accusedin this case.On the other hand, the accused paid the entire amounts to the subscribers and due to covid pandemic he did not paid the same as thesubscribersalso notcome forward to pay the installments and that the period was extended for payment of remaining said installments,meanwhile PW1 lodged the complaint and subsequently he received the amounts and no such complaint was received prior to this case against theAchala Chit Fund Company by the Registrarof Chitsand also in the present case also they have not received any complaint from the subscribers.On the other hand, as per the rebuttable evidence produced by the accused,it clearly shows that he was paid the entire amount to the subscribers.In the above said circumstances, this Court safely concluded that thefailed to prove theoffence u/s.5 of Telangana prosecution

Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act and accused

is entitled for acquittal.

In the above said circumstances, the

32.prosecutionmiserably failed to prove the guilt of accused No.1 to 3 for the offences u/s.420, 406, 290 and 506 of I.P.C., and sec.5 of Telangana Protection of Depositors of

Financial Establishment Act.

UicwysotalA

17 of 19

CC No.27 of 2022

RESULT:

AS A RESULT, accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences u/s.420, 406, 290, 506r/w.34ofsec.5of Telangana IPC,Protectionof

Depositors of FinancialEstablishmentAct, acquitted for the said offences u/s.235(1) CrPC. The bail bonds of Al to A3 shall be cancelled and they are directed to be released forthwith.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 22" day ofApri, 2020)

Sehae (tteba

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

~ |

és

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

-_

FORPROSECUTION

Bf

PROSECUTIONNAME OF THE|DESCRIPTION/ROLE OF THE

MITHESS NUMBER

WITNESSWITNESS.

PW1/LW1Devara Konda SathyaComplainant / victim |

Narayana

PW2/LW3Devunuri Anjaiah|He along withPW4 and Al and KoudaganiRambabu,Kandi SrinivasReddywerestarted Achala Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd. | |DevaraKonda RavinderBrother of PW1 |Pw3/Lw2 Pw4/LW4Vadnala NagarajuHealongwithPW2 andA2 and KoudaganiRambabu,Kandi SrinivasReddywerestarted | Achala Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. = Thota Sudhakar|One of chit member PW5/LW6 | Sattu Yakaiah PW6/LW7One of chit member

|

a7) Jotothu BalajiOne of chit member PW7/LW8

_PW8/LW5

|Neerella NaveenOne of chit member

CC No.27 of 2022

18 of 19

PWIO/LW12 |

__[Silveru Harinath‘One of chit member Pw9/LW9 Panch witness for CDF=| Boddipalli Srinu _ Vijaya Babu__|Panch witness for CDF

PW11/LW11__[Chandragiria

Asst. Chit Registrar PW12/LW10__|V.Venumadhav __|M.Sai Prasanna Kumar,|1* InvestigatingOfficer PW13/LW13SI. of Police Pwia/Lwia|2% Investigating Officer ChRamesh.Inspector of

|

lice

3FOR DEFENC

NAME OFTHE

DESCRIPTION/ROLE OF

DEFENCE

WITNESSWITNESSTHE WITNESS

NUMBER ~

Eor

PSatyanarayanaAccused

DW1 | |

EXHIBITS MARKED

eas

: ["

FORPROSECUTION

DESCRIPTION OF THE EXHIBIT| PROVED BY/ EXHIBIT|

NUMBERATTESTED BY

JEx.P2 |=

[Ex.P1PW1 [Report

Pwi|

Original pass book

i

_|Original bunch of receipts (6) Ex.P3PW1 161CrPCStatement of PW45 pwa Ex.P4 = EX.P5161 CrPC Statement ofPWSPWS

Ex.P6 _|161 CrPC Statement of Pw6

Pwe

PW

[161CrPC Statementof PW7 |Ex.P7 [161CPC Statement of PWSPwe |EX.P8__

|

[161 CrPC Statement of PW9Pwo Ex.P9

of PW10

on CDF along with roughPW10 Ex.P10[Signature sketch (Crime detail form along with rough sketch Ex.P11PW10

Pwil

[Signature of PW11 onCOF |Ex.P12__ 19 of 19

CC No.27 of 2022

Ex.P14 |

[Ex.P13_|List of chit members chit bearing No.ACWT14) Pwi3 Attested copy of FDR vide No.546929 of Karur Pwi4 Vyshya Bank, dt.24.7.2018 Ex.P15 |AttestedofAchalaChitfundaccountpwi2 copy statement of chitmembersfrom 1.1.2015 to

4,4.2025|

Ex.P16First Information Report Pw13

For defence

Ex.D1|Fullsatisfaction memo

Dwii

© |

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Aube

~~ DESCRIPTION OF THE EXHIBITPROVED BY/ _ ATTESTEDBY

NIL

Bale

PRINCIPALSESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1of 18CC No.26 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

Wednesday, the 22"dayof April,2026

PRESENT: V.B.Nirmala Geethamba,

Principal SessionsJudge,

Warangal. C.C. No.26 of 2022

of|

and:| The State of Telangana rep. Namedescription by the complainant.the Sub-InspectorofPolice, ice Station Matwada

description of|:

Nameand| |chagiri Satyanarayana, s/o. Sambaiah, Age :52 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occu the accused : | | H.No.2-8-397,Chairman of Achala Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., R/o. || Raghavendranagar, | Hanumakonda. | Offence chargedUjs.420, 406 I.P.C., Sec.5 of TelanganaProtection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act Hehas pleaded not guilty. Plea of the accused :|

Finding of the Court_

:| Accused found not guilty. Sonviction / acquittal:| Acquittal : Counsel for the prosecution| ‘| Sri S.Srinivas, Addl. Public Prosecutor. |

Counsel foraccused|:Sri Ch.Ramakrishna, Counsel for accused _| This case is coming before me for a final hearinginthe presenceofrespective advocates; on hearing both sides and upon considering the material evidence available on record and having stood over for considerationtill this day,the Court delivered the following:~

UDGMENT::

fileda charge sheet ziTheInspectorof Police,MatwadaP.S.,

Sec.of the against the accused for theoffencesu/s.420,406IPC,5

Telangana Protection ofDepositorsof Financial Establishments Act, 1999.

The brevity of the prosecution case-

MeyFouls

CC No.26 of 2022

2 of 18 On 15.3.2022 at 21:20 hours, the PW1 came to P.S. Matwada ey and lodged a Telugu written complaint in which stated that on 30.12.2017 he startedRs.5,00,000/- chit in Achala chit fund company vide reference chit has completed 46 months for the no.ACWT13}] for50 months.Said

After, the company management stated to him, month ofDecember/2021.

that chitauction was not conducted, they will pay your payment amount

PW1 went tosaid chit On that information,after 10 days Rs.4.60.000/-. by cuttingthe owners and asked for his matureamountRs 4,60,000/- remaining four months payment. The chit owners accepted that agreement but theydid not paidthe amount and returned there by the chit owners are he requestedtotake necessaryaction cheatedby accused. Therefore, againstPanchagiri Satyanarayana/ accused, Chairman of Achala Chit Fund

Pvt,Ltd. Pochammaidan, Warangal who collected money from him in the nameof chit, cheated by denying to pay chit amount of Rs.4,60,000/-.

PW11 registereda caseinCr. On receiptof the complaint, 3: No.85/2022, u/s.420 of I.P.C., Sec. 5 of Telangana Protection of Depositor of

FIR. During the investigation,he Establishment Act,and issued Financial examined PW1 and recorded his statement. He also secured the presence of

PW8 and PW9 drew a rough sketch map and seized the articles under the coverof the panchanama.

tul “

Moor

3of 18CC No.26 of 2022

4.During the courseofinvestigation, on 25.3.2022,PW11 filed a

before the Court for issuePT warrant against accused.

requisitionof

Subsequently, on 9.4.2022 accused was produced beforethe Courtthrough

PT Warrant from District Jail,Khammam.Subsequently,on12.4.2022 basing on the statementofwitnessesPW12 filed section alterationmemo and added sec. 406 ofIPC.After completing the investigation, PW12 filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/s.420, 406 IPC, Sec. 5 of the Telanganaof DepositorsFinancial Establishments ProtectionofAct, 1999,

The case was cognizant of offences under sec.420, 406 |.P.C., 5.

andSec.5oftheTelanganaProtectionofDepositorsofFinancial

Establishments Act against accused.

FRAMING OF CHARGES

:

On the appearanceof accusedbefore thisCourt, this Court 6.

framed charges againsthim foroffence under sec.420, 406 of I.P.C., Sec. 5 of Telangana Protection of Depositorsof FinancialEstablishmentsAct, read explained the same tohimin the vernacular language. The over and accused pleaded not guilty to the chargesand claimed to be tried.

open

CC No,26 of 2022 4of18

TRIAL:

i

To prove the prosecution’s case, the prosecutionexamined PW1 to PW12, and Exs. P1 toP15were marked.

313 CrPC examination of the accused

After the prosecution's evidence was presented, the accused 8.

denied thematerial allegationsmade wasexaminedu/s.313CrPC.He by the prosecutionand pleaded not guilty.On behalf of againsthim accused, the accusedhimselfexaminedasDW1, throughhimEx.D1 marked.

9.Both counsels were present and heard.

thecontentionsandperusingthe

10.Uponconsideringrival available on record, the point that arisesfor determination before this Court is as follows +

Has the prosecution proved the guilt of accused of the offences punishable under sec.420,406 |.P.C., Sec 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

Submissions ofarned PublicPro:

The learned Addi. Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution 11.

examined PW1 to PW12, Exs.P1 toP15 marked.To rebut the evidence of the prosecution, the accused himself examined asDW1, Ex.D1 marked.He

NepSetule

5 of 18CC No.26 of 2022 further argued that as per the prosecution version the accused along with

Kandi Srinivas Reddy, Devenuri Anjaiah, Vadnala Nagaraju started the chit fund business under the name and style of Achala Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., in the year 2011 and Devunuri Anjaiah left the chit fundinthe year 2018 and left the companyin the year 2019.Thereafter, the Vadnala Nagaraju accused continued the business and he was running the chit fund company.

On 15.3.2022, PW1 lodged the complaint alleging that he has completed 46 installments in the month of December, 2021 vide chit bearing No.ACWT13} i,e., Rs.5,00,000/- chit for 50 months and chit auction was not conducted and they did not repay the amounts and thereby cheatedhimand lodged the complaint.Basing on thecomplaint, theprosecution examined the above said witnesses.PWS5 to PW9 turned hostile and did not support the caseofthe prosecution. Hence, prayed to convict the accused for the above said charges.

of coun:acc missions ‘The learned counsel for accused argued that the accusedis the 12.

Chairman of Achala Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., and as perEx.D1 he paid the entire amount to the chit subscribers through DistrictLegalServicesAuthority,

Warangal and allthe amountswerepaid throughthe Registrar of Chits and the accused himselffiled the petition before the District LegalServices

Authority to pay the said amountsand there isno anydishonest intention to

Vopiew iy

CC No.26 of 2022

6 of 18

He further argued that due tocovid pandemicthe cheat thesubscribers.

subscribersdid not come forward topaythe remaining chit amounts and did not becamesuccessful bidders in the above said chit and during that period the paymentof chits were extended for a period of five months to pay the amounts, but theydid not come forward to paythe same and that the PW1 falsely raisedthecomplaint and he is not a successful bidder in the chit and due to covid period the chit fund company also not conducted any auction.

In the above said circumstances, thechit fund company unable to paythe

After filing the case the company chairman chit amount to thesubscribers.

himself come forward and made an application to the District Legal Services theamountstothesubscribers. Warangal,tochit Authority,pay

Accordingly, he paid thechitamounts to the Registrar of chits and cleared the entire amount under Ex.D1 and he further argued that to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s.420of IPC, the prosecution must establish that thereisinducementandthere must be dishonest intention since from the beginning and committed default inpaymentof the chit amounts, but occasion except theperiod thechit fund thereno suchpandemic is company nevermadeany default in return of the amount and they cleared the entire amountwhich alleged to be paidby them to the subscribers.

Hence, prayed to acquit the accused,

Newpotel?

7 of 18CC No.26 of 2022

of

reciatlen

n_ré H

As per the evidence of PW1, Panchagiri Satyanarayanais the 13.

Chairman of Achala Chit Fund company and his office issituatedatJakotia

PochammaMaidanand he was joinedon 30.12.2017, for an Complex, amountofRs.5,00,000/-andhehastomonthlyinstallments pay @Rs.10,000/- p.m., at50 monthsthat he willget a commission.Then, he was joinedin thechit and paid46 installments.On 29.12.2021, he was approached the chit fund office and that theyinformed thatthey are not going to conductauction, then herequestedtorepay the amount.The accused requested for10 days to repay the amounts buthe did not repay the amount, then he went to thepolice station and lodged thewritten

But admitted in cross-examination that the chitwillbeclosed inthe report, month of April, 2022 and the said periodisa covidperiod and chit amount was not collected andthe chit period wasextended for three months.

As per the evidence of PW2, her husbandis chit member and 14.

she does not know anything about the case.As per her evidence, the accused paid the entire amountto her.

As per the evidence of PW3, heis the Directorofthe Achala Chit 15.

fund company and he resigned thesaid business in the year2018 prior to thatKandiSrinivas Reddy and G.Rambabu alsoresignedin the year2015 and did not state anything against the accused.PW4 is one of the Director

\nopeaaed

CCNo..26 of2022 8 of 18 of Achala Chit Fund and he also resignedhispostin the year2018.As per alonecontinuing the andP.Padmaare hisevidence,P.Satyanarayana company and did not state anything about the case.

PWS deposed that he received the entire amounts and did not 16.

PW6 deposed that he received the entire state anything about the accused.

amountsand didnot state anything against the accused.PW7 also deposed that he received the entire amounts and did not state anything against the accused.

not support theof the anddidcase turnedhostile

17.PWS prosecution to show that the accused was closed the company whichis situatedin Jakotia Complex at 3” floor and his signature was marked as did not support the caseof the PW9 also turned hostile and Ex.P8, prosecution.

As per his evidence, the accused is the Chit Registrar.

18.PW10 of the mortgaged the deed vide document No.1950/2015 as a security above said chit underEx.P12 and he also furnished the namesof the

The statement of account members to them, throughhim Ex.P11 marked.

of Achala Chit Fund CompanyPvt. Ltd., marked asEx.P13.As per his evidence, the chit agreement was signedby the Foreman of the company with chit subscriber and thesaid copyis available with their department.He further admitted that no complaintis received against Achala Chit Fund

Moria je

9of18CC No.26 of 2022

Companyinseven cases pending before this Court.He further admitted that Exs.P11 to P13 are public documents, the companyis at liberty to withdraw the title deeds or FDRs even after payment of entire chit amounts to the subscribers.

is theOfficerwhoregisteredtheFirst

19.PW11Investigating

PW12 is the Investigating Officer who filed the charge Information Report.

sheet against the accused.Theydidnot state anything that the said was closedand aspertheirevidenceletterof companynooriginal agreementand rules werehandedoverby the witnesses to show thatthey are the subscribers in the chitamount and he has not verified the chit agreement enteredbyPW1 with Achala Chit Fundcompany and denied the suggestions that hewas falsely implicated the accused on the complaint of

PW1 but he is not the successful bidder in the chit auction.

To rebut the evidence of the above said witnesses, the accused 20.

himself examined as DW1.As per his evidence he paid the entire amounts theDistrictServicesAuthority,Warangalintermsof throughLegal compromise entered by the accused and other witnesses and through him —x.D1 marked i.e., full satisfaction memo signed byPW1.He followed the procedure and paid the entire amounts to the chit members, though PW1 is a defaulterofthe chitamountand he did notpaythe amounts.Due to

Vg Satie

CC No.26 of 2022

10 of 18 covid, the said persondid not come forward to pay remaining chit amounts and became defaulters.

In view of theoral and documentary evidence on record,it 21. clearly shows that the accused have no dishonest intention to cheat the subscribersand he himself filed application to pay the chit amounts to the subscribers beforethe District Legal Services Authority, Warangal.On his request, the District Legal Services Authority, Warangal called for the Chit

Registrar and both parties entered into compromise and paid the amounts.

On the other hand,the other members who are examined as PW2,PW4,

PW7 were turnedhostile and did not support the case of the PW5 and prosecutiononthe ground that they received the entire amounts and the

PW1 also admitted that he received the accused was not cheated them.

memo through District entire amount under Ex.D1 under full satisfaction

Legal Services Authority, Warangal.

to prove the guiltof the In the above saidcircumstances, 22. accused for theoffence u/s.420 of IPC, the prosecution must establish that such inducementand dishonest intention were there from the beginning of the said business.

miserably fails to provethat the In this case the prosecution 23.

accused is having dishonestintention and that defraud the subscribers.On the other hand,in thiscase,PW1 is not a successful bidder and he has only

Nanya

llof 18CC No.26 of 2022 paid 46installments.Subsequently, he was committed default as therewas covid period, the company also not paid the covidpandemic.Due to amounts and period was extendedforthreemonths.Subsequently,he paid the entire amountsand thereisno evidenceonrecord to show that the said chit fund company was closed by the accusedwith intention to defraud the

In thethe

above saidcircumstances,prosecution

subscribers.

miserably failed to provetheguiltof the accused for the offence

u/s. 420 of Indian PenalCode.

To prove the guilt of the accusedfortheoffence u/s. 406 of IPC, 24.

must be evidence that accused committed breachof trust with there intention to defraud the subscribers.But there is no evidence on record.On the other hand, the accusedpaid the entire amountsandshownhis

In thetheprosecution

abovesaidcircumstances,

bonafidees.

miserably failed to provetheguiltof the accused for the offence

u/s.406 of Indian Penal Code.

The Chit Fund Act 1982 is theCentral Act falls under Act 1999, 25.

and TSPDFE is the StateAct thatfalls underthe List-I!l - Concurrent list of VII

Schedule to the Indian Constitution of India.

In the above-mentioned circumstances,when there aretwo Acts 26.

which prevail over the other,it isthepointfor consideration.

VipSotane

12 of 18CC No.26 of 2022

As per the decision in the case of 1.K.K. Baskaran vs State 21;

rep., by itssecretary,Tamil Nadu and others reportedin [2011(3)

SCC 793], where the Hon’ble APEX Court held that -

The Tamil Nadu Act was enacted to find a solution for the problem of the depositors who were deceivedon a large scalebythefraudulentactivitiesof certain financial establishments. There was a disastrous consequence both in the economic and social life of such depositors who were exploitedby the false promise of high interest returns. Thesefinancialinstitutions/establishmentsdid not come under eitherthe Reserve Bankof India Actorthe Banking Regulation Act, and hence they escaped public control.

By the impugned Act, the State not only proposed toattach theproperties of such fraudulent establishmentsand the malafide transferees, but also provided forthesale of such properties and for thedistribution of the sale proceeds amongstthe innocent depositors. Hence, inour opinion, the doctrine of occupied field or repugnancyhasno application in thepresent case.

Further discussed that—

The doctrine ofpith and substance means that an enactment which substantially fallswithintheexpresslyconferredbytheConstitutiona powersupon Legislaturewhichenacted it cannotbe held to be invalid merely becauseit incidentally encroacheson matters assigned to another legislature.

The Court must consider what constitutes in pith and substance the true subject matter ofthe legislation. If, on such examination, itis found that the legislationis in substance one on a matter assigned to the legislature, then it must be held to be valid even though it incidentally trenches on matters beyond its legislative competence is theasset ofpresidentis obtained.

The Hon'ble APEX Court further observed that ~

Upheld the Act enacted by the Tamil Nadu Government and found that thereis no repugnancy between the State Actand the Central Act, and it also referred to

eeee

the Central Act.

ee

Woy

1,[2011(3) SCC 793]liad 13 of 18CC No.26 of 2022

Apart from theas per the decisionin the case of

28.above,

2.National Spot Exchange Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in [2025

INSC 694], where the Hon'ble APEX Court held in

It is true that sometimes the overlapping of legislation enactedwith regard to thematters relatableto different Entries in List-1 and List-I in Seventh Schedule may occur, however in that case also as held by the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Limited and Others13, though, the List-I has priority over List-III and List-II, and List-IT has priority over List-II, the 13 2004 (10) SCC 201 predominance of Union List would not prevent the State Legislature from dealingwithany matterwithin List-II, even ifit may incidentally affect anyitem inList-I, In the case at hand, the SARFAESI Act and RDB Act having been enacted bytheParliament forthe subject matter fallinginList-I and the MPID Act having been enacted by the State Legislature for the subject matter fallingin List-II in the Seventh Schedule, the latter wouldprevailin the Stateof Maharashtra in respect of the specific subject matter for which the said Act was enacted,in view of Clause (3) ofArticle 246.

As per sec. 14 of TSPDFE Act- 14, Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall have anything inconsistent therewithcontainedin anyother law effect notwithstanding for the time beingin force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of anysuch law.

As per Sec. 3 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 -

3. Act to override other laws,memorandum, articles, etc—Save as otherwise expressly provided in thisAct— (@) the provisions of thisAct shall have effectnotwithstandinganything to the contrary contained in anyother law for thetimebeinginforce orin the memorandum or articles of association or bye-laws orinany agreement or resolution whether the same be registered, executed or passed, as the case may be,

before or afterthe commencement ofthis Act; and

() anyprovision contained in the memorandum, articles, bye-laws, agreement orresolutionaforesaid,to the extent to which it isrepugnant to the shall, provisions ofthis Act, becomeorbe void,asthecase maybe.

Neypsats es

2.[2025INSC694] 14 of 18CC No.26 of 2022

Thus, both enactments have no repugnancy or overlap on each 29.

other,On the other hand, TSPDFE Act, 1999 extention of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 as there is no any penalized provision for defaulters under Chit Funds

Act, 1982.Thus, both enactments are applicable to the present case as discussed below :

As per the decision is reported in 3.Gunda Prakash Rao Vs. 30.

State of Telangana in Crl.P.No.13181/2025, dt, 12.11.2025, where the

Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana discussed the application of

the FinancialDepositorsAct TSPDFE Act and the Chit Fund Act 1982 at length, and also discussed the definition u/s.2(c)oftheTSPDFE Act, which deals with the financial establishment means -

Any person or group of individuals accepting a deposit under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner, but does not include a corporation or a cooperative society owned or controlled by any state Government or the CentralGovernment or a bankingcompany as defined under clause (c) of sec.5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Sec 5 of TSPDFE Act are as follows : Financial Establishment means - Where any financial establishment defaults in the return of the deposit either in cash or kind or defaults in the payment of interest on the deposit as agreed upon, every person responsiblefor the management of the affairs of the financial establishment including the promoter, Manager or Member of the financial establishment shall be punished with imprisonment fora term which may extend to ten years and with finewhichextendtoonelakhandsuchfinancial mayrupees coabimentshall also be liable for fine which may extend to rupees ive lakhs.

Pewee ee

c

SS

sb

VvDAM 3.Crl.P.No.13181/2025 15 of 18CC No.26 of 2022

In this case, the accused running the business, registered the 31.

is the company under the name and style of Achala Chit Fund andhe

Director of the said company and thechit agreement was signedby the

Foreman of the company with chit subscribers. Admittedly,the foreman has not shown as accusedinthis case.On the other hand, the accused paid the entire amounts to the subscribersand due to covidpandemiche did not paid the same as the subscribers also notcomeforward to pay the remaining instalmentsand that theperiod wasextended forpayment of said

PW1 lodged the complaint and subsequentlyhe instalments,meanwhile received the amounts and no such complaint was received prior to thiscase against the Achala Chit Fund Company by the Registrar of Chits and also in from the the present casealso theyhavenot receivedcomplaint any

On the other hand, as per the rebuttable evidence produced by subscribers.

it clearly shows that he was paid the entire amounttothe the accused,

In the above said circumstances, this Court safely concluded subscribers.

offence u/s.5 of Telangana

failed to prove the that theprosecution

Protection of Depositorsof Financial Establishment Act and accused

is entitledfor acquittal.

In the above said circumstances, the prosecutionmiserably 32.

failed to prove the guiltof accusedfortheoffences u/s.420 and 406 of I.P.C.,

Neepe

16 of 18CC No.26 of 2022 and sec.5 of Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment

Act.

RESULT

:

AS A RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offences u/s.420, 406ofsec.5ofTelanganaProtectionofDepositorsofFinancial IPC,

Establishment Act, acquitted for the said offences u/s.235(1) CrPC. The bail bonds of accused shall be cancelled and heis directed to be released forthwith.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Graded, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me inthe Open Court on this 22" dayofApril, 2026)

PRINCIPALAbaieedNS Jupce,

WARANGAL.

:

APPENDIX OFEVIDENCE

WITNESSESEXAMINED

;

FOR PROSECUTION

[PROSECUTION NAME OF THEDESCRIPTION/ROLE OF THE |

WITNESS NUMBERWITNESS

WITNESS.

|

=| Pwayiwi[Akbar MistryComplainant Pw2/Lw2|Rubina Mistrypaeerof complainant ie Pw3/LW3Devunuri AnjaiahalongwithPW4 andwifeof) |He accused and Koudagani Rambabu, Kandi Srinivas Reddy were started |Achala Chit Funds Pvt, Ltd. Pwa/LwaVadnala NagarajuHe alongwithPW3 andwife of| accused and Koudagani Rambabu, |Kandi Srinivas Reddy were started Achala Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. |Shabadu SrikanthOne of the chit members PW5/LW6

CC No.26 of 2022

17 of 18

Pw6/LWS[Akula Kiran KumarJOne of the chit members _|Veluri Radha KrishnaOne of the chit members Pw7/LW8 __|Md.Hymad Pasha [Panch witness forCDF PWa/LW10 Panch witness for CDF PW9/LWi11__|Md.Kaleem

Asst. ChitRegistrar, Warangal

_|V.Venumadhav_ PWi0/LW9 _|M.Sai Prasanna Kumar, SI_|1* Investigating Officer PWil/LW12

"lofPolice

is

_|Ch.Ramesh, Inspector of_|2™ Investigating Officer PW12/1W14 Police |

FOR DEFENCE

DEFENCE|NAMEOF THE|

DESCRIPTION/ROLE OF

WITNESSTHE WITNESS

WITNESS

| NUMBER

_ bw "|

z

PSatyanarayana zal

Accused |

=a=e

XHIBIARK

2

FOR PROSECUTION

Originalbunch ofreceipts a

DESCRIPTION OF THE EXHIBITPROVED BY/ EXHIBIT| |

ATTESTEDBY

NUMBER | A] ReportPW1 Ex.P1 Ex.P2 _~~ PWL |Original passbook

PW1

Ex.P3ae

Ex.P4161 CrPC Statementof PW4PW4

161 CrPC StatementofPWS

a

pws Ex.P5 | JEx.P6__ |161 CrPC Statement of PW6 PW |

|Ex.P7 _

|161 CrPC Statementof PW7PW7 pws Crime detail form with rough sketch leEx.P8 | 5

Pw

[Signatureof PW8 on Ex.P8 [Ex.p9 {Signature of PW9 on Ex.P8Pwo |Ex.P10 of ChitPwio memberschitbearing Ex.P11_[Listin | |No.ACWT13) } 18 of 18CC No.26 of 2022 |Attestedcopy ofsimplemortgage deed videPw10 Ex.P12 document No.1950/2015, dt.24,3.2015 | Ex.P13_|AttestedofAchalaChitfundaccount|PW10 copy |statementof chitmembersfrom 1.1.2015 to

et)

|4.4.2025 i EPwil Ex.P14First Information Report

Tei

_|Sectionalteration memoPwi2 Ex.P15

For defence

|

[Ex.D1 _[Full satisfaction memo

DW aMATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

DESCRIPTION OF THE EXHIBIT |

PROVED BY/ MATERIAL OBJECT!

ATTESTED BY

Sas

:

i=

a

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JuDGE,

WARANGAL.

1 of 11 SC(POCSO) No. 126 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE CASES AND CASES UNDER PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT AT WARANGAL

Wednesday, the 03rd day of November, 2025

PRESENT: Smt. V.B. Nirmala Geethamba,

Principal District Judge,

Warangal. FAC. Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases and Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Warangal.

SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) NO. 126 OF 2022

Crime No.253/2022 of PS., Narsampet

1.Name of the Complainant: The State of Telangana, through the Inspector of Police, PS-Narsampet.

Name and description of the accused: 2.

A1: Bhukya Lalu,S/o.Etal, Age:30 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kondasamudram thanda, H/o.Enugal Thanda of Narsampet Mandal.

A2: Bhukya Etal,S/o.Sakru, Age: 45 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kondasamudram thanda, H/o. Enugal thanda of Narsampet mandal.

A3: Bhukya Somly @ Sony W/o Etal, Age: 42 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kondasamudram thanda, H/o. Enugal thanda of Narsampet mandal.

A4: Lavudya Raju S/o Ramachandru, age: 35 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gudi thanda H/o.Gundampally village, Kothaguda Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

A5: Nasu Sreenu @ Naseenu, S/o. Kanakaiah, Age: 45 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Gudi Thanda H/o.Gundampally Village, Kothaguda Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

A7: Father of Victim (Offence is not established against A6, i.e., mother of victim

Against A1 u/S. Section 9 of the Protection of

3.Offence with which charged: Child Marriage Act, Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, against A2 to A5 is punishable under Section 420, 109 read with 34 of IPC, Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Sec 16 r/w. 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act; against A7 2 of 11 SC(POCSO) No. 126 of 2022 for the offence u/s.420, 109 r/w. 34 of IPC, Sec.10, 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Sec. 16 r/w. Sec.17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

4.Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty : Acquittal

6.Sentence or Order

Name of the prosecution Counsel :Sri G. Venkata Ramana, 7. Special Public Prosecutor :Sri B. Venkatram,

8.Name of the Defence Counsel Counsel for the Accused no.1 to 5 Sri. N. Sampath Reddy Counsel for the Accused no.7

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of both the counsels on record, upon hearing both sides and upon considering the material evidence available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Accused no.1 to 5 and 7 are charge - sheeted before this Court for the offences punishable under Sections.420, 376 of IPC Sec.9 of Prohibition of Child

Marriage Act and Sec.3 r/w.4 of POCSO Act against accused no.1 and Sec.420, 109 r/ w.34 of IPC, Sec.10, 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Sec.16 r/w.17 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences act against A2 to A5 and A7.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that -

2.On 23.08.2022 at 15:00 hours, the complainant/victim came to PS and complained, stating that she has studied up to the 9th standard, and presently she has stopped her studies and is staying at home. Her paternal uncle, A4, and her neighbour, A5, arranged a marriage alliance for her, and at their insistence, her parents performed her marriage to A1 on 27.03.2022 at A4's house. Soon after her marriage, when she went to her in-laws' house, she discovered that A1 had already 3 of 11 SC(POCSO) No. 126 of 2022 been married twice. When she questioned him about the said issue, he threatened and quarreled with her saying that it is none of her business to question him as he will perform marriages as he like, immediately she left his house on the same day and went to Gudi Thanda and informed the above said matter to her parents and also expressed her parents that from right then, she will not live with him and stayed at Gudi Thanda. Thereafter, A2 and A3 came and called her to come back to their house, but she did not go to their house. However, A4 threatened her and sent her to her in-laws' house at Konda Samudram Thanda. After going to her in- laws' house, there is no change in the attitude of A1; he also made sexual and mental harassment upon her, and A1 forcibly committed rape on her once on 22.06.2022 in his house. Due to the unbearable harassment, she went to the house of her maternal grandmother at Peddammagadda Thanda, H/o.Khanapur, where her parents were residing, and narrated the entire incident to them. Her elder brother, PW2, telephoned the Child Help Line at Phone No.1098. Based on this information, Child Line Authorities came and took her on 21.08.2022 and detained her in the Sakhi Centre at Warangal for safe custody. On 23.08.2022, Child Line

Officer PW5 and her mother came to P.S. Narsampet and made a complaint.

3.On receipt of the above report, a case in Crime No.253/2022 under Secs.420, 376, 109 r/w.34 of the IPC, Sec.9, 10, 11 of the Child

Marriage Act, Sections 3 r/w.4 and 16 r/w.17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, against accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7, was registered. Upon registering the case, the Inspector of Police, PS

Narsampet, examined and recorded the complainant's statement under 4 of 11 SC(POCSO) No. 126 of 2022 video coverage, secured the presence of witnesses, and took their statements. Further, PW18 collected the marriage photos of the victim girl, and he referred the victim to the lady medical officer, CKM Govt. Hospital,

Warangal, for medical examination, where PW15 examined the victim girl, who had preserved vaginal smears, vaginal smear slides, pubic hair samples of the victim girl and the same were forwarded to RFSL,

Warangal, for medical examination and report. The next day, PW18 visited the 1st scene of the offence situated at Gudi Thanda H/o.Gundampally village of Kothaguda mandal, Mahabubabad district, secured the presence of witnesses, observed the scene, drew a rough sketch of the scene of offence and entered the details in the 1st Crime Detail Form. He then examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

4.Furthermore, PW18 visited the 2nd scene of the offence, situated at Kondasamudram Thanda of Narsampet Mandal, and secured the presence of PW13 and PW14. In their presence, he observed the scene and drew the rough sketch of the scene of offence, entered the details of the 2nd Crime Detail Form, and also secured the presence of PW9 and

PW10, who were examined and recorded their statements. On 26.06.2022,

LW20, along with his force, apprehended the accused no.1, 4 and A5 at

Gudithanda at 11:00 hours. Upon interrogation, accused Nos.1, 4, and 5 voluntarily confessed to the offence and were produced before the Court for judicial remand.

5.The I-Addl. District Judge, Warangal, took cognizance of the 5 of 11 SC(POCSO) No. 126 of 2022 offence punishable under Sections 420, 376 of IPC Sec.9 of Prohibition of

Child Marriage Act and Sec.3 r/w.4 of POCSO Act against Accused no.1 and

Sec.420, 109 r/w.34 of IPC, Sec.10, 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage

Act and Sec.16 r/w.17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences act against A2 to A5 and A7. This Court received the case after it was transferred from I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Warangal. On the appearance of the accused no.1 to 5 and 7, the copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

FRAMING OF CHARGES :

6.The accused, Nos.1 to 5 and 7, appeared before this Court, and this Court framed charges against A1 under Sec.9 of the Protection of Child

Marriage Act, Sec.3 r/w.Sec.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, against A2 to A5 is punishable under Section 420, 109 read with 34 of IPC, sec. 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Sec 16 r/w.17 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act; against A7 for the offence u/s.420, 109 r/w.34 of IPC, Sec.10, 11 of the Prohibition of Child

Marriage Act and Sec.16 r/w. Sec.17 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act was read over and explained to them in the vernacular language. The accused No.1 to 5 and 7 pleaded not guilty to the charge and requested a trial.

TRIAL:

7.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW18 and marked Exs. P1 to P22.

6 of 11 SC(POCSO) No. 126 of 2022 313 CrPC examination of the accused

8.After the prosecution's evidence was concluded, the accused,

Nos.1 to 5 and 7, were examined under Sec.313 of CrPC. They denied the material allegations against them and pleaded not guilty. The accused,

Nos.1 to 5 and 7, further stated that there was no evidence.

9.Both counsels were present and heard.

10.Upon considering the rival contentions and perusing the available record, the point that arises for determination before this Court is as follows :

Has the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable against A1 u/S?420 IPC, sec.9 of Protection of Child marriage Act, sec.3 r/w. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, against A2 to A5 is u/s.420, 109 r/w. 34 of IPC, Sec. 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Sec. 16 r/w. 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act; against A7 for the offence u/s.420, 109 r/w. 34 of IPC, Sec. Sections 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Section 16 r/w. Section 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, beyond a reasonable doubt? If so, what relief

Submissions of counsel for the accused :

11.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution examined PW1 to PW18, all the material witnesses turned hostile and did not establish that A1 got married to the victim girl, and A7, who is the father of the victim, performed a child marriage beyond a reasonable doubt and no independent witnesses were produced. There is no corroboration between the material witnesses about the alleged marriage; no photographs were marked. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

7 of 11 SC(POCSO) No. 126 of 2022

Submissions of learned Public Prosecutor :

12.The learned Public Prosecutor argued that on 23.08.2022 at 15:00 hours, the victim lodged a written report. Based on her complaint, the present crime was registered for the above-mentioned offences, and

A1 to A5 and A7 were charged, while A6 was deleted due to insufficient evidence on record. He further argued that while she was studying in the 9th standard, her paternal uncle, A4, and her neighbour, A5, proposed a marriage alliance for her. On the insistence of the aforementioned two persons, her parents performed her marriage with A1 on 27.03.2022 at the house of A4. Thereafter, she went to the house of her in-laws, she came to know that A1 was already performed two marriages, and when she questioned him about the said issue, he threatened and quarreled with her saying that it is none of her business to question him as he will perform marriages as he like, immediately she left his house and went to Gudi

Thanda. Thereafter, her in-laws arrived and called her to return home.

However, she did not come back. However, A4 threatened her and sent her to her in-laws' house at Konda Samudram Thanda. After going to her in-laws' house, there is no change in the attitude of A1; he also made sexual and mental harassment upon her, and A1 forcibly committed rape on her once on 22.06.2022 in his house. Due to the unbearable harassment, she went to the house of her maternal grandmother at

Peddammagadda Thanda, H/o.Khanapur, where her parents were residing, and narrated the entire incident. Her elder brother, PW2, telephoned the 8 of 11 SC(POCSO) No. 126 of 2022

Child Help Line at Phone No. 1098. Based on this information, Child Line

Authorities came and took her on 21.08.2022 and detained her in the

Sakhi Centre at Warangal for safe custody.

13.On 23.08.2022, Child Line Officer PW5 and her mother came to

P.S. Narsampet and made a complaint. He further argued that to prove the prosecution's case, the prosecution examined witnesses PW1 to PW18 and

Ex.P1 to P22 marked. He further argued that the official witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and proved that the victim was a minor girl. The parents of the victim performed the marriage of the victim with A1, and that he was forcibly committed to rape her. There is sufficient evidence to show that A1 sexually assaulted the victim girl without her consent. Therefore, the presumption available under u/s 29 and 30 of the

POCSO Act. Hence, prayed to convict the accused.

Appreciation of evidence on record :

14.The victim examined as PW1, the brother of the victim examined as PW2, the woman SI examined as PW4, the videographs of the victim taken by WHG examined as PW4, the child helpline members examined as PW5 and PW6. The circumstantial witnesses examined as

PW7 to PW10 were turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case. The panch witnesses examined as PW11 to PW14 were turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case. The mother of the victim and the brother of the victim turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Jatothu Raju / PW2 himself made a phone call to 9 of 11 SC(POCSO) No. 126 of 2022 the child help line. However, as per the evidence of PW5 and PW6, they brought the victim girl on 21.8.2022 and kept their home for a period of two days and thereafter lodged the report with the victim girl. However, why they kept the victim girl in the home, there is no proper explanation from PW4 and PW5.

15.On the other hand, as per their evidence, they brought the victim girl from the grandmother's house, but not from Konda Samudram

Thanda, as alleged by the victim girl in her complaint. The doctor who examined the victim, examined as PW15, as per her evidence, the hymen may be ruptured due to physical exercise or any other reason, and there is evidence of recent sexual intercourse. The date of birth of the victim, as per PW16, is 12.3.2006; the same was admitted by PW1. On the alleged date of the incident, she was a minor.

16.On the other hand, the circumstantial witnesses also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case. The victim also did not support the case of the prosecution and turn hostile. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that A1 got married to the victim girl at the instance of A4 and A7. As all the material witnesses turned hostile, and there is no evidence on record to show that the marriage of the victim was performed with A1 by her parents without her consent, and thereby

Accused No.1 committed rape on her, as alleged by the victim. In the aforementioned circumstances, the benefit of doubt shall extend to the accused No.1 to 5 and 7, and they are entitled to acquittal, as the 10 of 11 SC(POCSO) No. 126 of 2022 prosecution miserably fails to prove the guilt of the accused for the aforementioned charges. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 are also entitled to acquittal.

RESULT :

AS A RESULT, the accused no.1 to 5 and 7 are found not guilty of the offences against A1 u/S.420 IPC, sec.9 of Protection of

Child marriage Act, sec.3 r/w.4 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, against A2 to A5 is u/s.420, 109 r/w. 34 of IPC, sec.10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, sec.16 r/w.17 of Protection of

Children from Sexual offences Act; against A7 for the offence u/s.420, 109 r/w.34 of IPC, sec.10, 11 of Prohibition of Child

Marriage Act and sec.16 r/w.17 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act and acquitted under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 5 and 7 shall be cancelled and directed to release them forthwith.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 3 rd day of November, 2025).

FAC. Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases & Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW.1: Victim GirlNONE PW.2: Jathothu Raju PW.3: Seema Farheen 11 of 11 SC(POCSO) No. 126 of 2022

PW.4: J. Aruna, WHG 534 PW.5: Kasagani Prabha PW.6: Kommula Sathish PW.7: Bhukya Ravi PW.8: Dharavath Srinu PW.9 : Ganipaka Ashok PW.10: Guguloth Mansingh PW.11: Salugu Srinivas PW.12: Amgoth Suman PW.13: Dharavath Arun Kumar PW.14: Dharavath Shankar PW.15: Dr. Soujanya PW.16: Dulam Rajender PW.17: Dr. M.Rajakumar PW.18: Puli Ramesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on complaint NIL Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3: 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7 Ex.P6 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8 Ex.P7 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.9 Ex.P8 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.10 Ex.P9 : Signature of PW11 on CDF-I Ex.P10: Signature of PW12 on CDF-I Ex.P11: Signature of PW13 on CDF-II Ex.P12: RFSL Report Ex.P13: Final Opinion of PW.15 Ex.P14: Study, Conduct and Date of Birth certificate of PW.1 Ex.P15: Potency Certificate of A1 Ex.P16: MLC Report Ex.P17: First Information Report by PW.18 Ex.P18: Complaint Ex.P19: C.D Ex.P20: Photos (2 in no.) Ex.P21: Crime Detail Form-I Ex.P22: Crime Detail Form-II

FAC. Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases & Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Warangal

1 of 10 SC (POCSO) No. 35 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE CASES AND CASES UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

AT WARANGAL

Wednesday, the 29th day of October, 2025

PRESENT: Smt. V.B. Nirmala Geethamba,

Principal District Judge, Warangal.

FAC. Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases and Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Warangal.

SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) NO. 35 OF 2022

Crime No.145/2021 of PS., Nallabelly

1.Name of the Complainant: The State of Telangana, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Nallabelly.

2.Name, description of accused:

Shivarathri Rakesh, S/o. Mogili, Age: 21 Years. Caste:Waddera, R/o.Kondapur village of Nallabelly Mandal.

3.Offence with which Charged: Sec. 448, 376(3) r/w.511, 506 of IPC, Sec.7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.

4.Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

6.Sentence or Order: Acquittal

7.Counsel for prosecution: Sri G. Venkata Ramana, Special Public Prosecutor

8.Name of the Defence Counsel : Sri J.Madhu, Counsel for accused This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of both the counsels on record, upon hearing both sides and upon considering the material evidence available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The accused is charge sheeted before this Court for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 376(3) r/w.511, 506 of IPC,

Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against the accused.

2 of 10 SC (POCSO) No. 35 of 2022

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that -

2.On 30.11.2021 at 12.09 hours, the PW2/Lingala Sridhar came to the Police Station and lodged a Telugu written complaint stating that his daughter/victim, a girl aged 14 years, is studying in 9th standard at

Kasthuriba School in Nallabelly village. About 4 days ago, he went to

Nallabelly and brought his daughter home from school, as there was a programme of Goddess Prayers at his house. On 28.11.2021, in the afternoon, around 14:00 hours, in their absence, when his daughter/

Victim was alone at home, his villager, viz., Shivarathri Rakesh, S/o. Mogili came inside his house and forced his daughter to fulfil his desire, saying that he would marry her, and also threatened her with dire consequences if she did not comply. Then he caught hold the hands of his daughter and thrown her on a cot, caught hold her jacket and top torned the same and put his legs on his daughter and gagged her mouth with his hands tightly, on that due to fear, his daughter managed to escape from his clutches and shrieked, at the same time his son Lingala Nagaraj/ LW4 arrived at the house and on seeing his son, said Rakesh fled away from their house.

There is a life danger to his daughter in the hands of said Rakesh.

Thereafter, their daughter narrated the entire incident to them, and they negotiated the matter and decided to lodge a complaint at PS Nallabelly and file a report. Thus, he requested the necessary action against

Shivarathri Rakesh.

3.On receipt of the above report, a case in Crime No.145/2021 3 of 10 SC (POCSO) No. 35 of 2022 under Secs.376(3) r/w.511, 506 of IPC, Sec. 4(2) r/w.18 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act against the accused was registered.

Upon registering the case, the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Nallabelly, examined and recorded his statement, and secured the presence of the

W.S.I. of PS Narsampet, who examined the Victim girl and recorded her statement; thereafter, PW3 and PW4 recorded their statements. Later, visited the scene of the offence at the house of the Victim girl/PW1 at

Kondapur village, observed the scene minutely and incorporated physical features of the scene of crime detail form in the presence of mediators

PW5 and LW8 / Bommidi Manomohan Reddy, thereafter he secured the presence of PW5 and LW5/mother of victim, examined her and recorded her statement. On 03.12.2021 at 9 hours, PW8, along with his force, apprehended the accused at his house in Kondapur village. On interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to the offence and was produced before the Court for judicial remand.

4.The I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Warangal, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 448, 376(3) r/w 511, 506 of IPC, Section 7 r/w. 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act against the accused, and the case was received by this Court on being transferred from I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Warangal. On the appearance of the accused, the copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4 of 10 SC (POCSO) No. 35 of 2022

FRAMING OF CHARGES :

5.On the accused's appearance before this Court, this Court framed charges against him for the offences under sections 448, 376(3) r/ w. 511, 506 of the IPC, and Sec.7 r/w. Section 8 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act was read over and explained to him in his vernacular language. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and requested a trial.

TRIAL:

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Exs. P1 to P6.

313 CrPC examination of the accused

7.After the prosecution's evidence was concluded, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 CrPC. He denied the material allegations against him and pleaded not guilty. The accused further stated that there was no evidence on his behalf.

8.Both counsels were present and heard.

9.Upon considering the rival contentions and perusing the available record, the point that arises for determination before this Court is as follows :

Has the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 376(3) r/w.511, 506 of IPC, Sec.7 r/ w.8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act of the Indian Penal Code beyond a reasonable doubt? If so, what relief?

5 of 10 SC (POCSO) No. 35 of 2022

Submissions of counsel for the accused :

10.The counsel for the accused argued that the victim's father, the victim, and the victim's brother were examined as PW1 to PW3. As per the prosecution's version, the accused entered into the house of the victim through the next door to the kitchen, whereas PW1 to PW3 stated that the accused entered into the house through a window, and there is no evidence on record to show the window was broken while he was entering the house. The prosecution produces no such evidence. He further argued that the victim girl did not hand over the torn dress and also the torn shirt of her brother to the police in this case to prove the attempt of rape against the victim girl to attract the ingredients of sec.376(3) r/w.511 of

IPC. He further argued that there were political disputes between the victim's brother and the accused over the accused's false implication in this case, and that the accused lodged a report after due deliberations on 30.11.2021, with a delay of three days. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused entered the house of the victim and made an attempt to commit rape on her. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

Submissions of Addl. Public Prosecutor :

11.The Public Prosecutor argued that the victim girl is a minor and her date of birth is 04.6.2007, whereas the alleged offence took place in the house of the victim on 28.11.2021 when she came to the house from the hostel to go to Vemulawada jathara. When she was alone in the house, the accused entered the house through a window, threw the victim girl on 6 of 10 SC (POCSO) No. 35 of 2022 the cot and lay on her and attempted to commit rape on her. Meanwhile, the victim's brother returned to the house. On seeing him, the accused ran away from the house, and the victim's brother informed their parents.

Thereafter, the complaint was lodged at Nallabelli PS. He further argued that the victim narrated the incident. No minor girl would come and say that the accused committed rape on her, and her sole evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. The evidence of PW3 corroborates that of

PW1 regarding the commission of the offence by the accused, who ran away from their house. Hence, prayed to have the accused convicted.

Appreciation of evidence on record :

12.To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW8, PW1 is the victim, PW2 is the father of victim, PW3 is the brother of victim, PW4 recorded the statement of PW1, PW5 is the mediator at the time of observation of scene of offence, PW6 is the eye witness and did not support the case of the prosecution and he was not declared as hostile. PW7 is the Spl. officer, KGVB, Nallabelli, who issued the date of birth certificate of PW1 under Ex.P4. PW8 is the Investigating

Officer who conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused.

13.As per the evidence of PW1, she came to their house from the hostel to go to Vemulawada jatara on 25.11.2021, after attending jatara they came back to their house when she was at house on 28.11.2021, the accused entered into the house to the TV room through window, when she 7 of 10 SC (POCSO) No. 35 of 2022 was on the bed accused made attempt to commit rape on her and also hit her head to the wall. Meanwhile, PW3 came back to the house. On seeing his brother, the accused ran away. On that day, she was not wearing any bangles, and her parents had mobile phones and also attended the agricultural work. The agricultural fields of the parents of the victim are situated within 1 km from the house of PW1, a road which family members use to go to the agricultural fields every day. The alleged incident occurred in daylight, whereas the complaint was filed on 30.11.2021, resulting in a 3-day delay. The delay was not adequately explained by the prosecution in this case, and it is fatal to the prosecution's case. On the other hand, the victim's house is surrounded by other houses belonging to G.Santhosh,

T.Susheela, Achamma, B.Narsamma,

14.As per the evidence of PW2, he came to know of the incident through PW1, who came to the agricultural fields at about 2.30 p.m. and informed him of the incident, but he did not take any steps after learning of the said offence and waited up to 30.11.2021 to lodge the report under

Ex.P1. As per his evidence, their house has three windows with grills, and the windows were not broken; there is no such evidence on record.

15.As per the evidence of PW3, he did not state before the police that he and the victim girl went to the agricultural fields of PW2 and reported the incident. It amounts to a material contradiction. He also stated that his house has three windows, and that the police did not seize the torn shirt of PW3 or the dress of PW1. As per the version of PW1, the 8 of 10 SC (POCSO) No. 35 of 2022 accused quarrelled with his brother and, in that quarrel, tore his shirt and also victimised the victim while he attempted to commit rape. However, no such torn clothes were seized by the Investigating Officer in this case at the instance of PW1 and PW3. As per the evidence of PW3, on seeing him, the accused ran away from the house. He did not state before the Court that there was a quarrel between him and the accused on the alleged date of the incident, which amounts to a material omission. The eyewitness also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case.

16.On the other hand, as per the documents produced by the prosecution under Exs. P1 to P6, the Crime detail form marked as Ex. P2.

On perusal of Ex.P2, no windows were shown to the house of the victim, and no back door was also shown. On the other hand, it is surrounded by neighbouring houses and near agricultural fields. The accused's house is near Guvva Santhosh's house, who was examined as PW6 in this case.

17.On the other hand, it clearly shows that there were disputes between the family members of the accused and the victim, and they falsely implicated the accused in this case with due deliberations as an afterthought on 30.11.2021. Therefore, the delay in lodging the report is fatal to the case of the prosecution, and there is no sufficient evidence on record to establish that the accused entered into the house of the victim girl through the window and committed the offence.

18.In the above-mentioned circumstances, if two views are possible, the view which is favourable to the accused has to be taken into 9 of 10 SC (POCSO) No. 35 of 2022 consideration. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

19.In the above-mentioned circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to establish that the accused entered into the house of the victim through the window on 28.11.2021 at about 2 p.m., and attempted to commit rape on her to attract the ingredients u/s.448, 376 r/ w. 511 of IPC and also threatened her with dire consequences u/s. 506 of

IPC and the accused attempted to commit a sexual offence to attract the ingredients u/s. 7 r/w. Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012, beyond a reasonable doubt.

RESULT :

AS A RESULT, the accused is found not guilty of the offences under Section.448, 376(3) r/w. 511, 506 IPC, sec. 7 r/w. 8 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and acquitted under

Section. 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be cancelled, and he shall be released forthwith.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 29 th day of October, 2025)

FAC. Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases and Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Warangal 10 of 10 SC (POCSO) No. 35 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1 : Victim Girl NONE PW.2: Father of the Victim PW.3: Brother of the Victim PW.4: Kanukuntla Laxmi PW.5 : Guba Raju PW.6: Guva Santhosh PW.7: A.Sunitha PW.8: R.Ashok

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Report dt.30.11.2021NIL Ex.P2 : Signature of PW5 on Crime Detail Form Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6 Ex.P.4: Study, conduct and date of birth certificate of PW1 Ex.P.5: First Information report Ex.P.6: Crime Detail Form along with rough sketch, dt. 30.11.2021

FAC. Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases and Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Warangal