Sri. Y. Jaya Prasad

SC No.103 of 14 1 of 11 dt.19.05.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT VIKARABAD.

PRESENT: Y.Jaya Pasad, XII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

Thursday, this the 19 th day of May, 2022

S.C. No.103 of 2014

1. Name of the complainant : The State through P.S. Vikarabad

2. Cr. No. : 309/2013

3. Name & description of : Janagama Harender @ Santhu the accused. S/o.Narayana, age: 36 years, occ: Mangali, Caste: Mangali, R/o.Subhashnager Colony, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

4. Offences under Section Under Sec.302 Indian Penal Code

5. Prosecution conducted bySri G.Narayana, Addl. Public Prosecutor

6. Defence conducted by Sri K.Ramesh Kumar

7. Finding of the Court Found not guilty.

8. Sentence or order of the : IN THE RESULT:- Accused is found not Court guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.

302 Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Sec.235 (1) Criminal Procedure Code for the charge.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.

437-A Criminal Procedure Code. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

SC No.103 of 14 2 of 11 dt.19.05.2022

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Narayana, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day; this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This case arises out of the Charge sheet filed by the Inspector of police, Vikarabad Police Station in Cr. No.309/2013 for the offence under

Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code.

2.In brief prosecution case is to the following effect:-

Accused is none other than the husband of the deceased while de- ceased studying in Vikarabad, accused came into contact with her in the year 1998. Their acquaintance developed into love between them. Even- tually with the consent and support of elders on both sides they got mar- ried and blessed with two daughters namely Manasa, 14 years of age, studying 8th class, and Akhila 11 years of age, studying 6th class. They are residing on rent in Subhash Nagar area of Vikarabad town in the house of one Mr.Srinivas. Two years earlier to the offence accused de- veloped suspicion that deceased was into the life of bad virtue. Accused had warned deceased to change her attitude. Two months earlier to the report accused and his wife quarreled severely and accused had chastised and abused his wife. So, she had gone away from matrimonial home.

Then accused had filed report to police. Ten days thereafter deceased had returned to home. On 15.08.2013 at 6-00 pm. accused had returned to home and again quarreled with the deceased. Both of them were chastised and advised not to quarrel by deceased’s father who had visited them on that day. As deceased’s father gone out from house the quarrel between accused and deceased again aggravated in the process having

SC No.103 of 14 3 of 11 dt.19.05.2022

proposed by piled up hate and grouse, accused decided to kill his wife and picked up handle of spade and hit on her head repeatedly several times. As a result the deceased sustained severe bleeding injury and suffered fracture to skull at several areas and died on the spot. Accused resorted to the offence in the full gaze of his younger daughter. Despite her request accused did not budge and her request and agony to save her mother fallen on the deaf ears of the accused. A little thereafter ac- cused’s father-in-law returned to home and to his astonishment his daughter fell on ground in sitting posture and died with severe bleeding head injury. On the report of Mr.Gudur Narayana, deceased’s father In- spector of police registered Cr. No.309/2013 under Sec. 302 Indian Penal

Code. Examined and recorded statements of LW.1 Mr.Gudur Narayana,

LW.2 Kumari Janagama Akhila, LW.3 Mr.Madunala Srinivas, LW.4 Mrs.Pit- tala Swapna, LW.5 Rajakonda Ramchandraiah, LW.6 Janagama Manasa got the scene of offence and dead body photographed by LW.7

Mr.Thakore Rakesh Singh and held inquest over the dead body of the de- ceased in the presence of LW.8 Karnataka Chandra Shekar and LW.9

Chinthala Ramalingam and seized blood stained clothes of deceased and referred the dead body for autopsy. LW.13 Dr.Rajshekar conducted medico legal autopsy over the dead body. On 16.08.2013 took the ac- cused into custody. On questioning accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence in the presence of mediators and at the instance of accused Inspector of police recovered blood stained T.Shirt from the per- son of accused. Then effected arrest of accused and got him sent to

Court for remand. On completion of investigation and after collecting

Postmortem Examination report laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code.

SC No.103 of 14 4 of 11 dt.19.05.2022

3.The offence was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, after compliance of requirements under Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code, by her order dated 21.04.2014 vide PRC

No.1 of 2014 committed the case to the Court of Prl. District and Sessions

Judge, Ranga Reddy District under section 209 Criminal Procedure Code,

the same was taken on file as S.C. No.103/2014 and made over to this court for disposal according to law.

4.Accused made his appearance, on hearing the learned counsel and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor charge was framed for the offence under

Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code against the accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution PWs 1 to 9 were examined and P1 to

P18 and MO.1 were exhibited.

6.On completion of examination of witnesses for prosecution, accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence on record against the accused, and the accused denied the same and not opted to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard both the counsel.

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argues that, PWs 1 to 8 have not supported the charge, but the testimony of PW.9 Investigation Officer is sufficient to convict the accused since the testimony of PW.9 is consistent, cogent and solid from every stand point. That there is no rule of law that an uncorroborated testimony can’t sustain conviction. That the Investigation Officer is an independent/public servant to whom no bias can be attributed. Thus basing on the testimony of PW.9

SC No.103 of 14 5 of 11 dt.19.05.2022

Investigation Officer the learned Public Prosecutor requests to record conviction against the accused and sentence him appropriately as per law.

On the other hand, the learned counsel argues, let alone the legal evidence there is not even an iota of evidence. All the material witnesses including eye witnesses i.e. father and daughter of deceased also have not supported the charge. All other circumstantial witnesses besides not supporting the case of the prosecution have not stated anything in their cross examination. The testimony of PW.9 is quite routine and formal. It appears mere compliance of legal formality of registration of case, examination of witnesses, holding of scene of offence and inquest proceedings followed by the arrest of the accused. In fact PW.9 is neither eye witness nor circumstantial witness as such the testimony of PW.9 is a little use and consequence in proof of the charge. So, learned counsel argues that prosecution could not prove the charge at all and requests to record clean acquittal.

8.Now the sole point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution could prove the charge against the accused for the offence under Sections 302 Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?”

P O I N T:

9.In order the charge for the offence under Sec. 302 Indian Penal

Code be established prosecution needs to prove the following facts with legal evidence.

(i). Homicidal death of the deceased.

(ii).Homicidal death of the deceased was caused by the accused with an intention to kill him.

SC No.103 of 14 6 of 11 dt.19.05.2022

Charge for which accused tried for the offence under Section 302 Indian

Penal Code reads as follows:

That you the accused on 15.08.2013 at about 18.00 hours went to your house situated at Subhasnagar colony, Vikarabad Municipality, and picked up the quarrel with your wife namely Venkata Laxmi/deceased and argued about her illegal intimacy and the same was reached to high-pitch. You accused got full of angry on your wife Venkata Laxmi/deceased and picked up a wooden spade handle and hit on your wife Venkata Laxmi’s (deceased) head and she died on the spot.

Basing on the report of Guduru Narayana (LW.1), Police of Vikarabad registered a case against you in Cr. No.309/2013 for the offence under Sec. 302

Indian Penal Code and arrested you on 16.08.2013 and you confessed the offence

before the police and police produced you before JFCM Vikarabad, after completion

of investigation filed charge sheet against you under Sec.302 Indian Penal Code stating that you accused on 15.08.2013 at about 18.00 hours went to your house situated at Subhashnagar colony, Vikarabad Municipality, commit the murder of your wife Venkata Laxmi hit on her head with wooden spade handle.

10.In order to prove these facts following evidence is adduced.

LW.1 Mr.Guduru Narayana, father of deceased and father-in-law of accused could not be examined by prosecution owing to his death, death certificate of LW.1 is filed by prosecution as such the evidence of LW.1 is closed.

11.PW.1 is eye witness and daughter of accused and deceased, PW.2 is land lord of accused and deceased, PW.3 is co-tenant of the deceased,

PW.4 is elder daughter of accused and deceased. All these witnesses have not supported the charge and the case of the prosecution. They merely deposed about the death of deceased but they have not testified anything attributable to the accused.

SC No.103 of 14 7 of 11 dt.19.05.2022

12.In brief the evidence of PW.1 is, on 15.08.2013 his mother had died. On that day she had returned from school after flag hoisting ceremony. Her mother had asked her to go out and play. When she got back to home her mother was found dead and one person was there in the house, she had called her father and informed the same, she does not know the reason why and how her mother died. He does not know the reason why and how her mother died.

13.PW.2 deposes, eight years prior to his evidence on one day when he got back to home during evening hours he was informed that wife of accused had died. He does not know the reason how and why she died.

Further he elaborates that the accused and deceased were living in harmony as tenants his house.

14.PW.3 deposes that deceased is her co-tenant. She does not know how and when deceased had died and she had noticed that the accused and deceased were living in harmony and she does not know the reason for the death of the deceased. Nobody had told her about the reason for death of deceased.

15.PW.4 daughter of accused and deceased deposes, at the time of death of her mother she was studying in Tandur Residential School after flag hoisting ceremony she returned to home and saw the dead body of her mother. PW.1 told her that on that day one person had visited her house then her mother had asked her to go away and play when she returned home she was laying in pool of blood and died. Her sister had informed her father then report was lodged.

16.Thus PWs 1 to 4 have not supported the charge, and the case of prosecution. They merely deposed about the death of the deceased.

SC No.103 of 14 8 of 11 dt.19.05.2022

Their cross examination by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor does not yield any result as such in support of the charge. So, the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is of little use and significance in proof of charge.

17.PWs 5 and 6 are mediators for scene of offence and inquest proceedings. Both of these witnesses have also not supported the charge. PW.5 deposes that four or five years before his evidence on one day he had noticed gathering at the house of the accused and he had gone there. He had not seen anything there and he does not know what had happened. Police had merely obtained his signatures and no proceedings of inquest and scene of offence were held in his presence and he was not taken to Government Hospital. Nothing was seized by police in his presence.

18.In the same fashion PW.6 testifies that eight or nine years prior to his evidence he had gone to Government Hospital mortuary as the dead body of the deceased was taken there. Then police had obtained his signature on some papers. He does not know the purpose. No inquest proceedings were held in his presence and he does not know the reason and circumstance that resulted in the death of the deceased Mrs.Venkata

Lakshmi. He merely identifies his signature on inquest proceedings as

Ex.P8. Both of these witnesses are examined in cross by learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor but nothing tangible could be elicited. Therefore the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 is of little use in support of charge.

19.PWs 7 and 8 are mediators for seizure of T.shirt from the person of the accused pursuant to his confession. Both of these witnesses merely identified their signatures as Exs.P9 and P10 respectively while denying the rest of the contents of the recovery proceedings. Both of them testified that when they had gone to Police Station on their personal

SC No.103 of 14 9 of 11 dt.19.05.2022

work. Police had obtained their signatures on some papers. They do not know the purpose and also the contents of papers on which their signatures were obtained. They had not seen the accused there. Both of these witnesses are examined in cross at length by learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor but to of no evidence. Therefore the evidence of PWs 7 and 8 is also of little use and significance in proof of the charge.

20.Then comes lastly the evidence of PW.9 Investigation Officer, his evidence is as follows:

On 15.08.2013 PW.1 had presented Ex.P11 – in fact Ex.P11 was presented by LW.1 Guduru Narayana but not PW.1, be that as it may. He had examined and recorded statement of PW.1. He could not visit scene of offence as it was late night so posted two Constables to guard scene of offence. On the next day he had visited scene of offence and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.5 and LW.9 Ch.Ramalingam.

Observed scene of offence and drew rough sketch under Exs.P13 and P12 respectively. Seized blood stained clothes of deceased. After referring the dead body to autopsy at Government Hospital, Vikarabad under

Ex.P14 deceased clothes were seized. He had also seized MO.1 Stick from scene of offence. Stick was used by the accused in the commission of offence. He had also collected control earth and blood stained earth.

Examined and recorded statements of PWs 1 to 4. They stated to him as in Exs.P1 to P4 and he had also examined and recorded the statements of

LW.5 R.Chandraiah and LW.7 Rakesh Singh got scene of offence and dead body photographed. LW.13 Dr.Rajshekar held autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P16 Postmortem Examination report. On 16.08.2013 arrested the accused and recovered blood stained T.Shirt from his person under Ex.P17 in the presence of PWs 7 and 8. Then effected his arrest got him sent to Court for remand. On completion of investigation after

SC No.103 of 14 10 of 11 dt.19.05.2022

collecting Postmortem Examination report and Forensic Science

Laboratory report laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code. Thus it is obvious that testimony of

PW.9 does not indicate anything against the accused. PW.9 is neither eye witness nor circumstantial witness. Investigation Officer deposes that

PWs 1 to 4 had stated before him as in Exs.P1 to P4, but the very same witnesses who are the own daughters and father of the deceased have not supported the charge. In fact they are arraigned as eye witnesses and as per the case of the prosecution they were at the scene of offence when the crime was committed. But the very same witnesses before this

Court have not deposed anything against the accused. Thus viewed from any of the stand point absolutely there is no evidence against the accused in proof of the charge for the offence under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code.

Point is answered accordingly.

21.IN THE RESULT:- Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under

Sec.235 (1) Criminal Procedure Code for the charge.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec. 437-A Criminal Procedure Code. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this 19 th day of May, 2022.

XII Addl. District & Session Judge, Vikarabad, R.R.District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:-

P.W.1. Kum.Jonagama Akhila-Nil-

SC No.103 of 14 11 of 11 dt.19.05.2022

P.W.2. M.Srinivas P.W.3. P.Swapna P.W.4. J.Manasa P.W.5. K.Chandrashekar P.W.6. J.Megamala P.W.7. Rapol Mahipal P.W.8. M.Chinna Maisaiah P.W.9. V.Lachiram, Inspector of police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Portion of statement of PW.1-Nil- under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.2: Portion of statement of PW.2 under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.3: Portion of statement of PW.3 under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.4: Portion of statement of PW.4 under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.5 Signature of PW.5 on scene of offence Proceedings/C.D.F. Ex.P.6: Signature of PW.5 on clothes seizure proceedings Ex.P.7: Signature of PW.5 on inquest proceedings Ex.P.8: Signature of PW.6 on inquest proceedings Ex.P.9: Signature of PW.7 on confession and recovery proceedings Ex.P.10: Signature of PW.8 on confession and recovery proceedings Ex.P.11: Report Ex.P.12: Crime detail form with rough sketch Ex.P.13: Inquest proceedings Ex.P.14: Deceased’s clothes recovery proceedings Ex.P.15: Three photographs with compact disk Ex.P.16: P.M.E. report Ex.P.17: Recovery of blood stained T.Shirt from the person of the accused Ex.P.18: F.S.L. report

M.Os. MARKED

MO.1: Stick

XII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, R.R. District.

SC No.316 of 15 1 of 8 dt.19.05.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT VIKARABAD.

PRESENT: Y.Jaya Pasad, XII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

Thursday, this the 19 th day of May, 2022

S.C. No.316 of 2015

1. Name of the complainant : The State through P.S. Karankote

2. Cr. No. : 99/2015

3. Name & description of : Dornala Bheemaiah S/o.Late Venkappa, the accused. age: 75 years, Age: 75 years, Caste: Vaddera, Occ: Coolie, R/o.Malkapur village of Tandur Mandal.

4. Offences under Section Under Sec.302 Indian Penal Code

5. Prosecution conducted bySri G.Narayana, Addl. Public Prosecutor

6. Defence conducted by Sri P.Sampurna Anand

7. Finding of the Court Found not guilty.

8. Sentence or order of the : IN THE RESULT:- Accused is found not Court guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.

302 Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Sec.235 (1) Criminal Procedure Code for the charge.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.

437-A Criminal Procedure Code. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

SC No.316 of 15 2 of 8 dt.19.05.2022

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Narayana, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri P.Sampurna Anand, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day; this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This case arises out of the Charge sheet filed by the Circle

Inspector of police, Tandur Rural Circle in Cr. No.99/2015 of Karankote

Police Station for the offence under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code.

2.In brief prosecution case is as follows:-

This is a case which reflects acute male chauvinism which gone to the extent of killing one’s wife on the ground that the wife could not serve food immediately after being asked. Briefly stated case of prosecution is as follows:

Deceased is none other than the wife of accused and they are seni- or citizens with three sons and three daughters, their marriages were per- formed. Accused and deceased were living under care and custody of their sons. On 31.08.2015 accused’s son Mr.Chandrappa had gone to his in-law’s house leaving the accused and his wife at home. In the same night at 8-00 pm. Chandrappa was informed over phone that accused and his mother had quarreled and accused had hacked his mother indiscrimin- ately. As a result the deceased, mother of Mr.Dornala Chandrappa/de- facto-complainant received severe cut injury on right cheek, right hand and both lower limbs and suffered severe bleeding injury. That the ac- cused has resorted to said act as there was a little delay in serving food to accused. Thus the deceased was initially taken to Tandur Government

Hospital and for better treatment later she was referred to Gandhi Hospit- al while undergoing treatment on 04.09.2015 at 4-00 pm. succumbed to

SC No.316 of 15 3 of 8 dt.19.05.2022

injuries. That the accused was in the habit of beating his wife Mrs.Dor- nala Ananthamma. Report by accused’s son was registered as Cr.

No.99/2015 under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code by LW.11 P.Vijay Kumar,

Sub-Inspector of police. Then Inspector of police took up investigation examined and recorded statements of LW.1 Dornala Chandrappa, LW.2

Dornala Gopal, LW.3 Dornala Shiva, LW.4 Katike Allauddin, LW.5 Sirigiri- pet Krishna. Visited scene of offence and observed and also held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW.6 Mrs.Ambar- peta Amruthamma and LW.7 Mr.Nagaram Ramulu and conducted scene of offence observation proceedings in the presence of LW.8 Mr.Reddy Ra- mulu and LW.9 Mr.Mohd.Mastan Ali. LW.10 Dr.Mohan Singh conducted

Postmortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased. On 11.09.2015 effected the arrest of accused got him sent to Court for re- mand. On completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the ac- cused for the offence under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code.

3.The offence was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, after compliance of requirements under Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code, by her order dated 21.12.2015 vide PRC

No.88 of 2015 committed the case to the Court of Prl. District and Ses- sions Judge, Ranga Reddy District under section 209 Criminal Procedure

Code, the same was taken on file as S.C. No.316/2015 and made over to this court for disposal according to law.

4.Accused made his appearance, on hearing the learned counsel and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor charges were framed for the offence un- der Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code against the accused, read over and ex- plained to the accused in Telugu language, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

SC No.316 of 15 4 of 8 dt.19.05.2022

5.On behalf of the prosecution PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P11 and MO.1 were exhibited.

6.On completion of examination of witnesses on behalf of prosecution, accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence on record against the accused, and the accused denied the same and had not opted to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard both the counsel.

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor fairly argues that, none of the witnesses including mediators, PWs 1 to 5 have not supported the charge, that is the reason he had given up LW.8 Mr.Reddy Ramulu, LW.9

Mr.Mohd.Mastan Ali, LW.10 Dr.Mohan Singh, LW.11 P.Vijay Kumar, Sub-

Inspector of police as their examination does not improve the case of prosecution. However, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the testimony of PW.6 Investigation Officer is consistent and convincing.

So, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor requests to decide the case on merits.

On the other hand, the learned counsel argues, let alone the legal evidence there is not even an iota of evidence. There is no evidence at all against the accused except the evidence of PW.6 Investigation Officer none of the witnesses supported the charge. That is the reason the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has not chosen to examine LWs 8 to 11 and given them up. So there is no evidence in proof of the charge. Thus, learned counsel argues that prosecution could not prove the charge at all and requests to record clean acquittal.

8.Now the sole point that falls for consideration is:

SC No.316 of 15 5 of 8 dt.19.05.2022

“Whether prosecution could prove the charge against the accused for the offence under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?”

P O I N T:

9.In order the charge for the offence under Sec. 302 Indian Penal

Code be established following facts are noted to be proved with legal evidence.

(i) Homicidal death of the deceased.

(ii) That homicidal death of the deceased was caused by the accused intentionally to kill him where by the accused hacked the deceased with Axe.

Charge for which accused tried for the offence under Section 302 Indian

Penal Code reads as follows:

That you the accused on 31.08.2015 at about 8-00 pm. in your house at

Malkapur village, Tandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with an intention to kill your wife namely Ananthamma hacked her with an Axe on her face, hands and legs, thereby caused to her death on 04.09.2015 at 4-00 pm. and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code.

10.In order to prove these facts following evidence is adduced:

PWs 1 and 2 are sons of accused and deceased. They deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of this case. About six or seven years prior to their deposing their father (accused) went for coolie work. His mother was all alone in the house wearing gold chain. Then somebody trespassed into the house and killed her mother and took away gold ornaments. PW.1 is the first informant except admitting his signature on the report denies entire contents and both of these witnesses state that they were not examined by the police. Their cross

SC No.316 of 15 6 of 8 dt.19.05.2022

examination by the learned counsel does not indicate anything as to the commission of offence by the accused. So, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is of little use and significance in proof of the charge.

11.PWs 3 and 4 are circumstantial and eye witnesses. Both of them also not supported the charge. PW.3 deposes, six years earlier to his evidence on one day he had seen a mob at the house of accused. So, he went there and he was told that the accused had quarreled with his wife and he had seen dead body of the wife of accused but he had not seen how the wife of the deceased died. In the same fashion PW.4 deposes that he had come to know that accused had hacked his wife in a fit of anger. He had gone Tandur Police Station from there he had taken accused to Hospital as accused was beaten by the police and police had not examined him and his signature was obtained on empty sheet of paper. In fact he is eye witness to the incident. Thus PWs 3 and 4 have not supported the charge. Though PW.4 stated that he was told that accused had hacked the deceased, he does not tell who had stated him.

Thus evidence of PW.4 is mere hearsay. They are examined in cross by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor but nothing tangible could be elicited. So, their evidence is of little use and significance to prove charge.

12.PW.5 is mediator for inquest proceedings. She deposes that seven years prior to her evidence one day she had gone to Osmania General

Hospital where police had obtained her thumb impression on some papers. She does not know the purpose. She knows accused and deceased. Thus she had gone to the hospital and no panchanama was conducted in her presence. In fact this witness is shown as mediator for inquest proceedings. Thus PW.5 also has not supported the charge and she is examined in cross by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor but nothing

SC No.316 of 15 7 of 8 dt.19.05.2022

tangible could be elicited. Thus the evidence of PW.5 is also of little use and significance.

13.Then comes lastly evidence of PW.6 Investigation Officer. His evidence is only in the nature of compliance, legal formality of examination of witnesses, holding scene of offence and inquest proceedings under Exs.P8 and P9 and drew rough sketch under Ex.P11.

Seized Stick under MO.1. On 11.09.2015 arrested accused and got him sent to Court for remand.

14.Be it noted that PW.6 is neither eye witness nor circumstantial witness to the offence. In fact he is not the Officer registering the crime, the crime was registered by LW.11 P.Vijay Kumar, Sub-Inspector of police as Cr. No.99/2015 under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code. It is significant to note that basing on the statements of PWs 1 to 4 accused was charged for the offence under Sec.302 Indian Penal Code. It is to be seen that,

PWs 1 to 4 though stated to have narrated the incident to PW.6 as in

Exs.P2 to P5 but the very same witnesses before this Court on oath have resiled from their earlier statements and not supported the charge. As already noted their cross examination by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor does not reveal anything in support of the charge. So, viewed from any of the stand points absolutely there is no evidence against the accused in proof of the charge. Thus the prosecution could not prove the charge against the accused for the offence under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code.

Point is answered accordingly.

15.IN THE RESULT:- Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under

Sec.235 (1) Criminal Procedure Code for the charge.

SC No.316 of 15 8 of 8 dt.19.05.2022

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec. 437-A Criminal Procedure Code. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this 19 th day of May, 2022.

XII Addl. District & Session Judge, Vikarabad, R.R.District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:-

P.W.1. D.Chandrappa-Nil- P.W.2. D.Shiva P.W.3. K.Allauddin P.W.4. S.Krishna P.W.5. A.Amruthamma P.W.6. K.Shiva Shanker, Inspector of police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW.1-Nil- Ex.P.2: Portion of statement of PW.1 under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.3: Portion of statement of PW.2 under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.4: Portion of statement of PW.3 under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.5: Portion of statement of PW.4 under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.6: Report Ex.P.7: Printed F.I.R. Ex.P.8: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.9: Inquest proceedings Ex.P.10: Postmortem examination report Ex.P.11: Rough sketch of scene of offence

M.Os. MARKED

MO.1: Axe with stick

XII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, R.R. District.

IN THE COURT OF THE VACATION JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated this the 20th day of May, 2022

O.S.No.19 OF 2022

Between:

1. Mohammed Sami Uddin, S/o.Mohd. Zaheeruddin, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o.10-2-318/1/105 Vijaynagar Colony, Hyderabad, T.S.

2. Mohammed Shakeel Alam, S/o Late Mohd. Ansar Alam, aged about: 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-6-549 Dabeerpura, Hyderabad - T.S. …PLAINTIFFS A N D

1. Syed Iqbal Hussain, S/o Syed Mazhar Hussain, aged about 38 years, Occ:Business, R/o 2-1-27/1, Shivareddypet village, vikarabad Municipality, Vikarabad Dist.

2. Mosin Ahmed, S/o Sabir Ahmed, aged about 45 yrs. Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.8-2-293/211/A-49, FCHS, Phase-II, Road No.8, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-0.5.

3. Abdul Basheer Khan, S/o late Abdul Moin Khan, aged about 55 yrs. Occ: Business, R/o 9-4-131/5 akbar Bagh, Tolichowki, Hyderabad – T.S. …DEFENDANTS

CLAIM:PLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 26, ORDER VII, RULE 1 & 2 OF C.P.C.

SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

This Suit is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri.C.Sriram, Counsel for Plaintiffs and Pranay Sohini, Counsel for Defendant No.3 and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following:

****

DOCKET ORDER DATED: 20-05-2022

Petition filed to advance is allowed. Suit is advanced to today and taken up. Both the plaintiffs are present. Identity is verified. Petition filed to withdraw under order XXIII is allowed. Suit is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

Sd/-

Vacation Judge, R.R.District, L.B.Nagar.

// True Copy //

Principal District Judge,

Vikarabad District.

IN THE COURT OF THE VACATION JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated this the 20th day of May, 2022

O.S.No.115 OF 2021

Between:

1. Mr. Mohammed Naimuddin, S/o.Late. Mohammed Moinuddin, Aged about 44 Yrs., Occ:Business,

2. Mr. Mohammed Aleemuddin, S/o.Late.Mohammed Moinuddin, Aged about 47 Yrs., Occ:Business,

Both are R/o.# 9-4-134/25/1/A/1, Nadeem Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad. …PLAINTIFFS A N D

D. Ramesh Kumar, S/o.D.S.R.Murthy, Aged about: 50 yrs., Occ: Business, R/o.# 17-1-391/S/416, Saraswathi Nagar, Singareni Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad, T.S., …DEFENDANT

CLAIM:PLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION-26, ORDER-7, RULE-1 OF C.P.C.

SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

This Suit is coming on this day before me in the presence of

Sri.K.Ramesh Kumar, Counsel for Plaintiffs and Sri.V.Ravi Kumar, Counsel for Defendant and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following:

****

DOCKET ORDER DATED: 20-05-2022

Petition filed to advance is allowed. Suit is advanced to today and taken up. Both the plaintiffs are present. Identity is verified. Memo filed to withdrawn the suit. Hence Suit is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.

Sd/-

Vacation Judge, R.R.District, L.B.Nagar.

// True Copy //

Principal District Judge,

Vikarabad District.

IN THE COURT OF III SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE: VIKARABAD.

Present:- Y. Jaya Prasad, III Special Sessions Judge Women, Vikarabad District.

DATED: ON THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF MAY , 2022.

Crl. MP. No. 218 of 2022

IN

Cr. No. 53 of 2022

Between:-

P. Jaipal Reddy S/o. P. Govind Reddy Aged about: 40 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1-54, Yetrajpally Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Vikarabad Distict. ……….Accused

AND For the State of Telangana through P.S. Nawabpet ………Complainant

OFFIENCES:- Under Section 354,504,509,323 of IPC

****

This case is coming on before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Ashok Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana through P.S.Nawabpet and upon perusal of material papers on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following.

DOCKET ORDER

DATE: 19-05-2023.

Learned Counsel not pressed this Petition. Hence, dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, correct and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th Day of May, 2023.

III Spl Sessions Judge Vikarabad.