CRLA/113/2017 of MD. ISAQ, RR.DT AND ANR., Vs STATE OF TELANGANA, REP PP., on 31 December 2024

1. Criminal Appeal No. 1i3 of 2Ol7 is filed by A1 and A5,Criminal Appeal No.12O of 2077 is Iiled by A4, Criminal AppealNo.214 of 2Ol7 is filed by ,{2 and Criminal Appeal No.433 of 2Ol7is Iiled by A.3. Since a-11 the appellants are challenging ttre judgmentof conviction in S.C.No. I of 2012, dated 31.12.2016, they are beingdisposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. The appellants/Al to A5 were convicted and sentenced toundergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 3O2 r/w L49IPC and further convicted ald sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for three years each under Section 148 IPC. ,{6 to A8and A1O to A17 were acquitted. A,9 died during pendency of trial.3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceasedNarsing Rao was the son of the defacto-cornplainant of late L.W. 1Bakkoni Kumara Swamy and brother of P.W. 1 BakkoniBalakrishna. On the night of |9J2.2OO6 at about 21.OO hours,I

when P.W.4, Nallolla Sudheer and Prabhaker were quarrelling withP.W.5 Benoni alias Bhone and P.W.6 Parnandi Arpith near RailwayStation, Vikarabad, P.W.6 informed the same to Al, who was atHotel along with A11. On that A1 pushed p.W.4 Nallolla Sudheer,due to which P.W.4 fell down on the Pulsar Motor Cycle of Ali aldtlre indicators of the said motor cycle got damaged. On 2O.L2.2OO6at about 21.30 hours, Al, A2, A5 ald A11 and others went to thehouse of P.W.4 and asked about p.W.4 ald demanded to pay theamount for damages to the motor cycle of A,11.4. On 21.12.2006 in the absence of A.1, the deceased. and p.W.4went to the house of A1 and asked about him. ,A.1 came to knowthat the deceased and P.W.4 came to his house. -.A.1 along.with Allwent to Railway Guest House where p.W.4 and others were present.On seeing P.W.4, A,1 and All beat him with hands and demandedto pay the amount for the damage of the motor cycle and asked asto why he came to the house of Al. Meantirne, deceased who wascoming from Saw Mill carne there on being called by p.W.4.Deceased tlereatened A1 and Al1.

5. About six months prior to incident, when the cousin of A5 wascoming from Hyderabad1n train, the deceased and othersthreatened him. On which, A7, A2, A3, A4 and A5 went to the Gymand asked about threatening the cousin of A5 in train, the deceasedintervened and threatened to kill A1 to A5.

6. On 21.12.2006, A'1 to A17 hatched a plan to kill the deceasedand formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed withsword, knives, iron rods and sticks. They gathered at Railway GuestHouse of Vikarabad in a dark place. A,3 was sent to his hotel, whichis situated in front of Ambedkar Statue and A3 was watchingmovements of the deceased and his friends. Before gathering, A1 to,{6 asked P.W.9 Chowhan Manoj to call the deceased ald abusedhim. When P.W.9 informed the deceased that A1 was abusing him,the deceased along with P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.S who [were]attending marriage at Indira Nagar, went to Ambedkar Statue [near]Railway Station at about 22.30 hours on ttre same day [i.e.,]21.12.2006. When they were talking to P.W.9, A3 informed [the]appellants on phone about deceased and his friends standing [at]Ambedkar Statue, near Railway Station, Vikarabad. Immediateiy,

.-.?

srx accused persons went on pulsar bike and Scooter andremaining accused went running towards Ambedkar Statute. A5along with other accused went there with knives, sword, rods andsticks and picked up quarrel with the deceased and p.Ws.2 to 4, gand 9. Mealtime, one Jaweed (not examined) went there andseparated them. When deceased and others were proceedingtowards Shailaja Theatre to the house of deceased, A1 to A17 andothers attacked deceased from back side. A1 to A3 attacked thedeceased with knives, A5 stabbed with sword, A4, A6 beat thedeceased with iron rods, Aro, A1r, A12 and A13 beat the deceasedwith sticks, A.9 and A14 caught hold of the deceased and A1S toA17 beat the deceased with hands. Due to which, deceasedsustained severe bleeding injuries to his head, forehead, waist,chest and on his back etc., and the sarne was witnessed by p.Ws.2to 4and PWs.8,9. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital,Vikarabad by p.W.8 and L.W. 12. Thereafter, they shifted thedeceased to osmania General Hospitar, Hyderabad for treatment inthe TATA Sumo of p.W. 11. The deceased was declared as broughtdead by Doctors at Osmania General Hospital.

7. The father of the deceased L.W. 1 lodged Ex.pl comptaint withP.W. 16-Sub-Inspector of police, Vikarabad police Station on22.72.2006 at about 6.0O hours, basing on which p.W. 16 registereda case in Cr.No.344/2OO6 under Sections I4Z, 14g, 3O2 r/w 149IPC and issued Ex.p2g express FIR.

8. On the basis of the complaint hled, p.W.16 visited the scene ofoffence and conducted scene of offence panchanama, rough sketchwas drawn in the presence of mediators. TWo sticks, one pulsarmotor bike, scooter found at the scene, was video graphed,photographed and seized. p.W.6, then went to the hospitat andconducted inquest over the dead body. The body was sent forpostmortem examination. The postmortem doctor found 15 grievousstab injuries' The cause of death was murtipre stab injuries to thechest. Having concluded investigation, charge sheet was filedagainst 17 accused. All the 17 accused were tried by the learnedSessions Judge. However, learned Sessions Judge found that A1 toA5 were only complicit of murdering deceased, since specific overtacts were attributed to them by p.Ws.2 to 4, g and 9. The overt acts attributed to [other ][accused ][during ][investigation ][were ][not ][stated by]the witnesses' [A6 ][to A8 and ][A1O ][to A17 were ][acquitted']

g. Heard Sri T.Pradyumnakumar Reddy, [learned ][Senior Counsel]for A1 and A5, [Smt C.Vasundhara ][Reddy, ][learned counsel ][fot ][A4']Sri Mohd.M rlzaffet [Ullah ][Khan, ][learned ][counsel ][fot A2 ][ald ][Sri]S.M.Rafee, [learned counsel ][for ][,{3']

10. Sri T.Pradyumnakumar [Reddy, learneC ][Senior ][Counsel]submits that [the ][complaint ][was ][filed oo ][22J22006 at ][6'OO ][a'm']though the incident [happened ][at ][1O'OO ][p'm, ][the ][previous ][day']There is a delay [of ][eight hours ][in ][lodging ][the ][complaint' ][The]is hit [by ][Section ][L62 Cr'P'C since ][the ][author ][of ][the]complaint complaint died. [The ][contents ][of ][the ][complaint ][cannot ][be ][looked]into. karned counsel [further ][argued ][that ][the ][complaint ][reached]the Magrstrate at [11.OO ][a.m ][or:_ ][22'12'2006 ][with a ][delay ][of ][f,rve]hours according to [the ][investigating ][offrcer/P'W'16' who ][admitted]that Judicial First [Class Magistrate ][Court, ][Vikarabad ][was ][at ][a]distance of 1O to [15 ][minutes from ][the ][police ][station' ][In ][the ][said]circumstances, for the [reason of ][there ][being ][no ][explanation ][for ][the]delay in sending ttre complaint [to the ][Magistrate, ][it ][is ][apparent ][that]\ \

the complaint was fabricated subsequenfly implicating severa-laccused.

11. Learned counsel relied on tJle judgment of Hon,ble Supremecourt in the case of Rajeevan and another v. state of Keraral. Inthe said case, the Hon'ble Supreme court while dealing with delayin lodging the FIR and FIR reaching the Court, found tllat the delaythrows any arnount of doubt regarding prosecutioncase beingcorrect. The Hontrle Supreme Court observed as under:

*72, Anotle-r doubtfut factor i.s the d.elayed lodging oJ- FIR. The learned.5431 rekr cotlnseJfoy Ttutlia ulerein th.e Kali tLe appe|ants u. detayed s.tate higLnights "1 filing riv. lltsrzj: sii-lss of tiis yactoi. iere it. .ons"quen it : k 1972 worrhtthile SCC es (Ci)aretodiscussed. At paro 12 th; Co;ft s;g"l fsci en "i i isz") ["]"!::.1-y!.:::!-" a ciminat *"2 i" on enremety uitat and5431 rekr cotlnseJfoy Ttutlia ulerein th.e Kali tLe appe|ants u. detayed s.tate higLnights "1 filing riv. lltsrzj: sii-lss of tiis yactoi. iere it. .ons"quen it : k 1972 worrhtthile SCC es (Ci)aretodiscussed. At paro 12 th; Co;ft s;g"l fsci en "i i isz") ["]"!::.1-y!.:::!-" a ciminat *"2 i" on enremety uitat anduatua.Dte ptecz of :"p?1 in evidence . [for ][the purryse ][of ][corroboratiig ][the ][oral]euid.encr adduced at the-fi;|., rne impirtance" jin ooor. report canut-slsnng *:l!t2".::::"_l^",:a.f,?ry -upon prompt lodging [the ]of tlrc [stanipoiii ]report "f to [ti" ]the [rroc,,""a. ]police i" [rhe ],esp"a [object ]iJ[of]tttlpits cararnstances ::1y:i:" and of the in uhich .an patt offence the- plaged cime is-.to- obtain by *o, tfnm "o. LnAA itt"di as information regarding i"tt th.e names a-s tE oy tn" rlrrmr:s i.arottheof. [for ][the purryse ][of ][corroboratiig ][the ][oral]euid.encr adduced at the-fi;|., rne impirtance" jin ooor. report canut-slsnng *:l!t2".::::"_l^",:a.f,?ry -upon prompt lodging [the ]of tlrc [stanipoiii ]report "f to [ti" ]the [rroc,,""a. ]police i" [rhe ],esp"a [object ]iJ[of]tttlpits cararnstances ::1y:i:" and of the in uhich .an patt offence the- plaged cime is-.to- obtain by *o, tfnm "o. LnAA itt"di as information regarding i"tt th.e names a-s tE oy tn" rlrrmr:s i.arottheofegeuitttesses present at the scenl of or:cttoen -. Delag in lodghg th;first .informgtign report quite ofi.en ,isuU, i, i-teUi"n^"nt u.thich is a{:2*^!.?f"rthaught. [On aununt ][of ][detag, ][ttte report ][not ][only ][gets]?:::!-.:! [th.e^ ][aduantage ][of ][spontaneitg, ][d.anger ][creeps ][in ][6y- tne]first .informgtign report quite ofi.en ,isuU, i, i-teUi"n^"nt u.thich is a{:2*^!.?f"rthaught. [On aununt ][of ][detag, ][ttte report ][not ][only ][gets]?:::!-.:! [th.e^ ][aduantage ][of ][spontaneitg, ][d.anger ][creeps ][in ][6y- tne]tntrod.uctton oJ- oloured uersion, exaggerated account or onaaed storyas a ,result of deliberation and rrrnsit:lation. It is, therefore, essential thitas a ,result of deliberation and rrrnsit:lation. It is, therefore, essential thitthe lejag.iy lodging of the frst inforrnatioi i.p"i'"n *U be satisfactoilgexplained."explained."

1:, - ,* is_ the position *::i:t?tlA fouonted. by this Court in Malnrajsingh u. State of u.p. [jss4) s sbc laa , tbbi scc pn) 1s91] an&.singh u. State of u.p. [jss4) s sbc laa , tbbi scc pn) 1s91] an&.

recEntlA in Thonedar Singh u. State of [M.P. ][(2OO2) [1 ][SCC ][487 ][: ][2OO2]scc (cfl lssl

75. This Court in Marudanal Augusti u. [State ]of [Kerda ][(1980) [4 ][SCC]425 : 1980 SCC Pn) 9851 while deciding [a ][cose ][uthich ][inuolues a ]Etestionof deloyed dispatch of tlrc FIR to tle [Magi-strate, ][cautioned ][that ][such]delay tuould throw seious doubt on [the ][proseantion ][a.se, ][uhereas]in irjun Maik u. Stote of Bitnr [1994 [Supp ][(2) SCC ][372 ][: ][7994 ][SCC](Cn) 15511 it uLas reminded. bg this Court tlnt: [(SCC ][p- ][382, ][para ][24)]

"[T]le foruording of the ocalrren@ [report ][is ][indispensable ][and]absolute and it has to be forutarded with earliest [dispatch which intention]is impticit uLith tle use of the word fortluaith' odafiaing [in ][Section ][157]CrPC, u.thich means promptlg and uitlaut ang undue [delay. ][The ][purpose]and objed is uery obuious which is spett [out ]from [the ][umbined ][reading ][of]Sections 157 and 159 CrPC. It ltos tfrc dual [purpose, ]firstlg [to auoid ][the]possibilitg of improuement in the proseottion story and inlroduction [of ][any]distorted uersion bg deliberattons and [(nnsultation ][and ][secondly ][to]enable the Magistrate ancerned to tnue a tuatch [on ][tle ][progress of ][the]inuestigatioru. "'

12. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu [and ][others2,]

the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing [with ][an ][appeal ][against]acquittal, held that delay in lodging the FIR was [fata,l ][and ][the ][case]of the prosecution was disbelieved.

13. In State of Gujarat v. IGshanbhai and others3, [the ][Honble]

Supreme Court found that on the basis of circumstances [and ][there]being a delay in complaining to the [police, ][prosecution ][has ][failed ][to]prove the case against the accused.

r (2014; 5 Supreme Court Cases 108(2014; 5 Supreme Court Cases 108

L4. In Bheemgonda and others v. State of Andhra pradesha, theHonble Division Bench of this Court while dea,ting with a casewherein there was 3 zz hours delay after the incident, found favourwith the version of the accused that the accused were farseryimplicated after due deliberations.

15- on t.I.e other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor wouldsubmit that P.ws.4 and 9 are the eye witnesses to the incident a,,dP'w'16/Investigating officer has taken immediate action againstappellants on the basis of the complaint rrred. As seen from ,reevidence of P.Ws.4 and 9, it was the appellants/Al to A5 who hadbrutally attacked the deceased and caused his death. Though, 46 toA17 were prosecuted, only for the reason of their acquittal, nobeneht can be extended to the present appellants against whomspecific overt acts were attributed by the eye witnesses p.Ws.4 and9.

16. The complaint Ex.p1 was given by the father of p.W. 1. He diedduring pendency of trial. p.w. 1, who is the brother of the deceasedidentilied Ex.P1 and marked, though marking was objected by the 'zorz (rlnlo (ca.) [gs ](lp)

defence. Learned Sessions [Judge ][marked ][Ex'Pl, ][subject ][to]objection, on the [ground ][that ][P.w. ][1 ][was ][aware ][of ][the fact ][that ][tl-re]father had lodged complaint [and he had ][accompanied ][his ][father]while lodging complaint and also [identifred ][the ][signature ][of ][his]father.

17. Though, Ex.Pl was marked, however, [the ][contents ][of ][Ex'Pl]calnot be read in evidence since [the ][author ][of ][Ex.P1 ][was ][not]examined. Ex.P1 is a statement [made ][during ][the ][course ][of]investigation ald hit by Section L62 [CI.P.C. ][To the ][extent ][of]corroboration of lodging complaint at [the ][specilied ][time ][by ][the]father of P.W. 1, Ex.P1 can be relied [on.]

18. Both P.W. 1 and his father, who lodged [complaint ][Ex.P1 ][are]not eye witnesses to the incident. According [to ][the ][evidence ][of]P.W. 1, he did not state in his chief examination [as ][to who informed]about the incident. However, ttre entire [narration ][of ][P.W. ][1 ][was]recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. [When ][P.W- ][1 was ][not ][an]witness to the incident and it is not stated as [to ][the ][source ][of]eye his knowledge about the incident, learned Sessions Judge shouldnot have perrnitted recording of such evidence w'hich is hearsay in nature' Learned Sessions Judge should have restrained fromrecording inadmissible evidence.

19. However, in the cross_examination, p.W. 1 stated that hereceived phone call from Naveen, who was examined as p.w.g andhe was declared as hostile to the prosecution case. p.w.2 identified,{1, ,{3 to A5 and A11. However, he did not speak about the attackby any of t.lle appellants and was declared hostile to the prosecutioncase' P'w'2 stated that there was a quarrer and thereafter, theydisbursed from the said prace. p-w.3 was declared host,e ard didnot state anything about any of the appellants attacking thedeceased.

20- P.w.4 is an eye witness to the incident. He narrated ttresequence of events as on the date of incident. He stated that 41 to,{6 and their supporters started attacking the deceased, himself,P'w'2 and others. A1 to 46 inflicted injuries on the deceased and hefell down. Immediately, p.W.4 informed p.W. I on phone about theincident.

21. l,earned Sessions Judge [observed ][during examination ][of P'W'4]in the court that the statements [recorded ][by ][the ][police ][under]Section 161 Cr.P.C were not [provided ][to ][the ][accused ][and ][deferreci]cross-examination of P.W.4. However, [on ][the ][date ][of ][cross-]examination when P.W.4 [was recalled, ][the ][police ][produced ][copies ][of]statements but they were not [legible ][and ][the ][learned ][Sessions]Judge asked the Public Prosecutor [about ][originals. ][Further, ][the]learned Sessions Judge observed that [the ][originals ][of ][the]statements were not hled in the Court. [Not ][providing copies of]Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of witnesses [which ][are legible and]can be read, prejudice would [be ][caused ][to ][the ][accused.]

22. However, cross-examination [was ][taken ][up ][by the ][defence]counsel. In the cross-examination, [P.W.4 ][adrnitted ][that ][Vikarabad]Police Station was at half kilometer distance [from Ambedkar ][Statue]where ttre incident had taken [p1ace. ][He ][further ][admitted ][ttrat ][police]examined him at 2.OO or 2.3O a.m.

23. P.W.9 is another eye witness to [the ][incident. ][He ][narrated]of events on the date of incident and stated [that ][42, ][,A3,]sequence .44 and 50 others attackod jtre deceased-, P.Ws, 2, 4, 9 and others with talwars and iron rods. P.W.9 fled from the scene. P.W.9admitted in his cross-examination that the Vikarabad Police Stationwas very near and he did not go to the police station immediatelya-fter the incident and did not give any complaint to the police aboutthe incident. P.W.g did not deny that his statement was recorded bythe JFCM, three months after the incident.

24. P.W. 16 is the Investigating OIIicer, who received the complaintEx.Pl. He registered the case against A,1 to A5 and others. Headmitted that if a person walks from the police station to the Courtof JFCM, it would take 2O minutes to reach the JFCM Court. In hiscross-examination, P.W. 16 stated that the patrolling stalf on thenight might have stopped the TATA Sumo which was driven byP.W. 1 1, while taking the deceased to the Osmania Generaf Hospital.P.W. 11 was declared hostile to the prosecutioncaseHowever,P.W. 11 stated that the dead body of the deceased was taken in hisTATA Sumo. Before going to the hospital, one Sub-Inspector ofPolice asked him to go to the Hyderabad urgently stating that oneperson was sertous.Further, S.I insisted that one had toaccompany him and accordingly he went along with the S.I to the vikarabad Government Hospita-l. There he saw the deceased andblood was oozing from his body. From the Vikarabad Hospital,deceased was shifteci to osmania General Hospitat where he wasdeclared as brought dead. Then, p.W. 11 returned to Vikarabad.

25. P.W. 17 is the Investigating Oflicer, who has taken over theinvestigation from P.w. 16 after registration of crime. p.w. 17 statedttrat he went to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offenceparrchanama. Thereafter, he went to the hospital, vikarabad andrecorded statements of p.W. 1, 4, p.W.9 a'.d others. Then inquestwas conducted. The dead body was then shifted to the mortua_ryafter autopsy was conducted.

26. The majn witnesses are p.Ws.4 and 9, who are projected aseye witnesses to the incident. Though, both p.ws.4 and 9 claimedthat they were attacked by the appellarrts/Al to A5 ad ottrers,however, neither P.W.4 nor p.W.9 received any injuries. BothP.ws.4 and 9 admitted that the police station was at a distance of 7zkilometer. It is not known as to why no compraint was rrledimmediately after the incident, which has taken place around io.o0a.m. P.W.4 admits that he was examined by a police offrcer at 2.OO

a.m or 2.3O a.m. The said fact is not stated by either p.Ws.16 orl7/Investigating Officers in the case. According to p.W. 16, for t}lef,rrst time, they came to know about murder at 6.0O a.m. If theincident happened at half kilometer distance from police station, itis highly improbabre that the police would not know about theincident. P.W.4 spoke about the presence of A1 to ,46 when theattack had taken place. He did not speak about A7 to ALT.However, P.W.9 speaks about A1 to A6 along with others totaling 5Opersons, who attacked the deceased, p.w.4, p.w.9 on the date ofthe incident. Contradictory narrations are gtven by p.Ws.4 and 9regarding number ofpersons who attacked the deceased. No reasonwas given either by p.Ws. 1,4 or p.W.9 as to why complaint was notlodged immediately after coming to know about the incident in t].enight. None of the witnesses explained about the delay in lodgingthe complaint till 6.OO a.m. The complaint reached the Magistrateat 11.O0 a.m, though p.W. 16 admitted that FIR was dispatchedimmediately. Further in the cross-examination of p.W. 16, he statedthat it would take 10 to 15 minutes to reach the Court and 20minutes by walk. When the said circumstances are collectivelylooked into, it creates any alnount of doubt regarding versions of

P.Ws.4 and 9 being eye witnesses to [the ][incident. ][As ][already]discussed, though several [persons ][were ][armed ][with ][sticks,]crowbars etc., and attacked P.W.4, P.W.9, [deceased ][and ][others,]P.Ws.4 and 9 did not receive aly injuries [nor ][anyone else other]than the deceased. No reason is [given as ]to [why ][none of ttrem ][went]to the police station, which was at a distance [of ][% ][kilometer ][where]ttre incident has taken place.

27. The learned Sessions Judge also [failed ][to ][consider ][the ][fact]that P.W. 11 spoke about a Sub-Inspector of Police [asking ][him ][to]take the deceased from Vikarabad Hospital to Osmania [Hospital ][in]Hyderabad. P.W. 16 stated in his cross-examination that [the ][police]patrolling might have asked P.W. 11 to shift the body to OsmaniaHospital. It is evident that the police had knowledge [about ][ttre]incident on the night itself. However, for reasons [best ][known, ][the]investigating oflicer has come up with a different story.

2a. The Honble Supreme Court in case of [Rajeerran ][aad ][another]held that prosecution not satisfactorily explaining the delay [in]lodging tJ:e complaint and delay in dispatching of the FIR to theMagrstrate casts any amount of doubt regarding the version [given]

by the prosecution [witnesses' ][In the ][present case' ][the incident ][has]taken [place ][at ][10.00 ][p'm, within ][ha-lf ][kilometer ][from the ][police]station and [the ][complaint ][was ][{i1ed ][only ][at ][6'OO ][a'm ][on the ][next]day, with a [delay ][of ][eight ][hours' ][Though JFCM ][Court ][was ][at ][a]distance of [10 ][to ][15 ][minutes, ][FIR reached ][the Magistrate ][court ][only]at 1l.OO a.m. [From ][the ][tirne ][of ][the ][incident ][till ][the ][complaint]reached the [Court, ][it ][was ][nearly ][13 ][hours' ][In ][the ][present ][facts' ][it]was for the [prosecution ][to ][explain ][convincingly ][the ][reason ][for]lodging [FIR ][with ][a ][delay ][and the ][FIR reaching ][ttre Court ][also ][with ][a]delay. Further, [no ][reasons ][are given as ][to ][why the ][police ][had ][not]taken any [action ][in ][registering ][a ][FIR ][when P'W'4 ][was ][examined ][at2]-1 or 2.30 a.m when [the ][patrolling ][staff ][had ][asked ][P'W'11 ][to ][take the]\,)deceased to [Osrnania ][HosPital. ])

29. P.w.9 [stated ][t].at ][there ][were ][around 5o ][persons ][who attacked]

the deceased [and ][others' P'W'4 ][conirned ][his ][narrative ][to ][six]accused i.e., [A1 ][to ][A6. ][The ][police ][charge sheeted ][17 persons ][and]ttreCourthadconvictedfivepersons.Consideringallthefactors,there arises [arry ][amount ][of ][doubt ][regard'ing ][the prosecution version]and it is apparent [that ][the ][earliest version ][was ][suppressed' ][The]

\

lodging of complaint, going to the police, naming the accusedappea-rs to have been made after due deliberations.

30' For .he reasons discussed above, benefit of doubt is extendedto the appellants.

31. In the result, the judgment of trial court in s.c.No. 1 of 2or2,dated 31.12.2016 is set aside and the appellants are acquitted.Since all the appellalts a.e on bail, their bail bonds shait standdischarged.

32. Accordingly, all Criminal Appeals are allowed.

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAOJOINT REGISTRARcTtN OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Surender(For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti(For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)(For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)

To,

1. The Xll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga ReddyDistrict (with records, lf any)District (with records, lf any)

2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad

3. The Station House Officer, Vikarabad PS, Vikarabad District rl ti \

4The Superintendent, Cherlapally, Central Prison, Ranga Reddy District 511 LR Copies

6Tle.Under Secretary, Union of lndia t\i{inistry of Law, Justice and CompanyAffairs, New DelhiAffairs, New Delhi7The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State ofTelangana, High Court Buildings at HyderabidTelangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabid8Tyo CCs lo the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana,Hyderabad [OUTIHyderabad [OUTI

9. One CC to Sri T Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, Advocate [OpUC][OpUC]

10. One CC to Smt C Vasundhara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

11. One CC to.Sri Mohd Muzaffer Ullah Khan, Advocate IOPUCI

12. One CC to Sri S M Rafee, Advocate IOPUCj

13. Two CD Copies

VA/gh

@z

IIII

j-HIGH COURTDATED:3111212A24t/aI:l'i1 HE [Si ][Ie]16:Ioo2 I Jiii ?[25(COMMON JUDGMENTtq.O.S,ATCPCRLA.Nos.113,120,214 & 433 of 2017

LLOWNG ALL THE APPEALS

)\ \e}