CRLA/16/2019 of Chakali Agamaiah Vs The State of Telangana on 6 February 2026

1. Chakali Agamaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged -43 Years, Occ-Agriculture, R/o, Konyala Village, Hathnoora lVlandal, Medak District

2. Chakali Ashok, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged -29 Years, Occ-Agriculture, R/o. Konyala Village, Hathnoora [Vlandal, Medak District ...Appellants/Accused Nos. 1 & 2 AND The State of Telangana, through Rep., by State Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ... RespondenUCom pla inant Counsel for the Appellants : Sri. Palle Sriharinath Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following:

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2019 DATED:. / FEBRUARY 2o26 Between:

1. Chakali Agamaiah and Another Appellants-Accused Nos.1 & 2 Vs. The State of Telangana through rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hydera bad. Respondent-Com plainant This Court delivered the follou'ing JUDGMENT: (per Justice B.R-Madhusudhan Rao) 1 . This Memorandum ol Criminal Appeal is flled under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ,Cr.p.C.J assailing the sentence and conviction passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge ar Medak in SC No.69 of 2015, dated 21.12.2018, where under the appellants-A1 and A2 \\,ere convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3O2 r lw 2/t9 KL,J & BRMR'J Criminal Appeal 16 2019 Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 1PCJ and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of pa1'ment of hne they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months each.

2.1. The case of the prosecution is that on O4.O4.2O14 at about 02O0 hours, PW.1-B.Laxmi lodged a written complaint stating that on 06.04.2014, at about 8.00 P.M. her husband B.Narsimlu went to the house of G.Laxmi to obtain lease of her land. G.Laxmi has dragged her husband B.Narsimlu into the house and bolted the iatches and called Chakali Agamaiah (A 1). A I and his younger brother Chakali Ashok (A2) were having illegal intimacy with G.Laxmi, went there u.ith axes, fortunately he escaped from there. As such, Al and A2 developed gr-udge against her husband B.Narsimlu thinking that her husband is also having illegal intimacy with G.Laxmi.

2.2. On 07.O4.2OL4 at about 8.30 P.M. her husband B.Narsimlu went to the house of his brother Kistaiah to ascertain about the quarrel happening with that of his neighbor by name Buchaiah, the issue was pacihed and later at 9.30 P.M. her husband B.Narsimlu was returning to the house, when he reached the house of one Vittal Reddy, Al and ,{2 assaulted her husband with KL.J & BRMR .I Crrmrnal Appeal 16 2019 a sharp \r,eapon like knife and stabbed him on the middle of chest, left side chest, Icft buttock, she went there and found her husband rolling on ground with bieeding injuries ,,vhich u,as u,itnessed by G.Jailu (Pw 3). Immediatery, they calred rog Ambulance and *,h e shifting to Government Hospital, Sangareddy, her husband died. Basing on the complaint, pW.9-B.pramod Kumar registered a case in Crime No.63 of 20 I 4 under Section 302 of IpC and investigated the matter and he handed over the case filc to pW. 1l_Ch.Saidi Reddl' PW.1 1-Saidi Reddy has received the CD file on 08.04.2014 from PW.9-B.Pramod Kumar, verified the investigation done by him and found to be on proper lines and proceeded u,ith lurther investigation. on his transfer, he handed over the cD file to LW.23-A.Ram Reddy for further investigation. LW.23_A.Ram Reddy verified the invesrigation done by pW.9 and pW. l l and found it on proper lines, c.ollected lhe material papers and filed charge sheet againsr the appelJants herein.

2.3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur has taken cognizance of [he case under Section 3O2 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the appellants-A1 and 42 (herein after referred to as accused), numbered it as pRC No.4S of 2074. Onappearance of the appellants-accused, the learned Magistrate furnished copies of the charge sheet andrther connected documents under Section 207 of 3,/ l9

t/19 I\L,J & E}RMR,J Crimmal Appeal-16-2019 CrPC and committed the matter to the Court of Sessions, Medak at Sangareddy. Court of Sessions, Medak at Sanga Reddy has assigned SC No.69 of 2015 and made over the file to the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Medak.

3. The learned trial Court has framed charge under Section 3O2 of IPC against the accused and proceeded with the trial.

4. Prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to I 1 and got marked Exs.Pl to P12, MOs. 1 to 9. Ex.D 1 is marked in the cross- examination of PW.5 by the defence counsel

5. Accused (appellants herein) were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence put forth to them and thereafter the learned trial Court after hearing both sides, convicted the accused (appellants herein) lor the offence under Section 3O2 of IPC rlw' 34 of IPC under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo Imprisonment for Life, also to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- each tou'ards fine for the offence, in default of payment of ftne, each accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months each and the remand period of A1 and A2 if any undergone by them shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

5i 1e (I,.I & tsRMR,.I Cnmrrral ApPeal I6 20 l9

6. 1 Learned counsel for the appellants-accused submits that:

(i) There is no ar:ceptable evidence to show that the appellants-accused killecl the deceased on sLlspicion that he rvas having illicit intimacy with G. Laxmi-LW.9 u'ilh rvhom appellant No.2-A2 was already having intimacy with her u,hich is the alleged motive behind the incident.

(ii) The presence of PW.2 and PW.S was no[ deposed by PW.1 and PW.3 a1 the trme of incident and as per Ex.Pl- complainl also, hr:nce their presence is unbelievable and not proved bv the proseculion.

(iii) PW.5 clearly stated in Ex.P12 (Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement) that he did not saw' the incident '*'hile A1 stabbing the deceased B.Narsimlu and 42 beating with stick. PW.5 has exaggerated his evrdence which cannot be taken into consideration.

(iv) A 1 and A2 belt>ngs to Congress Party and there is political rivalry, they were falsely implicated in the case and the evidence of PWs. |, 2 and 5 cannot be believecl. The houses of one Prabhu Reddy and.Jagga Reddy are nearer Lo the scr:ne of offence but the prosecution has not examined them for the reasons best knou.n to them. On the other hand, they have examined PW.6 u'ho is also a TRS Party Leader.

(v) There are discrepancies in the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 ancl 4 u.rth that of the evidence of PWs.3 and 5 which ought to have been discarded by the learned trial Court 6/ t9 KL..J & BRMR.J Criminal Appeal t6 20 L9 and brushing aside the omissions and contradictions stating that they are minor in nature.

6.2. Counsel to substantiate his contention, relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Selveraj Vs. The Srate o[ Tamil Nadur, (21 Balwan Singh and Others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and Others2. (3) Mallappa Vs. State of Karnataka: (4) Dharambir (a Dharma Vs. State of Haryanaa.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 5 coupled with Exs.P12-Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 supports the case of the prosecution in its entirety with that of the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2. The learned trial Court has rightly observed in the judgment that the omissions and contradictions are minor in nature and rightly convicted the appellants-accused for life imprisonmen[, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has also filed Brief Note in support of his contention

9. The point that falls for consideration before this Court is: Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded by t (t976) 4 scc 343 (3 Judge Bench) ' MANU/SC/1044/2019 (3 Judge Bench) ' (2021) sjQCC 572 (3 Judge Bench) 4 2024 scc onine sc s4o

KL.J & BRMR,J Crimmal Appeal_16 2019 the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 3O2 rlw Section 34 oi IPC against the appellanls-accused are sustainable, if so, does it require interference of this Court?

10. The cntire case of the prosecution rest on the evidence of PWs.2 to 5, tW.8 rvith that of Ex.p12- Sec.164 Cr.p.C. statement of PW.s. t 1. Ex.Pl is the complaint lodged by pW. i on 0g.04.2014 at O200 hours. Basing on which Ex.pg_FIR No.63 of 20 14 is registered on 08.04.2014 under Section 302 of IpC against the appellants accused.

12. PW. I deposed that her husband Narsimlu went to the house of G.Laxmi LW.9 to tzrkc her land on lease. LW.9_Laxmi 1ocked the door and czrlled A1 and A2 over phone. When Lhey reached, her husb:rnd cscaped frorn the place and he informed the same to her stating that LW.9-Laxmi has misunderstood him that he ma5, develop illegal contacts u'ith her. LW.9-Laxmi is alreadv having illicit intimacv with 42. Thereby, A2 came to the house ol LW.9_ Laxmi r,r'ith Axe along u'ith A1. On the next day at about g.0O p.m. on hearing the cries at the house of LW.2_Kistaiah, her husband Narsimlu u'ent there and found that Kistaiah and one Buchaiah were quarrelling with each other, her husband has separated 7it9

8l 19 KL,J & t]RMR,J Cntulnal Appeal- I6 2019 them. Thereafter, when he was coming to the house and when he reached the house of Vittal Reddy-LW. 1 1, at that time A1 and A2 came and killed her husband. She was in search of her husband, on the way she met Jailu-PW.3 and he informed her that Al and A2 have killed her husband. Then she went to the Police Station and lodged Ex. P 1-complaint.

13. PW.2 deposed that when he was proceeding from the house of Kistaiah-LW.2 along with Narsimlu, when they reached the house of B.Vittal Reddy, then Al and A2 carte there and killed Narsimlu. Some persons were present thereat but he do not know their names and he thought that the deceased died. At that time, son of Vittal Reddy by name Shashikanth Reddy-PW.S informed that the deceased was alive.

14. PW.3 deposed that when he was proceeding from his house, on the way he heard galata near Durgamma Temple. Then he found that there was altercation between Kistaiah-LW.2 and Buchaiah and he separated them. After that Narsimlu "r'as going to his house and when he reached the house of Vittal Reddy-LW. 11 and Shashikanth Reddy-PW.S, A1 and A2 came lhere and killed Narsimlu with knife and stick. Himself, PW.2, B.Vittal Reddy and PW.5 are the witnesses to the incident.

KL.J & I]RMR,J Crimina] Appeal- l6 2019 i5. PW.4 deposed that he has shifted deceased Narsimlu to the Hospital in his Auto, on the u,ay Ambulance came there, thereafter they havc shifted hirn into the Ambulance and he returned back.

16. PW.5 deposed that his house is situated near Hanuman Temple and he sal on Payal in front of his house, he heard a sound and \,\'ent there, for,rnd A 1 stabbing Narsimlu with knife and h2 beat him with stick, when he questioned the accused they fled awav from the scene . Meanu,hile, PW.3 and others came there and shiftecl him to the Hospital.

17. PW.6 deposed thar the police has conducted panchanama and seized MO.1-st.ick, MO.2-cell phone, MO.3-controle earth, 9,/ 19 MO.4- blood stain earth. Ex.P2 is the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.I'}3 is thc rough sketch.

18. PW.7 deposcd that police has seized the blood stain Shirt_, Lungi, Baniyan and underwear of the deceased which are MOs.5 to 8 anci Ex.P4 is the Inquest panchanama.

19. PW.8 deposcd that the MRO has called him over phone and also called LW. 18 G.Veeraiha and asked them to go to the police Station, Hathnoora. When they went to the police Station, Al and A2 rvere present thereat, on the instructions of tfre police, he r0/r9 KL,J & BRMR,.J Crimmal Appeal l6 2019 inquired with A1 and A2 about the incident. Then A1 informed him that A2 had illicit intimacy with Laxmi-LW.9 and deceased Narsimlu has abused Laxmi as well as his wife, due to which Al and A2 have bore grudge against the deceased and Al has stabbed the deceased and. A2 has beat the deceased with stick at the house of Vittal Reddy and confession statement is prepared accordingly which are Exs.PS and P6 and the accused has led them to Konyala Village and At has produced the knife from the bushes near the Gober gas which is MO.9 and Ex.P7 is the Recovery Panchanama.

20. PW.9 deposed that on receipt of complaint under Ex.P1 from PW. 1, he registered Ex.P8-FIR and he recorded the statement of PW.1 at the Police Station. Later, he handed over the file to PW. 11 for further investigation.

21. PW. 10 deposed that on O8.O4.2OI4 at about 12.14 P.M. he received a requisition from P.S. Hathnoora to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased B.Narsimlu, he corrducted the autopsy on the same day and found the following injuries.

(1) Stab wound on left side of chest on mid clavicular Line O.O5 cm to I cm below the nippie verticle in shape 4.5 cm length 1 to 1.5 cm width, 3.5 to 4 cm depth.

Criminal Appeal 16 2019

12) Stab wound on chest left side latiralto mid claivuler line 3 cm lateral to nipple Horizontal. 3 cm length O.05 rvidth 2-3 cm depth.

Slab u,ound on epigastrict region at mid line 2 cm length 0.05 cm u,idth. He further deposed that the injuries are antemortem in nature. The cause of death is due to hemorigh shock and sudden cardiac arrest due to stabbed injury. Ex. P9 is the pME report and the injuries mentioned therein are possible u'ith MO.9.

22. PW. 1 I deposed that he received the CD hle from pW.9 on 08.04.2014 and verified rhe invesrigation done by him, found to be on proper lines. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence, recorded the statements of the r.t itnesses, conducted scene of oflence panchanama and seized MOs.l to 4. Later, he visited ()ovcrr-rment Area I{ospital, Sangareddy, there he secured the presence of the witnesscs, conducted Inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased Narsimlu and also seized MOs.S to g under cover of panchanama. Later, he examined other witnesses. On I4.O4.2O14, PW.9 has apprehended the accused at their residence and produced before him for interrogation and they confessed the same in presence of PW.8 and G.Veeraiah-LW. 1g, confession statement is recorded accordingly and seized MO.9 from the possession of A1. Ex.P5 is the confessional statement of A1, rrl19

t2/19

Crrminal Appeal 16-2019 Ex.P6 is the confessional statement of A2 and Ex.P7 is the Recovery Panchanama of MO.9. Ex.Pl1 is the FSL report and he made a requisition before LW.20-D.Rama Kanth, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at Jogipet to record the statement of PW.5 which is Ex.Pl2, on his transfer he handed over the hle to LW.23-A.Ram Reddy for further investigation. A.Ram Reddy- LW.23 verified the investigation done by him and PW.9 found to be on proper lines, hled charge sheet. PW.S stated before him as in Ex.D1.

23.1. lt would thus be seen that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is wholly unsatisfactory and it cannot be regarded as sufficient to found the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased : See Selveraj I (3 Judge Bench).

23.2. Be that as it may, we Ilnd that the whole story of the prosecution about the presence of PW.9 and PW.16 on the spot at the time of incident appears to be artificial and concocted : See Balwan Singh2 (3 Judge Bench).

23.3. Even if the prosecution version that PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6 could and did see the appellant running in front of Devendrappa's house from the respective positions they were in at the time of occurrence of the incident was accepted, the evidence we would

Crurlinal Appcal I6 2019 have been left with u.ould have been two accused persons being seen running away. That r,.,ould have been too thin piece of evidence to convict someone under Section 302 of the Code, applying the principlt: of res gestoe. The hrst court of fac[s on appreciation of evidence had acquitted the appellant. We do not find any major lacuna in its reasoning which would have warranted interference by the appeal court for reversing such hnding into that of gr-ult : See Mallappa3 (3 Judge Bench).

23.4. We are, therefore, convinced that both the star prosecution witnesses i.e., Krishar-r kumar (PW.S) and Ram Kumar (PW.8) fall within the category oi wholly unreliable witnesses and thus, in light of the lau, laid dou,n by this Court in the case of pritinder Singh Alias Louely, (2023) 7 SCC 727, it rrvould be unsafe to place reliance on tltcir evidcnce so as to affirm the guilt of accused- appellant. No other evidence was lcd by the prosecution for bringing home the charge : See Dharambir (@ Dharmaa.

24. trx.P3 is the rough sketch of rhe scene of offence. pW.6 stated in his cross-examination that PW.5 w-as not present at the scene of offence and the scene of offence is situated at a distance of 40 yards from the house of Vittal Rcddy. The house of prabhu Reddy is situated at a distance of 60 -"-'ard s and the house of Jagga 131 19

11/t9 KI,,J & BRMR,J Crimina.l Appeal 16-2019 Reddy is situated at a distance of 20 yards from the scene of offence. Prosecution has not examined Jagga Reddy and Prabhu Reddy u,ho are nearer to the scene of offence as admitted by Pw. 1 in her cross-examination, so also admitted by PW.5 in the cross. PW.8 stated in the cross-examination that there were electrica,l lights near the scene of offence, as per the version of A1 and A2 there are no electrical lights and PW. 11 has admitted in his cross that he has not mentioned the existence of electric lights near the scene of offence. Further cross-examination of PW. 1 goes to show that between the house of Vittal Reddy-LW. 1 I and Prabhuguri Venkat Reddy there is a lane leading to Hanuman Temple and there are five to six houses intervening between the place of offence and the house of Vittal Reddy.

25. PW.2 admitted in his cross-examination that at the instance of PW.5, the case was registered against A1 and A2. The admission made by PW.3 in his cross-examination is that Vittal Reddy-LW. 11 and PW.S did not come to the scene of offence on the date of accident and he has not seen PW.5 at the scene of offence where the deceased was stabbed by the accused. The inconsistence versions of PW.2, PW.3 cast a doubt on the case of the prosecution about the presence of PW.5 at the scene of offence. PW.5 stated in his cross-examination that Police has recorded his statement after KL.J & BRMR,J Cnmrnal Appeal 16 2019 two days of the incident and he also admitted that the house of V.Prabhu Reddy is nearer to the scene of offence and his Section 164 Cr,P.C. staLement n,as recorded. He did not rer.eal the incident for two days because of the marriage function in the house and that he has not slated to the Police as in Ex.Dl. The portion of Ex.D 1 is as under: "Nenu bayapacli atti vishayamu ewariki Cheppaledu".

26. It is apt to refer the important portions of Ex.P12-Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5: "On 07 -O4-2O14 between 8.00 to 9.00 p.m., I sat on the pail in front of my house after having my dinner. I observed that Badampeta Narsimlu passed through that road towards his house. Behind sard Narsimlu, one Chakali Agamaiah also proceeded through the same road holding a stick rn his hands and I observed thert also in casual manner. Within 5 minutes, I heard a sudden cry of a male person from that road. Then I ran towards that road ar1d below lOO meters from my house, I found Badampeta Narsimlu standing on that road with a srab injury on his chest. I found Chaka-ti Agamaiah by the side ol Badampeta Narsimlu and I found that there was severe bleeding from the said injury sustainecl by Badampeta Narsimlu. I also found that the brother of Agamaiah namely Chakali Ashok was running away from the scene when I reached there. When I questioned Agamaiah about the cause of such bleeding from the person of Badampeta Narsimlu, he stated that he stabbed Badamapeta Narsimlu uith a knife and also beat him with a stick on his shoulder. Out of grief, I slapped Agamaiah saying that I5'.19

16,/ 19

Criminal Appea]- I6-2O 19 "Enthapani Chesinavuraa". I sent for some water to grve to the injured Badampeta Narsimlu. In the mean time Agamaiah also fled away from that place. Within few minutes one Gangolla Jailu and the wrfe of Badampeta Narsimlu namely Laxmi a-lso rushed to the scene. At that time the Police were also present at Konyala viliage in respect of some other incident and then I rushed to the Police and informed them about the incident, The Police also rushed to the scene alrd though we tried to get 108 ambulance it could not reach in time. As such the Police shifted the injured Badampeta Narsimulu in another auto to hospital. On the same night, I came to know that Badampeta Narsimlu died on the way to Hospital. I stated this version to Police when tlley examined

27. Prosecution has not examined LW.20-D.Rama Kanth, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at Jogipet but Ex.P12- Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.S is marked through PW. 1 1. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Narsimlu went to the house of his brother Kistaiah-LW.2 to pacify the quarrel of his brother with Buchaiah. Kistaiah-LW.2 is given up by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. As per Ex.P12, PW 3 and the wife of the deceased came to the scene of offence after few minutes. The evidence of PW.s is contra to Ex.Pl2- Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. 2a. PW. 11 has recorded the statement of PW.5 on 14.04.2014 after seven days of the incident, two months thereafter Ex.P12 is e m

11 l19 KL,.I & BRMR,J Criminal n pPe:rt l6 2019 recorded on 13.06.2014 by LW.20-D.Rama Kanth, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jogipet. The evidence of PW.2 is also not helpful to lhe case of the prosecution in view of the fact that there is no corroboration about the killing of the deceased Narsimlu by \.hich of the accused. Similarly, the evidence of PW.3 is also not helpful in view of the fact that it has not been corroborated with the evidence of PW.5. The admission made by PW.8 in his cross- examination is that Ex. P5-confessional statement of Al and Ex'P6- confessional statement of A2 does not disclose that Al has stabbed the deceased with a knife and A2 beat lhe deceased u'ith a stick.

29. The cross-examination of PW.1 1 goes to show that PW.5 did not state before him that he $'as busy in the marriage, he could not give the evidence immediately after the incident and he further admitted that PW.S has not stated [o him that A2 bcai the deceased u'ith a stick on his back.

30. The evidence adduced by the prosecution suffers with contradictions and surmises, the learned trial Court has disbelieved the evidetrce of PW.2 in Para 24 of its judgment and discarded the same. 3 i. When two constructions are possible in a criminal trial the one beneficial to the ztccused u'ill have to be adopted : See Pohalya r8/ r9

Crimnal Appeal 16-2019 Motya Valvi Vs. State of Maharashtra ((1980) 1 SCC 530); Vikramj it Singh @ Viclcy Vs. State of Punjab ((2006) 12 SCC 306)) and Thippiripati Ijaiah Alias Ajay Vs State of A.P. (2005 SCC Online AP 1113).

32. Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence : See

(1) Sk.Yusut Vs. State of West Bengal ((2011) 11 SCC 754),

(2) Sahadevan and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ((2012) 6 SCC 4O3).

33. The Iearned trial Court has misread the evidence adduced by the prosecution and wrongly convicted thc accused for the offence under Section 3O2 rlw Section 34 of IPC. The learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the contradictions and omissions of the witnesses and in view of the reasons above appellants have made out a case and the impugned judgment recording conviction and imposition of sentence of Life Imprisonment on the appellants- accused is liable to be set aside. 34 . Criminal Appeal is Imprisonment imposed on 2015, dated 21.12.2018 by Sessions Judge at Medak acquitted from the charges f a' allowed and the sentence of Life the appellants-accused in SC.No.69 of the learned VIII Additional District and is set aside. Appeilants-accused are and we direct that they shall be set at KI,,.,I & BRMR,J Cnmmal Appeal-I6-2019 Iibertl' forthwith unless they are required in connection with some other offences. Bail bonds if any shall stands cancelled, Fine amount il an1' paid shall be returned to the appellants-accused after Appeal time is over. Misccllaneous applications, if any, stands closed. Sd/- M. VIJAYA BHASKER INT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER t)t L 19i19 To,

1. The Vlll Additronal District and sessions Judge at [\4edak. (Wrth records, if any) 2 The Judicial First Class lr/agistrate, Narsapur, Medak District 3 The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy Drstrict. 4 The Station House Officer,, Hathnoora Police Station, Medak District. 5 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad (OUT) 6 One CC to Sri Palle Sriharinath Advocate [OPUC] 7 fwo CD Copies I

HIGH COURT DATED: 0610212026

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.16 of 2019 HES *ri' c C) O 1 6 ii'1 2t|28 t t pArc ALLOW!NG THE CRIMINAL APPEAL \,

\ )