Page 1 of 22

SC.No.1/2024

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT ASIFABAD

Present:- K. Yuva Raja,

Asst. Sessions Judge,
Asifabad.

Tuesday, this the 1st day of October, 2024

Sessions Case No. 1 of 2024

(PRC No.27/2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur

Crime No.69/2023 of Police Station, Kowtala against the A1 to A3.)

1 Name and description : The State of Telangana through

of the complainant The Sub Inspector of Police,
Police Station, Kowtala.
2 Name and description : A1:Nagapure Shankar, S/o: Namdev, Age: 39
of the accused years, Occ: Farmer, R/o: Gundaipet village.

A2: Nagapure Pankaj, S/o: Namdev, Age: 33

years, Occ: Farmer, R/o: Gundaipet village.

A3: Nagapure Sandeep, S/o: Namdev, Age: 31

years, Occ: Farmer, R/o: Gundaipet village.
3 Offences with : Under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC.
which charged
4 Counsel for the : Sri G.V.S. Prasad, Addl. P.P.
Prosecution
5 Counsel for the : Sri P. Narahari, Advocate.
Accused
6 Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

7 Finding of the Court : Found guilty for the offence U/Sec 307 r/w 34 of
IPC.
8 Sentence or Order : The accused no.1 to 3 are sentenced each to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One thousand only) each for the
offence U/Sec.307 r/w 34 of IPC and in default
 Page 2 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

of payment of fine the accused persons shall

undergo each simple imprisonment for a period
of one month for the above offence. The
remand period of accused no.1 to 3 from from
09.08.2023 to 27.09.2023 shall be set off
U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. The MO.1 i.e. Realme cell
phone shall be given to the accused No.1 and
MOs.2 to 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of
appeal time.

The accused no.1 to 3 are appraised of their

right to prefer an appeal against this judgment
and on enquiry they stated that they have
sufficient means to engage a counsel to prefer
an appeal. The accused no.1 to 3 are provided
with a copy of the judgment on free of cost.

This Sessions Case is coming on 25.09.2024 before me for

hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.S.Prasad, Addl. Public Prosecutor
for the State /complainant and Sri P. Narahari, Advocate for the
accused and upon hearing the arguments of both the sides and the
matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made
the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::

1) The Sub Inspector of Police, Kowtala has filed charge sheet in

Crime No.69 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w

34 of Indian Penal Code (in short as “IPC”) against the A1 to A3.

2) The case of the prosecution is that, on 08.08.2023 at about

11.00 hours the PW1/Yelmule Ganapathi came to police station

Kowtala and lodged a report in which he stated that, his younger son

PW2/Yelmule Sairam was having a little love affair with Kalayani who

is the daughter of A1. On 07.08.2023 at about 20.30 hours his

 Page 3 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

younger son went to his cousin brother’s house after having dinner.

At about 22.30 hours his younger son was urinating behind the

PW7/Yelmule Vijju shop, while returning to home, A1 to A3 tied towels

with their faces and came to his son from behind and forcibly inserted

kerchief into his son’s mouth, took him to his farm near his village

park and beat his son indiscriminately by saying that his son loves

Kalyani and threw his son into a well in his farm with the intention to

kill him.

3) Basing on the report of PW1/Yelmule Ganapathi, the PW14/the

then Sub Inspector of police has registered a case in Cr.No.69/2023,

for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and took up the

investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and

recorded the statement of PW1, issued requisition on the name of the

injured for treatment and certificate. Later, he visited the scene of

offence situated at the outskirts of Gundaipet village and observed

the scene in the presence of LW6/Choudari Balaji and there he

examined and recorded the statements of PWs.2 to 5 and secured the

presence of PWs.8 and 9, prepared the scene of offence panchanama

and seized the yellow colour T-shirt, black colour belt and sandals of

the victim from the scene of offence. He also visited the Gundaipet

village where the victim was forcibly apprehended by the accused

persons and secured the presence of PW10 and LW10 and prepared
 Page 4 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

the scene of offence panchanama-II. On 09.08.2023 at 10.00 am he

apprehended the A1 to A3 at the house of A1 and on interrogation in

the presence of PWs.11 and 12 they confessed to have committed

this offence and recorded the confession and seizure panchanama of

A1 to A3 and seized the cement colour realme mobile phone with IMEI

No.1 861804045420471 and IMEI No.2 861804045420463 and orange

colour poly-ster cloth from the possession of the accused persons. He

arrested the accused persons and sent to judicial custody. On

10.08.2023 he examined and recorded the statements of PWs.6 and

7. On 24.08.2023 he collected the injury certificate of PW2 from

PW13 in which the Doctor opined that the injuries sustained by the

PW2 are simple in nature and after completion of investigation he

filed the charge sheet.

4) The case was taken on file by the Learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Sirpur for the offences punishable under Section 307 r/w

34 of IPC against the A1 to A3.

5) On appearance of the A1 to A3, the learned Magistrate

furnished the copies of case documents to them as required under

Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short as Cr.P.C.). As

the offence Under Section 307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions, hence the learned Magistrate after compliance of

 Page 5 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

Sec.209 Cr.P.C., committed the case vide P.R.C.No.27/2023 to the

Hon'ble Principal Sessions Court, Asifabad.

6) The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Asifabad assigned the

Sessions Case No.1/2024 and made over to this Court for disposal

according to law.

7) Upon hearing both sides, charge has been framed under

Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC against the A1 to A3, the same were read

over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the Court fixed the trial

schedule and issued summons to the witnesses to record their

evidence.

8) During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 14

were examined, Exs. P-1 to P-8 and MOs.1 to 5 were got marked. The

Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

LW10/Dandre Purushotham and reported that the prosecution

evidence was closed.

9) After closure of prosecution evidence, the A1 to A3 were

examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with

regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of

prosecution witnesses, the same was read over and explained to

 Page 6 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no

defence evidence on their behalf. \

10) Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and

the learned Counsel for the defence. Written arguments filed by the

learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the

defence and also with some citations.

11) Perused the record.

12) Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution has able to prove the charges for the offence
punishable Under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC against the A1 to A3
beyond all reasonable doubt”?

13) POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that, the accused persons with an

intention to kill the PW2 forcibly taken him to his agricultural field and

mercilessly beat him and thrown him into the agricultural well. So,

the prosecution examined the father of the victim as PW1, what he

deposed before this Court is that, on 07.08.2023 at 8.30 pm his son

left their house and went to the house of his younger brother and

while returning from the house and when he reached the bridge to

attend nature calls, the accused persons came to him and forcibly

taken his son to the nursery and mercilessly beat him and thrown him
 Page 7 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

into the well situated in the agricultural fields. He further deposed

that his son came out from the agricultural fields with help of engine

pipe and later he went to the house of LW4/Elkar Indira Bai who is his

relative and narrated the incident to her and he came to know about

the incident through the LW4. So on receiving the information by the

PW1 he rushed to the house of the LW4/Elkar Indira Bai and taken his

son to the hospital at Kowtala and on the next day he lodged the

police report under Ex.P1. The PW1 further deposed that the reason

for the above incident was that his son fell in love with the daughter

of the accused No.1, as such the accused persons with an intention to

kill his son beat him and thrown him into the agricultural well. During

the cross examination the PW1 categorically deposed that his family

and accused family are not having any disputes prior to this incident.

But the Learned Counsel for the accused persons put the suggestion

that there are land disputes between them, as such he lodged this

false case, but the same was denied by the PW1 and even the

Learned Counsel for the accused also not elicited anything from him

except putting the suggestions which were completely denied by him.

14) So, the evidence of the PW1 is intact and believable, but on

perusal of his evidence it is only a hearsay evidence and the evidence

of the PW1 requires the corroboration of the victim i.e. the son of

PW1. So, the prosecution examined the son of PW1 as PW2 and his
 Page 8 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

evidence is also very much corroborating with the evidence of PW1

and the gist of the evidence is that since some days prior to this

incident the daughter of the accused No.1 and himself were fell in

love with each other. On 07.08.2023 at 9.30 pm he received a

message from the phone of the accused No.1, in which it appears that

the said Kalyani requested him to come to her house, so he suspected

the said message and forwarded it to the LW5/Elkar Pundaleek by

taking screen shot. Thereafter at about 10.30 pm while he was ready

to go to his house and reached one pan shop and attending the

nature calls, three persons by closing their faces with towels came to

him and caught hold him and put the kerchief in his mouth and took

him to the agricultural field and further they beat him mercilessly. He

further deposed that while he was trying to escape from their clutches

they caught hold him from backside and in the meantime he removed

the towel of A1 from the face of the accused No.1 and identified he is

the father of the said Kalyani and he also identified other (2) faces

when their towels are fell down. Further they pushed him into the

agricultural well and he sustained injury on his chest. He came out

from the well and went to the house of LW4/Elkar Indira Bai who

informed the incident to PW1. On the next day of the incident the

Police came to private hospital, examined him and recorded his

statement. During the cross examination nothing was elicited except

 Page 9 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

putting suggestions which are denied by the PW2. So, from the

evidence of PW2 it is established and proved that the motive behind

the incident was that the PW2 fell in love with the daughter of the

accused No.1. So, the evidence of the PW2 is appears to be

believable and trustworthy and he narrated the incident in such a way

and there is no suspicious circumstance exists to disbelieve his

evidence. So, from the evidence of the PWs.1 and 2 it is proved by

the prosecution that on 07.08.2023 at about 9.30 pm the accused

persons forcibly took the PW2 to the agricultural fields in-order to kill

him and beat him mercilessly and thrown him into the well. Further

this Court opined that if the PW2 is not known the swimming he will

definitely as he was thrown into the agricultural well. So, the

intention of the accused persons is very much appearing with the acts

committed by them in-order to kill the PW2.

15) Coming to the evidence of PW3 who is the mother of the PW2

and her evidence is also in same lines with that of the PW1 and her

evidence is also hearsay evidence. PW4 who is the relative of the

PW2 and she deposed that about one year ago on one day in the

midnight the PW2 came to her house and knocked the door and when

she opened the door the PW2 was present without shirt and informed

that the accused persons thrown him into the agricultural well and

she inturn informed the same to the PW1 over phone. During the
 Page 10 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

cross examination also nothing was elicited from her to disbelieve her

evidence, so the evidence of the PWs.2 and 4 are very much

corroborating regarding after the incident the PW2 went to the house

of PW4 who is his relative and informed the incident and she inturn

informed the same to the PW1. The Learned Counsel for the accused

persons submitted that the PWs.1 to 4 are relatives, as such their

evidence cannot be believed. This Court is of the view that the

incident was took place in the night hours that to in the outskirts of

the village. So, we cannot expect that independent persons witness

the incident and there is no chance to the villagers to witness the

same. Further merely on the ground that the PWs.1 to 4 are relatives,

their evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground if their

evidences are inspiring confidence and believable and there is no rule

in the Indian Evidence Act to say that the evidence of the relatives

can be discarded and not believable.

16) Coming to the evidence of PW5 who is the son of the PW4 and

his evidence is that PW2 was fell in love with the daughter of the

accused No.1. About (10) or (11) months ago on one day at about

10.15 pm the PW2 shared the screen shot of whatsapp message

received to his phone from one Kalyani and the message was that she

requested the PW2 to come to her house and that message was sent

from the mobile phone of her father. He made phone call to PW2 and
 Page 11 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

informed that not to went to the house of the Kalyani. Later, at about

2.15 am the PW2 came to their house and his mother opened the

door and noticed that PW2 was found shirtless and he narrated the

incident to them. So, the evidence of the PW5 is also appears to be

believable and nothing was elicited from the PW5 during the cross

examination.

17) Coming to the evidence of PW6 who is a circumstantial witness

and his evidence is that the PW2 came to his house at about 7.30 pm

about one year ago on one day and left the house at 10.30 pm and he

came to know on the next day that the PW2 was admitted in the one

Vimala hospital, Kowtala. So from his evidence it is proved that the

PW1 as deposed that the PW2 went to the house of his younger

brother i.e. the PW6’s house. So, his evidence is also connecting the

chain of the incidents took place on that day.

18) PW7 who is also cited as circumstantial evidence, but his

evidence is a hearsay evidence. PWs.8 and 9 are the panch

witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama i.e. crime detail form-

I, but they did not support the case of the prosecution. The Learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor cross examined them, but nothing was elicited

from them. PW10 who is the panch witness for scene of offence

panchanama which was conducted at the place from which the PW2
 Page 12 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

was forcibly taken away by the accused persons and he deposed that

about one year ago the Police conducted the scene of offence

panchanama and drawn the rough sketch near the pan shop of one

Elmure Vijay and obtained his signature along with other panch

witness. During cross examination PW10 admitted that he do not

know the contents of the panchanama.

19) PWs.11 and 12 are the panch witnesses for the confession and

seizure panchanama and they deposed that on 09.08.2023 the Police

Kowtala called them to the Palle prakruthi vanam back side and there

a well is situated and the accused persons were present there and

they enquired with them and they confessed that PW2 was having

love affair with the daughter of the accused No.1, as such in the night

hours they brought the PW2 near the well and beat him and also

pushed him into the well and the Police seized the mobile phones

from the accused persons. During the cross examination both the

witnesses admitted that when they reached there the accused

persons were in the custody of the Police and they confessed in their

presence. So the evidence of the PWs.11 and 12 even though the

accused persons confessed about the commission of the offence in

the presence of the Police, so it cannot be taken as the confession

given by them voluntarily and if this evidence is discarded, there is no

 Page 13 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

material irregularities or suspicious circumstances suspecting that the

accused persons did not commit the charged offence.

20) PW13 who is the Doctor who issued the injury certificate to the

victim has deposed that on 20.08.2023 she examined the injured

namely Yelmule Sai Ram and noted the injuries and which are simple

in nature and during cross examination it is admitted that the above

injuries may also be possible if a person accidentally falls on hard

surface. So, this admission itself is sufficient to prove the case of the

prosecution, why because the case of the prosecution ist hat the

accused persons thrown the PW2 into the well, so the injury sustained

by the PW2 is very much corroborating with the case of the

prosecution.

21) PW14 who is the Investigating Officer and his evidence is

regarding the procedure of investigation and he also collected the

Yellow colour T-shirt, Black colour belt and sandals of the victim from

the scene of offence and the PWs.4 and 5 who had seen the PW2 first

time after the incident and deposed that the PW2 came to their house

shirtless. So, the evidence of the Investigating Officer is also is

corroborating with the version of PWs.4 and 5. Even though the PW14

was cross examined at length, but nothing was elicited from him to

say that the case of the prosecution is false and he conducted the
 Page 14 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

investigation in properly with the influence of the PW1. So on overall

consideration of the entire prosecution case it is proved by the

prosecution that the accused persons committed the charged offence.

22) In the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR

2003 page 574 between P. Venakteshwarlu vs State of AP and

brothers in which the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “evidence given

by all the eye witnesses was natural, consistent and supported by

other evidence on record”. So, their evidence cannot be doubted on

the ground of absence of independent witness. Further in the

decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in ALD (2022) part-I

(Crl) page 33 between Surajdeo Mahto and another vs State of

Bihar in which the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “witness related or

close to complainant’s party reliance upon in absence of

corroboration by independent witness-and it would be unreasonable

to expect presence of third parties in every case and the prosecution

cannot be discarded merely on the bald plea of all witnesses being

related to complainant party in-order to drawn adverse inference

against non examination of independent witness, it must be shown

that though best evidence was available, it was with held by

prosecution”. Further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court

reported in ALD 2019 part-3 (Crl) page 369 between Motiram

Pandu Joshi and others vs State of Maharastra in which the

 Page 15 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that, “the relationship is not ground

affecting credibility of witnesses and judicial approach has to be

cautious in dealing with the evidence of such witnesses, but it is

unreasonable to content that evidence given by related witness

should be discarded only on the ground that such witness was

related”. Further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court

of Telangana and AP reported in 2018 ALD Part-I (Crl) 104

between Kale Mariyanna vs State of AP in which Hon’ble High

Court held that, “eye witnesses are family members, their evidence

cannot be discarded. Relationship is not a factor to effect the

credibility of the witness and the settled law is that the evidence of

the witness cannot be discarded on the ground of interestedness

alone”. Further relied on decision reported in ALD 2018 (2) (Crl)

page 982 between Shamin vs State and also relied on the

decision of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and AP reported in

ALD 2017 (Crl) page 1027 between Dasari Gottam Veeranna

vs State of AP and all the above decisions are pertaining to the

evidence of the relatives and their evidence cannot be discarded

merely on the ground of relationship. In the present case except the

PWs.2 and 5 and official witnesses, other witnesses are illiterate and

not known the Court proceedings and not recovered from the tragedy,

definitely there will be possible to depose in different manners and

 Page 16 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

possibilities of minor contradictions and omissions but not fatal to

prosecution case, unless the route of the case is effected and in this

context the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhudayal vs State of

Rajasthan reported in 2019 ALD (5) (Crl) page 722, Sachin

Kumar Singrahavs vs State of MP reported in 2019 ALD (7)

page 68, Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh vs State

of Bihar reported in 2022 ALD (8) and also Mustak alias Kanio

Ahmed Shaik vs State of Gujarat reported in ALD 2020 (12)

page 892 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “minor

contradictions and omissions are not fatal to the prosecution case”.

23) With regard to the non supporting of the panch witnesses is not

fatal to the prosecution and when they admit their signatures and in the

decision of the Hon’ble High Court of AP in Shaik. Ibraheem vs

State of AP in Crl.A.No.77/2011, dated 12.02.2018 and by relying

on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Modan Singh

vs State of Rajasthan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that,

“where the evidence of the Investigating Officer who recovered the

material objects is convincing and the evidence as to recovery need not

be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses did not support he

prosecution version” and the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in a large

number of cases that merely because the panch witnesses have turned
 Page 17 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

hostile is no ground to reject the evidence if the same is based on the

testimony of the Investigating Officer alone.

24) With regard to the when there is a dispute between medical and

ocular evidence the ocular evidence will prevail and the medical

evidence is according to Sec.45 of Indian Evidence Act is only an opinion

of the Doctor in respect of time of injury and not conclusive about the

possibility of injuries and opinion of expert witness cannot be given

preference over primary statement of witnesses of injuries suffered by

them.

25) So, in the present case on hand the evidence of PWs.1 to 6

coupled with the evidence of the PW13 and the evidence of the

Investigating Officer clearly proved that, the PW2 sustained the injuries

due to acts of the accused and if the PW2 while fell down into the well if

he came in contact with a stone to his head or vital parts is sufficient to

cause death in ordinary course of nature. In this case there was a clear

motive, intention, preparation and commission of the offence by the

accused persons was well established with the following chain of action

or the specific acts done by the accused persons. In the judgment of

Prabhudayaal vs State of Rajasthan reported in 2019 ALD (5)

(Crl) 722 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the

“witnesses being rustic and can develop tendency to exaggerate this

 Page 18 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

however, does not mean that entire evidence of such witness is false

hood. The Court can separate the truth from false statement and it is not

necessary, therefore the entire testimony of witness be disregarded one

portion of such portion is false” and further this Court relied on the

Sachin kumar Singraha vs State of MP in which the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that, “when the witnesses are villagers the Court has to keep

in mind rustic nature of depositions of such witness who may not depose

about exact geographical locations with mathematical precision and

discrepancies of this nature which do not go to route of matter, do not

obliterate otherwise acceptable evidence”. So, in the present case on

hand, it is clear that the accused persons attacked the PW2 and beat him

and thrown him into the agricultural well with an intention to kill him, but

fortunately he survived. This Court with the above observations held

that the prosecution successfully proved their case beyond reasonable

doubt.

26) On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the accused persons

while advancing the arguments he also reiterated the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses and submitted that, none of the witnesses

mentioned regarding specific overtacts committed by the accused

persons and by using political influence the accused were falsely

 Page 19 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

implicated in the present case with stocked witnesses with a sole

intention to see that this case ended in conviction.

27) After hearing the rival arguments of the both the parties and after

careful analysis of the evidences of the prosecution witnesses this Court

is of the opinion that as already discussed above that the prosecution

evidence in the present case is appears to be reliable and trustworthy.

28) As such this Court held that the accused No.1 to 3 are found

guilty for the offence U/Sec.307 r/w 34 of IPC and they are convicted

U/Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, and after corrections pronounced by

me in the Open Court on this the 1st day of October, 2024.
Sd/-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
ASIFABAD
29) The accused persons are heard on quantum of sentence and they

reported that the accused no.1 to 3 are own brothers; and they are the

sole bread earners of the family and accused No.2 and 3 submitted that

they are having small children and the accused No.1 is having one

unmarried daughter and they all are depending on agriculture and they

further submitted that they did not commit this offence and requested to

take lenient view by considering the mitigating circumstances. So, by

considering the submissions of the accused persons this Court is inclined

to take lenient view in awarding the punishment for the charged offence.
 Page 20 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

30) In the result, the A1 to A3 are found guilty for the charge

punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC. The accused no.1 to 3 are

sentenced each to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three

years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) each for

the offence U/Sec.307 r/w 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine the

accused persons shall undergo each simple imprisonment for a period of

one month for the above offence. The remand period of accused no.1 to

3 from 09.08.2023 to 27.09.2023 shall be set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

The MO.1 i.e. Realme cell phone shall be given to the accused No.1 and

MOs.2 to 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

[[

31) The accused no.1 to 3 are appraised of their right to prefer an

appeal against this judgment and on enquiry they stated that they have

sufficient means to engage a counsel to prefer an appeal. The accused

no.1 to 3 are provided with a copy of the judgment on free of cost.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, and after corrections pronounced by

me in the Open Court on this the 1st day of October, 2024.
Sd/-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
ASIFABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:
PW.1: Yelmule Ganapathi – Defacto-complainant.
PW.2: Yelmule Sai Ram – Victim.
PW.3: Yelmule Vanitha – Mother of victim.
PW.4: Elekar Indra Bai – Circumstantial witness.
 Page 21 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

PW.5: Elekar Pundaleek.

PW.6: Yelmule Vilas - Circumstantial witness.
PW.7: Yelmule Vijay @ Vijju - Circumstantial witness.
PW.8: Chaple Lahanchu – Panch for crime detail form-1.
PW.9: Tusse Donu - Panch for crime detail form-2.
PW.10: Kedekar Rushi - Panch for crime detail form-2.
PW.11: Mesram Sanjeev – Panch for confession panchanama
of A1 to A3.
PW.12: Chilukuri Thirupathi – Panch for confession
panchanama of A1 to A3.
PW.13: Dr. N. Anusha – Medical Officer.
PW.14: N. Madhukar – Investigating Officer.
For Defence:
[

-None-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Police report.
Ex.P2: Signature of PW8 on crime detail form-1.
Ex.P3: Signature of PW9 on crime detail form-1.
Ex.P4: Crime detail form along with rough sketch.
Ex.P5: Confession and seizure panchanama.
Ex.P6: Injury certificate of PW2.
Ex.P7: First information report.
Ex.P8: Crime detail form-1.

For Defence:

-Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
For Prosecution : For Defence :
MO.1: Realme mobile phone. - Nil -
 Page 22 of 22
SC.No.1/2024

MO.2: Towel.
MO3: Yellow colour T-Shirt.
MO4: Black colour belt.
MO5: Sandal of victim.
Sd/-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
ASIFABAD