Telangana High Court
Gandala Laxman, Vemulawada And Anr., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 6 February, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1188, 1194 and 1359 of 2017 and 174
of 2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1188 OF 2017
Between:
1) Gandala Laxman, S/o Sailoo,
Aged 27 years, C/Gandala,
Occ: Auto Driver, R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal, Vemulavada.
2) Nymathabad Madanlal @ Katike Madanlal,
S/o Sharfu, Aged 33 years,
Caste:Katike, Occ:Profession,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal, Vemulavada.
.. Appellants/accused Nos.8 and 9
Vs.
The State of Telangana rep. By
its Public Prosecutor (T.S.), High Court
at Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/complainant
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1194 OF 2017
Between:
1) Rayapani Yellaiah, S/o Yellanna,
Occ:Coolie, Caste:Oddera,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal, Vemulavada.
2) Pitla Ramesh, S/o Nadipi Ramulu,
Occ:Tractor Driver-cum-owner,
Caste:Oddera, R/o Gadkole Village,
Sirikonda Mandal, Nizamabad District.
3) Gollem Raju, S/o Ramaswamy,
Occ:Tractor Driver-cum-owner,
R/o Nampally Village,
Vemulawada Mandal, Karimnagar District.
2
.. Appellants/accused Nos.16, 35 and 36
Vs.
The State of Telangana rep. By
its Public Prosecutor (T.S.), High Court
at Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/complainant
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1359 OF 2017
Between:
Mandula Pedda Sailu @ Vonteddu Sailu,
S/o Pedda Sailu, Occ:Mechanic,
Caste:Mandula, R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal, Vemulavada.
.. Appellant /accused No.4
Vs.
The State of Telangana rep. By
P.S.Moinabad, Cyberabad, R.R.District,
Through Public Prosecutor (T.S.), High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/complainant
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.174 OF 2018
Between:
1) Vodde Bhaskar @ Shivarathri Bhaskar,
S/o Vodde Pedda Gangaram, 46 years,
Occ:Coolie, Caste:Vaddera,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal.
2) Vodde Ramulu @ Shivarathri Ramulu,
S/o Vodde Pedda Gangaram, 40 years,
Occ:Coolie, Caste:Vaddera,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal.
3) Sigajogi Gopal @ Mandula Gopal,
S/o Lingaiah, 35 years,
Occ:Coolie, Caste:Mandula,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
3
Dharpally Mandal.
4) Golla Muthaiah @ Radarapu Muthaiah,
S/o Buchi Mallaiah, 61 years,
C/Golla, Occ: Coolie,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal.
5) Makkala Chinna Venkati @ Odde Chinna Venkati,
S/o Makkala Venkanna, 50 years,
C/Voddera, Occ:Coolie,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal.
6) Bandi Yadagiri @ Tenugu Yadagiri,
S/o Manikyam, 42 years,
C/Mudiraj, Occ:Coolie,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal.
7) Makkala Laxmi @ Vadde Laxmi,
W/o Makkala Chinna Venkati, 48 years,
C/Voddera, Occ:Coolie,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal.
.. Appellants/accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 7, 15 and 20
Vs.
The State of Telangana rep. By
its Public Prosecutor (T.S.), High Court
at Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/complainant
DATE OF THE ORDER PRONOUNCED: 06.02.2025
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the judgment?
4
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether his Lordship wishes to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the judgment?
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1188, 1194 and 1359 of 2017 and
174 of 2018
% DATED 6th February, 2025
# CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1188 OF 2017
Between:
1) Gandala Laxman , S/o Sailoo,
Aged 27 years, C/Gandala,
Occ: Auto Driver, R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal, Vemulavada.
2) Nymathabad Madanlal @ Katike Madanlal,
S/o Sharfu, Aged 33 years,
Caste:Katike, Occ:Profession,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal, Vemulavada.
.. Appellants/accused Nos.8 and 9
Vs.
The State of Telangana rep. By
its Public Prosecutor (T.S.), High Court
at Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/complainant
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1194 OF 2017
Between:
1) Rayapani Yellaiah, S/o Yellanna,
Occ:Coolie, Caste:Oddera,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
5
Dharpally Mandal, Vemulavada.
2) Pitla Ramesh, S/o Nadipi Ramulu,
Occ:Tractor Driver-cum-owner,
Caste:Oddera, R/o Gadkole Village,
Sirikonda Mandal, Nizamabad District.
3) Gollem Raju, S/o Ramaswamy,
Occ:Tractor Driver-cum-owner,
R/o Nampally Village,
Vemulawada Mandal, Karimnagar District.
.. Appellants/accused Nos.16, 35 and 36
Vs.
The State of Telangana rep. By
its Public Prosecutor (T.S.), High Court
at Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/complainant
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1359 OF 2017
Between:
Mandula Pedda Sailu @ Vonteddu Sailu,
S/o Pedda Sailu, Occ:Mechanic,
Caste:Mandula, R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal, Vemulavada.
.. Appellant /accused No.4
Vs.
The State of Telangana rep. By
P.S.Moinabad, Cyberabad, R.R.District,
Through Public Prosecutor (T.S.), High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/complainant
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.174 OF 2018
Between:
1) Vodde Bhaskar @ Shivarathri Bhaskar,
S/o Vodde Pedda Gangaram, 46 years,
Occ:Coolie, Caste:Vaddera,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
6
Dharpally Mandal.
2) Vodde Ramulu @ Shivarathri Ramulu,
S/o Vodde Pedda Gangaram, 40 years,
Occ:Coolie, Caste:Vaddera,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal.
3) Sigajogi Gopal @ Mandula Gopal,
S/o Lingaiah, 35 years,
Occ:Coolie, Caste:Mandula,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal.
4) Golla Muthaiah @ Radarapu Muthaiah,
S/o Buchi Mallaiah, 61 years,
C/Golla, Occ: Coolie,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal.
5) Makkala Chinna Venkati @ Odde Chinna Venkati,
S/o Makkala Venkanna, 50 years,
C/Voddera, Occ:Coolie,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal.
6) Bandi Yadagiri @ Tenugu Yadagiri,
S/o Manikyam, 42 years,
C/Mudiraj, Occ:Coolie,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal.
7) Makkala Laxmi @ Vadde Laxmi,
W/o Makkala Chinna Venkati, 48 years,
C/Voddera, Occ:Coolie,
R/o Nallavelly Village,
Dharpally Mandal.
.. Appellants/accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 7, 15 and 20
Vs.
The State of Telangana rep. By
its Public Prosecutor (T.S.), High Court
at Hyderabad.
7
.. Respondent/complainant
<Gist:
>Head Note:
! Counsel for the Appellants : Sri R.Prasanth
^Counsel for Respondents : Smt.Shalini Saxena,
Assistant Public Prosecutor
? CASES REFERRED :
8
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1188, 1194 and 1359 of 2017
and 174 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
The Criminal Appeal No.1188 of 2017 is filed by the
appellants/accused Nos.8 and 9, Criminal Appeal No.1194 of
2017 is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.16, 35 and 36,
Criminal Appeal No.1359 of 2017 is filed by the
appellants/accused No.4, and the Criminal Appeal No.174 of
2018 is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 7, 15, 20
and 22, aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.09.2017 in
S.C.No.45 of 2014 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge
for Trial of cases under the SCs and STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII
Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
2. Since all the appeals are filed questioning the
judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.45
of 2014, all the appeals are being disposed off by way of this
common judgment.
3. PW.1 is de facto complainant, who was working as
Forest Beat Officer, Gouraram Village, Indulwai Range. He
went to the police station at 4.30 A.M., and lodged a Telugu
written complaint. In the complaint, PW.1 narrated that the
villagers of Gouraram Village protested before the Forest
Range Office, threatening the officials of forest department.
The villagers were agitating for allotment of surplus lands to
them for the purpose of cultivation. On 14.09.2013, at
around 10.00 P.M., while he along with the Forest Range
Officer/Gangaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'),
and other officials who are PW.2, PW.3, PW.6, PW.7 and
PW.8, along with other forest office personnel proceeded to
the Forest Range Officers' Jeep to Gouraram Reserve Forest
area, around 11.45 P.M. When they reached the Reserve
Forest area, they noticed that 27 villagers who are named in
the FIR and others encroached the Forest Area Land and
were cultivating with tractors. On seeing the forest officials,
the named accused and other persons have signaled among
themselves and all of them attacked the forest officials. The
accused were holding sticks. The deceased/Gangaiah, was
also present and women folk sprinkled chili powder in
deceased's eyes and the male persons attacked the deceased
with an axe and dragged him out of the jeep. As a result of
the attack on his head with an axe, the deceased/Gangaiah
died on the spot. Other office personnel were also injured.
They were also treated by Doctor for injuries.
4. On receiving the complaint, PW.24, the Circle Inspector
of Police, Dichpally, went to the scene of offence, drew rough
sketch and conducted scene of offence panchanama.
Material objects, which are one pair of chappal, sticks, etc.,
were seized. Inquest proceedings were concluded at the
scene and the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-
mortem examination. The post-mortem was conducted by
PW.16, who issued post-mortem report opining that the
death of the deceased was on account of grievous injuries.
Death was due to polytrauma with head injury due to intra
cranial hemorrhage. PW.16 further opined that injuries were
possible with sharp weapon.
5. The investigation was handed over to PW.25 by PW.24.
During investigation, on 21.09.2013, seizure of the material
objects was effected at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 4,
15, 19, 25 to 28, and the confessional statements of the
accused were recorded. On 23.09.2013, accused Nos.5, 7,
14, 16, 20, 22 to 25, and 37 were arrested. Witnesses
examined for prosecution are as under:
PWs Name of the Brief statement of witness
witness
Pw-1 Mohammed He is Forest Beat Officer of Indulwai Range
Maqbool who gave a report to the police on
15.09.2017stating that Forest Range Officer
Rodda Gangaram was killed. He has named
27 accused in the FIR. He does not say he
has any previous acquaintance or familiarity
with the Accused prior to the incident and
PW-1 also has not given descriptive
particulars of the Accused. He admitted in
his cross examination that FIR was lodged
the next morning at 6AM. There is an
unexplained delay of 6 Hrs in lodging the
FIR.
Pw-2 Syed He is the Jeep Driver. He stated that he
Moinuddin cannot say the nature and shape of MO's
Axe (MO2) and Sickle (MO3).
Pw-3 Chatapuram He accompanied PW1, PW2 and deceased.
Mohan He admitted that he cannot give dimensions
of MO's.
Pw-4 Rodda She is the wife of the deceased.
Hemalatha
Pw-5 Rodda He is the brother of the deceased.
Gangaram
Pw-6 Kamashetty He accompanied other PWs and deceased.
Yadagiri He admitted in his cross examination he did
not know A1 and A2 on the day Dharna
conducted previously.
Pw-7 Syed Shabir He accompanied other PWs and deceased.
Ahmed
Pw-8 V. Bhoomaiah He accompanied other PWs and deceased.
He admitted in his cross examination that
Chilli Powder fell in his eyes and eyes of
other PWs.
Pw-9 Shaiba He is a Private Photographer.
Vaikuntam
Pw-10 Thalari Sailu He is working as VRO of Kesharam Village
and panch witness for Scene of Offence
Panchanama and Inquest Panchanama. He
categorically deposed in his chief
examination that Chilli Powder was
sprinkled on the Jeep and the wind screen
of Jeep was cracked.
Pw-11 P. Balaram He is working as VRO of Bhumpally Village
and panch witness for confession and
seizure panchanama of A1, A2, A4, A15,
A20, A22 and A35. He categorically
admitted in his Cross Examination that
descriptions of Material Objects MO's 2, 17,
18 & 19 are not given in the recovery
panchanama.
Pw-12 Bangu Balaiah He worked as VRO of Doosgoan Village and
panchwitness for confession and seizure of
A5.
Pw-13 Bathula Praven He worked as VRO of Indulwai Village and
Kumar panchwitness for confession and seizure of
A7 and A8.
Pw-14 Machkuri He worked as VRO of Mittapally Village and
Sayanna panch witness for confession and seizure of
A9 and A12.
Pw-15 Komma Ashok He worked as VRA of Ramadugu Village and
panch witness for confession and seizure of
A16.
Pw-16 Dr. Balraj He is the Doctor working in Government
Hospital who conducted Postmortem
Examination over the dead body of the
deceased on 15.09.2013. He issued PME
Report stating that the exact cause of death
is Poly Trauma with head injury due to Intra
Cranial Hemorrhage. It is elicited from him
that the injuries sustained b the deceased
are possible in Road Accident.
Pw-17 K. Veena She worked as Tahsildar of Dharpally
Mandal and issued caste certificates of
accused.
Pw-18 Y. Sudershan He worked asa Tahsildar of Kamareddy
Mandal and issued caste certificate of PW1.
Pw-19 S. Rajeshwar She worked as Dy.Tahsildar of Bodhan
Mandal and issued caste certificate of
deceased.
Pw-20 Dr. P. Shirish He is the doctor who issued injury certificate
Kumar of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 8. He deposed that the
injuries are simple in nature.
Pw-21 A. Damodaram He worked as S.I of Police P.S Dharpally and
panch witness for confession and seizure of
A16.
Pw-22 J. Naresh He worked as S.I of Police P.S Dichpally and
panch witness for confession and seizure of
A22.
Pw-23 D. Ravi He worked as S.I of Police P.S Jakranpally
and panch witness for confession and
seizure of A9.
Pw-24 P. Srisailam He is the C.I of Police P.S. Dichpally who
investigated the case initially.
Pw-25 S. Anil Kumar He is the DSP who investigated most of the
case.
He is the Inspector of Police who verified
investigation done by PW-24 and filed
charge sheet. He has said that when there is
cross focus of headlights of two vehicles a
person may not be able to see the inmates of
the vehicles clearly. It is elicited from him
that PWs 1 to 3 did not state before him
regarding specific overt acts of A1 and A2.
He further stated that no Test Identification
Parade was conducted in this case. He
admitted that no proof was filed before the
court to show that the said land being
cultivated belongs toForest Department.
6. Though 27 persons were identified as accused at the
time of registering FIR, charge-sheet was laid against 37
persons. The accused Nos.28 to 37 were also arrested during
the course of investigation.
7. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants
mainly on the ground that the eye-witnesses have identified
accused Nos.1 and 2, as the persons, who assaulted the
deceased with an axe and a stick. In so far as the other
accused/appellants are concerned, learned Sessions Judge
observed that the recoveries were made from them by the
Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
submit that, admittedly there was a mob attack but it is
highly impossible that the witnesses have identified the
villagers, who were named in the FIR. Though the names of
the accused were mentioned in the FIR, but it is not clear as
to how the names of the accused was known to PW.1, when
the incident took place at midnight and there is no evidence
of light.
9. Learned counsel further argued that there was no test
identification parade conducted by the Investigating Officer
to identify any of the accused. The evidence of the witnesses
was recorded before the trial Court nearly after two and half
years from the date of incident and it is highly impossible for
the witnesses to identify the accused. Learned counsel
further submits that since the alleged incident happened in
the midnight and the scene of offence is a Reserve Forest
area, there is no scope for any light, at the time of incident.
Therefore, the identification of the accused by the witnesses
before the trial Court cannot be believed.
10. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor would submit that there are specific overt-acts
which were attributed to accused Nos.1 and 2. The villagers
also attacked the officers other than the deceased. They also
received injuries. PW.16-Doctor, who conducted post-
mortem, found that the injuries on the head of the deceased
were fatal and the said injuries could be caused by sharp
weapon. The villagers were acquainted with the forest
officials since they were conducting dharna over a period of
time, before the incident of murder. For the said reason, the
Investigating Officer did not deem it necessary to conduct
test identification parade. The complaint was filed by PW.1.
At the earliest point of time, in the complaint, PW.1 narrated
that the women folk have sprinkled chilli powder and men
assaulted them.
11. In the complaint, it was not specifically stated as to
who attacked the deceased and the villagers, and who
attacked PW.1 and other officials. However, while deposing
before the Court below, PWs.1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 have stated
that accused No.1 beat the deceased with an axe on his
head. Further, accused No.2 beat the deceased with a stick
on his right thigh. The villagers and other accused beat the
Forest Office personnel and also damaged their vehicles.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that
since no specific overt-acts of the appellants herein were
attributed in the complaint, the said overt-acts attributed for
the first time before the Court below, ought to have been
rejected.
13. Though the argument appears to be attractive,
however, the de facto complainant, PW.1 and several other
officers were attacked and injured by the villagers. The
complaint was filed giving the names of the villagers, who
attacked them. It was mentioned in the complaint that the
men have attacked the deceased. Admittedly, PW.1 and
others were in the state of shock on account of the incident,
when several villagers attacked them with axes. It is the
specific case of PW.1 and others that all the villagers were
visiting Forest Range Office and were conducting dharna,
demanding for allocation of surplus land in the forest.
14. Not a single suggestion is put to the witnesses during
cross-examination nor any answer was adduced for this
Court to consider that the named accused were strangers to
the witnesses. In the present scenario, when the villagers
went to the Forest Office and conducted dharna, it cannot be
said that the forest officials could not identify the villagers.
The specific overt-acts attributed to accused Nos.1 and 2
before the Court below cannot be disregarded only on the
ground that such overt-acts were not attributed in the
complaint.
15. As already discussed, PW.1 and others were in the
state of shock apparently on account of the said incident.
The incident happened on 15.09.2013 at 12.45 A.M., and
within 3 hours, written complaint was filed. In the present
circumstances, the specific overt-acts attributed to accused
Nos.1 and 2, during the course of trial, cannot be brushed
aside.
16. Most of the witnesses i.e., PWs.1, 2, 3, 6 to 8
specifically stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 attacked the
deceased. The attack by accused No.1 was with an axe on
the head of the deceased and accused No.2 with a stick.
According to Doctor/PW.16, the death of the deceased was
on account of the injuries on the head with a sharp weapon.
Admittedly, the fatal injury was on account of the axe and
not by the injuries received with stick. Doctor/PW.16 did not
state specifically as to which of the injuries were on account
of the sharp weapon and which injuries were due to beating
with a stick. However, the fact remains that accused No.2
attacked the deceased with a stick and the fatal injuries on
the head of the deceased was with an axe.
17. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants on
the basis of specific overt-acts attributed to accused Nos.1
and 2 and also on the basis of the recoveries effected from
the other accused. The recoveries made from the other
accused were sent to the FSL. Though FSL report indicates
that blood was found, it does not specify as to whom the
blood group belongs to.
18. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants
that the test identification proceedings were not conducted,
as such, the identification of the accused is doubtful, cannot
be accepted in the present facts of the case.
19. Under Section 149 of I.P.C., though no specific overt-
acts are attributed to some of the accused, however, Section
149 of I.P.C would come in aid to convict other accused to
whom the specific overt-acts were not attributed. However,
the criteria or the condition to invoke Section 149 of I.P.C., is
that the prosecution should be in a position to prove the
common object in between the accused.
20. According to PW.1 and other eye-witnesses, the Forest
Office personnel went to the scene of offence and on seeing
the office personnel, the villagers, who were in the fields
protested and allegedly attacked the office personnel.
However, specific overt-acts are attributed only to accused
Nos.1 and 2.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay
Pandurang Thakre v. State of Maharashtra 1, held that in
the absence of any evidence of conspiracy or any object being
established, the accused would be liable for their individual
acts. Moreover, there must be an unlawful assembly. Such
offence must have been committed in pursuance of the
common object of the assembly, or must be such as the
members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed.
22. As stated by the witnesses, the accused and other
villagers had gone to the place and attacked the Forest office
personnel. It cannot be said, in the present facts of the case,
that all the accused entertained common intention to kill the
deceased. In fact, it was only accused No.1, who inflicted
injuries on the head of the deceased with an axe. It is also
stated by the witnesses that accused No.2 has beaten the
deceased with a stick. There was no prior concert or pre-plan
to commit the murder of the deceased. Even according to the
witnesses, PW.1, deceased and other officers have gathered
at the forest area on the basis of the information. None of the
(2017) 4 SCC 377
accused had any clue regarding the arrival of the officers.
What all happened at the scene of offence is on the spur of
moment and the officials were attacked by the villagers, who
were agitated for the reason of not providing or allocating the
surplus land to them for cultivation.
23. It cannot be said that all the accused gathered with the
common object of killing the deceased. Several villagers,
other than the appellants have attacked the vehicles and
other officers. In the said situation, when it was accused
No.1, who had attacked the deceased with an axe, the
common object of all the appellants cannot be inferred. The
appellants, other than accused Nos.1 and 2, were convicted
on the basis of recoveries effected at their instance. None of
the witnesses attributed any specific overt-acts to other
24. Resultantly, the conviction, in so far as accused No.1 is
concerned, under Section 302 of IPC, is confirmed and he
shall suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Life. In so far as,
accused No.2 is concerned, he is convicted for the offence
under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of five (05) years. With regard to
the other accused i.e., accused Nos.4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 20,
22, 35, and 36 they are convicted under Section 324 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three
(03) years.
25. Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are partly allowed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 06.02.2025
PNS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1188, 1194 and 1359 of 2017 and
174 of 2018
Date: 06.02.2025
PNS
