Sarojanamma wife of Shivasharanappa Sonoye age 55 years Occ Tenginkeri sedam tq sedam vs Basawaraj son of Ramreddy Dhanreddy age 60 years Resident of Kodla village Advocate - Basavaraj Tadakal — 164/2015
Case under Ipc Act Section 447427504506rw34ofIPC. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 08th April 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAKB720005712015
Filing Number
164/2015
Filing Date
15-04-2015
Registration No
164/2015
Registration Date
15-04-2015
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SEDAM
Judge
329-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. JMFC,Sedam
Decision Date
08th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
209
Police Station
SEDAM PS
Year
2014
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sarojanamma wife of Shivasharanappa Sonoye age 55 years Occ Tenginkeri sedam tq sedam
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Basawaraj son of Ramreddy Dhanreddy age 60 years Resident of Kodla village Advocate - Basavaraj Tadakal
Ramesh son of Basawaraj Dhanreddy age 35 yrs resident of Kodla
Adv. Basavaraj Tadakal
Janardhanreddy son of Basawaraj Dhanreddy age 35 yrs resident of Kodla
Adv. Basavaraj Tadakal
Hearing History
Judge: 329-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. JMFC,Sedam
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENTS-CRIMINAL
ARGUMENTS-CRIMINAL
ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 26-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 25-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS-CRIMINAL |
| 24-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS-CRIMINAL |
| 18-03-2026 | ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 164/2015 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three accused (Basawaraj, Ramesh, and Janardhanreddy) of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 447, 427, 504, and 506(34), finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The testimony of the complainant (Sarojanamma) regarding crop damage caused by herbicide was inconsistent and self-contradictory—she initially claimed one foot of crop growth but later admitted three feet. The investigating officer's agricultural expert report confirmed approximately 80% crop damage but could not definitively attribute it to the accused's actions or identify the herbicide used. Crucial witnesses testified that they did not witness the alleged incident or lacked direct knowledge of the damage's cause, significantly weakening the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 164/2015 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three accused (Basawaraj, Ramesh, and Janardhanreddy) of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 447, 427, 504, and 506(34), finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The testimony of the complainant (Sarojanamma) regarding crop damage caused by herbicide was inconsistent and self-contradictory—she initially claimed one foot of crop growth but later admitted three feet. The investigating officer's agricultural expert report confirmed approximately 80% crop damage but could not definitively attribute it to the accused's actions or identify the herbicide used. Crucial witnesses testified that they did not witness the alleged incident or lacked direct knowledge of the damage's cause, significantly weakening the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts