Nalgonda Principal Murder: Class 10 Student Allegedly Stabs Her 27 Times

A planned theft allegedly turned into a brutal murder in Telangana’s Nalgonda district after a Class 10 student was recognised by his school principal during an attempted burglary at her home, police said. The 16-year-old juvenile allegedly stabbed Kallu Roopa Reddy, 50, 27 times before fleeing with cash and her mobile phone.

Roopa Reddy was found dead at her residence in Kondamallepally mandal on the morning of August 12. She was alone at the time. Her husband, who was away in Hyderabad, alerted neighbours after she failed to answer his repeated calls. The neighbours informed police, who rushed to the house and found her dead.

Nalgonda Superintendent of Police Sharat Chandra Pawar said two Class 10 students, both aged 16 and identified as JCL1 and JCL2 (Juveniles in Conflict with Law), were apprehended on Wednesday in connection with the murder. Police said the investigation involved five teams comprising around 40 personnel, with more than 80 suspects questioned.

Investigators examined forensic evidence, fingerprints, CCTV footage, local rowdy-sheeters and deployed a dog squad. CCTV footage from nearly 70 cameras was scrutinised after a man wearing a red hoodie was seen entering the house. Police later compared the suspect’s physical build with the juveniles.

A significant breakthrough came from Roopa Reddy’s final phone conversation. Before her phone was switched off, she reportedly uttered the word “Babu” while speaking to her aunt. Investigators considered that she might have been referring to a student and began examining students who had recently remained absent from school.

Police shortlisted five Class 10 students and found that two had suddenly started spending heavily and organising parties. Their behaviour raised suspicion, leading to their apprehension.

One juvenile was allegedly found with ₹1.54 lakh and an iPhone. Although he reportedly claimed that his parents had given him the money, police found blood stains on the currency notes. His possession of the cash, along with the recovery of Roopa Reddy’s phone, became key evidence in the investigation.

Police said interrogation revealed that the juveniles had allegedly planned to steal money from Roopa Reddy’s house. JCL1 reportedly held a grudge against her after she had found money and a mobile phone in his school bag around 20 days earlier. He was reprimanded and subsequently shifted from the hostel to day-scholar status.

Investigators said JCL1 allegedly consumed alcohol and wanted to buy a two-wheeler. He also knew that Roopa Reddy was likely to have money at home around the 10th of every month after collecting school fees. The two juveniles allegedly conducted a five-day recce, purchased gloves and searched a video-sharing platform for ways to make money quickly.

On August 11 evening, JCL1 allegedly entered the house by jumping over the wall while JCL2 remained outside as a lookout. After allegedly taking around ₹2.5 lakh from the bedroom, JCL1 attempted to leave. Police said Roopa Reddy recognised him, following which he allegedly stabbed her 27 times with a knife and took her phone before fleeing.

Police stressed that the original plan was allegedly theft, while the killing occurred after JCL1 feared that Roopa Reddy would identify and report him. The case has since raised wider questions about adolescent behaviour, school supervision, peer influence and digital exposure.

The alleged online searches cannot by themselves establish that digital content caused the crime. However, the incident highlights the importance of digital literacy, counselling and early intervention when students display troubling behavioural or disciplinary changes.

The case also carries a significant juvenile justice dimension because the alleged main assailant is 16. Under India’s Juvenile Justice Act, a child aged 16 or above accused of a heinous offence may undergo a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board before the legal process is determined. The assessment considers the child’s mental and physical capacity, understanding of consequences and the circumstances of the alleged offence.