Page 1 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE:: NALGONDA
(Dated this the 26th day of September, 2023)
Present: Sri A. JAYA RAJU,
I Addl. District & Sessions Judge Nalgonda.
SESSIONS CASE No. 220 of 2017
(Crime No.275 of 2014 of Devarakonda Police Station)
Name and description of Inspector of Police, Devarakonda the complainant
Name and description of 1) Gugulothu Ramu, S/o Bheema, Age the accused 28 years, Occ: Student, R/o Tulchya Thanda H/o Nellikuduru Mandal of Warangal District.
2) Ramavath Thara, W/o Ravikumar, Age 24 years, occ: Housewife (Ex.Sarpanch), R/o Konda Mallepally Village.
3) Gugulothu Suresh, S/o Devoji, Age 19 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Tulchya Thanda H/o Nellikuduru Mandal of Warangal District. Offences charged Under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 and 177 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code.
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the Court Found guilty.
Sentence or Order In the result,accused Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC and accused No.1 and 3 are punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC and they are convicted under
Page 2 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences.
A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the charge under Section 120-B r/w 34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each in default of payment of fine A1 to A3 shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. For the charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, A1 to A3 shall undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each in default of payment of fine A1 to A3 shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. For the charge under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC, A1 and A3 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine, A1 and A3 shall undergo imprisonment for another one year. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period undergone by A1 to A3 shall be set off as provided under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds executed by A1 to A3 shall stand cancelled. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are made aware of their right to prefer appeal. M.Os. 5 to 7 and 9/cell phones and M.O.8/Pulsar motorcycle are ordered to be confiscated to the State after appeal time is over. M.Os.1 to 4 and 10/Towel, two shirts, four plastic disposable glasses, one bottle and knife
Page 3 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 respectively are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.
This Sessions Case is coming before me today for disposal in the presence of Sri S. Venkat Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri M. Rama Chandra Rao, Advocate for accused No.1, Sri Mereddy Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for the accused No.2 and Sri T. Chandra Shekhar Reddy, Advocate for the accusedNo.3and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a case where a wife fiendishly killed her husband conspiring with her concubinus.
2. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have been prosecuted by the State represented by Inspector of Police, Devarakonda Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 r/w 34 Indian
Penal Code for killing deceased Ramavath Ravi Kumar.
3. The story of the prosecution is as follows:
Deceased Ramavath Ravi Kumar and A2/Ramavath Thara are husband and wife. Their marriage takes place in the year 2006. In their union with each other they are blessed with two children. Ramavath
Thara/A2 is elected as Sarpanch of Konda Mallepally Village.
Thereafter, in the next election, the deceased contests in the panchayath election, but he is defeated. After elections were over, Ramavath
Page 4 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
Thara/A2 settles at B.N. Reddy Colony, Hyderabad, educating her children, whereas the deceased Ravi Kumar stays at Konda Mallepally taking care of his business and would go to A2. During the time when
A2 was Sarpanch, she observes the deceased talking with some woman over phone which was displeasing to her and it causes outburst of anger. For once, A2 finds a screw of ear stud in her bed room and questions the deceased whence it come. Then, the deceased beats A2 indiscriminately. There used to be disputes between A2 and her murdered husband. The husband of A2 picks up quarrels with her 3 or 4 times and beats her. In that regard some panchayats are conducted. For once, A2 decides to take divorce, but gives up the idea of giving divorce as her husband i.e., deceased requested her not to give divorce.
4. A1 who belongs to Warangal District joins BDS course in
Kamineni Medical College, Narketpally, at which time, PW.4 was working as Radiographer in Kamineni Medical College and both of them become friends. For once, in the year 2010 A1 goes to the house of PW.4 to attend engagement ceremony of PW.4, at which with time
A1 gets some acquaintance with A2. Later on, during stay of A2 at
B.N. Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, A2 again comes into contact with A1 through phone. A1 introduces himself with A2 posing himself to be a
Page 5 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
Doctor. As time goes by, their acquaintance results in extra marital relationship and they indulge in sexual intercourse many a times whenever they get chance at Hyderabad. A2 helps A1 financially. For once, A2 gives her ear studs to meet financial needs of A1 and A1 pledges the same for Rs.35,000/- and again, A2 gives her gold chain to
A1, and A1 pledges the gold chain for Rs.58,000/- in Manappuram
Gold at Mahaboobabad. From the money so obtained, A1 purchases a
Bajaj Pulsor motorcycle by paying Rs.35,000/- agreeing to repay the balance amount @ Rs.3,300/- per month.
5. During the stay of A2 with her children at Hyderabad, she joins in Beautician course at Kothapet and A1 used to drop A2 at her institute. During that period also, quarrels take place between A2 and her husband Ravi Kumar and Ravi Kumar would beats A2 on 3 or 4 occasions. Then A2 conveys the same to A1. Then A1 says to A2 “I will kill your husband so that we will continue our relationship happily.” Even after that also, the deceased Ravi Kumar beats A2 indiscriminately. Therefore, she goes to her parent’s house at
Miryalaguda and a panchayat is convened by elders. At that time, parents of A2 give Rs.50,000/- to A2 and she gives the said amount to
Page 6 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
A1 for redemption of her gold chain that was pledged in Manappuram
Gold at Mahaboobabad. On 01.07.2014, the deceased goes to Goa tour.
A2 gets A1 brought to Konda Mallepally and indulges in sexual intercourse. A2 along with A1 decides to do away with her husband at any cost. In order to execute her conspiracy of killing the deceased, A2 arranges things in such a way that deceased can be killed in his house at
Konda Mallepally during the absence of anyone in the house so that no one would be able to suspect her. Expounding the moments of the deceased A2 tells A1 that up to 09.30 p.m., the deceased Ravi Kumar would be with someone or the other and after 9.30 p.m., he would be alone, which time is better for him to kill the deceased. She tells A1 that the doors of their house at Konda Mallepally were having number locking system and once the doors are locked, it would be difficult for them to come out and she cautions A1 to see the doors not to be locked.
A2 advises A1 to take help of someone in killing the deceased. Then,
A1 brings A3 to A2 and introduces him to A2 and all of them conspire to kill the deceased.
6. According their first plan, the deceased was to be killed on 14.07.2014, but that could not be materialized as the deceased was in
Hyderabad on 14.07.2014. On the next day i.e., on 15.07.2014, the
Page 7 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 deceased leaves for Konda Mallepally from B.N. Reddy X-road. Then
A2 informs A1 from cell phone of her aunt Bujji bearing
No.9618303640 and asks A1 to pickup her and drop her at Kothapeta beautician class. The deceased informs A2 that he was going to Mall
Sandy. At about 1300 hours, A2 makes a phone call to A1 and asks A1 to pick up her from Kothapet, where she informs A1 that her husband had gone to Mallepally and gives Rs.1,000/- to A1 for his expenses.
From that onwards, A2 keeps on informing A1 every movement of the deceased until the deceased himself is left alone in his house at Konda
Mallepally. On 15.07.2014, at about 06.30 p.m., A2 learns from her husband i.e., the deceased that he was on his way to Mallepally and informs the same to A1 through cell phone of her aunt Bujji bearing
No.9618303640. At 06.00 p.m., A1 informs A2 that he had left for
Mallepally taking his relative Suresh/A3 on his motorcycle. After sometime later, A1 tells A2 that he would switch off his phone and tells her not to make any phone calls to his number, but to the cell phone number of A3 bearing No.9000111381. On the same day, A2 makes several phone calls to A1 through A3 phone. At about 09.00 p.m., A2 by making phone call to her husband/deceased ensures that he was alone in their house and informs the same to A1 through cell phone.
Page 8 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
7. On 15.07.2014, at about 2130 hours, in order to execute their plan, A1 and A3 go to the house of the deceased on motorcycle and park the motorcycle in front of the house of the deceased. They reach the house of the deceased by climbing steps, at which time,
PW.6/Ramavath Vijayendhar and LW.9/Ramavath Pakeera see A1 and
A3 climbing. A1 and A3 knock the door of the deceased. The deceased opens the doors. Then A1 introduces himself to the deceased saying that he was friend of his younger brother i.e., Ramavth Yadagiri/PW.4 and they were returning from Rangundla of Haliya Mandal and as night came on, they were unable to continue their journey on motorcycle and asks the deceased to let them stay for that night and they would go early in the morning. The deceased recognizes A1 and permits A1 and A3 to stay in his house. A1, recollecting what he was told about number locking doors of the house of the deceased requests the deceased not to lock the doors as he was in the habit of smoking and he would go out for smoking. The deceased goes to his bed room telling A1 and A3 to wake him up whenever they want to go out and beds down. A1 and A3 kept on watching TV up to 23.30 hours. During that time, A1 and A3 come out from the house and observes movements of anyone were there. After ensuring themselves that there was no one, decides to
Page 9 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 execute their plan. In order to execute their plan of killing the deceased,
A1 and A3 knock bed room door of the deceased. The deceased wakes up and comes out from his room. Then at once A1 stabs the deceased on his forehead. On account of which, the deceased falls down on the ground. Again, A1 stabs him near his left eye and on head while A3 catch holds legs of the deceased not to be moved. The deceased tries to raise cries, but A1 closes his mouth with his left hand. A1 and A3 together punch on the face of the deceased and other parts and strangulate the deceased with lungi tying around the neck of the deceased. After ensuring themselves that deceased died, A1 and A3 pours petrol on the body of the deceased so that their finger prints on the dead body of the deceased not to be found. A1 and A3 brings some water and sprinkle on the blood stains in the room and clean the blood stains on their bodies. A1 and A3 change their dress and put on another dress and starts for their village on the motorcycle via Nalgonda keeping their blood stained knife and cloths in their bag. On their way to their village, A1 and A3 station their motorcycle at the outskirts of
Palvai Village and throw away the knife into bushes and set their blood stained clothes on fire. After they had reached their village, on the next day morning at about 07.00 a.m., A2 makes phone call to A1 to cell
Page 10 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 phone of A3. Then A1 tells A2 that work had been completed and tells her not to make phone calls. Thereafter, A2 makes a phone call to her tractor driver Jakkala Venkataiah/PW.2 and asks where he was. Then he replies that he was at his Thanda. Then A2 tells him to go to her house at Konda Mallepally and make dry mirchi into powder and bring.
Accordingly, PW.2 goes to the house of the deceased but sees the deceased died. PW.2 informs A2 that her deceased husband was killed.
Then A2 goes to her house at Konda Mallepally pretending to be knowing nothing and finds her husband Ravi Kumar died with injuries on his head and lungi tying around his neck. A2 weeps by lying on the dead body of the deceased not to be suspected by anyone about her role and lodges complaint with J. Bhaksar, Inspector of Police,
Devarakonda/PW.14 pretending to be ignorant of anything.
8. Inspector of Police, Devarakonda/PW.14 registers the complaint as a case in Crime No.275 of 2014, under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code. PW.14 during the course of investigation, examines all the witnesses, who are acquainted with the facts of the case and conducts scene of offence panchanama and also inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased and subjects the dead body for post mortem
Page 11 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 examination. Medical Officer Dr. R. Ravi/PW.12 conducts post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. During the examination of Ramavath Yadagiri/PW.4, Ramavath Shiva/PW.5,
Ramavath Vijayendhar/PW.6 and Ramavath Pakeera/LW.9, PW.14 learns that there was illegal intimacy between A1 and A2. Ramavath
Vijayendhar/PW.6 and Ramavath Pakeera/LW.9 tells PW.14 that on the date of the incident they saw two persons climbing the steps of the house of the deceased and they could identify them. As PW.14 comes to know that there was illegal intimacy between A1 and A2, he focuses investigation on that direction. PW.14 gives requisition to the
Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, with a request to address a letter to the Cell phone Networking Providers for furnishing the details of the
CDRs of suspected persons phone numbers and obtains the CDRs (call detail records). On perusal of the CDRs, PW.14 observes so many outgoing and incoming phone calls from cell phones of A1 and A2.
PW.14 observes absence of any phone calls from 16.07.2014 onwards between A1 and A2 from their phones, but from another new number i.e., 9618303640. Then PW.14 verifies the address of the said phone number and finds it to be Bujji/LW.13, concubine of Kompalli
Ramesh/LW.12. On being interrogated, Bujji/LW.13 tells that she was
Page 12 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 concubine of Kompalli Ramesh/LW.12 and on 15.07.2014, she left her phone in her house at Hyderabad and went to Narketpally.
9. On 26.08.2014, PW.14 goes to the house of A2 situated at
Teachers Colony, B.N. Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, taking WHC 947 and
WHG 958 and Mandala Venkateshwarlu/PW.10 and Avula
Kishan/PW.11. PW.14 interrogates A2 dexterously. A2 appears to be in state of confessing her guilt. A2 confesses her guilty i.e., the above said story of prosecution in the presence of PW.10 and PW.11. In pursuance of confession made by A2, PW.14 seizes one black colour
Galaxy Grand GT-19082 model SAMSUNG duos cell phone with
Airtel SIM No.995935616183 with IMEI Nos.355884055811713 and 355885055811710 from her house under cover of panchanama from which A2 allegedly made phone calls. Later on, when she was asked about cell phone of Varkala Bujji/LW.13, she handovers one NOKIA black colour single SIM cell phone with Airtel SIM No.9618303640 with IMEI No.353684058940408 and that is seized under cover of panchanama. Thereafter, PW.14 proceeds to the house of Gugulothu
Ramu/A1 situated at Yashodhara Colony, LB Nagar, Hyderabad, taking
A2 and PWs.10 and 11, where PW.14 apprehends A1 and A3. On being
Page 13 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 interrogated separately in the presence of PWs.10 and 11, they confess to have committed the offence and their confession tallies with the confession of A2. PW.14 seizes Pulsar motorcycle bearing No. TS 03
EC 1049, one single SIM black colour SAMSUNG 0168 model cell phone with IMEI No.35262006015341 and finds one Airtel SIM bearing No. 9494443210 and NOKIA RM 969 model dual sim cell phone from the possession of A3 with IMEI Nos.35959205111108 and 359520111109 with Airtel SIM bearing No. 9000111381 and one IDEA
SIM no.8498010538 from A3 under cover of panchanama. After panchanama is over, PW.14 brings A1 to A3 to the Police Station. As it was late in the night, PW.14 closes investigation for that day and resumes investigation on 27.08.2014. On 27.08.2014, A1 and A3 lead
PW.14 and PWs.10 and 11 to the outskirts of Palvai village, where A1 and A3 stated to have thrown the knife and burnt blood stained clothes.
PW.14 seizes four pieces of singed blood stained cloths and ash. PW.14 seizes one knife under cover of panchanama in the presence of PWs.10 and 11.
10. PW.14 sends the above said singed cloths, ash and knife to
APFSL, Hyderabad vide File No.SER/1309/2014, dated 01.10.2014.
Page 14 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
11. On 28.06.2014, at 20.30 hours, PW.14 arrests A1 to A3 and brought them to Devarakonda Police Station and causes them to be produced before the Court duly following the procedure.
12. PW.14 gives a requisition to the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Miryalaguda with a request to conduct test identification parade of A1 and A3 at Sub-Jail, Devarakonda by Ramavath Vijayendhar/
PW.6 and Ramavath Pakeera/LW.9. On 20.09.2014, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda, Sri A. Nagaraju/PW.13 conducts test identification parade of A1 and A3. In the test identification parade,
PW.6 and Ramavath Pakeera/LW.9 identify A1 and A3 being the persons whom they saw on 15.07.2014 while climbing the upstairs of the house of the deceased. According to the Post Mortem Examination
Report, the cause of death of the deceased Ramavath Ravi Kumar is due to head injury. From PW.14, K. Ravinder Reddy, Inspector of
Police/PW.15 takes up investigation and files charge sheet after completion of investigation. This is the story of the prosecution.
13. Cognizance is taken against accused Nos.1 to 3 by my learned predecessor under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 and 177 r/w 34 Indian
Penal Code and issued summons.
Page 15 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
14. On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 3 before the Court in pursuance of summons, copies of the case documents relied on by the prosecution have been furnished to the accused Nos.1 to 3 as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
15. Charges framed under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC against
A1 to A3 and charge under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC is framed against
A1 and A3 and contents of the charges read over to the accused Nos.1 to 3 and explained in Telugu, but they denied to have committed the said offences and claimed to be tried.
16. In order to establish this case, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited Exs.P1 to P23 apart from M.Os. 1 to 10.
17. After evidence had been recorded, accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explaining the incriminating material found against them, but their answer is denial and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.
18. Heard arguments on both sides.
19. Now let us see which witnesses were examined to speak of which facts.
Page 16 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
Ramavath Harja/PW.1 is father of the murdered person. His evidence is that being informed about the death of the deceased, he goes to the house of the deceased and finds the deceased died with injuries. Jakkala Venkataiah/PW.2 was examined to speak of about his having been asked by A2 over phone to bring chilly powder and about his having found the deceased died. Ramavath Naresh/PW.3 was examined to speak about his having been with the deceased on the date of the incident till 07.30 p.m. Ramavath Yadagiri/PW.4, brother of the deceased was examined to speak about illegal intimacy of A2 with A1.
Ramavath Shiva/PW.5 was examined to speak about his having associated with the deceased on the date of the incident along with
PW.3. Ramavath Vijayendhar/PW.6 was adduced by the prosecution to speak about his having identified A1 and A3 in the test identification parade. D. Prabhu/PW.7, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, was examined to speak of his having visited the scene of offence and taken video and photographs at the scene of offence. Angothu Laxman/PW.8 was examined to speak that he had given his SIM card to the deceased
Ravi Kumar. Ramavath Nagesh/PW.9 is panch witness for seizure panchanama at the scene of offence. Mandala Venkateshwarlu/PW.10 and Avula Kishan/PW.11 are the panch witnesses in whose presence
Page 17 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
A1 and A3 allegedly confessed to have committed the offence and in whose presence material objects are seized. Dr.R. Ravi/PW.12 is said to have conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued post mortem examination certificate. A. Nagaraju/
PW.13 is Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda, who conducted test identification parade of A1 and A3 on 20.09.2014.
J. Bhaskar Reddy/PW.14, Inspector of Police is first investigating officer, who investigated the case right from registration of First
Information Report till arrest of A1 to A3 and seizure of material objects. K. Ravindar Reddy/PW.15, second investigating officer, who filed charge sheet.
20. The point for consideration is:
Whether prosecution has established its case against accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ?
21. POINT:
The substance of the prosecution case is that accused No.2 wanting to do away with the deceased, who is her husband conspires with A1 and A3. The motive of accused No.2 in wanting her husband to be done away with was due to her extra marital relationship with A1
Page 18 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 and also her being beating by the deceased on several occasions. The entire case of the prosecution depended upon the circumstantial evidence for the murder is committed in night time and in secluded place. There is no one who witnessed A1 and A3 killing the deceased.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor advanced his argument contending that though prosecution has entirely depended upon the circumstantial evidence, prosecution has been able to establish the chain of circumstances by examining the prosecution witnesses and by exhibiting Ex.P19 and material objects.
On the other hand, the argument in favour of the accused No.2 is that prosecution has utterly failed to establish chain of circumstances as argued by the prosecutor and prosecution failed to establish the extra marital relationship of A2 with A1. The another argument in favour of the accused Nos. 1 and 3 is that before identification of A1 and A3 by
PW.6, photos of A1 and A3’s were published in newspapers and before identification of A1 and A3 by PW.6, their photos were shown to PW.6.
Therefore, identification of A1 and A3 by PW.6 shall be held to be invalid. The another argument in defence of the accused is that prosecution exhibited Ex.P19 to establish phone conversation between
Page 19 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
A1, A2 and A3, but Ex.P19 CDR shall not be relied upon, because that was not certified as required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act. In support of the argument of the accused that Ex.P19 shall not be acted upon the accused relied on the verdict of the Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in V. Jaya Latha v.State, Crl.A.No.1186 of 2015, dated June 4, 2019, reported in 2019 (2) ALD (Crl.) 650 (AP), wherein it is held that electronic records must be accompanied by certificate in terms of Section 65B. In support of the argument of the accused that identification of A1 and A3 by PW.6 shall be held invalid because photographs of A1 and A3 were published in newspapers
before identification parade relied on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Mayakaur Baldevsingh Sardar and another v.
State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 4 (SC) and decision in Ankush Maruti Shinde and others v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2019 SC (Criminal) 705 and in State
of Uttar Pradesh v. Wasif Haider etc., 2019 (1) HLT (Crl.) 318
(SC). The learned counsel appearing for accused No.1 contends that according to the medical evidence blunt injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased, but according to the case of the prosecution, A1 and A3 attacked with sharp edged knife. But, blunt injuries are not
Page 20 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 caused with sharp edged weapon, but no blunt objects are recovered by prosecution. In support of this contention, the learned counsel appearing for accused No.1 relied on a decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Surbhan, reported in 1996 (2) ALD (Crl.) 96 (D.B.).
22. Though death of the deceased was not disputed, the injuries on the dead body of the deceased were disputed. The learned counsel appearing for accused No.1 contents that according to the medical evidence ligature marks found on the throat of the deceased and blunt injuries were also found on the dead body of the deceased. But, no blunt object was seized by the investigating officers and no rope was seized with which only those injuries may be possible. Countering the argument of the learned counsel appearing for accused No.1, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that if accused was attacked and hit with reverse side of knife those blunt injuries in medical certificate Ex.P13 fractures of skull bone are formed on the dead body of the deceased may be possible. I am in agreement with the argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. According to the case of the prosecution, A1 and A3 punched the deceased. Therefore,
Page 21 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 blunt injuries are likely to cause. Therefore, there need not be always blunt object to cause blunt injuries. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the accused that no blunt object was recovered by the police to corroborate the blunt injuries found on the dead body of the deceased has no merits in it.
23. In order to establish the extra marital relationship of A2 with A1,
PW.4, who is brother-in-law of A2 was examined. His evidence in the chief-examination is that he got acquaintance with Gugulothu Ramu,
A1 during the time when he was working as Pharmacist in Kamineni
Medical College and when A1 was doing BDS in Kamineni Medical
College. Their rooms were situated side by side. His further evidence is that at the time of his engagement ceremony A2 went to their house along with him. From then onwards, A1 and A2 got acquaintance with each other. His further evidence is that some days later, they learnt that there was illegal intimacy between A1 and A2. After death of their brother Ravi Kumar, they got suspicion that A1 and A2 should have killed his brother. From the evidence of PW.4, we are not made aware of illegal intimacy of A2 with A1. His evidence is that he learnt that there was illegal intimacy between A1 and A2. His evidence is not
Page 22 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 direct evidence about the illegal intimacy of A2 with A1. He has been told by somebody else. Therefore, from the oral evidence of PW.4, we cannot arrive at a conclusion that there was an illegal intimacy between
A2 and A1. However, the evidence of PW.4 that he got acquaintance with A1 during the time when he worked as Pharmacist and A1 attended his engagement ceremony at which time A1 saw A2 provides some evidence to say that A1 and A2 saw each other and it is the repository to the subsequent turn of events. And what is more, no suggestion is made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused that PW.4 did not get acquaintance with A1 during the time when he worked as Pharmacist which suggests that A1 and PW.4 got acquaintance. Therefore, evidence of PW.4 to the extent that he got acquaintance with A1 remains unshaken. PW.4 says in his chief- examination that A1 went to their house at the time of his marriage fixation. But, in the cross-examination he admitted that he did not state in his statement before the police about A1’s having visited their house at the time of his marriage fixation. PW.4 omitted to state the same in his statement. But, minor omissions do not prove that entire case of the prosecution as false if chain of evidence is proved otherwise. From the evidence of PW.4 in whose evidence we do not see any suggestion
Page 23 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 about his having got acquaintance with A1 it can be presumed that A1 and PW.4 got acquaintance and A1 attended the engagement of PW.4 at which time A1 saw A2. And what is more, though there is no direct evidence with regard to the extra marital relationship of A2 with A1, from the phone conversation between A1 and A2, it can be presumed that there was illegal intimacy between A1 and A2. Ex.P19 provides sufficient evidence to say that there used to be extensive conversation between A1 and A2 on multiple occasions. It is not the defence of A1 and A2 that there was no acquaintance and there was no conversation between them through phones. And what is more, no defence is taken by the accused that cell phone bearing No.9959356183 does not belongs to A2 and cell phone bearing No.9494443210 does not belongs to A1. Therefore, an inference can be drawn from the phone conversation that there was a phone conversation between them which must have let them to extra marital relationship. Mere absence of direct proof, cannot destroy prosecution case. However, the learned counsel appearing for the accused objected for Ex.P19 to be received in evidence, because it was not supported by Section 65(B) certificate.
The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 2019 (2) ALD (Crl.) 650 (AP) Supra and the decisions of the Hon’ble
Page 24 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
Supreme Court in Ravinder Singh @ Kaku Versus State of
Punjab, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 461 relied on by A2 stresses the need of electronic records be supported by certificate as provided under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It is no doubt true unless the electronic record is not supported by certificate under Section 65B, it cannot be looked into. On this aspect, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor argues that though Ex.P19 has no nomenclature of certificate the substance of it is nothing but certificate under Section 65B. I perused Ex.P19 and which has contained in it as follows:
To: Addl. Supdt. Of Police (Admin), Nalgonda District.
Dear Sir,
Sub: Submission of Information called for – Regarding.
Ref: Cr.275/2014, U/s.120(b), 302, 201, 177 r/w 34 IPC of Devarakonda P.S.
With regard to the reference letter Cr.275/2014 U/s.120 (b), 302, 201, 177 r/w 34 IPC of Devarakonda PS., in which you requested us the Call details and CAF’s (Customer Application Form) for the mobile numbers 9441363850, 9959356183, 9494443210, 9000111381 and 9618303640 from 01.07.2014 to 05.08.2014.
Hence, we are submitting the Call details and CAF’s (Customer Application Form) for the mobile numbers 9441363850, 9959356183,
Page 25 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 9494443210, 9000111381 and 9618303640 from 01.07.2014 to 05.08.2014.
Thanking you
Your’s sincerely,
For Bharti Airtel Limited
Circle Nodal Officer,
Encl: CDR’s statement in CD.”
A reading of the above said certificate issued by Bharti Airtel
Limited, it becomes evident that it is given certifying the CDRs.
Therefore, I see no reason to refuse Ex.P19 from consideration on the ground of it is not being supported by certificate as required under
Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P19 along with CDRs is clear cut certificate of CDRs as required under Section 65(B) of the Indian
Evidence Act. Therefore, the objection taken by the learned defence counsel that Ex.P19 shall not be acted upon and it shall be discarded from consideration has no merit in it. Therefore, from the evidence of
PW.4 coupled with Ex.P19, it can be presumed that there was extensive phone conversation between A1 and A2 and it arises doubt in the mind of the Court in the absence of any defence taken by A1 and A2 that they did not have any such acquaintance and they did not have any phone conversation. That A1 and A2, having been silent about the
Page 26 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 alleged phone conversation beeps up the case of the prosecution that there was illegal intimacy between A1 and A2. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that there was an illegal intimacy between A1 and
A2. If a reference is made to the evidence of PW.4 and Ex.P19 it becomes evident that every judgment of normal mind would be the same. Therefore, decisions relied on by accused in V. Jaya Latha v.State, Crl.A.No.1186 of 2015, dated June 4, 2019, reported in 2019 (2) ALD (Crl.) 650 (AP) and Ravinder Singh @ Kaku Versus State of
Punjab, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 461 do not apply to the facts of the case, because Ex.P19 is coupled with certificate as stated above, though it has no nomenclature of certificate.
24. To speak about identification of A1 and A3 by PW.6, PW.6 was examined. PW.6 stated in his chief-examination to have seen A1 and
A3 while they were climbing steps of the house of the deceased. PW.6 also identified A1 and A3 in the test identification parade conducted by
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda/PW.13.
Further, the defennce of A1 and A3 is that PW.6 having been aided by police before test identification parade, he was able to identify A1 and
Page 27 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
A3, therefore, his evidence shall not be acted upon. This is how the evidence of PW.6 proceeds:
“On 15.07.2014, at 09.30 p.m., I along with Ramavath Pakeera,
LW.9 came to Kondamallepally from Hyderabad by bus. When we were about to go to our respective houses, we saw two persons climbing the steps of the house of the deceased, Ravi Kumar. Next day in the morning we came to know that the deceased, Ravi Kumar died.
Then, we went to the house of the deceased, Ravi Kumar and found his dead body. Two months after that police took me to Devarakonda Jail where Judge, Devarakonda asked me whether I could identify the persons I have seen on that day and I identified those two persons in test identification parade. Now I can identify those two persons”.
(Chief examination of PW.6, dated 29.09.2023, page No.1 lines from 4 to 12)
PW.6 identified A1 and A3 being those persons whom he saw while climbing the steps of the house of deceased and in test identification parade. In the cross-examination, PW.6 stated that he has not stated in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement the physical featurs of the accused. It was suggested to PW.6 that he identified A1 and A3 having
Page 28 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 been aided by the police at the time of their remand and the photographs of A1 and A3 were also shown to him, but he denied it.
PW.6 admitted in his cross-examination that photograph of A1 and A3 were published in the newspaper prior to their remand. Taking attention of the Court it has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the accused that as photos of A1 and A3 were published in newspapers
before remand of A1 and A3, PW.6 might have been able to identify
A1 and A3 in the test identification parade. Therefore, it throws any amount of doubt on the evidence of PW.6. Therefore, the evidence of
PW.6 shall not be acted upon. In support of the argument of accused
Nos.1 and 3 that as the photos of A1 and A3 were published in newspapers before test identification parade, their evidence shall not be acted upon, they relied on the decisions of the Syed Turbuddin and others v. State of A.P. represented by Public Prosecutor and others 2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 236(A.P.), decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Mayakaur Baldevsingh Sardar and another v. State of
Maharashtra – 2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 4 SC and Ankush Maruti
Shinde and others v. State of Maharasthra in AIR 2019 SC (Crl.)705. But, the above decisions do not rescue the accused for the following reasons.
Page 29 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
25. In Mayakaur Baldevsingh Sardar and another v. State of
Maharashtra cited supra, photograph of the accused shown to the witness before test identification parade and panchanama proceedings of the test identification parade was not produced and the Executive
Magistrate who conducted the parade has not been produced as witness.
But, in this case the facts are different. PW.13 Judicial Magistrate of
First Class was examined and test identification proceedings were
marked as Ex.P16. And what is more, in this case the photographs of accused Nos.1 and 3 were not shown to the witness/PW.6. The learned counsels appearing for A1 and A3 argued that photographs of A1 and
A3 were shown to PW.6. But that is not the evidence of PW.6. What he stated before the Court is that the photographs of the accused were published. This is how PW.6 testified in his cross-examination:
“ It is true photos of A1 and A3 were published in the
newspapers prior to their remand and also before their test
identification parade.” (Cross- examination of PW.6, dated.
29.09.2022, Page No.3 Lines from 9 to 11)
In Cross-examination of PW.6 by A2 in reply to the suggestion that police shown A1 and A3 at the time of their remand
Page 30 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 and also shown him photographs of A1 and A3. This is how PW.6 denied:
“ It is not true to suggest that police have shown me
A1 and A3 at the time of their remand and also shown me
photographs of A1 and A3.” (Cross- examination of PW.6,
dated. 29.09.2022, Page No.2 Lines from 27 to 29)
The above said admission and denial of PW.6 does not suggest that photographs of A1 and A3 were shown to him before test identification parade. The admission of PW.6 that photographs of A1 and A3 were published before test identification parade does not prove the identification of PW.6 as false, because the evidence of PW.6 does not become invalid for the wrongs committed by media persons due to the over enthusiastic acts. The another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Ankush Maruti Shinde and others v. State of Maharasthra - AIR 2019 SC (Crl.)705 will also not come in rescue of the accused.
In the said case, the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that dummy persons are selected by the police, but in this case dummy persons (non-suspects) are produced by the jail authorities and after satisfying himself that the non-suspects are of same age and physical feature PW.13 conducted test identification parade. PW.13 admitted in
Page 31 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 his cross-examination that jail authorities secured the non-suspects and one of the suspects is of 19 years old and there was no one in the non- suspects who are 19 years of age group. The points raised by the counsel appearing for A1 is trivial. Because, no two persons are alike in this universe in physical appearance. It is impossible for PW.13 to choose exact non-suspects like A1 and A3. It is impossible for PW.13 to secure the exact persons like A1 and A3. Therefore, I hold that
PW.13 not deviated any procedure in holding test identification parade.
Therefore, the decisions relied on by A1 and A3 will not support the defence taken by A1 and A3. The same is the case with other decisions relied on by A1 and A3. Further, it is elicited from PW.6 that the house of accused is divided by road from Mallepally bus stand and three shutters. By pointing out the evidence of Pw.6 that the house of the deceased was divided by road from Mallepally bus stand, it has been contended that it is not possible for anyone to see what is happening at the house of the deceased from Mallepally bus stand, from where PW.6 is said to have witnessed A1 and A3. But, I am unable to agree with the defence of the accused, because A1 and A3 were allegedly witnessed by PW.6 while they were climbing steps. Therefore, it may not be difficult for anyone to see the persons, who were climbing (accused)
Page 32 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 steps of the house of the accused. If the offence took place in the first floor, it might not be possible for PW.6 to see A1 and A3 as argued by the learned defence counsel. But, as the offence took place in the first floor, as stated above, it would not become impossible for PW.6 to see
A1 and A3. Therefore, it is not logical argument to say that because the house of the deceased was partitioned by roads and shutters it is not possible for PW.6 to identify. The evidence of PW.6 is supported by
PW.13. PW.13, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Miryalaguda testified that PW.6 identified A1 and A3 being the perpetrators. Basing on the evidence of PW.6 and PW.13, it can be concluded that PW.6 identified A1 and A3 being the perpetrators while they were climbing the steps of the house of the deceased. We do not see anything in the evidence of PW.6 and PW.13 as to whether PW.6 has any colour blindness, long or short sight or cataracts. It is not defennce of the accused that PW.6 has some eye problem which makes him unable to see. Therefore, I am placing reliance on the evidence of
PW.6 and PW.13 and I conclude that the evidence of PW.6 that he saw
A1 and A3 while climbing the steps of the house of the deceased is true.
Page 33 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
26. The another circumstance that have to be established is seizure of the material objects basing on the confession of A1 to A3 in the presence of PWs.10 and 11. PWs.10 and 11 are panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama of M.Os.1 to 6. But, both of them pretended to be ignorant of any seizure of material objects in their evidence. What their evidence is that police obtained their signatures
Exs.P5 to P8 and P9 to P12 respectively. Except admitting their signatures on confession cum seizure panchanamas, they pretended to be ignorant of anything. M.Os.5 to 7 and 9 are cell phones. M.O.5 is
Samsung black colour galaxy grand GT 19082 modal which has got in it Airtel SIM card number 9959356183. M.O.6 is Nokia company black in colour cell phone with Airtel SIM card number 9618303640. M.O.7 is cell phone seized from A1 and M.O.9 is cell phone seized from A3.
27. PWs.10 and 11 turned against the case of the prosecution.
However, just because PWs.10 and 11 turned hostile, the case of the prosecution that M.Os.5 to 9 were seized from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 3 does not become un proof, because the SIM numbers, IMEI numbers of M.Os.5 to 7 and 9 are tallied with Ex.P19.
Page 34 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
Therefore, it can be said that PW.14 seized M.Os.5 to 7 and 9 from the possession of A1 to A3.
28. If we make reference to Ex.P19 we see before murder of the deceased, many phone conversations took place from cell phone of accused No.2 i.e.,Phone No. 9959356183 and cell phone of Bujji i.e.,
Phone No.9618303640 and cell phone of accused No.1 i.e., phone
No.9494443210 and accused No.3 i.e., phone No.9000111381, which conveys that because of illegal intimacy of A1 and A2, they wanted to do away the deceased and A2 conspired with A1 and A3. On that day, according to Ex.P19, at 09:25:04, 09:28:10, 09:58:46, 10:06:10, 10:45:24, 12:38:20, 12:57:16, 15:08:43, 16:21:49, 16:38:55 and 18:15:54 phone conversations took place between those two numbers.
According to the case of the prosecution, on 15th July, 2014, Bujji/aunt of the deceased went to Narketpally hospital leaving her cell phone bearing No.9618303640 and from that phone number A2 made phone calls to the cell phone of A1 i.e.9494443210 not to be suspected by anyone. The above said phone conversations from the cell phone of
Bujji and accused No.1 beeps up the case of the prosecution. According to Ex.P19, at page No.33 of 63, we see outgoing call on 15.07.2014, at
Page 35 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 06:52:56 hours to the cell phone of accused No.1 from cell phone of
Bujji bearing No.9618303640 i.e., early in the morning after the murder of the deceased. Again, we see outgoing call to the cell phone of accused No.3 i.e. 9000111381 from the cell phone of accused No.1 at 08:15:28 hours on 16.07.2014. After outgoing call from cell number 9618303640 to cell phone of accused No.1 i.e. 9494443210 on 15.07.2014 and 16.07.2014, we do not see further phone conversation to cell phones of A2 to A1, which beeps up the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 after killing the deceased told to accused No.2 not to make any phone calls to him. And what is more, the evidence of
PWs.2, 3 and 5 provides evidence that A2 talked with them when they were with the deceased. Though their evidence is not of such relevant to the murder of the deceased, basing on their evidence it can be concluded that accused No.2 talked with them when they were with the deceased prior to his death. All the above said circumstances i.e., conversation between accused No.1, accused No.2 and accused No.3 provides sufficient evidence that till the execution of their conspiracy, they talked with each other and after that they stopped talking, so that they could not be suspected. Therefore, I conclude that the circumstances brought on by the prosecution by PW.6, PW.14 along
Page 36 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 with Ex.P19 and evidence of PWs.6 and 13 provides sufficient material that judgment of normal mind can also conclude that accused No.2 due to her extra marital relationship wanting to do away with her husband (deceased) conspired with accused Nos.1 and 3 and planned murder of the deceased and arranged things in such a way that accused Nos.1 and 3 would be able to observe the movements of the deceased through phone instructions and execute the plan and accused Nos.1 and 3 in furtherance of common intention executed their plan of murder of the deceased. Therefore, I also believe that accused Nos.1 to 3 together conspired and killed the deceased and A1 and A3 after murder of the deceased caused disappearance of evidence by pouring petrol on the dead body of the deceased. According to Section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act, a fact is said to be proved when after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought under the circumstances of a particular case to act upon with supposition. Therefore, from the material provided through PW.4, PW.6, PW.14 coupled with Ex.P19,
M.Os.5 to 7 and 9 and M.O.10 (knife), I consider the existence of the circumstances before killing the deceased and after killing is so probable that a prudent man ought under the circumstance case to act
Page 37 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 under the supposition. The prosecution through the evidence of PWs.4, 6, 14 and Ex.P19 and M.Os.5 to 7, 9 and M.O.10 brought circumstances before the Court to presume that those circumstances are probable to conclude that accused Nos.1 to 3 conspired to kill the deceased and killed the deceased.
29. In the light of what has been discussed, I come to irresistible conclusion that prosecution has established its case against accused
Nos.1 to 3 for the charges under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC and under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A3 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point is answered.
30. In the result, accused Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC and accused No.1 and 3 are punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC and they are convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences.
Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of September, 2023.
Sd/-
I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
Page 38 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
31. A1 to A3 are asked about the quantum of sentence to be imposed.
A1 reported that he is sole son to their parents and there is no one to take care of his parents and he himself has to take care of his parents.
So submitting he prayed to be graciously pleased to apply laws leniently in sentencing him. A2 also prayed to take lenient view stating that she has two children. The same is the case with A3. Having regard to the prayer of A1 to A3, I want to apply laws somewhat leniently in sentencing them.
32. Having regard to the prayer of A1 to A3 that they have old aged parents and small children, A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the charge under Section 120-B r/w 34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each in default of payment of fine A1 to A3 shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. For the charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC,
A1 to A3 shall undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each in default of payment of fine A1 to A3 shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. For the charge under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC, A1 and A3 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each and in default of
Page 39 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017 payment of fine, A1 and A3 shall undergo imprisonment for another one year. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period undergone by A1 to A3 shall be set off as provided under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds executed by A1 to
A3 shall stand cancelled. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are made aware of their right to prefer appeal. M.Os. 5 to 7 and 9/cell phones and
M.O.8/Pulsar motorcycle are ordered to be confiscated to the State after appeal time is over. M.Os.1 to 4 and 10/Towel, two shirts, four plastic disposable glasses, one bottle and knife respectively are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.
Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of September, 2023.
Sd/-
I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
PW-1 Ramavath Harja Father of the deceased.
PW-2 Jakkala Venkataiah Circumstantial witness and employee of the deceased.
PW-3 Ramavath Naresh Circumstantial witness.
PW-4 Ramavath Yadagiri @ Younger brother of the deceased. Giri
Page 40 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
PW-5 Ramavath Shiva Circumstantial witness.
PW-6 Ramavath Vijayender Circumstantial witness.
PW-7 D. Prabhu Videographed the scene and dead body.
PW-8 Angothu Laxman Circumstantial witness.
PW-9 Ramavath Nagesh Panch witness for scene of offence and inquest.
PW-10 Mandala Venkateshwarlu Panch witness for confession and recovery of A1 to A3.
PW-11 Avula Kishan Panch witness for convession and recovery of A1 to A3.
PW-12 Dr.R. Ravi Conducted autopsy and issued PME report.
PW-13 A.Nagaraju Conducted test identification parade of A1 and A3.
PW-14 J. Bhaksar Investigating officer, who arrested the accused.
PW-15 K. Ravindar Reddy Investigating officer, who filed charge sheet.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED
-NONE -
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
Ex.P.1 C.D. of video of scene of offence
Ex.P.2 12 photos of the dead body of the deceased Ravi Kumar.
Page 41 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
Ex.P.3 Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama along with rough sketch.
Ex.P.4 Inquest panchanama.
Ex.P.5 Signature of PW.10 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A1.
Ex.P.6 Signature of PW.10 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A2.
Ex.P.7 Signature of PW.10 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A3.
Ex.P.8 Signature of PW.10 on seizure panchanama of A1.
Ex.P.9 Signature of PW.11 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A1.
Ex.P10 Signature of PW.11 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A2.
Ex.P11 Signature of PW.11 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A3.
Ex.P12 Signature of PW.11 on seizure panchanama of A1.
Ex.P13 Post Mortem Examination Report.
Ex.P14 FSL Report.
Ex.P15 Requisition given by police.
Ex.P16 Test Identification Parade proceedings.
Ex.P17 First Information Report.
Ex.P18 Report
Ex.P19 C.D.R.
Ex.P20 Confession cum seizure panchanama of A2.
Page 42 of 42S.C.No. 220 of 2017
Ex.P21 Confession cum seizure panchanama of A1.
Ex.P22 Confession cum seizure panchanama of A3.
Ex.P23 Seizure panchanama.
Ex.P23 FSL report (It is mistyped as Ex.P23 instead of Ex.P24. Therefore, it shall be read as Ex.P24)
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED
NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS
M.O.1 : Towel (but Court observed that M.O.1 as lungi but not as towel) M.O.2 : Two shirts.
M.O.3 : Four plastic disposable glasses.
M.O.4 : One bottle.
M.O.5: Cell phone seized from A2.
M.O.6: Cell phone seized from A2.
M.O.7: Cell phone seized from A1.
M.O.8: Pulsar motorcycle.
M.O.9: Cell phone seized from A3.
M.O.10: knife.
Sd/-
I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
//True copy//
I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.