Page 1 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE:
BHONGIR
PRESENT: SRI A.JAYA RAJU,
PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE, BHONGIR
FAC.,I ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, BHONGIR
Tuesday, this the 18th day of February, 2025.
S.C. No. 185 of 2018
Name of the : The State through the Circle Inspector of Police, complainantBhongir Rural.
Name of the accused:Shetti srisailam, S/o: Yadagiri, age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Magdumpally (V) of Bibinagar Mandal.
Crime Number: 177 of 2016 of P.S., Bibinagar.
Offence Under Section: Under Sec. 302 IPC.
PRC No.: 05 of 2018 on the file of the Addl.Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir.
Case committed by: Ms. T.Nagarani, Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir.
Prosecution conducted : Sri N.Damodar Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor by
Defense conducted by: Sri S.Jaipal, Chief Legal-aid defense counsel for accused
Plea of the accused: Not guilty
Finding of the court: Accused is found guilty
Sentence of order: In the result, Accused is found guilty for the charge punishable under Section 302 IPC., therefore, he is convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C., for the above said charges.
Page 2 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018
Accused is sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment for the charge punishable under Section 302 IPC., and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to pay the fine to undergo imprisonment for two years.
The substantive sentence of imprisonment for the charges under Section 302 IPC., and consecutive sentences in default of payment of fine in aggregate shall run concurrently.
The Office is directed to furnish a copy of the Judgment to the accused as required under Sec.363 Cr.PC., enabling him to prefer an appeal within thirty days from today.
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Damodar Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri S.Jaipal, Chief Legal-aid defense counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The accused has been prosecuted by the State represented by
Circle Inspector of Police, Bhongir Rural of Yadadri- Bhongir district for the charges under Section 302 IPC, in Cr.No.177 of 2016 of P.S., Bibinagar.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
The deceased, Shetty Pedda Narsimha and accused, Shetti Srisailam are agnates and belong to the same village (Mugdumpally village). The marriage of the accused with his wife Laxmamma took place about 22 years ago. Their marital life went on smoothly for about 7 to 8 years and they were blessed with two sons and two daughters. After 7 or 8 years of their marriage,
Page 3 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018 his wife, Laxmamma, did not use to go to the accused and she used to refuse to share bed with him. Not being able to understand the attitude of his wife, accused used to clash with his wife. About 6 years ago at about 11.00 p.m, the accused bedded down outside his house, he noticed some one was focusing light towards his house with cell phone. He woke up and asked inquiringly who he was, then the said person took to his heels when the said person was running away, in the illumination of street lights accused found the said person to be no one else but deceased Pedda Narsimha. Then, he made aware of it to Akula Narsi Reddy who tried to convince him. Again on one day at about 10.00 p.m, he focused light with cell phone from behind back of his house towards his house. When, the accused raised cries asking inquiringly who he was, the deceased fled away. Again on one day while accused was going home, he noticed the deceased Pedda Narsimha going from his house.
Then, the accused apprehended that the deceased Pedda Narsimha had illegal intimacy with his wife Laxmamma. The deceased Pedda Narsimha was elder person in the village, as such thinking that no-body would believe if he makes aware of illegal intimacy of Pedda Narsimha with his wife, he did not disclose to any one and he himself used to feel suffered. While things stood thus, about 7 months ago, prior to date of murder of deceased (26.12.2016), in between 10.00 to 11.00 p.m while accused was returning to his house after attending his calls of nature, again he found deceased Pedda Narsimha focusing light with his cell phone then, the accused inquiringly and indignantly
Page 4 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018 asked who he was, then deceased Pedda Narsimha took to his heels. Then, his suspicion on deceased got beefed up. Accused clashed with his wife
Laxmamma and not being able to control his anger beat his wife with wooden handle of axe, whereby, wife of the accused received bleeding injuries to her chin. On that day itself, accused went away from village and wife of the accused also went to her parental house at Choutuppal and started living there separately from the accused in a rented house. In connection with beating of Laxmamma by accused no complaint has been lodged. After that, whenever, the accused goes to his village, the deceased used to spit at seeing the accused saying something within himself which caused humiliation to accused. Wife of the accused firmly stated that, she would not join with the accused, therefore, the accused bore grudge against deceased Pedda
Narsimha thinking that he disintegrated his family and caused his wife to be separated therefore, accused decided to do away with deceased Pedda
Narsimha. In order to kill deceased Pedda Narsimha used to carry with him an axe sharpened thoroughly. On 26.12.2016 in between 11.00 or 11.30 a.m accused found deceased talking with Kashapaka Krishna and Emjala Mohan @ Monil sitting in front of kirana shop of Nagu Yadagiri. That time also at seeing the accused, deceased spate, then accused grew wild. After having spit, accused saw, deceased cleaning his hands bending his head down.
Then, accused thought that, it was the right time to do away with him and went to deceased Pedda Narsimha and hacked on nape of deceased with an axe
Page 5 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018 and fled away throwing axe in to his house. Then, the son of the deceased by name Shetti Chiranjeevi who was getting his wound on his leg cleaned at
R.M.P Dr. Kishan whose clinic was opposite to the Kirana shop of Nagu
Yadagiri saw it and took deceased to Bhongir Hospital to some distance in an auto, later in ambulance and doctors in the hospital declared the deceased brought dead.
3.In connection with murder of the deceased Pedda Narsimha, on the complaint lodged by Shetti Chiranjeevi, PW1, son of the deceased, PW13,
D.Suresh Kumar, SI of Police, Bibinagar P.S registered case in Cr. No.
177/2016 against the accused, under section 302 of IPC and investigated into.
4.During the course of investigation all the witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the case were examined by PW14, A. Arjunaiah,
CI of Police, Bhongir. During the course of investigation, Voggu Pandu, PW7 brought the accused to police station and surrendered accused before, PW14 stating that he confessed before him that he had killed the deceased and accused was also appeared in such a way that, he would confess his guilt.
On that, at the instructions of PW14, Nimmala Srilatha, PW11 and Nashaboina
Dasharatha, LW18 enquired the accused about what happened. Then, accused confessed above story of killing deceased on account of illegal intimacy of Pedda Narsimha with his wife. Basing on the confession of accused, PW14 seized axe from the house of the accused in the presence of
Page 6 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018 same panchas. After having investigated the case which involved subjecting the dead body of the deceased to post-mortem, conducted inquest panchanama scene of offence panchanama and collected PME report, according to which death of the deceased was due to Neuro hemorrhagic shock, PW14 filed charge sheet against the accused under section 302 of IPC, this is the prove story of the prosecution.
5.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC., against the accused by the learned Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, vide PRC No.05 of 2018 and committed the case to this court finding that, the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and furnishing copies of the case documents to accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
6. Hon’ble Prl. District Court, Nalgonda court took the case on file against Accused in S.C.No.185 of 2018 for the offences punishable under
Section 302 IPC., and transferred to V Addl. District and Sessions Court,
Bhongir. In view of newly establishment of I Addl. District and Sessions
Judge’s Court, Yadadri-Bhongir vide orders in Roc. No.2166/2022-B.SPL, Dt:
31.5.2022 of the Hon’ble High Court for the state of Telangana this case is received from the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge’s court, Yadadri-
Bhongir vide procdgs. Dis. No.277/3/2022, Dt: 10.6.2022 for trial and disposal.
Page 7 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018
7.This Court having considered the record framed charges under
Section 302 IPC., against accused and read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied the said charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW14 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and M.O.1 to M.O.4.
9. Now let us see who are those witnesses and what are those documents exhibited by the prosecution in S.C.No.185 of 2018.
Shetti Chiranjeevi, PW1, is the complainant and younger son of deceased.
Shetti Raju, PW2, is circumstantial witness and elder son of deceased.
Chiliveru Kishan, PW3, is circumstantial witness and RMP doctor who gave treatment to PW1 and first aid to deceased .
Chunchu Ashok, PW4, is circumstantial witness who helped the PW1 in taking the deceased in an auto to the Area hospital, Bhongir.
Thirandas Bhaskar, PW5, is an auto driver –cum- owner who shifted the deceased in his auto to Area hospital, Bhongir.
Kashapaka Krishna, PW6, is eye witness but turned hostile.
Page 8 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018
Voggu Pandu, PW7, is the one, to whom extra judicial confession is made by accused.
Akula Narsi Reddy, PW8, is circumstantial witness.
Jitta Narsi Reddy, PW9, is circumstantial witness but turned hostile.
Ravula Nagaraju, PW10, is panch witness for scene of offence panchanama.
Nimmala Srilatha, PW11, is panch for inquest, seizure and confession of accused.
Dr. G. Raju, CAS, PW12, is the one who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.
PW13, D.Suresh Kumar, S.I., of Police, is the one who issued FIR.
PW14, A. Arjunaiah, is Circle Inspector of Police, Bhongir Rural Circle, who investigated the case and filed charge sheet.
10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., concerning the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against him for which he denied the said evidence and reported no defense evidence.
11.Heard, both and perused the evidence on record.
Page 9 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018
12.Now the point for determination is :
“Whether the prosecution has established its case against accused for the charge punishable under Section 302 IPC., beyond all reasonable doubt”?
13.POINT: The argument for the prosecution is that, the case of the prosecution is corroborated by evidence of PW1, 5, 7 and PW11 to 14 on all aspects. Therefore, accused is liable to be punished for the charges U/Sec.
302 of IPC.
14.Another argument on behalf of the prosecution is that, the defense counsel took the defense that, the deceased Pedda Narsimha died due to fall on plough but, there is no basis for the defense. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that, deceased Pedda Narsimha died by falling on plough.
15.On the other hand, the argument on behalf of the accused is that
PW1 who is no other than son of the deceased was shown as eye witness, but if the evidence of PW1 and PW5, T. Bhasker, R.M.P doctor is examined closely it becomes evident that, PW1 had no ocassion to witness accused hacking his father. The kirana shop where the incident occurred and the clinic of PW5, where PW1 took treatment at the time of the incident is separated by a road and dressing room was on the back side of clinic of PW5. Therefore, it would not possible for PW1 to see what happens at Kirana shop where accused alleged to have hacked the deceased. The another defense is that
Page 10 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018 according to PW5 who conducted PME on the dead body of the deceased stated in his cross-examination that, the injury sustained by deceased may be possible when a person falls on sharp objects like plough. Therefore, in the absence of direct evidence and evidence of PW1 is doubtful, it is to be concluded that the deceased died by falling on plough.
16.The evidence of PW13 who issued FIR on 26.12.2016 and evidence of PW14, who is the Investigating Officer and filed charge sheet is simply repetition of whatever has been stated in the charge sheet. Therefore, their evidence in their chief examination is not being adverted to for a perusal of the story of the prosecution is sufficient to know what their evidence is.
17.In order to establish the death of the deceased, the prosecution has examined Nimmala Srilatha, PW11, panch witness for inquest and Dr. G.
Raju, PW12 who conducted PME in addition to PW1 and PW2. However, as the death of the deceased is not in dispute, I do not regard again the death of the deceased is to be proved.
18. As prosecution established death of the deceased by examining
PW1 and PW2 and PW11 inquest panchanama and Dr. G. Raju, PW12, what is now to be proved by the prosecution is “Whether, it was the accused who hacked the deceased to death”?
Page 11 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018
19.PW1 is none other than the son of the deceased who is alleged to have witnessed the accused hacking deceased. The counsel appearing for the accused contends that a close examination of the evidence PW1 and PW5 would prove that, it is not possible for PW1 to witness the accused hacking deceased, because the Kirana shop where the incident took place and the clinic of the PW5 is separated by road and the dressing room existed on the back side of the clinic of the PW5. Another argument of the accused is that,
PW1 being son of the deceased bound to support case of the prosecution, therefore, his evidence is to be discarded. I hold that, nowhere, it is stated in the Evidence Act that, a particular number of witnesses are required for proving a fact. Section 134 of Evidence Act requires no particular number of witness are required to prove a fact. According to Sec.134 of Evidence Act, conviction can be based on evidence of a single witness provided it is cogent.
It is not also correct to say that, evidence of interested witnesses is to be casted aside. Evidence of any witness can be taken into consideration provided it is believable and inspires confidence. The case of the prosecution is that both deceased, PW1 together came out from their house on the date of the incident i.e., on 26.12.2016 and PW1 witnessed the accused hacking his father. Now let us see the evidence of PW1.
This is how PW1 stated in his chief examination:
Page 12 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018
“On 26.12.2016 I and my father repaired the pipe lines at
Agricultural fields and when we returned to our house, we
had our lunch and came out and I got injury to my leg then
we went to RMP Doctor at Chowrastha of the village and my
father was waiting at Pan Shop and also running kirana
shop which belongs to Nagun Yadagir and opposite to that
shop the RMP Doctor hospital was situated.
“In the meantime my father was chit chatting with Kasapaka
Krishna and Emjala Mohan. My father removing the gum
which was attached to his hands. At the same time I am at
the hospital and I am observing my father. At the same time
the accused Shetty Srisailm came with an Axe and beat my
father on the back side of the neck and he fled away and my
father fell on the ground. Immediately I came there and
engaged an auto and the RMP doctor gave some cotton and
I pressed the wound to stop the bleeding. In the mean time I
called ambulance when we were reached the Teachers
colony 108 ambulance came there and we shifted him to
Area Hospital, Bhongir and the doctors examined him and
declared that my father brought dead. My father’s dead
body was shifted to mortuary. Later I lodged a complaint
against the accused. Ex.P1 is the complaint. My father act
as village elder. In one of the case of the accused my father
reprimanded him as such he might have attacked on my
father.”
(chief examination of PW1, dt: 20.3.2024 lines from 3 to 8 of
Para No.2 and lines from 1 to 15 of Para No.3 of PW1).
20.The above said lines spoken by PW1 would speak that he witnessed the accused hacking his father when he was at the clinic of R.M.P
Doctor, PW5. Though, PW1 was cross-examined by the learned defense counsel extensively he could not elicit any contra evidence which helps the
Page 13 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018 accused. The only defense taken by the accused is that as the accused was getting his wound cleaned at the clinic of PW5 it would not possible for PW1 to witness what is being happened at the kirana shop where deceased was killed, but the evidence on record does not suggest that it is not possible for the PW1 to witness what was happened at the scene of offence. There is no evidence to suggest that doors of the clinic of the PW5 was closed. If the doors of the clinic of PW5 kept open, it can be seen what is being happened at the scene of offence even if it is assumed that PW1 was getting his wound cleaned by being in the back side room of clinic. Therefore reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW1 that he witnessed the accused hacking his father.
21.The motive of the accused to kill deceased is his suspicion on deceased that he had illegal intimacy with his wife. The evidence of PW1, 7 and 9 suggest that deceased would be acting as elder in the village and deceased admonished accused once in a panchayath. The evidence of PW1 and 7 do not suggest that deceased had illegal intimacy with wife of accused but their evidence suggest that deceased reprimanded accused. The case of the prosecution is about his suspicion over the deceased, he did not disclose to anyone. Therefore, the suspicion over the deceased might be within the accused himself, therefore it was the reason why PW1 and 7 ignorant of about suspicion of accused.
Page 14 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018
22.However, the evidence of PW9, Jitta Narsi Reddy would tell us that, accused informed him about his suspicion about the illegal intimacy of accused with his wife, though PW9 spoke in opposition to the case of the prosecution in the cross-examination by the Addl. P.P and also in the cross- examination by defense counsel he clearly and categorically stated that, accused informed him about his suspicion.
This is the evidence of PW9 in his cross-examination:
“Accused told me and others that deceased had illegal
intimacy with his wife. I reprimanded the accused that
illegal intimacy may not be true. Thereafter, the deceased
died.”
(Cross-examination of PW9 by Addl. P.P, dated: 9.7.2024,
lines from 1 to 3).
If we make reference to the evidence of PW7 we become aware of the motive of the accused, this is the evidence of PW7 about his having acted as elder:
“Pedda Narsimha is acted as elder person of our village.
On that he pacified the matrimonial matter between
accused and his wife. Subsequently accused wife left the
company of the accused. Keeping this in view by the
accused he attacked on Pedda Narsimha.”
(Chief-examination of PW7, dated: 10.4.2024, Para 2 lines
from 4 to 7).
23.To disprove the evidence of PW7 that he was not present at the time of conducting panchayath by deceased Pedda Narasimha, the defense
Page 15 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018 counsel cross-examined on that point , but, the learned defense counsel could not make PW1 to speak anything that he was not present when panchayath was conducted.
This is how PW7 stated in his cross-examination:
“I was very much present at the time of conducting of
panchayath by Pedda Narsimha with regard to matrimonial
of accused and his wife.”
(Cross-examination of PW7, dated: 10.4.2024, Para 2 lines
from 2 to 4).
24.The evidence of PW1 and 7 clearly establish the motive of the accused for killing deceased and what is more the evidence of PW1 who witnessed the accused hacking the deceased is not shaked by the accused.
Therefore, as stated above reliance can be placed on the sole evidence of
PW1 and can be concluded that it was the accused who killed the deceased and death of the deceased was not due to fall on plough as suggested by the counsel for the accused.
25.The evidence of doctor, PW12 that the injury received by the deceased may be possible due to fall on plough would not help the accused, because he did not rule out the possibility of alleged injury being caused, otherwise itself is not a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution, because it is supported by eyewitness, PW1.
Page 16 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018
26.And about axe the evidence of PW11 is relevant. The case of the prosecution is that, basing on the confessional statement of the accused, police seized axe from the accused in the presence of PW11, panch witness for seizure of axe.
In the chief-examination PW11 stated as follows:
“Police recorded confessional statement of accused.
Police seized an axe from the accused and police also
seized blood stained clothes of deceased under cover of
separate panchanama. MO.1 is the axe seized in my
presence.”
(Chief-examination of PW11, dated: 15.7.2024, Page no.2,
Para no. 1 lines from 3 to 5).
“And chief examination of PW11, dt: 20.12.2024 page No.1, line No.3:
Though, PW11 was cross-examined her evidence remained unshaken.
27.The case of the prosecution is that, PW7 surrendered the accused before the police as accused made extra judicial confession to him.
The case of the prosecution is supported by PW7 as far as surrender of accused by PW7 is concerned. This is the evidence of PW7 in his cross- examination:
“Subsequently, the accused met him and confessed about
the guilt and he asked me to keep mercy on him and I
handed over the accused to police”
Page 17 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018
(Chief-examination of PW7, dated: 10.4.2024, Page no.2,
Para no. 3 lines from 1 to 3).
28.To the extent that, PW7 surrendered accused before the court his evidence can be relied on because there is no rebuttal evidence to disbelieve his evidence.
29.Viewed from any angle right from deceased Pedda Narsimha going to the scene of offence along with his son PW1, witnessing the accused hacking deceased by PW1, motive of the accused to kill the deceased and surrender of the accused by PW7, seizure of MO.1, prosecution established its case by examining PW1, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Their evidence contributes substantially at arriving the truth that it was accused and no-body else who killed the accused as provided in section 3 of the Evidence Act. Prosecution established the chain of circumstances regarding motive of the accused, surrender of the accused, confession and seizure of accused and also proved by examining PW1 that it was accused and no-body else who killed the deceased. Thus, by examining PW1, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the charges under section 302 of IPC. Accordingly point is answered.
Page 18 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018
30.In the result, Accused is found guilty for charges punishable under
Section 302 IPC and accordingly, he is convicted under Section 235(2)
Cr.P.C., for the said charge.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I. Transcribed by her. Corrected
and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18 th day of February, 2025.
PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BHONGIR.
FAC., I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
BHONGIR
31. Regarding the quantum of the sentence accused is asked whether he has anything to say about the quantum of the sentenced to be imposed. Then Accused replied that Laws may be applied leniently in punishing him.
32.The punishment for the charge under Section 302 IPC., is death or imprisonment for life and fine.
33.The accused prayed to taking lenient view in punishing him. The offence under section 302 of IPC is grave and the punishment prescribed for the said offence is death or imprisonment for life and fine. Considering, the prayer of the accused, I feel inclined to take some what lenient view in punishing the accused.
Page 19 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018
34.Accused is sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment for the charge punishable under Section 302 IPC., and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to pay the fine to undergo imprisonment for two years.
The substantive sentence of imprisonment for the charges under
Section 302 IPC., and consecutive sentences in default of payment of fine in aggregate shall run concurrently.
The Office is directed to furnish a copy of the Judgment to Accused as required under Sec.363 Cr.PC., enabling him to prefer an appeal within thirty days from today.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I. Transcribed by her. Corrected and pronounced by me
in the open court on this the 18 th day of February, 2025.
PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BHONGIR.
FAC., I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
BHONGIR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECITON
PW.1LW1: Shetti ChiranjeeviComplainant and younger son of the deceased.
PW.2LW2: Shetti RajuCircumstantial witness and elder son of deceased
PW.3LW7: Chilveru KishanCircumstantial witness
PW.4LW9: Chunchu AshokCircumstantial witness
PW.5LW10 : Thirandas BhaskarShifted the deceased to the hospital
PW.6LW5: Kashapaka KrishnaEye witness
PW.7LW11 : Voggu PanduExtra judicial confession
Page 20 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018
PW.8LW13 : Akula Narsi reddyCircumstantial witness
PW.9LW12 : Jitta Narsi ReddyCircumstantial witness
PW.10LW15 : Ravula NagarajuPanch for scene of offence panchanama
PW.11LW16 : Nimmala srilathaPanch for inquest, seizure and confession of accused.
PW.12LW19 : Dr. G. Raju, CASHeld autopsy over the dead body of deceased
PW.13LW21 : D.Suresh KumarIssued FIR.
PW.14LW22 : A. Arjunaiah, CI of PoliceInvestigating Officer and filed charge sheet
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
Nil.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1Dt:26.12.2016Complaint given by PW1
Ex.P.2Dt:26.12.2016161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6
Ex.P.3Dt:26.12.2016Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch.
Ex.P.4Dt:26.12.2016Inquest panchanama of deceased.
Ex.P.5Dt:26.12.2016Seizure panchanama of clothes.
Ex.P.6Dt:27.12.2016PME report
Ex.P.7Dt:26.12.2016Original FIR
Ex.P.8Dt:28.12.2016Copy of panchanama
Ex.P.9Dt:14.3.2017FSL report
FOR DEFENCE
-Nil-
Page 21 of 21 S.C.No. 185 of2018
MATERIAL OBJECTS
M.O.1: Axe M.O.2: Blood stained earth collected from scene of offence. M.O.3: Ordinary earth collected from scene of offence. M.O.4: clothes and towel seized from deceased.
PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BHONGIR.
FAC., I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
BHONGIR