Fair copy 1 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::: JANGAON
Monday, 30th day May, 2022
Present: Smt. A. Kanchana Reddy, Assistant Sessions Judge, Jangaon.
S.C.No.52 of 2021 01Name and description The State of Telangana through the Sub- of the complainantInspector of Police, P.S. Narmetta.
02Name and description A-1 Azmeera Balaram, S/o: Maliya, Age:40 of the accusedyears, Caste: Lambada, Occu: Agriculture,
A-2 Azmeera Maliya, S/o: Venya, Age: 70 years, Caste: Lambada, Occu: Agriculture,
A-3 Azmeera Nagender, S/o: Velya, Age: 50 yrs, Caste: Lambada, Occu: Agriculture,
All are R/o:Venyathanda, H/o: Lokyathanda village of Narmetta mandal, Jangaon District.
03Offence charged u/S.306 r/w 34 IPC 04 Cr. No. and Name of the Cr.No.17/2020 of P.S. Narmetta police station 05P.R.C.No.24/2020 06Case committed by Sri. D. Ajay Kumar, Judl. First Class
Magistrate, Janagaon
07Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 08Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 09 Sentence or order In the result, the accused No-1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishableu/S.306r/w34IPC. Accordingly, A1 to A3 are acquitted u/S.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any
Fair copy 2 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 deposited in the court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 10Prosecution conducted by Sri. A. Veeramallaiah, Additional Public Prosecutor 11Accused are defended bySri V. Prasada Rao,counsel for accused No- 1 to 3 -o0o-
This case is coming before me on 30/05/2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A. Veeramallaiah, Additional Public Prosecutor,counsel for the State/Complainant and of Sri. V. Prasada Rao, counsel for all the accused No-1 to 3; Upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the material papers on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Narmetta, has filed the charge sheet in Cr. No.17/2020 against the accused No-1 to 3 for the offence punishable u/S.306 r/w 34 IPC.
2.The case of the prosecution is :-
That, LW1/Bhukya Shankar is the complainant and father of deceased
Azmeera Lalitha. LW2/Bhukya Sugunamma is the wife of LW1 and mother of deceased Azmeera Lalitha. LW3/Bhukya Raju is the son of LWs1 and 2 and brother of deceased Azmeera Lalitha. LW4/Ajmeera Shankar is the husband of deceased Azmeera Lalitha. LW5/Dharavath Vinod is the relative of deceased Azmeera Lalitha. LW6/Islavath Jalandhar is the neighbour of LW4 and deceased Azmeera Lalitha. LW7/Jannu Bixapathi is the photographer.
LW8/Banoth Ramulu is the relative of LW4. LW9/Ajmeera Chandu and LW10/
Banoth Sitharam are the panchayat elders. LW11/Guguloth Renuka,
LW12/Bhukya Laxmi and LW13/Kanthi Rajalingam are the panch-witnesses
Fair copy 3 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 for inquest panchanama. LW14/Islavath Ravi and LW15/Banoth Sakru are the panch-witnesses for Crime Details Form. LW16/Guguloth Thirupathi and
LW17/Bhukya Mangu are the panch-witnesses for seizure of suicide death note and a pocket note book from LW1. LW18/Y. Srikanth, supplied the photocopy of aadhar with original (admitted) signature of deceased Azmeera
Lalitha. LW19/Dr. Raza Malik Khan is the Professor, FMD & Tox, KMC,
Warangal, who held autopsy over the dead body of deceased Azmeera
Lalitha. LW20/Y. Neeraja is the medical officer, who examined the viscera of deceased Azmeera Lalitha and issued RFSL report. LW21/Dr. V.Muralidhar, is the assistant Director, who examined the hand writings of deceased
Azmeera Lalitha and issued report. LW22/A. Rajendram is the 1st investigating officer and LW23/J. Prameshwar, S.I., of police, P.S. Narmetta is the 2nd investigating officer.
A1 is the own brother of LW4 and brother-in-law to deceased Azmeera
Lalitha. A2 is the father of LW4. A3 is the relative of A1 and A2.
3. On 27/01/2020 at 17-30 a.m., the complainant LW1/ Bhukya Shankar lodged a report before LW22/A. Rajendram, Head Constable 1727 of P.S.
Narmetta stating that he performed the marriage of his daughter Azmeera
Lalitha in the year 2012 with LW4. The couple were blessed with a son by name Karthik and two daughters Navya and Divya and lead happy marital life. In the year 2017, LW4 and Azmeera Lalitha purchased a house from
A1/Azmeera Balaram, who is the own brother of LW4 for Rs.30,000/- paid the said amount to A1 under a note, took the house into their possession and residing in the said house. Since the date of purchase LW4 and deceased
Fair copy 4 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
Azmeera Lalitha are in possession of the said house. Prior to one month from the date of incident A1 started harassing LW4 and deceased Azmeera
Lalitha by saying that the house belongs to him and he has not sold the house to LW4. In that regard, A2 and A3 supported A1. In that regard, LW4 and deceased Azmeera Lalitha approached the caste elders and held a panchayat. Even after that A1 not stopped the harassment towards LW4 and deceased. On 26/01/2020 A1 to A3 again placed the issue before village elders, in which LW4 and deceased Azmeera Lalitha were called by village elders and made an equiry and decided that the house belongs to LW4 and admonished the accused. But A1 to A3 paid deaf ear, abused LW4 and deceased Azmeera Lalitha in filthy language and warned LW4 and also abused deceased Azmeera Lalitha saying that “ఇం�� ఎం�ధు�బ్ర�తికిఉన్న�వే, ఏధై�నా మం�ధు తాగి చావు చావు”. Later, LW4 and deceased Azmeera Lalitha left from the panchayat and LW4 went to work place. The deceased Azmeera Lalitha felt insult and in the absence of LW4 committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison and was shifted to Area hospital, Jangaon with the help of LW6 in an ambulance, and from there she was shifted to MGM hospital, Warangal, for better treatment and died on 26/01/2020 at 10-30 p.m., while undergoing treatment.
4.On receipt of the above complaint, LW22 registered the same as a case in Cr. No.17/2020 u/S.306 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW22 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the mortuary room of MGM hospital, Warangal, where he conducted inquest over the dead body of
Fair copy 5 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 deceased Azmeera Lalitha in the presence of LWs11 to 13, got photographed the dead body by LW17 and sent the corpse to KMC,
Warangal, for PME. Later, LW22 visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, and he prepared crime details form in the presence of LW14 and 15 and handed over the CD file to LW23 for further investigation.LW23 who verified the file and found it on correct lines, visited the scene of offence and seized a death note of deceased Azmeera Lalitha in the presence of LW16 and 17 and a pocket note book under cover of panchanama. On 05/06/2020
LW23 sent the material objects to Hand writing expert and on 29/01/2020 he arrested A1 to A3 and sent them to judicial custody. After due investigation, and after collection of PME report, FSL report, LW23 filed the charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offence punishable u/S.306 r/w 34 IPC.
5. After receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate of I
Class, Jangaon, took cognizance against the accused No-1 to 3 for the offence punishable u/Ss.306 r/w 34 IPC and registered the case as P.R.C.
No.24/2020.
6. The learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents to the accused No-1 to 3 as required u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and having found prima facie case for the offence punishable u/S.306 r/w 34 IPC. Sec.306 IPC, which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions committed the case to the court of Sessions, Sessions Division, Warangal, u/Sec.209 (a) Cr.P.C. for trial.
Fair copy 6 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
7. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Warangal, took the case on the file as
S.C.No.208 of 2021 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to Law .
8. On appearance of the accused No-1 to 3, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel were heard and charge u/S.306 r/w 34 IPC was framed against all the accused, read over and explained the same to the accused No-1 to 3 in Telugu, for which the accused No-1 to 3 pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.
9. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pws1 to PW 15 and given up the evidence of Lws.5, 7, 13,18, 19, 20, and 22 whereas
LW10 died and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P23 documents.
10. The accused No-1 to 3 were examined u/S.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence appeared against them, in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.
11. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned
Defence counsel for A1 to A3. Perused the record.
12. The plea of accused No-1 and 3 is one of total denial and false implication.
13. Now the points for consideration are :
“1. Whether the prosecution could bring home guilt of
accused No-1 to 3 for the offence punishable
u/S.306 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
2. To what relief?
Fair copy 7 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
14. POINT No-1:-
To establish the alleged offence punishable u/S.306 r/w 34 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that in view of the dispute regarding the house accused No-1 to 3 abused the deceased Azmeera Lalitha in most filthy language and abetted her to commit suicide and die. Hence, consumed poison and died.
The accused No-1 to 3 were charged for the offence punishable u/Ss.306 r/w 34 IPC. The plea of the accused No-1 to 3 is one of total denial and false implication.
15. The prosecution has examined Pws1 to PW15. PW1 is the complainant and father of deceased Lalitha. PW2 is the mother of deceased and wife of PW1. PW3 is the son of PWs1 and 2 and brother of deceased
Lalitha. PW4 is the husband of deceased Lalitha. PW5 is the relative of deceased Lalitha. PW5 is the neighbour of LW4/PW4 and deceased Lalitha.
PW6 and PW11 are the panch-witnesses for inquest. PW7 is the relative of deceased Lalitha. PW8 is the panchayat elder. PW9 and PW10 are the panch-witnesses for crime details form. PW12 and 13 are panch-witnesses for seizure of suicidal death note of deceased Lalitha. PW14 is the Hand
Writing Expert and PW15 is the investigating officer.
16. LW1/PW1/Bhukya Shankar stated to be complainant and father of deceased Lalitha deposed that LW2/B. Sugunamma is his wife, Lw3/ B. Raju is his son, deceased B. Lalitha was his daughter, LW4/A. Shankar is the husband of his deceased daughter, LW’s 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 are his relatives.
A1 is his son in-law’s/LW4’s elder brother, A2 is father of A1 and LW4, A3 is
LW4’s cousin brother. His daughter B. Lalitha is no more, she died. A2 owns
Fair copy 8 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 a house and A2 has given one room each to A1 and LW4, A1 sold his room to
LW4, after 8 years again A1 demanded LW4 to hand over his room, which
LW4 purchased from A1, by then the parents of A1 and Lw4 were residing in the room purchased by Lw4 from A1. Thereafter, some disputes arose between his daughter/B. Lalitha and her father in-law/A2, due to which his daughter/B. Lalitha demanded A2 to vacate her room. Thereafter, A2 vacated the room of his daughter/B. Lalitha and started residing in a hut.
Since then A1 to A3 started troubling his daughter/B. Lalitha by conducting panchayaths and scolding her very often. At about two years back, one night his daughter/B. Lalitha along with her husband/LW4 has been to Surpanch of their village and informed that, A1 to A3 were troubling them, next day morning the surpanch of their village, conducted a panchayath regarding the same, in the said panchayath as per the advice of the elders PW1’s daughter/B. Lalitha agreed to contribute Rs.50,000/- towards her share to build a house for A2, wherein A1 stated that, he is not going to contribute even a single penny as the house of A1 is in the occupation of LW4.
Thereafter, A3 started scolding pw1’s daughter/B. Lalitha on the pretext that, she did not permit her paternal uncle/A2 to stay in her house. Even A1 started scolding PW1’s daughter/B. Lalitha stating that, she has no capacity to contribute Rs.50,000/- to A2 to construct a house. A panchayath was conducted in presence of surpanch on one republic day, wherein A1 and LW4 contributed Rs.2,000/- each for the panchayath. The elders decided that the mistake is on the side of A1, after completing panchayath LW4 has been to
Narmetta on his work, his daughter/B. Lalitha has been to her house, and A3 herein came to the house of his daughter/B. Lalitha and started scolding her
Fair copy 9 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 in UN-parliamentary languange, by stating “ ఇం�� ఎం�ధు� బ్ర�తికిఉన్న�వే, ఏధై�నా మం�ధు తాగి చావు చావు” . Thereafter, he does not know whether his daughter/B. Lalitha was beaten to death, or she consumed poison due to humiliation. LW6 called
Lw4 over phone, and informed that, his daughter/B. Lalitha consumed poison. Thereafter, LW4 informed him the same, his daughter/B. Lalitha was shifted to Area Hospital, Jangaon in an ambulance by 5.00 P.M.He has been to Area Hospital, Jangaon, thereafter his daughter/B. Lalitha was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal for better treatment, on the same day, at around 10.30 P.M while undergoing treatment his daughter/B. Lalitha died in
MGM hospital, Warangal. On the next day, at 10.30 a.m he lodged Ex.P1 report with police, Narmetta. Police examined him and recorded his statement.
During the course of cross-examination by the counsel for A1 to A3,
PW1 stated that LW4 is the scribe of Ex.P-1 report. Lw4 studied up to 10th standard, he know the contents of Ex.P-1 report, Ex.P-1 report was written by LW4 on his own but not at his instance. He only endorsed his thumb impression on Ex.P-1 report. The disputes regarding house started in the family of accused, about two months prior to death of his daughter/B.Lalitha, his daughter/B.Lalitha had three children. The three children of his daughter/B.Lalitha are residing with LW4 and also with A1 and
A2, some times, they visit them also. A2 is residing with A1 in two room house constructed by A2. A1 and LW4 thought of constructing a house for their parents.
Fair copy 10 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
PW1 admitted that till the death of his daughter/B. Lalitha, they have not lodged any report with police. On the date of lodging Ex.P-1 report, SI of police examined him and recorded his statement, he does not remember whether he has not stated to police that, A2 was residing in hut by then and that the parents of LW4 and A1 were residing in hut for 8 years by then and that A2 vacated the room of LW4 and started residing in a hut. He does not remember whether he has stated to police that, his daughter/B. Lalitha agreed to contribute Rs.50,000/- to construct a house by A2 and that A1 and
LW4 deposited Rs.2,000/- each with the surpanch for conducting panchayath, and that A3 stated to his daughter/B. Lalitha that “ ఇం�� ఎం�ధు� బ్ర�తికిఉన్న�వే, ఏధై�నా మం�ధు తాగి చావు చావు” and thatLW6 called LW4 and informed that the wife of Lw4 consumed poison. PW1 further admitted that he never attended any panchayath conducted in respect of house disputes in the family members of his deceased daughter/B. Lalitha before her death. Further PW1 admitted that A1 to A3 are no way connected with the family affairs of LW4 and his wife, the disputed house was constructed by A2 hence neither A1 nor
LW4 being the sons of A2 have no right over the same and that the sons of
A2, partitioned their properties and were residing separately since long time his deceased daughter/B. Lalitha and her husband/LW4 along with A1 to A3 had labour card. Further PW1 admitted that after demise of his deceased daughter/B. Lalitha her husband/LW4 received Rs.1,30,000/- from the
Government in an insurance scheme from Labour welfare department, by informing the government that the death of B. Lalitha is natural death.
Fair copy 11 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
PW1 denied the suggestions that, A1 and Lw4 forcibly taken the two room house constructed by A2 from the possession of A2 and they were using one room each with out the consent of A2 and LW4 has not purchased a room from A1. Further PW1 denied the suggestion that, taking the advantage of death of his daughter/B. Lalitha his son in-law/LW4, started black mailing A1 to A3 with an intention to squeeze money from A1 to A3, hence got issued the present false report against A1 to A3 through him. A1 to A3 never, scolded or insulted or demanded anything from his deceased daughter/B. Lalitha and her husband/LW4 at any point of time. Further PW1 denied the suggestion that as the amount received by LW4 from Labour welfare department due to the death of his daughter/B. Lalitha was not sufficient, they have (LWs1 to 4) filed a false case against A1 to A3 only to extract money from them and as there is no false on the part of A1 to A3 for the death of his daughter/B. Lalitha, he never lodged any report against A1 to A3 and he is deposing false.
17.LW2/PW2/B. Sugunamma said to be the mother of deceased Lalitha stated that LW1/B. Shankar is her husband. Lw3/ B. Raju is her son, deceased B. Lalitha is her daughter, LW4/A. Shankar is the husband of her deceased daughter, LW’s 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 are their relatives. A1 is her son in-law’s/LW4’s elder brother, A2 is father of A1 and LW4, A3 is LW4’s cousin brother. Her daughter/B. Lalitha died at about two years back. Her daughter/B. Lalitha and her husband/LW4 purchased the house of A1, after 5 to 6 years of selling the same by A1 to LW4, A1 started claiming that he has not sold the said house to Lw4, a panchayath was conduced in respect of
Fair copy 12 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 same in presence of surpanch and it was held that, A1 is wrong in the said panchayath by the elders. After one month, once again a panchayath was conduced in respect of same issue wherein A1 and LW4 deposited
Rs.10,000/- each for panchayath. After panchayath the elders held that, there is no mistake on the part of LW4 hence returned Rs.10,000/- to LW4 and panchayath elders retained Rs.10,000/- deposited by A1. After panchayath Lw4 has been to Narmetta on his work, while her daughter/B.
Lalitha returned to her house, A3 herein came to the house of her daughter/
B. Lalitha and started scolding her in UN-parliamentary language stating that even. Her daughter/B. Lalitha has to hand over the deposited Rs.10,000/- to the panchayath elders, her daughter/B. Lalitha returned Rs.10,000/- to the panchayath elders. Thereafter, A1 scolded her daughter/B. Lalitha saying the “ఇం�� ఎం�ధు�బ్ర�తికిఉన్న�వే, చావరాధే” , thereafter, at around 3 to 4.00 p.m her” daughter/B. Lalitha consumed poison, said information was given to them by
LW4 and her daughter/B. Lalitha was shifted to Area hospital, Jangaon, they rushed to Area hospital, Jangaon, she was referred to MGM hospital,
Warangal hence shifted to MGM hospital, Warangal. While undergoing treatment she died at MGM hospital, Warangal, on the same day at 10.00
P.M after three days of death of her daughter/B. Lalitha they found suicide note of her daughter on her bed at her house.
During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for A1 to A3, PW2 stated that she does not know the designation of the police officials who recorded her statement.
Fair copy 13 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
PW2 denied the suggestion that she has not stated to the police that,
A1 and Lw4 deposited Rs.10,000/- each for panchayath and panchayath elders retained Rs.10,000/- of A1 and returned Rs.10,000/- of Lw4 to him and that the suicide note of her daughter/B. Lalitha was found on her bed at her house and that A3 scolded her daughter/B. Lalitha at her house. PW1 stated that after three days of death of B. Lalitha they found suicide note of B.
Lalitha and came to know the cause of death of B. Lalitha hence lodged report with police, then. PW2 volunteered that, “Police never examined her nor recorded her statement” police only examined her husband and son. She has not stated any dates to police. Five years prior to death of her daughter/
B. Lalitha, A1 sold his house to Lw4. She came to know regarding the house disputes and panchayaths between family members of accused through her son in-law/LW4, after the death of her daughter/B. Lalitha.PW2 denied the suggestion that, A1 never stated to her daughter/B. Lilatha stated that “ఇం�� ఎం�ధు� బ్ర�తికిఉన్న�వే, చావరాధే” and scolded her in UN-parliamentary language. A1 to”
A3 are no way connected with the death of her daughter/B. Lalitha, but only to extract money from A1 to A3 she along with her husband, son and son in- law foisted a false case against A1 to A3 and that she is deposing false, only to extract money from the A1 to A3.
PW2 admitted that, the disputed house is belongs to A2 but it is not the house of either A1 or Lw4 and that, A1 has no right to sell the portion of the house to Lw4 as the said house was owned by A2.
18.LW3/PW3/ Bhukya Raju stated to be brother of deceased B. Lalitha deposed that LW1/B. Shankar is his father. LW2 is his mother, deceased B.
Fair copy 14 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
Lalitha is his sister, LW4/A. Shankar is the husband of his deceased sister,
LW’s 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 are their relatives. A1 is his brother in-law/LW4’s elder brother, A2 is father of A1 and LW4, A3 is LW4’s cousin brother. His younger sister/B. Lalitha died on 26-01-2020 by consuming poison, A3 serves in
Army. His sister’s marriage was performed with Lw4, about 9 years back, she had one son and two daughters. His sister/B. Lalitha purchased the house of
A1, after 2 to 3 years of purchasing the same by his sister, A1 started claiming that he is the owner of the house sold to his sister. A2 when was preparing to vacate the house purchased by his sister from A1, his sister asked A2 to reside in the house purchased by her from A1 and A2 continued staying in the said house, the relation between accused and his deceased sister/B. Lalitha was cordial then. A3 instigated A1, stating that, A3 will purchase the house of A1 and A3 made the panchayaths conducted between the family members of A1, A2 and LW4. A3 is related to them also. The panchayaths went on for one week, even they were called for said panchayath but they have not been to the said panchayath, as the dispute was between agnates and the matter will be settled. About two years back, a panchayath was conduced and A1 and Lw4 deposited Rs.2,000/- for the panchayath. The panchayath elders decided that the A3 is on false side.
The panchayath elders returned Rs.2,000/- deposited by his sister to her, his sister returned home the amount deposited by A1 was retained by panchayath elders. Thereafter, A3 came to the house of his sister and scolded his sister, and again conducted a panchayath and took away
Rs.2,000/- which was returned to his sister and paid the same to panchayath elders. LW4 has been to Narmetta, thereafter, he does not know what
Fair copy 15 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 happened whether his sister was beaten or scolded. A3 scolded his sister stating, “ఇం�� ఎం�ధు� బ్ర�తికిఉన్న�వే, పురుగు� మం�ధు తాగి చావు చావు . After one hour”Lw4 informed them, that his sister consumed poison, they came to Area Hospital,
Jangaon, as doctors were not available his sister was shifted to MGM
Hospital, Warangal on the same day in between 9.30 to 10.00 p.m his sister died in MGM hospital, Warangal, on returning home on the same day they found the suicide note of his sister on the bed in her house.
During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused No-1 to 3 PW3 stated that on 27-01-2020 they found the suicide note of his sister. Lw4 on the same day handed over the said suicide note to police. He has seen Lw4 handing over suicide note of his sister to police.
They found the suicide note at around 5.00 p.m, immediately they handed over the same to the police. From one week prior to death of his sister, she was informing PW3 over the phone regarding the panchayaths held among their family members.
PW3 admitted that he cannot say the exact dates of the panchayaths and the particulars of the panchayath elders in respect of panchayaths held among the family members of his sister. PW3 further deposed that LW4 purchased the house from A1. Lw4 deposited Rs.2,000/- with panchayath elders. His sister purchased the house from A1 for consideration of
Rs.30,000/- and same was written on a stamp paper. He does not remember the year and date of purchase of said house by his sister. He has not stated to police the year of purchase of house by his sister from A1. He has not stated before police as in Ex.D-1 i.e., part of 161 Cr.P.C statement of
Fair copy 16 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
PW1 stating that his sister purchased the house from A1 in the year 2017.
At around 6.00 a.m., on 27.01.2020 police examined him and recorded his statement, on 27-01-2020 they have been to police station to lodge report at 6.00 a.m. His father and Lw4 together gave report to police at 6.00 a.m on 27-01-2020. Postmortem was conducted over the body of his sister at Warangal MGM in the after noon on 27-01-2020. On 27-01-2020 they came to police station lodged the report and has been to MGM hospital,
Warangal. He know that Lw4 has received Rs.1,30,000/- from Labour
Department stating that his wife (sister of PW3) died naturally and the disputed house was owned by A2. A1 has no right to sell part of it to Lw4 and even Lw4 has no right to purchase the same from A1 who has no title over the said house. He has not stated to police that A3 instigated A1 and he has not stated to police that A3 instigated A1.
PW3 denied the suggestion that having claimed compensation from the Labour department stating that the death of his sister is natural death only to harass A1 to A3 and to extract money from them, they foisted a false case against them and that no house was sold by A1 to Lw4 but only for the purpose of the case they created a story of selling the house by A1 to LW4.
Further PW3 denied the suggestions that he has not stated to police that, his sister has purchased a house from A1 and that he has not stated to police that, the panchayath took place for one week and that A1 and LW4 deposited Rs.2,000/- each with panchayath elders and A3 took away the returned Rs.2,000/- from his sister and gave to panchayath elders. He along with Pws 1, 2 and Lw4 foisted a false case against A1 to A3 by creating a
Fair copy 17 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 story of selling and purchasing the house by A1 and Lw4 respectively. A3 never stated to his sister that “ఇం�� ఎం�ధు� బ్ర�తికిఉన్న�వే, పురుగు� మం�ధు తాగి చావు చావుand ” he has not stated the same to police.
19. LW4/PW4/Ajmeera Shankar said to be husband of deceased Lalitha deposed that PW’s 1 and 2 are his parents in-law. He know Lws 3, 5 to 10 and they are his near relatives. He know A1 to A3 standing in the dock, A1 is his elder brother, A2 is his father and A3 is his cousin brother. Deceased
Lalitha was his wife, and she is no more as she died by consuming poison about two years back.She consumed poison, as she was suffering with severe stomach pain. Police never examined him, nor recorded his statement.
During the course of cross-examination by the Addl. P.P. PW4 denied the suggestion that he stated before police as in Ex.P-2. ie., 161 Cr.P.c statement of pw3 stating that, in view of dispute regarding the house A1 and
A3 insulted his wife, due to which she consumed poison and now he is deposing false to protect A1 to A3 who are his family members.
20. LW6/PW5/Islavath Shankar stated to be nieghbour to PW4 and deceased Lalitha stated that he know Lws 1 to 5, he know A1 to A3, they are his neighbours, he know deceased Lalitha, she died about one year back by consuming poison. He does not know the reason for consuming poison by deceased Lalitha. Police never examined him nor recorded his statement.
During the course of cross-examination by the learned Addl. P.P. of
PW5 denied the suggestion that he stated before police as in Ex.P-3 ie., 161
Fair copy 18 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
Cr.P.c statement of pw5 stating that, on 26-01-2020 at 1.30 p.m on the request of pw4, who said that his wife/ B. Lalitha consumed pesticide and she was to be shifted to hospital, he shifted said B. Lalitha to the hospital along with PW4 and he is deposing false, having compromised the matter with the accused nos.1 to 3.
21.LW12/PW6/Bhukuya Laxmi and LW11/PLW11/Guguloth Renukha said to be panch-witnesses for inquest. PW6 and PW11 deposed that they know one another they are relatives to deceased Lalitha, she died about two years back by consuming poison. On receipt of said information they have been to MGM hospital, Warangal, and endorsed their signatures i.e., Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 on inquest panchanama, dt.27/01/2020.
22.LW8/PW7/Banoth Ramulu said to be relative of PW4 and deceased
Lalitha stated that he know Lws 1 to 7, 9 and 10, and A1 to A3, they are all his relatives. He know the deceased Lalitha, she died about two years back by consuming poison. LW10/B. Sitharam is no more, he died about three days back. He does not know the reason for consuming poison by deceased
Lalitha. Police never examined him nor recorded his statement.
During the course of cross-examination by the learned Addl. P.P. PW7 denied the suggestion that he stated before police as in Ex.P-4. ie., 161
Cr.P.c statement of pw7 stating that, on 21-02-2019 at 10.00 a.m he received Rs. 20,000/- from pw4, and as a token of receipt of same, the wife of pw4, namely B. Lalitha, endorsed her signature on the note book, by
Fair copy 19 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 mentioning the same, and now he is deposing false, having compromised the matter with the accused nos.1 to 3.
23. LW9/PW8/Ajmeera Chandu stated that he know Lws 1 to 4 and A1 to A3, they are all his thanda people. He know the deceased B. Lalitha, she is wife of Lw4, she is no more, she died about one and half years back by consuming poison. He does not know the cause of consumption of poison by
B. Lalitha. Police never examined him nor recorded his statement.
During the course of cross-examination PW8 denied the suggestion that he stated before police as in Ex.P-5. ie., 161 Cr.P.c statement of pw8 stating that, he was the panchayath elder, in the panchayath held between the family of accused and Lws 1 to 4 and he is deposing false to help the accused, as he got the matter compromised with the accused.
24.LW14/PW9/Islavath Ravi and LW15/PW10/Banoth Sukru stated to be panch-witnesses for crime details form deposed that they know one another and Ex.P-6 and Ex.P7 are their signatures on CDF, Dt:27-01-2020 . At about two years back, one of the police constable came to their village, and asked them to sign on one paper, without knowing the contents and reason, they endorsed their signatures, they do not know the contents of CDF.
During the course of cross-examination by the learned Addl. P.P. of
PW9 and PW10 denied the suggestion that the police prepared CDF in their village after demise of B. Laitha, in their presence and after knowing the contents of CDF, they endorsed their signatures and they are deposing false to help the accused.
Fair copy 20 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
25.Lw16/PW12/Guguloth Thirupathi and LW17/PW13/Bhukya Mangu are said to be panch-witnesses for seizure of suicide death note and one pocket note book from PW1, PW12 deposed that he know Lws 17/D. Mangu, he know deceased A. Lalitha, who died about two years back, due to disputes at her house, she consumed poison and died. Deceased A. Lalitha is his cousin sister, on receiving the information that, his cousin A. Lalitha died, he had been to MGM Hospital, Warangal, after completing PME over the body of A.
Lalitha, they have been to the house of A. Lalitha, and he came to know that, a letter written by A. Lalitha, was traced at her house, by her brother/B. Raju/
Pw3 and husband of A. lalitha ie., Pw4/A. Shanker, concerned police, took away the said letter written by A.Lalitha by obtaining PW12’s signature, Ex.P- 10 is his signature on Seizure panchanama Dt:30-01-2020 along with him
Lw17 also endorsed his signature on seizure panchanama. Ex.P-11 is the letter seized by the police, from the house of A. Lalitha after her death.
During the course of cross-examination of PW12 by the learned counsel for accused No1 to 3 stated that he endorsed his signature on seizure panchanama on 27-01-2020 at around 12.30 noon, initially he endorsed his signature at the house of A. Lalitha, thereafter, after 2.30 p.m, he was asked to come to PS, there again he endorsed his signatures at the instance of police at PS. Pws 3 and 4 together, shown him the letter, written by A. Lalitha ie., Ex.P-11. PW12 admitted that, he does not know the contents of Ex.P-11.
Fair copy 21 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
PW12 denied the suggestion that, Ex.P-11 is created by Pws 1 to 3, for the purpose of the case, though deceased A. Lalitha never written any letter
before her death including Ex.P-11 and he is deposing false.
PW13 deposed that he know Lw 12/G. Thirupathi, he know deceased
A. Lalitha, she died about two years back, Deceased A. Lalitha is his cousin sister, on receiving the information that, his cousin A. Lalitha died, he had been to MGM Hospital, Warangal, after completing PME over the body of A.
Lalitha, they have been to the house of A. Lalitha, and he came to know that, a letter written by A. Lalitha, was traced at her house, by her brother/B. Raju/
Pw3 and husband of A. Lalitha ie., Pw4/A. Shanker, concerned police, took away the said letter written by A.Lalitha by obtaining his signature, Ex.P-12 is his signature on Seizure panchanama Dt:30-01-2020 along with him Lw16 also endorsed his signature on seizure panchanama. Ex.P-11 is the letter seized by the police, from the house of A. Lalitha after her death. Police obtained his signatures at MGM Hospital, Warangal, and after two days police obtained his signatures at police station.
During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused No1 to 3 PW13 admitted that he did not remember the dates, on which, he endorsed his signature on seizure panchanama. PW13 stated that
Pws 3 and 4 together, shown to him the letter, written by A. Lalitha ie., Ex.P- 11 and that, he does not know the contents of Ex.P-11.
PW13 denied the suggestion that, Ex.P-11 is created by Pws 1 to 3, for the purpose of the case, though deceased A. Lalitha never written any letter
before her death including Ex.P-11 and he is deposing false.
Fair copy 22 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
26.LW21/PW14/Dr. V. Muralidhar stated to be Hand Writing Expert deposed that on 05-06-2020 their office received a requisition from ACP,
Jangaon for examination of certain documents as per opinion in crime
No.17/2020, of Narmetta PS. On a sheet containing questioned signature and writing marked by him as “Q”. Ex.P-11 is the said suicide note received by
PW4, for examination of hand writing of deceased A. Lalitha and to give the opinion PW14 also received standard signatures and writings of A. Lalitha on the following documents,
1. Self attested Pan copy containing standard signature marked by PW14 as S1. Ex.P-13 is the said copy of Aadhar card.
2. One pocket note book containing standard writings marked by PW14 as S2. i.e., Ex.P-14. PW14 carefully and thoroughly examined the questioned signature and writings marked “Q” with the standard signature and writings marked S1 and S2 and gave his opinion. “The person who wrote the red enclosed signature and writings marked S1 and S2 also wrote the red enclosed signature and writings marked “Q”. He has already submitted his reasons, along with his opinion in file no.DOC/68/2020, Dt:22-06-2020. Ex.P-15 is the said report and opinion, dt.22-06-2020.
During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused, PW14 denied the suggestions that as per his report, the signatures on pan card sheet and suicide note, are different and the report given by him is not proper, as he has not examined the documents sent to him properly.
Fair copy 23 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
27.LW23/PW15/J. Parameshwar stated to be investigating officer stated that on receipt of Ex.P-1 report, on 27-01-2020 Lw22 registered a case in crime no.17/2020 u/s 306 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR, Ex.P-16 is FIR issued by Lw22, thereafter, he has been to be MGM, hospital, Warangal secured the presence of Lws11 to 13, and conducted inquest panchanama over the body of deceased Lalitha, Ex.P-17 is the said inquest panchanma
Dt: 27-01-2020 and secured the presence of LW7 and obtained the
photographs of dead body of Lalitha, Ex.P-22 are the 4 photographs along with CD submitted by Lw7. On the request of Lw22, PME examination was conducted and report was issued by the Assistant Professor Forensic
Medicine KMC, Warangal Ex.P-18 is the PME report, Ex.P-19 is the final opinion report. Thereafter, on 27-01-2020, LW22 secured the presence of
Lws 14 and 15, and proceeded the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama i.e., CDF and sketch map, in their presence, Ex.P-20 is the CDF Dt: 27-01-2020. Thereafter, Lw22 handed over CD file to him, for further investigation, he found that, the investigation was on correct lines, hence, proceeded the further investigation. On 29-01-2020, he apprehended
A1 and A2, and produced them before Jurisdictional Magistrate for remand, on 02-02-2020, he apprehended A3, and produced before Jurisdictional
Magistrate, thereafter, he recorded the statements of Lws 1 to 6 and Lw8 to
10, on 30-01-2020 he secured the presence of Lws 16 and 17, and in their presence, he seized Ex.P-11 suicide note of deceased Lalitha, Ex.P-23 is the seizure panchanama and after examining Lw-8, PW15 also seized, Ex.P-14 the Pocket book,; thereafter, obtained Ex.P-13 I.e,. attested copy of Aadhar card of deceased Lalitha, from the bank of Baroda for examination and
Fair copy 24 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 report of disputed Ex.P-11 suicide note with that of admitted hand writing and signatures under Ex.P-13 and P-14 pertaining to deceased Lalitha and sent the same to TSFSL, Hyderabad and Ex.P-15 is the report/Opinion of hand writings expert/PW14, stating that the admitted signature and hand writing of deceased Lalitha, in Ex.P-13 and P-14 is the same, reflected in
Ex.P-11 suicide note. He collected, the report given by TSFSL, Hyderabad, after examining the viscera of deceased Lalitha, i.e., Ex.P-21, as per Ex.P-21
Organo Phosphate and in insecticide poison was found in item nos.1 to 3, pertaining to Intestinal part of deceased Lalitha, after completing investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for A1 to A3, PW15 stated that on 27-01-2020, the CD file was handed over to him by Lw22, hence he proceeded with further investigation. LW22 examined
Lws 1 to 7, he has not re-examined Lws 1 to 7, as he found it proper. He examined Lws 8 to 10, He also examined Lws 1 to 7, but not re-recorded the statements of Lws 1 to 7. He examined the witnesses at scene of offence, he examined Lws 1 to 7 and on 27-01-2020, and on 10-02-2020 he examined Lws 8 to 10.
PW15 denied the suggestions that Ex.P-1 report, is no way connected with Ex.P-11 suicide note, Ex.P-11 is created for the purpose of this case, to foist a case against A1 to A3. PW1 has not lodged Ex.P-1 report on 27-01- 2020 at 10.30 a.m. PW15 stated hat he is not aware that, after demise of
Lalitha, her husband/PW4 received Rs.1,30,000/- as insurance from the government i.e., Labour Commissioner claiming that, the death of Lalitha, is natural death. PW15 further stated that PW1 has not stated before him that,
Fair copy 25 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
A2 was residing in hut, and that, deceased Lalitha, promised to contribute
Rs.50,000/- for construction of house to A2. PW15 denied the suggestion that
PW2 was not examined by Lw22. Pw3 has not stated as in Ex.D-1. PW4 has not stated as in Ex.P-2 I.e, 161 Cr.Pc, statement of PW4. PW5 has not stated as in EX.P-3 I.e, 161 Cr.Pc, statement of PW5. PW7 has not stated as in
Ex.P-4 I.e., 161 Cr.Pc, statement of pw7. PW8 has not stated as in EX.P-5
I.e, 161 Cr.Pc, statement of pw8. Further PW15 denied the suggestions that as per the guidance of pws1 to 3, a false case is foisted against A1 to A3 though they are no way connected with the death of Lalitha and A1 to A3 never abetted Lalitha, to commit suicide.
PW15 admitted that the place of panchayath and date of panchayaths, were not mentioned in the charge sheet. In Ex.P-11 there is no mention that, in view of house disputes, Lalitha, committed suicide, PW15 volunteered that, though the said aspect is not mentioned in Ex.P-11 as per his investigation except house dispute, there were no other disputes between accused and deceased Lalitha. seizure panchanama pertaining to seizure of Ex.P-11 was conducted on 30-02-2020. Under Ex.P-23 seizure panchanama, he seized Ex.P-11 suicide note from the possession of pw1 from the house of pw1 and as per Ex.P-23, Ex.P-11 was recovered from the house of pw4., as per the statements of witnesses and in the charge sheet there is no mention regarding Ex.P-11 suicidal note.
28.The case of the prosecution is that on 26/01/2020 at 03-30 p.m., in view of the house dispute, A1 to A3 abused deceased Lalitha stating that “ఇం�� ఎం�ధు�బ్ర�తికిఉన్న�వే, ఏధై�నా మం�ధు తాగి చావు చావు . Hence, A. Lalitha felt” insult, vexed on her life and committed suicide by consuming pesticide
Fair copy 26 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 poison and died on the same day at 10-30 p.m. while undergoing treatment at MGM hospital, Warangal. Thus, A1 to A3 committed offence punishable u/S.306 r/w 34 IPC.
29. A1 is the brother PW4 and A2 is the father of PW4 and PW4 is the husband of deceased Lalitha and A3 is cousin of A2. PWs1, 2 and 3 stated to be father, mother and brother of deceased Lalitha are the circumstantial witnesses and their evidence is hearsay evidence. As per the evidence of
PWs1 to 3 they were intimated regarding the consumption of poison by
Lalitha by her husband/PW4. Immediately, they rushed to Area hospital,
Jangaon and thereafter Lalitha was shifted from there to MGM hospital,
Warangal, wherein while undergoing treatment Lalitha died on the same day at 10-30 p.m. Though, it is stated by PWs1 to 3 that a dispute regarding the house was existing between the family members of deceased Lalitha and accused. But, it is categorically admitted by PWs1 to 3 that they never attended panchayats held between the families of PW4 and accused in respect of house dispute among them before death of deceased Lalitha.
PW3 has categorically stated that they were asked to attend the said panchayat, but PWs1 to 3 did not attend the said panchayats as the dispute was within the family members of deceased Lalitha. PW2 stated that after the death of her daughter Lalitha they came to know regarding the existing dispute in respect of the house between the family members of PW4. Thus, there is discrepancy in the evidence of PWs1 to 3 regarding the time they had knowledge in respect of house dispute of Lalitha. PWs1 to 3 during the course of cross-examination categorically admitted that the disputed house was constructed by A2, hence, PW4 and A1 has no right over the same.
Fair copy 27 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
Though PWs1 to 3 stated that deceased Lalitha had purchased the house of
A1 (one room) for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Subsequently, A1 started claiming that he is the owner of the said house and he has not sold the said house to deceased Lalitha and PW4, panchayats were held in respect of the same, but no evidence in respect of said panchayath is placed before court.
30. PW8 stated to be panchayat elder when examined before the court stated that deceased Lalitha died about one and half year back by consuming poison, but, he does not know the reason for consumption of poison by deceased Lalitha and police never examined him and never recorded his statement. During the course of cross-examination by learned
Addl. P.P. PW8 has gone to the extent of saying that, he has not stated
before police as in Ex.P5 i.e., 161 Cr.P.C. statement stating that he was a
panchayat elder in the panchayat held between the family of accused and
PWs1 to 4. On the other hand, he most crucial witness PW4 stated to be husband of deceased Lalitha never stated that a dispute regarding the house was existing between the families of PW4 and accused.
31. It is the case of PWs1 to 3 that at the instance of PW4 they came to know that in view of dispute regarding the house between the family members of PW4 and accused,deceased Lalitha was abused by A1 to
A3, hence she felt insult for the same and committed suicide by consuming poison. But, PW4 categorically stated before the court that his wife Lalitha died about 2 years back by consuming poison as she was suffering with severe stomach pain. Thus, PW4 never stated as stated by PWs1 to 3 that
PW4 informed them regarding the house dispute between the family members of PW4 and accused, his wife Lalitha was insulted by accused,
Fair copy 28 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 hence she consumed pesticide poison. Thus, the evidence of PWs1 to 3 is not tallying with the evidence of PW4.
32.Further, PWs1 to 3 categorically admitted during their cross- examination that PW4, who is the husband of deceased Lalitha had received
Rs.1,30,000/- after the death of Lalitha from the Government in an Insurance
Scheme from Labour Welfare Department stating that death of his wife deceased Lalitha is natural death, which admission of PWs1 to 3 created doubt in the mind of court in respect of mode of death of Lalitha. Even
PW15/Investigating Officer during course of cross-examination stated that he is not aware whether after demise of Lalitha, PW4 received Rs.1,30,000/- insurance claiming that the death of Lalitha is natural death.
33.PW1 stated that A3 scolded Lalitha after panchayat in unparliamentary language , hence his daughter deceased Lalitha committed suicide whereas PW2 stated that A1 scolded her daughter deceased Lalitha after the panchayat, hence Lalitha committed suicide. PW3 also stated that
A3 scolded his sister deceased Lalitha in unparliamentary language, hence his sister committed suicide. Thus, there is a discrepancy in the evidence of
PWs1 to3 in respect of the persons, who scolded deceased Lalitha in unparliamentary language. However, PWs1 to 3 are only circumstantial witnesses and their evidence is a hearsay evidence without any supportive corroborative evidence of eye-witnesses their evidence alone cannot be relied on.
34.PW1 categorically stated that PW4 is the scribe of Ex.P1 report. Even PW3 stated that PW1 and PW4 had been to police station and lodged report, but PW4 never stated that he lodged report with police.
Fair copy 29 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
Further PW4 stated that police never examined him nor recorded his statement, and he has not stated before police as in Ex.P2 i.e., 161 Cr.P.C.
statement of PW4 stating that in view of dispute regarding the house, A1 and A3 scolded his wife, due to which his wife consumed poison and died.
Thus, the evidence of PWs1 to 3 cannot be relied on by the court in view of the evidence of PW4, who is the husband of deceased Lalitha.
35. PW1 specifically stated that he does not know whether his daughter
Lalitha was beaten to death or whether his daughter consumed poison due to humiliation. PW3 also stated that he does not know whether his sister deceased Lalitha was beaten or scolded. PWs1 to 3 stated that after the panchayat when PW4 left to Narmetta, his wife Lalitha committed suicide due to humiliation made by A3 as per PWs1 and 3, and as per PW2 in view of humiliation made by A1. But, it is not the case of PW4, who is the husband of deceased Lalitha, and crucial witness from which it is very clear that even
PWs1 to 3 are also not aware regarding the exact cause for consumption of poison by deceased Lalitha.
36PW1 never whispered regarding Ex.P11 suicide note. PW3 stated that on 27/01/2020 they found a suicidel note of his sister deceased
Lalitha on her bed in her house. On the same day PW4 handed over the said suicidal note to police and they found the said suicidal note at 05-00 p.m.
Immediately they handed over the said note to police. Whereas PW2 mother of deceased Lalitha categorically stated that three days after the death of her daughter Lalitha, they found suicidal note of Lalitha on her bed at her house. Whereas PWs12 and 13 stated to be panch-witnesses for seizure of
Ex.P11 suicidal note under Ex.P23 seizure panchanma, dt.30/01/2020 when
Fair copy 30 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 examined before the court stated that Ex.P10 and Ex.P12 are their signatures on seizure panchanama, dt.30/01/2020, through which Ex.P11 suicidal note was seized by police after the death of deceased Lalitha.
PWs12 and 13 categorically stated that they do not know the contents of
Ex.P11 suicidal note and PWs3 and 4 have shown Ex.P11 suicidal note written by deceased Lalitha to them, whereas it is stated by pW3 that on 27/01/2020 PW4 has handed over Ex.P11 suicidal note to police in his presence. Whereas PWs12 and 13 stated by panch-witnesses for seizure panchanama, dt.30/01/2020 of Ex.P11 suicidal note categorically stated the said seizure of Ex.P11 was made by police on 30/01/2020 under Ex.P23 seizure panchanama. Hence, it is not clear to the court whether the said
Ex.P11 suicidal note was seized by police on 27/01/2020 or on 30/01/2020.
As per seizure panchanama, i.e., Ex.P23 the said Ex.P11 was seized on 30/01/2020 thus, the seizure of Ex.P11 creates doubt in the mind of the court. The said Ex.P11 is most crucial. Hence, the genunity of Ex.P11 is to be scrutinized with care and caution. PW15/Investigating officer categorically stated that under Ex.P23 seizure panchanama, he seized Ex.P11 suicidal note from the possession of PW1 from the house of PW1 though as per
Ex.P23, Ex.P11 was recovered from the house of PW4, which admission of
PW15 reveals the mode of investigation made by investigating officer and the genunity of Ex.P11.
37. PW14 is the Hand Writing Expert as per his evidence, along with the said Ex.P11 suicidal note, one pocket note book containing the standard signature of deceased Lalitha i.e., Ex.P14 along with attested pan copy containing the standard signature of deceased Lalitha i.e., Ex.P13 were sent
Fair copy 31 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 to him for examination and opinion of hand writing expert/PW14 to know whether the disputed handwriting on Ex.P11 is the same handwriting of deceased Lalitha on Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 i.e., admitted handwriting of deceased Lalitha. PW14 issued Ex.P15 report and opinion, dt.22/06/2020 after examining the disputed hand writing of deceased Lalitha in Ex.p11 marked as “Q” with that of Ex.P13 pan copy containing the standard signatures of deceased Lalitha marked as “S1” and Ex.P14 one pocket note book containing the standard signatures of deceased Lalitha marked as “S2” and as per Ex.P15 report opined that the person who wrote Ex.P11 is the person who wrote on Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 as the signatures and hand writings marked in Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 are of the same persons writings and signatures, marked in Ex.p11 as per Ex.P15, dt.22/06/2020. Hence, the genunity of Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 is to be looked into by the Court. Hence, in view of the opinion of Hand Writing Expert/PW14 who stated that the person who has written on Ex.P11 is the person, who wrote on Ex.P13 and Ex.P14.
Ex.P13 is the copy of aadhar card wherein one signature is seen as A. Lalitha and Ex.P14 is the pocket note book wherein the hand writings of a person in
Telugu is seen, dt.20/01/2019 and the said Ex.P14 was seized by police from the house of deceased Lalitha and sent to Hand Writings Expert along with
Ex.P13.
38.PW7 is the only person, who is said to be relative of PW4 and has knowledge regarding Ex.P14. As per the prosecution PW7 stated that 21/02/2019 he took an amounts of Rs.20,000/- from PW4 and as a token of receipt of same, the wife of PW4 deceased Lalitha endorsed her signature on the note book by mentioning the same in a small pocket note book/Ex.P14.
Fair copy 32 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
But astonishingly PW7 when examined before the court only stated that deceased Lalitha died about 2 years back by consuming poison and he does not know the reason for consumption of poison by Lallitha. Police never examined him and nor recorded his statement.
39. During the course of cross-examination by the learned Addl. P.P.,
PW7 has been to the extent of saying that he has not stated before police as in Ex.P4 i.e., 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7 stating that on 21-02-2019 at 10.00 a.m he received Rs. 20,000/- from pw4, and as a token of receipt of same, the wife of pw4, namely B. Lalitha, endorsed her signature on the note book, by mentioning the same. Thus, a doubt is created in the mind of court regarding genunity of Ex.P14. However, a thorough perusal of Ex.P11 suicidal note, which reveals the cause of death of deceased Lalitha as per alleged Ex.P11 suicidal note is that in view of allegation that the deceased
Lalitha has illegal intimacy as per her brother-in-law, hence, A1 and A3 were called them to panchayat and though there was no mistake on behalf of them Rs.1,500/- penalty was paid by them and that A1 and A3 are responsible for the same and the names of eight persons were mentioned in
Ex.P11 wherein along with the names of A1 to A3, names of 5 other persons were mentioned in Ex.P11 but in respect of other five persons no investigation was made. There is discrepancy in the dates pertaining to seizure of Ex.p11 from the evidence of PW2, 3, PW12 and PW13 the genunity of Ex.P14 cannot be proved by the prosecution as PW7 turned hostile and PW4 being the husband of deceased Lalitha not even made any whisper with regarding to Ex.P14. Ex.P13 is the only signature of one A.
Lalitha on the copy of aadhar card, which is stated to have been received by
Fair copy 33 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 police from the Bank of Baroda, dt.27/02/2020 as the said attested copy of
Lalitha was with the said Bank wherein she was holding an account.
40. It is well settled Law that the said signature alone is not sufficient to compare the same as an admitted signature with that disputed Ex.p11 suicidal note. However, it is well settled Law that the opinion of the Expert is only opinion and court is not bound to rely entirely on the said opinion unless and until the same is satisfied by the Court with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case on hand, there is a suspicion regarding Ex.P14 pocket note book as neither PW4 nor PW7 admitted that
Ex.P14 contains the hand writings of deceased Lalitha and only the signatures of deceased Lalitha on Ex.P13 alone is not sufficient to come to appropriate opinion stating that Ex.P11 suicidal note was written by A.
Lalitha and the contents of Ex.P11 are not exactly tallying with the allegations levelled against A1 to A3 in the charge sheet and Ex.P1 report and even the reason for registering the crime against only three persons when the names of 8 persons were in Ex.P11, is not explained by the prosecution. Further it is admitted by PW15/Investigating officer that in
Ex.P11 there is no mention that in view of house disputes, Lalitha committed suicide, astonishingly PW15 volunteered that though the aspect regarding house dispute is not mentioned in Ex.p11 as per his investigation except house dispute there were no other disputes between them, but no evidence in respect of same is placed before the court by PW15 as he admitted that place of panchayat and date of panchayat were not mentioned in charge sheet. Hence, the genunity of Ex.P11 suicidal note could not be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
Fair copy 34 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
41. PW5 stated to be neighbour of PW4, who stated to have been shifted deceased Lalitha along with PW4 to the hospital on the alleged date of incident when examined before this court only stated that one year back by consuming poison deceased Lalitha died. He does not know the reason for consuming poison by deceased Lalitha. Police never examined him nor recorded his statement. PW5 has stated to the extent that he has not stated
before police as in Ex.P-3 ie., 161 Cr.P.c statement of pw5 stating that, on
26-01-2020 at 1.30 p.m on the request of pw4, who said that his wife/ B.
Lalitha consumed pesticide and she was to be shifted to hospital, he shifted said B. Lalitha to the hospital along with PW4 . Thus, the evidence of PW5 is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
42. The evidence of PWs6 and 11 stated to be panch-witnesses for inquest over the dead body of deceased Lalitha reveals that Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are their signatures on inquest panchanama, dt.27/01/2020. They knows one and another and they are relatives to deceased Lalitha, she died about two years back by consuming poison. On receipt of said information they have been to MGM hospital, Warangal and endorsed their signatures under Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. As the death of deceased Lalitha, is not in dispute, conducting of inquest at MGM hospital, over her body is not in dispute. Hence, the evidence of PWs6 and 11 reveals only to the extent that inquest panchanama was conducted by police over the dead body of deceased
Lalitha at MGM hospital, Warangal, on 27/01/2020.
43.PW8 said to be panchayat elder also did not support the case of prosecution. PWs9 and 10 stated to be panch-witnesses for Crime Details
Form, dt.27/01/2020 when examined before this Court stated that they
Fair copy 35 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022 know one another and Ex.P-6 and Ex.P7 are their signatures on CDF, Dt:27- 01-2020 . At about two years back, one the police constable came to their village, and asked them to sign on one paper, without knowing the contents and reason, they endorsed their signatures, they do not know the contents of CDF. Hence, the evidence of PWs9 and 10 is noway useful to the case of prosecution to prove that police visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama.
44. As per Ex.P18 and Ex.P19, the death of deceased Lalitha by consuming organo phosphate poison is not in dispute, however the reason for consumption of poison by Lalitha is not established before the court the most crucial witnesses, husband of Lalith/PW4 totally turned hostile, the evidence of PWs1 to 3, PW12, 13, 14 and 15 could not prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt in respect of alleged offence levelled against them. Thus, prosecution failed to establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the alleged offence against them.
45.POINT No-2:
In the result, the accused No-1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/S.306 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, A1 to A3 are acquitted u/S.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any deposited in the court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
(Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of May, 2022.)
Sd/-xxxxxxxxx
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
JANGAON.
Fair copy 36 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1:B.Shanakar -None- PW2:B. Sugunamma PW3:B. Raju PW4: A. Shankar PW5:I. Jalandhar PW6: B. Laxmi PW7: B. Ramulu PW8: A. Chandu PW9: I. Ravi PW10: B. Sakru PW11: G. Renuka PW12: B. Thirupathi PW13: B. Mangya PW14:V. Muralidhar PW15: J. Parameshwar
Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution:For Defence: Ex.P1: Report NIL Ex.P2 to Ex.P5: Statements of PW4,PW5, PW6 and PW8 u/S.161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P6: Signature of PW9 on Crime Details Form Ex.P7: Signature of PW10 on Crime Details Form Ex.P8: Signature of PW11 on inquest panchanama Ex.P9: Signature of PW6 on inquest panchanama Ex.P10: Signature of PW12 on seizure panchanama Ex.P11: Letter/suicide note Ex.P12: Signature of PW13 on seizure panchanama Ex.P13: Copy of aadhar card Ex.P14: Standard writings Ex.P15: Final opinion report Ex.P16: FIR Ex.P17: Inquest panchanama, dt.27/01/2020 Ex.P18: Postmortem Examination Report Ex.P19: FSL report and final opinion Ex.P20: Crime Details Form Ex.P21: Report given by TFSL, Hyderabad Ex.P22: Photographs(4 in number) along with CD Ex.P23: Seizure panchanama
Fair copy 37 S.C.No.52 of 2021 SCJ, Jgn. Dt.30/05/2022
Material Objects
-NIL-
Sd/-xxxxxxxxx
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
JANGAON.
//True copy//
Sd/-xxxxxxxxx
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
JANGAON.