Smt. A.Mary Grace Kumari, I ADJ

1

In the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Present:- Smt A.Mary Grace Kumari,

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, the 11th day of June, 2020.

Sessions Case No.193 of 2018

[On committal by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri

in PRC No.18 of 2018 in Cr.No.59 of 2017 of Kadiri Town PS]

Name of complainant :The Inspector of Police, Kadiri Urban Circle.

Crime No. and PS:Crime No.59 of 2017 of Kadiri Urban Police Station.

Name of accused:1. B.Bhagyamma @ Bhagya Lakshmi, aged 39 years, W/o late B.Gangadhar, Pottukottala, Rayachoty Road, Kadiri Town. (A1)

2. J.Ravindra @ Auto Ravi, aged 31 years, S/o Gangaraju, R/o D.No.3032, Main road, Kummaravandlapalli village, Kadiri Mandal. (A2)

3. Syed Moula, aged 29 years, S/o S.Khasim, R/o D.No.10-307-2, Jamiya Masijid Street, Bilali Nagar, Kadiri Town. (A3)

4. Farooq Samsheer, aged 24 years, S/o Farooq Shabbeer, R/o Jamiya Masjid Street, Bilai Nagar, Kadiri Town. (A4)

5. Shaik Shavuddin @ Batti @ Boddi Babu, aged 25 years, S/o S.Mahammad Rafiq, R/o Jamiya Masij Street, Bilai Nagar, Kadiri Town. (A5)

6. Shaik Babjan @ Chantodu @ Dikkodu, aged 23 years, S/o S.Sharfuddin, R/o Jamiya Masjid Street, Bilai Nagar, Kadiri Town. (A6) :U/sec.302, 201, 120-B (1) r/w 34 IPC.

Plea of accused:Not guilty.

Finding of Judge:Not guilty.

Order or Sentence: The Accused 3 to 6 are not found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.302 IPC, Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.302 r/w 34 IPC, Accused 2 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.201 IPC and Accused 1 to 6 are found not 2 guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.120-B (1) of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os.1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 11 shall put in Court auction and confiscate the sale proceeds to the State and M.O.9 shall be confiscate to State after expiry of appeal time. M.Os. 4, 5, 7 and 10 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The Office is directed to send the material objects to the Committal court. Communicate the copy of judgment to the learned JFCM, Kadiri to implement the property orders with regard to disposal of the case property according to law.

Case conducted by:Sri D.Rajasekhar Gowd, Addl,. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by:Sri L.Narasimha Reddy, Advocate, Anantapuramu.

This case is coming on this day i.e., on 8.6.2020 for hearing before me and after hearing the counsel of both parties (through Electronic Media Video Conferencing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by Inspector of Police, Kadiri Urban Circle has laid charge sheet against the Accused 1 to 6 in Crime No.59 of 2017 of Kadiri Town

Police Station U/secs.302, 201, 120 (B) IPC r/w 149 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that:-

P.Ws.3 and 4 are mother and brother of one B.Gangadhar (Herein after referred to as deceased). A1 is wife of deceased, A2 is paramour of A1, where as A.3 to A.6 are associates of A1 and A2.

About 25 years ago, the marriage of A1 was performed with deceased, they blessed with son and daughter. 2 ½ years prior to the death of the deceased, himself and his wife and children are residing separately in

Pottikottala of Rayachoti road of Kadiri town. The deceased was lorry cleaner.

There were disputes among the deceased and A1 due to illegal intimacy in between A1 and A.2.

3

On 2.3.2017 at about 2-00 p.m., the deceased visited the house of P.W.3 and had lunch in her house and went away. On 3.3.2017, while P.W.1 who is the then VRO of Yeguvapalli village of Kadiri mandal was in his office, Talari of

Kadiri Cluster II, namely Talari Srinivasulu (L.W.10) came to him and informed that, he noticed one male dead body with bleeding injuries in the unused well situated opposite to Pepsi Godown, then P.W.1 and L.W.10 visited the scene of offence and found the dead body in the said well. On the same day at about 11.30 a.m., P.W.1 presented Ex.P.1 report in Kadiri police station.

Basing on the said report, P.W.10 registered it as a case in

Cr.No.59/2017 under section 302 and 201 IPC and intimated the incident to the

Inspector of Police. As per the instructions of Inspector of Police, he intimated the incident to the Dog Squad, Anantapuamu.

P.W.11 the Inspector of Police took up investigation in this case on 3.3.2017, he visited the scene of offence along with P.W.1, situated at unused well near Pepsi Godown, Nizam vali colony, Kadiri town and found one male dead body, he got lifted the dead body from the well and enquired the persons gathered there and the dead body was identified by the persons who gathered there that the dead body belongs to one Bathala Gangadhar and he informed the same to the family members and relatives of the deceased and examined

P.W.1. On 4.3.2017 he continued his investigation, examined the panch witnesses and blood relatives of deceased and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.3 identified the dead body that it belongs to her son.

During inquest, P.W.11 examined P.Ws.2, 3 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. He seized blood strained earth and controlled earth at the scene of offence and photographed the scene of offence. After inquest, he send the dead body to the Govt., Hospital, Kadiri for PM Examination. The

Panch witnesses attested Inquest report. P.W.9 CAS, Govt., Area Hospital,

Kadiri conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued PM certificate and final opinion and opined that the deceased would have been died due to shock and hemmorrhage due to head injury. After PM examination, the Investigating Officer handed over the dead body to his blood relatives.

4

During the course of investigation, on 10.3.2017 at 9.30 a.m., while

P.Ws.10 and 11 were present in the office, P.W.11 received informed about the offenders, he secured the presence of P.Ws.7 and 8 and proceeded to new RDO building, beside Kadiri-Hindupur road, there they found one auto at the vacant place at the said building and two persons were there in the auto, on suspicion, they went there and questioned the said persons in the presence of mediators, who are A1 and A2. P.W.11 interrogated A1 and A2 in the presence of mediators and recorded their confessional statements and seized one cell phone each from A1 and A2 and bank receipt from A2 under the cover of mahazar. He also seized the said auto from the accused. Then he arrested A1 and A2, basing on the confession of accused, they all proceeded to one Welding shop, opposite to Dargah, Madanapalli-Kadiri road, A1 and A2 showed four persons to P.W.11, who are sitting in the said shop, on seeing the police, they tried to skulk away, they caught hold them and interrogated them, who are A3 to A6 in this case and they were interrogated and recorded their statements.

P.W.11 seized one cell phone and one ATM card and Rs.15,000/- cash from A3,

Rs.5,000/- cash each from A4 to A6. Basing on the confession of A3 to A6, they are proceeded to the place where they killed the deceased i.e., vacant place contain thorny bushes near Titanic Function hall with a distance of 50 meters from Kadiri-Madanapalli road, A3 to A6 showed blood strains on the way to the said road from the thorny bushes, they also shown one iron rod, which was used in the commission of offence to kill the deceased, then they picked up the said iron rod from the thorny bushes, then P.W.11 seized the said iron rod and also seized controlled earth at the said place. Basing on the confesion of A3 to A6, they observed the scene of offence and prepared scene observation and seizure mahazarnama. Then he arrested to A3 to A.6 and return back to the Police station along with material objects and after observing all legal formalities.

On 11.3.2017 P.W.11 addressed a letter to the concerned Service

Providers for call data, CDR with regard to cell phones. He filed a requisition to the Manager, SBI, Kadiri to furnish the particulars of the account transactions 5 pertaining to the account of A2 relating to A/c No.35720039723. He send the material objects to the RFSL, Thirupathi for analysis. On 6.5.2017, he secured the presence of P.Ws.5 and 6 and recorded their statements.

3.The AJFCM, Kadiri took cognizance of the offences U/secs.302, 201, 120-B (1) r/w 149 IPC against the Accused. After supplying the copies of documents, which are relied on by the prosecution to the accused as required

U/sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was made over to

Sessions Court on the point of jurisdiction, and same is made over to this court

for the offence punishable U/secs.302, 201, 120-B (1) r/w 149 IPC for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of the accused on due consideration charge

U/sec.302 IPC have been framed against accused 3 to 6, charge U/sec.302 r/w 34 IPC have been framed against Accused 1 and 2, Charge U/sec.201 IPC have been framed against the Accused 2 to 6, Charge U/sec.120-B (1) of IPC have been framed against the Accused 1 to 6, read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eleven (11) witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11 out of Eighteen (18) listed witnesses and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.24 and M.Os.1 to 11 on its behalf. The learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor has closed the evidence of L.W.3 Katikala Adinarayana, L.W.6

Derangula Gangadevi, L.W.7 Guda Manohar, L.W.8 Shaik Nazeer Ahammad,

L.W.9 Derangula Ramachandra, L.W.10 Talari Sreenivasulu and L.W.18

K.Gorantla Madhav Uinspector of Police, Kadiri Urban PS, as no need to examine them.

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, informed to them about the incriminating evidence available on record against them, for which they stated the same as false and no oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the accused.

7.Now the point that arose for determination in this case is that:

1. Whether the death of the deceased is homicidal?

6

2. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt against the

Accused 1 to 6 for the offences punishable U/secs.302 R/W 34, 201,

120-B (1) IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

3. To what relief?

8.Point No.1::-

It is the contention of the learned Addl. P.P that, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11 coupled with the documents and material objects relied by the prosecution established the case of prosecution that, the accused 1 and 2 in view of illegal intimacy between them, in order to kill the deceased, they both engaged A3 to A6 to do away the life of deceased. In execution of their plan,

A3 to A6 took money from A1 and A2 and beat the deceased with an iron rod on his head and face and thrown the dead body in an unused well, as such all the accused conspired together and killed the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution established the charges levelled against the accused, thereby they are liable for punishment.

9.Per contra, it is the contention of the learned defence counsel that, absolutely there is no iota of evidence on record to show that, all the accused conspired together in order to do away the life of the deceased, A1 and A2 engaged A3 to A6, in that connection, A3 to A6 after taking money from

A1 and A2, beat the deceased and caused head injury to him and thrown him in an unused well and all the accused caused for the death of the deceased. The entire evidence relied by the prosecution including the medical evidence and material objects seized by the Investigating Officer, does not establish the motive of the accused to kill the deceased. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, but the prosecution failed to link up all the circumstances as a chain to establish the guilt of the accused that they killed the deceased on the date of incident, thereby the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence is doubtful.

The learned counsel further contended that the evidence of PW.11, the

Investigating Officer clearly goes to show that the accused were falsely implicated in this case for statistical purpose at the instance of family members 7 of the deceased. The Medical evidence is not corroborated with the Ocular testimony of independent witnesses, therefore, the injuries caused to the deceased may not be possible by beating with an iron rod, which was seized by the investigating officer. In the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt regarding the charges levelled against the accused. Therefore, it is fit case to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

10.In view of the contentions of the both parties, I have perused the material on record.

11.A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, who are mother and brother of the deceased, they categorically deposed in one voice that, they are not direct eye witnesses to the incident. According to P.W.3, the deceased, his wife and children are living together separately since 2 ½ years prior to the death of the deceased. One day prior to the death of the deceased on 2.3.2017 at about 2-00 p.m., the deceased went to the house of P.W.3 and had lunch and went away, on the next day somebody belongs to Pottikottala village informed to her that the dead body of deceased was in the well and somebody might be killed him and thrown him in the well. Immediately, she went to the scene of offence and identified the dead body of her son and noticed bleeding injuries on head, forehead and all over the face.

12.According to P.W.4, he is resident of Vempalli village of Kadapa

District and he came to know about the death of deceased through P.W.3.

Immediately, he proceeded to Govt., Hospital, Kadiri where he found the dead body of deceased in the Mortuary room.

13.As per the evidence of P.W.1 on 3.3.2017 at about 10.30 a.m., while, he was in the office, Talari of Kadiri cluster II (L.W.10) Talari Srinivasulu came to him and informed him that he noticed one male dead body in an unused well situated opposite to Pepsi godown. Immediately, they both went to the scene of offence and they noticed one male dead body, aged between 30 to 40 years and they observed bleeding injury on the forehead of the dead body. Then they went to the Kadiri Urban PS and gave Ex.P.1 report.

8

14.Basing on Ex.P.1 report, P.W.10 registered it as a case in

Cr.No.59/2017 U/sec.302 and 201 IPC. P.W.11 took up investigation in this case and held inquest over the dead body of deceased on 4.3.2017. After inquest he send the dead body to Government Hospital, Kadiri for PM Examination.

15.The evidence of Medical Officer/P.W.9 clearly goes to show that he conducted PM examination over the dead body of the deceased on 4.3.2017 at 1.20 p.m., and found a cut injury over the posterior armpit elbow, forehead depressed in to brain matter, bleeding per nose and multiple abrasions present over the cheek elbow chin etc., present. The deceased appear to have died 24 – 48 hours prior to PM examination. As per the opinion of Medical Officer, the deceased would have to be died due to shock, haemorrhage and due to head injury. The said injury may be caused with an iron rod and also there is possibility to cause external injury No.2 i.e., forehead depressed in to the brain matter, when a person fall in to a well and contact his forehead to a hard surface, likewise an incised wound may be caused when a person fall on a sharp edged stone. The medical officer categorically deposed in this evidence that he do not found any post-mortem injuries on the dead body. The medical evidence does not establish the possibility that after killed the deceased, the dead body thrown in to a well.

16.Since, the prosecution, not relied on any oral evidence apart from the medical evidence regarding the possibility to cause such injuries found on the dead body with an iron rod, the sole medical evidence cannot be relied on to know whether the death of the deceased is suicidal or homicidal, as the medical evidence on record probablises the circumstances that the head injury on the dead body of deceased may be possible when he fall in to the well and contact his head to a hard surface. The photographs covered by Ex.P.23, shows that there are stones in the unused well and the said well also containing bricks, thereby there is possibility to cause injuries over the fore head and all of the face, when he fell in to the well accidentally or in a depression mood as suggested by the learned defence counsel. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 4 , 9 and 11, clearly established the fact that the death of the 9 deceased is due to head injury, but their evidence does not establish anything that the death of deceased is homicidal.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

17.Point No.2::-

The entire case of the prosecution based on the circumstantial evidence, therefore the prosecution has to established the guilt of the accused by establishing all the circumstances to link up the chain.

As per the observations of our Hon’ble High Court of A.P., reported in between C.Praveen Jkumar and Mrs Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi (2018 (1)

ALD (Crl.) 1029, where in the Hon’ble High Court observed that at para

No.16 that “Extra Judicial Confession is weak type of evidence and has

to be examined by court with greater care and caution, however if

extra-judicial confession is basis for conviction, it should not suffer

from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities, when it

is doubtful or when it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances,

extra judicial confession statement alone cannot be made basis to

confirm conviction.”

As per the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in another case law reported in between Ramesh Bai and another Vs State of Rajasthan 2009 (2) Crime 337 (SC), where in the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “in the

case of the prosecution trusted on circumstantial evidence, the

circumstances clearly established the accusations, the inference of

guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and

circumstances are found to be incomputable with the innocence of the

accused or the guilt of any other person. Further, it is observed in

para No.7 that “When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such

evidence must satisfy the following tests:

1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

2. Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused.

3. The circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain

so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all

human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none

10 else.

4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction

must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other

hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence

should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should

be consistent with his innocence.

18.Here in the present case in hand, the entire case of prosecution based on the circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has to establish all the circumstances to link up the chain and motive of the accused to establish the guilt of the accused that, A1 and A2 engaged A3 to A6 and all the accused involved in the incident and basing on the criminal conspiracy between A1 to A6, A3 to A6 killed the deceased and thrown him in to the unused well by relied on the following grounds:

1. Motive.

2. Medical Evidence.

3. Recovery of Material Objects.

Motive::-

19.The motive behind the accused to kill the deceased is that, there was illegal intimacy between A1 and A2. In order to establish the said illegal intimacy of A1 and A2, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, who are mother and brother of the deceased. As deposed by P.W3 in her evidence the marriage of deceased was performed with A1 about 25 years ago and they blessed with a son and daughter, aged about 18 years and 10 years respectively. The deceased, A1 and his children are residing together separately since 2 ½ years prior to the death of the deceased. Previously,

P.W.3 was residing with them, but the evidence of P.W.3 is silent why the deceased and his family were resided together separately apart from P.W.3.

20.P.W.4 deposed in his evidence that, he is residing at Vempalli village of Kadapa District and he does not know personally about the family affairs of the deceased. According to him, some differences arose between the deceased and his wife due to illegal intimacy between A1 and A2, he came to 11 know that compromise took place among the deceased and his wife, even then differences continued till the death of the deceased. The entire evidence of

P.W.4 is a material omission and he did not state before the police about the alleged intimacy in between A1 and A2. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is silent whether any disputes raised before the elders, about the alleged illegal intimacy between A1 and A2. There was no occasion to them to discuss among the family members regarding the disputes in between A1 and deceased with regard to the alleged illegal intimacy between A1 and A2. As admitted by P.Ws.3 and 4 in their evidence, that they did not state before the police that A2 had illegal intimacy with A1. P.Ws.3 and 4 in one version stated that, A1 is working as Community Resource Person in Mesma Dept., under

Velugu project and four days prior to the death of the deceased, A1 went to

Jarkhand on deputation to give training under Velugu project and A1 was not present in the village at the time of death of deceased.

21.Except a bare allegation from the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, who are mother and brother of the deceased, there is no independent source of evidence relied by the prosecution with regard to the alleged illegal intimacy between A1 and A2. The prosecution failed to establish the motive of A1 and

A2 that, basing on illegal intimacy between them, they intended to kill the deceased and in order to execute their plan, they engaged A3 to A6 to kill the deceased and that the alleged illegal intimacy between A1 and A2 is the motive to kill the deceased.

Medical Evidence:-

22.As discussed in point No.1, the medical evidence relied by the prosecution established the cause of the death of the deceased is due to head injury. The final opinion issued by PW.9 Medical Officer, basing on APFSL report, the deceased would have to be died due to shock, haemorrhage, due to head injury. The prosecution, not relied on any independent oral evidence apart from the medical evidence regarding the possibility to cause such injuries found on the dead body with an iron rod, the sole medical evidence cannot be relied on to know whether the death of the deceased is suicidal or homicidal.

12

The medical evidence on record, probablises the circumstances that the head injury on the dead body of deceased may be possible when he fall in to the well and contact his head to a hard surface. The photographs covered by Ex.P.23, shows that there are stones in the unused well and the said well also containing bricks, thereby there is possibility to cause injuries over the fore head and all over the face, when he fell in to the well. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 11, clearly established the fact that, the death of the deceased is due to head injury, but no proof relied by the prosecution that A3 to A6 beat the deceased with an iron rod and caused such injuries to the deceased and later they thrown the dead body in to the well.

23.The evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8, who are mediators alleged to be present at the time of arrest of A3 to A6 and in whose presence the confessional statements of said accused recorded and seized material objects, are not supported the case of the prosecution and they failed to identify A3 to

A6 in the court. The entire evidence relied by the prosecution, more particularly the evidence of Medical Officer not established the intention of A1 to A6 that they caused injuries to the deceased and caused for his death. The medical evidence relied by the prosecution is not corroborates with any independent source of evidence to believe the involvement of A1 to A6 that, at the instance of A1 and A2, A3 to A6 killed the deceased, bu beating him with an iron rod and thrown the dead body in a well.

Recovery of Material Objects

24.As per the evidence of PW.11, he seized M.Os.1 to 3 and M.Os.6 to 11 i.e., four cell phones, ATM Card, Bank counter foil, iron rod, auto and cash from the accused. Regarding the seizure of material objects from the possession of A1 to A6, except the self serving testimony of Investigating

Officer, no other independent witnesses corroborated with the evidence of

Investigating Officer. P.Ws.7 and 8 who are mediators alleged to be present at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of said material objects, they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Both the witnesses failed to identify the accused that A1 to A6 are the persons arrested by the police in their 13 presence and recovered M.Os.1 to 3 and 6 to 11 from them.

25.The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 regarding the cash transaction, between A1, A2 and A3 to A6. As deposed by P.W.5 in her evidence, A5 approached her husband and took ATM card from her husband that his sister will deposit some amount, after he withdrawn the said amount, he will return the said card, three days later he returned the ATM card. P.W.5 denied the case of the prosecution that an amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited in her account and A3 withdrawn the said amount from the bank through her ATM card, A3 took the said amount relating to a murder case. The prosecution not examined the husband of P.W.5 to know about the actual incident regarding the said cash transaction and A3 took the said ATM card from him and withdrawn any amount from the account of P.W.5.

26.P.W.6, who worked as Community Resource Person in MEPMA dept., and who knows A1, who worked in the said office, deposed in her evidence that prior to the incident, i.e., two years back, the mother-in-law of A1 approached her and gave her one cheque for Rs.75,000/- of SBI, Kadiri branch, stating that the said cheque was sent by A1, on the next day A1 phone to her and informed to her, to hand over the said cheque to one Ravi, accordingly, the said Ravi took the said cheque from her, but she failed to identify the said Ravi, whether he is accused in this case or some other person. The Investigating

Officer not seized the said cheque to establish the case of the prosecution that,

A1 or A2 deposited Rs.75,000/- in any account or in the account of P.W.5 and same is withdrawn by A3 to A6 in order to implement their conspiracy to kill the deceased. The evidence of P.W.11 not established the said fact to connect A1 to A3 to the said transaction.

27.As deposed by P.W.11 in his evidence that he seized Rs.15,000/- cash from A3 and Rs.5,000/- cash each from A4 to A.6. As admitted by P.W.11 in his evidence during cross-examination, he did not collect any document to show that the sim cards mentioned in the CDRs stands in the name of the accused and he did not collect any information in whose name the said sim cards issued and who are the owners of the cell phones seized by him. P.W.11 14 further admitted in his evidence that there was no direct transaction between

A1 and other accused.

28.As deposed by P.W.11, he seized one iron rod from the thorny bushes near to the scene of offence at the instance of A3 to A6, but the said version of the Investigating Officer is not supported by the independent witnesses. P.Ws.7 and 8, who are mediators not supported the version of the

Investigating Officer regarding the alleged seizure of material objects at the instance of A3 to A6 to connect A3 to A6 to the death of the deceased. The evidence relied by the prosecution does not establish the seizure of material objects from the accused at their instance to connect the accused to the incident, thereby the alleged seizure of material objects at the instance of

Accused at different places is doubtful.

29.In the aforesaid discussion, it is very much clear that, the prosecution failed to link up all the circumstances as a chain of evidence to believe the case of the prosecution and the involvement of the accused in the occurrence. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the involvement of the accused in the occurrence is doubtful. The cause of death of the deceased also not connected to the accused 1 to 6 by relying on the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

30.The entire evidence relied by the prosecution, out of the evidence of PWs 1 to 11, does not establish anything against the accused that A3 to A6 killed the deceased at the instance of A1 and A2, that they beat the deceased with an iron rod on his head and thrown the dead body in the well. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that, the prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 302 r/w 34 IPC, 201, 120-B (1) IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Thereby, it is fit case to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

Accordingly, this point is decided against the prosecution.

15

31.Point No.3::-

In the result, the Accused 3 to 6 are not found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.302 IPC, Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.302 r/w 34 IPC, Accused 2 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.201 IPC and Accused 1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.120-B (1) of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

M.Os.1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 11 shall put in Court auction and confiscate the sale proceeds to the State and M.O.9 shall be confiscate to State after expiry of appeal time. M.Os. 4, 5, 7 and 10 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The Office is directed to send the material objects to the Committal court. Communicate the copy of judgment to the learned JFCM, Kadiri to implement the property orders with regard to disposal of the case property according to law.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.I, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11th day of June, 2020.

Kum a rI Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

P.W.1 : B.Manolal naik.- None – P.W.2 : A.Vemaiah. P.W.3 : B.Ramalakshmamma. P.W.4 : B.Gangarao. P.W.5: Syed Lal Bee. P.W.6: Patan Sanjeedha. P.W.7: B.Yashodha. P.W.8: C.Venkataramana. P.W.9: Dr Mohan Naik. MO P.W.10: M.Rajesh, IO P.W.11: K.Sreenivasulu. IO 16

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Report, dt.3.3.2017. Ex.P.2 : Inquest Report, dt.4.3.2017. Ex.P.3 : Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.4 : Confession, Arrest and Seizure Mahazar, dt.10.3.2017. Ex.P.5 : Confession, Arrest and Seizure Mahazar, dt.10.3.2017. Ex.P.6 : Scene Observation and Seizure Mahazar.dt.10.3.2017. Ex.P.7 : Scene Observation and Seizure Mahazar.dt.10.3.2017. Ex.P.8: Post mortem report. Ex.P.9: Final Opinion Ex.P.10: RFSL Report. Ex.P.11: First Information Report. Ex.P.12: Two photographs with Panchanama. Ex.P.13: Lettr addressed to AJFCM, Kadiri, dt.15.3.2017. Ex.P.14: Letter of Advice, dt.15.3.2017. Ex.P.15: Letter addressed by AJFCM, Kadikri to Asst., Director, RFSL, Tirupathi, dt.16.3.2017. Ex.P.16: RFSL report, dt.24.3.2017. Ex.P.17: Requisition to Branch Manager, SBI Kadiri. Ex.P.18: Requisition to Branch manager, SBI, Hyderabad, Kadirk Branch for CC puttage of deceased. Ex.P.19: Rough sketch of scene offence. Ex.P.20: Requisition for CDRs of accused, dt.5.2.2017. And 6.3.2018. Ex.P.21: Receipt of handovering the dead body of deceased to his bood relatives. Ex.P.22: Police Proceedings, dt.4.3.2017. Ex.P.23: Photos of deceased and scene of offence at the time of inquest. Ex.P.24: C.D.Rs of the accused.

Exhibits marked for defence

-Nil-

Mos. Marked for prosecution

M.O.1: One CELKON C9 Cell phone M.O.2: One Nokia black colour cell phone. M.O.3: One ATM Card bearing No.51037200 25753169 M.O.4: Blood stained earth. M.O.5: Control earth. M.O.6: Samsung while Grey colour cell phone with SIM No.9642324890. M.O.7: Counter foil of SBI, Kadiri Branch, dt.3.3.2017. M.O.8: Nokia black colour cell phone. M.O.9: FDR for Rs.30,000/-. M.O.10: Iron rod. M.O.11: Auto bearing No.AP31 TU 0064.

Ild/- AMGK I ASJ.

1

In the Court of I Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Present:­ Smt A.Mary Grace Kumari,

I Additional District Judge,Ananthapuramu.

Monday, the 15 th day of June, 2020.

Sessions Case No.224 of 2018

[On committal by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg Police

Station in PRC No.6 of 2018 in Cr.No.6 of 2018 of Kambadur P.S.]

Name of complainant :The Inspector of Police, Kalyandurgam Circle.

Crime No. and PS:Crime No.06 of 2018 of Kambadur Police Station.

Name of accused:1. Bharijana Ankela Swarna Kumar, aged 28 yrs, S/o A.Shyamanna, SC colony, Obaganipalli village, Kambadur Mandal. (A1)

2. Harijana Ankela Ravi @ Ravi Kumar, aged 32 years, S/o A.Shyamanna, SC colony, Obaganipalli village, Kambadur Mandal. (A2)

3. Harijana Ankela Narasimhulu, aged 50 yrs, S/o late Hanumanthappa, SC colony, Obaganipalli village, Kambadur Mandal. (A3) 4.Harijana Ankela Rajesh, aged 19 yrs, S/o a.Narasimhulu, SC colony, Obaganipalli village, Kambadur Mandal. (A4)

5. Harijana Nagalakshmi, aged 40 years, W/o A.Narasimhulu. SC colony, Obaganipalli village, Kambadur Mandal. (A5)

6. Harijana Ankela Shyamanna @ Madiga Shyamanna, aged 58 years, S/o late Hanumanthappa, SC colony, Obaganipalli village, Kambadur Mandal. (A6)

Charges:U/sec.302 r/w 34 IPC.

Plea of accused:Not guilty.

Finding of Judge:Not guilty. 

Order or Sentence: The Accused 1 to 6 are not found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.302 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated under section 437­A Cr.P.C. The material objects M.Os.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

2

Case conducted by:Sri D.Rajasekhar Goud, Addl,. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by:Sri P.Guru Prasad, Advocate, Anantapuramu. 

This case is coming on this day i.e., on 09.06.2020 for hearing before me and after hearing the counsel of both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by Inspector of Police, Kalyandurgam Circle has laid charge sheet against the Accused 1 to 6 in Crime No.6 of 2018 of Kambadur

Police Station U/sec.302 r/w 34 IPC. 

2.The case of the prosecution is that:­

P.W.1 is resident of Obiganipalli village of Kambadur Mandal. One

Chennekesavulu is his second son and he is herein after referred to as deceased.

P.W.1 owned land to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in Obaganipalli village. Two years two months prior to the death of the deceased, P.W.1 raised tomato crop in his land. The marriage of deceased was performed with one Kamalamma (L.W.4) and they blessed with two daughters and one son. L.W.4 was working as Anganwadi

Teacher at Thirumandalapalli village of Rolla mandal and she used to come to the house occasionally from her working place. The deceased was residing with

P.W.1 by doing cultivation. On the intervening night of 7/8/1.2018 at about 1.00 a.m., to 2.30 a.m., the deceased went to his field for watering the tomato crop by informing to P.W.1. At about early hours on 8.1.2018, P.Ws.3 and 4 came to the house of P.W.1 and informed to him that A1 to A6 beat the deceased with an iron rod and sticks at the house of P.W.6. P.W.1 informed the same to P.W.2, who is residing adjacent to the house of P.W.1. After came to know that the deceased came to his house and went inside the room and bolted the doors, P.Ws.1 and 2 knocked the doors, but the doors are not opened, then they broke open the doors and found the deceased in the room in unconscious state lying on the floor with bleeding injuries on his head. P.W.9 called the ambulance and they all shifted the deceased to Govt., Hospital, Kalyandurg, after first aid, he was shifted to

GGH, Anantapur for better treatment as per medical advice. From there they 3 shifted the deceased to the hospital at Bangalore, accompanied by P.W.2, where the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. P.W.1 presented two reports in the police station regarding the incident and death of deceased on 8.1.2018 and 9.1.2018 respectively.

Basing on Ex.P.1 report, P.W.14 registered it as a case in Cr.No.6/2018

U/sec.324 r/w 34 IPC. Basing on Ex.P.2, P.W.14 re­registered the case

U/sec.302 /w 34 IPC. P.W.15 took up investigation in this case on 9.1.2018, he visited Obiganipalli village and posted guard to the scene of offence. On 10.1.2018 at 8­00 a.m., P.W.15 visited NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore, there he received the death intimation of deceased from the police, Outpost in the

Hospital, he secured the presence of panchayathdars/P.Ws.9, 11 and L.W.14

Chakali Chiravanjeevi and blood relatives of the deceased/P.Ws.1, 2 and others and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During the inquest he examined P.Ws.1, 2 and L.Ws.3 to 5 viz., H.Gangadhar, H.Kamalamma and

H.Hanumakka, examined them and recorded their statements. He taken the photographs of the dead body and forwarded the dead body of the deceased for

PM examination. In turn, P.W.13 conducted PM examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued PM certificate/Ex.P.14 and opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to severe traumatic brain injury causing cardio respiratory arrest.

After Post mortem examination, P.W.15 handed over the dead body to the family members of the deceased. P.W.15 went to the scene of offence directly to the scene of offence from Bangalore, which is situated at the dwelling house of

P.W.6 in SC colony of Obiganipalli village of Kambadur mandal at 4­00 p.m., and secured the presence of mediators/P.Ws.10 and 12 and examined them at the scene of offence, he prepared crime scene observation and panchanama of the scene of offence and seized blood stained Kadapa slab and control slab under the cover of mahazarnama under Ex.P.19, then he secured the presence of P.Ws.3 to 7, examined them and recorded their statements, then he surprised the houses of the accused in the village and found them absconded.

4

On 14.1.2018 at 9­00 a.m., while P.W.15 was in Kambadur PS, the accused 1 to 6 voluntarily surrendered before him, then he secured the presence of P.Ws.10 and 12 and WPC 866, interrogated the accused individually in the presence of said mediators and recorded their confessional statements. As per confession of A1, he lead them to Obiganipalli village to the Bathroom of A3 and brought one iron rod and two sticks and the same were seized in the presence of

P.Ws.10 and 12 under cover of mahazarnama, on the same day he produced A1 to A6 before JFCM, Kalyandurgam. On 15.1.2018, he secured the presence of

P.W.8 and L.W.10 T.Dhanunjaya, examined them and recorded their statements.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurgam took cognizance of the offences on file U/Secs.302 r/w 34 IPC against the accused.

After supplying the copies of documents, which are relied on by the prosecution to the accused as required U/sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, committed the case to this court and the case was taken on file by this court for the offence punishable U/Secs.302 r/w 34 IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused and on due consideration, charge

U/Secs.302 r/w 34 IPC has been framed against the Accused 1 to 6, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined fifteen (15) witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 15 out of Twenty (20) listed witnesses and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.22 documents and M.Os.1 to 4 on its behalf. The learned Public

Prosecutor has given up L.Ws.3, 4, 5, 11 and 14 viz., Harijana Gangadhara,

Harijana Kamalamma, Harijana Hanumakka, Togata Dhanunjaya and Chakali

Chiranjeevi, as no need to examine them. 

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure informed to them about the incriminating evidence available on record against them, for which they stated the same is false.

7.The points that arose for determination in this case is that:

5

1. Whether the prosecution has established the offence punishable

under section 302 r/w 34 IPC against the accused 1 to 6 beyond reasonable

doubt?

2. To what relief?

8.Heard both sides through Electronic Media Video Conferencing.

Perused the material on record.

9.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the medical evidence and material objects clinchingly establish the case of the prosecution that, the accused who are relatives of P.W.6 in order to kill the deceased, beat him with an iron rod when the deceased came to the house of L.W.6 due to illegal intimacy and caused bleeding head injury and there by caused for the death of the deceased. 

10.Per contra, the learned counsel for accused contended that, absolutely there is no iota of evidence against the accused on record that, the accused, who are relatives of P.W.6, in view of the illegal intimacy of deceased with P.W.6, they beat the deceased on his head with iron rod and sticks and caused bleeding injuries to him and also caused for the death of the deceased.

The learned counsel further contended that, the alleged direct eye witnesses,

P.Ws.3 and 4 who narrated the incident to P.Ws.1 and 2 are not supported the case of the prosecution. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 contradicts with each other with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased and their evidence is not corroborated with the medical evidence. The deceased sustained head injury when he was fallen in drunken state at his land, as such he came to the house calmly and slept in the house. Basing on the village politics, this case is foisted against the accused. The Investigating Officer without proper investigation falsely implicated the accused in this case for statistical purpose, thereby the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. 

11.Point 

In order to establish the charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC levelled against the accused 1 to 6, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 15.

6

Out of PWs.1 to 15, P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and he is defacto complainant in this case, who presented Exs.P.1 and P.2 regarding the death of the deceased. P.W.2 is elder son of P.W.1 and younger brother of the deceased.

P.Ws.3 to 7 are the direct eye witnesses to the incident. Out P.Ws.3 to 7, P.Ws.3 and 4 narrated the incident to P.Ws.1 and 2 immediately after the incident.

P.W.8 is the driver of the vehicle Tata sumo in which the deceased was shifted to the hospital, P.W.9 and P.W.11 are the panch witnesses, who were present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased along with blood relatives of the deceased and attested Inquest report. P.W.10 and P.W.12 are the mediators, who were present while the Investigating Officer observed the scene of offence and also present by the time the Investigating Officer arrest the accused and recorded their confessional statements in their presence and attested the Confession­

Arrest­Seizure mahazarnama. P.W.13 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PM certificate, opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to severe traumatic brain injury causing cardio respiratory arrest. P.W.14 is one of the Investigating Officers, who registered the case basing on Exs.P.1 and P.2 reports and P.W.15 is the

Investigating Officer in this case.

12. Out of P.Ws.1 to 15, P.Ws.3 to 10 and 12 are not supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are father and son are not direct eye witnesses to the incident, they came to know about the incident through P.Ws.3 and 4. If the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 consistent and corroborative in all material aspects regarding the information received from P.Ws.3 and 4 about the incident and basing on the said narration of P.Ws.3 and 4, P.W.1 presented

Ex.P.1 report and thereafter presented Ex.P.2 report in the police station about the incident, their evidence can be relied on regarding the cause of death of the deceased. Before discussing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is relevant to discuss regarding the contents that are mentioned in Exs.P.1 and P.2 reports.

13.A perusal of Ex.P.1 report, which contains a specific recital that, on 8.1.2018 at about 2­00 a.m., the deceased went to his field for watering the 7 tomato crop, he return back to home and went inside his room of the house, bolted the doors and slept. As he did not come out after considerable time, by suspecting P.W.2 break open the doors. They both noticed that the deceased was with bleeding injuries. Immediately, they shifted him in 108 ambulance for treatment and when he was undergoing treatment at GGH, Anantapuramu. It is further recited in the said report that P.Ws.1 and 2 enquired in the village about the incident and came to know that A1 to A4 attacked the deceased with an iron rods and beat him. Basing on the said report, P.W.13 registered it as a case

U/sec.324 r/w 34 IPC on 8.1.2018 at 5.30 p.m.,

14.As per Ex.P.2, P.W.1 again present the said report on the next day i.e., on 9.1.2018, which contains the recitals that the deceased married to one

Kamalamma (L.W.4) and she was working as Anganwadi Teacher in

Thirumadarlapalli village of Rolla Mandal and she was residing at her working place and used to come to the house of P.W.1 now and then. They got two daughters and one son, who are aged about 15, 10 and 6 years respectively.

Since one year prior to the incident, the deceased talking with P.W.6 closely.

While so on the intervening night of 7/8.1.2018 at about 2­00 a.m., the deceased went to his fields for watering the tomato crop. Some time later, he came back to the house and went in to the room and bolted the doors and slept. At about early hours, P.Ws.3 and 4 came to P.W.1 and informed to him that while the deceased was with P.W.6 in her house, A1 to A4 came there with an intention to kill the deceased, beat him with iron rod and sticks on his all over body, stating that he is having illicit intimacy with his relative Sarojamma and caused bleeding injuries to him. Immediately, P.W.2 broke open the doors and found that the deceased was in unconscious state with bleeding injuries. Immediately, P.W.9 called the ambulance and shifted the injured at 8­00 a.m., to Kalyandurg Govt., Hospital, and from there he was shifted to GGH, Anantapur for better treatment and from there, on the advice of Medical Officer, he was shifted to Bangalore Hospital. On 9.1.2018 at about 1­00 p.m the deceased died in the hospital in between 10­00 a.m., to 11­00 a.m., 8

15.There is no whisper in Exs.P.1 and P.2 about the involvement of A5 and A6 in the incident. There are some improvements in Ex.P.2 as per their choice. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 contradicts with each other with regard to the deceased, that he came to the house and he went inside the room and bolted the doors and slept over in the room. As per the recitals of Ex.P.1, P.Ws.1 and 2 enquired in the village about the incident before P.W.1 present Ex.P.1 report in the police station. But, contra to the said recital, P.W.1 stated in his evidence that they have not enquired in the village about the incident. P.W.2 is not aware that who scribed Exs.P.1 and P.2, he not even does not know the particulars and names of the said persons, who scribed Exs.P.1 and P.2. According to P.W.1, since four years prior to the death of the deceased, he had intimacy with P.W.6.

But no disputes cropped up regarding the alleged intimacy between the deceased and P.W.6 in the village at any time. P.W.1 not even mentioned in Exs.P.1 and

P.2 regarding the alleged intimacy of deceased with P.W.6. It is admitted by

P.W.1 during cross­examination that after the deceased went to the fields, by intimation to him, then himself and his wife were slept in the house by bolted outer doors, he does not know as to how the deceased entered in to the house on that day.

16.According to P.W.2, he is residing in a separate house adjacent to the house of P.W.1, on 8.1.2018 at about 5­00 a.m., P.W.1 came to him and informed to him that the deceased was in the room and not opened the doors. As the doors are not opened after knocking, then himself and P.W.1 broke open the doors, went inside the room and noticed the deceased lying on the floor with bleeding injuries with unconsciousness. As admitted by P.W.2 in his evidence, the distance between police station and hospital at Kalyandurgam is only one furlong. No first aid was given to the deceased in the ambulance. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is silent regarding the treatment given to the deceased while he was admitted in Govt., Hospital, Kalyandurgam and GGH, Anantapuramu. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is also silent regarding the wounds on the body of deceased were sutured in the previous hospitals before admitted the deceased in 9

NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore. The reasons best known to the Investigating

Officer, he is not cited both the doctors of Govt, Hospitals of Kalyandurgam and

Anantapur, who gave first aid and treatment to the injured initially, as witnesses in this case. As per PM certificate issued by P.W.13, she noticed sutured injuries over the dead body, the natures of the injuries can only described by the primary doctors, who sutured the injury. As admitted by the medical officer, she cannot say with regard to external injuries, the nature of the weapon used for causing such external injuries and that when the injuries sutured, it is not possible to find the internal injury. Unless, the Medical Officers, who gave treatment to the deceased, while examined the deceased and they gave first aid or treatment, it cannot be decided whether the injuries on the body of deceased caused by beating or by fall by himself, on the sharp edged stone at his fields regarding the possibility of injuries found on the body of deceased on the date of incident.

17.The oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not corroborated with that of the evidence of P.W.13 Medical Officer regarding the cause of death of the deceased. The circumstances elicited from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 probablises the possibility that the injured (deceased) himself came to the house on his own accord and slept in the room of the house and also there is no possibility to the deceased to enter in to his room of the house when P.W.1 and his wife bolted the outer doors of the house and slept in a room of same house.

Since, P.Ws.1 and 2 are not direct eye witnesses to the incident and their evidence is hearsay, their evidence cannot be relied on without any corroborative evidence regarding the involvement of the accused in the incident and they caused such injuries on the dead body of deceased.

18.As admitted by P.W.1 in his evidence there are 500 houses of

Harijans in the SC colony of his village, the house of P.W.6 is situated with a distance of 300 feet to his house. Whereas the house of P.Ws.3 and 4 are situated with a distance of 200 feet to his house. P.Ws.3, 4 and other eye witnesses are agricultural coolies. As admitted by P.W.1 in his evidence that he did not make a mention in Exs.P.1 and P.2 that the deceased was sustained 10 injuries at the house of P.W.6. The doctors at GGH, Anantapur enquired P.W.1 that how the deceased sustained injuries. Since the houses of P.Ws.1 and 2 are situated within the locality, where the incident occurred, as such there is possibility to heard the galata by P.Ws.1 and 2 along with other eye witnesses.

In the absence of specific recitals in Exs.P.1 and P.2 about the alleged intimacy between the deceased and P.W.6 and no whisper from any independent witnesses regarding the alleged intimacy, the evidence of eye witnesses is essential to believe the case of the prosecution to believe the incident and regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence at the house of P.W.6.

Since, P.Ws.3 to 7, who are direct eye witnesses to the incident are not supported the case of the prosecution and also P.Ws.3 and 4 denied the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the incident that the accused beat the deceased at the house of

P.W.6 and caused him injuries. P.Ws.3 and 4 categorically deposwed in their evidence, that they does not know anything about the incident and that they did not inform the incident to P.W.1. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is highly improbable and unsafe to give conviction to the accused basing on the hearsay evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.

19.The other evidence that is relied by the prosecution, regarding the arrest of the accused and seizure of material objects at the instance of the accused i.e., P.Ws.9, 11 and 15. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.9 and 11 are not supported the case of the prosecution and the version of Investigating Officer.

The prosecution relied on the sole testimony of Investigating Officer regarding the confession, arrest and seizure of material objects. As per Sec.25 of Indian

Evidence Act, the confession before the police officer is not admissible in evidence, but the evidence of Investigating Officer is admissible U/sec.27 of

Indian Evidence Act, when the confession leads for recovery of a thing, when the confession before Mediators along with Investigating Officer. Here in the present case, P.Ws.9 and 11 denied the seizure of material objects, i.e., M.Os.1 and 2 basing on the confession of A3, at whose instance P.W.15 recovered M.Os.1 and 2 from the bath room of the house of A3. As deposed by P.Ws.9 and 11, the 11

Investigating Officer obtained their signatures on the seizure mahazarnamas in the police station. Therefore, the alleged confession by the accused before mediators regarding the commission of offence and M.Os.1 and 2 seized at the instance of accused basing on the confession of accused is doubtful.

20.Viewed from any angle, the evidence of PWs.1 to 15, relied by the prosecution does not establish anything against the accused that with common intention, the accused beat the deceased with an iron rod and sticks and caused him bleeding injuries with an intention to kill the deceased and caused for his death. The material witnesses including the direct witnesses are not supported the case of prosecution to establish the charge leveled against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.302 r/w 34 IPC. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the charge leveled against the accused 1 to 6 for the offence under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, thereby it is a fit case to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

21.Point No.2:

In the result, the Accused 1 to 6 are not found guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.302 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated under section 437­A Cr.P.C. The material objects M.Os.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr I, corrected and

pronounced by me through Electronic Media Video Conferencing, this the 15th

day of June, 2020. Sd/­ +A.Mry Grace Kumri. I Addl. Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

P.W.1 : Harijana Chennaiah. ­None­ P.W.2 : Harijana Ramachandra. P.W.3 : Harijana Thipperudhra. P.W.4 : Harijana Sreenivasulu. P.W.5 : Harijana Chennakeshavulu. P.W.6 : Harijana Sarojamma.

12

P.W.7 : Harijana Chennappa. P.W.8 : T.R.Dada. P.W.9 : Harijana Nagaraju. P.W.10 : Guddella Sanjeeva Reddy. P.W.11 : Anke Pakkirappa. P.W.12 : Atti Thippeswamy. P.W.13 : Dr Aswini Telang. P.W.14: N.Raghu Ramudu. P.W.15: M.Siva Prasad.

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Report of P.W.1, dt.6.1.2018. Ex.P.2 : Report of P.W.1, dt.09.01.2018. Ex.P.3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.4 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.5 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.6 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6. Ex.P.7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7. Ex.P.8: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8. Ex.P.9: Signature of P.W.9 on the Inquest report Ex.P.10: Scene observation and Seizure Mahazar, dt.10.1.2010. Ex.P.11: Signature of P.W.10 on seizure mahazar, dt.14.1.2018. Ex.P.12: Inquest report. Ex.P.13: Signature of P.W.12 on seizuere mahazar, dt.14.1.2018. Ex.P.14 : Postmortem Certificate. Ex.P.15 : Police intimation. Ex.P.16 : FIR U/sec.324 IPC Ex.P.17 : FIR U/sec.302 IPC Ex.P.18: Six Photos Ex.P.19 : Rough sketch. Ex.P.20: Red Marked Confession mahazar, dt.14.1.2018. Ex.P.21: Seizure Mahazar, dt.14.1.2018. Ex.P.22: Letter of Advise.

Exhibits marked for defence

Nil Mos. marked for M.O.1 : Blood stained Kadapa slab. M.O.2: Control Kadapa slab. M.O.3 : Iron Rod. M.O.4: Two sticks.  I ASJ.

1

In the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Present:­ Smt A.Mary Grace Kumari, I Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Friday, this the 12 th day of June, 2020.

Sessions Case No.454 of 2018

[Cr.No.102/2018 of SHO, Kadiri Urban Circle]

Name of complainant:Inspector of Police, Kadiri Urban Circle.

Crime No. and PS:Cr.No.102/2018 of Kadiri Town PS.

Name of accused:1. Shaik Khaja Vali, aged 27 years, S/o lateMahaboobBasha,R/o D.No.10-263, Nagaraju Street, Kadiri Town.

2. Shaik Farooq, aged 25 years, S/o Mahaboob Basha, R/o D.No.10-263, Nagaraju Street, Kadiri Town.

3. Shaik Vali Basha, aged 21 years, S/oMahaboobBasha,R/o D.No.10-263, Nagaraju Street, Kadiri Town.

4. Jampala Somasekhar, aged 35 years, S/o Venkatesh, R/o R.S Road, Kadiri town.

Charges:U/sec. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) 21 (b) & (c) and 25 of NDPS Act, 1985.

Plea of accused:Not guilty.

Finding of Judge:Not guilty

Order or Sentence:The accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section U/sec. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) 21 (b) & (c) and 25 of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated under section 437­A Cr.P.C. Accused No.3 shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any case. M.Os.1 to 8 in CPR.No.80/2018 on the file of this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

2

Case conducted by:Sri D.Rajasekhar Gowd, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by:Sri M.N.Swamy, Advocate for A1 to A3 and Sri P.Varadarajulu, Advocate for A4, Anantapuramu.

This case is coming on this day i.e., on 8.6.2020 for hearing before me and after hearing the counsels of both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kadiri Urban

Police Station has laid charge sheet against the Accused 1 to 4 in Crime

Cr.No.102/2018 for the offence punishable under section U/sec. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) 21 (b) & (c) and 25 of NDPS Act, 1985.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:­

On 08.05.2018 at about 4.20 p.m., P.W.2 along with L.W.4

K.Gorantla Madhav, the Inspector of Police, his staff and mediators/P.W.1 and L.W.2 V.Anjaneyulu, on credible information proceeded to Nagaraju

Veedhi of Kadiri town, there they found four persons sat on the steps infront of house bearing D.No.10­260 with luggage bags, on seeing the police, the said four persons try to skulk away, then the Inspector of Police with the help of his staff and P.W.2 caught hold the said persons, who are

A1 to A4, searched the four luggage bags, which contains dry ganja leaves, on questioning, A1 to A4 revealed their names and identity particulars and commission of offence. Then L.W.4 weighed the said ganja, the bags of A1 to A3 contains 300 grams each and bag of A4 contains 500 grams, L.W.4 drawn samples from the contraband which was seized from A1 to A4 for chemical analysis. The Inspector of Police kept four luggage bags in cardboard box and sealed the same and affixed the slips to the said box, then he arrested A1 to A4 under the cover of Arrest­cum­seizure 3 mahazarnama/Ex.P.1, the same was attested by P.W.1 and L.W.2. Basing on Ex.P.1, the Inspector of Police registered it as a case in Cr.No.102/2018

U/sec.8 (c) 20 (b) (c) and Sec.25 of NDPS Act, 1985 and issued FIR. The

Inspector of police send the sample Ganja i.e, Mos.5 to 8 to the RFSL

Chittoor for the chemical analysis under letter of advise. After completion of investigation and on receipt of FSL report, Inspector of Police, Kadiri

Urban Circle laid charge sheet against the accused under sections 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (c) and Sec.25 of NDPS Act.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offences U/sec. 8 (c) r/w 20

(b) 21 (b) & (c) and 25 of NDPS Act, 1985 against the accused 1 to 4. After furnishing the copies of documents, which are relied on by the prosecution to the accused as required U/sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 

4.On appearance of the accused 1 to 4 and on due consideration charge U/sec. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) 21 (b) & (c) and 25 of NDPS Act, 1985 have been framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 out of four (4) listed witnesses and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.5 documents and material objects as M.Os.1 to 8 on its behalf. The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

L.W.2 viz., Velaga Anjineyulu Village Revenue Officer, Kadiri as no need to examine him. L.W.4 K.Gorantla Madhav, Inspector of Police, Kadiri Urban

Circle, who is the Investigating Officer in this case did not turn up to depose evidence, even several opportunities given to the prosecution to secure his presence and also addressed a letter to the Superintendent of

Police for service of summons to secure the presence of L.W.4, finally his evidence was closed on 10.3.2020 by this court.

4

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure informed to them about the incriminating evidence available on record against them, for which they denied the same.

7.Now the points that arose for determination in this case is that:

1. Whether the prosecution has established and proved that on

8.5.2018 at about 4­10 p.m., the accused were in illegal possession of

1400 grams of Contraband and the same was seized from the

possession of accused beyond reasonable doubt?

2. To what relief?

8.Heard both sides.

9.Point No.1::­

It is the contention of the learned Spl. P.P that the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2, who are Mediator and one of the Investigating Officer in this case is consistent and corroborative in all material aspects, that the accused were in illegal possession of dry ganja and the same was seized from the possession of accused 1 to 4 under Ex.P.1 and sealed the same after followed the due procedure prescribed under the Act. The Chemical

Analysis report support the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 and that the samples sent to RFSL, Chittoor, contains dry ganja, thereby the prosecution established the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused are liable for punishment.

10.Per contra, the learned counsels for the accused 1 to 3 and A4 submitted that, the accused are nothing to do with M.Os.1 to 8 and the

Investigating Officer foisted this case against the accused for statistical purpose. The Investigating Officer not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act. The alleged arrest and seizure of material objects is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act.

5

The oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not corroborated with each other and their evidence contradicts with each other and also not corroborated with the contents that are mentioned in Ex.P1 report. Therefore, the evidence relied by the prosecution does not establish anything against the accused that they were in illegal possession of ganja and the same was seized from their possession by the Investigating Officer in the presence of

P.W.1. Further, the Investigating Officer not examined in this case to establish the case of the prosecution, P.W.2 is only accompanied with the

Investigating Officer at the time of alleged arrest and seizure, thereby it is a fit case to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

11.In view of the contentions of both parties, I have perused the material on record.

12.In order to establish the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 is one of the mediators, who was present at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from the possession of accused and attested Ex.P.1 Mahazar and P.W.2 is SI of police, Kadiri Urban PS, who accompanied with the

Investigating Officer (L.W.4) at the time of alleged arrest and seizure in this case.

13.As per the Mandatory Provisions prescribed under NDPS Act, under sections 42 (2), 54 and 72 of NDPS Act, the prosecution has to establish that the Investigating Officer (LW.4), immediately after he received credible information about the possession of ganja, he ought to have followed the said Mandatory provisions while arrest the accused and seizure of contraband before the Gazetted Officer or nearest Magistrate as per option of the accused and seized contraband before the presence of the

Gazetted Officer and send the seized contraband to the Chemical Analysis without any delay.

6

14.Before discussing the evidence on record, it is relevant to note down the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 regarding the procedure for seizure of contraband, storage of seized contraband, procedure for seizure, sampling, safe keeping and disposal of the contraband, received information reduced in to writing and the procedure for sending a detailed report regarding the information to the higher authorities within the stipulated time.

15.As per the Mandatory provisions of Sec.42 (2) of NDPS Act

“Where an officer takes down any information in writing under

subsection (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso

thereto, he shall within seventy­two hours send a copy thereof to his

immediate official superior.”

16.As per the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a reported case law in between Shivakumar Biswas & others Vs State of

A.P., 2012 (3) ALT (Crl.) 78 in para Nos.11 and 12 that:

“Conducting search without recording information received and

forwarding it to superior officer, the requirement of Section 42 (2) of

the Act was complied with not sufficient, when it is not the case of

the prosecution that sufficient time was not available to record

information in writing and send it to Superior Officer.

In the instant case also, as could be seen from the evidence of

P.W.6, Investigating Officer prior to proceeding to make search, he

had prior information about the occurrence and only basing on the

prior information he was checking the vehicles near Sai Junior

College, Bhadrachalam. He admitted in his evidence before the trial

court that though he had information he did not record the same in

writing and did not inform the same to the immediate superior

Officer. Therefore, the search in this case is clearly vitiated for non

compliance of mandatory provisions of Sec.42 of the NDPS Act.”

17.Here in the present case, the reasons best known to the prosecution, the Investigating Officer (L.W.4) not examined in this case by 7 the prosecution. P.W.2, who accompanied the Investigating Officer along with P.W.1 at the time of arrest and seizure categorically deposed in this evidence, that he does not know personally whether the Investigating

Officer followed the mandatory procedure while arrest of accused, search and seizure of contraband.

18.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, on the date of incident, i.e., on 8.5.2018 at about 4­00 p.m., on information received by the Inspector of

Police about illegal possession of ganja, they accompanied with Inspector of Police and went to Nagaraju Veedhi of Kadiri town, there they found four persons sat on the steps infront of house bearing D.No.10­260 with luggage bag, on seeing the police, the said four persons try to skulk away, then P.W.2 and the staff caught hold the said persons, who are A1 to A4, searched the four luggage bags, which contains dry ganja leaves, on questioning, A1 to A4 revealed their names and identity particulars and commission of offence. Then L.W.4 weighed the said ganja, the bags of A1 to A3 contains 300 grams each and bag of A4 contains 500 grams of ganja,

L.W.4 drawn samples from the contraband which was seized from A1 to A4 for chemical analysis. The Inspector of Police kept four luggage bags in cardboard box and sealed the same and affixed the slips to the said box, then he arrested A1 to A4 under cover of Arrest­cum­seizure mahazarnama/Ex.P.1, the same was attested by them and L.W.2.

19.As admitted by P.W.2 in his evidence during cross­ examination, he does not know whether the Investigating Officer made GD entry in the police station about the information received by him about the illegal possession of ganja. So also he does not know whether the

Investigating Officer send any detailed report to his Higher Authorities after registration of the case about the case proceedings. P.Ws.1 and 2 8 admitted in their evidence that the Investigating Officer not explained to the accused about the right available to the accused that they will search

before a Gazetted Officer or nearest Magistrate. They further admitted that

Ex.P.1 does not contain a recital that P.w.1 informed to the accused that he is Gazetted officer and he got right to search the accused. Admittedly, the place of arrest and seizure is a residential locality, but the

Investigating Officer has not called the local inhabitants to act mediators at the time of arrest and seizure.

20.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, the Investigating Officer seized the contraband and sealed and affixed slips duly signed by themselves, accused and others and arrested the accused. As admitted by P.W.2 that

M.Os.1 to 8 contains slips with Crime Number and M.os.1 to 8 not contains the names of persons, whose’s thumb impressions are obtained on the slips. It is elicited from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that, L.W.4 is the complainant and Investigating Officer in this case. P.W.1 does not know whether the Investigating Officer obtained permission from the

Magistrate for search and seizure of contraband. Further, the

Investigating Officer has not mentioned in Ex.P.1 about the descriptive particulars of four luggage bags and the said luggage bags were seized and produced before the court.

21.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is silent regarding the procedure followed by the Investigating Officer while arrest the accused, search and seizure of contraband and that the Investigating Officer had send a detailed report to his higher authorities about the information of selling ganja, within 72 hours for compliance of Mandatory provisions of Sec.42 (2) of NDPS Act. Ex.P.1 does not found place any recital that, the

Inspector of Police (L.W.4) send a detailed report to his higher authorities.

9

Therefore, the search and seizure in this case is clearly violated the mandatory provisions by the Investigating Officer.

22.Regarding the search and seizure, the Investigating Officer has to follow the Mandatory provisions U/sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C to ensure independent reliable mediators from the locality. The object of Sec.100 (4)

Cr.P.C is ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at the search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of any other locality is not only weaken, but some times destroys the prosecution case.

23. According to P.W.2, the Investigating Officer secured two mediators i.e., Tahsildar ( P.W.1) and Village Revenue Officer, Kadiri town (L.W.2 Velaga Anjineyulu), who agreed to act as mediators and proceeded to the scene of offence. According to P.W.1 on 8.5.2018 at about 4­00 p.m., while he was present at Mandal Office, Kadiri, Kadiri town police served summons to himself and L.W.2 to act as mediators. Accordingly, they both went to the police station and accompanied with police and went to the scene of offence.

24.Admittedly, the scene of offence is a residential locality and many persons are available at the scene of offence, but the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, he did not try to secure the presence of mediators from the said locality. Therefore, the Investigating Officer violated the Mandatory Provisions U/sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C while they conducting search and seizure.

25.Here in the present case in hand, P.W.2 categorically deposed in his evidence that, Ex.P.1 contains the recitals that, the contraband 10 seized is a dry ganja and he did not make a mention in Ex.P.1 that the contraband contains stalks, leaves, seeds, flowering and fruiting tops. As per evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 the contraband seized from the possession of the accused is only ganja leaves. As per Ex.P.1 report, they found only one luggage bag contains four white plastic packets. But, the said luggage bag not produced before the court to believe the alleged seizure of contraband.

The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 contra to the recitals that are mentioned in

Ex.P.1 report.

26.From the aforesaid admissions elicited from the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2, there is every possibility that the sample sent to the Analyst, which was drawn from M.Os.1 to 4 contraband is not that of M.Os.5 to 8.

There is no specific recital in Ex.P.1 that at what source Ex.P.1 obtained at the scene of offence which is computer generated copy. Further, the

Investigating Officer failed to produce the accused before the nearest

Magistrate as per their option available to them for search and seizure,

which amounts to deliberate violation of Mandatory Provisions of Sec.52, 53, 55 of NDPS Act.

27.In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the considered opinion that the non examination of the Investigating Officer is fatal to the prosecution case as the prosecution failed to establish that the

Investigating Officer followed the mandatory provisions prescribed under the Act through the evidence of P.W.2, who accompanied with the

Investigating Officer. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the charge levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and it is fit case to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

11

28.Point No.2:­

In the result, the accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section U/sec. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) 21 (b) & (c) and 25 of

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated under section 437­A Cr.P.C. Accused No.3 shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any case. M.Os.1 to 8 in

CPR.No.80/2018 on the file of this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th day of June, 2020.

rI Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

P.W.1 : P.Venkataramana. ­None­

P.W.2 : O.Sahadeva Reddy.

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Confession­Arrest­Seizure Mahazarnama, dt.8.5.2018.

Ex.P.2 : Served Summons.

Ex.P.3 : First Information Report.

Ex.P.4 : Letter of Advice.

Ex.P.5: Chemical Analysis Report.

Exhibits marked for defence

­Nil­

Mos. marked for

M.Os.1 to 4: 4 pockets of dry ganja. 

M.Os.5 to 8 : 4 pockets of sample ganja. 

Ild/­ AMGK I ASJ.

1

In the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Present: Smt A.Mary Grace Kumari, I Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, this the 27th day of May, 2020.

Cr.M.P.321/2020 in Cr.No.11/2020 of Ramagiri P.S. Between :

Hanumanthappagari Gopal @ Boggu Gopal, aged 41 years, S/o Hanumanthappa, R/o Kadamalakunta village, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District, Karnataka State. … Petitioner/A1.

And

State rep. by S.H.O., Ramagiri P.S. Reptd., by Spl. P.P. …Respondent/Complainant.

Cr.M.P.323/2020 in Cr.No.11/2020 of Ramagiri P.S. Between :

1. M.Siva Kumar @ Muppala Siva Kumar, aged 39 years, S/o Muppala Lakshminarayana, D.No.2/58, Main road, R.Kothapalli village, Ramagiri Mandal, Anantapuramu District. (A3)

2. Madapuram Sankar @ B.Ramesh @ Boya Sankar, aged 44 years, S/o B.Muthyalappa, N.Madhapuramu village, Nasanakota, Ramagiri Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

… Petitioners/A3 and A4.

And

State rep. by S.H.O., Ramagiri P.S. Reptd., by Spl. P.P. …Respondent/Complainant.

These two Petitions are coming on 27.5.2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Ramalingaiah, Advocate for Petitioner/Accused No.1 and Sri B.Harshavardhan Reddy, Kum N.Lavanya and Sri G.Hari Krishna, Advocates for petitioners/A3 and A4 and of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusing the records and on hearing both sides, this court made the following:

COMMON ORDER

The counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P.321/2020 filed this petition U/sec.439 of Cr.P.C on behalf of petitioner/Accused No.1, who was remanded to judicial custody on 20.1.2020 in Cr.No.11/2020 of Ramagiri Police Station registered for the offences punishable U/Secs.115, 120 (B) IPC and Sec.5 of ES Act and Sec.25 (1) (B) of Indian Arms Act.

2.The counsel for the petitioners in Cr.M.P.323/2020 filed this petition under section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking relief from the court to enlarge them on bail in the event of their arrest by granting anticipatory bail to them in Cr.No.11/2020 of Ramagiri PS for the offences punishable U/Secs.115, 120 (B) IPC and Sec.5 of ES Act and Sec.25 (1) (B) of Indian Arms Act.

3. Notice given to the learned Spl.PP. Memo filed to that effect.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 21.1.2020 at 4-00 p.m., the SI of Police, Ramagiri, apprehended the A1 and A2 at bus stand of Garimekalapalli village while they were in illegal possession of knife, electrical detonators, 3 gelatin sticks and gun 2 powder under cover of seizure mahazarnama. During the confession, A1 and A2 stated that they made agreement from the abettors A3/M.Siva Kumar and A4/Boya Sankar to eliminate Meenuga Nagaraju, Elakkuntla Nallapa Reddy and Maruthi, who are upcoming local politicians. Then the respondent arrested A1 and A2 and basing on the said seizure mahazarnama, a case was registered against A1 and A2 (petitioners) and others. The petitioners were remanded to judicial custody on 20.1.2020.

5. Heard both the counsel through Whats App video conferencing.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1 submitted that, the petitioner/A1 is innocent of the alleged offences and he is falsely implicated in this case with an intention to harass him and the petitioner is no way connected to one Siva Kumar and Boya Shankar. No weapons were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 20.1.2020, the prosecution purposefully not filed charge sheet in this case, though the investigation is completed. The learned counsel further contended that A2 was already released on bail as per orders in Cr.M.P.203/2020, dt.24.3.2020. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that respondent police not filed charge sheet till date.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners/A3 and A4 in Cr.M.P.323/2020 submitted that the petitioners/A3 and A4 are nothing to do with the alleged confession given by A1 and A2, due to political influence the names of this petitioners were brought on record. The petitioners are daily labours and they have to look after their respective families by doing coolie work and the entire family depending on their income. Material part of investigation is completed and except filing of charge sheet is awaited. The petitioners are apprehending humiliation and torture in the hands of respondent/police.

8.Per contra, the learned Addl.P.P opposed to grant bail to the petitioners, as the Investigation is still pending for arrest of other accused.

9. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the petitioner/A1 is entitled for bail and A3 and A4 are entitled for anticipatory bail”?

10.Point::-

In view of the contentions of both parties, I have perused the material record, which shows that, investigation is still pending for want of arrest of other accused i.e., A3 and A4. Regarding the involvement of A3 and A4, their names are spoken by A1 and A2 that there was an agreement between them to eliminate the persons named in the confession. Since the date of arrest of A1 and A2, A3 and A4 were absconding, the respondent/police still not filed charge sheet for want of arrest of A3 and A4.

3

11.In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner/A1 is at liberty to file an application U/sec.167 (2) Cr.P.C, since the respondent not filed charge sheet so far and the accused No.1 is in judicial custody since more than 90 days. In view of the aforesaid circumstances that, investigation is still pending for want of arrest of A3 and A4, granting of bail infavour of A2 is not a ground to grant bail to the petitioner, who is prime accused in this case. Therefore, this court is not inclined to grant bail and pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. However, in view of the circumstances of the case and nature of the offence, A3 and A4 are directed to surrender before the JFCM, Dharmavaram on or before 15.6.2020 and obtain regular bail.

Accordingly, the Point is answered.

12.In the result, the petitions in Cr.M.P.321/2020 and Cr.M.P.323/2020 are dismissed with an observation that the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 are hereby directed to appear before the JFCM, Dharmavaram on or before 15.6.2020 and obtain regular bail.

Typed to my dictation directly by Stenographer Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me through Electronic Media, this the 28th day of May, 2020.

Sd/- A.Mary Grace Kumari,

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Copy to: (Through Mail)

The JFCM, Dharmavaram. The SHO, Ramagiri PS. The Spl. P.P, I ADJ Court, Anantapuram. The Counsel for the petitioner/A1. The Counsel for the petitioners/A3 and A4. The stock file.

Note: Soft copy will be given to the concerned after Lock down period.

1

In the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Present: Smt A.Mary Grace Kumari, I Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, this the 27th day of May, 2020.

Cr.M.P.321/2020 in Cr.No.11/2020 of Ramagiri P.S. Between :

Hanumanthappagari Gopal @ Boggu Gopal, aged 41 years, S/o Hanumanthappa, R/o Kadamalakunta village, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District, Karnataka State. … Petitioner/A1.

And

State rep. by S.H.O., Ramagiri P.S. Reptd., by Spl. P.P. …Respondent/Complainant.

Cr.M.P.323/2020 in Cr.No.11/2020 of Ramagiri P.S. Between :

1. M.Siva Kumar @ Muppala Siva Kumar, aged 39 years, S/o Muppala Lakshminarayana, D.No.2/58, Main road, R.Kothapalli village, Ramagiri Mandal, Anantapuramu District. (A3)

2. Madapuram Sankar @ B.Ramesh @ Boya Sankar, aged 44 years, S/o B.Muthyalappa, N.Madhapuramu village, Nasanakota, Ramagiri Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

… Petitioners/A3 and A4.

And

State rep. by S.H.O., Ramagiri P.S. Reptd., by Spl. P.P. …Respondent/Complainant.

These two Petitions are coming on 27.5.2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Ramalingaiah, Advocate for Petitioner/Accused No.1 and Sri B.Harshavardhan Reddy, Kum N.Lavanya and Sri G.Hari Krishna, Advocates for petitioners/A3 and A4 and of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusing the records and on hearing both sides, this court made the following:

COMMON ORDER

The counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P.321/2020 filed this petition U/sec.439 of Cr.P.C on behalf of petitioner/Accused No.1, who was remanded to judicial custody on 20.1.2020 in Cr.No.11/2020 of Ramagiri Police Station registered for the offences punishable U/Secs.115, 120 (B) IPC and Sec.5 of ES Act and Sec.25 (1) (B) of Indian Arms Act.

2.The counsel for the petitioners in Cr.M.P.323/2020 filed this petition under section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking relief from the court to enlarge them on bail in the event of their arrest by granting anticipatory bail to them in Cr.No.11/2020 of Ramagiri PS for the offences punishable U/Secs.115, 120 (B) IPC and Sec.5 of ES Act and Sec.25 (1) (B) of Indian Arms Act.

3. Notice given to the learned Spl.PP. Memo filed to that effect.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 21.1.2020 at 4-00 p.m., the SI of Police, Ramagiri, apprehended the A1 and A2 at bus stand of Garimekalapalli village while they were in illegal possession of knife, electrical detonators, 3 gelatin sticks and gun 2 powder under cover of seizure mahazarnama. During the confession, A1 and A2 stated that they made agreement from the abettors A3/M.Siva Kumar and A4/Boya Sankar to eliminate Meenuga Nagaraju, Elakkuntla Nallapa Reddy and Maruthi, who are upcoming local politicians. Then the respondent arrested A1 and A2 and basing on the said seizure mahazarnama, a case was registered against A1 and A2 (petitioners) and others. The petitioners were remanded to judicial custody on 20.1.2020.

5. Heard both the counsel through Whats App video conferencing.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1 submitted that, the petitioner/A1 is innocent of the alleged offences and he is falsely implicated in this case with an intention to harass him and the petitioner is no way connected to one Siva Kumar and Boya Shankar. No weapons were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 20.1.2020, the prosecution purposefully not filed charge sheet in this case, though the investigation is completed. The learned counsel further contended that A2 was already released on bail as per orders in Cr.M.P.203/2020, dt.24.3.2020. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that respondent police not filed charge sheet till date.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners/A3 and A4 in Cr.M.P.323/2020 submitted that the petitioners/A3 and A4 are nothing to do with the alleged confession given by A1 and A2, due to political influence the names of this petitioners were brought on record. The petitioners are daily labours and they have to look after their respective families by doing coolie work and the entire family depending on their income. Material part of investigation is completed and except filing of charge sheet is awaited. The petitioners are apprehending humiliation and torture in the hands of respondent/police.

8.Per contra, the learned Addl.P.P opposed to grant bail to the petitioners, as the Investigation is still pending for arrest of other accused.

9. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the petitioner/A1 is entitled for bail and A3 and A4 are entitled for anticipatory bail”?

10.Point::-

In view of the contentions of both parties, I have perused the material record, which shows that, investigation is still pending for want of arrest of other accused i.e., A3 and A4. Regarding the involvement of A3 and A4, their names are spoken by A1 and A2 that there was an agreement between them to eliminate the persons named in the confession. Since the date of arrest of A1 and A2, A3 and A4 were absconding, the respondent/police still not filed charge sheet for want of arrest of A3 and A4.

3

11.In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner/A1 is at liberty to file an application U/sec.167 (2) Cr.P.C, since the respondent not filed charge sheet so far and the accused No.1 is in judicial custody since more than 90 days. In view of the aforesaid circumstances that, investigation is still pending for want of arrest of A3 and A4, granting of bail infavour of A2 is not a ground to grant bail to the petitioner, who is prime accused in this case. Therefore, this court is not inclined to grant bail and pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. However, in view of the circumstances of the case and nature of the offence, A3 and A4 are directed to surrender before the JFCM, Dharmavaram on or before 15.6.2020 and obtain regular bail.

Accordingly, the Point is answered.

12.In the result, the petitions in Cr.M.P.321/2020 and Cr.M.P.323/2020 are dismissed with an observation that the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 are hereby directed to appear before the JFCM, Dharmavaram on or before 15.6.2020 and obtain regular bail.

Typed to my dictation directly by Stenographer Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me through Electronic Media, this the 28th day of May, 2020.

Sd/- A.Mary Grace Kumari,

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Copy to: (Through Mail)

The JFCM, Dharmavaram. The SHO, Ramagiri PS. The Spl. P.P, I ADJ Court, Anantapuram. The Counsel for the petitioner/A1. The Counsel for the petitioners/A3 and A4. The stock file.

Note: Soft copy will be given to the concerned after Lock down period.