In the court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Chittoor.
Present: Sri A.V.Ravindra Babu,
Principal District and Sessions Judge,
FAC I Additional District Judge, Chittoor.
Wednesday, the Seventh ( 07 th ) day of August, 2019.
S.C.NO. 129 OF 2012
PRC.NO. 12 OF 2012 OF III AJFCM, CHITTOOR
Cr.No.58 of 2011 of Penumur Police Station P.S.
Complainant The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Pakala Circle, Chittoor District.
Accused 1. Jayaprakash Rajesh @ Raja, aged 27 years, Son of K. Jayaprakash, N/o Kotamitta, Sathyavedu Mandal, R/o Jandra Street, Penumur, Chittoor District.
2. Rajendran Arun Kumar, aged 23 years, Son of K. Rajendran, D.No.33C, 3rd Street, Saravanambatti Post, Sivanandapuram, Coimbatore Town and District.
Case against A1 and A2 was split up and numbered as S.C.No.181 of 2017.
3. Medur Gurappa Parthipan @ Deepu, aged 22 years, Son of Late Gurappa, Door No.11/14, Kummaragunta, Sathyavedu Town and Mandal Chittoor District.
4. Challaiah Venkatesh @ Venki, aged 22 years, Son of Challaiah, SC Colony, Sathyavedu Town
and Mandal, Chittoor District.
The prosecution isSmt. M. Vidyavathy. conducted byPublic Prosecutor, In-charge of Additional Public Prosecutor. The accused are Sri R. Chandrasekhar, Counsel for accused Nos 3 defended byand 4
OFFENCEUnder Sections 364, 302, 379, 397, 398 IPC r/w 34 IPC.
ChargesUnder Sections 364 r/w 34 IPC, 302 r/w 34 IPC, 379 r/w 34 IPC, 397 r/w 34 IPC and Section 398 r/w 34 IPC.
2
Plea of the Pleaded not Guilty accused Finding of the Accused Nos 3 and 4 are found not guilty court
Sentence or orderIn the result, A3 and A4 are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 364 r/w 34 IPC, 302 r/w 34
IPC, 379 r/w 34 IPC, 397 r/w 34 IPC and 398 r/w 34
IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1)
Cr.P.C., The property disposal order as regards M.Os 1 to 13 shall be passed at the time of disposal of
SC.No.181 of 2017 on the file of this court pending
against A1 and A2. The bail bonds executed by the accused Nos 3 and 4 shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.,
This case coming on 31-07-2019 before me for final hearing, and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record, and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. M. Vidyavathy,
Public Prosecutor, In-charge of Additional Public Prosecutor of
I Additional District Court for the State, and of Sri R.
Chandrasekhar, Counsel for accused Nos 3 and 4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
This Sessions Case arises out of P.R.C.No.12/2012 in
Cr.No.58/2011 of Penumur Police Station under Sections 364, 302, 379, 397 and 398 r/w 34 IPC, which has been committed to the Court of Sessions by virtue of a committal order dated 03-02-2012, thereupon it has been numbered as Sessions Case and made over to this court for disposal according to law.
3
02. The Inspector of Police, Pakala circle filed a charge sheet in
Cr.No.58/2011 of Penumur Police Station under Section 364, 302, 379, 397 and 398 r/w 34 IPC alleging in substance that A1 is resident of Chittoor District and A2 is resident of Tamil Nadu State and a3 and a4 are the residents of Chittoor District.
The defacto complainant M. Hemeswara Reddy is a resident of
Gudyanampalle. The deceased Mopuru Kiran Kumar Reddy is resident of Gudyanampalle.
The deceased is the younger brother of L.W.1 and he was doing finance and chits business in Penumur Town by moving on his own
Bajaj Pulsar Motor cycle bearing No.AP-03-AH-3329 and he used to wear a gold chain and gold ring on his person.
A1 is a native of Kotamitta, Sathyavedu and resident of Jandra
Street, Penumru and working as a driver. A1 is bad and initially A1 developed illegal intimacy with one Sailaja, wife of Chinranjeevi of
Dalavai Agraharam, Sathyavedu and later in the year 2008 he married one Lakshmi of Sullurupet, Nellore District. Knowing about the illicit intimacy with Sailaja @ Sujatha, his wife Lakshmi discarded and went to her parent’s house. Later in the year 2009, A1 eloped with said
Sailaja @ Sujatha to Coimbatore to avoid his arrest in a criminal case at Sathyavedu and living there and whereinA1 got acquittance with A2.
A2 fell in love with one Sathyave, D/o Panner Selvam and A2 eloped with her and brought her to A1’s house. A1 and A2 along with Sailaja @ Sujatha and Sathya came to Ananthapur and all stayed in a rented house at Ananthapur. After few months, there are 4 misunderstandings between A2 and Sathya and on that the said
Sathya informed the same to her parents about their presence at
Ananthapur. By knowing the same A1 and A2 presumed that if the parents of Sathya came to Ananthapur they will book a criminal case against them. Due to fear A1, A2 along with Sailaja @ Sujatha left the house at Ananthpur leaving alone the Sathya. A1, A2 and Sailaja @
Sujatha reached Mungilipattu, Chandragiri mandal and started doing coolie works at Bricks Factory of L.W.16.
While so on 20-02-2011 Sailaja @ Sujatha while preparing tea on a Kerosene stove, lit stove. Accidentally, Kerosene fell on her which caught hold of flames and she sustained extensive burnt injuries. Then A1 and A2 admitted her in SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati as in patient. After one week, A2 went away to Chennai leaving A1 and Sailaja @ Sujatha in the Hospital and she took treatment from 20-02-2011 to 27-05-2011 and then she was died. After the death of
Sailaja @ Sujatha A1 left the dead body in the hospital and went away, presuming that if the death of the Sailaja went to the notice of her husband and her in laws, they will foist a criminal case against A1.
During treatment of Sailaja @ Sujatha at SVRR GG Hospital, Tiruapti
A1 got acquittance with L.W.17 K. Bharathi who is undergoing practical nurse training in the hospital. Thereafter in the month of June, 2011 he came to Penumuru and met L.W.17 and her cousin L.W.14 K. Sekar and A1 secured a room for rent belonging to L.W.10 G. Krishnamma with the help of L.W.14. A1 developed friends in Penumuru town including the deceased with the help of L.W.14. Since then, A1 watched the movements of the deceased that he is collecting money 5 from the shops everyday upto Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and keeping the same with him. On seeing the same, A1 intended to kill the deceased for unlawful gain and was waiting for an opportunity.
On 15-08-2011, A1 conspired with A2 and asked him to come to
Penumur to kill the deceased and to rob the cash from him and accordingly, A2 arrived to Penumuru on the same day and later A1 showed the deceased to A2 and decided to kill him. On that A2 advised A1 to arrange some more persons to kill the deceased.
Accordingly, on 18-08-2011, A1 contacted A3 to bring A4 along with him to Penumuru on the pretext of birthday of his younger brother
Hemanth. On the next day A3 and A4 came to Penumuru, moved in the town, and halted for the night along with A1. All the accused conspired together and accordingly on 19-08-2011 and 20-08-2011,
A1 was found with the company of A2 to A4 and it was witnessed by
L.W.11 C. Venkatesulu Chetty. On 20-08-2011 at 12 Noon, the deceased left his house on a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle to Penumur for collection of money and return to the house at about 4 PM and again on the same day at about 5 PM the deceased left his house on the same motorcycle by informing at his house that he will go to Penumur.
While leaving the house, the deceased was wearing a Gold chain and
Gold ring and carried cell phone. Again on 20-0-2011, A1 was found with the company of A2 to A4 along with the deceased and they had lunch at Ruchi Hotel, Penumur it was witnessed by L.Ws 12 D.
Subramanyam @ Subbu and 13 K. Sekhar. On the same day evening
A1 was found with the company of A2 to A4 along with the deceased and it was witnessed by the L.W.8 K. Yadukumar at Vasuda Book Stall, 6
Penumur. On the same day, A1 purchased liquor from L.W.15 G.
Mohan at Quality Wines Shop, Penumur. The accused 1 to 4 hatched a plan to kill the deceased for their pecuniary benefits and arranged
L.W.13 G. Amrutha to the deceased for sexual intercourse and trapped the deceased by taking his weakness as advantage. The deceased was abducted and accordingly the deceased came to
Karanamvallakunta Banda, outskirts of Penumuru and had liquor with the company of A1 to A4 and participated in sexual intercourse with
L.W.13. After completion of intercourse at about 8-00 PM all the accused all of a sudden attacked on the deceased at the fields of one
Chakrapani at the place locally called Karanamvallakunta outskirts of
Penumuru, A2 tied the belt on the neck of the deceased, A4 dragged the legs of the deceased and pull down the deceased, A1 closed the mouth of the deceased on the left hand and with right hand picked up a small knife and stabbed on the throat of the deceased, A3 stabbed on the left jaw of the deceased with broken beer bottle, A4 stabbed on left side of the Abdomen with the bottle and again A3 tried to stab the deceased, but A1 accidentally received the stab injury to his right forearm in that scuffle and at last A3 cut the throat of the deceased as a result the deceased died on the spot. After the commission of the offence A1 to A4 committed theft of gold ring, gold chain, Cell phone and motor cycle and also Rs.130/- from the deceased and escaped from the place with the stolen properties. L.W.13 who witnessed the murder was threatened by the accused A1 to A4 with dire consequences, stating that not to reveal the murder to anybody if reveals they will kill her. So, she did not reveal the same to anybody.
7
Later A3 and A4 dropped L.W.13 at a street light. After commission of the murder, all the accused left Penumuru town, on the motor cycle of the deceased to Sathyavedu via Tirupathi and on the way, they have thrown the knife and registration number plates of the motorcycle. As heavy rain during the night, the blood stains on the clothes were washed out and after reaching the house of A3, all the accused changed their dresses and thrown their dresses ast Teluguganga channel near Sathyavedu. A1 who sustained injuyry over right hand in the commission of offence took treatment from local RMP Doctor,
Sathyavedu. The gold ornaments were hidden in the house of A3 without the knowledge of inmates of the house. A3 changed the number places to the Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle and fitted the fictitious number places.
As the decreased did not return to the house on the night of 20-08-2011 and L.W.1 tried to contact him through his cell phone, but the deceased cell was found switched off. Generally, the deceased used to go to the house of their relatives at Kattamanchi, Chittoor and hence L.W.1 presumed that the deceased went to their relative’s house at Chittoor. On the next day morning i.e., on 21-08-2011 L.W.5 who found the dead body of the deceased at the place of occurrence in turn informed to L.W.1 through phone that the deceased was killed by some unknown persons at Karnamvallakunta Banda and on that L.W.1 rushed there and found the deceased dead body of the deceased.
On the report of L.W.1 the above case was registered by L.W.29
Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Penumur Police Station and investigated into.
8
During investigation L.W.31 Inspector of Police, Pakala reached the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased and found some broken glass pieces and one pair of chalpals and also sun glasses. Then L.W.31 contained CLUES Tea to visit the scene of offence along with dog squad to collect the incriminating evidence. AT 10-30 AM the clues tea consisting with dog squad arrived to the scene of offence. Teh Dog Reeta and its Trainer L.W.23 moved it and around the dead body and, immediately the dog went towards Penumur and wherein the dog moved in the Bus stand and stopped there. Since the heavyraisn took place on the yesterday ie.., on the date of offence the dog was not able to proceed further.
During further investigation inquest was held on the dead body of the deceased on 21-08-2011 from 11 AM to 1-30 PM and inquest panchaytdars i.e., L.ws 19 to L.W.21 attended the inquest. During inquest seized the clothes of the deceased, control earth,blood stained earth, sun glass, empty liquor bottles, broken bottles, one pair of leather chappals and other incriminating material was seized and inquest panchaytdars i.e., L.W.19 to L.W.21 unanimously opined that the deceased was murdered due to stabbed injures with knife and broken beer bottle. The scene of offence was photographed by
L.W.18.
During further investigation on21-08-2011 at about 1-30 PM the clues tea collected blood stains from the dead body of the deceased on the bandage cloth and L.W.31 seized the said bandage cloth containing deceased Blood and control Bandage cloth under a cover of police proceedings.
9
After inquest the dead body of deceased was forwarded to
L.W.26 who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased found 9 external and other corresponding internal ante-Morten injuries and opined as to the cause of death that the deceased died due to Cardio-
Respiratory arrest due to multiple stabbed injuries to vital organs.
L.W.27 Dr. Prasanna Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government
Headquarters Hospital, Chittoor who examined the accused No.1 opined that the injury is old one, age of wound is about one month and it is possible when touched with broken beer bottle.
The seized stained shirt of the deceased, blood stains of the deceased collected on Bandage, control bandage cloth, along with incriminating material were sent to Assistant Director, RFSL, Tirupati and L.W.28 who is the Assistant Director, RFSL, Tirupati gave report that item Nos 1 to 5 are examined and that the blood is detected on items 1, 2 and 4. Origin of blood stains on items 1, 2 and 4 could not be determined. Blood is not detected on items Nos 3 and 5, which is received as control for items 2 and 4.
During the investigation L.W.6 produced the records of the motorcycle of deceased and on verification the RC and DL were found in the name of the deceased.
During further investigation on 21-08-2011 at about 8 PM L.W.31 accompanied with L.W.9 reached A1 rented house and L.W.9 identified the shirt and photo of A1 and on that L.W.31 seized the said A1’s photo and shirt under as cover of police proceedings.
During further investigation on 21-08-2011 after P.M.
examination L.W.24 handed over the dead body to the relatives and 10 collected clothes of deceased 1) one full shirt having one stabbed hole and blood stains on it, 2) one Blue colour Jeans Pant, 3) one cotton, wire belt, 4) underwear and 5) red colour waist thread and produced the same before L.W.31 and L.W.31 seized the above said clothes of deceased vide police proceedings at 9-30 PM.
During further investigation on 24-09-2011 on information
L.W.31 accompanied by L.W.30, staff and mediators i.e., L.W.19 and
L.W.22 proceeded to Srikalahasthi bus stop at Sathyavedu town at 2-15 PM and found A1 to A3 standing with a Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle.
On seeing the police, A1 to A3 tried to skulk away,but L.W.31 with the assistance of staff caught hold of them. On questioning, A1 to A3 voluntarily confessed of having murdered the deceased and narrated the manner of commission offence along with A4. The confession of
A1 to A3 was independently recorded. On their confession L.W.31 seized the Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle under a cover of Mahazar attested by the L.W.19 and L.W.22. On verification of the said seized motorcycle, it was found tallied with that of the deceased motorcycle engine number and chasis number. Even the accused fitted the fictitious number place as TN-22-V-8220.
In pursuance of their confession, A1 to A3 lead the police party along with mediators to the house of Vijaya who is the mother of A3 and maternal aunt of A1. Then A1 went inside the house, brought one paper pocket and produced before L.W.31 by stating that it contains one gold chain and gold ring which are committed theft at the time of murder of deceased and LW.31 seized the said gold chain and ring 11 under a cover of another mahazar at 4-30 PM duly attested by the mediators.
In pursuance of their voluntarily confession, A1 to A3 lead the police party and mediators to the house of A4 situated at SC colony,
Sathyavedu and A1 called the A4. Then A4 came out from his house and L.W.31 arrested him and questioned about his involvement in the offence. On that A4 voluntarily confessed about the offence committed along with A1 to A3 and police recorded the confession statement ofA4 under a cover of another mahazar at 5-30 PM duly attested by the mediators. Then the accused 1 to 4 were sent for remand.
During further investigation on 28-09-2011 at about 6-00 PM
L.W.1 identified the gold chain, ring and Bajaj Pulsar Motor cycle of the deceased before L.W.19 under as cover of mahazar for identification of property.
During further investigation on the requisition of L.W.31, the
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor L.W.25 conducted test
identification parade of the accused in which L.W.13 and L.W.14 identified A2, A3 and A4 whereas L.W.8 identified A3 and A4, L.W.11 identified A2 and A3, L.W.12 identified A3 in the said Test identification parade held on 22-10-2011 from 11-15 AM to 1-15 PM.
During the further investigation on the requisition of L.W.31,
L.W.25 recorded 164 Cr.P.C., statements of L.Ws 12, 13 and 14 on 22- 10-2011.
Thus the accused A1 to A4 with a malafide intention and ulterior motive abducted the deceased on the pretext of consuming liquor and 12 to have sexual intercourse with L.W.13 and later murdered the deceased. A2 tied the belt on the neck of the deceased, A4 dragged the legs of the deceased and pull down the deceased, A1 closed the mouth of the deceased with the left hand and picked up a small knife with right hand and stabbed on the throat of the deceased, A3 stabbed on the left jaw of the deceased with broken Beer bottle, A4 stabbed on left side of the abdomen with bottle and again A3 tried to stab the deceased, but A1 accidentally received the stab injury on his right forearm in that scuffle and at last A3 cut the throat of the deceased as a result the deceased died on the spot. After commission of the offence A1 to A4 committed theft of gold ring, gold chain,cell phone and also Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle from the deceased and escaped from the place with the stolen properties and hence the accused A1 to A4 are liable for punishment under Sections 364, 302, 379, 397 and 398 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.
03. The learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Chittoor on perusal of the material available on record, taken cognizance under sections 364, 302, 379, 397 and 398 r/w 34 IPC against the accused Nos 1 to 4 and issued summons to them. On appearance of accused copies of case documents are furnished as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the learned
Magistrate in compliance of Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to
this Court and thereupon it has been assigned Sessions case No.129 of 2012.
13
04.On appearance of the accused Nos 1 to 4 and A1 and A2 absconded from the process of law, the case against A1 and A2 is split up and numbered as SC.No. 181 of 2017 and it is pending in
SC.No.181 of 2017. The case assistant the present accused i.e., A3
and A4 has been proceeded with.
05.My predecessor in office by following the procedure under
Section 228 Cr.P.C., framed charges under section Under Sections 364 r/w 34 IPC, 302 r/w 34 IPC, 379 r/w 34 IPC, 397 r/w 34 IPC and
Section 398 r/w 34 IPC against Accused Nos 3 and 4 and explained to same to the accused Nos 3 and 4 in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
06. During the course of trial, on behalf of Prosecution PWs-1 to PW-20 are examined and Exhibits P-1 to P-33 are marked and
M.Os 1 to 13 are marked.
07. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused Nos 3 and 4 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in for which they denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that they have no defence witnesses and that they are falsely implicated in the case.
08. Heard both sides.
14
09.Now, in deciding the charges framed against the accused Nos , the points that arise for consideration are as follows :–
1. Whether the accused Nos 3 and 4 along with other accused abducted the deceased Mopuru
Kiran Kumar Reddy in the manner as alleged on 20-08-2011?
2. Whether the prosecution has proved that on 20-08-2011 at 8-00 PM, the accused Nos 3 and 4 along with others committed murder of the
deceased in the manner as alleged ?
3. Whether the prosecution has proved that A3 and A4 committed theft of gold ring, gold chain, cell phone and motor cycle of the deceased Mopuru Kiran Kumar Reddy and caused grievous hurt against the deceased in
the manner as alleged by the prosecution ?
4. Whether the prosecution has proved that accused used deadly weapons and caused the death of the deceased, as such proved the
offence under Section 398 IPC r/w 34 IPC ?
5. Whether the prosecution has proved the charges framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?
10. POINTS:-
To bring home the guilt of the accused Nos 3 and 4, the prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses.
15
11. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, he deposed that on the earlier day night of 20.8.2011 his younger brother Kiran Kumar Reddy was killed by Raja, Kumar, Depu and Venky who are accused No.1 to
4. On 20.8.2011 at about 11 am he came to Chittoor on his personal work and his brother kiran Kuamr Reddy informed him at 12 noon that he is going to Penumur on his personal work i.e., to collect the amounts. He returned to the village at 7 PM. He enquired about the deceased with his parents. They informed that the deceased came at 4 PM and again left at 5 PM and so far not returned. On that day also he left the house on his motor cycle. At 9 PM, he contacted the deceased over mobile by calling to his number 8879933643 but received reply that it was switched off.
He thought that the deceased might have left to their relative’s house and slept over there at Kattamanchi. Again on the next day morning at 8 am he contacted to the mobile number of the deceased but received the same reply that it was switched off. Within ten minutes thereafter he received a call from painter Bhakathasikamani (LW.5) and told him that he found the dead body of the deceased at
Kranmavandlaguntabanda. It is at a distance of 7 km from his village.
He intimated the same to Mohanrami Reddy, Jaganadha Reddy and others. They all went there and found the dead body of the deceased and found injuries over the neck, left side of the abdomen.
He used to wear minor gold chain, gold ring and they were missing. The mobile and motor bike of the deceased were also not there. He thought that somebody killed the deceased for gain.
16
Immediately he approached Penumur Police station and gave a written complaint vide Ex.P.1.
On 28.9.2011 at about 6 PM, he was called by Revenue
Inspector, Penumur to Taluk office who requested him to verify the gold ornaments and to identify. On that he identified minor gold chain, gold ring, and Motor cycle bearing No. AP.03 AH 3329 belongs to the deceased. The Revenue Inspector prepared proceedings wherein he signed and also the Revenue Inspector vide Ex.P.2.
The said properties were given interim custody to him (PW1) and he produced the same. MO.1 is the minor gold chain, MO.2 is the gold ring and MO.3 is the Bajaj Pulsar bearing No. AP.03 AH.3329. Mos.1 to 3 are again given to PW.1 for interim custody with direction to produce the same as and when required.
He was examined by police and he was present at the time of inquest. He can identify the clothes of the deceased, MO.4 is the shirt,
MO.5 is the jeans pant, MO.6 is the belt, MO.7 is the undergarment,
MO.8 is the red waist thread (cotton), and MO.9 is the one pair of leather chappals. Police examined him and recorded his statement.
12.Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, he is a resident of
Gudiyanampalli village. He is doing cultivation. PW.1 is brother’s son.
The deceased Kiran Kumar is the younger brother of PW.1. Kiran
Kumar was killed on 20.08.2011 night. He is a B.Com graduate.
During his life time he used to do private chit and finance business.
17
On 20.08.2011 at about 9 PM PW.1 contacted him over Phone and told that Kiran Kumar has not returned to the house and that his mobile was switched off. He searched for his brother here and there.
On the next day morning at 9 am, PW.1 told that Bhakthasikamani (LW.5) contacted him and told that he found the dead body of the deceased at Karnamavandlaguttabanda. Immediately they all went to
Karnamvandlaguttabanda found dead body of the deceased, injuries over the neck, and left side of the abdomen.
PW.1 reported to the matter to the police. On observing the dead body he found that the minor gold chain, gold ring, Pulsar motorbike and mobile of the deceased were all missing. They also found broken beer bottles and they suspected that the deceased was killed with those broken bottles, for gain. Later Police came and conducted panchanamma till 1.30 PM. Police examined him and recorded his statement.
13.Coming to the evidence of P.W.3- he is a resident of
Penumur village. He is running a Hotel, at Penumur for the last 16 years in the name and style of Ruchi Hotel. He know Pw.1 and he is resident of Gudiyanampalli. The deceased Kiran Kumar is the younger brother of PW.1. He know A.1 Rajesh @ Raja along with Kiran Kumar who used to come to his hotel. During his life time he used to do private chit and finance business. Kiran Kumar Reddy was killed on 20.8.2011. He used to consume alcohol. There are six workers in his 18 hotel. Subramanyam @ Subbu (LW.12) (Tea master and cook), One
Ravi used to cook fried rice, Amruta (LW.13) and Balaji are suppliers.
Kiran Kumar Reddy used to come to his hotel to have tea.
Regularly he will be sitting in the cash counter and during his absence
Subbu (LW.12) will attend to the cash counter.
On 20.08.2011 at about 5.00-5.30 PM, Kiran Kumar came to his shop and had tea. At 6 PM he left his hotel to attend his personal work. On the next day morning at 8.30 AM, he came to know that somebody was killed at Karnamvandlaguttabanda. He requested Subbu to look after the cash counter and he went to the place where the dead body was lying and identified the dead body as of Kiran Kumar. He found injuries over the throat and also left side abdomen. Police came at 11.00 AM. He was present at the time of inquest up to 1.30 PM.
Police examined him and recorded his statement.
14.Coming to the evidence of P.W.4 he is a resident of
Penumur village. He is a painter. He know Pw.1 and he is a resident of Gudiyanampalli. The deceased Kiran Kumar is the younger brother of PW.1. On 21.08.2011 he was attending to painting work at OM
Sakthi Building which is adjacent to Karnamvandlaguttabanda.
Somebody informed him that the dead body was laying and immediately he went there and found the dead body is of Kiran Kumar and contacted PW.1 and told him what he observed. He found injuries over the throat and on the left side of the abdomen. He found broken beer bottles at the scene of offence. At 10.45 - 11 am police came prepared panchanamma and he was there till 1.30 -2 PM. He was 19 examined by the police, PW.2, and several villagers were present there.
15.Coming to the evidence of P.W.5 he is a resident of
Penumur and running a book stall for past 15 years. He know PW.1 and also deceased Kiran Kumar Reddy. Deceased used to do finance and chit business. Deceased was his friend. He is resident of
Gudiyanamapalli village and it is at a distance of 7 km from Penumur.
He know the accused who used to move with deceased. On 20.8.2011
Kiran Kumar was killed.
On 20.8.2011 at about 6 PM deceased along with A.3, A.4,
Rajesh (A.1), and Kumar (A.2) @ Hemanth Kumar came to him and requested Rs.1000-00. He questioned the reason for which deceased told to him that he has to celebrate the birth day of brother of Rajesh namely Hemanth Kumar. He told him to come after half an hour.
Later deceased and Rajesh came to his shop on the bike of the deceased. He paid Rs.1000/- to the deceased. Deceased was in the habit of consuming alcohol with friends.
On the next day after 8.30 AM, he came to know that the deceased was killed and dead body was lying at
Karnamavandlaguttabanda. He went there and saw the dead body, and the injuries on the left side abdomen and on the neck. The gold chain and gold ring, cellphone and bike of the deceased are found missing. Police examined him and recorded his statement. He also told to police that he can identify the person who accompanied the deceased on the day when he came to his shop for Rs.1000/- 20
On 22.10.2011 he identified Depu, Venky who are A.3 and A.4 standing in the dock, during test identification parade conducted by the Magistrate. Police examined him.
16.Coming to the evidence of P.W.6 he is a resident of
Penumur mandal. He is working as a photographer and also photographer in studio in the name and style of Taj Photo Studio,
Penumur. He know Deceased Kiran Kumar Reddy. On 20.8.2011 he died. He used to do finance and private chit business. He is his friend.
Prior to this incident, one or one and half months ago Raja came along with the deceased to verify the collected amount in their studio.
K.Sekhar (LW.14) is a friend to the decased and also Raja (A.1). All the three persons came to his studio three to four times prior to the incident.
On 21.8.2011 he came to know about the death of Kiran Kumar
Reddy at Karanamvandlaguttabanda and found the dead body. He also found that gold chain, gold ring, mobile and bike of the deceased were all missing.
On the next day he was called by the Circle Inspector of Police,
Pakala while he was in the studio and took him to Jandra Street,
Penumur, the house belongs to Krishnamma where Raja was tenant.
He found the half sleeve shirt of Raja and he identified it as though belongs to Raja and he also collected the photo of Raja and handed over to Circle Inspector of Police, Pakala. He was examined by the police and recorded his statement.
21
17.Coming to the evidence of P.W.7 he is a resident of
Penumur mandal. He is running a petty shop. He know the deceased
Kiran Kumar Reddy. He know the accused Raja (A.1) and Arun Kumar (A.2). He know K.Sekhar (LW.14) and K.Bharati (LW.17). He is residing in Jandra Street which is opposite to Krishnamma’s house.
Raja (A.1) used to reside in the house of Krishnamma as tenant since one or two months prior to the death of the deceased. Bharati, Arun
Kumar (A.2), Sekhar (LW.14) used to visit the house of Raja.
On 19.8.2011 at about 5 PM five or six persons namely Bharati,
Arun Kumar (A.2), Sekhar (LW.14) and two others came to the house of Raja. Again on 20.8.2011 the Bharati, Arun Kumar (A.2), Sekhar (LW.14) and two others came to the house of Raja and went away. He can identify those two new persons which shown to him. The witness observed the accused standing in the dock and identified A.3 and A.4 as the persons who visited the house of Raja on 20.8.2011 along with
Bharati, Arun Kumar (A.2), Sekhar (LW.14).
On 21.8.2011 at about 8 AM he heard from the villagers that some body was killed and the villagers were going there. Then he also went there and found the dead body of Kiran Kumar. Afterwards Raja did not came to his room and his whereabouts not known. Two months after he identified A.3 and A.4 in the Sub Jail when test identification parade is conducted by the Magistrate. Police examined him and recorded his statement.
18.P.W.8 is a resident of Yenugukondaiahgaripalle, Penumur
Mandal. He is working as Tea master in the shop of PW.3 for last 14 22 years. He know the deceased Kiran Kumar Reddy. He know the accused Raja (A.1) and Arun Kumar (A.2). They used to visit our hotel for lunch. Kiran Kumar Reddy was killed on 20.8.2011. Amruta, Balaji
Naidu and Gopi are also working in the tea shop of PW.3. Amruta and
Balaji Naidu are Suppliers.
On 20.8.2011 at about 1 PM, Raja, Arun Kumar, Kiran Kumar
Reddy and two other persons came to their hotel and had their lunch. At the time his owner was absent. Raja used to talk with Amruta in their hotel and had illicit relationship. The above persons had a talk that there was birthday of somebody and they left the hotel. At 6.30 PM, Raja contacted him and requested to give the mobile to Amruta, for which he refused but afterwards he gave the mobile to Amruta and Raja and
Amruta had a talk but he do not know the details. At 7 PM Amruta left the hotel. Police took him to Sub Jail where he identified the two new persons before the Magistrate. Accused No.3 and 4 are the same persons whom he identified in the sub jail.
On the next day morning he came to know about the death of the deceased and he went there and identified the dead body at
Karnamvandlaguttabanda. Police examined and recorded his statement.
19.Coming to the evidence of P.W.9, she is a resident of
Kanikapuram village. She is doing bangle selling business. She know the deceased Kiran Kumar Reddy. On 20.8.2011 he was killed. By then she was working as supplier in Ruchi Hotel at Penumur for the past 4 months. PW.3 is the owner of the Ruchi Hotel. Balaji was also 23 working as Supplier, PW.8 was the tea master, and PW.3 will not be available in the hotel and in his absence PW.8 will look after the entire business. Deceased Kiran Kumar Reddy was regular visitor to their hotel and he had contacts with PW.8 Subramanyam and PW.3, Bujji.
She know the accused No.1 and 2 ie., Raja and Kumar. They used to come to their hotel for tiffin and meals. She has sexual relationship with first accused.
On 20.8.2011 at about 2 PM Kiran Kumar, Raja, Kumar and two other persons came to their hotel for meals. The other two persons are Deepu and Venky as stated by Raja. She can identify those two persons. Those are the accused No.3 and 4 who are standing in the dock.
On that day when those persons came for lunch their owner Bujji (PW.3) was not present. Later he came at 4PM and left the hotel at 6
PM. At 6.30 PM A.1 contacted PW.8 to talk to her. On that PW.8 gave the mobile to her to talk to Raja. He promised to pay Rs.3000-00 which was requested by her earlier about two weeks ago. He requested her to come to Om Sakthi building to receive Rs.3000-00.
She went there at 7 PM. There she found A.1 and A.2. Accused No.1 and 2 took her on motor cycle to Karnamvandlaguttabanda. There she found Deceased Kiran Kumar, Deepu and Venky are consuming the alcohol. The first accused told her that Kiran Kumar Reddy expressed his sexual intention on her and they sent her and Kiran Kumar Reddy to a lonely place and when they both were in compromising mood.
Then Raja, Kumar (A.1 and A.2) asked him whether ( ) (work is completed). On that Kiran Kumar Reddy answered in positive.
24
Thereafter both of them returned to the place where the other four accused were there. Then A.2 put a belt around the neck of the deceased. First accused closed the mouth of the deceased, A.3 and
A.4 pulled the legs of the deceased and pushed him down. Then they picked up a beer bottle, broken it and stabbed on the left side of the abdomen of the deceased, and took out a knife and cut the throat of the deceased and killed the deceased. The deceased died on the spot.
The accused took out gold chain, gold ring, mobile and motor bike of the deceased.
On the request of A.1, both A.3 and A.4 dropped her at Check post of Penumur on the bike. A.3 drove the motor cycle, she sat in the middle and 4th accused was the second pillion rider. All the four accused threatened her with dire consequences in case of disclosing this to anybody. Thereafter she went to her home and as as-usual attended to her work at the hotel and did not disclose this incident to anybody out of fear.
Later she identified the accused No.1 to 4 in District Jail,
Chittoor before the Magistrate during test identification parade. She was examined by the Magistrate, by recording her statement. It contains her signature. Afterwards she was examined by Circle
Inspector of Police.
20.Coming to the evidence of P.W.10 he is working as Thaliri at Penumur MRO office. He is resident of Pedda Kalikiri. He know the deceased Kiran Kumar Reddy died on 21.8.2011. He know Bharati (LW.17) who is his cousin sister. His cousin sister Bharati introduced 25 the first accused to him. Since then he know him. This was ten days earlier to the date of this incident. His cousin sister told that first accused is working at Chennai and getting salary of Rs.20,000/- and that he intended to leave the job to do business and requested to search for a room. He secured a room in the house of Krishnamma (LW.10) at Jandra Street, Penumur through Subramanyam (PW.8) for
Rs.400/- rent per month. He used to visit the room of first accused.
The first accused is in the habit of taking liquor but, he never participated. Kumar also used to visit the room of the first accused and consume liquor. His cousin sister Bharati intended to marry the first accused. On that she also used to visit the room of the first accused.
On 20.8.2011 first accused introduced A.3 and A.4 as Deepu and
Venky when they came to the room of the first accused. He can identify them who are standing in the dock.
On 21.8.2011 he saw the dead body of the deceased at
Karnamvandlaguttabanda. Subsequently two months after the incident he identified A.3 and A.4 before the Magistrate at District Jail, Chittoor.
Before that he was examined by the Magistrate in order to know how
could he identified the suspects. He was examined by the Inspector of
Police and recorded by statement.
21.Coming to the evidence of P.W.11, he is a resident of
Yenugukondaiahgaripalle village, Penumur. He is working as sales boy in a wine shop at Penumur for the past 10 years. Their shop is situated opposite to the Penumur bus stand. His salary is Rs.2000-00 26 per month. His duty hours are at 10.30 am to 11.30 PM. He know the first accused. He used to come to their shop everyday. He know the deceased Kiran Kumar Reddy. On 21.8.2011 he died and he saw the dead body on that day at Karnamvandlaguttabanda.
On 20.08.2011 at about 6.30PM first accused came to their shop and purchased four beer bottles and three breezer (wine) bottles.
PW.10 introduced the first accused to him. Police examined him and recorded his statement.
22.Coming to the evidence of P.W.12, she is resident of
Ananthapur District. She is working as Nurse at Mythiri Hospital,
Ananthapur. Earlier to that she worked at Ruya Hospital, Tirupati.
PW.11 is her cousin brother. She know the first accused. She know him when he admitted his wife in Ruya hospital, Tirupati in February 2011.
After 10 days she heard that the wife of the A.1 died in the hospital due to ill health. Later she do not know anything about the first accused. She was not examined by the Circle Inspector of Police in this case.
The prosecution got declared him as hostile and during the cross examination, he denied the case of the prosecution.
23.Coming to the evidence of P.W.13 he is working as VRO of
Irala. Earlier worked at Penumur. He know M.Sudhakar (LW.19) and
K.Munikrishnama Naidu (LW.21). On 21.8.2011 Circle Inspector of
Police, Pakala called him, M.Sudhakar, VRI (LW.19) and 27
K.Munikrishnama Naidu (LW.21) to Karnamavandlaguttabanda to act as mediator for inquest over the dead body of Kiran Kumar Reddy.
They all went there and found the dead body. Police conducted inquest over the dead body. Police examined the blood relatives of the deceased during inquest, held from 11 am to 1.30 PM. They found injuries over the throat, left side abdomen and also observed blood stained marks. They also found broken beer bottles. Circle Inspector of Police seized the same under a cover of mahazar. Inquest report is
Ex.P.5 and the same was signed by him, M.Sudhakar (LW.19) and
K.Munikrishnama Naidu (LW.21) and Circle Inspector of Police. They all concluded that the deceased was killed for gain. MO.10 three empty bottles, MO.11 is one broken bottle.
24. Coming to the evidence of P.W.14 he is working as
Constable in SR Pruam Police station. Earlier worked at Penumur. On 21.8.2011 at about 2 PM he was deputed to escort the dead body of the deceased to Government hospital, Chittoor for postmortem examination. After PM examination the dead body was handed over to the blood relatives of the deceased. He handed over the wearing apparels i.e., shirt, pant, belt, waist thread and undergarment (Mos. 4 to 8) of the deceased to the Circle Inspector of Police on the same day night 9.30 PM.
25.Coming to the evidence of P.W.15 she is working as III
Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. Previously she worked as Prl.
Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor from May 2011 to April.2014.
28
On 14.10.2011 she received proceedings from the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Chittoor to conduct test identification parade of three
suspects R.Arun Kumar, G.Parthiban @ Deepu and C.Venkatesh@
Venky through witnesses by name K.Yadhu Kumar (PW.5),
C.Venkatesulu Chetty, (PW.7), D.Subramanyam (PW.8) G.Amruta (PW.9) K.Sekhar (PW.10). Accordingly she fixed the date of parade on 22.10.2011 and the place of parade is in the premises of District-Jail
Chittoor. She issued summons to the witnesses and in pursuance of the same the above witnesses appeared before her at 11.15 am, on 22.10.2011 then she recorded their statements to know their capacity to identify the suspects and told them to be present at the District Jail,
Chittoor. Ex.P.6 is the requisition filed by the Inspector of Police,
Pakala. Ex.P.7 to 11 are the statements of witnesses namely K.Yadhu
Kumar (PW.5), C.Venkatesulu Chetty, (PW.7), D.Subramanyam (PW.8)
G.Amruta (PW.9), K.Sekhar (PW.10) recorded by her.
Then she proceeded to District and conducted the proceedings by instructing the Superintendent to arrange the proceedings at suitable place which is hospital premises located within the jail premises. On her instructions the Superintendent produced the suspects and non-suspects in 1:5 ratio. Then she noted the names of suspects and non-suspects in her proceedings. She took all precautions that the non-suspects for the corresponding suspects are of similar age, height and complexion including their dress. They are all in shirt and lungi.
Then she found three rows with this non-suspects and asked the suspects to choose a place of their choice in the row and the row, 29 when the first witness entered the hall ID depicted in her proceedings.
Then she called for the Yadhu Kumar and requested him to verify the suspects and non-suspects standing in the row and to identify the suspect on that he identified only the second and third suspects ie.,
M.Gurrappa Parthiban @ Deepu and C.Venkatesh @ Venky.
Then she instructed him to stand and wait at a distance which place is not visible to the place of parade.
Then she asked the non-suspects to reshuffle the row and the suspects choose the position in the row of their choice. Then she called for second witness C.Venkatesulu Chetty (PW.7). She came verified the rows and identified Arun Kumar (A.2) and M.Parthiban @
Deepu (A.3). Then she instructed him to stand and wait at a distance which place is not visible to the place of parade.
Then she asked the non-suspects to reshuffle the row and the suspects choose the position in the row of their choice. Then she called for third witness D.Subramanyam (PW.8). She came verified the rows and identified M.Gurrrappa Parthiban @ Deepu (A.3). Then she instructed him to stand and wait at a distance which place is not visible to the place of parade.
Then she asked the non-suspects to reshuffle the row and the suspects choose the position in the row of their choice then she called for third witness G.Amruta (PW.9), she came verified the rows and identified Arun Kumar (A.2), M.Gurrappa Parthiban @ Deepu (A.3)
C.Venkatesh @ Venky (A.4). Then she instructed her to stand and wait at a distance which place is not visible to the place of parade.
30
Then she asked the non-suspects to reshuffle the row and the suspects choose the position in the row of their choice then she called for third witness Sekhar (PW.10), he came verified the rows and identified Arun Kumar (A.2), M.Gurrappa Parthiban @ Deepu (A.3)
C.Venkatesh @ Venky (A.4). Then she instructed him to stand and wait at a distance which place is not visible to the place of parade.
After handing over all the non-suspects to the jail authorities she separately examined Suspect No.1 to 3 and recorded their statements.
Ex.P.12 to 14 are the statements recorded by her. The suspects stated that they were kept at Kallur Police station for ten days and they had seen all the witnesses at the Police station as they used to supply food items to them and police had taken their photographs.
They also stated that they have seen all the witnesses in the court yesterday when they were produced for remand extension.
Accordingly she concluded proceedings of Test Identification parade and the same is marked as Ex.P.15.
She also received requisition from Inspector of Police, Pakala
Circle, to record 164 Cr.P.C., Statements of D.Subramanyam (PW.8),
G.Amruta (PW.9) and K.Sekhar (PW.10). Ex.P.16 is the said proceedings.
Accordingly she issued summons and on their appearance on 22.10.2011 she recorded their statements marked as Ex.P.17 to P.19.
31
26.Coming to the evidence of P.W.16 he is working as Head
Quarter Deputy Tahsildar. Earlier he worked as Addl. Revenue
Inspector, Penumur from June 2011 to September 2012. He know
M.Kodandarami Reddy (LW.22) who worked as VRO along with him.
On 21.8.2011 their Tahsildar ordered them to attend to the inquest proceedings conducted by Inspector of Police, Pakala at
Karnamvandlaguttabanda. Ex.P.5 is the said proceedings attested by him.
On 24.9.2011 at about 10.30 am Circle Inspector of Police called him to Sathyavedu and after obtaining permission from his Tahsildar and he accompanied with them. M.Kodandarami Reddy (LW.22) also accompanied them. They found three persons at Srikalahasti bus stand at Sathyavedu. Police apprehended them and enquired them separately, out of them one person namely Rajesh, told that he is living behind Sathyavedu police station building. He had illicit relationship with one Sailaja. Disputes arose with elders after knowing the relationship. Later married one Lakshmi R/o. Sulurupeta, after knowing the illicit relationship with other woman his wife deserted him.
Again in the year 2008 Sialaja joined him and both of them left to
Coimbatore there. He worked as driver, There he got acquaintance with Rajendra. He introduced his son by name Arun Kumar (A.2) to
Rajesh and requested him to learn driving. Accordingly Arun Kumar learn driving for three months. Later the said Arun Kumar told that he was in love with one Sathya and requested to celebrate his marriage with her because his elders did not agree to perform the marriage.
32
Thereafter all those four persons left Coimbatore and went to
Ananthapur took a rented house and lived there. There Arun Kumar and Sathya had disputes and the same was told to the house owner.
In turn the said house owner intimated the same to the parents of
Sathya. On that Arun Kumar left Sathya at Ananthapur and Rajesh,
Arun Kumar and Sailaja left Ananthapur and migrated to Munigilipattu of Chandragiri and they joined as coolies in brick-lin. There was a fire accident at the brick klin, Sailaja sustained burn injuries and she was admitted at SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati by impersonating her as
Sujatha. He order to treat her one Bharti who was nursing student was engaged. The said Sailaja @ Sujatha succumbed to injuries there
Rajesh left the dead body and left to Penumur along with Bharati.
There Bharati introduced K.Sekhar (PW.10) who arranged a room at Penumur and Rajesh used to tell to all persons that he proposed to marry the said Bharati and got acquaintance with several persons including Kiran Kumar Reddy (deceased). He further confessed that he used to assist the deceased in counting the cash of the deceased and used to observe that the deceased was in possession of sixty to eighty thousands at any time and he developed an idea to grab the money that was possessed by the deceased and this issue was discussed with Arun Kumar (A.2) who advised that this plan cannot be executed by both of them and required the assistance of some more persons. On 15.8.2011 Rajesh contacted Arun Kumar and asked him to come over from Chennai. On 18.8.2011 Rajesh contacted
M.G.Parthiban (A.3) @ Deepu and C.Venkatesh @ Venky (A.4) over phone and told them that he is going to celebrate his younger 33 brother’s birthday and host a party. On 19.8.2011 all the four persons met at Penumur, there the Rajesh (A.1) introduced A.2 to A.4 to Kiran
Kumar Reddy (deceased) and all of them stayed in the room of Rajesh.
On 20.8.2011 at noon time all of them had lunch in Ruchi hotel situated opposite to RTC bus stand Penumur. There Rajesh told to
Kiran Kumar Reddy that he is going to host birthday party of his younger brother and shortly he will inform the date and place at 5.30
PM on the same day all of them ie., A.1 to A.4 and deceased Kiran
Kumar Reddy and requested to lend Rs.1000/- for birthday party. On that deceased told him that he was not having ready cash but, promised to give after half an hour at Madhu book stall. Accordingly they went to Vasudha Book Stall and met the owner namely Madhu, and from him received Rs.1000/-. The deceased Kiran Kumar Reddy told to Rajesh that he require a girl also at the time of party, for which
Rajesh agreed and came to Ruchi Hotel where A.1 had contacts with one Amruta (PW.9) and told her that earlier she requested for
Rs.3000/- and that instructed her to act according to his directions and also told her that there is a party in the evening and to be ready as and when telephoned to her and also to be present at Om Sakthi semi- finished building. At 6.30 PM Rajesh took Kiran Kumar Reddy to
Karnamvandlaguttabanda along with wine bottles, there A.2 to A.4 were already present, there Rajesh contacted Amruta (PW.9) and be prepared to come along with him. Accordingly Rajesh brought Amruta to that place on the motorcycle of Kiran Kumar Reddy. Thereafter
Rajesh sent Kiran Kumar Reddy and Amruta for sex and after wards
Rajesh in order to execute his pre plan, took out a belt and tied around 34 the neck of the deceased, the Arun Kumar pulled one end of the belt behind the deceased whereas A.3 and A.4 pulled the legs of deceased and pushed him down, thereafter Rajesh closed the mouth of the deceased with his left hand, took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed on the neck of the deceased. Thereafter A.2 to A.4 stabbed the deceased with broken beer bottles on the deceased. After confirming the death of the deceased all the accused persons committed theft of the gold chain, gold ring, pulsar bike of the deceased, left to Sathyavedu, leaving Amruta at Penumur.
Rajesh further confessed that he kept the stolen articles of gold chain and gold ring with his aunt by name Vijaya at Sathyavedu and handed over pulsar bike to Parthiban @ Deepu (A.3) to change the number plate and left to Trichy. His confessional statement was recorded. He assured them that he will show the house of his aunt
Vijaya where he kept the stolen gold chain and gold ring. Ex.P.20 is the part of confessional statement.
Afterwards the second accused Arun Kumar was enquired and he also narrated the version as confessed by Rajesh (A.1). His confessional statement was recorded. The third accused was also enquired and he also narrated the version as confessed by Rajesh (A.1). His confessional statement was recorded. The above confessional statement was recorded from 2.15 PM to 5 PM. The above three accused under taken to show the fourth accused namely
Venkatesh @ Venky. Accordingly the first accused lead them to the house of Venkatesh @ Venky at Sathyavedu and the first accused called the said Venkatesh on that Venkatesh came out, police 35 apprehended him and enquired with him and he also confessed in the same lines as narrated by the first accused.
A.1 further lead them to the house of Vijaya and police recovered gold chain, gold ring from Vijaya which was packed in a paper packet. Mos.1 and 2 are the same items which was seized by the police under the cover of seizure report vide Ex.P.21, which was attested by him, M.Kodandarami Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police,
Sub-Inspector of Police.
A motor cycle was seized from M.G.Parthiban @ Deepu vide
MO.3 it was seized at 4.30 PM.
On 28.10.2011 Circle Inspector of Police sent MOs.1 to 3 to their office and they conducted identification parade of the property and they brought some more items similar to Mos. 1 to 3. PW.1 was called and asked to identify the property of the deceased on that he identified and Mos. 1 to 3 were handed over to Police. Ex.P.22 is the identification report. He can identify the accused No.3 and 4 whom were enquired and arrested by the police. The accused are standing in the dock.
27.Coming to the evidence of P.W.17- he is working as Civil
Assistant Surgeon, Kadapa. Earlier he worked as CAS, Chittoor
Headquarters hospital from June 2011 to September 2012. On 21.8.2011 he received requisition from SHO, Pakala to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of Kiran Kumar Reddy.
Accordingly he conducted autopsy and found injuries as follows:
1. A lacerated injury of 2x1 cm on left site of jaw 36
2. A laceration on 3x1cm left side jaw 1 cm below and above injury
3. A stab injury on left side of neck of 2x1x3 cm
4. A stab injury on left side of neck 3x2x3 cm , this injury 2 cm below above (3) injury
5. A laceration of middle of neck over Thyroid prominence of 5x4 cm
6. A stab injury over the left side of abdomen 15 cm lateral to umbilicus of 2x1x6cm
7. A. stab injury over left side of abdomen 18 cm away from umbilicus of 2x1x1cm this injury is 4 cm below the above injury (6)
8. A laceration of 6x3 exposing tendon and bone on right hand dorsal side
9. A. superficial laceration of 6x5 cm on back of chest on the left side
10.A stab injury on lateral side of chest on left side of 1x0.5x1x0.5 cm
Internal Injury
Thyroid cartilage fractured
Trachia at the level of Thyroid cartilage is fractured and injured
Hyoid bone is fractured on left side.
Thorax:
Heart: Empty
Lungs: Normal, Congested on cut section
Abdomen: Liver congested on cut section
Stomach: Full contain solid matter of 200ml
Intestine: Filled with gas
Spleen: Congested on cut section
Kidney: congested on cut section
Bladder: Empty
Head: Normal no fracture on skull
Brain: Normal.
37
Ex.P.23 is the postmortem examination report. He is of the opinion that the deceased died due to hemorrhage and shock due to injuries to vital organs, great vessels like carotid artery and Trachia which leads to Cardio respiratory arrest. Patient died 12 – 24 hours prior to PM examination. He found multiple and lacerated injuries on the body. Some of these injuries are possible by using a broken bottle like MO.11. He found some gas in the intestines and it may be possible by consuming alcohol like beer.
28.Coming to the evidence of P.W.18 he is working as Civil
Assistant Surgeon, Valipedu, Nellore district. Earlier he worked as CAS,
Chittoor Headquarters hospital from June 2009 to 2014. On 25.9.2011 SHO, Pakala produced four accused persons for issuing of fitness certificates. At the time of examination he found injury on the right fore arm of the first accused. Fitness certificate is marked as
Ex.P.24 for remanding the accused. On that the investigating officer issued a questionnaire. The age of the injury found on the first accused and probability for causing such injury is while handling a broken beer bottle. The age of the injury is about one month. The second question is whether the injury is possible while handling a broken bottle for which he affirmed the same.
29.Coming to the evidence of P.W.19, he is retired from the service as Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police on 31.7.2012. Earlier he worked as Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Penumur Police station from 1.11.2009 to 31.7.2012.
38
On 21.8.2011 at about 10 am while he was in the Police station
PW.1 came to and lodged a written complaint i.e., Ex.P.1 and he registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 58 of 2011, U.Sec.302 IPC and issued express First Information Report vide Ex.P.25. It was forwarded to the court and copies to the concerned officers. He handed over the copy of the First Information Report and further investigation to the Inspector of Police, Pakala.
30.Coming to the evidence of PW20, he is working as Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Gutur Rural. Previously he worked as Inspector of Police, Pakala Cirlce from 07.06.2019 to 21.01.2014.
On 21.08.2011, at about 8.00 a.m., while he was in Circle Office,
Pakala, PW.19 informed him over phone regarding the murder at
Karnamvandlagunta situated in Outskirts of Penumur village, he instructed PW19 to post the guard at scene of offence
Karnamvandlagunta and he found the deceased in a pool of blood in the rock sheet, he also found broken glass pieces (M.O.11) and pair of chappals (M.O.9). PW.19 registered the case on the complaint of PW.1 and send the copy of First Information Report to him to the scene of offence in Cr.No.58 of 2011 under sec. 302 IPC. He also issued express
FIR to all concerned officers and original to the court. Meanwhile, he informed the clues team regarding the occurrence of the incident. The clues team arrived to the scene of offence, the dog Rita and its trainer
T.Srihari (LW.23). He secured the presence of Pws.1 to 4 and LW.2
S.Mohanrami Reddy and mediators Pws.13 and 16 K.Muikrishnama
Naidu (LW.21). He conduct the inquest over the dead body of the 39 deceased at 11 a.m. in the presence of mediators and witnesses, prepared inquest vide Ex.P.5.
He found a cut injury over throat, two stab injuries over left jaw, stab injury over left side throat, two stab injuries over hand, a stab injury over the left flank, two stab injuries over left flank over back, an abrasion over the buttocks near waist, an abrasion over left thumb and a cut injury over right wrist. During the course of the inquest the statements of Pws.1 to 4 and Mohanrami Reddy (LW.2) were recorded.
A rough sketch was prepared vide Ex.P.26, 25 photos were shooted at the scene of offence vide Ex.P.27. The material objects were seized i.e., Sun glass and empty liquor bottles (MO.10).
He also seized blood stains collected on a bandage cloth under
Police proceedings which was handed over by the clues team. Inquest was concluded at 1.30 P.M. The dead body was sent to Post-mortem examination to Government Hospital, Chittoor. The inquest
Panchayatdars opined that the deceased was murdered for gain i.e., gold ring, gold chain Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle i.e., Mos.1 to 3.
He went to Gudiyanampalle village at 2.20 P.M., and visited the house of M.Raja Reddy (LW.6) and LW.M.Ranemma and recorded their statements. M.Raja Reddy produced motor records in respect of AP- 03-AH-3329 and RC in the name of deceased. He also produced the driving license of the deceased. Thereafter he went to Penumur and enquired about the movements of the deceased. He secured the presence of PW.5 and recorded his statement in his book stall. He visited Taj Photo studio and secured PW.6 and recorded his statement.
He also visited the house of Suspected A.1 by PW.6, the house belongs 40 to Krishnamma (LW.10) where A.1 used to stay in a portion of the house. He examined Krishnamma and recorded her statement. With the assistance of Krishnamma, he searched the room of A.1 and found wearing clothes and photos, PW.6 identified the one pair of clothes and photo of A.1. He found the particulars of the tailor who stitched the shirt as Supreme Tailors, STVD. Both were seized under the cover the
Police proceedings vide Ex.P.28, shirt is marked as M.O.12 photo is
Ex.P.29.
He examined PW.7, who is the neighbour and recorded his statement. He received blood stained clothes of the deceased through
PW.14 who was deputed with the dead body and those blood stains clothes M.Os.4 to 7 received under the cover of Police proceedings vide
Ex. P.30. Bandage cloth is M.O.13 and Police proceedings are Ex.P.31.
On 22.08.2011, he visited Ruchi Hotel near, Penumur Bus stand secured the presence of PW.8, PW.9, examined them and recorded their statements. He visited M.R.O. office at 9.30 a.m., and secured the presence of PW.10, examined and recorded his statement and visited the wine shop examined and recorded the statement of
G.Mohan. He received the call details of the deceased and deputed the special teams to locate suspected accused in this case.
On 12.09.2011, he received P.M. report of the deceased Vide
Ex.P.22. He forwarded the material object to the IV JFCM Court,
Chittoor, along with the letter advice to send the M.Os. To RFSL,
Tirupati for chemical analysis and for report vide Ex.P.32.
On 24.09.2011, at about 10.30 a.m., while he was in his Office, he received credible information about the accused and stolen property 41 in this case. Immediately, he informed the Sub Inspector of Police,
Penumur to secure two mediators and proceeded to Sathyavedu by collecting Sub Inspector of Police, Penurmur and mediators PW.16.
M.Kondandarami Reddy (LW.22) and reached at about 2.15 P.M., at
Srikalahasti Bus stand, identified three persons, on observing us, those three persons tried to skulk and they apprehended them and on enquiry, independently, they revealed their particulars and confessed that they killed deceased and taken away the gold chain, gold ring and motor cycle of the deceased and cash of Rs.130/- M.Os.1 and 2 are the gold items. In pursuance of the confessional statement vide
Ex.P20. Thereafter the accused lead us to house No. 11-14, CC road, kummara gunta Sathyavedu belongs to the Vijaya and A.1. A.1 went inside the house and brought one paper packet produced containing one gold chain and gold ring which were committed theft from the dead body of the deceased, recovered under the seizure report vide
Ex.P.21 at 4.30PM. A.1 to A.3 arrested while they were with the motor cycle and that motor cycle is seized under the cover of mediators report Ex.P.20 at 2.15 PM .
Thereafter the accused lead them to the house of A.4, A.1 called the fourth accused on thatA.4 came out of the house, he interrogated him, recorded his confessional statement, arrested under cover of mahazar at 5.30 PM. The accused were handed over the SHO,
Penumar, for surveillance.
On the next day the accused were examined by the medical officer and thereafter produced before the court for judicial custody along with remand report. On 27.9.2011 he examined Pws.12 and 42
N.Sripathi (LW.16) and recorded their statements. PW.12 stated
before him as in Ex.P4. PW.12 produced a photo of A.1 and herself
and it was seized under cover of police proceedings vide Ex.P.3. The seized ornaments were sent to Mandal Executive Magistrate for conducting the test identification parade for MOS 1 to 3 vide Ex.p.2.
On 7.10.2011 Shaik Bharkath Ali (LW.18) produced the photographs. He filed the requisition before the CJM Chittoor to conduct TI parade A.2 to A.4 on that Pw.15 conducted TI parade vide
Ex.P.6 to P.15. On his requisition D.Subramanyam, Amruta and Sekhar (PWs.8 to 10) statements were recorded vide Ex.P.16 to 19. After receipt of the FSL report vide Ex.P.33, TI report, 164 statement copies, and wound certificate of A.1 and after completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.4 U.Sec. 364, 302, 379,398 r/w.
34 IPC.
31.The learned Public Prosecutor who is holding Full Additional
Charge of I Additional District Judge’s Court argued according to the case of the prosecution. In fact the regular Additional Public Prosecutor argued and after that the case was coming to hear the arguments of the defence counsel and after defence counsel filed written arguments, the public prosecutor who is holding Full Additional Prosecutor again put forth her contention. She contended that P.W.9 is the solitary eye witness to the occurrence whose evidence can stands to the test of scrutiny and she withstood the cross examination. The prosecution is also relying upon certain circumstances from the evidence of P.W.5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as regards the accompanying of A3 and A4 along with the deceased along, with A1 and A2. There is evidence of arrest leading 43 to the recovery. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is convincing. Though there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.9, but she fully supported the case of the prosecution and her evidence can be corroborated from the evidence of P.Ws 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 who testified the presence of a3 and A4 as accompanying the deceased.
A1 and A1 remained absconded and the evidence adduced by the prosecution as regards A3 and a4 is convincing and the prospection witnesses identified the present accused in the Test Identification
Parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class and the investigation is on correct lines as such A3 and A4 are liable to be convicted of the charges framed against them.
32.The learned defence counsel filed written arguments and the substance of the written arguments of the counsel for the accused is that there remains nothing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses except the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.9 is cited as solitary eye witness to the occurrence and she is the planted purposefully and deliberately and belatedly. The receipt of phone call by P.W.9 at 6- 30 PM in the manner as alleged by the prosecution is highly doubtful as she deposed in the cross examination that she is expected to be in the Hotel till 4-00 or 4-30 PM. According to her, she was not in the habit of having sex with other persons earlier to the incident, except with A1 and it is improbable that being a friend of A1 at the instance of
A1, she participated in sex along with the deceased. Her evidence in this regard is highly doubtful. According to P.W.1 she went to the scene at 7-00 PM where she found A1, A2 and other two persons and 44 deceased consuming liquor and according to column No.15 in Ex.P-5 inquest report, P.w.3 gave statement to the police that the deceased came to the Hotel at 7-30 PM and this falsifies the case of the prosecution. The very evidence of P.W.9 as reaching to the scene at 7-00 PM and indulging in sexual act with the deceased at the instance of A1 is highly doubtful. According to her cross examination she did not state that she asked A1 for money two weeks prior to the incident.
She deposed in cross examination that within four days after the occurrence, accused were arrested by the police, but according to
P.W.20 the accused were arrested on 24-11-2011, as such the manner of arrest of the accused as projected in the mahazar is highly doubtful.
Though the distance between the police Station and Hotel was hardly 100 feet, but she did not inform the incident to her parents or to the hotel owners or to the police and the conduct of P.W.9 is highly doubtful, as such she is a planted witness. P.W.19 Investigating
Officer did not refer P.W.9 to a doctor though she was unmarried to ascertain the sexual acts between her and the deceased and though the investigating officer came to know about the fact on 22-08-2011, he did not take any steps in this regard and it shows that she was planted deliberately at a latter time conveniently. She did not speak the overt acts as deposed in chief examination in her 161 Cr.P.C., statement. It is admitted by P.W.20 the investigating Officer. Though the learned Magistrate claimed to have recorded the statements of the witnesses during Test Identification Parade, there are several loopholes in conducting the Test Identification Parade. The evidence of the other witnesses is of no use to the case of the prosecution. The 45 prosecution witnesses could identify only A3 even according to the Test
Identification Parade and they did not identify A4 and their identification is not carrying any value because the accused were shown to the witnesses for a considerable period of time. The evidence of Mahazar witness for the arrest and recovery is highly doubtful. There is no whisper in Ex.P-1 that the gold ornaments of the deceased were missing. M.Os 1 and M.o.2 were planted by the prosecution. The whole case projected by the prosecution is highly doubtful as such A3 and A4 are entitled for an acquittal.
The learned counsel for the accused in support of his contention relied upon the decisions;-
1)2003 (1) ALD CRIMINAL, 746 ( AP)
2)1993 (1) ALT Criminal, 9 (DB)
3)1998 (2) ALD Criminal, 335 (SC)
4)2007 Crl. Law Journal, 2740 (SC)
5)2009 (1) ALD Crl. , 720 (AP)
6)2003 (2) ALD. Crl., 362 ( AP)
7)2003 (2) ALD Crl. 60 (AP)
8)1998 SAR 473 (AP)
33.In view of the rival contentions advanced and the charges framed to succeed in proving the guilt against A3 and a4, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove the factum of kidnapping of the deceased by the accused and committing murder coupled with theft and robbery in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.
46
Virtually, none of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the deceased was kidnapped by the accused. So, the evidence is lacking with regard to the offence of kidnapping. Now, there remains the allegations as regards the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and 379, 397 and 398 IPC r/w 34 IPC. It is a case where the case of the prosecution revols around the testimony of P.W.5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as regards the so- called identification of the A3 and A4 by some of the prosecution witnesses in the company of the deceased i.e., in the evening on the date of offence, the evidence of P.W.9 who claimed to have witnesses the occurrence and the evidence with regard to the arrest of the accused and leading to recovery. These are the aspects on which the case of the prosecution is sought to be proved.
34.Coming to the testimony of P.W.1, virtually he is not a witness to the occurrence. So, his evidence that during the night of 20.08.2011 his younger brother Kiran Kumar Reddy was killed by
Raja, Kumar, Depu and Venky deserves no merits. It is as case where he came to know about the offence. According to him, he found the dead body of the deceased and lodged report stating that some financial transactions might have been the reasons for committal of the murder of the deceased. Even according to him, Ex.P-1 was written by him, but it was drafted to his dictation. Ex.P-1 does not contain anything about M.O.1 and M.O.2. So, virtually P.W.1 is not a witness to the occurrence, but he lodged report on seeing the dead body of the deceased and even Ex.P-1 does not disclose who committed the murder of the deceased. So, there could be nothing in 47 the evidence of P.W.1 to connect the murder of the deceased with that of the A3 and A4.
Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, his evidence is hear say in nature and it did not disclose anything against the accused.
Turning to the testimony of P.W.3, his evidence is that he know
A1 who used to come to his hotel along with the deceased and his evidence does not disclose anything against the accused. So, what he deposed that he came to know that the deceased was murdered.
Turning to the evidence of P.W.4, his evidence does not disclose anything against the accused. What he deposed is that having heard about the lying over of the dead body adjacent to Kannavandlagunta
Banda, he went there and found the dead body of the deceased. So, the evidence of P.w.4 is also no use to the case of the prosecution.
Coming to the evidence of P.W.5, according to him, on 20-08- 2011 at 6-00 PM the deceased along with A3 and A4 and Rajesh ( a1) and Kumar (A2) came to him and requested him to give Rs.1000/- to celebrate the birth day of brother of Rajesh ( A1) and he told him to come half an hour and after half an hour the deceased and Rajesh came to the shop on the bike of the deceased and he paid R.1000/- to the deceased. His evidence is that on 22-10-2011 he identified Deepu and Venki who are A3 and A4 standing in the dock during test identification parade conducted by the Magistrate.
35.It is to be noticed that even according to the evidence of
P.W.5, it is the A1 who came along with the deceased to get back the amount of Rs.1000/- from him and what he deposed is that prior to that A3 and A4 along with A1 and A2 with the deceased came to him.
48
So, it is not a case where A3 and A4 again accompanied the deceased along with A1. So, the mere evidence of P.W.5 as regards that A3 and
A4 came along with a1 and A2 with the deceased at the first instance at 6 PM even if it is assuming to be true would not prove the guilt against the accused. Even other wise, it is admitted by P.W.5 during the cross examination that he has no acquittance with A3 and A4 earlier to the day when the deceased came to his shop with a request for Rs.1000/-. He did not furnish the descriptive particulars of the accused to the police. He did not state to police the name of the other accused except Raja. It is true that the photographs of the accused are published in the daily newspapers. He denied that police shown the accused to him at Kalluru Police station and that he is deposing false. So, it is a case even according to P.W.5 he do not know A3 and
A4 except on the date of 20-08-2011. It is a case where P.w.5 claimed to have identified A3 and a4 after about two months subsequent to the date of incident and even it is not a case where this solitary circumstance would establish the guilt against the accused. On the other hand the answers spoken by him in the cross examination goes to show that one week after the incident he cake to know the apprehension of accused by police which was also published in local newspapers about the killing of the deceased and the apprehension of the accused . On account of these answers, the possibility of p.W.5 having saw the deceased by way of their photographs in the news papers cannot be ruled out.
49
Turning to the testimony of P.W.6 , his evidence is no use to the case of the prosecution as regard the collection of photo of Raja and handing over to Circle Inspector.
Coming to the evidence of P.W.7, on 19-08-2011 at 5 PM, 5 or 6 persons namely Bharathi, Aruna Kumar ( A2), Sekhar ( L.w.14) and two others came to the house of Raja. On 20-08-2011 Bharathi, Arun
Kumar ( A2), Sekhar ( L.W.14) and two others came to the house of
Raja and went away. He can identify those two persons which shown to him and A3 and A4 are the said persons. The prosecution examined
P.W.7 to show that A3 and A4 on 20-08-2011 visited the house of A1, where A1was residing in the house of Krishnamma as tenant. During the cross examination, P.W.6 deposed that he did not state to police that Bharathi, Arun Kumar ( A2) and Sekhar (L.W.14) and two others came to the room of Raja on 19-08-2011 and on 20-08-2011. He did not disclose physical features of those persons or that he can identify them. He denied that police shown the photos of A3 and A4 to him prior to the test identification parade. He admitted in cross examination that he did not identify A4. So, when he did not identify
A3 before the learned Magistrate, his identification before the court is of no use. Even other wise, the mere evidence of P.W.6 as A2 and A4 accompanied to the house of Raja A1 deserves no merits in my considered view to prove the guilt.
36.Now coming to the evidence of P.W.8, he is a tea master in the shop of P.W.3 and he know A1 and A2 who used to visit their hotel for lunch. On 20-08-2011 at 1 PM, Raja, Arun Kumar, Kiran Kumar 50
Reddy and two others came to their hotel and had lunch. Raja used to talk with Amrutha in their hotel and had illicit relationship with her. At 6-30 PM Raja contacted him and requested to give the mobile to
Amrutha, for which he refused and later he gave the mobile phone to
Amrutha and Raja and Amrutha had a talk and at 7-00 PM Amrutha left the hotel. Police took him to the Sub Jail where he identified a few persons before the Magistrate. During cross examination he deposed that suppliers will come to the hotel at 7 or 7-30 am and stay till 4 or 4-30 PM. He did not hand over the mobile number of Raja to Police. It is true that Amrutha is unmarried. He denied that before attending test identification parade, photographs of the accused were shown to him. So, the evidence of P.W.8 is such that on 20-08-2011 he just saw two new persons as accompanied A1 and Kiran Kumar Reddy and after two months he claimed to have identified A3 and A4. He denied that he identified only one accused during test identification parade. It is to be noticed that the evidence of P.W.15, the learned magistrate goes to show that P.W.8 could identify only one accused. So, his evidence
before this court identifying A3 and a4 as accompanied Raja on 20-08-
2011 deserves no merits. Even other wise this solitary circumstance of the evidence adduced by the prosecution as if A3 and A4 also accompanied the deceased along with A1 and A2 to the hotel of P.W.3 cannot be a circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused.
37.Now turning to the evidence of P.W.10 another witness with regard to the identification of A3 and A4. He deposed that he used to visit the room of A1 and A1 is in the habit of taking liquor and 51 on 20-08-2011 A1 introduced A3 and A4 as Deepu and Venky when they came to the room of the first accused. He can identify them who are standing in the dock. So, the prosecution is relying upon the testimony of P.W.10 to show that A3 and A4 accompanied A1 when they came to the room of the first accused. This aspect of the evidence of P.W.10 is also no use to the case of the prosecution, in my considered view.
38.Now turning to the evidence of P.W.11 who is a sales boy in Wine shop at Penumur, his evidence is against A1 as if A1 used to come to their shop everyday and on 20-08-2011 at 6-30 PM, A1 came to their shop and purchased four beer bottles and three breezer ( wine Bottles) and P.W.10 introduced A1 to him. So, his evidence is of no use to the case of the prosecution in so far as the case against A3 and A4 is concerned.
39.In the light of the above, in my considered view, the evidence of P.Ws 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as regards the so-called presence of
A3 and A4 along with A1 in the evening of 20-08-2011 cannot be a circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused. Apart from this, it is elicited from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that within 4 or 5 days subsequent to the occurrence, accused were arrested which was published in the newspapers and it is a case where the accused gave statement before the learned Magistrate that before test identification parade several times they were shown to the witnesses by the police.
52
So, in my considered view, the evidence of above witnesses is of no use to the case of the prosecution as regards against A3 and A4.
40.Barring this evidence, there remains that the testimony of
P.W.9 who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence, and further the prosecution is relying upon the theory of arrest of the accused 1, 2, 4 and arrest of A3 and arrest leading to the recovery of M.Os 1 to 3.
Now this court has to appreciate the evidence in this regard carefully.
41.Before going to deal with all these aspects, I would like to look into the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the accused.
Turning to 2003 (1) ALD Criminal 746, AP, the prosecution witnesses made a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., without attributing overt acts and in the court they attributed overt acts and it amounts to an improvement in the evidence. The defence counsel projected it to say that P.W.9 did not disclose certain overt acts in her 161 Cr.P.C., statement and hence she improved the evidence before the court as such her evidence is of no use. The above aspect will be dealt with herein after and before appreciating the improvements in the evidence of P.W.9, first the court has to satisfy as to whether P.w.9 was a natural witness to the occurrence and whether she was a chance witness or whether she was a planted witness. So, after giving finding as to the bonafides of her presence only the court has to consider, whether there are any improvements in her testimony.
53
Turning to 1993 (1) ALT Criminal 9 (DB), it is relating to the guidelines to the Magistrates as to how to conduct test identification parade.
42.Coming to the decision in 1998 (2) ALD Criminal 335 SC.
The Hon’ble Supreme court dealt with certain facts where the accused were photographed when they were in police lock up which were shown to the identifying witnesses before the test identification parade and as this court already pointed out some of the prosecution witnesses stated about the so-called arrest of the accused within 4 or 5 days subsequent to the occurrence and this article was published in newspapers. As this court already pointed out the identification aspects in so far as A3 and A4 are concerned, the testimony of P.W.5,
P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 is of no use to the case of the prosecution.
Turning to the decision in 2007 Crl. L.J. page 2740 (SC), it is a case where the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with certain facts, when the FIR was registered against the unknown persons and when the identification parade was held belatedly. Here I would like to make it clear that the question of conducting test identification parade would arise when in a case a particular culprit is apprehended. When the case of the prosecution is such that after about two months after the occurrence the accused were arrested, the decision in 2007 Crl.L.J.
2740 is of no use and it is misquoted to the present situation by the defence counsel.
54
Coming to 2009 (1) ALD Crl. 720 AP, it is a case where there wa delay by suppressing that earlier version and by bringing into existence, an FIR after due deliberations and it is a case where there was a murder between two groups and above said has nothing to do with the present facts and circumstances.
Coming to 2003 (2) ALD Crl. 362 (AP), it is relating to
Investigation without registering the FIR and it is misquoted to the present situation.
Coming to 2003 (2) ALD Crl. 60 (AP), it has nothing to do with the present facts.
Coming to 1998 SAR 473 (AP). it has nothing to do with the present case on hand.
Now, it is a matter of appreciation to decide as to whether the testimony of P.W.9 is believable and it is inspiring confidence in the mind of the court as regard to the present accused i.e., A3 and A4.
Undoubtedly P.W.9 claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. The substance of her evidence is that the deceased Kiran Kumar Reddy was regular visitor to their hotel and she know A1 and A2 who used to come to their hotel and she had sexual relationship with A1. On 20- 08-2011 at 2 PM, Kiran Kumar, Raja Kumar and two others came to their hotel and two other persons are Deepu and Venky and they are
A3 and A4. At 6-30 Pm A1 contacted P.W.8 to talk to her and P.W.8 gave the mobile to her to talk to A1 and A1 promised to pay Rs.3000/- which was requested by her earlier abut two weeks ago. A1 requested her to come to Om Sakshi Building to receive Rs.3000-00 and she went there at 7 PM. There she found A.1 and A.2. Then, Accused 55
No.1 and 2 took her on motor cycle to Karnamvandlagutta Banda. She found Deepu and Venky who are consuming alcohol. Then A1 told to her that Kiran Kumar Reddy expressed his sexual intention on her and they sent her and Kiran Kumar Reddy to a lonely place and when they both were in compromising mood, A.1 and A.2 asked her as to whether work is completed. Then Kinran Kumar Reddy answered in positive. Then both of them i.e., she and Kiran Kumar Reddy returned the place where the other four accused were there. Then
A.2 put a belt around the neck of the deceased, A1 closed the mouth of the deceased, A.3 and A.4 pulled the legs of the deceased and pushed him down. Then they picked up a beer bottle, broken it and stabbed on the left side of the abdomen of the deceased, and took out a knife and cut the throat of the deceased and killed the deceased.
The deceased died on the spot. The accused took out a gold chain, gold ring, mobile and motor bike of the deceased. At the request of
A.1, both A.3 and A.4 dropped her at Check post of Penumur on the bike. A.3 drove the motor cycle and she sat in the middle and 4th accused was the second pillion rider. All the four accused threatened her with dire consequences in case she disclosed the incident to anybody. Then she went to her home as as-usual attended to her work at the hotel and did not disclose this incident to anybody out of fear. Later she identified the accused No.1 to 4 in District Jail, Chittoor
before the Magistrate during test identification parade.
43.During cross examination she deposed that at the time incident she was unmarried. She used to go to Hotel at 7 AM and 56 leave at 6 PM and she used to live with her parents and sister while working in the hotel during the first four months. She did not borrow any amount from the deceased. She had acquaintance with the deceased because he was her neighbourer. She did not state to police that she requested A1 for money two weeks prior to the incident. She did not marry A1. She used to go along with A1 whenever he called her to have sexual affair. Earlier to that she never asked him any money. On 22-08-2011 at 2 PM, circle inspector came to the hotel and enquried with her. She told to the circle inspector of police as to what was happened and subsequently she was not examined. Till the date of test identification parade she worked in that hotel. On 22-08-2011 accused were not shown as suggested and she saw them in the
District Jail. Inspector of police enquired with Subramanyam, Tea
Master who told to the Inspector that she had acquaintance with A1 and that the police enquried her. She was left at the check post at about 8-30 PM by A3 and A4. It is true that the police station is situated at a distance of 100 feet from the check post. There is a petty kirana shop by the side of Check post. She know Kiran Kumar
Reddy since her child hood. On 20-08-2011 she returned to her house at 8-30 PM. She did not inform either to the parents or to her sister about the incident even on subsequent days also she did not inform to anybody about the incident. She had no occasion to witness such incidents earlier. She stated before the Magistrate on that day that she demanded Rs.3000/- to have sex with the deceased Kiran Kumar
Reddy and first accused Raja. It is true from Check post to
Nendragunta, it is a forest area and Karnamvadlagutta banda is 57 situated in the middle. She went to the place of incident at 7 PM.
Earlier she had no occasion to talk to the first accused directly on mobile. She denied that she did not state to police that A.3 and A.4 pulled the legs of deceased and pushed him down. She had no occasion to talk to A.3 and A.4 either earlier or subsequent to the date of incident. She denied that she did not state to police that the accused broken the beer bottle and stabbed on the left side abdomen of the deceased. She denied that she did not state to police that she was the first pillion rider and fourth accused was the second pillion rider. She was not in the habit of having sex with the other persons earlier to the incident except with Raja. She denied that she had sexual affair with the deceased Kiran Kumar Reddy and police threatened her she was root cause for the death of the deceased as she had sexual affair with him. She denied that on 20.8.2011 A.1 to
A.4 did not visit the hotel of PW.3 and Subsequently she did not go to the place of incident on the request of the first accused and that she did not witness anything and that she is deposing false and her evidence is false. She denied that police shown photographs of the
A.1 to A.4 before she attended before the learned Magistrate. She denied that as she had acquaintance with the deceased earlier to the incident and the police suspected her that she involved in the death of the deceased and due to death threat she is deposing false.
44.Coming to the evidence of P.W.20 who is the investigating
Officer as regards the so-called improvements made by P.W.9 during cross examination, he deposed that P.W.9 did not state in her 58 statement that A3 and A4 pulled the legs of the deceased and pushed him down. She did not state the name of the accused who committed the theft of gold ring and chain from the dead body. She did not state specifically about the name of the rider and where the other accused sat as pillion riders. He did not collect the call data particulars of
Subramanyam mobile. He denied that the entire investigation is fabricated.
45. On account of answers spoken by P.W.9 in cross examination, the reliability of her evidence is to tested. By virtue of the admissions made by P.W.9 during cross examination that she was unmarried and she had sexual affairs with A1 and though she had no sexual affairs with anybody prior to the date of the incident. She went on in indulging in sexual acts with the deceased, it is crystal clear that P.w.9 has questionable antecedents. As admitted by her in cross examination the place of offence is a forest area. The date of incident was at about 7 to 7-30 PM in a forest area. At the out set this court would make it clear as rightly pointed out by the learned defence counsel in Ex.P-5 on account of the inquest panchayatdars opinion the deceased came to Ruchi Hotel at 7-30 PM and went out and admittedly the evidence of P.W.9 in this regard comes in conflict with inquest report. Even assuming for a moment that it can be taken as a minor, the reliability of the evidence of P.W.9 is to be tested, having regard to the natural course of events and having regard to the conduct of a man of reasonable prudence in the said circumstances. Admittedly it is a case where according to the case of the prosecution and the 59 testimony of P.W.9, firstly P.W.9 went to the house of A1 where she found A1 and A2. Then A1 and A2 took her on motorcycle to
Karnamvadlagutta banda. The very act of P.W.9 in going along with
A1 and A2 into a forest area that too at 7 PM alone is highly improbable. Even assuming for a moment that because P.W.9 had sexual affair with A1 she ventured to accompany with A1, but it is quietly an improbable act on the part of P.W.9 to go along with A1 especially when A1 was in the company of A2. This court would like to make it clear that this court is not appreciating any evidence against
A1 and A2 who remained absconded, but the whole evidence of P.W.9 is that A1 and A2 took P.W.9 to a place where A3 and A4 were consuming liquor in the company of the deceased. Now in that view of the matter, this court is appreciating the evidence of P.W.9. So, according to P.W.9 she had no sexual affairs with anybody except A1 as on the date of incident P.W.9 was a unmarried girl according to her.
So, when P.W.9 is of such person who had absolute faith in A1 in having sexual affair with A1, it is rather surprising that she obliged the request of A1 in indulging in the sexual affair with the deceased that too when the deceased was in a drunken state along with A3 and A4.
It is to be noticed that if really A3 and A4 were in the company of the deceased by consuming liquor in the manner as alleged by P.W.9 and especially when A1 and A2 had knowledge about the A3 and A4 and the deceased in a forest area consuming liquor, it is rather difficult to believe that they secured the presence of P.W.9 to the place of incident. It is not the case of the prosecution that deceased was subjected to murder when he was indulging in the act of sexual affair 60 with P.W.9. So, the very case of the prosecution that P.W.9 and the deceased had sex in a lonely place at the instance of the accused and later the deceased and P.W.9 turned back where the deceased was subjected to murder suffers with any amount of improbabilities. If really, the case of the prosecution as against A3 and A4 is true, they would have an occasion to commit murder of the deceased along withA1 and a2 even without securing the presence of P.W.9. It is not the case of the prosecution or the evidence of P.W.9 that A1 and A2 brought the deceased to a forest place where P.w.9 was waiting. If it is the evidence of P.W.9 that she was waiting in a forest area along with A3 and A4 for the deceased and A1 and A2 brought the deceased with a promise to arrange sexual affair between him and P.W.9, the appreciation of the evidence would have been in another angle. So, it goes to show that there is no need or necessity for A3 and A4 to wait for arrival of P.W.9 and further the very act of P.W.9 claiming that she went into a forest area at 7 PM and found A3 and A4 consuming liquor along with the deceased is highly improbable.
46.It is to be noticed that according to P.W.9 she had no prior acquaintance with A3 and A4. According to her she indulged in sexual acts with A1 alone prior to the date of the incident. As this court already pointed out that P.W.9 has questionable antecedents. To sustain a conviction basing on the evidence of a witness like P.W.9.
her evidence should be of sterling of quality and be free from blemish.
A man of reasonable prudence like P.W.9, if really she witnessed the occurrence of murder and when she had close acquaintance with A1 61 prefers to go along with A1. The evidence of P.W.9 that she was asked to travel along with A3 and A4 with whom she had no acquaintance and A3 and A4 brought her to Check Post and dropped her is also highly improbable and cannot stands to any reason. Apart from this, what is the conduct and reaction of man like P.W.9 after witnessing the ghastly incident of murder. If really she was threatened by the accused not to reveal the incident to anybody, she would have no occasion to reveal the same to even to police. The admissions made by her in cross emanation shows that police station is situated at a distance of 100 feet from the check post where she was dropped by A3 and A4. Her silence without revealing the incident to police and either to the parents or to her sister and even to any body in the hotel goes to reveal that her evidence is not at all believable. It is to be noticed that according to the admissions made by prosecution witnesses they came to know about the arrest of the accused within 4 or 5 days subsequent to the incident which were published in the newspaper.
Btu here the prosecution projected the arrest of the accused after two months only.
47.It is to be noticed that the act of the police in examining
P.W.9 as a witness and in ascertaining the names of the accused as culprits have not the seen the light of the day till the remand report along with the part I CD reached to the court after two months. So, it is a case where according to the prosecution witnesses, the arrest of the accused was published in the newspapers after three or four days subsequent to the incident but the prosecution has come up the 62 version showing the arrest of the accused after two months. So, the facts and circumstances are such that the factum of result of the investigation is known to the jurisdictional magistrate at the time of remand after two months. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances it is unsafe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.9. She has questionable antecedents and character and it is quite improbable to assume that when she had no sexual affair with anybody except A1 she obliged the request of A1 in indulging in act of sexual intercourse with the deceased in the manner as alleged. If her evidence is believable she was so fond of money and for fond of money she indulged in sexual acts with the deceased. No reliance can be placed upon her evidence on account of questionable antecedents. Her evidence is not of a sterling quality and it is not free from blemish.
Her evidence is not inspiring any confidence in the mind of the court.
Her evidence has no corroboration at all from any source what so ever. In the light of the above it is unsafe to believe the evidence of
P.W.9. P.W.9 appears to have been projected into the case of the prosecution to show her presence at the scene of offence and her evidence in so far as A3 and A4 is concerned is quietly unbelievable.
48.Now coming to the theory of recovery, it is not a case where according to the evidence of mahazar witness coupled with the evidence of investigating officer anything is recovered from the possession of A3 and A4 exclusively. The case of the prosecution is that A4 was found in the company of A1 at the time of arrest and they confessed about the offence. Here M.os 1 and M.O.3 are said to be 63 recovered from the house of A1. Nothing is recovered from the possession of A3 and A4. So, so-called recovery of M.Os 1 and 2 from the house of A1 cannot be attributed with A3 and A4.
49.It is to be noticed that it is not a case where according to the case of the prosecution or the evidence of P.W.9, A1 and A2 revealed to A3 and A4 that they could screen away the gold ornaments of the deceased in the house of A1. If that be the case, the recovery of M.Os 1 and M.o.2 leading to a confession of A1 cannot be attributed with A3 and A4. A3 and A4 even according to P.W.9 had no chance to know about the gold ornaments of the deceased. The evidence of
P.W.9 is highly suspicious as pointed out. Hence, the recovery of
M.Os 1 to M.O.3 from the house of A1 is of no use to attribute the same with A3 and A4. In the light of the above reasons, I am of the considered view that it is unsafe to believe the evidence of P.W.9 as against A3 and A4 and her evidence is highly suspicios in character and it is not at all inspiring any confidence and it is wholly unreliable and it is unsafe to believe her evidence to say that A3 and A4 played their own role in committing the murder of the deceased. This court is conscious of the fact that the case is pending against A1 and A2 in
SC.No.181 of 2017 and the prosecution is relying upon the confession
leading to recovery and the case against A1 and A2 is to be appreciated in different angle and the findings that are being given by this court shall have no effect at the time of disposal of the case as against A1 and A2. So, as this court already pointed out the testimony of P.W.5, P.w.7, P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 is of no use to the case of the 64 prosecution. Evidence of P.W.9 is not at all convincing against A3 and
A4. The theory of recovery is of no use to prove the offence of murder against A3 and A4. There is no recovery from A3 and A4. The identification of the witnesses identifying A3 and A4 is of no use to the case of the prosecution as detailed in the fore going discussion.
50.In the light of above reasons, I hold that it is unsafe to believe the case of the prosecution as against A3 and A4 as such I hod that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections against A3 and A4 beyond reasonable doubt, as such they are liable to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.
51.In the result, A3 and A4 are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 364 r/w 34 IPC, 302 r/w 34 IPC, 379 r/w 34 IPC, 397 r/w 34 IPC and 398 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., The property disposal order as regards M.os 1 to 13 shall be passed at the time of disposal of SC.No.181 of 2017 on the file of this court pending against A1 and A2. The bail bonds executed by the accused Nos 3 and 4 shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.,
Dictation to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 07th day of August, 2019.
Principal District & Sessions Judge,
FAC I Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Chittoor.
65
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE : None-
P.W.1M.Hemeswara Reddy
P.W.2Jagannadha Reddy
P.W.3Suresh @ Bujji
P.W.4Bhakthasikamani
P.W.5K.Yadu Kumar @ Babu Reddy
P.W.6S.Murad Basha
P.W.7Venkatesh Chetty
P.W.8D.Subramanyam
P.W.9G.Amrutha
P.W.10K.Sekhar
P.W.11G.Mohan
P.W.12Bharathi
P.W.13B.Ganesh
P.W.14G.Bhaskar
P.W.15Smt G.Anandhi, The then Principal Junior Civil
Judge,
Chittoor
P.W.16N.Sudhakar, The then Additional Revenue Inspector, Penumur
P.W.17Dr A.Eswara Rao, The then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Chittoor Headquarters Hospital.
P.W.18Dr G.Prasanna Kumar, The then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Chittoor Headquarters Hospital.
P.W.19B.M.Gopala Krishna, The then A.S.I., Penumur
P.W.20Sri J.Venkatanarayana, The then Inspector of Police, Pakala Circle.
66
Exhibits MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P.1Complaint given by P.W.1 to the police
Ex.P.2Signature of P.W.1 in identification mahazar
Ex.P.3Photograph
Ex.P.4161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.12
Ex.P.5Inquest report
Ex.P.6Requisition for Test Identification parade
Ex.P.7 toStatements of P.Ws.7 to 10 for test identification parade P.11
Exs.P.12Statements of A.3 and A.4 to P.14
Ex.P.15Test Identification proceedings
Ex.P.16Requisition for 164 statement
Exs.P.17164 Cr.P.C., statements of P.Ws.8 to 10 to P.19
Ex.P.20 Part of confessional statement at 2-15 p.m.
Ex.P.21Seizure mahazar at 4-30 p.m.
Ex.P.22Identification report
Ex.P.23Post-mortem certificate
Ex.P.24Fitness certificate of accused (A.1)
Ex.P.25F.I.R.
Ex.P.26Rough sketch
Ex.P.27Photographs (25)
Ex.P.28Police proceedings at 8-00 p.m.
Ex.P.29 One photograph
Ex.P.30Police proceedings at 9-30 p.m.
Ex.P.31Police proceedings at 11-30 p.m.
Ex.P.32Letter of advice
Ex.P.33RFSL report
FOR DEFENCE
---NIL---
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
M.O.1Gold chain
M.O.2Gold ring 67
M.O.3Bajaj Pulsar Bike AP 03 AH 3329
M.O.4Shirt
M.O.5Jeans pant
M.O.6Belt
M.O.7Underwear
M.O.8Red colour waist thread
M.O.9 Bata leather chappals (2)
M.O.103 empty beer bottles
M.O.11Broken beer bottle
M.O.12Shirt (supreme)
M.O.13Bandage cloth
Principal Sessions Judge,
FAC I Additional Sessions Judge,
CHITTOOR.