Sri B.Nagamaruti Sarma

Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT:- SRI B. NAGAMARUTHI SARMA,

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR,

FRIDAY, THE 6 th DAY OF MAY, 2016

SESSIONS CASE NO. 263 OF 2015

Name of the Complainant : The State through the Circle Inspector ofPolice,Peddapally(Crime No.155/2013 of P.S., Basanthnagar).

Name of the Accused : A1 : Bathini Sampath, S/o Lachaiah, aged23yrs.,Tenugu,R/o Kamarikhanpet Village of Dharmaram Mandal.

A2 : Bathini Mahender, S/o Lachaiah, aged21yrs.,Tenugu,R/o Kamarikhanpet Village of Dharmaram Mandal (Died).

Charges : Under Sec.302 and 201 of IPC.

Plea of the Accused : “ Not guilty ”

Finding of the Court : “ Not guilty ”

Sentence or Order : Accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.302 and 201 of IPC., and accordingly he is acquitted u/s 235 (1) Cr. P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Prosecution conducted by : Sri P. Harishankar Rao, Public Prosecutor, Prl. Sessions Court, Karimnagar.

Accused defended by : Sri E. Vikram Reddy, Advocate.

Page 2 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015 (On committal by Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Peddapally by her Order in PRC No.36 of 2014, dt.11.05.2015)

-: J U D G M E N T :-

The case as against the accused herein (A1) and one Bathini Mahender (A2 who is no more) (A2/Bathini Mahender died on 19.10.2014 as per the

Certificate issued by Secretary, Grapanchayath,

Kammaikhanpet Village, dt.03.08.2015) starts with the report lodged by Gujjeti Pochaiah (PW.1) on 28.10.2013, at 12.00 noon, with the police,

Basanthnagar, complaining that his son Gujjeti

Venkatesh left the house on 25.10.2013, at 08.00 P.M., when he received a phone call to his mobile

No.9666674065. The deceased said to have left the house on a two wheeler bearing No.AP-15-BH-2414 belonging to A1 herein (Bathini Sampath). The deceased Gujjeti Venkatesh, son of Gujjeti Pochaiah (PW.1) did not return home. There was a search made for the deceased by his parents as well as by other relatives and finally, the dead body of the deceased

Venkatesh was found in SRSP Canal in the village outskirts of Raghavapur. It was A1 herein and one

Gujjeti Kailasam (PW.2) informed Gujjeti Pochaiah,

Page 3 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015 father of the deceased, as to the dead body of

Venkatesh being found in SRSP canal and on such information, Gujjeti Pochaiah (PW.1), his wife and other relatives went there and found the dead body of

Venkatesh. The dead body was seen with the injuries on the head, neck and other parts of the body.

2.00.Basing on the report lodged by PW.1 with

Mr. P. Ramesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Basanthnagar (PW.10), a case in Cr. No.155/2013 under Sec.302 and 201 of IPC., was registered against Daraveni Venkatesh,

Gujjeti Mallesh and Gujjeti Raju.

2.01.It was mentioned in the report (Ex.P-1) that the deceased Gujjeti Venkatesh was in love with one

Mounika, daughter of Daraveni Venkatesh, and the same was not acceptable to the parents of Mounika, as such, the deceased was warned on several occasions that he should not make any attempt to talk to

Mounika, still the deceased Venkatesh said to have continued his relations with Mounika, as such, Gujjeti

Pochaiah (PW.1) expressed his suspicion on Daraveni

Venkatesh and three others and accordingly, FIR was registered against them for the offence punishable under Sec.302 and 201 of IPC.

Page 4 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015 2.02.During the course of investigation it was revealed that the deceased Venkatesh was not happy with the marriage alliance of his sister Amani proposed to A1 and as such, A1/Bathini Sampath and his brother

A2/Bathini Mahender said to have thought of doing away with the life of the deceased Venkatesh and accordingly, they planned and killed him and threw the dead body in SRSP canal.

2.03.It is further observed that the mother of deceased Venkatesh is the first wife of Gujjeti Pochaiah (PW.1). After the death of mother of the deceased

Venkatesh, PW.1/Gujjeti Pochaiah married the mother of Amani. It is further observed that Amani was born to her mother Swarupa through her first husband. The deceased Venkatesh was not happy in presenting good amounts by way of dowry and performing the marriage of Amani with A1 and as such, there were differences between the deceased Venkatesh and A1/Bathini

Sampath.

2.04.It is further observed from the contents of charge sheet that even though a good amount was shown as offered by way of dowry to A1 in his marriage

Page 5 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015 with Amani, the daughter of PW.1, the said amount was not paid at a time in total, and that there were demands made by PW.1 for payment of the said amount with PW.1, and that the deceased was all the time objecting for the same on the ground that Amani is not the daughter of PW.1 and she was born to somebody else through her mother Swarupa. It is the ultimate finding of the investigation that A1/Bathini Sampath and his brother Bathini Mahender (A2) killed the deceased and threw the dead body in SRSP canal. What is all the alleged acts on the part of accused in doing away with the life of the deceased appears to have been come to light as per their own confession said to have been made before one Juvvadi Uday Kumar (PW.6).

2.05.Initially, the case was registered by Mr. P.

Ramesh, S.I. of Police (PW.10). The investigation was carried on by Mr. T. Srinivas Rao, C.I. of Police (PW.12) and later on the transfer of Mr. T. Srinivas Rao, further investigation was taken up by Mr. A. Ramulu, C.I. of

Police (PW.13) and finally charge sheet was laid against

A1/Bathini Sampath and his brother Bathini Mahender (A2) for the offences punishable under Sec.302 and 201 of IPC.

Page 6 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015 3.00.Learned Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class,

Peddapally, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sec.302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC. vide PRC.

No.36/2014 against A1 and A2 and on complying with the provisions under sections 208 & 209 Cr. PC., committed the case as against A1 to the Court of

Sessions, Karimnagar by her order, dt.11.05.2015

where it was numbered as S.C.263 of 2015, since by then A2/Bathini Mahender was reported dead and the case against him was abated.

4.00.Accused No.1 appeared in this Court and A2 was reported dead and the Death Certificate issued by

Secretary, Grampanchayath, Kammarikhanpet Village, dt.03.08.2015 to the effect that A2 died was filed in this

Court and accordingly, the case against A2 was shown as abated against him.

5.00.On 27.10.2015, on hearing the learned counsel for accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, charges under Sec.302 and 201 of IPC., were framed, read over and explained to accused No.1.

He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page 7 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015 6.00.There are (13) witnesses examined, (15) documents and (06) material objects marked on the side of prosecution.

6.01.The witnesses examined on the side of prosecution are; PW.1 is Gujjeti Pochaiah, father of the deceased Gujjeti Venkatesh and father-in-law of A1 herein. PW.2 is Gujjeti Kailasam who along with A1 said to have found the dead body of Venkatesh in SRSP canal in the village outskirts of Raghavapur. PW.3 is one Panjala Srinivas and PW.4 is one Pabbathi Sridhar

Reddy and both of them were said to have been examined by the prosecution to show the enmity between A1 and the deceased Venkatesh and of the alleged quarrel took place between them and of the alleged fact of A1 and A2 doing away with the life of the deceased. These two witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. They were cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor with the permission of the

Court and their 161 Cr. PC. Statements were marked as

Exts.P-2 and P-3. PW.5 is one Kadasi Thirupathi, a photographer who took photographs of the dead body found at SRSP Canal, in the outskirts of Raghavapur

Village. The photographs (4 Nos.) along with C.D.

were marked as Ext.P-4. PW.6 is Juvvadi Uday

Page 8 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015

Kumar, a resident of Kammarikhanpet Village and also the owner of kirana shop before whom both the accused said to have appeared and confessed the offence and at that time, one Mohd. Haimad (LW.12) was also present at the shop of PW.6. PW.7/Pasula Anil is a person working in a wine shop at Arnakonda Village and he found the deceased Venkatesh coming to his shop along with A2 and purchased four bottles of Kingfisher strong beer a few days before the death of the deceased

Venkatesh. PW.8/Pabbathi Rajaiah is a mediator for the crime details form (Ext.P-5) prepared by police at the scene of offence, i.e. near SRSP Canal in the outskirts of Raghavapur Village and also of the inquest (Ext.P-6) held over the dead body of the deceased.

PW.9 is Uthyam Rajaiah, a mediator in whose presence the accused were interrogated by police, and that both

A1 and A2 said to have confessed the offence and accordingly, one motorcycle bearing No.AP1-5-BH-2414 (M.O.1) and one mobile phone (M.O.2) were seized by police from the possession of A1 and in the same way, one mobile phone (M.O.3) and one motorcycle bearing

No.AP-15-AX-2353 (M.O.4) from the possession of A2 were seized by police and panch chits containing the signatures of mediators were pasted to these material objects. It is further observed that as per the

Page 9 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015 confession of A1 and A2, a stick (M.O.5) and a knife (M.O.6) were said to be recovered by police at the instance of A1 and A2. PW.10 is Mr. P. Ramesh, the then S.I. of Police, Basanthnagar, who received the report from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.

No.155/2013 under Sec.302 and 201 of IPC., and issued the printed format of FIR marked as Ext.P-10.

PW.11 is Dr. K. Pramod Kumar, Civil Asst. Surgeon,

Govt. Hospital, Manthani, and he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Venkatesh and found four injuries and issued postmortem examination report (Ext.P-11) giving the opinion as to the cause of death due to shock and hemorrhage and Asphyxia due to cut throat injury and injury to vital structures.

PW.12/Mr. T. Srinivas Rao and PW.13/Mr. A. Ramulu, are the Investigation Officers in this case.

7.00.After completion of prosecution side evidence, on 25.04.2016, accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr. P.C., with regard to the incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He pleaded that he is innocent.

There is no oral or documentary evidence adduced from the side of accused.

Page 10 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015 8.00.Heard both sides.

9.00.The point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution

established the guilt of accused

No.1 for the offences punishable

under Sec.302 and 201 of IPC.,

beyond reasonable doubt ?

10.00.POINT :

It is the case of prosecution, in the initial stages, that one Daraveni Venkatesh, Daraveni

Kanakaiah, Gujjeti Mallesh and Gujjeti Raju are the persons suspected to have killed the deceased Gujjeti

Venkatesh because of the reason that the deceased

Venkatesh was in love with one Mounika, the daughter of Daraveni Venkatesh, and that the deceased was warned by the parents of said Mounika.

11.00.The deceased Venkatesh said to have come out of his house on 25.10.2013, at 08.00 P.M., on receiving a phone call to his mobile No.9666674065 and later he did not return home and ultimately his dead body was found on 28.10.2013 in SRSP canal and a

Page 11 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015 report under Ext.P-1 to the said effect was given to police, Basanthnagar by PW.1.

12.00.Even though the case was registered against one Daraveni Venkatesh, Daraveni Kanakaiah,

Gujjeti Mallesh and Gujjeti Raju showing suspicion on them in the death of the deceased Venkatesh, there is nothing said in the evidence of PW.1 as to how A1 and his brother, late Mahender (A2) were shown as responsible for the death of the deceased Venkatesh.

In the evidence of PW.1, there is nothing said as to how police got suspicion on A1 and his brother, late

Mahender (A2) in doing away with the life of the deceased Venkatesh.

13.00.What is all the case as against A1 and his brother, late Mahender (A2) of their involvement in doing away with the life of the deceased is all seen from the facts mentioned in the charge sheet that A1 married

Amani, the daughter of PW.1, and the deceased was not happy with the said marriage and he was not happy in giving huge amounts to A1 by way of dowry by PW.1 only because of the reason that Amani is the daughter of Swarupa, the second wife of PW.1, and that Amani was not born to Swarupa after she married PW.1, but

Page 12 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015

Amani was born to Swarupa through her first husband.

The deceased was said to be not happy in the demand and acceptance of dowry by A1, and that the entire amount agreed by way of dowry in the marriage of

Amani with A1 was not given to A1 at a time and on all the occasions whenever A1 made a request with PW.1 for payment of the amount, it was the deceased

Venkatesh who was opposing the same. What is all done by A1 and his brother, late Mahender (A2) in doing away with the life of the deceased is a fact came to light, according to prosecution, only by the alleged confession of A1 made before PW.6/Juvvadi Uday

Kumar.

14.00.The evidence of PW.6 is to the effect that about two years ago, A1 and his brother late Mahender (A2) came to his shop and disclosed that they killed the deceased Venkatesh, and that they need the help of

PW.6 in getting them surrendered before police. PW.6 did not take both the accused along with him and produce them before police in surrendering them before police, but on the other hand, both the accused having said to have disclosed about their involvement in doing away with the life of the deceased Venkatesh, said to have left the shop of PW.6, and that police could

Page 13 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015 apprehend A1 and A2 only on 15.01.2014, and that A1 and A2 said to have interrogated at Grampanchayath

Office in the presence of Uthyam Rajaiah (PW.9) and one Katta Swamy (LW.20). In the report (Ext.P-1), it was mentioned that the deceased left the house of PW.1 at 08.00 P.M., on 25.10.2013 on receiving a phone call to his mobile No.9666674065. It is observed from the contents of charge sheet that the call data particulars of the mobile phone of the deceased and three others were said to be collected by the investigating agency, but there is no document showing as to the details of calls made to the mobile phone of the deceased and also to know who made such phone calls to the mobile phone of the deceased.

15.00.Initially, the case was registered against the father of Mounika and three others as PW.1 got suspicion on Daraveni Venkatesh, father of Mounika, since it was said that Daraveni Venkatesh and others having found that the deceased Venkatesh was in love with Mounika, warned them, still there was no change in the attitude of the deceased Venkatesh, as such,

PW.1 expressed his strong doubt over the said four persons.

Page 14 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015 16.00.There is no evidence coming forth from the side of prosecution as to the so-called intimacy between the deceased and Mounika, the daughter of Daraveni

Venkatesh, and the so-called love affair between them and all these things come to light only through the alleged confession of A1 and his brother late Mahender (A2). The prosecution, in order to shows that the deceased was seen in the company of late Bathini

Mahender (A2), examined one Pasula Anil as PW.7, who worked in a wine shop and said to have seen the deceased and A2 purchasing four bottles of Kingfisher strong beer about a few days before the death of

Venkatesh. In this case, the deceased came out of the house on 25.10.2013, at 08.00 P.M., and later his dead body was found in SRSP canal on 28.10.2013 by A1 himself and PW.2/Gujjeti Kailasam, who said to have went in search of the deceased.

17.00.Here, in this case, except the so-called confession of A1, there is no other piece of evidence to show the alleged differences between the deceased

Venkatesh and A1 whereby A1 and his brother, late

Mahender (A2) made to plan and do away with the life of the deceased Venkatesh. The evidence of PW.6 is in a way to show that A1 and A2 said to have approached

Page 15 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015

PW.6 and made an extra judicial confession, but PW.6 did not take along with him both the accused and got them surrendered before police. But, on the other hand, A1 and A2 having revealed about their involvement in the offence before PW.6, left the shop of

PW.6, and that both the accused were apprehended by police only on 15.01.2014 by PW.13, and that both the accused said to have confessed the offence during the course of interrogation done before PW.9/Uthyam

Rajaiah and Katta Swamy (LW.20).

18.00.It is a case of accused doing away with the life of the deceased Venkatesh relying upon the circumstantial evidence since there is no direct evidence as to the act of accused doing away with the life of the deceased and in such a situation, all the circumstances put forth by the prosecution should necessarily lead to the only conclusion that it was A1 and his brother, late

Mahender (A2) are only the persons who had done away with the life of the deceased. This particular portion of circumstantial witnesses leading to the only conclusion that A1 and his brother, late Mahender (A2) are the only persons who caused the death of the deceased, is not established. The evidence of PW.6

before whom both the accused said to have made extra

Page 16 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015 judicial confession is also of no help for the prosecution since the evidence of PW.6 does not show the reason as to why both the accused selected him as the person

before whom they wanted to make an extra judicial

confession and PW.6 did not take both the accused and got them surrendered before the police immediately after they said to have made extra judicial confession

before him. So, in these circumstances, I find that the

prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sec.302 and 201 of

IPC., and that he is entitled to be given benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

19.00.In the result, accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sec.302 and 201 of IPC., and accordingly he is acquitted under

Section 235 (1) Cr. PC. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

M.O.1 (motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-BH- 2414) was returned to A1 as per orders in Crl. M.P.

No.309/2014, dt.04.04.2014 and M.O.4 (motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-AX-2353) was returned to father of

A1 by name Bathini Lachaiah for interim custody with a direction to produce the same as and when needed by this Court for trial and accordingly, they were produced

Page 17 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015 and marked and again returned to them. The interim custody of M.Os.1 and 4 given to A1/Bathini Sampath and his father Bathini Lachaiah respectively is made absolute and they can retain the said motorcycles, after expiry of appeal time.

M.Os.2, 3, 5 and 6 and the unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of May, 2016. Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION : PW.1 :Gujjeti Pochaiah. PW.2 :Gujjeti Kailasam. PW.3 :Panjala Srinivas. PW.4 :Pabbathi Sridhar Reddy. PW.5 : Kadasi Thirupathi. PW.6 :Juvvadi Uday Kumar. PW.7 :Pasula Anil. PW.8 :Pabbathi Rajaiah. PW.9 :Uthyam Rajaiah. PW.10 :Mr. P. Ramesh, S.I. of Police. PW.11 :Dr. K. Pramod Kumar, Civil Asst. Surgeon. PW.12 :Mr. T. Srinivas Rao, C.I. of Police. PW.13 :Mr. A. Ramulu, C.I. of Police.

FOR THE DEFENCE : -NONE –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ext.P-1Dt.28.10.2014Report given by PW.1 to police. Ext.P-2 Dt.15.01.2014161 Cr. PC. Statement of PW.3. Ext.P-3Dt.15.01.2014161 Cr. PC. Statement of PW.5. Ext.P-4Dt.Photographs (4 Nos.) along with C.D. Ext.P-5Dt.28.10.2013Crime Details Form. Ext.P-6Dt.28.10.2013Inquest Report.

Page 18 of 18 Fair S.C. No. 263 of 2015

Ext.P-7Dt.15.01.2014Relevant Portion of confession panchanama of accused. Ext.P-8Dt.15.01.2014Seizure panchanama of M.O.5. Ext.P-9Dt.15.01.2014Seizure panchanama of M.O.6. Ext.P-10Dt.28.10.2013Printed format of FIR in Cr. No.155/2013 of P.S., Basanthnagar. Ext.P-11Dt.28.10.2013Postmortem Examination Report. Ext.P-12 Dt.09.12.2013RFSL Report. Ext.P-13Dt.28.10.2013Final opinion. Ext.P-14Dt.23.11.2013Letter of advice. Ext.P-15Dt.23.11.2013Letter to RFSL, Karimnagar.

FOR THE DEFENCE : - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-BH-2414. M.O.2 : Mobile phone of Karbon make (black and red colour) . M.O.3 : Mobile phone of Nokia make. M.O.4 : Motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-AX-2353. M.O.5 : Stick. M.O.6 : Knife.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

-:-

Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT:- SRI B. NAGAMARUTHI SARMA,

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR,

THURSDAY, THE 5 th DAY OF MAY, 2016

SESSIONS CASE NO. 261 OF 2015

Name of the Complainant : The State through the Circle Inspector of Police, Choppadandi (Crime No.172/2014 of P.S., Ramadugu).

Name of the Accused : Sattu Srinivas, S/o Ramaiah, aged 28 yrs., Caste : Dhobi, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Velichala Village of Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District.

Charges : Under Sec.302 of IPC.

Plea of the Accused : “ Not guilty ”

Finding of the Court : “ Not guilty ”

Sentence or Order : Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC., and accordingly he is acquitted u/s 235 (1) Cr. P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Prosecution conducted by : Sri P. Harishankar Rao, Public Prosecutor, Prl. Sessions Court, Karimnagar.

Accused defended by : Sri J. Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate.

(On committal by Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Karimnagar by his Order in PRC No.27 of 2015, dt.07.05.2015)

-: J U D G M E N T :-

Page 2 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015

This is a case under Sec.302 of IPC., against the accused Sattu Srinivas.

2.00.Accused is son of the deceased. The incident as to the death of the deceased Sattu Ramaiah was reported to police, Ramadugu by Sattu Buchavva (PW.1), mother of the accused. In the report, dt.05.12.2014 lodged by PW.1/Sattu Buchavva, it is mentioned that she is a physically handicapped person.

She got three daughters and one son. Her son Sattu

Srinivas (accused herein) does agriculture. Her grand son aged 1 ½ years died by falling in a large tub (Kudithi thotti) and since then the wife of accused is living at her parents’ house. Accused was said to be making a request with the deceased to transfer his agricultural land in the name of his wife as his (accused) wife insisted for the same.

2.01.About five years ago, once “Udumu” (Monitor lizard) entered the house and the same was felt inauspicious, as such, the house was vacated and the deceased and his family members were living in a rented house. The deceased was sleeping at his own house during night time to keep a watch.

2.02.On 04.12.2014, the deceased was at the agricultural fields, and that accused went there and

Page 3 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015 picked up a quarrel with him insisting that the agricultural land should be registered in his name, otherwise he would kill him (deceased). The said incident of accused threatening the deceased was witnessed by Sattu Buchavva (PW.1) and Peddigari

Beeraiah.

2.03.On 05.12.2014, at 06.30 A.M., mother of

Sattu Buchavva went to the house where the deceased was sleeping and called him, but as there was no response, later Sattu Buchavva also went there and found no response from her husband and later with the help of one Rachakonda Ramesh (PW.2), the doors of the house were opened and the deceased was found lying on a cot with injuries on his face. The report was lodged with the police showing suspicion on the accused as the person who killed the deceased, as the deceased did not oblige to transfer his agricultural land in the name of accused.

2.04.Police, on receipt of the report from Sattu

Buchavva (PW.1), registered a case in Cr. No.172/2014 under Sec.302 of IPC., and took up investigation. Mr.

T. Satyanarayana, the then Inspector of Police,

Choppadandi (PW.12) did the investigation and examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and got photographs taken with the help of the

Page 4 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015

Photographer (PW.9) of the dead body at the scene of offence.

2.05.According to PW.12, accused said to have surrendered before police on 07.12.2014 on being produced by Bandapalli Yadagiri (PW.6). Accused said to have confessed the offence in the presence of

Bathini Rajesham (PW.8) and one Jogu Anil Kumar (LW.17). PW.12 conducted the entire investigation and later on his transfer, Mr. T. Lakshmi Babu, Circle

Inspector of Police (PW.13) filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Sec.302 of IPC.

3.00.Learned Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class,

Karimnagar, took cognizance of the offence vide PRC.

No.27/2015 and on complying with the provisions under sections 208 & 209 Cr. PC., committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Karimnagar by his order, dt.07.05.2015 where it was numbered as S.C.261 of 2015.

4.00.Accused appeared in this Court. On 24.08.2015, on hearing the learned counsel for accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the

State, a charge under Sec.302 of IPC., was framed,

Page 5 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015 read over and explained to accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.00.There are (13) witnesses examined, (15) documents and (08) material objects marked on the side of prosecution. PW.1 is Sattu Buchaiah, wife of the deceased and mother of the accused. PW.2 is one

Rachakonda Ramesh who said to have entered the house of the deceased from its rear side and opened the doors. PW.3/Nerella Lachaiah, was a mediator for the panchayath held between the accused and his wife.

PW.4 is one Peddi Ailaiah, a person who said to have found the accused going away in a hurried manner in front of his house. PW.5 is Peddigari Bheeraiah, who said to have informed the police about the quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused and of the alleged threatening given by the accused to the deceased to do away with his life. PW.6 is one

Bandapalli Yadagiri before whom the accused said to have made an extra judicial confession about the offence. PW.7/Meesa Narsaiah is a mediator for observation of the scene of offence by police and for preparation of the crime details form (Ext.P-6) and also for the inquest (Ext.P-7) conducted over the dead body of the deceased. PW.8 is Bathini Rajesham, a mediator for the alleged confession of accused and of

Page 6 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015 recovery of T-Shirt (M.O.6) containing blood stains from the accused. PW.9 is Shekalla Rajesh, a

Photographer who took photographs (Ext.P-2) of the dead body found at the scene of offence. PW.10 is Dr.

S. Ravinder, Civil Asst. Surgeon, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem examination report (Ext.P-10) giving his opinion as to the cause of death due to head injury.

PW.11 is Mr. S. Pramod Reddy, the then S.I. of Police,

Ramadugu, who received report (Ext.P-1) from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr. No.172/2014 under

Sec.302 of IPC., and issued printed format of FIR (Ext.P-11). PW.12 is Mr. T. Satyanarayana, the then

Inspector of Police, Choppadandi, who conducted investigation of examining the witnesses and apprehension of accused and of the alleged recovery of blood stained clothes from the accused. PW.13 is Mr.

T. Lakshmi Babu, Circle Inspector of Police, who succeeded PW.12 and verified the investigation done by

PW.12 and laid the charge sheet against the accused.

6.00.After completion of prosecution side evidence, on 20.04.2016, accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr. P.C., with regard to the incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of

Page 7 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015 prosecution witnesses. He pleaded that he is innocent. There is no oral or documentary evidence adduced from the side of accused.

7.00.Heard both sides.

8.00.The point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution

established the guilt of the

accused for the offence

punishable under Sec.302 of

IPC., beyond reasonable doubt ?

9.00.POINT :

It is the case of prosecution that the deceased Sattu Ramaiah got three daughters and one son (accused herein). Accused was married and was blessed with a male child, but unfortunately the said child died by fall in a large tub. Later, the wife of accused left the company of accused and since then it was insisted by accused with the deceased for transfer of his agricultural land in the name of wife of the accused as the wife of accused insisted for transfer of the property in her name in order to join the company of accused.

Page 8 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015 10.00.It is mentioned in the report (Ext.P-1) lodged by PW.1 that about five years ago, “Udumu” (Monitor Lizard) entered the house of the deceased and

PW.1, and that it was felt inauspicious, as such, all the family members of the deceased were living in a rented house and the deceased was sleeping at his own house during night time to keep a watch. It is further mentioned in the report that the wife of accused was living at her parents’ house, and that she was insisting for transfer of agricultural land in her name in order to come and live with the accused and as such, accused was all the time said to have been picking up quarrels with his father insisting that he should transfer his agricultural land in the name of himself (accused) or in the name of his wife.

11.00.On 04.12.2014, when the deceased was at agricultural fields, accused said to have went there and picked up quarrel with him insisting for transfer of the property in his name and in that quarrel, the deceased said to have removed the fuse of the electric motor of the well and returned home and in that connection, a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased and on the next day morning, the dead body of the deceased was found at the house of the

Page 9 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015 deceased with injuries on the head. PW.1 suspected that the accused was the person who killed the deceased as he was all the time insisting for transfer of the agricultural land in his name or in the name of his wife.

12.00.PW.2/Rachakonda Ramesh is a person who climbed over the wall of the house of the deceased and opened the door and later found the deceased lying on the cot with injuries on his head. PW.3/Nerella

Lachaiah is shown to be a mediator in the panchayath held between the accused and his wife and in the said panchayath, it was disclosed by wife of the accused that the accused was not keeping good health and she does not want to live with him and she insisted that the agricultural land of the deceased should be transferred in her name, then only she would join the company of accused. It is further said in the evidence of PW.3 that because of the said reason and of the alleged demand made by wife of the accused, it was insisted by accused with his father, the deceased, for transfer of property in the name of wife of the accused.

PW.4/Peddi Ailaiah is a person who said to have found the accused going in a hurried manner in front of his house, but this witness did not support the case of

Page 10 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015 prosecution and was declared hostile and subjected to cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court and his 161 Cr. PC.

Statement was marked as Ext.P-3.

13.00.PW.5 is Peddigari Bheeraiah and he was examined by police to show that the accused was quarrelling with his father all the time and also threatened his father (deceased) that he would do away with his life. However, this witness also did not support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile and subjected to cross-examination by learned

Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court and his 161 Cr. PC. Statement was marked as Ext.P-4.

14.00.PW.6 is one Bandapalli Yadagiri before whom accused said to have made an extra judicial confession of committing the murder of his father.

However, this witness also did not support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile and subjected to cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court and his 161 Cr. PC.

Statement was marked as Ext.P-5. In the cross- examination, it was suggested to PW.6 that the accused appeared before him and confessed the

Page 11 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015 offence and sought his help for his production before police.

15.00.PW.7 is one Meesa Narsaiah, a mediator for observation of the scene of offence and preparation of crime details form by PW.12. The crime details form prepared in the presence of PW.7 was marked as Ext.P-

6. Police also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and the inquest report was marked as

Ext.P-7.

16.00.PW.8/Bathini Rajesham, is a mediator for confession and recovery panchanama of accused and in his presence the accused said to have confessed the offence and also produced one T-Shirt (M.O.6) which was seized by police from the possession of accused.

17.00.PW.9 is Shekalla Rajesh, a Photographer who took photographs of the dead body of the deceased already marked as Ext.P.2 in the evidence of

PW.1. PW.9 also took photographs of T-Shirt (M.O.6) belonging to accused produced before the police. The photographs showing the T-Shirt belonging to accused taken at the police station were marked as Ext.P-9.

Page 12 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015

Both photographs under Exts.P-2 and P-9 were in one compact disc.

18.00.PW.10 is Dr. S. Ravinder, Civil Asst.

Surgeon at Dist. Hqrs. Hospital, Karimnagar. He conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem examination report (Ext.P-10).

According to PW.10, there were five anti mortem injuries found on the dead body and the injuries are -

(i) Laceration 3 x 1 x 1 cm. on frontal region of right side; (ii) Fracture of frontal bone right side; (iii) Blood clot 6 x 3 x 1 cm on frontal region-right side; (iv)

Fracture of upper ribs 4th & 5th –Left side; (v) Blood clot in retro-sternal region on left side 6 x 2 cm.

According to PW.10, the death of the deceased was due to head injury suffered by the deceased.

19.00.PWs.11 to 13 are Investigation Officers.

20.00.It is the case of prosecution that the accused was the only son to his parents, viz. the deceased and PW.1. The wife of accused was living away from him and it was insisted by wife of the accused that the agricultural land of the deceased was to be transferred in her name in order to make her

Page 13 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015 come and live with the accused. In this connection, accused was said to be picking up quarrels with his father and it went upto a stage where the accused said to have made up his mind to do away with the life of the deceased and accordingly, accused said to have killed the deceased by causing an injury to his head with a wooden pestle (M.O.1) and the same was seized by police at the time of observing the scene of offence and preparing the crime details form (Ext.P-6).

21.00.It is the case of prosecution that the accused was unhappy with his father as he refused to transfer his agricultural land in the name of wife of the accused since the wife of accused insisted for transfer of the agricultural land in her name in order to join the company of the accused. Here, in order to connect the accused with the offence of doing away with the life of the deceased, it was PW.6/Bandapalli Yadagiri before whom accused said to have made an extra judicial confession. PW.6 did not support the version of prosecution. It was suggested to PW.6 in the cross- examination done by Public Prosecutor that accused approached him and confessed the offence of committing murder of his father and requested him to take him to police and got him surrendered before

Page 14 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015 police. The other witnesses examined by prosecution in order to connect the accused with the offence, it was

PW.5/Peddigari Bheeraiah before whom accused said to have quarreled with the deceased and threatened the deceased to do away with his life. This witness also did not support the case of prosecution. The other piece of evidence is that of PW.4/Peddi Ailaiah who said to have observed the deceased going away in a hurried manner in front of his house on the date of death of the deceased. This witness also did not support the case of prosecution.

22.00.In this case, the evidence of PW.1 is to the effect that the accused was all the time quarrelling with his father, the deceased, in asking him to transfer his agricultural land in the name of wife of his wife, as it was insisted by wife of the accused that the property is to be transferred in her name in order to make her to come and join the company of the accused. In the cross-examination of PW.1, it was suggested to her that the accused was implicated in this case in order to avoid his legitimate share in the property of the deceased. In the examination of accused under

Sec.313 Cr. PC., a copy of the petition in the suit filed by daughters of the deceased for partition was filed

Page 15 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015 wherein it was pleaded that since the accused committed murder of his father (deceased), he is not entitled to a share in the properties of the deceased.

23.00.In this case, the prosecution examined

PW.6, a person before whom the accused said to have made an extra judicial confession. This witness did not support the version of prosecution. The other two witnesses whom prosecution examined in order to connect the accused with the alleged offence is PW.5

before whom accused said to have quarreled with his

father and also made a threatening to do away with his life, but this witness did not support the version of the prosecution and the other witness is PW.4 who said to have observed the accused going away in a hurried manner in front of his house on the date of death of the deceased, but this witness also did not support the version of prosecution. In this case, except the sole testimony of PW.1 in making an allegation against the accused that he killed the deceased since the deceased said to have not accepted the request of accused for transfer of his property in the name of the accused and except the evidence of PW.1, there is no other piece of evidence to connect the accused with the offence of doing away with the life of the deceased. Therefore, I

Page 16 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015 find that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of

IPC., and that the accused is entitled to be given benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

24.00.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC., and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1)

Cr. PC. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. M.Os.1 to 8 and the unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of May, 2016.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION : PW.1 :Sattu Buchavva. PW.2 :Rachakonda Ramesh. PW.3 :Nerella Lachaiah. PW.4 :Peddi Ailaiah. PW.5 : Peddigari Beeraiah. PW.6 :Bandapalli Yadagiri. PW.7 :Meesa Narsaiah. PW.8 :Bathini Rajesham. PW.9 :Shekalla Rajesham. PW.10 :Dr. S. Ravinder, Civil Asst. Surgeon. PW.11 :Mr. S. Pramod Reddy, S.I. of Police. PW.12 :Mr. T. Satyanarayana, C.I. of Police. PW.13 :Mr. T. Lakshmi Babu, C.I. of Police.

Page 17 of 17 Fair S.C. No. 261 of 2015

FOR THE DEFENCE : -NONE –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ext.P-1Dt.05.12.2014Report given by PW.1 to police. Ext.P-2 Dt.--Photographs (2 Nos.) Ext.P-3Dt.05.12.2014161 Cr. PC. Statement of PW.4. Ext.P-4Dt.06.12.2014161 Cr. PC. Statement of PW.5. Ext.P-5Dt.07.12.2014161 Cr. PC. Statement of PW.6. Ext.P-6Dt.05.12.2014Crime Details Form. Ext.P-7Dt.05.12.2014Inquest Report. Ext.P-8Dt.07.12.2014Portionofconfession panchanama of accused. Ext.P-9Dt.--Photographs (2 Nos.). Ext.P-10Dt.05.12.2014Postmortem Examination Report. Ext.P-11Dt.05.12.2014FIR in Cr. No.172/2014 of P.S., Ramadugu. Ext.P-12 Dt.23.12.2014Letter of advice. Ext.P-13Dt.23.12.2014Covering Letter. Ext.P-14Dt.02.01.2015Covering letter for forwarding material objects. Ext.P-15Dt.26.02.2015RFSL Report.

FOR THE DEFENCE : - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Wooden pestle with blood stains. M.O.2 : Blood stained portion of wall. M.O.3 : Control portion of wall. M.O.4 : Blood stained Nawaru of cot. M.O.5 : Control Nawaru of cot. M.O.6 : T.Shirt. M.O.7 : Blue colour shirt with blood stains. M.O.8 : White dhothi with blood stains.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

-:-

Fair

A.S. 2 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: SRI B. NAGAMARUTHI SARMA,

Prl. District Judge, K a r i m n a g a r.

APPEAL SUIT NO. 2 OF 2015

Tuesday, the 7 thday of June, 2016

Between :-

1. Raparthi Venkatesham, S/o. Venkaiah, age 54 years, Occ: Business,

2. Raparthi Srimathi, W/o. Venkatesham, age 50 years, Occ: Household, Both are R/o. H.No. 8-5-555/1/B, Near Pochamma Temple, Kothirampur, Karimnagar.

...Appellants/Defendants.

And

Alagandula Mallikarjun, S/o. Venkat Narsaiah, age 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 1-5-301, Padmashali Street, Karimnagar. …Respondent/Plaintiff.

(On appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in O.S.No.188 of 2010, dt.22.08.2014)

Between : - Alagandula Mallikarjun, S/o. Venkat Narsaiah, age 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 1-5-301, Padmashali Street, Karimnagar.

...Plaintiff.

And

1. Raparthi Venkatesham, S/o. Venkaiah, age 50 years, Occ: Jewellery Business, R/o. H.No. 8-5-555/1/B,NearPochammaTemple, Kothirampur, Karimnagar.

2. Raparthi Srimathi, W/o. Venkatesham, age 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 8-5-555/1/B, Near Pochamma Temple, Kothirampur, Karimnagar. …Defendants.

This appeal coming before me on 01.06.2016 for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Sajan Kumar, Advocate

for appellants and Sri G. Srinivas Goud, Advocate for

respondent, and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :-

- : J U D G M E N T :-

Page 2 of 13 Fair

A.S. 2 of 2015

This is an appeal preferred against the

Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.188 of 2010, dt.22.08.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Senior Civil

Judge, Karimnagar.

(Note : In dealing with the case, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit).

2.00.Appellants herein were defendants in the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff for recovery of

Rs.2,72,500/- with interest @ 18% per annum.

2.01.Respondent/AlagandulaMallikarjunas plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No.188/2010 against appellants herein claiming that defendant No.1/Raparthi

Venkatesham was well known to plaintiff/Alagandula

Mallikarjun and out of their acquaintance, defendant

No.1/Raparthi venkatesham borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- on 24.01.2010 as he was in need of the amount for the purpose of his business. Defendant

No.1/Raparthi Venkatesham on receipt of the amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- executed a promissory note on 24.01.2010, and that defendant No.2/Raparthi Srimathi being the wife of D1/Venkatesham stood as guarantor for the loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. The suit

Page 3 of 13 Fair

A.S. 2 of 2015

document of promissory note and the agreement of guarantee were executed by defendants No.1 and 2.

2.02.Plaintiff/Alagandula Mallikarjun requested defendants to repay the loan amount and on that, defendant No.1/Venkatesham issued a cheque on 22.07.2010 for Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Union Bank of

India, Karimnagar. Plaintiff presented the cheque in his bank account in Andhra Bank, Kaman Branch,

Karimnagar and the cheque was dishonoured and returned with the endorsement as “insufficient funds” in the account of defendant No.1/Venkatesham. Plaintiff after the cheque being dishonoured approached defendants No.1 and 2 on 29.07.2010 demanding for repayment of the amount covered under the promissory note. Defendants No.1 and 2 refused to repay the loan amount, as such, plaintiff approached the Court for recovery of the amount with interest against defendants

No.1 and 2.

3.00.Defendant No.2 filed the written statement and the same was adopted by defendant No.1. The averments of the written statement filed by defendant

No.2 are as follows :-

Page 4 of 13 Fair

A.S. 2 of 2015

3.01. It is denied that defendant No.1 out of his acquaintance with the plaintiff borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- by way of hand loan for which defendant

No.2 stood as guarantor, and that the suit promissory note and agreement of guarantee were executed by defendants No.1 and 2.

3.02.It is denied that defendant No.1 issued a cheque on 22.07.2010 for repayment of the loan amount covered under the promissory note alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff. It is denied that plaintiff approached defendants No.1 and 2 after the cheque being dishonoured for payment of amount covered under the promissory note.

3.03.In the written statement, some more information is furnished under the head as real facts :- 3.04.It is submitted that defendant No.2 is a respectable person in the society doing business.

Plaintiff was running chits, and that the plaintiff approached defendant No.1 through his friend Prakash and requested defendant No.1 to become a member of the chit run by plaintiff. Defendant No.1 agreed to be a member of the chit for Rs.5.00 lakhs and the chit commenced in the month of November, 2008.

Page 5 of 13 Fair

A.S. 2 of 2015

Defendant No.1 participated in the auction and became successful bidder. Plaintiff insisted for security for the chit amount, as such, defendant No.1 executed a promissory note, and that defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the said amount since she was owning a house bearing Door No.8-5-555/1/B, situated at

Kothirampur locality of Karimnagar. Defendant No.1 cleared off the entire chit amount. Plaintiff failed to return the promissory note and cheque issued by defendant No.1. It was represented by plaintiff that the cheque and promissory note were misplaced and he would return them as and when he finds them out.

Plaintiff taking advantage of retaining the promissory note and the cheque issued by defendant No.1 filed the suit with all false averments against defendants No.1 and 2.

4.00.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for trial:-

1. Whether D-1 executed suit promissory note ?

2. Whether D-1 issued cheque, dt.22.07.2010 for Rs.2,50,000/- towards discharge of debt covered by the suit promissory note ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim ?

4. To what relief ?

Page 6 of 13 Fair

A.S. 2 of 2015

5.00.There were three witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff. PW.1 is the plaintiff himself.

PW.2 is one Dachapalli Ajay Kumar and PW.3 is one

Putta Anjaiah. There were six documents got marked on the side of the plaintiff. Ext.A-1 is the promissory note, dt.24.01.2010, Ext.A-2 is the receipt, dt.24.01.2010, Ext.A-3is the cheque, dt.22.07.2010,

Ext.A-4 is the counterfoil, dt.22.07.2010, Ext.A-5 is the memo from Union Bank of India, Karimnagar Branch, dt.22.07.2010 and Ext.A-6 is the Encumbrance

Certificate for the period from 01.01.1983 to 01.08.2010.

5.01Defendant No.1/Raparthi Venkatesham was examined as DW.1. There were (11) documents got marked on the side of the defendants. Ext.B-1 is the receipt, dt.19.01.2010, Ext.B-2 is the receipt, dt.10.07.2010, Ext.B-3 is the receipt, dt.12.04.2010,

Ext.B-4 is the receipt, dt.10.05.2010, Ext.B-5 is the receipt, dt.10.06.2010, Ext.B-6 is the receipt, dt.19.08.2009, Ext.B-7 is the receipt, dt.11.02.2010,

Ext.B-8 is the receipt, dt.11.03.2010, Ext.B-9 is the pocket book, Ext.B-10 is the receipt for the documents collected, dt.30.07.2009 and Ext.B-11 is the marriage card, dt.15.08.2010.

Page 7 of 13 Fair

A.S. 2 of 2015

6.00.Learned Addl. Senior Junior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar, on considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, passed the Judgment and decreeing the suit for Rs.2,72,500/- with future interest at 6% per annum on Rs.2,50,000/- with costs.

7.00.Defendants being aggrieved by the

Judgment and decree of the trial Court, preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned below :- 7.01.The trial Court did not appreciate the case of appellants/defendants in a proper perspective. The trial Court miserably filed to appreciate the evidence of defendant as the defendants denied the very execution of the suit pronote (Ext.A-1), receipt (Ext.A-2) and the cheque (Ext.A-3). The trial Court went wrong in accepting the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and passed the judgment in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.

The trial Court failed to consider the documents filed by appellants and got marked as Exts.B-1 to B-11.

8.00.Heard both sides.

9.00.The point for consideration is :-

Whether the Judgment of the trial

Court in decreeing the suit for

Rs.2,72,500/- with future interest

on Rs.2,50,000/- @ 6% per annum

against appellants/defendants in

Page 8 of 13 Fair

A.S. 2 of 2015

favour of respondent/plaintiff is

liable to be set aside ? 10.00.POINT :-

As seen from the averments of the plaint and from the evidence of PW.1/plaintiff, it is the case of respondent/plaintiff that defendant No.1 is very well known to him and because of the acquaintance, defendant No.1 approached respondent/plaintiff requesting for a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- for the purpose of his business and accordingly the loan amount was advanced by respondent/plaintiff to defendant

No.1/Raparthi Venkatesham, and that the wife of

Venkatesham got property, as such, she stood as guarantor for the repayment of loan amount. It is further the case of respondent/plaintiff that since the loan amount remained unpaid, respondent/plaintiff approached defendants and requested for repayment of the loan amount covered under the promissory note and as such, defendant No.1 issued a cheque (Ext.A-3) on 22.07.2010 but the same was dishonoured, as such, respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of

Rs.2,72,500/- and also seeking interest on the principal amount @ 18% per annum.

11.00.Appellants herein as defendants in the suit took the plea that respondent/plaintiff used to run

Page 9 of 13 Fair

A.S. 2 of 2015

private chits and in that defendant No.1/Venkatesham became a member of a chit of Rs.5.00 lakhs, and that a promissory note and cheque were obtained by plaintiff at the time of joining the chit and later appellants/defendants cleared off the entire chit amount, still respondent/plaintiff having got advantage of retaining the cheque and pronote filed the suit with all false allegations.

12.00.As seen from the averments of the written statement, it is clear that defendant No.1 executed a promissory note, and that defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the amount covered under the promissory note since it is the case of appellants/defendants that they executed such a promissory note (Ext.A-1) in favour of respondent/plaintiff as appellant/defendant

No.1 said to have joined as a member of chit said to have been run by respondent/plaintiff. It was pleaded in the written statement that respondent/plaintiff at the time of accepting defendant No.1 as a member of the chit for Rs.5.00 lakhs asked for a pronote and also insisted that his wife should stand as guarantor since she holds house property in her name. From the very averments of the written statement of defendants No.1 and 2, it is clear that the suit pronote (Ext.A-1), receipt

Page 10 of 13 Fair

A.S. 2 of 2015

(Ext.A-2) and also cheque (Ext.A-3) were executed and issued in favour of respondent/plaintiff by defendants

No.1 and 2. It was further the case of appellants/defendants that the entire chit amount was repaid by defendant No.1, still respondent/plaintiff did not return the pronote and other documents saying that the pronote and cheque were misplaced and he would return them as and when he finds them out. Here, it is to be seen that when respondent/plaintiff said to have failed to return the promissory note, receipt and cheque said to have been issued by defendant No.1 as a document for the alleged chit amount paid by respondent/plaintiff and when it is said that the entire chit amount was repaid by defendant No.1, then it was in the normal course of action that appellant/defendant

No.1 ought to have obtained a receipt from respondent/plaintiff making out clearly that he repaid the entire chit amount, still the plaintiff failed to return the promissory note, receipt and the cheque said to have been issued by defendant No.1 in favour respondent/plaintiff. There is nothing said in the written statement as to when the alleged chit commenced and when defendant No.1 cleared off the chit amount. Appellants/defendants admit the very execution of suit pronote, receipt and also of issuing a

Page 11 of 13 Fair

A.S. 2 of 2015

cheque, but it was pleaded by defendants that the promissory note, receipt and cheque were issued for some other purpose, i.e. for the purpose of the chit amount said to have been given to defendants by respondent/plaintiff. There is no document to show that respondent/plaintiff used to run private chit, and that defendant No.1 was one of the members in the chit run by respondent/plaintiff. There is no independent witness examined from the side of defendants to establish the plea raised by defendants of respondent/plaintiff running private chits, and that defendant No.1 being joined as a member of a chit for

Rs.5.00 lakhs. Here, in the absence of any evidence to show that respondent/plaintiff used to run private chits, and that the suit pronote, receipt and cheque wereobtainedbyrespondent/plaintifffrom appellants/defendants for the purpose of alleged transactionsofrunningprivatechitsby respondent/plaintiff,thentheclaimof respondent/plaintiff that defendant No.1 executed promissory note and as well as receipt for the loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- said to have been advanced by respondent/plaintiff to defendant No.1 is to be accepted, since the very execution of suit documents (Exts.A-1 to A-3) being admitted by defendants, and

Page 12 of 13 Fair

A.S. 2 of 2015

that the plea raised by defendants that respondent/plaintiff was running private chits was not established. So, the point is answered with the finding that the trial Court had rightly reached to the conclusion that appellant/defendant No.1 being in need of money borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from respondent/plaintiff for which he executed suit pronote (Ext.A-1), receipt (Ext.A-2) and also issued a cheque (Ext.A-3) for discharge of the said loan amount. The loan amount advancedbyrespondent/plaintiffto appellants/defendants remained un-discharged, as such, the trial Court had rightly decreed the suit in favourofrespondent/plaintiffandagainst appellants/defendants. I find no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. The point is answered accordingly.

13.00.In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed, confirming the Judgment and decree, dt.22.08.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar in O.S. No.188 of 2010, with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of June, 2016.

Prl. District Judge, Karimnagar.

Page 13 of 13 Fair

A.S. 2 of 2015

-:-

Fair S.C. No. 595 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT:- SRI B. NAGAMARUTHI SARMA,

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR,

WEDNESDAY, THE 4 th DAY OF MAY, 2016

SESSIONS CASE NO. 595 OF 2014

Name of the Complainant : The State through the Circle Inspector ofPolice,Peddapally(Crime No.122/2013 of P.S., Dharmaram).

Name of the Accused : Dasari Pochamallu, S/o Lingaiah, aged60yrs.,Tenugu,R/o Medavenigadda, Dharmaram Village and Mandal.

Charges : Under Sec.302 of IPC.

Plea of the Accused : “ Not guilty ”

Finding of the Court : “ Not guilty ”

Sentence or Order : Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC., and accordingly he is acquitted u/s 235 (1) Cr. P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Prosecution conducted by : Sri P. Harishankar Rao, Public Prosecutor, Prl. Sessions Court, Karimnagar.

Accused defended by : Sri E. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate.

(On committal by Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Peddapally by her Order in PRC No.32 of 2014, dt.28.10.2014)

-: J U D G M E N T :-

Page 2 of 11 Fair S.C. No. 595 of 2014

This is a case under Sec.302 of IPC., against the accused Dasari Pochamallu.

2.00.The case of the prosecution, as seen from the report, 30.07.2013 lodged by Dasari Rajamma (PW.1), it is said that the deceased Dasari Gattaiah and the accused got Ac.1-00 gts., of agricultural land and it should be shared equally between the accused and the deceased and since the deceased and his wife were living away from the village at Mumbai in eking out their livelihood, accused said to have encroached into the entire Ac.1-00 gts., land and doing cultivation by himself avoiding the legitimate share of Ac.0-20 gts., to the deceased. In this connection, there was a panchayath held before the elders, and that the elders got the property equally distributed between the accused and the deceased.

2.01.It is further observed from the report that on29.07.2013, in the evening hours, the deceased

Dasari Gattaiah went to his agricultural fields and did not return home and on the next day morning, at 08.00

A.M., Dasari Rajamma (PW.1) went to the agricultural field and she found the dead body of her husband in a cattle shed. There were injuries found on the face of the deceased.

Page 3 of 11 Fair S.C. No. 595 of 2014 2.02.Police, Dharmaram, on receipt of the said report (Ext.P-1) from PW.1, registered a case in Cr.

No.122/3013 under Sec.302 of IPC., Mr. T. Srinivas Rao,

Circle Inspector of Police, Peddapally (PW.9) conducted the entire investigation. He examined the witnesses, apprehended the accused on 11.08.2013 and basing on the confession of accused, one towel said to have been used by the accused in throttling the deceased and also another piece of cloth with which the accused said to have cleared the blood stains found on his hands, were recoveredattheinstanceofaccused.

PW.9/Investigation Officer, after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC.

3.00.Learned Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class,

Peddapally took cognizance of the offence vide PRC.

No.32/2014 and on complying with the provisions under sections 208 & 209 Cr. PC., committed the case to the

Court of Sessions, Karimnagar by her order, dt.28.10.2014 where it was numbered as S.C.595 of 2014.

4.00.Accused appeared in this Court. On 12.03.2015, on hearing the learned counsel for accused

Page 4 of 11 Fair S.C. No. 595 of 2014 and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, a charge under Sec.302 of IPC., was framed, read over and explained to accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.00.Prosecution examined (09) witnesses, got marked (11) documents and (02) material objects.

PW.1 is Dasari Rajamma, wife of the deceased. PW.2 is

Medaveni Pedda Chinnaiah, a mediator for the panchayath held between the deceased and the accused in connection with their agricultural land of Ac.1-00 gts.

PW.3/Avula Srinivas is a mediator for the crime details form (Ext.P-2) prepared at the scene of offence and also of the inquest (Ext.P-3) held over the dead body of the deceased. PW.4 is one Sigiri Mallesham, a

Photographer, who took photographs (Ext.P-4) of the dead body of the deceased found at the cattle shed.

PW.5 is one Nara Brahmaiah before whom the accused said to have made extra judicial confession of committing the murder of his brother, the deceased

Gattaiah. PW.6 is the then VRO in the Office of MRO, who acted as mediator for the interrogation of accused done by PW.9. The police said to have recovered a green colour towel (M.O.1) and a small piece of cloth (M.O.2) at the instance of the accused in the presence

Page 5 of 11 Fair S.C. No. 595 of 2014 of PW.6. PW.7 is Dr. Jhansi, Civil Asst. Surgeon, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem examination report (Ext.P-7).

PW.8 is Mr. Syed Amjad, Head Constable of P.S.,

Dharmaram, who received Ex.P-1 report from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr. No.122/2013 under Sec.302 of

IPC., and issued the printed format of FIR (Ext.P-8).

PW.9 is Mr. T. Srinivas Rao, Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused.

6.00.After completion of prosecution side evidence, on 27.04.2016, accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr. P.C., with regard to the incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He pleaded that he is innocent.

There is no oral or documentary evidence adduced from the side of accused.

7.00.Heard both sides.

8.00.The point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution

established the guilt of the

accused for the offence

punishable under Sec.302 of

IPC., beyond reasonable doubt ?

9.00.POINT :

Page 6 of 11 Fair S.C. No. 595 of 2014

It is the case of prosecution, as narrated in the report (Ext.P.1) lodged by PW.1 that the accused and the deceased got Ac.1-00 gts., agricultural land and since the deceased and his wife were away from the village and living in Mumbai in eking out their livelihood, the accused said to have come into possession of the entire Ac.1-00 gts. land and doing cultivation by himself. The deceased returned to his village about six months prior to his death and after the intervention of elders, the deceased was given his half share of Ac.0-20 gts., in the agricultural land by the accused, as such, the accused was not happy and bore grudge against the deceased and made up his mind to do away with the life of the deceased so that he can get the entire Ac.1-00 gts., of land for himself. On 29.07.2013, in the evening hours, the deceased Dasari Gattaiah left the house to go to the agricultural fields and did not return home in the night and on the next day, at 08.00 P.M., the dead body was found in the cattle shed with injuries on his head.

10.00.The motive attributed to the accused in doing away with the life of the deceased was to get the entire Ac.1-00 gts., for himself. Since there was no direct evidence to connect the accused with the offence,

Page 7 of 11 Fair S.C. No. 595 of 2014 the prosecution took the help of PW.5/Nara Brahmaiah

before whom the accused said to have made an extra

judicial confession of committing the murder of his brother. But, this witness did not support the case of prosecution and he was cross-examined by learned

Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court and his 161 Cr. PC. Statement was marked as Ext.P-5. In the cross-examination of PW.5, it was suggested to him that the accused approached him confessing the offence of committing the murder of his brother and requested him to help him for which he (PW.5) did not oblige.

Here, for a moment, if it is to be taken that PW.5 is a person before whom the accused said to have made an extra judicial confession, still the way in which it was suggested to him in the cross-examination that accused appeared before him and requested for his help for which PW.5 did not oblige, show that the so-called extra judicial confession said to have been made before PW.5 appears to be not acceptable, as if at all a person wants to make an extra judicial confession before a person, then the person making such extra judicial confession should have all confidence in the person before whom he is making such confession and then only a person would make such extra judicial confession before another person. So, even for a moment if PW.5 sticks

Page 8 of 11 Fair S.C. No. 595 of 2014 to his alleged version narrated before police of accused approaching him and requesting him to help him is taken as true, even then the so-called extra judicial confession said to have been made by accused before

PW.5 cannot be accepted as true and correct since PW.5 said to have bluntly refused to the request made by accused of extending any help to him in the matter.

11.00.The other piece of evidence adduced by the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged offence is that of the alleged confession made by accused before PW.6 and of the alleged recovery of green towel (M.O.1) and a piece of cloth (M.O.2) said to have been recovered from the accused at his instance.

PW.6 in his chief-examination deposed that he worked as VRO in the Office of MRO, Dharmaram from March, 2010 to November, 2015. On 11.08.2013, accused was interrogated by police at his house in the presence of

PW.6 and another person by name M. Lachaiah (LW.12).

According to PW.6, accused said to have revealed about the disputes between him and the deceased and admitted committing murder of the deceased. M.Os.1 and 2 were said to be recovered from the house of accused. According to PW.6, by the time mediators and the police reached the house of accused, some

Page 9 of 11 Fair S.C. No. 595 of 2014 other police men were already there and the accused was also present. PW.6 did not go into the house and it was the accused who said to have gone inside the house and brought M.Os.1 and 2 and produced before the police. Here, as seen from RFSL report (Ext.P-11), human blood was detected on M.O.1 and the blood group found on M.Os.1 and 2 could not be determined.

12.00.In this case, the deceased went to his agricultural fields in the evening hours of 29.07.2013 and on the next day morning, at 08.00 A.M., his dead body was found in the cattle shed. The motive attributed to the accused in doing away with the life of the deceased was because of the land dispute between the accused and the deceased. The only piece of evidence to connect the accused with the offence of committing murder of the deceased was of his alleged extra judicial confession said to have been made before

PW.5, but this witness did not support the case of prosecution and the other piece of evidence with which prosecution wanted connect the accused with the alleged offence is alleged recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 from the accused and in this regard also it is to be seen that both M.Os.1 and 2 said to have been recovered at the instance of the accused at his house were not covered

Page 10 of 11 Fair S.C. No. 595 of 2014 with any paper or something and kept secretly in the house and these two items of M.Os.1 and 2 were produced before the police as it is and it was contended by learned counsel for accused that such type of recovery alleged to have been made from the accused cannot be accepted. So, in these circumstances, when the only piece of evidence of PW.5 before whom the accused said to have made an extra judicial confession not supported the case of prosecution, I find that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC., and that the accused is entitled to be given benefit of doubt.

The point is answered accordingly.

13.00.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC., and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1)

Cr. PC. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. M.Os.1 and 2 and the unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of May, 2016.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

Page 11 of 11 Fair S.C. No. 595 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION : PW.1 :Dasari Rajamma. PW.2 :Medaveni Pedda Chinnaiah. PW.3 :Avula Srinivas. PW.4 :Sigiri Mallesham. PW.5 :Nara Brahmaiah. PW.6 :Md. Yakub Khan. PW.7 :Dr. Jhansi, Civil Asst. Surgeon. PW.8 :Mr. Syed Amjad, Head Constable. PW.9 :Mr. T. Srinivas Rao, C.I. of Police.

FOR THE DEFENCE : -NONE –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ext.P-1Dt.30.07.2013Report given by PW.1 to police. Ext.P-2 Dt.30.07.2013Crime Details Form. Ext.P-3Dt.30.07.2013Inquest report. Ext.P-4Dt.Photographs (3 Nos.) along with C.D. Ext.P-5Dt.14.08.2013161 Cr. PC. Statement of PW.5. Ext.P-6Dt.11.08.2013Relevant portion of confession and seizure panchanama of accused. Ext.P-7Dt.30.07.2013Postmortem Examination Report. Ext.P-8Dt.30.07.2013Printed format of F.I.R. in Cr. No.122/2013 of P.S., Dharmaram. Ext.P-9Dt.18.08.2013Letter of advice. Ext.P-10Dt.Letter to RFSL, Karimnagar forwarding material objects. Ext.P-11Dt.11.09.2013RFSL report.

FOR THE DEFENCE : - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Green colour towel. M.O.2 : A cloth of coffee colour.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

-:-

Fair S.C. No. 105 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT:- SRI B. NAGAMARUTHI SARMA,

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR,

MONDAY, THE 16 th DAY OF MAY, 2016

SESSIONS CASE NO. 105 OF 2015

Name of the Complainant : The State through the Sub DivisionalPoliceOfficer, Karimnagar (Crime No.79/2014 of P.S., Bejjanki).

Name of the Accused : A1 : Kompalli Anil, S/o Mallaiah, aged 25 yrs., Mala, R/o Gopalpur Village of Bejjanki Mandal.

A2 : Kompalli Mallavva, W/o Mallaiah, aged 50 yrs., Mala, R/o Gopalpur Village of Bejjanki Mandal.

Charges : Under Sec.498-A, 304-B of IPC., and Sec.4 of D.P. Act.

Plea of the Accused : “ Not guilty ”

Finding of the Court : “ Not guilty ”

Sentence or Order : Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sec.498-A and 304-B of IPC., and Sec.4 of D.P. Act and accordingly, they are acquitted u/s 235 (1) Cr. P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Prosecution conducted by : Sri P. Harishankar Rao, Public Prosecutor, Prl. Sessions Court, Karimnagar.

Accused defended by : Sri B. Raja Reddy, Advocate.

Page 2 of 10 Fair S.C. No. 105 of 2015 (On committal by Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Husnabad by his Order in PRC No.40 of 2014, dt.20.01.2015)

-: J U D G M E N T :-

This is a case under Sec.498-A, 304-B IPC., and Sec.4 of D.P. Act against both the accused.

2.00.The brief facts of the case, as seen from the report, dt.23.04.2014 lodged with the police, Bejjanki, it is mentioned that Puram Kanukaiah (PW.1) got two sons and two daughters. His younger daughter by name Uma was given in marriage to Kompalli Anil (A1).

The deceased Uma and A1 were blessed with a female child. Since about an year, both the accused and

Kompalli Mallaiah, father of A1, said to have harassed the deceased complaining that she did not get amount by way of additional dowry, and that they would have got more money in case the marriage of A1 was performed with some other woman. The deceased said to have informed all these things to Puram Kanukaiah (PW.1) whenever she was visiting his (PW.1) house.

Puram Kanukaiah (PW.1) decided to give some more amount to both the accused by disposing of his agricultural land.

Page 3 of 10 Fair S.C. No. 105 of 2015 2.01.On 23.04.2014, at 10.30 A.M., Uma (deceased) was found lying in the agricultural field of

Koppula Nagaiah, having consumed poison, and that the same was informed by A1 to Puram Kiran (PW.2), son of Kanukaiah (PW.1). Uma (deceased) was said to have been shifted to a hospital in 108 ambulance and she died on the way to hospital. Finally, it is mentioned in the report that Uma (deceased) committed suicide because of the alleged harassment given to her by A1 and A2.

2.02.The S.H.O. of Bejjanki P.S. (PW.12), on receipt of a report Ext.A-14, registered a case in Cr.

No.79/2014 under Sec.304-B of IPC., against both the accused herein and Puram Mallaiah (father of A1).

2.03.On completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against Kompalli Anil (A1) and his mother Kompalli Mallavva (A2) deleting the name of

Kompalli Mallaiah (A3).

3.00.Learned Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class,

Husnabad, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec.304-B of IPC. vide PRC. No.40/2014 against

A1 and A2 and on complying with the provisions under sections 208 & 209 Cr. PC., committed the case to the

Court of Sessions, Karimnagar by his order,

Page 4 of 10 Fair S.C. No. 105 of 2015 dt.20.01.2015 where it was numbered as S.C.105 of 2015.

4.00.Both the accused appeared in this Court.

On 20.07.2015, on hearing the learned counsel for accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, charges under Sec.498-A, 304-B of IPC., and Sec.4 of

D.P. Act were framed, read over and explained to A1 and A2. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.00.Prosecution, in support of its case, examined (13) witnesses and got marked (15) documents and one plastic tin with label

Monochrotophos insecticide poison as M.O.1.

5.01.The witnesses examined on the side of prosecution are; PW.1/Puram Kanukaiah is father of the deceased Uma and father-in-law of A1. PW.2/Puram

Kiran is brother of the deceased Uma. PW.3/Arroju

Ravindra Chary is a Photographer who took photograph of the dead body of the deceased at Govt. Hospital,

Karimnagar. PW.4/Puram Kanakavva is mother of the deceased Uma. PW.5/Purushotham Rajeshwari is a nearby resident of both the accused. PW.6/Bitla Laxmi and PW.7/Gonti Mallaiah are the witnesses examined by

Page 5 of 10 Fair S.C. No. 105 of 2015 prosecution to show that the deceased Uma was complaining to them against both the accused about the alleged harassment. These two witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. PW.8/Chinthala Laxmi, is a cousin of the deceased Uma. She was taken as a mediator for the inquest (Ext.P-9) held over the dead body of the deceased Uma. PW.9/Gunti Santhosh is a mediator for the scene of offence panchanama prepared under the Crime Details Form (Ext.P-10) and for seizure of a plastic tin (M.O.1) from the scene of offence.

PW.10/Mr. N. Kistaiah was the Tahsildar of Bejjanki and he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased

Uma on the requisition submitted by police, Bejjanki.

PW.11 is Dr. L. Krishna Prasad, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued

Postmortem Examination Report (Ext.P-11) and final opinion (Ext.P-13) as to the cause of death of the deceased basing on FSL Report (Ext.P-12). PW.12/Mr.

G. Subhash is the Head Constable who worked at

Bejjanki P.S. from January, 2013 to September, 2015 and he received the report under Ext.P-14 from PW.1 and registered a case against both the accused. PW.13 is Mr. P. Ravinder, the then Sub Divisional Police Officer,

Karimnagar, and he conducted the investigation in this case, examined the witnesses and apprehended A1 on

Page 6 of 10 Fair S.C. No. 105 of 2015 30.06.2014. A2 having obtained anticipatory bail surrendered in the Court and got herself released by producing sureties.

6.00.After completion of prosecution side evidence, on 13.05.2016, both the accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr. P.C., with regard to the incriminating evidence found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They pleaded that they are innocent. There is no oral or documentary evidence adduced from the side of accused.

7.00.Heard both sides.

8.00.The point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused No.1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A, 304-B of IPC., and Sec.4 of

D.P. Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

9.00.POINT :

It is the case of prosecution, as seen from the report, dt.23.04.2014 (Ext.P-14) said to have been lodged by Puram Kanukaiah (PW.1), it is the allegation made against both the accused herein and one Kompalli

Mallaiah, father of A1, that they all harassed the

Page 7 of 10 Fair S.C. No. 105 of 2015 deceased Uma demanding amounts by way of additional dowry and because of such harassment, the deceased said to have committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison on 23.04.2014.

10.00.The prosecution, in order to establish the case as against the accused, examined PW.1/Puram

Kanukaiah, PW.4/Puram Kanakavva, parents of the deceased Uma and PW.2/Puram Kiran, brother of the deceased, to establish the alleged demand of amounts by way of additional dowry by both the accused. All these three witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and they all deposed that the deceased

Uma was not keeping good health as she was suffering with severe stomach pain and because of that reason, she consumed poison and ended her life. They were cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court and the signature of PW.1 found on the report and 161 Cr. PC. Statements of

PWs.1 and 2 were marked as Exts.P-1 to P-3 and P-5 respectively. Prosecution also examined one

PW.5/Purushotham Rajeshwari and PW.6/Bitla Laxmi, neighbors of the accused and the deceased, to show that the deceased was complaining to them about the alleged harassment of both the accused. These two

Page 8 of 10 Fair S.C. No. 105 of 2015 witnesses also did not support the case of prosecution.

They were also cross-examined by the learned Public

Prosecutor with the permission of the Court and their 161 Cr. PC. Statements were marked as Exts.P-6 and P- 7 respectively.

11.00.The material witnesses in this case being

PW.1, PW.2, PW.4, PW.5, PW.6 and PW.7, who said to have got knowledge about the alleged harassment and the alleged demand of amounts by way of additional dowry from the deceased by both the accused, have not supported the case of prosecution.

12.00.The evidence of other witnesses like

PW.3/Photographer, PW.8/mediator for the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased, PW.9/mediator for the crime details form and seizure of M.O.1,

PW.10/Tahsildar who conducted inquest (Ext.P-9),

PW.11/Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and PWs.12 & 13/Investigation Officers, is of no help for the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged offence. So, in these circumstances, I find that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A,

Page 9 of 10 Fair S.C. No. 105 of 2015 304-B of IPC., and Sec.4 of D.P. Act beyond reasonable doubt, and that they are entitled to be given benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

13.00.In the result, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under

Sec.498-A, 304-B of IPC., and Sec.4 of D.P. Act and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.

PC. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

M.O.1 (Plastic tin) and the other unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of May, 2016.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION : PW.1 :Puram Kanukaiah. PW.2 :Puram Kiran. PW.3 :Arroju Ravindra Chary. PW.4 :Puram Kanakavva. PW.5 : Purushotham Rajeshwari. PW.6 :Bitla Laxmi. PW.7 :Gonti Mallaiah. PW.8 :Chinthala Laxmi. PW.9 :Gunti Santhosh. PW.10 :Mr. N. Kistaiah, Tahsildar. PW.11 :Dr. L. Krishna Prasad, Civil Asst. Surgeon.

Page 10 of 10 Fair S.C. No. 105 of 2015

PW.12 :Mr. G. Subhash, Head Constable. PW.13 :Mr. P. Ravinder, Sub Divisional Police Officer.

FOR THE DEFENCE : -NONE –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ext.P-1Dt.23.04.2014Signature of PW.1 on the report. Ext.P-2 Dt.24.04.2014161 Cr. PC. Statement of PW.1. Ext.P-3Dt.24.04.2014161 Cr. PC. Statement of PW.2. Ext.P-4Dt.--Photographs (4 Nos.) along with C.D. Ext.P-5Dt.24.04.2014161 Cr. PC. Statement of PW.4. Ext.P-6Dt.24.04.2014161 Cr. PC. Statement of PW.5. Ext.P-7Dt.24.04.2014161 Cr. PC. Statement of PW.6. Ext.P-8Dt.24.04.2014161 Cr. PC. Statement of PW.7. Ext.P-9Dt.24.04.2014Inquest Report. Ext.P-10Dt.23.04.2014Crime Details Form. Ext.P-11Dt.24.04.2014Postmortem Examination Report. Ext.P-12 Dt.15.07.2014RFSL Report. Ext.P-13Dt.31.07.2014Final opinion. Ext.P-14Dt.23.04.2014Report given by PW. 1 to police. Ext.P-15Dt.23.04.2014F.I.R. in Cr. No.79/2014 of P.S., Bejjanki.

FOR THE DEFENCE : - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Plastic tin.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

-:-